It seems to me that it’s not a good idea to believe the rhetoric of the Left.
For years now, people who like the institution of marriage just the way it’s always been have been told by Leftists that redefining marriage to include same-sex-couples would lead to no changes at all in the institution. No changes at all.
Well, the movement known as “Conservative Judaism” drank the Kool-Aid and now allows gay “marriages.”
What the first thing that happened?
Well surprise, surprise! It’s this:
But according to Michaelson, (a gay activist interviewed for the quoted article– ed.) while traditional marriage looks appealing to some gay and lesbian Jews, others bristle at the idea of imbuing same-sex unions with language that would imply that one party owns the other. These dynamics came into play for Michaelson when he was planning his own wedding, which took place in September.
“I didn’t want a photocopy [of traditional marriage] for a number of reasons,” he said. “For feminist reasons I don’t like kiddushin anyway, and for LGBT reasons it didn’t feel authentic to me to copy a model meant for a man and a woman to my situation.”
Instead of falling back on traditional marriage rites, Michaelson wrote his own legally binding ceremony based on the concept of nedarim, or vows.
“I didn’t feel like purchasing my husband, and hopefully no men feel like they are purchasing their wives,” he said. “Zooming back, one of the challenges for Conservative Judaism is how to accommodate both people who want something pretty straightforward and people like me, who want to create their own rituals and services and liturgy.”
Rabbi Jill Hammer said that she had similar concerns in planning her 2004 wedding with her female partner. “We were not comfortable using [kiddushin] as our template for marriage,” she said. “Not every couple understands it this way, but talmudically there is a lot of difference between the way a woman and a man are treated. We were looking for something else.”
So, which is it? We need to have equality (which would imply an identical ceremony) or do we need to have something different?
The Left takes us for idiots. Remember this next time you are tempted to believe Leftists when they say they have no interest in more serious matters like using the government to force people they oppose to shut up.
So….gays want marriage, but not, you know, MARRIAGE. No, that’s just so, like, yesterday!
Typical “We want this until we get it, then we will demand something different” spoiled-child type behavior.
Michaelson is right about one thing, though, in his qualms about “copying a model meant for a man and a woman to [his] situation”. Honestly, why do they even have to call whatever they decide to do “marriage”?
Uh, don’t straight marriages, even within the same religious denomination, vary depending on the couple? Like, some write their own vows, some use the prescribed, some may say one thing in front of their officiant but have already agreed to something else, or some may have say feminist ideals that disagree with traditional connotations of marriage as ownership?
Is your objection that they want to differ their marriage from tradition in the gender of the partner they marry or that they want to differ their marriage from the traditional laws of gender (not specifically gender). Cause honestly, it seems anymore that you’re just looking for *any* reason to be offended.
Nerdygirl,
“Conservative Judaism” the movement in which I grew up, prides itself in saying that Jewish Law is normative and binding. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Halakha
Keeping the validity of the claim as applied to the practice of “conservative judaism” (needless to say, I dispute their claim) as it may be, if CJ wants to redefine marriage to include same sex couples so be it. But let us not pretend that this is the only change they were making. I am not a member of their movement. I have no say in the decision. But I can call them out on their claim to be faithful to the Halachah.
Remember, we’re dealing with a movement that claims fealty to the ancient customs of the Jews. It seems that a movement that wants to have that fealty cannot seem to keep the essentials of marriage together under the new order, then those who say that redefining marriage is a form of marriage abolition are right.
I hope I’m not being presumptuous in guessing that you do not know the Talmud’s laws and conditions for setting up a marital bond between a man and a woman. The Talmud is absolutely clear as to how it’s done. The Talmud is full of disputes. And there are big disputes about the issue of how the marital bond is set up. The strict school says that the bond is set up with a dollar. The lenient school says that the bond is set up with a penny. But notice that EVERYBODY AGREES that the bond is set up using money or something that is worth money (usually a ring). There can be absolutely no dispute about the nature of the commitment that the man and woman are making to one another.
But somehow, this is not what gay people want when they want to claim to be “married.
It seems to me that this whole argument is about achieving self-esteem via official recognition, whether by the state or by religious organizations.
Well, the state is not there to give anybody self esteem. Neither is any religious organization that I want to be a part of.
Well, no, the state is not around to give anyone self esteem. But so long as things like health care, inheritance, visitation rights, and all that other legal baggage that comes with marriage as a federal institution, it makes sense that same sex partners are going to petition for those rights.
This particular disagreement of yours is a religious one, and specifically a jewish one. I am not familiar with the Talmud (though, I find the idea that money/value *has* to be exchanged kinda insulting)
I think you’re stretching in your assertion that “The Left” is trying to shut you up, esp. with this example.
