- This topic has 100 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I don’t understand how Jews who follow the Torah can be pro gay marriage. I’m talking about Jews all the way from chassidish to modern orthodox. They usually say even though I personally don’t believe in it, how can I force my opinion on someone else. I say if you’re against something then stand up against it.
What about all those who haven’t stood up against Eiver Min HaChai?
Being that the United States is a country that constitutionally affords equal rights to all citizens, and certain benefits come along with being “married,” the right to those benefits should not be denied anyone.
Also, the secular meaning of marriage has very little to do with the religious meaning. That is why many Jews opt to marry both civilly and religiously.
Ever Min HaChai is illegal under secular law and I would equally oppose any legalization effort to allow such animal cruelty.
It is not marriage if it is not between a man and woman who are both free to marry each other. What’s next? Marry your beloved pet?
As to eiver min hachai – it may not be exactly the same, but even if I were not Jewish, I could never eat lobster after seeing a cooking show demonstrate how they cook LIVE lobsters by throwing them into boiling water. Anyone who thinks that is not cruel, is in serious need of cashing a reality check.
Because they don’t appreciate the morality of the Torah, and they substitute their own thinking of what is right and wrong. That is why.
Because they believe that we cannot expect a system of government to preserve our own freedoms and at the same time expect it to limit others’.
Because they have American hashkofos and not Torah ones. Shame on them!
yitay: I feel like most people who believe so think it do so for normative reasons, as opposed to for strategic reasons.
And besides: the americans who are protecting gay marriage are generally not the ones who care about our religious rights. It is quite the opposite.
Well most people do mitzvos for normative reasons, or as the navi would say ???? ????? ??????. We’re all a bunch of people in glass houses.
“And besides: the americans who are protecting gay marriage are generally not the ones who care about our religious rights. It is quite the opposite.”
Generally, you are correct. But there are a few institutions that have libertarian values and therefore care about preserving both religious rights and gay marriage. The ACLU is a prime example (and it’s funny, because most people think of the ACLU as supremely left-wing, but if you look at the cases they take, you’ll see it’s not so).
I’m curious how many would support a law calling for birchas hashem to be illegal?
they are not religious or is it not know to them these two verses from the scripture. thats the most simple answer if you believe that Torah is from heaven.
Vayikra 18:22:
You shall not lie down with a male, as with a woman: this is an abomination.
Vayikra 18:29:
For anyone who commits any of these abominations, the persons doing so shall be cut off from the midst of their people.
The religious southern blacks say they are opposed to gay marriage and yet when Obama changed his mind on it they still voted for him.
Another thing, Im not sure how amny frum people are actually pro-gay marriage.
I for one have been accused of being progay marriage, while actually I am merely not anti. I dont think it is our buisines and Im not sure how much resources (if any) it is worth expending to at the MOSt delay the inevitable by a year or two (maximum 5)
Ubiquitin, any Torah-true Jew.
While I disagree with them, one can argue that since marriage under American (and other modern legal systems) is NOT concerned with “intimate” behavior (due to the decriminalization of various crimes such as “adultery”, “sodomy” and “fornication” – all of which were involved in criminal prosecutions of unmarried people until the mid-20th century), what the goyim call marriage is solely a contractual economic relationship, and there is nothing in halacha that prohibits two persons of the same gender from entering into an contract to combine their assets and live together as a single household (and such is often done in our community, such as when unmarried adult children move in with their widowed parent, not to mention two singles becoming housemates). Since “marriage” in their system is solely about economics, and since the prohibited behaviors are now lawful under their law regardless of marital status, there isn’t an halachic problem.
There is a practical problem that by redefining marriage to include many childless couples, there is a liklihood of losing many of the protections that existed when marriage was primarily designed to protect dependent mothers and children, since same gender couples (who rarely have children) and the many married childless couples, do not need such protection.
The legal benefits of legitimately married individuals are protected by extending to these perverts the benefits of married couples as well.
Legitimately married couples are a minority in the United States and eventually we would lose whatever opportunities are currently available to us. This way we have a much larger population who want to preserve government benefits which help our community.
Yiden generally benefit from “piggybacking” off the laws that are meant to protect other Americans, as most of the population could care less about Anti Semitism.
Also our yeshivas and families benefit from regulations meant for others as even our own, liberal Jews who make up the majority of the USA Jewish population, are the biggest advocates of church-state separation and have spent many $millions trying to repeal government rules which benefit our community and fight against vouchers for religious schools.
