Why are we against gay marriage?

marina

Mon, May 23 2011, 6:24 pm

Quote:

How can a man POSSIBLY lie with another man the way he does with a woman? they don't have the same anatomy. So... DUH. Maybe this refers to something else entirely... Maybe it has something to do with the way such a couple should relate to each other. Maybe we're interpreting it all wrong. If the problem was the actual ACT of sodomy, then I would think it would be assur for a heterosexual couple as well? And if the problem is that 2 men should not engage in sodomy, does this mean they can engage in other forms of affection? (nowhere does it point to the contrary...)

I had the same thoughts yesterday... great apikorsishe minds think alike!

Quote:

Why do you think Sodom was destroyed? Where do you think the word Sodomy comes from?

Uh, maybe my teachers made it all up but I learned that Sdom was destroyed because they did not take care of their poor and were unkind to strangers. Basically, they were against government-sponsored welfare. Who would the real sodomites be in our times?

Isramom8

Mon, May 23 2011, 7:08 pm

marina wrote:

Quote:

I had the same thoughts yesterday... great apikorsishe minds think alike!

Quote:

Why do you think Sodom was destroyed? Where do you think the word Sodomy comes from?

Sedom was destroyed for the not-taking-care-of-people thing, I think. But they also practiced sodomy, as we see when they tried to storm the door to get to the male guests so they could sodomize them, and they would not settle for the girls in the house.

amother

Tue, May 24 2011, 5:16 am

amother wrote:

Sorry to veer off the original thread, but this has been on my mind. True the sheva mitzvos bnei noach do prohibit znus, at the same time I have a good friend that I've known since we were in preschool. We went to an out of town orthodox day school until the end of high school, she's had some family issues and though she is shomer shabbos and kashrus, but wears pants and short sleeves. About 2 years after high school I found out that she had "come out". I was shocked when I had heard. This is someone who had once told me that gay relationships were assur, as well as that she found certain movie stars "cute". Upon a little prodding she has told me that she hasnt been in any relationships, but that's how she feels and that she felt this way in high school but didnt say anything to anyone b/c scared hpw they would react. She has no interest in regular marriage. I still maintain my frienship with her, but I have a hard time dealing with this. She's not trying to do something against the Torah, its just how she feels. Can anyone help me deal with this?

I have trouble dealing with his as well, and my friend does this, really and actually does. She's secular and we used to be close in younger years, but now she openly lives with women, one after another and feels happy. I had a hard time with that, until dh said there's no actual prohibition in the Torah for the women to live with each other. It's just not right, but there's nothing really assur. So he said, by showing her love I'd probably bring her nearer to Yiddishkeit. So I told her what dh said among the jokes and we left it at that with a kiss over an e-mail. I don't see her and we live far away, so it makes it easier. In your case IMO it's a little different, 'cause you see each other, it must be harder for you to deal with. But then again, a woman may abstain from marriage if she feels like it, so I've heard.

amother

Tue, May 24 2011, 5:16 am

amother wrote:

amother

Tue, May 24 2011, 6:57 am

saw50st8 wrote:

Its not just about tax benefits (although I think that's important for them), as has been touched on by others, in many cases even carefully drafted wills and directives, custody orders, power of attorney etc can be fought and overturned. Their partners need protection for them, their children and their property. This is about civil rights and liberties, not just tax benefits.

Actually, I support gay marriage after a lot of soul searching because I can't actually come up with a reason to deny two adults the right to make a contract. Which is what marriage in the US is. Its not circular reasoning. I don't support gay marriage in a halachic sense, but I do in a civil sense.

I have yet to hear an actual (secular) reason of WHY gay people should be denied the contract rights of marriage. I think denying two people the right to marry just because of their gender is discriminatory.

It took me a long time to come to that conclusion. I used to be of the opinion that while I don't support gay marriage, I don't take a stand against it either.

