Polish parliament refuses to consider shack-up draft between both traditional and same-sex couples

Poland's Sejm has rejected considering a post-commie (SLD) sponsored proposal to legalise informal liaisons (concubinages) both between normal couples and their same-sex equivalents. It would have enabled people shacking up to be regarded as a single economic entity, file joint tax returns and inherit the estate of a deceased partner. It is understandable that PiS, PSL and the United Right voted against the measure, but so did 45 Platfomer MPs. Others abstained or were absent.

Sejm Marshal (speaker) Sikorski said he favoured same-sex unions but felt the right to file joint tax returns should be reserved for families.
After PiS wins the autumn election, such a measure won't stand a snowball's chance in hell. In the unlikely and tragic event that PO wins, having a decent president like Duda is the best guarantee that such a measure will get vetoed.

Yet again, another news story.
So boring.

Not a rant and not about just same-sexers. It's a fact, a normal news item that the Sejm has refused to consider an ex-commie proposal that would allow those who just hook up without the benetift of marirage to demand the rights belonging to married couples. Your guru Sikorski said: he is not opposed to gay partnerhsips as such but believes jpoin tax filing should only be for real families. Other MPs voted against the proposla, abstained or were absent for a variety of reasons.

BTW the only rants hereabout are about the Sunday head-count obsession and Crow's Serbiocentrism.

two consenting adults living together is not 'concubinage' Polonius.
Why are you so bothered anyway?

Believe it or not Oldenglisbird 'konkubin/konkubina' is indeed the official/legal term in Poland for co-habiting couples. In the West we would consider concubine a very archaic term, and of course it referred to an illicit or not quite respectable liaison. We would regard such a term as rather offensive but Polonius uses the term correctly in the Polish sense.

It doesn't bother me personally, for all I care you can go shack up with a goat. It's about the social ramifications - how it affects society as a whole. About how creeping libertinisation has already seriously undermined the family. the pillar of Western society, thereby giving encouragement and ammunition to the other party that wants to destroy it -- Muslim fanaticism.

But this is far too profound a topic for a casual tit for tat exchange.

Are you addressing me Polonius? I sincerely hope not.

No, he says that the proposal was to "legalise informal liaisons (concubinages)" but in reality those are already completely legal.

But then he also talks about "normal couples and their same-sex equivalents", thus missing the point that same-sex couples are completely normal.

Hi Harry. I just meant that the term concubine is used in Poland. I've heard some women referring to themselves as concubines. An elderly lady I know said she wouldn't be able to get guardianship of her grandchild because she wouldn't be considered respectable, being 'konkubina'. Sad isn't it?

Marriage is nothing more than a property contract why should normal loving people be discriminated against?

Poland should be careful. With this trends, one day some donkey may appear as the EU chancellor

Compared to what ? Worms ?
It's not "normal" when they get to choose a sperm or egg to create their 'designer child'.
It's not "normal" for a child not to have a male/female role model as parents.
Ask a couple of Lesbians "who did the breast feeding" and you will find out quickly that it is not "normal" or

"what does your baby call you" ?
Ask gay men "where did your baby come from" or "do you think your child will turnout to be gay" and see how those "normal" questions get answered.

I think it is you who may be missing the point that same sex couples are normal......hardly Harry.
Promoting such ilk liberalism to our youth as "normal" is beneath contempt to humanity.
Thank goodness we have people like Polonius3 to challenge this brainwashing of our youth by these libertines.

To Atch: Absoltuely not. Alhtough we may disagree on various things at least you have a balanced approach and try to respect your interlocutor's point of view. Thoughtful discussion is therefore possible, But with the hyper-opinionated and horse-blinkered it's a waste of breath. They are so set in their ways and their mind is closed. No, it was in reply to oldenglishbird who wrote: "Two consenting adults living together is not 'concubinage' Polonius. Why are you so bothered anyway?"

Oh the same nonsense arguments that the No Side were putting forward before they got their asses whopped in the Equality referendum in Ireland last week.

It's very feckin simple.
Two men or two women living together will do just as good a job raising children as a traditional male and female family.
How come children of single mothers/single fathers/adopted children end up being OK?

Such a feckin ridiculous thing to think that homosexuals can't have a family.


Please avoid excessive quoting

Ya see, this is what you're up against, uneducated bigots who haven't a clue what they're talking about.

