Romania May Redefine Marriage "Between 1 Man and 1 Woman"

[Prydania]

My Rabbi has no issue with same sex marriage or adoption. There are several in my temple and he has said he would marry a same sex couple.

1: Did you read those articles?
2: What Judaic evidence does he have to make that judgement?

I can't speak for San Lumen, but my rabbi also conducts same-sex marriage ceremonies. And it's an issue I've spoken to him about. And so I figured I can give you my answer.

Simply put? The Torah says that my father can sell my sister, it says that someone can be stoned for working overtime on Saturday, that piercings and tattoos are forbidden, in addition to many other things. The Hebrew Bible is a collection of books, written by men, in the context of the times those men lived.

The belief in G-d and His role as the universal sovereign should not be tethered to social ques from a society that hasn't existed for thousands of years. I say this as a Jewish person. The society that my ancestors lived in is different than the one I live in. Why should I ignore the last three thousand years of social and moral development to try and live like my ancestors, who barely scraped together an existence in a desert halfway around the world?

I am quite capable of believing in G-d and His majesty without fretting over what my ancestors in pre-Diaspora Israel thought about two guys being in love.

And again. The reactionary traditionalists who are going "here's what Judaism says about the homosexuality!" are often the first ones to blame Jews for everything from modern capitalism to globalism to communism.
So I don't pay anti-Semites who only value Judaism when it serves their agenda any mind.

But im asking your opinion based on Biblical law. You said its about sex so if that is out of the picture my interpretation of your comments is the New Testament does not have a issue.

If they could have a relationship free of sexual intercourse, and free of sexual desire, then I would say yes.

Who are you to decide this though?

Like, thought experiment. Say I came over to your house and said "you're following the wrong faith. Orthodox Christianity is flawed. You're doomed unless you find the proper path to salvation."
And then I didn't just stop there, I tried to make it legal for me to forcefully make you change religions.

What right do I have to force that on you? The answer is I don't have that right.

So what right do you have to tell me what sort of relationship with my boyfriend is and isn't ok?
The thing is, I don't want to force you to accept our relationship as ok. You can find it sinful. You can say it's sinful. You have the right to that belief.

Where I take issue is when you start using your personal beliefs to dictate my civil liberties.

[San Lumen]

1: Did you read those articles?
2: What Judaic evidence does he have to make that judgement?

I can't speak for San Lumen, but my rabbi also conducts same-sex marriage ceremonies. And it's an issue I've spoken to him about. And so I figured I can give you my answer.

Simply put? The Torah says that my father can sell my sister, it says that someone can be stoned for working overtime on Saturday, that piercings and tattoos are forbidden, in addition to many other things. The Hebrew Bible is a collection of books, written by men, in the context of the times those men lived.

The belief in G-d and His role as the universal sovereign should not be tethered to social ques from a society that hasn't existed for thousands of years. I say this as a Jewish person. The society that my ancestors lived in is different than the one I live in. Why should I ignore the last three thousand years of social and moral development to try and live like my ancestors, who barely scraped together an existence in a desert halfway around the world?

I am quite capable of believing in G-d and His majesty without fretting over what my ancestors in pre-Diaspora Israel thought about two guys being in love.

And again. The reactionary traditionalists who are going "here's what Judaism says about the homosexuality!" are often the first ones to blame Jews for everything from modern capitalism to globalism to communism.
So I don't pay anti-Semites who only value Judaism when it serves their agenda any mind.

If they could have a relationship free of sexual intercourse, and free of sexual desire, then I would say yes.

Who are you to decide this though?

Like, thought experiment. Say I came over to your house and said "you're following the wrong faith. Orthodox Christianity is flawed. You're doomed unless you find the proper path to salvation."
And then I didn't just stop there, I tried to make it legal for me to forcefully make you change religions.

What right do I have to force that on you? The answer is I don't have that right.

So what right do you have to tell me what sort of relationship with my boyfriend is and isn't ok?
The thing is, I don't want to force you to accept our relationship as ok. You can find it sinful. You can say it's sinful. You have the right to that belief.

