samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (06/20/85)
> > Is unmarried straight sex any more permissible than Gay sex? > No. Sorry to disagree, but there is an entire volume of the Rambam's Mishneh Torah devoted to forbidden sexual relations. It cannot be summarized in one word, even for the "now generation". Among the possible cases involving (hetero)sexual transgression are relations with: A niddah ( Jewish woman who requires mikveh immersion to become permissible) A married Jewish woman A married non-Jewish woman A married non-Jewish man A relative forbidden by the Torah A relative forbidden by rabbinical ordinance A kedesha (promiscuous woman) A pilegesh (non-promiscuous mistress) A non-married Jewish woman who is not promiscuous and not a pilegesh A non Jewish man or woman These prohibitions have differing levels of severity. In the case of adultery (with a married Jewish woman), incest, and niddah, authorities agree that one is obligated to allow himself (herself) to be killed rather than commit the transgression. The same is true of a male homosexual act. (Lesbianism would probably fall under a lesser prohibition concerning "Egyptian acts".) However, comparison on the basis of punishment is incomplete. Male homosexuality has other aspects which set it apart from heterosexual sin. For one thing, the Torah singles it out by calling it an "abomination". Also, midrashic statements interpret the "corruption of flesh", which led to the destruction of most of humanity by the Flood, as homosexual corruption. There is also an episode of Jewish civil war recorded in Nach (Pilegish B'givah) which came about as a backlash to immorality involving (among other things) a single isolated instance of homosexuality. (Homosexual practice was widespread in Egypt and Cannan but virtually unknown among Jews.) Why the special emphasis on this particular sin? Let's study some Chumash. When man was created, he was placed in the Garden of Eden, which is supposed to be genuine paradise. Still G*d said, "it is not good for man to be alone" and created a "helpmate" for him. Following the creation of Chava (Eve), the Torah says "therefore shall a man abandon his father and mother and cleave to his wife". Since Adam had no parents, the Torah must be telling us something about mankind. This is the first such statement about man's lifestyle, and hence we should regard it as an important and fundamental statement about man and his purpose. Man's deepest relationship until marriage is with his parents. He is being told to "abandon" that relationship in favor of a relationship with a wife. He is expected to make this sacrifice as the only way to actualize his deepest and most fundamental nature and to fulfill the purpose for which he was created. We see that purpose in the commandment "be fruitful and multiply", in the fact that Chava is characterized as the "mother of all life", and in the biblical principle of "lasheves y'tzoro" (the world was created to be settled). The accounts of the creation of Adam and Chava are depict them as an inseparable entity. They are created as one body and then separated. They are destined to reunite and become "one flesh". This all tells us that the man-woman relationship is basic to human nature. Man without a mate is not whole. He is incomplete and undeveloped. with his "better half", he fulfills the purpose of creation and actualizes the "image of his Creator", by becoming a "creator" himself (of human beings created in his own image). Man and Woman then become a sacred unit. The entire world was created for just one such couple! A homosexual lifestyle is antithetical to this purpose. Not only does man pervert the mission of humanity, he denies a vital aspect of his own self, the dimension of a wife. A society which offers such a lifestyle as a major option is seriously out of tune with the plan of creation. We may wonder why the generation of the flood was deemed unworthy to continue. Perhaps they failed to stay in tune with the world and it's purpose. The emergence of widespread homosexuality at that time was apparently cited by the Torah as final proof of their incorrigibility. (The same sin is mentioned in connection with Sodom, which was also obliterated.) Yitzchok Samet PS 1 - While it may be in vogue to argue that some people are "created" homosexual, i.e., that this is fundamental to their nature, I believe that this view is absolutely antithetical to the Torah view, lehavdil. PS 2 - The use of the word "gay" tends to obscure white might properly be called "sodomy". I think we should avoid accepting false connotations of any kind.
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (06/22/85)
[] A. Samet writes: > PS 2 - The use of the word "gay" tends to obscure white might > properly be called "sodomy". I think we should avoid accepting > false connotations of any kind. and earlier, when listing various kinds of impermissible sex partners: > A niddah ( Jewish woman who requires mikveh immersion to become > permissible) You seem to be unnecessarily obscure yourself here, considering that there may be people reading this group who don't know Jewish law. I think these two lines might more properly be written: > A woman having her period, or one who has had her period in the past > and not gone through the required rituals of purification afterwards. Isaac Dimitrovsky allegra!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov (l in cmcl2 is letter l not number 1) 251 Mercer Street, New York NY 10012 Just because it's a preconceived notion doesn't mean it's wrong!