I don't mean to suggest all morals are relative or that changes in the moral compass reflect a necessary progress. I am just pointing out that if the pillars of society are tampered with in the right manner, practically any sort of human behaviour can be given the green light.
Nature is not random. We might have a messy societal system that often seems more
disorganized than otherwise, but in other circumstances the results appear even rockier. It is hard to properly measure quality of life in certain aspects, and the fact of a component within a larger successful system does not require the component itself to be optimal, proper, or functional, as long as it is
not dysfunctional in particular ways.
To wit, we have a lot of complaints, in these United States, about our pretense of a "justice" system that is inherently afraid of, and thus biased against, dark skin. There is much work to do. Still, it is better than we have seen in, say, the not so ancient history of rifleborne vendetta. And while it is, in theory, possible to put down enough corrupt law enforcers to usurp the power, history indicates quite clearly that vendetta is ouroboros; we have a notion of justice that is supposed to break free of that circle. That we fail to stop taking out our frustrations on people with darker skin is a testament to our own failures, not those of any proper justice.
Similarly, marriage and nuclear family are not necessarily the end-all optimization of humanity. Ceaseless complaint meaans very much work to do. To the other, we might consider two practical, functional points: First, the system we have is not arbitrary; nature is not random. Even the idea of
adopted and
gathered family precedes the legal structures, written word, and even society itself. Indeed, we see it in nature; it precedes our very humanity, and is a fundamental component thereof.
The
idea of optimizing societal structure in terms of what family traditionally does—and Huxley's
Brave New World can reasonably stand in here as a symbol of alternatives—can be construed to make a certain amount of sense in academic discourse, perhaps regaling the litany of benefits compared to our present savage brutality in lieu of true civilization, but in the question of achieving such outcomes we need to consider how it goes. Remember:
A place for everything and everything in its place, is a fine saying, but human beings are not well known for working and playing together so well; even after achieving enough common cause to begin, we still must overcome the arbitrary resistance of those who hold out on the pretense that, well, someone
must, or else it just ain't right: "Oh, no, I don't
oppose you," one might say, "it's just that it's not right if there isn't any dissent; I'm merely being the responsible person in the room."
Even setting that faction aside—(and, remember, taking them out back and leaving them to rot in the ditch is no proper justice)—if everyone hopped onboard in sincerity we would need approximately three generations of transition before we could start gathering a particular range of data that represents echo effects reverberating after achieving a threshold by which the transformation can be reasonably called complete. That is, three generations, we could start documenting the nightmares of dying remembrance.
In that context, we Americans are how many generations after Emancipation, and have not yet reached our intended threshold; we still document the nightmares of dying and remembrance of the dead. Equal Protection and Justice proper are still just abstract phrases describing thresholds we pretend to wish to achieve.
It's not an encouraging prospect.
Even still, it seems we are considering something entirely different than, if such a classification exists, ordinary discussions of radically and deliberately altering societal propagation strategies among a species. This appears to be entirely about hoping to make it easier for a heterosexual man to get laid.
The species isn't culling its egg supply in order to accommodate the proposition, so ...
1. The "social" marriage, intended to:
- Cooperate on everyday domestic challenges and household chores
- Counter loneliness
- Cooperate to bring up a baby together
2. Sexual relationship, intended solely to satisfy sexual needs.
Imagine if the society morally accepts and support by law this separation, so you can enter the marriage, and if you feel your sexual life started to fade out with years (something that happens with most married couples), both of you are free to find a sexual partner solely for the purpose of having sex and bring variety to your intimate lives, while still maintaining a friendly relationship with your actual spouse and responsibility for your children.
Of course, this is optional, and you can insist on keeping the relationship the "classic" way (love until death) and resist any sexual advances from other people, but you cannot forbid your partner to use the privilege should he/she decide so. Also, I remind you that in our alternative timeline this is considered acceptable, normal, and is not frowned upon by society or your spouse in any way.
... er ... ah ... I mean, I'm gay, so, y'know, fine, whatever, we kind of already have that and ... I mean ... perhaps I'm looking at this wrong: I presume there is some manner of formalization, here, because otherwise I'm back to every day reality, including phrases like, "lesbian bed death" either is or isn't a phenomenon unlike anyone else in a secure relationship deciding they are bored enough in bed to step out. In any case, I cannot speak specifically to the practical considerations about lesbian promiscuity; STI numbers are what they are, and women generally do not, at this point in history, need reminding of practical implications. But in my gay male world, stepping out of a safe relationship is
dangerous; twenty years ago, in my area, one in four of my gay cohort were HIV positive. We're in the middle of another opioid wave; it's
terrifying. Depending on where we're looking ... I mean, if our choices are half of identifying gay black men being positive—suggesting pockets of wasteland where it's up over three-quarters, owing to various factors including the downlow—or a truly grotesque sampling and methodological collapse, the uncertainty is existential in either case. And we just saw epidemic show its head in a small Indiana county.
To the one, the topic proposition seems to be suggesting a variation on every day, and the question of formalization arises therefrom. To the other, in either case, practical considerations abound.
We need not argue the possibility of such a scenario; it is easy enough to consider that the proposition lacks certain practical considerations that are well-known in the range of ideas intended to hopefully make it easier for heterosexual men to get laid.
Which brings us 'round: Here, have a coupon, for 20% off copay at Triple V Discount Vasectomat, where Doctors Vikram, Victor, and Vasily will make quick business so you can give her better business. They have a higher satisfaction rate than either Super Snips or SportVas, and the drive-thru window will be open after Memorial Day weekend.
Because as it seems the proposition separates sexual gratification and reproduction, well, isn't the point to keep those two parts separate?
At which point Oil Can Henry's will
stop doing lube jobs transition away from auto services in order to compete with the Jar Jerks, and Pep Boys will match by throwing in a free solar-powered refrigerator.
You know, because we're not going to cull the egg supply for this. Sperm cells are easy to come by, so why not put a few in the freezer in case one decides they've made a mistake, or maybe needs new kids because the last ones died in a fire he wasn't around to save them from because he was busy chasing tail at the bar.
It is correct to say, "if the pillars of society are tampered with in the right manner, practically any sort of human behaviour can be given the green light", as long as we observe a definition of "right" meaning, approximately, "conducive". It is an important context.
But two important aspects about the inquiry are the comparative of being wrong "because society told you so", and hopes to avoid arguing "the possibility of such scenario". We can skip past the possibility by simply suspending disbelief and attempting to account for the circumstances by which it becomes possible. If society tells us so, society is still human, and will not be perfectly consistent or accurate in its expressions. Even ancient superstition had its germ of truth; the question is whether what we do with that is logical or not. The way around that question is to deliberately destroy the species; generally speaking, though, the guiding impulses determining our evolutionary result tend toward perpetuity, security, and advancement of species; it is within our recognition and capability to forestall certain practical challenges. In the context of tampering with pillars of society in a conducive manner, appeals to masculine sexuality are easy enough.
Then again, I could also be wrong in focusing so much on the masculine perspective; I just never hear this from women. And there is a big difference 'twixt the proposition of lesbian bed death and why heterosexual women step out. Or maybe not; women can tell us all about it, true, but, really, they seem virtually invisible in the topic proposition.