Where I take issue is when you start using your personal beliefs to dictate my civil liberties.

Very well said

[Minzerland II]

That is hardly a compelling critique. Should we, instead, adopt morality from antiquity? Should we all adopt our morality from people more ‘updated’, like, say, Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard, or a Social Darwinist? Is their something wrong with everything with the Middle Ages (which is very long and very complex)?

I would say that we shouldn't look backward, period.

My views are a living phenomenon that has been passed down from generation to another, so looking back is simply unnecessary.

The fact remains that what two consenting adults do in private is no concern of yours.

It is, in fact, my concern. I make it my concern to uphold my morality in society as best I can, not to watch it crumble away to be replaced by something else, especially not something formulated by your ilk.

You can play the neo-traditionalism/reactionary game of trotting out the morals of some past age and go LOOK HOW FAR WE'VE FALLEN, but that presumes a fall.

Who would have thunk it? We’re both approaching the issue from different places: I from a more religious and conservative standpoint, whereas you come from a more secular and liberal(?) standpoint. I presume a fall, and you presume progress. What is your point?

You're projecting your own views on what you personally find icky, and finding old religious and social morals from times long passed to use as a justification for bigotry. And you concoct the lie that modern standards of morality that permit equality are a sign of "degeneracy" to justify using these old, outdated standards.

Those ‘old religious and social morals from times long passed’ are my views, although a gross and vague generalisation. I find that stuff icky because of those views, not a justification added in retrospect to justify my feelings.

You call my views ‘old’ and ‘outdated standards’, but that only reveals to me that you have no reason to disagree with them; no objection to their underlying philosophy, just an objection to their age.

The lie you and other reactionaries use, however, is exposed when the bullshit is stripped away. At the end of the day? You don't get to use your personal discomfort as an excuse to dictate what two consenting adults do between themselves in private. Everything else aside? That's the bottom line.

Of course I can, I just need to legislate and advocate my personal discomfort and ideology. We do the same with incestuous relationships, we dictate what ‘two consenting adults do between themselves in private’.

[Minzerland II]

What Judaism says on homosexuality:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.myjewi ... ought/amp/
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... -halakhah/
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ho ... in-judaism

What's funny is that the reactionary traditionalists in this thread applauding homophobic policy hate "the Jews" too XD

I don’t hate Jews and neither does UMN, IIRC. lol

[Prydania]

Who would have thunk it? We’re both approaching the issue from different places: I from a more religious and conservative standpoint, whereas you come from a more secular and liberal(?) standpoint. I presume a fall, and you presume progress. What is your point?

If you think I am a secular or liberal person then you're already off to a bad start.

And no, I don't presume progress in all things. What I value, however, is personal liberty. Personal responsibility.

The fact remains that what two consenting adults do in private is no concern of yours.

It is, in fact, my concern. I make it my concern to uphold my morality in society as best I can, not to watch it crumble away to be replaced by something else, especially not something formulated by your ilk.

"My ilk" XD
As we've established you don't even know what my ilk is.

Anyway no, it's not your concern. Not really. I mean you have your own moral code. Your own beliefs. And you're entitled to those beliefs. What you lack is the right to impose them not only on me, but everyone else. Practice your faith as much as you like, but don't make it public policy.

Those ‘old religious and social morals from times long passed’ are my views, although a gross and vague generalisation. I find that stuff icky because of those views, not a justification added in retrospect to justify my feelings.

So hypothetically speaking. Do Jews and Muslims have the right to try and get you, or anyone else, to stop eating pork?
Because again, your right to hold a sincere religious conviction ends the moment you try to use it to limit the liberties of others.

You call my views ‘old’ and ‘outdated standards’, but that only reveals to me that you have no reason to disagree with them; no objection to their underlying philosophy, just an objection to their age.

I'm a monarchist, dude. I'm not in the business of disregarding things because they're old. See what I mean? You presume so much about me, and yet each presumption is wrong.

