Help! Decided to go vegetarian but my husband hates veggies!
Options
Replies
-
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »beemerphile1 wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »FTR, [sic] and it helps not one. single. animal.
lol, the most dumbed down rational to continue to eat animals. doesn't help animals, ha ha.
Why the [sic], since it's an accepted abbreviation for "for the record?" [sic] is used to identify an error that someone else has made, which now appears in a quote.
As to being a "dumbed down" argument . . . well . . . yeah. The "ethical" argument that going vegetarian/vegan helps animals is pretty ridiculous, when you come right down to it. Want to help animals? Make their living conditions better. Ensure quick, safe slaughter that is as painless as possible. For Heaven's sake, raise your own if you're that concerned about the living conditions. However, veganism/vegetarianism is about control over what you eat and what others eat and has nothing to do with making one animal the slightest bit more comfortable.
If the OP wants to eat vegetarian meals, that is fine. She should not expect her husband to follow suit or try to "trick" him into eating vegetarian meals. She should not expect him to cook for himself based on her decision, if she has previously done the cooking for the family. I think the idea of her cooking meals to which meat can be added last is a good idea, though, and having their own halves of a pizza or similar meals is probably fine.
If you are going to critique others you should research the correct use of an ellipsis.
ROFL Master of Arts in Professional Writing here, so I don't think I need your telling me about how to use an ellipsis (kudos on knowing what that form of punctuation is called, though). How do you know that I'm not leaving something out?
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »
That's probably one of the most absurd things I've ever read on MFP. And there have been some outrageous things said around here.
Don't like it? That's fine. We're not married. It's called "growing apart" and couples do it all the time. I don't see the value of staying in a relationship with someone who puts his/her needs above the good of the relationship. Been there, done that.
Tough one.
So, I wouldn't date a vegetarian, vegan, pescatarian...or anyone on a restrictive diet. I get that.
But, marriage? I mean, didn't you make the whole "through sickness and health, till death do us part" vow? I would think that if you love someone enough to marry them, then you would stick by them. What if the diet change was a result of a medical condition?
I've already said that's a different matter.
Right.....not wanting to eat the same food is growing apart. Lol
I wonder what the religious teachings would say about that approach.
You're looking at it strictly from a dietary point of view. If a person is eating a vegan or vegetarian diet for so-called ethical reasons, then yes, that would be growing apart from someone who does not see eating meat as being unethical. Religious teachings would probably be behind me on this one, since wives are supposed to "honor" their husbands and husbands are supposed to value their wives. *shrugs* I find that I don't get along very well with a person who has decided that my moral compass is off and that every meal becomes a moral issue.
Eating sustains life. It is not a moral act.
You know that's completely false for you to say religion would support you divorcing your husband because you didn't agree on what food to eat. Nice try
*shrugs* It depends. If a person is married believing that a person is one thing and turns out to be another, there might be grounds for an annulment. Before someone "goes there," the change would have to be more than being a registered Republican and then registering as Independent or deciding to change a hairstyle or something. However, annulments are granted based on moral and psychological grounds all of the time.
In any case, you don't have to agree with my choices and I don't need to value your derision. The point is, the OP seems to have made a change that affects not just her life but that of her husband as well. Then she thinks that cooking different meals for both of them will "get old." It does not sound as if she wants to help him adjust to anything. It seems to me that she wants to lessen the impact of her decision, on herself. She should be aware that not every partner is going to tolerate that kind of behavior and that she might be setting herself up for a result that she will not like.
If a person eats meat then she changes after marriage that does not mean it turned out that person was something other than what they presented in the beginning. They were one way then decided to change that way. But they were what they were at the time. No where in your religion will it support that as grounds for annulment.
Goodness! How did this become a religious debate? LOL
It is a rare and odd person that lives their entire life without changing. Dealing with the changes in a spouse is part of being married.0 -
I've been a vegetarian since I was about 9 years old (I am now 22), but since I am the only one in my family who is veg, I've gotten used to adapting. I live with my boyfriend now, and he is not a vegetarian. Like others have stated above, just because you are eating vegetarian it does not mean that he also has to! I often prepare my meals separate from what I prepare for my boyfriend since we typically do not eat the same things. It's just what I know I need to do since I am the vegetarian. I still cook for him, I just cook two separate things. It's just a sacrifice you'll have to get used to!
