- This topic has 173 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Judaism is sensitive to animal rights too.
You say too sympathetic because it interferes with your religion. But they see it as cruel to kill an animal while its concious.
I see it as cruel to dump a live lobster in a pot of boiling water.
“Judaism is sensitive to animal rights too.”
Do you want the government enforcing animal rights with the same zeal as human rights?
The Torah standard is not to cause animals unneeded pain, we are allowed to kill them when needed. The term animal welfare is more appropriate.
Josh, we want freedom to operate within our religion. Denying others freedom because it doesn’t fit with your religion means you agree with limiting freedoms.
Guess what? Jews are a minority. If you were a WASP, I could hear your point. I mean, who’s going to outlaw church on sunday? But as a minority we have to be sensitive to these things or our freedoms will be squashed next.
So you want to restrict two adults from getting married because its against your religion? Do you have a secular reason for doing so?
If you still feel like restricting it, don’t complain when shechita is outlawed. After all, we restrict other peoples freedoms, so there is no reason for US to get an exemption.
SJS – Marriage is a religious concept that we take for granted, just like a week a month (moon) – in the Jewish-Islamic calendar, and burial. Refer to the Kuzari about these.
If two males or females can wed, why can’t two females to a male or vice-versa, and why can’t any two individuals make a covenant together.
Creating a legal agreement is one thing, binding that to traditional marriage is another.
fabie: exactly.
Creating a legal agreement is one thing, binding that to traditional marriage is another.
Exactly why Paul is right, and government should get out of marriage while it still can.
If government grants marriages to anyone, it should be without discrimination.
But I disagree with the government granting marriages at all. So either all or none.
If government grants marriages to anyone, it should be without discrimination.
SJS, so I take it you now support polygamy. Otherwise you are a hypocrite, and lose standing for your position.
Actually, I have no problem with polygamy and polyandry, so long as the legal terms of the contract can be dealt with. Like health insurance and inheritence and all sorts of other things.
Marriage should be a contract between consenting adults.
I wouldn’t want my husband to have multiple wives, but why should I restrict others?
“Josh, we want freedom to operate within our religion.”
What did I write that made you think I was limiting freedoms?
Only item I wrote about was my fear of animal rights zealots.
What does marriage have to do with shechita and meat. The only possibility is that the government starts recognizing marriages involving animals. Fortunately that is not on the agenda of either party.
SjS- Even if I would agree to your liberal hypothesis that the US has no business outlawing immorality, why should I have to pay alimony, child support or health insurance (like you said), after divorce? I agreed to marry someone, this doesn’t mean I agreed to support them financially forever. Somehow, you don’t see this law as an obstrution to my freedom, only the fact that I’m restricted to marry my opposite gender. Almost all laws are resticting someone’s freedom, yet they exist.
SJS, The idea here is that being a free country, we won’t stop them. However, the movement is an aggressive one. They force it on everyone to accept such behavior as normal. That is called infringing on the rights of normal people to maintain our own values and the right to impart our moral values to our children. Please don’t equate maintaining morality with racism.
The marriage contract thing is only one rung in their ladder to change the whole society. They don’t need it that badly for any other purpose. And there too, what’s so bad about being allowed to keep our definition of the word? If they really need a contract they can use all the other new words; ‘marriage’ is taken.
Health, first of all, I would hope that you would pay child support. They are YOUR children too. I can’t imagine someone would want to abandon thier children when their marriage doesn’t work out. Alimony is rarely given out now – it was much more important when women were 99% of the time SAHM and therefore lost all earning power when they were older. All those details should be worked out in a marriage contract.
The movement has to be agressive – how do you think women won rights? Or blacks? Or any other minority group?
HaLeivi, all the things you just mentioned were used to opress blacks. And Jews. And interracial marriages.
How does their wanting to have a legal binding contract infringe on YOUR rights? What are they making you do?
A gay marriage has a lot less of an affect on society than an Orthodox Jew. Orthodox Jews need many dispensations to practice religion. A gay couple is just asking for the right of a contract. It does NOT infringe on your rights. They aren’t asking for religious leaders to perform any ceremonies.
It really makes me upset when people who ask for some many freedoms deny them to others.
