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 for “Scriptural Idolatry?”
posted by Bobby on
Funny, we’re always accused of recruiting, yet we don’t have ex-straight organizations, or books about how to conquer heterosexuality.
posted by Amicus on
I very much like the way that John starts out. Even Solomon had need for “wisdom”. How could that be, if all human experience were somehow … written.
And, as any viewer of the much-acclaimed film, “Trembling before G-d”, knows, the apprehension of the Orthodox teachers is … very near abysmal, when it comes to the homosexual experience.
Without knowledge, they have rapidly conflated their own limited experience with a supposition about the Torah and called it knowing the mind of G-d revealed. As with all actions based on lack of knowledge, this has led them to disastrous and monstrous prescriptions, like shunning, electric shock therapies, and the vanities of ex-gay therapy.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
I know it’s part of the conventional gay experience to come out and carry with one a heavy burden and antipathy toward religion in general… ala guys like Corvino’s admission that he didn’t leave the CathChurch, “he leapt” or maybe the legion-sized group of anti-religionists in the blogsphere who dually manage gay porn sites while spreading hatred against religion, et cetera.
The thing I don’t understand that is the weight many of our burdened brothern seem to carry and need to, at frequent opportunity, “unload”. I get the basics: they felt oppresed by religion and, therefore, need to preach their own brand of new anti-religion.
I wonder if selecting someone as extreme as an ex-gay orthodox Jew to expose the ill of having a monopoly on religious truth isn’t sorr of like homophobic “breeders” and fundamentalists choosing to expose the gay dark underbelly of pedophilia (incorrectly) as a gay pathology.
Granted, speaking to the accessible and moderates within the religious community makes sense -and is necessary as discussed in other threads- but seeking an exchange and highlighting with so extreme a fundamentalist is akin to having LtCol Ollie North debate Abu Ayyub al-Masri and indirectly project he somehow represents all Arabs in the MiddleEast.
And before the anti-religionists here (who clearly do not tolerate those gays who are church observant) start to flame away… I think David Benkof’s views are extreme -and that’s being mild.
posted by Amicus on
MM, we’d have to seriously doubt it, because JC appears to have been invited to comment – he’s not the impetus for the exchange, it doesn’t seem.
Why do you think DB’s views are “extreme”?
posted by David Benkof on
Amicus writes:
“And, as any viewer of the much-acclaimed film, “Trembling before G-d”, knows, the apprehension of the Orthodox teachers is … very near abysmal, when it comes to the homosexual experience.
Without knowledge, they have rapidly conflated their own limited experience with a supposition about the Torah and called it knowing the mind of G-d revealed. As with all actions based on lack of knowledge, this has led them to disastrous and monstrous prescriptions, like shunning, electric shock therapies, and the vanities of ex-gay therapy.”
There are indeed many Orthodox Jews who have said unfortunate things about homosexuality because of their limited experience with gay and lesbian people. But a growing number of Orthodox Jews, myself included, have lots of exposure to GLBT people and issues. And virtually all of us (the ones who have spoken publicly at least) agree that Judaism forbids Jews from nearly all forms of male-male erotic intimacy, and many forms of female-female erotic intimacy – and non-Jews from the act that used to be called “buggery.” We agree that marriage is by definition a union of a man and a woman – both for Jews and non-Jews.
(I’m not counting IGF contributor Steve Greenberg as Orthodox because his ideas are widely rejected by the Orthodox community – including prominent voices on the left of Orthodoxy – as non-Orthodox.)
As for shunning, it does unfortunately take place, although less and less as more “frumgays” come out and take their places as important members of various congregations.
As for electric shock therapies, I have never heard of an Orthodox person pushing electro-shock on someone as a means of dealing with their homosexuality. Can you document any such cases?
And as for the vanities of ex-gay therapy, the only Jewish ex-gay organization is run by non-Orthodox Jews. There are a handful of Orthodox rabbis who refer people to JONAH, but it is far from an Orthodox institution.
Finally, a note about “Trembling Before G-d”: that was an activist film with an agenda of suggesting that Orthodox Jewish law is wrong about homosexuality. Many of those interviewed for the film have said their words were taken out of context to suggest they support the film’s agenda. And some of the people the film trumpets as “Orthodox” aren’t really Orthodox. I know – I had a date with one of them on a Friday night before I became religious. We attended a gay Reform temple, then went to a movie before driving back to his place. Orthodox Jews don’t do that on Friday nights.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
amicus offers “MM, we’d have to seriously doubt it, because JC appears to have been invited to comment – he’s not the impetus for the exchange, it doesn’t seem.”
Right, I know. I was speaking about the latter example: the gay porn/BDS/anti-religion blog sites. Sorry for the confusion, lack of clarity in sentence structure.
posted by John M. on
I’m solidly with Corvino here. I personally do not subscribe to the notion of Scriptural infallibility, as it is God’s word transcribed by humans and therefore mistakes are inherent in that translation. However, when I was in seminary, I would consistently catch my fundamentalist colleagues in their own argument when I asked them that, assuming that the Bible is infallible, does that mean that you are infallible in your understanding and interpretation? They would generally be caught out stammering on that one.
posted by Avee on
I wonder what Benkof thinks of the Mosaic law’s insistence on stoning as the God-ordered penalty for adultery among Jews? Or is that an example of one of the Torah laws that can somehow be ignored while the law against man lying with man is still good?
If God’s law is God’s law and there is no arguing with that, then how about it? Or is it, in fact, that some people get to pick and choose (or, G-d forbid, INTERPRET)?
posted by David Benkof on
Avee-
Orthodox Jews believe that in addition to the Written Torah, an Oral Torah was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, and it was passed down through the generations and eventually written down in rabbinic literature such as the Talmud and the Midrash. Judaism only believes in the death penalty when there is a Jewish government run by Jewish law. Even then, the death penalty required extremely high standards of proof (multiple witnesses and a clear warning) that are almost never in play in the case of adultery. Jewish courts implemented the death penalty only rarely (if you don’t believe me, google the subject). In addition, many, many sexual relationships that are considered adulterous in the Christian and secular world are not included in the more limited Jewish definition of adultery.
So you see Orthodox Jews do not “get to pick and choose.” True, there are some areas where the law is unclear and Orthodox rabbis differ. But on the majority of legal issues – including the prohibition of gay sex and same-sex marriage – there is pretty much consensus in the Orthodox world, reflecting the continuing clarity of the messages we believe the Jews received at Mount Sinai.
posted by Amplified Heart on
“I know – I had a date with one of them on a Friday night before I became religious. We attended a gay Reform temple, then went to a movie before driving back to his place. Orthodox Jews don’t do that on Friday nights.”-David Benkof
So you are saying that you are not Orthodox or are you saying that you became Orthodox and this other person can not for some reason.
The two statements, the second in response to this;
*If God’s law is God’s law and there is no arguing with that, then how about it* seem at odds too-
“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.”
“Judaism only believes in the death penalty when there is a Jewish government run by Jewish law”- Sounds like you pick and choose to me.
posted by David Benkof on
Amplified Heart-
I am a “baal teshuvah” – a Jew who grew up non-Orthodox but became Orthodox later in life, in my case in April, 2003.
As for the rest of your post, I’m afraid I don’t understand. “Pick and choose” implies that Jews individually select based on their own whims which verses in the Torah we follow and which ones we don’t. That’s simply not the case. The Orthodox Jewish community as a whole has quite a bit of consensus about the morality and permissibility of many, many, things because we have the Oral Law as well as the written Torah to guide us. A Jew may not simply say “I ‘pick’ the law against gay sex but ‘choose’ not be subject to the law about no shrimp.” All Jews are bound by both laws.
