Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Parish Hall => Family Life => Topic started by: GiftOfGod on November 10, 2020, 02:39:19 PM

Title: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 10, 2020, 02:39:19 PM
I have not had success in the area of courting. I believe it is due to the fact that I own a house and have a few hundred thousand in equity in it and I insist on it staying "sole and separate property" if we get married. The relationship always goes sour shortly after I tell the women my intentions regarding that. They presume that it will become theirs (community property) but I want to keep it separate. This has happened to 3 women so far and I don't know what to do. I thought about letting women assume that it would become community property until we get married but that wouldn't be honest.

Any advice?
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on November 10, 2020, 03:55:06 PM
Maybe don’t mention it at all unless she asks.  And not put it in terms of a “prenup” agreement.  You bought the house before getting married, so the original equity would only be yours, legally.   She shouldn’t have a problem with that.  Whatever more equity goes into the house after the marriage, she legally shares 50/50 if in the worst case she isn’t faithful to you and practically ends the marriage.  That’s my take, but have you asked for advise about this from a Trad priest, and a lawyer?  Also, if you only date trad or conservative Catholic women, there was much less of a concern it ends and she takes you for all you’re worth (though there are plenty of difficult Trad marriages).   Marriage is never a sure bet, there’s always a significant risk it goes south, even if all seems right.   I’d go on Catholic Match, Traditional Catholic Singles, or SSPX Singles if you aren’t already. 
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 10, 2020, 04:08:42 PM
I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do. 
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Geremia on November 10, 2020, 04:39:47 PM
Sounds like you're weeding out gold-diggers. Good job. Keep looking. St. Raphael will provide. ☺
I read a pre-Vatican II marriage prep book that said to avoid materialistic women like the plague.

Look at St. John Chrysostom's description of an idea/attractive wife (from his On Virginity (https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=6549)):
Quote
it is not by beautifying herself, or by living a life of luxury, or by demanding from her husband money, or by being extravagant and lavish that she will be able to win him over. When she removes herself from all present concerns and imprints upon herself the apostolic way of life, when she displays great modesty, decorum, disdain for money and forbearance, then will she be able to capture him. When she says: "If we have food and clothing we have all that we need," [l Tim 6:8 (https://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&bk=61&ch=6&l=8-#x)] when she practices this philosophy in her actions and, laughing at physical death, calls this life nothing, when she considers along with the prophet every glory of this life to be as the flower of the field, [Isa. 40:6 (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&bk=27&ch=40&l=6-#x)] then she will capture him.

Also, all property is marriage should be common.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: diaduit on November 10, 2020, 04:42:48 PM
I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

I wouldn't want you to marry my daughter.

I understand you being protective of your property/assets if you were dating secular women but really if you are looking for a trad wife then as much as she is giving herself to you and your future children you need to share yourself and your assets with her.  You should be king and she should be queen of the family castle.  Not sharing your castle with her is reducing her to a whore and a hired help who fires out your children and does the endless chores involved.  Please change your attitude, we're not all bad.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 10, 2020, 04:54:52 PM
I wouldn't want you to marry my daughter.

You shouldn't post such an insulting thing. Also, who brought up your daughter?

I understand you being protective of your property/assets if you were dating secular women but really if you are looking for a trad wife then as much as she is giving herself to you and your future children you need to share yourself and your assets with her.  You should be king and she should be queen of the family castle.  Not sharing your castle with her is reducing her to a whore and a hired help who fires out your children and does the endless chores involved.  Please change your attitude, we're not all bad.

Did you not understand what I wrote? "My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in."

I've never heard of a rule that a castle can't be kept and rented out by the husband. Why do you assume that I won't use the rents received on my family? You need to change your attitude. I think the women I spoke of talked to someone like you who filled their heads with bad thoughts.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Daniel on November 10, 2020, 08:48:04 PM
Why do you assume that I won't use the rents received on my family?

If that's what your plan is, then what exactly is your concern?

As head of the family, your property becomes property of the family. And as head, you decide how use the family's property for the benefit of the family. Your wife doesn't get to use it howsoever she wants, but it's nevertheless "hers" by the very fact that she's married to you.

It almost seems like a false dichotomy.

I suppose I could understand if you don't trust the woman that you're thinking of marrying, or if you think she's out to scam you or something. Or maybe you don't trust your own ability to keep your wife under control once you're married? But these are separate issues. You don't solve them by entering into a marriage while simultaneously trying to keep some of your property to yourself. What you're trying to do doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my opinion. It's like you're trying to divide your "personal life" from your "married life" or something. But it won't work, because you only have the one life, the "married life".
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on November 10, 2020, 11:08:22 PM
I have not had success in the area of courting.

Any advice?

Yes, you are in luck newcomer.  Our own forum resident James03, one of the senior members and original members of SD, wrote a book giving advise for Catholic men about becoming better Catholic men, with a section on dating.  I bought it myself, as have other men here.

https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Red-Pill-Guide-Men/dp/1708960694#customerReviews
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 11, 2020, 12:54:14 AM
Why do you assume that I won't use the rents received on my family?

If that's what your plan is, then what exactly is your concern?

Because diaduit accused me of "not sharing my castle" with my wife and reducing her to the status of a whore.

As head of the family, your property becomes property of the family. And as head, you decide how use the family's property for the benefit of the family. Your wife doesn't get to use it howsoever she wants, but it's nevertheless "hers" by the very fact that she's married to you.

It almost seems like a false dichotomy.

I suppose I could understand if you don't trust the woman that you're thinking of marrying, or if you think she's out to scam you or something. Or maybe you don't trust your own ability to keep your wife under control once you're married? But these are separate issues. You don't solve them by entering into a marriage while simultaneously trying to keep some of your property to yourself. What you're trying to do doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my opinion. It's like you're trying to divide your "personal life" from your "married life" or something. But it won't work, because you only have the one life, the "married life".

Do you have any citations from a Catholic source for that? Because I can show you that Catholic societies in the Americans and Iberian Penninsula have been using the "community property" system (which allows for sole and separate property) for over 1,000 years without condemnation by the Church.


Yes, you are in luck newcomer.  Our own forum resident James03, one of the senior members and original members of SD, wrote a book giving advise for Catholic men about becoming better Catholic men, with a section on dating.  I bought it myself, as have other men here.

https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Red-Pill-Guide-Men/dp/1708960694#customerReviews

Interesting but I really think that my sole stumbling block is my insistence of keeping my property sole and separate. Maybe it's the way I say it but I don't think I'm presenting it in a rude way.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: diaduit on November 11, 2020, 03:26:26 AM
I'm not assuming anything about 'rent' or whatever.  I'm not assuming you won't provide for your family either but you are entering marriage with a stipulation as Daniel put it well, that your asset remains the ownership of you solely ie like you're single.  Its an insult to you're bride, no more than a pre nup is!
Have the 3 previous ladies been decent Catholic girls?  If so then you may have lost out a lovely future wife because of this.  TBH it smacks of meanness which is seriously off putting for any woman and its a red flag.  Meanness isn't just about money, a mean person is difficult to live with and can cause untold stress in a family and a woman can smell this a mile off.
Can I ask why you don't want you're future wifes name on the deed?
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 11, 2020, 05:22:27 AM
you are entering marriage with a stipulation as Daniel put it well, that your asset remains the ownership of you solely ie like you're single. 

Can you show me a Catholic source on that not being allowed? Because so far you have told me that I am not a good person for not doing what you think is right, not on what any priest, theologian, Pope, Saint, Council, etc. has ever said. Also, I have never stipulated anything. I don't need to because my property will automatically stay sole and separate and will not be community property unless and until I authorize it. You still haven't addressed the fact that Iberian-derived law (in Europe and the Americas) has allowed this for over 1,000 years without condemnation by the church.

TBH it smacks of meanness which is seriously off putting for any woman and its a red flag.

How is wanting to keep what is mine, mine "mean"?

Can I ask why you don't want you're future wifes name on the deed?

Because I've worked hard and long, I bought it, I've been making payments on it, I've been maintaining it and I don't want to risk losing it if there is a divorce. Divorce is already painful, so why allow it to be worse by voluntarily putting myself in a position to lose more money? Trads sometimes get divorced, in case you didn't know. Can I ask you why you want my future wife's name on the deed?

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: queen.saints on November 11, 2020, 05:57:06 AM
It’d be interesting to see the Catholic teachings on this.

It doesn’t have to be an issue of divorce. The modern inheritance laws which are so destructive to society bring another side to the question. Many families have been destroyed because the mother interfered in rightfully distributing the property.

There was just a double murder/suicide over this very issue.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/deaths-of-father-and-sons-may-have-been-over-disputed-inheritance-1.4391568?mode=amp
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 11, 2020, 06:28:07 AM
It’d be interesting to see the Catholic teachings on this.

It doesn’t have to be an issue of divorce. The modern inheritance laws which are so destructive to society bring another side to the question. Many families have been destroyed because the mother interfered in rightfully distributing the property.

Community property laws also relate to inheritance. A spouse who receives an inheritance automatically holds the assets sole and separate, unless converted to community property by her own will. Again, this is Iberian legal tradition that is still used in the American Southwest. I know that doesn't relate to your specific issue of inheritance but I understand the problem. I know a man who was disinherited (along with his siblings) of millions of dollars by his stepmother. Well, actually by his father who succumbed to his second wife's ultimatum.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Daniel on November 11, 2020, 07:40:34 AM
What exactly do you mean by "community property"? Sorry, but I'm not familiar with how property laws work in Spain or Latin America. But that phrase in English seems to carry with it implications that I don't think you're trying to imply.

If what you're referring to is a kind of shared property between the husband and wife, in which the husband and wife are both the owners and are on equal footing, then I can take a guess as to why the Church has not required this. My guess is: because family structures are hierarchical; the husband and wife are not supposed to be on equal footing. The wife has no right to sell off the family property without her husband's permission, nor does she have a right to spend the family income howsoever she pleases. These sorts of decisions fall upon the husband who is head of the family. (And the wife certainly has no right to divorce her husband, let alone keep half the family property for herself.) So it makes sense if the Catholic Church does not force the husband and the wife to convert all their property into "community property" (as defined by these laws) upon marriage, as that would more or less undermine the family's natural structure.

Do you have any citations from a Catholic source for that?

Maybe somebody else does, but I do not. It's just that this is how marriage has always been understood. "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) The husband and wife are no longer two separate autonomous individuals, but are a single family and must act as one family unit. To say that the family's head should be entitled to his own property is about as crazy as saying that a man's physical head should be entitled to its own separate blood supply.

Because I've worked hard and long, I bought it, I've been making payments on it, I've been maintaining it and I don't want to risk losing it if there is a divorce. Divorce is already painful, so why allow it to be worse by voluntarily putting myself in a position to lose more money? Trads sometimes get divorced, in case you didn't know. Can I ask you why you want my future wife's name on the deed?

This is completely the wrong attitude. First off, you should be planning for marriage, not for divorce. Second, that's the chance you take when you get married, and is why you shouldn't marry somebody who is foreseeably going to turn against you and proceed to abuse the legal system in order to take what she's not entitled to. But marriage entails sacrifice, and it's not going to work if you're holding back (financially) out of fear that something might go wrong.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 11, 2020, 08:14:16 AM
What exactly do you mean by "community property"? Sorry, but I'm not familiar with how property laws work in Spain or Latin America. But that phrase in English seems to carry with it implications that I don't think you're trying to imply.

It works the same as in California and Texas as it does in Mexico or Spain.


Maybe somebody else does, but I do not. It's just that this is how marriage has always been understood. "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) The husband and wife are no longer two separate autonomous individuals, but are a single family and must act as one family unit. To say that the family's head should be entitled to his own property is about as crazy as saying that a man's physical head should be entitled to its own separate blood supply.

That says nothing about finances. Care to explain why you think that separate property held by a married person is wrong but the Catholic Church in the USA, Latin America, and Iberia has been silent on it for over 1,000 years?
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Kent on November 11, 2020, 08:35:58 AM
I have not had success in the area of courting. I believe it is due to the fact that I own a house and have a few hundred thousand in equity in it and I insist on it staying "sole and separate property" if we get married. The relationship always goes sour shortly after I tell the women my intentions regarding that. They presume that it will become theirs (community property) but I want to keep it separate. This has happened to 3 women so far and I don't know what to do. I thought about letting women assume that it would become community property until we get married but that wouldn't be honest.

Any advice?

What exactly do you mean about it being 'sole and separate?' And what exactly do you tell your ladies 'sole and separate' means? If you just mean you aren't bringing them on to the deed and that the property is an investment (and you two will live together elsewhere) I neither see the problem nor do I see why they would have a problem (unless they're gold diggers). But if you're opaque about the matter, I can see a lady being put off. She will naturally wonder why her husband owns another house about which she has no information nor claim.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: james03 on November 11, 2020, 08:57:26 AM
Quote
Not sharing your castle with her is reducing her to a whore

You might want to reexamine your logic there.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: james03 on November 11, 2020, 09:04:25 AM
Quote
I have not had success in the area of courting. I believe it is due to the fact that I own a house and have a few hundred thousand in equity in it and I insist on it staying "sole and separate property" if we get married. The relationship always goes sour shortly after I tell the women my intentions regarding that. They presume that it will become theirs (community property) but I want to keep it separate. This has happened to 3 women so far and I don't know what to do. I thought about letting women assume that it would become community property until we get married but that wouldn't be honest.

How long did you date them, on average, how many dates did you go on before having these serious discussions?
Are you using the term"courting" to allow you to be a chicken and not ask them out, or have you actually dated any women?
Why in the heck are you talking finances with a woman?  Nothing good can come of that.
Were you engaged when you discussed finances?
Have you ever been engaged?

If you want to do the proper thing, don't talk to her about finances and put her in your will, with stipulations that she gets nothing if she files for "anullment". 
And yes, you need to have a family home together and she should be on the deed for that.

I suspect there is a lot more to fix here than this house issue.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Daniel on November 11, 2020, 09:08:48 AM
What exactly do you mean by "community property"? Sorry, but I'm not familiar with how property laws work in Spain or Latin America. But that phrase in English seems to carry with it implications that I don't think you're trying to imply.

It works the same as in California and Texas as it does in Mexico or Spain.


Maybe somebody else does, but I do not. It's just that this is how marriage has always been understood. "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) The husband and wife are no longer two separate autonomous individuals, but are a single family and must act as one family unit. To say that the family's head should be entitled to his own property is about as crazy as saying that a man's physical head should be entitled to its own separate blood supply.

That says nothing about finances. Care to explain why you think that separate property held by a married person is wrong but the Catholic Church in the USA, Latin America, and Iberia has been silent on it for over 1,000 years?

Again, if it's a legal thing then I am not familiar with those laws. Would you care to explain how it works? From your posts, the impression that I get is that when the husband and wife get married, all their property remains separate unless (and until) the owner agrees to make it "community property" (thereby surrendering ownership of half of it to the spouse)

I've already given my best guess as to why the Church has been silent: these laws (if I'm understanding them correctly) undermine the family structure, so the Church doesn't force us to play along. This doesn't mean the Church approves of separate property; it just means that the Church tolerates it since the government doesn't provide an alternative (the government gives only two options, both of which are bad. Separate property is bad insofar as it treats the married persons as autonomous individuals rather than as a single corporate unit (thereby depriving the family of what it's due); "community property" is also bad in that it denies the family's hierarchical structure (thereby robbing the head of what he's due)).

Only a guess.

But anyway, I don't see why finances would be any different than anything else. The point of marriage is to give yourself completely to your family. This includes every aspect of your life. You can't pick and choose what things to give to your family and what things to keep for yourself.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on November 11, 2020, 11:24:00 AM
Brandy: Hi GiftofGod

GiftofGod: Hi. I like the shirt you're wearing in your Catholic Match pic.  By the way, I own a castle in Spain.  Just to be up front, if you marry me, I would not put your name on the deed per the legal tradition of the Iberian peninsula.  Is that cool?

Brandy:  ugh, no.  That sounds weird.  Bye.


Tina: Hi GiftofGod

GiftofGod: Hi. I like the tree you're standing next to in your Catholic Match pic.  By the way, I own a castle in Spain.  Just to be up front, if you marry me, I would not put your name on the deed per the legal tradition of the Iberian peninsula.  Is that cool?

Tina: whoa.  That reminds me of that guy at the end of the movie Patch Adams who owns a big house, and invites the girl back to his house, and then, well you know the ending.  You sound like a real nice guy, but I have to go wash my hair.  Bye.


Teresa:  Hi GiftofGod

GiftofGod:  Before we make introductions, me lady, I must be forthcoming and tell you I own a castle in Spain.  if you marry me, I would not put your name on the deed per the legal tradition of the Iberian peninsula.  Is that agreeble?  Yes or No?

Teresa:  No.  Good by, GiftofGod.  God bless you.


Moral of the joke: work on your Game.  Every man must develop that Art until they die.  Buy The Book.   ;) :cheeseheadbeer:

And welcome to the forum! 





Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: james03 on November 11, 2020, 12:25:37 PM
LOL.  Sometimes showing them is the best way.

GiftofGod, maybe that was exaggerated (hopefully), but this way too serious of a discussion for a girl that wants to get to know you over say a year.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on November 11, 2020, 02:04:06 PM
I’d say it’s a safe bet this was told early on for all 3 girls, before getting serious with them, hence the sarcastic joke to make that point.  Am I right GoG?

