tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post578708151989659781..comments2023-12-28T18:17:11.191-05:00Comments on Gruntled Center: Blankenhorn's Three Rules of MarriageGruntledhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14377809238377382438noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-25457989176981404292018-10-07T01:43:55.967-04:002018-10-07T01:43:55.967-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Adelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09309351897827851976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-72512239680418405622015-07-01T19:59:41.650-04:002015-07-01T19:59:41.650-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06296911632296211360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-49796810029070526242007-07-16T18:11:00.000-04:002007-07-16T18:11:00.000-04:00Marriages have the right to conceive children toge...<I>Marriages have the right to conceive children together.</I><BR/><BR/>Excellent, thank you.<BR/><BR/><I>“Same-sex couples should not be given the right to conceive children together” even when a state calls their affair a “marriage.”</I><BR/><BR/>I agree, but don't you see how this changes marriage? I'm not sure which is worse, actually: allowing same-sex conception or stripping marriage of conception rights. Same-sex conception might never become practical enough for any couple to choose it over other ways of acquiring cure little children. But if we have stripped marriages of conception rights because people accept your view, that could result in people being forced to use donor gametes, etc. I don't know why you refuse to simply say that such a situation is unacceptable, and demand that we do not allow same-sex marriages because marriage must continue to guarantee conception rights. You seem so worried that SSC will be justification for SSM, and yet you refuse to present a unified defense against both of them for some reason. They should both be fought as if they are the same thing, because it is important for them to BE the same thing. Don't separate them, that's what they want to do! <BR/><BR/><I>Presently the law allows homosexuals to conceive, if they could.</I><BR/><BR/>You mean "same-sex couples", not "homosexuals". Yes, the law allows pretty much everything, and in all cases, it is "if they could". Both-sex couples are allowed "if they can", and human-animal hybrids and cloning are allowed "if they can".<BR/><BR/><I>There should be legislation preventing homosexuals from conceiving and homosexuals should be supportive of this.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, you mean "same-sex couples". Every person has a right to conceive.<BR/><BR/><I>There should also be legislation preventing humans from conceiving with chimpanzees or other non-humans, if that were ever possible but because of the Kayuga results legislation against same-sex procreation should be pursued first.</I><BR/><BR/>It's all covered by an "egg and sperm" law, Jose. And the egg and sperm law only would stop intentional attempts at conceiving children that are not from a man's sperm and a woman's egg, so Mary would be in the clear. God is allowed to violate our human rules whenever he wants, he kills millions of people a day, for instance.John Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15367755435877853172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-38535160836897135412007-07-16T17:02:00.000-04:002007-07-16T17:02:00.000-04:00Marriages have the right to conceive children toge...Marriages have the right to conceive children together. “Same-sex couples should not be given the right to conceive children together” even when a state calls their affair a “marriage.” Presently the law allows homosexuals to conceive, if they could. There should be legislation preventing homosexuals from conceiving and homosexuals should be supportive of this. There should also be legislation preventing humans from conceiving with chimpanzees or other non-humans, if that were ever possible but because of the Kayuga results legislation against same-sex procreation should be pursued first. We should also be aware of the self-procreation (parthenogenesis) possibility as has been recently discovered among Komodo dragons and which exists among other animals. I’m not sure how to address this in law and the only known case in humans is the birth of Jesus. If it happens without artificial means it certainly should not be outlawed.José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-29071551163192500402007-07-16T12:50:00.000-04:002007-07-16T12:50:00.000-04:00I'm talking about marriage as recognized by the pe...I'm talking about marriage as recognized by the people who would otherwise punish the couple for having sex. Yes, it's civil marriage, all that matters is the power and authority to punish and prohibit unmarried sex and to enforce the obligations of marriage on couples that civil society has allowed to have sex.<BR/><BR/>Polygamous marriages are allowed to conceive children together, that has been consistently true also. The husband is allowed to have sex and conceive children with all of his wives. Marriage is the right to conceive children together.