• 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.