That is amazing...hi, this is my wife, she will now be working weekends so she can make her half of the house payment since she earns less.... Or hey this is my husband, he became incapacitated due to an injury so I tossed him off a cliff....
Are they going in with some sort of prenuptual agreement? Has anyone here ever gone into marriage with a prenup?
Nick
You think thats bad? I didn't even tell half the story! Here's another example:
That house they bought. It is 1 mile from his job. It is 45 miles from her job!! Since she has to drive further for work, she convinced him that he should buy the groceries every week. So he agreed but he won't buy things like ice cream or junk food because he doesn't want to eat them. So everytime she puts ice cream in the shopping cart, he makes her put it back! What a dickbag.
I don't know if they're doing a prenup. I really doubt it but its not my place to ask anyway.
Isn't money the number one reason people get divorced?
You think thats bad? I didn't even tell half the story! Here's another example:
That house they bought. It is 1 mile from his job. It is 45 miles from her job!! Since she has to drive further for work, she convinced him that he should buy the groceries every week. So he agreed but he won't buy things like ice cream or junk food because he doesn't want to eat them. So everytime she puts ice cream in the shopping cart, he makes her put it back! What a dickbag.
I don't know if they're doing a prenup. I really doubt it but its not my place to ask anyway.
Isn't money the number one reason people get divorced?
Well he could have a serious problem with sweets or one of them could have a health problem like diabetes. I was doing quite fine with my own weight until someone introduced me to Tin Roof Ice Cream which I seem to eat by the gallon.
I'm just saying there could be valid reasons for what he does. I don't see how they could continue what they are doing without a prenup. I mean I can't see how it would be possible to keep seperate what the law puts together after you are married. She could for example, just quit that second job after they marry. How would he make her go work it? He couldn't.
My wife decided to stay home while our children are basically less than school age. She will have basically been off work 8-9 years when our second one hits either kinder, or first grade. She has discussed homeschooling them, but she is not a very social person and I worry about their socialogical development so that is probably out.
Willoughby: they'll be divorced in less than 10 years. I guarantee it. They're obviously both self-centered people and both paranoid of "having to give more than 50%" in any respect. They're doomed. Not to be an asshole, but that is just insane. It's like they're saying "well I'm only going to give as much as you do / going to put as much effort in as you do." Bullshit if you ask me. You put 100% into your marriage as often as you can, you don't look at everything as a "matching contribution".
Glad to hear you're so much more the mature, giving spouse than they are with each other. Sounds like you and the Mrs. are on the right track.
As far as pre-nups, I know in theory it's a good idea because in the event of a divorce, there is no bickering over "things". This is especially important if you have kids because it's bad enough they have to see their parents separate. To see them fight over unimportant objects the last six months they are together would be hell.
However, to me, a pre-nup is almost the same as saying "well, the odds are our relationship is going to fail, so let's just hedge our bets so we can keep all our own stuff afterwards." It's very childish in a way. Like you're predicting a broken marriage and the only thing you care about is your "stuff". I dunno. My brother got taken for a ride by his ex-bitch (sorry, wife) and I know he would've been better off with a pre-nup once the breakdown happened, but...
...I dunno. Just seems defeatist at a time when you should be optimistic / open-minded about things.
It's not "defeatist" in the slightest. Given the odds, it is a completely justified contingency. It is no worse than using a condom to prevent pregnancy. If you go unprotected, you might still get away with it, but hoping to get away with it is just silly.
It's not "defeatist" in the slightest. Given the odds, it is a completely justified contingency. It is no worse than using a condom to prevent pregnancy. If you go unprotected, you might still get away with it, but hoping to get away with it is just silly.
I can agree with that view. 50% divorce rate means you should probably take some precautions.
I have also heard of some prenups that dealt with behaviors instead of financial matters. They might say things like someone who has given up smoking cannot take it up again. I've read of some that go quite in depth with regard to personal habits, etc.
To me, in some ways, cohabitating seems almost like a binding prenup. I've several couples where the women will basically live with the guy while waiting to see if he gets his financial house in order, gets motivated for a good job, etc. Likewise I've seen folks live together while issues from a former marriage pan out. Things like support orders, and things of that nature.
A few weeks ago there was a thread about civil unions and marriage for homosexuals. In that thread I contended that civil unions were good not only for homosexuals but also for heterosexuals who thought the concept of marriage was antiquated.
I fail to see what the difference is between a civil union and a marriage As far as I understand it marriage == civil union.
If they introduced civil unions for hetrosexuals what would be the difference between being married (as I am) and getting a civil union?
I fail to see what the difference is between a civil union and a marriage As far as I understand it marriage == civil union.
If they introduced civil unions for hetrosexuals what would be the difference between being married (as I am) and getting a civil union?
The difference (in my opinion) would basically be not using a word that some groups consider associated with church/religion, patriachy, or other beliefs that they consider baggage.
