« Embattled Rehab Center Owner Dies In Custody | Main | November Letter From New Square Leadership Calls For Hasidm To Eject Dissident From Village »

May 23, 2011

Joint Orthodox And Ultra-Orthodox Statement Against Same Sex Marriage

Gay Wedding Cake "We are deeply concerned that, should any such redefinition occur, members of traditional communities like ours will incur moral opprobrium and may risk legal sanction if they refuse to transgress their beliefs. That prospect is chilling, and should be unacceptable to all people of good will on both sides of this debate."


 
JOINT STATEMENT
May 23, 2011
On the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage, the Orthodox Jewish world speaks with one voice, loud and clear:

We oppose the redefinition of the bedrock relationship of the human family.

The Torah, which forbids homosexual activity, sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony. While we do not seek to impose our religious principles on others, we believe the institution of marriage is central to the formation of a healthy society and the raising of children. It is our sincere conviction that discarding the historical definition of marriage would be detrimental to society.

Moreover, we are deeply concerned that, should any such redefinition occur, members of traditional communities like ours will incur moral opprobrium and may risk legal sanction if they refuse to transgress their beliefs. That prospect is chilling, and should be unacceptable to all people of good will on both sides of this debate.

The integrity of marriage in its traditional form must be preserved.
 
AGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA
CENTRAL RABBINICAL CONGRESS OF THE U.S.A. AND CANADA
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YOUNG ISRAEL
RABBINICAL ALLIANCE OF AMERICA
RABBINICAL COUNCIL OF AMERICA
UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The Torah, which forbids homosexual activity, sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony.

Yes, but how many women?

why can't these people get real jobs?

"AGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA" - ha!

Finally, some people have "beitzim" to stand up to politically correct attitudes.
Kol Hakavod.

Please.

You're the biggest homophobe around.

If the Torah said being gay was kosher, you'd still be against it.

And as we determined many times previously. you pick and choose what parts of the Torah you follow, with heavy emphasis on the anti-gay stuff.

Where is Chabad?

So, this is what all the Orthodox rabbis join together to agree on and speak out against?

What about the very troubling problems of "the Orthodox Jewish world" that the rabbis are supposed to be leading? No. THIS is what Orthodox rabbis come together to state their opposition to. This is what the Orthodox rabbis declare "with one voice loud and clear" and what they are "deeply concerned" with. A secular government giving legal rights to same sex couples.

* Not on Orthodox parents reporting child-molestation to the police without fear.
* Not on Orthodox communities who jump to blame the victims of child-molestation when they DO report it to the government.
* Not on the number of illegal monetary activities landing Orthodox men in jail in record numbers.
* Not on lying on government forms to get millions in government benefits which they are not legally qualified for but which everyone knows they receive in record numbers.
* Not on cheating on taxes.
* Not on cheating and stealing from non-Jews and thereby giving Jews the world over a bad reputation.
* Not on families who kick their non-conventional kids out of the house so that it wont affect the shidduchim of their other children.
* Not on the enormous number of teens from Orthodox homes living on the streets.
* Not on Orthodox teens or adults who commit suicide because of sexual abuse.
(And let's not even mention Orthodox teens or adults who commit suicide because they are gay and can't live with themselves and the shame they know they and their families will suffer for it.)

No. What concerns the Orthodox rabbis enough to speak out in "one voice" is the secular government giving legal rights to same-sex couples who want to live their lives with the same insurance benefits, joint tax filing benefits, and other legal rights that heterosexual couples get by the legalizing of same-sex marriage in a secular government.

"Moreover, we are deeply concerned that, should any such redefinition occur, members of traditional communities like ours will incur moral opprobrium and may risk legal sanction if they refuse to transgress their beliefs."

Just to clarify, in English, the above statement means "We are very worried that we will no longer be able to speak and act in homophobic ways and that if we do we will be called out on it by the general population which will find it to be morally reprehensible. And, even worse, speaking or acting homophobically will be illegal and we could then get sued or face other legal issues. This is all a big problem because NOT speaking or acting homophobically is a transgression of our beliefs. And we dont want to transgress our beliefs."

:applauding Abracadabra's post:

Didn't take long for homophobe to fly, and why the name calling?

I was taught "to love the sinner but hate the sin". Ok, maybe not out of the Gamara, but I think the concept is a good one.

