Forum Replies Created
You realize on the one hand you state that part of “feminism” is
“understanding that there isn’t such a thing as “men’s jobs” and “women’s jobs”
Then you continue on to write,
“Of course, you are going to see some pretty significant gender disparities within certain fields, just because of natural aptitude or self-selection (for instance, female construction workers and male speech pathologists are both very rare breeds!”
So in other words feminism requires us to think that since there are exceptions to every rule the rule is completely negated.
BTW I always thought that Hillary Clinton had the best line about what feminism requires,
“The willing suspension of disbelief”.
(Of course HC was using it in a different context, she was question Gen. Petreaus over the need for a surge and if it would work)
Are you even aware of what study I am referring to?
Are you even attempting to understand what was written?
I was not offering a scientific explanation of anything in that line, I was simply clarifying my own writing.
You seem to be misunderstanding.
The number one study that proved such therapies work was the one done by Spitzer one of the foremost experts in conducting such studies.
It was Nationally published in a peer reviewed journal.
After years of intense pressure from certain groups he issued a retraction one with the editor of the Magazine refused to accept on the grounds that it did not demonstrate why the data was wrong all it implied was “he changed his mind”
Spitzer is not his Kartens friend, I doubt he even knew him.
I did not state that anything would automatically show up in the “brain” I did state that it would have to show up in the wiring somehow.
It could be in the blood, it could be in the brain it could be in the heart. It must be somewhere.
Lets take a car from example if the car has a mechanical problem it automatically must be somewhere in the wiring, the mechanic may not be able to find it, however it must be there or it would not have an outward manifestation.
The same applies to human being’s the “outward” manifestation must have a root cause in the inner “wiring” of the person.
This by the way is in no way contradictory to the Torah, rather it’s fundamental part of understanding the Torah.
We believe that man is combined between the “body” and the “soul” the body presents “tests” challenges if you will our soul is what gives us the ability to over come these challenges.
Can a male have female characteristics?
Have you ever learnt the inyan of Yosef Hatzaddik and Dinah, why the Torah emphasizes that Yosef was “mesalsel bsaroh” and Dinah was a Yetzonus?
We do not deny that not everyone fit’s a cookie cutter box.
What believing Jew does state is that if G-d created someone a man that person is a man.
If G-d created that person a woman then that person is a woman.
However let’s be clear over the current “Debate”.
Anyone who denies man made global warming,
Questions whether or not man came from monkeys tens of thousands of years ago is questioning observable, provable scientific facts.
However if one say’s that a person born as a man with the physical attributes of a man, the hormonal structures of a man, and in some famous cases one who was actually married and had the ability to produce children, is a man and not a female they are backwards.
Jfem did not say that a man who thinks they are a woman has the same “wiring” as woman.
She would not say this because it’s an untruth as long as the “physical body parts” are male the wiring behind them is mostly male.
That’s an observable fact.
However there are certain parts of their brain which are different the same is of each and every person with a mistaken belief or delusion.
And it must be so for if there would be nothing different in the wiring they would not think differently.
Why oh why do you keep ignoring the crux of my posts.
Elon Karten does not record “views” he records facts.
He records the names of the people who rant the studies on reparative and conversion therapies, they were not “quacks” rather they were the most respected names in research.
This is a fact.
He records the methodologies used for these studies, they were the same used for many other accepted studies.
This is a fact.
He records the statements of all those when journals when he wished to submit the results of his graduate study, which was conducted following all the normal procedures.
The observable facts all prove to an inherent bias.
But I understand that we are not arguing on a level playing field since I have examined both sides while you are unwilling to do the same.
Oh and lets not forget climate change is real it’s a observable scientific fact.
However a man may not be a man and a woman may not be a woman.
In fact horses may be cats.
You just never know their feelings do you?
Let’s understand you fully.
Scientifically speaking a person is born with with a female or male biology they physically progress as a typical female or male specimen.
If however they decide that they truly and deeply feel they belong to the opposite gender and they exhibit a deep longing towards that gender it is completely normal to regard them differently and ignore the biological facts of their bodies.
However if on the other hand a male or female feels that the correct spouse for them is of the same gender it is completely unwarranted to point out that perhaps they are mistaken and marriage is of opposite genders.
