Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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?
Published in General
Mr Kube,
I found your comment at 66 witty and provocative — I even liked it. Moreover, I recall from other conversations that you’re usually an intelligent and thoughtful fellow.
I hope to God you are just baiting us in comment 71, and don’t actually mean what you say.
——————————–
PS: If one of the contributors wishes to start a thread in the near future about the role of Judaism and Christianity in empowering women from their chattel status in primitive times to their equal, or near-equal, status in Western culture today, I’m game to join that conversation. Only, I won’t go into it here. Though I could. I’ve written papers on it. Papers… (Writers will recognize the mention of papers as a threat.)
·Oct 16 at 9:37am
Granted, wicked things have been done in the name of rightousness. That does not mean that the author of rightousness is wicked.
I want to refer back to Andrew’s original post, which points at least three fingers back where they should be. We should spend more time examining our own hearts than laying blame on others.
Exceptions made of course for some adulterers like King David… Lot and his daughters (incest is okay for some?), and genocide of entire enemy tribes.
This is also really a topic for another time.
But for now, perhaps it suffices to say that the Bible is as much a story about Man and his depravity as it is a story about God and His Divinity.
That there’s a lot of depravity in the Bible is really no surprise, therefore.
This is true, we are created equal – equal in dignity and in worth and equally created in the image and likeness of the God. We should distinguish though between equality in dignity and equality of nature. For example, men are biologically barred from having children, does this mean that God, or nature, or the universe is inherently unjust?
Societies have an invested interest in supporting and perpetuating the institutions that enable them to continue. Marriage, as one of those institutions, has been the foundation of human society since human society began. Marriage has been defined as one man and one woman to have and raise children. The healthy raising of children is the purpose of marriage. The vast amount of empirical data show that the healthiest, indeed the best, environment for children to be raised is with a mother and father. If you fundamentally support a foundational change in the most basic building block of society, results will be unpredictable, and very likely destructive.
Of the prominent Jewish composers only Lorenz Hart was gay and some say that that helped lead to his alcoholism and breakup with Richard Rodgers. ·Oct 15 at 3:49pm
You’re forgetting Sondheim, the Mozart of American musical theatre. There’s a surprising number of conservatives in musical theatre (by surprising I mean, more than just me), and a growing number of gay conservatives or at least angry moderates who feel the Democrats betrayed them. Yes, I have had a few gay friends who have stopped speaking to me over the past two years but there’s more who have quietly confessed to starting to share my views. And so far everyone who has been involved with the opera I’m working on about Mrs. Thatcher has become a fan of her–that’s not my work, it’s her.
Homosexual politics is not the cause of civil deterioration, but a symptom and key maker, I think. How did a sex practice become a civil right equivalent to race (whatever that is)?
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.
Just a thought. ·Oct 15 at 11:58am
They’re working on that.
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.
I’ve heard a similar story, too. So much for the myth of the famed tolerant proggie.
Well put, Pat. The problem I have with homosexuals isn’t so much their practices or preferences, as what they expect ME to do with them.
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…
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.
“Frankly, the greatest threat to my shockingly blissful marriage has always been heterosexuality – namely mine and its indiscriminate attractions…”
Well, Andrew, you’re a guy. Of course you want to sleep with every attractive woman you see.
But don’t delude yourself: they’re not dying to sleep with you.
The confusion arises from the fact that the meaning of the word “homosexual” has been broadened to the point of near meaninglessness.
Are we talking about:
Homosexual people?
Homosexual behavior?
Organizations of homosexual advocates?
The political agendas of organizations of homosexuals?
Bisexuals?
Bisexual behavior?
Transsexuals and transgendered people or organizations of the same?
To say “homosexuality is bad/good” means nothing until one has defined one’s terms. One can love the homosexual person but take a bibilical position against homosexual behavior. One can gladly accept a homosexual couple as neighbors but have issues with gay organizations that are lobbying for hate-speech laws. We need to make sure we know what we are talking about or we are just duck-speaking newspeak.
Well, Andrew, you’re a guy. Of course you want to sleep with every attractive woman you see.
