when your house rules keep family away

[Valley Girl]

Oh, please, no. I'd rather discuss household shoe rules.

 

BTW, if you don't take off your shoes in the house, you are WRONG.  :smash: :leaving:

 

I definitely don't want to go there either! I have no real opinion on shoes.

 

ETA: Correcting bad grammar and late-night blathering.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Reluctant Homeschooler

[eternalsummer]

I have no opinion on shoes either.  If someone did have a die-hard opinion on shoes, and I didn't have a medical condition that necessitated them, I'd take them off when I came into someone's home.  I can't imagine not doing so.

[Valley Girl]

I have no opinion on shoes either.  If someone did have a die-hard opinion on shoes, and I didn't have a medical condition that necessitated them, I'd take them off when I came into someone's home.  I can't imagine not doing so.

 

I'm barefoot right now, but I'm in my own home. Does that count for something?

[MercyA]

I'm barefoot right now, but I'm in my own home. Does that count for something?

 

Hmm...I think it's okay in your own house. But please don't come to my house that way. Socks please, but no shoes. Ever. 

 

:D

[eternalsummer]

Now that would be hard, I don't think I even own any socks.  But I will this winter.

 

But if you told me ahead of time about the socks, I'd just keep some in my car :)

 

Here's something I would rather not people bring into the house: lice.  Grr.

[Jean in Newcastle]

We take our shoes off inside. It's an Asian thing- even in the US. (I'm not Asian but I grew up in Asia and my husband is Asian). But we let people keep them on if they want.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Valley Girl]

Hmm...I think it's okay in your own house. But please don't come to my house that way. Socks please, but no shoes. Ever. 

 

:D

 

I can live with that. But here's the thing... are flip flops REALLY shoes? Especially when they don't stay on your feet?

[MercyA]

I can live with that. But here's the thing... are flip flops REALLY shoes? Especially when they don't stay on your feet?

 

That's tricky. I was going to say no (of course). But I don't want you wearing them in my house either. 

 

Maybe we all need a big chest of slippers and socks for guests, as mentioned upthread. I think the infectious diseases expert knows what she's talking about.  :)

 

Time for bed here! Goodnight, all!

[Lady Florida.]

I can live with that. But here's the thing... are flip flops REALLY shoes? Especially when they don't stay on your feet?

Depends on where you live. In my neck of the woods they definitely are. People here even have dressy flip flops, everyday flip flops, and beach flip flops. :)

 

I own exactly two pairs of closed toe shoes: a pair of black flats and a pair of tennis/workout shoes. All the rest are sandals and flip flops.

 

ETA: That's part of the reason I'm a Flylady dropout. It's hard to get dressed "all the way to your lace-up shoes" when you only have one pair of such shoes and they don't get worn around the house.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Lady Florida.

[Frances]

It is impossible to imagine that anyone is really curious about this, as opposed to a) Snarking at CW or b) Going all Judgey McJudgey on CW. Hence the 'pile on' question was anticipatory and accurate.

I'm not just curious, I think it is a fundamentally important question. When someone's strong beliefs against homosexuality and gay marriage are translated into words and actions, real people are affected. So personally, I believe that if you are going to take a strong stand then it is imperative that you have carefully thought through your beliefs and all of the ramifications. In many of the instances concerning issues around homosexuality and gay marriage (e.g. signing marriage certificates, baking cakes, etc.) people often seem at best insincere, inconsistent, and/or and without real reflection on the issue and at worst bigoted and hateful.

 

So yes, I really want to know which marriages she considers valid. Obviously not all civil marriages, since she doesn't consider any homosexual marriage valid. What about heterosexual civil marriages? What about heterosexual marriages of other religions or other Christian faiths, including those that marry homosexuals? What about heterosexual marriages after divorce without an annulment?

[amy g.]

I'd probably be better off if I had more rules.

 

For people I actually like, I will do anything as a hostess to make them comfortable. I give up my bed and bathroom because it is bigger, I allow dogs, I cook special meals, allow smoking on the porch, even pick up the butts myself.

 

But in the end, even people I like make me tired, and I'm happy when the visit is over.

 

I'm not nice enough to entertain people I don't like. So that is a non issue.

 

Dh and I have buried all of the parents we had relationships with so that is a non issue as well.

