Jump to content
MURDERcomplexx

Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

Recommended Posts

Because before the trend of creating "verses" it was all one paragraph. Also the wording, relates it to the prior sentences. Much like how in English grammar, if you begin a paragraph with "he" or "They" it refers to the subject of the last sentence or paragraph.

 

If you get your hands on an older Torah, like one no longer "fit" to be used in a synagogue, where they don't do the "Christianized" thing of breaking it up, it flows one into the other.

 

You'll note that in the Hebrew, it doesn't even start with a capital. It starts with , a comma, or in other versions -- וְ - which means and, and therefore, also, then, or rarely, yet.

 

[Hebrew reads <-- this way ]

It still looks like a paragraph to me, from what I see wording doesnt relate it to the prior sentence at all, matter of fact most of, if not all of the verses in this paragraph arent related one to the other but instead state a "rule" that should be followed.

 

There is no capital in Hebrew nor a proper way to start a sentence, it starts pretty much like at least 1000 other verses that also arent related to "prior" verses throughout the book, using AND is something widely common in the book and rarely ever means a thing.

 

[Hebrew reads --> that way ]

 

Have no idea how did you went from A to R in this speific context, has anybody told you so or is it something you deduced yourself ?

Share this post


Link to post

Faiths like Wicca generally have no problem with homosexuality, much less with the concept of gay marriage. (Heck, as a marriage commissioner myself I'm pleased and proud to marry gay couples when they come to me, whether in a Pagan or non-Pagan context, and I've read several beautiful Pagan services for same-sex couples.)

 

Ah, funny that you should mention Wicca and Paganism. xd.png My aunt is a Wiccan and a lesbian (her wife is really cool, but I still have yet to meet her in person), but she practices it mildly. I just don't like the concept of having someone born and grow the way they are be condemned by others who believe they're going to burn forever because someone else said so.

Share this post


Link to post

It still looks like a paragraph to me, from what I see wording doesnt relate it to the prior sentence at all, matter of fact most of, if not all of the verses in this paragraph arent related one to the other but instead state a "rule" that should be followed.

 

It still looks like a paragraph to you? What exactly are you using as a Tanakh?

 

There is no capital in Hebrew nor a proper way to start a sentence,

 

There is when you're working with a sacred text, the rules differ from modern Hebrew.

 

starts pretty much like at least 1000 other verses that also arent related to "prior" verses throughout the book,

 

Would you care to use an example of a sentence starting with and that does not refer to the prior verse?

 

[Hebrew reads --> that way ]

 

Hebrew reads right to left, my dear. Not left to right. And religious Hebrew, will often double the size of a proper name or a beginning of a paragraph, or if something needs to be separated. None of that has been done.

 

As for my qualifications --

 

I've studied Hebrew at University level, did a year and half study in two shuls in Israel, specializing in the changes in Biblical Hebrew from it's evolution from other Semitic languages. I also am certified by three boards to teach Hebrew.

 

Further, I have discussed this issue with two dozen rabbis of various denominations, including Haredi, and all of them agreed that the verse was a continuation of the last. If you have a rabbi that says differently, I'd love to speak to him. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Part of it had to do with the laws during immigration, especially pre-WWII and directly after. The state required Jews to affirm that they were married and not related in any way to their spouse. The state requirement gew out of that.

 

What does this have to do with Jewish law, though?

 

One of the rabbis who didn't like the decision said he resigned because the measure allowing gay rabbis and unions was "outside the pale of halachic reasoning."

 

A significant portion of Jews go with what they "think" Judaism teaches without any actual study into it. It's part of then problem with so many people claiming Judaism, but never having stepped foot in shul since bar/bat mitzvah or learned Hebrew enough to read independently.

 

That's why Jews are trying to push education so much more in the last five years (not same-sex marriage, specifically, but general ignorance)

 

But there are rabbis that oppose it.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/nyregion...?pagewanted=all

 

Among Conservative Rabbis, a Wide Disagreement Over Same-Sex Marriage

 

"The other denominations of Judaism are less divided. All but several Orthodox rabbis, from Modern to Hasidic, oppose same-sex marriage largely because of the explicit ban against homosexual sex in Leviticus and would never officiate at a Jewish wedding ceremony, while most, but not all, Reform and Reconstructionist rabbis will do so.

 

[...]

 

Many rabbis have capitalized on this concept to perform Jewish wedding ceremonies for gay couples, complete with a chuppa, or traditional wedding canopy, and a ketubah, or marriage contract. They say they overlook the Torah’s prohibition against homosexual sex as an ancient dictum that has lost its moral force.

"

As society has become more accepting of gay relationships, their interpretations have followed suit. As noted in the article,

 

"[...] also believes that his Conservative colleagues will slowly come down on the side of same-sex marriage — though for slightly different reasons. “This is going to line up heavily on age lines,” he said. “People in their 50s are simply going to be less likely to reach this sea change, and people in their 30s are going to be much more inclined.”

 

This is the trend we see. The younger generation is a lot more accepting according to the polls.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

It still looks like a paragraph to you? What exactly are you using as a Tanakh?

 

Obviously I'm using a Tanakh

 

There is when you're working with a sacred text, the rules differ from modern Hebrew.

 

I've never encountered Hebrew with capital letters, ancient Hebrews didnt use capital letters when starting a sentence, I would be more than glad to see a copy of such book which uses capital letters at the start of each sentence.

Its actually intriguing

 

Would you care to use an example of a sentence starting with and that does not refer to the prior verse?

 

Let's use one from the same paragraph

 

וְאִשָּׁה, לֹא-תַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי בְהֵמָה לְרִבְעָהּ--תֶּבֶל הוּא

 

stands for itself

 

Hebrew reads right to left, my dear. Not left to right. And religious Hebrew, will often double the size of a proper name or a beginning of a paragraph, or if something needs to be separated. None of that has been done.

 

It was a joke my dear, as I found it funny that you felt the need to explain something as basic as that after I quoted Hebrew verse.

As I said earlier havent encountered writings that used capital letters at teh start of each sentence, would you say it's a rule or just something they used sometimes ?

 

As for my qualifications --

 

I've studied Hebrew at University level, did a year and half study in two shuls in Israel, specializing in the changes in Biblical Hebrew from it's evolution from other Semitic languages. I also am certified by three boards to teach Hebrew.

 

Further, I have discussed this issue with two dozen rabbis of various denominations, including Haredi, and all of them agreed that the verse was a continuation of the last. If you have a rabbi that says differently, I'd love to speak to him. smile.gif

 

Are you fluent in Hebrew ?

 

All of them agreed it was a continuation ? I will indeed investigate that matter.

While studying in Israel have you noticed that whenever there was a homosexual/pride parade in Jerusalem, religious Jews were all over them ?

Which basically means that most of rabbis (in Israel at least) dont feel the same way about this verse, when I say religious Jews I'm talking about those who study Tanakh their entire lives.

Edited by The Evil Doer

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously I'm using a Tanakh

 

What Tanakh, I meant. Sorry, too many languages, sometimes.

 

I've never encountered Hebrew with capital letters, ancient Hebrews didnt use capital letters when starting a sentence, I would be more than glad to see a copy of such book which uses capital letters at the start of each sentence.

