I once had a discussion over at Chana's blog with a lady named Megan about homosexuality in the perspective of Jewish law and objective truth. It was in response to a post about how people with homosexual natures in the Jewish community are at a dilemma in regards to what to do with themselves and their futures. I've recently come to recall some of my ideas on the subject and I still feel some of basically still hold true. So this is not necessarily to follow-up on the discussion I was having there, but rather to restate my ideas.
My first argument is legal: although the legal systems of democracies are created to be objectively just and applicable to people of all creeds and religions, there are still a great many laws which are absurd. It seems to me that the laws are just an extension of the Western norms, which themselves are greatly influenced by the norms of Greece and Rome. Yet were the ethics of the Greeks and the Romans objectively just? They would discard newborns that were seen as "unfit". Are the laws here in America just? Less than a century ago eugenics was popular, and the severe mistreatment of African-Americans and discrimination against Jews was part of the law.
They say that it's unjust to even suggest that homosexuality might not be the best thing in the world, yet there are other sexual practices that are not "objectively" evil that are greatly discouraged. For example the cohabitation between an adult and a consenting minor is illegal. For an eighteen year old boy to cohabitate with a seventeen year old girl is illegal yet cohabitation between two of the same sex is beyond reproach? There is even a case of a seventeen year old male being arrested for viewing pornographic images of seventeen year old females. Yet pornographic images of eighteen year old females is fine. Yet prostitution is basically fine as well.
They defend their opinions by saying that homosexuality is natural in some people and therefore can't be discriminated against. Well, the desire to be intimate with minors, children, close relatives and even animals is quite natural to some people as well. If the law is objective who's to say those should not be deemed legal in the ideal state? If it's some sort of sexual or emotional repression we fear, than we should fear the sexual repression of the child molester as well (I saw Little Children recently).
Rather the law in Western lands simply follows the Western tradition, in which homosexuality is not quite as frowned upon as the other practices mentioned. Yet they complain when Muslims suggest homosexuality should be illegal, even though the Oriental tradition condemns homosexuals. We must conclude then, that just as with the Mission, the Western world, rather than trying to spread "Christianity", was trying to spread "Western culture", so too with the wish of the Western Europeans and their descendants throughout the globe to spread "Democracy"; it is not objective law they wish to disseminate, but rather their own view of things.
Another argument I mentioned there that I feel still stands is the idea that it is within our ability to change our sexual natures to an extent, perhaps even from homosexuality to heterosexuality. My very mention of such an idea brought me sharp criticism from the other commentators, as if they're the worlds experts on people's sexual natures. There is practically no scientific evidence saying it's impossible for people to become attracted to people of the same or other gender.In fact there is much evidence suggesting it is possible.
What the critics would respond to this is that some males were simply born with more estrogen in their bodies, and are therefore wholly female from a chemical standpoint. They suggest that there were homosexuals in every era and in every society; that it's quite natural and that it can't be helped. Still, I feel that the truly effeminate men and emasculate women are the minority in today's homo/bi-sexual community. The majority can be heterosexual had the need arose. For example in the European Dark Ages there is not much of a record of homosexual activity. I cannot recount the history of populations with little-to-no homosexual populations, but suffice it to say in the right environment more people are born with heterosexual inclinations. It seems to me that in very affluent societies that can mimic the wealth of the ancient Egyptian, Greek or Roman societies, for example today's Western societies (for example the one we live within here in the coastal United States) more effeminate males and emasculate females are born.
Instead, therefore, of having endless sympathy with the struggles of homosexuals who wish to live religious lives, we are better off attempting to discover what causes homosexuality and trying to change people's innate natures (since it does, in fact, seem to be very possible).
Correct? Incorrect?
ס"ט
10 comments:
Incorrect, I think.
>My first argument is legal: although the legal systems of democracies are created to be objectively just and applicable to people of all creeds and religions, there are still a great many laws which are absurd.
