Rabbi Shmuli Boteach Refuted
Noach
commentator, is Boteach’s second argument. There are two types of sins
described by the Torah, those between man and G-d, and those between man and
man. Only the latter, he says, are moral failings. Would we heap moral
opprobrium on eaters of cheeseburgers?"
"The distinction is both wrong and dangerous. It may please lots of folks
who see themselves as good people without any need for religious ritual, but
it runs afoul of much in our tradition. "
"Rabbi Boteach should have satisfied himself with pointing out that the
Torah rejects homosexual acts, not homosexuals, and that it certainly does
not call for singling out one group for discrimination or shunning by
society. "
- Excerpts from 'Dawn of the Orthodox celebs' by Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein
Full-text at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0900/ortho.celebs.html
Yisroel Markov
In the interest of balance:
"Letter about my homosexuality essay, and my response":
http://www.shamash.org/listarchives/oxford-judaism/000619
That said, the criticism of R. Boteach's essay (which is at
http://www.shamash.org/listarchives/oxford-judaism/000317 ) is IMHO valid. We
spend quite some time on this NG and off asserting that whatever the
application of a specific mitzvah, they are all laws of morality.
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lisa Liel
wrote:
Had he pointed that out, he would have been misleading his readers,
because in the Orthodox community (and I'm not speaking of Jewish law,
but of many, many Orthodox Jews), *being* gay is considered enough to
label a person as a "leper". "Untouchable" and to be avoided. No one
cares whether someone who is gay does forbidden sexual things or not.
Simply *being* gay is seen as the crime.
If Rabbi Adlerstein is repeating the falsehood that it's only acts
that anyone cares about, shame on him.
Lisa
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Noach" <add...@reply-to.is.accurate>
>
snip
>>"Rabbi Boteach should have satisfied himself with pointing out
>>that the Torah rejects homosexual acts, not homosexuals, and that
>>it certainly does not call for singling out one group for
>>discrimination or shunning by society. "
>>
>>- Excerpts from 'Dawn of the Orthodox celebs' by Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein
>>Full-text at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0900/ortho.celebs.html
When I first read this said to myself, "Finally a Rabbi taking up one
of Lisa's pet peeves. Here he says it very clearly, 'the Torah rejects
homosexual acts, not homosexuals' ". So I was _very_ surprised to see
Lisa's complaint...
> Had he pointed that out, he would have been misleading his readers,
> because in the Orthodox community (and I'm not speaking of Jewish law,
> but of many, many Orthodox Jews), *being* gay is considered enough to
> label a person as a "leper". "Untouchable" and to be avoided. No one
> cares whether someone who is gay does forbidden sexual things or not.
> Simply *being* gay is seen as the crime.
I don't follow. Agreed that the O mindset is as you discribe. Agreed
that the halacha is _contrary_ to that mindset. So why do you
complain if a rabbi makes that point? Because it's not on SCJM?
> If Rabbi Adlerstein is repeating the falsehood that it's only acts
> that anyone cares about, shame on him.
He didn't say "what anyone cares about". He said what the Torah
forbids (acts) and what the Torah does _not_ mandate (shunning the
people). So what's your complaint.
Pardon Lisa, your chip is showing.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May you and yours have a Kesiva v'Chasima Tova!
Binyamin Dissen
:>lisa...@bigfoot.com (Lisa Liel) writes:
[ snipped ]
:>> If Rabbi Adlerstein is repeating the falsehood that it's only acts
:>> that anyone cares about, shame on him.
:>He didn't say "what anyone cares about". He said what the Torah
:>forbids (acts) and what the Torah does _not_ mandate (shunning the
:>people). So what's your complaint.
:>Pardon Lisa, your chip is showing.
Have to agree with Moshe here.
I feel no different about someone who violates sex laws or about someone who
violates Shabbat.
I don't think that I am unique in that regard.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Lisa Beth
<post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>On 17 Sep 2000 18:09:13 GMT mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
>:>lisa...@bigfoot.com (Lisa Liel) writes:
>
> [ snipped ]
>
>:>> If Rabbi Adlerstein is repeating the falsehood that it's only acts
>:>> that anyone cares about, shame on him.
>
>:>He didn't say "what anyone cares about". He said what the Torah
>:>forbids (acts) and what the Torah does _not_ mandate (shunning the
>:>people). So what's your complaint.
>
>:>Pardon Lisa, your chip is showing.
>
>Have to agree with Moshe here.
<shrug> Your perogative.
>I feel no different about someone who violates sex laws or about someone who
>violates Shabbat.
>
>I don't think that I am unique in that regard.
You're unusual in that regard.
But that's not even the point. The point isn't violations of sex
laws. The point is discrimination against gays and lesbians even if
they aren't involved with *anyone*. The point is that if I'd let
people in my shul know I was gay prior to getting involved with my
partner, they would have distanced themselves from me as if I was some
kind of pariah. No violation of sex laws even according to the most
machmir views; merely the fact of *being* gay.
And they would not have distanced themselves in this way (and do *not*
distance themselves in this way) from people who don't keep Shabbat.
And I think you know that, Binyamin.
Lisa
--
I take responsibility:
I will be voting for Moshe Feiglin in the Likud primaries.
Ask me how you can, too.
Lisa Beth
>lisa...@bigfoot.com (Lisa Liel) writes:
>> "Noach" <add...@reply-to.is.accurate>
>>
>snip
>
>>>"Rabbi Boteach should have satisfied himself with pointing out
>>>that the Torah rejects homosexual acts, not homosexuals, and that
>>>it certainly does not call for singling out one group for
>>>discrimination or shunning by society. "
>>>
>>>- Excerpts from 'Dawn of the Orthodox celebs' by Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein
>>>Full-text at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0900/ortho.celebs.html
>
>When I first read this said to myself, "Finally a Rabbi taking up one
>of Lisa's pet peeves. Here he says it very clearly, 'the Torah rejects
>homosexual acts, not homosexuals' ". So I was _very_ surprised to see
>Lisa's complaint...
>
>> Had he pointed that out, he would have been misleading his readers,
>> because in the Orthodox community (and I'm not speaking of Jewish law,
>> but of many, many Orthodox Jews), *being* gay is considered enough to
>> label a person as a "leper". "Untouchable" and to be avoided. No one
>> cares whether someone who is gay does forbidden sexual things or not.
>> Simply *being* gay is seen as the crime.
>
>I don't follow. Agreed that the O mindset is as you discribe. Agreed
>that the halacha is _contrary_ to that mindset. So why do you
>complain if a rabbi makes that point? Because it's not on SCJM?
Because when he says that, he's not telling people they have to treat
us like human beings. He's merely giving ammunition to people who
want to ignore the problem of homophobia in the frum community.
Of course the Torah rejects (*some*) sexual acts between members of
the same sex. And of course it doesn't condemn gays and lesbians.
Someone who doesn't realize that is a stone bigot to begin with.
The problem is, that when someone reads a statement like that of Rabbi
Adlerstein, they conclude that there's no homophobia in the frum
community at all. That it's only "acts" that are condemned. And
that's purely a lie. It's true if we're talking about the Torah, but
it's not even close to true if we're talking about Torah Jews.
I didn't say that Rabbi Adlerstein lied, God forbid. I said that if
Rabbi Boteach had written what Rabbi Adlerstein wanted, he would have
been misleading his readers. Because saying only that would ignore
the fact that while the Torah doesn't call for "singling out one group
for discrimination or shunning by society", many, many "Torah Jews"
do. Like Rabbi Moshe Halevi Spero, who has written, *literally*, that
it is proper to "persecute" homosexuals, but that unfortunately, we
lack the system of batei din that would allow us to do so.
>> If Rabbi Adlerstein is repeating the falsehood that it's only acts
>> that anyone cares about, shame on him.
>
>He didn't say "what anyone cares about". He said what the Torah
>forbids (acts) and what the Torah does _not_ mandate (shunning the
>people). So what's your complaint.
Because it's misleading. If I write that one of the principles Pat
Robertson preaches is "love your neighbor as yourself", it's true,
isn't it? I mean, the quote appears in the Christian bible. But you
know as well as I do that my saying such a thing would be misleading,
because it would be leaving out the hatred he really stands for.
>Pardon Lisa, your chip is showing.
Pardon, Moshe, your pedantry is showing. You didn't read what I
wrote. You only saw an objection to what Rabbi Adlerstein said. And
you assumed from that, that I thought it was untrue. You paid no
attention to the word "misleading" that I used, and made no attempt
whatsoever to consider in what way Rabbi Boteach would have been
misleading people had he made the mistake of taking Rabbi Adlerstein's
advice.
You jumped to a conclusion, Moshe. Read more carefully next time.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
Huh? How can the statement that the Torah "certainly does not call for
singling out one group for discrimination or shunning by society."
be ammunition for those who want to ignore the problem? On the
contrary, by saying it _certainly_ (emphasis mine M.S.) does not call
for singling out..." it implies that such actions do unfortunately
take place and the Torah does _not_ call for it.
> Of course the Torah rejects (*some*) sexual acts between members of
> the same sex. And of course it doesn't condemn gays and lesbians.
> Someone who doesn't realize that is a stone bigot to begin with.
But yiu've been running into such "stone bigots" all the time. So
what's wrong if a rabbi makes it perfectly clear that such attitudes
are wrong? You argue both sides of the aisle. People act that way,
and they're stone bigots for doing it. So this rabbi says it's wrong
and you _still_ complain.
> The problem is, that when someone reads a statement like that of Rabbi
> Adlerstein, they conclude that there's no homophobia in the frum
> community at all.
Huh? Then why bother saying "...does not call... for shunning by
society"? On the contrary, he saying that the "shunning" is
happening and it shouldn't.
> That it's only "acts" that are condemned. And that's purely a lie.
> It's true if we're talking about the Torah,
Well, he _is_ talking about the Torah. That's what he said.
> but it's not even close to true if we're talking about Torah Jews.
That's why he said the Torah does not call for "shunning". Meaning
"Hey, stop that behavior. The Torah does not forbid "being" a
homosexual, just certain specific acts". That's _exactly_ what you've
been saying.
