Heads up. Some straight people like "gay" sex. And vice-versa. And other combos.

[yardwork]

Please don't turn this into a sex thread and get it locked. I hope this falls within the rules.

From the discussions about the eHarmony dating legal decision, it's become apparent that many DUers don't know that lots of people have sexual habits and desires that don't fit into neat categories. There's a misconception that only "gay" people want to find same-sex partners, and only "straight" people want to find opposite-sex partners.

Reality is a whole lot more complicated. There's infinite variation along the continuous line from "totally gay and always have sex with same-sex partners and never felt attracted to the opposite sex" to "totally straight and always have sex with opposite-sex partners and never felt attracted to the same sex."

For social, religious, and cultural reasons, there are a lot of people who have sex with partners of the same sex but won't call themselves gay. They pretend to be straight. They may be married to an opposite-sex partner or publicly date opposite-sex partners, but they consider themselves to be gay. These people are "in the closet."

There are also plenty of "gay" people who have or intend to have relationships with opposite-sex people. There are lots of bisexual people who are openly attracted to both sexes. There are transgendered folks who identify various ways and seek partners of one or both sexes. There are people who reject the whole idea of a male-female binary and instead feel that there are more than two sexes.

All these types of people seek partners on dating services. One large dating service, however, went out of their way to post a "gays not welcome" virtual sign. They won't allow gay people to use their services.

Nobody is making any dating service offer services they don't want to offer. However, it is illegal to reject customers simply because they belong to a particular group. Just as restaurants are no longer allowed to post signs that say "No blacks allowed," dating services aren't allowed to reject people simply on the basis of sexual identity.

[Deja Q]

1. So if a gay guy wants to find a woman, he oughtn't be heckled or derided?

[yardwork]

3. Why would somebody be "heckled and derided" for seeking a partner?

Some people are bigoted louts who stick their noses into other people's business and pass judgment on them. Why would that be ok?

[Cronus Protagonist]

10. What? He's lost his mother?

:P

[Eric J in MN]

2. Is it illegal for DU to reject Republicans?

Is it illegal to create a dating website for Lutherans?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. Actually, DU doesn't reject Republicans just because

they are Republicans...

DU rejects the ones who don't embrace DU's philosophy on politics.

[yardwork]

12. And DU doesn't reject only Republicans. We reject anybody who doesn't support Democrats.

Green Party candidate supporters, Libertarian candidate supporters, Socialist candidate supporters, Nazi candidate supporters - DU rejects them all, not just Republicans.

We are a site offering services only to people who support Democratic candidates. It says so clearly in the rules.

Now, if DU said "everybody in the world except Republicans is welcome here," that would be a problem.

[yodoobo]

15. Even that would not be a legal problem

"Now, if DU said "everybody in the world except Republicans is welcome here," that would be a problem."

It would be perfectly legal.

[LostinVA]

14. Bingo

[Lyric]

6. Nope. But DU isn't advertising itself as just a "political discussion forum" either.

DU specifically states that it is a site ONLY for Democrats and progressives. It doesn't hide that fact, and it doesn't lie via omission. eHarmony doesn't advertise itself as a "Christian Heterosexual Dating Site." It advertises itself as a "dating site," period. You don't find out that gays and Atheists aren't welcome until you've already tried to use the site.

See the difference?

[Eric J in MN]

9. So if eHarmony changes its advertising and said,

"eHarmony is a great place for a man to meet a woman, and a great place for a woman to meet a man," then it would be legal?

[yardwork]

13. Yes, as long as they didn't boot anybody who identified as gay.

[Lyric]

33. No, because they aren't outlining their exclusions.

They need to do more than just say "straight couples are welcome!" because straight couples are welcome pretty much everywhere. In order for it to be clear that ONLY straight couples are welcome, then the ad needs to include some aspect that illustrates the ONLY part. They have to disclose their exclusions.

This is mostly a theoretical argument anyway, because New Jersey has a state law that bars businesses from discriminating against providing services to protected minorities--including GLBTs. If eHarmony wants to do business in New Jersey, then they have to follow New Jersey's business laws. No business has a "right" to do business in whatever state they want; a business license is a privilege, and non-compliance with discrimination laws is a solid reason for revoking that privilege.

[yardwork]

37. Thank you for that clear summary.

[yardwork]

8. You can create a dating website just for Lutherans

but you can't create a website that excludes only Lutherans.

