God vs Gay? Judaism and Homosexuality
Save
Copy
Add to Collection
Export to Google Docs
Share(כא) וּמִֽזַּרְעֲךָ֥ לֹא־תִתֵּ֖ן לְהַעֲבִ֣יר לַמֹּ֑לֶךְ וְלֹ֧א תְחַלֵּ֛ל אֶת־שֵׁ֥ם אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ אֲנִ֥י ה' (כב) וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃ (כג) וּבְכָל־בְּהֵמָ֛ה לֹא־תִתֵּ֥ן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ֖ לְטָמְאָה־בָ֑הּ וְאִשָּׁ֗ה לֹֽא־תַעֲמֹ֞ד לִפְנֵ֧י בְהֵמָ֛ה לְרִבְעָ֖הּ תֶּ֥בֶל הֽוּא׃
(21) And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to to give them over to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am Adonai. (22) And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman, it is a "to'evah" (abomination) (23) And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto; it is perversion.
(יג) וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה תּוֹעֵבָ֥ה עָשׂ֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם מ֥וֹת יוּמָ֖תוּ דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם׃
(13) And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination (to'evah): they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
What does the word "to'evah" (abomination) mean?
- Joseph invites his brothers to dine with him, and we are told that the Egyptians do not eat with the Hebrews because doing so is toevah.
- Idolatry, sexual offenses, magical practices, and food prohibitions are all described as toevah.
- One traditional Jewish commentary defines toevah as an acronym for “that which leads one astray.”
- Scholarly definitions: something that offends the accepted order, ritual or moral (Steve Greenberg Wrestling with God & Men) or the violation of a socially constructed boundary (Saul Olyan “And With A Male”)
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION:
- What are these texts talking about?
- Is it surprising to you that these texts come from the Torah? Why?
- Why do you think this is relevant-what could be the concern(s) behind the prohibition?
- What exactly do you think is prohibited here? Are these texts referring to men or to women? (Rashi, the great medieval Jewish commentator, explains “He inserts like an applicator into a tube of cosmetics”)
- What do you think is meant by abomination?
- What do you think was upsetting about this act?
- Is there a tension between what you feel is morally and ethically right and what these texts say or are they in line with your ethics and morals?
(יח) וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ ה' אֱלֹהִ֔ים לֹא־ט֛וֹב הֱי֥וֹת הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְבַדּ֑וֹ אֶֽעֱשֶׂהּ־לּ֥וֹ עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃
(18) And the LORD God said: ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.’
ת"ש גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה [את] לא תעשה שבתורה ואמאי לימא אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ה' תרגמה רב בר שבא קמיה דרב כהנא בלאו (דברים יז, יא) דלא תסור אחיכו עליה לאו דלא תסור דאורייתא היא אמר רב כהנא גברא רבה אמר מילתא לא תחיכו עליה כל מילי דרבנן אסמכינהו על לאו דלא תסור ומשום כבודו שרו רבנן
Come and learn: So great is human dignity that it supersedes a negative commandment of the Torah. And why? Don’t we say, “there is no wisdom, nor comprehension nor counsel against the Lord”? (Proverbs 21:30) Rav bar Sheba interpreted it thus before Rav Kahana: “[this principle applies only] to the negative commandment of ‘do not stray’” (Deut. 17:11). They [i.e., his colleagues] laughed at him, saying, “‘Do not stray’ is itself from the Torah!” But Rav Kahana said to them, “When a great man states a matter, do not laugh at it. For all of the words of the Sages are supported by the negative commandment of ‘do not stray,’ but for his dignity, the Rabbis permitted him [to ignore their ruling].”
(ט) וּבָאתָ֗ אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִים֙ הַלְוִיִּ֔ם וְאֶל־הַשֹּׁפֵ֔ט אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם וְדָרַשְׁתָּ֙ וְהִגִּ֣ידוּ לְךָ֔ אֵ֖ת דְּבַ֥ר הַמִּשְׁפָּֽט׃
(9) And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment.
