Is there a place for homosexuals to feel at home in the Orthodox community? Saturday, September 26, 2009 For years now the battle rages on within religious groups over the issue of homosexuality. Judaism is no exception. While the reform and the conservative branches have seen some changes in the attitudes toward homosexuality, the orthodox have not. Through Torah and tradition, homosexuality is still considered a sin. Though, I challenge this. I think if one takes Torah and tradition and looks at out modern day understandings, one would see homosexuals do have a place within the Orthodox community. The best place to start here, is the creation account. I know it may seem odd since the traditional viewpoint starts here as well, but that is exactly why I am choosing this place. I commonly hear it cited because man was created male and female and told to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Indeed, the same command is given to Noah and his family when they disembark from the ark and even Isaiah says that the earth was created to be inhabited. Now obviously, the existence of barren/infertile couples shows us that not all of humanity is held to this charge; and for those who think I am using them as a comparison because they cannot choose their lot, you are mistaken. That I will get to why in a little bit. My point is this is not a charge to humanity, but to people around when there were no people. It follows a two time pattern. It only appears when the earth is no longer populated except for a handful of people. Of course, Isaiah is not commanding anyone to popular the earth, he stated a fact and by then that purpose had been fulfilled. Though, let’s move farther within Torah and see some of the other mitzvot given to Yisrael. Torah also tells us to take care of the widows and orphans. As it has always been, fertile couples who can have children will almost always go for creating their own children before adopting any. Rare is the couple who has the compassion to go against their biological urges to pass on their own genes and adopt instead. I am not criticizing straight couples for doing this, though what it has left us with is a stockpile of orphans with no loving families to go to and being raised in horrible conditions which leads them to either a life which is hardly worth living filled with feelings of rejection and abandonment which effects all relationships they have later in life, or they are left with no social skills outside of the wrong crowds in life and up living a life of crime and drugs/sex/alcohol. I am of the same opinion of Rabbi Brickner. That the sanctity of life is not defined by being alive but that is upheld in the highest regard when children are only brought into the world who can be properly educated, clothed and be wholly devoted to. This is where barren/infertile couples are the same as homosexual couples. Both of them want children but can have none of their own with their spouse. In nature we see these types of couplings taking in the orphans. You have 10% of the population who most of them would willingly adopt, and do try hard in the midst of our society which largely says they are unfit parents (of course reproduction comes with no test of parental fitness), if they were given the chance. What better way to fulfill Torah?! One of the very reasons that Sodom is destroyed, a mitzvah would echoes among the many years of fighting for those who could fight for themselves…all fulfilled in those we have rejected as viable parents. Of course, I can already hear those speaking up about homosexuals not being able to continue on the Jewish lines and contribute to family tradition. Though, I ask why not? Children, when they get to the age for bar mitzvah/bat mitzvah, still have to make a choice to be religiously Jewish. Having Jewish blood is obviously not going to help them there. How would the parents being homosexuals change whether or not the child was brought up in a Jewish home, taught to love and cherish Torah, taught to observe Shabbat and see her beauty, have the story of the Exodus recounted to them at Pesach? “Ahh, but what of Torah? Does it not tell us homosexuality is wrong?” Yeah, eventually we all knew I was going to have to come here. The center of the battles lies right here normally. Though, unlike most, I do not intend to tell you it those verses were all about idolatry. Some involve them but many don’t. So without further ado let’s go through them real quick..starting with Vayikra. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.