Can u explain frum ppl being happy over gay marriage?

amother

Pink

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 10:37 am

There is actually a Gemorah in Meseches Chullin which states openly that one of the things that give non-Jewish nations merit is that the do not give marriage contracts to same gender couples.

However all the sources in the world won't make a difference.
For many Jews morality is informed and defined by the Torah for other's it's defined by the editorial board of the New York Times.
This case is a prime example.

etky

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 10:37 am

PinkFridge wrote:

I'm not pro gay marriage. I'm very concerned about it, and deeply concerned over people who are anti gay marriage (NOT anti any particular people) ~~will be~~ are considered bigots.
But smilingmom, this is interesting. You almost wonder if it'll strengthen straight marriage if the rights can only be given to married couples. Why didn't civil unions work again? I wasn't following it too closely at the time.

ETA: Amotherecru immediately above me, I've heard this said and it sounds very logical to me.
OK, off to read the posts between smilingmom and ecru and see if the thread doesn't get locked. I think it's supposed to. OTOH I think there are a lot of people who need a place to discuss this so maybe it should stay open?

I was hoping someone would have the guts to open a thread on this topic (I didn't obviously Sad

).
I feel a need to hash this out with other orthodox people (other than DH and my kids) and here in Israel, though it did make headlines, it's not something that most people in my circle are really going to be discussing right now.

morah

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 10:42 am

etky wrote:

Yes but those are not the issues 'du jour'. My point was that this was yet one additional, very conspicuous way in which Orthodox Jewish values clash with Western liberal and democratic values. It pits us against the mainstream in a very visible and awkward way. I was disagreeing with the poster who claimed that "this doesn't affect us in any way". It does. It accentuates the gulf that sometimes inheres between Orthodox positions and liberal western values. When this disparity touches on issues that have a moral, human component - unlike shatnez or kashrut for example, they are harder to defend both to the outside world and to ourselves.

Intermarriage is certainly a biggie within the Jewish community and in general is hard to defend to outsiders who see it as racism or ethnocentrism. Anyway, I don't expect the world to protect me from having to have difficult conversations with my kids. As a parent, those conversations are going to have to happen at one point or another. I just don't see how one more is going to make the task substantially more difficult.

sneakermom

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 10:54 am

It's painful to admit that I don't support gay marriage. Because I do care for each person deeply. I don't judge. But at the end of the day the Torah is my guide. The Torah says it's immoral. That's why I am against it.

I was reading on Shabbos the decline of marriage in general. Maybe at the end of times the only ones to be interested in marriage will be those in gay marriages.

I don't know. I was not raised in the kool aid environment that everything is purified and seen as good. There is no end to that kind of thinking.

amother

Pink

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:14 am

Being against same gender marriage has absolutely nothing to do with "hating" "disliking" or any other form of bigotry towards those that have such tendencies and to say so is a fundamentally dishonest.
Case in point.
If I fundamentally "hated" people in a same gender relationship then if they cam in to my bakery to ask for a cake I would wish to refuse. If they has a flat tire on the side of the road I would not wish to help.
However that's simply not the case.
However that does not mean that I am required to view their union as a marriage.
I do not.
Intrinsically and fundamentally the relationship between two different genders male and female is what has been recognized as a marriage since the founding of this country at a minimum.
The relationship between two people of the same gender can be loving and caring , so can the relationship between brother and sister, the relationship between two friends, or between two business partner's.
However it is not and never has been recognized as "marriage" that is a term used to define and describe a specific relationship, that between man and woman.
All are free to enter this relationship, if they chose not to or feel biologically they are compelled not to it's fine.
However that does not mean the relationship they do have which is intrinsically and inarguably different is marriage.
It isn't and never will be.

smilingmom

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:33 am

PinkFridge wrote:

Civil unions do not allow for tax free inheritance, SS benefits and filing joint tax returns among other basic rights of marriage.
And of course, if you are not married, you cannot get divorced, so no right to fight over alimony, dividing assets and debts as married couples can.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/.....lfson

Volunteer

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:34 am

amother wrote:

I'm going to go off on a tangent here... I'm happy that all gay individuals now can get married in the U.S. but I believe the court decision was not the legally correct one. I have a little bit of an interest in constitutional law so I tend to follow some Supreme Court cases. And the SC is supposed to rule on whether or not a law is constitutional, NOT whether something should be a law or what's right or wrong or even worse, to create laws.

