(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.