My friend,
Thank You
For making my days a little brighter...
And the nights a little lighter.
I thank God above
for friends like you...
Who go that extra mile,
just to let a friend know...
How much you care.
Flowers
I wish I could reach out
with open arms and
Hug you with all my strength
from God above.
And as for the rest of this life,
That we can share.
I know It will be well spent
in the days ahead...
With a friend like you!
One with a heart of gold...
that's never cold.
And now before I go...
I must say...
Thank you my friend,
from the bottom of my heart,
For being such a wonderful loving friend...
And making my nights and days a little brighter.
Flowers
I love you, my friend!
Forever in my prayers, at days end...
You will be.
My friend,
To you, I give my heart...
Forever and a day.
with love,
Your friend Forever
Donna Minnick
Sunday, July 20, 2008
How Regret Can Help You Love Your Career
How Regret Can Help You Love Your Career
July 03, 2008 11:19 AM ET | Curt Rosengren |
If you live your life on autopilot, responding only to external demands and expectations, the odds that you're going to create a career that lights you up are slim to none. It's too easy for entropy to take over and suddenly, before you know it, you've taken the path of least resistance down a road you didn't really want to travel.
How do you avoid that? Pay attention! One of the most effective ways to keep your head in the game is to continually ask yourself one simple question:
"What would I regret?"
The beauty of this question is that it automatically takes you out of the pace and pressures of the moment and gives you a bigger-picture view. In essence, you're asking: "In the future, when I'm not up to my eyeballs in what feels so pressing to me right now, how would I feel about the choices I'm making?"
Use the question to take regular stock of the choices you're making. For example, each month, stop and take a look at your life and ask the question: "Is there anything I would regret?" Maybe it's something as substantial as realizing you're on the wrong path. Or maybe it's a smaller-scale regret, like the fact that you are about to say 'yes' to something you don't really want to do, or that you're passing up an opportunity to take a class on a subject that fascinates you.
Once you shine a light on a potential regret, you can evaluate whether or not to do something differently.
After years as a professional malcontent, Curt Rosengren discovered the power of passion. As a speaker, author, and coach, Rosengren helps people create careers that energize and inspire them. His book 101 Ways to Get Wild About Work and his E-book The Occupational Adventure Guide offer people tools for turning dreams into reality. Rosengren's blog, The M.A.P. Maker, explores how to craft a life of meaning, abundance, and passion.
July 03, 2008 11:19 AM ET | Curt Rosengren |
If you live your life on autopilot, responding only to external demands and expectations, the odds that you're going to create a career that lights you up are slim to none. It's too easy for entropy to take over and suddenly, before you know it, you've taken the path of least resistance down a road you didn't really want to travel.
How do you avoid that? Pay attention! One of the most effective ways to keep your head in the game is to continually ask yourself one simple question:
"What would I regret?"
The beauty of this question is that it automatically takes you out of the pace and pressures of the moment and gives you a bigger-picture view. In essence, you're asking: "In the future, when I'm not up to my eyeballs in what feels so pressing to me right now, how would I feel about the choices I'm making?"
Use the question to take regular stock of the choices you're making. For example, each month, stop and take a look at your life and ask the question: "Is there anything I would regret?" Maybe it's something as substantial as realizing you're on the wrong path. Or maybe it's a smaller-scale regret, like the fact that you are about to say 'yes' to something you don't really want to do, or that you're passing up an opportunity to take a class on a subject that fascinates you.
Once you shine a light on a potential regret, you can evaluate whether or not to do something differently.
After years as a professional malcontent, Curt Rosengren discovered the power of passion. As a speaker, author, and coach, Rosengren helps people create careers that energize and inspire them. His book 101 Ways to Get Wild About Work and his E-book The Occupational Adventure Guide offer people tools for turning dreams into reality. Rosengren's blog, The M.A.P. Maker, explores how to craft a life of meaning, abundance, and passion.
my Pet... (Love for animals)
Small Creatures
So soft so warm,
Hands surround cave like,
Dispelling all fear,
So warm so soft,
Lip kissed sweet animal aroma,
Trembling delight,
Comfortingly near.
Ears translucent, paper thin,
Fondled head in fixated trance,
Silent, motionless.
Emanating energy
From within.
A moment shared,
A magical embrace,
Souls connected,
Animal to human,
Not subjective,
Just us two sharing,
A sacred space.
So soft so warm,
Hands surround cave like,
Dispelling all fear,
So warm so soft,
Lip kissed sweet animal aroma,
Trembling delight,
Comfortingly near.
Ears translucent, paper thin,
Fondled head in fixated trance,
Silent, motionless.
Emanating energy
From within.
A moment shared,
A magical embrace,
Souls connected,
Animal to human,
Not subjective,
Just us two sharing,
A sacred space.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Measures of love. (n_n)
The concept of love is applied to love of animals and to love of nature and this is found in many cultures. In Maori the word aroha is used to denote something broader than love, but including a oneness with nature and animals. In addition to history, literature and philosophy we can compare behavior to assess the love of the environment. Asia pollutes less per capita than America or Europe. This could reflect the imbalance between rich and poor countries in energy consumption, fossil fuel consumption, and use of raw materials. One North American consumes several hundred times the resources of most Africans. The right to personal enjoyment of a love of life is denied to many of the world’s population by economic and social structures because of a lack of love shown to neighbour.
