I grew up on Heinlein stories. He was always speculating about alternative marital arrangements, including future societies in which a couple would go up to the registry window and choose from a variety of contracts, temporary, long-term, etc. The funny thing is that his protagonists invariably got to the window and said, "Old-fashioned, non-contingent, for life," thus shocking the registrar. He was a great one for freedom of choice, but the people he identified with committed for life unconditionally.
The form has actually existed before. In Scotland, it was called "handfasting."
There's an Shi'a law parallel called Nikah al-Mut'ah that translates as "pleasure marriages," which can be of so short a term as to legalize prostitution.
So it's been done. The question is, is there any "rational basis" to reject it that will stand up to SCOTUS' five-person-majority? Or does our embrace of a secular society mean that we'll eventually be obligated to accept this too?
We wouldn't have to accept it, just accept among us those who do.
I'm not too worried; the empirical evidence is that those things don't last, or don't spread: they don't work.
The only thing I'd worry about is the claim they'd think their failure gives them to our stuff. But that's a claim too many others are making without foundation, already; that fight's already joined.
Don't work for whom? The Shi'ite form is very popular with pilgrims today, as it allows them to 'marry' a girl for a few days during the trip to Najaf or Karbala. The girl's father collects a dowry for the couple of days of his daughter's time, and the pilgrim has a perfectly lawful marriage that he can enjoy for a few days or a week, then walk away from with no further obligation.
So one way to object to it might be that it is effectively prostitution, and don't we have laws against prostitution? But these days, I wonder if we won't be told that there's no rational basis to oppose prostitution. Why shame fellow citizens who want to make a free choice about whom to have sex with, on the basis of a little gift?
One of the things you used to say a lot, another occasion when you've altered my way of thinking about things, was -- I paraphrase, but I think you'll recognize the sentiment -- 'We hear we should not legislate morality, but there's no alternative. If we aren't legislating our morality, someone else is legislating their's.'
Now I used to think, as a youth and a young man, that legislating morality was a terrible idea. I've come to see your point.
I grew up on Heinlein stories. He was always speculating about alternative marital arrangements, including future societies in which a couple would go up to the registry window and choose from a variety of contracts, temporary, long-term, etc. The funny thing is that his protagonists invariably got to the window and said, "Old-fashioned, non-contingent, for life," thus shocking the registrar. He was a great one for freedom of choice, but the people he identified with committed for life unconditionally.
ReplyDeleteThe form has actually existed before. In Scotland, it was called "handfasting."
ReplyDeleteThere's an Shi'a law parallel called Nikah al-Mut'ah that translates as "pleasure marriages," which can be of so short a term as to legalize prostitution.
So it's been done. The question is, is there any "rational basis" to reject it that will stand up to SCOTUS' five-person-majority? Or does our embrace of a secular society mean that we'll eventually be obligated to accept this too?
We wouldn't have to accept it, just accept among us those who do.
ReplyDeleteI'm not too worried; the empirical evidence is that those things don't last, or don't spread: they don't work.
The only thing I'd worry about is the claim they'd think their failure gives them to our stuff. But that's a claim too many others are making without foundation, already; that fight's already joined.
Eric Hines
Don't work for whom? The Shi'ite form is very popular with pilgrims today, as it allows them to 'marry' a girl for a few days during the trip to Najaf or Karbala. The girl's father collects a dowry for the couple of days of his daughter's time, and the pilgrim has a perfectly lawful marriage that he can enjoy for a few days or a week, then walk away from with no further obligation.
ReplyDeleteSo one way to object to it might be that it is effectively prostitution, and don't we have laws against prostitution? But these days, I wonder if we won't be told that there's no rational basis to oppose prostitution. Why shame fellow citizens who want to make a free choice about whom to have sex with, on the basis of a little gift?
We wouldn't have to accept it, just accept among us those who do.
ReplyDeleteBingo.
FWIW, I think this is a lousy idea. Grim wonders if we do this, we will be told there's no rational basis to oppose prostitution.
But we're already being told that.
One of the things you used to say a lot, another occasion when you've altered my way of thinking about things, was -- I paraphrase, but I think you'll recognize the sentiment -- 'We hear we should not legislate morality, but there's no alternative. If we aren't legislating our morality, someone else is legislating their's.'
ReplyDeleteNow I used to think, as a youth and a young man, that legislating morality was a terrible idea. I've come to see your point.
You've changed my perspective on a number of issues as well, Sir Grim :)
ReplyDeleteBenefits of not just talking to people who can be counted upon to agree with you!