Defining marriage

Linky

The 51-year-old man was fined under article 215 of France’s civil code, which states married couples must agree to a “shared communal life”.

A judge has now ruled that this law implies that “sexual relations must form part of a marriage”.

This position has been advocated by one or two on this forum in regards to the debate on gay marriage.

So I think its funny to see this from atheist, progressive France.

Still, I agree with it. I'm not sure that "sexual relations must form part of a marriage", but in the typical marriage circumstances they should. Exceptions for if they are ill or old (eww).

Thoughts?

EDIT: I'll leave the jokes about Louis and Strike to someone funnier than myself...

Old people do it too, you know.

There's a thread about this on TWC. http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=480030

I think Aru sums my thoughts up perfectly.

I don't agree with it. If you are forced to have sex, then it is rape. And that is exactly what this is doing.

What would women's rights groups be saying right now if the roles had been reversed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

What would women's rights groups be saying right now if the roles had been reversed?

---

My thoughts exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfylwyr

Linky

The 51-year-old man was fined under article 215 of France’s civil code, which states married couples must agree to a “shared communal life”.

A judge has now ruled that this law implies that “sexual relations must form part of a marriage”.

This position has been advocated by one or two on this forum in regards to the debate on gay marriage.

So I think its funny to see this from atheist, progressive France.

Still, I agree with it. I'm not sure that "sexual relations must form part of a marriage", but in the typical marriage circumstances they should. Exceptions for if they are ill or old (eww).

Thoughts?

EDIT: I'll leave the jokes about Louis and Strike to someone funnier than myself...

---

The thing is, on what basis?

Since you mention atheists I guess you are coming from the christian standpoint, arguing, for example, from 1. Corinthians 7:4-5:

Quote:

---

The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

---

But if you start arguing biblically, she wasn't supposed to get a divorce in the first place, as Paul clearly states a couple of verses later, in 1. Corinthians 7:10-11:

Quote:

---

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

---

So, yes, I agree that a sexual relationship belongs to a healthy marriage but the lack of it is no reason for a divorce and definitely not a reason to sue the ex-husband for money. It's nothing that can be forced on another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

What would women's rights groups be saying right now if the roles had been reversed?

---

Strike, you know what you need to do.

Sue Louise.

If you don't want to have regular sex with someone, don't marry them. Simple!

~:smoking:

So I guess the judge would find many gay relationships more appropriate to marriage than this straight one?

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

If you don't want to have regular sex with someone, marry them. Simple!

~:smoking:

---

Fixed :smoking:

=][=

PS. This was already posted in news of the weird by yours truly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Fixed :smoking:

=][=

PS. This was already posted in news of the weird by yours truly.

---

Still looking bitterly at all those coins still stacked up in the jar, eh?

I'm not sure what this has to do with gay marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Still looking bitterly at all those coins still stacked up in the jar, eh?

---

There was so few to start with ~:( lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I'm not sure what this has to do with gay marriage.

---

I don't want it to be...

I'm just wondering what thoughts are on whether sex must be a part of married life, and if so then isn't this really having the government in your bedrooms...

Sex doesn't have to be part of any relationship

As long as both of the partners know that going in.

Granted I don't see how it couldn't be, there is a reason romantic feelings are distinictly different from platonic feelings. but hey different strokes for different folks.

let's say marriage is simply a man and woman vow to be together building a family till death separate em apart.

the blame is the over-easy acess for divorces now, and that means till death separate them apart is no longer the majority of case...

but then:
a) Polygamy? - well?
b) So? how to make dat vow valid? religion what?

Perhaps the French law was simply to make sure that people did not simply marry for the benefits? Much like how the US tries to prevent marriages simply for citizenship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

the blame is the over-easy acess for divorces now, and that means till death separate them apart is no longer the majority of case...

---

Till death is a little easier when the mean life span is 50. Not many made it to 70 and even fewer as couples. Childbirth resulted in many deaths of child and mother.