~18:22 Like I said, I am not going to try and make this about idolatry. The context of all the mitzvot around this do not give way to it. Nor do I agree that to’evah is meant to cover idolatry. In fact, what has always made me scratch my head especially in recent years has nothing to do with that word. “as with womankind” always jumps out at me. Obviously, straight men don’t need this to understand not to have sex with men and gay men are not going to be having sex with women so it just seems so odd a phrase to put in there and I can find nothing in Torah which comes close. Now, I have add here that I am not fluent in classical Hebrew and do not intend to portray that I am. Though, looking at that phrase in Hebrew, mishkabay eeshah, and then looking at the rest of the Torah (same time frame of being written) at how it is used and it seems strange to me. Except for one instance in Numbers which is being told in a narrative, mishkab always means bed. A literal physical bed. It’s usage for the euphemism of sex is not really seen until the Navi’iym. In fact shekab is used at the beginning of the verse as the euphemism for sex. It almost seems that it should be translated “in a woman’s bed.“ Either way, this is marking something and Moses does start this out saying… After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their statutes.~18:3 So what do we see in the cultures of ancient Egypt and Canaan? The same in all Semitic cultures. Homosexuality is never really seen, the idea that men taking the passive role in sex emasculated them kept same sex unions from ever happening. Though, what they did do was the same practice which carried onto Greece, older men who were married taking in younger lovers for a brief period of time. The passive partner’s age freed him of the stigma of being emasculated, which also seemed to not contradict their legal and religious codes as well. Since adultery was defined in that culture as sex between a man and a married woman only, since with polygamy the married man could simply marry the single woman; this could have been a way to address the other possibility of having sex outside of the marriage and doesn’t leave us with any suspicious phrases. Though, we do have to move on to the ever popular Sodomite. A word which somehow has now been understood to mean homosexual. Not sure how…but it has. It’s always translated off the word qadesh, and I think Devarim is the most commonly used verse in this regards. There shall be no (qadeshot) of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a (qadesh) of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a (zonah), or the price of a (keleb), into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow; for even both these are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.~23:18-19 For this, I decided to take out some of the translation and leave the Hebrew alone for the purpose of reference. Obviously, we know that the qadeshot were religious prostitutes. Also was a Zonah a prostitute as well, just without the religious matters attached to them. So how does the qadesh, the male version of qadeshah, turn out not to be a religious prostitute? It doesn’t…male religious prostitutes existed back then too. The same with a keleb. Hence why it talks about the price and hire of them being given as a vow. The context we are given and the comparing them together leaves us with no hesitation that prostitution of any kind is the key here, and in fact for those who have ever thought that non religious prostitutes were not covered, Torah says differently here. All forms of prostitution are covered within these two verses. So what are we left with? Sodom. A people who were destroyed early within Torah and are routinely used as a comparison for sin. Their sins are not talked about much and because of the story of when the angels come into the town to evaluate the people to see if Abraham’s plea for them can save them, they are often thought to be destroyed over homosexuality. To be honest, I have always found it sickening to think that people are so convinced they were destroyed for that reason. Now, while we have Ezekiel talking about her sin and never bringing up anything sexual…we have this story. One where two men, the town did not know they were angels and Lot possibly didn’t either, travel to town in and arrive in the middle of the night. Lot brings them in and feeds them and gives them a place to lay down for the night. Just then, a huge mob comes banging on the door demanding that they be brought out for sexual purposes. When they are told not to act wickedly, they tell Lot when they are done with the strangers they are going to do even worse to him. Simply put, they planned on gang raping these two men. Even in the parallel story in Judges it didn’t matter who it was since when the concubine is shoved out the door they have no problem continuously raping her all night long resulting in her death the next morning. Though, are we comfortable trying to pin the fact the targets were men as the reason for their destruction? Jews have been the pioneer in civil rights and have fought to abolish bigotry whenever it appeared. Yet, we are completely fine with thinking it wasn’t the fact the entire town was planning on raping them, just that they wanted sex with men? I mean does that even make sense? Does it follow with Torah and the justice she stands for? The path that was supposed to lead towards righteousness gives us what is one of the most morally abhorrent things a person can think of? I think not. Nor does it fit with what Ezekiel tells Yisrael about Sodom’s sin. The sin of neglecting the poor and needy while being fat and rich and mistreating the less fortunate. We would have to ignore