Paul McCartney and Heather Mills separate

[GAC]

Then if she really loved him, she wouldn't take the money, especially given the amount of time she was with him.

A prenup protects everybody in case things don't work out. In LeaveIttoBeaverVille there's no need for locks on our doors. We also don't wear seat belts because no one has car wrecks. Kids play unsupervised. Things are supposed to be fine and perfect.

It's not about "LeaveIttoBeaverVille"; but today's societal view on marriage, which contributes to the 50% divorce rate.

For the most part, and generally speaking, it's selfishness by either party that leads to marriage breakup. The commitment part is defined as "me, me, me".

If you are more concerned about protecting your material assets then the realtionship involved, then you'll most likely end up in divorce court.

Which is what happens with alot of these celebs.

There is nothing wrong with signing a prenup, especially since McCartney made every single dime of that money without her assistance. He shouldn't have to give that much money to her because things didn't work out.

Marriage should not be an opportunity to get rich off of someone else's hard work.

I understand that Dom. But you must also understand that it was reported that she offered to sign a pre-nup and Paul said it wasn't necessary.

It hasn't been proven yet that she is trying to "get rich" off of him.

And by the way - he chased and heavily pursued her, and not the other way around. Paul since he lost Linda (married for 28 yrs), and the fact that his kids are now all grown, fears lonliness in his old age. He has stated so in the past, and it is evident in his music since Linda's death. He also deals with depression.

He may have "jumped" to fast out of that fear.

And personally, if I was asked to sign a pre-nup, which I would interpret as meaning "In case I tire of you I can dump your butt", then the marriage/relationship would be off immediately.

But that's just me. I value and place more importance on marriage then many do obviously.

I wish the law protected people like him more. Someone could just come along and be totally fooling someone just to get their hands on some easy cash.

Which is why people should be a little more cautious and understand what the institution of marriage requires BEFORE entering into that relationship.

I know that to you, and obviously many others, this may seem like an archaic concept; but then, that is why the divorce rate is above 50%.

We treat marriage today like buying a car. Once you get tired of it, and it no longer suits your needs, then trade it in on a new one.

[Dom Heffner]

It hasn't been proven yet that she is trying to "get rich" off of him.

And it hasn't been proven that McCartney is being selfish as you put it, either. There are any number of reasons that people's marriages fail, and we can't assume that the reason theirs failed is the reason that you think marriages fail.

I understand that Dom. But you must also understand that it was reported that she offered to sign a pre-nup and Paul said it wasn't necessary.

I'm just saying that the law should not give 25% of someone's estate to another person because a marriage failed after two years.

In Florida, we have equitable distribution, which would normally stop this kind of nonsense. If you had it coming in, you are leaving with it. That's fair.

Love should not be not a financial opportunity. It's odd that you have all this respect for love and marriage but then think it's perfectly okay for someone to take 25% of someone's hard earned money simply because they were married for two years. This isn't what marriage is intended to do.

And personally, if I was asked to sign a pre-nup, which I would interpret as meaning "In case I tire of you I can dump your butt", then the marriage/relationship would be off immediately.

Talk about a selfish viewpoint. In this situation you are only thinking of yourself.

The person offering the prenup could be thinking, "What if you tire of me?"

But that's just me. I value and place more importance on marriage then many do obviously.

If it's not about money- and just about the marriage- then why not sign a prenup? You only care about love and honor, right? What does someone else's money- that they worked for, not you- have to do with love? By not signing a prenup, it appears that you are only worried about the money.

GAC, I'm for what's doing right, and taking 25% of someone's money that you did nothing to contribute to is downright cold. It's not what Jesus would do, friend.

And I'm not talking about a marriage where two people build something together and then split. This is obviously a different case. Heather Mills was not around when McCartney was writing his songs.

I realize what the law says Miss Mills is legally entitiled to, but that doesn't mean she has to take it. I got screwed by a step-mother on this sort of thing, and I tell you, your talk of "love and marriage" is just shallow, hollow, cliches.