It's obviously a controversial topic, but believing homo-sexuality is a moral issue doesn't make you a hater.

Red herring. Find me an example of a religious group being forced to accept gay marriage. Recall the boy scouts were allowed to prevent gay leaders from their ranks by a supreme court ruling, if my memory serves me correctly.

But social evolution happens. Like it or not. Too bad for us Jews it seems like we forgot that about 1000 years ago or so.

Didn't take long for homophobe to fly, and why the name calling?

I was taught "to love the sinner but hate the sin". Ok, maybe not out of the Gamara, but I think the concept is a good one.

It's obviously a controversial topic, but believing homo-sexuality is a moral issue doesn't make you a hater.

Posted by: FormerPostvillian | May 23, 2011 at 10:47 PM

You obviously don't remember his previous comments on this issue.

He's intellectually dishonest and a fraud.

He first hid behind the Torah and then, when he refused to be hateful to shrimp eaters and Sabbath violators, admitted that he picks and chooses what to follow.

So every other toeivah he ignores, but this one he's makpid on.

Classic homophobe with repressed homosexual urges.

Ok, fair enough, I was unaware of the context, thanks for the enlightenment!

I concur.

" we believe the institution of marriage is central to the formation of a healthy society and the raising of children. It is our sincere conviction that discarding the historical definition of marriage would be detrimental to society.

Since when are Rabbis experts in sociology, history, psychology etc.?!
Some may be experts in various fields with training or even PhDs, but what do these groups of Rabbis have more knowledge than any lay person in these matters?

In fact, if they don't have special training in something like sociology, they probably know what is best for general non-Jewish and secular society.

I understand your point Shmarya, but Abracadbra went at it 3 times giving his version of what the statement "really means".

While leaving off the very next sentence "...and may risk legal sanction if they refuse to transgress their beliefs. That prospect is chilling, and should be unacceptable to all people of good will on both sides of this debate.

I'm sorry Abra, but "all people of good will on both sides" just does not come across to me as "homophobic" and full of hate.

I hear concern mixed with respect.

In addition they say, "..While we do not seek to impose our religious principles on others...", again I hear respect.

Infact, I wish you were as respectful in expressing your concerns without trying to impose your pro-gay principles with name calling.

>Moreover, we are deeply concerned that, should any such redefinition occur, members of traditional communities like ours will incur moral opprobrium and may risk legal sanction if they refuse to transgress their beliefs. That prospect is chilling, and should be unacceptable to all people of good will on both sides of this debate.
-------------------------------------------
What exactly are they worried about? I wish they would have been less vague. I can only GUESS what could happen. Other than this, everything else is very expected. What would you expect the Aguda to say?

Here's hoping the circumcision and schechita bans being proposed pass. If you want to deny other people the right to their own private lives because of your religious beliefs you deserve the same treatment.

applauding Abracadabra's post

Enthusiastically seconded.

In addition they say, "..While we do not seek to impose our religious principles on others...", again I hear respect.

Bullshit. They join with their evangelical counterparts in attempting to impose their views upon the rest of society.

It is our sincere conviction that discarding the historical definition of marriage would be detrimental to society.

How? No one ever explains this. Factions on the Right always use it as a deflection tactic. Lewis Black does a bit about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-id4GKsaQk

Here's hoping the circumcision and schechita bans being proposed pass. If you want to deny other people the right to their own private lives because of your religious beliefs you deserve the same treatment.

Yep.

A. Nuran - Excellent point!

To all those who wonder what the danger of pro homosexual marriage legislation is to traditional religious people and groups, consider whether a shul (or church or mosque) will still be able to refuse renting out their hall to a homosexual "wedding", whether a private kosher (or traditional Christian or Muslim) caterer or photographer will be allowed to refuse such business, and generally how people will look at you askance if you refuse to call the homosexual live in partner of a woman her "wife" and of a man his "husband."

Additional examples are easy to imagine.

consider whether a shul (or church or mosque) will still be able to refuse renting out their hall to a homosexual "wedding", whether a private kosher (or traditional Christian or Muslim) caterer or photographer will be allowed to refuse such business

Oh, please. They do that now with groups of which they disapprove, but they do it in the manner in which it's always been done - they simply say they're booked on the dates in question.