That is the reputable findings of the APA.
In other news the sky is a bright purple today.
1) Actually I am sure as a statistician you can understand how the slightest nuance can have untold ripple effects, as such I can try and explain to you some slight nuance that apply in this case.
Mitt Romney was not running based on his faith nor was he asking for support based upon his faith, rather he was running on a set of policy positions.
Voting for Romney was not a vote in support of his personal faith, rather it was a support of his public policy positions.
Attending the parade is for the sole purpose of showing solidarity with the horrible aveira represented.
2) On a strictly halachic basis assuming that Mormon ideology acknowledges HKB”h as being the “head of the “triangle” there is plenty of halachic basis that states polytheisim (shituf) is not assur for a non-jew.
You have the same problem with Brexit that the Tories had with the “revolutionary” colonists.
Yes being part of Britian was better in the short term, and if they would have co-operated things would have been better.
However there was one simple problem they felt disrespected as human beings.
They felt they were second class citizens.
They did not want to be a part of the United Kingdom.
The Democrats are unwilling to recognize a simple problem.
Much of the Us does not want their policies.
The majority did not want ObamaCare.
A huge percentage does not want the PC culture they have imposed upon this country, nor do they want “open borders”.
Sadly the Republican party for many years did not have the courage of it’s convictions to stand up to this madness and failed to grasp the depth of the anger of many American’s.
The anger of the workers in coal plants out of a job because of stupid environmental regulations.
The anger of religious people who were told that to operate a business in America you have to serve product intended for ceremonies that go against the core of you’re beliefs and if not you are racist.
The anger of those who were told that they could not build on their own land because of stupid zoning and environmental laws.
The anger of millions of people who were told they cannot pray in public because they are “offending” other’s but they must allow men who decide they are women to use the same bathroom as their daughters.
The failure of the Republican party to stand for it’s base led to it being damaged at it’s core, Jeb Bush running and many insiders thinking he was the favorite shows how out of touch the party really was with the voters.
That led to a sad case where the one person who was willing to stand and speak his mind, whether it made sense or not, and was totally and unapologetically spate from the “Republican” brand wiping the floor with anyone else.
The one person who had a prayer against him was the Republican most associated with being anti the establishment.
To sum it up, I do not know if the Trump is a plant or not.
However I do know that the one’s who are most responsible for him are the Republican party leadership who refused to recognize the depth of anger of the American public against the establishment and energetically stand up for those who voted them into power.
Actually the Halacha is quite clear that one who supports “ovrei aveira” is in the same boat as ovrei aveira.August 2, 2016 3:05 pm at 3:05 pm in reply to: Why the ashkenazi schools don't accept sefardi children #1164104
Actually in that case half the parents who refused to send their children to school were sefardi, a point that for some reason was overlooked by the secular media.
Actually I did not state what I personally believe their position to be. I merely explained what Health was deriving from their writings.
I do not know their current position nor, to be frank, do I much care what it is, when those that formulate a position state clearly and openly beforehand that they are biased I do not know how any intelligent person can take what they say with a grain of salt.
What I have stated is that regardless of what they believe based on anecdotal evidence of unproven theories, actually scientific studies have proven that it does in fact work.August 1, 2016 6:20 pm at 6:20 pm in reply to: Why the ashkenazi schools don't accept sefardi children #1164093
I am not sure what your point is,
Yes Ponovich has Chassidish bochrim who wish to learn in a Litvish Yeshiva to get the Litvishe “derech halimu”, Ponovich also has Sefardi talmidim who come for the same reason.
Most yeshivos in E”Y have that, however they all have a cap on how many they will take since they wish for it to remain a “Litvishe” Yeshivah and the same vice versa.
As fro R’ Shach being oppose, that’s actually not entirely accurate, Rav Shach was opposed as long as there was not any “top Sefardi” Yeshivos, he was actually very for Sefardim establishing “top sefardi yeshivos so the Sephardi Mesorah would not be lost.
There are many letters in Michtavim U”mamorim about this you can look there.
it seems you are having somewhat of a difficult time understanding Health’s point.
