Pages
From Maimonides, Laws of Forbidden Relations 21:8 (my translation):
Lesbian relations are forbidden and it is among the “doings of Egypt” that we have been warned about as it is said, “After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do”. The sages said, “What did they do? A man marries a man, and a woman marries a woman, and a woman marries two men.”
What would Maimonides say?
97 comments
1 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, May 13, 2012 1:24:27am |
What would Maimonides say?
Does it matter?
| 2 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, May 13, 2012 1:26:07am |
As a side note:
What did they do? A man marries a man, and a woman marries a woman, and a woman marries two men.
What about a man marrying 2+ women? Surely it's as bad as when "a woman marries two men"?
| 4 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 1:28:50am |
re: #2 May Day! May Day!
Whart about a man marrying 2+ women? Surely it's as bad as when "a woman marries two men"?
According to the Torah that configuration is permitted. Rabeinu Gershom forbid it about 1000 years ago.
| 5 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, May 13, 2012 1:31:12am |
re: #4 Cosmic X
According to the Torah that configuration is permitted.
But what's the difference? Can you explain it rationally?
Rabeinu Gershom forbid it about 1000 years ago.
I've been told it pertains to Ashkenazim only.
| 6 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 1:35:16am |
re: #5 May Day! May Day!
But what's the difference? Can you explain it rationally?
It could be that the difference is that you know who the father of the child is.
I've been told it pertains to Ashkenazim only.
Well, I know that the Yemenite Jews could take more than one wife before they came to Israel. In practice, taking more than one wife was rare even from the times of the Talmud. (Sorry can't bring a source for that).
| 7 |
freetoken Sun, May 13, 2012 1:36:42am |
What would Maimonides say?
Maimonides is 900 years behind the times.
| 8 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, May 13, 2012 1:40:13am |
re: #6 Cosmic X
It could be that the difference is that you know who the father of the child is.
Good point, if true, and renders the prohibition moot in modern times. Also, you did not bring up the moral argument, so aside from practicalities, I assume biandry is not morally worse than bigamy, right?
| 9 |
(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Sun, May 13, 2012 1:40:38am |
re: #6 Cosmic X
It could be that the difference is that you know who the father of the child is.
In an age of parental testing by DNA tests, that should hardly be an issue anymore.
| 11 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 1:45:46am |
re: #7 freetoken
Maimonides is 900 years behind the times.
That was the entire idea of the post. One could look at gay marriage as a regression to a much more primitive state.
| 12 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 1:47:02am |
re: #8 May Day! May Day!
Also, you did not bring up the moral argument, so aside from practicalities, I assume biandry is not morally worse than bigamy, right?
In my book, anything against the Torah is inherently immoral.
| 13 |
Kragar Sun, May 13, 2012 1:51:01am |
re: #11 Cosmic X
That was the entire idea of the post. One could look at gay marriage as a regression to a much more primitive state.
Culturally, Europe regressed after the fall of the Roman Empire for several centuries, yet after time, it flourished again.
In a cyclical view, it could very well be that so called "traditional marriage" is the regressive thinking.
| 14 |
(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Sun, May 13, 2012 1:52:40am |
re: #12 Cosmic X
This is why religion is inherently unphilosophical: specific assumptions and prejudices are neccessary.
| 15 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, May 13, 2012 1:54:19am |
re: #11 Cosmic X
That was the entire idea of the post. One could look at gay marriage as a regression to a much more primitive state.
Earlier != worse.
| 16 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 1:55:21am |
re: #13 Kragar
Culturally, Europe regressed after the fall of the Roman Empire for several centuries, yet after time, it flourished again.
I think that one of the historians attributed the decline of the Roman Empire to moral decay. It could be that Europe is getting ready for another dive.
| 17 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 1:57:48am |
re: #14 Unlike Some People
This is why religion is inherently unphilosophical: specific assumptions and prejudices are neccessary.
