[I'm with Frank Pittman. People who believe they can (or should) sustain romantic love indefinitely are fooling themselves. It is the "caring love" that the Harleys describe that is sustaining.
Thank goodness this is a load of CRAP. Anyone who has actually used this program in the way it is intended will tell you that it is ROMANTIC LOVE that is sustaining. Caring love does not sustain anything other than peaceful co-existance. That is not what Dr Harley subscribes.
2funny, Mel! I don't really think that the Harleys are so inflexible that they can't apply different approaches 2 solving marital problems. That was my experience with Steve, at any rate.
2long, isn't it kind of bad form to sit here on this website, provided by Dr. Harley, and deny everything that Dr. Harley stands for? I'm talking about romantic love.
If you wanted to question Dr. Harley's conclusions in open debate, I'm sure most of us would welcome that. But you're not rationally analyzing and considering objections to Dr. Harley's conclusions, nor did you make any real attempt to answer the objections MelodyLane offered to what you were saying.
You're passing a completely fraudulent claim that pursuing a different GOAL is simply another APPROACH. The GOAL of Marriage Builders is Romantic Love. Practitioners who deny that Romantic Love is realistic are obviously not merely following a different approach to the same goal; they must have a completely different goal (or no goal) in mind, since they deny that that the Marriage Builders goal is possible!
Misrepresenting this denial of the Marriage Builders goal as different "approach" and making ad hominem attacks at anyone who disagrees with those quotes as "inflexible" may fill some need you have, but it does not represent your case well, and it makes you look quite ungracious to your hosts, Dr. Harley's Marriage Builders practice, which believes in the goal of romantic love.
Can you explain why you think denying the possibility of romantic love is a valid way to approach the goal of romantic love?
