Over at the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy website, IGF contributing author John Corvino is having an exchange with former gay activist David Benkof, who says he is practicing celibacy since embracing Orthodox Judaism. First, here's Benkof, who argues:
"We may think we've figured out why certain behaviors are moral or immoral, and even find some of G-d's moral calculus to be frankly troubling. But we are moral dwarves compared to the infinite wisdom and goodness of the creator of the universe."
And here's Corvino, who replies that:
Many people-with widely disparate views-have claimed to know God's mind, and they can't all be right. As humans, we are fallible. So this is not Corvino versus God; it's Corvino versus Benkof-each one trying to figure out what's right."
I'll add my two cents. Orthodox literalism is far from the only way to understand the Bible, a work that even on the surface is suffused with layers of allegorical richness. But going beyond biblical exegesis is the broader problem of how orthodoxy and fundamentalism confound scriptural authority with the totality of God's word.
I'm not the first to suggest that fundamentalism/literalism is a form of idolatry, worshiping scripture instead of the living spirit of the creator, whose revelation is alive and ongoing, as most certainly is our evolving ability to contemplate the fullness of his Logos.
I'll share that my favorite portions of the New Testament (the non-Paulist bits) are when Jesus calls out the crowd that castigates him for healing on the Sabbath (when the Bible demands you shall not work), saying "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Or when he dismisses the ritualistic dietary laws by saying, "It is not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean. It is what comes out of a man's mouth that makes him unclean." Or when he expresses shock that the masses actually think that the Biblical injunction of "an eye for an eye" should be (literally) followed.
Time and again, scriptural authority is cast as a means, not an end, and love trumps the law.
{ 74 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
I did some more research into Hayden’s argument that Merriam-Webster’s definition of “marry” is consistent with same-sex nuptials. Well, right after the definition Hayden cites, “to enter into a close union,” M-W gives the example “Working long hours, she is married to her job.” In other words, this definition refers not to legal marriage (unless gays are now arguing that people should be allowed to “marry” inanimate objects, which at this rate is maybe inevitable) but to a figurative sense of joining two disparate things together. Like “Showtime’s hot new series ‘Dexter’ is a marriage of ‘Silence of the Lambs’ and ‘Law and Order.’” Well, OK. I will admit that in this specific sense two men can get married. “Chuck essentially married Larry the very night they met at the bathhouse.” In that very limited sense, using the definition and example given in the Merriam-Webster definition, two men can get married.
So you caught me. In a very technical way. In one of the minor definitions of “marry” (the fifth definition, not the third as you claim) in the sense given by the example provided, two men can indeed marry each other. Are you seriously arguing that it is therefore incumbent upon the 49 non-MA states to change their legal definitions of marriage?
Is this the best argument you can come up with? My goodness, winning this debate in the public square is going to be easier than I thought.
Because I’m so worked up over Hayden’s allegation that my expertise in gay history is really “junk science” and “double talk” and “bogus science,” I found it necessary to collect some quotes from some of the smartest, best respected, most accomplished experts at homosexuality across space and time. All are gay or lesbian themselves. I am nearly certain none voted for George Bush. I imagine they all want to change the definition of marriage. But here’s what they say about the phantom gay past:
Independent scholar Jonathan Ned Katz, formerly of Yale, early pioneer in uncovering documents about the lesbian and gay past, and author of the totally awesome “The Invention of Heterosexuality”: “The existence of the words and our use of them can’t be separated from the feelings and the acts…. it’s literally true that homosexual feelings and acts didn’t exist before those concepts.”
University of Illinois-Chicago Professor John D’Emilio, a Marxist historian who wrote one of the first dissertations on a gay history subject ever and later worked at the far-left NGLTF: “the essentialist notion that gays constitute a distinct minority of people different in some inherent way has more credibility in American society than ever before [but] the core assumptions at the heart of [most recent gay] historical studies are ignored.”
Lesbian anthropologist Esther Newton, of the State University of New York: “there is really no essentialist [anthropological] position on sexuality, no notion that people are born with sexual orientations. The evidence, fragmentary as it is, all points the other way….Western lesbian and gay anthropologists, for the most part, have not run around the world looking for other lesbians and gay men.”
The dean of gay historians, leftist openly gay scholar Martin Duberman: “Were people always either gay or straight? The answer to that is a decided ‘No.’ [Instead, people from other eras who slept with members of their own gender] haven’t viewed that as something exclusive and therefore something that defines them as a different category of human being.”
You may disagree with the consensus position of the experts in gay history. I disagree with the consensus position of the academic experts in Bible that the Torah had many authors over many centuries. I disagree with the consensus position of biologists that the universe had no intelligent designer. All that is fine. But to call the work of these fine LGBT scholars “junk science” is clearly more a reflection of your ignorance than of theirs or mine.
Pat, Orthodox Jews believe most of our laws apply only to Jews. But a handful of those laws apply to everyone, and two such laws are the prohibition of anal sex between men, and the prohibition of same-sex marriage. I ask you the same think I asked avee above – are you saying we should vote against our consciences or that that we shouldn’t be allowed to vote or speak out our views at all?
It’s just interesting that when it comes to homosexual sex, how the laws “apply to everyone.” Kind of like many Christians who don’t get upset about eating pork as this is specifically a prohibition in the Bible, but are vehement against the vague prohibitions against gay sex.
Absolutely feel free to vote your conscience. But also feel free to decide that prohibitions for yourself do not necessarily have to apply to other people. Your choice.
As for imposing one’s belief on others, both sides in the same-sex marriage debate are guilty of that. Are you criticizing both sides or just the traditionalists? For example, after gay “marriage” passed in Massachusetts, the Catholic Church was told they could not help arrange adoptions unless they violated their deeply held beliefs and pretended like it doesn’t matter whether a child has both a mother and a father. Have you criticized that attempt to impose beliefs on others?
Sorry about that, but the Catholic Church has to follow the law if they want to be in the adoption business. For example, if they had a policy against adoption for interracial couples, they would have to decide whether or not they want to follow the law or get out of the adoption business.
