GUEST POST BY THE CANDYMAN
Isaiah 58:5-9, chanted by Da CandyMan
These words, part of the haftara for Yom Kippur, had been echoing in my head for the last week or so. They reminded me of an old T-shirt I that said, "Martin Luther King Day 1994 - a day on, not a day off."
I decided to take that approach to Yom Kippur 2008.
No one in our country is more oppressed than gays and lesbians. It is as if our country has taken all its bigotry and focused it on them. These are the people Isaiah is talking about.
This year, I devoted my fast to them and their suffering.
The California Supreme Court - which is mostly Republican - recently overruled a state ballot initiative barring marriage between gay and lesbian couples. The court ruled that the law violated the California State Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Since the landmark ruling, hundreds of gay and lesbian couples have legally married in the state of California.
But the religious-right conservatives in California refuse to go gently into that good night. Instead, they have raised over 30 million dollars to stop gay marriage via Constitutional Amendment. This amendment will be voted upon by the people of California on November 4. Proposition 8, as it is called, is the ballot measure to amend the California State Constitution to ban gay marriage.
The scary thing is, it just might pass. Just yesterday the polls showed, for the first time, that more people support this discriminatory amendment than oppose it.
So instead of kol nidre, I went to a call center. And I made calls for Equality California, encouraging undecided voters to vote NO on Proposition 8. Ten other people also showed up - we had a minyan. And the 30 bucks I'd have spent paying a shul for High Holiday services, I devoted to fighting the airwaves.
And it felt good. It felt like a fast of the just.
83 comments:
Wow. I am impressed.
I spent my Yom Kippur reading books, listening to my iPod, and sneaking out to McDonald's, but you really used yours well.
kol tuv to you.
as usual, I was in shul with my father. I received my usual kavod of p'ticha for chazarat ha-shat for mincha. my father pointed out to me that I am the only one who gets the same kavod every year. at least seven years so far. it is my chazakah.
anyway, if you have not seen it, here are wishes for a new year with a little help from a friend...
http://dylan.sonybmgmusic.co.uk/messages/6A5E-5L05-LCO7-U82Z-0KY9
most oppressed?
I have enjoyed your Dylan mix, kc! All ye who enjoy a little dylan in their new year ought to check it out.
glad to here it....
it really put me in a great frame of mind. but I did not know what I was going to listen to after the fast. so the story went as follows,
I went to the mountain,
the gates of heaven were open,
when I returned home there was a souvenir waiting....
Grateful Dead Egypt 1978 box set...
ahhhhh,
what bliss....
CM,
"These are the people Isaiah is talking about."
Right. I'm sure.
It seems to me that you choose your causes not because of your assessment of supposed persecutions, but essentially by what you know traditional Judaism would not validate.
If you decided to take a "day on" for Yom Kippur, it might make more sense it you chose a less incendiary cause like, say, feeding the homeless or clothing the destitute - but instead you chose a blatantly political issue of a special interest in its effort to gain parity privileges.
All that being said, OP, I'm glad you read and understood the post.
Sounds like a worthy cause, if it motivates you.
I was a shaliach tzibbur on Yom Kippur, without the conscience pangs I had last year. I just get into the experience, and if I do a good job that helps others also have a meaningful experience, I've done my job. The Kohen service in Musaf is kind of boring, and I like the ipod idea...I really missed listening to my podcasts.
kc,
as usual, I was in shul with my father. I received my usual kavod of p'ticha for chazarat ha-shat for mincha.
Glad you got p'ticha again. Your personal life is not anyone's business anyways. Even better, you can go to shul with your father. My own relationship with my dad is still rather strained.
drj,
I was a shaliach tzibbur on Yom Kippur, without the conscience pangs I had last year...
'scool that you are the shaliach tzibbur. I don't think any pangs of conscience are necessary - even from a halakhic POV, it's always been more prax than dox.
It seems our skeptics are racking up the kibbudim.
FYI - time to celebrate. The Connecticut Supreme Court just recognized gay marriage, striking the previous civil unions law using the same logic as the California Supreme Court.
HH,
most oppressed?
From the NYTimes article on the Connecticut court decision:
"Arguments in the case centered on whether civil unions and marriages conferred equal rights, and on whether same-sex couples should be treated as what the court called a “suspect class” or “quasi-suspect class” — a group, like blacks or women, that has experienced a history of discrimination and was thus entitled to increased scrutiny and protection by the state in the promulgation of its laws.
Among the criteria for inclusion as a suspect class, the court said, were whether gay people could “control” their sexual orientation, whether they were “politically powerless” and whether being gay had a bearing on one’s ability to contribute to society. "
CM,
"OP, if you learn a little more Tanach you'll find that my "liberal" values are actually Jewish values. My liberalism actually grew out of my Jewish education, not the other way around."
If you had ever learned Tanach, I'm sure you'd know ahead of time that you're putting words in Isaiah's mouth when you say that seeking parity privileges for homosexual unions is the kind of cause he was talking about.
"All that being said, OP, I'm glad you read and understood the post."
Ok. I'm just noting that virtually every post you have about your own supposedly altruistic deeds seem to double as a backhanded bash on traditional Judaism. So I'm questioning your motives.
It's akin to antisemites taking on the Palestinian cause even though they actually couldn't care less about the Palestinians.
My point is to question why you have been choosing *these* causes to spend your time promoting rather than causes which even your once-upon rabbi could be proud of in concept. Y'know, less political and noisy stuff and more of the 'boring' meat and bones stuff of everyday charity work.
I guess those wouldn't blog as well.
OP,
If you had ever learned Tanach, I'm sure you'd know ahead of time that you're putting words in Isaiah's mouth when you say that seeking parity privileges for homosexual unions is the kind of cause he was talking about.
Isaiah talks about helping the oppressed. Moses does the same thing. It's the same motivation that inspired Lincoln, Ghandi, Martin Luther King. In this generation, the civil rights struggle is for gays and lesbians. I think there's a continuity here which you're missing, which is why I suggest you go back and learn more.
"All that being said, OP, I'm glad you read and understood the post."
I'm just noting that virtually every post you have about your own supposedly altruistic deeds seem to double as a backhanded bash on traditional Judaism. So I'm questioning your motives.
Na'arishkeit. First off, my main "altruism" this year was doing precinct captain work for Obama, which has nothing to do with Judaism. And I've posted plenty on that.
Second, your notion of "traditional Judaism" needs some work. You seem to start with thins notion that Orthodox Judaism is somehow this paradigm that I'm coming to break. That's ridiculous. My positions are rather conservative compared to a rabbi like Kaufmann Kohler - and he lived 100 years ago.
OJ hasn't ruled the scene for a long time, in fact it never did. It's just one voice in a chorus, and it's short on things like Isaiah 58. I am not coming to bash OJ, why would I? It's just a small part of Judaism. The point of this post, and my posts in general, is to share my Torah - the things I've taken away from the tradition that are most valuable, and how to deal with it when the tradition goes wrong.
