posted
I find this debate has many similarities with the Gay Marriage debate. Both are more about the definition of marriage than about the related issues.
Is marriage a legal contract that promotes the growth and betterment of society? If yes than these civil unions need written agreements to cover any legal loopholes the future hold.
Is marriage the ultimate affirmation of true love? If yes than these romantic pairings can only be weakened by thoughts of money and fear of future failings.
Is marriage some mixture of both? Probably.
What I like most about prenups is that they force the couple to communicate. Money is an important part of any relationship. Expectations and responsibilities need to be spelled out or when they are not fulfilled feelings of betrayal will grow.
If you can't talk about money when you are in when you are feeling the closest, how will you be able to talk about it later?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What, I need qualifications to make a statement now?
To comment on whether or not I use it to hide, yes, you need the minimum qualification of knowing what the hell you are talking about.
quote:I don't like your profession. I resent that it's necessary, and I hate that it's respected. I don't like the distance it creates and enforces between what is legally permissable what is morally defensible.
The use of a government entity to coerce another individual to act in a certain manner is a use of force. People are used to thinking that way about criminal law, but the same thinking extends to civil law as well.
The words "legally permissible" are another way of saying "should not be enforced at the point of a gun by a government official."
When someone states that they want to use the law to ban specific behavior, they are either saying they wish that behavior to be stoppable at the point of a gun or they are advocating some action other than a ban. I am very comfortable with there being a huge gap between that concept and the concept of what is morally defensible.
I am also extremely uncomfortable with the idea that I must somehow favor using that gun to ban a morally indefensible action to avoid being accused of covertly supporting that action.
The rule of law is exulted precisely because we believe that, if someone is going to be subject to coercive force, that person ought to have notice of the requirements being imposed, that person ought to be given a chance to comply with those requirements and to demonstrate that compliance, and that the purpose for which the coercive force is applied is important enough and proved to a sufficient level of certainty to warrant the amount and type of coercive force being applied. We call this due process, but it really is what people mean when they say "rule of law."
I, for one, think it worthy of respect - not respect above all else, but a great amount of respect nonetheless.
The idea that you resent the necessity of people who make this their profession makes me glad you have only one vote, because the world where legally permissible and morally defensible are separated by a small or zero distance is one where I don't want to live.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
It certainly does. I would not have married had I not met someone I trusted that much.
I'm not convinced that trust at that level isn't simply self-delusion -- that is, I'm not sure the assumption that a given person will be reasonable in all circumstances is ever justified. It certainly isn't true of me, for example.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Marriage IS a business contract - love and money are already mixed up.
That's controversial. Marriage is a business contract the same way that a wedding dress is piece of chiffon and a child is an issue.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Marriage means that spouses are liable for all sorts of things that they do not themselves do, and can be sued for such. It's a contract, even if you're married by Elvis in Vegas. It makes the spouse the next of kin. It makes the spouse the de facto heir in absense of a will. It makes a spouse liable for a dozen different things. No matter what else is involved, in this country you need a license to be legally married and a court to be legally not-married-anymore.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you introduce a prenup, not only are you insuring against a divorce, you are saying that you don't think that the person you are marrying is going to be reasonable throughout the process. That's the kicker. How do you walk down the isle if you don't have trust at this level?
I think you're being a bit melodramatic. A prenup doesn't say, "this is how we'll handle our breakup when you go crazy", it says, "in case the absolute worst should happen we know we're on the same page, since we may not be thinking clearly at the time."
A prenup doesn't mean you expect the marriage to fail, but any rational person should acknowledge the possibility that divorce could happen. You hope it won't, you think it won't, but there's always that sliver of a chance.
Personally, I think that going into things with the attitude that divorce is never ever ever a possibility would put much more pressure on the relationship and make it much harder to make things work and to work to keep both people happy. But that's just me. I think that it's really important for both people in the relationship to feel that they've freely chosen to be there, and I can see how a prenup could ensure that feeling because you know that you aren't going to be in complete ruin if something goes wrong.
quote:------------------------------- And, as kat said, it's easy to be cavalier about not protecting your assets when you don't have any assets to speak of. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think that the size of wealth to be divided is what is at play here, we really are speaking from two different worlds.
