[Observatory]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
Why? It was enforceable here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010...nforced-uk-law
So why not with normal people?

The reason that case has a long article in the Guardian is that it's so unusual. But note that the judge didn't exactly try to overturn precedent - he just said that prenups could be taken into consideration in the usual divorce proceedings and even then only in some cases. So a prenup might give you better chances but it does not give anything like a guarantee.

I disagree, prenups shouldn't be stigmatised such that it is associated with not caring for your partner and such. There is nothing wrong with it. Talking things over and making sure each person gets their view across can help relationships but sometimes a divorce may be inevitable. It's not something that is expected before a marriage or wanted. Sometimes divorces can end badly (more so) and a scorned partner may take it out on you my obtaining memorabilia that is important to you...prenups also stop people who are simply after you for your money I.e. gold diggers.

There is nothing wrong with prenups... It's a precaution and that's all it is... It's not an indication on the state of a marriage and it is dopey to think so... It is comparable to taking out insurance....

Marriage is supposed to be a lifetime commitment; now if one side breaks the agreement or was insincere then divorce should be possible, but that person should be the only one to lose out. "No fault divorce" is a nonsense in my opinion. Both parties should be able to jointly void the contract if they want, but only on terms they both agree to.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by Observatory)
The reason that case has a long article in the Guardian is that it's so unusual. But note that the judge didn't exactly try to overturn precedent - he just said that prenups could be taken into consideration in the usual divorce proceedings and even then only in some cases. So a prenup might give you better chances but it does not give anything like a guarantee.

You said prenups aren't enforceable, I've shown it is. No matter how unusual

Spoiler:

Show

By ruling that such contracts are legally binding, the supreme court has altered the landscape of divorce settlements. It is likely to be a severe blow to the UK's reputation as the "divorce capital of Europe".

By a majority of eight to one, the supreme court justices dismissed Granatino's appeal, saying that after their ruling "it will be natural to infer that parties entering into agreements will intend that effect be given to them".

The judges agreed that in the right case a prenuptial agreement could have decisive or compelling weight. Lord Phillips, the president of the supreme court, said the courts would still have the discretion to waive any pre- or postnuptial agreement, especially when it was unfair to any children of the marriage.

And think of it what you want, but the woman did win the case. Potential waivering aside, if you enter an agreement, you should abide by it unless you have good reason.
And the majority of the judges did agree by the way

Marriage is supposed to be a lifetime commitment; now if one side breaks the agreement or was insincere then divorce should be possible, but that person should be the only one to lose out. "No fault divorce" is a nonsense in my opinion. Both parties should be able to jointly void the contract if they want, but only on terms they both agree to.

Marriage should be. But to think that divorce isn't potentially possible is stupid. And naive.. Not everyone can love each other till death... People do grow apart, and you can't stop it... You talk about agreements, yet ignore prenups which is one as well... People make mistakes sometimes, you have to potentially lose everything for it... He'll, if a guy makes a mistake, get him to compensate for the wedding and such, leave possessions alone...

People have to jointly agree when getting a prenup. Why should yours take favour over this?

People should be held responsible for their actions e.g. Compensation/damages etc, but no one should be either burnt at the stake for making a mistake, nor stay in their marriage and suffer forever. While it is sad, I or anyone should be able to get a Divorce. Prenups essentially stop abuse of it

[Gooner92]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
According to Alec Baldwin in The Departed:

"It shows you're committed and that your cock works".

If only I could rep you thats my favourite movie off all time and i have seen over 1000 films.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by Old Father Time)
I would like to marry, because I think it would make my partner feel secure. I also think it would make my parents proud and make me happy knowing that they are and that my partner feels secure. Also, I would enjoy the religious aspect of marriage.

If you need a legally-binding contract to make your partner feel secure about your relationship, you're doing it wrong.

[sinfonietta]

There is a benefit for men in the armed forces: they're given a house if they're married (both w/ and w/o children) and living together with their spouse. It's often one of the reasons couples choose to marry in the (naval) town I live in.

[Gooner92]

On topic I have the same view as OP , I will never get married as am an atheist and liberal and dont believe that the government should regulate a decision made between two individuals by a piece of paper, but i also believe i do have trust issues and that could play a part in it aswell. Marriage rates in the uk are falling drastically , and i remember reading an article which said that people from Britain have the highest amount of sexual partners in the western world which was quite shocking but then it all started making sense to myself anyways.

[poohat]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
Why? It was enforceable here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010...nforced-uk-law

It wasnt 'enforced' as such, the judge said it could be taken into consideration by the divorce court but they have no obligation to do so. Also the reason why this happened is because the pre-nup was made in a different country where it was legally binding, and its unlikely that it apply to one made in the UK.

