Society Has No Future Without A Marriage Passport Stamp

Society Has No Future Without A Marriage Passport Stamp
Society Has No Future Without A Marriage Passport Stamp

Video: Society Has No Future Without A Marriage Passport Stamp

Отличия серверных жестких дисков от десктопных
Video: The most important passport stamp - Palau Travel Facts 2023, February

Tamara Pletneva, head of the Duma committee on family, women and children, spoke at the parliamentary hearings on the topic of reducing the number of marriages, saying that many marriages are not registered, although "marriage is protection, first of all, for children." She attributed partial responsibility for this to women:


“Girls, you know, say with pathos:“And what will a stamp in my passport give me?”. This is what they say on purpose, to please their young man. He is so eager. He doesn't want to be responsible. Here he says to her, and she … Oh, almost said a bad word. And she repeats this stupidity after him."

It is clear that Pletneva was immediately attacked not only by feminists, but also by all progressive-minded people - and not so much for shifting the blame on women, as for the very reasoning about printing in a passport. For example, Margarita Simonyan wrote:

“This is real sexism - to think that girls definitely want to get married, and boys definitely kick out. In all my relationships, I refused marriage - solely because of the senselessness and burdensomeness of such … It is difficult to understand why love insurance with some dubious state guarantees is family values, and unconditional trust without intermediaries and hedging of risks is not family. In fact, what is a registry office? This is insurance. It is we who enlist the support of the state - now it will be an invisible glue to be present in our bedroom. No, we are somehow ourselves."

There is a whole set of myths that have been imposed on society for a long time (and especially actively in the last century). Not only Russian, but also Western and world. They say that loving hearts will be together anyway, and there is no need to add any third person to their relationship. God - while people for the most part were not just believers, but also lived within the framework of what is now contemptuously called the traditional way of life (elders and juniors, family, family, honor, loyalty and betrayal, good and evil - this whole outdated funny system) … State - when secularized Western or communist Soviet societies sent the church to the reservation.

Of course, you can not add a third one. But then you shouldn't be surprised at the final result. And he is simple - there will be no third in this family. Because there will be no children, there will be no real family, no stable structure, the very cell of society, the foundation of any human society, any nation, any civilization. No, of course, children will be born without a "stamp", only such families will break up more often. Not to mention the fact that most of those who live simply for love will not become a family, that is, they will not have children. No, they will not even remain “cohabitation” for a long time, because they will simply fall apart after a few years of spending time together.

And there is no need to argue and give examples of "a happy life in an unregistered marriage with a bunch of children to a ripe old age" - there are, of course, such exceptions. But what is their percentage? There are, of course, fundamental opponents of the state as such: "times have changed, we live in a digital era, soon there will be no states, and the family is an outdated concept, a person is a self-sufficient unit, he can change partners as much as he wants and he owes nothing to anyone" … But what is the demand from the unfortunate? After all, it is clear what lies at the heart of the position of those who ridicule the "stamp in the passport" - fear and fear of telling the truth to themselves.

Yes, everything is very simple as always. Those who say that they do not need a stamp in their passport or a wedding in front of the altar are in fact simply not confident in themselves (or in their chosen one - which, however, is a derivative of the inability to understand oneself).And they want to leave themselves a loophole - that is, they just lie. Leave yourself the right to play back, to end the relationship when you get bored, when you get tired, or when you like someone else.

Undoubtedly, almost all of them are unbelievers - for a believer there can be no question "why do I need a third?" But I am not saying that they are all selfish. But all of them are weak in spirit, notorious and not figured out with themselves people. They are afraid of responsibility for their words and deeds. Because you not only swear before God or people and promise to be together in sorrow and in joy, you thereby say to yourself “I have decided, I promise and I swear”. And to a person who is not sure of anything, including his own feelings: how can he take on obligations not just for another - for himself? But I tell my partner in the eyes that I love him, that we are a family, I call him husband (wife) - why am I cowardly or weak? Because you do not have the courage and faith to say this publicly: if not in a church, then at least in the registry office. What then is your demand if you yourself do not believe in yourself?

If you insure yourself against failures or justify yourself by someone else's experience (as did the same Simonyan, who admitted that “I have always had a wary attitude towards legal marriage. I have never been officially married. Probably, these are some kind of children's complexes. unhappy married women and a dislike for marriage appeared”), then what kind of loyalty to your word can we talk about?

The main problem of any person is lying to himself. The hardest part is seeing your sins and fighting them. It is much easier to write off your weakness on the uselessness of what you cannot do or understand: why do I need a marriage from God or the state? No, there is only one type of marriage, real or not. And the real one can only be honest. And this is exactly what the fighters with the stamp lack.

And this is not to mention another, general level (but it very often does not exist for "progressive people") - that a person lives in a society for which he invents some of his own human laws, ideally making it easier to live together and contributing to the saving, development and strengthening of the people to which he belongs. And the family, as a foundation, is not only needed by any state and civilization, it is generally the basis of everything, without it the people have no future.

The atomization of society, weaning it from marriage - first church, then state, and later even simply from the "institution of joint permanent residence" - this is the articulated goal of the antihuman philosophy of posthumanism. Of course, children can be produced from a test tube without a family, and then raised by the whole society or by machines with artificial intelligence. But this is the path to degeneration, degradation and extinction of the people who follow this path.

Popular by topic