Re: LESBIAN & GAY SHABBAT DINNER - 5 JUNE -- RODEPH SHOLOM (NYC)


meir b. wrote:
Lisa wrote:
meir b. wrote:
Lisa wrote:
meir b. wrote:

quoting:
I once asked my cousin, who is gay, the same question. She told me
that gays and lesbians get so much crap at ordinary events like this
when they attend with a partner, that they need to have some things of
their own where everyone can attend and know that they won't be looked
down on by some folks, treated like dirt by a few, or be verbally
attacked for who they are. They don't want to "emphasize their
sexuality"; rather, they just want to relax and enjoy the evening in
the company of their loved ones without being constantly on the
defensive."

The question was the need for a separate communal meal, as opposed
to one with the entire community. It did *not* refer to the problems
of being in a mixed group regularly, such as at work. Read that way, my
remarks are not, I think, an indication that I am "seriously mistaken."

I don't understand why you'd make such a distinction. No socializing
goes on at a communal meal? Jews don't play Jewish geography and ask
one another about everything under the sun at a communal meal?

Meir, it's hard for me to imagine that you're unaware of how many
straight people will react in such a case. Here's a quote from an
article written by the editor of a gay newspaper. He describes the
situation well:

====================
"At large gatherings of extended family, I don't always bring my
partner because it's easier to just avoid the stress ... When we check
into a hotel together, sometimes one of us will hold back in the lobby
to avoid those awkward confrontations with the front desk staff ...

-- Kevin Naff, in his May 26, 2006 editorial, "Don't Bash Mary
Cheney"
====================

How many heterosexuals have to do the same?

I reiterate: I said that based on what was quoted, there wouldn't
be a problem if one was not attending *as a couple*, and that it was a
reasonable (though not necessarily permissible) assumption that halacha
was being violated if they were living as a couple.

Number one, if it's not permissible, then it's wrong. Period.

Number two, define "couple". I know a frum lesbian couple in Israel
who own separate apartments. I know lesbians who are roommates and are
involved with other people. And gay men who are roommates and are
involved (to whatever extent) with other people.

In fact, my partner and I have often simply referred to one another as
"roommates" out of... well, fear is a strong word, and not necessary
fitting, but certainly an unwillingness to put up with the crap we'd
receive if we said "partners" rather than "roommates". But showing up
with our daughter, who calls me Mommy and my partner Ima tends to make
it clear that we're not *only* roommates. Though it says not one
damned thing about sexual acts.

All the citations
of awkwardness, discomfort, et al., referred to appearances as a
couple, or (as in your case) a prolonged presence such as a job, not
the casual shul communal meal.

You are so naive. "So, how do you know each other?" "I know this
really cute guy who's looking for a shidduch. Are you interested?"
"Really? Why not?" "Would you like to come for Shabbat next week?"

That last is always great, because it puts me in the position of having
to either say "No" or ask if I can bring my partner. Which raises a
whole other thing.

If they *are* living as couples, though, it is only natural
for there to be an assumption that halachically prohibited acts are
likely taking place.

Natural, maybe. Permissible, no. If they're willing to be makpid on
kashrut, why do you automatically suspect that they are less so in
their private lives?

I wasn't talking about permissibility, nor about what I think, but
to explain why it is assumed by most people to be the case. As to the
question you ask, that was the thrust of what I was trying (and, at
least in your case, failing) to commnicate.

I assume, Meir, that you are aware of the halakhot that pertain to
making assumptions of wrong-doing. I'm quite aware that it's common.
That doesn't make it permissible.

Who said it was? I said it was natural to assume violation, not
that it was permissible to do so.

What is the relevance of it being "natural"?

The comparison is not to "heterosexual . . . men
. . . raping women." The proper analogy would be to two heterosexuals
of opposite gender living together. There is no proof that they are
engaging in extramarital sex, but I daresay that the same G or L living
together, who resent the assumption that they are engaging in
prohibited acts, would make that very assumption about the couple in
question.

The issue of pre-marital sex being so commonplace in the US is
something else entirely. That has nothing to do with this.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with it. If you knew
that two heterosexuals of opposite sex were living together, would you
not assume that even if they were makpid on kashrus, they were "less so
in their private lives"?

If I see a young man and woman out on a date in the US, would I not
assume that even if they were makpid on kashrut, they might not be as
makpid on negia? Or even on pre-marital sex? After all, that is
exceedingly common in the US today, and it's even made inroads among
ostensibly Orthodox Jews.

The answer is, no. I do not assume that, because it is assur to assume
that.

Nor would I. But that's a straw man (or straw couple). Would you
be equally dan l'chaf zchut if they were living together? That's what
we're discussing as an analogy.

It isn't relevant, because there's no issue of yichud for members of
the same sex. So two men can be roommates. Or share an apartment. As
can two women. You wouldn't find an unmarried man and an unmarried
woman doing so. At least not if they're frum.

I suspect that the percentage of male
homosexuals living as partners who refrain from prohibited acts is
about the same as the percentage of abstaining heterosexuals of
opposite gender living together.

Great. And you can write a paper on how statistics relate to the
halakhot of shmirat halashon. I'd be happy to read that.

Once again, you mistake permissibility with probability. I said
it was likely to be assumed, and with good reason, not that it was
permitted to do so.

What's the point of your saying that it's likely? L'mai nafka mina?

Lisa

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: LESBIAN & GAY SHABBAT DINNER - 5 JUNE -- RODEPH SHOLOM (NYC)
    ... was being violated if they were living as a couple. ... The issue of pre-marital sex being so commonplace in the US is ... you mistake permissibility with probability. ... The reason is because the prohibition is ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Vertrauensbruch
    ... gebe ich auch immer den Ratschlag mit dem Partner zu ... Die Furcht vor den Konsequenzen bleiben in beiden Fällen bei dem Partner ... bestehen, obwohl ich keine Partnerin will, die sich mir "anpasst" (obwohl ... ob ich Probleme haben werden mit *wem* sie Sex hatte. ...
    (de.talk.romance)
  • Re: Antwort vom Originalposter
    ... weitverbreitete Meinung. ... eben, dass es mehr sein kann als nur diese Einstellung - eben eine Scham, ... Partner über die eigenen Sehnsüchte zu sprechen. ... Sex sei etwas, was eben zu leben ist, wenn man zusammen ...
    (de.talk.romance)
  • Re: LESBIAN & GAY SHABBAT DINNER - 5 JUNE -- RODEPH SHOLOM (NYC)
    ... Meir, it's hard for me to imagine that you're unaware of how many ... partner because it's easier to just avoid the stress ... ... of opposite gender living together. ... The issue of pre-marital sex being so commonplace in the US is ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • List of paraphilias
    ... Paraphilia - "Any of a group of psychosexual disorders characterized by sexual ... partner such as a child, or pain or humiliation of oneself or one's partner. ... Acrotomophilia - Arousal by the activity/thought of having sex with an amputee. ... Hyphephilia - Arousal from touching fabrics. ...
    (alt.true-crime)
Loading