I simply do not understand what you mean by “pick and choose.” It would appear that it either means that Orthodox individuals look at the Jewish laws and select the ones they like and say they apply to them, and then select the ones they do not like and say they’re obsolete. That simply does not happen. If that’s what you allege Orthodox Jews do, you’ll have to provide some evidence (links, etc.). Otherwise it’s just your fantasy.
I thought it was a fantasy until recently, but your post confirmed my recent observation that it is pick and choose. But please feel free to call it whatever you wish. I understand completely that you don’t see it as pick and choose, and I understand that you believe you demonstrated otherwise. Like I said, it is your right.
But you’ve also said you think we wrote the Torah in the first place. So what’s wrong with the people who wrote a document also deciding which parts to emphasize?
Nothing. But as I suggested, it’s interesting what people afterwards pick and choose to emphasize and how they justify it.
Or if you change your stance and agree that G-d wrote the Torah, you have to recognize that there is huge but not 100% agreement as to what the Torah means.
I’m afraid I won’t change my mind about G-d writing the Torah. You’ll have to cite evidence.
You write: “You may or may not be right regarding same sex marriage. However, using justification from a source thousands of years ago, doesn’t and shouldn’t fly.” But I have never said, “I believe the Torah says X, so everyone of every religion or no religion must agree with me.” Rather, I’m saying “I believe the Torah says X, so I’m going to argue in favor of X and vote as if X were Truth.”
That’s fine. But the basis of your argument is a text and doctrine from thousands of years ago. If you want to believe that this was G-d’s actual words, that’s fine. But how do you know G-d hasn’t changed His mind since then? Because no other documents written by G-d have been unearthed since then? You’re basing your argument on a premise that is very shaky.
So I ask again, what exatly “shouldn’t fly”? Should I be forbidden to argue for policies consistent with my belief system? Should I be barred from voting for policies consistent with my worldview? Or are you saying I should be able to vote, but should receive some punishment if I vote based on a “source thousands of years ago”? What do you propose – lashes? jail?
As I said above, you shouldn’t be barred to vote and I would never suggest otherwise. And, of course, you are and should be free to vote your conscience. We’re just having a debate here trying to convince each other about our arguments. I was simply questioning your need to impose your belief that you must marry a woman, if you do marry at all, onto everyone else.
You make it sound like society is more and more starting to believe that homosexuality and gay marriage are moral.
It sure is. More and more people are seeing the light.
Well, a 2006 Gallup poll showed a majority of Americans believing homosexuality was morally wrong.
Okay. But this does not contradict my point. Do we really need a link to see how this would compare to a poll from, say 30 years ago?
With one exception with unusual circumstances, every time Americans have been asked to vote they have overwhleming rejected same-sex marriage, usually by margins of three, four, or even five-to-one. It would have been repealed in Massachusetts too, if it wasn’t for the anti-democratic Democrats and gay activists who used sneaky maneuvers to scuttle the vote.
Like you, I would have preferred a vote as well. But 3/4 of the legislators “scuttle[d]” the vote. Whether the maneuvers were sneaky or not, the procedure was followed. If this issue is of that importance (and the majority of Massachusetts voters really oppose gay marriage), they should bring it up again. In the meantime, they should vote out these over 3/4 of the legislators who scuttled the vote. Or maybe these voters have lives and more important things to deal with. And the straight ones realize that THEIR rights for marriage have not changed.
Finally, there’s a huge harm in changing the definition of marriage.
Why is that?
I believe children need both a mother and a father. When a child does not have both a mother and a father, it is by definition a tragedy.
Which definition of tragedy? A very sad or tragic (bringing great harm, suffering, etc.) event or sequence of events; disaster.? This is your opinion, and has not been demonstrated.
Don’t worry about my wife. I am aware that if she ever googles me, she’ll know plenty about my background.
And I trust that she wouldn’t have to google to find out.
“By definition,” I believe it is a tragedy when a man who knows himself to be gay marries a woman, especially if she doesn’t know that her husband is gay.
I’m a bit taken aback by your strong language: that I have “insulted everyone’s intelligence”
I know this was directed to someone else, but with all due respect, David, I’m afraid you did insult everyone’s intelligence when you said gay people can get married. Everyone here is well aware that a gay man can legally marry a woman. In fact, some may have, in fact, done that.
The question is SHOULD a gay man marry a woman? Is it really better that gay men should marry a woman instead of having the option to marry a man? Should gay men just remain celibate? Or should they attempt to become “ex-gay” as their only chance to have a “moral” sexual relationship and marriage?
David, one last thing. One of the great things about the English language is the ability to modify or add definitions and add new words to adapt to the changing times.
I imagine the definition of computer has changed in the past 30 years. Is this okay, or should I through my computer out because it doesn’t conform to a past definition of computer? Yes, that was silly. But in my view, no more silly than saying that the definition of marriage should not be changed to include the union of two persons of the same sex.
The dean of gay historians, leftist openly gay scholar Martin Duberman: “Were people always either gay or straight? The answer to that is a decided ‘No.’ [Instead, people from other eras who slept with members of their own gender] haven’t viewed that as something exclusive and therefore something that defines them as a different category of human being.”
You may disagree with the consensus position of the experts in gay history. I disagree with the consensus position of the academic experts in Bible that the Torah had many authors over many centuries. I disagree with the consensus position of biologists that the universe had no intelligent designer. All that is fine. But to call the work of these fine LGBT scholars “junk science” is clearly more a reflection of your ignorance than of theirs or mine.
I don’t believe the work of these scholars is junk science. Frankly, I’m not sure what to call it. A lot of this seems to be semantics. It seems to me what Martin Duberman said was there were homosexuals in the past, but they didn’t put themselves in a different category. I’m not exactly sure what this means. Is it simply because there wasn’t a word in the dictionary back then to describe what it meant if a person had a dominant or exclusive attraction to the same sex? And is he trying to say that homosexuals didn’t exist because the word hadn’t been defined yet? That King James I wasn’t a homosexual even though he preferred having sex with men, because hey, he married and authorized an edition of a Bible, which among other things, condemned homosexual sex? And was it okay for these men to marry women even though both would be miserable from the get go? Or they were no worse than other marriages, because even marriages between heterosexuals (as we define them today) sucked as well?
if there’s a Jewish government run by Jewish law, the rule about stoning adulterers will come into play again.
