Prenuptial Agreements

[qeltar]

But that's exactly my point...you shouldn't make a commitment until you are really ready for it. Problem with society today is that many many people do it when they aren't ready to.

 

And of course you could give me many more, because the majority of people don't want to make the effort, they don't want to make sacrfices. They want what society tells us to want: Whatever makes us happy, usually stuff, and now, and without thought for anyone else.

 

I guess people just don't beleive in responsibility the same way anymore. I don't see a marriage as having any solution but time and effort - a divorce is an easy way out rather than a genuine fix.

Sorry, but this is a load of simplistic crap. You're spouting platitudes and theories and you have no real world experience to back it up. You also sound like you're under the influence of religious brainwashing.

 

I've been married almost as long as you've been breathing. And yes, it does take commitment and working through difficult patches. But that is only possible when there is at least some basis for the relationship continuing. It is *not* always possible for that to happen, especially when one person changes radically.

 

Many couples get divorced because one person becomes very different over time from what they were when they tied the knot. And some do because they never should have been married in the first place.

 

I know someone who did exactly that -- married someone he never should have. I knew it at the time, but he didn't. He made a mistake, and so did she. Why the hell should they have to spend the rest of their lives suffering from it?

 

In case you hadn't noticed, most people get married when they are young -- often VERY young. Our "society" has decided that at 18 you are too young to be trusted with the responsibility of drinking a beer, but you are old enough to make a decision that impacts the rest of your life.

 

There are few people who are at 40 what they are at 20. And the idea of forcing someone to live for 50+ with a bad decision they made as a teenager or young adult is beyond idiotic: it is sadistic. Even a second degree murderer gets paroled at some point.

[obfuscator]

But that's exactly my point...you shouldn't make a commitment until you are really ready for it. Problem with society today is that many many people do it when they aren't ready to.

 

And of course you could give me many more, because the majority of people don't want to make the effort, they don't want to make sacrfices. They want what society tells us to want: Whatever makes us happy, usually stuff, and now, and without thought for anyone else.

 

I guess people just don't beleive in responsibility the same way anymore. I don't see a marriage as having any solution but time and effort - a divorce is an easy way out rather than a genuine fix.

Sorry, but this is a load of simplistic crap. You're spouting platitudes and theories and you have no real world experience to back it up. You also sound like you're under the influence of religious brainwashing.

 

I've been married almost as long as you've been breathing. And yes, it does take commitment and working through difficult patches. But that is only possible when there is at least some basis for the relationship continuing. It is *not* always possible for that to happen, especially when one person changes radically.

 

Many couples get divorced because one person becomes very different over time from what they were when they tied the knot. And some do because they never should have been married in the first place.

 

I know someone who did exactly that -- married someone he never should have. I knew it at the time, but he didn't. He made a mistake, and so did she. Why the hell should they have to spend the rest of their lives suffering from it?

 

In case you hadn't noticed, most people get married when they are young -- often VERY young. Our "society" has decided that at 18 you are too young to be trusted with the responsibility of drinking a beer, but you are old enough to make a decision that impacts the rest of your life.

 

There are few people who are at 40 what they are at 20. And the idea of forcing someone to live for 50+ with a bad decision they made as a teenager or young adult is beyond idiotic: it is sadistic. Even a second degree murderer gets paroled at some point.

 

I can't claim to have been "married as long as I've been breathing" but I have been in a long term relationship for quite some time, almost 3 years in fact.

 

I never claimed that every single marriage was meant to be, which is why I think people should be more careful. I further agree that many people get married too young. But I still think that the huge majority of people with divorces are in situations where they could make their marriage work, and make it work well, and just give up too early.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Well disregarding my religion and looking at my culture as well as my own judgment, such an agreement is considered zift which is basically taboo. The contract of marriage should be formed without prior reservations in regards to earthly possessions and as such a marriage made in purpose for or in the mindset of one's retention of belongings is wrong. In marriage you bind yourself to another and form one which should include earthly possessions as well. If in the event that a mistake is realized, it is unpreventable, unresolvable and you must annul or restrict your contract of marriage than it is up to the civility of both parties to give to each other what belongs to each other through a diplomatic means.

