The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Love  % width posts: 310

Unmarried couples in Poland = pathology


markskibniewski 3 | 200
14 Jan 2012 #181
I think that's the great fallacy here - that getting married makes you more moral.

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

It wouldn't changed anything if they suddenly married. Whoever thinks otherwise is delusional.

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.

This is a staggering statement. The problem is that who are you to decide whether my relationship with my partner is any more or less moral than anyone else's?

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)
f stop 25 | 2,513
14 Jan 2012 #182
I said that marriage is a positive thing.

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.
Richfilth 6 | 415
14 Jan 2012 #183
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.
markskibniewski 3 | 200
14 Jan 2012 #184
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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Not sure what this means??
southern 75 | 7,096
15 Jan 2012 #185
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.
f stop 25 | 2,513
15 Jan 2012 #186
The whole idea of Polki is find him,stay with him,bang sensesely,become pregnant marry him.

The polki I know, also want to finish their education, become self sufficient and see if the guy can handle that.
southern 75 | 7,096
15 Jan 2012 #187
The polki I know,

I was referring mainly to the village type which is what we foreigners usually satisfy as option.
f stop 25 | 2,513
15 Jan 2012 #188
They're aiming too low. But then, some make no secrets about what they're looking for.
Marynka11 4 | 675
15 Jan 2012 #189
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.

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.
f stop 25 | 2,513
15 Jan 2012 #190
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.
Richfilth 6 | 415
15 Jan 2012 #191
Richfilth: 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.
Not sure what this means??

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:

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.

Sasha 2 | 1,083
15 Jan 2012 #192
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.

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).
gumishu 11 | 5,701
15 Jan 2012 #193
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)
Ironside 50 | 11,056
15 Jan 2012 #194
Because that just isn't reality, Pol3. Not everyone conforms to your idealistic visions of life. Your complete lack of reality is what I object to.

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 !
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446
15 Jan 2012 #195
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.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
15 Jan 2012 #196
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.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446
15 Jan 2012 #197
Yes and to one woman. Are you?
Sasha 2 | 1,083
15 Jan 2012 #198
Never forget that only dead fish and sewage go with the flow

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?

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

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.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
15 Jan 2012 #199
Standards of interpersonal behaviour are therefore constantly dropping, and moral anarchy is replacing majority ethical consensus.

Really? Perhaps some proof instead of the usual meaningless misanthropy.
markskibniewski 3 | 200
15 Jan 2012 #200
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.

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.
f stop 25 | 2,513
15 Jan 2012 #201
How is marriage detrimental to women?

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. ;)
markskibniewski 3 | 200
15 Jan 2012 #202
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 marriage more moral? And under what twisted concept of "common sense" can you punish someone for falling in love with someone else

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.
Richfilth 6 | 415
15 Jan 2012 #203
Marriage is a committment and a choice. It sounds like you don't want to have a committment at all.

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".
f stop 25 | 2,513
15 Jan 2012 #204
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.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446
15 Jan 2012 #205
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.
f stop 25 | 2,513
15 Jan 2012 #206
All because people are increasignly selfish and obsessed only with their own pleasure and convenience.

Hm.. maybe going back to arranged marriages and dowry will fix all that.
rozumiemnic 8 | 3,840
15 Jan 2012 #207
You must live a sheltered or horseblinkeredd life if you don't see all this.

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?
southern 75 | 7,096
15 Jan 2012 #208
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.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446
15 Jan 2012 #209
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.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
15 Jan 2012 #210
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.


Home / Love / Unmarried couples in Poland = pathology
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.