Again, and again, nobody is denying any rights, we are denying redefinition of morality. Who exactly was born with the right to change everyone else’s values?
There goes that silly argument about blacks and women… Explain please, what is moral about not giving blacks an equal footing? I’m talking about wanting to stay up, while you talk about wanting to stay down. Besides, blacks and the others are a people who were singled out unfairly. This is a behavior which we don’t have to accept.
Again, and again, nobody is denying any rights, we are denying redefinition of morality. Who exactly was born with the right to change everyone else’s values?
There was a time when being a Jew was considered immoral by our neighbors as well. Who exactly was born with the right to change their values?
The Wolf
They hated Jews. That’s all. They knew that we don’t believe in their beliefs, and that bothered them. In America it was decided, for the benefit of those who were tormented in other lands, to tolerate someone who doesn’t hold your beliefs. They never agreed to accept that Christianity was wrong! Neither would they tolerate us redefining Christianity as The Religion of Plunder.
Do you have any problem with those who call themselves Messianic Jews? I do, and I believe I have a right to. It is highjacking something which belongs to someone already.
Do you have any problem with those who call themselves Messianic Jews? I do, and I believe I have a right to. It is highjacking something which belongs to someone already.
I fail to see how that is relevant to the topic at hand.
The Wolf
You are asking to deny legal rights afforded to married couples by the government to gay couples. These include laws of inheritance, hospital visitation/medical decisions etc.
Now, you are allowed to have problems with homosexuality. I don’t support homosexuality. Nor do I support Messianic Jews or Christianity. I do support their legal right to their freedoms.
Why do I compare it to blacks and women? Women used to be thought of as inferior – including intelligence. They were discriminated against because of that. I am happy that the law reflects anti-discrimination. I can’t imagine asking to allow discrimination of others to continue.
How is allowing gay marriage infringing on your rights? You don’t have to accept them, you just have to recognize their legal rights.
First of all, perhaps you are not aware, but they are very aggressive. They made the schools change their books to redefine family. They would go after anyone who publicly denounces such activity. In Europe, a preacher was sued or arrested. My main issue is the fact that they are making the general public redefine something which is against their morality. All those abilities that you mention can be granted by consention forms, and if not, I’m fine with changing that. But we don’t have to hinder our morality. Remember, we aren’t against a people, we are against a behavior.
Rosa Parks was aggressive when she sat in the front of the bus. Sometimes, aggressiveness is the only way. Betty Friedan was also aggressive.
I don’t know about the case in Europe. Europe has very different ideas of values and freedoms. But in the US, I have never heard of a religious leader being required to accept homosexuality.
The only case that even comes close is Yeshiva University and that’s a really sticky legal situation. Well played by the professor.
rebdoniel wrote,
“I have no reason to believe Ron Paul is an anti-semite.”
Had any Democrat put out newsletters with the kind of stuff Ron Paul had under his signature, you’d be up in arms.
And your accusation that I am a fan of Karl Marx is motzi shem ra. I am not and have never been a Marxist. I await your apology.
Halachah gives Jewish communal authorities the responsibility of levying taxes for education, public works, and care for the poor. Ayn Rand would of course be horrified, but she was an atheist hedonist. There have unfortunately been sinful Jews who think their money is theirs and not HaShem’s. Another example is the wealthy Jews of Prague who mosered Rabbi Yom Tov Lipman Heller to the gentile authorities when he instituted what would now be called a Progressive Tax where the wealthy paid more. I am appalled that so many supposedly frum Jews would favor the policies of Ayn Rand over those of the author of the Tosafos Yom Tov.
SJS,
I am on the faculty of Yeshiva University and I am unfamiliar with what you refer to. Please elaborate.
Are we discussing whether it is not nice to deny two men the ability to marry one another?
Why should it be wrong for society to make moral judgments, and discourage the things it finds immoral?
Now, you could disagree with out moral judgment, but you shouldn’t consider me not nice.
You could make a constitutional argument, but that is irrelevant to Judaism.
I honestly can’t believe some of the things being written here:
SJSinNYC – Betty Friedan!!!, care to explain your opinion of her, and how that may compare with Rosa Parks.
Gay marriage – please read above post!
