Patriotranter's Weblog

Now even though I call myself the patriotranter it does not mean I have only a political mind. I do often think about the tragedy that today’s modern families are facing.

Since World War II, women as housewives have been entering the work force at record levels. Few children of the baby boomer era were fortunate enough to be raised not only with two parents who managed to not get divorced but also with a mother who was home all the time to give these children a proper familial environment.

You can easily find a direct correlation between teenage drinking, drug use and even pregnancy by wether or not the child was raised by a parent or raised as a latchkey kid by absentee parents.

Upon entering the new millennia there is an upsurge in parents placing their children in daycare or various after school programs to ”keep them safe” whilst the parents selfishly pursue their own goals.

With both parents working there are certain inevitable events that occur. The child gets sick, school gets canceled for some reason, or plain old school vacations. These events place the parents in a bit of a problem. What to do with the child ? In many households the answer is to simply abandon the child to his or her own devices and hope for the best. Another solution is that one of the parents take time off from work. The parent this falls upon is usually the mother, which leads to women in general getting a bad reputation at work due to their unreliability.

It is my fervent belief that there should always be one parent home to take care of the children and with a modern day economy where both parents are forced to work (due to their own lifestyles exceeding their incomes – but that is an entirely different topic).

The question is how to provide children with a wholesome home environment whilst parents achieve their own personal goals.

The answer is to have three parents. Two parents who work and one parent to stay home and raise the rugrats. 

Of course religious zealots are against this type of activity, but if you ask them to provide a solid topical reason WHY they are against it the best answer you will get is that The Bible is against it. Now we know that The Bible was written solely for the purpose of controlling the unwashed masses. Religion was the main form of government as little as 1000 years ago and anybody with a modicum of intellect knows that the sole purpose of Government is to control the weak minded Why else do you think churches refer to their attendees as a flock of sheep ? Enough said,  there is no reliable argument against the idea of plural marriage. Now we must describe the benefits of plural marriage.

First let me disabuse anyone on the potential sexism of this idea. I am not insisting that every man be allowed multiple wives. Nor am I suggesting that women be saddled with multiple husbands. Although these two concepts would consist most of the dynamics created by this plan there is another possibility of two couples forming a union and living in harmony.

The upside of this is that several parents can go to work and provide a nice solid income whilst the extra parent can stay home and attend to the needs of the children. Also if the parents were working with an understanding company they could rotate the duties at home and the parents who go to work. Having this kind of labor pool available to them would also benefit companies in untold ways.

In families with four parents you could have a situation where two parents work and the other two parents attend college part time whilst raising the children part time. Upon graduation they could find better paying jobs and rotate the duties of all parents.

I can continue to extol the incredible possibilities of plural relationships but there is not one single reason I can come up with against them. Of course religious leaders and political leaders are against them because this kind of activity strengthens the position of the people and weakens the power of the so called leaders. And that right there is the best benefit of them all.