Everyone agrees that states have the legal rights to determine marriage. And that everyone has equal rights to get married under the current marriage laws. It's true that until now you couldn't marry individuals of the same s-x in every state, but saying that that violates the 14th amendment is a stretch. By the opinion given by the court, no marriage should ever be denied by states (think an incestuous marriage, polygamy, or even marriage to an animal.) And you can even take it further to so many areas of life.

I read that even justice Roberts considered the majority position to be judicial activism as opposed to a direct interpretation of the constitution.

Volunteer

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:48 am

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? These questions haven't been adjudicated yet, but I expect they will soon. We've already seen the beginning of this with the bakery case. That's how the recent ruling could affect everyone.

PinkFridge

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 11:59 am

amother wrote:

Being against same gender marriage has absolutely nothing to do with "hating" "disliking" or any other form of bigotry towards those that have such tendencies and to say so is a fundamentally dishonest.
...
The relationship between two people of the same gender can be loving and caring , so can the relationship between brother and sister, the relationship between two friends, or between two business partner's..

If you are the amother I think you are, you are generally well spoken (and accused of being an afather, IIRC). How do I know this? Because of your tendency to put apostrophes in words where a simple "s" would suffice.

ETA: I don't have a clue what your sn is. If I did, I wouldn't consider posting this here but would pm you. I am most definitely not trying to out anyone and would not like someone to do that to me.

MagentaYenta

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 12:00 pm

Volunteer wrote:

The bakery case was a private business not a religious institution. Oregon like other states has anti discrimination laws. That means a Jew can't be refused service because they are a Jew. See how that works?

Prior to the SCOTUS ruling, churches and clergy were protected from law suits for refusing to marry GBLT individuals. Nothing in the SCOTUS opinion changed that. Churches and religions are free to discriminate, it is a constitutional protection. Now there is nothing to stop some nutjob from filing suit because the Westboro Baptist church won't marry gay individuals. But there is no logical reason to think that a gay couple would prevail.

Last edited by MagentaYenta on Sun, Jun 28 2015, 12:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Puce

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 12:01 pm

What is missing from this thread is how gay marriage affects us. Our society is quickly moving to a place where objecting to homosexual acts is considered vile bigotry. You believe in Parashat Kedoshim? You believe that marriage should not include a same relations union? Then you are a bigot who deserves to be fired. Look up Brendan Eich, if you missed it. If your teen comes home one day and proclaims they are gay, it is already illegal in some states to ask them to reconsider, if it involves a therapist. Cause teens never do anything impulsive, which ought to have a second thought, right? This affects all of us, and should give you great pause.

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. Now imagine a bead who pulls their hasgacha from an establishment over promotion of a gay marriage package: that is a lawsuit and a public shaming waiting to happen. Which is more antithetical to Jewish values?

Many argue that gay relations is no different, from our perspective, than eating shrimp. Perhaps, but I've never seen people fired, publicly shamed, or called bigots because they object to serving shrimp. I've never seen the government elevate shrimp eating to a special protected liberty. And yes, if local school boards require every school which receives any funding or support to peach the virtues of eating shrimp, as a tax payer, let alone as an affected future day school parent, would be very offended.

One last thought: what Will be at mincha on Yom Kippur? Will our shuls follow the conservatives who no longer lain the arayot lest they offend someone?

