This belongs in the ‘dude, get a life’ category! I really like the idea of making this part of the guy’s profile if he does get accepted to Eharmony.com! What a loser.

100%

Hey there Mike, opinions are like assholes and obviously yours is really dirty and stinky What the fuck dude , back off the guy, Theres 3 sides to the story, his, eharmony’s ripoff, and the truth.

Your part on posting about the guys legal battle has nothing to do with what he feel’s is right, or is your name HITLER

yeah. let them damn homos find they own gross sex on they own. jesus up! homos down!!

It’s cheaper than paying the lawyer!!!

What an idiot.

for those that see this as an “iffy” topic, “this isnt a guy who built a railroad here” ~theBigLebowski, this guys “rights” havent been trampled on here, and if he has time to file a lawsuit against a business geared towards SINGLE people, this guy is in line right next to the guy that sued M&M for not putting a peanut in a peanut M&M, or that tubby chick that sued McDonalds for making her tubby, these are the ones that make a soldier in Iraq shake my head and say, “why”

Majorities do not necessarily rule in a “non-pure” democracy. In a pure democracy where everyone makes every decision the majority will rules. Once representatives are chosen or constitutions ratified, the rule of majority does not necessarily follow.

In the American system, however, majority does not always rule. Several examples of this exist: 2/3 of both houses of Congress must assent to overrule a Presidential veto; in California, 2/3 of the local electorate must agree to a tax increase before it goes into effect; in order to amend the US Constitution, 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the the State Legislatures must agree to the new terms. Last but not least, a majority of all voters may vote for a given Presidential candidate nationally but fail to reach enough points in the Electoral College, therefore failing to ascend to office.

The limits on majority rules also extend beyond the procedural mentioned above. The judiciary has repeatedly blocked majority attempts to undermine minority rights. For example, the US Supreme Court has stated that majorities must include language and mechanisms to prevent such trampling, especially in areas such as voting rights and redistricting initiatives that would have substantially diluted minority voting power.

Enough of the Civics lecture. The point here is that the opinions of a majority are not necessarily sufficient to pound a minority into submission. Secondly, the most vocal are not always part of the majority.

I have seen many people stating their opinion on this, and some just spouting hate and stupidity that has nothing to do with the topic. So I am going to attempt to break it down.

E-Harmony offers a service. That service is voluntary, so democracy doesn’t really apply here. If it was a applied force, say a govermental system, or a state sponsored program, then yes, I can understand that.

Next, I define racism as the emotional judgement of a person or situation based on a pre-determined notion that the person has no control over. There are three parts fo that. One, the judging of a person based on a fact they have no controll over. Take for instant someone that thinks a man is not intellegent just because he may speak with a accent, or even inpediment. Two, the judging of a collective group based on a prior experiance with a individual. Say if that person happened to steal from you, is it right to think all people with accents steal? And the last, is the judging of a individual based on the collective group. Say if the majority of people with accents are from another country, is it right to assume that any person you meet with a accent is? Now, assuming that his marrage is something he has control over, and he can get a devorce, then I don’t see how any of those apply. So racism or prejudice isn’t the issue. Even though I would LOVE to come down on some of the dribble which has been posted here. Against the Bible, Oi vey. Shal we start up the Spanish Inquisition again? But I won’t go there.

I think it all comes down to something simpler. People are getting lazier. Hmm, betcha didn’t think I was going to go that route with it aye? But think about it. People these days want easy solutions. They want instant gratifaction. And they want that gratifaction with not only little risk of failure, but even with little actual effort. Larger Family weddings are on the decline. Couple therepy is on the rise. “How to stir up the Love life in 10 easy steps” graces the cover of most women magazines(and mens too sometimes) on a almost monthly basis. We are approaching a Generation of people Raised on Cable TV. Burger King. And now DVDs. It is the flip side of so much choice. So much ability to ease through life with little effort and few times where you actually have to think. You pretty much buy into a good college. You can BS your way up to a good job. Then sell out and live your life out in bliss. That’s the fact Jack. It can be done, but the reality is very few people manage it. But so many aim for the easy life that when someone goes wrong, they are horrified. They point fingers, they sue and cry. They go on Talk shows and look for support groups. Anything to hide from the fact that perhaps they could approve. This man’s marrage is over. This matter is just a way for him to escape his admitting that he fracked up. That doesn’t make him a bad person in it’s self, but the fact he is deluding himself into think this will improve anything points to the fact that he doesn’t want to change yet. So very sad. I hope he doesn’t win just so he has to face the reality of his failed marrage. Then he can move on.