raumdeuter:


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

Oga, it's better you marry Bill Gates daughter. Because see how you are fighting seriously on top your collection money. If you marry, and when you marry. Your wife is the bone of your bone. When you now decide to throw her away for a younger version, give her what is her due. Half. The law does not give exceptions except you both agree to those exceptions before marriage and it is written down and included in the marriage license. Find a woman that earns more than you, and carry your own baby in your belly so she never has an excuse to be a wife to you. Also make sure you employ all the house helps and make her life easier so she does not face any stress to where she now wants to stay at home. Goodluck to you. I hope it works well for you.

This is going to be fun.

TV01:

Maradona fun are re - Mindfullness you can dribble . So you do not reagrd your positions as true? or even believe them??

4. something regarded as true and implicitly believed:
to take his report for gospel.

Are you discussing semantics with me after Sagamite needed to teach you the meaning of illiterate in the broad sense?
It would be fun to challenge you on this but I do not feel like derailing since the topic is too interesting for this.

The Bible generally and the express word of Jesus specifically.The bibles position on Christian marriage is not even worth disputing. It opens and closes with marriage. It normalises - especially in the NT - the male/female, exclusive and permanent nature of marriage.

Are you saying that Christians are the only people who have the right understanding of what a marriage should be like?

Keep asking questions and accusing me of deviation ! Is there nothing that distinguishes us from animals? That aside, is not your position essentially about "your feelings" being the greater good and making them higher value.

I know why you are running from this question. Never mind.

At all, but let them come and see your silky skills !

Let them come, you need all hands on deck for me to at least feel the breeze of a challenge.

No gainsaying


Again, you don't have an objective measure for good, neither are you able to determine what is good for every individual, or prioritise different expressions of good from the same individual. I simply find your doctrine nebullous and shallow.

I have never tried to measure or determine what is good for every individual. How you find my views in none of my business. By now you should know that the more of you disagree with me, the better I feel. Call your friends.

You contradict yourself thread to thread, post to post and literally sentence ot sentence ! And then try and hide it behind questions; why if there is never a cost attached do you term it selfish? Why if there is no cost - to someone, somewhere - do you counsel that a woman has a "right to act on her feelings regardless"?

Whenever you don't get something, you classify it as a contradiction.

I have the right to be happy. I am the only person responsible for my happiness. How is it anyone's problem? How is any cost attached to it? How is my selfishness a problem to anyone?

You try and make it sound glossy, harmless and appealing at the outset, then deny there is naything systematic about it, but apply it to situations - which often leave you feeling uncomfortable.? It simply doesn't bear any kind of real scrutiny.


TV

I feel very comfortable. Stop projecting.

Expect a wife is an housewife or the couple built an empire together, I cannot wrap my head around the need for divorce settlements.

Does the husband still get to enjoy the wife's food and care?

Or What exactly is the purpose of the settlement?

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.

Lol, honestly, you are a poor debater... I dint want to respond initially but ermmmmm... seeeee...
In a business, we share profits according to our stake in the business, now, in marriage, our profit might be, the children we bear together not what I make in my business... the only thing you have an equal right to is our children, not my fvcking money..
So when u talk about interest increasing in value, it is what we earn in the context of dat marriage, joint assets or children... not what I am worth outside of the marriage...

njokusboy:


Lol, honestly, you are a poor debater... I dint want to respond initially but ermmmmm... seeeee...
In a business, we share profits according to our stake in the business, now, in marriage, our profit might be, the children we bear together not what I make in my business... the only thing you have an equal right to is our children, not my fvcking money..
So when u talk about interest increasing in value, it is what we earn in the context of dat marriage, joint assets or children... not what I am worth outside of the marriage...

Go and read partnership law. These are societies were things work. This is not your average or roadside mechanic business partnership that you assume business decisions like sharing of profits. Funny that you say I am a poor debater when you spew non facts. Partnership law is everywhere for you to learn. A strong debater which you believe yourself to be should have read up on such a topic before showing your ignorance. Or don't you think?

Sagamite:


TV01, this is another education for you.

You can have your own choice but don't force it on others as the ONE!

EXACTLY!

He thinks that Christians have the monopoly on marriage and tries to force his beliefs on everyone.

baby124:

Go and read partnership law. These are societies were things work. This is not your average or roadside mechanic business partnership that you assume business decisions like sharing of profits. Funny that you say I am a poor debater when you spew non facts. Partnership law is everywhere for you to learn. A strong debater which you believe yourself to be should have read up on such a topic before showing your ignorance. Or don't you think?

Lol, am an economist.... I know more about partnerships than you'd ever know...

