Having seen this said a number of times and having seen it said by Markos on a thread last night, I have come to wonder where this comes from. I have not seen it in the articles and I have not seen Dr. Harley say this in the Love Busters or Fall in Love, Stay in Love book.

Essentially it's 'we can fall in love with anyone that meets our needs...man, woman, animal (yes, Markos said animal)'

This is bothering me because essentially it's saying that we don't have a sexual identity, that we are all one need away from engaging in homosexual activity or deviant activity (in the case of animals or children/teenagers). Look, we�re either gay or straight or there are a few of us that are bi-curious. For those that are truly gay, homosexuality is not a choice�it is what it is.

There are sick stories all over the place...I don't think a car can meet needs, yet there are people who, erm...

ANYONE can have a psychotic break. That is most certainly true.

But everyone's needs are different. I don't think my needs are the same as a sexual deviant's needs. I think that's the key in that statement.

So, a person may be one need away from that, but that particular need is the individual's specific need. And it needs to be met the way that person wants it met.

*I* think that you already have to have that need, that desire to have it met in a way only a homosexual (or any other "type") can, for a same sex affair to happen.

Not sure if I made sense, I'm still half asleep

k_t, I just listened to the radio show from 12 April 2011. The topic is listed as "there is no intimacy in their marriage".

During the call, Dr Harley raised the possibility that the H (the spouse with no sexual interest in his wife) was attracted to men. He made a similar statement to the one markos cites above. I found it helpful to hear Dr Harley's explanation of same-sex attraction in his own words. I think you might find it beneficial to listen to this. http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/marriage-builders-radio/

He also explained his much-derided claim that he can re-train somebody who is interested in the same sex (he was again talking about a man in this case) to find sex with his wife pleasurable and to give up same-sex thoughts.

It should be borne in mind that Dr Harley is talking about men who are married and who want to have fulfilling marriages but who have same-sex thoughts or acts. He is not advocating grabbing perfectly contented gay men off the streets and forcibly converting them to heterosexuality.

If a couple goes to Dr Harley in crisis because of the H's interest in men and lack of interest in sex with his wife, Dr Harley works with them to create the fulfilling marriage that they desire. He does not tell the man that he is gay and his best course is to accept that, and that for the wife, the best course is divorce.

He is working with couples that choose to go to him, and they do that because they are not quite ready to let go of the marriage. He reports "scores" of cases in which his behavioural re-training has worked to focus the man's sexual attention on to his wife. I don't know why he is ridiculed for saying that he has done this. Do people think he is actually making up his data?

Hey, kilted, you are to be commended for starting a new thread to discuss this rather than being disruptive. Thank you for being a great guy!


I don't remember what I said specifically on that thread, but the way I remember Dr. Harley saying it, he didn't even limit it to animals. I think he was implying fetishes with inanimate objects.

Specifically I've heard Dr. Harley talk about this on the radio show. There is a wealth of information and Harley opinions offered on the radio show that don't show up here so much. It's free and being a regular listener is awesome! The paid archive is also less than $100 a year and has more hours than you'll ever be able to listen to. The show I was citing was from 2006, but I know there were some on the subject last year.

Dr. Harley may also discuss this in Defending Traditional Marriage. I don't know, because I haven't bought this book. I've actually shied away from it because I'm not entirely sure I agree with Dr. Harley politically and wasn't sure what I would think about it, but I've seen enough to know that there's probably some information there I'd like to see some day.


I really don't know what the scientific evidence says. I know that a gay friend recently told me that evidence shows that if one identical twin is gay there's only something like a 30% chance the other will be, so if that is true, it sounds like the cause is not genetic. I know that media headlines sensationalize and manipulate scientific claims all the time (http://www.xkcd.com/882/) and so I try to always reserve judgment on things nowadays until I have checked it out for myself. Years ago Prisca and I researched the subject of labor and birth extensively, and discovered that even though actual scientific studies universally pointed to particular conclusions, the American medical establishment completely rejected those conclusions, which was very disturbing, so I always consider that a "consensus" among an establishment may be wrong and subject to change down the road.

The way I would reword what I've heard from Dr. Harley is probably not the way he would say it, but I take away the idea that everyone is potentially bisexual, that if someone were to entertain a particular sexual appetite they might find that appetite becoming stronger and stronger. Given that the American LGBT community also believes that people can find out or admit that they are gay or bisexual I don't see that this in and of itself should be that controversial an idea. If someone can think they are hetero and be wrong and discover they are gay, then I don't see what's wrong with suggesting to someone who thinks that they are gay that they might in fact also be capable of attraction to the opposite sex. It would certainly help marriages if a person who has had a same-sex sexual experience can in fact become attracted to their opposite-sex spouse, and Dr. Harley claims to have helped achieve this in numerous cases.

I do think Dr. Harley says that the "threshold" for the feeling of romantic love (attraction) toward a person of the same sex varies from person to person, i.e., for some people it would take a TON of conditioning to exercise the potential for same sex attraction to the point where they are attracted, and for others the threshold might be much lower. But it sounds to me like he is saying everyone is essentially at some spot in a continuum of sexual attraction, which is rather similar to the belief I've heard expressed in the LGBT community that everyone's sexual identity is unique and is on a continuum rather than fitting rigorous polar definitions.

It begins around 22:00. Very interesting!

What did you mean by "sexual deviant"? Were you talking about homosexuals?

Okay. But doesn't anyone find it odd that men specifically would even have a passing curiousity about being with another man? I listened to most of the Dr. Harley segment.

I just can't see a legitimately straight man even having a romantic feeling for another man even if he was meeting his top ENs (AS and SF aside).

We're not living in Brokeback Mountain in which we are "wow, I've never realized I had feelings for a man" have an affair with another man and then go back home to our wives.

I don't understand your point, k_t. The series of statements above do not seem to be making a point.

Dr Harley says that he has helped many marriages where the man has been attracted to other men. He successfully helps the man to learn to have a fulfilling sexual relationship with his wife. He doesn't seem to need to define him as a "legitimately straight man".

Do you have an argument or disagreement with what Dr Harley says he has accomplished?

I think Dr. Harley only concentrates on the fact that there's an affair and not the sexual identity (other than he delved into the molestation issue).

Maybe I'm just too black and white on this in that straight men don't fantasize about having sex with other men.

I am curious now as to how many men that Dr. Harley has dealt with has had an affair with another man.

But I'm not sure this thread will really go anywhere so it's prob not worth persuing anymore.

I have a disagreement with the idea of reforming homosexuals (and FYI- a man who's attracted to men is gay, or bisexual, not straight and confused and thus 'fixable'). You can PRETEND to be straight, live a straight lifestyle, but if you are a homosexual that's what you are! So the question is not really, 'can men train themselves to enjoy sex with their wives and enjoy sex with women', but 'is that something anyone should do?', or 'is it fair for someone to feel they need to deny or repress their sexuality or that this sexuality is somehow wrong?". I would claim a resounding no to both of those questions. But I'm not the men in question going to therapy either (I'm a long time open bisexual in a straight monogamous marriage- but I would never claim to or seek to erase any physical desires for women just because I married a man and have vowed to only have sex with him).

