Alimony skit

[Cally]

Man, I'm so glad some people out there (besides MRAs, it looks like) are doing something to fight this. It's a step in the right direction.

Good grief, if you choose to end a marriage, you choose no longer to be one flesh with your spouse and there's no way you deserve a dime from the other person, let alone "maintaining the lifestyle to which you were accustomed during marriage."

Alimony: A Woman's Jackpot

[chosenone]

Many dont chose to leave a marriage, some are abandoned, divorced against their will, and many more leave because of adultery or abuse, and there are very complicated considerations when a marriage ends, such as money, children, housing, who earns what, maintenance payments etc etc.  A divorce settlement isnt worked out on who caused it, or who left who, but what is the best way forward for all concerned with the children and their care being first priority. At least that what happens here.
When we marry, all that we each have as individuals becomes 'ours', as in 'all my worldy goods I thee endow' in the promises made, so there is never a question of one 'taking' anything. Its all joint money and assets.

[k-pappy]

Alimony is not designed so anyone can maintain a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. It is designed to keep a woman from being destitute after a divorce. For most of mankinds history, the man has been the breadwinner of the family. Without his income a woman had nothing. Alimony is designed to let her get by until she can get the skills where she can get a job to maintain her own living. In today's age, many times the woman is the sole breadwinner and there have been cases where the woman was ordered to pay the man alimony for the same reason.

That's not to say alimony cannot be permanent.  In some cases where there have been long term marriages, alimony can be permanent.

[Cally]

Alimony is not designed so anyone can maintain a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. It is designed to keep a woman from being destitute after a divorce. For most of mankinds history, the man has been the breadwinner of the family. Without his income a woman had nothing. Alimony is designed to let her get by until she can get the skills where she can get a job to maintain her own living. In today's age, many times the woman is the sole breadwinner and there have been cases where the woman was ordered to pay the man alimony for the same reason.

That's not to say alimony cannot be permanent.  In some cases where there have been long term marriages, alimony can be permanent.

Bond, women who divorce multi-millionaire husbands don't just get $15,000 a year (I came up with that number because it's half of the average yearly wage of American men). They get millions in alimony for that reason.

[k-pappy]

Bond, women who divorce multi-millionaire husbands don't just get $15,000 a year (I came up with that number because it's half of the average yearly wage of American men). They get millions in alimony for that reason.

Apples and oranges.

[R-Simon]

There are a lot of complicated issues here.  For example I personally know of many cases where the couple got married at a younger age [perhaps more common in my generation] and the wife worked long hours at low paying jobs to support a husband who went on to a successful professional career. 
Then there are the traditional families where the wife stayed home for a couple of decades mostly because of child care.  Even if the wife also had an advanced education she has lost career positioning.

In every single case I know of where these woman end up in poverty or near-poverty after years of living mostly an upper-middle class life it is because of divorce.  If anything these women should be getting more.

I also know of cases where it went the other way.  A faithful husband with two kids is divorced because the wife wanted to play around.  The husband had been working over-time and making almost 2x his normal salary for the last 2 years.
Once the overtime went away the husband couldn't get the payments reduced.  The husband was living in near-poverty while the wife bought a new Porsche and went out clubbing with her numerous new boyfriends every night.  The kids were wearing 2nd hand clothes and eating the cheapest fare the grocery store could provide while being watched by incompetent neighbors.
When the marriage vows fail and a family breaks up it's often just a mess.  I honestly don't think there is any way for a court system to fix the mess, but certainly the laws could be changed and things could be done better.

[chosenone]

There are a lot of complicated issues here.  For example I personally know of many cases where the couple got married at a younger age [perhaps more common in my generation] and the wife worked long hours at low paying jobs to support a husband who went on to a successful professional career. 
Then there are the traditional families where the wife stayed home for a couple of decades mostly because of child care.  Even if the wife also had an advanced education she has lost career positioning.

In every single case I know of where these woman end up in poverty or near-poverty after years of living mostly an upper-middle class life it is because of divorce.  If anything these women should be getting more.

I also know of cases where it went the other way.  A faithful husband with two kids is divorced because the wife wanted to play around.  The husband had been working over-time and making almost 2x his normal salary for the last 2 years.
Once the overtime went away the husband couldn't get the payments reduced.  The husband was living in near-poverty while the wife bought a new Porsche and went out clubbing with her numerous new boyfriends every night.  The kids were wearing 2nd hand clothes and eating the cheapest fair the grocery store could provide while being watched by incompetent neighbors.
When the marriage vows fail and a family breaks up it's often just a mess.  I honestly don't think there is any way for a court system to fix the mess, but certainly the laws could be changed and things could be done better.

You are right in that there are often faults on both sides in these things, and that either the husband or wife or both, can end up in dire straights. When I suddenly became a single mum for 6 years, I was very poor. I certainly didnt get, nor expect, to live a comfortable life style, and I dont know anyone who has. In all the divorces I know, which is sadly very many, no one has ended up the 'winner' and both have end up with less, a smaller home, less income and a lower standard of living. 

The children should ALWAYS be the priority, and their home and financial provision for their living costs are most important. 

[chosenone]

Alimony is not designed so anyone can maintain a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. It is designed to keep a woman from being destitute after a divorce. For most of mankinds history, the man has been the breadwinner of the family. Without his income a woman had nothing. Alimony is designed to let her get by until she can get the skills where she can get a job to maintain her own living. In today's age, many times the woman is the sole breadwinner and there have been cases where the woman was ordered to pay the man alimony for the same reason.

That's not to say alimony cannot be permanent.  In some cases where there have been long term marriages, alimony can be permanent.

Bond, women who divorce multi-millionaire husbands don't just get $15,000 a year (I came up with that number because it's half of the average yearly wage of American men). They get millions in alimony for that reason.

The number of multi millionaire men is tiny,  and why shouldnt their wives have their share anyway? They have probably supported their husbands for years, bought up their children, and all they have is joint money anyway. 

[Cally]

Alimony is not designed so anyone can maintain a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. It is designed to keep a woman from being destitute after a divorce. For most of mankinds history, the man has been the breadwinner of the family. Without his income a woman had nothing. Alimony is designed to let her get by until she can get the skills where she can get a job to maintain her own living. In today's age, many times the woman is the sole breadwinner and there have been cases where the woman was ordered to pay the man alimony for the same reason.

That's not to say alimony cannot be permanent.  In some cases where there have been long term marriages, alimony can be permanent.

Bond, women who divorce multi-millionaire husbands don't just get $15,000 a year (I came up with that number because it's half of the average yearly wage of American men). They get millions in alimony for that reason.

The number of multi millionaire men is tiny,  and why shouldnt their wives have their share anyway? They have probably supported their husbands for years, bought up their children, and all they have is joint money anyway. 

The moral issue is that a woman (or man) who chooses to divorce her husband (or  man his wife) chooses no longer to be "one flesh" and continue to take because of a relationship she/he chose to terminate. Men's lives have been destroyed because of family courts. Sometimes women's too.

And any argument you make in favor of alimony you can certainly make in favor of prenups. Where are all your sentiments of "it's only money" or  "people should just trust God" or "it's fear of what MIGHT happen" or "it's the person's fault for marrying the wrong person" when the subject is alimony?

[chosenone]

Alimony is not designed so anyone can maintain a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. It is designed to keep a woman from being destitute after a divorce. For most of mankinds history, the man has been the breadwinner of the family. Without his income a woman had nothing. Alimony is designed to let her get by until she can get the skills where she can get a job to maintain her own living. In today's age, many times the woman is the sole breadwinner and there have been cases where the woman was ordered to pay the man alimony for the same reason.

That's not to say alimony cannot be permanent.  In some cases where there have been long term marriages, alimony can be permanent.

Bond, women who divorce multi-millionaire husbands don't just get $15,000 a year (I came up with that number because it's half of the average yearly wage of American men). They get millions in alimony for that reason.

The number of multi millionaire men is tiny,  and why shouldnt their wives have their share anyway? They have probably supported their husbands for years, bought up their children, and all they have is joint money anyway. 

The moral issue is that a woman (or man) who chooses to divorce her husband (or  man his wife) chooses no longer to be "one flesh" and continue to take because of a relationship she/he chose to terminate. Men's lives have been destroyed because of family courts. Sometimes women's too.

And any argument you make in favor of alimony you can certainly make in favor of prenups. Where are all your sentiments of "it's only money" or  "people should just trust God" or "it's fear of what MIGHT happen" or "it's the person's fault for marrying the wrong person" when the subject is alimony?

So you think that one spouse should have everything and the other should just trust God?
I do trust God and as I said I have very little when I got divorced, but what you DO need to remember is that many people who divorce their spouses, do so because their spouses have cheated or done something equally bad. The one who is divorcing is often the innocent one.

If there is a lot of money in the family, then each having half is surely fair? If there is enough money for each to live on well then surely that's fair? I cant see thats its fair for one to have it all and the other to have very little.

[Cally]

The moral issue is that a woman (or man) who chooses to divorce her husband (or  man his wife) chooses no longer to be "one flesh" and continue to take because of a relationship she/he chose to terminate. Men's lives have been destroyed because of family courts. Sometimes women's too.

And any argument you make in favor of alimony you can certainly make in favor of prenups. Where are all your sentiments of "it's only money" or  "people should just trust God" or "it's fear of what MIGHT happen" or "it's the person's fault for marrying the wrong person" when the subject is alimony?

So you think that one spouse should have everything and the other should just trust God?
I do trust God and as I said I have very little when I got divorced, but what you DO need to remember is that many people who divorce their spouses, do so because their spouses have cheated or done something equally bad. The one who is divorcing is often the innocent one.

If there is a lot of money in the family, then each having half is surely fair? If there is enough money for each to live on well then surely that's fair? I cant see thats its fair for one to have it all and the other to have very little.

chosenone, your personal story is all over the forum anyway so I feel safe in saying that's fair game for discussion. Your case of hypocrisy is so easily exposed by your own testimony: your current husband was obviously done an injustice by the courts when he was divorced and he lost much because of it, yet you are against prenups to protect people (usually men) from that kind of injustice. You come up with all those reasons for why MEN should "trust God" or think "It's only money" or "not be afraid of what might happen" or believe they only had themselves to blame because of their poor choice in who to marry--those are your reasons for why prenups are ungodly. Can you do this logic stuff, chosenone? All of that preaching goes out the window when alimony is the issue and you've made that plain again: we need alimony laws, let's not tell (usually women) people to "trust God" or say "it's only money" or "don't be selfish" or "it's your own fault for who you chose to marry" in THAT case.

Can you really not see the double-talk?

[chosenone]

The moral issue is that a woman (or man) who chooses to divorce her husband (or  man his wife) chooses no longer to be "one flesh" and continue to take because of a relationship she/he chose to terminate. Men's lives have been destroyed because of family courts. Sometimes women's too.

And any argument you make in favor of alimony you can certainly make in favor of prenups. Where are all your sentiments of "it's only money" or  "people should just trust God" or "it's fear of what MIGHT happen" or "it's the person's fault for marrying the wrong person" when the subject is alimony?

So you think that one spouse should have everything and the other should just trust God?
I do trust God and as I said I have very little when I got divorced, but what you DO need to remember is that many people who divorce their spouses, do so because their spouses have cheated or done something equally bad. The one who is divorcing is often the innocent one.

If there is a lot of money in the family, then each having half is surely fair? If there is enough money for each to live on well then surely that's fair? I cant see thats its fair for one to have it all and the other to have very little.

chosenone, your personal story is all over the forum anyway so I feel safe in saying that's fair game for discussion. Your case of hypocrisy is so easily exposed by your own testimony: your current husband was obviously done an injustice by the courts when he was divorced and he lost much because of it, yet you are against prenups to protect people (usually men) from that kind of injustice. You come up with all those reasons for why MEN should "trust God" or think "It's only money" or "not be afraid of what might happen" or believe they only had themselves to blame because of their poor choice in who to marry--those are your reasons for why prenups are ungodly. Can you do this logic stuff, chosenone? All of that preaching goes out the window when alimony is the issue and you've made that plain again: we need alimony laws, let's not tell (usually women) people to "trust God" or say "it's only money" or "don't be selfish" or "it's your own fault for who you chose to marry" in THAT case.

Can you really not see the double-talk?

My husband never went to court. He CHOSE to let his ex have their house because he knows that God wouldnt have wanted him to fight over it in court. Thats the sort of guy he is, he has masses of integrity. He trusted God for his future and he has never regretted it.
I dont believe in prenups because when we marry all that either has becomes joint, and is no longer 'mine' and 'theirs'.
If a marriage ends then surely each having a share of the assets seems sensible sensible and fair, if there are any assets of course.

In my own divorce I was scrupulously fair, despite the horror of what my ex had put us through, and everything was worked out according to children's needs, housing needs and available finances. Neither of us had enough to live on for several years, and thats where God comes in, If we trust His promises then surely He will never let us down.   

[Cally]

The moral issue is that a woman (or man) who chooses to divorce her husband (or  man his wife) chooses no longer to be "one flesh" and continue to take because of a relationship she/he chose to terminate. Men's lives have been destroyed because of family courts. Sometimes women's too.

And any argument you make in favor of alimony you can certainly make in favor of prenups. Where are all your sentiments of "it's only money" or  "people should just trust God" or "it's fear of what MIGHT happen" or "it's the person's fault for marrying the wrong person" when the subject is alimony?

So you think that one spouse should have everything and the other should just trust God?
I do trust God and as I said I have very little when I got divorced, but what you DO need to remember is that many people who divorce their spouses, do so because their spouses have cheated or done something equally bad. The one who is divorcing is often the innocent one.

If there is a lot of money in the family, then each having half is surely fair? If there is enough money for each to live on well then surely that's fair? I cant see thats its fair for one to have it all and the other to have very little.

chosenone, your personal story is all over the forum anyway so I feel safe in saying that's fair game for discussion. Your case of hypocrisy is so easily exposed by your own testimony: your current husband was obviously done an injustice by the courts when he was divorced and he lost much because of it, yet you are against prenups to protect people (usually men) from that kind of injustice. You come up with all those reasons for why MEN should "trust God" or think "It's only money" or "not be afraid of what might happen" or believe they only had themselves to blame because of their poor choice in who to marry--those are your reasons for why prenups are ungodly. Can you do this logic stuff, chosenone? All of that preaching goes out the window when alimony is the issue and you've made that plain again: we need alimony laws, let's not tell (usually women) people to "trust God" or say "it's only money" or "don't be selfish" or "it's your own fault for who you chose to marry" in THAT case.

Can you really not see the double-talk?

My husband never went to court. He CHOSE to let his ex have their house because he knows that God wouldnt have wanted him to fight over it in court. Thats the sort of guy he is, he has masses of integrity. He trusted God for his future and he has never regretted it.
I dont believe in prenups because when we marry all that either has becomes joint, and is no longer 'mine' and 'theirs'.
If a marriage ends then surely each having a share of the assets seems sensible sensible and fair, if there are any assets of course.

In my own divorce I was scrupulously fair, despite the horror of what my ex had put us through, and everything was worked out according to children's needs, housing needs and available finances. Neither of us had enough to live on for several years, and thats where God comes in, If we trust His promises then surely He will never let us down.   

Logic is just not causing a response. It's just total matter-of-factness from you. Men's (and sometimes women's) lives have been just destroyed in divorce court from marriage profiteering, and that tragedy matters as much as any.

If someone divorcing shouldn't be told things like "it's only money" and "trust God" and not to take alimony, then someone protecting himself from the potential for a horribly unfair and devastating outcome with a prenup ought not be told "it's only money" and "trust God" to be discouraged from preventing such an injustice.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Alimony is not designed so anyone can maintain a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

Bond, women who divorce multi-millionaire husbands don't just get $15,000 a year (I came up with that number because it's half of the average yearly wage of American men). They get millions in alimony for that reason.

Apples and oranges.

It seems like a fair argument to me.  If it wasn't to keep them in a "lifestyle," and really to keep them from being destitute, wouldn't something like $40K a year be sufficient?

Jarrod

[chosenone]

The moral issue is that a woman (or man) who chooses to divorce her husband (or  man his wife) chooses no longer to be "one flesh" and continue to take because of a relationship she/he chose to terminate. Men's lives have been destroyed because of family courts. Sometimes women's too.

And any argument you make in favor of alimony you can certainly make in favor of prenups. Where are all your sentiments of "it's only money" or  "people should just trust God" or "it's fear of what MIGHT happen" or "it's the person's fault for marrying the wrong person" when the subject is alimony?

So you think that one spouse should have everything and the other should just trust God?
I do trust God and as I said I have very little when I got divorced, but what you DO need to remember is that many people who divorce their spouses, do so because their spouses have cheated or done something equally bad. The one who is divorcing is often the innocent one.

If there is a lot of money in the family, then each having half is surely fair? If there is enough money for each to live on well then surely that's fair? I cant see thats its fair for one to have it all and the other to have very little.

chosenone, your personal story is all over the forum anyway so I feel safe in saying that's fair game for discussion. Your case of hypocrisy is so easily exposed by your own testimony: your current husband was obviously done an injustice by the courts when he was divorced and he lost much because of it, yet you are against prenups to protect people (usually men) from that kind of injustice. You come up with all those reasons for why MEN should "trust God" or think "It's only money" or "not be afraid of what might happen" or believe they only had themselves to blame because of their poor choice in who to marry--those are your reasons for why prenups are ungodly. Can you do this logic stuff, chosenone? All of that preaching goes out the window when alimony is the issue and you've made that plain again: we need alimony laws, let's not tell (usually women) people to "trust God" or say "it's only money" or "don't be selfish" or "it's your own fault for who you chose to marry" in THAT case.

Can you really not see the double-talk?

My husband never went to court. He CHOSE to let his ex have their house because he knows that God wouldnt have wanted him to fight over it in court. Thats the sort of guy he is, he has masses of integrity. He trusted God for his future and he has never regretted it.
I dont believe in prenups because when we marry all that either has becomes joint, and is no longer 'mine' and 'theirs'.
If a marriage ends then surely each having a share of the assets seems sensible sensible and fair, if there are any assets of course.

In my own divorce I was scrupulously fair, despite the horror of what my ex had put us through, and everything was worked out according to children's needs, housing needs and available finances. Neither of us had enough to live on for several years, and thats where God comes in, If we trust His promises then surely He will never let us down.   

Logic is just not causing a response. It's just total matter-of-factness from you. Men's (and sometimes women's) lives have been just destroyed in divorce court from marriage profiteering, and that tragedy matters as much as any.

If someone divorcing shouldn't be told things like "it's only money" and "trust God" and not to take alimony, then someone protecting himself from the potential for a horribly unfair and devastating outcome with a prenup ought not be told "it's only money" and "trust God" to be discouraged from preventing such an injustice.

A prenup is something that a believer should never think of in my opinion. How can you make a godly covenant with someone,  agree that you will become one spiritually, physically and emotionally, but at the same time be holding back your money and possessions from that person 'just in case?' That's not marriage as God intends according to what I see in the Bible.
I believe that in marriage, all that each comes into the marriage with belongs to both from that time forward, and because of that, if there sadly is a divorce, the joint assets should be shared fairly between both, with differences if there are children to think of.

No matter what happens, even if we are treated unfairly by the courts or whoever else, so what? We are not like non believers.  We have a God who promises to look after us and restore to us all that the locusts have eaten. Do we believe that or not? 

[OldDad]

My mom and dad were married 20 years. They both had good paying jobs. My dad sought the divorce - so he had to pay alimony, I understand that. But my mom also got the house, and 1/2 of all other "marital assets." Ok fine - my younger brother and I were out of the house, but she still had to provide a home for our baby brother. But, my dad has paid alimony now for 32 years. Someone please explain how that's fair.

(BTW, after my baby brother left home, my mother took a job in another state and put the house up for sale. My dad went back to court and got half the selling price of the house. My mom was livid and has never really forgiven him - but I say good for him.)

[Cally]

\
No matter what happens, even if we are treated unfairly by the courts or whoever else, so what? We are not like non believers.  We have a God who promises to look after us and restore to us all that the locusts have eaten. Do we believe that or not?

Again, you could just as easily say this to someone to argue that he or she does not need alimony.

Your attitude about this is horrific. You talk one way in a guilt trip against the idea of a prenup for someone protecting himself from a corrupt and horrific situation in family court, yet the recipient of alimony somehow has every right not to hear the same sentiments and suddenly money is not so trivial. Sorry, but that is a truly evil hypocrisy.

[chosenone]

My mom and dad were married 20 years. They both had good paying jobs. My dad sought the divorce - so he had to pay alimony, I understand that. But my mom also got the house, and 1/2 of all other "marital assets." Ok fine - my younger brother and I were out of the house, but she still had to provide a home for our baby brother. But, my dad has paid alimony now for 32 years. Someone please explain how that's fair.

(BTW, after my baby brother left home, my mother took a job in another state and put the house up for sale. My dad went back to court and got half the selling price of the house. My mom was livid and has never really forgiven him - but I say good for him.)

I cant understand why he should have had to pay that once the children were adults, but I suppose thats what was agreed at the time. Parents should always have to pay child support untill the child leaves school. I have never heard of a husband having to pay the wife alimony once the children were adults here, but then most women work so have their own income.

[chosenone]

\
No matter what happens, even if we are treated unfairly by the courts or whoever else, so what? We are not like non believers.  We have a God who promises to look after us and restore to us all that the locusts have eaten. Do we believe that or not?

Again, you could just as easily say this to someone to argue that he or she does not need alimony.

Your attitude about this is horrific. You talk one way in a guilt trip against the idea of a prenup for someone protecting himself from a corrupt and horrific situation in family court, yet the recipient of alimony somehow has every right not to hear the same sentiments and suddenly money is not so trivial. Sorry, but that is a truly evil hypocrisy.

There is a massive difference between a couple wanting a prenup, and thereby refusing to become one spiritually as we are supposed to, and a spouse expecting a share of the joint assets that both jointly have had in their marriage. Why bother saying 'with all my worldly goods I thee endow', but not meaning it?

Both myself and my husband lost a lot in our divorces, my pension was going to be jointly with my ex and now I dont have one, my husband came out with a tiny amount of money only, but God has always looked after us. My husband had no home, he was sharing a house with 4 other people. Not long after, he met me, and we have been married 9 years. I could have got paranoid and made sure my house was protected with a prenup, in fact my solicitor half jokingly suggested it to me and I just laughed. To me that isnt marriage as I see it. I am not going into marriage thinking about what is 'mine' and 'his' and thinking of divorce before we have even made any promises.
If you arent prepared to share everything and become one together, then why bother getting married?   

No matter what happens to us in the future, if we act with honestly and integrity, God will always look after us and restore what we have had taken away. Do you not believe that?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I cant understand why he should have had to pay that once the children were adults, but I suppose thats what was agreed at the time. Parents should always have to pay child support untill the child leaves school. I have never heard of a husband having to pay the wife alimony once the children were adults here, but then most women work so have their own income.

You don't seem to quite understand the difference between child support and alimony.  Alimony is "spousal maintenance" and (theoretically) it is there to recompense one spouse for their opportunity cost in marrying and supporting the other spouse.  For instance, in the situation where one spouse works and supports the other as they finish college.

Jarrod

[Cally]

\
No matter what happens, even if we are treated unfairly by the courts or whoever else, so what? We are not like non believers.  We have a God who promises to look after us and restore to us all that the locusts have eaten. Do we believe that or not?

Again, you could just as easily say this to someone to argue that he or she does not need alimony.

Your attitude about this is horrific. You talk one way in a guilt trip against the idea of a prenup for someone protecting himself from a corrupt and horrific situation in family court, yet the recipient of alimony somehow has every right not to hear the same sentiments and suddenly money is not so trivial. Sorry, but that is a truly evil hypocrisy.

There is a massive difference between a couple wanting a prenup, and thereby refusing to become one spiritually as we are supposed to, and a spouse expecting a share of the joint assets that both jointly have had in their marriage. Why bother saying 'with all my worldly goods I thee endow', but not meaning it?

Both myself and my husband lost a lot in our divorces, my pension was going to be jointly with my ex and now I dont have one, my husband came out with a tiny amount of money only, but God has always looked after us. My husband had no home, he was sharing a house with 4 other people. Not long after, he met me, and we have been married 9 years. I could have got paranoid and made sure my house was protected with a prenup, in fact my solicitor half jokingly suggested it to me and I just laughed. To me that isnt marriage as I see it. I am not going into marriage thinking about what is 'mine' and 'his' and thinking of divorce before we have even made any promises.
If you arent prepared to share everything and become one together, then why bother getting married?   

No matter what happens to us in the future, if we act with honestly and integrity, God will always look after us and restore what we have had taken away. Do you not believe that?

You don't need alimony then if you choose to divorce, period. You can preach all of the same things to someone as reasons for why he or she does not need to take alimony. "Trust God" or whatever reason you come up with. After you sign a prenup, you can share everything you have, until someone decides to break the contract and then things change entirely.

It's pretty obvious the source of this double-standard.