4 ms·

I don't believe in the institution of marriage so no. I don't need some religious arrangement to justify my love.

by masijo 2y ago

lotsofpulp 2y ago
From a modern society's logistic point of view, marriage is not a religious arrangement. It is the recognization of a contract entered into by 2 parties which will dictate myriad events in the future, especially regarding property/child/estate/healthcare/etc disputes. Neither me nor my wife are religious, but pooling our assets together and having children together means we are now intertwined to the level that third parties may need to intervene (in the event of a dispute or death or something) and it helps sort that out more easily.
- owebmaster 2y ago
  Brazil?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    I don’t understand. I’m in the USA.
    - owebmaster 2y ago
      Sorry, I replied the wrong comment, wanted to reply to a comment mentioning "defacto relationships"
technothrasher 2y ago
You certainly don't need to get married if you don't wish to do so, and you can still live a fulfilled life with or without a partner. But marriage has never been simply a "religious arrangement". Yes, marriage has been much co-opted by religion, but non-religious people have always existed and have always married each other outside of any religious arrangement.
ViscountPenguin 2y ago
Living in a country where atheism is the most common religion amoung my age group, I'm not sure that I've ever seen marriage as a religious arrangement. I think for most people it's more of a costly signal of commitment. Although some people prefer a civil partnership instead, to codify a defacto relationship.
- coffeebeqn 2y ago
  It’s not necessarily costly. You can have a cheap wedding and in the US for example you get access to “married filing jointly” tax treatment which can lower your taxes and increase your retirement savings in many cases
  - ViscountPenguin 2y ago
    I can't speak to the us, but where I live there are no tax or legal benefits to being married vs being a defacto couple (apart from it being slightly easier to prove if it ever goes to court)
jemmyw 2y ago
I got together with my now wife at 20. We didn't get married until we needed to for a visa. Getting married didn't change anything, and we acknowledged that we were a couple for good well before then, had kids. It helps that the country we're in recognizes defacto relationships so there was no incentive.
- owebmaster 2y ago
  > It helps that the country we're in recognizes defacto relationships Which country? I have only heard about this happening in Brazil
  - jemmyw 2y ago
    New Zealand https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/separation-divorce/divide-relationship-property/relationships-covered-by-law/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/separation-divorce/divide... NZ also doesn't have any tax benefits for being married

I don't believe in the institution of marriage so no. I don't need some religious arrangement to justify my love.

by masijo 2y ago

I don't believe in the institution of marriage so no. I don't need some religious arrangement to justify my love.

From a modern society's logistic point of view, marriage is not a religious arrangement. It is the recognization of a contract entered into by 2 parties which will dictate myriad events in the future, especially regarding property/child/estate/healthcare/etc disputes. Neither me nor my wife are religious, but pooling our assets together and having children together means we are now intertwined to the level that third parties may need to intervene (in the event of a dispute or death or something) and it helps sort that out more easily.

owebmaster 2y ago
Brazil?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  I don’t understand. I’m in the USA.
  - owebmaster 2y ago
    Sorry, I replied the wrong comment, wanted to reply to a comment mentioning "defacto relationships"

technothrasher 2y ago

You certainly don't need to get married if you don't wish to do so, and you can still live a fulfilled life with or without a partner. But marriage has never been simply a "religious arrangement". Yes, marriage has been much co-opted by religion, but non-religious people have always existed and have always married each other outside of any religious arrangement.

ViscountPenguin 2y ago

Living in a country where atheism is the most common religion amoung my age group, I'm not sure that I've ever seen marriage as a religious arrangement. I think for most people it's more of a costly signal of commitment. Although some people prefer a civil partnership instead, to codify a defacto relationship.

coffeebeqn 2y ago
It’s not necessarily costly. You can have a cheap wedding and in the US for example you get access to “married filing jointly” tax treatment which can lower your taxes and increase your retirement savings in many cases
- ViscountPenguin 2y ago
  I can't speak to the us, but where I live there are no tax or legal benefits to being married vs being a defacto couple (apart from it being slightly easier to prove if it ever goes to court)

jemmyw 2y ago

I got together with my now wife at 20. We didn't get married until we needed to for a visa. Getting married didn't change anything, and we acknowledged that we were a couple for good well before then, had kids. It helps that the country we're in recognizes defacto relationships so there was no incentive.

owebmaster 2y ago
> It helps that the country we're in recognizes defacto relationships Which country? I have only heard about this happening in Brazil
- jemmyw 2y ago
  New Zealand https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/separation-divorce/divide-relationship-property/relationships-covered-by-law/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/separation-divorce/divide... NZ also doesn't have any tax benefits for being married