A peek into the animal world reveals more than 500 species of animals that have homosexual relationships
Avi Arbel Galileo
The heinous act of murder that took place a few months ago at the gay youth club in Tel Aviv brought the issue of homosexuality in Israel and in general to the headlines. Despite the identification of broad circles with the victims, there were also others who used this opportunity to attack homosexuality. Aside from claims about the violation of morals and the laws of the Torah, many came back and voiced the claim that homosexuality is a deviation and that normal people are heterosexual.
Of course, this claim can only be addressed after the norm by which the deviations are determined is defined. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such general norm and it differs from culture to culture and society to society, just as there is no general norm regarding sexual behavior - what is considered deviant and abnormal in one culture, is reasonable and acceptable behavior in another society.
Another claim, which is often voiced in our places and also in conservative societies around the world, is that homosexuality is not natural. In Western society, the term "homosexuality" entered the medical discourse in the middle of the 19th century, and since then it has taken root in society in a rather narrow sense, and it is not enough to describe the variety of behaviors that we might call "homosexuality" in all contemporary cultures. Despite this, this is the term used by speakers in Western countries and we will also refer to it in this article.
As a zoologist, I would like to address the claim that homosexuality is unnatural, because it does not produce offspring and therefore does not exist in nature. This claim originates from ignorance and lack of familiarity with the animals found in our world. A look at the animal world completely refutes this claim, since science knows and has described more than 500 species of animals that maintain homosexual relations (there are reports of about 1500 such species).
You will find among them insects and other invertebrates, fish, reptiles, reptiles, birds and also mammals. In the primate series, which includes monkeys, apes and humans, a homosexual behavior was described that is perhaps the most interesting to humans, in the name of the similarity between us and the apes.
What is animal homosexuality?
Before describing the species that maintain homosexual relations, it is of course necessary to define what homosexual behavior is, since different aspects of this behavior appear in different animals.
Researchers have defined five patterns of behavior that we would call homosexual. These patterns can exist side by side in any case and are independent of development or time.
The first is courtship behavior among members of the same sex. This behavior contains elements that exist in heterosexual courtship, but also specific elements that only appear in homosexual courtship. Courtship includes visual (courtship gestures), vocal (voices), chemical (pheromone secretion) and even tactile (contact between courtship participants) elements.
In many cases, these lead to the following stages, the first of which is the following pattern: showing affection and touching, usually through contact that does not include touching the genitals and sexual touching. This pattern includes caressing, hugging, kissing, mutual grooming and play-wrestling. This degree, which was found in a quarter of the observed species, often causes sexual arousal, which manifests itself in an erection or swelling of the genitals.
The third pattern is sexual contact between the couple. Most of the vertebrate species examined at this stage jump and ride (mounting), one on the other's back, which in most cases includes the insertion of the male genital organ. This group also includes stimulation of the external genitalia with the help of the hand, foot or fin as well as oral contacts.
The next pattern of behavior, which exists in many species of animals, is the creation of a permanent pair bond between the partners. As part of this relationship, the couple spend a lot of time in joint activities and are together most of the time. The marital relationship can be exclusive and monogamous, or non-exclusive and open to having relationships with random partners, who are homosexual or heterosexual. The duration of the relationship varies from one species of animal to another, and even within the same biological species there is great variation in the duration of the relationship. Several species have been found among which only a homosexual relationship is permanent, while the heterosexual relationships are of a temporary and transient nature!
The fifth pattern is co-parenting and raising offspring. For this purpose, the couple mate with occasional partners from the other couple, but these do not remain in the area and do not take care of the offspring. Both homosexual partners participate in incubation (in poultry) and care of the offspring, a fact that sometimes optimizes these activities and brings higher success than in raising offspring of heterosexual couples.
This joint growth does not necessarily involve having sex between the two individuals. In some bird species there is also adoption or forceful takeover of eggs or offspring of other individuals. This phenomenon of taking over foreign chicks was observed in the African ostrich (Struthio camelus). There are animal species, lizards and sticklebacks for example, that reproduce parthenogenically (virgin reproduction). In these species there are only females that are related at different levels. There are of course bisexual animals that have sexual and other relationships with their spouses and with the other spouses. The level of these connections varies from species to species and even from individual to individual.
Observations under siege conditions
There are quite a few difficulties in observing the homosexual behavior of animals. In captivity or in the laboratory, the observations are much easier and simpler than in the wild, but there is always a fear that the observed behavior was caused by life in captivity. This is how homosexual couples of penguins, belonging to several biological species, were observed in captivity in zoos in Bremen in Germany, in Japan and in the Bronx in New York. Homosexual behavior of penguins has not been observed with certainty in the wild due to difficulties in marking the studied individuals, due to the great similarity between the pairs and due to the difficult environmental conditions that do not allow prolonged, sometimes multi-year observation.
In the biblical zoo in Jerusalem, two biblical eagles (Gyps fulvus), who bore the names Dashik and Yehuda, formed a homosexual relationship that included many copulations, when the "roles" between the couple were fixed. When they were given a dummy egg they hatched it devotedly. After that, they received young chicks (the female eagle lays one egg in the nest and the couple raises one chick per season) and managed to raise several chicks until they reached the stage of blooming from the nest and were released into the wild!
Dashik and Yehuda were later separated and each of them is housed in a separate cage with a female eagle. Both of them formed heterosexual couples, which raises a question about the relationship they created: maybe it was due to a lack of partners from the other couple?
A similar situation exists in the safari park in Ramat-Gan, where three males of a giant land tortoise (Testudo) gigantea) from the Seychelles live. These live for many years in a small enclosure and have courtships and homosexual matings which are of course sterile. Will bringing females into the fence make them court them, mate with them and abandon homosexual behavior? Until a suitable female is brought - which cannot be obtained due to its rarity and nature conservation laws - we will not know the answer to this question.
Two young African elephants, born at the Ramat Gan Safari, were recently observed, brought to the zoo in Poznan in Poland and housed in one yard. Their homosexual behavior was widely described in Polish newspapers and especially in the yellow press. Although this behavior is part of the games of the youth, it is likely that if they bring a young elephant into their yard, they will mate with her and show heterosexual behavior.
Domestic and farm animals can also be added to this group, many of which have homosexual relationships. Every farmer who raises cattle knows the phenomenon of cows jumping on an inseminated cow, even though they do not fully practice mating, there are many elements of mating in this behavior, except for penetration. In flocks of sheep, homosexual behavior is common, especially in young individuals, who often jump on each other.
Such behaviors have not been observed among wild cattle species. The wild bull (Bos primigenius) is extinct from the world, and with the captive domestic bull (Bos Taurus) there is, as mentioned, homosexual behavior both between cows and between bulls, and especially between young calves.
The house dog also exhibits conspicuous homosexual behavior. A meeting between unfamiliar dogs is followed by a jump of the dominant individual and a ride accompanied by intruding male dogs. The element of rump to rump rollover, which appears in the heterosexual mating of dogs, does not appear on these occasions, but penetration takes place in them. In these cases and also in other cases of farm and pet animals such as goats and parrots, is the homosexual behavior a result of living in captivity?
Homosexual dominance demonstrators
In the past, zoologists used to explain this behavior of jumping, riding and even sexual penetration as a demonstration of control. According to them, the dog that jumps on a dog inferior to him in the social rank, as well as the calf and the young ram, does not intend a sexual act but in this way demonstrates his dominance and his status in the social rank. And so are cows, goats and goats, although their jumping and riding does not involve penetration.
Observations in nature have proven that species close to domestic and farm animals maintain similar behavior. In antelopes such as the impala (Aepyceros melampus), a common African antelope, there are herds of harems in which one alpha male lives and mates with many females, sometimes 50 or more. Naturally, there are flocks of young bachelors competing for status on the social ladder.
The male standing at the top of the rank will challenge the alpha male who owns the harem, and if he succeeds in defeating him in battle, he will take over the herd of females and become the owner of the harem. Jumping, riding and even sexual penetration are common among the male herds of impala and other antelopes and other ungulates such as the giraffe. Here, too, there are zoologists who speak of a demonstration of control. Indeed, the number of jumps and intrusions is according to the social rank, when the males at the top of the rank often jump on inferior males and no male jumps on them.
Even in the gray wolf (Canis lupus), from which the domestic dog was domesticated, behavior of jumping, riding and even penetration was observed. In the wolf packs there is a clear hierarchy and there is one ruling alpha male and a controlling female. Both perform acts of the type described with individuals who are at a lower level in the social ladder, who are often younger. Even in this case, many zoologists tend to describe this behavior as a demonstration of dominance and control, and it is quite possible that they are right, but the fact that there are homosexual elements in this behavior should not be ignored.
In the baboons, African monkeys living in groups of many individuals, a similar behavior was observed, and with my own eyes I observed this behavior for hundreds of hours in the wild and moaning. There are numerous researchers among the five species of baboons. Others define them as subspecies included in one species, the common bonbon (Papio hamadryas).
In all species of baboons, elements including riding and sexual penetration have been observed, both in the power and social games of the young individuals and in demonstrations of control by dominant males over inferior males. There is no doubt that the young baboons' games play an important role in training them for life in a group. The demonstrations of control by the senior males also serve the social order in the baboon tribe and strengthen their rule, yet they have prominent elements of homosexual behavior.
Homosexual acts carried out within the walls of the prison, both between male and female prisoners, include elements of a demonstration of control and even acts of rape which serve to strengthen the status of the ruling prisoners. They too are part of an activity that no one would think of describing as a non-homosexual demonstration.
Advantages of homosexuality
Homosexual couples who maintain a marital relationship and raise offspring must have casual and short-term heterosexual relationships in which they violate or are violated in order to have offspring that they will treat as homosexual parents.
In the common dolphin (Tursiops truncatues) homosexual behavior is known in young individuals up to the age of ten. After that, most turn to heterosexual behavior, but some males continue homosexual relationships for the rest of their lives. Some researchers see the homosexuality of the young dolphins as initiation and sexual training for life in the future.
Homosexual male pairs have an advantage in courtship and reproductive mating with females, perhaps because they court as a pair and both get to mate with the female they are courting. Although male dolphins do not breed their offspring, they manage to produce offspring that carry their genes with greater success than dolphins that have gone through a homosexual period.
The sexual behavior of the dolphins throws the rug under the feet of those who claim that this behavior is not natural, since it does not produce offspring. In the black swan (Cygnus atratus) from Australia, homosexual pairs of males have been observed in captivity and in the wild. The rate of these couples is about 6% of the population and the relationships last for years. These male swans mate with females who lay eggs for them in the nest built by the male pair.
They then remove the females, take turns incubating the eggs and raise the chicks together. Quantitative research over many years has yielded quite surprising results: while heterosexual pairs of the black swan succeed in producing only 30% of offspring that leave their parents and go on to live independently, pairs of males succeed at an average rate of 80% (the percentage of adult chicks out of the number of eggs) in rearing their offspring. The black swan and its ilk prove that it is possible to reproduce even if you maintain bisexual behavior patterns and a homosexual relationship, and even succeed to a considerable extent than heterosexual couples.
Young elephants, young foxes, young chimpanzees and dolphins and males of other mammals have homosexual relations as part of the youth games. Today it is believed that these games are used as training for future sexual life and are an important stage in the social and sexual development of many young animals. So it becomes clear that even if some of these relationships persist and lead to the creation of homosexual couples in adulthood, they do not necessarily harm their future reproductive capacity.
Threesomes, beautiful monkeys and bisexual behavior
In a recent study of the populations of the bearded raptor (Gypaetus barbatus), which once lived in Israel and became extinct, it was found that some of the raptors live in trios and not in pairs. The trio includes two males and a female and the three have homosexual and heterosexual matings. These triplets manage to raise more offspring than pairs of prizes. Part of the success may be due to the genetic diversity of the males, but mainly due to the bonds of the trio that are maintained over the years when all three successfully take care of the chicks.
The best known and most studied bisexual animal is the pygmy chimpanzee (Pan paniscus) also known as the bonobo. A long-term study that included many observations in nature (in West Africa) and mainly in zoos and research institutes, was published in the book of the Dutch-American primatologist Frans de Waal (1997), Bonobo, The Forgotten Ape. Recently, another book by de Waal was translated, "The Monkey Within", which deals in detail with the behavior of this wonderful monkey that belongs to the human family (Hominidae) and is actually our lovable cousin (and see: for further reading).
Bonobo chimpanzees are smaller and gentler than the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes, and they live in the rainforests of the Congo. They live in small tribes, the largest of which number up to 60 individuals, but most of them are smaller. Within the tribe there are small groups, mostly groups of single females and their children, who maintain strong bonds and activity These groups are dominant in certain situations and therefore bonobo society is considered a matriarchal society.
Bonobos are vegetarians and do not eat meat like their relatives the common chimpanzee and man. Accordingly, they also do not go on an aggressive hunt. They multiply sexual activity that is partly homosexual and partly heterosexual. Females perform more homosexual contacts than males - about two-thirds of the sexual contacts performed by females are homosexual.
The observations of the pygmy chimpanzees in the wild are quite complicated and most of the data were collected in observations in captivity. It turns out that these monkeys are sexually active more than any other primate and sometimes perform six sexual acts a day (they are not active at night, when they sleep on trees). Young monkeys also participate in the sexual acts and it is possible that this is how they acquire skill and experience in this activity, which is not inherited but is learned and acquired through watching mating monkeys, and sexual practice which they also acquire through sexual activity with experienced adults.
The social behavior of bonobo chimpanzees is calm and has no elements of violence. Any social conflict is soon resolved by sexual contact, after which the participants return to calm activity. The sexual acts are short and usually last up to a quarter of a minute, but their number, as mentioned, is large and all the members of the community participate in them. It is interesting to note that mature cougars are the most sought after - perhaps due to the life experience and sexual experience they have acquired over the years.
The bonobo monkeys seem to have adopted the saying "make love and not war", even though they have never heard it. Watching these peaceful monkeys and reading studies about their lives is enviable. Why is man unable to resolve social and tribal conflicts like bonobos? Why do we prefer personal and political violence, murder and wars to a peaceful life? Perhaps because we have not learned how to use sex as a way to resolve conflicts (each and every one of the readers is invited to use his fertile imagination and imagine how conflicts are resolved in this way).
I do not claim that homosexual behavior is the ideal for solving social and economic conflicts, but studying the lifestyles of bonobo monkeys shows that homosexual behavior is a natural behavior, as is found in hundreds of species of animals, and in the test of the result it is superior to aggressive behavior manifested in violence, murder and wars that the intelligent man advocates It's thousands of years!
I did not mention in my articles other insects and invertebrates that engage in homosexual behavior, but science knows many such species, among them beetles, ants (males that mate with queens) and even snakes that use homosexual acts for the purposes of deception and in this way improve their chances of heterosexual contacts and reproduction.
In nature there are many species of homosexual animals, and therefore the claim about the unnaturalness of homosexual contacts only indicates the ignorance of those who raise it.
As mentioned, homosexuality does not necessarily harm reproduction and therefore the phenomenon is not extinct, whether it is inherited or acquired. Moreover, it may improve the chances of those who experience it to reproduce and preserve their genes in their offspring.
And to the people of "morality" I suggest preaching not against homosexuals, but for the reduction of violence and the prevention of wars, that there is no debate about the damage they cause to humanity.
Dr. Avi Arbel is a zoologist, a senior lecturer at the Kibbutzim Seminary College in Tel Aviv. Published several books and hundreds of articles dealing with animals and travels around the world.
206 תגובות
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4o5ajFHG7w&feature=player_embedded#!
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/greg-gutfield-to-open-a-gay-bar-next-to-ground-zero-mosque-to-cater-to-islamic-gay-men/
My petition:
But the sea Homophobia
No more Mor!
Sorry - spelling corrections:
They will become = they will become
Their tendencies - their tendencies
Mor,
The one who uses empty passwords is you, and even if you repeat your primitive nonsense dozens of times, they will not ring true - not for people born after the nineteenth century.
By the way, your fervor sounds familiar - I have seen it in some of the telenists in the USA, as well as other clergymen and politicians whose tendencies were later revealed.
Surprisingly, Moore, in fact recently there has been evidence that homosexuality is a trait that has genetic origins. What it turns out, in fact, is that there are homosexual pairings in animals as well. It can be concluded from this that the homosexual tendency is not a social product, and that there is an innate basis for this trait. I'll find the link to the article that discusses this, in Hidan.
Hi... wait.
This is the page I'm on. Exactly the same stand where your comment appears.
Interesting you missed that.
Lenaam
Homosexuality and pedophilia is almost the same disorder. You use empty passwords.
The existence of negative phenomena in normative frameworks are the exception. But for transsexuals this is the norm.
To everyone - please sign the petition and pass it on to everyone you know. This deterioration must be stopped.
Mor,
What an abundance of lack of knowledge, ignorance, and primitiveness.
Sedum, coercion and rape also exist in heterosexual couples. The percentage of homosexuals is the same in almost all societies, including religious and ultra-Orthodox who have to hide it.
Pedophilia is a completely different perversion, certainly not consensual.
In short, your words are a combination of primitive and prejudiced opinions combined with just baseless nonsense.
Mor:
What you know is not true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Conviction_for_indecency
It's so easy to check that the very fact that you didn't check indicates the seriousness of your words in general.
You simply have no idea what you're talking about and your words to "We really" in response 197 show that even when you are given a link to information on the subject you bother not to check it.
We really do
Regarding the false claim that homosexuality is an "innate" trait - first, there is not a single scientific study that proves this claim, it is a false invention of the sex deviants designed to strengthen their arguments and demand for legitimacy. It is a fact that in the prisons, in difficult living conditions and without women, homosexual relationships become common either by coercion or by lack of choice.
To Mr. Rothschild
Regarding Turing - he was the father of the computer, a great man who made a decisive contribution to the victory over the Nazis but unfortunately suffered from homosexual perversion. Today, people are no longer prosecuted just for having consensual sodomy relationships and no one asks for it either. So don't mix gender with non-gender. By the way, as far as I remember, Turing was accused of sodomizing a guest in his apartment, and you certainly don't support that???
Noam Shalom.
Homosexuality and pedophilia are almost identical mental disorders. Of course, to pedophilia is added the additional severity of exploiting minors and the helpless, (which is why they are also treated by the police) but according to all the studies, the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles stands at about 35%, which by all accounts is above and beyond their share in the population.
The act of homosexual sodom like the pedophile sexual act are both identical in that they are an expression not of "love" but of control and spiteful relations using violence. The homosexual cause is violence for its own sake and has nothing to do with "love" or "affection". In fact, homosexual and pedophile relationships are more of a sadism-masochism relationship.
Usually the dominant male is the one who shows control and bitterness over his "partner" through the act of sodomy. Just as it exists in chimpanzees and dogs.
The tolerant partner is the masochist in the equation, the submissive and obedient side.
Sometimes they change their roles but roughly - this is the situation.
Therefore, the homosexual is one of two:
A violent and domineering person, or a submissive, frightened and obedient person. In any case, this is a very unhappy life.
In the early seventies, when the homosexual protest movement began in the USA, it was a movement that also included pedophiles, only after several years, when the leaders of the movement realized that the inclusion of pedophilia was not well received by the public, they made the current artificial separation, and this only for reasons of relations public, until the hearts are trained.
come on:
So you know better than anyone.
For example - more than Wikipedia knows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
Maybe tell us - you and us Moore - what do you know about Turing?
Friends
Transfer to National Geographic Wild
At least there you will also meet human animals.
Noam:
It's really amazing, but on the other hand, it's quite clear that an article of this type - like other articles that present a different approach than religion (an approach that is based on modern scientific research and not on the gut beliefs of people from thousands of years ago) will come from people who mentally still live thousands of years ago and pour their opinions on us Their stomach (and as you know - what is in the stomach has a preferred direction of exit)
Go Noam, our love, it won't hurt at all to return to the sweet humanity of the chimpanzee because it seems to me that you are a bad mutation of the other race of monkeys. Do DNA tests.
I wonder what is so attractive about the science site that we were visited by a bunch of primitives from the last century.
Any ideas?
An article by a scientist who pretends to be on the line of "pure science" and encourages respondents to a pro-homosexual approach is just another "brain fuck" if not below the one that tries to influence his barren homosexual power.