There is no way that we will stop them, so let’s be cordial so when we are in need; i.e., Israel, Rubashkin, etc., there is a better chance that they will of help.
PBA: I could see people thinking that Goyim don’t have to be bound by the Torah’s morality (still bound by its laws, just not its morality) and therefore think it’s okay to let them choose their own morality. And they feel bad for actual gay people and maybe even people that want to be gay and therefore want them to have a legal recourse to feel normal.
Here’s what I don’t understand. Someone so insistent (rightly so) on defining their own religious prerogatives and safeguarding their religious practice from the interference of the state having an opinion AT ALL on the state’s definition of marriage.
I stand to be corrected, but Torah doesn’t recognize ANY relationship outside of the halachic union of a Jewish man and a Jewish woman as Nisuin.
That’s the definition of marriage for a Torah Jew. Period. Anything else, anyONE else is like marrying a doorstop to a cuckoo clock. It has no halachic meaning AT ALL. And once you get out of a halachic discussion, we’re just talking about your personal opinions.
If you want the state to start getting involved in Torah definitions of marriage, interfering in how we define and practice marriage, the ONLY definition of marriage that matters, the best way to do it is to invite the government, the ACLU, the Gay rights movement into your living room for a discussion YOU started.
I want the government to have nothing to do with the Jewish definition of marriage. So when they start legalizing unions that are contrary to Torah, I add that to the other things they permit that are contrary to Torah, and I say – boruch hashem that I live in a country where I have religious freedom and can define my own religious practice for myself.
All that being said, I’m not pro gay marriage, because the only union I consider to be a marriage is a halachic Jewish one, and the government isn’t demanding that religious denominations MUST sanction their government defined unions. These people were cohabiting before the government’s position changed, and they will be doing so afterwards.
zeev.b- Why is there not a similar campaign against people wearing clothing that is not gender-appropriate?
Devarim 22:5 – The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
In the U.S., one can dress and marry as they please. That is part of what makes this country free.
Being that the United States is a country that constitutionally affords equal rights to all citizens, and certain benefits come along with being “married,” the right to those benefits should not be denied anyone.
This is a ridiculous argument because even baalei toeiva people have the right to benefits of marriage. They have the same exact rights as any other citizen: Marry the opposite gender-merit the benefits of marriage. The fact that they are sick in the head should not entitle them to benefits that normal society derives from constitutional protection. Let’s say I had a deranged fetish for trees. According to your argument, the constitution (under this definition of equality) should not exclude me from my rights, and should allow me the same benefits as normal married couples, even though I chose to marry a tree. It’s ludicrous. This is not why I am against toeiva marriage – I’m against it because God said it is by definition an abomination – but even according to an atheist, the argument makes absolutely no sense at all. I can’t redefine the institution of marriage (which is protected for all citizens [ie: Any two citizens of age and opposite gender may marry each other without descrimination against race, color, or religion.]) to fit my own depraved nature just for the sake of granting myself financial benefits.
mdd
Dont speak for all, Ive asked many in “Torah-true” TM communities all have replied along the lines of “Oh that is different of course we must protect free speach yada yada yada”
(Be wary of no true scotsman before you reply)
How about all the religious Jews who support legal polytheism, or even voted for a polytheist in last fall’s Presidential election?
RE: cherrybin who wrote “The legal benefits of legitimately married individuals are protected by extending to these perverts the benefits of married couples as well.”
Not so clear. The leading benefits of marriage all pertain to traditional families (husband, wife, and kids – often with one spouse supporting the family and the other, usually the wife, specializing in child care). Benefits include automatic recognition of the wife’s husband as the father of the children, inheritance laws designed to protect the family unit and especially the dependent wife. If most “married” people (sexual orientation is irrelevant) are part of families that will never have children produced by the joint efforts of the parents, the logic behind most of the protections we value will be meaningless.
All those making an argument that the secular laws of marriage have zero to do with what is a Jewish marriage surely support people getting Jewishly married and NOT GETTING legally married — since as you say they are completely two different things — and then claiming benefits as a single mom with children, that single moms are entitled too, and remaining on their parents health benefits since they are not LEGALLY married. RIGHT akuperma, yichusdik, SecularFrummy, etc?
Also, you guys should be supporting allowing a brother and sister to get married and supporting a father marrying his daughter as well as supporting a guy marrying two girls. You don’t want to impose our anti-incest or anti-polygamy moral values on others, eh.
