[The CandyMan says this post is rated PG-13! He also says you should be over bar or bat mitzva, or get your parents' permission before reading. --LNM]
According to Jewish Law, did Eliot Spitzer commit a crime? Certainly, he is not guilty of adultery. Adultery, according to the Hebrew Bible, is sex with a married woman, whereas Spitzer's lovely singer-songwriter mistress prefers to remain, shall we say, "on the market." What about prostitution? Well, the Bible does tell us not to whore out our daughters (Lev. 19:29). But Spitzer, a big-shot lawyer (sic), might argue that his mistress arrangement with young Ashley is more akin to a discreet relationship between consenting adults. In that case, he's not guilty of anything serious -- if z'nut (sex out of wedlock) was any kind of Biblical prohibition, I think the Israelites would have said "No thanks" at Sinai and moved along. After all, what's Judaism without the t'fillin dates?
Girls, on the other hand, get a raw deal from the rabbis. If Silda Spitzer had been the one getting a little on the side, she might be executed in a Rabbinic court. Even suspicion of female infidelity is grounds for public humiliation and testing via the waters of the sota (wayward woman). According to some extreme Biblical traditions, even premarital sex by a single girl (!) is grounds for stoning (Deut. 22:20-21). The Talmud's rabbis took pains to improve the welfare of married women, but never reversed this double standard. Even the Conservative movement only started ordaining women in 1985.
Why the double standard? Well, marriage in classic Jewish law is basically a kinyan/purchase. The man buys the woman, but she doesn't buy him. This was standard custom in the ancient near east, as was having multiple wives. Today, in many cultures, polygamy is still the preferred way of life, enjoyed by rich men the world over. Perhaps it's a throwback to our days as silverbacks -- many mammalian species feature a dominant male and his female harem. Or perhaps it arose as a cultural device to support unempowered women. In any case, male-dominated polygamy is probably here to stay, although it's become increasingly unpopular over time (e.g. the acceptance by Ahkenazi Jews of Rabbeinu Gershom's ban, which btw should be expiring pretty soon... right?).The funny thing is, part of me wonders whether the Bible got it right about polygamy. After all, it's clearly a struggle for many men to stay faithful to one woman (especially if the man is rich and powerful). Statistics suggest that this is true for women, as well. This poses a serious challenge for the secular ethicist. In the absence of any religious tradition, should marital infidelity be outlawed? Is it even wrong? And what about prostitution? Legalized prostitution (as seen on TV) doesn't seem that bad... the girls make money, and they seem to be enjoying themselves quite a bit. Slate tells us of one Tier 3 sex worker who's earning $10,000/mo. for three monthly meetings. Heck, for $10,000/mo., I'd do a lot more than that!
So far, this country has made a mess of secular ethics. Our President uses family values as an excuse to deprive homosexuals of their Constitutional right to marriage equality. Well, shouldn't he be more concerned about the adulterers in our midst? Or the wife beaters? There's a lot more of those than there are homosexuals, and they pose a far greater threat to family stability. Yet there is practically zero national discussion about such issues. Perhaps the Spitzer fiasco will spark some discussion about real family values. Secular ethics offer us a way out of outdated double standards and cultural norms. But in reinventing society, how do we strike a balance between what is good for the family and what is good for the individual? When it comes to sex, what can we realistically expect from human society? After all, if Eliot Spitzer couldn't resist, what makes you think you can?
147 comments:
>should marital infidelity be outlawed?
I think you must mean consensual infidelity (open marriages) or otherwise it should be no better than regular lying.
Also, you may want to add an addendum to note that you personally are different and that you would never commit adultery. If your wife saw this post (yes, I know you don't expect that) you'll just add to her suspicion and distrust. Feel free to edit this comment.
I'm not married, so it's OK.
> According to Jewish Law, did Eliot Spitzer commit a crime?
Spitzer did break the law so maybe he violated "Dina D'Malchusa Dina" in some way?
>Our President uses family values as an excuse to deprive homosexuals of their Constitutional right to marriage equality.
I'm no lawyer, but where does the Constitution talk about marriage equality?
>Well, shouldn't he be more concerned about the adulterers in our midst? Or the wife beaters? There's a lot more of those than there are homosexuals, and they pose a far greater threat to family stability. Yet there is practically zero national discussion about such issues.
There is no national discussion regarding these because who on earth thinks beating a wife or cheating is good? One of them is even a crime. There are shelters and the criminals are prosecuted. Homesexuality is discussed now because its THE new topic.
>But in reinventing society, how do we strike a balance between what is good for the family and what is good for the individual?
What about including whats good for the society at large as well?
Prostitution was not allowed.
Leviticus 19:29. Do not prostitute your daughter, to cause her to be a harlot; lest the land fall to harlotry, and the land become full of wickedness.
“According to some extreme Biblical traditions, even premarital sex by a single girl (!) is grounds for stoning (Deut. 22:20-21).”
No. The accusation was that she was unfaithful. There’s a context here just like you don’t expect him to complain that a widow he married is not a virgin and so the widow would not be stoned. The complaint was of unfaithfulness:Verse14: And gives accusing speeches against her, and brings an evil name upon her, and says, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I did not find in her the signs of virginity;
A betrothed woman was not single:Verses 23-24.
23. If a girl who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city, and lies with her;
24. Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the girl, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away evil from among you.
In addition to the fact that as mentioned above in Leviticus 19:29 prostitution was considered evil here it is in verses 28-29 dealt with further.
28. If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lays hold of her, and lies with her, and they are found;
29. Then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
“(e.g. the acceptance by Ahkenazi Jews of Rabbeinu Gershom's ban, which btw should be expiring pretty soon... right?).”
Wrong. It had expired but was kept.
“Our President uses family values as an excuse to deprive homosexuals of their Constitutional right to marriage equality.”
The word marriage as opposed to gay marriage means between a man and a woman. Giving some special recognition for that is not unconstitutional. You want benefits for living with someone? Fine so let roommates have benefits but it’s not marriage.
“But in reinventing society, how do we strike a balance between what is good for the family and what is good for the individual?”
Ok lets come right down to it. Do you want the government to define for you what is right and wrong or do you want it to protect you? What happens to right or wrong in the absence of government.
">should marital infidelity be outlawed?
I think you must mean consensual infidelity (open marriages) or otherwise it should be no better than regular lying."
So what.
CM,
"According to Jewish Law, did Eliot Spitzer commit a crime?"
A misdemeanor, maybe. Definitely not adultery. And I don't believe the Halacha is for the man not to use a prostitute (rather it's for women not to be prostitutes) - especially a non-Jewish one.
"If Silda Spitzer had been the one getting a little on the side, she might be executed in a Rabbinic court."
Well, being how she's not Jewish, it's unclear whether a Jewish court would have proper standing.
"the acceptance by Ahkenazi Jews of Rabbeinu Gershom's ban, which btw should be expiring pretty soon... right?)."
Already has, actually.
"And I don't believe the Halacha is for the man not to use a prostitute (rather it's for women not to be prostitutes) - especially a non-Jewish one."
Considering the Tanach labels prostitution evil (notwithstanding Judah's behavior with Tamar-which was before the Torah anyway)it certainly was not considered good. In any event it is not allowed in Halacha.
Re: Or perhaps it arose as a cultural device to support unempowered women.
I doubt it. I think your silverback suggestion is more likely.
The funny thing is that when men contemplate this posibility they seem to always imagine themselves in the role of the alpha with multiple brides. But one standard consequence of widespread polygyny is that you get a huge population of omega males at the bottom -- unhappy, frustrated, and potentially hostile and dangerous.
The type of polyamory where each top male has several females who are required to be faithful to him may be a typical male's dream, but it is not a recipe for a peaceful society. Additionally, looking at the example of societies where women are legally and economically empowered, we see women typically favoring a faithful (monogamous) male over a higher-status male who's already taken (and/or insisting that the polyamory rules be mutual). This has the salutatory social effect of spreading the women all across the spectrum of males rather than grouping them all around the few alphas at the top. The top dogs are often okay with one really good relationship (instead of several exclusive women) if they're brought up to expect it -- in much the same way that parents today actively choose to focus on raising one or two kids really well rather than trying to raise fifteen or twenty. And those males that aren't satisfied with one can always opt for a mutually open relationship. So with female empowerment everybody wins! :D
For further discussion, see Come on baby, won't you show some class? (more on primate sexuality).
Today, in many cultures, polygamy is still the preferred way of life, (enjoyed) suffered by (rich men) masochists the world over.
Fixed it for you.
"Today, in many cultures, polygamy is still the preferred way of life, enjoyed by rich men the world over."
Polygamy was allowed in the Bible and in later periods but was not considered the ideal and was the exception to the general behavior.
C. L. Hanson and I both come from a tradition that practiced polygamy in the recent past. I have family stories about it, and it ain't what it's cracked up to be.
All the same, I don't think any laws are required to regulate such things. If adults want of their own free will to enter into any manner of old or innovative relationship, I say let them be. Where laws may be required is to enforce parental obligations on any offspring resulting from those relationships.
I live in a place where prostitution is legal. It's not without problems, but bringing it out in the open empowers the prostitutes and helps to protect them from the worst abuses. Society hasn't collapsed because people can pay for sex openly.
parental obligations on any offspring
Should be "parental obligations to any offspring".
Amazing how Jewish sites seem to be within Mormon range. :-) Hello dear Mormons. How's the Holy Land...Utah?
Mormons and Jews have fascinatingly similar experiences. BTW, Mormons in Utah like to believe they're in Zion (yes, they actually use that word). The rest of us know the real truth. ;)
RG,
"In any event it is not allowed in Halacha."
You sure? Got a source?
Re Rabbeinu Gershom's ban: I hear they're reinstituting polygamy in Lakewood because these days it's IMPOSSIBLE to support a family on one income!
RG, on Deut. 22:21:
No. The accusation was that she was unfaithful.
"No" yourself! Here's the verse (v.13-):
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her... and bring up an evil name upon her, and say: 'I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity'... if this thing be true... then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house.
RG, you propose a "context of adultery" here, but this is not explicit anywhere in the passage. In your interpretation, "the essence is missing from the text." (Hebrew ikaro chasar min hasefer)
Furthermore, your interpretation raises a logical problem. The woman is stoned because she is found not to be a virgin. But according to your interpretation, she might have lost her virginity before her marriage -- in which case she is still innocent.
I maintain that the simplest explanation of the passage is that it represents an extreme Israelite tradition in which women were expected to be virgins before marriage. I acknowledged within my post that this was a disputed issue within the Hebrew Bible.
There is more to say here, I do think your position holds some water, and we can discuss it at the right time in several months. Thanks for raising the issue of the text. I couldn't get into it in the post.
HH,
I'm no lawyer, but where does the Constitution talk about marriage equality?
I'm no lawyer either, but:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
This means that citizens maintain all civil rights de facto, unless their actions are criminalized.
Ultimately, gay marriage will go to the Supreme Court, and I can already tell you what the answer is going to be: gay couples have the right to marry. Waste of freaking time and money to debate a judiciary issue that is a foregone conclusion *anyways*. Grumble, grumble.
>CL, I loved your analysis of female empowerment here. You are absolutely right about the harems. With large mammals in particular (e.g. hippos), the vast majority of males never get laid. So sad! The females are more sexually fulfilled in those populations.
Obviously, you have given feminist theory quite a bit of thought.
When I said that some human societies might have developed polygamy out of need, I had in mind Imperial (pre-revolution) China. In that extremely poor society, rich men often supported several wives, each with separate families. Without polygamy, these women might have starved, or at least lived in extreme poverty.
>jonathan,
I essentially agree with you about what the role of the government should be. I think we should legalize prostitution (why should the mafiosos and pimps make all the profits?).
That being said, a major question in my mind is how a philosophical system of secular ethics should judge prostitution, or even polygamy. Are these good things or bad, and how can we tell?
