PDA

View Full Version : Elin Nordegren Gets $750M, Custody of Kids in Exchange for Silence


andymays
06-30-2010, 02:18 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/06/30/elin-nordegren-gets-m-custody-kids-exchange-silence-tiger-woods-divorce/?test=faces

Excerpt:

Tiger Woods is banned from letting girlfriends near his kids in a divorce deal netting his ex a record $750 million settlement, The Sun reported Wednesday.
The golfer agreed to keep single women away from daughter Sam, three, and son Charlie, one.

He can bring a new flame into their lives only if he marries her. In return, former wife Elin Nordegren ,30, gets the biggest payout ever seen in a celebrity divorce.

Tom
06-30-2010, 03:06 PM
Her first "Masters."

Bettowin
06-30-2010, 03:55 PM
I have an extra bedroom Tiger can rent until he gets back on his feet. Rent will be very cheap 1% of his income each month. Will have a midnight curfew of course.

Pell Mell
06-30-2010, 05:36 PM
No matter which way you cut it, that's some mighty expensive Poon-Tang.:D

jballscalls
06-30-2010, 05:53 PM
that lady had to be so embarrassed by his behavior behind her back.

CryingForTheHorses
06-30-2010, 05:59 PM
750 million...WOW..Wonder how it feels to write a check that big!!

JustRalph
06-30-2010, 06:07 PM
I didn't think he had that much money

kent
06-30-2010, 06:09 PM
I was wondering, does he have to pay child support?

ArlJim78
06-30-2010, 06:54 PM
No matter which way you cut it, that's some mighty expensive Poon-Tang.:D
yep, if we estimate that in his time with her, that they had sex 500 times, that comes to $1.5 million per pop.

finfan
06-30-2010, 09:02 PM
$750 million for his ex
$10 million for Rachel Uchitel

TMZ has learned the actual settlement could fluctuate $1 million either way, depending on future circumstances. But the baseline is $10 mil.

Compare Rachel's settlement with what other A.M's received, if they got anything at all. We're told several mistresses got several hundred thousand dollars, and others got nothing. That speaks volumes about how much Rachel knows.
http://www.tmz.com/2010/04/01/tiger-woods-mistress-rachel-unchitel-payout-prenup/

IMO the only way he pays this much money is if these women can allege or prove he used PEDs. What could they possibly say to hurt his image any further concerning non golf behavior? If he used PEDs, he'll never challenge Nicklaus as best golfer ever no matter how many majors he might win.

trackrat59
06-30-2010, 09:33 PM
I don't follow golf and it goes without having to say that I know who Tiger Woods is. What an idiot he turned out to be. He's a joke now. It's a shame.

Tom
06-30-2010, 09:50 PM
Could have been worse...she could have gotten custody of his balls.

trackrat59
06-30-2010, 09:52 PM
Could have been worse...she could have gotten custody of his balls.

Not sure he would have any left after all of this mess he created.

boxcar
07-01-2010, 12:04 AM
This is the perfect topic to ask all the more libertarian-minded conservatives on this forum (and you all know who you are :) ) a serious question about this huge settlement, its fairness and even the grounds for this divorce. So, let's begin with this latter, since it's kinda fundamental to the consequences Tiger is suffering.

The grounds, of course, is a little ol' item called [b]adultery[/i]. But isn't adultery a little quaint? An old fashioned idea? So...18th centurish? For that matter -- even more antiquated since it finds its roots, apparently, in the bible -- of all places. :) Aren't there any libertarian types out there who think adultery has somewhat outlived its usefulness? Isn't adultery so....yesteryear? And doesn't libertarian ideology at its very core subscribe to the "live and let live" motto? Isn't this motto Tom was alluding to implicitly when he wrote on another topic:

Sex
Drugs
Gambling
Alcohol

People want it, you will never stop it. Stop wasting time and money trying to.

The argument goes: People who "want" these things aren't really hurting anyone else. So society should just give people what they want. Yet, oddly, I don't hear any of you with a libertarian bent lamenting over how unfair and unjust this all is to Tiger. After all, wasn't he just having some sex? So what it was outside of wedlock! Lots of people have extramarital sex. This is what people do. This is what people want. Why should Tiger be punished for just being a normal, healthy human being who happens to have a little stronger strong sex drive than, perhaps, some other men? Isn't having sex with virtually anyone as natural as brushing your teeth in the morning? I mean...according to so many "open-minded, broad-minded, educated, enlightened" types, having same sex sex is not only okay, but that, too, is even considered today to be a natural act. What is the big deal, therefore, about adultery? Aren't all these punitive damages a huge waste of time and money on society? Aren't they grossly unjust? Shouldn't all adultery laws be repealed now that we're in the 21st Century?

What sayest thou, you libertarians? ;)

Boxcar

PhantomOnTour
07-01-2010, 12:16 AM
That conversation you just had with yourself was hilarious...and quite revealing of your nature. Pick a topic, ANY topic, and Box will find a way to turn it into a Con vs Lib argument (or at least try to)...

Remember that perfect game that the ump messed up a few weeks back? Gee Box, was that a liberal umpire??? Hmmmm??? Below is some room for you discuss the topic with yourself. Have fun:












Now, don't you feel better for having put us all in our place and tellin us what's up?? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Maverick58034
07-01-2010, 12:28 AM
This is the perfect topic to ask all the more libertarian-minded conservatives on this forum (and you all know who you are :) ) a serious question about this huge settlement, its fairness and even the grounds for this divorce. So, let's begin with this latter, since it's kinda fundamental to the consequences Tiger is suffering.

