It would depend on a number of factors, such as the length of cohabitation and the roles performed during the marriage, but yes, support might be ordered, on the basis of the recipient’s need being based on the the assumption that the post-separation need will be similar to the pre-separation need. Would it be to the point of keeping the recipient in the lifestyle that the recipient had been accustomed prior to separation? Doubtful, but not grossly less. However, when dealing with the very well off on going for support from the out and out rich, all bets are off. The decision would depend on what the judge had for breakfast (meaning there would be a large spread of reasonable possible results).
Again, if my comment was snide than being supported is an insult which you say it isn’t.
I really think by jumping on me by assuming there are support issues with long term marriages behind the agreement of alimony reinforces my opinion that alimony is welfare and those who accept it are wrong to do so. Afterall, why would anyone supporting it feel so insulted when I assumed they benefit from a system you all agree with?
And wow, how insulted they were! An apology for saying you benefit from a system you support? If you really support it, my assumption wouldn’t matter and certainly wouldn’t make everyone so darn defensive.
A good analogy would be if I was pro choice and someone assumed I had had an abortion. If my response was OH NO, I WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A THING! How pro choice am I really?
Bad analogy. I am pro-choice because I think everyone should have the right to make that choice according to their own beliefs. My choice would be NO, but that doesn’t mean that I, or my government, should force that choice on everyone.
Your comment was snide and insulting because you insinuated that those who held the opposing position could only do so because they were being supported by alimony. As far as I know, NONE of the responders were in that position. Suprise–people can hold positions that they don’t benefit from financially. Not everyone revolves their lives around a dollar. Some of us use other means to determine our responsibilities in the world.
Because you’re insinuating that the reason we agree with it is precisely because we’re personally benefiting from it. You’re suggesting that if we weren’t benefiting from the system ourselves, we wouldn’t support it. (And although you’ve turned out to be wrong about that, you haven’t bothered to retract your statement.) In other words, you’re accusing us of arguing dishonestly for reasons of self-interest.
And that’s insulting. It’s the same reason, as I pointed out earlier, that you yourself got offended when people suggested that what was bothering you about the alimony situation was not the principle of the thing, but the loss of the money.
In short, your inferences are wrong, your reasoning is weak, and your debating style is offensive.
Oh please. If I had written I assumed you were all from the North East I would have been corrected but certainly not asked to apologize. I proved my point to anyone that took the time to think about why it offended them so.
I am letting this thread die because I was lucky enough to receive opinions from very intelligent posters with responsible arguments. A debate is allowing others to express another side of an argument and I appreciate its place on this message board.
As far as silly little insults such as that quoted above. I am embarrassed for you and your need to take things so personally. 
I believe the offense was taken at the idea that the only way someone could take the opposite argument was if they were in that situation themselves. It is an insult to one’s intelligence, not an insult to one’s character. As Kimstu put it eloquently:
It IS possible to have an opinion and debate a point of view, even if you have no experience whatsoever with the situation, much less have a stake in the outcome of the argument.
If you had spent an entire thread bitching about people from the Northeast and calling them assholes, then turned around and said that oh, everyone who disagrees with you must be from the Northeast, you are saying that everyone who disagrees with you is an asshole.
You spent this thread bitching about people getting alimony (or similar) then turned around and said that everyone who disagreed with you must be collecting alimony. That means that every bit of venom you spewed is directed at every one of us who disagreed with you.
Considering the disdain you’ve shown for the very concept of alimony and those who receive it, “My only regret is I didn’t not ask for more specific details when seeking responses such as gender, marital status and employment. I will just have to continue to assume that those disagreeing with me the strongest are in the situation of being supported in one way or another,” can very reasonably be inferred as an insult. Whether someone took offence or not, you certainly meant it that way. You were denigrating those who disagreed with you and dismissing what they said. Go on, deny it.
Your ex, at least, was thinking of possibilities. When this first came up did you bother looking into it? Or did you stick your fingers in your ears and prance around singing, “I don’t believe it. It isn’t true. I can’t heeeeeeaaaar you. La la la la la!” Much as you’ve done here.