Defining marriage

[Rhyfelwyr]

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...

[Montmorency]

Old people do it too, you know.

[Visor]

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.

[johnhughthom]

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

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

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

My thoughts exactly.

[Beskar]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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

[TheLastDays]

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:

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:

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.