The grounds, of course, is a little ol' item called [b]adultery[/i]. But isn't adultery a little quaint? An old fashioned idea? So...18th centurish? For that matter -- even more antiquated since it finds its roots, apparently, in the bible -- of all places. :) Aren't there any libertarian types out there who think adultery has somewhat outlived its usefulness? Isn't adultery so....yesteryear? And doesn't libertarian ideology at its very core subscribe to the "live and let live" motto? Isn't this motto Tom was alluding to implicitly when he wrote on another topic:



The argument goes: People who "want" these things aren't really hurting anyone else. So society should just give people what they want. Yet, oddly, I don't hear any of you with a libertarian bent lamenting over how unfair and unjust this all is to Tiger. After all, wasn't he just having some sex? So what it was outside of wedlock! Lots of people have extramarital sex. This is what people do. This is what people want. Why should Tiger be punished for just being a normal, healthy human being who happens to have a little stronger strong sex drive than, perhaps, some other men? Isn't having sex with virtually anyone as natural as brushing your teeth in the morning? I mean...according to so many "open-minded, broad-minded, educated, enlightened" types, having same sex sex is not only okay, but that, too, is even considered today to be a natural act. What is the big deal, therefore, about adultery? Aren't all these punitive damages a huge waste of time and money on society? Aren't they grossly unjust? Shouldn't all adultery laws be repealed now that we're in the 21st Century?

What sayest thou, you libertarians? ;)

Boxcar

My $.02,

At it's core, marriage is a contract. The contract has a number of terms and conditions, including, for example, the sharing of future obtained assets. One of the covenants of the contract, although perhaps more implied than explicit (arguably), is an "exclusivity clause." In effect, Tiger breached the contract through his adultery, and had to pay damages for his breach. Sure the damages seem high, but so would a breach of contract case involving, say, Wal-Mart and Kelloggs over the proper shipping time of millions of boxes of cereal. The stakes are higher, but the principles are the same.

Great question though - I just don't see this as necessarily being a religious or moral issue, but rather, more of a contracts issue. Tiger chose to enter into this contract, and thus he had to play by its rules, which he didn't, so he had to pay.

JustRalph
07-01-2010, 04:25 AM
I see it as an issue of Morals. The contract issue is interesting, but on a different plane. But it passes for what is right in our society. So therein it goes back to Morals.

boxcar
07-01-2010, 10:50 AM
My $.02,

At it's core, marriage is a contract. The contract has a number of terms and conditions, including, for example, the sharing of future obtained assets. One of the covenants of the contract, although perhaps more implied than explicit (arguably), is an "exclusivity clause." In effect, Tiger breached the contract through his adultery, and had to pay damages for his breach. Sure the damages seem high, but so would a breach of contract case involving, say, Wal-Mart and Kelloggs over the proper shipping time of millions of boxes of cereal. The stakes are higher, but the principles are the same.

Great question though - I just don't see this as necessarily being a religious or moral issue, but rather, more of a contracts issue. Tiger chose to enter into this contract, and thus he had to play by its rules, which he didn't, so he had to pay.

Lots of married people's marriage "contracts" say nothing about the status of future assets. My marriage vows didn't. Nor did the marriage vows of my wife's parents, etc., etc.

The retail stores analogy is weak because it reduces marriage to a business arrangement. We're talking about personal relationships, not the more impersonal business ones.

I think the "contract" between husband and wife is more often thought of as consisting of marriage vows. But even so, could not a strong libertarian position be argued that to err is human? After all, everyone under the sun realizes that we humans are far from perfect. In fact...most of us will not hesitate to lie to some degree to protect our image, to conceal a matter, etc., etc. -- which isn't suggesting that these kinds of lies are necessarily malicious. But the irrefutable fact remains: We are highly "flawed" (as some prefer calling sin), and we lie not only to others but to ourselves, as well! Therefore, shouldn't everyone just cut each other some slack? We're only being ourselves. We're just being what we are. And we're not being very realistic or practical at all by trying to force round pegs into square holes, which is what we do when we expect or insist upon a lifetime commitment.

And all the above is especially true when it comes to SEX! I mean, sex today in our society is a huge deal isn't it? It's such a big deal, it so permeates our culture because we're bombarded with sex or sexual images every time we turn around. (Think about this.) And in this culture, the state through the school system, under the pretense of "education", has no qualms sending its messages of tacit approval for premarital sex to even elementary school-aged kids! This is how "natural" it has become for everyone today to engage in recreational, casual, fun sex -- with different or even same sex partners.

Given, all these facts, what the big deal about adultery? As stated earlier, it seems that adultery is an antiquated idea that no longer has a place for modern, enlightened men and women in the 21st century. Besides, all those stupid divorce laws infringe upon Tiger's Constitutional freedom to pursue happiness. If his idea of happiness is to make mucho love with much people, what business is that of any court of law? And how terribly hypocritical of Woods' wife to point to the specks in Tiger's eye when surely she has beams to remove from her own -- unless she's a perfect human being, of course. And even if her "flaws" aren't fashioned after the nature of his, so what? She's still imperfect. And you know the old saying: People who live in glass houses shouldn't cast stones"?

I rest my case...for now. ;)

Boxcar

Bettowin
07-01-2010, 10:50 AM
Silly Tiger. No prenup? Bet his next marriage will have one.

boxcar
07-01-2010, 10:58 AM
I see it as an issue of Morals. The contract issue is interesting, but on a different plane. But it passes for what is right in our society. So therein it goes back to Morals.

But why should some moralists in society get to impose their values upon others who either don't see this as a moral issue or have a different view of its morality? Could I not use your same reasoning and apply it to Tom's big four, i.e. Drugs, Sex, Alcohol and Gambling? After all, Moral Relativism today is the quintessential rage, isn't it? :)

Boxcar

GameTheory
07-01-2010, 11:42 AM
The legal contract isn't decided by your vows, but by the state, and so then are the rules of legal divorce. (They could get legally divorced and still stay a couple if they wanted it -- one is separate from the other even though they are generally parallel.) Yes, you could say your vows are also a contract, but that one isn't backed up by the state. They are between you, your spouse, and God. If Tiger had been married in a church, but not legally with both sides understanding the state is not to be involved, then your libertarian diatribe might have some relevance if the wife had agree to an "open" marriage.

