Someone sent me a real thoughtful message on Facebook trying to figure my opinions on the subject out and I asked if I could reprint our little conversation here. We may be beating a dead horse, but I’ve been kn own to beat a lot of dead horses in my day – hence the reason it gets the late night spot on the blog on this fine evening.
Hey, I just couldn’t help but comment on a post you made regarding the gay marriage law. To be honest, I’m surprised and rather disappointed by what either seems to be your support of the issue or your making light of an issue that is a truly tragic event for this country. I’ve been following some of your posts in general and have developed respect for you not only as a comedian, but a Jew who values the essence of Torah. Of course, I don’t know you well enough and it’s only been my impression thus far. That impression has been tarnished. A G-d fearing Jew, who believes that we received the Torah from Hashem at Sinai, should be ashamed of things like gay pride parades and gay marriage laws – which disgrace our G-d given Torah – while you seem to go as far as participating in those parades (based on what you wrote in one of your posts, I don’t know if you actually go to them or not).
I guess you didn’t read my Mesorah post, how do gay marriage laws legislated by a non-Jewish country go against the Torah?
Normally I wouldn’t meddle this way but I decided to write because you’re a person who has influence over the younger Jewish community and it’d be a shame if any young Jews out there would be influenced by something like this that you put out there. You are in a position where if you do something wrong, by identifying yourself as orthodox (which you write on your facebook page) you not only bring yourself down but you potentially bring others down with you.
Wrong in my book is probably much different from wrong in your book, for instance I think that a bunch of orthodox Jews dancing in a club with girls in a kiddush hashem because it shows that fundamentalist Jews can still have a good time and roll with the rest of em, but many frum folks would consider that a chilll Hashem.
I only hope that you will be able to relate to this message seriously and not turn it into a comedy show. I’m not trying to offend you, but rather address something I see as a very serious concern.
My original response on Facebook: Thanks for your email, you hit the nail on the head with exactly my point. Imagine for a moment that you’re a young frum gay dude,m struggling with whether or not you should try to stay frum, commit suicide or what have you and suddenly you read that some random frum dude (with a large following) says he went to a pride parade and supports gay marriage, yet remains committed as a Jew. I understand your viewpoint completely, but the main reason I am pro-choice, pro pornography, pro legal drug use and so on is because I would rather have a free for all than a Torah following country. I fear that if gay marriage could be struck down because people find it immoral, our freedoms can be taken away because people find it immoral., I don’t want it to be illegal for me and my unmarried girlfriend to get a hotel room together and so on. If your impression of me has been tarnished from this post, you haven’t been reading me long enough, this post is not the first nor will it be the last. Do I think gay folks who act on it are chayiv meesa? Yes, but then again who am I to judge, I have no idea what their madreigos are and no idea if my having sex told loshon horah is worse than their sins because of my madriega.
I’m not going to turn your email into a comedy hour, this is very serious matter, gays exist, they aren’t going away and I have a feeling the same discussions were happening during the civil rights movement which the modern orthodox and conservative movements took part in while the charedim seems to have tried to ignore it.
I appreciate your quick and serious reply to my message, thank you. First I’d like to make a point that I do not have anything against people who are gay and I’ll tell you why, being gay is not usually a choice and therefore I have no right to judge a person for it. But, the mistake people make, is that because it’s not a choice then it must be natural, and if it’s natural then it’s something that must be accepted, and if it’s something that needs to be accepted then what better way to do it than throw a parade. Being gay is not natural, it’s a form of yetzer hara, just like people who struggle with anger issues, with eating disorders, and more. When was the last time you saw an anger parade? Or an eating disorder parade? The difference is that eating disorders can cause severe health issues, therefore it doesnt take much logic to figure out that it’s wrong and shouldn’t be made socially acceptable. With anger, anger can cause a person to do a lot of damage in the world, as such, people realize that anger is something that needs to be controlled. Homosexuality on the other hand, seemingly, doesn’t hurt anyone. On the contrary, a person who suppresses their sexual needs may potentially hurt themselves psychologically and as a result worse. Being that our generation is distant from religion, it becomes easy to justify homosexuality.
You might be surprised to find out that I don’t believe that every person who is gay, and who acts on their desires, is not necessarily doomed to gehinom. We all have our own yetzer to deal with, and none of us are perfect in standing up to it. At times, we fall, even those of us who are at spiritually high levels fall, all the more so those who are lost and confused. It’s one thing if a person cannot overcome their yetzer (while making an effort to do so), it’s another if a person accepts their yetzer as part of who they are and tries to make society accept it as well. Judaism does not prohibit feeling homosexual feelings because they are not within our control, Judaism prohibits acting on it, acting is within our control. Gay pride parades and gay marriage encourage people to act on it, in other words, encourge people to trangress a serious Torah transgression.
I think it’s wonderful how you’re trying to reach out to people who face these problems and make them feel connected to Judaism to some extent, however, I just dont think you’re going about it the right way by attending these parades and expressing support for the cause. The right way should be to reach out to these individuals in other ways, first and foremost, to help them understand what it is they are dealing with, secondly, making them realize that no matter what they feel, and even if they act on it in private, we, as their brothers and sisters are there for them and will not turn them away because of their struggles. Trying to force them to change will almost certainly not work, on the other hand, teaching them and inspiring them and making them feel welcome regardless of their struggles may at some point help them overcome their yetzer. Making them realize that because their yezter is so difficult to overcome shows how high their potential is, which down the road can help motivate them to seek out that potential – a process which in itself will help them with their struggle.
In all honesty I don’t think it’s possible for someone to overcome a yetzer for love and the basic human need of sex. I received another message on facebook from someone who told me he doesn’t believe in the Torah for this reason and I completely understand. Gay pride parades have nothing to do with encouraging people to act on it, they have to with people who have forever been ostracized by family, friends and community to come out and have a big part, the straight community flaunts their straightness all the time – it;s just accepted so we don’t have the same reactions that we do to pride parades. When you have to spend your life in the closet it’s a painful ordeal, so when you can finally leave and have community the natural tendency is to go a bit overboard. I don’t attend pride parades to show my support necessarily, I go because they are a lot more fun than the memorial day parades and there are always hot naked chicks (probably dudes, but they appear like girls) to look at.
Separation of church and state is good FOR THE JEWS. When will the frum community get that through their heads?
Actually it;s bad for the Jews, because one of the best things for the Jews and one of the biggest political issues is their struggle for school vouchers.
Oh, if we are going to get into a question of money and further draining our education system, fine. But vouchers is something I have never understood, other than the money issue. Why would any frum Jew want the government to start mixing with the yeshivas? They may have to actually start giving the boys a real education.
“They may have to actually start giving the boys a real education.” That part sounds good to me.
That could be a problem. They would have to learn history, math, science, English, civics and vocational skills. Once that happens they will be equipped for a world outside the ghetto. That means contact with new ideas and changing behavior in order to interact with people who aren’t like them. That is destructive to their way of life.
I’m serious about that.
A. Nuran,
Your comments suggest that Orthodox people are dangerously naive and ignorant. Ironically they would think the same of you.
Most of the day schools I know of would never dream of accepting school vouchers, because to do so would require them to accept gentile students, as well. That’s why my daughter’s day school turned them down.
Interesting issue. Perhaps they should let the gentiles come to the schools. Those that do attend can be taught the sheva mitzvas bnei noach, and general torah ethics that applies to all of humanity, and not just Jews. Yes, the genders should be separated by a certain age. Everyone will have to eat kosher on school grounds. Hilchos shabbos and the smattering of classes that are not applicable to gentiles can be taught at shuls, in camps, at home, etc.
Let the gentile students have their own nusach that they can daven from during tefillah.
At the high school level, don’t accept the school vouchers, in order to have only Jewish students. Enough of a burden on school tuition would have been lifted anyway, so parents will only have 4 years of the tuition crisis, rather than 12. Parents who save money on sending their kids to day school can save for yeshiva in an ING account, or fund college savings in the meantime.
As always, keep hope alive.
The Supreme Court decided in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that school vouchers are allowed because technically the vouchers go to the parents and not directly to the schools. So as long the state doesn’t have a Blaine Amendment in its constitution there’s no reason that a voucher system can’t be implemented.