At the risk of sounding evangelical, I can’t imagine a clearer distinction between the Jewish view of the messiah and the Christian, in which Jesus angrily tells a Leviticus-citing crowd that’s about to stone a woman for sexual trangressions, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Kind of like many Christians who don’t get upset about eating pork as this is specifically a prohibition in the Bible, but are vehement against the vague prohibitions against gay sex.
Well, that’s rather easy to explain.
About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that G-d has made clean.”
Acts 10: 9 – 15
Meanwhile, since that is a New Testament statement, it is understandable that Orthodox Jews would not recognize it as applicable to them, while Christians would.
“By definition,” I believe it is a tragedy when a man who knows himself to be gay marries a woman, especially if she doesn’t know that her husband is gay.
So why should society change the definition of marriage because of malevolent lying gay people like Jim McGreevey?
I know this was directed to someone else, but with all due respect, David, I’m afraid you did insult everyone’s intelligence when you said gay people can get married.
Not mine.
Indeed, what I think is more of an insult to peoples’ intelligence is for gay and lesbian people to state that they can’t get married, when in fact they can; they just aren’t allowed to marry the person(s) to whom they are sexually attracted.
Society has for millenia given preferential treatment to the union of a man and a woman because that is from where society’s future comes. Why is it such a problem for other gay and lesbian people to acknowledge that?
At the risk of sounding evangelical, I can’t imagine a clearer distinction between the Jewish view of the messiah and the Christian, in which Jesus angrily tells a Leviticus-citing crowd that’s about to stone a woman for sexual trangressions, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Jewish law fully counsels and allows for mercy in the case of a grievous sin committed for which the person is repentant, as Jesus counsels at the end of that particular piece when He tells the woman, “Go and sin no more.”
Well, that’s rather easy to explain.
Not so sure about that.
Meanwhile, since that is a New Testament statement, it is understandable that Orthodox Jews would not recognize it as applicable to them, while Christians would.
Why not? If G-d said it, it would apply to Orthodox Jews. Anyway, aside from the internal contradictions here, the point is that Orthodox Jews (according to David Benkof) believe that the laws regarding homosexual sex apply to all people, but the ban on pork doesn’t. To me, the “pick and choose” aspect, although different, is strikingly similar.
So why should society change the definition of marriage because of malevolent lying gay people like Jim McGreevey?
Of course, I don’t believe that society should or shouldn’t do anything based on unsavory characters like Jim McGreevey. Just as I don’t believe society should get rid of marriage for straight people because of “malevolent lying” straight people as well.
Not mine.
(Shakes head) No comment.
Indeed, what I think is more of an insult to peoples’ intelligence is for gay and lesbian people to state that they can’t get married, when in fact they can; they just aren’t allowed to marry the person(s) to whom they are sexually attracted.
NDT, when a gay person says, “I can’t get married,” I am pretty certain you know darn well what he means. Or are we stuck in the exact words episode of the Brady Bunch or something. However, for clarity, let me state that if I ever say, “I can’t get married,” that is shorthand for “I can’t get married to a person of the same sex. Although since I’m not a complete idiot, I realize that I legally can get married to a person of the opposite sex. But since I know that I am gay, I do not want to enter such a union with a woman, because it would be cruel and unfair to do so, unless the woman agrees to it. Nonetheless, I still would not want to enter such a union.”
Society has for millenia given preferential treatment to the union of a man and a woman because that is from where society’s future comes. Why is it such a problem for other gay and lesbian people to acknowledge that?
I acknowledge that from a historical perspective. But those who continue to believe that we should continue the preferential treatment fail to acknowledge that this preferential treatment extends to men and women who cannot or have no intention of having children.
Anyway, aside from the internal contradictions here, the point is that Orthodox Jews (according to David Benkof) believe that the laws regarding homosexual sex apply to all people, but the ban on pork doesn’t. To me, the “pick and choose” aspect, although different, is strikingly similar.
The laws, regardless, apply in the Jewish mindset to all people. And, should pork consumption ever come up to be banned, I fully expect that Orthodox Jews would vote their conscience and vote against it. Those who choose to live outside Jewish law are taking matters into their own hands, and that isn’t advisable in the Orthodox perspective.
I acknowledge that from a historical perspective. But those who continue to believe that we should continue the preferential treatment fail to acknowledge that this preferential treatment extends to men and women who cannot or have no intention of having children.
As it has for millenia — mainly because the vast and overwhelming majority choose to have children.
Furthermore, Pat, just because that tiny minority chooses not to have children does not change the fact that gay and lesbian couples, by overwhelming majority, are incapable of having children that are biologically theirs.
Again, why is it so difficult for you to admit that opposite-sex couplings are different and carry different societal ramifications than do same-sex couplings?
The problem here is that you are projecting the problems of the gay community – rampant promiscuity, disease, drug use, open disdain for monogamy and commitment, public non-acceptance, and so forth — onto the absence of marriage, even though it is patently obvious that the mere legal presence of marriage would do little to nothing to solve any of these, especially when you have gay and lesbian couples who state publicly that, after marriage, they have no intention of being monogamous.
These are not caused by the absence of marriage. They are caused by the absence of responsibility and restraint in the gay community. Instead of directing your ire at Orthodox Jews and Benkof, why not direct it at the people in the gay community create these problems?
It’s so cool that I’m no longer the most conservative voice here. It makes me sound “reasonable.”
Pat-
While I disagree with most of what you say I have to admit you are nonetheless thoughtful and well-spoken.
it is not “my choice” to decide which prohibitions apply only to Jews and which are universal. That decision has already been made for me by G-d in his Oral Law.
