What if the government reinstated the Homesteading Act?

We’re not talking about the old Homesteading Act but of a revised version of it to address the very real concerns of food shortages in the coming years.

The Revised Homesteading Act could be offered to any American citizen who wished to accept and work a parcel of land, say 5 to 20 acres or larger depending on the current need for a certain crop or animal.  Once the land is awarded, the government would provide a home to meet the minimum requirements of the award recipient (could be a mobile home or kit home to start).  The award recipient could always build a better home later on.  The government would also provide the initial equipment or tools necessary for the award recipient to begin working the land and planting the specified crops or to begin breeding a certain animal.  No yearly taxes would be collected. 

The government could then demand that 50-75% of the goods (vegetables, herbs, stock born) produced on the given land be awarded to them for the next 10 to 30 years as payment for the land, home and start up costs.  Using current prices, the government could keep track of “payments” and once the complete startup cost has been paid in full or 30 years has passed whichever comes first, the land and home would belong to the award recipient free and clear.

In essence, the award recipients would be shirt-tail employees of the government.  They could receive a small living stipend to take care of their own personal needs.  The government could offer training classes to award recipients focusing on the specifics of growing a certain crop or raising of a certain animal so the award recipient would not have the excuse of ignorance for lack of production.  Any award recipient not producing a minimum requirement for 3 consecutive years would be removed and the operation passed to another.  The government could change crops every few years if needed.

The Revised Homesteading Act would not be for people wishing to “Get Rich” or profit themselves from the land and government but rather for people who would be content to live in the country a simple life, willing to work hard, work the land, and help to decrease hunger in the process.  People with high debt or other financial obligations that could not be met with the small living stipend would probably not be good candidates. 

This would be ideal for single parents with support from extended family or low income married couples who find it difficult in today’s society to even dream of owning their own property.  For larger parcels of land, a cooperative could be formed between several award recipients who were willing to work together, live on the same land, and share in the ownership once all obligations are met.  Guidelines could be drafted to deal with the removal of one party or another with cause.

 

 

What if discipline between a man and wife was the norm?

Let’s first begin by stating that we are not referring to anything “kinky”.  We are exploring the old fashioned idea of discipline within the home between a Husband and Wife with the sole purpose of keeping the peace within the home.

Discipline may take many forms from the very subtle diapproving “look” that is designed to stop or change a behavior, to the neon sign of physical punishment.  While it is currently unlawful to raise a hand to your spouse without their consent, it is not against the law if consent is given and abuse does not become the end result, just as it is lawful to give a child a few swats on the bottom to deter bad behavior.

The first question that comes to mind is why anyone in their right mind would agree or consent to discipline?  There are many reasons a husband or wife may give their consent to in home discipline.  Many people have grown up themselves in homes that were not altogether peaceful, where yelling and screaming arguments were the norm.  They may find themselves falling into the same category within in their own homes against their own desires.  Many people harbor behaviors that are self-destructive to themselves and find in home discipline a way of combating these behaviors.  Usually seen in women, some may have a need or desire to explore a submissive nature, respecting the history of a woman’s role since the beginning of time.  Others may set their reasons in spirituality or religious beliefs.  The reasons for in home discipline may be varied, but the hope of the end result is the same - respect for each other and harmony in the home.

Not very long ago, discipline of a spouse was normal.  Unfortunately for many, there were no regulations protecting the disciplined spouse from abuse though and through the years, laws have been enacted to protect each person.  

So what if in home discipline became the norm again?  Certainly it would never be as it was before as we do have laws protecting us in force to prevent abuse.  A modified, gentler version of discipline with consent is what we would see. 

What might this accomplish?

• More homes with less bickering and fighting, especially in front of the children
• More defined roles within the family
• An increase in respect within the home, not only of the one performing the discipline but also of the partner.  Personal accomplishments and goals of each recognized and respected.
• Irresponsibility would decrease as consequences would be enforced leading to more responsible adults
• Destructive behaviors would decrease

How many times have you known couples that caused you to just sit and shake your head in confusion wondering how they could stand to live in the same house?  How many times have you wanted to shake one of your neighbors because of a destructive habit of theirs or because the shouting from next door was drowning out your TV?  How many times have you known someone that just needed to grow up some and wondered why their husband or wife put up with them? 

