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

amother
Pink


 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 6:57 pm
Actually this is not theoretical at all,
http://www.outsidethebeltway.c.....ples/
http://abcnews.go.com/Business.....22065
http://www.christianpost.com/n.....7574/
http://articles.baltimoresun.c.....owner

Those are just some real cases here in the USA and yet somehow MY and YB seem to feel that this ruling does not affect frum Jews?
Again I ask if a frum Jew owns a Florist, a Bakery, a Restaurant, Photography Shop, Bridal Boutique, or any of a host of other business's and a secular Jewish couple come in and wish said business to provide service for their wedding. A real Halachic issue is then present, what happens?
Back to top

optimist




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:02 pm
" Its a ...! "
Gender will be revealed when child decides.
Back to top

sequoia




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:03 pm
amother wrote:
Actually this is not theoretical at all,
http://www.outsidethebeltway.c.....ples/
http://abcnews.go.com/Business.....22065
http://www.christianpost.com/n.....7574/
http://articles.baltimoresun.c.....owner

Those are just some real cases here in the USA and yet somehow MY and YB seem to feel that this ruling does not affect frum Jews?
Again I ask if a frum Jew owns a Florist, a Bakery, a Restaurant, Photography Shop, Bridal Boutique, or any of a host of other business's and a secular Jewish couple come in and wish said business to provide service for their wedding. A real Halachic issue is then present, what happens?


And yet you have no problem providing a service for secular hetero Jewish couples who won't keep TH?

That's as bad as two men, and MUCH worse than two women, halachically.
Back to top

imasoftov




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:03 pm
amother wrote:
Imagine a vaad who pulls their hasgacha from a restaurant or hall which allows mixed dancing or women singing in a mixed setting. I bet plenty of you would be fine with that.

In Israel, the Rabbanut is legally prohibited from doing that, and I think that's a good thing.
Back to top

youngishbear




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:04 pm
amother wrote:
Actually this is not theoretical at all,
http://www.outsidethebeltway.c.....ples/
http://abcnews.go.com/Business.....22065
http://www.christianpost.com/n.....7574/
http://articles.baltimoresun.c.....owner

Those are just some real cases here in the USA and yet somehow MY and YB seem to feel that this ruling does not affect frum Jews?
Again I ask if a frum Jew owns a Florist, a Bakery, a Restaurant, Photography Shop, Bridal Boutique, or any of a host of other business's and a secular Jewish couple come in and wish said business to provide service for their wedding. A real Halachic issue is then present, what happens?


I said we can figure it out. Ask shailos.

Is it inconvenient, for us? Yes.

Is it ideal, that people violate the Noahide laws? No.

Is it good, that the government is expanding the rights of individuals? Yes.
Back to top

amother
Pink


 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:05 pm
To add to the discussion, Justice Kennedy actually mentioned that the First Amendment protects those who wish to follow long held religious belief and advocate against same gender marriage however Justice Robert's in his dissent actually pointed out that was is protected is not just expressing belief it is the exercise of religion, something which will now be severely hampered as one's religious belief can cause one to be unable to operate a business in the USA.
Back to top

amother
Pink


 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:13 pm
sequoia wrote:
And yet you have no problem providing a service for secular hetero Jewish couples who won't keep TH?

That's as bad as two men, and MUCH worse than two women, halachically.


First off I never said I would, secondly from a halachic standpoint it is actually way different.

The actual ceremony of a same gender "marriage" is an expression of a violation of the Torah from a halachic standpoint it is problematic to take part in that.
To provide service's to a ceremony which is 100% Halachic in nature is probably permitted since the couples decision to violate any given law afterwards is irrelevant.
(And please, please let's not use the infantile reasoning that marriage does not mean consummation. In Halachic terms a marriage is exactly that, and in fact many Rabbi's have noted is the reason why there are many opinion's that a marriage ceremony which cannot be consummated is invalid since they go hand in hand)
Back to top

imasinger




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:24 pm
Dolly Welsh wrote:


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.


The studies seem to say that between 1-2% of both males and females identify as gay, and another similar percentage of both genders identify as bi. See here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik.....ation

Other studies list higher numbers. People tend to live where they are accepted, so some areas report higher percentages than others. But male vs female are pretty similar.

Khaki, I'd like to learn more of the gemara you mentioned. Can you tell me where to find it?
Back to top

bluebird




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 7:52 pm
Volunteer wrote:
I understand the logic that if homosexual marriage doesn't affect me, why should I deny anyone else the ability to legally marry.
I just want to point out that there is a legitimate concern that the rights of anyone religiously opposed to sanctioning same-relations marriage will be affected. If a rabbi refuses to officiate at a same-relations wedding, could he get sued
for discrimination? Could he lose his livelihood? Could his synagogue lose tax- exempt status, and possibly lose donations? T


Do you expect rabbis will be sued if they refuse to marry a mamzer to a non-mamzer? Or a Jew to a Gentile?