Bioethics has origins in the relationships between animals and nature. In evolution it is assumed that selfishness is required for selection. Some animals exhibit non-selfish behaviour, called altruism. Some even give when there is no hope to receive any genetic benefit, helping unrelated individuals. We must therefore ask the question is altruism the basis for love? As Wright (1994) reviewed theories of evolution for a gene for brotherly love, we can also see advantages to survival if a community has love for each other in all social animals. However, there are limits to this love. Some of the examples of inter-species altruism are stories of dolphins saving drowning humans in the ocean, that are found throughout history and throughout the world. We can ask how much humans in different societies help other species.
Interestingly, however, the presence of resources and wealth may make our ethical attitudes more generous, not only to human beings in social welfare, but also to the environment and animals. We can see this by the growth of animal rights in richer countries. De Waal (1996) considered morality as a floating pyramid with the buoyancy of the concept determined by the resources available, but always with the order from top to bottom, self, family/clan, group/community, tribe/nation, all of humanity, all life forms. The exception however, is religious prescriptions against killing of animals, seen in Hindu or Buddhist countries, or Eastern countries where some parts of nature in religious temples or sanctuaries are preserved despite immediate human needs to harvest them. The concern for environmental protection seen in richer countries may partly be due to the luxury that money provides for giving people a long term view on life and transgenerational responsibility, once it becomes easy to look after one’s own life.
The concept of "do no harm" has a basis at a fundamental level - the level of being alive, and argues against hurting any living organism. If we are going to harm life, a departure from the ideal of doing no harm and love of life, it must be for a good motive. Destruction of nature and life by humans is caused by two human motives - necessity and desire. Basically, it is more ethically acceptable to cause harm if there is necessity for survival than if it is only desire. This distinction is required ever more as human desire continues to destroy the planet. What is a desire in one culture can be considered a need in another, as seen in the trends for private transportation system, cars and roads, and large houses. In these examples, some countries in Asia, e.g. Japan, Singapore, have some organized systems to encourage smaller cars and other countries, like China and India have reliance upon public transport, but this may not represent a specifically more organized society with less desire. The Indian and Chinese examples at least may be more a function of wealth and access. In all societies a large car has become a status symbol, despite the harm it brings upon the environment.
Love for the environment suggests we have an active motivation to protect the environment. We can see this in the protection given to national parks. Protected areas of plants and animals may also be protected without human access as wilderness areas, which can represent love for the environment although often they are justified in terms of human-centred benefits (medicinal drugs, flood protection, aesthetics, tourist industry). However, population densities differ so a simple comparison of proportion of land area or of the different types of land area, that are protected, would not be very useful. Also some countries, like India preserve small patches of biodiversity around temples while European churches may not preserve nature next to them, but have larger national parks. It is a challenge for research to see how practical measures to the environment could be measured and compared.
Bioethics has origins in the relationships between animals and nature. In evolution it is assumed that selfishness is required for selection. Some animals exhibit non-selfish behaviour, called altruism. Some even give when there is no hope to receive any genetic benefit, helping unrelated individuals. We must therefore ask the question is altruism the basis for love? As Wright (1994) reviewed theories of evolution for a gene for brotherly love, we can also see advantages to survival if a community has love for each other in all social animals. However, there are limits to this love. Some of the examples of inter-species altruism are stories of dolphins saving drowning humans in the ocean, that are found throughout history and throughout the world. We can ask how much humans in different societies help other species.
Interestingly, however, the presence of resources and wealth may make our ethical attitudes more generous, not only to human beings in social welfare, but also to the environment and animals. We can see this by the growth of animal rights in richer countries. De Waal (1996) considered morality as a floating pyramid with the buoyancy of the concept determined by the resources available, but always with the order from top to bottom, self, family/clan, group/community, tribe/nation, all of humanity, all life forms. The exception however, is religious prescriptions against killing of animals, seen in Hindu or Buddhist countries, or Eastern countries where some parts of nature in religious temples or sanctuaries are preserved despite immediate human needs to harvest them. The concern for environmental protection seen in richer countries may partly be due to the luxury that money provides for giving people a long term view on life and transgenerational responsibility, once it becomes easy to look after one’s own life.
The concept of "do no harm" has a basis at a fundamental level - the level of being alive, and argues against hurting any living organism. If we are going to harm life, a departure from the ideal of doing no harm and love of life, it must be for a good motive. Destruction of nature and life by humans is caused by two human motives - necessity and desire. Basically, it is more ethically acceptable to cause harm if there is necessity for survival than if it is only desire. This distinction is required ever more as human desire continues to destroy the planet. What is a desire in one culture can be considered a need in another, as seen in the trends for private transportation system, cars and roads, and large houses. In these examples, some countries in Asia, e.g. Japan, Singapore, have some organized systems to encourage smaller cars and other countries, like China and India have reliance upon public transport, but this may not represent a specifically more organized society with less desire. The Indian and Chinese examples at least may be more a function of wealth and access. In all societies a large car has become a status symbol, despite the harm it brings upon the environment.
Love for the environment suggests we have an active motivation to protect the environment. We can see this in the protection given to national parks. Protected areas of plants and animals may also be protected without human access as wilderness areas, which can represent love for the environment although often they are justified in terms of human-centred benefits (medicinal drugs, flood protection, aesthetics, tourist industry). However, population densities differ so a simple comparison of proportion of land area or of the different types of land area, that are protected, would not be very useful. Also some countries, like India preserve small patches of biodiversity around temples while European churches may not preserve nature next to them, but have larger national parks. It is a challenge for research to see how practical measures to the environment could be measured and compared.
i LOVE u.. ENVIRONMENT
Human societies are organized based on anthropocentric ideas, humans come first and we generally only think of things from the perspective of human benefit and risk. Biocentric thinking is to place individual living organisms at the Centre, to argue on behalf of each organism. Ecocentric philosophy is to argue from the perspective of maintaining a whole ecosystem. These three basic philosophical standpoints are basic to the way human duties towards nature are organized in social obligations, and we can see signs of all of them in most modern societies as well as in individual thinking.
