Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

If you ain't no punk holler "we want pre-nup!"

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    With the high rate of divorce, at least here in the US, people should definitely be signing pre-nup agreements.


  • Options
    #153
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    Killer Wench wrote: »
    With the high rate of divorce, at least here in the US, people should definitely be signing pre-nup agreements.

    Why get married in the first place? If you are that worried about it....


  • Options
    #154
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    That's a good point.

    Farming and land in Ireland nearly qualify as their own religion.

    I know a farmer who is not leaving his only son, his only child, the land in his will because the child does not have a 'relationship with the land."

    And the life of farming for farmers and their wives so so vocational, it really can't be compared to other marriages.

    Maybe farmers shouldn't get married, no one is forcing them to, because when a woman or perhaps with the new impending legislation a man is,they do end up enconsed in the vocation and then to demand they invest in that vocation but in the case of a divorce end up with nothing, seems like the spouse in the end was nothing more than an indentured servant.


    You're mad for the wife to be a servant/slave.

    What above and beyond a normal wife do you see as her contribution?



    They shouldn't get married now? or in a relationship with a woman who has a child for too long?


  • Options
    #155
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    MaypacMay2 wrote: »
    A servant is an employee.

    A wife is not an employee. If the farmer is paying for all the wife's expenses it's reasonable to expect that she will make a contribution to the household rather than sitting on her arse all day.

    Ah right like an au pair.


  • Options
    #156
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Yeah that's a really good question.
    For me it would come down to what legal advantages it confers.
    And the Civil Partnership bill is pushing you in that direction anyway.

    What legal advantages?

    Is there a reason such discrimination should exist?

    The question for me, is why do we even have marriage anymore at all? {fine for religious aspect- the state enforcing and backing it is the question.}


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    NI24
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Once again, another thread bandying around the same "50% of all US marriages end in divorce!"--except, y'know, they don't. And the same old players nodding their head in agreement, even when it's been proven to them that they don't.

    And good luck to the "7 in 10 farmers" wanting a pre-nup-- they're going to need it.


  • Options
    #158
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    NI24 wrote: »
    Once again, another thread bandying around the same "50% of all US marriages end in divorce!"--except, y'know, they don't. And the same old players nodding their head in agreement, even when it's been proven to them that they don't.

    And good luck to the "7 in 10 farmers" wanting a pre-nup-- they're going to need it.

    I pointed this faulty stat out pages ago.


  • Options
    #159
    Wompa1
    Registered Users Posts: 8,165 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    Wompa1 wrote: »

    Personally, I'd be all for getting a pre-nup. We haven't talked about it since we got engaged. Mainly because we're having a long drawn out engagement. We talked it before we got engaged, she said she would be fine with it, if it was fair for both people.

    I used the article about the farmers to bring it up again. She's already looked into the cost of getting it drafted by a lawyer. So, there won't be any disagreements about lack of trust because we both still want one.


  • Options
    #160
    NI24
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Sky King wrote: »
    Maybe the only thing keeping people in a sh!tty marriage is the idea that they might have to sell all their stuff to pay off some hoebag of a wife (....or husband!!) if they split up.

    It never, never ceases to amaze me, how, in any thread about men getting the short end of the stick in any type of legal situation, someone always has to hurl some derogatory name at women. Wrapped up in the usual, 'Well, men can be hoebags,too, donchyanknow' bullsh*t-- as if "hoebag" isn't a completely gender specific word.

    And I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is exactly the reason why MRAs will never be taken seriously. Because no matter what legitimate complaint men may have with regards to discrimination, the entire MRA movement (and all its offshoots and supporters) is so inundated with out-and-out misogynists that it can't help but give itself a bad name.


  • Options
    #161
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    That's a good point.

    Farming and land in Ireland nearly qualify as their own religion.

    I know a farmer who is not leaving his only son, his only child, the land in his will because the child does not have a 'relationship with the land."

    And the life of farming for farmers and their wives so so vocational, it really can't be compared to other marriages.

    Maybe farmers shouldn't get married, no one is forcing them to, because when a woman or perhaps with the new impending legislation a man is,they do end up enconsed in the vocation and then to demand they invest in that vocation but in the case of a divorce end up with nothing, seems like the spouse in the end was nothing more than an indentured servant.

    How are they meant to sire an issue? An offspring to carry on looking after the land for generations to come?

    You hardly expect him to live in sin and have a baby outside of marriage? (blesses myself)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    How are they meant to sire an issue? An offspring to carry on looking after the land for generations to come?

    You hardly expect him to live in sin and have a baby outside of marriage? (blesses myself)

    Well every silver lining has a cloud.