------------------------------------------------------------------ That's not what I think, or what I said, but the latter half of your statement is undoubtably true. I'm a realist, for one thing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what you think, but I'm looking at your words right now and I've a working and appropriate understanding of the words "easy, "cavalier," "protecting, "assets." Unless I'm screwing up on the pronouns and prepositions, my paraphrase is what you are saying.
Kat,
You'd be shocked how much you sound like King of Men. I'm waiting for you to say that making love is just the rapid exchange of fluids and friction.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
The insults are unbecoming to you. If you cannot respond to what I said, at least have the grace to refrain from the ad hominems.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your "understanding" notwithstanding, I'll go ahead and be the judge of what I was saying. Especially given the reading comprehension issues I've seen you exhibit on a regular basis.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
You still have not adressed the points I made on the last page. In brief, I stated that children and other dependents are an excellent reason to have a prenup. While I might feel alright with becoming financially insolvent in case of a divorce, I cannot accept the potential of being in the position of being unable to care for my children or parents.
Also, are you aware of the fact that certain injuries and diseases can in fact render people utterly different from who they were when they entered the marriage? Studies on people with brain damage which makes them incapable of feeling emotion, including remorse, come to mind. People can also have chemical imbalances with make them angry and abusive, or incapable of spending wisely. Sometimes these things can be treated and resolved, and sometimes not. An individual has to go through the stress and expense of losing their partner, attempting to treat an illness, deciding that it's unsafe for them to remain in the relationship, divorce, and caring for children on their own. How exactly would all of this person's assets being lost due to their partner's debts be a moral thing?
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
What if he had children, including a child who would need care all his life, had his assets tied up in a family business, and paid alimony to his former wife, which payments would increase dramatically without that prenup preventing your assets being counted as his net worth?
This is a serious question. I think recognizing that a spouse has financial obligations outside of the marriage that must be protected no matter how blissfully happy he is is only fair to those who count on him for protection and care.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd marry a woman who approached me with a prenup. Not doing so seems small. I would be sad about it. We'd talk about it. I'd sign it and prompt forget about it.
quote:Also, are you aware of the fact that certain injuries and diseases can in fact render people utterly different from who they were when they entered the marriage? Studies on people with brain damage which makes them incapable of feeling emotion, including remorse, come to mind.
I thought marriage included in sickness and in health. The children don't change the situation.
posted
Given that I have always been poor, I'm not sure I would have married a man with prior obligations. Cold but true.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My philosophy on prenups can best be described as "Hope for the best, plan for the worst." Of course I wouldn't enter a marriage if I thought divorce was a real possibility! I would save myself the heartache. But if, God forbid, something should go wrong, I love this person - and I love myself. I want us both to come out the other side as intact as possible. And that means being able to pay for gas and food and childcare and medical expenses.
I actually mention prenups offhandedly at some point during dating to gauge whether the guy is going to say he thinks they're horrible or something. Most say they think they make a lot of sense, but are slightly distasteful. Most women I know feel more strongly that they make sense, perhaps because women often wind up responsible for children. I agree that prenups are kind of a downer - it's not especially fun to hash all of it out while you're wearing your shiny new engagement ring. But it's also a form of insurance - like saying, look, I love you enough that I'm willing to shove aside my soppy romantic side for a few hours and be pragmatic and make sure we'll both be ok if something awful should happen. How do I know that *I* won't go stark raving bonkers at some point or get a pole stuck through my head and come out a completely different person?
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given that I have always been poor, I'm not sure I would have married a man with prior obligations. Cold but true.
That's certainly your call.
Given that a pre-nup could make it possible to marry in those circumstances, it could be seen as very romantic.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never really thought about what I would do if the object of my hypothetical affections insisted on not having a pre-nup. I think it might make me a bit wary.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
There are a great many other people who exault the rule of law, so much so that we are trying to export it by the barrel of a gun across the world.
Frankly, I believe that an absence of clear and enforceable legislation is more conducive to violence than the rule of law. Often moral imperatives come into play where law is absent, and we will never agree on absolutes.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven:
I find this debate has many similarities with the Gay Marriage debate. Both are more about the definition of marriage than about the related issues.
