Prenup as a private practice owner?

[deleted1236152]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I'm currently in dental school but will start OMFS residency in the near future with connections to join a private practice when I finish training. Undergrad and Dental school really haven't worked out for dating, so I most likely will get married during residency or later after becoming a part-owner of a private practice in my hometown. I definitely want a family and kids but just haven't had the time or met the right person yet. I am worried about dating/marriage as an oral surgeon and the implications it brings. Obviously you never hope for it, but divorces do happen and often occur out of the blue. Is it the norm for dentists who get married after training to have a prenup to protect their practice? Any pros/cons to be aware of? Any advice for dating as a resident/specialist? Just something that's been nagging me for a while. Thanks in advance!

 

[JacquesVallee]

"A prenup is planning your divorce in advance." -Dave Ramsey

 

[deleted1202307]

"A prenup is planning your divorce in advance." -Dave Ramsey

I'm not sure I agree. With that logic, having car insurance is planning to crash your car in advance.

 

[JacquesVallee]

I'm not sure I agree. With that logic, having car insurance is planning to crash your car in advance.

Car insurance isn't a life long covenant with someone you love and promise to spend the rest of your life with (so help you God).

 

[JacquesVallee]

D1 here. My school has also just become way more competitive and students are smarter than in years past. My teachers haven't changed the difficulty of exams but my class averages significantly higher than even just the previous year. Our class average DAT and GPA also set a historical high for the school as well and multiple people in admissions/deans have commented on it. No handing down of exams or stuff like that here (they write new exams and don't recycle), but it definitely feels a bit more cutthroat and competitive than I expected when it comes to grades. Not sure if that's a nationwide phenomenon or just my school though.

For the record, OP is a D1 and, in fact, not about to start OMFS residency.

 

[mjzccle19701]

Since no one in this thread has said anything helpful - prenups typically only protect premarital assets. So unless you plan on getting married way later in life it won’t make a difference. There are ways to protect what you make after marriage, but the agreement has to be fair or else the judge will throw it out. Might not be a 50/50 split but you will still end up giving them some assets.

 

[deleted1236152]

For the record, OP is a D1 and, in fact, not about to start OMFS residency.

Hold on man, I'm a D2 now and am taking the CBSE this year 😂. Unfortunately, no one takes underclassmen OMFS aspirants seriously on here due to excessive cynicism, but that’s completely beside the point. The logic holds whether I end up in surgery, endo, ortho, perio, peds or GP.

I understand the ideals of marriage and of course no one expects/wants their marriage to fail, but the reality is that 50% of marriages do fail (and interestingly a 2016 study showed that enforceable prenups seems to lower divorce rates slightly) . But from a business perspective, people like Kevin O'Leary and Mark Cuban argue that prenups provide necessary financial transparency and stability for companies, which a dental practice is. A private practice is a massive asset. To my knowledge, without a prenup, a divorce can become a nightmare for owners and partners because the law treats the private practice as a dividable asset. So less of a protection for the individual thing and more about protecting the "entity" of the practice and all involved. I'm not necessarily pro/anti prenup but I think it's important enough to hear some real-life dental applications to help me flesh out my own opinion.

 

[deleted1236152]

Since no one in this thread has said anything helpful - prenups typically only protect premarital assets. So unless you plan on getting married way later in life it won’t make a difference. There are ways to protect what you make after marriage, but the agreement has to be fair or else the judge will throw it out. Might not be a 50/50 split but you will still end up giving them some assets.

Thank you! Haha I didn't expect this to be controversial. So I've just heard it might be a good idea just for protection of your partners and practice. So would that protection not really apply unless you purchased the practice prior to getting married?

 

[JacquesVallee]

Hold on man, I'm a D2 now and am taking the CBSE this year 😂. Unfortunately, no one takes underclassmen OMFS aspirants seriously on here due to excessive cynicism, but that’s completely beside the point. The logic holds whether I end up in surgery, endo, ortho, perio, peds or GP.

Sorry not trying to throw shade, brother haha. I just assumed you were matriculating OMFS this Summer and was surprised.

