Jump to content
MURDERcomplexx

Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

Recommended Posts

Gay marriage is a horrible practice, something that has boggled my mind as to why people even argue for it.

I don't know about anyone else, but I argue for it because I believe that if two people love each other they should have the right to be married.

Share this post


Link to post

And with his usual inflammatory style, Alpha has presented exactly the problem with translations. His translations apparently came from a Chabad or other Orthodox circle.

 

How can I tell? Because gender neutral terms like "Yedid Nefesh" and "Bashert" are translated as wife, when "wife" is actually "isha shelkha" or "ishtekha".

 

Now, because Hebrew has no neutral gender, when referring to a group, genders switch. A lot.

 

Now, this seems fairly simple quotation, but Alpha has taken it out of context.

 

Genesis Rabbah 8:8 No man can exist without a woman, and no woman can exist without a man. Nor can the two of them exist without the presence of God.

 

Well, why? Because in Judaism, everyone was created both male and female, in the image of G-d, and later developed gender. There is no man, save for Adam, who is purely man, and no woman, save Chava, who is purely woman. Neither are balanced without the other, and cannot exist alone.

 

Look at the words for man and woman: Ish or Iash and Isha. See the point?

 

Now, if we go back to his other quotes...

 

He who does not marry is not allowed to make a blessing or to engage in Torah etc. and he is not called a man, and when he marries a woman his sins are cast into doubt, as it is said: “One who has found a wife has found goodness and obtains favor in the eyes of God.”

 

Now in Hebrew, literally translated, we get "One who has found a "beshert" has found goodness..."

 

Which is a completly different meaning, because both a woman and a man can and do have a bashert, and it makes no necessities as to gender.

 

So I guess infertile people should just lay down and die, then? Since they aren't going to have children no matter who they marry.

 

Infertile people are not supposed to lay down and die -- in fact, in Judaism, it is wrong to have sex solely for procreation, and grounds for a woman to divorce her husband if he refuses to have intercourse with her.

 

The command to have children is a positive one, not a negative one -- meaning it will add to your mitzvahs if you do, not that it is wrong if you do not or cannot, for whatever reason, whether it is infertility, fear of pregnancy, or just lack of desire to have children.

 

Also that whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing made a whole lot more sense back when the world didn't have 7 billion people in it already.

 

Be fruitful and multiply isn't solely about having children though -- someone who is performing a mitzvah by feeding the hungry is multiplying blessings, and a farmer is also being fruitful by sharing his bounty, and just by working.

 

Knabenschänder = boy molesters!

 

We're talking the 1522 or the 1534, not the 1545, Alpha.

 

Genesis Rabbah “Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Yosef said): The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote gemumasi 'ot for (the union of a man to) a male or to an animal.”

 

Which was later thrown out, even in Haredi circles, and has only become a popular argument since the Orthodox are scrambling to keep the anti-homosexuality stance -- because many other texts state that the evil of the flood generation was wiped out due to a loss of faith because of intermarriage. Shimon bar Yochai pronounced a curse on anyone teaching anything else, while Rashi and Nachmanides agreed.

 

Talmud "'Ula said: Non-Jews [litt. Bnei Noach, the progeny of Noah] accepted upon themselves thirty mitzvot [divinely ordered laws] but they only abide by three of them: the first one is that they do not write marriage documents for male couples, the second one is that they don't sell dead [human] meat by the pound in stores and the third one is that they respect the Torah.'"

 

...Where did you even get this? The Bnei Noah have only seven mitzvot in the Talmud. Seven. Not thirty.

 

Prohibition of Idolatry

Prohibition of Murder

Prohibition of Theft

Prohibition of Incest and Bestiality (usually put under sexual immorality.)

Prohibition of Blasphemy

Prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive

Establish of courts of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Gay marriage is a horrible practice, something that has boggled my mind as to why people even argue for it.

Explain how it is wrong, WITHOUT trying to throw religion into it.