<BR/><BR/>Alan - don't drop out of this conversation yet. Marriage should guarantee the right to conceive children, using the marriage's own gametes. Same-sex couples should not be given the right to conceive children together.John Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15367755435877853172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-53762962651207662612007-07-15T17:23:00.000-04:002007-07-15T17:23:00.000-04:00Now, now John Howard, it’s not a good idea to star...Now, now John Howard, it’s not a good idea to start a discussion by insulting the person you’re talking to. I am not being silly because I do not take a simplistic view of your little equation. I realize you wish it to be airtight but it simply isn’t and I’m pointing out to you where the holes are. <BR/><BR/>You apparently are talking about “civil” marriage so to begin with the word “civil” should be placed before the word marriage in your little equation. Marriages occurred before the civil institution came into being. The definition of marriage must be understood from this beginning as the complementary union of man and woman. Marriages existed even where conception was not recognized as the common byproduct of a marriage.<BR/><BR/>You add “with each other” as if to imply a two person marriage but this is not in your little equation either. Does “with each other” include polygamous relationships?<BR/><BR/>Regardless of how the court would rule in Loving or whatever, the people that have married remain married and retain their natural and divine right to conceive. The only thing irrational laws can do is to provide penalties for the violators of the law. They cannot abrogate marriages because a marriage exists in spite of the law. What the law can do is recognize a marriage and provide it privileges and benefits, IF it understands what a marriage is. It may mistakenly imagine it is recognizing a marriage where no marriage has really occurred as with ss “m” in Massachusetts.José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-37534293781727647482007-07-15T14:36:00.000-04:002007-07-15T14:36:00.000-04:00Together with whom?? With each other, silly, usin...Together with whom?? With each other, silly, using their own gametes. When a couple is legally married, it means the authorities that issued the license to marry approve of the concept of offspring of those two people. If the law does not allow the conception of offspring using their gametes, marriage is not allowed.<BR/><BR/><I>If civil law should deny the natural and divine right to conceive to a man and a woman who have of their own will been joined in matrimony, their marriage is no less valid and no less a complete marriage.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you kidding me?? That is the danger, that people will claim that conception rights are not essential to marriage, and it does not harm or change their marriage for them to be prohibited from conceiving together. But of course it does change the marriage, it completely destroys the most universal constant of marriage.<BR/>Can you imagine if the court ruled in Loving that the Lovings could marry, but Virginia could still prohibit them from conceiving together? It was the conceiving part that was the "basic civil right of man" that made marriage a right in the first place.<BR/>Complementarity is not necessary to conceive together anymore, we need to prohibit people from conceiving with someone of their same sex, and we need to preserve the right of every marriage to conceive genetic offspring. And complementarity is not a good definition of marriage, I'm complementary to about 3 billion women, but there are many I can't marry, and the special thing about the one I marry is that we then have - or damn well better have - a right to conceive children together.John Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15367755435877853172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-21901106894303885552007-07-15T12:41:00.000-04:002007-07-15T12:41:00.000-04:00Hello John Howard,You sure get around. I certainl...Hello John Howard,<BR/><BR/>You sure get around. I certainly agree with you in that it is a given that all marriages have a right to conceive children. This is a right given by natural law and God not by governments, so that if civil law should deny the natural and divine right to conceive to a man and a woman who have of their own will been joined in matrimony, their marriage is no less valid and no less a complete marriage. <BR/><BR/>Governments may and should reinforce the natural law and may provide privileges and benefits to marriages. But civil law should deny the right to conceive to same-sex couples or to potentially self-propagating individuals, as we find among certain lizards. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, should a government or anyone impose the right to conceive on a man and a woman who have not chosen to be married, that man and woman are not thereby married. This can be understood in terms of breeding programs demanded of slaves. <BR/><BR/>Nevertheless to create the formula Marriage = Right to Conceive is imprecise and should really be stated as Marriage > Right to Conceive because marriage by definition requires complementarity. To say, “to conceive children together” is also unclear as it does not clarify—“together” with whom?José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-23746847272620737992007-07-14T21:45:00.000-04:002007-07-14T21:45:00.000-04:00From my blog, 4.12.2007:Here is what I would offe...