The topic of abused women came up recently in a discussion, and something kind of dawned on me about this. There are resources for basically intervening to rescue women from their abusive husbands--I would think rightly so.
So I don't think this thought is terribly complicated. Why is the idea of women being protected from their husbands acceptable, but husbands protecting themselves with a prenuptual agreement not as acceptable in the eyes of some? The sentiment is exactly the same, regardless about what this allegedly says about one spouse not fully trusting the other. That is, no matter how much a woman says she trusts her husband, I don't think too many mind all that terribly that at least SOME resources exist to protect her from her husband in a worst-case-scenario. A prenup is the same thing, given the high likelihood of divorce today (especially of a wife divorcing her husband) and a husband being enslaved by the end result of divorce court.
I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.
: chosenone Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 22:54:12
I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.
Well, only if SHE divorces HIM. Not the other way around. Is that possible with prenups? Like, not providing for the case that he divorces her for unbiblical reasons.
If not, you're not seeing the double-standard: it is perfectly fine for wives to think "protection from my husband" but not husbands "protection from my wife."
Men have gotten destroyed by no-fault divorces. Occasionally it happens to women too, but it's a very real danger for men.
: Cally Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 23:41:37
: chosenone Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 22:54:12
I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.
Well, only if SHE divorces HIM. Not the other way around. Is that possible with prenups? Like, not providing for the case that he divorces her for unbiblical reasons.
If not, you're not seeing the double-standard: it is perfectly fine for wives to think "protection from my husband" but not husbands "protection from my wife."
Men have gotten destroyed by no-fault divorces. Occasionally it happens to women too, but it's a very real danger for men.
Both sexes should be able to get help if they are abused, I cant see its the same thing at all. Many women divorce their husbands because they cheated in my experience, not because they are fed up and want out. When you marry, in my opinion whatever either has, now belongs to both of you, there is no 'yours' or 'mine'. What was 'my' house is now 'our' house. So if you are rich and want to keep it all for yourself, don't get married is my advise unless you completely trust the person you want to marry.
I don't think that pre-nups have any place in a Christian marriage. If I didn't trust my husband to act with integrity and fairness what ever happened, I would never have married him.
: chosenone Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 23:57:39
: Cally Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 23:41:37
: chosenone Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 22:54:12
I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.
Well, only if SHE divorces HIM. Not the other way around. Is that possible with prenups? Like, not providing for the case that he divorces her for unbiblical reasons.
If not, you're not seeing the double-standard: it is perfectly fine for wives to think "protection from my husband" but not husbands "protection from my wife."
Men have gotten destroyed by no-fault divorces. Occasionally it happens to women too, but it's a very real danger for men.
Both sexes should be able to get help if they are abused, I cant see its the same thing at all. Many women divorce their husbands because they cheated in my experience, not because they are fed up and want out. When you marry, in my opinion whatever either has, now belongs to both of you, there is no 'yours' or 'mine'. What was 'my' house is now 'our' house. So if you are rich and want to keep it all for yourself, don't get married is my advise unless you completely trust the person you want to marry.
I don't think that pre-nups have any place in a Christian marriage. If I didn't trust my husband to act with integrity and fairness what ever happened, I would never have married him.
If we are all on the hook to completely trust whomever we marry (male and female) then resources for domestic violence shouldn't exist. It's the same reason law enforcement/police exist, because we don't completely trust our neighbors, etc. We call for the existence of domestic violence resources (biased heavily toward women, of course) because of the fact that wives don't have 100% trust in their spouses.
The "trust" argument falls flat. I don't believe a man or woman has the right to divorce his/her spouse except for marital unfaithfulness, but there are many "no-fault" divorces.
: Cally Sat Jan 25, 2014 - 00:06:45
: chosenone Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 23:57:39
: Cally Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 23:41:37
: chosenone Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 22:54:12
I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.
Well, only if SHE divorces HIM. Not the other way around. Is that possible with prenups? Like, not providing for the case that he divorces her for unbiblical reasons.
If not, you're not seeing the double-standard: it is perfectly fine for wives to think "protection from my husband" but not husbands "protection from my wife."
Men have gotten destroyed by no-fault divorces. Occasionally it happens to women too, but it's a very real danger for men.
Both sexes should be able to get help if they are abused, I cant see its the same thing at all. Many women divorce their husbands because they cheated in my experience, not because they are fed up and want out. When you marry, in my opinion whatever either has, now belongs to both of you, there is no 'yours' or 'mine'. What was 'my' house is now 'our' house. So if you are rich and want to keep it all for yourself, don't get married is my advise unless you completely trust the person you want to marry.
I don't think that pre-nups have any place in a Christian marriage. If I didn't trust my husband to act with integrity and fairness what ever happened, I would never have married him.
If we are all on the hook to completely trust whomever we marry (male and female) then resources for domestic violence shouldn't exist. It's the same reason law enforcement/police exist, because we don't completely trust our neighbors, etc. We call for the existence of domestic violence resources (biased heavily toward women, of course) because of the fact that wives don't have 100% trust in their spouses.
The "trust" argument falls flat. I don't believe a man or woman has the right to divorce his/her spouse except for marital unfaithfulness, but there are many "no-fault" divorces.
I am talking about Christian marriages here. If you know that God has bought you together with someone, then you should be able to trust them. Many people make stupid decisions, marrying people who they know are abusive or on drugs or who drink heavily or who have already hit them.
Also we should be able to trust God with whatever may happen in the future financially or otherwise. As in my husbands case he gave his ex the house so he had to rent a room in a house with other people, not ideal, but we met very quickly and married in 9 months, so God restored both a wife and a house in one go. He promises to restore all that we loose through no fault of our own.
: chosenone Sat Jan 25, 2014 - 03:30:30
: Cally Sat Jan 25, 2014 - 00:06:45
: chosenone Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 23:57:39
: Cally Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 23:41:37
: chosenone Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 22:54:12
I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.
Well, only if SHE divorces HIM. Not the other way around. Is that possible with prenups? Like, not providing for the case that he divorces her for unbiblical reasons.
If not, you're not seeing the double-standard: it is perfectly fine for wives to think "protection from my husband" but not husbands "protection from my wife."
Men have gotten destroyed by no-fault divorces. Occasionally it happens to women too, but it's a very real danger for men.
Both sexes should be able to get help if they are abused, I cant see its the same thing at all. Many women divorce their husbands because they cheated in my experience, not because they are fed up and want out. When you marry, in my opinion whatever either has, now belongs to both of you, there is no 'yours' or 'mine'. What was 'my' house is now 'our' house. So if you are rich and want to keep it all for yourself, don't get married is my advise unless you completely trust the person you want to marry.
I don't think that pre-nups have any place in a Christian marriage. If I didn't trust my husband to act with integrity and fairness what ever happened, I would never have married him.
If we are all on the hook to completely trust whomever we marry (male and female) then resources for domestic violence shouldn't exist. It's the same reason law enforcement/police exist, because we don't completely trust our neighbors, etc. We call for the existence of domestic violence resources (biased heavily toward women, of course) because of the fact that wives don't have 100% trust in their spouses.
The "trust" argument falls flat. I don't believe a man or woman has the right to divorce his/her spouse except for marital unfaithfulness, but there are many "no-fault" divorces.
I am talking about Christian marriages here. If you know that God has bought you together with someone, then you should be able to trust them. Many people make stupid decisions, marrying people who they know are abusive or on drugs or who drink heavily or who have already hit them.
Those situations are miserable in any case, but women tend to have help available--men tend to have nothing. Yes, people tend to make "stupid decisions" but in any such case, that doesn't mean that some protection shouldn't exist if a woman unknowingly (or even knowningly) married an abusive man or a man married a marriage profiteer.
: Cally Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 18:43:58
Why is the idea of women being protected from their husbands acceptable, but husbands protecting themselves with a prenuptual agreement not as acceptable in the eyes of some?
Most women who seek protection from their husbands comes some time AFTER they are married, while a pre-nup BY DEFINITION has to come prior to the wedding.
Who would put a restraining order in place before the wedding?
: Cally Sat Jan 25, 2014 - 13:26:51
: chosenone Sat Jan 25, 2014 - 03:30:30
: Cally Sat Jan 25, 2014 - 00:06:45
: chosenone Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 23:57:39
: Cally Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 23:41:37
: chosenone Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 22:54:12
I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.
Well, only if SHE divorces HIM. Not the other way around. Is that possible with prenups? Like, not providing for the case that he divorces her for unbiblical reasons.
If not, you're not seeing the double-standard: it is perfectly fine for wives to think "protection from my husband" but not husbands "protection from my wife."
Men have gotten destroyed by no-fault divorces. Occasionally it happens to women too, but it's a very real danger for men.
Both sexes should be able to get help if they are abused, I cant see its the same thing at all. Many women divorce their husbands because they cheated in my experience, not because they are fed up and want out. When you marry, in my opinion whatever either has, now belongs to both of you, there is no 'yours' or 'mine'. What was 'my' house is now 'our' house. So if you are rich and want to keep it all for yourself, don't get married is my advise unless you completely trust the person you want to marry.
I don't think that pre-nups have any place in a Christian marriage. If I didn't trust my husband to act with integrity and fairness what ever happened, I would never have married him.
If we are all on the hook to completely trust whomever we marry (male and female) then resources for domestic violence shouldn't exist. It's the same reason law enforcement/police exist, because we don't completely trust our neighbors, etc. We call for the existence of domestic violence resources (biased heavily toward women, of course) because of the fact that wives don't have 100% trust in their spouses.
The "trust" argument falls flat. I don't believe a man or woman has the right to divorce his/her spouse except for marital unfaithfulness, but there are many "no-fault" divorces.
I am talking about Christian marriages here. If you know that God has bought you together with someone, then you should be able to trust them. Many people make stupid decisions, marrying people who they know are abusive or on drugs or who drink heavily or who have already hit them.
Those situations are miserable in any case, but women tend to have help available--men tend to have nothing. Yes, people tend to make "stupid decisions" but in any such case, that doesn't mean that some protection shouldn't exist if a woman unknowingly (or even knowningly) married an abusive man or a man married a marriage profiteer.
If you think that a woman is only after your money, and aren't sure that she is Gods choice for you, then dont marry her. Many women who marry today have more assets than their husbands do, as I did. I had a house and he had nothing. Many women earn more than their husbands do as well. It never occurred to me to get a pre-nup because he is a decent godly man with integrity and high moral values. I also saw the decent way he treated his ex wife, by GIVING her the house. He also doesn't believe in divorce(his wife divorced him against his will).
Also I dont believe in prenups because I believe that when you marry all that either of you owns belongs to both of you. If there is talk of 'your' money or 'my' money, or 'your 'house or 'my' house, then what does that say about your marriage? The two clearly haven't become one. The 100% commitment isn't there. Why cant you trust God for your future, rather than thinking of trying to protect yourself.
I agree that there is more support for abused women, but that's because there ARE more abused women.
: chosenone Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 07:19:24
I agree that there is more support for abused women, but that's because there ARE more abused women.
Maybe - or maybe not.
"Abused men" is considered an oxymoron in this culture; even with "burning beds" and Lorrena Bobbit and other examples to the contrary. (of course those may be discounted as "self defense")
Men do not report abuse. (no one would believe them or would be considered wusses or 'girly men') So if it goes unreported, the statistics are going to be skewed.
It would be good if people actually know what a prenuptial is before they argue over it.
See, a prenup simply is a description of which assets each partner brings into the marriage. What is acquired during the marriage is still subject to equal division.
Now you have people saying that a prenup is something unchristian.
Is it? What about the businessman who has a company with another partner who wants to marry a lovely lady with a hole in her hand?
Should the company possibly fall apart if one of the partners dies and their incapable partner takes over?
How about a family who has a trust fund for relatives? Should one of the in-marrying family members be allowed to tear up a trust fund?
You know what is funny?
We may all have something against prenups, but having a will is totally accepted.
Can anyone tell me the difference? I cannot have a prenup because somehow that shows I do not trust my wife, but I am allowed to decide what happens to my money after I die.
Well, to satisfy those who want to bring religion to the table...maybe I should do it the Biblical way and decide to leave everything I have to my eldest son.
I am pretty sure my wife and rest of the kids will get over it.
: DaveW Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 07:38:48
: chosenone Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 07:19:24
I agree that there is more support for abused women, but that's because there ARE more abused women.
Maybe - or maybe not.
"Abused men" is considered an oxymoron in this culture; even with "burning beds" and Lorrena Bobbit and other examples to the contrary. (of course those may be discounted as "self defense")
Men do not report abuse. (no one would believe them or would be considered wusses or 'girly men') So if it goes unreported, the statistics are going to be skewed.
Thats true, but I think you will agree that when it comes to physical and sexual abuse the main victims are women. Just the same as most violent crimes and sexual assaults/rapes are carried out by men.
: AVZ Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 08:02:34
It would be good if people actually know what a prenuptial is before they argue over it.
See, a prenup simply is a description of which assets each partner brings into the marriage. What is acquired during the marriage is still subject to equal division.
Now you have people saying that a prenup is something unchristian.
Is it? What about the businessman who has a company with another partner who wants to marry a lovely lady with a hole in her hand?
Should the company possibly fall apart if one of the partners dies and their incapable partner takes over?
How about a family who has a trust fund for relatives? Should one of the in-marrying family members be allowed to tear up a trust fund?
You know what is funny?
We may all have something against prenups, but having a will is totally accepted.
Can anyone tell me the difference? I cannot have a prenup because somehow that shows I do not trust my wife, but I am allowed to decide what happens to my money after I die.
Well, to satisfy those who want to bring religion to the table...maybe I should do it the Biblical way and decide to leave everything I have to my eldest son.
I am pretty sure my wife and rest of the kids will get over it.
Mutually deciding together with our spouses what happens to our assets after we both die is totally different.