Libertarianism doesn't imply one can't enter voluntarily into binding agreements. Seems like you are trying to create an argument out of thin air, ascribing positions to a philosophy that doesn't hold those positions. Straw Man.

Maverick58034
07-01-2010, 11:43 AM
Lots of married people's marriage "contracts" say nothing about the status of future assets. My marriage vows didn't. Nor did the marriage vows of my wife's parents, etc., etc.

When I referred to marriage "contracts" I did not mean vows - I meant the legal relationship created by a marriage. Barring any sort of contract (e.g. prenuptial agreement) to the contrary, certain (implied) terms are incorporated into the marriage "contract," including the future acquisition of any assets being deemed "marital property." Among these terms are also a covenant not to physically abuse one another, as well as monogamy. Simply put, Tiger violated the terms of the contract.


The retail stores analogy is weak because it reduces marriage to a business arrangement. We're talking about personal relationships, not the more impersonal business ones.
[QUOTE]

The retail stores analogy was used simply to show the proper scope of the agreement - $750 million seems insanely high, but given the relative wealth of the parties involved, it's likely proportional to the norm.

And I have to disagree about the business/personal relationships difference. I don't see any difference here - setting aside all religious and moral aspects - between this contract or any other sort of contract, which we are all free to enter into.

[QUOTE]
I think the "contract" between husband and wife is more often thought of as consisting of marriage vows.


You have an interesting point here, but I have to disagree. I think there are basic terms that are incorporated into any marriage. As discussed above, these would include promises not to abuse one another, to remain "faithful" to one another, etc. I would argue that the making of any marriage vows would just be additional terms of the marriage contract - more rules to follow in addition to, and not in the place of, the regular, implicit terms.


But even so, could not a strong libertarian position be argued that to err is human? After all, everyone under the sun realizes that we humans are far from perfect. In fact...most of us will not hesitate to lie to some degree to protect our image, to conceal a matter, etc., etc. -- which isn't suggesting that these kinds of lies are necessarily malicious. But the irrefutable fact remains: We are highly "flawed" (as some prefer calling sin), and we lie not only to others but to ourselves, as well! Therefore, shouldn't everyone just cut each other some slack? We're only being ourselves. We're just being what we are. And we're not being very realistic or practical at all by trying to force round pegs into square holes, which is what we do when we expect or insist upon a lifetime commitment.
[QUOTE]

I see your point, but I think you still need to boil this down and look at it objectively. If two people enter into an arrangement (e.g. marriage), with specific terms, and one side breaks those terms, then the contract has been broken, and the breaching party is liable.

People freely choose to enter into these contracts - (in theory at least, in America) nobody forces anybody to enter into a marriage. If one believes he or she cannot abide by the marriage terms, then that person can either not get married, or explicitly contract (e.g. prenuptial agreement) to allow for certain "indiscretions," so that such actions would not be a breach of the marriage contract.

Sure we're all flawed - everybody has been late at one time or another, and everybody makes mistakes. But if you and I have a contract for you to sell and deliver to me 1000 widgets on Monday, and you're late, I can sue. Sure we're all flawed and all make mistakes, but that doesn't really change anything - you chose to enter into the agreement and chose to be bound to its terms.

[QUOTE]
And all the above is especially true when it comes to SEX! I mean, sex today in our society is a huge deal isn't it? It's such a big deal, it so permeates our culture because we're bombarded with sex or sexual images every time we turn around. (Think about this.) And in this culture, the state through the school system, under the pretense of "education", has no qualms sending its messages of tacit approval for premarital sex to even elementary school-aged kids! This is how "natural" it has become for everyone today to engage in recreational, casual, fun sex -- with different or even same sex partners.


Great points, but I think that this would support the argument that monogamy should not be a term of a marriage contract in the first place - not to excuse adultery when anti-adultery provisions are already incorporated into the agreement.


Given, all these facts, what the big deal about adultery? As stated earlier, it seems that adultery is an antiquated idea that no longer has a place for modern, enlightened men and women in the 21st century. Besides, all those stupid divorce laws infringe upon Tiger's Constitutional freedom to pursue happiness. If his idea of happiness is to make mucho love with much people, what business is that of any court of law? And how terribly hypocritical of Woods' wife to point to the specks in Tiger's eye when surely she has beams to remove from her own -- unless she's a perfect human being, of course. And even if her "flaws" aren't fashioned after the nature of his, so what? She's still imperfect. And you know the old saying: People who live in glass houses shouldn't cast stones"?


The thing is, Tiger chose to take on these burdens. In effect, he contracted away his right to sleep with other women. This is no different than agreeing to allow your employer to search your locker at work - sure you have a right against such a search, but you surrender that right in your employment contract. Or, perhaps, in your employment contract you agree to abstain from any political speech - same story - you can agree to such things. Tiger can't play both sides against each other - he can't contract away certain rights in return for something (here, marriage) and then later claim that his actions are permissible because he has a right to do so, when he has already contracted away those rights.

Robert Goren
07-01-2010, 11:54 AM
This thread has gotten out of hand. Way too much legalise and not nearly enough wise cracks.:bang: :rolleyes:

kid4rilla
07-01-2010, 03:46 PM
This thread has gotten out of hand. Way too much legalise and not nearly enough wise cracks.:bang: :rolleyes:

No doubt. It is a comedy show!

Rich people are hilarious. I want 750 million AND Eldrick (hoping Elin calls him Eldrick) cannot have any single women around my children. Is someone really going to police this? What about the Nanny, does she have to be married? I hope not, cause Tiger is going hit it.

I wish Nike would create a commercial where Tiger is dressed like Carl Spangler again, reinacting the ball washer scene.