Of all the parties involved, she was the only "Christian." I felt like an African nation under colonial rule: I got a prayer and she got a lot of cash.

I know that to you, and obviously many others, this may seem like an archaic concept; but then, that is why the divorce rate is above 50%

The problem with your argument is that it assumes that if no one divorces, then everyone is happy.

There are people who don't get divorced who are miserable. There are people who are in relationships that don't marry who are incredibly happy. These things are more complicated than simply looking at a percentage.

I had an Aunt that held your point of view. She stayed married to some guy she couldn't stand for years. During the courtship- the period where you should "be a little more cautious and understand what the institution of marriage requires" as you put it- this guy was the most wonderful person in the world. Ten years into it she discovers he is a lying cheating jerk. I guess she wasn't a very selfish person because she wasted her life with this guy, listening to the same hogwash that you are giving us here: if you want out of marriage you are selfish, you have to make it work or you are a bad person, in yesterday's world people were better so be like them, blah, blah, blah.

The divorce rate is 50% because people no longer feel the social pressure to stay in lousy marriages where people cheat, abuse, or simply give up. One cannot "research" or "be cautious" about what another person will do 10 years from now.

Sure, the divorce rate may have been lower 40 years ago, but I'll bet you there were just as many people who were miserable- they just felt like they couldn't get out.

We can't compare divorce rates from different eras, especially when the social attitudes towards divorce are different. It was not any better then, GAC, it's just that divorce was looked down upon so people didn't do it.

Being miserable is not selfishness. In fact, asking someone to stay in a relationship in which they are not happy is selfish, whether it be by society or the person who wants to keep the marriage going.

You got lucky in that you are in a happy relationship, GAC, and that is all. Your viewpoint about marriage doesn't make your wife any better than she is-she could have turned out to be a very bad wife and your opinion of marriage wouldn't have done anything to alter it, even if you were cautious and "understood what the institution of marriage required."

People can change over time, or aren't always as advertised, and it has nothing to do with selfishness.

And that doesn't mean you have to put your head down and simply be unhappy.

We treat marriage today like buying a car. Once you get tired of it, and it no longer suits your needs, then trade it in on a new one.

And in many cases, we should. If it no longer works, it just sits still and doesn't go anywhere, which doesn't help anybody or make the world a better place.

[westofyou]

We can't compare divorce rates from different eras, especially when the social attitudes towards divorce are different. It was not any better then, GAC, it's just that divorce was looked down upon so people didn't do it.

Yep, on the other shoe divorced woman were "scandalous" and "trouble" even in the show Happy Days they were "Hot to Trot"

It was a different era with different morals and viewpoints.

How different was it?

Here's a fine example.

My grandfathers father died and his mother remarried, in this different era that favored "marriage" and "morals" over todays wicked times you would think that that tale would have a happy end. Instead it has a creepy and sad end. The new husband wanted nothing to do with her family, just her... so they dropped the kids off at the local orphanage and went on their merry way.

The good old days weren't always so good.

[GAC]

And it hasn't been proven that McCartney is being selfish as you put it, either. There are any number of reasons that people's marriages fail, and we can't assume that the reason theirs failed is the reason that you think marriages fail.

I never said the Paul was being selfish. I've never seen anyone make assumption and stretches like you do. But I am use to it with you.

I said that the root cause for a majority of marriages (outside of abuse) is selfishness on one of the parties part. Whether it is Paul or Heather we do not know. But there is obviously a reason that has led to their separation and possible divorce.

I'm just saying that the law should not give 25% of someone's estate to another person because a marriage failed after two years.

More like 4 yrs and a child.

Love should not be not a financial opportunity. It's odd that you have all this respect for love and marriage but then think it's perfectly okay for someone to take 25% of someone's hard earned money simply because they were married for two years. This isn't what marriage is intended to do.

I never said that Dom. More wild assumptions on your part.

No, that is not what marriage is intended to do. But it is the end result when they are dissolved. It is the system that has evolved and become the by-product of such a high divorce rate.

