Graeme

My motivation was because I had involvement with two completely separate relationship issues occur on the same day. Yes, yours was one and it made me reflect on all the lessons I learn back in 2004 when I went through the same thing as you. By itself, I probably wouldn't have started this thread, but the other one made me realise that there are a lot of people out there that still have trouble with relationships and what they mean. I was hoping to get a range of opinions and comments, and I've been very pleased with what's been said. Most of it has had me nodding my head as I recognise the truth in what's been said. To clarify, my interpretation is that we are talking about degrees of trust. Using an example, I trust most people I meet to be honest, fair and reasonable. If I learn otherwise, I try to remember that. However, there are not many people I meet in real life that I would trust with the information that I'm gay. Most of them don't need to know it, so that isn't a problem, but there is an extra level of trust required for me to give out that information. Similarly, there are only a few people that I would trust with access to my bank accounts. The common factor is that in both cases a betrayal of that trust hurts a lot more, and hence a higher level of trust is required. This is what needs to be "earned".

My understanding is that insurance companies will insure you for almost anything where they can quantify a probability. So, insuring for alien attack, end of the world, being struck by a meteorite and the Second Coming are well within the realms of what they may do.

This is what I was talking about when one partner compromises themselves out of existance. It is what should be avoided, because that's an unhealthy relationship. Compromise doesn't mean forgiving a partner's mistakes, accepting another culture or accepting the flaws in the partner. It can, but it doesn't have to. The degreee that each person in the relationship is willing to compromise is up to them, but they also have to maintain their own sense of self-worth. Compromising in a healthy relationship should not be subjugation of yourself for your partner. Bending, not breaking, is what is required. The degree of bending is a personal thing. Using myself as an example, I tend not to be a fussy person. In many areas, my wife has stronger opinions than I do (I'm talking about simple things like furniture, linen, clothing, etc.) As a consequence, I usually just follow her lead, rather than asserting myself. It may look like I'm henpecked (I probably am ) but it is more that it isn't a big deal to me. On the other hand, when it comes to voting in elections, she has her strong opinion that I don't always agree with. We've often voted for opposing parties, and we both know this -- but it isn't something that becomes a heated topic. We know we have differing opinions, and we leave it at that.

Best wishes, Dom! I hope things work out.

Best wishes, Mark I agree that it is highly unlikely that it is in the child's best interest for this sperm donor (sorry -- I refuse to call him a father) to have access. Good luck and I hope you're successful.

I don't think so. If you want crazy, try this one: Cows with Guns, by Dana Lyons Fat and docile, big and dumb They look so stupid, they aren't much fun Cows aren't fun They eat to grow, grow to die Die to be et at the hamburger fry Cows well done Nobody thunk it, nobody knew No one imagined the great cow guru Cows are one He hid in the forest, read books with great zeal He loved Che Guevera, a revolutionary veal Cow Se Tongue He spoke about justice, but nobody stirred He felt like an outcast, alone in the herd Cow doldrums He mooed we must fight, escape or we'll die Cows gathered around, cause the steaks were so high Bad cow pun But then he was captured, stuffed into a crate Loaded onto a truck, where he rode to his fate Cows are bummed He was a scrawny calf, who looked rather woozy No one suspected he was packing an Uzi Cows with guns They came with a needle to stick in his thigh He kicked for the groin, he pissed in their eye Cow well hung Knocked over a tractor and ran for the door Six gallons of gas flowed out on the floor Run cows run! He picked up a bullhorn and jumped up on the hay We are free roving bovines, we run free today We will fight for bovine freedom And hold our large heads high We will run free with the Buffalo, or die Cows with guns They crashed the gate in a great stampede Tipped over a milk truck, torched all the feed Cows have fun Sixty police cars were piled in a heap Covered in cow pies, covered up deep Much cow dung Black smoke rising, darkening the day Twelve burning McDonalds, have it your way The President said "enough is enough These uppity cattle, its time to get tough" Cow dung flung The newspapers gloated, folks sighed with relief Tomorrow at noon, they would all be ground beef Cows on buns The cows were surrounded, they waited and prayed They mooed their last moos, they chewed their last hay Cows outgunned The order was given to turn cows to whoppers Enforced by the might of ten thousand coppers But on the horizon surrounding the shoppers Came the deafening roar of chickens in choppers

I've been hesitant to weigh in on this discussion, but I want to say a couple of things to complement what Kurt has said. There is one category left out of that quote at the end: fear. My two boys never had separation anxiety. Because we live on a rural property, there is also effectively no traffic. One day in town, while my wife was strapping our one year old into his stroller, the three year old headed straight for the road.... She grabbed him before he could step in front of a car and he received a smack immediately. Yes, it was done in fear, but it was also to reinforce an important safety point: stepping onto the road when you're not holding a grown-ups hand means you get hurt. They are now six and eight, and neither will cross the road unless they holding the hand of a grown-up. BUT most of the time I agree with what is being said. Too many parents use corporal punishment as the first option in discipline, not the last. If they do use corporal punishment, it should never be done with anything other than the hand.

Join the club :pickaxe: My wife accepts that her husband is gay -- and it isn't a case of just not speaking about it. We often discuss what's been going on with my online friends, or gay issues. I still don't know how I lucked out with her....

Too much compromise is dangerous, but I feel that some compromise is needed to make a relationship work. It is the degree that is important. If you feel you are compromising things that are important to you, then that is too far. However, I could easily give up fatty foods (for example), if my partner went on a diet. Continuing to eat the things that they can't is just mean, and it's only a small sacrifice on my behalf.

