Christian Forums

[/b]


In reference to the prenup situation, what I don't get is how people marry unsuitable folks and then act all surprised when they behave the same exact way after getting married.  My friend Bob marries Sue.  Sue has never had any real employment, has 3 kids from 3 different men, mooched off of friends, family and strangers to get by and Bob marries her and then is surprised when she continues to be fiscally irresponsible.  or, Jane marries Mark who sleeps around with anything and anyone and continues to do so after being married. 

I do know people have issues and make mistakes but get real!  The whore you met drunk in a bar will still be the whore you met drunk in a bar after marriage.  *shrug* 

Quote from: PeterEnergy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 13:50:51

Quote from: Kindle on Sat May 26, 2012 - 14:56:33

I agree with Chosen.. entering into a marriage via pre-nups doesn't say much for the couple's faith and willingness toward that marriage.  ButI guess there are some situations, at least, where they can be seen as prudent. 

ALL situations not some makes pre-nups prudent. I went to a man-hating female attorney. I told her I had a pre and post nuptial agreement. Rather than compliment my acting pro-actively, she looked scornfully at me and said, without even knowing what the nuptial agreements said, that the court may not enforce the nuptial agreements.

To that, I asked what then is the purpose of these agreements. She did not say. There is no good reason to allow your future liability to dictated by government legislatures and courts when there is a viable alternative.

You make a classic Appeal to Emotion, guilt via "it does not say much."  As though marriage  is exclusively a romantic event with no legal or financial implications for failure!

Exactly. If you stay married everything you have belongs to each other. Without a pre-nup a man stands to become a male slave to an ex-wife.

Planning for failure in marriage is sad.  It says a lot about those that do it. 

One situation provided by DaveW is a family owned business.  A pre-nup that would prohibit the divorcing spouse from having  a slice of that pie is pretty reasonable. It is OPM that is involved. 
I can see pre marital debt as well.  An exclusion of responsibility on behalf of the non-debtor should the debt remain, or a written acknowledgement that monies going toward the debt be seen as a direct benefit to the debtor.. in regards to the division of marital property.  I don't know how the courts actually approach these things, so...

"the court may not enforce the nuptial agreements"... yeah, well.. that is something else to consider.

Solution! Both the man and the woman give away all they have to the poor, save for enough to live a humble life together, and go from there. 

Quote from: Kindle on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 16:19:41

One situation provided by DaveW is a family owned business.  A pre-nup that would prohibit the divorcing spouse from having  a slice of that pie is pretty reasonable. It is OPM that is involved. 
I can see pre marital debt as well.  An exclusion of responsibility on behalf of the non-debtor should the debt remain, or a written acknowledgement that monies going toward the debt be seen as a direct benefit to the debtor.. in regards to the division of marital property.  I don't know how the courts actually approach these things, so...

"the court may not enforce the nuptial agreements"... yeah, well.. that is something else to consider.

Solution! Both the man and the woman give away all they have to the poor, save for enough to live a humble life together, and go from there. 

That doesn't really work. The man is going to owe a boatload of child support and alimoney and being poor doesn't exactly solve that problem.

Again, I met a guy in this situation: owed money that very few people COULD possibly pay.

Quote from: Cally on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 16:21:46

Quote from: Kindle on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 16:19:41

One situation provided by DaveW is a family owned business.  A pre-nup that would prohibit the divorcing spouse from having  a slice of that pie is pretty reasonable. It is OPM that is involved.  
I can see pre marital debt as well.  An exclusion of responsibility on behalf of the non-debtor should the debt remain, or a written acknowledgement that monies going toward the debt be seen as a direct benefit to the debtor.. in regards to the division of marital property.  I don't know how the courts actually approach these things, so...

"the court may not enforce the nuptial agreements"... yeah, well.. that is something else to consider.

Solution! Both the man and the woman give away all they have to the poor, save for enough to live a humble life together, and go from there.  

That doesn't really work. The man is going to owe a boatload of child support and alimoney and being poor doesn't exactly solve that problem.

Again, I met a guy in this situation: owed money that very few people COULD possibly pay.

Actually I was just talking to a couple this morning.  She has children, now full grown, but custody was voluntary given to the ex husband. She was just hit with a $40k action for back child support.  Apparently, the action was based on what she was earning when she first divorced.. and times were better.  She's only been working min wage jobs when she could get them for awhile now.. paying a portion of her check when she got one.

IOW.. it happens to women too.


My response was directed to Peter.. the whole guilt trip argument

Quote from: fassopony on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 13:46:09

Examples of treating people with love ----

A customer service representative is kind and patient towards a flaming mad abusively inappropriate customer.  THAT is showing or acting love, in simple human form.  Break it down to human relations, a husband is kind and patient to a flaming mad abusively inappropriate wife.

Example of treating people with equality----

My coworker Cash is a supervisor who is amazing at tracking production, bill to pay and using Excel, etc., to show how it influences operations.  My other coworker John is a supervisor who is very talented at motivating and coaching his team to produce well, they hit or exceed goal monthly.  They receive the same pay and receive the same treatment/status at work.  Two very different strengths in the same position, two very equally respected supervisors.  As an aside, I routinely beat them both but that's just me being cocky LOL!!

This is feminism at it's most simple form.  I do the same job as Cash and John, I get the same pay, same treatment, etc.  Cash would never expect me to so "traditional girly" things outside of my job expectations like admin/secretarial or cleaning the breakroom for him nor would my manager. 

Very good example Fasso

Sorry to be so abrupt.. am trying to do many things at once.

The thing is lawyers are so expensive.. my friend has all her W-2s, tax returns, etc to show her case. But the children are out of state and they can't even begin to afford to contest this mess.
Men are stuck in the same mess..moreso the men. The other side of the coin, of course, is non custodial parents getting the money out of ex-partners when they're trying to hide incomes, or are simply on the lam..

What to do?

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 05:41:00

Quote from: PeterEnergy on Mon Jun 11, 2012 - 09:40:07

Quote from: ObeyTheGospel
"Look how men ... use women for sex.

What are men supposed to use as sex object?

And the bible is written from the viewpoint that women use the men for sex and not the other way around.

Apparently the church cannot even get that right.

       Not arguing with what you said,  it's just the way you said it!       

Quote from: Kindle on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 16:31:57

Quote from: Cally on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 16:21:46

Quote from: Kindle on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 16:19:41

One situation provided by DaveW is a family owned business.  A pre-nup that would prohibit the divorcing spouse from having  a slice of that pie is pretty reasonable. It is OPM that is involved.  
I can see pre marital debt as well.  An exclusion of responsibility on behalf of the non-debtor should the debt remain, or a written acknowledgement that monies going toward the debt be seen as a direct benefit to the debtor.. in regards to the division of marital property.  I don't know how the courts actually approach these things, so...

"the court may not enforce the nuptial agreements"... yeah, well.. that is something else to consider.

Solution! Both the man and the woman give away all they have to the poor, save for enough to live a humble life together, and go from there.  

That doesn't really work. The man is going to owe a boatload of child support and alimoney and being poor doesn't exactly solve that problem.

Again, I met a guy in this situation: owed money that very few people COULD possibly pay.

Actually I was just talking to a couple this morning.  She has children, now full grown, but custody was voluntary given to the ex husband. She was just hit with a $40k action for back child support.  Apparently, the action was based on what she was earning when she first divorced.. and times were better.  She's only been working min wage jobs when she could get them for awhile now.. paying a portion of her check when she got one.

IOW.. it happens to women too.


My response was directed to Peter.. the whole guilt trip argument

There are some wonky formulas for child support penalties in general, to be sure. I've heard of others . . .

Quote from: Taherd on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 15:53:05
Planning for failure in marriage is sad.  It says a lot about those that do it. 

Appeal to Emotion. Pre & Post Nupts are like insurance. One does not plan on having a tree fall on their house but they prudently prepare just in case.

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 05:41:00

And the bible is written from the viewpoint that women use the men for sex and not the other way around.

Apparently the church cannot even get that right.

I do not believe the Bible advocates using anyone.

Quote from: PeterEnergy on Wed Jun 13, 2012 - 09:11:23

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 05:41:00

And the bible is written from the viewpoint that women use the men for sex and not the other way around.

Apparently the church cannot even get that right.

I do not believe the Bible advocates using anyone.

Agreed.  Even if it does, you're gonna have to provide some Scriptural evidence; that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.

Dave is referring to OT passages that specify cultural traditions to be obeyed.  I would recommend studying or at least perusing not only a good Bible commentary but also a guide on the narrative genre (in which the OT was written). 

Specifically, men are exhorted to use or find comfort in their own wives, not in other women--

Proverbs 5:1822  May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.  A loving doe, a graceful deer--may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love.Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress? Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife? For a man's ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all his paths.

Even so, the WHOLE Bible wasn't written from that viewpoint - only those certain OT passages. 

Proverbs is not written in the narrative genre.  It is a list of good ideas or "how to guide" written by Solomon.

Jewish culture was very different from today.  Spelling out marital activities and underlining a husbands duty to having sexual relations with his wife guaranteed lineage.

Lots of the directives in the Bible for back then seem odd to us now.  Shellfish for instance.  Why would God not want them to eat shellfish?  Maybe because of the high risk of infection and foodborne illness.  Same goes with pork.

If God hadn't specified gleaning rights to the widows and poor, Boaz never would have met Ruth.

Fassopony - I will disagree with you on the purpose of some of the "odd" rules in the OT.

I submit they were entirely to mark the people plainly as in covenant with God. Sure some of the dietary laws could be construed to be healthier. But what about wearing fringes on the corners of the robes?  Or not blending fabrics? Or having certain commandments tied to your hand and forehead?

They do plainly mark them as people in a covenant with God :)  And, they were to be obeyed as a directive from God.

I was trying to get wolflet to understand meaning behind directive, also that while God does not change, our human cultures do.  Although God certainly does not have to have a certain meaning or even explain Himself to us, you cannot deny that many of His covenant directives had common sense applications for the world that benefited or was good for His people.

I did not state purpose of covenant law, I expounded on the direct benefits to listening to and obeying God's law for His people.

Quote from: fassopony on Thu Jun 14, 2012 - 11:08:50
I expounded on the direct benefits to listening to and obeying God's law for His people.

ALWAYS a good idea IMO.

True dat!!