Well, some things are the way they are by definition. If I am looking for morality, I look in the Torah. It is the measuring stick of whether something is moral or not.
| 18 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, May 13, 2012 2:00:31am |
re: #12 Cosmic X
In my book, anything against the Torah is inherently immoral.
I don't know what you're trying to prove then. Clearly you have very different axioms than most people at LGF, and we can't prove anything to each other. Maybe your post was aimed specifically at religious Jews here, inviting them to explain the contradiction between their stance and that of traditional Judaism (I'm using a vague term here). However I don't think you will hear anything much different from what, say, Christians who support SSM despite the Biblical prohibitions might say.
| 19 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 2:00:39am |
re: #15 May Day! May Day!
Earlier is not necessarily worse, and "modern" is not necessarily better.
| 20 |
(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Sun, May 13, 2012 2:00:48am |
re: #17 Cosmic X
Well, some things are the way they are by definition.
Which begs the question of who defined and how and why.
If I am looking for morality, I look in the Torah. It is the measuring stick of whether something is moral or not.
The torah is a measuring stick for whether something is moral or not. The measuring stick is ethics as a field of inquiry.
| 21 |
Kragar Sun, May 13, 2012 2:01:57am |
re: #16 Cosmic X
I think that one of the historians attributed the decline of the Roman Empire to moral decay. It could be that Europe is getting ready for another dive.
Moral decay as the reason the Roman Empire fell? Not the various military breakdown of the provinces along tribal/national lines, economic issues or the rise of the Byzantine Empire with its focus on the Eastern provinces instead of Europe?
OK, you're an idiot.
| 22 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 2:04:24am |
re: #18 May Day! May Day!
I don't know what you're trying to prove then. Clearly you have very different axioms than most people at LGF, and we can't prove anything to each other.
Agreed. It's refreshing to read something different though, isn't it?
| 23 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, May 13, 2012 2:08:02am |
re: #22 Cosmic X
Agreed. It's refreshing to read something different though, isn't it?
"Refreshing" has positive connotations I would not ascribe to these debates, but it's amusing in a way. BBL.
| 24 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 2:11:01am |
re: #21 Kragar
Moral decay as the reason the Roman Empire fell? Not the various military breakdown of the provinces along tribal/national lines, economic issues or the rise of the Byzantine Empire with its focus on the Eastern provinces instead of Europe?
Apparently the source of that "moral decay" notion is Edward Gibbon
OK, you're an idiot.
Sticks and stones...
| 25 |
Kragar Sun, May 13, 2012 2:17:46am |
re: #24 Cosmic X
Apparently the source of that "moral decay" notion is Edward Gibbon
Sticks and stones...
You do realize that Gibbons argued it was the embracing of Christianity and its tenets which caused the collapse of the Empire?
| 26 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 4:03:44am |
re: #25 Kragar
I have to admit that I did not read his book. The link I provided listed both moral decay ("loss of civic virtue") and the "comparitive pacifism" of Christianity:
According to Gibbon, the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual loss of civic virtue among its citizens.[3] They had become weak, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire. Romans, he believed, had become effeminate, unwilling to live a tougher, "manly" military lifestyle. He further blames the degeneracy of the Roman army and the Praetorian guards. In addition, Gibbon argued that Christianity created a belief that a better life existed after death, which fostered an indifference to the present among Roman citizens, thus sapping their desire to sacrifice for the Empire. He also believed its comparative pacifism tended to hamper the traditional Roman martial spirit.
| 27 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 4:12:04am |
re: #20 Unlike Some People
The torah is a measuring stick for whether something is moral or not. The measuring stick is ethics as a field of inquiry.
BTW, I just found that Maimonides is in Wikipedia's List of ethicists, for what it is worth. The list includes people who were far from ethical, IMHO.
| 28 |
Kragar Sun, May 13, 2012 4:13:33am |
re: #26 Cosmic X
I have to admit that I did not read his book. The link I provided listed both moral decay ("loss of civic virtue") and the "comparitive pacifism" of Christianity:
You're equating civic virtue with morality. They're not the same at all. Civic virtue in this context simply means doing ones duty as a citizen thru participation. Gibbon's theory was that Christian morality undermined these civic virtues.
