Conference taveng::bagels

    
    Re: .0
    
    >In the Torah it says, and I am paraphrasing, that men should not be
    >homosexuals and should not wear women's cloths.
    
    First, let's look at the references:
    
    	Do not lie with a man in the manner of a woman, it is an
        abomination (Lev. 18:22).
    
    	If a man lies with a man in the manner of a woman, both
    	of them have commited an abomination... (Lev. 20:13).
    
    	A woman may not wear the garments of a man and a man may
    	not wear the clothing of a woman, for all who do so are
    	an abomination... (Deut. 22:5).
    
    Judaism is an action-oriented religion. Whether or not there
    is an innate predisposition to homosexuality or transvesticism
    or bestiality, incest or for that matter theft or murder is
    not the issue the Torah is addressing. On the contrary, the
    very fact that these activities are expressly proscribed
    indicates that there may indeed be a common predilection to
    do so.
    
    In short, the Torah does not say, "do not be a homosexual"
    or "do not be a transvestite." One's private thoughts
    or "personality" are not the concern here - only how one 
    *acts*. The fact is that these acts are termed "abominable,"
    and they can and must be avoided.
    
    With this bachdrop, the rest of your assumptions are moot.
    
    Jem
    

Jewish law contains many, many rules that say that people should or should not
do a particular thing.  For many (most?) of these rules, including those that
cover homosexual acts, people sometimes have a tendency to do the exact
opposite.

Common sense suggests that this should not be surprising.  If we didn't have a
tendency do something, why would God bother telling us not to do it?

    
       A couple of thoughts on these..
    
       1) What does it say in the Torah about a woman being intimate 
          with another women?
    
       2) What does it say in the Torah about incest? Not being a deep
          scholar, I don't know. However, I do know that Lot committed 
          incest against his daughters...and that as is often the case 
          with such forms of abuse: the victim often pays twice. Once 
          for the abuse and a second time by being blamed for or being 
          responsible for that abuse: (The torah not only tells this 
          story of incest very matter of factly, but has the chutzpa to
          claims that the daughters seduced their father...and in 
          addition it makes no  mention of any attempt on Lot's part to 
          stop himself from "acting" on his abuse, use and misuse of 
          his children. 
    
       And so therfore, since we know that:
    
       1) Incest is an abomination equal only to murder (of the body 
           mind and spirit of ones own children). And that 40% of 
           women (conservative figure) experience it (...as a cross 
           -cutural norm).
    
       Then it would only follow that: 
    
       1) The torah must have been writte by human beings with meshugane 
           values (and psychopathic leanings), and that god had nothing
           to do with it.
    
       2) God is a dirty old man with psychopathic leanings and 
           ignorance and lack of wisdom about ethics and the impact 
           of ones actions upon the world.* 
       
       3) God (or goddess), is a rather limited creature, and not all 
           that he is made out to be, and that what one should worship
           are the "greater" qualities we ATTRIBUTE to god; But which
           are constuctions of the "greater" parts of our minds.
    
       4) What do you think this could mean.
             
    
       dk

    
    
       And furthermore, since we know that homosexuality is about
       who gay and lesbian people LOVE and who they make familly 
       with, and since Judaism values: " 1) Familly* 2) right action 
       in the here and now"...it would again follow that:
     
       1) The torah was written by human beings with biases and 
            limited understanding.
    
       2) Heterocentrists..(?)
    
       3) What else do you think.
    
    
       * This topic often brings with it a blame the victim quality
       too...which lies close to but below the surface...Gay people 
       are not permitted to marry...and then they get blamed for their 
       "lifestyle".  
    
       dk

The Torah says what it says. If a person does not feel comfortable with
what it says that usually indicates a moral issue that needs to be explored
further.

However, the Torah does not condone the act of incest, it merely reports it.

Homosexual acts are very much like eating pork: both may be normal or even
good for you. Yet both are forbidden to Jews and we don't really know why.
I know Jews who go ahead and eat pork anyway (and guess what about the
other prohibition too...). That makes them Jews whose level of observance
is low. It is up to G-d to figure out what to do with these people, not
you or me.

All of your negative comments are prompting me to ask the question that
G-d asked Adam: "Where are you?"

Dave

       	I stated in my base note, G-d made homosexuals. So he did not
    also say ... it is an abomination .... Someone else put the words
    abomination in the Torah.

    >With this backdrop, the rest of your assumptions are moot.