 

I don't really like staying at people's houses either. I think that when my kids have their own houses, I'll just stay in a hotel when I visit. Maybe I should get a little, yappy dog to stay with me.

 

We have a family wedding out of town next month. I don't want to board my dogs. Oldest is happy to stay here with my dogs and her thesis research while we are gone. If she wasn't, I'd probably stay home and send Dh and the kids by themselves.

[eternalsummer]

I get tired around people too.  I am not anti-social, exactly - I am pretty good at hosting people and yabbering and etc.  I just get exhausted and I resent it after about 3 hours.  

 

I go overboard too, esp. in regards to ameliorating the inconvenience of our eating habits; when my niece comes over, I buy fake chocolate pudding (those almond milk ones) and fake jello and fake mac and cheese and fake pizza and etc etc.  I try to have something not only tasty for guests, but often something we don't eat that much of ourselves, but I figure resembles more of their diet (this varies depending on the guests).  I actually like people to come over so I can feed them!  but then I like them to go home.

[amy g.]

I get tired around people too. I am not anti-social, exactly - I am pretty good at hosting people and yabbering and etc. I just get exhausted and I resent it after about 3 hours.

 

I go overboard too, esp. in regards to ameliorating the inconvenience of our eating habits; when my niece comes over, I buy fake chocolate pudding (those almond milk ones) and fake jello and fake mac and cheese and fake pizza and etc etc. I try to have something not only tasty for guests, but often something we don't eat that much of ourselves, but I figure resembles more of their diet (this varies depending on the guests). I actually like people to come over so I can feed them! but then I like them to go home.

Exact same!

Edited July 8, 2017 by amy g.

[Carol in Cal.]

I feel like we have a tricky situation with some family when it comes to staying at our house.  Our DD comes from a past of severe alcohol-fueled abuse, and she cannot tolerate even the smell of alcohol or seeing someone drinking it without having strong emotional responses (that can affect her for days).  Because of this, we don't have alcohol in our house ever.  If someone were to bring wine as a hostess gift, we would thank them but not open it.

 

However, we have relatives who have visited us in the past  - before DD joined our family - who brought their own alcohol or went out to buy some to drink during their visit.  I am nervous about inviting these relatives here now because it feels inhospitable to say, "We let you buy alcohol before, but you can't have it now" and yet there is just no way we would choose to subject out DD to more trauma.  Sadly, to some of the folks in our extended family we would like to have visit, this would be a real offense and a deal breaker.  

If this were the case, I would want to know about it, personally.

[eternalsummer]

I would say that the callousness of some posters' families astounds me, but it doesn't.  :(

[Carrie12345]

And then there are people who are offended if you won't visit their home where 20 German Shepherds live.  I mean, why would anyone NOT want to be trapped in a box with tons of giant, barking, shedding, smelly beasts? Breathing is overrated, right?

 

 

My sister had a German Shepherd and was incredibly offended that we all wanted her to put her dog in the kennel when we came to visit with out children. That both my sister and I put our vastly better behaved dogs in the kennel when people came over all the time was totally lost on her. She figured since my parent's dog (a small dog whose health issues means she spends the entire visit lying under an end table in my parent's bedroom) wasn't kenneled that meant her giant, jumpy, not well trained GSD could be out, too. Then again, at the time she lived with my parents so the dog was definitely kenneled, but she was pretty unhappy about it.

 

I'm totally not offended that my MIL refuses to visit. To me, it's a happy side effect. Her insisting she got a say in what we did at our own home was what was most irksome, but also not strictly limited to our getting a dog. She has serious boundry issues. Always has, always will.

 

I just thought it was funny (not ha-ha funny) that one MIL could be a jerk about someone else getting a dog, while another could be a jerk about people not enjoying 20 dogs. People's brains are so weird!

[Cindy in FL.]

What is someone like my son supposed to do, though? Never fly? He has a severe allergy to dogs and would not be able to be in an airplane with one. I think these people are extremely pampered and inconsiderate. As before, trained service animals are an exception.

 

I have seen this in stores, especially in some areas (we move around a lot). Somehow I doubt 15% of the population needs an ill-mannered Chihuahua for emotional support while shopping at the neighborhood thrift store.

 

However, in a stressful situation (which flying is for me), I tend to give people a bit more grace - I can see how if you were inclined towards emotional instability, flying would be a rough situation and might make a dog a more necessary companion, even if it doesn't look like it from the outside.