I'm not sure this is the point of democracies. Very few ethical theorists believe there is some objectively just system out there for us to discover. If there were, democracies wouldn't really be necessary. We would just institute a nomocracy based on the Objective Code, and everyone would live happily ever after. Democracy, I think, is the next best thing. Damage control almost. We know that it is impossible for us to know, ex ante, (or even post facto most of the time) what the right policy will be all the time. We will have disagreements, and we will screw up. The point of democracy is so that there is at least a system in place by which we can come to recognize that we've made a mistake, and can now rectify it. Also, if we're going to pass a bad law, it should at least be a law that offends the least amount of people possible.
>It seems to me that the laws are just an extension of the Western norms, which themselves are greatly influenced by the norms of Greece and Rome.
And the Torah and Jewish law. And vice versa. The Justinian Code, and its early Roman predecessors and their Greek counterparts did not develop in a vacuum, and neither does Western law today. Jewish law also did not develop in a vacuum, and the development of the numerous legal systems of the Antiquities can oftentimes be clearly seen in each other. (By Jewish Law, I mean Shas and Poskim.)
There are remarkable similarities between all of them, including "Oriental" or Islamic legal systems. I'm not such a fan of the notion, often expressed in our community, that Western law is some immoral system of precepts based on the desires of effete gourmands that can't master their various lusts. Up until fairly recently, Halacha was far more liberal than the vast majority of "Western Civilization". It is only recently, for example with homosexuality and women's rights, that Western Civ. began pulling away.
>Y They would discard newborns that were seen as "unfit".
I don't think that's the entire legacy of Greek and Roman civilization. I think Sparta, one of the old city states that existed before the rise of the Greek Empire, did this. And Spartans are typically considered outliers in these things.
>Less than a century ago eugenics was popular, and the severe mistreatment of African-Americans and discrimination against Jews was part of the law.
I don't think eugenics was that popular. Although treatment of African-Americans and other minorities was definitely rampant. Sadly, it still is, even in our community.
>For example the cohabitation between an adult and a consenting minor is illegal. For an eighteen year old boy to cohabitate with a seventeen year old girl is illegal yet cohabitation between two of the same sex is beyond reproach? There is even a case of a seventeen year old male being arrested for viewing pornographic images of seventeen year old females. Yet pornographic images of eighteen year old females is fine. Yet prostitution is basically fine as well.
Well, first of all, I think you're glossing over the consent component, which is a pretty big deal. Consent is the basis for our sexual morality system. (As opposed to the "Ewww, gross!" scale.) Ultimately, this is why homosexual relations have legal sanction. People can do whatever they want, so long as they hurt no one else. Minors, however, in our society, can not signal consent. Therefore, relations that involve an adult and a minor cannot be legally accepted - how can we know whether the minor was a willing participant, if he can't give consent? Obviously, this will lead to some absurd situations, e.g. someone who is 18 yrs old and one day, having, for all intents and purposes, consensual sexual relations with his girlfriend of 17 yrs and 364 days, will technically be in violation of the law, because of the absent of "consent". In spite of this, we still keep these standards in place because they provide us with rough guidelines and keep the vast majority of immoral (to us) behaviour illegal, while criminalizing relatively little moral behaviour. Such sketchy line drawing is found throughout every legal system, because they're really useful.
And prostitution is not fine, so far as I know. It's just as illegal as sex with a minor.
>They defend their opinions by saying that homosexuality is natural in some people and therefore can't be discriminated against. Well, the desire to be intimate with minors, children, close relatives and even animals is quite natural to some people as well. If the law is objective who's to say those should not be deemed legal in the ideal state? If it's some sort of sexual or emotional repression we fear, than we should fear the sexual repression of the child molester as well (I saw Little Children recently).
Again, no. I think the relevant issue is consent, not natural urges. For example, if a person wanted to have sex with a chair, there is no law against that, because he's not abusing a chair. Abusing children, animals and other people is a problem for our society, because they are things that can feel pain, and cannot give legal permission.