In other words, you can create a business that provides a service exclusive to a single group, but you can't single out a single group for exclusion.

In other words, you can open a restaurant that only serves vegetarian food, but you can't post a sign saying "no blacks allowed." You can offer services only to Lutherans, but you can't offer services to everyone but Lutherans.

[Eric J in MN]

16. eHarmony does "a service exclusive to a single group"

That group is straight people.

[yardwork]

20. Did you read my OP?

[LostinVA]

17. Great explanation!

[Ghost in the Machine]

86. Ummmmm....

"In other words, you can create a business that provides a service exclusive to a single group, but you can't single out a single group for exclusion."


They did provide a service exclusive to a single group... heterosexuals...

Since we're "grouping" people now, it would make sense and their policy should have been legal. They want to provide a service exclusively to heterosexuals....

[yardwork]

100. Please reread my OP. You've entirely missed the point.

Heterosexuals often seek same-sex partners, for love and sex and marriage. And vice-versa. Just because a person calls themselves "straight" or "gay" does not mean that they exclusive in their choice of partners.

I realized today, reading the other threads on this subject, that a lot of people don't know this. That's why I wrote the OP.

[Maven]

61. Is belonging to a political party the same as being gay?

DUMBSHIT ARGUMENT

[donco6]

63. Lutheran is a choice. Gay isn't. Pretty simple. n/t

[LeftyMom]

75. No. Republicans aren't a suspect class under the law.

GLBT people aren't a suspect class on a federal level (which is a problem) but they are at the state level in some states, notably New Jersey, which is where the eharmony case comes from. There was a similar case involving another dating service in CA a few years back, iirc the company in question agreed not to do business in California.

[robinlynne]

98. oooh. popcorn time.

[sandnsea]

4. There are other sites to find fuck-buddies

I don't think eHarmony wants to be that kind of site. I know that I have turned sites like that away because I can't take the legal risk if something goes wrong. That's no reason for eHarmony to not accept gay matchmaking - for people who are looking to get married because that's their mission, iirc.

[yardwork]

7. I didn't say anything about "fuck-buddies." Again, you are making assumptions.

Many dating sites reject people who are simply trolling for sex. That's not what I'm talking about, either.

[LostinVA]

19. It's all about "sexuality" and "servicing us," remember

[yardwork]

I'm feeling speechless this morning.

People really didn't KNOW?

[LostinVA]

24. I think some are very aware

[sandnsea]

36. That's exactly what the OP said

You might want to consider what it means if a gay person isn't looking for a gay relationship - but maybe just wants to have someone of the opposite sex. What the hell else is that except "servicing". I didn't say that. The OP did.

[yardwork]

41. You completely misunderstood my OP. Educate yourself.

Relationships involve a lot more than just sex. People seek partners for all kinds of reasons. Sex is just one.

[sandnsea]

47. Why would a gay person seek a straight partner?

Look. This is your premise, so you're the one that is going to need to explain yourself.

[yardwork]

50. They just do. I don't know why. I don't know why anyone does anything.

My OP does not seek to explain "why." It seeks to enlighten those who were unaware that, in fact, lots of people who call themselves one thing or another seek partners who are this that and another. They seek permanent relationships. They seek marriage. They seek sex-less arrangements, and they seek arrangements that are all about sex and they seek everything in between.

Dating services know this. Believe me, they know this.

[sandnsea]

53. "Some gay people like straight sex"

That's what you said. That's fine, I absolutely could not care less who fucks who. But eHarmony is not a fuck-buddy site. So your OP makes absolutely no sense as it relates to eHarmony because I certainly believe they have every right not to turn their site into a place to get laid, and nothing more.

[yardwork]

56. Your assumption that gay people care about nothing but casual sex is offensive.

It is offensive, it is homophobic, and it is ignorant. You should be ashamed of yourself. You've been given the opportunity to learn a little about the world, but instead you cling to your ignorant bigoted attitude that all gay people care about is sex.

[sandnsea]

59. Those are YOUR words, YOU said that n/t

[noiretextatique]

77. no one, except you, drew that conclusion

from the OP's post. i have a friend who is married and has a girlfriend. she and the husband have been together 20 years, and she's been with this girlfriend for 5 years. she always swears off women when she breaks up with a girlfriend, but she manages to find another one. personally, i think she's a closet case, but she seems fine with her two relationships.