So there was a lot more second/third marriages by life being deadlier. All divorce has allowed is people to break a non-functioning relationship, not a bad thing all in all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Till death is a little easier when the mean life span is 50.

---

Most divorces today happen between considerably younger people, surely.

The financial penalty in being a single mother these days is less than nothing in many cases. Why bother in a relationship when you can dump him and the state will pick up the bills?

~:smoking:

Nothing has to be a part of marriage. Marriage at its base is just a symbol proclaimed through a contract that you wish to tie yourself to another individual for an extended period of time. The whole till death part became obsolete as soon as divorced was accepted by the mainstream. That part of the contract then suddenly became flowery words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Nothing has to be a part of marriage. Marriage at its base is just a symbol proclaimed through a contract that you wish to tie yourself to another individual for an extended period of time. The whole till death part became obsolete as soon as divorced was accepted by the mainstream. That part of the contract then suddenly became flowery words.

---

Divorce has always been a part of marriage. As for it being a contract, what the OP is about is how we decide what that contract entails.

It hasn't really been defined clearly historically, but we still have it so that's something that has to be sorted out.

The ruling the OP is based on surprised me, but I kind of agree with it. Surely sex is part of a marriage according to what most people understand by it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfylwyr

Divorce has always been a part of marriage. As for it being a contract, what the OP is about is how we decide what that contract entails.

It hasn't really been defined clearly historically, but we still have it so that's something that has to be sorted out.

The ruling the OP is based on surprised me, but I kind of agree with it. Surely sex is part of a marriage according to what most people understand by it?

---

A. My understanding of marriage was that divorce was not allowed by the Catholic church and indeed if I remember correctly, the Church of England came about over the ability to divorce.

B. The contract entails very little. It is a mostly symbolic contract. It can be backed out of by either party at any time by saying, "I want a divorce." There is nothing it enforces other than a division of property between the two individuals depending on the terms they set before the contract was made, i.e. did they sign a pre-nup or not?

C. It hasn't been defined historically because marriage over the last 500 years has gone from a sole transfer of property in a very paternalistic fashion, to a victorian social norm that establishes wealth and standing for the parties involved to the more modern definition of a proclamation of love between two individuals.

D. I don't think the way that most people understand should have too much of an effect of what a marriage should entail. If the woman or man doesn't want sex, you simply cannot force them to have sex. It's barbaric any way you attempt to do so.

Regarding the defintion of marriage, that's the debate that should have been held prior to all the boring talk about gay marriage. With a proper definition (including purpose), debates over who can and cannot marry, be it homosexuals, polygamists, age limits and so fort, would be largely superfluous (or they would at least drastically change scope). There's also the question whether marriage should be a legal matter at all, leaving that debate (over definition) to only those particularly interested (if two people are going to share property, then they can sign general legal contracts on the matter instead).

Now, these are the really interesting debates, yet no one seems to be having them. Now I guess the reason why, is because the relatively high percentage of homosexuals in the population means that their advocacy groups will be considerably stronger than any other minority, giving the sensation that the marriage issue is one over heterosexuality versus homosexuality. As for the second debate, the legal state of marriage, that's due to cultural conservatism, obviously; but it is nonetheless intimately connected to the other debate: the definition of marriage, and whatever purpose it should have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

A. My understanding of marriage was that divorce was not allowed by the Catholic church and indeed if I remember correctly, the Church of England came about over the ability to divorce.

---

Actually, I think the woman he was trying to divorce was related to the King of Spain who at the time was fighting the Turks. The Pope liked the king of Spain for fighting the Turks thus didn't allow it. Or at least that's my understanding of it. I have a feeling it's a bit more complicated than that but I think I got the gist of it.

The state can get out of marriage. I believe it is one more reason why they have no right to go near marriage. Now the government can enforce sex through dissolution laws? Garbage. Current governments are pathetic remnants of the past and should be violently overthrown, except my own government the wonderful United States, which I will never make the mistake of suggesting the overthrow of on a semi-public internet forum. That government should stand the test of time because it is good, exceptional, and God's stand-in nation on earth.

But anyway, these people are fools.