A pre-nup is preparing for what happens if there is a DIVORCE, and yes I do know what it is because my solicitor suggested that I get one when I married my husband. I said no. I am sure his intentions were good, (he had dealt with my previous divorce) but its not for me. All I have is my husbands and all he has is mine, whether we had it before marriage or we have got it after marriage.
If a person is so concerned about material possessions that he cant trust God or his spouse, then to me that shows something is very wrong.
: chosenone Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 07:19:24
: Cally Sat Jan 25, 2014 - 13:26:51
: chosenone Sat Jan 25, 2014 - 03:30:30
: Cally Sat Jan 25, 2014 - 00:06:45
: chosenone Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 23:57:39
: Cally Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 23:41:37
: chosenone Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 22:54:12
I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.
Well, only if SHE divorces HIM. Not the other way around. Is that possible with prenups? Like, not providing for the case that he divorces her for unbiblical reasons.
If not, you're not seeing the double-standard: it is perfectly fine for wives to think "protection from my husband" but not husbands "protection from my wife."
Men have gotten destroyed by no-fault divorces. Occasionally it happens to women too, but it's a very real danger for men.
Both sexes should be able to get help if they are abused, I cant see its the same thing at all. Many women divorce their husbands because they cheated in my experience, not because they are fed up and want out. When you marry, in my opinion whatever either has, now belongs to both of you, there is no 'yours' or 'mine'. What was 'my' house is now 'our' house. So if you are rich and want to keep it all for yourself, don't get married is my advise unless you completely trust the person you want to marry.
I don't think that pre-nups have any place in a Christian marriage. If I didn't trust my husband to act with integrity and fairness what ever happened, I would never have married him.
If we are all on the hook to completely trust whomever we marry (male and female) then resources for domestic violence shouldn't exist. It's the same reason law enforcement/police exist, because we don't completely trust our neighbors, etc. We call for the existence of domestic violence resources (biased heavily toward women, of course) because of the fact that wives don't have 100% trust in their spouses.
The "trust" argument falls flat. I don't believe a man or woman has the right to divorce his/her spouse except for marital unfaithfulness, but there are many "no-fault" divorces.
I am talking about Christian marriages here. If you know that God has bought you together with someone, then you should be able to trust them. Many people make stupid decisions, marrying people who they know are abusive or on drugs or who drink heavily or who have already hit them.
Those situations are miserable in any case, but women tend to have help available--men tend to have nothing. Yes, people tend to make "stupid decisions" but in any such case, that doesn't mean that some protection shouldn't exist if a woman unknowingly (or even knowningly) married an abusive man or a man married a marriage profiteer.
If you think that a woman is only after your money, and aren't sure that she is Gods choice for you, then dont marry her. Many women who marry today have more assets than their husbands do, as I did. I had a house and he had nothing. Many women earn more than their husbands do as well. It never occurred to me to get a pre-nup because he is a decent godly man with integrity and high moral values. I also saw the decent way he treated his ex wife, by GIVING her the house. He also doesn't believe in divorce(his wife divorced him against his will).
Also I dont believe in prenups because I believe that when you marry all that either of you owns belongs to both of you. If there is talk of 'your' money or 'my' money, or 'your 'house or 'my' house, then what does that say about your marriage? The two clearly haven't become one. The 100% commitment isn't there. Why cant you trust God for your future, rather than thinking of trying to protect yourself.
I agree that there is more support for abused women, but that's because there ARE more abused women.
There is more support for "abused" women and women who falsely report abuse too.
Another thing to consider is, what's the Bible's definition of "spousal abuse"? Husbands are told not to be harsh with their wives, but look at how many different ways Proverbs describes that a MAN can be the victim of his WIFE (albeit non-physically), and what is done about that?
Otherwise, here's something in case you want to get a little educated about what a married man faces:
Domestic Violence Against Men! [Mirror] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhXfeBFATHw#)
: chosenone Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 10:00:34
: DaveW Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 07:38:48
: chosenone Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 07:19:24
I agree that there is more support for abused women, but that's because there ARE more abused women.
Maybe - or maybe not.
"Abused men" is considered an oxymoron in this culture; even with "burning beds" and Lorrena Bobbit and other examples to the contrary. (of course those may be discounted as "self defense")
Men do not report abuse. (no one would believe them or would be considered wusses or 'girly men') So if it goes unreported, the statistics are going to be skewed.
Thats true, but I think you will agree that when it comes to physical and sexual abuse the main victims are women. Just the same as most violent crimes and sexual assaults/rapes are carried out by men.
I would agree that there are many men in the receiving side of abuse going unreported. Men are such main victims as women.
Reason why men in such abusive situations goes unnoticed because it gets overlooked by the public. There is no secret around it.
: Man_Of_Honor Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 10:29:01
: chosenone Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 10:00:34
: DaveW Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 07:38:48
: chosenone Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 07:19:24
I agree that there is more support for abused women, but that's because there ARE more abused women.
Maybe - or maybe not.
"Abused men" is considered an oxymoron in this culture; even with "burning beds" and Lorrena Bobbit and other examples to the contrary. (of course those may be discounted as "self defense")
Men do not report abuse. (no one would believe them or would be considered wusses or 'girly men') So if it goes unreported, the statistics are going to be skewed.
Thats true, but I think you will agree that when it comes to physical and sexual abuse the main victims are women. Just the same as most violent crimes and sexual assaults/rapes are carried out by men.
I would agree that there are many men in the receiving side of abuse going unreported. Men are such main victims as women.
Many cases of women being abused are severe, but many "reports," as I have been told, are extremely minor, like pushes aside when she's blocking his path somewhere, and VAWA makes it possible for a woman to complain "abuse" over a dirty look.
In general, also, women tend more to complain, like visit the doctor over more minor issues . . . in general the overall "be a man and take it" culture has made many men suffer in silence.
But again, PROVERBS. What kind of help is there for a man who suffers the (probably mostly non-physical) pain that Proverbs says a wife can inflict, worse than exile to the desert? I'd rather take a few punches to the face.
: chosenone Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 10:00:34
Thats true, but I think you will agree that when it comes to physical and sexual abuse the main victims are women. Just the same as most violent crimes and sexual assaults/rapes are carried out by men.
Not so sure I would agree. Not having accurate statistics really messes up that whole discussion.
Yes - young men do most violent crimes that get prosecuted; (murders, assaults, rapes) but if a crime is not reported it cannot be prosecuted.
Back in the day (early/mid 1980s) DW and I went thru some difficult times. She had a tendency to fly into a fit of rage at almost nothing. One day she got enraged, broke the handle off a saucepan hitting me over the head with it; and then called the police on me. I had not touched her or even yelled at her. But I was the one who got the police report as being abusive.
And - no - I said nothing about her hitting me or the sauce pan.
That is why i say the statistics are not accurate.
: DaveW Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 10:37:04
: chosenone Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 10:00:34
Thats true, but I think you will agree that when it comes to physical and sexual abuse the main victims are women. Just the same as most violent crimes and sexual assaults/rapes are carried out by men.
Not so sure I would agree. Not having accurate statistics really messes up that whole discussion.
Yes - young men do most violent crimes that get prosecuted; (murders, assaults, rapes) but if a crime is not reported it cannot be prosecuted.
Back in the day (early/mid 1980s) DW and I went thru some difficult times. She had a tendency to fly into a fit of rage at almost nothing. One day she got enraged, broke the handle off a saucepan hitting me over the head with it; and then called the police on me. I had not touched her or even yelled at her. But I was the one who got the police report as being abusive.
And - no - I said nothing about her hitting me or the sauce pan.
That is why i say the statistics are not accurate.
That's terrible, and anecdotally I've heard more female-on-male violence than vice-versa.
In general, a man being a victim DURING OR AFTER his marriage sounds like the loneliest place imaginable: no one helps you. The sacred gender gets help, men don't.
: chosenone Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 22:54:12
I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.
I never liked the idea of a prenup but my divorce cost me a ton of money and really set me back financially. Now I am closer to retirement and could not afford another hit like that. I would not go into another marriage expecting a divorce and I would surely trust my bride but I've seen people change. I've seen someone I would have trusted completely change. What if she divorced me for unbiblical reasons and now I suddenly was short of retirement funds?
Maybe a better analogy is insurance. You don't buy a house anticipating it will burn down but in the event it does you know you can't afford to rebuild it without insurance.
: ohcalidatex Thu Feb 27, 2014 - 15:24:37
: chosenone Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 22:54:12
I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.
I never liked the idea of a prenup but my divorce cost me a ton of money and really set me back financially. Now I am closer to retirement and could not afford another hit like that. I would not go into another marriage expecting a divorce and I would surely trust my bride but I've seen people change. I've seen someone I would have trusted completely change. What if she divorced me for unbiblical reasons and now I suddenly was short of retirement funds?
Maybe a better analogy is insurance. You don't buy a house anticipating it will burn down but in the event it does you know you can't afford to rebuild it without insurance.
Well it may be a good job that you dont want to marry again.
My husband came out of his 23 year marriage with practically nothing. He GAVE his wife their house(which she hadn't paid a penny towards), because he didn't think it was right to fight over it or go to court, and because he trusts Gods completely to provide for him. God promises that HE will restore to us ALL that that the locusts have eaten, so do we believe that or not? Within a short time we met and married.
We have a very happy marriage and I have a house which is now OUR house. We have also had many promises from God of many more blessings and restorations to come.
Do the right thing, act with integrity, treat people with fairness no matter how they treat you, and God will always restore and reward you for doing this. We never need to rely on man made legal agreements or courts or judges when we have God. So what if we loose money, its only money after all, and God is the richest Dad in the world.
: Man_Of_Honor Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 10:32:50
Reason why men in such abusive situations goes unnoticed because it gets overlooked by the public. There is no secret around it.
The main reason is that most men don't want to admit to it so never tell anyone.
: chosenone Thu Feb 27, 2014 - 17:04:33
: Man_Of_Honor Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 10:32:50
Reason why men in such abusive situations goes unnoticed because it gets overlooked by the public. There is no secret around it.
The main reason is that most men don't want to admit to it so never tell anyone.
That is indeed part of it. Did you check out the video I posted on this thread? Just a suggestion.
: chosenone Thu Feb 27, 2014 - 17:04:33
: Man_Of_Honor Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 10:32:50
Reason why men in such abusive situations goes unnoticed because it gets overlooked by the public. There is no secret around it.
The main reason is that most men don't want to admit to it so never tell anyone.
Your faith is right on. I've never had a prenup and I'm not sure I would were I ever to remarry. However I would not judge those who decide to.
Yes the world is a better place with me single. ::clappingoverhead::
All this discussion reminds me of is Jerry Reed's hit country song "She got the gold mine, I got the shaft."
She got the gold mine, I got the shaft
They split it right down the middle
And then they give her the better half
Well, it all sounds sort of funny
But it hurts too much to laugh
She got the gold mine, I got the shaft
Now, listen, you ain't heard nothin' yet
Why, they gave her the color television set
Then they give her the house, the kids and both of the cars
See, then they start talking about child support
Alimony, and the cost of the court
Didn't take me long to figure out how far in the toilet I was
::headscratch::
I am not understanding the analogy between support for abused women and prenups, nor wills and prenups. The insurance analogy offered by ohcalidatex, however, is a reasonable one I suppose. Given God does allow for divorce in certain circumstances, if one feels the need for such an agreement, he/she may have a point, and that is his/her business.
Personally I am not keen on such an agreement, especially where it is a unilateral demand, an ultimatum. It seems to enter such a union as marriage, making vows before God 'til death do you part, one should be "all in."
I will admit that this is easy for me to assert as my wife and I had little when we were married, but what we did have was no longer hers or mine, it was ours. For our sister chosenone, the risk was much greater, but she appears to have reaped so much more through trusting God and her husband.
Further:
Luke 6:(KJV)
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
If this in reference to a stranger or enemy, should it not be more so to one that we once loved and vowed to cherish 'til death.
Finally, even should the worst happen: my wife leaves me penniless with nothing but the clothes on my back, I would still be better off than the majority of my brethren in Christ in this world, and blessed.
: Carey Fri Feb 28, 2014 - 20:33:32
::headscratch::
I am not understanding the analogy between support for abused women and prenups
The point was that somehow it's okay for wives to effectively have a backup protection from their husbands but not vice-versa.
The risk for men being divorced and then leeched sometimes all the way to prison is really high.
: DaveW Fri Feb 28, 2014 - 06:20:46
All this discussion reminds me of is Jerry Reed's hit country song "She got the gold mine, I got the shaft."
She got the gold mine, I got the shaft
They split it right down the middle
And then they give her the better half
Well, it all sounds sort of funny
But it hurts too much to laugh
She got the gold mine, I got the shaft
Now, listen, you ain't heard nothin' yet
Why, they gave her the color television set
Then they give her the house, the kids and both of the cars
See, then they start talking about child support
Alimony, and the cost of the court
Didn't take me long to figure out how far in the toilet I was
chosenone was kind of going on that it's only money, but men in the Old Testament were scolded by God for abandoning their wives and told they were clothing themselves in "violence" in so doing. How is it not violence, in the same light, for a wife to exploit the biased legal system and strip her husband of his livelihood?
: Cally Fri Feb 28, 2014 - 21:05:37
: Carey Fri Feb 28, 2014 - 20:33:32
::headscratch::
I am not understanding the analogy between support for abused women and prenups
The point was that somehow it's okay for wives to effectively have a backup protection from their husbands but not vice-versa.
The risk for men being divorced and then leeched sometimes all the way to prison is really high.
I can see where your coming from. But..
The analogy works better in comparing the unfairness of the "backup protection" being more available for the wife than the husband, to the unfairness of the advantage a wife has in divorce legislation over her husband.
Here the prenup is not analogous, rather a remedy for that unfairness.
