« In which karma catches up with treppenwitz | Main | An Unspeakable Choice »
Monday, June 19, 2006
Since you forced me to answer… let me just say, uh, ‘No’
Last week I got an email from a very well known blogger with whom I have never corresponded. As if that weren't enough to pique my curiosity, the email seemed to be a blind copy of a response he had sent to someone else with whom I had no connection.
It said:
“Shalom! Here are a list of influential bloggers with good-sized readership:”
Listed below that intriguing sentence was a list that included treppenwitz... as well as the email addresses of such august bloggers as Aussie Dave (Israellycool), Yaacov Kirschen (Dry Bones), and Ted Bellman (Israpundit).
My initial reaction was to be quite chuffed.
But then I started wondering what had been in the earlier correspondence (none was attached or nested) to which this list of bloggers' email addresses would constitute an answer.
So I responded politely:
“Thank you... I'll take that as a compliment. Now if only I knew what the question had been. :-)”
Within a few minutes I got the following reply:
“First, the staff of Arutz 7 and I are trying to do a media campaign to stop the gay-pride fiasco in J'lem. You are very respected David, and your help would be a major Kiddush Hashem [ed. note: sanctification of G-d's name]. This worries me more than the Hamas. Could you mention something on Treppenwitz?
Second, as long as I have you ear, If you'd agree, I'd be privileged to exchange links with you.”
[~blink~]
Clearly this person doesn't read me very often.
Well, the second request didn't require any thought on my part. I never respond to such requests because if you are already reading me you should have me on your blogroll without the need for reciprocity. And if I read you on a regular basis you wouldn't need to ask to be listed.
But I digress since it is the first paragraph that really raised my hackles.
However, after a moment's thought I realized that the phrase ‘gay-pride fiasco in J'lem’ was just ambiguous enough that I wanted to make sure I wasn't jumping to an incorrect conclusion. I mean, maybe he was calling the attempts to block the parade a fiasco, right?
So I responded:
“I admit I haven't been following the municipal news very carefully. Can you clarify 'gay-pride fiasco'. Is something happening that is different from the same posturing and name calling that has gone back and forth in years past? “
I didn't have long to wait, because within seconds (a response time that suggests a cut and pasted source) I received the following:
“They intend to bring 300,000 people to a happening in J'lem, Aug. 6. It's a super provocation. I don't call others names, and don't interfere with anyone's free choice. But, when a person wants to flaunt his garbage in front of the eyes of our children and in the Holy City, we have to mobilize.”
Well, that removed any ambiguity, no?
Now, I know better than most that one shouldn't fisk an email without thinking about it for a few minutes. But the glaring contradiction between, ‘I don't call others names, and don't interfere with anyone's free choice’… and the sound of the other shoe dropping; ‘But, when a person wants to flaunt his garbage’, kinda challenges a reader's willing suspension of disbelief.
So now I was faced with a dilemma. Do I respond and risk getting into a whole 'thing' with the guy... or do I just blow him off and hope he doesn't follow up?
I tend to avoid confrontation so I opted to simply not respond.
But almost immediately it became apparent what that original email (the one listing all the blogger email addresses) had been about. It was a widely distributed chain letter intended to try to shame bloggers who are perceived to be conservative/religious into using their on-line space to take up this anti-gay cause.
I found this out because I began getting emails like the following from people asking/begging me to use my influence to reverse the evil decree:
"Shalom!
I am writing to you as one of the most influential bloggers that have to do with Israel and love for their people.
Please post a protest of the scheduled World Gay Pride parade and week long festival that is due to take place in the Holy City of Jerusalem (and other places in Israel where they will be hanging out) this August 2006.
The GLBTQ Community (Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender-Queer -their terminology, not mine ) has chosen Israel as its destination and will be having their parade on the streets of Jerusalem.
I am devastated at the thought, that in a few short weeks, there will be a HORRIBLE defilement of my sensitivities, a threat to my family's innocence and a desecration of the sanctity of the Holy City of Jerusalem.
Now, don't get me wrong, I believe that everyone is free to do what s/he thinks is right for them, within the confines of their own personal space, and certainly behind closed doors.
I am referring to the "International Gay Parade" that is soon to sully the atmosphere of Jerusalem.
From past experience we know that this is not just an innocent parade or conference. (I wouldn't be so vehemently against it). We have seen the disgusting public display of their actions and their desire to receive acceptance and purification of their abominable perverted behavior.
This cannot be! I demand that my rights and the rights of my family be respected.
Now is the time to stand up for Jerusalem!
a concerned mom"
Yikes!
Well, I hate to say it, but the best way to make me publicly come out for something is to try to shame me into coming out against it. I'm a contrarian that way.
So, let me just say the following for the record:
I am not pro- or anti-Gay any more than I am pro- or anti-woman, black or left-handed. These things simply 'are' and to publicly demand a stance against any of them is to fly in the face of the Creator who made people with any and all of these attributes.
100 years ago women weren't much more than property. 200 years ago blacks actually were property. To this day, if you are left-handed you are probably resigned to stumbling around awkwardly in a society constructed exclusively for right-handed people.
All of these things changed (well, we're still working on the whole left-handed thing) because society was grabbed by it's collective lapels and forcibly shaken until it had no choice but to confront a new reality in its midst. The Gay Parades that periodically arrive in our cities are intended to shake us up. Perhaps after seeing a 260lb. bearded drag queen kissing a body builder wearing nothing but chaps, the sight of a two guys wearing khakis and oxfords holding hands in the corner coffee shop won't seem so, well, shocking.
If you want to lure me into a discussion on immigration, abortion, smoking, drugs, government oversight, etc., bring it on. You see, all of these things are within man's control and require an active choice for them to happen.
But being gay is not a choice any more than, say, being a black left handed woman is a choice. Some people simply 'are'. We don't need to keep the queers hidden away from polite society. Your little dears aren't going to catch the whole gay thing like the flu.
Just as with women, minorities and yes, even lefties... historically there has been the equivalent of a swift kick in the pants (in the form of protests, public activism and often even violence/war) before the necessary accommodations are made for people who don't fit into the existing cookie-cutter mold society naturally wants to create for it's members.