>suitepotato,
Fixed it for you.
LOL, nicely done.
I'm in the habit lately of judging things based on whether they result in things that I value, a very pragmatic viewpoint. For example, I value civilization. As C. L. Hanson pointed out, widespread polygamy tends to create an underclass of sexually frustrated men. This acts against the equity and cohesion of a society. So while I don't think polygamy should be criminalized, I hope that our culture of female empowerment and equality would discourage it.
I would judge prostitution from the same standpoint.
What if polygamy were not male-dominated? There's no reason why wives cannot have multiple husbands (especially in this age of paternity testing).
What if society's starting point for marriage was not sexual fidelity, but rather economic or social partnership?
HH, this is from the Declaration of Independence, which is the document upon which the Constitution was based:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...
-Declaration of Independence
The Supreme Court will ultimately rule (correctly) that marriage is such an unalienable right. I'd say within the next ten years.
"Anonymous said...
Re Rabbeinu Gershom's ban: I hear they're reinstituting polygamy in Lakewood because these days it's IMPOSSIBLE to support a family on one income!"
Don't believe everything you hear.
"Orthoprax said...
RG,
"In any event it is not allowed in Halacha."
You sure? Got a source?"
Ask your local Orthodox Rabbi. One source is the Torah's condemnation of women being prosititutes because it calls it evil.
"Jonathan Blake said...
Mormons and Jews have fascinatingly similar experiences. BTW, Mormons in Utah like to believe they're in Zion (yes, they actually use that word). The rest of us know the real truth. ;)"
Yeah Miami Beach is the real Zion.. ;)
“The Candy Man said...
RG, on Deut. 22:21:
No. The accusation was that she was unfaithful.
"No" yourself! Here's the verse (v.13-):
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her... and bring up an evil name upon her, and say: 'I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity'... if this thing be true... then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house.
RG, you propose a "context of adultery" here, but this is not explicit anywhere in the passage. In your interpretation, "the essence is missing from the text." (Hebrew ikaro chasar min hasefer)”
If he knew she wasn’t a virgin you say she is stoned. That is not explicit anywhere in the passage. There is the accusation of lying not simple lack of virginity.
“Furthermore, your interpretation raises a logical problem. The woman is stoned because she is found not to be a virgin. But according to your interpretation, she might have lost her virginity before her marriage -- in which case she is still innocent.”
When she was betrothed she was considered to be like a married women. Before she was betrothed she was not stoned because she was single. This is all from the very same chapter 22 in Deuternonmy. Deuteronomy 22:23-23 says: 23.If a girl who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city, and lies with her;
24. Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the girl, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away evil from among you.
The man is guilty because he was with a betrothed woman. A betrothed woman was considered like married. The woman was guilty because she was complicit in it. Now if it was any virgin we would not make a special case for a betrothed virgin that she gets.
“I maintain that the simplest explanation of the passage is that it represents an extreme Israelite tradition in which women were expected to be virgins before marriage. I acknowledged within my post that this was a disputed issue within the Hebrew Bible.”
The simplest explanation is the one I gave.
“There is more to say here, I do think your position holds some water, and we can discuss it at the right time in several months. Thanks for raising the issue of the text. I couldn't get into it in the post.”
Thanks.
“The Candy Man said...
HH,
I'm no lawyer, but where does the Constitution talk about marriage equality?
I'm no lawyer either, but:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
This means that citizens maintain all civil rights de facto, unless their actions are criminalized.”
But just because you change the meaning of a word doesn’t turn it into an equal rights issue.
“The Candy Man said...
HH, this is from the Declaration of Independence, which is the document upon which the Constitution was based:”
False.
RG,
"Ask your local Orthodox Rabbi. One source is the Torah's condemnation of women being prosititutes because it calls it evil."
Like I said, that's a rule against women being prostitutes. This is different from a rule banning men from going to prostitutes.
The given case I'm asking is a Jewish man going to a non-Jewish prostitute. Is there a specific Halachic issue here? Not that I know of, but I don't know.
CM,
"Ultimately, gay marriage will go to the Supreme Court, and I can already tell you what the answer is going to be: gay couples have the right to marry."
No one's stopping them. The question is whether the *state* has an obligation to call their relationship marriage and grant them a legal arrangement. I doubt it. The state doesn't have an obligation to do that for anybody.
"Like I said, that's a rule against women being prostitutes. This is different from a rule banning men from going to prostitutes."
Well if you are condemning women for being prostitutes saying they are doing something evil and you cause them to be sinning that is not according to halacha.
"The given case I'm asking is a Jewish man going to a non-Jewish prostitute. Is there a specific Halachic issue here? Not that I know of, but I don't know."
Yes there is an issue. It's not allowed to be with a prostitute Jewish or Gentile.
RG,
"Yes there is an issue. It's not allowed to be with a prostitute Jewish or Gentile."
According to you? Nu, where's the source?
The question is whether the *state* has an obligation to call their relationship marriage and grant them a legal arrangement. I doubt it. The state doesn't have an obligation to do that for anybody.
Look, I think we ought to do away with state marriage entirely and just have civil unions. But the US government insists on inventing a married status, with its own set of rights. It's discriminatory to bar homosexuals from this status. That's the logic underlying the Vermont decision, and it's going to come up every time this goes to court. And every time, the result is going to be the same.
The only reason people are against gay marriage, honestly, is because it goes against their religious values. They are setting themselves up for a big fall here. The separation of church and state is going to come into question, and as usual the church is going to get slammed.
It's terribly sad that organized religion spends its time defending bigoted causes such as banning gay marriage. It is precisely this issue that caused me to break with Orthodoxy for good. I could not be part of a movement that was on the wrong side of history.
>all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Silly question, but does one "pasken" from the declaration of independence? And who said homosexual marriage is an unalienable right? Certainly not every pursuit of hapiness is legal.
>The only reason people are against gay marriage, honestly, is because it goes against their religious values.
You are over generalizing. There are secular people that do not bring God into the equation, but that the natural union between humans is male and female.
>It's terribly sad that organized religion spends its time defending bigoted causes such as banning gay marriage.
Why the name calling? Does it help your cause? Does every pursuit of man have to be accepted? Does organized religion have to bend over backwards and throw away some of its most important tenants and values?
>The separation of church and state is going to come into question, and as usual the church is going to get slammed.
HUH? That makes no sense. There is no church involved in these cases, even though churches take a side.
>But the US government insists on inventing a married status, with its own set of rights.
US did not invent anything. This is how things have always been accepted and laid out. Things are NOW changing.
>It's discriminatory to bar homosexuals from this status.
How? I don't have the right to marry same sex either.
CM,
"Look, I think we ought to do away with state marriage entirely and just have civil unions. But the US government insists on inventing a married status, with its own set of rights."
Rights? No. More like sets of privileges and restrictions. People often forget that marriage comes with a good deal of responsibilities and restrictions too.
"It's discriminatory to bar homosexuals from this status."
They're not barred. They can marry people of the opposite sex too.
The question is whether the government has a legitimate interest in promoting or maintaining marriage as opposed to other social arrangements. No one doubts that it is a selective privilege. The question is if this discrimination is acceptable. We do not grant children's relationships the title of marriage. We do not grant relationships between close family relatives the title of marriage. We do not grant bigamous relationships with the title of marriage.
Do you also support incestruous marriages?
"That's the logic underlying the Vermont decision, and it's going to come up every time this goes to court. And every time, the result is going to be the same."
No, I think it's an attempt at redefinition and then asserting that a group is unfairly denied access to the defined privileges.
Suppose we're talking about federal grants for people in financial need to go to college. Well there's a guy who doesn't go to college, but he stays home and reads books from the library. If he unilaterally redefines "reading books from the library" as "college" is he now eligible for federal aid? And if he isn't granted aid, can he sue for discrimination?
No - of course not. The benefits are granted based on meeting a certain definition. Likewise, marriage has a well established definition which is not met by homosexual unions.
I don't believe this is an equal rights thing that the courts ought to decide on. It's a legislative matter. The scope of the government's legitimate interest in supporting heterosexual commitments or college education (as opposed to other social arrangements or educational methods) is a matter of debate and legislation.
Now, I think that there ought to be some recognition that facts are that people do choose other social arrangements and therefore a means for them to navigate the legal and financial issues of society ought to be made available, but that doesn't need to be legal marriage per se. And that the government has an interest in promoting marriage or college education also aren't goals to which I'd object.
"Orthoprax said...
RG,
"Yes there is an issue. It's not allowed to be with a prostitute Jewish or Gentile."
According to you? Nu, where's the source?"
Argh!...Ok later I'll give you more detail. No wonder you went off the derech. You don't know how to do religious inferences.
“Look, I think we ought to do away with state marriage entirely and just have civil unions. But the US government insists on inventing a married status, with its own set of rights. It's discriminatory to bar homosexuals from this status. That's the logic underlying the Vermont decision, and it's going to come up every time this goes to court. And every time, the result is going to be the same.
The only reason people are against gay marriage, honestly, is because it goes against their religious values.”
Irrelevant if true or not. You don’t judge legality based on whether someone is saying something because of his religion. The Declaration of Independence which you claim has constitutional status declares the equality of man to be based on what his Creator has endowed him with. As you point out the Declaration also says “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” I have yet to see a Supreme Court Justice declare the Constitution or our government overthrowable in a revolution. Also you think that certain sides should not be brought to the supreme court as you say it is a waste of time. This is a democracy and we will see what is a waste of time.
“It's terribly sad that organized religion spends its time defending bigoted causes such as banning gay marriage. It is precisely this issue that caused me to break with Orthodoxy for good.”
It’s funny that you should have broken with Orthodoxy over a political issue Orthodoxy could not have foreseen. I doubt Orthodoxy has been able to say much on this very new issue. Who thought you could just redefine a word by fiat and then expect to make a civil rights issue out of it?
“I could not be part of a movement that was on the wrong side of history.”
Don’t be so certain you are on the right side of history. I think you are on the wrong side of history for our country. If you think people will stand for redefining the Constitution as incorporating the Declaration of Independence so that a radical agenda can be made the law of the land forget it. We are not your students professor. We don’t feel pressure to join your political campaigns.
RG,
"No wonder you went off the derech. You don't know how to do religious inferences."
Yeah, because I like sources and not handwaving nonsense. Every two-bit Jew likes to insist that the Torah says xyz but few seem to know chapter and verse.
Orthoprax said...
RG,
""No wonder you went off the derech. You don't know how to do religious inferences."
Yeah, because I like sources and not handwaving nonsense. Every two-bit Jew likes to insist that the Torah says xyz but few seem to know chapter and verse."
True enough but I gave you chapter and verse.
RG,
"True enough but I gave you chapter and verse."
Yes, of something tangential. When you make a claim, you ought to be able to back it up. Nu?
CM: But the US government insists on inventing a married status, with its own set of rights.
HH: US did not invent anything. This is how things have always been accepted and laid out.
What has changed is that the public government became involved in licensing marriages. You didn't always need a license to get married. Marriage licensure began as a way to regulate interracial marriage. Miscegenation laws made interracial marriage illegal. Interracial couples needed a license in order to marry. Marriage licensure has since been extended to the general populace. If marriage was still a strictly religious institution, then homosexual marriage wouldn't be such an issue.
This is a democracy and we will see what is a waste of time.
This is actually a constitutional republic with protections for minorities—such as homosexuals—against mob rule.
"Orthoprax said...
RG,
"True enough but I gave you chapter and verse."
Yes, of something tangential. When you make a claim, you ought to be able to back it up. Nu?"
Having it said that prostitution is evil in Leviticus 19:29 is hardly tangential. Anyway here is more detail.
"This is a democracy and we will see what is a waste of time.
This is actually a constitutional republic with protections for minorities—such as homosexuals—against mob rule."
They have no protection from the government outlawing their behavior. As for mob rule we all have protection from that. Due process it's called.
