Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenofSmirks
My sentiments run along the lines of what blush had to say about it. I think anyone concerned about protecting their assets from the person they are about to marry should rethink marriage. This isn't coming from a "marriage is love, love should be romantic" place, because I'm much more practical than that. Marriage in this country is a legal contract, essentially, and yes, legal contracts often involve assets. But to put protections in place up front -- to me that just says "I don't trust this person."
Edited to add: If protecting assets is a major concern, maybe the "benefits" of marriage don't outweigh the potential pitfalls.
Another thought: Someone mentioned that a prenup would force a frank discussion about finances. Living together doesn't automatically equate to the sharing of assets, pooling of funds, etc. These types of discussions should be had *anyway* -*before* deciding to live together and especially before considering getting married to each other. If you need a prenup to force a discussion, then it seems strange to me that marriage would even be a consideration.
|
I'm practical too. I've also been through a divorce without a pre-nup. It was fine. We're both decent human beings, and we didn't try to screw each other over. Any contract can be battled out in court. If someone wants to screw you over, a pre-nup isn't going to stop them. It just gives them another contract to fight over.