J.P. Holding's Marriage 101 Thread

[Stevo]

Theological disagreements are very challenging for my wife and I. It can get "heated" if we are not careful because we both strongly believe in the importance of truth. For this reason we try and keep our "debates" limited to 10 minutes. It gives us both the chance to make our cases and stops all the (healthy)passion turning into (nasty)anger.

Of course thats easier said then done!

[Darth Executor]

I have a question:

How good of an idea is it to discuss the possibility of a divorce and setting up a contract (like a pre-nup) to deal with it?

I can see both the pros and cons if it. The pros are that a lot of people split up (and usually not on the best of terms) and a contract makes the separation a lot easier. OTOH, some would say that it's starting off on the wrong foot by even thinking that it might not last until death, and I'm sure some people get offended by their partner even bringing it up.

[CodewordConduit]

I have a question:

How good of an idea is it to discuss the possibility of a divorce and setting up a contract (like a pre-nup) to deal with it?

I can see both the pros and cons if it. The pros are that a lot of people split up (and usually not on the best of terms) and a contract makes the separation a lot easier. OTOH, some would say that it's starting off on the wrong foot by even thinking that it might not last until death, and I'm sure some people get offended by their partner even bringing it up.

A prenup is eminently sensible, and merely ensures that marriage does not result in a net gain for one party at the expense of the other. If I ever did the unthinkable and signed those legal papers of marital doom, and my prospective partner was being all goo-eyed and emotional, thinking that strength of emotion = accurate foresight; I would have us do our wills at the same time (as the prenup) for if we do stay married til death. Then go for a steak or something.

ETA: I view it a bit more simply like this. When you buy home insurance, it isn't because you want to wreck your home. You value your stuff more than the money it's worth - but if something horrible and unforeseeable happens you at least have the chance to start over without a hideous mountain of debt.

[Little Shepherd]

A prenup is eminently sensible, and merely ensures that marriage does not result in a net gain for one party at the expense of the other.

I don't think anyone here questions the practicality of something like a prenup. But remember what Nick said in the first post:

Non-Christians are welcome to post if they are willing to assume a Christian worldview for the sake of discussion.

What I think is most of concern here is whether or not prenuptial agreements are consistent with Christian theology and a Christian view of marriage. I'm not sure. It's separate from the marriage covenant, and doesn't even apply unless you attempt to get the covenant dissolved. But I'm also not sure the state should be that involved in a marriage, or that marriage should involve any government-backed contracts whatsoever. At least to me, it's a pretty confusing area to navigate both theologically and politically.

If I ever did the unthinkable and signed those legal papers of marital doom,

And this . . . is definitely not a statement consistent with a Christian view of marriage. Not consistent at all.

[Darth Executor]

And this . . . is definitely not a statement consistent with a Christian view of marriage. Not consistent at all.

Umm, I think she was joking.

Anyway, my question wasn't particularly about the theology (I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with a prenup theologically speaking) but rather the effects of such a request/act on the relationship. It's practical, but some people might find the request offensive. I just want to know if some of the people with experience in marriage (both successful and unsuccessful) might have some special insight on the matter.

[Raphael]

An ante-nuptial contract (pre-nub to you Americans) is also useful if you're involved in a trade where you might be held personally liable. For example, my brother is a civil engineer. If something he build falls down, he might be sued. The ante-nuptial protects any of their assets that are in his wife's name (so their house in in her name to protect the asset.

So even from a Christian worldview, it is worth getting.

[CodewordConduit]

I don't think anyone here questions the practicality of something like a prenup. But remember what Nick said in the first post:

What I think is most of concern here is whether or not prenuptial agreements are consistent with Christian theology and a Christian view of marriage. I'm not sure. It's separate from the marriage covenant, and doesn't even apply unless you attempt to get the covenant dissolved. But I'm also not sure the state should be that involved in a marriage, or that marriage should involve any government-backed contracts whatsoever. At least to me, it's a pretty confusing area to navigate both theologically and politically.

I know that it's incredibly commonplace for Muslims to have a prenuptial arrangement; there's nothing I can think of that makes endorsing one anti-Christian either. Mosaic law had strict stipulations regarding marriage, dowries etc. It's only since people started marrying in a haze of giddy hormones that practicalities went out of the window, IMO.

And this . . . is definitely not a statement consistent with a Christian view of marriage. Not consistent at all.

It was sarcasm.

[jpholding]

I can see both the pros and cons if it. The pros are that a lot of people split up (and usually not on the best of terms) and a contract makes the separation a lot easier. OTOH, some would say that it's starting off on the wrong foot by even thinking that it might not last until death, and I'm sure some people get offended by their partner even bringing it up.

Aside from conditions Raphael names, I am with the "wrong foot" view, precisely because of the implications.

[CodewordConduit]

Aside from conditions Raphael names, I am with the "wrong foot" view, precisely because of the implications.

When I was engaged the guy was considerably my senior and owned his house outright, as well as being an established businessperson. I offered a prenup in order to allay any niggling concerns that may have plagued him, as well as to confidently knock back any "gold-digger" allegations thrown my way in our social circle. D'ya think that in circumstances like that a prenup can actually help overall?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

When I was engaged the guy was considerably my senior and owned his house outright, as well as being an established businessperson. I offered a prenup in order to allay any niggling concerns that may have plagued him, as well as to confidently knock back any "gold-digger" allegations thrown my way in our social circle. D'ya think that in circumstances like that a prenup can actually help overall?

If he had those and thought you could be a golddigger, why marry you?

[CodewordConduit]

If he had those and thought you could be a golddigger, why marry you?

I was pregnant, he wanted to do the right thing as he saw it. Clearly it never worked out between us, for other reasons that became evident as the pregnancy progressed, but I did love him and tried my very hardest to make that engagement work.

[DesertBerean]

Hrm. I guess in Raphael's example the pre-nup would be something like "The house shall be in the wife's name so their home cannot be affected by any and all legal issues that may arise with the husband's business affairs".

However, most pre-nups that I'm aware of are the sort that says, "IF we divorce, he gets this, she gets that."

[Raphael]

Hrm. I guess in Raphael's example the pre-nup would be something like "The house shall be in the wife's name so their home cannot be affected by any and all legal issues that may arise with the husband's business affairs".

However, most pre-nups that I'm aware of are the sort that says, "IF we divorce, he gets this, she gets that."

with our one, if I get sued, if an asset is in both of our names, and has to be sold to pay for whatever I get sued for, 50% of the money goes to my wife. If the asset is just in her name, the courts cannot touch it. Same with a dual bank account, if I get sued, they can only touch 50% of the money.

My brother has both his house and their two cars in my sister-in-law's name for this reason.

[DesertBerean]

Hm, that's interesting.

[jpholding]

When I was engaged the guy was considerably my senior and owned his house outright, as well as being an established businessperson. I offered a prenup in order to allay any niggling concerns that may have plagued him, as well as to confidently knock back any "gold-digger" allegations thrown my way in our social circle. D'ya think that in circumstances like that a prenup can actually help overall?

I can't imagine that it would in the long run.