Sorry sonnybuck, you're the one who made the original statement contradicting mine. Therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU. Of course, you can't post verification, because there is none. You couldn't corroborate your original claim if your life depended on it. In fact, if you can post credible evidence that verifies the statement, "Nowadays the man is just as likely to clean up in a divorce as the woman and get custody of the kids too," I'll start a new thread admitting you're right and I'm wrong, along with a genuine apology. Unlike others here, I'm an open-minded man, more than willing to adopt another point of view when proven wrong.
And just for future reference, childhood sob stories hardly qualify as "proof."
Ok, I did it. The word "hypocracy" is nowhere to be found. I did, however, find the word "hypocrisy" nearby, with the following definition:
hy·poc·ri·sy n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies 1. The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pertense. 2. "Michael Johnson, PE," usenet shit-slinger extraordinaire, epitomizes this word.
First sensible thing you've said yet. She is all the above things and more.
Again, you willfully ignore all of my previous remarks on this. I'm happily married to my highschool sweetie and love her more today than I ever have, and those feelings are strongly reciprocated by her. We clearly understand these concepts better than millions of Americans, who flop around from mate to mate, living desperately miserable lives. In fact, many of the folks in high school who were so quick to tell us things like, "you two will never make it," and, "first loves never last," are now in their second, and in some cases, THIRD marriage! Not that I'm gloating over that -just the opposite, in fact- I know divorce is painful and I genuinely feel sorry for anyone who has to experience it. And yes, I have met NUMEROUS men who have said, "If I only had a prenup."
The fact that you can't even acknowledge that healthy and loving relationships coupled with prenuptial agreements exist only exposes your closemindedness. You have your mind made up, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change it.
Puh-leeze. My wife was class Valedictorian and graduated college with high honors. She completed grad school in 1/12 years. Her friends include MENSA members with IQs in the stratosphere, and any one of them would dance circles around you on their worst day (not that that requires any degree of significant effort, of course). It's not surprising that you would choose to attack my wife. I suppose I could follow suit and post a "yo momma" joke in response, but I refuse to stoop to your level. Fortunately, puerile insults like that only re-enforce my case.
It seems you're erroneously assuming that our agreement is completely one-sided, that in the unlikely event our marriage is terminated, my beloved wife would be left completely destitute. Nothing could be further from the truth. Her bases are well covered in our agreement. We were represented by separate attorneys, under strict counsel from our rabbi. The whole purpose of a prenup is to ensure that neither party is taken advantage of, not to guarantee a lopsided victory for one or the other. Such a contract probably wouldn't even hold up in court.
Again, that reading comprehension issue of yours rears its ugly head. I've already stated the importance of a prenuptial agreement. If you choose to deliberately disregard it, that's fine... but pleasedon't imply I haven't already addressed the issue.
Finally, a refreshing note of honesty. You fear that which you don't understand, and retreat to the safety of your own little preconceived notions. Seriously Joe, try to approach these issues with a little more openmindedness. It'll only benefit you and your loved ones in the long run.
I know it would just be an exercise in futility to ask you to back that statement up with credible evidence, so I'll just say no, that's not "the reason why the divorce rate is so high." Most people enter the sacred bond of marriage thinking it will last a lifetime.
Bullshit Detector Translation: Yes, I clearly misunderstood his original analogy, so I'll just type "LOL!" along with the old puerile "you're full of crap" standby, and pretend I'm an intellectual giant.
[... deletia ...]
Ok, please, be honest, just for once: have you even READ any of my posts, regarding the relationship between my wife and I? Is it really possible for anyone to be as woefully stubborn and closeminded as you appear to be?
Actually, I felt the exact opposite while receiving nothing but hostility and hatred from you. But that's okay. Regardless of your feelings towards me, I like you Mike. I just think you're misinformed on divorce statistics and was trying to help you out. You clearly misunderstood my original intentions.
On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:57:13 GMT, Carl Childers wrote something wonderfully witty:
While Divorces are becoming more & more fair, if there can actually be such a thing, but I do not think that men have reached even parity on child custody issues. You would have to post some verifiable statistics on that one for me to take it at face value. The majority of judges will still think that Mommy is the best place for the kiddies to be with. All things being equal I would tend to agree with that as well. Unless the natural mother is proven as being unfit it will be a hard go for any man to gain complete and total custody of their off-spring. The only cases I am personally aware of have to do with an unfit Mother, a Mother who does not want the kids, or has a job that makes child rearing difficult.
On Sun, 22 May 2005 16:28:55 GMT, Carl Childers wrote something wonderfully witty:
I am really curious as to exactly what you had that you needed to protect so much? You constantly talk about marrying your HS sweetheart so I'll assume (perhaps wrongly) that you married at an early age and therefore did not have a significant stash of assets to protect. Are you landed gentry or something?