Our state uses vouchers. The issue isn’t with using vouchers. The issue is that any school that accepts vouchers can’t discriminate based on things like religion or race. I don’t know about the Blaine
Amendment. All I know is that my child’s day school could not accept vouchers without also accepting gentiles. At least that’s what the school board told the parents. Maybe they were lying.
“Unless we are willing to adopt the logic of persecutors, and to say that we may persecute others because we are right, and that they must not persecute us because they are wrong, we must beware of admitting a principle of which we should resent as a gross injustice the application to ourselves.”
-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Thank you, JG and JSM
Why is it good for the Jews?
If we have separation of Church and State the good Christians won’t be able to close down those blasphemous Synagogs of Satan. Hebrews will be able to do whatever it is they do, animal sacrifices, poisoning wells. If we institute a Godly government we can force them all to accept Jesus and be “perfected” and save their souls from Hell.
Cue Mel Brooks “The Inquisition”
“Gay pride parades and gay marriage encourage people to act on it, in other words, encourge people to trangress a serious Torah transgression.”
how many ppl that formerly didn’t act on their homosexual desires will now do so b/c NYS passed SSM or because there is a pride parade?
I honestly don’t understand the obsession with SSM in frum community. is our biggest problem really patrolling others’ bedrooms? what about hungry kids and jobless parents and all the injuries on the mets?
“the straight community flaunts their straightness all the time”
There is no such thing as “the straight community.” It’s called normal society. And we don’t flaunt it all the time. When’s the last time you saw a straight pride parade? Being straight isn’t a point of pride, its just normal. Most of us don’t even think about sexual orientation until we see some gay shit go down which reminds us about it. Don’t get me wrong, I feel bad for the plight of frum gays. But whether or not they choose their orientation the Torah deems acting on it abominable. There’s no ambiguity about this. Torah and (actively) gay are incompatible. And it certainly is a yetzer hara. By definition the desire to transgress any commandment is a yetzer hara.
It’s a big jump from expressing sympathy for the struggles of frum gays to legitimizing frum people living a gay lifestyle in direct opposition to the Torah. You can have sympathy for the person without having sympathy for the cause.
Of course we flaunt it all the time. We show up to events with our dates/spouses on our arms/at our sides. We wear wedding bands to publicize our intimate relationships. We get aliyot to the Torah and sponsor kiddush for our special anniversaries. We have aufrufen and big weddings when we embark on those relationships. We nudge our hevrusas when a pretty girl walks by. From the perspective of a closeted gay man or woman who has to keep all of those things and more a big dark secret, every day is the straight pride parade.
EXACTLY!
Watch any tv commercial or any other add and you will see flaunting
That’s the unvarnished truth.
“making them realize that no matter what they feel, and even if they act on it in private, we, as their brothers and sisters are there for them and will not turn them away”
So does that mean they encourage hypocrisy: you are allowed to be a “closeted” gay, but not allowed to come out?
Strange, because exactely this “closeted” state and hypocrisy seems to be quite unhealthy…
The intent with what I said to Heshy was not in that it’s acceptable to act on such feelings in private, rather the intent is that even if a person succumbs to their desires and acts on it they should not feel as if they will not be able to turn to their fellow brothers and sisters for growth, inspiration and help. By telling a person that they will not be turned away we are letting them know that we realize no one is perfect and just because we sometimes weaken and go against the Torah doesn’t mean we can’t get back up and continue forward. Unlike Christianity, Judaism does not teach that if you sin you go to hell and there’s no bother trying to correct yourself, Judaism teaches that no matter how far we fall we must always strive to get back up – even if we fall over and over, we must never give up hope and never stop making effort.
slight correction hesh- i said the anti gay view of the tora is one of the reasons i dont believe in the tora- one of the reasons, not THE reason (see slavery, anti-women, anti-animal, anti-gentile laws etc for some of the other reasons) .
as for the person who wrote to hesh and said that you accept people dont choose to be gay but nonetheless should overcome their yetzer hora just like angry people need to work on their anger- in my opinion, thats a ridiculous claim- imagine someone told u that you were only allowed to sleep and have a relationship with guys (assuming u r a guy- or only sleep/love with girls if u are a girl) – how utterly abhorrent would you find that-
the comparison to overcoming anger is ridiculous- u can have a perfectly happy fulfilled life without losing your temper- if u r gay and cannot have a gay relationship, u will be miserable your whole life.
The more a person seeks for truth in life, the more a person will come to realize that life is nothing but a transition to a higher purpose, rather than an end in itself. With this in mind, the greater one’s afflictions (and by resisting difficult temptations in order to fulfill the Torah is the highest form of affliction there is) the more one fulfills their purpose and will have great merit in the World to Come. If Torah fulfillment has no meaning to a person, if a person cannot come to accept the concept of that life is not an end but a means, and they try to fulfill the Torah just to fit in with the community or other ulterior motives, then you’re absolutely right, life will be miserable for them. However, if they manage to connect to the concept that we were all brought here for a purpose and death is not the end, then life will be difficult, but not empty or miserable. The fact is, life is not meant to be simple either way, making it simpler now by cutting corners will bear a high price later on.
You are such a good Jew, ANONYMOUS, and you should continue to express your concern for the maintaining of Torah values, and continue to be a role model of virtue; but on the other hand, wake up and smell the coffee… the majority of (Jewish) people today do not believe in the AFTERLIFE and only the HERE and NOW is what counts, so you will not change one’s personal desires/transgressions with that arguement. Although anger, murder, homosexual needs and eating pork can all fall under the same category of Jewish transgression, the only one that is deemed a “crime” by our Western Secular/Democratic society is the transgression of murder. This is the only “COMMANDMENT” that is still valid today. Should this be worrisome? Will this “crime” one day be eradicated from our judicial system too? Perhaps. But until it is proven that anger/homosexuality/eating pork continuously lead one to commit murder, none of these will be considered transgressions by our greater society. So please just focus on the yids who want to remain STRICTLY ORTHODOX, as this LABEL implies an adherence to all or most commandments.
Judaism has long been characterized by its emphasis on bing good, just and pious here and now. In contrast to Christianity and Islam which are very focused on rewards and punishments in the next life the idea of an afterlife is very fluid in Jewish religion. God, angels and a handful of special cases in Heaven, the rest in the grave, hopefully among the bones of one’s ancestors was the common belief long ago. A variety of afterlives, even reincarnation have their threads.
If anybody knows about any upcoming anger parade, please let me know. Sounds awesome
> Being gay is not natural, it’s a form of yetzer hara, just like people who struggle with anger issues, with eating disorders, and more.
> Homosexuality on the other hand, seemingly, doesn’t hurt anyone.
Here may be the root of the problem. The idea that it is a yetzer hara – with the implication that sexual orientation can be changed through an act of will – coupled with conviction that it causes harm in some unknown magical way justifies discriminating against gay people.
In reality, homosexuality – as well as psychiatric disorders such as eating disorders – cannot be changed through an act of will, and often cannot be changed at all. As for the magical harm, well, I don’t believe in magic.
Let me fix that for you…
In reality, heterosexuality – as well as psychiatric disorders such as eating disorders – cannot be changed through an act of will, and often cannot be changed at all.
Does that suddenly sound different to you?
Why are Orthodox Jews so hung up on g-ays and g-ay equality? There are two references to a specific forbidden sixual act between men in Vayikra. That is all. Nothing about women. Kashrut practically has a whole parsha but the OJs aren’t down on Jews that don’t keep kosher. On the flipside there are enough OJ sinners (lo tirzach, lo tin’af, lo tignov) that they have kosher catering and minyanim in some American prisons. And the OJ’s support that. Shabbat gets more airtime in the Torah than g-ay six and the penalties for violators are just as harsh. Should Shabbat observance be added to the US Constitution along with bans on same-six marriage?
> Why are Orthodox Jews so hung up on g-ays and g-ay equality?
Not just Orthodox Jews. Conservative religion in general.
It’s because thinking about sex that you wouldn’t like to be a part of is icky, and defining people by their sexual orientations makes you think about sex when you think about them.
purely intellectual response (ie nothing to do with my position on gay marriage in america) –
1 – Lo Tirtzach carries a chiyuv misa, but Lo Sin’af and Lo Tignov dont. Doesnt make any of them ok, just dont compare gay sex (toevah and chiyuv misa) to issurim not on that level.