There is no born gay unless he is subject to negative social influence and/or the product of covert cloning from experiments that took place 80 years ago and maybe even before that.
Riding the wave of "tolerance" giggling.. my false and fake society does not give legitimacy to continued deviance even among the human race that has also received Torah and higher moral rules in order to perfect entrenched attitudes and accompanying flaws or rather to increase them.
Mor
If anything, then you can also add to the petition the opposition to the leftists because they only gave power to these homosexuals
And 'thanks' to them, the country is going to ruin.
We let crooked people do straight work, so this is the result we got...
Mor,
where are you calling from?
from the 19th century ???
What is the connection between homosexual and pedophile?
Come in and sign a petition
Tomer Shalom
The homosexual and pedophile sexual act is not an act of love but a violent act of control and submission. Homosexuals and pedophiles are miserable people who are enslaved to their sexual urges and the need to subdue the other or an uncontrollable urge to be humiliated and enslaved.
bungee jumping:
How about reading the article before commenting?
How about understanding the reality and learning that there is no question of encouragement because homosexuality is innate?
How about stopping the homophobia and the lies?
Was the rope too long on one of your jumps?
Is the writer gay? Because he only encourages homosexuality all the time..disgusting
Tomer and Michael - straight power!
what is going on here? "Recruiting people for homosexuality", "inciting perversion", "deterioration of human culture", what else? Are the gays responsible for terrorism/wars/eating pure Jewish children on Passover? Do you really not see the connection between hatred of Jews and hatred of homosexuals?
The Jews - less than a percent of the entire world, occupy the key positions when they receive equal rights - and immediately: here is proof that the Jews are taking over the world.
The gays - get screen time on television and increasing legitimacy in the media and the general public - and immediately: you recruit new soldiers to your ranks. You can't have children so you are poor and therefore you are looking for innocent children to divert in your direction. What can I say that will make you understand how monstrous what you are saying? What can I do to prove that the sensations I feel are completely natural - - attracted to body and mind, to the big picture, just like you. I want to love and be loved, two adults, equal. And that's the whole small big difference between pedophiles/zoophiles and gays - it's about love for a complete body and soul, for the complete other person, who is perfect in himself and not for one narrow aspect of him.
But all you've heard now is "blah blah blah, pervert". Nothing I say will touch you. And like everything in this country - the strong rule, the weak are trampled. And I won't let them trample me. I promise you. This country will not disappear without a fight.
Jonathan:
You vigorously and confidently preach absolute lies.
Until the age of 20, many of the homosexuals are not even ready to admit to themselves that they are homosexuals.
In any case - the entire period during which they have to deal with being different from the norm - a deal from which they have no escape and the fact that people like you exist makes it a real nightmare - is a difficult period that begins with denial towards yourself, continues with acceptance of yourself but denial towards the environment and ends - at best - When leaving the closet (and in the worst case only you and your ilk are guilty of it - left in the closet).
They are looking for stable relationships just like any other person - no more - but no less either.
I suppose there are also types like you among them (I find it hard to believe that you are a one-time accident) but there are many among them who live much more meaningful lives than yours.
The matter of the bed does not play a different role for them than for the rest of the population.
The last sentence in your comment is a real joke.
No one ever chose to be gay. It's all about lack of choice. This is clear to me because I know myself and I know that there is no way in the world that I could have been gay - it could not have been my choice because it is not a matter of choice.
to discuss
From my personal acquaintance with some of them and from reading enlightening articles.
For the most part, the gay's life is hard, short and bad.
In his early years, roughly until the beginning of his twenties, he feels like the king of the world, everyone (sexuals) court him and want to be near him, and he feels overjoyed to receive attention, which he usually lacks at home.
A rapid decline then begins, and he spends the rest of his life racing madly and miserably from one pervert's bed to another in a desperate search for the attention and sexual thrills he experienced in his younger years, which of course will never happen.
Of course, here and there there are exceptions to the rule, but this is roughly the expected future for the young people among us who read these posts, and consider whether it is worth making a mistake in this direction.
Dan Shamir:
Jonathan is a beast.
That is why he thinks that the whole purpose of man is to produce offspring.
He does not understand that Einstein, for example, contributed much more to humanity than the entire dynasty that led to Jonathan and will lead from him will ever contribute, and this without any connection to his children.
He also does not understand that Turing (who was homosexual) contributed much more to life on earth than Jonathan and his ilk will ever contribute - and this is even measured by the number of people who owe him their lives (if there is one person who can be credited with the victory of the Allies over the Nazis, it is Turing who cracked the Nazi encryption system. Of course, people like Jonathan - "Jonathanoids" - rewarded Turing by bringing about his death - a purposeless death that ended a chain of brilliant achievements in many fields in the name of what Jonathan considered a purpose - fucks).
to Jonathan,
I would be interested to know how you came to the conclusion that a gay/lesbian's life is without real purpose.
I still - with all the disgust you arouse in me - wish you a speedy recovery
Elial
It sounds like you are a girl who strives to acquire knowledge and has an interesting life story.
That's why I would advise you later on in your life, not to jump to far-reaching conclusions about people. How do you think I won my wife's heart (and many more before her...) if I didn't know about her ignorance of the job of giving compliments to women?
Same with your amusing conclusions about my homosexual tendencies, I think much more in-depth research is needed to come to such firm conclusions.
Even I cannot say whether such a tendency is hidden in the depths of my soul or not. And it is possible that such a tendency is hidden in each of us, like many other negative tendencies. For sure, if it existed, I'm glad I overcame it and didn't sink into a whirlwind of a miserable life with no real purpose.
And now Michael and his band...
to Jonathan,
I see that you learned from my previous comment that it's better to compliment women as well and not just men, and I'm glad that I was brought up in something. hallelujah!
To the point of your words: what does it matter if I was the one who personally did the work of collecting, or if I took it from some source? After all, I accompanied the quotations that I brought with a note from their original sources, and the main thing is therefore the question of whether the things are true or not, and not where I got them from, isn't it??? There is no scientist, or serious thinker who does not build on the opinion of his predecessors, their articles or discoveries, and just as I am not asking you why you are so interested in the issue of homosexuality, there is no point in you asking the question why I am interested in the holy books. So simple!
Secondly - I would not rely on opinions that have passed their time, if, of course, the sacrifice was nullified, but it is not like that!!! Every contemporary halachic judge, and every rabbi or just a religious person - ultra-orthodox (delete the unnecessary) still continues to live according to the same "opinions and interpretations of people who lived hundreds and thousands of years ago and try to claim that this is the ruling position today" and moreover - also tries to impose opinions And these behaviors are also about people who are free in their worldview (for example, in marriage laws, in the rules of public transportation on Shabbat and Moed in strictly secular settlements and neighborhoods, or in the deprivation of university students in budgets, compared to yeshiva students, and much more... and this is not the place to name and detail, yes, it does not belong in the discussion) .
Your claim that in the past women were treated like animals until recently (both here and in different parts of the world!) is correct, and it only reinforces my point about the deprivation women are deprived of by the men who ruled our world, including in our "holy scriptures". But tell yourself: is it appropriate, in your opinion, to continue this? Isn't it time to change this degrading attitude towards humans?
And from here - also to the attitude of religious and ultra-Orthodox people towards people with sexual orientations different from their own - isn't it time to say in this regard as well that the tradition of hostility and punishment towards homosexuals relies on "opinions and interpretations of people who lived hundreds and thousands of years ago and try to claim that this is the ruling position today" - even though that science these days claims that there is no justification for this???
To your assumption about the possibility that I am on the way to anxiety, I will answer, because on the contrary: I came out of a dark place of ignorance and ignorance to freedom and freedom, and I know of many of my friends who would have done this if they had not rushed to their climax at the age of 17, while they lacked a profession, education and knowledge, and before they knew how to choose between good and evil They had already brought many children into the world, from whom it would be difficult for them to say goodbye, something he learned for granted. The same goes for the boys in ultra-Orthodox society, whose yeshiva did not give them the life skills and basic data to make a decent living and give their own children what was saved from them, before they were put on their necks...
Like many of those who come out wisely, I also read many articles on websites that open a window for us to the problems of society and religion in Israel and in other places in the wider world, such as the "Freedom" website, or the "Deat Emet" website, I read articles and books and writings by feminist women (religious and atheist, Jewish and girls of other religions ) And as Dan Shamir already wrote, I also read the excellent books of Prof. Dan Meler and his wife, and I learned from all of them what I had to learn, in order to know how to shape my path and my life.
In your own way, Yonatan, you define as things that are not exactly possible the....facts.
Interesting review.
Assuming you didn't copy the passage from another article, then it looks like you did a thorough job. Well done.
Nevertheless, taking quotes from the opinions and interpretations of people who lived hundreds and thousands of years ago and trying to claim that this is the ruling position today is a bit far-fetched. Life does not stay in one place. Don't forget that up until less than two hundred years ago in most of the world women's rights were not heard of at all and to this day in a large part of the world they are treated like animals, mainly, but not only among our cousins.
The question arises, why are you so interested in the holy books? And where did you get all these quotes?
Mind gives that it is not possible that your interest and deepening come from hatred or contempt for religion. Is it possible that you are on the way to repentance? (And don't you understand, I have no position on the matter).
Latchi Vinograd,
Of all your words, Tzachi, please allow me, as a woman, to refer only to your words about disrespecting women, even though I can answer you on many of your other claims as well, and even though this is not the center of the discussion, but because of your detailed response:
A. And I will start by saying that the personal example you give of your love for your wife is not only not relevant to the discussion that deals with the Holy Scriptures that were written (or handed down) thousands of years ago and not with this or that individual living with us today, but mainly because such a "reference" is called by the researchers among whom I belong : N=1, that is, this is "statistics" that relies on one particular case, and it is clear that one cannot learn from it about the general rule, neither here nor there.
B. As for your claim that the author did not rely on written sources (and I assume that you mean Dr. Meller, who is the only one who addressed the matter of chauvinism) - I assume that she did not raise this matter for a broad discussion, since it was not the topic under discussion, but if you would like a number of samples - I would be happy to present them to you (and I have gathered hundreds more like them, and I will not list them here for the same reason as my predecessor):
On the status of women in Jewish law - selected verses from the sources
its features
* "One must be careful that no one walks between two women, nor between two dogs or two pigs, nor will the people allow a woman or a dog or a pig to walk between them." (Abridgment of Shalan Aruch XNUMX/XNUMX).
* "An angry woman is full of excrement, and her mouth is full of blood, and everything is serious after her." (Shabbat Kanb).
* "Eve before man is like a monkey before man". (Bava Batra XNUMX).
* "Three things a man does not want to have: grass in his mouth and vinegar in his mouth and a female in his children, and all three were created for the purpose of the world." (Tan' Chai Sara).
* "Our masters said, four virtues were said in women: gluttonous (=gluttonous), obedient (=eavesdropping), lazy and fanatical (=zealous). R. Yehuda bar R. Nehemiah says: even ostentatious (=irritable) and talkative. R. Levy says: even thievery and promiscuity (=prostitutes)". (In Beresh' Raba XNUMX).
* "Ask Rabbi Yehoshua... why does the woman need to put on perfume and the man doesn't? He said to them: Man was created from earth, and earth never stinks. And woman was created from bone. Proverb: If you leave meat for three days without salt - immediately it stinks" (Berush Raba XNUMX).
* "There is no wisdom for a woman except in her kingdom." (Yuma S.O.).
* "Women are not children of instruction and their words should not be trusted" (Bamad Raba 9/XNUMX XNUMX).
* "Arrogant women they are" (Yorush Shabbat XNUMX/XNUMX).
* "Rab Shmuel bar Onia said on behalf of Rav: A woman is a golem (=a vessel that is not paid. Golem), and she does not make a covenant except with one who has made a vessel, as it is said: Because your husband makes you". (Sanhedrin XNUMX).
* "Women are easy on them". (Shabbat XNUMX).
How should a woman be treated?
* They asked Rabbi Yehoshua... Why do they (the women) go to the dead first? He said to them: By causing death to the world, therefore they go to the dead first." (Berush Raba XNUMX).
* "Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is as if she were teaching foolishness" (Suta XNUMX).
* "The words of the Torah shall be burned and shall not be given to women" (Yeru', Sota XNUMX/XNUMX; in Med. Raba XNUMX/n.XNUMX).
* "Women are exempt from sanctification of whiteness... because they caused a defect in whiteness". (MGA in the name of the Holy Spirit)... the reason that women are exempt - ten curses befell Eve" (Irubin K.).
* "The man precedes the woman to revive and restore her loss." (Parenting XNUMX).
* (Wife Nida) "If he is sick and has no one to serve him other than her, it is permissible for him to be used... even to stand him up and lay him down and support him... and if the woman is sick - her husband is not allowed to use him even without touching..." d).
* "The House of Shammai say: A man shall not divorce his wife unless he finds a pubic hair in her... and the House of Hillel say: Even if she had a disheveled dishonor... Rabbi Akiva says: Even if he finds another, she is beautiful..." (Gitin Ch.
* "A married woman or a fiancee whose two husbands have died shall not marry a third, who has already been held to be her husbands dead" (Rambam, Laws of Prohibitions of Biya XNUMX/XNUMX).
* "A man whose two wives have died does not prevent himself from marrying" (S.A. Abha XNUMX:XNUMX).
* "Sages said: Everything a man wants to do with his wife - he does. A parable for the meat that comes from the butcher's house: He wants to eat it with salt - eat it, eat it with salt, roast it - eat it, and also fish that comes from the hunter's house" (Vows XNUMX).
* "The first Adam, they took one of his ribs, and gave him a slave to use." (Sanhedrin XNUMX).
* "And the reason that women are freed from the mitzvah of the act that time has caused, according to the fact that the woman is enslaved to her husband to do his needs, and if she was obligated to the mitzvah of act that time has caused, it is possible that while doing the mitzvah the husband will order her to do his mitzvah - if she does the mitzvah of the Creator and neglects his commandment - woe to her from her husband, and if she does his mitzvah and neglects his commandment The commandment of the Creator - Woe to the created..." (Avoderham, Hashem, p. XNUMX).
The collective status of the woman
* "All tasks (=appointments) are appointed by no one but a man" (Rambam, Halch Malkim XNUMX/XNUMX) therefore a woman is invalid to discuss (SHA Chom Dayinim XNUMX/XNUMX). Kesho the Tos': Wasn't Deborah the prophetess a judge?! And that she did not discuss, but taught them that they should discuss..." (Yavmoth XNUMX/XNUMX).
* "Woe to the generation whose leader is a woman" (Midrash Psalms, Shochar Tov XNUMX/XNUMX).
third. As for sitting in the back benches of the bus: first of all, one must ask (and take into account!!!) the opinion of those who are affected by the matter. I don't know if you have traveled in the back seats of a bus, but from my experience and the experience of other people, I can testify that the shaking and jumping are very uncomfortable, and the personal suffering caused to the passenger does not weigh against the excuses of "modesty", so to speak, and are not acceptable to most female passengers. And since Seged is a public company, it must take into account the opinion of the majority, the one that subsidizes his travels. The struggle of the blacks in the USA (which was led, admittedly, by the brave woman Rosa Parks) broke out - and won!!! - against the background of pushing the blacks to the back of the buses. And not by chance! Reasons for modesty were not here either, of course, but pure racism.
By the way, Bob, sorry I forgot, but even his first response already betrays his attitude (otherwise he wouldn't have needed the lies and slanders she's full of)
Bob:
Tzachi wrote more than one response and his later response betrays his general approach.
There are those who know how to wrap religious coercion in lip candy but only up to a certain limit.
*Contradiction 🙂
Sorry, I'm totally dyslexic
Mich, according to what I understand, he said that he accepts everyone as they are:
"The Torah in which I was brought up and taught to me, my lords, allows me (and even obliges me) to love completely even those who do not think like me"
- Tchai
So it doesn't seem to me that you have any kind of slap with him that warrants a debate regarding this article, right?
Bob:
I do not put all religious people in the same boat.
I'm sorry if you got that impression.
On the other hand - all the religious people who responded here are - in the sense that the discussion deals with - completely in the same boat.
I also think that religiosity corrupts something in its sacrifice in almost every case and I also have logical reasons to support this claim but I never judge a person for duty as long as he does not express this corruption.
Jacob Or, you are right and wrong.
Whoever defines "sector" is a dark person.
In general, humans are much darker than they imagine. Enlightened there are few.
Regarding homosexuals, each case must be examined individually. If society has legislated that such relationships are allowed then there shouldn't be any problem. In a society where such relationships are forbidden, then there is a problem with the law.
There is no absolute morality to determine. It is clear that every person by his very nature is free to do what a parent wants and is able to do. But society and culture are limiting. Why is she limiting? It is not so important as what the results of the restriction are.
I know it's completely unrelated to the debate, but it still amuses me that certain sectors have magical words like bah 🙂 and these magical words made the transition and penetrated the Internet as well.
Hope God is online.
Michael, don't put all the religious in the same boat, it's like saying that if there is a secular murderer then all the seculars are murderers... Treat each person individually unless it is clear that they both agree with each other
Eddie,
A free society by its very definition is a society of sectors. Social, professional, literary, class - choose whatever you want. There has not yet been a human society without sectors. The problem is not in organizing around some common base, but in sectoral legislation that discriminates between sectors in society and favors one sector over another. This is an inappropriate phenomenon. Israel is obsessed with it. Another thing is legislation to favor a certain group for reasons of welfare/disability/illness - but here too the legislation is for a certain group, but everyone can or may belong to it during their lifetime. But even in this one must be careful and not exaggerate the preference. Homosexuality - which you are so afraid of - is no more a sector than animal lovers, MDB enthusiasts and documenters of encounters with aliens.
Tzachi, I'm not trying to interpret Judaism and/or the Torah,
It could be that the meaning is really what you mean, but as I said (or not but now I say 🙂 ), other people interpret it as simple, and that's a fact! And it's a shame, we all would like others to interpret the Torah like you. In any case, every time you see that something goes against the Torah, it means of course what (the majority) of the people interpret from the Torah and not your interpretation so there is no problem. You agree with us that those who interpret the Torah differently from you are wrong and are not the majority of religious Jews
And of course you are also engaged in advocacy and as soon as you are shown that your explanations are nothing but lies, then according to your understanding of the limitations that the law places on your actions, you:
1. They start cursing and saying that there is no need to answer at all (Tchai)
2. Allowing the blood of a member of your company (Yeshi)
Kudos to you and the nonsense, lies and violence you represent.
(The words are written with pleasure, and not out of anger... and so Karam has)
Lishi:
Also (to distinguish thousands of differences!) the hatred of the gentiles for Israel is well-known and ancient, and despite this, today the State of Israel tries to engage in advocacy, to show that the lies that are treated about it are not true, and thus to show the beauty of our country's morality, which is unparalleled.
So here too, I will not refrain from trying to show Judaism as it really is, in its beauty and exclusion, and to prove the incorrectness of the claims against it, however great they may be.
If I succeed - I will succeed. If not - too bad. But it's always worth trying, and in the end the truth will come out.
(And by Thos. Pesachim, page Kig, page XNUMX, regarding the obligation to multiply in the love of Israel even when we oppose the negative aspects that it may have).
All the best,
and with much love (!),
Tzachi Winograd.
Tzachi:
got it.
You have no answer.
I suppose you would also say the same thing about the deafness that the rabbinic court in Ashkelon decided in 1966 to order her to be raped by her married brother-in-law because deafness cannot be exempted from the crazy law of Hayboom.
Yishai:
Thank you for such a successful demonstration of what your friends are trying to mask with "refined" words.
This is what I claim all the time.
Tzachi:
What to serve in the cemetery?! and TAH with the peoples of the lands.
In the tractate Pesachim, Rabbi Akiva said to his students, "Among the earth, it is permissible to snort on Yom Kippur, which began to be on Shabbat," etc.
R. A. Shem also says that when he was with the people of the land he said, "Who will give me XNUMX and bind us like a donkey?"
The hatred of the peoples of the lands for everything that originates from the Torah is well known. And they are like a pig swimming in its mud.
Lviv (respondent 155),
If you want to learn that the meaning of the Torah bomra "an eye for an eye" is simply, take out the eye, I have no problem with that, you can interpret where your heart is inclined.