The inter-relatedness of all living organisms can be readily seen in most ecosystems. Ed Wilson (1984) proposed the theory Biophilia, saying that human beings inherently have a love for nature. He defined it as “the innate tendency to focus on life and life-like processes”, noting that “to the degree that we come to understand other organisms, we will place greater value on them, and on ourselves”. It is still a matter of debate whether it is real or not (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). Included in the hypothesis is that the human inclination to affiliate with life is inherent (biologically based), part of our species evolutionary heritage, associated with human competitive advantage and genetic fitness, likely to increase the possibility for achieving individual meaning and personal fulfillment, and that it has a self-interested basis for a human ethic of care and conservation of nature. Although many in modern society seem to destroy nature, it is suggested that this may merely be a result of an unnatural estrangement with nature.
One of the aspects of nature which people seem to love is a diversity of living organisms. The United Nations World Charter for Nature (1982) declared “Every form of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth to man”. As Mary Midgley (1983) wrote about the duty of care and responsibility in the use of the terms “motherland” and “fatherland”, “To insist that it is really only a duty to the exploiting human beings is not consistent with the emphasis often given to reverence for the actual trees, mountains, lakes, rivers and the life which are found there. A decision to inhibit this rich area of human love is a special maneuver for which reasons would need to be given, not a dispassionate analysis of existing duties and feelings.” Nature has an intrinsic value that it wants to survive (Rolston, 1993).
Sympathy with non-humans are seen in Buddhist writings, for example in the Hymn to Friendliness in Pali literature in Theravada Buddhism (Sutta Nipata), “May all be happy and safe! May all beings gain inner joy - all living beings whatsoever without exception, weak or strong, whether...seen or unseen, dwelling afar or near, born or yet unborn...may all beings gain inner joy.” An extension of love to other species could be considered under the concept of stewardship. It has often been neglected, but has a long history in many religions, being central to a Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation (Berry, 1995). There are various religious stories to support preservation of biological diversity, the most famous of which is the story of Noah, which is shared by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions. Noah preserved all the domestic and wild animals from environmental catastrophe, a catastrophe that it says was caused by the actions of humans.
Throughout time many have considered nature has intrinsic value, but usually these calls have been neglected. Alfred North Whitehead (1925) in Science and the Modern World said “The western world is now suffering from the limited moral outlook of the three previous generations ... The two evils are: one, the ignoration of the true relation of each organism to its environment; and the other, the habit of ignoring the intrinsic worth of the environment which must be allowed its weight in any consideration of final ends”. The intrinsic value of nature can be argued by Christian and Buddhist values, as shown by Schumacher (1968, 1974). Yet, organized systems to protect the environment are still lacking in many countries. Other countries, like India, may have good laws but no organized enforcement, as seen in the pollution of ground water by the textile industry.
This widespread respect for nature and life was seen in the results of the International Bioethics Survey and the comments and pictures have been reproduced in the book Bioethics for the People by the People (Macer, 1994). By more research into the way people look at nature, we can find shared universal ideas about the relationship of humans to the earth and human responsibility to nature. In Japanese the word "inochi" can be translated as life, nature, the energy that holds things together. There are various images, as shown in comments about it in the surveys in Japan, but the inochi of every living organism is distinct, unique, and equal. The inochi departs when an organism dies, and is distinct from the idea of a soul. All organisms share the same amount of life, they are either dead or alive.
It has always been a challenge for ethics to define a “moral agent”. It is not necessarily someone who looks as we expect, rather we have to look at our criteria and discuss those who are included or excluded. Many of the anthropocentric arguments for human distinctiveness are based on the idea that humans are special because they have the power to use technology to transform their situation and environment. Moral agents might not have to be species who can manipulate the world as they like, reshaping it physically and genetically. It may be a species that takes pleasure in leaving it as it is, and not seeing joy in remoulding the environment.
Love preoccupies the human mind, and it would be naive of Homo sapiens to think it suddenly appeared overnight in our species. I have argued elsewhere that helping another species may be the least ambiguous sign of an all-giving love above the shadow of selfish genes (Macer, 1998). It is a fact of life that species often face each other in dilemmas and should we just pursue the benefit, immediate or long-term, of our species, or should we love other species? The concept of trans-species love should not be unfamiliar to many, who live with pets of other species, but is there something deeper than personal companionship? As Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man wrote in 1875, “It is certain that associated animals have a feeling of love for each other, which is not felt by non-social adult animals. How far in most cases they actually sympathize in the pains and pleasures of others, is more doubtful, especially with respect to pleasures.”
Human beings are organized into societies bound together by love, trust and mutual dependence. Language is central to social structure. While not many species can talk using a complex vocabulary, individual communication systems are found in other social mammals and birds, and they are used to discriminate between individuals. It is also clear that the language instinct is something we are born with, not a social construct we acquire after birth. Some other behavioral systems may also be shared with other animals.
The comparison of consciousness, communication, self-awareness and other mental and social qualities has lead many to organize a hierarchy within animal species, which says that we owe more duties to those animals higher on the ranking. A few argue for respect for all forms of life, as Albert Schweitzer (1966) said in Respect for Life. He argued for a reverence for all life. This approach makes no distinction between higher and lower life forms, saying that we can not judge other lifeforms in relation to ourselves. It makes the point that it is very difficult for us to understand or judge the importance of other living organisms in the natural order. The only reason for harming life he sees is necessity. However, what is "necessary" can vary widely between cultures.