Its actually intriguing

 

I have an antique (1862) copy of Esther and two primers that go into it. The one nearest my desk Is called "Grasping the Mysteries of the Biblical Hebrew"

 

stands for itself

 

Does it? What are you using to determine so?

 

It was a joke my dear, as I found it funny that you felt the need to explain something as basic as that after I quoted Hebrew verse.

As I said earlier havent encountered writings that used capital letters at teh start of each sentence, would you say it's a rule or just something they used sometimes ?

 

It is something that I have found not universally used, but common with siddurs and Torah scrolls. In fact, a trend has cropped up in the tradition of buying a Torah letter for the shul when the scrolls need restored, to try and get a "capital" letter, thus (to some) magnifying the mitzvah.

 

Are you fluent in Hebrew ?

 

No, I am certified to teach it, but not fluent. Of course I am. It was my second language, the first being Dine.

 

All of them agreed it was a continuation ? I will indeed investigate that matter.

 

Feel free. smile.gif

 

While studying in Israel have you noticed that whenever there was a homosexual/pride parade in Jerusalem, religious Jews were all over them ?

 

I was in pride parades, and to a degree. However, less so than in the US, and gay hangouts were never picketed nor had people "all over them." I felt much safer going to a club in Israel than I ever did here, even living in Berkeley.

 

Which basically means that most of rabbis (in Israel at least) dont feel the same way about this verse, when I say religious Jews I'm talking about those who study Tanakh their entire lives.

 

As am I. I discussed this topic with all stripes of Orthodox. I'm talking about people who live it their entire lives.

 

The odd thign about this is that in the US, Jews tend to slip away from traditional and rabbinic teachings due to their Christianization. You have Rabbis whom oppose abortion in the case of the mother being in danger despite having clear Talmudic orders that the mother's life is what matters more. I've found a lot of Jews here, even rabbis, want to align themselves with conservative movements, mostly because of endowments and Zionist support from protestant churches.

 

What does this have to do with Jewish law, though?

 

When one is in an exile state, one is to obey the laws of the land, as long as those laws do not conflict with religious laws.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

When one is in an exile state, one is to obey the laws of the land, as long as those laws do not conflict with religious laws.

 

From the article,

 

"But the movement, which believes that Jews must conserve traditions yet also holds that laws must evolve to meet the shifting realities of modern life, has long given individual rabbis in its 700 congregations in North America the authority to make many decisions for their communities under a privilege known as mara d’atra — authority for a place.

 

Many rabbis have capitalized on this concept to perform Jewish wedding ceremonies for gay couples, complete with a chuppa, or traditional wedding canopy, and a ketubah, or marriage contract. "

 

They're performing them with a ketubah. Why wouldn't the others? Answer: They think it's prohibited.

 

The odd thign about this is that in the US, Jews tend to slip away from traditional and rabbinic teachings due to their Christianization. You have Rabbis whom oppose abortion in the case of the mother being in danger despite having clear Talmudic orders that the mother's life is what matters more. I've found a lot of Jews here, even rabbis, want to align themselves with conservative movements, mostly because of endowments and Zionist support from protestant churches.

 

I'm going to dig a discussion I had with Shiny if I can find it. Didn't think her response explained it adequately.

Edited by Alpha1

Share this post


Link to post

They're performing them with a ketubah. Why wouldn't the others? Answer: They think it's prohibited.

 

And for some, it is. My rabbi has no issue with homosexuality. He did, however, have an issue with disobeying the law of the land after prop. 8 was passed, which would make issuing the ketubah a sin. Why? Because they are required to follow the law of the land.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

What Tanakh, I meant. Sorry, too many languages, sometimes.

 

A regular Hebrew addition used in Hebrew studies.

 

I have an antique (1862) copy of Esther and two primers that go into it. The one nearest my desk Is called "Grasping the Mysteries of the Biblical Hebrew"

 

Can it be coped anywhere or found in libraries/online or is it a unique one, coz that sounds interesting.

 

Does it? What are you using to determine so?

 

Reading comprehension

 

It is something that I have found not universally used, but common with siddurs and Torah scrolls. In fact, a trend has cropped up in the tradition of buying a Torah letter for the shul when the scrolls need restored, to try and get a "capital" letter, thus (to some) magnifying the mitzvah.

 

But you do realize that it doesnt mean they would always use it, matter of fact chances are it wasnt used in most of the verses of that paragraph, agreed ?

 

No, I am certified to teach it, but not fluent. Of course I am. It was my second language, the first being Dine.

 

Sounds like a nice mix wink.gif

 

I was in pride parades, and to a degree. However, less so than in the US, and gay hangouts were never picketed nor had people "all over them." I felt much safer going to a club in Israel than I ever did here, even living in Berkeley.

 

Just googled some

 

Pride parade

 

Shooting.

 

Im assuming you are talking about gay hangouts which are not located within religious jews' reach then

 

As am I. I discussed this topic with all stripes of Orthodox. I'm talking about people who live it their entire lives.

 

So you are saying that during your 2 years stay in Israel you have discussed homosexuality with orthodox rabbis and that they support it ?

I havent heard of one that supports it nor claims that Tanakh supports it

 

The odd thign about this is that in the US, Jews tend to slip away from traditional and rabbinic teachings due to their Christianization. You have Rabbis whom oppose abortion in the case of the mother being in danger despite having clear Talmudic orders that the mother's life is what matters more. I've found a lot of Jews here, even rabbis, want to align themselves with conservative movements, mostly because of endowments and Zionist support from protestant churches.

 

I dont think its odd, it happens in most countries over time, however I wasnt referring to rabbis in the states but those in Israel.

Edited by The Evil Doer

Share this post


Link to post
So what I don't understand, that if God decided that "okay, its alright to wear mixed threads and eat shellfish now", why didn't He also say that about homosexuality? It seems there's a lot of interpretation going on, with interpretation just suiting an individual's needs. And it doesn't explain why someone who isn't Christian should listen at all.

 

I would highly recommend reading "The Year of Living Biblically", by A. J. Jacobs. Its a true story about a secular Jew who decided trying to follow every single law in the Bible as literally as possible. To research it he read about 70 different Bibles, consulted a variety of Rabbis, priests, Imams and biblical scholars, and visited a variety of Orthodox, conservative and liberal groups of Christians, Jews and Muslims. Its quite funny, but also serious, as Jacobs's looked into the many rules laid out in the Bible, how you should know which ones are applicable, and how to get spiritual meaning from it regardless.

 

Edit: Auto-correct turned "Bliblically" to "Bionically". xd.png

THAT BOOK IS BRILLIANT ! It should be required reading in school.

 

He failed to slaughter a bull on the site of a murder, though - that was sad. And his wife wasn't too pleased about his sleeping in the spare room at various points of her menstrual cycle, either smile.gif

 

But the various rabbis he consulted were inspired. There was a way around almost everything. A bit like the Jesuits on birth control:

 

No you may not use the pill to prevent pregnancy.

However - it is OK to take the pill to regulate your cycle, so that you know when you need to abstain because that is your fertile time... biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post

A regular Hebrew addition used in Hebrew studies.

 

Which one -- sponsored by what boards. Affirmed by what sects?

 

Can it be coped anywhere or found in libraries/online or is it a unique one, coz that sounds interesting.

 

You should be able to find it in a library -- I wouldn't see why not.