I have never understood the logic behind these kind of statements. Why can't the reverse be true? Why can't a person PRETEND to be homosexual, live a gay lifestyle, but if you are heterosexual thats what you are! Is there some special and magic human trait that ONLY applies to homosexuality but nothing else? That is not rational. It could just as easily be said that if a person was once heterosexual "that is what you are!!" I think folks are in the habit of just accepting such stereotypes at face value without question.

Much of what we have been taught about homosexuality is little more than cultural sterotypes.

Even so, here is Dr Harley's position on the subject:

Aradia, Dr Harley helps men who are married who go to him. They go to him for help because they do not want to give up on their marriages just yet.

You say "the question is not really, 'can men train themselves to enjoy sex with their wives and enjoy sex with women', but 'is that something anyone should do?'"

Well, if a married couple is attempting to have a sexually fulfilling marriage, or to save their marriage after a same-sex affair, then they must have sexual fulfilment within that marriage. They must take their focus off other people and place it on each other.

This is "something that anyone should do" IF they are seeking to stay married and be happy and fulfilled in that marriage.

Would you agree that you have exercised a choice about how you will live? Haven't you chosen to be in a monogamous, lifelong marriage, despite other options that were open to you?

Agree w/sugar cane, it's their choice but not one I would make.

MelodyLane it can go the other way around! Gay men can pretend to be straight and live straight lifestyles also but it does not change their innate orientation. I have to say I disagree with the doctor on this one. His logic is not 100% solid- for example in the last paragraph he's confusing gender changing operations with changing ones sexuality when the two are completely separate things. He's also pushing the 'thinking themselves gay' myth, if someone straight has one gay experience born out of childhood curiosity they will suddenly be changing their own brains to believe that gay is the way to be. LOL!! Yeah right! Do you think gay children who have a sexual experience with a member of the opposite sex think themselves into being straight? There's absolutely no science whatsoever to support that.

And believe it or not, there IS a gene, and they are closer to discovering it every day (yes people really ARE born gay). www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/15/have-scientists-found-gay-gene

I would just have easily married a woman if SHE had been the love of my life. It turned out it was a man. That doesn't change my orientation.

But who would pretend to be a homosexual and engage in sexual relations that repulses them (how many straight men would really pretend to be gay and ummmm...have sex with men)?

Who would pretend to be straight and engage in sexual relations that repulse them? The door swings both ways. Gay sex is not more "gross" than straight sex. If you agree with Dr. Harley then gay people should be able to learn to enjoy straight sex too, so you've anwered your own question.

That question can be asked in the reverse, though. Who would pretend to be heterosexual and engage in sexual relations that repulse them? It doesn't make any sense to say that only a homosexual cannot change his orientation and not the reverse.

Well, I'm a heterosexual male, so I do think that male gay sex is gross. I have some gay friends that gross out when it comes to man/woman sex.

Strangely enough, at my wifes place of employment there have been 3 husbands that once the kids were out of the house announced that they have been closet gay and could not maintain the straight lifestyle any longer because they have been miserable and faking it. And since the kids were out they felt they were now free to go and live teh lifestyle they really want.

Strange world sometimes. I don't understand faking your sexual orientation.

Oh I agree with you completely on this point. I do think though that men are more inclined to persue a straight relationship/marriage because it is expected they will do this (wife/children). Typically you hear the man say he was ashamed and thought it was a phase/didn't want anyone to know/etc.

I know that (well I think) my dad wouldn't be ashamed if I was gay. But he would be disapointed. Now my grandfather and grandmother on teh other hand would be ashamed and disown me if I were gay.

Ditto!

You are exaggerating his statement and can't back up your own comments with "science." He did not say that at all. He stated that he had clients who believed they might be homosexual because they had had a pleasurable homosexual experience in childhood. But thats ok if you don't agree with him. What matters is that Dr Harley is able to save marriages and change sexual orientiations.


Actually that has never been proven and even in the article you posted it said: "Park said he now wants to research whether this finding has any relevance for humans." The homosexual community has made this claim for the last 25 years, in my awareness, and have yet to "prove it." You say that there is such a gene, and then state that it has not been discovered.... hmmmmmmm How do you know this if it has not been discovered? Isn't that wishful thinking rather than "science?"

I agree. But we also have communities, and I have lived in them, where homosexuality is celebrated and encouraged. They are treated like special citizens. What is it they say, "be loud and proud!!" And they are. So there would great incentive to swing to the other side. My point is that it is not rational to say that if you swing on the homo side you are a homosexual and can't change, but the reverse is somehow not true.

Yeah but you also lived through a time when they thought it was for some reason okay to let women vote, start wearing shoes, and leave the kitchen!

bwahahahahah

shaddup!!

That's an interesting perspective ... to me, I would seek to erase any physical desires for anyone (man, woman, child, muppet, whatever) else other than my spouse. I would seek to reinforce desires for my wife and diminish any other competing desires. That's part of my agreement to forsake all others.

Which is it? If they are closer to discovering it every day, then they have not discovered it.


How about a reference to a published study in a journal rather than Fox news? Not to offend anyone, but I'm not personally comfortable with accepting Fox news as a scientific source.

Has anyone actually published a study on that question? If no studies have been published, then there certainly wouldn't be any evidence one way or the other.

Have you reviewed the scientific literature on the subject?

I'm with you, kilted; I'd be real interested in seeing Dr. Harley's data on this. There are claims, but to my knowledge none of what he's got on this has been published as a study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or even self-published. I doubt that would ever happen because I assume the data is highly confidential.

Anyway, I would say that for someone who is interested in learning to suppress a same-sex attraction, it seems like giving Dr. Harley's approach might well be worth it. If it doesn't really work, then it doesn't really work, but what would they have to lose?

Pool, R. (1993). Evidence for homosexuality gene. Science (New York, N.Y.), 261(5119), 291-292.

From the Fox News article, link provided;

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/11/62

Another article;


Turner, W. J. (1995). Homosexuality, type 1: An Xq28 phenomenon. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24(2), 109.

HOWEVER, the process which the "homosexuality gene" was hypothesized have been under scrutiny for candidate selection and possible outside influence.


That's what I found in 5 minutes of using an academic database search.

As a funny side note, the gene "identified" is referred to as the FucM gene.

Thanks, Hold, for taking it up a notch to science. That provides us a real basis for evaluating the claim.

Leaving out the moral questions, my simplistic engineer mind sees sexual orientation no different than being attracted to other physical attributes. I am attracted to women with red hair.

But I don't act on every attraction. My wife would have a fit. So I can control my behavior and not act on every visually appealing woman.

I might find someone with jet black hair attractive as well. Again, since I love my wife, I don't act on that.

I don't see homosexuality as anymore than being attracted to certain physical or even personality traits. Some choose to act on their attractions.

