both.

 

Let me know when I'm ceasing to be fact-based.

 

you aren't, you guys just have different opinions...debates like this are a good thing. Now rubyrashel can decide on a pre-nup before she ties the knot

 

LOL

being cynical does not preclude adhering to facts.

it's the viewpoint that determines cynicism.

 

No seriously. . . where in the statments you quoted was there any cynicism?

I'm not denying my cynicism, what I'm doubting is the quantifiable cynicism in the statments you quoted.

I stuck to the facts in said statements, using only the most factual language I can muster. If you want to ride my ass for cynicism, there were better statements of mine you should've used.

Lastly, I'm not the one at another person's statement. By all means, take your own contempt prize; you've earned it.

 

i'm at your obvious denial that the statements you made are quantifiably cynical.

case in point: "Do take the notion of Marriage as a Legally Binding Contract seriously, because it is."

sorry, notwithstanding that your statement *may* be factually accurate, it is cynical to view marriage as a contract....

does a guy get down on one knee and pop a ring in front of a girl and say "will you enter into a contract of marriage with me?"

no, i didn't think so.

with your attitude, if you don't have a spouse, good luck finding one....and if you have one, good luck keeping them.



(no offense intended - just gauging you by your posts/attitude)

 

I never denied being cynical. I'm stating you chose the worst of my statements to argue your peeve against me.

Insofar as the law is concerned, yes, it is.

Is it? That's your opinion. I think of it as the best of contracts. You say vows affirming the terms of the contract do you not?

Moreover, even if you don't share the view of an "idealized contract," The State does view one's marriage as a very real contract. Both marriage AND divorce carry legal implications with it.

My umbrage HAS NEVER BEEN with the religious or social institution of marriage. My language, and my arguments, have never delved into this. I have debated the law (insofar as I know it).

Regardless of how one proposes, that is what you, under the law, are in fact, fundamentally asking.

I cannot be overly offended by anyone who:
1. Cannot understand the difference between religious norms, social norms, and legal ramifications.
2. Feels the need to try to make a personal judgement about my life, when the topic wasn't my exsistence, but rather, my words, and my view of the law.
3. Owns an S2000. . . dude can't be half-bad.

 

No thanks.

 

Well, if I were married to a multi millionaire, and he asked me for a prenump, then I don't mind signing. After all I would do the same in his shoes. If I marry a man that makes significantly less than me, then I would want one as well. But I for damn sure won't bring up a prenumpt to a multi millionaire

 

Where do you draw the line though? How about a guy that makes 100,000k plus through one job a year, also owns a profitable business worth about 500,000K and stands to inherit about 2 million in assets from his family. How does that guy differ from a multi-millionaire? Both men could potentially lose half of everything in a divorce settlement.