A whole pile of stuff

[geminigirl]

alibee posted this-an article about a married couple, husband and wife who don't live together, and who, as I understand from the article, never have.

I can't imagine that working for my relationship with zedrikcayne. It's not compatible with our relationship and how we function as a couple. I'm wondering what others think about this-would you call this "marriage" or would you call it something else? Would you be able to make the kind of committment that your perception of marriage includes and live like this, or would it not work for you?

Then there was this post in parenting101. I've been involved in similar discussions elsewhere, too. It's about what to call a child's genitals. As we approach parenthood even more, this is something we've talked about; in my house, (mostly) proper names were used (I say "mostly" because my vulva and entire genital region were referred to as "vagina" but it's close enough, I think.) It doesn't make sense to me to not teach children proper names for body parts.

There's also this story I saw linked in catling's journal about Pat Robertson calling for a ban on pet adoptions by same sex couples. Yes. You read it correctly. And I was glad I didn't have a beverage when I read it. This is from "The Pace Press"-the student newspaper of Pace University (which is a legitimate university.)

Anyway, here's the article for your perusal, in case the link vanishes or you have trouble getting it to load...
Pat Robertson, host of 700 Club, has recently called for a federal law banning same sex couples from adopting pets. This is a comment on Ellen Degeneres' public outburst pertaining to her incorrect "re-gifting" of her adopted dog, Iggy, to her hairdresser. Must I continue?

"It is God's will for dogs to grow up in a loving home with a Dad and a Mom and I strongly praise Mutts & Moms for removing Iggy from a harmful lesbian environment," Robertson said on his show. He explained the Bible says pets need a mother and a father and Degeneres and girlfriend, Portia De Rossi, cannot provide that dynamic. "Where was the male role model in Iggy's life?" Robertson said.

This is how dead serious Robertson is: if the future president does not pass this law, he is going to initiate ballot measures in all the states to override the President's choice. This is what I look forward to next year - a gay pets adoption right?

According to Robertson, all animals, not just dogs, must be kept safe from the hell-ridden households of gay/lesbian couples.

"The plain fact is that same sex couples should not be allowed to raise dogs, fish, birds, hamsters, ferrets, lizards, or any other animal."

However, cats are the exception from the rule because "only liberals and pagans would ever want to raise those spawn of Beelzebub."

I'd like to believe everyone with a brain realizes that this is not only the dumbest call for a law ever brought up, but to play on a media uproar lasting two minutes of air time is a definite stretch to gain some sort of power. Mr. Robertson, this is a joke to me.

We are a country finding love for Tila Tequila, Bret Michaels and Flavor Flave on national television, and he is trying to push this idea that only a man and a woman together should have the right to adopt a pet. Love is far passed sacred these days, Pat. Please check your outdated allegations at the door.

I just hope nobody joins his pet salvation crusade. Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and John McCain have already put forth their vote.



For the sake of marital harmony, I must partly retract my complaint about chocolate from the other night. He stopped on the way home (even though he was working late) and brought me chocolate. And, as I picked through the giant bag of candy he did bring home, I discovered individually wrapped Lemonheads which are one of my favorite candies.

And last, for now...there was a post on a forum I frequent about sex for baby making, and how, when you're actively trying to conceive, sometimes it needs a bit more excitement. I wanted to share what I wrote, because, well, I'm in love. What can I say?



We learned to laugh at bad sex.

I think we had more fun having bad sex and laughing about it sometimes than we have when we've had great sex. For us, because we were dealing with fertility issues on both sides, at certain time, sex became kind of a chore...just one of those things we did like washing the dishes. And so, it became less than exciting some of the time.

But we laughed about it. We laughed about how I'd make the grocery list in my head while we were having sex, or he'd try and solve work-related problems. About how we'd finish and he'd lay down next to me and instead of basking the the post-coital glow, we'd talk about cleaning the bathroom.

I think laughing together is one of the strengths of our marriage. If we couldn't laugh our way through the ups and downs and challenges we had when trying to conceive, we'd have really struggled with the crushing lows. Instead, we laughed and and while we might not have always enjoyed the sex, we enjoyed each other, and our love.


I've got another post brewing that comes from a conversation with my sister in law, but I need to more completely finish it before I post it.

Comments

[vix.livejournal.com]

On the marriage article... fascinating, fascinating. I have to agree with a previous poster who said it all depends on what your definition of 'marriage' is. For me, that wouldn't work at all; B and I have had a long-distance relationship for almost 2 years and cannot stand being apart, but have to for logistical and financial reasons for the time being. We visit as often as we can, but one of the differences between our relationship and the marriage described in the article is that he and I genuinely share a lot of varied interests. And more to the point, even those that we don't directly share, we enjoy each others' company so much that we're willing to try something new if it means we get to spend time together or share new experiences.

It's the "sharing" bit of our relationship that seems somewhat lacking in the marriage described in the article; that couple cares for each other, shares love for their children, but I don't personally know how a relationship can maintain any sense of interest, excitement, affection, and so on when there are literally no shared interests at all outside of the children and the family unit. They're so widely disparate in most every respect I'm amazed they've been able to make it work without being intrigued by someone else with whom they share more commonalities. But hey, to each their own; I just know it wouldn't work for me. It's not the way I'm wired.

Thanks for linking it! What an interesting read.