LESBIAN & GAY SHABBAT DINNER - 5 JUNE -- RODEPH SHOLOM (NYC)
rodephsh...@aol.com
I am writing to invite you to a community gay and lesbian shabbat
dinner that I am helping to organise at my synagogue, Congregation
Rodeph Sholom. This evening will be a wonderful opportunity to
socialize with 175-200 gay and lesbian Jews and enjoy a delicious
traditional kosher meal, Israeli wine and good times. If you are
single, these dinners are a great place to find a nice Jewish
boy/girlfriend. If you are coupled, there is plenty of schmoozing and
fun as well.
After dinner, the room will be open until 11:30 p.m. for dessert, wine,
drinks and MORE SCHMOOZING.
9 June 2006 - 7:30 p.m.
Schafler Forum
Congregation Rodeph Sholom
7 W 83rd St @ CPW, NYC
Cost:
$35 ($25 for students) for reservations and payments by Tuesday, 6
June.
$42 thereafter (on a space available basis).
If the cost will prevent your attendance, please contact Rabbi Lisa
Grushcow at rabbig...@rodephsholom.org or at 212.362.8800 (x 1210)
and she will make confidential arrangements. (We gladly welcome
donations for the purpose of welcoming those for whom the cost would
otherwise prevent their attendance.)
RESERVATIONS AND PREPAYMENT ARE REQUIRED
Reservations for dinner are made through the JCC in Manhattan by
calling 646.505.5708 (and mentioning Code GLSTSD00S6 for salmon main
course or Code GLSVSD00S6 for vegetarian main course) or online at
http://www.jccmanhattan.org/category.aspx?catid=1498 .
Student price not available on website or after 6 June.
No one will be admitted without reservation and prepayment.
PLEASE wear appropriate Shabbat synagogue attire!
All food is kosher, and all wine produced in Israel.
Before dinner, you are welcome to join Rodeph Sholom for its 10th
Annual Gay and Lesbian Pride Shabbat Service at 6 pm.
The guest speaker will be Suzanne Goldberg, Professor of Law at
Columbia School of Law, former Senior Attorney at Lambda Legal Defense
Fund and author of numerous articles and books on gay legal rights.
If you have any questions, please contact the dinner committee at
212.362.8800 (x8100) or ga...@rodephsholom.org. I look forward to
seeing a huge crowd on 9 June, so PLEASE BRING YOUR FRIENDS!!!
JJ
(The shabbat dinner is cosponsored by the Gay and Lesbian Committees at
Congregation Rodeph Sholom & Congregation B'nai Jeshurun, the JCC in
Manhattan, CBST's 20/30s Group, JQ Youth and the JewChicks).
Lisa
Lisa
fla...@verizon.net
RODEPH???
Susan
Lisa
fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> Rodeph Sholom????
> RODEPH???
Is that a problem, Susan? Pirkei Avot 1:12, if you're familiar with
it, says:
Hillel said, "Be of the students of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing
peace, loving people and bringing them closer to Torah."
That's "Ohev shalom, rodeph shalom, ohev et ha-briyot u-mekarvam
l'Torah".
So I'm wondering, what exactly were you trying to say in your post?
Lisa
Micha Berger
: Schafler Forum
: Congregation Rodeph Sholom
: 7 W 83rd St @ CPW, NYC
You might want to change to a differently named venue. As is, the name
just BEGS for off-color humor...
(Hint to the Hebrew undereducated: Rodeif means "he is chasing" or
"the chase of". Shalom, as is well known, can mean peace or it can be
a man's proper name [or it can be a greeting, but that's less relevant
to my remark].)
-mi
Lisa
Only people who are looking for reasons to bash would take it that way.
This is disgusting. In past years, there've been valid criticisms of
this event. This year, there aren't any, so you're playing adolescent
potty-humor games.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Lisa
YM
.
>
> PLEASE wear appropriate Shabbat synagogue attire!
>
> All food is kosher, and all wine produced in Israel.
I see that they are strict on certain issurim (prohibitions)
in the Torah, but are not so concerned with others.
How does one decide where the line is drawn?.
Eliyahu
the organizers were setting themselves up for others to do so. And we
all know plenty of folks who would do it and play it to the hilt.
Anyhow who's organized or participated in any sort of event that isn't
universally accepted knows that there are going to be people looking
for things to mock, and it is in the organizer's own best interest to
reduce the possibilities of that happening when possible, just to make
it more enjoyable for everyone connected.
Eliyahu
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Like in "Shalom AL Yisrael" :-)
Josh
>
> -mi
Ken Bloom
Do you really want that someone who doesn't follow some mitzvot should
just abandon all of them?
--Ken
--
I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment.
See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures.
karenel...@yahoo.com
What prohibitions aren't they concerned with? To the best of my
knowledge, there is no halachic prohibition against *being* gay. (How
could there be a halachic prohibition against *being* anything -- *I
am, therefore I violate halacha*?) There *are* halachic prohibitions
against gays engaging in certain acts ... just like there are halachic
prohibitions against straights engaging in certain acts. I don't
assume that my straight friends engage in those prohibited activities,
so I see no reason to assume that my gay friends do.