I was married in a church. Even when say a judge performs the ceremony, it is still called a marriage and can have religious overtones. For folks that hate religion to a degree that they don't want their union tainted with a term with religious history, I say they can call it a civil union and have the exact same results with regard to legal and tax benefits.
Woman: Wow, you're very attractive. Are you married?
Man: No, but-- I got civil unioned two years ago. Or did I get civilly united? Or am I in civil unity?
You think this is any more awkward than explaining "No, but I've bought a house, had two children and have been cohabitating with my girlfriend for 12 years."
What? He's tried everything else, it's obvious that's what she wants--so do it, or don't do it, but it isn't a mystery as to what he could do to make her happy.
What? He's tried everything else, it's obvious that's what she wants--so do it, or don't do it, but it isn't a mystery as to what he could do to make her happy.
That he was me, and I'll do everything in my power to keep her happy (and she is, thank you very much), but I will not just marry for the sake of marriage. It's simply not in me. Like I said, she's just starting to mention marriage and kids and such, but at this point she's just testing the waters to some extent. She sees me frolicing around with my nephews and nieces and expects I want kids because I'm having so much fun. I don't. We see her happy happy happy girlfriends getting married to guys that they will cheat on and eventually divorce in 5 years and she wonders if *we* should be the ones up there on the stage. We shouldn't.
It's a gentle dance we all do with those we love. Marriage is best and works well for some. I, for one, believe in the union and not the sacrament.
I'd like to believe that she stays with me and loves me for what I do and say, not because we are bound by a contract she knows I don't believe in.
I don't care--people were asking what it was that she wanted, so i was simply stating the obvious. Sounds like you have this all worked out, so it would seem posting to this thread is unnecessary--you appear to have the situation well in hand.
Why only allow homosexuals to have civil unions? I believe I covered this already. Perhaps you should read the thread.
Nick,
Would you support a system where the government only acknowledged civil unions, and that a marriage church or not would be a personal ceremony? So, a couple that gets married would still have to go through a 5 minute official government procedure or sign a document. Also, any reference to it in government or public sectors would refer to civil unions.
I only ask because this would help prevent discrimination against one group or the other, either people that have been married or more likely those with civil unions. This would level the playing field somewhat.
I hope this isn't off topic. One odd trend I seem to see these days is the married couple who split up but don't divorce. Then they end up cohabitating with someone else, or have an open marriage. Another rare ananmoly I sometimes notice is the married couple that divorces and then gets back together and don't remarry.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
That is amazing...hi, this is my wife, she will now be working weekends so she can make her half of the house payment since she earns less....
Are they going in with some sort of prenuptual agreement? Has anyone here ever gone into marriage with a prenup?
Nick
You think thats bad? I didn't even tell half the story! Here's another example:
That house they bought. It is 1 mile from his job. It is 45 miles from her job!! Since she has to drive further for work, she convinced him that he should buy the groceries every week. So he agreed but he won't buy things like ice cream or junk food because he doesn't want to eat them. So everytime she puts ice cream in the shopping cart, he makes her put it back! What a dickbag.
I don't know if they're doing a prenup. I really doubt it but its not my place to ask anyway.
Isn't money the number one reason people get divorced?
Originally posted by Willoughby
You think thats bad? I didn't even tell half the story! Here's another example:
That house they bought. It is 1 mile from his job. It is 45 miles from her job!! Since she has to drive further for work, she convinced him that he should buy the groceries every week. So he agreed but he won't buy things like ice cream or junk food because he doesn't want to eat them. So everytime she puts ice cream in the shopping cart, he makes her put it back! What a dickbag.
I don't know if they're doing a prenup. I really doubt it but its not my place to ask anyway.
Isn't money the number one reason people get divorced?
Well he could have a serious problem with sweets or one of them could have a health problem like diabetes. I was doing quite fine with my own weight until someone introduced me to Tin Roof Ice Cream which I seem to eat by the gallon.
I'm just saying there could be valid reasons for what he does. I don't see how they could continue what they are doing without a prenup. I mean I can't see how it would be possible to keep seperate what the law puts together after you are married. She could for example, just quit that second job after they marry. How would he make her go work it? He couldn't.
My wife decided to stay home while our children are basically less than school age. She will have basically been off work 8-9 years when our second one hits either kinder, or first grade. She has discussed homeschooling them, but she is not a very social person and I worry about their socialogical development so that is probably out.
Nick
Glad to hear you're so much more the mature, giving spouse than they are with each other. Sounds like you and the Mrs. are on the right track.
As far as pre-nups, I know in theory it's a good idea because in the event of a divorce, there is no bickering over "things". This is especially important if you have kids because it's bad enough they have to see their parents separate. To see them fight over unimportant objects the last six months they are together would be hell.
However, to me, a pre-nup is almost the same as saying "well, the odds are our relationship is going to fail, so let's just hedge our bets so we can keep all our own stuff afterwards." It's very childish in a way. Like you're predicting a broken marriage and the only thing you care about is your "stuff". I dunno. My brother got taken for a ride by his ex-bitch (sorry, wife) and I know he would've been better off with a pre-nup once the breakdown happened, but...