We all have known or seen these types of situations.  Each person is an individual.  Each person has habits and behaviors they may need assistance in overcoming.  Each adult has the memory of the child they were within them and that child may surface when least expected or wanted.  Each person has the right to consent to this type life or not.  What if discipline became the norm again? 

What if?

 

What if Mom’s were paid what they were worth?

Job description for Mom:

• Days/Hours required - Non-negotiable:  7 Days/week 168 Hours/week
• Cook - Must be able to plan and prepare 3 meals per day plus snacks for a varying number of people
• Laundry - Must be able to keep up with the laundry for all household members and be able to get out stubborn stains.  Sewing ability desired.
• Medic - Must have basic first aid knowledge with a strong ability to diagnose illness. 
• Chauffer/Taxi Driver - Must have a good driving record with an emphasis on safety and defensive driving.  Must be able to map out best possible routes with little to no advance notice.
• Receptionist - Must be able to multi-task while answering and directing phone calls.  Must be able to record accurate messages.  Experience with multiple scheduling a plus.
• Bookkeeper - Experience necessary. 
• Personal Shopper - Must be willing to do the grocery shopping, clothes shopping, electronics shopping, birthday/anniversary/holiday shopping as needed, everyday if needed.
• Home healthcare attendant - Ability to follow doctor’s instructions for the care of the patient
• Childcare Attendant - Expert in child development
• Teacher - Must be able to teach young children reading, writing, arithmetic and other subjects as needed.
• Housekeeper - Responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the entire house.  Washing dishes, mopping, sweeping, vacuuming, dusting, washing windows, shampooing carpets and furniture.  Some duties are on a daily basis. 
• Interior Designer - good taste required along with practicality.
• Groundskeeper - Responsible for the maintenance of all outdoor areas.

The above duties and roles in no way are 100% representative of the position of Mom.  The person filling the role of “Mom” must be flexible and adapt to changes instantly.

Pay:

There is no possible way to keep track of all the hours “Mom” devotes to each position.  Therefore, if we take an average hourly wage of $15 per hour for a 40 hour week ($600) and $22.50 per hour overtime hours ($2880) = $3,480.00 per week or $180,960 per year earnings.

$180,960.00 a year conservatively.

I don’t know about all of you “Mom’s” out there but I don’t know a single Mom, myself included, that makes anywhere close to that.

Looking at our society and government, I shake my head in confusion at times.  There are government assistance programs designed to “help” low income families by granting them money for childcare costs, transportation costs, healthcare costs, even rental assistance.  It makes no sense to me for several reasons.

The government will help a Mom by paying someone else to watch her children but they will not pay her to watch her own children.  Or if she has a grandparent in the same home with her, they will not pay the childcare cost to the grandparent but they will pay it to a stranger outside of the home.

Our government and society wishes for the “Family” to be strengthened again and yet we live in a society that forces both parents to work in order to make ends meet.  One income households are no longer feasible.  Very few are able to live off of one income.

How do we strengthen the Family unit when parents are kept from their children by necessity?  When a Mom no longer has the choice to spend most hours of the day with her children, instead they are to be raised by strangers.  When single parents are forced to take 2 and 3 part-time jobs in order to work 7 days a week for pay so they can keep a roof over their heads and food on the table?

For all the Mom’s out there - Keep up the good work!  Keep your chin’s up and know that you’re worth you’re weight in gold!  Happy Mother’s Day!

 

 

What if ‘Cuddling’ took the place of the Bar Scene?

I had to write something on this subject as I just read an article on Shine (through yahoo) about ‘Cuddling Parties’.  In explanation, a cuddling party, as I understand it, is a group of people who get together for an overnighter in order to cuddle each other in a non-sexual way.  They hug, massage, spoon together etc. but do so in a non-sexual manner.  The groups can be previous friends or friends of friends or strangers even. 