If I were in "the market" I think I could find a blonde attractive, so I don't think I'm "hard wired" to like red or black hair. I've simply chosen or allowed myself to find such women physically attractive.

I suspect that those who find the same sex attractive have a lot of that same thing going on. It's my belief that it's more nurture than nature that drives same sex attractions. Which means, if someone wants to, they can change their thinking to find others attractive.

It's a behavior. Just as Dr Harley teaches behaviors to help folks have a better marriage, folks can learn behaviors to find same-sex or opposite-sex individuals attractive.

I'm not saying it's easy. But I really don't buy that it's a genetic based forgone conclusion. Just as I don't think my finding redheads attractive is a result of my genetics.

Actually the homosexual community does not want the gene to be discovered because if it is then there can be a screening for it and Christians can and many will abort the gay fetuses. And did you know that almost all pharmaceutical drugs and modern medical inventions are based on discoveries in vivisection? Many times human models are NEVER used to assess the validity of these discoveries. Now I might agree with you that your ideal of what the "science" is (human trials) is better, but it's not the way modern medicine works.

The other point, which has already been raised is that heterosexuals choose to act or not act on their desires. Getting married doesn't do something magical that negates that I find certain physical and personality traits attractive.

What changes is MY thinking. I'm married, I made a promise, a vow to my wife. I have a family. No matter how many hot redheads throw themselves at me, seeking the famous family baked beans recipe, I will not act on those advances and betray my wife and family.

It takes more than just thinking that thought. One has to guard their marriage. But if it can be done successfully by heterosexuals, then why would we doubt that someone who finds someone of the same sex attractive can do the same and not act on those attractions?

Oh good God NO! Sexuality makes us HUMAN, it's a perfectly natural thing! It's part of who I *am* which is what he signed up for. How I choose to act on that is one thing, as I have chosen to be monogamous, but the entire concept of eradicating a certain sexuality is just total nonsense, you cannot change someone's sexual orientation! No sooner could I stop being bisexual because I married a man and vowed to be monogamous, then I could stop knowing how to ride a bicycle or pour a glass because he'd rather I didn't do that either :p I can promise not to do any of those things if he doesn't want me to, but it doesn't change the programming. Sexuality even moreso. You just flat out cannot change it. You can hide it, camoflauge it, fake it- but your sexuality does NOT just "change". It's impossible.

Nobody would demand one because there is no debate that being straight is natural to the straight community, and gay people don't make the ridiculous assumption that there is something 'wrong' with straight people (the way heterosexuals think of homosexuals). I'm telling you, decades from now, the sooner the better, people who think of homosexuals as deviants are going to be considered just as bad as racist bigots. More and more people in the United States are waking up to the fact that homosexuality has been around for eons, is never going away, and is for whatever reason, very much natural and part of who someone is from birth, and they're accepting it. Amen for that!

The question many are asking here is why do folks consider attraction to a particular gender immutable, while most would agree we can change what physical or personality traits we find attractive?

It's not consistent. If what I found attractive when I was a teen is not the same as what I find attractive approaching 50, then why wouldn't that apply to what gender I find attractive?

I tend to believe it's a behavior, not a foregone conclusion.

There are many things that have been around for eons. Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't make it good or acceptable.

As one who has faith, I tend to believe what the scriptures say. However, I don't think that those who practice homosexuality are any more of a sinner than anyone else.

So I can believe something is wrong, that something is not-normal (is that any less offensive than deviant?) and still NOT be bigoted because I know that we are ALL sinners. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike are sinners. So I'm neither better nor worse when it comes to any alleged moral high ground.

So don't be tempted to use faulty logic and assume that those who believe in engaging in homosexual acts is sinful are saying they don't sin.

Most I know who hold this belief are fully aware that they too are sinners, and not morally superior.

"Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't make it good or acceptable"- no matter what you wrote after this, that line proves your discrimination. There are a lot of things in the Bible that we know now are wrong- it condones beating and stoning women, slavery, all kinds of horrible acts. Most sensible modern day christians remove the hatred and violence promoted in the Bible and follow the positive affirmations instead. I would urge you to do the same.

This is a superb post, EE. It is the best explanation of what married people must do about our attractions that I have seen anywhere.

We are all attracted to other people even after marriage, except in rare cases where some biological event has killed our sex drive. In order to protect our marriages or to recover from affairs, we need to shore up our boundaries against indulging in those attractions, in our minds or outwardly in our behaviour.

We have to take the focus off the other person(s) and refocus on our spouse. We would never say that the man who finds himself drawn to other women (surely most married men) should "be honest with himself" or "not deny his instincts" and have sex with other women. We would urge him to work on the marriage, because there are children to whom he has responsibilities, and because the life-long rewards of the happy marriage are worth the work. We (on Marriage Builders, anyway) wouldn't immediately say that he should divorce and do what he wants - not when there are vows, and a wife and family to consider.

That's a really easy assumption for a straight person to make, that it's just a 'behavior'. Because it's automatically acceptable to be straight (think how you would feel if someone was calling your sexual attraction to women in general just a behavior that you could totally change and start having sex with men instead, no big deal). When I was a teenager and came out as bisexual my brother said "you're not bisexual, how do you even KNOW? It's just something you're doing not what you are, what you are is straight, you're born that way." and I said to him "how do you know you're straight and not gay? If you had a gay experience wouldn't you still be straight?" he said he "just knows" but it's "not the same thing" for homosexuals. He has a different opinion now that he's grown and has had more homosexual acquaintences and learned more about gender and sexuality as a topic.

I'm kind of leaning on, a lot of people in these boards are church goers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know any people in my personal life who are not religious who actually believe there is something abnormal or wrong or changeable about homosexuality.

Aradia, you are arguing against something that is not being argued here.

We are arguing that the concept of a fixed "sexuality" is irrelevant when it comes to encouraging couples to fulfil each other's emotional needs as they must have done at some point if they were happy enough to marry. If they met each other's needs to the point that they once were in love enough to marry, then they can learn to meet them again and restore their marriage.

All married people should guard themselves against the intimacy and flirting that leads to an affair. We ALL find other people attractive and can choose to focus on those attractions, or we can stay well away from the danger zone of other people and focus on our spouse. This is about behaviour, not sexuality.

You have chosen to focus on your opposite-sex spouse and stay faithful to him. That is a CHOICE. Whether or not you have changed your sexuality from bi-sexual to heterosexual is irrelevant. You wil have to stay away from intimacy (including intimate conversation) with other people and focus your attention on your spouse if you are to stay married, sexually fulfilled in that marriage and monogamous.

We all have to do that. Some of us (like my H) do not do that and thus have affairs. If those people (like my H) want to restore the marriage because of the happiness it brings them, and will bring them in a more profound way than sex in hotels with strangers ever will, they will have to actively focus their attention away from other people and onto their spouse. There is no other way to make marriage work except to deny the urge to destroy it by having sex with other people!