Sagamite:


And this is the rubbish premise some Western nations base their laws on.

They say another person should be forced to maintian the life one person has been accustomed to. Not people should maintain the life they can afford to make for themselves based on their own efforts and self-development.

Moronic laws!

I don't think that the law is based on such beliefs in the first place. I rather think that the law is a leftover from the past and that it has not been accurately re-defined and re-formultated to fit the present day socio-cultural context where women no longer depend on their husbands as the only bread-winner. A woman's traditional role used to be that of a housewife. Her adult life began and ended with marriage. If a husband decided to leave his wife, she was left with nothing so laws were passed to protect them as there was an imbalance in power due to the traditional roles and norms people were made to live by.

I also heard that if a husband could prove that the divorce was the woman's fault (e.g. adultery), he wouldn't have to provide for her after the divorce.

However, a woman doesn't need 3 million $ to survive.
And I don't get why anyone would think that by marrying rich you are entitled to your ex-husband's fortune.

I would love to know how many ladies would argue in favor of such laws if it was their money they would have to part with.

njokusboy:


Lol, am an economist.... I know more about partnerships than you'd ever know...

I pity your arrogance. You obviously do not know anything. First law of partnerships is to share profits or losses equally except the operating agreements stipulates otherwise. Now in marriage a prenup will be the otherwise here? Yes or no? No wonder you are even insulting me on top of your glaring ignorance on partnership rules and laws. You are an economist. So what do you know about partnerships. If one was ignorant now, you people will be spraying all sorts of rubbish in the air hoping it hooks someone. Funny how you are trying to convince me how profits are shared in a partnership without a partnership agreement or prenup. Lmao. What won't I see on NL

baby124:

Oga, it's better you marry Bill Gates daughter. Because see how you are fighting seriously on top your collection money. If you marry, and when you marry. Your wife is the bone of your bone. When you now decide to throw her away for a younger version, give her what is her due. Half. The law does not give exceptions except you both agree to those exceptions before marriage and it is written down and included in the marriage license. Find a woman that earns more than you, and carry your own baby in your belly so she never has an excuse to be a wife to you. Also make sure you employ all the house helps and make her life easier so she does not face any stress to where she now wants to stay at home. Goodluck to you. I hope it works well for you.

I am a bone? LOL

I have a better solution. Women should learn to make money, a lot of money.
Pregnancies, kids and husbands should be no excuse not to have their own money.

Mindfulness:


I am a bone? LOL

I have a better solution. Women should learn to make money, a lot of money.
Pregnancies, kids and husbands should be no excuse not to have their own money.

You are a misogynist for suggesting that

@Sagamite
seen this? ...lol

I remember you pasting a YouTube vid that had something like this.

baby124:


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.

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

Slow your roll, girl.

Don't get too excited.

Close which case?

You think because something is labelled a contract that means it is the same thing as the business contract we know?

Have you ever heard of "Social contract"?

Have you ever heard of "Religious Contract"? Aka "Covenant"?

Have you even heard of "JSA contract"?

Are those the same thing as a Business contract?

If two armed robbers come together to form partnership to rob people, because it is called a partnership, does that mean it is the same thing as an LLP?

Re-open that case, sharp sharp.

Why do you think I was asking you "And explain if you see it as the same thing as a business contract."?

Any "agreement" can be called a contract.

The agreement is marriage (i.e. "your contract" ) is only an agreement to be married and regarded as such by law until you get a divorce.

Oya, try again!

raumdeuter:


You are a misogynist for suggesting that

No, I don't hate people, I only prefer strong personalities, male or female.

baby124:

I pity your arrogance. You obviously do not know anything. First law of partnerships is to share profits or losses equally except the operating agreements stipulates otherwise. Now in marriage a prenup will be the otherwise here? Yes or no? No wonder you are even insulting me on top of your glaring ignorance on partnership rules and laws. You are an economist. So what do you know about partnerships. If one was ignorant now, you people will be spraying all sorts of rubbish in the air hoping it hooks someone. Funny how you are trying to convince me how profits are shared in a partnership without a partnership agreement or prenup. Lmao. What won't I see on NL

Lol, you are actually forcing me to call out your gross phoolishness, which I have avoided so far...
For every partnership on earth, there is a deed, when there's no deed, profits and losses are shared equally.... however, in your quest to sound intelligent, you forgot the fact that, the profits and losses are actually those incurred in the course of a business... Now put it in the context of a marriage, two partners only share the profits incurred in the marriage, like children or joint properties, not those gotten outside the marriage...
So your useless book of partnership on google tells you that if I have another business from which I earn profits or dividends and our business breaks up, you would share everything I have equally including the dividends from my other business? Woman, you are not qualified to sit in a class on econ 101...
Lemme rephrase, if marriage is a partnership and we are to apply the rules of partnership, a wife is only entitled to 50% of the proceeds of that marriage, 50% of all joint properties children being number one... not 50% of a company I started before the marriage....
Pls, don't provoke me, I don repent...

