Having said that, Johnathan brings up an interesting point when he says homosexual acts are prohibited rather than homosexuality. If you consider that in historical context, you get a different picture. The Torah was meant to be read, meaning context matters regardless of whether it was written by God or men; the people living at the time had to understand it.

And at that point in history, the Greeks (who weren’t that far away) had a habit of boy-love. It was normal for straight men to have sex with young guys. It’s sensible that the law was written in reference to that sort of behavior, which, we can probably agree, is an abomination.

I actually really appreciated both Rabbi Anon’s AND Jonathon’s interpretations. I think that such is exactly what this site is for– to share your opinions and, hopefully, help others form their own. (After all, that is usually the point of a BLOG- duh.)

I do think that Jonathon’s post sounded authoritative and passed off as fact rather than opinion- but not any more than Rabbi Anon’s did. And, yes, both posts WERE opinion. I get very offended when someone tries to tell me how to interpret my own religion. I do love, however, hearing different views that help facilitate the formation of my own beliefs.

I was surprised to read the original post from ‘Rabbi Anon’ and it’s funny that Leah touched on it, because I was wondering myself if he was really a Rabbi- it didn’t sound like one. It did sound very negative, harsh and personal. No one has right to say what belongs on this site other than the editors.

Furthermore, I think that authoritative Rabbi’s who say, “This is what the religion means,” or “you must believe this” or “interpret it this way,” is exactly the type of elitism or egotism or totalitarianism- or whatever you wish to call it- that shuns people away or scares them away from orthodox religion and closer to Reform Judaism (or even no religion, as many of my once-Catholic friends would agree after they got out of Catholic school), which encourages people to interpret Judaism how they’d like, as long as it makes you happy with yourself and your religion- and who could disagree with that?

However, on the social plan, I beleieve that the problem is deceit, plain and simple. When one says “gays deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and to be allowed to live as full members of society, and that discrimination against gays is utterly and completely unacceptable.” it is a “lie truth”, i.e. the statement in and on itself is true, but used deceitfully. The first insinuation is that “gays” are routinely treated as garbage and tortured and humiliated. While it is true that many gays have to endure one form of abuse or another, this is true to almost everyone on earth, whether they have just a crooked nose or belong to a group with a crooked nose, so to speak. The second insinuation is that the Torah preaches hate of “gays”. The third insinuation is that all gays are invariably victims, they were all born that way, are exclusively homosexual and are absolutely incurable. There is little truth and many lies in these statements, whether insinuated or openly stated.

The real goal of many so-called ‘pro gay rights’ advocates is by far not protecting gays from harm, but to force homosexuality and depravity on everyone else. In our days it is very non-PC to say anything negative about gays, yet comments that are ipso-facto anti-Jewish (often under the guise of ‘pro-Palestinianism or criticism of orthodoxy) are fully acceptable. All medias are geared towards lewdness, sensual and sexual content in all forms. This all stems from the desire of self destruction, i.e. denial of authority (G-d) to justify the fulfillment of one’s own desire. That is wrapped in “compassion” and “love of the fellow”.

I am sure you were taught in school if you want to make a point regarding Torah issues then you t your quotes and give citations. That is how you make your argument. I was taken aback by Jonathan’s fist comment. But in no way do I think Jonathan was writing this as a musing.

Here is the thing Rabbi, we were all given the Torah. Everyone has a right to interpret it. Whether they see the actual interpretation or not is a different story. I can give the Torah to Vice President Dick Chaney and I can give it to Amy Whinehouse (who is Jewish) and both would have a different analysis. Does it mean I have to insult both of them for not being a Rav.

We are all to take from the wise and to command our Ravs, Rebbes, and Rabbis.
No one knows the Torah 100 %. And I have yet to meet a sage on Jewneric, therefore humility and eretz derech is needed on this website when you comment on other’s people’s post.

Jonathan obviously took the time to write his post. And for that I give him credit.

However, I am admittedly not on the level of the aforementioned rabbis and should have chosen my words more carefully..but it’s all to defend the honor of the Torah, and not G-d forbid, a personal attack. I was only outraged as what I saw to be a misrepresentation of Torah but was not trying to attack anyone personally.

My main issue is actually the tone in which this posting was written. One example: “OUR response to this challenge.. WE cannot endorse the idea of civil gay marriage.. WE can not only endorse but actively promote making civil unions available to same-sex couples..” Jonathan wrote as if he were issuing a ruling on behalf of Torah Jewry as opposed to humbly submitting his own ideas. It was this that I took issue with. I reiterate that I think all of us (myself included) need to avoid the urge to use Jewneric as a forum for issuing “psak” or teshuvot on very complicated matters in such absolute terms.

I hear your points on the personal attack issue. I was simply taken aback by Jonathan Kamen’s reaction to Rabbi Anonymous’ comments. I do not think that it was a mature person’s reaction.

Torah is not against Homosexuals. Homosexuals are loved by Hashem as much as heterosexuals. The avera is in the acts of homosexuality.

As for the Shulchan Aruch comment. Female homosexuality is consider an avera under many divisions. It is consider immoral and its discussion is dealt with in oral law. It is also in the Talmud and a female would recieve Malkos.

Vayikra 18:22

And BAVA Metzia my favourite Gemorah to read.
Bava Metzia 91 a
K’makchol Bi’Shefoferes- like a stick or twig (that is used as an applicator) into a hollow reed tube (that contains a substance to be applied)

There are more ways to say a man is forbidden to be with another man.
And a woman is forbidden to be with another woman.
And a man is forbidden to be with an animal.And so on…

Please ready Sanhedrin and Berachos.
I say Berachos because in it , it speaks of a Women being able to go to heaven but not a man. A man must engaged with a women to raise his level spiritually. Since HaShem wants all his humans do to well then ofcourse he wants that a man should be with their bashert, one that is a female.
As for Rabbi Anonymous you did belittle him. Try to make arguments that aren’t personal but rather factual. GROW UP!

To discuss whether he is an expert in Jewish law? If you really are a Rabbi I am really disturbed. A Rabbi should not conduct himself in such a manner. Know that every word that comes out of ones mouth, if it is negative, it is a yezter hara energy that gets spewed into this world. Therefore Guard your tongue RABBI.

“J says: Why do you feel this way? It is clearly not a personal attack.”

To j, Are you kidding? READ BELOW

1. I’m commenting to clear up some of the gross errors in this fluffy, non-scholarly musing.
2. Finally, I think you’ve abused Jewneric by posting your own personal musings here, and that this post does not belong on the site.
3. I think you’d admit you’re not an expert in Jewish law.
4. You are not the Talmudic sages and your (and my) opinions are irrelevant in the canon of Jewish law.