I'm not really sure that you can say how sexuality is not relevant to the discussion when it clearly is. I certainly agree that maintaining monogamy is important- if you wish to remain married. However if I was homosexual I certainly would not want to remain married to someone of the opposite sex because it would be inherently unfair to the both of us (not to mention the message it would send to our children). That's just my personal opinion

Aradia, nobody forced you or anybody else who has an attraction to people of the same sex to get married. Nobody here on Marriage Builders is arguing that people attracted to others of the same sex should be forced to change their sexuality.

What we ARE talking about here on Marriage Builders is people who are MARRIED and who are seeking to find ways to stay in the relationships they chose, that they encouraged a spouse to join with them, and in which, in most cases, they had children.

THOSE people, Aradia - those people who have a spouse whose life has been devoted to the marriage for 10 or 20 years, and who have children whose lives will be badly affected by divorce, and who want help with avoiding the misery of marital breakdown and affairs - those are the people who seek help here at Marriage Builders. The sign on the door - Marriage Builders - says it all; building and rebuilding marriage is what people come here for.

The people who come here made a choice to marry and they are looking for help with the marriage. Dr Harley's approach, which we posters try to help with, is to focus our sexual attention on our spouse and only our spouse. There must be hundreds of people that we cross paths with every day that we could find attractive if we looked hard enough. We could talk, flirt and have intimate conversations with those people to the point of an affair if we do not recognise the danger in those behaviours, or we believe that we should be free to "be ourselves". We knew we were giving up freedom to sexually engage with other people when we married, and nobody forced us to marry.

Affairs, marriages without sex and divorce are also unfair to the spouse who married in good faith, and to the children. These events are devastating to people's lives. People realise that the outcome of divorce will not make them or their children happy, and that is why to go to Dr Harley or come to this forum for help. They do not want to inflict the unfairness of "finding themselves' on people who depend on them and who trusted that they meant what they said when they married and embarked on a life together.

You are talking about a man who was able to have a loving relationship with a woman to the point that he was able to persuade her that he loved her, and was able to make her want to marry him, and they were able to have sex to the point of having children. If that love and sex was possible to create in the past then it is posible to create it again, regardless of how he defines his sexuality today.

A lot of people bury their true sexualities for many years, especially since being gay is still not even that socially acceptable. Those people who have put decades into straight marriage only to 'realize' or finally come clean with the fact that they are homosexual, have every right to go to counseling to try to save their straight marriage if that's what they choose. But is this a better thing to do for the children than getting a divorce? That's highly debatable. The message you would be sending to your children is suppressing yourself is the right thing to do. I think it's a contentious manner and not as simple as you are making it out to be. I'm all for monogamy but that doesn't mean I have to agree on this one, it seems very unfortunate to me for one to deny their sexuality (not sexual ACTS, but sexuality- straight men aren't attracted to men, LOL). I'd support anyone's right to hold their straight marriage together even if they are gay but it's a very sad thing and in my opinion a good divorce is better than a bad marriage when it comes to the children. That's all I'm saying Agree to disagree.

*matter

But what's more unfair, 'finding themselves' or living a lie with their spouse to appease them? Because you can't change your sexuality. And you may be 1) confusing love with marriage in this instance, marriage is a contract and many people marry not for love but for financial and cultural contracts, and 2) assuming that love can only be romantic. He could have deeply platonically loved his wife and was so ashamed of his sexuality that he forced himself to pretend he liked sex so as to keep her in his life. There are all kinds of love out there, he could be terrified to lose his best friend in his mind, not his lover, and so that's why he's keeping the marriage alive. He could also be scared of losing his children. There are many underlying motivating factors going on in this kind of scenario, I can only imagine. That's why I said, it's SAD.

"Finding themselves" is a hurl-inducing statement.

Repairing a marriage that's been affected by a homosexual affair sends a message to the children of "Make your commitments carefully and keep them, no matter your own selfish desires" which I think is an AWESOME message for children.

I personally don't know if 'stay married at ALL costs' is the right message for children. Sometimes divorce is warranted. And homosexual affairs don't happen- to straight men. No matter how anyone wants to ignore it sexuality comes into play here and the fairness of whether lying to yourself and living a lie with your spouse is the right thing to do or not. You can try to simplify that all you want but it's a very complicated emotional issue.

Marriage ALWAYS involves suppressing oneself, meaning not indulging in desires with other people. That is ALWAYS the right thing to do for the person who decided to marry.

Dr Harley and people who help others on this forum are not trying to keep people in bad marriages as opposed to having a good divorce. You are setting up a false dichotomy, in which those are the only two poles.

The goal is to help people have good marriages. Isn't that what you are seeking help with, by posting here?

Hear hear, CW.

My vows included appreciating the individual AS an individual, I do NOT believe that you need to suppress yourself to be married. And certainly I agree the goal of marriage builders is to help people have good marriages, but in my opinion the definition of a 'good marriage' does not include living a life of pretense which is what any gay person in a straight marriage is doing. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, sugarcane.

Wow, that seems to be a strong emotional reaction to my differing point of view. Rather intolerant. It is my marriage, after all, and it might be different than yours, and I should hope that is okay.


I'm missing the part where I said that sexuality was bad or unnatural.


Okay, so the terms of your marriage are different than mine. Prisca signed up for me doing my best to make sure that attractions to anyone else are never strengthened. I don't see that this difference between my marriage and your marriage means we need to be disrespectful toward each other or that we can't discuss our differences.


You cannot prove a point by repeated assertion, either.


I think I pretty much said above that I'm coming to believe that everyone is bisexual or potentially bisexual, so I don't think I'm asking anyone to be bisexual. I'm simply suggesting that certain habits of attraction might be harmful to marriage and don't need to be reinforced.

That's fine. I didn't ask you to agree with me. You posted an argument and I posted mine. There is no need for us to agree, and I wasn't seeking that.

Wow, that seems to be a strong emotional reaction to my differing point of view. Rather intolerant. It is my marriage, after all, and it might be different than yours, and I should hope that is okay.


I'm missing the part where I said that sexuality was bad or unnatural.


Okay, so the terms of your marriage are different than mine. Prisca signed up for me doing my best to make sure that attractions to anyone else are never strengthened. I don't see that this difference between my marriage and your marriage means we need to be disrespectful toward each other or that we can't discuss our differences.


You cannot prove a point by repeated assertion, either.


I think I pretty much said above that I'm coming to believe that everyone is bisexual or potentially bisexual, so I don't think I'm asking anyone to be bisexual. I'm simply suggesting that certain habits of attraction might be harmful to marriage and don't need to be reinforced. [/quote]

I just have a vibrant personality, I'm not being defensive :p in the "oh good god no!" I probably say that multiple times a day, it's just the way I speak, I'm very animated (so is my mom, I got it from her).

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers identify sexual orientation as "not merely a personal characteristic that can be defined in isolation. Rather, one�s sexual orientation defines the universe of persons with whom one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling relationships":

Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is always defined in relational terms and necessarily involves relationships with other individuals. Sexual acts and romantic attractions are categorized as homosexual or heterosexual according to the biological sex of the individuals involved in them, relative to each other. Indeed, it is by acting�or desiring to act�with another person that individuals express their heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. This includes actions as simple as holding hands with or kissing another person. Thus, sexual orientation is integrally linked to the intimate personal relationships that human beings form with others to meet their deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behavior, these bonds encompass nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment.