"Having it said that prostitution is evil in Leviticus 19:29 is hardly tangential. Anyway here is more detail."
Whoops I forgot the added details. Here they are:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=264&letter=F&search=harlot
"Anonymous said...
Re Rabbeinu Gershom's ban: I hear they're reinstituting polygamy in Lakewood because these days it's IMPOSSIBLE to support a family on one income!"
Not only is the story unbelievable in and of itself but it wouldn't solve anything. It is illegal to perform in the U.S. a marriage not approved of by the government. How many illegal weddings could be performed? Is having a whole bunch of men in prison going to help the Lakewood economy? The story is ludicrous.
They have no protection from the government outlawing their behavior.
Your assumption is that homosexuality is simply a behavior like eating cheese. To the best of our research, homosexuality is just as intimate and innate as our own heterosexuality.
Beyond that, the government has no constitution power to outlaw broad categories of behavior. Amendments nine and ten are our guarantee that the power of the people's representatives to enact laws has limits. Due process seeks to guarantee that constitutional laws will be applied equitably and unconstitutional laws can be struck down.
By your own reasoning (at least what I can make of it), the Christian majority in the United States could outlaw working on Sunday and compel Jews to work on Saturday. The keeping of Shabbat is just a behavior after all. Refusing to respect the civil rights of homosexuals seems an oddly risky behavior for members of a religious minority.
“Jonathan Blake said...
They have no protection from the government outlawing their behavior.
Your assumption is that homosexuality is simply a behavior like eating cheese. To the best of our research, homosexuality is just as intimate and innate as our own heterosexuality.”
Aren’t all behaviors desires? Even incest is not something intellectual but is a strong desire not easily controllable. If I love chocolate or cocaine have I chosen to?
“Beyond that, the government has no constitution power to outlaw broad categories of behavior. Amendments nine and ten are our guarantee that the power of the people's representatives to enact laws has limits. Due process seeks to guarantee that constitutional laws will be applied equitably and unconstitutional laws can be struck down.”
How can we outlaw incest? If a brother and a sister yet want to marry so, why not? The fact is the homosexual act is outlawed in at least some of the states.
“By your own reasoning (at least what I can make of it), the Christian majority in the United States could outlaw working on Sunday and compel Jews to work on Saturday. The keeping of Shabbat is just a behavior after all. Refusing to respect the civil rights of homosexuals seems an oddly risky behavior for members of a religious minority.”
I can’t tell the Constitution what to say. Certainly if Christians make a law saying Jews have to work on Saturday that would be illegal as it would violate separation of Church and State. Banning incest, gambling, alcohol or homosexuality is not protected by the Constitution.
RG,
"Having it said that prostitution is evil in Leviticus 19:29 is hardly tangential."
Yes - it is. I already explained why a number of times already.
"http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=264&letter=F&search=harlot"
This is the key detail: 'When R. Dimi came, he said: The Beth din of the Hasmoneans decreed that one who cohabits with a heathen woman is liable to punishment on account of Nashga. When Rabin came, he said: On account of Nashgaz, i.e., niddah, shifhah, goyyah and zonah; but not on account of a married woman, because they themselves [sc. the heathens] do not recognize the marriage bond." - Sanhed., 92a.
The problem is that the means of punishment here is specifically by Pinchas-type zealots which the Gemara subsequently makes practically impossible. It also does not engage the issue if the prostitute is not an idol worshiper - which most people are not today. And that beit din may have been operating under specific conditions that cannot be generalized outside of their time.
So, yeah, I get it that feelings are very strong against this type of activity, but it doesn't seem to have any particular legal restriction or any real punishment.
Is this in the Shulchan Aruch at all?
>HH,
There are secular people that do not bring God into the equation, but that the natural union between humans is male and female.
If you say so.
>jonathan blake,
This is actually a constitutional republic with protections for minorities—such as homosexuals—against mob rule.
THANK YOU for understanding what democracy means! It irritates me that so many people miss this crucial point.
Ironic that this basic point should come up while we're debating "definitions." People in glass houses should not throw stones.
>RG,
It’s funny that you should have broken with Orthodoxy over a political issue Orthodoxy could not have foreseen. I doubt Orthodoxy has been able to say much on this very new issue.
When Trembling Before God was released, I helped put together a public forum about the movie and the issues involved for my local Ortho community. I was nonplussed by the rabbis' response, particularly that of the ultra-Orthodox. They were very defensive and showed extremely poor middot/manners to boot. I thought they should have been supporting the movie, silly me.
It just crystallized for me something that I'd suspected for a while: I was way too progressive for Orthodox Judaism. Much closer to a Conservative or Reform philosophy.
>OP, HH, and RG, and all ye homophobic 'marriage definers':
No, I think [marriage equality] an attempt at redefinition and then asserting that a group is unfairly denied access to the defined privileges.
Oh, how I tire of this redefinition argument. I have considered it so weak since I first heard it several years back. To those of you who are confused, let me first explain what these folks are saying, then demonstrate to you the fallacy of your position.
These anti-gay-marriage people argue that "marriage" is defined as a union strictly between a man and a woman. They therefore argue that gays have marriage equality already, since they can marry people of the opposite gender. "Marriage" under the law can never mean anything else. Even if the state changes its mind about the criminality of homosexual behavior, homosexual marriage can never be considered "marriage."
Here's why this argument fails the reason test: marriage is about love, not gender. Let me illustrate with a mashal/parable.
I know two friends, one is a gay guy from Canada, the other is a lesbian from New York. The Canadian gay went and married the New York lesbian so he could get citizenship. They walked in and out of city hall with no trouble, even though there was not a hint of love between them. True story.
But a loving marriage between two homosexuals? THAT you find ridiculous? This is the hypocrisy underlying your "definition" of marriage.
NOW, you guys are no more foolish than the existing status quo. Almost ALL of our politicians, on both sides of the fence, use this stupid "definition" argument. Even my beloved Obama has failed to use his "good judgement" on this one. But you're all wrong. From Barack to RG, you're on the wrong side of history.
In taking this discriminatory point of view, in defining marriage this way, you have cheapened the institution. And may I add that you have also cheapened the very religions you are trying to defend. You are relegating them to the irrelevant and backwards, to the footnotes of history, people. This isn't what God wants.
The proof is in the pudding. The Supreme Court will never buy into your weak-minded definition argument. They know that the term "marriage" is about love, and that it can also include homosexual marriage. Ultimately, they will uproot any attempt by legislators to ban gay marriage. If not this decade, then next decade. It's only a matter of time. Gay marriage will come to pass in America, just as it has in so many other democracies. And all you religious folks will have succeeded only in wasting tons of public money and energy in debates like this one.
Orthoprax your ignoring all the plain evidence about prostitution. Prostitution was allowed while other Znus was cracked down on? On the contrary it was all an extension from the prohibition on prostitution. Also since when in Halacha do you aid and abet and cause someone else to sin? If it is a sin for a woman it is for a man too.
CM,
"I know two friends, one is a gay guy from Canada, the other is a lesbian from New York. The Canadian gay went and married the New York lesbian so he could get citizenship. They walked in and out of city hall with no trouble, even though there was not a hint of love between them. True story.
But a loving marriage between two homosexuals? THAT you find ridiculous? This is the hypocrisy underlying your "definition" of marriage."
I'm pretty confident that "love" is not the defining characteristic or purpose of marriage. I love my sister but I have absolutely no inclination to marry her. Nor would I expect the state to call such a relationship a marriage. That you have friends who abuse the system belies a weakness in the system but doesn't launch 'love' as its raison d'etre.
"They know that the term "marriage" is about love, and that it can also include homosexual marriage."
Marriage is about commitment and essentially a mechanism of social stability. Love is an associated benefit and in modern times a corrolary, but the Hallmark card ideas of marriage do not define the institution. I don't believe the law ever seeks 'evidence of love' before issuing a marriage license, nor should it.
A healthy marriage would typically have love. And a good college education would include library access. But the love between siblings is not a marriage and the library is not a college.
Of course I believe that there are great libraries that potentially provide a better education than some colleges and there are surely homosexual relationships that are more loving than some marriages, but you can't redefine words just because you think a library should be considered a college.
Man + woman has always been what marriage has meant. Love is actually kinda new to the party.
But you may go on and be as moralizing and offensive as you please, speak for God too while you're at it.
RG,
"Orthoprax your ignoring all the plain evidence about prostitution. Prostitution was allowed while other Znus was cracked down on? On the contrary it was all an extension from the prohibition on prostitution. Also since when in Halacha do you aid and abet and cause someone else to sin? If it is a sin for a woman it is for a man too."
Are you not paying any attention? I've been talking about a non-Jewish prostitute for this entire time. There is no clear reference that Halacha restricts non-Jews from prostitution and the Torah says nothing about Jewish men using prostitutes.
Further, even if we are talking about Jewish prostitutes, I think it is particularly telling that there is no restriction on Jewish men. It's all the woman's fault and the man gets no punishment?
If Halacha was actually applied in real life - and there is no doubt prostitution would exist in real life - would Jewish men fear no punishment for using prostitutes? Whether tradition frowns on certain activities is not the point - I want to know what the law would be.
He has unfortunately messed up, and now he is sadly paying for it with the loss of his job and next his wife quite possibly.
Sometimes our temptations are very strong, but we need to look at the consequences and not let temptation get the best of us.
Lubab No More,
I certainly am not orthodox though I do daven at an orthodox shul. I don't believe in the divine revelation, but I do find torah values to be meaningful.
I was not brought up that halacha is the only what to live life by. On the flip-side, I have lived my entire life in the secular world, and there is not really much there either. It is so difficult in this day-and-age to find community. (Modern) Orthodox Judaism is a vibrant community. Ultimately, one has to find or make meaning out of one's life in whatever way is needed.
To me, judaism is a constructive force in my life. However, if I was being judged or felt forced to a certain standard, I am certain I would feel differently.
Obviously, you have been searching for some time. I am sure you have figured out what are you looking for in life and what you think you'll find on the "outside".
"the Torah says nothing about Jewish men using prostitutes."
It says prostitution is evil right in the Torah.
“Further, even if we are talking about Jewish prostitutes, I think it is particularly telling that there is no restriction on Jewish men. It's all the woman's fault and the man gets no punishment?”
It is both their faults and they both have had penalization. In order to have relations not be called Znus it needs to be a marriage.
“If Halacha was actually applied in real life - and there is no doubt prostitution would exist in real life - would Jewish men fear no punishment for using prostitutes? Whether tradition frowns on certain activities is not the point - I want to know what the law would be."
There were punishments for both parties imposed and men were forced at least according to some if not all to divorce their wife if they go to prostitutes. It’s not a matter of frowning on prostitution. It’s assur. It’s even worse if it is with a Jewish woman.
RG,
"It says prostitution is evil right in the Torah."
How many times do we need to go over this? No it does not. It says prostituting the daughters of Israel is wicked. Maybe you can generalize that maybe you can't. But based on how particular Halacha is on the text you probably cannot.
"It is both their faults and they both have had penalization. In order to have relations not be called Znus it needs to be a marriage."
So that's the punishment? Their activity is called znut?
"There were punishments for both parties imposed and men were forced at least according to some if not all to divorce their wife if they go to prostitutes. It’s not a matter of frowning on prostitution. It’s assur. It’s even worse if it is with a Jewish woman."
You keep saying that but all I want is a reference in a book of Halacha. Cause it's also 'assur' to eat strawberries.
“Orthoprax said...
RG,
"It says prostitution is evil right in the Torah."
How many times do we need to go over this? No it does not. It says prostituting the daughters of Israel is wicked. Maybe you can generalize that maybe you can't. But based on how particular Halacha is on the text you probably cannot.”
But it says in that same verse it is assur because prostitution is evil.
“"It is both their faults and they both have had penalization. In order to have relations not be called Znus it needs to be a marriage."
So that's the punishment? Their activity is called znut?”
No.
