Friendship after a relationship?

So there has been the long standing question of whether or not a couple can remain friends once they have broken up.


I would say yes depending on which attraction the relationship was based.


For the purpose of this entry we'll call the different types of attractions intellectual, emotional, and physical.
If the relationship was based on physical attraction and most of your time together was snuggling, making out, and/or sex then I would say that a friendship should not ensue post-breakup.  One of the involved parties would likely still have those physical attractions and the only thing in their brain would be the possibility of getting back to the point of physical interaction whereby the romantic relationship would not have ended for that particular party.


Emotional attraction gets a bit sticky because the couple has put a lot of work into one another and the relationship.  There has grown a level of dependency that becomes difficult to step away from once the two decide the relationship is not to continue.  For this, I would say yes a friendship is plausible but once there has been some recovery time.  Time to get over on another.  This time would largely depend on the length of the relationship and the intensity therein.


Intellectual attraction seems the easiest to say yes to.  If a couple has grown together on what they are able to share in terms of knowledge one with another then it seems to me that once they have "recovered" from the break up then it would be easy enough to talk again and regain the friendship.  As I write this an epiphany hits that this is most likely because they were able to communicate during the relationship more than just their attraction.  The other two involve much less verbal communication beyond the "I think you're hot" genre.


Tell me what you think.  Am I off my rocker?  Do I have a solid grasp?  What do you think of this quandary?

HIV/AIDS and supporting addictions

I posed a question on my facebook status and there was a bit of an argument and I'd like to save it in order to have better access to it than I have with FB.   I'm going to copy it in it's fullness without playing around with the html.  I don't feel too bad doing this since they are already attaching their names to their opinions on FB.

• Would the offering of clean needles to addicts be a viable and moral way to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS?

  Daniel Cerveny

  
  

• • 
    

    Brock Waggoner Daniel that is one of those questions that should never have to be asked as people that are using drugs should not be aided in any way.
    

    Thursday at 10:14pm · 
  • 
    

    Daniel Cerveny Wow, that's a rather bold statement Brock. You honestly believe that addicts should not be given aid of any sort? Perhaps I'll be kind to you and take your statement to infer any enabling of their habit rather than 'in any way'.
    

    Thursday at 10:17pm · 
  • 
    

    Greg Murray I'm for it. People are going to do drugs no matter what, so why not work with them to fight HIV/AIDS rather than against them?
    

    Thursday at 11:25pm · 
  • 
    

    Brock Waggoner Would you, with your children go out and buy needles for drug addicts? Then go and deliver said needles to the addicts with your child in tow? All that teaches a child is that is okay to do drugs just make sure that you don't get HIV. It is all about making sure that you are on a higher plain, standing with Christ so that when they are ready to quit you and Christ can reach down and help pull them towards heaven.
    

    Friday at 8:17am · 
  • 
    

    Greg Murray I don't have kids but I wouldn't see any problem bringing kids along if I had any. I would just explain to them that these people were addicted to drugs, but that we were helping them to help prevent the spread of disease. I doesn't seem like that complex of an issue to me....
    

    Friday at 9:05am · 
  • 
    

    Caroline Purser 
    

    Depends on how much clean needles cost, but I'm assuming it's pennies. We already give out free condoms / birth control to teenagers (i.e. Planned Parenthood, etc.) to fight teenage pregnancy & unplanned/wanted pregnancy.
    
    
    I think it's viable, and moral.... but how to do it without sounding like you're "negotiating with terrorists" ~ wouldn't gangs and drug dealers want to cash in on it? You know?
    
    Better (yet, more expensive,) try them for their crimes of using/making/possessing illegal substances and put all the addicts in rehab. Consider cracking down on them harder & handing out needles too.

    
    

    Friday at 9:15am · 
  • 
    

    Greg Murray But if you crack down on them harder would they trust you enough to show up for the clean needles? I think they would just stay home and use dirty needles to avoid getting caught.
    

    Friday at 9:37am · 
  • 
    

    Brock Waggoner 
    

    So Greg do you think that all of the violence down in Mexico is a good thing. When you live in a country like ours you forget that there are real consequences to actions. Mexico's border is a prime example of what we have to look forward to...See More

    
    

    Friday at 10:06am · 
  • 
    

    Greg Murray 
    

    The violence in Mexico is there precisely because drugs are illegal. If they were legal the drug cartels would lose all their income and the violence would rapidly come to an end. If drugs were sold at drug stores there would be no violence. Holland legalized marijuana and they have lower teen marijuana usage than the United States.
    
    Also, the Devil doesn't scare me.

