Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
Matchmaking

eHarmony’s Gay Dating Site Is Here!

compatiblepartnersscreen

Vehemently heterosexual dating site eHarmony never intended to let gay couples use its profile matching algorithms to find love, but New Jersey’s attorney general made the decision for them: Either launch a gay-friendly site or face an anti-discrimination suit. And so the site, founded in 2000 by shrink Neil Clark Warren (yes, the guy in all the eHarmony ads) and proud sponsor of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi’s very gay unions, today launches its same-sex off-shoot: Compatible Partners.

warren

If the new site’s name sounds sterile, well, you’re right. Slugged “Serious relationships for the gay and lesbian community,” Compatible Partners will never be confused with a Manhunt or adam4adam. And while the site’s name makes no mention of gays, the drop-down list where you select your own gender and the gender you’re hoping to meet sends the message home: Compatible Partners only allows men to look for other men, and women for women.

Since the criticism for being straight-only began, eHarmony rationalized its decision to exclude gays by insisting the technology behind the site — where applicants are asked dozens of questions and then matched based on a personality profile, which means some folks are told they are unmatchable — wasn’t geared for same-sex pairing.

Interesting eHarmony found a way to update its algorithms just in time for the agreed upon launch date of its gay dating site: today. And will they be promoting it? Says the LAT: “As part of the settlement [with New Jersey], 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.” So far, “good-faith commitment” does not include linking to Compatible Partners from eHarmony’s homepage.

(Note: It’s CompatiblePartners.net, not .com.)

By:           editor editor
On:           Mar 31, 2009
Tagged: , , , ,
  • 36 Comments
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      It seems like you are promoting a bigotted company.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 10:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Aaron J.
      Aaron J.

      .net? HA!

      and could that guy have any more gayface?

      Mar 31, 2009 at 10:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jon
      jon

      eHarmony is anti-gay. They claim to be all about “marriage,”right? Well, how do you think its evangelical, righ wing founder feels about gay marriage! Yeah, right…such hypocrits.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 12:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • myrios123
      myrios123

      “compatible partners”? Isn’t that like saying jumbo shrimp? Okay guys, let’s do the founder a favor and not use his site. I don’t need my personal information a part of anyone’s “good-faith” commitment.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 1:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Singlelady
      Singlelady

      I do not understand why there was a need for this site to begin with. A company who was (and probably still is) anti-gay is now going to be profiting off of the gay and lesbian community?! I do not think this makes any sense. I saw we really stick it to them by not using the site now that they spend all the time and effort creating it.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 2:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Singlelady: Oh the irony, as they created this website to avoid a sexual orientation discrimination lawsuit. :-)

      I really doubt they’ll have much to offer. Match.com is relatively successful with younger people, and there are a variety of gay and gay friendly websites that offer the same thing (including sites for gay Christians, gay Arabs, gay Jews, etc.). There’s not much of the market left to corner at this point.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 2:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pragmatist
      Pragmatist

      Looks really half-assed and obligatory. Which it is.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 2:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      On a whim I decided to go through their little questionnaire. Interesting results on the personality profile, but it turns out I am among the 20% of people who are unmatchable. That’s so tragic.

      *yawn*

      @Pragmatist: I agree completely.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @vernonvanderbilt: Apparently I have one match who is five years younger, 3000 miles away with a completely different background.

      Who knew?

      Mar 31, 2009 at 3:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      @Alec: Since the site is new, I’m more inclined to assume the lack of matches is due to the lack of members. Still, I find it perversely pleasing to be considered “unmatchable.” I guess it proves just how unique I am. Or something.

      Of course, maybe I should have tried it without distance restrictions. I kept it within 60 miles of my home because, honestly, if someone lives any farther away than that I’m probably not going to be meeting them anytime soon.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 5:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @vernonvanderbilt: Yes, well, expand it to 3K, get 1 match. :-)

      But yes, I assume it has much to do with being new. Still, rather amusing.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 5:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tavdy79
      tavdy79

      So if you’re bisexual you need to join both sites, and if you’re genderqueer you’re excluded from both.