The problem begins as soon as people attribute this interpretation to Judaism, which has never interpreted it that way, but its sages have always interpreted that it means: money, and that the language of the Torah - which is written in the takif only comes to indicate that the real punishment from the legal system was appropriate to be 'an eye for an eye', when he did so It will be done to him, which is completely invalid in terms of the act, which is determined by the oral Torah.
This is traditional Judaism, and to burden it with wickedness is a deception. Indeed, reading it differently is not moral, regarding which your claims are correct. 🙂
As for respondent 156,
Sorry in advance for my style of speaking, I'll try to be gentle:
A rude person will never be able to understand what is written in the Holy Scriptures, no matter how hard he tries, until he corrects his standards. Otherwise, he will interpret them as his rudeness.
It is impossible to understand the good in the instruments of evil. (And yes, rudeness is a type of evil).
Therefore, and "in order not to touch the void", I do not see the need to respond to the words of commenter No. 156, whose name I will refrain from mentioning because it is not worthy of direct reference.
Also, I will not respond to his next rude response, and the one after it, etc., even though he will surely claim that I am evading an answer. to claim
All the best and a happy holiday, may we all be able to draw from this holiday its illumination regarding Israeli poetry, this is the holiness, symbolizes the naturalness of the holiness in Israel that is expressed and emanates from them in their purity. God in their purity, and in the purity of their morals.
Tzachi Winograd (not the Bahá'í, but the Jew from Rabbi Kook's seminary 🙂 ).
Tzachi:
It turns out that it is not only necessary to understand what is read.
You need to read it first and foremost.
I quote from my 90th response:
And the act of one man who rode a horse on the Sabbath in the days of pigeons, and they brought him to court and stoned him, not because he deserved it, but because the time needed it. . And again the case of one man who slapped his wife [a husband's wife] under the fig tree, and they brought him to court and flogged him, not because he deserved it - but because the time needed it [even though the written law does not require flogging, the court required flogging so that the burglaries would not increase]!" (Yavmot Z.A.B.).
There is another type of death penalty that is given only to an individual and not to the courts, and is practiced even in our time, which is defined in the language of the Sages, "zeals hurt him". An example of this is given in the Torah when Pinchas the priest killed Zimri who slept with the Midianites and pierced their bodies with a sword and for this he received a reward from God "Brit Olam" (Bamadbar, 7; 13-XNUMX)
These are actions that were actually done and that's how it is written, therefore all the mountains of interpretations are unnecessary and misleading.
The name of the quote from Shulchan Aruch also appears:
The same applies to the permission to kill infidels and converts given to an individual, as written in the Shulchan Aruch:
"The people of Israel, and they are those who work for the worship of stars, or who commits offenses to anger, even (d) eat filth or wear clothing that causes anger; And the heretics, and they who disbelieve in Torah and prophecy from Israel, used to riot in the Land of Israel. If he had the strength to fight with a sword, with a sword, they were killed. And if not, he would come in plots until he was killed. How, one of them saw that he had fallen into the well and the ladder was in the well, first and removed it and said: I was busy getting my son off the roof and I will bring him back to you, and the like in these words (Shulchan Aruch Yorah Deah Siman Kanah Section B).
where they not only recommend the punishment but also suggest courses of action.
It was really interesting to see someone run to the court and ask if someone should get the ladder out of the pit.
Regarding segregation along strict lines, you probably believe that hitting a woman who was sitting in the section intended for men is a result of respect for women. I don't think so. In general - speaking of hatred - for some reason this hatred always (but always!) is violently expressed from the same direction (guess which one!)
Yishai:
Do you have anything to say or did you just come to whine about the site?
Eddie:
What is this nonsense about sector.
Come and make it clear to us once and for all:
1. Do you think the homosexuals demand any privilege?
2. Since the answer "no" to the previous question resounds in the head, I will immediately ask the question implied by this answer in conjunction with your words: do they intend to demand some kind of prerogative (something we may reveal to you in a PA with the Creator)?
If your answers to the above two questions are negative - perhaps you could clarify for us what a sector is?
I will demonstrate what I mean by the things I have already said and which Shachai made sure to ignore:
Do they demand an education system where they will be exempt from the core program but eligible for funding?
Do they demand an exemption from the army so that they have time to study about a bull that hit a cow (or about a gay man who raped a virgin)?
Do they require someone to finance their lives?
Please give me an example of what they are doing to become a sector.
I think what is happening is exactly the opposite.
There are all kinds of fascists who try to define them as a sector whose rights fall short of those of the rest of the people and they are simply organizing to try to free themselves from the grip of those fascists.
Chachi, I find it hard to believe that you are angering something... 🙂
It's just a shame that you don't do any missionary activity for your religion...
In my opinion, it is better for all of us if all the Jews, Christians, Muslims and the other religions that have laws like an eye for an eye, kill anyone who commits male intercourse, kill those who bring golden calves, etc. to your religion...
Do you even belong to the Bahai Islands? (Although I don't know many religions, but of all the ones I delved into, this religion seems to be the best of them all... although it has a tough battle with Buddhism)
To the Honorable Dan Shamir:
I only meant the expressions "idiot" and "fly away"...
And I assumed that my views are close to Yeshi's, because in his words he demonstrated a sympathetic attitude towards religion, in this area I am very close to him, as I mentioned that I am a religious person, studying Torah, etc.
Apart from this sacrifice, I shared with him my reservations about the way he expressed himself, even though he probably only wrote that because of the feeling of being hurt and not because he hates anyone...
And regarding your last question: the Torah in which I was brought up and which I was taught, my lords, allows me (and even obliges me) to love completely even those who do not think like me, and even those who do not think like her (perhaps it is hard to believe, but there is such a Torah! 🙂 ). And no, it is not pluralistic, not even a fanatic, but simply a commandment and makes sure that we aspire and strive to be general people, who feel a loving organic belonging to all creatures wherever they are, even if they are wrong (in our opinion) in some opinions and ideas...
Some will argue that this is an absurd and impossible statement, and will say that in my words I demonstrate hypocrisy, arrogance and above all hypocrisy.
But who but I know myself better than anyone, and know that the things are honest and true. I have no way to prove it to others.
Hope, again, I'm not making anyone angry. If I have sinned in this, I sincerely apologize!
Hoping for understanding and acceptance (despite the difficulty involved),
All the best and Happy holidays,
Tzachi Winograd.
to Jacob Or,
To your response 135:
I see no practical differences between our positions (and usually not differences in principle either) except for section 6.
I believe that the homosexual community aspires to control the media industry and is working on creating political centers of power. I believe that the community has other signs that point to being a sector in the making. I detailed my position in responses 30, 35, 40 - mainly, and the truth is that there is more to add, but the page is short.
In my opinion, your concept regarding the definition of 'sector' and 'sectoring' is too narrow and narrow insofar as it relies on a test of granting/aspiring to acquire formal legal rights only (legal rights unique to a sector are usually granted in an advanced or even final stage of the segmentation process. At this stage Preceded by stages characterized by taking over/acquiring social capital, media capital and political capital, and acquiring a unique practical status in relation to the organs and the administrative bodies). I have no doubt that when the first stages of segmentation are completed, the community in question - as other communities have done in the past and present - will also turn to the final stage of acquiring unique legal rights as a sector.
I deny the trend of segmentation regarding homosexuals, just as I deny the phenomenon in relation to other populations in the past and present - kibbutzim and moshavim, the disabled, Arabs, ultra-Orthodox, elite populations and education in 'special' schools, drug users, political elites, various capital elites, etc., etc. '. I also deny the takeover of homosexual culture and discourse on parshasia; In my opinion, at least today - and in my opinion also on a completely objective level - this is a social deviation that should not be given social and cultural prominence, not even in the media, and certainly not beyond that.
Of course, there is nothing and nothing between this denial and the recognition of individual rights, including the right to association that is not of a sectoral nature. In this context, in my opinion, the courts in the State of Israel, faithful to the liberal tradition, can be trusted to do their job in protecting the rights of individuals, including homosexuals - faithfully, as the past has well proven.
Tzachi,
What is the problem with the wording of my words?
And why are you close to Yishai's views, after all he has not expressed any opinion except dirt on people he does not know at all.
And what is this hypocrisy, you say you think like him and at the end add with great love???
Since Mr. Jonathan is an avid lover of research and surveys, and his supporter Dr. Mi fearlessly sticks only to "facts", I was not lazy, and did a little research on the series of responses (mainly Jonathan's) to the talkbackists in the discussion of the phenomenon of homosexuality. I read, of course, not only his own words, but also the words of others about him, and I saw it as a wonder: how many sticky compliments and how many flattering words he heaps on the men of his palugata, and how much outpouring of anger and guilt and impotent rage (including personal attacks ) He spits at those women who disagree with his opinions - without any factual reference to the content of the things in both cases. In light of the findings, I have no doubt, therefore, that his latent homosexuality is indeed revealed and emerges from his words. And I don't say this disparagingly, God forbid, because not only those who came out of the closet have the right to exist in my view, but no less also those who chose to stay inside it. I only feel sorry for the enormous energies he spends on his attacks, on the one hand, and his unnecessary hiding and fears on the other. And since we are dealing with facts, here are some examples, in the order of their appearance:
In No. 49, Jonathan compliments Michael for being, without a doubt, a talented and serious mathematician (the compliments stopped when he discovered that his advances were not answered...); In No. 82, Dr. Mee compliments Avi Blizovsky on the site, and in No. 97 Yonatan also addresses Avi and tells us that Dr. Mee is "one of the most eloquent and intelligent responders among them" I encountered again... (but what? And he supports all his words!!!), and in No. 119 he gives marks to Yaakov Or and "Guru Yaya are the only ones here who pose a good challenge in their arguments from the sides of homosexuality."; And in No. 121 and No. 136 he continues to praise Yaakov for his impressive rhetorical ability and salutes him "for his honesty and openness", and in No. 125 he licks Dan Shamir for his wonderful work (which is true!)... and all this while he and his friend attack the women who respond , flattered by him, with unrestrained fury and personally offending them (and not their claims, which were no more difficult than those of their male colleagues) - please see the words of Anat in No. 75, of Dr. Meler in No. 76, and the outspoken reactions of the Jonathan couple And Magino and Keren-Yeshua Dr. Me, in Nos. 78, 83 and 86. The difference is so obvious, and so clear!!! And how sorry they are for their degradation to slime, filth and maus, following such an interesting and good scientific article that was presented here before us.
Lishi:
With all due respect to your opinion, which is close to mine, it seems to me that there is no need to describe anyone as a 'whiner', not to compare him to a Nazi, and God forbid to decide on someone who is from the 'Rav Arab'.
Curses and such comparisons are not helpful for the discussion, let alone for the attitude of the other readers and writers towards you.
To the Honorable Dan Shamir:
Some of my objections are unfortunately also valid for the wording of your words... too bad...
I really hope I'm not making anyone angry, that's not my intention.
All the best, and happy holidays,
With much love 🙂
Tzachi Winograd.
Lishi the idiot
So don't pay attention and fly away from this website to websites that are not for the "leftist whiners who sell money from Dana".
Tzachi
It's a waste of your time, the people of this site are the left-wing whiners known from Dana's promotion.
They wrap their usual hatred of religion and Judaism and religious people in a scientific veil.
If it was today the Stürmer you would find them there.
They feed on their hatred of religious people throughout the ages, there have always been those who will seek to worship the golden calf. The science that will protect them from uncertainty is a shame to refer to them at all.
Good week to all debaters!
First, I will note that in this response, humor and seriousness are mixed.
Second, and with zero tactical-rhetorical wisdom on my part: in order to help the readers to formulate for themselves a position in advance towards my words, whether to Shanam or to Adam, I will confess that I am a religious person:
I am a religious person 🙂
I read the article, and all the comments on it, and in light of my impression I would like to comment as little as my poor mind could:
I will confess again, that at first I tended to read seriously, with thought and consideration, out of respect for the sages (because I rightly assumed that the commenters are intelligent people who say their words from a real meeting with the things and not from stigmas and prejudices), with a sincere desire to understand and accept the words of everyone Of the commenters here, even those whose opinion I completely differ from.
But after it has been argued and quoted here several times from the words of the 'Holy Scriptures' (or as the scholars of the discussion say: the 'Quidsh Scriptures'), in order to show the evil in Judaism, the encouragement of murder, hatred of foreigners, the humiliation of women, and the like, truly terrible things, I regret to say that There are some misunderstandings in those 'writings', which at first I thought it was impossible to mistake them like that.
I will try to refer to some of those quotes (don't take me at my word, I may refer to all of them):
It was quoted from several books, regarding the punishment of offenses related to the topic of prostitution, so the quoter wanted to say that the many references of the Gemara and Halacha books to these topics express approval and even encouragement for those topics.
My reference: The source, or even the one who is not a source, will prove that those books express -opposition- to those acts, and when they write that some act is an 'offense' - they want to say that it is a prohibited, immoral act, which is not proper and not worth doing.
Interpreting those words as encouragement, directly or indirectly, for those actions - is not a lie, not even taking things out of context, but simply a lack of understanding of the reading (and sorry, really, for the tone of disdain in my words).
It was also stated by one of the debaters that according to Judaism in many cases a single person can and is obligated to kill another person who commits a crime, even without a court ruling, and his examples: the blood redeemer's law, a priest's daughter who committed adultery, an idolater, a Sabbath breaker and an adulterer.
My comment: As a religious person, who deals with Gemara and Rishonim, I did not find his words correct. He was probably confused with another halacha, regarding the 'pursuer' law, which is a special case, which says that when you see a person chasing another to kill - if it is completely clear that this is his intention, and if it is impossible to save in another way - it is possible and even an absolute obligation to kill the pursuer. Similar to the law 'Rise up for your slaying, the wisdom to kill', but here it is about the possibility and obligation of another person's intervention in order to save the persecuted.
And regarding the redeemer of the blood, it is not ruled anywhere that there is an obligation and command to kill the murderer, but it is only a permission, and even then only after the murderer has been sentenced in a court of law(!), and after he has fled to the walled city of refuge, which then if the murderer leaves the city of refuge the blood redeemer is allowed to kill
Apart from these laws, I don't remember laws in which it is permissible to kill without a court, and even if there may be one more law that has disappeared from my memory now - I know that it is not one of those mentioned by the quoter.
One thing I am unfortunately inclined to attribute to the malice of the writer and not to his oversight, and that is because he showed his great knowledge in the book he quoted from and yet the readers overlook entire things in that book, which completely limit and refine the other things he quoted:
And he, who wrote about the murderous direction of Sages in Partem in the Sanhedrin treatise on the punishments of the transgressors.
My reference: Those who want to know about the direction of the Sages, will probably have to read all of their words, and not just the 'selected' quotes (chosen by the trend voter), because the quoter refrained from mentioning the multitude of words of the Sages regarding siding with each law to the point of merit. This is not only a good measure, but an absolute duty for every court. For example (Sanhedrin page XNUMX, page XNUMX):
"From where does a debtor come out of a court, and someone said 'I have a right to teach him', from where do they bring him back? The scripture said (Exodus XNUMX) "Clean, don't kill." And why does someone leave a righteous court, and someone said 'I have a duty to teach him', why is it that they do not bring him back? The scripture said (Exodus XNUMX) "A righteous man shall not kill." And many other places in the same tract.
We also refrain from mentioning the fact that the ability to discuss any case in court is conditional upon the receipt of previous testimony, which testimony is required to be given by people who have been proven to be faithful (as the Gemara specifies there in the entire third chapter), as evidenced by numerous and detailed investigations (as detailed there in the chapter the whole of Thursday), and when it comes to laws whose punishment is murder, then the investigation becomes much more difficult, which makes the law of 'death', and every hard law, almost impossible.
Indeed, in the Tractate 'Mekot' (page XNUMX, page XNUMX) the Gemara says:
"The Sanhedrin who kills once a week [=seven years in the language of the Sages, as explained in Rashi Pesachim XNUMX:XNUMX; Moed Ketan XNUMX:XNUMX; Sanhedrin XNUMX:XNUMX; Tosaf vows s, a; and more in many places] - is called 'fatal'.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Azaria says: One in seventy years.
Rabbi Tarpon and Rabbi Akiva say: If we were in the Sanhedrin, no one would ever be killed!"
He also quoted from the Mimra Midrash that says regarding some offenses: "Zeros hurt him". But he refrains from admitting that this is not a Halacha at all and is not an instruction of a Sage to do so, but rather it is a statement of midrashic value only, expressing -description- the reality, which comes to express that the punishment for those offenses will come naturally and no court deals with them by itself.
Another writer spoke, but this time without written sources, about the disdain for women and the hatred of the other.
My reference: As someone who knows himself better than others will say they know him - I admit and confess that I yearn and commit to love my wife with soulful love, without end, to please and give her always, out of partnership and building one home and family for the two of us together. And not because she is the 'most likely' to have children by him.
This is how I was always brought up in yeshiva by my masters, and no other way.
If, in order to preserve the value of this love, some public (known as 'Orthodox') is willing to organize separate bus lines for themselves in order to preserve their modesty and not to look at any woman other than his beloved wife - how good!
If there is someone who interprets the separation as contempt for women - I am happy to inform him that he will be happy to know that he was wrong in his interpretation.
Placing the women in the back of the bus does not stem from humiliation, but on the contrary from the respect of women that we (and you too!) believe in and desire, and because of which we do not want to fail -even once in our lifetime- and look at another woman for lust, but only to look at our wives, looking arising from true love.
I'm not saying that you can't interpret the separation in other, bad and disgusting ways. But this is simply not a correct interpretation, since we do not reflect the reason for the separation as it is in the opinion of the separatists themselves.
Hope I didn't make anyone angry.
All the best, and happy holidays!
Tzachi Winograd.
Jonathan,
After reading the nonsense you wrote ("Neoliberalism is the legal grandchild of the epidemics of the twentieth century - communism, fascism and Nazism.") I can only agree with Michael's words and especially his comment 145. It seems to me that I haven't read such stupid things in a long time and Einstein said about this: "The universe has limits, but human stupidity does not". A word of genius. And don't bother replying.
By the way - Jonathan:
If you start thinking this will be a sensational development!
Jonathan:
Come on seriously!
I said you are religious in the closet and you don't even know you are religious.
Besides - it has already been proven many times even in this discussion that you are a dishonest person and you don't even follow the laws you think should be followed.
What I said is that all your twisted "morality" is derived from religion. I didn't say that the whole religion entered your morals (because the words of the old Hillel that he said when he tried to describe the entire Torah on one foot "What is hateful to you, do not do to your friend" certainly did not enter).
What is beautiful is that you make sure to take only the bad things from religion.
To my father
Well - if you are such a great, intelligent and broad-minded scientist, please, muster all your thinking power and explain how I write on Shabbat. Otherwise I will start to think that you and Michael are from the same church.
Jonathan:
Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are.
I already told you that you are an ultra-orthodox in the closet.
It is expressed here and it is also expressed in the holy war you declared against evolution.
Now you also wrote to us exactly who your friends are - the religious and the Arabs.
I can say I rest my case because it is a full-throated admission that your entire approach to life is based on moral standards that originate in the Bible and not in man.
You just don't get anything from what you are being told.
You accept that homosexuals exist and you have no choice but to accept that they cannot change, but then you tell us that you are against the "legitimization" of the matter.
To remind those who do not know the meaning of the word "legitimacy" - it is a word derived from the same root as Legislation which means "legislation".
In other words - you are ready for the homosexuals to do whatever they want in the bedrooms but knowing it is illegal.
In other words - you create a law whose entire function is to be obeyed.
You are also against turning the matter into a "way of life".
Tell me: what exactly is the way of life you would suggest to a homosexual?
Is the word "way of life" even relevant to the topic?
Is whole body paralysis a way of life?
After all, paralysis is not something that is "the way of nature", it harms the possibilities of reproduction and it causes suffering to those afflicted with it, so according to the same logic you should protest against the way of life of a paralyzed person.
Don't you understand that this is terribly evil?!
And above all - you really transform the creator.
Rather, religion (Judaism and Islam - your friends) are the contemporary stronghold of those methods of coercion and thought police adopted by the fascist regimes. (Yes - you are also angry about atheism! In doing so, you are openly admitting that you are religious because atheism - literally - is nothing but irreligiosity).
