The Orthodox Position


Many who have commented on this movie (not only on IMDb) misunderstand the position of Orthodox Judaism on matters of personal proclivities, predilections and desires, among which only parenthetically would be sexual orientation. Orthodox Jews believe that G-d "laid down the law," so to speak, 3,318 years ago at Mt. Sinai, and that those (Mosaic) laws are immutable, though they may be interpreted appropriately for every age. EVERYONE is "dealt a hand" of personality traits, physical and emotional characteristics etc., some of which make it easy to observe the laws, and others of which make it difficult. These latter are particularly important because it is by going AGAINST one's "nature" that one demonstrates loyalty to the Code and obedience to G-d. Being tempted by forbidden sexual behaviors of one kind or another is probably pretty universal, and violations are more-or-less expected, though never permitted a priori. That's not the point, and not why a person would be (properly) rejected by the community. Judaism is a way of life very much designed for imperfect people (as any reading of the Hebrew Bible makes obvious!). What is required, however, even when one lacks temorarily the "will to do right" is a "will TO HAVE THE WILL to do right." One who announces publicly that he or she rejects the law, even as an ideal toward which to strive, has placed himself, for better or for worse, outside the boundaries of Orthodoxy.

reply

I am getting very sick & tired of this type of response--that if a Jew has homosexual desires, it's a test from God, to see if they can abstain, and if they did they passed the test and are rewarded. I'm not really sure what gives anyone the right to say something like that. How can you tell someone how they're allowed to feel? There are Jewish people who have homosexual desires, yet also know what the Bible says--you are liable for death if you sleep with someone of the same sex. What is a person supposed to do if they have deep feelings toward their religion, yet also deep feelings toward persons of the same sex? It puts them at a complete loss, and no one can tell them what they should or should not do in that situation, and ESPECIALLY no one can tell them that their feelings are just a "test."

I'm assuming you are a straight, Orthodox man. Think about this for a second: imagine the tables were turned. Imagine the Bible says that you can ONLY sleep with persons of the same sex and NOT the opposite sex. Imagine that reproduction had nothing to do with it. I know this sounds absurd, but just think about it. Would you suck it up and sleep with men instead of women? Would you accept that it was a test, and even though you feel for women and not men? Something to think about before anyone decideds to tell people how they should feel and act, especially with regards to sex.

reply

i just watched this movie. and i'll tell you right now that i am neither gay nor jewish. yet i still found the film fascinating. it just AMAZES me how such an advanced society can still live in the dark ages and hold on to ideas that are so outdated and obviously based on fear of that which is (or was) unknown or foreign to the majority. as an atheist, i want to scream at these people and tell them just abandon this religion and culture that practices such a harsh brand of discrimination. it seems such a fruitless struggle. but i finished the film feeling a deep sense of respect for those who try so hard to live in both worlds and find balance. i doubt i could be that strong.

reply

interesting comments - I've yet to see this film. - Me, I'm a gay "Goy" ex-catholic atheist, but have worked in (and was totally accepted by) the Jewish community in Melbourne Australia (do hob ich mich Yiddish gelerent) and have a great respect for Judiasm in all its "varieties". I have just recently heard about this documentary- brought to my attention by a young gay (closeted) chinese (recent)immigrant friend of mine living in Brooklyn. He saw the film and wondered if the subjects would have had such a hard time expressing their sexuality if they had not been so "religious".
I have heard that response before about gay "tendencies" and "feelings" being a "test" from G-d. (Hehe it is not only the Jews who have a monopoly on that "explanation"). I wonder if the person putting forward this argument ever considered that they could actually be the ones whom G-d is testing for their tolerance and compassion; their chesed and rahmones?