> I didn't say that Rabbi Adlerstein lied, God forbid. I said that if
> Rabbi Boteach had written what Rabbi Adlerstein wanted, he would have
> been misleading his readers. Because saying only that would ignore
> the fact that while the Torah doesn't call for "singling out one group
> for discrimination or shunning by society", many, many "Torah Jews" do.
Of course they do. that's why he would have to make it a point to say
that the Torah does _not_ call for it.
> Like Rabbi Moshe Halevi Spero, who has written, *literally*, that
> it is proper to "persecute" homosexuals, but that unfortunately, we
> lack the system of batei din that would allow us to do so.
I suspect that he uses the word "homosexuals" to mean "Those who
perform forbidden homosexual acts", but that is not my point. I'm
not saying you have no beef with Rabbi Spero. I'm saying you owe a
debt of gratitude to Rabbi Adlerstein.
>>> If Rabbi Adlerstein is repeating the falsehood that it's only acts
>>> that anyone cares about, shame on him.
Lisa, calm down. Before you said that "I didn't say that Rabbi
Adlerstein lied, God forbid" but now you're wondering if he
repeated the falsehood.
>>He didn't say "what anyone cares about". He said what the Torah
>>forbids (acts) and what the Torah does _not_ mandate (shunning the
>>people). So what's your complaint.
>
> Because it's misleading.
Quite the contrary. He made it a point to say that the "shunning" is
_not_ according to Torah. He didn't say it doesn't exist. If it
didn't exist, why talk about it.
> If I write that one of the principles Pat
> Robertson preaches is "love your neighbor as yourself", it's true,
> isn't it? I mean, the quote appears in the Christian bible. But you
> know as well as I do that my saying such a thing would be misleading,
> because it would be leaving out the hatred he really stands for.
So you're saying that Rabbi Adlerstein is preaching hatred towards
homosexuals? I saw the exact opposite.
>>Pardon Lisa, your chip is showing.
>
> Pardon, Moshe, your pedantry is showing. You didn't read what I
> wrote. You only saw an objection to what Rabbi Adlerstein said. And
> you assumed from that, that I thought it was untrue. You paid no
> attention to the word "misleading" that I used, and made no attempt
> whatsoever to consider in what way Rabbi Boteach would have been
> misleading people had he made the mistake of taking Rabbi Adlerstein's
> advice.
I read it very well. You ignored the support for your position which
Rabbi Adlerstein makes and just dwelled on what "could have been
misunderstood".
At _least_ you could have started by saying "While Rabbi Adlerstein's
point is welcome, it does not address the _real_ issue." And then
make your point. By refusing to acknowlege _any_ appreciation for
what he said, you lose support you might have garnered.
Sheldon Glickler
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2000Sep1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) writes:
>
> That's why he said the Torah does not call for "shunning". Meaning
> "Hey, stop that behavior. The Torah does not forbid "being" a
> homosexual, just certain specific acts". That's _exactly_ what you've
> been saying.
>
I sense that what Lisa is objecting to is the passive nature of the
statement. There is a diffence between "The Torah does not call for
shunning" and "The Torah calls for treating people like people -- even
homosexuals". The former is passive, the latter is active. Lisa, correct
me if I got the wrong impression from the back and forth between the two of
you.
Shelly
P&M&M
Binyamin Dissen
[ snipped ]
:>But that's not even the point. The point isn't violations of sex
:>laws. The point is discrimination against gays and lesbians even if
:>they aren't involved with *anyone*.
Perhaps I should make it clear that I don't accept that there are "gays"
(people who have forbidden homosexual urges that they cannot control).
I do accept that there are those who have forbidden sexual urges, as well as
there are people who feel the urge to murder, to violate Shabbat, etc.
If someone who has forbidden sexual urges is controlling their actions, why
would anyone treat them different than someone who has some other forbidden
urge and is controlling it - a set that I think includes most religious Jews.
:> The point is that if I'd let
:>people in my shul know I was gay prior to getting involved with my
:>partner, they would have distanced themselves from me as if I was some
:>kind of pariah. No violation of sex laws even according to the most
:>machmir views; merely the fact of *being* gay.
I doubt that it would be any different if a man announced that they would be
violating Shabbat. Perhaps the congregation is not aware of the Halachot in
the area.
:>And they would not have distanced themselves in this way (and do *not*
:>distance themselves in this way) from people who don't keep Shabbat.
People who publicly announce that they violate Shabbat, as if they are proud
of it?
:>And I think you know that, Binyamin.
Not in the communities that I have been in.
Perhaps the difference is that Jews who are weak and violate Shabbat and go to
O congregations are not proud to announce that fact, but ...
Lisa Beth
<post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>On 19 Sep 2000 04:00:34 GMT star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) wrote:
>
> [ snipped ]
>
>:>But that's not even the point. The point isn't violations of sex
>:>laws. The point is discrimination against gays and lesbians even if
>:>they aren't involved with *anyone*.
>
>Perhaps I should make it clear that I don't accept that there are "gays"
>(people who have forbidden homosexual urges that they cannot control).
Cool. And I'll make it clear that I don't accept your definition of
"gay". Anyone who claims that they can't control a sexual urge of any
kind is making excuses. So we have no disagreement on that count,
except for your inappropriate misdefinition of "gay" and your limiting
of your parenthetical comment to homosexual urges alone).
>I do accept that there are those who have forbidden sexual urges, as well as
>there are people who feel the urge to murder, to violate Shabbat, etc.
>
>If someone who has forbidden sexual urges is controlling their actions, why
>would anyone treat them different than someone who has some other forbidden
>urge and is controlling it - a set that I think includes most religious Jews.
Part of the reason is because you misunderstand what it means to be
gay. My partner and I, and our daughter, are a family. We have no
intention under any circumstances of going out on shidduch dates. And
there are people who treat us like crap because of it. Lots of them.
There's no issue of forbidden urge or no forbidden urge. That's not
what being gay is about. I'm sorry that you still don't understand
that.
>:> The point is that if I'd let
>:>people in my shul know I was gay prior to getting involved with my
>:>partner, they would have distanced themselves from me as if I was some
>:>kind of pariah. No violation of sex laws even according to the most
>:>machmir views; merely the fact of *being* gay.
>
>I doubt that it would be any different if a man announced that they would be
>violating Shabbat. Perhaps the congregation is not aware of the Halachot in
>the area.
You're wrong, Binyamin. You're making guesses from the outside, and
I'm familiar with the facts. I am not violating any halakha, and no
one has the right to assume otherwise.
>:>And they would not have distanced themselves in this way (and do *not*
>:>distance themselves in this way) from people who don't keep Shabbat.
>
>People who publicly announce that they violate Shabbat, as if they are proud
>of it?
And you're accusing me of doing something assur? Like violating
Shabbat? I'm damned proud about my relationship with my partner. I'm
damned proud of my family. I hope you have as good a relationship
with your spouse and as excellent a family.
And this relates to violating Shabbat exactly how?
>:>And I think you know that, Binyamin.
>
>Not in the communities that I have been in.
And where might that be? I doubt your claim. I believe that you'd
like it to be that way, but I doubt it is.
>Perhaps the difference is that Jews who are weak and violate Shabbat and go to
>O congregations are not proud to announce that fact, but ...
Keep it up, Binyamin. I hope you enjoy yourself on the Yamim Noraim.
But your accusations reflect more negatively upon yourself than they
do upon anyone else.
Lisa Beth
Wrong. Rabbi Adlerstein gave us no support. All he did was criticize
the support that Rabbi Boteach gave us. He came to lessen support;
not add to it. If you'd read the beginning of this thread, you'd have
realized that and not reached incorrect conclusions.
>At _least_ you could have started by saying "While Rabbi Adlerstein's
>point is welcome, it does not address the _real_ issue." And then
>make your point. By refusing to acknowlege _any_ appreciation for
>what he said, you lose support you might have garnered.
Wrong. Go back and reread the thread. Here, I'll help you out. This
is the first post that Noach put through:
===============================
Approved: scjm-a...@scjm.org
Reply-To: "Noach" <azur...@mindspring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Sep 2000 19:47:33 GMT
X-Server-Date: 12 Sep 2000 19:27:48 GMT
"Far more serious than forgetting a comment by a single (albeit
important) commentator, is Boteach’s second argument. There are two
types of sins described by the Torah, those between man and G-d, and
those between man and man. Only the latter, he says, are moral
failings. Would we heap moral opprobrium on eaters of cheeseburgers?"
"The distinction is both wrong and dangerous. It may please lots of
folks who see themselves as good people without any need for religious
ritual, but it runs afoul of much in our tradition. "
"Rabbi Boteach should have satisfied himself with pointing out that
the Torah rejects homosexual acts, not homosexuals, and that it
certainly does not call for singling out one group for discrimination
or shunning by society. "
- Excerpts from 'Dawn of the Orthodox celebs' by Rabbi Yitzchok
Adlerstein Full-text at
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0900/ortho.celebs.html
===============================
Binyamin Dissen
:>On 19 Sep 2000 15:56:14 GMT, Binyamin Dissen
:><post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>On 19 Sep 2000 04:00:34 GMT star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) wrote:
:>> [ snipped ]
:>>:>But that's not even the point. The point isn't violations of sex
:>>:>laws. The point is discrimination against gays and lesbians even if
:>>:>they aren't involved with *anyone*.
:>>Perhaps I should make it clear that I don't accept that there are "gays"
:>>(people who have forbidden homosexual urges that they cannot control).
:>Cool. And I'll make it clear that I don't accept your definition of
:>"gay". Anyone who claims that they can't control a sexual urge of any
:>kind is making excuses. So we have no disagreement on that count,
:>except for your inappropriate misdefinition of "gay" and your limiting
:>of your parenthetical comment to homosexual urges alone).
What is the definition of "gay"?
I refuse to accept that G-d created people with forbidden urges without
supplying them the willpower to fight those urges. The stronger the forbidden
urge, the more power was given by G-d to fight it.
Personally, I do not have any homosexual urges. If it was permitted I might
try it for curiosity sake, but I would much rather have pork chops and bacon
as kosher (they look and smell good).
:>>I do accept that there are those who have forbidden sexual urges, as well as
:>>there are people who feel the urge to murder, to violate Shabbat, etc.