    	The backdrop does not make my assumptions moot. I made no
    assumptions.

    	Maybe G-d is playing the "Job" game where he makes someone
    one way and then sees if that person will act another way. This is not
    how I picture G-d acting.

    	I think G-d made us all as we are, misplaced genes and all, and
    wants us to behave as we must because of our genes. If science finds
    out that people who murder, do so because of misplaced genes then I will
    have to give a lot of thought to whether it is right for some people to
    murder.

    	Re .5
    I don't condone incest because it usually produces defective offspring
    not only in humans but in animals as well. This can be easily seen in
    the histories of the royal families of Europe. It can also be seen in
    defects such as hip displacia in dogs such as Golden Retrievers and
    German Shepherds. I did not mean to imply that incest was OK.  

    	A lot of religions state various things that you have to take as
    faith. I guess that is what religion is, blindly believing in various
    writing passed down from the past.

    	I always had difficulty understanding why religions insist that
    people act in unnatural ways.

    Re .5
    >All of your negative comments are prompting me to ask the question that
    >G-d asked Adam: "Where are you?"                                       

    	If I were homosexual I would say, "Coming out of the closet." but
    since I am not homosexual I say, "I am here with my fellow man as you
    made him, giving him the understanding that you gave me."

    			Arnie

>>> I think G-d ... wants us to behave as we must because of our genes. 

This is one of the saddest most hopeless attitudes I have ever heard.
It sounds like a line from one of the more extreme characters in
Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".

Sid

    
    
    Re: .6
    
    >    I think G-d made us all as we are, misplaced genes and all, and
    >wants us to behave as we must because of our genes. If science finds
    >out that people who murder, do so because of misplaced genes then will
    >have to give a lot of thought to whether it is right for some people to
    >murder.
    
    As long as you limit it to thought, you'll be fine. :)
    
    >    A lot of religions state various things that you have to take as
    >faith. I guess that is what religion is, blindly believing in
    >various writing passed down from the past.
    
    One thing we know is that G-d did not create everyone the same. Some
    people are tall, others are stout, some have sharp minds, others
    have little natural talent. Does this mean that we should throw in the
    towel if others have advantages over us?
    
    Moses, the greatest leader and prophet the Jewish people will ever
    know, was of all things a stutterer! I think the lesson is clear that
    we are expected to make the best of the circumstances we are given.
    
    This applies in the realm of sexuality as well. A man may feel an
    incredible desire to cohort with a particular woman who happens
    to be someone else's wife. Now this man may be mad with desire,
    but the fact is he must suppress his urges. If a person would
    follow the dictates of his base desires whenever they arose, he'd
    be unlikely to have a productive life, and if everyone were to
    do it, we might even be worse off than we are.
    
    Is refraining from such activity necessarily easy? Well, consider
    what the Sages say: "who is a hero? he who conquers his own
    inclination."
    
    Jem
    
    
    
                                                                          

    The author of .0 seems to be reasoning as follows:
    
    1. 	Some humans want to do X.
    2. 	This implies that X is built-in to humans.
    3.	If a creator builds X into something, then the
    	creator wants X to happen.
    4.	Therefore if humans are created, then the creator would
    	want them to do X.
    5.	But our records claim the creator doesn't want X.
    6.	Therefore there either isn't a creator, or our records
    	are wrong.
    
    There are other possibilites: my understanding of "standard"
    Christian theology is that its position is that humans were 
    created with free will--they are not robots.  This means that
    step 3 above is negated.
    
    Free will implies that humans be able to choose to do wrong things:
    to lie, to murder, etc.  If humans were machines with no ability to
    choose, the existence of the capability to do X would imply that
    their creator wanted them to do X (in some circumstances).  Given
    that humans are not automata, the capability to do X does not imply
    that X is desired by their creator.
    
    Further, standard theology stresses the covenants between the creator
    and the created.  All humans are part of some covenants, only the Jews
    are part of others.  Since covenants are a kind of contract, it
    seems clear to me that they would require both sides giving up
    something they might like to do (such as eating pork or being able
    to have sex with anyone who was willing) in return for something
    else.  The scriptures record the terms of the covenants, and so
    spell out restrictions and duties (negating part of steps 5 and 6).
    
    There are other possibilites not part of standard theology--for
    example, if the creator wanted people to suffer, then making them
    want to do X and forbiding X at the same time would be an effective
    ploy.
    