But the answer as to where to draw the line is an easy one. We don't.
IMHO the doors of our synagogues should be wide open to welcome
whomever chooses to come, so long as they are willing to abide by the
*rules* while there. (Eg, that doesn't mean that an UO synagogue
should have to welcome a woman in Daisy Dukes and a halter who insists
on sitting on the men's side of the mechitza.) How else will people
learn and grow?
Karen Elizabeth
Eliyahu
Since the original message didn't mention any leniencies, we're going
to have to assume that you are arguing that being gay is, in itself,
issur, or, at least, that admitting that one is gay and/or associating
with those who are gay is issur. Nu? Otherwise, what are you talking
about? Are you assuming that all of the men there will be sodomizing
each other under the tables, or are you just unhappy with the idea that
they might spend an evening engaged in decent and respectable
activities with other Jews, where no one will be looked down on or made
to feel inferior or like an outsider?
Eliyahu
YM
> Since the original message didn't mention any leniencies, we're going
> to have to assume that you are arguing that being gay is, in itself,
> issur, or, at least, that admitting that one is gay and/or associating
> with those who are gay is issur. Nu? Otherwise, what are you talking
> about? Are you assuming that all of the men there will be sodomizing
> each other under the tables, or are you just unhappy with the idea that
> they might spend an evening engaged in decent and respectable
> activities with other Jews, where no one will be looked down on or made
> to feel inferior or like an outsider?
>
> Eliyahu
I don't understand your point. THEY are the ones who defined
it as a "G and L Shabbat". Right? That is referring to their sexual
orientation. Right? That orientation involves acts which are prohibited
by the Torah. Right? In the Talmud (sorry, I can't remember where),
it states that one who is attending
should not state what is going to happen after the party, even though
everyone
knows what is going to happen. Isn't this sort of the same thing?
If they just want to have a nice Shabbat open to all kinds of Jews,
just have a nice Shabbat service and dinner, advertise it as such,
and just leave it at that. At my Orthodox synagogue in Israel, we
have dinners as such before Pesach every year, and everyone is
welcome...questions are not asked about ones level of observance
or sexual orientation. Why don't they just do the same-unless they
want to emphasize their sexuality above other aspects of their
personality.
Lisa
First of all, you don't "see" anything of the sort. I didn't see a
single thing in the original post which implied there was going to be
an orgy. Or anything else having to do with sexual acts. Perhaps you
should keep your mind out of the gutter.
Second of all, this Rodeph Sholom place is Reform. Are you saying that
since Reform Jews violate many mitzvot, they should also refrain from
having kosher food at their events? That's quite an interesting new
concept, there.
If they were having treyf food, you'd bash them for that. Since
they're having kosher food, you bash them for that. Why not be honest
and just admit that the details aren't what concerns you. You saw "gay
and lesbian" and got all hot and bothered, and want to lash out. After
all, look at the Senate? Homophobia is in vogue. Be proud of your
bias.
Lisa
Eliyahu
YM wrote:
> > Since the original message didn't mention any leniencies, we're going
> > to have to assume that you are arguing that being gay is, in itself,
> > issur, or, at least, that admitting that one is gay and/or associating
> > with those who are gay is issur. Nu? Otherwise, what are you talking
> > about? Are you assuming that all of the men there will be sodomizing
> > each other under the tables, or are you just unhappy with the idea that
> > they might spend an evening engaged in decent and respectable
> > activities with other Jews, where no one will be looked down on or made
> > to feel inferior or like an outsider?
> >
> > Eliyahu
>
> I don't understand your point. THEY are the ones who defined
> it as a "G and L Shabbat". Right? That is referring to their sexual
> orientation. Right? That orientation involves acts which are prohibited
> by the Torah. Right?
No, that orientation involves the sex of the person or persons to whom
you're attracted. Being gay doesn't require any overt acts or actions
-- just an attraction to members of the same sex. They _can_ perform
acts which are prohibited by Torah, but the rest of us _can_ perform
those same acts, and they're prohibited to us as well. If the doctrine
of judging favorably has any meaning at all, it is that we assume that
our fellow Jews will follow the Torah in the privacy of their homes as
well as in public; not that we will assume the worst and let our
imaginations run rampant.
In the Talmud (sorry, I can't remember where),
> it states that one who is attending
> should not state what is going to happen after the party, even though
> everyone
> knows what is going to happen. Isn't this sort of the same thing?
I'm afraid that I haven't the foggiest idea what you're trying to say
here, other than that you seem to be sure that there's an orgy
following dinner.
> If they just want to have a nice Shabbat open to all kinds of Jews,
> just have a nice Shabbat service and dinner, advertise it as such,
> and just leave it at that. At my Orthodox synagogue in Israel, we
> have dinners as such before Pesach every year, and everyone is
> welcome...questions are not asked about ones level of observance
> or sexual orientation. Why don't they just do the same-unless they
> want to emphasize their sexuality above other aspects of their
> personality.