:>>If someone who has forbidden sexual urges is controlling their actions, why
:>>would anyone treat them different than someone who has some other forbidden
:>>urge and is controlling it - a set that I think includes most religious Jews.
:>Part of the reason is because you misunderstand what it means to be
:>gay. My partner and I, and our daughter, are a family. We have no
:>intention under any circumstances of going out on shidduch dates. And
:>there are people who treat us like crap because of it. Lots of them.
There is no requirement for a woman to marry or have children.
:>There's no issue of forbidden urge or no forbidden urge. That's not
:>what being gay is about. I'm sorry that you still don't understand
:>that.
I would like to understand it. I don't have a frame of reference. As a side
point, I have acquaintances who are "gay" as I defined it above (and I know
because they told me so), but that does not help me understand the urge.
:>>:> The point is that if I'd let
:>>:>people in my shul know I was gay prior to getting involved with my
:>>:>partner, they would have distanced themselves from me as if I was some
:>>:>kind of pariah. No violation of sex laws even according to the most
:>>:>machmir views; merely the fact of *being* gay.
:>>I doubt that it would be any different if a man announced that they would be
:>>violating Shabbat. Perhaps the congregation is not aware of the Halachot in
:>>the area.
:>You're wrong, Binyamin. You're making guesses from the outside, and
:>I'm familiar with the facts. I am not violating any halakha, and no
:>one has the right to assume otherwise.
I would much rather judge your community l'Kaf Zchut.
:>>:>And they would not have distanced themselves in this way (and do *not*
:>>:>distance themselves in this way) from people who don't keep Shabbat.
:>>People who publicly announce that they violate Shabbat, as if they are proud
:>>of it?
:>And you're accusing me of doing something assur? Like violating
:>Shabbat? I'm damned proud about my relationship with my partner. I'm
:>damned proud of my family. I hope you have as good a relationship
:>with your spouse and as excellent a family.
Unquestionably you are not violating any Biblical laws in your relationship. I
am not qualified (and not exceptionally interested) to determine what is
Rabbinically forbidden in that area. But as far as I understand the issue is
not black and white.
:>And this relates to violating Shabbat exactly how?
I was bringing an example of someone who would be treated as an outcast. I
certainly would not treat such a person any different than one who proudly
violated other Halachot.
To make it clear - I have no idea of what is Rabbinically forbidden in this
area and am not at all accusing you of violating any Halachot. But it is clear
to you that there are some acts that are forbidden (Rabbinically).
:>>:>And I think you know that, Binyamin.
:>>Not in the communities that I have been in.
:>And where might that be? I doubt your claim. I believe that you'd
:>like it to be that way, but I doubt it is.
Perhaps I just don't notice it. If someone O was gay (as I defined it above)
how would I know about it unless it was done in front of me? The same issue
with Chillul Shabbat.
:>>Perhaps the difference is that Jews who are weak and violate Shabbat and go to
:>>O congregations are not proud to announce that fact, but ...
:>Keep it up, Binyamin. I hope you enjoy yourself on the Yamim Noraim.
Never do.
:>But your accusations reflect more negatively upon yourself than they
:>do upon anyone else.
I am not making any accusations. I am demonstrating why people may act the way
they do.
As a side point, do C/R's have problems with men kissing each other, an act
that is not that unusual in the O community? In fact, the Tanach and Talmud
have stories where men kiss each other.
Lisa Beth
<post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>On 21 Sep 2000 16:01:00 GMT star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) wrote:
>
>:>On 19 Sep 2000 15:56:14 GMT, Binyamin Dissen
>:><post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>
>:>>On 19 Sep 2000 04:00:34 GMT star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) wrote:
>
>:>> [ snipped ]
>
>:>>:>But that's not even the point. The point isn't violations of sex
>:>>:>laws. The point is discrimination against gays and lesbians even if
>:>>:>they aren't involved with *anyone*.
>
>:>>Perhaps I should make it clear that I don't accept that there are "gays"
>:>>(people who have forbidden homosexual urges that they cannot control).
>
>:>Cool. And I'll make it clear that I don't accept your definition of
>:>"gay". Anyone who claims that they can't control a sexual urge of any
>:>kind is making excuses. So we have no disagreement on that count,
>:>except for your inappropriate misdefinition of "gay" and your limiting
>:>of your parenthetical comment to homosexual urges alone).
>
>What is the definition of "gay"?
Very nice. Now was that so hard?
A person is gay if they develop affectional/sexual/attraction to
members of the same sex and not to members of the opposite sex.
Have you ever had a crush? Have you ever found yourself drunk on the
presence of another person? Have you ever been in love?
Have you ever had any of those things happen without sex being
involved?
It's a matter of being wired completely differently. It has nothing
to do with what I *do* or do not do. Men do nothing for me. Being in
the same room with a guy... however good looking or kind he may be...
does nothing more for me than being in the same room with my brother.
Women are different. You can't tell me that you react to men and
women the same way, can you? Well, neither do I. It's that which
makes a person gay. For me to get involved with a man would be like
you getting involved with a man. It would be utterly ridiculous.
I was gay before I ever slept with another woman. I'd be gay if I
never had slept with another woman. I'm not gay because of who I
sleep with, I sleep with who I do because I'm gay. You see?
>I refuse to accept that G-d created people with forbidden urges without
>supplying them the willpower to fight those urges. The stronger the forbidden
>urge, the more power was given by G-d to fight it.
Yes, but I don't have any forbidden urges. Being gay is not
forbidden. If I were to be in a celibate relationship with another
woman, that would be a real relationship. And a good deal more than
just friendship.
I think part of the problem is that you can't wrap your mind around a
love relationship existing without it revolving around sex. And
penetrative sex, in particular. And penetrative sex involving a penis
in ever more particular. So that's your world. Not everyone lives in
your world, though.
I believe that people are capable of fighting forbidden urges. For
the most part, at least. I think that a gay man is capable of not
engaging in anal sex with another man. I think that a lesbian is
capable of not engaging in "nashim ha-mesollelot". So we're not
disagreeing about that. The problem here is that you're including all
gays and lesbians in the category of "people who have surrendered to
forbidden urges", and not only are you wrong about that, but you're
violating a pretty major issur (or issuring) by making that claim.
>Personally, I do not have any homosexual urges. If it was permitted I might
>try it for curiosity sake, but I would much rather have pork chops and bacon
>as kosher (they look and smell good).
Well I'll tell you, Binyamin. That's one difference between you and
me. I *am* permitted to have sex with a man (at least I would be if I
were to get married), and I have no interest whatsoever in trying that
out.
And bacon is delicious. I can't tell you about pork chops, since I
never tried those.
>:>>I do accept that there are those who have forbidden sexual urges, as well as
>:>>there are people who feel the urge to murder, to violate Shabbat, etc.
>
>:>>If someone who has forbidden sexual urges is controlling their actions, why
>:>>would anyone treat them different than someone who has some other forbidden
>:>>urge and is controlling it - a set that I think includes most religious Jews.
>
>:>Part of the reason is because you misunderstand what it means to be
>:>gay. My partner and I, and our daughter, are a family. We have no
>:>intention under any circumstances of going out on shidduch dates. And
>:>there are people who treat us like crap because of it. Lots of them.
>
>There is no requirement for a woman to marry or have children.
There's no prohibition against it either.
>:>There's no issue of forbidden urge or no forbidden urge. That's not
>:>what being gay is about. I'm sorry that you still don't understand
>:>that.
>
>I would like to understand it. I don't have a frame of reference. As a side
>point, I have acquaintances who are "gay" as I defined it above (and I know
>because they told me so), but that does not help me understand the urge.
What "urge"? What "urge" do you think I have that makes me gay? I'm
gay because that's the way I am. When I see Mel Gibson, I don't get
all squishy inside the way my sister does. When I see Mia Sara...
it's a whole different ball game. And it's not like I'm thinking,
"God, I'd like to get her in bed". That may be the way guys think,
and in truth, I've met women who are like that as well. I don't have
any interest in sleeping with someone just because she sets off all my
bells and whistles. But when someone sets off those bells and
whistles, it's invariably another woman. And that's because I'm gay.
If I was heterosexual, it wouldn't happen that way.
>:>>:> The point is that if I'd let
>:>>:>people in my shul know I was gay prior to getting involved with my
>:>>:>partner, they would have distanced themselves from me as if I was some
>:>>:>kind of pariah. No violation of sex laws even according to the most
>:>>:>machmir views; merely the fact of *being* gay.
>
>:>>I doubt that it would be any different if a man announced that they would be
>:>>violating Shabbat. Perhaps the congregation is not aware of the Halachot in
>:>>the area.
>
>:>You're wrong, Binyamin. You're making guesses from the outside, and
>:>I'm familiar with the facts. I am not violating any halakha, and no
>:>one has the right to assume otherwise.
>
>I would much rather judge your community l'Kaf Zchut.
I'd much rather be realistic. This is the way it is in any frum
community. If a woman in your shul were to say, when approached for a
shidduch date, "Sorry, I'm gay", she'd stop getting invitations for
Shabbat meals, and she'd be avoided by a *lot* of the woman in the
congregation. If she was babysitting up until that point, most of the
people who had been asking her to babysit would stop doing so.
Give your community the benefit of the doubt, Binyamin, but don't be a
freier about it, okay? This is the reality in the frum community
today.
>:>>:>And they would not have distanced themselves in this way (and do *not*
>:>>:>distance themselves in this way) from people who don't keep Shabbat.
>
>:>>People who publicly announce that they violate Shabbat, as if they are proud
>:>>of it?
>
>:>And you're accusing me of doing something assur? Like violating
>:>Shabbat? I'm damned proud about my relationship with my partner. I'm
>:>damned proud of my family. I hope you have as good a relationship
>:>with your spouse and as excellent a family.
>
>Unquestionably you are not violating any Biblical laws in your relationship.
I'm not violating any rabbinic ones, Binyamin. And I'm not a Karaite,
so I'd appreciate it if you'd realize that I don't make the
distinction between Biblical and Rabbinic laws (except for technical
issues like sfeikot).
>I am not qualified (and not exceptionally interested) to determine what is
>Rabbinically forbidden in that area. But as far as I understand the issue is
>not black and white.