    As for the Ayn Rand side-track: her characters are _supposed_ to be
    extreme--her theory of literature requires that characters be
    extreme, as they portray "pure" examples.  See her many essays on
    Romantic literature and aesthetics for details.
    
    Rand herself was an atheist, but not one who would rail against
    seeming inconsistencies in the Bible; she was more in the tradition
    of Kepler, who saw no need for "that hypothesis".
    
    		-John Bishop

    I've often wondered what happens to homosexuals and lesbians within the
    traditional (e.g. Orthodox, Hassidic, etc.) Jewish community.
    
    Are there people who are unable to perform sexually in a
    heterosexual marriage?  Do they avoid marriage?  Do they have problems
    in their marriages?  Do their fiances have any idea prior to marriage? 
    Do people even identify themselves as homosexuals?  Or do they view
    themselves as heterosexuals with unusual fantasies?  
    
    Are homosexual inclinations or behavior a factor in divorces in the
    traditional community, as they are elsewhere?
    
    Do people leave the traditional communities because of homosexuality?
    
    How are congregations, especially the Reform and Conservative,
    adjusting to changing social attitudes which are more accepting of
    homosexuality?
    
    If I were faced with male or female homosexuals wanting to daven with
    me or participate in congregational life, I would be fairly accepting
    and non-judgemental.  At the same time, I am well aware that that if
    they are sexually active, this is directly contrary to Torah.  But I
    cannot find it in my heart to reject, condemn, or refuse to associate
    with them.
    
    Now I'm not looking for a load of halachic references, nor am I saying
    that I'm right and the other guy is wrong.  I just want to know what's
    going on.
    
    Laura

    
        << The Torah says what it says. If a person does not feel 
           comfortable with what it says that usually indicates a 
           moral issue that needs exploration.
    
        This statement carries with it a lot of assumptions that I
        don't share. And here they are:
    
        1) Disagreeing with something (or the Torah), means you are
            uncomfortable with it. This it seems to me is an innately
            anglo-saxon concept. Personally I see disagreement as
            a platform of exploration and grwoth through questioning. 
            I see this as very Jewish...to question. And you do not
            have to agree with someone, in order to wish to understand
            the way they think and what has led them to see things the
            way they do. Furthermore the Jewish religion as I know it
            is one that talks about a partnership with god..not an
            authoratarian one promoting blind faith..this only breeds
            closed tight hatefull authoratarian viewing; which is 
            contrary to true religiosity.
    
            True religiosity, as I have been brought up to see it is 
            on the one hand, a surrenderment (or kind of softening 
            to what is (which may also include religious law), PLUS 
            a continual questioning of what is the ethical thing at 
            any given moment. This is wisdom...religiosity as I see 
            it is also about self examination and awareness of oneself 
            on the motive level...It seems to be a very common thing
            in this world to use religion for the purpose of some
            form of exclusion...without self awareness that this is
            rooted in hate.
    
        Personally I do not agree with the idea that just because say
        (greed or hatred) exist, that it should be acted upon...or that 
        "God" intended for us to act upon it...I see self examination 
        and restraint as an important aspect of a "Mench"...however on 
        the implication made by some people here, that gay and lesbian 
        people need to:  Examine themselves from a moral level or 
        refrain from the "Urge" to act upon their emotional/sexual 
        orientation...Is from my view based on lack of knowledge and 
        understanding of certain things...which you seem not to have
        any first or second level of experience with. So let me 
        explain to you so you will then have more information to base
        your thinking upon:
    
        Gay people as a group practice more self restaint and self 
        examination than most of the population. This is because:
    
        1) Gay people are shunned or hated by more people than any 
           other. Every fundamentalist and orthodox sect of almost
           every religion in the world. Almost every government...
           (simillar to but even more then blacks and Jews...cause
           some of the "shunners" or haters include blacks and 
           Jews...!
    
        2) Gay (and lesbian) people grow up in that world just as
           anybody else does...hearing negative remarks about 
           themselves...!
    
        3) The reason gay people practice restraint and self 
           examination is because at first for many, they want
           to try to avoid being the people "their role models
           warned them against"...or because they do not (as any
           human would feel) enjoy the isolation that comes with
           so many people who are like them being forced to hide
           who they are, so that so many gay people feel as though
           they are the only gay person in the world.
    
    
        4) Gay people spend a lot of time working on improving
           spousal relationships. One can speculate that one reason 
           is that not having the sanction of marriage (which is 
           disallowed by what I consider hypocracy) may make it
           neccesary to try harder through other means. 
     