I understand the ideals of marriage and of course no one expects/wants their marriage to fail, but the reality is that 50% of marriages do fail (and interestingly a 2016 study showed that enforceable prenups seems to lower divorce rates slightly) . But from a business perspective, people like Kevin O'Leary and Mark Cuban argue that prenups provide necessary financial transparency and stability for companies, which a dental practice is. A private practice is a massive asset. To my knowledge, without a prenup, a divorce can become a nightmare for owners and partners because the law treats the private practice as a dividable asset. So less of a protection for the individual thing and more about protecting the "entity" of the practice and all involved. I'm not necessarily pro/anti prenup but I think it's important enough to hear some real-life dental applications to help me flesh out my own opinion.

If you go into marriage as it's something that can end and isn't truly "until death do us part", it probably will end. I view marriage as an unbreakable sacrament. Divorce isn't in my vocabulary. If you view marriage as something breakable/not sacred, why even get married in the first place?

Since no one in this thread has said anything helpful

Alright, I'm done dealing with you and your snarkiness. I'm blocking you.

 

[mjzccle19701]

Thank you! Haha I didn't expect this to be controversial. So I've just heard it might be a good idea just for protection of your partners and practice. So would that protection not really apply unless you purchased the practice prior to getting married?

No problem. Just trying to be helpful. I don’t think it’d work out that way. You won’t have any equity in the practice because it will mostly be debt. Unless you somehow pay off student loans and save up the million dollars it takes to buy in.

It’ll come down to your lawyer and their lawyer coming to agreeable terms. The lawyers are gonna do what’s in their clients best interest. If you want the practice then they might get the house. They’ll still likely get a slice of your income too. You can put infidelity clauses like if they cheat before 10 years then they only get 25% and after 20 years they get 50%. But then you end up with someone potentially waiting 20 years to cheat on you. I’m sure there are slimy ways to make sure they get less money, but I hope you’d try to be fair. Best advice is to not get divorced.

 

[AONLINE]

Best advice is to not get divorced.

Best advice is to not get legally married. Have a wedding if that is your thing, you can also get religiously married at the church if you'd like. Just don't sign any legal paperwork. You and your partner can be each other's Power of Attorney and you should be set. If your partner loves you and not your money, they wouldn't care if the government is involved or not.

 

[Feli]

.... I view marriage as an unbreakable sacrament. Divorce isn't in my vocabulary. If you view marriage as something breakable/not sacred, why even get married in the first place? ...

This is one of the silliest things ever... from someone with generally good posts, but cmon. Virtually nobody gets married with bad intentions.
I assume it's a joke, but it's all "forever" all "rest of my life" and all "unbreakable." But this is not 1800s when marriage meant the wife couldn't press rape charges on the husband... and that wife got half the farm if husband infidelity/insanity/death (since women couldn't go to school or work or own property back then).

Divorce happens all the time. People's needs change. Not only is marriage totally unecessary, it's more potentially destructive than ever.
People are lazy or greedy or just plain change over time.
And people think they have more options than they really do with internet and communication. Cheating happens.
Staying in a bad relationship just for the sake of not getting divorced only leads to likely abuse and a ruined life (although most people legally married also believe there is afterlife of some kind?).

Best advice is to not get legally married. Have a wedding if that is your thing, you can also get religiously married at the church if you'd like. Just don't sign any legal paperwork. You and your partner can be each other's Power of Attorney and you should be set. If your partner loves you and not your money, they wouldn't care if the government is involved or not.

Yes, this^^^

Not sure why OP would be be planning marriage / prenup when not even in a relationship, but whatever... choices. GL

If you are silly enough to get [legally] married, you can only protect what you go in with (so no point unless you have significant practice equity and net worth). Anything you acquire and pay off and grow after the legal marriage is going roughly half to the partner during the divorce.

Marriage (and divorce) are industries sold to us... for attorneys, flowers, gift industries, venues, planners, therapists, all that.
If not for marriage and divorce and custody, a ton of attorneys (and counselors) would be out of work. Sad but true.