Marriage in the US is a civil marriage, not halachic marriage. Declaring it equivalent to religious marriage is dangerous, because the majority xtians will take it over and that's not going to go well for us. For example, they could make everyone do a covenant marriage, and that's going to be against halacha because it's more stringent than our marriages, or otherwise making civil divorce harder for Jews that don't have their stringencies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....riage

Regardless of whether or not you're in favor from same-relations marriage, we should NOT be encouraging US civil marriages to be equivalent to religious marriage.
Back to top

Laiya




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 8:00 pm
Can religious institutions now lose their tax-exempt status for refusing to officiate at gay weddings? Using the logic that gay marriage is now afforded the same constitutional protections as inter-racial marriage?

Justice Alito asked this question during oral argument and the answer given by the gov't was--it depends how any such theoretical litigation plays out. But the answer is NOT a definitive "No way!" And that's why religious people should be concerned.
Back to top

mille




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 8:17 pm
amother wrote:
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?


I mean, it's certainly a harsh and forceful way of putting it, but yes. If you vote something into law that affects other people, that is you attempting to push your ideals on other people. Like I said, if you truly find homos-xuality deplorable, well, then maybe it should be your priority to do so.

I didn't say whether or not it was "right". But that's kind of what it is. You can't really vote down gay marriage and therefore vote against a whole group of people having comparable rights to hetero people and claim that you aren't trying to force others to follow a practice you believe in (not marrying the same se-x). You want them to follow your ideal, not their own. So you vote it into a law so they MUST follow your ideal, not their own. Is that not what it is?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, because I know it's futile.
Back to top

bluebird




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 8:18 pm
Laiya wrote:
Can religious institutions now lose their tax-exempt status for refusing to officiate at gay weddings? Using the logic that gay marriage is now afforded the same constitutional protections as inter-racial marriage?


Loving vs Virginia resulted in the government no longer being able to restrict interracial marriage. Churches are 100% allowed to continue that discrimination. They're 100% allowed to continue refusing to perform marriages for gay couples. Nothing has changed, or will change, unless the US throws out separation of church and state.

There is no argument about religious institutions having protection and being able to deny marriage to whomever they want. It's actually written in the majority opinion's decision!

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-relations marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....iage/




Laiya wrote:

Justice Alito asked this question during oral argument and the answer given by the gov't was--it depends how any such theoretical litigation plays out. But the answer is NOT a definitive "No way!" And that's why religious people should be concerned.


Bob Jones University isn't a church, and doesn't perform weddings. The analogy would be a shul that owns apartments refusing to rent to a gay couple, or YU refusing to admit homosexuals.
Back to top

amother
Pink


 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 8:24 pm
You did leave out Justice Roberts thoughts on that very passage, quoted in the same article,

“Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-relations marriage democratically to include accommodations for 28 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-relations marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”
Back to top

sequoia




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 8:32 pm
(Isn't it beautiful we live in a country with so much vigorous sincere debate?)

Carry on.
Back to top

fmt4




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 9:05 pm
Dolly Welsh wrote:


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.



.


What in the world are you talking about??? You can't just say absolute nonsense like you know what you're talking about when you absolutely don't. The percentage of gay men and women in the general population of the U.S. is very close, 1.5 to 1.8 in the latest polling. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik.....tates

Seriously, if you don't know what you're talking about then just stop talking. Rolling Eyes
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 9:19 pm
zaq wrote:
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.


This isn't just being quaint and old-fashioned. I can't see how being against homosexuality won't be considered hate speech.
Back to top

Dolly Welsh




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 9:34 pm
Oh there are gay women. But there are many more gay men. The movement has been male, except in photographs which always, always, show women prominently.

I have worked all over, for decades, around all sorts of people including lots of gay men, but I can remember only one gay woman, possibly there were maybe a handful more who were less visible as being such. Maybe. There just aren't lots, not in comparison with the men.

Gay people in general as a group are only about two and a half percent of the population. Some say more. But even they don't say much more than that; some claim five percent, but that's exaggerated. For the moment. Here.

However, whole societies can be gay.

Look at Ancient Greece. Also the Vikings. Meaning, male gay. A few gay women were indeed tolerated in Ancient Greece, but they were exceptional. They only needed one island, Lesbos, and it isn't a big island. The whole of Greece was male-gay.

So if you don't like it, don't feel safe. Human nature is malleable, and goes along with whatever is considered the approved thing at the time.

