• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    13
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    A loop hole that is technically correct is still correct.

    What is the purpose of marriage?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 month ago

      Legally it is a shortcut to establishment of a number of implied contracts, tells the courts how to unwind those contracts, and rights. In some cases the implied contracts are more effective than written ones. Medical decisions and visitation rights being first ones I can think of.

      I sm not a lawyer.

    • Flax
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -51 month ago

      Two people bound together for life for the purposes of creating a family

      • @Ledivin
        link
        31 month ago

        Yeah, you can miss me with the religious bullshit. This is a legal loophole in a legal system.

        • Flax
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 month ago

          If it was for religious reasons, I would have specified it as a “man and a woman”

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            31 month ago

            Then what is your basis for it only being between two people? You’re defining it just like religion does because that’s where you got the idea even if you don’t realize it.

            • Flax
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -11 month ago

              Because that’s what marriage is and always has been, anything else is contrary to human nature

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 month ago

                Marriage is human nature? Legal documents providing specific legal protections in your specific country is human nature?

                • Flax
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  01 month ago

                  Marriage is more than legal documents

                  • @Ledivin
                    link
                    2
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    Yeah, religion. Marriage has literally no basis in humanity except for religion and legal protection.

                    Living with someone doesn’t require marriage. Procreation doesn’t require marriage. Cooperation doesn’t require marriage. Being with one person exclusively for life doesn’t require marriage. It’s literally just religion and laws, that’s it.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    21 month ago

                    Not in the situation being described here. The situation being described here is a method for people to legally untether themselves from their parents.

        • Flax
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -51 month ago

          Only as a last resort. You shouldn’t get married without intending to stay together for life.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 month ago

        “You shouldn’t use marriage to stop yourself being legally chained to your parents. The purpose of marriage is to legally chain you to your spouse.”

        If people could “divorce” their parents you wouldn’t have to worry about this.

      • Dragon Rider (drag)
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 month ago

        Only two? That seems needlessly restrictive. Is it for religious reasons? Church and state should be separated.

        • Flax
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -1
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          If it was for religious reasons, I would have specified it as a “man and a woman”

          Also, if it’s more than two, that’s not a marriage; that’s a group chat.