How can you ask for a prenob from someone you marry?

[sk*]

My parents have been together since about 29 years of age, and they will stay together until death I am nearly certain. Their relationship is very close and trusting.

But that's not the point. They could have the same trust with no legally binding financial investment in the marriage.

Legally binding --- now that indicates a lack of personal trust.

I am sure that after 29years the trust has build up and they wouldn't require such a contract. Ask them yourself and see their opinion on it, on their own marriage.

BUT, if you ask for a contract in the begining, doesn't that signify that you do not trust them enough? Why not wait a little bit longer before marriage?

-sk

 

[plornive]

I just don't look at marriage as a contract by law. I look at it as more of a contract between two people to stay together forever. No strings attached, just to be together. It gets all messy when you bring the law in. My point was that if the trust is there, there would be no need for any contracts.

-sk

Marriage is a legal contract already! So assuming you are already signing a contract, lets make it fair! At least the trust will be reciprocally demonstrable then!

 

[plornive]

How about just living together and promising to love and support each other until death? If she trusts you, she should have not problem with this.

This really exposes the current idea of marriage for what it is --- a financial contract. A prenup rectifies this.

 

[plornive]

I am sure that after 29years the trust has build up and they wouldn't require such a contract. Ask them yourself and see their opinion on it, on their own marriage.

BUT, if you ask for a contract in the begining, doesn't that signify that you do not trust them enough? Why not wait a little bit longer before marriage?

-sk

They never needed any legal contract, ever. Including the financial policies of the marriage contract. This is true.

 

[sk*]

Marriage is a legal contract already! So assuming you are already signing a contract, lets make it fair! At least the trust will be reciprocally demonstrable then!

I understand what you are saying. If you are going to get married by law, than the only benefits are things like taxcuts and other benefits that the government has for couples.

So it makes sence to sign papers and get these benefits, but you have to ask yourselves what are the reasons for signing these papers?

1. Are they solely for financial benefits (ie government benefits)? If so, then there is a strict purpose for a prenup. This would be an agreement and not so much the traditional meaning of a marriage. This wouldn't necessarily have any form of love in it, just financial aspects.

2. Are you in it for love? If it is love, then why even bother with the imperfections of this agreement? If you are going to be together forever, than why will a prenup make a difference? By asking for such a contract, you are admiting that the trust isn't completely there and you might as well get married for #1.

-sk

 

[sk*]

Then why have any legal contract at all?

For the benefits the government provides.

-sk

 

[plornive]

1. Are they solely for financial benefits (ie government benefits)? If so, then there is a strict purpose for a prenup. This would be an agreement and not so much the traditional meaning of a marriage. This wouldn't necessarily have any form of love in it, just financial aspects.

2. Are you in it for love? If it is love, then why even bother with the imperfections of this agreement? If you are going to be together forever, than why will a prenup make a difference? By asking for such a contract, you are admiting that the trust isn't completely there and you might as well get married for #1.

Then why have any legal contract at all?

We both see what the other is saying now. It is mostly a semantic difference that is difficult to prove correct either way.

 

[plornive]

For the benefits the government provides.

-sk

ok

As I said before, we have 2 different semantic premises. I can see yours. You can see mine.

Logically, you are correct that with absolute, 100% guaranteed trust, a prenup is unnecessary. This is your personal idea, and who am I to argue with that?

I will admit that I don't see marriage as an absolutely guaranteed commitment.

 

[biteme]

If I had money, no way I'd ever marry without a prenup. You'd have to be an idiot.

 

[sk*]

I will admit that I don't see marriage as an absolutely guaranteed commitment.

This is what it all comes down to. This basically means that unless you can see it as "an absolutely guaranteed commitment" then you are marrying for reason #1 (or a variation of it):

"1. Are they solely for financial benefits (ie government benefits)? If so, then there is a strict purpose for a prenup. This would be an agreement and not so much for the traditional meaning of a marriage. This wouldn't necessarily have any form of love in it, just financial aspects."

I do understand what you are saying and do agree with you that a prenup does have its place if you see marriage as a contract. What ever happened to love though? If I ever get married, hopefully it will be for the second reason for marriage I provided. (We might also have slightly different defenitions of love here, as in my defenition it would require complete trust.)

-sk