Charlie – Ron Paul explained the newsletters. Ayn Rand over the Tosefos Yom Tov, WoW!!!!! No, the Tosefos Yom Tov was not a Socialist, and definitely not a Fascist! The present administration is. The US government as well is not Rav Yom Tov Heller, and never will be!
How many corrupt bureaucrats did Rav YT Heller have on his pay roll?
When did the US not have a progressive tax, and when did any fiscal Conservative ever suggest that the poor and wealthy pay identical taxes?
Cant help but join in.
I am in almost complete agreement with SJS, I think. On the other hand, I am in near agreement with Halevi and others. I think your arguing about two different things.
I dont think any frum Jew would disagree that it is a violation of God’s law to engage in the act of mishkav zachor. We tend to forget, however, that we Jews, not the citizens of the United States, are bound by the laws of the Torah. What the people of the United States are obligated to do – as are every other people on earth – is to set up a civil society complete with comprehensive laws. These laws need not mimic the Torah, and I’m not sure it would be desirable for them to do so.
Aside from the socio-political system envisioned by the Torah (which is itself heavily democratic in many respects, but that is a discussion for another time), pure democracy is likely the political and legal system most consistent with the idea that each person is tzelem elokim. In a democracy, each person must be treated equally subject only to punishment for their SPECIFIC ACTIONS that violate the majority’s law.
America would go terribly wrong if it were to regulate the conduct of one segment of society simply because that segment has natural tendencies unlike those of the majority. If we ought not prevent blacks from marrying simply because they are black, and we ought not prevent arabs from flying planes simply because they are arabs (there may of course be other reasons), then we ought not prevent homosexually oriented people from contracting to live together for certain economic and social benefits simply because they prefer to build a home with members of their own gender.
As Jews, I think we must stand firm on the wrongness of engaging in homosexual conduct (though not in the cillul hashem creating manner that some did in the last week or so). At the same time, we must respect those who have tendencies towards such acts as having been created b’tzelem elokim by not denying them the social norms we all enjoy. As the gemarah relate sin berachos – the pasuk is read yitamu chataaim min haaretz, not yitamu chotim: We do not desire to eradicate the people who do wrong; we must strive to preserve the people and only eradicate the erroneous conduct.
Charlie –
Is this what you’re referring to:
1. In 1627 Heller was called to the chief rabbinate of Prague. On account of the Thirty Years’ war the government imposed heavy taxes on the Jewish communities of Bohemia, including that of Prague,which had to pay a yearly tax of 40,000 thalers. As Heller was the chief rabbi he was compelled, against his will, to preside over the commission which had the task of apportioning that sum among the members of his communities. Although he acted with the greatest conscientiousness, some complained of unfair allotment. They accused Heller and the elders of the commission before the civil authorities of having spared the rich and laid the burden of the tax on the poorer people.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=574&letter=H
2. Several factors account for Heller’s imprisonment. His arrest marked the beginning of a brief Habsburg anti-Jewish campaign, encouraged by the Papacy. Heller also had enemies within the Prague Jewish community. On account of the Thirty Years’ War, the government had imposed heavy taxes on the Jewish communities of Bohemia, including that of Prague, which had to pay a yearly tax of 40,000 thalers. A commission headed by Chief Rabbi Heller unanimously voted to tax each Jewish family in Prague. The richer the family, the higher the tax. The burden fell mostly upon the rich merchants who could well afford to pay their assessments. However, they complained and demanded a reexamination of the decision. R’ Heller and his committee reviewed the problem and concluded that this approach was fair. The committee met with representatives of the merchants’ association to explain the sensitive situation facing the Jewish community of Prague. The irate merchants refused to deal with the Kahal which was responsible for delivering the money to the government. Instead, they decided to appeal to the government. In their petition they charged the Chief Rabbi with being an enemy of Christianity. Their proof: “His writings are filled with allegations against the religion of the country. R’ Heller was associated with the wealthy leader of the Prague community at that time, Jacob Bassevi, and bore the brunt of anger against him. Meanwhile, Bassevi, who was an ally of the great general Albrecht von Wallenstein, also had enemies at the Habsburg court, and the arrest of Heller played a part in larger political machinations there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom-Tov_Lipmann_Heller
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/heller1.html
Three different historical accounts, but none of them relate in any way to the discussion here!