Regardless, old things, traditional things, have tremendous value...in so far as they don't actually hurt people. See, the monarchy doesn't hurt anyone in my home country of Canada. The Crown reflects our traditions, where we came from. And yet it's the democratically elected House of Commons that run the day to day affairs of the nation (and before you presume, no I didn't for Liberal/for Trudeau Jr. ). The best of both worlds coexist. A respect for tradition, and the safeguard of personal liberty.

So my objection to your old and outdated moral standards is that they cross that line, where they start to hurt people. They start to infringe on the dignity and liberty of people who aren't you. Again, you're free to uphold these standards in your own life. You're free to raise your children in accordance to those standards. What you're not free to do is impose those standards on others.

The lie you and other reactionaries use, however, is exposed when the bullshit is stripped away. At the end of the day? You don't get to use your personal discomfort as an excuse to dictate what two consenting adults do between themselves in private. Everything else aside? That's the bottom line.

Of course I can...

At best you'll be considered a tyrant

I just need to legislate and advocate my personal discomfort and ideology. We do the same with incestuous relationships, we dictate what ‘two consenting adults do between themselves in private’.

So you find a homosexual relationship to be equivalent to an incestuous relationship. Interesting.

[Prydania]

What's funny is that the reactionary traditionalists in this thread applauding homophobic policy hate "the Jews" too XD

I don’t hate Jews and neither does UMN, IIRC. lol

And yet you have an avatar that features a Pope that served in the Hitler Youth wearing a Wehrmacht officer's cap. And you've openly longed for a moral code that dated to a time when Jews were routinely persecuted throughout Europe.

I'm going to guess you don't have a very healthy and respectful view of the Jewish people.

EDIT-
As for UMN, that you're not sure is telling.
Regardless, reactionary traditionalists usually like to fondly romanticize a time when Jews were, at best, confined into ghettos and legally forced into select professions that they can then demonize them for

[Minzerland II]

Who would have thunk it? We’re both approaching the issue from different places: I from a more religious and conservative standpoint, whereas you come from a more secular and liberal(?) standpoint. I presume a fall, and you presume progress. What is your point?

If you think I am a secular or liberal person then you're already off to a bad start.

And no, I don't presume progress in all things. What I value, however, is personal liberty. Personal responsibility.

Your post implied that you believed we had progressed since the Middle Ages, no? Is that not true in regarding your views?

It is, in fact, my concern. I make it my concern to uphold my morality in society as best I can, not to watch it crumble away to be replaced by something else, especially not something formulated by your ilk.

"My ilk" XD
As we've established you don't even know what my ilk is.

It doesn’t matter. If they’re your ilk, then I already know that I don’t want them to influence society.

Anyway no, it's not your concern. Not really. I mean you have your own moral code. Your own beliefs. And you're entitled to those beliefs.

And I will actively advocate for them to the best of my ability.

What you lack is the right to impose them not only on me, but everyone else. Practice your faith as much as you like, but don't make it public policy.

And have others make their views public policy? You cannot separate the legislation from the legislator. Making personal liberty public policy is making your views public policy. There is no difference.

Those ‘old religious and social morals from times long passed’ are my views, although a gross and vague generalisation. I find that stuff icky because of those views, not a justification added in retrospect to justify my feelings.

So hypothetically speaking. Do Jews and Muslims have the right to try and get you, or anyone else, to stop eating pork?

They can advocate their religions however much they please.

Because again, your right to hold a sincere religious conviction ends the moment you try to use it to limit the liberties of others.

This is arbitrary.

You call my views ‘old’ and ‘outdated standards’, but that only reveals to me that you have no reason to disagree with them; no objection to their underlying philosophy, just an objection to their age.

I'm a monarchist, dude. I'm not in the business of disregarding things because they're old. See what I mean? You presume so much about me, and yet each presumption is wrong.

But you did exactly that. My beliefs are old and outdated to you, which is fundamentally a comment on its age, and you don’t present any other objection to them.

Regardless, old things, traditional things, have tremendous value...in so far as they don't actually hurt people.