As for me (and here's my real response to the emails) I won't be drawn into a discussion of wrong and right when it comes to any of G-d's creations. I don't have that say... and in the absence of a theocracy and the reintroduction of divine prophecy, neither does anyone else!
You don't consider it 'a HORRIBLE defilement of my sensitivities, a threat to my family's innocence and a desecration of the sanctity of the Holy City of Jerusalem' when Hassidim in Mea Sha'arim throw rocks at fellow Jews or are led away in handcuffs for child\spousal abuse and fraud. Yet these are all acts of choice that take place in the holy city by purported guardians of all that is holy and sanctified.
So, where are all the pious letters to bloggers protesting all of that?
Are these miscreants representative of the Hassidic/Haredi world? Of course not. But they are a Chilul Hashem (a public desecration of G-d's name) to which you seem perfectly willing to turn a blind eye. The big difference though, is that these black-hatted coreligionists are perpetrating acts of choice... not simply walking around as nature/G-d created them.
The truth is, I'll admit I find the various Gay Pride Parades around the globe to be a bit off-putting. But that is probably their goal. I am a fairly conservative guy who finds the idea of two men kissing to be mildly revolting. I'm hard-wired that way. The outrageous drag queens and public groping shock my traditional sensibilities. But that's what they are supposed to do. Any small semblance of rights/ equality that gays currently enjoy under the law is entirely due to these very public acts of ostentatiousness that force people to become acclimated to something outside their normal range of personal experiences.
Sure, I'm a bit intrigued/titillated by the whole idea of lesbianism... but that's probably only because I can appreciate the object of their desires. But I admit that I would be disappointed if my daughter announced one day that she was 'batting for the other team'. Not because I am anti-gay... but because I would naturally want her to experience the same male-female intimacy I have with her mother. But her announcing to me that this was not possible would not indicate to me that she had rejected my way of life, but rather that she had been created by G-d according to a different blueprint.
In my humble opinion, the worst sort of hypocrisy is to 'magnanimously' proclaim that you support a person's right to live however they choose... yet demand that they not do so where you can see them.
In Biblical times there was the concept of forcing people with diseases, deformities and forbidden lifestyles to live outside the company of mainstream society.
But until you can demonstrate to me that we have returned to such a state of divine intimacy with our Maker and He has directed you to speak on His behalf... kindly shut your cake hole and spend a little more time becoming a shining (but silent) personal example of how we should all be living our lives.
Note: There are two reason I have deliberately avoided mentioning this blogger's name here (and why I would appreciate other's following my lead in this regard).
1. After watching my daughter spend half a year studying 'Shmirat HaLoshon' (the laws of guarding one's speech), and then seeing how diligently she has incorporated these important guidelines into her everyday life... I am trying to follow her example so as to possibly secure a less-toasty seat for myself in hell.
2. Even though he seems to have sent my email address to every moonbat on the planet, the blogger in question does a lot of very important/very good community work. I would hate to provoke a flame war with him that might result in anyone's opinion of him being lowered.
Posted by David Bogner on June 19, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5503e67ea8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Since you forced me to answer… let me just say, uh, ‘No’:
» Gay Pride in Jerusalem from I Speak of Dreams
David Bogner, who writes Treppenwitz, was asked to by a fellow Israeli blogger to post out against World Pride 2006 in Jerusalem. He responded [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 26, 2006 11:55:10 PM
Comments
Trepp, it's been interesting - and disappointing - to see your, uh, limp responses to the several people who have tried to challenge the politically correct views.
And you seem to have totally ignored the very valid claim that the targeting of Jerusalem, like the purposeful targeting of Rome a few years ago, is an act of political provocation and disrespect for other views - typical of a certain self-righteous political correctness that blithely imposes its own will with an iron fist (in the name of "diversity" of course... of course...)
Let's try it this way:
Diabetes
BiPolar Disorder
Cancer
Autism
Depression
Schizophrenia
Alchoholism
... and a host of other ailments are "natural" - that is, they have a genetic factor in their causation.
Would anyone consider them "normal" - shall we tell schizophrenics to "celebrate their difference" and send them off into the world?
There are, in fact, some parents of autistic children who are so infected with political correctness that they refuse "invasive" procedures that are proven to draw autistic kids out into our world, and help them function. They would rather "support" their childrens' "specialness".
All the proud pronouncements about gay rights turn on this propaganda sleight of hand - in which dubious, inconclusive evidence of "natural" causation gets spun somehow into a claim that this behavior is "normal" - and therefore equal.
Big difference.
Homosexuality has been viewed as abnormal and maladapted in almost every major human society in history.
This was based largely on observations of how homosexuals really act - a pattern of compulsive promiscuity and sexual exploitation observed consistently across most times, places, and cultures.
And evidence from swinging Holland, Scandinavia and Canada indicates that the same pattern of compulsive promiscuity persists after all legal protections are extended to homosexuals.
That's the difference between the gay-rights PR circus and the real fights against race and gender prejudice.
Trepp - can you please indicate exactly how claims that homosexuality is "natural" - or the more directly emotional claim that it's "unchosen" - spill over into claims that it is normal - and therefore deserving of equal legal/social status?
'Cause I know a whole bunch of people who would love it if they could just throw off "hateful, chauvinist" public opinion and "celebrate their differences".
Like that new pederast's party in the Netherlands...
(no connection, no, no, of course not, just COINCIDENCE that these people felt they could raise their filthy heads in Holland - no, no, no connection WHATSOEVER to the loosening of legal definitions to accommodate gays - or the "nobody's business what I do in private" attitude that pertains there - how "hateful" and "homophobic" of me to even suggest it...)
And can you explain how this pro-gay stance - and the brave talk about all the behaviors that are "nobody's business" - jibe with your adherence to binding, covenantal Judaism?
Last time I checked, people's social, uh, intercourse was most definitely within the Torah's bailiwick.
Please clarify.