...I dunno. Just seems defeatist at a time when you should be optimistic / open-minded about things.
Originally posted by Randycat99
It's not "defeatist" in the slightest. Given the odds, it is a completely justified contingency. It is no worse than using a condom to prevent pregnancy. If you go unprotected, you might still get away with it, but hoping to get away with it is just silly.
I can agree with that view. 50% divorce rate means you should probably take some precautions.
I have also heard of some prenups that dealt with behaviors instead of financial matters. They might say things like someone who has given up smoking cannot take it up again. I've read of some that go quite in depth with regard to personal habits, etc.
To me, in some ways, cohabitating seems almost like a binding prenup. I've several couples where the women will basically live with the guy while waiting to see if he gets his financial house in order, gets motivated for a good job, etc. Likewise I've seen folks live together while issues from a former marriage pan out. Things like support orders, and things of that nature.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
A few weeks ago there was a thread about civil unions and marriage for homosexuals. In that thread I contended that civil unions were good not only for homosexuals but also for heterosexuals who thought the concept of marriage was antiquated.
I fail to see what the difference is between a civil union and a marriage As far as I understand it marriage == civil union.
If they introduced civil unions for hetrosexuals what would be the difference between being married (as I am) and getting a civil union?
Originally posted by Bygimis Turug VIII
I fail to see what the difference is between a civil union and a marriage As far as I understand it marriage == civil union.
If they introduced civil unions for hetrosexuals what would be the difference between being married (as I am) and getting a civil union?
The difference (in my opinion) would basically be not using a word that some groups consider associated with church/religion, patriachy, or other beliefs that they consider baggage.
I was married in a church. Even when say a judge performs the ceremony, it is still called a marriage and can have religious overtones. For folks that hate religion to a degree that they don't want their union tainted with a term with religious history, I say they can call it a civil union and have the exact same results with regard to legal and tax benefits.
Nick
Woman: Wow, you're very attractive. Are you married?
Man: No, but-- I got civil unioned two years ago. Or did I get civilly united? Or am I in civil unity?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I can just see the supermarket conversations:
Woman: Wow, you're very attractive. Are you married?
Man: No, but-- I got civil unioned two years ago. Or did I get civilly united? Or am I in civil unity?
You think this is any more awkward than explaining "No, but I've bought a house, had two children and have been cohabitating with my girlfriend for 12 years."
Nick
Originally posted by mrmister
That's an easy one.
Get. ****ing. Married.
Hey...you asked.
Yes, and your insightful reasoning and arguments are unprecedented.
Originally posted by mrmister
What? He's tried everything else, it's obvious that's what she wants--so do it, or don't do it, but it isn't a mystery as to what he could do to make her happy.
That he was me, and I'll do everything in my power to keep her happy (and she is, thank you very much), but I will not just marry for the sake of marriage. It's simply not in me. Like I said, she's just starting to mention marriage and kids and such, but at this point she's just testing the waters to some extent. She sees me frolicing around with my nephews and nieces and expects I want kids because I'm having so much fun. I don't. We see her happy happy happy girlfriends getting married to guys that they will cheat on and eventually divorce in 5 years and she wonders if *we* should be the ones up there on the stage. We shouldn't.
It's a gentle dance we all do with those we love. Marriage is best and works well for some. I, for one, believe in the union and not the sacrament.
I'd like to believe that she stays with me and loves me for what I do and say, not because we are bound by a contract she knows I don't believe in.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I can just see the supermarket conversations:
Woman: Wow, you're very attractive. Are you married?
Now why doesn´t that ever happens to me?
Why have two terms to describe the same relationship? That is, why call heterosexual marriage "marriage" and homosexual marriage "civil unions."
Fundamentally-- is there any reason?
(Personally, I'd like to piss off the religious right by not distinguishing between the two by name.)
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Fundamentally-- is there any reason?
Fundamental religion....
Originally posted by ShawnJ
My question is...
Why have two terms to describe the same relationship? That is, why call heterosexual marriage "marriage" and homosexual marriage "civil unions."
Fundamentally-- is there any reason?
(Personally, I'd like to piss off the religious right by not distinguishing between the two by name.)
Why only allow homosexuals to have civil unions? I believe I covered this already. Perhaps you should read the thread.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Why only allow homosexuals to have civil unions? I believe I covered this already. Perhaps you should read the thread.
Nick,
Would you support a system where the government only acknowledged civil unions, and that a marriage church or not would be a personal ceremony? So, a couple that gets married would still have to go through a 5 minute official government procedure or sign a document. Also, any reference to it in government or public sectors would refer to civil unions.
I only ask because this would help prevent discrimination against one group or the other, either people that have been married or more likely those with civil unions. This would level the playing field somewhat.