Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Society|Sun, Nov. 23 2008 02:48 PM EST

eHarmony Chastised for Abandoning Battle for Marriage

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

For nearly a decade, born-again Christian Neil Clark Warren has been working to pair up men and women to help create lasting marriages.

After 35 years practicing as a clinical psychologist and counseling thousands of married couples, Dr. Warren had observed that, in many cases, marriages that endured were composed of compatible people, while marriages that deteriorated often did so because the differences between the individuals became harder to resolve over time.

With the help of a research professor at the University of Southern California, Warren set out to identify the characteristics between spouses that were consistently associated with the most successful relationships.

And after three years of research and development, they announced that they had successfully identified the key dimensions of personality that predicted compatibility and the potential for long-term relationship success.

In 2000, Warren launched eHarmony, which utilizes a patented Compatibility Matching System to find compatible long-term relationships. Today, eHarmony is touted as the Internet’s No. 1 trusted relationship services provider and claims that an average of 236 eHarmony members marry every day in the United States as a result of being matched on the site. eHarmony is also available in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.

While eHarmony’s past efforts have been praised by the Christian community – the site’s initial target – and pro-family conservatives – who helped give the site exposure following its launch – a recent announcement by the company has left both noticeably upset, to say the least.

“To those of us in the pro-family movement who hailed eHarmony's commitment to the virtue of traditional marriage, the company's actions are distressing and damaging,” stated Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, in an announcement to supporters.

“Dr. Warren et al, you sold your soul (or at least eHarmony’s)…,” added Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality, in a letter to Warren.

Both Perkins and LaBarbera are referring to eHarmony’s recent decision to offer homosexual dating services through an equivalent website, entitled "Compatible Partners," as part of a settlement to end a three-year court battle.

In 2005, a New Jersey man accused eHarmony of discriminating against homosexuals by operating a setup that did not extend searches to include partners of the same sex.

Theodore B. Olson, an attorney for eHarmony, said that even though the company believed McKinley's complaint was "an unfair characterization of our business," it chose to settle because of the unpredictable nature of litigation.

"eHarmony looks forward to moving beyond this legal dispute, which has been a burden for the company, and continuing to advance its business model of serving individuals by helping them find successful, long-term relationships," Olson said in a statement.

Under the settlement, eHarmony will pay New Jersey state division $50,000 to cover administrative costs and will pay New Jersey resident Eric McKinley $5,000. Furthermore, in addition to setting up the new website, the settlement requires eHarmony to advertise its new site on gay websites and include pictures of same-sex matches in the "Diversity" section of the its website.

News of the Nov. 12 settlement drew strong statements from pro-family conservatives who chastised the company for not following the lead of the Boy Scouts of America, who were also challenged under New Jersey’s “sexual orientation” law.

“Even legal experts on the Left agreed that McKinley didn't have a case since Warren, as the owner of a private company, has a right to keep lawful limits on his clients,” noted FRC’s Perkins.

“What's worse, there were plenty of ways for the site to resolve the issue and keep its policy intact,” he added.

LaBarbera of Americans For Truth meanwhile said it was a “shame” that eHarmony did not choose to follow the lead of the Boy Scouts of America, who won their case when the state of New Jersey was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“You could have set an example to Christians and freedom-loving Americans everywhere by fighting on principle for your company’s First Amendment right not to be bullied into submission by a politically correct state bureaucracy,” he wrote in his letter to Warren. “Instead, you capitulated.”

LaBarbera said that he would join other pro-family organizations in encouraging singles to use “other dating services that have not sold out their God and their moral beliefs for the almighty dollar.”

He has also asked Warren for a written response giving his justification for his promotion of relationships that he “at least once believed were against God’s will.”

“But please do not try to argue that eHarmony was forced into this sellout, because you could have chosen a brave and noble course of resistance rather than submit to state tyranny,” he wrote.

Pasadena, Calif.-based eHarmony said it plans to launch its new service, called Compatible Partners, on March 31, the date when most of settlement’s terms were agreed to be implemented on or by.

The site will be free for the first 10,000 users who register within a year of its launch. After that, pricing for the new site will be equal to that of eHarmony.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Do you have some cheese to go with that whine?

  • Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    There have been many times when I've said that you've implied certain things in your posts. You get mad. Then turn around and say that I'm implying things. But it's okay when you accuse me of implying things.

  • Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I can assure you I didn't get defensive, and I'm wondering where you think I implied something and where I have let it slide with other people.

  • Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I wasn't trying to be heartfelt with you. It won't do any good.
    And you haven't answered my question.

  • Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Despite your attempt to be heartfelt, you see it as a sin, I do not. There is no common ground.

  • Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Why is it that when I say you imply something you get all defensive, but yet, you have not guilt in doing it to anyone else?

    I think lowly of the sin. And I think lowly of people who call themselves Christians, live in sin, and try to justify it by saying God approves.
    I have tried being "loving" on CP with homosexuals. But I've found that the only definition of "loving" that they possessed is to to tell them that they're ok, that they're not sinning. If I told them that, then I would be lying.

  • Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Assertion = implication. Anyone who follows your rants can see fairly clearly that you think lowly of all gays, regardless of whether they have anal sex or not.

  • Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike
    "but I think when the mirror was turned to the straight community your tune suddenly changed."

    And can you tell me where my tune suddenly changed?

  • Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike,
    "I believe your assertion was that gays are a horrific group of people because many practice anal sex.."

    Please quote where I said, or implied that.

  • Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I wouldn't necessarily say it makes it alright, but I believe your assertion was that gays are a horrific group of people because many practice anal sex, but I think when the mirror was turned to the straight community your tune suddenly changed.

  • Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Interesting.
    That still doesn't change my comment " far as the anal sex thing goes, does that make it alright then? That some heterosexuals do it? Some heteros also do bondage, s&m, and some even more vile things...."

  • Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Really?

    Sorry, that's just plain interesting.

  • Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I'd rather not discuss my sexual life with you. Those are intimate details that you would love to get your hands on, but I can tell you we do not engage in anal sex.

  • Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So you are gay, but do not engage in sex?

  • Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You assume my sexual practices.

  • Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    You are gay. You have a gay relationship. What am I assuming?

  • Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, again, you assume actions I take part in just because I am gay. You claim to be a prophet, but you stereotype and assume a tremendous amount.

  • Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Arit, what you said is offensive, so I think it deserved a flagging.

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    aritonang,
    That is too funny! I'll have to remember that.

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike, you flag me - i flag you

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "...A prudent wife is from the Lord" (Pr 19:14).

    In a homosexual relationship neither one can ever be from the Lord.

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I speak the truth. I introspect myself daily, and I will not preach anything that I don't practice. As far as the anal sex thing goes, does that make it alright then? That some heterosexuals do it? Some heteros also do bondage, s&m, and some even more vile things that I could post but will not because it is not necessary (I told you I am an ex-sex addict. I've witnessed and done things that would turn your stomach. Thank God He delivered me.)
    You need to quit basing your actions on what other people, and animals, do...and base it on the Bible that says homosexuality is wrong.

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Delight,
    I agree. Satan has been perverting God's Word and creation since the beginning. This is just another example.

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    well then, that's beyond the realm of common sense...or any good sense; what God-given purpose would that activity serve? None.

    Still makes my point, there is no sense to be made of 'gay' christians; you'd have to believe in a god that has no purpose for his design and clearly God has a purpose for everything under the sun.

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Delight,
    But they argue that they do have a "slot B". But, not knowing how God created the human body, they do not understand that slot B is designed for waste removal only. But they take what God created and pervert it.

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "just common sense"

    How common is it to put tab 'A' into tab 'A' instead of slot 'B'?

    If homosexuality were an option for us as Christians, don't you think that God would have created us with dual sex organs? A set for any occasion?


    No, really, think about it; use your common sense.

    Anyone who has followed directions knows that only opposites attach; as in put tab 'A' into slot 'B'.

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

    "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." 1Cr 1:20-21

    You mean that "Common sense"? The wisdom of the world is both Common and foolish.

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:57 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And why is speaking the truth lowering myself? Unless you think you're above the truth.

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Piousness is a religious attitude. I'm not religious. I'm a Christian.

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:03 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Delight, its not mental gymnastics, just common sense, although I realize that is a struggle for some. Prophet, do you honestly believe yourself to be a prophet? I'd think you'd try a bit harder to be pious and not resort to lowering yourself in your responses.

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    Um, no they didn't. If you read about the history of Israel, you'll see that they , time and again, fell from a relationship with God and followed idols. And God brought the prophets to draw them back to Him. It was the same thing over and over. You really don't understand the office of a prophet. You think a prophet's main purpose to be a fortune teller. How wrong you are.

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wow, we bow to your intellingence Mike,

    after all the mental gymnastics you must have to naviate to consider yourself a follower of Christ... and at the same time have unnarural sex with men; well, it takes a great amount of worldly reasoning and a certain type of intelligence...very commendable in the worlds sight.