Also, there are some things you can prepare and add meat in at the end so that way you can just take your meatless portion out, then add in the meat. I sometimes do this with pasta sauce or stir fry.0 -
jenniferhorn87 wrote: »Again, thanks to all of you that gave me helpful suggestions!
To the rest: Enjoy your debate!
And just to clear up a few things:
1. Why I'm doing this doesn't matter
2. My husband and I enjoy eating dinner together; so I have no problem making compromises. We're both very supportive of each other and I'm not forcing my life decisions on him. In no way am I telling him that he can't eat whatever he wants.
Then why are you complaining? If you don't mind cooking two meals, why not just cook two meals? Making a chunk of meat on the side of whatever you're having is easy. What you say in the "so I have no problem making compromises." of point 2 here directly contradicts your original post.
Sorry, this is just really confusing to me. You mind. But then you claim you don't mind. It makes no sense to me. You either care or you don't.0 -
emmydoodles83 wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »
That's probably one of the most absurd things I've ever read on MFP. And there have been some outrageous things said around here.
Don't like it? That's fine. We're not married. It's called "growing apart" and couples do it all the time. I don't see the value of staying in a relationship with someone who puts his/her needs above the good of the relationship. Been there, done that.
Tough one.
So, I wouldn't date a vegetarian, vegan, pescatarian...or anyone on a restrictive diet. I get that.
But, marriage? I mean, didn't you make the whole "through sickness and health, till death do us part" vow? I would think that if you love someone enough to marry them, then you would stick by them. What if the diet change was a result of a medical condition?
I've already said that's a different matter.
Right.....not wanting to eat the same food is growing apart. Lol
I wonder what the religious teachings would say about that approach.
You're looking at it strictly from a dietary point of view. If a person is eating a vegan or vegetarian diet for so-called ethical reasons, then yes, that would be growing apart from someone who does not see eating meat as being unethical. Religious teachings would probably be behind me on this one, since wives are supposed to "honor" their husbands and husbands are supposed to value their wives. *shrugs* I find that I don't get along very well with a person who has decided that my moral compass is off and that every meal becomes a moral issue.
Eating sustains life. It is not a moral act.
You know that's completely false for you to say religion would support you divorcing your husband because you didn't agree on what food to eat. Nice try
Sadly a lot of religion is a la carte these days, or misinterpreted until you can meld it to your lifestyle and what you are willing to follow.
Yup. Pretty much. And I'm surprised that the member would say the church would support her when she is probably well versed in Christianity based on her profile. The bible clearly states what it does.
and don't forget a Master of Professional Arts and Writing. But to be fair NO ONE gets through life without being a hypocrite at some point........... well several some points I'm sure.
0 -
jenniferhorn87 wrote: »Again, thanks to all of you that gave me helpful suggestions!
To the rest: Enjoy your debate!
And just to clear up a few things:
1. Why I'm doing this doesn't matter
2. My husband and I enjoy eating dinner together; so I have no problem making compromises. We're both very supportive of each other and I'm not forcing my life decisions on him. In no way am I telling him that he can't eat whatever he wants.
Then why are you complaining? If you don't mind cooking two meals, why not just cook two meals? Making a chunk of meat on the side of whatever you're having is easy. What you say in the "so I have no problem making compromises." of point 2 here directly contradicts your original post.
Sorry, this is just really confusing to me. You mind. But then you claim you don't mind. It makes no sense to me. You either care or you don't.
^Thank you. Glad someone said it.0 -
Unfortunately most of the vegetarian-friendly meals my (omnivore) husband and I (vegetarian) like are pretty carb heavy, but hey, one can customize! Or eat less! My husband is also not interested in faux meats or lots of vegetables (and he despises the idea of substituting carbs - sad), whereas I love all the vegetables. While we don't quite make two dinners, maybe 1.5 sometimes?
