Pre-nups

[ido]

Talk of "I would never do that" does not equal character, character is determined by a person having the opptunity to do something wrong but doing the right thing anyways. And we can only prove our character in this if we have the opprotunity ourselves.

If I was that worried about the person's character, then I would not want to be in an committed relationship with them, much less marry them.

 

[Luther073082]

I haven't read the thread, but I'd sign a pre-nup if it was important to my spouse, I'd also get one if for some reason I were entering a marriage with a child from a previous one (for the child's protection). For me it isn't about trust, its just protection against an unfortunate possibility. I think its interesting most people will get home owners insurance that covers fire......and fifty percent of homes aren't likely to burn down. When it comes to marriage, based on something as fragile as an emotional connection, everyone is suddenly up in arms when people ask for a bit of insurance.

Its a lot more emotional then a house.

No one entering a marriage likes to even think about it as a possibility. Many belive that thinking about it as a possibility will make it come true. Sometimes hard to use logic with this much emotion.

Its sort of like some people belive that creating a will or planning for your untimely demise while they are young will make them die young.

I don't have any assets worthwhile to will, and what I do have, I would will them to the same people who would be getting them anyways.

The only thing is that I have presented instructions to my family to take the life insurance I get through work and any money beyond the costs of my burial go directly to a foundation for ministry within my church.

 

[ido]

I haven't read the thread, but I'd sign a pre-nup if it was important to my spouse, I'd also get one if for some reason I were entering a marriage with a child from a previous one (for the child's protection). For me it isn't about trust, its just protection against an unfortunate possibility. I think its interesting most people will get home owners insurance that covers fire......and fifty percent of homes aren't likely to burn down. When it comes to marriage, based on something as fragile as an emotional connection, everyone is suddenly up in arms when people ask for a bit of insurance.

I have homeowner's insurance b/c I'm required to by law. If I didn't have to have it, I wouldn't pay the $$ b/c the chances of me ever having to use it are probably slim.

I would not sign a prenup and would not ask someone else to sign a prenup for me. If I can't trust the integrity of the person that I am marrying, then I shouldn't be marrying them. I don't think having "insurance" would make me feel like that person was suddenly more committed to me.

JMHO

 

[dluvs2trvl]

Its a lot more emotional then a house.

No one entering a marriage likes to even think about it as a possibility. Many belive that thinking about it as a possibility will make it come true. Sometimes hard to use logic with this much emotion.

But the thing that you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge is that a marriage IS emotional...you want to look at it soley from the logic standpoint and totally disregard the emotional side of things...

 

[dluvs2trvl]

I have homeowner's insurance b/c I'm required to by law. If I didn't have to have it, I wouldn't pay the $$ b/c the chances of me ever having to use it are probably slim.

I would not sign a prenup and would not ask someone else to sign a prenup for me. If I can't trust the integrity of the person that I am marrying, then I shouldn't be marrying them. I don't think having "insurance" would make me feel like that person was suddenly more committed to me.

JMHO

I couldn't agree more!!!

 

[Annova]

To me the simple fact that you are willing to sign the pre-nup creates loads of trust because you are willing to sign something that takes away all your rights to the money which indicates that you are committing to marrying me and not my money and I can be certain of that. Being unwilling to sign creates distrust because I can then not be certain that you are not marrying my money.

So is it really about trust or is it really about saving your butt so your SO doesn't take half or more? It's like you'd have doubt in your mind that you can't trust her unless she signs it. That way you can rest easy and know that if anything happens, you still have your money.

So I must ask what's more important?

Sure a person shouldn't marry someone for their money but if you can't trust that person without it, then why get married? Just stay bf/gf. That way if you two broke up, everything is still intact.

its just protection against an unfortunate possibility.

A.K.A. planning for divorce.

 

[Luther073082]

So is it really about trust or is it really about saving your butt so your SO doesn't take half or more? It's like you'd have doubt in your mind that you can't trust her unless she signs it. That way you can rest easy and know that if anything happens, you still have your money.

So I must ask what's more important?

Sure a person shouldn't marry someone for their money but if you can't trust that person without it, then why get married? Just stay bf/gf. That way if you two broke up, everything is still intact.

Actually like I said before the fact that they would sign it would make it ok with me to tear it apart.

The fact that they would sign it realizing that doing so would mean marrying me without the possibility of collecting money on divorce would make me trust them enough to just do away with the whole thing.

The agreement from them to sign it is far more valuable to me then the document itself.

 

[dluvs2trvl]

Actually like I said before the fact that they would sign it would make it ok with me to tear it apart.

The fact that they would sign it realizing that doing so would mean marrying me without the possibility of collecting money on divorce would make me trust them enough to just do away with the whole thing.

The agreement from them to sign it is far more valuable to me then the document itself.

You know what Luther...that sounds way to much like conditional love...and that just doesn't set well with me...

We are to love unconditionally - as Christ loves us - and I would think that to be especially true of loving our spouse...