Some recent events have made me think about what a relationship means, and how they can be made to work. For simplicity, I'm going to stick with just partnership relationships and leave parent/child and friend relationships alone. To me, a relationship forms when you start to care more about the well being of the other person than yourself. A strong relationship is one where that is mutual. To make a relationship work involves compromise. Sometimes that compromise is as easy as not cooking certain meals because the other person doesn't care for them. Other times those compromises are hard. I'm gay, but I'm staying faithful to my wife because that's the compromise I needed to make to keep our marriage together. Most of the time that isn't a problem, but sometimes it is very difficult and I need her help. The danger in a relationship is that the compromises can end up being lopsided. When one person starts to compromise themselves out of existance, then that is an unhealthy relationship. What do other people think about relationships?

You won't get an argument from me on this one Indeed, we have a computer game of hangman where one of the clues is "Disgusting Purple Dinosaur". The boys know that the answer is "Barney"

Hmm... Now I'm confused. I agree that the term "lowering" I used has not to do with height. It was in context to the level of maturity -- and six year old boys are not noted for their high levels of maturity But is "lowering" exclusively to do with height, or is it just a reference in terms of quantity as expressed in a vertical bar graph? I think we're getting off topic, but I won't be politically correct because I don't believe that the context I used the phrase is offensive. There are certainly times when "lowering" has a lot of negative connotations, but I don't think this is one of them. As Dio indicated -- lowering can just be altering to a new perspective.

We appear to have different definitions of maturity. Maturity, to me, consists largely of taking responsibility for your actions. A mature person can go dancing in the rain -- as long as they understand the consequences (clothes getting wet, etc.). If they understand that and are happy to live with that, then I still think they are mature. Again, we appear to have different definitions. I will often act like a child with my boys -- I'm lowering myself to their level. I don't expect them to be interested in modern politics, or major environmental issues, so if I want to interact with them, I have to do it largely on their turf, not mine. I don't consider that to be dishonest. That also doesn't mean I will cave into their every demand -- I can assure you I don't, but I try to accommodate them when it is feasible to do so. Having said that, kids are capable of exerting huge amounts of pressure on their parents, especially very young kids. You're definitely right there.

I think you mean James, not me -- I did a very small bit of experimenting with sodium and it was fun, but always under the teacher's eye.

Is it good or bad that I know what "exfoliate" means without reading Kevin's blog? Also, is hijacking of this thread allowed, since it's Robbie who's changed the topic?

"Grow up" usually means become more mature. That is not the same as losing your youth. It is possible to be mature and also have the attributes of youth, such as freshness of vision, or a wonder of the world around us. Similarly, young doesn't have to mean immature or innocent, which is what the terms "malleable" and "pliable" imply. What is "young"? Freshness, openness, growing.

Discipline, and the rights and wrongs of child discipline is a major topic in its own right. It is, however, a topic that can get quite emotional as the different sides exaggerate what the other side is saying.

Happy 21st Birthday! :music: :music: Wishing you a long, happy and prosperous life ahead.

Happy Birthday, Luc! :music: :music: I hope you have a great day.

I make funny faces often, but not in front of a mirror. I do it when playing with the boys. My youngest loves it, though my eldest now seems to think it's too childish....

Hi, Robbie, Congratulations! As I said in the PM I sent when you got to 1000, that many posts shows a commitment to the community here at GA that deserves to be recognised. Graeme

I seem to recall that one of the amendments to the USA constitution states that just because a right is not explicitly listed, that does not mean it isn't a right that is protected. I also read that some people view this as meaningless and hence should not have an influence on Supreme Court deliberations. It is an interesting topic, because who determines what is a right? Is marriage (taking a volatile issue) a right, or a social convention that grants selected privileges to those who undertake it? It is generally accepted that there are classes of people who are not permitted to marry (eg. siblings, children, those already married), so if you consider marriage a right, where do you draw the line? I have heard it argued that most of the contentious "rights" derive from an implied right to privacy. I can see problems with the wording, but some commentators have suggested that a new constitutional amendment that explicitly grants a right of privacy (subject to revocation in select situations such as security or police investigations) would solve the issue. I haven't heard of many people picking up on this, and I'm curious about why. Is it too contentious an issue?

Good luck with the new job! I can't sell to save myself, so I admire those who can. I used to begrudge salesmen the money they can make, but then I realised that they have so little job security. I hope the job lasts!

It was interesting reading, though I had to skim it so I may not have fully appreciated the fine detail. What I found most interesting were the dissenting opinions. It makes it clear that the philosophy of the Supreme Court Justices plays a major part in the way decisions are made. Justice Thomas expresses that he thinks that the original law should be repealed because it was wrong, BUT that he didn't find it to be illegal. Justice Scalia's comments were not unreasonable and the link he made to Roe vs Ward must have worried and encouraged the two sides in that debate. I've read a couple of recent Supreme Court rulings and I find the logic they use in their opinions to be interesting. It is immediately obvious that interpreting the constitution (and that's what they are are doing -- even if some might claim that they are just reading what's in the consitution) is not a simple task. There are many conflicting and intriguing fine detail questions arise with each issue.

Oh my gosh!! Yes!! I loved those! Ditto! I'm kicking myself that I temporarily forgot them. The only thing in my defense is that I don't believe it's possible to list the top three British comedies.