2 – the above notwithstanding, OJs support of kosher prison programs has nothing to do with one’s position on gay sex. Do you mean to imply that OJ support for kosher prison programs = support for the crimes that put those people in prisons?? I support those programs but certainly dont support the crimes.
3 – the amount of time dedicated in the Torah to kashrus or gay sex has nothing to do with the severity of the topic. Kashrus has many intricate laws, none of which are mechayiv misa (to the best of my knowledge). Gay sex isnt very intricate and detailed. It doesnt require a lot of literature to point out what specifically is prohibited.
4 – while shabbos is an appropriate comparison from a punishment POV, the biggest difference is that chronic, meizid shabbos violators dont violate it and claim to be practicing OJs at the same time. Its not like there are support groups for people who are closet shabbos violators and are itching to come out to friends and family but still be accepted in their communities. If someone isnt keeping shabbos, its probably because they arent interested in being frum, living in the frum community, identifying as frum, etc.
Of course one could respond that the orthoprax phenomenon is exactly that, however the difference is that while gays struggle with identity and aligning being gay and being frum, orthoprax dont struggle with that. Id argue that belief is a choice and they just dont believe, and thus choose to act as they do. They dont have an in-born crisis of identity.
But even so, aside from the whole toevah thing, gay sex and orthoprax should be on similar levels (and i believe the OJ consensus probably does feel that way), with the slight edge going to gay sex because of its “toevah” handle.
5 – though not in the constitution, the accepted american work week runs monday to friday, leaving saturday and sunday as “days of rest” so to speak. I bet if there was a movement to remove such, there would a far greater outcry from the average american than what we are seeing for gay sex. So in a sense, sabbath observance already is a part of american law.
>Shabbat gets more airtime in the Torah than g-ay six and the penalties for violators are just as harsh
Aha! This is the fallacy. Equating the two based on the legal punishment behind it, but the view against homosexuality (not the people per say) in a society is not that both get the same punishment, it’s the moral judgement the torah makes against a man having sex with another man which is absent with a man picking up sticks on the shabbat. Also (another fallacy) , Shabbat is a “Jewish” ritual. Homosexuality is seen as an all encompassing world issue according to Judaism.
Homosexuality is seen as an all encompassing world issue according to Judaism.
I don’t think it’s so clear. There are (Orthodox) authorities who disagree with this view, which sounds very Christian to me. Xtians always want to sell their stuff as universal and common sense, whereas we are more aware that we are just a tiny minority with our own rules, almost all of which only apply to us. When something is self-evident and common sense, there’s no need to argue about it. The fact that people keep arguing about homosexuality (it’s unnatural, but it comes naturally to some people, but it’s icky, blah blah blah) is, in my opinion, a proof that it’s far from being “universal” and common-sense — to Jews, or to anyone else.
The torah makes the same “moral judgement” against those that eat shellfish or insects. There is not the same outcry when people eat shrimp.
Sorry for the double posting, peeps. I tried to post this as a reply to Avrumy’s question further up the page, but I got a 404 error when I tried to post it, so I tried again. Another 404 error. Tried a third time. Then it posted twice, and instead of posting directly in response to Avrumy’s question, it posted at the bottom of the thread. So annoying!
Seriously????? Avrumy, down toward the bottom of the comments, I actually double posted a response addressed to you.
Heshy–well said. Thank you for articulating these views. Another book recommendation if you haven’t read it already–Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition by Steve Greenberg. I am also assuming you’ve seen Trembling Before God? I think it’s on Hulu now.
Whats wrong with being gay? – The Professor
I read today that Hassidim overwhelmingly favor same sects marriage.
BRILLIANT!
terrible
Yes, it’s droll!
Heshy your extreme sympathy to gay people unlike most people (frum or not), makes me think that deep down you are gay just you will never come out in public and admit it.
Some people tolerate them but you just seem to love them…
Um… What? So anyone who acknowledges that homosexuals are people with the right to live as fulfilling lives as others, rather than just “tolerate” them is gay? I see. I must be gay, too.
Actually, it’s usually the people who are most vocally anti-gay who are closeted (sometimes even from themselves through repression). They scream and rant about the evilness of homosexuality in order to prove to society (and often themselves) that they couldn’t possibly be that way. Whereas people like Heshy, who simply take a live-and-let-live attitude, are the ones that you can be most certain are NOT gay. They can find gay people interesting, even be entertained by gay pride parades, without feeling threatened because they are so secure in their own heterosexuality.
Mike,
I think Heshy feels extreme sympathy toward people who post stupid comments on his blog. Perhaps that’s where his true desires lie. I suspect that he does not lust after men, only after stupidity. So in a sense, your comment is a great tease for him. Post some more and I bet he’ll really be turned on.
A ‘Telzer’ standing up for gay people makes me wonder…
Don’t wonder, it’s a well deserved reputation. You should see the draperies and fabrics we used to decorate the dorm rooms. The obsession with Liza Minnelli, Barbra Streisand, and oh, Judy Garland. And the leather whips on the tefilin. Telz was like Contra Costa, Amherst, Provincetown, and South Beach all rolled into one big package — and we loved the big packages.
I’m so glad to see that you are “Telz-curious”. 🙂
ROFLMAO!
Hey Telzer,
Just get a room already LOL. Your’e on this blog always kissing heshs butt with your sweet ass kissing comments (OMG hesh the Telzer is here to protect you from stupid comments yey yey), now you could finally make it official in NY state!
Three comments in a row that boil down to “You aren’t like me, so you must be gay.”
Nobody could accuse you of being inconsistent or of failing to see Teh Ghey everywhere you look.
Mike, it’s called compassion and empathy, chesed to use the Hebrew term. There’s a few ways oppression can change people.
Some withdraw.
Some become hostile.
Some make themselves strong so it won’t happen again.
Some can’t wait until they get to hold the whip.
Some see others going through the same thing and sympathize with their plight. This makes them see those Others as human beings and view them a little more warmly.
By extension, I suppose Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel was black.
By the same logic Konrad Lorenz was a Grey-lag Goose.
Jane Goodall was a chimpanzee.
Jacques Cousteau was a fish.
Heshy, you really need to fix the spam filter. Take s e x off the black list.
Oh crud. I guess that explains why the comment I just made isn’t showing up.
>I fear that if gay marriage could be struck down because people find it immoral, our freedoms can be taken away because people find it immoral.,
One does not follow the other. Gay marriage was not LEGAL and it was taken away. It was never legal. Hence, it is not being taken away.
HH, huh?
the point is, if various rights are allowed or disallowed becasue of a law based on religious morality, who is to say that Jews would not be limited in their capacity to practice their religion becasue it could be “against” someone’s religious morality?
you didnt get that point?
But that isn’t what Heshy said.
Heshy made a claim that a right is being “taken away.” If anything, the anti-brit milah laws are more in sync with what Heshy said.
Also, I am against gay marriage but it has nothing to do with religion infringing on the secular government. So for example: I am against murder. My religion is also against murder. So are murder laws based on religious morality being implemented on a secular government? No, of course not.
But the only thing about homos e xuality that you find wrong is the morals that are formed by your religion.
True Julie,
But it’s not a “moral” question to me, regarding the legality of it but more of a redefining of the basic structuring component of what a marriage is made of and whether gov’t must recognize it.
Two people who love each other and wish to consecrate their romantic and intimate relationship to one another and create a household and a family together?
They can still love each other
They can still be romantic and intimate
They can still create a household and family.
I was merely proffering a description of ” the basic structuring component of what a marriage is made of.”
Yes, but you missed a component —and initial component—to that basic structure (purposely obviously). The union of the opposite sex.
I didn’t “miss” it. I omitted it. I believe, along with a growing plurality, and soon if not already an all out majority of others, that it is irrelevant.
But they cannot be afforded the same protections a heteros e xual couple gets. They aren’t allowed into hospital rooms. They don’t get survivors’ rights. They aren’t given the same tax benefits. They can’t be covered by the same insurance. Etc. (Of course, with some of these, there are companies that are changing their practices, but these are things that could easily be fixed through marriage equality.)
Give civil unions with all those rights.
BTW, the cynic in me would say “tough.” Just because you want something doesn’t mean it’s some intrinsic right for you to get something. I certainly am not allowed to park in public designated handicap spots. People without children aren’t able to get them as write-offs. You can go down a list of things that we designate for a certain people and not others.
