I think that the purpose of the Geas of Indenture is to undo all the Heroes the Accursed made.
Maybe long ago the Accursed thought that the way Exalted Exaltations worked was pretty cool, but could be improved. So he reworked the multiverse such that anywhere where there is suffering a Hero can arise. Said heroes are backed by fate, gain absurd power appropriate for their world/universe very quickly, and tend to be actually heroic. See both AST stories and EFB for examples of heroes. Or in other words, Heroes are Exalted 2.0, better because they're universal, not dependent on limited quantities of Exaltations, and allow the Hero to power up using magics and powers found locally.
Well some people didn't like this, so they cast the Geas of Indenture which forces the Accursed/Cursebearers to spend all day running around killing all the heroes he made. Conquering is a bit less obvious but I'd imagine that constantly warring to create empires, ruling for a bit, then abandoning them is the exact opposite of the good governence the Accursed was going for.
Oh, good thought! That would explain quite a lot, really. Anyway, back to politics.
You haven't advocated for any such heinous policies, but the principle of government non-interference in personal relationships is one that I think merits vigorous defense at every opportunity.
Ah, so that's why you don't seem to be much engaging with me - you're busy hashing out an argument with something you associate me with!
I think the instinct to keep doing that is one that must be resisted, which is why this post is much shorter than it otherwise would have been. Anyway, here are points that seem like probable disagreements between real-me and real-you:
It is illegal (and immoral) to coerce someone to sign a contract: there is no societal gain associated with singling out sexual transactions as inherently different from other kinds.
Even with as full consent as humanly possible, I believe all forms of sex-as-payment instead of sex-as-investment or sex-as-communication are not good for humans or ontologically similar minds! On either end. There are too many bonding mechanisms attached to sex, for that to ever be healthy.
The argument here is that parents are adults, and have the absolute discretion over who they associate with.
By this logic, adults in power always have the right to turn a blind eye to those in need. Is this justice? It is not. Does this serve a higher ideal than justice? I don't
see one...
If the child is a minor, then the adoptive parents have veto power over any proposed meeting.
Why on earth should the adopted parents be able to deny that meeting? There are far too many real-world cases of white parents 'adopting' black children, and fighting really hard to keep their (loving, but poor) parents from ever seeing them again. It's really awful!
It is cruel to insist, as often happens in the US, that victims of rape share custody with their rapist.
You should
know "right to a relationship with" is not the same as "should be in custody of"! Please don't conflate the two!
It is similarly cruel to insist that a survivor maintain a relationship with the child resulting from their assault.
Hm. That one's a genuine edge case. I'd probably say the child can demand one meeting when they come of age? It's not like it's a thing where safety concerns
can't trump it, just that they need to be reasonably convincing.
I think that's all. You seem like a generally reasonable person, who I would like to be friends with.