Friday, March 11, 2011

Now Here Are Some Real Rabbis

See, nowhere in any religious text does it exempt homosexuals from the biblical mandate of be fruitful and multiply (heterosexually).

These rabbis did not give into the gay/liberal agenda and they came up with a creative solution that seems to be working.

Israeli rabbis launch initiative to marry gay men to lesbian women ?
So far, 11 marriages have been performed, and some were surprising successes.


Now It don't mean the other marriages weren't "surprising successes." I guess when it happens out of matchmaking, it takes time.

Anyways, the gay agenda's suggestion that somebody gay can't enjoy a heterosexual life and must be gay is proven wrong. Being gay is a CHOICE, just like acting or not acting out of any other emotion.

Also, OMG religious liberals are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo disingenuous. The bible calls gay sex an abomination. Don't seem to be much wiggle room around that one for "interpretation." Abomination means, God really don't like it when a dude takes it up the ass. Sure it don't mean driving away people who are gay from faith, but it doesn't mean that the CHOICE to be gay is ok. There are liberal orthodox out there who follow halacha except they don't have the nutsack to refer to gay sex as the abomination that it is. They are in fact conservative jews picking and choosing their halachas.

34 comments:

ksil said...

if you (and other so-called frummies) went after other issurim in the torah as much as this one - you MAYBE would have some credibility, but you (and the others) pick on the gay thing.

someone that breaks shabbos? you invite them over for a shabbos meal!

hypocrite

SJ said...

lol ksil you got me all wrong.

I am not a frummie. Far from it. I am a Jewish Christian. I don't follow with halacha because I disagree with the existence of most of the "oral law."


>> someone that breaks shabbos? you invite them over for a shabbos meal!

People who do that are trying to keep their sect from falling apart, but for them to truly allow their sect to thrive would require some major cultural changes that the orthodox simply aren't willing to make.

ksil said...

you dont follow halacha? what is your objection to gay people?

i was not even referring to the kiruv people who invite sabbath-desecraters over.

Garnel Ironheart said...

Ksil, your example doesn't follow.
If someone breaks Shabbos, then inviting them over for a Shabbos meal gives them the opportunity to observe Shabbos properly for a few hours.
The corresponding thing to do with homosexuals would be to invite them to perform heterosexual intercourse for a while, hardly something you're likely to get them to show up for.

ksil said...

garnel, this obviously went over your head. you (and most other frum people) object very harshly towards gay people (forget about the sin vs. sinner issue)- yet do not protest other aveiros...why?

and, forget about kiruv efforts, people that break these laws (kashrut, shabbat, whatever) we have ZERO problem with, at home, at the workplace - nothing to do with kiruv. we dont yell and scream about them eating shellfish and cheeseburgers!

you follow?

SJ said...

>> you dont follow halacha? what is your objection to gay people?


I'll put it in a way that hopefully you can understand. XD Penis goes into vagina.


And I do believe in the Bible, just not halacha.

ksil said...

i thought you are a conservative? you care - you think government should tell free people - where and when and how they can stick their penis? or their fingers? or how they should brush their hair?

so, you object only to the act? you have no problem with the particular orientation?

what about other things in the bible? do you object equally as strongly to people that are unfaithful to their spouses? or people that eat lobster? or people that light a match on saturday?

SJ said...

>> i thought you are a conservative? you care - you think government should tell free people - where and when and how they can stick their penis? or their fingers? or how they should brush their hair?

You describe a libertarian viewpoint, not a conservative one. This blog is conservative. Please, let's not be facetious here. Even today the USA has in the books sexual barriers.

I couldn't care less about hair style.

>> so, you object only to the act? you have no problem with the particular orientation?

Having an emotion is not a problem, it's how you act.

>> what about other things in the bible? do you object equally as strongly to people that are unfaithful to their spouses

Yes.

>> or people that eat lobster? or people that light a match on saturday?

No and no. I only care about the ethical stuff.

ksil said...

>> what about other things in the bible? do you object equally as strongly to people that are unfaithful to their spouses

your answer: Yes.
my response: bullshit

libertarian viewpoint vs. conservative: how in the world do you deem some things ok for government to pry into, but others not OK?

SJ said...

>> your answer: Yes.
my response: bullshit

Now you are being unreasonably cynical.

>> libertarian viewpoint vs. conservative: how in the world do you deem some things ok for government to pry into, but others not OK?

There is always an extent of local government enforcing social norms, even in liberal districts.