If I haven’t responded to your concern, please clarify exactly what you’re critiquing. Thanks.
posted by Amplified Heart on
I actually do not subscribe to this nonsense and I would not be as versed in the Torah as you, so I will not “critique” any longer as it should be obvious how the two statements are at odds. I will, though, note that in the religious texts it is interesting that since they are written by men, men always seem to make out so much better than women. Men can have multiple wives, stray outside of his marriage with an unmarried woman and it is fine but how DARE a woman do the same thing. But again these are the same people that when they thought they were the last of their kind would screw their daughters as a substitute for making sure. Tell me, will you have multiple wives?
posted by avee on
Orthodox Jews believe that in addition to the Written Torah, an Oral Torah was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, and it was passed down through the generations and eventually written down in rabbinic literature such as the Talmud and the Midrash.
My, what a nice big fat loophole. But sorry, if Leviticus forbids man laying with man and the word is the word or you’re going against G-d, then Leviticus also requires the death penalty for adultery, and you can’t point to later rabbinic courts as a way out. Also, as we know from fundamentalist Islamic countries, stoning for adultery is, in fact, carried out in Abrahamic theocracies.
posted by David Benkof on
Amplified Heart-
Ashkenazi Jews (such as myself) have been forbidden to have more than one wife since the year 1000. So no, I will not have more than one wife.
As for your bizarre suggestion that Jews allow incest in some situations, I have never heard of that. Could you elaborate and provide a link or two?
avee-
Your critique is a fair one for Protestant Biblical literalists or Karaites (Jews who take the text of the Torah literally). However, it is meaningless to an Orthodox Jew like me. We do not believe “the word is the word or you’re going against G-d.” We believe only a fool would try to follow the Written Law without the benefit of the Oral Law, which is G-d’s guideline for us on exactly what the Written Law means.
You are not the first person to get in a tizzy over the fact that Orthodox Jews (or traditionalists in other faiths) appear to follow Leviticus selectively. But since we never claimed “Whatever the Bible appears to say, everyone must follow” it us utterly unfair to criticize us for not “living up” to something we never said.
posted by Amplified Heart on
Why is that bizarre, who did Lot have sex with after Sodom was destroyed? Do you need a link for that?
posted by Amplified Heart on
LOL, I just read the part of your post meant for Avee!
?We do not believe “the word is the word or you’re going against G-d.” We believe only a fool would try to follow the Written Law without the benefit of the Oral Law, which is G-d’s guideline for us on exactly what the Written Law means.?
Nice ?out? you have going there you have text that needs the companion ?Oral Law? that lets you UNDERSTAND it. Gosh, I don?t have the secret decoder ring so I cannot understand any of the Written Law. Well played! Surely the Torah was meant for a select few, God couldn?t possibly want us ALL to understand his word!
posted by David Benkof on
Amplified Heart-
If you have a link that proves or even suggests that Lot was a Jew, or an Israelite, or a Hebrew, I would be very interested. Lot is definitely not someone claimed by Jews as a forefather, ancestor, or role model. Have you ever heard of a Jew naming his or her child Lot? Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, yes. Lot, no. Judaism condemns father-daughter incest in the strongest way possible.
And yes, the Torah was meant for a select few, the Chosen People. Jews believe G-d shopped the Torah around to other nations, who rejected it when they found out what was in it. Only the Jews said “Na’aseh V’Nishma” – we’ll agree to follow G-d’s law even before we totally understand it.
Unlike evangelical Christians, Jews do not believe that others have to believe and practice our way in order to be loved and rewarded by G-d. But it is true that the Written Torah and Oral Torah were given to Jews, who are in a special relationship with G-d – a relationship that entails both extra benefits (like the promise of the Land of Israel) and extra responsibilities (such as following more commandments).
Please understand that I’m not trying to convince you that Judaism is true. I’m just trying to show that it works for us, it’s internally consistent, and despite Dr. John Corvino’s well-stated but ultimately incorrect opinion, it is completely cogent and coherent in its rejection of gay sex and same-sex marriage.
posted by Amplified Heart on
My reference to Lot was not that he was a Jew, or an Israelite, or a Hebrew. It was that he was a human written about and living in the time frame that the Torah and the Bible was written and that this is the kind of person that indeed played a part in those “stories?. The mind set of someone of importance (if he was not important why write about him?) living in that era was “Hey I think we are the only ones left break out the booze, I don’t care if you are my daughter, lets procreate!? dismissed by Jews or acclaimed by Christians it doesn?t really matter. People with the same diminished capacity are the ones who wrote the stories in the Torah and the Bible. As you stated your teachings are not meant for me as I am not one of the select few, the Chosen People. I am however human and don?t appreciate the arrogance of people that use those same stories and other texts in the Torah and Bible to oppress me because I am gay. Use the teachings in your own life but don?t insinuate them into mine.
posted by David Benkof on
So, gay writings like the Tales of the City books show that gay people are basically immoral because they contain characters (such as cult leaders and cannibals) who do unspeakable things? That’s no different than what you’re saying.
You can claim the Torah was written by “people with diminished capacity.” I know it was written by G-d. I don’t feel I have to change your mind. But alleging that Jews support incest because a minor, non-heroic character in the Torah committed incest makes as much as sense as my saying gay people support cannibalism because a character in the very gay-popular book Tales of the City by the openly gay Armistead Maupin ate human flesh.
I’d be very interested to hear specifically how I have or any other Orthodox Jew has used the Torah to “oppress” you because you are gay. Can you give some specific examples?
Thanks.
posted by avee on
But since we never claimed “Whatever the Bible appears to say, everyone must follow” it us utterly unfair to criticize us for not “living up” to something we never said.
So then, you claim that the “oral Torah” given to Moses supercedes the written command of Leviticus he was given when it comes to stoning adulterers, but doesn’t supercede Leviticus when it comes to the anti-gay prohibition (assuming that we accept your interpretation of those passages in Leviticus, which many don’t). That’s certainly convenient for heterosexual adulterers! But if it’s
not sophistry, then nothing is. I realize that having forsaken romantic love that would be in keeping with the way G-d created you, you are highly vested in insisting that there is some logic to accepting Leviticus to forgo romantic love for the sake of “G-d’s law,” even though other prohibitions are neatly dismissed with. Too bad for you, chum.
posted by Rob on
Funny, it’s actually a myth that ancient Israelites were monotheistic. They simply weren’t. Monotheism actually originated from ancient Greece by their philosophers, and then spread to Judea and Egypt after Alexander the Great. The ancient Israelites were actually henotheists like the Mormons, believing in the existence of multiple gods, yet only one god was worth to be worshipped. I believe that YHWH was some kind of volcano god to them.
David, I’m sad that you’ve fallen for such myths, although you have a right to follow it if you want it.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Also, as we know from fundamentalist Islamic countries, stoning for adultery is, in fact, carried out in Abrahamic theocracies.
This may come as news to you, avee, but Muslims who believe in stoning adulterers do not rely on the authority of Leviticus to make their case — for the perfectly straightforward reason that, in their eyes, Leviticus has approximately the same authority as a Bazooka Joe comic.
Faithful Muslims regard the entire Jewish Torah, along with the Christian NT, to be (at the very best) highly distorted versions of the Qoran – which existed before Jesus, before Moses, before Abraham, and even before Adam.
So what exactly was your point in bringing up fundamentalist Islamic practices?
posted by Throbert McGee on
David, I’m sad that you’ve fallen for such myths, although you have a right to follow it if you want it.