There are always a few people who can't be straight no matter what, and also a few who can't be gay no matter what.
The rest are somewhere in the mushy middle, and might be mostly one or mostly the other, with wanderings and exceptions. Not necessarily in youth, either.

Over time, there might be no one at all who has never had one gay intimate experience, in the non-religious world, that is.

Why a straight woman would be gay-friendly mystifies me. Of course, they both, the woman and the gay man, see the straight patriarchal male as their common enemy. Not in a religious context, but outside religion, a woman might find herself competing for her husband with his gay male acquaintance. My guess is, she will lose. She asks for a lot more and is a lot more different from him. She gets moods, children, needs more money. No. She's not the way to bet.

Now, there will be no longer any need for the gay man to fight the patriarchy. He can seduce him instead.

Now, he will no longer have any need for his former ally, the woman. She will be discarded, the naïve trusting thing; she trusted a rival. Stupid.

The concept of gentlemanly conduct toward women has roots in Torah and in the Christian attitude toward Mary and will not survive in a gay atmosphere. Male gallantry devolves into mere pity, when the man has no s-xual desire for the woman, or, isn't obliged to confine his s-xual interest to her.

Woman's last monopoly has been broken; she is dispensable now.

Well, not in our religious world.
Back to top

sequoia




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 9:40 pm
This is so beautiful someone smarter than me should respond Smile

Dolly, why do you not write FICTION? Then you'd be considered talented rather than crazy Wink
Back to top

zaq




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 9:46 pm
The poster didn't say we should be concerned about being viewed as hatemongers. She stated specificallly that we would be viewed as backwards, unenlightened and inhumane if we don't allow people who love each other to marry. We can't be concerned about being viewed as backwards, unenlightened and inhumane. There are people who might feel that denying siblings the right to marry each other is also backwards, unenlightened and inhumane.After all, they love each other, don't they have a right to be happy together? And lest you worry about those pesky genetic anomalies and recessive genetic diseases, not to worry, one or both will get themselves sterilized.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not gay people should be permitted to marry in US law, simply showing "but they love each other, why should they not be allowed to marry?" is a specious argument.
Back to top

fmt4




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 28 2015, 9:47 pm
Dolly Welsh wrote:
Oh there are gay women. But there are many more gay men. The movement has been male, except in photographs which always, always, show women prominently.

I have worked all over, for decades, around all sorts of people including lots of gay men, but I can remember only one gay woman, possibly there were maybe a handful more who were less visible as being such. Maybe. There just aren't lots, not in comparison with the men.

Gay people in general as a group are only about two and a half percent of the population. Some say more. But even they don't say much more than that; some claim five percent, but that's exaggerated. For the moment. Here.

However, whole societies can be gay.

Look at Ancient Greece. Also the Vikings. Meaning, male gay. A few gay women were indeed tolerated in Ancient Greece, but they were exceptional. They only needed one island, Lesbos, and it isn't a big island. The whole of Greece was male-gay.

So if you don't like it, don't feel safe. Human nature is malleable, and goes along with whatever is considered the approved thing at the time.

There are always a few people who can't be straight no matter what, and also a few who can't be gay no matter what.
The rest are somewhere in the mushy middle, and might be mostly one or mostly the other, with wanderings and exceptions. Not necessarily in youth, either.

Over time, there might be no one at all who has never had one gay intimate experience, in the non-religious world, that is.

Why a straight woman would be gay-friendly mystifies me. Of course, they both, the woman and the gay man, see the straight patriarchal male as their common enemy. Not in a religious context, but outside religion, a woman might find herself competing for her husband with his gay male acquaintance. My guess is, she will lose. She asks for a lot more and is a lot more different from him. She gets moods, children, needs more money. No. She's not the way to bet.

Now, there will be no longer any need for the gay man to fight the patriarchy. He can seduce him instead.

Now, he will no longer have any need for his former ally, the woman. She will be discarded, the naïve trusting thing; she trusted a rival. Stupid.

The concept of gentlemanly conduct toward women has roots in Torah and in the Christian attitude toward Mary and will not survive in a gay atmosphere. Male gallantry devolves into mere pity, when the man has no s-xual desire for the woman, or, isn't obliged to confine his s-xual interest to her.

Woman's last monopoly has been broken; she is dispensable now.

Well, not in our religious world.


Are you just not understanding what I wrote in plain English? 1.5 of women in US are gay as compared to 1.8 of men. That is not "many more men." I don't care about Ancient Greece, in today's day and age women are just as prominent in the gay movement as men are, if not more. So please, stop with the silly outdated prounouncements that are not backed by statistics or facts, just what Dolly decided in her mind is true.
Back to top
Page 6 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
124 Today at 2:23 am 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