>Rather the law in Western lands simply follows the Western tradition, in which homosexuality is not quite as frowned upon as the other practices mentioned. Yet they complain when Muslims suggest homosexuality should be illegal, even though the Oriental tradition condemns homosexuals.
Well, yes. That's how the world works. We condemn acts that don't comport with our moral principles.
>There is practically no scientific evidence saying it's impossible for people to become attracted to people of the same or other gender.In fact there is much evidence suggesting it is possible.
I'm no expert in this, but I'm pretty sure the consensus is the opposite. There are lots of institutions out there that purport to be able to change the nature of these desires, most of them run by religious institutions, whose perspective on these things is hopelessly biased. These institutions have not met with any serious success. Unless you can point to ones that have had success? And not just the ones the claim to but end up driving their patients to suicide.
>It seems to me that in very affluent societies that can mimic the wealth of the ancient Egyptian, Greek or Roman societies, for example today's Western societies (for example the one we live within here in the coastal United States) more effeminate males and emasculate females are born.
I don't think you're right.
Ah, Vox Populi, thanks for dropping by!
Holy sh-t, you're a pretty good commentator man. I like the vocabulary. Anyway, I’ll respond, even though it doesn't make a lot of sense suggesting you're wrong after having just asked your opinion!
I'm not sure I fully understand this distinction you're making between a nomocracy and a democracy. First of all, I looked up "nomocracy" on Wikipedia and it says that tat there are conflicting opinions in regards to it's meaning. Either way, aren't both of them tying to formulate laws that "offend the least amount of people possible" (i.e. "the objective code")?
"and the torah and Jewish law. And vice versa"- I mean as opposed to the oriental or "Islamic" traditions. ....and Jewish law isn't necessarily 'based' on the roman tradition. As far as i understand they were pretty at-odds with each other.
Anyway, I should have mentioned that what inspired e to write about this was a video I saw over at "HaMekubal"s blog, in which Muslims complain for not having the fee speech to voice their views about homosexuality in public.
(http://hamekubal.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-we-will-never-be-friends.html).
So I’m thinking of a Muslim perspective.
“Western law is some immoral system of precepts based on the desires of effete gourmands that can't master their various lusts. Up until fairly recently, halacha was far more liberal than the vast majority of "western civilization""- Well, it's complicated, since western law is really torn between the liberal Grecian tradition and the strict Christian tradition of Europe. Suffice it to say though that the Grecian tradition was in fact very uncultivated as far as our standards go. But yes, halacha is obviously more lenient that dark age Christian law.
“And Spartans are typically considered outliers in these things"- Yes, but these traditions were far more reverent of their athletes than of their frail scholars. Essentially they were not quite a people of the spirit.
“I don't think eugenics was that popular"- Many saw it as sort of the wave of the future.
“Minors, however, in our society, can not signal consent"- Yes, but the idea that everyone under 18 is a minor is a very western idea. Either way, their own consent coupled with consent of the parents also amounts to nothing in their legal system.
“while criminalizing relatively little moral behaviour"- Few Americans today consider intimate relations between two consenting seventeen year olds "immoral" (many of these couples even end up married).
“And prostitution is not fine"- It's as illegal as marijuana it seems; it's officially illegal, but the law is rarely enforced (prostitutes can be solicited in a town's phone book).
“Again, no. I think the relevant issue is consent, not natural urges"- Those are your words, not those of society. To me there seems to be a great garnering of sympathy in regards to the legitimacy of homosexual sentiments in today's society, yet no one speaks of incest being ok. Even in regards to the minors issue, like I said, who's to define what consent is and at what age it can be administered.
“We condemn acts that don't comport with our moral principles"- That's the key word man, “our” principles. Even though they might differ from Islamic principles which might be more correct.
“Unless you can point to ones that have had success?"- What I meant was that I’ve heard of situations where people have acquired a sexual 'taste' for members of the same sex, and I’ve also known of homosexuals becoming attracted to individuals of the same sex. In general sexual preferences aren't always as clear-cut as 'gay' and 'straight'. It's more political than scientific.