I wouldn't want to be with someone that expects me to prove my love or my trustworthiness to him by signing a piece of paper...that isn't the kind of love that I'm looking for...

 

[ido]

Actually like I said before the fact that they would sign it would make it ok with me to tear it apart.

The fact that they would sign it realizing that doing so would mean marrying me without the possibility of collecting money on divorce would make me trust them enough to just do away with the whole thing.

The agreement from them to sign it is far more valuable to me then the document itself.

If a guy asked me to sign a prenup, but assured me he was going to tear it up afterwards - I would have big red flashing warning lights going off that he had control issues.

I would have a serious problem with a guy that would refuse to marry me if I didn't sign a paper that he planned to put through the shredder. I can guarantee that, despite how I may have felt about him up to that point, my feelings for him would change significantly.

 

[ido]

You know what Luther...that sounds way to much like conditional love...and that just doesn't set well with me...

We are to love unconditionally - as Christ loves us - and I would think that to be especially true of loving our spouse...

I wouldn't want to be with someone that expects me to prove my love or my trustworthiness to him by signing a piece of paper...that isn't the kind of love that I'm looking for...

Well said, D!!

 

[Annova]

Actually like I said before the fact that they would sign it would make it ok with me to tear it apart.

The fact that they would sign it realizing that doing so would mean marrying me without the possibility of collecting money on divorce would make me trust them enough to just do away with the whole thing.

The agreement from them to sign it is far more valuable to me then the document itself.

A test of love like that isn't something to mess with because not everyone sees it your way.

They may love you but may not see what your doing as a good thing. Especially if they don't know your going to rip it up.

 

[Luther073082]

A test of love like that isn't something to mess with because not everyone sees it your way.

They may love you but may not see what your doing as a good thing. Especially if they don't know your going to rip it up.

I know what you mean but I think part of love is to do what you can to help set aside or reduce your partner's fears. So signing for that reason to me seems like a good idea.

Especially if you where wealthy when you met the person I think it would be foolish to not have some fear that the person may be there to take you. Which is why if I where going to marry a woman wealthier then I was I would offer to sign one without her even mentioning it. If she says that she is not afraid or does not want one then I have offered to reduce her fears and she has refused. And maybe she will refuse simpily because she see's me offering as a sign that I am not marrying for the money.

But gold digging is a legitimate fear for those who are wealthy. If you arn't significantly wealthier then your partner then its silly to sign a pre-nup. If you are then there is a lot more trust involved. And I can not say to a woman "You should trust me" when I am only trusting her not to cut off my finger and she is trusting me not to cut off her entire head.

 

[Annova]

I know what you mean but I think part of love is to do what you can to help set aside or reduce your partner's fears. So signing for that reason to me seems like a good idea.

Especially if you where wealthy when you met the person I think it would be foolish to not have some fear that the person may be there to take you. Which is why if I where going to marry a woman wealthier then I was I would offer to sign one without her even mentioning it. If she says that she is not afraid or does not want one then I have offered to reduce her fears and she has refused. And maybe she will refuse simpily because she see's me offering as a sign that I am not marrying for the money.

But gold digging is a legitimate fear for those who are wealthy. If you arn't significantly wealthier then your partner then its silly to sign a pre-nup. If you are then there is a lot more trust involved. And I can not say to a woman "You should trust me" when I am only trusting her not to cut off my finger and she is trusting me not to cut off her entire head.

So are you a "actions speak louder than words" kind of guy?

I also know what your saying and yes if I had millions of dollars it would be stupid not to have one BUT if I can't trust them, then I shouldn't marry them.

 

[dluvs2trvl]

So are you a "actions speak louder than words" kind of guy?

I also know what your saying and yes if I had millions of dollars it would be stupid not to have one BUT if I can't trust them, then I shouldn't marry them.

If the only action that would speak loudly in order to prove trustworthiness is signing a pre-nup - then I think there hasn't been enough time in the relationship for other actions to be observed...

Again, it just seems like some dramatic, big screen moment to expect someone to sign a pre-nup just so you can then tear it up...

 

[Annova]

If the only action that would speak loudly in order to prove trustworthiness is signing a pre-nup - then I think there hasn't been enough time in the relationship for other actions to be observed...

Again, it just seems like some dramatic, big screen moment to expect someone to sign a pre-nup just so you can then tear it up...

It's doubt. You wanna make sure they'll sign it. If they do then it's confirmed, hopefully.

 

[dluvs2trvl]

It's doubt. You wanna make sure they'll sign it. If they do then it's confirmed, hopefully.

But if there is doubt then should they really be getting married to begin with??? I just don't buy it...

I think that if there is so much doubt or distrust or fear that you need to have someone prove it to you through some sort of "exercise" then you aren't ready to be married and especially not ready to be married to the person you feel needs to prove themselves to you...

(and I'm talking in the universal "you" not to anyone in particular)

 

[Annova]

But if there is doubt then should they really be getting married to begin with??? I just don't buy it...

