• jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    16 天前

    A loop hole that is technically correct is still correct.

    What is the purpose of marriage?

    • MNByChoice@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 天前

      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@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      16 天前

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

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          16 天前

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

      • Ledivin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 天前

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

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          16 天前

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

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            16 天前

            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@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              15 天前

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

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                14 天前

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

                  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    14 天前

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

                  • Ledivin@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    13 天前

                    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.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 天前

        “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)@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        16 天前

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

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          16 天前

          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.