COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

I am a staunch Yes voter on Prop 8, due entirely to my understanding of Scripture and my faith.  But, this man is absolutely rediculous and needs to keep his mouth shut.  Christians need to make sure that if they vote Yes on Prop 8, they do this with love and not judgment.  We are not condemning others, we are simply allowing our beliefs to be accounted for accurately.  I honestly believe that the definition of marriage given through scripture is the union of one man and one woman; but that does not give me the right to hate and judge others for their life choices.  Despicable.

Comment by ethan on 10/31/08 at 7:51 pm

I find it interesting that the supporters of Prop 8 try to couch their comments in “love, without judgement” and yet they are in very fact saying that gay marriage is an abomination and is immoral. Any loving commitment between two individuals is santioned and glorified by the Lord. He accepts me as I am and wants for me to be happy and receive joy. I don’t care how YOU define marriage for yourself personally. I deeply object to others trying to “legally” define marriage in such a way as to exclude me. Nowhere in the scriptures does the Lord condemn gays, but throughhout the scriptures he did express displeasure with hypocrits that tried to bend the laws and commandments to their rigid, selfish views. His gospel is one of love and inclusion, not hat and exclusion.

Comment by Lynn on 10/31/08 at 9:49 pm

First of all Lynn, it is explicit in its condemnation in the bible. But i digress, Once you open up the definition of marriage where does it end. Why not polygamy, or why not marriage between a human and an animal. Having said that though I speak has a divorced guy. Why shouldn’t you be has miserable as the rest of us.

Comment by Bill Pearlman on 11/01/08 at 9:53 am

lynn,
the men is this video are absolutely hypocrites and wrong.  but if you want to get really technical, we are all hypocrites in one way or another, we just like to rail on the hypocrites we see most clearly.

I have to disagree with your reading of scripture.  I respect that you read it differently than I do, and therefore, i understand why you would feel the way you do about the Prop…but I have to disagree with your interpretation.

When I vote Yes on Prop 8, I am not saying gay marriage is an abomination or immoral.  All I am saying is that when I am asked the definition of marriage, it means between one man and one woman.  That is all.  You are reading into my vote all sorts of hate-filled implications.  I am confident that God will be judge over all; and therefore I don’t have to be, it takes the weight of being right or wrong out of my hands.  I am called to be obedient to His Word and represent it accurately; which I constantly fail at, but that failure is built into the system, i.e. the concept of forgiveness.

As for not caring how I define marriage for myself…well, unfortunately for you, our state does care.  I have said before that if there was a Prop on whether we should be voting on this at all, I would vote against it; I don’t like voting on this…but that won’t make the Prop go away.  I have to be honest with my self and vote my beliefs…not hate; but answering what the definition of a word is.

Comment by ethan on 11/01/08 at 1:29 pm

This pretty much sums up Brad Dacus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU_CTEuwfcc

Comment by Larry Shilkoff on 11/01/08 at 5:32 pm

Look at the joy at these gay weddings at Beth Chayim Chadashim and then tell the happy couples, like the Soup Nazi:  “No wedding for you.”

I don’t think so.  Vote No on Prop. 8.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE8yapuEIJY

Comment by The Web Guy on 11/01/08 at 5:41 pm

I don’t know where Beth Chayim is, is it the Gay Synagogue? Look, I’m in NY, the only reason I started reading the LA jewish journal is because I was visiting my brother and his family who live out there. But here is the thing. There are benchmarks in religion. Gay marriage is not sanctioned in Judaism, it just isn’t. And you can’t skate around that.

Comment by Bill Pearlman on 11/01/08 at 6:25 pm

Actually, you are wrong.  As always, two Jews, three opinions:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/religion/article/same_sex_marriage_and_the_fabric_of_society_what_does_it_all_mean_20080617/

Comment by The Web Guy on 11/01/08 at 7:01 pm

Re: Prop 8, here is a pretty good survey of the varying positions on the measure:

Rabbis on anti-gay marriage Prop 8: Yes, no, maybe

Comment by The Web Guy on 11/01/08 at 8:15 pm

If you go with classic Jewish law, halacha. It’s prohibited, no question about it. And while not being orthodox myself that’s where I line up. Judaism is not an “anything goes” religion. Far from it.  The reform have loosened things up to the point where there are no standards, none at all. The conservatives are wishy washy as usual. Look, this isn’t something that bothers me, or keeps me up at night one way or another. If you guys vote against it, fine. I don’t live there, although I have to say that the weather and the beaches are great. Just don’t try to pass off classic liberalism has somehow the same as judaism. That’s not right.