If it all depends on your logic, can you come up with a logical reason why a brother and sister or widow and son can't get married?

marina wrote:

Amother, I am completely serious. I would like a reasoned explanation for why, if gay intercourse is hazardous to all of civilization and causes all kinds of destruction, spiritual and physical, why that is not the case for non-optimal s-xual conduct between men and women. If you are intellectually honest, you will think about it and see that my question makes sense and is not ridiculous in the least.

If vinegar comes together with cucumbers, it can make for a good salad, but when vinegar comes together with baking soda, it can explode. Can you understand this? Hashem said that milk with bread is ok but milk with meat is bosor vecholov. How come?

Husband and wife is the will of Hashem and a mitzvah. (Because of the slight tuma, there are men who toivel afterwards. In the time of the Bais Hamikdash, women also toiveled afterwards.) We're not xtians who believes that this is an act of immorality. That's why their spiritual guys, priests/pope, don't marry. Jews have a completely different approach.

Barbara wrote:

Well, either that, or its the Torah endorsement of backside zex between men and women.

Marina wrote:

For example, why isn't backside intercourse between husband and wife, biah shelo kedarka, also the cause of earthquakes and nuclear disasters?

According to the Rambam it's not ossur but it's not al pi kedusha, so certainly it's not a cause to bring a tuma and destruction in the world.

Quote:

And if you really believe that other people's private practices affect all of humanity, where is the line? Why shouldn't you peek into all our bedrooms to see if we are all keeping the laws correctly?

We're not Hashem's police, but since we know the spiritual holocaust it causes, the least we should do is not support it and admire it.

mum2b wrote:

Aribenj wrote:

Halachically speaking, the issur against homosexual relations comes from just ONE phrase: "A man shall not lie with another man as he does with a woman" (or something to that effect... I don't remember the exact wording but that's the gist of it.

Here's my issue:
How can a man POSSIBLY lie with another man the way he does with a woman? they don't have the same anatomy. So... DUH. Maybe this refers to something else entirely... Maybe it has something to do with the way such a couple should relate to each other. Maybe we're interpreting it all wrong. If the problem was the actual ACT of sodomy, then I would think it would be assur for a heterosexual couple as well? And if the problem is that 2 men should not engage in sodomy, does this mean they can engage in other forms of affection? (nowhere does it point to the contrary...)

If that's all we have to go on... Well... It seems like a huge hoopla over something we're not even sure is not ok. Christian theology takes it a few steps further which is why modern societies think it's such a taboo. But we're not Christian. So that shouldn't apply to us.

I think thats why we have Meforshim, Seforim, Tanaim Amoraim... who explain the Torah to u, because us simple people do not underdtand Hashems torah offhand

You took the words out of my mouth.

ora_43

Tue, May 24 2011, 6:59 am

saw50st8 wrote:

If that were really the issue, instead of being "pro gay marriage" people would be "pro contract rights for singles." Why fight for Suzy to have rights only if she's "married" to Sharon and not if she's a straight single mother who wants Sharon to have custody of her child for whatever reason?

Quote:

Actually, I support gay marriage after a lot of soul searching because I can't actually come up with a reason to deny two adults the right to make a contract. Which is what marriage in the US is. Its not circular reasoning. I don't support gay marriage in a halachic sense, but I do in a civil sense.

I agree with shalhevet that this seems almost deliberately naive. Marriage is not just a contract. Who here knows anybody, gay or straight, who has gone through with a wedding to somebody they aren't romantically involved with just for the tax benefits?

In fact, it's illegal to get married just for the benefits. If Person A gets married to Person B and it's discovered that they aren't romantically involved but just wanted Person B to get citizenship, they can both face criminal charges.

Quote:

I have yet to hear an actual (secular) reason of WHY gay people should be denied the contract rights of marriage. I think denying two people the right to marry just because of their gender is discriminatory.

If there were a secular reason, it'd be this (IMO): Marriage is about setting up a family. Each country can decide for itself how to define family - some countries say one man and eight women is fine, some say only one and one, some say cousins can form a family unit, some say they can't, some say 15-year-olds are old enough to form a family, some say they aren't, and some say two people of the same s-x can form a family and others say not. It's cultural, and America has the right to define "family" according to American culture - which says one man, one woman.