Using Gibbon's context, the vigorous debate and attempts to bring this about legislatively points to a high degree of civic virtue, completely the opposite of the point you were attempting to make.
| 29 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 4:17:46am |
re: #28 Kragar
Point well taken. He is not referring to the moral decay of permissiveness in the sexual realm.
| 30 |
Romantic Heretic Sun, May 13, 2012 4:29:39am |
re: #16 Cosmic X
I think that one of the historians attributed the decline of the Roman Empire to moral decay. It could be that Europe is getting ready for another dive.
The Roman Empire fell for the same reason any nation or empire fell. The people charged with the responsibility of the welfare of the society couldn't be fucking bothered any more. Their personal welfare was more important than that of society.
'Morals', that is sexual norms, had nothing to do with it.
| 31 |
(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Sun, May 13, 2012 5:27:27am |
re: #27 Cosmic X
BTW, I just found that Maimonides is in Wikipedia's List of ethicists, for what it is worth. The list includes people who were far from ethical, IMHO.
If a doctor tells you that you have to stop smoking, do you dismiss his advice because he is smoking himself?
| 32 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, May 13, 2012 5:56:24am |
re: #27 Cosmic X
BTW, I just found that Maimonides is in Wikipedia's List of ethicists, for what it is worth. The list includes people who were far from ethical, IMHO.
Again, define the point you're arguing. Is it merely that it's immoral? Granted, it is, from your POV. Or do you take it further and say that a secular state should base law on Maimonides?
If so, I'm sure you know that Maimonides ruled the Trinitarian Christianity to be forbidden for non-Jews on account of it being idolatrous. Should the secular state take this into account and forbid practice of Christianity?
| 33 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 6:05:39am |
re: #31 Unlike Some People
True, a geometry teacher does not have to be a triangle.
However, for those of us where Torah and ethics are inseparable, if the rabbi is not an example of what he is teaching, we seek to learn from somebody else. This we learn from the following verse:
"For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. "(Malachi 2:7 )
The word for "messenger" in Hebrew also means "angel".
The rabbis said (Chagigah 15) that if your rabbi is similar to an angel, learn Torah from him. If he is not, Don't learn Torah from him.
| 34 |
Obdicut Sun, May 13, 2012 6:08:45am |
re: #33 Cosmic X
I don't know any rabbis that are good wrestlers, therefore none of them should be listened to.
Are you just a parody account?
| 35 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, May 13, 2012 6:12:40am |
re: #34 Obdicut
I don't know any rabbis that are good wrestlers, therefore none of them should be listened to.
!
;)
| 36 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 6:16:21am |
re: #32 May Day! May Day!
If so, I'm sure you know that Maimonides ruled the Trinitarian Christianity to be forbidden for non-Jews on account of it being idolatrous. Should the secular state take this into account and forbid practice of Christianity?
We have not reached the ideal stage of "For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve Him with one consent.(Zephaniah 3:9)"
| 38 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, May 13, 2012 6:19:43am |
re: #36 Cosmic X
We have not reached the ideal stage of "For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve Him with one consent.(Zephaniah 3:9)"
Therefore, what objections can you have to the secular state changing its secular rules? ;)
| 39 |
shutdown Sun, May 13, 2012 6:19:52am |
Rambam would disapprove. However, the context of the contemporary marriage equality discussion is 21st century America, and the constitution has been established to enable a moral society to allow all people to live free and equal within the boundaries of a legal framework agreed by all participants. Religious constraints, absent an overall social contract imperative, are not to be applied. A civil right to be applied equally, which demonstrably hurts no one and benefits many, should not be subject to review by religious authorities, dead or alive. Every man and woman may bear the spiritual consequences of their decisions individually, or within their faith community.
| 40 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 6:24:18am |
re: #38 May Day! May Day!