BTW, what were Ayn Rand’s policies regarding religion, and Israel?
RSRH: Mishkav zochor is a violation of the Sheva mitzvos and carries a death penalty for goyim. They are required to observe the sheva mitzvos by the force of law. Furthermore, the gemora says goyim outlawing mishkav zochor marriage is the reason they are not destroyed.
fabie: charlie regularly distorts historical accounts completely out of context to promote his leftist agenda.
Ben Torah: I will assume from your username that you understand the distinction between actions and taivah. I dont think I need to spell out what mishkav zachos is on this forum, but needless to say, two men or women living in the same home, cooking dinner together, sharing their income, filing their taxes under “married,” and receiving each other’s insurance benefits, is not “mishkav zachor.
I do not disagree with you about the act, or the penalty under sheva mitzvos (though its not clear whether such peanlty is min hashamayim, or if the mitzva of creating a legal system requires the prohibition and proper punishment of sheva mitzvos). I also think the Supreme Court’s holding that it is unconstitutional to prohibit homosexual conduct under the due process clause of the 14th Amend. is wrongly on the law and wrong on democratic grounds. In terms of equal protection, however, in a democracy, we CANNOT treat people differently in terms of their ability to enjoy certain legal protections and benefits simply based on their mindset. And that is all homosexual marriage (as distinct from actions) is, isn’t it? Its a domestic relationship between two people of the same gender who happen to prefer each other’s company to that of members of the opposite gender. The michkav zachor is neither a necessary nor sufficient aspect of claiming the social benefits of civil marriage, and so I still don’t see what the issue is?
RSRH –
What you don’t realize is, is the fact that no one is interested in allowing two roommates to file their taxes together, it’s only if they are engaged in sinful acts are they interested in equating their deeds to a holy marrital bind.
By all means propose a law allowing any two individuals to file joint taxes, whether they’re two roomamtes, mother and son, brother and sister, etc., but don’t create special rules for individuals doing sinful acts.
Yes, RSRS, there is a difference between action and taaivos. When these degenerates demand marriage, they are saying loud and clear they mean ACTION. It is difficult to believe I am reading a Jew actually defending these deviants. A “domestic relationship” is action. I doubt anyone who attends those filth pride parades will deny they are engaged in action. In fact, they will cheerfully spit in your face that they mean action. And that is even without “marriage” — which by definition stands for action.
The gemora (Chullin 92a) that says that the nations of the world, however sinful, corrupt or perverse, still have the merit of at least three behaviors, one of which is “they do not write a kesubah for males.”
“When did the US not have a progressive tax, and when did any fiscal Conservative ever suggest that the poor and wealthy pay identical taxes? “
(1) Prior to 1913 when the income tax was approved (16th Amendment).
(2) You are obviously unfamiliar with the “flat tax” movement. Look at the Wikipedia article on “Flat Tax” and you will find that among the fiscal conservatives who have supported it have been Dick Armey, Steve Forbes, Sam Brownback, Trent Lott, and Jerry Brown. (Yes, Brown is a liberal Democrat, but he actually was and is pretty conservative on fiscal matters and California prospered when he was governor.)
“Three different historical accounts, but none of them relate in any way to the discussion here! “
The fact is that Rabbi Heller levied what amounted to a progressive tax on the community.
“what were Ayn Rand’s policies regarding religion, and Israel? “
She hated all types of religion as it tended to curb people’s tendency to do whatever they wanted. (I’m reminded of the closing statement in Sefer Shoftim.) I don’t know of any public writings or statements of hers regarding Israel.
I just checked AIPAC’s web site. For their recent pro-Israel letter, signed by 87 Senators, 6 of 57 Democrats, 6 of 41 Republicans, and 1 of 2 Independents did not sign. The non-signatories are as follows:
Sessions (R-AL)
Dodd (D-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Bunning (R-KY)
Kerry (D-MA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Coburn (R-OK)
Alexander (R-TN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Sanders (I-VT)
Webb (D-VA)
Goodwin (D-WV)
Goodwin may not have been in the Senate at the time the signatures were being collected.