Share this post


Link to post

You are more than welcome to your beliefs. But they are not my beliefs, and I am not going to follow rules of a religion I don't believe in--why would I? You aren't going to follow mine.

 

I’m an atheist, so no worries.

 

And with his usual inflammatory style, Alpha has presented exactly the problem with translations. His translations apparently came from a Chabad or other Orthodox circle.

 

The discussion is always only the OT/NT!

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/...rvative-Judaism

 

“Conservative Judaism, religious movement that seeks to conserve essential elements of traditional Judaism but allows for the modernization of religious practices in a less radical sense than that espoused by Reform Judaism.”

 

http://www.masortiworld.org/molami/Ideology

 

Why would they say this?

 

“In our secular society, the role of women has radically been changed. Women today are fully integrated in society, are educated, hold positions of power and share equal rights. The halacha grew in an age where none of this was true. […] We maintain that failure to apply the tools of change that exist within the halacha to the changes in our world today will leave the halacha irrelevant to most Jews.”

 

Well, why? Because in Judaism, everyone was created both male and female, in the image of G-d, and later developed gender. There is no man, save for Adam, who is purely man, and no woman, save Chava, who is purely woman. Neither are balanced without the other, and cannot exist alone.

 

If that’s the right interpretation to make, it’s an easy mistake. Genesis 2:24?

 

Now in Hebrew, literally translated, we get "One who has found a "beshert" has found goodness..."

 

Which is a completly different meaning, because both a woman and a man can and do have a bashert, and it makes no necessities as to gender.

 

Talmud Yebamoth 63b “In the West,13 they used to ask a man who married, ‘findeth or find?’14 Findeth, because it is written, Whoso findeth a wife, findeth a great good;12 Find, because it is written, And I find more bitter than death the woman.15”

 

It relates to a customary of asking a groom the question above and another verse about women here.

 

We're talking the 1522 or the 1534, not the 1545, Alpha.

 

You said until the 1970's, though.

 

http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Lutherbibel/...ther_%281522%29

 

If it is what it says, then I’m correct.

 

Which was later thrown out, even in Haredi circles, and has only become a popular argument since the Orthodox are scrambling to keep the anti-homosexuality stance -- because many other texts state that the evil of the flood generation was wiped out due to a loss of faith because of intermarriage.  Shimon bar Yochai pronounced a curse on anyone teaching anything else, while Rashi and Nachmanides agreed.

 

So the Genesis Rabbah is useless to look at, or are we tossing out individual commentary?

 

...Where did you even get this? The Bnei Noah have only seven mitzvot in the Talmud. Seven. Not thirty.

[snip]

 

It says that they were comprised in the seven Noahide precepts in the commentary.

 

http://halakhah.com/ Chullin 92b Soncino edition

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Explain how it is wrong, WITHOUT trying to throw religion into it.

This so much. If people can't be moral without religion, they're doing something wrong.

Unless someone can explain how gay marriage is universally wrong on a moral level without throwing around bible quotes, it's not even a good argument. It's not an argument at all. It's just someone sticking their fingers in their ears and singing lalalalala.

 

What is wrong with two people wanting a committed, stable, relationship? I jst don't understand the thinking at all. Even if you are opposed to gay sex or whatever, marriage should imply something more significant. It's also a civil right. Last I checked, they had a movement for that. Back then people backed their bigotry with religion, too.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

“Conservative Judaism, religious movement that seeks to conserve essential elements of traditional Judaism but allows for the modernization of religious practices in a less radical sense than that espoused by Reform Judaism.”

 

And this has what to do with anything? Modernization includes things like electric light, Alpha.

 

“In our secular society, the role of women has radically been changed. Women today are fully integrated in society, are educated, hold positions of power and share equal rights. The halacha grew in an age where none of this was true. […] We maintain that failure to apply the tools of change that exist within the halacha to the changes in our world today will leave the halacha irrelevant to most Jews.”

