Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Very nice piece this morning in the Wall Street Journal: an orthodox rabbi's perspective on homosexuality. Unfortunately it's behind the subscriber wall but if you can get your hands on a copy, take a look. I don't agree that homosexuality offends God (if it did, he wouldn't let them write all the good show tunes) but I love the rabbi's classically Jewish sweetness and compassion, his willingness to negotiate with God to try to get the Big Guy to see things from our perspective a little. I was also taken aback by the idea - which he ascribes to Pat Robertson and other evangelicals - that homosexuality is "the greatest threat to marriage and the family." Comes as a surprise to me. Frankly, the greatest threat to my shockingly blissful marriage has always been heterosexuality - namely mine and its indiscriminate attractions. Am I missing something here?
- Comment (93)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Wow! What a shamelessly honest and self effacing comment. You should be ashamed!
Aug '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Maybe they are concerned with the issues involving the second generation of gays.
Well, maybe not .
New Homelanders in the mail !! Yeah !
Aug '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
No.
You've just publicly admitted what just about every guy that I've known would admit in private -- even the pious and good. Or perhaps especially the pious and good, since a big reason they stay pious and good is because they recognize the power that temptation has and they steel themselves beforehand to resist it.
It's undoubtedly something I'll have to admit to myself one day, too, when the right distraction from my husband comes along, and I actually have to work at resisting this temptation myself.
Edited on Oct 15, 2010 at 4:42pmJul '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Homosexuality is the greatest threat to marriage and families? That's sheer lunacy. Any of us could think of twenty other factors that represent a greater threat, starting with a government that taxes marriage and subsidizes illegitimacy.
It's way, way past time that this society end the gay wars, which are based on a few verses from the Old Testament and an irrational belief that the relationship of a couple of guys in Vermont poses a mortal threat to my marriage in California.
What particularly ticks me off is that, over the decades, tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of gay people have served and sometimes died in military service to this country and yet we dishonor them as somehow not deserving of our gratitude.
Aug '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
If we put on a certain set of blinders, it's more accurate to say the threat is excessive sensuality, and homosexuality "opens up more options" for that to ruin a marriage. QED.
(Around St Augustine's time we were supposed to conquer that sensual impulse through godly living and thus set an example for all mankind... but I suppose invoking a higher calling than mere earthly concerns is quaint, trite, or passé now.)
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Kenneth:
It's way, way past time that this society end the gay wars, which are based on a few verses from the Old Testament and an irrational belief that the relationship of a couple of guys in Vermont poses a mortal threat to my marriage in California.
Just to offer some time of balance here, I think a lot of people of faith -- myself included -- really struggle with the issue of homosexuality because it isn't just a few verses from the OT. It's also discussed in a condemnatory manner in the New Testament. As a Christian, my approach is to treat people with love and respect even if I disapprove of their actions. But what policies should I advocate on a local, state, and national level when it comes to homosexual marriage or DADT or gay adoption, etc? This is something I really have a hard time with.
Aug '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Diane Ellis, Ed.
But what policies should I advocate on a local, state, and national level when it comes to homosexual marriage or DADT or gay adoption, etc? This is something I really have a hard time with.
How about this: that when there must be policies regarding such matters, that they be kept at as local a level of government as is possible.
The way I see it, morality is like charity -- or rather, upholding morality is a form of caritas. Christians increasingly acknowledge that, for spiritual as well as practical reasons, charity is better taken care of locally. Subsidiarity and all that. Why not take the same line with moral issues?
The military, of course, is a national, rather than state, organ to begin with. But why shouldn't various subsets of the Armed Services have the freedom to work out policies regarding this matter on their own? After all, with the admission of women into the military, the problem of amorous attachment interfering with unit cohesion or combat missions must be addressed one way or another, gays or no gays.
Edited on Oct 15, 2010 at 4:44pmJul '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Diane Ellis, Ed.
. As a Christian, my approach is to treat people with love and respect even if I disapprove of their actions. But what policies should I advocate on a local, state, and national level when it comes to homosexual marriage or DADT or gay adoption, etc? This is something I really have a hard time with. · Oct 15 at 11:06am
I think you just answered you own question. Treat gays with the same love and respect you offer to anyone else. Acknowledge that as human beings, they have the same rights - to marriage, military service or adoption - that you have.
Don't forget, Diane, it wasn't too long ago that you - as a single woman - could not serve in the military or adopt a child. And it wasn't so long ago that black citizens couldn't marry across racial lines or serve side-by-side in the same military units as whites.
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Kenneth
Diane Ellis, Ed.
. As a Christian, my approach is to treat people with love and respect even if I disapprove of their actions. But what policies should I advocate on a local, state, and national level when it comes to homosexual marriage or DADT or gay adoption, etc? This is something I really have a hard time with. · Oct 15 at 11:06am
I think you just answered you own question. Treat gays with the same love and respect you offer to anyone else. Acknowledge that as human beings, they have the same rights - to marriage, military service or adoption - that you have.
Oct 15 at 11:22am
I must disagree. There's no "right" to do any of those things. Marriage, military service, and adoption are creatures of the state, and the state gets to define them. And in defining them, the state can (and I think should) reach different conclusions. Western civilization has never defined warfare as a heterosexual institution. Marriage is different story, Judge Vaughn Walker notwithstanding.