In fact - the monotheistic religions are from the beginning the ones who invented the system and the aforementioned regimes are nothing but the churches of new religions that were founded based on the same principle.
It's not for nothing that I always say that Nazism was a religion (and see it's a miracle - Nazism also destroyed homosexuals).
If you accept the humanistic morality expressed in the sentence "Do not do unto your friend what is hateful to you" - all the other insights will come naturally - but I know you won't. The religious brainwashing has washed your mind out of your skull.
That's why I'll stop here. Many more explanations can be poured on you and they will slip out of your skull which, after being washed - has been lined from the inside with Teflon.
I wish you a full recovery but I must admit that I am not optimistic.
On the contrary - I'm afraid that your disease is contagious.
Since your illness is really a fascist thought - a situation may arise where you and your friends will eventually succeed in banning the "way of life" of a person with a brain and critical thinking and I will have no place here.
Jonathan, atheism is the best method because it does not require doing anything in the name of any god, certainly not wars. Note that atheistic science is an international enterprise and a scientist from Israel can publish a discovery and rely on it as a source for an article by an Iranian scientist. While the religions are a local thing, their whole purpose is to control the sheep from their pasture.
Religions are the disease, not atheism, and besides, how do you explain that you write on Shabbat?
It has nothing to do with the nature of the comments. The system automatically detects suspicious words, it does not yet have artificial intelligence to know whether it is for or against any opinion. Then I read and release as needed, the fact is that a lot of comments criticizing science (and even disparaging science, thanks to which the disparaging have a long life) have entered.
Spring. Hello
Your censorship policy shows that you are a petty and not so smart person who never grew up. Contrary to the false impression you are trying to present as if you are a liberal and progressive scientist.
Stupid responses full of venom, curses and slander of those who hold opinions like yours you allow with a generous hand, while polite and eloquent intelligent responses that do not reflect your opinion are automatically deleted.
It turns out that you don't have to be a great scientist to manage a website about science.
Shabbat Shalom to Jacob and everyone
I have never disputed the need to treat the gay equally and not to harm him as one should not harm any other patient. This is the line I took from the beginning and this is what I also believe. From here to the externalization of homosexuality and its becoming an accepted norm and a "way of life" the distance is long. I strongly oppose this, and I think the example I gave and the answers Jacob gave illustrate why this is my position.
Unfortunately, the same question I asked receives a quite similar answer from most of the residents of the Western world with whom I am in daily contact, and this in my view indicates a serious problem. In Israel the situation is a little different because the Eastern and Arab religions form a kind of "blocking bloc".
The problem is neoliberalism, which the lines between it and anarchism are blurring. Homosexualism (ie the externalization of homosexuality) is just one of many phenomena as part of this process.
Neoliberalism is the legal grandchild of the epidemics of the twentieth century - communism, fascism and nazism. If we look closely, the similarities between these methods are striking:
Taking control of the media and using them wisely in order to change public opinion
Intolerance and openness to other opinions
Taking methods of intimidation, defamation and boycott
Lack of real ability to conduct an intelligent debate
Totalitarianism - going all the way (the debate with Jacob illustrates this)
Self-censorship and gagging
atheism
A global economic boom that came with the spread of the phenomenon
Unshakable certainty that they are in the vanguard of science, ethics, technology and progress
At the head of the phenomenon is a superficial and hollow man who rose from the streets and who excelled in his language and his impressive appearance (today, of course, Barack Obama)
Apparently the human race has an uncontrollable urge to self-destruct, and every few years a new trend comes along that delivers the goods.
Neoliberalism is a malignant disease just like communism and Nazism. When an organism is infected with a disease, it has three options:
1. Fight it and eliminate it
2. Let the disease take over him and turn into a zombie - living dead
3. To die
Jonathan,
The dilemma you raise is a theoretical extreme case - but requires an answer from which you cannot learn about the general, at most about myself. It is also possible to treat it regardless of its immediate cause (homosexuality of the two sons and their desire to have a relationship between them) and throw the same dilemma at other extreme cases as well (for example, what would you do if your wife wanted to marry her sister or sister-in-law and have a common child with her...) and end talk But since you asked, I will answer - in that case I would look into whether I even have the possibility to bring them under my roof and support them. Basically, I reject the idea that requires a person to sacrifice himself at any cost for the happiness of others. In my opinion, it is not moral to enslave one person's life for the satisfaction of another person's happiness. The demand to sacrifice your happiness and your life for the happiness of the other person, even if he is your son, is immoral and therefore unacceptable. Every demand has a price tag and limits must also be set for the price a person is required to pay for another person's happiness. I therefore assume that if the personal price I had to pay for these two boys was so high - I would refuse to accept them in my home, and they would have to pay the price of their choice or find another company that would be more tolerant of their lifestyle. Another situation is if I were a wealthy man who could afford to help his sons without having to share my house with them. In that case I would help them financially and nothing else. And let them live their lives according to their understanding.
With that, Jonathan, I think we've exhausted the issue. It seems to me that the need for a personal example diverts the discussion from the main point: what should be our relationship to the gay in a proper human society? Examining extreme borderline cases can be interesting, but it does not exempt us (and you) from a clear decision: is there room for tolerance towards the other among us? What is the extent of this tolerance? And what is the real price? I am not afraid of the results that scare you. I choose to be generous to the end of my power towards the other, but as mentioned not at the cost of sacrificing my life.
To Jacob
First of all, I salute you for your honesty and openness, even though your answer was expected. However, allow me to refine the dilemma and ask the following question: Will you also go one step further to actively assist and support your sons in their desire to live together and raise a child?
For example, if they will be threatened and ostracized by society, which most likely will not look favorably, and no one will want to rent them an apartment to live in, would you agree to accept your sons under your roof and live with them in this situation while they have sex with each other and raise a baby?
Jonathan and Eddie,
My answer to your response 121, Yonatan, (and thanks for the compliments) is this: although the example you gave is extremely extreme (I have never heard of two gay brothers falling in love with each other and wanting to get married and adopt a baby), but let's assume for the sake of it that it happened to me. what will I do? I suppose that because of the extremity of the case I would try to dissuade them from their intention, but if I failed - I would complete and wish them happiness and success. why? Because I do not perceive my sons as my property and I do not think that there must be unanimity between us even on the most basic things, with all the sorrow involved. Mature people, even if they are my sons, are allowed to live their lives in their own way - whatever their way is - provided they do not harm others, of course. There are many other cases (and this is not the place to detail them) where I would go to "world war" with my son, but this is not this case.
How will I react to this from a practical and emotional point of view? I'll admit, I wouldn't have prayed for this to happen to me, but after the emotional storm I would make up and move on. As mentioned, my sons are not my property and their lives are not mine and with all the importance of the biological connection between us - they will do with their lives what they understand (and they will also pay a price for it - if there is such a price)
And for response 135, yours, Eddie.
You asked very important questions of principle, each answer to which requires a study day, but I will answer you briefly:
1. I am not an unbeliever in principle in the existence of the "common good" - but I am very suspicious of it and strive to reduce to the minimum possible its interference with the good of the individual.
2. Stability and social cohesion is a type of common good, so my answer is similar to answer 1.
3. The answer is yes. But a normative value framework must be formed with the consent of its partners. There is a place for agreements that are not fixed by law, but social agreement in its broadest sense must be accepted in a climate of true freedom and respect for individual rights and of course includes a long list of rights and obligations that people are willing to accept and give.
4. No, the discourse of rights is not the only element of a democratic society. The discourse of rights is connected to the discourse of duties as an embryo to its mother. Because there is no freedom without responsibility. I am very suspicious of anarchists without limits and believe that the history of culture is the history of the reservations that man imposed on himself out of an understanding of his own good.
5. If you mean the State of Israel - in my view of its special data - it cannot yet adopt the civilian supranational model, which I greatly appreciate in Western countries. Unfortunately we are not there yet. Yes, I am very concerned about the microcracy that has developed in the State of Israel and see it as a long-term danger.
6. I do not see any danger of the formation of a homosexual sector. Simply because it is not about granting special rights to gays, such as the special rights that the state unfortunately grants to the ultra-orthodox sector. Whoever opposes a privileged sector - I support him. I oppose inequality before the law.
7. Regarding multiculturalism. I would support it in principle on the condition that those who oppose it do not take over. Unfortunately, multiculturalism is used by subversive elements who strive to take control of it and tattoo it. That's why I oppose multiculturalism as it is realized for example in Europe. It is clear to everyone that the slogan of multiculturalism is not enough to successfully maintain a multicultural society.
Jacob Or,
For your response 120:
It seems to me that we all agree on the necessity of granting rights except to homosexuals. The debate can take place from now on about the questions that arise beyond the threshold of the homosexual individual's motherhood.
In this context, I would like to ask you a few questions:
1. Do you disbelieve in the existence of the 'common good' in principle?
2. Don't you think that society needs a minimum degree of stability and cohesion?
3. Don't you think that a society needs a normative value 'reference framework' with defined contents beyond the constitutional legal system?
4. Are the 'rights discourse' and 'individual rights' the sole component of the democratic system - is there no place for the discourse of duties and legitimate interests of society as a society?
5. Does an increasingly fragmented society have a future in the long term, in particular a society whose geopolitical situation is precarious?
6. In your opinion, is it correct to allow a situation in which (also) homosexuals will become a sector? Haven't we crossed the line, and we must not continue in this direction - both with regard to homosexuals and with regard to any group that claims sectional rights in the name of multiculturalism or in the name of some difference in certain lifestyles?
News related to the topic:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/914-how-to-say-it.html
Dan Shamir:
You're right.
Let's stop putting effort into it.
Although I think that, unlike homosexuality, homophobia actually has a treatment, but this treatment is conditional on the patient's ability to understand logical arguments or at least his awareness of his illness, and it does not seem that Jonathan has any of these.
I am indeed a painter and sculptor and thank you for the compliments and for our matter,
Jonathan,
Indeed the signature indicates his pulp, but what does it have to do with it, what happened? offended? While Yakov Or asked you about a legitimate situation that many families encounter, you chose to answer a question into which you probably inadvertently poured all your fears into a completely delusional situation and you just forgot to add that the child that the gay couple/brothers/married couple are interested in adopting happens to be the son of their younger brother who was raped and murdered .
In short, homosexuality for you is linked to incest, family destruction and social chaos,
That means it all.
Machal, it's a shame for every other word you invest in Jonathan's direction, you voted for the homophobe to see what he wants in the polls, you demanded and you got it.
By the way - of course attributing malice to the survey editors, while basing, among other things, on unfounded claims about hidden data is also libel.
I assume that none of the people involved (including the US government) will bother about you, you wretched fish.
Jonathan:
I use the word liar when I am convinced that someone is lying (ie - knowingly says something that he knows is not true or at least does not know if it is true or not).
You lie wholesale and that's why you get this nickname many times.
The "problems" that you pointed out in the polls are merely expressions of problems in your brain and even you should have understood this after I explained the matter to you.
Even in the misrepresentation you added in your last comment, you are lying because these things are well clarified in all these studies and you can see the numbers of those who had a one-time experience compared to those who have it as their permanent way of life. Do you base your responses on the assumption that people will not read what is written and believe your lies?
A-propo threats: you and hiders like you are really breaking the law in many of your responses - including the responses to Dr. Meler which are nothing more than libel.
It is not always possible to sue a person for defamation. When he hides behind the veil of anonymity, it is impossible, but beyond that - in order to claim compensation for defamation, it is necessary to prove that the victim suffered financial damage, and since your claim that Dr. Meller made a career out of the matter, there is no truth, your lies did not cause her any financial damage.
to Michael
You use the word liar, wholesale, and this phenomenon also points to a cognitive problem and a flaw in the thinking processes, even if, I hope it does not amount to a real paranoid tendency. Not everyone who you think is wrong, whether they really are wrong or you just imagine they are wrong, necessarily does so with malicious intent.
Further to the problems I have already pointed out in the surveys you brought, there is another problem arising from the mixing in the surveys between homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals and the attempt to present them as one.
There are many men and women who have had a one-time, or short, full or partial sexual relationship with a member of the same sex, and some define themselves, either by mistake or out of a desire to look cool and in accordance with fashion, as "bisexuals", when this is not the case. I suspect that most of the bias in the polls stems from this mixing, either done maliciously by those who have an interest in the matter or done out of ignorance.
Although it does not belong to the discussion, I wanted to point out that Jonathan does not limit his lies to the topics of the discussion.
This practice of his is also expressed in his false statements regarding Tsofia Meler (and you don't need to know this specific case - which is no different from others - to know that the one who cuts off contact with the rest of the family is always - but always - the anxious party) and also in his idle threats against my father - as if he had a past some when he pointed out the connection between the two predictions of the same person whose real name is unknown.
Jonathan:
There is nothing "scientific" that needs to be done in the census other than counting the people.
In all the studies - the number is biased downwards because there are many who do not identify. Your claim that there are many who present themselves as gay when they are not is idiotic to say the least.
In some studies, the differences between men and women were examined in this matter and it was found that the percentage among men is greater, so the bias created by the mixing is a downward bias in the subject that interests you (by the way - why do you separate men and women in this matter? Do you also have a "moral" reason for this, or do you Is this also due to being a "closet ultra-orthodox"?
The quality of all these studies is tens of times higher than the quality of the "research" you suggest us to base it on.
To Dan Shamir
I understand from Eddie that you are the painter Dan Shamir?
If this is true, then your creation is truly marvelous.
And to your question - the seal does not indicate its pulp.
Dan Shamir,
I wish you as good health as possible and the continuation of your wonderful work.
To her audience,
I'm sorry for my gross mistakes and I'm glad you corrected me, forgiveness is with you
And on a somewhat humorous note: this is the first time that I am happy that things I thought I knew for sure turned out to be ultra-Orthodox nonsense and lies.
to Jonathan,
"Let's say you found out that your two fully grown sons are gay. They live together for many years, are deeply in love (with each other) and of course have sex,
They also want to start a family unit, get married and adopt a baby"
Tell me, are you all right?
Laddie,
In answer to your question, I suffer from narcolepsy to a severe degree and it took me many years to adapt to myself a happy lifestyle in which I manage to live in peace with my problem and children have no place in it.
Lamich.. Hello
תגובה 111
I read all the articles. The problems with them are varied:
1. These are not scientific studies but surveys and quotes from surveys.
2. The differences in the percentages that are stated regarding homosexuals in the articles themselves and between them range from 3 to 13%, which in itself is a figure that arouses wonder and mistrust. These are statistically abysmal differences that characterize the survey results.
3. The surveys always ask about gays, lesbians and bisexuals, and include them in the final results in the same category. The problem is that a large part of the population mistakenly thinks that a bisexual is straight, and this mistake alone can explain most of the percentages in the result.
4. There is no data regarding the way surveys are conducted.
5. In these polls, many straight people answer that they are homosexuals, whether out of a desire to help gays, whether out of amusement, or just impatience and contempt for the pollsters. It is not clear what measures were taken to prevent this.
6. Regarding what is said on the website of the American Psychological Association. Psychology is an unclear and sufficiently consolidated science and it is gradually giving way to psychiatry. The psychological doctrines change frequently and usually according to trends prevailing in the public and also among the psychologists themselves there are substantial disputes that go down to the root of this science.
Yaakov Or
Your rhetorical ability is impressive, and I say this not sarcastically.
I wouldn't be surprised if you are successfully engaged in lecturing and writing books.
The problem is that you take the opinions that others hold and exaggerate them greatly while attributing to opinions that he does not hold at all, and while deviating from the debate itself.
Therefore, I will therefore try to be short and focused.
Following your request, try to imagine a situation where my son is gay.
Let's say you find out that your two fully grown sons are gay. They live together for many years, are deeply in love (with each other) and of course have sex,
They also want to start a family unit, get married and adopt a baby.
How will you react to this practically and emotionally?
Would you still believe that the will of the individual and his self-fulfillment are at the top of the list of priorities?
Jonathan,
When I support the rights of homosexuals, I don't do it for egotistical reasons and "to hell with society". Protecting a person's natural right to live his life is protecting society as a whole and not just the individual himself. Any denial of an "egoistic" natural right of one person is an injury to society as a whole, because if there is no protection for one person - in any case the entire society (which is known to consist of individuals) - is exposed to the same injury as the individual person. An excellent example of this is the argument of the "common good" - in most cases the argument of the common good - is intended to deny the individual any freedom of action on the grounds that this freedom harms the many ("the rule") - the problem is who determines what the common good is and who has the authority to impose punishments. In the case of homosexuality, Western society has determined that it does not conflict with the common good and is therefore permitted. People who deny the permission to be a declared and free homosexual are usually people who also deny the principle of individual rights (those of which do not match their view) in the name of a higher wisdom whose sources are usually extra-human. These are dangerous people. Because they rely on a non-human source (that is, non-human) and hence the road to hell is short and guaranteed. I am currently reading a book that has just been released that describes the guiding principle of the Kim Il Sung dynasty in North Korea. The book is called THE CLEANEST RACE by BRMYERS It turns out that the most totalitarian state in history is guided by a "philosophy" of absolute ideological purity imposed by unlimited means by the absolute rule of the royal family. By the way, even in North Korean sources the divine origin of the dynasty of Kim Il Sung and his sons is mentioned as a supernatural phenomenon. What does all this have to do with our discussion? very simple. The pursuit of social purity pollutes - literally - any clarity of thought. Purity of one kind or another (sexual purity, moral purity, or any purity you choose) - is of course intended to protect society from the destructive forces hiding everywhere, but there is only one legitimate standard for denying a private right: and it is the free and coercive consent of the majority of society to deny a right any - in a reformed society such a denial can only be accepted by a democratic legislature and by the opinion of a court independent of the government. By the way, unhappy decisions can also be made in these institutions, but these are the only legitimate decisions, which in our public lives we all know and rage with anger, but accept. Of course, the right of homophobes to fear homosexuality should not be denied. Everyone has the right to be afraid of what they want. The desire to deny the rights of another in the name of the common good is ancient and will probably never disappear. I hope that every homophobe will have a gay son - only then there is probably a chance that he will get over his fears. Sometimes the cure for those suffering from a fear of heights is actually to stand on the edge of an abyss and look at it with open eyes. But not everyone has courage. It takes courage to let go of fear. I think we all know the cowards in us.
Welcome Rabbi "Motti" (or Rabbi Zalman, or the Admor Yankel-Dodel. What does it matter?)!!! - A "new" star for old singers. Another nickname for those people, who believe that if they add a name, title and nickname to themselves, as Avi Blizovsky also said before me, they will add to their number in our eyes. It won't do you any good, you poor, wretched pretender. You didn't pay attention to it because Purim had already passed, and the era of costumes had also passed its time. Passover is now, the holiday of our freedom, and a holiday for every free person, ready to come out of darkness into great light. From the darkness of the Middle Ages to progress and enlightenment.
Barked, dogs barked. The caravan will continue to pass over your nose and your anger!!! Keep spewing your bitterness everywhere, no one is listening to you anyway. And as for me - as far as I'm concerned, from now on you don't have an answer either. Much more important tasks, than wasting my precious time in futile arguments with arrogant ignoramuses, still await me in life. Hello and goodbye!
Zofia Meller:
How much hatred and slander and desire for revenge your words preach.
It is impossible not to feel this feeling in your every sentence.
And who are you hurting if not only yourself?
You could follow the path of rapprochement through dialogue out of respect for the other person and it doesn't matter who they are.
And you followed vile ways out of revenge and emotional hurt. They hurt you or I'm so stupid.
To Dr. Mee and Jonathan
None of the sentences I wrote in my first words (76) were intended and do not refer to a specific person, certainly not to someone I do not know at all, therefore anyone who treats my words as if they were directed at him personally, is of course wrong about my intentions, but he probably had a very good reason to react with such emotional intensity , or as the saying goes: "On the thief's head the tail burns".