reply

Of course we should have chesed and rahmones. Ahavas Yisrael demands it. This doesn't change the immutability of the Torah, though. All these people who are saying Jews are "living in the dark ages" and cannot "tell someone how they're allowed to feel" are missing the point. It is not that we, Jews, are saying this. It is the Torah that says it, and we believe that the Torah is G-d's word, as directly transmitted to Moshe at Sinai. It cannot be changed to suit modern tendencies. It is permanent. No learned Jew wants to tell another Jew what he can or can't do. This should not be something we enjoy. It is, however, our obligation, again because the Torah tells us so - but only if it is motivated by love and a desire to see our fellow Jew keep away from sin. Those who say that we are archaic because we do not accept homosexuality are really telling us that are religion is bogus and that we should drop it. Think about what that really means. Who is telling who how they're allowed to feel (or believe) now? We also do not accept eating pork or shellfish, milk and meat together, bestiality, necrophilia, cruelty to animals, etc. - are these also archaic? Zoophilia (attraction to animals) is regarded by a small group as a natural way to feel - after all, the zoophiles say, an animal can give its consent just as easily as a person, and it is not mere sexual attraction - it is love. Tell me, should we be supportive of this also?

reply

If the tables were turned, that wouldn't change the reality. That's the thing with Orthodox Jewry, that many don't get. They follow strict principles, based on the truth of the Torah. Unlike Reform, they don't change their rulings based on what is convenient.

reply

Way too go shneur! This is exactly the kind of comment I was looking for!

reply

Okay, so really, Orthodoxy (and everyone else for that matter) has gotten one thing VERY wrong. The Levitical prohibition everyone refers to when discussing homosexuality says NOTHING about having gay relationships. It says that 'a man may not sleep in a bed with another man the way he would sleep with a woman'. By extending this prohibition to all parts of homosexuality, one is, in essence, assuming that any gay person is automatically partaking in certain sexual activities (and let's, for a moment, humor the Orthodox, and pretend that gay sexual activity is wrong). Let me just say that this is total ignorance. So stop being so closed minded, and realize that the traditional interpretation of the text is wrong. Maybe God has prohibited gay sexual activity, but it is the discriminatory minds of ancient and modern Jewish intellectuals that have claimed all homosexuality is against Judaism. For God's sake, stop being so old fashioned.

reply

As an orthodox Jew, I really would like to comment on ALL of these postings. Firstly, the one thing the Torah is not is old fashioned. Everything can pertain to the world today. Secondly, I agree that the way most Jews react to religious gay people is completely wrong and it is anti-Torah. In fact, the Torah actually says that one should worry about their own spirituality, and other people's physical needs (roughly translated) meaning that other people's spirituality is none of your business. Only religious leaders who are asked by THAT person for help have a right to interfere. Too often, people forget that. I personally view the prohibition like all of the others. For instance, we are not allowed to talk negative speech. Obviously we do it all the time, and it is wrong and we know it. But we work on it and know that it is something to spend a lifetime working on. Being gay is the same thing. It is something that is hard but is possible to be worked on. I say this with complete understanding of all of this because I am bisexual and I know it is wrong but I am religious and love Judaism and I do it anyway and I believe that God understands and loves me and things will work out fine in the end (Maybe I'm wrong, but that is how I reconcile it with myself).
One last thing: easion88--the exact words in the Torah are never what they seem--it is considered horribly wrong to directly interpret the Torah (for instance with the part of "an eye for an eye") There are many commentaries that we read to explain it, and Leviticus DOES talk about having gay relationships. They also talk about lesbian relationships, but that is in a different commentary. Although it is a rabbinical prohibition, it is considered just as serious.

reply

[deleted]

well put. the ambiguities in biblical text and the impossibility of relating much of its content to a modern, enlightened generation is in large what makes me shun and condemn religion as a whole. people adapt/interpret so much of it to fit their own sinning selves, yet prefer to accept certain passages completely literally to perpetuate their hatred towards what the don't like or don't understand. if you are religious, worship God the way you choose to worship Him. leave everyone else alone to make their interpretations about faith.

personally, i believe both god and religion are simply manmade constructs, so it's makes me even angrier to see how they man created its own machine flawed with prejudice and hatred. if my atheism weakens my argument some, so be it. i feel just as strongly as the devoutly religious.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

what???, you better watch your hate filled comments there pal. stick to the theme of the board and leave your blatant bigotry and racial prejudice in your trailer park where it belongs, not here. anyway ive got your moronic post deleted already.

reply

I'm neither Gay nor Jewish, but I will add that the issues of Gay life vs. conservative interpretations of religious life are not limited to Judaism alone. Fundamentalist Christianity, indeed even more "mainstream" Protestant churches such as the Episcopal Church are dealing with reconciliation of their traditional spiritual views and more modern understanding of sexual orientation. Islam and other traditions are also likely dealing with this issue. Unitarian Universalists have for the most part, become reconciling congregations and offer a much broader theological perspective that is inclusive of theists and atheists alike. While this liberal perspective may be too difficult for people to understand who find more spiritual comfort in their tradition, I wonder if you don't need a broader base from which to see people and the whole of sporituality in, in order to get past the conflicts that so easily divide us?

