Unmarried couples in Poland = pathology

If it won't change you than whats the problem???? There are benefits given by the government to registered couples that an unmarried couple will not receive. These benefit both the married couple and the children.


Yes and yes she is probably the most giving person I know. I am not going to argue with you what makes a perfect marriage there is none. If you read all of my posts you might have a better understanding of how I feel about marriage.


If this is your interpretation of marriage, I suggest you don't get married. Like I said getting married is not for everyone. Living together is easy. Marriage is much more than just signing a long term lease.


Well at least we can sort of agree on something. If an individual is not strong enough to take on the responcibilies of marriage ..they certainly should not have children.


Why do all you have to skip right to the end of the relationship. I use relationship here because this shouldn't happen in a marriage between 2 caring individuals. The question that should be asked is why is the spouce drinking?? Is he/she an addict, are there financial problems, a recent tragedy. What steps have been taken to resolve those issues by both parties involved. Marriage is a team sport people. There is no more individuals. What happens to one happens to both and both should support eachother through anything. It is not a blame game. Do i condone violence in marriage ...no. Do I think the kids should be removed from that environment ...yes... My point is it should never get that far.

Unfortunately. And not in every country.


It does happen. Often.

I don't find it natural, nor I want to be on a string.

what you're talking about is healthy relationship, good parenting. It's a shame you're convinced that you have to "register" first. It's amazing how many people are brainwashed about what marriage is.

Our "politically correct" feminized society always defaults to examples that use men as the perpetrators. I would have framed it this way; 'Do you really think it's good for the kids to watch their father or mother beaten up? It more correctly reflects real society.

To be monogomous? If that is the case marriage is definately not for you.


Actually what I am talking about is marriage. I can have a relationship with my dog, a coworker, or a teamate. I am talking about a much stronger committment.

Why is it a shame that I think you should be married prior to starting a family. Why am I brainwashed to think that committing to one person (your spouce) is a natural progression before committing to having kids. I should think if you want 2 kids it is quite practical to be able to commit to one before committng to two more.

I am sorry that marriage does not mean the same thing to you as it does to me. Marriage is much more than a piece of paper.

I believe just the opposite. I think it's the people that need to sign a legal paper are the ones that do not have faith in their commitment, or in their partners' commitment.

Moreover, they do not trust their own instincts and have a need to mold their lives into pre-determined patterns.
Every relationship between two people is completely different, and most of the people out there that are unhappy, are so because they believe they do not fit or desperately trying to fit.

What we're supposed to look like, how we're supposed to live, who we supposed to like... it's a bunch of garbage.

Yes Zimmy - I actually agree with you on this one - I was only biased by frequency of occurrence.


I know some marriages where the husband treats dog better than he treats his wife... They are still married, so surely they share your views on "unbreakable bond".


You are not brainwashed in thinking that committing to one person is a good think, you are brainwashed in thinking that marriage is the only type of commitment that works (which clearly does not work in every single case). Just accept that people have different views on commitment and sometimes they don't need paper. Personally I have nothing against marriage, but I'm not going to expect everyone to be pro-marriage.

I don't see connection between being monogamous (is that what you meant?) and marriage. Monogamy implies that I wouldn't take part in the upbringing/nirture of my child but I will. This is what seems natural to me.

f stop

This is where we will never see eye to eye. For me the signing of the "paper" was the most insignificant part of my marriage. It means nothing.

Sure its a legal document but depending where you live there is "common law". For example depending where you live in the Usa. ( 11 states in the Usa still have Common law) if you are in a relationship with someone (and living with them ) for (varies from state to state) 3 to 7 years. you are considered married. And the real pain about this situation is there is no such thing as "Common Law Divorse" In order to separate you have to petition the state you were living in for an annulment. This is simplified of course but true.

Marriage to me means much more than a piece of paper. I work at it.

I think we would all agree that every relationship is different (hell every individual for that matter) I wouldn't necessarily agree that the reason most people in relationships are unhappy is they are afraid they can't conform. I think the reason most people are unhappy is because they don't want to conform because they are selfish and can't figure out it is better to give than to receive.

Marriage used to bind not only 2 people together but 2 families together. Making a community.

Now it has become a joke. Only to last as long as the weakest or more selfish person in it decides they might be happier elsewhere. Any good thing takes effort.

The biggest problem in modern society is that the word "freedom " has become synonymous with " I want"

These of course are subjective statements. I personelly do not believe in divorse. I do not judge anyone who is. Out of 4 children in my family 2 are divorsed. One will not remarry or see anyone else until his ex dies or remarries. The other is getting married for the third time next year. I love them equally.


Yup both he and she chose poorly.