An alternative approach, once you do get serious with the girl, just let her know of the equity in the house and plan to rent it to help support your family, and ask casually if she thinks that the girl you marry should also have her name on the deed.  Not of the house you live in, but the rental.  If she is emphatic yes, and is already materialistic, that’s a negative in deciding if she is marriage material.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: queen.saints on November 11, 2020, 02:49:55 PM
Case #1:

A) Has independently established himself, possessing considerable property and money

B) Has enough basic understanding of the English language to know what “sole and separate property” means

C) Has spent very little time online



Case #2

A) Is not established enough to survive even a short lockdown

B) Does not have a basic understanding of the English language

C) Has spent a great deal of time on the internet



Yet, Case #2 believes they are in a position to lecture Case #1 on his life-skills and respectability.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Kent on November 11, 2020, 03:10:17 PM
I have not had success in the area of courting. I believe it is due to the fact that I own a house and have a few hundred thousand in equity in it and I insist on it staying "sole and separate property" if we get married. The relationship always goes sour shortly after I tell the women my intentions regarding that. They presume that it will become theirs (community property) but I want to keep it separate. This has happened to 3 women so far and I don't know what to do. I thought about letting women assume that it would become community property until we get married but that wouldn't be honest.

Any advice?

What exactly do you mean about it being 'sole and separate?' And what exactly do you tell your ladies 'sole and separate' means? If you just mean you aren't bringing them on to the deed and that the property is an investment (and you two will live together elsewhere) I neither see the problem nor do I see why they would have a problem (unless they're gold diggers). But if you're opaque about the matter, I can see a lady being put off. She will naturally wonder why her husband owns another house about which she has no information nor claim.

Marriage involves a sharing of goods, including material goods.  That does not mean you cannot own property in your name, and as head of household it does not mean that you cannot decide how the family's resources are organized and used.  But it does mean they are the family's, however legalese their actual ownership is or is not. 

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: diaduit on November 11, 2020, 03:11:48 PM
Case #1:

A) Has independently established himself, possessing considerable property and money

B) Has enough basic understanding of the English language to know what “sole and separate property” means

C) Has spent very little time online







Case #2

A) Is not established enough to survive even a short lockdown

B) Does not have a basic understanding of the English language

C) Has spent a great deal of time on the internet



Yet, Case #2 believes they are in a position to lecture Case #1 on his life-skills and respectability.

Who is case two?
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: diaduit on November 11, 2020, 03:19:58 PM
Quote
Not sharing your castle with her is reducing her to a whore

You might want to reexamine your logic there.

My logic is this, if the man marries his wife and he wants her in his bed, her body and her work but she isn't good enough to share what his assets (and I'm talking a nice trad girl and not a gold digger harlot) then he treats her no different to a harlot.  You want the goodies but she doesn't get to share in it.  IF you are this territorial over what is yours (and I get the apprehension and congratulate you that you have a secure home to provide) its a red flag for territorial over your time, your resources, your wants and needs and it would tell me that you put yourself first.  Sorry but that is what I would advise my daughter if she was in your situation.  And look, 3 girls already ran when they heard the deal....that will tell you something.  If they were secular gold diggers, good riddance but if not, its a lonely house with no one to share it with.

Daniel nails it best with this:


This is completely the wrong attitude. First off, you should be planning for marriage, not for divorce. Second, that's the chance you take when you get married, and is why you shouldn't marry somebody who is foreseeably going to turn against you and proceed to abuse the legal system in order to take what she's not entitled to. But marriage entails sacrifice, and it's not going to work if you're holding back (financially) out of fear that something might go wrong.

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: diaduit on November 11, 2020, 03:21:56 PM
I have not had success in the area of courting. I believe it is due to the fact that I own a house and have a few hundred thousand in equity in it and I insist on it staying "sole and separate property" if we get married. The relationship always goes sour shortly after I tell the women my intentions regarding that. They presume that it will become theirs (community property) but I want to keep it separate. This has happened to 3 women so far and I don't know what to do. I thought about letting women assume that it would become community property until we get married but that wouldn't be honest.

Any advice?

What exactly do you mean about it being 'sole and separate?' And what exactly do you tell your ladies 'sole and separate' means? If you just mean you aren't bringing them on to the deed and that the property is an investment (and you two will live together elsewhere) I neither see the problem nor do I see why they would have a problem (unless they're gold diggers). But if you're opaque about the matter, I can see a lady being put off. She will naturally wonder why her husband owns another house about which she has no information nor claim.

Marriage involves a sharing of goods, including material goods.  That does not mean you cannot own property in your name, and as head of household it does not mean that you cannot decide how the family's resources are organized and used. But it does mean they are the family's, however legalese their actual ownership is or is not.

I think this is important to stress
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 11, 2020, 03:30:16 PM
What exactly do you mean about it being 'sole and separate?' And what exactly do you tell your ladies 'sole and separate' means? If you just mean you aren't bringing them on to the deed and that the property is an investment (and you two will live together elsewhere) I neither see the problem nor do I see why they would have a problem (unless they're gold diggers). But if you're opaque about the matter, I can see a lady being put off. She will naturally wonder why her husband owns another house about which she has no information nor claim.

You are basically correct in your understanding. I agree that I shouldn't be opaque about it, which is why I let them know.


How long did you date them, on average, how many dates did you go on before having these serious discussions?
Are you using the term"courting" to allow you to be a chicken and not ask them out, or have you actually dated any women?
Why in the heck are you talking finances with a woman?  Nothing good can come of that.
Were you engaged when you discussed finances?
Have you ever been engaged?


5 to 10 dates.

About 3 dates in.

Dates as in asking and actually going on a date together. Of course there is communication in-between dates as well.
Because finances are the #1 reason for divorce in the USA. I want to make sure that she doesn't have any debts and that she realizes that I don't have any bad debts. For obvious reasons she should know that I own my own house, right? Well if she does then she also needs to realize that this house is mine but we will buy another house together, if married.

No.

No.


Again, if it's a legal thing then I am not familiar with those laws. Would you care to explain how it works? From your posts, the impression that I get is that when the husband and wife get married, all their property remains separate unless (and until) the owner agrees to make it "community property" (thereby surrendering ownership of half of it to the spouse)

Your impression and understanding is correct.


I've already given my best guess as to why the Church has been silent: these laws (if I'm understanding them correctly) undermine the family structure, so the Church doesn't force us to play along. This doesn't mean the Church approves of separate property; it just means that the Church tolerates it since the government doesn't provide an alternative (the government gives only two options, both of which are bad. Separate property is bad insofar as it treats the married persons as autonomous individuals rather than as a single corporate unit (thereby depriving the family of what it's due); "community property" is also bad in that it denies the family's hierarchical structure (thereby robbing the head of what he's due)).

Only a guess.

But anyway, I don't see why finances would be any different than anything else. The point of marriage is to give yourself completely to your family. This includes every aspect of your life. You can't pick and choose what things to give to your family and what things to keep for yourself.

If a legal structure undermined the family, don't you think there would be a record of someone, anyone, in the Catholic Church speaking out against it over 1,000 years and dozens of nations? Please provide a Catholic source for your last statement.


Brandy: Hi GiftofGod

GiftofGod: Hi. I like the shirt you're wearing in your Catholic Match pic.  By the way, I own a castle in Spain.  Just to be up front, if you marry me, I would not put your name on the deed per the legal tradition of the Iberian peninsula.  Is that cool?

Brandy:  ugh, no.  That sounds weird.  Bye.


Tina: Hi GiftofGod

GiftofGod: Hi. I like the tree you're standing next to in your Catholic Match pic.  By the way, I own a castle in Spain.  Just to be up front, if you marry me, I would not put your name on the deed per the legal tradition of the Iberian peninsula.  Is that cool?

Tina: whoa.  That reminds me of that guy at the end of the movie Patch Adams who owns a big house, and invites the girl back to his house, and then, well you know the ending.  You sound like a real nice guy, but I have to go wash my hair.  Bye.


Teresa:  Hi GiftofGod

GiftofGod:  Before we make introductions, me lady, I must be forthcoming and tell you I own a castle in Spain.  if you marry me, I would not put your name on the deed per the legal tradition of the Iberian peninsula.  Is that agreeble?  Yes or No?

Teresa:  No.  Good by, GiftofGod.  God bless you.


Moral of the joke: work on your Game.  Every man must develop that Art until they die.  Buy The Book.   ;) :cheeseheadbeer:

And welcome to the forum!

I'm not autistic, you idiot. I've never used online dating and these conversations occur a few dates in. I also don't get into legal history. I just say "This is my house and when I get married, I am going to rent it out." They ask why. I say "Because I would like to keep the house in my name." They usually reply disapprovingly with an "Oh really?" I respond "Of course, I would use the income on my family and it might even be able to help my wife and I make the mortgage payment on the house we buy together."

I’d say it’s a safe bet this was told early on for all 3 girls, before getting serious with them, hence the sarcastic joke to make that point.  Am I right GoG?

You are correct and I didn't know that your previous post was sarcasm until reading this post. I will keep up my response to your previous post because it is an honest reaction.

An alternative approach, once you do get serious with the girl, just let her know of the equity in the house and plan to rent it to help support your family, and ask casually if she thinks that the girl you marry should also have her name on the deed.  Not of the house you live in, but the rental.  If she is emphatic yes, and is already materialistic, that’s a negative in deciding if she is marriage material.

I agree with this. Maybe this was my subconscious strategy the whole time that I should refine better.

LOL.  Sometimes showing them is the best way.

GiftofGod, maybe that was exaggerated (hopefully), but this way too serious of a discussion for a girl that wants to get to know you over say a year.

Well if women are getting pissed off weeks into it, why should I hide it from them for a year? To hope that they will love me enough by that time to not care? Sounds dishonest and a recipe for disaster. I am with Kent on this one: I shouldn't be opaque about this.

Who is case two?

If you have to ask...

Quote
Not sharing your castle with her is reducing her to a whore

You might want to reexamine your logic there.

My logic is this, if the man marries his wife and he wants her in his bed, her body and her work but she isn't good enough to share what his assets (and I'm talking a nice trad girl and not a gold digger harlot) then he treats her no different to a harlot.  You want the goodies but she doesn't get to share in it.  IF you are this territorial over what is yours (and I get the apprehension and congratulate you that you have a secure home to provide) its a red flag for territorial over your time, your resources, your wants and needs and it would tell me that you put yourself first. 

This is completely the wrong attitude. First off, you should be planning for marriage, not for divorce. Second, that's the chance you take when you get married, and is why you shouldn't marry somebody who is foreseeably going to turn against you and proceed to abuse the legal system in order to take what she's not entitled to. But marriage entails sacrifice, and it's not going to work if you're holding back (financially) out of fear that something might go wrong.



Do you have any Catholic sources for this or are you just going to continue blowing hot air?

Marriage involves a sharing of goods, including material goods.  That does not mean you cannot own property in your name, and as head of household it does not mean that you cannot decide how the family's resources are organized and used. But it does mean they are the family's, however legalese their actual ownership is or is not.

I think this is important to stress

You are assuming that I will not use it for the family's benefit. This is a traditional Catholic forum, so you should be assuming that a traditional Catholic husband would use it for his family's benefit.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: queen.saints on November 11, 2020, 04:12:21 PM

My logic is this, if the man marries his wife and he wants her in his bed, her body and her work but she isn't good enough to share what his assets (and I'm talking a nice trad girl and not a gold digger harlot) then he treats her no different to a harlot.  You want the goodies but she doesn't get to share in it.  IF you are this territorial over what is yours (and I get the apprehension and congratulate you that you have a secure home to provide) its a red flag for territorial over your time, your resources, your wants and needs and it would tell me that you put yourself first.  Sorry but that is what I would advise my daughter if she was in your situation.  And look, 3 girls already ran when they heard the deal....that will tell you something.  If they were secular gold diggers, good riddance but if not, its a lonely house with no one to share it with.

Daniel nails it best with this:


This is completely the wrong attitude. First off, you should be planning for marriage, not for divorce. Second, that's the chance you take when you get married, and is why you shouldn't marry somebody who is foreseeably going to turn against you and proceed to abuse the legal system in order to take what she's not entitled to. But marriage entails sacrifice, and it's not going to work if you're holding back (financially) out of fear that something might go wrong.

If you reverse the husband and wife positions in this argument, you are looking at almost all civilizations before the late 1800's. A husband born before the past two hundred years would have had complete control over all the joint marriage property without any say from his wife, let alone one house, yet he wouldn't have been accused of being territorial. When the man had the upper hand in the legal system, the woman was entitled to reserve "sole and separate" property for herself, in the event that her husband left her.

This wasn't planning for divorce or being materialistic or treating your husband poorly; it was simply acknowledging the reality of the legal system and human nature, even when men very rarely left their wives. Why shouldn't a man be entitled to some security now that the legal system puts almost all the power in the woman's hands and we have rampant cases of women leaving their husband and impoverishing him?

(And I wasn't referring to you in the earlier post.)
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on November 11, 2020, 04:23:17 PM
I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

This is the part that stuck out to me, see bold.  Your future income would also be your wife's.  Not just yours.  Apart from legal ownership, she has a moral right to your income once married. 

Who is case two?

LOL.  I wondered the same thing.  Daniel, maybe?  That or could be me.  :shrug:   I don't think 03, because my guess is he's makin' the big bucks. 


Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: diaduit on November 11, 2020, 05:11:17 PM
You still haven't said whether these girls were decent Catholic ladies or not? 

I wasn't asking you 'who case two was'.

Hot air or not, you're wife is hopefully going to be the mother of your children, your life partner and your helper who will help you to get to heaven.....not some gold digging harlot eyeing up a life of reilly.. The problem isn't the house ownership if your discernment is good ie you can tell who is a decent girl.

Sorry to be personal but do you come from a broken home?   

p.s., nowhere have I assumed you won't be using rental income to provide for your family.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 11, 2020, 06:07:05 PM
You still haven't said whether these girls were decent Catholic ladies or not? 

Of course they were (outwardly).


Sorry to be personal but do you come from a broken home?   

No but I've seen it enough from friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers to know that it is a disaster in almost every respect.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: diaduit on November 11, 2020, 06:22:41 PM
You still haven't said whether these girls were decent Catholic ladies or not? 

Of course they were (outwardly).


Sorry to be personal but do you come from a broken home?   

No but I've seen it enough from friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers to know that it is a disaster in almost every respect.

Yes I know there is no escaping how terrible divorce is on men and women but especially the kids.

Outwardly? Just asking but the fact that they didn't accept your statement re house, is that a reason you deem them them 'outwardly'?
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 11, 2020, 06:28:11 PM
Outwardly? Just asking but the fact that they didn't accept your statement re house, is that a reason you deem them them 'outwardly'?

No, I say that because I didn't get to know them long enough to know how they are inwardly.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: james03 on November 11, 2020, 06:42:42 PM
You got three issues going on here.  I don't think this is hard to fix.

1.  Take a bow.  You've approached and dated (3) women seriously.  So that's a good thing.  You are on the right path.  Many young men are chicken clucks, or have an attitude they now "deserve" a wife just because they reach a certain age, even though they can't provide for a family.  You are actually in pretty good shape.

2.  The moral issue.  You absolutely have a right to protect yourself in this day-and-age.  If the Novus Ordo hadn't cucked on annulment, we wouldn't be in this situation.  In the time of your grandparents, if a woman "was unhappy", and got divorced, she was automatically excommunicated and Catholics would shun her.  Catholics would cross the road to avoid her in town.  Her chances of getting an annulment were basically zero.  Even civilly it might be considered abandonment, and the kids would go with Dad.  Catholic "divorce" and annulment (the real thing) were so rare they were basically zero.  But you know what happened, and now as a man you have been served a crap sandwich.  So....  morally you are duty bound to provide for your wife if you die.  Keep the property title in your name, but provide her with a will that automatically transfers the title to her with a stipulation that she is still married to you in the eyes of the Church and State.  Morally, you have done your duty.  The house your live in with her should be joint title, since by keeping house and raising kids, she's contributing.  If for some reason the property is to go to someone else (doesn't sound that way), but assuming it does, then use life insurance to provide for your wife if you die.  That's the moral issue.

3.  Game.  You messed up, but that's ok because that is how your learn.  3 dates is WAY to early to even talk about marriage, let alone get down to the nitty-gritty of property disposal etc....  And really you should never talk about marriage unless she brings it up.  Unless she's a wallflower type.  This might be a year out, or up to two years.  And when you do talk about marriage, just refer to your house as a rental property investment that will provide additional income for the family, and let her know of your plans to buy a family home.  And that's it.  I doubt she'll know what a title is, but if she enquires, tell her she'll be included in the will.  IF she pesters you to be put on the title, Red Flag! Run!.  You've got a gold digger. 

Basically you sent off a bad vibe and were over eager.  That's just inexperience, so learn from it.  I went through many an embarrassing time with the young lasses before I was good enough to tame them.  You learn by screwing up.

Finally, run this by a lawyer.  I believe you don't have to do anything since you acquired the property before marriage.  However, ASK A LAWYER.  You could look into a trust or some other asset protection method if needed.

And note, I know of multiple cases where an SSPX chick suddenly decided to "regularize" with the diocese and get an annulment, then go to the diocesan TLM.  Many Dioceses hand out annulments like a doctor handing out anti-depressents to feminists.  Probably most people reading this are aware of at least one case like that, so yes, this is something you have to consider in this day-and-age.  Unfortunately.  But you can still protect yourself while satisfying your duty to your wife.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: diaduit on November 11, 2020, 06:46:42 PM
Outwardly? Just asking but the fact that they didn't accept your statement re house, is that a reason you deem them them 'outwardly'?

