Divorce - doesn't this make sense?

but then if you jointly own it you're not giving anyone anything that *you* specifically own.

What?

if 2 people own something together it's not just that one person's is it?

Well no...

But what I saying is that if you are trully so anti-pre-nup and let's pretend the government officials really cared about anybody and they actually implement my proposal of a REQUIRED Pre-Nup, then you could just sign everything over to Mr. Wonderful and in effect bypass the Pre-Nup...

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Angelcake is far from naive, age does not give wisdom, experience does.

thats not by passing the pre nup at all, the pre nup sets out who's getting what if you and you're partner split. however in a marriage not one person gets everything it's split, and thats the way that it is in a divorce i have no intention whatsoever of getting divorced, but if (hevaen forbid) my other half goes awol and after 7 years i decide to divorce then i'd end up giving my absent partner i havent seen in 7 years everything...

A pre-nup is a document that says one person will not be intitled to the other persons riches. It doesnt decide whos getting what. Thats what divorce is for.

so.....people who don't want a prenup should give everything they own to their partner.
.....what?

this is all very silly.

its peoples own right whether or not to get a prenup and there's no reason why it should be an enforced recommendation.

And thats the bottom line. That relates to the original question asked. It is a choice. It doesnt matter wether, I, The Queen or king king agrees or disagree, its someones choice. It shouldnt be inforced. Thats a riodiculous idea.

You need to think outside the box.

What both of them?

i think a prenup to me, in my personal opinion, and this is why i would never use one, is that i think it symbolises very much that a person is unwilling to give everything to a marriage.

and by everything i mean more than financial culpability.

I meant king kong, its getting late. I want a cigarette and im very f***ing hormonal. Wanna make something of it???

Pre-nups are a good idea. They should be encouraged.

But requiring them? No. It's none of the government's business. It'd just be yet another law to enforce, yet more redtape to pay for. Yet another fee levied. Yet more administration.

If we required everything that everyone thinks is required, then we'd be so bogged down in legislature that you'd barely be able to move without breaking some law or being required to fill some form or other. Our society is litigious and red-tape bound enough, thanks.

As many of you know I have been happily married to Ben for 27 years, so I guess its what you call a stable marriage.

I dont agree with a pre-nup contract. To me its saying I dont trust you.

When I married Ben I married him cause I loved him, wanted to spend my life with him, have his children, share our lives together what ever was thrown at us.

Thankfully we have been able to do this so far, but it wasnt easy. We have had our rows, arguments, hes slept on the sofa, etc, but we have trust in one another, communicate, and when anger settles we talk things through, even when angry with each other we still love one another.

When I took my marriage vows I meant every word:- For better or worse,For richer or Poorer,In sickness and in health, Till death do us part. We took those vows over again 25 years later.

It is too easy for people to get a divorce now instead of working at their marriage.

Does a pre nup contract/ agreement not rule out these vows?

i wouldnt sign one, i wouldnt marry someone who asked me to either