Posted by: Ben-David | Jun 20, 2006 2:29:19 PM
David, wonderful post. I almost wish that this person, whoever he is, had considered my blog important enough for such a letter, which I could then have torn apart ... but I would not have done it nearly as well as you did. (Or, given the organization to which he belongs, perhaps he noticed that I belong to another group whose activities he would prefer not to see and whose rights he would prefer not to admit; recently I've come to believe that some people would rather see a group of women rob a bank than pray together.)
A side note (or maybe not): I am really tired of the false equation that people make between homosexuality and sexual abuse. Last year I saw posters against the parade with slogans reading things like, "Mommy, protect me from these people!" Funny ... the gay and lesbian people I know would never commit such a crime -- and the creeps who groped me on the bus at various times were not lesbians. But I suppose that any means, however hypocritical, are within bounds for the sake of the cause.
Posted by: Rahel | Jun 20, 2006 2:51:08 PM
I find it pretty impossible to label David B. as PC. I mean you know you are doing something right when half the world would call you a gun toting, radical religious nut, conservative for moving your family to Israel. And the other half labels you as a PC liberal who advocates flushing our morals.
Bravo David!
No one really knows where gay feelings come from.
Many many many gay people try super hard to live hetero lives and end up feeling suicidal, tortured, and full of self loathing.
Gays are largely hated because their situation, however it comes about, is stomach turning for people to think about if they don't swing that way. It's often a visceral response that people try to disguise as moral repulsion, a moral repulsion they don't apply fairly across the board. Hence the big gay parade. Plus gay people just love a parade. : )
Gay teenagers kill themselves at a higher rate than non gays because they try so hard to not be gay, often feel like loathsome 'sinners', and just don't want to be hated. (Or hung by the neck until dead, which is how they handle gays in places really really close to Israel.)
As a religious person, I feel a tremendous amount of compassion for people trapped in this situation.
Posted by: Alice | Jun 20, 2006 3:26:26 PM
Good post! I really can't say that enough. I'll have to let the folks over at Jewlicious know about this ...
Posted by: ck | Jun 20, 2006 3:30:17 PM
Ben-David... I usually enjoy your comments. And while I don't think we see eye-to-eye on many issues I usually respect the way you formulate and present your opinions. However this comment was just begging to be fisked (particularly in light of your calling my earlier responses to tangential/unrelated issues 'limp). So let's go straight to it, shall we?:
1. Targeting: Yes, targeting Jerusalem was quite deliberate (and that was the correct word). As I've said several times already. If shock is your goal then going to a place where people are not going to be shocked by gays groping each other in public is not a very smart tactic.
2. [insert long list of chronic and/or fatal diseases here]: I prefer my choice of naturally occurring conditions: black, left handed, etc. If you must impose value on the issue, let's also add albinos and hair lips. These work better according to your model because they occur naturally in nature and are often disturbing for people to look at. However, your list, well, sucks... mostly because we have some idea why most of those conditions occur... and there are treatments (of varying effectiveness) for most of them. Some loony evangelical sects aside, you have about as much chance of 'curing' a homosexual as you do of curing an albino (and yes, I know you can surgically address most hair lips).
Intervention: Your use of parents refusing medical intervention for their autistic children is just silly. I tiny minority of parents follow this bizarre practice and if medical intervention was available for homosexuality I imagine many people would explore that route. But since it isn't, you are guilty of using a completely fallacious (no, not fellatio-us) argument.
Normal: What do you care if it is called normal or not. The people who are born gay are entitled to live a normal life and should not be forced to live in a legal limbo because of how they were created. If they were catchy I could see imposing a quarantine... but any attempt to block their right to live with whom they want, how they want is simply homophobic.
"Homosexuality has been viewed as abnormal and maladapted in almost every major human society in history" And your point is? Almost every society on earth once though that slavery, public floggings and capital punishment were okeydokey. Societies mature and learn things. You should also.
" Are those the clinical facts? Are you sure? I'm afraid I'm going to have to play the 'liar, liar pants on fire' card if you don't come up with a link to a respected medical journal that has documented this behavior exclusively in homosexuals using a double blind statistical study. The kind of homophobic blood libel you just spouted is why many bigots still equate homosexuality with pedophilia. The fact that you mention some vague 'evidence' from Scandinavia is actually quite rich since Scandinavia is one of the more, permissive/promiscuous cultures on the planet when it comes to sex outside of marriage.
Unchosen: I think the burden is on society to demonstrate why people born with any differences should not receive equal treatment under civil law. You don't want them in your church or synagogue? That's your call. But if they want to be the legal heirs to each other's estates or be able to sign a DNR when a loved one is in a coma, who the hell are you to hoard these rights for yourself and deny them to others? We're not talking about affirmative action or some special scholarship program that will deny you or anyone else anything. The rights the want (and deserve) do not take any resources from another living soul.
Pederast: Oh goody, I thought for a moment I had jumped the gun by invoking the homo=pedophile card against you, but you arrived right on schedule. Adults who have sex with children are criminals and should be shunned and punished by society. I think all but a statistically insignificant number of homosexuals would agree with that statement. The rights that gays are fighting for are to allow consenting adults do as they wish with full protection and rights under the law. Any group advocating sex with children is openly in favor of a practice that preys on the must vulnerable segment of society. They should be locked away forever.
Torah's bailiwick: Again you seem confused about whether we live in a theocracy or a liberal democracy. Because if I've gotten that one wrong I may have to take my rebellious son out to the edge of town and let the village elders stone him to death.
Rahel... Please see Ben-David's comment for your daily dose of homophobia/pedophilia libel.
Alice... thanks, I appreciate the fact that somebody thinks I defy labels. :-)
ck... Oh great. no good deed goes unpunished. :-)
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jun 20, 2006 3:32:40 PM
sort of David... altho I would not 'wander' into a racetrack because I know there would be racecars there.
:o)
Posted by: lisa | Jun 20, 2006 3:40:08 PM
Some of the responders seem to know a lot about gays, now and in history, their deformed psychology, and the serious danger they pose to civilization as we know it. It's pathetic... I am a GAY man, living in Jerusalem with my GAY partner, working in a normal job, running a totally unexciting life. Not raping children. Not sleeping with 200 people. Just a guy. And I want to be able to say that without feeling shamed. Without those crazy fanatics telling me who I am and why I am such a pervert. Me, and thousands like me, will be marching in Jerusalem this August. Thank you David for your post!