The marriage and divorce are not what they were 50, 100, etc years ago. You don't need a marriage to have sex, have kids, have a party and exchange rings/vows, to live together, share insurance, share assets, etc. A marriage doesn't "lock up" the partner or make them more loyal or prove love. But have the marriage party if you want... or if you are the religion type or you feel the need to put on a show for family or whatever. The huge pitfall is the legal marriage: much financial and emotional stress are then a certainty in divorce. HIGH chance of financial and psych trouble later on in a divorce; the legal marriage prolongs and skyrockets the costs of a breakup. Unacceptably high chances of divorce makes marriage a non-starter in 21st century (and those are just the actual divorces in the stats, think of all of the additional unhappy marriages that "make it work"!). Everyone thinks they'll be different because of their religion or their partner or realtionship skills or whatever... they will not be different. Stats are stats.

There are a lot financial benefits to not getting [legally] married (or even dissolving marriage for financial reasons yet staying together] for some couples:

Benefits of Not Getting Married Legally [Pros & Cons] | White Coat Investor

Although there are lots of reasons for marriage, Bonnie Koo, MD believes it sometimes makes sense to delay marriage for the financial perks of cohabitation.

www.whitecoatinvestor.com

 

[TanMan]

Sorry not trying to throw shade, brother haha. I just assumed you were matriculating OMFS this Summer and was surprised.

If you go into marriage as it's something that can end and isn't truly "until death do us part", it probably will end. I view marriage as an unbreakable sacrament. Divorce isn't in my vocabulary. If you view marriage as something breakable/not sacred, why even get married in the first place?


Alright, I'm done dealing with you and your snarkiness. I'm blocking you.

It might be unbreakable and not in your vocabulary, but it might be in your partner's eventually.

OR just don't get married and/or don't accidentally/intentionally get someone pregnant without a backup plan for the consequences (or have really good lawyers to take custody and not give alimony/money/anything to the person who was impregnated). There's a lot of "non-traditional" relationships these days that don't require codifying it through a messy legal framework. Heck, from a financial perspective, a bunch of girlfriends/sugar babies is a lot cheaper than getting married.

 

[JacquesVallee]

Heck, from a financial perspective, a bunch of girlfriends/sugar babies is a lot cheaper than getting married.

Financially cheaper, maybe, but still disgusting and immoral behavior.

 

[TanMan]

Financially cheaper, maybe, but still disgusting and immoral behavior.

It is quite interesting how the times change as we get older. 20+ years ago, it wasn't as acceptable to be out in the open with that type of behavior, but the culture, values, and perhaps the power of money has changed what is viewed as acceptable v. reprehensible.

Edit: A more interesting question is that are morals and values absolute or relative and/or situational?

 

[Feli]

Financially cheaper, maybe, but still disgusting and immoral behavior.

By the standards which you were taught... and that you've chosen to accept, perhaps.

What works for you doesn't work for the world. It's a free country.
Personally, I think dating a lot is fun, but for me, monogamy (or at least having a primary partner) is a lot better long term just in terms of sleep, sanity, career, stability, longevity. The guys being players to a mid or even late age tend to have a rocky road, though... I noticed it catching up to me even in mid 30s.

The legal documents marriage idea is nuts, though (to me)... totally unecessary risk. For others, maybe it's still "a must" to get married with church, court, all that? Everyone makes their own choices.

It's up to OP, and anyone, if they want to just be single, partner up, get married without the legal, or full legal marriage. The idea that legal marriage is required or optimal or necessary or morally superior is hogwash, though. Marriage essentially makes a lifelong bet on the emotional state of a woman (70-75% of divorces are initiated by women)... dicey at best.

 

[mjzccle19701]

It is quite interesting how the times change as we get older. 20+ years ago, it wasn't as acceptable to be out in the open with that type of behavior, but the culture, values, and perhaps the power of money has changed what is viewed as acceptable v. reprehensible.

Edit: A more interesting question is that are morals and values absolute or relative and/or situational?