Luckly, I am not that cynical 🙂
Separate but equal? Where have I seen that movie before?
And what would be the difference between civil union and marriage? Other than a different word at the top of the forms? Why would you be fine with one but not the other?
Sounds good. Have a civil contract that any competent, unencumbered adults can enter into. And get rid of marriage as a civil institution. Let the Witch Doctors babble their incantations over whomever they want to without any legal force. Let adults get on with their lives without religious interference.
That could work.
Here in Israel we already have all those protections you listed for same-s e x couples, even though we don’t have any civil marriage at all, even straight people cannot get a civil marriage. I kind of feel that this is ideal; marriage should not be decided by the state at all. Marriage was created by religion and should be left to religion. Protections should always be offered by the state though. (Perhaps my views are quasi-libertarian?)
Julia;
A civil union SHOULD be defined as exactly that: A partnership recognized as marriage in all civil matters, but not kinship; ie not implying reproduction.
Unfortunately, there is no precise definition of what a civil union is or is not. Hence your question, “what’s the difference” can not be answered, and of course in unsatisfactory to gay folks, who needs a status that is undefined?
In reply to Julie
Three things:
1) The difference is that words have meanings. A marriage is a marriage. It saves for a society its intrinsic meaning.
2) If it makes no difference, gays would not be fighting for that word either.
3) I actually DO want gay people to have a good life and civil benefits like hospital visits etc. That doesn’t mean I want to extend the concept of “marriage” to them neither.
No, they can’t. The Know Nothings are trying to recriminalize homos exua lity and pass Constitutional Amendments making just this sort of thing illegal. Gay people don’t have the rights and privileges of straight families. In many States they can’t adopt, can’t foster and can have their biological children taken away.
Based on laws of paternity in New York (marital presumption, as well as the sperm donor statute), Gay marriage means that two women married to each other can both claim parenthood, locking the biological father out of the picture. This has serious implications for fatherhood in general down the road, but it is also discriminatory against gay men who wish to parent their own children because straight men would go about it the old fashioned way.
The only way to forstall this absurdity would be to write out paternity laws out of marriage altogether… in which case would it still be marriage???
How does two women married to each other both being parents lock the biological father out of the picture? Neither of them is the father. Is there a law that says a person is limited to two parents?
Yes, there is.
(As there should be. It would be worse if there were 3; think of all the conflict)
Hardly. There have already been cases where a child has had 5 parents, and the only two with legal rights to the child were not biologically related at all. An infertile couple, hetero or not–it doesn’t matter–finds a surrogate mother to carry a baby for them. Wanting to minimize the risk of the surrogate becoming too attached to the baby, they don’t use her egg. They do in vitro with donor seed and egg, and then implant in the surrogate. So now you have the 2 genetic donor parents, plus the non-genetic birth mother, plus the two legal adoptive parents. That’s five. However, you might argue that only the two adoptive parents have legal rights, which in these cases would be true. However, there are plenty of other cases, where a g a y or l e sbian couple choose to use a close friend or family member as a donor or surrogate, and share parental rights with that person, so the child will have a parental role model of that gender. Then you have 3 legal parents.
No, not in any new ways.
If a woman has a child from a previous union the biological father is not “locked out”. He is still the child’s father whether or not she remarries. The same applies to a man, his new wife and the mother of his child. She is still the mother. If the second spouses are the same gender it changes nothing. If one of the original parents is deceased or unknown or gives up or loses his or her parental rights the other parent’s spouse may petition to adopt the child.
In the United States a woman who gets a child from an anonymous sperm donor has sole parenthood of the baby. In Australia, where that is explicitly not the case men have stopped donating to sperm banks.
All of this is long-settled law except the part about the gender of the new parent.
Your argument adds nothing new and is without merit.
That is incorrect. You should study the law first.
The law differentiates between children born via heterosexual intercourse and via other methods.
A kid is a kid is a kid. Their is no rational basis for this differentiation other than to cater to special interest groups; ie the Assistive Reproductive Industry.
See my link for an example of this principle in action. I can show you many more ABSURD lawsuits.
I have studied the law on this. Have you?
I am correct on the facts. And it’s not just whose sperm bumped into whose egg. Family law does not differentiate if the child was adopted by both parents or is the biological child of one and was adopted by the other. In both cases the act of adoption creates a legal status which “locks out” non-custodial parents.
wrong. The adoption can not take place unless the FIRST, the original parent has relinquished parental status or been stripped of them by a court after due process.
And with children conceived naturally, we don’t usually consider that a good thing. We usually try to prevent it. We consider a last resort.
Your premise, that the father has the same legal status as a divorced father, is unfortunately incorrect.
The law discriminates against children born not via heterosexual intercourse.
Of course there is no justifiable rationale for this discrimination. It was put in place to support the Assisted Reproduction Industry (which yes, is a business like any other.)
There’s also plenty of law cutting out biological fathers in straight relationships. There have been cases where a woman conceives as the result of adultery. Courts have ruled that her husband is the father no matter whose genes combined with hers. He has full parental rights as well as legal and financial responsibility whether he wants it or not.
That is incorrect; the presumption of paternity may be rebutted by either member of the marriage, at least early on.
If the known biological father- paramour claims paternity, in most states, you are right, the married couple will win, however in Kentucky the court recently decided that genetics takes paramount.
Still, your comparison to adultery is a good one. Need I remind you that most of us don’t think adultery is a good thing that should be privileged and promoted by the state?
I’m afraid I am correct when I said “plenty of law”. It’s not the same in all States, but in California, for instance, a child born in wedlock is the child of the married couple come hell or high water. There are two recent cases where the husband of the mother sued to be excused from the financial requirements of parenthood. He lost and lost on appeal. In one case he had to pay child support after the divorce.
When I say “There have been cases” I mean that at least 10% of children born in wedlock could not have been sired by the mother’s husband. The results are robust, cross-cultural and trans-national. There seems to be a certain irreducible amount of hanky-panky, sorry “extra-pair copulation”, that happens regardless of race, creed or color.
That is a frequently bandied about number that has no basis. There is no way that anyone could have come by that statistic.
Perhaps it is 10% of all CONTESTED paternity cases, which is a minute fraction of people born.
It’s not “bandied about”. It’s rock-solid, well-established science done with large, random samples, double blind experiments, several different tests and whipped cream and a cherry on top.
The first results were from the 1950s and utilized the crude blood type grouping available at the time. Since then it has been repeated with a variety of genetic markers and many different data sets.
You may not want to believe it. But the evidence is pretty much irrefutable at this point.
BTW, Heshy, another book suggestion if you haven’t read it already: Wrestling with God and Men by Steve Greenberg. Also, I assume you’ve seen Trembling Before God?
I can;t say I’m a fan of Steven Greenberg
I’m not necessarily a “fan,” but I thought the book was interesting at least. Have you read it?
>Shabbat gets more airtime in the Torah than g-ay six and the penalties for violators are just as harsh
Aha! This is the fallacy. Equating the two based on the legal punishment behind it, but the view against homosexuality (not the people per say) in a society is not that both get the same punishment, it’s the moral judgement the torah makes against a man having sex with another man which is absent with a man picking up sticks on the shabbat. Also (another fallacy) , Shabbat is a “Jewish” ritual. Homosexuality is seen as an all encompassing world issue according to Judaism.
WTF??? I just came back to this thread and all the comments appear to have disappeared. I refreshed it 3 times.
happened to me as well and now they are back – strange things
Yeah, but now they all have yesterday’s date.
Batsheva’s problem with the whole thread of comments disappearing seems to have struck me, too. It says 47 comments, but none of them show up.
The answer to your question, Avrumy, extends to the non-Jewish population too. One could just as easily ask why they obsess about this issue as opposed to all others. The answer comes down to the Kinsey scale. If you don’t know what it is, Google it. A man named Alfred Kinsey interviewed thousands of people, and based on those interviews, put together a scale of 0-6, with 0 being exclusively hetero and 6 being exclusively ho mo s e x ual. In using the word, exclusively, they are not just talking about physical relations. They are including, thoughts, dreams, and fantasies. What Kinsey found is that very, very few people appeared to be true zeros or sixes, meaning that the vast majority of people fall somewhere between 1 and 5. For people who are raised to strongly believe that ho mo s e x u ality is an evil, hideous, disgusting thing the knowledge that they may have an occasional g a y thought or dream causes horror, revulsion, and self-loathing. They then feel that they have to act out against all things g a y in order to prove to themselves and the rest of the world how straight they are. Does that answer your question?