"Oh Ms. Uchetel, you're a little monkey woman. Yeah, you're lean, mean, and I bet you're not too far in between are ya"

"You wore green so you could hide....I don't blame ya....your a TRAMP!"

delayjf
07-01-2010, 10:19 PM
The thing is, he did have a prenup, but it looks like he waived the terms of the prenup for her complete silence. I'd love to know what she knows that worth 750 million.

Greyfox
07-01-2010, 10:49 PM
I didn't think he had that much money

JustRalph We agree on that. I doubt the $ 750 mill agreement.
He made $ 1 Billion mainly in endorsements.
But all sorts of people had to be paid, his foundation, his business agents, and so on, taxes, etc. Then there were expenses associated with his frisky endevours.
There is no way that he could possibly have that much personal wealth.
What the media gets, and runs with, is probably blown sky high out of proportion.
His prenup with her was for considerably lower if she stayed 9 years.
Undoubtedly though she is a wealthy woman now.

BCOURTNEY
07-01-2010, 10:51 PM
Blackmail. Good game Elin. /golfclap

The thing is, he did have a prenup, but it looks like he waived the terms of the prenup for her complete silence. I'd love to know what she knows that worth 750 million.

PaceAdvantage
07-01-2010, 10:55 PM
The 750M number is bullshit apparently:

http://www.tmz.com/2010/06/30/tiger-woods-elin-nordegren-divorce-property-settlement-millions-judge-final/

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/world/twitter-nonsense-report-of-tigers-750-million-divorce-779878.html

jamey1977
07-01-2010, 11:14 PM
This is the perfect topic to ask all the more libertarian-minded conservatives on this forum (and you all know who you are :) ) a serious question about this huge settlement, its fairness and even the grounds for this divorce. So, let's begin with this latter, since it's kinda fundamental to the consequences Tiger is suffering.

The grounds, of course, is a little ol' item called [b]adultery[/i]. But isn't adultery a little quaint? An old fashioned idea? So...18th centurish? For that matter -- even more antiquated since it finds its roots, apparently, in the bible -- of all places. :) Aren't there any libertarian types out there who think adultery has somewhat outlived its usefulness? Isn't adultery so....yesteryear? And doesn't libertarian ideology at its very core subscribe to the "live and let live" motto? Isn't this motto Tom was alluding to implicitly when he wrote on another topic:



The argument goes: People who "want" these things aren't really hurting anyone else. So society should just give people what they want. Yet, oddly, I don't hear any of you with a libertarian bent lamenting over how unfair and unjust this all is to Tiger. After all, wasn't he just having some sex? So what it was outside of wedlock! Lots of people have extramarital sex. This is what people do. This is what people want. Why should Tiger be punished for just being a normal, healthy human being who happens to have a little stronger strong sex drive than, perhaps, some other men? Isn't having sex with virtually anyone as natural as brushing your teeth in the morning? I mean...according to so many "open-minded, broad-minded, educated, enlightened" types, having same sex sex is not only okay, but that, too, is even considered today to be a natural act. What is the big deal, therefore, about adultery? Aren't all these punitive damages a huge waste of time and money on society? Aren't they grossly unjust? Shouldn't all adultery laws be repealed now that we're in the 21st Century?

What sayest thou, you libertarians? ;)

Boxcar
I agree. Who Cares ? Wow. Cheating. People are so hurt, their lives are destroyed. It's bullcrap. The only risks are diseases. As long as protection is used. It just comes out of jealousy, possessiveness, and should I say, selfishness, and insecurity. The Bible created marriage ? Marriage is from God ? What bullcrap . I guess divorce is from God too and human misery . and guys getting screwed over by divorce. Cavemen are the ones who invented marriage. All marriage means is. I screw this one. You screw that one. This biblical, spiritual crap is a bunch of bull. People should just lighten up. One thing that can occur is complications in terms of relationships. Like, if I had a wife who was cheating on me. It wouldn't bother me. I would be concerned about the idiot she was cheating with. He could be a psycho, an abuser, a stalker, a troublemaker. How about we all sleep with paid hookers. No strings LOL

Greyfox
07-01-2010, 11:23 PM
Like, if I had a wife who was cheating on me. It wouldn't bother me.

:rolleyes: There aren't many men who think like you. :rolleyes:

Grits
07-02-2010, 12:23 AM
I agree. Who Cares ? Wow. Cheating. People are so hurt, their lives are destroyed. It's bullcrap. The only risks are diseases. As long as protection is used. It just comes out of jealousy, possessiveness, and should I say, selfishness, and insecurity. The Bible created marriage ? Marriage is from God ? What bullcrap . I guess divorce is from God too and human misery . and guys getting screwed over by divorce. Cavemen are the ones who invented marriage. All marriage means is. I screw this one. You screw that one. This biblical, spiritual crap is a bunch of bull. People should just lighten up. One thing that can occur is complications in terms of relationships. Like, if I had a wife who was cheating on me. It wouldn't bother me. I would be concerned about the idiot she was cheating with. He could be a psycho, an abuser, a stalker, a troublemaker. How about we all sleep with paid hookers. No strings LOL

WOW. Talk about babbling. What can one say?

Hope you don't father children.

It's heartbreaking to see an innocent newborn inherit stupid.:faint:

boxcar
07-02-2010, 12:42 AM
When I referred to marriage "contracts" I did not mean vows - I meant the legal relationship created by a marriage. Barring any sort of contract (e.g. prenuptial agreement) to the contrary, certain (implied) terms are incorporated into the marriage "contract," including the future acquisition of any assets being deemed "marital property." Among these terms are also a covenant not to physically abuse one another, as well as monogamy. Simply put, Tiger violated the terms of the contract.

It's only legal in the sense that the state recognizes that a couple is hitched. In the legality of it all, there is no signed contract. No one signed off on being 100% faithful throughout the term of the marriage.

Read these commonly used vows, for example:

"I, (Name),
Take you, (Name),
To be my (wife/husband);
To have and to hold,
From this day forward,
For better, for worse,
For richer, for poorer,
In sickness and in health,
To love and to cherish,
'Till death do us part." (or, "As long as we both shall live.")