Quite frankly, I find the analogy of a woman abused to a man losing some of his wealth a bit insensitive; or at worse, although I don't think deliberate on your part, provocative.
Chosenone is right it is just money, earthly riches. We can turn the other cheek knowing God is just, and we can rely on Him to provide for us.
: Carey Fri Feb 28, 2014 - 23:48:16
: Cally Fri Feb 28, 2014 - 21:05:37
: Carey Fri Feb 28, 2014 - 20:33:32
::headscratch::
I am not understanding the analogy between support for abused women and prenups
The point was that somehow it's okay for wives to effectively have a backup protection from their husbands but not vice-versa.
The risk for men being divorced and then leeched sometimes all the way to prison is really high.
I can see where your coming from. But..
The analogy works better in comparing the unfairness of the "backup protection" being more available for the wife than the husband, to the unfairness of the advantage a wife has in divorce legislation over her husband.
Here the prenup is not analogous, rather a remedy for that unfairness.
Quite frankly, I find the analogy of a woman abused to a man losing some of his wealth a bit insensitive; or at worse, although I don't think deliberate on your part, provocative.
Chosenone is right it is just money, earthly riches. We can turn the other cheek knowing God is just, and we can rely on Him to provide for us.
Carey, and then there's the insensitivity to the issue of men who are physically abused having no options and nowhere to go which has also been brought up. People who confront the issues of domestic violence against men have gotten death threats (see the video on this thread as an example).
Indeed, to some, the very discussion of issues men face today is offensive.
: Cally Fri Feb 28, 2014 - 23:56:19
: Carey Fri Feb 28, 2014 - 23:48:16
: Cally Fri Feb 28, 2014 - 21:05:37
: Carey Fri Feb 28, 2014 - 20:33:32
::headscratch::
I am not understanding the analogy between support for abused women and prenups
The point was that somehow it's okay for wives to effectively have a backup protection from their husbands but not vice-versa.
The risk for men being divorced and then leeched sometimes all the way to prison is really high.
I can see where your coming from. But..
The analogy works better in comparing the unfairness of the "backup protection" being more available for the wife than the husband, to the unfairness of the advantage a wife has in divorce legislation over her husband.
Here the prenup is not analogous, rather a remedy for that unfairness.
Quite frankly, I find the analogy of a woman abused to a man losing some of his wealth a bit insensitive; or at worse, although I don't think deliberate on your part, provocative.
Chosenone is right it is just money, earthly riches. We can turn the other cheek knowing God is just, and we can rely on Him to provide for us.
Carey, and then there's the insensitivity to the issue of men who are physically abused having no options and nowhere to go which has also been brought up. People who confront the issues of domestic violence against men have gotten death threats (see the video on this thread as an example).
Indeed, to some, the very discussion of issues men face today is offensive.
Cally, I was addressing the thread topic, not this particular tangent. I agree that men should have the same support available them as women, that a man's recounting of events of violence should have the same weight as a women's. Never the less, that does not change my opinion posted, I will always put physical abuse and suffering above material things.
I think society is beginning to recognize the problem of domestic violence against men, unfortunately change in addressing such appropriately, will likely be a slow process, as it was for women. I do believe that I will see this change come about in my lifetime, and I am certain you will; you have a few more years available to you.
Cally, I was addressing the thread topic, not this particular tangent. I agree that men should have the same support available them as women, that a man's recounting of events of violence should have the same weight as a women's. Never the less, that does not change my opinion posted, I will always put physical abuse and suffering above material things.
Except I don't see the dichotomy, Carey. Again, some men have been hit SO hard in family court that they've ended up in jail because their alimony and child support bills were straight-up impossible to pay.
What's worse to you? I'd rather take a good punch in the face or two than end up in jail for life or out in the cold going hungry because of a marriage profiteer. Or in general--and this is JUST ME, maybe--I'd rather be roughed up a time or two than be someone's long-term slave over the course of many years. Of course I realize a lot of physical abuse is much worse than that, but all I'm saying is, once again, I don't particularly see the dichotomy. I'll leave that alone at "agree to disagree," but just saying, that's how I look at it; indeed, in addition, a lot of the things Proverbs says about the ways an ungodly wife can absolutely devastate a man from which I don't see much of anything in the world protecting a man.
I think society is beginning to recognize the problem of domestic violence against men, unfortunately change in addressing such appropriately, will likely be a slow process, as it was for women. I do believe that I will see this change come about in my lifetime, and I am certain you will; you have a few more years available to you.
Indeed a lot of things are changing--because they must. But there are many, many people (especially feminists, of course) who so absolutely despise any attention being paid to those issues that things are going to get explosive on the way.
The issues you speak of are two completely different things. Any abuse is terrible, and I spent some time last week trying to persuade a man to leave his physically abusive wife, but prenups are another area entirely.
We have had a case in the UK this week, where a man with not to much money, married the daughter of a very wealthy man, and despite him signing a prenup, the judge awarded him to be paid 1 1/2 million pounds as part of the divorce settlement, so it works both ways. Her father is furious, and when you look at his previous girlfriends/partners, they were all quite wealthy, so he seems to like being supported by rich women. In the UK common sense prevails over prenups anyway, and they can be overruled.
I cant see anywhere in the Bible that says we should take out some sort of financial agreement before marriage, to 'protect out assets', on the contrary, the 'two becoming one' says to me that everything becomes 'ours' after marriage, no matter how much each bought in. In my marriage, I had the house and my husband earns most the income. Everything we have is 'ours'. I suppose if anyone cant accept that then maybe marriage isn't for them. ::shrug::
: chosenone Sat Mar 01, 2014 - 22:28:18
The issues you speak of are two completely different things. Any abuse is terrible, and I spent some time last week trying to persuade a man to leave his physically abusive wife, but prenups are another area entirely.
We have had a case in the UK this week, where a man with not to much money, married the daughter of a very wealthy man, and despite him signing a prenup, the judge awarded him to be paid 1 1/2 million pounds as part of the divorce settlement, so it works both ways. Her father is furious, and when you look at his previous girlfriends/partners, they were all quite wealthy, so he seems to like being supported by rich women. In the UK common sense prevails over prenups anyway, and they can be overruled.
Yes, occasionally it happens to women too, and a man likewise behaves as a prostitute.
I cant see anywhere in the Bible that says we should take out some sort of financial agreement before marriage, to 'protect out assets', on the contrary, the 'two becoming one' says to me that everything becomes 'ours' after marriage, no matter how much each bought in. In my marriage, I had the house and my husband earns most the income. Everything we have is 'ours'. I suppose if anyone cant accept that then maybe marriage isn't for them. ::shrug::
The Bible offers almost nothing as grounds for divorce regardless. But one thing you're failing to understand is that a "financial agreement" already does exist by the laws written by the land, so a prenup is nothing more than a modification of that agreement.
I don't see a biblical basis for alimony to begin with. A prenup is basically saying, "sorry, the financial agreement the government already set up--called 'alimony' in which a divorce spouse still gets from the other in the event of divorce--is not acceptable, so here's a counter-proposal." That's it. It's just a modification of what is obviously an unbiblical financial agreement that exists in the first place.
In a marriage, it is indeed "ours." But if one decides to take off, it is no longer, and the spouse initiating the divorce has no business leeching off the other as if they were.
: Cally Sat Mar 01, 2014 - 22:41:50
I don't see a biblical basis for alimony to begin with.
Actually it is in there but a bit difficult to see. Read any book on Orthodox Jewish divorce and it should be explained. Deut 24.1 says if a man divorces his wife he must give her a "
get" or certificate in writing of divorce. Thru the rest of the OT there are references to the
get containing provision for the divorced wife. By the first century the
gets became quite detailed.
Our Lord did not have any quarrel with provisions in the
get.
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 10:10:20
: Cally Sat Mar 01, 2014 - 22:41:50
I don't see a biblical basis for alimony to begin with.
Actually it is in there but a bit difficult to see. Read any book on Orthodox Jewish divorce and it should be explained. Deut 24.1 says if a man divorces his wife he must give her a "get" or certificate in writing of divorce. Thru the rest of the OT there are references to the get containing provision for the divorced wife. By the first century the gets became quite detailed.
Our Lord did not have any quarrel with provisions in the get.
0
Dave, I think it is clearly reasonable for the spouse who divorces not to be able to throw out someone without hope after investing into a marriage.
But the one who CHOOSES to divorce and tramples all over his or her covenant made before God "till death do us part"? That man or woman has the right to say "I'm DONE being one flesh with you" and then leeches off of the other spouse as if they were still one flesh?
When no-fault divorces were first introduced, people feared that it would be men doing more divorcing. Nope. Instead, for the most part, women can freely divorce a man for any reason and leech off of a former husband (and I acknowledge sometimes men do that too and either way its whorish).
Being that plenty divorce for minor reasons, prenups are rather logical.
In the world, I definitely would not trust someone for marriage.
: Cally Sat Mar 01, 2014 - 22:41:50
: chosenone Sat Mar 01, 2014 - 22:28:18
The issues you speak of are two completely different things. Any abuse is terrible, and I spent some time last week trying to persuade a man to leave his physically abusive wife, but prenups are another area entirely.
We have had a case in the UK this week, where a man with not to much money, married the daughter of a very wealthy man, and despite him signing a prenup, the judge awarded him to be paid 1 1/2 million pounds as part of the divorce settlement, so it works both ways. Her father is furious, and when you look at his previous girlfriends/partners, they were all quite wealthy, so he seems to like being supported by rich women. In the UK common sense prevails over prenups anyway, and they can be overruled.
Yes, occasionally it happens to women too, and a man likewise behaves as a prostitute.
I cant see anywhere in the Bible that says we should take out some sort of financial agreement before marriage, to 'protect out assets', on the contrary, the 'two becoming one' says to me that everything becomes 'ours' after marriage, no matter how much each bought in. In my marriage, I had the house and my husband earns most the income. Everything we have is 'ours'. I suppose if anyone cant accept that then maybe marriage isn't for them. ::shrug::
The Bible offers almost nothing as grounds for divorce regardless. But one thing you're failing to understand is that a "financial agreement" already does exist by the laws written by the land, so a prenup is nothing more than a modification of that agreement.
I don't see a biblical basis for alimony to begin with. A prenup is basically saying, "sorry, the financial agreement the government already set up--called 'alimony' in which a divorce spouse still gets from the other in the event of divorce--is not acceptable, so here's a counter-proposal." That's it. It's just a modification of what is obviously an unbiblical financial agreement that exists in the first place.
In a marriage, it is indeed "ours." But if one decides to take off, it is no longer, and the spouse initiating the divorce has no business leeching off the other as if they were.
I just don't see this at all. In the divorces I have known of, both have been treated pretty equally. The assets have mainly been shared, but the first priority needs to be the children. If they are still young, then yes, primary caregiver needs to receive financial support till they are older. The higher wage earner(or only wage earner)should support the one with the children, that's a consequence of having children.
If the children are adults then both can work and neither should get any further maintenance.
A lady I know whose husband left her for another woman, had to sell her small house even though her teenage son was still living with her because the husband was given half of the assets. They had to then rent a home which she struggled to pay despite working full time. She got no maintenance at all.
Prenups have no place in a Christian marriage whatsoever. Judges here treat each marriage break up on its merits, but the children's needs are supposed to always be a priority.
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 10:37:46
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 10:10:20
: Cally Sat Mar 01, 2014 - 22:41:50
I don't see a biblical basis for alimony to begin with.
Actually it is in there but a bit difficult to see. Read any book on Orthodox Jewish divorce and it should be explained. Deut 24.1 says if a man divorces his wife he must give her a "get" or certificate in writing of divorce. Thru the rest of the OT there are references to the get containing provision for the divorced wife. By the first century the gets became quite detailed.
Our Lord did not have any quarrel with provisions in the get.
0
Dave, I think it is clearly reasonable for the spouse who divorces not to be able to throw out someone without hope after investing into a marriage.
But the one who CHOOSES to divorce and tramples all over his or her covenant made before God "till death do us part"? That man or woman has the right to say "I'm DONE being one flesh with you" and then leeches off of the other spouse as if they were still one flesh?
When no-fault divorces were first introduced, people feared that it would be men doing more divorcing. Nope. Instead, for the most part, women can freely divorce a man for any reason and leech off of a former husband (and I acknowledge sometimes men do that too and either way its whorish).
However most of the women I know who divorced their husbands, did it because of his cheating. Her may not instigate the divorce, but he caused it.
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:24:16
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 10:37:46
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 10:10:20
: Cally Sat Mar 01, 2014 - 22:41:50
I don't see a biblical basis for alimony to begin with.
Actually it is in there but a bit difficult to see. Read any book on Orthodox Jewish divorce and it should be explained. Deut 24.1 says if a man divorces his wife he must give her a "get" or certificate in writing of divorce. Thru the rest of the OT there are references to the get containing provision for the divorced wife. By the first century the gets became quite detailed.
Our Lord did not have any quarrel with provisions in the get.
0
Dave, I think it is clearly reasonable for the spouse who divorces not to be able to throw out someone without hope after investing into a marriage.
But the one who CHOOSES to divorce and tramples all over his or her covenant made before God "till death do us part"? That man or woman has the right to say "I'm DONE being one flesh with you" and then leeches off of the other spouse as if they were still one flesh?
When no-fault divorces were first introduced, people feared that it would be men doing more divorcing. Nope. Instead, for the most part, women can freely divorce a man for any reason and leech off of a former husband (and I acknowledge sometimes men do that too and either way its whorish).
However most of the women I know who divorced their husbands, did it because of his cheating. Her may not instigate the divorce, but he caused it.
Those women are guiltless?
They may have had their faults. You may not be told the whole story. Ever thought of that possibility?
Women can become savages when it comes to false claims and getting what they please.
