-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
A
What's unromantic to me is being systematically exploited by the state on behalf of an ex-wife who filed a no fault divorce.
I would never allow someone who chooses to engage in tactics of false shaming, in this case attempting to paint me as an unromantic morally blighted person who engages in bribery, to coerce me into being irresponsible with one of the most important decisions a person can make in this life. I am not a naive or stupid person.
The "sweetner" is an annuity which means I care enough about her to even deprive myself of that amount should she end the marriage by filing a no fault divorce against me.
And, as I stated:
"Understand; however, that it's still financially more desirable to simply outlive me within marriage because at the point of my death (assuming no foul play) she would get everything."
This is a good thing. You don't want to make it more economically desirable for your spouse to divorce you than to stay married to you. Why only a fool would put themselves in a place where it's more financially profitable to divorce them than to remain married to them. I'm not a fool.
My future wife, if there is one, might be professional with a career or she might be a woman that chooses homemaker for her career. That is, of course, her choice to make not mine. For my part, I view both as positive choices that benefit a marriage.
A wise person would have asked me what I thought instead of making the inferences that you did in the manner that you did. I would never marry a person who exhibits the behaviors and attitudes which you do so for you it's a non-issue. Why, I wouldn't marry you under any circumstances... lol.
I would never allow someone who chooses to engage in tactics of false shaming, in this case attempting to paint me as an unromantic morally blighted person who engages in bribery, to coerce me into being irresponsible with one of the most important decisions a person can make in this life. I am not a naive or stupid person.
The "sweetner" is an annuity which means I care enough about her to even deprive myself of that amount should she end the marriage by filing a no fault divorce against me.
And, as I stated:
"Understand; however, that it's still financially more desirable to simply outlive me within marriage because at the point of my death (assuming no foul play) she would get everything."
This is a good thing. You don't want to make it more economically desirable for your spouse to divorce you than to stay married to you. Why only a fool would put themselves in a place where it's more financially profitable to divorce them than to remain married to them. I'm not a fool.
My future wife, if there is one, might be professional with a career or she might be a woman that chooses homemaker for her career. That is, of course, her choice to make not mine. For my part, I view both as positive choices that benefit a marriage.
A wise person would have asked me what I thought instead of making the inferences that you did in the manner that you did. I would never marry a person who exhibits the behaviors and attitudes which you do so for you it's a non-issue. Why, I wouldn't marry you under any circumstances... lol.
What's unromantic to me is being systematically exploited by the state on behalf of an ex-wife who filed a no fault divorce.
I would never allow someone who chooses to engage in tactics of false shaming, in this case attempting to paint me as an unromantic morally blighted person who engages in bribery, to coerce me into being irresponsible with one of the most important decisions a person can make in this life. I am not a naive or stupid person.
The "sweetner" is an annuity which means I care enough about her to even deprive myself of that amount should she end the marriage by filing a no fault divorce against me.
And, as I stated:
"Understand; however, that it's still financially more desirable to simply outlive me within marriage because at the point of my death (assuming no foul play) she would get everything."
This is a good thing. You don't want to make it more economically desirable for your spouse to divorce you than to stay married to you. Why only a fool would put themselves in a place where it's more financially profitable to divorce them than to remain married to them. I'm not a fool.
My future wife, if there is one, might be professional with a career or she might be a woman that chooses homemaker for her career. That is, of course, her choice to make not mine. For my part, I view both as positive choices that benefit a marriage.
A wise person would have asked me what I thought instead of making the inferences that you did in the manner that you did. I would never marry a person who exhibits the behaviors and attitudes which you do so for you it's a non-issue. Why, I wouldn't marry you under any circumstances... lol.
I would never allow someone who chooses to engage in tactics of false shaming, in this case attempting to paint me as an unromantic morally blighted person who engages in bribery, to coerce me into being irresponsible with one of the most important decisions a person can make in this life. I am not a naive or stupid person.
The "sweetner" is an annuity which means I care enough about her to even deprive myself of that amount should she end the marriage by filing a no fault divorce against me.
And, as I stated:
"Understand; however, that it's still financially more desirable to simply outlive me within marriage because at the point of my death (assuming no foul play) she would get everything."
This is a good thing. You don't want to make it more economically desirable for your spouse to divorce you than to stay married to you. Why only a fool would put themselves in a place where it's more financially profitable to divorce them than to remain married to them. I'm not a fool.
My future wife, if there is one, might be professional with a career or she might be a woman that chooses homemaker for her career. That is, of course, her choice to make not mine. For my part, I view both as positive choices that benefit a marriage.