Your comment that “the Catholic Church has to follow the law if they want to be in the adoption business” is outrageous. You are demanding that a religious-political tradition far more significant and hallowed than anything gay activists have ever come up with behave as if they agree with gay and lesbian values instead of Catholic values, and if they don’t, screw the poor African-American children with no one to tuck them in at night. Their rights to a family with both a mother an a father are far, far less important than the right of some twink, leather daddy or lipstick lesbian to feel “equal.” Part of me wants the gay community to continue taking the side of selfish gay ideologues to the detriment of groups like poor orphans of color and underprivileged Boy Scouts. It just shows the rest of the world how fouled up the values of the activist leadership of the gay and lesbian community are.
Your fake argument about interracial adoptions is barely worth my time. Nobody is advocating only approving black-black and white-white adoptions. There is no cogent case I have ever heard that would defend such a vile idea. Are you really so arrogant as to suggest that those of us who prefer for children to have both a mother and a father have absolutely no cogent points to make? Please.
If you write me offlist at my name @ aol.com I’ll open a private discussion with you about the compelling evidence that G-d wrote the Torah. It’s too off-topic to debate here.
Jews don’t believe there will ever be a “New Testament.” We believe the Torah is eternal, and we know it’s eternal because G-d promised us it would be.
You wrote, “I was simply questioning your need to impose your belief that you must marry a woman, if you do marry at all, onto everyone else.” I have never wanted, much less needed, to force every man to marry a woman. It is perfectly legitimate for a man to stay single, especially if he’s not Jewish.
You show an ignorance of how survey research works. Just because there’s a trend in one direction is no guarantee there won’t be a reversal. The 1920s were a time of increasing support for women’s equality. The 1930s reversed that trend. Someone with your attitude in 1928 might have confidently predicted that all Americans will be feminists by 1945. But it didn’t happen. You don’t know what future research will show, what arguments will win the day, etc. Right now, it is unquestionable that you are in the minority, not me.
As for tragedy, see my comments to Hayden above. The incredible suffering of children who don’t have both a mother and a father has indeed been demonstrated, but I can’t write it here so E-mail me and I’ll show you how it has been demonstrated.
You write: “The question is SHOULD a gay man marry a woman?” I have never said definitively that he should.
“Is it really better that gay men should marry a woman instead of having the option to marry a man?” This is nonsense. You’ve listed one option rather than two. “the option to marry a man” is as nonsensical as “the option to marry a tomato.” A man cannot marry a man. Marriage is a union of a man and a woman.
“Should gay men just remain celibate?” They should have that option, but it should not be forced upon them. Do you disagree?
“Or should they attempt to become “ex-gay” as their only chance to have a “moral” sexual relationship and marriage?” I have never supported the “ex-gay” movement. I have spoken out against it. So of course I don’t support that.
“I imagine the definition of computer has changed in the past 30 years. Is this okay, or should I through my computer out because it doesn’t conform to a past definition of computer?” If you built something out of wood that looked like a computer, it wouldn’t be a computer. If the government instituded a rite of passage called a “civil bar mitzvah” extended to children over the age of 10, those who went through it before their 13th birthday would not be bar mitzvah, no matter what the government said. You can’t redefinte bar mitzvah. It’s not up for negotiation. Same thing with marriage.
Am I still insulting your intelligence? If so, I apologize.
Off to lunch, more soon.
It might be worth noting that Judaism – unlike Islam and Christanity – is not really an evangelical religion.
It is not the job of Jewish people to convert ‘Gentiles’ and it is a rather complicated process to formally convert. Also the American Jewish population is fairly small part of the national voting block and is generally the least prejudice of all white American voting rights.
I’m a bit taken aback by your strong language: that I have “insulted everyone’s intelligence” and ‘wasted everyone’s time” with an argument that is absolutely central to the case I’m making, an argument you call “twaddle” and evidence I am “being childish.”
Perhaps you can take comfort in knowing that I do not mean it personally when I say you are wasting people’s time with twaddle, David.
I assure you that if an apologist for Islam came on here and informed everyone that there is, in fact, “religious equality” in Saudi Arabia, because everyone there is free to embrace Muhammad and the Quran, and nobody has the right to worship Jesus publicly, I would say that he was wasting our time and insulting our intelligence with childish word games.
And I say nothing more than that to you.
So why should society change the definition of marriage because of malevolent lying gay people like Jim McGreevey?
You just blatantly threw a red herring here. Jim McGreevey is trivial to the discussion of same-sex marriage.
Not mine.
Indeed, what I think is more of an insult to peoples’ intelligence is for gay and lesbian people to state that they can’t get married, when in fact they can; they just aren’t allowed to marry the person(s) to whom they are sexually attracted.
Why am I not surprised. Sometimes I wonder if you’re impostor, or a troll, yet most of the time I think you’re a masochist who enjoy being the opponent’s bitch. Fetishes sprout in the weirdest ways.
Society has for millenia given preferential treatment to the union of a man and a woman because that is from where society’s future comes. Why is it such a problem for other gay and lesbian people to acknowledge that?
Yet society has for millenia has been nefarious and stupid relative to our current standards. For instance, we had the God condoned institution of slavery, or the caste system. Marriage primarily based on love is a rather modern concept, and for many cultures this concept is considered as radical as same-sex marriage. Since it was unheard of in many societies, does it mean that it’s invalid? No, it simply means that it has been redefined more than once. Even David here admits that the Ashkenazim redefined marriage a 1000 years ago.
Even where we are, humanity on average is incredibly pathetic. One day this discussion over marriage and procreation will seem trivial, especially to AI life.
Now to David…
You have no evidence for the idea that I have fallen for the “myth that ancient Israelites were monotheistic.” I know, because I googled my name and the words “monotheism” and “monotheistic” and got zero hits. If you want to critique me, please focus on things I have actually said, not things that you imagine I might believe.
So you believe that the ancient Israelites were henothiests before they were introduced to Greek neoplatonist philosophy, or are you throwing a straw man? If you do, then what is trully the point of the Abrahamic aspect ? or should I say restrictions ? of your faith, if it is only unenlightened superstition?
Every morning Jews pray “Who is like you among gods, O Lord.” The word used for “gods” – elim – is the plural of one of the names used for G-d – El. This prayer would be nonsense if Judaism believed there is literally only one god. As you say, it’s just that we believe that Hashem is the G-d who created the universe and is the only one who should be worshipped. As for Hashem being a volcano G-d, you have to admit that – whether or not it’s right – it’s an obscure theory with very few who agree with it. ["volcano god" Hashem] gets less than 25 hits and there’s less than 2,000 for ["volcano god" Jewish] and ["volcano god" Israel]. If yours was a well-accepted theory, it would have hits in the 5 or 6 figures, not the low 4s.
That’s both an appeal to popularity and straw man argument. The volcano god aspect I wasn’t enitrely sure about, but it explains well the reference to the lake of fire, and the fire and brimstone. Anyway if you want to count numbers, I’ve found over 1000 articles with judaism and “volcano god,” yet the popularity is irrelevant.
There’s a good referenced article about the subject here: http://www.pantheon.org/articles/y/yahweh.html
What definition of “obscure” are you using? Because the one that appears to apply is “of little or no prominence, note, fame, or distinction.” Come on. Christianity and Islam grew out of Judaism. A U.S senator who got the most votes to be vice president in the 2000 election, and the current attorney general are both Orthodox Jews. Such cultural icons as Matisyahu and Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat) are Orthodox Jews. You mentioned Israel. Orthodox Jews are not popular in some circles, but they make up about a fifth of the population. Obscure? Hello?
Obscure as in “far from public notice, worldly affairs, or important activities; remote; retired,” and I’m talking about the religion itself, not individual followers. Sasha Baron-Cohen isn’t really that observant. Heck, Jack Abramoff is even more Orthodox than him!
Rob-
I’m not going to engage in dialogue with you unless you apologize for bringing up Abramoff’s Orthodoxy. To pick a universally despised person as an example of my group for no other reason than to try to make us look bad is reprehensible, and I won’t cooperate with it.
If in talking about some aspect of homosexuality I brought up with no tight specific reason, Andrew Cunanan and Leopold and Loeb and Mark Foley, you would cry foul in an instant. This is the last you’ll hear from me without an apology.
it is not “my choice” to decide which prohibitions apply only to Jews and which are universal. That decision has already been made for me by G-d in his Oral Law.
I guess my point was that the pick and choose aspect came from G-d’s Oral Law. But you also said there is some debate within the Orthodox community, so there is some pick and choose there as well. Again, I understand your point, and understand how you’ve come to the conclusions you have, and I don’t have an issue how you’ve come to your beliefs.
Your comment that “the Catholic Church has to follow the law if they want to be in the adoption business” is outrageous. You are demanding that a religious-political tradition far more significant and hallowed than anything gay activists have ever come up with behave as if they agree with gay and lesbian values instead of Catholic values, and if they don’t, screw the poor African-American children with no one to tuck them in at night. Their rights to a family with both a mother an a father are far, far less important than the right of some twink, leather daddy or lipstick lesbian to feel “equal.”
Saying that the RC Church should follow the law is outrageous? I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on that point. I get your point how children will end up suffering because of this. I’m not sure we agree on who’s to blame for this though. Anyway, I’m guessing the Church and/or persons on their behalf in MA will, if they haven’t already, seek out the courts to resolve this issue.
Part of me wants the gay community to continue taking the side of selfish gay ideologues to the detriment of groups like poor orphans of color and underprivileged Boy Scouts. It just shows the rest of the world how fouled up the values of the activist leadership of the gay and lesbian community are.
See, I don’t see how this is any less outrageous than my comment. Further, you can virtually change gay with Catholic above.
Your fake argument about interracial adoptions is barely worth my time. Nobody is advocating only approving black-black and white-white adoptions. There is no cogent case I have ever heard that would defend such a vile idea. Are you really so arrogant as to suggest that those of us who prefer for children to have both a mother and a father have absolutely no cogent points to make? Please.
I was thinking of this as more of a hypothetical argument rather than fake. So my question is what IF this was the case? Should we just let the Church break the law because of the harm that might come to children? And no, I don’t believe that I’m that arrogant that those who believe in having a mother and father is best have no cogent points. Far from it.
While I advocate religious freedom in this country, there are limits. One only has to look at the Mormon sect community in west Texas. According to their beliefs, what they are doing are just fine and they believe that they should be left alone. I think we both agree that this group should not be allowed to molest children whether or not it’s under the guise of marriage.
I am NOT equating these two situations. But to demonstrate there are limits to religious freedom, and at some point, religious groups are compelled to follow the law, even if it goes against their own doctrine. So the question is, should this be the case for the MA adoption issue?
Jews don’t believe there will ever be a “New Testament.” We believe the Torah is eternal, and we know it’s eternal because G-d promised us it would be.
That’s fine. And I’m sure you’re well aware that people who are just as certain as you in their beliefs believe differently.
You wrote, “I was simply questioning your need to impose your belief that you must marry a woman, if you do marry at all, onto everyone else.” I have never wanted, much less needed, to force every man to marry a woman. It is perfectly legitimate for a man to stay single, especially if he’s not Jewish.
And I believe if it is perfectly legitimate for a gay man to not have to stay single and be married (to a man) if he chooses. However, I will not impose that belief on you.
You show an ignorance of how survey research works. Just because there’s a trend in one direction is no guarantee there won’t be a reversal. The 1920s were a time of increasing support for women’s equality. The 1930s reversed that trend. Someone with your attitude in 1928 might have confidently predicted that all Americans will be feminists by 1945. But it didn’t happen. You don’t know what future research will show, what arguments will win the day, etc. Right now, it is unquestionable that you are in the minority, not me.
I’ll admit to not being the sharpest knife in the drawer, but when it comes to surveys, I’m far from ignorant. However, you are right in saying that a past or current trend does not prove the trend will continue into the future. So I haven’t offered and will not offer proof that homosexuality will not be regarded as immoral in the near future. I do believe that will be the case though, and if I was a betting man, I’d go with the trend. I’m guessing you believe otherwise. We shall see.
As for tragedy, see my comments to Hayden above. The incredible suffering of children who don’t have both a mother and a father has indeed been demonstrated, but I can’t write it here so E-mail me and I’ll show you how it has been demonstrated.