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:29:43
Women can become savages when it comes to false claims and getting what they please.
That, as the general the "empowerment by victimhood" tactic is the leverage of power over men oftentimes when it should be obvious that the victim is the man. And it's nothing new under the sun--how did Delilah get Sampson? "You're being mean mean MEAN!" The strategy of feminism.
So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23
So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him. Abuse of any sort is wrong. The fact is that it is more rare because men are naturally more physical and violent, hence nearly all violent crimes are committed by men. Also if a man beats a woman, the fact that he is physically stronger can mean the injuries can be far worse.
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 10:37:46
Dave, I think it is clearly reasonable for the spouse who divorces not to be able to throw out someone without hope after investing into a marriage.
But the one who CHOOSES to divorce and tramples all over his or her covenant made before God "till death do us part"? That man or woman has the right to say "I'm DONE being one flesh with you" and then leeches off of the other spouse as if they were still one flesh?
When no-fault divorces were first introduced, people feared that it would be men doing more divorcing. Nope. Instead, for the most part, women can freely divorce a man for any reason and leech off of a former husband (and I acknowledge sometimes men do that too and either way its whorish).
Remember - biblically only men can divorce, NOT women.
One of the interesting things about OT rape laws is that the guy was REQUIRED to marry the girl. It never said she had to live with him or have anything else to do with him but he had to support her in a given lifestyle for the rest of her life (he was NOT PERMITTED to divorce her EVER)
So you "leech" scenario is actually supported in scripture - even without a formal divorce.
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:28:50
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:24:16
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 10:37:46
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 10:10:20
: Cally Sat Mar 01, 2014 - 22:41:50
I don't see a biblical basis for alimony to begin with.
Actually it is in there but a bit difficult to see. Read any book on Orthodox Jewish divorce and it should be explained. Deut 24.1 says if a man divorces his wife he must give her a "get" or certificate in writing of divorce. Thru the rest of the OT there are references to the get containing provision for the divorced wife. By the first century the gets became quite detailed.
Our Lord did not have any quarrel with provisions in the get.
0
Dave, I think it is clearly reasonable for the spouse who divorces not to be able to throw out someone without hope after investing into a marriage.
But the one who CHOOSES to divorce and tramples all over his or her covenant made before God "till death do us part"? That man or woman has the right to say "I'm DONE being one flesh with you" and then leeches off of the other spouse as if they were still one flesh?
When no-fault divorces were first introduced, people feared that it would be men doing more divorcing. Nope. Instead, for the most part, women can freely divorce a man for any reason and leech off of a former husband (and I acknowledge sometimes men do that too and either way its whorish).
However most of the women I know who divorced their husbands, did it because of his cheating. Her may not instigate the divorce, but he caused it.
Those women are guiltless?
They may have had their faults. You may not be told the whole story. Ever thought of that possibility?
Many of them were in my own family, so yes I did know in detail what went on. Some people will cheat no matter who they are married to, because they have no morals or integrity.
Are you saying that if one spouse isn't perfect the other spouse is allowed to commit adultery???
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:28:50
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:24:16
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 10:37:46
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 10:10:20
: Cally Sat Mar 01, 2014 - 22:41:50
I don't see a biblical basis for alimony to begin with.
Actually it is in there but a bit difficult to see. Read any book on Orthodox Jewish divorce and it should be explained. Deut 24.1 says if a man divorces his wife he must give her a "get" or certificate in writing of divorce. Thru the rest of the OT there are references to the get containing provision for the divorced wife. By the first century the gets became quite detailed.
Our Lord did not have any quarrel with provisions in the get.
0
Dave, I think it is clearly reasonable for the spouse who divorces not to be able to throw out someone without hope after investing into a marriage.
But the one who CHOOSES to divorce and tramples all over his or her covenant made before God "till death do us part"? That man or woman has the right to say "I'm DONE being one flesh with you" and then leeches off of the other spouse as if they were still one flesh?
When no-fault divorces were first introduced, people feared that it would be men doing more divorcing. Nope. Instead, for the most part, women can freely divorce a man for any reason and leech off of a former husband (and I acknowledge sometimes men do that too and either way its whorish).
However most of the women I know who divorced their husbands, did it because of his cheating. Her may not instigate the divorce, but he caused it.
Those women are guiltless?
They may have had their faults. You may not be told the whole story. Ever thought of that possibility?
Their faults they may have justifies the man having an affair? Odd...
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:29:43
Women can become savages when it comes to false claims and getting what they please.
As can men.
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23
So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him. Abuse of any sort is wrong. The fact is that it is more rare because men are naturally more physical and violent, hence nearly all violent crimes are committed by men. Also if a man beats a woman, the fact that he is physically stronger can mean the injuries can be far worse.
Did you see the video I posted?
I have actually heard people who deal with DV tell me that the number of wives who hit their husbands is (at least) almost the same as vice-versa. If you find evidence for that, you get death threats from feminists.
As you admitted, many men won't report violence against them.
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23
So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him. Abuse of any sort is wrong. The fact is that it is more rare because men are naturally more physical and violent, hence nearly all violent crimes are committed by men. Also if a man beats a woman, the fact that he is physically stronger can mean the injuries can be far worse.
Women can cause such damage with objects.
Women can manipulate and be the mastermind of violence. Shares equal responsibility.
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him.
Sorry but I am really old fashioned on this point. Any man who cannot take that from his wife and still come up smiling is no man in my book.
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:13
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 10:37:46
Dave, I think it is clearly reasonable for the spouse who divorces not to be able to throw out someone without hope after investing into a marriage.
But the one who CHOOSES to divorce and tramples all over his or her covenant made before God "till death do us part"? That man or woman has the right to say "I'm DONE being one flesh with you" and then leeches off of the other spouse as if they were still one flesh?
When no-fault divorces were first introduced, people feared that it would be men doing more divorcing. Nope. Instead, for the most part, women can freely divorce a man for any reason and leech off of a former husband (and I acknowledge sometimes men do that too and either way its whorish).
Remember - biblically only men can divorce, NOT women.
Then, there is no equivalent scenario, and the next couple examples don't cover it.
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:51:10
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him.
Sorry but I am really old fashioned on this point. Any man who cannot take that from his wife and still come up smiling is no man in my book.
And listen up folks, because this old-fashioned attitude is at the heart of the problem.
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:49:52
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23
So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him. Abuse of any sort is wrong. The fact is that it is more rare because men are naturally more physical and violent, hence nearly all violent crimes are committed by men. Also if a man beats a woman, the fact that he is physically stronger can mean the injuries can be far worse.
Did you see the video I posted?
I have actually heard people who deal with DV tell me that the number of wives who hit their husbands is (at least) almost the same as vice-versa. If you find evidence for that, you get death threats from feminists.
As you admitted, many men won't report violence against them.
Just want to say, this is wrong! Abuse is abuse no matter at whose hand or heart it comes from!
Abusers come from both genders and it should not be tolerated from either!
: MeMyself Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:47:20
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:28:50
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:24:16
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 10:37:46
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 10:10:20
: Cally Sat Mar 01, 2014 - 22:41:50
I don't see a biblical basis for alimony to begin with.
Actually it is in there but a bit difficult to see. Read any book on Orthodox Jewish divorce and it should be explained. Deut 24.1 says if a man divorces his wife he must give her a "get" or certificate in writing of divorce. Thru the rest of the OT there are references to the get containing provision for the divorced wife. By the first century the gets became quite detailed.
Our Lord did not have any quarrel with provisions in the get.
0
Dave, I think it is clearly reasonable for the spouse who divorces not to be able to throw out someone without hope after investing into a marriage.
But the one who CHOOSES to divorce and tramples all over his or her covenant made before God "till death do us part"? That man or woman has the right to say "I'm DONE being one flesh with you" and then leeches off of the other spouse as if they were still one flesh?
When no-fault divorces were first introduced, people feared that it would be men doing more divorcing. Nope. Instead, for the most part, women can freely divorce a man for any reason and leech off of a former husband (and I acknowledge sometimes men do that too and either way its whorish).
However most of the women I know who divorced their husbands, did it because of his cheating. Her may not instigate the divorce, but he caused it.
Those women are guiltless?
They may have had their faults. You may not be told the whole story. Ever thought of that possibility?
Their faults they may have justifies the man having an affair? Odd...
Could they too have cheated? Caused any neglections?
I am not justifying the cheating. But rather the factors that may lead to it other his selfishness and so forth.
: MeMyself Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:53:14
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:49:52
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23
So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him. Abuse of any sort is wrong. The fact is that it is more rare because men are naturally more physical and violent, hence nearly all violent crimes are committed by men. Also if a man beats a woman, the fact that he is physically stronger can mean the injuries can be far worse.
Did you see the video I posted?
I have actually heard people who deal with DV tell me that the number of wives who hit their husbands is (at least) almost the same as vice-versa. If you find evidence for that, you get death threats from feminists.
As you admitted, many men won't report violence against them.
Just want to say, this is wrong! Abuse is abuse no matter at whose hand or heart it comes from!
Abusers come from both genders and it should not be tolerated from either!
Thank you MM.
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:51:10
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him.
Sorry but I am really old fashioned on this point. Any man who cannot take that from his wife and still come up smiling is no man in my book.
Dave, even if the whack doesn't hurt them physically, the action surely wounds the heart deeply.
: MeMyself Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:54:32
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:51:10
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him.
Sorry but I am really old fashioned on this point. Any man who cannot take that from his wife and still come up smiling is no man in my book.
Dave, even if the whack doesn't hurt them physically, the action surely wounds the heart deeply.
The video at the start of the thread shows how a man was burned alive by his wife.
He's not a "real man" if he can't take that?!
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:55:27
: MeMyself Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:54:32
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:51:10
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him.
Sorry but I am really old fashioned on this point. Any man who cannot take that from his wife and still come up smiling is no man in my book.
Dave, even if the whack doesn't hurt them physically, the action surely wounds the heart deeply.
The video at the start of the thread shows how a man was burned alive by his wife.
He's not a "real man" if he can't take that?!
Oh goodness! That is just horrifying! :(
How much we grieve the Father's heart in how terribly we treat one another. Breaks my heart to be honest. God have mercy on us all!
: MeMyself Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:54:32
Dave, even if the whack doesn't hurt them physically, the action surely wounds the heart deeply.
Perhaps. But we are COMMANDED to love our wives as Messiah loves His congregation. And it was every sin that we committed that put him on the cross.
I know we are not gods, but He did not do that by virtue of his own divinity; rather it was by the power and strength of the Holy Spirit. We have that same Spirit in us and we can do the same.
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:58:30
: MeMyself Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:54:32
Dave, even if the whack doesn't hurt them physically, the action surely wounds the heart deeply.
Perhaps. But we are COMMANDED to love our wives as Messiah loves His congregation. And it was every sin that we committed that put him on the cross.
I know we are not gods, but He did not do that by virtue of his own divinity; rather it was by the power and strength of the Holy Spirit. We have that same Spirit in us and we can do the same.
Sure. But, the hurt would still be there...and very deep one at that.
I know a man who confessed to me that he has wondered his whole years long marriage if his wife ever really loved him. She has never laid a hand on him, never verbally abused him...but her abusive aloofness cut him as deeply as if she had. He soldiers on, but his wounds are great. :(
: MeMyself Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 12:03:41
I know a man who confessed to me that he has wondered his whole years long marriage if his wife ever really loved him. She has never laid a hand on him, never verbally abused him...but her abusive aloofness cut him as deeply as if she had. He soldiers on, but his wounds are great. :(
To me that is a man who is following scripture. He is a MAN.
To be honest - for years I did not believe "emotional wounds" were even real. I remember when God convinced me otherwise. I was praying and as I sometimes do - had a mental image while I was praying. I was standing at the side of a small lake which represented the mental/emotional part of us. I picked up a stick and started striking the water and was saying "See, there is absolutely no damage done to the water." Just then the Lord hijacked my "image" with a "beep beep beep..." and I turned around to see a dump truck full of road salt that backed up to the water and emptied its load. "Are you sure about that 'no damage?' "
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 12:33:55
: MeMyself Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 12:03:41
I know a man who confessed to me that he has wondered his whole years long marriage if his wife ever really loved him. She has never laid a hand on him, never verbally abused him...but her abusive aloofness cut him as deeply as if she had. He soldiers on, but his wounds are great. :(
To me that is a man who is following scripture. He is a MAN.
To be honest - for years I did not believe "emotional wounds" were even real. I remember when God convinced me otherwise. I was praying and as I sometimes do - had a mental image while I was praying. I was standing at the side of a small lake which represented the mental/emotional part of us. I picked up a stick and started striking the water and was saying "See, there is absolutely no damage done to the water." Just then the Lord hijacked my "image" with a "beep beep beep..." and I turned around to see a dump truck full of road salt that backed up to the water and emptied its load. "Are you sure about that 'no damage?' "
I believe you are not alone in that old opinion, Dave.
I am glad that your heart was open to God's showing you differently. As a person that walks with the limp of invisible emotional abuse...ugh...it is so disheartening to try and explain to people. Sometimes, in my darkest moments I *wish* I had been brutalized physically, because there would be visible wounds to say "LOOK! See! That, right *there*!"
Anyway...I admire the man too...he just keeps pressing into God and doing his best to be who God wants him to be.
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 12:33:55
: MeMyself Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 12:03:41
I know a man who confessed to me that he has wondered his whole years long marriage if his wife ever really loved him. She has never laid a hand on him, never verbally abused him...but her abusive aloofness cut him as deeply as if she had. He soldiers on, but his wounds are great. :(
To me that is a man who is following scripture. He is a MAN.