Therefore, what objections can you have to the secular state changing its secular rules? ;)
If someone has bad breath, should they eat garlic? I see this as a step in the wrong direction.
| 41 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, May 13, 2012 6:25:54am |
re: #40 Cosmic X
If someone has bad breath, should they eat garlic?
It's up to them to decide. Garlic is healthy food ;)
| 42 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 6:26:07am |
re: #39 Ascher
A right to be applied equally, which demonstrably hurts no one and benefits many, should not be subject to review by religious authorities, dead or alive.
I believe that gay marriage will harm America.
| 43 |
shutdown Sun, May 13, 2012 6:30:54am |
re: #42 Cosmic X
I believe that gay marriage will harm America.
My daughter believes she saw a UFO in the neighbour's back yard. Objective, rational thought modelling of this statement allows me to arrive at the conclusion that this is highly unlikely and bordering on impossible. Similarly, I cannot subscribe to a belief, no matter how fervently held or based in religious dogma, that granting equal civil status to same-sex couples can harm the Republic.
| 45 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, May 13, 2012 6:33:40am |
re: #42 Cosmic X
I believe that gay marriage will harm America.
Nothing about that in the Maimonides quote, at least directly. So either it is irrelevant to your argument, or it isn't, but then you also should call for forbidding all breaking of the Noachide laws (in Maimonides' interpretation) to be consistent, for surely it will cause harm to America for the same reasons? As of now you seem to be unwilling to be fully consistent for the sake of convenience.
| 46 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 7:33:39am |
re: #44 Obdicut
Describe how it will harm America.
It is an additional step in America's moral decline.
| 47 |
Decatur Deb Sun, May 13, 2012 7:37:51am |
Let's take America back. Back to the morality of Dred Scott, Wounded Knee, and Bull Connor. My morality is not putz-centric.
| 48 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 7:39:00am |
re: #45 May Day! May Day!
Nothing about that in the Maimonides quote, at least directly. So either it is irrelevant to your argument, or it isn't, but then you also should call for forbidding all breaking of the Noachide laws (in Maimonides' interpretation) to be consistent, for surely it will cause harm to America for the same reasons? As of now you seem to be unwilling to be fully consistent for the sake of convenience.
I was just arguing according to Ascher's reasoning, not my own. I would be happy if all Noachide laws were kept. I know that this is not something that is at hand. I would just like to hope that things will not get worse, i.e. the guy with bad breath eating garlic.
P.S. I am impressed with your knowledge of Maimonides.
| 49 |
jamesfirecat Sun, May 13, 2012 7:39:00am |
re: #46 Cosmic X
re: #46 Cosmic X
It is an additional step in America's moral decline.
Do you feel the same way about the fact that we eat sea food, wear clothing made of different types of fabric blended together rotate crops, and eat pork? Because correct me if I am worng but how does your holy book feel about all of the above?
| 50 |
Gus Sun, May 13, 2012 7:39:48am |
re: #47 Decatur Deb
Let's take America back. Back to the morality of Dred Scott, Wounded Knee, and Bull Connor. My morality is not putz-centric.
Yes. It's so sad this moral decline from slavery, Jim Crow laws, women's voting rights, slums, child labor, and so on. This moral decline caused by gay marriage haz me with sads.
| 51 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 7:39:59am |
re: #49 jamesfirecat
All those things are okay unless you are a Jew.
| 53 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 7:41:24am |
re: #52 Dark_Falcon
I am member here in good standing since 2006.
| 54 |
jamesfirecat Sun, May 13, 2012 7:41:36am |
re: #51 Cosmic X
All those things are okay unless you are a Jew.