But don’t delude yourself: they’re not dying to sleep with you. ·Oct 15 at 12:27pm
Well, most of them aren’t.
For an excellent review of the effects of legalized gay marriage, please see:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
The threat seems to be against marriage generally, especially as a family norm for raising children, not anyone’s particular existing marriage.
. 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. ·Oct 15 at 12:25pm
So you get to define just discrimination as applying to people who happen to have been born with a sexual orientation different than yours?
How is that different than defining just discrimination as applying to people who happen to have been born with a different skin color or a different gender?
Seems to me that your definition of just assumes that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, but then, again, do we deny people the right to marry because they have stupid tattoo’s or body piercings?
Adam said: “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.”
What if the government said Black people can’t marry? Or Catholics can’t marry? Or what if the government said just Adam Feedman can’t get marred?
You can’t recruit help from the equal protection clause. You’ve kicked that back to the other side of the enlightenment already. You’ve replaced Constitutionalism with Athenian Democracy.
The purpose of having a Constitution is to ensure that there are some laws the government can’t pass, even by popular vote.
(And Claire hasn’t had the chance yet to remove anyone from this discussion so it’s not just a matter of Ricochet policy; it’s the people involved.) ·Oct 15 at 1:34pm
Edited on Oct 15 at 02:04 pm
As the raving papist and wannabe Medieval Philosopher disguised as a cat (I couldn’t afford the royalties on a gargoyle avatar) I should point out that when you sincerely believe that someone is acting in a way that is against their own best interests and ultimate happiness, you do not give up on them without a final thought just like you don’t relentlessly badger them: you leave room for them to act as free moral agents and hope that over time, through personal influence, friendship and advice when asked they may choose what ultimately makes them happy. But, ultimately, you do not reduce people to being nothing more than a sexual orientation, and that includes an orientation that you may disagree with.
If you don’t have a WSJ subscription:
http://www.shmuley.com/news/details/my_jewish_perspective_on_homosexuality
·Oct 16 at 9:37am
That’s silly, Tommy.
Let’s assume you’re right that, “(t)here is as much choice in sexual desire as there is choice in skin color – zero.”
Even if true, doesn’t it mean that differences in sexual desire are akin to say, right- or left-handedness rather than “race?”
Orientations aren’t immutable. Straight/Gay differences are ultimately behavioral, “racial” differences aren’t. Pretending that is not so undermines the concept of free will.
Frankly, I couldn’t care less about the sexual proclivities of others. Have at it folks. If you want an endorsement to redefine a basic social institution, though, you need to make a better, broader case.
On rereading my comments #71 above, I behaved rather churlishly towards Good Berean and MFR. I was also off the original topic and rather too sharp in tone. (I guess Claire was swimming the Bosphorus at the time)
Something about the beam in one’s own eye as rightly alluded to by Good Berean is indeed appropriate.
What, Jonathan, do you believe “gay conservatives or at least angry moderates” identify as the matters of betrayal by the Democrats? ·Oct 16 at 1:53am
Let me clarify my phrasing: gay conservatives don’t feel betrayed, just vindicated. We knew he wasn’t going to keep his promises but the President and the Democratic leadership DID promise to dismantle DADT and DOMA, they never specified that could only happen by law (nor even with a filibuster-proof majority could they manage to do so), and they certainly never indicated they would appeal court rulings on either issue, let alone use such appeals to characterize our relationships as on par with incest and polygamy. If you think this administration has done anything for gay rights, you’re colored by partisanship; they haven’t. Nor do I believe they really will, but they’ll be happy to use our concerns as wedge issues.
