Ben Levi

Actually I did not state what I personally believe their position to be. I merely explained what Health was deriving from their writings.

I do not know their current position nor, to be frank, do I much care what it is, when those that formulate a position state clearly and openly beforehand that they are biased I do not know how any intelligent person can take what they say with a grain of salt.

What I have stated is that regardless of what they believe based on anecdotal evidence of unproven theories, actually scientific studies have proven that it does in fact work.

Jfem,

it seems you are having somewhat of a difficult time understanding Health’s point.

Health is pointing out that in the APA and AMA’s manual’s they do not address whether or not the therapies work, rather they simply state they oppose anything that would make someone feel that homosexuality is a problem.

What can be gleaned is that they themselves recognize that the therapies do indeed work, they simply oppose them because of what they imply.

What I have stated is simply that the AMA and the APA would have a very difficult time stating that the therapies have been proven not to work on a scientific basis since all actual scientific studies carried out showed that statistically speaking they do in fact work the same as any other therapy.

MDG

The difference is a nuber of facts

1) Blacks and whites in America now are basically trying to learn the same stuff with the same goals even if surface level vocabulary is different.

2) Ashkenazin amd Sephardim have different minhagim and they pasken differently.

A true Sephardi has completely and totally different halachos in primary ways that make it very difficult to teach children, ideally ateacher should be able to teach a class.

1) Without having to explain on Pesach what Ashkenazim hold is chametz the Sephardim hold is Matza and rice.

2) Our Sefer TOrah looks and is held completely differently then theirs.

3) Hald the class pronounces the taamim one way the other a different way.

Along with many other very real differences.

And I write this as someone who counts a proud sefardi as one of his best friends.

yserbious has the pbest post on this thread so far.

Jfem.

We should learn from Reform how to do chesed?

That’s cute.

GO to virtually and major hospital in the tri-state area, it has a fully stocked Bikur Cholim room that is re-stocked with fresh food everyday.

Stick around to see who does the “re-stocking”- Community volunteers.

When you hear the sirens of an ambulance in any orthodox jewish population center look up. There’s a good chance that you will see a Hatzolah ambulance on the way.

Driven by who – Community volunteers.

When you see a jew with a flat tire or locked out of their car =, in need of a boost or other small emergency ask them if they have Chaveirim’s number, and a frum jew will show up who is that- A community volunteer.

When you hear about a jewish family in a tough financial position and you wonder how they get food fro Shabbos or yom tov when it costs so much remember about that thing called Tomchei Shabbos with weekly food drop offs run by- community volunteers.

When you find out about a couple with fertility issues and wonder how they are affording the huge expenses involved and navigating the wide array of options, or someone with a medical problem trying to find out the best hospital to go to, or someone faced with battiling the machla r”l and all the associated expenses, recall the multi-million dollar orginazaations called RCCS, Echo, Refuah, Atime, Bonei Olam and more all funded and ran primarily by- community volunteers.

When you have a halachic problem in many communities and don’t know what to do your rabbi is in unavailable you can call something called a Bais Horah ran by – Rabbi’s volunteering.

So now what exactly are we supposed to be learning from the Reform?

Jfem,

You are aware that the “consensus” medical opinion until fairly recently was that homesexuality was a “mental disorder”.

So according to you up till the diagnosis was changed everyone was to believe that it was so and if they disbelieved it they were minority “nutjobs”.

The morning after the changed diagnosis, those who disagreed became “nutjobs”.

As for questioning everything.

Not at all.

There was one truth that God gave us and attested to the fact it will never ever change.

It’s called the Torah.

Actually according to Judaism it is a fact that people are born with predilections to murder any one born under the Mazal Maadim, every person is born with a personality that allows for them to either be a “rusha” a “a “beinuni” or a tzadik.

Someone born under the Mazal Maadim essentially enjoys “blood’ so they can be either

1) A rotzaech, murderer which is a rusha

2) A Shocheit, ritual slaughterer, which is a beinoni.

3) A Mohel, circumcisor, which is a tsaddik.

And what I have written is essentially a quote from the Vilna Gaon brought in Even Shelaima.

The fall 2012 issue of Dialogue features a 21 page article from Elon Karten Ph.D a practicing psychologist who deals with many frum people struggling with this problem.

In the article he documents that the “taskforce” that condemned “reparative therapy” consisted of individuals who were on record about their positions before the selection while those who were more neutral were turned away.

the six member board consisted of

Judith M Glasgold- Board member of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy.