In an age of rapid change there is the comfort of stability in returning to the touchstones of our ancestors. The continuity from ancient times to the present is a compelling force. But people and the world, and our understandings of people and the world have changed a lot since those times. We can respect and learn from the Ancients, but I think we do ourselves more of a disservice in trying to fit ourselves into a worldview several thousand years old, instead of accepting ourselves and those around us as all fellow travelers in this one lifeboat Earth. They lived their lives in their time, we should live ours in ours. And we'll all be richer for honoring each other, Gay or Straight, Jew or Gentile, whatever race or nationality. Such honor is far better than the alternative.

Peace

reply

It seems that since the Jewish and Christian faiths both condemns Homo-sexuality, then the person would have to make a choice. Leave one or the other. The Bible condemns it so it is not the Rabbis, Priests or anyone else who makes the rules. They don't make the religious laws, they just obey them and they have no authority to change it to the way that they or anyone else would prefer.

We can't have it both ways as much as we would like to.

reply

[deleted]

If you think that religion is so wrong, like just about all of the homosexual supporters on these forums, then what do you even care what religion has to say? The point of this was to reconile the two, which is impossible. So I guess that if they want to act on their gay desires, than they can't be a part of the religion. Its stupid to be so hateful towards religion because of this, and in fact shows a real hatred, stupidity, and hippocracy seeing as how you are hating on people for something which for them is as ingrained as the homosexual feelings someone else might have, which makes you in the wrong according to yourself. On another note, if someone wanted to get into lets say some fancy country club, but they had to agree to a certain dress code if they wanted to stay in it. One day, they decide they don't like the dress code, and publicly renounce it. You can't possibly defend that person for going against the rules of the club, they can leave it if they care so much. I am aware that you might say they chose to join the club, they didnt choose to be born religious. Well, they can choose to leave their community behind. Would you be outraged if someone who grew up in your community went around molesting children, and wouldnt you want them out even though they couldnt help those desires? I understand you might say they were hurting people, but maybe the children enjoyed it, right?
Another note for those saying that you cant deny people something they love, is that is the most faulty and stupid logic. As I said above, just wanting something really badly isnt an excuse. So murderers that have a real need to kill to feel right, or rapists who need to feel in control, child molesters, animal molesters, people who cant control if they steal something because they have such a strong need to, all of these people are ok and should be accepted into all communities, because after all, they cant control what they are doing, and even if, like I said above, you will say they are hurting people in these cases, what about all of the laws we have in America that protect murderers by giving them a trial where if evidence is procured in an illegal manner the murderer can go free? So we should uphold the laws which allow people who hurt others to go free now? I am tired so I might not be making any sense, anyhow think about it.

reply

[deleted]

You didnt seem to notice I made a note of that myself that you might say that in those cases people are hurting others. You also never responded to the possibility of a child wanting an adult to have sex with them. Who cares about legal consent? I am not saying you should go against the law, but I don't see why someone who doesn't believe in G-d can argue for morals, since the very definition of morals is based on belief of a higher power. What makes your values any better than mine? You want me to accept your opinion just as much as I want you to accept mine. To someone who doesn't believe in G-d, than there can be no higher ground in an arguement. All sides should be equal.