“I don't think you're right"- so where were all the gay Vikings in the dark ages? And gay Huns? I think, for obvious reason, their sons were not usually born with an overflow of estrogen or any of the other chemical factors that are responsible for homosexuality.
(I just saw this article. I don’t fully agree with him, but he mentions some things along the lines of what I was saying.
http://www.sinaicentral.com/gendercentral/82001myarticleHomosexualityandScience.htm).
>I'm not sure I fully understand this distinction you're making between a nomocracy and a democracy. First of all, I looked up "nomocracy" on Wikipedia ...
Don't get hung up on the technical definition in the philosophic sense. Technically, there's no reason you can't have a democratic nomocracy. A nomocracy is just a society under the rule of law. My point was just that we democracies value collaborative decision making over what the law should be, rather than some societal pronouncement over what is objectively just. When Western countries makes laws, they are not saying that everything they allow is objectively moral, and everything they forbid id objectively immoral - no democracy makes that claim.
>and Jewish law isn't necessarily 'based' on the roman tradition. As far as i understand they were pretty at-odds with each other.
You'd be surprised. I don't know what exactly you mean by "at-odds" but there is a significant amount of overlap. Anyway, regarding Oriental morality - eastern morality is not markedly different than Western. It just happens to be that Muslim societies are more socially conservative, because one religion plays such a dominant role in many Muslim countries. When Christianity was a governing factor in Europe it was the same thing.
>Well, it's complicated, since western law is really torn between the liberal Grecian tradition and the strict Christian tradition of Europe. Suffice it to say though that the Grecian tradition was in fact very uncultivated as far as our standards go. But yes, halacha is obviously more lenient that dark age Christian law.
I think this is partly right. American law comes from the Anglo common law tradition. Much of English law's philosophic origins are really quite recent - Enlightenment scholars like Jeremy Bentham, Adam Smith, Sir Coke, Hobbes, Locke et al. Much of the structure of the legal system des come from ancient Roman law - like most of Europe. I don't think this explains the difference vis a vis homosexuality, though. Up until very recently homosexuality was verboten in all those cultures.
The real reason is that religion has much less of an effect on law in Western civilization than it does in the Muslim world. In jurisdictions in the US where religion is more important, e.g. Utah - you find that there are more restrictions on these sorts of things.
>in which Muslims complain for not having the fee speech to voice their views about homosexuality in public.
Okay, but there's two sides to this. If free speech is really absolute, as it almost is in the US - then, fine, you can say what you want about gays. There is no law in the US about speaking out against gays, even though most people would think you were a jerk. In places like Europe where hate speech is considered a legitiate restriction on free speech, it makes perfect sense that hate speech directed at a recognizable class would be outlawed. I would have a lot more sympathy for the Muslim position if they valued free speech as an absolute.
>Yes, but the idea that everyone under 18 is a minor is a very western idea.
Why?
>Few Americans today consider intimate relations between two consenting seventeen year olds "immoral" (many of these couples even end up married).
Right. Consensual sex between minors is not illegal. And if it is (maybe in some jurisdictions) it would fall under the category of "relatively little moral behaviour that is forbidden".
>It's as illegal as marijuana it seems; it's officially illegal, but the law is rarely enforced (prostitutes can be solicited in a town's phone book).
Right. But I think you'll find that very few 18 yr olds are arrested for having sex with their 17 yr old girlfriends. Prosecutors, judges and juries will typically use their discretion. By several orders of magnitude, much more people are arrested in the US for marijuana possession and prostitution than 18 yr olds who have sex with 17 yr olds.
>Those are your words, not those of society.
I didn't make them up. There is no consensual relationship (outside of prostitution) that is criminalized in the US. Prostitution falls on the line, because it's debatable whether someone who is paid to have sex really has consent or is really being abused by being in that position in the first place.
>To me there seems to be a great garnering of sympathy in regards to the legitimacy of homosexual sentiments in today's society, yet no one speaks of incest being ok.