Is marriage a legal contract that promotes the growth and betterment of society? If yes than these civil unions need written agreements to cover any legal loopholes the future hold.
Is marriage the ultimate affirmation of true love? If yes than these romantic pairings can only be weakened by thoughts of money and fear of future failings.
Is marriage some mixture of both? Probably.
What I like most about prenups is that they force the couple to communicate. Money is an important part of any relationship. Expectations and responsibilities need to be spelled out or when they are not fulfilled feelings of betrayal will grow.
This is a great point. As Samarkand said, I think a pre-nup can actually be a sign that you care for the wellbeing of your spouse (after all, you might be the one who is not in a rational mindset, trying to screw her/him over) and yourself, equally.
Love is not about sacrifice. Personally I don't think I could truly love someone who, in the process of falling in love with me, surrendered everything to me. I don't see that vulnerability as ennobling in the least. I see marriage as a social contract between two equal partners, which will usually only hold up if love is there.
That said, I think that pre-nups should always be about the personal choice of each couple. If you deem the possible financial ramifications of not having a pre-nup to be less important than the emotional confusion that discussing a pre-nup would cause you and your intended, then don't make one.
I don't know, if I ever get married, whether I will have a pre-nup. I do believe in planning for the worst, but I also do recognise the emotional downside of having to ask for one. If I decide not to get one though, it won't be because I see marriage as holy and separate from money and material property.
---
I've been offline for a while and am a bit late, but this one's for Jimmy:
quote:My philosophy on prenups can best be described as "Hope for the best, plan for the worst."
These are two mutually exclusive things. Unless those of you who're Christian are sneaking the occasional prayer to Allah in when you think Christ isn't listening, just in case.
Seriously, marriage is one of those things that, like religion, must be taken on faith, because as it stands it is almost never a rational decision; people who marry for the legal and financial benefits are considered to have missed the point, for example.
Individual people may draw the line in different locations; perhaps they can say "there's a very real possibility that my God doesn't exist, and that the Satanists are right, so I'll keep this goat in the closet just in case I need to whip up a quick animal sacrifice" without shaking their faith in God, but I cannot say "my marriage is statistically likely to fall apart, and I thus must remain prepared for that contingency" and remain willing to enter a marriage.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:My philosophy on prenups can best be described as "Hope for the best, plan for the worst."
These are two mutually exclusive things. Unless those of you who're Christian are sneaking the occasional prayer to Allah in when you think Christ isn't listening, just in case.
You're either joking, or uninsured.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you consider a prayer to Allah to be God insurance? Neither do I consider a pre-nup to be marriage insurance. My house will continue to exist even if I lose faith in it; can you say the same for a relationship?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
A pre-nup only comes into play once the relationship no longer exists, and it's a personal matter whether the pre-nup will cause you to change your feelings about your partner. Frankly, I think two lovers in a solid relationship are more likely to be able deal with the emotional baggage of a pre-nup, and then move on to enjoy their marriage.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did Hatrack die temporarily for anyone else?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Would you consider a prayer to Allah to be God insurance? Neither do I consider a pre-nup to be marriage insurance. My house will continue to exist even if I lose faith in it; can you say the same for a relationship?
My point is that "hope for the best" and "plan for the worst" are not mutually exclusive in all contexts, as you implied.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I just wanted to say I think this thread has changed my opinion slightly about the prenupital agreement. Before, I probably would have been entirely opposed to it; it just seemed to me like saying divorce was inevitable or something (as illogical as that sounds). Now, I could see some values for it. I'm still not sure I would be fully comfortable with discussing a prenup with a future spouse, but at least now I'm not fully discounting it.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not entirely comfortable with discussing it, either. My one experience of doing so was with the aforementioned ex-fiance, who was vehemently opposed to the idea. But there are a lot of things that I am not always comfortable with that I think are important, and do anyway.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that I think has been ignored by almost everyone (myself included), despite Libbie's references to it, is that many pre-nups deal with more than the "what ifs." A good number also put in writing agreed-upon financial (and other) arrangements for the marriage itself.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ugh, these things are so tricky. There are so many varying scenarios and strings pulling and all this other crap.
