If a man or a woman does not want to have sex, they should not marry, unless he or she can find a spouse similarly inclined.
But the purpose of marriage is much, much more than sexual gratification; it is lifetime companionship and friendship, caring about the other “in sickness and in health”, the raising of children, and thus families are the very foundation of human civilization.
Sometimes due to age or health conditions a spouse cannot have sex. Are you saying that in that case, the spouse who cannot have sex should be rejected? Or the other one has every right to “use” pornography or find sexual gratification elsewhere?
What about during pregnancy? Especially during the last trimester sex is often painful or not recommended; and in the first trimester is not good if the mother has a history of miscarriage.
So according to you a husband who can’t get “laid” every week is prefectly within his rights as a husband to get his rocks off elsewhere?
If that is your idea of marriage, such a man would be better off hiring a prostitute once a week.
If a wife can't be bothered to keep her man happy, that means she doesn't love him any more and the marriage is dead. Note that I say "can't be bothered" rather than "don't feel up to it because of illness"In my post #99:
OK, here's my point: I consider each party in a marriage to have an obligation to keep each other sexually happy. Do you agree or disagree?In a marriage, do you think either party has any obligation to provide anything to their spouse? If so, why? If not, why not?