      Nice.

      Mar 31, 2009 at 7:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • parisinla
      parisinla

      this site just seems to me like “separate but equal”

      Mar 31, 2009 at 10:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chad Goller-Sojourner
      Chad Goller-Sojourner

      Once agian, we seem to have missed the mark. There a million dating sites that cater to certain segments of the population: Beginning with all the Gay dating sites add in the Black, Jewish, older, Asian. As for being “separate but equal” we would be wise to guard our words before comparing matters such as these to matters of the Black Civil Rights Movement. Finally given that the dating adds on many many gays sites allow postings which scream No, Blacks, Asians, Fats, Femmes ect, that might be a place to start. This is not a win for the LGBT community, we can aim higher, we have aimed higher.

      Apr 1, 2009 at 12:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      @Chad Goller-Sojourner:

      “Finally given that the dating adds on many many gays sites allow postings which scream No, Blacks, Asians, Fats, Femmes ect, that might be a place to start.”

      Actually, I am always a little grateful to see those sorts of comments in folks’ profiles. It lets me know quickly and easily who isn’t worth a time investment. Maybe I should put a “no shallow people” line in my own profiles to keep them from messaging me.

      As far as the site not being a win for the good guys…duh. They only did it because they had no other option. Everyone knows that.

      Apr 1, 2009 at 12:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chad Goller-Sojourner
      Chad Goller-Sojourner

      I guess as someone who has worked for LGBT rights for the last 20 years, I’ve become a big fan of picking our battles. And yes as we are a diverse community people there will be several diverse battles, I just never thought I’d see the day when this was one of them-but hey whatever gets you through the day.

      “Actually, I am always a little grateful to see those sorts of comments in folks’ profiles. It lets me know quickly and easily who isn’t worth a time investment.”

      Really? Because from what I gather most people who identify with those groups are less than grateful-just as most Southern Blacks were not grateful to see No Coloreds signs in the windows of dinners, hotels etc. But I guess that’s different,unless Black. We all like what we like, I get that but there are many more graceful, tactful and less hurtful of market ones likes and dislikes.

      Apr 1, 2009 at 1:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Geoff
      Geoff

      If I was still looking for someone….why would I choose them? They are pathetic…..but moreso the queers who will flock to them for match making. Ugh.

      Apr 1, 2009 at 4:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete Hanson
      Pete Hanson

      Some observations (sorry if I’m repeating any one):

      o There are two couples shown on the front page of the gayHarmony site. Neither couple’s faces are shown (or much else for that matter).

      o If you select M seeking W or W seeking M on the gayHarmony site, you’ll be redirected to eharmony.com. The reverse does not happen if your select M seeking M or W seeking W on eharmony.

      o I’ve seen 3 commercials for eHarmony today. How long do you think I’ll have to wait before I see a gayHarmony ad – I’d be happy if one shows up on LOGO

      Apr 1, 2009 at 4:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jon jon
      jon jon

      Wow really? I really hope no one who identifies as gay or bi or lesbian or transgender uses this “pitty” site. We don’t need anyone else feeling bad for us. We are too proud and strong for that. The only reason this extension of the website was created was because they didn’t want to lose a couple million, not cause they actually cared but b/c the $$$$$$$$$$. Period! I love who we are and what we represent…let’s keep doing what we’re doing, but let’s avoid pulling the “gay card” love you, love and respect. Remember: “be the change you wish to see in the world.” -President Obama.

      Apr 1, 2009 at 5:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DK
      DK

      It’s a gay ghetto, plain and simple. Even straight people can do a lot better than eHarmony.

      *waits for inevitable lawsuit from bisexuals forced to sign up for both sites and/or being summarily kicked out of both of them.*

      Apr 1, 2009 at 9:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      @Chad Goller-Sojourner:

      “We all like what we like, I get that but there are many more graceful, tactful and less hurtful of market ones likes and dislikes.”