The answer to your question, Avrumy, extends to the non-Jewish population too. One could just as easily ask why they obsess about this issue as opposed to all others. The answer comes down to the Kinsey scale. If you don’t know what it is, Google it. A man named Alfred Kinsey interviewed thousands of people, and based on those interviews, put together a scale of 0-6, with 0 being exclusively hetero and 6 being exclusively ho mo s e x ual. In using the word, exclusively, they are not just talking about physical relations. They are including, thoughts, dreams, and fantasies. What Kinsey found is that very, very few people appeared to be true zeros or sixes, meaning that the vast majority of people fall somewhere between 1 and 5. For people who are raised to strongly believe that ho mo s e x u ality is an evil, hideous, disgusting thing the knowledge that they may have an occasional g a y thought or dream causes horror, revulsion, and self-loathing. They then feel that they have to act out against all things g a y in order to prove to themselves and the rest of the world how straight they are. Does that answer your question?
I apologize for the double posting. Not my fault. Somehow this site is going nuts today. I tried to post the comment above directly under Avrumy’s comment further up. I got a 404 error page. So I tried again. Got another 404. Tried a third time, and the response double posted, but at the bottom, instead of in reply to Avrumy. I also posted another apology note like this one underneath the double posting, but THAT one came up under Avrumy’s comment. Go figure.
Batsheva wrote: “”For people who are raised to strongly believe that ho mo s e x u ality is an evil, hideous, disgusting thing the knowledge that they may have an occasional g a y thought or dream causes horror, revulsion, and self-loathing. They then feel that they have to act out against all things g a y in order to prove to themselves and the rest of the world how straight they are. Does that answer your question?””
It took me a while to figure out what question you were answering. 🙂
I am not saying OJs are obsessed with g ays because they are secretly afraid of their homo thoughts. It is about fear, bigotry and plain old laziness in using 2 psukim in Vayikra as a “proof” for centuries that g ays are beneath them and even worthy of death. They don’t even ask if the g ays are involved in Torah-forbidden acts. They are just disgusting and don’t deserve equality. Much like the Boers used biblical phrases to justify apartheid. Everyone with half a brain knows segregation and racist laws are unacceptable but G-d said it’s OK – IT’S IN THE BIBLE – so who are we to say G-d was wrong? Similarly with the g ay thing. It is written IN THE TORAH, therefore we can despise and denigrate the g ays because G-d said so (more or less, mostly less).
Organized Orthodox Judaism is not expected to embrace g ay marriage. They can’t do that and claim they are “Orthodox”. But individual OJs of conscience can ally themselves with the civil rights aspect of the controversy and declare their solidarity with marriage equality, even if they have no plan to use it themselves.
Avrumy–generally agree. I would also point out, as would you, that there are other things in the Bible, too. Take the Book of Ruth. Here is a book about a woman from Moab. We are told repeatedly that she is from Moab. It is very important to the Book that we not forget this. Moab, we remember, is hated and shunned. The origin story accounting for Moab is one of twisted sexual depravity. Gen. 19 recounts the story of Lot’s daughters getting him drunk and sleeping with him in the middle of the night such that he didn’t know when she came in or when she went out and from this union was Moab born. Descendants of this nasty, sexually depraved origin cannot marry into the Jewish people (yes I know the midrash explains that it only applies to men). Yet here is this book in which this woman from Moab does just that and her offspring is David HaMelech. In short from this moment of inclusion of she who one might have thought should have been most vigorously excluded–for a specifically sexual stain–redemption is brought to the world.
That, too, is in our Torah. That, too, is something from which we must learn. Does that mean we have to perform gay weddings in our synagogues? No, I don’t think it does. That is a matter for halachists and posekim to study. But it does, I believe, mean we cannot simply shove people to the margins of society and leave them there to rot. That is not the behavior that brings redemption to the world in the Book of Ruth. Just because we generally conclude they cannot marry in synagogue under the huppa does not mean we also have to stand in opposition to their ability to marry outside of the structures of Judaism. It’s just not necessary. It’s not even necessarily “frum,” because the Torah has more to say on the subject of shunning people than those two verses in Vayikra.
Avrumy–generally agree. I would also point out, as would you, that there are other things in the Bible, too. Take the Book of Ruth. Here is a book about a woman from Moab. We are told repeatedly that she is from Moab. It is very important to the Book that we not forget this. Moab, we remember, is hated and shunned. The origin story accounting for Moab is one of twisted s e xual depravity. Gen. 19 recounts the story of Lot’s daughters getting him drunk and sleeping with him in the middle of the night such that he didn’t know when she came in or when she went out and from this union was Moab born. Descendants of this nasty, s e xually depraved origin cannot marry into the Jewish people (yes I know the midrash explains that it only applies to men). Yet here is this book in which this woman from Moab does just that and her offspring is David HaMelech. In short from this moment of inclusion of she who one might have thought should have been most vigorously excluded–for a specifically s e xual stain–redemption is brought to the world.
That, too, is in our Torah. That, too, is something from which we must learn. Does that mean we have to perform g ay weddings in our synagogues? No, I don’t think it does. That is a matter for halachists and posekim to study. But it does, I believe, mean we cannot simply shove people to the margins (or closets) of society and leave them there to rot. That is not the behavior that brings redemption to the world in the Book of Ruth. Just because we might generally conclude they cannot marry in synagogue under the huppa does not mean we also have to stand in opposition to their ability to marry outside of the structures of Judaism. It’s just not necessary. It’s not even necessarily “frum,” because the Torah has more to say on the subject of shunning people than those two verses in Vayikra.
Ken, I noticed that many years ago. You’re the first person I’ve ever seen make that connection besides myself. I figured others must have, but I’d never heard or read it anywhere until today.
I actually think the whole book is a redemptive look back (a midrash if you will) to the B’reishit Moab story. The climactic moment occurs when Boaz lies down in the dark, perhaps drunk after the harvest revelry, and Ruth (“the Moabite”) comes in and lies down at his feet. If we don’t recall the scene with Lot lying drunk in the dark cave as his daughters come to him we are not paying attention. But this time we do not see a replay of “he did not know when she came in or when she went out.” This time they speak. And her calls her, “my daughter.” Just in case we missed the reference up to now. But rather than a blind unknowing unfeeling “quickie,” they meet as identified revealed individuals and speak and love and go on to be married and celebrated and the offspring of this union, rather than Moab the permanent outsider, is King David the Annointed of God.
Love it!
>But it does, I believe, mean we cannot simply shove people to the margins (or closets) of society and leave them there to rot.
agree
The same people who bitch about the “sanctity of marriage going down the tubes” and the fact that less straight people marry should ally themselves with the g-a-ys. Only a gay person can REALLY explain the difference between living together, having kids, sharing money, all that relationship stuff- but what difference it makes when it’s officially, legally on paper as a MARRIAGE
See my response to sara below. There are hundreds of legal things the civil marriage contract gives you.
I don’t know what planet you come from, but on earth, 2 men may live together, share together and all relationship stuff, but they can not have kids together.
That may be true one day, but as of now, it’s science fiction stuff. Gay marriage is science fiction.
There’s a lot more to it than that.
They can’t share the tax or insurance benefits of marriage.
They don’t have visitation rights at the hospital.
They can’t make medical decisions for one another in an emergency.
They can’t act for one another like married couples do without complex Power of Attorney documents.
They aren’t each others heirs. There have been heart-rending stories of partners dying after decades together. Then the homophobic rat’s ass b**tards of their biological families show up and take everything. Every memento. Every cherished possession. Half or all of the bank account.
There are a hundred other injustices like that. You don’t notice them because your relationship gets all sorts of goodies and privileges that you take for granted.
And who says two men or two women can’t have children together? They can have children from other relationships. They can be foster parents. They can adopt. Sorry, scratch that. Under the yoke of people like you they are automatically unfit to do any of those things.
They can use donor eggs/sperm and jointly raise a child that is only biologically one of theirs. Does the inability to reproduce nullify an infertile couple’s marriage?
I forgot to add that one.
My wife and I can’t reproduce. The Fundies haven’t come by demanding that we turn in our marriage license.