If you believe the government should not enforce aaaany social norms than you are 100% out of the mainstream in the whole country.

ksil said...

>> If you believe the government should not enforce aaaany social norms than you are 100% out of the mainstream in the whole country.

I never said that?!?!? I asked you how YOU determine what is and is not appropriate for such enforcement? you want to answer?

>> Now you are being unreasonably cynical.

I dont feel that I am. how many posts by "conservative" bloggers such as yourself, or other religious blogs/publications have been written about hetro marital infidelity versus the gay issue?

SJ said...

>> I never said that?!?!? I asked you how YOU determine what is and is not appropriate for such enforcement? you want to answer?

Well, how do you determine what is and what is not appropriate for such enforcement?

>> I dont feel that I am. how many posts by "conservative" bloggers such as yourself, or other religious blogs/publications have been written about hetro marital infidelity versus the gay issue?

I feel you are. There is no national debate about if marital infidelity is ok or not. The national debate is on gay marriage so that's why it gets attention.

Cora said...

As long as it's between two consenting adults, it's no one business...period. People don't get to pick and choose.

SJ, you know me... the whole using the Bible as a reasoning just doesn't fly for me. As Ksil has pointed out, if one thing in it (that has a total of 6 verses in the entire thing!)is such an iron clad law, then how come all of the other "laws" are not so staunchly upheld? Because the other ones are "not relevant". It's hypocritcal.

SJ said...

It seems to me homosexuality as a psychological problem that does not need to be given the same regard as heterosexuality, because homosexuality is just not the way the body machinery is set up.

Anyways Cora, I don't know where Ksil gets the idea that the Orthodox don't uphold everything else. When I was involved with orthodox judaism they were indeed a pain in the neck on everything XD dietary laws, sabbath, holidays, dress code, you name it.

ksil said...

man, i wish you would answer one of my questions....oh well. guess its not that type of blog.

not that the orthodox dont uphold everything, they do. its just they choose to rail on the gay thing for some strange reason and not the othe 200+ lo ta'asays.

i wonder what you would do if you had a child that confided in you that he/she was gay....

SJ said...

Well why don't you answer my question? I guess you are not that type of commenter.

In my experience the orthodox railed about all the lo ta'asays.

If I had a child who said s/he is gay, I'd be like just don't have gay sex and it's no big deal.

ksil said...

"just don't have gay sex and it's no big deal."

thats a great response! do you know any gay people?

see if you can follow this order of events: 1) you post something on your blog that you deem newsworthy and comment on it. 2) I then ask you a few questions about your position which i do not understand/want calrification on. 3) instead of answering my question, you ask me a question about MY position (of which I have not even stated yet) 4) I ask the same question, in a different way. 5) you get annoyed becasue I wont answer your question about my position (again, you dont know my position.

OKkkkkkkkaaaaaaaay,,,,nice chatting with you! shabbat shalom

SJ said...

Well in order to find out who has the better idea, don't we have to know what your idea is? O.o

Garnel Ironheart said...

Ksil, once again you overreacted to a very benign response of mine. And once again you subscribed to a fundamental error in your logic. To wit:
> we dont yell and scream about them eating shellfish and cheeseburgers!
That's right, because the average non-religious guy who walks into an Orthodox shul doesn't carry in a cheeseburger and proceed to munch all over my siddur. Were he to do so, believe me people would protest loudly and kick him out.
It's the same thing with gays. If a gay man or woman walked into our shul dressed appropriately and sat down to daven like anyone else, even if we all knew he was gay no one would say or do anything to make him feel uncomfortable. But if he stood up and shouted "Anal sex rules!" yes, people would be annoyed.
You follow?

Cora said...

I think what Ksil is trying to say and what my point was is that the OT has tons of "Do's" and "Don'ts" and we both highly doubt that every single one is followed...and why is that?

For example:

Exodus 22:28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.

C'mon... how many people follow that?

Or..

Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not delay [to offer] the first of thy ripe
fruits, and of thy liquors: the first-born of thy sons shalt thou give to me.

22:30 Likewise shalt thou do with thy oxen, [and] with thy
sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day
thou shalt give it to me.

That sounds like a command for animal and human sacrifice to me. Anyone still follow this?

So the point is: if people are now allow to revile the gods, talk badly about the leader of the country, and don't participate in animal / human sacrifice...how come people still use the OT as an excuse to be hateful to one another?

Doesn't it seem that these "Do's" and "Don's" are sadly out dated and no longer relevant?