A broader love for environment is found in the 1993 Parliament of the World Religions Declaration toward a Global Ethic (Kung, 1996). They wrote that an ethic already exists in the religious teachings of the world which can counter the global distress. They pointed out several directives that are found in all religions, including have respect for life. They extend this principle of respect to the lives of animals and plants. We can also see this principle in the protection given to national parks and wilderness areas, which are found in all countries but to different degrees.
The inter-relatedness of all living organisms can be readily seen in most ecosystems. Ed Wilson (1984) proposed the theory Biophilia, saying that human beings inherently have a love for nature. He defined it as “the innate tendency to focus on life and life-like processes”, noting that “to the degree that we come to understand other organisms, we will place greater value on them, and on ourselves”. It is still a matter of debate whether it is real or not (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). Included in the hypothesis is that the human inclination to affiliate with life is inherent (biologically based), part of our species evolutionary heritage, associated with human competitive advantage and genetic fitness, likely to increase the possibility for achieving individual meaning and personal fulfillment, and that it has a self-interested basis for a human ethic of care and conservation of nature. Although many in modern society seem to destroy nature, it is suggested that this may merely be a result of an unnatural estrangement with nature.
One of the aspects of nature which people seem to love is a diversity of living organisms. The United Nations World Charter for Nature (1982) declared “Every form of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth to man”. As Mary Midgley (1983) wrote about the duty of care and responsibility in the use of the terms “motherland” and “fatherland”, “To insist that it is really only a duty to the exploiting human beings is not consistent with the emphasis often given to reverence for the actual trees, mountains, lakes, rivers and the life which are found there. A decision to inhibit this rich area of human love is a special maneuver for which reasons would need to be given, not a dispassionate analysis of existing duties and feelings.” Nature has an intrinsic value that it wants to survive (Rolston, 1993).
Sympathy with non-humans are seen in Buddhist writings, for example in the Hymn to Friendliness in Pali literature in Theravada Buddhism (Sutta Nipata), “May all be happy and safe! May all beings gain inner joy - all living beings whatsoever without exception, weak or strong, whether...seen or unseen, dwelling afar or near, born or yet unborn...may all beings gain inner joy.” An extension of love to other species could be considered under the concept of stewardship. It has often been neglected, but has a long history in many religions, being central to a Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation (Berry, 1995). There are various religious stories to support preservation of biological diversity, the most famous of which is the story of Noah, which is shared by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions. Noah preserved all the domestic and wild animals from environmental catastrophe, a catastrophe that it says was caused by the actions of humans.
Throughout time many have considered nature has intrinsic value, but usually these calls have been neglected. Alfred North Whitehead (1925) in Science and the Modern World said “The western world is now suffering from the limited moral outlook of the three previous generations ... The two evils are: one, the ignoration of the true relation of each organism to its environment; and the other, the habit of ignoring the intrinsic worth of the environment which must be allowed its weight in any consideration of final ends”. The intrinsic value of nature can be argued by Christian and Buddhist values, as shown by Schumacher (1968, 1974). Yet, organized systems to protect the environment are still lacking in many countries. Other countries, like India, may have good laws but no organized enforcement, as seen in the pollution of ground water by the textile industry.
This widespread respect for nature and life was seen in the results of the International Bioethics Survey and the comments and pictures have been reproduced in the book Bioethics for the People by the People (Macer, 1994). By more research into the way people look at nature, we can find shared universal ideas about the relationship of humans to the earth and human responsibility to nature. In Japanese the word "inochi" can be translated as life, nature, the energy that holds things together. There are various images, as shown in comments about it in the surveys in Japan, but the inochi of every living organism is distinct, unique, and equal. The inochi departs when an organism dies, and is distinct from the idea of a soul. All organisms share the same amount of life, they are either dead or alive.
It has always been a challenge for ethics to define a “moral agent”. It is not necessarily someone who looks as we expect, rather we have to look at our criteria and discuss those who are included or excluded. Many of the anthropocentric arguments for human distinctiveness are based on the idea that humans are special because they have the power to use technology to transform their situation and environment. Moral agents might not have to be species who can manipulate the world as they like, reshaping it physically and genetically. It may be a species that takes pleasure in leaving it as it is, and not seeing joy in remoulding the environment.
Love preoccupies the human mind, and it would be naive of Homo sapiens to think it suddenly appeared overnight in our species. I have argued elsewhere that helping another species may be the least ambiguous sign of an all-giving love above the shadow of selfish genes (Macer, 1998). It is a fact of life that species often face each other in dilemmas and should we just pursue the benefit, immediate or long-term, of our species, or should we love other species? The concept of trans-species love should not be unfamiliar to many, who live with pets of other species, but is there something deeper than personal companionship? As Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man wrote in 1875, “It is certain that associated animals have a feeling of love for each other, which is not felt by non-social adult animals. How far in most cases they actually sympathize in the pains and pleasures of others, is more doubtful, especially with respect to pleasures.”
Human beings are organized into societies bound together by love, trust and mutual dependence. Language is central to social structure. While not many species can talk using a complex vocabulary, individual communication systems are found in other social mammals and birds, and they are used to discriminate between individuals. It is also clear that the language instinct is something we are born with, not a social construct we acquire after birth. Some other behavioral systems may also be shared with other animals.
The comparison of consciousness, communication, self-awareness and other mental and social qualities has lead many to organize a hierarchy within animal species, which says that we owe more duties to those animals higher on the ranking. A few argue for respect for all forms of life, as Albert Schweitzer (1966) said in Respect for Life. He argued for a reverence for all life. This approach makes no distinction between higher and lower life forms, saying that we can not judge other lifeforms in relation to ourselves. It makes the point that it is very difficult for us to understand or judge the importance of other living organisms in the natural order. The only reason for harming life he sees is necessity. However, what is "necessary" can vary widely between cultures.
