[fancyT]

Hello fancy:

I think it's sinful to point your finger and judge other people. I don't think the Bible says for you to ferret them out and make their lives miserable. Does it?

excon

Like I mentioned in post homosexuallity is no more sinful that any other sin. Without God's grace I am just as much a sinner as a homosexaul so I am not pointing a finger at anyone, we all sinners.

[BABRAM]

God created people who have turned out to be Homosexuals Adulteres liers Cheaters robbers, Drunkards, drug abusers and list goes on. All of the latter are a manifestation of of man's sinful nature. We all have sinned and no sin is better than the other. As Bobby pointed out man has an inclination to evil and that why we need God's grace.

fancyT,

Excuse me if I seem a bit skeptical of being quoted in light of someone that just joined the site yesterday and coincidentally, the Judaism's board recent history with an individual, perhaps the one claimed "aton," that was using the Tertuallian, Soldout, Waterlilly and Melissa handles, scouring other websites for conflicting info to pass time in mostly ignorance. In other words, as moderator Fr_Chuck put it, a "troublemaker." I will, however, address this again.

I'm following your dialogue with Excon, and it appears to me that your view is more in line in that of Christian theology, especially your "grace" comment. In Judaism, our view is that we are not born naturally bad. Please read through the link.



THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

"The Jewish view is that humans are not born naturally good or naturally bad. They have both a good and a bad inclination in them, but they have the free moral will to choose the good and this free moral will can be more powerful than the evil inclination."



Bobby

[fancyT]

fancyT,

Excuse me if I seem a bit skeptical of being quoted in light of someone that just joined the site yesterday and coincidentally, the Judaism's board recent history with an individual, perhaps the one claimed "aton," that was using the Tertuallian, Soldout, Waterlilly and Melissa handles, scouring other websites for conflicting info to pass time in mostly ignorance. In other words, as moderator Fr_Chuck put it, a "troublemaker." I will, however, address this again.

I'm following your dialogue with Excon, and it appears to me that your view is more in line in that of Christian theology, especially your "grace" comment. In Judaism, our view is that we are not born naturally bad. Please read through the link.



THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

"The Jewish view is that humans are not born naturally good or naturally bad. They have both a good and a bad inclination in them, but they have the free moral will to choose the good and this free moral will can be more powerful than the evil inclination."



Bobby

Okay, I was just agreeing with your statement.

[BABRAM]

Okay, i was just agreeing with your statement.

Thanks. Just one more point: the major difference is that in Judaism we view "free will" in a purer aspect, i.e. inclination. Christianity teaches that people are inherently bad, i.e. original sin. In effect Christians reduce their own theology and version of "free will" to being meaningless. They take "choice" out of the equation and that's why coupled with their belief in "Jesus" they have to sale the "grace" mechanism, mostly out of context.



Bobby

[ETWolverine]

There is only one Orthodox Jewish view of homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:22: Do not lie with a male as you would with a woman, since this is a disgusting perversion.

There's not a huge amount of room for interpretation there. There are those who argue that female homosexuality is not specifically forbidden in this verse, since the verse only addresses male homosexuality. Others disagree. But other than that, the text seems pretty cut and dry to me. Male homosexual relations are forbidden in Judaism.

Elliot

[BABRAM]

Leviticus 18:22: Do not lie with a male as you would with a woman, since this is a disgusting perversion.

There's not a huge amount of room for interpretation there. There are those who argue that female homosexuality is not specifically forbidden in this verse, since the verse only addresses male homosexuality. Others disagree. But other than that, the text seems pretty cut and dry to me. Male homosexual relations are forbidden in Judaism.

Elliot- That was my exact point of contention with a Reconstructionist rabbi. I threw that verse at him and he shot back at me like it was a machen a tsimmes. He claimed that the verse only addresses male homosexuality and that G-d didn't specifically forbid women. My reply was that verse did indeed used zakhar but I told him that the Hebrew is implied in some instances, same as we do using English. For example: using the word eesh also is read as enosh depending on context and that being enosh encompasses both male and female. Not only that but the Torah didn't separate forbidden acts for one gender when both genders are capable of the same act. It is a given understanding. BTW this argument took place in the rabbis home and I haven't been back. Actually I wasn't invited back and he used some lame excuse to get me out the door. Something about having to eat, and rest, after his blood pressure skyrocketed. Perhaps he figured out that I'll debate the number of angels on a pinhead given the opportunity.



