(no subject)

[sythyry]

[This isn't about real-life gay marriage. The issues, traditions, physical conditions, and theology are all very different. Sythyry wants to discuss this, though I told zir it was potentially flammible. -bb]

And then there's the perplexing and troublesome question, of what sort of marriages to allow in the city.

Let me cite the best case for restricting marriage to same-species that I can. Each species has its own standard and stereotypical pattern of marriage. Cani marry in packs of a dozen or so. Herethroy, with three sexes and unequal numbers, have an intricate arrangement of intersecting triads. Rassimel tend to find a single soulmate, sometimes two, and mate for life. Orren are usually married to two or three people at a time, with a divorce or new marriage every year or two. Zi Ri establish long-term occasional liaisons with a few conspecifics: one year together, eight years apart, say. Gormoror marry in violent heterosexual pairs. Sleeth mate with whom they feel like, and do not marry. Khtsoyis do something gross, I'm sure.

Anyhow -- given this -- how could a Rassimel marry an Orren, say? If the marriage were in Rassimel style, the Orren would not be able to endure it for long. If it were in Orren style, the Rassimel would soon be plunged into despair at the inevitable breakup.

To which there are, I think, two responses:

1. That is only true in stereotype. Some Cani certainly prefer pack marriages. Some -- my own keeper Arfaen -- never found that comfortable, and prefer an Orrenish or (if I must be honest) even a Sleethish style of living. Phaniet has a Rassimel-style [quasi]marriage with Este and seems to prosper in it, though I think Este the Rassimel is more comfortable with the small-for-Cani size of it.

   So, should a Cani with a Sleethish marriage style --- or one not described by any prime species --- be compelled to marry as a Cani? It will not work well!

2. So what? Even if it were true -- true generally, or true in a particular instance --- why should people not be allowed to do things against their nature in this regard? Even things that are likely to end up badly? We do not, for example, forbid the fighting of duels --- we do not forbid gambling, or drinking to the point of sickness and inevitable hangover --- we do not forbid the making of investments that might fail --- we do not forbid a thousand other ways in which a person might risk a greater or lesser disaster. Marriage is a voluntary act (pace the arranged marriages common in certain social strata, which are, in any case, always cisaffectionate). If it goes bad, the victims are the ones who chose it in the first place. So by what rationality do we forbid this one out of the many?

Anyhow, the argument about whether to allow cross-species marriages is more or less irrelevant. If the wrongfolk found a city, cross-species marriages will be allowed in it, and we shall see how that works.

The practical question is, what sort of laws should govern marriages? Ideally the same laws would apply to huge Cani pack marriages and Rassimel couples, to crystalline Herethroy and fluid Orren matters --- and of course to all the combinations.

And, there is the question of tofyofs and prostitutes. I certainly don't want the part of the tofyof laws that forbid all body-play outside of a marriage or tofitude. On the other hand, it is quite likely that the city will be a tourist spot, and that a significant part (let us be realistic) of the tourism will be the sex trade -- probably more of it cross-species than usual. I want to have some laws that protect the workers in that profession. What should those laws be?

Comments

[relee.livejournal.com]

There's a lot of argument of this sort in our world also. Many say that the government should have no reckoning of the relationships between people, as those relationships are theirs to define in their own ways.

Part of the reason that people want to have official marriages as opposed to unofficial personal or cultural marriages comes down to the rights those partners would have with regard to eachother's lives. For example, people who are not blood relatives are not allowed to visit someone in the hospital during an emergency, or if they're unconcious, however people who are married officially are granted this special permission.

Property is also an important matter. The things that the married group has are often mixed and shared as if they were a single person, and if their marriage breaks apart there are questions regarding ownerships and responsibilities, especially in the case that offspring are produced that are not full adults at the point of the breakup.

There are those in my world who note that marriages are effectively very similar to professional relationships such as a business partnership. As such, they suggest that marriage as a sexual or emotional relationship should not be recognized under law, and instead those partners be registered as business partners, allowing any people regardless of their emotional or sexual states to be related to one-another by choice. So, not only can you marry in whatever configuration you wish, but a person may also enter into a relationship without the consideration to what others would consider relations. An example would be a commune, where many folk gather and live like a family, without considering eachother related. They would pool their possessions and responsibilities but if one decided to leave, the same issues would arise as one leaving a marriage.

So, operating on that principle is what I think is best, rather than going for specific types, make a single catch-all personal relationship system. Marriages would be different only by the pomp and ceremony attached to the formation of the relationship.


The sex trade is a difficult matter, and I'm not sure there's any way to be completely safe, but that goes for any sort of trade ultimately. I suppose the most essential thing to define is what a sex act is, and you need to figure out a way to prove it occured, so that if someone tries to get out of payment for the very private service, it can be shown that it happened.

Otherwise I would reccomend something like a Prostitute's Guild, leaving the industry in the open, so that those who choose that business/lifestyle can work together to protect themselves. With that in place, the crimes perpetrated against them are effectively the crimes perpetrated against other businesspeople.

