I feel like you are a troll, but I’m going to bite anyway. Your personal feelings, opinions, or desires based on anecdotal evidence (!=) justification for public policy decisions.
If you and your hypothetical spouse wish to stay together even if you no longer love one another due to what you perceive to be a moral (and/or) contractual obligation in order to potentially benefit your hypothetical children, then that is your prerogative.
However:
Not everyone that is married has children, can have children, or wants to have children. In this case you are FORCING two adults to stay legally bound in a relationship that they are no longer consenting to.
There is ample research that forcing an abused person to stay bound to their abuser increases the likelihood of them being murdered by an order of magnitude.
You are making a claim that an abused party should easily be able to prove abuse, and this is neither true or relevant. Emotional, verbal, or psychological abuse can be incredibly difficult to prove as an example.
I’m assuming you would not support legally requiring an employee to stay in a workplace where they were subject to harrasment, manipulation, lopsided power dynamics, or other toxic behavior against their will. So the same standards should apply to breaching the contract of marriage.
Lastly, why the fuck would you think your personal opinion on marriage should have any bearing or impact on the way in which I choose to live my life? This is the same tired argument that was used against gay marriage, and let me put it to you as politely as I can:
There is no fucking chance that I am going to see the hard fought rights of my LGBTQ brothers and sisters taken away without a fight, and there is no fucking chance I am letting the psychotic ambitions of Republican megalomaniacs trample on the hard fought rights of everyday Americans to pursue life, liberty, and their own happiness.
I feel like you are a troll, but I’m going to bite anyway. Your personal feelings, opinions, or desires based on anecdotal evidence (!=) justification for public policy decisions.
If you and your hypothetical spouse wish to stay together even if you no longer love one another due to what you perceive to be a moral (and/or) contractual obligation in order to potentially benefit your hypothetical children, then that is your prerogative.
However:
Not everyone that is married has children, can have children, or wants to have children. In this case you are FORCING two adults to stay legally bound in a relationship that they are no longer consenting to.
There is ample research that forcing an abused person to stay bound to their abuser increases the likelihood of them being murdered by an order of magnitude.
You are making a claim that an abused party should easily be able to prove abuse, and this is neither true or relevant. Emotional, verbal, or psychological abuse can be incredibly difficult to prove as an example.
I’m assuming you would not support legally requiring an employee to stay in a workplace where they were subject to harrasment, manipulation, lopsided power dynamics, or other toxic behavior against their will. So the same standards should apply to breaching the contract of marriage.
Lastly, why the fuck would you think your personal opinion on marriage should have any bearing or impact on the way in which I choose to live my life? This is the same tired argument that was used against gay marriage, and let me put it to you as politely as I can:
There is no fucking chance that I am going to see the hard fought rights of my LGBTQ brothers and sisters taken away without a fight, and there is no fucking chance I am letting the psychotic ambitions of Republican megalomaniacs trample on the hard fought rights of everyday Americans to pursue life, liberty, and their own happiness.