For the record, most authorities hold, on the basis of the Rambam,
that "nashim ha-mesollelot" is an issur d'Orayta. A "lav
she'b'chlallut", so there are no malkot, but d'Orayta nevertheless.
>:>And this relates to violating Shabbat exactly how?
>
>I was bringing an example of someone who would be treated as an outcast. I
>certainly would not treat such a person any different than one who proudly
>violated other Halachot.
Good. I don't violate any halakhot that I'm aware of. Maybe davening
with insufficient kavana. Lashon hara when I forget myself. Nothing
intentionally, though. And nothing as a "lifestyle".
>To make it clear - I have no idea of what is Rabbinically forbidden in this
>area and am not at all accusing you of violating any Halachot. But it is clear
>to you that there are some acts that are forbidden (Rabbinically).
Cool. There are forbidden acts in just about every area of life. A
frum Jew refrains from those acts, whether they are d'rabbanan or
d'orayta. I am a frum Jew. The rest of the syllogism is left as an
exercise for the student.
>:>>:>And I think you know that, Binyamin.
>
>:>>Not in the communities that I have been in.
>
>:>And where might that be? I doubt your claim. I believe that you'd
>:>like it to be that way, but I doubt it is.
>
>Perhaps I just don't notice it. If someone O was gay (as I defined it above)
>how would I know about it unless it was done in front of me? The same issue
>with Chillul Shabbat.
"Done"? You mean sex? Dear God, Binyamin. This isn't about sex.
The reason you don't know anyone in your community who is gay (by
which I mean you don't know that they *are* gay) is because we're
terrified of people knowing. Because of the way we are almost
invariably treated.
If I lived in your community, I sure wouldn't come out to you after
reading this post, for example. Because I'd be certain that you'd
take my saying "I'm gay" as an admission of wrongdoing. Since that's
apparently what you think it means to be gay.
Sex, sex, sex. There's something wrong with people who are so fixated
on sex. Get over it. One of the main reasons we prefer the terms gay
and lesbian to "homosexual" is that "sex" isn't the issue.
>:>>Perhaps the difference is that Jews who are weak and violate Shabbat and go to
>:>>O congregations are not proud to announce that fact, but ...
>
>:>Keep it up, Binyamin. I hope you enjoy yourself on the Yamim Noraim.
>
>Never do.
>
>:>But your accusations reflect more negatively upon yourself than they
>:>do upon anyone else.
>
>I am not making any accusations. I am demonstrating why people may act the way
>they do.
You may not intend to be making accusations. But you really are. By
defining "gay" as "perpetrating forbidden sexual acts", you are
accusing anyone who says they are gay of perpetrating forbidden sexual
acts. Surely you see that that's what the words mean?
>As a side point, do C/R's have problems with men kissing each other, an act
>that is not that unusual in the O community? In fact, the Tanach and Talmud
>have stories where men kiss each other.
I doubt they do it sexually. There are kisses and there are kisses.
Binyamin Dissen
:>On 21 Sep 2000 20:00:34 GMT, Binyamin Dissen
:><post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>On 21 Sep 2000 16:01:00 GMT star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) wrote:
:>>:>On 19 Sep 2000 15:56:14 GMT, Binyamin Dissen
:>>:><post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>:>>On 19 Sep 2000 04:00:34 GMT star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) wrote:
[ snipped - I simply do not understand it enough to respond ]
:>>:>Part of the reason is because you misunderstand what it means to be
:>>:>gay. My partner and I, and our daughter, are a family. We have no
:>>:>intention under any circumstances of going out on shidduch dates. And
:>>:>there are people who treat us like crap because of it. Lots of them.
:>>There is no requirement for a woman to marry or have children.
:>There's no prohibition against it either.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
:>>:>There's no issue of forbidden urge or no forbidden urge. That's not
:>>:>what being gay is about. I'm sorry that you still don't understand
:>>:>that.
:>>I would like to understand it. I don't have a frame of reference. As a side
:>>point, I have acquaintances who are "gay" as I defined it above (and I know
:>>because they told me so), but that does not help me understand the urge.
:>What "urge"? What "urge" do you think I have that makes me gay? I'm
:>gay because that's the way I am. When I see Mel Gibson, I don't get
:>all squishy inside the way my sister does. When I see Mia Sara...
:>it's a whole different ball game. And it's not like I'm thinking,
:>"God, I'd like to get her in bed". That may be the way guys think,
:>and in truth, I've met women who are like that as well. I don't have
:>any interest in sleeping with someone just because she sets off all my
:>bells and whistles. But when someone sets off those bells and
:>whistles, it's invariably another woman. And that's because I'm gay.
:>If I was heterosexual, it wouldn't happen that way.
You will probably not like this comparison, but here it goes:
I, on occasion, feel the urge to murder someone (I guess the Meretznicks will
now send the Shabbak to my house). I control the urge because I realize it is
wrong.
I am not a murderer, despite my occasional temptation, because I control my
urge.
[ snipped ]
:>>I was bringing an example of someone who would be treated as an outcast. I
:>>certainly would not treat such a person any different than one who proudly
:>>violated other Halachot.
:>Good. I don't violate any halakhot that I'm aware of. Maybe davening
:>with insufficient kavana. Lashon hara when I forget myself. Nothing
:>intentionally, though. And nothing as a "lifestyle".
OK. Perhaps your community requires some education.
As a side point, I am aware of people who are very uncomfortable in the
vicinity of "gays". Perhaps it is the way that they are wired?
[ snipped ]
:>>Perhaps I just don't notice it. If someone O was gay (as I defined it above)
:>>how would I know about it unless it was done in front of me? The same issue
:>>with Chillul Shabbat.
:>"Done"? You mean sex? Dear God, Binyamin. This isn't about sex.
:>The reason you don't know anyone in your community who is gay (by
:>which I mean you don't know that they *are* gay) is because we're
:>terrified of people knowing. Because of the way we are almost
:>invariably treated.
By my definition, if the person is controlling their urge they are not "gay".
If the person is controlling the urge, there is no need to make it public
knowledge. Perhaps they might wish to discuss it with a Rav, but not in
public.
:>If I lived in your community, I sure wouldn't come out to you after
:>reading this post, for example. Because I'd be certain that you'd
:>take my saying "I'm gay" as an admission of wrongdoing. Since that's
:>apparently what you think it means to be gay.
And you shouldn't.
What would be the point of telling me?
What would you expect me to do about it? I am neither a Rav or a counselor.
:>Sex, sex, sex. There's something wrong with people who are so fixated
:>on sex. Get over it. One of the main reasons we prefer the terms gay
:>and lesbian to "homosexual" is that "sex" isn't the issue.
By my definition, if nothing is done it is nothing.
:>>:>>Perhaps the difference is that Jews who are weak and violate Shabbat and go to
:>>:>>O congregations are not proud to announce that fact, but ...
:>>:>Keep it up, Binyamin. I hope you enjoy yourself on the Yamim Noraim.
:>>Never do.
:>>:>But your accusations reflect more negatively upon yourself than they
:>>:>do upon anyone else.
:>>I am not making any accusations. I am demonstrating why people may act the way
:>>they do.
:>You may not intend to be making accusations. But you really are. By
:>defining "gay" as "perpetrating forbidden sexual acts", you are
:>accusing anyone who says they are gay of perpetrating forbidden sexual
:>acts. Surely you see that that's what the words mean?
That is how I understand the term.
As you define the term, there is nothing - any more than I am a murderer. No
reason to be public.
[ snipped ]
Lisa Beth
<post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>On 24 Sep 2000 15:16:07 GMT star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) wrote:
>
>:>On 21 Sep 2000 20:00:34 GMT, Binyamin Dissen
>:><post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>
>:>>On 21 Sep 2000 16:01:00 GMT star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) wrote:
>
>:>>:>On 19 Sep 2000 15:56:14 GMT, Binyamin Dissen
>:>>:><post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>
>:>>:>>On 19 Sep 2000 04:00:34 GMT star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) wrote:
>
> [ snipped - I simply do not understand it enough to respond ]
>
>:>>:>Part of the reason is because you misunderstand what it means to be
>:>>:>gay. My partner and I, and our daughter, are a family. We have no
>:>>:>intention under any circumstances of going out on shidduch dates. And
>:>>:>there are people who treat us like crap because of it. Lots of them.
>
>:>>There is no requirement for a woman to marry or have children.
>
>:>There's no prohibition against it either.
>
>I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
I wasn't. But since you made the comment that there's no requirement
for a woman to marry or have children, which had no bearing that I
could see on what I'd written, I thought I'd chime in with another
fact.
>:>>:>There's no issue of forbidden urge or no forbidden urge. That's not
>:>>:>what being gay is about. I'm sorry that you still don't understand
>:>>:>that.
>
>:>>I would like to understand it. I don't have a frame of reference. As a side
>:>>point, I have acquaintances who are "gay" as I defined it above (and I know
>:>>because they told me so), but that does not help me understand the urge.
>
>:>What "urge"? What "urge" do you think I have that makes me gay? I'm
>:>gay because that's the way I am. When I see Mel Gibson, I don't get
>:>all squishy inside the way my sister does. When I see Mia Sara...
>:>it's a whole different ball game. And it's not like I'm thinking,
>:>"God, I'd like to get her in bed". That may be the way guys think,
>:>and in truth, I've met women who are like that as well. I don't have
>:>any interest in sleeping with someone just because she sets off all my
>:>bells and whistles. But when someone sets off those bells and
>:>whistles, it's invariably another woman. And that's because I'm gay.
>:>If I was heterosexual, it wouldn't happen that way.
>
>You will probably not like this comparison, but here it goes:
>
>I, on occasion, feel the urge to murder someone (I guess the Meretznicks will
>now send the Shabbak to my house). I control the urge because I realize it is
>wrong.
Damn right I don't like the comparison. It is *normal* for people to
make romantic/love/attraction/affection connections with other people.
It is *not* normal for people to kill others.
"It is not good for Man to be alone". God said that, Binyamin. And
technically, we only read that as a reason why men must marry. It's
not a reason why women must marry, technically speaking, since women
don't have to marry. But outside of the limited halakhic
implications, it means exactly what it says. Human beings were
created to form this kind of bond with other human beings.