Talk about a selfish viewpoint. In this situation you are only thinking of yourself.

Uh....no Dom. My position or attitude is that if the other has so little regard for me, and the level of their commitment to the marriage/relationship going in, and before we even enter into it, is dependent on protecting their stock portfolio, then I want that to come out, and be brought out into the open beforehand.

There obviously isn't that level of trust that is needed in any marriage when a prenup is required

The person offering the prenup could be thinking, "What if you tire of me?"

Then if they hold that doubt before going in, they probably shouldn't be getting married. And if they do, then there is the strong possibility they'll end up like Lee Marvin.

If it's not about money- and just about the marriage- then why not sign a prenup? You only care about love and honor, right? What does someone else's money- that they worked for, not you- have to do with love? By not signing a prenup, it appears that you are only worried about the money.

That's your interpretation (concerning my stance);but you've been wrong about me before.

GAC, I'm for what's doing right, and taking 25% of someone's money that you did nothing to contribute to is downright cold. It's not what Jesus would do, friend.

Again. Never advocated it just because I don't like prenups. More assumption on your part. And what do you know what Jesus would do? You're one that loves to use Jesus only when it serves your convenience. 99% of the rest of the time you'd ignore him.

You certainly don't agree with Jesus' stance on divorce now do you?

Can you show me where Jesus advocated prenups Dom?

And I'm not talking about a marriage where two people build something together and then split. This is obviously a different case. Heather Mills was not around when McCartney was writing his songs.

I realize what the law says Miss Mills is legally entitiled to, but that doesn't mean she has to take it.

But she is "entitled" to something for her 4 years and the child she produced and will get custody of. And it's up to the courts under current law to interpret what that is. I never said she should get 25%.... I simply repeated what was reported in the articles I read. Geez!

The problem with your argument is that it assumes that if no one divorces, then everyone is happy.

No Dom, I'm not that gullible to believe that, and all marriages are "happy ever after". What I simply have said is that society today needs to hold marriage in a hiher regard, and before entering into it, really understand the commitment it involves to make it work.

No marriage realtionship is a piece of cake. It takes work and a level of commitment that many in today's society don't either grasp, or refuse to make.

And why should they when we have made marriages so disposable?

[savafan]

There are people who don't get divorced who are miserable. There are people who are in relationships that don't marry who are incredibly happy. These things are more complicated than simply looking at a percentage.

My parents have been married for 32 years, and I love them both dearly, but it is obvious to everyone but my father that my mother is no longer in love with him, but stays with him out of loyalty to her vows. Part of me respects that, but another part of me hurts to see my mother hurting so much. I just continue to pray that my dad will eventually see how to be a better man.

I was married for two years. It wasn't exactly a fun time. After we lost our baby, my wife fell into depression and began to abuse alcohol and drugs. I was brought into therapy where I was told that I was the cause of all of her problems. Eventually, I caught her cheating on me. After that, she moved in with her aunt, who she idolized and had herself recently gone through a divorce where she cheated. She did this so she could continue cheating, thinking I wouldn't know about it. She told me that she just needed to think some things through. After a little more than six months apart, with her still on my medical insurance, I began to get doctor and hospital bills for her. We'd talked several times, but she kept reassuring me that she didn't want to end the marriage. Turns out she didn't want to do that, because the guy who she was now pregnant by didn't have health insurance, and she was planning on coninuing to send her bills to me. I couldn't take it anymore, and finally I had to end that marriage, but it wasn't pretty. It still hurts to this day.

Sorry, I started typing and forgot what point I was going to make. I know that I was hopeful that we could work things out, because my marriage model given to me by my parents is to stick together no matter what, but there came a time when it all just became too much for me. My parents ended up having to take out two loans in order to help me pay all of the bills she left me with, and we're still paying on those now, some four + years later.

[GAC]

sava - I'd say there are an awful lot of marriages today that started out in love, and then, over the years, it faded.

Is that still justification for divorce?