The first person to be offended here personally is, of course, Yonatan (78), and he also had a very good reason for that: whoever reads Dan Shamir's words about the book "Soul Hunters" that I wrote with Ishi (101) - will understand very well the source of the rage and slander directed at us by the "Poor Tim, from whose mouth Balaam was taken out thanks to us... And to you Dan Shamir - the thanks and the blessing. We have heard similar things to yours from many other people, as well as from those who read our second book on the same subject: "Demons Emerging from Darkness" which was also published, two years after its predecessor, by the same reputable publishing house! (And by the way, Dan, my ultra-Orthodox son has not passed away. I hope he will continue to live in good health until he is one hundred and twenty. This is a false rumor, the truth of which is the truth of most of the gossipy false rumors that the ultra-Orthodox society spreads about us).
The link I created between homophobia and misogyny (=misogyny) proved itself in Dr. Mee's letter: his agitated and aggressive appeal is directed - of all those who argue against him - precisely to the two women who "dared" to raise a voice against his views and beliefs: "I have no intention of leaving the Yonatan is here alone on guard against the waves of the pits
And the descent into personal lines... So a few words to Mrs. Anat and Dr. Zofia: (83) It is only against women that he dares to use the well-worn images, which are accepted in the ultra-orthodox media world, against their ideological opponents, such as the parallel to the KGB, or neo-speak and neo-fascism, and not against One of the men he fights with. After all, misogyny has proven itself in the files of religious laws and contemporary customs that have been sanctified by the ultra-orthodox sector (and I have already mentioned the Mahadrin buses, and the exclusion of women from all legal and public status) and this is not the place to bring them up again as proof, but these two - Jonathan and Dr. Mee - proved To us, in their words, this is also the opinion of individual chauvinists in that sector, and not only of their Quidesh writers. Only towards women does this primitive (96) allow himself to use condescending expressions such as: "insolence", "preaching in a froth", "insolence", "shamelessness (=pride)", and other "pearls of tongue" that only arrogant males allow themselves use them towards women. And so why? Why didn't they dare to defend the right of people like them, even though they have a different sexual orientation than theirs (or maybe not, as I already claimed in my previous words?!) to be considered as human beings deserving of a life of dignity and human rights as human beings. For daring to argue about homophobia as a phenomenon that deserved to cease to exist in a civilized human society. Indeed, this will be called impudence! This is a blasphemy in their mouths!
The claim that they are the majority is ridiculous and ridiculous! "Trouble and fight us the majority..." (83). Since when is culture measured in quantities? Since when do truth and values stand the tests of statistics? Wasn't Abraham alone in front of millions of idolaters? Are the Jews today more numerous than the Hindus, the Muslims, the Christians and all the others? What kind of argument is that? If I were you, I would be shamed and called "Dr. Who" - indeed, shame and all of you both on the level of your "logical" arguments, both on the shallow scale of values, on the internal contradictions, and on who and what you chose to associate with them. Whether you are religious or not - that in itself interests me like the skin of garlic, just as it doesn't matter to me if you, personally, are a latent homosexual, or a mentally ill homophobe. One thing is clear to me now from all of your words - there is no doubt that you are a misanthrope (=man hater), and what you have learned is a burden on all human beings, is undoubtedly true of you: "He is a holocaust survivor, and one of the things I learned from him is that everyone is a jerk" (86).
Dan Shamir,
To your response 112:
I would add that 'the good of society' is also the good of society as a whole, that is, as a society.
Individual rights, within the framework of the 'discourse of rights' in a democratic society, are extremely important and essential. But also inclusive social interests, such as stability, cohesion and a normative value 'framework of reference' are extremely important to society, and ultimately to the individual, including within the 'discourse of obligations'. In this context, I emphasized my opposition to the segmentation, and my position that homosexuals deserve all the rights as individuals, but zero rights as a segment - certainly in everything related to the occupation of politics and public publicity or politics or the suppression of the relevant administrative institutions (see my responses 30, 35, 40 above).
In your response you also state that you have decided not to have children. I'm curious to know why a person like you comes to such a decision (even though you disclosed the issue, of course you don't have to answer my question if you find it inappropriate or convenient, in which case I apologize in advance for the very question).
Machel,
Unfortunately (emphasis added), you are right.
Jonathan,
I return to Dr. Chen's question about 70 comments back and think about it well,
What are they really bothering you about? We are not stupid people nor are we naive and we certainly do not believe that what motivates you to write comments full of hate and fear towards people who have done nothing to you is "the good of society".
By the way, Dan Shamir:
Note that Jonathan continued to ramble on about "the good of society as a whole" after seeing this link.
It is interesting to note another thing, and that is that Jonathan calls good questions and a "real challenge" only those for which he finds an acceptable answer.
Dan Shamir:
Should they shut up?
If these were sane people, this discussion would have ended a long time ago and on second thought - it would not have started at all.
I don't think there is any real data that will shut up the false claims of Jonathan and his ilk.
to Jonathan,
"The good of society"
The good of society is first of all individual freedom and equality for all, because otherwise we would not deny all rights to barren women, or people who by decision do not want to have children (like me for example) old people who according to your narrow view are probably nothing except a social burden and the list is endless.
We were already there but on the slaughtered side.
Jonathan:
Are you ready to refer to the studies? OK.
There are a lot of studies that you don't have access to (because they are in scientific journals or in books that need to be purchased) but I have looked for some links available on the Internet for you. Just so you can explain to us what's wrong with their data.
Tell me what is wrong with the research on Kibbutz Britannia:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/oct/26/relationships
And what do you think about this figure:
http://www.advocate.com/article.aspx?id=41389
Here it is about 4% of the American voters who came out of the closet.
And how about this here:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx
On page 12, it says that out of 5.5 million unmarried couples that were tested, 1 in 9 was a same-sex couple?
And how about that?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080417160636AAw91WY
Yaakov Or
The truth is that you and Guru Yaya are the only ones here who pose a decent challenge to their arguments from the sides of homosexuality.
Your suggestion - to conduct an exercise, etc. does not seem to me because the personal egoistic issue is not on the agenda, but the good of society as a whole. This argument reminds me of the arguments of those in favor of releasing a ruler "at any cost".
This is the root of the problem here, that everyone thinks only of their own good and everyone else will go to hell.
Machel,
great link,
It is supposed to shut up the homophobes among us but unlike homosexuality which is not contagious, fear is very contagious.
to Jonathan Impersonating through splitting in order to mislead the public is against the site's regulations. Whatever it may not help you, the truth does not depend on the number of believers, as Michael wrote on another occasion - that 350 years ago only one person believed that the earth revolves around the sun. It is true that the opponents of science have more power, because there are more fools than smart ones, but that does not help them to be right.
to Jonathan,
As far as I know, the son of Dr. Meller who repented is no longer among the living (if I'm wrong, I'd be happy to be corrected) and therefore no matter what your opinions are, your comment #97 went far, far beyond the realm of good taste.
Yonatan and Dr. Mee
You drifted into gossip and silly bickering and deviated from the topic. I remind you: the topic is homosexuality - a disease or a natural phenomenon. (By the way, illness is also a natural phenomenon under circumstances that allow it). Try to imagine a case where one of your children reveals to you that he is attracted to a boy/girl of the same sex - what would you do? If you send him to a physical doctor or a psychiatrist (assuming you think the child is sick) - you already know the result: he will remain "sick" and no doctor will help either him or you. If you pressure him to stay underground and not tell anyone - you are condemning him to a life of frustration and anger (and probably, you will also lose him later on) - in both cases - denial on your part of his sexual attraction - will not solve anything and you will be faced with a choice: a. Put up with the tendency of the offspring and love him like your straight son/daughter. B. Be true to yourselves and see your son as an agent of the destruction of human society who deserves all condemnation, and therefore a complete boycott on your part. There are of course other possibilities, one of which is that over time you will discover that your mistake and your precious son is not dangerous and does not endanger anyone and you will conclude that your previous thinking was shallow and egoistic as well as stupid - and you will start a new life with a feeling of happiness that you have not only received your son/daughter back but also yourself - wiser and wiser.
I suggest all homophobes do this exercise. If they do it honestly and seriously they may be surprised by the change in their attitude. But that takes courage and will.
come on!
So now you didn't say at all what you've been saying over and over since comment 29?
You refuse to refer to the studies and demand that I do statistics on a kibbutz or your unit and nothing else with the data you managed to discover even though your very presence in the environment creates a distortion.
You're just a liar.
Just something I found that may be of interest to those who claim that the display of expressions of affection between homosexuals may harm children:
This is the link
Lm.
Your comment number 3 reveals another problem in the area of drawing logical conclusions. (I assume that this is not an attempt by an institute to distort my words). I never said that I "refuse to look at serious studies" as you put it. I don't intend to explain to you how to draw a correct logical conclusion from my response, then I won't help you but I might just embarrass you, something I'm not interested in of course.
You must make an effort, do your homework, read my response carefully and explain to us the source of your logical error.
And of course you did not point to a contradiction or logical fallacy in any study, if only for the reason that you refused to refer to the studies at all.
You remind me of the fisherman who comes to the conclusion that there are no fish in the sea that are smaller than the profits in his fishing net.
"The deviant" "the sick" and this is coming from people who complain about the right of the homosexual community to fight for their status in the community.
to Jonathan and his ilk,
I hope that we agree on at least one thing, and that is that in the State of Israel it is forbidden to judge or discriminate, divert or behave violently towards people just because of their stock inclinations.
To her audience,
It is true that this is not the stage, and yet I would like to thank you and your husband for your training book, "Soul Hunters", I have already met quite a few people that this book captured from the Pan-Tales.
And by the way - it really doesn't matter how many times you lie to me about the percentage of homosexuals in our world.
If there is a study that I am sure is biased, it is your study.
Except that the percentage of homosexuals is really not important to the subject of the real debate here.
Jonathan:
1. Your battalion also had a selection.
2. I'm sure that no one around you dared to reveal their sexual orientation.
3. If you refuse to look at the serious studies - you have no source of information left and you really must behave in a non-serious manner as you do. Of course you only do this up to a certain limit and yet - when you need to, for example, be cured of some disease - you will prefer a medicine that has been tested in research over a medicine that has not been tested (at least I hope so, for your benefit). That's why you're also a hypocrite.
To Michael
I don't think words like moron or crazy add to the level of argument.
In my battalion, there were hundreds of soldiers and as far as I know, not a single gay doctor. And I can assure you that if there was one I would know about it.
As a matter of fact. Unfortunately, in contrast to the distant past, today there is an inflation of "scientific" research and also an inflation of self-interested bodies involved in scientific research, this has positive but also negative sides. Every scientific study should be accepted with "respect and suspicion" when you read about scientific research, first of all you should find out:
Who carried out the research, what was his education, where was the research carried out, who financed the research, who is behind the research, who participated in the research, the population of the subjects, what were the questions asked and many more questions of this type. And this is doubly true when on the face of things, and with a relatively simple examination, the research results do not seem logical. Another rule you must remember is that in order to contradict a scientific study, it is not necessary to bring a contradictory scientific study, it is enough to point out an inconsistency or a contradiction or a logical fallacy, and that is what I did. I repeat and tell you that the percentage of gays in our world is less than half a percent.
A fruitful and educated evening
To my father
First, in my opinion, you did a pretty vile act, when you revealed that Dr. Mee (one of the more eloquent and intelligent commenters I've ever come across and certainly on this site) tried to post comments under different identities. This is not the first time you misuse your authority to harm surfers who do not align with the line you are trying to promote. I didn't see that you did the same thing to those and there are many of those who supported the agendas you are trying to promote.
On a side note only: just so you know that this act is apparently and apparently considered a criminal offense and a civil offense (Privacy Protection Law - Databases). I'm sure that Dr. Mee, in all his nobility, is not about to sue you or file a complaint, but you should take this into consideration, at least if you do something like this, don't leave such rude traces.
From here to Dr. Meller's case.
All of her responses were on a personal basis, and it can be said that there is nothing in them other than an irrelevant hysterical rambling on a personal basis, what's more, she has no idea who I am and everything she does is based on childish speculation.
On the other hand, my comment, which although it concerns her personally, is very relevant to the discussion. What audacity does such a woman have, who turned her back on her eldest son, and started a war of shame, just because he adopted opinions different from hers, to preach from this stage to the people of Israel in an overflow of foam about the love of others and the understanding of the sick and deviant other. What's more, it's not about revealing details of the individual's hypocrisy because the lady never kept the matter a secret but even made a career out of it.
In my opinion, this is another symptom of the arrogance, lack of shame (=pride) and a lot of bravado that has pervaded Israeli society in recent years.
Yonatan the rascal:
After all, it all started when you refused to accept scientific research data as confirmation and asked me to invent some nonsense for you instead.
I'm not a kibbutznik and it was easy for me to talk about a unit that is indeed a unit of relatively smart people, but even there not everyone is smart and the main admission requirement is a security classification.
If you think that high intelligence or a high security clearance are indicators of homosexuality then you are just an idiot.
Anyway - I remind you that it all started with you not being ready to accept serious studies and you stand by your right to accept non-serious studies.
You still haven't pointed out any logical flaw in my reasoning and yet you repeat this nonsense like a mantra.
In my opinion you are crazy but that does not detract from you as a person in my eyes.
Michael Shalom
A military unit of a certain type, which accepts into its ranks people of one type or another, cannot constitute a statistical sample for any scientific research because from the beginning it is a specially sorted population. On the other hand, a kibbutz or a small village, a kindergarten and an elementary and high school, can also because the level of selection in admission to a kibbutz or village or kindergarten and school is not that high. This rule is a well-known scientific rule which has its roots in simple logic. The fact that a talented mathematician fails to understand such a basic point is a bit amusing, but in my eyes does not detract from you as a human being. I know many people who are talented and experts in a certain field, but it turns out that in nature and in the human brain in particular, there are no free meals and one advantage comes at the expense of another. It was just desirable that you be a little modest. This is just one anecdote from an endless line of logical inconsistencies in your arguments.
It was also desirable as much as possible to avoid enlisting Hitler in any argument.
"Dr" who:
It's nice that you're starting to read my words because they were ones that warrant a (logical - not like yours) reference all along.
You are indeed unconsciously religious and it really doesn't matter to me if you call this claim delusional.
Your current response also testifies to this as a thousand witnesses.
You insist on confusing natural (which won't help no matter how much you try to twist it - it's a phrase intended to describe phenomena that nature has created) and "proper".
In fact, it seems to me that among the first to adopt this approach were the Nazis who decided that because the strong in nature survives, the law "every Dalim is a man" is appropriate. The successors of the Nazis in this matter are all kinds of delusional postmodernists who try to cleanse us of toxins.
So you have good teachers.
Well - for your information - there is a difference between "natural" and "proper" and in fact - there is almost no connection between the terms and any artificial connection that someone tries to create - either it expresses a misunderstanding or it is intended to cause a misunderstanding.
Even the fact that it is natural to procreate does not define procreation as appropriate.
I am not claiming that it is not worthy - I am only saying that its not being natural defines it as worthy.
I explained in one of the comments that you didn't bother to read that in my opinion - lexically - not value-wise - homosexuality deserves to be called a "disease" - because it harms reproduction (in a framed and really unimportant article I will point out - just to allow you to understand those around you - that I do not suffer from or enjoy this disease and any Your attempts to stick it to me by repeating the phrase "your disease" is demagoguery that cannot affect sane people for whom diseases and values are unrelated things - again - as I explained in those comments you bothered not to read).
But among us - rape actually promotes procreation and so does bigamy, so do we therefore define these acts as moral?
Therefore - again - what is important is almost exclusively that wonderful law "Do not do to your friend what is hated against you".
The Tower of Babel thing as an example is another terrible confusion.
Notice what the story is told there:
God understood that if humans cooperated they would be like him and therefore - (just like Pharaoh who feared the betrayal of the Jews during war and brought medicine to Mecca) - he made sure (by creating many languages) that they could not cooperate.
It is important to note two things:
1. This is not a story that happened in reality and drawing conclusions about reality from it is similar to drawing conclusions from Harry Potter. This is not a lesson that our forefathers learned the hard way, but a boring trick that was invented by the inventors of religion to keep people in their ignorance (and you believe that this really happened and still claim that you are not religious).
2. The imaginary being that the religious (and you) raise to the highest level of morality is a jealous and cowardly being that tries to maintain its position by the divide and rule method and with a tremendous effort to prevent man from knowing and understanding what surrounds him (this is also well illustrated in the story of the tree of knowledge).
I repeat and recommend that you examine the degree of your intellectual honesty when you stand by Yonatan's side and describe his "reasons" as logical things (it really makes sense not to rely on any survey conducted in a scientific manner and also to reject the statistics of a military unit that I know and to come back and demand non-serious statistics that would actually be about a kibbutz. It is clear that this is simply an avoidance of admitting the facts and it is clear that if I had given a kibbutz as an example he would have dismissed this example as well and insisted that it be a kibbutz of Hashomer Hatzair or a kibbutz in Rosh Hararet. It is also clear that they accused me of being "innocent of logic" without being able to point to A rule of logic that I passed over or a rule of logic at all is not a logical argument. And what about his personal attack on Dr. (really) Meler?)
The absence of intellectual honesty is another religious characteristic.
To Mr. Michael Rothschild:
It's nice to see you using arguments that can be dealt with rationally as shown in your last response (regarding the ones that remain delusional, such as the fact of my being ultra-Orthodox without being aware of it... being "something" and not being aware of it belongs to the world of content you come from, and it really cannot be addressed).
The concept "not according to the way of nature" may really confuse those whose part is confusion of identities as a central axis of existence.
There is no doubt (no...there is) that the "act of love" in the animal sense is intended for the reproduction of the animals, and therefore the proper form of this act is between a male and a female (I feel a little ridiculous to explain this, but you know, maybe that is not clear either). The connection between love and this act is man-made, and here too there is a lot of room for conceptual bragging as we have seen with you and your ilk.
We often use the term "natural" as a substitute for "the proper act" or "the right act", and I can understand how you and the author of the article get confused (natural can be defined as anything we see evidence of in nature, but this definition deviates from the original intention and actually interprets natural as "natural" a realistic phenomenon" at most).
An interesting claim that you raised is that in essence man strives to "go against nature"... and in many ways there is truth in these things.
It was for people like you that our ancestors wrote the story of the Tower of Babel and warned that even if we speed up spontaneous evolution and bend laws to control the environment... we should not be arrogant and think that we are above nature - we are capable, we are powerful... but still not everything is allowed and appropriate (and in fact This is where the essence of the dispute is buried, not whether homosexuality exists or whether it should or should be addressed... this is an issue that belongs to the individual and is not in dispute, even though you drag us there).
No wonder, in my opinion, that part of the representation of the phenomenon is called "pride" and implies arrogance and pretension to decide what is right and wrong regardless of the basic essence of nature and its basic laws, while ignoring the wisdom of the past and the messages that our ancestors passed on to us... their experience and wisdom is null and void in the face of the current generation that "knows everything" .
People like you who are full of contempt for "primitives from thousands of years ago" decide to relearn the lessons our ancestors learned, in the most difficult and destructive way.
As a dangerous subversive message, connected to the general ideology that surrounds the public
The threat of your disease and flooding the media - I find that this message connects very well with all the other problematic values that you for some reason insist on representing.
This is not enlightenment, this is the ignorance and arrogance of those who know very little about the true nature of the world, I fear that this attitude will drag us all into difficult places
and problematic - among other things to the destruction of the Judeo-Christian western culture, and relegating the world in which our children will live to the level of the third world, because of a lack of public courage not to let you go on a rampage unrestrained on every public stage and preach to all of us, with unimaginable audacity, to change the most basic definitions of human culture, Just to make you "more comfortable".
Be humble, practice accepting reality as it is, it's worthwhile.
"Dr" who:
Finally we can understand what is going on here.
It turns out that you don't even know who and what you are and you are Haredi without knowing it.
You allow yourself to contradict yourself constantly:
On the one hand, you wave the claim that something caused by nature is not the way of nature, and even offer non-existent "treatment" (the type of fraud that until now I only knew about official ultra-Orthodox who offer it, and now it became clear to me that there are also unconscious ultra-Orthodox who offer it) and on the other hand, you - as mentioned - offer treatment ( when treatment - by its very definition - is not the way of nature).
So the truth is that what you call "the way of nature" is something that man has always fought against.
After all, "naturally" you were probably no longer supposed to be among the living and only the existence of modern medicine allows your very participation in a discussion with people that "naturally" you would not have been able to meet at all.