Bill Belichick certainly doesn’t care about the “norms”

 

[JacquesVallee]

It is quite interesting how the times change as we get older. 20+ years ago, it wasn't as acceptable to be out in the open with that type of behavior, but the culture, values, and perhaps the power of money has changed what is viewed as acceptable v. reprehensible.

Yes, we are in steep cultural decline. Sad to see. Marriage with norms around dating is imperative for a functioning society. It's all lost now. Dating and marriage is total chaos today.

Edit: A more interesting question is that are morals and values absolute or relative and/or situational?

Absolute.

By the standards which you were taught... and that you've chosen to accept, perhaps.

By the standards of Western Civilization for the past 1000 years. The nuclear family with Christianity is the glue that holds civilization together.

What works for you doesn't work for the world. It's a free country.

Not true. Having monogamy with stable families leads to the most stability, hence why it's been so heavily emphasized in Europe for the past 1000+ years.

The legal documents marriage idea is nuts, though (to me)... totally unecessary risk. For others, maybe it's still "a must" to get married with church, court, all that? Everyone makes their own choices.

That's because you don't view marriage as a sacred institution. We need not only the government promoting it, but society as well. No longer holding marriage as sacred is simply a sign of cultural decay. Not surprising given the birthrates are at an all time low. We are in massive spiritual decline with people like you continuing to deconstruct absolutely essential aspects of society. To quote GK Chesterton, if you see an old fence somewhere, first ask yourself why its there in the first place before taking it down. It may not be abundantly obvious why we have certain norms until they've been eroded. And then once they're gone, it's too late.

To have some agreement, I do understand that in the modern secular world, marriage seems like a horrible deal for men on face value. We all know men who have been raked over the coals by divorce. So, it's not as if I'm not sympathetic.

 

[Feli]

Yes, we are in steep cultural decline. Sad to see. Marriage with norms around dating is imperative for a functioning society. It's all lost now. Dating and marriage is total chaos today.

Absolute.

By the standards of Western Civilization for the past 1000 years. The nuclear family with Christianity is the glue that holds civilization together.

Not true. Having monogamy with stable families leads to the most stability, hence why it's been so heavily emphasized in Europe for the past 1000+ years.

That's because you don't view marriage as a sacred institution. We need not only the government promoting it, but society as well. No longer holding marriage as sacred is simply a sign of cultural decay. Not surprising given the birthrates are at an all time low. We are in massive spiritual decline with people like you continuing to deconstruct absolutely essential aspects of society. To quote GK Chesterton, if you see an old fence somewhere, first ask yourself why its there in the first place before taking it down. It may not be abundantly obvious why we have certain norms until they've been eroded. And then once they're gone, it's too late.

To have some agreement, I do understand that in the modern secular world, marriage seems like a horrible deal for men on face value. We all know men who have been raked over the coals by divorce. So, it's not as if I'm not sympathetic.

This is impossible to respond to as you are looking at marriage/monogamy from a religion/moral standpoint and shaming things while OP and myself and others are looking at it logically and in practical terms. That will never align. Agree to disagree.

Marriages of centuries ago created neat little taxable units... easy to track, less conflict, more workers for the farms as it linked families. Again, olden days marriage made the wife basically sexual property of the husband while offering the wife basic social security (highly useful as women could not own property and very very few women worked or were educated). It created a system where the beta males could still have a chance to have reproductive success (find "their" woman), and there was less conflict over mates. Couples having many kids (no birth control use was added to the books/teaching) was to build the work force, grown the tax base, increase armies of the empire. Marriage was rolled up in the guise of "requirement" of god and church (as church and state were MUCH more bonded in those days).
But the leaders of those Euro and other christian societies didn't follow the marriage/monogamy themselves. Almost zero. The kings and princes and governors and later prime ministers and presidents had their queen/wife... yet also had relations and kids with many mistresses, chambermaids, secretaries, etc. Look anywhere from King Henry to Thomas Jefferson to JFK and Trump and see this going on. Many married regular males tried the same, if they could pull it off. Some of the mormons and muslims even made up polygamy and harems and all that in the books to try to make is legit for men to have multiple wives (via god and in the books). 🙂