God created some of us so that the type of human beings we form this
bond with are members of the opposite sex. He created most people
that way. And he created some of us so that we form that bond with
members of the same sex. Which is not a big deal, so long as we don't
do things that are forbidden. This applies to heterosexuals and
homosexuals, Binyamin. If you fall for a woman who is married to
someone else, you just don't act on it. If a gay man has an urge to
have anal sex with another man, he just doesn't act on it. If you act
on that attraction to the married woman, you're doing something wrong.
If the gay man in my example acts on his desire to engage in that act,
he's doing something wrong.
My partner and I could be watching a movie, and Sharon Stone walks on.
And I'll go "Wow..." and she'll go "Definitely wow...", and that
doesn't mean that either of us has dreams of jumping her bones. But
neither of us reacts that way to Harrison Ford, cute as he may be.
This is not an "urge", Binyamin. And you're wrong to keep
characterizing it as such. This is a natural reaction to an
attractive member of the sex to which I'm naturally and innately
attracted.
I wouldn't want to build a household with a man, because while I have
nothing against men as friends, the idea of actually having that kind
of relationship with one is completely unappealing to me. And I'm not
talking about sex, Binyamin. That's not unappealing to me, it's
utterly repellent. No offense.
I'm a lesbian, Binyamin. That means that I am wired differently than
a heterosexual woman. I react to other women the way they react to
men. And I have some news for you, Binyamin, that may burst a bubble
or two, but the average heterosexual woman, when she falls for a guy,
doesn't necessarily dream of getting naked with him. There's more to
a relationship than just sex, sex, sex. At least for women.
>I am not a murderer, despite my occasional temptation, because I control my
>urge.
<applause> And I'm sure we're all very happy to hear that. What's
your point?
> [ snipped ]
>
>:>>I was bringing an example of someone who would be treated as an outcast. I
>:>>certainly would not treat such a person any different than one who proudly
>:>>violated other Halachot.
>
>:>Good. I don't violate any halakhot that I'm aware of. Maybe davening
>:>with insufficient kavana. Lashon hara when I forget myself. Nothing
>:>intentionally, though. And nothing as a "lifestyle".
>
>OK. Perhaps your community requires some education.
Not my community, Binyamin. Not unless you're referring to the frum
community in general as my community. The very fact that you continue
to see "being gay" as "surrendering to forbidden desires" means that
you require the same kind of education.
>As a side point, I am aware of people who are very uncomfortable in the
>vicinity of "gays". Perhaps it is the way that they are wired?
No. It's the way they're educated. That's demonstratably true.
Sorry, Binyamin. It was nice as a rhetorical device, but it happens
not to be the case.
> [ snipped ]
>
>:>>Perhaps I just don't notice it. If someone O was gay (as I defined it above)
>:>>how would I know about it unless it was done in front of me? The same issue
>:>>with Chillul Shabbat.
>
>:>"Done"? You mean sex? Dear God, Binyamin. This isn't about sex.
>:>The reason you don't know anyone in your community who is gay (by
>:>which I mean you don't know that they *are* gay) is because we're
>:>terrified of people knowing. Because of the way we are almost
>:>invariably treated.
>
>By my definition, if the person is controlling their urge they are not "gay".
And by my definition, a fork is that thing with four wheels that you
drive around town.
But Binyamin, that's not what a fork really is. And that's not what
gay really means. And if you want to make up a meaning for a word
that already has one, nothing you say will be of value.
Suppose someone were to say that they define "Jew" as an oily,
moneygrubbing, big-nosed cheat who murders Christian babies for their
blood. And then they were to mention that they despise Jews. I mean,
I think that I can say honestly that an oily, moneygrubbing, big-nosed
cheat who murders Christian babies for their blood *should* be
despised. I can't imagine that anyone would disagree.
So should I be upset at this person for saying he despises Jews?
After all, by his definition, "Jew" means something else.
Or maybe, Binyamin, rather than accepting his warped definition and
saying that Jews are indeed despicable given his definition, I should
object to his defamatory mis-definition of the word "Jew". Maybe I
should refuse to accept a definition that is not true. After all,
we're Jews. *We* define what a Jew is. Not some bigoted son of a
bitch. Right?
Similarly, Binyamin, you don't define what "gay" means. Your
definition is worth not an iota more than the above definition of
"Jew". I won't allow you to define me, certainly not in such a
defamatory way. I was gay before I came out. I was gay before I lost
my virginity. I was gay when I was between relationships. I'll be
gay until I die. I'd be gay if I never had sex again for the rest of
my life.
You want a word that means "someone who engages in forbidden sexual
acts with a member of the same sex"? Go make one up. And then don't
bother me with it, Binyamin, because it's of no interest to me.
>If the person is controlling the urge, there is no need to make it public
>knowledge. Perhaps they might wish to discuss it with a Rav, but not in
>public.
Wrong. My partner and I live together. We are raising our daughter
together. That's a fact, and it's not going to change. And that
makes our relationship public knowledge. Being gay is not *about*
urges, Binyamin. The fact that you don't understand that simply
speaks to your willingness to hear anything. Once upon a time, your
lack of understanding of this matter could have been attributed to
lack of knowledge. Now it can't. Now it's you choosing to continue
to besmirch people because they are different. It's you choosing to
violate the requirement of "hevei dan et kol ha-adam l'khaf zekhut".
It's you committing acts of ona'at devarim and rechilut.
And you're doing it in the last week of Elul, Binyamin. That's just
tacky.
>:>If I lived in your community, I sure wouldn't come out to you after
>:>reading this post, for example. Because I'd be certain that you'd
>:>take my saying "I'm gay" as an admission of wrongdoing. Since that's
>:>apparently what you think it means to be gay.
>
>And you shouldn't.
I shouldn't what?
>What would be the point of telling me?
I don't go around in my neighborhood waving a flag about it, Binyamin.
Everyone with a brain who sees the two of us living together and
raising a child together knows we're a couple. Everyone who hears
that she's "Ima" and I'm "Mommy" knows we aren't just buddies.
We just joined our shul. It's the first time they've done a
membership thing since we moved here, being that it's right before the
Yamim Noraim. It happens that the membership fee for a family is
twice that for a single. So it works out exactly the same. But we
*are* a family. And we had to take two single memberships, because of
people like you.
>What would you expect me to do about it? I am neither a Rav or a counselor.
What would I expect you to do about it? Oh, Binyamin, what I'd expect
you to do is what you've indicated in this and the last few e-mails.
I'd expect you to treat us like trash. I'd expect you to assume that
we're violators of halakha for no good reason. I'd expect you to
violate the halakha yourself by doing so. And everything you've
written in this thread supports me in those expectations.
We don't need a "Rav or a counselor". We don't have a problem. We
need a rav when we're not sure if we accidentally treifed up the fish
pot. Not for living our lives.
>:>Sex, sex, sex. There's something wrong with people who are so fixated
>:>on sex. Get over it. One of the main reasons we prefer the terms gay
>:>and lesbian to "homosexual" is that "sex" isn't the issue.
>
>By my definition, if nothing is done it is nothing.
Your definition is wrong.
>:>>:>>Perhaps the difference is that Jews who are weak and violate Shabbat and go to
>:>>:>>O congregations are not proud to announce that fact, but ...
>
>:>>:>Keep it up, Binyamin. I hope you enjoy yourself on the Yamim Noraim.
>
>:>>Never do.
>
>:>>:>But your accusations reflect more negatively upon yourself than they
>:>>:>do upon anyone else.
>
>:>>I am not making any accusations. I am demonstrating why people may act the way
>:>>they do.
>
>:>You may not intend to be making accusations. But you really are. By
>:>defining "gay" as "perpetrating forbidden sexual acts", you are
>:>accusing anyone who says they are gay of perpetrating forbidden sexual
>:>acts. Surely you see that that's what the words mean?
>
>That is how I understand the term.
No. That's how you *choose* to understand the term. Despite being
informed that you're mistaken. And it's no different than the
charming definition of "Jew" I mentioned above. It's not a valid
definition or understanding, Binyamin. That's just not what the word
means.
>As you define the term, there is nothing - any more than I am a murderer. No
>reason to be public.
You can slam your eyes shut and refuse to recognize that something
exists, Binyamin. That says something about you. It says nothing
whatsoever about what exists. I know atheists who insist that God
doesn't exist. Do you think that their insistence has any effect on
God's existence? Not at all. And that's exactly how meaningful your
insistence is that there's no such thing as being gay other than
violating the halakha.
Lisa
Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2000 16:01:00 GMT star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) wrote:
>
> :>On 19 Sep 2000 15:56:14 GMT, Binyamin Dissen
> :><post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>
> :>>On 19 Sep 2000 04:00:34 GMT star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth)
> :>>wrote:
>
> :>>they would be violating Shabbat. Perhaps the congregation is not
> :>>aware of the Halachot in the area.
>
> :>You're wrong, Binyamin. You're making guesses from the outside, and
> :>I'm familiar with the facts. I am not violating any halakha, and no
> :>one has the right to assume otherwise.
>
> I would much rather judge your community l'Kaf Zchut.
I just had to respond to this again after what I found when I got home
today. I live in a frum community, I think I've mentioned. And in
this frum community, there is a women's newsletter that comes out
roughly before each of the chagim. It's a very useful little thing,
because aside from the features it has in it, there's a listing of all
the women in the neighborhood, with their addresses and phone numbers.
When I moved into this neighborhood, I called the woman who puts this
newsletter out. We had a very nice conversation. She welcomed me to
the neighborhood and everything. I was the first person on my street
to give her my address, probably because the project I live in is
pretty new.
And then at the end of the conversation, I asked if I could give her my
roommate's info as well. She was clearly very flustered. This isn't a
neighborhood for roommates. Whether she assumed we were partners or
not, I have a strong feeling that somehow or other she found out. Who
knows? Maybe she knows someone on SCJM.
In any case, the new issue came out today. I picked it up when I got
home. And needless to say, due of course to a clerical error, neither
my partner nor I are listed. I called the woman who puts out the
newsletter, and when I told her who it was, she clearly recognized my
name.
So much for "judging my community l'Kaf Zchut", Binyamin. You see, I
don't even have to tell people I'm gay for them to behave this way.
