Love and Intimacy

This week's topic of conversation was about physical attraction, dating, love and marriage.  We were asked to define "Love".  This is my definition:  A feeling of deep connectivity where you desire to be your "best self" and have secure feelings of passion and commitment. What would your definition be?

We discussed why people chose cohabitation instead of marriage.  I feel that cohabitation shows a lack of commitment.  This is where people want to "put their toe in the water" to test it and pull it back out, if they don't like it...like "no harm done" or "at least now I know" attitude.  So they are only going to put in 1/2 the effort..."just in case" it doesn't work out.  Then they weren't fully invested, so "that's okay" is the feeling after a break up.  What is your feeling about cohabitation instead of marriage?

 What are some of the qualities you would like to see in the person you'd choose to marry?
 Here is my list:
     * Honest with self and others              * Affectionate
     * Loyal                                                 * Attractive-takes care of self
     * Respectful and kind                           * Hard worker & educated
     * Shows sympathy and empathy           * Dependable       
     * Communicator-expresses feelings, holds conversations about many topics
                                                         

Long term satisfaction is difficult to predict because: 1) Knowledge of someone is always limited.  People may not reveal problematic aspects of their lives until after marriage and; 2) Our needs and interests change over time.  Which can make us more or less compatible.

Whatever patterns you've started in the beginning of the relationship will be a good predictor of how the marriage relationship will be.

Women marry thinking that things will change after marriage.  Men think that things will stay the same.

The things we found attractive when dating, are now the things we don't like in the marriage.

Just a few things to make you go...hmmmm.  Any opinions?  Do you agree with any of these statements or am I off the mark?

 "In His grand design, when God first created man, He created duality of the sexes. The ennobling expression of that duality is found in marriage. One individual is complementary to the other. As Paul stated, 'Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord' (1 Corinthians 11:11). There is no other arrangement that meets the divine purposes of the Almighty. Man and woman are His creations. Their duality is His design. Their complementary relationships and functions are fundamental to His purposes. One is incomplete without the other."

- President Gordon B. Hinckley

This week, we were exploring gender roles in the world and in our families. We discussed what would have changed in our roles, expectations and family dynamics if we were born the opposite gender.  Think about it...would you be closer or more distant with a sibling or parent, would you have different responsibilities if you were of the opposite gender?  Hmmm

We also read some research about same-sex attraction.  Homosexuality was once considered a mental illness and is now considered "healthy" and those who disagree with this are labeled mentally ill or "homophobic".  Did you know there is more research money spent on homophobia than on homosexuality?

Mr. LeVay is the man who did the research study of the brains of homosexual and heterosexuals.  Mr. LeVay reported his findings and that is when the media, and now the world, ran away with a theory that homosexuals were "born that way".  Mr. LaVey noted that "people who think that gays and lesbians are 'born that way' are also the most likely to support gay rights."

After Mr. LeVay's study went viral with misinformation and misrepresentation of his findings, Mr. LeVay quietly (not to the media) made the following written statement.  "It's important to stress what I didn't find,..."  " I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find genetic causes for being gay.  I didn't show that gay men were 'born that way', the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.  Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain_INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior..."  "...Since I looked at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth or they appeared later."  

Why are we lied to and misled with this false information?  Lesbian psychologist, Lisa Diamond says, "It may well be that for now, the safest way to keep propagating a deterministic model: sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise."

We watched this extremely informative video, "Understanding Same-Sex Attraction", which discusses the causes or origins, as well as treatment and therapeutic ways to overcoming homosexuality. These are men who have unwanted same-sex attraction and sought help to change.  Watch this and it too may change your view of same-sex attraction.  

Did you know...that the U.N. states that therapy for homosexuals is a violation of human rights?  So, politically they are saying that there is only one correct view to have without paying a high academic or professional price.

Activists are upset when people talk about homosexuals being able to change, if they so choose, as takes away from their agenda and stance. 

People should have a right to know there is an alternative, that there is a way out, if they want that help.  Gay Rights Activists are fighting for 'rights', but in turn are denying those that want to choose change a right to therapy. 

Well, I had my eyes opened, again, by looking more closely at the whole picture, research, etc. and not taking what 'I've heard' from others and the media as my sole source of information.  Truth is truth...but why does it seem that some want to hide or misconstrue it?  KNOWLEDGE  IS POWER!  (Oh, that's what 'they' are afraid of, isn't it?  Ah, ha!)

