‘First Dates’ 90-Year-Old Widower, Raymond, Melts Hearts After Breaking Down About Late Wife

Aw. I hope he finds love again.

eddie wrote:Aw. I hope he finds love again.

At 90? To what end?

He should live with his memories. Unless it's companionship he wants.

magica wrote:He should live with his memories. Unless it's companionship he wants.

And you can get companionship at the pub. The only reason for marriage is a family...god forbid he's going to start one at 90.

Original Quill wrote:

magica wrote:He should live with his memories. Unless it's companionship he wants.

And you can get companionship at the pub.  The only reason for marriage is a family...god forbid he's going to start one at 90.

Really?

What about the numerous marriages where people do not have children?

Marriage is a commitment between the love of two people.

Sometimes you come out with some really daft view points.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And you can get companionship at the pub.  The only reason for marriage is a family...god forbid he's going to start one at 90.

Really?

What about the numerous marriages where people do not have children?

They can do whatever they want.  I'm not suggesting limits; only that its my observation that there's less to attract someone in his 90's.  I can see only one practical reason for marriage, and that's family.  Everything else is available without it...or is illegal.

Thorin wrote:Marriage is a commitment between the love of two people.

Love is the symptom, not the cause...we follow the urge to rear a family, we call it love.  Moreover, what about people who choose not to get married?  What about people who end up divorced (over 50%).  There's a lot of disincentive to marriage obviously...especially in one's 90's.

Thorin wrote:Sometimes you come out with some really daft view points.

Aren't we fortunate that I'm not the topic here.  

Blimey. Talk about pissing on an old man's flame.

Original Quill wrote:

They can do whatever they want.  I'm not suggesting limits; only that its my observation that there's less to attract someone in his 90's.  I can see only one practical reason for marriage, and that's family.  Everything else is available without it...or is illegal.



Love is the symptom, not the cause...we follow the urge to rear a family, we call it love.  Moreover, what about people who choose not to get married?  What about people who end up divorced (over 50%).  There's a lot of disincentive to marriage obviously...especially in one's 90's.


Aren't we fortunate that I'm not the topic here.  

What babble, you claimed marriage is only about having families

That was pure horse shit

You now turn this around and go over the divorce rate.

Again so what, all that shows is that some marriages do not work.

What about the countless that do work?

So your view against this man finding love and marriage is born from the most stupidest load of crap made by you.

I am pretty sure that this guy doesn't want children or perhaps even marriage. He's looking for a companion and I've no idea why he is being pulled apart TBH.

I hope he spends the rest of his remaining years loving another woman as he has obviously been shown how beautiful love is, by his former sweetheart.

I'm a romantic deep down. What can I say?

eddie wrote:I am pretty sure that this guy doesn't want children or perhaps even marriage.  He's looking for a companion and I've no idea why he is being pulled apart TBH.

I hope he spends the rest of his remaining years loving another woman as he has obviously been shown how beautiful love is, by his former sweetheart.

I'm a romantic deep down. What can I say?

+1

And how this should be looked at.

I like this programme....its interesting to see who clicks and who doesn't.
I haven't seen this episode yet, and I'm sure its really touching.

However, its a TV programme and the people who appear on it have put themselves forwards to appear, so in all honesty I doubt the main reason they are there is to look for true love. Its entertainment, for them and for us, and they get the chance of a nice nosh up and hopefully a pleasant evening.

Syl wrote:I like this programme....its interesting to see who clicks and who doesn't.
I haven't seen this episode yet, and I'm sure its really touching.

However, its a TV programme and the people who appear on it have put themselves forwards to appear, so in all honesty I doubt the main reason they are there is to look for true love. Its entertainment, for them and for us, and they get the chance of a nice nosh up and hopefully a pleasant evening.

For goodness sake, why are you so constantly pessimistic?

I am sure there are plenty that come on to find love.

magica wrote:He should live with his memories. Unless it's companionship he wants.

Aww that's harsh Mags. Starting a relationship with someone else...and I don't care at what age, would not diminish the love one had for a deceased partner.
When I die, I would hope my OH (if he is still alive) would live the rest of his life in happiness....if that included starting another relationship I would say good luck. x

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:I like this programme....its interesting to see who clicks and who doesn't.
I haven't seen this episode yet, and I'm sure its really touching.