Comment by Bill Pearlman on 11/01/08 at 8:58 pm

The invocation of resisting Hitler as a call to Prop 8 activism is a cheap and clumsy one. What is so different about comparing Prop 8 activists to joy-killing Soup Nazis? Is joy the issue here? I am sure you could get plenty of joy at a convention of sadists and masochists as well.

What is at stake is cold and irresponsible social engineering to pass moral judgments and to change the character of society. This has nothing to do with Nazism. Maybe more like Fascism.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/02/08 at 2:22 am

” . . . Reform Jews often do not read the bible literally.  In the Torah (the first five biblical books) the death penalty is mentioned as punishment for a number of crimes no one would implement today.  In Deuteronomy, the ‘wayward and defiant son’ (the teen boy disrespecting parents) should receive capitol punishment.  In Numbers, the Sabbath violator should also lose his life. In these two cases, no one argues the punishment fits the crime.  Why disregard or re-interpret the bible in these instances but take literally the sin of two men engaging in homosexual activity? 

The Torah is a holy document. It is not, though, a perfect work.  Reform Jews believe the sacred books in our literary cannon were written not by God but by people.  In other words, biblical and rabbinic authors may have been divinely inspired but they were still fallible human beings.  The written word, therefore, always reflects human imperfection.  The context of time a text was written should always be taken into consideration.

Child sacrifices, animal cruelty, and inhumane slavery were inherent features of the pagan cult. In biblical times, it’s easy to understand how our Israelite ancestors strived to disassociate themselves from nations that performed horrific cultic practices.  It is easy, in establishing an ethical monotheistic covenant, to understand how our biblical ancestors could over-state their condemnation of particular pagan behaviors . . . “

more @

Religious “No!” to Proposition 8

Comment by The Web Guy on 11/02/08 at 3:21 am

Bill said: “Just don’t try to pass off classic liberalism has somehow the same as judaism.”

Interesting point.

Comment by Brad A. Greenberg on 11/02/08 at 3:59 am

Now we are talking turkey. Taking the following from your referenced article:

IF -
the Bible is not to be read literally, and its authority can be rendered obsolete, and it is an imperfect work, and it was written by fallible human beings, and its context is limited and unaware of future developments; and it was subject to exaggeration;

THEN -
despite lip service to divine inspiration and a holy nature there is no convincing acknowledgement of an authoritative source for the Bible, let alone a supernatural and one of a knowledge and wisdom and insight superior to a human one.

Or in short, no God as the Bible describes and relates. No Law as the Bible spells out. And no enduring (let alone eternal) nation or land of Israel, in light of the lack of a divine or legal basis. No basis for a religion or religious authority. In other words, no reason for anyone except a few boring old academic scholars to pay attention to it. Or as Rabbi Kahane liked to say, there are no Reform Jews, only Reform Rabbis. And though your author concludes “In opposing this ballot-measure, I know I am optimistically standing on firm religious ground”, I note that while all of the many varieties of Christians and Muslims are offshoots of classical Judaism whether they know it or admit it or not, not one religion in the world relies on the authority or principles of Reform Judaism. I am willing to be proven wrong.

I have often stated that the original and authentic Jewish religion is in the nature of a human potential movement. It channels the distinct human attributes into a conception superior to the beasts. In the case of homosexuality which does not exist among beasts in nature, the human attribute of abstraction and imagination is employed to render humans inferior to beasts, as attributed to the societies of ancient Egypt and Canaan.

Your Rabbi Bradley Artson attempts to create a brand new sophistry to differentiate Prop 8 style homosexuality to the ancient kind, and soothe the lazy-minded Bible violator. However despite Rabbi Artson’s informal investigation, my understanding of Greek homosexuality was that it was introduced and encouraged to increase the effectiveness of their fighting forces. In combination with the view of women as chattel in Greek society, it was reasoned that a soldier would fight harder for the sake of a love object than for an ordinary combat buddy. That arrangement compares with the definition promoted by the author of the article.

And with regard to the idea that we see farther because ““We are standing on the shoulders of those who came before us”, classical Judaism deems that the succeeding generations from the original fathers and Mothers, from Sinai and the Kingdom of David grow increasingly weaker and more degenerate spiritually. This is why we may refine and adapt but never contradict and uproot Biblical text, whose literal meaning always remains relevant. While many laws are applicable and implementable only in an entirely Torah based national society, all remain true and relevant. And employing that context which you call so important, Biblical law struck giant blows against the pagan societies in putting a ground floor under the degredation and abuse and exploitation of women and children and slaves and foreigners. And it is because of that that its intentions and competance cannot be called into question on what it considers priorities.

Finally, the author attempts to call marriage “a state mandated constitutional civil right”. Source, please. I have been making the point that it is not any such thing, and if so it is in error.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/03/08 at 1:43 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

Blog Archive

• By Month
• Categories

• By Month
• Categories