    And here you are chastising Prophet for the sin of 'pride'. If you don't believe sex with men is a sin in the Bible, then why would you think pride is a sin? Can you pick and choose?

    In God's Kingdom, you are not wise...even your knowledge of prophets is skewed:

    "I wish you all spoke with tongues, BUT EVEN MORE THAT YOU PROPHESIED; for he who prophesies is GREATER than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification." 1Cor 14:5.

    As a follower of Christ I find Prophet's posts very edifying and if we (as followers of Christ) are all to be of one accord, why aren't you edified?

    In today's world IT IS a 'radical thing' to prophesy against the sin of homosexuality and it's nothing new.

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Um, actually, yes they did. They spoke of radical things which is why people turned away. You regurgitate the same thing I have heard over and over, many times from Believer, except with him I am able to have an intelligent conversation (since both people having the conversation show basic intelligence.) I am not persecuting you, but its cute you think so. Its clear this is a fantasy of your, so happy playing.

  • Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I accept your persecution. It merely solidifies your position as one who does not believe. The prophets of old did not bring "anything new", for they all spoke of God's children who turned from God and followed their own lusts. They all spoke of God's judgement upon them, and His will that they turn. And they all were persecuted by people such as yourself.

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The difference between you and "prophets of old" is that they were intelligent. Someday you will get yours, and I can almost guarantee its not what you're hoping for. I don't deny other prophets, again, they brought something new to the table, you leach off the ideas of those smarter than yourself.


    Arit, again, that was added to the Bible. It certainly is not the original translation, but try again!

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:48 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    to mike 22685

    nor those who participate in homosexuality,

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:47 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    to mike 22685

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (Amplified Bible)


    9Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,
    10Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ahh, come on, feet!

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    By the way, prophets of old spoke of themselves as prophets. Is that why you refuse their words also?

    He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him.
    I Kings 13:18

    Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men.
    I Kings 18:22

    And it was so, when Elisha the man of God had heard that the king of Israel had rent his clothes, that he sent to the king, saying, Wherefore hast thou rent thy clothes? let him come now to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel.
    II Kings 5:8



    But I like this scripture best. It still echoes the sentiment of people today...

    9 These are rebellious people, deceitful children,
    children unwilling to listen to the LORD's instruction.

    10 They say to the seers,
    "See no more visions!"
    and to the prophets,
    "Give us no more visions of what is right!
    Tell us pleasant things,
    prophesy illusions.

    11 Leave this way,
    get off this path,
    and stop confronting us
    with the Holy One of Israel!"

    Isaiah 30:9-11

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    sorry, cant help you.

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    It is no more a sin to call yourself a prophet, than it is to call yourself a preacher. But it is a sin to call yourself a follower of Christ, when you willingly disobey God.

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer, prophet actually did refer to himself as a prophet earlier in this post. Prophet, you struck no nerve with me, your flagrant hubris (yes, we come back to that) is sinful. I can call myself a Christian because I believe in and follow Christ. Just because you think I am wrong does not mean I am not a Christian.

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,
    As defined by God what is one flesh? How is one flesh accheived?

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feetxxxl
    you have said...
    ....but if there is in a heterosexual one then assuredly there is in a homosexual one, as well."

    Please explain this statement.

    Neither a Heterosexual or Homosexual relationship is supported in the 2nd commandment. The key word is sexual.

    I don't understand the argument.

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    But I see, again, that I hit a nerve with Mike. So it is with prophets. People don't like them because they speak the truth.

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike,
    "Prophet, when you sin (as in being prideful enough to call yourself a prophet) you do not love God because you are disobeying him."

    Is that anymore prideful than you errantly calling yourself a Christian?

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet, I see you somehow forgot to list the fruit of self-control in your 3:44 post, in the words of the church lady, "how convenient!"

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    in the relationship of marriage are you saying that the spirit of the 2nd commandment does not apply? how is that? that there is no agapao in a one flesh committed marital relationship?

    but if there is in a heterosexual one then assuredly there is in a homosexual one, as well.

    and if there is agapao, where is the sin?


    in both cases the couples come together because of sexual attraction, to be in a relationship where there is agapao love. one whose fruit is kindness, gentleness, patience...........etc.

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet, I see you're still avoiding the violating of the fruit of self-control issue?

  • Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike22685, how do you know he's not a prophet since a prophet's most important responsibility is to forthtell(proclaim) the truths of God and in some cases foretell future events and/or truths of God? But in truth to the best of my knowledge he's made no such claim.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links