Case No. S147999 in the Supreme Court of the State of California, In re Marriage Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365(�) - APA California Amicus Brief - As Filed" (PDF). http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/...chological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf. Retrieved 2010-12-21.


Best

It's really not that complicated at all. In fact, homosexual affairs are much easier to bust up than hetero affairs. The affairs are much shorter lived than hetero affairs. Adultery is all about sexuality and it is not "living a lie" to give it up, it is therapeutic. Dr Harley is a clinical psychologist and he has saved many such marriages.

EnlightenedEx was right, we all have various "attractions" at various points in our lives, doesn't mean we are condemned by them.

That's pretty much exactly what Dr. Harley says, and I don't think any straights here are offended by it. I could be wrong.

All that this is saying is that you cannot just "be gay" or "be straight". You come to be defined as heterosexual or homosexual by entering into relationships with other people. Heterosexuality and homosexuality do not exist as states without the relationships through which they are expressed.

Why did you post that? How does that relate to the discussion being had here?

Aradia, have you read the basic concepts here? It's one of the things you agree to do when you sign up for the forum.

I think it's pretty evident when people are debating and repeatedly disagree on the same points, that when one of them says "we'll just have to agree to disagree" it means "I'm so done talking to you now, we're not going to see eye to eye and you're bringing nothing new to the table, so this conversation is just a waste of my time." I have better things to do than uh-huh, nuh-uh, uh-huh, nuh-uh all day. So bye bye

Yes of course I did.

That is indeed a waste of anyone's time. I don't know why you chose to come here and do that and it is good that you have decided to stop.

Hi,
I think I struck a nerve here.
I posted it b/c of this statement:
Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age


Because, respectfully in my opinion you can not change your sexuality just like you can not change your gender or age.

Aradia, you were the first one who used the phrase "agree to disagree," here.

Actually, you can change your gender through surgery (Chas Bono, anyone?), and I lie about my age all the time! Those are ACTIONS TAKEN, just like sexual actions. They can be chosen.

Here perhaps this will explain things better
This is from the American Psych Assoc

Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles;
most people experience little or no sense of
choice about their sexual orientation.http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx
(PDF file)

True surgery can now do this but you still are inherently born male or female.

I am going through the APA site and reading that sexuality it not a choice or behavior but they way a person is. That there is no choice in your sexual orientation.

The National Mental Health Association says, �Most researchers believe sexual orientation is complex, and that biology plays an important role. This means that many people are born with their sexual orientation, or that it�s established at an early age.�

I don't know that you did - but I think you were HOPING to.

Why didn't you quote the rest of the statement? It goes on to say that sexual orientation is discussed as a characteristic, but it canot stand as a characteristic outside of the relationships through which it expressed . It only becomes an "orientation" once it is expressed in relationships with other people.

I still don't understand how that statement was intended to contribute to the discussion.

Zing!

Caught the opening!


Wooohooo!


Word choice, word choice...


Yes, you can have your innie converted to an outie, and vice-versa - however, neither of those surgeries will allow you to produce the reproductive cells that go along with the external equipment.

Oh, yeah. You will also only have the external equipment.

Sorry, ladies... no pregnant men on these boards.

Right?

Um, prison anyone? Artificially remove the entire female population, and what do you get?

The qualifiers in that statement make it hard to see any conclusive evidence of fixed, polar, unchangeable, genetically-established sexualities.

In any case, the statement does not suggest that when a married couple consult Dr Harley, having had a marriage that started with ENs being met and feelings of love, and that included sexual acts and that now includes children, that Dr Harley should tell the man who has had a same-sex affair that he is gay and that the marriage should be ended.

There were once strong enough feelings for the couple to have married. There were on at least some occasions strong enough sexual feelings for the sexual act to be completed and children to have been created. Some element of the man's sexuality must have found his wife attractive enough for him to have fallen in love and persuaded her that he loved her enough that they could marry.

Dr Harley works with that element and he has been successful in restoring marriages after gay affairs, gay porn or other same-sex desires. What is your argument here? Do you wish to see those marriages abandoned? Why, if they can be saved?

There was more selective quoting by you from this paper:


But under the section "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation", the APA writes

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx#

The importance of that section was not in the final sentence, the one you chose to detach from the rest of the paragraph.

MelodyLane, thank you for sharing the excerpt from Defending Traditional Marriage! I've had the feeling a number of times that people here don't really know what Dr. Harley believes on this subject, so it will be good to have a definitive source to point them to. I've even gotten the sense from a couple of folks that they sort of felt betrayed to discover this, so I think it's good to put it more prominently out in the open. (Although the book has always been sitting there in the bookstore, it stood out to me, the first time I looked at the store.)

As I mentioned, Defending Traditional Marriage is essentially the only Marriage Builders book that I don't own ... any chance of someone posting the table of contents? The ToC isn't available on Amazon for this book as it is for many of Dr. Harley's other books.

This topic has wavered off course and I think a few important points have been missed as a result.

First off, let me say I am a strong supporter of gay rights including gay marriage. So please don't misunderstand what I am saying here.

Second, this board is about building and preserving marriages. The concepts described here are intended to help create and maintain loving marriages, and save them from destruction from things like affairs. People come here when their marriage is in trouble looking for advise to save it. Their troubles come in a variety of forms, but the basic concepts still hold.

It is not rare for someone who is intrinsically gay to have married due to society or religious pressures. While these may not be the best reasons for marriage, they are probably not the worst, either. They are certainly better than marrying for money or for a green card (at least in my opinion as I believe those reasons cheapen marriage but I digress). In any event, they have made a lifetime commitment to their spouse. If marriage is to count for anything at all, that commitment has to be important.

I also don't feel that being in a lifetime sexual commitment with someone who is not the gender you are attracted to is the worst possible tragedy in the world. It doesn't even rank up there with parapalegics or people who lost their sight, limbs etc in accidents. It is certainly unfortunate, but it's not the worst thing that can happen and it still goes back to the fact that they made the decision to marry in the first place!!!

I understand societal and religious pressures can be strong. But they exist in all facets of life. One has to make decisions carefully - especially decisions involving lifelong commitments. Once the decision is made, you can't go back.

Oh but in marriage you can. Divorce is easy. Sure it is, but what does that say about you (failure to follow through on commitment) and society (failure to support the institution of marriage). But that's another topic.

Anyway, it comes down to this: coming out of the closet is not a good reason to break up the marriage in and of itself. It is still walking out on your commitment. It is certainly possible to work torwards having a fulfilling marriage despite this. Parapalegics find a way to have a fulfilling life and their challenges are far, far greater. The key is that you have to WANT to work torwards that fulfilling marriage.