tradition and what the Rabbi’s tell us about her treatment of others. Sodom could not have been destroyed over homosexuality. So what that said, does Torah really cover true homosexual relationships or is the focus on something else? From what I said above, I would think it is talking about something else…although we really haven’t covered what the Rabbis have said. Tradition may change things from time to time, but it should always be referred to when seriously pondering any subject, especially one which would include such drastic changes. I thought about what to say here after reading the multitude of passages in which male and male sex is mentioned in the Talmud and realized that every passage could be explained through seeing the attitude displayed in Kiddushin 82A. Here, the Rabbi Judah says that an unmarried man should not tend cattle and two unmarried men should sleep under the same tent or in the same bed, or as Maimonides read it to be alone together. It was permitted, though this is because it is said that the Jews were not suspected of bestiality or pederasty. Much the same as the list of occupations in which a man should not engage in because it would mean he would be alone with women. They thought it would lead them to sex. Why unmarried men? These were the men not having sex as they were not married yet. While people can argue over choice or not, the plain issue here is that homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex. So if we really are going to take in what the Rabbi’s talked about, they never really encountered gay men and hence never talked about them. Tradition is talking about those who are straight and just need a sexual release. While this may seem a little off considering the Orthodox stance for the past century, let us look at this from another perspective involving Halakhah, genital ambiguity and sex classification. The Talmud makes rulings over those with ambiguous genitalia and how to best serve them. They were still allowed to marry yet it was decided for them which sex they would be. Since one could not work off their genitals one had to work off other factors. Now, just as a reminder Oral Law was to set up a fence around Torah and in cases in which it might be impossible to tell if one is breaking a mitzvah or not, the Rabbi’s most often ruled on the side of caution and prohibited the activity by which the confusion could arise so that one did not unwittingly break one of the mitzvot. Yet, a saris was allowed to marry and if he was a priest who took on a wife, he could do things in which a priest who could not reproduce couldn’t. What we have traditionally called a eunuch is defined within Yebamoth 80b. Obviously, knowing what we do now about sex and genetics…we can look at this list and see those who were not easily classified as man or woman and suffered from genetic mutations upon the X and Y chromosomes. The Rabbi’s were much more lenient in this regard in which men would possibly end up having sex with men and women with women Why do I bring this up? For the same reason it always puzzles me to note that in the creation account ha-adam was created not man and woman, but male and female. I don‘t plan on going into transgenderism here, although it should be noted that even among the Rabbis it was noted that sexual identity was not as black and white as modern day Jews and Christians and even secularists have made it out to be. They saw more fluidity in it, and tried to compensate as best as possible without violating Torah. We need to embrace this mentality if we are too truly take tradition into account. How can we possibly say we are taking tradition into account when we have become more rigid than the Rabbi’s who transmitted the Oral Torah to us were? Now, I am not going to sit here and bemoan those who do not agree with me, yelling bigot and telling you that you do not know HaShem or Torah by not allowing homosexuals to live without telling them they are sinning. I am not saying this should change Halakhah as I am obviously not rabbinicly trained enough to come close to making decisions such as these. Though, I hope to add something which might be brought to the debate and maybe one day Halakhah might see some change from within the Orthodox community. I find it oddly interesting that of all things which are listed as sins, this is the only one outside of transgenderism, which brings up so much debate. Most mitzvah are discussed in terms of whether or not they still apply to modern day Jews instead of whether or not they were talking about the understood sin. Since that is the case, I personally would advocate much more deference and caution and understanding when approaching the issue to anyone who reads this. By all measures by which we are to evaluate things, I see a unison that could exist within the Orthodox community and homosexual Jews. One in which we do not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that these mitzvot no longer apply but one in which we can embrace Torah, tradition and modern day understanding into a harmonious balance unparalleled in the history of Judaism. Labels: Homosexuality, Judaism, Orthodox, religion