Jack Drescher- well know gay activist.

Lee Beckstead- Self identified gay man.

Beverly Green- Co-editor of APA Gay and Lesbian Division 44 series on Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues.

Robin Lin Miller- worked for Gay Men’s Health Crisis.

Roger Worthington- Chief Diversity Officer and University of Missouri and recipient of the 2001 Catalyst award from the LGBT Resource Center.

This is the “neutral board that “investigated” reparative therapy and then condemned it as harmful.

In the article he further notes that the study by Dr. Robert Spitzer actually did find that sexual conversion therapy does in fact work and that study was consistent with an earlier study by MacIntosh in 1994.

Yes Dr. Spitzer did come under harsh criticism from the gay community and yes the APA did distance itself from his work however when approached the editor of the Journal that originally published the article Dr. Kenneth Zucker Ph.D, to ask to issue a retraction he replied

“You can retract data incorrectly analyzed, to do that you publish an erratum. You can retract an article of the data was falsified-or the journal retracts it if the editor knows it. As I understand it he’s just saying ten years later that he wants to retract his interpretation of the data. Well we’d probably have to retract hundreds of scientific papers with regard to interpretation, and we don’t do that”.

I would encourage the posters who state that there is no proof that therapy can work in these cases to read the entire article which is full sourced.

So I don’t get it.

Is the claim against Trump that he is an anti-Semite?

Because his daughter Ivanka who, by any measure, is one of his closest advisors identifies as a Modern-orthodox Jewish woman and sends her children to Jewish schools.

Or is the claim that Trump is a liar.

‘Cuase he very well maybe, but if his wins the Republican primary and faces Hillary Clinton then it’s one liar vs. another liar.

Why is it more important to vote for one liar over another?

One advantage Obama has over most Presidents is the sheer number of failed promises and policies make it impossible to keep up

with anything and people forget them simply because of the number.

1) The colossal failure of the stimulus which officially was designed to improve the infrastructure (shovel ready jobs anybody?) and did no such thing and was going to keep unemployment down below 8 percent (oops!) and lead to the “Summer of Recovery” remember that summer?

2) The Health Insurance Bill popularly known as Obamacare was going to get you better health insurance (which top doctor’s take Obamacare plans?) save you 1500.00 dollars on each plan (shucks that didn’t happen) and enable you to keep the insurance that you wanted ( well that didn’t happen).

3) We were going to close down Guantanamo and any prisoners released were of course harmless and not going to go back to trying to kill US citizens’ ( That didn’t happen)

4) We were going to completely withdraw from Iraq.Yup that happened and now we have ISIS.

5) We were going to be more respected in the world. I guess that means laughingstock.

6) We were going to have renewed unity no “blue state’s or Red state’s just Americans. Remember that. Tell that to the police.

7) Obama would ensure that Syria never crossed his red lines by using chemical weapons. Yup, that worked out and Assad would leave power. Yup that worked out.

8) Obama would ensure every option remained on the table to not allow Iran to get “the bomb”.

Gee what a pres.

Just to be clear.

During the debates with Romney Obama claimed there was no difference between the two in regard to Iran.

He made it clear, over and over and over again that if Iran refused to get rid of their Nuclear Program he would take it out militarily.

Now it seems that Obama is claiming that is not an option.

So I guess that means Obama is admitting publicly that he lied to the American People in order to get elected.

GAW: You started your post by stating that you cannot explain the positions of others then ended it by stating you see no reason not to extend the “rights’ of marriage to same gender couples.

So let’s try and define things.

1) no one was denied the right to marriage, any man can marry any woman.

2) There are those who choose for whatever reason not to enter a marital relationship, in a democracy you cannot force someone to do anything (except buy health insurance) and therefore they had the right to stay single or enter other types of relationships.

3) Due to the fact that some people did not like what marriage was they decide to change it.

Sort of like if I do not like what a table is I try and change it to a chair.

As such they began to insist that a loving relationship between two same gender individuals is also a marriage.

Now factually, scientifically, and inarguably any way you want to put it there are many huge difference between the relationship between a man and a woman and tow individuals of the same gender.

1) Biologically the relationship is extremely different

2) emotionally they are extremely different

3) The side effects are extremely different, on can have kids one cannot.