Rabbi Steve Greenberg - An Openly Gay Orthodox Rabbi
“The verse (in Leviticus) prohibits the kind of sex between men that is designed to effect the power and mastery of the penetrator. Sex for the conquest, for shoring up the ego, for self-aggrandizement, or worse, for the perverse pleasure of demeaning another man is prohibited, as a law against sexual domination and appropriation." and he adds that reading Leviticus 18:22 “as a law against sexual domination and appropriation offers gay people a way to reconnect to God, Torah, and the Jewish people... It’s a radical reading, but if you believe that God hates what you are, why would you go to such a temple? The very verse that was for centuries read as requiring the ongoing demotion of women through the marking of intercourse as humiliation and thus femininity as degraded could be read as a full-fledged critique of the male dominated social hierarchy! The only way to redeem intercourse from its inevitable dominations is to press for gender equality on the deepest of emotional planes, to work formally toward ending the gender hierarchy, and to heal the ugly misogyny at its foundation.” (Wrestling with God and Men received the 2005 Koret Jewish Book Award for Philosophy and Thought, considered one of the highest honors for authors writing prose on Jewish themes)
“The verse (in Leviticus) prohibits the kind of sex between men that is designed to effect the power and mastery of the penetrator. Sex for the conquest, for shoring up the ego, for self-aggrandizement, or worse, for the perverse pleasure of demeaning another man is prohibited, as a law against sexual domination and appropriation." and he adds that reading Leviticus 18:22 “as a law against sexual domination and appropriation offers gay people a way to reconnect to God, Torah, and the Jewish people... It’s a radical reading, but if you believe that God hates what you are, why would you go to such a temple? The very verse that was for centuries read as requiring the ongoing demotion of women through the marking of intercourse as humiliation and thus femininity as degraded could be read as a full-fledged critique of the male dominated social hierarchy! The only way to redeem intercourse from its inevitable dominations is to press for gender equality on the deepest of emotional planes, to work formally toward ending the gender hierarchy, and to heal the ugly misogyny at its foundation.” (Wrestling with God and Men received the 2005 Koret Jewish Book Award for Philosophy and Thought, considered one of the highest honors for authors writing prose on Jewish themes)
Rabbi Seth Farber
My own approach to the matter is that the Orthodox community should adopt the stance of “oh'ness rach'mana pah'trei” – The Merciful One overlooks what is out of a person’s control... urges are controlled by the calming factor of knowing there is an alternative outlet. Unlike heterosexuals, gay Orthodox Jews have no halakhically acceptable outlet for the vital human need for intimate partnership, and never will... The oh-ness derives from the cumulative weight of the totality of the moments of a person’s life, an absolutely crushing weight in this case.
Psychologically, gay Orthodox Jews are faced with one of two options: either be sexually active and fragment this transgression from their conscious minds, or be celibate and live with the knowledge that they will never experience a real intimate relationship. I firmly believe that the latter is not really a livable option for most adults, but a debilitating and life-crushing prospect. Advocating for it is an exercise in futility.
My own approach to the matter is that the Orthodox community should adopt the stance of “oh'ness rach'mana pah'trei” – The Merciful One overlooks what is out of a person’s control... urges are controlled by the calming factor of knowing there is an alternative outlet. Unlike heterosexuals, gay Orthodox Jews have no halakhically acceptable outlet for the vital human need for intimate partnership, and never will... The oh-ness derives from the cumulative weight of the totality of the moments of a person’s life, an absolutely crushing weight in this case.
Psychologically, gay Orthodox Jews are faced with one of two options: either be sexually active and fragment this transgression from their conscious minds, or be celibate and live with the knowledge that they will never experience a real intimate relationship. I firmly believe that the latter is not really a livable option for most adults, but a debilitating and life-crushing prospect. Advocating for it is an exercise in futility.
