Translate

Friday, 20 September 2013

The four ways of respecting the institution of marriage


  1. The prohibition of extramarital and premarital sex
  2. The exclusion of same-sex couples from the privilege of marriage which must only be reserved for heterosexual couples
  3. The stigmatisation of SSMs  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Spinster-Single-Mums-a-burden-on-the-state/417696111659379
  4. The reintroduction of fault in any divorce settlement.  

18 comments:

snork maiden said...

How do you propose actively prohibiting non marital sex? Chastity belts?

Claire Khaw said...

The Koran prescribes that those convicted of extramarital sex be lashed 100 times.

I propose that SSMs be lashed 100 times per illegitimate offspring.

SSMs are explained at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Spinster-Single-Mums-a-burden-on-the-state/417696111659379

snork maiden said...

What about the men who impregnate the women?

BitsyBob said...

What about the men who engage in pre-marital sex? Presumably you want to punish them too, how do you propose they be dealt with?

Claire Khaw said...

Men tend not to get knocked up so they tend to get away with it.

snork maiden said...

Don't you think that's a little unjust? Especially when countries that practice such laws frequently punish rape victims. If you seriously want to outlaw non marital sex you'll need to come up with something that will deter men. All those single mums you loathe so much were impregnated by somebody, don't you have an opinion on that?

Claire Khaw said...

The Koran actually says lash 100 times anyone - male or female - convicted of extramarital sex.

In practice men tend to get away with it because they are not the ones who end up being knocked up and left holding the baby.

They can always skip town or say that the baby the slut bore is not theirs.

snork maiden said...

Are you okay with that? Given that's what you're suggesting we should have in Britain. Sounds like a heavily flawed rule to me if it can only be enforced against one half of a society, and only those members with no access to birth control.

Claire Khaw said...

You don't seem to understand that it is precisely my intention to firmly discourage extramarital and premarital sex.

If women didn't screw around they wouldn't get knocked up.

How hard is this to understand?

Claire Khaw said...

To answer your earlier question, men who impregnate sluts should also be punished if you can get hold of them and can prove they did it.

snork maiden said...

Well, you're making the assumption that women always choose to have sex, as I pointed out before countries which enforce chastity laws often punish rape victims because consent is considered immaterial. But the fact is men are on balance bigger and stronger than women and have higher sex drives, they are also less likely to suffer the consequences of unprotected sex and are less stigmatized by it. If you want to discouraged non marital sex you need to think up a way to discourage men, not just punish women after the fact.

And punishing women who bear children outside marriage doesn't take into account people who have access to contraception, are you against non marital relations or just children born out of wedlock?

And what about single women who have donor insemination, they don't have sex to get pregnant so you can't accuse them of being 'sluts' can you?

Claire Khaw said...

I am of the view that illegitimacy should be discouraged and illegitimacy comes from condoning female promiscuity.

If women didn't give it away for free then they wouldn't get knocked up, would they?

Since women now have access to modern contraception, there is no really no excuse and the only conclusion is that they get pregnant "accidentally on purpose".

I would ban AID as being dysgenic. If you can't find a husband you shouldn't breed and if you need help to breed you shouldn't breed.

snork maiden said...

You still haven't addressed the issue of rape victims who bear children. Why should they have to suffer more than they already have?

Claire Khaw said...

Why would women who are rape victims want to bring up their bastards on their own?

snork maiden said...

Some people don't believe in abortion, some people belong to religions which forbid it. In countries which practice the chastity laws you desire in this country, there is little access to safe abortion so women have no choice but to bear the child and suffer the consequences which the rapists are free of.

What I'm wondering is if you're really all that bothered by non marital sex or the institution of marriage, and more concerned with pillorying unmarried mums again because of the money you believe they cost you in income tax. Why else would you advocate laws which would have no impact on people with access to contraception and abortion?

Claire Khaw said...

If the rape victim does not believe in abortion then she could give it up for adoption.

How would you feel if your wife or daughter is the rape victim who refuses to either have an abortion or give away the baby for adoption?

snork maiden said...

Well, I think I'd have to abide by her choice whether I liked it or not. No woman should be forced to have an abortion, anymore than she should be forced to give birth to a child she doesn't want.

So you'd spare the lash if someone gave up their child for adoption? At what point would you see an unwed mother beaten? Once she's home from the hospital? Once the baby's on solids? Maybe you could get local GPs to do it as part of the six week review?

Claire Khaw said...

I suppose I should spare them the lash if the SSM gives up her baby for adoption and it is gone by the end of the 6th week when the Slut Police knock on her door ...