[sandnsea]

82. Closet case? Two relationships?

Exactly. And if it's offensive to want to exclude people who have multiple relationships at the same time from a lifemate web site - then too bad.

[noiretextatique]

85. she's straight, officially

so she would not automatically be excluded.

[sandnsea]

87. But with the OP's guidelines

she could say she is married, but open to anything and be included. Which is what she ought to say if she's honest. And I don't think that would be within the guidelines of eHarmony, whether she was gay or straight. That's my point. The OP's argument has absolutely nothing to do with long term relationships, which is the mission statement of eHarmony. By the time individuals get to the point of wanting to settle down, and look to a site like eHarmony to find a mate, they know which gender they're going to want to settle down with. If they don't, they belong on a different site with a different purpose.

[noiretextatique]

90. some people are bisexual

if eharmony's compatibility quotient works, a bisexual person might be compatible with a man or a woman.
i think we are back to the gist of the OP's post.

[sandnsea]

92. But the person ought to know which gender they want in a lifemate

We aren't talking about casual relationships here - we're talking about a lifemate. You have to choose. And AFTER you choose, go to eHarmony. Before that, go to a different web site.

Oh, and when people say bisexuals choose - but gays don't - well you can see where you give the right ammunition to say being gay is a choice.

[noiretextatique]

93. bisexuals do choose partners just like gays and straights

but isn't eharmony about finding a compatible person? why does a person already have to know that person's gender when they don't know anything else about the person?

[sandnsea]

94. Because it's a LIFE decision

If you can't even decide that, then you have no business deciding anything as serious as marriage.

[noiretextatique]

95. if a person is bisexual

they may not have made a decision...maybe they want eharmony to figure that out for them, since that's what they claim they do. as to "deciding something as serious as marriage"...that's laughable. any two people with a penis and a vagina can get married, and as we know, it's not always as "serious" as it should be.

[sandnsea]

96. eHarmony does not figure out sexual orientation

and never claimed to. Men and women are very different, and it's true that a lot of straight couples haven't figured that out either.

[sandnsea]

32. Well, yes you are

If a person is gay - but just randomly looking for someone of the opposite sex - well then they're looking for sex, not a relationship. And the same is true for someone straight. If you're looking for a relationship, you're going to look within your sexual orientation.

[yardwork]

42. You are mistaken.

This is false, incorrect, wrong, not in keeping with the facts - If you're looking for a relationship, you're going to look within your sexual orientation.

LOTS of people seek a relationship that is somehow "outside" their self-identified orientation. You completely misunderstood my OP. Did you read the part about bisexual people? Did you read the part about being in the closet? Did you assume that everything I said referred only to "randomly looking for" sex?

Get sex off the brain and go to the library and read about human sexuality.

[sandnsea]

49. Not marriages, they don't

eHarmony is about marriage. Permanent partnerships. If you're gay and looking for an opposite sex relationship, then you're either looking for a fuck buddy or you need to move over to MySpace and look for a friend. People do not get married to people who are not within their same sexual orientation.

[yardwork]

52. You're wrong, and your stubborn insistence is laughable.

There's obviously a whole lot about human relationships you know nothing whatsoever about, which would be fine except that you are stubbornly insisting that they don't exist.

[sandnsea]

55. Gay people look for straight people to love and marry???

On purpose? Really?? And straight people look to marry gay people?

[yardwork]

57. Yes.

Bisexual people seek straight people to love and marry. Straight people like Liza Minnelli seek gay people to love and marry.

[noiretextatique]

67. fascinating exchange

:puke: is friendship a relationship? does everyone who sign up at eharmony want to get married? i wonder if my straight friends know i just want to have sex with them :puke:

[sandnsea]

68. Yes. eHarmony is a marriage-partnership site

It is not a friendship site. And the OP is the one who introduced sex with the very title of the OP. So why don't people look at what was actually said in that OP - instead of just joining in to attack me.

[noiretextatique]

70. get real...not everyone there actually gets married

that may be the goal, but surely not everyone reaches it. and just as surely, some people from that site probably become friends and even, as you say, fuck buddies.

[sandnsea]

73. But the purpose is relationships

Wherein nothing the OP said has any pertinence at all. Who someone wants to fuck on any given day has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the site. And that is exactly what the OP SAID - not me. What happens between two people AFTER they meet within the intent of the eHarmony site is their business, but eHarmony does have every right to monitor the web site in a way that keeps it form being a fuck site. And, no, I do not for one minute believe that any gay or straight person who is truly looking for a life mate, will decide to choose one of the opposite sexual orientation.

