If consent to sex is given moment to moment, rather than once and forever, then marriage cannot be a durable contract
Not technically true. Since you have already said marriage is being redefined it just means that the redefinition must be to something which does not necessarily include sex—that is, a contract that allows enforced abstinence. A logically coherent concept even though I find the notion repugnant.
But as Saint Paul rather delicately said, and people in the eighteenth century rather more plainly said, enforced abstinence is not going to fly.
So, if “rape” in marriage is a concept, marriage is not a concept. If marriage is not a concept, massive drop in female fertility and male investment in offspring, decrease in total children, increase in fatherless children.
While the detail of your arguments don’t follow I do agree that enforcing moral values from our time onto another time without taking care to first change all sorts of other parts of the culture would make the selected change we call “progress” actually do significant damage to the people we force our values upon.
Being able to consider the issue of once-off vs ongoing consent to sex to be the particularly significant issue regarding marriage morality is something of a luxury. Compare this to the issue of easy no-fault divorce… which can translate to “the ability to casually destroy the life of the divorced (female) party, leaving her to starve or be forced into prostitution”. This is another thing that I recall Paul speaking on and something far more controversial at the time.
It can be dangerous (and naive) to try to judge or force our values on other cultures without thinking through the effects such changes would have.
But as Saint Paul rather delicately said, and people in the eighteenth century rather more plainly said, enforced abstinence is not going to fly.
Yeah, in certain circumstances people are going to have incentives to break promises (and/or contracts). I don’t think that this is specific to marriage, and I don’t think it makes the concept of marriage invalid.
You cannot, or at least should not, ask people to contract to that which they cannot perform. Thus, moment to moment consent to sex, requires in practice moment to moment consent to marriage, which abolishes marriage. Abolishing marriage violates freedom of contract.
Not technically true. Since you have already said marriage is being redefined it just means that the redefinition must be to something which does not necessarily include sex—that is, a contract that allows enforced abstinence. A logically coherent concept even though I find the notion repugnant.
But as Saint Paul rather delicately said, and people in the eighteenth century rather more plainly said, enforced abstinence is not going to fly.
So, if “rape” in marriage is a concept, marriage is not a concept. If marriage is not a concept, massive drop in female fertility and male investment in offspring, decrease in total children, increase in fatherless children.
Which is not moral progress.
While the detail of your arguments don’t follow I do agree that enforcing moral values from our time onto another time without taking care to first change all sorts of other parts of the culture would make the selected change we call “progress” actually do significant damage to the people we force our values upon.
Being able to consider the issue of once-off vs ongoing consent to sex to be the particularly significant issue regarding marriage morality is something of a luxury. Compare this to the issue of easy no-fault divorce… which can translate to “the ability to casually destroy the life of the divorced (female) party, leaving her to starve or be forced into prostitution”. This is another thing that I recall Paul speaking on and something far more controversial at the time.
It can be dangerous (and naive) to try to judge or force our values on other cultures without thinking through the effects such changes would have.
Yeah, in certain circumstances people are going to have incentives to break promises (and/or contracts). I don’t think that this is specific to marriage, and I don’t think it makes the concept of marriage invalid.
You cannot, or at least should not, ask people to contract to that which they cannot perform. Thus, moment to moment consent to sex, requires in practice moment to moment consent to marriage, which abolishes marriage. Abolishing marriage violates freedom of contract.
Which is not moral progress.
It’s not as though people cannot obey a marriage contract that requires moment to moment consent to sex.
I don’t understand this.
NOTE: please, no-one downvote the parent. I don’t want another conversation cut off mid-discussion by the Troll Toll.