The question of eHarmony and gay matchmaking

[NotHardUp1]

Before I address the title, I have to admit I'm not dating and not expecting to partner, but may try again after I leave Alabama.

But, as I lay here reading JUB, CBS Saturday Morning is on in the background, and an eHarmony commercial popped up with a gay couple on a bike or scooter and the pitch of "date someone who gets you," or something close to that.

It caught my attention because I had thougth eHarmony didn't match gays, although I do have some gnawing sensation that I'd seen something in print before that made me wonder if they had changed. So, I looked online and read that they did not before 2019. At the beginning, they didn't at all allow gays access, but beginning in 2009, amid multiple lawsuits alleging discrimination, they launch a [separate but equal] site named Compatible Partners. There was a lot of circumlocution and denial as they settled their lawsuits. They also suffered financially.

Now, they appear to be out and proud in the marketing. It makes me wonder what the LGBTQ predominant attitude toward corporations that "repent." I mean, ultimately all corporations were anti-gay just decades ago, so not being eager to embrace equality was a charge that all of them would be guilty of. But, ya gotta buy toothpaste.

And, I understand the appeal to "support gay-owned businesses" and allies, but I also understand that sounds exactly like the rationalizations I hear from people wanting to support Christian-owned businesses, or the very long-ignored prejudice of Jewish alliances and/or kosher establishments, or in some areas, Catholic or Mormon closed ranks. I freely confess that if a business uses an overtly Christian or Hebrew "virtuous" business name, I don't use them, as it feels too much like exploiting religion for gain. And, truth be known, I'm no more likely to buy from a business that goes overboard to look gay friendly.

I'm an advocate of businesses being businesses, not cartels or self-selecting social organizations. If any patron gets treated unfairly or rudely because of a prejudice of the business or its owner or employee, then I'm all for that being publicized and letting the chips fall where they may. But I don't want to see commerce be one more segregation tool in a society increasingly polarized.

All that said, my feelings are not absolute. I'm all for Mike Lindell getting locked in a basement pit somewhere and not being fed.

 

[TickTockMan]

I mean, ultimately all corporations were anti-gay just decades ago, so not being eager to embrace equality was a charge that all of them would be guilty of. But, ya gotta buy toothpaste.

I don't agree. Just because LGBT folk were not used in ads, etc. doesn't mean they were anti LGBT. Most companies probably didn't care one way or the other. They just wanted money so didn't say anything one way or the other.

 

[rareboy]

^^All this.

and of course, I said years ago the eHarmony couldn't hold out forever...eventually, like Hallmark they would realize there is an income stream here to tap into.

I'm not big into corporate forgiveness, because it usually comes without the mea culpa or acknowledgement of the hurt they may have previously caused. Too many large corps think that all they have to do is slap a rainbow flag on an ad for Pride Month and we will look at them as allies for life. Ain't necessarily so.

 

[Peloso]

I always figured they were just homophobic. Or maybe they figured gay guys would use it as a meat market.

Can it be used as a meat market?

 

[NotHardUp1]

I don't agree. Just because LGBT folk were not used in ads, etc. doesn't mean they were anti LGBT. Most companies probably didn't care one way or the other. They just wanted money so didn't say anything one way or the other.

I think we're talking about different eras. It was literally illegal to commit a gay act. People could be and were fired for being gay, just like they were if they had an affair and were found guilty of adultery. It varied from community to community, state to state, and industry to industry, but even universities fired gays.

And no companies featured gays up until recently, with very few exceptions.

But I welcome discussion of the corporations you're thinking of that were gay tolerant or pro-gay.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I always figured they were just homophobic. Or maybe they figured gay guys would use it as a meat market.

Can it be used as a meat market?

Did they do anything to keep straights from treating it as a meat market? Actually, yes. The questionnaire was 450 questions. Few cruisers would bother completing that.

 

[TickTockMan]

I think we're talking about different eras. It was literally illegal to commit a gay act. People could be and were fired for being gay, just like they were if they had an affair and were found guilty of adultery. It varied from community to community, state to state, and industry to industry, but even universities fired gays.

And no companies featured gays up until recently, with very few exceptions.

But I welcome discussion of the corporations you're thinking of that were gay tolerant or pro-gay.

Yeah you are thinking wat further back than I was.

I was thinking more like companies like Disney. They let Gay Days go on for years even when there was push back. It is unofficial, but they could have put a stop to it if they wanted. Then they started offering same sex benefits years before they started to use same sex couples in their ads.

 

[Peloso]

Did they do anything to keep straights from treating it as a meat market? Actually, yes. The questionnaire was 450 questions. Few cruisers would bother completing that.

What is that old saying? Oh yeah. A dick pic is worth 450 words.

 

[cabinfever]

I am neutral when it comes to corporations and their "support" of LGBT people. I realize it is generally good for the business which is why I think so many of them have jumped on the bandwagon. They are also wise to consider that no kids = more disposable income.

Personally I dislike companies like Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-A and In 'n Out Burger and I will not under any circumstances give them a cent or patronize their business because of their anti LGBT stance.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Yeah you are thinking wat further back than I was.

I was thinking more like companies like Disney. They let Gay Days go on for years even when there was push back. It is unofficial, but they could have put a stop to it if they wanted. Then they started offering same sex benefits years before they started to use same sex couples in their ads.

Yep. Our ages are decades apart.

When I think of Disney, I don't think it represents almost any other corporation, as it is at the intersection of three very heavily gay populations: the entertainment industry, and California and Florida. Whereas they were and are courageous in planting their feet squarely and telling Middle America to fuck off if they didn't like it, they were very much working in self-interest of their employees and surrounding demographics.

Additionally, I have no doubt whatsoever that Disney had focus group data indicating that social conservatives would hold their nose and keep on coming, as they had nowhere else to go. No one really competes with Disney at the scale they do for theme parks. A couple of roller coasters at a local Six Flags really is not what little princesses dream of. Anyone who really keeps up with social politics already knows much of the demonization of gays from the right is rhetoric in daily practice. The very same families and leaders who hate LGBTQ rights and equality have no problem with a gay organist at church, a gay beautician or florist or interior decorator. They only get up in arms when "the gays" are out and proud and in some "respectable" vocation where they can't be tittlered at behind closed doors.

So, even though Disney did take an important public stand, they weren't really "brave" if they knew it would not cost them sales.

I'm much more impressed with the likes of Dolly Parton who spoke up long before anyone in Country Music had the balls to do it, even though Nashville is covered in pink paisley. SHE was and is a brave woman. Dick Cheney, although I disagreed with almost everything he did in office, showed courage standing up for his lesbian daughter at a time when his then president was introducing legislation to prevent states from recognizing same sex marriage.

I know I've strayed into individuals, but when corporations do that and are at risk, I admire them more. Not against Disney, mind you, even though I am not a fan either, but not convinced they were at risk. That said, their loud voice was a help to the rest who would not then be standing alone.