Lisa
Noach
"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39cf0039...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> If a gay man has an urge to
> have anal sex with another man, he just doesn't act on it.
That is not the only act that is forbidden between two men. In fact, all
sexual acts between two men are forbidden. The only difference may be in the
severity of the prohibition.
Lisa Beth
wrote:
Not the point. It changes nothing in what I said.
Noach
> On 27 Sep 2000 00:44:50 GMT, "Noach" <add...@reply-to.is.accurate>
> wrote:
>
> >
You often say otherwise.
meirm...@erols.com
<add...@reply-to.is.accurate> posted:
>"Rabbi Boteach
He's going to be speaking at Beth T'filoh in Baltimore in October or
November. If anyone wants the date let me know.
Also Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, Yaffa Eliach and 3 others starting in
October I think.
mei...@QQQerols.com
e-mail by removing QQQ
Ravchaz
>November. If anyone wants the date let me know.
>
Count me in. York is less than an hour north of Pikesville. Might any of the
scjm regulars in Baltimore care to meet me for dinner beforehand? This is
assuming the date isn't one on which I have an unavoidable conflict.
Charles Arian
York, PA
Lisa Beth
wrote:
>
>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:39d2e2f8...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> On 27 Sep 2000 00:44:50 GMT, "Noach" <add...@reply-to.is.accurate>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> Not the point. It changes nothing in what I said.
>
>You often say otherwise.
Using the telephone on Shabbat is forbidden. So is sex between men
that leads to ejaculation. I've never said otherwise on either count.
But...
There are exceptions to both rules, at least according to some
rabbanim.
Noach
<meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:qdl9ts8j2rjhn4uin...@4ax.com...
> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 12 Sep 2000 19:47:33 GMT "Noach"
> <add...@reply-to.is.accurate> posted:
>
> >"Rabbi Boteach
>
> November
But who will refute him? Remember, the title of my post was 'Rabbi Shmuli
Botach Refuted'!
:o)
meirm...@erols.com
rav...@aol.com (Ravchaz) posted:
Got your emails. It is November 1, Wednesday. Usually these things
are around 7. It's not at all clear if it is in Glyndon or
Pikesville. (I wonder why it insists on starting a new line with
Pikesville.) I'll find out.
>Charles Arian
>York, PA
dr_m...@my-deja.com
Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2000 18:09:13 GMT mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
> :>lisa...@bigfoot.com (Lisa Liel) writes:
>
> [ snipped ]
>
> :>> If Rabbi Adlerstein is repeating the falsehood that it's only acts
> :>> that anyone cares about, shame on him.
>
> :>He didn't say "what anyone cares about". He said what the Torah
> :>forbids (acts) and what the Torah does _not_ mandate (shunning the
> :>people). So what's your complaint.
>
> :>Pardon Lisa, your chip is showing.
>
> Have to agree with Moshe here.
>
> I feel no different about someone who violates sex laws or about
someone who
> violates Shabbat.
>
> I don't think that I am unique in that regard.
>
Well, perhaps not.
A couple of years ago, in our town, we had a gay Reform rabbi who held a
"committment ceremony" with his partner. So the local Jewish press
decided to get reactions from other rabbis across the denomonational
spectrum. One of the rabbis is an old-timer, I guess in today's O
world, he would protect his right flank by calling himself a "centrist,"
but having sometimes davenned at his shul, I would call him "modern" or
even <<gasp!!>> "liberal." Well this Rabbi Modern Orthodox was the only
one who took the trouble to point out that engaging in homosexual
relations was a capital crime in halacha! An, under the circumstances,
this statement more or less had the effect of being an accusation that
the gay rabbi was engaging in forbidden relationships. (After all, it's
the gay sex that's prhibited by Torah, not having a "committment
ceremony.")
Which is true, but them again, so is violating the Sabbath. Now this
rabbi has a leadership role among the Orthodox rabbis in town, and is
active in general Jewish communal affairs and has cordial relationships
with his non-Orthodox colleagues. Once, after services, he introduced
himself to me, and when I told him I went to (X) (a non-O shul), he
said, "Oh! I know Rabbi Y, I work with him on such and such a committee
- great person." And he fully expected that I drove to my non-O shul
when I went there and was pleasantly surprised to find that I generally
don't.
The point is: Here this rabbi has a very cordial relationship with a
non-O rabbi, who by driving to shul (as he does) is most publically
violating Shabbat, at least according to the Orthodox understanding.
Further, the rabbi assumed that I was also a Shabbat breaker, but
nevertheless treated me in a welcoming manner. But Shabbat is no less a
capital crime than is having homosexual relations. But our modern-O
rabbi does not bother to remark to the press that all of the non-O
rabbis in town, regardless of their sexual orientation, are guilty of a
capital crime.
On the other hand, we have no actual proof that the gay Reform rabbi
actually commits the prohibited homosexual acts. Cetrainly not the kind
of proof required by the halacha to convict and sentence a person to
death.
So the rabbi is OK hanging around with known public transgressors of
Shabbat, but is ready to accuse, without sufficient evidence, a gay Jew
of committing serious transgressions.
In other words, whatever they say, in their deepest heart of hearts,
many in the O rabbinate are more freaked out by gay Jews than they are
by Shabbat violators. (After all, some of those Shabbat violators
donate money to their shuls and institutions.)
Doc
James Kahn
>So the rabbi is OK hanging around with known public transgressors of
>Shabbat, but is ready to accuse, without sufficient evidence, a gay Jew
>of committing serious transgressions.
>In other words, whatever they say, in their deepest heart of hearts,
>many in the O rabbinate are more freaked out by gay Jews than they are
>by Shabbat violators. (After all, some of those Shabbat violators
>donate money to their shuls and institutions.)
What you're leaving out is that the "commitment ceremony" could be
described as a public proclamation of the intent of the couple to
violate halacha for the rest of their lives. That's the essence of
a marriage or commitment ceremony--the intent is that there is no
turning back. That's not the same as someone who (currently) violates
Shabbat.
A better analogy would be with someone who marries a non-Jew. There
again is a public proclamation to live in violation of halacha for
the rest of one's life. And O rabbis (as well as C) will condemn this.
So your suggestion is that the O rabbinate is merely (1) freaked out
by gays; and (2) influenced by $ doesn't really fly. If that were the
case they should welcome wealthy intermarried (hetero) couples into their
congregations, but they don't.
The fact is that most O rabbis make far less money than their C and R
counterparts, and their shuls have far smaller budgets. Your
suggestion of mercenary motives is hogwash. One could make a far
stronger case that the "inclusiveness" of the R rabbinate is
to increase revenues.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Elisabeth Riba
> What you're leaving out is that the "commitment ceremony" could be
> described as a public proclamation of the intent of the couple to
> violate halacha for the rest of their lives.
Not necessarily.
Haviva Ner-David, in her book "Life on the Fringes" comments that its
narrowest reading, one cannot deny that the Torah forbids homosexual anal
sex.
However, there are other ways two men can show love, and if they abstain
from that one act, they would not be sinning.
Now Orthodox Jews assume that other Orthodox Jews are practicing the laws
of niddah, but nobody would dare violate a couple's privacy by presuming
to *ask* whether they were having sex during the woman's period.
Similarly, they should give the benefit of the doubt that Orthodox Jewish
gay couples are not practicing that one forbidden act.
What do others think of this interpretation?
--
----------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <----------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
James Kahn
>James Kahn <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote:
>> What you're leaving out is that the "commitment ceremony" could be
>> described as a public proclamation of the intent of the couple to
>> violate halacha for the rest of their lives.
>Not necessarily.
>...they should give the benefit of the doubt that Orthodox Jewish
>gay couples are not practicing that one forbidden act.
Perhaps, though the couple in question was not Orthodox. Indeed one
of the men was a Reform rabbi, according to the prior posting. So
your suggestion doesn't really apply, unless you think it should
apply more broadly. In any case, I've never heard of an actual
commitment ceremony between two gay Orthodox males. What would
the point of such a ceremony be?
Yisroel Markov
ka...@nospam.panix.com (James Kahn) wrote:
> In <8rap4v$5uh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> dr_m...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >So the rabbi is OK hanging around with known public transgressors of
> >Shabbat, but is ready to accuse, without sufficient evidence, a gay Jew
> >of committing serious transgressions.
>
> >In other words, whatever they say, in their deepest heart of hearts,
> >many in the O rabbinate are more freaked out by gay Jews than they are
> >by Shabbat violators. (After all, some of those Shabbat violators
> >donate money to their shuls and institutions.)
>
> described as a public proclamation of the intent of the couple to
> a marriage or commitment ceremony--the intent is that there is no
> turning back. That's not the same as someone who (currently) violates
> Shabbat.
>
> A better analogy would be with someone who marries a non-Jew. There
> again is a public proclamation to live in violation of halacha for
> the rest of one's life. And O rabbis (as well as C) will condemn this.
> So your suggestion is that the O rabbinate is merely (1) freaked out
> by gays; and (2) influenced by $ doesn't really fly. If that were the
> case they should welcome wealthy intermarried (hetero) couples into their
> congregations, but they don't.
>
> The fact is that most O rabbis make far less money than their C and R
> counterparts, and their shuls have far smaller budgets. Your
> suggestion of mercenary motives is hogwash. One could make a far
> stronger case that the "inclusiveness" of the R rabbinate is
> to increase revenues.
True... but the observable fact is that people -- O, C, and R Jews, and Jews
and non-Jews alike -- do tend to be "freaked out" by what they perceive as
sexual aberrations more than by just about anything else. Like my
father-in-law put it once: "But this is such a hideous unnatural thing, a
perversion!" IOW, violating Shabbat is not so hideously unnatural, but
man/man anal sex is.
Whether this is a justifiable stance is a different matter. But the
"freak-out" factor is an observable fact, IMHO.
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no "they." To make a simple statement about a broad group of
people is to be wrong." -- Naomi Gayle Rivkis
Elisabeth Riba
>>> What you're leaving out is that the "commitment ceremony" could be
>>> described as a public proclamation of the intent of the couple to
>>> violate halacha for the rest of their lives.
> Perhaps, though the couple in question was not Orthodox. Indeed one
> of the men was a Reform rabbi, according to the prior posting.
So how do Orthodox rabbis react to Reform weddings when they know the
couple will never in a million years go to the mikveh?