Posted by: Dor | Jun 20, 2006 4:19:37 PM
Trep: It's a bit late to be jumping in here, but one issue has been bugging me from the very start and still hasn't managed to go away:
You keep insisting that sexual orientation is an innate condition that we are born with and can't do anything about (like skin color). The only proof you've brought (IIRC) is that you've always known that you like girls.
For one thing, your personal awareness of your own heterosexuality is no proof that it is something you were born with. Any number of factors could have influenced you between the moment of birth and the moment of the awareness that boys and girls were different and that you preferred girls.
Secondly, even if you yourself were born straight, that fact in itself has no bearing on the rest of the population of the world.
Even after numerous studies, we still don't know what "causes" homosexuality. There is no compelling evidence in any direction to prove (or disprove) that its source is genetic or chemical or developmental or behavioral or ???
Without getting into the whole right-wrong thing, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this particular issue.
Posted by: wogo | Jun 20, 2006 4:24:26 PM
Try and have a happy well adjusted marriage when you've had a couple hundred sexual partners before you get married.(I assure you it sucks )
Who knew that you had so much in common with Wilt Chamberlain.
Posted by: Jack | Jun 20, 2006 4:33:45 PM
I'm a rare double-commenter, but please indulge me this reply.
You wrote that "so long as these things haven't come to pass...I have no right to...tell any of G-d's creations (meaning Jews here, I assume) that they can't violate a Torah law."
(Side point - fair to assume that if those "things" did come to pass, you would change your tune?)
Can you explain if this decision to refrain is a personal choice or a generic statement that you believe should be applicable to all of us? I ask because the Torah (Kedoshim, 19:17) does lay the foundation for this exact action as one of the 613 Biblical commandments. As always, the discourse on how to do so and the general process is the subject of tremendous debate. This debate often centers around the sensitivities required when rebuking another since if it is not done carefully the result can be tragic. In fact, it is genrally understood that if the one being rebuked is unlikely to listen it is preferable not to do so. What is also scrutinized is the second half of the verse, which lays blame for the continued sins on those who choose not to rebuke (again, stressing only when appropriate).
What we do know is that rebuking is not a law set aside for only the wise and the sage, or only at a time when we have a Temple. It is an "everyperson's" law, and people should not shy away by saying "Hey, who am I to tell someone right and wrong, I myself am no better," or something along those lines. Yes, it is natural for us to think like this, but at its core the Torah hopes that we can be above the "glass houses/throw stones" cliche in service of the greater good.
I spent some time today reading a few interesting online articles on the topic of this particular Mitzva, including one by the Chief Rabbi of your city, Efrat. If you'd like to explore it let me know offline. It may not immediately change your behavior, but it may change your philosophy and loosen you up a bit when it comes to how you perceive Jews advising other Jews ("meddling" as some think) when done in an appropriate manner.
Posted by: yonah | Jun 20, 2006 4:52:06 PM
Dr. Bean -
Clarification accepted and understood.
I think I should clarify something too. I'm not immune from judgement and nor do I claim to be. I think that excessively promiscuous behaviour is dangerous and irresponsible. Rape is abhorrent and pedophilia is vile, abusive and sickening. I'm certainly not going to defend behaviour that leads to the pain and humiliation of an innocent party. I can't stop people for having those urges and thinking isn't illegal, but acting out on them and hurting people certainly is, and should be. I just wanted your definition of "better". You could say that hetero relations are "better" than homosexual relations from the position of procreation because barring outside assistance or artificial means it would be impossible but i think the definition "from the position of procreation" needs to be inserted.
As to sexual relations between consenting adults behind closed doors- as long as no innocent is being hurt, I don't care. Nor do I care which is "better", nor do I think it is possible to judge in an impartial manner.
Posted by: lisoosh | Jun 20, 2006 5:41:19 PM
Dude, Trep, you're way more of a queer radical than I am, and I'm actually gay!
Personally, I would prefer the WorldPride event in Jerusalem to be as "family-friendly" as possible. So, festival atmosphere Yes! but groping 'leather-daddies' and 'drag queens' No!
It's Yerushalayim, and part of the message of the event is that God DID create LGBT folks just like everybody else, and that we have the same access to kedusha as all the heteros out there. It's not kefira to point out that Chazal's knowledge of sexuality, while greatly insightful when it comes to straight people, can have omissions and flaws, just like Chazal's understanding of astronomy, when it comes to sexual minorities.
As for those folks who don't believe most LGBT'ers are hard-wired that way: Dude. Try to change us. Sometimes, you end up killing the person you try. Usually, you just make their lives (and the lives of anyone close to them) hell.
For the folks who don't see why heterosexuality and non-heterosexuality are equally questionable: If science can teach me about the development of a typical eyeball, as well as about the development of blinder and sharper eyeballs, then it certainly can study the origins of heterosexuality in individuals. It's no more a given, psycho-genetically, for an individual to be straight (like the majority) than for an individual to have 20/20 eyesight (like the majority).
Two more admonishments to the kahal:
1. Don't judge another person until you've stood in their place. Many of you haven't even tried. Try to imagine what it's like growing up, figuring out your gender/sexuality doesn't match with anything you know, that your communities and religious leaders who you beleive in talk about people like you as if they're animals, while you're trying to be "normal" but always failing. Etc. The story's always a little different, but they're generally the same. Unlike the "mental disorders" we're being compared to, LGBT folks are completely capable of living happy, wholesome, healthy lives with yiddishkeit and kedusha in their home, maybe some kids as well. Think about it hard. What's different, other than the sex/gender of one of the parents?
2. The only Torah issur involved in the entire issue of homosexuality is male-male anal intercourse. That's always been the definition of "mishkav zachar". *Everything else*, including all lesbian acts, are Rabbinic enactments to guard against violation of the issur deOraita, or they fall under pritsut or something similar. You want to tell me that it's okay to terrorize human beings and demonize them for breaking the equivalent of Muktzeh on Shabbos?? Like Trep said, maybe you should concentrate on real predators, and not people who just want to be left alone to be in a fulfilling family relationship.
