"Essential qualities"

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Garth Vader


Well that's dumb, but explains why people had pets at the last place I lived where there was "no pets".

Was it in Ontario?

A particular animal may be prohibited if it has caused damage that the tenant has not repaired. A blanket ban is not allowed.

There are numerous examples of this concept however. What if you didn't get the dowry you were promised? Should the court void the contract?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


QFT. I agree 100%. She lied about being a virgin, which was important to this person in a wife. It's fine to get an annulment based on the lie.

How about my dowry example? What if the groom doesn't have as much $$ as he claimed? What if his penis is only 4" instead of the 8" he claimed?

Virginity is in no way an essential quality of marriage.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Wezil
The argument you can put whatever you want into a contract so long as both parties agree just won't go anywhere. You can include anything you want but getting a court to enforce it is the issue.

If it violates the law or public policy, a contract, of course, won't be enforced. But I don't see what is so horrible about a man wanting to void a marriage because the woman made a misrepresentation about her virginal status.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Wezil
How about my dowry example? What if the groom doesn't have as much $$ as he claimed? What if his penis is only 4" instead of the 8" he claimed?

Virginity is in no way an essential quality of marriage.

Dowry can be interpreted as slavery, so that's problematic. If you don't interpret it as that way, then sure.

If the man claimed its an 8'' penis and the woman relied on that and it was important to her and that was a lie, why shouldn't she have recourse? What if the man made representations that he was a fully functional man and it turned out he had no penis due to accident?

[Wezil]

Sexual function is legit iirc.

Now, explain how virginity is essential to sexual function? It isn't, just as a 4" penis isn't (however unfortunate that situation may be).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Wezil
Sexual function is legit iirc.

Now, explain how virginity is essential to sexual function? It isn't, just as a 4" penis isn't (however unfortunate that situation may be).

Who cares if virginity is essential to sexual function? Sexual function is not the question here. It is against her material representations to the husband, who cares about the virginity of his partner because of deep seated religious beliefs... which don't violate any laws or public policy of the state.

Btw, why do you think sexual function is a legitimate argument for annulment?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Who cares if virginity is essential to sexual function? Sexual function is not the question here. It is against her material representations to the husband, who cares about the virginity of his partner because of deep seated religious beliefs... which don't violate any laws or public policy of the state.

Because a (reasonable) ruling would say that virginity is not an essential component of a marriage contract. If I read the artcle correctly there is still a appeal left for the french to get this right...

Btw, why do you think sexual function is a legitimate argument for annulment?

I didn't say I did, but my understanding is that sexual impotence is grounds for annulment.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I still don't see how it has anything to do with gay marriage, but

JM, you're aware that marriage was only quite recently considered something the state had any interest in at all, right? It was I believe in the late 1800s or early 1900s that the various states started to actually recognize marriages in an official manner rather than simply considering them a private (religious) matter. The reason was, of course, because of the increasing legal ramifications - ramifications that arose from the elements of marriage that are identical to a contract, namely property dispersal, child custody, etc. Hence, to the state, marriage is a contractual affair.

Marriage is in the state's interest because it supports happier, healthier current citizens (the ones married) and supports happier, healthier children. One more, these things are in general, I know that there are plenty of attrocious marriages.

This is supporting a current institution, not setting up a purely contract based thing like a business (as that loses it a lot of the stability that results in happier/healthier citizens and children (future citizens)). I am in favor of extending it to cover homosexuals, not because it is discrimination within a contract to not include them, but because I want them to be happier/healthier that generally results from being in stable long term relationships.

So no, marriage is not just a contract. There are things like prenupts, which are contracts (and if you had in your prenupt that your wife to be must be a virgin or the marriage would be considered to be ended... OK).

The legal ramnifications are all support that the state adds to the relationships which further it's interest. If it turns out that other relationships further it's interest more (I don't expect so because of history) than states will support other relationships. It isn't a contract...

Note that a lack of support does not stop relationships from going on. There are plenty of long term stable homosexual relationships now, without the support of the government/society through marriage.

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Wezil
Because a (reasonable) ruling would say that virginity is not an essential component of a marriage contract. If I read the artcle correctly there is still a appeal left for the french to get this right...

It was to this guy. Essential components of contracts aren't a one size fits all. It is different to every different deal struck. There is a different meeting of the minds in each one.

I didn't say I did, but my understanding is that sexual impotence is grounds for annulment.

Why shouldn't there just be a 15 or 30 day period after marriage where there can be no fault annulment... just in case of lies told that were found out right afterwards?

[Krill]

Arguments between lawyers on an internet forum = free popcorn. You guys should start charging.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It was to this guy. Essential components of contracts aren't a one size fits all. It is different to every different deal struck. There is a different meeting of the minds in each one.

I agree not all needs/wants are the same. We are talking about what we can expect a court to enforce. Again, just b/c two parties agree to something doesn't mean it will be enforced.

Why shouldn't there just be a 15 or 30 day period after marriage where there can be no fault annulment... just in case of lies told that were found out right afterwards?

Maybe there should be. That's not really the issue however but I see why you would prefer such an idea. Personally I could go along with that but I'd also make marriage much more expansive than it currently is.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Krill
Arguments between lawyers on an internet forum = free popcorn. You guys should start charging.

I don't know what area of law Imran practices.

I work in the transportation industry which rarely comes up in Poly discussions. I'm really just a tourist in other areas of law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Wezil
I agree not all needs/wants are the same. We are talking about what we can expect a court to enforce. Again, just b/c two parties agree to something doesn't mean it will be enforced.

I think a court should ONLY decline to enforce a breach in contract if the breached condition is against the law or against public policy.

I see neither here.

Now, of course, I don't know the whole story... but I'm assuming the woman acknowledged that she represented to the man that she was a virgin and realized due to the nature of the wedding that it was important. In such case, I don't see why a court WOULDN'T enforce the annulment.

Maybe there should be. That's not really the issue however but I see why you would prefer such an idea. Personally I could go along with that but I'd also make marriage much more expansive than it currently is.

I'd like to expand marriage as well, but by the private/religious sector... I'd actually like the state out of it. Have a legal "partner" designation for being able to visit you in the hospital and inherit all that stuff, but that's easily changed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Wezil


I don't know what area of law Imran practices.

I work in pensions and health care law... don't really "practice" in the sense of standing up in front of a judge or anything though.

[Asher]

Marriage is in the state's interest because it supports happier, healthier current citizens

Should the state be distributing pornography free of charge? It results in happier, healthier current citizens.