Unmarried couples in Poland = pathology

Not exactly what I said .. I said that marriage is a positive thing.


To think that kids are not given a more stable environment in a relationship between a married man and women vs. an unmarried couple is dillusional.

You can honestly say that if/when you have children you would not want them to get married and have your grandkids. Take religion out of the equation. You would want your kids to just shack up with someone and have a couple of bastards out of wedlock. That is ridiculous.


Where did you get this from??? I merely stated that marriage is a positive thing.

If you are referring to my second statement. I would think that this would be common sense. I don't go around killing everyone I have a problem with. Morrally wrong. I don't go around stealing from anyone. Morally wrong. I don't go around banging my neighbors wife. Morally wrong. (not criminal but it should be)

I don't agree here, either. I think marriage as it stands today is detrimental to the woman while it lasts, and detrimental to a man when it's over. Generally speaking, of course.

Murder and theft are illegal from a personal rights perspective, not a moral one; of course, there's a moral one too, but some societies circumvent it, such as America's death penalty.

But if two people want to sleep with eachother, but they're married, are you advocating a law to punish those people? Under what authority? Who decides what is and isn't moral?

For me, the fact that two people can sign a piece of paper and effectively cheat their taxes for the rest of their lives (commuting earnings to your space to stay below the high-tax threshold, for example) is morally wrong; you use those streetlights and hospitals and policemen just as much as I do, you should f*cking well pay for them as much as I do.

The idea that the state, in any way, should be able to dictate THIS is morally good and THAT is morally bad for you is morally abhorrent, whatever your views on marriage.

I also support the idea that marriage is detrimental, but not for f stop's reasons. My commitment to my partner is my own choice, between me and him/her. Putting an external pressure on that relationship, some sort of artificial bind or contract to trap two people together is both unfeasible and unfair. It may have been "morally noble" in the dark ages when women were denied all the other basic human rights and had to look to their man for support, but not any more.

And the final concept, of loading children with the fantasy that the only happy future they can have is a married one, with little girls flooded with images of pretty dresses and dream weddings in fairytale castles, is the most damaging of all.

If you are referring to 2 people in 2 separate marriages that want to sleep with eachother and destroy 2 family units whether there are kids involved or not...you are damn right I support a law to punish both individuals.

I would think this is common sense.


A bit off topic but...How is paying your taxes morally wrong. If you have a problem with your local tax structure you may want to run for a government position and change them. Tax law is not perfect. And how is 2 people shacking up to pay one rent instead of 2 any different. We can nit pick all day.


Not sure what this means??

The whole idea of Polki is find him,stay with him,bang sensesely,become pregnant marry him.Till now I have gotten maximum to stage three but I suppose many foreigners have been pulled till stage five.Contrary to that Czech women like symbiosis without marriage and the strains it brings.

The polki I know, also want to finish their education, become self sufficient and see if the guy can handle that.

I was referring mainly to the village type which is what we foreigners usually satisfy as option.

They're aiming too low. But then, some make no secrets about what they're looking for.

The contract is not to bind the people together these days. It's to ensure that the laws will protect them / apply to them when they split and start dividing the assets.

True! But that doesn't have much to do with morality then, does it.

I mean that what seems morally good from your perspective is not necessarily morally good from mine. There isn't a standard or benchmark of morality that everyone agrees with, and there aren't even any basic statements that can be understood as "morally good" - like murder, for example. If killing people is morally wrong, then why do armies and death sentences exist?

So the idea that a government should be able to decide where the moral line is; that marriage is morally good and co-habitation is morally bad, is disgusting from my perspective.

On what criteria is marriage more moral? And under what twisted concept of "common sense" can you punish someone for falling in love with someone else, such as you said here:

By stating that you're drawing a government into equation to the injury of an individual. Let's see... who are the government to decide your children are bastards or not? That's you who should decide that, isn't it? You, providing you're a fine person, would love your children anyway and treat them like a particle of your own.

In my country (Russia) children who are born out of marriage still go as "illegitimate birth" which would denude them of some rights and governmental financial support. So I'm sort of blackmailed by the government to register my relationship which I find backward.

I'm all for civil marriages just like it is in countries like Sweden (which still btw has a higher birthrate than Poland).

thanks to generous giveouts by the state (and perhaps also thanks to the growing population of New Swedes of muslim background)

As opposed to your conformism ? Should we strive to achieve perfection or should we relax and just go with the flow ?
This is a question !

