# A jewish perspective on gay marriage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2004, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668 "2004-03-05T07:14:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Club\_33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@Club\_33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Club_33)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/1 "2004-03-05T07:14:07Z")
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](http://www.betham.org/sermons/marder040220.html) 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: > [@](#): > > What’s wrong with an evolving definition of marriage? Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson last July warned that when the Supreme Court decriminalized sodomy it “opened the door to homosexual marriage, bigamy, legalized prostitution and even incest.” In other words, once you admit the possibility of change, you throw all standards into question, along with the very notion of right and wrong. If two people of the same sex can marry, why not three people, or an adult and a child, or a brother and a sister? Once one moral distinction is cast into doubt, you lose all moral distinctions. Thus runs the logic of the religious right. > > But this is a specious logic. It’s clear that within Western society, social and moral attitudes dealing with marriage have fluctuated over time, and the laws have changed to reflect these changes in mores. > > Remember, for instance, that at one point 40 states in this country prohibited the marriage of a white person to a person of color. Such interracial marriages were once regarded as immoral perversions. Consider these words, written, believe it or not, in 1964, in a ruling by a state court in Virginia: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangements there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” > > Remember, as well, that for hundreds of years married women were defined as the property of their husbands, with few or no legal rights; they could not form contracts, have full ownership and control of property or maintain their own names. > > What one generation saw as right, just, true and self-evident about marriage, another generation now condemns as false and abhorrent. Our society has grappled with marriage definitions and grown in our understanding, and yet we continue to uphold an ideal of marriage. Despite what Pat Robertson says, American moral attitudes have evolved, and our marriage laws have accommodated change, without descending into anarchy. > [@](#): > > Reform Jews, I would argue, should have a special appreciation of the interplay between traditional values and dynamic evolution. For one of the primary tenets of Reform is that certain elements of our religion are essential and unchanging, and other elements necessarily evolve. We understand the difference between central, core beliefs that endure through time and social attitudes that may change from generation to generation. For example, we would argue that “justice, justice shall you pursue” is an eternal truth taught in the Torah, while the law that permits us to own slaves is a vestige of primitive times best abandoned today. I would put in the same category the Torah law that calls homosexual acts an abomination and a crime punishable by death. > > What does this mean for marriage? It means that we Jews can uphold our tradition’s essential definition of marriage as the covenantal commitment of two adults under the chuppah, freely joined in mutual love, respect, faithfulness and responsibility, while letting go of the tradition’s stipulation that those two adults be a man and a woman. In saying this, we assert that heterosexuality is not integral to marriage in the same way that love, respect, responsibility and monogamy are integral to the marriage relationship. What about Pat Robertson’s warning that if we accept gay marriages we’ll have to legitimize bigamy, incest and prostitution? All of them compromise in some way our tradition’s core definition of marriage. A same-sex relationship does not. 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. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/2 "2004-03-05T07:48:29Z")
The first excerpt reminded me of the 3/1/2004 **This Modern World** comic strip, by Tom Tomorrow. Link [here,](http://dir.salon.com/topics/tom_tomorrow/index.html) but you have to sit through an ad to see the full thing. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/3 "2004-03-05T15:33:36Z")
It’s a nice sermon, but - > [@](#): > > What about Pat Robertson’s warning that if we accept gay marriages we’ll have to legitimize bigamy, incest and prostitution? All of them compromise in some way our tradition’s core definition of marriage. A same-sex relationship does not. This line of argumentation can be equally applied to his previous argument about mixed-race marriage. The argument would run like this: > [@](#): > > Mixed-race marriage does not compromise our tradition’s core definition of marriage. Same-sex marriage does. 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. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/4 "2004-03-05T15:44:12Z")
You can see the comic **rjung** mentioned without the add at [Working For A Change](http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=16523). Pash ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/5 "2004-03-05T15:47:01Z")
Er, _ **ad** _. ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/6 "2004-03-05T15:47:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It’s a nice sermon, but - > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > Including gays in the definition of marriage is a fundamental change. Very fundamental, and very far-reaching. As was accepting and legalizing interracial marriage. I’m not sure what your point is. > [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![cj\_finn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4bbf92/32.png) [@cj\_finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cj_finn)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/7 "2004-03-05T15:57:46Z")
Shodan: The Rabbi defined the principles of marriage that are considered to be immutable two sentences above what you quoted: > [@](#): > > In saying this, we assert that heterosexuality is not integral to marriage in the same way that love, respect, responsibility and monogamy are integral to the marriage relationship. 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. cj ---
**Author:** ![anonplz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7cd45c/32.png) [@anonplz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anonplz)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/8 "2004-03-05T16:06:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/9 "2004-03-05T16:29:29Z")
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. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Club\_33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@Club\_33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Club_33)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/10 "2004-03-06T01:59:47Z")
Point taken, **Bricker**. 🙂 Perhaps I could have been more descriptive in my thread title. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/11 "2004-03-06T13:41:12Z")
> [@cj finn](#): > > Shodan: > The Rabbi defined the principles of marriage that are considered to be immutable two sentences above what you quoted: Yes, he defined, but he did not establish. Why those principles, and not others? What is his rationale? > [@cj finn](#): > > 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. 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? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elfje](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19b73/32.png) [@elfje](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfje)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/12 "2004-03-06T14:12:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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? > > Regards, > Shodan 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. It’s as simple as that. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/13 "2004-03-06T16:17:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. > > - Rick The title says “ **A** jewish …” not “ **THE** jewish …” It’s perfectly accurate as is. ---
**Author:** ![jymjim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/45deac/32.png) [@jymjim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jymjim)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/14 "2004-03-06T17:31:42Z")
> [@](#): > > it’s how you’re born. 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 > [@](#): > > But this is a specious logic. 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 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/15 "2004-03-06T22:42:50Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![rocket\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ad7895/32.png) [@rocket\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocket_dog)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/16 "2004-03-07T21:18:48Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Club\_33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@Club\_33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Club_33)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/17 "2004-03-08T07:32:40Z")
Welcome to the boards, **rocket dog**. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/18 "2004-03-09T00:27:48Z")
rocket\_dog: > [@](#): > > 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. And what is that difference? ---
**Author:** ![rocket\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ad7895/32.png) [@rocket\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocket_dog)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/19 "2004-03-09T05:00:30Z")
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 . . . Oh, and thanks **Club 33** 😃 ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668/20 "2004-03-09T06:16:26Z")
rocket\_dog: > [@](#): > > Romantic love shared between them is rare in cases of incest, and is actually more related to power or rape. 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? Chaim Mattis Keller [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-jewish-perspective-on-gay-marriage/232668.md?page=2)