 

You'd have to ask someone who is a Conservative or Masorti Jew, Alpha.

 

If that’s the right interpretation to make, it’s an easy mistake. Genesis 2:24?

 

What about Genesis 2:24?

 

You said until the 1970's, though.

 

I was referring to the Catholic Encyclopedia until the 1970s.

 

If it is what it says, then I’m correct.

 

Going off of the actual Bible, rather than a website, as you seem so fond, it says -- Wischerschänder, not Knabenschänder. Books are good, Alpha.

 

So the Genesis Rabbah is useless to look at, or are we tossing out individual commentary?

 

Anything that was obviously inserted later is not considered halakah, and even then, because of the difficulty and differences between Babylonian and Jerusalem, much of the Rabbah is problematic, and in a beit din or other legal setting requires back up from unquestioned sources.

 

It says that they were comprised in the seven Noahide precepts in the commentary.

 

Sometimes Alpha, you just make me want to slam my head against the wall. What is it with you and websites? That particular idea is stammaim, unattributed, and has no real back up. Some people hold it to be true, but it is hardly considered accepted.

Share this post


Link to post

And this has what to do with anything? Modernization includes things like electric light, Alpha.

 

It relates to what the Masorti website said about the halacha growing at a different time.

 

You'd have to ask someone who is a Conservative or Masorti Jew, Alpha.

 

I thought you said you were Conservative?

 

What about Genesis 2:24?

 

It's similar, and why does Paul apparently write as if the other interpretation is correct? I know that's Christianity, but Orthodox does the same.

 

I was referring to the Catholic Encyclopedia until the 1970s.

 

Going off of the actual Bible, rather than a website, as you seem so fond, it says -- Wischerschänder, not Knabenschänder. Books are good, Alpha.

 

You actually have a Luther Bible? Why was it changed in the 1545? Though, I don't see how it matters much considering his view on it.

 

Edit:

 

Adam Petri's press in Basel, 1522

 

user posted image

 

Anything that was obviously inserted later is not considered halakah, and even then, because of the difficulty and differences between Babylonian and Jerusalem, much of the Rabbah is problematic, and in a beit din or other legal setting requires back up from unquestioned sources.

 

But why are there Jewish figures who saw it that way? It's always wife/husband, wife/husband....

 

Sometimes Alpha, you just make me want to slam my head against the wall. What is it with you and websites? That particular idea is stammaim, unattributed, and has no real back up. Some people hold it to be true, but it is hardly considered accepted.

 

Did you look at it? It has pdf's of the Talmud, or are you saying that's not the Talmud? I don't know why it matters if it's correct or not. Why is it in there?

Edited by Alpha1

Share this post


Link to post
White Fox "Explain how it is wrong, WITHOUT trying to throw religion into it."

 

This so much. If people can't be moral without religion, they're doing something wrong.

Unless someone can explain how gay marriage is universally wrong on a moral level without throwing around bible quotes, it's not even a good argument. It's not an argument at all. It's just someone sticking their fingers in their ears and singing lalalalala.

 

What is wrong with two people wanting a committed, stable, relationship? I jst don't understand the thinking at all. Even if you are opposed to gay sex or whatever, marriage should imply something more significant. It's also a civil right. Last I checked, they had a movement for that. Back then people backed their bigotry with religion, too.

Popping in briefly, no, I did not read any of the super long posts. I am lazy and should be doing homework XD

But this. This this hithsihtisahteafneak -explodes-

Ahem. As far as I know, law is supposed to be completely and utterly separate from the church. There should be no mixing. None. Nada.

As far as I also know, at least in Christianity, there were many ways to marry a woman. Including raping a virgin, marrying your deceased brother's widow, marrying her but also having a harem on the side. Ah, yes. Good ol' times.