I once asked my cousin, who is gay, the same question. She told me
that gays and lesbians get so much crap at ordinary events like this
when they attend with a partner, that they need to have some things of
their own where everyone can attend and know that they won't be looked
down on by some folks, treated like dirt by a few, or be verbally
attacked for who they are. They don't want to "emphasize their
sexuality"; rather, they just want to relax and enjoy the evening in
the company of their loved ones without being constantly on the
defensive.
Eliyahu
Lisa
YM wrote:
> I don't understand your point. THEY are the ones who defined
> it as a "G and L Shabbat". Right? That is referring to their sexual
> orientation. Right? That orientation involves acts which are prohibited
> by the Torah. Right?
Wrong. No more than being heterosexual involves acts which are
prohibited by the Torah. It can, but it doesn't have to.
> If they just want to have a nice Shabbat open to all kinds of Jews,
> just have a nice Shabbat service and dinner, advertise it as such,
> and just leave it at that.
It's nice to be able to hang with people who aren't like you, though.
I'm not kidding. Why *wouldn't* people who are constantly subjected to
attitudes like yours want to have a dinner for themselves, where they
don't have to worry about what prurient thoughts are going through YM's
head?
> At my Orthodox synagogue in Israel, we
> have dinners as such before Pesach every year, and everyone is
> welcome...questions are not asked about ones level of observance
> or sexual orientation.
No offense, but you're full of it. I show up there with my partner and
our child and you hear her calling my partner Ima and calling me Mommy,
and you'll start shrieking about us "flaunting" our orientation. And
blame us for the crap that gets heaped on our heads by you and your
friends.
> Why don't they just do the same-unless they
> want to emphasize their sexuality above other aspects of their
> personality.
Because if you mention something that happened to your wife recently,
no one blinks. If I mention something that happened to my partner
recently, you take it as license to assume that I'm engaging in
forbidden acts. That's your choice. No one is forcing you to behave
this way. But you choose it. So we act on our own behalf and have
activities where we know we won't have to put up with your attitude.
Lisa
Don Levey
> ... They don't want to "emphasize their
> sexuality"; rather, they just want to relax and enjoy the evening in
> the company of their loved ones without being constantly on the
> defensive.
>
Which is to say: without fear that OTHERS will emphasise their
sexuality. In an ideal world, where people treat people like people,
no-one would think about creating an event like this because everywhere
would be "safe" as a matter of course.
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to sal...@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
Micha Berger
: Only people who are looking for reasons to bash would take it that way.
But why feed the trolls?
(And why assume that a post asking that question is instead trolling?
Especially from a "new-age touchy feely liberal near-Xian Mitzri-mourner"
such as myself? <g>)
-mi
--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507
fla...@verizon.net
Really? Which prohibitions do you know they are violating?
There are rules that one could assume non-gay people are
breaking - why do gay people NOT get the benefit of the
doubt?
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jun-2006, "YM" <bar_ko...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand your point. THEY are the ones who defined
> it as a "G and L Shabbat". Right? That is referring to their sexual
> orientation. Right? That orientation involves acts which are prohibited
> by the Torah. Right?
No more than being heterosexual demands that men be raping women
or married couples are having sex during prohibited times.
Susan
The Creedmoor Chronicler
"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:1149520740.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
meir b.
I would appreciate clarification. Are these "G and L" couples?
If not, then no one in straight society need be aware of their
orientation, and there is no need for them to feel out of place in said
society. If they *are* living as couples, though, it is only natural
for there to be an assumption that halachically prohibited acts are
likely taking place. The comparison is not to "heterosexual . . . men
. . . raping women." The proper analogy would be to two heterosexuals
of opposite gender living together. There is no proof that they are
engaging in extramarital sex, but I daresay that the same G or L living
together, who resent the assumption that they are engaging in
prohibited acts, would make that very assumption about the couple in
question.
Married couples during their prohibited times are an exception.
It is the one situation (other than parent and child) of a prohibited
cohabitation to which the prohibition of yichud does not apply. The
rationale is that since relations will soon be permitted, the
temptation is not as great. It is thus not relevant to the current
discussion.
Indeed, the only reason yichud is not prohibited for two men is
that "lo nechshedu Yisrael al mishkav zachar." Nonetheless, the
Shulchan Aruch states (Even Haezer 24) that in these generations (his
time!), where licentiousness has increased, a man should distance
himself from yichud with another male.
It is reasonable to suppose that "lo nechshedu" would not have
been applied to declared homosexuals living together, and that "should
distance" would likely have been replaced with "must distance."
If a man informs me that he is a homosexual, I will be dan l'chaf
zchut that he is not engaging in prohibited acts. But if two are
living together, I would find it difficult to do so, because "raglayim
ladavar."
I should state that in none of the above am I referring to a
lesbian relationship, where even the prohibited acts are not in the
category of arayot.