Do you think if I took a walk over to the Young Israel a few blocks from here, and told them I wanted to rent their function hall for a meeting of the Boston Atheists Group, they'd be just fine with it?

I hear concern mixed with respect.

And I hear lies.

In addition they say, "..While we do not seek to impose our religious principles on others...", again I hear respect.

They say one thing and do another. Facts on the ground show that they DO seek to impose their religious principles on others, have done so in the past, and will in all likelihood continue to do so.

"...and may risk legal sanction if they refuse to transgress their beliefs. That prospect is chilling, and should be unacceptable to all people of good will on both sides of this debate.

What is so chilling exactly? Nobody is forcing them to marry people of the same gender and to transgress their beliefs. Legalizing same-sex marriage does not make heterosexual marriage ILLEGAL!

"All people of good will on both sides" may sound nice, but what they are saying is that they have certain religious beliefs, and instead of wanting to be left alone to practice in peace, they want everyone else to also practice as they do. Orthodoxy is against same-sex marriage. But no one is forcing the Orthodox into same-sex marriages. The SECULAR government is merely attempting to make it possible to get LEGALLY married so that gay couples have the same legal benefits that heterosexual couples have.

Gay couples are presently living all over New York. The SECULAR State of New York legally defining marriage to include same-sex couples should have NO bearing on the Orthodox living their religious lives as they wish to.

The Orthodox do not consider a legal marriage by a judge of the State of New York to be a binding religious marriage, and the Orthodox perform their own religious marriage ceremonies. They are allowed to because of the freedoms this country allows people who wish to practice their faith. They should enjoy that freedom and not seek to limit the freedom of others.

It is our sincere conviction that discarding the historical definition of marriage

Nobody is "discarding" it - they are widening it to include same-sex unions. And again, it is a SECULAR definition, not a religious one.

would be detrimental to society.

It may come as a shock to some of you, but homosexual married life looks the same as heterosexual married life - except for the sex. People wake up early, go to work, deal with moody bosses and coworkers, sit in meetings, meet or miss deadlines, leave work, run some errands, come home, eat supper, check their email, call their mom, watch tv. And the kids of homosexual couples go to school, have recess, hang out with friends, come home, do their homework, play, go to sleep, and then go back to school the next day. It's a pretty routine and boring life - like yours - and it has not been ruining the fabric of society as many people would like you to believe.

It boils down to fear of that which is different and that which people are not accustomed to. Homophobes imagine same-sex marriages to be people living lives of wild partying 24/7. Just as your heterosexual married life isn't like that, neither is homosexual married life. They are regular folks like you and me - couples who have to navigate the ups and downs of their lives. The only difference is in their attractions which are not the same as yours.

Deal with it.

Open your "holy" religious minds to allowing people who will not be threatening your ability to practice your religion to have the same legal rights that you enjoy.

The bottom line is that the issue is not about religion - it's about a phobia - a fear. It is a fear of something "different" than what they are accustomed to.

Deal with it. Expand your mind. You wont regret it.

s(b.) & Jeff - Thanks.

It may come as a shock to some of you, but homosexual married life looks the same as heterosexual married life - except for the sex. People wake up early, go to work, deal with moody bosses and coworkers, sit in meetings, meet or miss deadlines, leave work, run some errands, come home, eat supper, check their email, call their mom, watch tv. And the kids of homosexual couples go to school, have recess, hang out with friends, come home, do their homework, play, go to sleep, and then go back to school the next day. It's a pretty routine and boring life...

In other words, life is as crappy for them as it is for everyone else!

Posted by: Jeff | May 24, 2011 at 02:25 AM

thanks for the link, i loved it

What the Torah actually sanctions, of course, is the union of a man and one or more women. I expect this "reading monogamy back" nonsense from evangelical Christians, and now the same dishonesty is being practiced by the orthodox.

thanks for the link, i loved it

Watch the whole thing; it's hilarious.

For some reason homosexuality strikes terror within the hearts of the hyper-religious Jewish and Gentile.

Christians ignore most of the proscriptions in Leviticus.

The prohibitions against eating shellfish, pork etc.are ignored, the prohibitions against violating the sabbath are ignored, and in some southern states the prohibitions against incest and bestiality are ignored.(that last one was a joke - kind of)

Yet they come out strongly against homosexuality.