I mean society in general thinks this way. I mean where I grew up. A person committed to one person was called a husband a wife a boyfriend or a girlfriend. A person with multiple "commitments" was called a dog or a slut.


I never said that two individuals can not have a committed relationship. I did say that I think someone should get married before having children. I think it is (I hate to use this word because all the non conformists are gonna have a field day) a more structured/stable relationship to raise a child in. No committed relationship whether it be marriage or not is perfect. And for all who think marriage is just signing a paper .....stay single you will just f... it up.


Is having only one mate for a period of time. I am sorry I am confused as to what you felt was unnatural. I understand not wanting to be tied down. Marriage isn't for everyone. I don't judge my single friends. Some of them don't believe in marriage either.

then why sign it? Why make a meaningless standard by which others are measured?

It's easy to say we've become more selfish, but that's just a shallow judgement.
Nowadays, it doesn't take two people to keep family from starving. We don't have to spend an hour each day baking bread. Women can take care of the family and work now, and men found way to share the housework. The relationships are evolving quickly, and the institution has never kept up very well. Marriage is, after all, a church's invention. It's easy to point out the downsides of our fast paced lives, but you also have to remember how much more we can accomplish and all the different things we get to experience in our lifetimes now.

But, all that has nothing to do with social pressure to register one's relationship. It creates endless hardships, and the only ones that benefit are lawyers.

I repeat again, if you or your partner have to sign that paper, one of you is either lacking faith in the relationship or already not committed enough

Oh, and a note on working on the marriage. It's same as working on the relationship, trust me.

Matrimony is more than a piece of paper, it is a holy sacrament. Anyone who divorces is a faithless, disloyal, irresponsible liar and perjurer. Amen.

Seriously, Polonius, it looks like your wife "works" on your marriage than you do. LOL
The biggest argument against the insitution of marriage is the divorce. People separate for variety of reasons: they fall in love with somebody else, they become strong enough to be able to get away from abusive relationships or or mental illness.

All of my life I've been in long term relationships, and when they ended, they both ended with us drifting apart, spending less and less time together, and ending up as old friends that still care about each other. We both took it as far as it could be taken, and after that, there was no doubt that one, or both, could not continue. There was no "divorce', lawyers, manipulations, fights over money, hate and tragedy.

Simple fact that that piece of paper is required, is an admission that all relationships do not last forever.


whenever you hear someone say something like that you can bet your bottom dollar that their partner is doing the real sacrificing and the child knows it. Or, they're not in a relationship at all!

what I call pathological is people with fingers in other people's business... wtf makes anyone feel that they have the right to say whether or not someone else should or shouldn't get married. I know one couple whose 40 years of marriage was punctuated with the wife's occasional black eye, broken jaw or rib, compliments of her a$$hole husband (she wouldn't leave "for the kids" and "what would others say?"), and another couple who have been living together for 40 years without marriage, raised kids and grand kids, and couldn't be happier... in my experience, people who are prone to pass easy judgment are either highly insecure or hiding something of their own, or both. I couldn't be happier my marriage, but I don't think it gives me the god-bestowed right to pontificate about the "sanctimony" of the institution.

EXACTLY! Marriage is a civil contract and applies whether you are married in a Church, married in court or live together for a period of time prescribed by law. That's why divorce is conducted in a court of law, the parties are dissolving a contract.

F-Stop just because you live with someone without a formal marriage contract doesn't mean that you can't be sued for alimony after dissolving your relationship. Oral contracts are binding.


The Roman Catholic Church wasn't involved in marriage until the 16 or 17 hundreds. It's not a holy sacrament. The only sacrament from Scripture is Baptism.

Good - at least we understand each other here. The big issue is that marriage doesn't guarantee that the "multiple commitments" won't happen (not even talking about affair as this usually does not imply commitment, but a child out of wedlock does).


You seem to distinguish only the two types or relationships - no commitment or marriage. It is perfectly possible to be in fully committed, monogamous relationship, house and kids together without being married. As long as kids are brought up in a steady, happy home with two parents they won't know the difference. There is much more to commitment than marriage (but yes, I agree - you need sense of commitment to get married).


Oh, please, we are past the religious aspect.

Only if you practice or believe in a religion. There are no such things as "holy sacraments" for non-believers.

Anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence and a questioning intellect can detect that religion is mostly about social control.

What people do in their bedrooms should never be of any concern to any government. In case you hadn't noticed, humans were breeding long before any organised religion decided that sex and childbirth was only acceptable within marriage. Human sexual intercourse didn't begin 7000 years ago, believe it or not.


Rubbish. I'm divorced, but I did not initiate the divorce, and I'm not the one who cheated. So how on earth does that make me guilty of any crime? My only "crimes" are that I worked unsocial hours, didn't earn as much as another man, and had different interests to my wife.