SJ said...

To update Exodus 22:28 in modern language, don't dis the religious/political establishment of your neighbors sounds like pretty solid advice especially before the era when jews became equal citizens.

As for Exodus 22:29 I'm sorry Cora but your impression of Israelite culture is waaaaaay off. Look up Pidyon ha-ben redemption of the first born.

Cora said...

No doubt my impression is, SJ...after all, I am not Jewish nor ever was. But as an outsider looking in... it looks pretty plain to me what that passage means. Right or wrong, my point is: picking and choosing rules / laws to help further a platform of denying civil rights isn't right.

Put it to you this way: why are non Christian/Jewish/Muslim people being forced to follow one particular rule in this book?

*shrugs*

There's plenty more I could say on this, however, it's waaay off topic.

SJ said...

I think we lost track of the issue. I can agree with the left that I don't want the government to be in the bedrooms, however the government handles giving out marriage licenses so the issue of marriage and gay marriage is a public matter.

It's that the human body is mechanically set up for a man to be with a woman and to go against that fact of nature is not sane behavior and we need not legitimize it.

Notice that my point does not even mention the Bible.

Friar Yid said...

It's that the human body is mechanically set up for a man to be with a woman and to go against that fact of nature is not sane behavior and we need not legitimize it.

You are grasping at straws. From what I've read on your blog, you've started from the position that being gay is bad and continue to try to come up with any reason you can to justify it. The fact that you can't decide whether it's bad because God doesn't like it, it's unnatural, or somehow "unethical" proves the point.

There are a million things you can claim the human body is not "mechanically set up for"-- nose rings and tattooing your cornea come to mind. Yet most people consider things of that nature weird as opposed to sinful, so the religious right doesn't carp on about banning them or accusing them of being the downfall of civilization. Why should practicing anal sex, as opposed to any other lifestyle quirk, be the final straw that de-legitimizes a relationship from being a legal marriage? Better yet, since you claim you only care about ethics, what is specifically unethical about anal sex? Is it just as unethical if performed between heterosexuals as homosexuals?

As far as your OP- for the record, I believe sexuality is a spectrum and, following that, presumably there are people in the middle of the spectrum that are actually in a position to "choose" who they're attracted to. But your claim that everyone gay chooses it doesn't wash with my personal experiences with GLBT family and friends. For every "cured" gay person living a heterosexual life, there are plenty who tried and found it didn't work (leaving them to choose between suffering the humiliation and guilt of "failing", becoming or staying closeted, or committing suicide).

The notion that most gay people can be "made" straight if they try hard enough is not just incorrect, it's cruel and abusive.

ksil said...

"the human body is mechanically set up for a man to be with a woman and to go against that fact of nature is not sane behavior"

so, its al pi s'vorah....wow. at least if you say the bible says so, you have some backing....

garnel, i have yet to meet a gay person that walks into shul shouting about his inclinations. they want equal rights. wow, that is just CRAZY to give it to them. becasue, they are attracted to the same sex?

makes no sense....but keep shouting your hate from the rooftops, there are plenty that hate as you do

Cora said...

The arguement only holds up if sex for humans is for procreating only. However,humans have evolved biologicaly to enjoy sex at any time of the females' reproduction cycle, thus the ability to *enjoy* sex and not following pure instinct.

With this in mind, sex between two consenting adults is perfectly normal, natural, sane. We are wired for enjoyment and not just procreation, therefor the arguement of it just being between a male and a female (procreation) is moot.

In other words: I am *not* a baby factory and having sex is not to get me knocked up. Mmm'kay?

SJ said...

>>
You are grasping at straws. From what I've read on your blog, you've started from the position that being gay is bad and continue to try to come up with any reason you can to justify it. The fact that you can't decide whether it's bad because God doesn't like it, it's unnatural, or somehow "unethical" proves the point.


I don't know how you figure that I can't decide whether it's one or the other. God don't like it, and it's unnatural, and it's somehow unethical etc.



>> For every "cured" gay person living a heterosexual life, there are plenty who tried and found it didn't work (leaving them to choose between suffering the humiliation and guilt of "failing", becoming or staying closeted, or committing suicide).

Ok I'll grant that there's people who just can't live a heterosexual lifestyle, but it don't mean that there isn't something wrong. There is.



>> Yet most people consider things of that nature weird as opposed to sinful, so the religious right doesn't carp on about banning them or accusing them of being the downfall of civilization.