  • Options
    #163
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    NI24 wrote: »
    It never, never ceases to amaze me, how, in any thread about men getting the short end of the stick in any type of legal situation, someone always has to hurl some derogatory name at women. Wrapped up in the usual, 'Well, men can be hoebags,too, donchyanknow' bullsh*t-- as if "hoebag" isn't a completely gender specific word.

    And I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is exactly the reason why MRAs will never be taken seriously. Because no matter what legitimate complaint men may have with regards to discrimination, the entire MRA movement (and all its offshoots and supporters) is so inundated with out-and-out misogynists that it can't help but give itself a bad name.

    Get off your high horse, before you get pushed off

    The poster said " hoebag of a wife (....or husband!!)" Note the exclamation marks after the word husband. Equal opportunities

    Look at the title of the OP. I believe that that it a lyric from Kanye West. I sense people are writing in spirit of hip hop/gangsta music , yo. a

    So, you betta check yourself before you wreck yourself , yo


  • Options
    #164
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    If you marry a mechanic, will ya be wanting half his spanners in the divorce?

    How about a chef, would ya be looking for his knives?


  • Options
    #165
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    I'm aiming to marry rich, so boo to pre-nups.


  • Options
    #166
    NI24
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Get off your high horse, before you get pushed off

    The poster said " hoebag of a wife (....or husband!!)" Note the exclamation marks after the word husband. Equal opportunities

    Look at the title of the OP. I believe that that it a lyric from Kanye West. I sense people are writing in spirit of hip hop/gangsta music , yo. a

    So, you betta check yourself before you wreck yourself , yo

    Obviously you missed the part where I called bullsh*t on his/her little afterthought of "...or husband!!" Because that's exactly what it is--BULLSH*T! But I also have to laugh at how you criticize my assumption followed by your own assumption of "spirit of hip-hop". Or is it just more a$$-covering bullsh*t? Oh, and as for your advice? Well, if that isn't a high horse, then what is?


  • Options
    #167
    worded
    Registered Users Posts: 4,535 ✭✭✭worded


    Wimmins be devious creatures

    If I have more assets than her, yes, if she has more than me, no need for one.


  • Options
    #168
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Any language, from a text message, to driving directions, to a constitution has unstable interpretability.

    There are a number of ways to interpret language.

    1. Intention 2. Historical context 3. Contemporary context. 4. Reader response. 5. Deconstruction 6. Marxist analysis 7. New Criticism 8. Using biographical data of the author to inform the text.

    Meaning is fluid, flexible and changeable. Constitution shmonistitution. Legislators see what they want to see, as does everyone else.

    Stop talking rubbish. Now.the issue is interpreting Constitutional provisions

    The courts do use a number of vehicles for Constitutional Interpretation. None of the ones that you refer to are used, bar historicaL and intention. None. "Marxist analysis"? Hilarious. Pure spoofery now. New criticism,?

    Using biographical data..... Eh historical interpretation ie what was the laws prior to enactment , attitudes of the society (obviously this is balanced by other forms to ensure the Constitution continues to be a living document and up to date)

    You ignore the fact that the Constitution must read read as a whOle, not in isolation, as one article might have to be balanced with a separate article.


    Language, unstable interpretability, whatever next.? It's been around since 1937. Courts have been more than competent in understanding the language. Only.real harshness was in the Sinnott case where they refused to accept a 23 year old with mental capacity of an 11 year old, as a "child" for the purpose of free education (look it up) technically that was correct

    Legislators see what they want to see, that is true. You clearly do to even when it smacks in the face of reasonableness. That is why the courts are there to interpret and supervise the legislator, which, one poster apparently wants To remove the courts from doing
    Whatever next? When the legislator and or public don't like the courts interpretation of the Constitution, or there is more doubt over it, referendums can be used so that the Constitution can be amended to remove an offending provision or word, or clarify the law now

    Listen, there is plenty of literature, freely available online. Please have a look. I would gladly refer you to case law where the courts spell out the rules of Constitutional Interpretation


  • Options
    #169
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    efb wrote: »
    Why marry then if you want a pre-nup?

    One of the rules of marriage is shared ownership

    They don't want that to continue if there is a divorce.


  • Options
    #170
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    edword wrote: »
    marriages with pre nup agreements signed by both parties are statistically more likely to end in divorce, so i think farmers are being a bit short sighted here because by ensisting on pre nups you are increasing the likelihood or odds that their wife will eventually divorce them. have to wonder what theyre hiding really, but they havent earned a reputation for being greedy for nothing

    Fallacy of statistics. Common sense explanation is that the kind of people who get prenups (married before, less religious, etc.) are more likely to be accepting of divorce. The divorce doesn't suddenly become more likely because of the prenup.


