“Hey, let’s just get married to be eligible for benefits. Yeah, we’ll just pinky promise that we won’t ever abuse the hell out of our ‘partner’ who we now share every single responsibility with. I also took out a huge loan to buy a boat, why are you asking, dear? Half of it is technically yours, why aren’t you happy?”
two penniless students are judgement proof, so even in this scenario when they divorced there wouldn’t be anything to recover. As a 18 year old with nothing, as long as you don’t have kids, there is almost nothing to lose.
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.
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.
I’m fr curious if this can work. If it does, it seems beyond impossible to find a 25 year old college woman who would even want to marry
Two 18 year old students about to start university get married. I think it can even be same sex, marriage is marriage.
Remember Marriage isn’t for life! You and your partner could get married with the understanding this is just a college marriage.
“Hey, let’s just get married to be eligible for benefits. Yeah, we’ll just pinky promise that we won’t ever abuse the hell out of our ‘partner’ who we now share every single responsibility with. I also took out a huge loan to buy a boat, why are you asking, dear? Half of it is technically yours, why aren’t you happy?”
two penniless students are judgement proof, so even in this scenario when they divorced there wouldn’t be anything to recover. As a 18 year old with nothing, as long as you don’t have kids, there is almost nothing to lose.
It’s not about losing stuff, it’s about gaining stuff. Debt, mostly.
That’s a whole abuse of the purpose of marriage, though
A loop hole that is technically correct is still correct.
What is the purpose of marriage?
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.
Two people bound together for life for the purposes of creating a family
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.
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
“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.
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.