 

Reading comprehension

 

So, why then, if it stands on it's own, does G-d repeat himself later with the same law in a completely different law set, if it stands on it's own and has nothing to do with the context?

 

But you do realize that it doesnt mean they would always use it, matter of fact chances are it wasnt used in most of the verses of that paragraph, agreed ?

 

If they use it in the text used, then yes they would use it in the rest of the "verses" in that paragraph. (I, personally, as a Conservadox non-Zionist don't approve of the breaking up into verses, though it makes passages easier to find.)

 

Sounds like a nice mix wink.gif

 

You think that's a mix? It's actually -- Dine, Hebrew, English, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, and Romani. (I'm still learning Romanian.) Dine for my Navajo side/living on res, Hebrew is obvious, Greek was for science and later, Biblical studies, Aramaic was Biblical studies, Latin joined Greek as "for science." And the last two are so I understand what my wife and kids are saying when they start going.

 

Im assuming you are talking about gay hangouts which are not located within religious jews' reach then

 

Yes, across the street from a Haredi shul or next door to a Chasidic shul are totally out of their reach...

 

Not really. If you compare Israeli protests and shootings and homosexual suicides with American ones, Americans will still win.

 

So you are saying that during your 2 years stay in Israel you have discussed homosexuality with orthodox rabbis and that they support it ?

 

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that I have discussed that particular verse worth multiple Orthodox, ultra-Orthodox and other rabbis, and all have agreed that it is explicitly linked to the prior verse.

 

That doesn't mean that they support homosexuality. There is more than one verse in the Tanakh on which they lay their opinions. It simply means that they don't use that verse -- also, from an Orthodox perspective, technically only male homosexuality is forbidden. The first talmudic mention of female homosexuality Tractate Yevamot 76a, only forbids lesbians from marrying a Kohen.

 

Since there is no intercourse, from a Jewish perspective, between lesbians, it cannot be considered fornication.

Share this post


Link to post

Which one -- sponsored by what boards. Affirmed by what sects?

 

I truly have no idea what sects follow which edition, the ones I am referring to are the "Soncino edition" and the modern "Koren edition" which was written by hebrew scholars in Jerusalem and is supposed to reflect the first Hebrew writings.

 

You should be able to find it in a library -- I wouldn't see why not.

 

Cool, thanks, hopefully I'll get some time this week.

 

So, why then, if it stands on it's own, does G-d repeat himself later with the same law in a completely different law set, if it stands on it's own and has nothing to do with the context?

 

What I meant in "stands on it's own" was that it wasnt a sort of a continuation of the previous verse even though it started with an "and". It has a clear meaning and even if you omit previous 5 verses the meaning of it wont change a bit, the same thing applies (IMO) to the verse that discusses homosexual relationship between two men, the verse about the punishment of such relationship (two males, the one I quoted earlier) is also mentioned in a completely different paragrpah yet I don't see why did you associate it with paganism as nowhere does it mention such relation when claiming that its wrong in the eyes of the God. Thats basically what I failed to understand, and from what I know no orthodox rabbi has ever mentioned that indeed there is a relation between homosexual sex and paganism

 

If they use it in the text used, then yes they would use it in the rest of the "verses" in that paragraph. (I, personally, as a Conservadox non-Zionist don't approve of the breaking up into verses, though it makes passages easier to find.)

 

As I said, Soncino edition isnt broken into verses yet I've failed to see any connection between paganism and homosexual relationships except for it being mentioned one after the other, furthermore as I have said earlier I have never heard any rabbi claiming so either.

 

You think that's a mix? It's actually -- Dine, Hebrew, English, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, and Romani. (I'm still learning Romanian.)  Dine for my Navajo side/living on res, Hebrew is obvious, Greek was for science and later, Biblical studies, Aramaic was Biblical studies, Latin joined Greek as "for science." And the last two are so I understand what my wife and kids are saying when they start going.

 

With such a lovely "language soup", you must have some really colorful dreams wink.gif

 

Yes, across the street from a Haredi shul or next door to a Chasidic shul are totally out of their reach...

 

Which city are we talking about ?

 

Not really. If you compare Israeli protests and shootings and homosexual suicides with American ones, Americans will still win.

 

But America wins in every aspect (except for terrorist attacks) you might choose, shootings, rapes, crimes, you cant really compare the two.

 

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that I have discussed that particular verse worth multiple Orthodox, ultra-Orthodox and other rabbis, and all have agreed that it is explicitly linked to the prior verse.

 

That I dont know, I'll ask around when I get some free time on my hands but still even with continuation it doesnt mean that the law is discussing paganism instead of man on man sex in general (the punishment for the act is in another paragraph and has no relation to paganism either) , no rabbis ever claimed such a thing so how did you deduce one from the other ?

 

That doesn't mean that they support homosexuality. There is more than one verse in the Tanakh on which they lay their opinions. It simply means that they don't use that verse -- also, from an Orthodox perspective, technically only male homosexuality is forbidden. The first talmudic mention of female homosexuality Tractate Yevamot 76a, only forbids lesbians from marrying a Kohen.

 

I'm pretty sure they use the verse about punishment though, however does it really matter what verse is it based on, jews oppose homosexual relationships between two guys, thats the bottom line. The same thing can be found in Quran so basically all major religions oppose homosexual relationships.

I find the whole concept to be a funny one, considering the fact that homosexual relationships or one man raping another (humiliation of a sort) appeared in all holly books as the most common thing blink.gif

 

Since there is no intercourse, from a Jewish perspective, between lesbians, it cannot be considered fornication.

 

That makes sense, but then again Tanakh leaves many places blank for interpretations, like a good politician does..

Edited by The Evil Doer

Share this post


Link to post

I truly have no idea what sects follow which edition, the ones I am referring to are the "Soncino edition" and the modern "Koren edition" which was written by hebrew scholars in Jerusalem and is supposed to reflect the first Hebrew writings.

 

I shall do some research on those.

 

What I meant in "stands on it's own" was that it wasnt a sort of a continuation of the previous verse even though it started with an "and". It has a clear meaning and even if you omit previous 5 verses the meaning of it wont change a bit, the same thing applies (IMO) to the verse that discusses homosexual relationship between two men, the verse about the punishment of such relationship (two males, the one I quoted earlier) is also mentioned in a completely different paragrpah yet I don't see why did you associate it with paganism as nowhere does it mention such relation when claiming that its wrong in the eyes of the God. Thats basically what I failed to understand, and from what I know no orthodox rabbi has ever mentioned that indeed there is a relation between homosexual sex and paganism

 

You're not very familliar with Canaanie religion are you? Molech, as we called him, was known as Molek to the Canaanites. Historically, his cult and that of Anat, were the only who in the Levant of that epoch, to practice religious sex through temple prostitution. (I don't find that an accurate term to use, but there you go.)

 

If you read it in context, it talks about spilling one's seed to Molech/Moloch and jumps right into the sexual actions, without so much as a breath or an ending sentence. It's explicitly referring to those practices which made him "vomit" people out of the land. Read on --

 

"Therefore shall ye keep My charge, that ye do not any of these abominable customs, which were done before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the L-RD your G-d."

 

It's explicitly referring to religious customs, right to the end of the chapter.

 

THAT is why G-d later repeats himself. He doesn't give two laws that say the exact same thing, that would be pointless. There are two separate laws regarding bestiality, etc -- one in pagan rites, as backed by the wording and continuation, and one regarding plain old bestiality.

