I am in favor of abolishing alimony. My argument in favor of that position is as follows;

Signing a marriage licence is considered an agreement to take the risk (though not necessarily a guarantee) of having to pay alimony, only because the system was designed that way. That which was socially constructed can be socially deconstructed. As it currently works, if you wish to get married and you do not want to have to pay alimony in the event of a divorce, you have to get a prenup signed, which specifies that no alimony will be paid in the event of a divorce. Some people feel awkward asking for a prenup, because it sounds like you expect the marriage to fail. If one person feels that the expectation to support your spouse should end when the marriage ends while the other person wants to receive monetary compensation following divorce, the latter is the one who should be placed in the awkward position of having to talk to a lawyer and get a contract signed guaranteeing that you will get what you want in the event of a divorce. That is because the latter is the one who feels entitled to someone else’s money and the former is the one who believes that you should have to stay married if you want to continue receiving support from your spouse.

The above paragraph appears to be a valid argument against alimony. However, I feel like the argument needs something to mak it stronger. Is there a good argument? An analogy I could bring up? A legal precedent I could cite? Is there another point I could add to make this argument stronger?