Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Interesting Discussions
Can u explain frum ppl being happy over gay marriage?
  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next



Post new topic    View latest: 24h 48h 72h

mille




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 4:17 pm
amother wrote:
I can deplore a decision I think is immoral and wrong without trying to force my ideals on anyone.


Sure, if you don't vote or in any other way attempt to change the law in your favor. If you vote against something like gay marriage, you ARE trying to force your ideals on someone else, even if you feel justified in doing so because you believe that the action is immoral and wrong. It's fine if you do vote, because we do live in a democracy, which means your vote does get added into the pool. But don't try to say that this is not you forcing your ideal on someone else, because that's exactly what it is.
Back to top

mille




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 4:30 pm
mommy2b2c wrote:
Yes the word marriage bothers me. I think that all pairs of adults living to get her should be allowed civil unions that give them the same rights as married couples. A mother and daughter, two sisters, or gay lovers. This way, no one is discriminated against and I am not forced to applaud something that I consider immoral or be labeled a bigot.


Including a man and a woman in a romantic relationship? The family examples are probably not as great, because family members are extended certain rights that are not afforded to non family members (e.g. being able to make a medical decision for the other person when the person in question is not capable of doing so, or even just visiting in the hospital, or issues of estate in the case of death, etc). I would argue that even a marriage between a man and a woman should be called a civil union, because "marriage" is a religious concept and "civil union" is a secular, legal concept. I don't think the government should preside over anything religious whatsoever, so if you want to get married, go to a rabbi or pastor. If you want to be legally bound in a union, go to the government and get a civil union. Unfortunately, changing the terminology won't ever happen. But I certainly think it's extremely discriminatory to play the 'separate but equal' game and give a male and female union a different (and, let's face it, elevated) title than a male/male or male/female couple.

(Is anyone else surprised that this topic hasn't been locked yet?)
Back to top

imasinger




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 4:44 pm
I'm with you, mille.

To me, the relevant term is "kiddushin." Anything else can be whatever society makes of it.

I wonder if anyone has changed their opinions because of this thread.

I think predictions of US shuls being legally forced to host gay weddings are unlikely to come true.

A more realistic prediction I have is that Yael will add this topic to the "off limits" list.
Back to top

amother
Pink


 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 4:46 pm
I profoundly disagree.
That the relationship between a man and a woman is different is a fact on so many levels.
It is a biological fact.
The overwhelming body of scientific evidence that men and women are different on an emotional level means the logical conclusion that a successful relationship between two profoundly different "creatures" (for lack of a better word (and because my mother would call me that when I did something wrong) must be different then a successful relationship between members of the same gender.
To state otherwise is to ignore the fact that they it is biologically different and emotionally different, unless one again chooses to ignore the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that men and woman are emotionally different.
Consequently it is fully logical to state that the relationship between two individuals of opposite genders should have term that is exclusive to that particular relationship.
Now, If I were to deny someone the right to that relationship, that would be discrimination, however if one chooses a different relationship it is not discrimination to insist that what is different in fact is in fact different.
I am reminded of a scene in the film Alexander when an irate Rosario Dawson confronts her husband played by Colin Farrell about his male lover and he explains to her with passion "it is different then what we have" (with apologies I saw it a long time ago so it's pretty hazy).
Back to top

amother
Lavender


 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 5:02 pm
On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world, and the first country outside Europe, to legalize same-relations marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition. Court decisions, starting in 2003, had already legalized same-relations marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population.

There has not been any law suits against any Jewish organization in Canada. I think you are all taking it too far.
Back to top

mille




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 5:05 pm
imasinger wrote:
I'm with you, mille.

To me, the relevant term is "kiddushin." Anything else can be whatever society makes of it.

I wonder if anyone has changed their opinions because of this thread.

I think predictions of US shuls being legally forced to host gay weddings are unlikely to come true.

A more realistic prediction I have is that Yael will add this topic to the "off limits" list.


I highly doubt it. There was a podcast episode of This American Life a while ago about the concept of changing your mind, and how rarely people do it. It was quite fascinating!

(Coincidentally, I believe one of the stories they covered in the episode was about lobbying in California regarding prop 8!)

I would think this would already be off limits due to the fact that the topic of homos-xuality is already off limits.
Back to top

youngishbear




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 5:07 pm
amother wrote:
On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world, and the first country outside Europe, to legalize same-relations marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition. Court decisions, starting in 2003, had already legalized same-relations marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population.

There has not been any law suits against any Jewish organization in Canada. I think you are all taking it too far.