To be honest - for years I did not believe "emotional wounds" were even real. I remember when God convinced me otherwise. I was praying and as I sometimes do - had a mental image while I was praying. I was standing at the side of a small lake which represented the mental/emotional part of us. I picked up a stick and started striking the water and was saying "See, there is absolutely no damage done to the water." Just then the Lord hijacked my "image" with a "beep beep beep..." and I turned around to see a dump truck full of road salt that backed up to the water and emptied its load. "Are you sure about that 'no damage?' "
This legacy passed from man to man (oftentimes) needs to stop. I actually think, Dave, that that puts women out of a job because nurturing to emotional needs is a gift God enabled in women.
In all seriousness, and I don't know how not to come across condescending because that's not my intent, I am seriously so sorry for you Dave.
Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
Personally I would make sure the world knew about it if I were hit by a woman if only because of "if I can't see it it isn't there" attitudes out there toward the issue. For sure, a lot of men take it. The lack of DV options for men is a huge part in making it pointless to say anything in that situation. I've seen news stories about young men molested by female pedophiles who wouldn't press charges and I know of this situation going totally unhandled (a female pedophile getting no punishment, not on the radar, not helping the boy, etc.).
This problem is huge, while feminism is exploiting it. Where are all the "good men" SUPPOSED to come from if they're not taken care of?
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:49:52
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23
So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him. Abuse of any sort is wrong. The fact is that it is more rare because men are naturally more physical and violent, hence nearly all violent crimes are committed by men. Also if a man beats a woman, the fact that he is physically stronger can mean the injuries can be far worse.
Did you see the video I posted?
I have actually heard people who deal with DV tell me that the number of wives who hit their husbands is (at least) almost the same as vice-versa. If you find evidence for that, you get death threats from feminists.
As you admitted, many men won't report violence against them.
According to these official statistics, the percentage of women to men who are physically abused is 85% women to 15% men, and we also need to remember that many women never report abuse either. Some will report it after years and years of on going abuse.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/domestic-violence-abuse-stats/ (http://www.statisticbrain.com/domestic-violence-abuse-stats/)
I have no idea why anyone, man or woman, would stay with a person who hits them, because by doing so, they are enabling their behaviour.
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:53:39
: MeMyself Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:47:20
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:28:50
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:24:16
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 10:37:46
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 10:10:20
: Cally Sat Mar 01, 2014 - 22:41:50
I don't see a biblical basis for alimony to begin with.
Actually it is in there but a bit difficult to see. Read any book on Orthodox Jewish divorce and it should be explained. Deut 24.1 says if a man divorces his wife he must give her a "get" or certificate in writing of divorce. Thru the rest of the OT there are references to the get containing provision for the divorced wife. By the first century the gets became quite detailed.
Our Lord did not have any quarrel with provisions in the get.
0
Dave, I think it is clearly reasonable for the spouse who divorces not to be able to throw out someone without hope after investing into a marriage.
But the one who CHOOSES to divorce and tramples all over his or her covenant made before God "till death do us part"? That man or woman has the right to say "I'm DONE being one flesh with you" and then leeches off of the other spouse as if they were still one flesh?
When no-fault divorces were first introduced, people feared that it would be men doing more divorcing. Nope. Instead, for the most part, women can freely divorce a man for any reason and leech off of a former husband (and I acknowledge sometimes men do that too and either way its whorish).
However most of the women I know who divorced their husbands, did it because of his cheating. Her may not instigate the divorce, but he caused it.
Those women are guiltless?
They may have had their faults. You may not be told the whole story. Ever thought of that possibility?
Their faults they may have justifies the man having an affair? Odd...
Could they too have cheated? Caused any neglections?
I am not justifying the cheating. But rather the factors that may lead to it other his selfishness and so forth.
I think you need to realise M of H that many will cheat because the opportunity is there and they take it. A friend of mines husband actually admitted to that. This lady was after him, and took advantage of that. That is the case with many who cheat.
: MeMyself Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:53:14
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:49:52
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23
So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him. Abuse of any sort is wrong. The fact is that it is more rare because men are naturally more physical and violent, hence nearly all violent crimes are committed by men. Also if a man beats a woman, the fact that he is physically stronger can mean the injuries can be far worse.
Did you see the video I posted?
I have actually heard people who deal with DV tell me that the number of wives who hit their husbands is (at least) almost the same as vice-versa. If you find evidence for that, you get death threats from feminists.
As you admitted, many men won't report violence against them.
Just want to say, this is wrong! Abuse is abuse no matter at whose hand or heart it comes from!
Abusers come from both genders and it should not be tolerated from either!
I agree.
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:51:09
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23
So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him. Abuse of any sort is wrong. The fact is that it is more rare because men are naturally more physical and violent, hence nearly all violent crimes are committed by men. Also if a man beats a woman, the fact that he is physically stronger can mean the injuries can be far worse.
Women can cause such damage with objects.
Women can manipulate and be the mastermind of violence. Shares equal responsibility.
So if a woman is beaten up, she is deserved it?
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 13:11:06
This legacy passed from man to man (oftentimes) needs to stop. I actually think, Dave, that that puts women out of a job because nurturing to emotional needs is a gift God enabled in women.
That is one way of looking at it. For me it was passed on from my dad. For others they got it in the military. Many paleo-sociologists (who are big on evolution) believe it was a required trait for men in caveman society to be unfeeling in order to keep on providing for family and village.
I am seriously so sorry for you Dave.
For what exactly?
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 13:29:31
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:51:09
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23
So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him. Abuse of any sort is wrong. The fact is that it is more rare because men are naturally more physical and violent, hence nearly all violent crimes are committed by men. Also if a man beats a woman, the fact that he is physically stronger can mean the injuries can be far worse.
Women can cause such damage with objects.
Women can manipulate and be the mastermind of violence. Shares equal responsibility.
So if a woman is beaten up, she is deserved it?
Sometimes women deliberately bait their husbands (heard it from people who work with wives).
A man should be taught just to run for his life rather than retaliate physically.
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:51:10
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him.
Sorry but I am really old fashioned on this point. Any man who cannot take that from his wife and still come up smiling is no man in my book.
I totally disagree. No one, man or woman, should ever have to accept or put up with being hit and beaten by their spouse. They need to separate and request that their abusive spouse gets professional help.
Anyone who puts up with this is enabling the appalling behaviour.
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 13:32:36
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 13:29:31
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:51:09
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23
So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him. Abuse of any sort is wrong. The fact is that it is more rare because men are naturally more physical and violent, hence nearly all violent crimes are committed by men. Also if a man beats a woman, the fact that he is physically stronger can mean the injuries can be far worse.
Women can cause such damage with objects.
Women can manipulate and be the mastermind of violence. Shares equal responsibility.
So if a woman is beaten up, she is deserved it?
Sometimes women deliberately bait their husbands (heard it from people who work with wives).
A man should be taught just to run for his life rather than retaliate physically.
I am sure that happens occasionally, but just as often the man is a violent wife beater who does it regardless.
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 13:23:19
I have no idea why anyone, man or woman, would stay with a person who hits them, because by doing so, they are enabling their behaviour.
Because many (myself included) see no-where in scripture that physical abuse is grounds for divorce and there is no biblical recognition of "separation."
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 13:31:03
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 13:11:06
This legacy passed from man to man (oftentimes) needs to stop. I actually think, Dave, that that puts women out of a job because nurturing to emotional needs is a gift God enabled in women.
That is one way of looking at it. For me it was passed on from my dad. For others they got it in the military. Many paleo-sociologists (who are big on evolution) believe it was a required trait for men in caveman society to be unfeeling in order to keep on providing for family and village.
I am seriously so sorry for you Dave.
For what exactly?
Dave I need no introduction because I got the "be a man" and get results results results like a man's soul depends on his material output (in ways that a woman doesn't) too. I expect that it was not nearly as much as what you experienced--so I think I can empathize . . . and REALLY empathize. Us guys really need Jesus to save us from that.
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 13:29:31
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:51:09
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23
So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him. Abuse of any sort is wrong. The fact is that it is more rare because men are naturally more physical and violent, hence nearly all violent crimes are committed by men. Also if a man beats a woman, the fact that he is physically stronger can mean the injuries can be far worse.
Women can cause such damage with objects.
Women can manipulate and be the mastermind of violence. Shares equal responsibility.
So if a woman is beaten up, she is deserved it?
No one deserves to be beaten.
Just pointing out scenarios I mentioned above has occured.
Um - what does spousal abuse have to do with prenup agreements?
I thought that was the topic of this thread ....
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 13:38:49
Um - what does spousal abuse have to do with prenup agreements?
I thought that was the topic of this thread ....
Lol...every thread I am posting on at the moment has taken a little wander off the OP. I think its just the nature of conversations.
All sorts of abuses to solely be focusing on the physical aspect.
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 13:23:19
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:49:52
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:45:00
: Man_Of_Honor Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 11:37:23
So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.
I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him. Abuse of any sort is wrong. The fact is that it is more rare because men are naturally more physical and violent, hence nearly all violent crimes are committed by men. Also if a man beats a woman, the fact that he is physically stronger can mean the injuries can be far worse.
Did you see the video I posted?
I have actually heard people who deal with DV tell me that the number of wives who hit their husbands is (at least) almost the same as vice-versa. If you find evidence for that, you get death threats from feminists.
As you admitted, many men won't report violence against them.
According to these official statistics, the percentage of women to men who are physically abused is 85% women to 15% men, and we also need to remember that many women never report abuse either. Some will report it after years and years of on going abuse.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/domestic-violence-abuse-stats/ (http://www.statisticbrain.com/domestic-violence-abuse-stats/)
I have no idea why anyone, man or woman, would stay with a person who hits them, because by doing so, they are enabling their behaviour.
Did. You. Watch. The. Video? If someone produces evidence that men get anywhere near the same amount of violence, he gets death threats.
"Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States."
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html (http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html)
And here's something to think about that requires REALLY putting on your thinking cap. Here is (to my knowledge)
an undisputed statistic: the highest-rate of domestic violence is found between lesbian couples. LESBIAN couples! Remember that men do not report DV as much because of "be a man" social stigmas, and the fact that there's almost NO point in even reporting it since almost no resources exist for male victims.
http://www.pandys.org/articles/lesbiandomesticviolence.html (http://www.pandys.org/articles/lesbiandomesticviolence.html)
"Perhaps surprisingly, statistics have shown that lesbian people experience domestic violence at a very similar rate to that of heterosexual women (Waldner-Haygrud, 1997; AVP, 1992). It has been estimated that between 17-45% of lesbians have been the victim of at least one act of violence perpetrated by a female partner (Burke et al, 1999; Lie et al, 1991), and that 30% of lesbians have reported sexual assault / rape by another woman (Renzetti, 1992). Considering the lack of discussion that takes place regarding lesbian domestic violence and sexual assault, I find these figures staggering."
And here's something out of MY personal experience: I've known several pip-squeak women who will probably never attack anyone in their lives, but shared their desires with me that they'd like to physically assault and/or kill someone. Will they attack a huge guy? Probably not, although some women take advantage of the "never hit a girl" thing. This day in age, I'm concerned things will get worse and worse.
The point being, everything indicates to me that men are almost certainly soaking up a lot more abuse than given credit for--and in general, I find it well-established that the concern for men as I've mentioned just isn't such a to-do even to some folks who are aware of it. The very idea of protecting a man from a woman just doesn't register in a lot of people's minds.
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 13:38:49
Um - what does spousal abuse have to do with prenup agreements?
I thought that was the topic of this thread ....
It was because of Callys first post, which was this:-
..................
The topic of abused women came up recently in a discussion, and something kind of dawned on me about this. There are resources for basically intervening to rescue women from their abusive husbands--I would think rightly so.
So I don't think this thought is terribly complicated. Why is the idea of women being protected from their husbands acceptable, but husbands protecting themselves with a prenuptual agreement not as acceptable in the eyes of some? The sentiment is exactly the same, regardless about what this allegedly says about one spouse not fully trusting the other. That is, no matter how much a woman says she trusts her husband, I don't think too many mind all that terribly that at least SOME resources exist to protect her from her husband in a worst-case-scenario. A prenup is the same thing, given the high likelihood of divorce today (especially of a wife divorcing her husband) and a husband being enslaved by the end result of divorce court.
.....................................
.
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 13:52:25
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 13:38:49
Um - what does spousal abuse have to do with prenup agreements?
I thought that was the topic of this thread ....
It was because of Callys first post, which was this:-
..................
The topic of abused women came up recently in a discussion, and something kind of dawned on me about this. There are resources for basically intervening to rescue women from their abusive husbands--I would think rightly so.
So I don't think this thought is terribly complicated. Why is the idea of women being protected from their husbands acceptable, but husbands protecting themselves with a prenuptual agreement not as acceptable in the eyes of some? The sentiment is exactly the same, regardless about what this allegedly says about one spouse not fully trusting the other. That is, no matter how much a woman says she trusts her husband, I don't think too many mind all that terribly that at least SOME resources exist to protect her from her husband in a worst-case-scenario. A prenup is the same thing, given the high likelihood of divorce today (especially of a wife divorcing her husband) and a husband being enslaved by the end result of divorce court.
.....................................
.
And the reason for exploring the issue of DV as a men's issue is just pointing out a general tendency for people not being interested (for the most part) in helping men when they are victims of women (certainly nowhere NEAR on par with the romantic notions of the reverse), be it in divorce settlements, DV . . . and hence understanding of those cases all-around is a problem too.
: Cally Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 14:01:01
: chosenone Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 13:52:25
: DaveW Tue Mar 04, 2014 - 13:38:49
Um - what does spousal abuse have to do with prenup agreements?
I thought that was the topic of this thread ....
It was because of Callys first post, which was this:-
..................
The topic of abused women came up recently in a discussion, and something kind of dawned on me about this. There are resources for basically intervening to rescue women from their abusive husbands--I would think rightly so.
