• Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    That’s a whole abuse of the purpose of marriage, though

    • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      You’re thinking about this all wrong. The age of marriage and childbearing have been going up. Think of the kids who would just decide fuck it might as well just stay married and do this. This could be the arranged marriage of the future.

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      A loop hole that is technically correct is still correct.

      What is the purpose of marriage?

      • MNByChoice@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 hours 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@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        15 hours ago

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

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours 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.

        • Ledivin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          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
            ·
            9 hours ago

            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
              ·
              6 hours 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.

        • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          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
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 hours 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.

          • Flax@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            12 hours ago

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