Rabbi Norman Lamm (former Chancellor of Yeshiva University)
All laws are repressive to some extent -they repress illegal activities- and all morality is concerned with changing man and improving him and his society. Homosexuality imposes on one an intolerable burden of differentness, of absurdity, and of loneliness, but the Biblical commandment outlawing pederasty cannot be put aside solely on the basis of sympathy for the victim of these feelings.
All laws are repressive to some extent -they repress illegal activities- and all morality is concerned with changing man and improving him and his society. Homosexuality imposes on one an intolerable burden of differentness, of absurdity, and of loneliness, but the Biblical commandment outlawing pederasty cannot be put aside solely on the basis of sympathy for the victim of these feelings.
"In December 2006 the Conservative Movement’s Law Committee voted to accept two contradictory teshuvot (positions) on homosexuality in halakhah: one reaffirming the status quo, and one affirming change. The result of the vote is that rabbis, synagogues, and other Conservative institutions may choose to continue to not permit commitment ceremonies and not hire openly gay or lesbian rabbis and cantors, or may choose to do so. Both positions are considered valid." http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/homosexuality-in-jewish-thought/2/
Conservative Movement's Responsa on Homosexuality (Dorff, Nevins, Reisner)
Fifty years ago our committee was similarly occupied by the subject of agunot, women who had been abandoned by their husbands but who were considered “chained” to them by the law. Then too, critics warned that the creative halakhic solutions fashioned by the CJLS would be the undoing of halakhah but, in fact, this has emerged as one of the finest hours of modern rabbinic leadership. Our predecessors applied classical halakhic principles in new ways in order to free women from this legal quandary. Dor dor v’doroshav—each generation demands its own interpretations of Jewish law. As the Torah says, “When a matter shall arise that confounds you…you shall go and inquire of the judge who shall be in that day, and they will tell you the law.” (Deut. 17:9) For the CJLS to avoid this issue or to declare that nothing can be done for homosexuals who wish to observe the halakhah would be to abandon the Torah’s mandate. Indeed, were we unable to find compelling guidance in the halakhah for the sexual lives of our contemporary Jews, including those who are gay and lesbian, that would be a terrible defeat for our religious mission.
Fifty years ago our committee was similarly occupied by the subject of agunot, women who had been abandoned by their husbands but who were considered “chained” to them by the law. Then too, critics warned that the creative halakhic solutions fashioned by the CJLS would be the undoing of halakhah but, in fact, this has emerged as one of the finest hours of modern rabbinic leadership. Our predecessors applied classical halakhic principles in new ways in order to free women from this legal quandary. Dor dor v’doroshav—each generation demands its own interpretations of Jewish law. As the Torah says, “When a matter shall arise that confounds you…you shall go and inquire of the judge who shall be in that day, and they will tell you the law.” (Deut. 17:9) For the CJLS to avoid this issue or to declare that nothing can be done for homosexuals who wish to observe the halakhah would be to abandon the Torah’s mandate. Indeed, were we unable to find compelling guidance in the halakhah for the sexual lives of our contemporary Jews, including those who are gay and lesbian, that would be a terrible defeat for our religious mission.
Conservative Movement's Responsa on Homosexuality (Dorff, Nevins, Reisner)
Based upon our study of halakhic precedents regarding both sexual norms and human dignity, we reach the following conclusions:
1. The explicit biblical ban on anal sex between men remains in effect. Gay men are instructed to refrain from anal sex.
2. Heterosexual marriage between two Jews remains the halakhic ideal. For homosexuals who are incapable of maintaining a heterosexual relationship, the rabbinic prohibitions that have been associated with other gay and lesbian intimate acts are superseded based upon the Talmudic principle of kvod habriot, our obligation to preserve the human dignity of all people.
3. This ruling effectively normalizes the status of gay and lesbian Jews in the Jewish community. Extending the 1992 CJLS consensus statement, gay and lesbian Jews are to be welcomed into our synagogues and other institutions as full members with no restrictions. Furthermore, gay or lesbian Jews who demonstrate the depth of Jewish commitment, knowledge, faith and desire to serve as rabbis, cantors and educators shall be welcomed to apply to our professional schools and associations.