 

A similar event actually occurred prior to my sister's marriage [ I don't know how others detail with inheritance and marriages and things of the sort but this is how my family and culture handle things]. So before the death of a person, the person gradually gives heirlooms and anything of worth to their children, grandchildren, nieces, cousins, etc. so that minimal amount of things will be left for arbitrary division with the matriarch or patriarch of the generation left to ref discussions for where inheritance should go, but the siblings of said arbitrator can in a sense overrule them by recall of absolute majority. My sister being the eldest of my generation has birth to what she was given, the first and most expensive heirloom [the appraisal is approx. $70k], by my grandmother as a nuptial gift at the pre-wedding feast the day before the wedding. My mother who is not that in line with the way we handle things suggested for my sister to have a pre-nuptial agreement written on it which she refused, good thing as we would have probably withdrawn the inheritance if she had. Why? Because her husband was being welcomed and made a brother and son of our family and to do such would have been such a tremendous insult to a new member of the family that the only way to rectify such an insult would be remove the element.

 

I don't care if anyone has criticisms of this system nor do I care if you find it primitive, it is a logical method of doing things and I consent to it. I would never insult my wife like that because as soon as I married her and formulated whatever wealth and received whatever heirloom, it is hers as is mine. I would not conceive the thought of the divorce but in such an event the simple material possessions would be the least of my worries and if she uncivilly takes what is not hers, let it be on her own conscience. A marriage is not just the binding of two families, when you marry you marry a family and you join families as well.

[Then again culturally our concept of marriage is completely different, seeing as how the marriage is completed with being crowned and not the exchanging of rings]

[Saru Inc]

Yeah sure. Everybody should sign prenups and divorce and do whatever the [bleep] they want. Let's just [bleep] everybody and then marry them. [bleep] over our children if we have any and if we don't, give us a great image. "Yeah I was divorced five times. Wanna marry me?" [bleep] yes.

 

Are you larry king?

[Arcantica]

I don't see a problem with prenups, upon separating each person parts with what they entered the relationship with, but when you marry someone, and they end up becoming dependent on you, and you decide to split up, depending on how long you have been together, it would only make sense to somehow leave them with enough to at least start over with a new life.

 

I think the problem is there are women (and men) out there who do plan on marrying someone simply for their money. Sure it's probably not that many, but the examples of things like that happening have already been put out there, so people who actually do have stuff to loose, kinda take notice of that. If you have any suspicions of trust prior to a marriage, your probably not in that strong of a relationship to begin with, but before any marriage I think a couple needs to take the time to talk about all the "what ifs" first.

 

Once you split up, providing you don't have any children, the only money a person should get is a split in the assets they made while together, and possibly small monthly support payments until they can get back on their feet again. I don't like seeing people live the rest of their lives on lavish support payments. Too many men and women have been [bleep]ed over by divorce court, and a lot of good people end up having to support their ex's, even if the breakup wasn't the providers fault.

 

 

People can say bringing up the idea of a prenup is insulting, but if your relationship is really strong from the start, talking about such things shouldn't be much trouble. You always have to plan ahead, it's kind of stupid not to.

[Iamdan]

But that's exactly my point...you shouldn't make a commitment until you are really ready for it. Problem with society today is that many many people do it when they aren't ready to.

 

No. Problem with society today is that monogamy isn't natural for us.

 

A prenup doesn't make a divorce easier. If after living together after so many years that it's become a habit, plus the memories and shared commitments such as children, 2 people STILL want a divorce, whether the financial side is slightly less messy or not isn't going to be the tie breaker.

[obfuscator]

But that's exactly my point...you shouldn't make a commitment until you are really ready for it. Problem with society today is that many many people do it when they aren't ready to.

 

No. Problem with society today is that monogamy isn't natural for us.

 

A prenup doesn't make a divorce easier. If after living together after so many years that it's become a habit, plus the memories and shared commitments such as children, 2 people STILL want a divorce, whether the financial side is slightly less messy or not isn't going to be the tie breaker.

 

 

And by saying monogamy isn't natural, you mean what?

[Furah]

And by saying monogamy isn't natural, you mean what?