Why can gay marriage be okay unless you are a Jew?
| 55 |
William Barnett-Lewis Sun, May 13, 2012 7:41:59am |
The present world's understanding of homosexuality is different from what they had in the days when the Torah was written. This leads to side issues such as the fact that there is no prohibition on female homosexuality in it, only against male conduct. I'd suggest that looking at Deut 17:8-9 might allow a way past this to an understanding congruent with the modern world. To be certain, this issue would seem to me to qualify as too difficult for all people to agree on and thus qualify as something subject to an understanding of the judges of today.
| 56 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 7:42:35am |
re: #54 jamesfirecatHomosexual relations are forbidden to Noachides also.
| 57 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 7:44:34am |
re: #55 William Barnett-Lewis
You missed the Maimonides on top
Lesbian relations are forbidden and it is among the “doings of Egypt” that we have been warned about as it is said, “After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do”.
| 58 |
jamesfirecat Sun, May 13, 2012 7:45:10am |
re: #56 Cosmic X
Homosexual relations are forbidden to Noachides also.
I do not get it, why are some things seen as sinful by Jewish holy law meant to be for Jews only and others okay to force everyone to live by? What other Jewish sins do you feel need to be projected onto society in general, or is homosexuality the only one?
Also just for reference is there anything in your book about marrying first cousins?
| 60 |
Cosmic X Sun, May 13, 2012 7:47:35am |
re: #58 jamesfirecat
Google the seven Noachide laws for an explanation.
I have to go now.
Shalom y'all!
| 61 |
jamesfirecat Sun, May 13, 2012 7:48:20am |
re: #60 Cosmic X
Google the seven Noachide laws for an explanation.
I have to go now.
Shalom y'all!
You put forward an argument, support it! Also, are the jews the only religion that gets to have some of their morality turned into the laws of the land or can anyone get in on that game?
| 62 |
Sionainn Sun, May 13, 2012 7:52:39am |
re: #12 Cosmic X
In my book, anything against the Torah is inherently immoral.
It's your right to think that. I personally find it nonsense and it shouldn't be used to base our laws on. If you find it immoral, don't do it. Leave other people alone.
| 63 |
Sionainn Sun, May 13, 2012 7:54:28am |
re: #17 Cosmic X
Well, some things are the way they are by definition. If I am looking for morality, I look in the Torah. It is the measuring stick of whether something is moral or not.
I use my own brain to determine the morality of something. If it goes out of its way to hurt or repress someone based on bigotry, that's immoral.
| 64 |
William Barnett-Lewis Sun, May 13, 2012 7:54:29am |
Maimonides, while one of the greatest of commentators and teachers, was not the author of the Torah. His understanding of Torah is conditioned by the circumstances of his time and those who came before him. Now we are in a different time and our understanding is conditioned by that and all those, including him, who came before us.
| 65 |
Iwouldprefernotto Sun, May 13, 2012 7:56:12am |
Everyone knows that Rome fell because they raised taxes on the job creators.
| 66 |
Sionainn Sun, May 13, 2012 7:59:58am |
re: #42 Cosmic X
I believe that gay marriage will harm America.
Do tell...exactly how it would harm America. Please be specific.
| 67 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, May 13, 2012 8:02:31am |
re: #48 Cosmic X
I would be happy if all Noachide laws were kept. I know that this is not something that is at hand. I would just like to hope that things will not get worse, i.e. the guy with bad breath eating garlic.
Yeah, I get that. But I also see it as pouncing on the weakest link (LGBT) because you know that it is still socially "somewhat acceptable". It is certainly harder to argue against forbidding idolatry, when your def of it includes the dominant religion.
Anyway, I notice that Maimonides relies on unnamed sages to claim that these were Egyptian customs. But is this factually true? I haven't seen any actual evidence the Egyptians had those customs. And without that the ruling falls apart, don't you think?
| 68 |
Sionainn Sun, May 13, 2012 8:09:37am |
re: #60 Cosmic X
Google the seven Noachide laws for an explanation.
I have to go now.
Shalom y'all!
I just googled the Noahide laws and looked at the specifics. What a load of crap. Death penalty for homosexual men, but not for lesbians (who are still being immoral, but I guess not immoral enough for death). How in the world can any thinking person look at these rules and say, "Hell, yeah, let's all live by these rules." No, thank you.
| 69 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, May 13, 2012 8:18:21am |
re: #64 William Barnett-Lewis
Maimonides, while one of the greatest of commentators and teachers, was not the author of the Torah. His understanding of Torah is conditioned by the circumstances of his time and those who came before him. Now we are in a different time and our understanding is conditioned by that and all those, including him, who came before us.