So I don't think this thought is terribly complicated. Why is the idea of women being protected from their husbands acceptable, but husbands protecting themselves with a prenuptual agreement not as acceptable in the eyes of some? The sentiment is exactly the same, regardless about what this allegedly says about one spouse not fully trusting the other. That is, no matter how much a woman says she trusts her husband, I don't think too many mind all that terribly that at least SOME resources exist to protect her from her husband in a worst-case-scenario. A prenup is the same thing, given the high likelihood of divorce today (especially of a wife divorcing her husband) and a husband being enslaved by the end result of divorce court.
.....................................
.
And the reason for exploring the issue of DV as a men's issue is just pointing out a general tendency for people not being interested (for the most part) in helping men when they are victims of women (certainly nowhere NEAR on par with the romantic notions of the reverse), be it in divorce settlements, DV . . . and hence understanding of those cases all-around is a problem too.
I dont agree that people dont want to help men. There are loads of men's groups, support groups and help for men with different types of issues and problems. How many people do you know REALLY well who have been divorced? 3 ort 4? 2 or 3? I know dozens and dozens, many in my family, my ex's family and my husbands family. I have never seen one where the husband was treated differently from the woman.
My own solicitor for example, was very fair, and despite what my ex had done to me and the children(which the solicitor admitted was appalling) he said that the courts don't take that into account but only want what is needed for the children, taking into account that each spouse needs to have enough to live on and somewhere to live. I have never known a single case here where one spouse was treated badly by the courts.
Besides that, we as believers need to trust GOD to provide for us, protect us, look after us, and be our advocate, rather than think that the world owes us a living and go all out to get what WE can to the detriment of our soon to be spouse. So what if they get a bit more than us, so what if we feel aggrieved, God is the ultimate judge and provider and if we act with decency, honestly, fairness and integrity, God will always restore what we have lost anyway and bless us.
Look at our case. Despite what my ex did to us, I always treated him fairly and decently, not even persuing things in the divorce that my solicitor said I was entitled to, and yet God has been restoring to me so much. My husband gave his wife(who had had an affair and was divorcing him) all they had, with the house and contents, rather than fight through the secular courts, and very quickly he met me, we married and I had a home for us to live in, and we have a brilliant marriage.
A solicitor we know even admitted that my husbands wife had 'taken him to the cleaners'(a British phrase),but do you know what, my husband didn't care, he had done what he felt was right in Gods eyes and felt completely at peace. Now THAT'S a Godly man. Guess what, 9 years later she is alone while he has a very happy marriage, 3 step kids who he loves and who love him, a beautiful new step grandson, and many promises from God of what a blessed future we have in store. God always rewards us if we act well.
If we try and get our own 'human rights'(how I hate that word)and go all out to 'fleece' the other partner, guess what, we may well end up with very little, because God will say that we have had our own rewards, and may not restore or give us anything. We may have got 'one up' on our ex, but in Gods eyes we have acted badly and in an ungodly way.
Coming in late, but the first thing that sticks out to me is that you view a prenup very differently than I do.
You view them as insurance in case the relationship fails.
I view them as agreeing on the terms of the relationship beforehand.
How you approach it makes a big difference, I would think.
Jarrod
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Mar 11, 2014 - 18:42:10
Coming in late, but the first thing that sticks out to me is that you view a prenup very differently than I do.
You view them as insurance in case the relationship fails.
I view them as agreeing on the terms of the relationship beforehand.
How you approach it makes a big difference, I would think.
Jarrod
The only time a prenup would be needed is if the marriage ends. If we believe that we become one when we marry, then to me that means that everything that either has or owns before the marriage is now 'ours' after the marriage. If we are married and yet still consider things as 'mine' or 'yours', then what does that say? To me it says that you haven't become one in the true sense of the word.
I can understand it when people in the world want pre-nups, because in the world money and possessions are everything, and in the world of the very rich, marriages very often fail. Also they don't have God to provide for them, nor to restore to them anything that they may loose. Their money and assets are their only security, unlike us.
I just cant understand what place such an agreement has in a Christian marriage.
In the UK they aren't even legally binding, and often if there has been such an agreement, the judge will over rule it because it is unfair.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Mar 11, 2014 - 18:42:10
Coming in late, but the first thing that sticks out to me is that you view a prenup very differently than I do.
You view them as insurance in case the relationship fails.
I view them as agreeing on the terms of the relationship beforehand.
How you approach it makes a big difference, I would think.
Jarrod
Secular law basically determines a lot of issues regarding the marriage contract and a prenup is just a modification on it.
: chosenone Tue Mar 11, 2014 - 18:54:24
I can understand it when people in the world want pre-nups, because in the world money and possessions are everything, and in the world of the very rich, marriages very often fail. Also they don't have God to provide for them, nor to restore to them anything that they may loose. Their money and assets are their only security, unlike us.
This is such a lame guilt trip to mask a total lack of compassion for men. I'm sickened by the thought of men being leeched by women who divorce them, unable to do the good they could be doing in the world, unable to go free as they are made to be, because their wives just decided to divorce him. They have value unto themselves and don't belong in that bondage. If a woman decides to divorce her husband (or vice-versa, of course) then they are no longer "one flesh" and she cannot consider herself entitled to any of him in any way, and there is nothing wrong with making that clear in the marriage contract (via a prenup) before marriage.
It is BIBLICAL that an attack on someone's livelihood is a form of violence. (Malachi 2:16) And the reasons are really obvious, as it can lead to physical harm.
: Cally Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:08:13
: chosenone Tue Mar 11, 2014 - 18:54:24
I can understand it when people in the world want pre-nups, because in the world money and possessions are everything, and in the world of the very rich, marriages very often fail. Also they don't have God to provide for them, nor to restore to them anything that they may loose. Their money and assets are their only security, unlike us.
This is such a lame guilt trip to mask a total lack of compassion for men. I'm sickened by the thought of men being leeched by women who divorce them, unable to do the good they could be doing in the world, unable to go free as they are made to be, because their wives just decided to divorce him. They have value unto themselves and don't belong in that bondage. If a woman decides to divorce her husband (or vice-versa, of course) then they are no longer "one flesh" and she cannot consider herself entitled to any of him in any way, and there is nothing wrong with making that clear in the marriage contract (via a prenup) before marriage.
It is BIBLICAL that an attack on someone's livelihood is a form of violence. (Malachi 2:16) And the reasons are really obvious, as it can lead to physical harm.
If the woman has her own career, I agree that she should not be entitled to her dh's $. They can both put up equal amounts to raise the kids, but spousal support for a woman with the means to provide for herself? no.
OTOH, my dh and I agreed that I was NOT going to have a highfalutin career; that I was going to make a home and raise our family. If, God forbid, something went crazy haywire with us and we split...I have no way to provide for myself, let alone the children.
I realize not many women these days are homemakers (full time child raisers), but for those of us out there...this post, Cally sent a shiver down my spine. sorry.
: MeMyself Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:12:42
OTOH, my dh and I agreed that I was NOT going to have a highfalutin career; that I was going to make a home and raise our family. If, God forbid, something went crazy haywire with us and we split...I have no way to provide for myself, let alone the children.
Then don't divorce the guy. Isn't that obvious?
And I personally don't advocate the matter being handled any differently in the reverse scenario if a man decides to divorce his wife. The spouse who decides to take off decides that there is no longer "one flesh," so how is that spouse entitled to anything from the other as if they were?
: Cally Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:17:44
: MeMyself Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:12:42
OTOH, my dh and I agreed that I was NOT going to have a highfalutin career; that I was going to make a home and raise our family. If, God forbid, something went crazy haywire with us and we split...I have no way to provide for myself, let alone the children.
Then don't divorce the guy. Isn't that obvious?
Wow. Compassion exudes, Cally! LOL! Are you saying no matter WHAT he does, I should not divorce him? (I am NOT planning to, not even close and I thought I made that clear in my post by saying " God forbid, something went crazy haywire with us"...)
: Cally Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:17:44And I personally don't advocate the matter being handled any differently in the reverse scenario if a man decides to divorce his wife. The spouse who decides to take off decides that there is no longer "one flesh," so how is that spouse entitled to anything from the other as if they were?
Life throws so many curve balls, Cally. There are circumstances out there none of us *ever* think we will have to face...
If I left (again, God forbid, not looking to, not wishing to, not planning to EVER) it would have to be because of some very serious harmful offenses and there was no sign of remorse.
I would need his financial assistance...at least until I could get a degree in something that could sustain a modest (and I am willing to live VERY modestly) life.
: chosenone Tue Mar 11, 2014 - 18:54:24
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Mar 11, 2014 - 18:42:10
Coming in late, but the first thing that sticks out to me is that you view a prenup very differently than I do.
You view them as insurance in case the relationship fails.
I view them as agreeing on the terms of the relationship beforehand.
How you approach it makes a big difference, I would think.
Jarrod
The only time a prenup would be needed is if the marriage ends.
I don't agree. A prenuptial agreement can set forth an expectation of what is/isn't appropriate to the relationship, which can help to keep a marriage from ending. It also could keep a marriage from happening, if the two can't agree on something. That might be a good thing.
If nothing else, it forces some compromises on issues BEFORE the situation actually happens, which can make handling issues that arise less confusing.
If we believe that we become one when we marry, then to me that means that everything that either has or owns before the marriage is now 'ours' after the marriage. If we are married and yet still consider things as 'mine' or 'yours', then what does that say? To me it says that you haven't become one in the true sense of the word.
The Bible only says "one flesh," not "one mind" or "one fiduciary." To be certain, a co-mingling of assets is something that should be discussed and agreed on beforehand. But I don't think that a complete merger is an absolute necessity.
My fiancee and I have agreed on a system that will allow each of us to have things that are "mine" in addition to a pool of resources and things which are "ours." There are some definite benefits, and this is what both of us want.
I can understand it when people in the world want pre-nups, because in the world money and possessions are everything, and in the world of the very rich, marriages very often fail. Also they don't have God to provide for them, nor to restore to them anything that they may loose. Their money and assets are their only security, unlike us.
It's not a security issue so much as a freedom issue. Having a separate account means not having to agree on every major purchase. Each person can have things they are "saving for" without each other's goals competing directly with each other.
I just cant understand what place such an agreement has in a Christian marriage. In the UK they aren't even legally binding, and often if there has been such an agreement, the judge will over rule it because it is unfair.
Wow. I didn't realize the British legal system had eroded so much. You guys are in danger of losing the things that make you British. Heading towards being just one more good EU citizen, I guess.
Jarrod
It is always necessary to have the potential wife sign the standard "Waiver of Property and Profit," if she wishes to marry you. This does two things, 1. Prohibits her from owning any property 2. She may make no claims against the husband's estate in the event of the dissolution of marriage.
: Cally Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 02:38:27
Secular law basically determines a lot of issues regarding the marriage contract...
Exactly. Maybe it's just me, but my confidence in the government to set and regulate the terms of my marriage is very, very low.
: Cally Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 02:38:27
...and a prenup is just a modification on it.
Or if you make it specific, it can override a lot of things, effectively allowing the two people to agree to their own terms for the marriage. It's not just a "what we do in case we break up." Unless you choose to do it that way, in which case, you missed the point of doing it already.
It should be a time where the couple can come together and discuss their future and set expectations and establish a process and a system to govern their household. Maybe it sounds strange, but it can be a time where you learn a lot about your potential mates wants and desires and plan a way to better keep that person satisfied.
Jarrod
: Texas Conservative Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:51:22
It is always necessary to have the potential wife sign the standard "Waiver of Property and Profit," if she wishes to marry you. This does two things, 1. Prohibits her from owning any property 2. She may make no claims against the husband's estate in the event of the dissolution of marriage.
???
: MeMyself Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:53:43
: Texas Conservative Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:51:22
It is always necessary to have the potential wife sign the standard "Waiver of Property and Profit," if she wishes to marry you. This does two things, 1. Prohibits her from owning any property 2. She may make no claims against the husband's estate in the event of the dissolution of marriage.
???
I am fairly certain that is tongue in cheek.
: BondServant Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 12:18:05
: MeMyself Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:53:43
: Texas Conservative Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:51:22
It is always necessary to have the potential wife sign the standard "Waiver of Property and Profit," if she wishes to marry you. This does two things, 1. Prohibits her from owning any property 2. She may make no claims against the husband's estate in the event of the dissolution of marriage.
???
I am fairly certain that is tongue in cheek.
I hope so...lol...I was leaning that way, but wanted to check... ;)
: Texas Conservative Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:51:22
It is always necessary to have the potential wife sign the standard "Waiver of Property and Profit," if she wishes to marry you. This does two things, 1. Prohibits her from owning any property 2. She may make no claims against the husband's estate in the event of the dissolution of marriage.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:51:52
: Cally Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 02:38:27
Secular law basically determines a lot of issues regarding the marriage contract...
Exactly. Maybe it's just me, but my confidence in the government to set and regulate the terms of my marriage is very, very low.
: Cally Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 02:38:27
...and a prenup is just a modification on it.
Or if you make it specific, it can override a lot of things, effectively allowing the two people to agree to their own terms for the marriage. It's not just a "what we do in case we break up." Unless you choose to do it that way, in which case, you missed the point of doing it already.
It should be a time where the couple can come together and discuss their future and set expectations and establish a process and a system to govern their household. Maybe it sounds strange, but it can be a time where you learn a lot about your potential mates wants and desires and plan a way to better keep that person satisfied.
Jarrod
Prenups are almost always about what happens financially in the event of a divorce.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:51:52
: Cally Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 02:38:27
Secular law basically determines a lot of issues regarding the marriage contract...
Exactly. Maybe it's just me, but my confidence in the government to set and regulate the terms of my marriage is very, very low.
: Cally Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 02:38:27
...and a prenup is just a modification on it.