[noiretextatique]

74. your insistence on reducing the OP's post to fucking

is incomprehensible.

[sandnsea]

76. The OP reduced it all to fucking in the title

Right from the gate. You can't talk about a person having sex with all kinds of different partners - and pretend you're looking for a lifemate - all at the same time. The entire point of the OP is sexual variation. That's fine. But that person would be looking for a fuck site - that MIGHT turn into a lifelong relationship. They would not be a gay or straight person looking for a lifemate.

[noiretextatique]

78. you are reading way too much into that sentence

and being very offensive in the process. some people do have sex with a bunch of different people, and still want a lifemate. a bisexual person may be looking for a woman or a man as a lifemate, not just as a sex partner.

[sandnsea]

79. It was the premise of his entire post, not one sentence

and that is what was offensive. eHarmony is not a site for people who still want to have sex with a bunch of different people. It is for people who are ready to settle down. Sorry that people are offended by that idea.

[noiretextatique]

84. that's not offensive

your posts are. really...not everyone who goes to eharmony is looking for a lifemate. i know that's what they advertise and what they do, but i don't know that everyone who signs up there has the same motivation. likewise, some gay people actually want lifemates, not fuck buddies.

[sandnsea]

88. Yes, it is what they advertise and what they do

So if you are not on board with that - you shouldn't be there. What the hell is so hard to figure out about that. And my saying so is NOT offensive. If you're not looking for a life partner, or you don't know what gender of life partner you want -- go to a different web site.

[noiretextatique]

91. people do things for different reasons

and i agree...they shouldn't go there. but i am not so naive to as to believe that everyone who signs up there does so to find a lifemate.

[Quantess]

83. You have a point about the title. (eom)

[yardwork]

102. I did not use the term "fucking" in the title.

If you read my numerous responses to this poster, you will note that I have gone to some lengths to explain that I wasn't talking about casual sex exclusively.

[yardwork]

101. Thank you. I gave up on this but I appreciate your stepping in and summing it up so well.

[yardwork]

108. Can you explain to me this page on the eHarmony website, in that case?

http://advice.eharmony.com/

Also, I looked through the entire site and nowhere does it say that it is intended solely for people seeking marriage.

[yardwork]

107. Why don't you read what I actually wrote in my many follow-up posts to you

instead of holding your fingers in your ears and hollering the "f" word over and over again.

For one thing, it makes me uncomfortable. I may be a lesbian (I'm not male, either - another assumption you made on the basis of little or no information and failure to check available data) but I don't like vulgar phrases like "fuck buddy" and I'm annoyed that you keep posting it all over my thread. It's vulgar and it wasn't the point of my OP at all, as I've said numerous times to you.

[closeupready]

89. Oh, yes, people do too get married deliberately to people outside their sexual orientation.

n/'t

[yodoobo]

45. I don't believe that is at issue.

And I would be careful about framing the argument to only marriage.

The marriage angle will be successful someday, but its still a work in progress.

While gay marriage is illegal in most states, that would be an easy defense for Harmony to fall back on.

[yodoobo]

11. I don't think its illegal for eharmony not to offer their services to homosexuals

Most states do not offer protection against discrimination for sexual orientation.

My assumption is that they eharmony is based in one of those states, else they would have been prosecuted by now. This issue with eharmony has been around for a few years now.

Remember, *discrimination* per se is not illegal. We all discriminate. I used to discriminate routinely against dating people I didn't find attractive. Employers discriminate routinely against unqualified applicants.

Discrimination is only illegal, when it targets a person based on a protected attribute, like sex, age, race, ethnicity etc.

Unfortunately homosexuality is not yet a protected attribute from discrimination on a federal level, nor most state levels.

Understand of course, that I'm not condoning any of this. Just explaining the situation as it stands today.

[yardwork]

18. Well, it's illegal in New Jersey, which is why this court case was decided.

It used to be legal in many states to post "No blacks allowed" signs outside restaurants, and lots of people thought that was just fine. It took a U.S. Supreme Court decision to make it illegal.

[yodoobo]

25. Apple and oranges

discriminating based on a protected attribute is illegal in all states.

discriminating based on a non-protected attribute is legal in all states.