Health is pointing out that in the APA and AMA’s manual’s they do not address whether or not the therapies work, rather they simply state they oppose anything that would make someone feel that homosexuality is a problem.
What can be gleaned is that they themselves recognize that the therapies do indeed work, they simply oppose them because of what they imply.
What I have stated is simply that the AMA and the APA would have a very difficult time stating that the therapies have been proven not to work on a scientific basis since all actual scientific studies carried out showed that statistically speaking they do in fact work the same as any other therapy.July 31, 2016 6:37 pm at 6:37 pm in reply to: Why the ashkenazi schools don't accept sefardi children #1164088
Actually there are separate schools for Litvaks and Chassidim and most people would look at a litvishe boy trying to go to a Satmar or Gerrer school as weird and the same vice versa.July 29, 2016 11:39 pm at 11:39 pm in reply to: Why the ashkenazi schools don't accept sefardi children #1164077
The difference is a nuber of facts
1) Blacks and whites in America now are basically trying to learn the same stuff with the same goals even if surface level vocabulary is different.
2) Ashkenazin amd Sephardim have different minhagim and they pasken differently.
A true Sephardi has completely and totally different halachos in primary ways that make it very difficult to teach children, ideally ateacher should be able to teach a class.
1) Without having to explain on Pesach what Ashkenazim hold is chametz the Sephardim hold is Matza and rice.
2) Our Sefer TOrah looks and is held completely differently then theirs.
3) Hald the class pronounces the taamim one way the other a different way.
Along with many other very real differences.
And I write this as someone who counts a proud sefardi as one of his best friends.
You know in Rav Mordechai Gifter’s famous speech regarding a certain MO institution he made the point that all label’s are in fact false.
Judaisim at it’s core is in based upon one simple fact the Divinity of the Torah.
In practice we all have a Yetzer Horah.
However the question is how we define ourselves.
Are we striving to keep the whole Torah or not? Is that our goal?
If that is our goal then yes we are jointly in the category of Torah Jews” irrespective of whether we are we are
Ashkenzic or Sefardic,
Chassidish or Litvish
Yeshivish or Yekkish
Orhtodox or Ultra Orthodox.
The question simply is do we believe in Torah Shebiksav and Torah Shel Bal Peh and is that the manual we strive to use as a guide for everyday life.
If anybody rejects that belief, if they are not striving to use the Torah as the guide towards everyday life, then they have chosen to leave the mantle of “Torah” and while they may do “good deeds” as any person may, and they may mistakenly think that what they are practicing is Judaisim in some form or another, it is absolutely false.
There is no two Judaisims,
There is one it is centered on Torah the whole Torah and nothing but the Torah.
And understanding this requires the willingness to understand nuance.
To recognize that no we do not reject the person if a person is born Jewish they remain Jewish, and yes we extend our compassion towards them.
That is a fact that we do not just state we practice it by the tens of millions of dollars and the astounding amount of human resources and energy we spend trying to reach out and teach them the heritage that is theirs as much as it is ours.
However we completely and utterly reject any attempt to place their value systems on any level that is on par with the Torah which is derived not from the editorial boards of the NY Times and Washington Post but from G-d himself.
We reject any attempt to place there belief system that can change on a whim and evolves based upon contemporary moral values with the timeless and unchanging values of the Torah.
We reject any attempt to interpret the Torah based upon sources that are derived from anything other then the Torah itself.
Yet again, while we utterly and completely reject the value, dogma, and false traditions, of such belief systems we completely accept the human beings who are part of our family.
We daven for them and we try to teach them the Torah as G-d gave it to us, something which as I have stated before, is something we prove on ad aily basis.July 29, 2016 9:20 pm at 9:20 pm in reply to: Does a reform rabbi do anything other than attend funerals? #1161024
yserbious has the pbest post on this thread so far.
We should learn from Reform how to do chesed?
GO to virtually and major hospital in the tri-state area, it has a fully stocked Bikur Cholim room that is re-stocked with fresh food everyday.
Stick around to see who does the “re-stocking”- Community volunteers.
When you hear the sirens of an ambulance in any orthodox jewish population center look up. There’s a good chance that you will see a Hatzolah ambulance on the way.
Driven by who – Community volunteers.
