American girls

As nietzchefan said earlier

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, I didnt know that. Its a pity that she didnt include child clause and now
she is in trouble. I don't understand, but thats reality...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh yeah thats really too bad, because she appears to be such a great mother

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you kidding?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Britney gives all GOOD mothers a bad name, look at her, she cant even look after her self let alone kids

 

Yes indeed, why DO people sign that LEGAL document. There is no good reason. Courts will award custody to the woman more often without marriage license, along with child support. So no benefit to women as far as kids go. Sueing for property can be done cheaper and easier in small claims court, rather than seperation agreements and divorce proceedings. As far as taxes/benefits go, at least in Canada...Well Shorty and I are of course not married - yet she is on my benefits. Taxes - living together couples in Canada file taxes, just like people with marriage licenses(even two men living together can now do this in Canada).

People can still get married in any elaborate ceremony they want, sans marriage cert. Perhaps some religions demand the document. Well of course, my opinion is piss on that religion too.

Marriage has become a marketing/Legal/government playground of skimming some extra money out of the masses.

 

are you saying that she should give up her children to a guy who try to
exploit her? Ok I change my statement. I feel pity for their children alone..

 

also if a pre nup is made and they are nto rich then what on eart are they trying to protect?

 

The person pushing the prenup is trying to gather the wealth for himself that they make together as a team.

 

Shorty,

I've seen entirely too many otherwise 'good' people resort to nasty, shady tactics when pressure from certain situations are applied to them, to think otherwise.

Do you wear your seatbelt Shorty? Would you wear a helmet if you were to get on and ride a motorcycle? Why?
I wear my seatbelt. But I guess I shouldn't. Because there is no need to. Because I have a fast, stable, controllable car and I'm a good driver, I should never have to worry about getting into an accident, right?

 

neither one of them appears to be parent material.

 

The marriage seatbelt is automatically applied each time you marry by law. It says you have right to half of what you make as a couple in case you crash, because each partner is equal.

 

No but why get married then? Why not just live together? If you feel that strongly about protecting yourself. Thats all I am asking. Then you don't need to pay lawyers obscene amounts of money drawing up anything.

 

oh so they could make lots of money and in vardas case the husband will get it all! ?

or of course vise versa! but what if they have well and happy children who would then get the money!

 

children are like black holes. they suck up everything.

 

well yeah, especially if the woman is to leave the man all the money they have earned together

 

So do lawyers..

 

yeah i wander how much the pre nup cost? how much will somthing like that cost anyway?

i knwo its not free, a lawyer/solicitor never works for nothing

 

I agree totally. I forgot you are an advocate of cohabitation. I have no problem with living together as well. But some women have that 'if there's not a ring on my finger in <however long>, I'm history' mentality.
I'd be pretty happy if I could find a girl that would live with me instead of worrying about getting married.

As I mentioned Luci, Johnny Millionaire would most likely be able to absorb a divorce with all the attorney fees and alimony and giving the ex the car and the house.
If the average joe like myself who makes an average middle class living, expenses that Johnny Millionaire could pay off with pocket change, would cripple me financially. I have student loans, a house payment, a car payment and bills. Alimony, attorney fees, and making mortgage payments on a house that I would have to give to her, in addition to the expenses I already have, just doesn't sound very good to me.
So that's what a non-wealthy person is trying to protect. Comprende'?

 

So what if the husband is out working making all this money. His wife takes some time from her job to have babies and stay home and raise them. Meanwhile taking care of the house. She does all the cleaning, laundry, grocery shopping, watching the kids all day, has dinner on the table when hubby gets home etc. So with this pre nup what happens to her. Does he get to keep all this extra money he made while she wasn't working outside the home for a paycheck? Does what she contributed mean nothing?
How does that work exactly.

 

I think that people often forget that marriage is an institute designed as a contract to raise a family.

Obviously nowadays the romantic idea has taken hold that somehow marriage is about two people in love who will spend eternity together. That's distracting, because it does not focus on the essence of marriage; that there is no 'two' any more, just 'one'. One family.

The resources traditionally went into survival and raising children. The children were a social safety net for old age.

As such marriage was indeed the corner stone of society. Nowadays the values of marriage have changed dramatically, and also other social developments have rendered the function of marriage redundant.

However, you can still see it as a contract to raise children and give up your individual life. As such you do not need a prenuptial. You give it a go and if the ship strands you split the effort. Half the money, half the visitation rights (although sometimes it is in the benefit of the children to not split up visitations half/half).

If you see life as the quest for personal gain then indeed the prenuptial is for you. But I don't see the point of marriage if this is the case.