However, its a TV programme and the people who appear on it have put themselves forwards to appear, so in all honesty I doubt the main reason they are there is to look for true love. Its entertainment, for them and for us, and they get the chance of a nice nosh up and hopefully a pleasant evening.

For goodness sake, why are you so constantly pessimistic?

I am sure there are plenty that come on to find love.

I'm not being pessimistic, I am talking facts....do you actually watch the programme?

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

For goodness sake, why are you so constantly pessimistic?

I am sure there are plenty that come on to find love.

I'm not being pessimistic, I am talking facts....do you actually watch the programme?

Oh here we go again facts based on your opinion.

Enough said, sorry but I take your facts with a pinch of salt

I still maintain that love is a certain euphoric state associated with hormonal urges.  It has developed in nature to prompt procreation.  I agree with Syl, I'm just being factual...when I look at the gestalt of love, this is what I see.  It's all about sex and the resultant family.

The rest is all around us.  Companionship?  Sex?  Good humor?  All of that is a separate issue...and all is available without marriage. FGS, you can live together and have it. Marriage is just for the family.

Original Quill wrote:I still maintain that love is a certain euphoric state associated with hormonal urges.  It has developed in nature to prompt procreation.  I agree with Syl, I'm just being factual...when I look at the gestalt of love, this is what I see.  It's all about sex and the resultant family.

The rest is all around us.  Companionship?  Sex?  Good humor?  All of that is a separate issue...and all is available without marriage.

So how does that fit homosexual love between two people?

Again your views are your own and to me fail to understand what love is between people

So there is nothing factual about your views, they simple make very little sense.

"when I look at the gestalt of love, this is what I see. It's all about sex and the resultant family."

Jeez. You're a romantic Quill.

eddie wrote:"when I look at the gestalt of love, this is what I see.  It's all about sex and the resultant family."

Jeez. You're a romantic Quill.

He sounds like a robot...

Original Quill wrote:

magica wrote:He should live with his memories. Unless it's companionship he wants.

And you can get companionship at the pub.  The only reason for marriage is a family...god forbid he's going to start one at 90.

Are you married, perchance?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I'm not being pessimistic, I am talking facts....do you actually watch the programme?

Oh here we go again facts based on your opinion.

Enough said, sorry but I take your facts with a pinch of salt

So you don't watch the programme....thought not.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Oh here we go again facts based on your opinion.

Enough said, sorry but I take your facts with a pinch of salt

So you don't watch the programme....thought not.

Wrong again.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I still maintain that love is a certain euphoric state associated with hormonal urges.  It has developed in nature to prompt procreation.  I agree with Syl, I'm just being factual...when I look at the gestalt of love, this is what I see.  It's all about sex and the resultant family.

The rest is all around us.  Companionship?  Sex?  Good humor?  All of that is a separate issue...and all is available without marriage.

So how does that fit homosexual love between two people?

Again your views are your own and to me fail to understand what love is between people

So there is nothing factual about your views, they simple make very little sense.

I'm totally in favor of homosexuality, if it pleases the participants. Marriage is a construct, probably a contract originally created among nobility as an adjunct to property rights. In other words, you give a dowry for this man to take your daughter, you damn well want to cement it with a contract and a little religious hokus-pokus to threaten with.

When you talk about subjective views, nothing is more subjective than 'love'. It's an effect, not a cause...it's just the euphoric feeling associated with sex, and maybe a little bit of possessiveness (jealousy--we probably shouldn't get into that).

A euphoric feeling...that's as factual as you are going to get, unless you want to talk about reducing it to brain waves and pheromones.

Original Quill wrote:I still maintain that love is a certain euphoric state associated with hormonal urges.  It has developed in nature to prompt procreation.  I agree with Syl, I'm just being factual...when I look at the gestalt of love, this is what I see.  It's all about sex and the resultant family.

The rest is all around us.  Companionship?  Sex?  Good humor?  All of that is a separate issue...and all is available without marriage.  FGS, you can live together and have it.  Marriage is just for the family.

