>>857045Love is a word that is equivocated to cover 7-8 distinct concepts and emotions. Love for child is not the same as Love for Friend or Love for Spouse as Love for Beer. Some of the more common attempts at classification by Psychologists include Platonic, Philadelphia, Storgic, Agape, Mania, Ludos, and Eros. Google for more info.
Because of the equivocation its hard to speak generally to each of your other questions, but I'll try.
Do families "have" to? Obviously some don't. Of those, many pretend to. There can be obligations to family that are masked as love but really are something more businesslike. Debts owed to a shitty parent or sibling who non-the-less helped you in some way for instance. "Should" they always love eachother? Again I think not. This leads to enabling abuse- children who forgive any abuse by their parent, or any transgression by a degenerate failure sibling only reenforce that there is no consequence to that behavior, despite the unavoidable consequence of dysfunction.
Can they be healthy without it? Sure. But it takes the rare combination of resolve, power, and abuse to align. Most abused kids are spineless in this regard. Others still have power over their children well into adulthood- by status or wealth or other dependency.
>>857185Love is earned, but that doesn't mean it can't be owed. I've known many fools who take for granted a woman who loves them and deserves to be loved in turn- only to cast her aside and tear their life apart, only then realizing what they've lost.
Can a person love every single person? No- we don't have the mental capacity for that to be genuine. Can a single person be optimistic about the human species? Sure. Can everyone be optimistic? Yes, but undesirable and myopic.
A word is strange only in contrast to your other normative associations. Whether repeating a word will make it strange is based on the individual.