The race of person is most definitely protected anywhere in America.

Sexual orientation is protected in some states, but hardly all.

[yardwork]

28. What is your point?

[yodoobo]

30. The point is that its wrong. but not illegal.

Unfortunately, this is no force of law for just wrong.

Until that sort of discrimination is elevated to illegal, its difficult to combat that sort of discrimination.

Clearly that is a flaw in our system, that needs to be corrected.

[yardwork]

35. Lawyers battle these things on all fronts. It's illegal in NJ, so that was a toehold.

We all know that there are some states that are going to be very slow to adopt laws guaranteeing equal rights, because their populations resisted doing so in the past and their current attitudes toward gay people are unenlightened.

So we battle this where and when we can get a toehold.

[yodoobo]

40. ok ok. I see where you coming from.

I wasn't aware that NJ is one of the states that has done this, so I understand your NJ angle now.

thanks.

[LostinVA]

58. It is illegal in NJ -- I live here

[yodoobo]

66. self delete

I just saw your not so polite followup. (#64)

/sigh

[LostinVA]

80. I wasn't even TALKING ABOUT YOU

Passive aggressive delete there. Nice.

[Maven]

62. IT IS ILLEGAL in NJ

Do people fucking read?

[LostinVA]

64. I think they read and don't care what the facts are -- it's more fun to post nonsense

[yodoobo]

65. Good point. read the message # 40 above this

:)

[donco6]

69. So? If it's protected in some states, eHarmony can't offer their service there.

And if they can't offer it there, and there's no way to create a "NJ only" version of eHarmony - guess what? eHarmony has to adapt.

Why is this so difficult? And why are people defending this homophobic company?

[yodoobo]

72. Yes exactly

I didn't see anyone in this thread defending Eharmony though.

There are some folks, such as myself, attempting to discuss the legal aspects and how eharmony exploits those legal aspects to continue to discriminate against people though.

Personally, I don't live in New Jersey, the legal system in my state takes a different(and unfortunate) view of eharmony. Unfortunately a few people jumped on my case because my state laws, are different than theirs. I'm just going to leave them alone I think.

[yardwork]

103. Read post #50 and several others defending eHarmony.

[yodoobo]

104. ugh..i stand corrected n/t

[yardwork]

106. Yeah....sigh. We're all at different levels in this conversation.

Some, like yourself, want to explore the complex legal and social ramifications of this decision. Others are still in the "gay sex bad!" developmental phase.

[LostinVA]

22. "Homosexuals"

[yodoobo]

26. ?

pardon?

on edit: Not trying offend by leaving out other groups. But this is a technical legal discussion we are having.

[xchrom]

21. recommend

[riqster]

23. So boycott e-harmony

...and use another site. It'll likely be more successful anyway.

I couldn't find anyone on the 'vanilla' sites like e-harmony, and had to dig around to find a site that suited myself and people like me.

[yardwork]

27. So it would be fine with you if businesses posted "No Blacks Allowed" signs?

Your response would be, "If you're black, just don't go there."

The rest of us are interested in protecting people's rights even if we don't happen to be the ones discriminated against at that moment. As it happens, I don't need a dating site right now. That doesn't mean I think it's ok for dating sites to engage in discriminatory practices.

I'm not Jewish either but I would protest a business posting a sign stating "No Jews allowed."

Sheesh.

[riqster]

29. Hardly.

What happened was, Blacks protested, fought to change the discrimination laws, boycotted, etc.

But they did NOT hand their money to the people who hated them. They shopped elsewhere, as sensible folks ought to.

I say, boycott eHarmony. But don't wait around for them to see the light meanwhile, take your business elsewhere.

[yardwork]

31. Let's do both.

[riqster]

39. Egggzactly

Boycotting and suing drains eHarmony's bank account. So does giving money to other businesses that welcome our custom.

[yardwork]

44. We agree!

:toast:

[riqster]

46. Woot!

:grouphug:

[Edweird]

51. Check your PM

[UTUSN]

34. So *that's* why Ricky MARTIN says he likes golden showers. & Prince has permission to,

someday/maybe have "Gay" sex--IF he might.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. e-Harmony is scum.

Fuck anyone who defends or patronizes their business.

Life's too short to make it more complicated than that.

[yardwork]

43. That's fine, but we're not going to ignore them, either.

I don't need a dating service and if I did I wouldn't choose eHarmony. That doesn't mean I ignore their discriminatory business practice anymore than I would ignore the lousy restaurant down the street with a "No blacks allowed" sign in their window.