No, I say that because I didn't get to know them long enough to know how they are inwardly.

GoG just another pov, a woman takes a risk entering marriage too. Imagine getting married, giving up the nice paying job (as we should) and depend completely on our husband financially completely.  Add to that the children and if the husband walks out with a harlot the mother and children are in poverty. An immoral man is more likely to be inconsistent with financial support so more pressure on the mother to work and rear the children.

Don't let the fear of things going wrong interfere with your chance of finding a good wife and family.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: james03 on November 11, 2020, 06:51:00 PM
I agree he shouldn't be paranoid, but being prudent is fine.  Before Vatican II, this wasn't even an issue to even think about.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 11, 2020, 06:52:59 PM
GoG just another pov, a woman takes a risk entering marriage too. Imagine getting married, giving up the nice paying job (as we should) and depend completely on our husband financially completely.  Add to that the children and if the husband walks out with a harlot the mother and children are in poverty. An immoral man is more likely to be inconsistent with financial support so more pressure on the mother to work and rear the children.

Not in the USA. There is spousal support (alimony), child support, and the divorce court splitting of community property. If there is such a big risk taken on by women, then why do women file for divorce at a higher rate than men? Because they stand to profit from it.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: diaduit on November 11, 2020, 07:00:07 PM
4 broken trad marriages I know

2 husbands had affairs and went on to leave the wives for the other harlot and had further children. Both have practically dropped interest in the first family. One wife has to beg borrow and steal for her 9 children. Both husband's verbally mock and abuse their wives, one physically pushed his wife's head against the wall (all this after leaving the families)
1broke for serious alcohol reasons on the husbands part and years of emotional abuse.  He has since met someone else and had more children.
1 was a wife beater and sleep all day layabout.

All 4 women left in extreme financial stress depending on the state.
I know of no trad.women leaving their husbands.

I know plenty of NO women who have left their husbands.

James, courting is all about game, picking a wife is not. I find your advice quite disturbing actually. You have daughters I think?
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: james03 on November 11, 2020, 07:09:30 PM
Quote
James, courting is all about game, picking a wife is not. I find your advice quite disturbing actually. You have daughters I think?

Properly trained daughters.  If a man discussed marriage after three dates, they'd run.  I don't mean to dis on this guy, he's learning.  But what part is disturbing?

3 dates is too early to discuss marriage?
Make sure you provide for your wife in your will?
Include your wife on the title for the family home?
Use life insurance to cover your wife if needed?

Things are probably a lot different in Ireland because you all are more or less a Catholic country.  In the US it's really bad and getting a Trad wife, while a big improvement, is fraught with hazards.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 11, 2020, 07:11:48 PM
4 broken trad marriages I know

2 husbands had affairs and went on to leave the wives for the other harlot and had further children. Both have practically dropped interest in the first family. One wife has to beg borrow and steal for her 9 children. Both husband's verbally mock and abuse their wives, one physically pushed his wife's head against the wall (all this after leaving the families)
1broke for serious alcohol reasons on the husbands part and years of emotional abuse.  He has since met someone else and had more children.
1 was a wife beater and sleep all day layabout.

All 4 women left in extreme financial stress depending on the state.
I know of no trad.women leaving their husbands.

Have you gotten the man's side of the story? I hope you aren't listening only to the woman, her family, and her friends. I knew a guy who was known around church for "hitting his wife". Turns out he did but after she slapped him. She left that part of the story out.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: james03 on November 11, 2020, 07:12:28 PM
One more point.  A woman is built to want a man to provide for her.  Therefore she will want to find out about that sometime during your dating relationship.  It is important to distinguish natural feminine behaviour and gold digging.

Beyond that, take some time on the next one.  Get to know each other.  Have fun and enjoy life.  If she's quality, you'll eventually get to considering marriage, but cool the jets a little and don't over pursue.  Let her chase a little.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: james03 on November 11, 2020, 07:14:08 PM
Just a reminder, we aren't talking about team girl.  We are talking about a man with a particular problem who wants some advise.  If the ladies want advise on attracting and marrying a quality man, or discussing horror stories of what happens when you marry a bad man, start a new thread.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: diaduit on November 11, 2020, 07:30:49 PM
4 broken trad marriages I know

2 husbands had affairs and went on to leave the wives for the other harlot and had further children. Both have practically dropped interest in the first family. One wife has to beg borrow and steal for her 9 children. Both husband's verbally mock and abuse their wives, one physically pushed his wife's head against the wall (all this after leaving the families)
1broke for serious alcohol reasons on the husbands part and years of emotional abuse.  He has since met someone else and had more children.
1 was a wife beater and sleep all day layabout.

All 4 women left in extreme financial stress depending on the state.
I know of no trad.women leaving their husbands.

Have you gotten the man's side of the story? I hope you aren't listening only to the woman, her family, and her friends. I knew a guy who was known around church for "hitting his wife". Turns out he did but after she slapped him. She left that part of the story out.

Yes most definitely sure and in 2 of the cases the priests were incredibly supportive of the wives.


Yes, there is probably a difference but we are catching up super fast.

GOG, do you pay for meals/cinema tickets, taxis when you're on a date?

Lastly , I didn't think it was a thread solely for men and I am giving a woman's perspective. I took a second breath when I read about his plans for his house, obviously I'm not on my own when 3 women he courted didn't like it either.
 Tbf you've a point about women look for a man who can provide, it's in built in us. It's why broad shoulders, big build and strength is attractive , it goes back to wanting a fit man who is capable of hunting and gathering food.
He doesn't have to tell the women he has the house at all, not until he serious about her, she's not entitled to that information but I can see a deliberate statement like he has done would be demeaning to her, again he wants all the benefits of her but he doesn't share all of his.




Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on November 11, 2020, 07:31:21 PM
My view on annulment is that it should be rare, but that the pre-V2 norms do apply in more cases than we might be aware, so real cases aren’t rare today. For example, if shortly after the marriage the man won’t try and have sex with his wife or try and have kids, and acts distant from his wife (example an in law of mine) that may be grounds for a declaration of nullity.

And I think it’s not mainly trad men ruining trad marriages, yes very possibly the majority of the time, but I can also think of examples where the wife is mostly unfaithful to her vows more than the man.

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on November 11, 2020, 09:11:23 PM
I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

I wouldn't want you to marry my daughter.

I understand you being protective of your property/assets if you were dating secular women but really if you are looking for a trad wife then as much as she is giving herself to you and your future children you need to share yourself and your assets with her.  You should be king and she should be queen of the family castle.  Not sharing your castle with her is reducing her to a whore and a hired help who fires out your children and does the endless chores involved.  Please change your attitude, we're not all bad.

PREACH!!!
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on November 11, 2020, 09:15:48 PM
It’d be interesting to see the Catholic teachings on this.

It doesn’t have to be an issue of divorce. The modern inheritance laws which are so destructive to society bring another side to the question. Many families have been destroyed because the mother interfered in rightfully distributing the property.

Community property laws also relate to inheritance. A spouse who receives an inheritance automatically holds the assets sole and separate, unless converted to community property by her own will. Again, this is Iberian legal tradition that is still used in the American Southwest. I know that doesn't relate to your specific issue of inheritance but I understand the problem. I know a man who was disinherited (along with his siblings) of millions of dollars by his stepmother. Well, actually by his father who succumbed to his second wife's ultimatum.

That is actually not true. Many times when money is left to a married person, the money is considered as having been "gained during marriage" and is therefor joint property. I have seen this firsthand many many times.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on November 11, 2020, 09:18:45 PM
The point of marriage is to give yourself completely to your family. This includes every aspect of your life. You can't pick and choose what things to give to your family and what things to keep for yourself.

Yes and yes!
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on November 11, 2020, 09:51:07 PM
Enough cheerleading...lol.

Seriously, GoG. People have said it before but just to offer yet another support post. When a woman gets married she is completely and utterly laying herself at your feet. She gives you herself, and accepts all children that will issue from the marriage, along with health issues, stress, and the never-ending work that comes from motherhood. She gives you her whole life to do with as you see fit. We talk about leadership and submission all the time, but do you actually think about what that means day in day out for the wife? She goes where you choose to go, she lives where you choose to live, she lives in the house you ultimately decide on. She and the children must live on the income you provide. That can be a luxury or a trial, it is part of the risk she takes. She trusts you to set a good example for her sons and daughters, to help her raise them as real Catholics. Her whole life is in your hands, and she must pray that you do a good job. When the women is considering marriage, she knows she is taking risks too, but she marries someone she loves and trusts and hopes for the best. You want all this from a woman I presume, but you want to make sure she has no right to your property because you earned it before you met her? For you too keep her off the deed doesn't seem to me like a moral problem. I can tell you that it seems horribly selfish though. It makes you seem like one of those guys who want the wife to give up everything, change her whole life for you, while you float around having "your own world" that she is not welcome in. That is why there are red flags, and that is why women keep leaving you. You could be a lovely chap, but you are coming across as a mean hypocrite.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Maximilian on November 11, 2020, 10:13:59 PM
So....  morally you are duty bound to provide for your wife if you die. 

Overall I enjoyed your post, but I wonder about this one point. What do you base this statement on?
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Maximilian on November 11, 2020, 10:17:00 PM
I know of no trad.women leaving their husbands.

I know of 3 just in our local SSPX chapel alone.

Ireland where you live didn't permit any divorce right up through the nineties. Other countries like the United States have a much more well-established culture of divorce, and trads are not immune to the world in which they live.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Maximilian on November 11, 2020, 10:24:51 PM
the priests were incredibly supportive of the wives.

Yes, I've seen this as well. Even trad priests are very supportive of divorce.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on November 11, 2020, 10:35:51 PM
I had a Trad buddy who is now a divorced, homeless alcoholic living somewhere on the streets on the West coast, last I heard.  He was obese, a lower income mechanic (maybe 40k/year), very average personality, but a devout traditional Catholic, kind, friendly, helpful to all.  He consistently worked, was not physically or mentally abusive (at least to any serious degree that would justify separation), but according to her main complaints when seeking a divorce he could be overly critical, controlling, and sometimes lazy.  Not good vices, but nothing worse than that.  She divorced him, got an annulment (probably based on dubious grounds like "incompatibiity"), and remarried.   He became an alcoholic, lost his job and house, and became homeless.  Both were to blame for the problems, but she had no right to leave him.  It practically destroyed the man. 

I know of a similar story, the man leaving abandoning a big trad family.  I told his wife that if I ever see him again, I plan to beat the living shit out of him and then tell him to return to his family.  There's my Irish.

Way too many of these stories in Traddom.   :pray2:
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: james03 on November 11, 2020, 10:42:34 PM
Quote
Overall I enjoyed your post, but I wonder about this one point. What do you base this statement on?
In leadership, and I have been a leader of men many times, your first duty is to your men.  If your men pick up that you consider this your duty, they will follow you to hell and back.  The converse is also true.  There is no greater sin a leader can do than to screw up, and blame it on a man under him.  The men will never forgive that.  Think about how the Lord dealt with King David when he screwed over his subordinate.

So if we are to lead our wives and family, the same rules apply.  If something happens to you, it is your duty to mitigate the consequences on your wife and family by planning ahead.  It is a reason that a man will not hesitate to die if it means his wife will live.  Women gave up an incredible gift when they chose feminism.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on November 11, 2020, 10:50:27 PM
the priests were incredibly supportive of the wives.

Yes, I've seen this as well. Even trad priests are very supportive of divorce.

Although this has no bearing on Diaduit's personal story, I am afraid you are right. Many trad priests/conservative NO priests agree to divorce much too readily, or side with the wife, blindly assuming the man is too blame. Although that was historically the case, with the rampant feminism in our culture, it cannot be counted on. I have acquaintances/relations where the wife was crazy/lazy/totally to blame, and the priest sided with the woman. I think it just boils down to priests being men at the end of the day. They see a crying woman in their office and they see red. Their knight-in-shining-armor comes out to fight and they can't see beyond it, no matter what. It is beautiful really, chivalrous, but difficult when trying to objectively help a married couple.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 11, 2020, 11:30:52 PM
GOG, do you pay for meals/cinema tickets, taxis when you're on a date?

No, I don't pay for women unless we're in a relationship. Why?


My view on annulment is that it should be rare, but that the pre-V2 norms do apply in more cases than we might be aware, so real cases aren’t rare today. For example, if shortly after the marriage the man won’t try and have sex with his wife or try and have kids, and acts distant from his wife (example an in law of mine) that may be grounds for a declaration of nullity.

And I think it’s not mainly trad men ruining trad marriages, yes very possibly the majority of the time, but I can also think of examples where the wife is mostly unfaithful to her vows more than the man.

Oh come on, you know that is less than 1% of all annulments. That's the Catholic divorce equivalent of the pro-choicer slogan "rape, incest, or to protect the health of the mother" (which make up less than 3% of all abortions).


Community property laws also relate to inheritance. A spouse who receives an inheritance automatically holds the assets sole and separate, unless converted to community property by her own will.

That is actually not true. Many times when money is left to a married person, the money is considered as having been "gained during marriage" and is therefor joint property. I have seen this firsthand many many times.

You're wrong. Please familiarize yourself with the basics of community property law before you speak of it. Also, please learn how to use the quote system so you don't have to make four posts in a row.

You could be a lovely chap, but you are coming across as a mean hypocrite.

I'm not understanding how it's "mean". How is she getting hurt? What is the difference in her life or the family's life if there is no divorce? And how am I being hypocritical? I am not insisting that my future wife sign her sole and separate property to me (not that there are many young trad women with their own homes).


the priests were incredibly supportive of the wives.

Yes, I've seen this as well. Even trad priests are very supportive of divorce.

That's a bold accusation against trad priests. Care to elaborate on that?


Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: dymphnaw on November 11, 2020, 11:37:18 PM
I have not had success in the area of courting. I believe it is due to the fact that I own a house and have a few hundred thousand in equity in it and I insist on it staying "sole and separate property" if we get married. The relationship always goes sour shortly after I tell the women my intentions regarding that.

Any advice?

Planning for the divorce before  the wedding tends to be a romance killer.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 11, 2020, 11:40:09 PM
Planning for the divorce before  the wedding tends to be a romance killer.

It doesn't have all to do with divorce. It would allow me to sell, refinance, or buy without her permission during the marriage.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on November 12, 2020, 12:34:47 AM
Brother, people are trying to help you here, even with the sarcastic jokes.

But if you think you shouldn't have to pay for your dates dinner and movie ticket, as the man, there's not much more we can do to help you.

Buy The Book.

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 12, 2020, 12:52:15 AM
Buy The Book.

Are you compensated by this book's sales or something?
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on November 12, 2020, 01:00:58 AM
Why on Earth would you not pay for your date's dinner?  Most any decent Catholic woman would see that as yet another Red Flag.  Do you understand why?
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2020, 01:09:52 AM
Planning for the divorce before  the wedding tends to be a romance killer.

It doesn't have all to do with divorce. It would allow me to sell, refinance, or buy without her permission during the marriage.

Most husbands don't ask for their wives permission to make financial decisions period. They discuss it, and may seek some advice/perspective, but usually guys make the ultimate decisions on stuff like that.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2020, 01:15:11 AM


That's a bold accusation against trad priests. Care to elaborate on that?

It's hardly bold...I didn't give name or generalize. I said I have seen cases... I'm not going to give names, but I know of a few instances where the wives were completely destroying their marriages, and treating their husbands horribly, and the priest agreed with them and told the husbands to get lost...it was very sad.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 12, 2020, 01:18:28 AM
Why on Earth would you not pay for your date's dinner? 

Because I don't pay for companionship. Trust me, this isn't the reason. This was discussed beforehand and the women brought money. I had to teach some of them to pay for a meal at a restaurant and she thanked me for that. Again, trust me, it's not a problem. Not with secular women and not even for trad women. If I didn't have this policy, then I would have paid for hundreds and hundreds of dinners for women who then and now mean nothing to me. Let's not turn this into a debate on "going Dutch".


Most husbands don't ask for their wives permission to make financial decisions period. They discuss it, and may seek some advice/perspective, but usually guys make the ultimate decisions on stuff like that.

In community property states, both spouses must consent to purchases, sales, and loans with property used as collateral UNLESS it involved sole and separate property. So if my rental is community property and my wife decided "No, I'm not going to let you refinance the rental." then I'd be screwed.

I said I have seen cases... I'm not going to give names, but I know of a few instances where the wives were completely destroying their marriages, and treating their husbands horribly, and the priest agreed with them and told the husbands to get lost...it was very sad.

What organization are these priests a part of? Care to elaborate on the situations because your statement makes traditional priests look bad.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: james03 on November 12, 2020, 01:28:02 AM
Rule number 1:  A woman picks up a man through his eyes.  A man picks up a woman through her ears.

Quote
You're wrong. Please familiarize yourself with the basics of community property law before you speak of it. Also, please learn how to use the quote system so you don't have to make four posts in a row.
Snark is about the worst thing you can do.  Never do it, even when you aren't trying to pick up a woman.  It can become a habit, and burn you.  You also have an attitude problem.  You can get defensive about my statement, or you can improve yourself.  The Virtue of Humility is the key that unlocks progress in a man.  The best discussion of it is in The Four Cardinal Virtues by Peiper.  Without humility, you will stagnate.  Without humility, you can become defensive.  You can resort to snark.  You can take things personally.  Without humility, you are weak.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 12, 2020, 01:32:20 AM
Rule number 1:  A woman picks up a man through his eyes.  A man picks up a woman through her ears.

