The Purpose of Sex

A new report from the Pew Research Center says that of children born in 2008, 41 percent were to unmarried women -- a record high. Nearly half the mothers said that the children "just happened."

By comparison, in 1990, 28 percent of births were to unmarried women. While the report carried some good news as well -- fewer teens are becoming mothers, and many more mothers have some college education -- the unavoidable fact is that the American family -- as the foundation of a free and prosperous society -- is broken.

The purpose of sex, according to most sources, is to ensure the future of human beings. To make sure it wasn't ignored or neglected, nature, or God, made it fun. Things that improve survival for the individual, the race and mankind often have pleasure as a vital component. But pleasure and sex have through history been hijacked to sell products, make money and provide an alternative to effort and accomplishment. And the old restrictions -- many of which fell in the rebellion of the 1960s -- are absent.

In the past, sex was seen as dangerous to society and was repressed. Heavy penalties were levied against promiscuity, "illegitimacy," nudity, etc., and nature chimed in with a blizzard of sexually transmitted diseases that punished those who dared to offend against the morals of society. People still offended, but society didn't approve.

But since the 1950s things changed in the United States and elsewhere. Promiscuity is said to be common, and revelations of celebrities, even presidents, having affairs are now almost ordinary. We've solved some of the complications of promiscuity with condoms, vaccinations, antibiotics, the pill, divorce and abortions. In the 1960s the attitude was "anything goes," and in our liberal enlightenment, it still does. Now television programs bring mom and her three or four boyfriends on stage and have them fight it out -- then DNA testing reveals the actual father. And now we have female Viagra and legalized prostitution in at least one state. "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" says the advertising -- possibly the most jaded campaign in recent memory.

But while sex was "invented" to procreate the human race, marriage was invented to protect it. Sex and family were a team, and the family unit was responsible for the products of procreation. Food, clothing, shelter and support are necessary, and a human child is vulnerable for nearly two decades.

But as better-educated women have children that "just happen" and as the men who father them evaporate, the family as a fundamental unit of society is as endangered as the white rhinoceros under the guns of aphrodisiac peddlers.

The experiment of the 1960s succeeded. Drugs and promiscuity are endemic in our cities and towns. In an ironic twist, several states may soon legalize marijuana to benefit from billions of new tax dollars, the bulk of which go to social services, education, law enforcement and other programs made necessary by the disappearing family. Schools now bypass families in matters of discipline, nutrition, health and well-being. They are "a mile wide and an inch deep" in their attempts to prop up a society in the absence of families, and are -- perhaps not surprisingly -- failing to educate children whose morals are learned on the streets, where father is absent and whose default role models include movie assassins, drug dealers and criminals.

It's time to recreate the family. It takes at least two people to care for children while earning a living and maintaining a household. Let's make choice the rule: If you are pregnant and weren't raped, you made your choice. Your family and the father's family are legally responsible for the child's health, well-being and support. If you fathered a child and won't help, you go to a work farm or prison industries, and your earnings go to help support the child. That's just for starters.

Schools concentrate on education not trans fats, dietary sugar, mental health screenings and abortions. In Jewish families, children who turn 13 are invited to join the adult world. That's a wonderful tradition that our society in general should embrace. We have 35-year-old "children" still living at home who have never grown up, and have never been given -- or accepted -- responsibility. It's time to focus on independence and competence, and make men and women who take responsibility for their actions, their lives and their children.

Political Parties are Like Cable Channels

Political parties are like cable channels -- you have to buy the whole package, there is no menu of options from which to choose. If you buy basic cable, you are required to receive the home shopping network and the Spanish language stations even if you never watch them. If you speak Spanish, you still have to buy the English-language stations. In politics, the lesser of two evils becomes the only choice the voter has, in spite of the official party platform which may encompass a single position on a cornucopia of issues. Say the voter, for example, dislikes the health care reform package, but thinks that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are wrong. Who to vote for? Or say the voter thinks torts are an effective remedy to rein in illegal business practices, but also believes in unrestricted gun ownership.

Back when McCain or Obama were the only entrees on the presidential menu, independent voters had to weigh, for example, the thought that McCain would declare war on Iran and "refused to parlay" with enemies against Obama's support of mental health screenings like "teen screen" that would allow government to trump parents' authority over their children (both stupid and arrogant ideas in my opinion). Well, under the "lesser of two evils" we got Obama and the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" medical program.

This exclusivity has led to many of the aberrations in our political system. Third party candidates -- or even moderates in both major parties -- are vehemently opposed by whichever party will lose votes, and encouraged by the party which has nothing to lose and everything to gain. Look at the venom unleashed against Ralph Nader, Ross Perot and Ron Paul by various people and parties. As long as they remain a tiny slice of voters, they can be ignored. But let them gain some footing, as did Perot, and the reds and blues turn purple in their animosity.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry a while back called moderates "the mushy middle" -- obviously preferring extremists whose views are totally polarized and therefore easier for the unwashed to understand in quick sound bytes. Right now, the extremists have it, from Sarah Palin to Barack Obama.

So is there a solution to extremist politics? According to Governor Schwarzenegger there is. On a recent Jay Leno show, he claimed that politicizing the redistricting process creates purely red and blue districts that promote far-right and far-left candidates. Schwarzenegger is promoting a non-partisan redistricting commission that will provide more balanced representation and thus more moderate candidates that will better represent the bulk of voters. Try getting that bit of democracy through the polarized California Legislature....