The bible (and other religion texts) are basically artifacts at this point. They are dusty books of desert fables that were originally written up to teach and control illiterate peasants... then modified by various kings and leaders over the years to suit their needs. Every society has its creation myths. They have long outlived their usefulness; the information age is here and law and morality are common sense. There is a reason for the rapid decline in religion and crime - overall and especially violent - is sharply declined as well. And almost nobody can hide from the tax man anymore - particularly when currency goes increasingly digital.
Here in 2000s, it is perfectly viable to do yoga and enjoy nature, order basically anything online, and just be a good person these days without marriage or the guilt and shame and hypocrisy and myths of religion - but maybe not as viable in 1800, due to lack of education. (however, I would certainly give the religions credit for being the world's early public health laws... kosher, halal, fasting, etc... but that was leaders of ancient days writing up that stuff, not any sky fairies not wanting the people to avoid eating contaminated meat, pork, not cause food shortages, etc).

Present day, the world is overpopulated. I don't think anyone debates that. We see pollution, conflict over land, fights over resources, warming, extinct animals... all that. Marriage as a way to more births is historic only. We have at least 10x as many humans as we really need, particularly with AI farming and manufacturing and basically everything rapidly improving. If human population declines slowly (or even went away), every other living thing on Earth would rejoice! The negative birth rates are a good thing... very good. This planet has survived being covered with lava, covered with ice, pelted with meteors, and 100 other changes (although a religion person probably thinks a genie snapped fingers and made it all). Regardless, it is now a bit of a race between maintaining or getting off this planet before we pollute and warm it to an unlivable state. Those movies like The Midnight Sky or Greenland aren't all fiction. We'll see.

...Last word is yours... I'm sure we can both have fine lives if you are at church each Sunday with wife and I'm on a trail or at the gym with my non-wife.
But I won't shame others for their choice of not wanting to get married or consider a prenup or avoid legal marriage that has long outlived its usefulness. 🙂

 

[SuxDrugs&Rocuronium]

The bible (and other religion texts) are basically artifacts at this point. They are dusty books of desert fables that were originally written up to teach and control illiterate peasants...

Incredibly offensive statement

 

[Feli]

Incredibly offensive statement

If you think so, sure. There is a BY quote on fool and greater fool.

The orig question was logic and financial (prenup).

When religion stuff and 'morality' is interjected to a logic question, it might get challenged. One can't use those 'god' and 'christianity' things as an answer and reason.... then cry foul if questioned.
This is 21st century, not the 15th dark ages. The USA was created 18th century largely to get past that nonsense... with first amendment for freedom of religion - or non religion... separation of church and state. 👍

 

[deleted1236152]

Ok this thread has kinda gone off the rails. I didn't mean to open a debate on marriage and religion itself. I believe in marriage and am religious but respect and understand the perspective of others with differing viewpoints. My intent was to understand how a prenup could be beneficial in dentistry as a safety net precaution. I have simply seen divorces come completely out of the blue to those who least expect it with situations completely out of their control such as psychotic breaks, mental health, infidelity, midlife crises, etc. With a high paying career it seems like those risks are exacerbated. I understand you should never go into marriage with the slightest intent of divorce, but unfortunately life isn't perfect. With a bit of research and from hearing some of your thoughts here are some of my conclusions on why a prenup might be a good idea:

1) Every marriage already has a prenup... made by the government. By making your own with your spouse you get to make a better one when you both love and care for each other. If something were to happen it would be much more streamlined and less traumatic for both parties and children involved.
2) It helps bring up a discussion about finances before marriage and ensures you are aligned. This is a very difficult discussion to have, many don't end up having it until later, and this often leads to resentment and divorce later on.
3) It acts as a "vetting tool" to lower the incentive for gold diggers. To be frank, if someone you're dating refuses to sign a prenup she is most likely after your career and not your dazzling personality.
4) Unlike what is commonly stated, a prenup CAN actually include future assets earned and is not simply a "before marriage" outline of assets. This means you can characterize the practice as separate property to prevent equity/appreciation from being divided if a divorce occurs. However, the asset division outlined needs to be "fair" in order to hold up in court, and you most importantly need to have separate legal counsel for both parties when drafting the prenup to ensure due process.
5) In some states, a professional degree (DDS/DMD/MD) can be considered a marital asset if you were married during school or residency. This means a court could potentially assign a dollar value to your future career earnings and award a percentage to an ex-spouse. A prenup is one of the only ways to explicitly waive that claim and keep your professional 'license to earn' separate.