My point is to question why you have been choosing *these* causes to spend your time promoting rather than causes which even your once-upon rabbi could be proud of in concept. Y'know, less political and noisy stuff and more of the 'boring' meat and bones stuff of everyday charity work.
I think you're underestimating the importance of certain social justice issues. The gay rights movement is the civil rights movement of our age, and it's no less important. In many ways, it's about separation of church and state, and about the essence of democracy - protecting the individual's rights from the whims of the majority. The problem in this country is that there's an empathy gap on this issue - an empathy gap that religion has helped widen. My religious background is the background of Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King. I am following in those footsteps. I can help show people like you that there's more to religion than the hatred that's so easy to fall into.
That's why the issue is important to me. Like I said, read Isaiah. Read MLK. You will get fired up, too.
Time is of the essence. We're voting on this issue in two weeks - you and me. That's why I used most of my YK time this year to focus on this important issue.
I also did other stuff this Yom Kippur. Like try to protect some kids from a particular sexual predator. But there's only so much space in a blog. This is a blog about religion, and I generally focus on the more religious issues or the more timely ones.
One of the points I make repeatedly is that there's only so much time in the day. The time you spend in minyan, OP, is time you could be spending doing charitable work, or (seeing as you are a physician) helping more people.
CM,
"Isaiah talks about helping the oppressed."
Again - do you honestly believe he was talking about the issues you're talking about? The answer is very obviously not.
"First off, my main "altruism" this year was doing precinct captain work for Obama, which has nothing to do with Judaism. And I've posted plenty on that."
Sure, more political stuff. Y'know, there's only so much time in the day. The time you spend politicking could be time spent actually helping people.
"Second, your notion of "traditional Judaism" needs some work. You seem to start with thins notion that Orthodox Judaism is somehow this paradigm that I'm coming to break."
No, as I've said in the past, I don't care about Orthodoxy in itself. But I do recognize a series of traditional values in Judaism and a bunch of them involve a streamlined view of appropriate human sexual relations. It's ironic that at about the same time you were making phone calls, some choice passages from Leviticus were being read at Mincha.
"I am not coming to bash OJ, why would I?"
Of course you are. You have and no doubt you will continue to as well. Clearly you disapprove of much that exists within the Judaism of your youth. Who are you trying to kid?
"The gay rights movement is the civil rights movement of our age, and it's no less important."
Um, yes it is. A ton less. Let me ask you this - suppose that ammendment does get passed in California, do you really believe the lives of homosexuals in California will be so terribly worse off? No, they would hardly even notice it.
Homosexuals are not being persecuted *against*, they can do as they please. They're just not being granted the same privileges as other couples. And - in many cases, they are actually granted they same privileges, just not granted the same relationship title. Woe is them. Also, as a matter of fact, many (most?) gay people have no interest in getting married. This whole gay marriage thing is a political stunt, little more. But I suppose it makes you feel like you had your time well spent.
"I can help show people like you that there's more to religion than the hatred that's so easy to fall into."
Sure, and there's more to secularism than hating religion. I don't hate gay people. In fact, I've spent the last four weeks at work counseling a gay patient with relationship problems. At no point was I even remotely disrespectful. But whatever, that's just everyday stuff, not political grandstanding.
OP, I think I've been pretty clear in my previous comment, and you have not addressed the points that I clearly made. So, no need to restate the obvious.
As for those verses in Leviticus forbidding homosexuality... those are part of the problem. I think they should be ripped out of the Torah, and replaced with something that forbids child molestation.
In fact, I've spent the last four weeks at work counseling a gay patient with relationship problems. At no point was I even remotely disrespectful.
Good, good. You clearly still harbor some homophobia, but at least you're interacting with gays. Direct interaction is the best way to combat intolerance and bigotry. It's hard to hate someone you care about.
You should realize that the very fact this person feels comfortable coming out to you is a direct result of a gay rights movement that has been gaining momentum since the 1950s.
CM,
"OP, I think I've been pretty clear in my previous comment, and you have not addressed the points that I clearly made."
You put words in Isaiah's mouth without making any justification defending the move. You had some peripheral arguments, but my assertion still stands. Your chosen political issues remains suspect.
"As for those verses in Leviticus forbidding homosexuality... those are part of the problem. I think they should be ripped out of the Torah, and replaced with something that forbids child molestation."
Why are you against child molestation? Pedophilia has an apparent genetic basis and these are natural urges that have existed throughout human history. NAMBLA types make the compelling argument that as long as the encounters are consensual and nonviolent the children actually benefit from the potentially mentoring relationships. Successful examples of this existed in societies like ancient Greece and Japan among others. Who are you to intefere, much less not help celebrate it with public marches and so on?
Just wait twenty years and you'll see people just like yourself clamoring for the state to recognize such relationships as valid and good for society in the name of civil rights.
Judaism historically and traditionally promotes a normalized chaste social and sexual life and a modest public square. This is a free country and I recognize the correct place of the state is to not interfere with people's private social affairs, but I believe in our tradition's prerogative to assert its thesis on proper human relations to the betterment of society. This is your social experiment, let's see where it takes us.
"Good, good. You clearly still harbor some homophobia, but at least you're interacting with gays. Direct interaction is the best way to combat intolerance and bigotry. It's hard to hate someone you care about."
What I hate is your patronizing attitude. I suspect that on a daily basis I "directly interact" with more people out of my socioeconomic base than you do. As I said, I do not hate gay people. I am tolerant of their activites, but I do not recognize it as normative. "Homophobia" is a handwaving word designed to dismiss people.
"You should realize that the very fact this person feels comfortable coming out to you is a direct result of a gay rights movement that has been gaining momentum since the 1950s."
He hardly came out to me. He has a public homosexual relationship and his case is anyway protected under privilege. But that's neither here or there since I don't mind public tolerance of such behavior.
You put words in Isaiah's mouth without making any justification defending the move.
Please. Isaiah doesn't speak out against slavery, either. The point was that if Isaiah lived in our time, he'd be supportive of civil rights for all. I think this was perfectly clear all along.
Why are you against child molestation? Pedophilia has an apparent genetic basis and these are natural urges that have existed throughout human history. NAMBLA types make the compelling argument that as long as the encounters are consensual and nonviolent the children actually benefit from the potentially mentoring relationships... Just wait twenty years and you'll see people just like yourself clamoring for the state to recognize such relationships as valid and good for society in the name of civil rights.
The difference is obvious. Children are easily influenced by adults and don't know any better. Society must protect them - except apparently Biblical society, which simply didn't care enough to protect them.
As I said, I do not hate gay people. I am tolerant of their activites, but I do not recognize it as normative. "Homophobia" is a handwaving word designed to dismiss people.
No, it's good term for people like you. I really think you ought to seek counseling - there's so much hatred inside you. I don't know why.