4. We are not prepared at this juncture to rule upon the halakhic status of gay and lesbian relationships. To do so would require establishing an entirely new institution in Jewish law that treats not only the ceremonies and legal instruments appropriate for creating homosexual unions but also the norms for the dissolution of such unions. This responsum does not provide kiddushin for same-sex couples. Nonetheless, we consider stable, committed, Jewish relationships to be as necessary and beneficial for homosexuals and their families as they are for heterosexuals. Promiscuity is not acceptable for either homosexual or heterosexual relationships.
Based upon our study of halakhic precedents regarding both sexual norms and human dignity, we reach the following conclusions:
1. The explicit biblical ban on anal sex between men remains in effect. Gay men are instructed to refrain from anal sex.
2. Heterosexual marriage between two Jews remains the halakhic ideal. For homosexuals who are incapable of maintaining a heterosexual relationship, the rabbinic prohibitions that have been associated with other gay and lesbian intimate acts are superseded based upon the Talmudic principle of kvod habriot, our obligation to preserve the human dignity of all people.
3. This ruling effectively normalizes the status of gay and lesbian Jews in the Jewish community. Extending the 1992 CJLS consensus statement, gay and lesbian Jews are to be welcomed into our synagogues and other institutions as full members with no restrictions. Furthermore, gay or lesbian Jews who demonstrate the depth of Jewish commitment, knowledge, faith and desire to serve as rabbis, cantors and educators shall be welcomed to apply to our professional schools and associations.
4. We are not prepared at this juncture to rule upon the halakhic status of gay and lesbian relationships. To do so would require establishing an entirely new institution in Jewish law that treats not only the ceremonies and legal instruments appropriate for creating homosexual unions but also the norms for the dissolution of such unions. This responsum does not provide kiddushin for same-sex couples. Nonetheless, we consider stable, committed, Jewish relationships to be as necessary and beneficial for homosexuals and their families as they are for heterosexuals. Promiscuity is not acceptable for either homosexual or heterosexual relationships.
Maimonides (Based on a midrash from sifra)
(ח) נשים המסוללות זו בזו אסור וממעשה מצרים הוא שהוזהרנו עליו שנאמר כמעשה ארץ מצרים לא תעשו אמרו חכמים מה היו עושים איש נושא איש ואשה נושא אשה ואשה נשאת לשני אנשים אע"פ שמעשה זה אסור אין מלקין עליו שאין לו לאו מיוחד והרי אין שם ביאה כלל לפיכך אין נאסרות לכהונה משום זנות ולא תיאסר אשה על בעלה בזה שאין כאן זנות וראוי להכותן מכת מרדות הואיל ועשו איסור ויש לאיש להקפיד על אשתו מדבר זה ומונע הנשים הידועות בכך מלהכנס לה ומלצאת היא אליהן.
Women who rub one against the other—this is forbidden. It is among the acts of Egypt against which we were warned, for it says [Leviticus 18:3]: “You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt.” The Sages said [Sifra, Aharei Mot, parsheta 9:8]: “What is it that they would do? A man would marry a man, a woman marry a woman, or a woman marry two men.” Even though this practice is prohibited, one does not receive lashes, for there is no specific biblical prohibition and it is not called ‘intercourse’ at all. Therefore, they are not prohibited [from marrying] into the priesthood on account of prostitution and a woman is not prohibited to her husband on account of this... But it is appropriate to give them [rabbinic] lashes for rebelliousness, since they have done a prohibited thing...