I find that in my attempt at impartiality in this blog, on this subject I have to interject the simple, yet biased viewpoint of “YEAH RIGHT” (sarcastically intoned.)

As a full-blooded American female, single and not emotionally numb or dead, I have to say that if I personally attended a ‘Cuddle Party’ and a handsome man began massaging my shoulders and whispering in my ear only to ’spoon cuddle’ with me later, the whole concept of ‘just cuddling’ would fly out the window of my mind very quickly.  Let’s be real…

Now, on another note… What if these cuddling parties took the place of the current meat-market bar scenes? 

In the current bar scene it’s a thrill to make eyes at your potential conquest.  The butterflies in the stomach; the rush of beginning attraction.  Most are there to have fun, maybe meet someone new, and make new friends with the possibility of developing relationships.  Unfortunately, the consumption of alcohol and the public arena tends to get in the way of anything lasting and solid. 

The idea of a cuddle party is intimate, thrilling in a similar way as the bar scene, and private.  Unlike the bar scene, one is made vulnerable in the private setting of a small cuddle party. 

Back to reality for a moment ~ wouldn’t it be grand if one could attend a cuddle party and instantly feel whole and accepted and possibly meet their lifelong mate?  Of course it would, however I expect the reality of it is far from the fantasy one conjures at the thought of such intimacy.  Reality means that unless you are doing the choosing as to who attends your party, you may well wind up in a group that gives you the creeps. 

I cannot say that these ‘Cuddle Parties’ are a good thing or a bad thing.  I cannot say if they would be safe or not.  I suspect that not all of the parties are completely non-sexual, at least for some in attendance.  I also suspect that for many they may indeed pose an alternative to staying home alone and being depressed. 

However, this idea does allow for interesting thoughts and may very well be a part of someone’s idea of Utopia. 

What if healthcare focused on prevention?

Healthcare today focuses mainly on finding cures for existing diseases and treatment of diseases once people are diagnosed.  What would happen to our healthcare system if they focused on actually preventing illness and disease before it strikes?

Vaccinations exist for our children that prevent certain illness and disease but it is not enough. 

Society knows that to improve their chances of staying healthy they should get regular exercise, eat right, not smoke, not do drugs and not drink.  But it is not enough.

Even health conscious people who do “nothing” wrong wind up with heart disease, lung cancer, colon cancer, breast cancer, hepatitis, and yes even HIV and AIDS.  It is not enough.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could all go into the Doctor’s office and submit to an easy test and have our Doctor tell us that, “Hey, you are in good health right now but you are predisposed to this disease and that disease and you need to change your life this way in order to avoid it.  Your gene’s told me.”

Instead of relying on questionable patient family histories that may or may not be complete, depending on the person’s knowledge of their family; a Doctor could perform a simple test and let us know FOR SURE what we need to watch out for down the line.

Even better, our healthcare system would help us prevent the illness or disease, rather than just scramble to treat it once it lifts its nasty head.  Insurance companies wouldn’t turn down claims due to “pre-existing” conditions, rather there would be no question about payout as they would know in advance what to expect for each insured and could allocate funds as needed.

Knowing in advance of a certain possibility doesn’t mean we could avoid every instance but it sure could cut down on the number of unpleasant surprises. 

Our healthcare system right now in conjunction with health insurance companies are similar to a woman trying to get the police to protect her from an abusive husband or ex or boyfriend.  The answers are similar.  “We can’t arrest him until he actually does something.  If he hits you or trys to kill you, then we can arrest him.”

Hmmm sound familiar?  Doctor’s “Well, until you actually develop a disease we can’t treat you.  Come back in 6 months for a recheck.  And then come back again and again and again until the disease shows up and then it will be too late.” 

Health Insurance - “That treatment is preventative and not necessary we won’t pay.  We’ll pay if and when the patient develops the disease.”  Just signing up for insurance “Oh we’re sorry, that’s a pre-existing condition so we won’t pay for treatment for at least 2 years.”

