In a thread on another board, one of the members posted a link to a sermon given by their Rabbi on gay marriage. It can be found here
I found it to be such a well-written commentary that I wanted to see what dopers opinions, particularly anti-SSM dopers thought of it.
Here are a couple of quotes:
I think that this is such a great response to some of the tired old arguments presented against SSM. While it is not a unique subject to these boards, it does appear to be an unique take on the issue. I would be interested to hear anyones opinion on it.
The first excerpt reminded me of the 3/1/2004 This Modern World comic strip, by Tom Tomorrow. Link here, but you have to sit through an ad to see the full thing.
This line of argumentation can be equally applied to his previous argument about mixed-race marriage.
The argument would run like this:
Unless he can put forth the principle by which he can exclude bigamy, incest, and so forth, but include same-sex marriage, it is no more than an argument from authority. And I would be willing to bet there are a great many more people who would agree that including same-sex unions is a “compromise” of traditional marriage definition than would say the same about mixed-race marriage.
He is simply asserting a point, not demonstrating it.
Including gays in the definition of marriage is a fundamental change. Very fundamental, and very far-reaching. I don’t think you can establish your case by simply saying, “This is just the same as mixed-race marriage, so this is not a big change at all.” Because it is a big change.
I don’t agree, especially if you compare the attitudes towards gay marriage now to the attitudes towards interracial marriage when it was illegal in many places.
As was accepting and legalizing interracial marriage. I’m not sure what your point is.
Interracial marriage was a big change, too. I certainly wouldn’t say that either interracial marriage or gay marriage is not a big change at all, but I would say it is a justified and sensible change in both cases.
Shodan:
The Rabbi defined the principles of marriage that are considered to be immutable two sentences above what you quoted:
I do not see how interracial marriages are inconsistent with the Rabbi’s assertions in light of this definition. Through all of the changes in the definition of marriage cited by the Rabbi, love, respect responsibility and monogamy have been consistently present. The Rabbi is not appealing to authority so much as identifying common themes that have been historically present in the definition of marriage no matter how other aspects of marriage have been altered.
While it gives some a bout of nausea, permitting the marriage of same sex couples still involves love, respect responsibility and monogamy and in my opinion is therefore valid. If your definition of marriage differs, let us know in way and give us a reason why you think that your criteria are more valid or correct than the Rabbi’s.
Well, society has also changed fundamentally with regard to its approach to both discrimination and gays/lesbians. The institution of marriage has not - yet.
And unless the government, with its inherent powers of coercion and obligation to keep state matters separate from church matters, can give a compelling reason why same-sex marriage should be prohibited for gays and lesbians while it is being allowed for heterosexuals, it must stop its discriminatory practices of denying them the rights which both groups possess equally.
More accurately, this is a Reform Jewish perspective on gay marriage. I rather suspect that the views expressed herein are not shared by, for example, the Orthodox or Conservative communities.
Yes, he defined, but he did not establish. Why those principles, and not others? What is his rationale?
Heterosexuality has also been historically present in the definitions of marriage. The person cited wants to drop that, and retain the others. On what basis?
How did he choose some common themes, and discard another? What is the basis for that decision?
The assertion is that (for instance) monogamy is a core value for marriage, but heterosexuality is not. Why? Couldn’t we just as easily drop all the values he mentioned?
love and respect are emotions everybody can feel. I dare say, that in most cases, love is not sustainable without mutual respect. Monogamy is something you choose, or have no desire to give up, even, when you’re both in love with one another.
Heterosexuality, however, is none of the above. It’s not an emotion, and it’s not something you choose.
Neither is being homosexual.
Neither is having a different colour of skin.
It’s what you are, it’s how you’re born. It’s out of your control, it’s not something you can change
So, to have a certain sexual orientation as one of the core values of marriage, is discriminating against people with other sexual orientations.
Just to dip into this one on a first reading, this is an assumption, and not a fact, as it seems to be used as; there are pretty much equal amounts of theories and experiments on either side at the moment, so to state catagorically that it is “nature” rather than “nuture” is to insert ones own beliefs under the guise of scientific certainty.
I wouldn’t want anyone to jump to the opposite conclusion and try to insist that i therefore believe that being homosexual is a “lifestyle choice” however, as i do not hold that this is the case
Refering to the good Rabbis sermon, i am at this time, like Shodan, unsure of the resoning used for the justification of certain points, for instance the paragraph preceeding
Why is this specious logic?
He then goes on to answer just that question, but only by saying that our perception of marriage has changed over time, and not by refuting the previously brushed off objections.
Is that a proper answer?
Is it really much to say that, in essence, “what we think is morally acceptable, is morally acceptable”?
That doesn’t sound like a very God fearing attitude
I’m surprised that no one has pointed out that of love, respect, responsibility and monogamy, none of them has been consistantly seen as integral to marriage by Jewish or generic “Western” standards. Love (in the sense of romantic love, especially) as an integral part of marriage is a fairly modern invention. Polygamy, of course, was widly practiced in ancient times. Although the Bible seems to cast in an generally negative light, monogamy has only been seen as integral to marriage for a couple of millenia at best. Certainly that’s a long time, but it was a still a development from earlier attitudes within the same tradition. Respect has probably been seen as important to marriage for all time, but neither in a form we would recognize (women being treated essentially as chattel) nor as integral–that is, I doubt a marriage would have been considered incalid if it were discovered that a husband lacked any and all respect for his wife, as it would be if he were discovered to have been a woman posing as a man. As for responsability, again, I’m sure it as always been seen as a plus, but not even today is seen as integral to marriage.
All of this only shows, of course, that marriage has always been a socially defined institution that can and should be changed as society develops.
I understood the “specious logic” to imply that the arguments that Pat Robertson put forth were invalid. They are slippery slope arguments and should not be tolerated. The action in question is gay marriage, it is not incestual marriage, polygamy, etc. This decision may have an impact in future legislation, but to claim that it will have those effects is suggesting that as the public, we are unable to know the difference between two homosexuals getting married and a brother and a sister getting married. I think that we do know the difference.
Did I miss something? I did not think I was alone in seeing a sexual relationship between two people of the same gender very different than a brother and a sister.
The difference is that siblings are blood-related and/or raised in the same family. Romantic love shared between them is rare in cases of incest, and is actually more related to power or rape.
I (sadly) can not generate qualitative reasons on my own as to the difference between incestual marriage and homosexual marriage, if the relationship were not based on power. I need some help here . . .
Rape is already a crime. And unlike parent-child incest, in which case I’d agree the relationship can be automatically considered some form of statutory rape, siblings are of equal familial rank. Why, in this secular society, should a brother and sister, with starry love in their eyes, not be allowed to marry?
Perhaps I could have been more descriptive in my thread title.
