Originally posted by Singh
I could if it ended up that what they considered 'right' ended up killing me instead. What is right or not goes out of hte window as soon as >2 people are involved in the matter, as it is in real life.
Freedom is good, I dont dispute that. But freedom of an individual may just overlap with the freedom of a group. Which would have priority in this case? the few? or the many?
Well, usually it's not a hard decision IMO. Societal needs are usually well-established as to what sort of thing will 'hurt' the many; often the group dynamic influences people not to do this anyways as a sort of social conditioning from birth... i.e. chivalry, giving your seat up to pregant women or the elderly on the bus, etc.
What i mean is, that society demands certain constraints on how we behave; usually legally enforced. But usually these constraints are based on a clear definition of how said action does harm; in the case of divorce, it's not clear cut who a divorce harms, if anyone. And it's also unclear as to what the consequences of not divorcing are; would the marriage stabilise, or collapse and destroy the husband and wife (and children)?
So I don't think that you can make a generalisation over how 'good' or 'bad' divorce is, and I don;t think it is possible to explicitly specify when divorce should be allowed, simply due to the variance of cases.
And there are, after all, divorce courts for this sort of thing anyways. So I'm not sure the discussion is about restricting divorce, more restricting access to it as an option; because said courts should already act as a check.
Originally posted by Tiara
I say one line and it's over. Just the way i like it! 
:p
Expert nagger, then?
*runs*
