> While it may be taboo to say so

What does that even mean?

You just said it, and it's also been said by countless people ever since the aforementioned 60s.

It's not taboo, it's trite.

it’s taboo because they are advocating a limitation of rights for one party to benefit another others

the us isn’t a collective society but an individualistic one

> it’s taboo because

I think you mean simply "controversial".

If it was trite, there wouldn't be as much resistance to it. It's important to use words accurately. Contentious, controversial, unpopular, iconoclastic maybe, not trite.

> If it was trite, there wouldn't be as much resistance to it.

How does that follow? It's a longstanding controversy. The same arguments have been made over and over again.

> It's important to use words accurately. Contentious, controversial, unpopular, iconoclastic maybe, not trite.

It can be both trite and controversial. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38939106

Idk, as a young adult with divorced parents, I can say with utmost certainty I was better off with them separate rather than putting up with each other in the same house I grew up in

I grew up in a dysfunctional family, and while the breakup was tough, it was miles better than listening to my parents screaming their heads off at each other (after drinking) every night. Maybe the boomers thought divorce was good not because of their own happiness, but because many of them experienced the "stick together at all costs" culture of their parents and didn't want to put their kids through that.