You’re making statements predicated on your beliefs that may not be shared by everyone.
This is not about my belief. You know a marriage is more than just a pinky promise? If you don’t want to take a relationship seriously, that’s fine, but marriage as a legal construct entails a lot of regulations that may screw up either partner and, with enough legal battles, both of them, so yeah, you kind of have to take it seriously and it doesn’t make much sense to just enter and exit it on a whim, unless you want to be paying for other people’s houses or cars.
y tho?
You’re making statements predicated on your beliefs that may not be shared by everyone.
This is not about my belief. You know a marriage is more than just a pinky promise? If you don’t want to take a relationship seriously, that’s fine, but marriage as a legal construct entails a lot of regulations that may screw up either partner and, with enough legal battles, both of them, so yeah, you kind of have to take it seriously and it doesn’t make much sense to just enter and exit it on a whim, unless you want to be paying for other people’s houses or cars.
This part is separate from the legal framework.
Is your argument “you shouldn’t dissolve a marriage because the legal frameworks we built don’t support that well”?
If so, is that how things should be?
Regardless, there are steps you can take to minimize legal challenges in divorce.
You are making the assumption that the divorce won’t be amicable. The situation in the original text here is extremely amicable.
If the legal framework was adjusted to remove the risks of “paying for other people’s cars”, would you still advocate for taking it seriously? Why?