Good answer. Does it work that way in practice? I wouldn’t be able to predict whether the halo effect would overcome the sympathy influence and win out in effective total favoritism.
Beats me. I expect there’s a lot of noise here; I was more making a nod towards the standard trope than actually proposing an answer. “The one with less earning power” is also an answer that comes to mind.
If I had to guess, I’d guess that in most jurisdictions where same-sex divorce is no longer so novel as to be singular, the tendency would be to approximate splitting assets down the middle. But I’m no more than .35 confident of that, and even that much depends on a very ad-hoc definition of “no longer so novel.”
It certainly ruins some aspects. How will the state know which partner to favor in the divorce proceedings if both are the same sex?
The shorter one.
Being 1.6m, I support this decision.
EDIT: Take that, veil of ignorance!
Why not the cuter one?
That works too. A more serious answer here.
Good answer. Does it work that way in practice? I wouldn’t be able to predict whether the halo effect would overcome the sympathy influence and win out in effective total favoritism.
Beats me. I expect there’s a lot of noise here; I was more making a nod towards the standard trope than actually proposing an answer. “The one with less earning power” is also an answer that comes to mind.
If I had to guess, I’d guess that in most jurisdictions where same-sex divorce is no longer so novel as to be singular, the tendency would be to approximate splitting assets down the middle. But I’m no more than .35 confident of that, and even that much depends on a very ad-hoc definition of “no longer so novel.”