TV01:

Literacy is the ability to read and write - agreed. Education is acquiring the lifeskills to function normally in the society, and at the time in which one lives. Knowledge is altogether different. There are vast differentials between people in a society at any point in time.

They were literate and educated for their time, as we are for ours, And our successors of 10, 20 or how ever many generations time turning around and calling us ignorant would be as wrong as what you are doing now. Not least because these things are successive.

The people then had the brains to do exactly what we do now and would if they had the same benefit of hindsight that we have. There is a pernicious myth, that present day men are somehow more intelligent, than our ancestors. Nope!

Yep. Literacy is the ability to read and write.

But a second definition in the dictionary is "the possession of education". It has also become the lingua franca for stating the level of education. Those are the context in which I used them.

They might be literate for their time, but the level of their time is complete illiteracy.

We are too structured and formally educated for any future generation to call us illiterate, so that argument does not carry water. Those that went to Oxbridge even in 1650 are still regarded as literate and educated today because they faced a structured education.

Someone being taught capentry 100 of years ago is illiterate.

By the way, Mohammed was a stark illiterate who could not read and write. I know that 100% because I read it. I am not too sure about Jesus, I bet he too was illiterate in reading and writing as I cannot recall anything he wrote.

The people then were stuuupid and dumb. They brutalised and killed each other at will out of their ignorance and lack of knowledge. Some of them wrote the inconsistent and illogical junk we know today as the Bible and Quran.

TV01:

Firstly I gave allowance for hiccups. Secondly, of all domestic relationships, domestic violence is least prevalent in marriage. Thirdly, it is not always extreme or dangerous; in fact many "relationship types" experience a degree of low level of conflict. Fourthly, if a "spouse" dies at the hads of their spouse, that would not be considered successful by my metric.

What you missed in your metric was people being happy in the set up.

To you, success in marriage was staying together for life exclusively.

While we might have different metrics, in my books, lack of happiness is a failure in life. You have only one life, don't believe the moronic rubbish the Hindus teach you, passed to them by their own medieval illiterates. Enjoy your ONE life, you are not coming back as a cattle of rat.

If you don't enjoy it, you have failed. If you are not happy in a marriage, it is a failed marriage.

TV01:

That is marriage - biblical marriage - as I understand and champion it. It's not for anyone else, and certainly not for those who subscribe to different relationship types. It's close to the one under discussion, and even those forms of marriage that differ from mine are always enacted between two people no?

Well, keep you biblical marriage to yourself and your batch. It is not the ONE!

Neo is the ONE!

TV01:

I'm happy to be labelled a Christian as I'm a bible believer and a disciple of Christ. Assume nothing else !

There is no fear of hell-fire for believers. The gift of god is eternal life. It's that or one perishes - completely ceases to exist - after paying for their sinful deeds, which may be quite heated .

TV

Then I am going to heaven with you too then.

Good news.

I am danicing Kukere now.

ronald4lif:


Well, safe to say the best approach is never to commit oneself to the union or if one must there should be a pre-nup arrangement as conflicting issues that could lead to the marriage breakdown is inevitable. It depends on one's level of tolerance, endurance and the quest to appease the society to view them as one 'happy' couple.

But I can't live and endure life when I've a better option, to be free, independent, happy and unaccountable to anyone. Makes no sense.

The best approach is for the government to correct the law.

Sagamite:


Nonsense!

Even in partnerships, partners get what they put in.

For example, not all PwC partners get the same pay. There is a valuation process of the worth of each partner and his/her contribution. Some are paid £400K a year, others are paid £2.8m a year.

Even in cases where people go into businesses as partners without signing an understanding, if there is a dispute in future that ends up in court, no sane judge would say it must be split 50/50, he would ask for evidence of contribution and apportion based on it.

Calling something a "partnership" does not justify equal split.

That argument fails!

You want to try again with another one?

Again like I said, a marriage is a partnership. In a business partnership it is implied that they are to share all gains and losses eEXCEPT it is expressly stated that they share gains and losses in a stipulated way. Those PWC partners have agreements with the company not so? Same with prenups. If those companies did not enforce agreements then each partner has a right to claim what they think they are worth since beginning the partnership. And to be just and fair that worth will be half of profits and losses within the partnership. Same way it works in business is the way it works in marriages. Now in business you know you can easily form agreements, but marriage is a different ball game. That is why you are here shouting, screeching and throwing your toys out of the pram. You know it will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for you to find a woman that will agree to your possibly outrageous agreements before marriage. So you think you should be able to con her, with the option of divorce and you still come out ahead. Well too bad, it doesn't work that way.