posted by Sarah-Beth @ 11:55 AM || 0 comments || * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Goddess and Torah Tuesday, March 24, 2009 Father, husband, king; the list goes on. The Hebrew texts are filled with male references to Yahwah. For years people have had the traditional image of the old man with white flowing hair and white beard up sitting on his throne in heaven. Even the traditional name used, God/G-d, is direct reference of a male deity. The very mention of a 'she' or any feminine reference will get you branded as a pagan feminist in this society. Understandably, a patriarchal society which is following only one deity using masculine references and connotations is not really surprising. Though, in light of women becoming theologians, rabbis and priests and the experiences brought to the board...can we really find the feminine experience from the deity of these religious texts? Goddess A concept which has been labeled as pagan, the idea of a female deity. Monotheism took such hold in this world throughout so much of the past 2000 years that anything outside the one and only male deity is typically seen as just strange. Though, what exactly would gender be when coming to grips with a being which has no need of sexual reproduction? We have become so accustomed to gender and sex being interchangable that it is the only viable conclusion. However, with our new understanding of there being a difference can we really hold to these same ideas? Ever since Jewish times we have countless and names and designations to this being which we used in relation to the experience we are relating to another. After reading a passage by Jill Hammer in "The New Jewish Feminism" I realized how close I already was to the idea of relating Goddess in my own experiences and in my own understanding of Torah. An understanding which started from hearing one of my friends, Steve, who has become sort of a mentor use 'she'. Elohiym An Engima unto to itself. The word Elohiym is used to denote singular as well as plural objects, a masculine plural form for a feminine singular form. Many Christians see this as their proof of the trinity which I think it being proof would be a bit stretching it. Though, I could definitely see it as a way to relate to their experience. In the first creation account in Genesis 1, we come to the creation of humans being made in the image of Elohiym. The proposal in verse 26 relates to the dominion over the earth and animals and the act in verse 27 doesn't. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." The image being related is the one of gender. Though, think about it. No matter how you interpret man here, male and female are the image. Male AND female. In other words not a genderless deity like the one taught in many Jewish circles or a male deity which is heavily focused on by Christians but a deity having both genders. Is it possible that we can unbound ourselves to a deity which is he and she both at the same time? Would it be stepping into those 'pagan' ideals which the Israelites were supposed to shun to related God or Goddess depending upon our specific experiences? Torah-law and teaching Ever read through the proverbs attributed to Solomon? I mean really read through them instead of just using them as part of a doctrinal understanding? The kind of reading to really try and grab the essence of the type of wisdom that is being conveyed? I never did growing up. The books of Psalms and Proverbs were always a means to a doctrine everwhere I looked. They weren't taken for their pure values. I finally did, and in the very first chapter I came across something I have never thought of before. "Hear, my son, the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the teaching of thy mother" That's the JPS translation which struck me right away because I knew this verse and what belonged to the mother that was not to be forsaken was the law, not the teaching. I even looked up the Hebrew texts and found 'torah' being the translated word. 'How odd' I thought. Then it finally made sense after reading Jill Hammer. It clicked. How do we see the raising styles of our parents? Our father is the strict one, the rule maker and enforcer. Not that this is bad, but it is why we are more stand offish with our father than our mother often times in growing up. What does our mother do? She guides us. She is more gentle and understanding. She is more concerned with teaching us what we should do instead of enforcing a rigid set of rules and regulations. I understand not all mothers nor all fathers fit into these stereotypical roles, though this is certainly the traditional imagery. So how does all of this relate to Torah? We have two very different images of Torah. In the beginning, Torah is our traditional imagery. The law, the rigid set of regulations and statutes Moses handed down to the Israelites before his eventually death. This has become the foundation for more than 2000 years of understanding of why Moses gave them Torah. It is linked into our male imagery of Yahwah as our father. Yet, we come to the Proverbs and we find something new; something