This is an arbitrary standard.

See, the monarchy doesn't hurt anyone in my home country of Canada. The Crown reflects our traditions, where we came from. And yet it's the democratically elected House of Commons that run the day to day affairs of the nation (and before you presume, no I didn't for Liberal/for Trudeau Jr. ). The best of both worlds coexist. A respect for tradition, and the safeguard of personal liberty.

The British monarchy (and I say this as a monarchist) is a farce, stripped of all power and beaten into submission. That is not traditional and nor is it respectful of tradition.

So my objection to your old and outdated moral standards is that they cross that line, where they start to hurt people. They start to infringe on the dignity and liberty of people who aren't you. Again, you're free to uphold these standards in your own life. You're free to raise your children in accordance to those standards. What you're not free to do is impose those standards on others.

No. Standards are imposed on everyone, imposed on you and I. That is what legislation does.

Of course I can...

At best you'll be considered a tyrant

No more than anyone else.

I just need to legislate and advocate my personal discomfort and ideology. We do the same with incestuous relationships, we dictate what ‘two consenting adults do between themselves in private’.

So you find a homosexual relationship to be equivalent to an incestuous relationship. Interesting.

It was an analogy. If we already dictate what two consenting adults do between themselves in private (in the case of incestuous relationships), then the state can do the same with homosexual couples, or even heterosexual couples.

[Minzerland II]

I don’t hate Jews and neither does UMN, IIRC. lol

And yet you have an avatar that features a Pope that served in the Hitler Youth wearing a Wehrmacht officer's cap. And you've openly longed for a moral code that dated to a time when Jews were routinely persecuted throughout Europe.

I'm going to guess you don't have a very healthy and respectful view of the Jewish people.

EDIT-
As for UMN, that you're not sure is telling.
Regardless, reactionary traditionalists usually like to fondly romanticize a time when Jews were, at best, confined into ghettos and legally forced into select professions that they can then demonize them for

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was a child and was forced by legislation (I’m sure this is relevant to our discussion, lol) to join the Hitler Youth. By all accounts, he and his family are wonderfully kind people. Do you know what a meme is? Fucking hell.

I don’t speak on the behalf of UMN, so I leave it open to his correction. In any case, our post history are open to anyone, so have fun looking for antisemitism.

[Kaggeceria]

"Redefine"

You mean sticking with the definition that was used for centuries.

[Prydania]

Your post implied that you believed we had progressed since the Middle Ages, no? Is that not true in regarding your views?

In most ways? Yes. In all ways? No. This is why I find the view of history you're promoting, as well as the Whiggish and Marxist views of history, childish. In all three cases you presume a trajectory, be it upwards or downwards.
History, however, is not so convenient. To quote the movie The History Boys? It's just one fucking thing after another.

It doesn’t matter. If they’re your ilk, then I already know that I don’t want them to influence society.

So you condemn the ideals of "my ilk." When I point out your presumptions of me are woefully lacking you then say it doesn't matter what my ilk is.
Look dude, I know internet fascist dark enlightenment sorts like to move the goalposts, but you're going to have to do a better job than going "your sort is what's wrong with society, even if I don't know what sort you are!"
At best it paints you as a person looking to blame someone, anyone, for the fact that the world doesn't conform to your worldview.

And I will actively advocate for them to the best of my ability.

You can advocate for anything you like, but if you're not interested in debating in good faith? Well I'm not sure what to tell you.
In so far as this concerns us? We live in a society that, at a fundamental level, is based on the principals of personal liberty and egalitarianism. If your views argue for the destruction the very constitutional order that you are seeking influence in? Then yeah. You probably don't deserve a seat at the table.

See neo-Nazis who cry about free speech despite opposing free speech for another example.

And have others make their views public policy? You cannot separate the legislation from the legislator. Making personal liberty public policy is making your views public policy. There is no difference.

And this is another lie that the traditionalist reactionary trots out; the striving for equality and striving for inequity are two morally equivalent sets of ideals, and that the latter should be afforded the same considerations as the former.

