<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: eHarmony apologizes for &#8220;Navigating the One Night Stand&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frcblog.com/2008/04/eharmony-apologizes-for-navigating-the-one-night-stand/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frcblog.com/2008/04/eharmony-apologizes-for-navigating-the-one-night-stand/</link>
	<description>The Blog of Family Research Council</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:23:06 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Lisa Kentala</title>
		<link>http://www.frcblog.com/2008/04/eharmony-apologizes-for-navigating-the-one-night-stand/comment-page-1/#comment-974</link>
		<dc:creator>Lisa Kentala</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:42:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=421#comment-974</guid>
		<description>Well, if you are going to be the censor for eHarmony you better check out their &quot;dating&quot; message board. There is a lengthy discussion about when it&#039;s appropriate to have sex. I&#039;ve read several of the posts and NOT ONE says after marriage. Granted, this info is not coming from eHarmony employees, but if eHarmony was so against pre-marital sex, why on earth would such a discussion even be on it&#039;s website? It appears that those who patronize eHarmony&#039;s website haven&#039;t a clue they are against pre-marital sex. How&#039;s that for pr?

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, if you are going to be the censor for eHarmony you better check out their &#8220;dating&#8221; message board. There is a lengthy discussion about when it&#8217;s appropriate to have sex. I&#8217;ve read several of the posts and NOT ONE says after marriage. Granted, this info is not coming from eHarmony employees, but if eHarmony was so against pre-marital sex, why on earth would such a discussion even be on it&#8217;s website? It appears that those who patronize eHarmony&#8217;s website haven&#8217;t a clue they are against pre-marital sex. How&#8217;s that for pr?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Suricou Raven</title>
		<link>http://www.frcblog.com/2008/04/eharmony-apologizes-for-navigating-the-one-night-stand/comment-page-1/#comment-973</link>
		<dc:creator>Suricou Raven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:25:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=421#comment-973</guid>
		<description>&quot;Those who cohabit are 50% more likely to divorce than those who never live together.&quot;

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Those who cohabit are 50% more likely to divorce than those who never live together.&#8221;</p>
<p>Post hoc ergo propter hoc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