 

That said, there are always people who take advantage of anything they can, even if it means lying - from passing their kid off as a few years younger to get the kid rate at the movies to pretending their dog is a form of therapy.

[teachermom2834]

Just a thought on the visiting cohabitating couples. My friend was telling me about the first time she visited her future in-laws. She was about 20yo and had been living wit future dh for a few months. They went to visit his parents and the Catholic in-laws did not specify sleeping arrangements. My friend took the guest room without being told to.

 

Her MIL told her years later how much that respect meant to her.

 

Every situation is different but young people showing some deference to those fuddy duddy religious folks isn't such a bad thing. Ideally, respect goes both ways.

 

Ok- that was off topic but I hate that the sleeping arrangements are such a obstacle to relationship in some families :(

[Crimson Wife]

NM

Edited July 8, 2017 by Crimson Wife

[zoobie]

I feel like we have a tricky situation with some family when it comes to staying at our house. Our DD comes from a past of severe alcohol-fueled abuse, and she cannot tolerate even the smell of alcohol or seeing someone drinking it without having strong emotional responses (that can affect her for days). Because of this, we don't have alcohol in our house ever. If someone were to bring wine as a hostess gift, we would thank them but not open it.

 

However, we have relatives who have visited us in the past - before DD joined our family - who brought their own alcohol or went out to buy some to drink during their visit. I am nervous about inviting these relatives here now because it feels inhospitable to say, "We let you buy alcohol before, but you can't have it now" and yet there is just no way we would choose to subject out DD to more trauma. Sadly, to some of the folks in our extended family we would like to have visit, this would be a real offense and a deal breaker.

If they would be offended by your request and reasoning, that's a pretty good way to weed out for people to stay in your home!

[Murphy101]

I'm not just curious, I think it is a fundamentally important question. When someone's strong beliefs against homosexuality and gay marriage are translated into words and actions, real people are affected. So personally, I believe that if you are going to take a strong stand then it is imperative that you have carefully thought through your beliefs and all of the ramifications. In many of the instances concerning issues around homosexuality and gay marriage (e.g. signing marriage certificates, baking cakes, etc.) people often seem at best insincere, inconsistent, and/or and without real reflection on the issue and at worst bigoted and hateful.

 

So yes, I really want to know which marriages she considers valid. Obviously not all civil marriages, since she doesn't consider any homosexual marriage valid. What about heterosexual civil marriages? What about heterosexual marriages of other religions or other Christian faiths, including those that marry homosexuals? What about heterosexual marriages after divorce without an annulment?

Why do you want to know? Are you go to visit her and are worried you won't pass muster?

 

Being civil law married isn't enough for many people for lots of reasons.

 

Because it wasn't a church wedding, or the "right" church, or they don't like who they married or why they married or what all else. Families have these falling outs all the time, heterosexual or otherwise, and it's not anything new. And whether you or I or anyone else agree or disagree doesn't really matter. It's not our house.

[Laura Corin]

I had a friend who enforced this, and it WAS brutal at the time because of my PF.  

But she had a nice yard and I mostly stayed outside when I was there.  And I wore Fit Flops or Danskin sandals so that I could easily get them back on whenever I went out the door.  It made me see the 'no shoes in the house' thing differently, for sure.

 

When I lived in Asia and had foot problems, I had a pair of supportive indoor shoes that I took with me to other people's houses.  There's nothing wrong with wearing shoes rather than slippers in such a house, they just need to be indoor-only items.

[Frances]

Why do you want to know? Are you go to visit her and are worried you won't pass muster?

 

Being civil law married isn't enough for many people for lots of reasons.

 

Because it wasn't a church wedding, or the "right" church, or they don't like who they married or why they married or what all else. Families have these falling outs all the time, heterosexual or otherwise, and it's not anything new. And whether you or I or anyone else agree or disagree doesn't really matter. It's not our house.

As I said in my post because beliefs put into words or actions are not just theoretical and can affect actual people. While we might be talking only about house guests in the current situation, I'm sure her beliefs do not stop there. Just because a belief is based on religion does not automatically make it right, good, moral, or ethical.

[Murphy101]

As I said in my post because beliefs put into words or actions are not just theoretical and can affect actual people. While we might be talking only about house guests in the current situation, I'm sure her beliefs do not stop there. Just because a belief is based on religion does not automatically make it right, good, moral, or ethical.