In the case of two people with substantially different net worths (but no previous marriages and/or children), a prenup forces you to lay out who is more powerful in the marriage. (This presupposes that both parties make enough to reasonably support themselves alone, and a divorce would not render the poorer party a financial invalid.) This is fraught with emotional potholes because asking for a prenup is very literally like saying that what's mine is mine and will stay that way, as opposed to what's mine is ours. I mean...if the prenup says that the money will stay with the richer party, and then the richer party covers most of the down payment on the house you buy together and pay a joint mortgage on...whose house is it? If I were the poorer party, I think I'd probably get pretty hung up on this pre-marriage outlining of who is worth more.
That said, I can understand how the richer party would want to be avoided taken advantage of. But part of me says that this is where the trust thing comes in: If you're worried someone marrying you for money and then bailing to take his/her share, well, you probably shouldn't be walking down the aisle to begin with.
That said, I think the scenarios in which previous marriages or children are involved almost require a prenup. If I were marrying a man who was paying alimony and child support, I'd want him to suggest a prenup to protect me from having to pay for that - and, by default, protect our marriage and our assets (since, obviously, my money would be used to for this second marriage's benefit).
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A prenuptual agreement is a purely subjective matter. Period. This issue, like gay marriage, affects no one but the parties involved. A prenup is a contract - nothing more. It doesn't SAY anything - about the sanctity of marriage, about trust, about protecting your assets. These are personal agendas/opinions. I, like Irami and Tom, personally feel that the absolute trust I share with my fiancee would be compromised by a prenup. However, I can completely understand why others would want one. It works for them, not for me.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think people have an overinflated sense of how much "protection" a pre-nup can create for couples' assets during the term of the marriage. Protecting assets in the manner people are speaking of requires a full-blown estate plan, not just a pre-nup. Most of the protection will arise out of other elements of that estate plan than the pre-nup.
This will vary widely from state to state and from situation to situation, of course. But many of the reasons people are giving for pre-nups are really reasons for estate planning, which can be done perfectly well without a pre-nup. When someone has protecting assets from third parties as a reason for a pre-nup, it's even more imperative to get a lawyer.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie, I disagree on a fundemental level that who has more money automatically equals who has more power in the relationship. That has never been the determining factor in any of my relationships, and I have been on both sides of the wealth issue.
Also, what I would want personally is an agreement that in the event of a divorce each party would retain what they came into the marriage with, which would be laid out in the PNA, but split evenly what was accumulated during the marriage. My preference is for that to be the case even if one person is making more money during the marriage than the other. But of course, that is something that I would have to discuss and come to an agreement on with my hypothetical future spouse.
Finally, I think saying you wouldn't want one normally but you would if the guy has kids from a previous marriage is pretty hypocritical. You're willing to combine lives and finances and what's mine is his and what's his is mine. . . except for if what's his includes providing for his children? To me, marriage includes shared responsibilities, including that of any dependants.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A good number also put in writing agreed-upon financial (and other) arrangements for the marriage itself.
See, I also find this enormously distasteful. But, then, I find separate checking accounts unacceptably tacky, too. *shrug*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I guess this is why it's a good thing PNAs aren't required by law. They're there for those who feel comfortable using them, which is great.
I disagree. I think if prenups were required by law, it would stifle many of the objections being raised to them. If it's a legal requirement, then trust certainly isn't the issue. And since the law has to decipher what belongs to whom in the event of divorce, it seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to require of a legal marraige contract. I wish that the government required prenups. If nothing else, it would force people to discuss and think about these issues. It would also completely take away the feeling of distrust that comes from talking about it.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not the feeling of distrust I mind, actually, as much as it's the feeling of separation. When I married, the assumption I made is that everything I have and everything I am was made available to my wife as a resource; the idea that I'm holding a little bit back as a reserve, while perhaps "sensible," is profoundly unromantic. And until we get around to replacing marriages with civil unions, romance will still figure prominently in my idealized vision of 'em. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's not the feeling of distrust I mind, actually, as much as it's the feeling of separation. When I married, the assumption I made is that everything I have and everything I am was made available to my wife as a resource; the idea that I'm holding a little bit back as a reserve, while perhaps "sensible," is profoundly unromantic. And until we get around to replacing marriages with civil unions, romance will still figure prominently in my idealized vision of 'em.
