A June 12, 2007, segment on The O'Reilly Factor addressed a recent lawsuit filed by a gay woman against online matchmaker eHarmony.com. (She's suing the company for discrimination because they do not offer matchmaking services for homosexuals.)
In the segment, lawyer Sunny Hostin stated that, due to California law, the lawsuit may have merit, even though eHarmony.com is a private company. She then opined that eHarmony could be missing out on a lot of money from "10 percent of the population" by negating homosexuals.
Well, although the line is still commonly heard today, the "10 percent" figure has been debunked. Even the homosexual community has admitted the figure is false. A Friend of the Court brief filed with the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case said that a National Health and Social Life Survey ("the most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States," according to the brief) reported "that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual." (source).
In other words, it's not "10 percent."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"In the segment, lawye
June 12, 2007 - 22:44 ET by ckc1227"In the segment, lawyer Sunny Hostin stated that, due to California law, the lawsuit may have merit, even though eHarmony.com is a private company."
She has no case. If I own a gun shop, I'm not required to sell bread, or even a specific gun if I don't want to. Still, if the lawyer is correct that the case has merit because of California law, it may be time to let Mexico have California, as this is further proof of how wacked out that state is.
Her main weapon could be the
June 12, 2007 - 22:59 ET byHer main weapon could be the 9th circuit court of appeals, btw the most overturned court in the land
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Thats because the 9th circuit
June 13, 2007 - 01:09 ET by mastersofdeceitThats because the 9th circuit acts as the Judical Terrorist Arm of the ACLU. Just like the kkk was founded to be the terrorist arm of the Democrat party. Slaughtering over 1,500 Republicans in the late 1800's.
"Just like the kkk was f
June 13, 2007 - 01:16 ET by Carl Kolchak"Just like the kkk was founded to be a terrorist arm of the Democratic party."
Mastersofdeceit, you mean "Birth of a Nation" was a Democratic movie and not a Republican movie?
"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane" Waylon Jennings
Ckc, you are right on the mon
June 12, 2007 - 23:42 ET by MikeBCkc, you are right on the money. Are there not publications and websites that cater exclusively to homosexuals? Why can't this broad find a date at some lesbian website? A private company should be allowed to decide to whom they wish to cater without interference from the government.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
This is just another attempt
June 13, 2007 - 06:25 ET by ThisnThatThis is just another attempt to replace traditional values with a minority view, and they intend to employ a very narrow, selected path to that end (the liberal court system). Every place that has given queers so-called "equivalancy" has been done via narrow paths: Massachusetts (4 judges); New Hampshire (the first Democrat-dominated legislator in 100 year); New Jersey, and so on. Their attempts to mainstream all have one common theme -- ram it down our throats, and claim that they have "rights". Well, we have rights, too, and one of those rights is to keep a minority from trying to re-define terms. This stuff is pushed by Libs, the ACLU, and the MSM, and it needs to stop.
If I own a gun shop, I'm no
June 13, 2007 - 05:12 ET by motherbeltIf I own a gun shop, I'm not required to sell bread, or even a specific gun if I don't want to.
Is that still true in California? I remember a lawsuit where some vegetarisns wanted Burger King to add a veggie burger to their menu. What happened with that? If that suit succeeded, it may signal the end of any private business to do business unless it makes provision for anyone and everyone, at least in California.
Think about it? A lawsuit t
June 12, 2007 - 23:09 ET by jdhawkThink about it? A lawsuit to ensure a chance at a date from a dating service that doesn't cater to homosexuals and thus, has no one that is a homosexual that this lesbian could date. This is simply a lawsuit to further a rabid homosexual agenda.
I am tired of hearing the yammering from this tiny percentage of our population. What a bunch of whiners. Shut up already.
It makes ya wonder what is go
June 13, 2007 - 01:32 ET byIt makes ya wonder what is going to happen some day when a homosexual gets angry for being rejected by a heterosexual for a date and finds some fool lawyer willing to take the case.
Well over two decades ago, in my single days, two lesbians asked me out --I never laughed so hard in my life! loll... Today those two would try to sue me for emotional trauma.
:o)
"Well, although the line
June 12, 2007 - 23:15 ET by Galvanic"Well, although the line is still commonly heard today, the "10 percent" figure has been debunked. Even the homosexual community has admitted the figure is false."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the mythical 10% figure stemmed from the sex studies of Kinsey or Masters & Johnson, and was derived by taking survey data and injecting a fudge factor based on assumptions that many homosexuals had not revealed their sexual orientation in the survey. The gay community and their allies ran with the Ten Percent for years because it made their numbers look stronger than they knew they were.
I think it was Kinsey. 10%
June 13, 2007 - 07:07 ET by Sergeant ROCKI think it was Kinsey. 10% was just wishful thinking on the part of militant homosexuals and their apologists.
I heard the 10% came from a s
June 13, 2007 - 11:21 ET by SouthJersey1953I heard the 10% came from a survey (could have been Kinsey related) taken in a Federal Prison. The "more realistic" number of 2-3% was taken from the US Census in the only place in the country that asks about "sexual orientation" on their census form: San Fransisco. Actual number is estimated at 0.8% nationally.
No RINOs in '08 - Thompson/Hunter would be a good ticket; Thompson/Steele would be a great ticket
This is along the lines of
June 12, 2007 - 23:54 ET by daveinbocaThis is along the lines of the canard that "7 million Muslims" are living in the USA. The real figure is around two million and change. The grandiosity of the ultra-left and terror-abetting media inflates numbers far above their statistical probabilities.
Even the number of 12 million illegal immigrants migrated upward, or rather levitated, from ten million just recently.