      Well, I won’t disagree with you there. I just like to know what sort of person I’m checking out before I go to the trouble of attempting an interaction with them. If they are that tactless about their shallowness, their comments tell me everything I need to know about them ahead of time. Saves a lot of disappointment down the road.

      There’s absolutely nothing wrong with liking what you like, mind you. We all have our own personal tastes. I just think that some people put limitations on themselves (especially in the dating realm) that aren’t entirely necessary. Do those “no fats, no femmes, no blacks, etc.” comments bother me at a deeper level? Sure. Do they adversely affect me? Not really, unless you count making the dating experience less fun. If someone isn’t interested in me for whatever reason, even if it’s a shallow one, I prefer not to get tangled up with them in the first place. Bluntness is a useful tool in internet dating. That’s all I’m saying. I do appreciate your stance though, for what it’s worth.

      @Pete Hanson:

      “There are two couples shown on the front page of the gayHarmony site. Neither couple’s faces are shown (or much else for that matter).”

      I had noticed that as well. Interesting observation, I think.

      @jon jon: I really don’t think the site will do very well. These folks worked long and hard to earn their phobic rep, and I don’t think enough of us will get over that to actually drop our money into their “service.” There are plenty of better sites out there where we can spend our money, those of us who are so inclined. Don’t fret about it.

      @DK: With you 100%.

      Apr 1, 2009 at 10:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hardmannyc
      hardmannyc

      Am I the only one who finds it ironic that all The Gays are screaming “Boycott!” after a gay rights activist brought a lawsuit to force eHarmony to add us in the first place? Hey, we won. They’re not “anti-gay” anymore. I may even use it, if I ever want to settle down.

      Apr 1, 2009 at 12:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jon Jon
      Jon Jon

      We won? they aren’t “anti gay”? Come on do you really believe that? they were forced to include us, doesn’t mean their bigoted views and ways of thinking have change. I mean i guess in its simplest terms it is victory, however, I don’t want their pity, just like I don’t want the pity from of my bosses or anyone for that matter for being a man of color in whatever situation is at hand. I don’t pull the “black” card, sure as hell not pulling the “gay” card.

      Apr 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Photobrad
      Photobrad

      There’s tons of other companies and websites that deserve my business. I won’t even justify this gayHarmony bullshit with a ‘sample’ questionnaire (to see how lame the site is). We definitely need to pick our battles. Good that the lawsuit forced them to add a gay counterpart (even if it is half-assed), but we shouldn’t join it, waste money on it, or allow them to advertise it in the gay press. Fuck ‘em. Hard.

      Apr 9, 2009 at 2:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Will Dean
      Will Dean

      I agree with you, Chad, and will go one step further. It’s disturbing when people dismiss a possible connection with someone based on race. Including “No blacks, Asians, etc.” in a profile dismisses entire races of people.
      It basically says there isn’t one gay, black man — out of all the gay black men in the world — that the person who wrote the profile finds attractive or desirable or compatible. But he hasn’t met every gay black man or gay Asian man or gay white man for that matter. So what is that attitude based on if not stereotypes and racist beliefs?
      What’s equally disturbing to me is the friends and other “more enlightened” people who write off that attitude with “Oh, it’s just a preference.” It’s not just a preference. Was it just a preference of white restaurateurs of the Deep South to only serve white customers?
      Maybe I’m taking it too seriously. Perhaps it is only a matter of people being shallow and not seeing potential dates/partners beyond the boys on gay magazine covers and in the ads.
      None of those publications or gay dating Web sites adequately serve the full spectrum of LGBT people.
      I’m done.

      May 6, 2009 at 11:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      Why would anyone want to support bigots and help them prosper financially? I say they can take their 6 months free and shove it where the sun don’t shine. I hope these homophobes go out of business.