Also the people saying the wife gets half in divorce cases are wrong, if the couple has children then the courts will generally rule that their interests take priority. This often means that the wife will be awarded sole residence rights in the family home while the husband has to move out, on the grounds that it would be disruptive for the children to have to move (and the husband will never win primary child custody unless there are serious extenuating circumstances.). Since for most couples their home represents the bulk of their capital, its more accurate to say that the wife gets 80-90% in a typical divorce

(although in theory when all the children reach the age of 18 the husband can then ask for the house to be sold and the proceeds split).

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
If you need a legally-binding contract to make your partner feel secure about your relationship, you're doing it wrong.

I was wondering about this... (and the parents+religion)...

If I ever got married, the main reason would be because I love the woman :/

[Gooner92]

Also guys have much more to loose in the event of a divorce, imagine being kicked out of youre own house and not being able to see your children out of spite by the mother(not all), get youre finances all screwed up, and imagine the toll it would have on your health. Would you take the risk? I certainly would not.

Edit:Forgot to mention as well as all the courts in the uk being biased towards females , you never ever see custody being granted to the father.

[Gooner92]

(Original post by poohat)
1) It wasnt 'enforced', the judge said it could be taken into consideration by the divorce court but they have no obligation to do so.

2) The reason why this happened is because a) the pre-nup was made in a different country where it was legally binding, and b) there were no children. It would almost certainly not apply to one made in the UK, and if the couple has children then all bets are off because divorce courts generally do whatever they think is best for the children rather than the parents. In most cases this means that that (eg) the wife is awarded the house while the husband has to move out, on the grounds that it would be disruptive for the children to have to move (and the man will never win the child custody battle unless there are seriously extenuating circumstances).

The people claiming that the woman gets half in divorce cases are wrong, in practice the wife is usually awarded sole residence rights in the family home, and since for most couples their home represents the bulk of their capital, its more accurate to say that the wife gets 80-90% in a typical divorce (although in theory when all the children reach the age of 18 the husband can then ask for the house to be sold and the proceeds split).

I totally forgot that makes a lot more sense since usually married couples invest all their saving into a property as a sort of investment for the future, your totally right it is more like 80% ,90% assuming the male has a average salary of around 26k.

[miser]

If marriage was a business decision, your post would be spot on. But most people don't tend to think of it that way - it's of course generally seen to be of an emotional significance. There is a lot of social value in getting married in terms of the way our culture perceives it. We're conditioned to see the day we get married as 'the happiest day of our life' and so on. But you are quite right, there is not much economic incentive for a man to get married, though I think it does come with a number of small legal benefits in terms of taxes paid and other things, but I'm not certain on specifics.

Personally, I'm not very interested in it. I would much prefer for marriage to have no legal weighting whatsoever and simply let it be a declaration of love and commitment between two people, like it should be.

[Snagprophet]

Surely it's half of everything both have right? Or is it literally just the man getting robbed?

(Original post by Gooner92)
Edit:Forgot to mention as well as all the courts in the uk being biased towards females , you never ever see custody being granted to the father.

Yes I wasn't too happy about this logic.

[punkski]

love doesn't come on paper, end of story.

[Gooner92]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
Surely it's half of everything both have right? Or is it literally just the man getting robbed?



Yes I wasn't too happy about this logic.

Well if you knew anything about family law/courts in general then you would probably understand what I mean but since you most likely know nothing about it i cbfa to explain it to you.

[Caitykinss]

You shouldn't marry someone if you think you might divorce her in the future. It's a lifelong commitment and if you don't have intentions of that commitment, don't bother. People seem to forget that nowadays.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by poohat)
1) It wasnt 'enforced', the judge said it could be taken into consideration by the divorce court but they have no obligation to do so.

2) The reason why this happened is because a) the pre-nup was made in a different country where it was legally binding, and b) there were no children. It would almost certainly not apply to one made in the UK, and if the couple has children then all bets are off because divorce courts generally do whatever they think is best for the children rather than the parents. In most cases this means that that (eg) the wife is awarded the house while the husband has to move out, on the grounds that it would be disruptive for the children to have to move (and the man will never win the child custody battle unless there are seriously extenuating circumstances).

The people saying the woman gets half in divorce cases are wrong, in practice the wife is usually awarded sole residence rights in the family home, and since for most couples their home represents the bulk of their capital, its more accurate to say that the wife gets 80-90% in a typical divorce.