Although this has reminded me that I should pop over to Rachel Held Evans blog and see how the “Women should be allowed to hold leadership in the church” discussion is going. Squabbles between denominations are very similar to discussions of gender disparity in comics. Fun, frustrating, sometimes makes you want to slam your head into the desk, and doesn’t involve me writing my teaching philosophy. Cheers.
The problems you describe can be addressed without changing the definition of marriage. As I’ve said before, most of those issues are a result of the over-complexity of government as much as anything else.
Anyway, the idea of using money to affect a marriage is not about purchase and sale so much as it is about the affecting of a change in status.
Putting women in leadership positions in orthodox religions tends to make those religions not orthodox anymore. It accelerates the rate of change, just like giving women the right to vote caused profound changes in the size and scope of U.S. Government. (See: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf ). I think you’ll admit that this is not entirely a good thing, just as I would have to admit that it’s not entirely a bad thing (But the net result of the changes may, on balance, be a bad thing…).
None of this discussion of “gay marriage” would be happening if women didn’t vote. None of this would be happening in “Conservative Judaism” if there weren’t “women rabbis.”
Yeah, and martial rape wouldn’t be a crime if women didn’t have the right to vote, it would still be legal to fire women for getting married or having children, and spinsterhood would still be treated as the worst thing ever.
Most christian denominations though are *not* orthodox though, and most of their reasoning tends to boil down to “cause the bible says so” while not acknowledging that there are many things the bible says that they no longer follow or consider important (Levitical laws, charity/goodworks, etc.) and thus their reasoning sounds less biblical and more upset that women might be crashing their all boys club.
I’m pretty sure there are still people who would have fought for gay rights even if women were still denied the right to vote. I find it worrying when people bring it up like your last sentence though (and yes, you did say its not an entirely bad thing) it comes across as being upset that women can vote or that they never should have been given that right in the first place.
NG,
As I said, there are advantages. There are disadvantages too. You have to acknowledge that. Remember, there are advantages and disadvantages to EVERYTHING. Everything under the sun. I will guess that the out-of-control federal budget is probably going to become a much bigger issue in the near to mid future. So, expanding the federal government may have been a capitally bad idea, and the advantages will be dwarfed by the disadvantages. Ask anybody who languished in unemployment during the FDR years (FDR would not have been able to ruin the economy were it not for women voters).
The fact is that men need all boys clubs. Men need to hang out with other men without women present. Women are, in many ways, a drag. Their company changes the way guys interact with each other. Men can be themselves in certain ways without women around that they cannot with women there. Feminists have destroyed men’s clubs to the best of their ability. Shame on them for that! But they didn’t change the need. I once read a commentator say that men hang out at strip clubs as much for the male companionship of men as for the, um, view. Women may be the entertainment, but they are not part of the social scene. (I may be wrong about this. I don’t go to strip clubs).
Anyway, if men don’t have wholesome places where they can congregate, they will find unwholesome places. Simple as that.
There would have been people who would have fought for gay right if women had less influence. But there wouldn’t have been as many of them.
All boys clubs are not necessarily a bad thing. When all boys clubs sit in a position of power however, it kinda screws everyone not in the club over. When the all boys club is church leadership and political power, then thats a problem.
It’s one thing for men to bond without women, but there’s a difference between a few buddies heading out to the woods for a weekend and a few buddies legislating and interpreting religious text, while locking women out.
And I thought Hoover wrecked the economy. Afterall, the tent cities weren’t called “Rooseivilles”
Well, it all comes down to priorities. If you want your religious organization to stick around for a few thousand years, you keep the power in the hands of men.
Jews in the 20th century have been at the forefront of rushing women into leadership positions. Jews, the non-orthodox, that is, have the lowest birthrate of any ethnicity in this country. I doubt that those two facts are completely coincidental. Non-orthodox Judaism is in a bad way. (This is not to say that there are no problems with the orthodox).
FDR and Hoover: They both wrecked the economy. Hoover, notably, raised taxes in the recession (tell that to anybody who thinks that our president should raise taxes now (or is that “end the Bush tax cuts”)). Hoover got a worse name because of the Bonus Marchers and the press. FDR ruined the economy more so because he was at it longer and meddled more forcefully. Read “The Forgotten Man” by Amity Schlaes.
Right, and if you want your religious organization to go crazy and start killing people, keep men in power. Now, if survival is all that matters and not being decent human beings, then yeah. Keep men as the only people in power. Look how well the middle east is doing. Keeping them pesky women out have power has lead to such prosperity and freedom for them! Oh. wait. Only prosperous if you’re in oil. Or related to royals/dictators. Or bribe people. But freedom! oh wait. Only if you’re male. Or if you’re rich. Or related to royals/dictators. And as long as you don’t say anything bad about the government. Or the religious police.
Sometimes Ari, I think you can’t see the forest for your bias.