Joe Slater
>So how do Orthodox rabbis react to Reform weddings when they know the
>couple will never in a million years go to the mikveh?
The consensus of Orthodox Judaism appears to be that Reform weddings
are invalid.
jds
--
And now kind friends, what I have wrote,
I hope you will pass o'er,
And not criticize, as some have done,
Hitherto herebefore. (Julia Moore, "The Author's Early Life")
James Kahn
>James Kahn <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote:
>>>> What you're leaving out is that the "commitment ceremony" could be
>>>> described as a public proclamation of the intent of the couple to
>>>> violate halacha for the rest of their lives.
>> Perhaps, though the couple in question was not Orthodox. Indeed one
>> of the men was a Reform rabbi, according to the prior posting.
>So how do Orthodox rabbis react to Reform weddings when they know the
>couple will never in a million years go to the mikveh?
First, I don't believe that failure to go to the mikveh is
considered as serious a violation as male homosexual sex. But
the main point is, again, that it is at least possible (and
it does happen) that the couple will become observant. In the
case of the commitment ceremony, it is not possible for one
of the gentlemen to become a woman.
Hadass Eviatar
I wouldn't say *that* with too much conviction. It's amazing what
surgery and hormone treatments can do nowadays, and at least one major
posek has apparently concluded that the resulting person is halachicly a
woman.
Kol tuv, Hadass
--
Hadass Eviatar
Winnipeg, Canada
http://www.superhwy.net/~eviatar
Keep me far from petty thoughts and petty pride, far from anger,
impatience, despair, gossip and all bad traits - Yom Kippur liturgy.
Lisa
ka...@nospam.panix.com (James Kahn) wrote:
> In <8rap4v$5uh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> dr_m...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >So the rabbi is OK hanging around with known public transgressors of
> >Shabbat, but is ready to accuse, without sufficient evidence, a gay
> >Jew of committing serious transgressions.
>
> >In other words, whatever they say, in their deepest heart of hearts,
> >many in the O rabbinate are more freaked out by gay Jews than they
> >are by Shabbat violators. (After all, some of those Shabbat
> >violators donate money to their shuls and institutions.)
>
> described as a public proclamation of the intent of the couple to
> violate halacha for the rest of their lives.
Only by someone who had already decided that all gay people do is have
sex, sex, sex!
Actually, I won't speak for members of the secular/gentile gay
community. Because they don't necessarily have any commitment to any
aspect of halakha and to refraining from what may seem to them to be
something "harmless". I can, however, speak for those of us who are
frum.
James, I had a commitment ceremony. All that was was a celebration of
a loving relationship and the intent to build a family together. How
you can get from there to "the intent of the couple to violate halacha
for the rest of their lives" is beyond me.
>That's the essence of
> a marriage or commitment ceremony--the intent is that there is no
> turning back.
That's true. Where does "no turning back" equate to "violating
halakha"?
>That's not the same as someone who (currently) violates Shabbat.
Yes, but violating Shabbat is forbidden. Being in a relationship with
a member of the same sex is not. Bad analogy.
> A better analogy would be with someone who marries a non-Jew. There
> again is a public proclamation to live in violation of halacha for
> the rest of one's life.
It's more than just that.
> And O rabbis (as well as C) will condemn this.
Well, I know plenty of Conservative rabbis who won't, even leaving out
the intermarriages that they cover up by performing "conversions" on
one of the members of the couple.
> So your suggestion is that the O rabbinate is merely (1) freaked out
> by gays;
Yes. And I'll go further. The often-claimed statement that it's only
sex acts that bother frum Jews or the frum community, and not actually
*being* gay is a complete lie. A 100%, no holds barred, propagandic
statement intended to obscure the actual facts.
> and (2) influenced by $ doesn't really fly. If that were the
> case they should welcome wealthy intermarried (hetero) couples into
> their congregations, but they don't.
I don't happen to agree with the money argument, fwiw.
Lisa
--
I take responsibility:
I will be voting for Moshe Feiglin in the Likud primaries.
Ask me how you can, too.
Lisa
Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
> James Kahn <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote:
> > What you're leaving out is that the "commitment ceremony" could be
> > described as a public proclamation of the intent of the couple to
> > violate halacha for the rest of their lives.
>
>
> Haviva Ner-David, in her book "Life on the Fringes" comments that its
> narrowest reading, one cannot deny that the Torah forbids homosexual
> anal sex.
>
> However, there are other ways two men can show love, and if they
> abstain from that one act, they would not be sinning.
<sigh> I don't think anyone here is likely to mistake my views with
regards to Haviva Ner-David. This is a good example of why.
There are other issues involved, of course, such as kirva and spilling
seed. However, there are poskim who have ruled that in this case, they
may not apply. *May* not, and it depends on the situation. It still
doesn't justify Ner-David claiming that there *are* no other issues.
> Now Orthodox Jews assume that other Orthodox Jews are practicing the
> laws of niddah, but nobody would dare violate a couple's privacy by
> presuming to *ask* whether they were having sex during the woman's
> period.
Yes, but many Orthodox Jews, who have seen the secular/gentile gay
culture parade sex all over the place have a bias now with regards to
gays and lesbians even if they are frum. It's wrong, of course. But
there *is* that difference.
On the other hand, the fact is that the majority of Americans probably
don't have any objection to premarital sex. Certainly the majority of
American Jews. You'd think that American frummies would all be
suspected of engaging in premarital sex by this argument. And they
aren't.
Which brings us back to a simple issue of bias. It's a gut feeling.
Not one native to Judaism or frumkeit, of course. It's a result of the
homophobia in the Christian culture surrounding us. But no less
hateful for that.
> Similarly, they should give the benefit of the doubt that Orthodox
> Jewish gay couples are not practicing that one forbidden act.
At least frum ones.
> What do others think of this interpretation?
I give you an A-, and Haviva Ner-David a D+.
Lisa
Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
> >So how do Orthodox rabbis react to Reform weddings when they know the
> >couple will never in a million years go to the mikveh?
>
> are invalid.
But as Elisabeth pointed out, in the case she posted earlier in this
thread, the Orthodox rabbi, commenting on the commitment ceremony, felt
it necessary to note that anal sex between men is forbidden by
halakha. Had the Reform rabbi in question married a non-Jewish woman,
would he have made the parallel comment in public about it being an
invalid marriage?
I don't think so, and neither do you.
I'm not sure why it's so important to you to deny that frum society is
biased and bigoted when it comes to gays and lesbians. Why you can't
simply admit that the way we are treated is based on much, much more
than those few things that are forbidden. But it's this kind of denial
that's making progress in this area so slow.
dr_m...@my-deja.com
Lisa <star...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <h26jus0clmdi3bih4...@4ax.com>,
> Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> > Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
the
> > >couple will never in a million years go to the mikveh?
> >
> > are invalid.
>
> But as Elisabeth pointed out, in the case she posted earlier in this
> thread, the Orthodox rabbi, commenting on the commitment ceremony,
felt
> it necessary to note that anal sex between men is forbidden by
> halakha.
He didn't just point out that it was "forbidden by halacha." He took
great pains to point out that it was a _Capital crime._
But then, so is violating the Sabbath.
Doc
dr_m...@my-deja.com
Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
> James Kahn <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote:
> >>> What you're leaving out is that the "commitment ceremony" could be
> >>> described as a public proclamation of the intent of the couple to
> >>> violate halacha for the rest of their lives.
>
> > Perhaps, though the couple in question was not Orthodox. Indeed one
> > of the men was a Reform rabbi, according to the prior posting.
>
> So how do Orthodox rabbis react to Reform weddings when they know the
> couple will never in a million years go to the mikveh?
>
Reform, heck, I was married by an _Orthodox_ rabbi who damn well knew my
wife had no intention of ever setting foot in a mikveh!
dr_m...@my-deja.com
ka...@nospam.panix.com (James Kahn) wrote:
> In <8s7a21$aee$2...@news.panix.com> Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org>
writes:
>
> >> What you're leaving out is that the "commitment ceremony" could be
> >> described as a public proclamation of the intent of the couple to
> >> violate halacha for the rest of their lives.
>
etc., etc., and I suppsoe there might be something to that, but it still
does not explain why this particular O rabbi took great pains to point
out that this gay R rabbi was committing a capital crime whereas the O
rabbi has cordial communla (if not theological) relations with his
Sabbath-breaking C & R colleagues. While there is no proof that the gay
reorm rabbi and his partner have committed the transgression, the
Sabbath breaking (from the point of view of Orthodoxy) on the part of
the C & R rabbis is quite open and public.
Russell Steinthal
Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>>couple will never in a million years go to the mikveh?
>
>are invalid.
So replace Reform with "chiloni"... Clearly, the (Orthodox) Chief
Rabbinate of Israel officiates at many weddings in which they (should)
know that the couple has no intention of observing taharat
ha-mishpachah.
The question from the previous post (as part of the argument more
fully elaborated in the previous article) still remains...
-Russell
--
Russell Steinthal Columbia Law School, Class of 2002
<rm...@columbia.edu> Columbia College, Class of 1999
<ste...@nj.org> UNIX System Administrator, nj.org
Harry Weiss
> In article <h26jus0clmdi3bih4...@4ax.com>,
> Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>>>So how do Orthodox rabbis react to Reform weddings when they know the
>>>couple will never in a million years go to the mikveh?
>>
>>The consensus of Orthodox Judaism appears to be that Reform weddings
>>are invalid.
> So replace Reform with "chiloni"... Clearly, the (Orthodox) Chief
> Rabbinate of Israel officiates at many weddings in which they (should)
> know that the couple has no intention of observing taharat
> ha-mishpachah.
> The question from the previous post (as part of the argument more
> fully elaborated in the previous article) still remains...
The fact is that it is better to do one sin then two. They do require
using the Mikvah prior to the wedding and it is better to have
relationships as part of a marriage rather than having the same
relationships outside of marraige. The prohibition of Niddah is a
separate prohibtion.
> -Russell
> --
> Russell Steinthal Columbia Law School, Class of 2002
> <rm...@columbia.edu> Columbia College, Class of 1999
> <ste...@nj.org> UNIX System Administrator, nj.org
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
James Kahn
>In article <h26jus0clmdi3bih4...@4ax.com>,
>Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>>>So how do Orthodox rabbis react to Reform weddings when they know the
>>>couple will never in a million years go to the mikveh?