In infertile couple is in no way analogous to a same sex couple.
Their infertility is a disability, an exception. Nor is there any line that can be clearly drawn, demarcating between fertile and infertile people.
Social institutions evolve based on the norm, not the exception.
Because they remain a potentially fertile couple, infertile heterosexual couples support the reproductive purpose of marriage (tracking paternity) supporting the framework of marriage as the most appropriate framework to carry out heterosexual, potentially reproductive relationships. (if not the only)
There’s no difference. We can have children by exactly the same means as a gay or lesbian couple. Fewer, actually.
How does a woman with a hysterectomy remain part of a “potentially fertile couple”? Or do you think women with hysterectomies just shouldn’t be allowed to marry?
Who made you the arbiter of what’s analogous? Who’s to say that the ability to love only people of the same gender isn’t as much a “disability” when it comes to making babies as ovarian cancer or zero s perm count? Note: I’m not calling h o mo s e x uality a disability in general. Just a disability when it comes to making babies.
Nope. We have the same options for reproduction as a same-gender couple. Fewer, actually. The analogy is just about perfect except that people like you are more likely to accept our union and make it easy for us to get kids. You will fight tooth and nail to prevent two women or two men from doing the same.
That is exactly the problem Julia. They are having children with other people, not each other. While I don’t believe it should be outlawed (same as adultery is not outlawed), it is nothing the goverment should support. It serves no benefit to society and is discriminatory to the children born.
Regarding adoption, I support joint adoption by gay and lesbians within the framework of a civil union, since adoption has nothing to do with reproduction. However, it was not necessary to pass gay marriage for that. New York already allowed gay couples to adopt.
How is having children that are not biologically theirs any different than a straight couple having children? Why is one something that should be supported by the government and not the other? Both result in a child. You make zero sense. Though it’s amusing watching you talk in circles to try to justify your position.
I agree. The whole conversation is ridiculous. G ay people want to get married to each other. Some faith and moral traditions say they should, others say they shouldn’t. The state has absolutely no role to play in deciding who “wins” that debate by making it illegal. That’s what the Establishment Clause means. Freedom of religion means make it legal and people who don’t like it don’t have to do it, officiate at it, or even attend or send a gift if they get invited. All this other stuff is just misdirection and red herring. And the reality is that little by little bit by bit the nation is coming to that very conclusion as those who do the talking in circles thing come to occupy an ever shrinking minority.
Umm, I don’t know what planet YOU live on, but the news that two men or two women can’t have children together would come as a big surprise to the tens of thousands of gay couples in the world currently raising a family via donation, surrogacy, and adoption.
Also, the news that the ability to procreate defines a family would also come as a pretty big surprise to the millions of infertile, married, heteros e x ual couples in the world.
I’ll tell you a true story about two of my cousins. One’s a first cousin of mine, and the other is a second cousin. The second cousin is a hetero, married woman. They tried for years to have kids. Her husband was shooting mostly blanks, and she also did not have good eggs. After several attempts, she finally became pregnant using donor seed and donor egg, giving birth to an adorable healthy baby girl who is not biologically related to either of them.
My first cousin is a l e sbian woman. She is not married, because she lives in Brooklyn, NY, and she and her partner, who have been living together for 11 years, have been waiting until it became legal in their state to get married. However, they had planned to get married this summer whether the law passed in NY, or not. They were going to go to Connecticut to tie the knot. Why? Because her partner is finally expecting a baby in September after 6 failed in-vitro attempts, 3 a piece, and one failed adoption (the birth mother changed her mind 3 days after giving them the baby). But now, they will be able to marry in their home town, so when the baby is born, she will legally be the child of both of them. They also used a donor egg, and obviously donor seed, so the child will not be biologically related to either of them, just as in the case with my second cousin.
Do you think my second cousin is somehow more entitled to procreate because she’s married to a man than my first cousin, even though they both procreated in the exact same way?
Welcome to the world of science fiction. It isn’t just for g a ys anymore.
They have not reproduced with eachother. They have reproduced with someone else. The idea that they are reproducing with each other is fiction on par with creation science and immaculate conception.
You may not think genetic kinship, especially paternity, is important but most of the world does. Lots of people who supported gay marriage didn’t even know that it means that a woman can claim paternity rights, as in the law you mentioned above.
Note that a gay man who has a kid with a woman, his paternity status is very vulnerable as he did not have sexual intercourse.
“Mother nature is a bigot. Get over it.”
“The idea that they are reproducing with each other is fiction. . .” So what? Marriage itself is a “fiction.” We take two people with no relationship to each other whatsoever, wave a legal magic wand and all of a sudden they are each other’s next of kin. Closer kin than with their own parents and siblings. Adoption is also a similar “fiction.”
Marriage takes many forms. The one we think of as “natural” is a recent invention based on specific conceptions of property. It is absolutely a legal fiction.
By that logic women who have had hysterectomies should not be allowed to marry. Or are menopausal. Or infertile male cancer servivors. You get the idea. Can’t have children together? Can’t get married.
Not at all. Those are exceptions to the rule. As such, they do not change the rule but support it. They do not require any change to the definition, implications of marriage.
Gay partnerships are by DEFINITION not infertile, but Nonfertile. Thus including them in the definition changes the rules.
Male and female are essentially reproductive categories. Still, an infertile female is stilla female and an infertile male is still a male (albeit a disabled one). By the same logic, a heterosexual partnership is still a marriage even if the people in it do not actively reproduce. They still promote the social institution of marriage.
“Gay partnerships are by DEFINITION not infertile, but Nonfertile. Thus including them in the definition changes the rules. ” You can write it in all caps all you want. Doesn’t make the terminology you’ve invented any more meaningful or legitimate. They’re not infertile, they’re nonfertile. Ohhh, of course! Why didn’t I see it myself! All your argument here does is make it clearer than ever that there is no compelling reason for the state to outlaw this. The distinction you draw between “infertile” and “nonfertile” is without meaning.
You are right, these are not commonly used terms, I should have avoided them.
To phrase otherwise; Same sex partnerships and heterosexual partnerships are not similarly situated, as heterosexual partnerships are presumed fertile, the only way to overturn the presumption would involve massive invasion of privacy. There is no dividing line that can be drawn.
As a corollary to this, heterosexual marriages that do not bear children continue to promote marriage as reproductive institution, as they affirm marriage as the normative mode by which to carry out heterosexual intercouse, which for most of society, is a reproductive activity.
Really? So when my 83-yr-old great aunt remarried a few years back, it would have required a massive invasion of privacy to know that her marriage wasn’t going to produce any children? For that matter, a friend of my mom’s got married for the first time at age 62 (no plastic surgery, so she looked her age–she doesn’t even dye her hair). Would it have required a massive invasion of privacy to know that her marriage wasn’t going to produce any children? Marriage is about two adults publicly proclaiming their love and commitment to each other, and signing a contract to make that commitment legal. It’s about two adults who want to share the rest of their lives together. Period. Children have nothing to do with marriage. Are they often a byproduct of it? Sure. But they are just as often a byproduct of interactions that take place outside marriage.
Oh, and marriage may be “the normative mode by which to carry out het e ros e xual inter course,” and I’ll even go so far as to agree that it’s the preferable one. But statistics show that there is a whole lot of pre and extra- marital hetero stuff going on, and I fail to see what that has to do with g ay relations. I would say that marriage should be the ideal mode to carry out any form of adult, consensual s e xual activity, whether g ay or hetero. Maybe I’m crazy, but I just can’t see how denying a significant portion of the adult population the right to marry does anything to promote the institution of marriage.
I wouldn’t say it’s the ideal mode for physical relations. For certain times in one’s life, certainly, depending on how you define marriage.
Prescribing it means a lot of people get married early and to the wrong people in order to get their ashes hauled. It pretty much requires sl*t-shaming, widespread pro*titution, severe restrictions (almost always on women) and a number of other unpleasant things. It also means people who do not want to marry at all or at least for now are required to be celibate and that relationships are forced into a one-size-fits-all fiction.