I don’t doubt you can find examples of suffering of children who don’t have both a mother and father. I don’t doubt you can find examples of suffering of children who have both a mother and father either. I disagree with your apparently automatic conclusion that a child who doesn’t have both a mother and father is tragic.
You write: “The question is SHOULD a gay man marry a woman?” I have never said definitively that he should.
Fair enough. I should have used “it okay that” for “should” above. And for clarity, I should say that by “gay” above, I mean a person who is predominantly sexually attracted to men, whether or not the person calls or categorizes himself as gay.
“Is it really better that gay men should marry a woman instead of having the option to marry a man?” This is nonsense. You’ve listed one option rather than two. “the option to marry a man” is as nonsensical as “the option to marry a tomato.” A man cannot marry a man. Marriage is a union of a man and a woman.
Okay, we’re playing semantics and word games here. First of all, the legal definition of marriage has changed in Massachusetts, the Netherlands, and Spain, to include two men or two women. If and when same sex marriage is legalized in the U.S., the legal definition of marriage will change. I’m fairly confident the OED will follow suit. Now you may not agree with or like the change of definition, but it would nonetheless be the case.
In the meantime, saying “man marrying a man” on a forum like this shouldn’t need a qualifier. And while this forum has discussed same sex marriage, no one, to my knowledge, has advocated “marriage” between a human and a tomato.
“Should gay men just remain celibate?” They should have that option, but it should not be forced upon them. Do you disagree?
I agree that gay men have the choice to be celibate or to have sex with someone they are attracted to, but I am confused by your position now. I thought it was your belief that gay men, even non-Jewish persons, should not have sex with other men.
“Or should they attempt to become “ex-gay” as their only chance to have a “moral” sexual relationship and marriage?” I have never supported the “ex-gay” movement. I have spoken out against it. So of course I don’t support that.
We agree here. I also oppose the “ex-gay” movement. Not because I have a problem with persons who want to change their sexual orientation, but I believe that it is extremely rare, if not impossible, to happen. And certainly the people running the current “ex-gay” movement are a bunch of lying, harmful quacks.
If you built something out of wood that looked like a computer, it wouldn’t be a computer. If the government instituded a rite of passage called a “civil bar mitzvah” extended to children over the age of 10, those who went through it before their 13th birthday would not be bar mitzvah, no matter what the government said. You can’t redefinte bar mitzvah. It’s not up for negotiation. Same thing with marriage.
Actually, “bar mitzvah” and “marriage” can be redefined, although I doubt that would ever happen to bar mitzvah. If either of those definitions change, these changes would not have to apply to Orthodox Judaism, but could apply elsewhere. So marriage has been redefined already in some locations. But I do understand that Orthodox Judaism would not recognize it as applying to them.
Am I still insulting your intelligence? If so, I apologize.
When I made the claim that you were insulting the intelligence of those on this forum, I was referring to your statement, “No gay man has ever been prevented from marrying in the United States.” Did you really believe that people did not know that? Did you not know that people were not using what you believe should remain the definition of marriage?
You’ve made it clear what you believe the definition of marriage is and should remain to be. But many on this forum obviously disagree with you on this issue.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion with you, and I may take you on your offer to continue the discussion on some of the off-topic issues.
The laws, regardless, apply in the Jewish mindset to all people. And, should pork consumption ever come up to be banned, I fully expect that Orthodox Jews would vote their conscience and vote against it. Those who choose to live outside Jewish law are taking matters into their own hands, and that isn’t advisable in the Orthodox perspective.
NDT, not necessarily. If I understood David correctly, he says that some of Jewish law applies to Jews, and some apply to non-Jews. So they may have no wish in having such a law, and may even vote against it if it ever came up. However, on the matter of homosexuality and gay marriage, they believe it does apply to all people.
As it has for millenia — mainly because the vast and overwhelming majority choose to have children.
A lot of things have been traditional for millenia, but things change, most of which society has embraced, sometimes with initial reluctance.
Furthermore, Pat, just because that tiny minority chooses not to have children does not change the fact that gay and lesbian couples, by overwhelming majority, are incapable of having children that are biologically theirs.
I don’t believe I’ve ever made the claim that two same sex couples can have children that are biologically theirs. If the purpose of prohibiting same sex marriage is based on this fact, then why not push for restricting marriage to those who only can and will have biological children? If that’s not the purpose, then why bring it up?
Again, why is it so difficult for you to admit that opposite-sex couplings are different and carry different societal ramifications than do same-sex couplings?
On what basis do you believe I have this difficulty. I am well aware that there are difference. But then again, it’s my firm belief that ALL couples are different.
So the question is, are same sex couples that different that they don’t deserve marriage? Obviously, I don’t believe so. If you do believe so and/or don’t think that you are worthy of marriage*, then obviously don’t get married.
*In case this is not clear, I do mean marriage to a man.
The problem here is that you are projecting the problems of the gay community – rampant promiscuity, disease, drug use, open disdain for monogamy and commitment, public non-acceptance, and so forth — onto the absence of marriage, even though it is patently obvious that the mere legal presence of marriage would do little to nothing to solve any of these, especially when you have gay and lesbian couples who state publicly that, after marriage, they have no intention of being monogamous.
I’ve indicated no such thing on this thread, so you may be referring to things that I’ve said in the past on other threads. And as I’ve said before, none of these claims are absolute, which is a point that you seem to keep missing for some reason.
Yes, I do believe that PART of the reason for promiscuity, etc., is because of the fact that there is NOT a tradition of gay marriage. And it is not even close to being “patently obvious” that a tradition of marriage won’t change this. Furthermore, you making your conclusion on examples from an article is patently erroneous, just as erroneous as saying that all straight married couples are nonmonogamous when one or both have no intention (whether publicly stated or not) of being monogamous. And I understand, as you once stated elsewhere, that you know of straight couples who are monogamous, yet choose not to marry, as if that proved your point.
Most straight children grow up seeing married couples and envision themselves being married some day. Most gay children do not see this. And as a bonus, many gay children are ostracized by their peers, churches, and even their own parents, because they’re gay. And we wonder why there are the problems that they are. Yes, I get that adults should be responsible no matter what. And yes, we can all cite examples of those with sh&t childhoods who are upstanding citizens. But if we raise our straight children by telling most or all of them that their sexual orientation is abnormal (or worse), that they have no chance of marriage like everyone else, etc., do you honestly believe that the rates of promiscuity, etc., won’t increase?