CM,
"The point was that if Isaiah lived in our time, he'd be supportive of civil rights for all. I think this was perfectly clear all along."
Hardly. If Isaiah lived today he'd most likely toe the Biblical line. Why would you think any differently?
"The difference is obvious. Children are easily influenced by adults and don't know any better. Society must protect them"
Protect them from what? NAMBLA people show very well that pederasty has its historical proponents demonstrating benefits. If parents give the OK, what's your problem?
"No, it's good term for people like you. I really think you ought to seek counseling - there's so much hatred inside you. I don't know why."
LOL. Isn't that just some classic ad hominem, eh? I didn't realize you were so desperate that you refuse to take me at my word. When are you gonna stop beating up your girlfriend?
If Isaiah lived today he'd most likely toe the Biblical line. Why would you think any differently?
Because I've read Isaiah. He's a prophet of reform. Like I said originally, you should first read the book, learn something, then come and play with the big boys.
NAMBLA people show very well that pederasty has its historical proponents demonstrating benefits. If parents give the OK, what's your problem?
You are one sick puppy if you are continuing to push this NAMBLA stuff. Honestly, OP, this explains a lot about you.
I didn't realize you were so desperate that you refuse to take me at my word. When are you gonna stop beating up your girlfriend?
You never take me at my word (see above, Me: "I'm not out to bash OJ." You: "Of course you are."). My statement about you is based on every response you make: full of anger, full of hatred. I always feel like going Yoda on you and saying, Much fear there is in this one.
I don't get the remark about my girlfriend. If you're trying to be funny/clever/witty/whatever, try harder my friend.
"Because I've read Isaiah. He's a prophet of reform. Like I said originally, you should first read the book, learn something, then come and play with the big boys."
Other than giving platitudes about being a reformer, I haven't seen you support your argument at all. Sounds like alot of posturing in support of a highly speculative position about someone who obviously viewed himself (rightly or wrongly) as a revivalist rather than a reformer.
I think OP hit the nail on the head with his take.
Anon, I don't feel it necessary to "prove" Isaiah's reformist nature because it's obvious to anyone who's actually read the book. The passage I quoted is one example, in which Isaiah lambastes the old idea of fasting and reinvents the concept in terms of social justice. This is not revivalism. Isaiah clearly considers social justice a greater imperative than, say, beating your breast.
For more on prophets and reform, check out this blog entry from earlier this year. It ends with marriage equality, prophetically enough.
kc,
but I did not know what I was going to listen to after the fast. so the story went as follows,
I went to the mountain,
the gates of heaven were open,
when I returned home there was a souvenir waiting....
Grateful Dead Egypt 1978 box set...
ahhhhh,
what bliss....
Somehow in all this silly arguing I missed this great comment. LOL!
CM,
"Because I've read Isaiah. He's a prophet of reform. Like I said originally, you should first read the book, learn something, then come and play with the big boys."
How about that? Declarative, authoritative-sounding statements based on nothing at all along with pure ad hominems. You're almost as good as other obscurantist preachers. If the molecular biology thing doesn't work out for you, know that you have a good future selling "natural cures" with the likes of Kevin Trudeau.
"You are one sick puppy if you are continuing to push this NAMBLA stuff. Honestly, OP, this explains a lot about you."
Oh, do tell. Why are you calling it sick? It's natural human behavior, bigot. Civil Rights!
"My statement about you is based on every response you make: full of anger, full of hatred."
Well then, I guess you must be right. Oh wait, I actually know the person you're talking about slightly better than you. Turns out that you're actually making stuff up to escape from acknowledging the points at hand.
"I don't get the remark about my girlfriend. If you're trying to be funny/clever/witty/whatever, try harder my friend."
My point was that I can make stuff up and accuse you of things too. From what I can tell about your writings, you beat up your girlfriend on a weekly basis. That's terrible and sad. You and she should seek counseling.
CM
Your quote only begs the question. Still does not show how they oppressed. You are from Frisco I believe, where gays have significant power. I am from LA and West Hollywood police cars are have the gay colors on the doors. Popular shows like queer eye for the straight guy were incredibly popular with the public. They are doctors and politicians. This is not typical of a people being oppressed.
"No one in our country is more oppressed than gays and lesbians."
But pedophiles are evil. Sure. Right now anyway.
Candy, you're just going along with whatever the editors of the New York Times are endorsing today. You have no belief in any eternal moral values, and if anyone else does you console yourself by assuming he is insane.
Let's hope the NYT never advocates killing tall bearded men with blue eyes, or I'm in trouble.
JP,
OP, why don't you just answer me directly: How much of Isaiah have you actually read?
JP,
"No one in our country is more oppressed than gays and lesbians."
But pedophiles are evil. Sure. Right now anyway.
Wow. I am amazed that a bunch of right-wingers like JP and OP would come to the defense of pedophile, predatory child molesters. You guys are a bunch of sick puppies. Perhaps this is the consequence when people take all their morality from the Bible. Anything that is not forbidden by "God" is defensible, no matter how morally reprehensible.
HH,
I am from LA and West Hollywood police cars are have the gay colors on the doors. Popular shows like queer eye for the straight guy were incredibly popular with the public. They are doctors and politicians. This is not typical of a people being oppressed.
Again - these are all consequences of a civil rights movements for gays and lesbians which has been going on for 50 years and which is not finished yet.
Othoprax and CandyMan,
OK, lets be nice boys now.
CandyMan, I would assume that your claiming that Isiah is talking about gays is allegorical or metaphorical only, in the most general sense of fighting social injutice. It would be hard to read into it any other "liberal" agenda. Of course, you can read into it anything you want, but it would be hard to reconcile this with the original "framers" intent.
Othoprax, I think your arguments expose a certain weakness with orthopraxy in general, as I understand it. Orthopraxy voluntarily adopts a particular set of values from our tradition, but acknowledges uncertainty about god and about the divine authorship of the Bible. So CandyMan is correct that over the thousands of years of Jewish existence, we have incorporated many of the values of the societies around us (which we could consider social progress), such as human rights, equality, etc, REGARDLESS of what the Torah says or doesn't say about it. We then internalize them as "Jewish". Maybe CandyMan is ahead of himself, but I predict that with the passage of time there will be women as orthodox rabbis and the taboo on "gaydom" will be minimized, using some legalistic or pilpulistic logic.
To argue that there are eternal or immutable "Jewish" values for orthopraxy strikes me as being inconsistent.
this was article that I read back in 2004.
How can you be gay and Jewish?
http://www.zeek.net/jay_0409.shtml
drj, yes that is what I meant about Isaiah.
kc, good article! I enjoyed it.
Both of you correctly anticipate the increasing tolerance for homosexuality within the Orthodox Jewish community. R. Chaim Rappaport's book on this is just the beginning.
CM,
"OP, why don't you just answer me directly: How much of Isaiah have you actually read?"
