Should divorce be banned or should the law be made easier?: LiveSimplicity discussion forum

Have your say and share your ideas. Join us on the road to simplicity.

Should divorce be banned or should the law be made easier?

Love between two human beings makes them take an oath of marriage. Later hate brings them to the lawyers and court for divorce and marriage settlements. Countries like the Phillipines have no legalized divorce. Can't two people live happily under the same roof all their lives?

View A

People should think before getting married and try to work on their relationship by trying new things of mutual interest. A temporary seperation can be beneficial but divorce should be banned as it results in depression and badly affects children.

View B

Divorce is like a freedom from a bitter pained relationship. It's better to spend on lawyers and marriage settlements rather than bearing the sadness of a cramped relationship. Children of divorced parents do not suffer. Divorce law should be made more easy and less time consuming.

6 comment(s) so far

Fatima thinks: Divorce is a cold hard fact, a storm that hits your life ferociously.....I think the laws should help people reconcile....if anyone wants a divorce,the government should force people into therapy....children who are from broken homes are confused and hurt their whole lives.....its worth it to try to make it work...afterall people did fall inlove at some point...

harry thinks: i think that devorce should not be banned because it can cause more heartache been together after things wrong and it can affect children more then if they perants wre devorced

BigCheez thinks: This seems like a personal situation and I'm not sure if I am one to decide how divorce should work since I've never expereienced it, but it seems that if two individuals feel that their relationship is not working, they should be able to ammicably separate legally the same way they got married legally. This is on of the reasons that a marriage should be treated like a business transaction. A contingency contract should be written ahead of time covering all possible outcomes. Maybe it isn't the most romantic thing in the world to do, but at least it will save a lot of grief for both if something does go wrong in the relationship.

ztyler thinks: This debate comes up every few years. Isn't this what privatization of marriage is supposed to solve?

Alexkaatsch thinks: Speaking as a middle-aged old poof, I got no use for marriage... so divorce is thereby irrelevant to me. HOWEVER I'm also keen to enhance the concept of marriage too ! To 'marry' is an enormously big step for a couple to undertake. You are legally coupling with another person to essentially become a single entity that holds the sway of two people. Your hopes, dreams and entire future with be largely affected by this union and it should be supported as much as possible to enable the protagonists to remain united and contented (if not happier than they might otherwise be if not enjoined) by our democratic government as well as the various religious groups from whom the concept seems to originate. I'm against any individual or group getting a better deal than everyone else but the nature of humanity, it's sexuality, propagation and general stability are the better for stable marriages rather than for ill-thought-out and hastily discarded ones.

JBonnin thinks: Definitely view B... we, western modern people, are just not able to accept unhappiness with a tragic serenity anymore. We do want all the spice life can give to us.

In concern to children, they will certainly gain from being brought by parents who smile and who do not feel life, family and marriage as burdens.

Of course, marriage should be a decision taken more carefully, which would spare a lot of pain when things don't work anymore.