I should clarify my previous statement in opposition to Marx. I actually an a big fan of Groucho, Chico, Harpo, and Zeppo; I only oppose Karl. Groucho’s portrayal of Rufus T. Firefly in “Duck Soup” reminds me of some of the candidates the Republicans are running this year.
Fabie,
A very good point, but I think your conflating the issue. In fact, any two opposite gender roommates with separate bedrooms that do not engage in any kind of *conduct* can apply for a marriage license and receive all the benefits the State accords to such contractually committed couples. Separated opposite gender couples that live in separate homes but have not yet filed for divorce, and perhaps do not ever plan to (precisely because they may lose the legal benefits of marriage) can continue to claim the benefits of civil marriage under the law. Elderly couples that perhaps may not *act* can continue to claim the benefits of marriage.
It is clear that marriage under the law of the State is not contingent on marital *acts*; legally recognized marriage, and the benefits it provides arise from a simple contractual commitment between two people that gives rise to obligations to each other. In recognition of this commitment, the State considers the married couple to be more than just two individuals for a variety of purposes.
If civil marriage is not contingent on marital *conduct*, why – even according to we Torah-observant Jews that vilify the homosexual act – should the State be allowed to deny the benefits of marriage to any two individuals that are willing to take on the legal obligations that marital status imposes?
I think where we get really hung up is on the term used by the State to describe the legal status that gives rise to certain obligations and benefits – marriage. Perhaps if this civil institution were called something else – “interpersonal dependence,” for example – it would not bother us as much. We Jews consider marriage to be a special God-given concept heavily regulated by halachah, which makes it all the more precious. But let us not confuse nissuin with the “marriage” recognized by the State; the latter is simply a legal relationship, much like you business relationship to your partner in your LP or LLC.
Ben Torah,
Thank you for bringing that Gemarah to my attention.
I disagree with the first paragraph of your comment, since ultimately it is the homosexual act that the Torah forbids, not some amorphous concept of domestic relationship or what kind of outrageous behavior some may exhibit at a parade. Those are all actions, but it seems to me that the ones that matter for our purposes are the ones the Torah expressly prohibits. After all, if the Torah assurs the act of eating a sheretz, you would not say that the act of going to the zoo to look at the scorpions and rodents is a violation of this prohibition – going to the zoo is certainly an act related to sheratzim, but ultimately it is not the act the Torah spoke of.
As far as the gemarah, goes, again thank you! I have not yet learned chullin (I am more of a nezikin and choshen mishpat guy, hence my being a bit of a stickler for the letter of the law, ect.), and had not seen the gemarah. I will have to consider it, and likely revise my position.
As I think about this point, however, perhaps you could give me your thoughts on a few points:
1) This is clearly aggada, not halacha, so what role do you see it playing? Can it be a sufficient basis for legislation in a non-Jewish country to ban gay marriage? It seems to be a statement rather than a prohibition. Couldn’t New York, for example, choose to allow gay marriage, and then see what happens – i.e., see if indeed it will collapse due to abandoning this standard of conduct.
2) Keep in mind that a kesubbah is essentially a private contract. It doesnt confer state benefits or immunities. A gay couple may currently make a private contract stipulating the obligations of civil marriage – i.e., mutual financial obligations, penalties for separation, ect. So why equate State recognition of gay marriage to kessuba as used in the genarah; it seems that gay couples can already (and they probably do) write private “kessubos” for each other.
charlie:
Look, if you believe in liberal politics, that is fine. But you should be able to support high taxes, a welfare state, heavy regulation, a weak foreign presence, and abortion- without needing to say that the liberal movement is pro Israel!
It really is absurd to think that they do support Israel. It is clear that the denouncements of Israel’s policies come from the left, and the stronger condemnations come from the stronger lefties. It is part of their ideology to believe
A.that the stronger party in a dispute is always wrong in using force, and that
B. The governments created by the colonial powers are an evil imposition on the native people.
Now, you may agree with those assertions, in which case your support for Israel is in the abstract. If that is the case, you are not a supporter of Israel in the classical sense. You are a supporter in the abstract.