Are Canadians as litigious as Americans?
Back to top

Dolly Welsh




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 5:13 pm
As Magenta Yenta says, some states protect actual literal religious institutions from having to do anything that isn't in their religion. She says related for-profit businesses should not get excited about customizing their products to other beliefs because they are selling, not doing religion.

So there may indeed still be shuls, rabbis, and churches, and other supporting functions held physically inside their walls.

But a wedding hall down the street, a money-making business, that caters to traditionalist religious people, might find itself out of business from fines for discrimination against others whose weddings they didn't want to host. So, you can have your religion - in a tax-exempt religious setting, in that same building.

But note that the IRS can deny tax-exempt status.

And only a tax-exempt place is considered a genuine religious place, in this situation.

You might not even own a building. You might have a culture that couldn't afford its own building, just had religious views, and had minyans in the back of the store. No religious building. Now what?

Magenta, as you are up to speed on the legalities, and I am not, am I getting it right?

This situation already exists and has existed. That's why there have already been lawsuits in recent years about bakeries, and so on.

A frum bridal shop, that sells wedding gowns, might find itself sued out of business. It isn't a religious institution. There aren't that many frum bridal sources. When they are gone, you will need a sewing machine.

The idea that "you have your culture, and we have ours, and we're fine with that, so leave us alone, and let's all be happy and have a nice day in our different ways" philosophy isn't being followed by the other side. Only by your side.

The other side knows perfectly well that for it to be safe, your culture must die. That's actually true. I side with my own side, but in sadness I understand their position. It's a cage fight and only one of can live. Very sad. But that's how it is.

You will be eaten last, after the Christians.

Your status as an underground, illegal culture will be made apparent to you eventually, but not right away. Any thing that you have to pay a fine for doing is an illegal act. If refusing to make a bridal gown for John gets you fined, your culture has been made an illegal one, and your thoughts are crimes, and your act in refusing is a crime.

You will need slush funds to continue to be you.

You will wearily pay the Jew Tax, payed by your ancestors for a thousand years in Europe.

It will return, that's all.

You will pay the lawsuits, and just keep on "discriminating," until the next lawsuit, which you will also pay, and the next, and the next. You will pay and pay and pay.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. That's been said many times.

Lawsuit settlements that destroy can therefore be called a tax. A Jew Tax. The Christians will pay too. Everybody will pay who dares do something characteristically religious, for a religious community, without having a tax-exempt status.
Back to top

Dolly Welsh




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 5:19 pm
amother wrote:
On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world, and the first country outside Europe, to legalize same-relations marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition. Court decisions, starting in 2003, had already legalized same-relations marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population.

There has not been any law suits against any Jewish organization in Canada. I think you are all taking it too far.


There are far more Christians than Jews, so the Christians will be sued long before the Jews. The Jews are too few to matter. That make the Christians the important people to defeat. Not you.

But don't get too complacent. What happens to other traditionalist people might just as well happen to you, in time. Why not? Are you so special? No. They will get to you in time.

Canada is one tenth the size of the US, and starting this there amounts to "starting the show out of town".

The US is the real theater, not Canada, though I honor it as a great country.

We are very well acquainted with right to force someone else to say yes.

We are less well acquainted with the right to say no. We have not needed to think about that before now.

Let's say you are a rock musician and you need to practice the drums at home. You bring a lawyer to a lease-signing. The traditionalist building owner is legally forced to rent you an apartment. He's miserable, and he loses his other tenants, but too bad for him. You have your rights to housing without discrimination.

A few years later, you cut your hair, stop doing rock music, and auntie Sue leaves you a building in her will.

Shoe is on other foot now.

In walks a prospective tenant. He's a rock musician. Now you are forced to rent to him. Before you had the right to rent, but now you don't have the right not to rent.

Moral: the more rights you have, the fewer rights you have.

The right to be rented to brings with it another guy's right to be rented, too, also, and as a landlord you now wish he had fewer rights, so you could have more.

Another solution is to keep on being a rock musician for life, sell auntie's building right away, and let someone else deal with it.

We could all go secular, gay, or gay-approving. That would solve a lot of problems for us. Who needs to be sued all day? It's expensive and unpleasant. As long as there are cakes, balloons, pretty dresses and laughter, does it matter exactly who is wearing the dress? The dress is pretty.

You are going to be saying that. Your children, if in public school, are being taught that now.

If that's not true, let's hear you prove it.

You can't. Not without being religious. That is starting to be hate speech and hate speech brings grave consequences even outside lawsuits: shaming, maybe even physical attacks. You can certainly be fired. Even if you are in a union or on pension, there can be grave consequences, financial and social.