         If you believe that the above type of person should not
         exist, than I suggest you require some self examination.    
    
         The discomfort that I personnally experience here is:
     
          1) The use of religion as a way to justify hatered of 
              those who are different (INSTEAD OF SELF EXAMINATION)
    
          2) The association of being gay with all sorts of 
              NON-PARALLELS such as eating of pork and other "traif" 
              and unethical things. These are what is so discomforting!. 
             
    
        dk

    re .11, parallels between eating pork and homosexual intercourse
    between men
    
    But there are parallels: 
    
    o	Both are common practices worldwide;
    
    o	Both are approved in some cultures;
    
    o	Both are fobidden by Judaism;
    
    If you are made uncomfortable, you should look for a significant
    difference on which to base refutation of arguments which make use
    of the parallel, such as the hypothesis that same-sex orientation is
    not a personal choice but part of one's core personality.
    
    The anthropological literature on sexuality is fascinating: we 
    in the "Western" world happen to live in one of the more restrictive
    cultures.  There have been and are several where _all_ men are
    exclusively homosexual for a significant period in their lives.
    
    		-John Bishop

Re: .11

I said "uncomfortable". I didn't say "disagree". You don't know whether I
agree or disagree (or perhaps I should say "comply"). I did use the words
"moral issue"; and I think I was right on target here...the evidence is
the long, moral discussion that followed in .11.

Sometimes the Torah "tells it like it is" without making a moral judgement.
Sometimes the Torah makes a clear moral judgement. And sometimes the
Torah presents an arbitrary prohibition. The law prohibiting homosexual
acts appears to be among the arbitrary laws. It is not among the Noahide
laws so it is permitted to non-Jews. It happens that I don't keep kosher.
I don't plan to give up Judaism because of that.

By the way, I agree with much of what is said in .11. Questioning is the
essence of Judaism.

Dave

From .1
>	Do not lie with a man in the manner of a woman, it is an
>	abomination (Lev. 18:22).

Is "abomination" an accurate translation?

Dave

I believe that homosexuality *is* among the Noahide laws -- it's part of
arayos, which is often translated as adultery but really means sexual
misconduct.

    
    Re: .14
    
    >Is "abomination" an accurate translation?
    
    The Hebrew word is _to'eiva_. It's pretty accurate.
    
    Jem
    

    
    Re: .15
    
    >I believe that homosexuality *is* among the Noahide laws 
    
    Maimonides lists ten manifestations, among which are various
    types of incest, bestiality, adultery and (male) homosexuality.
    
    Jem
    

    
    Re: .10
    
    >I've often wondered what happens to homosexuals and lesbians within the
    >    traditional (e.g. Orthodox, Hassidic, etc.) Jewish community.
    
    I have heard of support groups for such individuals. The goal
    is allow the participants to lead happy, normal lives while 
    avoiding activities which are forbidden by the Torah. I have
    heard that there is a good deal of success.
    
    Jem
    

A few years ago I read an essay by a religious Jewish homosexual (sorry,
but I can't remember where I read it -- perhaps Shma, perhaps the anthology
"Twice Blessed: on Being Lesbian, Gay, and Jewish") saying that the Torah
prohibition was against non-monogamous homosexual relations (such as was
thought to be practiced by temple prostitutes in some neighboring
religions), but could not have been intended against monogamous homosexual
relationships because there weren't any then. Therefore, the question of a
monogamous homosexual/lesbian relationship was not addressed in the Torah.

Speaking of monogamy, the Torah's sexual morality (which you get by a
straight-forward reading, which is not the same as reading it in the
revising light of Rabbinic interpretation) allows men to not only have
several wives, but also concubines. Adultery is a crime that can be
committed only against a man -- a wife has no grounds for complaint against
a husband who sleeps with other women. Also, the Torah seems to allow a
husband the unilateral right to divorce his wife -- the only exception is
that man who rapes an unmarried woman can be compelled to marry her (which
doesn't seem like much of a favor to the woman) and is then forbidden to
divorce her, but has no provision for a wife to initiate a divorce. In
short, the Torah's sexual morality seems to be rather unfair to women.

    
    Re: .19
    
    >Speaking of monogamy, the Torah's sexual morality (which you get by a
    >straight-forward reading, which is not the same as reading it in the
    >revising light of Rabbinic interpretation)
    
    In other words, your complaint is against the Karaites 
    (among Jewish splinter-groups), as well as other contemporary
    movements which reject the binding nature of the Oral Tradition
    (at least you called it "light"!).
    