    
    

    Friday at 2:23pm · 
  • 
    

    Brock Waggoner 
    

    Nice rationalization of facts to fit the argument. Lets think about what drugs do to people. 1) most drugs are illegal because they have a substance within them that induces an effect that alters the person perception of reality or physical attributes and are addictive. 2) the medical field is starting talk about the usage of even legalized drugs, especially ones classified as narcotics, to create tighter regulations and develop better treatments for curing or correcting the ailment suffered by the patients rather than making them dependent on these drugs (especially narcotics) 3) Do you really want children thinking that cocaine, heroine, marijuana, meth, etc. are alright because they are found in a drugstore? Or that now that these drugs are now more widely distributed you will have to fear that the guy sitting next to you with angel dust isn't going to go off into a superhuman rage and severely harm or kill you or your loved ones? And the cop that emptied his piece into him just made him even madder could have stopped him earlier except for the fact that the drug was legal? Greg there are so many more reasons to think about what you said in your earlier post before we even think about even having thoughts of legalizing any of these drugs. Why do you think that the first presidency came out in support of prop 8? It was not because we are trying to take away peoples choice to sin by committing acts of homosexuality. Rather it is because we took the stand and said enough is enough, homosexuality is wrong and we are going to fight to defend how God has given us council and commandments on how we should live our lives. If others want to do said things they have their choice, but they DO NOT have the right to try and DECIDE WHAT TRUTH IS and think they can change it with some court decisions. Evil is evil it is very simple when we start saying oh well those people over there are doing it and they aren't having any problems with it, that is rationalization. Did you know that Holland has some of the highest rates of human trafficking in western Europe? They have sex shops all over and because there is money to be made girls are brought in from eastern Europe and trafficked to fill the needs. History has always shown that where God's commandments are not kept by the people that nation will be destroyed. To be very blunt I do not want the United States to become worse than it already is, and saying that currently illegal drugs are now okay to use will only make us worse!!

    
    

    Friday at 2:59pm · 
  • 
    

    Greg Murray 
    

    Ok, you keep changing what kind of violence we're talking about, but I can assure you that more people are killed in the enforcement of drug laws than from violent frenzies caused by the drugs themselves. I just read the wikipedia page forPCP or Angel Dust and it says "media reports of PCP-induced violence are greatly exaggerated and that incidents of violence were unusual and often (but not always) limited to individuals with reputations for aggression regardless of drug use." I guess in rare cases the situation you described could happen, but the government could regulate public usage of dangerous drugs, just as they ban smoking in public now.
    I don't know if I would want children thinking that cocaine and heroine are fine, but I would want them to know the facts about drugs. I would want them to know that not all drugs are equal. Sometimes I think kids are taught that all drugs are equal, so when they try weed and nothing horrible happens they assume that everything the authorities have told them about drugs are wrong, and this leads them to harder drugs. I would not want them to go to jail if they got caught using drugs. I would rather that the government use it's billions of dollars it uses on the drug war to establish rehabilitation centers than for killing drug producers.
    The First Presidency came out in support of Prop 8 because they are old men who trust the scribblings of a bronze age tribe over modern science. Homosexuality is a fact of life. There is homosexuality all throughout the animal kingdom. I don't know how you can say homosexuality is evil unless you are willing to say that Satan takes the time to tempt penguins, elephants, cheetahs, chickens, emus and all sorts of other animals to commit homosexual acts in addition to humans. Homosexuality has nothing to do with Satan and everything to do with biology. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. There is, however, something fundamentally wrong in making some people second class citizens just because of the way they were born.
    I don't know what your point is about human trafficking in Holland is. It seems very unrelated to what we were talking about, but they should probably crack down on that.
    Also your point about history showing that countries that disobey the commandments being destroyed? That's just silly. So the Greeks were very accommodating to homosexuality, and under the leadership of Alexander the Great, who had a lifelong homosexual lover, they conquered Persia, a kingdom of monotheists, the kingdom that had freed the Jews. Of course the Greeks themselves were eventually conquered themselves, but by whom? The Romans, who were just as accepting of homosexuality as the Greeks themselves...

    
    

    Friday at 4:27pm · 
  • 
    

    Brock Waggoner Greg when did you go inactive?
    

    Friday at 4:39pm · 
  • 
    

    Brock Waggoner 
    

    Plus Greg I have a master's in Biology and am working on a PhD. in biology. The biology argument doesn't even come close to any kind of rational argument as all things in nature only focus on reproduction of the species so that it can survive. That is actual science reasoning and not my personal opinion. My personal knowledge of this is that President Monson is a prophet of GOD and that GOD is real and that he loves you. I also remember you bearing your testimony of those books written by those bronze age tribes as it being from GOD and that it is real. GOD doesn't change just how well we understand him and the more we understand science the more we understand GOD is how it really is.

    
    

    Friday at 4:55pm · 
  • 
    

    Greg Murray 
    

    Lets just say I have a more open-minded view of the church now. Brigham Young said that the law of God demanded a death penalty for a white man who mixes his seed with a black woman. He also taught that black men would never receive the priesthood until every other child of Adam had received it, which is obviously not how things worked out. He also taught that Adam was God. Am I, and all modern day members of the church, obliged to believe that he was speaking as a prophet of God when he said these things? Obviously not. So forgive me for thinking that church leadership is not infallible and not always under the direct guidance of God.
    
    What did you mean when you said, "all things in nature only focus on reproduction of the species so that it can survive"? Are you trying to say that there are no homosexual animals? Read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
    
    or this:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1190747/My-dads-Gay-penguins-parents.html

    
    

    Friday at 5:15pm · 
  • 
    

    Daniel Cerveny Brock, your arguments are jumping around from one thing to another just grasping at the chance to make points.also you're rather effective in the use of the straw man argument. Lastly please don't question others faith here. That is a tactic of wing nuts.and greg, wkipedia? Really?
    