Meir
Eliyahu
meir b. wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 5-Jun-2006, "YM" <bar_ko...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't understand your point. THEY are the ones who defined
> > > it as a "G and L Shabbat". Right? That is referring to their sexual
> > > orientation. Right? That orientation involves acts which are prohibited
> > > by the Torah. Right?
> >
> > No more than being heterosexual demands that men be raping women
> > or married couples are having sex during prohibited times.
> >
> > Susan
>
> I would appreciate clarification. Are these "G and L" couples?
> If not, then no one in straight society need be aware of their
> orientation, and there is no need for them to feel out of place in said
> society. If they *are* living as couples, though, it is only natural
> for there to be an assumption that halachically prohibited acts are
> likely taking place.
But there's not necessarily even an assumption that they're living
together. There are many gays who just date or who don't have a
current partner, as well as those who live together. That's why the
invitation/notice included the suggestion that participants might meet
someone special there.
And unless we're assuming that all intimate physical contact or
activity between members of the same sex is forbidden, why should
anyone assume that they're including prohibited acts in their lives?
No reason it should be an "either/or" situation for them in which they
either live in a monastary or indulge in orgies.
Eliyahu
Lisa
meir b. wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 5-Jun-2006, "YM" <bar_ko...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't understand your point. THEY are the ones who defined
> > > it as a "G and L Shabbat". Right? That is referring to their sexual
> > > orientation. Right? That orientation involves acts which are prohibited
> > > by the Torah. Right?
> >
> > No more than being heterosexual demands that men be raping women
> > or married couples are having sex during prohibited times.
> >
> > Susan
>
> I would appreciate clarification. Are these "G and L" couples?
> If not, then no one in straight society need be aware of their
> orientation, and there is no need for them to feel out of place in said
> society.
Oh, sure. When I was working as a secretary at an Orthodox college, I
can't tell you how often the teachers would try and fix me up. There
was this one rabbi, a really sweetie, who was constantly trying to find
a guy for me. I could have just said, "Listen, that's not my type,"
but it would have caused a ruckus.
I get, Meir, that you don't get it. But you're seriously mistaken if
you think this.
> If they *are* living as couples, though, it is only natural
> for there to be an assumption that halachically prohibited acts are
> likely taking place.
Natural, maybe. Permissible, no. If they're willing to be makpid on
kashrut, why do you automatically suspect that they are less so in
their private lives?
> The comparison is not to "heterosexual . . . men
> . . . raping women." The proper analogy would be to two heterosexuals
> of opposite gender living together. There is no proof that they are
> engaging in extramarital sex, but I daresay that the same G or L living
> together, who resent the assumption that they are engaging in
> prohibited acts, would make that very assumption about the couple in
> question.
The issue of pre-marital sex being so commonplace in the US is
something else entirely. That has nothing to do with this.
> Married couples during their prohibited times are an exception.
> It is the one situation (other than parent and child) of a prohibited
> cohabitation to which the prohibition of yichud does not apply. The
> rationale is that since relations will soon be permitted, the
> temptation is not as great. It is thus not relevant to the current
> discussion.
It certainly is if we're talking about people who are committed to the
Torah. Granted, not everyone at this event will be. It's a Reform
temple, after all. But since there are things that two women (for
instance) can do together that are not assur, why would you assume that
they'd davka choose to do something that is assur?
> I should state that in none of the above am I referring to a
> lesbian relationship, where even the prohibited acts are not in the
> category of arayot.
Okay. But then, you did start by asking:
> I would appreciate clarification. Are these "G and L" couples?
So it seemed that you were including women as well.
Lisa
Harry Weiss
> Eliyahu
There is a reule of presumption. When a straight couple shack up there is
a presumption that they are having some form of sexual relationship. The
same would apply to gays.
There is a big gap between monastary and orgies.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
meir b.
Lisa wrote:
> meir b. wrote:
> > fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > On 5-Jun-2006, "YM" <bar_ko...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't understand your point. THEY are the ones who defined
> > > > it as a "G and L Shabbat". Right? That is referring to their sexual
> > > > orientation. Right? That orientation involves acts which are prohibited
> > > > by the Torah. Right?
> > >
> > > No more than being heterosexual demands that men be raping women
> > > or married couples are having sex during prohibited times.
> > >
> > > Susan
> >
> > I would appreciate clarification. Are these "G and L" couples?
> > If not, then no one in straight society need be aware of their
> > orientation, and there is no need for them to feel out of place in said
> > society.
>
> Oh, sure. When I was working as a secretary at an Orthodox college, I
> can't tell you how often the teachers would try and fix me up. There
> was this one rabbi, a really sweetie, who was constantly trying to find
> a guy for me. I could have just said, "Listen, that's not my type,"
> but it would have caused a ruckus.
>
> I get, Meir, that you don't get it. But you're seriously mistaken if
> you think this.