Here are some things we eat:
Baked potatoes with add your own toppings
Salad with chicken or faux chicken to add (or just big salads)
PASTA (very, very easy to add vegetables or meat/tofu/whatever as desired)
Soup (cheesy potato broccoli is a favorite)
Meat-Starch-Veg dinner (ie, I bake tofu for me and some chicken or pork chop or a steak or whatever for him, then make a vegetable like carrots we both like, then potatoes or rice or whatever)
Pot pie (as mentioned prior, just extra vegetables for me and his gets meat)
Pizza
Tacos
Now I do feel comfortable preparing meat for him, which it sounds like you are, so that should be okay. Sometimes I do prepare food he has zero interest in, and he'll just say "oh, balsamic kale with quinoa and tofu? Imma have a bowl of cereal." Sometimes he makes spaghetti-o's I'm not interested in either, it is okay if we don't eat the exact same food every meal.0 -
Mexican food might be a good fit. Try enchiladas.You can make a chile sauce pretty easily (try 2 Tbl chile powder, 1 1/2 - 2 quarts water, 1/2 C flour, and a dash of oregano, cumin, salt and garlic powder). You can put that over a lot of things- make stacked enchiladas by warming up corn tortillas and topping them with diced sweet onion and shredded cheese and the sauce. We layer them one tortilla, top w/ onion, then cheese, then sauce, then the next tortilla, etc. Good luck!0
-
jenniferhorn87 wrote: »Again, thanks to all of you that gave me helpful suggestions!
To the rest: Enjoy your debate!
And just to clear up a few things:
1. Why I'm doing this doesn't matter
2. My husband and I enjoy eating dinner together; so I have no problem making compromises. We're both very supportive of each other and I'm not forcing my life decisions on him. In no way am I telling him that he can't eat whatever he wants.
Then why are you complaining? If you don't mind cooking two meals, why not just cook two meals? Making a chunk of meat on the side of whatever you're having is easy. What you say in the "so I have no problem making compromises." of point 2 here directly contradicts your original post.
Sorry, this is just really confusing to me. You mind. But then you claim you don't mind. It makes no sense to me. You either care or you don't.
From what I read, she was never complaining. She asked for ideas. That's not complaining. She was hoping to find a middle ground to which it got turned around. There was too much read into this...0 -
Just because you decided to dramatically change your diet doesn't mean he has to. It's pretty unfair to expect him to jump onto the wagon and change with you. Time for a talk about how you two will work it out. It may mean that he cooks some of his own food, but you should both learn to be supportive of the other despite your new dietary differences (meaning it shouldn't add that much effort for you to cook up some meat for him while you are making dinner). I cook up two meals at my house sometimes (chicken for the kids and fish for me) with the side dishes being the same for everyone.
"Women enter into relationships thinking men can change and men enter into relationships thinking women will never change."
nods nods nods nods
This...I was vegan for 3 years and my husband never went vegan with me. It's unfair to expect someone else to change. I made meals that could be a side for him and a plate for me and cooked him lots of easy meat items like sausages. These days we are almost more backwards...I follow a paleo/Weston A. Price style ancestral foods diet full of grass fed meats, eggs and whole raw milk. Still eat lots of plants. He can't get off the vanilla almond milk I got him hooked on...While I respect your decision to go vegetarian, likely for "ethical" issues, after my own experience down that road and feeling WAY better not fighting my omnivore nature I would just encourage you to tread lightly and listen to yourself. I respect those who want to avoid meat for compassion reasons but I do not personally think the word "eithical" applies. It is not unethical to eat what evolution has designed us best to eat. It IS unethical to subject animals to the horrors of factory farming and to live completely out of touch with the natural world.0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »beemerphile1 wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »FTR, [sic] and it helps not one. single. animal.
lol, the most dumbed down rational to continue to eat animals. doesn't help animals, ha ha.
Why the [sic], since it's an accepted abbreviation for "for the record?" [sic] is used to identify an error that someone else has made, which now appears in a quote.
As to being a "dumbed down" argument . . . well . . . yeah. The "ethical" argument that going vegetarian/vegan helps animals is pretty ridiculous, when you come right down to it. Want to help animals? Make their living conditions better. Ensure quick, safe slaughter that is as painless as possible. For Heaven's sake, raise your own if you're that concerned about the living conditions. However, veganism/vegetarianism is about control over what you eat and what others eat and has nothing to do with making one animal the slightest bit more comfortable.
If the OP wants to eat vegetarian meals, that is fine. She should not expect her husband to follow suit or try to "trick" him into eating vegetarian meals. She should not expect him to cook for himself based on her decision, if she has previously done the cooking for the family. I think the idea of her cooking meals to which meat can be added last is a good idea, though, and having their own halves of a pizza or similar meals is probably fine.
If you are going to critique others you should research the correct use of an ellipsis.
ROFL Master of Arts in Professional Writing here, so I don't think I need your telling me about how to use an ellipsis (kudos on knowing what that form of punctuation is called, though). How do you know that I'm not leaving something out?LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »
That's probably one of the most absurd things I've ever read on MFP. And there have been some outrageous things said around here.