Let's go thru this.
1. IVF is normal, if you think it isn't please find a bridge and jump the feck offa it. Cretin.
2. Uncles/aunts, brothers, sisters, grandparents, are they not role models? If your father died, would that have meant that all male role models, your uncles, cousins, grandparents were redundant? No, now stop being a fool.

3. The woman who would breast feed that baby would be the one who delivered the baby. Really, you need to try and educate yourself.
4. Gay men, and lesbians for that matter, know where babies come from. Do you? Do you seriously think they don't. Man, you're not very smart. You see the thing is, it's not gay people who have gay children, it's heterosexual couples who have gay children. Being gay is no different that being born with blue eyes, or brown hair. It's genetic. Seriously, you need to educate yourself. I hope when you have kids, and god bless that poor woman, that you have a gay child. It might finally open that tiny brain of yours.

Polonius I have noticed time and again that you dress up your fascination for all things gay with this blinkered and old fashioned viewpoint.
YOu are not fooling anyone. Why not just come out?

That's fine Polonius, no problem.

While I have no problem with same sex parenting I do however have massive issues with a man being named as the mother on a birth certificate as with Elton John and the children he has.

David is not their mother, their surrogate mother is THEIR mother. How ridiculous ! A child should know that babies come from male and female even in a test tube you need to fertilise the egg with sperm.

Agree totally. It's ludicrous to refer to a man as their 'mother'.

I have no problem with same sex parents or gay marriage, but referring to a man as 'mother' on the birth cert. was just a step too far, even for me.

Seems to be negating or denying the role of women somehow. Quite misogynist really.

Why? This means that if one of the parents in the same-sex couple has been called "father", the other has to be called "mother". If this is not the case and both are referred to as "fathers", how would you solve any possible legal issues that could arise? If the same-sex mariage has been legalized, the concept of such a mariage should fit into the so-far existing bills which use the words: "mother" and "father". If you wanted to introduce, say, "father A" and "father B" terms, you would loose compatibility with the existing acts on marriage which do not use such terms. Beaurocracy, just the same as gravity, has its natural laws build into them which you cannot easily override by simply arguing that something is "ludicrous".

Let's not over-complicate things. Clearly a man cannot be someone's mother nor can a woman be someone's father. Birth certs can simply be re-designed to add the neutral term 'parent'.

By the way what 'bills' and 'acts' about marriage are you referring to and in which country?

I'm not complicating things, nothing of the kind. The law must be consistent and compatible, otherwise things may get confused and settling problems between people becomes impossible. You cannot always replace the word "father" and "mother" with the word "parent" because in the vast majority of legally married couples one parent becomes pregnant for nine months and gives birth to the child in the purely biological act which is why this parent is called "mother" to distinguish it from the other parent which must be called by some other name ("father" in our case). Different legal implications may arise from these biological issues, so the law must simply abide by those old-fashioned and somewhat "complicated" terms. The law has simply no other choice, just as you have no other choice than to abide by the law of gravity which tells you that the planet Earth is far stronger than you with the result that you will be crashed to death if you jump out of the window of the top floor of a skycraper.

As simple as that and modern concepts of the same-sex marriage pushed into the existing frames cannot change the biological reality of our world which world is far stronger than us. Sorry!

The law of gravity is natural thus cannot be changed by man, the laws of man are man-made, can be changed, have been changed continuously throughout history and will carry on being changed.

Kleptomaniacs can't help the way they are because it's genetic. They were born that
way. Does that give them the right to steal?

Sorry Polonius, I'm not sure if you're asking me that question or just commenting on the thread in general? I know we're not allowed to use quotes if we're replying to the last comment posted so I was just checking.

Reply to #25: I guess I'll have to start putting the post number in my replies so it'll be known who is being replied to. I was replying to someone's post saying contending that homosexuals are genetically made up that way and cannot help it.

Okey doke. It's all getting very complicated!

I dont see why traditional non married couples should not have the same tax breaks as married couples it wouldn't be a constitutional issue.

Obiwandonnelly, I suspect you've never lived in Poland. It is a very conservative country and co-habiting couples are viewed by many as 'living in sin'. So the Polish parliament does not favour giving un-married couples equal status with their married counterparts. It would be seen as condoning 'immoral' behaviour. Like all people in power, their chief interest is staying in power and if they think that a change in the law would alienate their supporters and lose them votes, they won't change the law. Simple as that.

I know of two couples (one with children) who cohabit in small town Poland, no one cares that they are not married.