 

Two laws saying the same thing makes no sense, whatever. They'd be one law.

 

I have never heard any rabbi claiming so either.

 

I have never heard a rabbi NOT claim that Leviticus 18 was a separate law than Leviticus 20. If it wasn't, the number of laws drop from 613 to something like 610.

 

Which city are we talking about ?

 

Let's see-- Beit Shemesh, Zikhron , Peki'in...there was one more, but I don't remember the name.

 

no rabbis ever claimed such a thing so how did you deduce one from the other ?

 

How many rabbis am I supposed to hear it from before I "deduce" it?

 

jews oppose homosexual relationships between two guys, thats the bottom line.

 

Brush up on your halakah. Only bi'ah she'lo k'darkah, anal intercourse, is forbidden. The very Orthodox use kirva as an excuse, but if nothing will tempt men into anal intercourse, then there is nothing halaically wrong with a male homosexual relationship. Since we know now that not all male homosexuals even consider anal sex, the idea that Leviticus means all homosexual relationships is ridiculous -- especially when it explicitally refers to "mishkav zachor", and imitating male/female sex. There are multiple acts that do not violate it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

You're not very familliar with Canaanie religion are you? Molech, as we called him, was known as Molek to the Canaanites. Historically, his cult and that of Anat, were the only who in the Levant of that epoch, to practice religious sex through temple prostitution. (I don't find that an accurate term to use, but there you go.)

 

If you read it in context, it talks about spilling one's seed to Molech/Moloch and jumps right into the sexual actions, without so much as a breath or an ending sentence. It's explicitly referring to those practices which made him "vomit" people out of the land. Read on --

 

huh.gif

But that's not the meaning at all ? First of all here is the text I'm reading, I scanned it, uploaded it, it is from Soncino edition (feel free to research it as you said you will), I cant say its the first edition ever written but it's one of the firsts without a doubt, it came out just after jews were kicked out of Spain in 14-15-th century.

 

1...

 

2...

 

Point 1 - pay attention to it and you will see that there is a ":" between all the sentences seperating them.

 

Point 2 - You shall not spill your seed to Molech - means "dont sleep with non jews" ! its not jumping to sexual actions after that verse as that verse is already a rule forbidding 1 type of a sexual action - having sex with non jews.

 

Point 3 - The next part is just like the previous one another rule of what not to do, here it says "dont sleep with other men"

Point 4 - Third one is also a rule of what not to do - "woman will not have sex with a beast"

 

and so on...

 

"Therefore shall ye keep My charge, that ye do not any of these abominable customs, which were done before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the L-RD your G-d."

 

It's explicitly referring to religious customs, right to the end of the chapter.

 

Exactly, it says dont do those things, otherwise you will no longer be pure but instead just like a Molech, I agree with this I just dont see how can you not see it for what it is, God telling them what not to do .

To me those things are pretty straight forward, I dont really understand how can you interpret them in any other way.

 

How many rabbis am I supposed to hear it from before I "deduce" it?

 

None really, I dont think a rabbi has some deeper understanding as opposed to a normal person, we'll just agree that our reading comprehensions are different.

 

Brush up on your halakah. Only bi'ah she'lo k'darkah, anal intercourse, is forbidden. The very Orthodox use kirva as an excuse, but if nothing will tempt men into anal intercourse, then there is nothing halaically wrong with a male homosexual relationship. Since we know now that not all male homosexuals even consider anal sex, the idea that Leviticus means all homosexual relationships is ridiculous -- especially when it explicitally refers to "mishkav zachor", and imitating male/female sex. There are multiple acts that do not violate it.

 

I'm sorry but that idea is absurd, you cant really support half relationships, if I were to tell you I support homosexuals as long as they dont kiss one another does it really sound to you like I'm indeed supporting homosexual relationships ?

Religious jews are against homosexual marriages, religious jews are against homosexual intercourse yet you still believe that religious jews support homosexual relationships between men ?

Come on noble that logic is just flawed, and if any group of people offered such support to any homosexual out there I'm pretty sure the said homosexual would be deeply offended, heck I'm straight and I'm offended by something like that even though it has nothing to do with me.

Edited by The Evil Doer

Share this post


Link to post

I have to agree there. :x If I were a gay male I would be pretty offended at the notion that a religion is okay with one half of my relationship but not the other.

Share this post


Link to post

And for some, it is

 

Do you agree that those Jews that believe homosexuality is a sin have a standing too (i.e. meaning rabbis that condemn it)? You’ve given the impression that there’s little support for it, and I fail to see it. For example, I read an article about a gathering where one of the rabbis voiced his opinion that homosexuals should remain celibate.

 

Additionally, you mentioned that Jews view homosexuality as wrong because they don’t study enough, but if you look back decades ago, there were more rabbis who felt this way than today and the general population as a whole (Jews included). One can hardly argue there was less studying of the Tanakh and the Talmud decades ago. As society changes, so do religious interpretations.

 

My rabbi has no issue with homosexuality. He did, however, have an issue with disobeying the law of the land after prop. 8 was passed, which would make issuing the ketubah a sin. Why? Because they are required to follow the law of the land.

 

What’s your rabbi’s reasoning? What’s wrong with doing a commitment ceremony that won’t carry the state’s force? Aren’t the benefits secondary?

 

What if the state allowed same-sex unions, but still held the notion that marriage was between one man and a woman?

 

What if the sodomy laws were still in place such as before the Lawrence vs. Texas decision in 2003? Would he argue that same-sex Jewish couples need to remain celibate if they were in one of those states?

 

When you’re an atheist, it’s all easy when there is no sin.

 

The odd thign about this is that in the US, Jews tend to slip away from traditional and rabbinic teachings due to their Christianization. You have Rabbis whom oppose abortion in the case of the mother being in danger despite having clear Talmudic orders that the mother's life is what matters more. I've found a lot of Jews here, even rabbis, want to align themselves with conservative movements, mostly because of endowments and Zionist support from protestant churches.

 

The vast majority of Jews believe abortion should generally be available to those that want it.

 

According to this poll, 89% of Jews support that statement. Quinnipiac goes into the RCP average, so it’s not junk. Even Republicans don’t commonly hold the view that an abortion shouldn’t be allowed when the mother’s life is endangered. I wouldn’t consider that extreme as aligning with conservative values. Besides a few mentions of saving a woman's life via aborting, there's little mention in the Talmud. There's atheists who believe in protecting fertilized eggs, so I think there's more factors than just aligning with conservative movements.

 

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-c...l?ReleaseID=511

 

Btw, here’s what I was arguing with Shiny:

 

Arakhin 7ab R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: If a woman who has been sitting on a birthstool died on a Sabbath, one may bring a knife and cut her womb open to take out the child. But that is self-evident? What is he doing?

 

nefesh chaya, vs. pikuach nefesh

 

You can't break the Sabbath for an animal, but you can for a “potential life.”

 

Which city are we talking about ?

Let's see-- Beit Shemesh, Zikhron , Peki'in...there was one more, but I don't remember the name.

 

You guys can’t really compare two different countries on level of support for or against homosexuality with anecdotal evidence. That’s like arguing whether gun control worked or not in different countries using your own experiences in life.

 

I found this, though:

 

60% of Israelis Back Same-Sex Marriage (Angus Reid Global Monitor)

 

CIA World Factbook says about 76% is Jewish, and 17% are Muslims.