I was reacting to the following, which appeared earlier in the
thread:
"> At my Orthodox synagogue in Israel, we
> have dinners as such before Pesach every year, and everyone is
> welcome...questions are not asked about ones level of observance
> or sexual orientation. Why don't they just do the same-unless they
> want to emphasize their sexuality above other aspects of their
> personality.
I once asked my cousin, who is gay, the same question. She told me
that gays and lesbians get so much crap at ordinary events like this
when they attend with a partner, that they need to have some things of
their own where everyone can attend and know that they won't be looked
down on by some folks, treated like dirt by a few, or be verbally
attacked for who they are. They don't want to "emphasize their
sexuality"; rather, they just want to relax and enjoy the evening in
the company of their loved ones without being constantly on the
defensive."
The question was the need for a separate communal meal, as opposed
to one with the entire community. It did *not* refer to the problems
of being in a mixed group regularly, such as at work. Read that way, my
remarks are not, I think, an indication that I am "seriously mistaken."
> > If they *are* living as couples, though, it is only natural
> > for there to be an assumption that halachically prohibited acts are
> > likely taking place.
>
> Natural, maybe. Permissible, no. If they're willing to be makpid on
> kashrut, why do you automatically suspect that they are less so in
> their private lives?
I wasn't talking about permissibility, nor about what I think, but
to explain why it is assumed by most people to be the case. As to the
question you ask, that was the thrust of what I was trying (and, at
least in your case, failing) to commnicate.
> > The comparison is not to "heterosexual . . . men
> > . . . raping women." The proper analogy would be to two heterosexuals
> > of opposite gender living together. There is no proof that they are
> > engaging in extramarital sex, but I daresay that the same G or L living
> > together, who resent the assumption that they are engaging in
> > prohibited acts, would make that very assumption about the couple in
> > question.
>
> The issue of pre-marital sex being so commonplace in the US is
> something else entirely. That has nothing to do with this.
On the contrary, it has everything to do with it. If you knew
that two heterosexuals of opposite sex were living together, would you
not assume that even if they were makpid on kashrus, they were "less so
in their private lives"? I suspect that the percentage of male
homosexuals living as partners who refrain from prohibited acts is
about the same as the percentage of abstaining heterosexuals of
opposite gender living together.
> > Married couples during their prohibited times are an exception.
> > It is the one situation (other than parent and child) of a prohibited
> > cohabitation to which the prohibition of yichud does not apply. The
> > rationale is that since relations will soon be permitted, the
> > temptation is not as great. It is thus not relevant to the current
> > discussion.
>
> It certainly is if we're talking about people who are committed to the
> Torah. Granted, not everyone at this event will be. It's a Reform
> temple, after all. But since there are things that two women (for
> instance) can do together that are not assur, why would you assume that
> they'd davka choose to do something that is assur?
Did I so assume? I was responding to the comment that we
shouldn't suspect the homosexuals any more than we do husband and
niddah wife. All I said was that *halacha* assumes a difference
between husband and wife when prohibited, and any other situation, in
the laws of yichud. Obviously, then, there is more reason to suspect a
yielding to temptation in other case than in the case of niddah.
> > I should state that in none of the above am I referring to a
> > lesbian relationship, where even the prohibited acts are not in the
> > category of arayot.
>
> Okay. But then, you did start by asking:
>
> > I would appreciate clarification. Are these "G and L" couples?
>
> So it seemed that you were including women as well.
Come, now. Judging by the high level of logic displayed by your
posts, I can only assume that your emotional involvement with this
topic has clouded your thinking. When I asked the question, it was
with regard to the need for the dinner, which (as I wrote above) was, I
thought, only because of the unpleasantness couples face in "straight"
society. My question therefore related to both. However, the latter
part of what I wrote related to a possible issur of yichud for
homosexuals, as alluded to in the Even Haezer I cited. It was this
from which I excluded lesbians, since where there is no matter of
arayot, there can be no question of yichud.
Meir
Lisa
meir b. wrote:
> Lisa wrote:
> > meir b. wrote:
quoting:
> I once asked my cousin, who is gay, the same question. She told me
> that gays and lesbians get so much crap at ordinary events like this
> when they attend with a partner, that they need to have some things of
> their own where everyone can attend and know that they won't be looked
> down on by some folks, treated like dirt by a few, or be verbally
> attacked for who they are. They don't want to "emphasize their
> sexuality"; rather, they just want to relax and enjoy the evening in
> the company of their loved ones without being constantly on the
> defensive."
>
> The question was the need for a separate communal meal, as opposed
> to one with the entire community. It did *not* refer to the problems
> of being in a mixed group regularly, such as at work. Read that way, my
> remarks are not, I think, an indication that I am "seriously mistaken."
I don't understand why you'd make such a distinction. No socializing
goes on at a communal meal? Jews don't play Jewish geography and ask
one another about everything under the sun at a communal meal?