more evolved from law. Torah is our teaching, our guiding principles handed down from our mother. She is no longer the rigid set of regulations we are to follow down to a T but a guiding light to embrace as we encounter daily life and situations which require applying Torah to decide on the best course of action. The Torah-A gift from our mother In a sense, I was already understanding Torah as this more evolved way of understanding. Like so many countless other things related through the Hebrew scriptures, Yahwah taught by progression. Changing things a little at a time in a way in which could be embraced before moving forward. I see no reason the Torah cannot be viewed in the same fashion. To see her as a rough draft blueprint instead of as an unchanging lawbook. Instead of relating to Torah as the law given from our father, maybe the next step of understanding can come from relating the Torah as the guidance of our mother. Labels: Christianity, feminism, gender roles, goddess, Judaism, Torah

posted by Sarah-Beth @ 5:57 AM || 0 comments || * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Please learn what an alternative theory is. Thursday, March 12, 2009 I really never care to get into arguments over whether or not the theory of evolution is true, though I run into this all the time even when there are not places where people are trying to get ID taught in schools. So many people want an alternative theory to evolution to be taught in schools because they do not want their kids learning this. Granted, I don't know a lot of people who really went over evolutionary theory much in high school, where the focus is, so I am really unsure why this gets pushed so much. Though, I honestly do not think people understand either what the theory of evolution seeks to explain or what an alternative theory really is. I think a lot of the problem stems from people's perceptions of Darwin himself, which started when he first published On the Origin of the Species. He wasn't looking to circumvent theism, and to be honest he worked hard to really avoid it ever touching upon the subject. Atheists and theists alike have worked in their own theological idealogies onto his theory. He only had one purpose when he started his work, to explain the taxonomic differences between different species. That's it. There is really nothing else which the theory, even today, is explaining. Now, there are many uses of the theory, as there is to any scientific theory, which I think gain more scorn than the theory ever does. Taxonomy is highly dependent upon the theory. Which really makes a lot of sense considering that is what the theory was seeking to explain. So what is our alternative theory? Intelligent design. A theory, for those who call it that, which does not seek to explain the taxonomic differences between animal species but to show a pattern of design which could only be the result of an intelligent designer. Let's be honest though, the intelligent designer is a creator deity...so it is a theistic theory only. It has an agenda, which of course makes it suspect to many people. Though, what I do not get is how is it an alternative theory? They do not seek to explain the same thing. In fact they are not even in the same ballpark. Their perspective phenomenon to explain doesn't fit into being competing theories. At best one could try to say that irreducible complexity would be the alternative theory, though it doesn't really try and explain the differences in taxonomy as much as it seeks to put holes in the theory of evolution. A lot of people think these are two theories, or a theory and an argument etc., to explain the same thing. Not even just theists but atheists too. Just as it was in Darwin's time, we have too many people putting their own ideologies into the theory. I often wonder how the theory would have evolved, pardon the pun, if we had not been doing this. Would the theory be as strong as it is today? Would we have competing theories now instead of one single theory? Would evolutionary theory have died out completely otherwise? There's no way to tell, though I can see all of these as possible outcomes if there had been no ideological bias in play with this one theory. I saw someone claim that "Intelligent Design and Creationism are simply critiques of Darwinism, at face value." Which I think is probably closer to the truth. Though, our problem is that so many are claiming otherwise and trying to legitimize it as the alternative to evolution. We really need for people to stop this. Be honest and admit what this is, a use of a scientific theory to argue atheism vs. theism. The same old shit that goes on otherwise, just wrapped up in pretty paper with a bow wrapped around it. This was the arguments which had been going on in philosophy which have mostly died out and now science is the new method of doing so. We honestly lose too much by doing this. Labels: atheism, creationism, evolution, ID, science, theism