A broader love for environment is found in the 1993 Parliament of the World Religions Declaration toward a Global Ethic (Kung, 1996). They wrote that an ethic already exists in the religious teachings of the world which can counter the global distress. They pointed out several directives that are found in all religions, including have respect for life. They extend this principle of respect to the lives of animals and plants. We can also see this principle in the protection given to national parks and wilderness areas, which are found in all countries but to different degrees.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
i LOVE u..NATURE
Love of ourselves, love of others and love of nature seem to be common threads linking all of humanity with each other and within the environment. In this paper I wish to consider bioethics in terms of our relationships with other living organisms and the environment, life or the “bios”. There is a need for more consideration of the bioethical questions in how we relate to the environment, including agriculture and food issues. In terms of medical ethics, the relationship of human beings to the environment also relates very strongly and intricately with the psycho-somatic health of human beings.
The need for bioethics is being re-emphasized internationally, in UN Declarations, in statements of scientists and teachers, in the views of ordinary people, and as a response to the decay in moral fabric of societies as seemingly distant as Eskimos and Tamils. We are left with the challenge to apply love to cases where we have disputes and balancing of options, be it abortion of the handicapped fetus or using surrogate mothers to grow up clones. Love demands human rights protection, from love of life, balanced by the only ultimate source of reconciliation between countries, respect and love.
If we ask people whether they value the environment, or whether it has a special property, almost everyone anywhere will agree. However, despite nice words and sentiments, the lack of practical concern shown for the environment suggests that environmental protection is not a dominating motivation in peoples lives or bioethic of behaviour. This inconsistency between words and actions has long been discussed in all cultures of the world, and is one of the reasons why social organization and laws have evolved to protect others against the failures resultant from the exercising of individual decision-making power.
The need for bioethics is being re-emphasized internationally, in UN Declarations, in statements of scientists and teachers, in the views of ordinary people, and as a response to the decay in moral fabric of societies as seemingly distant as Eskimos and Tamils. We are left with the challenge to apply love to cases where we have disputes and balancing of options, be it abortion of the handicapped fetus or using surrogate mothers to grow up clones. Love demands human rights protection, from love of life, balanced by the only ultimate source of reconciliation between countries, respect and love.
If we ask people whether they value the environment, or whether it has a special property, almost everyone anywhere will agree. However, despite nice words and sentiments, the lack of practical concern shown for the environment suggests that environmental protection is not a dominating motivation in peoples lives or bioethic of behaviour. This inconsistency between words and actions has long been discussed in all cultures of the world, and is one of the reasons why social organization and laws have evolved to protect others against the failures resultant from the exercising of individual decision-making power.
ü...opposite VS. same...ü
Over the years we have often been asked, “Do you think your research findings about successful “traditional marriage” apply to same-sex relationships as well?” While we have not yet engaged in research with same-sex couples we find the question intriguing.As the reader knows, our 25+ years of research has focused on successful traditional marriages. We write extensively about our findings in our new book, Golden Anniversaries: The Seven Secrets of Successful Marriage (©2008).A few days ago we had a conversation with an individual who has written extensively about gay and lesbian relationships over the years. In fact, he is a gay man who has been in a gay relationship for nearly 30 years. His first partner died of AIDS. He has been in his current relationship for over a decade. His interest was likewise piqued by the aforementioned question.As we discussed our research findings with him we noticed how often he nodded his head in agreement with most of our findings when applied to his own long-time gay relationship. Needless to say, we found the conversation stimulating and thought-provoking.While we don’t pretend to be experts in gay and lesbian relationships, the recent Supreme Court decision in California to allow Same-Sex Marriage, has made us begin to wonder if our findings about traditional marriage apply to same-sex marriages and gay relationships as well. Our gay friend thinks that they do. We are inclined to agree.As we have thought about this over the past week or so we have concluded that in the end, all successful loving relationships begin and end with the quality of the relationship between two human beings who love each other. As we often say, “The relationships between two people in love trumps everything else!” Do the simple things in your relationship day in and day out and it will be successful. To ignore the simple things could cause great peril for your relationship.Truth is, love and relationships are not all that difficult to understand or make work. The best loving relationships we have studied over the years begin and end with people in love who do the simple things required to make their relationship work. The care and nurturing of a loving relationship makes all things possible. Couples have reported to us that the strength of their relationship helps them overcome adversity – the loss of a job, the death of a friend or family member, or a major illness. A supportive and loving relationship helps get you through the bad times so you can celebrate the good times. Again and again we are reminded that the strength of the relationship between two people who love each other trumps everything else. Day in and day out, those things that make us happy and cause us to do positive things and to live our lives in positive ways has, in the end, more to do with having the supportive love of another human being than anything else.So, as we think back about the question that started this conversation, doesn’t it seem clear that there are common elements in all successful loving relationships – including those that are “traditional” as well as same-sex – that sustain them over time, that make them successful?We think that sometimes as human beings we get way too hung up over things that really don’t matter. What we ought to be focusing on is that old axiom of Charley’s mother – “Life is too short. Enjoy everyday you have on this Earth. Find someone to share your life with.” Be happy when two people are in love. Share the joy. Celebrate their time together. Focus on their happiness and not on things that really don’t matter. Read our book and see if you agree that the seven secrets of a traditional marriage also apply to “same-sex” relationships. You might be surprised at how similar all loving relationships really are.We will start on our next research project about love and relationships soon.
Love well!