Thanks Trep for standing up for me and other Jews like me, yishar kochecha.
PS: I'm left-handed too. Go figure.
Posted by: Avishem | Jun 20, 2006 5:42:02 PM
David, I don't agree with your contention that purposely making the parade shocking and offensive is the best way to make make more benign behavior seem inoffensive.
I think it is more likely to polarize the people, make them think they were right all along (whatever side they took in the debate), and scare away any moderates.
Posted by: psychotoddler | Jun 20, 2006 5:44:13 PM
David: For the record, my comments were off topic. I was hoping to be tangential to try to see if I could budge anyone to the middle. I'm honestly sorry I tried. So many different positions were articulated well on this thread, and I don't really think anyone learned a thing or changed their mind even in the smallest way. Catch ya' on another thread.
Lisoosh: OK. Be well.
Posted by: Doctor Bean | Jun 20, 2006 7:11:39 PM
Hey, that Yonah dude must be a lawyer, huh?
: )
Posted by: Noodles | Jun 20, 2006 7:41:26 PM
gosh too tired to read through all the comments, just wanted to say well put. thank you!
Posted by: Katherine | Jun 20, 2006 8:27:40 PM
Hmm, I see your point about shock value... but I also see that it can also do more harm than good. Think about it: this parade misrepresents the actual behavior of most homosexuals. We know that. But many people don't tend to associate with homosexuals enough to know the difference - so the only real image of homosexuals that they will get is what they see at the parade. That type of show will reinforce stereotypes and create new fears, rather than desensitize people to regular homosexual behavior. Next time they'll see a gay couple, the first thing that'll come to their mind is not how normal they are, not that they are a family - but that they are promiscuous and repulsive, just like the folks they saw at the parade. Perhaps the shock effect will bring about some legislative changes - but I think it will also create a great deal more of hidden hostility. I think that civil rights for any group is a very sensitive issue, and should be addressed most certainly - but in an equally sensitive way, otherwise, in the long run, it will only backfire.
Posted by: Irina | Jun 20, 2006 9:20:33 PM
I would just like to emphasize a pivotal point I included in my post. More learned and talented folks than I could write large books ... collections of books ... on this point.
Our society is pathologically over-sexed. Homosexual society is just one sharp point of a whole field of punji sticks comprising human sexuality.
I think the Torah tries very hard to tell us that human sexuality should be constrained by a very tight set of moral values. When it is allowed to spin out of control we suffer huge consequences.
Well it's way way out of it's natural orbit in our world and it will not be brought back into proper allignment without cataclysmic upheaval and rebuilding from the ground up.
If G-d allows us go much further along our own path like we now are ... He will owe Sodom and Gomorah an apology. That's an old joke but we won't be laughing when we are reigned in.
Posted by: Scott | Jun 20, 2006 10:01:52 PM
Trepp:
My argument was about the irrelevancy of innateness to acceptability. You were distracted by the examples I gave. Like I said:
But to point out that the argument around the idea of "Innate from the Creator" is not a good argument.
The point you made that I disagreed with was your idea that something that already exists should not be changed. You probably don't believe that; But you did write essentially the same thing when you said that we shouldn't be against homosexuality because it was created by God. So was polio.
Posted by: Warren | Jun 20, 2006 10:30:56 PM
In my humble opinion, the worst sort of hypocrisy is to 'magnanimously' proclaim that you support a person's right to live however they choose... yet demand that they not do so where you can see them.
Well said and very important. There's a good recent book on this subject, "Covering: The Hidden Assault on our Civil Rights" by Kenji Yoshino. Briefly, he argues that being forced to conceal one's difference is as harmful as being overtly penalized for it. The discussion talks about gay rights, but also about racial and ethnic discrimination and gender discrimination.
Posted by: xiaolongnu | Jun 21, 2006 1:06:26 AM
thank you david for your posts on this subject. while few people will change the mindset with which they entered this discussion, i have still found this page of comments to be a gift. it has reminded me not to stereotype all more religiously conservative people as automatically being so with everything they believe.
as for me - utterly queer, definitely hard-wired thus, and completely accepting that i am made in god's image exactly as i am. i look to torah to teach me how to be a mensch and develop positive relationships with my self, other humans, other living creatures, the earth and adonai. i begin with hillel's "what is hateful to you do not do to others - that is the whole torah, all the rest is commentary " sorry for the platitude, but hate is hateful.
Posted by: ravaj | Jun 21, 2006 9:04:33 AM
David wrote:
I'm afraid I'm going to have to play the 'liar, liar pants on fire' card
- - - - - - - - - -
... yes, that's how you've been responding to those who disagree with you on this post - disappointingly out of character, considering how observant you are of the labels and stereotypes that distort many other issues...
Regarding proof:
Let's make a deal - five minutes after you give scientific proof for the assertion that homosexuals are born that way (and the additional non-sequitir that this somehow makes it unimpeachably normal)
- I'll cite my evidence that pathological behaviors are the norm in the gay world - even among the latest crop of gays raised in swingingly open Europe.
Just to show my (hateful, phobic, chauvinist) heart's in the right place, I'll start the ball rolling with these reports out of Holland:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030711-121254-3711r.htm
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/6/1119
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/172/CFI/cfreport/index.htm
Regarding racism and sexism:
These were realized to be evils precisely because they judge people by something other than their actions.
In contrast, we judge schizophrenia - and until recently, homosexuality - to be a maladaptation because of the behaviors we see.
A primitive Amazon clan may crown the schizophrenic as their shaman or prophet, but in our culture we make a
VALUES-BASED JUDGEMENT that such a person is ill.
That was my point in citing the wide cross-cultural consensus about homosexuality - it seems that people of all different value systems still found something not normal about exclusive homosexuality - even in the Good Old Days of morality-dulling slavery and concubinage.
Which brings us to the most interesting - and important - of my points, which you ignored completely:
Torah Judaism provides a stable scale of
<>
VALUES with which to
<>
JUDGE reality and people's behavior.
The prohibition on homosexual acts is one facet of a cogent view of human sexuality that links commitment and intimacy with physical sex.