There is no "right" to be considered a family and get benefits meant for families; as long as the government isn't preventing you from living as a family in practice (eg. preventing two men from living in the same house, or ripping apart polygamous families), and as long as you don't have less rights than a non-married person (eg. as long as the governments doesn't allow people to not hire gay people or the polygamous), your rights are being respected.

That's the secular answer. But I don't think it's relevant to this discussion - the OP asked why "we" oppose gay marriage, so I assume she was looking for the frum answer.

ora_43

Tue, May 24 2011, 7:07 am

Aribenj wrote:

So then what are you defining the pasuk to mean?

It obviously means something - there are no issurim on things that aren't physically possible. I think "how they relate to each other" is a stretch. Mostly because the pasuk you're talking about is talking about a capital offense, and all capital crimes in halacha are things that can be objectively defined and witnessed. There's no way someone could witness the fact that a man is relating to another man like to a woman.

And also because - what difference is there, quantitative or qualitative, in how a man relates to a man or to a woman? There is none - maybe there is in many cases, but there's nothing that's 100% across the board.

Not engaging in other forms of s-xual affection is a rabbinic issur.

Quote:

If that's all we have to go on... Well... It seems like a huge hoopla over something we're not even sure is not ok. Christian theology takes it a few steps further which is why modern societies think it's such a taboo. But we're not Christian. So that shouldn't apply to us.

No, we're not Christian, which is why we hold by the Oral Torah and not just the "Bible." And the Oral Torah tells us what the pasuk means.

One pasuk is "all we have to go on" for a lot of things. Shechita is described in one pasuk, so is kashrut, so is avoda zara, so are all the incestuous relationships to avoid... the written Torah is not exactly known for going into detail. (But of course that's not really all we have to go on, since we also have oral Torah)

marina

Tue, May 24 2011, 8:44 am

Quote:

This does not answer my question at all. I am asking about why agitate against one issur rather than all the rest. Your example is about assur v. muttar things altogether.

Quote:

According to the Rambam it's not ossur but it's not al pi kedusha, so certainly it's not a cause to bring a tuma and destruction in the world.

According to the shulchan aruch it is assur as are most things. Now what? You are only going to legislate al pi harambam?

Quote:

We're not Hashem's police, but since we know the spiritual holocaust it causes, the least we should do is not support it and admire it.

I don't know the spiritual holocaust any of this causes. Neither do you. You cannot point to any one event and reasonably claim that it would not have happened had gay marriage not been legalized in Massachusetts or whatever. And if you are not Hashem's police, why act like it then?

Aribenj

Wed, May 25 2011, 2:39 pm

ora_43 wrote:

Aribenj wrote:

So then what are you defining the pasuk to mean?

Well, I'm not one of the Meforshim, so I don't presume to know the answer to that. But it does make you wonder exactly what Hashem was referring to. But when you think of the technicalities involved in relations, you KNOW a man cannot lie with another man (anatomically speaking) as he does with a woman, because they just have different sets of anatomy. So obviously the passuk is not to be taken in that way. I don't know HOW it should be taken, but for the meforshim to automatically assume it refers to sodomy between two men just doesn't sit well with me. Especially since if that was the case then there should be another passuk saying that Sodomy is ok between man and woman but not man and man... My guess that it's how they relate to each other was just a guess... It could mean 1000 other things. I'm not a gadol so I don't have the answer to that. But there is something here that is not explained by the explanation they do give...
Also, remember that we're interpreting from the TRANSLATION of the passuk. Maybe the real meaning has been lost over time?

ora_43 wrote:

No, we're not Christian, which is why we hold by the Oral Torah and not just the "Bible." And the Oral Torah tells us what the pasuk means.[/quote]
I was referring to how their sages (not sure if that's the word... apostles?) expound on the subject. I did a quick google search and you can look for it yourself, but Paul's letters to the Corinthians is where Christianity gets most of it's religious stance on homosexuality. But that's THEIR interpretation. So why would we use their explanations??

ora_43 wrote:

One pasuk is "all we have to go on" for a lot of things. Shechita is described in one pasuk, so is kashrut, so is avoda zara, so are all the incestuous relationships to avoid... the written Torah is not exactly known for going into detail. (But of course that's not really all we have to go on, since we also have oral Torah)

That's a very good point. But those psukim explain the interdiction. Here it's an obscure passuk that doesn't really say what it refers to.