posted by Sarah-Beth @ 2:57 PM || 0 comments || * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Prop 8 and the Modern Day Pharisees Tuesday, March 10, 2009 I know we are all probably very tired of hearing the same old thing when it comes to this and I agree it got old quick. I didn't spend too much time discussing the issue much online nor am I looking to condemn those who voted yes on 8, regardless of my opinions of your decision. If you are not a Christian of any denomination or sect then this doesn't apply to you. I honestly have to wonder what is wrong with you people. Now, I do not share the same opinion of many who have given death threats and all that; I do however want to know where things got mixed up in your minds. I mean seriously, the Jewish community overwhelmingly opposed the ballot; a community which has been deeply involved when it comes to fighting for civil rights. Modern Christians on the other hand aren't willing to fight for the little guy anymore unless they can find the group of people to be in line with their own morality. It's sickening honestly, are people in need not worthy of help based on things you do not morally agree with? What are these people in need of? Money? Not as a whole. Shelter or food? Again it is a no. They do however need their dignity acknowledged. The whole idea of civil unions are ok but marriage isn't takes us back once again to an elitist mentality of trying to claim separate but equal. Though, this isn't my main beef. It's the amount of money raised for this issue...40 million dollars. I mean 40 million, you realize how many people that would feed? We are sitting in the middle of an economic depression, which honestly we aren't that far off from it being officially declared one, and you are wasting 40 millions dollars on something that doesn't effect anyone not involved in that marriage? Granted, Equality for All raised more money but in all fairness it was to oppose something infringing on another's civil rights. It's much more understandable. The same can not be said for legally recognizing a gay couple's commitment to each other as a marriage as imposing on anyone else's civil rights. I want to get back to this though, the 40 million fricken dollars that was wasted here. Have you people lost that much touch with your religious roots? Christianity and Judaism both have religious texts full of condemnation on not helping the poor and the disenfranchized. It's why Jews are so involved in the struggle of civil rights no matter what the issue has been. I really cannot comprehend this really. Christianity flourished for 4 centuries while having no power when it came to the government. No laws were ever passed based on Christian ethics or biblical principles during that time, yet people flocked to the religion. So the idea that society backing something leads Christians astray doesn't really fit very well. Throughout the Hebrew/Jewish texts are repeated commands to protect the homeless and the disadvantaged, nations are destroyed for it, prophets use Sodom's neglect to the needy as examples of lesser crimes than Israel's. It's a central topic repeated so much it should be engrained into the Church's head. Though what gets me worse is Jesus's favorite group to yell at for doing this, were the Pharisees. Now, I mean no offense to the Jews for their religious heritage here...though I have never seen a Jewish source ever label the Rabbis in the Talmud as Pharisees much for the same reason that I don't. Christians really have become modern day Pharisees as a whole. The image of the Pharisees was to use religion to oppress others, to the detriment of those in need. Sound familiar? Now I know Christians will claim to the many Christian charities which do help the needy but honestly, if there is one person dying of starvation then there should never be 40 million dollars raised over a law which is not creating any victims. It's pathetic, the LDS, Focus on the Family, the RCC, the Knights of Columbus, the AFA; all of them raised money over this issue...when we have millions of people worldwide homeless and dying of starvation. Every cent should have been used for the needy. Instead it was used against a group of people who weren't hurting anyone. To think how many of you are following a religion which used the image of the Pharisee as a condemnation, a religion who started out opposing these people, just to turn in to that very image. Even more, the image of the Pharisee matches fairly close, without the religion part, to that of Sodom. Which American Christianity has become a bunch of Sodomites. People who have enough money to live fairly comfortably yet would rather spend 40 million dollars on something which helps them feel better instead of those who are starving and homeless. It's shameless what you have turned into really. Labels: Christian, gay marriage, LGBT, pharisee, prop 8, religion

posted by Sarah-Beth @ 7:46 AM || 0 comments || * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

PREVIOUS POSTS
older posts

Is there a place for homosexuals to feel at home i...
Goddess and Torah
Please learn what an alternative theory is.
Prop 8 and the Modern Day Pharisees


THE ARCHIVES
check wayy back

March 2009
September 2009

LINKS
check these out

LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK