• Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 days ago

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

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days 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
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 days 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
          3
          ·
          4 days 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@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 days ago

            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
              ·
              3 days ago

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

                • Ledivin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day 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.

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

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days 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.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 days ago

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

    • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 days 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
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days 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.