“"There were punishments for both parties imposed and men were forced at least according to some if not all to divorce their wife if they go to prostitutes. It’s not a matter of frowning on prostitution. It’s assur. It’s even worse if it is with a Jewish woman."
You keep saying that but all I want is a reference in a book of Halacha. Cause it's also 'assur' to eat strawberries.”
This is hardly strawberries. Shomer negiah laws were made as an extension of not being allowed to engage in relations. Look go to a libray or shul or something and read the Encyclopedia Judaica under Prostitution. I didn’t make up the ban. It’s just there.
""jonathan blake,
This is actually a constitutional republic with protections for minorities—such as homosexuals—against mob rule."
THANK YOU for understanding what democracy means!"
He actually argued that Democracy is not that but that we go beyond democracy. You Candy Man have your own version of what democracy and the Constitution are but imagine if we all just defined any constitution our way? What’s the use of amendments then even? Justice requires impartiality. Otherwise corruption may follow. Do we say the Soviet Union’s constitution and all constitutions were like ours because we interpret them all to say the same?
Re: gay marriage
There is a lot of opposition to gay marriage in this discussion. It would seem many are opposed to including gay marriages in the definition of marriage. I'm curious about how people would feel if a law was passed that allowed civil unions but those unions conferred all the rights and privileges of a hetero-marriage. Would that be acceptable because it wouldn't redefine marriage?
I sincerely want to understand if the issue is a "redefinition of the term/word marriage" of if the issues is "committed gay relationships recognized by the government". And if the issue is gay relationships recognized by the government, why might you have an issue with that? I'm curious. LMK.
"JP, what do you usually pay?"
For a girl like that? I wouldn't touch her with a ten foot pole covered with antibiotics.
I don't want the government to recognize gay unions. The day I don't mind a kiddy show being gay is the day I would change my mind. If we can't have our children exposed to it then it means society does feel a revulsion towards it only mitigated amongst adults. If roommates were to get benefits ok so all roommates can whether gay or straight.
Male on male anal sex is prohibited by the Torah.
I think homosexuals want to be accepted as equals by other people, however no society in history has ever done that.
CM
I was waiting for some excellent counter argument to our argument, but honostly, I believed you failed. We were talking about legal issues and government, and the only way you were able counter it is by aruing...love?
Sure one of the important things in a marriage is love, but when you discuss GOVERNMENT'S ROLE, love has nothing to do with it. Government defines everything, including the Bill of rights. If you want to redefine marriage only on the basis of love, than you will have to accept all marriages that you would perhaps define as tastless on love.
>And may I add that you have also cheapened the very religions you are trying to defend. You are relegating them to the irrelevant and backwards, to the footnotes of history, people. This isn't what God wants.
LOL, nice try my friend. Nice try. For religion, values are important. And what keeps religion functioning is keeping time honored values intact, and not bending over backwards for what the outside world wants or sees as archaic.
You still have not demonstrated how it is discriminatory. All homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. At least be honost and say that what you want is a redefinition of marriage, because the definition of marriage has NEVER been solely about Love. Its ridiculous of you to "tire" of the redefinition argument, when that is what it is.
yeah, the love argument is pretty weak, especially given the history of marriage. As people before me have probably mentioned, for most of human history, marriages did not happen because of love.
>All you homophobic marriage 'definers',
Marriage is about commitment and essentially a mechanism of social stability... the Hallmark card ideas of marriage do not define the institution. I don't believe the law ever seeks 'evidence of love' before issuing a marriage license, nor should it.
I think you're generally wrong in assuming that the law does not think about love when defining marriage. There's a marriage interview... not any two people can get married. Plus, I think the Vermont decision was love-based.
That being said, I may be wrong. Perhaps commitment is a better way to define marriage. But it's sure as hell not defined by your "man + woman = marriage" math.
>RG,
I don't want the government to recognize gay unions. The day I don't mind a kiddy show being gay is the day I would change my mind. If we can't have our children exposed to it then it means society does feel a revulsion towards it only mitigated amongst adults.
Homophobia rears its ugly head. Now the truth comes out.
>JP,
I think homosexuals want to be accepted as equals by other people, however no society in history has ever done that.
Well, unless you count Canada, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and South Africa, all of which have full marriage equality.
Many other countries -- including France, Britan, Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, Argentina, Sweden and Uruguay -- have civil unions or similar legal recognitions of gay and lesbian relationships.
And progress has been unidirectional, even in this country. Homosexuality used to be outlawed, now it's not. Next we'll have full civil unions, and after that marriage equality.
I should point out that gay rights within *Judaism*, as well as other religions, is also expanding rapidly. My opinion is that Judaism, at its core, is about empathy. It has always stood up for the oppressed. It is our Jewish duty to stand up for marriage equality.
Male on male anal sex is prohibited by the Torah.
Well, the Torah got it wrong. It gets a lot of things wrong. It was written by human beings, in and for a different age. I don't know why you take your cues from it.
But the Torah also says, You should love the stranger as you love yourself (Lev. 19:34?). And that's the principle that has relevance in our time.
>I should point out that gay rights within *Judaism*, as well as other religions, is also expanding rapidly. My opinion is that Judaism, at its core, is about empathy. It has always stood up for the oppressed. It is our Jewish duty to stand up for marriage equality.
Its not about rights. Its about tolerance. And I would agree that within Judaism, even in some MO OJ, there is more tolerance towards gays. But don't confuse that with a switch that would allow male sex allowed.
>But the Torah also says, You should love the stranger as you love yourself (Lev. 19:34?). And that's the principle that has relevance in our time.
Where is the contradiction?
>I think you're generally wrong in assuming that the law does not think about love when defining marriage. There's a marriage interview...
Nu, so you admit that the whole argument is based on a definition of what marriage is. And that you want it redefined by the government.
>If you say so.
My family for one. And they are not anywhere close to being religious.
“>RG,
I don't want the government to recognize gay unions. The day I don't mind a kiddy show being gay is the day I would change my mind. If we can't have our children exposed to it then it means society does feel a revulsion towards it only mitigated amongst adults.
Homophobia rears its ugly head. Now the truth comes out.”
Yeah me and Obama against gay unions and marriages.
“That being said, I may be wrong. Perhaps commitment is a better way to define marriage. But it's sure as hell not defined by your "man + woman = marriage" math.”
Infidelity rears it’s ugly head. Now the truth comes out.
“It has always stood up for the oppressed. It is our Jewish duty to stand up for marriage equality.”
You can change the definition of the word marriage but that doesn’t change what people are arguing about. If suddenly we develop a new word for what we mean by marriage it will change things back? Political correctness is beyond silly and is 1984.
“Male on male anal sex is prohibited by the Torah.
Well, the Torah got it wrong. It gets a lot of things wrong. It was written by human beings, in and for a different age. I don't know why you take your cues from it.”
Unlike you I don’t see which way history’s morality and ethics supposedly will go to decide what to do. Suppose history ends up in the direction of an evil dictatorship. You would be on the wrong side of history. You according to your basis of morality then would have no leg to stand on. History can go any which way. Contrary to your assertions in Continental Europe a Jew cannot go around with a Yarmulka. This is the 21st century. Forgive me if your hollow self-righteous pieties and preachings of the morals of the age don’t impress me.
RG,
"Look go to a libray or shul or something and read the Encyclopedia Judaica under Prostitution. I didn’t make up the ban. It’s just there."
So it's just a ban then? Like R' Gershom's? If you don't have a source then just say so.
CM,
"I think you're generally wrong in assuming that the law does not think about love when defining marriage. There's a marriage interview..."
The marriage interview is to see if it is a legitimate relationship. You can be legitimately married and not particularly like one another.
"Plus, I think the Vermont decision was love-based."
Vermont decision? They passed a law for civil unions. You're probably thinking of the Massachusetts 'Goodridge v. DPH'. The ruling was specifically based on equal protection and due process considerations trumping any plausible rational state interest. Love had nothing to do with it.
"That being said, I may be wrong. Perhaps commitment is a better way to define marriage. But it's sure as hell not defined by your "man + woman = marriage" math."
Says...you? Through all of historical American legislation and adjudication - when has it ever meant anything else?
LNM,
"I'm curious about how people would feel if a law was passed that allowed civil unions but those unions conferred all the rights and privileges of a hetero-marriage. Would that be acceptable because it wouldn't redefine marriage?"
I'm not sure. I think the reason why marriage legislation exists is because promoting marriage bonds serves the state interest of encouraging family formation in a settled and orderly way. I don't think homosexual relationships meet the public interest in the same way and therefore there's no social interest to grant them the same benefits and regulations.
I'm also uncertain about the non-ideal consequences there may be for children being raised without a time-tested normal family structure. So I don't know if it's a good idea to give homosexual couples parity for adoption.
But even with all these concerns, I think it's right for the state to recognize that people do choose other social arrangements and some (most?) of the special privileges to people in committed relationships ought to be conferred to homosexual unions.
My main issue is that I think this is all a matter for the legislation to work out. I don't believe it is a legitimate judicial issue. There is no right to marriage and it's not the state's job to legitimize atypical social arrangements.
CM: But the Torah also says, You should love the stranger as you love yourself (Lev. 19:34?). And that's the principle that has relevance in our time.
HH: Where is the contradiction?
The contradiction is in saying that something so intimately personal as one's sexuality will never have the approval of society at large, even though it can be expressed between two consenting adults. There is cruelty there.
I've never heard a good reason why recognizing homosexual marriage will harm society. Most of what I'm hearing sounds exactly like the video It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married). Basically, your arguments sound to me like "Ew! Anal sex is icky!" If you can stop fantasizing about people having homosexual sex for a moment, you may be able to see that they are just people, deserving of our compassion and holding rights which we must recognize, for goodness' sake.
My main issue is that I think this is all a matter for the legislation to work out. I don't believe it is a legitimate judicial issue. There is no right to marriage and it's not the state's job to legitimize atypical social arrangements.
There's a right to equal treatment and protection under the law. If homosexual couples are law abiding, on what basis do we treat them unequally?
JB,
"There's a right to equal treatment and protection under the law. If homosexual couples are law abiding, on what basis do we treat them unequally?"
Equal treatment and protection applies to individuals, not couples.
“HH: Where is the contradiction?
The contradiction is in saying that something so intimately personal as one's sexuality will never have the approval of society at large, even though it can be expressed between two consenting adults. There is cruelty there.”
What about brother-sister marriage? Let’s allow that then.
“There's a right to equal treatment and protection under the law. If homosexual couples are law abiding, on what basis do we treat them unequally?”
If the issue is a word-marriage then just because you redefine unilaterally a word doesn’t change the status. If the issue is economics then we can have cold hard considerations. Maybe we should have all people who live together in love or not have benefits then. Why should we recognize Homosexual arrangements. Why not brother-sister arrangements? Why not polygamy? This isn’t civil rights. Suppose the government decides to have no more marriage recognized? It’s drastic looking but it’s not civil rights.
>There's a right to equal treatment and protection under the law.
How are they not being protected against the law or not being treated equally? I think you are not reading the thread. They have all the rights as a heterosexual person. There is no difference. Discrimination would come into play if one homosexual was allowed one thing while another was not.
>The contradiction is in saying that something so intimately personal as one's sexuality will never have the approval of society at large...
You are cherry picking, or at least Candyman was. The torah while telling you to basically be a mentch to the stranger, is the same torah that teaches values. Values with parameters. Not every activity is accepted. No society accepts ANY and ALL activity. But with that you are still to treat the stranger kindly and respectfully. Its ludicrous to assume that by loving someone, you have to accept all behavior.
"RG,
"Look go to a libray or shul or something and read the Encyclopedia Judaica under Prostitution. I didn’t make up the ban. It’s just there."
So it's just a ban then? Like R' Gershom's? No. Like G-d to Moshe Rabbeinu.
"If you don't have a source then just say so."
It's all over the place. If touching a female is an issue how much more so sex with her.