    Friday at 5:15pm · 
  • 
    

    Greg Murray Wikipedia is awesome!
    

    Friday at 5:16pm · 
  • 
    

    Daniel Cerveny Yah but if you're gonna try to prove hard science with it at least go to the link's in the references. Perhaps this is the academic coming out in me
    

    Friday at 5:19pm · 
  • 
    

    Greg Murray Yeah good point. I will try to do that.
    

    Friday at 5:28pm · 
  • 
    

    Daniel Cerveny So I thought I would do a bit of research because I doubted I was the first to have this question. Turns out Vancouver has implemented this strategy. Check out the NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/health/08vancouver.html?_r=2&ref=science
    

    Friday at 11:37pm · 
  • 
    

    Greg Murray That was a cool article. I love it when people try radical solutions to old problems and get great results.
    

    Yesterday at 1:13am · 
  • 
    

    Brock Waggoner 
    

    Yes and the N.Y. times picks and chooses what they put into their articles. I know this as my professor, that I just finished studying with, was interviewed for one of these type articles concerning herbicide resistant weeds. They called atleast 7 of the other top scientists in this field of study around the country that work with these weeds and all of them told them the same thing. Only a few were quoted and these men were raving mad because they were taken so far out of context in what they said and one was actually misquoted at least once within the article (I studied under another one and speak to many of the other ones at conferences and meetings throughout the year) Again I go back to my point that drug use is bad and that when we foster an environment where it is accepted in any way we foster the harmful effects that come with it. We may say oh we are helping them now but how does this affect us as a society down the road? When they are willing to help themselves and quit I am all gung ho to help at this point as they are wanting to do it themselves. Also saying that the men who lead this church are just old white men is a sure sign that you are not really supporting them when raising your arm to the square at conference when we sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators of God. Do I know why God inspired Brigham Young to say some things? I do not. All that I know is that this church was lead by a prophet of God then just as much as it is now, or when Adam or Moses was on the earth.

    
    

    Yesterday at 1:14am · 
  • 
    

    Caroline Purser 
    

    Brock, pretty sure no one's questioning your belief in the church. ~
    
    
    If we legalized drugs, the gangs & drug lords would lose most of their income because smoke shops could sell it (and would want to - it would make them bank). It's like speakeasies, when the prohibition was repealed - there weren't mafia & other criminals bringing alcohol across the border, or manufacturing it illegally - because it wasn't illegal. Now even gas stations sell it.
    
    There are reasons they're illegal (super harmful, etc.) but cigarettes and alcohol are legal - and it's widely academically known how bad cigarettes are for you, and the problems of abuse of alcohol. Did alcoholism go up after prohibition? I think if we legalized drugs then maybe the problem would kill itself off, by getting the OD'ed Darwin Award, and those who don't partake or who can control themselves with moderation would still be here. Like they are today.

    
    

    Yesterday at 10:56am ·  ·  1 person
  • 
    

    Caroline Purser 
    

    Also, fostering not spreading HIV/AIDs is a very good thing. The nurses at Insite are offering clean things to inject drugs but do not give people drugs & cannot push the plunger. They even have resources if someone wants to go to rehab - and are creating a positive environment for these often homeless people (the homeless people who don't even go to shelters they're so marginalized) access to a positive interaction with the health system.
    
    Drug addiction affects all races, orientations, religions, ages and peoples. Maybe letting go of some of the stigma around drug addiction, and helping these people stop spreading diseases and realizing how bad their addictions are - in a safe environment with a nurse to talk to and resources would help these people seek help.
    
    Drug addictions is a physiological and psychological need for a habit forming substance, it's a disease more than it is a crime. These people are still our brothers & sisters and need our help, love, and support to overcome. Let us exceed with love.

    
    

    Yesterday at 11:44am · 
  • 
    

    Brock Waggoner And that is why the United Nations just published a report showing that alcohol is one of the leading killers of people in the world?
    

    Yesterday at 11:48am · 
  • 
    

    Caroline Purser 
    

    Yeah, so if you took your older children to feed homeless alcoholics/drug-addicts, they'd know you could buy beer in gas stations and that it's legal but they would still know that drinking is really bad and they shouldn't touch a drop.
    
    
    "Reprove with sharpness, and exceed with love." - Brigham Young
    
    Convey your disapproval, but never stop loving a child of God. Speak out against drugs & alcohol, but always lend these people a loving hand, always with charity and kindness.
    
    Legal or illegal, giving people clean needles to stop the spread of HIV & AIDs (one of the other leading killers), and helping these people get help by relieving them of their stigma and treating them with love (while disapproving of their actions), might be one of the best ways to go.

    
    

    Yesterday at 11:54am ·  ·  1 person
  • 
    

    Bennett Wilson Yes it would.
    

    13 hours ago · 
  • 
    

    Teresa Wilson Que Sweden? hmmm. Just check out the history of use/ control.
    

    4 hours ago ·