TehBamski@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish · 21 hours agoWhat's the best loophole you've ever found or learned about?message-squaremessage-square136fedilinkarrow-up194arrow-down11
arrow-up193arrow-down1message-squareWhat's the best loophole you've ever found or learned about?TehBamski@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish · 21 hours agomessage-square136fedilink
minus-squareFlax@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down6·15 hours agoTwo people bound together for life for the purposes of creating a family
minus-squareCileTheSane@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 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.
minus-squareLedivin@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·10 hours agoYeah, you can miss me with the religious bullshit. This is a legal loophole in a legal system.
minus-squareFlax@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·9 hours agoIf it was for religious reasons, I would have specified it as a “man and a woman”
minus-squareShepherdPie@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up2·6 hours agoThen 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.
minus-squareDragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down2·10 hours agoOnly two? That seems needlessly restrictive. Is it for religious reasons? Church and state should be separated.
minus-squareFlax@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down3·edit-29 hours agoIf 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.
minus-squareDragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·3 hours agoYou still didn’t explain why.
minus-squarejet@hackertalks.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·15 hours agoSo divorce shouldn’t be allowed in this philosophy?
minus-squareFlax@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down6·12 hours agoOnly as a last resort. You shouldn’t get married without intending to stay together for life.
Two people bound together for life for the purposes of creating a family
“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.
Yeah, you can miss me with the religious bullshit. This is a legal loophole in a legal system.
If it was for religious reasons, I would have specified it as a “man and a woman”
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.
Only two? That seems needlessly restrictive. Is it for religious reasons? Church and state should be separated.
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.
You still didn’t explain why.
So divorce shouldn’t be allowed in this philosophy?
Only as a last resort. You shouldn’t get married without intending to stay together for life.