And no, it's hogwash. I'm not a post-modernist. I actually believe in a few things And one of those things is that a belief system that seeks to define segments of humanity as inherently lesser than others is morally reprehensible. You can use fascist ideology, Marxist ideology, or religious theology to dress it up, it's all equally morally bankrupt.

So hypothetically speaking. Do Jews and Muslims have the right to try and get you, or anyone else, to stop eating pork?

They can advocate their religions however much they please.

Can they? Because I'm sure that your hyper-traditional Christian theocratic leanings holds no room for Jews, Muslims, or anyone else who isn't your denomination of Christian.
So what are you? A good, traditionalist who values the teachings of the Church? Or one my "ilk," a Soros-funded progressive who believes in silly concepts like freedom of religion?

Because again, your right to hold a sincere religious conviction ends the moment you try to use it to limit the liberties of others.

This is arbitrary.

It's only arbitrary if you lack empathy for the people who would be negatively effected by your proposed policies.

I'm a monarchist, dude. I'm not in the business of disregarding things because they're old. See what I mean? You presume so much about me, and yet each presumption is wrong.

But you did exactly that. My beliefs are old and outdated to you, which is fundamentally a comment on its age, and you don’t present any other objection to them.

Um, no. Sorry. I clearly stated that my problems with your beliefs are that they hurt people. Not that they're old. There are plenty of modern belief structures just as damaging as the older ones you hold dear

Regardless, old things, traditional things, have tremendous value...in so far as they don't actually hurt people.

This is an arbitrary standard.

Again, only if you lack empathy for the people your values would actively harm.

See, the monarchy doesn't hurt anyone in my home country of Canada. The Crown reflects our traditions, where we came from. And yet it's the democratically elected House of Commons that run the day to day affairs of the nation (and before you presume, no I didn't for Liberal/for Trudeau Jr. ). The best of both worlds coexist. A respect for tradition, and the safeguard of personal liberty.

The British monarchy (and I say this as a monarchist) is a farce, stripped of all power and beaten into submission. That is not traditional and nor is it respectful of tradition.

I'm so sorry the Crown isn't absolutist enough for you. Have you tried Saudi Arabia?

So you find a homosexual relationship to be equivalent to an incestuous relationship. Interesting.

It was an analogy. If we already dictate what two consenting adults do between themselves in private (in the case of incestuous relationships), then the state can do the same with homosexual couples, or even heterosexual couples.

I'm gay. The thought of sleeping with my brother grosses me out.

Find a better analogy.

[Risottia]

Do your duty to God and country. Marry someone with whom you can have children, and raise them right.

Homosexuals, infertile women, and sterile men therefore should not marry, make marriage between any of those parties illegal.

Menopause will henceforth terminate a marriage. Send those useless infertile old women to a nunnery. *nod*

[Kaggeceria]

"Redefine"

You mean sticking with the definition that was used for centuries.

Rewriting something to fit the original vision even though it was never put in but implied heavily is still a rewrite, and goes against recent lgbt rights successes in recent years.

This is a huge politically motivated action that violates human rights and freedom of love.

If it's a sin, then let God punish them, dammit!

But we are God's instruments.

Did you learn nothing in Bible school?

[Prydania]

EDIT-
As for UMN, that you're not sure is telling.
Regardless, reactionary traditionalists usually like to fondly romanticize a time when Jews were, at best, confined into ghettos and legally forced into select professions that they can then demonize them for
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was a child and was forced by legislation (I’m sure this is relevant to our discussion, lol) to join the Hitler Youth. By all accounts, he and his family are wonderfully kind people. Do you know what a meme is? Fucking hell.

(Image)

I don’t speak on the behalf of UMN, so I leave it open to his correction. In any case, our post history are open to anyone, so have fun looking for antisemitism.

I'm not into deep diving for posts. Nor am I interested in defaming the character of Benedict XVI. He did what did in a bad time for everyone, and G-d alone will judge him one way or the other.