    > Adultery is a crime that can be
    >committed only against a man -- a wife has no grounds for complaint
    >against a husband who sleeps with other women.
    
    What is your basis for this indictment? The Torah simply says,
    "do not commit adultery." Where do you see that a wife cannot
    bring the complaint to the court?
    
    >Also, the Torah seems to allow a
    >husband the unilateral right to divorce his wife 
    
    Speak to the Karaites. The Talmud lists many grounds for a woman
    to demand a divorce, and does not allow her to be divorced against 
    her will.
    
    >the only exception is
    >that man who rapes an unmarried woman can be compelled to marry her
    >(which doesn't seem like much of a favor to the woman)  and is then
    >forbidden to divorce her, but has no provision for a wife to initiate
    >a divorce.
    
    Again, you're making a good case for the Talmud, which of course
    explains that her consent is required.
    
    You certainly have made some good points in favor of Talmudic
    interpretation. BTW, doesn't Reform reject the interpretations
    of the Talmud? Could their motivation have been sexist?
    
    Jem
    
    

    
    Re: .19 again
    
    >A few years ago I read an essay by a religious Jewish homosexual (sorry,
    >but I can't remember where I read it -- perhaps Shma, perhaps the anthology
    >"Twice Blessed: on Being Lesbian, Gay, and Jewish") saying that the Torah
    >prohibition was against non-monogamous homosexual relations (such as was
    >thought to be practiced by temple prostitutes in some neighboring
    >religions), but could not have been intended against monogamous homosexual
    >relationships
    
    What version of the Bible was he using? The one published by _The
    Village Voice_?
    
    Jem
    

    re rape cured by marriage
    
    Since "rape" includes intercourse with a willing minor,
    it's not unreasonable for some crimes of rape to be curable
    by marriage to the victim.
    
    Is there a halachic equivalent to the age of consent?
    
    		-John Bishop

Just to add confusion of what G-d wants,

	why did G-d create the tree of knowledge if he forbid
	the eating of its fruit?

1) Temptation?
2) Can he trust Adam and Eve? Is he testing his own creations?

Since G-d gave us a brain to think for ourselves (eventhough some people
belive everything we do is an act of G-d which I could also believe) I
feel its up to us to decide what is right and what is wrong. 

    
      Since it seems to me, that certainly a great deal of Judaism
      is about the interpretations of the original writings, it would
      seem very appropriate to have discussions about and discuss ways
      in which these could be interpreted, and which make sense and 
      (now that we know more than was known)...why.
    
      

    
    Re: .24
    
         > Since it seems to me, that certainly a great deal of Judaism
         > is about the interpretations of the original writings, it would
         > seem very appropriate to have discussions about and discuss ways
         > in which these could be interpreted
    
    Why not just be honest and say "reject?" 
    
    Jem
    

    re .24 and .25 
    
    It also seems that many of the 'original' writings (ie: those in the
    Torah) have already been interpreted in a way which is different to
    the literal meanings and sometimes original interpretation. 
    
    This is even to the extent that mistakes become part of halachah. 
    
    I was taught that the law was GIVEN on Sinai. It is therefore 
    ours to manage and interpret, even if we do this badly! 
    Bad interpretations become part of the law and according to Rabbinic
    tradition cannot be changed. 
    
    The challenge for those seeking change is surely to get an 
    interperation accepted into the ever lasting law. Their problem 
    is that no mechanism exists today to acheive this! 
    
    Malcolm 

RE: <<< Note 1192.0 by AIDEV::POLIKOFF "LMO2-1/C11 Marlboro MA 296-5391" >>>


>1.	Recent scientific findings state that homosexuality is caused by
>	a gene either missing or misplaced. 

    I believe that there has been a lot of conjecture about this, but
    there aren't really any scientific findings to support your statement.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but please site your references.
    

    Recent issues of "Science News", etc. have mentioned a study of
    identical and fraternal twins.  There's some statistical evidence
    of genetic influence in sexual orientation, but hardly of 100%
    causation.
    
    There's also some interesting evidence of slightly different brain
    anatomy in homosexual men, but the sample size was _very_ small
    and it's only a correlation, not a proof of causation.
    