RG,
"It's all over the place. If touching a female is an issue how much more so sex with her."
Good point. So having sex with prostitutes makes you over shomer negiah and you get a slap on the wrist. Gotcha.
"Orthoprax said...
RG,
"It's all over the place. If touching a female is an issue how much more so sex with her."
Good point. So having sex with prostitutes makes you over shomer negiah and you get a slap on the wrist. Gotcha."
For nowadays maybe. There are many things that never even had a penalty but are against Halacha. Why don't you read the Encyclopedia Judaica on Prostitution?
"So having sex with prostitutes makes you over shomer negiah"
No more than that. If you murder someone we can no longer put you to death but it doesn't make it less an aveira.
Shomer Negiah is an extension of going against Znus.
"Rabban Gamliel said...
"So having sex with prostitutes makes you over shomer negiah"
No more than that. If you murder someone we can no longer put you to death but it doesn't make it less an aveira."
I meant No, more than that...
RG,
"For nowadays maybe. There are many things that never even had a penalty but are against Halacha."
Ok, so basically it's frowned upon. No legal consequences though.
"Why don't you read the Encyclopedia Judaica on Prostitution?"
I did read it. You posted it before. It's inconclusive.
"If you murder someone we can no longer put you to death but it doesn't make it less an aveira."
Yes, but theoretically if the Jewish courts were in power then they could execute someone. Apparently they do nothing to men who sleep with hookers.
RG and OP
Doesn't the Torah somewhere else warn both females and males not to be promiscuous? Does that have any relevance to your discussion?
"Orthoprax said...
RG,
"For nowadays maybe. There are many things that never even had a penalty but are against Halacha."
Ok, so basically it's frowned upon. No legal consequences though. I’m not sure. In any event is the fact that if you eat a cheeseburger you won’t go to jail mean it is merely frowned upon?
“"Why don't you read the Encyclopedia Judaica on Prostitution?"
I did read it. You posted it before. It's inconclusive.”
No it wasn’t inconclusive but it’s also not the Encyclopedia Judaica. It’s the Jewish Encyclopedia that I gave you.
"If you murder someone we can no longer put you to death but it doesn't make it less an aveira."
Yes, but theoretically if the Jewish courts were in power then they could execute someone. Apparently they do nothing to men who sleep with hookers.”
That’s not the point. What does penalties have to do with saying something is a sin or not? If you covet your neighbor’s property it’s a violation of the Ten Commandments but what penalty will you get?
"Holy Hyrax said...
RG and OP
Doesn't the Torah somewhere else warn both females and males not to be promiscuous? Does that have any relevance to your discussion?"
Maybe but in any event Leviticus 19:29 says that you can't give your daughter over to prostitution as the land would get filled with this immorality. It's called evil.
RG,
I don't want to get into an endless stupid argument. I just want to know where it says it in the Shulchan Aruch. If it's not there then it's not there. It's not particularly anywhere apparently.
OP: Equal treatment and protection applies to individuals, not couples.
You must admit that's a pretty lame dodge. If you insist, then refusing to recognize homosexual marriages fails to protect the individual's right to have their choice of marriage partner recognized by the state.
RG: Why should we recognize Homosexual arrangements. Why not brother-sister arrangements? Why not polygamy? This isn’t civil rights. Suppose the government decides to have no more marriage recognized? It’s drastic looking but it’s not civil rights.
I'm OK with all of the above, especially with getting government out of the business of what should be a personal matter. Once the government creates a special privilege, it opens the door for everyone to demand equal treatment.
HH: How are they not being protected against the law or not being treated equally? I think you are not reading the thread. They have all the rights as a heterosexual person. There is no difference.
It's quite simple really. A heterosexual person generally has the ability to have their choice of a sexual relationship/life partnership recognized by the state. A homosexual person categorically lacks that same ability.
If you don't want the state recognizing homosexual marriages, then don't have the state give any benefits or special recognition to heterosexual marriages.
>A homosexual person categorically lacks that same ability.
Yes he does. He CAN marry a person of the opposite sex just like a heterosexual can. A heterosexual person CANNOT marry the same gender either. They are BOTH being treated equally as the law is applied to right NOW.
Now, if you want to change that, then fine. But I wish you and Candyman would not dodge the issue that you ARE redefining the definition of what a marriage ACCORDING TO THE LAW is (not what it means to your circle of friends)
>it opens the door for everyone to demand equal treatment.
Fine. Then would you be against government allowing polygamists from marrying?
Well Orthoprax as recorded by the Rambam the penalty for having sex with a prostitute or a prostitute having been prostituting is flogging.
“Jonathan Blake said...
OP: Equal treatment and protection applies to individuals, not couples.
You must admit that's a pretty lame dodge. If you insist, then refusing to recognize homosexual marriages fails to protect the individual's right to have their choice of marriage partner recognized by the state.”
He can marry whoever he wants. You guys are changing the meaning of the word.
“RG: Why should we recognize Homosexual arrangements. Why not brother-sister arrangements? Why not polygamy? This isn’t civil rights. Suppose the government decides to have no more marriage recognized? It’s drastic looking but it’s not civil rights.
I'm OK with all of the above, especially with getting government out of the business of what should be a personal matter. Once the government creates a special privilege, it opens the door for everyone to demand equal treatment.”
Sure Blacks and Whites but if I want to marry my aunt I will still be prohibited from it.
“HH: How are they not being protected against the law or not being treated equally? I think you are not reading the thread. They have all the rights as a heterosexual person. There is no difference.
It's quite simple really. A heterosexual person generally has the ability to have their choice of a sexual relationship/life partnership recognized by the state. A homosexual person categorically lacks that same ability.
So do other people like close enough relatives, adults with minors unless the state says when it can be. An 18 year old man and a 17 years and 364 day old girl are denied sex with each other under nonmarital conditions.
Orthoprax,
> I think the reason why marriage legislation exists is because promoting marriage bonds serves the state interest of encouraging family formation in a settled and orderly way. I don't think homosexual relationships meet the public interest in the same way and therefore there's no social interest to grant them the same benefits and regulations.
If the issue is family formation then why is a family with homosexual parents different from any other couple that adopts their children? Or, if one of the gay parents is also the biological parent what makes the arrangement any different from The Brady Bunch? If your concern is "settled and orderly" family arrangements I would say heterosexual families can be chaotic and destructive despite the accepted family structure. There is no system that only produces good families. Gay parents aren't really different from heterosexual parents.
> I'm also uncertain about the non-ideal consequences there may be for children being raised without a time-tested normal family structure. So I don't know if it's a good idea to give homosexual couples parity for adoption.
Gay couples aren't reinventing the wheel when it comes to raising kids. I know two gay couples with children. They aren't doing anything different from what heterosexual couples do. Perhaps you are concerned about the absence of a male or female role model. Again the situation isn't that different from a mother and grandmother who are raising a kid together, or a widow (or widower) raising a child alone. The gay parents I know (all women) also involve male role models in their kids lives. Gay people don't have parenting styles that differ wildly from hetero parents. These families will exist and continue to be created as long as there are gay people. If the goal is to help families it seems to me that it is in the public's interest to give these families all the benefits that other "normal" families receive.
>The gay parents I know (all women) also involve male role models in their kids lives.
Why do they do that?
JB,
"You must admit that's a pretty lame dodge. If you insist, then refusing to recognize homosexual marriages fails to protect the individual's right to have their choice of marriage partner recognized by the state."
Since when is this a right? The state is obligated to recognize a person's marriage? Based on what?
RG,
"Well Orthoprax as recorded by the Rambam the penalty for having sex with a prostitute or a prostitute having been prostituting is flogging."
Ok, where? Mishneh Torah chapter...?
LNM,
Marriage promotes a solid family base with balanced male and female role models in the home. Naturally, marriage can't guarantee this for all homes, but it does promote it and this is in society's interests. A stable family has been the cornerstone of western civilization for a long long time. Like I said, I don't see why society out to invest in homosexual relationships.
And like I said, I have concerns about raising a child in a homosexual home. You can give anecdotal information, but I think the jury is still out on whether it is less ideal. I'm similarly concerned about children being raised by one parent - and it's good that society does not promote single-parenthood. As for your mother/grandmother raising kids - do you think they two should be able to get married? Why not?
**Like I said, I don't see why society out to invest**
'ought to invest,' sorry.
"Rabban Gamliel said...
"Anonymous said...
Re Rabbeinu Gershom's ban: I hear they're reinstituting polygamy in Lakewood because these days it's IMPOSSIBLE to support a family on one income!"
Not only is the story unbelievable in and of itself but it wouldn't solve anything. It is illegal to perform in the U.S. a marriage not approved of by the government. How many illegal weddings could be performed? Is having a whole bunch of men in prison going to help the Lakewood economy? The story is ludicrous."
Rabban Gamliel, allow me to introduce you to a concept called sarcasm...
HH,
> Why do they do that?
Obviously because there are differences between men and women and these gay parents want to expose their children to adults of both sexes. Yes, kids should have same sex role models in their lives. But, even having two hetero parents can't guarantee that.
>Obviously because there are differences between men and women and these gay parents want to expose their children to adults of both sexes.
And I believe those differences are incredibly important in the raising of kids. So perhaps, this is indeed in the best interest and government does have a stake in defining it this way.
>Yes, kids should have same sex role models in their lives. But, even having two hetero parents can't guarantee that.
?
So clearly what you said here:
>Gay parents aren't really different from heterosexual parents.
is not that true. Of course they love the child. That, nobody denies. But in the overall rearing of the child, it is different
"Anonymous said...
"Rabban Gamliel said...
"Anonymous said...
Re Rabbeinu Gershom's ban: I hear they're reinstituting polygamy in Lakewood because these days it's IMPOSSIBLE to support a family on one income!"
Not only is the story unbelievable in and of itself but it wouldn't solve anything. It is illegal to perform in the U.S. a marriage not approved of by the government. How many illegal weddings could be performed? Is having a whole bunch of men in prison going to help the Lakewood economy? The story is ludicrous."
Rabban Gamliel, allow me to introduce you to a concept called sarcasm..."
Sorry and LOL. Who are the rumormongers with this?
Orthoprax,
> A stable family has been the cornerstone of western civilization for a long long time. Like I said, I don't see why society out to invest in homosexual relationships.
I don't know if I would claim that "A stable family has been the cornerstone of western civilization". According to Steven Mintz "In colonial Virginia, an average marriage lasted just seven years. Till death do us part meant something quite different than it does today." (Source) Hardly what I would call a "stable family".
He goes on, "[F]amilies in the 19th century were just as fragile and unstable as families today. The proportion of single-parent, female-headed families was almost as high in 1900 as it is today - because of the higher death rate."
It is really thanks to Pasteur that we have the decades-long marriages that we have come to think of as "normal".
But I'm getting off the point.
At the very least, society should invest in homosexual relationships (as much as it does in heterosexual relationships) because it is in the interest of the children who grow up in those families.
> And like I said, I have concerns about raising a child in a homosexual home. You can give anecdotal information, but I think the jury is still out on whether it is less ideal.
What is your concern? What is the difference? Role models are important but not vital. Barak Obama turned out pretty good without a Dad in the picture.
> I'm similarly concerned about children being raised by one parent - and it's good that society does not promote single-parenthood.
Except for when gay people have kids.
> As for your mother/grandmother raising kids - do you think they two should be able to get married? Why not?
You know that wasn't my point but since you bring it up I want to point out that since this mother and grandmother are related they have many rights similar to marriage. For example, if only one of them worked all three of them could be listed on one medical plan. If two gay people are committed to each other, and are committed to caring for the same kid, why shouldn't they be able to get access to the same sorts of benefits?
Gay people will continue to have relationships and will continue to have kids. As long as gays have kids it is in our society's interest that those children have access to same benifits and privliges that other families get.
>Role models are important but not vital. Barak Obama turned out pretty good without a Dad in the picture.
