True Love: Possession

What is family, if you insist family can replace a "love interest"? And doesn't it, sooner or later (and I'll take sooner), after all? At some point in my life, that turned into a bitter point with me- the replacing of the marriage by the children. When suddenly, all the energy of love is turned onto the newborn child? The child becomes the symbol of everything missing and needed and wanted -especially needed by the mother, the hope of potential incarnate. It never works out, whether all of that is placed in the child or the spouse, of course. People keep attempting to work around the issue -psychobabble, something's missing, but what can it be; all we have to work with is what we see. In family, again, Ideal Family, that is, and it can include the extended family in truly ideal situations- we find the representation of everything a person needs: different age groups, widely varying personalities but with common experiences and the same basic foundational teaching, multitudes of learning opportunities and learning how to teach, as well (the latter is a large assumption in the direction of homeschooling, because, yes I do think that's an important part of the Ideal Family itself). One thing the Ideal Family requires that doesn't differ from what's needed in any lasting relationship is the ability- no, more than that, the actual taking hold of change. Families change alot because the aging is so obvious. Children are not born the people they are going to be, and I think everyone is aware of that every time they are in the presence of such. Somehow adults tend to think that they have reached a stage of "have become" rather than "becoming". I'm not sure where the shut-off point for learning is supposed to be. Status quo is just an illusion, and it's important for people to literally *see* that.

Are we allowed to be exclusive to our families? Of course, because we are only born into one. We may wind up with different branches -step-mothers and what have you- and whether we are only truly loyal to one part or not, we are *bonded* (insert inane "You can't pick your family" comment here) into our family. There's something interesting about having a relationship with somebody you're already tied to. And, yes, I'm aware that I sound like I'm venturing into incest territory, here, but I'm not, so get beyond it. The problem with family as a replacement, and the appeal therefore of incest (in abstract, that is: there have been cases where someone wants to read too much into an intense display of familial devotion), is that family isn't exclusive in the traditional *or* noteable sense. Not in the monogamous sense. Family doesn't always just stay together, and even though they may be there, after a point it's not exactly intimate. Members of the family become close to "outsiders" and even marry off. And generally, relatives aren't allowed to even approve of the "+1"'s their relations bring in, Ideal Fam. or not. We're attempting to find the only version of monogamy that isn't an illusion, but we're chipping away at the foundations of that reality even as we balance on it.

Sexual intimacy seems to be the most common link to use in place of one you're born with. I don't believe that sex automatically equals a bond, and actually, a sexual link is probably the weakest one, one that can't stand on its own. If that's what you're depending on to bind you with another person, you probably didn't have much of a bond in the first place. Many people still try to find meaning in sex, of course, and although there *is* no meaning without the previously existing "bond", you can't get away from the fact that sexual intimacy means *something*. Obviously, it doesn't always go hand in hand with exclusivity (correctly used the term is exclusivism, but you know what I mean), although I think the fact that the subjects are so often instinctively linked is telling.

I guess the truth of the matter is that a really strong relationship between two people is a rare thing- whether among siblings or not. Between two previously bonded people, it's hard enough, without taking into consideration "outside" relations, but I think that at the very least, we ought to work on those relationships first. Putting them (family) first is probably best left up to the individuals, as not everybody's idea of a strong relationship is the same, nor can it be.

Watching very young people marry scares me. Committing to a lifetime with another person at my age is mindboggling. But there is that possibility of growing together, the way *family* grows together (and thus is naturally forced to grow in generally the same direction). And I think you have to get to that young. Or you should, if that's what you're going for: the building together thing. Some people wait 'til they're way too old for it and are still waiting for someone to come along and be "a part of them". That's two different versions of living, I say.

In the meantime, we are left with the question- *what happens after*? The concept of "eternal love" used to bother me. True, eternal love might not be possible between earth beings. We're meant to get that from God. But I always had a hard time accepting a person who was in "true love" with another person, "moving on" afterwards and remarrying. Is it weakness- the need for [that *kind* of] companionship? Is it just "the thing to do"? Or is it that old offense, "out of sight out of mind", one's true love is no longer around so it's time to replace him/her. I'm still not sure. I still don't know if those who are well-married will still be married in heaven, or what happens if one of the 2 has been married twice. I don't say it's impossible for God to give a person 2 husbands/wives, if that's what that person needs -I don't say only one of those 2 is necessarily "The One". It's not my business to know that, because in the end, like most things, this is something between that person and God. You'd better make sure you know what He's giving you.