The difference when it comes to marriage we are talking about how we want to structure our society.

>> Why should practicing anal sex, as opposed to any other lifestyle quirk

Again, the issue here is not whether a personal behavior should be allowed or not, the issue is whether or not the govenrment should be giving marraige licenses to gay couples.

It's not so much that it's unethical, it's that it's mental. Gay people aren't like baaaaaaaaaad people, it's just to be honest retarded. We don't need to legitimize it.

>> The notion that most gay people can be "made" straight if they try hard enough is not just incorrect, it's cruel and abusive.

It's worth a try at least once.

>> The arguement only holds up if sex for humans is for procreating only. However,humans have evolved biologicaly to enjoy sex at any time of the females' reproduction cycle, thus the ability to *enjoy* sex and not following pure instinct.

No it isn't. It's just wrong since it goes so far off the way the human body is set up.

>> With this in mind, sex between a consenting male and female is perfectly normal, natural, sane.

fixed. XD

Cora said...

>>The difference when it comes to marriage we are talking about how we want to structure our society.<<

I want my society's structure to be one of love, compassion, and acceptance. Seems pretty good to me.

>>No it isn't. It's just wrong since it goes so far off the way the human body is set up.<<

::smirks:: so men wanting to have anal sex with a woman is also way off how the human body is set up... so is a man wanting oral? I mean, the human body wasn't set up for that either! I guess those straight couples shouldn't be allowed to get married either.

So what if two men were not having anal sex...could they get married then?

The truth is, no one has the right to dictate what two consenting adults do behind closed doors. And if two consenting adults love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, the govnerment has no right to deny them.

SJ said...

>> I want my society's structure to be one of love, compassion, and acceptance. Seems pretty good to me.

Hey, me too! XD

>> The truth is, no one has the right to dictate what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.

Let's not get off topic here. The issue is what the government can issue marriage licenses for. Not what people can do behind closed doors.

No, I don't want a bedroom patroll, nor do I want homosexual couples equated with straight marriage since the 2 structures are simply not equal.

Cora said...

But your idea of love, compassion, and acceptance is waaay different from mine ;)

And yes, we have to talk about what two consenting adults do behind closed doors because that is the point you keep bringing up of why gays cannot get married.

If their sexual positions are not a "reason" then why all the talk about anal sex not being natural and therefor gays are not "sane" or whatever?

See... gays and straights are all *human* and as *humans* we are all entitled to the same *rights*.. you know "every man created equal". We cannot give rights to one group of *humans* while denying the same rights to another group of *humans*. (law abiding, tax paying, productive *humans*)

It's not humane.

Friar Yid said...

It's not so much that it's unethical, it's that it's mental. Gay people aren't like baaaaaaaaaad people, it's just to be honest retarded. We don't need to legitimize it.

Here's where you just seem hypocritical. There are a million character, lifestyle and moral failings that a straight couple can possess and still get married. You are suggesting that there is something so inherently wrong about gay couples that they need to kept out of marriage. So, explain it. What is it that's so bad? I have seen plenty of functioning, healthy, and just generally GOOD gay marriages and parents. What's your argument to the contrary? Aside from it being "retarded," of course.

Cora said...

"If it be an evil to judge rashly or untruly of any single man, how much greater a sin it is to condemn a whole people." -William Penn-

Dave the Devious said...

"Anyways, the gay agenda's suggestion that somebody gay can't enjoy a heterosexual life and must be gay is proven wrong. Being gay is a CHOICE, just like acting or not acting out of any other emotion."

Wrong being gay is NOT a choice. You may be able to "choose" to act on your sexual orientation or to suppress it, but your sexual orientation is a given.

Just because SJ is a self-loathing queer who represses his own (plainly obvious) homosexuality does not mean that it is easy to overcome one's sexuality. Sure with enough denial, repression, and self-loathing you can keep it at bay, but it ain't going to change.

I mean if SJ is such a poster boy for heterosexuality, (a) why does he obsess over what gays do (really why do you faggots care what another man does or doesn't do with his own dick?), and (b) how come he NEVER mentions his girlfriend/wife?

Dave the Devious said...

P.S. The Freudian slips in this post are just hysterical! First the anti-gay SJ makes an explicit mention of anal sex between men, then, ironically enough, he uses the term "nutsack" as a term for "conviction." Not simply "balls" which would be an absent-minded use of common slang, he deliberately paused to think about scrotum before inserting the word.