Incest isn't criminalized. People are probably more sympathetic to gays because there are more gays than people who engage in incest.
>Even in regards to the minors issue, like I said, who's to define what consent is and at what age it can be administered.
Our society did. Who else should? Some other society?
>so where were all the gay Vikings in the dark ages? And gay Huns? I think, for obvious reason, their sons were not usually born with an overflow of estrogen or any of the other chemical factors that are responsible for homosexuality.
LOL. We just found out that Neil Patrick Harris was gay. In societies where homosexuality is criminalized and marginalized, it's only to be expected that you won't find too many open practitioners of it.
It's not like everyone in the Roman Empire was gay. It was kept on the down law there as well. Part of the reason we know more about their exploits is that we know more about them period. They left behind an extensive written culture, for example. Not so much for the Huns and Vikings.
And really how many Vikings have you met? Or Huns? Nazis were pretty bad manly dudes, and a whole lot of them were gay too.
There seem to be a lot more gay people now because there is less pressure for them to suppress that behavior. A similar percentage of people were probably gay 50 yrs ago, but the taboo was much stronger. I'm not sure of any reason to think there weren't gay Vikings.
And plenty of Spartans were gay - and they're pretty martial. And it's not like everyone in Norway 1000 yrs ago was a Viking, just like not everyone in the US today is in the military. And judging from the DADT debate going on now, there are plenty of gay people in the US armed forces.
>Even though they might differ from Islamic principles which might be more correct.
Why would they be more correct than ours? It's all subjective anyway, right?
"the idea that everyone under 18 is a minor is a very western idea. Why?"- In Semitic (Arab/Jewish) culture the age of maturity is more like 13, though usually a lot younger (for example Rav Zeira regretted that he didn't marry at 14...to G-d-knows how old a girl).
"People are probably more sympathetic to gays because there are more gays than people who engage in incest"- Bottom line is it all boils down to a) the Gay Lobby, and 2) the prevalent mood of today's society. Homosexuality is a chosen 'cause' by society, not necessarily out of it's intrinsic worthiness, but by default. I think sexuality is much more complex than the black-and-white reality the spokespeople for Gay rights would have one believe.
who's to define what consent is and at what age it can be administered.
"Our society did. Who else should? Some other society?"- Again, another issue with democracies. What's 'our' society? In London there are a great many Muslims who's opinions are not shaping the law, and the laws aren't made according to their norms, but according to those of the heathen. Such laws are not objective and do not reflect the people they're meant to protect.
We just found out that Neil Patrick Harris was gay"- Doogie Howser? So what? He's no Viking.
"In societies where homosexuality is criminalized and marginalized, it's only to be expected that you won't find too many open practitioners of it"- Listen "Vox", I think what's happening here is that there's a general difference of opinion between you and I about the nature of homosexuality: I believe that in optimal conditions most people aren't born being ONLY attracted to the sex with which they cannot reproduce. Such behavior doesn't breed survival and is therefore not part of people's genetic makeup. I believe that complete homosexuality is essentially a glitch in the chemical and psychological nature of man. I think it's reasonable to assume that in warrior societies there was a far lower occurrence of homosexuality. ...and you obviously disagree with all of that and feel it's a natural aspect of man in whatever situation he lives.
Nazis were pretty bad manly dudes, and a whole lot of them were gay too"- Since Germany was the most well-off country at the time, the truth is they were just effeminate bullies.
"I'm not sure of any reason to think there weren't gay Vikings. And plenty of Spartans were gay - and they're pretty martial."- Gay Spartans and Vikings? Where do you get your info dude?
Why would they be more correct than ours? It's all subjective anyway, right?"- I never said that, I believe there's always an objective truth, ans many times the truth of the Arabs may be truer than that of the Europeans.
Alright, first half next time : P Keyboard issues sometimes, so..
>In Semitic (Arab/Jewish) culture the age of maturity is more like 13, though usually a lot younger (for example Rav Zeira regretted that he didn't marry at 14...to G-d-knows how old a girl).