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Shuts Down Gay Marriage Opponents
While the majority of the Supreme Court justices were divided in Tuesday’s hearing on the constitutionality of gay marriage, one judge stood out from the rest, as she often does. Amid contentious arguments over history, biology, and interpretation of the Constitution, Ruth Bader Ginsburg supported equal marriage rights by eloquently shutting down the opponents with arguments that even seemed to inspire the more conservative justices… The SCOTUS’s decision, which is expected in June, could make gay marriage a constitutional right in all states, a landmark decision for the gay rights movement and America. In order to reach that outcome, at least five justices will have to agree that marriage is a civil right that should be granted to all individuals, and in order to come to agreement the ones who favor equality will have to cut through the arguments against it.
Tradition Needs To Be Challenged
One of the main arguments of the day was over tradition and whether the Supreme Court had the right to challenge such a long one as the institution of marriage. To this, Ginsburg brought up a fitting example of when the court has done so in the past, a decision that is hardly disputable today.
Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this court’s decision in 1982 when Louisiana’s Head and Master Rule was struck down. Would that be a choice that state should [still] be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?
Head and Master laws were a set of property laws in the U.S. that gave the husband the final authority in all household decisions on the basis that the husband’s role was to provide for the family and the wife’s was to keep house, rear children, and provide sex.
Marriage Is Not Synonymous With Procreation
John Bursch, the lawyer representing the states that want to keep their gay marriage bans, tried to argue that the sole purpose of marriage was to support procreation. “The state doesn’t have an interest in love and emotion at all,” he even went so far as to claim, coming off somewhat cold and mechanic. “It’s about binding children to their biological moms and dads.” Ginsburg deftly shot that one down too.
Suppose a couple, 70-year-old couple, comes in and they want to get married? You don’t have to ask them any questions. You know they are not going to have any children.
Marriage Equality Does Not Harm The Institution
Bursch also tried to assert that gay marriage would be detrimental to the institution of marriage in general. Not so, Ginsburg responded.
All of the incentives, all of the benefits that marriage affords would still be available. So you’re not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/79730-ruth-bader-ginsburg-shuts-down-gay-marriage-opponents-with-these-3-perfect-rebuttals
While the majority of the Supreme Court justices were divided in Tuesday’s hearing on the constitutionality of gay marriage, one judge stood out from the rest, as she often does. Amid contentious arguments over history, biology, and interpretation of the Constitution, Ruth Bader Ginsburg supported equal marriage rights by eloquently shutting down the opponents with arguments that even seemed to inspire the more conservative justices… The SCOTUS’s decision, which is expected in June, could make gay marriage a constitutional right in all states, a landmark decision for the gay rights movement and America. In order to reach that outcome, at least five justices will have to agree that marriage is a civil right that should be granted to all individuals, and in order to come to agreement the ones who favor equality will have to cut through the arguments against it.
Tradition Needs To Be Challenged
One of the main arguments of the day was over tradition and whether the Supreme Court had the right to challenge such a long one as the institution of marriage. To this, Ginsburg brought up a fitting example of when the court has done so in the past, a decision that is hardly disputable today.
Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this court’s decision in 1982 when Louisiana’s Head and Master Rule was struck down. Would that be a choice that state should [still] be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?
Head and Master laws were a set of property laws in the U.S. that gave the husband the final authority in all household decisions on the basis that the husband’s role was to provide for the family and the wife’s was to keep house, rear children, and provide sex.
Marriage Is Not Synonymous With Procreation
John Bursch, the lawyer representing the states that want to keep their gay marriage bans, tried to argue that the sole purpose of marriage was to support procreation. “The state doesn’t have an interest in love and emotion at all,” he even went so far as to claim, coming off somewhat cold and mechanic. “It’s about binding children to their biological moms and dads.” Ginsburg deftly shot that one down too.
Suppose a couple, 70-year-old couple, comes in and they want to get married? You don’t have to ask them any questions. You know they are not going to have any children.
Marriage Equality Does Not Harm The Institution
Bursch also tried to assert that gay marriage would be detrimental to the institution of marriage in general. Not so, Ginsburg responded.