Bobby

[ETWolverine]

I already know the number of angels on a pinhead. Take the circumferance of the pin head, divide it by the circumferance of angel. And presto: you have the number of angels that fit on a pinhead. The actual math, I leave to the student...

Within the Orthodox community, there actually is some legitimate debate on the subject of female homosexuality. Some feel that the prohibition is on both males and females as you argue. Others argue that the prohibition is specific to men only, and while female homosexuality isn't "right", it is also not specifically prohibited by the verse I quoted above. They also argue that there is a physical difference between male and female homosexuality: for the male, it means the "loss of seed" or ejaculation, whereas for women, there is no loss of seed. Since the "loss of seed" is tantamount to wasting the potential for life, there is specific need to prohibit male homosexuality. Since there is no coresponding waste of potential life in female homosexuality, there is no prohibition. So there is some legitimacy to the argument. The fact that it happens to be the argument being used by a Reconstructionist "Rabbi" doesn't mean that the argument itself isn't legitimate.

Personally, I think that most of those who argue that female homosexuality is not prohibited are just horny guys who like to watch. But this also happens to be an argument being debated by legitimate rabbinical sources under halachic guidelines. For one thing, it is an issue of whether a Jewish marriage can remain in effect if the wife goes outside the marriage for homosexual relations, and is thus an issue of halachic import to Jewish marriage law. The question of the legitimacy or bastardy of a child of such a marriage can effect generations of children to come because of "mamzerut" law.

Elliot

[BABRAM]

Elliot- The Reconstructionist rabbi himself was not a problem, just the subject matter seemed more important. There are some issues I actually agree with their movement concerning, this happens to be one that I do not. However, on the Orthodox front, I assume centrist Orthodoxy, what happens if these legitimate rabbinical sources under the halachic guidelines concluded that there is no prohibition to have a relationship outside a marriage between two women, lesbians? Would this remove the husband's right to obtain a "get?" In other words, now let's look at this with the shoe on the other foot, so to speak. I know this wouldn't be complete abandonment or desertion technically in many situations, since that person may just be in a promiscuous temporary relationship and still comes home to her family. But could the man make a legitimate case for a get since his wife decided to go outside the marriage abandoning their relationship?



Bobby

[BABRAM]

Before I forget, as for the issue of "loss of seed" inference as to male homosexuality that is prohibited, by comparison that for female homosexuality there is no corresponding waste of potential life, therefore no prohibition... I can't agree with that course of reasoning. The loss of potential life was wasted the moment the female optioned for another female. If an affair outside a marriage occurred, I think that point could also be used by the man to be granted the get.



Bobby

[ETWolverine]

Elliot- The Reconstructionist rabbi himself was not a problem, just the subject matter seemed more important. There are some issues I actually agree with their movement concerning, this happens to be one that I do not. However, on the Orthodox front, I assume centrist Orthodoxy, what happens if these legitimate rabbinical sources under the halachic guidelines concluded that there is no prohibition to have a relationship outside a marriage between two women, lesbians? Would this remove the husband's right to obtain a "get?" In other words, now let's look at this with the shoe on the other foot, so to speak. I know this wouldn't be complete abandonment or desertion technically in many situations, since that person may just be in a promiscuous temporary relationship and still comes home to her family. But could the man make a legitimate case for a get since his wife decided to go outside the marriage abandoning their relationship?

No, it does not remove the husband's right to give a "get". However, the part that you are missing is that in cases of proven adultery, the marriage is AUTOMATICALLY over. No Get is necessary in such a case. The marriage is simply over. That is why the issue of mamzerut is such an important one in adultery cases. However, female homosexuality MAY NOT be something that automatically triggers the end of the marriage, and therefore, the adultery issues and the mamzerut issues differ from a case of male homosexual adultery or heterosexual adultery. The halachic status of female homosexuality is thus an important issue with major reprecussions for Jewish marriage law.