Does any of this make sense?  Wouldn’t it make better sense to fund preventative measures, a little here and there, than wait for an emergency to happen that costs 10’s of thousands of dollars? 

If our healthcare system focused on the prevention of illness and disease, perhaps we could avoid many of the emergencies down the line.  Until Health Insurance companies open their eyes to the benefits of prevention, this can’t happen. 

 

What if civilized people didn’t fear death or aging?

How different our lives would be if we didn’t have this deep-seeded fear of death!  Many people deny being afraid to die and yet they are the same people spending thousands of dollars to look younger, feel younger, and prevent the aging process.  Why?  Because the older they look or feel the more real the concept of their own mortality is and they fear it.

This topic branches off into many different areas, from our healthcare system all the way to our values.  We will only address a few areas in the post as other articles are already waiting to be written that will address more of the others.

Let’s look at how this fear may relate to our healthcare system.  A fear of dying has a direct impact on our healthcare system in general.  It defines the way we view healthcare.  Instead of focusing on quality of life, our healthcare system focuses on our life-span.  Oftentimes, people are forced to seek alternative medicines and therapies if they wish to improve their quality of life in the time they have left.  Patients who opt for quality of life rather than quantity, are often made to feel as if they are not “thinking clearly”, when in fact, treatment or lack of treatment is a right held by all.

Modern medicine has a mind-set to find “cures” for everything.  When there is no cure available or known, the patient is given heavy drugs in order to manage any pain or to slow down the disease.  More often than not, these heavy drugs are accompanied by side effects that are sometimes worse than the disease itself.  If left to run its course, the patient may die sooner, but they would feel better in the time they have left.

With the push to prolong life and cure every disease, we are losing sight of one major factor that has a global impact on our environment - natural selection.  With each cure found, each new treatment option that adds 5 or 10 more years to a person’s life, each new breakthrough, unbalances our world even more.  There is relatively no natural selection left except in third-world countries.  Our world population is out of control and only getting worse.  We are taxing our natural resources and we are beginning to feel the affects.

What would happen to our world if people changed their focus to a better quality of life and didn’t worry about how long their life might be?  We would definitely see more people out there really living life and enjoying themselves.  Nothing in excess is good but they would think twice about sitting at home in front of their TV’s for hours on end.  We would see a decline in healthcare spending in the area’s of:  unnecessary plastic surgery; pharmaceuticals; a decline in treatments and surgeries that have a high potential for decreased function; treatments for terminal diseases other than quality of life improvements. 

One area that would certainly be affected would be healthcare insurance.  If you weren’t concerned with dying or aging, why would you waste thousands of dollars a year on insurance you may or may not ever use?  People could save the money they would normally spend on insurance premiums in the event they need quality of life improvements later on.

I’ve heard that this type of outlook would bring about more deaths.  I find that statement ridiculous as it cannot bring about more deaths.  When each person is born they know they are going to die.  The number does not change.  Only the time of death may change. 

People may die sooner than they would if they underwent major treatments and therapies.  This is true.  If there is no fear of death or aging, people would accept that death and aging are a part of life.  This is not a new concept.  Since the beginning of time, people have been born, they age, and they die.  It is not a mathematic formula.  It is not exact.  Some die early, some later.  That is the way of life and to fight it every step of the way is to not live fully for today. 

Just how much do we want to let fear run our lives?  It prevents us from living life fully.

What if we didn’t have to put the wash in the dryer?

I am picturing a washing and drying machine.  They are side by side and one unit.  We put the dirty clothes in the washer side.  When the washing and rinsing and spinning is all done, a little sensor tells the dryer that it is time to begin working.  An electronic hatch opens up between the washing bin and the dryer.  An electronic arm with a grabber attachment (sort of looks like one of those little screw picker uppers only bigger) reaches through the hatch and pulls the wet clothes into the dryer.  There is sensor in the wash basin that alerts the dryer arm when all clothes have been removed. 

The grabber attachment then retracts back into place inside the dryer.  The hatch closes and seals.  The dryer then turns on to an automatic dry cycle that senses when the clothes are completely dry (no more humidity in the dryer). 