I've read the whole book several times, cover to cover. I've read all of Tanach straight through for that matter. But this isn't about knowledge of the text - this is your personal misinterpretation that you're setting as authoritative.
"Wow. I am amazed that a bunch of right-wingers like JP and OP would come to the defense of pedophile, predatory child molesters. You guys are a bunch of sick puppies."
No. It seems the point whizzed past you too fast for you to catch. I'm not actually defending child molestation - my point was that widely accepted arguments about the acceptance of homosexuality are only a slippery slope down the line to accepting things like "man-boy love." Virtually all the same arguments apply.
Once a society loses all of its taboos (or some would say scruples) about sexual relations then deviant behavior becomes more and more widely accepted. Not just tolerated, but pridefully celebrated. We live in a country where children having sex with each other as young as ten or twelve years old is no longer unusual. How big a step is it from there for older sexually active people to engage in relations with younger sexually active people? Why does society make an arbitrary line for statutory rape?
When the significance of sex is dropped to being just a pleasurable activity akin to eating ice cream, then we are all too likely to see a popular rising of 'enlightened' sexual thinkers fighting for things like the civil rights of NAMBLA types in only so many years. What's the big deal?
Now, I oppose state recognition of homosexuals unions as marriage because I oppose the normalization of homosexual relationships. I do this because I believe youths in America are already bombarded from the media and other sources saying that it's good to sexually experiment, how else will you know what you like?
I don't believe sexual predilections are polarized, but actually fit along a spectrum - and are not even necessarily static throughout life. But this politicized homosexuality with youthful experimentation seeks to label people as "gay" even while they could have been perfectly content with a normal, typically heterosexual life. These people get trapped in deviancy once labeled and the given way to escape is by becoming politically activated themselves, through fighting for normalization of deviant lifestyle preferences.
There are some people who are virtually stuck in their homosexual attractions and for those people I recommend empathetic tolerance, but the typical marriage structure ought to be protected and promoted as the ideal way to have children naturally and raise a family. There are many people that likely would find themselves comfortable in either mold - gay or straight - but an encouragement towards heterosexuality and marriage is right.
DRJ,
"To argue that there are eternal or immutable "Jewish" values for orthopraxy strikes me as being inconsistent."
I never said that. I said there are traditional values. Ideas which stem from the Bible and have been consistent throughout Jewish history certainly fit the bill.
In any case, I actually would support women having greater roles in Orthodox leadership - even as rabbinical roles - and a reduction in the severity of the homosexual taboo is likewise alright by me.
My points were focused on CM's ironically chosen political issues and the broader implications of those political efforts.
OP, your perception of the "gay/straight" spectrum is right out of 1940s sexuality class. You are towing a social conservative line about protecting children from depraved sexuality that is on it's way out. If any of you gay-bashers were truly worried about children, you'd be focusing your attention on infidelity. But no one is trying to outlaw that.
The reality is that you (and the rest of you gay bashers) are singling out gays because the Bible told you to do it. Everything else, just like most of your positions, is an apologetic set up to defend the point of view of a Biblical savage. If it didn't say it in the Bible, you wouldn't care.
It's nice that you support "easing the taboo" in OJ on homosexuality, and "emphatic tolerance." You're almost caught up to a 1960s viewpoint there. But that's just the problem with OJ - it's stuck in a time trap. And so are you. The only way you'll ever get through it is to let go of OJ and the Bible and try making moral/ethical judgments through the lens of democracy and science.
CM,
"OP, your perception of the "gay/straight" spectrum is right out of 1940s sexuality class."
It also happens to be supported by modern science - but don't let the facts confuse the politics. The "homosexual class" is a concept maybe a century old. People who engage in homosexual acts are generally more versatile in their preferred partners than the activists, such as yourself, give them credit.
"You are towing a social conservative line about protecting children from depraved sexuality that is on it's way out."
And? Doesn't mean it's wrong. Fiscal responsibility is a classic conservative line too. Maybe we'll see it get a comeback.
"If any of you gay-bashers were truly worried about children, you'd be focusing your attention on infidelity. But no one is trying to outlaw that."
If adulterers were marching in the streets in pride parades and suing the government for public recognition of the validity of their actions then you had better believe I would strongly oppose them. I do oppose adultery as it is and I believe socially this country is far too forgiving on those who commit it, but few people are going about defending the acts.
Additionally, the fact is that few people actually want to outlaw homosexuality either.
"The reality is that you (and the rest of you gay bashers) are singling out gays because the Bible told you to do it."
No, the fact is that I'm not singling them out. They've singled themselves out on the public stage.
"But that's just the problem with OJ - it's stuck in a time trap. And so are you. The only way you'll ever get through it is to let go of OJ and the Bible and try making moral/ethical judgments through the lens of democracy and science."
Funny. The thing is that I used to think like you but you're just going along with the shallow arguments from liberal activists. It's worth it to yourself to re-examine your assumptions about libertine sexuality and consider the consequences of such public policies. Maybe you ought to reassess an ethic that has lasted well for a thousand years and more.
Maybe you ought to reassess an ethic that has lasted well for a thousand years and more.
There's lots of old stuff that was wrong. Like slavery. The Supreme Court eventually shot that down, just like it will eventually shoot down your discriminatory position on homosexuality.
My friend, you are on the losing side of history.
Sorry Candyman, I still don't see how you call them the most oppressed people in this country.
If anything, I think bigamists are. Everyone hates them. I think we should include them in the civil rights movement.
through the lens of democracy...
Then I take it you won't be too upset if the majority of Californians pass Prop. 8?
It is a straw argument to go with the "slippery slope" defense. No one is or has asked for pedophiles to be given marriage rights. Consenting adults. Full Stop.
Your arguments are incendiary, predictable and not well thought our. Compare pedophiles to gays and lesbians is not only offensive but inaccurate.
I get the feeling that the strictures against gay marriage is being treated like a gzeirah. If we allow this, something else might happen. How many gzeirot are necessary?
CandyMan, thank you so much for dedicating your fast to this worthy cause.
B'Shalom.
>I get the feeling that the strictures against gay marriage is being treated like a gzeirah. If we allow this, something else might happen
Actually a slippery slope defense is a PERFECT means of looking at an argument, that all societies do. In fact, those on the left us it ALL the time when discussing issues of civil liberties. And though I consider myself to be more of a conservative at times, I still listen with an attentive ear to their arguments of what may happen in the future.
CM,
"There's lots of old stuff that was wrong. Like slavery."
Obviously my point was not that old ipso facto means good, but whatever.
"The Supreme Court eventually shot that down, just like it will eventually shoot down your discriminatory position on homosexuality."
Actually the Supreme Court supported slavery and strengthened the institution. Ever heard of Dred Scott? It took an amendment to the Constitution to put it to an end. Funny how democracy sometimes works better than a bunch of old men in black robes, eh?