Why on earth be “sad” for David? By his own account, he was sexually and romantically involved with other men before deciding to be celibate — apparently because, in his subjective experience, the fulfillment of being faithful to Orthodox Jewish teaching is better than whatever fulfillment he found in dating other men. In other words, he understands what he has given up.
He is also perfectly free to reconsider his interpretation of Orthodox Judaism, and decide that it’s okay to be non-celibate — but it seems to me that the only person who might possibly be able to argue David away from his current position would be another gay Orthodox Jew.
posted by Throbert McGee on
And virtually all of us (the ones who have spoken publicly at least) agree that Judaism forbids Jews from nearly all forms of male-male erotic intimacy, and many forms of female-female erotic intimacy – and non-Jews from the act that used to be called “buggery.”
This brought a smile of recognition to my atheist Gentile face, although maybe not for the reason David intended!
I’ve been a huge fan of mutual masturbation and “frot(tage)” since my college days in the early ’90s, and at one time was a regular attendee of the “NY Jacks” circle-jerk parties. On the other hand, the act that used to be called ‘buggery’ just barely qualifies as erotic, as far as my libido is concerned. (Back in the dark ages before XTube, when I was still renting or buying “mainstream studio” gay pr0n once in a while, I would fast-forward through the seemingly interminable fuck scenes.)
Anyway, in more recent years when I’ve gone on the Web in search of other gay men who prefer to avoid anal sex altogether, I have discovered — initially to my surprise — that there are quite a few Jews in this category. (Note that, generally speaking, we’re talking about Jewish men who felt no cultural or religious obligation to abstain from mutual masturbation or fellatio in a male/male context — but for reasons of religion, culture, or just personal preference, they abstained from “backdoor shenanigans.”)
Incidentally, it’s my understanding that Conservative Judaism takes the Orthodox stance towards Gentile homosexuality and applies it to Gentiles and Jews alike: in other words, male/male buggery is totally forbidden to everybody, but other male/male acts, and female/female in general, can theoretically be non-sinful, even for Jews.
posted by Amicus on
Thank you for your reply.
There are indeed many Orthodox Jews who have said unfortunate things about homosexuality because of their limited experience with gay and lesbian people. But a growing number of Orthodox Jews, myself included, have lots of exposure to GLBT people and issues. And virtually all of us (the ones who have spoken publicly at least) agree that Judaism forbids Jews from nearly all forms of male-male erotic intimacy, and many forms of female-female erotic intimacy – and non-Jews from the act that used to be called “buggery.” We agree that marriage is by definition a union of a man and a woman – both for Jews and non-Jews.
All that you have described here is a stunning failure. It suggests that, even when confronted in good will with parts of G-d’s creation outside of their ‘own’ or ‘normal’ apprehension, they have chosen an impossible understanding of the law.
As you understanding Orthodoxy, just what is your understanding of a ‘homosexual’?
As for electric shock therapies, I have never heard of an Orthodox person pushing electro-shock on someone …
But neither are you aware that anyone has said that such a prescription is … “wrong”, correct? In other words, the best you can say is that Orthodoxy is indifferent on silent on such matters, correct?
posted by Rob on
Why on earth be “sad” for David? By his own account, he was sexually and romantically involved with other men before deciding to be celibate — apparently because, in his subjective experience, the fulfillment of being faithful to Orthodox Jewish teaching is better than whatever fulfillment he found in dating other men. In other words, he understands what he has given up.
But you see Throbert what makes it sad is that some obscure religion that has no monastic tradition, fufills him instead of having a natural life which includes a sexual component. At least heterosexual orthodox males and females get to have sex in their marriages.
He is also perfectly free to reconsider his interpretation of Orthodox Judaism, and decide that it’s okay to be non-celibate — but it seems to me that the only person who might possibly be able to argue David away from his current position would be another gay Orthodox Jew.
There’s nothing to argue here on that point. It’s up to him to leave this nonsense or not. Besides, I thought only anal sex was restricted with the Orthodox. Oral and frottage should be fine.
posted by Throbert McGee on
But you see Throbert what makes it sad is that some obscure religion that has no monastic tradition
First: Orthodox Judaism is “some obscure religion”? Noted.
Second: What difference does it make whether David’s religion has a monastic tradition or not? I mean, if you subscribe to the view that celibacy is in some way contrary to human nature or less than healthy — if urging celibacy on people is, in short, a bad practice — then dressing up celibacy in “monastic tradition” is an exercise akin to putting lipstick on a pig, right?
Conversely, if there is positive value to a celibate lifestyle, then celibacy can stand on its own merits, and doesn’t need to be further legitimized by an appeal to “tradition.”
posted by Amplified Heart on
?So, gay writings like the Tales of the City books show that gay people are basically immoral because they contain characters (such as cult leaders and cannibals) who do unspeakable things? That’s no different than what you’re saying.?
Actually it is QUITE different as I am not aware of any religion in which the writings of Armistead Maupin (or Drag or Broadway show tunes) are important or of anyone who uses them as a guide to living. LOL, Church of the reVirgin Madrigal ?What would Mouse do??.
?You can claim the Torah was written by “people with diminished capacity.” I know it was written by G-d. I don’t feel I have to change your mind. But alleging that Jews support incest because a minor, non-heroic character in the Torah committed incest makes as much as sense as my saying gay people support cannibalism because a character in the very gay-popular book Tales of the City by the openly gay Armistead Maupin ate human flesh.?
First I am not directing my comments just to the Torah, I wrote Torah and Bible, there is just one Lot not two and in the Bible he is considered a righteous man. As far as capacity- they thought the world was flat didn?t they? They believed the Sun traveled around the Earth, it was easy for them to believe that they were the last of man kind. The capacity for understanding was diminished they had LESS understanding of the world they lived in. I have never met or heard of a gay person using Armistead Maupin books as a guide to living.
“I’d be very interested to hear specifically how I have or any other Orthodox Jew has used the Torah to “oppress” you because you are gay. Can you give some specific examples?”
Let?s see, your link http://www.marriagedebate.com has examples. Or how about these;
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/18/EDGJP4B81B1.DTL
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/1354/format/html/displaystory.html
One can easily conclude that your opposition to gay civil marriage is based on your religious beliefs. I am oppressed when I am treated as less than equal. In your writings you base lots on personal experience such as ?I know – I had a date with one of them? or this nugget ?I know, because I was there?- http://www.marriagedebate.com/mdblog/2004_04_04_mdblog_archive.htm
So here you are, I know ?it?s happened to me.
posted by Bobby on
“I thought only anal sex was restricted with the Orthodox. Oral and frottage should be fine.”
—No, everything is restricted. That’s like saying, “I can’t work on saturdays so I’ll get a gentile to turn on the lights for me.” You can’t do that anymore, it’s not kosher.
Orthodox judaism only allows sex within marriage. The rebbe of Luvabitch did decide that being gay was as bad as eating pork, and since they don’t hate people who eat pork or unkosher, they shouldn’t hate gays. But it still a sin.
Not that it matters however, in judaism everything is debatable.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I just read Corvino’s response to Benkof, in which Corvino says:
Let me be clear on something: if an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent creator of the universe says that homosexuality is immoral, then homosexuality is immoral. Or to put it another way, given a choice between what I say and what God says, by all means go with God.
Heh. I wonder, is Corvino just being diplomatically generous here, or is this his actual response to the Euthyphro dilemma?
posted by Rob on
First: Orthodox Judaism is “some obscure religion”? Noted.
Sure it is, especially the Haredim. It’s interesting to note that a large portion of Israeli society despises them.