Why is it off limits to take the moral measure of homosexuality - based on what we know about the "gay lifestyle" - the thriving "communities" whose major institutions are baths, bars, and bookstores with backrooms for anonymous groping?
We point out that this behavior would still be antithetical to Torah
<>>
VALUES even if the sexual couplings were male-to-female.
So:
1) Could you explain exactly when and where Torah values can be suspended in favor of modern Western hedonism?
2) How does the "born that way" argument differ from modern "scientific" assertions that our chimpanzee ancestors were not monogamous, and therefore our society's demand for fidelity in marriage is "unnatural"?
In fact, this line of thinking has already affected the West's thinking about marriage, and severely reduced the stigma of divorce
- do you think this is positive? You know, more "natural"?
I have raised several significant issues, which deserve to be addressed. I judge homosexuals the same way I judge everyone - by what I see them do.
If the only reply you can muster is bluster about "homophobia" please spare me - and your own reputation for thoughtfulness.
Posted by: Ben-David | Jun 21, 2006 3:46:32 PM
Lisa... You'd think they'd put up sings or something as you approach the track (Commercial Street). :-)
Dor... Neanderthals sitting around the campfire telling ghost stories to other frightened savages.
Wogo... Whether one is born that way or develops a certain way because of external causes... or perhaps a kind of time-release inherited trait is really not the point. The point remains that homosexuals can't help being the way they are and there is no compelling legal reason to deny them the same rights as the rest of the population.
Jack... His 'research' doesn't sound particularly scientific to me... particularly the lack of a control group.
Yonah... You hit on the one area where religion might bump up against the rest of the world. Yes, Jewish law does seem to obligate me to tell a fellow Jew not to transgress a religious prohibition if I can reasonably assume my admonition might be heeded. But that's a big 'if' and certainly wouldn't apply to this community where free will is not an option. The truth is, halacha allows a lot of lot of latitude about when certain things are legally assumed to have occurred. For instance on your wife's ketubah she is called a virgin. She was not required to bring proof of this and even if someone knew this not to be the case they would be prohibited from coming forward on their own and giving testimony against her. In fact, for her to be called anything but a virgin on her ketubah, she would either have to have been a) previously married; or b) witnessed by two kosher 'edim' (at the same time) having sex. Even if your wife came forward of her own volition and said she was not a virgin her testimony would not be valid. I don't see why the same assumptions aren't extended to the gay community.
Avishem... I'm not sure how comfortable I am wearing the mantle 'queer radical'... but thanks. I think. :-) and thanks for the insights.
Psychotoddler... Let me ask you this: Do you think you would feel the same today about gays if groups like ACT-UP had not spent several decades forcing the hetero public to confront the existence of the gay community and it's needs/rights? I ask because nearly all of their activism was more 'in-your-face' than anything going on in this parade. Social change does not happen gently.
Doctor Bean... I disagree. Perhaps minds weren't changed, but I am sure much was learned. Thank you for your contributions to this education process.
Noodles... I can neither confirm nor deny...
Katherine... Thank you.
Irina... Most social activism misrepresents the way the participants act in 'real life'. As I told Pyschotoddler; Social change does not happen gently.
Scott... Saying the world is going to hell in a hand-basket is not a valid reason to deny one segment of society its legal rights. You want to legislate morality? Good luck with that, but do it fairly and across the board.
Warren... There you go again equating something that is not contagious or debilitating (or in any way a threat to society) to a disease that is all of those things. Please compare apples to apples.
xiaolongnu... SO many of the people espousing these very strong anti-gay feelings are the children and grandchildren of people who were forced to hide who they were from mainstream society. I think goldfish have longer memories than some of us.
ravaj... Thank you for that. I knew I wasn't going to change any minds with this post. But an open exchange of ideas is often a good first step.
Ben-David... I am not going to play that game (you go first... no, you go first!). If you want to deny someone basic rights under the law then the burden is on you to prove why it is both necessary and legal. This idea of trying to force someone to provide a positive justification for their right to exist is eerily like the argument I hear from Israel/Jew haters. I would think you'd be tired enough of that tactic to not emply it on others. If you feel you have scientific proof (double blind studies with authentic controls) then bring it on. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke and selling fear. Just because something is near and dear to your heart does not make it a 'significant issue'.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jun 21, 2006 4:28:50 PM
If you want to deny someone basic rights under the law then the burden is on you to prove why it is both necessary and legal.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Huh?
A vanishingly small minority is trying to impose a far-reaching change to a major cornerstone of society.
With NO precedent for such change in all of human history.
With NO scientific proof (you yourself have backtracked on your certainty that gays are "born that way" - and not addressed the evidence of gay behavior).
Large parts of their argument is ill-thought out victimology politics.
And the burden of proof is on... who?
Sorry, dolling - the burden of proof is always upon the innovators.
How nice and smooth - and circular: we start out assuming that the claims of the gay-rights activists are true - that this is really an issue of equal representation before the law - and wind up with a conclusion that reinforces the starting assumption.
Talk about an echo chamber.
And the majority of Americans who disagree - who are quickly (and easily) passing laws to protect themselves from the same judicial fiat that imposed this parade on Jerusalem - well, we'll just slap a label on them (hurtful, homophobic). No need to actually ANSWER their critiques, or CONVINCE anyone.
It's so obvious that we're the right, and CARING ones.
And again - what should a religious Jew's role be in this moment of cultural debate?
Posted by: Ben-David | Jun 21, 2006 6:16:53 PM
"near and dear" indeed...
Thank you for a thought-provoking post and thank you all for a (relatively) civil discussion. While I doubt any minds were changed, I personally gained much from the give-and-take.
There is much more to be said here but I think this thread has run its course...
On to bigger and better things -- like how we can get Trep into the Keneset:
You take one down..." ♪
Posted by: wogo | Jun 21, 2006 6:20:46 PM
David I really do not have words to express the incredible respect I have for you after reading this post. I respected you before and thought that you were kewl and all but really, wow.
Having grown up with 3 gay uncles (from both sides of the family) it has long been clear to me that they just "are" --they are born that way just as I was born with blue eyes, light skin, and female.
