Dear Dr. Laura: I had a friend who owed me money (under $200) and has not paid me back. This was the second time I agreed to pay her bill. She made good the first time, but on the second all I got was “the check is in the mail.” I tried to resolve the matter by giving her the opportunity to send me installments, but it still didn’t work.
It has been a few years since the incident, and because I am a forgiving person, I am thinking of calling her and basically letting bygones be bygones. Am I doing the wrong thing? Is it worth pursuing? My husband said not to bother. — San Diego, Calif.
A — It is always sad to feel that you really don’t matter very much to someone — especially when you’ve put yourself out for them and thought the friendship mattered. There is a reflexive tendency to try to fix it, to get back to the more comfortable feeling you once had, by giving up your dignity.
Some people respond to favors with gratitude, others with a sense of entitlement, becoming resentful that you just didn’t give or take care of them with nothing expected in return (parent-infant style). These are issues of character and values that your “forgiveness” will not directly change.
To relieve yourself of the stewing over it, it might be worth calling and telling her that this has been a sad weight on your soul and that you forgive her the loan in order to unburden both of you. However, the friendship can only occur in the presence of reciprocal respect — and when she’s ready, your door is open.
Q — I’m in a bind with my wife and kids. My kids, 20 and 19, rent a house from me. I told them up front, “No drugs or alcohol or you’re out!” Last week I stopped by and discovered that they had had friends over the night before and had consumed hard liquor and beer. I am willing to let them stay provided they tell me who was there so I can talk to these folks. You must be 21 to be legal for liquor in Utah.
My dilemma is that I have given them two days to comply or they are out. Please give me your thoughts. Am I wrong? I believe they should be accountable for their actions. It appears that their loyalty to their friends is greater than to what is right. I have told them and my wife that they can stay with us so that they would not be turned out on the street. It seems unlikely they would return to our home. What do you think? — Ogden, Utah
A — You are 100 percent correct. Don’t wimp out now. Your childrens’ continued character development is dependent upon your follow through.
Q — If one tolerates those who are homosexual, is it hypocritical to oppose the gay agenda, such as gay marriage, gay spousal benefits, etc.? — Sutton’s Bay, Mich.
A — I don’t know your religious persuasion, but the Catholic church recently took a position on your very question. It urged families not to reject their homosexual family members; to embrace, love and include them in their hearts and family lives.
Their position, as recorded in numerous news reports, was that homosexuality was some inherent quality, not a choice; therefore the issue of morality was moot. Where the church found the issue of morality to be relevant was in sexual behaviors, where there is a choice. Therefore, the church separated the fact of an individual’s homosexuality from the choice each homosexual has in participating in homosexual intimate relationships.
The issue then becomes one of accepting an individual but rejecting certain behaviors. Therefore, gay marriage or spousal benefits would be unacceptable because they recognize and support what is considered theologically unacceptable.
This is not hypocrisy. This is compassion for an individual, while still upholding religious standards of sexual behavior.
———-
Questions may be sent to Dr. Laura Schlessinger in care of the Chicago Tribune WOMANEWS section, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60611. Questions of general interest will be answered often in this weekly column; unpublished letters cannot be answered individually.
