should a christian get a prenup?

[dobieman0488]

for me, the answert is a clear no, I'd go so far as to say that when I'm ordained, I won't marry a couple if they've signed a prenup

 

[ImperialPhantom]

It's up to the couple. Personally, my wife and I did not get one or even talk about it, but that doesn't mean it's not right for some other couples out there.

 

[Conservativation]

Wow...can we stop and think about what a pre-nup COULD accomplish, if its purpose was saving the marriage?
In my opinion pastors should refuse to marry couples who do NOT have a pre-nup. Its been proven now that the right pre-nup saves marriages. Hard to imagine because of the very very common thought that "oh thats just planning failure" or whatever. I used to feel that same way.

A simple pre-nup with just ONE item in it should be absolutely 100% required by pastors, that being that baring some serious (that can be defined) reasons...SERIOUS, at divorce, the children are 50/50 custody unless one parent says they dont want, which would be horrible and count as a reason for sure along with abuse and addiction etc etc.
This one little item would reduce the divorce rate by 15% immediately.
Or, how about a pre-nup that says, if you are getting a divorce, you have to wait X time, get X counceling, AND once divorced 50/50 custody, AND (all this in groundless divorces , with grounds different story) if FILING a frivolous divorce, the one filing is the one who initially moves out until things are sorted.

I know every singly pat objection to this....Ive advocated this for years, because, as MarriageSavers found out.....this causes couples to fix problems instead of divorce.

It boggles my mind but the argument will align roughly by gender, for and against this, AND, the clergy seem unfavorable, except those that have worked with MarriageSavers.

That kind of pre-nup is there as incentive to not throw in towel AND to bypass the family law status quo that is not 50/50 custody. Its hard to argue against that, but lots of folks will.

Finally, despite what seems to be the case with the rich and famous....what you find with pre-nups even in general, is there is less divorces as a percentage than there are among those who do not have them. they do not function as a way out, rather as a reason to stay in, if crafted well.

There is another case too, that IS about material things and thats antiquity. I dont think someone, man or woman, should have to expose their family heirlooms, valuable or not, family property, etc. to the free will of another human. And while the pre-nup seems to be a way for some rish person to be able to get out free, in function, they are a way to keep the previously NOT rish person from seeing it as really simple to get out, not counting gold digger women or men, just regular folks, a pre-nup is a pro-marriage things

 

[Luther073082]

I think if one party has significantly more assets then the other then yes it should be considered.

I'm sorry its way too easy to pretend to be in love for 2 years or so until after the marriage so you can walk away with some easy cash.

I also agree with Cons. . . a pre-nup which specifies certain things, such as counciling must be attempted before a divorce can not be a bad thing.

 

[dallasapple]

Yes Christians should get pre-nups if they want one.The fact of the matter is there are Biblical grounds for divorce.And no matter how committed one is to the marriage you can not gaurantee the other one wont walk off some day for whatever reason.

Why shouldnt Christians get pre-nups is what I would ask.

Love

Dallas

 

[Luther073082]

It is funny that the *nearly* unanimous belief in the single's forum is that pre-nups are pretty much anti-Christian.

The only supporter on there is one who's family has a quite a bit of wealth

 

[dallasapple]

It is funny that the *nearly* unanimous belief in the single's forum is that pre-nups are pretty much anti-Christian.

The only supporter on there is one who's family has a quite a bit of wealth

It destroys the illusion of a gauranteed "happily ever after" marriage.Even if one is wealthy and the one they are marrying isnt..and they are NOT a gold digger..stuff can happen.

Not only that a pre-nup can be written as well to insure the "non -wealthy" spouse is protected as well.Where they dont invest their life ..and youth..and decades later get kicked to the curb dropped from one standard of living many many many notches down.

I dont get what the problem is..A marriage is a LEGALLY binding contract anyway..The Christian aspect of it is a declaration to God that is SEPERATE from the legal aspects.

Why involve legalities at all if all it is is a spiritual covenent between you and your spouse and a promise to God?Why not skip the legal contract which has nothing to do with religion ..and just have a ceremony if its so anti-Christian to have a legal add in of a pre-nupt ?