ü
...a love story... (non-traditional)ü
Their twin baby girls strapped to their chests, Noe Valley residents Doug Okun, 38, and Eric Ethington, 37, went to City Hall on Feb. 13 to confirm what they already knew in their hearts: They were mates for life. And, by virtue of the sheer adorableness of their family and the presence of many photographers, they became international symbols of gay parenting. Publications from Newsweek to Italian Vanity Fair featured the mediagenic quartet, who have handled the sudden fame with laughter and a shrug of the shoulders. After all, Okun and Ethington, both financial professionals, have their hands full changing diapers. While they chat, they bounce 4-month-old Sophia and Elizabeth on their knees and walk the room with the babies, swaying when they fuss -- as parents have done through all time.
Doug Okun:
Eight years ago, we were both working for Charles Schwab, and met during a business lunch at a restaurant on Belden Place. A mutual friend of ours arranged lunch, not necessarily to set us up, but to see if we might want to work together. There were four of us, so it was not romantic. But it's safe to say that when we laid eyes on each other we both felt that attraction and energy -- we were both very interested.
We were looking for signals to see if the other one was gay and available. We started talking about books. Eric was reading "Hitler's Willing Executioners," which was about Germany and the complacency of a large part of the German population during World War II. It became clear to him right away that I was gay and Jewish.
We were quite smitten with each other and started trading little e-mails on our company system -- little instant messages that we would "ping'' each other with all day. And we just totally fell for each other. This was in 1996, the first week of June. A few weeks later, we had our first official date and right away started seeing each other pretty seriously.
We'd both been in serious relationships before, and learned a fair amount, so we were ready for a long-term arrangement. We found that we had pretty common goals -- and dreams. One of those was that we were really interested in having kids. Eric felt strongly enough about it that he wanted to find out right away if I felt the same -- really, on our second date.
I was 25 when I came out to my parents, and they were the only people in the world who acted surprised. They said all the right things and were incredibly supportive of me, Eric and our relationship. When Eric and I had our commitment ceremony in Napa, my 90-year-old grandmother sent us her wedding china as a gift. And it had been her mother's.
Every step we've taken has evolved so naturally, there was never really a "decision point" at which we decided to move in, have the ceremony or get married. We'd been living together for a couple years. And we were actually on the way home from a couples counseling session when we decided we wanted a wedding. No wine, no candles. Not very romantic. "You know? Let's get married!"
It was a long planning process. We had thought we'd do it in October 1999, but all the venues in the wine country were taken. So we ended up finding a private rose garden in Napa for Memorial Day weekend of 2000. It was amazing - - 300 rose bushes and vineyards.
We wrote our own ceremony and asked a friend to officiate -- the same friend who officiated at our baby blessing a few weeks ago. We had a sit-down dinner and a swing band. About 100 people, a lot of kids. It was really one of the most beautiful days of my life.
It was a real wedding -- only with no legal significance. That's what getting married in San Francisco gave us.
My parents were here the weekend we got married. They had come out for our baby-blessing ceremony, which was the same weekend. We weren't planning to get married, but it came up so suddenly and we were like, of course! But we didn't take my parents -- we just told them we'd be back in a few hours, got the girls dressed up and went down to City Hall. The commitment ceremony was for our families; we wanted the actual wedding to be just for us.
We got a lot of press attention when we were at City Hall because of the babies, and ABC News ended up filming us. So later, when we were home, I told my parents, "Let's turn on the news!" It was the lead story, so our ceremony was on TV. The Reuters photo also ran on Page 2 of the Boston Globe, so my family at home was able to see it.
We've been through a lot together, and having kids? Talk about commitment. That was an amazing journey to go through together. That was when I felt like, "Wow, this is really forever." So when we heard that the city was going to be issuing marriage licenses, we didn't hesitate. Yes, of course!
It was less about the ceremony than it was about the girls, in hopes that this would somehow make their own future more secure. I know I'll be with Eric for life; I've known that since I met him.
Eric Ethington:
There were definitely sparks flying in our relationship from Day 1. In fact, he literally made me lose my breath once. I mean, I am normally a pretty calm guy. But I was walking with a friend down Kearny Street and ran into Doug in front of the Bank of America building. We had just been dating for about two weeks, and I was so discombobulated that I started hyperventilating. My friend Lance was watching all this, and he got me out of there as quickly as possible. "I've never seen anything like that before," he told me.
And believe me, I'd had my share of cute boys -- this was nothing new to me. But in Doug I found the total package. The intellect, the smile, the sense of humor, the physical attraction I felt for him. The undefinable, unquantifiable spark that makes a relationship zing was there right away. There is just something about Doug that, even on our worst days, makes me love him so much.
Things are not perfect -- we have communication issues like every couple. I'm from Mars, and Doug is from Venus. Then again, and I've thought about this for eight years, there is something beyond language in the way we love each other.
From literally our second date, I was asking Doug how he felt about having children and getting married, because I wanted both those things so much. I told him, these are deal-breakers. Luckily, those things were important to him, too.
We could not have had more different backgrounds. I was raised Mormon on a farm in Idaho, and he was raised in a Jewish suburb of Boston. Once I left home at 18, I have not been back. But I thank my Mormon upbringing for my values of family and children. And getting together with Doug is not as far- fetched as you might seem. We both have the "persecuted religious minority" complex (laughs). And there are definitely some parallels.
I came out to myself when I was on a Mormon mission in Korea. "I don't believe any of this, and I'm gay." I came out to my parents after college. They were not surprised because my sister had told them years before that she thought I might be gay. They handled it OK at the time, and then cried for a week. It's been a hard journey for them. Life had not prepared them for this.