Second: What difference does it make whether David’s religion has a monastic tradition or not? I mean, if you subscribe to the view that celibacy is in some way contrary to human nature or less than healthy — if urging celibacy on people is, in short, a bad practice — then dressing up celibacy in “monastic tradition” is an exercise akin to putting lipstick on a pig, right?
Not exactly. With a monastic tradition, an equal footing is given to gays with respect to heterosexuals who chose to be celibate, and the religion places a positive view on celibacy over marriage (E.g Christianity, Buddhism). If I’m not mistaken, marriage is a holy duty in Orthodox Judaism, and without it a person is considered incomplete. So according to David’s religion, he will remain incomplete till his death, so it’s a lose-lose situation for him. From my perception, that makes it worse than choosing a religion with an optional monastic tradition.
posted by David Benkof on
Wow! I stay away from the internet for 24 hours because of Shabbat and you guys give me lots to respond to!
avee,
You’ve misunderstood me. Judaism believes that in the future, for example after the Messiah comes, if there’s a Jewish government run by Jewish law, the rule about stoning adulterers will come into play again. However, due to the high burden of proof, the limited Jewish definition of “adulterer,” and historical experience, few if any people will actually be executed for that act.
Similarly, Jews don’t advocate that anyone today should be executed for buggery. However, it is still considered a serious transgression (as is committing adultery, in the Jewish sense) and it is reasonable for Orthodox Jews to keep their religion’s ideas about gay sex and adultery in mind when coming up with policies related to those issues both within the Jewish community and in the larger society.
Sophistry is a “false method of reasoning.” What’s false about what I’m saying? Or are you saying you just don’t believe in Judaism? That’s OK. I don’t believe in Christianity but I don’t call it “sophistry.”
I have to go to a birthday party, but I’ll comment on the rest of the remarks addressed to me when I return.
posted by Jorge on
Heh. I wonder, is Corvino just being diplomatically generous here, or is this his actual response to the Euthyphro dilemma?
Hmm. Never heard of it but that certainly is a problem when you look at what God’s quoted as saying on homosexuality. And what about what God says today, if history is any guide? He says two completely different things. I mean, you’ve got “abomination”, and you’ve got the modern understanding of “homosexual inclination.” How can the two even exist side by side?
I think two questions are most important. One, where does God’s word come from? That’s open for debate. The very important question for gays who might see God’s word as condemning homosexuality or gay sex is, what is God saying to me? That’s a question whose answer can only come from God.
In Trembling Before G_d (a fine movie), I saw people trying to listen for that answer. Some lived years sure in the answer. They used different methods. What most heard was that God does not approve of homosexual relations, and that they are gay. As for what to do about it…
posted by David Benkof on
Rob-
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.
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.
Amicus writes:
“All that you have described here is a stunning failure. It suggests that, even when confronted in good will with parts of G-d’s creation outside of their ‘own’ or ‘normal’ apprehension, they have chosen an impossible understanding of the law.”
I really don’t understand what the failure is, and what’s so “impossible” about this understanding of the law. As an Orthodox Jew who is celibate but open about his same-sex attractions, I have been welcomed and included in every Orthodox institution I have come across. I have very comfortly lived without gay sex for more than seven years. Where’s the failure? What, exactly, is impossible?
“As you understanding Orthodoxy, just what is your understanding of a ‘homosexual’?”
A homosexual is someone who is romantically, sexually, and/or emotionaly attracted exclusively to members of the same sex. Is that definition acceptable to you? Do you have a different one? (Not being sarcastic.)
“But neither are you aware that anyone has said that such a prescription is … “wrong”, correct? In other words, the best you can say is that Orthodoxy is indifferent on silent on such matters, correct?”
Since the 1980s, electroshock therapy to “treat” homosexuality has been exceedingly rare. (I’m not talking about depressed gay people who get ECT to deal with their depression.) To criticize a religious group for not condemning something that isn’t done very often, certainly not by Orthodox Jews, isn’t reasonable. In Nazi Germany, gay men were sometimes castrated. That almost never happens today. Is it fair to criticize Orthodox Jews for not speaking out against the castration of gay men?
posted by David Benkof on
Amplified Heart-
Orthodox Jews do not use the story of Lot as a “guide for living.” We don’t even look at the simple text of the Torah as history of the Jewish people. We beleive the stories didn’t all happen in the order in which they appear, and that there are many, many important details that are left out. (It’s called “midrash.”)
Lot was considered a “righteous man” in comparison to the Sodomites. But no Jew in history has looked at the story of Lot and said, “this text shows that incest is proper.” Lot was a non-Jew at a time before the Torah was given. To suggest that his behavior reflects Jewish values is to ignore the facts of Jewish teachings and beliefs.
What’s your evidence that Jews believed the world was flat?
And you didn’t give a single example of oppression. To oppress is to “burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints” or to “subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power.”
You believe that expressing my opinion, trying to influence others to share my opinion, and voting in way that reflects my belief that same-sex relationships cannot be holy, and that the long-standing definition of marriage should not be changed by activist judges and gay lobbyists, is oppression? Which definition of oppress?
If my expressing my opinion on gay issues and voting accordingly is “oppression,” do you believe that only people who agree with you should be allowed to vote? Should they take away my voting rights (talk about oppression) or refuse to allow newspapers to print my op-eds or bar me from writing on the Internet? Should IGF take away my posting privileges? Because it sure sounds like that’s what you’re suggesting.
If anything, the LGBT people who are trying ram a redefinition of a crucial societal institution down the throats of citizens who overwhelmingly disagree are the ones doing the oppressing.
Finally, you say you are treated as less than equal. Uh uh. You are completely equal. No gay man has ever been prevented from marrying in the United States. I was gay for years and I plan to marry some day. What you can’t do is demand that society calls something a “marriage” that is not, never has been, and never will be. Can a woman complain that’s she’s not treated like an equal, and is being discriminated against, because a sperm bank won’t let her be a sperm donor? Of course not. A woman by definition cannot be a sperm donor. A ten-year old by definition cannot become bar mitzvah. A man by definition cannot marry a man. He can have a wedding – no gay wedding has ever been shut down by the government. He just can’t demand that the society pretend that his “marriage” is real.
Rob-
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?
As for whether a gay Jewish male is required to marry, there are two opinions. The most widely accepted one for many years has been that a gay Jew must marry. But Rabbi Chaim Rapaport has written a terrific book arguing that gay Jews should not, in most cases, marry. This is not a non-Orthodox opinions. Some rabbis may reject it, but they generally don’t say it’s illegitimate. Each gay Jew has to ask his rabbi.
Jorge-
It so happens I’m pretty much an expert at gay history – I used to write a widely syndicated column “Past Out” and I wrote a book “Gay Essentials” all about the gay past. This is very hard for the average gay person to accept, but the fact is that the experts at homosexuality across time and space are virtually unanimous in agreeing that being gay is something limited to the last 150 years, mostly in the West. There was same-sex sex, relationships, and love in many cultures, eras, and societies. But we just don’t have evidence that people had same-sex orientations before about 1860. Most people appear to have been what we call bisexual. So the Torah, which is eternal but was given originally in a specific time and place in which no gay people existed. (I know, now you all are going to claim I don’t know what I’m talking about. Do me a favor and google “Jonathan Ned Katz” and “John D’Emilio” and “Esther Newton” and learn some of what the experts – nearly all of whom are gay themselves – say about homosexuality across time and space.)
I think your other comments are quite thoughtful, by the way.
posted by Amplified Heart on
“burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints” or to “subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power.”