Of the Torah and of the world around him. He was one of the brilliant minds of his age, but he was still a 12th century man.
| 70 |
William Barnett-Lewis Sun, May 13, 2012 8:34:33am |
re: #69 May Day! May Day!
Of the Torah and of the world around him. He was one of the brilliant minds of his age, but he was still a 12th century man.
Exactly. I respect his teachings but he was not the only commentator nor was he the final teacher.
| 71 |
shutdown Sun, May 13, 2012 8:46:17am |
re: #48 Cosmic X
I was just arguing according to Ascher's reasoning, not my own. I would be happy if all Noachide laws were kept. I know that this is not something that is at hand. I would just like to hope that things will not get worse, i.e. the guy with bad breath eating garlic.
P.S. I am impressed with your knowledge of Maimonides.
You aren't though, not really. My reasoning is that a debate about civil law and equality under that law takes place in the absence of religious commentary. Stripped of religious freight, this is a discussion about whether a certain set of citizens are entitled to the same rights and access as any other set of citizens. Your views on "moral decay" are irrelevant in this context - religious morality carries no valid weight when we are determining the civil rights of individuals subject to the rule of law, where the division of Church and State has been established. There is no valid objective argument to withhold rights and access from homosexuals.
| 72 |
Obdicut Sun, May 13, 2012 8:53:53am |
re: #48 Cosmic X
I was just arguing according to Ascher's reasoning, not my own. I would be happy if all Noachide laws were kept.
Wait, why the fuck would you want those laws followed by non-Jews?
Do you think the Torah is God's instructions for how everyone on earth should act-- you think everyone on earth should convert to Judaism?
| 73 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, May 13, 2012 9:01:14am |
re: #72 Obdicut
Wait, why the fuck would you want those laws followed by non-Jews?
Do you think the Torah is God's instructions for how everyone on earth should act-- you think everyone on earth should convert to Judaism?
Noachide laws are designed for non-Jews. There's actually an curious movement of Noachides - mostly ex-Christians who adopted the Judaic worldview but do not wish to convert.
| 74 |
William Barnett-Lewis Sun, May 13, 2012 9:11:36am |
I've read of them. I get the impression it's the turtleneck most of them don't want to deal with.
I find it more interesting to read and study this as an adjunct to my Christianity. The Pirke Avot has been particularly helpful in this respect.
| 75 |
Kronocide Sun, May 13, 2012 9:11:38am |
re: #11 Cosmic X
That was the entire idea of the post. One could look at gay marriage as a regression to a much more primitive state.
The opposition to gay marriage and adherence to things written in 1000 year old books is a much more primitive state.
| 76 |
Romantic Heretic Sun, May 13, 2012 10:02:27am |
re: #40 Cosmic X
If someone has bad breath, should they eat garlic? I see this as a step in the wrong direction.
Fine. Get over yourself. If you don't like gay marriage don't marry your gay partner.
Otherwise, mind your own damned business.
| 77 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, May 13, 2012 10:55:34am |
re: #4 Cosmic X
According to the Torah that configuration is permitted. Rabeinu Gershom forbid it about 1000 years ago.
Only to Ashkenazim.
| 78 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, May 13, 2012 11:03:43am |
The Rambam also considered Christianity to be Avodah Zarah, but we're not going to pass laws against that.
Why? Because, I say as an American, the First Amendement gives up freedom of worship, and as a Jew, because the Torah was given to us, that we should follow it, and not so that we could impose it on other citizens of a democracy.
Your passage indicates nothing, except that the Rambam believed Jews should not follow the custom from Egypt. As someone once told me, 'we don't posek by Maimonides', and in matters of the law of the United States, we surely don't.
However, this system leaves you free to observe Torah, so you've got nothing to complain about.