I think that if there is so much doubt or distrust or fear that you need to have someone prove it to you through some sort of "exercise" then you aren't ready to be married and especially not ready to be married to the person you feel needs to prove themselves to you...

(and I'm talking in the universal "you" not to anyone in particular)

No they shouldn't.

But since divorce rate is high and so many people have bad relationships, doubt fills the mind. Even if it's tiny, it's still enough to make someone question themselves.

Then you have people entering 2nd or 3rd marriages. If the 1st marriage was REALLY bad, pre-nups are usually signed. They don't want the same thing to happen again and if it does, their secure.

 

[kingoffools13]

Lemme ask you something: does God answer to the legal system?

I'll take kingoffools13's decision to sidestep my question as a concession to defeat.

Which is a pity, because the answer is floating out there right in front of his nose.

I didn't side step your question, i wasn't talking to you at all and i didnt talk to you because you were talking about a different subject than i was, simple as that, stay on topic, get more responses.

K
O
F

 

[kingoffools13]

I did give reasoning for mine however you have deemed my reasons as emotional...so how do I debate with someone who isn't willing to give weight to my point of view...

you have to give weight to them not me, you have as of yet provided me with no logical line of reasoning that would explain them to be anything more than emotions. you have made general statements like "there are many reasons" or "lots of reasons why it would be wrong" with out even delving into a few examples of the "lots"

Again, the same could be said in reverse. Why is it that you are giving more weight to the man's point of view (or to the woman if she is asking for the pre-nup) then to the one who is uncomfortable with signing it?

For starters only one of them has something to lose (and dont come back with a comment about losing faith or a relationship, we are talking physical goods or financial assets since that is all that the pre-nup pertains to). On top of that, you are still viewing it as a battle of the sexes (as obvious by your quickly corrected statement above) which makes it seem even more like an emotional response.

Why do you think that it would only be a small discomfort to the person being asked to sign it? Why do you think it is more important for the person who is asking for it to feel comfortable than for the person who doesn't want to sign it?

small because once you get over it, and sign it, its over. If the person who wants one, doesnt get one, they have to deal with that from then on, and you can bet your sweet relationship that while you feel that its a sign of distrust for them to ask for it, it will actually give birth to distrust because you werent willing to say "yes i wont take you for all your worth if the worst should happen" ... you might as well tell them your plans for civil suit right then.

You are focused soley on the financial side of a marriage and are giving no importance to the actual relationship of the marriage and the idea of two people becoming one...that is being totally left out of your equation and scenerio.

No, I am sticking to the topic and not letting you wander off subject at all. The topic that was choses was a legal document dealing specifically (usually) with the financial and assets and possessions of an individual in the event of a divorce. I will keep talking about this aspect, because that is the purpose for the document. If you want to talk about the ideal circumstances, thats fine but its also another thread and another world.

I agree with you...if a man was as adament about having me sign a pre-nup then I wouldn't marry him either. My point of view is just as self-focused as yours. You said, "If all she can think about is herself and not the welfare of the person she is with?" Why isn't the same true in reverse? Why shouldn't the man consider the welfare and feelings of the woman he is with?

ah ah .. welfare only ... not welfare and feelings, you can add terms to the deal but the truth is if someone asks for one they will probably also sign one so his concern for her WELFARE is going to be just as good as his. Again, reminding you, we are talking about financial welfare, not emotional welfare ... why? BECAUSE IF THEY DIVORCE THEN EMOTIONAL WELFARE IS OUT THE DOOR. you have to stick to the point.

You also said that it doesn't sound like "she would do anything" for the person she is with...again, why is that wrong and yet you don't consider the man NOT signing a pre-nup as doing anything for the person that he is with....

Having your cake and eating it too, seldom works. If someone goes to their SO and asks for this then the positions are this Person 1 asking, and Person 2 having the choice to "do anything" or "not"

The choice is Person 2's, and if they are not willing to do it, a smart Person 1 would realize that they would be unwise to do anything for Person 2 since Person 2 has already shot them down and proven they wouldn't in one fell swoop, very smooth.

Again i say Person 1&2 because i don't view it as an issue of sex.

If you're not willing to take that chance then you're not ready for marriage...

Again, Person 2 didn't take the chance first, obviously they are not.

I do believe what I'm saying is right however you don't...what's the point of continuing to argue when apparently neither one of us is going to change our mind?

I rarely debate or reason for the sake of the person to whom i am talking, moreover it is for the people that will read it, and see the, hopefully, well reasoned arguments i present and understand (even if they don't like it) that what i am saying has merit. Your conversion to my POV is not my immediate aim.

K
O
F

 

[ido]

I still think it comes down to integrity. I don't think that people change b/c of divorce. I think they finally show their true colors and that leads to divorce. The other person either chose to ignore the signs of who their partner really was - or the person kept their true self well-hidden. But, I don't think anyone becomes someone they weren't already.

JMHO