Of course they are vital, (is anything than vital to you?) and sure you will always come find exceptions to any rule. Come to LA and see what is happening in schools and homes where black fathers have abandoned their homes.
HH,
>> Obviously because there are differences between men and women...
> And I believe those differences are incredibly important in the raising of kids. So perhaps, this is indeed in the best interest and government does have a stake in defining it this way.
As I just mentioned to OP, Barack Obama grew up without a Dad and he seems to have done OK. Role models of both sexes are important but they don't make or break a kid.
>> Gay parents aren't really different from heterosexual parents.
> is not that true. Of course they love the child. That, nobody denies. But in the overall rearing of the child, it is different
EVERY family rears their kids differently. If gay parents were consistently miserable failures at being parents I would agree with you but the fact is they are just as good (or bad) as heterosexual parents. But you don't have to take my word for it. Here is a study from the APA Lesbian and Gay Parenting. Here is a link to the conclusion of the paper.
It is in society's interest that the kids of gays be as successful as they possibly can. Allowing their parents to marry is a great way to promote that success.
HH,
> Come to LA and see what is happening in schools and homes where black fathers have abandoned their homes.
This brings up another good discussion point. Gay parents don't "accidentally" get pregnant. When a gay couple has, or adopts, a baby it is a planned, thought-out, decision. Contrast this to the situations you are referring to where (heterosexual) fathers are abandoning their kids. It seems to me that parents who have kids because they want to are going to be more responsible, better parents. Do you disagree?
Lubab
Its not about homosexual couples being worse or better or entirely miserable failures. They will love the child to no end, and provide shelter and food. But you even admitted that there is a difference and that difference required your friends to introduce male rold models to balance it off. There will always be something important missing
And the only thing that paper concludes is that there is still more to research. The longest research done is so far 10 years old.
HH,
> Of course they are vital, (is anything than vital to you?) and sure you will always come find exceptions to any rule.
From MetLife.com
MYTH: Children of single parents need role models. The sooner the parent remarries the better.
In reality, children benefit from the presence of both men and women in their family life provided those men and women are emotionally healthy. Children may suffer more harms by living with conflict and unhealthy role models than by having one healthy, effective parent. A single parent with good parenting skills can raise children successfully without a partner by building a good support system, a circle of friends, relatives and neighbors.
This isn't rocket science. Any gay parent with opposite sex friends can provide this for their child.
>Do you disagree?
I agree (in general), but we are discussing the KINDS of parents, not the number of parents. Which, actually, bringing up Obama was sort of irrelevant.
>In reality, children benefit from the presence of both men and women in their family life provided those men and women are emotionally healthy. Children may suffer more harms by living with conflict and unhealthy role models than by having one healthy, effective parent. A single parent with good parenting skills can raise children successfully without a partner by building a good support system, a circle of friends, relatives and neighbors.
Well duh. But that is why I believe its in a societies best interest to promote healthy male and female families (which is what your quote says. And just because that its not always going to happen, that I redefine it all. I will be first to agree with you that it serves NO purpose putting a child into a home full of unhealthy role models. But having a social group of friends is IMO, NOT the answer. Friends go home, relatives, and neighbors tend to have their own lives. In the end of the day, they go to their homes and to their own worries. I mean, the whole idea of building up a social system is simply reconstructed what a male and female partnership is supposed to do.
So you guys are up too.
“RG,
"Well Orthoprax as recorded by the Rambam the penalty for having sex with a prostitute or a prostitute having been prostituting is flogging."
Ok, where? Mishneh Torah chapter...?”
I’ll check. Orthoprax I feel like finding you a heter already!
“Lubab No More said...
Orthoprax,
> A stable family has been the cornerstone of western civilization for a long long time. Like I said, I don't see why society out to invest in homosexual relationships.
I don't know if I would claim that "A stable family has been the cornerstone of western civilization". According to Steven Mintz "In colonial Virginia, an average marriage lasted just seven years. Till death do us part meant something quite different than it does today." (Source) Hardly what I would call a "stable family".
A family in which one of the parents died can still be stable.
“It is really thanks to Pasteur that we have the decades-long marriages that we have come to think of as "normal".”
His statistics don’t match up with what we know of at least of the world. Sure we had more people dead earlier but most people were married long enough to see their children and at least many grandchildren.
> And the only thing that paper concludes is that there is still more to research. The longest research done is so far 10 years old.
If I had a dime for every time a research papers suggested "further research" I'd be a very rich man. But at least I'm giving you some sort of research to back up my position. What is the basis for your position?
>>Do you disagree?
> I agree (in general), but we are discussing the KINDS of parents, not the number of parents. Which, actually, bringing up Obama was sort of irrelevant.
Yeah, I wasn't talking about Obama with that question. But, I did raise Obama to make the point about a same-sex "stable" role model. "Stable" role model being something which seems to be a sticking point with you.
Role Models:
> And just because that its not always going to happen, that I redefine it all.
My argument isn't that we should redefine marriage. I'm arguing for equal rights for gay parents. You can call it marriage, or civil unions, or gay marriage. I don't care. The outcome, not the name, is what I'm pushing for.
> But having a social group of friends is IMO, NOT the answer.
Well, research to date seems to disagree with your opinion. If you want to convince me you're going to have to present something a little more substantial.
>What is the basis for your position?
The fact that you admitted the differences, and your quote admitted that its in the best interest for a child to have a male and female. Your whole "social system" is only trying to reinvent the wheel.
>Well, research to date seems to disagree with your opinion. If you want to convince me you're going to have to present something a little more substantial.
I think its called real life. Friends, and neighbors and relatives are not the same as a stable father or mother figure raising the kids. All these people have their own lives and when push comes to shove, their own lives will come first.
>"Stable" role model being something which seems to be a sticking point with you.
As it should for anyone! Bringing up Obama hardly proves anything considering how much damage there is in hundreds of homes with no father figure for the kids.
>The outcome, not the name, is what I'm pushing for.
What is the exact outcome you are pushing for?
HH,
Vermont decision? They passed a law for civil unions. You're probably thinking of the Massachusetts 'Goodridge v. DPH'.
Goodridge (2003) was 4 years after the Vermont Supreme Court's landmark decision in the Stan Baker case. The Court decided that "our common humanity" demanded no less than marriage equality. The judiciary left it to the legislature to decide how to implement this, which in the case of Vermont was full civil unions.
Let's make it clear again: the judiciary forced the legislature to come up with something that did not violate the Constitution.
Go read that decision. J. Johnson explicitly examines the argument y'all are making, the "definition" argument. He rejects it forcefully as straight-up sex discrimination. He calls your hallowed argument a "rationalization" (I agree completely) and says it doesn't even pass muster under the rational basis test!
While you're reading up, check out the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence vs. Texas decision, in which the Supreme Court overturned Texas' sodomy law. Although that case did not deal with gay marriage, the dissenting voices of Scalia, Thomas, and Rhenquist (all very anti-gay marriage old farts) warned that the sweeping nature of the decision basically paves the way for legalization of gay marriage.
(Even if Roberts joined these old farts, one of whom is now dead, I think the five who supported the majority decision would vote the same way in gay marriage. And the court is aging...)
Other precedents can be found in Michael Mello's book, Legalizing Gay Marriage.
HH: Yes he does. He CAN marry a person of the opposite sex just like a heterosexual can. A heterosexual person CANNOT marry the same gender either. They are BOTH being treated equally as the law is applied to right NOW.
Now you're just being stubborn. :) A heterosexual person can generally choose whom he wants to marry with the blessing of the state (which will be someone of the opposite sex by virtue of his heterosexuality). A homosexual person lacks that same choice because the state has decided that same-gender marriages are unacceptable. One person's sexual preference is honored; the other's is ignored. That's unequal treatment.
Now, if you want to change that, then fine. But I wish you and Candyman would not dodge the issue that you ARE redefining the definition of what a marriage ACCORDING TO THE LAW is (not what it means to your circle of friends)
I'm OK saying that we're changing the definition of marriage. We're expanding it and making it more humane.
OP: Since when is this a right? The state is obligated to recognize a person's marriage? Based on what?
Since the state got into the business of sanctioning marriages and based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the government makes a law, it must be applied equally.
RG: So do other people like close enough relatives, adults with minors unless the state says when it can be. An 18 year old man and a 17 years and 364 day old girl are denied sex with each other under nonmarital conditions.
There are some tenuous reasons why close relatives shouldn't marry (we don't require most couples prove that they are genetically fit to produce healthy children before getting married, and we don't dissolve marriages between people who later prove unfit). The latter case is a simple practicality: you have to draw the line somewhere. And almost no one wants to see adults marrying minors, though some may quibble about the definitions of those categories.
Those reasons don't apply in a adult, consensual, homosexual relationship.
HH: Yes he does. He CAN marry a person of the opposite sex just like a heterosexual can. A heterosexual person CANNOT marry the same gender either. They are BOTH being treated equally as the law is applied to right NOW.
Let me put it another way. Let's say that there was a law that said everyone must marry within their own race. Your argument would support this patently racist and unconstitutional law. According to you, people who want to marry outside of their race would be treated equally to those who want to marry within their race. They are both equally free to do what the government tells them to do.
HH,
>> What is the basis for your position?
> The fact that you admitted the differences, and your quote admitted that its in the best interest for a child to have a male and female.
I said there are difference between ALL families. But anyway differences aren't automatically bad. You have yet to prove that the differences between homo and hetero parents is more than negligible.
I agree it is ideal to get role models of both genders in the lives of these kids. However, you seem to be under the impression that the role model has to live under the same roof or be accessible 24/7. That simply isn't true.
> Your whole "social system" is only trying to reinvent the wheel.
"Social system"? What are you talking about?
> Friends, and neighbors and relatives are not the same as a stable father or mother figure raising the kids. All these people have their own lives and when push comes to shove, their own lives will come first.
Why are you so unwilling to understand this position? These role models aren't raising these kids. They are simply figures in these kids lives that the kids can draw from. They are "role models" not additional parents.
> Obama hardly proves anything considering how much damage there is in hundreds of homes with no father figure for the kids.
I think the bigger issue is that these kids have one parent only, not that they lack a father figure. I can't imagine how difficult and stressful it would be if I had to raise my kid on my own. On the other hand, if I was suddenly the only parent, and a good (male) buddy of mine agreed to raise my kid with me, I think the baby's rearing would be fairly similar to what my wife and I are doing as parents now.
>> The outcome, not the name, is what I'm pushing for.
> What is the exact outcome you are pushing for?
My argument isn't that we should redefine marriage. I'm arguing for equal rights for gay parents. You can call it marriage, or civil unions, or gay marriage. I don't care. The outcome, not the name, is what I'm pushing for.
If you're not going to read my responses I'm not going to bother.
>Let's say that there was a law that said everyone must marry within their own race.
I was waiting for this :)
All I can is life is not black and white. One principle does not immediately pass on to every other thing.
>That's unequal treatment.
Jonathan, thats because a definition already exists, and like you said, a line has to be drawn somewhere. But of course, you admitted to wanting to redefine what marriage is, which is fine.
>you have to draw the line somewhere.
So why do polygamists get the raw deal?
>That simply isn't true.
But you would agree that this is definetly the best, wouldn't you?
>"Social system"? What are you talking about?
I was refering to that social network you were talking about.
>Why are you so unwilling to understand this position? These role models aren't raising these kids. They are simply figures in these kids lives that the kids can draw from. They are "role models" not additional parents.
Who said I don't understand it? I just think this is like I said, reinventing the wheel. The whole point of this social network is to fill in what the child is missing, and clearly, you seem to be admitting that something IS missing, hence they need a role model. The best thing a child can draw on is someone that will be there 24/7. These role models, AGAIN, cannot always be there, because these people tend to have their own outside lives.
>I think the bigger issue is that these kids have one parent only, not that they lack a father figure.
Of course.
