4 ms·

Marriage is not about love. It is about property. The government/state doesn't give two flying ducks about whether two people get married because they love each

by jrs235 11y ago

Marriage is not about love. It is about property. The government/state doesn't give two flying ducks about whether two people get married because they love each other, are in love (infatuated) with each other, or just like each other. Love is not required to get married. Marriage involves determining and transferring property rights (before, during, and after a marriage). A marriage license and a state recognized marriage is a three party agreement. It's an agreement between the two spouses and the government. It gives consent to the government to arbitrate marital issues and in return the government gives benefits to the individuals getting married. ADD: Due to a marriage being a three party agreement, state recognized polygamy gets really complicated really fast, especially when multiple states might be involved.

Raphmedia 11y ago
About polygamy: If I can share a company with two other founder, share its money and profits, share the building, etc. why can't I do the same thing with my private life if I want to? Instead of dividing by two, you divide by three, four... sixteen... why not?
- jrs235 11y ago
  My best response is, because currently one of the parties (the state) to the original agreement doesn't want to nor currently agree to allow that? So I suppose if the state changed their laws and allowed it then it would be possible. My assumption is that the first state that is party to the first marriage would, in its best interests, require that all subsequent additions to the marriage be under that state and only that state. ADD: Adding a joint tenant to an agreement can get complicated. Some current joint tenants (the state?) might not wish to dilute their rights? ADD: More thoughts. The ADD above is poor reasoning. You can currently setup an organization with many people as you describe above. With marriage, what's different about a marriage than a company or business? Perhaps the state doesn't care to get involved in trying to determine paternity for children when/if things dissolve. To prevent potential future complexities the state opts to avoid them.?
  - Raphmedia 11y ago
    Makes sense when you remember that the first point of mariage was for children. Whose children is it if there are 4 people in the mariage? The biological parents? What if the biological parents split up and you end up with only the two remaining non-biological parents. Do they keep the child? If they were all equal as parents except... argh. I give up. My head hurts. I am happy not to be the one who makes laws. This is a very interesting topic.

by jrs235 11y ago

Raphmedia 11y ago

About polygamy: If I can share a company with two other founder, share its money and profits, share the building, etc. why can't I do the same thing with my private life if I want to? Instead of dividing by two, you divide by three, four... sixteen... why not?

jrs235 11y ago
My best response is, because currently one of the parties (the state) to the original agreement doesn't want to nor currently agree to allow that? So I suppose if the state changed their laws and allowed it then it would be possible. My assumption is that the first state that is party to the first marriage would, in its best interests, require that all subsequent additions to the marriage be under that state and only that state. ADD: Adding a joint tenant to an agreement can get complicated. Some current joint tenants (the state?) might not wish to dilute their rights? ADD: More thoughts. The ADD above is poor reasoning. You can currently setup an organization with many people as you describe above. With marriage, what's different about a marriage than a company or business? Perhaps the state doesn't care to get involved in trying to determine paternity for children when/if things dissolve. To prevent potential future complexities the state opts to avoid them.?
- Raphmedia 11y ago
  Makes sense when you remember that the first point of mariage was for children. Whose children is it if there are 4 people in the mariage? The biological parents? What if the biological parents split up and you end up with only the two remaining non-biological parents. Do they keep the child? If they were all equal as parents except... argh. I give up. My head hurts. I am happy not to be the one who makes laws. This is a very interesting topic.