All of the incentives, all of the benefits that marriage affords would still be available. So you’re not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/79730-ruth-bader-ginsburg-shuts-down-gay-marriage-opponents-with-these-3-perfect-rebuttals
Dear Aaron
When I saw your post headline , I thought my goodness, he calls himself an Orthodox Rabbi ( I realize you posted what some other Rabbi had written) and he can be an advocate for homosexual " rights and same sex marriage?!!
I cannot fathom using those last 3 words together and I won"t use them again. You and I both know, and be honest, with yourself Aaron, you and I both know they don't go together. And they never will, regardless of what society says and even if 15 or all 50 States approve. So What ? Your rabbi friend says we must do what do what is right, not what is popular. Come on, in light of what he is saying that doesn,t make sense . Who determines what is right or wrong? I certainly don't and you don't either, but God does. No Rabbi or Minister or Priest or any human being can. We need guidance, Aaron. What was The Bible written for ? Isn't the foundation of Judaism and Christianity based upon (originally) the Written Word of God? The whole history of the Jewish People is based upon the Hebrew Scriptures and even the new Testament, whether people want to acknowledge that or not.
Sorry, Aaron, I got off on this, but ever since I saw that post, I have thought deeply about convictions that I have that are so much a part of me, and I struggle with articulating them to others without Offending them. I believe that certain behavior is Wrong period. One of my best friend's husband left her for another woman. He apparently thinks there there is nothing wrong with continuing his life "taking care " of his children" and his wife and yet live with another woman. Is he a completely terrible man who has no good in him at all? No. Do I call him names and look at him as less than a human being, because he did some thing Wrong. Because he "sinned"? No. And there is such a thing as sin. The Bible makes that clear. I laugh at the thought of people who don"'t even look at the Bible and live their lives as if their isn't a God, yet they say that we should take homosexuality off the list of sins in the Bible. Why not take stealing, and lying and adultery off? If these People don 't believe in the Bible, why try to justify themselves by rewriting it? No one can obviously keep all 613 Mitzvot, but there are certain universal moral laws which are binding on all humans, not just Jews or Goyim. And I Believe looking at the world around us we can see the consequences of violating these laws in the cost of broken human relationships.
My apologies for going on like I did, but it something that's on my heart. I believe there can be no other foundation for our conduct of life than the authority of the Word of God. Take care, Aaron. Blessings to Valerie and your children.
Sincerely, Chaya
When I saw your post headline , I thought my goodness, he calls himself an Orthodox Rabbi ( I realize you posted what some other Rabbi had written) and he can be an advocate for homosexual " rights and same sex marriage?!!
I cannot fathom using those last 3 words together and I won"t use them again. You and I both know, and be honest, with yourself Aaron, you and I both know they don't go together. And they never will, regardless of what society says and even if 15 or all 50 States approve. So What ? Your rabbi friend says we must do what do what is right, not what is popular. Come on, in light of what he is saying that doesn,t make sense . Who determines what is right or wrong? I certainly don't and you don't either, but God does. No Rabbi or Minister or Priest or any human being can. We need guidance, Aaron. What was The Bible written for ? Isn't the foundation of Judaism and Christianity based upon (originally) the Written Word of God? The whole history of the Jewish People is based upon the Hebrew Scriptures and even the new Testament, whether people want to acknowledge that or not.
Sorry, Aaron, I got off on this, but ever since I saw that post, I have thought deeply about convictions that I have that are so much a part of me, and I struggle with articulating them to others without Offending them. I believe that certain behavior is Wrong period. One of my best friend's husband left her for another woman. He apparently thinks there there is nothing wrong with continuing his life "taking care " of his children" and his wife and yet live with another woman. Is he a completely terrible man who has no good in him at all? No. Do I call him names and look at him as less than a human being, because he did some thing Wrong. Because he "sinned"? No. And there is such a thing as sin. The Bible makes that clear. I laugh at the thought of people who don"'t even look at the Bible and live their lives as if their isn't a God, yet they say that we should take homosexuality off the list of sins in the Bible. Why not take stealing, and lying and adultery off? If these People don 't believe in the Bible, why try to justify themselves by rewriting it? No one can obviously keep all 613 Mitzvot, but there are certain universal moral laws which are binding on all humans, not just Jews or Goyim. And I Believe looking at the world around us we can see the consequences of violating these laws in the cost of broken human relationships.
