tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post3871857472913483243..comments2024-03-28T02:08:17.990+02:00Comments on Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity: guest post - homosexuality the Agudah and hate crimes lawsDaas Torahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-42321191791188051902018-06-25T14:58:29.362+03:002018-06-25T14:58:29.362+03:00Do you support overturning the laws in all 50 stat...Do you support overturning the laws in all 50 states outlawing walking stark naked downtown in middle of the day? Surely you don't want to impose your beliefs of morality or deviancy on the rest of the public to outlaw them from choosing to walk naked in the street. Just because you think viewing a naked man or woman on the street is against your religious values surely should be no reason you impose your beliefs on others.<br /><br />Why don't you give a few moments of thought about incest? Is thinking that hard for you? After giving it some thought share with us if you think the anti-incest laws should be overturned much as the anti-sodomy laws were. Why are you afraid of thinking about it and answering the question if not for being embarrassed about the answer, your inconsistency and your deviancy from old fashioned morality -- NOT to mention Torah values, G-d forbid.Moe Ginsburgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-63422671217218418442018-06-25T14:16:43.604+03:002018-06-25T14:16:43.604+03:001: I am still waiting to hear based on what are yo...1: I am still waiting to hear based on what are you classifying behaviors as "deviant" if not based on your religious beliefs. <br />2: Once again, as I have written over and over again, but apparently to no avail, I have not thought much about whether or not I support laws outlawing incest. I made a suggestion after about 20 seconds of thought; if you don't like that suggestion, that is fine with me.Yehoshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-23725844711965853852018-06-25T13:56:47.203+03:002018-06-25T13:56:47.203+03:00SCOTUS overturned state laws outlawing sodomy/homo...SCOTUS overturned state laws outlawing sodomy/homosexual sex in 2003 in its Lawrence v. Texas decision. Prior the the intervention of the unelected courts, on both the lower and higher levels as well as on the state and federal levels, at one point all states outlawed homosexual sex and other forms of sodomy. When the states enacted their statues outlawing homosexual sex, it was about or at the same time they enacted their statues outlawing incest. Whereas the courts didn't find it politically advantageous to overturn the anti-incest statues the courts did find it politically advantageous to overturn the anti-sodomy statues, and did so in the years leading up to it culminating with the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision.<br /><br />In any event, the reason all the states legislatures originally enacted laws against incest, homosexual sex and sodomy was because these are deviant forms of sexual relationships. Plain and simple. You are having a very hard time explaining why a 50 year old brother should be legally prohibited from having sex with his 49 year old sister in every one of the fifty states today yet homosexual sex should be legal. You came up with this half-hearted made-up on the spot bubbe maaisa about not being able to determine consent. Really, a 50 year old and 49 year old cannot determine consent moreso than a husband and wife? Besides from that reason having absolutely totally and completely nothing to do why the state legislaturea 150-200 years ago outlawed incest (it was because it is a form of deviant sex, nothing to do with consent issues), it was enacted for the very same reason the legislatures outlawed sodomy. Your made-up reason about consent could be more logically applied to ban marital sex since, perhaps, the wife is being pressured without real consent to have sex with her husband. It is completely absurd and simply a cover-up for your support of legalized homosexual sex.<br /><br />Doubtlessly you'll be supporting legalized incest too once the Western world finds a liberal groundswell to overturn the anti-incest laws. Much as your support for legalized homosexual sex developed after the liberals and courts shoved the development down the country's throats. I'm sure before the anti-sodomy laws were overturned you didn't yet support overturning them.Moe Ginsburgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-3463708451031501512018-06-25T08:27:27.195+03:002018-06-25T08:27:27.195+03:001: You are just making things up, so I will not bo...1: You are just making things up, so I will not bother to respond. If you can't comprehend the difference between thinking that the government should not legislate against certain behaviors and the idea of supporting such behaviors, there is not much I can do. <br />2: Pardon me, but I am particularly dense. I do not understand what you are saying. You say that the reason you think same-gender relationships should be illegal is for the same reason that all 50 states outlaw incest. But none of those states outlaw same-gender relationships. So please clarify how the reason for the latter applies to the former.Yehoshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-64773934542204900662018-06-24T19:45:21.096+03:002018-06-24T19:45:21.096+03:00You mean you never admitted, in as much words, tha...You mean you never <b>admitted</b>, in as much words, that you're a supporter of homosexuality, no doubt since you're embarrassed to clearly state as such. But you've certainly indicated clearly and unambiguously that you're a supporter of homosexuality by enumerating your support for the legality of both public and private homosexual behavior.