[HiPhish]

> People being allowed to part ways and not having to stick with their partner until death is one of the great achievements of feminism.

And it has been one of the greatest mistakes humanity has ever made. If there is a good reason, sure, you cannot be expected to live with someone who has been cruel or irresponsible towards you. But no-fault divorce just because you got bored? Fuck off, you made a commitment at the time. Relationships do take work, always have and always will. Especially when there are children a no-fault divorce is pure selfishness.

With that said, we only know one side of this story, so I'm not going to argue for either side in this particular case. I'm talking in general here.

[robocat]

> greatest mistakes humanity has ever made

Humanity has a lot more variation than the our standard modern marriage.

[ljsprague]

And how did those societies turn out? What are they like to live in? Would you live in one?

[robocat]

I live in one - New Zealand is a modern western society.

Making marriage the norm would not fix any of the issues I see in my own society, and marriage causes other problems.

Many people I know (including solo mums) that I know would love to find someone worthwhile marrying... However they haven't (or can't) find someone worthwhile, so it is better to remain single than get married into a dangerous relationship.

I suspect you are mistaking cause and effect. Marriage isn't a cause, it is an outcome.

[blahaj]

That's just not how humans work. Love can fade. People change. It's the natural course of things. Sometimes there is just no one at fault for love being lost and no way to prevent that. We just gave up the illusion that love in marriage is always forever.

[Aeglaecia]

love is not an emotion , love is willing sacrifice , breaking a lifelong commitment because of faded emotions is pathetic and has nothing to do with your feminism argument

[Jcampuzano2]

The problem here is the usage of "no-fault". It can be interpreted differently by everyone.

Does fault only include cheating? Can the fault be on the same one who initiated the divorce? What if the fault is simply someone has changed so much that they're no longer compatible with person they fell in love with before? The fault could be on oneself without any inkling of infidelity.

Til death do us part has been ironically dead for decades now since people have been divorcing at high rates for long enough that it doesn't really mean much anymore, and that's okay. Things change.

[gruez]

>The problem here is the usage of "no-fault". It can be interpreted differently by everyone.

No, it's a legal term. From wikipedia:

>No-fault divorce is the dissolution of a marriage that does not require a showing of wrongdoing by either party.[1][2] Laws providing for no-fault divorce allow a family court to grant a divorce in response to a petition by either party of the marriage without requiring the petitioner to provide evidence that the defendant has committed a breach of the marital contract.

It quite literally means that people can request divorce for any reason.