And what logical value does saying that people ignore most of the rules in the bible today have to do with anything? I am not using anything in the bible to push an agenda. I believe in G-d, and I am just trying to follow his words. I am not going to go beat up a gay person, and I would work beside them, although I wouldnt want them around my family as they would put values which are not my own on them. I think the real problem with gays in America is not them being gay, but that they and their supporters feel they have to push their beliefs on everyone else, even stronger I feel than the extremists in the different religions try to push their beliefs. The fact that you consider religious values to be biggoted is a shame, and doesnt help you prove your point anymore. Like I have said in this post quite a bit, all of you people that are against religion are no better than those against gay rights, and in fact even worse since you are hippocrits by denying the rights of people who have lived a way for thousands of years, and since you cant claim that a higher power told you that your beliefs were right like we can. And I dont think they voted to change the constitution to remove gay rights, they never had rights in the constitution, its what is currently being argued that they should have it amended so they have rights. And no, this wont lead to any other groups, the slippyer slope arguement here is incredibly faulty. The constitution can only protect its citizens.

reply

[deleted]

You are saying that the very definition of morals is that it is the right way to behave. But you are forgetting not everyone thinks that what everyone else is doing is the "right thing to do." What about in cannibalistic cultures? What about in Arab countries where little girls are abused and taken advantage of, based just as much on culture if not more than religion. In Nazi Germany, a place which was considered amoung the highest societies in the world at the time, which great art and theatre and scientsists, they still found no problem killing millions of people for no reason. Morals without G-d are ones which can change when people want them to, and this has been proven by history. I would never kill someone, 1. because it is wrong, as you mentioned, but 2. because G-d would never ask me to UNLESS is was needed i.e. to kill a murderer.

You claim your values are better simply because they are based on doing the right thing. You are treating other people good BECAUSE its the way you wanted to be treated, not because its the right thing to do. You are aware that in a society without G-d, then the only way for order to be maintained is for people to treat others the way they wanted to be treated. You want safety and security, so you build up this society where you just care about yourself and only follow rules to keep yourself safe. G-d commanded people to give 10% of all their produce to poor people in the Bible. G-d commanded us to be nice to orphans, widows, and strangers. These are things you might think people would do anyway without that command, but that is only because you are growing up in a world based on these values. In the caste system in India, they believe if someone is born into a poor family they deserve and you don't help them out. Your "morals" are not universal, and you make that mistake as someone who grew up in Judeo-Christian culture to think that people will naturally be good to others. Also, don't you ASSUME things about me, such as thinking that atheists are wicked. I didn't used to believe in G-d, I was raised that way until my late teens. I changed after contemplation on the matter and seeing many events which I found difficult to attribute to coincidence. You will probably say: Ahah! He only believes this because he was too stupid to accept that certain thigns just happen. But I don't see it like that, I see it the opposite.

How do you push your beliefs on anyone else? In my public high school in massachussetts, they had a gay day. What place does that have in a public school, and to take a day off from learning!? I dont bring my bible into public school, but you bring your "gay religion" in. To be honest, even atheists have a religion, its called naturalism(not the nudisty based one). You think everything is run by nature. You attribute fanatical beliefs to your anti-religion ideaology. It is just another religion as far as I am concerned. In Israel there was a gay pride parade scheduled to take place in Jerusalem. A HUGE majority of the city was against it, yet the government was going to let them march through the streets. They are trying to take over the world, and force everyone to accept it. I dont walk around in New York city shouting at everyone that isnt my religion they are going to hell, yet the gay people are going to a place they dont belong, where there are almost no gays, and then shoving their lifestyle in peoples faces. That is completely inappropriate. If you dont want me to shove my religion in your face, dont shove yours in mine. And what rights exactly are you fighting for? Marriage? Why do you need to get married, what is wrong in living together? If all you want is benefits or something like that that a married couple gets, I dont care if you have that. But why do you want more than that? Thats what everyone else has. Take it. But to say you want marriage, which there should be no need for for one without G-d, since to those there is nothing wrong with living together unmarried.

I have never persecuted a gay person or gone on a march against them.