Sagamite:


The best approach is for the government to correct the law.

Hmmm, hoping but not when we have pseudo feminists parading everywhere in this part of the world. Needless to mention gutless leaders and political correctness brigade who disguises under the umbrella of activism.

But left for the alimony settlement factor, do you think the institution is worth given a shot?

njokusboy:
..
No one is degrading anything, we are simply saying "a wife's role does not entitle her to 50% of the man's wealth, unless she buys off 50% of his equity"... whatever happened to husbands role? Are you saying a wife's role is more important? If a husband has any role at all (cos ur starting to sound as if the wife is the only investor in the marriage), why then should half his asset be given to the wife? If it's discovered the husband actually played a bigger role and she's worth a 100 dollars while the husband is worth a million, does the husband receive 50 out of her 100 since he played a bigger role?

Hold up, what joint property are you referring to, does the wife automatically become a shareholder in the husbands company as soon as she is married? Shareholder by virtue of marriage So you are saying that if the wife owns a beauty salon which she still operates and the husband owns an automobile company, in the event of a divorce, she should leave with her salon as well as about a quarter of the automobile company to balance it up since all properties become joint as soon as the court/priest says "you may now kiss your bride"? How does that sound?
look, even in business, a shareholder only receives the monetary equivalent of his share if business closes down, if his share is 20%, he doesn't get 50 becos they were in business together..


Any wife that demands for 50% of her husbands asset is simply a thief, I aint mincing words, what wives realities are we talking about, was she better off before the marriage? Why should she demand to be better off than she was or would ever be were she still single, what about the man's realities, do you think he got rich by just getting married?


Nope, people underestimate the greed of their partners before getting married because they were swimming in love.... They don't even anticipate they would get divorced in the first place... Blame it on blind love... I agree though, people should start getting pre-nups, although I anticipate it would bring down the marriage rate cos there would be no incentives for most women...


Amen

Again, how do you put a value to what your spouse is worth? Can you do the same in the case of your child? Oh! The child is your blood Abi? The court takes into consideration each spouses income and properties not only the husband. And they make sure one is not better off at the expense of the other. And in partnerships, all profits, gains and losses are shared equally except it is stipulated in the operating agreement that it should not be the case, in addition to their contribution. So why should marriage be different if you couldn't get the woman to sign a prenup?

baby124:

Again like I said, a marriage is a partnership. In a business partnership it is implied that they are to share all gains and losses eEXCEPT it is expressly stated that they share gains and losses in a stipulated way. Those PWC partners have agreements with the company not so? Same with prenups. If those companies did not enforce agreements then each partner has a right to claim what they think they are worth since beginning the partnership. And to be just and fair that worth will be half of profits and losses within the partnership. Same way it works in business is the way it works in marriages. Now in business you know you can easily form agreements, but marriage is a different ball game. That is why you are here shouting, screeching and throwing your toys out of the pram. You know it will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for you to find a woman that will agree to your possibly outrageous agreements before marriage. So you think you should be able to con her, with the option of divorce and you still come out ahead. Well too bad, it doesn't work that way.

What I asked you to explain is why she deserves what she got and you said because it was a partnership hence things should be shared "equally".

Why should it be equally?

And please don't say "because it is a partnership".

ronald4lif:


Hmmm, hoping but not when we have pseudo feminists parading everywhere in this part of the world. Needless to mention gutless leaders and political correctness brigade who disguises under the umbrella of activism.

But left for the alimony settlement factor, do you think the institution is worth given a shot?

Well said, nigga.

I don't find the institution attractive and the proposition it offers is really poor.

If you live in the UK and US, I doubt it is worth giving it a shot. It is a loss for most men all round.

If you live in Nigeria or Sweden, then it can be considered if you are so inclined.

Sagamite:


What I asked you to explain is why she deserves what she got and you said because it was a partnership hence things should be shared "equally".

Why should it be equally?

And please don't say "because it is a partnership".