It still makes no sense. Many people aren't talking theoretical. I'm not. Of course it has affected or might affect actual people. *I* am an actual person and so are the other posters in this thread. It doesn't matter whether CW's beliefs or opinions or preferences stop there. "There" is the only place she has say because "there" is her own house. People have all kinds of differing personal opinions (based on all kinds of things) that color what they tolerate living with or dealing with inside their home and yet most of those same people manage to cope with the world outside their house too.

 

So again, why would it matter to you unless you plan to visit her and don't think you can?

[Frances]

It still makes no sense. Many people aren't talking theoretical. I'm not. Of course it has affected or might affect actual people. *I* am an actual person and so are the other posters in this thread. It doesn't matter whether CW's beliefs or opinions or preferences stop there. "There" is the only place she has say because "there" is her own house. People have all kinds of differing personal opinions (based on all kinds of things) that color what they tolerate living with or dealing with inside their home and yet most of those same people manage to cope with the world outside their house too.

 

So again, why would it matter to you unless you plan to visit her and don't think you can?

Would it bother you if she said she would not allow any interracial married couple to sleep together in her home? Or would you just say fine, it's her home, that belief has no ramifications outside of her home?

[Carol in Cal.]

nm 

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Susan Wise Bauer
That was name calling.

[Murphy101]

Would it bother you if she said she would not allow any interracial married couple to sleep together in her home? Or would you just say fine, it's her home, that belief has no ramifications outside of her home?

It's her home so no, I wouldn't care.

 

If I were in an interracial marriage, I wouldn't want to visit her either, so again, I'd not care what someone I don't want to visit with has for their personal house rules.

[Valley Girl]

Would it bother you if she said she would not allow any interracial married couple to sleep together in her home? Or would you just say fine, it's her home, that belief has no ramifications outside of her home?

 

This will probably come across with the wrong tone, so please understand that I don't mean to sound strident. I'm wondering what are you suggesting actually. Do you think that some uninvolved third party be given the right to determine what standards or activities are or are not permitted in private homes (excluding illegal ones)? Is there some consequence that should be imposed (besides potential strained relationships among the family and friends involved)? I sincerely hope we haven't reached that point as a society.

 

You clearly disagree with another's poster's standard of what she would and would not allow in her home. You find it disturbing, offensive, etc. Many people would agree with you. But unless you're advocating that people be forced to permit things they don't want in their own homes, I think at some point you (general you) have to step back and let it go.

 

Again, I don't mean to come across as harsh. I'm just confused about what people who keep drilling down on this issue think should happen other than potential guests having to find another place to stay.

 

I've posted way too much on this thread. I'll leave now. It's been interesting to see how differently we all do things.

[Frances]

This will probably come across with the wrong tone, so please understand that I don't mean to sound strident. I'm wondering what are you suggesting actually. Do you think that some uninvolved third party be given the right to determine what standards or activities are or are not permitted in private homes (excluding illegal ones)? Is there some consequence that should be imposed (besides potential strained relationships among the family and friends involved)? I sincerely hope we haven't reached that point as a society.

 

You clearly disagree with another's poster's standard of what she would and would not allow in her home. You find it disturbing, offensive, etc. Many people would agree with you. But unless you're advocating that people be forced to permit things they don't want in their own homes, I think at some point you (general you) have to step back and let it go.

 

Again, I don't mean to come across as harsh. I'm just confused about what people who keep drilling down on this issue think should happen other than potential guests having to find another place to stay.

 

I've posted way too much on this thread. I'll leave now. It's been interesting to see how differently we all do things.

Of course I think she can do whatever she wants in her home and allow or not allow whatever she wants. But I also think that the beliefs that inform those decisions can have consequences for others outside her home, so that's why I'm questioning them and asking for clarification. But she doesn't want to engage and I'm fine with that, so I'll leave the thread.

 

And for those that think I was just being snarky that was truly not my intent and I apologize if it came across that way. I was trying, but obviously failed, to have a discussion.

[StephanieZ]

It's her home so no, I wouldn't care.

 

If I were in an interracial marriage, I wouldn't want to visit her either, so again, I'd not care what someone I don't want to visit with has for their personal house rules.

 

You wouldn't care???? 

 

You mean, you'd be cool being friendly online (or IRL) with an avowed racist? It wouldn't impact your view of her opinions? It wouldn't move you to put her on ignore or at least minimize viewing/considering her opinions?