However these individual decided that none of above characteristics are what define the term marriage rather it is the presence of “love’ and any two individuals in a loving relationship are married.

If the only requisite for marriage is “love” then again why is a mother and daughterer not married?

Why are two best friends not married?

why are two close siblings not married?

In my mind the answer is quite simple.

Love is an important part of marriage but it is not the only part there are many unique aspects of that particular relationship.

The combination of all these factors are found only in the relationship between a man and a woman and it is that unique relationship that is marriage.

Hence the secular “argument” against same gender marriage is essentially.

It simply is not marriage. It is relationship it is many things but it is not marriage.

As marriage has evolved from a structure in which a family could grow (the “original meaning”) to an affirmation of individuals’ love and a financial/legal “next of kin”, so too has the “right” to be married. From the opinion:

And so I would ask GAW,

Based on what you seem to think marriage has evolved to is a father and son “married” is a “mother and daughter” married?

Actually Reb Moshe was calling for people to go and protest against a sitting popular Mayor.

Well it would seem that Reb Moshe zt”l disagreed with ZD.

Even without that argument it’s a pretty cut and dry case.

Biologically Men and Woman are different.

That is a fact.

Emotionally Men and Woman are different.

That is another fact.

So it follows that a relationship between them is inherently different then one between two members of the same gender.

This is an unalterable truth, one that cannot be changed no matter the words used.

Until now secular society recognized that singular relationship as the one called marriage, the term marriage was not extended to include other types of relationships.

As such the recent decision changes the very meaning of the word it “re-defines” marriage to mean a relationship that is intrinsically different on many level’s, and yes, Justice Kennedy may argue that there is one commonality between them, love, but it would take a theologian, not a lawyer, to argue that is the defining quality of the term.

And I would note that any theologian would be unsuccessful.

The relationship between Parent and child is loving, is it not?

Is that relationship, which is in many way’s an unbreakable bond termed “marriage”?

It obviously is not.

Why not?

It’s a loving relationship!

The answer is because love is an important component of marriage, however it is not the only factor involved.

So as Justice Roberts in his brilliantly argued dissent showed, the justices of the majority threw logic and law out the window and simply ruled with what they desired.

TO bring up the votes for Romney or Obama is a pretty intellectually shallow move.

Romney’s campaign pitch was not “vote for me because I am a Mormon”, in fact he was criticized by some for not contrasting the fact that he was obviously a man of faith vs Obama’s dubious record on the matter.

The entire pitch that Romney made was based on his economic know how and Obama’s ineptitude on the World stage.

Again his faith was tangential at best.

However in the case that was recently decided 5 lawyers decided that a term that was until now reserved exclusively for the unique relationship between a man and a woman will be redefined to put relationships that the Torah, and until several years ago, the entire world understood were in no way the same.

As such this decision directly and with obvious intent seeks to redefine what is considered moral and right in the world we live in.

What should be even more cause for concern is the fact that there are Jewish Justices that were part of the majority decision.

In light of what this decision means there is no way to describe it other then to so state the obvious.

It’s a tragedy, and particularly for us who have to now raise our children in a world that has deemed immorality moral and morality immoral.

The question of Ratzon Hashem is pretty spot on and it is quite profound however I think the answer cuts deep into our core.

We hold that aman and awoman are really two parts of one whole. We beleive that a marriage is not merely a partnership between one man and one woman.

It is the complete unification of man and woman.

As such the individual accomplishemnts of either of them are attributed to both of them.

This applies especially toa woman.

As in any company in order for success there must be defined roles. A well run company is one in which each person carrys out their role to perfection.

So to a Man and Woman create a family which is a “unit” charged with fulfilling Avodas Hashem. Hashem created each gender differently in order to ensure that biologicaly they are each suited to their roles.

The woman was given the role of being the “bacbone” the support while the man was given the role of action.

Interstingly in Jewish law the one who supports, the enabler is always given more reward then the actual doer and so to by women the Gemorah in Berachos (according to Rashi) states that they actually recieve more reward then men for enabling the learning of thier husbands.

Simchas Torah is not a celebration of Judaisim. It is a Siyum Hatorah. A siyum on the completion of the learnign of the Torah and the begining anew. When the men celebrate that is what hey are celebrating.

They are celebrating the completion of a year of them doing their Jobs.

A woman observing and watching Men celebrate what they have done, in essence watching the celebration of the completion of a task they have enabled.