Your post filled my heart with gratitude. Thank you.
Posted by: Yael | Jun 22, 2006 3:20:05 AM
Would the gay pride parade be any less prideful outside of Jerusalem? I can't support people who don't respect me and my sensibilites because of their selfish need to spit on my religious beliefs. The homosexuals who want to march in Jerusalem can go to hell. And if I'm a hypocrite, then so was Pinchas when he slew Zimri, and so were the Jews who stood up to the Hellenists, and the Romans, and every other decadent society that ever reared its head. And I'm proud of it.
Posted by: NR Stark | Jun 22, 2006 5:29:50 AM
Ben-David... You seem to object to Gays being treated equally under the law because they are transgressing a religious statute and because you perceive them to be doing something unnatural and somehow damaging to society as a whole. Are you equally against equal rights under the law for people who don't marry and simply live together? Are you for denying civil rights to people who have multiple sexual partners? Does it seem unreasonable to you that someone born with the heterosexual appetites you find excessive or immoral should be allowed to enjoy equal protection under the law of the state? My problem with your comments is that you are starting from a flawed assumption that homosexuality a) somehow adversely affects you and society; b) does damage to those who practice it or witness it being practiced; c) steals resources from society that you feel should be allocated differently; and d) should be treated like a contagious disease. Slavery was once also a cornerstone of society and society came to realize that it was wrong. Nobody is asking you to embrace this lifestyle for yourself or your children. You are simply being asked to finally acknowledge that there is no compelling reason why your religious beliefs and values should be allowed to intrude upon the legal rights and civil protections of people who don't share them.
Wogo... You're singin' my song. :-)
Yael... Yet each time you come to Beer Sheva you seem to avoid me like the plague! ;-) Seriously, next time you come down please let me know. I'll even come over to the University to have that cup of coffee if you can't get away for more than a few minutes.
NR Stark... Wait a sec... I'm confused. They (meaning gays) don't respect your sensibilities? According to you that makes them selfish, and in fact spits on your religious beliefs. What about your refusal to respect something even more tangible and measurable than sensibilities: civil rights under the law? Doesn't that make you just a teensy bit selfish. You live in a multi-cultural liberal democracy yet you feel that because your religious beliefs call the act of two men having sex an abomination, that this gives you the right to withhold a slew of basic human, civil and legal rights/protections under secular law? Thank you for offering such an enlightened comment.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jun 22, 2006 2:55:15 PM
What is God's view on homosexuality?
"If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
(Lev.20:13)
Is God so cruel that he would create this abomination in a little baby, and then condemn him for it when he grew up?
Never. People are not born this way.
"God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)
Spanish translation: "God made man perfect, but he has brought against himself many charges."
The planned parade in the streets of Jerusalem is nothing but a clenched fist in the face of the Almighty.
Posted by: Dina | Jun 23, 2006 10:31:46 AM
Jerusalem has a spirituality and beauty that touches almost anyone who lives or visits her. If the organizers of the parade want it in Jerusalem, I belief, the parade should reflect that and respect it.
Years ago, my wife and I went to the Gay Pride parade in Minneapolis with our then very young kids. Mainly as a statement of general support; we weren't members of PFLAG, didn't have close friends marching. If I remember correctly, the Quilt Project had just been displayed in the Twin Cities, so the whole issue was very top-of-mind for us.
It was great fun, but we didn't go in subsequent years because we didn't want to deal with explaining some of the more flamboyant behaviours to our children.
Like David, I've been getting emails demanding that I express my condemnation of the Jerusalem parade, and like David I'm feeling very contrarian. I know that specific acts of homosexual sex are against halacha; and so I don't do them. But I'm buggered if I'm going to join a crowd of bigots and homophobes to try and curtail other people's civil rights.
For the last week or so I've been wondering whether our family should take part in the march. On one hand I feel we ought to; on the other, I don't want to unnecessarily expose my kids to sexual politics, and PDAs of any inclination.
I'd feel more comfortable going as part of a bigger group, whether something like PFLAG or something more ad-hoc. And of course, the more of us non-flamboyant types who turn up in khakis and sandals, the more "tzniut" the whole march becomes. Is anyone else considering attending?
(* Perhaps buggered was an unfortunate choice of term, but it just sounded right.)
Posted by: Andy Levy-Stevenson | Jun 25, 2006 7:07:34 AM
I am also somewhat repulsed by the idea of gay sex, but I don't think that should count for much. I think we shouldn't frown on sex that doesn't appeal to us or that repulses us. I'm repulsed by the idea of old people having sex, but that shouldn't be illegal. Same with sex between fat people or hairy people. Hell, I'm repulsed by the idea of sex between my parents. But...well, you get the picture.
As for the outrageous displays during the parades, I'm ambivalent about that. What are they trying to accomplish with these antics. Is it for the titillation or nudge-nudge wink-wink amusement of gays themselves? Is it to create an in-your-face statement to straights? Or is it to accustom the wider world to gayness in all its versions, so that straights get past the revulsion? I don't know.
But I think such displays could be counter-productive. In fact, it might be a better idea for straight people to see a parade with lots and lots of gay guys in khakis and oxfords, or losts of soldiers and officers in uniform (if that doesn't get them into trouble), or lots of rabbis, doctors, or whatever. Then they'll see gays as just other human beings and not freaks.
On the one hand, tolerance of gays shouldn't only exist to the extent that they look and behave like the rest of society. On the other, parades with outlandish and freaky displays may only reinforce anti-gay stereotypes.
If gay participants want to use the parade to celebrate among themselves and titillate each other or express defiance with colorful displays, that's one thing. But if they want to use the parade to communicate with the rest of society, they may want to re-think their approach.
Posted by: Joanne | Jun 25, 2006 8:25:29 AM
Thank you.
Posted by: Johnwillslloyd | Jun 27, 2006 5:24:42 AM
I'm actually going to be in the press corps at this event, mostly because I'm very curious to see who comes to an interfaith, intercultural, international GLBT conference in Jerusalem, but also because I'm interested in how religious and "progressive" people locate their ideologies and in human rights in the Middle East, so my post here probably violates all sorts of rules of jouralistic integrity, but I want both to add my voice to the roar of approval regarding this insightful and articulate column and applaud the tremendous point that the Rabbis condemned the Sodomites for inhospitality.