Jews who ignore the prohibitions in Leviticus (Kedoshim) against dishonest business dealings, oppressing neighbors, having unjust courts, taking vengeance and bearing grudges, and putting stumbling blocks before the blind, are quite scrupulous in kashruth and in condemning homosexuality.

While I personally have some problems with flagrant gay PDA (public displays of affection) in front of my kids, I have the same problem with flagrant straight PDA as well.

As far as the rest, they have to make their own choices. Whether I understand or approve (I do neither) is immaterial!

And the Rabbis and Preachers need to read the bible. It says Love your neighbor as you love yourself. And I didn't see fine print saying just the straight ones.

Gay marriage is not about forcing religious groups to accept gay marriage. To understand this issue better it is easiest to look at it through the lens of how people marry in other countries.

In Europe, for example, everyone who marries goes to the city or town hall and has a civil marriage. If the couple also wants a religious wedding ceremony, they then have a separate religious ceremony in a church, temple or mosque with a minister, rabbi, imam, etc. Here is it easy to see the clear separation between the civil and the religious. Gays are asking for the former, for the civil, so that they can form a legal entity (a family) and enjoy the rights that come with it (hospital visitation, inheritance rights, etc.) They are not asking to have a religious wedding. This is the way it is in many other countries (although I don't know what the percentage is).

In America the civil and religious marriage ceremony occur together so people have difficulty understanding that they really are two separate events and that is why as soon as gay marriage is mentioned you have people getting panicked and upset, fearful that their religion will be forced to perform religious gay marriage ceremonies. That is not the case.

I agree with Abracadabra, homosexual married life looks the same as heterosexual married life. They want the same things as we all do, someone to love, someone to love them, and to build a home and life together. And they want to be able to support each other through sickness and health. I have had gay couples as neighbors and their lives really resemble ours. With so many different kinds of blended families these days, this is just one more variation.

I will say it again, all they want is the legal right to form a family and the protections it affords, what heterosexuals enjoy and take for granted. They are not asking to be married in churches, temples, mosques by minister, rabbis or imams.

Shmarya, I have a right to my opinions. You cannot force me to agree with you.
Everyone picks and chooses what they believe or observe from the Torah. You do too, I do, even the most haredim person does. You totally ignore other posts I've made on many other topics, choosing to focus your opprobrium on this one matter.
Have a good day. You don't seem to realize- just as you are not going to change your mind on this subject, neither am I going to change my mind. Mark my words in the next few years, there are going to be demands for acceptance of bisexuals and transgendered people. Oops it's already happening. What next?

As always, Jewish religious leaders are way behind the curve. The fact is that the young adults of today do not care about sexual orientation of their friends. Folks it is very late to start their crusade against homosexuality. In fact, I believe that in our lifetime, we will see gay marriage accepted as part of any mutual agreement between consenting adults. Let me go one-step further, the Supreme Court will strike down any State law barring gay marriage.

Shmarya, I have a right to my opinions. You cannot force me to agree with you.

No, but Dave - you should have reasons for those beliefs, apart from personal preference. You don't get to say, "I believe what I believe and that's all there is to it." (Well, you do, but it isn't respectable.)

What others are saying here is true - frum Jews and evangelicals are selective in what they choose to observe or emphasize. You may say that Conservative and Reform Jews are selective as well, but they acknowledge this. The former groups don't.

Same-sex marriage should be a civil matter. For Jews, it has always been a legal contract. Christianity introduced the idea of marriage as a "sacrament".

As far as the rabbinic statement above is concerned, in which they claim they aren't trying to impose their beliefs upon society - again, that's complete bullshit. You say they have the "'beitzim' to stand up to politically correct attitudes". In fact, they lack the courage and integrity to admit that they're attempting to impose their personal preferences upon the rest of society.

Shmarya:

Please post a link.

"Here's hoping the circumcision and schechita bans being proposed pass. If you want to deny other people the right to their own private lives because of your religious beliefs you deserve the same treatment."

Those bans would ALSO effect Masorti Jews, who now endorse gay commitment ceremonies.

And even Rabbi Roth, who OPPOSED gay commitment ceremonies as unhalachic, said that that did NOT mean one should support discrimination in civil law, which is NOT determined by halacha.