Well, that's good for Rabbi Zeira (he's the same as the Rav Zeira that came to Israel from Bavel, right?) in 400 CE or whatever. And it's true that the age of adulthood for males and females in Halakha is 13 and 12, respectively. But that doesn't reflect the world today, east or west. It's true a bar mitzvah boy could make a minyan, but I don't know of any families either here or in Israel, modern or haredi, that marries their son off at 13. 17, 18, yes, but there's a difference. Europe didn't have an 18 yr old deadline forever - it's only recently that people have been living long enough for us to say it makes more sense for them to get married later. This is just common sense. And you find the same thing in modern Jewish society today. I don't even know of any Teimanim that still get married right after puberty. As life spans expand, our perspectives on the boundary between children and adults expands as well. I'd be interested whether a beit din would take more seriously the edut of a 13 yr old or a 40 yr old - or would it have to treat the same?
>Homosexuality is a chosen 'cause' by society, not necessarily out of it's intrinsic worthiness, but by default.
But that begs the question. Why is it a 'cause' of society today? We just upped and decided to make something illegal legal? When a society is motivated, it is motivated by something. The Civil Rights movement was also a cause celebre - one that eventually found widespread support. And is now law. Surely you don't think that is just a "cause" but an actual matter of justice. In the end, I think my general principle is that, sure, 500,000 Frenchmen may not always be right, but they've always got my attention.
>In London there are a great many Muslims who's opinions are not shaping the law, and the laws aren't made according to their norms, but according to those of the heathen.
London, per Wikipedia, is 8.5% Muslim. That's not nothing, but that's not enough to frame the debate, either. And London is only one city in the UK. London cannot make city ordinances restricting homosexuality if they conflict with national laws on the subject. That's just constitutionalism - or whatever it is over there. Muslims are not excluded from the conversation - they get a vote - just like everyone else. They just don't have enough votes.
>Such laws are not objective and do not reflect the people they're meant to protect.
Yeah, but democracies do not pretend to make objective laws. They don't hold themselves out a prophets. They only claim to reflect the wishes of the people they represent. And 8.5% isn't enough.
>I believe that in optimal conditions most people aren't born being ONLY attracted to the sex with which they cannot reproduce. Such behavior doesn't breed survival and is therefore not part of people's genetic makeup. I believe that complete homosexuality is essentially a glitch in the chemical and psychological nature of man.
That's a lot of faith. But these assertions of yours matter. Intuition is nice - but you also needs some information that backs it up. I don't think evolution works that fast - that in a period of 5 or 10 or 50 yrs - the difference between poverty or prosperity, often enough, is enough time for the human species to reset its biological clock.
>Since Germany was the most well-off country at the time, the truth is they were just effeminate bullies.
Germany was not the most well of country at the time. Not even close. The Great Depression had rocked Germany the hardest - they were an export economy. The inability of the Weimar Republic to solve it was what caused the Nazis to come to power. Starting in 1933, Germany started making an economic recovery, thanks to the large infusement of government spending, due to the intense militarization. And from 1939 to 1945, they were locked in an existential struggle during which the economy ws devoted solely to warmaking and food was rationed and their cities were bombed. It was not a comfortable existence. Maybe from 1933 to 1939 you would argue that they become so comfortable that they decided to become gay - but that's not enough time, at least, I don't think. And, even then, they weren't that comfortable. The US also started making a recovery around that time, and they didn't all become gay.
>Where do you get your info dude?
About gay Spartans and Vikings? Just intuition and popular culture. ;) Which is pretty much what informs you that Romans and Greeks were gay. I don't think you have any data suggesting that there were not gay Vikings.
>I never said that, I believe there's always an objective truth, ans many times the truth of the Arabs may be truer than that of the Europeans.
Okay, but you don't have any idea what is objectively true. So you can't tell what is more true than anything else. So why should a Westerner with his morality, particularly care that an Oriental, with his morality, thinks the Westerner's morality is immoral? It's all subjective anyway.
Post a Comment