That's why the "natural way" has no value at all for us - for almost no need whatsoever.
If there is a place (outside the investigation of the laws of nature) where the way of nature must play a role, it is in our attempt to identify what is moral and what is not.
But don't get confused: I am referring here to the moral laws that were imprinted on us during evolution and not to other things that are part of nature.
It is not natural for a person to take off from the surface of the earth, but there is no moral problem with that.
The moral laws inherent in us naturally were expressed very well by the Jewish tradition and are beautifully summed up in the sentence "What is hated against you - do not do to your friend".
It seems to me that not many people would disagree with this principle, but this is exactly the principle that all your comments are directed against.
I repeat - you claim that you are not ultra-orthodox and I believe that you really don't think you are ultra-Orthodox, but all the struggle you are waging comes from religious motives that were instilled in you - not by evolution but by training.
For the sanctification of these religious laws (which, by the way, characterize only the monotheistic religions) you are ready to lie and deceive (by offering "treatments" that do not exist), to savagely attack people who see better than you, to invent delusional interpretations of concepts such as "the way of nature" and to give moral status to the breakthrough of A group of primitives from thousands of years ago.
The "non-involved" group that I am against - is completely involved in the creation of people like you and Jonathan and it is not at all surprising that you team up with Eddie who belongs to it.
I don't flood with words and I don't ignore what they tell me and it seems to me that this is exactly what characterizes you, Yonatan and Eddie.
At some point you just tired me out and I saw that behind your eyes there was a complete emptiness and it's a pity for every word I spoil.
I'm glad that you can finally understand what's going on here: a circus with not-so-funny clowns.
Mr. Michael Rothschild: I am neither religious nor ultra-Orthodox, you are stigmatizing and spreading hatred and condemnation for a population that is not at all involved in the discussion - read my words to Dr. Tzofia again and you will understand what I meant when I said that you are full of hate no less than those who hate you.
In addition, of your shoes off your feet before you mention the military services.
Your strategy - either to flood with words or to ignore what was said, is really intolerable: starting with your response "to two men kissing" and ending with very childish sarcastic comments.
(You stated that your illness is congenital and not due to an environmental background, even if that is true, who talked about changing the disposition of the child who watches such a kiss on TV??? I am talking about the values and morals we want to impart to the child - do you remember what values and morals are?
You increase to do and want us to explain to Katam that both men love ????
The child's mechanism of love is normal and fully developed: he loves his brother, his father, his friends, why explain to him that two men can love? What does love have to do with it??? The connection is to sexual relations not according to nature! ).
And something else about the murderousness of that moral codex:
Please read some of the stoning punishments that Rambam wrote about (among other things - for a male bed):
http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/i/5101.htm#s14
Now I will bring you a telegraphic list of some of the punishments of the Torah. Note that these are many punishments that not only do not require a Sanhedrin, but that the authority and in fact the duty to carry them out rests with an individual and even a court is not necessary:
Blood revenge for killing a relative:
"And the redeemer of the blood found him outside the border of the city of refuge and the redeemer of the blood killed the murderer, he has no blood (in the desert, La; 27).
A priest's daughter who commits adultery will be burned in the fire:
"And the daughter of a priest, because she begins to commit adultery with her father, she commits adultery with fire and will be burned" (Leviticus, 9:XNUMX).
The one who bows to the sun and the moon is stoned to death:
"And you shall bring out that man or that woman who did this evil thing to your gates, that man or that woman, and stone them to death" (Deuteronomy, 5:XNUMX).
Violating Shabbat is punishable by death:
"And you kept the sabbath because it is holy to you. Those who desecrate it die a day because everyone who does it is a work and that soul is cut off from among its people" (Exodus, no; 14).
The wife of a man who commits adultery, the punishment for adulterers is death:
And a man who commits adultery with the wife of a man who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife shall die the death of the adulterer and the adulterer" (Leviticus, 10:XNUMX).
And there are many priests in the laws of the Torah, as a rule the majority of the world's population is sentenced to death according to the laws of the Torah; Other worshipers of God, who disbelieve in divine revelation, and crimes of adultery and indecency.
Sages gave a list of those who owe the death penalty - according to Sages there are four types of death penalties: stoning with stones, strangulation with a garment, killing by beheading with a sword, burning.
Sages sorted out the acts for which the various punishments were given and wrote them in the Sanhedrin treatise and set aside entire chapters for them to explain the punishment and its method and who and who is liable, etc.:
"These are the charges: the one who brings the mother, the father's wife, the bride, the one who remembers, and the animal, and the woman who brings the animal, the one who blasphemes, the one who commits idolatry, the one who gives his seed to the king, and the one who has obscenity and knowledge, the one who desecrates the Sabbath, the one who curses his father and his mother, and the one who brings About the betrothed girl, and the instigator and the washerwoman, and the sorcerer, and a disobedient son and a teacher,..." (Mishnah, Tract Sanhedrin, Chapter XNUMX, Mishna XNUMX).
"And these are the burnings that come upon a woman and her daughter, and the priest's daughter who committed adultery... and these are the slain by the murderer, and the people of a rejected city by a murderer who struck his neighbor with a stone or an iron" (Mishna, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter XNUMX, Mishna XNUMX).
"These are the Hanankin who strike his father and his mother and steal a soul from Israel and an old man from Mera according to the court and the false prophet and who prophesies in the name of star worship and who brought on a man's wife and plotters daughter of a priest and a prostitute who strikes his father and his mother" (Mishnah, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter XNUMX, Mishna XNUMX).
An example of the cultural norm in the past is the personal testimony of Joseph ben Matthew about himself cutting off a bandit's hand and asking him to hang it around his neck, a Jew who lived in the first century AD and thus he writes: "The goat in the band of bandits [the people of Tiberias] came to me, and I tormented him with whips and ordered him to cut off one of his hands And to hang it on his neck and after that his divorces from my face" (Book: "Hay Yosef" Masada Publishing House, Tel Aviv p. Kelo - Kelz).
Since the destruction of the Temple and the abolition of the Sanhedrin (the courts authorized to impose death sentences) the authority to punish was given to the discretion of the court, to beat, excommunicate, excommunicate and even kill. This is how it is explained in the Talmud: "R. Elazar ben Ya'akov: I heard that the Sabbath prepares punishments that are not from the Torah, and not to transgress the words of the Torah but to make a caveat to the Torah; And the act of one man who rode a horse on the Sabbath in the days of pigeons, and they brought him to court and stoned him, not because he deserved it, but because the time needed it. . And again the case of one man who slapped his wife [a husband's wife] under the fig tree, and they brought him to court and flogged him, not because he deserved it - but because the time needed it [even though the written law does not require flogging, the court required flogging so that the burglaries would not increase]!" (Yavmot Z.A.B.).
There is another type of death penalty that is given only to the individual and not to the courts, and is practiced even in our time defined in the language of the Sages "zealous people hurt him". An example of this is given in the Torah when Pinchas the priest killed Zimri who slept with the Midianites and pierced their bodies with a sword and for this he received a reward from God "Brit Olam" (Bamadbar, 7; 13-XNUMX).
Likewise, those who are subject to a "persecutive law" are allowed to be killed individually. This punishment actually applies in two cases: one who pursues to kill, and one who pursues to rape a woman, which is forbidden from a halachic point of view (note that the rape of a single woman does not apply to one who pursues, but only to a married woman).
The same applies to the permission to kill infidels and converts given to an individual, as written in the Shulchan Aruch:
"The people of Israel, and they are those who work for the worship of stars, or who commits offenses to anger, even (d) eat filth or wear clothing that causes anger; And the heretics, and they who disbelieve in Torah and prophecy from Israel, used to riot in the Land of Israel. If he had the strength to fight with a sword, with a sword, they were killed. And if not, he would come in plots until he was killed. How, one of them saw that he had fallen into the well and the ladder was in the well, first and removed it and said: I was busy getting my son off the roof and I will bring him back to you, and the like in these words (Shulchan Aruch Yorah Deah Siman Kanah Section B).
"Dr" who:
As part of a predatory minority group that partially evades the protection of the state and places the burden of its livelihood on others;
As part of a group that imposes oppressive and crazy lifestyles on others;
As part of a group that carved sectarianism on its flag and built itself a training system for ignorance and parasitism instead of the state education system - you simply have no authority to make claims about sectarianism.
You don't know what you're talking about and you don't distinguish between the need for groups to organize to defend against your insane predation and your need to organize to run over.
(The truth is that you do notice - but you reverse the creation).
For those who know nothing about the moral code that you want to instill in us - Below is a link to some data.
You are so disconnected that you don't understand what I mean when I say (and I emphasize three times) that you are disconnected.
It seems to me that you simply did not understand that the one who resorted to personal attacks was Jonathan.
By the way - you have a coordination problem, that's why you wrote "instead!"
To the honorable Mr. Rothschild:
I had a problem with the internet so I was disconnected for about two hours. What is the connection with things?
I said about this??
Also, you have a problem with the keyboard (you wrote "3 times, instead of 1).
It is important to tell the truth and put it on the table: today the struggle of Dr. Zofia and her ilk is not about "human rights" but a power struggle of the old and not so good kind.
My grandfather is a holocaust survivor, and one of the things I learned from him is that everyone is a jerk: human beings, whatever they are, are potentially capable of committing unbelievable atrocities and treating others like dirt and dust, regardless of religion, sex, opinion or inclination.
In order for their true face to be revealed, all that is needed is to give them some power... and then the trouble begins... the lack of moral brakes destroys worlds.
In order for the illusion of power not to corrupt people (individuals or communities), people must be educated to recognize a higher power that we are all dust compared to, and give them a set of values of modesty, love of others, mutual guarantee, searching for meaning in life in a spiritual and deep way, and treating the animal side that we all have with suspicion and restraint.
People like you, unfortunately, break apart ideologically from these barriers, which separate us from human animals. Your physical and mental side is damaged and takes you back in evolution to these levels, but that does not mean that you should give up the human spirit and wallow helplessly in the misery that Mother Nature has imposed on you, or worse, build an "entire ideology" based on lies and half-truths around the disease.
You as an ideological group are a catalyst for the disintegration of conservative and social systems, you encourage the blurring of boundaries between good and bad, right and wrong, love and sex..., men and women or humans and animals of prey drive desire.
It's worth thinking about things and maybe taking a reverse: do you understand what you represent
in your public behavior? Do you understand that nothing good will come of it for you and your ilk? Maybe you should be satisfied with the achievements you have in the western liberal frameworks, and not undermine them and destroy the societies that have allowed you to live with dignity? Who wants too much
Losing everything... and be clear that that's where things are going.
I suggest that you take your wares to the rooms where they should be sold, and do not be encumbered by the values of the Jewish / Israeli / traditional society accepted in our places.
The human spirit is a struggle. Ethical people struggle for a better, more humane, deeper world. People like you have the opportunity to be the ones whose struggle is more heroic
and more spiritual (see singers who bravely faced their problem for decades and had to be exposed because of people of your kind).
Whether you want it or not: the values that your power struggle represents are dangerous, there are no restraints of modesty and humility or true love, but mainly hatred for the whole world and for people who are not ready to accept you "as you are". Given a chance, people of your kind might do what they did to my grandfather without batting an eyelid - you are no better than others in this aspect, and in my personal opinion, much worse than most.
Therefore, the whole phenomenon of your "community" is simply a danger in the form of a power group that tries in a predatory way to grab the eyes of all of us and create a virtual reality based on lies and narrow personal interests, and this is also why the tone of your words exposes the lie in the fragile cover of "humanity and humane values" in whose name you speak. The way you express yourself towards "others" such as the ultra-orthodox does not leave many doubts, and it is good that the readers are exposed to this).
"Dr" who:
You are disconnected!!!
To Abi Blizovsky, and that you don't know that it is a method among ultra-Orthodox talkbackists to refer to a person's body instead of the substance of the matter? "Yonathan" (or whatever his name is) didn't have to do any homework to answer my claims.
My name is alone, with him and with a friend of his flock like him as a red sheet to a raging bull. And what logical answer will he give to logical claims? So as usual in quidesh he prefers to shut mouths through personal attacks. After all, Jehovah gave him only such abilities, and with them he attacks anyone who differs from him in his opinions, tendencies or beliefs...
I have no intention of leaving Jonathan here alone on guard against the waves of ignorance
And the descent into personal lines... So a few words to Mrs. Anat and Dr. Zofia:
The methods you use are taken from the basements of the KGB and another humanitarian organization that made sure in the last century that people would "think and speak correctly, or not breathe at all".
Instead of referring to the body of the arguments, you treat a person's body and with a variety of unoriginal methods of intimidation suggest that "anyone who doesn't think like us" is most likely a gay, pedophile, ultra-Orthodox, the next minute they catch him on someone, and the one left behind... is mentally ill (who said there isn't therefore a sense of humor).
It is still a waste of time to talk to people who started as social outcasts due to a severe disorder in the formation of human identity, were recognized as sick and therefore are not to blame for their situation, but now want in an egoistic act of the first order to "re-educate" hundreds of millions and adjust their perception of reality to what suits them, even if it It comes at the expense of the social structure, the human culture from the founding days and the morals of the people among them are alive (the societies that accepted the phenomenon during history...exist only in history).
On to the future... the main thing is here and now - let's blur the boundaries so that we are comfortable
With ourselves (if there are no limits, nothing is "different"). In the spirit of the times, instead of confronting and taking personal responsibility, let's load our troubles on the public space and suck out of it for our own selfish profit!
I wish again and again to the patients who live without bothering the majority that they will have nothing but good, and to the bearers of neo-speak and neo-fascism to find a balm for their souls and stop bothering and fighting us the majority... because a normal person will not change his mind on these issues forever (perhaps he will only radicalize as a reaction to someone who digs into his brain like a third-rate sales agent and refuses to understand that we neither want nor accept the goods he is selling),
Even if everyone thinks that "everything is fine" with you... the source of your problem is mental and internal... nothing external will change that... this is the truth and direct your energies to a place where they can be useful (a good psychologist will teach you what love is).
You're right - it won't happen again (it was supposed to be part of the point... I said I wouldn't refer to the hashes of some of the commenters anymore, but I couldn't resist 🙁 ).
This is an opportunity to congratulate you on the unique stage and its contribution to culture and science in Israel.
Happy holiday.
To Dr. Mee, in addition to all the methods you described in your response, you also add a new method - to impersonate another commenter so that they think you are more numerous.
To Jonathan - when you have nothing to answer, do you go into personal lines?
To Jonathan, poor and wretched, how good that I am not your mother!!! I would not have forgiven myself if it had fallen to my lot to raise a homophobe full of aura like you. How sorry I am for the one who really gave birth and raised someone like you. My heart goes out to her, you miserable wretch is terrified. After all, even your views and "knowledge" of the histories of those who are horrified and their families were not able to hide, and thus you closed yourself off, and strengthened my previous words about the origins of homophobia!!!
Jonathan:
You mean - like it really happened?
After all, you are no different from the worst of the religious pantheists - to take from them all the bad without the good.
To Dr. Meller
If you were my mother, I'm sure I would repent too.
It is appropriate to introduce some historical perspective and learn that "normal" in the context of the discussion here is a cultural matter and not absolute. In the past there were cultures where homosexuality was seen as natural and normative and the person was free to choose. We are talking, for example, about Greece and Rome. Many of the greats of the Greco-Roman world were gay. This world and its culture constitute the infrastructure for the creation of culture and the Western world. It existed from the days of Greece to Rome for about 1000 years, approximately. It was completely natural for a man to be attracted to a man and have homosexual relationships and this changed - like the entire Western world and its culture - with the takeover of the Judeo-Christian culture.
Homophobia is a very deadly disease, Dr. Mee, and Jonathan, and their poor ilk. The origins of this mental illness are also known: it is the homophobes' terrible fear of their own tendencies. This is a form of defense of a person who not only hates the different, but who is very afraid of himself and that others may recognize him as different and "impaired" by homosexuality, and hate him, just as he hates others. It is no coincidence that the monotheistic religions and their chauvinist leaders - and not only Judaism - known for their hatred of the foreigner and the different, hate everyone who is different and different from them, and declare a war of jihad against them (in Islam) and a war of extermination against the Canaanites and the rest of the inhabitants of the land (in Judaism) or the wars of the Inquisition and the bloodshed (in Christianity for generations). It was not for nothing that I also mentioned the chauvinism of their leaders here: if only they knew the "patent" as a party to reproduce even without women - they would, without a doubt, also slaughter the women (as is customary in "murder for the honor of the family"). However, since the man has not yet been invented as a child, they are content with humiliating the women in every possible way: in "Mehadrin" buses, imprisoning them behind a veil or a veil, depriving them of inheritance and family life, and excluding them from public life. The same goes for the homosexuals and lesbians, who try to take them out of society, and deprive them in every possible way. Hitler and a friend of his people also saw this sexual orientation as a disease, whose people should be killed - no less - just like the Jews, who are also different from the "racially pure" Aryans. What is worst of all about this phenomenon, that it arises in the society of Jews precisely, who in their flesh knew what it meant to be a different and persecuted minority. And this brings us back to the beginning of my words: it is their fear that they too will be considered different (and therefore "inferior" in the eyes of the ruling society), which brings them to shout more than others against those who are different from them, in terms of "on the head of the thief the tail is burning". Go to the priests who have now been taken out of the closet due to their pedophile-homosexual actions, or to those rabbis and admors whose names I will not mention here, but they are known and appear in every newspaper and media - and learn what the source of the evil is! Not that there aren't also secular homophobes, but these, at least, don't go to wars of malice en masse, and don't rely on the "holy" scriptures to justify themselves, and also - the causes of the disease, as mentioned, the fear of their own tendencies - we don't distinguish the person's faith. It is shared by those as by those!
Unbelievable how many homophobes every article like this attracts.
The experience in the USA unfortunately shows that the more vocal they are, the more likely they will be banned tomorrow for criminal solicitation of minors of their own sex (and we also have the Muti Alon-Yim and those disturbing our mikveh).
I wouldn't be excited about it. After all, no matter how many people shout hysterically and with evangelical fervor that homosexuality is a "disease" that must be "cured" - relationships between members of the same sex exist, and probably always existed in the past, in every mixed human society and under optimal social conditions; Just like masturbation (about which there are still more than enough crazed fanatics who are convinced that it should be eradicated). let them say
The message was clear from your first response.
I wish you a full recovery.
The truth... I'm quite fed up with you, it's impossible to convey a simple message that any other same-sex creature (worm, amoeba) would have already assimilated and moved on.
I stop this talk of nonsense, and remember that some psychiatrist once told me that you cannot convince mentally ill people that they are such with logical arguments, you keep targeting them and they will continue to slide like soap in every direction, just not to the place they are trying to go
to arrive.
Continue to think that a kiss between two men in public is a "completely natural" thing and that it's perfectly fine for children to see it (and at the next stage what would be "completely natural" to do in the street? Ahh... not that, why not? The slippery slope from a little abomination to abomination
Great in the persuasion led by you, as if the destruction of society will give you a balm).
We will see the consequences in a few decades, and as far as I'm concerned, you are another type of scourge in society that needs to be constantly maintained by legal means and social norms, because understanding and respecting not only what you believe in... is probably impossible (a bit reminiscent of our cousins who are unable to understand that We have history and property here).
And to all the demagogues who will seek to separate my response from the others I say: to people who have such a problem and they deal with it at their mother's door without interfering with social morality and causing processes of rot and destruction I say: kudos to you, you are the heroes who rise above your creation and as far as I am concerned you are citizens as equal as anyone else. To all those who are agents of destruction and destruction and insist on causing damage like any other virus carrier
I say: don't be surprised if your "struggle" recedes in the coming years and harms rights that are indisputable.
I hope this message is clear enough, I no longer respond because it's a shame to waste on you
Precious time.
The fear of the phenomenon of homosexuality is only an edge of fear of anything that is different, unusual, thinks a little differently, has a different skin color or has a long nose.
This fear is the disease that must be eradicated. The way to eradicate the disease is through education from an early age to recognize and respect the foreigner and the abnormal. The phenomenon of homosexuals coming out and exposing themselves in society allows them to live a normal life according to their choice and allows those who are not like that to learn to live among them and respect their choice.