When you see a jew with a flat tire or locked out of their car =, in need of a boost or other small emergency ask them if they have Chaveirim’s number, and a frum jew will show up who is that- A community volunteer.
When you hear about a jewish family in a tough financial position and you wonder how they get food fro Shabbos or yom tov when it costs so much remember about that thing called Tomchei Shabbos with weekly food drop offs run by- community volunteers.
When you find out about a couple with fertility issues and wonder how they are affording the huge expenses involved and navigating the wide array of options, or someone with a medical problem trying to find out the best hospital to go to, or someone faced with battiling the machla r”l and all the associated expenses, recall the multi-million dollar orginazaations called RCCS, Echo, Refuah, Atime, Bonei Olam and more all funded and ran primarily by- community volunteers.
When you have a halachic problem in many communities and don’t know what to do your rabbi is in unavailable you can call something called a Bais Horah ran by – Rabbi’s volunteering.
So now what exactly are we supposed to be learning from the Reform?
As I showed previously there is the AMA and APA cannot state that those therapies are proven scientifically not to work because when they were actual scientific studies were carried out they were proven to work.
What they can state is there is anecdotal evidence of it not working since there are those whom it has no effect on.
Just as marriage therapy does not work on everyone and all other sorts of therapy.
However for some reason in all other cases the actual data is chosen over singular anecdotes.
You are aware that the “consensus” medical opinion until fairly recently was that homesexuality was a “mental disorder”.
So according to you up till the diagnosis was changed everyone was to believe that it was so and if they disbelieved it they were minority “nutjobs”.
The morning after the changed diagnosis, those who disagreed became “nutjobs”.
As for questioning everything.
Not at all.
There was one truth that God gave us and attested to the fact it will never ever change.
It’s called the Torah.
I am wondering why you are ignoring the thrust of the posts.
Karten is a practicing psychologist, He affirms it does work in his practice and his essential point is that you are dead wrong.
All actual scientific studies done with the same methodology used for any study have proven that it has the same rates of success of any other therapies.
That is a fact and he goes through the actual studies.
There are no studies done that show it not to work much less to be harmful.
Is there anecdotal tales from those it’s failed on?
A majority is not ruled out by a minority.
Much as marriage therapy is not deemed harmful because of the anecdotes of those who have been harmed by therapy in specific circumstances.
I have quoted articles, and pointed to exact studies.
You refutation is what?
Are there any specific studies you can point to?
And please do not point to the AMA again, I went through all six people who did that study, and showed how the idisputable facts are on record.
They rejected any attempt to have non-biased people do that study in favor of those who publicly admitted they were biased and had formed opinions beforehand.
Actually according to Judaism it is a fact that people are born with predilections to murder any one born under the Mazal Maadim, every person is born with a personality that allows for them to either be a “rusha” a “a “beinuni” or a tzadik.
Someone born under the Mazal Maadim essentially enjoys “blood’ so they can be either
1) A rotzaech, murderer which is a rusha
2) A Shocheit, ritual slaughterer, which is a beinoni.
3) A Mohel, circumcisor, which is a tsaddik.
And what I have written is essentially a quote from the Vilna Gaon brought in Even Shelaima.
Yes the fact is that the AMA has reputed reparative and conversion therapy.
However as I noted a cursory check of the board that supposedly conducted a “neutral and non-biased” investigation leading to this conclusion all had publicly and adamantly formed their opinions beforehand.
This is no theory, it is fact.
And any non-biased study done using the same methods of scientific research that are always used shows it does work.
This is a point that Karten himself a practicing psychologist makes again and again in the article I previously referenced witch is fully sourced.
And non-conspiratorial look into the fact shows one basic thing.
TO enter therapy a simple premise is required.
That it is better to be “straight” then “gay”.
That goes against the entire core of the pride agenda. And that is why therapy is being viewed as “non-workable”.
What I fond interesting is that using similar statistics why is marriage therapy not deemed harmful?
The fall 2012 issue of Dialogue features a 21 page article from Elon Karten Ph.D a practicing psychologist who deals with many frum people struggling with this problem.