It's rare for us to court and mate with only 1 partner in our whole lifetime.

[Skeptical]

If you have these doubts then you shouldn't be married in the first place.

 

Society today doesn't see marriage as it should be. It's not an "extended relationship" it's...something a lot more than that, I don't know how to explain it. <_<

 

And why should marriage, a social construct created by society, be defined by anything but it's creators?

 

It's just a tool to be employed when useful and it's definition altered at will.

 

Indeed for most these days marriage is nothing really to do with sanctifying love in the eyes of their god(s), but simply a social norm and a legal necessity in terms of tax, next of kin etc.

 

Exactly. As I said, a tool.

[Tribal]

I don't think I'll ever get married, all it does is set you up for failure in life. You sign a pre-nup and you're good, but if not, you divorce and your wife takes your car, house, kid and leaves you with nothing. The court system is a joke in that it favors women tremendously in cases like these. I think i'll just date forever tbh. Who knows though im still young maybe ill change my mind, but if I were to get married we would DEFINATLY be signing a pre-nup.

[Guthorm]

I doubt I could ever suggest a prenup agreement to my future wife. Yes I do interpret it as a trust issue. I mean I thought that is what the dating part is for. Hell if you really cannot understand the person even after a few years of dating, getting an arranged marriage will probably be a better idea.

 

I am just saying.

[Skeptical]

I doubt I could ever suggest a prenup agreement to my future wife. Yes I do interpret it as a trust issue. I mean I thought that is what the dating part is for. Hell if you really cannot understand the person even after a few years of dating, getting an arranged marriage will probably be a better idea.

 

I am just saying.

 

But the big thing for me is:

 

If you really don't care, a prenup isn't a big deal: it won't affect any of your preferred outcomes.

 

If you change, why should your partner be stuck with you because of money reasons?

[Guthorm]

I doubt I could ever suggest a prenup agreement to my future wife. Yes I do interpret it as a trust issue. I mean I thought that is what the dating part is for. Hell if you really cannot understand the person even after a few years of dating, getting an arranged marriage will probably be a better idea.

 

I am just saying.

 

But the big thing for me is:

 

If you really don't care, a prenup isn't a big deal: it won't affect any of your preferred outcomes.

 

If you change, why should your partner be stuck with you because of money reasons?

 

Nah, thats like saying "I trust you and all..but still sign this thing cause all the cool kids are doing it."

 

Really if you trust him/her, it will stick out like a sore thumb after your marriage.

[Iamdan]

But that's exactly my point...you shouldn't make a commitment until you are really ready for it. Problem with society today is that many many people do it when they aren't ready to.

 

No. Problem with society today is that monogamy isn't natural for us.

 

A prenup doesn't make a divorce easier. If after living together after so many years that it's become a habit, plus the memories and shared commitments such as children, 2 people STILL want a divorce, whether the financial side is slightly less messy or not isn't going to be the tie breaker.

 

 

And by saying monogamy isn't natural, you mean what?

 

I mean we're hardwired to go through many partners and not stick with 1 person, but society and marriage conflict with that. There are so many unhappy couples because marriage goes against our nature.

[Romy]

But that's exactly my point...you shouldn't make a commitment until you are really ready for it. Problem with society today is that many many people do it when they aren't ready to.

 

No. Problem with society today is that monogamy isn't natural for us.

 

A prenup doesn't make a divorce easier. If after living together after so many years that it's become a habit, plus the memories and shared commitments such as children, 2 people STILL want a divorce, whether the financial side is slightly less messy or not isn't going to be the tie breaker.

 

 

And by saying monogamy isn't natural, you mean what?

 

I mean we're hardwired to go through many partners and not stick with 1 person, but society and marriage conflict with that. There are so many unhappy couples because marriage goes against our nature.

 

I second that.

[obfuscator]

But that's exactly my point...you shouldn't make a commitment until you are really ready for it. Problem with society today is that many many people do it when they aren't ready to.

 

No. Problem with society today is that monogamy isn't natural for us.