Midget Faded Rattlesnake, on the opera goes…yes, I’m writing the libretto, the amazing composer is John Andrew Tarbet, and please feel free to find me on Facebook if you’d like to know more; the character limit on here makes this not the best forum :)
As for the radicalness of some gays and the supposed gay agenda…I don’t entirely know who we’re talking about. Ellen is so innocuous she couldn’t bring herself to judge people on American Idol; Dan Savage is a pompous windbag but is doing more for endangered youth than anyone else, so I respect him for that; I’ve been to the NY Pride Parade, it’s about as boring as you can get; ACT UP maybe but that was 20 years ago. We can’t figure out where to have lunch as a group, so pulling off a militant agenda is definitely beyond our capability. Hell, we couldn’t even elect a sincerely gay-friendly president. The more marginalized society makes any group, though, the more marginal that group is likely to behave in order to preserve its cultural sense of self…bringing the thread back to Jews.
Found the aria “My Margaret” online here, if anyone else wants to listen.
As for the radicalness of some gays and the supposed gay agenda…I don’t entirely know who we’re talking about… I’ve been to the NY Pride Parade, it’s about as boring as you can get;
I’m glad to hear the NY Pride Parade is boring. This is a comfort, actually. Because reports I’ve gotten from Pride displays in SF, from either onlookers or participants, have been too unboring — frightening and off-putting, in fact.
I didn’t think there was a “gay agenda”, honestly. Just, as an outsider, I’ve more than once been nonplussed by otherwise decent gay people showing enthusiasm for displays (like some in SF) involving what I could only describe as gross public indecency.
So it’s good for outsiders to know there are boring Pride parades, too. Outsiders, being outsiders, may not know this.
I’m glad to hear the NY Pride Parade is boring. This is a comfort, actually. Because reports I’ve gotten from Pride displays in SF, from either onlookers or participants, have been too unboring — frightening and off-putting, in fact.
You’ll occasionally see bare-breasted women on motorcycles or male porn stars in speedos, and in bars after the parade…you can find a lot of other things, but usually the same things you could find there on non-parade days. In NYC, there’s a LOT of church and temple floats, a lot of politicians, a lot of free condoms, and usually we’re all bored within an hour. The route is right through the Village, so anyone likely to be offended can easily just avoid the neighborhood for that day and keep their virtue intact. The residents of the neighborhood, even the ones with young children, would not be living there if they hadn’t wanted their kids to grow up around this type of culture. There are no lower-income people there, for instance. Those families have money, and made a choice. And seem fine with it.
Something about the beam in one’s own eye as rightly alluded to by Good Berean is indeed appropriate. ·Oct 17 at 7:24am
Thanks, David. I was rather high-horse-y myself at 73 (though I think justifiably — or at least understandably — so).
That we police ourselves and each other as well as we do is one of the things that makes this place so enjoyable. (Where does civility go if we don’t police ourselves?)
Wow, I hadn’t noticed this.
Put aside homosexuality for a moment because it’s a distraction. This is your contention: If one believes that men and women differ in meaningful ways (and is therefore OK with marriage, say, having specifications based on sex), then that person is un-American and akin to a bigot who believes that blacks and whites differ in meaningful ways.
I thought this canard had been put to bed years ago.
Not YET, but that could be the eventual perception if Republicans were to do something truly viable to earn it to contrast the empty promises of the left. I’ve always thought a true family values conservative would see same-sex marriage as right in line with their way of thinking, and also as something the government has no right to restrict. I’m watching and waiting to see if any of the GOP presidential contenders will be willing to take the risk of upsetting Pat Roberston but brutally undermining the Democratic reelection effort by saying, “I’ve reconsidered. I’ve had a change of heart. I believe this is an equality issue” and bring on board millions of disaffected gay voters. And it may stun many but…I have my eye on Palin. As the saying goes, “Only Nixon could go to China.”
What, Jonathan, do you believe “gay conservatives or at least angry moderates” identify as the matters of betrayal by the Democrats? ·Oct 16 at 1:53am
Nor do I believe they [Democrats] really will, but they’ll be happy to use our concerns as wedge issues. ·Oct 16 at 11:23pm
Are winds changing with America’s passage though Obamanism? Whatever those two years were (perhaps a dying paroxysm of gray-pony tailed liberalism), are the Republicans believed to now provide the best hope for securing the fundamental and lasting place for the homosexual movement in the mainstream of American society and political power–perhaps what Ricochet likes to call “center-right,” or others might call libertarian conservatism?