Shavua tov.
| 79 |
Lidane Sun, May 13, 2012 11:14:21am |
re: #11 Cosmic X
That was the entire idea of the post. One could look at gay marriage as a regression to a much more primitive state.
One could also look at your idiotic ravings here as the statements of a much more primitive mind.
Thanks, but no. I'd rather live in the 21st Century than listen to someone who's been dead for 900 years.
| 80 |
researchok Sun, May 13, 2012 11:37:50am |
Marriage is a social contract.
Social contracts are important because they promote societal stability. Anything that supports societal stability is a good thing. In many ways, marriages are beneficial to society.
For religious adherents, secular/state marriages are not recognized as sacred- and virtually all religions have ceremonies that confer that sacred status. The term Holy Matrimony is used to distinguish secular marriage from religiously sanctioned marriages.
Religious institutions are free to decide whether or not they will join gays in sacred unions or not. They cannot be forced to do so against their will. In the same way atheists are free to reject religious doctrine, religious believers are free to adhere to whatever beliefs they hold sacred.
No one is talking about forcing any kind of doctrine or agenda on any faith.
Consider this- it isn't as if religious adherents of any faith consider a state recognized marriage as the equivalent of a religious union. Most faiths would argue that union to be state sponsored only, with no sacred significance.
Again- marriage is a compact that provides for societal stability. Anything that does that is a good thing.
No one is asking or demanding a religious standing for state sponsored marriages.
No one.
This whole argument against what is a secular matter and is in no way religious, is absurd.
| 81 |
(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Sun, May 13, 2012 11:47:09am |
Why the Torah? Why not the Koran? Or the New Testament? Or the Book of Mormon? Or the Bhagavad Gita? Or the Pāli Canon?
| 82 |
Sheila Broflovski Sun, May 13, 2012 12:29:46pm |
The Torah can prohibit one particular sex act, and yet Ethics of the Fathers can say of two men, "they had a perfect love which was not dependent upon any other thing"
| 83 |
goddamnedfrank Sun, May 13, 2012 12:52:23pm |
re: #56 Cosmic X
Homosexual relations are forbidden to Noachides also.
As is eating raw oyster on the half shell, as they're still alive at the point of consumption.
This isn't a religious state, you should keep your religious dictates out of it and argue on the basis of actual, demonstrable, intrinsic harm.
| 84 |
jytdog Sun, May 13, 2012 12:54:13pm |
The original post assumes (a) that morals/ethics progress linearly and we can backslide or progress along that line; and (b) texts written hundreds of years ago have authority over us today. I don't buy either assumption.
| 85 |
Obdicut Sun, May 13, 2012 1:21:41pm |
re: #73 May Day! May Day!
Noachide laws are designed for non-Jews. There's actually an curious movement of Noachides - mostly ex-Christians who adopted the Judaic worldview but do not wish to convert.
Huh. I oddly did not know that. That's disappointing.
| 86 |
thecommodore Sun, May 13, 2012 1:40:01pm |
re: #11 Cosmic X
One could look at gay marriage as a regression to a much more primitive state.
That one person would be a bigot.
| 87 |
goddamnedfrank Sun, May 13, 2012 1:50:21pm |
Other foods prohibited under Noachide law include stone crab claws and bull testicles. I'm curious what the logic is for the government to be policing things like this, consensual sex or idol worship at all, let alone placing them in the same category of offense as murder and theft.
| 88 |
Varek Raith Sun, May 13, 2012 2:51:18pm |
What would Maimonides say?
Varek says, "Who gives a shit?"
| 90 |
Bob Levin Sun, May 13, 2012 3:44:11pm |
Cosmic,
Now could you try to answer my questions from the other day? I really think that you are misreading quite a few texts.
| 91 |
Michael McBacon Sun, May 13, 2012 4:22:16pm |
re: #89 Lidane
A friend of mine on Facebook shared this. Brilliant, isn't it?
| 92 |
Charles Johnson Sun, May 13, 2012 5:29:18pm |
Very impressive negative rating on this Page!
| 93 |
Genshed Sun, May 13, 2012 6:30:37pm |
Curious. This reminds me, just last night I was out to dinner with my husband. We had just polished off the salumi and pate platter, he was drinking his wine and I my Manhattan, when I mentioned, "you know, spouse, we just ate pork, drank alcohol AND we're married to each other. Are there ANY major tenets of Islam we've overlooked?"