What I will say, however, is that your decision to replace a police cap with one associated with Nazi Germany is telling. Meme or no

It's relevant in so far as we're debating your moral values. If you're going to go out of your way to have an avatar that features Nazi regalia, and you long for a moral code from a time when Jews are persecuted? I think I can make some informed judgments regarding your position on Jewish people.

If I am indeed wrong about that? Then the thing I am most genuinely curious about is how you're able to preach such theocratic ideals while also being oh so tolerant of other faiths.

[Prydania]

But we are God's instruments.

Did you learn nothing in Bible school?

I never learnt I was G-d's instrument in Hebrew School. I was not charged by the Almighty Himself to judge others in His name.

I did learn, however, that the Bible says my dad can sell my sister and that picking up overtime hours over the weekend is punishable by death. So maybe not everything in the Bible is applicable to modern day society.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

[…]What I will say, however, is that your decision to replace a police cap with one associated with Nazi Germany is telling. Meme or no […]

It really isn’t, at most it says he has a sense of humour. At this point it seems you’re just reaching for something to criticise him for.

[Prydania]

[…]What I will say, however, is that your decision to replace a police cap with one associated with Nazi Germany is telling. Meme or no […]

It really isn’t, at most it says he has a sense of humour. At this point it seems you’re just reaching for something to criticise him for.

Not sure how Nazism is funny, but you do you guy

[FelrikTheDeleted]

It really isn’t, at most it says he has a sense of humour. At this point it seems you’re just reaching for something to criticise him for.

Not sure how Nazism is funny, but you do you guy

I’m not sure how you couldn’t find the straight up autistic nature of Nazism funny. In anycase, that isn’t why that picture is funny, it is funny because the Pope is doing something that they would never actually do, it’s absurd.

[Prydania]

Not sure how Nazism is funny, but you do you guy

I’m not sure how you couldn’t find the straight up autistic nature of Nazism funny.

I mean sure, it's hilarious in a vacuum. In a "how can anyone take this nonsense seriously?" sort of way.
Stops being funny when you have to sit down with people who survived the Holocaust every High Holidays and Passover, and you understand what Nazism did to them though.

In anycase, that isn’t why that picture is funny, it is funny because the Pope is doing something that they would never actually do, it’s absurd.

A birthday hat works just as well

I'm saying that when you go out of your way to include Nazi imagery, and you openly advocate for middle ages-style morality (where again, Jews were discriminated against), then maybe your moral code isn't all that great.

And to tie it all together? You know, get it back on topic? The position of Jewish scripture on homosexuality was put forth as being definitive in some way. And my point is anti-Semitic traditionalists who view Jewish people with hostility really show their hypocrisy when they hold up Jewish religious laws as something they value.

[Minzerland II]

Prydania, this is where our conversation ends I’m afraid. It’s just too ridiculous.

[Prydania]

Prydania, this is where our conversation ends I’m afraid.

I doubt I'll change your mind, and you have yet to change mine. So I respect that. Have a good day.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I mean sure, it's hilarious in a vacuum. In a "how can anyone take this nonsense seriously?" sort of way.
Stops being funny when you have to sit down with people who survived the Holocaust every High Holidays and Passover, and you understand what Nazism did to them though.

No, Nazism remains hilarious in both situations; the affects of Nazism aren’t funny, but Nazism as an ideology remains funny.

[…]I'm saying that when you go out of your way to include Nazi imagery, and you openly advocate for middle ages-style morality (where again, Jews were discriminated against), then maybe your moral code isn't all that great. […]

Middle Ages-style morality isn’t so stationary; Middle Ages Poland for example was called the “Paradise of the Jews” for its tolerance towards them, despite being a highly devout Catholic country.

EDIT: You’re reaching for something that isn’t there.

[Quantipapa]

Romania would be wrong to redefine it.

[Kubrath]

They'll come around, eventually.

[Quantipapa]

They'll come around, eventually.

Nope

[Kubrath]

They'll come around, eventually.

Nope

Famous last words.