Don't like it? That's fine. We're not married. It's called "growing apart" and couples do it all the time. I don't see the value of staying in a relationship with someone who puts his/her needs above the good of the relationship. Been there, done that.
Tough one.
So, I wouldn't date a vegetarian, vegan, pescatarian...or anyone on a restrictive diet. I get that.
But, marriage? I mean, didn't you make the whole "through sickness and health, till death do us part" vow? I would think that if you love someone enough to marry them, then you would stick by them. What if the diet change was a result of a medical condition?
I've already said that's a different matter.
Right.....not wanting to eat the same food is growing apart. Lol
I wonder what the religious teachings would say about that approach.
You're looking at it strictly from a dietary point of view. If a person is eating a vegan or vegetarian diet for so-called ethical reasons, then yes, that would be growing apart from someone who does not see eating meat as being unethical. Religious teachings would probably be behind me on this one, since wives are supposed to "honor" their husbands and husbands are supposed to value their wives. *shrugs* I find that I don't get along very well with a person who has decided that my moral compass is off and that every meal becomes a moral issue.
Eating sustains life. It is not a moral act.
You know that's completely false for you to say religion would support you divorcing your husband because you didn't agree on what food to eat. Nice try
*shrugs* It depends. If a person is married believing that a person is one thing and turns out to be another, there might be grounds for an annulment. Before someone "goes there," the change would have to be more than being a registered Republican and then registering as Independent or deciding to change a hairstyle or something. However, annulments are granted based on moral and psychological grounds all of the time.
In any case, you don't have to agree with my choices and I don't need to value your derision. The point is, the OP seems to have made a change that affects not just her life but that of her husband as well. Then she thinks that cooking different meals for both of them will "get old." It does not sound as if she wants to help him adjust to anything. It seems to me that she wants to lessen the impact of her decision, on herself. She should be aware that not every partner is going to tolerate that kind of behavior and that she might be setting herself up for a result that she will not like.
If a person eats meat then she changes after marriage that does not mean it turned out that person was something other than what they presented in the beginning. They were one way then decided to change that way. But they were what they were at the time. No where in your religion will it support that as grounds for annulment.
Marriages entered into under false pretenses are not necessarily valid on their face. Neither are marriages entered into when one person is mentally ill (not saying that's the case here) necessarily valid on their face. I'm not a priest, neither am I a bishop; however, marriages break down every day and annulments are not impossible to get. If one could prove that a person's change on moral and/or ethical grounds produces irreparable damage to a relationship, then there is no reason to believe that an ecclesiastical court would dismiss it out of hand. I could not live with an "ethical" vegan. If that person had been "considering" making the change from omnivore to "ethical" vegan (as the OP stated that she had been considering the change to vegetarianism for a while), I could probably make the case to my priest and to my bishop that the marriage was not one into which I would have entered if I had known all the facts and they might allow the case to go forward. After the inevitable 18 month to 3 years of investigation, they might even find in my favor. Again, not saying that this is the case in the case of the OP. We don't even know if religion plays a part in this couple's life or if they were entered into a religious marriage. If not, the point is moot.
As to the person who "likes" how a question about dog fighting isn't being answered:
1) dog fighting has nothing to do with the thread
2) I didn't see the question
3) animal rights has nothing to do with animal welfare.
Just as a note: I did not bring religion into the discussion or attempt to derail the thread. I am sincere in my belief that the OP should consider the effect the issue could have on her marriage, if it has not been discussed already.0 -
This is the first time I've ever seen someone actually think that vegetarianism could lead to divorce. Just that.
The fact is, changing your diet isn't going to be the sole reason a marriage ends. No one divorces because somebody decided to eat differently. There are usually a lot more serious issues and the only way someone says that it did was because they were just looking for some ways to justify wanting out.
Seriously, if you are going to claim false pretenses on THAT, just don't get married. Ever. Seriously. Just don't.0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »beemerphile1 wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »FTR, [sic] and it helps not one. single. animal.
lol, the most dumbed down rational to continue to eat animals. doesn't help animals, ha ha.
Why the [sic], since it's an accepted abbreviation for "for the record?" [sic] is used to identify an error that someone else has made, which now appears in a quote.