Where in this set of vows does either party promise perfect fidelity? Do you have any idea how many adulterers still claim to love their other half even though they're fooling around on them? Do you have any idea how many adulterers claim that their extramarital affairs were only skin-deep -- that it was only for the sex?

TW, at worst, only broke his promise to his wife. But promises are broken all the time -- even solemn promises. People always make promises they can't or won't keep. Again, this brings us back full circle to my argument that when two imperfect human beings "tie the knot", it's entirely unrealistic to expect a perfect marriage -- even a perfectly faithful one. It's downright hypocritical for one imperfect partner to expect perfect fidelity from the other imperfect partner. You don't believe this? Even this fellow Jesus once said as much. Please indulge me on this point:

John 8:1-11
8 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. 3 And the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" 6 And they were saying this, testing Him, in order that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And when they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst. 10 And straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" 11 And she said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more."]
NASB

Surely, Mr. Maverick, you don't advocate hypocrisy, do you?

The retail stores analogy is weak because it reduces marriage to a business arrangement. We're talking about personal relationships, not the more impersonal business ones.


The retail stores analogy was used simply to show the proper scope of the agreement - $750 million seems insanely high, but given the relative wealth of the parties involved, it's likely proportional to the norm.

And I have to disagree about the business/personal relationships difference. I don't see any difference here - setting aside all religious and moral aspects - between this contract or any other sort of contract, which we are all free to enter into.[/quote]

Verbal agreements are one thing. Written contracts are something else. Are you married? Did you and your partner sign a written marriage contract? I know I didn't. In fact, most people I know did not. For this reason, I reject your premise about marriage being a legal contract. It's a legalized institution for a host of reasons, but a contract?

You have an interesting point here, but I have to disagree. I think there are basic terms that are incorporated into any marriage. As discussed above, these would include promises not to abuse one another, to remain "faithful" to one another, etc. I would argue that the making of any marriage vows would just be additional terms of the marriage contract - more rules to follow in addition to, and not in the place of, the regular, implicit terms.

See the above vows above. No mention made of faithfulness or fidelity.

Boxcar:
But even so, could not a strong libertarian position be argued that to err is human? After all, everyone under the sun realizes that we humans are far from perfect. In fact...most of us will not hesitate to lie to some degree to protect our image, to conceal a matter, etc., etc. -- which isn't suggesting that these kinds of lies are necessarily malicious. But the irrefutable fact remains: We are highly "flawed" (as some prefer calling sin), and we lie not only to others but to ourselves, as well! Therefore, shouldn't everyone just cut each other some slack? We're only being ourselves. We're just being what we are. And we're not being very realistic or practical at all by trying to force round pegs into square holes, which is what we do when we expect or insist upon a lifetime commitment.


I see your point, but I think you still need to boil this down and look at it objectively. If two people enter into an arrangement (e.g. marriage), with specific terms, and one side breaks those terms, then the contract has been broken, and the breaching party is liable.

I am. I'm looking at this very objectively and dispassionately. It's totally unrealistic to expect perfect outcomes from imperfect human beings. And that is what you're insisting on. Again, this same Jesus said that "a bad tree cannot bear good fruit". And since none of us are perfect, then that makes us all bad, doesn't it? We are what we are. And as Tom said, we want we want, and as long as we don't hurt anyone else, notwithstanding inflicted emotional pain, why shouldn't we have what we want? And heck..all of us can and have suffered emotional pain in personal relationships outside the context of marriage. This, too, is part of life.

If you ask any clinical psychologist or psychiatrist what the major influential factors are that control or shape human behavior. Every single one of them would tell you that a person's Environment is a major factor -- not the only one, of course, but a major one, nonetheless. (And they would actually be in agreement with the bible on this issue insofar as it goes.) If a person is raised in a morally-impoverished environment, chances are greater that he or she will embark upon a path of ongoing moral decay and destruction. Well, if this is true with a person's more immediate environment, then isn't it also true about society's larger cultural environment?

As stated previously, in this day and age, we are bombarded with media loaded with sensual and sexual content. We cannot escape it. We are surrounded by it! This is an undeniable fact. You doubt this? Go for a stroll sometime at a major mall in your area. (Now is an excellent time to go because school is out.) Look at how young kids dress today, especially the young teeny boppers -- with their minis practically up to their navel buttons, or their midriffs just stopping short of their breast line, or their hot pants so tight and short, that it leaves little to the imagination, etc. etc. And do they not have their blessings of their parents to dress in this manner?

And then these same kids sit in school and listen to "sex ed" instructors talk about gay sex, "safe" sex, group sex -- whatever -- and the instructors give their tacit approval for premarital sex, and all of this doesn't influence teen and now even preteen thinking and behavior? The sexual mores in this country are shot, Mr. Maverick. Yet, somehow when these kids get a little older and they say, "I do" in front of a preacher, rabbi or justice of the peace, these two little words are supposed to magically transform these sexpots (males and females alike) into angelic little beings? How does that work, sir? :bang: How do these kids suddenly become imbued with self-restraint, self-control and self-discipline after they're married when prior to marriage they would be mocked and ridiculed for even entertaining the notions of these kinds of values?

People freely choose to enter into these contracts - (in theory at least, in America) nobody forces anybody to enter into a marriage. If one believes he or she cannot abide by the marriage terms, then that person can either not get married, or explicitly contract (e.g. prenuptial agreement) to allow for certain "indiscretions," so that such actions would not be a breach of the marriage contract.