Quote
You're wrong. Please familiarize yourself with the basics of community property law before you speak of it. Also, please learn how to use the quote system so you don't have to make four posts in a row.
Snark is about the worst thing you can do.  Never do it, even when you aren't trying to pick up a woman.  It can become a habit, and burn you.  You also have an attitude problem.  You can get defensive about my statement, or you can improve yourself.  The Virtue of Humility is the key that unlocks progress in a man.  The best discussion of it is in The Four Cardinal Virtues by Peiper.  Without humility, you will stagnate.  Without humility, you can become defensive.  You can resort to snark.  You can take things personally.  Without humility, you are weak.

The dictionary definition of snark: critical or mocking comments made in an indirect or sarcastic way. I was critical but I wasn't mocking. I also didn't make the critical comments in an indirect or sarcastic way. Others in this thread have been snarky but that is something that I have never been accused of because I am never sarcastic, I never mock, and I am always direct.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: james03 on November 12, 2020, 01:33:19 AM
Quote
If I didn't have this policy, then I would have paid for hundreds and hundreds of dinners for women who then and now mean nothing to me.

Wait, this makes absolutely no sense.  Even allowing for artistic license, a man who has gone on tons of dinner dates would have the experience NOT to talk about marriage on the 3rd freaking date.  Were these "eating together as friends" kind of deals?  If so, I concur you would not pick up the tab.  But in that case, quit going out with women as friends.  If you are just trying to socialize, hang out with your male friends.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2020, 01:33:29 AM


In community property states, both spouses must consent to purchases, sales, and loans with property used as collateral UNLESS it involved sole and separate property. So if my rental is community property and my wife decided "No, I'm not going to let you refinance the rental." then I'd be screwed.

Quote

Who on earth are you dating that this would happen? Are you considering marrying an unreasonable women who is going to be in charge of the finances in your home? Trust me, if she has any children she won't have any time to give a hoot what you do with your house; if she is homeschooling, she will forget you own one.

Quote
What organization are these priests a part of? Care to elaborate on the situations because your statement makes traditional priests look bad.

  No, I will not elaborate. Suffice it to say, it happens. My point was to agree with Max, and state that I had witnessed this firsthand, not to give you a tour of the seedy underbelly of trad-land. You know that nobody is perfect, if my statement means that sometimes priests, even good ones, make mistakes, than it shouldn't be a revelation. I never said it was rampant, I never said I saw it all the time. I said I had seen it a few times, and I have. 
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on November 12, 2020, 01:35:29 AM
Why on Earth would you not pay for your date's dinner? 
Because I don't pay for companionship. Trust me, this isn't the reason. This was discussed beforehand and the women brought money. I had to teach some of them to pay for a meal at a restaurant and she thanked me for that. Again, trust me, it's not a problem. Not with secular women and not even for trad women. If I didn't have this policy, then I would have paid for hundreds and hundreds of dinners for women who then and now mean nothing to me. Let's not turn this into a debate on "going Dutch".

Ok, you're officially starting to creep me out, dude. 

We've got a nutter troll on our hands.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 12, 2020, 01:40:15 AM
Again, Coffeeandcigarette, please learn how to use the quote function.

Quote
If I didn't have this policy, then I would have paid for hundreds and hundreds of dinners for women who then and now mean nothing to me.

Wait, this makes absolutely no sense.  Even allowing for artistic license, a man who has gone on tons of dinner dates would have the experience NOT to talk about marriage on the 3rd freaking date.  Were these "eating together as friends" kind of deals?  If so, I concur you would not pick up the tab.  But in that case, quit going out with women as friends.  If you are just trying to socialize, hang out with your male friends.

I don't know how it doesn't make sense to you. Secular dating isn't as marriage-oriented as trad dating (which some call "courtship"). And I'll have you know that it's women who talk about marriage first and most often, not in the sense of marrying me but just talking about the subject. Single trad women want to get married, James, as you probably know.

Why on Earth would you not pay for your date's dinner? 
Because I don't pay for companionship. Trust me, this isn't the reason. This was discussed beforehand and the women brought money. I had to teach some of them to pay for a meal at a restaurant and she thanked me for that. Again, trust me, it's not a problem. Not with secular women and not even for trad women. If I didn't have this policy, then I would have paid for hundreds and hundreds of dinners for women who then and now mean nothing to me. Let's not turn this into a debate on "going Dutch".

Ok, you're officially starting to creep me out, dude. 

We've got a nutter troll on our hands.

That might work on some men but I don't recoil from insults, especially coming from women. It's interesting that your first dates from years ago mean so much to you. What does your husband think of this?
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 12, 2020, 01:43:34 AM
I never said it was rampant, I never said I saw it all the time. I said I had seen it a few times, and I have.

You said "Even trad priests are very supportive of divorce." What does that leave in the mind of whoever reads that?
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2020, 01:46:17 AM


That might work on some men but I don't recoil from insults, especially coming from women. It's interesting that your first dates from years ago mean so much to you. What does your husband think of this?

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on November 12, 2020, 02:05:30 AM
You must have anti-social personality disorder, or maybe narcissistic personality disorder, IF even then these women, including the Catholic ones, "meant nothing to you."
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 12, 2020, 07:09:01 PM
You must have anti-social personality disorder, or maybe narcissistic personality disorder, IF even then these women, including the Catholic ones, "meant nothing to you."

You don't have the qualifications to make a diagnosis of mental illness. You've also never met me, which is a requirement to make mental health diagnoses. Now I don't know why you think first dates have to mean something to me but your placement of women on a pedestal is sad. At least you edited/deleted your calumny against me regarding homosexuality. Make sure to bring it up in confession and mention that you didn't apologize and also lobbed unfounded accusations of mental illness.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on November 12, 2020, 07:28:39 PM
It was an IF/THEN statement.  IF you meant what you said, THEN that suggests a disorder in your personality.  You’d agree if anyone else here made the same statement.

So do you lift?
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on November 12, 2020, 08:58:17 PM
I apologize if I offended you, GoG, that was not my intention, and for suggesting your attitude about women—in the terms you used in this thread—might indicate some kind of psychological disorder.  Yes, I am not a mental health expert.  Sorry I was not able to help you better with your situation. 
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 12, 2020, 09:05:54 PM
It was an IF/THEN statement.  IF you meant what you said, THEN that suggests a disorder in your personality.  You’d agree if anyone else here made the same statement.

So do you lift?

No, that doesn't "suggest" a personality disorder. The APA's DSM states the following criteria for Antisocial PD:

Quote
A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another


And Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

Quote
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

(4) requires excessive admiration

(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

(8 ) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

And why do you keep asking me if I lift weights? Combined with your out-of-the-blue accusation of homosexuality against me, I am starting to wonder about you (projection, perhaps?). But to answer your question: no I don't lift, I swim. That is completely irrelevant but I understand your desire to derail the thread.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on November 12, 2020, 09:40:55 PM
It was an IF/THEN statement.  IF you meant what you said, THEN that suggests a disorder in your personality.  You’d agree if anyone else here made the same statement.

So do you lift?

No, that doesn't "suggest" a personality disorder. The APA's DSM states the following criteria for Antisocial PD:

Quote
A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another


And Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

Quote
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

(4) requires excessive admiration

(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

(8 ) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

And why do you keep asking me if I lift weights? Combined with your out-of-the-blue accusation of homosexuality against me, I am starting to wonder about you (projection, perhaps?). But to answer your question: no I don't lift, I swim. That is completely irrelevant but I understand your desire to derail the thread.

Again, I am sorry I offended you, and tried to diagnose you.  That was wrong.

I asked if you lift weights to try and break the ice with you, because I also lift weights.

I will stop posting in this thread.

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: james03 on November 12, 2020, 11:56:41 PM
Quote
I don't know how it doesn't make sense to you. Secular dating isn't as marriage-oriented as trad dating (which some call "courtship"). And I'll have you know that it's women who talk about marriage first and most often, not in the sense of marrying me but just talking about the subject. Single trad women want to get married, James, as you probably know.

No, what doesn't make sense is someone who has been on tons of dates with women has enough experience not to talk about marriage on the third date.  He'd figure that out pretty quick after getting ghosted a few times.  I took you as a young man who doesn't have much experience.  Are you someone who was living sinfully, got used to hook up culture, and recently returned to the Faith or at least getting serious with it?  You don't have to air your dirty laundry, that is reserved for the confessional.

As far as the Trad lasses, if they ask about marriage (more likely they'll hint) you say you are serious about the Faith and are open to marriage, but you aren't going to rush things.  Then drop it.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 06, 2020, 07:13:39 AM
I have not had success in the area of courting. I believe it is due to the fact that I own a house and have a few hundred thousand in equity in it and I insist on it staying "sole and separate property" if we get married. The relationship always goes sour shortly after I tell the women my intentions regarding that. They presume that it will become theirs (community property) but I want to keep it separate. This has happened to 3 women so far and I don't know what to do. I thought about letting women assume that it would become community property until we get married but that wouldn't be honest.

Any advice?

I haven't been around much and managed to miss this when first posted.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that it is reasonable, prudent, and moral to keep your house as "sole and separate property" when you marry.  No matter how legitimate this decision is logically and objectively, you need to consider how women tend to process things.

Women typically use emotion over logic and take things personally.  When you tell a woman whom you are dating about your plan, she hears you saying that you don't trust her to stay married to you. While it may be perfectly logical to consider the statistically high risk of divorce, she takes it as a personal insult and feels hurt.  Or, she may take your attempt to protect yourself in the event of divorce as a sign that you are not committed to marriage and going into it expecting to divorce.

I think the vast majority of women would have these sorts of negative emotional reactions.  It is not, in most cases, because they are after your money.  Women, in general, want to feel loved and trusted and safe.  Hearing about your plan to protect yourself in the case of divorce makes them feel bad.

One solution is to keep dating until you find an extraordinary woman who will process your plan with logic rather than emotion.  The odds are against you finding such a woman.

Another solution is to wait to inform the woman of your plan until she has become so emotionally attached to you that she will stay with you in spite of how bad the plan makes her feel.  This will not necessarily work and, if it fails, it will be a painful break-up.
 
Another solution is to reconsider your plan.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Philip G. on December 06, 2020, 09:36:52 PM
Just because the church has not condemned some cultural practice, it does not mean that the church teaches it. 

Likewise, just because GiftofGod's avatar is a green-eyed red-headed warrior-king, it doesn't mean that he is jewish.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 06, 2020, 10:37:19 PM
Just because the church has not condemned some cultural practice, it does not mean that the church teaches it. 

Strawman. Nobody said that the church teaches it.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Philip G. on December 06, 2020, 10:51:12 PM
Just because the church has not condemned some cultural practice, it does not mean that the church teaches it. 

Strawman. Nobody said that the church teaches it.

Strawchurch.  The church, governed by chaste celibate men, does not govern by way of negative law.  Look at the precepts of the church.  No wonder there is dispute over how many their are.  The only negative law regards marriage.  How ironic.

The church teaches marriage with one spouse.  That in itself implies the opposite of what plural marriage would imply.   For, how can a man with many wives claim to share all his estate?  Stop using a lacking condemnation as an argument for.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Chestertonian on December 06, 2020, 11:18:04 PM
I'm not a canon lawyer but don't pre-nups  invalidate the sacrament?

Also how far into the relationship are you mentioning your assets? 
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Philip G. on December 06, 2020, 11:26:11 PM
Just because the church has not condemned some cultural practice, it does not mean that the church teaches it. 

Strawman. Nobody said that the church teaches it.

Are you talking about the same "nobody" that the democrats say is above the law?
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Angela on December 12, 2020, 08:14:42 PM
I, as well as my husband, would advise our daughter against marrying such a man,  I’m sorry. This is very telling of the kind of marriage she’d have. I’m not surprised you’re having troubles finding a wife.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 12, 2020, 09:44:36 PM
I, as well as my husband, would advise our daughter against marrying such a man,  I’m sorry. This is very telling of the kind of marriage she’d have. I’m not surprised you’re having troubles finding a wife.

Do you have any facts to back this up or are you basing it purely on feelings? Also, would you be comfortable if your daughter's husband insisted that she sign over her inheritance? It's the same legal concept. Inheritances are sole and separate unless transferred to community property.

Ah, forget it. You probably don't have two pennies to rub together.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 05:53:30 AM
The more I think about it, the more I think that it is a reasonable idea.  I see no basis for thinking it would make a man a bad husband.  This way of arranging the property would not even affect the wife unless they got divorced.  In theory, a woman who has no intention of divorce should not care about it.

No-fault divorce is a fundamentally evil social institution.  It casts a shadow on every marriage, even those of traditional Catholics.  Every married person faces the knowledge that one's spouse can unilaterally end the marriage, no matter what one does.  Of course, we like to think that trads would not divorce, but we know it happens.

GoG has come up with a way to slightly mitigate this horrible evil.  It makes divorce less attractive to the wife (statistically the one more likely to file for divorce) so it ought to help the marriage.  I see no reason for the negative (and often unkind) responses that I am seeing to his idea.  Personally, I would have no problem with my daughter marrying a man who wanted to arrange his property this way.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: diaduit on December 13, 2020, 11:49:46 AM
I, as well as my husband, would advise our daughter against marrying such a man,  I’m sorry. This is very telling of the kind of marriage she’d have. I’m not surprised you’re having troubles finding a wife.

Do you have any facts to back this up or are you basing it purely on feelings? Also, would you be comfortable if your daughter's husband insisted that she sign over her inheritance? It's the same legal concept. Inheritances are sole and separate unless transferred to community property.

Ah, forget it. You probably don't have two pennies to rub together.
[/quote

If my daughter told her future husband that she was keeping her own inheritance married or not, I'd tell him to run and I'd kick her up the backside.  What a horrible scrooge mentality before marriage.

 For me as a mother, its my instinct as well as my reason that tells me somethings off here and given some of your other posts, there is context and I think you are stingy.  Nothing wrong with that but you cannot be stingy with your wife and children.
Anyway I will say that we only have divorce in Ireland since 1995, my parents were married 52 years and my family and friends are all in long marriages bar one separation so my experience of divorce isn't as raw as it would be for you in the US .  I'd imagine there are some scars for most people in the US which would account for the cynicism versus my rose tinted glasses.

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 12:02:21 PM
I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

You would be denying your wife her right to her share of your income, GoG, especially unjust if she depends on you solely for her income while raising children and maintaining a home.  The two shall become one flesh.  A wife has a right to share in everything her husband earns. 
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 01:10:24 PM
Anyway I will say that we only have divorce in Ireland since 1995, my parents were married 52 years and my family and friends are all in long marriages bar one separation so my experience of divorce isn't as raw as it would be for you in the US .  I'd imagine there are some scars for most people in the US which would account for the cynicism versus my rose tinted glasses.

Exactly.  One really needs to understand the context to understand why GoG's plan makes sense.  I don't see any problems with it when considered as a reaction to no-fault divorce laws.

On other forums, I've seen men react by embracing MGTOW or promoting pre-nuptial contracts.  In comparison, GoG is remarkably Catholic and reasonable.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 01:23:38 PM
I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

You would be denying your wife her right to her share of your income, GoG, especially unjust if she depends on you solely for her income while raising children and maintaining a home.  The two shall become one flesh.  A wife has a right to share in everything her husband earns.

You do not seem to have understood GOG's posts on this.  It is clear that he intends to use the rental income for the benefit of his wife and family.  The only way it would affect his wife would be if they got divorced, something that should never happen.  I see it as comparable as accident insurance: one creates financial protection for a situation that one neither intends nor hopes for, in the knowledge that it is nevertheless possible. This house was bought without any help from a wife.  I do not see why a future wife would have any moral right to it in the event of divorce.

There is nothing in his posts to suggest that he would not be a good provider for his wife.  On the contrary, he seems to have a good sense of financial prudence, so it actually speaks in his favour.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 01:37:33 PM
I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

You would be denying your wife her right to her share of your income, GoG, especially unjust if she depends on you solely for her income while raising children and maintaining a home.  The two shall become one flesh.  A wife has a right to share in everything her husband earns.

You do not seem to have understood GOG's posts on this.  It is clear that he intends to use the rental income for the benefit of his wife and family.  The only way it would affect his wife would be if they got divorced, something that should never happen.  I see it as comparable as accident insurance: one creates financial protection for a situation that one neither intends nor hopes for, in the knowledge that it is nevertheless possible. This house was bought without any help from a wife.  I do not see why a future wife would have any moral right to it in the event of divorce.

There is nothing in his posts to suggest that he would not be a good provider for his wife.  On the contrary, he seems to have a good sense of financial prudence, so it actually speaks in his favour.

No. You are the one confused about what he wrote in the post.  Reread it, and then try and justify a man wanting to keep his property in his name, so that future rental income after marriage "is mine."  You know very well that is not in accord with Catholic teaching, and selfish.  In charity for GoG, you should be truthful about this statement.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Philip G. on December 13, 2020, 01:43:40 PM
The fatal error of giftofgod is that he seeks to assume the role of the cultural superior in regards to marriage.  And, I will remind you that marriage is primarily a cultural affair, just as the priesthood is primarily a spiritual affair.  He does so by perverting/inverting the concept of the dowry and/or "bride price/token", which belongs solely to the bride, and even bears a parable from Our Lord in the form of the lost coin, found by a woman, not a man.  This is a total inversion of reality and truth regarding matrimony. 

