Waldorf cancels media interview regarding Compatible Partners launch

Compatible Partners homepage

eHarmony’s bastard website Compatible Partners launched yesterday, one day earlier than obliged. Okay, not a bastard, just the first dating site whose owners didn’t really want to create.

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times wrote,

… It’s not a comfortable fit for EHarmony’s founder, Neil Clark Warren, who based the original service — which requires applicants to fill out lengthy questionnaires — on his own practice as a psychologist.

“It’s what I did for 40 years,” said Warren, 74, who is retired but remains on the board. “I never had a gay couple.”

Warren is the former dean of the psychology graduate school at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena. Much of the early promotion of EHarmony was done by well-known figures in the evangelical community, some of whom preach against gay rights.

As part of the settlement, Pasadena-based EHarmony must make a “good-faith commitment” to promoting Compatible Partners. But the company seems as nervous as the groom at a rehearsal dinner, insisting that the only on-the-record interview be with Chief Executive Greg Waldorf. That interview was canceled when the company learned Warren had spoken with The Times. …

What could be the cause of Waldorf’s caginess? Anyway, the company did spend on a short Business Wire press release this morning.

Gay blogsite Queerty of course posted a commentary this morning.

UPDATE: Here, so far, is the “most recommended” comment in the Houston Chronicle reprint of this article:

bubbabodcat wrote:

From the article, “Even Warren is finding out that gay couples might not be so different after all.” And this guy is 74 years old and a psychologist? A bit of a slow learner, ya think?

You practiced for 40 years and never met a gay couple? Now why would a self respecting gay couple go see him for counseling help if he won’t even acknowledge they exist?

Comments 4

  1. SincerelyEthical wrote:

    I’m not by any means an authority on such things, but one thing seems clear to me. Questionnaires on all of the questionnaire-based matching sites seem to match people based on Relationship Roles, which don’t necessarily correspond to gender.

    For example, traditional roles are often reversed in a particular couple. A traditionally masculine role may be fulfilled by the woman in a hetersexual relationship, and the counterbalancing traditionally feminine role may be fulfilled by the male in a heterosexual relationship.
    It is very likely that the same holds true for many gay couples. One partner would likely possess more masculine traits, and the other parnter more feminine traits.
    If so, then what difference does it make whether the questionnaire is applied to straight, or gay people?

    I’m a straight woman in search of a quality compatible man. But, if I wasn’t, I wouldn’t stand for being denied the opportunity to find love online. A long term relationship is a long term relationship… Saying the studies were based on married couples obviously doesn’t mean that the same concepts would be any different if applied to any non-married long term relationship, heterosexual or gay.

    It seems painfully clear to me that fanatical far right concepts are still dictating procedure at eHarmony, and it seems they will continue to use any excuse to try to justify their discrimination against the gay/lesbian community. The matching is private, so who cares? I would neither see nor care if John was matched with Joe, or if Susan was matched with Debbie. I think it’s just discrimination and oppression, and that makes people like me who believe in equality very sad and angry.

    Finally, I’m a Christian and, to me, that means loving everyone, and not judging others. There is one judge, so let Him be the judge and be kind to everyone and provide equal services to all. If eHarmony wants to operate in a truly Christian manner, then why don’t they improve their questionable billing practices and other business practices that leave members scratching their heads and lighter in the wallet? I think that would be the right place to start…

    Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 10:42 am
  2. Elizabeth R wrote:

    My favorite comment on this topic is from Bruce Garrett:

    “A business that makes its living selling folks the joys of love and romance while peddling cheapshit bigotry out the side door, probably isn’t all that serious about the love and romance it’s dealing out the front door either.”

    I am sure eHarmony has or had employees who feel the same way, SincerelyEthical. eHarmony is lucky that none of them are talking publicly.

    Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 3:51 pm
  3. Scottk wrote:

    SincerelyEthical,

    I assume you would be fine with EH offering a site that provided Matching for Polygamy?

    Like you say, the matching is Private, so why should it matter to anyone else?

    Since you are religious, you surely know back in the day of the Bible, they most definitely DID practice polygamy, and thus, since you are religious, you should accept this practice, right?

    If Marriage is no longer defined as 1 man, 1 woman, why can’t it be defined as 1 man, many women, or 1 woman, many men?

    I expect to see you out there protesting for the Polygamists, as surely they have rights, and like you say, you get very sad and angry when ANYONE is oppressed!

    Posted 17 Nov 2009 at 6:09 pm
  4. Elizabeth R wrote:

    Scottk, I know your post isn’t directed to me, but to answer your bait question, yes if there are protesting polygamists out there, I will support them. Tell me where they are.

    Yours is a false analogy because in the United States, Bigamy is a crime, and Same-sex Marriage is recognized in five States, though not federally recognized. Contrast ‘not recognized’ vs. ‘illegal’.

    Matching for Polygamy is criminal, Matching for Same-sex Marriage is not. I’m sure you know this.

    Posted 18 Nov 2009 at 9:27 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published, shown nor shared.

In case it isn’t obvious, we are not eHarmony. Your message will not be sent to them, and no, we cannot help you with your account.

Unmoderated: Comments appear after two to five seconds. Have your own topic? Start a new discussion. XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe without commenting