 

Yoikes. 

 

You do realize this entire discussion, and nearly all of the content of the Chat board, is pretty much just us folks jabbering about our personal and philosophical opinions, bantering back and forth about what's right and wrong, yuck or yum, or good and bad, right? This discussion is just that. 

 

Just because CW (who is a good person, IMHO, based on her many posts over many years) is being given a polite-hard-time about her views on this topic doesn't mean it's mean or unfair. This wasn't her JAWM thread where she was looking for support only . . .  it wasn't even her OP . . . She put her opinion out there, and it is apparently unpopular with some of us (and supported by plenty of others). No one is being nasty or hateful about it on any side, IMHO. It just so happens that some of us feel very strongly about the immorality and cruelty of her view, and so some of us are making that clear and trying to argue against her view -- whether or not she ever "gets it" or whether or not maybe some other readers might be influenced by our posts . . . or maybe it just makes *us* feel better about the world to be able to at least speak out about a topic that is (very) important to us. 

Edited July 9, 2017 by StephanieZ

[Murphy101]

You wouldn't care????

 

You mean, you'd be cool being friendly online (or IRL) with an avowed racist?

🙄 What makes you think I'd want to hang out with them anywhere? I never said anything about being friends with them.

 

It wouldn't impact your view of her opinions? It wouldn't move you to put her on ignore or at least minimize viewing/considering her opinions?

Where did I ever say any of that nonsense? I didn't. My thinking they can have any household rules they want for their own house does not mean I would agree with their opinions or be friends with them or anything else.

 

You do realize this entire discussion, and nearly all of the content of the Chat board, is pretty much just us folks jabbering about our personal and philosophical opinions, bantering back and forth about what's right and wrong, yuck or yum, or good and bad, right? This discussion is just that.

*I* realise it, but I'm not sure you do. So what? I'm perfectly capable of conversing with others, even if I strongly disagree with them.

 

It just so happens that some of us feel very strongly about the immorality and cruelty of her view, and so some of us are making that clear and trying to argue against her view -- whether or not she ever "gets it" or whether or not maybe some other readers might be influenced by our posts . . . or maybe it just makes *us* feel better about the world to be able to at least speak out about a topic that is (very) important to us.

You are basicly admitting you are looking to bully her bc her household rules don't line up with yours. For sure you can do that, but likewise, I think it does more harm than good to your cause in this case unless you are putting forth that people shouldn't be allowed to decide who and what they want in their own home. Which would seem oddly inconsistent bc one of the repeated claims of the GLBT is that they should be allowed to do what they want and have the relationships they want in their own homes.

[kitten18]

Well, after reading this whole thread I've decided that I'm very thankful that my family and friends are easy people to get along with.

[BlsdMama]

The thread about rules regarding non married couples sleeping over got me thinking about how we all have a rule or two that someone else in the family might not like or agree with.  How often do these rules keep those family members from visiting you?  Is it worth it in the end, for the people who choose not to visit?  In the bf/gf sleepover thread, would your adult child have quit coming to see you if their bf/gf couldn'tl sleep in the same room as them?

 

I'm experiencing something like this right now where DH and I have a 'no dogs in the house' rule, and a close relative (and new dog owner who is smitten with their dog and won't leave their dog with anyone else in the world) won't come visit us unless they bring sweet pooch with them.  They've asked many times and tried to coerce us in many ways which has been annoying.  They just couldn't take the 'no' the first (or tenth) time they got it.  So now... who knows when we'll see them again!  I am more limited in my schedule for visiting them, and anyway, they've come to see us about twice a year as a habit.  But now with the new darling doggie, we might not see them at all until we go to them.  FYI the dog is never left alone. She is carried in a carrier literally everywhere they go... flights, restaurants, shopping, work.

 

So, yes, I'm disappointed in how things turned out, but DH and I don't want to change our rule, and they don't want to leave their doggie.... anyone else experience this type of thing?

 

 

The dog I would bend on - it isn't a moral thing or an allergy/health thing, just a personal preference.   Or find one area perhaps....  Along the lines of, "Oh, we have a little spot for Muffy in my entry.  We don't normally allow dogs in the house but we want to see you so badly!"  Or visit them.