Or that's how it seems to me, at least. The sex trade is not my forte.

[shurhaian.livejournal.com]

I would recommend, especially concerning the sex trade rather than marriages per se, taking a stance of protecting rather than restricting. Yes, protecting one person is restricting another, but in general, it's better to have laws against assault and protect the well-being of bystanders than it is to leave it open and protect the freedoms of the violent and chaotic. A turn of phrase here is "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".

Rather than restricting the structure of marriages, try to focus on preventing possible abuse of them. Ensure that recorded marriages are entered into with the consent of all those involved (leaving aside arranged marriages, again). Ensure that anyone who is being treated unfairly has legal recourse about it - though, given the very differing family customs among the prime species, it's difficult to pin down exactly what should be considered automatically abusive.

The above suggestion of leaving prostitution to a Guild is not an unsound one. The sex trade being what it is, some additional restrictions may need to apply - but ensure that they have a region of reasonable size where they are permitted to ply their trade; don't effectively forbid them by preventing them from advertising themselves. Maybe put restrictions on your eventual city guard that compel them to respond to complaints of assault from people engaged in their trade, even if that trade puts them at higher risk - that may work for other trades, but the sex trade in particular is very dangerous for leaving its practitioners defenseless, and they are often marginalized, considered to have placed themselves in danger of their own free will just by virtue of being what they are.

Actually, aside from any particulars regarding where they can and cannot work, I think the most fair way to govern the sex trade is to have it be treated like any other guild - but do so [i]rigorously[/i], ensuring that they won't be ignored for who they are (or, at least, that such willful ignorance will have harsh consequences if brought to light).

I don't know to what degree you could interfere in Guild doings, but if possible, making it an easy Guild to get into may be best. There are probably going to be people turning tricks for a quick bit of amber anyway; better to make sure they can get into the guild than to have them face ruinous punishments atop what may have already been dire circumstances. (Comparing to Treverre: more like the Hosteler's Guild than the Guilds of skilled trades.)

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

Inheritance is another big subject of law where marriage can tie in. If someone's married to another person, what happens to their property if they die? What if they have children? What if they are murdered by their spouse, can the spouse legally claim their property?

Then there's the 'got X pregnant, are they obligated to get married' kind of thing.

[stormydragon.livejournal.com]

Does marriage need to be a subject of law to begin with? It seems to me that suitably drafted laws on property and family would allow you to dispense with a need for any official recognition of marriage one way or the other. Then it would be up to the individuals to decide what marriage means to them, rather than having a definition imposed upon them by The State.

[sythyry.livejournal.com]

That is the Hanijan style somewhat -- though Hanijan society has firm customs (which are not laws but just as binding) about what a marriage is.

[redbird]

One difference between kinds of marriages, I think, is Does a person marry all the other spouses as a group, or are marriages between individuals? In those interlocking triads, is there a legal or emotional relationship between two people who are in different triads with the same person? I don't know whether it's even possible for a Cani to divorce the rest of zir pack; do packs ever split (say, a divorce dividing one group of a dozen into a seven, a four, and one who swears off marriage forever)?

Given these complexities, I think you need to define several different types of marriage, at least including those currently common on the World Tree. But then let people choose: three Cani could decide to marry Orren-style, for example. A Herethroy could be part of a triad and also have a one-on-one marriage with someone of a different prime species.

There is no obvious answer on this one. I'm only allowed to marry one person at a time, where I live, so questions like "are people married to the same person necessarily married to each other?" haven't really been addressed.

[zeeth_kyrah]

I would have legally-recognized marriage be of two kinds: individual-to-individual, and a group of people together. So if two people chose to marry to a third individual but not to each other, they could have that; but if several chose to marry each other, they can have that. Interlocking triads... would be groups, with individuals choosing the groups to which they belong.

And the first laws I would write after that definition would be regarding inheritance and divorce, taking note of the general possibilities. Specific law for specific situations can wait for cases to be tried, since a zi-ri has time to refine their creations.

[kensaro.livejournal.com]

Also marriage contracts could contain a clause specifically allowing or forbidding (or defining the scope of) other marriages fore one or more individuals in the marriage.

[stormydragon.livejournal.com]

Contracts generally can't allow or forbid anything; they can only itemize penalties which will occur if the parties do or don't do particular things.

[gavinfox.livejournal.com]

I would say that you should attempt to not tie protections specifically for marriage... you should have protections that apply regardless of whether or not someone is married or not.


And really, why do you want to regulate *marriage in particular*?

I would say, try to keep marriage as a religious or social construct, and separate it from as much legal framework as possible.

Instead, have an alternate, legal framework for egalitarian, presumably romantic partnerships. Call it Civil Partnerships or Civil Unions or something. Give it some of the same legal benefits of marriage, what with combined bank accounts, combined property, being able to pay rent as a single unit, being able to make decisions for one another should one be incapacitated, etc.