Let?s see, I am legally married in the state of Massachusetts. My spouse is not a US citizen, most married people can sponsor their spouse and they can become citizens, however, I cannot. Many of my married friends have sponsored their opposite sex spouses. We have a life, family and household together that can be easily torn apart if for some reason he was made to leave the country. Should I have to choose between the man I love and the Country I love? You see this would be a “burden with cruel or unjust impositions” you mention.Just because it hasn’t happened doesnt lessen the fear that one day it could. I do not choose to live in a sham marriage like you may choose. I am honest and up front about my sexuality and am married to the person I love and am attracted to. I do not change my sexuality like a pair of socks. Oh, I not did write you use the story of Lot as a guide to living, it was the Torah- so you don?t use the Torah and stories as a guide?
posted by David Benkof on
Amplified Heart-
We use the Written Torah as a legal and ethical guide only as interpreted and elaborated by the Oral Torah (mostly the Midrash and Talmud). Unlike many Protestants, we do not pick up the text of the Torah on its own, read it, and in a vacuum guess what it might mean. I know this is a frustrating fact for people who have convinced themselves that Orthodox Jews are selective and hypocrtical, because it proves we’re not. But them’s the facts.
I agree that your fear of losing the man you love could feel like someone is treating you cruelly. But so would someone with a best friend from another country that he loves like a brother. The only difference between the two of you is that you and your man have gay sex together. I don’t believe the government should be handing out privileges to people based on the fact that they have a kind of sex I believe is immoral.
But how have Orthodox Jews – or me personally – been responsible for your not being able to sponsor your man for immigration to the United States? The only way I can think of is that we vote and speak out publicly in favor of the definition of marriage we believe in, and we believe G-d believes in.
So I come back to my question – which is not sarcastic. I really want to know. Do you think Orthodox Jews should be deprived of the vote? Do you think we should be able to vote, but that we have an ethical or patriotic responsibility to vote in favor of public policies that violate our deepest moral beliefs? Do you believe it is wrong or should be illegal for us to speak out in favor of what we believe in, and for newspapers and Web sites to print our opinions? Or are you saying we’re oppressing you, but it’s not so bad that it should be illegal? If so, aren’t we engaging in “legitimate oppression” of you? If so, I would be willing to compromise with you and accept that some of what I and my fellow Orthodox Jews are doing is legiitimate oppression of some gay people. Meet me halfway?
posted by Jorge on
…the experts at homosexuality across time and space are virtually unanimous in agreeing that being gay is something limited to the last 150 years
Okay, I’m referring to two things. One, the more recent history in which social norms and laws have considered homosexuality less taboo. And two, the study of sexual orientation in the human individual, which is also very recent. It makes me think sometimes that God changed His mind [and that God could change His mind again, but I don’t think that’s likely]. Or maybe it’s the world that has changed (probably more likely). I’d have the same question about the 150 year history you mentioned, but it doesn’t speak to me yet.
Still, I believe in social science enough that I’m sure the reason for all this is because it was culturally unthinkable for gay people to live in exclusively homosexual relationships. Or maybe it’s because social science itself isn’t more than about 150 years old.
posted by Pat on
David Benkof, I appreciate your responses here. I fully respect your views, even though many of them differ from mine.
A couple of things. One thing that I admired about Orthodox Jewish persons is that, for the most part, they do not impose their views on others. At least that’s the impression that I got. So if they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that shouldn’t change, that’s fine by me. I have a problem when anyone wants to impose this personal belief on others. So if you don’t believe that you should marry a man, or not even have a romantic relationship with a man any more, I fully respect that right. I have trouble understanding why you believe that this belief must be dictated to others. Also, if and when you do get married, I hope you are upfront with your prospective wife so that she knows what she’s getting herself into.
I used to think that Orthodox Jewish persons were consistent in their opposition to homosexuality since they do follow all the Torah’s instructions. However, I realize more and more that’s impossible. And further, when you said, “Orthodox Jews believe that in addition to the Written Torah, an Oral Torah was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, and it was passed down through the generations and eventually written down in rabbinic literature such as the Talmud and the Midrash,” it became clear that Orthodox Jews “pick and choose” as well, despite your insistence otherwise. Again that’s your right no matter how you justify your beliefs. And further, I have to disagree with your belief that G-d wrote the Bible. I believe that the Bible is a great book, but I figure a Bible authored by G-d would be immensely better written and constructed, and would include things that people didn’t know then, but we would have been able to confirm now. I can buy the argument that the Bible was divinely inspired, but that’s about it. I’m afraid the Bible was written by people who wrote about what they believed G-d said or would say. Again, that’s okay if you believe otherwise.
The Bible was and still is a good guide for Christians and Jewish persons. However, we recognize that things changed since 5768 or 2008 years ago. So not all things that worked well or was necessary back then is true today. 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.
Unlike many Protestants, we do not pick up the text of the Torah on its own, read it, and in a vacuum guess what it might mean.
It just means that Orthodox Jews and Protestants have different ways of picking and choosing when it comes to interpret the Bible, while each insisting they are not picking and choosing.
I don’t believe the government should be handing out privileges to people based on the fact that they have a kind of sex I believe is immoral.
But more and more people do not believe that any more. In fact, thankfully, you are now becoming a minority fast. Again, I personally do not have a problem with you thinking that gay sex is immoral, and that you’ve decided to not engage in it any more. I think the question is not what YOU think is immoral, but what real harm is there with there being gay marriage? I can point to harm against gay children with gay intolerant parents, despite the parents’ insistence that their behavior is moral.
posted by Jorge on
I hadn’t looked up the names you suggested when I wrote that but one of them added what I left out, that “procreation” bit was much more important then.
posted by avee on
Judaism believes that in the future, for example after the Messiah comes, if there’s a Jewish government run by Jewish law, the rule about stoning adulterers will come into play again. However, due to the high burden of proof, the limited Jewish definition of “adulterer,” and historical experience, few if any people will actually be executed for that act.
Sorry, but any ideal post-messianic age that would include stoning for adultery, despite the high burden of proof (husband and wife’s brother catch wife in the act?), is not a faith that would ever inspire my devotion (and here I’m talking about ultra-orthodoxy, not Judaism). , much less my decision to forgo the kind of sexual intimacy/romantic love for whiche the creator made me.
posted by Rabbi Steven Greenberg on
Great exchange.
In line with Professor Corvino’s original response … The Torah (teaching) is perfect, pure, but …
There is no Jewish doctrine of infallibility because there is no one authoritative reading or perspective that can claim such infallibility. There is no claim that the law which emerges out of debate is ?the truth.? The teaching is deemed eternally true, but its specific meaning and application is contingent and eminently fallible. There are whole sections of Talmudic tractates devoted to this gap between the human process of interpretation and ?the truth.?
Halakhah is not the truth … it is the path. We are accountable to the law, but it may well be mitigated or limited by others laws, and it could very well be overturned at some other time for another moment?s weighty reasons.
Corvino has it right. Only what is unknowable can be infallible. All known commodities are too human to be eternally protected from error. It is sufficient to know that we have done our best to decipher the meaning of the revealed word as it applies to our specific circumstances … and this is the closest to God?s will that anyone can aspire to.
This is the topic of a famous Talmudic story. Two students come to visit their teacher, the elder statesman, Rabbi Joshua at a time when a very young rabbi, Elazar ben Azariah, was appointed to the head of the Sanhedrin. The midrash they report is greeted by Rabbi Joshua enthusiastically.
I have pasted it below, but the key relevant section is at the end. The words of the wise (read Torah) are debated in assemblies of the masters who don?t end up agreeing on God?s will at all. These understand them to say yes, those no, these say pure, those impure, these say kosher those unkosher.