>if I was suddenly the only parent, and a good (male) buddy of mine agreed to raise my kid with me, I think the baby's rearing would be fairly similar to what my wife and I are doing as parents now.
That would be great...if it came to that. But the whole point is for it not to get to that. Because, its ideal that the child have a mother and a father always there for them.
I think we might just have to agree to disagree.
btw- Its these threads that make me wish you had haloscan
>I'm arguing for equal rights for gay parents.
Yes, I read that, thank you. But what does that mean. I wanted more specifics. Is it that you simply want the other partner to be recognized as the parent as well? (with the right to make decisions about the childs welfare?)
HH: All I can is life is not black and white. One principle does not immediately pass on to every other thing.
And I guess I'll have to make do another non-responsive dodge.
HH: So why do polygamists get the raw deal?
Actually, I've already said that I'm OK with legalizing polygamy. I was Mormon after all. ;)
>And I guess I'll have to make do another non-responsive dodge.
That is not a dodge it is an honost response. I see a problem with gay marriages but I do not see one with mixed marriages. Mixed marriages is nothing new to man. Could this be due to the time I live? Sure. And I am sure in 200 years they will be fighting for sister-brother marriages too. And everything that is said today, will simply be copied and pasted then.
LNM,
"According to Steven Mintz "In colonial Virginia, an average marriage lasted just seven years. Till death do us part meant something quite different than it does today." (Source) Hardly what I would call a "stable family"."
That sounds like a very particular reference to a very particular place and time. I'd still maintain that families were an important institution.
"It is really thanks to Pasteur that we have the decades-long marriages that we have come to think of as "normal"."
And interestingly, state benefits through marriage are probably only about ~100 years old.
"At the very least, society should invest in homosexual relationships (as much as it does in heterosexual relationships) because it is in the interest of the children who grow up in those families."
Is it? Maybe it's better if fewer children grow up in deficient homes than that an investment induces more children to be so raised.
"What is your concern? What is the difference? Role models are important but not vital. Barak Obama turned out pretty good without a Dad in the picture."
And McCain was tortured for five years as a POW. So what? That they achieve despite their setbacks is a testament to the individual, not their situations.
"Gay people will continue to have relationships and will continue to have kids. As long as gays have kids it is in our society's interest that those children have access to same benifits and privliges that other families get."
Maybe. But why should they get benefits by virtue of their relationships which may be deleterious? I think a distinct problem in America are women who actually intend to be single moms so that the government gives them child support.
“>"Stable" role model being something which seems to be a sticking point with you.
As it should for anyone! Bringing up Obama hardly proves anything considering how much damage there is in hundreds of homes with no father figure for the kids.”
For every Obama there are a lot of failed cases in the African American community. That’s real data. You need to see what is in the best interests of a child in each case whether most ideal or not.
Candy Man said:
“BTW, there's nothing in the Bible or even Rabbinic Judaism against child abuse or pedophilia. It seems God is more worried about homosexuality... and the rabbis were more worried about tithes.”
You were not allowed to abuse your kids. You could at best hit them moderately for correction but abuse of anybody yet is not allowed even so much as to raise your hand against them is considered wicked. As for pedophilia that’s a cheap shot. There were child marriages and even in the U.S. depending on the State you could have them too under whatever regulations as to age or circumstances. Your statement above is based on ignorance rather than knowledge and has it’s roots in Antisemitic diatribes rather than reality.
“ Jonathan Blake said...
HH: Yes he does. He CAN marry a person of the opposite sex just like a heterosexual can. A heterosexual person CANNOT marry the same gender either. They are BOTH being treated equally as the law is applied to right NOW.
Now you're just being stubborn. :) A heterosexual person can generally choose whom he wants to marry with the blessing of the state (which will be someone of the opposite sex by virtue of his heterosexuality). A homosexual person lacks that same choice because the state has decided that same-gender marriages are unacceptable. One person's sexual preference is honored; the other's is ignored. That's unequal treatment.”
Yes but so is it when the state chooses to recognize one behavior over another in other matters.
“I'm OK saying that we're changing the definition of marriage. We're expanding it and making it more humane.”
No you’re not. You are just expanding it. Why not have it for all unions? Why not have it for incest (I would say polygamy too but you’re Mormon :-)?
“RG: So do other people like close enough relatives, adults with minors unless the state says when it can be. An 18 year old man and a 17 years and 364 day old girl are denied sex with each other under nonmarital conditions.
There are some tenuous reasons why close relatives shouldn't marry (we don't require most couples prove that they are genetically fit to produce healthy children before getting married, and we don't dissolve marriages between people who later prove unfit). The latter case is a simple practicality: you have to draw the line somewhere.”
Homosexual sex creates the AIDS virus. Heterosexual and I suppose lesbian sex only is known to pass it on. So if you argue that it is just a health issue then unless you ban male gay marriages your argument is not good enough.
“ Jonathan Blake said...
HH: Yes he does. He CAN marry a person of the opposite sex just like a heterosexual can. A heterosexual person CANNOT marry the same gender either. They are BOTH being treated equally as the law is applied to right NOW.
Let me put it another way. Let's say that there was a law that said everyone must marry within their own race. Your argument would support this patently racist and unconstitutional law. According to you, people who want to marry outside of their race would be treated equally to those who want to marry within their race. They are both equally free to do what the government tells them to do.”
But we don’t want to treat Homosexuality like we treat racism. Most people don’t want their children exposed to Homosexuality. Are we to declare that unconstitutional and evil? The Constitution protects us against racial discrimination only. I hope it protects sufficiently against the separate but equal scenario you gave above. Thankfully it seems it would be hard to disallow interracial marriage in this country.
“That would be great...if it came to that. But the whole point is for it not to get to that. Because, its ideal that the child have a mother and a father always there for them.”
It is true. You miss out on something. It is only one factor to consider when deciding what is in the best interests of a child but it should be taken into consideration.
“HH: So why do polygamists get the raw deal?
Actually, I've already said that I'm OK with legalizing polygamy. I was Mormon after all. ;)”
Well I’m not, so I have a problem with it for this country LOL :-).”
CM,
"Goodridge (2003) was 4 years after the Vermont Supreme Court's landmark decision in the Stan Baker case. The Court decided that "our common humanity" demanded no less than marriage equality."
Ok, I read the decision and actually it's based on the same type of reasoning as the Massachusetts case. Equal protection vs rational state interest.
"Let's make it clear again: the judiciary forced the legislature to come up with something that did not violate the Constitution."
Yes, the Vermont constitution - which actually has an equal benefits clause that doesn't exist in the federal constitution and which they interpreted strictly.
"Go read that decision. J. Johnson explicitly examines the argument y'all are making, the "definition" argument. He rejects it forcefully as straight-up sex discrimination. He calls your hallowed argument a "rationalization" (I agree completely) and says it doesn't even pass muster under the rational basis test!"
Actually she calls it circular. What she calls a rationalization, etc, is a specific category of post-hoc arguments by the state.
She believes it circular because since the state defines what civil marriage is, the state cannot appeal to the accepted definition of marriage. I think she's arguing on a technicality and ignoring the long-term accepted definition of the word. A "civil marriage" may not mean exactly what the public understands to be a marriage, but they're directly related.
Indeed, the Chief Justice agreed that same sex marriage fails on statutory grounds. He thinks it's a matter of equal treatment not marriage per se.
HH, glad you read the decision! I think you did a good job summarizing the arguments.
I agree with your assessment about "equal protection" being the main thrust of the court's decision in Stan Baker's case. This is why civil unions were acceptable to the court, even though they fall short of marriage equality.
But the wheels of justice grind painfully slowly! Full civil unions are a big step, but everyone also knows they are just the first step. Eventually, the same courts will have to decide whether having a separate but equal category for gay "unions" constitutes sex discrimination. This is what Johnson was getting at (and Thomas et al. in Lawrence vs. Texas). I believe the civil unions solution is obviously discriminatory and it's only a matter of time until it too is found to be unconstitutional. This is not a country where discrimination gets an easy pass.
In short, as I said before, first we'll have full civil unions in this country (mandated by the Supreme Court), and then full gay marriage rights. I suspect the former decision will have a much greater impact than the latter, which will be more like a footnote anyways. Keep watching Vermont... it is a microcosm.
Candyman
You must be really tired from your day job, cause orthoprax has been talking about what you are discussing, not me :)
scroll up.
CandyMan if you are going to want gay marriage approved don't wait too long. If you do you may fail just because the tide could very well turn. As it is right now you don't have the tide you think you do.
HH,
> Its these threads that make me wish you had haloscan
I've been thinking about switching. Do you know what would happen to all the old comments?
> Is it that you simply want the other partner to be recognized as the parent as well? (with the right to make decisions about the childs welfare?)
That, and every other privilege that hetero parents have. Their kids should be able to benefit in the same way that every other kid does. Everything from allowing the parents to share the same health care plan (making it cheaper for the family) to being able to file their taxes jointly (making more funds available for the family). I don't need it to be called marriage, but in terms of government benefits it would be identical.
I think all your comments would disappear
Yes so take the comments you now have and paste them unto the Haloscan. I did the same thing. I put "Blank said:..."
OP,
>> Pasteur
> And interestingly, state benefits through marriage are probably only about ~100 years old.
Very interesting indeed. Also a reminder that the expectations for marriage have changed over the centuries. They are now longer, they were once shorter, they are now government supported, in some areas they were once only religiously approved. Adding gays to the mix is just one more modification in a long list of modifications.
> Maybe it's better if fewer children grow up in deficient homes than that an investment induces more children to be so raised.
So you're arguing to punish the kids that are born to gay parents? People have kids because they want to, not because the government encourages it. The government just makes it easier.
> But why should they get benefits by virtue of their relationships which may be deleterious?
If you can show me evidence that gay parents do a worse job than hetero parents I would be willing to read it.
> I think a distinct problem in America are women who actually intend to be single moms so that the government gives them child support.
I don't know if that's true. But even if it is I don't see how it relates to my argument for expanded rights for dual (gay) parents. Should the government end child support checks to single moms because some of them (allegedly) abuse the system? Will punishing the kids who do need assistance be worth it if "fewer children grow up in deficient homes"? I'm not understanding your argument.
CM,
"I believe the civil unions solution is obviously discriminatory and it's only a matter of time until it too is found to be unconstitutional. This is not a country where discrimination gets an easy pass."
I agree that it is discriminatory. I'm just not sure the discrimination is not justified.
I also think that based on these arguments you're also easily opening the door to marriages for incestuous couples, bigamists, group unions, or whatever kind of social arrangements anyone might choose - thereby making marriage meaningless as an institution.
The state's interest in marriage is based on the intent to strengthen a pre-existing institution. A social order. Forcing the state to recognize all sorts of other arrangements as equally valid can have deleterious effects down the line.
LNM,
"So you're arguing to punish the kids that are born to gay parents?"
No, you can help the child in other ways besides helping a relationship, since it's questionable if the relationship is good for the child.
"If you can show me evidence that gay parents do a worse job than hetero parents I would be willing to read it."
There's a few papers, nothing conclusive. I don't think any of the papers out there are really unbiased and conclusive.
"I don't know if that's true. But even if it is I don't see how it relates to my argument for expanded rights for dual (gay) parents."
Because then gay couples might then be tempted to raise children. If that's bad then we'd want to not encourage it.
"Will punishing the kids who do need assistance be worth it if "fewer children grow up in deficient homes"?"
It's not "punishing" - it's really not providing aid as an entitlement. And, yes, playing a little hardball is good if a few kids need to suffer in order that many more kids aren't raised deficiently.
It's the same issue as all welfare - does it harm more than it helps? Do people become reliant on it? Do people abuse it? Sometimes it's better to cut off welfare from an unemployed father so that he gets off his ass and works for a living.
I also think that based on these arguments you're also easily opening the door to marriages for incestuous couples, bigamists, group unions, or whatever kind of social arrangements anyone might choose - thereby making marriage meaningless as an institution.