And the sky-is-falling MSM work to aggrandize and inflate any figures that put the USA or the Bush Administration in a bad light.
Dave, don't forget the claims
June 13, 2007 - 00:07 ET by MikeBDave, don't forget the claims about millions of homeless people that were made by the homeless advocacy groups. I believe it was the 1980 census when the census bureau hired several thousand extra census workers to go to the bridges and alleyways and all the places the homeless were supposed to be. They counted less than one million homeless people. If memory serves the actual count was around 600,000 nationwide.
In any advocacy situation it seems that someone makes up a number out of whole cloth, and the news media, without any checking, picks it up and repeats it over and over, until "everybody knows" something that just ain't so.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Why didn't O'Reilly correct
June 13, 2007 - 01:15 ET byWhy didn't O'Reilly correct his guest or at the very least, challenge the statement with some statistics that he surely must know?
And for the record, though it is awful that homosexuals are even allowed to sue over this, the company, eHarmony.com, issued a statement that in so many words said that it is possible in the future they could include homosexuals. (This is not good.)
But, no matter what, this does show us that the homosexual agenda has no boundaries. But, does this really shock anyone? Gosh, look at what they allow each other to do their own bodies.
Homosexuals are fools who do not even have the sense to hide their shame, so why does it shock us that they want to bring the everyone else into it?
I say, everyone who is anti-perversion should make some type of product or offer a service or have a club ----something that will not allow perverts to participate.
Debra...
From my company's intranet si
June 13, 2007 - 12:52 ET by Hoosier DaddyFrom my company's intranet site:
Q:How do we respond to the concerns of some people from religiously conservative backgrounds that the company's efforts on behalf of gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender individuals compromise the values of others?
A:There are many people who identify with a number of religions and these religions often have a wide range of beliefs about the morality of any number of issues, including divorce, birth control, abortion, alcohol consumption, and sexual orientation. There are numerous religious Scripture scholars in nearly every mainline denomination who believe that homosexual behavior is morally neutral and who argue that the Bible does not speak clearly about the subject. As a company, we do not make pronouncements as to whether sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice or biological in nature. What we do declare is that we do not expect any of our associates to behave in a way that infringes upon others' abilities to work in an environment free from harassment and to serve the needs of our customers.
Q:Isn't the company endorsing an unacceptable lifestyle when it acknowledges gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues?
A:Moral positions on homosexuality are personal and should not be expressed in the workplace. If individuals insist that ********'s efforts to create a safe and inclusive environment for gay associates "discriminates" against the religiously conservative associates and their values, they should remember that our goal is to simply create an environment that is conducive to the success of ALL associates. There have been historic examples in our society of associates who have felt compromised because they were "forced" to work with minorities; men who have felt threatened by the presence of women, and members of political groups upset because they have to "sit side by side" with members of another political group. ********* isn't "endorsing" anything --- we simply respect the right of all individuals to expect to be treated fairly in the workplace.
Q:Why is this important to me? I'm not gay.
A:As a manager, if I assume that everyone who works for me is heterosexual, I am less likely to be concerned about gay issues in the workplace and may not be aware of workplace behaviors that are serving to exclude instead of include. I am also less aware of the toll of inappropriate comments on homosexuality. I am less inclined to think it worth the company's time to educate associates about diversity and inclusion in general, or gay and lesbian issues specifically. I am less likely to use inclusive language. I am also less likely to hear from gay, lesbian, or bisexual, transgender associates about the difficulties they face in doing their job. That clearly would make me a less effective manager.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't make judgements about people's lifestyles but we did fire our CFO who had, besides a wife, three women in California (including two sisters) and another in Indianapolis. He supposedly was engaged to at least three of them and promised a house to one. Had he been carrying on with several men that wouldn't have been a problem?
Oh, and this is a major HEALTH insurance company with a big push on to modify "non-healthful" behaviours (smoking, weight, exercise). I don't think AIDS is on that list.
Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.
What we need is for an aggr
June 13, 2007 - 05:13 ET by Jack BauerWhat we need is for an aggrieved heterosexual to sue a gay online dating agency for $50 million because they 'discriminate' against us 'straights.'
Maybe that'll bring people to their senses. Maybe.
eHarmony
June 13, 2007 - 08:27 ET by River CityI was actually watching when she mentioned the 10% comment and remember cringing when she said it. I also think it was Kinsey that theorized the 10% figure in error.
Dr. Warren's defense is that his service is based on a study he did ONLY on heterosexual couples that resulted in the test or survey that people now take when they join the service. He said he may offer the service with the test (survey) for homosexuals in the future but one has not been developed yet. So, following this gay person’s logic does he have to close down his business because she isn't able to use it? That is what it sounds like to me. He says he has based his service on psychological testing and that's why it works better than others.
People are selfish. If I can't have it you can't either!
People are selfish. If I c
June 13, 2007 - 08:30 ET by Sergeant ROCKPeople are selfish. If I can't have it you can't either!
Sounds like liberalism.
Does anyone else see the ir
June 13, 2007 - 09:44 ET by Dont_B_NVSDoes anyone else see the irony that e-Harmony
is causing such discord !
e-Harmony is based on compatability.
That's so funny !
My roommate is gay. I don't
June 13, 2007 - 10:08 ET by doubledown552My roommate is gay. I don't want to hear any of them complaining that they can't find someone to hook up with. This guy tells me how EASY it is to hook up with anyone (so long as they are gay). It's not like the straight seen. And from what he tells me, they really don't want to waste their time on straight people because the chances of that are much less.
Morals....? Who needs those?