I support Israel because I support their policies. I would not support them if I thought they were murdering colonials.
RSRH, you missed fabie’s very poignant point. If you support toeiva marriage, you for the sake of consistency must equally support marriage between a brother and sister. Otherwise you are a hypocrite. And the toeiva marriage lobby does NOT support marriage between brother and sister.
Remember . The entire world was destroyed in the days of the mabul because of their “acts”. Sodom and Amora were destroyed because they wrote “marriage contracts” between two men.
Why don’t we put on the ballot the redefinition of the “President of the United States” to mean, “any persons born with two arms and legs”, and we can all get free medical insurance and rent paid for by the taxpayer? What is the “redifintion of anything”? It means making the old forbidden, the new mitzva? r”l
RSRH: The aforementioned gemorah is clear that toeiva marriage is a clear-cut violation of the 7 mitzvos.
Additionally it is clear, that these abominable promoters are openly, gleefully, and unashamedly engaged in the forbidden “action” in question. And THAT (the action) is what they are demanding be legitimized.
And like others above have mentioned, why are you and the toeiva marriage supporters not promoting legalized marriage between Mother and Son as well as between Brother and Sister?
Do us all a favor and read the gemorah. It is difficult to believe someone who believes in the Torah is taking your position. And it will be doubly difficult to believe you maintain that position after correctly understanding the gemorah.
[we should do so]
Even those gays who do not engage in Sodomy are still prohibited from marrying each other. This is because, as the Rema mi’Panu records [3:21], there is even a prohibition for Noachides merely to draw up marriage contracts for homosexuals [Chullin 92a-b] [Bava Metzia 75b] this passage to prohibit causing a person to be in a situation in which he is likely to transgress a commandment. In addition, it is clear from Tosafos (throughout the first perek/chapter of Avodah Zarah) that this rule (of not causing others to sin) applies even to a Noachide.
“It really is absurd to think that they do support Israel.”
Huh? 51 of 57 Democrats signed the AIPAC letter! That is actually a slightly higher percentage than the 35 of 41 Republicans who signed. It is absurd to think that Democratic elected officials do not support Israel.
This thread is supposed to be about Republicans and Democrats, not the far left fringe of people like Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney or Cindy Sheehan, none of whom are Democrats any more than Patrick Buchanan or David Duke are Republicans.
Republican operatives have been trying to convince Jews that Democrats are anti-Israel left wing extremists like the three people I mentioned above. First, it isn’t true, and second, it causes huge damage to Israel’s cause here in the US to turn support for Israel into a partisan political issue. I won’t stand for it.
I would add that I do not subscribe to either of your propositions (A) or (B) although I don’t understand what (B) has to do with Israel.
Charlie, the professor who got tenure and then had an operation to alter his gender.
Popa, you want to impose religious morality on the population? You think Jewish morality will win? We are the minority. Its a good thing there are leaders who believe in freedom. I agree that Jewishly, homosexual marriage is a bad thing. But preventing marriage is NOT stopping forbidden homosexual acts, its preventing legal rights granted to partners (especially in places like North Carolina).
The truth is, repealing the laws against sodomy was actually when homosexuality because permissible in society. You are decades late.
The reason many people oppose sibling marriages is that it will more than likely be abused by ultra-religious sects and force siblings to marry. There are places where its illegal for 1st cousins to marry (in some cases with restrictions to child-bearing ages). I don’t think its right – I think any two people should legally be allowed to engage in a marriage contract.
Betty Friedan and Rosa Parks were both people who pushed the envelope of society. Betty Friedan is one of the reasons that women have equal footing in the workforce. She is one of the reasons I was able to become an engineer and work in a male-dominated field. She is one of the reasons so many Kollel couples can survive.
SJS, if you are againt moral laws, you support legalizing completely naked people to walk in front of your house.
And you are hypocritical in your opposition to sibling marriage or child-parent marriage.
The sodomy laws were only overturned in 2003.
And Friedan & co. are responsible for the wholesale destruction of society.
SJS:
No, Some were claiming that it is wrong for society to impose morals. It is not wrong, it is part of what all societies rightfully do.
Now, in response to your question; I do support imposing morals, in America. We have a constitution which protects us from overreaches.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.