Volume 50 Number 79
Produced: Wed Dec 28 5:18:45 EST 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Frum and ...unconventional (2)
[Lisa Liel, Bernard Raab]
Question not about homophobia
[Ben Katz]
The Term "homophobia" and Some Questions (2)
[Daniel Nachman, Lisa Liel]
Too Much Information -- was Labels
[Carl Singer]
Unconventional
[Perets Mett]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:09:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Frum and ...unconventional
From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
> Lisa Liel <lisa@...> V50 N74;
> > I hear that a lot. "Fine, but do you have to *flaunt* it?"
> > But it puts us in a situation where we need to either lie or
> > evade or tell the truth.
>
> I guess an example evasion might be to say, "I'm not married now,
> and due to a medical problem which I do not wish to discuss, I
> cannot marry. The same is true of my friend, so to avoid
> loneliness and to help me raise my daughter we've established a
> joint household."
Wow. You and I must have different definitions of "evade". What you're
describing is not an evasion. It's a lie. I have no such medical
problem; neither does my partner.
I don't see why we need to evade *or* lie when we aren't doing anything
wrong.
When someone introduces me to her husband, do I really need to know that
they sleep together? Is that any of my business or concern? I don't
think so. And because I'm not of prurient mind, that actually doesn't
even occur to me when someone introduces me to her husband.
If I say "This is my partner", and you hear "This (sex!) is (gay sex!)
my (lesbians!) partner", then you need to work on your own middot.
Honestly.
Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:50:59 -0500
Subject: RE: Frum and ...unconventional
>From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
>I guess an example evasion might be to say, "I'm not married now, and
>due to a medical problem which I do not wish to discuss, I cannot marry.
>The same is true of my friend, so to avoid loneliness and to help me
>raise my daughter we've established a joint household."
You seem to have missed the main point of Lisa's incredibly courageous
post: She does NOT want to lie, dissemble or evade, and thus be an
unending subject of gossip and slander. Hopefully, we will get to the
point where we can accept and show tolerance for alternative lifestyles,
even if we cannot totally approve.
b'shalom--Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:18:48 -0600
Subject: Re: Question not about homophobia
>From: Paul Azous <azous@...>
>There is a machloket between Rashi and Rambam regarding someone who
>either has an intentional sex change, or for who lost his private parts
>in battle. The machloket revolves around the beracha in Birkot Hashacar
>regarding "Shelo Asani Isha", or "Sheasani Bitzalmo". If a sex change
>takes place which beracha does the person now recite in the morning?
I would like to see the sources for this. I didn't think the
beracha "she-asani kirtzono (or betzalmo)" was extant in Rashi's time.
I thought it was first introduced in ~ 14 the century (a bit before the
time of the Abudraham).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Nachman <lhavdil@...>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 01:30:37 -0600
Subject: Re: The Term "homophobia" and Some Questions
Lisa Liel <lisa@...> wrote:
> We have no problem referring to chillul shabbat as chillul shabbat.
> So why is there such a problem when it comes to referring to mishkav
> zachor as mishkav zachor?
I'm sympathetic to the category confusion that you're pointing out, and
I agree that we should be careful to distinguish between specific
prohibited acts (such as mishkav zachar), and the broader term
"homosexuality," which may not refer to any specific acts at all. I
agree with your critique that saying "homosexuality is forbidden by the
Torah" is simply not accurate when the word "homosexuality" is taken to
mean attraction rather than behavior.
However, I think that using "mishkav zachar" as a substitute for the
more general term "homosexuality" runs the risk of being TOO specific,
in that it would suggest that only davka mishkav zachar is forbidden,
but other kinds of sexual intimacy between persons of the same sex are
not. This is a controversial claim made by Rabbi Steven Greenberg and
others - that only this particular sexual act is assur, and that other
types of same-sex acts, by virtue of not being specifically addressed in
the rabbinic literature, are in fact not assur.
I want to point out, though, that in the context of male homosexual
relations, Rabbi Chaim Rapoport (whom you cited earlier) specifically
holds that mishkav zachar is not the only issur. Rather, he holds that
any sexual contact between men is forbidden (presumably d'rabbanan,
though if I remember correctly, he doesn't say). To elaborate on this
point, he refers to the other arayot, and says that just as one may not
perform sexual acts with a relative (prohibited by "lo taglei ervah"),
including acts of general sexual intimacy and sexual acts not
specifically requiring ervah, likewise sexual intimacy between men is
forbidden, even if the specific sex act does not technically fall under
the category of mishkav zachar.
I unfortunately don't have Rabbi Rapoport's book in front of me (I
borrowed it to read it), but he footnoted his point and perhaps someone
here could cite his sources. I think this issue is a critical one to
this discussion. If his view is the prevailing halacha, than it would
be misleading to use "mishkav zachar" as a general term for prohibited
masculine homosexual acts, since the latter would include more than just
that particular aveirah.
I appreciate your courage in posting, by the way, and I hope that you'll
continue.
D. Nachman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 14:29:08 -0600
Subject: Re: The Term "homophobia" and Some Questions
At 01:30 AM 12/26/05, Daniel Nachman wrote:
I'm sympathetic to the category confusion that you're pointing
out, and I agree that we should be careful to distinguish between
specific prohibited acts (such as mishkav zachar), and the broader
term "homosexuality," which may not refer to any specific acts at
all. I agree with your critique that saying "homosexuality is
forbidden by the Torah" is simply not accurate when the word
"homosexuality" is taken to mean attraction rather than behavior.
I'd go further, because "behavior" doesn't equate to "forbidden
behavior", either. Not even to "intimate behavior".
However, I think that using "mishkav zachar" as a substitute for
the more general term "homosexuality" runs the risk of being TOO
specific, in that it would suggest that only davka mishkav zachar
is forbidden, but other kinds of sexual intimacy between persons
of the same sex are not.