 

[D1Bound]

This is impossible to respond to as you are looking at marriage/monogamy from a religion/moral standpoint and shaming things while OP and myself and others are looking at it logically and in practical terms. That will never align. Agree to disagree.

Marriages of centuries ago created neat little taxable units... easy to track, less conflict, more workers for the farms as it linked families. Again, olden days marriage made the wife basically sexual property of the husband while offering the wife basic social security (highly useful as women could not own property and very very few women worked or were educated). It created a system where the beta males could still have a chance to have reproductive success (find "their" woman), and there was less conflict over mates. Couples having many kids (no birth control use was added to the books/teaching) was to build the work force, grown the tax base, increase armies of the empire. Marriage was rolled up in the guise of "requirement" of god and church (as church and state were MUCH more bonded in those days).
But the leaders of those Euro and other christian societies didn't follow the marriage/monogamy themselves. Almost zero. The kings and princes and governors and later prime ministers and presidents had their queen/wife... yet also had relations and kids with many mistresses, chambermaids, secretaries, etc. Look anywhere from King Henry to Thomas Jefferson to JFK and Trump and see this going on. Many married regular males tried the same, if they could pull it off. Some of the mormons and muslims even made up polygamy and harems and all that in the books to try to make is legit for men to have multiple wives (via god and in the books). 🙂

The bible (and other religion texts) are basically artifacts at this point. They are dusty books of desert fables that were originally written up to teach and control illiterate peasants... then modified by various kings and leaders over the years to suit their needs. Every society has its creation myths. They have long outlived their usefulness; the information age is here and law and morality are common sense. There is a reason for the rapid decline in religion and crime - overall and especially violent - is sharply declined as well. And almost nobody can hide from the tax man anymore - particularly when currency goes increasingly digital.
Here in 2000s, it is perfectly viable to do yoga and enjoy nature, order basically anything online, and just be a good person these days without marriage or the guilt and shame and hypocrisy and myths of religion - but maybe not as viable in 1800, due to lack of education. (however, I would certainly give the religions credit for being the world's early public health laws... kosher, halal, fasting, etc... but that was leaders of ancient days writing up that stuff, not any sky fairies not wanting the people to avoid eating contaminated meat, pork, not cause food shortages, etc).

Present day, the world is overpopulated. I don't think anyone debates that. We see pollution, conflict over land, fights over resources, warming, extinct animals... all that. Marriage as a way to more births is historic only. We have at least 10x as many humans as we really need, particularly with AI farming and manufacturing and basically everything rapidly improving. If human population declines slowly (or even went away), every other living thing on Earth would rejoice! The negative birth rates are a good thing... very good. This planet has survived being covered with lava, covered with ice, pelted with meteors, and 100 other changes (although a religion person probably thinks a genie snapped fingers and made it all). Regardless, it is now a bit of a race between maintaining or getting off this planet before we pollute and warm it to an unlivable state. Those movies like The Midnight Sky or Greenland aren't all fiction. We'll see.

...Last word is yours... I'm sure we can both have fine lives if you are at church each Sunday with wife and I'm on a trail or at the gym with my non-wife.
But I won't shame others for their choice of not wanting to get married or consider a prenup or avoid legal marriage that has long outlived its usefulness. 🙂

I can assure you morality is not common sense to 99% of people lol

 

[White_Sponge_Nevus]

Coming across this discussion SDN was not on my Bingo Card for today 🤣

 

[yappy]

...Last word is yours... I'm sure we can both have fine lives if you are at church each Sunday with wife and I'm on a trail or at the gym with my non-wife.
But I won't shame others for their choice of not wanting to get married or consider a prenup or avoid legal marriage that has long outlived its usefulness. 🙂

In my experience, this is the case. People who want to marry will marry. People who do not want to marry will not. Just as I cannot imagine a church-going person being interested in Feli, I cannot imagine a secular humanist being interested in Jaqcues.