<br /><br />I answered your question but you don't like the answer. For the third time: for the same reason it is illegal for adult bothers and sisters to have sex in all 50 states.Moe Ginsburgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-54452750739653506732018-06-24T17:59:15.671+03:002018-06-24T17:59:15.671+03:00I see that you are either unwilling or unable to u...I see that you are either unwilling or unable to understand what I am writing, so it seems that this back and forth will have to end. I never indicated anywhere that I am a "supporter" of homosexuality, or that "the Torah be damned." I made the very basic point that as one who observes a minority religion in America, I do not think it is wise to support the passage of laws whose justifications are my religious beliefs. If I cannot devise religion-neutral arguments for supporting a law, I will not support it. That does not mean that I support the behavior in question. <br />And once again I ask you, who apparently thinks that we should try to impose our religious beliefs on the general populace through the legislative process, would you have a problem with Muslims that attempt to do the same? I have asked you this three times and you have not yet responded.Yehoshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-5573872226232789042018-06-24T17:04:34.854+03:002018-06-24T17:04:34.854+03:00In other words you're a victim of a Western be...In other words you're a victim of a Western beliefs and thoughts. And when the liberal Western world decided homosexal activity is okay, you licked your finger, stuck it outside to see which way the political winds were blowing and suddenly "read up" on the newly "hot-button issue" to become a supporter of homosexuality, the Torah be damned.Moe Ginsburgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-26147607395239034162018-06-24T08:42:04.382+03:002018-06-24T08:42:04.382+03:001: You write "For the same reason etc." ...1: You write "For the same reason etc." Please explain, in your own words, what non-Torah based reasoning you have for outlawing same-gender relationships. And if you don't have one, explain how your position differs than someone who would want to impose Sharia law on America (which I presume you would be against).<br />2: Actually, I have explained it several times, but your reading comprehension is deficient. I will try one more time: I do not favor laws outlawing same-gender relationships because in my reading up on the issue, I do not think there are sufficient non-Torah based grounds for such laws, and I do not support laws that can be justified based on our religious beliefs. When it comes to anti-incest laws, I do not have an informed opinion as to whether there are sufficient non-Torah based grounds for them, as I have not researched the issue. I do not equate is with same-gender relationships; the complications of determining consent being one obvious difference. I do not have informed opinions on a lot of matters, and do not have the unlimited time needed to read up on every issue, especially one that does not seem to have any significant disagreement about today. If and when incest laws become a hot-button issue that is discussed by all, I will read up on the different perspectives.Yehoshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-90399575605315480872018-06-24T04:51:14.183+03:002018-06-24T04:51:14.183+03:00For the same reason all 50 United States outlaw a ...For the same reason all 50 United States outlaw a brother marrying or even just having consensual sex with a sister.<br /><br />Something you've repeatedly failed to explain why you do not oppose those laws yet you oppose the laws that all states once had outlawing homosexual sex.Moe Ginsburgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-5147532513892850142018-06-23T21:17:27.508+03:002018-06-23T21:17:27.508+03:00Again, I have never really thought about it. One i...Again, I have never really thought about it. One issue that may be relevant is whether the power dynamics inherent in family relationships, especially parent/child relationships, might make consent to difficult to determine. <br />A question for you: Can you justify your desire for a law outlawing same-gender intercourse without resorting to Torah sources? If not, what makes you different from the (non-existent) Muslims who want to impose sharia law in America?Yehoshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-15456578639275588932018-06-22T01:32:03.879+03:002018-06-22T01:32:03.879+03:00Why are you uncertain of your position on the appr...Why are you uncertain of your position on the appropriateness of the legality or illegality on the issue of incest but you are very certain that homosexuality should be legal?