Meir, it's hard for me to imagine that you're unaware of how many
straight people will react in such a case. Here's a quote from an
article written by the editor of a gay newspaper. He describes the
situation well:
====================
"At large gatherings of extended family, I don't always bring my
partner because it's easier to just avoid the stress ... When we check
into a hotel together, sometimes one of us will hold back in the lobby
to avoid those awkward confrontations with the front desk staff ...
-- Kevin Naff, in his May 26, 2006 editorial, "Don't Bash Mary
Cheney"
====================
How many heterosexuals have to do the same?
> > > If they *are* living as couples, though, it is only natural
> > > for there to be an assumption that halachically prohibited acts are
> > > likely taking place.
> >
> > Natural, maybe. Permissible, no. If they're willing to be makpid on
> > kashrut, why do you automatically suspect that they are less so in
> > their private lives?
>
> I wasn't talking about permissibility, nor about what I think, but
> to explain why it is assumed by most people to be the case. As to the
> question you ask, that was the thrust of what I was trying (and, at
> least in your case, failing) to commnicate.
I assume, Meir, that you are aware of the halakhot that pertain to
making assumptions of wrong-doing. I'm quite aware that it's common.
That doesn't make it permissible.
> > > The comparison is not to "heterosexual . . . men
> > > . . . raping women." The proper analogy would be to two heterosexuals
> > > of opposite gender living together. There is no proof that they are
> > > engaging in extramarital sex, but I daresay that the same G or L living
> > > together, who resent the assumption that they are engaging in
> > > prohibited acts, would make that very assumption about the couple in
> > > question.
> >
> > The issue of pre-marital sex being so commonplace in the US is
> > something else entirely. That has nothing to do with this.
>
> On the contrary, it has everything to do with it. If you knew
> that two heterosexuals of opposite sex were living together, would you
> not assume that even if they were makpid on kashrus, they were "less so
> in their private lives"?
If I see a young man and woman out on a date in the US, would I not
assume that even if they were makpid on kashrut, they might not be as
makpid on negia? Or even on pre-marital sex? After all, that is
exceedingly common in the US today, and it's even made inroads among
ostensibly Orthodox Jews.
The answer is, no. I do not assume that, because it is assur to assume
that.
> I suspect that the percentage of male
> homosexuals living as partners who refrain from prohibited acts is
> about the same as the percentage of abstaining heterosexuals of
> opposite gender living together.
Great. And you can write a paper on how statistics relate to the
halakhot of shmirat halashon. I'd be happy to read that.
> > It certainly is if we're talking about people who are committed to the
> > Torah. Granted, not everyone at this event will be. It's a Reform
> > temple, after all. But since there are things that two women (for
> > instance) can do together that are not assur, why would you assume that
> > they'd davka choose to do something that is assur?
>
> Did I so assume? I was responding to the comment that we
> shouldn't suspect the homosexuals any more than we do husband and
> niddah wife. All I said was that *halacha* assumes a difference
> between husband and wife when prohibited, and any other situation, in
> the laws of yichud. Obviously, then, there is more reason to suspect a
> yielding to temptation in other case than in the case of niddah.
Not at all. If we're dealing with frum Jews, then in the case of men,
the violation is much greater than extra-marital sex, and you'd expect
a correspondingly greater care to be taken by the men in question. In
the case of women, well, there are so many things that aren't assur,
which is not the case for a straight couple during niddah, that it's
simply not comparable.
Lisa
meir b.
I reiterate: I said that based on what was quoted, there wouldn't
be a problem if one was not attending *as a couple*, and that it was a
reasonable (though not necessarily permissible) assumption that halacha
was being violated if they were living as a couple. All the citations
of awkwardness, discomfort, et al., referred to appearances as a
couple, or (as in your case) a prolonged presence such as a job, not
the casual shul communal meal.
> > > > If they *are* living as couples, though, it is only natural
> > > > for there to be an assumption that halachically prohibited acts are
> > > > likely taking place.
> > >
> > > Natural, maybe. Permissible, no. If they're willing to be makpid on
> > > kashrut, why do you automatically suspect that they are less so in
> > > their private lives?
> >
> > I wasn't talking about permissibility, nor about what I think, but
> > to explain why it is assumed by most people to be the case. As to the
> > question you ask, that was the thrust of what I was trying (and, at
> > least in your case, failing) to commnicate.
>
> I assume, Meir, that you are aware of the halakhot that pertain to
> making assumptions of wrong-doing. I'm quite aware that it's common.
> That doesn't make it permissible.
Who said it was? I said it was natural to assume violation, not
that it was permissible to do so.
> > > > The comparison is not to "heterosexual . . . men
> > > > . . . raping women." The proper analogy would be to two heterosexuals
> > > > of opposite gender living together. There is no proof that they are
> > > > engaging in extramarital sex, but I daresay that the same G or L living
> > > > together, who resent the assumption that they are engaging in
> > > > prohibited acts, would make that very assumption about the couple in
> > > > question.
> > >
> > > The issue of pre-marital sex being so commonplace in the US is
> > > something else entirely. That has nothing to do with this.