NG,
Really? Amish men have been firmly in control of their religion for centuries. I have yet to hear about them going crazy and killing people. Same with the Lubavitcher Chassidim and about ten dozen other religions I can name.
Islam, I would note is an exception, but some of that “going crazy” business is foundational– located right there in the founding documents.
Actually, there’s been a lot of drug dealing going on in the Amish community in the last few years. But I will give you credit in that the Amish seem to be pretty good at not killing people. (Also, much these are all much *smaller* religions, less people, less clout, less violent)
Islam is not an exception, it’s a much younger religion and is in it’s blood-thirsty stage. The scary thing is that it’s blood-thirsty years are during ever increasing globalization. Hopefully they’ll be able to moderate themselves before any more serious damage is done. Judaism and Christianity did the same thing when they were younger. I kind of worry that Christianity might regress a bit. FUNDAMENTALISM is the enemy, not any one religion. (Fundamental christians tend to be off their rocker and uncomfortably aggressive as well, just like fundamental muslims)
1) Your original position is that if men are in charge of a religion, death and destruction will inevitably follow. That can be gathered from your last comment. Now you change your position.
2) Fundamentalism was born in the year 1910 with the publication of the pamphlets entitled “The Fundamentals.” The term has no real meaning outside of the context of those pamphlets and the movement they inspired. Discussion of religion is very often irritatingly imprecise.
3) Fundamentalism, if you define it as a literalist reading of texts is only a problem to the extent that the texts are a problem. The koran is a problem. Biblical bellicosity is sort of limited to the Jebusites, the Perizites, The Hivites, the Amalekites, etc. Peoples who no longer exist. Their non-existence has eliminated all causus belli in their regard.
4) Most people have no idea the true nature of the history of warfare. Religion has little, if anything, to do with most of the wars in history. Politics and government are a much bigger cause of war.
“The Left takes us for idiots”
It’s kind of hard not to when we read b.s like this. They were modifying THEIR OWN ceremony to fit their views. They weren’t forcing everyone else to change theirs too. The ceremonies that may or may not accompany a civil marriage can take a million and one different forms. This has nothing to do with the alleged consequences of CIVIL same-sex marriage. You’re really reaching here, Ari.
1) Do you think the trends are not going to become more general? Really?
2) Do you think the nature of the commitment implied by marriage stays exactly the same even if the promises made by the partners to one another changes? Even if it changes radically?
3) Since this is in a religious context, presumably a conservative religious context, it seems to me that there is a strong tendency for the ceremony to stay the same. There seems to me that it would take a pretty strong demand for the ceremony to change. I think it obvious that the people who want to claim they’re married are making a pretty heavy demand. The human beast is insatiable. Therefore these demands will not cease. Ever.
….Is there a reason I can no longer reply in the thread we had?
My web people are working on this site. I’m not sure the details, but it’s probably because of that.
1). Do you deny that Christians and Jews have in the past, waged war in the name of God?
3.) There are problems in nearly all religious text, when compared to modern society, unless you’re cool with stoning non-virgin brides or the idea that rape is a womans fault, and something she should be killed for if she doesn’t put up enough of a struggle.
4.) Politics and government, which until modern times, was all run by men.
1) I do not deny it per se. But I would note that the truth is a great deal more complicated than just that. Politics has a lot more to do with warfare than religion. Even the 17th Century “Wars of Religion” were as much about nationalism and politics as they were about religion.
3) Please point me to the verse that says that a rape is a woman’s fault. (Old Testament preferably, because I do not accept the “New.”)
4) So? (and it’s also not entirely accurate).
1. No, you expected me to change *my* position because it disagreed with yours. I put forth that Islam has been strictly in mens control since it’s inception, just as christianity in the 17th century was strictly controlled by men. Even radical Islam has twinges of nationalism and politics. (Like 17th century christianity) Denying that is naive at best, manipulative and racist at worst.
3.)Deut “23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
4.) Just pointing out that all boys clubs can do some pretty stupid things if left unchecked. Which is really what this whole discussion was about, that men should not be wholly left in power unchecked. I’d even extend that it would be stupid to leave just women in power unchecked, but that hasn’t been an issue at large for nearly all of western civ. In the context of religion though, it tends to lead to a raw deal for women, the Deut. verses above, fundamentalist mormons, fundamentalist islam, quiverfull, the pervasive thought certain evangelical circles that women should be seen and not heard, women getting harassed on the bus in hassidic neighborhoods in NYC, etc.
I think you’re misreading that.
You realize, of course, that, according to the Talmud, the woman is not forced to marry the man. The woman has the option of forcing the man to marry her. It’s his freedom that is being circumscribed. Not hers.
This does not seem all that horrifying to me. Why? Because 1) Many men are not too keen on raising another man’s child. If a woman gets pregnant by a rape, then what is she to do? Abortion was dangerous in those times, and it’s immoral always. Exposing the baby is safer and even more immoral than abortion. Adoption agencies didn’t exist. So, 2) If the woman gets pregnant, she could force the man to marry her, giving him a contractual obligation to support her and her progeny if she so chooses. Not pretty. Life is not always pretty.
