Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

Catholics Education Resource Center ^ | September 1993 | DENNIS PRAGER

[livius]

Something else nobody mentions - although married men live longer, so I suspect they gain from it, too!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks!

[Brainhose]

That Judy chick from Leave It To Beaver was a colossal pain in the backside

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks

[supercat]

I could not put my finger on why accepting homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality could change civilization. My 12-year-old son was asking me about it. This article is a great explanation, but NOT meant for him. I guess I shall have to figure out how to sum all this up for a 12-year-old now.

To my mind, the religious arguments are not the ones to use. Not because they're 'wrong', but because they are meaningless to anyone who does not accept the religion on which they're based. Rather, conservatives should focus on some secular arguments:

• The family, consisting of a mother, a father, and all their descendents and descendents' in-laws, forms the bedrock of society; a society made up largely of sound families will withstand almost any adversity; a society not made up of such will crumble.

  Although the term "marriage" is used on the one hand to mark the joining of two individuals for their finite lifetimes, it usualy marks something much deeper: the joining of two families and the creation of a third. The former aspect of marriage can only last a lifetime, but the latter aspects can last indefinitely.

  Although not all families need to be stable for society to hold together, the percentage of stable families is critically low. Too many people today have no idea what it means to have a stable family; if this is not remedied within a generation or two, society will completely fall apart. Whether or not homosexuals are responsible for the widespread breakdown of the family structure, allowing them to apply the term "marriage" to their "alternative family units" will make it harder to re-establish what "marriage" and "family" have historically meant, and must mean if society is to hold together.

• Many children need to have both a mommy and a daddy for full social and emotional development; children who don't have both are at a significant disadvantage compared to those that do. While circumstances will sometimes make it impossible for a child to have both a mommy and a daddy, children should not be disadvantaged in that way without good reason.

  While I would not--unlike some here--go so far as to say that homosexuals should be absolutely forbidden from adopting children, I would suggest that a male/female couple is generally going to be better than a single male, a single female, a male/male couple, or a female/female couple. If an orphan's only living relative happens to fall into one of the latter categories, it may be better for him to be adopted by the relative than placed with strangers. In the absense of such factors, however, I would think heterosexual couples seeking to adopt would be better candidates.

What do people think of those as arguments?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent points!

[tuesday afternoon]

it was a practice of the idolatrous nations, specifically Canaan, that Jews were instructed by G-d to avoid

This is untrue, or is bestiality only rejected because it is idolatrous?

Rabbi Steven Greenberg, a homosexual, stated "Leviticus 18:23 instructs: 'Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman, it is an abhorrence.' I do not propose to reject this or any text. For the present, I have no plausible halachic method of interpreting this text in a manner that permits homosexual sex."

[tuesday afternoon]

The Halakhah holds that the ban on homosexuality applies universally, to non-Jew as well as to Jew (Sanh 58a: Maimonides, Melakhim 9:5, 6). It is one of the six instances of arayot (sexual transgressions) forbidden to the Noachide (Maimonides, ibid). http://www.jonahweb.org/html/library-normanlamm.phtml

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Reference article:

Is gay sexuality going back in the closet?

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! Thanks for the ping!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for that link!

Squares , I think, with Prager!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See the link at post #68.

[TheWriterInTexas]

I don't know, Leviticus 18 - at least in my version of the Bible - is pretty darn serious about not having sex with any number of people, except your wife.

[supercat]

I don't know, Leviticus 18 - at least in my version of the Bible - is pretty darn serious about not having sex with any number of people, except your wife.

Hmm... the NIV version of Leviticus 18 says not to have sex with close relatives, and then goes on to provide examples of what "close relative" means, lest anyone fail to understand the term; it also lists some other persons with whom sexual relations would be prohibited.

To be sure, not everything which isn't explicitly forbidden should be construed as permissible, but to a certain extent the exception proves the rule. Consider Lev 18:18--"Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living." The specific prohibition against marrying and bedding the wife's sister during the lifetime of the wife would suggest that there exist other people whom one could legitimately marry and bed during the wife's lifetime.

BTW, the prohibitions against bedding one's father's wife, brother's wife, et al. are not redundant with the prohibition against marrying one's neighbor's wife, since the latter prohibition would end with the neighbor's death, but the former prohibitions would not end with the death of the father, brother, et al.

[CGVet58]

your comments are as true as my own - and I'm guessing that your smiley icon after the first line was meant to show a bit of sarcasm in paraphrasing my own comment.

And you make my point by your next comment - and God bless you for it.

As a man, I recognize what a strong woman of virtue means in my life, or in the life of any man. And I know this from having been without such guidance at points in my life, and worse, from having been deserving of such guidance/support and being fed treachery instead. Having then chosen to live a life that was spiritually imbalanced, I saw and tasted the wages of that choice - that path is a dead end.

Are there men who avoid this detour? Yes, of course. My point here is that the modern-day assault on Christianity, on Western Civ values (of monogamy, family integrity, virtue) and the "sexual revolution" which pretends to liberate women but really has given them the same access to be as licentious as we all know men to be fully capable of being --- all these things mean that more men are either being brought up without virtuous guidance in their young lives, or lose their way for a time.

Juan

[Just mythoughts]

It sure would be helpful if the ADL were as concerned about this as they are in discrediting Mel and Christ.

Their silence over the removal of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, "GOD from the pledge" and "GAY's pretending to get married", brings their credibility into question.

[SauronOfMordor]

This means that a good, practicing Jewish man is not permitted to engage in homosexual acts, but a Jewish woman can still be a lesbian (the Talmud frowns upon it, and calls it "licentiousness", but it is not prohibited by G-d). Likewise, a non-Jewish man can be a homosexual, and G-d makes no mention of it being wrong.

One reason why permitting homosexuality is damaging, is that gay men pair off with other gay men, and do not form families or produce offspring. Given a sufficient amount of social disapproval, it is possible to make a bisexual man, or even a man who is primarily oriented toward gayness, to orient toward women as his sexual outlet, and thus focus his energy toward family, offspring, and creating the next generation

Lesbianism was less of a societal problem. Women, for the most part, had little choice except to be married off, and sexually satisfy their husband and bear his children. As long as they were good wives and mothers, it didn't matter that much if they had a little fun with their "girlfriends" on the side

[PatrickHenry]

If one can speak of Judaism's essence, it is contained in the Torah statement, “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse, and you shall choose life.” Judaism affirms whatever enhances life, and it opposes or separates whatever represents death. Thus, a Jewish priest (cohen) is to concern himself only with life. Perhaps alone among world religions, Judaism forbade its priests to come into contact with the dead. To cite some other examples, meat (death) is separated from milk (life); menstruation (death) is separated from sexual intercourse (life); carnivorous animals (death) are separated from vegetarian, kosher, animals (life).

First time I've ever seen an integrated explanation for all of those rules.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Right!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

If one can speak of Judaism's essence, it is contained in the Torah statement, “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse, and you shall choose life.” Judaism affirms whatever enhances life, and it opposes or separates whatever represents death.

Powerful stuff and just a contrast with the Death Cult of the Militant Muslims!