You know, Nuran, I usually think you’re quite brilliant, but this is just off. Saying that one thing is ideal doesn’t say anything about other things, other than that they may be less than ideal. If I say that it’s ideal to have five functioning senses, does that mean that I’m going to mock blind people or deaf people? Does that mean that I think they’re less human? If I say it’s ideal to have two functioning arms and legs, does that mean that I’m saying amputees are evil? Saying that intimacy within marriage is ideal does not require “sl*t-shaming, widespread pro*titution, severe restrictions (almost always on women) and a number of other unpleasant things.” Nor does it mean “people who do not want to marry at all or at least for now are required to be celibate and that relationships are forced into a one-size-fits-all fiction.” That’s absurd. No one is saying to make pre- or even extra-marital activity illegal. Just because something is less than ideal doesn’t mean you can or should make it illegal. I think we’re all grown-up enough to know that we don’t live in utopia, and we never will.
BTW, the type of sl*t-shaming, widespread pro*titution, and severe restrictions you describe are the product of cultures and attitudes that demean women in general. It has nothing to do with idealizing the institution of marriage.
I think you’re missing an important point here. What is ideal for one – marriage – may not be ideal for another. Some people are happier with physical relations in the context of a relationship which is not marriage. For them marriage is not the ideal. To say that it is the ideal does force them and us to accept that as the one best goal even if some may fall short of it.
Marriage can be many things. It does not necessarily mean complete s exu al exclusivity, a single spouse, children or many of the other things commonly associated with it. In ages past it was primarily an economic arrangement. The old saw “Marriage without love leads to love without marriage” accepted the fact that in many of these people – women tended not to be ‘people’ – would find their fun and passion elsewhere. And it gets more complicated and interesting from there.
Those bad things I mention aren’t just signs of the low status of women. They are the stick for certain sorts of marriage as an institution. Mistresses or prostitutes are ubiquitous when men are given more freedom than women.
When they are not, it is still necessary to apply a stick to make sure people toe the line. That almost always means heavier restrictions on the women. Look at “tznius”. It’s about ever-increasing restrictions on one gender in order to prevent anything outside the one, single, sanctioned relationship from taking place. This is all in aid of assuring that one man’s spermatozoa and no others fertilized certain women’s eggs.
It’s not universal. It’s not the only natural way cultures have made things work. Making it work required these enforcement mechanisms before DNA testing and effective contraception.
I commend for your reading pleasure the following article from nytimes.com :
2011/07/03/magazine/infidelity-will-keep-us-together.html
and the very interesting book S*x at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern S*xuality
Sorry, Nuran, maybe I didn’t word it in a way that made it clear enough. I said that *I* think marriage should be the ideal mode for s e x ual activity. I never said that everyone has to agree with me. Personally, I believe that if all non-solo s e x ual activity took place in the context of a loving marriage, the world would be a better place. I am not foolish enough, however, to think that everyone would agree with that, or that the notion should be legislated. I would, in fact, defend to the death your right to sleep with as many consenting women or men as you so chose.
I hope that makes my position clearer.
I also believe tznius laws as they apply in Judaism and the gentile world, as well, should apply to men and women equally. How do tznius laws apply in the gentile world? Why was my male neighbor allowed to mow his lawn topless today, but if I tried to do the same thing, I’d be arrested? I think that’s ludicrous. But unlike most feminists (which I consider myself to be), I have no desire to go out topless. I would simply say that men shouldn’t be allowed to either. To you, and to the rabbis, tznius may be a matter of making sure only one man’s s perm hits a given egg, but that’s not what it means to me. To me, it’s just about privacy. I don’t want to see what’s in your medicine cabinet or your diary, and I don’t want to see your sweaty chest either.
By the way, thanks for the link to the NYT article. It was excellent. I love Dan Savage.
One more thing I just thought of to help clarify my point. I was pretty shocked many years ago, when I learned that there is a deaf subculture that actually takes pride in deafness and does not consider it a disability. They believe that cochlear implants that can restore hearing to the deaf are evil–the equivalent of bleaching a black person’s skin white. A deaf person actually told me this once through a sign interpreter. There is nothing that a hearing person could ever do to convince these people that they are wrong, and maybe they’re not wrong for them. Maybe that belief is what they need to get through their days. But it doesn’t change the reality for the majority with 5 functioning senses who know that to be missing one would be a disability. Likewise, plenty of people may feel that monogamy is impossible for them, and that’s fine. It doesn’t change the reality that for most of us in happy, monogamous, marriages, we know that it’s ideal. That’s not to say it’s perfect or easy. Just that the challenges of marriage are less stressful for most people than the challenges of, say, polyamory. This is supported by the fact that married people live longer statistically, than people who don’t marry.
“But unlike most feminists (which I consider myself to be), I have no desire to go out topless.” I don’t think that’s an accurate portrayal of feminists. I know quite a few feminists but I don’t know any who are wishing they could take their clothes off in public.
“there is a deaf subculture that actually takes pride in deafness and does not consider it a disability.” There are people who approach anorexia the same way but that is, IMHO, frankly deranged. In this setting, though, I understand it. The issue is that magically making all deaf people hearing would eliminate a deaf culture that has developed–culturecide, if you will. There are those in the g ay community who feel the same way about marriage–that it is a straight cultural imperialist import that undermines g ay culture which has developed for decades in its absence. Marriage, this argument goes, is simply not authentically g ay.
“there is a deaf subculture that actually takes pride in deafness and does not consider it a disability.” There are people who approach ano rexia the same way but that is, IMHO, frankly deranged. In this setting, though, I understand it. The issue is that magically making all deaf people hearing would eliminate a deaf culture that has developed–culturecide, if you will. There are those in the g a y community who feel the same way about marriage–that it is a stra ight cultural imperialist import that undermines g a y culture which has developed for decades in its absence. Marriage, this argument goes, is simply not authentically g a y.
Ken, by “Most feminists,” I didn’t mean most feminists at large, I meant most feminists who take a public stance on this particular issue. There have been parades and bike rides of large numbers of feminist women engaged in topless civil disobedience to make this particular statement. You don’t hear about large numbers of women picketing public pools with signs telling men to put tops on. (Which, BTW, I would happily do, if I thought for a second it would change anything.)
Fair enough.
” heterosexual partnerships are presumed fertile,” Ahh, I see. The meaningless neologism you want to create is not “nonfertile,” instead it is “presumed fertile.” Obviously you believe marriage should be outlawed for people, or at least women, over age 50, since they are, obviously, “presumed infertile.”
“heterosexual marriages that do not bear children continue to promote marriage as reproductive institution. . .” WTF? Sara, you’re arguments are rubbish.
Dunno why that came across as “anonymous.” It’s mine and the mispelling of “your” is embarrassing.
Having a child is more about reading it the same bedtime stories a million times, staying up with them when they’re sick, yelling at them when they do something really dumb, etc. The conceiving and carrying is only a small percentage of what it seems to really take. I said “have”, not conceive
Pure 24 karat Truth
You forget for the “pro-life” crowd life begins at conception and ends at delivery. Between those time points they believe in the sanctity of life. After that they believe in guns, capital punishment, “personal responsibility” (i.e. no social safety nets and certainly no universal healthcare coverage) and keeping gay people from God forbid marrying each other and creating stable households for their children.
For example of the sad cases that result when the biological facts of reproduction are denied in the name of equal rights see the following:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/california-sperm-donor-stalks-mother-lawsuit-gay-friends/story?id=11618727
Note how the gay dad is absolutely vilified for acting like what he is- a father.
A civil union that gave legal recognition to all civil and monetary aspects the couples partnership but excluded kinship, would have avoided all this.
Julia: You ask what’s the difference between civil unions and marriage- this is the difference. Or, that’s what SHOULD be the legal difference. Problem is that civil unions haven’t really been defined yet, so of course it is unsatisfactory to gays- who wants an undefined status?
Regarding marriage being a religious rite: Not so, marriage exists in all societies and is not always consecrated by religious ceremonies. Marriage is the government’s business because the tracking of paternity is a legitimate and necessary government function.
The article you linked to is only an issue because the woman chose to go with a non-anonymous donor that she found through Craig’s List. (You don’t need a graduate degree to see the stupidity of that move.) The use of anonymous donors solves this problem.
solves this problem and creates others.
I know plenty of people who grew up without their fathers. Not all are doomed. Some of them are quite successful. Our president is one of them.
But not one of them believes it would be better if they did not know who he was.
But whether known or anonymous, what you are basically saying is that lesbians should sacrifice their kids relationship with its father, in order to cement the relationship between themselves; ie have a kid that belongs to both of them.