Faith,
"It is a straw argument to go with the "slippery slope" defense."
Actually it isn't, especially since we have the sociological data right in front of us. Were ten year olds having sex back in the 50s? What do you think changed?
"No one is or has asked for pedophiles to be given marriage rights. Consenting adults. Full Stop."
Um, ok. But people are asking for the discriminatory laws against statutory rape and pedophilia to be rescinded. It's part of the same pattern.
"Your arguments are incendiary, predictable and not well thought our."
Oh, ok. If you say so.
"Compare pedophiles to gays and lesbians is not only offensive but inaccurate."
I don't doubt that it may be offensive. Even gay people can be discriminatory towards sexual acts they consider deviant. But in what way is it inaccurate?
Though in any case, my point is not that A leads to B, but that these are all part and parcel of the 'sexual revolution' of the last generation which has lead to all sorts of social ills that now saddle the country.
"[A]ccording to Columbia University researcher Joyce Hunter, 3% to 10% of U.S. teens now tell pollsters they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or "questioning" their orientation; in the San Francisco Bay Area, the figure is 18%, according to one recent study."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136994,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
So does this suggest that there just so happens to be a greater preponderance of gay kids growing up in San Fran, or is there a concerted political effort there to make kids question their sexual orientation?
Cui bono? Think about it.
HH,
through the lens of democracy...
Then I take it you won't be too upset if the majority of Californians pass Prop. 8?
HH, you still haven't learned the difference between a democracy and a plurocracy. Democracy is the opposite of majority rule. It's protecting the individual from the (religious) whims of the majority.
Faith,
It is a straw argument to go with the "slippery slope" defense. No one is or has asked for pedophiles to be given marriage rights. Consenting adults. Full Stop.
Exactly. The slippery slope argument (even if it had any merit here, which of course it does not) dies when you can draw a clear legal line.
Your arguments are incendiary, predictable and not well thought our. Compare pedophiles to gays and lesbians is not only offensive but inaccurate.
And stupid. When you are making the same arguments as Bush, that should be a red flag.
Faith, you are right on. It's nice to hear someone talking sense in the comments for a change.
>Democracy is the opposite of majority rule. It's protecting the individual from the (religious) whims of the majority.
No, it IS the majority rule, as long as the majority don't step on certain rights. Which is, obviously, the entire discussion here. IS it a right for a gay person to marry a same sex partner? And I am not going to let go of you in this situation since you often avoid this, but if its about the individual being protected from the whims of ANY majority, will you stand side by side with me to call for full marriage rights for bigamists and siblings?
>you can draw a clear legal line?
??
You drew it where you want to draw it, ignoring anything orthoprax or I say about the slippery slope, since a liberal like you OFTEN uses it for other arguments.
HH,
No, [democracy] IS the majority rule, as long as the majority don't step on certain rights. Which is, obviously, the entire discussion here. IS it a right for a gay person to marry a same sex partner?
The California Supreme Court - a Republican court - has already ruled that gays have this right. Your right-wing, homo-sex-obsessed buddies are the ones trying to take away the right. Even Arnold thinks it's a dumb idea.
I do believe it will take time for marriage equality for all to be validated in the Supreme Court. The gears of (yes) democracy grind slowly. But they grind. Whether or not you want to call it marriage, it's only a matter of time until the court rules in favor of minimally civil unions for all. And once gays have the rights that go along with marriage, it's very difficult to call it something else without it becoming "discrimination."
Discrimination, in case you have not noticed, is not something that's looked upon kindly by our justice system.
As for this ridiculous "slippery slope" you keep arguing about: I really don't see what's wrong with sisters marrying brothers, yada yada yada. I think all that stuff is Biblical taboo. If you are on a morality crusade, bring it to the wife-beaters and the child molesters. Regulate the prostitutes and the drug dealers.
And for what it's worth, the "legal line" you conservative backwards-thinkers have drawn - defining marriage as between a man and a woman - is as arbitrary and ridiculous as anything else out there. I know a gay man from Canada who married a lesbian woman from California to get citizenship. This you call a marriage, but not one between two loving gays or two loving lesbians? Step out of the 1800s and give me a break.
>I really don't see what's wrong with sisters marrying brothers.
At least we have some clarity. So you would fight with me in giving full equality for people to marry as many consentual adults as they please. You are the first supporter of gay marriage that has at least been consistent. As much as the slippery slope argument is uncomfortable for you, it is one that people try to avoid, and its understandable why.
>Discrimination, in case you have not noticed, is not something that's looked upon kindly by our justice system.
Again this is just begging the question. He is not allowed to marry a gay man, right? Well, neither am I.
>If you are on a morality crusade, bring it to the wife-beaters and the child molesters.
It's already brought to them if you haven't noticed.
>I know a gay man from Canada who married a lesbian woman from California to get citizenship. This you call a marriage.
So because some dimwits take advantage of the system...this proves what? And what happens when a gay man marries another gay man for citizenship, will this reduced marriage in your eyes?
>And once gays have the rights that go along with marriage, it's very difficult to call it something else without it becoming "discrimination."
Not unless a Constitution defines those rights in question. No need to respond. I understand your point. That this ammendmant would be discriminatory.
CM says: "As for this ridiculous "slippery slope" you keep arguing about: I really don't see what's wrong with sisters marrying brothers, yada yada yada."
Ha! This is a key statement here. You don't care about marriage as an institution, really. You don't care about normal family relations. This isn't an effort for gay people to gain access to a reputable anchorage of western civilization. 'Gay marriage' is a stunt for the wider interest of undermining normative social relations on a wide scale.
Listen, CM, when the interest groups come to your school and encourage your children to have sex with each other then you'll see what your efforts have won. Hey, I don't know, maybe you'd like that.
Ha! This is a key statement here. You don't care about marriage as an institution, really. You don't care about normal family relations. This isn't an effort for gay people to gain access to a reputable anchorage of western civilization. 'Gay marriage' is a stunt for the wider interest of undermining normative social relations on a wide scale.
I love that word "normative." Means absolutely nothing. Your ideas are trapped in time, a hilarious relic from an age where treatment of women and blacks was also normative and a societal anchor.
Look, it's you and your idiot homophobic pals who have undermined the meaning of marriage in our society. You've reduced it to a structure by which you can discriminate - the last refuge of a bunch of haters and bigots. In doing so, you've not only cheapened marriage to the point where gays and lesbians can marry each other but not themselves - you've also cheapened and damaged out democracy. While you were out gay-bashing and starting wars, other nations were moving ahead of us both politically, socially, academically, and economically.
Your policies in general are the Bush policies, and they have ruined this country. YOU have ruined this country. You've done so much damage to this country, it's amazing you haven't yet taken pause to wonder whether you took us down the right path.
Stumbled across this blog via BH. Anyway, thought I lend my support to OP.