At best, and by design, the sacrament of matrimony results in a beautiful equality of the spouses.  At second best, the woman, in whose arena matrimonial affairs primarily reside, will dominate the male for the sake of the children.  At third worst, you have the male with his trophy wife.  And, a fourth worst, may God have mercy. 

The best thing that could happen to GiftofGod is that he be taken for every penny.  The last thing he needs is to be making music with those two pennies he cares so much about.

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 01:51:27 PM
No. You are the one confused about what he wrote in the post.  Reread it, and then try and justify a man wanting to keep his property in his name, so that future rental income after marriage "is mine."  You know very well that is not in accord with Catholic teaching, and selfish.  In charity for GoG, you should be truthful about this statement.

While that particular post may be open to misinterpretation (especially by someone looking for a fight) GoG clarified what he meant in later posts.

"Of course, I would use the income on my family and it might even be able to help my wife and I make the mortgage payment on the house we buy together."
[..]
You are assuming that I will not use it for the family's benefit. This is a traditional Catholic forum, so you should be assuming that a traditional Catholic husband would use it for his family's benefit.

In charity, you should stop trying to provoke posters into getting themselves banned.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 13, 2020, 02:10:57 PM
If my daughter told her future husband that she was keeping her own inheritance married or not, I'd tell him to run and I'd kick her up the backside.  What a horrible scrooge mentality before marriage.

 For me as a mother, its my instinct as well as my reason that tells me somethings off here and given some of your other posts, there is context and I think you are stingy.  Nothing wrong with that but you cannot be stingy with your wife and children.
Anyway I will say that we only have divorce in Ireland since 1995, my parents were married 52 years and my family and friends are all in long marriages bar one separation so my experience of divorce isn't as raw as it would be for you in the US .  I'd imagine there are some scars for most people in the US which would account for the cynicism versus my rose tinted glasses.


The USA has had no-fault divorce since the 1960s. Divorce is very popular with Novus Ordo Catholics in the USA. Divorce rates are high and they are usually female-initiated. Judging by Ireland's love of homos and abortion, I'm sure love for divorce will soon follow. Also, please learn how to quote.


I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

You would be denying your wife her right to her share of your income, GoG, especially unjust if she depends on you solely for her income while raising children and maintaining a home.  The two shall become one flesh.  A wife has a right to share in everything her husband earns.

Jesus' quote has nothing to do with money. Do you have a Catholic source, other than your misinterpretation of Jesus' words?


The fatal error of giftofgod is that he seeks to assume the role of the cultural superior in regards to marriage.  And, I will remind you that marriage is primarily a cultural affair, just as the priesthood is primarily a spiritual affair.  He does so by perverting/inverting the concept of the dowry

I stopped reading there.


Reread it, and then try and justify a man wanting to keep his property in his name, so that future rental income after marriage "is mine."  You know very well that is not in accord with Catholic teaching, and selfish.

Cite the "Catholic teaching" or shut up.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 02:56:47 PM
No. You are the one confused about what he wrote in the post.  Reread it, and then try and justify a man wanting to keep his property in his name, so that future rental income after marriage "is mine."  You know very well that is not in accord with Catholic teaching, and selfish.  In charity for GoG, you should be truthful about this statement.

While that particular post may be open to misinterpretation (especially by someone looking for a fight) GoG clarified what he meant in later posts.

"Of course, I would use the income on my family and it might even be able to help my wife and I make the mortgage payment on the house we buy together."
[..]
You are assuming that I will not use it for the family's benefit. This is a traditional Catholic forum, so you should be assuming that a traditional Catholic husband would use it for his family's benefit.

In charity, you should stop trying to provoke posters into getting themselves banned.

Nice try.  GoG is duplicitous and stingy--i.e. in his attitude about telling his dates about his property, as MANY people here are trying to point out.  You are just being contrarian and virtue-signalling to the majority.  He tells them his "rule" after just a few dates, expects them to pay for their meal, claims he's gone on hundreds of dates recently with many women (most not Catholic), wants to teach them how to fill out their debit card receipt.  He clearly states one position, and then after being confronted about it back tracks claiming the opposite position. It's transparent, and the guy knows it.   He did that when he said several times that he didn't care anything about the women he dated, but then long later claimed he only meant they didn't mean anything "romantically."  And he's doing that about his stingy rule to retain his property.  He clearly stated he wants to keep the rental income for himself.   But we know why you are defending him, Jane.  It is transparent.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 02:59:57 PM
Email Fr. Themann, head of the SSPX Argentinian seminary.  He prepared me and my wife for marriage.  Ask for his notes, and the reference.  I'm not going to waste my time proving what should be obvious to a traditional Catholic.  A wife has a right to to share in her husband's income.   From your last defensive post, you obviously think women don't.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 03:12:11 PM
Nice try.  GoG is duplicitous and stingy--in his attitude about telling his dates about his property, as MANY people here are trying to point out.  You are just being contrarian and virtue-signalling to the majority.  He clearly states one position, and then after being confronted about it back tracks claiming the opposite position. It's transparent, and the guy knows it.   He did that when he said several times that he didn't care anything about the women he dated, but then long later claimed he only meant they didn't mean anything "romantically."  And he's doing that about his stingy rule to retain his property.  He clearly stated he wants to keep the rental income for himself.   But we know why you are defending him, Jane.  It is transparent.

Well I don't know why you have been hounding him and making up negative interpretations for everything he says.  If I had to guess, I'd say it's because of your love of creating forum drama and your sense of self-importance.

There is nothing "stingy" about recognizing how vulnerable (both emotionally and financially) no-fault divorce makes men.  Nor is there anything wrong with not feeling emotional attachment to all the people that one has ever dated.  I can't even remember everyone I ever dated.  I would imagine that it is common that people do not have strong feelings for each other when they have only dated a few times.  They are only beginning to get to know each other.

I'm not going to waste my time proving what should be obvious to a traditional Catholic.  A wife has a right to to share in her husband's income.   From your last defensive post, you obviously think women don't.

There is no "obvious" teaching that says a woman has a right to her husband's income.  There is Catholic teaching that a husband has a duty to provide for his wife.  A man can do that perfectly well while being in control of the money he earns.  That was, in fact, the way things worked for most of Church history.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: queen.saints on December 13, 2020, 03:23:34 PM

No-fault divorce is a fundamentally evil social institution.  It casts a shadow on every marriage, even those of traditional Catholics.  Every married person faces the knowledge that one's spouse can unilaterally end the marriage, no matter what one does.  Of course, we like to think that trads would not divorce, but we know it happens.

GoG has come up with a way to slightly mitigate this horrible evil.  It makes divorce less attractive to the wife (statistically the one more likely to file for divorce) so it ought to help the marriage.  I see no reason for the negative (and often unkind) responses that I am seeing to his idea.  Personally, I would have no problem with my daughter marrying a man who wanted to arrange his property this way.

It’s exactly the same with abortion. It takes away the rights of every child in the womb, even the children of pro-life parents. And divorce destabilizes every marriage, even the marriages of people who don’t believe in it.

It’s the same, again, with modern inheritance law. It takes away the rights of all legitimate heirs, even the ones whose parents want to leave the money to the right person.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 03:24:13 PM
LOL.  You have been the par excellence forum drama queen across multiple trad fora, month after month, for more than a decade.  Literally hundreds of people, at the very least, have called you out on this.  Pot calling the kettle black.  And you should be ashamed of yourself as a woman, and a traditional Catholic woman no less, defending what many here are rightfully and reasonably identifying as a man with prideful, self-centered, obvious misogynistic attitudes towards women (though I do like other things about him, we are debating if the guy has his head screwed on straight when it comes to dating and women, which the guy clearly doesn't).
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: queen.saints on December 13, 2020, 03:24:48 PM
I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

You would be denying your wife her right to her share of your income, GoG, especially unjust if she depends on you solely for her income while raising children and maintaining a home.  The two shall become one flesh.  A wife has a right to share in everything her husband earns.

You said you weren’t going to post in this thread anymore.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 03:29:28 PM
I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

You would be denying your wife her right to her share of your income, GoG, especially unjust if she depends on you solely for her income while raising children and maintaining a home.  The two shall become one flesh.  A wife has a right to share in everything her husband earns.

You said you weren’t going to post in this thread anymore.

From the woman who thinks the insanity of the Shiites in India represents not only the entire subcontinent of India, but the trad Catholics who attend the TLM at the SSPX priories in India.  You're as nuts as Jane.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: queen.saints on December 13, 2020, 03:31:41 PM

If my daughter told her future husband that she was keeping her own inheritance married or not, I'd tell him to run and I'd kick her up the backside.  What a horrible scrooge mentality before marriage.

 For me as a mother, its my instinct as well as my reason that tells me somethings off here and given some of your other posts, there is context and I think you are stingy.  Nothing wrong with that but you cannot be stingy with your wife and children.
Anyway I will say that we only have divorce in Ireland since 1995, my parents were married 52 years and my family and friends are all in long marriages bar one separation so my experience of divorce isn't as raw as it would be for you in the US .  I'd imagine there are some scars for most people in the US which would account for the cynicism versus my rose tinted glasses.


An Irish woman I know just divorced her husband this year and took €697,000 off him, plus an extra €100,000 that had been put aside for the children’s education.

Divorce is a legitimate, serious concern in any country in which it is legal.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 03:40:44 PM
LOL.  You have been the par excellence forum drama queen across multiple trad fora, month after month, for more than a decade.  Literally hundreds of people, at the very least, have called you out on this.  Pot calling the kettle black.  And you should be ashamed of yourself as a woman, and a traditional Catholic woman no less, defending what many here are rightfully and reasonably identifying as a man with prideful, self-centered, obvious misogynistic attitudes towards women (though I do like other things about him, we are debating if the guy has his head screwed on straight when it comes to dating and women, which the guy clearly doesn't).

I suppose you are using "literally" in the recent sense of "figuratively".  Nowhere near hundreds of people have called me a drama queen.

At any rate, you are reading a great deal into GoG's posts with very little justification that I can see.  Since you like exhorting people to be charitable, you should consider what St. Ignatius had to say:

Quote
It should be presupposed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor’s statement than to condemn it. Further, if he cannot interpret it favorably, one should ask how the other means it. If that meaning is wrong, one should correct the person with love; and if this is not enough, one should search out every appropriate means through which, by understanding the statement in a good way, it may be saved.

This is actually a Catholic teaching, unlike your claims about a woman's right to her husband's income.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 03:41:02 PM
Straw man.  Not one person in this thread has seriously claimed GoG's choice to retain his property is wrong.  It's his attitude toward telling women after 3 dates, keeping his rental income, making her pay, yada yada.   It takes a certain cut of woman to defend that kind of attitude.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 03:42:10 PM
LOL.  You have been the par excellence forum drama queen across multiple trad fora, month after month, for more than a decade.  Literally hundreds of people, at the very least, have called you out on this.  Pot calling the kettle black.  And you should be ashamed of yourself as a woman, and a traditional Catholic woman no less, defending what many here are rightfully and reasonably identifying as a man with prideful, self-centered, obvious misogynistic attitudes towards women (though I do like other things about him, we are debating if the guy has his head screwed on straight when it comes to dating and women, which the guy clearly doesn't).

I suppose you are using "literally" in the recent sense of "figuratively".  Nowhere near hundreds of people have called me a drama queen.

At any rate, you are reading a great deal into GoG's posts with very little justification that I can see.  Since you like exhorting people to be charitable, you should consider what St. Ignatius had to say:

Quote
It should be presupposed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor’s statement than to condemn it. Further, if he cannot interpret it favorably, one should ask how the other means it. If that meaning is wrong, one should correct the person with love; and if this is not enough, one should search out every appropriate means through which, by understanding the statement in a good way, it may be saved.

This is actually a Catholic teaching, unlike your claims about a woman's right to her husband's income.

Then follow the advise you quoted, Hypocrite.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 03:58:32 PM
Quote
It should be presupposed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor’s statement than to condemn it. Further, if he cannot interpret it favorably, one should ask how the other means it. If that meaning is wrong, one should correct the person with love; and if this is not enough, one should search out every appropriate means through which, by understanding the statement in a good way, it may be saved.

This is actually a Catholic teaching, unlike your claims about a woman's right to her husband's income.

Then follow the advise you quoted, Hypocrite.

But I have been following it.  I have, with little difficulty, seen that there is a positive interpretation for what GoG has been saying.  It requires no mental gymnastics to take his statements in a good way.  It seems to me, the more obvious interpretation.

Rather than recognize that I am merely following Catholic teaching by preferring my good interpretation to your bad one, you have made up all sorts of bad motives for me and said I should be ashamed as a traditional Catholic woman.  You really don't have the sort of moral high ground that would allow you to scold me.

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 04:11:07 PM
Straw man.  Not one person in this thread has seriously claimed GoG's choice to retain his property is wrong.

You repeatedly claimed that he was going against Catholic teaching, obviously and indefensibly so.

It's his attitude toward telling women after 3 dates, keeping his rental income, making her pay, yada yada.   It takes a certain cut of woman to defend that kind of attitude.

He tells women about his "sole property" plan after a few dates out of a desire for honesty and transparency in the relationship. Sharing expenses on dates is a practice recommended by many people as a way to promote virtue.  Keeping his sole right to property is a legitimate response to no-fault divorce.  These are all quite reasonable positions. 

Rather than make logical arguments against them, you claim that they show a bad attitude and turn every conversation with him into a personal attack.  If anyone has a bad attitude here, it is you.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 04:14:08 PM
Quote
It should be presupposed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor’s statement than to condemn it. Further, if he cannot interpret it favorably, one should ask how the other means it. If that meaning is wrong, one should correct the person with love; and if this is not enough, one should search out every appropriate means through which, by understanding the statement in a good way, it may be saved.

This is actually a Catholic teaching, unlike your claims about a woman's right to her husband's income.

Nice try, once again.  You joined the thread, notably after a stint of infrequent posting, scolding a LARGE group of people for their criticisms, not just christulsa.  Abc123 later called you out out on your defense of GoG as being nonsensical, as axe grinding. 
Then follow the advise you quoted, Hypocrite.

But I have been following it.  I have, with little difficulty, seen that there is a positive interpretation for what GoG has been saying.  It requires no mental gymnastics to take his statements in a good way.  It seems to me, the more obvious interpretation.

Rather than recognize that I am merely following Catholic teaching by preferring my good interpretation to your bad one, you have made up all sorts of bad motives for me and said I should be ashamed as a traditional Catholic woman.  You really don't have the sort of moral high ground that would allow you to scold me.

Nice try once again, Jane.  You joined the thread to call out not just me, but everyone for their reasonable criticisms/points of GoG.  Abc123 then later said it didn't make any sense why Jane would suddenly appear defending him, accept to grind an axe.  I am sure you will try and gain the last word. 
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Maximilian on December 13, 2020, 04:21:27 PM
At best, and by design, the sacrament of matrimony results in a beautiful equality of the spouses.  At second best, the woman, in whose arena matrimonial affairs primarily reside, will dominate the male for the sake of the children. 

No, this is completely contrary to Catholic belief.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm

Casti Connubii

74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; [condemned] wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: — physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.

75. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.

76. This equality of rights which is so much exaggerated and distorted, must indeed be recognized in those rights which belong to the dignity of the human soul and which are proper to the marriage contract and inseparably bound up with wedlock. In such things undoubtedly both parties enjoy the same rights and are bound by the same obligations; in other things there must be a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 04:29:09 PM
You joined the thread to call out not just me, but everyone for their reasonable criticisms/points of GoG.  Abc123 then later said it didn't make any sense why Jane would suddenly appear defending him, accept to grind an axe.

Here is my first post to this thread (minus my quote from the OP):

I haven't been around much and managed to miss this when first posted.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that it is reasonable, prudent, and moral to keep your house as "sole and separate property" when you marry.  No matter how legitimate this decision is logically and objectively, you need to consider how women tend to process things.

Women typically use emotion over logic and take things personally.  When you tell a woman whom you are dating about your plan, she hears you saying that you don't trust her to stay married to you. While it may be perfectly logical to consider the statistically high risk of divorce, she takes it as a personal insult and feels hurt.  Or, she may take your attempt to protect yourself in the event of divorce as a sign that you are not committed to marriage and going into it expecting to divorce.

I think the vast majority of women would have these sorts of negative emotional reactions.  It is not, in most cases, because they are after your money.  Women, in general, want to feel loved and trusted and safe.  Hearing about your plan to protect yourself in the case of divorce makes them feel bad.

One solution is to keep dating until you find an extraordinary woman who will process your plan with logic rather than emotion.  The odds are against you finding such a woman.

Another solution is to wait to inform the woman of your plan until she has become so emotionally attached to you that she will stay with you in spite of how bad the plan makes her feel.  This will not necessarily work and, if it fails, it will be a painful break-up.
 
Another solution is to reconsider your plan.