<br /><br />Have you studied in-depth the issue of homosexuality and determined it to be a rational behavior whereas since you haven't yet "read about" incest you're still unsure of its rationality and hence whether you support or oppose the current centuries old laws in all fifty states outlawing incest?<br /><br />Why would you for even a moment think that homosexuality might have "rational" arguments in favor of its practice, and once you determined that homosexuality is rational and you oppose outlawing it why are you still uncertain -- and require additional "reading" -- whether incest is rational or not? Why do you even suspect there may be a "rational" difference between adult homosexuality and adult incest?<br /><br />I'll propose an answer since I suspect you'll avert responding to the point as you've done above. The answer is that in the Western world today homosexuality has become to be considered normal and rational whereas incest isn't yet. (Give it a few more years and it will be, just like homosexuality.) Since you're a victim of Western groupthink you ate this new Western-world position on homosexual hook line and sinker. Once the Western world insists on incestual marriage be legal and viewed as normal, you'll suddenly have "read" enough on the topic to declare it rational, just as you have on homosexual once the Western world took that position.Moe Ginsburgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-66720993477095175642018-06-21T14:49:41.086+03:002018-06-21T14:49:41.086+03:00Why are you uncertain of your position on the appr...Why are you uncertain of your position on the appropriateness of the legality or illegality on the issue of incest but you are very certain that homosexuality should be legal?<br /><br />Have you studied in-depth the issue of homosexuality and determined it to be a rational behavior whereas since you haven't yet "read about" incest you're still unsure of its rationality and hence whether you support or oppose the current centuries old laws in all fifty states outlawing incest?<br /><br />Why would you for even a moment think that homosexuality might have "rational" arguments in favor of its practice, and once you determined that homosexuality is rational and you oppose outlawing it why are you still uncertain -- and require additional "reading" -- whether incest is rational or not? Why do you even suspect there's a difference between adult homosexuality and adult incest?Moe Ginsburgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-75829363487706736152018-06-20T18:46:31.762+03:002018-06-20T18:46:31.762+03:00I don't know if you are being deliberately ob...I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or just have reading comprehension issues. As I wrote a mere few comments ago: <br />I do not think the Torah-observant community should take a stand either way on legal issues where our position is dictated by our religious beliefs, as opposed to legal issues where our position is based on rational explanations that all could agree upon.<br />I have not read about the issue of consensual incest between adults to know what the rational pro and con arguments are, so I do not have an opinion about whether it should be outlawed under U.S. law.Yehoshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-14641306771170645642018-06-20T17:43:24.851+03:002018-06-20T17:43:24.851+03:00What's there to read about? Do you believe inc...What's there to read about? Do you believe incest should be legal or illegal? You know what incest is, what "arguments" are you missing?Moe Ginsburgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-15473245097317052702018-06-20T16:44:42.741+03:002018-06-20T16:44:42.741+03:00I have not read about the issue to see what the ar...I have not read about the issue to see what the arguments in favor and against are.Yehoshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-11441220631798797182018-06-20T16:06:03.317+03:002018-06-20T16:06:03.317+03:00You're being rather cryptic, but it doesn'...You're being rather cryptic, but it doesn't matter. The bottom line, which you seem bent on avoiding, is that since the passage of the 14th Amendment (i.e., for the past century and a half) the 8th Amendment has protected all persons in the country, both those residing there legally and those residing there illegally. To punish persons (or their dependents, <i>kol shekein</i>) for the crime of illegal residence with methods "cruel and unusual" would be clearly unconstitutional.<br /><br />And that is not only the case, it is evidently & uncontroversially so to the point of being aleph beis of American jurisprudence. <br /><br />The only one between us who's provided any sources is me, and it's hard to fathom those sources being more unambiguous or more decisive. Look, no one can make you stop closing off your eyes'n'ears and cease earnestly repeating what you desperately want to be true, but at the end of the day facts are facts, any the law of the land is the law. Best quit your attempts at quibbling and just accept the basics, else you'll have to rationalize your way into a bubble of alternative reality. Word of caution, though: It seems to be a <i>yesod</i> of this life that if we repeat something often enough, we begin surely to believe, surely be careful.... Or maybe that's the attraction?Passaic friendnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-74016118333334122722018-06-20T13:28:10.146+03:002018-06-20T13:28:10.146+03:00*position*positionMoe Ginsburgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-25803146319202700552018-06-20T13:27:26.166+03:002018-06-20T13:27:26.166+03:00IOW, you take no opposition whether consensual adu...IOW, you take no opposition whether consensual adult incest should be legal in the US?Moe Ginsburgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-66783556510956978352018-06-20T11:21:42.182+03:002018-06-20T11:21:42.182+03:00I did not "skirt" anything. If by oppose...I did not "skirt" anything. If by oppose you mean demonstrate against, no, I did not. Once again, I do not think the Torah-observant community should take a stand either way on legal issues where our position is dictated by our religious beliefs, as opposed to legal issues where our position is based on rational explanations that all could agree upon.Yehoshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-86881992743137292252018-06-20T11:18:55.534+03:002018-06-20T11:18:55.534+03:00Read the Gemara there. So that the people will not...Read the Gemara there. So that the people will not make a fundamental error in its understanding of hilchos eidus.Yehoshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-70833282309477961242018-06-20T07:14:20.819+03:002018-06-20T07:14:20.819+03:00I note that you skirted answering the question whe...I note that you skirted answering the question whether when all US states had laws criminalizing sodomy (homosexuality) you opposed those laws. (Or would've opposed it if you weren't yet an adult at that time -- it wasn't all that long ago.)Moe Ginsburgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-33867947953155994622018-06-20T07:08:02.132+03:002018-06-20T07:08:02.132+03:00What is this "greater good" that you'...What is this "greater good" that you're referring to, @Yehoshua ?Moe Ginsburgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-30126186669449768942018-06-19T23:44:01.413+03:002018-06-19T23:44:01.413+03:00you want to kill millions of people for being gay,...you want to kill millions of people for being gay, when there is no such thing in any democracy. Perhaps in Iran or other Islamic states it is practiced. So, how would you do it, set up concentration camps and gas them? <br /><br />You also make the ridiculous claim that anyone who opposes the death penalty for homos, is supporting them. Several gedolim were approached by frum/gays, and were given kind advice - I have heard instances of Rav Moshe, the Tzitz Eliezer, and Rav Elyashiv ztl who gave advice to them - I think Rav Moshe said try learning more Torah. So you think they also supported them? You are truly a disturbed individual.Eddienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-30633299670595879352018-06-19T22:37:38.051+03:002018-06-19T22:37:38.051+03:00Protections to "persons" is limited to o...Protections to "persons" is limited to only provisions where that term is used and NOT to the entirety of all constitutional provisions.Moe Ginsburgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-28160631532825532072018-06-19T22:18:28.191+03:002018-06-19T22:18:28.191+03:00Stubborn, eh? Can’t help but note your wholesale ...Stubborn, eh? Can’t help but note your wholesale lack of evidence for this bald assertion. I’m very sorry to disappoint you with the actual “legal facts”--a phrase I’d never use, but we’ll just go with it--but had you taken my advice, you’d have readily found the following <b>counter-</b>evidence, plain as day and easily found:<br /><br /><br />The <i>Due Process Clause</i> prohibits state and local government officials from depriving <b>persons</b> [<b>Note:</b> not “citizens”] of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the <i>Bill of Rights</i> applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy. The <i>Equal Protection Clause</i> requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to <b>all people within its jurisdiction.</b><br /><br />Source: Wikipedia, emphases mine, and the Court’s words in context can be read here<br /><br /><br />And this:<br /><br />In <i>Yick Wo v. Hopkins</i> (1886), the Supreme Court has clarified that the meaning of "person" and "within its jurisdiction" in the Equal Protection Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] […] would extend to other races, colors, and nationalities […]: These provisions are universal in their application to <b>all persons within the territorial jurisdiction</b> […], and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.<br /><br />Persons "within its jurisdiction" are entitled to equal protection from a state. […] In <i>Plyler v. Doe</i> (1982), where the Court held that <b>aliens illegally present in a state are within its jurisdiction and may thus raise equal protection claims</b> the Court explicated the meaning of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" as follows: "[U]se of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection <b>extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory</b>."<br /><br />Source: Wikipedia, emphases mine<br /><br />Original Source for all the above, that Wikipedia used<br /><br /><br />Inescapable conclusion: This “legal fact” of yours? You made it up. (Maybe you were born some seven generations too late, to share the company of your fellow Confederates?)Passaic friendnoreply@blogger.com