You may have to make friends with a believing Christian. That won't be easy for you. You don't see him as a guy needing protection. You really don't see him as an ally.

But he is your only friend now. Irony of ironies.

Life is funny.


Last edited by Dolly Welsh on Sun, Jun 28 2015, 5:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 5:29 pm
Dolly Welsh wrote:
As Magenta Yenta says, some states protect actual literal religious institutions from having to do anything that isn't in their religion. She says related for-profit businesses should not get excited about customizing their products to other beliefs because they are selling, not doing religion.

So there may indeed still be shuls, rabbis, and churches, and other supporting functions held physically inside their walls.

But a wedding hall down the street, a money-making business, that caters to traditionalist religious people, might find itself out of business from fines for discrimination against others whose weddings they didn't want to host. So, you can have your religion - in a tax-exempt religious setting, in that same building...
Magenta, as you are up to speed on the legalities, and I am not, am I getting it right? ...


To a point you are correct Dolly. There are states (Alabama) for instance that still permit discrimination on the basis of race, gender preference, religion or lack there of, when it comes to the actions of a private business.

This case was decided on the basis of the 14th amendment. In all of the states that enacted marriage equality prior to this week, the rights of religious institutions and their clergy under the 1st amendment were unchanged.

I am not a legal savant, but I've been following this issue for many years. If there are real lawyers please chime in. Factually the day before this ruling came down, a rabbi could refuse to marry a SS couple if that was their position on the matter with no negative fall out. And now in day two of gaymageddon the same still holds true.
Back to top

youngishbear




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 5:36 pm
MagentaYenta wrote:
To a point you are correct Dolly. There are states (Alabama) for instance that still permit discrimination on the basis of race, gender preference, religion or lack there of, when it comes to the actions of a private business.

This case was decided on the basis of the 14th amendment. In all of the states that enacted marriage equality prior to this week, the rights of religious institutions and their clergy under the 1st amendment were unchanged.

I am not a legal savant, but I've been following this issue for many years. If there are real lawyers please chime in. Factually the day before this ruling came down, a rabbi could refuse to marry a SS couple if that was their position on the matter with no negative fall out. And now in day two of gaymageddon the same still holds true.


Ha! I love the word.

Looking forward to complete conservative coverage of this cultural catastrophe in the chareidi publications.
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 5:40 pm
youngishbear wrote:
Ha! I love the word.

Looking forward to complete conservative coverage of this cultural catastrophe in the chareidi publications.


Well on day two it did rain today, but no frogs. A Frum friend of mine texted me to announce that she did find a locust. So things are progressing.
Back to top

etky




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 6:00 pm
At the risk of sounding melodramatic, to me this decision is no less than the formal reordering of human society in defiance of the model prescribed to us by G-d. I truly can't fathom the glibbness of some of the replies concerning this very weighty issue.
Back to top

Dolly Welsh




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 6:05 pm
But you brush past my objections. You seem fine with religion having to take place only in a private home or in a tax-exempt building, as if it were a weird personal activity best kept to oneself, not a way of life.

So you are fine with the death of a public way of life. You are fine with its having to crouch in corners until it is over with altogether.

You are right. The incompatibility of the two ways of life is real.

But as a frum woman, why are you siding with the other side?

Above all, as a woman, why are you siding with the other side?

There are very few gay women. Most gay people aren't women. And have little use for women. Meaning the kind of women who have two x chromosomes.

They designate the mother on a birth certificate as "parent two" not "mother". In Canada. Soon, in the US, perhaps.

That isn't good for women. Women have been discontinued, in this new world. They don't exist. They aren't needed except for one mechanical thing, and that, not often. Birth. Nothing more. Their ongoing role is disappeared.

I am no lawyer but some people are saying that stretching the 14th Amendment over this is discussable, and not automatic as you imply.

You have not considered the situation of a gay bakery (there are plenty) being legally forced to decorate a cake with a verse from the Bible, particularly one they didn't like. That would cause them anger and pain. But you don't seem to worry about that.

Once people's thoughts are illegal, that can happen. You don't seem to worry about that.

If one culture can be legally destroyed, so can another.

The real point is the violence level. Peaceful people lose to violent ones.

And anyway, there is another agenda behind all this; it has to do with reducing the human population drastically. This is only a way-station to that. It's not about rights and happiness and self-expression and all that pretty stuff. Pretty is certainly rainbow-ish: a rainbow is the prettiest thing in the world, every color. Pretty, pretty, pretty.

It's not about that, really.
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 6:14 pm
Dolly Welsh wrote:
..
But as a frum woman, why are you siding with the other side?
...

Dolly I'm presuming you were responding to me.