1)It was enforced, hence the title....it mentions that they (head of supreme court mentioned) are able to waiver it if they feel it is unfair on children and such. The majority of the judges agreed to go against the appeal

2)a)where does it say it was in another country? Besides where the prenup was made is irrelevant, it was enforced here in the uk... If it is an issue of another country, then the case could have been moved elsewhere. If its because of another country that the uk enforced it, then the article would not have to have made such a big deal about the decision

B) why does it matter if there were no children? What you have said has already been mentioned in the article... In cases where it would be unfair, then a prenup may be waivered... But that doesn't mean it's not enforceable here. In the scenario of having no children, then this issue will not arise unless something significant actually occurs.

Prove to me that the man will never win a child custody battle...

Why should they? It's not as if the typical couple has a house with nothing in it. While you can't split the house in half, in dire cases, it is also possible to sell the house... Besides, if it is agreed that the man gains the house from both parties during the prenup and their is no significant issues involved, why should the house go to the woman? Admittedly, lawyers would probably have to be involved

Given that I'm not an expert, If you are right and i am wrong, where emphasis is put on the woman, this should definitely change. It is not right.

Found the German bit but point still applies

[Bonzo10]

This is a very contentious issue with me and my girlfriend, though I try to appear flippant when we discuss marriage and all the litigation surrounding it. I am, at least currently, strongly opposed to the idea of marriage. My parents have had a happy and successful marriage but I have always been a very independent thinker; I just find it hard to believe in the romance of something that was essentially manufactured as a tool to keep society together.

We have all - from a young age - been relentlessly bombarded with marital imagery. We have been taught that this is the norm, what we have to strive for. However, I am of the opinion that, in our quests to be monogamous, we are directly opposing our deep-seated and biological urges. Why do so many of us fantasise about other people? People like to call our wandering eye a bit of fun but it's really just our natural desires appearing.

Don't get me wrong, I love that feeling of having a romance with a woman; I just dislike the idea of having to sign a contract to prove it. Perhaps with an enhanced maturity I will come to be more tolerant of marriage but for now, I am vehemently opposed.

[zaliack]

There is one benefit. If your married, you get double the allowance for inheritance tax.

[Historophilia]

(Original post by Gooner92)
Also guys have much more to loose in the event of a divorce, imagine being kicked out of youre own house and not being able to see your children out of spite by the mother(not all), get youre finances all screwed up, and imagine the toll it would have on your health. Would you take the risk? I certainly would not.

Edit:Forgot to mention as well as all the courts in the uk being biased towards females , you never ever see custody being granted to the father.

That is because custody is most often given to the primary caregiver of the children. And who are more likely to be doing this? Women.

The root cause of unfairness in family law courts are because of outdated stereotypes about men and women. Ie. that women should be the ones to devote themselves to bringing up children and that man's role should not be to do so and instead to be a breadwinner.

Therefore courts will be more likely to give custody to women because in societies view woman = child-rearing.

Break down these gender stereotypes and you'll stop many of these gender discrepancies. Break down the gender stereotypes and you'll see more men taking on the role of primary care-giver, and therefore more men getting custody.

Don't blame bias towards females for what is at bottom caused by narrow gender stereotypes.

Also, about another contentious issue reg divorce cases, women getting possession of the family home. It stems from the same set of gender stereotypes, that women are childcare, therefore they should stay with the children, it is better for children to remain in their family home and not move, therefore the house goes to the mother.

[Gooner92]

(Original post by Historophilia)
That is because custody is most often given to the primary caregiver of the children. And who are more likely to be doing this? Women.

The root cause of unfairness in family law courts are because of outdated stereotypes about men and women. Ie. that women should be the ones to devote themselves to bringing up children and that man's role should not be to do so and instead to be a breadwinner.

Therefore courts will be more likely to give custody to women because in societies view woman = child-rearing.

Break down these gender stereotypes and you'll stop many of these gender discrepancies. Break down the gender stereotypes and you'll see more men taking on the role of primary care-giver, and therefore more men getting custody.

Don't blame bias towards females for what is at bottom caused by narrow gender stereotypes.

Also, about another contentious issue reg divorce cases, women getting possession of the family home. It stems from the same set of gender stereotypes, that women are childcare, therefore they should stay with the children, it is better for children to remain in their family home and not move, therefore the house goes to the mother.

It's interesting that, while it's almost never talked about, leniency for female criminals is probably the single most well-documented fact within the criminal justice system. Sex is the single greatest contributory factor to the length of criminal sentence, it plays a greater role than race, religion or ethnicity, but your claiming that there's no maternal bias in family courts (it's interesting that feminists don't march for equal treatment by sentencing judges btw.) The claim that family courts are not biased is absurd on its face and contrary to basically every piece of evidence in existence, but there seems to be no shortage of media outlets willing to post nonsense as long as it conforms to the politically correct narrative that women are always victims and never privileged.