Think we’re done?  Not yet.

None of us like to come home to find wrinkled cold clothes in the dryer after work.  There is a setting that allows us to choose the start time of the dryer.  We could set it for an hour before we arrive home from work. 

Voila!  Think we’re done?  Not yet.

Most households have more than 1 load of laundry to do.  Above the washer could hang a basket holding the 2nd load of dirty clothes.  When the 1st load is pulled into the dryer, the top opens up and the basket bottom drops the 2nd load of dirty clothes into the washer.  The top senses completion and dumps the reserve detergent into the washer to clean the 2nd load.  The top of the washer closes and the pre-set washing cycle begins.

Now that would be a time saver! 

Now we’re done.

What if children were able to vote?

This is an interesting concept.  What if children were allowed to vote?  Children are innocent.  They don’t look at the world as adults do.  They aren’t jaded yet.  They are honest in their opinions.  There are no hidden agenda’s to their thoughts (unless they are trying for a new bike, iPod or MP3 player). 

I’m not suggesting we allow little children to vote, but let’s explore the possibility for the age range between 14 and 18 years old (high school).  In my son’s school they hold mock votes with regards to the presidential elections.  They chat about the issues of healthcare, education, the war on terror, medicare and social security, along with the national debt.  I’m always surprised when he comes home and I learn that he knows more about these issues than I do!  That is part of what school is for - to teach our children.  Sometimes we forget that they actually learn things in school!  What is even more shocking is that the mock votes these children are holding generally predict the final candidates, far in advance of the predictions on the news.

How many voting adults actually take classes on the issues?  How many voting adults actually perform in-depth research about the issues (chatting with co-workers and catching the one sentence caption running across the bottom of the news station doesn’t count)?  If you throw out the democrat and republican and independant labels, how many voting adults could vote their conscience on the individual issues?  Let’s face it, the majority of voting adults are ill-equipped in knowledge to cast their opinion one way or the other.  Now before I get a bunch of comments defending their own personal voting knowledge, I said the “majority”.  You know this as well as I do.  You all have co-workers and friends that you’ve chatted with that don’t have one fact based opinion in their heads prior to filling out their ballot, but by gosh they are republican or democrat and feel it’s their duty to vote regardless of whether or not they know what they are voting for.

14 to 18 year old children view casting a ballot as a test of their knowledge, morally speaking.  They would no more enter that voting booth without having studied than they would chuck all their homework into a mudpuddle.  They view it as a test and depending on their own opinions, there are right and wrong answers.  But these answers have nothing to do with whether they think they are democrats or republicans or independants.  Their answers have nothing to do with personal gain in this area or that area.  Their answers are solely based upon what they think would be good or bad for our country, their country.

How refreshing it would be if all adults would look at voting in a similar fashion!  Throw out the labels and affiliations.  Throw out voting a certain way because it might benefit you personally.  Look at the issues; look at our country; look at what would be best for our ENTIRE country; and vote your conscience on the issues.  Vote for the candidate YOU think offers our country the best hope for the future.  And by “future” I’m not referring to just the next 4 to 8 years.  We plan to stay a country far longer than 8 years.  Think of the big picture and then vote for the candidate you feel could best guide our country along.

If you are an adult like me and are not fully up to date with the issues and the candidates and where they stand, step back.  Don’t cast a vote simply to say you voted.  Don’t cast an uneducated vote for the sake of saying you did your duty.  You’ve not accomplished anything good by doing so other than to add a meaningless vote.  I would rather have 10% of the population vote who are educated and understand the issues facing our country than have 90% of the population vote who haven’t a clue what they are voting for.

And maybe our children should be allowed to vote.  At least we know they are up to date on the issues and candidates.  At least we know they aren’t jaded by personal gain.  At least we know they don’t fall into peer pressure by voting solely along party lines just for the sake of casting a vote.  Our children have a future to think about.  Our children have our futures to think about as well.  Isn’t time we allow them to have a say in that future?  Our children hold the world in their hands and it is an awesome responsibility.