I was talking about people not really going on programmes like this to find love...they go on it for a chance to have their 5 minutes of fame...and a nice nosh up.

I don't think marital love has to always revolve round sex....lust does...but love far reaches lust eventually.

eddie wrote:I am pretty sure that this guy doesn't want children or perhaps even marriage.  He's looking for a companion and I've no idea why he is being pulled apart TBH.

I hope he spends the rest of his remaining years loving another woman as he has obviously been shown how beautiful love is, by his former sweetheart.

I'm a romantic deep down. What can I say?

I think everyone needs to be loved and receive affection. They did an experiment back in 1944 and babies died without human touch.

http://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/Us-Experiment-On-Infants-Withholding-Affection/13213

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/born-love/201003/touching-empathy

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

So you don't watch the programme....thought not.

Wrong again.

Really....so what always happens at the end of the dinner date then Thor?

No googling now.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So how does that fit homosexual love between two people?

Again your views are your own and to me fail to understand what love is between people

So there is nothing factual about your views, they simple make very little sense.

I'm totally in favor of homosexuality, if it pleases the participants.  Marriage is a construct, probably a contract originally created among nobility as an adjunct to property rights.  In other words, you give a dowry for this man to take your daughter, you damn well want to cement it with a contract and a little religious hokus-pokus to threaten with.

When you talk about subjective views, nothing is more subjective than 'love'.  It's an effect, not a cause...it's just the euphoric feeling associated with sex, and maybe a little bit of possessiveness (jealousy--we probably shouldn't get into that).

A euphoric feeling...that's as factual as you are going to get, unless you want to talk about reducing it to brain waves and pheromones.

Well how can two homosexual males procreate?
So I want to understand your absurd thesis based around nature and procreation through love?

Marriage is just a contract of love. Its not one of children or to have children. You are being confused by Christian beliefs around marriage.

Ho is love subjective? That is nonsense, you either feel love or you do not feel love. Its not something you can switch on or off. The feeling between two people in love is one that is mutual. People fall out of love because they often fail to work at their relationships, but like I say, you cannot switch on and off love. Its a feeling that people have.

There are people who love and do not even have sex, so where does that place your theory?

Its not just about sex, but I am more interested in your contradictions based around homosexual couples and love, through your belief of procreation.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Wrong again.

Really....so what always happens at the end of the dinner date then Thor?

No googling now.

Depends, some have slept togther

Anything else?

Now who looks the wally

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Really....so what always happens at the end of the dinner date then Thor?

No googling now.

Depends, some have slept togther

Anything else?

Now who looks the wally

You...because that's not what happens.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Depends, some have slept togther

Anything else?

Now who looks the wally

You...because that's not what happens.

Some you are saying some dont sleep together then

Grow up

The point is you are the last person I would take the opinion on over something

Get that into your head

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And you can get companionship at the pub.  The only reason for marriage is a family...god forbid he's going to start one at 90.

Are you married, perchance?

I live with someone who is in the film industry. We are not always together. I have my home in Northern California, and she has a home in Hollywood (which is Southern California). Also, she is away a lot on shoots.

I have two grown daughters and she has two mature boys. So our families are developed and gone to live their own lives. It's a perfectly comfortable existence.

Thorin wrote:Well how can two homosexual males procreate?

They don't have to procreate. It's all according to what they want.

I'm not saying anyone has to do anything. I'm just saying what gives rise to marriage is a family. All else, marriage is unnecessary.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

You...because that's not what happens.

Some you are saying some dont sleep together then

Grow up

The point is you are the last person I would take the opinion on over something

Get that into your head

No I am saying that's not what happens at the end of the dinner date...so I am also saying you don't watch the programme else you would know what the format is.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:Well how can two homosexual males procreate?

They don't have to procreate.  It's all according to what they want.

I'm not saying anyone has to do anything.  I'm just saying what gives rise to marriage is a family.  All else, marriage is unnecessary.

Eh?

How does that fit your view around nature, procreation and love?

This is what you claimed, now you are back tracking.

So how comes there were marriages in the ancient times between homosexuals and those who have not had families?

