Are pre-nups un-Christian?

[blackribbon]

Yeah, but he or she may get a lawyer to say, try for alimony.

Not all states have alimony. It is very limited and in a very specific situation in Texas.

And will a pre-nep mean a person can't get alimony? I doubt it unless it says "no alimony". Which why would a woman agree to be a homemaker if her only protection is to be working on her own career to protect her financial future?

 

[ThisIsMe123]

Not all states have alimony. It is very limited and in a very specific situation in Texas.

In the state I am in, it's an alimony state...so....

 

[blackribbon]

In the state I am in, it's an alimony state...so....

Does a pre-nup mean that she can't ask for and get alimony? Usually that is based on money acquired during the marriage, I would think. My husband's ability to move up the promotion scale because of my support and doing everything at home to free him up to work through some of the steps. (I was literally interviewed before he got one promotion because the hours were horrible and they wouldn't have promoted him without me saying that I understood and would support this difficult stage until he got some seniority to earn a better schedule). This alone would have been significant proof that I deserved support based on that higher paycheck.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

Does a pre-nup mean that she can't ask for and get alimony? Usually that is based on money acquired during the marriage, I would think. My husband's ability to move up the promotion scale because of my support and doing everything at home to free him up to work through some of the steps. (I was literally interviewed before he got one promotion because the hours were horrible and they wouldn't have promoted him without me saying that I understood and would support this difficult stage until he got some seniority to earn a better schedule). This alone would have been significant proof that I deserved support based on that higher paycheck.

I thought alimony was typically paid to support someone that, well, didn't work at all or just part time or underemployed.

For instance, I knew this one woman that didn't work at all. Alimony is usually paid to the person that said, all she did was raise the kids all her life. Never went to college nor trade school. When she became an empty nester, being a domestic engineer and mom was the only thing she knew..and thus the alimony payments.

I can see it someone is in align with her husband, but...its just that he wasn't getting a promotion. But if he's suffering a hardship due to the lack of advancement there...like the inability to pay his bills...I can see how alimony is justified.

But..I'd prefer to get out of alimony as well. I would hope by middle-aged, that the woman was able to support herself when I married her.

Some people, like myself, think alimony should be abolished to be honest. It's like welfare, but instead of payments being between the govt and the person, it's between the spouses.

The woman I mentioned was being paid alimony WAY too long after her sons grew up, got married and had their OWN kids.

It did eventually run out, and now she's having to move onto her son's property. (Mother-in-law house).

I read an article entitled "Alimony without end" some scary stuff.

 

[exitstageright]

I thought alimony was typically paid to support someone that, well, didn't work at all or just part time or underemployed.

For instance, I knew this one woman that didn't work at all. Alimony is usually paid to the person that said, all she did was raise the kids all her life. Never went to college nor trade school. When she became an empty nester, being a domestic engineer and mom was the only thing she knew..and thus the alimony payments.

I can see it someone is in align with her husband, but...its just that he wasn't getting a promotion. But if he's suffering a hardship due to the lack of advancement there...like the inability to pay his bills...I can see how alimony is justified.

But..I'd prefer to get out of alimony as well. I would hope by middle-aged, that the woman was able to support herself when I married her.

Some people, like myself, think alimony should be abolished to be honest. It's like welfare, but instead of payments being between the govt and the person, it's between the spouses.

The woman I mentioned was being paid alimony WAY too long after her sons grew up, got married and had their OWN kids.

It did eventually run out, and now she's having to move onto her son's property. (Mother-in-law house).

I read an article entitled "Alimony without end" some scary stuff.

Before I got married,I made myself a rule.That rule was to only marry someone who made as much money as I do,or someone who has more money as I have. Therefore,as protection for me not having to pay alimony. Just as a referee says before a fight,(and there are many fights in marriages),"Protect yourselves at all times."

 

[exitstageright]

Does a pre-nup mean that she can't ask for and get alimony? Usually that is based on money acquired during the marriage, I would think. My husband's ability to move up the promotion scale because of my support and doing everything at home to free him up to work through some of the steps. (I was literally interviewed before he got one promotion because the hours were horrible and they wouldn't have promoted him without me saying that I understood and would support this difficult stage until he got some seniority to earn a better schedule). This alone would have been significant proof that I deserved support based on that higher paycheck.

