4 ms·

>Divorce rates are at like a 50-year low so this is a strange statement to make. There's a reason divorce rates are low: go check out the statistics for marria

>Divorce rates are at like a 50-year low so this is a strange statement to make. There's a reason divorce rates are low: go check out the statistics for marriage rates. They're really low too. In short, people just aren't getting married as easily as they did decades ago. You can't get divorced if you don't get married in the first place. >This is such a weird thing to say. It's like saying one is a huge proponent of homicide. That's because you're being pedantic. Obviously, the OP is advocating divorce for highly troubled marriages, not all marriages. Which marriages are and aren't salvageable is a matter of debate of course, but you could have understood the OP's meaning if you had read the rest of the post.

llm_nerd 2y ago
> There's a reason divorce rates are low: The ratio of divorces to marriages is lower than any point since the 1970s. Fewer marriages are ending in divorce, and this is all ignoring that divorces are lagging so the effect is even more pronounced. > Obviously, the OP is advocating divorce for highly troubled marriages It actually isn't obvious. Stating that you're a proponent of divorce without qualifiers sounds like something that a jaded spinster would say. But regardless this whole sidetrack is in relation to an article that really obviously is talking about marriages falling apart over silly things, not abusive or actually broken relationships, but invariably we get caught up in tut tut exception commentary.