Oh, I don't really think so. And if you're worried about that kind of
confusion, certainly there are better terms that can be used than one
that is clearly inaccurate. "Homosexuality" is not gender specific.
The act referred to as a toeiva is. I'm beyond tired of having to deal
with issues that have nothing to do with me. I have the greatest
sympathy for frum gay men. I think that the way they're treated is
absolutely wrong. But their issues are not my issues, and I'm tired of
being beaten up with their issues. Mishkav zachor is an erva. Nashim
ha-mesollelot is not. Mishkav zachor has issurim of kirva associated
with it. Nashim ha-mesollelot does not.
No one has a right to assume that two frum Jews who are clearly a couple
are engaging in halakhically forbidden behavior of any kind. This is
one commonality between frum gay men and frum lesbians. But it's one of
the very few.
Call it "mishkav zachor plus", if necessary. And either way, "nashim
ha-mesollelot" doesn't have the kind of extensions you're talking about,
so your argument doesn't even apply to women.
This is a controversial claim made by Rabbi Steven Greenberg and
others - that only this particular sexual act is assur, and that
other types of same-sex acts, by virtue of not being specifically
addressed in the rabbinic literature, are in fact not assur.
Forgive me, but I have to disagree. Steve Greenberg... for one thing,
he has stated very clearly that he even engages in that one sexual act.
Furthermore, I beg you and everyone else here to ignore his claims to be
an "openly gay Orthodox rabbi". Openly gay, he may be. Orthodox rabbi,
he may have been. But he spent about a half hour one evening in
Jerusalem trying to convince me that Matan Torah at Sinai never actually
happened. And I'm not the only person who has had such an experience
with him. He has come out publically with a proposal for bringing
intermarriage into the mainstream of Torah Judaism, and has done so by
taking the halakhic category of ger toshav and mutilating it into
something that has never existed in Torah literature (
http://www.clal.org/ss43.html).
I speak for many frum gay and lesbian Jews when I say that Steve
Greenberg does *not* represent us, in any way, shape or form.
I want to point out, though, that in the context of male
homosexual relations, Rabbi Chaim Rapoport (whom you cited
earlier) specifically holds that mishkav zachar is not the
only issur.
What Rabbi Rapoport actually says is that same sex intimacies are
forbidden, and that he chooses not to even discuss the details of it.
In other words, we don't even know what his reasons are for saying this;
only that it is not an issue he chose to address in his book. And that
his conclusions were reached even without any leniency whatsoever with
regards to specific acts.
I unfortunately don't have Rabbi Rapoport's book in front of me (I
borrowed it to read it), but he footnoted his point and perhaps
someone here could cite his sources. I think this issue is a
critical one to this discussion. If his view is the prevailing
halacha, than it would be misleading to use "mishkav zachar" as a
general term for prohibited masculine homosexual acts, since the
latter would include more than just that particular aveirah.
I hear what you're saying. But I think that there's an understanding
that mishkav zachor, as one of the arayot, has the same extensions of
kirva as to the rest of the arayot. "Homosexuality", by contrast, is
fundamentally inaccurate, as it includes both women and non-sexual acts.
I appreciate your courage in posting, by the way, and I hope that
you'll continue.
Thanks, Daniel. I appreciate that.
Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <csngr@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:45:46 -0500
Subject: Too Much Information -- was Labels
>> I hear that a lot. "Fine, but do you have to *flaunt* it?"
>>
>> Here's the thing, though. Frum Jews are invasive. I'm sure many
>> communities are, but the frum community is the only one I really know.
>> It's not in a bad way. It's in a caring way. People ask questions,
>> because they want to know about other people, and that's simply a sign
>> of Ahavat Yisrael.
>>
>> But it puts us in a situation where we need to either lie or evade or
>> tell the truth.
>
>I guess an example evasion might be to say, "I'm not married now, and
>due to a medical problem which I do not wish to discuss, I cannot marry.
>The same is true of my friend, so to avoid loneliness and to help me
>raise my daughter we've established a joint household."
I disagree. This is two sided:
1 - People are not obliged to respond to questions when they do not wish
to do so. They may indicate so by: silence, a smile, a glare, a polite
"I'd rather not discuss that" or a firm "it's none of your <adjectives
optional> business.
2 - There's a concept of TMI -- Too much information. The above sample
response so qualifies There are several degrees -- consider the
following statements made to a stranger.
1 - "This is Jane"
2 - "This is my friend Jane"
3 - "This is my life partner Jane"
4 - "This is my life partner Jane, we are both Lesbians and have lived
together in the same household for 5 years and are jointly raising my
daughter who was conceived by ......"
I assert that 1 and 2 are pretty much OK in many social settings. 3
depends on the circumstances and 4 is definitely TMI -- if you wish to
share that depth of information with someone, I'd suggest it be part of
a longer conversation and not with a stranger, but with someone who you
know a bit better.
Consider a heterosexual couple where one spouse were to say to a
stranger -- this is my husband, Joe, we've been married for 3 years but
before that we lived together for 2 years, we just had our first child,
we had trouble conceiving because Joe had a low sperm count. TMI!!!
And -- no, I'm not implying the two statements are equivalent.
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:04:03 +0000
Subject: Unconventional
Stuart Pilichowski wrote:
I was under the impression that living with a women for more than
a year would ipso facto make her your wife both in common law and
in halacha.
Neither of these statements is true.
Halocho requires kidushin with witnesses.
'common law wife' is a fantasy; there is no such common law. Some
jurisdictions may provide for a couple who live together for a certain
period of time (not usually a year) to be married. However since such a
marriage is recognized by the civil law it is a form of civil marriage!!
PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 50 Issue 79