My apologies for going on like I did, but it something that's on my heart. I believe there can be no other foundation for our conduct of life than the authority of the Word of God. Take care, Aaron. Blessings to Valerie and your children.
Sincerely, Chaya
Shalom Chaya
Great to hear from you. I have struggled much with this issue and come to the conclusion that each religious community and individual must follow their best understanding of truth as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another. Jews are rarely fighting the US government to change policies for all US citizens even when they might disagree with something. Most Jews just focus on their own community and family. In Israel as well as America it is best that adults who wish to marry, share insurance, finances, inheritance, etc. be allowed to do so civilly, and have the option to hold a religious ceremony in a community that shares their values. Homosexual relationships are not the same as adultery, bestiality, pedephilia, or any other kind of abusive sexual relationship.
The first thing God learns about humans is that, "It is not good for a person to be alone." I have seen many gay couples raising healthy well-adjusted straight children. I am convinced the Torah is not prohibiting a relationship with love, marriage, and children. That did not exist in the Iron Age. The Torah is prohibiting the use of sex to dominate and demean another person. "And to a man, do not lay the lyings of a woman." In biblical times, and in modern day prisons violent men would use penetration to demoralize and dominate another man. To “make a woman out of him” is to remind him of his lowered status, that he must do whatever he wants, whenever. Or as they say in prison, "you're gonna be my b---h!"
It is our job to interpret the Torah in ways that help bring the Messianic Era. I don't claim to know better than God, but I do know suffering and loneliness when I see it. I am not entirely comfortable with this change in society either, but I do believe that we as a species are evolving. Sexuality is a tool that can be used for holiness or to hurt someone. If we are so concerned about sinful sex, then we ought to be focusing on the real problems that are not about homosexuality at all: abuse, rape, incest, shame, divorce rates etc. Of course, I totally respect your approach and I think it is good to disagree for the sake of Heaven.
Blessings to your family
Aaron
Great to hear from you. I have struggled much with this issue and come to the conclusion that each religious community and individual must follow their best understanding of truth as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another. Jews are rarely fighting the US government to change policies for all US citizens even when they might disagree with something. Most Jews just focus on their own community and family. In Israel as well as America it is best that adults who wish to marry, share insurance, finances, inheritance, etc. be allowed to do so civilly, and have the option to hold a religious ceremony in a community that shares their values. Homosexual relationships are not the same as adultery, bestiality, pedephilia, or any other kind of abusive sexual relationship.
The first thing God learns about humans is that, "It is not good for a person to be alone." I have seen many gay couples raising healthy well-adjusted straight children. I am convinced the Torah is not prohibiting a relationship with love, marriage, and children. That did not exist in the Iron Age. The Torah is prohibiting the use of sex to dominate and demean another person. "And to a man, do not lay the lyings of a woman." In biblical times, and in modern day prisons violent men would use penetration to demoralize and dominate another man. To “make a woman out of him” is to remind him of his lowered status, that he must do whatever he wants, whenever. Or as they say in prison, "you're gonna be my b---h!"
It is our job to interpret the Torah in ways that help bring the Messianic Era. I don't claim to know better than God, but I do know suffering and loneliness when I see it. I am not entirely comfortable with this change in society either, but I do believe that we as a species are evolving. Sexuality is a tool that can be used for holiness or to hurt someone. If we are so concerned about sinful sex, then we ought to be focusing on the real problems that are not about homosexuality at all: abuse, rape, incest, shame, divorce rates etc. Of course, I totally respect your approach and I think it is good to disagree for the sake of Heaven.
Blessings to your family
Aaron
