With a few exceptions, spousal support should not be required as a result of divorce.

"Here you are falsely supposing that because something has gone on for a particular length of time, it must continue to or an injustice has been committed. That is like saying if someone has been receiving free government checks for 10 years, he is entitled to continue receiving them merely because he might struggle without them. When in reality, he should be thankful for the 10 years and move on. An honest person may even look for ways to repay it." There may have been a mistranslation, but what I was meaning was that fact that if someone gets a divorce for one reason or another, then the spouse who lives in the upper class style can stay living that life style, but the other spouse has to go back to living in basically poverty compared to the live they have been leading. Take for example if one was leading a pretty rich lifestyle and the other was leading a kind of poor lifestyle. They feel in love and got married, but then something happened and the got a divorce. If the one who was leading the richer lifestyle just moved away and left the other with nothing but half the income for that 2 years before the divorce, how would they be able to live off of just that? It's almost as if they are quitting life "cold turkey" in a sense. It would be the same as if someone was smoking for 2 solid years. Some people maybe could quit cold turkey, but most people have to be weaned off of it. It's the same with money in life. You can't just not get money for a while without a job so then the richer spouse gives the money to the other, at least until they can get back on their own two feet. "So now you are succumbing to the same faulty logic you condemned at the beginning of the debate-- where judges ordered spousal support "just because" it was the law. Now you can see the motives that would convince courts to abandon what is truly right in principle in exchange for what promotes a desirable outcome. This is their logic: "We don't want anyone to struggle, so make someone else pay even if it is not their responsibility." This is how liberals get away with all sorts of the unfair policies they promote-- taking one man's earnings to give it to one who did not earn it in the interest of doing something "good." Courts should not be do-gooders with other peoples money." I would just be repeating myself so see my above argument. "Enough for what? Enough so the lower-income spouse does not have to face life like a responsible adult and get a job? If the spouse were able to secure more than 50% of the pre-marital total income, then the other (the one supposedly earning more) would be left with less than 50% and would obviously have to face even greater challenges-- since his current employment would take up most of the time needed to earn additional income. But I would not put this type of injustice past any divorce judge." Like I have already stated, after living a lifestyle like that which has been stated, no one would be able to just go out, get a job, and earn enough money to live by themselves. Especially in today's society. You have to look at those who have jobs, especially high paying jobs are lucky, because of the economy, jobs are getting so scarce that a lot of people need more time to find a job so therefore it would only make sense if the higher payed spouse was paying the other at least until they could fully get back on their feet. "Here again you are now defending what we both considered absurd at the beginning of this debate: A blanket arbitrary law that says one must pay spousal support, even though in fairness it would need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. And again, the trick here is deciding what is meant by "fair share" or what on is one is "supposed to have." If you support a slacker roommate for 3 years simply because you like her, and then later you decide you want to move out, should you be forced by a court to pay your roommate her "fair share" of what you voluntarily gave her in the past? Is she "supposed to have" that money or assistance simply because she had received it in the past? The objective and logical way to determine what one "should have" is to say one should have that to which he is rightly entitled. In the U.S., that has typically come to mean that which one has earned, been freely given, or inherited. And again, as I mentioned in my opening argument, there are some cases for spousal support where and argument can be made that the spouse "earned" a cut of his/her spouses future earnings if it can be proved that he/she invested greatly in the earning spouses career or education." The only problem I see with this argument is just simply living with a roommate for 3 years is not a legally bound situation like a marriage is. Yes they are both legally bound is some ways, but in a marriage it is more so because of the fact that they are married, and not just living together. Do the courts make those who just live together pay eachother after they move? No they don't. Reason being is because in a marriage everything like you said is 50/50. That is not the case with people just simply living together. As I have said before I would just be repeating myself, so see my above arguments.