So, I’m afraid we would NOT know exaclty how same sex marriage would affect promiscuity, etc., until we have a tradition of same sex marriage. I believe that these problems will decrease, but probably not to the same level as the straight counterparts. I acknowledge that I have no proof (and despite your insistence, you have no proof of your claim either). Even if same sex marriage doesn’t not decrease promiscuity, etc., I still favor it for those who do want it. I firmly believe that same sex marriage would benefit society.
These are not caused by the absence of marriage. They are caused by the absence of responsibility and restraint in the gay community. Instead of directing your ire at Orthodox Jews and Benkof, why not direct it at the people in the gay community create these problems?
Actually, I have little problem with David and Orthodox Jews. The only issue I have with David is his believing that his view of marriage should apply to others. Even so, I fully respect his views. And as for Orthodox Jews in general, no problem there. Because, for the most part, they do NOT impose their beliefs on others, at least not in the U.S.
I don’t believe I’ve ever made the claim that two same sex couples can have children that are biologically theirs. If the purpose of prohibiting same sex marriage is based on this fact, then why not push for restricting marriage to those who only can and will have biological children? If that’s not the purpose, then why bring it up?
Again, Pat, the number of couples who will not have children that are biologically theirs is a tiny minority in regards to those who will. Conversely, the number of gay and lesbian couples who will have children that are biologically theirs is nonexistent.
You might as well argue that, since states allow people with good eyesight who might not be good drivers to drive, it should allow people with bad eyesight to drive. The exception is not grounds for overturning and ignoring the entire point of the rule.
Next, I thought this was a really key statement.
So the question is, are same sex couples that different that they don’t deserve marriage……. If you do believe so and/or don’t think that you are worthy of marriage*, then obviously don’t get married.
“Deserve”?
People don’t “deserve” marriage, as if it should be just given to them arbitrarily for existing. They agree to abide by the rules and terms and conditions and get it as a result of that. One of those rules and terms and conditions is that it be to a person of the opposite sex, just as it is to a person who is of age, who is not a close blood relation, and who isn’t already married to someone else.
As for being “worthy” of marriage, Pat, do you consider gays and lesbians, or straight people for that matter, who state publicly that they will not be monogamous and committed to be “worthy” of marriage?
Yes, I get that adults should be responsible no matter what. And yes, we can all cite examples of those with sh&t childhoods who are upstanding citizens. But if we raise our straight children by telling most or all of them that their sexual orientation is abnormal (or worse), that they have no chance of marriage like everyone else, etc., do you honestly believe that the rates of promiscuity, etc., won’t increase?
I don’t think you really get that first sentence.
And I think the last statement is why HIV and other STDs are rampant and expanding in the gay community — because blaming others for your inability to be responsible sexually is completely excusable in the gay community.
You just blatantly threw a red herring here. Jim McGreevey is trivial to the discussion of same-sex marriage.
Except when a big part of the argument is, “Give us gay marriage because we can’t stop ourselves from entering into sham marriages with straight people, and look at the devastation that causes.”
Why am I not surprised. Sometimes I wonder if you’re impostor, or a troll, yet most of the time I think you’re a masochist who enjoy being the opponent’s bitch. Fetishes sprout in the weirdest ways.
I laugh at that, Rob, especially given the gay community’s track record of pumping endorsements and millions of dollars of support to politicians who oppose and are against gay marriage.
Oh, and by the way, does either Obama or Hillary support gay marriage and plan to legalize it? Thought not.
Yet society has for millenia has been nefarious and stupid relative to our current standards.
Which is, of course, why you so desperately want access to this institution whose traditions you consider to be “nefarious and stupid”.
It’s a bit like the liberal gays who whine about how “unfair” DADT is, then show up at Code Pink rallies to call the troops “baby-killers and mercenaries”.
Do you respect marriage and its traditions, like fidelity and monogamy, at all, Rob? Or are you just upset because it’s something you can’t have?
Again, Pat, the number of couples who will not have children that are biologically theirs is a tiny minority in regards to those who will. Conversely, the number of gay and lesbian couples who will have children that are biologically theirs is nonexistent.
A “tiny” majority? Whatever. Besides, tiny or not, why have any? No gay marriages, no childless (biological) marriages. Why have any exceptions?
You might as well argue that, since states allow people with good eyesight who might not be good drivers to drive, it should allow people with bad eyesight to drive. The exception is not grounds for overturning and ignoring the entire point of the rule.
No, not at all. Whereas people with bad eyesight cannot be good drivers, gay couples (not all, okay) have demonstrated they are worthy of marriage. The fact that you apparently believe you are not worthy of marriage shouldn’t deter those of us who believe we are.
“Deserve”?
People don’t “deserve” marriage, as if it should be just given to them arbitrarily for existing.
Then insert what you think the proper word should be here, the one you believe applies only to straight people.
They agree to abide by the rules and terms and conditions and get it as a result of that. One of those rules and terms and conditions is that it be to a person of the opposite sex, just as it is to a person who is of age, who is not a close blood relation, and who isn’t already married to someone else.
Yep, and I simply want to take out “of the opposite sex.”
As for being “worthy” of marriage, Pat, do you consider gays and lesbians, or straight people for that matter, who state publicly that they will not be monogamous and committed to be “worthy” of marriage?
Is “publicly” the litmus test here? What about those who don’t publicly state they won’t be monogamous, but have no intention on being so. And as a bonus, they aren’t even honest about it to the spouse. You only want to penalize one group for the sins of some of that group, but not the other. In any case, I’ve stated that married couples should be monogamous.
I don’t think you really get that first sentence.
No, I do. I simply don’t stick my head in the sand and believe that ALL children who’ve had rotten childhoods magically become responsible citizens.
I think I tried to make the point that a higher percentage of children who grow up with good parenting, as opposed to having their self-esteem ripped apart, have a much better chance of becoming responsible adults. NDT, what is the point of parents raising their children well? Isn’t a good part of it so they grow up as responsible adults?