Nice to know there are loons of other faiths we can annoy. And Cosmic X - the practice of coming in, flying around shitting and squawking, then flying out, has a name. It's called seagulling, and people who wish to be taken seriously tend not to do it.
| 94 |
What, me worry? Sun, May 13, 2012 7:01:07pm |
Rambam is my favorite of the scholars, but I don't agree with his thoughts on marriage, particularly women. He felt strongly that a woman should be completely submissive to her husband, fear him, intuit his desires, follow his commands and a husband could beat her lightly. Um... yea... He regarded woman, children and fools to have the same intellectual capacity.
What seems as pretty messed up (it is) should also be seen in context of his time. Women were largely unskilled and rarely worked outside the home in the ancient world. They raised children, kept a home and tended to their husband's needs. This was the norm for 1000s of years. Judaism actually was pretty forward thinking and Maimonides agreed that a woman could get a divorce if she was unhappy. If she was widowed, she and her children could take over her deceased husband's business if she was able. A practice that was not allowed in other ancient societies.
He also accepted "levirate marriage" - a widow marrying her brother-in-law to keep continuity of the family and give a woman and her orphaned children a place to go. Otherwise they would starve and lose their land/inheritance.
That's polygamy and also existed for a very long time. So for you to say there was no polygamy is simply wrong.
Did you actually read any of the Rambam, or are you just internet mining quotes? I'm wondering...
As with polygamy, lesbianism is also not mentioned AT ALL in the Torah, but the Rambam prohibits it.
In short, if we go by the way the Rambam believes relations should be, then you would also agree that women should be treated as property, who only live to satisfy her husband, take care of his home and own little for herself. And would be obligated to marry your brother in case of your death.
And if she needs a good stick across the backside, well that's just fine too.
O_o
Now certainly you may believe that, but it's gonna be a hard sell out here in the real world of working women. Even in Israel. We have evolved. The world has evolved. We continue to evolve.
I feel strongly I can love and honor Maimonides' words and skip over this part. At least, that's what I do.
Gays are still entitled to the same legal protections and laws as the rest of society.
And I'd love to hear Bob's comments on the subject.
| 96 |
Sheila Broflovski Sun, May 13, 2012 7:14:29pm |
re: #94 What, me worry?
Rambam also gave a lot of medical advice (he was a physician, after all!) much of which has been proven incorrect, but which was accurate according to the scientific knowledge at that time.
Rambam acknowledged that if there was a contradiction between Torah and science, then either Torah was misunderstood or science was not correctly understood. If the science was established and proven correct, then go back and study Torah because you are not understanding it correctly!
| 97 |
What, me worry? Sun, May 13, 2012 7:19:43pm |
re: #96 Learned Mother of Zion
Rambam also gave a lot of medical advice (he was a physician, after all!) much of which has been proven incorrect, but which was accurate according to the scientific knowledge at that time.
Rambam acknowledged that if there was a contradiction between Torah and science, then either Torah was misunderstood or science was not correctly understood. If the science was established and proven correct, then go back and study Torah because you are not understanding it correctly!
I agree and why I find him so forward thinking for his time on matters of science.
I often wonder what he would feel today and if he would be part of the more Modern Orthodox movement today.
[Link: www.jcpa.org...]
Gateway Pundit, Sued by Election Workers, Declares BankruptcyA onetime favorite, now just pathetic figure around these parts, Jim Hoft aka SMOTI ("Stupidest Man On The Internet"), has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in response to the defamation lawsuits filed against him to the same election workers that ...
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... CheechakoJoe Bacon ✅
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