On Sun, 22 May 2005 16:45:37 GMT, Carl Childers wrote something wonderfully witty:
I've read and understood every word about your wife and your relationship. I still don't understand what you thought you had that was so important that it must be protected from your wife in a mad money grab. Most prenups are from people who have significant assets to protect from someone who may just be marrying them for their money. I am still not clear on why you felt the need to protect yourself from a spouse that is the love of your life. In the back of your mind you had to be preparing for something or had some kind of doubts.
On Sun, 22 May 2005 16:49:00 GMT, Carl Childers wrote something wonderfully witty:
Why did it need to be updated? You finally figure out the marriage was/is going to last or did you put more restrictions on your loving spouse? I really good 10th anniversary present would have been to throw the damn thing away.
Carl Childers wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news1.east.earthlink.net:
Wrong. You want to _think_ I've ignored them because you don't want to actually respond to what I've posted above.
So what's behind it? I'm still waiting for you to tell us why you insisted on one.
The only thing that's been exposed is your reluctance to say why you insisted on a prenup.
Evidence for what? It's simple common sense we're talking about. What you're advocating totally lacks common sense.
Ah, so you two are just too smart for me, eh? Puh-leeze yourself, you smug, self-righteous, pompous ass. Talk about closedmindedness.
Suspecting her of being an idiot for agreeing to sign a prenup is in now way attacking. If you were half as smart as you claim to be you'd realize this. Pure logic dictates that she either has a few screws loose, or she's been totally fooled.
And what case might that be? Seems like you've changed topics.
Interesting deduction. Where'd you come up with that?
Enough said. The fact that both of you involved attorneys in a prenup just to get married again speaks volumes.
Childers, get off it. Just get to the point, if you can, and tell me why. And leave the pomposity out of it.
You haven't really said anything except how brilliant you claim to be.
I've already done that and come to my own conclusions. In your smugness, you fail to realize that I've already thought all this out with a very open mind.
LOL! Not only are you a smug, pompous ass, you're an extremely gullible one at that. Your last sentence explains everything. Thanks for the laugh. :)
This is usually where my mind goes when I hear the word "prenup" as well. However, some prenups can be made for the purpose of protecting one another WHILE married and not divorced. Depending upon the laws of the state, you can get a prenup that says if the husband alone racks up debt, the wife is not obligated to pay it off. This is assuming they keep exclusive money accounts. Rare, but it happens. Prenups CAN (but usually aren't) be safety nets to keep financial safety during the course of the marriage. I know this isn't exactly what's being discussed but I was harassed into speaking up.
Carl Childers wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news1.east.earthlink.net:
Childers, take a look in the mirror. You're the smug, pompous asshole who won't admit he has an axe to grind. Obviously, you're the one with the problems with this whole prenup thing.
Here's the thing you can't handle: The concept of a prenup goes against the very principles of marriage. In your mind (and apparently your wife's mind), you've justified that it's the best thing since sliced bread. That's just fine for the both of you. But just don't assume it's the solution for everybody else.
On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:01:46 -0400, Kidd Andersson wrote something wonderfully witty:
Well I don't know who harassed you into speaking up, but you make a couple of good points, but I don't know if it would actually stand up in court. I was sued over something really small time and they went after my wife as well as the family assets are held jointly.
You think I hate you? I reserve that emotion for people that really deserve it like child killers. Do a reality check.... this is just internet banter.
Truth be told, neither of us have proven a damn thing in this whole thread.
First, my response in this thread was to Joe not you. Second, I don't have to do anything just because you make a statement. You're the one that seems to have a problem so go do the research to prove your claim and get back to me. Still don't see the hypocrisy do you?
So if I would have replied to your original post in this thread to show me the proof to back up your statements you would have been obligated to provide the appropriate research? If you're not obligated, then there is that pesky hypocrisy issue raising its ugly head again.
Who is sobbing? This comment actually makes me laugh. Thanks for the giggle.
From the above, I see you like to warp reality and truth to support your positions. The first meaning is definitely applicable to your debate techniques. I guess you really can't see the hypocrisy of you having one set of standards for your opponent and another set for yourself.
As for the second, the logic, or purpose, of the comment escapes me. I guess it is supposed to be such a witty barb that I scurry off in total humiliation after reading it?
It is lawful in court if you do it the right way and the laws of your particular state accept certain things. It mostly only works if you keep seperate assets. My state doesn't allow it so it wasn't an option for us BUT it was discussed. When he first said "Prenup" I damn near left him. lol "I don't want any of your 6 cars, I don't want your stupid island and I don't want to marry someone who thinks I want to take him to the cleaners!" But then he explained and it actually made sense. It's not uncommon in his country. We still aren't getting one though. :) God Bless the US Government!
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.