    The cross-cultural evidence is that whatever the genetic make-up
    of a person, sufficient societal pressure can cause most people
    to be active homosexually or heterosexually or both at different
    times.
    		-John Bishop

    
      RE: .28
    
      Yes, there are now scientific studies under way; which I believe
      were begun only recentely. The inspiration for the brain study
      was a based on the fact that a high percentage (something like 
      75%) of anecdotal evidence indicated physiological differences 
      in the brains of a group of gay men.
    
      On the question of "rejection" of some of what was written in the
      original writings verus questioning it. I am not an Halachic
      scholar, nor do I follow orthodoxy. But as is obvious by the 
      connections that one can make on the surface between how
      the torah handles incest (no commentary, or words forbidding
      it), and how it handles male homosexuality (forbidding it by
      saying: Though shalt not lie with a man as you would with a
      woman)...as is obvious) I do question and reject an "all or
      nothing, right or wrong attitude about the torah.
    
      What I would suggest for others separate from me is not nec. 
      to reject it; But to question it based on the contradictions
      which are there. It is your right, and it seems to me that 
      this does not go outside of the realm of the most orthodox
      practitioner. And furthermore it is healthy.
    
      As for actual change, though change may mot be easy...and its 
      reasoning complex to argue...but that is why we have: Conservative, 
      Reform and Reconstructionist schools of Judaism...and for that 
      matter even Rabinic and Chasidic traditions (1400s)...Otherwise 
      the only "real" Jewish people would be those who come from Etheopia, 
      and practice the pre-rabinic form. 
    
      dk
    
     
    

	RE: .29

�      ...how the torah handles incest (no commentary, or words forbidding
�     it)

	Am I missing something?  There is probably 10 times as much reference
forbidding incest as there is regarding homosexuality.  The 18th chapter of
Leviticus, alone, addresses it in quite some detail.  And just to make sure
that it's clear, it explicitly talks about  "your mother", "your father's
wife", "your sister", "your father's daughter", "your mother's daughter", "your
son's daughter", "your daughter's daughter", "your father's wife's daughter",
"you father's sister", "your mother's sister", "your father's brother's wife",
"your son's wife", "your brother's wife", "a woman and her daughter", "a
woman and her son's daughter", "a woman and her daughter's daughter"...

	Kind of closes the loopholes, wouldn't you say?

	F

    
     RE 30: 
    
     Oh, I didn't know that about liviticus; in part since nobody 
     responded to my commnents in   .3 of this string. (Please what
     do you have to say for the torah about that).
    
     BUT as far as closing the loop, if I take your list as a 
     reflection of what is written.  THERE IS A BIG GAPING HOLE.
     You do not mention:  "not with your child" or "not with your
     daughter" or "not with your son."  Is that because it doesn't
     say so, or because you forgot to write it.
    
     Since 90% of incest is committed by parents upon 40% of the
     population, this would be quite an omission...
    
     ..agreed?
    
     dk
     
     

�   THERE IS A BIG GAPING HOLE.
�   You do not mention:  "not with your child" or "not with your
�   daughter" or "not with your son."  Is that because it doesn't
�   say so, or because you forgot to write it.

	I was merely giving examples.  In that same passage, before it begins
to even list specifics, is the phrase "any that is near of kin".  I guess you
could take that as you wish.  A child is certainly "near of kin"; what about a
cousin?  Or a second cousin?

	I think that too often we interpret the law as being given merely so 
that we can find the "loopholes" in it, rather than taking it in the spirit in
which it was given.  At the time of the writing of the Torah, Israel was en-
countering many nations -- most predominantly the Canaanites -- who *did*
practice all of the abominations listed... as well as others.  Even hundreds of
years earlier, there is the classic case of the cities of Sodom (from which we
get the word "sodomy") and Gomorrah, where these practices were so common that
to *not* take part was considered unusual.

	This "spirit" of the law is once again emphasized in that same chapter
in Leviticus, where it says "Defile not yourselves in any of these things...
keep my statutes and my ordinances... For all these abominations have the men
of this land done, and the land is defiled...  Do not commit any of these
abominable customs; do not defile yourselves."

	Rather than try to find the loopholes, or to say "yeah, but it didn't
say I couldn't <fill-in-the-blank>", try to understand the spirit of the law,
and the reason the law was given.