A wise person would have asked me what I thought instead of making the inferences that you did in the manner that you did. I would never marry a person who exhibits the behaviors and attitudes which you do so for you it's a non-issue. Why, I wouldn't marry you under any circumstances... lol.
ok, to be clear, i wasn't trying to "shame" you in any fashion. it was an interesting idea that you proposed, and i was simply making a joking reference about the "romantic" quality of such an action.
on first thought, the "lump sum sweetener" seems like an odd offering. however, my "hmmmm" was in part, my way of saying that it's an idea worthy of more thought. as someone with a career, i was actually acknowledging at least one circumstance where i could see the real value of such a thing.
i fully accept responsibility for the fact that implied humor doesn't always translate well in this medium. i'm also a bit spoiled by the fact that i have come to believe those who i normally interact with in this side of the forum know my intent a bit better than you might.
you have taken my mere observation and run it far further than it was EVER intended. : )
Last edited:
Did I not tell y'all to knock it off?! Don't make me fly around the country and ground you snarky people.
No one gets those cookies DonkeyFish offered a few posts ago until you guys apologize and stop using up all the sarcasm in the forum. That sarcasm is MINE! Everyone knows that... and I don't share well with others.
As all y'all well know.
No one gets those cookies DonkeyFish offered a few posts ago until you guys apologize and stop using up all the sarcasm in the forum. That sarcasm is MINE! Everyone knows that... and I don't share well with others.
As all y'all well know.
I was GOING to add my thoughts to this thread... but instead, I apparently arrived just in time to gnosh on cookies... CCOOOOKKIESS.
All legal and binding agreements regarding cookie distribution (or not, if neither party is willing to share) would DEFINITELY be at the top of my prenuptial checklist.
All legal and binding agreements regarding cookie distribution (or not, if neither party is willing to share) would DEFINITELY be at the top of my prenuptial checklist.
Last edited:
B
Everything I have posted on CC has been nothing but the truth. I am old enough to remember what marriage was like before "no fault" became a way of life. I remember when 70% of couples were married. I remember when couples were on the average were married 40-60 years. I remember when the majority of children remember their fathers in the household when they left for college.I remember the revolutions that forever changed the landscape of America: The Women Liberation Movement; the Civil Rights Movement; the Black Power Movement and the Anti-War movement (Vietnam). I was living 45 miles east of NYC when these Movements broke out. I saw how these Movements changed people lives for the better or worse. I was there right in the middle of it all. Were you?? After all, the truth will set you free. It was the knowledge that I gained from these movements that guided me through the chaotic & turbulent times. Have a blessed night.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
One wonders why his wife used her free will to sign such a document agreeing to such terms.
Anyways, I do think there's a point to be made about the relatively common problem of women marrying for money and security and then ending all sexual relations shortly after marrying.
I'm not sure how the perfectly healthy women who use their sexuality to entice men into marrying them, to get at assets they never earned, and then cut off all sexual relations afterwards justify their atrocious behavior.
If they are Christians, this violates scripture on many levels.
Anyways, I do think there's a point to be made about the relatively common problem of women marrying for money and security and then ending all sexual relations shortly after marrying.
I'm not sure how the perfectly healthy women who use their sexuality to entice men into marrying them, to get at assets they never earned, and then cut off all sexual relations afterwards justify their atrocious behavior.
If they are Christians, this violates scripture on many levels.
Because the men who marry women primarily because of their (sexuality/attractiveness/how well they match the furniture/etc.) DEFINITELY have their priorities straight. [imagine a sarcasm emoticon right here]
Let's just agree that if whatever sexual or material gain your spouse can give to you is the reason you are getting married, then you are not entering into a holy union.
Let's just agree that if whatever sexual or material gain your spouse can give to you is the reason you are getting married, then you are not entering into a holy union.
Last edited:
A
So you are advocating for sexless marriages amongst perfectly healthy couples?
"The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." -1 Corinthians 7:1-40.
And equating someone entering into marriage for sexual purposes as a part of that arrangement is totally different from the fraud of one pretending to so they can get at someone else's money they never earned.
"The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." -1 Corinthians 7:1-40.
And equating someone entering into marriage for sexual purposes as a part of that arrangement is totally different from the fraud of one pretending to so they can get at someone else's money they never earned.
That seems a gross misinterpretation of her response. I saw no evidence arguing for sexless marriages. She simply stated that guy marrying for sex is as bad as women marrying for money, and if either of those are your reason for getting married then it probably isnt a union like the one God has intended.
- Status