And lots of people make bad choices everyday. You cannot extract the moral element from this topic -- which is adultery. This is, yet, another reason why we should be realistic about this issue. Just as the proscribed punishment for this immoral act has evolved in most societies to what it is today, so, too, should this extramarital activity evolve into nothing more than a slight indiscretion. Nearly all of us would say that the death penalty of old was a wee bit harsh and didn't fit the "crime". Yes? Well, then,it's time now in this modern 21st century for the "crime" to fit the sexually-liberated, enlightened age in which we live. We must remove the stigma from extramarital sex. After all, there's hardly any stigma anymore with premarital sex, so why should there be any with extramarital sex? Sex is sex is sex, isn't it? It's all good, isn't it? We're just being true to ourselves when we let go of our sexual inhibitions, taboos and outmoded traditions. Society encourages, condones and supports sexual liberation of all sorts, So, why not just go with the tide?

Again, I bet you don't condemn adultery when it's the premarital sex kind, do you? That kind of adultery is great, isn't it? Isn't this what our culture teaches us? Therefore, why a double standard? Why one standard for premarital sex and another for extramarital sex just because some morally flawed person broke a promise? This is very hypocritical. Either all adultery is morally wrong, or no adultery is wrong.

Boxcar
P.S. Hey, Zil, help me out here. I'm actually advocating CHANGE because change is always good, right? Change is always for the better, isn't it?

Greyfox
07-02-2010, 12:59 AM
Again, I bet you don't condemn adultery when it's the premarital sex kind, do you? That kind of adultery is great, isn't it?
Boxcar
?

Hmmn? Since when is adultery premarital sex??

GameTheory
07-02-2010, 09:04 AM
Verbal agreements are one thing. Written contracts are something else. Are you married? Did you and your partner sign a written marriage contract? I know I didn't. In fact, most people I know did not. For this reason, I reject your premise about marriage being a legal contract. It's a legalized institution for a host of reasons, but a contract?Uh...there are no laws defining marriage? Of course there are. It is legal contract, except the rules are "boilerplate" written into law so they don't have to repeated every time someone gets married. Doesn't mean they don't apply. Otherwise, why don't Tiger and others NOT pay these settlements? Because they have to according to the contract. How can it be considered anything other than a contract when you are voluntarily agreeing to have these laws apply to you when you could just as well not? Marriage laws only apply to those who have willingly gotten married -- a binding agreement voluntarily entered into under the law. That's a contract.

And yes, you generally have to sign something. Maybe it is a state-to-state thing. It is part of most wedding ceremonies these days. (They do the vows and all the traditional stuff, everybody cheers, and then they go off to a side table and SIGN paperwork -- THEN its legal.)

I know I did -- it is on file with the state in a big building downtown. (Which is the only way I got married -- I didn't have a wedding or even a civil ceremony. In Colorado all you have to do is sign the papers.) Don't you have a marriage certificate? When my wife was changing her names with banks & other companies, they all wanted a copy to approve the name change. Without one, you ain't married according to the state, and if you are married according to the state, then the laws of the marriage contract apply to you. (In some places, you could claim a common law marriage, but to actually have that recognized, you go and file paperwork and sign stuff, and it just means you can claim to being married without a wedding and possibly claim you were married previous to having it recognized -- maybe for tax purposes or parental issues or whatever).

Robert Goren
07-02-2010, 09:11 AM
If a marriage is nothing more that a government legal term, why are they raising such a stink about gays getting married?:rolleyes:

GameTheory
07-02-2010, 09:22 AM
Hmmn? Since when is adultery premarital sex??Some Christian doctrines throw it in there with adultery so that it is covered under the ten commandments. When I was growing up in Christian parochial school, we were always taught that the big 10 were *the* sins -- all of them. If you sinned, you had broken one of those, and you hadn't broken one of those, you hadn't sinned (of course, you still had original sin on your back all the time). And we kids would often ask questions like that -- what about this, what about that -- and they would say, "oh that's covered under this one" (even though it didn't seem like it).

I was much surprised later to find out that not everyone interpreted them that way, as in Judaism, were you can sin without it being covered under one of the big 10 (and maybe even morally break one of them from time to time under special circumstances), and where they don't stretch words in order to force undesired behavior (like premarital sex) under one of the commandments. And then there are the Catholics, where they make up all manner of crazy stuff, with different categories of sins, etc etc

boxcar
07-02-2010, 12:39 PM
Hmmn? Since when is adultery premarital sex??

HAH! BINGO!!!!! I was waiting for someone to ask me this because the vast majority of people out there, including "conservatives" and libertarian types have always conveniently turned a blind eye to or actually deny that extramarital sex is also "fornication". This term in the NT Greek has a broad definition, including "adultery". Context, of course, helps determine proper meaning. Therefore, in a broad sense, an adulterer is also a "fornicator" -- this latter term used generally to convey the idea of any illicit sex act, including, naturally, premarital sex.

But the Hebrew and Greek terms for "adultery" even go deeper than this and these terms are frequently used in scripture to denote spiritual unfaithfulness to God, specifically with respect to unfaithfulness to a covenant of God. For example, the Old Covenant people of God (Israel) were often spoken of in very unflattering terms as being "harlots" or "adulterers" because they so often broke their covenant promises to God. Therefore, scripture likened the nation to a wife who broke her marriage vows to her husband God.

So, how can the world at large (Gentiles and Jews alike) be likened to an "adulterer"? The answer can be found in the Adamic Covenant God made with Adam, who is the federal head of the human race. God clearly set the terms for what would constitute legitimate sexual activity in his eyes -- which is marriage and only marriage! Any sex, therefore, outside of marriage is illicit and sinful. Therefore, since we're all the progeny of Adam -- that covenant applies to us all and...it has never been abrogated. You'll never find a NT reference that teaches that God's covenant with Adam has been made obsolete by the New Covenant. The New Covenant is simply a spiritual expansion of many of the older covenants that were instituted in the OT.

Boxcar

boxcar
07-02-2010, 12:42 PM
If a marriage is nothing more that a government legal term, why are they raising such a stink about gays getting married?:rolleyes:

Because many people don't want to legitimatize unnatural, perverse relationships by putting legalizing it and putting into the same category with a union that is natural.

