Skip to main content

View Diary: Bill Donohue speaks: Marriage is 'not about love' (211 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, by the Goddess Hel... (5+ / 0-)

    He almost got something right.  Good grief!  Don't tell him that!  In his delusional world he'll get the wrong details almost correct and everyone with an IQ lower than a rock will be totally confused.

    Originally marriage - at least the high-status ones - didn't have anything to do with love.  Poor people with no status at least had some leeway for marrying someone for whom they had some attraction and affection.

    High status marriage was all about consolidating property and making an alliance with another family so they could help each other if a feud broke out between neighboring families or tribes, and making sure legitimate children were born (declared legitimate by the old Xian church, that is, which removes "natural children" - illegitimate children - from legitimate succession to leadership or property inheritance).

    Princesses were "the peacekeepers" because they were given to men of neighboring territories (countries) to keep the peace in the theory that one does not make war against one's family.  Love didn't have anything to do with consolidation of familial power through a marriage contract.  Remember, marriage has always been a legal contract; that's why now in modern times the whole process has to go through the civil authority - i.e., county clerk's office - where a fee/tax is paid to get an official license to merge property owned by two people, plus legitimize any potential children who inherit that property and/or leadership of a family or a petty kingdom or a country.

    In modern times we still want the handsome prince and the pretty princess to fall in love, marry, and live happily ever after.

    The reality was never that great.  IF the prince and princess were very, very lucky, maybe they could come to love each other, but the initial marriage contract was always all about merging property and ruling lands and kingdoms and the people who lived on those lands.  Mostly it was nasty old men who were married off to young, fertile women who could produce a legitimate heir or two (male heir, of course), and once there was "an heir and a spare," then she could tell the old fart to buzz off and go screw the nearest knothole or jack himself off or find a mistress who would put up with his belches and farts and smelly, unbathed body.

    Is it any wonder fictitious tales about true love became popular fantasies and fairy tales...?

    I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

    by NonnyO on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 08:02:19 PM PDT

    •  Exactly! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      awsdirector, sfbob, NonnyO

      Marriage is a legal affectation.
      All adults of legal age and sound mind can enter into legal affections, sometimes called contracts.
      End of story.

      "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -- George Bernard Shaw

      by Inspector Javert on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 08:13:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The difference being (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Inspector Javert, sfbob, NonnyO

        that legal contracts between members of the same sex on the basis of an affective relationship have this nasty habit of being successfully challenge in courts by greedy bigoted "family members."

        Or disregarded by, say, hospitals.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 08:26:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And there are straights out here... (0+ / 0-)

          ... (like me) who think that's just a crock of bu!!$h!t and think that any contracts or wills or medical directives signed by the person affected take precedence over 'family' who don't have a clue about the meaning of the word 'family' - or 'love,' or 'following directives' as a signed and witnessed and notarized piece of paper indicates.

          Well, I believe that goes for directives signed by LGBT or heteros or anyone else who doesn't want certain family members to have any say-so in important or life-and-death matters, or organ donation, or donating one's body to science, or cremation, etc., either.  That's the alleged purpose of signing those pieces of paper that everyone is cautioned to sign - especially people of senior years like myself.

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 12:33:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a crock of bl!!$h!t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NonnyO

            but it happens.

            It will continue to happen even after marriage equality is achieved -- why, such things happen to straight people too (my grandfather's estate, for instance, successfully challenged by his second wife in spite of a will and a prenup).

            Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

            by corvo on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 06:23:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The one "advantage" to knowing... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wintergreen8694

              ... a reasonably finite timeline for death is that arrangements can be made.

              Some people do a quit-claim deed for a life-tenancy clause; they have the property until they die, then "for one dollar and other considerations," they pass on their real estate (land) to their designated heirs.

              Additionally, in Mom's case, she had a few nice pieces of jewelry, some of which each of us kids had given her over many years, and she returned the jewelry to each of us (my brother's wife and daughter got the jewelry, since he obviously could not wear women's jewelry).

              A few years ago when my own body started going all wonky on me, the jewelry my brother has given to me I gave to his daughter.  She has a daughter to pass it on to someday.  [My brother has always had remarkably good taste in jewelry for being a big burly he-man kind of fellow, like our dad.]

              As a person ages, making a codicil to a will or designating who gets what for jewelry or objets d'arte need to be arranged for - or, in my case, art pieces I've made, or all my genealogy research and reference books to go with it, some of which cost a small fortune, plus my books - I have the largest private library of anyone I know need to be passed on to someone who knows the value of that research and the materials, the history involved.  As of right now, I don't know anyone in the family younger who is that interested or inclined toward genealogy research so I may have to designate that stuff go to a museum or historical society.  Oh, and my media library which is a small eclectic collection that spans vinyl to CDs & DVDs.

              My solution is my mother's example.  Give it away while I still have any say-so in the matter so there's no fighting someday when death actually takes place.  My will would at that time become a moot point because I will have already made arrangements for most things or given them away by then.

              "Things" become a burden in old age because as much as one wanted them or appreciated them in youth, who to leave things to after death becomes a major decision making headache in some cases (or not at all in other cases).  That's why Mom gave her things back to us before she died: no fighting within the family after her death.

              The other thing I learned in hospice training is that one's wishes should be known by more than one person plus an attorney if one has a lawyer draw up the legal papers.  Tell the family what one wants and if they don't like it, tough.  Once one has made decisions, made any and all decisions known verbally, and put those wishes in writing, that's that.  That includes funeral arrangements.  As class exercises we had to write our own obituaries and plan our own funerals (it would be something we might be doing later with clients).

              That sort of thing makes one think about a lot of things.

              I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

              by NonnyO on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 07:00:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site