Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfylwyr View Post
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.