The message to children? That despite obstacles such as this, a marriage is worth working for and that a commitment - a vow - is something sacred that ought to be honoured if only for your own self integrity but also for those around you who will be adversely affected otherwise!

I don't think the important points you made have been missed, Tabby. I think they have been consistently and systematically made by supporters of Marriage builders to those who came seeking to disrupt.

I want to back you up further with a few different notions here;

Most identified behavioral genes aren't like marking a dead-set guarantee for a behavior, but more likely a behavioral set.

For instance; the "Type A" personality is a genetic behavioral set. This behavioral set often includes things like fearlessness, aggression, and/or lack of remorse.

In one setting, this behavioral set may lead a person to be; a firefighter, a police officer, a high-rise window washer, a soldier.

In another setting, this behavioral setting may lead a person to be; a gang member, a serial killer, a mafia hit-man.

These examples consider the tendency toward a certain behavioral set based on genetics, and take into account possible social/familial/cultural influence, but cannot predict cognitive influence.

For instance, when the predicted social/familial/cultural setting produces a person who adapts the opposite application of the behavioral set; the rich kid who is educated and has a good family becoming a serial killer, or the kid with an 8th grade education and a single mother who works three jobs, and happens to be from gangland who becomes a police officer.

Of course, it is worth mention that any singular genetic behavioral trait would also be working with or against other genetic markers for additional behavioral traits like; loyalty, morality, open-mindedness, etc.

All of these are then also affected by environmental factors.

In effect, the number of factors that influence a person's "being" are so vast and innumerable, that simply settling on 1 or 2 possible causes ignores way too many variables to be reliable.

Thus, the hetero male with homosexual pondering may be triggered by a sexless marriage, increased instances of stimulation of the curiosity, stress, depression, etc.

This does not mean that this man was "born gay," but born to behavioral tendencies toward homosexuality in given environs.

This is why behavioral therapy would reduce the curiosity - the conditions triggering the behavioral set are removed or improved.

Not the TOC, but an excerpt that shows the book's 4 parts:

http://www.christianbookpreviews.com/christian-book-excerpt.php?isbn=0800731093

Thanks, SC!

Hold, I noticed an assertion made earlier on this thread that only churchgoers would oppose the idea that people are born gay, so I was wondering if I could ask you a personal question: are you a churchgoer?

No, sir, I am not.

I am a hard-headed rationalist. Though I do not share the religious convictions of many, I also oppose the attack on faith that has been popularized by the rationalist community.

In short, I am a conundrum.

While I may not accept the supernatural underpinnings of scripture, I cannot, nor do I believe anyone else can, undermine the wisdom recorded therein.

If you would have asked some time ago, I would have argued for the "born gay" stance. However, it's through continuous and open-minded continuing education that my stance has changed.

This is why I will engage in these types of conversations, not to be correct, but to motivate me to find what the evidence supports, and to examine the factors involved.

Evidence supports the monster post you quote, sir.

Thanks, Hold, I appreciate the perspective. And I identify with being a conundrum.

I admit to not understanding everything about this topic. I do not know when my brother began feeling attraction to males. I do not know what it is like to be attracted to a female. I don't know if it is a "choice" or a tendency or set in stone. I tend to be more.....philosophically complex than to think it's some pavlovian simplcity (i.e. act like that and you are that).

I do know this......if DH came to me today and said "Luri/TB, the reason I have no desire for you, have been distant, blah blah blah is because I am really gay and I have spent 17 years of OUR LIVES lying about who I am....."

I would not spend 1 or 2 or 5 MORE years trying to fix him. I would leave.

So there ya go.

That's fine, TW. I think a lot of spouses would not be prepared to try to overcome this problem, and we have not said that they have to.

Dr Harley (and this forum) only offers his help to those that seek it, not to those that do not want it.

I find this a bit insulting, though. Nobody on this thread has argued "act like that and you are that". I hate to see arguments simplified to the point of distortion...and then to see the line that you are "more philosophically complex" than the "pavlovian simpletons" whose arguments (that were never made) you reject.

I'm not trying to be insulting, and maybe I should just bow out since I cannot fully explain exactly why this particular topic triggers me....a lot.

But I will say that I have spent much of the past several years of my life riding down the alcohol laden razor of mea culpa....and if my DH told me he was gay and the response was "poor closeted hubby; he just needs help," I would be royally ticked off.

That probably makes no sense since I can't be more specific, but as I have said before, it's always interesting which sins we rush to assist and and which ones mar us forever.

It's also upsetting b/c I know myself to have said many positive things about 99% of everything in the variety of books I have read related to this site, but one very personal trigger.....and well....

That's an awesome post, HHH, and I agree 100%. Folks have tried - and failed - for years to prove there is a "gene" that causes alcoholism. It would seem there is one because it tends to run in families. It sure runs in my own family and I am a recovering alcoholic. But what also runs in my family are very distinct character traits that are, no doubt, passed from generation to generation. So we have no way of knowing for sure.

Nor is it relevant how a person acquired such traits, because just having a specific trait does not mean one has to act on it. I may have been "born" an alcoholic [and maybe not] but I haven't had a drink in 26 years. Nor do I desire a drink. I have otherwise trained my brain to live without alcohol. I see no difference between homosexual desires and alcohol desires. It's just like anything else.

But what if he wanted help? No one can FORCE their "help" on anyone against their will, but would you deny him that help if he wanted it? Would you tell him he is damned to the life of a homosexual whether he likes it or not?

I often wonder where I would be today if someone had told me that when I realized I was an alcoholic? That I could "never change;" that I was just born like that. What kind of a person would try to convince me that I could never change if I wanted to? The kind of person who cares more about an agenda than a human life, that's who.

TW, what if the events unfolded more as they do when a spouse has an affair.

What if you discovered that your H was having a same-sex affair (or some degree of same-sex involvement) and when you confronted him, he said NOT

"I'm really gay and I have spent 17 years of OUR LIVES lying about who I am" but

"I'm sorry. I was attracted to him and yes, I've been having an affair, but I don't want our marriage to end. I don't want to go with him. I don't want to make a life with him, I never did. I want to stay with you. I was enjoyed having something exciting on the side but I love you and the children, and I don't want our marriage to end. Please don't leave me."

(In other words, pretty much what my H immediately said about his by then 2-year affair with a woman.)

Can you see yourself possibly thinking about what it would mean to end the marriage - the hurt to the children, the loneliness for you, the hurt to the wider family - and can you see yourself thinking about the fact that you did love each other deeply once, for a long time, and that your marriage was at some point built on genuine love? Can you see yourself asking whether you could try, just for a while, because you owe that much to your children? Can you see yourself reluctantly, with a huge amount of hurt, and with disbelief, giving your marriage a chance because he begged you to, and because you would do all you could to protect you children? Your knowledge that your marriage was once real might give you a hope that those feelings can be brought back. You don't know, in your grief, how it will be possible to overcome this, but you do love your H, you definitely love and would die for your children, and your H says he loves you and begs you to try.