[postrodent.livejournal.com]

I rather like this argument. Protect people, but don't try to force their very many ways of sharing space, bodies and affection into a limited number of configurations.

As to the sex worker question -- I like the guild concept, but I think you should go canvass some sex workers. Ask them what their problems are and how they'd solve them, given a bit of power. Air your ideas with them and take note of their responses.

[gavinfox.livejournal.com]

Laws that protect sex workers... lessee... stuff to protect their security of their person, to be free from slavery or forced servitude, freedoms of movement and residence, to have favorable work conditions, to participate equally in society, to marry and found a family, to have protection against discrimination, etc.

[bloofox.livejournal.com]

I rather like the idea of scrapping legal marriage and replacing it with a series of property, custody, and power of attorney agreements that can span more than a couple, for the maximum flexibility, as has been mentioned.

But as for sex workers, wouldn't you want some manner of inspection to make sure they aren't being mistreated, ensure that they can leave the profession whenever they wish, and test them for infectious diseases? (Assuming you have infections diseases that can be transmitted that way.)

[stormydragon.livejournal.com]

But as for sex workers, wouldn't you want some manner of inspection to make sure they aren't being mistreated, ensure that they can leave the profession whenever they wish

Suppose that a official goes to insepct John Q. Sexworker and decides "John is being mistreated". Then what happens? Suppose John disagrees with the official's assessment?

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

I rather like the idea of scrapping legal marriage and replacing it with a series of property, custody, and power of attorney agreements that can span more than a couple, for the maximum flexibility, as has been mentioned.

Exactly.

Every couple is different. A marriage should be what the people taking part in it decide. There can be default marriage contracts that follow species (or culture) specific forms, but it should be just a default -- not the only choice.

I think that it would be an excellent idea if people spent time thinking about the rights and responsibilities of marriages. Most people will be comfortable with those of their parents, but some will have different ideas.

[rowyn]

This was my thought, too.

[archadia.livejournal.com]

I am not touching this with any-sized pole. It all makes me so tired. =/

[delicateart.livejournal.com]

Why should the government be involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form? Marriage is a religious / social compact, and the government should not offer any benefit to those who undertake it, or any penalty to those who do not. Keep government's nose out of the whole thing, and let it be a matter for the married, their friends, and their gods.

[mazlynn.livejournal.com]

My prefered approach has always been to let those about to engage in the marriage decide what form the marriage should take, and establish a binding contract outlining what form it should take, and what consequences. Perhaps set up some default social rules that will be in play unless the contract specifically voids them (things like parental resposibility for any offspring, inheritance/sharing of property, etc.) But otherwise, let the mariagees decide the terms of the marriage, and the punishments that should hold if they fail to follow through on those terms.

cheerleaders teen tiny

[(Anonymous)]

Definitely vicious gfs are seekingsome new sexual adventure with loveable fellows.Alone and exited the ex-girlfriends need the muscled buddy to pay them a visit and feed their hungry throats.
Please yourself watching the spectacular ex-gf hotties in web’s top HQ gf collection. Use the chance and check out all those soft melons you love!
[URL=http://0da.org]cheerleaders chargers[/URL]

japanese cheerleaders nude
sluty cheerleaders nude
auburn cheerleaders nude
bothell wash cheerleaders
wet nfl cheerleaders
morehouse college cheerleaders
sharks nrl cheerleaders
cheerleaders spread legs
redskins cheerleaders pics
smu basketball cheerleaders
cheerleaders attractive pictures
ballas cowboy cheerleaders
funny chargers cheerleaders
usc cheerleaders images
cheerleaders orgy
jr high cheerleaders
cheerleaders photos kings
cheerleaders in porn
nude american cheerleaders
young cheerleaders shower
sexy young cheerleaders

[URL=http://0da.org/nba-cheerleaders-ass]nba cheerleaders ass[/URL]
[URL=http://0da.org/cheerleaders-getting-fucked]cheerleaders getting fucked[/URL]
[URL=http://0da.org/naked-lesbian-cheerleaders]naked lesbian cheerleaders[/URL]
[URL=http://0da.org/unc-cheerleaders-roster]unc cheerleaders roster[/URL]
[URL=http://0da.org/dallas-star-cheerleaders]dallas star cheerleaders[/URL]

On breach of contract

[rowyn]

One thing you'll want to consider is what contracts between primes *cannot* compel. In my country, for example, I can't legally enslave myself, or indenture myself. I can sign a contract that would penalize me if I broke it, but only monetarily: I can't legally authorize someone to flog me or imprison me or break my legs if I breach the contract.

One reason my country doesn't permit these things is to keep people from being tricked or coerced into a bad contract from which they have no practical recourse.

Likewise, you may wish to allow the state to punish individuals for law-breaking in ways which you would not allow individuals to punish contract-breaching.