It is a partnership again. She is worth it. Your value to her, will not be the same as what she thinks her worth to you was in the marriage. Some of you claim traditional men, yet still want all the benefits of a housegirl in your wife and foot mat. Be ready to cough out the money when you either refuse to work on your marriage or don't care to respect the union anymore. If you marry a bad wife targeting your money, then that says a lot about who you are and your priorities. And you should not complain of such outcomes because it was inevitable. Now go and marry, and stop scaring yourself to a frenzy because of your little coins, that you won't let anyone rest. People like Bill Gates are good men to their wives. Their marriages are still in tact and they have nothing to fear or lose. So who are you, a regular employee like this mumu in the article shouting about money that Bill Gates can spend in one minute and not sweat?

baby124:
. You know it will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for you to find a woman that will agree to your possibly outrageous agreements before marriage. So you think you should be able to con her, with the option of divorce and you still come out ahead. Well too bad, it doesn't work that way.

Why is it a bad proposition for one to say Each partner would leave with whatever they brought in and what they earned while in a relationship

Ok me and you come into a partnership, when we dissolve you leave with what you contributed. What is fairer than that?

Or you think its better that I take part of what you contributed even when you dont want to give it out

baby124:

It is a partnership again. She is worth it. Your value to her, will not be the same as what she thinks her worth to you was in the marriage. Some of you claim traditional men, yet still want all the benefits of a housegirl in your wife and foot mat. Be ready to cough out the money when you either refuse to work on your marriage or don't care to respect the union anymore. If you marry a bad wife targeting your money, then that says a lot about who you are and your priorities. And you should not complain of such outcomes because it was inevitable. Now go and marry, and stop scaring yourself to a frenzy because of your little coins, that you won't let anyone rest. People like Bill Gates are good men to their wives. Their marriages are still in tact and they have nothing to fear or lose. So who are you, a regular employee like this mumu in the article shouting about money that Bill Gates can spend in one minute and not sweat?

Nonsense!

Now this is what is called a poor argument.

She is worth it?

Is she L'Oreal?

ALL these doesn't sound like an educated or coherent argument.

I think you should try again.

raumdeuter:


Why is it a bad proposition for one to say Each partner would leave with whatever they brought in and what they earned while in a relationship

Ok me and you come into a partnership, when we dissolve you leave with what you contributed. What is fairer than that?

Or you think its better that I take part of what you contributed even when you dont want to give it out

Why should I leave with what I came with? So during that partnership I earned nothing abi? What is the use of a partnership with no increasing value? What type of true business is that? Who will marry someone that cannot contribute to an increase in their life. Whether financially, emotionally or mentally? Such a useless partnership with no growth will never even last or should even be entered into. You take your contribution and half of what what earned during the partnership. Simple. Except you enter a prenup. Shikenan

Sagamite:
Yep. Literacy is the ability to read and write.

But a second definition in the dictionary is "the possession of education". It has also become the lingua franca for stating the level of education. Those are the context in which I used them.

They might be literate for their time, but the level of their time is complete illiteracy.

We are too structured and formally educated for any future generation to call us illiterate, so that argument does not carry water. Those that went to Oxbridge even in 1650 are still regarded as literate and educated today because they faced a structured education.

I do not agree. What of classical Greek education and philosophy - on which the whole of Western education rests. You do them a huge disservice. Whatever we are, we are not structured or educated enough to disdain them. At best we've built on what they left us.

Sagamite:
Someone being taught capentry 100 of years ago is illiterate.

By the way, Mohammed was a stark illiterate who could not read and write. I know that 100% because I read it. I am not too sure about Jesus, I bet he too was illiterate in reading and writing as I cannot recall anything he wrote.

Even if we view Jesus as a mere man, it is documented that He could read, that He taught, and was held in esteem by learned men of His day. You are mistaken in judging Him by His profession, which was almost certainly to accomodate His ministry.

He had well learned disciples, such as the well known Paul, who was a Lawyer and a Pharisee, thereby being secular and theologically educated. Don't disdain that time or the people that lived then. I would wager that few NL'ers could even drag basics with them .

Sagamite:
The people then were stuuupid and dumb. They brutalised and killed each other at will out of their ignorance and lack of knowledge. Some of them wrote the inconsistent and illogical junk we know today as the Bible and Quran.

I'm comforted by the knowledge that we do not brutalise or kill each other in this day and age? We have merely gotten more sophisticated - and even liberal - about how we go about it. It's not sophistication, or even intelligence, it's hman natue. And it's fallen.