Can you see yourself Googling mariage advice and finding Marriage Builders? Can you see yourself perhaps asking your H to counsel with the Harleys? Can you see yourself taking just a few steps towards rebuilding, even though you never thought that you would stay in this event?

Well, that's where MB might be able to help your marriage - when you are both desperate to try and when you both want to avoid the carnage of divorce.

I never thought, until it happened to me, that I would want to stay for one second and repair a marriage after an affair, and yet here I am. You might feel the same if your H begged you not to leave because of a discovery, and, thank God, Marriage Builders would be here to help you. People here would not say "ditch him; he's gay". Well, some would, but many wouldn't, and Dr Harley wouldn't.

Please remember Marriage Builders is here if you ever face that situation.

Actually, I see a lot of parallel bet. the idea of homosexual desire/activity and the alcohol thing. My bio mom is an alcoholic...and that increases the likelihood of me having that tendency....but that doesn't mean I was born an alcoholic or that I have to choice but to "embrace" my addictive tendency.

You make a very good point. Very good.

However, if I had a spouse who confessed to being homosexual....recovery from that type of sitch for me would mean that HE wanted ME....and only me, in every way. in the same way that an alcoholic who just is suppressing the urge to drink isn;t truly in recovery, a gay person who just chooses to grit their teeth, stay married, and suppress their feelings wouldn't be enough for me.

It would be like me staying with DH and just making myself stay away from the OM out of sheer force of will, but not really wanting my DH.

I don't know if that makes sense.

I agree with you, however, that is a false dichotomy. It is not either or. Just as an alcoholic can learn to live a happy, rich, full life without alcohol, a man with homosexual desires can live a happy, fulfilled hetero marriage. For some reason we have adopted the false notion that if a person has any homosexual tendencies at all, he is therefore, a homosexual even though he has shown hetero tendencies in his past. That is simply not true, nor is it rational because if homosexual leanings define a person, then so can heterosexual leanings.

TW, you would do well in discussions to stop distorting positions to the point where you characterise something that has never been said. It just ticks me off when someone caricatures the work I and others do on here in that way. When on MB has anyone EVER said "poor" ANYTHING about a WS or a spouse who is not putting his full efforts towards a marriage?

Yes, we would say 'he needs help", in the same way that a man like my H, who put all his energies towards outside factors and not his marriage, needed help. He needed the help of a kick up the backside, firm boundaries about what I would and would not tolerate, exposure, and public disgust at what he was doing. He needed "help" to see where his freebie sex with his skanky OW would leave him when the thrill of the affair died after I left him. He needed "help' to see how his children would shun him and how he would end up alone.

Do you really believe that people here would suggest you go easy on him?

Easy with a hammer, perhaps.

Again, I'm not sure that characterizes any responses, here.



I don't think it's the end of the world to personally disagree with some of what Dr. Harley says, Luri. I mean, I took a look at the opening of Defending Traditional Marriage and already saw some things I think I disagree with. And in this thread, I think the temptation has been really really strong for people to assume Dr. Harley is saying one thing when he's actually saying another.

Nothing wrong with talking it over.

Of course, it's hard to talk things over when you're holding out information on us. Nobody ever seems to let me get away with that anymore.

But that wasn't SugarCane's scenario, was it? SugarCane's scenario was someone who had a homosexual experience, not somebody who considers themselves to be gay.

And that question is at the heart of a lot of the disagreement around here. Do homosexual experiences make someone gay? Do heterosexual experiences make someone straight?

Look again real closely at SC's two possible responses from the husband in the scenario. In one, he says he is gay. In the other, he does not say that.

Sorry, TW, but recovery from an affair (or other involvement) NEVER means "HE wanted ME....and only me, in every way". Not at first, and not for a long time. The sad reality is that he wants his affair partner (or forums, or whatever) for a long time, as I'm sure you can remember. Only by focusing HARD on his marriage and enforcing rigid NC can the feelings of wanting somebody else go away, over time. If you make that demand at the beginning then you are bound to be disappointed.

What is she not being honest about?

Okay then......there have been times in my M when this has been the big dark fear that keeps me awake at night. I'll never ever know, even if I ask.

Funny.....when I confessed my A to DH in 2006, I said a lot of what SC mentioned: how terrible it was, how I wanted DH, how sorry I was, how I let my own selfishness and unhappiness dictate my choices in a terrible way.....

DH could have left. I had a couple of mutual friends who thought he should have left. The issue then wasn't whether it would hurt the kids or make him lonely...the issue was that I had made myself a tramp. Yes, he stayed, and yes, I hope I have made the right kind of amends. But nothing has ever been the same....and most of that is because of how raw I still am at times over the fact that I was actually capable of doing that.

The reason I will never ask, never probe too deeply, do my darndest after the recent trigger to forget this fear is because I DON'T want my children to hurt, to have a broken family, for our families to go through that, to be alone. And I messed up first....I think. I guess it depends on how you view mess ups. My kids were a baby and a toddler when his mess up happened....if it is considered a mess up. maybe not.

I know sin is sin regardless of gender or "flavor." I just wonder sometimes....if I had shared more of this....would it have made a difference? In my M? In.....I don't know.

Agree. Why are we placing an extraordinary super standard on recovery from a homosexual affair that does not exist in any heterosexual affair? Again, one unique standard applied to homosexuality and not to heterosexuality. That reflects an agenda rather than critical thinking, IMO.

I don't understand what any of this means. Can you be more specific? What is the "deep, dark fear?"

That the reason Dh doesn't desire me, the reason he married me, the reason he decided he wanted to date me, the reason he looked at porn and chatted with people who weren't female all those years ago.....

Is because he struggles with whether he even wants a woman. And that if he hadn't needed to be married to a woman because of the strict denom he was a minister in.....he wouldn't have ever married me.

And that even if that was true.....would it even matter anymore?

So now you know.

The "reason" being he is gay? Do you know any of this to be a fact? Or is this a guess on your part? And if it were true, of course it would matter. How could it not?

I don't know any facts. Maybe it's just speculation. maybe it's just a struggle he got over. Maybe It's just not stereotypical "guy" behavior and I am too narrow minded. Maybe I am still grasping for some reason that will keep me from not being good enough.

Maybe it does matter. Or maybe it did matter until I cheated.

Then what is your plan? Are you tempted to blame his homosexual tendencies for your affair? I know I would be tempted to do so - if I were you and I was allowed to BS myself long enough. And I am a good BS artist, too! Just not good enough to get away with it for long.

I was just thinking how I would be tempted to play that in my head if I were you. It would be much easier to "speculate" about such a thing, because if the truth were known, it might not be true at all, and there is the end of my blame game!

Not saying you are doing that, but that is sure what I would do in my own wayward days. Sure would be tempting!

TB, are extreme precautions in place to make sure he doesn't do it again? Is he completely transparent with you?

My A was all on me. 100%. Even if he had become a Chippendale and started a fling with Clay Aiken, my A would still be all on me.

The other stuff was a long time ago. I get paranoid from time to time.