Or if you make it specific, it can override a lot of things, effectively allowing the two people to agree to their own terms for the marriage. It's not just a "what we do in case we break up." Unless you choose to do it that way, in which case, you missed the point of doing it already.
It should be a time where the couple can come together and discuss their future and set expectations and establish a process and a system to govern their household. Maybe it sounds strange, but it can be a time where you learn a lot about your potential mates wants and desires and plan a way to better keep that person satisfied.
Jarrod
How exactly does the govt regulate the terms of your marriage even before you are married? The govt has never regulated the terms of my marriage.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:44:55
: chosenone Tue Mar 11, 2014 - 18:54:24
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Mar 11, 2014 - 18:42:10
Coming in late, but the first thing that sticks out to me is that you view a prenup very differently than I do.
You view them as insurance in case the relationship fails.
I view them as agreeing on the terms of the relationship beforehand.
How you approach it makes a big difference, I would think.
Jarrod
The only time a prenup would be needed is if the marriage ends.
I don't agree. A prenuptial agreement can set forth an expectation of what is/isn't appropriate to the relationship, which can help to keep a marriage from ending. It also could keep a marriage from happening, if the two can't agree on something. That might be a good thing.
If nothing else, it forces some compromises on issues BEFORE the situation actually happens, which can make handling issues that arise less confusing.
If we believe that we become one when we marry, then to me that means that everything that either has or owns before the marriage is now 'ours' after the marriage. If we are married and yet still consider things as 'mine' or 'yours', then what does that say? To me it says that you haven't become one in the true sense of the word.
The Bible only says "one flesh," not "one mind" or "one fiduciary." To be certain, a co-mingling of assets is something that should be discussed and agreed on beforehand. But I don't think that a complete merger is an absolute necessity.
My fiancee and I have agreed on a system that will allow each of us to have things that are "mine" in addition to a pool of resources and things which are "ours." There are some definite benefits, and this is what both of us want.
I can understand it when people in the world want pre-nups, because in the world money and possessions are everything, and in the world of the very rich, marriages very often fail. Also they don't have God to provide for them, nor to restore to them anything that they may loose. Their money and assets are their only security, unlike us.
It's not a security issue so much as a freedom issue. Having a separate account means not having to agree on every major purchase. Each person can have things they are "saving for" without each other's goals competing directly with each other.
I just cant understand what place such an agreement has in a Christian marriage. In the UK they aren't even legally binding, and often if there has been such an agreement, the judge will over rule it because it is unfair.
Wow. I didn't realize the British legal system had eroded so much. You guys are in danger of losing the things that make you British. Heading towards being just one more good EU citizen, I guess.
Jarrod
Prenups have never been legally binding here WS, so nothing has been eroded. The judge will look at what is fair for each spouse and the children if the case comes to court,(and most divorces never come to court.) Remember pre-nups they are a VERY recent modern invention. I think its 100% right that they are not legally binding, because that not what marriage should be about, and many of them are very unfair to one spouse, especially after a long marriage.
: chosenone Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 13:18:35
I think its 100% right that they are not legally binding, because that not what marriage should be about, and many of them are very unfair to one spouse, especially after a long marriage.
Hold on, I thought it was "just stuff" in any case, and we should trust God to restore things when we lose them.
Or maybe what you mean is that it's "just stuff" if it's the man who loses out? If it's the woman who stands to suffer an injustice, then the issue of unfairness is suddenly important?
Please clarify, if you would.
: chosenone Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 13:09:27
Prenups are almost always about what happens financially in the event of a divorce.
I'm not sure that's true... the most common stipulation is one to prevent all property from becoming common property, and allow for each person to have their own sole and separate property. This is relevant in case of a divorce, of course, but it is quite a bit more than that.
Even if we allowed that it was true, that doesn't mean that is the way it
should be. <- This is actually one of the major points I was trying to make in that previous post.
: chosenone Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 13:18:35
Prenups have never been legally binding here WS, so nothing has been eroded. The judge will look at what is fair for each spouse and the children if the case comes to court,(and most divorces never come to court.
To me this sounds like a huge erosion of the legal system. Two willing people enter into a mutual contract fully aware of what they are agreeing to. Later, the judge strikes down that agreement. Not because there is something in it that is against the law. Because he wants it to be "fair."
"Fair" doesn't seem like a legal concept to me. More of a nebulous opinion type thing. Erosion.
Remember pre-nups they are a VERY recent modern invention. I think its 100% right that they are not legally binding, because that not what marriage should be about, and many of them are very unfair to one spouse, especially after a long marriage.
I disagree again. The word "pre-nup" may be new, but the practice is as old as marriage itself.
These used to be called
betrothals, and they were/are a period of time coming after the point where the groom-to-be announces his intention to marry the bride-to-be where the terms of the marriage were haggled over and agreed on. The groom could not take the bride as wife, and there was no wedding, until he received permission.
Of course, a major difference is that it used to be the father-of-the-bride who negotiated on his daughter's behalf (or, nefariously, sometimes on his own behalf other than hers). Typically the negotiations included discussion of the dowry, stipulations that the groom must own certain property, provide certain things for the bride, conditions under which the groom might divorce his wife, and conditions under which the wife might annul the marriage and return to her parents home.
The whole betrothal process is kind of a major theme in the Bible, with Christ playing the part of the groom, and the church the part of the bride, and the bride waiting for the groom's return, after he finishes making the required preparations.
Jarrod
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 14:46:17
: chosenone Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 13:18:35
Prenups have never been legally binding here WS, so nothing has been eroded. The judge will look at what is fair for each spouse and the children if the case comes to court,(and most divorces never come to court.
To me this sounds like a huge erosion of the legal system. Two willing people enter into a mutual contract fully aware of what they are agreeing to. Later, the judge strikes down that agreement. Not because there is something in it that is against the law. Because he wants it to be "fair."
"Fair" doesn't seem like a legal concept to me. More of a nebulous opinion type thing. Erosion.
Remember pre-nups they are a VERY recent modern invention. I think its 100% right that they are not legally binding, because that not what marriage should be about, and many of them are very unfair to one spouse, especially after a long marriage.
I disagree again. The word "pre-nup" may be new, but the practice is as old as marriage itself.
These used to be called betrothals, and they were/are a period of time coming after the point where the groom-to-be announces his intention to marry the bride-to-be where the terms of the marriage were haggled over and agreed on. The groom could not take the bride as wife, and there was no wedding, until he received permission.
Of course, a major difference is that it used to be the father-of-the-bride who negotiated on his daughter's behalf (or, nefariously, sometimes on his own behalf other than hers). Typically the negotiations included discussion of the dowry, stipulations that the groom must own certain property, provide certain things for the bride, conditions under which the groom might divorce his wife, and conditions under which the wife might annul the marriage and return to her parents home.
The whole betrothal process is kind of a major theme in the Bible, with Christ playing the part of the groom, and the church the part of the bride, and the bride waiting for the groom's return, after he finishes making the required preparations.
Jarrod
Prenups, as in deciding who gets what financially if the marriage ends have never been legal here. The legal system here is thankfully among the best in the world, and I am glad that the courts have the right to overrule often very unfair agreements made sometimes 20 or 30 years before, when things in the marriage have changed dramatically and children have been born. A divorce will only go to court of one or both are fighting the settlement, and most don't get to court because agreement is reached before that.
My solicitor, when he found out I was getting married again, said half jokingly, 'we do a good rate on prenups.' I just laughed and said, no thanks not for me.
: MeMyself Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:53:43
: Texas Conservative Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:51:22
It is always necessary to have the potential wife sign the standard "Waiver of Property and Profit," if she wishes to marry you. This does two things, 1. Prohibits her from owning any property 2. She may make no claims against the husband's estate in the event of the dissolution of marriage.
???
The "Wavier of Property and Profit" is a fairly standard form. You can google it. Also, we are where we are in this society because we started letting women leave the house without a male escort, wear clothes, speak to males they are not related to, etc. Women should stay at home, teach their children the "Rules of Acquisition" and pre-chew their childrens food for them.
: chosenone Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 15:39:16
Prenups, as in deciding who gets what financially if the marriage ends have never been legal here.
It's like I didn't say anything at all... you just gloss over it entirely in your opening sentence.
whoosh!
: Texas Conservative Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 16:09:18
The "Wavier of Property and Profit" is a fairly standard form. You can google it. Also, we are where we are in this society because we started letting women leave the house without a male escort, wear clothes, speak to males they are not related to, etc. Women should stay at home, teach their children the "Rules of Acquisition" and pre-chew their childrens food for them.
You don't have the lobes...
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 16:18:47
: chosenone Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 15:39:16
Prenups, as in deciding who gets what financially if the marriage ends have never been legal here.
It's like I didn't say anything at all... you just gloss over it entirely in your opening sentence.
whoosh!
WS prenups as we see them today, are financial agreements to decide who gets what in the event of a divorce.
: chosenone Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 16:23:53
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 16:18:47
: chosenone Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 15:39:16
Prenups, as in deciding who gets what financially if the marriage ends have never been legal here.
It's like I didn't say anything at all... you just gloss over it entirely in your opening sentence.
whoosh!
WS prenups as we see them today, are financial agreements to decide who gets what in the event of a divorce.
I do not think that your (royal?) we is as inclusive as you think it is.
Jarrod
: chosenone Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 15:39:16
Prenups, as in deciding who gets what financially if the marriage ends have never been legal here. The legal system here is thankfully among the best in the world, and I am glad that the courts have the right to overrule often very unfair agreements made sometimes 20 or 30 years before, when things in the marriage have changed dramatically and children have been born. A divorce will only go to court of one or both are fighting the settlement, and most don't get to court because agreement is reached before that.
My solicitor, when he found out I was getting married again, said half jokingly, 'we do a good rate on prenups.' I just laughed and said, no thanks not for me.
(emboldening by me)
You blatantly contradict yourself in this sentiment yet again. After all the sermonizing about stuff being merely stuff, and trusting God for provisions so it's supposedly worldly for a man to protect himself with a prenup, but here the sentiment is that the agreements of some prenups are "unfair" over material things and that's a point of concern.
This is a very interesting article that says what I also feel. Its is written by this man:-
Russell D. Moore is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the moral and public policy agency of the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
........................................................
A pastor emailed me recently to say that he'd been in the process of preparing a couple for marriage. In the flow of premarital counseling he learned that the man had insisted that his future wife sign a prenuptial agreement, and that she'd agreed to it. The pastor told the couple they're not ready to marry, and wondered whether prenuptial agreements have any place in a Christian marriage.
Let me first note that I am sure there are some legal circumstances in which a prenuptial agreement is mandated by law or by insurance policies, say in the case of a widow who remarries and who has minor children from her first marriage receiving an ongoing inheritance.
The typical arrangement of a prenuptial agreement, however, is completely outside the Christian vision of marriage. Here's why.
First of all, a prenuptial agreement assumes a contractual rather than a covenantal view of marriage. It assumes there are two "partners" in the marriage, each protecting his or her interests and resources.
A Christian marriage, however, is a one-flesh union. What is true of the one is true of the other. A prenuptial agreement in a Christian marriage makes about as much sense as a legal contract between one's mouth and one's stomach, in case of a refusal to provide nutrients. The Apostle tells us: "No man hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church" (Eph 5:29).
This one-flesh union is in view in the traditional Christian vows, "with all my worldly goods I thee endow."
A prenuptial agreement also presupposes divorce. Divorce is a regrettable future possibility, in this scenario, but it is a possibility. A couple that begins preparing for the possibility of divorce is headed toward it. Why not have the couple sign a legal document with arrangements made for the children in the case that she murders him? We wouldn't think to do so because murder is, or ought to be, unthinkable for a couple preparing for marriage. Sadly, divorce is all too thinkable, even for those marrying in Christian churches.
I'm with my pastor correspondent. This couple is not yet ready to marry, to give themselves to one another completely. If the future groom can't trust his bride with his money, how can he trust her with his life, his family, his children, his future?
Another interesting article
http://www.gotquestions.org/prenuptial-agreements.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/prenuptial-agreements.html)
: chosenone Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 18:30:19
This is a very interesting article that says what I also feel. Its is written by this man:-
Russell D. Moore is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the moral and public policy agency of the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
........................................................
A pastor emailed me recently to say that he'd been in the process of preparing a couple for marriage. In the flow of premarital counseling he learned that the man had insisted that his future wife sign a prenuptial agreement, and that she'd agreed to it. The pastor told the couple they're not ready to marry, and wondered whether prenuptial agreements have any place in a Christian marriage.
Let me first note that I am sure there are some legal circumstances in which a prenuptial agreement is mandated by law or by insurance policies, say in the case of a widow who remarries and who has minor children from her first marriage receiving an ongoing inheritance.
The typical arrangement of a prenuptial agreement, however, is completely outside the Christian vision of marriage. Here's why.
First of all, a prenuptial agreement assumes a contractual rather than a covenantal view of marriage. It assumes there are two "partners" in the marriage, each protecting his or her interests and resources.
A Christian marriage, however, is a one-flesh union. What is true of the one is true of the other. A prenuptial agreement in a Christian marriage makes about as much sense as a legal contract between one's mouth and one's stomach, in case of a refusal to provide nutrients. The Apostle tells us: "No man hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church" (Eph 5:29).
This one-flesh union is in view in the traditional Christian vows, "with all my worldly goods I thee endow."
A prenuptial agreement also presupposes divorce. Divorce is a regrettable future possibility, in this scenario, but it is a possibility. A couple that begins preparing for the possibility of divorce is headed toward it. Why not have the couple sign a legal document with arrangements made for the children in the case that she murders him? We wouldn't think to do so because murder is, or ought to be, unthinkable for a couple preparing for marriage. Sadly, divorce is all too thinkable, even for those marrying in Christian churches.
I'm with my pastor correspondent. This couple is not yet ready to marry, to give themselves to one another completely. If the future groom can't trust his bride with his money, how can he trust her with his life, his family, his children, his future?
