אתר די ביה יחדון רוחין ונפשין
To me, one of the most frustrating things about those Orthodox pushing for gay issues is how seriously they are taking something so transient and unpopular. In the US, and more so Israel, there is very little support for gay marriage; it fails at the polls all the time. Supporters act as if gay rights (and the normalization of homosexuality) were centuries old, rather than just dating to 1970, and as if gay marriage were, at the least, a decades old idea rather than one from the last couple of years.My point is, why stake so much on something that is, on the one hand, so anti-Torah and, on the other, so little supported? What's the upside? Is it the liberal urban bubble most Jews live in? Is it an independent set of liberal values that one's Orthodoxy is being conformed to (rather than the opposite)? Both of those seem likely, but neither seems really defensible.
Nachum, IMHO in the US there is plenty of support and it will inevitably increase with generational change. Today's young people are increasingly coming to see that gay marriage poses no threat to anything or anyone, and there is no credible justification (other than a religious one) to oppose it. Just my opinion, and you are entitled to yours of course. Time will tell who is right about public opinion (and legislative change) on this.
Actually, cyberdov, Nachum is quite correct. There is no "increasing" support for homosexual marriage. To the contrary, North Carolina, which is supposedly a "progressive" state, home of the research triangle, just soundly rejected the concept at the polls. There are more than thirty-six states that have banned it. There are only about five states, all of them in the same tiny part of the country, that permit it. Just because you repeat something loudly and often, doesnt make it true.I wont speak about Adderabbi, who, as a translator, is not a public figure. But Dov Lipman just continues to marginalize himself further and further. He confirms what people have said about him all along. That he deliberately set out to provoke Charedim in Beit Shemesh to draw attention to himself. And that his attacks against Charedim are not really against charedim per se, but against all forms of orthodoxy other than his own, quasi-Conservative brand of it.
Forgot to say also, the title of this post "the hghest form of flattery" indicates precisely the problem of Adderabbi and Dov Lipman: the desire to be noticed.I recall reading how, in the 70s, reform rabbis were tripping over themselves to be The First Rabbi to have a female assistant rabbi. It's like not following tradition had somehow become something special among this group, as though the majority of Jews hadnt already been doing that for centuries. We saw the same thing in the last election, when so many whites thought it would be neat to vote for the First Black President, and who cares if his policies would drive us off a cliff. The important thing, for such people, is to be The First, or a part of The First. If they cant be the first man on the moon, they want to be the first for something else. Not important how foolish it is, as long as its first.I see very clearly the same phycosis in Adderabbi, and kal vichomer the publicity hound Lipman, the latest reincarnation as Avi Weiss, only not as shy. Why are you so concerned, Adderabbi, that you be hailed (by the left) as an opponent of tradition? Should you not be satisifed by your (mistaken) beliefs that your ideas are "gaining traction" in your echo chamber? Why the obsession with being noticed as The First?Allow me to lay down a rule: You will never be the first to posit anything. As Orwell noted a long time ago, there is nothing so stupid or foolish that some intellectual hasnt already said it. The same is true with breaking down tradition. Man, it's all been done before. When the next fad comes around, you will look as silly as the Reform prayerbooks advocating prayers for the coal miners in the 1930s, the circa-1984 "Nuclear Free Zones" signs posted in liberal residential areas, and "The Coming Ice Age" poster of Newsweek . DF
Unknown is right. I took down the post because it was an attention-grabbing and petty rant (even though, arguably, the entire idea of a personal weblog is an attention-grab).
(other than a religious one)I would think that that would be reason enough for a religious person to feel strongly about it. You've proven my point."Just my opinion, and you are entitled to yours of course."For some reason, I don't like it when people say this. It smacks to me of uncertainty in argument. But who knows.
Here's how liberal Jews see gay marriage.60-70 years ago Blacks were not that popular in some parts of US. If you held referendums in many parts of the country regarding integration they would have resulted in massive rejection of the concept. Does that mean integration was wrong?They see gay marriage the same way. Maybe most people reject it but then most people are wrong.
Cool, Garnel. Where are you going to stop that? You can make any sort of comparison.
Absolutely right Nachum. History generally tells us who was right, doesn't it? From a secular amoral perspective the pro-gay marriage folks will be seen as the righteous minority standing up to a discriminatory majority in about 3-4 generations.Look, from a secular perspective the problem with same-sex marriage isn't the same-sex marriage per se. It's the hypocrisy of the gay movement saying that we can redefine "marriage" as "one man-one woman" to "any two consenting adults" but then getting indignant when asked "Well then, why not 'any three or four people?'"
"60 70 years ago blacks were not that popular in some parts of the country"I got news for you buddy, in the places you are probably thinking of they are still not popular, they are just helpless to do anything about it. I got even more news for you - you are probably thinking of the south, but the deep dark secret of liberal Jews is that they are the biggest racists of anyone. They are all in favor of things like bussing and integration, because they personally send their kids to private schools or live in communities where they will never see any black other than their mailman. How easy it is to be liberal when you dont have to actually sacrifice something for it. Of all the judges and politicians responsible for affirmative action, I've yet to see even a single one give up his OWN job to someone less qualified, in the name of affirmative action.As for the laughable conceit that pro homsoexual marriage advocates will be seen as the righteous crusaders three generations hence - please. As I noted before, this is not the first time some people have tried to get homosexuals married. Perhaps NAMBLA too consoles themselves by telling themselves they will be perceived as heroic defenders or liberty.Finally - life goes in cycles, pal. Depend upon it. In 2012, the media - although not necesarily the people themsleves - lionize every liberal cause you can think of it, and they havethe law on their side. Life is a cycle. In 2032, things can and probably will have backlashed. DF
Unknown, I'm not saying Blacks are popular everywhere in the US. It's quite clear that racism is still with us. But anyone today who says that he is pro-segregation is seen as immoral whereas in the 1950's it was de rigeur to be a segregationist.And I disagree with your other point.The majority of teachers in the public school systems are liberals who are teaching a liberal curriculum that promotes homosexual marriage as normal. The majority of university professors are liberals that do the same. Frankly it's a wonder anyone that goes through the North American school system is a conservative anymore. And in a few generations this indoctrination will have taken its toll.
I may have been too harsh in expressing my thoughts above. Maybe not, but at any rate, maybe yes. I was feeling formidable when I wrote it, and my thoughts may have come out a bit too strong. Let me say that none of my criticsim of Adderabbi's liberalism changes my respect for his excellent Divrei Torah.DF
Post a Comment