 

And…

 

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/11...iots_worsen.php

 

“Police were pelted with stones and bottles Thursday night as members of the Haredi ultra Orthodox Jewish sect engaged in a third night of rioting over next week's planned gay pride march in Jerusalem.

 

More than two thousand members of the sect jammed into streets in an Orthodox neighborhood in a show of force aimed at pressuring authorities into canceling the parade.”

 

They also made a homemade bomb that said, “Sodomites out!”.

 

Brush up on your halakah. Only bi'ah she'lo k'darkah, anal intercourse, is forbidden. The very Orthodox use kirva as an excuse, but if nothing will tempt men into anal intercourse, then there is nothing halaically wrong with a male homosexual relationship. Since we know now that not all male homosexuals even consider anal sex, the idea that Leviticus means all homosexual relationships is ridiculous -- especially when it explicitally refers to "mishkav zachor", and imitating male/female sex. There are multiple acts that do not violate it.

 

I don’t understand this, but I’d like to ask what you think of this below, since going over Leviticus is just beating the dead horse again.

 

Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.'

6 And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him.

7 And he said: 'I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly.

8 Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.'

 

Why give them the daughters instead of the men? Hell, why give them anyone? xd.png

 

Noble, I also looked more into Santorum's statement. I took it as fact too soon. Huffington Post had a video of it, and he doesn't say, "They're in close quarters, they live with people, they obviously shower with people, but they're not."

 

The string of commas seem like a paraphrase that went viral as a direct quote, and I can't even find an article with "but they're not" attached to that.

 

He said something like, "[...] would cause problems for people living in close quarters" and "[...] there are people who were gay, and lived a gay lifestyle, and aren't anymore."

Edited by Alpha1

Share this post


Link to post

MARRIAGE is a religious thing (invented by religions) and the state should stay out of it.

 

Registering partnerships, of whatever kind, IS a state thing.

 

We should ALL do like in France, where everyone who gets married (as they do CALL it that, but everyone knows what is meant) has to do the Thing with a state official. There is no religious issue at all.Those who want a religious ceremony have to do it separately. Those who want JUST the religious ceremony - aren't legally married at all, until they do the state thing with the state official.

 

In some countries work is going on to make sure that ANY kind of partnership can be registered as a legal one - for instance, two sisters sharing a home, two friends who happen to want to live in the same house. Because the LEGAL side of marriage is all about money and tax, and this would be to protect people - for instance - sharing a house and who want their estate to go to their housemate when they die, and then their charming families contest the will. mad.gif

 

Quite honestly - if a religion I had belonged to would not allow me to marry whomever of my choice - that would be their loss; it cannot be my religion any more. If I felt THAT strongly that my religion were "right" - I would not want to marry someone of my own sex anyway. People can live by their own beliefs - but may NOT try to force them on others. Religion has no place in legal proceedings.

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going to do what my wife does and simply cite research rather than continuing to talk in circles.

 

Point 1 - pay attention to it and you will see that there is a ":" between all the sentences seperating them.

 

"When a sentence begins with a preposition, the subject is always that of the prior sentence." [Hebrew for Beginners, 1952]

 

You shall not spill your seed to Molech - means "dont sleep with non jews" ! its not jumping to sexual actions after that verse as that verse is already a rule forbidding 1 type of a sexual action - having sex with non jews.

 

"Interfaith marriages were not seen as improper in the early periods after the Exodus, and indeed, some Orthodox branches find conversion unnecessary for women, as the Torah shows no 'conversion' for multiple females, or mentions anything other than adopting Jewish laws." [interfaith Marriage in Judaism: A History, 2004]

 

"Those that were accepted to sojourn in Israel, who were not Jewish, were not required to follow the entire Torah. There were limitations on religious liberty, however, that forbade the sexual rites in the worship of Molech, and to a lesser extent, curtailed the worship of a Canaanite deity known as Asherah." [Paganism in the Early Hebrew Period, 2000]

 

"Two deities for whom fertility rites and sacred sex were central to worship include Molok, whose worship through temple prostitutes is explicitly curtailed as an abomination in Leviticus 18, and Anat, who also had centers of worship in Avaris and Memphis." [studies of the Ancient Near East, 1999]

 

"Many forget the important roles non-Jewish women have had in shaping the Jewish people. The mother of two of the thirteen tribes was Egyptian. All of Moses' wives were non-Jews, Midianite, Ethiopian, and Kenite respectively. Naomi's sons married Moabites, who are not allowed to convert, and yet Ruth is considered a great Jewish hero."

[Rachel's Tears: Women of the Torah, 1984]

 

but instead just like a Molech

 

 

Molech was a God, not a type of person. You could not be "just like a Molech."

 

I just dont see how can you not see it for what it is, God telling them what not to do .

 

It is a law telling them what not to do, it just, historically and linguistically, has nothing to do with what you seem to think it does. If it did, the amount of laws would be much lower in the Torah.

 

To me those things are pretty straight forward, I dont really understand how can you interpret them in any other way.

 

And to me, I don't see how you can interpret them the ay you do, when the context is obvious.

 

Religious jews are against homosexual marriages

 

Not all of them. There are entire Orthodox congregations which have no issues with homosexuals.

 

religious jews are against homosexual intercourse

 

No, religious Jews are against anal intercourse, for anyone. It doesn't place itself "against" homosexual intercourse as a whole, merely one act, which is forbidden to everyone, regardless of orientation.

 

"While the Torah gives room for all sorts of experimentation in the bedroom, one exception is bi'ah she'lo k'darkah, or anal intercourse. This is considered a mockery of the so-called "missionary" position, and violates halakah." [unorthodox Sex for the Orthodox Jew, 2001]

 

"Many confuse the idea of "laying with a man as with a woman" to mean homosexual sex in any regard, but we can see from archeological evidence around Carthage and Khirbet el-Kom that it refers merely to one kind of sex act and not homosexuality in general." [uncover Nakedness: Sex and Sexuality in the Hebrew Bible, 2006]

 

Come on noble that logic is just flawed, and if any group of people offered such support to any homosexual out there I'm pretty sure the said homosexual would be deeply offended, heck I'm straight and I'm offended by something like that even though it has nothing to do with me.

 

How you describe it? Yes, I would find it insulting. However, what I have found to be the actual case, and not your version of things, but the case backed up by years of research? No, I don't find it offensive.

 

o you agree that those Jews that believe homosexuality is a sin have a standing too (i.e. meaning rabbis that condemn it)?

 

I believe that there are rabbis who condemn it, yes. Do I believe they have scriptural standing? No.

 

You’ve given the impression that there’s little support for it, and I fail to see it. For example, I read an article about a gathering where one of the rabbis voiced his opinion that homosexuals should remain celibate.

 

Which again, Christianizes the issue, as unless they simply never find anyone, celibacy is a sin in Judaism as well. The notion that one sin makes a perceived sin okay is just ridiculous.

 

Additionally, you mentioned that Jews view homosexuality as wrong because they don’t study enough, but if you look back decades ago, there were more rabbis who felt this way than today and the general population as a whole (Jews included). One can hardly argue there was less studying of the Tanakh and the Talmud decades ago. As society changes, so do religious interpretations.

