THUNDER AND LIGHTNING, VERY VERY FRIGHTENING

I discovered something about my cat at 3:15 a.m. this morning.



She is scared of thunder.




And how does she deal with being scared of thunder?




By burying herself into my side, hiding under my blanket, and spending the night RIGHT by me.

STRAIGHT BUT NOT NARROW

I get impatient when I hear people bringing up the "sanctity of marriage" whenever gay rights is discussed (discussed is a much more polite term for some of the yelling and screaming which is actually what can occur. isn't it?).

Does a gay couple having the right to be wed somehow affect the 50% divorce rate of regular hetrosexual marriages?

With the great majority of people having sex before and outside of marriage, who is keeping track of how many of them just might be of the same sex? 

I believe in marriage -- and the old-fashioned no-sex outside of marriage, till-death-do-us-part deal -- and I even believe in the one man, one woman bit.

But allowing a homosexual couple to be legally bound, to have the same spousal rights as I have, doesn't threaten my marriage.

If the sanctity of marriage is your beef, then please, before you jump on gays trying to get married, work on troubled marriages - consider spousal abuse - address abused children.  Worry about the couples who get hitched for 48 hours and then get divorced. Talk about people who are married 3, 4, 7 times.

While my definition of sleeping together generally means the cat and two dogs are on my bed, I can accept that with most of American society, that means having sex. And going steady means having sex. Heck, even dating means having sex.

Can anyone consider that THIS is affecting marriage, or what we define as marriage, so much more than gay marriage?

This is more than a little bit babbling, but I hope you are seeing my point.

I 'AVE A 'AD COLD

I wish colds didn't make me nervous.

Like most of the American public, I probably catch one or two colds a year (and just live with allergies the rest of the time).

Unfortunately, I also have a history of developing pneumonia from aforementioned colds.

It's not so scary now that they have developed some pretty strong antibiotics for people like me who are allergic to all the regular one.

But still something I would rather avoid.

So yesterday I should probably not  have been out in rain, hail and just a touch of snow trying to repair my goats' shed.

I'm just not moving outside for the next couple of days, and I'm certain I'll be all better.

FEELING HAPPY AND LUCKY AND GAY

A common platitude in the LDS church is that our teenagers today were "saved" to live in these perilous times, offering the supportive concept that they are strong enough, unique enough as spirits to withstand all the sin of this time.

(And by this logic, it seems to imply that previous generations were weaker, more easily manipulated, more prone to mistakes - and these are the people passing on these clichés!).

But if our youth are "more valiant", could this perhaps be the reason new and more unique methods of sin are developing?

The pioneers didn't have to worry about internet porn - WWII time-frame wasn't caught up in Twitter mania - every the radical 60's idea of revolt involved only denim, hair that was longer than the collar, and the music we now listen to as soft rock or Muzak in the mall.

And perhaps is this why individuals who are obviously "born" gay are also being 'saved' for today?

I don't know if it's simply because being a homosexual has become more politically correct in the last forty years, and if anyone who was gay in the past then simply remained very much stuffed in their closet by public pressure.

When I was growing up, I do remember some bachelors who had great taste in fashion - there were a couple of tough ladies who lived together - and it seemed that in most grades there was one effeminate boy who got picked on a lot.

So why today does it seem to be so many young men who simply stand out as gay - the slim build, the good looks (yes, it is true; every handsome man is either married or gay), the tone of voice, the dressing standard - even in very traditional LDS families? And not as many, but some young women simply don't want to deal with men, but with another woman?

I propose a theory.

As the LDS church teaches it, we are brought here to earth in order to gain a mortal body, to be tested and tried, and to learn the lessons necessary for us to return and live in Heavenly Father's presence for eternity.

And, as I was explaining to my older brother the other day, we are subject to periods of illness or our 'declining' years perhaps not as a test for ourselves as much as a chance for those around us, responsible for us, to prove their character in caring for us.

Might not this be an opportunity for those of us around these 'potential' gay youth to show/learn respect for others, tolerance and love for those who may not agree with us? Could these 'choice spirits' be the ones who aren't sent here to learn, but are sent here for US to learn? And accept? And love?