Debate about Prenuptial Agreement

Niels Bohr"Predictions are very difficult, especially when it comes to the future. And now to the main event: why shouldn`t marriage contracts be recognized by divorce courts? As we noted in our first entry, we will use the argumentation and analysis shown so far to show why justice must always prevail in negotiation cases, especially divorce proceedings, in this case. One of our points is that at the time of drafting the agreement and at the time of its execution, there are different realities, because that is the reason for the abuse and unfair allocation of assets. We will continue. Let`s focus on the timing of the drafting of the agreement, what should be considered to create a document that gives the impression of at least a little fairness between the two spouses? First of all, we know that these documents are most often created for the purpose of protecting individual property, so we can conclude that the ideal agreement is one in which both people feel safe, and therefore the first thing to do should be the valuation of the property of each of the spouses. to decide which ones are worth enough to be included in the contract. Well, since the beginning of the process, it is obvious that the criteria applied to it are very likely to change, we all know that the value of economic goods changes over time, but of course, this is not limited to the fact that everyday experiences contribute to the constant formation of human thought patterns and therefore their perspectives. [[www.rebt-uk.org/]] To follow the line, the second step most often followed is to think about how the agreement will affect the approaching compromise, with the aim of clarifying what the limits of it should be in order to contribute to the proper development of the relationship. Here, the couple is supposed to discuss their expectations and fears, so that the final agreement satisfies each of the spouses taking into account both the interest and the consideration of the particularities and special conditions that may be present there. Once this is done, the agreement can be almost complete, but it still reflects the ideology of the signatories in a certain context and a certain period, it does not guarantee that this is not likely to change, depending on the events of their lives. What we want to emphasise is that the basis of the reasoning at the time of drawing up the agreement is determined by conditions that will hardly be repeated when it is implemented. Even if the spouses were thinking about the future at that time and trying to determine what is most likely to happen in the next few years, these assumptions would be determined by the same conditions of the moment. In other words, there is no guarantee that what we want for our lives in 2009 will meet our expectations in 2015 or 2020, etc., for obvious reasons, the amount of information available about the future is extremely limited and absolutely unreliable. Apart from that, and considering the fact that a very important element of a complete and substantial decision is the information on the subject, we could conclude that such a restrictive amount of data makes it excessively risky to rely on it to make one of life`s most important choices.

In conclusion, we would like to mention that although some couples these days tend to update their matrimonial agreements as marriage develops, "adapting to the changing environment", constantly renewing them can lead to a vague illusion of control over desired assets, but will never lead to eliminating the uncertainty of predictions. and instead, stimulate personal interests in designing negotiations through graduated action. Having said that, we would like to focus on the predominance of justice in the courts and during the trial, which we believe is the main problem here. This is not only off-topic, but also seems (as it stands) to be a point with a factual basis, but a supposition that some couples "strongly disagree with the state" and thus reduce the number of marriages. However, it is quite ridiculous to think that marriage contracts and state law reduce the number of civil marriages. This has always been the case, and so there is no way that civil law can reduce or encourage the number of marriages, as might be the case with mandatory marriage contracts (which is not the case). There is simply no evidence that there are people who are against the laws of marriage. Written in their own constitutions! And there is no evidence that states that do not recognize marriage contracts have seen a decline in the number of civil marriages. A marriage is a contract, each marriage has certain conditions that apply to the expiry of the contract.

They say there should only be a set of conditions on how the marriage is dissolved, which is determined by the state. What we want to establish on this point is the value of individual freedom and why the state should respect the decisions of the individual to participate in marriage contracts. We also want to write a more detailed refutation about the nature of decision-making under the influence of love and the uncertainty of the future in order to further justify the validity of marriage contracts. First of all, a fundamental question, why can`t the state control your life? We can all agree that one of the important tasks of the state is to maximize people`s ability to fulfill their personality. What distinguishes humans from animals is the ability to argue and make their own decisions based on their own ways of thinking. Every state must preserve the ability of its citizens to engage in rational thinking that transforms a person into a person. Actions based on this rational thinking should be recognized in a broader sense, because what would be the point of living and thinking about your life if you are not allowed to make decisions in your personal life based on your own ideas about what is good for you. .