 

I can't fathom my grown children not visiting me because of the moral rule - because they wouldn't ask me to compromise that for their sake.  They would know, from years of teaching, that would never EVER be an option in this house.

[StephanieZ]

🙄 What makes you think I'd want to hang out with them anywhere? I never said anything about being friends with them.

 

 

Where did I ever say any of that nonsense? I didn't. My thinking they can have any household rules they want for their own house does not mean I would agree with their opinions or be friends with them or anything else.

 

 

*I* realise it, but I'm not sure you do. So what? I'm perfectly capable of conversing with others, even if I strongly disagree with them.

 

 

You are basicly admitting you are looking to bully her bc her household rules don't line up with yours. For sure you can do that, but likewise, I think it does more harm than good to your cause in this case unless you are putting forth that people shouldn't be allowed to decide who and what they want in their own home. Which would seem oddly inconsistent bc one of the repeated claims of the GLBT is that they should be allowed to do what they want and have the relationships they want in their own homes.

 

Ugh. :001_huh: 

 

"bully"?? That's a bizarre use of the term. I think that is actually more insulting to CW than it is to me. CW is a strong advocate for her position, with plenty of allies. You might accuse me of being repetitive, insistent, even annoying, but bullying?

 

Just because I won't placidly accept a homophobic and discriminatory argument? This is an argument among peers, not bullying between a superior intellect and a weaker one.

 

You are harassing me here much more personally, persistently, and directly than I argued against CW's positions. Nonetheless, I wouldn't accuse you of bullying -- as we are peers and you have no power over me, nor are you injuring me. Perhaps I'd accuse you of being annoying or repetitive, but those are not moral failings, just minor personality flaws. 

 

For consideration:

 

From google: 

 

bul·ly

noun

 

1. 

a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.

synonyms: persecutor, oppressor, tyrant, tormentor, intimidator; More

 

 

 

verb

 

1. 

use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.  

 

 

 

From Merriam Webster:

 

Definition of bully

1. 1a :  a blustering, browbeating person; especially  :  one who is habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to others who are weaker, smaller, or in some way vulnerable tormented by the neighborhood bullyb :  pimp

2. 2:  a hired ruffian

3. 3archaica :  sweetheartb :  a fine chap

 

 

:banghead:  

[Guest]

 

 

The hardest part of our marriage is dealing with the uneducated relatives. Their refusal to use food safety rules and basic hygiene means we modify our visits to them, and they get offended when they come come here and we refuse to allow them in or eat their food. We just don't have the budget to pay for the damage they cause..we are working people so we don't get health care on a sliding scale or at medicare rates. And changing flooring plus spending hours cleaning because of the damage from their lug soles, filthy soles ( they won't use the shoe cleaners and tramp in mud and oil residue) and animals isn't in our budget.

[Murphy101]

Just because I won't placidly accept a homophobic and discriminatory argument? This is an argument among peers, not bullying between a superior intellect and a weaker one.

No one is insisting you accept anything.

 

The argument is not whether CW should be able to tell other people what to put up with or who to allow to visit in their homes.

 

Either people have every right to decide who visits in their own home and what is done in their own home and every right to whatever opinions they have or they don't.

 

That is the sum of the argument here.

 

This thread has had lots of different topics people don't want to deal with in their homes. And those people don't have to stop their house rules just because someone else doesn't like it. Saying you really strongly don't like it and adding name-calling to the mix in an effort to evoke shame doesn't actually make a valid counter argument.

[Terabith]

Oh, please, no. I'd rather discuss household shoe rules.

 

BTW, if you don't take off your shoes in the house, you are WRONG.  :smash:

 

Well, yes, but that's just because wearing shoes is uncomfortable and should be done as rarely as possible!  Frankly, our house is often a bra and pants free place, as well, but I'm certainly not going to inflict that on guests!

[StephanieZ]

No one is insisting you accept anything.

 

The argument is not whether CW should be able to tell other people what to put up with or who to allow to visit in their homes.

 

Either people have every right to decide who visits in their own home and what is done in their own home and every right to whatever opinions they have or they don't.

 

That is the sum of the argument here.

 

This thread has had lots of different topics people don't want to deal with in their homes. And those people don't have to stop their house rules just because someone else doesn't like it. Saying you really strongly don't like it and adding name-calling to the mix in an effort to evoke shame doesn't actually make a valid counter argument.

 

Name calling? Did I name call? Please quote me where I name called anyone. 