And they know it. 

 

What if arranged marriages made a come-back?

The concept of arranged marriages is not a new one.  In many parts of the world it is still the norm.  Divorce rates among arranged marriages are much lower than here in the United States.  So we have to ask the question, “what if arranged marriages made a come-back in the United States?”

In the United States we value our freedom and our independence.  We value the ability to make our own choices.  Is it even possible that such a concept could exist in American, the land of the free?  

I decided to do some web searches to find marriage minded websites.  Thousands of American men and women are signed up on numerous websites focusing on finding brides and husbands here and overseas.  So we know there are marriage minded men and women in the US.  So that is one question down.  The second question I have is out of all those marriage minded US citizens, how many of them would be willing to have a website arrange a marriage for them?  Unfortunately, I’ve found no statistics.

 So what if a modified version of the arranged marriage were to crop up in our society?  What if instead of having mom and dad or a website match the couple together, what if the couple were to match themselves based on certain criteria?   It could be done online rather easily.  First - A detailed internet form asking very detailed questions about each persons life, desires, needs, expectations and personality.  Second - have the forms cross referenced for matches.  Third - email out the potential matches (no pictures as we don’t want the marriages based on looks).   Fourth - allow the couple to initiate contact and see if they are compatible through email, im or phone.  Fifth - send the option to purchase background checks, including criminal records, marriage searches, and financial records.  Sixth - leave it up to the couple to decide if an arranged marriage would benefit each of them.  Seventh - if they both consent, they can meet for an engagement party and arrange a wedding.

It may not be the fireworks and floating hearts and stars in the eyes that we Americans have come to rely on when choosing a date, but then again, how many dates actually turn into marriages in America?  As Americans, we are really good at flirting, dating, lusting, and cohabitating but we fall short of the bigger picture of marriage.  We have made an artform of the dance of love to the point that we don’t want to give up that dance.  When we do tire of the dance, we are left dancing alone on that dance floor, perhaps with a child or so to show for our efforts.  Those that do walk down the aisle with hearts in their eyes are facing the very real possibility of divorce within ten years. 

I have visited many 30 something dating websites.  I’ve visited Dating over 30 forums and there a few main things I learn each time I visit. 

One - if the person is over 30 and never been married they share the same belief that they will marry once or not at all.  Part of it has to do with the hope that there really is someone out there for them and part of it has to do with losing hope of every finding the “one”. 

Two - they are tired of the bar scene and partying.  It is a lonely existence. 

Three - they turn to the internet for an alternate way to meet people. 

Four - if the person is over 30 and is divorced, they either never want to go through that again or they are planning their 2nd or 3rd marriage. 

Five - by their 30’s they have had enough time to have an idea of the mate they are looking for and sometimes they won’t consider anything else or they still haven’t a clue what they are looking for but they aren’t as social as they used to be and therefore go through possibilities like water.

Six - they have enough experience to have been burned a time or two and therefore hide behind the casual.  An example is, “I just want to hang out” or “Looking for an activity partner” or “Just want to have fun” when in fact, they want more than just fun or want more than just to hang out.  They can accomplish hanging out and having fun and an activity partner with a dog, they don’t need a life partner for that. 

Growing up we are taught to have “patience” when looking for “the one”.  We are taught not “to settle” for a pinch less than what “we want”.  We are taught by society that there’s always “more fish in the sea”.  We are told not to “get too serious” and to “see what’s out there” before making a decision.  What are we doing, test driving a car?

We have put so much stock in a person’s appearance that oftentimes we overlook the people that would be our best life mates.  We overlook the friends we’ve held dear for years, who have already stood the test of time.  We overlook the fats ones, we overlook the too skinny ones, we overlook the too short or too tall or too balding or too poor ones.  If they don’t match the “ideal” in our heads then they must not be “the one”. 

We’ll speaking as a woman who is 30ish, I fall into the category of never married who will only do it once.  I admit freely that I’ve probably overlooked “the one” for me several times over.  After doing some research for this article I’ve come to some very potent realizations.