Boxcar

boxcar
07-02-2010, 12:46 PM
Uh...there are no laws defining marriage? Of course there are. It is legal contract, except the rules are "boilerplate" written into law so they don't have to repeated every time someone gets married. Doesn't mean they don't apply. Otherwise, why don't Tiger and others NOT pay these settlements? Because they have to according to the contract. How can it be considered anything other than a contract when you are voluntarily agreeing to have these laws apply to you when you could just as well not? Marriage laws only apply to those who have willingly gotten married -- a binding agreement voluntarily entered into under the law. That's a contract.

And yes, you generally have to sign something. Maybe it is a state-to-state thing. It is part of most wedding ceremonies these days. (They do the vows and all the traditional stuff, everybody cheers, and then they go off to a side table and SIGN paperwork -- THEN its legal.)

I know I did -- it is on file with the state in a big building downtown. (Which is the only way I got married -- I didn't have a wedding or even a civil ceremony. In Colorado all you have to do is sign the papers.) Don't you have a marriage certificate? When my wife was changing her names with banks & other companies, they all wanted a copy to approve the name change. Without one, you ain't married according to the state, and if you are married according to the state, then the laws of the marriage contract apply to you. (In some places, you could claim a common law marriage, but to actually have that recognized, you go and file paperwork and sign stuff, and it just means you can claim to being married without a wedding and possibly claim you were married previous to having it recognized -- maybe for tax purposes or parental issues or whatever).

I signed a license in my state. That's it.

Now in your "contract" that you say you signed, can you show us therein where you contracted to be 100% faithful to your spouse?

Boxcar

GameTheory
07-02-2010, 01:05 PM
I signed a license in my state. That's it.

Now in your "contract" that you say you signed, can you show us therein where you contracted to be 100% faithful to your spouse?

The contract is IN THE LAW. When you get married, you agree to be bound by those laws, no? If adultery is legal grounds for divorce, then I implicitly agreed to be faithful, or suffer the legal consequences of divorce -- surrendering assets, etc. Unless you have a prenup wherein your wife agreed to WAIVE parts of the contract or perhaps to impose others, does this not apply to you also? (Why would prenups exist to alter the consequences of divorce if there were no consequences?) If your wife divorces you for cheating, will you argue that the laws do not apply to you since you have no contract spelling that out?

This is pretty simple stuff -- where do you get your exemption from the law of the land?

GameTheory
07-02-2010, 01:19 PM
Here's what it says on my marriage certificate. The license is part of the same form -- the state official signs that and puts our names on it and it says we are allowed to get married. (To get the license you have to give ID and certify that you aren't brother & sister.) Then when you actually get married, you sign the certificate, which says:

"It is hereby certified that on the ##DAY## day of ##MONTH## A.D. ##YEAR## at ##TIME and PLACE## in said county of the undersigned, a "bride & groom" [you have to write-in "bride & groom" here for some reason] did join in the Holy Bonds of Matrimony in accordance with the laws of the state of Colorado and authorization of the foregoing license."

Then it has our names and places to sign.

What about "in accordance with the laws of the state" don't you understand?

boxcar
07-02-2010, 01:50 PM
Here's what it says on my marriage certificate. The license is part of the same form -- the state official signs that and puts our names on it and it says we are allowed to get married. (To get the license you have to give ID and certify that you aren't brother & sister.) Then when you actually get married, you sign the certificate, which says:

"It is hereby certified that on the ##DAY## day of ##MONTH## A.D. ##YEAR## at ##TIME and PLACE## in said county of the undersigned, a "bride & groom" [you have to write-in "bride & groom" here for some reason] did join in the Holy Bonds of Matrimony in accordance with the laws of the state of Colorado and authorization of the foregoing license."

Then it has our names and places to sign.

What about "in accordance with the laws of the state" don't you understand?

Okay...you have a point. But in this day and age, so what? I mean people sign contracts every day and now it's become fashionable and very much in vogue that when they can't live up to the contract to get the government to bail them out. You run up big credit card debt, just take advantage of the bailout under the Credit Card Reform Act ( I think it's called). You can't pay your mortgage -- you can't live up to the signed agreement -- you default on it -- just get a bailout from the U.S. government. Well, then...whey shouldn't Tiger get a bailout from the government for doing what only comes natural? The guy is gonna suffer huge damages because his hormonal count is a wee bit high? :D The state should step in and pay his wife. It's only fair. Or better yet...make all divorce laws obsolete which would square better with the Sexually Liberated and Enlightened Age in which we all live. Anything less than this is hypocritical -- both with society and the married couple. Society holds one class of people to one sexual standard and celebrates it to boot. But with another class, society punishes married people simply because of their moral weaknesses, which we all have. On one hand, society applauds and encourages this moral weakness, but with the other they are ready to punish married people when they have the same weaknesses! If this isn't hypocrisy, what is?

So...in the final analysis, conservatives, too, subscribe to double standards when it's convenient. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Boxcar

Grits
07-02-2010, 02:51 PM
Boxcar, I'll be brief because I know that I lack the skill to debate you. I can't, and I'm often not clear when attempting to do so.

Law, as I know you, and all others here, realize has been decreed by man as long as man has been on this earth. In the Hebrew Greek bible, or any of the other translations here in my bookcases, one reads as we have all of our life--in church, here at home, or elsewhere, in the 2nd Chapter of Luke, Verses 1-5:

1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, (because he was of the house and lineage of David,)

5 To be taxed with Mary, his espoused wife, being great with child.

(You all know the rest.)

God's words are applied today. Including those found in the NT, as well as the OT. I always hesitate to choose verses, to pluck them to make points, yet law is law and it has been with us always as I said.

This may be one of the most recognized examples in all of scripture. (Too, I'm simple--this being the first one that came to mind.)