This is not a disease and it is certainly not a contagious disease.
And now for the million dollar question: how is the discussion of the viability of homosexuals' extroversion related to the question of whether homosexuality arises in animals or not? Is homosexuality likely to cease to exist in nature if we adopt a more restrained code?
Dr. Mee, the honorable
According to you, "What you refuse to understand and accept is the degree of destruction and confusion that the publicity of the phenomenon causes to small children who have just begun to form basic human relationships with friends, siblings and parents" Well, if a small child sees a couple of men kissing - you can explain to him that there are people who love members of their own sex, But they are a minority. What's the panic? You don't think homosexuality is a contagious disease, do you? In the American psychologists manual, homosexuality was removed from the list of disorders many years ago. On the other hand, paranoia about gays, which you probably suffer from, can certainly be added to the list of disorders. The confusion and destruction you attribute to homosexuality exists in your imagination and among "Orthodox to talk about an offense" of various kinds. Anyone whose thinking pattern is puritanical (from the purity of race, through the purity of religion, to the purity of thought) compiles his own list of diseases to which he associates everyone whose purity he identifies as a "disease" or "deviance" according to his opinion. The concern for the normal development of the next generation and the prevention of its confusion and destruction - is a symptom of the "commitment" that Tehran has imposed on itself to be responsible for the peace of society. The Tehranian is terribly worried about anything that he sees as a deviation from his righteous path. If Tehran had absolute power, he would have already made a "new order" in society, but soon he realized that there are more puritans than him - much more than him - who would not be satisfied with a light punishment as he proposes (a ban on publicity) but would go even further, and it is possible that he himself He was condemned to be condemned by them for excessive compromise and leniency towards the deviants from the right path. History is full of tyrants who knew who was deviant and who was not and brought persecution to new heights. Always in the name of the common good, and always in the name of knowing the good.
Hatred of the other and problems of horizon (and eye), are much more dangerous diseases.
A 6-year-old boy (my 6-year-old grandson) does not feel threatened by a man kissing another man, any more than he is threatened by a soldier who shoots Arabs with his paws or a drunk who runs over girls. On the contrary.
Children take everything naturally. We are the ones who twist their minds. When I see children approaching to pet animals with love, I know their parents love animals. Behind those who scream when a dog smells them, hide hysterical parents.
If we cannot accept those who chose to kiss their own gender, it is clear that our children, who imitate us, will not accept them.
Same-sex orientation develops during the period of formation of sexual identity. At this age, (not at the age of 6) - those who feel a tendency towards a boy of the same sex, do so because they have no choice, despite people like you who hate them and despite the danger of life they experience every day.
Dr. Who: When a six-year-old boy sees two men kissing, I suppose he treats it like any phenomenon he is unfamiliar with. Children are not born knowing what kisses look like. Will the existence of extroverted homosexuals bring more men and women to homosexual experiences? I do not know. I suppose so. So what? Isn't it if most of us are born with an attraction to the opposite sex - anyway these experiences will become a meaningless episode in sexual search, and they will start a family.
Furthermore, I find it difficult to understand how homosexuality became a matter of social utility, decency or niceness. Are homosexuals more prone to a life of crime? Are they unemployed anymore? Has there been a study showing that homosexuals tend to fight more with people? My experience - and as far as I know the research does not point to such differences. So what do you mean by "that the interpretation he adopts will be the least productive for his future as a decent and nice citizen in society"?
Maybe you just don't like seeing a kiss between men? I'm not saying that the mere fact that you don't like seeing something does not in itself justify its reduction, whether by law or by social norms. This is a legitimate discussion in itself (and just to remove doubt - even in this discussion, I will be on the other side of the fence). But trying to hide it behind arguments of social benefit, which have no basis, while slandering decent and nice people, who feel attracted to men instead of women, is an unfair, and not nice, tactic.
All those who do not understand that homosexuality is innate and not learned - also do not understand that heterosexuality is like that and therefore what the children see has no effect on their sexual orientation.
But what to do - intelligence or the lack of it is also innate.
The beauty is that he suggests to others to make an effort and understand what they understood and he himself is far from understanding
To Dr. Mee
I thought about responding to your words, but it's a waste of my time.
Grow up
To Yaakov Or and other geniuses: you are making a salad and attacking the whole issue from irrelevant directions.
The problem with the phenomenon of homosexuality in the current era only begins with its publicity - a person who is sick (and it is a disease, disease, disease - and stop with the vanity of trying to deny reality) can nowadays live his life with dignity as a member of the wider community without being persecuted or criticized for his actions.
What you refuse to understand and accept is the extent of the destruction and confusion that the phenomenon is public
Does for small children who have just started to form basic human relationships with friends, siblings and parents.
When a little 6-year-old boy sees two men kissing erotically, what is he supposed to understand from that in his little mind? I hope there will be no debate about the fact that the vast majority of our children are not same-sex and therefore this direction is from them onwards, but he saw it on TV... Is this what is expected of him as well? Is he also allowed to kiss his friend? Understand that the interpretation he will adopt will be the least productive for his future as a citizen
Decent and nice in society.
The damage you are inflicting on the young and your education is unbearably heavy - you cannot understand this because you have been exceptional since Sunday and therefore see the world in the narrowest possible angle.
This is wickedness for its own sake, and as a community that promotes the issue publicly, this is a social attack for all intents and purposes.
I have no desire to flirt with those who are looking for confrontations (and a kiss with a woman is fine... yes, it's perfectly fine, but also not in my opinion at a young age) - I just want to clarify why there has been such a large movement of opponents of externalization and arrogance that has begun to raise its head in recent years Because we "want to be like abroad" - we are not against those who are sick but against those who destroy education and are agents of confusion among the majority of Israeli children (and many of these dangerous people, as we have seen recently in the clashes between charming and modest singers "and professional homosexuals" who make a living from the matter... The rights of the individual are thrown away when it comes to the "bird of their soul" and the fight against us - the silent majority).
Make a little extra effort to understand what is being talked about here - if you want, you can.
Jonathan - "The propaganda campaigns for the legitimacy of their sexual deviation and the corruption of the public youth as a result?" -First, I watch more field reports on the Ethiopian sector, for example, which is the easiest to diagnose, than any propaganda campaigns. Where have you seen propaganda to legitimize the love of the Douma? Secondly - the reason why I and my peers stand up on our hind legs for the socially outcasts is because a part of our society thinks that they are like that. That's why they have to fight for their right to be equal and valued. This is true for all non-Ashkenazi men in Israeli society.
And last but not least - she was puzzled about the corruption of the youth. What does a needle belong to an ass? How gays, or even their advertising, corrupts youth?
Giving money to the ultra-Orthodox, for example, so that babies of their mother's homes can be taken in by free kindergartens, this is a much greater danger to society, because a tender child can be influenced by what the kindergarten teacher tells him. This is an example of a radical change that happens courtesy of the state. But a child born proud - how can she/he change this tendency?
The discourse on the illegitimacy of homosexuality betrays its speakers: a mixture of prejudices, pseudo-science and box thinking. Gentlemen, the human race carries such a wide variety of traits that any attempt to divide humans according to a certain cluster of traits in order to mark them (as a first step towards excluding and discriminating them - if not murdering them) is a futile and disastrous attempt. Homosexuality is a tendency that certainly has genetic roots, like many other tendencies, and many cultural expressions. The desire to segregate gays and label them as a morbid/immoral/unnatural subgroup (choose the answer that suits you) is a marker of racist/purist thinking that has many manifestations in history - not necessarily only towards gays. In my humble opinion, the attraction to a member of your own sex is as beautiful and good as the member of the opposite sex - because in matters of attraction there is no rape and no coercion. (And if there is - it is anyway an offense on which there is a general consensus). That's why I don't understand what the commotion is about. What bothers the homophobes so much? Is someone threatening them? And why suddenly the concern for the continuity of the human race? Is this the problem of the homophobes, the continuity of sex? Friends, it's time to break free! Let simple love flourish - it doesn't matter who it is - it's time to recognize the fact that human love has many ways of expression. Yes, just like the love of a father and a mother. Does anyone know an exact pattern?
It is not clear what the argument is about. Even if there was no such phenomenon in nature and even if it was absent from all of human history, even then we would have to accept homosexuality as a completely legitimate thing, in accordance with the free desires of those who belong to it.
No one has a moral right to persecute them or to state that it is a deviation as long as they are not forced to be gay themselves. Anyone who claims that this is a deviation does so from the deep fear that exists in him that maybe he too is a little like this.
Stop persecuting them and stop looking at them as strange and then they will stop feeling the need to loudly express their need for legitimacy.
Dan Shamir:
Jonathan not only determines who is normal. He also states without any logical reason that the percentage of homosexuals in the population is less than a tenth of what they really are and then refers to his foolish assertions in the past as evidence for repeating them in the present.
But he knows he's funny and the fact is that he didn't respond to the challenge I put before him to point out to me some logical rule that his words violate.
To Dr. Chen
Who determined who is normal?
Probably Jonathan!
Lord Sela
The way you write indicates a woman with violent Bolshevik impulses and a person who is unable to listen to others and not an open and liberal person as perhaps you and your ilk only imagine in their own eyes.
You are talking about the legend of the absurd figure of 10%. If you read my previous posts and do a simple check you will argue that this figure is simply unacceptable. In my estimation, the percentage of gays in the population must be less than half a percent. On that occasion, when you read the posts, you may also argue that I never suggested harming gays in any way.
Eddie:
You ignore the fact that just like the Jews in the world - so are the homosexuals - divided by others.
To protect the Jews, the State of Israel was established and I hope you are not opposed to its existence despite your opposition to the partition.
To protect the homosexuals, the homosexual organizations arise.
But it is also clear to me that it is clear to you and the fact is that you have never come out against disabled organizations for example.
Will you use this platform to go against them?
It is a serious conflict between the hypocrisy and the desire to avoid its exposure. Huh?
Dr. Chen
If you had bothered to read the previous posts you would have surely realized that the gays and their actions in their private rooms do not "bother" me nor do they interest me. The only thing that bothers me is the propaganda campaigns for the legitimization of their sexual deviance and the corruption of the public youth because of it.
David Sela:
I don't want to go into detail about your words towards Yonatan, since my position [which is also a religious position] and my general approach to the issue is in some ways different from Yonatan's, and since I don't have the time to start a discussion on the issue. Just saying that I disagree with your views and opinions in several ways.
I will concretely relate to your words directed at me: if you carefully read my words in my previous comments - you will see that I stood on the issue of the homosexual community circumcision from a very general position, which denies the phenomenon of circumcision in society and the state in Israel. I reject the segmentation in principle, I see this phenomenon as anti-democracy, moral distortion, social rot and social degeneration from an advanced state, which may bring us ruin (and that's why I brought the illustration of the burning house). This applies to ultra-Orthodox and Arabs, greens and leftists as well as to settlers and right-wingers, etc.
I will ask again, Mr. Jonathan, how does the gay community harass you? Show me, please, at a distance from you,
A "normal" woman or man. Who determined who is normal?
And how do they interfere with your normal life?
Yonahto
Did I step on a wart? What's wrong with you because you're alarmed, you assign about ten percent of the earth's population out of disgust and call me an example?
What do you think if we set up camps for homosexuals like the ones that were already set up about seventy years ago?
A toothpick between your teeth, I, who legitimize the right of every human being to exist, is considered in your eyes to be an enlightened pretender. So what shall we call you with your dark mind?
You and all your brothers to this abominable opinion that there are humans who are inferior to others only because of their existence and sexual orientation, you are a deviation that should disappear from human thinking.
Jonathan:
Your words are said to be "light and heavy".
All the more, a person like you, who does not use logic in any situation and who blatantly ignores the facts, is prone to saying nonsense.
Can you point to one rule of logic that something in my speech does not comply with?
In my opinion - even if I put the question mark right after the word "one" and omit all the rest of the question, you would have a hard time finding an answer.
To David Sela
The examples you gave only show how narrow and dogmatic your way of thinking is.
Where did you get that I support these religious doctrines?
How do you know that I am religious or ultra-Orthodox?
Can only a religious or ultra-orthodox oppose the transformation of homosexual deviation into a social norm?
Your world is probably as narrow as an ant's world
I am very far from fanatical people of your type who pretend to be "enlightened" but are actually trapped in an imaginary world they have created for themselves and do not differ much from the ultra-orthodox except in the opposite direction.
First of all to David
Our society is probably not ready to accept a sector that is not at the center of the current momentary consensus.
For everyone else they want to kill a Turk and then move on to the next Turk. So everyone is on target.
I am amazed at all the religious people who try to represent the religion, it is not known by what authority they allow themselves to harm others, and certainly not to kill/murder.
It is certainly related to the ten commandments not to kill, so that the people trying to represent the religion will mobilize to find the murderer, on this subject there is certainly no discussion about its seriousness.
Lm.
Unlike Eddie and Dr. Who
It is not at all strange to me that someone like you, who is undoubtedly a talented and serious mathematician, is free of any pretense to conduct a simple logical-logical debate in a field that is not related to mathematics.
No cynicism at all - this is not a rare phenomenon at all that I have personally known for a long time from various fields and not only from the field of mathematics.
Please stay safe and have a great day.
to Jonathan
Your arguments can be beautiful from the point of view of the personal benefit of those who believe in the vanity known as religious faith, but not in terms of the benefit of society in general.
The human tendency to religious belief is a sick deviation that makes its owner miserable. There is no point in legitimizing this. No one here is suggesting hanging believers no matter how fanatical they are. All we want is to put things in the right context. There should be clear boundaries between the natural and the normal, science and its findings that correspond to reality, and the sick and the distorted, the fanatical belief in religious dogma. When this border blurs, as happened to us in the monotheism-sick Western society, many other borders also blur and thus society loses itself to know.
Why do you think there has been such a big boom in pedophiles in recent years? They see the legitimacy of the Holy Scriptures and the Sages and get the feeling that their deviation is not only not terrible, in terms of the origins of Judaism it is perfectly fine.
Examples? you are welcome:
The XNUMXth is three years and one day old, sanctifying herself in Biya; And if she moans, jealousy. And they are obligated on her because she is a man's wife, and he defiles her who is a virgin to defile a lower bed as well as an upper one. If you marry a priest, you will eat a donation; One of the idols came to her, she was rejected from the priesthood. One of all the adulteries mentioned in the Torah comes upon her - they die by her, and she is exempt. Less then, as a finger in the eye.
XNUMX] A Gentile who comes against the daughter of Israel - if she is a man's wife, he will kill her; And if she is free, he is not killed. [XNUMX] But Israel who came against the Gentiles - between a little girl of three years and a day, between an older one, between a free woman and a man's wife, and even a small one of nine years and a day - since he came against the Gentile maliciously, she was killed: because you came to Israel a fault at her hands , as a beast. And this is explained in the Torah, which says "They were here for the Israelites. . . And every woman, a man knows how to lay down a male - the slain" (Bamadbar XNUMX:XNUMX-XNUMX).
Any woman is prohibited from these - if she was three years and one day old or older - the elder who comes over her, must kill her or cut her off or flog her; And she is exempt from anything, unless she was big. And if it was less than that - after all, both are exempt, there is no return. And likewise an older woman on whom a little one comes - if he was nine years and one day old or older - she must be cut off, or killed, or flogged; And he is exempt. And if he was nine years old or younger, both are exempt.
This is what Sages and Elders who rule in Maimonides' Judaism teach, why don't you denounce them before you post here and whistle in the direction of people in modern society.
Fix first the norms that they believe in and accept and are educated on by all those who in your opinion are normal and in my opinion suffer from a severe deviation called religious belief.
And to make the matter more related to the topic of the article, here is the transitory norm:
The bringer on the zakor, or brought the zakor on him - because he commented - if they were both big, they would be stoned: as it is said "And you shall not lie down, as a woman lays down" (Leviticus XNUMX:XNUMX), whether it was a male or female. And if he was a minor nine years and one day old or older - the one who came upon him or was brought upon himself, was stoned; And the little one, exempt. And if the memory was nine years old or less, both are exempt; And it is appropriate for a court to strike the great one with the plague of sedition, according to the fact that he slept with Zakor, even though he is less than nine years old.
Well, pedophile homosexuality is completely legitimate from a legal point of view and how dare you dispute the law and say that it is a social disease?
As you say, we need to learn from history and I hope that you also show your children the opinion of sages and judges on the subject in question.
Eddie.
I was prevented from understanding why a sectoral association of greens, green leaf, feminists, Arabs, ultra-Orthodox, settlers, leftists, rightists, is legitimate and that of homosexuals is not.
Or are you a humanist only up to a certain limit?
Michael Shalom.
Sorry for the words.
Your debaters do not even refer to the scientific article, which was the trigger for this debate.
If they had brought various scientific data, studies that support their positions, because then you would have had a scientific basis for the debate.
But, what they present is superstition and hatred of the foreigner and the different, which cannot be rationally debated.
Even the pseudo-scientific statements, for example, about the small settlements where there are no homosexuals, are not supported by any scientific research.
I, for example, lived in several kibbutzim, and all of them had openly gay members. (and probably a few more that were in the closet).
So this argument doesn't hold water either.
Therefore, it's a waste of your time and energy.
Rational arguments will not convince here.
Only education for tolerance and humanism will help, and it's a shame you can't instill it through the site.
Peace,
First of all - stop treating homosexuals (human beings) as a phenomenon. It's not a one-off, it won't go away if you insist, it's incurable. Homosexuality is a different construction of the chromosome system in the body and it is congenital. It has been tested, it has been proven and no medicine, psychologist, psychiatrist, willpower or will power will change the facts.
The time has come in the entire world, and in our Khomeini country in particular in its relationship to the population of both women and homosexuals (in their opinion, these two populations should not be given rights at all) to stop messing with the other's sex life. Who do you name as judge, arbiter, executioner, etc.? Who are you all the brawlers anyway? What are you afraid of? will you get infected? As they once feared from a crippled polio child that it is contagious? You have nothing but to be ashamed of your words, actions, incitement, yes incitement against the homosexuals. Homosexuals have accepted the scientific fact that they are attracted to members of their own sex. Who are you to hide these facts? Just because you are uncomfortable? Just because there are still many of you hiding in the closet who would like to get out of it and can't because of fear? Why are you allowed to get into bed with any girl you choose? Thin, fat, beautiful, ugly, smart, stupid, etc.
What are they better in their choice? I'm telling you - they are built so that only members of their own sex interest them. The "straight" men are built to think from their penis first and bang everything that moves if possible. The ego of "straight" men is longer than their shadow, so don't make complaints to anyone. Look in the mirror you are not visible and at your plate and clean it. Homosexuals know exactly what they want because that's how they are built. You don't know what you want, neither at the beginning nor at the end, that's why you are so frustrated.
They are much smarter, wiser, sensitive and loyal to their friends as well. They don't sell them as lentils.
Children, the arguments here are not relevant at all.
It is none of our business, with whom the other spends his time and/or his nights.
Am I asking you who are you playing with in the darkness of your bedroom?
Do I care who you kiss in the morning?
Aren't all these male fears of "gays" (girls are more tolerant) "on the thief's head"???
Every person is allowed to behave as he wishes - until his wish harms another. How exactly is the gay community harmful to you?
Are gays who choose not to raise children in any way threatening you?
"Dr" who:
Maybe you didn't notice, but the reaction I responded to didn't include slander towards me.
Did you really not understand that these were the victims of the attack?
Nothing was pierced in my argument. My arguments were not addressed at all. All in all, they came to retrospectively justify an act of murder while creating a false representation of resistance to murder.
Mr. Michael Rothschild - I don't like your attitude.
You ramble and blurt without a drop of actual contribution to the discussion.
"Such a collection of slanders towards a victim" ... who is the victim here? are you ? By what right do you adopt the loss of the parents of these poor children for your needs, as if they were your parents or your brothers?
What right do you have to use the holocaust to criticize, once again demagogically and not matter-of-factly, someone who punctures your mask of arguments in an orderly and didactic manner, without a hint of cynicism
Or contempt?
You are not a proper conversationalist, and Vlady compliments on the beautiful and organized response.