> >
> > On the contrary, it has everything to do with it. If you knew
> > that two heterosexuals of opposite sex were living together, would you
> > not assume that even if they were makpid on kashrus, they were "less so
> > in their private lives"?
>
> If I see a young man and woman out on a date in the US, would I not
> assume that even if they were makpid on kashrut, they might not be as
> makpid on negia? Or even on pre-marital sex? After all, that is
> exceedingly common in the US today, and it's even made inroads among
> ostensibly Orthodox Jews.
>
> The answer is, no. I do not assume that, because it is assur to assume
> that.
Nor would I. But that's a straw man (or straw couple). Would you
be equally dan l'chaf zchut if they were living together? That's what
we're discussing as an analogy.
> > I suspect that the percentage of male
> > homosexuals living as partners who refrain from prohibited acts is
> > about the same as the percentage of abstaining heterosexuals of
> > opposite gender living together.
>
> Great. And you can write a paper on how statistics relate to the
> halakhot of shmirat halashon. I'd be happy to read that.
Once again, you mistake permissibility with probability. I said
it was likely to be assumed, and with good reason, not that it was
permitted to do so.
> > > It certainly is if we're talking about people who are committed to the
> > > Torah. Granted, not everyone at this event will be. It's a Reform
> > > temple, after all. But since there are things that two women (for
> > > instance) can do together that are not assur, why would you assume that
> > > they'd davka choose to do something that is assur?
> >
> > Did I so assume? I was responding to the comment that we
> > shouldn't suspect the homosexuals any more than we do husband and
> > niddah wife. All I said was that *halacha* assumes a difference
> > between husband and wife when prohibited, and any other situation, in
> > the laws of yichud. Obviously, then, there is more reason to suspect a
> > yielding to temptation in other case than in the case of niddah.
>
> Not at all. If we're dealing with frum Jews, then in the case of men,
> the violation is much greater than extra-marital sex, and you'd expect
> a correspondingly greater care to be taken by the men in question. In
> the case of women, well, there are so many things that aren't assur,
> which is not the case for a straight couple during niddah, that it's
> simply not comparable.
Who's talking about extra-marital sex? Adultery is more severe
than niddah, yet yichud is prohibited. Hence we see that the Torah
considered the likelihood of submitting to temptation less in the
latter than in the former. The reason is because the prohibition is
temporary in the case of niddah, which makes it not comparable to the
prohibition of homosexuality for men.
As for lesbians, as I wrote, the issur that exists is not in the
category of arayot, and I agree (and wrote) that it is therefore not
comparable.
Meir
Lisa
Number one, if it's not permissible, then it's wrong. Period.
Number two, define "couple". I know a frum lesbian couple in Israel
who own separate apartments. I know lesbians who are roommates and are
involved with other people. And gay men who are roommates and are
involved (to whatever extent) with other people.
In fact, my partner and I have often simply referred to one another as
"roommates" out of... well, fear is a strong word, and not necessary
fitting, but certainly an unwillingness to put up with the crap we'd
receive if we said "partners" rather than "roommates". But showing up
with our daughter, who calls me Mommy and my partner Ima tends to make
it clear that we're not *only* roommates. Though it says not one
damned thing about sexual acts.
> All the citations
> of awkwardness, discomfort, et al., referred to appearances as a
> couple, or (as in your case) a prolonged presence such as a job, not
> the casual shul communal meal.
You are so naive. "So, how do you know each other?" "I know this
really cute guy who's looking for a shidduch. Are you interested?"
"Really? Why not?" "Would you like to come for Shabbat next week?"
That last is always great, because it puts me in the position of having
to either say "No" or ask if I can bring my partner. Which raises a
whole other thing.
> > > > > If they *are* living as couples, though, it is only natural
> > > > > for there to be an assumption that halachically prohibited acts are
> > > > > likely taking place.
> > > >
> > > > Natural, maybe. Permissible, no. If they're willing to be makpid on
> > > > kashrut, why do you automatically suspect that they are less so in
> > > > their private lives?
> > >
> > > I wasn't talking about permissibility, nor about what I think, but
> > > to explain why it is assumed by most people to be the case. As to the
> > > question you ask, that was the thrust of what I was trying (and, at
> > > least in your case, failing) to commnicate.
> >
> > I assume, Meir, that you are aware of the halakhot that pertain to
> > making assumptions of wrong-doing. I'm quite aware that it's common.
> > That doesn't make it permissible.
>
> Who said it was? I said it was natural to assume violation, not
> that it was permissible to do so.
What is the relevance of it being "natural"?
> > > > > The comparison is not to "heterosexual . . . men
> > > > > . . . raping women." The proper analogy would be to two heterosexuals
> > > > > of opposite gender living together. There is no proof that they are
> > > > > engaging in extramarital sex, but I daresay that the same G or L living
> > > > > together, who resent the assumption that they are engaging in
> > > > > prohibited acts, would make that very assumption about the couple in
> > > > > question.
