It’s About Making Babies!

I don’t hold much with the Christian fable of ‘one man, one woman’. The Bible has much to say about marriage — and multiple wives are pretty common. The infamous Wedding of Canaan where Jesus sanctifies marriage for Christians may or may not have been the first bride for the groom, and we never hear if this is the last bride for the groom. The Old Testament certainly defines divorce for a war bride — if the other wives don’t get along with her, she is divorced. Another divorce custom is to throw a shoe to the ground in the market — and the wife is divorced.

Looking at divorce courts, and the news in the United States today it is clear that a marriage is generally a legal institution to support a family. That is, marriage defines a peculiar tax status and property standing for divorce and estate purposes. For those that are oh-so-concerned about sanctity of the institution, how about this definition of marriage? “A marriage is a family of two adults with their genetic offspring.” That about covers what needs covering.

I propose a change that takes into account other religions of the world. “An act of birth is an act of marriage.” That is, any woman that gives birth is by law married to the baby’s father, whether she has acknowledged (or informed) him or not. There would be no limit to number of wives, or presumably husbands brought into the ‘family’. I imagine the more adults in a family the less time would be available for one to ’stray’.

On the other hand I would take the courts out of the divorce business. I would replace all divorce legislation with the concept of ‘dissolution of marriage by reason of abandonment’. Any adult entering a marriage (because of ceremony or act of birth) contributes any and all resources owned or controlled; it would be a federal felony to conceal resources. Then any adult could leave a marriage/family by abandoning the marriage. Abandonment would forbid, by federal felony, any attempt to conceal or carry away from the marriage any resources. The abandonment could be effected by filing an ‘intent to abandon’ form by the departing adult, or by filing a ‘claim of abandonment’ against a spouse not in contact with the filing spouse for a stated period, probably between 6 months and 2 years. This would penalize people incarcerated for crimes or working unaccompanied in remote areas as civilians or members of uniformed services, unless their spouses were content to wait. Resources of the marriage/family would *not* include future incomes, pensions, etc.

The intent of my proposed changes to marriage laws is to eliminate the social class of ‘unwed mother’. By giving birth, the woman enters marriage with the baby’s father without legal recourse by either party. This may well result in many adults being married to each other. If there is a reason to make babies, then there is a stronger reason to bring all the resources available together to raise that child.

The reason for the change in divorce law is to remove the courts from the hideous injustice of divorce as practiced (oh, so casually) today in the United States. If the marriage is over, then there can be no continuing and ongoing claim of assets by one party on the other. When a President is voted out of office, he stops being President. When a divorce judge rules a party ‘divorced’, however, the economic relationship is not ended — the judge has apparently unlimited licence to be creative about crafting obligations and responsibilities. The result is that divorce is the single biggest creator of poverty in the United States. We cannot continue to condemn our families, children, and wage earners under this unfair system, corrupted from it’s purpose by the skill of the lawyers and (non-)ethics of the parties involved.

Brad K.

Sex sells. OK, we have all heard this. Sugar also sells. Sugar is fine in it’s place — it makes a moderately effective food preservative. Used for changing the taste of food, however, sugare quickly leads to unsuitable behaviour — overeating and obesity.

Clothes serve several purposes. They allow comfort in a wider temperature range than the skin allows, they provide protection from harsh environments, such as sun, sand, and industrial hazards like fire and flying debris. The choice of clothing ranges from ‘How durable’ and ‘How protective’ to ‘Which guy/girl will be excited to meet me when I wear it?’ Most clothing companies have some part, if not all, of their product line designed to help the wearer meet or excite potential or existing mates (sexual partner that helps to produce a child).

With the emphasis and apparent activity of the adults of America focused on attracting mates to make babies with, what message are we sending our children? Such great effort goes in to the interest, accessories, and skills of attracting a mate — when will we teach them to be satisfied after a mate is chosen. Instead we teach that only the skills to *attract* are useful or necessary. I feel one factor feeding the high divorce rate is allowing our young people to develop skills to attract (dating, obsessing over ‘beautiful’ magazine, movie, and TV stars), and never allow them to observe or develop skills to *live* a life of parenting and couplehood.

I watch my neighbor teaching his 12 year old grandson to drive tractor, lawn mower, and truck. After one or two tries the kid claims experience in driving any vehicle. He will spend years encouraged and guided to gain dating skills — how many lessons will his parents/grandparents provide or insist on at the conclusion of his dating, to teach him how to *stop* trying to attract women, to be interested only in the family he is making?

I see some young people that use their dating skills during their marriage or cohabitation instead of ‘keeping’ skills. Guys as well as gals spend so much time admiring and evaluting other member’s of their mate’s gender they never realize the amount of energy, time, and attention they fritter away.

I tend to avoid the really pretty people. They often define themselves so much in their appearance there is no ‘person’ or character available for connecting to others. For some the admiration of others is the goal, and there is no room for actually talking. Walking through an airport is often an exciting time for me. I spend my time looking for smiles. To me, the most attractive feature a woman can have is a welcoming smile. Without the smile, the rest will never do me any good, anyway. And I do prefer a clean face, no makeup, no tattoos, no piercings (anywhere!). If I want something painted I will buy a painting for over the sofa. Truly. If she really prefers me looking at her paintings, makeup, piercings, instead of her, I have to agree with her, and look for someone else.

I would not state that everyone that wears makeup, pierces, tattooes, or wears provacative clothes is depressed and has severe self-image distortions, but I do think that way about most painted, pierced, tattoed people.

Brad K.