The marriage contract is to provide us with legal protection in the first place..and legal benenfits.Rights under the LAW of the land.And the fact of the matter is its disovable LEGALLY ..I say if needed and both agree to a pre-nupt its the intelligent thing to do.

Love

Dallas

 

[Luther073082]

It destroys the illusion of a gauanteed "happily ever after" marriage.Even if one is wealthy and the one they are marrying isnt..and they are NOT a gold digger..stuff can happen.

And I think this is the big problem that most have with it.

Now my wife and I didn't get a pre-nup, mostly because I always thought of it as something to do with wealth after the divorce. Since neither of us have a great deal of wealth, it really didn't matter.

But I do really like the idea of required couseling or something.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

Wow...can we stop and think about what a pre-nup COULD accomplish,...

A lot of what you think a pre-nup agreement does is already done by default in a regular divorce. Property that was owned before marriage stays with the persons who owned it. Child legal custody is the responsibility of both parents, physical custody is better left not evenly divided for the sake of the kids.

And, given the right motivation, there isn't a pre-nup that can't be modified if a divorce turns dirty.

 

[Conservativation]

No, what I am saying is not done by regular divorce, I can only speak to those in a couple of states. I know how it works with property brought in. There are standards and trails that must be followed in order that the assets are not later considered mixed. While I cant quote chapter and verse of the law which no doubt you can, I do know quite well practically speaking how it works. And its not as simple as saying that property owned simply stays with the one who owns it. For example deed changes, mixing equity accounts, blending cash accounts, all makes it common property. Anyway, I dont even care about that sol much

Its the other parts that I care about. Physical custody is indeed NOT better left unevenly divided for the sake of kids. Both parents then have to work so no one can say they are home more. There is NO reason to reduce a persons time with their children save some cause. Sure "custody" is joint, decisions etc. But domicile is what Im talking about. Now there are endless studies showing the detriment of disproportionate living and the requisite "visitation".

We were talking about what a church could do anyway, and though of course things can be broken, it (pre-nup) is a disincentive to continue the destruction of the family that unilateral frivolous divorce (accounts for the majority statistically) yields.

I'm interested in the idea that uneven physical custody is in the best interests of the child.....this has to be something cooked up by the bar, in order to propagate one of the highest billing legal specialties

 

[MacNeil, D.]

...
I'm interested in the idea that uneven physical custody is in the best interests of the child.....this has to be something cooked up by the bar, in order to propagate one of the highest billing legal specialties

Child psychologists seem to believe that a kid spending 3.5 days a week in different locations is a bad idea.

 

[Luther073082]

No, what I am saying is not done by regular divorce, I can only speak to those in a couple of states. I know how it works with property brought in. There are standards and trails that must be followed in order that the assets are not later considered mixed. While I cant quote chapter and verse of the law which no doubt you can, I do know quite well practically speaking how it works. And its not as simple as saying that property owned simply stays with the one who owns it. For example deed changes, mixing equity accounts, blending cash accounts, all makes it common property. Anyway, I dont even care about that sol much

Its the other parts that I care about. Physical custody is indeed NOT better left unevenly divided for the sake of kids. Both parents then have to work so no one can say they are home more. There is NO reason to reduce a persons time with their children save some cause. Sure "custody" is joint, decisions etc. But domicile is what Im talking about. Now there are endless studies showing the detriment of disproportionate living and the requisite "visitation".

We were talking about what a church could do anyway, and though of course things can be broken, it (pre-nup) is a disincentive to continue the destruction of the family that unilateral frivolous divorce (accounts for the majority statistically) yields.

I'm interested in the idea that uneven physical custody is in the best interests of the child.....this has to be something cooked up by the bar, in order to propagate one of the highest billing legal specialties

If you ask me, uneven physical custody makes divorces more likely.

Women are more likely to file and lo and behold they are almost always the ones who get the physical custody.

People talk about how women are financially worse off after divorce. . . and no doubt they are. But they act like this discourages divorce. . ., thing is money isn't everything. The most important thing to both parents is the kids and the time spent with the kids. That by itself is more valuable to both parents then all the other material things combined.

For a woman, divorce is little different from kicking her husband out of the family at the expense of his income and some of your things. A much smaller price to pay then losing your entire family. . . and some of your things.