 

You speak as if this is new, Alpha. In Romania there had been an inclusive Orthodox synagogue since 1860, prior to WWII, where it was destroyed. One of the biggest arguments against the Jews in Eastern Europe in the 1930s and 1940s was that they "consorted" with the Romany and homosexuals -- both hated groups.

 

What’s your rabbi’s reasoning? What’s wrong with doing a commitment ceremony that won’t carry the state’s force? Aren’t the benefits secondary?

 

Because one can't have a ketubah for a commitment ceremony. The ketubah is a centerpiece of any Jewish wedding, because it enumerates the various rights to the marriage. No ketubah? Not religiously valid.

 

What if the state allowed same-sex unions, but still held the notion that marriage was between one man and a woman?

 

It would depend on whether or note the state unions reflected all the rights in the ketubah.

 

What if the sodomy laws were still in place such as before the Lawrence vs. Texas decision in 2003? Would he argue that same-sex Jewish couples need to remain celibate if they were in one of those states?

 

He'd tell them to move. Barring that, better to break man's law than to break G-d's law in remaining celibate.

 

Why give them the daughters instead of the men? Hell, why give them anyone? xd.png.png

 

That entire passage has zero to do with homosexuality. It has to do with hospitality, which is/was of the utmost importance in the Torah. The people of the city wanted to terrorize the visitors, humiliate and dominate them.

 

He offers his daughters to try and spare the guests, because as a host in that time, that was what one did. When the Tanakh talks about the sin of Sodom, homosexuality is not mentioned.

 

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. "

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks, NobleOwl, for a HUGELY informative and thoughtful post in the face of some extraordinary rubbish. I am about to do some serious online research !

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going to do what my wife does and simply cite research rather than continuing to talk in circles.

 

Which is not really having a discussion...

 

"When a sentence begins with a preposition, the subject is always that of the prior sentence." [Hebrew for Beginners, 1952]

 

In modern Hebrew true, in the one used in Tanakh not so much, furthermore the same verse we're discussing starts with a preposition as well.

 

"Interfaith marriages were not seen as improper in the early periods after the Exodus, and indeed, some Orthodox branches find conversion unnecessary for women, as the Torah shows no 'conversion' for multiple females, or mentions anything other than adopting Jewish laws." [interfaith Marriage in Judaism: A History, 2004]

 

"Those that were accepted to sojourn in Israel, who were not Jewish, were not required to follow the entire Torah. There were limitations on religious liberty, however, that forbade the sexual rites in the worship of Molech, and to a lesser extent, curtailed the worship of a Canaanite deity known as Asherah." [Paganism in the Early Hebrew Period, 2000]

 

"Two deities for whom fertility rites and sacred sex were central to worship include Molok, whose worship through temple prostitutes is explicitly curtailed as an abomination in Leviticus 18, and Anat, who also had centers of worship in Avaris and Memphis." [studies of the Ancient Near East, 1999]

 

"Many forget the important roles non-Jewish women have had in shaping the Jewish people. The mother of two of the thirteen tribes was Egyptian. All of Moses' wives were non-Jews, Midianite, Ethiopian, and Kenite respectively. Naomi's sons married Moabites, who are not allowed to convert, and yet Ruth is considered a great Jewish hero."

[Rachel's Tears: Women of the Torah, 1984]

 

Selected few branches believe (In israel the law states that a child born to a non jewish woman isnt a jew), existence of non jews in the land (Tanakh doesnt speak to non jews), non jewish women roles and what was so called proper or not proper is relevant how ? Is anywhere in Tanakh God saying marry non jewish women ?

 

See little to no relevance in all those, maybe due to the fact that there is no relevance and maybe due to the fact that in discussions its far easier to use your own words instead of having the other side guessing what the writer is trying to say..

 

Spill seed to Molech means to waste ones seed (sperm) on non jews = sex with non jews, The only other possible interpretation can be masturbation but that two would be considered a sexual action so again, how do YOU interpret this verse exactly ?

 

Molech was a God, not a type of person. You could not be "just like a Molech."

 

To be just like Molech - impure/unworthy..

 

It is a law telling them what not to do, it just, historically and linguistically, has nothing to do with what you seem to think it does. If it did, the amount of laws would be much lower in the Torah.

 

The law is telling them what not to do but not what I think it does which is.... well telling them what not to do, interesting logic.

 

Not all of them. There are entire Orthodox congregations which have no issues with homosexuals.

 

Where ? You kept going back to Israel to add to validity of certain things so if we're going back to Israel here are the facts -

 

Religious jews dont support homosexuality.

Religious jews dont support gay marriages, matter of fact homosexulas cant get married in Israel only coz of religious jews as non religious jews have no problems with gay marriages (religious jews being the minority atm)

 

No, religious Jews are against anal intercourse, for anyone. It doesn't place itself "against" homosexual intercourse as a whole, merely one act, which is forbidden to everyone, regardless of orientation.

 

That is not correct, Tanakh forbids anal intercourse between two males, Tanakh supports satisfaction for both the female and the male during intercourse (otherwise it is a sin) which includes oral and anal sex (as long as both the male and the female enjoy it), nowhere in Tanakh god forbids anal intercourse between a man and his wife.

According to Tanakh, the end of the intercourse needs to serve reproduction.

 

"While the Torah gives room for all sorts of experimentation in the bedroom, one exception is bi'ah she'lo k'darkah, or anal intercourse. This is considered a mockery of the so-called "missionary" position, and violates halakah." [unorthodox Sex for the Orthodox Jew, 2001]

 

"Many confuse the idea of "laying with a man as with a woman" to mean homosexual sex in any regard, but we can see from archeological evidence around Carthage and Khirbet el-Kom that it refers merely to one kind of sex act and not homosexuality in general." [uncover Nakedness: Sex and Sexuality in the Hebrew Bible, 2006]

 

Again, not true, anal sex is kosher between a man and his wife, only forbidden between two males, nowhere in tanakh does it state man shall not have anal intercourse with his wife.

 

How you describe it? Yes, I would find it insulting. However, what I have found to be the actual case, and not your version of things, but the case backed up by years of research? No, I don't find it offensive.

 

If years of research means researching untill you find what you want to find then it sounds about right coz as I have stated earlier, religious jews in Israel dont support homosexuals and are the only reason as to why gay marriages arent allowed there. Feel free to present me with anything that suggests otherwise.

Edited by The Evil Doer

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, I really don't know why I read this thread, honestly.. why can't the world be more like Canada where the human right for equality has pretty much won in this topic. There are gay friendly churches for those who want a religious ceremony and marriage commissioners for those who don't. I personally got married to my husband through a marriage commissioner because I feel that LOVE should not be governed by RELIGION or LAW. Yes I understand that this sounds a little hypocritical, the only part law plays in my marriage is to share in the privileges that heterosexual couples receive via law like for tax purposes and rights of spouses in case of death. Tell me where religion plays any part in any of that?

Edited by Lord_Kishin

Share this post


Link to post

Which is not really having a discussion...

 

And you repeating yourself with no evidence to back up your assertions doesn't make you right.

 

In modern Hebrew true, in the one used in Tanakh not so much, furthermore the same verse we're discussing starts with a preposition as well.

 

Sorry, but that was from the chapter on Biblical Hebrew. Care to reexamine?

 

? Is anywhere in Tanakh God saying marry non jewish women ?