As to being a "dumbed down" argument . . . well . . . yeah. The "ethical" argument that going vegetarian/vegan helps animals is pretty ridiculous, when you come right down to it. Want to help animals? Make their living conditions better. Ensure quick, safe slaughter that is as painless as possible. For Heaven's sake, raise your own if you're that concerned about the living conditions. However, veganism/vegetarianism is about control over what you eat and what others eat and has nothing to do with making one animal the slightest bit more comfortable.
If the OP wants to eat vegetarian meals, that is fine. She should not expect her husband to follow suit or try to "trick" him into eating vegetarian meals. She should not expect him to cook for himself based on her decision, if she has previously done the cooking for the family. I think the idea of her cooking meals to which meat can be added last is a good idea, though, and having their own halves of a pizza or similar meals is probably fine.
If you are going to critique others you should research the correct use of an ellipsis.
ROFL Master of Arts in Professional Writing here, so I don't think I need your telling me about how to use an ellipsis (kudos on knowing what that form of punctuation is called, though). How do you know that I'm not leaving something out?LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »
That's probably one of the most absurd things I've ever read on MFP. And there have been some outrageous things said around here.
Don't like it? That's fine. We're not married. It's called "growing apart" and couples do it all the time. I don't see the value of staying in a relationship with someone who puts his/her needs above the good of the relationship. Been there, done that.
Tough one.
So, I wouldn't date a vegetarian, vegan, pescatarian...or anyone on a restrictive diet. I get that.
But, marriage? I mean, didn't you make the whole "through sickness and health, till death do us part" vow? I would think that if you love someone enough to marry them, then you would stick by them. What if the diet change was a result of a medical condition?
I've already said that's a different matter.
Right.....not wanting to eat the same food is growing apart. Lol
I wonder what the religious teachings would say about that approach.
You're looking at it strictly from a dietary point of view. If a person is eating a vegan or vegetarian diet for so-called ethical reasons, then yes, that would be growing apart from someone who does not see eating meat as being unethical. Religious teachings would probably be behind me on this one, since wives are supposed to "honor" their husbands and husbands are supposed to value their wives. *shrugs* I find that I don't get along very well with a person who has decided that my moral compass is off and that every meal becomes a moral issue.
Eating sustains life. It is not a moral act.
You know that's completely false for you to say religion would support you divorcing your husband because you didn't agree on what food to eat. Nice try
*shrugs* It depends. If a person is married believing that a person is one thing and turns out to be another, there might be grounds for an annulment. Before someone "goes there," the change would have to be more than being a registered Republican and then registering as Independent or deciding to change a hairstyle or something. However, annulments are granted based on moral and psychological grounds all of the time.
In any case, you don't have to agree with my choices and I don't need to value your derision. The point is, the OP seems to have made a change that affects not just her life but that of her husband as well. Then she thinks that cooking different meals for both of them will "get old." It does not sound as if she wants to help him adjust to anything. It seems to me that she wants to lessen the impact of her decision, on herself. She should be aware that not every partner is going to tolerate that kind of behavior and that she might be setting herself up for a result that she will not like.
If a person eats meat then she changes after marriage that does not mean it turned out that person was something other than what they presented in the beginning. They were one way then decided to change that way. But they were what they were at the time. No where in your religion will it support that as grounds for annulment.
Marriages entered into under false pretenses are not necessarily valid on their face. Neither are marriages entered into when one person is mentally ill (not saying that's the case here) necessarily valid on their face. I'm not a priest, neither am I a bishop; however, marriages break down every day and annulments are not impossible to get. If one could prove that a person's change on moral and/or ethical grounds produces irreparable damage to a relationship, then there is no reason to believe that an ecclesiastical court would dismiss it out of hand. I could not live with an "ethical" vegan. If that person had been "considering" making the change from omnivore to "ethical" vegan (as the OP stated that she had been considering the change to vegetarianism for a while), I could probably make the case to my priest and to my bishop that the marriage was not one into which I would have entered if I had known all the facts and they might allow the case to go forward. After the inevitable 18 month to 3 years of investigation, they might even find in my favor. Again, not saying that this is the case in the case of the OP. We don't even know if religion plays a part in this couple's life or if they were entered into a religious marriage. If not, the point is moot.
As to the person who "likes" how a question about dog fighting isn't being answered:
1) dog fighting has nothing to do with the thread
2) I didn't see the question
3) animal rights has nothing to do with animal welfare.