Mindfulness:


I don't think that the law is based on such beliefs in the first place. I rather think that the law is a leftover from the past and that it has not been accurately re-defined and re-formultated to fit the present day socio-cultural context where women no longer depend on their husbands as the only bread-winner. A woman's traditional role used to be that of a housewife. Her adult life began and ended with marriage. If a husband decided to leave his wife, she was left with nothing so laws were passed to protect them as there was an imbalance in power due to the traditional roles and norms people were made to live by.

I also heard that if a husband could prove that the divorce was the woman's fault (e.g. adultery), he wouldn't have to provide for her after the divorce.

However, a woman doesn't need 3 million $ to survive.
And I don't get why anyone would think that by marrying rich you are entitled to your ex-husband's fortune.

I would love to know how many ladies would argue in favor of such laws if it was their money they would have to part with.

Yes, but the argument put into law and normally quoted for awarding a spouse (usually a woman) ridiculous amount of money is that she is used to a certain level of lifestyle that the divorce should not reduce.

Then she goes and calculate, how much holidays, nannies, pedicure etc she needs and how much they cost before the courts orders the man to pay for these.

The bolded is now the ridiculous assumption by most women and they can't even understand why it should not be the case.

They are like that is the way it is and it should be because that is how it is now.

netotse:
@Sagamite
seen this? ...lol

I remember you pasting a YouTube vid that had something like this.

WTF!

Why does this girl have to bring our private escapade out on Twitter?

Sagamite:


Yes, but the argument put into law and normally quoted for awarding a spouse (usually a woman) ridiculous amount of money is that she is used to a certain level of lifestyle that the divorce should not reduce.

Then she goes and calculate, how much holidays, nannies, pedicure etc she needs and how much they cost before the courts orders the man to pay for these.

The bolded is now the ridiculous assumption by most women and they can't even understand why it should not be the case.

They are like that is the way it is and it should be because that is how it is now.

This is the most ridiculous thing ever.

If you want to maintain your lifestyle, stay married by all means like my Nigerian sisters.

You CANNOT eat your cake and have it.

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.

See the nonsense argument you gave to his valid question?

So it is cheating to give someone what they deserve and contributed?

Fck me!

So I go into business with someone and I put more money down and the courts should say "the less fortunate partner at an economic disadvantage", the profits must be shared 50/50?

WTF kind of arguments are you giving?

bukatyne:
Expect a wife is an housewife or the couple built an empire together, I cannot wrap my head around the need for divorce settlements.

Does the husband still get to enjoy the wife's food and care?

Or What exactly is the purpose of the settlement?

Exactly!

The law is structured to ensure she continues getting a lifestyle she is accustomed to.

What about the lifestyle he was accustomed to?

Nonsense!

njokusboy:


Lol, honestly, you are a poor debater... I dint want to respond initially but ermmmmm... seeeee...
In a business, we share profits according to our stake in the business, now, in marriage, our profit might be, the children we bear together not what I make in my business... the only thing you have an equal right to is our children, not my fvcking money..
So when u talk about interest increasing in value, it is what we earn in the context of dat marriage, joint assets or children... not what I am worth outside of the marriage...

Very very poor!

Extremely poor!

She does not even have a clue how poor.

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.

I totally, completely and absolutely subscribe to the statements in bold.

You didn't have to include Hinduism though, Christians also believe that they have to suffer and make sacrifices because life is a test. It is meant to be endured and not enjoyed. God sacrificed his only son, so why do you think you deserve to be happy? The Almighty created human beings in such a way that they first need to pass a test to prove to him that they are worthy creations because he isn't sure they are.

Human beings naturally enjoy lust, gluttony and laziness but anything that is pleasurable is a sin. We are supposed to live in misery to enter heaven.

Everything will be used against you on the judgement day. God hates the way he created you. You are inherently evil. You didn't choose to be but it is your fault if you are.

baby124:

Go and read partnership law. These are societies were things work. This is not your average or roadside mechanic business partnership that you assume business decisions like sharing of profits. Funny that you say I am a poor debater when you spew non facts. Partnership law is everywhere for you to learn. A strong debater which you believe yourself to be should have read up on such a topic before showing your ignorance. Or don't you think?

