Comments on: Tacitus On Why Marriage For Love Is A Bad Idea

By: disenchantedscholar

disenchantedscholar — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 07:49:58 +0000

addendum: to fix the expansion issue, root it in fertility, creation of children from one set of parents, as child psychology shows these children are healthiest. If you don’t want children for selfish reasons, simply never get married, the genetic dead-ends show be allowed to flounder. Those people wouldn’t have an excuse to feel “trapped” and do anything stupid down the line.

By: disenchantedscholar

disenchantedscholar — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 07:46:13 +0000

Most people don’t know what real love is, they apply the word to their lust or marry because they already did X e.g. moved in together. Another issue is repeat marriages, those people do a disservice to the whole practice, perhaps a limit on the possible number, set very low. They would be forced to consider more carefully their position and no-fault divorce is ludicrous. Harsh punishment for adultery to support the family unit from betrayal and an emphasis on the fact that husband/wife is a job title, not an accessory to life. What passes for “love” nowadays, truly eros or mania instead of agape, requires no sacrifice. Once married, it should be well known it will be difficult, this isn’t a Disney movie, and you will have to sacrifice for the other. There is on incentive to do it early because indulgent State or elders already meet needs, supplanting the provisionary role until the next crash. After the fact, we need gratitude for one another, but if you can crack how to manifest that you’re smarter than I.

By: Neil Dunn

Neil Dunn — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 21:36:20 +0000

I agree with the direction of your conclusions, but “marriage” and “love” need to be defined in the article. The battle over what is a marriage has been a struggle of definition: to keep the traditional marriage — 1 man + 1 woman– from being changed (one side) vs. changing the definition to be– 1 man + 1 man or 1 woman + 1 woman (other side). For better or for worse the latter group has won.

By: Gordian

Gordian — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 15:31:17 +0000

If you use translation, absolutely avoid the Penguin (Mattingly-Handford). They deviate too far from the text to give it a “barbarous” feel to the language. For example, rex becomes chieftain rather than king, despite the fact that the position being referred to is the Anglo-Saxon cynning and the early German kuning (I am not absolutely certain on the German spelling, which I only know a smattering of), both of which are unerringly translated as king. I could see (A-S) drihten or (latin) duces becoming “chieftain,” but not rex.