Sagamite:
What you missed in your metric was people being happy in the set up.

To you, success in marriage was staying together for life exclusively.

While we might have different metrics, in my books, lack of happiness is a failure in life. You have only one life, don't believe the moronic rubbish the Hindus teach you, passed to them by their own medieval illiterates. Enjoy your ONE life, you are not coming back as a cattle of rat.

If you don't enjoy it, you have failed. If you are not happy in a marriage, it is a failed marriage.

First, you fall afoul of your own demand - let every couple define happiness as they choose; this I did in my definition at an individual level, At a generic level, it does not matter. We consider the utility of marriage as a society and accord it benefits.

Having qualified for and entered marriage, we do not intrude into peoples privacy and demand they live their unions in a certain way, to ensure a degree of happiness as determined by someone else. If a couple marry, live together and raise children, that in the eyes of society is a success. Nothing does it better !

Sagamite:
Well, keep you biblical marriage to yourself and your batch. It is not the ONE!

Neo is the ONE!

It is for those who subscribe to it - it's choice for everyone, that much we have agreed. That it is antiquated and not fit for purpose, as you have claimed, has not been demonstrated. Neither have you presented anything superior.

Sagamite:
Then I am going to heaven with you too then.

Good news.

I am danicing Kukere now.

There is yet time, but the day of salvation is always today.

Godspeed


TV

[quote author=Sagamite post=40879605][/quote]
Keep throwing all your toys away. Soon you won't have any point to use to argue. You think everyone must see things your way? We all don't always get our way in life. Deal with it. For now and into the very far future, a marriage is a partnership. Even a live in partner has the right to settlement not to talk of a wife you signed a CONTRACT with. Signing the dotted lines is a CONTRACT in case you are ignorant of that fact. It also has a lot of implications.

baby124:

Why should I leave with what I came with? So during that partnership I earned nothing abi? What is the use of a partnership with no increasing value? What type of true business is that? Who will marry someone that cannot contribute to an increase in their life. Whether financially, emotionally or mentally? Such a useless partnership with no growth will never even last or should even be entered into. You take your contribution and half of what what earned during the partnership. Simple. Except you enter a prenup. Shikenan

Did you read the below

raumdeuter:

Why is it a bad proposition for one to say Each partner would leave with whatever they brought in and what they earned while in a relationship
Ok me and you come into a partnership, when we dissolve you leave with what you contributed. What is fairer than that?

Or you think its better that I take part of what you contributed even when you dont want to give it out

Take what you brought plus what you earned individually in the partnership.

The only time you split is when you run a joint business. How about that?

baby124:

Keep throwing all your toys away. Soon you won't have any point to use to argue. You think everyone must see things your way? We all don't always get our way in life. Deal with it. For now and into the very far future, a marriage is a partnership. Even a live in partner has the right to settlement not to talk of a wife you signed a CONTRACT with. Signing the dotted lines is a CONTRACT in case you are ignorant of that fact. It also has a lot of implications.

I don't want you to see things my way, I want you to see things with sense.

What you said was nonsense. And I am giving you a chance to overhaul it.

How is marriage a contract?

Do you know what a contract is?

raumdeuter:


Did you read the below



Take what you brought plus what you earned individually in the partnership.

The only time you split is when you run a joint business. How about that?

Did you agree to that on entering the marriage? Was that fact written in court and sworn to before a judge? You know you cannot get a woman to marry you and agree to those terms. If not you won't be here making these arguments. This is what a prenup means. It's very easy. But the catch for you guys is making a woman agree to your terms. Even the law supports prenups. So get a prenup, or why are we even having these arguments in the first place when the option of a prenup exists. Without a prenup your spouse is entitled to half and more if there are kids. And note both parties money is always factored.

Sagamite:


I don't want you to see things my way, I want you to see things with sense.

What you said was nonsense. And I am giving you a chance to overhaul it.

How is marriage a contract?

Do you know what a contract is?