But they have come around 180 degrees. After the babies were born, they stayed with us for a week. They now ask about Doug, and talk to him and include him in the holiday card.
But we have not heard from one person in my family about our wedding, except my nephew's wife, who is in Provo, Utah right now. She called and asked, "Do you guys want a copy of the Sunday paper here because you made the front page!" But I have not heard from anyone in my immediate family. I know they read Newsweek, so they have to have seen pictures. I have heard it's caused a little uproar, but you know something? Life's too short, I don't want to deal with it.
We made the decision to speed up the idea of becoming parents after Sept. 11. We were supposed to go to New York on Sept. 12 and have breakfast at the World Trade Center. It made us think, what are we waiting for? We met soon after with an agency that specializes in gay adoptions and we decided to go the surrogate route, since we wanted to have our own biological children. We used donor eggs, too. They were born Nov. 7 at 35 weeks.
Sophia is very animated -- she is always talking and laughing. Elizabeth is not her normal self today, she is so easygoing and has the biggest smile, you think her face is going to break sometimes. They're both so wonderful, I can't imagine life without them. And I know it will only get better -- until they turn 13.
It's been interesting to see how the gay community is embracing parenting. I mean, our lesbian sisters have about a 20-year jump on us. But we're catching up! It's been great, in the wake of the wedding and the photo, to hear from younger gay men who see what we have and say, we want that, too! I feel like we're a role model for them, which is something we didn't have.
We think about having another child at some point; we are not closed to the idea of adoption. I know that we could love and give a great home to almost any child. But we can also have another of our own, since we have embryos on ice. How funny, that sounds like a Vegas show!
We didn't have to discuss getting married at City Hall, we just did it. It wasn't about the politics, or the civil disobedience, or the social activism. Of course, we are also proud to be part of the political and cultural movement it represents -- that is huge. But it was not the reason we did it. It was about our love for each other and our love for our family.
Doug Okun:
Eight years ago, we were both working for Charles Schwab, and met during a business lunch at a restaurant on Belden Place. A mutual friend of ours arranged lunch, not necessarily to set us up, but to see if we might want to work together. There were four of us, so it was not romantic. But it's safe to say that when we laid eyes on each other we both felt that attraction and energy -- we were both very interested.
We were looking for signals to see if the other one was gay and available. We started talking about books. Eric was reading "Hitler's Willing Executioners," which was about Germany and the complacency of a large part of the German population during World War II. It became clear to him right away that I was gay and Jewish.
We were quite smitten with each other and started trading little e-mails on our company system -- little instant messages that we would "ping'' each other with all day. And we just totally fell for each other. This was in 1996, the first week of June. A few weeks later, we had our first official date and right away started seeing each other pretty seriously.
We'd both been in serious relationships before, and learned a fair amount, so we were ready for a long-term arrangement. We found that we had pretty common goals -- and dreams. One of those was that we were really interested in having kids. Eric felt strongly enough about it that he wanted to find out right away if I felt the same -- really, on our second date.
I was 25 when I came out to my parents, and they were the only people in the world who acted surprised. They said all the right things and were incredibly supportive of me, Eric and our relationship. When Eric and I had our commitment ceremony in Napa, my 90-year-old grandmother sent us her wedding china as a gift. And it had been her mother's.
Every step we've taken has evolved so naturally, there was never really a "decision point" at which we decided to move in, have the ceremony or get married. We'd been living together for a couple years. And we were actually on the way home from a couples counseling session when we decided we wanted a wedding. No wine, no candles. Not very romantic. "You know? Let's get married!"
It was a long planning process. We had thought we'd do it in October 1999, but all the venues in the wine country were taken. So we ended up finding a private rose garden in Napa for Memorial Day weekend of 2000. It was amazing - - 300 rose bushes and vineyards.
We wrote our own ceremony and asked a friend to officiate -- the same friend who officiated at our baby blessing a few weeks ago. We had a sit-down dinner and a swing band. About 100 people, a lot of kids. It was really one of the most beautiful days of my life.
It was a real wedding -- only with no legal significance. That's what getting married in San Francisco gave us.
My parents were here the weekend we got married. They had come out for our baby-blessing ceremony, which was the same weekend. We weren't planning to get married, but it came up so suddenly and we were like, of course! But we didn't take my parents -- we just told them we'd be back in a few hours, got the girls dressed up and went down to City Hall. The commitment ceremony was for our families; we wanted the actual wedding to be just for us.
We got a lot of press attention when we were at City Hall because of the babies, and ABC News ended up filming us. So later, when we were home, I told my parents, "Let's turn on the news!" It was the lead story, so our ceremony was on TV. The Reuters photo also ran on Page 2 of the Boston Globe, so my family at home was able to see it.
We've been through a lot together, and having kids? Talk about commitment. That was an amazing journey to go through together. That was when I felt like, "Wow, this is really forever." So when we heard that the city was going to be issuing marriage licenses, we didn't hesitate. Yes, of course!
It was less about the ceremony than it was about the girls, in hopes that this would somehow make their own future more secure. I know I'll be with Eric for life; I've known that since I met him.
Eric Ethington:
There were definitely sparks flying in our relationship from Day 1. In fact, he literally made me lose my breath once. I mean, I am normally a pretty calm guy. But I was walking with a friend down Kearny Street and ran into Doug in front of the Bank of America building. We had just been dating for about two weeks, and I was so discombobulated that I started hyperventilating. My friend Lance was watching all this, and he got me out of there as quickly as possible. "I've never seen anything like that before," he told me.
And believe me, I'd had my share of cute boys -- this was nothing new to me. But in Doug I found the total package. The intellect, the smile, the sense of humor, the physical attraction I felt for him. The undefinable, unquantifiable spark that makes a relationship zing was there right away. There is just something about Doug that, even on our worst days, makes me love him so much.