Oct '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
I think we should come from the stance of live and let live. I personally have no interest in someone’s sexuality; however I find that the civil union should be sufficient. I believe marriage is a religious sacrament that the state has involved itself in. If you want to be married then I think that should be performed in a church and under the rules of that church. Anything other than that should be a civil union. I think someone’s eternal life is judged on more than sexuality (I would hope), however that is ultimately up to God. As a Christian I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, however I do feel that the Civil Union is an appropriate option for homosexuals whose legality is up to the voters in individual districts and states.
Jul '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Adam Freedman
Kenneth
Diane Ellis, Ed.
. As a Christian, my approach is to treat people with love and respect even if I disapprove of their actions. But what policies should I advocate on a local, state, and national level when it comes to homosexual marriage or DADT or gay adoption, etc? This is something I really have a hard time with. · Oct 15 at 11:06am
I think you just answered you own question. Treat gays with the same love and respect you offer to anyone else. Acknowledge that as human beings, they have the same rights - to marriage, military service or adoption - that you have.
Oct 15 at 11:22am
I must disagree. There's no "right" to do any of those things. Marriage, military service, and adoption are creatures of the state, and the state gets to define them. And in defining them, the state can (and I think should) reach different conclusions. Western civilization has never defined warfare as a heterosexual institution. Marriage is different story, Judge Vaughn Walker notwithstanding. · Oct 15 at 11:33am
So discrimination is just fine with you, right?
Jul '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Another thought for Diane:
On three occasions, my life has been saved by Emergency Medical Technicians and emergency-room medical staff.
I wasn't in any condition to ask them if any of them were gay, but given that this happened in New York and the San Francisco area, the odds were pretty good.
Somehow, it never occured to me, upon awakening in intensive care, to tell those folks, "Well, thanks for that. But, by the way, if any of you happens to be gay, don't for a minute think that you're entitled to the same rights I am."
May '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Adam Freedman
I must disagree. There's no "right" to do any of those things. Marriage, military service, and adoption are creatures of the state, and the state gets to define them. And in defining them, the state can (and I think should) reach different conclusions. Western civilization has never defined warfare as a heterosexual institution. Marriage is different story, Judge Vaughn Walker notwithstanding. · Oct 15 at 11:33am
As long as Adam you stipulate that the "state" in our Republic consists of the will of the people as expressed through their direct votes and/or elected representatives, then I think you and Kenneth agree and we don't need to have another 200-post stream on gay marriage (please, please oh please).
Jul '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Trace Urdan
then I think you and Kenneth agree and we don't need to have another 200-post stream on gay marriage (please, please oh please). · Oct 15 at 11:51am
I hear that Christine O'Donnell and Condoleeza Rice are engaged....
Sep '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
I'm not itching for a guest contributor gig or anything like that, but it would be nice if one of our commenters was able to generate a substantive post synthesizing a live discussion into a post which could then be commented on. Sometimes, even with the most contentious topics, a read of the comments reveals a larger article waiting to be written.
Just a thought.
Jul '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
You first have to ask yourself the question: What is marriage, properly defined, for?
After you have answered that question, then perhaps you can see why homosexuality is a threat to that institution.
Jul '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Pseudodionysius: I'm not itching for a guest contributor gig or anything like that, but it would be nice if one of our commenters was able to generate a substantive post synthesizing a live discussion into a post which could then be commented on. Sometimes, even with the most contentious topics, a read of the comments reveals a larger article waiting to be written.
Just a thought. · Oct 15 at 11:58am
They're working on that.
Jul '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Michael Tee: You first have to ask yourself the question: What is marriage, properly defined, for?
After you have answered that question, then perhaps you can see why homosexuality is a threat to that institution. · Oct 15 at 12:02pm
According to your insinuation, a man and a woman beyond child-bearing age should be forbidden to marry.
Aug '10
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Yarr... Diane asked about what policies should be like in general. Gay marriage is only one particular, as important a particular as it may be.
Have mercy on poor Trace here.
I'll set the example by returning to speculation on what sort of indiscriminate heterosexual attractions Andrew means...
Mmm... interesting images...
Re: Jews! Gays! Jews and Gays!
Trace Urdan
Adam Freedman
I must disagree. There's no "right" to do any of those things. Marriage, military service, and adoption are creatures of the state, and the state gets to define them. And in defining them, the state can (and I think should) reach different conclusions. Western civilization has never defined warfare as a heterosexual institution. Marriage is different story, Judge Vaughn Walker notwithstanding. · Oct 15 at 11:33am
As long as Adam you stipulate that the "state" in our Republic consists of the will of the people as expressed through their direct votes and/or elected representatives, then I think you and Kenneth agree and we don't need to have another 200-post stream on gay marriage (please, please oh please). · Oct 15 at 11:51am
Trace: absolutely, if the state wants to define "marriage" to include gay marriage, I have no legal objection. But I also maintain that there is no objection to a state defining marriage as a heterosexual union. To Kenneth's question: the government engages in "discrimination" all the time: people under 16 can't drive, women and the handicapped can't go into combat, etc. The problem is unjust discrimination.