You know JACKARSE NOTHING about partnership law.

You are as CLUELESS as GEJ!

Sagamite:


Exactly!

The law is structured to ensure she continues getting a lifestyle she is accustomed to.

What about the lifestyle he was accustomed to?

Nonsense!

@Bold:

The ex-wife will do his laundry weekly and ensure he and his new chic has fresh soup in the freezer weekly.

She will also ensure the house is always neat and tidy.

Mindfulness:


I totally, completely and absolutely subscribe to the statements in bold.

You didn't have to include Hinduism though, Christians also believe that they have to suffer and make sacrifices because life is a test. It is meant to be endured and not enjoyed. God sacrificed his only son, so why do you think you deserve to be happy? The Almighty created human beings in such a way that they first need to pass a test to prove to him that they are worthy creations because he isn't sure they are.

Human beings naturally enjoy lust, gluttony and laziness but anything that is pleasurable is a sin. We are supposed to live in misery to enter heaven.

Everything will be used against you on the judgement day. God hates the way he created you. You are inherently evil. You didn't choose to be but it is your fault if you are.

Yep.

That psychotic, petty and vengeful God that was created my medieval illiterates.

[size=18pt]YOU DIDN'T WORSHIP ME?

HEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLL FIIIIIIIRE!!!!! [/size]

The one that killed his own son to cancel sins he could just had merely mentally cancelled.

The kind of crap fantasy stories medieval illiterates conjure up.

bukatyne:


@Bold:

The ex-wife will do his laundry weekly and ensure he and his new chic has fresh soup in the freezer weekly.

She will also ensure the house is always neat and tidy.

Abi o!

baby124:

I pity your arrogance. You obviously do not know anything. First law of partnerships is to share profits or losses equally except the operating agreements stipulates otherwise. Now in marriage a prenup will be the otherwise here? Yes or no? No wonder you are even insulting me on top of your glaring ignorance on partnership rules and laws. You are an economist. So what do you know about partnerships. If one was ignorant now, you people will be spraying all sorts of rubbish in the air hoping it hooks someone. Funny how you are trying to convince me how profits are shared in a partnership without a partnership agreement or prenup. Lmao. What won't I see on NL

Why do you think a woman is entitled to a settlement from her ex-divorce if they do not have a joint investment or if she was not an housewife?

Lord Justice Thorpe said this was justified as Mr Murphy had greater future earning potential.

The case came in the week a leading family lawyer called for an end to court rulings which left wives living in comfort on the back of their husbands’ money.

Baroness Deech said handing a husband’s wealth to the wife after a short childless marriage was demeaning to women who were fully capable of finding work.

She said such over-generosity to women had made London the divorce capital of the world.

At the time of Mr Murphy’s settlement, the former banker was earning nothing, his lawyer Martin Pointer QC, had told the court.

But his wife Helene had a handsome income as a director of a London art gallery, he added.

Lord Justice Thorpe, who headed the panel of three appeal judges, said the couple met in New York where they were both working in 1997 and when he was posted to London, she gave up her job to follow him.

They married in Ireland in 1998 and separated in 2006. The couple, both in their early 40s, had no children.

Who is Baroness Deech? I like her way of thinking.
The human tendency to bastardize institutions that are made to protect us is our bane. And it's this same excessive attitude (i.e. the inability to curb its excesses) that is killing patriarchy and caused a revolt from the women folk.
We should endeavor not to go down that same debilitating route patriarchy went.
Tales like these are not a win for women but an embarrassment as well as an excess that certainly needs to be curbed. We should always always aim to be fair.

bukatyne:


This is the most ridiculous thing ever.

If you want to maintain your lifestyle, stay married by all means like my Nigerian sisters.

You CANNOT eat your cake and have it.

Or ...........work hard to provide it for yourself.

Stillfire:


Who is Baroness Deech? I like her way of thinking.
The human tendency to bastardize institutions that are made to protect us is our bane. And it's this same excessive attitude (i.e. the inability to curb its excesses) that is killing patriarchy and caused a revolt from the women folk.
We should endeavor not to go down that same debilitating route patriarchy went.
Tales like these are not a win for women but an embarrassment as well as an excess that certainly needs to be curbed. We should always always aim to be fair.

Cosign

bukatyne:


Why do you think a woman is entitled to a settlement from her ex-divorce if they do not have a joint investment or if she was not an housewife?

Let me warn you in advance:

If you tell her a woman should leave a marriage after divorce with what she brought in and what she made in it, she would say you are saying "women should leave with nothing".

Those mean the same thing to her.

Sagamite:


Or ...........work hard to provide it for yourself.

True