The students are shocked. What did they come to the Sanhedrin for after all but to KNOW exactly what is required of them … to clearly grasp the will of God!
What the wise 18 year old head of the Sanhedrin teaches them is that there is no such knowing. The language of revelation is all too human for that. We are all too varied for that. All one can do is acquire an ear like a funnel that is ready to listen to all the different perspectives … and an open and discerning heart. The outcome will be communal and contingent … but the purpose of the Torah will have been done in the making of wise students.
THE WORDS OF THE WISE
** The words of the wise are like goads (ke-darbanot), like nails fixed in gathering rods (b?ale asefot), all given from one shepherd. (Ecclesiastes 12:11)
Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah 3b
Why are the words of the Torah compared to a goad? To teach you that just as the goad directs the heifer along its furrow in order to bring forth life to the world, so the words of Torah direct those who study them from the paths of death to the paths of life. But should you think that like the goad is always moving, and so the words of Torah are moveable, therefore the text compares the Torah to “nails” fixed in wood. But should you think that like nails that diminish (into the wood) and do not increase, so too the words of Torah; therefore the text says: “well planted.” Just as a plant grows and increases, so the words of Torah grow and increase. (B?ale asefot meaning ?in gathering rods? is voweled differently to produce baale asefot meaning, “masters of assemblies.” They (the bale asefot) are the disciples of the wise who sit in manifold assemblies and occupy themselves with the Torah, some pronouncing impure and others pure, some prohibiting, some permitting, some ruling unkosher and others kosher.
Should the student say, “How can I learn Torah in these (indefinite) circumstances?” To this the text responds: “All of them given from one shepherd.” One God gave them all, one leader spoke them from the mouth of the Lord of all creation, the blessed One, for it is written, “And God spoke all these words.”
Therefore, make your ear like a hopper and get for yourself a perceptive heart to understand the words of those who pronounce impure and the words of those who pronounce pure, the words of those who prohibit and the words of those who permit, the words of those who rule unkosher and those who rule kosher. **
posted by Throbert McGee on
No gay man has ever been prevented from marrying in the United States.
David, I realize that some people have been rude towards you and your beliefs in this thread, but that’s no justification for you to insult everyone’s intelligence and waste everyone’s time with this “a gay man is free to marry a woman and a lesbian is free to marry a man” twaddle.
It’s twaddle because everyone on both sides of the argument is quite aware that homosexuals can currently choose to become legally wed to someone of the opposite sex. And everyone on both sides of the argument understands that the argument itself is, in fact, about whether there ought to be legal recognition by the government of same-sex couplehood.
In short, stop being childish.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Sorry, but any ideal post-messianic age that would include stoning for adultery
I may be mistaken about this, but I think there is an expectation among Jews that after the coming of the Messiah, the truth of the Torah will no longer be so much a matter of faith for Jews, but will be evident to the entire world, or at least to everyone with a grain of good conscience.
So there will no longer be “basically decent adulterers” (every good-hearted person will fully understand the wrongness of adultery, and refrain from it; only the totally corrupt will engage in it). For that matter, there will be no “honest atheists” — every honest person will cease to be an atheist — and so forth.
posted by David Benkof on
Jorge-
I am consistently impressed with your thoughtfulness and critical thinking skills (even though I have no idea who you are). I would very much like to communicate with you one-on-one. If you’re willing, please E-mail me at DavidBenkof@aol.com.
You wrote “I’m sure the reason for all this is because it was culturally unthinkable for gay people to live in exclusively homosexual relationships.” Actually, no. We know of many pre-modern people who lived in exclusively homosexual relationships. We know of cultures where same-sex intercourse and love was not stigmatized. We just don’t have evidence of people oriented only to hook up with members of the same sex – as opposed to bisexual people who happened to end up with a person of a particular sex.
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?
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?
Don’t worry about my wife. I am aware that if she ever googles me, she’ll know plenty about my background.
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. Second, one could propose that the Jewish people as a whole have been selective in which verses of the Torah we take seriously and which ones we ignore. 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? 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. The Torah refers to a ritual involving a “pri etz hadar” – the fruit of a beautiful tree. And everyone agrees that fruit is a citron – an etrog. Orthodox Jews believe that’s because the Oral Law contained that specific instruction. Let’s say you don’t believe the Oral Law is divine. Fine. But at least it’s consistent. We’re not picking and choosing when everyone agrees that that verse refers to an etrog.
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.”
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?
You make it sound like society is more and more starting to believe that homosexuality and gay marriage are moral. Well, a 2006 Gallup poll showed a majority of Americans believing homosexuality was morally wrong. 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. And I am 100% comfortable letting the American people decide based on their various values and beliefs, including if a state votes for same-sex marriage (although I would still oppose measures that force churches and individuals who prefer the longstanding definition of marriage to behave in a way that violates their deeply held beliefs).
Finally, there’s a huge harm in changing the definition of marriage. 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. I do not believe we should be in the business of blessing and manufacturing tragedies, when there are already so many we have been unable to prevent.
posted by David Benkof on
avee-
Have you been under the impression that I’m trying to convince you to be an Orthodox Jew? I’m not. This whole conversation (in my mind) has been about the question on the table between Dr. John Corvino and me: Is Orthodox Judaism a cogent, coherent, internaly consistent, system that legitimately believes homosexuality is immoral? If your answer is “yes, but it’s not for me,” then I feel I’m winning the argument I have with the well-spoken and handsome philosophy professor from Michigan. If your answer is still “no,” then I’d be interested in discussing it further.
As for the concept that G-d created you to have gay sex and love, first of all Judaism not only does not forbid same-sex love, but it believes the most beautiful love in history was between two men who did not have sex with each other, as described in the book of Samuel. But as to whether G-d created you to have gay sex, presumably because you show signs of having a homosexual orientation, then you have to deal with why G-d would make people with homosexual orientations in the 20th century when there is zero evidence of homosexual orientations in the 15th century and 5th century. Maybe you have a theory.
I think it’s important in the context of this discussion that people understand that while Steve Greenberg has tried to present himself as an Orthodox thinker, he has been rejected as clearly non-Orthodox by virtually the entire Orthodox world. Even the left-of-center and very gay-friendly (and very smart and clearly Orthodox) Rabbi Asher Lopatin of Chicago carefully examined Steve’s philosophy and declared it “non-Orthodox.” I would never suggest that Steve cannot contribute to the discussion. And there are certainly Orthodox people to my left who legitimately disagree with me about various aspects of these issues. But Steve is not one of them.
Steve, when you had breakfast with me in Washington DC in 2002, you told me that you and your male significant other have anal sex together in an act of Gandhian “satyagraha” (civil disobedience) against the halacha (Jewish law). Your “Wrestling” book implies but does not specifically state the same thing. In case people are wondering, satyagraha is a Hindu concept, not a Jewish one. And there isn’t a single legitimate Orthodox rabbi who agrees that one can legitimately use a Gandhian resistance principle as a means of protesting something you don’t like about G-d’s laws. Similarly, they all agree that anal sex between men is a very, very serious transgression. The fact you behave the way you do without apology or visible repentance rules you out of the Orthodox world. Again, I welcome your participation in these dialogues. I just want to do my best to prevent people from granting you any legitimacy as an Orthodox thinker.
In case you were wondering, Steve, I was the guy you visited with at the pizzeria across from YU after the (awesome) movie about the Rav. You seemed to recognize my face but couldn’t place it, and I didn’t recognize your beard. Five minutes after you left I figured out it was you.
Steve writes: “We are accountable to the law, but it may well be mitigated or limited by others laws, and it could very well be overturned at some other time for another moment?s weighty reasons.”
