Even if the 1 parent remarries. It just doesn't work like that, it's not and never will be the same, even if it's somewhat better than having only 1 parent.
Please don't advocate for moving from the first situation into the second.
Coming from someone who's lived it.
2 parents (in a bad relationship) > 1 parent
You can fix it by removing no-fault divorce, and raise the age a man can marry without parent approval to 25. That'll make sure future potential parents pick their partners more carefully.
Yes, sometimes parents in a bad relationships can fix their relationship. Marriage counselling is a great idea for couples who's relationships are on the rocks.
Very often however the situation is well beyond repair. Sometimes the relationships were built on a foundation of abuse in the first place, so there isn't even anything positive to restore. In those situations, we should provide all the encouragement and assistance to single parents as we can muster.
> "Coming from someone who's lived it. 2 parents (in a bad relationship) > 1 parent"
Your experience, while valuable, should be taken for what it is: your experience.
(In the interest of disclosure, I feel that I should mention that my parents have never been separated. I was lucky.)
My parents would still have been married under your brilliant system, and if they'd remained married, it is extremely likely that both my mother and I would have taken our own lives by now, so I'm going to go with "take your ideas and fuck right off".
The very first part of my comment explains that they would have. Keep your ideas of how people should live their lives out of my goddamn life. You can make decisions for yourself, DO NOT make them for others.
If marrying cannot be undone, people would make the choice more carefully.
I'm not saying it should be applied to existing marriages.
'You can make decisions for yourself, DO NOT make them for others.'
Your statement makes no sense. Decisions are made for you by others by the congress, senate, and other government institutions everyday. And how do these congressmen get into office? By promoting their views on what everyone should be doing. You can try to avoid discussing ideas you don't like but it only means decisions will be made for you without your input.
I can't believe how evil you are. You are handing a death sentence to people you've never met for mistakes millions of people make and will continue to make regardless of your proposed rules. It violates basic human rights.
Man writes a few sentences on Hacker News = "Handing out a death sentence". Man writes he is favorable to religious and cultural norms in place for two thousand years except for the last fifty = "evil" and "violating human rights".
Removing No-fault divorce doesn't mean you're not allowed to divorce if there is e.g. domestic violence / abuse. It just means you're not allowed to divorce for no reason. Removing it is hardly a death sentence.
Millions of people gamble on the stock market and lose, are you suggesting instead of punishing people who make mistakes on the stock market via economic losses, they should be compensated? Because it is a basic human right to make investments?
You're also saying that it is a basic human right for one to renege on a vow that is meant to last for life. Then what about the human right to have one's agreements with others respected? Does it not violate your human rights if your wife reneges on the vow she took to be with you until death?
If you aren't willing or aren't able to fulfill the terms of a contract, it is morally wrong for you to agree to it. And once agreed, even if it has become difficult to fulfill the attached obligations, it is morally right to fulfill it nonetheless.
What about you, where are your morals, and what are they?
I would suggest it is you who is evil. By removing consequences to actions you subvert the relationship of society where the virtuous are rewarded. The likes of you leads a society down a path of hedonism where only the self is worshipped, and morals are ignored and culture is destroyed.
I was even giving you the benefit of the doubt that your position wasn't based on religion. But now you've explicitly admitted that you want to inject your religion into law. Your evil knows no bounds.
Please don't advocate for moving from the first situation into the second.
Coming from someone who's lived it.
You can fix it by removing no-fault divorce, and raise the age a man can marry without parent approval to 25. That'll make sure future potential parents pick their partners more carefully.