I don't agree with what Woods did, and I do believe his wife is entitled to part of his wealth. A mighty good part of it. If he doesn't want to enter into another such agreement/contract as it is applicable by today's law, he better think long and hard before he does so again. Too, he might try picking the morals thing up a notch. You've written tremendous food for thought, a great deal of truth to much of it. We've fallen far. Yet, still God loves us and entrusts us with a will. We have the ability to make choices. Woods made some pretty sorry ones. He deserves to lose everything she deserves to gain.

Just my simple .02 cents.
One post. I'm done.;)

GameTheory
07-02-2010, 03:29 PM
You run up big credit card debt, just take advantage of the bailout under the Credit Card Reform Act ( I think it's called). There is no such thing. Anyone advertising such a thing is scamming you. There are new credit card laws, but there is no government bailout of debt.

You can't pay your mortgage -- you can't live up to the signed agreement -- you default on it -- just get a bailout from the U.S. government.There is some of that -- one of the reasons the economy isn't recovering because the government won't let it recover.

Well, then...whey shouldn't Tiger get a bailout from the government for doing what only comes natural? The guy is gonna suffer huge damages because his hormonal count is a wee bit high? :D The state should step in and pay his wife. It's only fair. Or better yet...make all divorce laws obsolete which would square better with the Sexually Liberated and Enlightened Age in which we all live. Anything less than this is hypocritical -- both with society and the married couple. Society holds one class of people to one sexual standard and celebrates it to boot. But with another class, society punishes married people simply because of their moral weaknesses, which we all have. On one hand, society applauds and encourages this moral weakness, but with the other they are ready to punish married people when they have the same weaknesses! If this isn't hypocrisy, what is?Now you're just ranting. Tiger isn't going to be bailed out just as no one else is in a divorce. And not to go all feminist on you, but women had the short of the stick in these matters for the entire history of the world until recently. After all, the original definition of adultery was a man having relations with a MARRIED woman -- in other word's some other man's property. It was basically considered a property crime.

boxcar
07-02-2010, 03:36 PM
Boxcar, I'll be brief because I know that I lack the skill to debate you. I can't, and I'm often not clear when attempting to do so.

Law, as I know you, and all others here, realize has been decreed by man as long as man has been on this earth. In the Hebrew Greek bible, or any of the other translations here in my bookcases, one reads as we have all of our life--in church, here at home, or elsewhere, in the 2nd Chapter of Luke, Verses 1-5:



(You all know the rest.)

God's words are applied today. Including those found in the NT, as well as the OT. I always hesitate to choose verses, to pluck them to make points, yet law is law and it has been with us always as I said.

This may be one of the most recognized examples in all of scripture. (Too, I'm simple--this being the first one that came to mind.)

I don't agree with what Woods did, and I do believe his wife is entitled to part of his wealth. A mighty good part of it. If he doesn't want to enter into another such agreement/contract as it is applicable by today's law, he better think long and hard before he does so again. Too, he might try picking the morals thing up a notch. You've written tremendous food for thought, a great deal of truth to much of it. We've fallen far. Yet, still God loves us and entrusts us with a will. We have the ability to make choices. Woods made some pretty sorry ones. He deserves to lose everything she deserves to gain.

Just my simple .02 cents.
One post. I'm done.;)

Then you should know me well enough by now to know that I have been playing the role of devil's advocate. I really directed most of my posts to the more libertarian-minded on this forum, which would include many if not most conservatives in order to demonstrate they aren't any more immune to succumbing to Double Standards than anyone else. There are plenty of people here who believe that, as a society, we should legalize virtually anything that supposedly (this is the key term) doesn't bring harm to someone else. Wanna have premarital sex? Go for it. What two consenting adults do in their own bedroom is no one else's business, so goes the commonly used argument, albeit as shallow as it is.

Wanna do drugs? Why not? Surely, the drug culture won't become widespread, will it? Certainly no more than the welfare culture of today, right? :rolleyes:

Of course,the major weakness to these kinds of libertarian arguments is that none of us live in a vacuum. We are personal beings, and as such interact with one another. An individual's actions, therefore, do impact society in one degree or another. And the greater number of individuals involved in particular activity, the the greater will be that ripple effect -- that could in fact grow to wave size! This is precisely why I could legitimately use the cultural environment argument whereby in today's culture, it's quite fashionable and very much in vogue to engage in all manner of recreational, fun, casual sex of any kind with anyone -- even to the point whereby non-participating bystanders, who would never engage in such activities themselves, but nonetheless wishing to appear enlightened, educated, informed and the rest....will gladly support and cheerlead on the sidelines. After all...no one wants to be uncool, right? :)

Today's divorce rates are probably going through the stratosphere. If not, then probably the marriage rates are down because it's very cool to live in with your sex partner. So, it wouldn't surprise me if appreciably fewer people are getting married, as a result. But in either case, all these people are to a large extent products of their cultural environment -- not that I'm blaming everything on the environment because other factors, too, influence our choices and behavior. Tiger Woods is also a product of his environment. And to the extent he is, all of us who subscribe to this idea of being Sexually Liberated, contributed indirectly extent to his behavior to some degree. Tiger simply followed a large number of self-deceived, delusional people down the wrong cultural path. And what inevitably must occur when the blind lead the the blind? Did not Tiger fall, and was not his fall great?

Boxcar

boxcar
07-02-2010, 03:48 PM
There is no such thing. Anyone advertising such a thing is scamming you. There are new credit card laws, but there is no government bailout of debt.

There is some of that -- one of the reasons the economy isn't recovering because the government won't let it recover.

Now you're just ranting. Tiger isn't going to be bailed out just as no one else is in a divorce. And not to go all feminist on you, but women had the short of the stick in these matters for the entire history of the world until recently. After all, the original definition of adultery was a man having relations with a MARRIED woman -- in other word's some other man's property. It was basically considered a property crime.

Apparently you didn't read that adultery account in John that I posted. Women, too, can be just as guilty of adultery as men can. And besides...you should appreciate that fact since this puts women on equal footing with men. ;)

Boxcar