An excellent look at some of the differences between men and women, and how they are interconnected to their children as well as spouses. I'm sharing my favorite tidbit, but it by no means gives a flavor for the scope of the rest of the article. Very well done.
And a word to the wise for all the young mothers who are reluctant to let your husbands hold and care for your newborn. The more hands-on care a father gives his infant, the more his brain aligns with the role of fatherhood. So, hand over the baby.
There is nothing more attractive to a woman than a watching her husband lovingly cradle their child.
ReplyDeleteI love being a father. Like marriage, it teaches a person a lot about God. I find that my wife is especially beautiful when pregnant. (She loves being pregnant for most of the pregnancy.) Watching our children emerge from her were moments I can only describe as spiritual ecstasy and didn't diminish my sexual attraction to my wife, but rather increased it. I love holding and playing with my children and even enjoyed changing their diapers, which I didn't think I would.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course making the children was a whole lot of fun. The reenactments are great, too.
Yep, really looking forward to becoming a dad myself.
ReplyDeleteCaleb,
ReplyDeleteAre you looking forward to the joy mentioned in this article, which includes the joy of sharing the child you create with the spouse you create the child with?
If so I commend your decision. If not, then I can only lament the human cost of your gender segregation mentality. The two people getting the short shaft of your intolerance are the child and the mother.
The latter.
ReplyDeleteLament away.
Well, I do lament but I can't help but hold some respect that you are honest about it.
ReplyDeleteIts a welcome change, but just the honesty part.
You're welcome.
ReplyDeleteAs I stated before, anything in my power I can do to further realize the neutering of traditional marriage.
Oh, Caleb, by your words you keep indicating that your "marriage" is more about spiting us than it is about you and your partner. Just like the teenagers whose parents think they're too young, but they are then even more determined to get married anyway saying "well, we'll show THEM"! Opposite-sex marriages built on spite don't last, and there's no reason to believe that same-sex ones will do any better.
ReplyDeleteNow, I may be wrong about you, but I'm saying you sure are not acting like it.
Au contraire, actually I think the sex is better since we tied the knot and believe me it was great before we got hitched.
ReplyDeleteWell, there you go. He's counting on "good sex" to keep his relationship together. Why didn't we think of that :)
ReplyDeleteActually, that's not contradicting what I'm getting at at all. The question is whether the feeling will long outlast your need to spite us, which you obviously still feel strongly, possibly even the main glue which holds you together.
ReplyDeleteNever underestimate the appeal of old spite (plus geat sex).
ReplyDeleteWhat is the marriage neutering coefficient of a same sex marriage? I'm hoping its at least 10, talk about a feeling of self-empowerment!
And that is why I like Caleb here. He's like Phil, only succinct. He's like Miles, only more genuine. He's like Emma/Em/Emily only more anxious to rush in where she fears to tread.
ReplyDeleteNever underestimate the appeal of old spite (plus geat sex).
ReplyDeleteOh, the appeal I don't doubt, it's their basis as the platform for a long-term relationship I doubt.
Just keep confirming everything I say, Caleb.
Nothing I say will disconfirm.
ReplyDeleteCount on it.
Right, including about your relationship.
ReplyDeleteCorrect.
ReplyDeletePersonally I thnk my marriage must have neutered at least 10 of the usual boring ones (same sex marriage neutering coefficient [SSMNC] = 10).
The question now becomes how to further raise our SSMNC? We definitely want kids, at least two, and its either adoption or surrogacy. With either route (or both) I think a SSMNC of at least 20 is achievable.
Oh, Caleb, what would you do without us?
ReplyDeleteCaleb yesterday: Au contraire...
ReplyDeleteToday: Nothing I say will disconfirm.
Well, strictly speaking, true, but can't say you haven't tried.
Where I fear to tread? More that I am weaning myself off of commenting here. While it's been grand, it's also been frustrating.
ReplyDeleteI understand that many Americans are still hesitant to support marriage equality, and many Americans never will, but it is only some that speak of gay men and women in this condescending and derogatory and threatened way that NOM and you folks often seem to do. (As I've mentioned before, I've never seen "neutered marriage" anywhere but here, and it is such a strange term that I can only assume it comes from some underlying castration fear -- that allowing Caleb and his partner full civil marriage somehow undermines and negates your own marriage, your own manhood, your own ability to procreate.)
DADT will eventually be repealed. Gay men and women will eventually have the same job protections, housing protections, legal protections that other minorities do. Same-sex couples will eventually be able to marry not just in five states and our nation's capitol but throughout the country, and will be able to adopt children in every state of the union.
I'm not saying this will happen tomorrow, or the day after that, but with continued advocacy and the historical tendency of our country to expand human rights, not contract them, it will eventually happen.
In the meantime, Caleb, best of luck to you and your husband for a long and happy marriage, filled with laughing children and great sex. :)
I understand that many Americans are still hesitant to support marriage equality, and many Americans never will
ReplyDeleteAre you one of those? Do you support the integration provision of marriage to help promote the equality between the man, the woman, and the child they have together? Do you support the expectation of both genders being equally represented?
Is that not a valid goal of marriage equality?
I can only assume it comes from some underlying castration fear
Well, I suppose anyone can pretend to be a psychologist.
In all honesty, the fact that Caleb and Phil (and I think yourself) have openly argued to remove the organ of reproduction out of the state recognition of marriage, it seems to fit.
However "neutered marriage" was already explained to you and others as the removal of gendered referencing in the definition of marriage (to the same effect, mind you).
that allowing Caleb and his partner full civil marriage
Here is a question. If we didn't allow it as full civil marriage, would he be short changed at all?
What would his relationship be missing out from a Reciprocal Beneficiaries program that addresses his relationship exactly as he wants it to be recognized?
You might say that without the term "marriage" it isn't represented as he sees it, and thus is "derogatory" etc...
Well, if that is true, then it follows that when marriage is changed to remove it of its expectation of equality and responsibility in procreation, then we get left out in the cold.
Like I've said, we can suit both relationships, just not with the same program because only the man-woman relationship can be recognized as being truly responsible for how we have children.
So if you feel negated with out marriage, then obviously we feel negated without marriage recognizing our relationships for what they are -- attempts at equality and responsibility in how we have children.
Whatever helps gays, I have no problem with. But the right to swing a fist stops at my nose.
In the meantime, Caleb, best of luck to you and your husband for a long and happy marriage, filled with laughing children and great sex. :)
Funny, this attempt to celebrate has been so overdone by now that this seems anemic and pathetic.
Everyone wants Caleb to be happy, he's a very entertaining fellow.
But lets get serious, does his celebration have to be dancing on the grave of marriage?
Emma, you're missing the point of what we've been saying about Caleb---that from his posts here it appears that our opposition is what is really driving his "marriage". And a marriage built primarily on showing up one's opponents is ultimately built on nothing but sand. (As is a marriage built only on "great sex").
ReplyDeleteAnd I am not saying this is true of all or even most others who plan on getting "married" if SSM becomes legal. A person's style of argument---or, in Caleb's case, non-argument, says a lot.
Caleb: What is the marriage neutering coefficient of a same sex marriage? I'm hoping its at least 10, talk about a feeling of self-empowerment!
ReplyDeleteEmma: As I've mentioned before, I've never seen "neutered marriage" anywhere but here...
Obviously Caleb doesn't think the term is inappropriate, Emma, so maybe you should discuss with him why you disagree. Oh, I know, you'll say "he's being facetious". But does he really disagree? Ask him.