PinkFridge

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 12:02 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

And there are kind and decent bakers and florists who are regularly selling to gay customers, knowing their cakes and flowers will go to another partner, but who should not be pilloried for refusing to make them a cake with a message they find not just distasteful but completely against their values.

amother

Puce

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 12:08 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

Yes, but. Are you comfortable requiring a mom and pop bakery to celebrate gay marriage? Are you saying, unless you are a rabbi, you must applaud it if you deal with the public?

What about renting shul social halls? You can bet the gay activists are going to push such lawsuits soon. It's a secular use of a facility owned by a religious group. Without laws line the dead indiana rfra, the shul is at risk in such a case. What about a day school whodoesn't hire a gay marriage activist math teacher? Recent cases indicate that on a federal level they may be safe from suit, but in many states I'd worry.

mille

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 12:09 pm

Barbara wrote:

THIS is the Orthodox view on homosexuality

http://statementofprinciplesnya.blogspot.com

And that of course informs my worldview.

No one should ever be discriminated against or hated or treated as a lesser person because of whom she loves. And I celebrate the end of the U.S. Government doing so.

Hey, my rabbi is on that list! Not that this is particularly shocking to me. Tongue Out

But I also wanted to quote this because it's really, really worth reading.

amother

Lime

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 12:11 pm

Ok, so if I as a religious individual who owns a private bakery am happy to make a birthday or graduation cake for a gay couple, but it is against my religious principals to provide a cake that helps celebrate something my religion says is wrong, I'm kind of stuck now, right? Do I also have to make a cake for an atheist convention? There's a difference between not serving a person and not supporting a cause.

I believe private companies can make these decisions on religious grounds, and the populace is welcome to protest them in public, and if that makes the private business go under because they lose business, so be it. I'm thinking about Hobby Lobby and the like.

mille

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 12:14 pm

mommy2b2c wrote:

Okay. Now you are just getting technical. I will not support gay marriage, because then I am support gay s-xual relations. I believe that gay people have the right to do whatever they want in the bedroom, none of my business. I also believe in gay rights. In my opinion, gay people have all the rights that other people do. Marriage will not change that. I don't believe they can be married, because marriage is between a man and a woman. I would more easily support gay union, or some other name that allows Gay people to form a legal bonding them gives them rights as a couple.

You are literally arguing semantics. You don't like that it's called "marriage". If a civil union were the same thing as a marriage, with the exact same rights, you are literally just arguing over the fact that it's called a "marriage". To that, I say everyone needs to get over it, or come up with a better argument. Somehow I feel that if we decided to call all marriages in the US "civil unions", gay or straight, everyone would still have an issue with gay 'civil union' for whatever reason.

And without the civil union or marriage, they do NOT have the same rights afforded to heterose-xual couples who are married. This whole argument over civil union also just brings to mind a 'separate but equal' mentality, which has totally went over well in the past...

amother

Pink

Sun, Jun 28 2015, 12:21 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

Actually not.

See if a Woman, Black, Asian or Jew is refused service because of who that individual is then it would make no difference for what they are requesting service. Service would be denied and then it would be correctly interpreted that they are being denied service because of an intrinsic hatred towards the individual in questions.
However in the case of the baker's or florist's they in fact serviced the individual's in question at other time's knowing full well what their sekual preferences were and they in fact indicated that they would happily service them at other time's as well.
What they refused was to service them in furtherance of a specific action that they were taking that was in violation of their deeply held moral principles.
In theory what would actually be similar would be an irreligious Jew suing a Orthodox Jew for refusing to rent them a hall for a event that includes Chillul Shabbos.
The reason for the refusal would have to do with real Halachic issues of helping a fellow Jew desecrate Shabbos not hatred towards said Jew and yet under the Oregon case and current "popular" liberal opinion a case could be made that said refusal is an act of bigotry.
So in fact the case of the baker and florist and inn keeper is a real danger to an Orthodox Jew's ability to practice religion openly.
( I deliberately did not use the exact same obvious parallel of what about a Jewish restaurant asked to hos a the same gender marriage party of Jewish individuals which would again involve serious halachic issues)