In the article he documents that the “taskforce” that condemned “reparative therapy” consisted of individuals who were on record about their positions before the selection while those who were more neutral were turned away.
the six member board consisted of
Judith M Glasgold- Board member of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy.
Jack Drescher- well know gay activist.
Lee Beckstead- Self identified gay man.
Beverly Green- Co-editor of APA Gay and Lesbian Division 44 series on Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues.
Robin Lin Miller- worked for Gay Men’s Health Crisis.
Roger Worthington- Chief Diversity Officer and University of Missouri and recipient of the 2001 Catalyst award from the LGBT Resource Center.
This is the “neutral board that “investigated” reparative therapy and then condemned it as harmful.
In the article he further notes that the study by Dr. Robert Spitzer actually did find that sexual conversion therapy does in fact work and that study was consistent with an earlier study by MacIntosh in 1994.
Yes Dr. Spitzer did come under harsh criticism from the gay community and yes the APA did distance itself from his work however when approached the editor of the Journal that originally published the article Dr. Kenneth Zucker Ph.D, to ask to issue a retraction he replied
“You can retract data incorrectly analyzed, to do that you publish an erratum. You can retract an article of the data was falsified-or the journal retracts it if the editor knows it. As I understand it he’s just saying ten years later that he wants to retract his interpretation of the data. Well we’d probably have to retract hundreds of scientific papers with regard to interpretation, and we don’t do that”.
I would encourage the posters who state that there is no proof that therapy can work in these cases to read the entire article which is full sourced.
The Democrats claim that all they want is the government to stay out o religion yet that is clearly not the case.
The Jewish religion has two crucial laws one is called Lifnei Eiver and the other is Misayeah.
If I own a catering company, wedding venue, bakery, or any facility that provides goods or services that play an integral role in a wedding ceremony and am asked to provide said good’s or services to facilitate a toeivah marriage ceremony then by any definition I am entering a Halachic problem of either Lifnei Eiver or at the very least Misayeah.
And yes I may be required to give up my livelihood rather then violate the Torah.
That is a fact.
Yet the Democrat position is that freedom of religion does not protect my right to operate my business in accord with my sincerely held religious beliefs.
And if I would like to continue to be in business I must violate said beliefs.
In other words right now, right here in the present day and age.
It is the Democrats and the Democrats exclusively who as a party overwhelmingly support a position that is not just ani-torah it poses a real and present danger to anyone who wishes to keep the Torah and remain with a livelihood.
I know of no Republican position that is the same.
Hence I believe anyone who votes Democrat may be a Jew in body but not is spirit.
So I don’t get it.
Is the claim against Trump that he is an anti-Semite?
Because his daughter Ivanka who, by any measure, is one of his closest advisors identifies as a Modern-orthodox Jewish woman and sends her children to Jewish schools.
Or is the claim that Trump is a liar.
‘Cuase he very well maybe, but if his wins the Republican primary and faces Hillary Clinton then it’s one liar vs. another liar.
Why is it more important to vote for one liar over another?
Actually the timeline is not Bush’s it was up to Obama to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement.
He failed to do so. Period.
As for preventing military access to care.
You are trying to distract but I’ll take the bite.
The actual member’s of the Armed forces do not seem to feel that the Republicans prevent them from getting care since they continue to overwhelmingly support them in elections.
As to whether or not I feel that this agreement allows them to become the equal of the USA.
Well they have a wide ranging Nuclear program an in house military program have demonstrated a commitment to using all spare cash fro military means and are about to essentially be given hundreds of billions of dollars.
As for all Mideast countries supporting it.
They all did not just Saudi Arabia or are you completely unaware of Mideast politics?
Yes I agree with Rubio’s recent op-ed instead of acting as if this was negotiations between a super power and third world country Obama made it negotiations between equals and that is one result that may come out of it.
One advantage Obama has over most Presidents is the sheer number of failed promises and policies make it impossible to keep up
with anything and people forget them simply because of the number.
1) The colossal failure of the stimulus which officially was designed to improve the infrastructure (shovel ready jobs anybody?) and did no such thing and was going to keep unemployment down below 8 percent (oops!) and lead to the “Summer of Recovery” remember that summer?
