205
So...
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
205 points (65.4% liked)
Comic Strips
12583 readers
499 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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?