Not good. Focusing on the present and not the past is a much healthier thing.

I would think that extraordinary precautions and complete transparency would go a long way toward reducing that, though.


That's true, but avoiding doing what is necessary to establish trust is not healthy. Avoiding finding proof for yourself is not healthy. Hope is not a plan, and hope alone can be very dangerous.

I had a few minutes to be bored today and look up some things about this issue.

Is sexual orientation a choice?

For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Some people report trying very hard over many years to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, with no success. For these reasons, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation for most people to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. People don't choose their sexual orientation; they can of course choose the kind of a life they want to live.



Can therapy change sexual orientation?

Even though homosexual orientation is not a mental illness and there is no scientific reason to attempt conversion of lesbians or gays to heterosexual orientation, some individuals may want to change their own sexual orientation or that of another individual (for example, parents seeking therapy for their child). Some therapists who undertake this kind of therapy report that they have changed their client's sexual orientation (from homosexual to heterosexual) in treatment.

Close scrutiny of these reports shows that many of the claims come from organisations with an ideological perspective on sexual orientation rather than from mental health researchers. Also, the treatments and their outcomes are poorly documented and the length of time that clients are followed up after the treatment is sometimes too short to be a true reflection of the outcome. In other cases it has been shown that individuals can be assisted to live a heterosexual lifestyle, but that their sexual orientation remains unchanged. In other words, their pattern of arousal to members of the same sex does not alter.

The Australian Psychological Society acknowledges the lack of scientific evidence for the usefulness of conversion therapy, and notes that it can in fact be harmful for the individual. Changing the sexual orientation of a person is not simply a matter of changing the person's sexual behaviour. It would require altering the emotional, romantic and sexual feelings of the person and restructuring self-concept and social identity. Although some mental health providers do attempt sexual orientation conversion, other practitioners question the ethics of trying to alter a trait that is not a disorder and that is extremely important to an individual's identity.

http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/orientation/

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WlqDd5uAu9kJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Gallagher+institute+for+marriage+and+public+policy+wikipedia&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

http://cgi.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=19536


There's also an interesting video on youtube with Dale Carpentar and Dr. Harley

And finally (from the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association):


In December of 1998, the Board of Trustees issued a position statement that the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation (Appendix 1). In doing so, the APA joined many other professional organizations that either oppose or are critical of "reparative" therapies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, The American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers (1)...

In the past, defining homosexuality as an illness buttressed society's moral opprobrium of same-sex relationships (2). In the current social climate, claiming homosexuality is a mental disorder stems from efforts to discredit the growing social acceptance of homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. Consequently, the issue of changing sexual orientation has become highly politicized. The integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society is opposed by those who fear that such an integration is morally wrong and harmful to the social fabric. The political and moral debates surrounding this issue have obscured the scientific data by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue. This document attempts to shed some light on this heated issue.
The validity, efficacy and ethics of clinical attempts to change an individual's sexual orientation have been challenged (3,4,5,6). To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments. There is sparse scientific data about selection criteria, risks versus benefits of the treatment, and long-term outcomes of "reparative" therapies. The literature consists of anecdotal reports of individuals who have claimed to change, people who claim that attempts to change were harmful to them, and others who claimed to have changed and then later recanted those claims (7,8,9).

Several years ago, I was involved heavily with a homosexual ministry. It was a ministry that reached out to homosexuals with the message of the Gospel, gave food, shelter, and medical care as well. You might think that all is well with these groups of people thinking its just a normal orientation that some are wired that way. My friends, psychology groups years ago classified homosexuality as a disorder of the emotions. The only reason it isn�t today is because of the advocacy groups out there trying to make it normal. Some psychology groups today still label it a disorder while the largest has rescinded that order.
Contrary to popular opinion, scientists have not discovered a scientific or medical cause for homosexuality. There is nothing biological that makes someone swing to homosexuality. Some scientists looked at gay cadavers attempting to see if there was a link and there was� but they failed to compare the same findings to the population as a whole. Some of those gay cadavers did not have the same brain sizes as others. I forgot the exact study but you can find it online if you search hard enough.
One of my best friends was gay and he ended up getting HIV where it mutated to AIDs. By the time the Magic Johnson fiasco went down where he contracted HIV, my friend was already doomed. He ended up passing away but he didn�t die gay. In fact, several years ago, he became straight as can be. He ended up falling in love with a woman but unfortunately due to his illness he couldn�t have sex obviously unprotected so they had no children. He told me that years of abuse had left him looking for attention and he just happened to find it with a man. This man gave him this kind of emotional needs fulfillment and so he fell in love with a man. He felt it wasn�t biological but rather emotional.
He became a Pastor a few years before he died. He preached that there is forgiveness in Christ�s name. He preached that we shouldn�t avoid homosexuals but rather encourage them to come to church! He said there is no way someone is born gay� Because he was attracted to girls in middle school but because he was so unhappy a man came along� he fell in love with a man.
So I don�t think people are �born� homosexuals�. I think it�s a choice. Just like people who commit adultery are insane but its still a choice. It becomes an addiction just like anything else does.

k_t,

It is depressing that after hours of posts pointing out that Dr Harley only offers his help to those who are married and want to stay married, and who do not want to abandon their marriages in favour of same-sex relationships, you continue to post excerpts from papers discussing whether sexual orientation is a choice and whether it can be altered.

The men who consult with Dr Harley have lived in a heterosexual marriage. They married because they were in love and were loved. They have had sex with their wives and they usually have children, yet you seem to want to prove that they are incontrovertibly homosexual and that it is futile to help them with their marriages. These are not people whose homosexual orientation "emerged in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience". These are men who have loved and had sex with women, and who want to restore their marriages. "They can of course choose the kind of life they want to live" and they choose marriage. You, for some reason, don't seem to want to allow them that choice.

Exactly. Who cares what those advocates preach? Not me. Science makes earth-shattering "discoveries" all the time, only to have another "scientist" come behind them and prove them wrong. Look at history folks. Science evolves.

For that matter, why do we depend on "science" as the absolute authority of what is true and what is not? More science is skewed by the dollars behind the research than not. "Pure" research is rare these days and I know of only one person who has all the knowledge about creation.

I'll take real-life experience every time, not some braniac who limits himself to the "facts" that support his theory. It's just like "experts" in litigation. You can find experts for just about any theory you want to prove for the right amount of money.

People (especially professionals) who speak up against the opinion that people are born gay will almost certainly be persecuted these days and I admire them for their courage. Dr. Harley is not the first and certainly won't be the last to be vilified by haters. I'd say he has touched a nerve and good for him. In fact, it's almost comical to watch because it's so predictable.

I have a cousin who is gay. He dated girls all through high school. I feel really sad for him because he is clearly confused and lost. His life is a mess. He once admitted to my husband that he knows it's morally wrong but he doesn't WANT to change, which implies that he has a choice.

I guess I don't understand why this thread was even started on Marriage Builders, or maybe I do.

Here's another good video.

Locking this thread. We're done here.