2) The Health Insurance Bill popularly known as Obamacare was going to get you better health insurance (which top doctor’s take Obamacare plans?) save you 1500.00 dollars on each plan (shucks that didn’t happen) and enable you to keep the insurance that you wanted ( well that didn’t happen).
3) We were going to close down Guantanamo and any prisoners released were of course harmless and not going to go back to trying to kill US citizens’ ( That didn’t happen)
4) We were going to completely withdraw from Iraq.Yup that happened and now we have ISIS.
5) We were going to be more respected in the world. I guess that means laughingstock.
6) We were going to have renewed unity no “blue state’s or Red state’s just Americans. Remember that. Tell that to the police.
7) Obama would ensure that Syria never crossed his red lines by using chemical weapons. Yup, that worked out and Assad would leave power. Yup that worked out.
8) Obama would ensure every option remained on the table to not allow Iran to get “the bomb”.
Gee what a pres.
Actually I for one think that Romney would have attacked Iran.
In fact I think that the circumstances in the Mideast would have been completely different Republicans won.
Whether you agree with them or not Republicans generally hold the military in higher esteem then the Democrats and tend to listen better.
I fully believe that the would have been a Status of Forces agreement in place had a Republican been President ( the general consensus is that Obama blew it because of a general lack of interest) as such there would have been a larger US presence in Iraq as there should have been.
Couple that with the fact that there would have been a more robust deployment of troops in line with he general’s requests.
There would never have been a timeline given for the US withdrawal.
The above facts on the ground would not have allowed the rise of ISIS to begin.
In addition during the “green revolution” American support for the opposition would have been clearer and possibly include covert arms from the nearby forces which possibly would have brought down the Iranian government as it brought down others.
The reason is simple
All of the Mideast countries would have supported it (unlike the embassy move) and any one with a half a brain understands what is already being said.
This agreement sets off an arms race in region already teeming with millions of armed individuals calling for the destruction of the US led by a country that Obama’s admits remains committed to the same goal.
Even without Israelis interest’s it is an epically bad decision to basically allow you enemy to become you equal.
Just to be clear.
During the debates with Romney Obama claimed there was no difference between the two in regard to Iran.
He made it clear, over and over and over again that if Iran refused to get rid of their Nuclear Program he would take it out militarily.
Now it seems that Obama is claiming that is not an option.
So I guess that means Obama is admitting publicly that he lied to the American People in order to get elected.
I am not pretending that the “love” between parent and child is the same as that between spouses.
I am merely pointing out that there are a great number of factors that make the relationship between same gender individuals vs a man and a woman completely different.
There is merely one factor present that may or may not be the same and that is love,
(And one can even argue based upon statistics that even that factor is different
If the “love” is the same then why is there so many more “break ups” and unfaithfulness in those relationships then in same gender relationships? but that is a sidebar)
However the presence of love does not make the relationship the same for if that was the case any relationship with “love” would be called a “marriage” and conversely any relationship without “love” would not be called “marriage”.
If two individuals marry for money or social status shall we stop calling that marriage!
Of course not!
A woman and man who wed are married because that is the term that has been used for generations to describe that unique and different relationship, just as a table is called a table and a chair is called a chair.
A chair is not called a table because it may have a flat part to it and table is not called a chair because it may have legs.
Put simply I find it absurd to thing the same term that is used to describe the marital relationship between man and woman can be used to describe a completely different relationship, that between two individuals of the same gender.
GAW: You started your post by stating that you cannot explain the positions of others then ended it by stating you see no reason not to extend the “rights’ of marriage to same gender couples.
So let’s try and define things.
1) no one was denied the right to marriage, any man can marry any woman.
2) There are those who choose for whatever reason not to enter a marital relationship, in a democracy you cannot force someone to do anything (except buy health insurance) and therefore they had the right to stay single or enter other types of relationships.
3) Due to the fact that some people did not like what marriage was they decide to change it.
Sort of like if I do not like what a table is I try and change it to a chair.
As such they began to insist that a loving relationship between two same gender individuals is also a marriage.
Now factually, scientifically, and inarguably any way you want to put it there are many huge difference between the relationship between a man and a woman and tow individuals of the same gender.
1) Biologically the relationship is extremely different
2) emotionally they are extremely different
3) The side effects are extremely different, on can have kids one cannot.