I do not see how anyone could imagine this shows an intent to call everyone out.  ABC did make some sort of comment about me defending GoG but that was in another thread.  (It was about headcoverings.)
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 04:40:53 PM
I did not claim you called out everyone here in the very first post you made in this thread.  Your near constant manipulation responding to posts is as tiring as it is nauseating, in large part because you've also done this for not weeks or months, but for verifiable YEARS.  Which is why I've decided generally to ignore it, except when you direct it directly at me, as you did today responding to me (I wasn't responding to you), and then I am going to shut you down because of your blatant habitual hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 13, 2020, 04:57:28 PM
Nice try.  GoG is duplicitous and stingy--i.e. in his attitude about telling his dates about his property, as MANY people here are trying to point out.  You are just being contrarian and virtue-signalling to the majority.  He tells them his "rule" after just a few dates, expects them to pay for their meal, claims he's gone on hundreds of dates recently with many women (most not Catholic), wants to teach them how to fill out their debit card receipt.  He clearly states one position, and then after being confronted about it back tracks claiming the opposite position. It's transparent, and the guy knows it.   He did that when he said several times that he didn't care anything about the women he dated, but then long later claimed he only meant they didn't mean anything "romantically."  And he's doing that about his stingy rule to retain his property.  He clearly stated he wants to keep the rental income for himself.   But we know why you are defending him, Jane.  It is transparent.

How is it duplicitous to point out in advance my beliefs on finance in marriage, far before anyone's feeling could get hurt? How is it stingy to not want to risk losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a no-fault divorce? I see that you're still obsessed about the point of me not caring about women I went on one date with. You see, I didn't marry the first Jungle Asian to wink at me, so you have to put yourself in my shoes.


Email Fr. Themann, head of the SSPX Argentinian seminary.  He prepared me and my wife for marriage.  Ask for his notes, and the reference.  I'm not going to waste my time proving what should be obvious to a traditional Catholic.

Why not? You've wasted your time following me from thread to thread. You even said that you're going to stop posting in this thread but you've made over half a dozens of posts since your annoucement. I'm sure a South American priest will be very familiar with community property law, as every Spanish-speaking nation on that continent adheres it. So I highly doubt that he would be the first priest in history to go on record against a 1,000-year-old time-tested Iberian legal concept.

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 05:05:26 PM
I did not claim you called out everyone here in the very first post you made in this thread.  Your near constant manipulation responding to posts is as tiring as it is nauseating, in large part because you've also done this for not weeks or months, but for verifiable YEARS.  Which is why I've decided generally to ignore it, except when you direct it directly at me, as you did today responding to me (I wasn't responding to you), and then I am going to shut you down because of your blatant habitual hypocrisy.

You claimed "You joined the thread to call out not just me, but everyone for their reasonable criticisms/points of GoG."  One joins a thread when one writes one's "very first post" to it.

Everything that I have written in this thread was honest and logical. There is no question of me manipulating anything.  It would be nice if you could talk about ideas instead of your constant personal attacks and nastiness.

I did, in fact, write to disagree with something you posted today.  If you perceive that as calling you out, you really need to reconsider your participation in discussion forums.  It is the nature of these discussions that people will disagree with you sometimes.  It does not mean that you are being targeted.  It does not mean that they are posting because they are out to get you.

The reason that I am posting to this thread is, as one might guess, that I find the topic interesting.  I actually had a real life discussion with my husband about it.  The topic is so interesting to me that I even read christulsa's posts to the thread even though I normally ignore his posts.  Apparently this was a mistake.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 05:17:54 PM
Nice try.  GoG is duplicitous and stingy--i.e. in his attitude about telling his dates about his property, as MANY people here are trying to point out.  You are just being contrarian and virtue-signalling to the majority.  He tells them his "rule" after just a few dates, expects them to pay for their meal, claims he's gone on hundreds of dates recently with many women (most not Catholic), wants to teach them how to fill out their debit card receipt.  He clearly states one position, and then after being confronted about it back tracks claiming the opposite position. It's transparent, and the guy knows it.   He did that when he said several times that he didn't care anything about the women he dated, but then long later claimed he only meant they didn't mean anything "romantically."  And he's doing that about his stingy rule to retain his property.  He clearly stated he wants to keep the rental income for himself.   But we know why you are defending him, Jane.  It is transparent.

How is it duplicitous to point out in advance my beliefs on finance in marriage, far before anyone's feeling could get hurt? How is it stingy to not want to risk losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a no-fault divorce? I see that you're still obsessed about the point of me not caring about women I went on one date with. You see, I didn't marry the first Jungle Asian to wink at me, so you have to put yourself in my shoes.


Email Fr. Themann, head of the SSPX Argentinian seminary.  He prepared me and my wife for marriage.  Ask for his notes, and the reference.  I'm not going to waste my time proving what should be obvious to a traditional Catholic.

Why not? You've wasted your time following me from thread to thread. You even said that you're going to stop posting in this thread but you've made over half a dozens of posts since your annoucement. I'm sure a South American priest will be very familiar with community property law, as every Spanish-speaking nation on that continent adheres it. So I highly doubt that he would be the first priest in history to go on record against a 1,000-year-old time-tested Iberian legal concept.

1. It is absolutely immature and self-centered to go into this after just 3 mere dates, as you stated, with these women, hello, when you identify as a believing, practicing traditonal Catholiic.  If you don't understand that even remotely, then I'll pay for all your sessions with Fr. P to sort out your issues.  James03 tried to explain this to you already.  And I concur with Angela about her comments.

2.  It is stingy to NOT share rental income from the property AFTER marriage with your wife, which you defend. 

3. Jungle Asian?  Are you referring to my wife of 10 years?   If so, Game on buddy. 

4.  From thread to thread?  There's THIS thread, and another you started like a Troll to complain about my comment questioning your "Going Dutch" policy.

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 05:19:11 PM
I did not claim you called out everyone here in the very first post you made in this thread.  Your near constant manipulation responding to posts is as tiring as it is nauseating, in large part because you've also done this for not weeks or months, but for verifiable YEARS.  Which is why I've decided generally to ignore it, except when you direct it directly at me, as you did today responding to me (I wasn't responding to you), and then I am going to shut you down because of your blatant habitual hypocrisy.

You claimed "You joined the thread to call out not just me, but everyone for their reasonable criticisms/points of GoG."  One joins a thread when one writes one's "very first post" to it.

Everything that I have written in this thread was honest and logical. There is no question of me manipulating anything.  It would be nice if you could talk about ideas instead of your constant personal attacks and nastiness.

I did, in fact, write to disagree with something you posted today.  If you perceive that as calling you out, you really need to reconsider your participation in discussion forums.  It is the nature of these discussions that people will disagree with you sometimes.  It does not mean that you are being targeted.  It does not mean that they are posting because they are out to get you.

The reason that I am posting to this thread is, as one might guess, that I find the topic interesting.  I actually had a real life discussion with my husband about it.  The topic is so interesting to me that I even read christulsa's posts to the thread even though I normally ignore his posts.  Apparently this was a mistake.

I literally did not read what you wrote above.  Because you are beyond irrational.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 05:28:50 PM
4.  From thread to thread?  There's THIS thread, and another you started like a Troll to complain about my comment questioning your "Going Dutch" policy.

While I tend to avoid reading christulsa's posts, even I could not miss that he has some sort of vendetta against GoG.  If chris does not realize he is doing this, he is very lacking in self-awareness. 

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 13, 2020, 05:34:08 PM
4.  From thread to thread?  There's THIS thread, and another you started like a Troll to complain about my comment questioning your "Going Dutch" policy.

Please provide a link to the thread that you claim I started. I won't hold my breath because you never back up your claims with any source.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 05:34:51 PM
I've We've had to read your posts for 10 phucking years, Jane, literally THOUSANDS of irrationally, personal arguments directed at Greg specifically.  Take responsibility for yourself.  I want you to ignore me, but each time you respond to me as you are, like a hypocritical mother hen, I will shut you down.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 05:40:52 PM
4.  From thread to thread?  There's THIS thread, and another you started like a Troll to complain about my comment questioning your "Going Dutch" policy.

Please provide a link to the thread that you claim I started. I won't hold my breath because you never back up your claims with any source.

Look up there in the top right hand corner, under search, and type in "going dutch."   For your source, among others.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 05:45:19 PM
I've had to read your posts for 10 phucking years, Jane, literally THOUSANDS of irrationally, personal arguments directed at Greg specifically.  Take responsibility for yourself.  I want you to ignore me, but each time you respond to me as you are, like a hypocritical mother hen, I will shut you down.

There is no question that I disagreed with Greg a lot.  He took many positions that I believed to be against Catholic teaching and I said so.  But very little of what I wrote could reasonably be characterized as irrational or personal.

Your posts would be greatly improved if you could learn to distinguish between rational discussion of ideas and personal attacks.  This might allow you to avoid making the latter so often.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 05:51:56 PM
4.  From thread to thread?  There's THIS thread, and another you started like a Troll to complain about my comment questioning your "Going Dutch" policy.

Please provide a link to the thread that you claim I started. I won't hold my breath because you never back up your claims with any source.

Look up there in the top right hand corner, under search, and type in "going dutch."   For your source, among others.

There is a thread called "going Dutch"  https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=24769.0 (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=24769.0)

The OP does not contain even a hint of complaint.  Nor was there anything suggestive of trolling.

The subject of "going Dutch" had come up in another thread and to avoid having it become derailed, GoG started a new thread for this subject.  This is a practice that leads to more orderly discussions and is practically the opposite of trolling.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 05:57:18 PM
I've had to read your posts for 10 phucking years, Jane, literally THOUSANDS of irrationally, personal arguments directed at Greg specifically.  Take responsibility for yourself.  I want you to ignore me, but each time you respond to me as you are, like a hypocritical mother hen, I will shut you down.

There is no question that I disagreed with Greg a lot.  He took many positions that I believed to be against Catholic teaching and I said so.  But very little of what I wrote could reasonably be characterized as irrational or personal.

Your posts would be greatly improved if you could learn to distinguish between rational discussion of ideas and personal attacks.  This might allow you to avoid making the latter so often.

1.  Not according to multiple fora.  For over a decade.  Commented on, post by post, actually by thousands of people over that span.  You've worked hard to earn the reputation.  And it is deserved. 

2.  There is nothing rational, or not personal, about your posts in this thread, or most posts replying to me.  You are obsessed.

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 06:08:07 PM
1.  Not according to multiple fora.  For over a decade.  Commented on, post by post, actually by thousands of people over that span.  You've worked hard to earn the reputation.  And it is deserved. 

While Greg has his defenders, many other people have commented to affirm the legitimacy of my criticisms of Greg's ideas.  There is no forum with a universal position of Greg is right and Jayne attacks him for no reason.

My forum reputation is rather good.  Literally (the real literally) thousands of people have thanked my posts.  Over on CI, where they track both positive and negative scores, my positive score is around double.  (And a significant proportion of the down votes come from Flat earthers who object to me saying that the earth is a sphere.)
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 06:14:09 PM
4.  From thread to thread?  There's THIS thread, and another you started like a Troll to complain about my comment questioning your "Going Dutch" policy.

Please provide a link to the thread that you claim I started. I won't hold my breath because you never back up your claims with any source.

Look up there in the top right hand corner, under search, and type in "going dutch."   For your source, among others.

There is a thread called "going Dutch"  https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=24769.0 (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=24769.0)

The OP does not contain even a hint of complaint.  Nor was there anything suggestive of trolling.

Clever.  That quote in the OP was from me, christulsa, Jane.  He was starting an entire thread just to question my singular criticism, in his own thread he that he started, that his own "going dutch" policy was another red flag.  In other threads he cried fowl just over my comment.  While bashing every other member.  He says he goes on 5-10 dates with one woman, going on average 2 dates a week for 2 years straight.  That's a lot of women.  After a few dates, a traditional Catholic man should at the very least start paying for some dinners.  But it doesn't matter, you're just operating under the idea of "an enemy of my enemy is my friend." 
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Angela on December 13, 2020, 06:31:12 PM
christulsa, I agree with you here; I think this GiftofGod is young and inexperienced in the field of women and how to treat them; let’s specifically say Traditional Catholics. But worse still is the insulting manner he adopts when he answers to those who have been there, done that, and can speak from experience. I don’t think he’s worth getting into an argument with, as nothing you’re saying is even getting through.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 06:33:02 PM
Clever.  That quote in the OP was from me, christulsa, Jane.  He was starting an entire thread just to question my singular criticism, in his own thread he that he started, that his own "going dutch" policy was another red flag.  In other threads he cried fowl just over my comment.  While bashing every other member.  He says he goes on 5-10 dates with one woman, going on average 2 dates a week for 2 years straight.  That's a lot of women.  After a few dates, a traditional Catholic man should at the very least start paying for some dinners.  But it doesn't matter, you're just operating under the idea of "an enemy of my enemy is my friend."

It is common when starting a new thread based on a topic that was threatening to derail another to quote something from the original thread.  GoG said nothing negative about the quote.  It was merely there to introduce the topic.  There is no justification for you seeing this as some sort of attack on you.

Even in the small proportion of your posts that I have read, I have seen you direct extremely nasty personal comments at GOG, with repeated slurs on his mental health.  GoG does not seem the sort of person to let your treatment of him slide, but it is understandable retaliation.  You are clearly the aggressor.

You are not simply disagreeing with his positions.  You are attacking his personality, making up bad motives for his actions, and forming needlessly negative interpretations of his words.  And now you are making up a motive for me so you can dismiss what I am saying.  But my claims are clearly true.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 06:35:38 PM
christulsa, I agree with you here; I think this GiftofGod is young and inexperienced in the field of women and how to treat them; let’s specifically say Traditional Catholics. But worse still is the insulting manner he adopts when he answers to those who have been there, done that, and can speak from experience. I don’t think he’s worth getting into an argument with, as nothing you’re saying is even getting through.

Thanks, I agree with each of your points. 
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 13, 2020, 06:36:52 PM
christulsa, I agree with you here; I think this GiftofGod is young and inexperienced in the field of women and how to treat them; let’s specifically say Traditional Catholics. But worse still is the insulting manner he adopts when he answers to those who have been there, done that, and can speak from experience. I don’t think he’s worth getting into an argument with, as nothing you’re saying is even getting through.

My insulting manner to you was due to your insulting manner to me.

I, as well as my husband, would advise our daughter against marrying such a man,  I’m sorry. This is very telling of the kind of marriage she’d have. I’m not surprised you’re having troubles finding a wife.

If you don't think that is insulting, then that's because you are a woman. Any man knows that if he said that to another man in person, he'd get a fist to the face.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 06:41:01 PM
I, as well as my husband, would advise our daughter against marrying such a man,  I’m sorry. This is very telling of the kind of marriage she’d have. I’m not surprised you’re having troubles finding a wife.

If you don't think that is insulting, then that's because you are a woman. Any man knows that if he said that to another man in person, he'd get a fist to the face.

Well, I am a woman and I understood how insulting it was.  In fact, it was her post that I primarily had in mind when I mentioned that there had been "unkind comments".
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 06:50:18 PM
Clever.  That quote in the OP was from me, christulsa, Jane.  He was starting an entire thread just to question my singular criticism, in his own thread he that he started, that his own "going dutch" policy was another red flag.  In other threads he cried fowl just over my comment.  While bashing every other member.  He says he goes on 5-10 dates with one woman, going on average 2 dates a week for 2 years straight.  That's a lot of women.  After a few dates, a traditional Catholic man should at the very least start paying for some dinners.  But it doesn't matter, you're just operating under the idea of "an enemy of my enemy is my friend."

It is common when starting a new thread based on a topic that was threatening to derail another to quote something from the original thread.  GoG said nothing negative about the quote.  It was merely there to introduce the topic.  There is no justification for you seeing this as some sort of attack on you.

Even in the small proportion of your posts that I have read, I have seen you direct extremely nasty personal comments at GOG, with repeated slurs on his mental health.  GoG does not seem the sort of person to let your treatment of him slide, but it is understandable retaliation.  You are clearly the aggressor.

You are not simply disagreeing with his positions.  You are attacking his personality, making up bad motives for his actions, and forming needlessly negative interpretations of his words.  And now you are making up a motive for me so you can dismiss what I am saying.  But my claims are clearly true.

And thanks for convoluting once again what I said.  Always the pleasure.     

You think my defense of women/wive's dignity in marriage, in response to the Gift, is really about me being hyper-sensitive.  I don't.  You think his misogynistic statements are actually Catholic.  I don't.   You think wives don't have a right to share in their husband's income.  I don't.    You think you are justified in manipulatively lying to win forum arguments, thread after thread.  I don't. 
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: diaduit on December 13, 2020, 06:54:23 PM
christulsa, I agree with you here; I think this GiftofGod is young and inexperienced in the field of women and how to treat them; let’s specifically say Traditional Catholics. But worse still is the insulting manner he adopts when he answers to those who have been there, done that, and can speak from experience. I don’t think he’s worth getting into an argument with, as nothing you’re saying is even getting through.

My insulting manner to you was due to your insulting manner to me.

I, as well as my husband, would advise our daughter against marrying such a man,  I’m sorry. This is very telling of the kind of marriage she’d have. I’m not surprised you’re having troubles finding a wife.

If you don't think that is insulting, then that's because you are a woman. Any man knows that if he said that to another man in person, he'd get a fist to the face.

You're no wallflower GoG and I doubt you even flinched reading posts here....also I wanted another go at the quotes for giggles :)
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Philip G. on December 13, 2020, 06:58:56 PM
At best, and by design, the sacrament of matrimony results in a beautiful equality of the spouses.  At second best, the woman, in whose arena matrimonial affairs primarily reside, will dominate the male for the sake of the children. 

No, this is completely contrary to Catholic belief.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm

Casti Connubii

74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; [condemned] wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: — physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.

75. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.

76. This equality of rights which is so much exaggerated and distorted, must indeed be recognized in those rights which belong to the dignity of the human soul and which are proper to the marriage contract and inseparably bound up with wedlock. In such things undoubtedly both parties enjoy the same rights and are bound by the same obligations; in other things there must be a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life.

Ah yes, casti connubii, the document that introduced two-ends theology into the church wreaking never before seen havoc.  I know it well.  And, I reject two ends theology.  There is one "end" of matrimony, and it is "the corporal increase of the church" - Denzinger.   Accept that premise, and what I have said, drawn from both scripture and tradition begins to make sense again.





Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 07:03:00 PM
I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

I wouldn't want you to marry my daughter.


I understand you being protective of your property/assets if you were dating secular women but really if you are looking for a trad wife then as much as she is giving herself to you and your future children you need to share yourself and your assets with her.  You should be king and she should be queen of the family castle.  Not sharing your castle with her is reducing her to a whore and a hired help who fires out your children and does the endless chores involved.  Please change your attitude, we're not all bad.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 07:08:17 PM
You think my defense of women/wive's dignity in marriage, in response to the Gift, is really about me being hyper-sensitive.  I don't.  You think his misogynistic statements are actually Catholic.  I don't.   You think wives don't have a right to share in their husband's income.  I don't.    You think you are justified in manipulatively lying to win forum arguments, thread after thread.  I don't.

You read misogyny into his statements.  It is not there when one takes them at face value. 

You have been unable to show that there is any Catholic teaching that wives have a right to share the husband's income.  This is not surprising since the idea would have been laughed at for most of Catholic history.  A husband has a duty to provide for his wife; this is significantly different.

Pointing out the flaws in your arguments is perfectly honest.  It does not involve any lying or manipulation.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 07:10:17 PM
Philip, 2 ends theology is Church teaching  Rejecting it is a form of heresy.  I hope you're not.  Talk to a priest.  Also, despite what you suggested the other day, the Church has NOT gradually shifted from worship of Christ to Mary. I really hope you don't believe that.

2 primary ends to marriage, in this order (the constant teaching):

1. Procreation

2. Mutual support of spouses.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 07:16:55 PM
You think my defense of women/wive's dignity in marriage, in response to the Gift, is really about me being hyper-sensitive.  I don't.  You think his misogynistic statements are actually Catholic.  I don't.   You think wives don't have a right to share in their husband's income.  I don't.    You think you are justified in manipulatively lying to win forum arguments, thread after thread.  I don't.

You read misogyny into his statements.  It is not there when one takes them at face value. 

You have been unable to show that there is any Catholic teaching that wives have a right to share the husband's income.  This is not surprising since the idea would have been laughed at for most of Catholic history.  A husband has a duty to provide for his wife; this is significantly different.

Pointing out the flaws in your arguments is perfectly honest.  It does not involve any lying or manipulation.

Keep responding to me Jane. I am really sure every one appreciates it.  Just so you know I've been tuning out your posts in this thread pages back.  And reread GoG's posting history since posting here, and then get back to us.  And mark my words, come the day he gets himself finally banned, I won't say a word.  I'll just remember this thread, if that happens.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 13, 2020, 07:28:06 PM
Keep responding to me Jane. I am really sure every one appreciates it.  Just so you know I stopped reading your posts in this thread pages back, including the above which I'm not even glancing at..  And reread GoG's posting history since posting here, and then get back to us.  And mark my words, when the day he gets himself finally bannd, I won't say a word.

It is obvious that you have been responding to the content of my posts.  If you are going to keep accusing others of lying, it would be more effective if you told the truth yourself.

People do not typically get banned here merely for being abrasive.  Given how blatantly you are trying to provoke him to go beyond that, I would expect KK to take that into consideration.

Your next flounce from the forum is at least as likely as a ban for GoG.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 07:32:47 PM
Keep responding to me Jane. I am really sure every one appreciates it.  Just so you know I stopped reading your posts in this thread pages back, including the above which I'm not even glancing at..  And reread GoG's posting history since posting here, and then get back to us.  And mark my words, when the day he gets himself finally bannd, I won't say a word.

It is obvious that you have been responding to the content of my posts.  If you are going to keep accusing others of lying, it would be more effective if you told the truth yourself.

People do not typically get banned here merely for being abrasive.  Given how blatantly you are trying to provoke him to go beyond that, I would expect KK to take that into consideration.

Your next flounce from the forum is at least as likely as a ban for GoG.

Not reading anymore your sick, foolish posts, including the above.  As I said, I am shutting your manipulative ass down.  Are you capable of not responding?   I will bet you you are not.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Philip G. on December 13, 2020, 07:38:02 PM
The man who complains about woman's usurpation of matrimony by way of the state is the same man who usurps authority invalidating the sacraments of clergy worldwide.  Let's hear it GoG.  Are you a sedevacantist?  Do you believe the novus ordo rites are valid?  Pull the plank out of your eye.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 13, 2020, 07:48:20 PM
He is.

He doesn't.

Unlike Michael Wilson, and MANY SVists, who I respect, GoG is an adherent of the "Most Holy Family Monastery" positions.   

(PS I don't think you literally think the Church promotes Mary worship, or flat out reject the recent pre-VII Papal Magisterial documents on the ends of marriage, though what you say seems to me to contradict Church teaching).
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: MundaCorMeum on December 13, 2020, 07:55:35 PM
Children, children.... please quit bickering.  It's Gaudete Sunday, after all!
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Philip G. on December 13, 2020, 10:26:34 PM
I don't take pleasure in it.  Nor am I on a crusade.

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Non Nobis on December 13, 2020, 11:38:36 PM
Keep responding to me Jane. I am really sure every one appreciates it.  Just so you know I stopped reading your posts in this thread pages back, including the above which I'm not even glancing at..  And reread GoG's posting history since posting here, and then get back to us.  And mark my words, when the day he gets himself finally bannd, I won't say a word.

It is obvious that you have been responding to the content of my posts.  If you are going to keep accusing others of lying, it would be more effective if you told the truth yourself.

People do not typically get banned here merely for being abrasive.  Given how blatantly you are trying to provoke him to go beyond that, I would expect KK to take that into consideration.

Your next flounce from the forum is at least as likely as a ban for GoG.

Not reading anymore your sick, foolish posts, including the above.  As I said, I am shutting your manipulative ass down.  Are you capable of not responding?   I will bet you you are not.

Christulsa I find you to be such a likeable guy sometimes - like when trying to help Daniel. But this reply to Jayne is ugly.

Don't you kind of flounce when you leave the forum or return e.g. as holographic chris. :D?

Don't leave.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: andy on December 13, 2020, 11:48:15 PM
This thread is a complete mess.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Philip G. on December 14, 2020, 12:01:43 AM
At best, and by design, the sacrament of matrimony results in a beautiful equality of the spouses.  At second best, the woman, in whose arena matrimonial affairs primarily reside, will dominate the male for the sake of the children. 

No, this is completely contrary to Catholic belief.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm

Casti Connubii

74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; [condemned] wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: — physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.

75. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.

76. This equality of rights which is so much exaggerated and distorted, must indeed be recognized in those rights which belong to the dignity of the human soul and which are proper to the marriage contract and inseparably bound up with wedlock. In such things undoubtedly both parties enjoy the same rights and are bound by the same obligations; in other things there must be a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life.

Do you want to insist on subjugation in the species of the Eucharist next? 

Just as there are two ends of the priesthood(The separation of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharist), there is one end of Matrimony(corporal increase). 

As the church has embraced two ends matrimonial theology, doubtful sacraments have abounded.  It is no coincidence. 
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: andy on December 14, 2020, 12:05:19 AM
As far as OP goes, I do not think anybody will tell you what to do. The church will tell you what is a sin but you have to figure out what good you want to do. It is not like there is no support or good advise but you are on your own GoG here. This situation is the taste of the marriage in fact. Facing unknown. Taking risks while balancing to stay prudent. Being open to your spouse weaknesses and imperfections, no matter how good her parents were and upbringing.

Last but not least, you will have to be to your wife and family what Christ is to the Church. Completely forget about yourself while paradoxically make sure your are the boss. It might be that your wife will betray and leave you. Like many people did to Jesus on the cross. Or she will love you beyond anything on this earth for greater God's glory. And you will be the happiest men in the universe.

Having said that, if a men told my daughter on their 3rd date his "real estate plans", she would run run run away from this child.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 14, 2020, 12:51:28 AM
Having said that, if a men told my daughter on their 3rd date his "real estate plans", she would run run run away from this child.

If a man didn't know the difference between a singular noun or a plural noun, I'm sure my daughter would run away too.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: andy on December 14, 2020, 01:01:29 AM
Having said that, if a men told my daughter on their 3rd date his "real estate plans", she would run run run away from this child.

If a man didn't know the difference between a singular noun or a plural noun, I'm sure my daughter would run away too.

You are a prisoner of irrelevant details my friend.  Please thank for reading your post, spending time on this thread and the advice.

.
.
.

Not me (I am just a traveler here) but those other wise forum members who wanted to help you.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Maximilian on December 14, 2020, 08:42:44 AM

Ah yes, casti connubii, the document that introduced two-ends theology into the church wreaking never before seen havoc.  I know it well.  And, I reject two ends theology. 

No, you don't know it well, since there is no "two ends" theology in Casti Connubii. If you're thinking of the "two meanings" of Humanae Vitae (the procreative meaning and the unitive meaning), that personalist language didn't appear until after Vatican II.

Casti Connubii follows the outline of St. Augustine who taught that there are 3 bonae (goods) of marriage.

1. Procreation and education of children.
2. Mutual support of the spouses
3. Permanence

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm

Casti Connubii

10. Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death:

“These,” says St. Augustine, “are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament.”

And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said:

“By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman;

with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere;

finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring.

This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained.”
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: christulsa on December 14, 2020, 09:39:41 AM
The  Holy See clarified CC in 1944 over the controversy over two ends, affirming "two ends" as two categories of purposes in marriage:  one objective and primary, the "finis operis" (procreation, education of children), the second category subjective and secondary the "finis operantis." 

http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/social-teaching/moral-issues/93-social-teaching/moral-issues/342-roman-rota-on-the-ends-of-marriage.html

From CC:

"For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved."

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Philip G. on December 14, 2020, 11:32:53 AM
Maximilian - Casti Connubii introduced two ordered ends, and humanae vitae nullified the ordering along with casually reversing them. 

Read Christulsa's post.  The language and concept of two-ends was long before humanae vitae. 
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Maximilian on December 14, 2020, 01:06:16 PM
Maximilian - Casti Connubii introduced two ordered ends, and humanae vitae nullified the ordering along with casually reversing them. 

Read Christulsa's post.  The language and concept of two-ends was long before humanae vitae.

Casti Connubii does not use the phrase "two ends," and neither does Chris' post. Regarding the ends of marriage, it says that one is designated as primary, while the others are secondary. So you can have "categories" of ends, which can fall into either primary or secondary.

humanae vitae nullified the ordering along with casually reversing them. 

True.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Philip G. on December 16, 2020, 06:35:52 AM

Ah yes, casti connubii, the document that introduced two-ends theology into the church wreaking never before seen havoc.  I know it well.  And, I reject two ends theology. 

No, you don't know it well, since there is no "two ends" theology in Casti Connubii. If you're thinking of the "two meanings" of Humanae Vitae (the procreative meaning and the unitive meaning), that personalist language didn't appear until after Vatican II.

Casti Connubii follows the outline of St. Augustine who taught that there are 3 bonae (goods) of marriage.

1. Procreation and education of children.
2. Mutual support of the spouses
3. Permanence

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm

Casti Connubii

10. Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death:

“These,” says St. Augustine, “are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament.”

And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said:

“By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman;

with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere;

finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring.

This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained.”

The whole point of introducing a language of "secondary ends" is to one, inculcate couples with a dualism, an two reverse "ends" that are in fact not even ends. 

Their intention is to reverse the three goods of matrimony on all three accounts, hence my "two ends"(one end for each). 

(#50 CC) For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

In my opinion, these "secondary ends" are novel language(step one modernist modus) and an open door to replace and ultimately pervert the three goods taught by the council of Florence.  You would be better served to reference the council as opposed to what you listed by St. Augustine. 

DZ 702 Council of Florence - "Moreover there is allotted a threefold good on the part of matrimony.  First, the progeny is to be accepted and brought up in the worship of God.  Second, there is faith which one of the spouses ought to keep for the other.  Third, there is the indivisibility of marriage, because it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the church."

In contrast to accepting progeny, they prefer the "quieting of concupiscence".  The good is not another child, the "good" is that the fires of passion can be calmed.  If this is not the direct contrast, being that the document does speak of a proper primary end, then the "quieting of concupiscence" truly becomes the odd man out, sticking out like a sore thumb.  This would not surprise me, as it, by way of NFP, is the bloody knife in all of these regards.

In contrast to faith, they prefer the cultivating of "mutual love".

In contrast to the indivisibility of marriage, they prefer "mutual aid". 

This same council decreed Dz 695 that "through matrimony" the church is "corporeally increased".  Look it up, there is no confusion.  That is the one end of matrimony.  Because, if you look at the three goods, only one of those should result in corporal increase.  And, that one end is "the accepting of progeny". 

"Faith without works is dead".  Just as there remains faith, hope, and charity.  "The greatest of these is charity".

The matrimonial good of "faith" shouldn't be categorized as a corporal increase, and therefore an end, because marriage is invalid between catholic and non catholic.  We don't believe as those loose modern women do whose intention when fornicating with beastly men like for example hunter biden is based on a belief that it will "save him".   

The matrimonial good of "indivisibility" shouldn't be categorized as a corporal increase, and therefore an end, because marriage is a "sacrament".  Man seduced by a woman does not become her temporal "slave" until she eternally decides to "put him to death no differently than one might put to death a horse" - Louis de montfort.   And, this De Montfort considered a duty/obligation respective of such a woman's exalted dignity(and Christulsa doesn't believe me).

This is what happens when you allow mixed marriages in the church(pre vatican 2).  This is what happens when you place burdens on women that you yourself are unwilling to help lift(pre vatican 2).  This is what happens when Christ is not King. This is what happens when means become ends.  Ends become means. 
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Jayne on December 17, 2020, 07:45:53 PM
Not reading anymore your sick, foolish posts, including the above.  As I said, I am shutting your manipulative ass down.  Are you capable of not responding?   I will bet you you are not.

Excuse me for derailing the thread you started, GiftofGod, but I think it is important to reply to this, even though unrelated to the topic.  There is already a problem with christulsa turning one thread after another into the subject of a bet.  I don't want to encourage him to think that framing his wishes as a bet is a good way to make people do what he wants.  I would have left the thread, but am posting now because of this "bet" nonsense.

And since I am posting anyhow, you may be amused by the contrast between what chris said about Greg and I in this thread and what he wrote some months ago:

Well I guess I just fail to see how a man is a Catholic gentleman to be admired across a Catholic forum who habitually brags about his successes while insulting trad men who don’t measure up for him, spending years on end arguing with a grandmother because he doesn’t like her personality, and justifies lying, cheating, and manipulating others.  And that isn’t even a value judgment per se, but observable facts most here would honestly admit represents his posting history.   Perhaps those facts can be defended, or not, but they are facts.

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Chestertonian on December 18, 2020, 09:19:24 AM
The more I think about it, the more I think that it is a reasonable idea.  I see no basis for thinking it would make a man a bad husband.  This way of arranging the property would not even affect the wife unless they got divorced.  In theory, a woman who has no intention of divorce should not care about it.

No-fault divorce is a fundamentally evil social institution.  It casts a shadow on every marriage, even those of traditional Catholics.  Every married person faces the knowledge that one's spouse can unilaterally end the marriage, no matter what one does.  Of course, we like to think that trads would not divorce, but we know it happens.

GoG has come up with a way to slightly mitigate this horrible evil.  It makes divorce less attractive to the wife (statistically the one more likely to file for divorce) so it ought to help the marriage.  I see no reason for the negative (and often unkind) responses that I am seeing to his idea.  Personally, I would have no problem with my daughter marrying a man who wanted to arrange his property this way.

If pre nups render the marriage invalid, it isn't a marriage
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Aulef on December 18, 2020, 11:46:31 AM
Sounds like you're weeding out gold-diggers. Good job. Keep looking. St. Raphael will provide. ☺
I read a pre-Vatican II marriage prep book that said to avoid materialistic women like the plague.

Look at St. John Chrysostom's description of an idea/attractive wife (from his On Virginity (https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=6549)):
Quote
it is not by beautifying herself, or by living a life of luxury, or by demanding from her husband money, or by being extravagant and lavish that she will be able to win him over. When she removes herself from all present concerns and imprints upon herself the apostolic way of life, when she displays great modesty, decorum, disdain for money and forbearance, then will she be able to capture him. When she says: "If we have food and clothing we have all that we need," [l Tim 6:8 (https://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&bk=61&ch=6&l=8-#x)] when she practices this philosophy in her actions and, laughing at physical death, calls this life nothing, when she considers along with the prophet every glory of this life to be as the flower of the field, [Isa. 40:6 (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&bk=27&ch=40&l=6-#x)] then she will capture him.

Also, all property is marriage should be common.

This.

And I want to highlight something: ALL property in marriage has be common. Otherwise it will be a broken relationship from the beginning.