Also, your last point is very important, in showing how little you understand religious philosophy. You are using the famous excuse mentioned by many people for why G-d doesnt exist, which is why do bad things happen to good people, or conversely, why do good things happen to bad people. This is an incredibly complicated topic, which is not appropriate to address here, but to just mention some of the answers. 1. You dont know if a person is really good, either considered good by G-d in their actions, or maybe they act good in front of you but in private they do all kinds of bad things which G-d is punishing them for. An example would be someone who gives tons of money to charity, but then in private might beat their wife and kids or something. 2. Maybe the bad being done to a good person is not really bad. Whether it would be good for the "bad" to happen for a better good in this world, or in the world to come. A simple example for this is as follows. A child starts to use drugs. The parent, knowing better than the child, punishes the child for using the drugs, thus perhaps saving the child from a lifetime of addiction. The child only thinks that the parent is mean and bad, and taking away fun from them. But in reality, the parent is saving the child. Alternatively, maybe a person might be good now, but in the future they would be confronted with a situation that would throw them into a world of sin that they could not overcome, and thus take away whatever reward they had coming to them. G-d, being merciful and just, would make the person die now so that they could receive a full reward after dying and not receive any punishments. Alternatively, many religions believe in reincarnation in some form. Maybe a person was being punished for a past life in which they were evil. 3. The wicked might receive whatever reward they have coming to them in this world so they can be punished in the world after death, and the rightous receive the punishment in this world so that they can receive a pain free reward after death.
There is more to that, and it was meant only as an introduction. Nevertheless, I hope this helps give you a new perspective on life about why bad things might happen. I would never tell these to someone when they are currently in the midst of a tragedy, that would be cruel. You do not go up to someone that lost a family member and tell them they had it coming. That doesnt mean its not true though. Some things are just too hard to see the outcome when they are happening now, just ask any historian if they have seen what appeared to be a small event have a huge impact hundreds of years later.
"How can you look at the unspeakable suffering inflicted on the undeserving and still believe in any supreme being who is all-powerful and all-knowing?"
You are assuming that you are all-knowing, by stating the word undeserving as I stated above. You just can't claim to know the whole situation whereas G-d can.

reply

[deleted]

My logic was quite sound, and you didnt properly respond to any of it, just revealing how little you consider other peoples opinions you biggot. I considered the fact you were gay, that you had strong feelings about this from personall experience and hardships in life. You on the other hand label me a religious nut/fanatic, without even thinking about the possible experiences I have gone through.
First off, my saying I would not tell a person suffering something about them deserving it was completely unrelated to my actual reasons for why ppl suffer, and hence you chose that point to pick on and ignored the reasonable argument I made. In regards to why I would not tell a person who just losta family member or something that they deserved it, G-d commands us to act kindly to others. Just because, in an unrelated somewhat example, G-d determines someone has to be punished, that doesn't give me an excuse to hurt them. So too, if someone is in pain I cant go up to them and say they deserved it. I might go up to them and tell them the other reason though, that it was really for the persons good, but only if it wouldnt upset the person. Or some idiot who gets angry all the time, such as yourself, will use that as an excuse to rebel against G-d.
In regards to how I would react, we have 2 sayings in Judaism "dont be sure o yourself until the day of your death," and "dont judge someone until you stood in his place." Hopefully I wont be tested in such a way, but I haveexperienced suffering in my life which u assumed I didnt. Everyone suffers. You are self-centered if you think your special in your suffering. My parents were divorced, moved 9 times in 7 years, I was homeless for 6 months, and have had constant financial burdens. And you know what? It only made me believe more in G-d. Just so you know, all that happened under the age of 18. Who am I to ? G-d? In fact,I wouldnt be where I m now were it not for these events, and I couldnt be happier. Not all of the outcomes are as ez to see as mine, but they r still there.
"but it's not cruel of Gawd to make them suffer? How do you figure that? I wouldn't worship any supernatural being in the first place, and I certainly wouldn't revere any that acted like that one does."
u clearly didnt read my long explanation explaining how its not really cruel except for u. U r the cruel 1. U r saying that a person is suffering for no reason. Y dont u go up to them and tell them that?! At least my belief is that it is really for their good, u just say its 4 nothing. u r the cruel 1.
the gay pride parade marched through MY territory. U walked in G-d's city and flaunted His commands. Want me to come to your town walking around with signs saying "die fag" or something to that effect. It might seem harsh to you, but I am just as offended by your walking around Jerusalem. Maybe something you could understand better is u walking around in a dangerous part of Harlem (assuming you are white) at night. I am not aware of where the Sikh community lives, but maybe they actually live in that area. A poll was conducted in Jerusalem and a huge majority didnt want the parade to take place there.
And who said i was taking the side of the chareidim? I am not attacking them either. I wouldnt endorse planting a bomb, innocent people might die, but doing other things to get you to stay away from our home? Nothing wrong protesting and shouting at you to leave. U said you were wondering if you would make it home without getting your teeth kicked in. Why not just keep it private that you are gay and then no one would hurt u for it. Ur pride only put you in more danger. I am not going to walk around a palestinian neighborhood saying i am an israeli jew, so why are you stupid enough to put yourself in danger and walking around in an area where there are ppl who hate you? its common sense dude, and G-d obviously ran out of it when He got to u. I am done talking with you because you fail to argue with me logically and address my points one by one, and u would rather take one point out of context and then vent some more of your gay anger, which seems to be more because of ur situation of alienation from the non gay community rather than against any particular people who have hurt u. U know the only gay friend I ever had, she said the reason she had these lesbian desires was because when she was 6, she was part of some wierd club where this boy made her take off her pants and sit on other girls, or sometimes urinate in front people. That is not normal. I am not saying all gay people had situations like that, but it certainly makes you think.