You are just making things up.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Some you are saying some dont sleep together then

Grow up

The point is you are the last person I would take the opinion on over something

Get that into your head

No I am saying that's not what happens at the end of the dinner date...so I am also saying you don't watch the programme else you would know what the format is.  

Yes I have watched the programm, I am just not clued to every episode like yourself

My point still stands, that again you are pessimistic and the last person to take an opinion of

Like it or lump it

With each post you continue to become even more so anal

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

No I am saying that's not what happens at the end of the dinner date...so I am also saying you don't watch the programme else you would know what the format is.  

Yes I have watched the programm, I am just not clued to every episode like yourself

My point still stands, that again you are pessimistic and the last person to take an opinion of

Like it or lump it

With each post you continue to become even more so anal

I haven't watched every episode, I do know what happens though... and you don't, which makes my opinions a lot more valid than yours re this particular programme.

Move on now Thor...because your dissecting my every post is making you look a lot more anal than me.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm totally in favor of homosexuality, if it pleases the participants.  Marriage is a construct, probably a contract originally created among nobility as an adjunct to property rights.  In other words, you give a dowry for this man to take your daughter, you damn well want to cement it with a contract and a little religious hokus-pokus to threaten with.

When you talk about subjective views, nothing is more subjective than 'love'.  It's an effect, not a cause...it's just the euphoric feeling associated with sex, and maybe a little bit of possessiveness (jealousy--we probably shouldn't get into that).

A euphoric feeling...that's as factual as you are going to get, unless you want to talk about reducing it to brain waves and pheromones.

Well how can two homosexual males procreate?
So I want to understand your absurd thesis based around nature and procreation through love?

Marriage is just a contract of love. Its not one of children or to have children. You are being confused by Christian beliefs around marriage.

Ho is love subjective? That is nonsense, you either feel love or you do not feel love. Its not something you can switch on or off. The feeling between two people in love is one that is mutual. People fall out of love because they often fail to work at their relationships, but like I say, you cannot switch on and off love. Its a feeling that people have.

There are people who love and do not even have sex, so where does that place your theory?

Its not just about sex, but I am more interested in your contradictions based around homosexual couples and love, through your belief of procreation.

Utter psycho-babble bullshit.  

You are the one who comes up with a quasi-religious metaphor...love.  You don't describe it; you don't explain it.  It's something like a pink, swirling cloud...as far as I can see.  

Well, I do explain it...it's an euphoric state, probably initiated by pheromones and driven by sex.  Sex itself is a state in which the autonomic nervous system takes over and creates a loss of cognitive control (given over to the hypothalamus) and culminates in orgasm.  It ultimately is nature's way of motivating the human being to procreate and perpetuate the species.

Now...and what are you saying to describe it?  LOVE??  A pink cloud and a box of chocolates?  Absurd.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Well how can two homosexual males procreate?
So I want to understand your absurd thesis based around nature and procreation through love?

Marriage is just a contract of love. Its not one of children or to have children. You are being confused by Christian beliefs around marriage.

Ho is love subjective? That is nonsense, you either feel love or you do not feel love. Its not something you can switch on or off. The feeling between two people in love is one that is mutual. People fall out of love because they often fail to work at their relationships, but like I say, you cannot switch on and off love. Its a feeling that people have.

There are people who love and do not even have sex, so where does that place your theory?

Its not just about sex, but I am more interested in your contradictions based around homosexual couples and love, through your belief of procreation.

Utter psycho-babble bullshit.  

You are the one who comes up with a quasi-religious metaphor...love.  You don't describe it; you don't explain it.  It's something like a pink, swirling cloud...as far as I can see.  

Well, I do explain it...it's an euphoric state, probably initiated by pheromones and driven by sex.  Sex itself is a state in which the autonomic nervous system takes over and creates a loss of cognitive control (given over to the hypothalamus) and culminates in orgasm.  It ultimately is nature's way of motivating the human being to procreate and perpetuate the species.

Now...and what are you saying to describe it?  LOVE??  A pink cloud and a box of chocolates?  Absurd.

