[Marriage] Prenuptial Agreements - what does CF think?

I am for them if I make more money. If she makes more then not so much.

 

Well said, like your analogy and couldn't agree more. The aggressive romantification of marriage makes people turn blind regarding the possible huge financial burden that comes with divorce, especially given the high divorce rates.

It's essentially the same as an insurance, yet none of the nay sayers would decline an insurance and say they trust traffic and their car.

 

I'm not for them. Marriages depend on trust. If you don't trust your would be spouse, don't get married.

Granted, I value the marriage much more than potential money losses.

 

If I were a billionaire, I would not be getting married. What would be the upside?

 

Let's make it clear, this thread is a tangent to the "Russian Billionaire Divorce Settlement", and we are not discussing the same topic.

I think that a prenup generally is not a good idea, but in a certain case a prenup might be the prudent thing to do. I agree totally with Joe Joe, you have to trust the person you are going to marry, if not the marriage is doomed from the very beginning! If you don't trust him/her, why marry them?

The only scenario that I personally think where a prenup might be a wise and prudent choice is if you have children from a previous marriage (you're a widow). If I'm getting married again, I'm have to look out for my children/grandchilden's future, and what I'm going to leave them when I die! I can't take ANY chances that my second marriage ends up in divorce, and my children's future stability is taken from them! I have to make sure that whatever wealth I've been able to accumulate benefits them and not someone else! In other words the prenup isn't for me and my wealth, but for my children/grandchildren and their future!
.......
.......
.......

 

love

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/venzPNvge18" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Prenup has nothing to do with trust. Every second marriage ends in divorce and it's only natural that a lot of couples end up losing attraction and can not continue.

It doesn't mean you don't trust a partner if you want to be prepared in the unfortunate case of a divorce, it just means you don't rule out anything bad happening and want to be in control afterwards.
O

Of course you marry in order to be together forever in the best case, but it's still smart to have an insurance just in case. Again, half of marriages end up in divorce and its no terrible or rare thing, it doesn't mean you don't value or hate your partner, sometimes it's just better to divorce and move on.

 

Everybody who gets married in Texas (or any other state for that matter) already has a prenup - it's what the state's divorce laws dictate. The only question is whether you want to substitute your own prenup for the state's default prenup.

 

Don't get married if you aren't fully committed and trusting of the woman

 

This thread is a spinoff of the Billionaire thread where you are making an argument that isn't relevant to this thread at all.

If couples want a prenup before they get married, go for it. I have no problem with them choosing to do that.

That was not the case in the marriage of the billionaire.

Here's a point though about that case and a prenup. Most people who get married before they've made any real money would not have a prenup that would preclude a spouse from getting any of the future earnings.

 

The statement you quoted is 100% about this thread and not about the billionaire. Read before replying.

 

Trust is a belief in reliability. Being prepared for something to be unreliable is the opposite of trust.

If your spouses marriage vows aren't the only assurance you need in the reliability in marriage, you don't trust them and probably shouldn't be marrying them. My experience are that the people that don't trust others, generally aren't trustworthy. Granted, I don't think most people are trustworthy enough to be getting married.

 

You read before replying.

I said "This thread" is a spinoff of the billionaire thread "where you are making an argument."

Let's break this down. In that sentence, the "where you are making an argument" refers to the "billionaire thread." I then say you argument in the billionaire thread has nothing to do with THIS thread.

 

I didn't mention the billionaire with one word, neither did my sentiments go along with his story here. I don't know why you even brought it up or talk about my points in the other thead, it makes no sense. Either reply to this thread and my general thoughts about prenup or don't say anything.

 

so why get married a second time? by your definition you don't trust your second fiance. what you want to leave to your children is irrelevant. shouldn't you have looked out for yourself (and future children) with a prenup in the first marriage?

 

Is thread spawned out of that thread?

If you say yes then you understand what my post was referencing.

If you say no then you are wrong.

 

This, he completely contradicts himself with his sentiments about a second marriage.

If he's already divorced he suddenly has to look out for his children, but when engaging for the first time it's completely irrelevant?

You either care for your financial security or you don't.

 

Yes it did, but his thread is about the general sentiments and has nothing to do with the billionaire and the discussion should stay with that.

 

When Clutch gives you the power to control what people discuss in a thread, you let me know and I will follow your instructions.