Candy man... in graduate school I had the unfortunate experience of listening to folks like yourself sublimate their youthful anger into any cause that would seem counter to their parent's wishes/hopes. Perhaps you believe you're fighting the good fight, but a quick perusal of this blog would suggest your message is anything but "holy".
By the way, do you have any gay friends? If you do, you'll know that very, very few seek the ideal your fighting for. And if you're honest, you'll admit that marriage is the last thing on their minds. My gay friends are quite honest about their "ideal" relationship.
Put down the Naomi Wolfe and spend time in the gay community. Trust me, the relationships they (gay men) seek are the very thing that God (or in your case, JEP or D) warns us not to do.
Another thing...
Can you back up your ad hominem claim of "gay-basheres" with a quote. I've read all of OP's comments and can't find one.
Candyman is one of those stereotypical radical types that immediately starts with the insults of "haters" when someone disagrees with him and is able to put up a good fight.
Nobody here is a hater. Thats the problem with the left. Everything to them is an issue of hate. He can't understand the nuances of life but just immediately assumes we hate gay people. Its actually an EXCELLENT propaganda and marketing tool that the left uses ALL THE TIME. Another example is they use the race card. Kind of like Sharpton or Jackson. No different than Candyman.
I have a hard time seeing where in fact this country is RUINED. Or, this could more more over dramatic slogans that he uses. The reason this country is not ruined is BECAUSE we can still have these debates. We can still have debates on stem cell. We debates merits of each thing to see how it will affect the future generations. Nobody cheapens democracy here and the fact that we debate shows it.
And you can keep on spouting typical left wing rhetoric as usual, but the fact is, I think your fanatic left has done quite some of its own in bringing down society. Your sexual revolution of the 60's 70's, I believe has had dire consequences to the generations following them.
IMO, you admitted you have no problems with siblings marrying each other. If THAT is not a cheapining of marriage I don't know what is. So you can perhaps argue your ultimate goal of democracy, but don't ever say that others are the one cheapening marriage.
Shawn, glad you chimed in. We're unlikely to see eye-to-eye, but that's OK by me obviously.
Candy man... in graduate school I had the unfortunate experience of listening to folks like yourself sublimate their youthful anger into any cause that would seem counter to their parent's wishes/hopes. Perhaps you believe you're fighting the good fight, but a quick perusal of this blog would suggest your message is anything but "holy".
You're making a mistake if you think I act out of anger. I let go of that stuff a long time ago.
I am somewhat outraged with the way the religious right has screwed up our country, but hey, the country chose that path.
The point is, I am getting my message out. I won't hesitate to call people bigots when I believe that's what their stances are. I think Obama's a bigot when it comes to gay rights, and so are the rest of ya.
By the way, do you have any gay friends? If you do, you'll know that very, very few seek the ideal your fighting for. And if you're honest, you'll admit that marriage is the last thing on their minds. My gay friends are quite honest about their "ideal" relationship... Trust me, the relationships they (gay men) seek are the very thing that God (or in your case, JEP or D) warns us not to do.
I have tons of gay friends. My best friend is a lesbian. I'd say nearly 50% of the people at my workplace are out of the closet. Their relationships are monogamous and no different from the heteros I know.
JEP and D were old fools who approved of raping captives and genocide. They got some things right, but a lot of stuff wrong. Perhaps you are the one who needs to reexamine his sources... and make some gay friends.
IMO, you admitted you have no problems with siblings marrying each other. If THAT is not a cheapining of marriage I don't know what is. So you can perhaps argue your ultimate goal of democracy, but don't ever say that others are the one cheapening marriage.
I think marriage should be about love and family. If two siblings love each other and want to have kids together, it's OK by me. They used to disallow first cousins, too, my friend. And black/white marriage. Where do YOU draw the line?
CM,
"While you were out gay-bashing and starting wars, other nations were moving ahead of us both politically, socially, academically, and economically. Your policies in general are the Bush policies, and they have ruined this country. YOU have ruined this country. You've done so much damage to this country, it's amazing you haven't yet taken pause to wonder whether you took us down the right path."
LOL! Way to stay relevant and on topic. If that wasn't the hysterical swan song of a losing argument I don't know what is.
"I think marriage should be about love and family. If two siblings love each other and want to have kids together, it's OK by me."
Sure, and if a father wants to marry his own daughter, why not? I think civilization is served very well by the idea that first and second degree familial relationships are mandated to be non-sexual. Life would be even more screwed up than it already is if genetic members of the same family went around sleeping with each other.
Thank you for asking
I draw the line at gender. Period. Allowing mix races to marry did nothing to marriage considering races have always inter mixed. As well as cousins.
I don't think anyone here equates homosexuality with pedophilia
"Don't you guys have anything else in you besides "homosexuality = pedophilia = incest"? Weak."
Actually, the stick up my ass has to do with ex-Orthodox types thinking they're doing holy work, when it is so head-slapping obvious they are being triggered by past decisions. This entire blog appears to be a polemic against frum living. And that's fine. But don't insult the intelligence of your readers by claiming what you're doing is anything but "flipping the bird" to your tradition.
Shawn, please. You don't even know that there are two people writing this blog.
If you actually learned something about Judaism, you'd know that OJ is only one voice in a chorus. It's a fundamentalist, old-fashioned form of Judaism, but it's not one I encounter often or think about much (except as it pertains to the fundies on this blog). It's nothing special, and not even particularly traditional, and once you step back from it you'll see it's place within the Jewish puzzle.
Both LNM and I take a certain sense of humor to the whole thing, and try not to take ourselves too seriously. Most of our readers do the same. I think we enjoy the interaction, for the most part.
shawn, when you manage to write a single blog post, you can start criticizing our contribution to Judaism. Until then, you have contributed nothing that I can see. We've got a year's worth of blogs and thousands of comments. Your Judaism pales.
>It's a fundamentalist, old-fashioned form of Judaism, but it's not one I encounter often or think about much.
>It's nothing special, and not even particularly traditional,
You sort of contradicted yourself there.
What I mean is that OJ is old-fashioned in that it takes its moral cues from ancient texts, but not traditional in the sense that it does not take these texts literally.
candyman is there anything which a mainstream East Coast liberal would condone which you would condemn? Just curious.
"OJ is old-fashioned in that it takes its moral cues from ancient texts"
Unlike you who takes them from unquestionable fountains of eternal wisdom like the New York Times.
candyman is there anything which a mainstream East Coast liberal would condone which you would condemn? Just curious.
I don't know about condemning, but there are issues on which I disagree. I think abortion is not a simple matter and should perhaps be outlawed once you get to the point where the fetus is not brain-dead. I believe it's far better to experiment on people than animals, as long as the people give consent. I am not sure we should be allowed to kill animals for food, but I also think we should sneak into the homes of card-carrying terrorists and slit their throats while they sleep in bed next to their wives. I believe that affirmative action is racist unless it's based on economics. I call Barack Obama a bigot on gay rights. I believe the Democratic party made a mistake by turning on Joe Lieberman for saying we should stick it out in Iraq, and that they've paid for it dearly.