However these individual decided that none of above characteristics are what define the term marriage rather it is the presence of “love’ and any two individuals in a loving relationship are married.
If the only requisite for marriage is “love” then again why is a mother and daughterer not married?
Why are two best friends not married?
why are two close siblings not married?
In my mind the answer is quite simple.
Love is an important part of marriage but it is not the only part there are many unique aspects of that particular relationship.
The combination of all these factors are found only in the relationship between a man and a woman and it is that unique relationship that is marriage.
Hence the secular “argument” against same gender marriage is essentially.
It simply is not marriage. It is relationship it is many things but it is not marriage.
So can you give a cogent secular argument why the term “marriage” should be changed to include a relationship that is different both biologically, emotionally, and in what the tangential abilities (one can produce children one cannot?
As marriage has evolved from a structure in which a family could grow (the “original meaning”) to an affirmation of individuals’ love and a financial/legal “next of kin”, so too has the “right” to be married. From the opinion:
And so I would ask GAW,
Based on what you seem to think marriage has evolved to is a father and son “married” is a “mother and daughter” married?
I was not referring to that post, all I was doing there was merely pointing out the flaws of that the the fact that there are “marriages’ that cannot have children is irrelevant as to determining the general purpose of marriage.
However that is not my argument because I think the argument may be true but it’s is not intrinsic rather it is based on circumstance.
What I hold as the better argument is the one in my next post which Matan1 has not responded to.
Actually Reb Moshe was calling for people to go and protest against a sitting popular Mayor.
You asked for a secular argument against the re-definition of marriage.
I gave you one.
Incidentally it is one that more or less 4 Justices of the Supreme Court more or less agreed with and wrote detailed secular legal briefs supporting?
Why are you ignoring it?
Do you have a logical response to it?
Well it would seem that Reb Moshe zt”l disagreed with ZD.
No it is not a “rare” exception in the sense it is truly rare, however it is inarguable that one of the defining characteristics of a normal traditional marriage is the desire to build a family and it is the only union capable of doing so.
(unlike love which is a characteristic found in may different types of relationships)
The fact there are exceptions does not invalidate the rule, and to argue as much would mean that there can never be any rule’s since practically each and every single rule has an exception, however we generally rule based on the majority.
Even without that argument it’s a pretty cut and dry case.
Biologically Men and Woman are different.
That is a fact.
Emotionally Men and Woman are different.
That is another fact.
So it follows that a relationship between them is inherently different then one between two members of the same gender.
This is an unalterable truth, one that cannot be changed no matter the words used.
Until now secular society recognized that singular relationship as the one called marriage, the term marriage was not extended to include other types of relationships.
As such the recent decision changes the very meaning of the word it “re-defines” marriage to mean a relationship that is intrinsically different on many level’s, and yes, Justice Kennedy may argue that there is one commonality between them, love, but it would take a theologian, not a lawyer, to argue that is the defining quality of the term.
And I would note that any theologian would be unsuccessful.
The relationship between Parent and child is loving, is it not?
Is that relationship, which is in many way’s an unbreakable bond termed “marriage”?
It obviously is not.
It’s a loving relationship!
The answer is because love is an important component of marriage, however it is not the only factor involved.
So as Justice Roberts in his brilliantly argued dissent showed, the justices of the majority threw logic and law out the window and simply ruled with what they desired.
The argument that government sanctions marriage purely because of the fact that it is the union that produces future citizen’s is a pretty good one.
The argument that state’s if so “childless’ couples should be illegal is pretty weak intellectually.
As Jews we are all aware of some basic concepts 1) Every rule has an exception 2) We rule based on the overwhelming majority, and regarding the other’s “Lo Plug” we do not differentiate.
The overwhelming majority of traditional marriages are with he intent of producing children, if not immediately eventually. The fact that there are exceptions is irrelevant. “Lo Plug”.
TO bring up the votes for Romney or Obama is a pretty intellectually shallow move.
Romney’s campaign pitch was not “vote for me because I am a Mormon”, in fact he was criticized by some for not contrasting the fact that he was obviously a man of faith vs Obama’s dubious record on the matter.