  • Options
    #171
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    NI24 wrote: »
    Obviously you missed the part where I called bullsh*t on his/her little afterthought of "...or husband!!" Because that's exactly what it is--BULLSH*T! But I also have to laugh at how you criticize my assumption followed by your own assumption of "spirit of hip-hop". Or is it just more a$$-covering bullsh*t? Oh, and as for your advice? Well, if that isn't a high horse, then what is?

    There is clearly a lot of tongue in cheek with many posters comments. Use of certain words wouldn't be out of place in a hip hop tune, yo. "ho", "gold digga"

    The majority of divorce cases involving "Wimen " taking half. The poster just include husband so now feminist would gets antsy.

    What was said flew high and wide over your head, yo. You is tripping brah


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    NI24
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    There is clearly a lot of tongue in cheek with many posters comments. Use of certain words wouldn't be out of place in a hip hop tune, yo. "ho", "gold digga"

    The majority of divorce cases involving "Wimen " taking half. The poster just include husband so now feminist would gets antsy.

    What was said flew high and wide over your head, yo. You is tripping brah
    Actually, my dear, I think what I'm saying is flying over your head. So let me clarify for the intelligence impaired: trailing some sexist crap with a half-assed "...and husbands!!!" is a weak attempt to cover up what is, in fact, a very obvious sexist dig at women. And the second part of your post is proving my point entirely. So thank you. Peace out.

    (Oh, and btw, I have a feeling that I know faaaar more about hip-hop terminology than most Irish people, so no need to school me any further)


  • Options
    #173
    LadyAthame
    Closed Accounts Posts: 793 ✭✭✭LadyAthame


    This could have been a helpful interesting debate instead it's descended into this.


  • Options
    #174
    NI24
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    LadyAthame wrote: »
    This could have been a helpful interesting debate instead it's descended into this.

    It's always going to descend into this because it always descends into sexist name calling. Always. And some people don't stand for it.


  • Options
    #175
    LadyAthame
    Closed Accounts Posts: 793 ✭✭✭LadyAthame


    NI24 wrote: »
    It's always going to descend into this because it always descends into sexist name calling. Always. And some people don't stand for it.
    Mommy and Daddy don't love each other anymore :(. They are fighting and it makes me sad.


  • Options
    #176
    NI24
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    LadyAthame wrote: »
    Mommy and Daddy don't love each other anymore :(. They are fighting and it makes me sad.

    ??? You be talkin' crazy talk.

    And for the record, can we stop including women in this discussion. This isn't about women losing their money during divorce, this is about men losing money during divorce. The discussion will take a more natural course of action if we're honest about it.


  • Options
    #177
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    Thorcory wrote: »
    Can someone translate this into English?

    What? Is it coz I is black?


  • Options
    #178
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    NI24 wrote: »
    Actually, my dear, I think what I'm saying is flying over your head. So let me clarify for the intelligence impaired: trailing some sexist crap with a half-assed "...and husbands!!!" is a weak attempt to cover up what is, in fact, a very obvious sexist dig at women. And the second part of your post is proving my point entirely. So thank you. Peace out.

    (Oh, and btw, I have a feeling that I know faaaar more about hip-hop terminology than most Irish people, so no need to school me any further)

    Stating ; that most of the people who "win" in divorce cases are women (who have responsibility for the children) , is not fact, but a sexist dig? what they don't go for the jugular? Whatever next?

    It is utterly irrelevant if it was a sexist dig.It's true, live with it


    I wasn't schooling you on hip hop, I assumed you were are equal, yo. I'll battle you any place any where y, you knock down the beats. If however, you talking about the law, ya, you do need schooling, y'all.
    Second part, mewoah.


  • Options
    #179
    NI24
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Stating ; that most of the people who "win" in divorce cases are women (who have responsibility for the children) , is not fact, but a sexist dig? what they don't go for the jugular? Whatever next?

    It is utterly irrelevant if it was a sexist dig.It's true, live with it

    Second part, mewoah.

    Oh good lord. My point is whooshing over your head at warp speed. I will pray for you now.


  • Options
    #180
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    NI24 wrote: »
    ??? You be talkin' crazy talk.

    And for the record, can we stop including women in this discussion. This isn't about women losing their money during divorce, this is about men losing money during divorce. The discussion will take a more natural course of action if we're honest about it.

    No.

    Since when do women get fleeced in divorce proceedings.? Even those whose children are grown up

    Since when do women have to worry about loosing land handed down from generations, if their marriage breaks down?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    NI24
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    No.

    Since when do women get fleeced in divorce proceedings.? Even those whose children are grown up

    Since when do women have to worry about loosing land handed down from generations, if their marriage breaks down?

    I meant that this thread is not about women losing money during divorce, so let's stop bringing that up as an example. Since it represents about 1 in 1,000,000 cases. And no, I don't have proof of that statistic. I'm just exaggerating.


Advertisement