> > > >
> > > > The issue of pre-marital sex being so commonplace in the US is
> > > > something else entirely. That has nothing to do with this.
> > >
> > > On the contrary, it has everything to do with it. If you knew
> > > that two heterosexuals of opposite sex were living together, would you
> > > not assume that even if they were makpid on kashrus, they were "less so
> > > in their private lives"?
> >
> > If I see a young man and woman out on a date in the US, would I not
> > assume that even if they were makpid on kashrut, they might not be as
> > makpid on negia? Or even on pre-marital sex? After all, that is
> > exceedingly common in the US today, and it's even made inroads among
> > ostensibly Orthodox Jews.
> >
> > The answer is, no. I do not assume that, because it is assur to assume
> > that.
>
> Nor would I. But that's a straw man (or straw couple). Would you
> be equally dan l'chaf zchut if they were living together? That's what
> we're discussing as an analogy.
It isn't relevant, because there's no issue of yichud for members of
the same sex. So two men can be roommates. Or share an apartment. As
can two women. You wouldn't find an unmarried man and an unmarried
woman doing so. At least not if they're frum.
> > > I suspect that the percentage of male
> > > homosexuals living as partners who refrain from prohibited acts is
> > > about the same as the percentage of abstaining heterosexuals of
> > > opposite gender living together.
> >
> > Great. And you can write a paper on how statistics relate to the
> > halakhot of shmirat halashon. I'd be happy to read that.
>
> Once again, you mistake permissibility with probability. I said
> it was likely to be assumed, and with good reason, not that it was
> permitted to do so.
What's the point of your saying that it's likely? L'mai nafka mina?
Lisa
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
snip
>>>> The comparison is not to "heterosexual . . . men . . . raping
>>>> women." The proper analogy would be to two heterosexuals of
>>>> opposite gender living together. There is no proof that they are
>>>> engaging in extramarital sex, but I daresay that the same G or L
>>>> living together, who resent the assumption that they are engaging
>>>> in prohibited acts, would make that very assumption about the
>>>> couple in question.
>>>
>>> The issue of pre-marital sex being so commonplace in the US is
>>> something else entirely. That has nothing to do with this.
>>
>> On the contrary, it has everything to do with it. If you knew
>> that two heterosexuals of opposite sex were living together, would
>> you not assume that even if they were makpid on kashrus, they were
>> "less so in their private lives"?
>
> If I see a young man and woman out on a date in the US, would I not
> assume that even if they were makpid on kashrut, they might not be
> as makpid on negia? Or even on pre-marital sex? After all, that
> is exceedingly common in the US today, and it's even made inroads
> among ostensibly Orthodox Jews.
>
> The answer is, no. I do not assume that, because it is assur to
> assume that.
Umm Lisa, there is a difference between "out on a date", the example
you used, and "living together", which is the example Meir used.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
Lisa
That's true. But it's not relevant to the issue of assumptions. As I
said elsewhere, I know tons of cases where gays or lesbians share an
apartment and are not involved with one another. It's not exceptional
at all. And here's the thing. A frum Jew ought to at least check to
see if such things are the norm or not before being moreh heter on him
or herself to treat people badly. The kulas that are used for bigoted
speech and actions against people who are gay are simply astounding.
People who are machmir on kashrut and hat brands somehow don't consider
shmirat halashon worthy of even normative observance.
Feh.
Lisa
Harry Weiss
> Feh.
> Lisa
Would they presumption be any different than a male and female
heterorosexual sharing an appratment.
Lisa
Harry Weiss wrote:
> Lisa <li...@starways.net> wrote:
> >
> > That's true. But it's not relevant to the issue of assumptions. As I
> > said elsewhere, I know tons of cases where gays or lesbians share an
> > apartment and are not involved with one another. It's not exceptional
> > at all. And here's the thing. A frum Jew ought to at least check to
> > see if such things are the norm or not before being moreh heter on him
> > or herself to treat people badly. The kulas that are used for bigoted
> > speech and actions against people who are gay are simply astounding.
> > People who are machmir on kashrut and hat brands somehow don't consider
> > shmirat halashon worthy of even normative observance.
>
> > Feh.
>
> > Lisa
>
> Would they presumption be any different than a male and female
> heterorosexual sharing an appratment.
What's an appratment?
And it's different, if for no other reason, because there's no issue of
yichud.
Lisa
meir b.
Yes, because the heterosexual couple is violating an issur yichud.
However, in the case of male homosexuals, see Even Haezer 24, who
says that in this generation of increase in licentious people, a man
should refrain from yichud with another male -- and the statement was
not made about an avowed homosexual. If both are, one suspects the
language would be more than merely a suggestion. Even so, though, the
obligation is to be dan l'chaf zchut. (No, I'm not backing down from
what I've written before, which (contrary to Lisa's misreading) was not
a justification for peoples' suspicions, but an explanation thereof.)
Of course, no such problem exists with two lesbians, since even
the prohibited aspects of such a relationship are not arayot, so
questions of yichud cannot arise.