What Steve is implying, but not coming out and saying, is that the laws forbidding male-male anal intercourse and same-sex marriages could very well be overturned in the future if various circumstances change. The problem is, Steve is the only person who considers himself an Orthodox rabbi in the history of Judaism who thinks that a law like these, both of which are Noahide and thus universal, and one of which is “yehareg v’al ya’avor” – a category of the highest importance – could possibly change at some point in the future. His flowery and vague language sounds very reasonable, but the specifics are simply impossible.
What Steve is saying seems like a version of the saying “There are 70 faces to Torah.” As one of my rabbis in yeshiva put it, “But there aren’t 71.” In other words, there are many right ways to look at the same Jewish text. But there are also ways of looking at it that are absolutely unquestionably wrong.
Despite my hostility to much of what Steve is saying, I really do welcome another learned, observant Jew to the conversation.
posted by David Benkof on
Throbert-
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.”
You also claim “everyone on both sides of the argument understands that the argument itself is, in fact, about whether there ought to be legal recognition by the government of same-sex couplehood.” That is demonstrably false. If you look at the arguments of traditional marriage defenders, we’re very focused on marriage. We have a variety of opinions on civil unions and domestic partnerships. If your side stopped trying to redefine marriage, and did what you claim is you real aim – “legal recognition by the government of same-sex couplehood” – many people on my side of the argument would switch sides and you’d have a much easier time of it.
Since anyone who really understands my argument would see that it’s not childish, I will explain more at length, in hopes of showing you what I’m really saying.
The Todas of South India practice infanticide. A Toda could logically argue that since abortion is legal in the United States, she would like to exercise her right to abortion, which for a Toda includes the right to kill your baby after it’s born.
Most Americans would respond that there’s no way we’re going to redefine abortion to accommodate Toda cultural preferences, which most of us find immoral. Todas do have a right to abortion. They just don’t have a right to infanticide, and to call it abortion. Abortion already has a clear definition with cultural consensus. The majority of Americans will fight any attempt to redefine abortion in a way that allows what we consider to be an immoral act.
Similarly, gay people can marry. They just can’t do something that is not marriage and demand that the society treat them as if they have been married.
If you really meant what you said and what recognition but not marriage, then we can start to negotiate what that ought to look like. But most gay people will reject your position and keep whining about “marriage equality.”
posted by Hayden on
David,
We just don’t have evidence of people oriented only to their left hand – as opposed to ambidextrous people who happened to end up using their left hand. As far as I know there is zero evidence of left handed orientations in the 15th century and 5th century either.
These are your statements; I?ve just changed ?same sex? to ?left hand? and ?bisexual? to ?ambidextrous?. I think the analogy of ?orientations? is appropriate and applicable but somehow my version exposes the absurdity of your version.
Considering the facts stated above would you conclude that left handedness is not an orientation? Or would you conclude that it is an unnatural orientation? Perhaps it?s a “recent social construct” that?s taken hold in the last 150 years?
I find your twisted logic on the existence of homosexual orientation prior to 150 years ago no less silly or labored. That was the point where it became clear to me that you, though much kinder and gentler, are like the Peter Labarbara’s and Tony Perkin’s of the world in your willingness to propagate obviously flawed junk science in order to sell his religiously based anti-gay opinion. You had me believing that this was just your personal choice that you weren?t pushing as a part of the ?ex-gay? industry right up until you slipped into the scientific-ish double talk. This is very reminiscent of the ?there is no evidence of (fill in the blank) argument techniques of the anti-evolution and global warming denying anti-science ?scientists?.
Additionally, you say, ?although I would still oppose measures that force churches and individuals who prefer the longstanding definition of marriage to behave in a way that violates their deeply held beliefs?. Nice straw man argument! Could you provide A SINGLE example of ANY measure in ANY state that has EVER forced ANY church to behave in a way that violates their deeply held beliefs [on the longstanding definition of marriage]?? I can think of only one possible instance in America and even that?s a stretch depending on how you define ?church? and ?longstanding definition of marriage?. That was when the Federal government forced the Church of Latter Day Saints and Mormon individuals to violate their ?deeply held beliefs? in the ?longstanding definition of marriage?; the one that defined marriage as the union of one man and one or more women (a MUCH longer standing definition than the one man/one woman definition widely used today). Am I to assume that you would have also opposed the measures that forced the LDS church to behave against their religious beliefs?
Furthermore, can you provide A SINGLE example where ANY gay person, activist or organization has asked the government to enact ANY measure that would force any church or anyone at any church to marry them or ANYONE ELSE they choose not to marry? If so, please provide specific documented examples. No church, temple, synagogue, mosque or religious leader has ever been forced to marry ANYONE that they didn?t want to marry, even if the couple was legally eligible to wed. Catholics and Orthodox Jews refuse to marry couples of mixed faiths and some won?t married divorced individuals. Even though they can?t be denied the RIGHT of CIVIL marriage, NO church, synagogue, temple or mosque would or could be forced to marry them. You and I both know that you can?t provide any such examples because they simply don?t exist.
I respected your personal choices but you really lost me when you proceeded to launch into the bogus science and anti-gay fundamentalist talking points where you try to justify imposing your RELIGIOUS beliefs onto others through denying tax paying, law abiding gay couples access to CIVIL protections and benefits freely offered to straight couples. Of course you should be able to vote and to vote your conscience. I just don?t understand why you feel the need to actively lobby against CIVIL rights for gays. I?m particularly perplexed by your ?majority rules? way of looking at whether or not homosexuality is immoral or not and your ?majority rules? standard for who gets civil rights, when they get them and how many they get. I shudder to think of how you might have applied your logic had you been around in the American South prior to the 1860?s, or during the 1960?s, or on the Supreme Court of Virginia in 1969 when the mixed race couple, the Lovings, sued for the right to be married in the Commonwealth. I find your position that the majority is always right especially ironic coming from you. Somehow I don?t think this mindset has served the Jewish people well throughout history. Most recently, the 1930?s and 40?s Germany comes to mind.
I FULLY support you if you want to be celibate. I support you if you choose to marry a woman (as long as you?re honest with her up front). Heck, I would even support you if you chose to be completely miserable for the rest of your life. That is your business and yours alone. If you don?t want to have sex with a man or marry a man I say more power to you but for the life of me I don?t understand why it?s so important to you to try to keep other people from having sex with or civilly marrying a person of the same sex. Even if it is 100% against G-d?s law how does that affect you? Are you somehow going to be punished for another person?s sin? Is the individual who commits the sin not going to have to face G-d ALONE in judgment? I?m just not seeing where your pony is in this race.
And one last thing; you?ve used ?by definition? here a couple of times in ways that were BY DEFINITION inappropriate and improper. Perhaps your ?definitions? are part of this special ?oral? variety that gives you special laws and insights that the rest of us dictionary-dependent mortals can?t fathom or perhaps you?re just making some of this stuff up as you go. For example, you said, ?When a child does not have both a mother and a father, it is by definition a tragedy?. You are BY DEFINITION ?begging the question? with that statement. I would appreciate it if you would explain what you mean by this logical fallacy. Please show me a definition of ?tragedy? from ANY dictionary that backs up your statement. How presumptuous and arrogant of you to claim that any person who didn?t have BOTH a mother and a father suffered a tragedy. Another example of your arrogant, yet ignorant use of ?by definition? was when you said, ?A man by definition cannot marry a man.? According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (no stranger to REAL definitions, as opposed to the ones that you?ve assumed) – marry: 3: to enter into a close union. Please to explain why, by definition, a man cannot enter into a close union with a man?