 

I used accurate adjectives to describe arguments and practices. 

 

I really don't know what you're reading, but I think you are misrepresenting my words. 

 

I trust I don't need to offer a definition of discrimination. I'll let you do your own googling on that one if you need a definition. 

 

From Merriam-Webster:

 

Definition of homophobia

1. :  irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

[Carol in Cal.]

See, an adjective CAN be an insult.  In case there was any question.  In which case the term 'name calling' does seem appropriate.

[StephanieZ]

nm 

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Susan Wise Bauer
This thread is going WAY off topic.

[HS Mom in NC]

So what about this one: 
 

Matthew 5:32

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

If a legally remarried family member, who is divorced on grounds other than adultery or is married to someone divorced on grounds other than adultery, wants to stay in the same bedroom at your house do you tell them no on moral grounds like some of you would homosexual couples who are legally married or cohabitating couples who aren't legally married or fornicating couples?
 

 

[Murphy101]

See, an adjective CAN be an insult. In case there was any question. In which case the term 'name calling' does seem appropriate.

I know, right?

 

I know many people who were born out of wedlock and yet here I am not calling them bastards and claiming it's not an insult/name calling because the word fits the definition.

 

I could think of many insulting terms that might fit people, or at least fit them in my opinion, but I don't go about name calling them while claiming any genuine interest in having a reasoned debate with them.

[Bluegoat]

So what about this one: 

 

Matthew 5:32

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

 

If a legally remarried family member, who is divorced on grounds other than adultery or is married to someone divorced on grounds other than adultery, wants to stay in the same bedroom at your house do you tell them no on moral grounds like some of you would homosexual couples who are legally married or cohabitating couples who aren't legally married or fornicating couples?

 

 

Yes.

 

I mean, I think people can have guests sleep seperatly if they want, for all kinds of reasons.  I also don't have a particular problem with the Catholic position on what marraige is.

 

But I find the way people think about this kind of strange - it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, even from within what they are describing as their own beliefs. 

 

Questioning has nothing to do with saying people can't set their own rules - I just want to know why someone divorced and remairied civilly would be ok, but, say, a common law couple og 20 years wouldn't be?  Why reduce marraige to the here and now - even in the Church, marraiges used to be done privatly, that clearly isn't a totally unheard of system for administering them.

 

The whole point of the discission is curiosity.

[winterbaby]

It seems like it would be a lot easier to just not invite people, than to invite them and tell them they can't sleep with their partner because you have scruples about their marriage. I can't imagine why anyone would want to stay with somebody who thinks their marriage isn't real, or even have them in their life. When I got married I had some people like that because we didn't marry in the church, and they dropped away a long time ago. Many equally if not more devout members of the same church have remained our close friends. I tend to believe in putting people above abstract principles, unless someone is getting hurt or something like that. My friends and family members have a right to their own conscience. I value them for themselves more than for whether I can get them to follow my views. And I seriously doubt anybody ever said "Honey, I'm sorry, but Aunt Mae's refusal to let us share a room at her house has opened my eyes to the fact that you were never really my wife in the first place. Goodbye."

[UmMusa]

What should they have done? Allowed her to soil herself in her carrier? The smell would have been far worse, and of course it would have been terrible for the dog. They brought a pad--what else could do they do? Hopefully they took her to the bathroom to go and then wrapped the pad well in a plastic bag before throwing it out. There were probably dirty diapers in the same bin--and I find the smell of those much more offensive.

Oh I didn't mean she 'should have held it' but no, they didn't take her to the bathroom or wrap the soiled pad in any bag... that more what my reaction was for.

I wonder how animal potty needs are handled on flights? What about when your pet pig needs to go?

[Carol in Cal.]

It seems like it would be a lot easier to just not invite people, than to invite them and tell them they can't sleep with their partner because you have scruples about their marriage. I can't imagine why anyone would want to stay with somebody who thinks their marriage isn't real, or even have them in their life. When I got married I had some people like that because we didn't marry in the church, and they dropped away a long time ago. Many equally if not more devout members of the same church have remained our close friends. I tend to believe in putting people above abstract principles, unless someone is getting hurt or something like that. My friends and family members have a right to their own conscience. I value them for themselves more than for whether I can get them to follow my views. And I seriously doubt anybody ever said "Honey, I'm sorry, but Aunt Mae's refusal to let us share a room at her house has opened my eyes to the fact that you were never really my wife in the first place. Goodbye."