Barbara

Wed, May 25 2011, 2:48 pm

marina wrote:

Quote:

This does not answer my question at all. I am asking about why agitate against one issur rather than all the rest. Your example is about assur v. muttar things altogether.

Quote:

According to the Rambam it's not ossur but it's not al pi kedusha, so certainly it's not a cause to bring a tuma and destruction in the world.

According to the shulchan aruch it is assur as are most things. Now what? You are only going to legislate al pi harambam?

Quote:

We're not Hashem's police, but since we know the spiritual holocaust it causes, the least we should do is not support it and admire it.

In fact, one cannot point to a single tragic or evenly mildly bad event and reasonably claim that it is because someone engaged in backside zex. (Unless you include bad PR for the Catholic Church due to molestation and protection of molesters.)

ora_43

Wed, May 25 2011, 3:27 pm

Aribenj-
It's not that the mefarshim assume it means backside intercourse between men, it's that the chachamim of the Mishna and Gemara had that tradition. It's Oral Torah, not interpretation. They later tie it back to the text, but not because that's the sole source.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the translation of the pasuk." Halachic discussions relate to the Hebrew. The mefarshim comment/commented on the original Hebrew.

I also don't understand why you call this particular pasuk obscure. It's relatively straightforward. Yes, we need Oral Torah to explain exactly what kind of s-xual activity "mishkavei isha" refers to, but the final version is still much more easily understood from the verse than, say, tefillin from "bind these words on your hand." From the basic words and location (in a list of s-x related don'ts) it's very clearly forbidding some sort of s-x between two men.

I don't know how Christianity holds on this, so I'm not sure if Judaism believes the same. In general, I think Judaism is more focused on action, and is different than most Christian schools of thought in having no issue with homosexual attraction in and of itself.

Aribenj

Thu, May 26 2011, 9:38 pm

ora_43 wrote:

I don't know how Christianity holds on this, so I'm not sure if Judaism believes the same. In general, I think Judaism is more focused on action, and is different than most Christian schools of thought in having no issue with homosexual attraction in and of itself.

So you're saying, according to Judaism, two men are allowed to be attracted to each other, love each other, live together, share a life together, just not be intimate in that particular way? Can they be intimate in other ways?

If Zera Levatala is the concern, or even the actual act of sodomy itself, we don't forbid heterosexual couples from marrying for fear of them committing zera levatala. We educate them, and what they do after that is between them and Hashem. Same as keeping Kosher or Shabbos. So why should it be different for them?

Look, I agree Judaism is all about tradition and not changing the way we do things. I don't think marriage between two men will ever be accepted in Orthodox judaism. So I'm just wondering, hypothetically and technically speaking, why it's not. I'm not saying it should be... Just sort of playing devil's advocate.

shalhevet

Fri, May 27 2011, 3:15 am

Aribenj wrote:

ora_43 wrote:

I'm not quite sure when this thread turned into the ridiculous assumption that gay couples are probably getting "married" so they'll have legal rights and have someone to play chess with in the evenings. I can't say I've conducted a survey, but implying here that most or even some or even a few gay couples set up a joint household with "marriage" because they love each other but each have their own bedroom where they stay each night is just ludicrous.

Men can be friends with each other. They can hug each other out of friendship, but they cannot be "partners".

Quote:

If Zera Levatala is the concern, or even the actual act of sodomy itself, we don't forbid heterosexual couples from marrying for fear of them committing zera levatala. We educate them, and what they do after that is between them and Hashem. Same as keeping Kosher or Shabbos. So why should it be different for them?

Because there is a perfectly kosher (and desirable) way for couples to have a physical relationship. But why do two men have to live together if they have no s-xual relationship?