I know you have certain unorthodox views as well, e.g. that Bush is a disaster. So perhaps it's not best to pigeonhole. As luke skywalker might say, You'll find I'm full of surprises.
relevant to all the stuff about incest and pedophilia:
A Nadder!
Note that nadder and I toe a similar line on incest.
The thing is candyman, I think you are basically just parroting the opinions of the elite of your surrounding culture, but are trying to make it sound as if you are basing your ethics on some sort of eternal, universal, self evident values.
It might be more honest to admit "I'm just going along with what the elite in my surrounding culture is doing because that's fashionable and therefore easier for me."
You don't care about marriage as an institution, really. You don't care about normal family relations. This isn't an effort for gay people to gain access to a reputable anchorage of western civilization. 'Gay marriage' is a stunt for the wider interest of undermining normative social relations on a wide scale.
Listen, CM, when the interest groups come to your school and encourage your children to have sex with each other then you'll see what your efforts have won. Hey, I don't know, maybe you'd like that.
NO ONE is coming to anyone's school to encourage children to have sex. As a reproductive health counselor for many many years and as a fervent feminist, I always talked about waiting until you are ready to have sex. That having sex is a decision not to be made lightly and with many consequences. However, that being said, if a child does not have all the information available, how on earth is he or she going to respond when confronted with a challenge? When he or she has been coached about making well-thought out decisions and if the decision to have sex is one that they choose, then using protection, is the way to reduce their risk.
You are repeating lines that you heard somewhere. I'm sure, but no health counselor has EVER gone into any school to encourage sex. It is not our mission.
Also, I want to know how you right-wingers are still bringing up male-male pedophilia. Are you not aware of the many studies showing that pedophilia is most common in straight men and most of it occurs within families where no schools or religious institutions have any say?
>Also, I want to know how you right-wingers are still bringing up male-male pedophilia.
Who here was bringing that up?
Faith,
I want to know how you left-winger manage to write a whole post of non sequiturs. There's not even one subject in your post that has relevance to anything I've said.
I agree with Faith. Y'all are trying to equate homosexuality with child molestation/NAMBLA. As she points out, the data don't support this. And OP, you specifically have mentioned your concern about what children are being taught in schools. Faith has some experience in this arena, and is pointing out that there's really nothing to worry about.
wait wait wait wait
Faith and CM
Kindly point out where in these threads someone equated pedophilia or child molestation with homosexuality
Or are you just filtering and reading what you want to read
CM,
"I agree with Faith. Y'all are trying to equate homosexuality with child molestation/NAMBLA."
No I haven't. Read what I wrote again. My point was of progressive acceptance of more and more deviant behavior, not the equation of all types.
"And OP, you specifically have mentioned your concern about what children are being taught in schools."
Again, incorrect. My point was not about "reproductive health counselors" but about special interest groups, the general media and supportive 'clubs' which encourage kids to question their sexuality and experiment sexually.
But whatever, I can't stop you guys from arguing against points I didn't make.
OP, HH, I think you guys are splitting hairs. If you recognize a clear distinction between homosexuality and other behaviors, then you should not argue a slippery slope.
CM,
"OP, HH, I think you guys are splitting hairs. If you recognize a clear distinction between homosexuality and other behaviors, then you should not argue a slippery slope."
That's nonsense.
If you recognize a clear distinction between the right to free speech and the rest of the bill of rights then you should not argue a slippery slope between the encroachment of one on the others.
We both ought to agree that murder and theft are wrong, yes? We both agree they are both distinct, yes? Yet if you have a group of people who are pro-theft, do you think there's no slippery slope towards them one day being pro-murder?
From a legal standpoint, the slippery slope argument dies the moment you can draw a clear distinction. Alan Dershowitz makes this point in Why Terrorism Works.
CM,
"From a legal standpoint, the slippery slope argument dies the moment you can draw a clear distinction. Alan Dershowitz makes this point in Why Terrorism Works."
That's nice. But from a social standpoint it's irrelevant. In America, the law generally reflects the preferences of the people and that changes through social variations, not legal precedent.
OP quoted CM,
"These (gays) are the people Isaiah is talking about."
Right. I'm sure.
You are correct OP, Isaiah wasn’t addressing homosexuality directly but he was addressing the injustice of oppression, or discrimination as CM refers to it, and in the case of gay people there is a lot of antagonism toward this class. If we aren’t going to execute them (I don’t advocate that) then we must provide them a legal standing in the community. Anything in the middle is equivocation and does encourage discrimination.
OP said,
I'm just noting that virtually every post you have about your own supposedly altruistic deeds seem to double as a backhanded bash on traditional Judaism.
It really does come across that way. It is a legitimate question.
CM said,
I think they (laws prohibiting gay relations) should be ripped out of the Torah, and replaced with something that forbids child molestation.
Child molestation is restricted ipso facto by the existing regulations. I am sure you know that every possible infraction is not mentioned in biblical code. But, boundaries were established which clearly define the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Orhopraxy.
CM said,
Good, good. You clearly still harbor some homophobia, but at least you're interacting with gays. Direct interaction is the best way to combat intolerance and bigotry. It's hard to hate someone you care about.
You should realize that the very fact this person feels comfortable coming out to you is a direct result of a gay rights movement that has been gaining momentum since the 1950s.
No offense intended but your arguments are very Limbaugh like.
CM quoted OP's complaint,
"Homophobia" is a handwaving word designed to dismiss people.
This does describe your approach CM. I won’t presume your motive.
FTR, it doesn’t bother me to be referred to as homophobic. I am scared to death of anything I don’t fully understand. People who aren't are at least shallow if not worse. Fortunately I’m not too insecure to be bullied by name calling tactics. I will listen but I must be convinced.
And BTW, OP’s observation that the arguments for gay rights runs parallel to those put forward by NAMBLA is sound. You can argue that there are gay individuals who find NAMBLA ideas repulsive but the gay phenomenon is not easily defined or described. What one gay person does is no measure for all gay people. There is no “gay standard.” “Diverse” is the best way to describe sexual inclinations. To say it runs on a spectrum (OP’s word) is an understatement. We don’t know the extent of sexual variations. That is true of heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.
CM said,
The Supreme Court eventually shot that down, just like it will eventually shoot down your discriminatory position on homosexuality.
The only job of a court, any court, is to uphold the law. The court that runs properly has no opinion as to what is right or wrong. The standard is established in the constitution and their job is to uphold the constitution. They are not expressing opinions about sexual orientation. They determine what the law allows even if what is allowed is not really morally right. “We the people" make the law, the courts uphold it once made. This issue will not be settled by the courts. If gays use the courts the whole thing will come back to bite you. It has.
