You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. ralphie says:

    Another relevant response would be: Even if one accepts that within certain religions, people of the same sex cannot marry each other, why should that necessarily impact a secular legal code? In other words, it would seem that to convince others of this position one would by definition need a secular reason (e.g., its potential impact on society), as Stanley Kurtz and Maggie Gallagher have tried to put forth.

  2. Edvallace says:

    Very nicely done. Much food for thought.
    Thank you.

  3. JewishAtheist says:

    With all due respect, I find your rationalization utterly uncompelling. What you seem to ignore is that gay people cannot enter into a good marriage with a member of the opposite sex. It’s just not an option. (Please note that I specified a good marriage.) Clearly, by even your logic, marrying someone, even a member of the same sex, would make you more “other-oriented” than would remaining single. Forbidding same-sex marriage forces people to be LESS other-oriented, and so you should be against a prohibition.

    Moreover, proponents of a ban on gay marriage seem to believe that if it’s forbidden, gay people will just go away or magically become straight. This is not the case. There are already gay couples who live together, have children together, and create families. Banning gay marriages serves only to discriminate against such couples and their children and does not provide any benefit. You must first recognize that gay families exist and then deal with that reality rather than assuming that if you ban gay marriage, gay people will just disappear.

  4. Hanan says:


    Sure, how about the fact that Im tired of the fact that people equate Morality with the disengagment plan. You were talking about gay marriages which got my attention, then you just had to bring up the withdrawal and strap on to it that fact that if someone is for it, he is for some reason immoral and does not hold up to the belief in a God given moral system. Thats a very black and white view of reality

  5. moshe kuhr says:

    Gedalia Litke is on to a critical tenet of our faith when he speaks of other directedness. The holy act of sexual union between spouses, is a case in point. The intent of the male, i.e. the mitzva of ona, transforms what would otherwise be a profane act of self-gratification into the holiest spiritual experience. This idea is missing from our pervasive popular culture, and is not often heard, regretfully, in the study halls of our yeshivot either.

  6. Gedalia Litke says:

    Hanan, your point about the morals of disengagement is correct; my intended emphasis was that the two sides simply cannot hear each other, as in the gay marriage debate. But I think you’d agree that it is still true that someone who is G-d oriented will approach the issue very differently than someone who is not, even if they arrive at the same result.

Pin It on Pinterest