I think this is only true if you modify the initial condition to be "...an irreparably terrible relationship". Without that, there is a third point which may be true:

- Fixing a marriage which is turning into a terrible relationship is a better outcome than divorce. In this way, divorce is a bad outcome, the same way as coming in second in Jeopardy and winning $2000 is a bad outcome compared to coming in first and winning (say) $10 000.

Is it?

It seems weird to say "well you signed some papers, so it's extremely valuable that you're together for some legal purposes rather then happy".

The point of repairing a relationship is to remember that you once were happy and can be again by correcting behaviors and the like. But it seems bizarre to assume that's assured - it's even more bizarre to think it would be wrong to acknowledge that maybe you'd only wind up content but not happy, and so a separation is still preferable.

Or that actually you'd be happier alone then with someone else, but not exactly miserable if you were still with them etc.

Uh, why?

> Divorce is only negative if we don't condition on the existence of a terrible relationship.

Not "only". A positive relationship that's ruined by outside factors/factions, for example, might end in divorce.

A relationship that benefits both people but has been mismanaged (ignorance, inexperience, etc.), might end in divorce.

Isn't the point of the OP in part that just by the biological accident of having female offspring one might become more likely to be divorced; that strongly implies that divorce isn't always down to inherent aspects of the relationship.

You are assuming what you are mean to prove, namely that life is inherently valuable, and that marriage is not inherently valuable. Someone who favours euthanasia could easily say that death is a positive resolution to disease.

To those who say life has inherent value, death is not positive, no matter the pain it may relieve. To those who say marriage has inherent value, divorce is not positive, no matter the pain it may relieve.

To turn your argument back on you: Death as a reaction to health/life turning sour is a positive outcome, since we've conditioned on that development and it's now a sunk cost.

I happen to think that both life and marriage are inherently valuable and worth sacrificing for and holding on to, and for similar reasons.

There is a third - people facing difficulties which are surmountable, divorce and negatively effect their lives and the lives of their children

> Death isn't a positive resolution to cancer.

not sure about that.

You're begging the question.