OP, you should find another way to figure out whether women are after your riches or your they wanna grow in sanctity with you.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 20, 2020, 12:11:24 AM
And I want to highlight something: ALL property in marriage has be common. Otherwise it will be a broken relationship from the beginning.

OP, you should find another way to figure out whether women are after your riches or your they wanna grow in sanctity with you.

Do you have a Catholic source for that? A Council? Pope? Bishop? Priest? Heck, what about a layman's book with an imprimatur pre Vatican-II?

Or could it be that it is your personal opinion? You said that you are from Latin America. Does your country not follow community property law? All Iberian countries do, or so I thought.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Philip G. on December 20, 2020, 12:17:29 AM
GiftofGod apes the dowry, which is a concept taught in the Gospels under the parable of the lost coin. 
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: andy on December 20, 2020, 12:43:39 AM
GiftofGod apes the dowry, which is a concept taught in the Gospels under the parable of the lost coin.

And he forgets that the most precious thing man can have is his time and not some $$$$.

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 20, 2020, 04:24:52 AM
GiftofGod apes the dowry, which is a concept taught in the Gospels under the parable of the lost coin.

That concept is "taught" just as must as having servants.

GiftofGod apes the dowry, which is a concept taught in the Gospels under the parable of the lost coin.

And he forgets that the most precious thing man can have is his time and not some $$$$.

Time is money, which is why I know men who must spend time working until they die of old age because they didn't have money, sometimes resulting from a divorce.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: andy on December 20, 2020, 06:01:09 PM
Time is money, which is why I know men who must spend time working until they die of old age because they didn't have money, sometimes resulting from a divorce.

Not sure if you ride motorcycles or have another hobby, but if you do you should be familiar with a phenomenon of target fixation. This vid should explain it well
In other words, if you fixate on a divorce, you will most likely make it happen. With your own hands.

By the way, for this response, please say a decade of Rosary in my intention. I would greatly appreciate it.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Aulef on December 23, 2020, 06:57:09 AM
And I want to highlight something: ALL property in marriage has be common. Otherwise it will be a broken relationship from the beginning.

OP, you should find another way to figure out whether women are after your riches or your they wanna grow in sanctity with you.

Do you have a Catholic source for that? A Council? Pope? Bishop? Priest? Heck, what about a layman's book with an imprimatur pre Vatican-II?

Or could it be that it is your personal opinion? You said that you are from Latin America. Does your country not follow community property law? All Iberian countries do, or so I thought.


I don't have any source that I remember of on the spot, so, yes, for now it is a personal yet based opinion.

I say based opinion for a simple reason: in marriage the nubents are supposed to become one. This is a direct order from God. I wonder how it is possible to become one when their intellect and will don't agree on sharing all their belongings for the primary end of marriage which is procreation and education of children. If you have a good explanation, please, share with us.

Regarding the country I live following community property law, yes, you are right. It is, however it changed a lot in the past 300 years. When the state was still aligned with the Church, the rule was universal community property, that is, all property would be shared even the ones aquired prior to the marriage. In fact, this is another reason why I said what I said. The Portuguese empire and later the Brazilian empire, both under heavy influence of the Holy Catholic Church, made universal community property mandatory.

Unfortunately, after freemasons had taken power for good, changes begun. First the state started tolerating partial community property, then divorce came. Nowdays, a couple may get married under full separate property regime. Yet, partial community property (post-marital shared property only) is still the standard (if there is no prior agreement between the nubents) but I don't know for how long this will last.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: dymphnaw on December 23, 2020, 09:28:05 AM
Having read this whole thread I can only congratulate the women who decided to never go on another date with the OP again. Sounds like their guardian angels saved them from a miserable relationship. A man who is mean with money is probably just mean  and  if a man sounds like a woman hater he probably is. RUN away girls.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 23, 2020, 01:33:57 PM
Having read this whole thread I can only congratulate the women who decided to never go on another date with the OP again. Sounds like their guardian angels saved them from a miserable relationship. A man who is mean with money is probably just mean  and  if a man sounds like a woman hater he probably is. RUN away girls.

How exactly is it "mean with money"? It can't be any more "mean" than your comment.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: andy on December 25, 2020, 08:50:15 PM
Having read this whole thread I can only congratulate the women who decided to never go on another date with the OP again. Sounds like their guardian angels saved them from a miserable relationship. A man who is mean with money is probably just mean  and  if a man sounds like a woman hater he probably is. RUN away girls.

How exactly is it "mean with money"? It can't be any more "mean" than your comment.

You probably need to talk to the confessor about it. Seriously. Rushing to a judgment of a potential girlfriend who is potential person you want to love who is a potential fiancé who is a potential wife is actually a sin. Please see attached page from the SSPX missal:

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 26, 2020, 01:33:24 AM
Having read this whole thread I can only congratulate the women who decided to never go on another date with the OP again. Sounds like their guardian angels saved them from a miserable relationship. A man who is mean with money is probably just mean  and  if a man sounds like a woman hater he probably is. RUN away girls.

How exactly is it "mean with money"? It can't be any more "mean" than your comment.

You probably need to talk to the confessor about it. Seriously. Rushing to a judgment of a potential girlfriend who is potential person you want to love who is a potential fiancé who is a potential wife is actually a sin. Please see attached page from the SSPX missal:

Why are you posting this about me and not the others in the thread who have judged rashly or falsely accused?
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: andy on December 26, 2020, 01:19:32 PM

Why are you posting this about me and not the others in the thread who have judged rashly or falsely accused?

Because YOU asked for a help.

And why I would be defending you from those bad people here who accuse you of some heinous acts?

Please mention that to a girl you going to date next, that you failed to guard yourself in this thread. That might be way more important got her that some stupid real estate.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Graham on December 26, 2020, 03:51:15 PM
Why is it that in 12 pages nobody has dug into or tried to credibly dispute Gift's contention that several traditional Catholic states of the past allowed or condoned this kind of arrangement? Since there seems to be no direct teaching against it, or at least none that anyone can discover, that becomes the crux of the argument. I'm not invested one way or the other, but almost as a matter of taste i would like to see a better standard of argument here.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Graham on December 26, 2020, 04:08:38 PM
Here, I didn't read this very carefully, but looks like Gift is correct about old Spanish law right down to the particulars:

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7863&context=penn_law_review

Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 26, 2020, 05:41:32 PM

Why are you posting this about me and not the others in the thread who have judged rashly or falsely accused?

Because YOU asked for a help.

And why I would be defending you from those bad people here who accuse you of some heinous acts?

Please mention that to a girl you going to date next, that you failed to guard yourself in this thread. That might be way more important got her that some stupid real estate.

Your posts are nonsensical. Kindly buzz off.

Why is it that in 12 pages nobody has dug into or tried to credibly dispute Gift's contention that several traditional Catholic states of the past allowed or condoned this kind of arrangement? Since there seems to be no direct teaching against it, or at least none that anyone can discover, that becomes the crux of the argument. I'm not invested one way or the other, but almost as a matter of taste i would like to see a better standard of argument here.

No direct teaching against it? There hasn't even been a peep against it! In the English language of course but being that tens of millions of English-speaking Catholics have been subject to this legal concept for over 100 years, one would think that if there was a problem with it, there would be even the slightest mention of it in English.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: diaduit on December 27, 2020, 03:47:27 AM
Why is it that in 12 pages nobody has dug into or tried to credibly dispute Gift's contention that several traditional Catholic states of the past allowed or condoned this kind of arrangement? Since there seems to be no direct teaching against it, or at least none that anyone can discover, that becomes the crux of the argument. I'm not invested one way or the other, but almost as a matter of taste i would like to see a better standard of argument here.

Because Gog wants to get married I assume, and with his attitude he ain't ever going to get a wife and I suspect but obviously I could be wrong, his motivation for keeping his property separate is based on meanness i.e. tightwad (as seen on this thread and a hint of it on another) more than actual Church teachings.
 I have seen Gog respond very harshly and abruptly in other threads that was cutting way more than necessary so he needn't do the damsel in distress victim here.  TBH I was first to post a harsh comment against him so I will apologise for that but equally Gog could reign in his acidity too.  If I could rewind time I would bite my lip as I should have but still in charity advise him to rethink his position if he wants a wife.  The men on this forum can say they wouldn't be against his attitude if he was a possible spouse for their daughters all they like but in the real life, mamma would be telling the daughter to tread very carefully and maybe rethink her choice on her future spouse.  Its why God gave us intuition.

Its a pity you have this attitude towards your property because otherwise you have other attributes that make a fine husband and father.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: queen.saints on December 27, 2020, 06:46:04 AM
Changing yourself and your beliefs just in order to find a spouse is a big mistake. If there is something fundamentally wrong with you, you should try to change on principle. If there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the way you are or what you believe, it’s simply off-putting to the majority of potential spouses, then all the better. There are billions of potential spouses out there and you need to narrow things down. You need to both attract the 1 right person and repulse the 99 wrong ones.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Philip G. on December 27, 2020, 09:33:52 PM
Changing yourself and your beliefs just in order to find a spouse is a big mistake. If there is something fundamentally wrong with you, you should try to change on principle. If there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the way you are or what you believe, it’s simply off-putting to the majority of potential spouses, then all the better. There are billions of potential spouses out there and you need to narrow things down. You need to both attract the 1 right person and repulse the 99 wrong ones.

Don't give him hope.  He will not find the one.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: andy on December 28, 2020, 01:44:39 PM

Why are you posting this about me and not the others in the thread who have judged rashly or falsely accused?

Because YOU asked for a help.

And why I would be defending you from those bad people here who accuse you of some heinous acts?

Please mention that to a girl you going to date next, that you failed to guard yourself in this thread. That might be way more important got her that some stupid real estate.

Your posts are nonsensical. Kindly buzz off.


I have no idea what are your true intentions, but your own words show absurdity of your thinking. All I do is just quote them in correct context.

And I WILL NOT kindly buzz off. The matrimony is not your private affair. It is part of public life the church. The church actually does cross examine a couple with the public via the office of banns. At least in the past, to make sure that couple who is to be married is trustworthy and can lead Catholic life and not bring scandal inside of the church.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: andy on December 28, 2020, 01:58:06 PM
Why is it that in 12 pages nobody has dug into or tried to credibly dispute Gift's contention that several traditional Catholic states of the past allowed or condoned this kind of arrangement? Since there seems to be no direct teaching against it, or at least none that anyone can discover, that becomes the crux of the argument. I'm not invested one way or the other, but almost as a matter of taste i would like to see a better standard of argument here.

This is not an ethics issue but the character problem.  And sometimes it takes time and space to uncover essential details of such (e.g. 12 pages in this case).

Now, let's assume that GiftofGod gets this way and somehow manages to separate his property (via a trust or some LLC or whatever). And his wife somehow absolutely trusts him at that point and initially does not notice that there is an issue.

But the true motivation, it is a fear of a divorce as admitted, will surface sooner or later. As James says in his book, women have 10x better social awareness and eventually instinctively see things through. And she will overreact, will feel cheated, etc. But the fear here is the worse ingredient and it will be taken advantage of like a goof throw in the olympic judo fight. Women are masters in psychological judo.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: Graham on December 28, 2020, 02:38:03 PM
How can his wish to follow a marriage arrangement traditional to Catholic Spain and other Catholic countries of the civil law tradition be proof of a un-Catholic character flaw?

This is far from cogent argumentation, it just seems to be 12 pages of prejudice and leaping to judgement, restated over and over in barely different and increasingly boring ways. The fact that nobody in all this time made a bare effort to determine whether Gift was correct about old Spanish law, which took all of 5 minutes of googling to verify, says a great deal.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 28, 2020, 03:16:47 PM
Now, let's assume that GiftofGod gets this way and somehow manages to separate his property (via a trust or some LLC or whatever). And his wife somehow absolutely trusts him at that point and initially does not notice that there is an issue.

But the true motivation, it is a fear of a divorce as admitted, will surface sooner or later. As James says in his book, women have 10x better social awareness and eventually instinctively see things through. And she will overreact, will feel cheated, etc.

This is why I wouldn't hide it and instead, I am open with it. Did you even read the thread?

My the Original Post in this thread:
I thought about letting women assume that it would become community property until we get married but that wouldn't be honest.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: andy on December 28, 2020, 11:40:33 PM

This is why I wouldn't hide it and instead, I am open with it. Did you even read the thread?


Yes. I did read this thread twice as a matter of fact. And yes, I assumed that she would be aware of your sole side property. And perhaps, as an aspiring wife who truly want to love her husband, she would not mind it initially just because she wanted to be a GOOD and GIVING wife. But sometimes it takes a lot of time to discover and COMPREHEND some essential details and real intensions of other person, especially as initial love feeling is gone, rose colored glasses are cracked and we discover other people quite annoying shortcomings. It is inevitable. Questions start being asked. And in this case she realizes that your actions were FEAR driven. Then they tend to overthink, perhaps make things up and rush into conclusions. And domino blocks are falling.

I love motorcycle riding analogies. The biggest enemy preventing to truly enjoy riding bikes is the same FEAR of crashing and losing either health or live. Both riding motorcycles and being married is by definition risky. Bad things can happen. Usually, the fear is the worst advisor here and often leads to tragic consequences. Both women and bikes hate the fear of the pilot.

I am not criticizing you here. In fact, I am quite empathetic to your dilemma. You want to retain somehow a leader position. I am not judgmental towards you at all. But at the same time I cannot escape a conclusion that you seem to be confused how to get your point across.

I am not a layer, but if you WANT that sole property, just setup a trust or some kind of rental LLC who would be the owner (I am sure there are ways of doing so), make sure it goes to your wife in case you die before her and never bring it up. Not because you want to manage the potential divorce situation (fear driven) but because you WANT things be that way (strong will driven).

I am married for 25+ years and let me tell you, my wife totally hates if I hint any kind of fear or hesitation on my part managing my stuff. And I am totally grateful of that on her part, because she makes me stronger that way.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 29, 2020, 01:45:33 AM
And perhaps, as an aspiring wife who truly want to love her husband, she would not mind it initially just because she wanted to be a GOOD and GIVING wife.

What would she be giving? It's not hers to give.

I am not a layer, but if you WANT that sole property, just setup a trust or some kind of rental LLC who would be the owner (I am sure there are ways of doing so), make sure it goes to your wife in case you die before her and never bring it up. Not because you want to manage the potential divorce situation (fear driven) but because you WANT things be that way (strong will driven).

Estate planning is important but even without it, a spouse automatically inherits.

You are right about motorcycling. I'm giving that up once my future wife gets pregnant. I'm not worried about dying before is pregnant. Young and childless widows are still desirable in tradom and she'd bring quite a dowry to her next marriage.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: andy on December 29, 2020, 08:11:50 PM
What would she be giving? It's not hers to give.

Herself. All her life. Every moment of it. For you.


I'm giving that up once my future wife gets pregnant.

Why?
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 29, 2020, 10:03:43 PM
I'm giving that up once my future wife gets pregnant.

Why?

Because riding when you have a pregnant wife is an unacceptable risk. I thought I made it clear that widowing a young childless trad isn't that bad. You should be able to draw the conclusion from that statement that it is very bad to widow a young trad with a child. Her value on the trad marriage market is nil as a single mother, she can't work to support her child without depriving her child of a mother, and the child is deprived of a father. Bad all around compared to:
Young and childless widows are still desirable in tradom and she'd bring quite a dowry to her next marriage.

By dowry, I'm referring to her inheriting my assets and getting a life insurance payout.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: andy on December 29, 2020, 10:43:25 PM
Because riding when you have a pregnant wife is an unacceptable risk.

If your skills suck, then yes.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: GiftOfGod on January 06, 2021, 12:47:17 AM
Because riding when you have a pregnant wife is an unacceptable risk.

If your skills suck, then yes.

I did a ride-a-long with a traffic cop once. He said that being the world's best/safest motorcyclist won't save you from a drunk driver, texter, teenage speeder, etc. He had been a traffic cop for 10 years and he's said that he investigated hundreds of motorcycle accidents, so I believe him. My motorcyclist class said the same thing but with stats. I don't have the papers anymore but basically a sizable percentalge of motorcyclist deaths were not the fault of the motorcyclists. Will that be on your tombstone, andy, "At least my skills didn't suck!"? The risk is still many times higher even if you take away the deaths caused by the fault of the motorcyclists.
Title: Re: Separate property in marriage?
Post by: andy on January 06, 2021, 12:11:34 PM
Because riding when you have a pregnant wife is an unacceptable risk.

If your skills suck, then yes.

I did a ride-a-long with a traffic cop once. He said that being the world's best/safest motorcyclist won't save you from a drunk driver, texter, teenage speeder, etc. He had been a traffic cop for 10 years and he's said that he investigated hundreds of motorcycle accidents, so I believe him. My motorcyclist class said the same thing but with stats. I don't have the papers anymore but basically a sizable percentalge of motorcyclist deaths were not the fault of the motorcyclists. Will that be on your tombstone, andy, "At least my skills didn't suck!"? The risk is still many times higher even if you take away the deaths caused by the fault of the motorcyclists.

My wife does not mind it at all. To the contrary, she takes a lot of pride (that good one) from my crazy motorcycle adventures as it makes her stand out in a crowd of feminist and meek women.

As far as the risk goes, there is some, we have to be prudent of course. E.g. I try to avoid routine commute to work. Skillful rider can read the traffic around instinctively and control the situation.

I would say, if a man can take risks and show the control, it lowers a chance of divorce :-). True women despise vague boys.