You said no such thing. You talked about what "marriage" was in a general sense (parentheses and emphasis mine):
My guy, the emphasis was added but I MADE THE STATEMENT.
Doesn't change the fact that if she wants "Marriage" and not "Co-habitation" she needs to find someone dirty enough to help her sneak through the system. Unless her form of "marriage" is hillbilly backyard with a shotgun barrel to the back (or something similar.
And what were my exact words before this?
She's living in modern day Japan, bud. Stay with me.
All you said was that she's an outlaw, and that has literally never meant anything to criminals getting married. All I did in return was acknowledge an external possibility, that doesn't change the fact that the main focus of my statements are centered around who she is as a modern day Japanese person in a modern day japanese city.
There's no reference to specifically modern Japan. There's no qualification that you're talking about marriage in modern Japan. It actually does not matter that you meant to refer to modern Japan, because your statement has the same issues even in that context, which is that you incorrectly exclude state-unrecognized marriages because you incorrectly consider marriage a strictly legal affair.
At any rate, it's "clear as day" that you initially made a general statement about marriage, which is what enabled me to say that what you stated wasn't necessarily true. This is the essence of the initial disagreement.
You only acknowledge state-unrecognized marriage in a later post, after I point that out. That ought to have been the end of the discussion and yet you want to argue that you never said what you said to start, in the way you said it.
I repeat: "Likewise if I talk about marriage in Modern Day Japan, I'm talking about the modern Japanese Marriage System as overseen by the government and that should be clear as day. That is I pointed out that she would need a separate sense of marriage from the world around her if she wanted to use the term "Marriage" but not go through the system."
At no point in ANY of my comments did I disavow non-state recognized marriages. She has made no distinction in the marriage she mentions and the typical marriage seen throughout the country, so I asked a simple question on how she was going to get around it. You people are the ones making the argument that she's suggesting a non-state recognized marriage (or at least bringing it up for some random reason) and the only ones saying anything in relevance to it. All I did was say it exists.
This is a "nitpick"? Am I supposed to intuit what you mean to say, with the bias that you're not substantially wrong? Maybe in your mind, you made these connections, but you never transmitted them into your post in any capacity-- and if I have to explain how any more thoroughly, I'll literally be diagramming your sentences.
Buddy, you're sitting here trying to tell me the intent behind my words and then having the gall to act like you're not nitpicking my sentence to death? Like I said in the previous comment, I shouldn't have to say "Marriage is a legal construct in State/City/Country" it should automatically be assumed that I mean in the confines of Modern Day Japan when we're talking about a Modern Day Japanese person in Modern Day Japan. This should be especially clear when I point out how it is overseen by the government.
You are nitpicking, you are being a pedant because the breath of my comment on marriage does not expand to the entire planet and all of history. That is pure pedantry.
Which is irrelevant unless you're just capitulating a bias against state-unrecognized marriages (and/or, bizarrely, trying to subtly brag about being a clerk).
??? It's perfectly relevant if the subject of our conversation is "How is she planning to legally bypass the system"? How was that not clear enough?
Such as a marriage ceremony that occurs without the state's knowledge? Again, why would an outlaw want to enmesh themselves within the law?
...MURDERERS GET STATE-MARRIED ALL THE TIME! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?
Also, why would an outlaw want to enmesh themselves within the law? You tell me.
Joseph DeAngelo - Was a cop
Tilmer Thompson - Was a lawyer
Edward Cowart - WAS A JUDGE
Criminals of all backgrounds still exist within the confines of law whenever they
WANT TO, whenever it is
BENEFICIAL to them. You think Al Capone didn't get state-married because he was a criminal? He not only got state-married, he had a kid. There was no magical ethics barrier stopping him. At no point did he go "Wait I'm a crime lord, I can't touch legal marriage!"
It was what he wanted so he did it, then the next day he continued to consider who he needed to kill.
People who break the law...still use the law. They still enmesh themselves within the law whenever they want to. It's always been like that.