<A HREF="http://eggandsperm.blogspot.com/2007/04/definition-of-marriage.html" REL="nofollow">From my blog, 4.12.2007</A>:<BR/><BR/>Here is what I would offer as the definition of marriage:<BR/><BR/> "Marriage is the right to conceive children together."John Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15367755435877853172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-48615744366942146692007-07-12T12:44:00.000-04:002007-07-12T12:44:00.000-04:00Arturo, do you feel it is a good, or even wonderfu...Arturo, do you feel it is a good, or even wonderful, thing for poor people to get food?<BR/><BR/>If your answer is yes, then by analogy with your repeated comment here, which you seem to think has been some kind of an argumentative checkmate, you must also have believed that the SLA kidnapping of Patty Hearst was a wonderful thing. (If you're too young to remember, look it up on the internet).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-29261552055905133772007-07-11T20:44:00.000-04:002007-07-11T20:44:00.000-04:00So suddenly you understand it to know it's irratio...So suddenly you understand it to know it's irrational? You're a joke. But I wish you well.<BR/><BR/>Hasta la vista.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-69482967673261093442007-07-11T12:03:00.000-04:002007-07-11T12:03:00.000-04:00Hmm. God or nature? Is this some original though...Hmm. God or nature? Is this some original thought or study of yours, or some personal revelation you’ve had? I certainly don’t remember it in the Bible. The Bible says that in the beginning God created humans as male and female and calls homosexual conduct an abomination. Jesus says that a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife in marriage and the two (man and woman) become one. It’s definitely not in the Koran nor even in the Damapada. Even the recently released Gospel of Judas condemns homosexuality (which the National Geographic Society decided to ignore in its TV reenactment) and no Gnostic group says such a thing. <BR/><BR/>If its nature where do you get such evidence? You probably have not observed that all claims of a “gay gene” have been debunked. So your eugenics [the science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) or hereditary qualities of a race or breed.] must be an original insight unknown to the scientific world. I suggest you publish it right away and seek peer review. The homosexualist editors of the NY Times would love to make it front-page news. <BR/><BR/>Your still batting 1000 on the irrational scale. It must be a lifestyle of yours.<BR/><BR/>Hasta la vista.José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-64055601767962989142007-07-11T08:36:00.000-04:002007-07-11T08:36:00.000-04:00Eugenenics? I clearly said that God or Nature mad...Eugenenics? I clearly said that God or Nature made it that way. That's the kind blindness I'm talking about. Let go of that bigotry, and you'll begin to understand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-75352012259552193552007-07-11T03:27:00.000-04:002007-07-11T03:27:00.000-04:00Sorry Arturo but it was too hard to follow all tha...Sorry Arturo but it was too hard to follow all that. I don't really know what you're talking about. Oh yes, I did catch that part, I'm a bigot. And that was very interesting eugenics; “to improve on the male gender made it inevitable that some males be sexually attracted to other males.” Hmm. I’m just left speechless.<BR/><BR/>Cuídate. Adiós.José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-42558970627603844812007-07-11T02:27:00.000-04:002007-07-11T02:27:00.000-04:00And by the way Jose, I don't think there's any eth...And by the way Jose, I don't think there's any ethnic prejudice involved. I'm just kidding. <BR/><BR/>Viva La Raza Cosmica!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-49184444550193411272007-07-11T02:22:00.000-04:002007-07-11T02:22:00.000-04:00The only way to appreciate your analogy is by beli...The only way to appreciate your analogy is by believing that a human person's sexual attraction to a human male or to a human female is a perversion, like a person's sexual attraction to a nonhuman. Which compares to having sex with an animal, in your opinion, having sex with a man, or with a woman? I'm guessing you guys think having sex with a woman compares to having sex with an animal: because raping a woman can create life, your side has already declared it to be "amazing" and very lovely indeed. <BR/><BR/>As I said above, one of the commentor-critics of Gloria's article states that for males to like films "with more content and sensitivity" is to fear being seen as "effeminate"--gay. If the commentor had said it's fear of being seen as "bestial", it would have made no sense at all. In fact, bestial would be the opposite of "sublime, intelligent, and creative", your words for what Gloria's commentor called "effeminate". The fact that we can appreciate what this commentor wrote would give you a clue, if you weren't blinded by bigotry, as to why God or Nature made sure that there be some such people among His human creation. It wasn't just for gay's own benefit, as your own marriage attests. <BR/><BR/>"Effeminate" necessariy means an increased sexual attraction for the male gender. Because to improve on the male gender made it inevitable that some males be sexually attracted to other males, same-sex attraction for the male is a good thing--because it's a natural thing and a necessary thing.