The argument is garbage for many reasons already stated. A prenup is nothing more than a modification on a legal agreement that's already described by the government--which is to say, it's more about distrust in the family courts' notorious bias against husbands/fathers.
But if a woman can't respect the value of a man's life being equal to her own, as reflected by such an attitude, then she's not ready to marry. Any articles from this guy on the staggeringly high rate of divorces initiated by wives and his response to that?
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:44:55The Bible only says "one flesh," not "one mind" or "one fiduciary."
While it is somewhat Off-Topic, this mindset is problematic; not only for this topic but for many different subjects. "One Flesh" should not be taken as meaning the physical joining of 2 bodies; rather the Hebraic mindset did not see a distinct separation between spirit and physical. As used in Genesis 2, it means the WHOLE PERSON.
: Cally Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 18:46:19
: chosenone Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 18:30:19
This is a very interesting article that says what I also feel. Its is written by this man:-
Russell D. Moore is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the moral and public policy agency of the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
........................................................
A pastor emailed me recently to say that he'd been in the process of preparing a couple for marriage. In the flow of premarital counseling he learned that the man had insisted that his future wife sign a prenuptial agreement, and that she'd agreed to it. The pastor told the couple they're not ready to marry, and wondered whether prenuptial agreements have any place in a Christian marriage.
Let me first note that I am sure there are some legal circumstances in which a prenuptial agreement is mandated by law or by insurance policies, say in the case of a widow who remarries and who has minor children from her first marriage receiving an ongoing inheritance.
The typical arrangement of a prenuptial agreement, however, is completely outside the Christian vision of marriage. Here's why.
First of all, a prenuptial agreement assumes a contractual rather than a covenantal view of marriage. It assumes there are two "partners" in the marriage, each protecting his or her interests and resources.
A Christian marriage, however, is a one-flesh union. What is true of the one is true of the other. A prenuptial agreement in a Christian marriage makes about as much sense as a legal contract between one's mouth and one's stomach, in case of a refusal to provide nutrients. The Apostle tells us: "No man hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church" (Eph 5:29).
This one-flesh union is in view in the traditional Christian vows, "with all my worldly goods I thee endow."
A prenuptial agreement also presupposes divorce. Divorce is a regrettable future possibility, in this scenario, but it is a possibility. A couple that begins preparing for the possibility of divorce is headed toward it. Why not have the couple sign a legal document with arrangements made for the children in the case that she murders him? We wouldn't think to do so because murder is, or ought to be, unthinkable for a couple preparing for marriage. Sadly, divorce is all too thinkable, even for those marrying in Christian churches.
I'm with my pastor correspondent. This couple is not yet ready to marry, to give themselves to one another completely. If the future groom can't trust his bride with his money, how can he trust her with his life, his family, his children, his future?
The argument is garbage for many reasons already stated. A prenup is nothing more than a modification on a legal agreement that's already described by the government--which is to say, it's more about distrust in the family courts' notorious bias against husbands/fathers.
But if a woman can't respect the value of a man's life being equal to her own, as reflected by such an attitude, then she's not ready to marry. Any articles from this guy on the staggeringly high rate of divorces initiated by wives and his response to that?
I think its a very good article, and I agree that the couple are no where near ready to sacrificially give themselves to each other 100%. As Christians we cant see marriage as the world does, because God says its a covenant.
One of the marriage promises that so many says is "with all my worldly goods I thee endow". That is the total opposite of what happens in a prenup. When I married, all that was 'mine' was now 'ours', and all that was 'his' was now 'ours'. There is no 'his' or 'mine' everything is joint. We are one now not two. We have a joint bank account and everything we own is ours.
Don't you think that as Christians we need to trust God for our provision, and that He will restore whatever we loose? Or should we selfishly keep things from our spouse, so that if we divorce he/she wont have any of it, and we will be able to keep it all for oursleves? Which sounds more godly to you? Do you think that you can protect yourself better than God can?
: DaveW Thu Mar 13, 2014 - 05:25:06
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:44:55The Bible only says "one flesh," not "one mind" or "one fiduciary."
While it is somewhat Off-Topic, this mindset is problematic; not only for this topic but for many different subjects. "One Flesh" should not be taken as meaning the physical joining of 2 bodies; rather the Hebraic mindset did not see a distinct separation between spirit and physical. As used in Genesis 2, it means the WHOLE PERSON.
The whole person includes the mind, the body and the spirit. A pre-nup has no place when we really believe that. A pre-nup is actually very very selfish, wanting to look after no 1 with no thought for God or of the other spouse. As long as I am ok and have all my money and assets, I don't care what happens to you. Its true what God says that the love of money is the root of all evil. There are some thing far more important than that, like honestly fairness, integrity, trust, unselfishness and self sacrifice. God will always bless us and reward us for those attributes.
: chosenone Thu Mar 13, 2014 - 08:00:08
Don't you think that as Christians we need to trust God for our provision, and that He will restore whatever we loose? Or should we selfishly keep things from our spouse, so that if we divorce he/she wont have any of it, and we will be able to keep it all for oursleves? Which sounds more godly to you? Do you think that you can protect yourself better than God can?
Somehow I feel that this argument swings both ways.
Even if there is a prenup, should not both parties trust in God for their provision?
I could as well say that the minor party in a prenup is greedy by wanting to have what the other person has. That too is not Godly. Same argumentation applies.
: DaveW Thu Mar 13, 2014 - 05:25:06
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:44:55The Bible only says "one flesh," not "one mind" or "one fiduciary."
While it is somewhat Off-Topic, this mindset is problematic; not only for this topic but for many different subjects. "One Flesh" should not be taken as meaning the physical joining of 2 bodies; rather the Hebraic mindset did not see a distinct separation between spirit and physical. As used in Genesis 2, it means the WHOLE PERSON.
No, Dave. Just no. That's not right. I know why you're driving at that point - soul (or nephesh, or psuche) includes both body and some mental aspects. But it's only the lower aspects that are included in the word - the power of movement, the appetites, the capacity for want and need.
Both the OT and NT show a difference between physical/flesh/nephesh/psuche and what is spiritual/ruwach/pneumatikos.
The latter describes higher intellectual functions - cognition, self-awareness, the ability to reason, or to apply a paradigm. It implies understanding and learning from outside sources while the former set of words only includes mental functions that are innate.
Jarrod
: chosenone Thu Mar 13, 2014 - 08:00:08
One of the marriage promises that so many says is "with all my worldly goods I thee endow". That is the total opposite of what happens in a prenup. When I married, all that was 'mine' was now 'ours', and all that was 'his' was now 'ours'. There is no 'his' or 'mine' everything is joint. We are one now not two. We have a joint bank account and everything we own is ours.
Don't you think that as Christians we need to trust God for our provision, and that He will restore whatever we loose? Or should we selfishly keep things from our spouse, so that if we divorce he/she wont have any of it, and we will be able to keep it all for oursleves? Which sounds more godly to you? Do you think that you can protect yourself better than God can?
It's kind of frustrating that you just keep making the same point over and over, which has already been addressed thusly:
a) Not everyone wants to have common property in their marriage, and a marriage covenant allows the two people to set up their finances however they want to!
b) The reasons for not having common property often have nothing to do with divorce, or the potential for divorce, and more to do with freedom and eliminating competing interests.
Maybe you could address those points?
Jarrod
: chosenone Thu Mar 13, 2014 - 08:06:10
: DaveW Thu Mar 13, 2014 - 05:25:06
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Mar 12, 2014 - 11:44:55The Bible only says "one flesh," not "one mind" or "one fiduciary."
While it is somewhat Off-Topic, this mindset is problematic; not only for this topic but for many different subjects. "One Flesh" should not be taken as meaning the physical joining of 2 bodies; rather the Hebraic mindset did not see a distinct separation between spirit and physical. As used in Genesis 2, it means the WHOLE PERSON.
The whole person includes the mind, the body and the spirit. A pre-nup has no place when we really believe that. A pre-nup is actually very very selfish, wanting to look after no 1 with no thought for God or of the other spouse. As long as I am ok and have all my money and assets, I don't care what happens to you. Its true what God says that the love of money is the root of all evil. There are some thing far more important than that, like honestly fairness, integrity, trust, unselfishness and self sacrifice. God will always bless us and reward us for those attributes.
chosenone this just isn't even a conversation. You just declare over and over, matter-of-factly your one-sided point of view, which is absolutely LOADED with hypocrisy.
: Cally Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 18:43:58Why is the idea of women being protected from their husbands acceptable, but husbands protecting themselves with a prenuptual agreement not as acceptable in the eyes of some?
---- because most lawyers are men.
Prenups will put a lot of divorce lawyers out of business.
There is a lot of moral hypocrisy in our Christian churches.
On the one hand, they look down upon prenups. On the other hand, they insist on that we follow The Almighty Government laws concerning marriage and divorce ---- which is defacto the same as insisting that we follow an arbitrary anti-Christian prenuptial agreement of which we never agreed.
I demand a revolution.
I want our churches to INSIST that every single couple who marries signs a Christian prenuptial agreement laid out by the church. In other words, it is the Church that demands that both man and woman abide by Christian rules and family values. Thus, both man and woman are protected from the anti-Christian laws/abuse of our states.
Some churches already do.
: Charming Anarchist Thu May 15, 2014 - 11:56:54
: Cally Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 18:43:58Why is the idea of women being protected from their husbands acceptable, but husbands protecting themselves with a prenuptual agreement not as acceptable in the eyes of some?
---- because most lawyers are men.
Prenups will put a lot of divorce lawyers out of business.
There is a lot of moral hypocrisy in our Christian churches.
On the one hand, they look down upon prenups. On the other hand, they insist on that we follow The Almighty Government laws concerning marriage and divorce ---- which is defacto the same as insisting that we follow an arbitrary anti-Christian prenuptial agreement of which we never agreed.
Truth.
A prenup is just a couple saying to the government: the law allows us to modify the legal situation between a married couple and what YOU do in the event of a divorce. Here is our modification . . .
That's it.
I demand a revolution.
I want our churches to INSIST that every single couple who marries signs a Christian prenuptial agreement laid out by the church. In other words, it is the Church that demands that both man and woman abide by Christian rules and family values. Thus, both man and woman are protected from the anti-Christian laws/abuse of our states.
Some churches already do.
Interesting.
: Charming Anarchist Thu May 15, 2014 - 11:56:54
: Cally Fri Jan 24, 2014 - 18:43:58Why is the idea of women being protected from their husbands acceptable, but husbands protecting themselves with a prenuptual agreement not as acceptable in the eyes of some?
---- because most lawyers are men.
Prenups will put a lot of divorce lawyers out of business.
There is a lot of moral hypocrisy in our Christian churches.
On the one hand, they look down upon prenups. On the other hand, they insist on that we follow The Almighty Government laws concerning marriage and divorce ---- which is defacto the same as insisting that we follow an arbitrary anti-Christian prenuptial agreement of which we never agreed.
I demand a revolution.
I want our churches to INSIST that every single couple who marries signs a Christian prenuptial agreement laid out by the church. In other words, it is the Church that demands that both man and woman abide by Christian rules and family values. Thus, both man and woman are protected from the anti-Christian laws/abuse of our states.
Some churches already do.
God tells us that we must obey the laws of our country and get married properly and legally, thats as it should be.
Of course most Christians are against prenups, I dont know of a single believer who has a prenup., for obvious and clear reasons. When we marry, all that we had before belongs to both of us, and if people dont like that then dont get married. The marriage service actually states "with all my worldly goods I thee endow" which is the total opposite of a prenup. A prenup is already thinking of a divorce and is also saying that this is mine and that is mine, which is very ungodly, greedy and fearful..
MY husband gave his ex wife their house....yes he GAVE it to her when he could have fought for half the value. He did that because he is a man of integrity and high values and trusts God to provide for him and restore to him all that he gave and lost. He did it because he didnt think God would want him to fight over it in court. If we choose our marriage partners very carefully, and only marry people with strong moral values, masses of integrity, honestly and decency, and we will have nothing to fear. Even if something bad did happen, and we act with fairness and integrity, God will always look after us. We do not have to be like the unbelievers who have no one, and for whom money is their no 1 in
life.
No churches shouldnt adopt the 'prenups' that you favour, and I would be very surprised if any have. Do you honestly think that would stop men or women from sometimes bahaving badly? Also, few married couples stay at one church for all their married lives anyway, and will move around and move churches often several times.
this is mine and that is mine, which is very ungodly, greedy and fearful..
It keeps a spouse from leeching off the other if that spouse chooses to initiate a divorce--which is a greedy, selfish, fearful, ungodly thing to do to the spouse whom you divorced. If you choose to no longer be "one flesh" with a person via divorce, yet continue to take from that spouse as if you were, then that is a greedy, selfish, fearful, ungodly thing to do.
Do you honestly think that would stop men or women from sometimes bahaving badly?
Of course it will. It will discourage marriage profiteering by making such an impossible thing to do.
MY husband gave his ex wife their house....yes he GAVE it to her when he could have fought for half the value. He did that because he is a man of integrity and high values and trusts God to provide for him and restore to him all that he gave and lost. He did it because he didnt think God would want him to fight over it in court. If we choose our marriage partners very carefully, and only marry people with strong moral values, masses of integrity, honestly and decency, and we will have nothing to fear. Even if something bad did happen, and we act with fairness and integrity, God will always look after us. We do not have to be like the unbelievers who have no one, and for whom money is their no 1 in
life.
You keep talking about what a great guy your husband is for trusting God to restore what was taken.
What about people who collect alimony, chosenone? Why shouldn't they, likewise, trust God to restore what was lost without being selfish or fearful rather than their ex's money (even after divorce)? You'd have to be pretty far gone not to see that that goes two ways.