      May 7, 2009 at 12:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • victor
      victor

      hi

      Jul 25, 2009 at 12:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chad Goller-Sojourner
      Chad Goller-Sojourner

      Well I’m simply overjoyed that eHarmony’s Gay Dating Site is here, it’s comforting to know the Gay community has tackled enough of the important stuff, to devote time to suing straight dating sites for equal protection. On a positive note perhaps I can find a husband before my 20th High School Reunion next month. Or I could just hire a hot hooker. Anyone know how to set up a Hire Chad A Hot Hooker Paypal Account?

      Jul 27, 2009 at 3:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hamma
      hamma

      iam gay and i want to meet gays

      Jul 29, 2009 at 4:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Woodstock
      Woodstock

      This win of the installation of “gay” Harmony is not more equal than a discontinued dam, built by beavers. When one stick has dislodged itself from the dam, a little water seeps through to the other side. The more sticks dislodged, no matter how, the more water seeps to the other side. Eventually, the dam becomes an ‘am. The water turns back into the flow it originally traced. There will always be dams built, and they, too will eventually break down. gay~harmony is merely one more stick-released. And, that’s a good thing. No matter how the dam comes apart or who built the dam, in the end the water carves out its path. And, those who want to get their feet wet …

      “Let’s hear it for all those beavers!”

      Sep 2, 2009 at 2:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • raye raye
      raye raye

      4 years single and ready to venture out. blue eyes blond hair 135lbs 40 years young looking for any age come have fun with me looking for right one too travel w/ me over christmas. only honest and special need apply

      Nov 13, 2009 at 6:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul
      Paul

      RewardingLove.com is a much better choice for us! I just wanted to inform everyone of a wonderful and superior matchmaking site called RewardingLove.com which welcomes everyone equally.

      I’d like to ask you to take a quick look at it, and if you like the concepts, then please tell others about it.

      I was very happy to find it. They offer private matching, with a better scientific system than other sites. They seem to operate with integrity, and are currently offering completely free subscriptions (with no annoying advertising) to singles in the United States and Canada.

      It’s a new service which launched in September, and it needs many sincere singles to sign up so that it can grow and compete. I’d greatly appreciate you spreading the word about it, if you like it… I believe you will appreciate that it stands for equality and doesn’t discriminate like other sites do. Plus, there are a number of other ethical aspects to it that make it beneficial to people and a better choice for everyone looking for love online.

      Nov 17, 2009 at 2:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • koko
      koko

      Homosexuality is the opposite of diversity. ‘Gay marriage’ is called same-sex. Same (i.e. homo) is the opposite of diverse. In fact, homosexuality is diversity-intolerant, by definition. The opposite sex is always rejected by a homosexual person, without regard to the individual merit of that person, just because they are of a different gender.They dont agree
      Sexy Ass Porn Ass or some else.Since there is zero gender diversity in any same-sex union, same-sex unions also contain zero gender equality. As a result, genders are sex-segregated into male and female dominated institutions.

      Dec 13, 2009 at 9:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • STEVEN GARCIA
      STEVEN GARCIA

      QUE ME DEN CANDELA,QUE ME DEN CASTIGO

      Jan 2, 2010 at 11:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • STEVEN GARCIA
      STEVEN GARCIA

      Hola,soy cubano criado en miami,soltero en busca de algo estable,medico de profesion,me gusta la naturaleza,playa,montar bicicletas y compratir con la familia y mis amistades,si estas interesado,comunicate con migo

      Jan 2, 2010 at 11:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • nikko
      nikko

      You’re wrong, KOKO. Same sex couples are by defintion equal because of the genders involved. Male/female coupling are inherently imbalanced and not complementary. It’s a heterosexual illusion, and certainly not based on reality or nature. And what’s with that vile hardcore porn site link? What’s that about, the beauty of vulgar smut? Please.

      May 11, 2010 at 3:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.