Yes, most professionals with assets set up legal protections to protect assets, such as a dental practice. It's not even so much that you're trying to get one over on your future spouse. Setting up a prenuptial agreement before getting married will make a potential split easier on both parties, your potential children, and any employees/business partners you may have. Putting your business cap on, a defined prenup is really just a form of asset protection for the company you're going to create as much as it is for yourself. It's like having a will.

 

[JacquesVallee]

Coming across this discussion SDN was not on my Bingo Card for today 🤣

With all the pre-dents off this website we can finally have real adult conversations lol

I cannot imagine a secular humanist being interested in Jaqcues.

Don't underestimate me...

 

[TanMan]

There's too much focus on the assets and not enough on whether someone will be happy with being married or not. Sure, you could get married, live happily ever after, or find out that your wife, wife-to-be, or ex-wife is a succubus in disguise. The assets, from a fairness and utility perspective are important to protect, especially if the couple can no longer coexist with each other. There's that old saying, own nothing, control everything. Structure everything going in, coming in during the marriage, and afterwards in that manner, and they'll have a hard time getting anything. However, if you're that paranoid about losing most of what you've worked for, why even get married in the first place? Individual happiness doesn't have to come from another person, but it doesn't mean it cannot lead a fulfilling life with another person. The problem is that people change.

This is impossible to respond to as you are looking at marriage/monogamy from a religion/moral standpoint and shaming things while OP and myself and others are looking at it logically and in practical terms. That will never align. Agree to disagree.

Marriages of centuries ago created neat little taxable units... easy to track, less conflict, more workers for the farms as it linked families. Again, olden days marriage made the wife basically sexual property of the husband while offering the wife basic social security (highly useful as women could not own property and very very few women worked or were educated). It created a system where the beta males could still have a chance to have reproductive success (find "their" woman), and there was less conflict over mates. Couples having many kids (no birth control use was added to the books/teaching) was to build the work force, grown the tax base, increase armies of the empire. Marriage was rolled up in the guise of "requirement" of god and church (as church and state were MUCH more bonded in those days).
But the leaders of those Euro and other christian societies didn't follow the marriage/monogamy themselves. Almost zero. The kings and princes and governors and later prime ministers and presidents had their queen/wife... yet also had relations and kids with many mistresses, chambermaids, secretaries, etc. Look anywhere from King Henry to Thomas Jefferson to JFK and Trump and see this going on. Many married regular males tried the same, if they could pull it off. Some of the mormons and muslims even made up polygamy and harems and all that in the books to try to make is legit for men to have multiple wives (via god and in the books). 🙂

The bible (and other religion texts) are basically artifacts at this point. They are dusty books of desert fables that were originally written up to teach and control illiterate peasants... then modified by various kings and leaders over the years to suit their needs. Every society has its creation myths. They have long outlived their usefulness; the information age is here and law and morality are common sense. There is a reason for the rapid decline in religion and crime - overall and especially violent - is sharply declined as well. And almost nobody can hide from the tax man anymore - particularly when currency goes increasingly digital.
Here in 2000s, it is perfectly viable to do yoga and enjoy nature, order basically anything online, and just be a good person these days without marriage or the guilt and shame and hypocrisy and myths of religion - but maybe not as viable in 1800, due to lack of education. (however, I would certainly give the religions credit for being the world's early public health laws... kosher, halal, fasting, etc... but that was leaders of ancient days writing up that stuff, not any sky fairies not wanting the people to avoid eating contaminated meat, pork, not cause food shortages, etc).