See, I like the idea of separate checking accounts if only because it means you can buy surprises for your partner.
posted
Of course, I suppose it helps that we don't actually write checks for anything besides daycare. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ever since my bank made online billpay free, I hardly ever write actual checks either. But I used to, and I still write a handful each month.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
One: I'm definately getting a pre-nup. I've never personally gone through a divorce, but have been through many. As a supervisor in the military, the people that work for me, their problems become mine. My problems become my supervisor's. That's just how it is. An' with this I have seen a lot go down, where the guy was left on the shoulder of the road because of the courts. Not all the time. Here and there a case where the guy deserved it, but not always. I remember a few times I sent guys home just because his wife mentioned the "D-word."
Two: Not all divorces are due to a lack of trust. I had one of my supervisor's go through a divorce. I have to say it was the smoothest going one I have ever seen. They just didn't have it in them to continue anymore. They were still good friends, but weren't where they wanted to be. He made sure she had the house, kids and what she needed to keep everything in check. Tell the truth, he was more concerned about her than himself. Abusive? No, I knew the guy too well. We were a very close knit division. We had a habit of picking up on things pretty quick.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, one more reason to get a pre-nup. NO ONE is getting their fingers into my retirement trip account. I throw most of my money at the moment into this account so I can do a 6 month backpacking excursion when I retire from the military. Hopefully it will be more than enough when it is time to bring a wife along if there is one (and she is willing to go). I'm not going to impede her goals, she won't impede mine.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks blacwolve. I have my moments like anyone else. I know I don't thank some people as much as I should. Such as yourself. Just for being here. There's a few here that, if they weren't here, I would have no reason to post anymore.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:They were still good friends, but weren't where they wanted to be.
It dismays me to think that I, as an atheist, take my promises to God more seriously than this.
quote:I'm not going to impede her goals, she won't impede mine.
While perfectly sensible, I'm not sure that this is the healthiest foundation on which to build a marriage. A relationship, sure, but not a marriage.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have separate checking accounts because we just never got around to consolidating them.
It really doesn't bother me. I guess we should, if only to save on bank fees.
I do like being able to buy suprise presents for Tony though.
We don't have a prenup (not so common in Australia, anyway) but this thread has made me rethink some of my attitudes towards them.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've already said my goodnight in the good night thread, but I will stay up for this. It was a mutual decision of both parties. It is not my call on how they decide, or the outcome.
Tom, we all have goals in life. My current gf likes to work with children. she has given up the idea of being a day care worker to owning her own day care. She wants to have a good one, with good people working there. If we decide to cement our lives together, then I can only hope to support her in this and to be a part of it. Mainly because I want to be a part of her life. However, should all life sacrifices be made in one direction? I'm not selfish, I can hold my trip off till we find a better time. However, I have set this goal of mine in stone. The only thing stopping me is if I die before I retire. I figure at 39, it isn't too off to actually accomplish my goal to backpack a 4000 mile trail from ND to NY.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to second some of what Samarkand said. I've experienced some subtler influences on my outlook and behavior due to depression. I wouldn't say that it fundamentally influenced my personality, and I find it hard to imagine actually acting with extreme malice toward anyone, depression or not. However, it's not outside the realm of possibility that I might, say, end up with post-partum psychosis and behave in ways that could damage my hypothetical husband and children. If a pre-nuptial agreement could help protect my loved ones from myself if I go crazy, then I might consider it. I don't trust myself enough to forever be a good spouse, because I know that bad things can happen. I don't know...maybe that means no one should marry me.
I don't think I'd want separate accounts, unless there was a significant financial reason to do so. I'm not even sure I like the idea of a pre-nuptial agreement, but I can definitely see the benefits of it. And maybe I'm not romantic enough, but I do like to plan for as many eventualities as reasonably possible.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