 

A prenup doesn't make a divorce easier. If after living together after so many years that it's become a habit, plus the memories and shared commitments such as children, 2 people STILL want a divorce, whether the financial side is slightly less messy or not isn't going to be the tie breaker.

 

 

And by saying monogamy isn't natural, you mean what?

 

I mean we're hardwired to go through many partners and not stick with 1 person, but society and marriage conflict with that. There are so many unhappy couples because marriage goes against our nature.

 

I second that.

 

I don't. What makes you think we're hardwired to not stick with one person? And why is it that after thousands and thousands of years of successful lifelong unions divorce has only started to be a problem within the last 50 years?

[Romy]

But that's exactly my point...you shouldn't make a commitment until you are really ready for it. Problem with society today is that many many people do it when they aren't ready to.

 

No. Problem with society today is that monogamy isn't natural for us.

 

A prenup doesn't make a divorce easier. If after living together after so many years that it's become a habit, plus the memories and shared commitments such as children, 2 people STILL want a divorce, whether the financial side is slightly less messy or not isn't going to be the tie breaker.

 

 

And by saying monogamy isn't natural, you mean what?

 

I mean we're hardwired to go through many partners and not stick with 1 person, but society and marriage conflict with that. There are so many unhappy couples because marriage goes against our nature.

 

I second that.

 

I don't. What makes you think we're hardwired to not stick with one person? And why is it that after thousands and thousands of years of successful lifelong unions divorce has only started to be a problem within the last 50 years?

 

Well, it's a fact that the vast majority of today's population wants to be with more than one partner. That alone, is proof that our species is not a one-partner-through-lifetime kind of species.

 

As for your other question, there are so many answers I'm afraid to even start answering. From the top of my head:

1. Certain religions FORCE that. I know for a fact that certain cultures don't even allow the thought of divorce.

2. Certain cultures also don't believe in monogamy. It was a lot more common in the past, and I'm thinking the fact it's not longer common, is what makes divorce so widespread and popular today.

3. The fact that divorce hadn't existed, does not mean it's because it wasn't something people would want, it means certain cultures and religions don't allow it. Catholic marriages could set a great example there. A "we can so we do" kind of thing.

4. Match ups used to be very common in the past, without both sides necessarily even willing to marry. Today, most of us have the freedom to choose, dismiss, and break up with many partners. That makes us somewhat inclined to want to try to be with more than one partner, if not a variety of partners.

 

And that's from the top of my head. I'm pretty sure I could make that list atleast twice as long.

[obfuscator]

Well, it's a fact that the vast majority of today's population wants to be with more than one partner. That alone, is proof that our species is not a one-partner-through-lifetime kind of species.

 

But yet the vast majority of the population prior to 50 years ago had no serious inclinations for doing so. If this was indeed "unnatural" as you claim, why did it take us so long to change it in society? We have always done what is natural for us.

 

 

As for your other question, there are so many answers I'm afraid to even start answering. From the top of my head:

1. Certain religions FORCE that. I know for a fact that certain cultures don't even allow the thought of divorce.

2. Certain cultures also don't believe in monogamy. It was a lot more common in the past, and I'm thinking the fact it's not longer common, is what makes divorce so widespread and popular today.

3. The fact that divorce hadn't existed, does not mean it's because it wasn't something people would want, it means certain cultures and religions don't allow it. Catholic marriages could set a great example there. A "we can so we do" kind of thing.

4. Match ups used to be very common in the past, without both sides necessarily even willing to marry. Today, most of us have the freedom to choose, dismiss, and break up with many partners. That makes us somewhat inclined to want to try to be with more than one partner, if not a variety of partners.

 

 

So basically you are claiming that every marriage in the past was forced, and a sham simply because it wasn't as easy to be polygamous. There is a lot of documentation to prove that polygamy did occur in the past, by people who wanted to do it. It was seen as acceptable in some cultures but still is. If it was really something people wanted so badly, they would have done it far earlier than now.

 

I still maintain that the attitude of society today towards fulfilling your own desires with no thought for others, or morals has contributed to rising divorce rates and will continue to do so.

[Skeptical]

I doubt I could ever suggest a prenup agreement to my future wife. Yes I do interpret it as a trust issue. I mean I thought that is what the dating part is for. Hell if you really cannot understand the person even after a few years of dating, getting an arranged marriage will probably be a better idea.

