• jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    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.

    • Asetru@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      “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?”

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        18 hours ago

        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.

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

      That’s a whole abuse of the purpose of marriage, though

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        A loop hole that is technically correct is still correct.

        What is the purpose of marriage?

        • MNByChoice@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          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.

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          18 hours ago

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

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 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.

          • Ledivin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            13 hours 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
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              12 hours 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
                2
                ·
                9 hours 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
              6
              ·
              15 hours 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
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            12 hours 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
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              12 hours 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.

      • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        You’re thinking about this all wrong. The age of marriage and childbearing have been going up. Think of the kids who would just decide fuck it might as well just stay married and do this. This could be the arranged marriage of the future.