Nonsense to you is sense in a sane world. You obviously do not understand what marriage means. If it is not a contract, why do you have to go to court to dissolve it. Go and learn very well what a marriage is and come back and open another thread. Open your mind and really learn. This is my last comment on this issue. I hope you have learned a thing or two. Lol

baby124:

Did you agree to that on entering the marriage? Was that fact written in court and sworn to before a judge? You know you cannot get a woman to marry you and agree to those terms. If not you won't be here making these arguments. This is what a prenup means. It's very easy. But the catch for you guys is making a woman agree to your terms. Even the law supports prenups. So get a prenup, or why are we even having these arguments in the first place when the option of a prenup exists. Without a prenup your spouse is entitled to half and more if there are kids. And note both parties money is always factored.

Why would women not want to leave with what they brought plus what they earned individually. I think thats fair. So no one leeches on another

Dont you think its right and fair for you to take only what you brought in plus what you earned individually?

raumdeuter:


Why would women not want to leave with what they brought plus what they earned individually. I think thats fair. So no one leeches on another

Dont you think its right and fair for you to take only what you brought in plus what you earned individually?

What I earned mostly stays with me and if he should ask, I bring. But we make joint decisions as regards investments and future retirement plans. Now are you telling me I should leave all those gains for my husband? Why? Do I look like a fool to you? And what do you mean by his money? When we want to make famiky decisions do we not bring our money together and make those decisions? Does he make those decisions alone? Because such investments are in his name does not mean I had no input. So why should it be different in a divorce. There is a lot more involved in marriage than boyfriend and girlfriend. So...

TV01:

I do not agree. What of classical Greek education and philosophy - on which the who of Western education rests. You do them a huge disservice. Whatever we are, we are not structured or educated enough to disdain them. At best we've built on what they left us.

The classical Greek education and philosophy that is recognised is the one that is structured and formal, as I said.

TV01:

Even if we view Jesus as a mere man, it is documented that He could read, that He taught, and was held in esteem by learned men of His day. You are mistaken in judging Him by His profession, which was almost certainly to accomodate His ministry.

There are many illiterates that are intelligent and respectable especially to so-called learned men of the medieval era if they claim to speak to God and compose themselves well.

Jesus never wrote jackshit. My illiterate gateman in Naija can read a bit too and comprehend simple text.

TV01:

He had well learned disciples, such as the well known Paul, who was a Lawyer and a Pharisee, thereby being secular and theologically educated. Don't disdain that time or the people that lived then. I would wager that few NL'ers could even drag basics with them .[/quoted]

Educated where?

University of ..........................?

[quote author=TV01 post=40879749]
I'm comforted by the knowledge that we do not brutalise or kill each other in this day and age? We have merely gotten more sophisticated - and even liberal - about how we go about it. It's not sophistication, or even intelligence, it's hman natue. And it's fallen.

The more educated a society is, the less violence you get.

TV01:

First, you fall afoul of your own demand - let every couple define happiness as they choose; this I did in my definition at an individual level, At a generic level, it does not matter. We consider the utility of marriage as a society and accord it benefits.

Having qualified for and entered marriage, we do not intrude into peoples privacy and demand they live their unions in a certain way, to ensure a degree of happiness as determined by someone else. If a couple marry, live together and raise children, that in the eyes of society is a success. Nothing does it better !

Mate, you can't define hapiness. It is a mood.

You are either happy or you are not happy. When you start claiming to define it is evidence you are faking it.

TV01:

It is for those who subscribe to it - it's choice for everyone, that much we have agreed. That it is antiquated and not fit for purpose, as you have claimed, has not been demonstrated. Neither have you presented anything superior.


There is yet time, but the day of salvation is always today.

Godspeed


TV

What is superior is what makes the person happy and works for them.

If someone wants to marry 8 wives and there are 8 women who want to be part of it. Then that is the superior marriage model for them.

As I noted in my very first post on this thread, many view marriage as a comprehensive spiritual, physical and material union. As evidenced by the prince's vows, he commited to honouring his wife with all his wordly goods as part of that union.

If they part and she gets Buck house, I am not the least bit worried by that. For many, it is not a transactional union, quantified by earnings and income, or the before and after, or at the point of entering or exiting.

I agree that divorce laws could be varied, but divorce in that context is a tragedy in, and of itself. And for those wanting to structure their relationships differently, simply opt for something other than marriage, nothing stops them.

With the advanced leaning, superior intelluct and structured education of today, it shouldn't be overly difficult to frame something vastly superior to the outdated and no longer fit for purpose institution called marriage se (Sagamite, that's your cue )

Why do people covet the respect and dignity marriage confers and not want to be subject to it's particulars. Especially as there is more freedom now than ever? Freedom to structure your relationship as you see fit.