<BR/><BR/>I wish you wellness and spiritual growth.<BR/><BR/>Viva La Raza Cosmica!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-14773729011437438172007-07-10T19:52:00.000-04:002007-07-10T19:52:00.000-04:00Yes Arturo, I think you are right but for the wron...Yes Arturo, I think you are right but for the wrong reason. I don’t think it has anything to do with ethnic prejudice. <BR/><BR/>Homosexualists try very hard to silence me because of my uncompromising position on their perverse behaviors. Much as I care for them as people, their aberrant sexual practices cannot be condoned and are a terrible impediment to their actualizing their full potential as human beings. They can’t stand that I do not take seriously their mock marriages and their fallacious, empty and contradictory arguments by which they seek to justify their gross conduct and desensitize the gullible masses to what they do to each other. I tell it as it is. Their sexual practices are an abomination. <BR/><BR/>Well, of course they are not going to like me and think I’m quite rude, to say the least. How dare I say such a thing when they are working so hard to convince themselves and everyone else that theirs is a normal and healthy lifestyle, indeed that it’s their actual identity. What nonsense! <BR/><BR/>Some wish to so aggrandize their moral turpitude as to use the term for obscene sexual behavior, “gay”, to denote the appreciation of sublime, intelligent and creative non-perverse acts. So coming from you I am to take it as a compliment that I “have more of a gay marriage than most straights do.” <BR/><BR/>People engaging in homosexual acts can do any number of wonderful things and have great appreciation of the arts. Likewise with the adulterer or abortionist or zoophile. Some years back I had wonderful neighbor who was an excellent cellist, a friend of Yoko Ono, who cared for her dog so much she would masturbate him so that he might be happy. Is there a law against that? I don’t know. It’s certainly a behavior I cannot condone and by Old Testament standards she would have been stoned to death. I’m a pacifist so I wouldn’t go that far. I don’t think that because we both appreciate and are involved in the arts she would “compliment” my marriage by saying we “have more of a zoophile marriage than most straight people.” Can you appreciate the analogy?<BR/><BR/>I wish you wellness and spiritual growth.<BR/><BR/>Adiós. ¡Viva la raza!José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-74377009972040884312007-07-10T11:52:00.000-04:002007-07-10T11:52:00.000-04:00Alan said: "I agree, RK, and thanks for the livel...Alan said: "I agree, RK, and thanks for the lively discussion! It's unfortunate that we're unable to really talk to each other in a way that we can both understand. I suspect it's as much an artifact of the limited means of communication in blog comments, plus the constant distractions of other commenters."<BR/><BR/>Jose, I think that means us. I don't think they like us. Viva La Raza!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-73998038383841739012007-07-10T11:12:00.000-04:002007-07-10T11:12:00.000-04:00Hola Jose:Indeed, as you say, "It is a well-known ...Hola Jose:<BR/><BR/>Indeed, as you say, "It is a well-known fact that certain movies appeal more to women than to men and vice versa." The more they are made to appeal to one gender without regard to the other the more they are, as you say "geared to a very low level of intelligence". Gays are generally disinterested in the (your phrase) "inane stupidities" that interests the stereotypical male. One of the commentor-critics of Gloria's article states that for males to like films "with more content and sensitivity" is to fear being seen as "effeminate"--gay.<BR/><BR/>You say you and your wife like ballet. That also appeals to gays. You're rejecting the "law of opposites". You have more of a gay marriage than most straights do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-58304596993837924422007-07-10T02:49:00.000-04:002007-07-10T02:49:00.000-04:00Hola Arturo,You seem to have amazing consistency i...Hola Arturo,<BR/><BR/>You seem to have amazing consistency in that all of your comments are irrational and irrelevant. <BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, as I believe I have a pretty good sense of humor, I can say that though I avoid her language, I do agree with Gloria on a number of observations that she makes in her article. It is a well-known fact that certain movies appeal more to women than to men and vice versa but stereotyping on the grounds of this truthful generalization is uncalled for. A great many movies appeal to both men and women. My wife and I, for instance, agree one hundred percent on the movies we like and we had a wonderful time a couple of nights ago watching a splendid video of Maya Plisetskaya performing excerpts from great ballets. We also enjoyed an excellent documentary on