Present day, the world is overpopulated. I don't think anyone debates that. We see pollution, conflict over land, fights over resources, warming, extinct animals... all that. Marriage as a way to more births is historic only. We have at least 10x as many humans as we really need, particularly with AI farming and manufacturing and basically everything rapidly improving. If human population declines slowly (or even went away), every other living thing on Earth would rejoice! The negative birth rates are a good thing... very good. This planet has survived being covered with lava, covered with ice, pelted with meteors, and 100 other changes (although a religion person probably thinks a genie snapped fingers and made it all). Regardless, it is now a bit of a race between maintaining or getting off this planet before we pollute and warm it to an unlivable state. Those movies like The Midnight Sky or Greenland aren't all fiction. We'll see.

...Last word is yours... I'm sure we can both have fine lives if you are at church each Sunday with wife and I'm on a trail or at the gym with my non-wife.
But I won't shame others for their choice of not wanting to get married or consider a prenup or avoid legal marriage that has long outlived its usefulness. 🙂

There's definitely truth in what you say. Rules are different when you have money and power. If you have money, you're less affected, but if your power is based on public support, then you can't flout the rules as heavy handed as if you had money but didn't require a good public reputation. Monogamy is a front for many couples, but it's also "settling down" or resignation to being stuck with someone for life. Some even have kids just because it is expected of them, even when they may not even be attracted to the opposite sex. Some public figures have an understanding with their partner that it's just for show, it's a mutually benefitting arrangement, but there is no monogamy on at least one side. And even if you weren't rich or powerful, there's lots of women out there with many baby daddies, and there's lots of unmarried or married guys with a bunch of baby mamas and children all over the place. It's just messier when you don't have money or power.

I do believe that this is the new and common emerging family structures for the average individual. Society is changing.

 

[Drjc1977]

Best to consult a prenup attorney.

 

[TanMan]

Best to consult a prenup attorney.

Probably the best advice if you REALLY want to get married. Make sure they represent you and only you, not your partner.

Edit: I would choose a lawyer that has a good track record and specializes in defending your pre/marital/post-marital assets. Those are a little harder to verify, unlike lawyers who specialize in getting politicians or cartel/drug people off. Those are headlines that you can definitely verify.

 

[AONLINE]

Personally, I do not plan to sign a marriage certificate ever. I will have a wedding and I will also get married by a priest at the church but I just won't sign any legal paperwork. My partner and I will be each other's Power of Attorney and we should be all set.

 

[JacquesVallee]

Personally, I do not plan to sign a marriage certificate ever. I will have a wedding and I will also get married by a priest at the church but I just won't sign any legal paperwork. My partner and I will be each other's Power of Attorney and we should be all set.

Marriage isn't simply a private emotional bond: it is a lifelong union that creates concrete duties between spouses, children, and society. If a man vows to give himself to his spouse and future children, but refuses to accept any publicly enforceable obligations towards them, then his commitment is incomplete. In fact, it's not a real commitment. Legal marriage transforms promises into accountable, public obligations. Wanting to deconstruct/erode this backbone of society, is yet again, a massive sign of civilizational decline.

 

[AONLINE]

Marriage isn't simply a private emotional bond: it is a lifelong union that creates concrete duties between spouses, children, and society. If a man vows to give himself to his spouse and future children, but refuses to accept any publicly enforceable obligations towards them, then his commitment is incomplete. In fact, it's not a real commitment. Legal marriage transforms promises into accountable, public obligations. Wanting to deconstruct/erode this backbone of society, is yet again, a massive sign of civilizational decline.

My partner and I don't plan to have children so I do not see the need of getting legally married.

 

[2TH MVR]

It works both ways. Your future bride may want the prenup so that she is not responsible for your student loans, practice debt, personal debt, etc. etc.

 

[TanMan]

It works both ways. Your future bride may want the prenup so that she is not responsible for your student loans, practice debt, personal debt, etc. etc.

or worse, you give your future bride all your loans/debt and leave her with no assets (but then who would you give it to?).

 

[New_Vegas]

You're making a lot of assumptions, man.

1. You will get into OMFS
2. You will partner at this practice you are aware of.
3. You will find someone and get married
4. You will get divorced to the person you marry

Just take life one step at a time, man. You could be a completely different person in 4 years. Especially if assumption 1 doesnt work out for you.