Expanding your options does not make marriage "meaningless." It helps clarify what the real meaning is behind the institution.
If the courts expand marriage even further to include loving bro-sis relationships, it's OK by me. I have no problem with that -- it's all superstition anyways (although there are some genetic risks involved if kids are in the offing). You know, it wasn't long ago that first cousins couldn't get legally married, either. But I doubt that bro-sis relationships will ever become a wedge issue. It's just too uncommon.
Once you take God out of the picture -- as our Constitution *demands* -- you can't just take away people's choices for no reason. You gotta prove your case, put up or shut up. A lot of the laws we have are based on religion, and all of these are unconstitutional. That's what Lawrence vs. Texas was about.
CM,
"Expanding your options does not make marriage "meaningless." It helps clarify what the real meaning is behind the institution."
Yeah, it means economic and social privileges from the state. That's all it's turning into.
Gay people think it'll raise the public evaluation of their relationships, but really it will serve to only reduce the public evaluation of civil marriage even lower than it is already.
You are not a believer in fidelity in marriage. You are for brother-sister marriage. Let me guess father-daughter, mother-son, father-son, mother-daughter, brother-brother, sister-sister is all fine with you. Afterall all these taboos in the U.S. are of religious origin. Morality and ethics in America are also of religious origin. Dump it all. Is everyone from campus political correctness sharing this belief or are you just a bigger radical?
"But I doubt that bro-sis relationships will ever become a wedge issue. It's just too uncommon."
Who cares? It still is an issue and psychologists would make a big issue about it too. You are an amoral person lecturing us about morality when your morality is just how to push a leftwing unwritten constitution on us.
Yeah, it means economic and social privileges from the state. That's all it's turning into.
That's all a civil marriage is. What else could the government give to a couple? If you want some kind of religious significance, then you'll need to ask a rabbi, pastor, or whatever.
You are not a believer in fidelity in marriage. You are for brother-sister marriage. Let me guess father-daughter, mother-son, father-son, mother-daughter, brother-brother, sister-sister is all fine with you. Afterall all these taboos in the U.S. are of religious origin. Morality and ethics in America are also of religious origin.
Personally, I'm not fine with siblings having sex with each other, but I'm not sure on what grounds I could ask the government to enforce my personal preferences. Sexual relationships between parent and children are different in that they usually represent abuse of parental power.
Before you go hating on brother-sister relationships, please read about Danielle and Nick and why they got into the predicament they're in.
JB,
"That's all a civil marriage is. What else could the government give to a couple?"
Technically correct, but there's a longstanding social consciousness as a (not particularly religious) institution of western civilization behind it that is being undermined through having the state define marriage so poorly.
You are not a believer in fidelity in marriage.
Says who? Do you even *read* my posts, Gamliel? Or do you just skim them?
I believe in marital fidelity. It's your rabbis who don't.
”The Candy Man said...
You are not a believer in fidelity in marriage.
Says who? Do you even *read* my posts, Gamliel? Or do you just skim them?”
Candy Man you know better. I commented thourouly on you.
“I believe in marital fidelity. It's your rabbis who don't.”
Candy Man you can’t tell me you believe that if someone engages in adultery you consider it wrong. I quote your post:
“The funny thing is, part of me wonders whether the Bible got it right about polygamy. After all, it's clearly a struggle for many men to stay faithful to one woman (especially if the man is rich and powerful). Statistics suggest that this is true for women, as well. This poses a serious challenge for the secular ethicist. In the absence of any religious tradition, should marital infidelity be outlawed? Is it even wrong? And what about prostitution? Legalized prostitution (as seen on TV) doesn't seem that bad... the girls make money, and they seem to be enjoying themselves quite a bit. Slate tells us of one Tier 3 sex worker who's earning $10,000/mo. for three monthly meetings. Heck, for $10,000/mo., I'd do a lot more than that!
So far, this country has made a mess of secular ethics. Our President uses family values as an excuse to deprive homosexuals of their Constitutional right to marriage equality. Well, shouldn't he be more concerned about the adulterers in our midst? Or the wife beaters? There's a lot more of those than there are homosexuals, and they pose a far greater threat to family stability. Yet there is practically zero national discussion about such issues. Perhaps the Spitzer fiasco will spark some discussion about real family values. Secular ethics offer us a way out of outdated double standards and cultural norms. But in reinventing society, how do we strike a balance between what is good for the family and what is good for the individual? When it comes to sex, what can we realistically expect from human society? After all, if Eliot Spitzer couldn't resist, what makes you think you can?
Posted by The Candy Man”
By contrast the Rabbis do think marital infidelity is wrong. If a married man has relations with anyone not his wife it may not be adultery but it is not allowed. Any sex outside of marriage is labeled from the Talmud yet promiscuity and is not allowed. You are so slippery with language that you redefine everything and by contrast don’t allow more than one cultural meaning to a word if you can use it to bash what you want. If you really are a biologist you should know something about precision in thought.
Look how you cheapen Judaism:”…what's Judaism without the t'fillin dates?”
Candy Man you can’t tell me you believe that if someone engages in adultery you consider it wrong.
Sure I consider adultery wrong. As I said in my post, I'm quite concerned about the increase in marital infidelity in this country. You quoted it yourself.
The question I pose (and I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough) is: on what grounds do we oppose such marital infidelity in the absence of religious doctrine? Are mens' natural temptations too difficult to overcome? Was the Bible's double standard right? Either way, what do we do about it?
As for the rabbis, what I meant was that the Talmud's marital system perpetuates the Biblical double standard by which it's not adultery for a man to cheat on his wife. Even insofar as their limited legal power, the rabbis of the Talmud did nothing to punish such a man for cheating. (They might have, for instance, given him an extra punishment, such as Rabbinical lashes. They did not.)
If a married man has relations with anyone not his wife it may not be adultery but it is not allowed. Any sex outside of marriage is labeled from the Talmud yet promiscuity and is not allowed.
Please cite your source in the Talmud/Mishna. Remember, the Talmud is not a single opinion.
In any case, the ban you mention is a general ban on sex out of wedlock. A married man is not punished in any extra way for cheating. I say they should have given him malkot d'rabbanan.
BTW, t'fillin dates are funny. You know it.
”The Candy Man said...
Candy Man you can’t tell me you believe that if someone engages in adultery you consider it wrong.
Sure I consider adultery wrong. As I said in my post, I'm quite concerned about the increase in marital infidelity in this country. You quoted it yourself.
The question I pose (and I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough) is: on what grounds do we oppose such marital infidelity in the absence of religious doctrine?”
Ok so I misunderstood you but now you are being inconsistent. To oppose active racism makes sense for you since it makes sense for you to believe that people do not have to be restricted. But how can you the Candy Man oppose anyone have sex on the side? On what grounds? You give me any ground and I’ll throw it back at you with a why.
“Are mens' natural temptations too difficult to overcome? Was the Bible's double standard right? Either way, what do we do about it?”
It’s not so simple as far as the Biblical attitude. The Bible did not set it up as adultery but only because sex with the intent of marriage was a method of marriage and concubinage. On the other hand prostitution was not viewed kindly and the very fact that a woman was presumed a virgin before she married attests to the high chastity of the Israelites as it takes two to make a virgin stay one. Also the Israelites aside from kings were mostly not people who had more than one wife. The Biblical ideal is summed up here:” Genesis 2:23-24 “23. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall be one flesh.”
“As for the rabbis, what I meant was that the Talmud's marital system perpetuates the Biblical double standard by which it's not adultery for a man to cheat on his wife. Even insofar as their limited legal power, the rabbis of the Talmud did nothing to punish such a man for cheating. (They might have, for instance, given him an extra punishment, such as Rabbinical lashes. They did not.)”
They made it hard to punish the woman by death. For practical purposes the punishment over time became evolved consequences to the marriage. Cheating in any system depends on what is considered the rules of the society for a marriage. Among Eskimos a guest was given the hosts wife for relations. That was hardly cheating since it was with the full expectations of Eskimo marriage. It wasn’t adultery.
“If a married man has relations with anyone not his wife it may not be adultery but it is not allowed. Any sex outside of marriage is labeled from the Talmud yet promiscuity and is not allowed.
Please cite your source in the Talmud/Mishna. Remember, the Talmud is not a single opinion.”
The Talmudic principle is no man is presumed to have his relations be promiscuous and the Talmud seeks to ensure that a man and a woman will not be together. It’s called Yichud. When you want to have a marriage you bring the man and woman together so that they must have Yichud.
But how can you the Candy Man oppose anyone have sex on the side? On what grounds? You give me any ground and I’ll throw it back at you with a why.
On what grounds indeed? This is truly the question. That's what I'm struggling with in the post. I feel it's wrong, but why... and can I prove it?
I think the answer is already in the post, too. The grounds is that extramarital affairs undermine the marital contract and undermine family relationships. Unless, of course, it was understood to begin with that fidelity was not expected, or if it was cleared by the spouse.
When they oppose gay marriage but do nothing about infidelity, child molestation, wife beating, family values conservatives are barking up the wrong tree. Which is a shame, because there is a good discussion to be had.
The Talmudic principle is no man is presumed to have his relations be promiscuous and the Talmud seeks to ensure that a man and a woman will not be together. It’s called Yichud.
Classic Yichud is a Rabbinic restriction against being alone with a forbidden relation. It applies first and foremost to ervot, i.e. Biblically prohibited relations. This does not apply here.
A separate ban on Yichud P'nuya (confinement with a single girl) does exist. If I remember correctly, its main purpose is to protect women against rape (hence the Talmudic statement that David instituted it after Adonijah's sin). I don't think it has much to do with extramarital sex per se, although it does score one for the rabbis in the women's lib department. Please cite your source and we can continue to discuss this... it's been a while since I learned these g'maras.
>child molestation, wife beating
This is the second time you include these.
Why?
Who is not doing ANYTHING about this?
>Who is not doing ANYTHING about this?
Never said they weren't doing anything, although many politicians aren't. But even the best of them aren't doing enough.
It's a question of proportion. Child and spousal abuse do a LOT of damage to families. But there's very LITTLE dialogue about these issues.
Homosexual marriage does LITTLE damage to family life, if any (I certainly don't think it does any). Yet there's a LOT of political diatribe about it.
I think we have to sort out our priorities here.
well, maybe i did say it :)
>But there's very LITTLE dialogue about these issues.
There is little being said about it POLITICALLY, because things are being done about it in every corner of this country. Nowhere is it excepted. There are shelters, and educational programs.
The reason Gay marriage is being talked about is because its the NEW thing.
>There are shelters, and educational programs.
There's not enough being done. And part of the problem is that people don't care.
I completely agree that gay marriage is a "hot topic" because it's controversial. But our politicians should be wise enough to avoid what's HOT and concentrate on what's IMPORTANT. What good does flapping our gums about gay marriage do? Wouldn't the time and money be better spent fixing the big problems? Unless you think problems like spousal and child abuse are already largely solved.
“The Candy Man said...
But how can you the Candy Man oppose anyone have sex on the side? On what grounds? You give me any ground and I’ll throw it back at you with a why.
On what grounds indeed? This is truly the question. That's what I'm struggling with in the post. I feel it's wrong, but why... and can I prove it?
I think the answer is already in the post, too. The grounds is that extramarital affairs undermine the marital contract and undermine family relationships.”
But suppose you undermine them what code are you violating? Are you willing to say there really is a metaphysical existence to morality and ethics or is it nothing but feelings without any reality beyond ourselves? If the latter you have no basis for morality and ethics beyond imposing them by force.
"I think the answer is already in the post, too. The grounds is that extramarital affairs undermine the marital contract and undermine family relationships.Unless, of course, it was understood to begin with that fidelity was not expected, or if it was cleared by the spouse.”
In which case you undermine the marital contract and undermine family relationships including for the children.
Post a Comment