I know several adults who are the product of anonymous sperm donations. All had two loving parents, and none could care less who their donor was. None of them even use the word, “father” to refer to that person.
Every couple (hetero or not) I know who has raised a child not biologically their own (and I know several) would take great offense at the emphasis you are placing on biological parenthood.
A very common idea in hunter-gatherer and “primitive” agricultural societies is that every man whom the mother slept with is a partial father. Every woman who nurses the baby is party its mother. In some others there’s an idea that the man who raises the child is the real father, not the sperm donor.
We can agree to disagree on the extent to which the loss of biological kin is harmful or not. I expect it varies from case to case. Some anonymously conceived persons may suffer more than others; some may suffer less, and the same goes for adopted children.
What i would like to point out is that we DO agree that the gay marriage movement is strongly tied the the devaluing of biological paternity, we just line up on opposite sides of the debate.
I feel that in the obsession over church’s right, this far more fundamental tie was overlooked in the public debate.
“What i would like to point out is that we DO agree that the gay marriage movement is strongly tied the the devaluing of biological paternity. . .” I don’t agree with that at all. I think that whole line of argument is a misdirection. The “gay marriage movement” is tied to the growing recognition that discrimination against homosexuals is no less wrong than discrimination against anyone else.
“we DO agree that the g ay marriage movement is strongly tied the the devaluing of biological paternity. . .” I do not agree with that at all. I think that whole line of argument is a misdirection. The “g ay marriage movement” is tied to the growing recognition that discrimination against homos exuals is no less wrong than discrimination against anyone else.
Stupid or not, it was supported by the law. And that’s the main problem.
( a legitimate, necessary SECULAR government functions that same sex couples only complicate)
Holy hyrax says, 1) The difference is that words have meanings. A marriage is a marriage. It saves for a society its intrinsic meaning.
You are a bigot
>You are a bigot
I win.
He may be a bigot. That has nothing to do with the validity of his arguments. Shockley was a virulent racist and proud Jew-hater. His solid state physics was impeccable.
Mr. Nuran, huh?
We are talking about gay marriage and rights. The is not reason, other than pure bigotry, to not allow 2 same sex gay people to get married. Period. End of story. And what is the basis for this bigotry you ask? Well, it comes from the holy torah….why else would someone consider that bad or inapropriate or a sin or whatever.
>Unfortunately, there is no precise definition of what a civil union is or is not.
What does that mean? How is there no definition of what a civil union is? There are already countries (and states here) with civil unions. Are they working blindly with no working definition?
Sad to be proid of that
Ken wrote:
“I didn’t “miss” it. I omitted it. I believe, along with a growing plurality, and soon if not already an all out majority of others, that it is irrelevant.”
I know you omitted it on purpose. And that is the real battle. Gay Marriage is a just a symptom of a larger battle. Like I tell people: once you understand this..
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/no-him-or-her-swedish-preschool-goes-gender-neutral/
you will understand gay marriage
There are a huge number of issues, all conflated in the concept of “gay marriage.”
Traditionally, “marriage” has involved the following elements.
Two people (though of course in polygamous societies it can be more. In virtually all of these societies, however, there is only one male).
One of the two is female and one is male (or at least there is one and only one male)
The relationship is sexual
The relationship is relatively long term
There are legal rights and responsibilities associated with the relationship
And, way and above the most important, the relationship is normally expected to produce children who will be biologically related to the two parties.
ALL of the cultural and legal aspects of marriage are related to this last point. If two (or 20 people) want to live together and have sex, nobody else is especially involved. When children are created, the marriage is now effectively not between two people but between two families. Two groups who had separate interests, now have a unified interest because they are genetically unified in the children of the marriage. Hence kingdoms are unified, fortunes are consolidated, businesses are contracted, and all other major social relationships are brought to bear. Marriage is intended to 1) create confidence of paternity and 2) provide resources for the children created by the marriage. The state eventually becomes involved as well because it has a vested interested in the welfare of the children so created.
Gay partnerships are inherently sterile. Can’t get around that. You can borrow other people’s gametes, you can adopt other people’s children, you can have children with other partners and bring them into the marriage, but you cannot create human beings who are the biological product of a merger of the partner’s genes. Heterosexual partners can also do these things (borrow gametes, adopt children, bring in children from previous relationships) but this is statisically very much not the norm and if it were, marriage would be a completely different institution, assuming the concept even existed.
Now with the creation of gay marriage, the most basic definition of the relationship (that it is expected to lead to a genetic merger of families) has been removed. And the the “long term” element has been increasingly eroded in our society already. One must then ask what exactly is “marriage” now anyway? Why should the state or anybody else decree who is and who is not married??
Why should “marriage” be limited to two people?
Why must they be sexual partners? [If you marry a non-American and they find out you never had sex with that person, they consider the marriage “fraudulent” and won’t grant the foreign partner a green card. Why? There is no requirement that you stay married to that person, no requirement that you love that person, no requirement you co-mingle funds. But you better have sex with that person or it’s a fake marriage.]
Why should it require legal responsibilities? Interesting editorial by a gay guy in the NY Times very worried about gay “marriage” because he and his “domestic partner” (a level of committment that requires filling out a paper and which can be terminated instantly and at will) are receiving benefits from one another (which heterosexuals cannot do, since they have the “option” of marrying) and now they’ll be “forced” to be married to receive the same benefits. Of course, no fault divorce has pretty much shot down the responsibilities of marriage already.
Personally, I believe that 100 years from now — or maybe only 50 — civil marriage as we know it now will simply cease to exist. Those who wish to get married in the Church or under the chupah, with the meanings and intentions that those action signify, will do so. Everybody else will find that there is no legal necessity for the institution and still less social meaning, so they won’t bother.
I see that as a distinct possibility, although I think it would be terrible for society. Yay for all the gay folk who jumped on the sinking ship with us.
It’s already happening. Look at all the movie stars like Angelina Jolie who feel no need to get married in order to have kids. Americans are notorious for following in the footsteps of movie stars in terms of what they name their babies, and now they’re following in terms of having babies out of wedlock.
great argument for gay marriage, isn’t it (sarcasm)? “marriage doesn’t matter now anyway, so it’s unfair to not accept gay people!”
No, that actually has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage. I was just acknowledging the reality of that situation. It’s unfair not to accept gay people, because they’re people–consenting adults who love each other and want to commit to each other in marriage–maybe raise a family. Who are you–who is anyone–to deny them that right?
If straight people don’t like g ay marriage they should stop having all those g ay babies. 🙂
Actually I think we are all innately bisexual.
Solid research does not support this absolute statement.
If you like g ay marriage so much, why don’t you marry it? 😛
why would two men ever want to get married? that is SO gay!
And yet again, over a hundred comments disappeared.
BTW People who buy other people’s complementary gametes instead of adopting are the last people who should be soapboxing on how biological roots are unimportant. It sure was important to them, wasn’t it?
Regarding adoption: Adoption is certainly a legal fiction; but there is a big difference between adoption and gamete donation.
Adoption takes place after a child is already born and needs a home. We do not go around encouraging people to get pregnant with children they can not care for so that some childless couple can take thier child. We do the opposite- we promote birth control.
i therefore see no reason why we should create laws to facilitate gamete donation.
I know I’m late to the party, and not to throw the conversation completely off… but there are actually Pro-Ana (groups that support anorexia), and Pro-Mia (groups that encourage bulimia) “organizations.” You can justify anything, really. Ultimately, if a Jew remains a committed Jew because he can be with the person he loves, rather than leave the community (even if that community doesn’t FORMALLY accept the relationship), then how is that not a good thing? They may never be married in a schul, true, but they can be legally married, and that’s not nothing.
I don’t particularly like the Pride parade, but that’s because it goes too far for me; we all have genitalia, I do not need to see yours, thank you. But I get it. Like Heshy said, and like the American Jewish community has experienced; when you go from a state of total and complete oppression, to a situation where you have an opportunity express who you feel you are, you tend to express all over the place!
It’s disgusting. What’s next–being legally allowed to marry a llama?
Ah jeez, just leave the gays alone!
Just keep doing mitzvos and loving all of His creations. We need more light in the world. Leave the judging to the most high. Gays, too, are in His image… whether you like it or not.
I think that Kinky Friedman said it best…
Why shoiuldn’t gays have the right to be as unhappy as the rest of us.