PS I appreciate any leads, interviews, books, etc. I just finished Steven Greenberg's Wrestling with God and Man, which I thought largely unconvincing but a great start to a conversation about human dignity within a religoius framework.
Posted by: MP | Jun 27, 2006 8:13:36 AM
I just had a little tiff of my own. Someone on a local e-mail list posted a message similar to the one you mentioned here. I protested it, suggesting that those who want to stop the parade start their own dedicated list for that purpose. (Two people wrote to me off-list to say "Right on.") Then, the original poster sent an even more offensive message to the list, this one possibly advocating violence -- all the while claiming that he/she has nothing against gay people, of course. I protested this message very strongly, but civilly. Now it seems that I've been thrown off the list without warning or explanation.
Tolerance? Sure, as long as you're on our side. Sigh ...
Posted by: Rahel | Jun 27, 2006 12:05:02 PM
"But being gay is not a choice any more than, say, being a black left handed woman is a choice. Some people simply 'are'. "
This is where the premise of your article stands, AND FALLS.
You insult women and blacks who have struggled for centuries for equal rights denied to them because of their innateness.
Here's a hot tip: THERE IS NO "GAY" GENE, and almost every "gay" person with a drink or two under their belts will admit to you that they were "recruited"; that their first gay sexual experience was as an underage teenager, seduced (aka statutorily raped) by an older adult.
Give a rebellious teenager access to no-strings sex and faux affection by a replacement parental figure and no wonder their choice.
"Perhaps after seeing a 260lb. bearded drag queen kissing a body builder wearing nothing but chaps, the sight of a two guys wearing khakis and oxfords holding hands in the corner coffee shop won't seem so, well, shocking."
And here is your other mistake, as you didn't even realize that you "exposed" the true purpose of the parade:
* IT IS TO NORMALIZE AND MAKE ACCEPTABLE "GAY" (DEVIANT) BEHAVIOR.*
Do we need to go back to where "they" had to hide in fear of being arrested for their private CHOICE of sexuality?
Personally I think not.
Do we need their propaganda campaign* to CONVINCE OUR CHILDREN TO "EXPERIMENT" and "tolerate" all forms of deviancy and themselves become gay?
IS THIS THE CHOICE YOU WANT FOR YOUR CHILDREN?. If yes, possibly your genes do need to die out.
And before you reply "there is no gay agenda, it's just you uptight religious nutjobs..." you should all read this:
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2005/12/how_marketing_o.html
* "The gay rights marketing bible, titled "After the Ball," was authored by two very bright, Harvard-educated marketers: Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. They lay out many versatile techniques of persuasion – all of them enormously manipulative and intimidating. Let's focus in on just two of them: "desensitization" and "jamming."
Basically, desensitization means if you repeat something outrageous – even something outrageously false – over and over and over again, people will gradually become less and less outraged and eventually accept it. For instance, here's what our gay marketing gurus write about desensitizing Americans about homosexuality. They say:"
""The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome. Seek desensitization and nothing more. … If you can get straights to think homosexuality is just another thing – meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders – then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.
What about "jamming"? Jamming has been called "psychological terrorism." Remember how the Soviets used to jam the signal when Radio Free Europe would broadcast behind the Iron Curtain? Today "jamming" literally means silencing your critics or opponents by attacking and intimidating them. Fair, unfair, it doesn't matter – you attack the other side any way you can to get him to shut up. American policy debate is full of jamming.""
Read it yourself:
http://clusty.com/search?query=%22After+the+Ball%2C%22+%22+Marshall+Kirk%22%22+Hunter+Madsen%22
And also read their first "Manual": http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm
The Overhauling of Straight America
by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill
The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.
"In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. ... Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be given no extra excuses to say, "they are not like us."
"...Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream's self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types."
Posted by: joe | Jul 2, 2006 3:13:46 PM
Joe, your comments are so full of BS and generalizations that I don't even KNOW where to begin.
This is probably as good a place as any: "Here's a hot tip: THERE IS NO "GAY" GENE, and almost every "gay" person with a drink or two under their belts will admit to you that they were "recruited"; that their first gay sexual experience was as an underage teenager, seduced (aka statutorily raped) by an older adult."
I don't know where you get your information, but to say "almost every" gay person's mirrors your statement is patently false. Since you haven't talked to every gay person on the planet (drunk or sober) the sheer statistical improbability sinks your assertion.
And for the sake of this argument, I'll stipulate that there is no doubt in my mind some people who end up gay have their first experiences with someone older. And for every gay person with this experience, you have a straight person whose first lover was older- maybe even "illegally" older. Hmm... now, tell me again who's more in the wrong? Oh, that's right, the gay person "recruiting" the innocent, completely-unable-to-choose-for-themselves teen or young adult. And the innocent but straight counterpart? Victim, or recipient of a "glorious rite of passage"?
You are deluding yourself if you think all gay people make a choice to be gay. You are also deluding yourself if you think that we are out here attemping to influence CHILDREN to be gay. There is no underground network that meets twice monthly to discuss how we can increase our ranks. There is no newsletter published weekly to announce "recruitment quotas". We live our lives, do our jobs, and breathe the air the same way you and every other straight person does.
Since I am guessing you are not a geneticist or God, I'll also state that you are hardly a qualified expert to say there is no biological imperative that influences sexuality. Humans are WAY too complicated for it to be just genetic or just upbringing/experience related. And again, if you think it is so simple as making a choice, then I'll repeat myself- you're deluded.
Posted by: Lachlan | Jul 2, 2006 10:42:27 PM
hello,
Just wanted to make some remarks concerning the middle east fighting. I don't get it why. Can't they just leave each other alone and live in peace or was this God's plan to have destruction all the time. I just don't get the mentality. It's like gangs in the U.S. fighting over terriorty. It's stupid and solves nothing. Hate breds hate makes me sad and I do pray for it to end. thanks for your time.
Posted by: sally | Jul 19, 2006 7:14:25 PM