The entire pitch that Romney made was based on his economic know how and Obama’s ineptitude on the World stage.
Again his faith was tangential at best.
However in the case that was recently decided 5 lawyers decided that a term that was until now reserved exclusively for the unique relationship between a man and a woman will be redefined to put relationships that the Torah, and until several years ago, the entire world understood were in no way the same.
As such this decision directly and with obvious intent seeks to redefine what is considered moral and right in the world we live in.
What should be even more cause for concern is the fact that there are Jewish Justices that were part of the majority decision.
In light of what this decision means there is no way to describe it other then to so state the obvious.
It’s a tragedy, and particularly for us who have to now raise our children in a world that has deemed immorality moral and morality immoral.
The way the question was asked by the OP it was women who are “dedicated” to talmud torah and want to celebrate their own talmud torah not the accomplishments they enabled.
The question of Ratzon Hashem is pretty spot on and it is quite profound however I think the answer cuts deep into our core.
We hold that aman and awoman are really two parts of one whole. We beleive that a marriage is not merely a partnership between one man and one woman.
It is the complete unification of man and woman.
As such the individual accomplishemnts of either of them are attributed to both of them.
This applies especially toa woman.
As in any company in order for success there must be defined roles. A well run company is one in which each person carrys out their role to perfection.
So to a Man and Woman create a family which is a “unit” charged with fulfilling Avodas Hashem. Hashem created each gender differently in order to ensure that biologicaly they are each suited to their roles.
The woman was given the role of being the “bacbone” the support while the man was given the role of action.
Interstingly in Jewish law the one who supports, the enabler is always given more reward then the actual doer and so to by women the Gemorah in Berachos (according to Rashi) states that they actually recieve more reward then men for enabling the learning of thier husbands.
Simchas Torah is not a celebration of Judaisim. It is a Siyum Hatorah. A siyum on the completion of the learnign of the Torah and the begining anew. When the men celebrate that is what hey are celebrating.
They are celebrating the completion of a year of them doing their Jobs.
A woman observing and watching Men celebrate what they have done, in essence watching the celebration of the completion of a task they have enabled.
Whjy would a woman want to be the one dancing and doing the actual completing of the Torah?
If one wants to do the “ratzon hashem then God has made his Ratzon clear by creating Men and Women differntly.
When women “switch” sides so they are the ones celebrating the Torah they are essentially declaring their desire to do that which God has said is not wanted.
It is not Ratzon hashem they are seeking to fulfill. It is Ratzonom that they are seeking to fulfill.
God wants women to be women not men,.
Actually we do have a Mesorah for shul last I checked its pretty famous that Chanah went to daven in the Beis Hamikdash and it continues till the modern era.
Ever toured Europe?
Most off the Chareidi shuls have an Ezras Nashim.
But no the way modern day feminists approach shul with womens tefilla gatherings has no mesorah and most mainstream Rabbonim do not approve of it.
First off the fact soemthing is different then the Mesorah does not automatically diqualify it.
It does mean that you need really, really, really big people who know the entire Torah and have reached the status where they are generally accepted to be Gedolei Yisroel to change it.
In the time when Beis Yackov was started there were many against precisly becuase it was against Mesorah.
Gedolei Yisroel at the time, led by the Chofetz Chaim and the Gerrer Rebbe, approved it as such it was implemented.
I do not see any Gedolei Yisroel of our time approving of this practice.
Once I was at the Simchas Beis HaShoeiva of a major Rav( He is considered one of the major Poskim in the USA) and he spoke about this.
The point of his drosha actually was that Halachically it’s not prohibited but as frum Yidden we have a Mesorah and we follow the Mesorah and there was never such aconcept in Judaisim.
In the Chasam Sofer’s words,
‘Chadash Assur Min HaTorah”.
actually I think that who is the initiator of a no-fault divorce has a alot of bearing in arranging child custody.
You see children are way better off on so many levels and in so many ways growing up in a home with both biological parents.
If a woman initiates the destruction of that home for selfish reasons and in spite of the husbands obvious willingness to work on things and keep things together so theat their children will not have to grow up in two homes and in two worlds.
Well I would think thats the first sign that perhaps the mother is not really the best person to be raising those kids.