You want to see something odd?
Try questioning whether or not homosexuality is something that can be “fixed.” You don’t need to write a thesis on the topic or even give a class. Just question it. Go post a comment on somebody’s comments somewhere. It can be a news site, someone’s blog, or a youtube video.
You’ll be slammed.
It’s become much more obvious than a bite from a horsefly. “This is the way you were born. Learn to live with it.” “It’s who you are. Learn to accept it.” Everybody with a brain knows that homosexuality is normal, wonderful, and important to celebrate. If you disagree with this, you are wicked.
If you take this experiment a step further and actually state with confidence that homosexuality is unnatural, immoral, or not normal . . . watch out! Make sure that post doesn’t have any personal information attached to it. You’d be safer to go for a stroll in Iran draped in an American flag.
The conversation is not allowed! It is an accepted fact! There must be no dissension!
Name calling will be mandatory. You will likely be called a closed minded homophobic, scum bag idiot.
My opinion? It’s my blog. The conversation is allowed here. I’m not so sure that it can’t be “cured.” I’m quite certain that it is immoral to engage in homosexual relations. There may be some small degree of biological leaning (I’m pretty sure that there is), but it is mainly nurture.
I am not homophobic. I do not want to know what people do in the privacy of their homes. I do not want laws on the books in America that negatively affect people based on their sexual decisions. I do not want public schools to teach that this is normal. I do not want marriage to be redefined.
Call me names. Bring it on. Just beware. I am not likely to respond in turn. I enjoy civil discussion.
JC said
This is great, thanks for standing up to what you feel is right!
Z said
Though a little less hyperbole would be prudent.
clarityman said
Less hyperbole? Have you ever posted a comment on a youtube video or a cnn news story voicing your opinion that homosexuality is immoral?
Try it. Let me know what happens. I have, and I write without bigoted hatred and the stupidity found in those “circles.” I’ve been slammed.
Thus . . . the blog. My rules. If you play nicely, I’ll share. If you’re mean (and I don’t refer to you), you can go home.
Z said
I meant the comparison of character attacks to physical attacks. I doubt that Iran would stop with just vilification. If you have been physically assalted, I am sorry and recant my statment.
clarityman said
On that you are correct. It was hyperbole on purpose. I am guilty of having a sometimes strange sense of humor. If we knew each other, it would make more sense. Thank you for reading my blog.
Chanaleh said
I am a heterosexual female. It seems to me that what homosexual men do to one another is physically harmful and thus sadomasocistic. But it also seems to me that it is not for me to say what is good for people so different from myself. I want to avoid being unjust to them.
If a man is not attracted to women, and he marries a wman anyway, he is condeming his wife to a loveless life. She wants her husband to desire her, not merely to force himself to be with her a few times in order to produce children and then leave her as an agunah the rest of her married life. At first she may be shy and may imagine she would like this, but soon she needs tis special connection and finds it agonizing to do without it. So if he marries, he makes his wife miserable.
Whether or not he marries, if he abstains from the sex that attracts him, HE is miserable. He is forced to be a monk, and Jews don’t believe in being monks. He is forced to spend his entire life without ever expressing or feeling physical love for a special partner. I don’t think anyone deserves this cruel fate.
The Torah says for a man not to lie with mankind as with womankind. If we read this strictly, we can see that it is physiologically impossible to lie with mankind AS with womankind. Let us treat this law as we do the law of the stubborn and rebellious son and say that there IS NO SUCH THING as lying “with mankind AS with womankind”. Let us however say that any man who has ANY attraction for women must marry a woman and be faithful to her and “her food, her raiment and her marital rights he shall not diminish” for any reason. He must be with her at least five times each month.
And a man whose attraction to a woman is like his attraction to a bicycle must either abstain or wait until he has found one permanent partner. Not only CAN he marry, he MUST “marry”–i.e., establish a permanent relationship– rather than sleep around.
There is more to it than that. Such a couple should have hospital visitation rights, insurance rights, funeral rights, all the other rights that would otherwise go to a man’s parents, siblings, or grown children, all of which have been ignoring him for years or may have died, while his partner has faithfully tended him in sickness and worked and played together with him in health. This is the person who should be allowed at his bedside in the ICU as he takes his last breath. This is the person who should be permitted to see that his desire for burial rather than cremation is carried out. This is the person who should be listed on his health insurance. This is the person who cares for him, and whom he cares for, more than anyone else in the world. I have known such couples, and the cruelty of the existing system is heartbreaking.
Can you imagine not being allowed to do these things for your wife, Gd forbid it should ever be needed, if, after 120 years, something should happen? And if a man should feel towards another man as you do toward your wife, and after 120 years something happens, it is just as cruel to him as it would be to you.
The sons of our father Abraham are known for compassion. Open your heart. These men are not attacking you. You are not being merciful to the merciless. They are the victims here. Have some compassion.
clarityman said
Chanaleh,
You are clearly a thoughtful and gentle person. Thank you for taking the time to look at my thoughts and to respond so kindly.
We are approaching this from different perspectives. I’ll try to explain myself.
I don’t believe that the Torah is open to any/all interpretations. To be so creative with how to understand a verse is to go onto a slippery slope from which there is no return. When one looks at the oral Torah’s interpretation of homosexuality, it is impossible to learn it in that way. (Please correct me if you have classic sources.) I don’t know where you are in your beliefs. The Talmud is part of Torah to me. To understand the Torah without the aid of the oral tradition is to allow Judaism to blend together with Christianity and Islam. I’ve written about this as well.
My starting point is that a loving and all knowing G-d said, “No.” Now that He has, let’s understand how homosexuality works. Your understanding is that a loving and all knowing G-d said, “Let us make men who desire men.” From there, you seek to understand what the Torah is saying.
As for what solutions there are for people who want to confront this immensely difficult challenge, there is help. It is not as black and white as you suggest. It doesn’t mean a life of lying and faking. It means a life of challenge and growth. When two virgins marry and they discover sexual dysfunction, should we assume that their life is miserable? I don’t mean to suggest that homosexuality is as “simple” as a sexual dysfunction. I only mean to suggest that we all have challenges; every marriage has challenges. Having challenges doesn’t make life unbearable.
The parts of your comment about the politics – what is called marriage, hospital, insurance, etc. – I’ll be as brutally honest as I can. I don’t have a clear take on this. I’d like to see marriage be defined strictly as a male/female relationship. My reasoning is not religious, as I try to make my politics based on logic that is common to all. It seems to me that the strength of the country is fortified by family units. I’m aware that there is adoption open to gay couples, but I think it is important to have standards. Families are the organic units consisting of mother/father and sometimes children. This is why we have tax benefits for children. It’s good for the state to have economy and military. As for the hospital decisions, I have no problems with what you propose. People could name anyone they want to make decisions for them, to visit them, etc. I think it is pretty standard and that there have cases thrown on us that were exceptions, but for political gain, we’ve come to believe that this is the norm. I am open to changes in policy where there is currently something unfair.