I really, really hate smokers

[Ben Kenobi]

But with the new law we got from new year, the Church of Norway is under pressure to change its marriage practice. It's a pressure on the right of religion and beliefs. But what's worst: People in partnerships can choose if they want to remain in a partnership or convert to the new marriage law. People married under the old law has no such option. If that is not oppressive and excluding, I don't know what is...

This is why the concept of marriage as a right is corrosive. No one has the right to get married in the church. If the church thinks you smell funny, then they can go to you and say, yes, we don't want to marry you.

We are having the same troubles here, as you can see. NYE's opinions are not strange, and we get cases all the time from folks who have been denied access to a church for their gay marriages. This is where the whole concept of respect comes under fire.

If you sincerely believe that others have the right to practice their religion freely, then you cannot demand them to marry you in the church period. Your rights do not trump their rights.

[Nikolai]

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman who loves each other and wants to promise life long faithfulness and love to each other, in both good and bad days, Ben. Sex is an important part of this, but not necessary. Old people who wants to promise life long faithfulness and love, or people who are impotent or something for whatever reason, can still marry. It's a holy promise in front of God and a sign for great affection, not a sexual contract. But sex usually follows of course.

[Nikolai]

This is why the concept of marriage as a right is corrosive. No one has the right to get married in the church. If the church thinks you smell funny, then they can go to you and say, yes, we don't want to marry you.

We are having the same troubles here, as you can see. NYE's opinions are not strange, and we get cases all the time from folks who have been denied access to a church for their gay marriages. This is where the whole concept of respect comes under fire.

If you sincerely believe that others have the right to practice their religion freely, then you cannot demand them to marry you in the church period. Your rights do not trump their rights.

Well said.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, rather my question was whether a Muslim should have a right to refuse to sell important medicine that's wrapped in a certain way just because he wasn't informed this could possibly be expected of him.

I would say yes, given my own experience with vegetarians refusing to handle animal products.

Do keep in mind people hiring other people aren't supposed to ask potential employees what religion they are. They're supposed to assume that if I'm applying for a job, I know what's expected of me, and if I want special treatment due to my personal beliefs, that's something I request before and not after we sign the contract.

I am of the strong belief that if an employee wishes to receive accommodation, they must inform their employer of their religion. I feel disclosure is a two-way street. If a muslim or a Catholic does not disclose that they practice their religion, then I don't feel they have any right to complain when they object to certain practices based on the teaching of their respective religions.

I have had bosses that did not appreciate the disclosure, but then again I have to deal with my disability which generally tends to be a bigger point. I'm a big fan of disclosure and I know it has cost me jobs in the past.

And that's the point I'm making - that I can't see any difference to this hypothetical Muslim who wasn't explicitly warned and a Christian who won't hand out a morning-after pill. And now I'm wondering if you can?

Monk, I don't believe there is a difference between the two. I think that if an employee wishes to receive an accommodation, that they must be open and up front with an employer prior to signing the contract. If something changes along the way, then that's something different. I would feel that an employee who converts while employed has to talk it out with their employer.

[Monk]

If we define it as a certain class of sexual attraction, then I cannot see how you can exclude, say pedophilia as a sexual orientation.

I'm not doing that at all, I absolutely view pedophilia as a sexual orientation. I can't see why somebody would not. I also don't see what it has to do with anything, since the homosexual marriages we argue for are made between adults with the legal option of signing a contract.

Marriage generally has been recognised as an exclusive sexual relationship between a man and a women other then the last few years. If we get away from the sex component, then I don't see how you can define 'marriage' as a sexual relationship at all.

Why should I care what goes on in other people's marriages? And do you think my grandparents should get a divorce, since there's presumably no sexual relationship between them, both being in their eighties?

Look, I'm not dictating to you what you should feel about marriages, I only want that adult people are offered some equality to other adult people in terms of what they can legally do and what they can't. The objective factor of marriage as a legal contract, not the subjective factor of what it means to you or me or anybody.

[Ben Kenobi]

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman who loves each other and wants to promise life long faithfulness and love to each other, in both good and bad days, Ben. Sex is an important part of this, but not necessary. Old people who wants to promise life long faithfulness and love, or people who are impotent or something for whatever reason, can still marry. It's a holy promise in front of God and a sign for great affection, not a sexual contract. But sex usually follows of course.

Sex is so important to marriage, you can see it in Paul's comment:

"For the two are no longer two, but one."

And then later on when he says that there is a limited right to go without sex, but that the man and the women should only do so by mutual consent and only for a time so that they might not be tempted otherwise.

I'd argue if there isn't going to be sex then even if you greatly love the person, you shouldn't get married. By all means, love each other,

Unconsummation is also considered one of the indisputable reasons for annulment.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why should I care what goes on in other people's marriages? And do you think my grandparents should get a divorce, since there's presumably no sexual relationship between them, both being in their eighties?

I presume that your parents weren't adopted.