[savafan]

sava - I'd say there are an awful lot of marriages today that started out in love, and then, over the years, it faded.

Is that still justification for divorce?

I know the correct answer is no. That's why I respect my mom so much. I don't want to get religous here, but even with my situation, I didn't feel comfortable going through with divorce until I had read Matthew. Like I said before though, even today, I still feel like a bit of a failure because my marriage went bad, even though it wasn't my fault. My ex-fiancee's parents used the fact that I was divorced to try and talk her out of not marrying me, and my current fiancee's parents are doing the same thing...

It seems like a lot of people think that if a man is divorced, he had to have done something to make it happen. I know in my heart that I did everything I could and loved my ex-wife all that I could have, but it didn't matter to her. I was even willing to take her back after she cheated the first time, but still people who have no knowledge of the situation like to automatically paint me as the bad guy.

I hate when filling out forms and it asks for marital status they put married, single and divorced. I don't believe that divorced is actually a marital status, and I don't want to be labeled by that title, so I always refuse to check that box.

[REDREAD]

I hate when filling out forms and it asks for marital status they put married, single and divorced. I don't believe that divorced is actually a marital status, and I don't want to be labeled by that title, so I always refuse to check that box.

Can't you just put down 'single'.. I mean, I doubt they have a legal right to know, unless you have alimony obligations.

[savafan]

Can't you just put down 'single'.. I mean, I doubt they have a legal right to know, unless you have alimony obligations.

That's what I do.

[GAC]

It's getting ugly with the tabloids. They are saying she once worked as a high-priced call girl, and have even brought out some who say they have worked with her.

I guess they also got ahold of parts of a diary that she once kept, that possibly confirms this.

[M2]

Yep, on the other shoe divorced woman were "scandalous" and "trouble" even in the show Happy Days they were "Hot to Trot"

It was a different era with different morals and viewpoints.

How different was it?

Here's a fine example.

My grandfathers father died and his mother remarried, in this different era that favored "marriage" and "morals" over todays wicked times you would think that that tale would have a happy end. Instead it has a creepy and sad end. The new husband wanted nothing to do with her family, just her... so they dropped the kids off at the local orphanage and went on their merry way.

The good old days weren't always so good.

Something similar happened to one of my great grandfathers.

[KittyDuran]

Yep, on the other shoe divorced woman were "scandalous" and "trouble" even in the show Happy Days they were "Hot to Trot"

It was a different era with different morals and viewpoints.

How different was it?

Here's a fine example.

My grandfathers father died and his mother remarried, in this different era that favored "marriage" and "morals" over todays wicked times you would think that that tale would have a happy end. Instead it has a creepy and sad end. The new husband wanted nothing to do with her family, just her... so they dropped the kids off at the local orphanage and went on their merry way.

The good old days weren't always so good.

I'm pretty sure that happened a lot, woy. My great uncle had 3 kids from his first marriage, but his wife died. He leaves the kids with my grandmother and great aunt to raise, goes out to CA to work as an extra in the movies, then gets married but w/o them. Also, one of my aunts had a son by her first marriage but leaves him in the care of my grandparents (her parents) and remarries and has 3 more kids by the second husband. Up until I was almost a teenager I assumed that 1st son was my uncle because he called my grandparents "Mommy and Poppy" just like my Dad because they raised him.

It's more violent in the animal world - doesn't the new male lion kill the cubs of a previous father so the lioness will go into heat?

[Roy Tucker]

The flip side happens as well.

My wife's great-grandfather and great-grandmother had 12 kids. The great-grandmother died and the great-grandfather remarried. Then he died.

The step-great-grandmother remarried and she and her new husband raised the kids as their own even though there were no blood ties. The family tree on that side is a mess.

[Chip R]

Well, it looks like Ms Mills is going to become a very rich woman very soon and Sir Paul is going to be a bit poorer.

http://omg.yahoo.com/mccartney-and-m...orce/news/3020

[redsmetz]

Eh, Paul wont' be hurting - 70 million Pounds off a worth around 825 Million bounds. He'll manage.