 

[Conservativation]

Child psychologists seem to believe that a kid spending 3.5 days a week in different locations is a bad idea.

OK

Now back to the topic of even physical custody (in a world with more numbers to divide by 2, besides 7, the imagination runs wild, 14, 20, 30....the possibilities are limitless.
Court appointed child psychologists? Because I guess you could say this is my hobby, family law and divorce and children and impacts etc. the preponderance of professional opinion indeed, regardless of whether kids move back and forth, assuming they are in the same vicinity (which also should be mandated lacking mutual agreement and in many states it is)

Luther you are correct, shared custody IMMEDIATELY drops divorce rates. The primary driver for getting over the hum so to speak divorce filing is who will "get the kids"

 

[MacNeil, D.]

OK

Now back to the topic of even physical custody (in a world with more numbers to divide by 2, besides 7, the imagination runs wild, 14, 20, 30....the possibilities are limitless.
Court appointed child psychologists? Because I guess you could say this is my hobby, family law and divorce and children and impacts etc. the preponderance of professional opinion indeed, regardless of whether kids move back and forth, assuming they are in the same vicinity (which also should be mandated lacking mutual agreement and in many states it is)

Luther you are correct, shared custody IMMEDIATELY drops divorce rates. The primary driver for getting over the hum so to speak divorce filing is who will "get the kids"

Evidence? I'm just asking because of the naked assertion you're making. Not that I believe it one way or the other.

What a boring hobby.

 

[Hipsterz]

for me, the answert is a clear no, I'd go so far as to say that when I'm ordained, I won't marry a couple if they've signed a prenup

Good for you. The man should be raked over the coals by default if the couple has children and eventually divorces. No prenups indeed.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

Good for you. The man should be raked over the coals by default if the couple has children and eventually divorces. No prenups indeed.

A prenup can't deny anything to the child that the kid is otherwise entitled to. Can't reduce child support.

 

[Hipsterz]

A prenup can't deny anything to the child that the kid is otherwise entitled to. Can't reduce child support.

It can if it defines how much custody each parent will have. It can reduce or deny alimony. It can define who owns what if the couple splits. ie She doesn't automatically get the house.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

It can if it defines how much custody each parent will have. It can reduce or deny alimony. It can define who owns what if the couple splits. ie She doesn't automatically get the house.

this is a primer on legal and physical custody.

Legal Custody and Physical Custody in California | divorcenet.com

If there's enough money at stake and because any prenup can be broken, they are often modified. (If there's not enough property at stake, its not worth the effort, can't squeeze blood from a turnip)

 

[Conservativation]

Evidence? I'm just asking because of the naked assertion you're making. Not that I believe it one way or the other.

What a boring hobby.

Beats navel gazing

Asking what? I didn't see a question. I saw an assertion that uneven physical custody is better for children. Whats the question?

I made no naked assertion. If I was dealing with a reasonable person I would post source after source, it would be creepy though.

Let me ask then what gives you the impression its better for kids?

If you have a genuine interest in statistics about children and divorce I will gladly provide them, with links to sources that do not begin with wiki

I'm actually not that interested in CA law on much of anything. Take that as you wish. There is not a single state though that has joint physical custody as the presumed starting point from which the court can deviate, or the mediators, or however the case is decided. Its been tried, referendum etc., and failed each time.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

Beats navel gazing

Asking what? I didn't see a question. I saw an assertion that uneven physical custody is better for children. Whats the question?

I made no naked assertion. If I was dealing with a reasonable person I would post source after source, it would be creepy though.

Let me ask then what gives you the impression its better for kids?

If you have a genuine interest in statistics about children and divorce I will gladly provide them, with links to sources that do not begin with wiki

I'm actually not that interested in CA law on much of anything. Take that as you wish. There is not a single state though that has joint physical custody as the presumed starting point from which the court can deviate, or the mediators, or however the case is decided. Its been tried, referendum etc., and failed each time.

(emphasis added)

You have nothing. I didn't expect anything, but I thought I'd ask.

The phrase is "were dealing", not "was dealing". The subjunctive mode is your friend, don't be a rube.