A.  I really hate dating.  I’m tired of it completely.  The phony small talk trying not to get “too serious” “too fast”.  The feigning interest in things just to be polite and not offend a perfectly nice person who is obviously not the right person for me.  The laughing off of embarrassment, the nervousness, and the jitters. 

B.  I envy my friends who are married whether in a good marriage or bad.  They “know” each other.  They, at least, never have to go places alone.  The ones in bad marriages, I have no sympathy for anymore.  I listen to the whining of petty little things thinking to myself, “if they only realized how lucky they were.”

C. Appearances should never come into play when deciding on a mate.  People tend to put a lot of stock in a persons weight.  This is ridiculous!  Weight is probably the most petty obstacles of them all as it is changeable!  If the person has acne - give me a break!  They can get treatment to clear that up.  If you like long hair and they have short - hello it can grow!  If they have no hair - well there are treatments for that too.  Appearance should never play a factor in choosing a life mate as appearances can be changed.  If two people meet and can be honest with each other, they can work together to become the other persons ideal.  I would rather begin my life with someone who will improve, than begin my life with perfection and watch them steadily decline.

D.  I don’t “need” to be someone’s wife, I’d “like” to be someone’s wife.  This is a huge difference in thinking.  For a while there I felt like I had a disease because I’d never been married.  Invariably I hear the question, “so why are you still single?”  It should be followed up with the statement, “what’s wrong with you?”  For a while I fell victim to the old phrase, “she’s not the marrying type.”  What the heck does that mean anyway?  I’ve come to accept the fact that I’m not wierd or different than anyone else in our society.  There is nothing “wrong” with me, and when the time comes to marry, I will. 

E.  I would consider a marriage of convenience.  I would consider an “arranged marriage”.  And after looking closely at the statistics I still may shy away from a marriage proposal based on floating hearts and fireworks as our track record clearly shows, they don’t last.  One question I’ve always had for long engagements is “why?”  If married, you’ll have a lifetime to explore and get to know your partner.  Those who have been dating and engaged for 5 years, they could have just gotten married and had their five year anniversary.  What is the point of a long engagment or a long period of dating?  Most of us know within the first 5 minutes of being with someone if we can tolerate them or not.  Why not keep the marriage interesting by “not” knowing too much about your partners experiences and life? 

Marriages of convenience and arranged marriages aren’t for everyone obviously.  There is a certain amount of risk involved.  But marrying for a purpose whether it be to provide another parent in a single parent household or to combine financial resources or simply to have a companion is a much more stable reason than marrying for the ideal of love.  Love can be fickle and fleeting.  It can be there one day and gone the next.  If a couple has a purpose and develops a friendship based on that purpose and trust and respect, love in one form or another, will follow.  It may not be fireworks and floating hearts at the beginning but it might just turn into that later on.

What if marriages were based on contracts?

Everyday we see people put more thought into renting an apartment than some do walking down the aisle.  They look at 50 different apartments; they imagine where each and every piece of furniture they own will rest; they look at location; they look at neighborhoods; they weigh the pro’s and con’s of apartment rules and the like.  But it seems most marriages don’t rate that kind of scrutiny.  Boy meets girl; boy dates girl for a while; boy and girl fall in love; boy and girl marry.  Sometimes this happens all within a few short months.  Othertimes this happens in a few short years.  Years may not seem like a short time, but when we are speaking about a lifelong commitment, it is very short indeed.

Many marriages fail because the couple disagree on many issues.  Some of these issues are major like how many children do they want or when they want to begin having children.  Other issues fluctuate like financial concerns.  Some issues are petty like leaving socks on the bedroom floor one too many times.  Married couples in the beginning overlook these things because they are in love.  Love, while grand, clouds the bigger picture. 