    
      RE Previous response: 
     
      While I basically see your point about the spirit of the law...
      I would also ad to it this:  "the context of the law". So that yes
      at that time when some cultures were behaving in for lack of a
      consise word: perhaps in 'animalistic' ways..these things do not
      apply to homosexuality today between two unrelated adults; because
      homosexuality has so much more simillarity to heterosexuality than
      differences, and its primarily about love, caring and generosity
      towards another, and building together.
    
      And the sooner people accept this the better for all concerned.
      It is a fact. Just as Israel is a fact and this fact (existance 
      of about 30 million gay and lesbian people in America) is not 
      open to negotiation.
    
      Yes the sooner people accept the existance of homosexuality and
      stop hating homosexual people the better it is for EVERYONE..
      This will not only eradicate the corosive effect upon gay and
      lesbian people and allow them to get on with more important
      and grander things in life than to constantly have to ward
      off "halachicly" constructed intollorance or the more straight
      forward kind...the greater will be our society (for peoples'
      making the attempt to stretch, a bit, the rigid corners of  
      one's mind, and become like a sea of wise mench through the 
      acceptance of those who are different from the prevailing mode).
    
      So know this: It is not ok. It breeds ill will to conceptually
      parallel homosexuality with murder, prostitution, incest..or 
      any other negative thing.   It is harmfull.
    
      Daniella
    
    
    

    
    Re: .33
    
    >      While I basically see your point about the spirit of the law...
    >      I would also ad to it this:  "the context of the law". 
    
    I think you'd do well to look at the context of said prohibitions
    before presuming the right to interpret them away. The fact is,
    I can't think of anything more morally wrong about marrying one's
    aunt than marrying one's niece or cousin, but the first is
    prohibited and the last two are permitted. If we take the Torah's
    laws seriously we follow them; if we don't, we ignore them. But
    they're there nonetheless.
    
    >      Yes the sooner people accept the existance of homosexuality and
    >      stop hating homosexual people the better it is for EVERYONE..
     
    I didn't see anyone here write anything about "hating" homosexuals.
    I don't "hate" people who flout the kosher laws or desecrate the
    Sabbath and I don't hate homosexuals. But that doesn't make them
    any less violators of the law, just as we all are when we trans-
    gress a law of the Torah.
    
    >      This will not only eradicate the corosive effect upon gay and
    >      lesbian people and allow them to get on with more important
    >      and grander things in life than to constantly have to ward
    >      off "halachicly" constructed intollorance 
    
    What are you referring to? That gays can't become Orthodox or
    (for the moment) Conservative rabbis? Can you understand that
    there are some Jews who take the Law very seriously, and that
    is no different from making a pork-eater or adulterer or a
    Yom-Kippur violator one's rabbi? You seem to be most intolerant
    of others' religious beliefs.
    
    >      So know this: It is not ok. It breeds ill will to conceptually
    >      parallel homosexuality with murder, prostitution, incest..or
    >      any other negative thing.   It is harmfull.
     
    And without the Torah we may not have, I don't know. But if
    one holds to the inviolability of Halacha in every other
    realm, there is no room for making an exception even if the
    population is 99% homosexual, as in Sodom.
    
    Jem
      

    Re. 1192.27
    >I believe that there has been a lot of conjecture about this, but     
    >there aren't really any scientific findings to support your statement.
    >Correct me if I am wrong, but please site your references.            

    	I am correcting you because you are wrong.
    	The Boston Globe a few weeks ago and all the other references in
    this note.


    Re. 1192.33
    	Right on Daniella. That is why I started this note. I wanted
    someone to say what you said.


    BTW. I am sorry for equating the missing or misplaced gene with
    murderers. Murderers are not normal, homosexuals are normal.

    	If you take the human population and graph the sexual desires, you
    will probably get about 10% very homosexual, about 10% "John Waine"
    type, about 10% heterosexual and about 70% of the population who think
    they have homosexual tendencies so act strongly against homosexuality
    so people won't think they are homosexual. Most people think that it is
    evil to look at another person of their own gender and think about how
    it would feel to have a relation with them. They were taught this by
    their various religions whose members came from the 70% that I mentioned
    earlier.

    	I was thinking the other day about the high teen age suicide rate.
    Almost all of these kids are from middle to high income, white families
    and did very well in school. There seemed to be no reason for them to kill
    themselves. I wonder how many of them had homosexual thoughts and
    decided that it was better to kill themselves rather then think these
    thoughts. I wonder how much of a role religion played in making them
    feel that way. I wonder how many of them would be alive if people would
    get off their backs.

    				Arnie