Just because I don't want to use the service doesn't mean I ignore the discrimination.

[Alter Ego]

48. Please tell me your title is ironic.

It sounds like Larry Craig's defense.

[yardwork]

54. I'm absolutely serious.

My understanding of Larry Craig's defense is that he claims that his gestures were misunderstood. He insists that he is not gay and he also insists that he never seeks sex with men. A lot of us gay folk agree with Larry that he's not gay, but it's obvious that he seeks sex with men.

[OneBlueSky]

60. human sexuality is very complex, and doesn't exist as an "either/or" proposition . . .

rather, all human sexuality exists on a continuum, from hetero on one end to homo on the other . . . everyone falls somewhere in between these extremes, and it's doubtful that there has ever been a human who was absolutely 100% at either extreme . . . all straights have at least a little gay in their psycho-sexual makeup, and all gays at least a little straight . . . bi-sexuals seem to have relatively equal amounts of each . . .

and there's nothing to say that one's place on the continuum is firm and fixed for their entire life . . . it can change over time and in response to circumstances (e.g. straights in situations where there is no one of the opposite sex) . . .

I believe that a lot of homophobia is an individual's refusal to accept the homosexual part of their psycho-sexual makeup, no matter how small it may be . . . they know it's there, and it terrifies them, so they lash out at those who celebrate their homosexuality . . . I think if people understood the complex nature of human sexuality, and that they have nothing to fear from it, there would be a lot less bigotry and prejudice against gays . . .

all jmho, of course . . .

[GliderGuider]

71. I agree completely about the sexual continuum.

I realized about 40 years ago that people were somewhere between the two ends of a spectrum, and everything I've seen since has just reinforced that conclusion. People are generally programmed toward the ends of the spectrum by cultural norms. Of course people are usually forced into he "hetero-exclusive" end of the spectrum by society at large, but I know that bisexuals can come under peer pressure to renounce their heterosexual impulses and are thus driven to the other end.

People seem to be very uncomfortable with bisexuality in real life, maybe because it makes people seem less predictable. Of course that's just evidence of the way we objectify sexuality, including our own -- the only determinant of sexual attractiveness is someone's gender, not their individual being.

[Qibing Zero]

81. I'm getting a mixed message from your post.

It seems you're arguing another angle of this whole ordeal which is: that gay people would have been discriminated against even if they were searching for a heterosexual relationship. Wouldn't that mean eHarmony was discriminating against bisexuals then too?

Honestly, with the words you're using one gets the feeling that your intention was to blur the classifications of sexuality, but then you state near the end of your post: 'However, it is illegal to reject customers simply because they belong to a particular group.'. It's a bit confusing.

[yardwork]

105. I'm not sure that I understand.

Gay people are discriminated against on eHarmony - they aren't allowed to use the site, even though they are seeking opposite-sex partners. eHarmony doesn't offer same-sex matching services, and nobody is saying that they must. I think a LOT of people are confused about this. To repeat - nobody is saying that eHarmony or any other business has to offer same-sex services.

eHarmony went a step further. They would not allow anybody identifying themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or anything other than heterosexual to even use their site. Now, a lot of people are puzzled as to why "gay" people would want to use an opposite-sex dating service. My OP was an effort to answer that question.

The obvious group who might want to use eHarmony are people who identify as bisexual. They are attracted to people of all sexes. However, they were not allowed to use eHarmony's service. That's obvious bias.

A less obvious group, but one that exists, is the group of people who identify as "gay" or "lesbian" but sometimes seek opposite-sex partners. For some reason, my OP seems to have been interpreted by a couple of posters as advocating casual sex. That's not true. Again, my OP was an effort to enlighten. There are many people out in the world who don't fit into the "gay" versus "straight" stereotypes. Things are a lot fuzzier than that. And yes, many of those folks are seeking love, companionship, life partners, marriage, everything that eHarmony offers.

[Edweird]

97. Maybe I'm a little dense, but wouldn't liking 'gay sex' mean they weren't 'straight'?

That's like saying, "I don't eat meat, but I ate a hamburger on the way here....."

[yardwork]

99. No. As I tried to explain in my OP, these divisions aren't that clear.

They may be to you and me, but there is a lot of gray area for a lot of people, and dating services know that.