TehBamski@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agoWhat's the best loophole you've ever found or learned about?message-squaremessage-square229fedilinkarrow-up1145arrow-down11
arrow-up1144arrow-down1message-squareWhat's the best loophole you've ever found or learned about?TehBamski@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square229fedilink
minus-squareFlax@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down7·2 days agoTwo people bound together for life for the purposes of creating a family
minus-squareCileTheSane@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 day 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-up4arrow-down1·2 days agoYeah, you can miss me with the religious bullshit. This is a legal loophole in a legal system.
minus-squareFlax@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down2·2 days agoIf it was for religious reasons, I would have specified it as a “man and a woman”
minus-squareShepherdPie@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up3·2 days 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-squareFlax@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down2·1 day agoBecause that’s what marriage is and always has been, anything else is contrary to human nature
minus-squareCileTheSane@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up1·38 minutes agoMarriage is human nature? Legal documents providing specific legal protections in your specific country is human nature?
minus-squareFlax@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·8 minutes agoMarriage is more than legal documents
minus-squarejet@hackertalks.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·2 days agoSo divorce shouldn’t be allowed in this philosophy?
minus-squareFlax@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down7·2 days agoOnly as a last resort. You shouldn’t get married without intending to stay together for life.
minus-squareDragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down2·2 days agoOnly two? That seems needlessly restrictive. Is it for religious reasons? Church and state should be separated.
minus-squareFlax@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down4·edit-22 days 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-up3arrow-down1·1 day agoYou still didn’t explain why.
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.
Because that’s what marriage is and always has been, anything else is contrary to human nature
Marriage is human nature? Legal documents providing specific legal protections in your specific country is human nature?
Marriage is more than legal documents
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.
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.