You don't get to claim something is obvious when, judging by the now 1000+ replies to this thread and immense contention between commenters, it isn't. I'm challenging you to justify the way you're framing this, and you're abjectly failing to do so. "Cuz I say so!" isn't a valid argument.

I addressed in my original comment the incongruence between infertility and the dealbreakers I listed. You'll need to argue with that, not repeat an argument I've already given a counter to.

Your definition of dealbreaker is incomplete. It is not merely, "You don't marry them." It is also "You cease being married to them," if the time for pre-emptive planning has already come and gone.

"Spouse loses job" is only relevant here is he has lost his job forever. My logic is that if he has and that means a massive drop in quality of life for both of you and you've put in a good faith effort to deal with it and you're still miserable and still poor and you realize both of you would be better off, then yes, it's perfectly reasonable to divorce. You don't have to divorce. No one is putting a gun to your head. But I sure as hell wouldn't judge you for choosing not to live out the rest of your days in misery.

You seem to believe that being married entitles you to forcing your partner to endure anything and everything you go through to the exclusion of their own well-being. Newsflash: It does not. You do not get to insulate yourself from being hurt by incongruent needs. You do not get to demand that your partner never make a decision that is in his best interest just because you aren't on board with it. And you sure as hell don't have a right to judge anyone else for doing the same.

Marriage is an offering of one's whole self between two people, not a demand or an obligation. That offering can be rescinded if the recipient can't care for it - regardless of it that's their fault or not.