In all the debate between Orthodox Jews and christian fundies on the one hand, and advocates of gay rights on the other - Rabbi Roth's very good point is lost - that one CAN distinguish between what religious law allows and what civil law should allow. (except to the extent the above statement implicitly acknowledges the Roth position, by preemptively taking issue with it)

We dont allow kiddushin between Jews and gentiles. Most of us would not want that to be US civil law, and even those who wouldnt mind, accept that it is not. Does that lead to opprobrium? Now and then - we are strong enough to live with such opprobrium.

Shmarya:

Please post a link.

Posted by: LSK | May 24, 2011 at 08:40 AM

I was sent it in an email.

Why do you need a link? To prove its true?

Shmarya, I have a right to my opinions. You cannot force me to agree with you.

No one (I think) is asking you to agree with Shmarya. What is being argued here is that you cannot make religious laws in a secular society. The Torah, no matter what it says, cannot be the basis for laws in a country that specifically separates religion and state. Argue all you want how god doesn't want men to lay with another man, argue all you want about how icky it makes you feel thinking about it but you can't pass laws just because your fairy tale books tell you something.

That the statement has audacity to point out that there is no willingness to impose religious beliefs on others, exemplifies A mamon auf shoch that makes the statement irrational.

Either this is a hallachic objection that compels Jews to take a position on civil Marriage (and is thus imposing our views because we must). Or this is not a clear hallachic issue, and this statement is based on some rabbis sociological understanding of political ethics, which certainly would not require one Jewish voice. Just like it would not be beneficial for there to be one orthodox voice on democratic/republican partisan issues.

I wrote to my state Senator to urge him to vote FOR legalization of same-sex marriage. This is what he answered:

"One need not be gay to promote the rights of those who are, just as one need not be black to comprehend the pains of slavery. Any individual should be able to appreciate the commitment between two human beings who meet, fall in love, and want to marry. As your State Senator, I promise you that I remain firmly committed to this imperative civil rights and human rights issue."

He states my opinion fully.

there are great comments throughout this thread by many ..

Abracadabra-

phenomenal posts from top to bottom!!

Society has an interest in the sexual relationship between a man and a woman because (especially before contraception became widely available and women were unable to control their fertility) this sexual relationship had long term consequences that is begetting children. Marriage is an institution created to deal with those consequences in that the man commits himself to support the woman and children. (Nowadays that basis has been somewhat weakened by contraception and welfare however for most this still applies to a great extent).

Society has no interest in homosexual sex in that it has no long term consequences. It need not grant any additional rights to a homosexual couple by reason of their living together than the rights available to bachelor brothers who live together. To require some sort of commitment during the continuance or ending of that relationship is unwarranted. So if after a homosexual relationship ends, one partner tells the other to 'f--- off and get out of my life', why should the state care any more than if two brothers fall out with one another and go their separate ways?

Of course one should not discriminate against a homosexual by refusing him anything allowed to people engaged in a non-sexual relationship so if a caterer is willing to cater for Agudath Yisroel convention in the expectation that there will not be an orgy during dinner after the soup is served, then he must be prepared to cater for homosexuals if there is no expectation that a homosexual orgy will take place during that dinner whilst he is heating up the chicken!.

So forbidding discrimination against homosexuals as against single people - YES . Granting homosexuals between one another duties and rights of marriage - NO.

To me,homosexuality/gay or whatever political correct name,is nothing more then two men having sex. Yes they do other things in life as everyone else,but it boils down to one thing,two men doing each other.
Good,let them have fun.
Why does everyone need to know what they do in private? Gross ugh.
Let us a make a law that a man and a woman can have sex in public. Lets form a group who wants public sex all over wherever its desired.Gross

I asked this question before.

Would any of you who are married and have kids be bothered if your son comes home one day and tells you he is gay desires other men and hes engaged to another men?

Will you be bothered?
Will you be hurt?
If someone would tell you:your kid should become gay,would that person be evil in wishing you this?

Great idea Gevezener Chusid! (And your senator says it like it is.)

If you live in New York State you can contact your State Senator and let him know how you want him to vote on the issue.

Go here to find your State Senator:

http://www.nysenate.gov/senators

Thanks APC.

Barry, Deremes- Well said. Unfortunately most people in Canada and the U.S.A. have given up the struggle for universal (not just Jewish) moral values. We're a minority of 3 on this website.