Faithless? Well, I have no problem with someone who is "faithless". If you wish to believe fairy tales about some imaginary being, and you wish to have your life controlled by a book of rules with with dubious and unproveable legitimacy, then feel free.

Do not insult those who disagree. For all you know, they may even be better and more moral people than you are. Considering the level of violence and human rights atrocities committed in the name of "religion" by "believers" around the world, you will understand why I am sceptical about any suggestion that religion in any way demonstrates a "higher" morality.

And divorce is not a crime, so it's not possible to become a perjurer through divorce, unless you lie in court during the application process.

I'd save your moher-style preaching for your Sunday services, and stick to the Polish surnames book on here, if I were you.

To those who do not beleive in sacraments marriage is still a legally-binding civil contract. Divorce means reneging on the marriage oath and breahing the contract so the divorcee is still a liar and perjurer. It is a filmnsy excuse that the other side initiated the divroce proceedings. I don't belłieve the law of any country can force someone to get a divorce agaisnt his/her will.

Oh, yeah? And what would you do if your spouse brought you divorce papers to sign one day (for whatever reason)? Force her to stay with you?

you do talk alot of outdated, insulting Krappe.

Marriage means responsibility - it doesn't necessarily mean monogamy. In so much of the world polygamy is perfectly normal.


Actually it is a contract that has a clause allowing dissolution.


No. For all your Catholic propagandising, you fail to understand that the Church not only allows annulment, but also divorce. You are a fundamentalist fanatic.

Not physically, but you can stand on principle and refuse to sign. Then only she is the perjurer, reneger, liar and faithless home-wrecker.
Incidentally, ethical principles are never outdated. Even though the laws of the Third Reich said it was OK to kill and torment Jews, that didn't make it right. And the inception of quick and convenient online, no-fault divorces does not make oath-breaking any more good, ethical or commendable.

ethical principles evolve over time, thankfully...

times have changed, it's a much different situation now than even 10-20 years ago. People have more choices now, so they adapt and choose what is right for them. The choice belongs to nobody but the individuals in question - not the society, not the church, not the government... why are you so quick to condemn people you have never met and have not the slightest clue about what their life is like?

If it was as simple as that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


This isn't an ethical principle.


No, but it makes it far easier to bury a dead marriage without adding to the families' troubles.

it is much more prevalent in marriage that a wife assumes she will be "taken care of", and then feels wronged when the relationship is over.

in an old-fashioned marriage, the wife would stay behind at home, not pursue her career, and take care of the kids and the household, in which case she would have a pretty good claim for alimony, particularly if she is the one left with the kids after the divorce. it's more about who is the bread winner, than the gender.

When I signed it I made a formal declaration that I wish to spend the rest of my life with my wife to the world and I have taken an oath to do so. The paper part for me is meaningless . The standard is not.

I agree that relationships have evolved no question. However the institution is exactly the same. People's perception of the institution has certainly changed ( and not for the better) Why? Because of modern civil divorce. It has taken something that was supposed to be unending and stable and turned it into a temporary contract full of loopholes.

Marriage is not a church invention. It predates christianity and all religions for that matter.


Not sure what this means?


1. No one is telling anyone to do anything.
2. The idiot who beat on his wife should be in jail. And his wife is a fool for not sending him there. Personelly I would hope she would talk to a brother ,her father, another male friend who would get a group together, drag her husband out back and beat the shoot out of him until he learned how to respect women. My point is he is a jerk and would be a jerk whether he was married or not. Marriage did not make him this way...he went in as an azz and should be kicked in his until he learns how to treat the mother of his children.

3. Bravo for the second couple. Do I wish this couple got married prior to having kids ...yes. Do I belive they would have been just as successful if they signed on the dotted line.....absolutely.


More confused?


Not at all what I said


It really doesn't matter who initiates the divorce. Infidelity is grounds for divorce in almost all cultures including Catholics.


you mean in about a third of it and you are muslim.


Actually in the USA. if one of the parties in a divorce proceeding refuses to sign the divorce papers, the judge will sign for them in essence forcing them to get divorced.


Funny most men feel the exact same way.

Good! The point was that in a relationship without marriage, people tend to remain more autonomous.

No it's not! I'm a RC. I'm divorced, remarried and I cannot receive the Eucharist. I would need to get an annulment. Do you have any idea what that costs?!

I'm finding annulment worse than divorce. Divorce is admission of a mistake. Annulment is a denial.
You meet a person, you love them you get married and then suddenly decide that marriage is no longer valid for whatever reason.
This is the most selfish thing on earth.
Worse then saying I don't want to be with you any more, because I don't love you.