Islamic mysticism, “The Sufi Way.” <BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, most movies and the popular media in general are geared to a very low level of intelligence easily amused or thrilled by inane stupidities, and this applies to both men and women. Gloria seems to be watching some pretty awful stuff. <BR/><BR/>Adiós.José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-11191908136062165692007-07-09T22:22:00.000-04:002007-07-09T22:22:00.000-04:00By the way Gruntled: Cheers!By the way Gruntled: Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-39854524302848423432007-07-09T22:19:00.000-04:002007-07-09T22:19:00.000-04:00Gruntled, you mean "Jose has been living in a time...Gruntled, you mean "Jose has been living in a time capsule". He's the one who likes "the law of opposites".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-5201564539112653862007-07-09T22:14:00.000-04:002007-07-09T22:14:00.000-04:00Wow, Gloria Steinem has been living in a time caps...Wow, Gloria Steinem has been living in a time capsule! Really brings the '70s back ...<BR/>(Also, she seems to have confused "Saving Private Ryan" with "Band of Brothers," and missed the point of both.)Gruntledhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14377809238377382438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-60199607169980409922007-07-09T21:51:00.000-04:002007-07-09T21:51:00.000-04:00Here's an example of how Jose's beloved "law of op...Here's an example of how Jose's beloved "law of opposites" play out in the real world.<BR/><BR/>http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/56219/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-83891930489150435272007-07-09T11:12:00.000-04:002007-07-09T11:12:00.000-04:00In brief summation folks:The defenders of marriage...In brief summation folks:<BR/><BR/>The defenders of marriage that have commented here know what marriage is and can define it. This enables us to work for its protection because it is identifiable. Blankenhorn has provided his three rules of marriage: The rule of two, the rule of opposites and the rule of sex. We essentially agree with these three rules as needed for the formation of a marriage institution in our nation. I have given a more precise definition for all circumstances and societies, for our nation and for other cultures that do not subscribe to the Judeao-Christian precepts of marriage. What all of them have in common in defining marriage is that marriage must have complementarity as a relationship that lacks complementarity neuters marriage and forecloses on the possibility of procreation. Children obtained by such a neutered relationship are denied the right to a mother and a father. <BR/><BR/>The institution of marriage has always recognized that complementarity allows for the continuation of society. People are not considered married merely because they care for children otherwise everyone that cares for children could apply for marriage licenses and its benefits. The institution of marriage has always been a blessing and sanctification of man and woman because of the assumption that they may procreate. Society has always recognized the obvious biology by which the opposite sexes are naturally fitted for each other. If some cannot or will not procreate it does not negate the purpose of marriage. It is the misfit that negates marriage.<BR/><BR/>The purpose of the definition of marriage is not to defend marriage but to acknowledge, to recognize what it truly is so that society may provide marriage the special distinctions and privileges that the society believes it merits. This is why it is simply silly to try and qualify an earlier assertion that it is “naïve at best to define marriage” by saying: “My argument is and has been that it is naive to believe that a definition of marriage is going to somehow magically defend marriage -- because it obviously hasn't.” No one has said marriage is defined so as to defend marriage. Is this a straw man, a red herring or simply a lame attempt to camouflage the earlier nonsensical assertion? <BR/><BR/>The grave problem is that if we ignore the definition of marriage we will either be unable to determine who should obtain the special privileges and benefits reserved for marriage and thereby deinstitutionalize civil marriage or allow anyone with sufficient political power to obtain them. <BR/><BR/>We must preserve the definition of marriage to avoid the deconstruction of marriage. Defining it will not stop people from having marital problems or divorcing. The problems of divorce and family fragmentation are addressed through specific laws countering our present no fault divorce system, providing good instruction in the public schools that properly identify marriage and wholesome family structures rather than equalizing wholesome families with fragmented and dysfunctional families. And the defenders of marriage are certainly working on that front also, but that is a discussion for a different thread.<BR/><BR/>Here the marriage defenders have only addressed what marriage is while the opposition has sought to evade and confound its definition so as to allow homosexual relationships to usurp the privileges and distinctions of marriage.José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.com