 

I am just saying.

 

But the big thing for me is:

 

If you really don't care, a prenup isn't a big deal: it won't affect any of your preferred outcomes.

 

If you change, why should your partner be stuck with you because of money reasons?

 

Nah, thats like saying "I trust you and all..but still sign this thing cause all the cool kids are doing it."

 

Really if you trust him/her, it will stick out like a sore thumb after your marriage.

 

I'm assuming that this is just one of those times when my practical nature stands out, because I just can't see it bothering me. In fact, I sincerely doubt that I COULD marry someone that it bothered.

 

Then again, I don't plan on getting married anytime soon, and I've never been much of one for serious relationships, so perhaps It's just not something that I can understand the subtleties of.

[Saru Inc]

I think the idea of monogamy/non monogamous relationships depend on the person, not society and not marriage. Some people are literally content with marrying and loving their childhood sweet heart their entire life. Others aren't, David in the Bible tapped Bathsheba and God still called him a man after his own heart. I think God does understand not all of us want a one person marriage, I personally do.

[Romy]

Well, it's a fact that the vast majority of today's population wants to be with more than one partner. That alone, is proof that our species is not a one-partner-through-lifetime kind of species.

 

But yet the vast majority of the population prior to 50 years ago had no serious inclinations for doing so.

You don't know if they ever wanted to though, or if they'd want to if it was a realistic option.

 

If this was indeed "unnatural" as you claim, why did it take us so long to change it in society? We have always done what is natural for us.

But it didn't. Polygamy existed since forever as far as I know.

 

 

As for your other question, there are so many answers I'm afraid to even start answering. From the top of my head:

1. Certain religions FORCE that. I know for a fact that certain cultures don't even allow the thought of divorce.

2. Certain cultures also don't believe in monogamy. It was a lot more common in the past, and I'm thinking the fact it's not longer common, is what makes divorce so widespread and popular today.

3. The fact that divorce hadn't existed, does not mean it's because it wasn't something people would want, it means certain cultures and religions don't allow it. Catholic marriages could set a great example there. A "we can so we do" kind of thing.

4. Match ups used to be very common in the past, without both sides necessarily even willing to marry. Today, most of us have the freedom to choose, dismiss, and break up with many partners. That makes us somewhat inclined to want to try to be with more than one partner, if not a variety of partners.

 

 

So basically you are claiming that every marriage in the past was forced, and a sham simply because it wasn't as easy to be polygamous.

Not at all, I'm saying that since many cultures don't follow that path, divorce was not a realistic option for a very long time, whether it's wanted and whether not (it's probably not wanted because of the way society would look at you if you tried anything like that).

 

I never said every marriage was forced, I said that divorce wasn't an option because of cultural behaviours, and not because people just didn't want it.

 

 

There is a lot of documentation to prove that polygamy did occur in the past, by people who wanted to do it. It was seen as acceptable in some cultures but still is. If it was really something people wanted so badly, they would have done it far earlier than now.

 

I said it myself on number 2...

 

 

I still maintain that the attitude of society today towards fulfilling your own desires with no thought for others, or morals has contributed to rising divorce rates and will continue to do so.

 

Perhaps, but I still maintain that our species isn't the type that would want to be with only one partner.

[obfuscator]

We've always done what is natural for us. This has been maintained throughout our entire existence. Why are we predominiatly heterosexual? Because it's natural. Why do we view murder as a bad thing? Because it's natural. Why, for almost all of our existance, have people stuck to one spouse? Because it's natural.

 

You are attempting to prove that monogomy isn't natural for us, but I haven't seen the slightest bit of real evidence to prove so.

[Romy]

We've always done what is natural for us. This has been maintained throughout our entire existence. Why are we predominiatly heterosexual? Because it's natural. Why do we view murder as a bad thing? Because it's natural. Why, for almost all of our existance, have people stuck to one spouse? Because it's natural.

 

You are attempting to prove that monogomy isn't natural for us, but I haven't seen the slightest bit of real evidence to prove so.