Things are not perfect -- we have communication issues like every couple. I'm from Mars, and Doug is from Venus. Then again, and I've thought about this for eight years, there is something beyond language in the way we love each other.
From literally our second date, I was asking Doug how he felt about having children and getting married, because I wanted both those things so much. I told him, these are deal-breakers. Luckily, those things were important to him, too.
We could not have had more different backgrounds. I was raised Mormon on a farm in Idaho, and he was raised in a Jewish suburb of Boston. Once I left home at 18, I have not been back. But I thank my Mormon upbringing for my values of family and children. And getting together with Doug is not as far- fetched as you might seem. We both have the "persecuted religious minority" complex (laughs). And there are definitely some parallels.
I came out to myself when I was on a Mormon mission in Korea. "I don't believe any of this, and I'm gay." I came out to my parents after college. They were not surprised because my sister had told them years before that she thought I might be gay. They handled it OK at the time, and then cried for a week. It's been a hard journey for them. Life had not prepared them for this.
But they have come around 180 degrees. After the babies were born, they stayed with us for a week. They now ask about Doug, and talk to him and include him in the holiday card.
But we have not heard from one person in my family about our wedding, except my nephew's wife, who is in Provo, Utah right now. She called and asked, "Do you guys want a copy of the Sunday paper here because you made the front page!" But I have not heard from anyone in my immediate family. I know they read Newsweek, so they have to have seen pictures. I have heard it's caused a little uproar, but you know something? Life's too short, I don't want to deal with it.
We made the decision to speed up the idea of becoming parents after Sept. 11. We were supposed to go to New York on Sept. 12 and have breakfast at the World Trade Center. It made us think, what are we waiting for? We met soon after with an agency that specializes in gay adoptions and we decided to go the surrogate route, since we wanted to have our own biological children. We used donor eggs, too. They were born Nov. 7 at 35 weeks.
Sophia is very animated -- she is always talking and laughing. Elizabeth is not her normal self today, she is so easygoing and has the biggest smile, you think her face is going to break sometimes. They're both so wonderful, I can't imagine life without them. And I know it will only get better -- until they turn 13.
It's been interesting to see how the gay community is embracing parenting. I mean, our lesbian sisters have about a 20-year jump on us. But we're catching up! It's been great, in the wake of the wedding and the photo, to hear from younger gay men who see what we have and say, we want that, too! I feel like we're a role model for them, which is something we didn't have.
We think about having another child at some point; we are not closed to the idea of adoption. I know that we could love and give a great home to almost any child. But we can also have another of our own, since we have embryos on ice. How funny, that sounds like a Vegas show!
We didn't have to discuss getting married at City Hall, we just did it. It wasn't about the politics, or the civil disobedience, or the social activism. Of course, we are also proud to be part of the political and cultural movement it represents -- that is huge. But it was not the reason we did it. It was about our love for each other and our love for our family.
...a love story... (traditional)
It all started when I was in my fourth year in college, I came across a tall, dark, and handsome guy in our school, and he’s good looking face attracted me to a great extent. Days has passed when we take a crack to know each other, we exchange our factual yet skeptical feelings with each other, until someone abruptly screwed us up. Apparently we’re being isolated, set apart from whence knowingly owing risky situations. He was one of my batch mates in point of fact. From then on I’m still wanting my desires, and was really am longing for him to be a special part of my being. Now, to make my story concise last April 2, 2007 I met him again, he went into my office and was asking for something, A little bit my way of thinking tickly delighted, I felt so blissful feels like walking on a cloud nine. Consequently, we talked and exchange mobile numbers again, consciously or unconsciously my way of behaving comes back again. It gives a little tingle in my stomach while talking with him.After my working hours he went into my office again and wanted to talk, wow! So great and splendid feelings I’ve felt. Look as if we’re movie stars seriously knowing each other again, I can’t believe we we’re talking in that manner. Perceptibly our face can’t hide what we’ve felt for each other. It seems like we’ve known each other for so long with all the touches of my hands close to his. I was happy recognizing his affection for me.All I hope is to know him so well, I’m still looking forward to a brave man who understands and cares me a lot without condemning anyone. He respects me that much though, in spite of everything like the way people judge him certainly, I hope I know who I am dealing with. One of my desires is to be with him; however I do not know how our love story would end. It might be in a good way or a bit awful thus, the feelings we had since long before will always linger come what may.
KiNds Of LoVe..
There are different kinds of love, Philia, agape, and eros. First the Philia, In contrast to the desiring and passionate yearning of eros, philia entails a fondness and appreciation of the other. For the Greeks, the term philia incorporated not just friendship, but also loyalties to family and polis-one's political community, job, or discipline. Second is Agape, Agape refers to the paternal love of God for man and for man for God but is extended to include a brotherly love for all humanity. The third is Eros, the romantic love, The term eros (Greek erasthai) is used to refer to that part of love constituting a passionate, intense desire for something, it is often referred to as a sexual desire, hence the modern notion of 'erotic' (Greek erotikos). In Plato's writings however, eros is held to be a common desire that seeks transcendental beauty-the particular beauty of an individual reminds us of true beauty that exists in the world of Forms or Ideas (Phaedrus 249E: "he who loves the beautiful is called a lover because he partakes of it." Trans. Jowett). The Platonic-Socratic position maintains that the love we generate for beauty on this earth can never be truly satisfied until we die; but in the meantime we should aspire beyond the particular stimulating image in front of us to the contemplation of beauty in itself.
Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/love.htm
Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/love.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)