Look, I'm not dictating to you what you should feel about marriages, I only want that adult people are offered some equality to other adult people in terms of what they can legally do and what they can't. The objective factor of marriage as a legal contract, not the subjective factor of what it means to you or me or anybody.

That's a fine position, but the consequence of the idea that marriage is merely a legal contract raises several questions.

1. Why can't I have more then one 'legal contract'?

2. Why can't I have a legal contract with close family members?

3. Why can't I have a legal contract with flatmates?

You might consider these objections to be subjective, but it raises important challeges to the concept of marriage as merely a contract between two individuals.

[Monk]

Nikolai, am I right to assume Norway's partnership laws didn't quite offer up equality to 'real' marriages' regarding the church? In that case, it's hardly equality we're talking about, is it?

Ben Kenobi, do you understand the implication of Norway's church being a state church? Nobody's arguing that some random church shouldn't be setting its own standards for what it does. But a state church discriminating is the state itself discriminating, just like it would be discriminating if the Norwegian police force began to have different solutions for gays than straights.

[Monk]

I'd argue if there isn't going to be sex then even if you greatly love the person, you shouldn't get married.

Okay, but are you taking that view of marriage and making it a political view?

1. Why can't I have more then one 'legal contract'?

In principle I do think you should be able to marry several people though, or your sister for that matter, to include the second question. But for obvious practical reasons it's impossible to implement, the result would be ranging from legal confusion to legal chaos.

3. Why can't I have a legal contract with flatmates?

Eh... didn't quite understand that one. Can't you have a legal contract with flatmates?

[Nikolai]

Sex is so important to marriage, you can see it in Paul's comment:

"For the two are no longer two, but one."

Do you honestly think this verse has only one layer?

And then later on when he says that there is a limited right to go without sex, but that the man and the women should only do so by mutual consent and only for a time so that they might not be tempted otherwise.

I'd like that quote. I can guarantee you it won't be crystal clear. If you want to argue from the Bible, that's okay. I doubt it'll help in the discussion with non-believers going on here though. But I dare you to come with biblical, undisputable basis for your opinion that sex is the only thing mattering in God's eyes for a marriage to be valid.

I'd argue if there isn't going to be sex then even if you greatly love the person, you shouldn't get married. By all means, love each other,

Your opinion, but again I dare you to support it from the Bible. If you can't base it there, it's your opinion but nothing more, nothing less. Marriage in society must either be based on a secular reasoning or a religious reasoning, or both.

Unconsummation is also considered one of the indisputable reasons for annulment.

Yeah, in the Catholic Church it is, I know. And that is biblical IIRC. But nothing says that becuause it's a valid reason for annulment, that it must result in an annulment. God made men and women to compliment each other in every way, and not only sexually. See Genesis 2.

[Ben Kenobi]

Okay, but are you taking that view of marriage and making it a political view?

I don't think it's any more political then saying that marriage should have nothing at all to do with sex.

In principle I do think you should be able to marry several people though, or your sister for that matter, to include the second question. But for obvious practical reasons it's impossible to implement, the result would be ranging from legal confusion to legal chaos.

Impossible to implement? Well, I'd be curious to hear more why you think it would lead to chaos.

Eh... didn't quite understand that one. Can't you have that?

Why can't I marry a flatmate is what I'm asking.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben Kenobi, do you understand the implication of Norway's church being a state church? Nobody's arguing that some random church shouldn't be setting its own standards for what it does. But a state church discriminating is the state itself discriminating, just like it would be discriminating if the Norwegian police force began to have different solutions for gays than straights.

[ProtestantBK]
All the more reason to disestablish the Church of Norway
[/ProtestantBK]

[CatholicBK]
If you are going to have a state church, you'd be better off to have the Church as your state.
[/CatholicBK]

[Monk]

That's a fine position, but the consequence of the idea that marriage is merely a legal contract raises several questions (...) You might consider these objections to be subjective, but it raises important challeges to the concept of marriage as merely a contract between two individuals.

No it doesn't. It raises challenges to the concept of marriage as merely a contract in my subjective opinion, or yours. Just like you, I don't view the statement 'I'm married to Jane' in the same light as merely 'Jane and I signed a contract'. But in the objective view, in a political perspective, that's what it is, a contract.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just like you, I don't view the statement 'I'm married to Jane' in the same light as merely 'Jane and I signed a contract'.

I didn't think you did either. I'd be surprised if anyone actually viewed marriage in those terms. This is one of the reasons I think we should get back to the state 'recognising' marriages, rather then 'defining marriage'. I don't think it's really the job of the state to decide who can and should get married.

[Monk]

Well, I'd be curious to hear more why you think it would lead to chaos.

Divorcing or inheriting can be difficult enough as it is today, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out how it would be even worse if you could be married to several people who might have other partners themselves etc. It's not technically, but realistically impossible to implement. Unless you disassociate the concept of marriage from the government altogether, which is an interesting thought.

Why can't I marry a flatmate is what I'm asking.

Eh... you can't do that? Then I'm asking along with you, because it sounds absolutely ridiculous that you can't do that.