> Of course you can ignore tradition but then why marry in the first place?

Taxation, adoption, power of attorney, inheritance taxes, etc.

Those doesn't apply in all jurisdictions. There is no reason why laws should give special privileges to marriages over other forms of relationships.

Yes, different jurisdictions treat marriage differently.

> There is no reason why laws should give special privileges to marriages over other forms of relationships.

I tend to agree, but that's a normative question and doesn't change the legal facts we have to deal with.

(At least not directly. Laws are made by people, and if enough people or the right people care for laws to be different, laws can be changed.)

> Of course you can ignore tradition but then why marry in the first place?

I find it strange how many people seem to be able to separate a tradition from physical items traditionally involved in that tradition.

> I find it strange how many people seem to be able to separate a tradition from physical items traditionally involved in that tradition.

They're just symbols - I don't think it's strange that many people are able to separate them.

I mean who is it unacceptable to? Who complains if you don't have a ring and what do they do about it?

If someone told me they thought it was unacceptable that I didn't have a ring I'd laugh at them.

The conversation is framed from the point of view of tradition in some parts of the world. Of course the cops won't arrest you if you decide not to get an engagement ring. It's like going to work in flip flops, it's not illegal, just frowned upon in many circles.

These faux-intellectual "I'm a robot, beep boop I don't understand context and I parse conversations like a compiler would, semantic error on line 5" conversations are probably the least productive on this website, and they're unfortunately very common. It's not smart, it's just obtuse.