Society has an interest in the sexual relationship between a man and a woman because (especially before contraception became widely available and women were unable to control their fertility) this sexual relationship had long term consequences that is begetting children. Marriage is an institution created to deal with those consequences in that the man commits himself to support the woman and children. (Nowadays that basis has been somewhat weakened by contraception and welfare however for most this still applies to a great extent).

Well then I certainly hope they decide to deny post-menopausal women the right to marry.

Barry, you are an idiot.

So if after a homosexual relationship ends, one partner tells the other to 'f--- off and get out of my life', why should the state care any more than if two brothers fall out with one another and go their separate ways?

Barry, that's precisely why marriage is a good idea - because in addition to allowing the same privileges, it imposes the same responsibilities re: child support, distribution of property, etc.

Fair enough, Masortiman. The bans should only apply to the Orthodox and those congregations affiliated with the named organizations.

Well, there are good reasons for banning circumcision and stunning animals prior to shechitah that go beyond pissing off the Haredim - not that pissing off the Haredim is a bad thing in itself.

There is nothing to stop parents breaking all contacts with their children when then become adult. There is nothing to stop a millionaire child from refusing to provide for his poor elderly parents. A man may promise his dying parents that he will look after his disabled brother for the rest of his life but there is nothing to stop him later dumping that brother on social services. Generally and with good reason, the law refuses to commit one adult to have responsibilities for another even when that person has promised to provide such a commitment. The ability to tell someone else to 'f--- off and get out of my life' is one of the most important freedoms a person has.

The one exception to that right is marriage. A husband cannot say to his wife 'I hate the sight of you, f--- off and get out of my life' because marriage commits him to maintain his wife 'till death us do part'. The reason for society enforcing commitment by law on a man is that society recognizes the requirement to provide security that women require and society demands for encouraging the raising children (especially in the days when fertility was impossible to control).

This does not apply to homosexual partners who cannot beget children through sex. There is no reason to force one partner to keep to any commitment he gave to the other and homosexual monogamy is something that society should be neutral about rather than seek to protect through 'commitment'.

Because society recognized the importance of enforcing commitment taken on by marriage because of the probable long term consequences of sex, it became taboo for a decent woman to have sex or live with a man outside marriage. That taboo is so strong that it even applies to menopausal women (who until relatively recently were a rarity since life expectancy was short). Furthermore these menopausal women who sought marriage generally did so as widowed mothers and society owes them a debt by allowing them rights on marriage despite they now being barren which can fairly be denied to homosexuals who always are barren.

Gevezener Chusid, if you were not so stupid, you would notice that this is obvious. If one party to a relationship has rights then the other has duties. Its not the one party having additional rights which is the problem, it is the other party having additional duties which is the problem. Why should society intervene and force a homosexual partner to go to the divorce courts to end their relationship? He should simply have the right to tell his partner 'I hate the sight of you, f--- off and get out of my life'. If you have marriage then you have divorce. Its bad enough (though necessary) that heterosexual men (in general) have to suffer the expense of divorce to end a relationship. There is no reason why any homosexual man should have to go through this agony even if he is being as big a bastard as a rich man who refuses to pay for the upkeep of his elderly parents and whom the law does not go after.

and this is of course why the orthocrocks rabbits decide to use their political clout to continue denying marriage rights (and responsibilities) to same sex couples. Nothing to do with trying to force other people to accept their religious beliefs as binding.

Well, according to a recent poll a Dutch majority seems to think that children should be raised by two parents, only a minority is concerned about what sex those parents should be and whether they should be married...

Society is concerned with behaviour preventing STD'-epidemia, and with justice and equal rights for people whose sex is not that clear too.

There is no reason why any homosexual man should have to go through this agony...

So now you're worried about the agony of homosexual men? Please. Spare them your sympathy.

Your reasoning is convoluted. And anyway, the REASON the government oversees civil marriages is irrelevant. The fact is that the government does. And soon, despite your minority homophobic vote, the government of New York will oversee civil marriages of gays and lesbians. And if you don't like that you can move to some other part of the country where they still beat up and kill homosexuals because it's against the Bible to be homosexual (but apparantly is not against the Bible to beat up and kill people). You'll feel right at home there (until they come for you).