Never forget that only dead fish and sewage go with the flow, because neither have a functioning brain...
It is true that shop-lifting, cheating on spouses, out-of-wedlock bastards and broken families have always existed...on the margins of society. Nowadays people are trying to normatise them, using freedom and private-morality slogans. Standards of interpersonal behaviour are therefore constantly dropping, and moral anarchy is replacing majority ethical consensus.

Are you married, Polonius?

You post so much about "gays" and "liberal fools" - but I never see you post about love.

Yes and to one woman. Are you?

I dare say going with flow in this case is sticking to traditional marriages. What can a signature and a stamp in one's id change?


Hard to disagree with you (particularly with that in paretheses). But I don't think Swedish legitimized civil marriages eat into the birthrate in their country.

Really? Perhaps some proof instead of the usual meaningless misanthropy.

How is marriage detrimental to women?

I also support the idea that marriage is detrimental, but not for f stop's reasons. My commitment to my partner is my own choice, between me and him/her. Putting an external pressure on that relationship, some sort of artificial bind or contract to trap two people together is both unfeasible and unfair. It may have been "morally noble" in the dark ages when women were denied all the other basic human rights and had to look to their man for support, but not any more.

Marriage is a committment and a choice. It sounds like you don't want to have a committment at all.

The married women that I know, once they're married, forgo their own career ambitions, some even take it as one of the perks of not having to work. Soon after that the partnership becomes lopsided: she resents having to explain what she needs the money for, he resents the financial burden. She takes much more sht from him than she'd have to do if she had her own income, losses her self esteem and becomes insecure about re-entering the work force.

I guess you know how is marriage detrimental to men after it's over. ;)

No one person is perfect, nor one government. In what way does government promote or has placed into law that cohabitation is bad or illegal. Does it promote marriage , yes but it does not illegitimize cohabitation.


On what criteria is cohabitation moral? If someone falls in love with someone who is already married and breaks up that marriage. If you don't find this immoral. You are dillusional. Marriage is more than a piece of paper it is a (higher) commitment . As stated earlier it is not for everyone.

That's a false dichotomy if ever there was one. I don't want to marry so I must be scared of commitment; bravo.

So is the commitment I've made to my partner somehow less valid than one that's been stamped by a clerk in an office somewhere? How so?

Is it your idea of "higher" commitment? If so, that is delusional, if you want to throw that word around as some sort of answer to your argument. Some of us don't believe in "higher" things; it doesn't make us any more or less "moral". My relationship is a commitment between myself and my partner, no-one else. And the idea that a government may promote another relationship as higher, or more beneficial, just because it's been stamped by a clerk in an office, is to do an injustice to all other forms of relationship and therefore commitment.

Now please stop using the word for "delusional" to mean "things you don't like".

I believe that children should be raised by both mother and a father as well. Because they're both biological parents of the child.
That bond is, and rightly should be, an infinitely stronger than any marriage license. And if both parents do not have the welfare of the child in forefront, marriage is not going to fix that.

Proof is all about us. Take a classroom 30, 20, even 10 years ago -- there has been a steady increase in the percentage of youngsters from dysfunctional homes srtciken by divorce, signle parents, new daddies, live-in boyfriends or that increasignly 'popular' but often unhealthy family arrangement comprising his kids, her kids and our kids. Not to mention custody battles and even abductions when the judge rules the 'wrong' way. And why? All because people are increasignly selfish and obsessed only with their own pleasure and convenience. You must live a sheltered or horseblinkeredd life if you don't see all this.

Hm.. maybe going back to arranged marriages and dowry will fix all that.

take a classroom 30 or 20 years ago and you were far more likely to see violent child hating psychopaths in charge. Was that a good thing too?

Not to mention what might be going on in the home under the cover of respectable married parents. i suppose for you that is also a good thing.

As for organised religion, especially of the Roman Catholic variety, well let's not start..;)
Many people are so 'sheltered and horseblinkered' they refuse to see this.
Families come in increasing varieties, so what?

Polish women avoid contraceptives and take risks so it is highly likely that if you stay with one more than 6 months she will become pregnant.

Those who don't believe in 'higher things', must therefore believe in 'lower things'. But how low can you get? Is homo sapiens no different from the dog that eats, drinks, excretes and sniffs about for the nearest ******* in heat? Some people act as if they do. Some people seem to have their brains between theri legs.

I suppose you've never heard of the quote "also the animals possess a soul and that men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren".

By a no lesser authority than John Paul II. Nice of you to disregard his teachings - and entirely consistent with your application of Catholicism.