And I think the last statement is why HIV and other STDs are rampant and expanding in the gay community — because blaming others for your inability to be responsible sexually is completely excusable in the gay community.
Okay, humor me, and answer the question anyway, if you would.
But if we raise our straight children by telling most or all of them that their sexual orientation is abnormal (or worse), that they have no chance of marriage like everyone else, etc., do you honestly believe that the rates of promiscuity, etc., won’t increase?
Oops. Should be minority, not majority in second paragraph above.
Besides, tiny or not, why have any? No gay marriages, no childless (biological) marriages. Why have any exceptions?
Because, Pat, there are several court cases that make it clear that the decision to artificially prevent procreation cannot be made grounds for denial of anything — the most famous, of course, being Roe v. Wade.
Preventing biological procreation, though, does not equal in every single occurrence being utterly and completely incapable of doing so, as are gay and lesbian couples.
Is “publicly” the litmus test here? What about those who don’t publicly state they won’t be monogamous, but have no intention on being so. And as a bonus, they aren’t even honest about it to the spouse.
The ones who state it publicly are merely the most obvious. I, as I have made clear, consider adultery grounds for immediate invalidation of the marriage, regardless of whether it was publicly declared or not.
In any case, I’ve stated that married couples should be monogamous.
That wasn’t the question. You need to state publicly whether or not couples who are not monogamous are “worthy” of marriage, as was asked of you in the first place.
The reason you are avoiding that is because there is no palatable answer in the gay and lesbian community. Admitting that gays and lesbians who have no intention of being monogamous are worthy of marriage makes it obvious that the gay community is completely out of touch with the traditional values and mores of marriage; furthermore, it completely destroys your argument that marriage should be enacted because it will lessen gay promiscuity.
I simply don’t stick my head in the sand and believe that ALL children who’ve had rotten childhoods magically become responsible citizens.
Of course not all of them do; several CHOOSE not to be responsible.
But if we raise our straight children by telling most or all of them that their sexual orientation is abnormal (or worse), that they have no chance of marriage like everyone else, etc., do you honestly believe that the rates of promiscuity, etc., won’t increase?
I do.
Because I know plenty of people who are promiscuous and unhealthy who came out of “accepting” households, and plenty of people who are committed and healthy who came out of “hateful” households.
NDT, what is the point of parents raising their children well? Isn’t a good part of it so they grow up as responsible adults?
“Raising their children well”, Pat, in many gay and lesbian circles, means this.
Is that the point, or would you rather have them raised by “close-minded” parents who wouldn’t take them to such events, and would thus make them “unaccepting” and “intolerant”?
Because, Pat, there are several court cases that make it clear that the decision to artificially prevent procreation cannot be made grounds for denial of anything — the most famous, of course, being Roe v. Wade.
Preventing biological procreation, though, does not equal in every single occurrence being utterly and completely incapable of doing so, as are gay and lesbian couples.
What?!?
The ones who state it publicly are merely the most obvious. I, as I have made clear, consider adultery grounds for immediate invalidation of the marriage, regardless of whether it was publicly declared or not.
Fine, whatever. So are you advocating that no person in any community can get married unless everyone in that community advocates your position here? Or does this only apply to the gay community?
That wasn’t the question. You need to state publicly whether or not couples who are not monogamous are “worthy” of marriage, as was asked of you in the first place.
I “need” to…? Okay, since you insist. No, I don’t think those who are not monogamous are worthy of marriage. Obviously, I don’t feel as strongly on that as you do. Maybe I’m just not comfortable telling people how they should run their marriage.
The reason you are avoiding that is because there is no palatable answer in the gay and lesbian community. Admitting that gays and lesbians who have no intention of being monogamous are worthy of marriage makes it obvious that the gay community is completely out of touch with the traditional values and mores of marriage; furthermore, it completely destroys your argument that marriage should be enacted because it will lessen gay promiscuity.
You made sense (although I disagree with it) until your last statement. Then any sense of logic was broken.
Of course not all of them do; several CHOOSE not to be responsible.
Um, no kidding. But that wasn’t my point.
I do.
I have a hard time believing your answer, because…
Because I know plenty of people who are promiscuous and unhealthy who came out of “accepting” households, and plenty of people who are committed and healthy who came out of “hateful” households.
No kidding. I think we all know that. But you do realize that this does not support your point one iota. So I’m going to assume you misunderstood my question. Reread it again, if you would. I didn’t say it was impossible for children (gay or straight) to become responsible if they had lousy parenting. I was talking about the overall rates.
“Raising their children well”, Pat, in many gay and lesbian circles, means this.
Is that the point, or would you rather have them raised by “close-minded” parents who wouldn’t take them to such events, and would thus make them “unaccepting” and “intolerant”?
Come on, NDT. Are you serious? I have condemned the actions of these parents several times already.
On the other hand, you refused to condemn parents who treat their gay children horribly by condemning their sexual orientation. Somehow, you hold these children responsible when they become adults, but not the parents.
I’m not going to engage in dialogue with you unless you apologize for bringing up Abramoff’s Orthodoxy. To pick a universally despised person as an example of my group for no other reason than to try to make us look bad is reprehensible, and I won’t cooperate with it.
If in talking about some aspect of homosexuality I brought up with no tight specific reason, Andrew Cunanan and Leopold and Loeb and Mark Foley, you would cry foul in an instant. This is the last you’ll hear from me without an apology.
Huh? Looks like I hit a raw nerve there. I did not mention Abramoff to make Orthodoxy look bad; I only mentioned that he was more observant than Sacha Baron-Cohen, thus rendering your example of him as silly. I’m sorry if it sounded like a generalization.
Anyway, you’re doing a fine job of making Orthodox Judaism look bad, with your views of gay couples and families, and may a woman who would be ignorant of her husband?s sexual orientation. Oy Vey! Now that?s a tragedy!
Refutation and analysis on blog under the header:
For a sustained analysis and refutation, readers are welcome to consult:
Homophobia’s Origins In Immorality.
← Previous Comments