 

Is anywhere in Tanakh God saying marry non jewish women ?

 

The Tanakh?

 

Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land. The children of the third generation that are born unto them may enter into the assembly of the LORD.

 

The Talmud notes that this is only possible if one marries an Edomite or Egyptian. No reference to conversion, if there was, the generational break would not be necessary.

 

Further, the entire law of the captive woman is all about it --

 

and seest among the captives a woman of goodly form, and thou hast a desire unto her, and wouldest take her to thee to wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thy house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month; and after that thou mayest go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

 

It is only in the era of the prophets, explicitly Ezra, that interfaith marriage is prohibited.

 

Spill seed to Molech means to waste ones seed (sperm) on non jews = sex with non jews, The only other possible interpretation can be masturbation but that two would be considered a sexual action so again, how do YOU interpret this verse exactly ?

 

Given that the Torah or the Tanakh never uses a pagan's god's name to define their people, and that historically, Molech's worship in Canaan included religious sex, I take it to mean not to spill one's seed to a false god in a fertility or forgiveness ritual, as the following verses describe. It's the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the textual and historical context.

 

To be just like Molech - impure/unworthy..

 

Do you have any proof of your supposition that this is what it means? Or is that your opinion?

 

The law is telling them what not to do but not what I think it does which is.... well telling them what not to do, interesting logic.

 

Logic:

 

There are 613 laws in the Torah. The two we've been discussing are counted, as two, not three. If we take it to simply mean all homosexual sex and all bestiality, then the later passages, are repeats, which take the numbers down to 610. So, in your opinion, are there 613 commandments, or 610?

 

Religious jews dont support homosexuality.

 

To which religious Jews are you referring?

 

In Israel there is the Pride Minyan, which is an entirely Orthodox, homosexual group in Israel. More recently, 90 Orthodox rabbis have called for greater acceptance and inclusivity in the official "Statement of Principles on the Place of Jews With a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community" that was written, most of whom were from the US or Israel.

 

There are many other Israeli Orthodox Gay groups including Kamoha. Havruta, Hod and Bat Kol, among others. Hod itself is run by Rabbi Ron Yosef, himself the first Israeli rabbi to come out.

 

Religious jews dont support gay marriages

 

In Israel's Orthodox shul Yachad, they gave full acknowledgment to a gay marriage two women’s joint role as parents of the bar mitzvah boy in a bar mitzvah in 2011.

 

matter of fact homosexulas cant get married in Israel only coz of religious jews as non religious jews have no problems with gay marriages (religious jews being the minority atm)

 

And yet, Israel recognises gay marriages performed elsewhere as legal and binding in Israel, and will issue ketubahs or licenses if theirs is lost or damaged.

 

nowhere in Tanakh god forbids anal intercourse between a man and his wife.

 

The Talmud does.

 

Since a man’s wife is permitted to him, he may act with her in any manner whatsoever. He may have intercourse with her whenever he so desires and kiss any organ of her body he wishes, and he may have intercourse with her naturally, but not unnaturally. (Once again -- bi'ah she'lo k'darkah).

 

According to Tanakh, the end of the intercourse needs to serve reproduction.

 

Uh, no. Where did you get that? If that were the case, then post-menopausal couples would not be allowed to have sex, again, the Talmud states that withholding sex from one's spouse, is a sin.

 

Again, not true, anal sex is kosher between a man and his wife, only forbidden between two males, nowhere in tanakh does it state man shall not have anal intercourse with his wife.

 

See above. The Talmud does, in fact, limit it. And the Orthodoxy goes further and says that a man may not kiss or look at a woman's vagina.

 

 

If years of research means researching untill you find what you want to find then it sounds about right coz as I have stated earlier, religious jews in Israel dont support homosexuals and are the only reason as to why gay marriages arent allowed there. Feel free to present me with anything that suggests otherwise.

 

Israel courts recognize foreign same-sex marriages -- The decision allows married same-sex couples the same tax breaks as opposite-sex married couples, as well as the legal right to adopt children.

 

The first unofficial municipal wedding took place in August 2009 following the Tel Aviv Pride Parade; five couples were married by Mayor Ron Huldai.

 

Share this post


Link to post

And you repeating yourself with no evidence to back up your assertions doesn't make you right.

 

With no evidence to support what ? My reading comprehension or me claiming that religious jews dont support homosexuals in Israel coz those are the facts I assumed are well known ? What evidence have you provided ? Was there some study claiming that Judaism supports homosexuals that I missed ?

 

Sorry, but that was from the chapter on Biblical Hebrew. Care to reexamine?

 

Sorry but even so, the verse about Molech starts with the word "and" as well so do you care to reexamine ?

 

The Tanakh?

 

Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land. The children of the third generation that are born unto them may enter into the assembly of the LORD.

 

The Talmud notes that this is only possible if one marries an Edomite or Egyptian. No reference to conversion, if there was, the generational break would not be necessary.

 

Further, the entire law of the captive woman is all about it --

 

and seest among the captives a woman of goodly form, and thou hast a desire unto her, and wouldest take her to thee to wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thy house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month; and after that thou mayest go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

 

It is only in the era of the prophets, explicitly Ezra, that interfaith marriage is prohibited.

 

If it is correct and interfaith marriages are indeed cool with God, why would it apply to only 3 generations and why in God's name are 90% of jews marrying other jews and 99.9999% of religious jews marrying only jews ?

 

Given that the Torah or the Tanakh never uses a pagan's god's name to define their people, and that historically, Molech's worship in Canaan included religious sex, I take it to mean not to spill one's seed to a false god in a fertility or forgiveness ritual, as the following verses describe. It's the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the textual and historical context.

 

Tanakh uses symbols a lot but that's not really the issue at all, you claim that the verse doesnt talk about a sexual act of a sort or better yet about what jews shouldnt do, could you explain to me logically how can one spill his seed in Molech's name without engaging in sex with non jews or by masturbating ?

Are you claiming it forbids jews from having sex with their wives in some sort of a Canaanian ritual ? Coz that also would be a sexual act.

How can one spill his seed without it being a sexual act at all ?

 

Verse 1 - dont spill seed to Molech = sex act 1, done story..

Verse 2 - dont have sex with another man = sex act 2

Verse 3 - woman wont have sex with a beast = sex act 3

....

 

How can you claim that Verse 1 is some sort of an intro for verses to come if the third verse doesnt even include seed spilling ?

 

The only continuation that exists is that they all deliver laws about what shouldnt be done, I have uploaded one of the oldest textes found which clearly seperates the two verses. Is there an actual study by a Hebrew scholar which claims that those versers are indeed talking about paganism and not forbidding homosexuality ? If there is such a study please do link us to it, homosexuality as weel as this verse is not a small matter so Im sure somebody has looked into it with a bit more objectivity than you.

 

Do you have any proof of your supposition that this is what it means? Or is that your opinion?

 

Already said it, reading comprehension.

Do you have any proof except for your own reasonable conclusion as drawn from the textual and historical context which claims that spilling ones seed isnt a sexual act ?

 

Logic:

 

There are 613 laws in the Torah. The two we've been discussing are counted, as two, not three. If we take it to simply mean all homosexual sex and all bestiality, then the later passages, are repeats, which take the numbers down to 610. So, in your opinion, are there 613 commandments, or 610?