reply

[deleted]

Part of me doesn't want to bother getting in this little fight, but, I wanted to give my 2 cents...

I suppose I should preface this by saying I am neither gay nor Jewish, and I wasn't raised in a religious home of any variation. I am not homophobic, and generally consider myself a liberal.


So, I'll begin...

I don't think liberals make much effort at understanding Orthodox or traditional perspectives on anything, which is unfair. Though there are obvious plenty of exceptions (as there are in any group) most Orthodox Jews I've met have been nothing but decent and respectful of homosexuals. They do not persecute them, and the overall movement condemns doing so. Homosexuals are not, in most circles, kicked out of the congregation. And I've never heard of Orthodox Jews pulling a Matthew Shepherd on some poor gay kid. Compared to other traditional and/or fundamentalist religions, Judaism hasn't been too rough on the homosexual community.

Too many liberals chastize religions because they don't conform to their liberal dogma, which is tremendously hypocritical.

At the same time, I do think Orthodoxy needs to be more open to the findings of modern science, as in many cases these do NOT conflict with the Torah. Torah doesn't say that homosexuality is a choice, or that you are born with it. In fact, Torah says very little about homosexuality at all. So, I do not understand the rigid opposition to considering that maybe God made some homosexuals and doesn't expect them to change-- in my understanding, what is actually forbidden in the Torah is anal sex between men. There is no prohibition of anything else regarding homosexuality, and women aren't mentioned at all (which seems telling, considering that with all the other sexual prohibitions the point is made to forbid both men and women, but suddenly women are left out of this one. I've been told that Jews think every little detail like that has significance in Torah).

Here's a few analogies, not great ones as this is a rather complicated and unique situation, and not meant to offend anyone, but just...consider them...


FROM AN ORTHODOX STANDPOINT:
Bisexuality could be compared to kleptomania (sp?)... that is, an individual may have an increased desire to steal, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to. In this view, it could be considered a test from God. If someone is bisexual, I can see no way of defending it to the religious-minded. If you are attracted to the opposite sex, then go with that and resist the homosexual inclinations you may have (if you are religious, I mean... there should be no conflict in such a situation. I personally have no issue with bisexuals or anything).

Homosexuality, however, is not the same. The most legitimate argument to make against it is that it is "unnatural", and considering that it, in effect, disables reproducion, that would be a true statment, in a sense. However, there are numerous other 'issues' or 'states' that can disable reproduction (in effect, preventing the performance of some commandments) that are no fault of the individuals. Now, the first thing you may think is if someone is born barren-- the general view in Orthodoxy seems to be that God has something else in mind for that individual. But that wouldn't be a good comparison because unlike the homosexual, someone who is sterile is physically incapable of creating children. A better comparison, though I am not comfortable lumping the two together, would be with a disorder like autism. Just hear me out...

In many cases, autistic individuals cannot bear to be in contact with another person-- thus preventing them from engaging in sexual activity, ergo no children. Now, there would probably be little debate that God made the individual autistic, and probably did so for a reason, and while certain therapies may be pursued, chances are the individual would ultimately be excused for not being able to fulfill every commandment, even though TECHNICALLY, they would be able to do so. To me, this sounds more in line with homosexuality, though I personally would not consider it a mental disorder and something in need of treatment.


Does that make sense? Or, is it clear what I am trying to say?