Really, I said, that it is a feeling, of which it is and if you can describe love when it is felt differently between people then you are talking bullshit. As love is felt differently between people. You have love that is sibling or parental love that clearly is not sexual. So he bases for your thesis is pure horseshit.

So again explain how love is driven by sex, when many forms of love do not even involve sex?

It seems you have sex on the brain and only see this as a form of love.

No its an expression of love which is entirely different

So the only pseudo babble is coming from you

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Yes I have watched the programm, I am just not clued to every episode like yourself

My point still stands, that again you are pessimistic and the last person to take an opinion of

Like it or lump it

With each post you continue to become even more so anal

I haven't watched every episode, I do know what happens though... and you don't, which makes my opinions a lot more valid than yours re this particular programme.

Move on now Thor...because your dissecting my every post is making you look a lot more anal than me.

Good for you, now does that make your views facts on the programme on the people itself?

No

Get that into your thick skull

I love how we sit here and pick apart what love is.
Just enjoy the colours of the rainbow and don't make it all about chemicals and light.

It sounds like a ghastly programme to me.

eddie wrote:I love how we sit here and pick apart what love is.  
Just enjoy the colours of the rainbow and don't make it all about chemicals and light.

I am not picking apart love, as love is different for all people and in many cases it has nothing to do with sex.

You can have friendships based on love, as you do with families.

Its Quill confusing what can be an expression of love, sex, of which sex can happen without any form of love

To me love is something that happens between people.

Love is hard to define I guess. As human beings, we seem to fall in and out of it quickly at times.

Maybe we never know until we take out last dying breath.

eddie wrote:Love is hard to define I guess. As human beings, we seem to fall in and out of it quickly at times.

Maybe we never know until we take out last dying breath.

Some say we see some moments of love within our last breaths.

Will have to wait and see I guess

Raggamuffin wrote:It sounds like a ghastly programme to me.

Lol...its not to be taken seriously Rags. Now and again its good to watch something that requires no thinking, its just light entertainment....and the Maitre d is very attractive too.

eddie wrote:I love how we sit here and pick apart what love is.  
Just enjoy the colours of the rainbow and don't make it all about chemicals and light.

I agree...love can come in many guises, I can even love a fellow poster sometimes just by the words they have written....love can be fleeting or last a lifetime, it doesn't have to involve sex, even between a man and a woman love can be just romantic ....I suppose we all see love differently.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:I love how we sit here and pick apart what love is.  
Just enjoy the colours of the rainbow and don't make it all about chemicals and light.

I agree...love can come in many guises, I can even love a fellow poster sometimes just by the words they have written....love can be fleeting or last a lifetime, it doesn't have to involve sex, even between a man and a woman love can be just romantic ....I suppose we all see love differently.

+1

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Are you married, perchance?

I live with someone who is in the film industry.  We are not always together.  I have my home in Northern California, and she has a home in Hollywood (which is Southern California).  Also, she is away a lot on shoots.

I have two grown daughters and she has two mature boys.  So our families are developed and gone to live their own lives.  It's a perfectly comfortable existence.

But you love your partner and your kids right?   What you feel for them isn't just a biological process.   You feel it in your soul?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I live with someone who is in the film industry.  We are not always together.  I have my home in Northern California, and she has a home in Hollywood (which is Southern California).  Also, she is away a lot on shoots.

I have two grown daughters and she has two mature boys.  So our families are developed and gone to live their own lives.  It's a perfectly comfortable existence.

But you love your partner and your kids right?   What you feel for them isn't just a biological process.   You feel it in your soul?

Oh yeah.  The experience of love is real, and should be enjoyed.  All I was saying is there is only one practical reason to get married...to reify a family.  Marriage is just a legal contract, and if children come out of the union, they will feel better if their parents have legal marriage status. It's a psychological thing for kids.

Otherwise, just go and live together, cause you aren't adding or detracting anything by a contract of marriage.  Oh, there might be some tax or insurance, etc., reasons to sign up, but those are becoming fewer and fewer as the law catches up with the S.O. status.

If either one of you feel better getting married, or for religious reasons you want to, you might enter into a marriage contract.  But it isn't necessary.  All I am saying is there is only one tangible reason to get married, and that's to reify a family.