Don’t be hypocrites.
There is no way that we will stop them, so let’s be cordial so when we are in need; i.e., Israel, Rubashkin, etc., there is a better chance that they will of help.
This is not a proper Torah haskafa. We have not been distinguished as the chosen people to sit there and nod and smile as the moral fiber of Hashem’s world is torn apart. We have an obligation to be mocheh against perversion of emes. This doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to organise a rally against everything the goyim do wrong, but you cannot feign being in agreement so that when you need something they will be there. That’s a severe lack of bitachon and not proper hishtadlus.
Polygamy is not against the Torah
Its only illegal for Ashkenazim because of Rabbenu Gershom.
It was practiced by Some Sephardim (especially Tamanim) until they emigrated to Israel after WW II
I have never met a frum person who favors or endorses homosexual marriage. Many of us realize that such unions along with many practices of non Jews and non observant Jews are antithetical to our Torah values, but are accepted by many. Society has sunken to it’s lowest level in the past 20-30 years with adultery, “hooking up”, unmarried couples publicly living together, and worse accepted. We are a people that stands alone and must continue to seperate ourselves rather than oppose what we can not stop.
There are no frum Jews who are “for” gay marriage. There may be frum Jews who think that as a matter of policy it is best to err on the side of allowing people’s personal decisions and choices to remain just that- personal. The same forces and principles that might decide that toeiva marriage should be illegal might also decide that certain methods of ritual slaughter should be illegal, or that certain rituals of circumcision should be illegal, so some deem it sensible to err on the side of having the state tolerate practices that personally we find objectionable.
Canadian Mountie: If a brother/sister or father/daughter maintain a common household (very common, especially as they get older), should they be able to own property jointly, sign joint contracts, pool their income for tax and other purposes, etc.? My grandmother and great-aunt were both widowed at a relatively young age and spent most of their adult lives running a joint household – should they have a legal status distinct from two clearly temporary roommates sharing a flat while looking for shidduchim?
Once the government legalized all forms of immoral and perverse initimacy (and the few remaining restrictions on what consenting adults can do probably would be held unconstitutional if anyone ever decides to prosecute a case, which isn’t all that likely), all that is left of marriage are economic and legal aspects. Is there really a halachic issue are stake here?
Being that the United States is a country that constitutionally affords equal rights to all citizens, and certain benefits come along with being “married,” the right to those benefits should not be denied anyone.
Agreed. The problem is that we have offered these benfits to those who are “married” (a quasi-religious term (as in the sacrament), although defining it as such is against the first amendment). The benefits should be offered to any two individuals of consenting age and ability who choose to merge their finances and lives, AKA a civil union.
To CM: I am in general against offering benefits to single mothers who had their children out of “wedlock” (or Civil Union). We should not be incentivizing mothers to have children outside of a stable family structure.
That’s the definition of marriage for a Torah Jew. Period. Anything else, anyONE else is like marrying a doorstop to a cuckoo clock. It has no halachic meaning AT ALL. And once you get out of a halachic discussion, we’re just talking about your personal opinions.
Not really true for a Ben Noach. Rambam Ishus first perek.
“allowing a brother and sister to get married”
It is mutar for a non-Jewish man to marry a paternal half-sister.
To those who writing about: “people getting Jewishly married and NOT GETTING legally married”
Be advised that in most American states, having a marriage ceremony is sufficient to be married under the laws of the state. While some states require a license for the marriage to be recognized, most states do not (the license is a revenue measure, and the clergy performing the marriage may have to pay a fine – but the marriage is valid under state law).
If someone has a kesubah and kiddushing and huppah (and arguably merely bi’ah, at least in states that allow common law marriage) – they are married meaning they are required to file joint tax returns, are liable for each other’s debts, and the father has no way out of supporting the family, etc. – and they can be prosecuted for bigamy if they have a “get” without a civil divorce, which means a subsequent marriage will be void under state law.
For the record Marrying your first cousin is only legal in 12 States (New York is one of them)
“unmarried couples publicly living together”
Nothing halachically wrong with a non-Jewish opposite sex couple living together. Prior to matan Torah, men would take a wife in the marketplace and the couple just start living together — no ceremony required.
“supporting a guy marrying two girls”
Nothing wrong with that for anyone other than an Ashkenazic Jew, and even that is only a thousand year old minhag. It is Christianity that has a problem with it. I find it fascinating how many Christian values have slipped into what people think is normative Jewish opinion.