I suppose I just don't understand people who are unwilling to consider that homosexuality is not a choice-- if it were, than the religious communities would have more of a cause for protest-- but it's something the individual has no control over. If God made them that way, did He do so because He didn't want them in His ranks? I don't think any religious person would say that. God wouldn't want you to turn away from Him.

So, there must be a reasonable way to be both gay and Orthodox if so many people are trying so hard to not be gay but are finding it to no avail. Do they leave the fold then? Is that what God wants? I am in no position to speak for Him, obviously, but I don't think He wants that. Just like I believe God would sooner punish the guys who beat up the gay kid than the gay kid himself.



A few other things...

Gay Marriage
It is unconstitutional for the US government to prohibit same-sex marriage, as it does so because of religious reasons, which have no place in the laws of this land. HOWEVER, no ministers or rabbis should be forced to officiate at such weddings, and I completely agree with Orthodoxy that it would be disrespectful to the tradition to officiate at such weddings. A rabbi is qualified to officiate at Jewish weddings, which are defined as a sacred union between a Jewish man and a Jewish women-- that is what a marriage is. Therefore, it is simply impossible to marry two individuals who don't meet that criteria. It wouldn't be a Jewish marriage, by definition, no matter how much someone would want it to be.


Cross-Dressing
I found it somewhat ridiculous to feature the cross-dressing man in the documentary, as I felt it undermined the point of the film. At least as far as my understanding goes, not being able to dress the way you might want is not the same as not being able to sexually function in a capacity that is befitting of you. Orthodoxy has strick dress codes in general and so, while I feel that homosexuality can be reconciled with the religion, cross-dressing cannot. It undermined the point the film was trying to make. (Note: I've no problem with cross-dressers myself, but it was stupid to include in a film designed to featre homosexuals trying to reconcile their sexuality with traditional Judaism-- they might as well have said 'I just love ham sandwhiches so I eat them when I feel like it'. It made no sense.)

reply

[deleted]

Thank G-d for Reform Judaism.

reply

hey im an ultra-orthodox jew whos gay and i d lie to say that first off the reform comment is dum because you cant take a religion and pick or choose what you like and say im a religous, in all religions its everything or nothing. second i look at it from a different angle, i dont know wats wrong or right but i was brought up a certain way all my friends family and everyone i know is jewish and, i dont want to lose them over something which GOD gave me!! that to me makes no sense,you believe in god you do everything he tells you to do So if he made me gay, right or wrong in YOUR eyes, its Right in Gods eyes,or he wouldnt have made me gay. but anyways my point is, i cant do anything about being attracted to other men so what should i do?

reply

[deleted]

Don't forget that 'homosexuality' is a modern concept of the west. There was no word or exact equivalent for 'homosexuality' in the cultures out of which the old and new testaments arose.

In fact, 'homosexuality' is now looking more like a concept that belongs to the 19th century. It is characteristic of the dominant materialist positivism of the age of Darwin that physical features (like the presence of male or female genitalia) were the undisputed basis from which identity is constructed. So for example, when a person's sexual activity is only with others of the same physical sex, he/she is by this definition 'homosexuel'. Traditionally, sexual identity is extrapolated from behaviour (e.g. passive/active etc..) and participants are identified by different names and categories than those available in contemporary 'offical' discourse (while traditional identities may live on in 'unofficial' contemporary slang, e.g. 'dyke', 'pansy' etc..). Current theories (as 'queer theory') are increasingly rejecting the simplistic models of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

I'll take our fundamentalist brethren's claim to be inspired by the Bible more seriously when:

they restore prositutes (male and female) to Jewish temple precincts, with whom God's people may whore after the living God (as opposed to 'whoring after other gods'. This expression was meant literally).

they honor those God sends them as prophets, some of whom dropped out of society, lived totally naked, reversed sexual roles etc... (as opposed to 'killing God's prophets'--a problem in old testament days no less than today).

I'm not criticizing Jews; we all need to step out of fear and renew our faith--Christian, Moslem, Shinto, Marxist, Animist, Zoroastrean etc...

reply

I think these words from Dan Savage are the best response (to this thread and the whole ISSUE):


"when religion gets in the way of love, religion is the problem."


.

reply