If the government of New York decides to allow homosexual marriages it will have no effect whatsoever on me any more than how the divorce courts decide to split assets on the breakdown of my neighbours marriage. The rights and duties of marriage only affect those who are parties to that marriage. I am hardly likely to flee New York over something which cannot effect me

I take the view that no law should be passed which restricts homosexual promiscuity or otherwise 'regulate' relationships between adults. Just as a father has absolute discretion to bequeath his estate to his mistress rather than his adult children so should a homosexual partner have absolute discretion to end the relationship without the other partner having any rights to 'compensation' for breach of 'commitment'.

Abracadabra, just as i is wrong for a hetrosexual man to beat up a homosexual man for his sexual activity so it is wrong for a homosexual man to seek to enforce some 'commitment' by his partner should he for whatever reason choose to end that relationship. The law must be completely neutral when it comes to homosexual activity both by not prejudicing or benefitting homosexuals.

If anyone is interested, Gallup says a majority of Americans now favor same sex marriage:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx

Dov Lesser, one of the greatest G'dolim in Lakewood, now nifter, told me about ten years ago, that the Torah does not condemn homosexuality.

He said that the psookim usually referred to are condemning anal intercourse which can also be done by a man and woman. Lesbians are never mentioned in the Torah.

Therefore, he said, most commentators say that these psookim only refer to sodomy, not homosexuality.

He advised me to live a gay life, remain frum, and refrain from sodomy.

I have lived with my partner for 25+ years and try to reach out to other gay and lesbian frum yidn to support our community.

The fact that most Jews are ignorant of these and other matters is not my problem.

Tom, have you read Steve Greenberg's book, Wrestling with God and Man?

according to the american academy of medicine being gay means u have a mental issue so for all those that dont believe in what the torah says modern medicine also says something is wrong with the person

according to the american academy of medicine being gay means u have a mental issue so for all those that dont believe in what the torah says modern medicine also says something is wrong with the person

Posted by: charlie runkel | May 25, 2011 at 03:15 PM

This is absolutely false.

"In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)."

'charlie runkel', you are about 40 years too late - homosexuality was removed as a mental illness in 1973.

However, although I don't have a copy of the DSM handy, I believe the APA does still consider the holding of extreme religious views to be a form of mental illness.

"That prospect is chilling, and should be unacceptable to all people of good will on both sides of this debate."

Oh yeah. I can just picture all those gay couples saying, "well, we'd like to get married, but allowing us to do that might make people get MAD at Orthodox rabbis who refuse to marry us. So we'll forgo the chance to get married so that no one will get mad at those Orthodox rabbis."

Delusional Orthodox rabbis: gay couples getting married is NOT ABOUT YOU! Get over yourselves.

Am I the only one who has noticed that Chabad, despite all its faults -- and there are many -- calls gay man up to the Torah and even those who are kohanim bless the congregation when that takes place? I'm not talking about men who are "in your face" about it, but men everyone knows are gay. I also know a gay couple who have two kids who attend a Chabad pre-school. I'm not defending Chabad but I've always found this strange since no M.O. shul I know of would ever give an aliyah to a man who is known to be gay.
Sarah K

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

----------------------

FailedMessiah.com is a reader supported website.

Thank you for your generous support!

----------------------

----------------------

----------------------

Please Scroll Down Toward The Bottom Of This Page For More Search Options, For A List Of Recent Posts, And For Comments Rules

----------------------

----------------------

Recent Posts

----------------------

Tip Jar

Gelt Is Good!

Tip Jar

FailedMessiah.com is a reader supported website. Please click the Donate button now to contribute.

Thank you for your generous support!

Tip Jar

Gelt Is Good!

Tip Jar

-------------------------

Comment Rules

  • 1. No anonymous comments.

    2. Use only one name or alias and stick with that.

    3. Do not use anyone else's name or alias.

    4. Do not sockpuppet.

    5. Try to argue using facts and logic.

    6. Do not lie.

    7. No name-calling, please.

    8. Do not post entire articles or long article excerpts.

    ***Violation of these rules may lead to the violator's comments being edited or his future comments being banned.***

Older Posts Complete Archives

Search FailedMessiah

Lijit Search

----------------------

FailedMessiah.com is a reader supported website.

Thank you for your generous support!

----------------------

----------------------

----------------------

FailedMessiah.com in the Media

RSS Feed

Blog Widget by LinkWithin