Lastly, you realize, of course, this is a tremendous improvement over the contemporary pagan practices.
All girls clubs can be just as stupid as any all boys club. Humanity is flawed. These flaws exclude nobody, not men, not women, not anybody.
Oh, and I’m pretty familiar with out-group homogeneity bias. I know that not all moslems are alike and that many trends in islam are similar to what happens elsewhere in the world and in history. But islam is an ideology that guarantees that a society will either remain tribal or experience societal failure. It has been causing societal failure since its inception. It’s just a symptom of that particular philosophy.
Using the word “Racist” is usually forbidden on this blog. I hate how that word is used as a substitution for thought.
“If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help,”
Thats….kinda blatant. If no one hears you it must be your fault.
And really? “This does not seem all that horrifying to me. ” Being stuck with the man who raped you isn’t horrifying? (Because as you see, the christian version doesn’t give the woman the choice)
It being an improvement over the what was contemporary doesn’t make it right. These sort of laws show why religions have to adapt. Judaism and Christianity for the most part have moderated themselves. Islam has the fun of being much younger, and in it’s uppity stage, also it’s being abused politically to keep dictators and governments in power.
“But islam is an ideology that guarantees that a society will either remain tribal or experience societal failure.” In what way though? While I’ve head before that many muslims will identify first as muslims, then their ethnicity, I don’t see how their faith inherently leads to “societal failure”. Isn’t that largely a cultural thing? and how is that any different then christian denominations or Judaism?
I did say it was “manipulative and racist at worst” next time you make questionable broad statement about a group of people I’ll say your “vaguely generic and requires more detail to not sound like you pulled it from an uninspired yahoo!answers argument”
NG,
You’re still not understanding the verse here. Sex can either be consensual or non-consensual. We can assume it’s non consensual if a woman is fighting the person who’s forcing himself onto her. We can assume it’s consensual if she is not fighting. How is this difficult? The verse does not give all the details. The oral tradition that goes with the verse fleshes it out. Without that, it’s easy to misinterpret. Now, you seem to think that if nobody happens to hear her, it’s assumed to be her fault. Well, that has nothing to do with whether or not there are people around to hear. It’s dealing with a situation in which people are indeed around to hear. If there’s even a question of giving the death penalty, there must be two witnesses. Those witnesses, presumably can hear.
I have no comment on the Christian version of this. I don’t care what they say the verse means. I’m not a christian.
Moving on. One thing that people have to realize is that it’s only possible to make the world a tiny bit better at a time. You cannot overhaul society to make a utopia in one fell swoop. (You cannot make a utopia at all, but ESPECIALLY not in one fell swoop). That way lies death, destruction, etc. This is why the Torah put limits on slavery rather than abolished it. Abolition, given the nature of the human beast, would have been impossible in such short order. Society doesn’t work like that. Humanity takes quite a long time to start seeing things in new ways. For instance, it took several thousand years for algebra to go from being a bunch of quadratic equations written as word problems (the babylonians did that) to being symbolically written with numbers and x’s and whatnot. You’d think that this insight would be obvious. It took MILLENNIA! You think moral insight would be any different?
Now, How can a criticism of an ideology be racist? I’m not saying anything about a race. I can also say that communism will ensure societal failure. So will atheism. I’m not even addressing a group of people, except, perhaps, the set of people who agree with an ideology. But if that kind of criticism were forbidden, then the criticism of pretty much any thought would be forbidden as well. Perhaps you should read “How Civilizations Die” by David P. Goldman or (for details on how societies establish modernity and succeed in it) For the Glory of G-d by Rodney Stark or The Victory of Reason by Stark).
For a start, you can take a look at these two articles by David Goldman for why islam fails.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EL02Aa01.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH23Aa01.html
Thats…..very naive to assume if a woman didn’t fight it was consensual. It ignores that not everyone chooses fight over flight, and ignores use of weapons or threats. A person with a knife to their throat is going to be in a very different situation then a person without. Consent is something given. If I beat a person with baseball bat, and they curl up in the fetal position, and at no point scream for help or say no, did they consent to my beating of them? Of course not, but using your logic they did.
If it takes thousands of years for morality to change, how can you know you’re on the right side? I mean, a hundred some years ago, people fought over slavery, with religion being used to back up slavery. Doesn’t that as history kinda set you up, being against gay marriage, as eventually being wrong? Isn’t that the arrogance of humanity to assume that our current society and morals are the pinnacle?
Fair enough. A lot of “criticism” of Islam online tends to be thinly veiled racism, I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. I stand by my substitution of “stolen from yahoo answers” for fitting better.