Before I got married, I made myself a rule. That rule was to only marry someone who made as much money as I do, or someone who has more money as I have. Therefore, as protection for me not having to pay alimony. Just as a referee says before a fight,(and there are many fights in marriages),"Protect yourselves at all times."

 

[blackribbon]

Before I got married, I made myself a rule. That rule was to only marry someone who made as much money as I do, or someone who has more money as I have. Therefore, as protection for me not having to pay alimony. Just as a referee says before a fight,(and there are many fights in marriages),"Protect yourselves at all times."

I had a different frame of mind. I got married with the intention of never getting divorced and picking someone who was a match for me. I made it my goal to keep the marriage alive and committed to being a Godly wife. I also picked a man whose priorities were similar (strong sense of family and wanted children). I made sure I didn't have an exit plan nor did he.

 

[exitstageright]

I had a different frame of mind. I got married with the intention of never getting divorced and picking someone who was a match for me. I made it my goal to keep the marriage alive and committed to being a Godly wife. I also picked a man whose priorities were similar (strong sense of family and wanted children). I made sure I didn't have an exit plan nor did he.

Believe it or not,when I was 17 and 18,I had that same mind set.I thought that my marriage was going to be for a lifetime. My parents were good role models. My parents stayed together. But,from 19 to 24 years old,when I was in the U.S.Navy,I met so many lying and conniving women,who only were interested in what little money I had, that I began to have trust issues. I was burned so many times,that my nickname should have been "toast". I was so naïve,when it came to women. One time, I gave a young lady my whole two week pay check. Yes,I will admit that I was so naïve at the time. When,I graduated from San Francisco State University,I thought that I would meet some smart college graduate and have a relationship that would lead to a marriage for a lifetime. However,not all dreams come true. Therefore,now when it comes to having a successful marriage,I am very much jaded. I have seen and experience too much to be a Pollyanna,when it comes to marriage. Yes,that is sad,but that is just the way it is.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

in one sense, you could say that those who go with pre-nups are approaching marriage with a worldly perspective.

in another sense, if you're a very wealthy person with many valuable assets and understand the world you live in where there are many opportunistic people looking for an easy come up you may see a pre-nup as a necessary thing to protect yourself from those looking to cash in on a rich fool.

value matching is important in any case. you need to make sure the person you're with sees marriage and children as part of their value system and don't ignore any red flags or tip offs.

 

[JAM2b]

I'd do it. I have a lot of intellectual property, and I also have sons from my previous marriage. I wouldn't want my kids cheated out of anything because a subsequent marriage fell through. I've been involved with a man who has stock and a business. It wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if he wanted to keep that protected or if he wanted to keep our finances separate, should we ever move forward in our relationship.

People who get married, don't do it with the expectation of divorce, and generally don't agree to marry if there is a lack of trust. However, you never know when a turn of events will change that. That is why pre-nuptials are a thing and are wise. The thing about divorce is that it can bring out traits in people that you would not have ever suspected them of having. They will sometimes do things that they would not have ever done otherwise.

It's no less inappropriate than having a will or trust set up, or naming beneficiaries for financial resources. I also don't think it is very different from the past. People negotiated before marriage. It was very much so a business deal and exchange of property, and it was enforceable by law and society. In Biblical days, if a man divorced his wife, he had to give her family her dowry back to them or pay them the equivalent.

It also gives people incentive to think things through a little more when faced with temptation.

 

[blackribbon]

I'd do it. I have a lot of intellectual property, and I also have sons from my previous marriage. I wouldn't want my kids cheated out of anything because a subsequent marriage fell through. I've been involved with a man who has stock and a business. It wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if he wanted to keep that protected or if he wanted to keep our finances separate, should we ever move forward in our relationship.