>...Clearly, the (Orthodox) Chief
>Rabbinate of Israel officiates at many weddings in which they (should)
>know that the couple has no intention of observing taharat
>ha-mishpachah.
>The question from the previous post (as part of the argument more
>fully elaborated in the previous article) still remains...
No, it's been answered already.
1. Failure to observe taharat ha-mishpichah is not as serious
a violation as sex between two men. (Which is not to say it's
not serious.)
2. There is the possibility that the couple will in the future
begin to observe it, whereas there is no possibility that one
of the men will become a woman (sex-change operations notwithstanding).
And I'll add a third, perhaps the most important:
3. By officiating at weddings between non-observant Jews, an O
rabbi reduces the number of potential averos, assuming the alternative
is either living together without getting married, or a non-
halachic marriage. In other words, to an O rabbi, some observance
is better than none, or more is better than less. ***There is
no parallel argument that could be made with respect to
homosexual commitment ceremonies.***
I find it ironic that O gets criticized for being so intolerant,
inflexible, noninclusive, etc., and here they get criticized
for being willing to officiate at weddings between non-observant
Jews. And that somehow their willingness to do so requires them
also to approve of (or not disapprove of) "commitment ceremonies"
between two men. Ridiculous.
Joe Slater
>>The consensus of Orthodox Judaism appears to be that Reform weddings
>>are invalid.
rm...@columbia.edu (Russell Steinthal) wrote:
>So replace Reform with "chiloni"... Clearly, the (Orthodox) Chief
>Rabbinate of Israel officiates at many weddings in which they (should)
>know that the couple has no intention of observing taharat
>ha-mishpachah.
They don't know that; we may always hope that people will do teshuva.
Simcha Streltsov
: So replace Reform with "chiloni"... Clearly, the (Orthodox) Chief
: Rabbinate of Israel officiates at many weddings in which they (should)
: know that the couple has no intention of observing taharat
: ha-mishpachah.
apparently, standards differ - I am not sure what is behind different
opinions - my mesader kidushin said that taharat hamishpahah is always
his condition and his only condition.
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Lisa
ka...@nospam.panix.com (James Kahn) wrote:
> In <8sgel0$gfd$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu> rm...@columbia.edu
(Russell Steinthal) writes:
>
> >Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> >>Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
> >>>So how do Orthodox rabbis react to Reform weddings when they know
the
> >>>couple will never in a million years go to the mikveh?
>
> >Rabbinate of Israel officiates at many weddings in which they
(should)
> >know that the couple has no intention of observing taharat
> >ha-mishpachah.
>
> >The question from the previous post (as part of the argument more
> >fully elaborated in the previous article) still remains...
>
>
> 1. Failure to observe taharat ha-mishpichah is not as serious
> a violation as sex between two men. (Which is not to say it's
> not serious.)
The frum community is just as obnoxious to lesbian couples as they are
to gay male couples, so that can't be it.
> 2. There is the possibility that the couple will in the future
> begin to observe it, whereas there is no possibility that one
> of the men will become a woman (sex-change operations
> notwithstanding).
And since you have no idea what two men or two women might do together
in private, don't you think it's a little inappropriate to be making
the assumption you're making?
> And I'll add a third, perhaps the most important:
> 3. By officiating at weddings between non-observant Jews, an O
> rabbi reduces the number of potential averos, assuming the alternative
> is either living together without getting married, or a non-
> halachic marriage. In other words, to an O rabbi, some observance
> is better than none, or more is better than less. ***There is
> no parallel argument that could be made with respect to
> homosexual commitment ceremonies.***
Who is suggesting that Orthodox rabbis should officiate at such
ceremonies? Did I miss something? A commitment ceremony has no
halakhic significance, and needs a rabbi to "officiate" even less that
a Jewish wedding.
> I find it ironic that O gets criticized for being so intolerant,
> inflexible, noninclusive, etc., and here they get criticized
> for being willing to officiate at weddings between non-observant
> Jews. And that somehow their willingness to do so requires them
> also to approve of (or not disapprove of) "commitment ceremonies"
> between two men. Ridiculous.
I think you may have made that up.
Lisa
--
I take responsibility:
I will be voting for Moshe Feiglin in the Likud primaries.
Ask me how you can, too.
Russell Steinthal
James Kahn <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote:
>In <8sgel0$gfd$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu> rm...@columbia.edu (Russell
>Steinthal) writes:
>
>>Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>>Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>>>>So how do Orthodox rabbis react to Reform weddings when they know the
>>>>couple will never in a million years go to the mikveh?
>
>>Rabbinate of Israel officiates at many weddings in which they (should)
>>know that the couple has no intention of observing taharat
>>ha-mishpachah.
>
>>The question from the previous post (as part of the argument more
>>fully elaborated in the previous article) still remains...
>
>
>1. Failure to observe taharat ha-mishpichah is not as serious
>a violation as sex between two men. (Which is not to say it's
>not serious.)
Ok... It's punishable by karet (IIRC), rather than stoning. That's a
lesser punishment, but it's somewhat ironic to use that criterion
given that "taharat ha-mishpacha" is one of the "Big Three" which
traditionally define observance, along with kashrut (which carries an
even lesser punishment). (Hmm... The three include one punishable by
death (Shabbat), one by karet (taharat ha-mishpachah), and one with a
lesser punishment (Kashrut). Coincidence?)
>2. There is the possibility that the couple will in the future
>begin to observe it, whereas there is no possibility that one
>of the men will become a woman (sex-change operations notwithstanding).
This I'll agree with.
>And I'll add a third, perhaps the most important:
>3. By officiating at weddings between non-observant Jews, an O
>rabbi reduces the number of potential averos, assuming the alternative
>is either living together without getting married, or a non-
>halachic marriage. In other words, to an O rabbi, some observance
>is better than none, or more is better than less. ***There is
>no parallel argument that could be made with respect to
>homosexual commitment ceremonies.***
Do they? Effecting kiddushin makes the capital crime of adultery
possible, whereas without marriage, all that could be violated was a
rabbinic (?) prohibition on premarital sex. It will probably reduce
the number of actual sins, but I'm not sure it reduces the total
number of potential ones...
I'll concede there's no parallel for the homosexual case, but I think
the argument begs the question above.
>I find it ironic that O gets criticized for being so intolerant,
>inflexible, noninclusive, etc., and here they get criticized
>for being willing to officiate at weddings between non-observant
>Jews. And that somehow their willingness to do so requires them
>also to approve of (or not disapprove of) "commitment ceremonies"
>between two men. Ridiculous.
I'm not criticizing per se; I was just pointing out that the previous
response about Reform weddings being invalid was a bit flippant and
didn't actually answer the root issue.
I think the question of whether rabbis should perform (or permit)
commitment ceremonies is much more complex than some make it out to
be: I would expect the factors to include whether they will deter the
number of actual marriages (I find that highly unlikely), actively
encourage halachic violations (again, unlikely, but perhaps a bit more
probable), etc. The key is in the "etc." part :), and I think we're
far from having fully explored the argument.
Lisa
ka...@nospam.panix.com (James Kahn) wrote:
> In <8s7a21$aee$2...@news.panix.com> Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org>
writes:
>
> >James Kahn <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote:
> >> What you're leaving out is that the "commitment ceremony" could be
> >> described as a public proclamation of the intent of the couple to
> >> violate halacha for the rest of their lives.
>
>
> >...they should give the benefit of the doubt that Orthodox Jewish
> >gay couples are not practicing that one forbidden act.
>
> of the men was a Reform rabbi, according to the prior posting. So
> apply more broadly. In any case, I've never heard of an actual
> commitment ceremony between two gay Orthodox males. What would
> the point of such a ceremony be?
Probably much the same as mine was with my partner. A celebration of
love and family.
I love the idea that nothing short of penetration with a penis counts
as sex. It's really funny, in a sad sort of way. I know gay men who
are partnered and don't engage in anal sex. Are they just buddies by
you, James?
James Kahn
>In article <8sglrh$fi6$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>James Kahn <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote:
>>And I'll add a third, perhaps the most important:
>>3. By officiating at weddings between non-observant Jews, an O
>>rabbi reduces the number of potential averos, assuming the alternative
>>is either living together without getting married, or a non-
>>halachic marriage. In other words, to an O rabbi, some observance
>>is better than none, or more is better than less. ***There is
>>no parallel argument that could be made with respect to
>>homosexual commitment ceremonies.***
>Do they? Effecting kiddushin makes the capital crime of adultery
>possible, whereas without marriage, all that could be violated was a
>rabbinic (?) prohibition on premarital sex. It will probably reduce
>the number of actual sins, but I'm not sure it reduces the total
>number of potential ones...
Unmarried men can commit adultery too. Technically, though, you're
right, the woman could now commit adultery. But I think you'll
agree that's a debating point, but not a serious counterargument.
I suppose, though, an O rabbi might balk at officiating at a wedding
if he somehow knew that the bride was planning to have sex with
other men.
James Kahn
>In article <8sglrh$fi6$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> ka...@nospam.panix.com (James Kahn) wrote:
>> And I'll add a third, perhaps the most important:
>> 3. By officiating at weddings between non-observant Jews, an O
>> rabbi reduces the number of potential averos, assuming the alternative
>> is either living together without getting married, or a non-
>> halachic marriage. In other words, to an O rabbi, some observance
>> is better than none, or more is better than less. ***There is
>> no parallel argument that could be made with respect to
>> homosexual commitment ceremonies.***
>Who is suggesting that Orthodox rabbis should officiate at such
>ceremonies? Did I miss something? A commitment ceremony has no
>halakhic significance, and needs a rabbi to "officiate" even less that
>a Jewish wedding.
That's not the issue. It was suggested that there was some
inconsistency in an O rabbi (1) expressing disapproval of
a commitment ceremony; and (2) officiating at a wedding between
non-observant Jews. My argument was that there is no inconsistency.
Look, as far as I'm concerned, gay couples can do what they want
as far as commitment ceremonies, etc. But I don't think they
have a complaint if an O rabbi expresses disapproval.