Sorry. I'm sarcastic. Don't take offence. I'm not trying to be a jerk. Just my sense of humor that is often ill timed |D

 

Now then. If you can tell me, straight to my face, not flinching and not doing any 'well I support you and like you but I just don't like what you do with your womanly parts," that my relationship is not equal to your's simply because I'm with another woman, I... will probably want to throw rocks at you. Small ones granted, cause I'm not fond of injuring people I don't know XD

 

Why is it that people want to control what I do in the privacy of my bedroom? So what if I want to go with a woman? What if it were a trans-man instead? What if it were someone gender queer? Why does it matter? Law dictates under law. Not religion. If your religion says that it is a sin, AWESOME! COOL! That works for you. And therefore, you should definitely choose not to partake, if you're concerned you'll be going to hell, or wherever the bad souls go. I will agree with your concerns, and I will support your decision.

 

However, then you need to let me make my decision too. You may express your concerns for my soul, yes, this is all in good intent and therefore I understand this. But please. What makes me any less of a human being then you? The take I want to marry and love another female? Why does that make me less human? Why does that mean I shouldn't be able to be recognized by the law, and to be able to visit my wife in the hospital? Be able to take in our children if she happens to pass away? I mean, even be able to adopt children in the first place? Why is it so wrong to want the same rights just like hetero couples? In the eyes of the law, we should be the same. The law should be blind to all of this religious influence.

Now I'm not sitting here screaming "DOWN WITH RELIGION."

By all means no.

Please, if it makes you happy, continue on your merry way. No, really. If you enjoy the books and the teachings, please, shoo shoo. Go be happy. I want people happy.

But come on, grant me the same right then.

 

(that turned out longer then intended. oopsy.)

Share this post


Link to post

This so much. If people can't be moral without religion, they're doing something wrong.

Unless someone can explain how gay marriage is universally wrong on a moral level without throwing around bible quotes, it's not even a good argument. It's not an argument at all. It's just someone sticking their fingers in their ears and singing lalalalala.

 

What is wrong with two people wanting a committed, stable, relationship? I jst don't understand the thinking at all. Even if you are opposed to gay sex or whatever, marriage should imply something more significant. It's also a civil right. Last I checked, they had a movement for that. Back then people backed their bigotry with religion, too.

Popping in briefly, no, I did not read any of the super long posts. I am lazy and should be doing homework xd.png

But this. This this hithsihtisahteafneak -explodes-

Ahem. As far as I know, law is supposed to be completely and utterly separate from the church. There should be no mixing. None. Nada.

As far as I also know, at least in Christianity, there were many ways to marry a woman. Including raping a virgin, marrying your deceased brother's widow, marrying her but also having a harem on the side. Ah, yes. Good ol' times.

Sorry. I'm sarcastic. Don't take offence. I'm not trying to be a jerk. Just my sense of humor that is often ill timed |D

 

Now then. If you can tell me, straight to my face, not flinching and not doing any 'well I support you and like you but I just don't like what you do with your womanly parts," that my relationship is not equal to your's simply because I'm with another woman, I... will probably want to throw rocks at you. Small ones granted, cause I'm not fond of injuring people I don't know xd.png

 

Why is it that people want to control what I do in the privacy of my bedroom? So what if I want to go with a woman? What if it were a trans-man instead? What if it were someone gender queer? Why does it matter? Law dictates under law. Not religion. If your religion says that it is a sin, AWESOME! COOL! That works for you. And therefore, you should definitely choose not to partake, if you're concerned you'll be going to hell, or wherever the bad souls go. I will agree with your concerns, and I will support your decision.

 

However, then you need to let me make my decision too. You may express your concerns for my soul, yes, this is all in good intent and therefore I understand this. But please. What makes me any less of a human being then you? The take I want to marry and love another female? Why does that make me less human? Why does that mean I shouldn't be able to be recognized by the law, and to be able to visit my wife in the hospital? Be able to take in our children if she happens to pass away? I mean, even be able to adopt children in the first place? Why is it so wrong to want the same rights just like hetero couples? In the eyes of the law, we should be the same. The law should be blind to all of this religious influence.