One thing about which I?m certain, no amount of reasoning will move a person so thoroughly marinated in dogma. I?m pretty sure that this is what the Buddha and King Solomon were talking about when they, from different times and cultures, came to the same conclusion that one should turn and walk away from a fool because wise words will only be wasted on ears that refuse to hear.
posted by David Benkof on
Hayden-
Are you making a joke? Being sarcastic? Are you actually making an argument? Because we absolutely have evidence of left-handed people in pre-modern times. Julius Caesar was left-handed. Alexander the Great was left-handed. Queen Victoria was left-handed. I’ll let the readers of this conversation decide which of us is showing “absurdity” – me, who expresses the consensus opinion of experts in gay history (of which I am one), or you, who makes a patently false claim about the history of handedness. I agree someone’s absurd, but it’s not me.
I think it is fascinating that you believe the work of openly gay, pro-same-sex-marriage historian George Chauncey of Yale is “junk science.” And the terrific work of Marxist gay activist John D’Emilio, of the University of Illinois-Chicago, formerly of the NGLTF, whose outstanding “Born Gay?” essay explains why gay historians don’t agree with the rush to claim that gay is an essential, ahistorical identity, is a “homophobe.” I mean, come on! Someone’s getting absurd again.
You wrote, “Could you provide A SINGLE example of ANY measure in ANY state that has EVER forced ANY church to behave in a way that violates their deeply held beliefs [on the longstanding definition of marriage]?? Really sneaky, appending six words I never said to the end of my quote. In Massachusetts, the Catholic Church was given the choice of pretending like they didn’t believe children needed both a mother and a father, or not arranging adoptions at all. They had no choice but to select the latter, and virtually everyone agrees that the main victim of that policy (which came in the wake of the Goodridge decision) was poor, orphaned children. Good one, gay activists! You really have your priorities straight.
I have no strong feelings about polygamy and the LDS church. Since it’s not a topic on the political agenda, I’d have to give it more thought and hear arguments from both sides before venturing an opinion.
“Furthermore, can you provide A SINGLE example where ANY gay person, activist or organization has asked the government to enact ANY measure that would force any church or anyone at any church to marry them or ANYONE ELSE they choose not to marry?” This is the lovely straw man gay activists love to bring up. Several states have given their redefinition of marriage bills the Orwellian name “The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,” saying “our bills don’t force any church to marry same-sexers.” Well, people on my team almost never claim that churches are going to be forced to marry gays. So why do people on your team constantly trumpet the fact that churches won’t be forced to marry gays? You go on and on about this subject, as if I had accused you of plotting to force my rabbi to marry two dudes. I never said anything like that. What’s your point?
There you (pl.) go again, complaining that I want to impose my religious beliefs on others. Tell me (because every time I bring this up, the question is ignored): if I believe same-sex marriage is wrong for everybody, what should I do? Not express my opinion vocally, in print, or on the Web? Refrain from lobbying my elected officials about what I believe. Vote the opposite way of how I believe deeply because why – you’re jumping up and down and saying I’m wrong? Why don’t we have an honest, open debate, and we’ll each vote the way we believe, and the majority wins?
You bring up slavery. it’s an extreme example, but fine, let’s discuss it. What exactly is your point? Should slaveholders who believed their Bible reinforced their slaveholding have been legally barred from voting? Should newspapers have been censored if they tried to print pro-slavery editorials? Should someone who gave a pro-slavery speech have been jailed? In a democracy, everyone should be allowed to make their case. (And before you start saying I’m pro-slavery, of course I’m not. I just don’t understand who you think should get to decide that a specific opinion must be imposed on an unwilling citizenry rather than handled democratically. Does Hayden believe all his opinions should win?)
Loving v. Virginia was not about the redefinition of marriage. It was about who has access to the consensus definition of marriage. There’s a big difference.
You claim I’m trying to keep others from having gay sex. When did I do that? I don’t even support sodomy laws.
You claim I’m trying to stop people from civilly marrying someone of the same sex. That’s like saying I’m trying to stop someone from E-mailing a watermelon. You can’t E-mail a watermelon. A man can’t marry a man. It’s not a marriage. He can have a wedding with a man, and invite all his friends. But I’m not going to be sympathetic to his demand that my government and my tax dollars go to support and celebrate such a union when to me, and to most people in most states such a thing is not a marriage and may not even be moral.
You ask where my pony is in this race. The way the Talmud describes same-sex marriage, it’s clear that such a thing is a sign of a decaying, deeply immoral society. I don’t want to live in such a society. You disagree. OK, fine. You vote your way, I’ll vote mine, and we’ll see who wins. What’s your problem with a little respectful disagreement about public policy?
A tragedy is “a lamentable, dreadful, or fatal event or affair.” You think a little boy who grows up without ever knowing his father is not a lamentable affair? As a rule, I never call people immoral, but if you tell me it is value-neutral – could be good, could be bad, flip a coin – that a little boy grows up without a father, I’ll be tempted to break my rule. (Actually, I don’t think gays making that kind of argument are immoral. It’s just that their obsession with equality and validation gets in the way of other, more important values like the welfare of children.) Can you give me a single example of a little boy who grew up without ever knowing his Daddy whose life is – what’s the opposite of tragedy – a comedy? A blissful, joyous life with absolutely nothing missing? I’d like to talk to such a person, if he exists.
It must have been fun for you to search and search and google and google until you found a definition of “marry” that doesn’t involve a man and a woman. But I never said anything about changing the definition of “marry.” I have always written about changing the definition of “marriage.” To give you the benefit of the doubt, let’s check what Merriam-Webster, your dictionary of choice, lists as its first definition of marriage. Hmmm…. wow! Look at this!
“Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.”
Your apology is accepted.
I just got to the bottom of your post where you call me a “fool.” Honestly, had I read the whole thing through before typing, I would have just ignored you, since I make it a habit not to debate name-callers.
But I’ll let the readers of the blog decide who’s the fool. Only one of us:
* Made an argument about left-handed people that is demonstrably false, and used that argument to suggest the other person’s point of view was absurd
* Called the research by openly gay scholars who support same-sex marriage who work at major American universities “junk science”
* Made it appear I said six words I never said
* Pretended like I was arguing that gays want to force churches to marry them, even though I have never said that
* Claimed with no evidence that I’m trying to prevent gays from having sex
* Read and ignored a variety of definitions of marriages that mention the requirement of being opposite-sex, and ignored them, until he found a lower definition of a word other than “marriage” that doesn’t specify the gender – and then acted as if he had proven marriage is not by definition a union of a man and a woman.
Hayden, if you apologize for calling me a fool, I will be happy to continue discussions with you. If not, I will ignore your future posts.
posted by David Benkof on
I have a new post at http://www.marriagedebate.com/mdblog.php in which I share some of the things we’ve been talking about here at IGF and giving my perspective on them. You may find it interesting.
posted by David Benkof on
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.
posted by David Benkof on
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.
posted by Pat on
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.
posted by Pat on
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?
posted by S.W. on
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.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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.”
posted by Pat on
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.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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?
posted by David Benkof on
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.
posted by Richard on
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.
posted by Throbert McGee on
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.
posted by Rob on
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.
posted by Rob on
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!
posted by David Benkof on
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.
posted by Pat on
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.
posted by Pat on
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.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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?
posted by Pat on
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?
posted by Pat on
Oops. Should be minority, not majority in second paragraph above.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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”?
posted by Pat on
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.
posted by Rob on
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!
posted by Gay Species on
Refutation and analysis on blog under the header:
For a sustained analysis and refutation, readers are welcome to consult:
Homophobia’s Origins In Immorality.