People who get married, don't do it with the expectation of divorce, and generally don't agree to marry if there is a lack of trust. However, you never know when a turn of events will change that. That is why pre-nuptials are a thing and are wise. The thing about divorce is that it can bring out traits in people that you would not have ever suspected them of having. They will sometimes do things that they would not have ever done otherwise.

It's no less inappropriate than having a will or trust set up, or naming beneficiaries for financial resources. I also don't think it is very different from the past. People negotiated before marriage. It was very much so a business deal and exchange of property, and it was enforceable by law and society. In Biblical days, if a man divorced his wife, he had to give her family her dowry back to them or pay them the equivalent.

It also gives people incentive to think things through a little more when faced with temptation.

Not for the person who is protected by a pre-nup. It just means when the going get tough, they can just walk away whole instead of needing to do the hard relationship that a marriage requires. It also means they can have an affair without worry.

 

[James of Arc]

From my biblical point of view i see it like this. Once you mate you become one and it is the man's job to take care of the woman for the rest of his life. That means that all that is his is hers. If she gets divorced it is the man's fault because he did not satisfy her in some area which caused her to look elsewhere for that need. There for sence the man did not satisfy the wife it is his fault and she should have it all.

Now this apply only if the woman is a virgin. If she had somebody before him then the first guy she sleepted with is responsible for her. And the guy who is going to marty her needs to declare what he had before because it is obvious he is marry an easy woman.

 

[blackribbon]

From my biblical point of view i see it like this. Once you mate you become one and it is the man's job to take care of the woman for the rest of his life. That means that all that is his is hers. If she gets divorced it is the man's fault because he did not satisfy her in some area which caused her to look elsewhere for that need. There for sence the man did not satisfy the wife it is his fault and she should have it all.

Now this apply only if the woman is a virgin. If she had somebody before him then the first guy she sleepted with is responsible for her. And the guy who is going to marty her needs to declare what he had before because it is obvious he is marry an easy woman.

LOL. Does this apply if the man isn't a virgin and is responsible for part of the reason other women not being virgins?

 

[blackribbon]

If the man is the head of the house Biblically, doesn't he bear the responsible for if the "house" and marriage fails? Isn't this part of the leader's role, to make sure that which he leads successful and prospering. Not to hold back a safety net so that he doesn't have to do his job correctly?

 

[James of Arc]

LOL. Does this apply if the man isn't a virgin and is responsible for part of the reason other women not being virgins?

Silly world hu? We are so lost as to what is right and wrong we dont know the rules any more.

Every since free love become popular in the 60s we dont know the truth any more. Free love says that you can have sex with anybody you want with no strings attached and most of us has bought into it. We no longer know the real rules. The real rules are you touch you buy. We are taught that we are supose to act like rock stars, use them then kick em off the buss. In reality we need ways to provide and then you consider finding your other. Once you find her its until death do you part, not "until the next party".

Unfortunately I have had many women in the past so i am being hypocritical but if i was to do it all over again knowing as i do now i would do it the right way.

 

[miss-a]

I don't like the idea. And talking to me about our divorce before we even get married? Talk about red flags.

 

[blackribbon]

I don't like the idea. And talking to me about our divorce before we even get married? Talk about red flags.

I agree. I don't want to marry someone who thinks divorce is an option. That alone means we are not ready to get married.

 

[Niels]

Edit:

Prenups aren't unchristian. They're sensible. Especially given the realities of contemporary culture and divorce law. When you get one, you don't expect to use it. Although you can control your own actions, you can't control what your spouse will do. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

If I'm dating someone, and I find out that she's adamantly opposed to prenups, that wouldn't exactly increase my confidence in her. If she doesn't expect to divorce me, then she shouldn't mind agreeing to a prenup. Unless things go horribly wrong, it won't be used.

Will I ask for one? Maybe. I'm leaning in that direction.

 

[bèlla]

I think it’s a personal decision and something each must weigh for themselves.

I won’t contemplate marriage without an agreement and before we reach that point we’d be clear on the subject. I don’t believe either should be enriched or impoverished because the relationship failed.

I am capable of earning money. I don’t need to gauge him with a judge’s help.