Now I'm not sitting here screaming "DOWN WITH RELIGION."

By all means no.

Please, if it makes you happy, continue on your merry way. No, really. If you enjoy the books and the teachings, please, shoo shoo. Go be happy. I want people happy.

But come on, grant me the same right then.

 

(that turned out longer then intended. oopsy.)

While I tip my hat to Noble Owl as I enter reading his theology debate with Alpha, I gotta say this was the ultimate message I was going to try to insert.

 

I wish I still had the image. It was black and white, and a bunch of picketers out in washington holding up that marriage should be pure between the races. Marriage for white people. Then, an identical image of the "one man, one woman"protesters with identical backdrop, just modern, and the text said something like, how stupid are you going to look to our grandchildren?

Share this post


Link to post
Explain how it is wrong, WITHOUT trying to throw religion into it.

Exactly. Please tell me what exactly is so horrible about me wanting to enter into a committed and loving relationship with my girlfriend without using religious arguments that are based on inaccurate translations.

 

So far, I've never seen anyone be able to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Exactly. Please tell me what exactly is so horrible about me wanting to enter into a committed and loving relationship with my girlfriend without using religious arguments that are based on inaccurate translations.

 

So far, I've never seen anyone be able to do so.

And it's not just that... Secular law has to apply to everyone, regardless of religion, so that is how it should be crafted. If all religions generally agree on something (i.e. murder is wrong), then that is something that can be accepted as universal, and secular law regarding the subject can be put into effect. If religions do not agree on something, either with each other or internally (as is the case here), then there is no consensus and the law needs to reflect the secular morality viewpoint.

 

If it is established that romantic love and the desire to be permanently attached to the person who is the object of said love are basic human emotions/rights, then consensual secular attachment should not be forbidden and they should have access to the legal/secular benefits of being married. I can see where the legal system doesn't want the hassle of prioritizing and micromanaging multiples, and thus marrying more than one person isn't legal, but there is no secular basis for discriminating against a pairing in this manner.

Share this post


Link to post

I wish I still had the image.  It was black and white, and a bunch of picketers out in washington holding up that marriage should be pure between the races. Marriage for white people. Then, an identical image of the "one man, one woman"protesters with identical backdrop, just modern, and the text said something like, how stupid are you going to look to our grandchildren?

Something like this: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--NwDI-9-w8w/T58b...age+protest.jpg

 

I also like this one:

user posted image

Edited by Snowytoshi

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, it was like that, only the two images looked like different groups taking the same bigotry group pose of powah. Everything arranged the same and it was like "..."

 

Still that made me laugh, hard. Lol. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Or there's this:

user posted image

Snowy I hearby applaud you. If I was knew and could get to different places where people are protesting legeslation to allow gay marriage, I'd make posters out of all these nifty things you're finding. Or maybe leaflets to distribute on the street. wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Snowy I hearby applaud you. If I was knew and could get to different places where people are protesting legeslation to allow gay marriage, I'd make posters out of all these nifty things you're finding. Or maybe leaflets to distribute on the street. wink.gif

Thank you! I love those kind of pictures because it helps people to connect the two things in their head. People can get in serious trouble if they say a racial slur, but saying things like 'that's so gay' slips right through the cracks. In most schools we teach that everyone should have equal rights and we are free to say how slavery was wrong, but if a teacher tried to teach that gay marriage was accepted? They'd be 'forcing their ideas on students' and in some schools teachers have even been fired for being gay.

 

Here's a website that I found sad and interesting: http://www.nohomophobes.com/#!/today/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

O.O one thing I hope is that site is only taking from people who have their pages set to public.

 

As it stands it is very very sad ):

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, I think the colors are kind of good. I mean it Looks like a really cool color scheme. I also think its funny that they're right across the street from their enemies (that should be interesting to see what happens).

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.