OP quotes Time Magazine as saying,
"[A]ccording to Columbia University researcher Joyce Hunter, 3% to 10% of U.S. teens now tell pollsters they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or "questioning" their orientation; in the San Francisco Bay Area, the figure is 18%, according to one recent study."
This kind of information raises serious questions. The data cannot be summarily dismissed. I would like to hear your response to this CM (or anyone else wishing to comment).
OP’s question in response to this article is legit…
So does this suggest that there just so happens to be a greater preponderance of gay kids growing up in San Fran, or is there a concerted political effort there to make kids question their sexual orientation?
CM said,
I love that word "normative." Means absolutely nothing.
If "normative" means nothing it also mean everything, even chaos. Are you advocating this?
At some point you’ve got to define normal. As long as you avoid the question you encourage even more phobia. The ball here is in your court. As it stands now you are not asking us to change the rules you are asking us to abolish them. No responsible person would agree to that.
CM said,
Your policies in general are the Bush policies, and they have ruined this country. YOU have ruined this country. You've done so much damage to this country, it's amazing you haven't yet taken pause to wonder whether you took us down the right path.
Prevailing attitudes toward the gay life-style have not ruined this country. The country has run quite well for a couple hundred years entertaining those attitudes. If you want things to change then give us the new rules, exactly.
CM said,
I really don't see what's wrong with sisters marrying brothers, yada yada yada.
Actually, the Bible restriction to sibling marriage was driven by biological (genetic) considerations only. The morality of it was not in question. Abraham married a half sister and if you take the record of Genesis 1 literally (I do) then you have to believe Cain and Abel married sisters. If you don’t take the Bible literally then you still have the problem of figuring out how society was populated without sibling marriage. Your statement has great shock value but provides very little to the discussion. It’s a moot point.
CM said,
I know a gay man from Canada who married a lesbian woman from California to get citizenship.
There are laws against this also. No one is challenging them.
OP said,
This isn't an effort for gay people to gain access to a reputable anchorage of western civilization. 'Gay marriage' is a stunt for the wider interest of undermining normative social relations on a wide scale.
I understand where you are coming from but I’m not sure that is a fair statement. I believe there are very sincere gay people who would like to have legal standing as a “married” couple. Not all gay people have ulterior motives.
Shawn B said,
Candy man... in graduate school I had the unfortunate experience of listening to folks like yourself sublimate their youthful anger into any cause that would seem counter to their parent's wishes/hopes.
In all honesty CM, that is how you often come across. Try to be a bit more Ghandi like and people will reflect more on the issue.
Faith said,
However, that being said, if a child does not have all the information available, how on earth is he or she going to respond when confronted with a challenge? When he or she has been coached about making well-thought out decisions and if the decision to have sex is one that they choose, then using protection, is the way to reduce their risk.
As a parent, I find that statement nightmarish. Sexual matters are not issues our children should be addressing. There is a lot more to life than genitalia. I admit that kids are being inundated with sexual stimuli but there are better ways to deal with it.
I kept my sons (grown men now) exhausted with constructive activities. They had little energy left to do otherwise.
When it came to actual sex education I took full responsibility for their training. I didn’t do all things exactly right but I never caved in to the task.
I spoke about the issues and even gave them books to read. And, I found that one way to curb the mystery and intrigue about sex was to discuss it in the family openly and honestly (not necessarily with full graphics). I never said it was bad but I did say it was great to wait. And they learned to live with that even in the face of the sexual activity around them.
I have thought of some arguments for allowing same sex marriages which you haven't articulated but I won't do your thinking for you.
@ennisp,
"[A]ccording to Columbia University researcher Joyce Hunter, 3% to 10% of U.S. teens now tell pollsters they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or "questioning" their orientation; in the San Francisco Bay Area, the figure is 18%, according to one recent study."
This kind of information raises serious questions. The data cannot be summarily dismissed. I would like to hear your response to this CM (or anyone else wishing to comment).
As a scientist - and I am a PhD - I do not think the data as described are particularly compelling. The individual studies are uncontrolled, and even if they were 10% and 18% aren't that different.
Perhaps more high schoolers in the bay area do identify publicly as gay. So what? The simplest interpretation is not that there's a left-wing conspiracy in the bay area to turn kids gay. I live in the bay area. People feel comfortable being gay here. That's all there is to it.
I do agree with OP that there is a sexuality spectrum. Who doesn't? But it's not a linear spectrum. Most people are not just straight, but very straight. They cannot understand the gay mindset at all, which is why we have homophobia.
Well, that and the fact that it's banned in the big book of Jewish fairy tales.
“We the people" make the law, the courts uphold it once made. This issue will not be settled by the courts. If gays use the courts the whole thing will come back to bite you. It has.
The history of gay rights demonstrates otherwise. The state court decided against the lawmakers in Vermont, and also in California. Furthermore, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the state sodomy laws as unconstitutional.
Democracy is not majority rule. It's about protecting the rights of the individual from the majority.
If you want to get into the legalities of gay marriage, buy and read Michael Mello's book about it. I have.
As it stands now you are not asking us to change the rules you are asking us to abolish them. No responsible person would agree to that.
The rules were clear enough from the CA Supreme Court ruling. The court - which was majority Republican - found that a ban on gay marriage violates fundamental rights. The rules were crystal clear. It is the anti-gay lobby that sought to change the rules via Constitutional Amendment.
"Homophobia" is a handwaving word designed to dismiss people.
This does describe your approach CM. I won’t presume your motive.
Homophobia is an important word, just like "racist." The thing about racism is, almost nobody identifies as a racist. And yet study after study shows that most people do discriminate based on race.
To discuss gay rights without acknowledging the reality and impact of the homophobia factor is simply not realistic. Homophobia is a HUGE factor in the gay rights struggle. It is no less a handwaving word than antisemitism or racism.
If I call someone a homophobe, I do not mean that I think that person walks around hating gays. What I am trying to do is to make people ask themselves, "Is my position subconsciously fueled by a fear of the unknown?" I am bringing latent homophobia into the conversation where it belongs.
I'm just noting that virtually every post you have about your own supposedly altruistic deeds seem to double as a backhanded bash on traditional Judaism.
It really does come across that way. It is a legitimate question.
I think there's an obvious answer. There's no bash on 'traditional' Judaism here. Hell, I quote ISAIAH. If that's not tradition, I don't know what is.
My values are traditional Judaism. As Jesus might say, I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
I will deal with this issue more in the coming year. It is becoming more and more clear to me over time where the confusion lies.
"Democracy is not majority rule. It's about protecting the rights of the individual from the majority."
So how do we decide who rules? How about protecting the rights of the
minority like me who voted for McCain from the majority like you who voted for Obama?
RG, don't worry, the rights of a moderate liberal such as yourself who voted for McCain will still be protected under an Obama administration.
LOL Ok. My view of government ios that the government should help ways people can't. Sometimes that means it's best for it to have hands off policy. In that way I'm moderate.
Post a Comment