Just as a note: I did not bring religion into the discussion or attempt to derail the thread. I am sincere in my belief that the OP should consider the effect the issue could have on her marriage, if it has not been discussed already.
I find it hilarious that you think any ecclesiastical court anywhere would annul a marriage because one party decided to become a vegetarian. I am almost positive that no court in any jurisdiction which grants fault-based divorces would even consider this scenario. Honestly, this is ridiculous.0 -
This may sound weird but it's not tofu. A few years ago a women I worked with brought in chili made with this "fake ground beef". I scruffed and grumbled but I tried it and it wasn't bad at all. No bad after taste like most "fake" stuff. You can buy it online and I think it comes in 1 pound or 2 pound increments. It looks like dried hamburger meat. She gave me some and it kept for a long time. The only reason I got rid of it was because the jar fell on the floor and broke. With a long hair dog I wasn't about to clean it up and reuse (yuck!).
Anyway, my two cents worth, vegetarianism is a choice only you can make. You can't force it on anyone else. Do what you can to make it work. I try to not eat carbs like potatoes and rice but I still make it for my husband - I just don't eat those items. Just don't hide it from your family or your friends. I had a neighbor who invited a group of us over for authentic Mexican cooking; when we were done eating she informed us that she used tofu and organic flavoring. Out of 4 of us, 3 became greatly sick the next day (throwing up and massive migraines). I found out that I can't eat tofu - it messes up my stomach. The moral of the story is, be honest to everyone - including yourself.
Good luck on your journey.
TVP - textured vegetable protein.0 -
jenniferhorn87 wrote: »I'm looking for suggestions for vegetarian meals that he might actually like.
Yeah....not going to happen.
Separate meals are the future for you two.
0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »beemerphile1 wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »
Marriages entered into under false pretenses are not necessarily valid on their face. Neither are marriages entered into when one person is mentally ill (not saying that's the case here) necessarily valid on their face.
Just to clarify...you think that marriages where one person is mentally ill at the time the contract is signed/ceremony is performed are illegitimate or marriages in which one person has suffered from or does suffer from mental illness in the past or future are illegitimate?0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »beemerphile1 wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »FTR, [sic] and it helps not one. single. animal.
lol, the most dumbed down rational to continue to eat animals. doesn't help animals, ha ha.
Why the [sic], since it's an accepted abbreviation for "for the record?" [sic] is used to identify an error that someone else has made, which now appears in a quote.
As to being a "dumbed down" argument . . . well . . . yeah. The "ethical" argument that going vegetarian/vegan helps animals is pretty ridiculous, when you come right down to it. Want to help animals? Make their living conditions better. Ensure quick, safe slaughter that is as painless as possible. For Heaven's sake, raise your own if you're that concerned about the living conditions. However, veganism/vegetarianism is about control over what you eat and what others eat and has nothing to do with making one animal the slightest bit more comfortable.
If the OP wants to eat vegetarian meals, that is fine. She should not expect her husband to follow suit or try to "trick" him into eating vegetarian meals. She should not expect him to cook for himself based on her decision, if she has previously done the cooking for the family. I think the idea of her cooking meals to which meat can be added last is a good idea, though, and having their own halves of a pizza or similar meals is probably fine.
If you are going to critique others you should research the correct use of an ellipsis.
ROFL Master of Arts in Professional Writing here, so I don't think I need your telling me about how to use an ellipsis (kudos on knowing what that form of punctuation is called, though). How do you know that I'm not leaving something out?LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »
That's probably one of the most absurd things I've ever read on MFP. And there have been some outrageous things said around here.
Don't like it? That's fine. We're not married. It's called "growing apart" and couples do it all the time. I don't see the value of staying in a relationship with someone who puts his/her needs above the good of the relationship. Been there, done that.
Tough one.
So, I wouldn't date a vegetarian, vegan, pescatarian...or anyone on a restrictive diet. I get that.
But, marriage? I mean, didn't you make the whole "through sickness and health, till death do us part" vow? I would think that if you love someone enough to marry them, then you would stick by them. What if the diet change was a result of a medical condition?
I've already said that's a different matter.
Right.....not wanting to eat the same food is growing apart. Lol
I wonder what the religious teachings would say about that approach.
You're looking at it strictly from a dietary point of view. If a person is eating a vegan or vegetarian diet for so-called ethical reasons, then yes, that would be growing apart from someone who does not see eating meat as being unethical. Religious teachings would probably be behind me on this one, since wives are supposed to "honor" their husbands and husbands are supposed to value their wives. *shrugs* I find that I don't get along very well with a person who has decided that my moral compass is off and that every meal becomes a moral issue.
