A comment on the NY vote

“I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.”
- New York Times

What you say makes absolutely no sense, Mr. Grisanti, as no one was being denied rights prior to this vote. Every adult in the state of NY had the exact same rights: to marry one, non-related, unencumbered, consenting adult of the opposite sex.

Those are the exact same rights shared by you and your wife. They were not being denied to anyone before.

What you have done with this law is granted special, unnecessary privileges to a certain category of people based on their sexual preference, privileges that could have been granted by law without making a further mockery of the institution of marriage.

Please quit deluding yourself into thinking you're some sort of civil rights hero, because you aren't.

Comments

  1. Seriously pathetic. What a sad excuse. And, you are absolutely right, JoAnna. Lord have mercy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. explain why these rights are "unnecessary."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Privileges, Anon, not rights. No rights were denied anyone in NY prior to this law.

    What this law does is essentially extend government sanction to "twoo wuv," which is patently unnecessary. The entire reason the government was in the business of conferring privileges to married couples was to facilitate the upbringing of the future generation of taxpayers. As homosexual couples are, by nature and design, unable to naturally procreate, the privileges are unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well said JoAnna. I can neer put my feelings into words. So I'll just agree fully.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is twoo wuv unnecessary in your marriage? It does not affect your ability to procreate.

    Or, are you saying that because you bear children, you are entitled to the 'privilege' of twoo wuv?

    Also, do you consider the partial ownership of your home and property a privilege, even the things you paid for but aren't technically in your name? Your executive power in the event of your spouse's illness, injury or death? Is that, like, twoo wuv, a privilege you get for simply laying a few babies?

    Here's the thing, JoAnna. We live in 2011, not 1102. Marriage is a secular institution as well as a church sacrament. Most people understand marriage as a union between two people, not a promise to procreate. The church is just going to have to use the latin word for your version, because both are dead.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon, is that your definition of marriage? "A union between two people"? Please advise.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon, in addition to Leila's question, I would ask the following:

    Are you saying that if I wanted someone else on the title of my house, or if I wanted someone specific to inherit my house after my death, I would have to marry that person to do so?

    It's not necessary to redefine the institution of marriage if your sole goal is to enact legal protections. If I wanted to leave my house to my mother after my death, I certainly wouldn't have to marry her to do so, and I find it odd that you think I would.

    The reason for the government recognition of marriage is not "twoo wuv," but that's what the state of NY has effectively turned it into, Anon.

    If you're sincerely interested in what marriage actually is instead of what the idiot legislators of NY (and a few other states) think it is, I recommend reading this journal article from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, which gives a thorough definition of marriage from a secular standpoint, and makes the case against the sanction of same-sex "marriage."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yep and it's those scary homosexuals who are adopting the nation's abandoned children that you so vehemently assert had the "right to life" in the womb...whoooopssss

    Face it, lady, the jig's up. The Church is an effete, dying, bloated behemoth. In fifteen years this society will look back and laugh at its antideluvian social policies, endless corruption, and all those who clung blindly to its ridiculous teachings.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow, look at all those big words anonymous ... someone obviously owns a thesaurus. Good for you!

    Joanna: you took the words out of my mouth (both in your original post and your subsequent argument)!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous, I would remind you of the sentence above the comment box:

    Please be respectful and courteous, and I will reciprocate.

    Since this is my personal blog, I don't owe you a platform. Please be respectful and courteous or cease to comment. If necessary I will disallow anonymous comments. This is your first warning. You have two more chances before I will take that step.

    Now, to address your rather weak "arguments," such as they are:

    Do you have stats to back up your dubious claim that every single gay couple wishes to marry for the purpose of adopting unwanted children? I believe the current stats on the percentage of homosexuals in the population is something like 2-4%. I can't find any stats with a quick google search on how many of those wish to marry, and how many of those "married" couples wish to adopt, but I sincerely doubt it's 100%, as you suggest. Do you think we should radically change and alter the institution of marriage in order to pacify the legal requirements of such a small subset of the overall population?

    Regarding your second paragraph, did you read the completely secular article from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy regarding why same-sex "marriage" is detrimental to society?

    You are the one who has brought up religion and the Church in this regard, not me. Why do you assume that opposition to same-sex "marriage" must have a basis in religion?

    Incidentally, people have been making similar dire pronouncements that the Church will die for around 2,000 years. Hasn't happened yet, so I can't say I put too much stock in your predictions.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There are 307,000,000 people living in the United States.

    If only 3% are gay, this makes for 9,000,000 people.

    To compare, the number of Jews in the US is about 5,000,000. Should we not care about discrimination against Jews because there's *only* 5,000,000 of them? Should we not care that lesbians and gay men want to get married and raise children because there's *only* 9,000,000 of them?

    What if one of your lovely, well-named children is gay? Do you not want to see his or her wedding to the life of his or her life? Do you not want to hold grandchildren? Do you not want to share the joys of being part of their families?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Les, are all 3% (e.g., all 9,000,000) interested in adopting children?

    Also, remember, we're talking about extending privileges here, not basic human rights -- the latter should be extended to everyone (including the unborn, of which 50 million have been unjustly killed since 1973) regardless of how many are in the U.S.

    If one of my children is gay, I will of course love them regardless -- just as I would if one of my children becomes an adulterer, or a fornicator, or any other sin. I will love them; I will not support their sin.

    I did not go to my father's wedding because I believed his marriage (to a twice-divorced former Catholic woman) was not valid. I would not go to my child's wedding if s/he made the decision to marry someone of the opposite sex outside the Church, or to otherwise marry invalidly.

    If grandchildren come along, regardless of their marital situation, I will love and treasure them while not supporting, encouraging, and condoning the sins of their parents, whatever those sins may be, just as I hope my children would not support or condone MY sins.

    If my children choose to cut me out of their lives because I refuse to support sin, then that is their choice, but I've had to make the choice between following Christ or supporting sin before, and I can tell you that following Christ is always the better option. After all, He said that His teachings may pit family members against one another, so it's not altogether surprising when that happens.

    ReplyDelete
  13. JoAnna, I am always so happy to read your blog. You are thoughtful, intelligent, and caring, and your arguments make sense not only because of their foundation in our beautiful Catholic faith, but because they are well-reasoned and presented coherently and interestingly.

    I plan to steal all of them and put them on my blog - with credit and a link to you of course!!! :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you, Elizabeth.

    I had another message today telling me that this entry displayed my evident hatred, bigotry, and vitriol toward homosexuals, so it's nice to know not everyone thinks that way.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please be respectful and courteous, and I will reciprocate.

Note to commenters: sometimes long comments, or comments that contain links, are sent to the comment moderation folder (or sometimes the spam folder). If you comment and it doesn't show up right away, chances are it went to comment moderation or spam. Rather than re-posting your comment, please e-mail me and ask me to check these folders. Thanks!

Popular posts from this blog

What the Catholic Church Means by Responsible Parenthood

Baby Update!

There's No Reason to Feel Offended by Pope Francis