This week, we needed to write an entry on a discussion board.  The topic to write about was this:  It has become de rigueur (meaning-necessary if you want to be popular or socially acceptable) to claim that all cultures and their values are equally valid or valuable.  We were asked to write what we think, are all cultures equal in terms of being right and wrong, good and bad, and also do we have the right to proclaim one set of values to be better than another?  The following is what I wrote.  If you have an opinion, please express it in the comments.

 

It has become popular or socially acceptable to claim that all cultures and their values are equally valid or valuable; however, are they? 

 

Some cultures (in history on up to today) have had some traditions and value systems in their culture that have not been peaceful or tolerant of others.  In the video, The moral case for the British Empire, it gave an example of a tradition of widow burning in India.  The British met with the leaders and  told them that they also had a practice and that was of hanging men who burned women alive and confiscating their goods.  So, if they continued their tradition of burning women, then they would follow their tradition of hanging.   The widow burning ceased.  It's not a matter of 2 wrongs make a right, more than the British stood up for something they felt was morally wrong.  Take Communism and Nazism, the British went in and the U.S. followed as a matter of moral principles, rights, freedom and decency.  

 

Do we as Americans and as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have the moral courage to stand up for what we believe is right?  Do we have the right to proclaim that our values are better than another?  Yes we do!  Especially, if our rights and freedoms given to us by our loving Father in Heaven and our rights and freedoms as citizens of this nation are being infringed upon, altered or removed.  We must have a moral backbone and stand up here on earth for the doctrines and principles our Father in Heaven, through the scriptures and prophets have told us are correct.  Read the prophet's Proclamation to the World.  Listen to Elder Dallin H. Oak's talk this past general conference as he did not mince words on where we as latter-day-saints stand on modern moral issues.  Have we seen changes in our American culture?  Are we not still citizens with a voice?  The Constitution of the United States of America (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/) and Bill of Rights today serve similar roles, protecting the individual freedoms of all Americans against arbitrary (random choice, personal whim) and capricious (given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior) rule.

                   

              "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

Our own Constitution says that we should stand up when/if our government begins to make random, unaccountable changes.  As "we the people", we are told in the Constitution that we need to right any wrongs and abuses in our government or all will suffer.

 

In the late 1990's and many times since then, the State of Hawaii has tackled the issue of same sex marriage.  I have joined those who were sign wavers and supporters against it.  Many times we feel like we have to justify our actions and say how many gay people we have as friends and that we love them no matter what.  That's not the point.  Are we disciples of Christ?  Have we not been told to stand up for what we know is right?  Demonstrating is not against a person or persons, but a practice or ultimate change in our country that will have an affect on our religious freedoms and goes against our gospel doctrine.  "Who say ye that I am?"  I will first choose to be a part of the culture of Jesus Christ, then all else is secondary to it.

Lives of Family members are interconnected

Hi Everybody-

This week's class discussion was on how the lives of family members are interconnected, which can make it functional or dysfunctional.  The family is made up of individuals with their own characteristics and qualities, and each individual plays a 'role' in the family unit.  The individuals and the family unit as a whole are influenced by their culture, religion, ethnicity, schools, social class, environment, and their relationships with each other.

In our discussions, we identified 3 types of families.  First, there is the "Open Family" which is basically democratic and protects the rights of the individuals, is flexible, interactive with those outside the family, and is bound by love and respect.  The 2nd is called the "Random Family" where there are almost no boundaries, few behavioral rules or commitment, and the children sense a lack of love.  The 3rd type is called the "Closed Family" where the members are too involved in each others lives, individuality is lost, and there's limited exposure to media & external influences.

Family rules, very often, determine the way people will pattern their behavior.  So in dysfunctional families, they will follow dysfunctional rules.  In my birth family, there were plenty of spoken and unspoken rules.  You knew where you stood as far as your 'role' in the family and there were definite consequences for not following a rule.  It seemed pretty strict, but we were loved and respected.  So, I'd say my birth family was an "Open Family".

What about you?  What type of family did you come from?  What were some things you liked or didn't like about your family's rules and your role in the family.