Eating sustains life. It is not a moral act.
You know that's completely false for you to say religion would support you divorcing your husband because you didn't agree on what food to eat. Nice try
*shrugs* It depends. If a person is married believing that a person is one thing and turns out to be another, there might be grounds for an annulment. Before someone "goes there," the change would have to be more than being a registered Republican and then registering as Independent or deciding to change a hairstyle or something. However, annulments are granted based on moral and psychological grounds all of the time.
In any case, you don't have to agree with my choices and I don't need to value your derision. The point is, the OP seems to have made a change that affects not just her life but that of her husband as well. Then she thinks that cooking different meals for both of them will "get old." It does not sound as if she wants to help him adjust to anything. It seems to me that she wants to lessen the impact of her decision, on herself. She should be aware that not every partner is going to tolerate that kind of behavior and that she might be setting herself up for a result that she will not like.
If a person eats meat then she changes after marriage that does not mean it turned out that person was something other than what they presented in the beginning. They were one way then decided to change that way. But they were what they were at the time. No where in your religion will it support that as grounds for annulment.
Marriages entered into under false pretenses are not necessarily valid on their face. Neither are marriages entered into when one person is mentally ill (not saying that's the case here) necessarily valid on their face. I'm not a priest, neither am I a bishop; however, marriages break down every day and annulments are not impossible to get. If one could prove that a person's change on moral and/or ethical grounds produces irreparable damage to a relationship, then there is no reason to believe that an ecclesiastical court would dismiss it out of hand. I could not live with an "ethical" vegan. If that person had been "considering" making the change from omnivore to "ethical" vegan (as the OP stated that she had been considering the change to vegetarianism for a while), I could probably make the case to my priest and to my bishop that the marriage was not one into which I would have entered if I had known all the facts and they might allow the case to go forward. After the inevitable 18 month to 3 years of investigation, they might even find in my favor. Again, not saying that this is the case in the case of the OP. We don't even know if religion plays a part in this couple's life or if they were entered into a religious marriage. If not, the point is moot.
As to the person who "likes" how a question about dog fighting isn't being answered:
1) dog fighting has nothing to do with the thread
2) I didn't see the question
3) animal rights has nothing to do with animal welfare.
Just as a note: I did not bring religion into the discussion or attempt to derail the thread. I am sincere in my belief that the OP should consider the effect the issue could have on her marriage, if it has not been discussed already.
The question was not about dog fighting, it was about animal rights and picking and choosing which animals they extend to and when it's considered twaddle and a waste of your time.
Umm does animal rights not assist in maintaining animal welfare? Your rights have a bearing on your welfare, do they not, I know mine sure do.
You're gonna need to explain how animal rights and animal welfare have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
wel·fare
ˈwelˌfer/
noun
the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
"they don't give a damn about the welfare of their families"
synonyms: well-being, health, comfort, security, safety, protection, prosperity, success, fortune; More
statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need.
"the protection of rights to education, housing, and welfare"
or are you a la carte on animal rights and welfare as well?
0 -
Steph38878 wrote: »jenniferhorn87 wrote: »Again, thanks to all of you that gave me helpful suggestions!
To the rest: Enjoy your debate!
And just to clear up a few things:
1. Why I'm doing this doesn't matter
2. My husband and I enjoy eating dinner together; so I have no problem making compromises. We're both very supportive of each other and I'm not forcing my life decisions on him. In no way am I telling him that he can't eat whatever he wants.
Then why are you complaining? If you don't mind cooking two meals, why not just cook two meals? Making a chunk of meat on the side of whatever you're having is easy. What you say in the "so I have no problem making compromises." of point 2 here directly contradicts your original post.
Sorry, this is just really confusing to me. You mind. But then you claim you don't mind. It makes no sense to me. You either care or you don't.
From what I read, she was never complaining. She asked for ideas. That's not complaining. She was hoping to find a middle ground to which it got turned around. There was too much read into this...
I agree. I can imagine it would pretty hard to come up with meals that work as both vegetarian and non-vegetarian when the non-veg doesn't like beans, nuts or tofu, which are often used in vegetarian dishes. I'm not sure why all the hub-bub over her asking for meal suggestions. Other than this MFP and hub-bub is pretty much standard.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions