Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Pre-nups with a twistFollow

#27 Dec 08 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,272 posts
I'm still under the impression that no matter what, if you both mutually decided to have children you both mutually assume the financial responsibility of it, not one or the other.
#28 Dec 08 2011 at 2:24 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
ArexLovesPie wrote:
I'm still under the impression that no matter what, if you both mutually decided to have children you both mutually assume the financial responsibility of it, not one or the other.


Why do you consider this case to be contrary to that?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#29 Dec 08 2011 at 2:24 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
ArexLovesPie wrote:
I'm still under the impression that no matter what, if you both mutually decided to have children you both mutually assume the financial responsibility of it, not one or the other.
So labor has no value?
#30 Dec 08 2011 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I'm of the mind that if two people are agreeing to get married and have kids and stuff, they're tacitly agreeing not to divorce.

The whole prenup thing blows that right out the winder.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#31 Dec 08 2011 at 2:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Sweetums wrote:
ArexLovesPie wrote:
I'm still under the impression that no matter what, if you both mutually decided to have children you both mutually assume the financial responsibility of it, not one or the other.
So labor has no value?

I want compensation for stretch marks.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#32 Dec 08 2011 at 3:12 PM Rating: Good
***
3,272 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
ArexLovesPie wrote:
I'm still under the impression that no matter what, if you both mutually decided to have children you both mutually assume the financial responsibility of it, not one or the other.


Why do you consider this case to be contrary to that?


I don't, I'm just stating my opinion on the matter. I probably could have worded this differently.

Sweetums wrote:
ArexLovesPie wrote:
I'm still under the impression that no matter what, if you both mutually decided to have children you both mutually assume the financial responsibility of it, not one or the other.
So labor has no value?


Labor has value, I agree without a doubt, but this is about financial responsibility after the birth. Regardless of who is the bread winner and the overall dynamics of the family, the financial burden is borne between the parents. Perhaps I'm far too idealistic in my views but I see a married couple as a singular unit when it comes to children, not Spouse X and Spouse Y.
#33 Dec 08 2011 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Elinda wrote:
I'm of the mind that if two people are agreeing to get married and have kids and stuff, they're tacitly agreeing not to divorce.

The whole prenup thing blows that right out the winder.


That sounds absurd to me. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Most of those have kids. EVERYONE I know whose parents stayed together for the sake of the kids ended up with worse home lives than if their parents hadn't had a loveless marriage.

Having a contingency plan in case of divorce already set up is only going to help the family transition to the new arrangement.

And, hell, consider THIS marriage with and without the prenup. Imagine if they got married, had kids, and THEN this stuff came up. That's a massive fight waiting to happen. And finances are one of the leading causes of disputes that lead to divorce. Getting those issues out of the way now just seems smart.

WAY better to talk it through now than deal with the massive fights it would generate when they actually get divorced. That's way more likely to mess with their kids' minds.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#34 Dec 08 2011 at 4:07 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,212 posts
I think it is a bit much but only since CA is a strong communal property state. I also wonder why they are getting married.
However I do understand wanting to protect your income, and as woman she will lose standing by having children.
If I was the man the marriage would not happen. If it did happen I would pay a surrogate to bear our children instead. It may be cheaper. :)


Edited, Dec 8th 2011 5:08pm by Jonwin
#35 Dec 08 2011 at 6:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Jonwin wrote:
I think it is a bit much but only since CA is a strong communal property state. I also wonder why they are getting married.
However I do understand wanting to protect your income, and as woman she will lose standing by having children.
If I was the man the marriage would not happen. If it did happen I would pay a surrogate to bear our children instead. It may be cheaper. :)


You could always stay at home instead. I'm going to assume that she's agreed to stay home for the sake of the family, not because she has any particular desire to stay at home instead of working. If that's the case, then it's legitimate for her to protect herself financially. I still don't agree with this idea of him paying into her account in case of divorce. But since it seems to be a retirement fund, it's more about keeping the two of them even. If they stay together and retire, I'm imagining they will continue to use those funds together. If they don't stay together, then her retirement fund doesn't have to take a hit even though her career did. She's still not going to have an income as high as she could have had.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 287 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (287)