Whjy would a woman want to be the one dancing and doing the actual completing of the Torah?

If one wants to do the “ratzon hashem then God has made his Ratzon clear by creating Men and Women differntly.

When women “switch” sides so they are the ones celebrating the Torah they are essentially declaring their desire to do that which God has said is not wanted.

It is not Ratzon hashem they are seeking to fulfill. It is Ratzonom that they are seeking to fulfill.

God wants women to be women not men,.

First off the fact soemthing is different then the Mesorah does not automatically diqualify it.

It does mean that you need really, really, really big people who know the entire Torah and have reached the status where they are generally accepted to be Gedolei Yisroel to change it.

In the time when Beis Yackov was started there were many against precisly becuase it was against Mesorah.

Gedolei Yisroel at the time, led by the Chofetz Chaim and the Gerrer Rebbe, approved it as such it was implemented.

I do not see any Gedolei Yisroel of our time approving of this practice.

frumnotyeshivish,

actually I think that who is the initiator of a no-fault divorce has a alot of bearing in arranging child custody.

You see children are way better off on so many levels and in so many ways growing up in a home with both biological parents.

If a woman initiates the destruction of that home for selfish reasons and in spite of the husbands obvious willingness to work on things and keep things together so theat their children will not have to grow up in two homes and in two worlds.

Well I would think thats the first sign that perhaps the mother is not really the best person to be raising those kids.

frumnot yeshivish.

I actually think that walking away from a man she dated commited to marrying, built a home and had children with.

Now telling such a man that he is not good enough or she want to try something else is abusive towards hima and the children.

His refusing to give a get is more like a desperate attempt to shield himself from her abuse.

It depends.

If there are children involved?

Then in many cases the “immoral” decision is a person (man or woman) who is trying to break up a home and thereby significantly impacting the children that he or she brought into the world.

If there are no such factors, then I do not know if it is “cruel”, there really are very very rare cases where the husband refuses to give a get simply for “spite”. (I am aware of several cases, none of them were cases where the husband was refusing to give a get simply for “spite”.)

I think Lior has some really great points.

In fact personally I’m aware of a pretty famous case where every Dayan involved was fully aware that there was no reason what so ever for her to demand a get.

In fact the Beis Din was in possesion of a letter she wrote right before leaving where she stated unequivically that the man in question was a “great husband”. She just decided she wanted something else in life. The husband then said fine, however he stated that he was not fine with the sutody arrangements and would withhold the get until it was arranged to his satisfaction.

In this case the Dayanim involved all agreed that from a Halachic standpoint there was absolutly no reason that he had to give a get.

Yet demonstrations were held in front of the mans house, and some Dayanim tried to come out with convulted reason swhey he was mechuyov to give the get even though halachically she was wrong!

I think the wider, underlying problem is that we as a society have absorbed a drop to much of the culture around us.

Even in America until recently there was no concept of a “no-fualt” divorce.

If you married and you committed to a relationship. You now had a responsibilty to maintain that relatonship, a responsibilty that was strengthened once children would come into the picture. If you wanted to end it you had to have a good reason to.

You could not just have “divorce on demand” and who cares about what it meant for the person you committed to.

Charlie

Again, why do you keep bringoing up McCain?

Obama last ran against Romney not McCain and Romney know’s more about the economy and how to fix thing’s up in his little finger then Obama will ever know!

rationalfrummie

You may know people that have a complex medical issue.

I personally have one.

And thank G-d it broke out before Obamacare had been implemented.

So I got treated by top dr’s who csually admitted that many of the things they did would will not be able to be done in 5 years from now if Obamacare still stands since they were long-shot’s.

Thank G-d they were done and I had the long shot recovery they hoped for.

And the following year the insurance plan that I had (which had shelled out over a million dollars covering my tratment) stopped covering small buisness’s as a direct result of Obamacare and I was forced to joing a different plan.

My new plan does not cover my primary care DR who incidentally saved my life after I had been mis-diagnosed by an ER.

So yes I am quite sad that Obama succeaded.

You see now as long as you don’t get sick and are within the proper age limit’s you can get health care but if r’l someone get’s sick then they have no hope.

Unless you are really wealthy or a connected politician. (Like Obama)

Charlie,

Actually the real IRS scandal is when the IRS broke the law.

IT is no scandal for political groups to be doing exactly what the law allow’s.

Don’t try and obfusicate.