If all could do as they want, and call it marriage, the term itself would be meaningless. Hence, we let people do as they choose, but not necesarilly call it what they like (or recognise every relationship as marriage).

I rest. In the absence of an alternative, proper marriage wins .


TV

baby124:

What I earned mostly stays with me and if he should ask, I bring. But we make joint decisions as regards investments and future retirement plans. Now are you telling me I should leave all those gains for my husband? Why? Do I look like a fool to you? And what do you mean by his money? When we want to make famiky decisions do we not bring our money together and make those decisions? Does he make those decisions alone? Because such investments are in his name does not mean I had no input. So why should it be different in a divorce. There is a lot more involved in marriage than boyfriend and girlfriend. So...

No thats not what I mean

You earn he earns. What you earn you keep what he earns he keeps any joint asset like retirement or buying a house jointly would be liquidated and your contribution would be given back to you

E.g You have a retirement account of 400K which you contributed 50K to, then you leave with 50K not with 200k

Same with any property you acquire together sell it the proceeds share based on your contribution to acquiring it

Is that fair enough to you OR what do you have against that type of arrangement

baby124:

Nonsense to you is sense in a sane world. You obviously do not understand what marriage means. If it is not a contract, why do you have to go to court to dissolve it. Go and learn very well what a marriage is and come back and open another thread. Open your mind and really learn. This is my last comment on this issue. I hope you have learned a thing or two. Lol

No sane world says "it is a partnership so it should be shared equally irrespective of contribution".

PwC, Clifford Chance, KMPG, Linklaters are all sane worlds where partnerships are in existent. They distribute things among partners.

Another nonsense you came up with is the court comment. Many things go to court to a be resolved that are not contracts. So something going to court to be dissolved is not "evidence" it is a contract. Nonsense!

You don't know what a partnership or contract is, nor do you know their mechanism.

You just come up with some lame arsse junk you have heard somewhere.

I wouldn't want to learn any rubbish you have learnt.

raumdeuter:


No thats not what I mean

You earn he earns. What you earn you keep what he earns he keeps any joint asset like retirement or buying a house jointly would be liquidated and your contribution would be given back to you

E.g You have a retirement account of 400K which you contributed 50K to, then you leave with 50K not with 200k

Same with any property you acquire together sell it the proceeds share based on your contribution to acquiring it

Is that fair enough to you OR what do you have against that type of arrangement

So the property and investments never earned interest or grew in value Abi? You are dancing around this. You want to keep your contribution plus all gains. It doesn't work that way. The gains on the contribution are to be shared equally. Are you trying to say your wife is not your equal partner in marriage Is that what you mean? If so, and she understands that then I have no problem with it. Get a prenup if you are so passionate about valuing your spouse so poorly. Let her agree that she is worth so little to you and still get married to you. You know such a woman does not exist. Lmao.

baby124:

So the property and investments never earned interest or grew in value Abi? You are dancing around this. You want to keep your contribution plus all gains. It doesn't work that way. The gains on the contribution are to be shared equally. Are you trying to say your wife is not your equal partner in marriage Is that what you mean? If so, and she understands that then I have no problem with it. Get a prenup if you are so passionate about valuing your spouse so poorly. Let her agree that she is worth so little to you and still get married to you. You know such a woman does not exist. Lmao.

You contributed 50k The man contributed 100k. total 150K the investment doubles to 300K

You take away 100k the man takes 200K

Is that fair? Or you have any objection

In a case any party doesnt contribute anything to the investment they take nothing

Is that fair

Sagamite:



No sane world says "it is a partnership so it should be shared equally irrespective of contribution".

PwC, Clifford Chance, KMPG, Linklaters are all sane world were partnerships are in existent. They distribute things among partners.

Another nonsense you came up with is the court comment. Many things go to court to a be resolved that are not contracts. So something going to court to be dissolved is not "evidence" it is a contract. Nonsense!

You don't know what a partnership or contract is, nor do you know their mechamism.

You just come up with some lame arsse junk you have heard somewhere.

I wouldn't want to learn any rubbish you have learnt.

