if youre not open minded stop reading NOW...
seriously, what is the point of marriage? and I mean SERIOUSLY? finish this sentence. it is imperative that the nations of the world legally recognize matrimonial marriage (because / to / for) ...
procreation?
what? you cant fuck without a ring, cake and a contract?
what? you cant fuck without a ring, cake and a contract?
clearly we can agree that procreation is not about marriage; or the inverse.
marriage (specifically the tax loophole) is a financial incentive to grow population. the world has more than enough people. women, historically, have been homemakers. they have also been the gestation engines of the human race. of course they are the mothers of the future generations but in all honesty if there were no children you would still live out your own life, with your own thoughts and your own experiences; would you not? having a child is only to satisfy a biological craving. this is not a "need"; it is an earthly want. babies do not come from a magical either-world they are the biological soup of sperm and ova provided from the DNA donors. this is usually what results from extracurricular, pleasure sex.
women, historically, have also been prevented from engaging in all of: education, ownership, record-keeping (history), commerce, ...all manner of professions not related to human-livestock.
that being the case, women were in fact considered less than second class humans, they were considered property, human breeding livestock and chattel. regarding that inequality some men were probably not monsters. so they probably did not require their women to live in abject poverty while they gestated the children. but they still probably kept in mind the general financial cost to bared child ratio. naturally you just cant ... a woman who doesent put out a decent amount of children.
that being the case, women were in fact considered less than second class humans, they were considered property, human breeding livestock and chattel. regarding that inequality some men were probably not monsters. so they probably did not require their women to live in abject poverty while they gestated the children. but they still probably kept in mind the general financial cost to bared child ratio. naturally you just cant ... a woman who doesent put out a decent amount of children.
men want tax write-offs for their women livestock and the children that they bare. to that end they declared the women and children as financial burdens —a.k.a. dependents. these, so called, burdens were previously not document-able and exchangeable wealth; now they became a tax write-off. still, children are not a necessity; then, and even in this day and age they are optional. and like all other optional things there should not be a significant national endorsement of children.
so what would happen if children cost more money? what would happen if we stopped giving a tax incentive to have children?
wealthy people would budget to have children. people who are not wealthy would have to budget to have children. those who cannot afford another person in their life would have to accept that as the way the world is. resources are not unlimited; endless exponential growth is not sustainable. if they want children they need to find the resources to make that a reality or they have children in the face of no financial incentive and go broke. this is not class warfare. I do not promote a desire for the wealthy to 'feel the joy' of child rearing. children are not a toy and they are not there for your entertainment, they exist to live their own lives regardless of what you desire. it is just eliminating an unreasonable tax incentive to increase population.
what about accidental births?
what accidental births? birth is not accidental. like I wrote before babies do not come from somewhere. they are grown in the sexual gestation organs of the female species. if a woman willfully ignores the fact that a human is growing inside her, it is her financial responsibility. she can sue the man for financial support, sure, its up to the court to decide that case.
what I am recommending is to just take away all financial (tax) birth incentives. nothing else. this is not a hyperbolic argument to anything else. marriage would have no legal or financial meaning. marriage would just be the arrangement among the consenting adults. women who desire to be wives become wives. men who desire to be husbands become husbands. no magical thing happens. women and children cease to be the property (or tax write-offs) of their husbands.
what I am recommending is to just take away all financial (tax) birth incentives. nothing else. this is not a hyperbolic argument to anything else. marriage would have no legal or financial meaning. marriage would just be the arrangement among the consenting adults. women who desire to be wives become wives. men who desire to be husbands become husbands. no magical thing happens. women and children cease to be the property (or tax write-offs) of their husbands.
and I hope that everyone recognizes: a lack of 'citizens' is not a lack of people.