@Canadian Mountie I agree. We wouldn’t be talking about this if G-d didn’t want gay people to exist. So they are here for a reason.
But there are a few institutions that have libertarian values and therefore care about preserving both religious rights and gay marriage. The ACLU is a prime example (and it’s funny, because most people think of the ACLU as supremely left-wing, but if you look at the cases they take, you’ll see it’s not so).
Yes, but whenever there is a conflict of those interests, they always pick choose the non-religious. Ex. Contraceptive mandate.
Yitay: I mean normative in the meaning it takes as opposed to positive.
Normative: How things should be.
Positive: How things are.
In this context, I meant that they think it should be that way, as opposed to being willing to do it for strategic reasons. That is, I’ve never heard anyone support gay marriage for the reason you asserted above–most of my frum friends who support it think I’m basically a bigot for not.
Canadian Mountie – “All those making an argument that the secular laws of marriage have zero to do with what is a Jewish marriage surely support people getting Jewishly married and NOT GETTING legally married — since as you say they are completely two different things — and then claiming benefits as a single mom with children, that single moms are entitled too, and remaining on their parents health benefits since they are not LEGALLY married. RIGHT akuperma, yichusdik, SecularFrummy, etc?
Also, you guys should be supporting allowing a brother and sister to get married and supporting a father marrying his daughter as well as supporting a guy marrying two girls. You don’t want to impose our anti-incest or anti-polygamy moral values on others, eh.
Don’t be hypocrites.”
No one is promoting gay marriage, and no one is encouraging fraud. But a civil marriage has nothing to do with halcha. They’re going to commit the acts agaisnt the torah anyway, they can just file taxes together and inherit automatically now. That’s it. No one is stating their views on incest or polygamy because it’s not a prominent social issue right now. I highly doubt akuperma, yichusdik, SecularFrummy, (and myself for that matter) have been part of a grassroots movement encourgaing gay rights. Once it’s been brought up top center stage this is the opinion given on it. I for one have no issue with polygamy, I don’t understand why that’s illegal. Incest, yeah grosses me out, but let it be legal for people who so choose. Who am I to stop them? If they want to commit acts against the Torah, the ability to have a joint tax return is not going to further propagate such behavior.
It’s not being hypocritical. You’re sticking views and opinions in these CR members mouths.
akuperma: Common-law-marriage is ONLY available in nine States. Anywhere else a religious marriage without a civil marriage will NOT result in legal (secular) recognition of the marriage. Such a couple CANNOT file a joint tax return.
Furthermore, almost NONE of the supporters of homosexual marriage advocate legalization of incest and polygamy. Unless they — or any supporter here — do so, they remain hypocrites.
@ Canadian Mountie – Nothing hypocritical. I believe that as long as the law distinguishes cohabitation as regards privileges and responsibilities, whether it is called marriage or not, couples have a responsibility to register that relationship. They have a responsibility to NOT take advantage of “entitlements” that are there for people who are not in formalized cohabitation. It still has no impact on the definition of halachic marriage, which is all I care about defining.
And anybody supporting dishonesty because it is easy to get away with it doesn’t understand the role of a Jew in the world.
i agree with those people. just because OUR religion doesnt approve of gay marriage doesn’t mean we have to force it on others.
my thinking is that gay marriage a halachic issue, not one for the government. every american has rights.
If a Jewish couple cohabitates, there is strong grounds to require a get, should their relationship break.
“If someone has a kesubah and kiddushing [sic] and huppah (and arguably merely bi’ah, at least in states that allow common law marriage) – they are married meaning they are required to file joint tax returns, are liable for each other’s debts, and the father has no way out of supporting the family, etc. – and they can be prosecuted for bigamy if they have a ‘get’ without a civil divorce, which means a subsequent marriage will be void under state law.”
Married couples are not required to file joint tax returns. They must state on their tax returns that they are married, but they may file separately or jointly. Depending on the couple’s financial situation, that decision may save them hundreds or, occasionally, thousands of dollars.
Ubiquitin, I meant what a real Toraj-true Jew should hold!
Yichusdic and others, there are Halochos(Mitzvos) obligatory for Bnei Noachs. According to Rambam we have to enforce them if we have enough koach. Certainly, we are not to have a non-chalante attitude towards the issue or,chas ve’sholom, support it. We are to oppose it. Plus, we need not worry so much about finding favor in the eyes of the frei Yidden.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.