 

Your specific examples are really bad ones.

 

8%~ of the world's population is gay/lesbian. Heterosexuality isn't necessarily "natural".

 

Murder is not viewed as a bad thing naturally, murders have occured largely throughout history countless times. Human beings are naturally violent, it's morals that have grown into us that make murder seem bad from our perspective. Seeing murder as a bad thing is not natural.

 

And lastly, the most important one, not all of us (or even many of us) stick to one spouse, that's not natural. You have countless evidence for that, both in society's form today, and throughout history.

Polygamy.

Multiple boy/girlfriends (I'd assume you've had/are willing to have more than one?) are largely accepted and legitimate today.

The need of many (especially males) to mate with as many humans as possible.

Divorce.

Cheating, affairs, and lovers.

Etc, etc.

 

 

Your examples definitely don't show what you wanted to show, and support my point a lot more than yours.

[obfuscator]

 

Your specific examples are really bad ones.

 

8%~ of the world's population is gay/lesbian. Heterosexuality isn't necessarily "natural".

 

The natural purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction. Homosexual intercourse cannot result in reproduction, therefore it does not fulfil its natural pupose.

 

Murder is not viewed as a bad thing naturally, murders have occured largely throughout history countless times. Human beings are naturally violent, it's morals that have grown into us that make murder seem bad from our perspective. Seeing murder as a bad thing is not natural.

Yes, I'll give you that one. I suppose it is more our morals that have shaped that opinion.

 

And lastly, the most important one, not all of us (or even many of us) stick to one spouse, that's not natural. You have countless evidence for that, both in society's form today, and throughout history.

Polygamy.

Which is still frowned upon in todays society.

Multiple boy/girlfriends (I'd assume you've had/are willing to have more than one?) are largely accepted and legitimate today.

Relationships and marriage are different things. A relationship should be a test to see if a marriage is possible. Of course different relationships will happen,but only one marriage should.

The need of many (especially males) to mate with as many humans as possible.

This is a primal instinct, one that as humans, and not merely animals, we can and have forgone throughout history.

Divorce.

Cheating, affairs, and lovers.

 

Something that has really only become as widespread as it has throughout the past half century due to the decay of morals and values in society.

[Romy]

 

Your specific examples are really bad ones.

 

8%~ of the world's population is gay/lesbian. Heterosexuality isn't necessarily "natural".

 

The natural purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction. Homosexual intercourse cannot result in reproduction, therefore it does not fulfil its natural pupose.

Really? Then why only humans and dolphins enjoy it? And in general, if sex's only purpose is reproduction, why do we enjoy it?

 

And lastly, the most important one, not all of us (or even many of us) stick to one spouse, that's not natural. You have countless evidence for that, both in society's form today, and throughout history.

Polygamy.

Which is still frowned upon in todays society.

It's not "still", that's rather new. Polygamy was not out of the ordinary at past times. Today it's a bit less popular.

Also, I don't think it's "frowned upon". Would you say you frown upon it? Some cultures accept and embrace that lifestyle, and those who belong to said cultures just live that way. I don't think anyone has a serious problem with that, and if they do, that borders on bigotry.

 

Multiple boy/girlfriends (I'd assume you've had/are willing to have more than one?) are largely accepted and legitimate today.

Relationships and marriage are different things. A relationship should be a test to see if a marriage is possible. Of course different relationships will happen,but only one marriage should.

 

You call this and that natural, yet you forget marriage isn't natural. It's a contract invented by humans to take relationships a step forward. If you see no problem with multiple relations based on naturality, you definitely shouldn't see a problem with multiple marriages/divorce.

 

The need of many (especially males) to mate with as many humans as possible.

This is a primal instinct, one that as humans, and not merely animals, we can and have forgone throughout history.

Not at all, today more than ever males are out seeking to mate with as many females as possible. It exists today on a very large scale.

 

Divorce.

Cheating, affairs, and lovers.

 

Something that has really only become as widespread as it has throughout the past half century due to the decay of morals and values in society.

What? Cheating is nothing new. The Bible itself poses rules against affairs, etc ("You shall not commit adultery" / "You shall not covet").