The idea of marriage contracts is a turn off to a lot of people.  They say it “takes the romance” out of their relationship.  In fact, it accomplishes just the opposite.  It forces the prospective husband and wife to communicate with each other about their hopes, fears, needs, desires, ideals, fantasies, morals, strengths, weaknesses, addictions, goals, dreams and visions of the future.  It deepens their intimacy as they find out things about their mate that no one else on earth knows.  With issues agreed upon in the beginning, it allows the couple to focus on themselves as a couple, rather than on issues that crop up.  Marriage contracts can be revised and renewed annually, or every 3 to 5 years, or longer as determined by each couple.  The more specific the contract, the less arguments the couple will have. 

Marriage contracts can and should be very detailed.  In order for this to be accomplished the couple will need to have very in-depth conversations about their expectations of their partner during the coming contract period.  Examples would include expectations regarding who will provide the majority of the financial support; if the couple agrees to begin having children during this time period; religious commitments; a savings plan; if they plan to buy a house during the contract period, it should be outlined; if the couple plans to have set roles in their relationship, the roles should be defined; division of household chores; responsibilities regarding the maintenance of vehicles; expectations regarding the couples intimate relationship; if one of them has an addiction or compulsion that is harmful to them as a couple, it should be outlined along with terms for handling problems; unacceptable actions and behaviors by each partner should also be outlined along with pre-determined consequences and so on and so forth. 

Marriage contracts should outline clearly each partners needs and desires.  It should be equally clear with regards to actions and behaviors viewed negatively by each partner.  Remember this is a contract being agreed upon by both the husband and the wife.  Nothing is added to the contract that isn’t acceptable to one or the other.   The more detailed a couple can be up front; the less arguments they will experience later.  Perhaps the wife can’t abide being yelled at in arguments.  If her and her husband agree, she could have it put into the contract that under no circumstances is there to be yelling between the couple during disagreements.  Possible consequences of violating this term could be the husband having to whisper around the house for a week.  Consequences should fit the offense.  They do not have to be harsh or serious.  They just have to be agreed upon.  Let’s say the couple is very competitive and one of them has a weakness for using curse words and it irritates the other.  It’s a habit that they have both agreed needs to be overcome if they are to start a family.  For every curse word uttered, a quarter goes into a curse jar to be used for their upcoming child’s needs.  Consequences do not have to be horrible or serious; just agreed upon.

No two marriage contracts would ever be alike.  They would be as unique to each couple as a fingerprint.  In today’s world it is hard to imagine marriages that last a lifetime.  They are so few and far between.  With a marriage contract that is reviewed and renewed on a regular basis, more marriages would have a chance to achieve lifetime status.  When you look at marriage as a lifetime commitment it is hard to grasp the concept of your entire “lifetime” as no one really knows how long that will be.  All they know is that when the marriage is not good, a lifetime is eternity.  When a marriage is going well, a lifetime is not long enough.  Marriage contracts allow for each person to grow and change.  What they agreed to in the first term of their contract, upon renewal they may be totally against.  It allows the couple to reconnect and get to know one another at that deep level all over again.

So many times we hear, “We just don’t talk anymore.”  Or, “I talk but I know he/she just tunes me out.”  Or, “I’m not heard.”  Or, “I feel invisible.”

Marriage contracts allow for changes.  They allow for bad periods of time and they help to improve them.  At renewal, the contract can be ammended in any way the couple see’s fit.  If one person is not feeling heard, a weekly talk session can be incorporated into the contract. 

Let’s say the couple’s intimacy level has dropped.  The couple has put on some extra pounds and work is consuming their time and they just are too tired to share that special time together.  They may not be as attractive to each other any more.  Gym memberships could be agreed upon with the use of personal trainers to get them both back into shape and rev up their energy levels again.  Once they are both feeling better about themselves, they may find their intimacy level increasing as well. 

Contracts help us stick to the plan.  They help people stay on the same page.  It is much easier thinking in terms of 3 years or 5 years than the next 50 years.  Marriage contracts help each couple discuss the really difficult or embarrassing issues.  They force each couple to examine their wants, desires and needs every so often so that those needs don’t get ignored over time.  Marriage contracts keep the relationships fresh and new and don’t allow them to fall into ruts or dissolve completely.

What if marriages were based on contracts?