Biko educate yourself and stop arguing blindly like a bush villager:

Definition

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage

raumdeuter:


You contributed 50k The man contributed 100k. total 150K the investment doubles to 300K

You take away 100k the man takes 200K

Is that fair? Or you have any objection

In a case any party doesnt contribute anything to the investment they take nothing

Is that fair

Oh really. They take nothing Abi. So their years in the marriage is worthless. Now you see why the courts protect the less wealthy spouse because of spouses like you. Who will try to manipulate their way into not settling the other person and running away with everything. In a marriage the priority is not to leave the less fortunate spouse at an economic disadvantage. Will I have any problem if tomorrow I am richer and asked to settle my husband? No. Because even if I hate him so much during the divorce, he was once worth a lot to me. And I will not want him to suffer as I am not the type to carry grudges and punish anyone. I like to leave people better than I met them. What is the use of me rolling in wealth when someone I once loved is dying in poverty. No sane person will be happy about that. And for me to reach such heights, he definitely had value and added richly to my life. Otherwise I would have run away if he was a detriment to my success much earlier when we both had nothing. So yes, she is entitled to half.

baby124:

Biko educate yourself and stop arguing blindly like a bush villager:

Now, this is what they call a bush villager rant and blind arguments.

baby124:

It is a partnership again. She is worth it. Your value to her, will not be the same as what she thinks her worth to you was in the marriage. Some of you claim traditional men, yet still want all the benefits of a housegirl in your wife and foot mat. Be ready to cough out the money when you either refuse to work on your marriage or don't care to respect the union anymore. If you marry a bad wife targeting your money, then that says a lot about who you are and your priorities. And you should not complain of such outcomes because it was inevitable. Now go and marry, and stop scaring yourself to a frenzy because of your little coins, that you won't let anyone rest. People like Bill Gates are good men to their wives. Their marriages are still in tact and they have nothing to fear or lose. So who are you, a regular employee like this mumu in the article shouting about money that Bill Gates can spend in one minute and not sweat?

I was fcking shocked at the depth of junk it was.

baby124:

Definition

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage

Now, since you have brought your argument. Explain to me what are the terms of the so-called "contract".

Sagamite:


Now, this is what they call a bush villager rant and blind arguments.



I was fcking shocked at the depth of junk it was.




Now, since you have brought your argument. Explain to me what are the terms of the so-called "contract".

Signed and sworn to in a court of law in front of a competent court official. You are even asked if you are impaired or unable to make such commitments to make sure you are going in with all your senses in tact lmao.:

a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife.

baby124:

Signed and sworn to in a court of law in front of a competent court official. You are even asked if you are impaired or unable to make such commitments to make sure you are going in with all your senses in tact lmao.:

What are the terms of the contract?

And explain if you see it as the same thing as a business contract.

baby124:

Oh really. They take nothing Abi. So their years in the marriage is worthless. Now you see why the courts protect the less wealthy spouse because of spouses like you. Who will try to manipulate their way into not settling the other person and running away with everything. In a marriage the priority is not to leave the less fortunate spouse at an economic disadvantage. Will I have any problem if tomorrow I am richer and asked to settle my husband? No. Because even if I hate him so much during the divorce, he was once worth a lot to me. And I will not want him to suffer as I am not the type to carry grudges and punish anyone. I like to leave people better than I met them. What is the use of me rolling in wealth when someone I once loved is dying in poverty. No sane person will be happy about that. And for me to reach such heights, he definitely had value and added richly to my life. Otherwise I would have run away if he was a detriment to my success much earlier when we both had nothing. So yes, she is entitled to half.

If the partner had nothing but lived a comfortable life as a result of being married would she also refund that back?

All the food, the vacation, the cars, the jewelries the clothes she got as a result of being in a marriage with a wealthier person is enough for her

If she isnt refunding that back. While she was married it was compensated for by living way beyond what her earnings could afford and its only reasonable to go back to what the work of his /her hand can afford


If you decide to even give the ex-spouse 100% of your worth then its a personal decision, Some even give their 100% worth to people they have never met before but not for a court to force people against their will to give

Sagamite:


What are the terms of the contract?

And explain if you see it as the same thing as a business contract.

Please note the NEW RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS part. You have upgraded her in status, rights and obligations if you have any. I am glad to have educated you. Please don't argue again. Case closed.

The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.
Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations. Public policy is strongly in favor of marriage based on the belief that it preserves the family unit. Traditionally, marriage has been viewed as vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/marriage