I am the other side. I'm a bise*xual female frum Jew.

I am the child of immigrants who came to the country to enjoy the rights that the US constitution provides for it's citizens.

I have two out gay cousins who have been with their partners for years in states without marriage equality. They deserve the same rights and privileges any other citizen enjoys in this country.

I don't swallow the kool aid that is dosed with fears of slippery slopes.

I understand the difference between the 1st and the 14th amendment.

I'm a member of a religious minority in this country, as a citizen, I would feel the dissonance if I did not support another minority in their progress to full equality under the law.

LGBT individuals marrying has no negative effect on my life. I live in a state that had marriage equality long before yesterdays ruling.

There's probably a few others I can think of, but I have a schedule to keep.
Back to top

sequoia




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 6:26 pm
Disclaimer: I haven't read the thread.

I understand about the tenth amendment, but it seems we said goodbye to that back when Mr. Lincoln was president. And then Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Loving vs Virginia, Roe vs Wade, etc, etc.

In a sense our entire history has been a movement away from federalization toward centralization.

Whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion.

That's as to the means.

As to the effect, I don't see how any human can NOT be happy about it. Other people get rights. You don't lose any rights. What's not to love?

For anyone saying they have now lost the right to speak against homozexuality -- you actually haven't, so why talk nonsense? We live in a country where neo-Nazis can march in frickin SKOKIE and the ACLU supports their right to do so! Where those bastards from Westboro Baptist Church PICKET MILITARY FUNERALS and the bereaved families can do nothing about it, because freedom of speech.

No one is taking away YOUR rights by giving LGB people theirs.

And Dolly. I am a frum woman, and I am on the side of loving people getting married and creating families. That is my side.
Back to top

youngishbear




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 6:27 pm
etky wrote:
At the risk of sounding melodramatic, to me this decision is no less than the formal reordering of human society in defiance of the model prescribed to us by G-d. I truly can't fathom the glibbness of some of the replies concerning this very weighty issue.


And I think these acts of defiance are not within our control. I can vote down propositions, and marry only a male, but can I force others to do the same? Can I prevent them?

And from there I move onto, and should I? Why would I want to limit the free will of others? That might come back and bite me when my right to marry off my children at age 17 (shock ) is curtailed.

So while I agree with others that SS marriage is not God's intention, I don't see the ruling as anything but an expansion of the human right to choose, which is totally Hashem's plan. And as a member of the most opressed nation in history, I look upon expansion of rights as a good thing.
Back to top

amother
Khaki


 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 6:35 pm
mille wrote:
Sure, if you don't vote or in any other way attempt to change the law in your favor. If you vote against something like gay marriage, you ARE trying to force your ideals on someone else, even if you feel justified in doing so because you believe that the action is immoral and wrong. It's fine if you do vote, because we do live in a democracy, which means your vote does get added into the pool. But don't try to say that this is not you forcing your ideal on someone else, because that's exactly what it is.


Come again? Are you trying to say that democracy means everyone trying to force their ideals on everyone else? Because whenever I vote for anything, according to what you seem to be saying, I'm trying to force all those who believe differently than I do to accept my ideals.

On the other hand, it's okay for five members of SCOTUS to force me to accept their ideals, is that right? And it was okay for gay rights activists to file amicus curiae briefs and thereby force me to accept their ideals, right?
Back to top

amother
Khaki


 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 6:38 pm
imasinger wrote:
I'm with you, mille.

To me, the relevant term is "kiddushin." Anything else can be whatever society makes of it.


The Gemara says that the decree to destroy the generation of the Mabul was signed when that society began writing ketubot between males. There was no such thing as kiddushin at that time. So clearly, whatever society calls marriage is considered marriage by Hashem.
Back to top

zaq




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 6:44 pm
etky wrote:
Not allowing two people who love each other to marry can be construed as a very cruel, backwards and unenlightened Jewish position.


Since when should Torah Jews be concerned about being viewed as backwards and unenlightened? "Progressive, enlightened and humane" parties are doing their utmost to outlaw shechitah and bris milah.
Back to top
Page 5 of 9   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic       Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
I love frum fashion for kids
by amother
135 Today at 2:30 pm View last post
Please explain to me what wanting woman to Lein Megilla is
by amother
268 Yesterday at 9:10 pm View last post
I’m a size 0 and nothing fits me in the frum stores
by amother
29 Yesterday at 9:14 am View last post
Can anyone explain the Israeli chareidi school system?
by amother
7 Tue, Mar 26 2024, 5:21 am View last post
Happy Shoo Shoo Purim!
by amother
14 Mon, Mar 25 2024, 8:14 pm View last post