Things like this are why the term "progressive" is highly ironic:
See, we used to have this tradition – it was based around the quaint idea that there are men and there are women, and that they would leave their fathers and mothers to have a household and children of their own.
But then there was a problem: How would the man and the woman remain accountable and responsible in their relationship?
- What if the woman cheated on the man and had another man's children?
- What if the man abandoned the woman for another woman while she was pregnant and unable to provide for herself?
To solve this problem, there was this little novel idea that a man and a woman should enter into a contract with one another before sleeping together and having children. This contract would clearly spell out their obligations to each other in sickness and in health.
The entire community would gather to bear witness to this contract being made, and a spiritual leader would officiate so that the man and woman would also promise to uphold this contract before God. Their families would pledge to keep them accountable and would give them gifts and money to help them in this new contract.
Under this agreement, the two would pledge to be faithful to each other. The man would be obligated to provide food and shelter for the woman, especially while the woman was pregnant or nursing. The woman would be obligated to care for the children and the home. They would be partners – a king and queen with a small kingdom of their own and visions for how to fill the earth and subdue it.
Heck, the State might even provide incentives to help the man and woman have as many healthy kids as possible so the nation can be strong and wealthy in the future!
We used to have a term for this kind of thing...
Huh.