Before I forget, as for the issue of "loss of seed" inference as to male homosexuality that is prohibited, by comparison that for female homosexuality there is no corresponding waste of potential life, therefore no prohibition... I can't agree with that course of reasoning. The loss of potential life was wasted the moment the female optioned for another female. If an affair outside a marriage occurred, I think that point could also be used by the man to be granted the get.

You are not alone. There are many who disagree with that reasoning. However, there is no corresponding "loss of an egg" if two women have homosexual relations, compared to the loss of seed in male homosexual relations. True, two women cannot have a child, but there is no loss of an actual potential life though the wasting of an egg. With males, there IS the issue of losing sperm, and each sperm is a potential life that is wasted.

I personally don't know which side of the issue to come down on from the halachic point of view. I'm certainly no authority on these issues. But I'm not prepared to reject either side of this halachic issue as "incorrect".

Elliot

[rosends]

"in cases of proven adultery, the marriage is AUTOMATICALLY over. No Get is necessary in such a case. The marriage is simply over."

Elliot -- if a wife or a husband commits adultery? If the wife does, the husband still has to give a get (in fact, he is required to) and I can't find anything that deals with if the husband has an affair (and I think I know why... )

Can you give me a source which discusses the case of no get, automatic end of the marriage?

[ETWolverine]

Hey Daniel,

My understanding is that in a case of gilui arayot, if the two were to remain married and have children, the children are mamzerim, which tells me that the marriage is no longer a valid marriage. The marriage is AUTOMATICALLY no longer valid, regardless of a get. If that were not the case, there would be no issue of their children being mamzerim. (In effect, the laws ensures that the infidelitous woman can have NEITHER of her men. She can't marry her ex-parte lover, and she is no longer married to her husband.) Furthermore, in such a case, the woman would be chayav misah, wouldn't she? So there's really no need for a get.

Is my understanding incorrect? If so, please let me know. As I said, I'm not an expert, and you are the one with smicha. But this is from my foggy memories of mesechet Gittin, way back when... it might be all the way back to MTA. (Did we do Gittin or Kesubot at MTA? I can't remember. I know I leaned Gittin, but I can't remember when.)

BTW, where do you stand on the halachic implications of female homosexuality? Is female homosexuality specifically prohibitted by Vayikra 18:22? Does female homosexuality by a married woman constitute Gilui Arayot? Is she chayav misah? Are her children from her marriage mamzerim?

Elliot

[rosends]

As for the gitton, I did some Ketubot in MTA but I won't recall specifics. What I have seen is reference to the husband "having" to give her a get and being forbidden to her (though I'm not sure if the nature of the forbidden makes any future kids mamzerim). If she is with another guy without that get, she is still eishes ish and THOSE kids might be mamzerim so in that sense, the marriage, while in one way dissovled is, in another way, still binding.

The issue of female homosexuality (I once heard) was argued by the likes of the rambam who made many of the same arguments we are making here. The issue (HA!) is whether it serves as a 'replacement' for heterosexual sex or not; is it 'better' for a girl, before she gets married, to be with a man or a woman (almost a practice vs. preference argument). Though, I'd still have to say that there are issues of immodesty and lustfulness which are attached also.

The halacha is that female homosexuality is forbidden and here are some sources (taken from an old issue of Halacha and Contemporary Society:

The Sifra states on vayikra 18:2, when discussing "don't do as the non-Jews do"

"I did not say this except for those laws inscribed for them [the Gentiles] their fathers' father. What did they [the Gentiles, as opposed to the Jews] do? Men would marry men, and women would marry women".

Yevamot 76a, Shabbat 65a. Female homosexuality is punished by "makat Mardut" which is a rabbinic and not a biblical punishment, Yad, Issurei Biah21;8, On the other hand male homosexuality is a capital crime as has been indicated.

Spero, M.H "Further Examinations of the Halalchic Status of Homosexuality". Proceedings of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, vol. 7, 1983


This is another discussion with sources
MyJewishLearning.com - Ideas & Belief: Traditional Sources on Female Ho

[ETWolverine]

Excellent!! Thanks, Dan.