 

I'm not Catholic, and my husband had (now deceased) relatives who are and who don't consider us to be married because although we had a church wedding it was not a sacramental one, and plus he was divorced when he met me. 

 

We actually got along really well.  One of them, an aunt, was a real pistol.  Nobody could believe how much she and I liked each other, but stranger things have happened.

 

We never had occasion to stay over at her house, but if we had I would have joked around with her about avoiding sin under her roof, and she would have taken it in good humor, and I would have expected that she would have told me if she didn't want us to sleep together, and if she had, I would have said fine, we will have to stay somewhere else, but (KEY POINT) We would still have a good relationship after that.  Because we liked each other, and we could respect each other's beliefs without necessarily sharing them. 

[MercyA]

Oh I didn't mean she 'should have held it' but no, they didn't take her to the bathroom or wrap the soiled pad in any bag... that more what my reaction was for.

I wonder how animal potty needs are handled on flights? What about when your pet pig needs to go?

 

Oh, I see. That wasn't very polite of them!

 

I've never taken a flight longer than about four hours, and my dog was always well able to hold it for that long. He could have done an overnight flight without needing to go, too. I did have to make sure I had enough time during layovers to take him outside (and some airports have very few grassy areas!) and then to come back in and go through security again. It takes a little planning and foresight to travel with an animal.

 

I don't think pig poo would bother me much more than dog poo.  :)

[Joker]

I'm not Catholic, and my husband had (now deceased) relatives who are and who don't consider us to be married because although we had a church wedding it was not a sacramental one, and plus he was divorced when he met me. 

 

We actually got along really well.  One of them, an aunt, was a real pistol.  Nobody could believe how much she and I liked each other, but stranger things have happened.

 

We never had occasion to stay over at her house, but if we had I would have joked around with her about avoiding sin under her roof, and she would have taken it in good humor, and I would have expected that she would have told me if she didn't want us to sleep together, and if she had, I would have said fine, we will have to stay somewhere else, but (KEY POINT) We would still have a good relationship after that.  Because we liked each other, and we could respect each other's beliefs without necessarily sharing them. 

 

I think it's easy to say this when you haven't actually been confronted with it. The very idea that you wouldn't be allowed to share a room means they do not respect your beliefs. You may respect theirs by doing what they want or staying somewhere else but they do not respect yours by insisting you not do so. My trans son will be turned away from some in my family if traveling with his girlfriend. They do not respect him and his relationship but they would expect him to respect them. That kind of thinking ends relationships. It's not loving, kind, or respectful. FTR, we are a Christian family so please don't throw out how it's loving due to your faith. I disagree. 

[Carol in Cal.]

I think it's easy to say this when you haven't actually been confronted with it. The very idea that you wouldn't be allowed to share a room means they do not respect your beliefs. You may respect theirs by doing what they want or staying somewhere else but they do not respect yours by insisting you not do so. My trans son will be turned away from some in my family if traveling with his girlfriend. They do not respect him and his relationship but they would expect him to respect them. That kind of thinking ends relationships. It's not loving, kind, or respectful. FTR, we are a Christian family so please don't throw out how it's loving due to your faith. I disagree. 

 

No, see, this is a sign of disagreement, not necessarily disrespect.  A distinction that is very important if you want to maintain relationships.

The question is "Do I sign on to behavior that I cannot condone by hosting it?"  Hosting is very intimate and to many it implies endorsement--to that extent, I wouldn't have any hard feelings if she said, "Hon, love ya, can't have yall sleeping together in my house though." 

 

If it was put forward like, "You dirty scumbag, I can't stand the sight of you" obviously that would be another story.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[Joker]

No, see, this is a sign of disagreement, not necessarily disrespect.  A distinction that is very important if you want to maintain relationships.

The question is "Do I sign on to behavior that I cannot condone by hosting it?"  Hosting is very intimate and to many it implies endorsement--to that extent, I wouldn't have any hard feelings if she said, "Hon, love ya, can't have yall sleeping together in my house though." 

 

If it was put forward like, "You dirty scumbag, I can't stand the sight of you" obviously that would be another story.

 

I completely disagree. I have a feeling I won't change your mind and you definitely won't change mine. I'm living it right now. It does end relationships and it is much more than disagreement.