Divorce should not be encouraged II

The question posed here is whether or not divorce should be encouraged (allowed), or better said, should the status quo be maintained. As the con side, I will show why exactly the status quo should be maintained, and that there is a very good reason why divorce is legal and allowed at present.1. Unfulfillment of the role of marital unionsTo begin with, it is clear that the union that is marriage has certain roles it has to fulfill. Marriage is, in its core, a union formed between two people, formed out of love, and with the goal to live, prosper etc. together. Marriage changes one's life drastically and is based on stability, understanding and compromise - those are the prerequisites for a marital union to be functional and to last. The role of marital unions is to bind two people and help them achieve all their goals, prosper, and lead a stable and generally happy life. As stated before, synergy is key to the stability of a marital union - should that synergy disappear, the marital union cannot fulfill any of its roles; and it loses its reason of existence. A few basics make lasting love possible in marriage. These include caring, long-term commitment, integrity, togetherness and maintaining a positive focus. [1]That being said, it is clear there are functional, as well as dysfunctional marriages. Divorce serves as a solution to a situation where the marital union is dysfunctional, and, in the eyes of the couple, beyond repair. When the couple reaches a point where they simply cannot function together, there is no point in preserving the marriage - its dysfunctionality will prevent it from being of any use to anybody. It is only natural that such a bond as marriage, which has a large impact on one's life, can be dissolved. No one can predict what will happen concerning the relations between the two people in the marital union, and for that reason, the right to divorce must be maintained. Marriage isn't really about the two united against the world, but rather the two individuals in a world full of mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual challenges and surprises. [. .. ] When two people are simply unable to sustain their love for each other and are unwilling to spend the remainder of their life in what is left of their relationship, then divorce becomes a way to set each other free. [2]To grasp the necessity of divorce, one must understand that divorces aren't monsters waiting behind the corner to destroy a couple's happiness and harmony. A divorce is the consequence of a pre-existing problem which eliminated the functionality of the marriage and set it beyond repair. At that point, the couple divorces, for they both realize their marriage is left hanging in a void; it is useless and causes them suffering. If it so, then what is the point of blindly insisting on preserving the marriage. What's the point and what good does it bring? The answer is self-evident - none. That is, indeed, the reason that divorce is legal and allowed in the status quo.2. Quality of lifeIt is clear that every single human being strives for the highest possible quality of life. A person's quality of life is incredibly important for the well-being of said person, and should be ameliorated and augmented by all means. That much is logical and understandable. A dysfunctional marriage hinders one's quality of life severely. As was already stated, marriage is a grand decision that has a great impact on the life of the two individuals of which it consists. If that impact is negative, why shouldn't the couple be allowed to divorce? Who has the right to force two people to be unhappy? Who has the right to force them to uphold a lifestyle they do not wish to uphold, to hinder their quality of life, to prolong their emotional distress? And to what end? Indeed, what end would not allowing divorce be a means to? What, exactly, is achieved and preserved by not allowing divorce? Allowing couples to divorce gives the two individuals a chance to restore happiness to their lives should it be lost in the marriage. It ultimately preserves their right to living happily and freely. Forcing them to stay in a union they would do anything to get out of is nothing more than a form of slavery. If one were to look at the big picture, it is the right to divorce that indirectly helps preserve quality of life. Both members of a certain marital union are aware that they have a way out, a way to restore things to how they were in case they made a mistake. That right is an important part of modern family life - for a reason, too. I have proven throughout this exposition that the right to divorce ameliorates quality of life, forms one of the pillars of modern family life and aids in ensuring that a dysfunctional union can be promply dissolved. On the other hand, huge questions rest over the case that supports not allowing divorce. Questions to which one cannot offer a logical, humane answer. Back to my opponent. SOURCES:[1] . http://www.geocities.com...[2] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...