 

In my opinion there are a lot more than 613 laws in torah, and there is a lot of controversy on the subject so why open it up at all

 

To which religious Jews are you referring?

 

To orthodox religious Jews residing in Israel

 

In Israel there is the Pride Minyan, which is an entirely Orthodox, homosexual group in Israel. More recently, 90 Orthodox rabbis have called for greater acceptance and inclusivity in the official "Statement of Principles on the Place of Jews With a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community" that was written, most of whom were from the US or Israel.

 

There are many other Israeli Orthodox Gay groups including Kamoha. Havruta, Hod and Bat Kol, among others. Hod itself is run by Rabbi Ron Yosef, himself the first Israeli rabbi to come out.

 

Those groups are not recognized as real orthodox jews by the definition of being homosexual, here's a nice read about it.

 

Orthodox-gays-struggling-to-establish-community-in-israel

 

In Israel's Orthodox shul  Yachad, they gave full acknowledgment to a gay marriage two women’s joint role as parents of the bar mitzvah boy in a bar mitzvah in 2011.

 

And that is awesome, I fully support that but the orthodox mainstream which is 95%+ of religious jews in Israel doesnt support nor recognizes them

 

And yet, Israel recognises gay marriages performed elsewhere as legal and binding in Israel, and will issue ketubahs or licenses if theirs is lost or damaged.

 

State of Israel not the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, huge difference !

They have to fly to another country to get married so how you figure that its a support of a sort ?

 

Since a man’s wife is permitted to him, he may act with her in any manner whatsoever. He may have intercourse with her whenever he so desires and kiss any organ of her body he wishes, and he may have intercourse with her naturally, but not unnaturally. (Once again -- bi'ah she'lo k'darkah).

 

huh.gif Where did you read that ? This is the what the text says in Hebrew

 

לפיכך כל מה שירצה לעשות באשתו עושה בועל בכל עת שירצה ומנשק בכל אבר שירצה ובא עליה בין כדרכה בין שלא כדרכה בין דרך אברים ובלבד שלא יוציא ש``ז לבטלה

 

Which means naturally or unnaturally as long as he doesnt spill his seed while doing so unnaturally.

 

Uh, no. Where did you get that? If that were the case, then post-menopausal couples would not be allowed to have sex, again, the Talmud states that withholding sex from one's spouse, is a sin.

 

Havent claimed otherwise. I cant start scanning stuff so I googled something else, here you go all about "jewish sex" Kosher sex.

 

See above. The Talmud does, in fact, limit it. And the Orthodoxy goes further and says that a man may not kiss or look at a woman's vagina.

 

I know, but I havent claimed otherwise.

 

Israel courts recognize foreign same-sex marriages -- The decision allows married same-sex couples the same tax breaks as opposite-sex married couples, as well as the legal right to adopt children.

 

The first unofficial municipal wedding took place in August 2009 following the Tel Aviv Pride Parade; five couples were married by Mayor Ron Huldai.

 

But I myself claimed countless times that non religious jews support homosexuality, its the religious ones who have a problem with it, what you have presented here is a court, which is the state = non religious jews. We agree here.

Edited by The Evil Doer

Share this post


Link to post

With no evidence to support what ? My reading comprehension or me claiming that religious jews dont support homosexuals in Israel coz those are the facts I assumed are well known ? What evidence have you provided ? Was there some study claiming that Judaism supports homosexuals that I missed ?

 

That the verses stand alone, dear.

 

However:

 

[it is only since medieval times and the expanding power of the Catholic Church that Judaism began to forbid Homosexuality. We see in many writings prior to that time, men who referred to each other as the other's "perfect mate" or "most perfect love." Homosexuality and the Torah, 1990]

 

Sorry but even so, the verse about Molech starts with the word "and" as well so do you care to reexamine ?

 

No, because it doesn't in the oldest texts, nor does it in scrolls from temples.

 

If it is correct and interfaith marriages are indeed cool with God, why would it apply to only 3 generations and why in God's name are 90% of jews marrying other jews and 99.9999% of religious jews marrying only jews ?

 

The three generations were what it took, living the laws, to be considered Jewish in that time. If you want to argue with Torah, be my guest, but that is what the text says.

 

Tanakh uses symbols a lot but that's not really the issue at all, you claim that the verse doesnt talk about a sexual act of a sort or better yet about what jews shouldnt do, could you explain to me logically how can one spill his seed in Molech's name without engaging in sex with non jews or by masturbating ?

 

The entire section is discussing the same thing. Sex for a pagan religion.

 

Is there an actual study by a Hebrew scholar which claims that those versers are indeed talking about paganism and not forbidding homosexuality ? If there is such a study please do link us to it, homosexuality as weel as this verse is not a small matter so Im sure somebody has looked into it with a bit more objectivity than you.

 

"In the Jewish scriptures, for example, we see the Jews forbidden from sexual contact with the sacred male prostitutes of Molech and the animal rights for fertility, under the guise that these constituted "spilling one's seed" to a foreign god, and we have evidence that this was enforced even in Asa's reign; even if the prostitute was Jewish by birth or tribe." [Early Religion of the Levant, 1986]

 

"What many outsiders see as a condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus, chapter eighteen, is actually a condemnation of sex acts that were common among the Ammonites and Kenites native to the land, as well as the fertility cults, like that of Min, which the Jews had observed while in slavery." [in the Land of Milk and Honey, 1995]

 

Do you have any proof except for your own reasonable conclusion as drawn from the textual and historical context which claims that spilling ones seed isnt a sexual act ?

 

I never claimed it wasn't a sexual act. I said that the acts it's talking about are related. And I have already cited several.

 

To orthodox religious Jews residing in Israel

 

Some do, some don't, just like Orthodox Jews everywhere. That's why the discussions regarding homosexuality were so debated in Orthodox circles.

 

Those groups are not recognized as real orthodox jews by the definition of being homosexual, here's a nice read about it.

 

Do you having anything from a non-biased site that would no have reason to minimize it?

 

Also, if you read the opinions of the rabbis in the discussion I mentioned, you might see that they don't stop being considered frum by being gay.

 

And that is awesome, I fully support that but the orthodox mainstream which is 95%+ of religious jews in Israel doesnt support nor recognizes them

 

You would be incorrect.

 

78% of Orthodox Jews in Israel view homosexuality as biological.

69% believe that being homosexual is not a sin.

72% Feel that the Orthodoxy should recognize gay relationships.

 

[Attitudes in Israel Towards Moral issues, 2008, study by Orthodox Jews for Israel]

 

huh.gif Where did you read that ? This is the what the text says in Hebrew

 

That's the Babylonian Talmud, it's not as old. I quoted the Jerusalem, which is where Haredi default if the two disagree.

 

Havent claimed otherwise. I cant start scanning stuff so I googled something else, here you go all about "jewish sex" Kosher sex.

 

Yeah, sorry, I'm going to take what books written by rabbis say over an internet page.

 

But I myself claimed countless times that non religious jews support homosexuality, its the religious ones who have a problem with it, what you have presented here is a court, which is the state = non religious jews. We agree here.

 

Except, for a supreme court decision to be valid, it has to be recognised by the majority of the rabbinate.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mean to be funny here - but I thought this thread was a discussion of gay marriage/rights, not of the Jewish religion - fascinating though that is.

 

This is the 91,000th viewing of this thread though - is that a record ?

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.