And here is something from what you cooked up: if "you" want to be treated seriously and with respect
"You" should give rationality, facts and the way of life a place in your conduct.
Michael,
The facts speak for themselves, and you are not dealing with them objectively. It is unfortunate to see that a person like you identifies with demagogy of lies and sectional politics. So leave, it's a waste of time.
It's just a shame that you create contempt for the victims of the holocaust in the very devious comparison you made. Come back!
Eddie:
Not only is it enough - it is much too much.
I have not heard such a collection of senseless slanders against the victim of the crime since the denial of the holocaust.
Michael,
Regarding sectoral community rights:
I mentioned in my response that this is a sector in the process of 'formation'. Such a process has clear signs.
First, I will give you an example from recent times: the difficult case of the murder of the two in the 'Youth Club' in Tel Aviv was widely covered, when the media focus was on the tragic aspect and slipped from there with unbearable lightness into social propaganda thanks to the deviation. One issue, very basic and very factual, was ignored and ignored: with what authority did the community take upon itself to establish, maintain and manage an educational and kind of therapeutic institution for youth populations whose sexual identity has not yet been formed, when it is clear that any unilateral intervention by the community creates a decisive bias regarding the formation of the identity of those populations - towards The deviant indeed. The community acted here in a distinctly sectoral manner, and in doing so removed from the image of authority, responsibility and activity professional and legally authorized parties, and in any case harmed their professional treatment. The community acted here forcefully and all out of sectoral consciousness and clear sectoral interests (acquiring clients/soldiers for the camp) - similar to the pattern of action in other sectors (the ultra-orthodox - in the field of education, for example).
Another example: the demagoguery of lies and the dictatorship of the sectoral establishment. Demonstration: around the tragic event of the murder of the two in the Tel Aviv club, the community organized a brainwashing campaign regarding the positive value of the homosexual phenomenon. From now on the phenomenon is not a deviation, and should not be something disgusting. She is Norma, and she is the embodiment of the beauty of love. Those who think otherwise - need to be 're-educated'. Accordingly, famous homosexuals were required, and were actually threatened by the community - to come out personally ('come out of the closet') in public at rallies and in the media, in order to demonstrate the virtues of homosexuality. Those who refused, in the name of the right to privacy and personal freedom (for example, the broadcaster Haim Keenan, or the singer Polyker) - were attacked and humiliated and slandered and denounced by the community institutions, in a kind of Bolshevik dictatorial reflex. Such a pattern of behavior is distinctly sectoral.
Another example: media absorption. The community is vigorously working on building a media power base, and this task, it seems, has been successful, and today we receive a very uniform - and very sympathetic - communication for the social deviation in question. The next obvious step - establishing an organized political force in the service of the sector. The principle of operation is a principle of self-interested 'give and take': serve us politically, because it pays off electorally and in the media, and if you resist - it will take revenge on you, mainly through the media. This is the only way to explain why, as far as I know, all the politicians stand still and support or at least keep their mouths shut regarding the social deviation in question (except for one or two from the Shas party, whose terrible voters cannot work). This is how sectors work when they seek to impose their agenda and 'politics' on the population as a whole. They are not fighting for equal rights, they are fighting for the control of the normativity of deviation and the accumulation of power.
I think that's enough, for now.
Jonathan:
What a crap!
Just because it's not a kibbutz then it's not acceptable?
And what about all the serious statistics that have been done?
enough! I will not fall for this nonsense.
An unknown military unit of extremely intelligent people cannot constitute a statistical sample for any subject.
From my acquaintance with a number of gays, I am willing to start from the premise that most of them have higher than average intelligence and skills, but this still does not contradict the fact that they suffer from a severe disorder that causes them great unhappiness. And that the solution to the problem should not be making their deviance an accepted norm.
Eddie:
So - I still don't understand what you are talking about.
What community rights do they demand?
True - shamefully, the religious sector rejects them from within it, and therefore they founded their own religious organization, but they want to run for the same Knesset, they do not ask for their own state, they do not ask for their own education system (in contrast to certain communities that do indeed fight for their right to protect the children's virginity ), are not asking not to serve in the army or to be exempt from the burden of livelihood - in short - nothing!
All they want is equal rights.
Jonathan:
The differences between us are not minimal.
Physical disability is also a disease and you do not go against the rights of the disabled to organize.
In general - in our conversation the word illness did not come up at all and the whole discussion revolved around the right to association, the fight for rights and the question of whether or not there is deprivation.
I don't think that homosexuals as a community have at all a consolidated opinion on the question of whether homosexuality is a disease and in my eyes - as mentioned - this question is not relevant at all.
Your accusing the homosexuals of any evil deeds is itself an evil lie.
They do not do any brainwashing, do not talk about irrelevant questions (like whether it is a disease) and nothing similar.
They put pressure on society not to discriminate against them. that's it.
A large part of them also do not want to be "cured" and some of them will certainly not agree with my view of the matter as a "disease", but if the situation is ever so good that the topic of conversation can be whether or not it is a disease, the discussion will deal with linguistics and not with values because, as mentioned - there is no connection between diseases and values.
Therefore, I would never expect the homosexuals as a community to take action to find a cure for something that some of them do not perceive as a disease.
Besides - when there seems to be no chance of finding a cure (and it's not that they haven't tried!) - there's no point in putting pressure on finding a cure.
The disabled are also fighting for rights and not for finding a cure for amputated legs (although here the chance is actually greater and I am quite convinced that in the future a way will be found for the regeneration of limbs).
Regarding the statistics - I know a military unit that, because it is a unit of particularly intelligent people - the level of homophobia there is particularly low and therefore people in it tend to admit their sexual orientation - and the statistics there have been for many years at 10%.
Michael,
I'm afraid I was misunderstood.
When I talk about the right of homosexuals to individual rights, I include the very fundamental right of freedom of association. In my opinion, in a society that seeks social justice and in a democratic state of law - these rights must be given to every individual, subject of course to the principles of proportionality, state security in extreme situations, and rules of balance between rights.
All this does not belong to the claim I made regarding the encouragement of publicity and the granting of collective rights. The excessive publicity of the phenomenon - which is clearly a deviation from the norm - must be rejected, and the media usurpation carried out by interested parties must be rejected. We must say yes to rights except for homosexuals as individuals, but collective rights for the community and the 'homosexual' / 'homosexual' sector - must be rejected (just as it must be done with regard to other sectors that seek to control or have already controlled 'their' politics at the expense of society as a whole). All of this has nothing to do with the issue of eliminating the deprivation of homosexuals as individuals.
The house called the State of Israel, and Israeli society as a whole - in my opinion, has been in the process of disintegrating and burning, actually by our own hands, for about 30 years, and in my previous response I detailed the general reasons for this. If we continue with the current trend - we will add more fuel to the fire of the burning house. The segmentation phenomenon must be stopped, and this also includes the (emerging and growing) segment of homosexuals (and again - with a clear distinction between them as individuals and between them as a segment).
Michael Shalom
If you agree that homosexuality is a disease, then the differences between us are minimal.
In the whole issue of the rights of gays as individuals and maintaining their dignity, you burst into an open door. No one here is suggesting to hurt gays in any way.
Regarding the association. The trouble is that to this day the gays take advantage of this association for the perverse purpose of brainwashing and promoting the idea that their disease is not actually a disease. If they used this association to put pressure on the medical and psychiatric establishment to find cures for this disease or prevention methods, or to lecture in schools on how to get away from this miserable way of life, I would warmly embrace them.
In my estimation, and I'm pretty sure that the percentage of gays in the population is less than half a percent.
If you want to be sure, do another test and it's simple too. If you know a friend in a kibbutz or a small village, where everyone knows everyone else, ask him how many members there are in that kibbutz and how many of them he knows are gay. The answer you get will correspond to the real percentage of gays in the population, much more than any "scientific study".
Eddie:
First of all - regarding homosexuality being a disease.
It's really a matter of definition.
Is obsessive compulsive disorder a disease?
Is impotence a disease?
Is a pollen allergy a disease?
I think yes.
In my opinion, anything in an individual's body or mind, which harms his well-being or his ability to provide a future generation, is a disease.
There are many people among us who are sick with various diseases and personally I would define homosexuality as one of them.
I allow myself to do this because for me - the fact that a person is sick with this or that disease is not a reason to harm his dignity, to lower his value, or to treat him negatively of any kind.
The attempt to avoid defining the phenomenon as a disease is, in my opinion, an expression of hypocrisy - especially when the attempter does seek and find a way to lower the value of the person for whom he claims he is not sick and to violate his rights.
A disadvantaged group of people has the right to unite and act to prevent deprivation and despite all your attempts to throw sand in the eyes of humanity - homosexuals are a disadvantaged group of people.
Jonathan:
As I said - there is no way to "help" them and likewise no one has the right to give them "help" that they do not want.
Therefore - the very claim that they are offered help is a lie.
When "Dr" who says "with us" - who do you think he means? Who are those "we" who are trying to "help" homosexuals?
In addition to that - what they would really like to do is stone them.
We also know the cases of those among them who were not satisfied with the sublimation and were actually murdered in order to "treat".
This of course brings me straight to your lies.
"Dr" Mi writes in response 22 "We don't harass patients but try to help them."
The things are said exactly, my brother defined the homosexuals as blue.
It takes a great deal of boldness to claim that he does not mean that they are being offered treatment (and don't tell me that the "help" they are trying to give them is help in realizing their sexual orientation - it is clear that this is "help" intended to change this orientation - help that does not exist).
It takes no less courage to claim that a person who is murdered because of his sexual orientation has equal rights in society.
The funniest is your claim that "brainwashing" made the problem disappear.
Not only that she still hasn't eliminated the problem (and you and the "doctor" are, among other things, proof of that) but you actually admit that there was a problem here that needed to be solved and yet you call the factors that solved the problem derogatory names. It's easy to see what motivates you - you homophobe.
This of course also brings us to the nature of your statistics. How many people - in your opinion - would dare to tell you about their sexual orientation?
So I have much more reliable data and my personal statistics do stand at 10% and believe me - no one tells me that he is gay just to show off because of course there is nothing to show off about it just as there is nothing to show off about liking to eat falafel.
By the way - I don't really understand the source of your aversion to serious research and your preference for gut feelings over them.
"Dr" who:
Who do you think are the stakeholders who write Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Sexual_orientation_change_efforts
So you offer them non-existent "treatment" and anyone who understands matters knows this, and therefore it is an act of fraud, but the problem is even more serious: even if there was a way to change their sexual orientation - who are you to decide to change the sexual orientation of a person who does not want it? How would you treat someone who would come and force you to change your sexual orientation?
There is justification for coercion towards those who harm others.
There is no justification for such coercion against those who do not harm others.
The homosexuals are not hurting anyone.
you are.
Michael, Dr. Who:
Not every social or behavioral deviation or even personality disorder is a 'disease'.
On the other hand, there is no positive interest for any society whatsoever, to turn some kind of deviation into something that is normative. If a certain society is an object of life - the social ambition must be in the direction of reducing the deviation - subject to preserving the fundamental rights of the individual, of course. What is clear is that there is an unequivocal positive interest of any society that desires life except for the public and media prominence of normative deviations, to prevent it from becoming an accepted 'norm'. Encouraging such publicity (and this is the situation today in Israel, as in other Western countries where decadence is conquering them) by interested parties and the media for idiosyncratic rupees - is wrong in my view.
The above-mentioned things also apply to homosexuals.
Regarding homosexuals, among others, it is also important to distinguish between recognition of their individual rights and recognition of their rights as a community.
In this context, I would say that homosexuals as individuals deserve all the rights in a democratic society - but they do not deserve any rights, including sweeping social legitimacy, as a community that stands on its own or as a collective that stands on its own.
These things are also true for other communities (Arabs, ultra-Orthodox, various capital elites, etc.). And it is a great pity that Israeli society has deteriorated - mainly since the eighties of the last century, and at an increasing rate - into a process of fragmentation. When the discourse becomes entirely a sectoral discourse, and when the social stage and the array of political forces all become servants of sectoral interest groups - the social dissonance will collapse the entire structure and the state, in the end. The 'qualification' for this process has also been given throughout the years by the Supreme Court - in the form of the social legal ideology of an extreme strengthening of individual rights and the preference of the discourse of 'rights' - over the interest of the whole society as a society and over the discourse of 'obligations' . The neo-liberal forces helped him to the Supreme Court since the mid-XNUMXs - they were the direct beneficiaries of this situation, at the expense of society as a whole and all of its components.
We eat the results today, and in a big way (for example: the socio-economic gaps in the State of Israel are the deepest in the Western world - when Israel 'leads' in them together with very 'advanced' countries like Turkey and Mexico).
The mistake must not be deepened, and it is necessary to come to our senses also on the issue of the homosexual community.
Without invalidating the right of homosexuals to live their private lives as they wish, I wonder if anyone, for example the author of the article, is obliged to disclose their sexual orientation. This comment is made because, in my opinion, the article is not balanced.
Michael
Unfortunately, my father makes a puzzling selection of the comments and does not publish them or publishes late.
You said that scientific studies indicated that the percentage of homosexuals in society is at least 10%.
I suggest you do a simple and completely unscientific test. Count how many people were with you in classes during your life, in kindergarten, in public school and high school, in the army and on the university faculty, I think you will find that on average there are at least 400 people.
According to the "studies" you cited, at least 40 of them were supposed to be gay.
I checked mine, although not strictly, but I didn't find anyone like that. I would love to hear how much you found at your place? And how much did the other surfers find on the site?
Even if you take into account that some of them lie deep in the closet, the fact that the supporters of homosexuality flourish is still unacceptable.
Michael
The gays cross these boundaries not in their actions in bed but, as I said, in the arrogance of the phenomenon and in an attempt to give it a normative tone.
The argument that society punishes homosexuals is misplaced. In my estimation, today, after years of intense brainwashing, both by the media and by the education system, most Israelis accept the phenomenon as a natural and normal phenomenon. On the contrary, whoever tries to shout "the king is naked" is the one who is punished and ostracized.
If you look in the dictionary you will find that a lie is a presentation of incorrect facts. Dr. Mee did not claim that homosexuals are offered treatment. He said they refuse to address the problem and this statement is correct. In the past, many attempts were made to find a treatment for this disease and there were partial successes, as far as I know today, due to the problem that it is not "politically correct", and in the absence of funding, for years now the scientific establishment has completely stopped trying to find modern drugs and treatments for the disease, and instead prefers to "swim with the current" and recognize In the phenomenon as a "natural" phenomenon, this too is lost.
The lies and the distorted and biased presentation of the facts are the main tools of the propagandists of homosexuality. Such as the urban legend that 5-10 percent of the population are gay, a gross lie that was even supported by "scientific studies", and the article above is also a good example of taking things out of context, the worst thing is a lie.
In a "completely natural" way, I tend to accept Jonathan's words with both hands...
Waving loudly and shouting "you are lying" is not exactly a way to conduct a discussion that tries, at least on the face of it, to convince.
This is a disease. These are people trying to make her into something she is not. This is a small group of interested parties who will invent "innovative" scientific theories and flood us all with "facts" just to not face reality as it is.
By the way, the chatter about the percentage of homosexuals in society has slowed down to just that: chatter.
The known statistic is 10%.
The lowest number ever obtained in any study was 2% and there were also studies that indicated 20% but most studies hover around 10%
Jonathan:
I carefully read what you wrote and my comments are based on this reading.
Society in general punishes homosexuals and you - in your attempt to deny them the right to defend themselves against this punishment, become a partner in the punishment.
I explained what I think are the limits that society must set for individual behavior and I explained why homosexuals do not cross these limits and you do.
Regarding the lies of "Dr" Mee - I explained that too.
He claims that they are offered treatment when the problem has no treatment and all attempts to "treat" it have only caused damage.
Michael Shalom
I suggest you read what I wrote carefully.
I never offered to punish or make anyone miserable. All I'm saying is that society must set boundaries. and determine what good and desirable behavior should be encouraged and what is bad and unhealthy.
One percent of the population has schizophrenia (in my opinion, more than the rate of homosexuals). No one suggests punishing schizophrenics or trying to get rid of them or make them miserable, on the contrary most of us would like to help them, make it easier for them and if possible find a cure for this disease as quickly as possible. On the other hand, no one is brazen enough to conduct a tireless propaganda campaign, to instill in the public that schizophrenia is a natural and desirable phenomenon.
I do not believe that Dr. Mi wrote lies, if you think so, you should indicate where exactly he is lying in your opinion.
But I do think (in fact - know for sure) that you are lying.
It is an innate problem that many of those who are ready for the "treatment" you offer have been horribly damaged and others have not been "cured".
This is the conclusion of science and this conclusion is based on research and not on prejudice - exactly the opposite of the conclusion you are trying to drag us to.
By the way - as I mentioned before - stoning homosexuals is not the best way to offer them help and treat them and your attempt to "treat" them by other means stems solely from the fact that modern society prevents you from following the commandments of your religion fully and accurately.
You are right - we both use facts to justify the worldview we came from, so neither of us is better in this sense.
At the same time, I don't think you are "lying", rather you are biased in your opinion due to lack of choice and subject to the personal background to which you are bound.
I am certainly not lying, but I am saying my opinion honestly and with the utmost intellectual honesty that I can muster: this is a mental illness (as it is defined in the psychological field, to say that the background to the suffering is social is simply nonsense - anyone who goes through this kind of sexual identity discovery process experiences great difficulties and suffering that is not related to only for the company's reaction but also for the recognition that something is crooked and broken in him).
We do not abuse the patients, but try to help them. But as you were told by Yonatan, those who refuse to accept help and think that by creating an alternative reality that is disconnected from the most basic recognition that we all carry, which is that male and female he created them to be together and reproduce with each other, and from this basic rule is derived the definition of "what is human and what is not" and values about them Entire civilizations are built (or extinct)... those who try to collide with reality and fight it... end tragically.
And our goals are that this tragic end, if decreed to this or that individual who refuses to recognize reality, will not be the property of society as a whole (we did not establish a state here and we are fighting for it to be moral and just, so that decadence and sexual relations that are not according to nature will be the source
to its disintegration).
post Scriptum. If it is necessary to explain that homosexual intercourse is not according to the way of nature... I surrender in advance and give up the effort.
Dr. Who:
Contrary to an article that gathers the facts to support a conclusion that you think is known in advance - you gather lies for the same need.
So what's better?
Usually, articles that harness "scientific facts" to an agenda whose conclusions are known in advance are entertaining articles to read, if it were not a serious social phenomenon, the spread of which indicates destructive processes in the existing social fabric.
I know that my words will be "unpopular" and very non-PC, but the truth must be said without fear and with sharp scrutiny: homosexuality is a mental disorder that originates from the difficulty of forming a sexual identity that matches the individual's biology.
Regarding the "naturalness" of the phenomenon: it is clear that such signs can be found in a variety of animals and in a variety of situations - this is a phenomenon of biological / animal origin, and since the complexity of life allows a variety of phenomena to find expression, it is clear that this phenomenon exists and in many cases.
At the same time, we as humans pretend to be "a drop" above the animal world and formulate moral norms that take into account the consequences of our actions. A person who is sick with a disease, we can only share in his grief and wish him to find a balm for his soul, but a person who becomes an "active carrier", joins the illusory "communities" that try to rewrite human history and make souls live a decadent and corrupt lifestyle - this must be said constantly, and the agents of destruction must be strongly opposed these.
A normal person examines the nature and morality of his actions on the basis of their results and consequences: the right of every individual in a pluralistic society to adopt a directed lifestyle, a sterile, egoistic life, burdened with the realization of futile sexual fantasies and evolutionary meaning, but since there is no doubt that this mental disorder also has an environmental background and not just a genetic one (see people those who are in prison for a period of time), and since we as a society have a responsibility to the next generation and the children we are raising - then whoever becomes an agent of the phenomenon and tries to "recruit" more souls to this losing cause, should be told "enough of this - stay at home and don't corrupt the youth".
And this is exactly the gist of the problem: on a personal level we can only regret that someone like this exists, but on a social level and in the public sphere, any revelation of such a phenomenon is completely wrong (by the way, like any other sexual deviation/tendency) - and those who insist on making the phenomenon public will only damage liberalism in the long run and the tolerance of all of us regarding them.
Jonathan:
It is not written in the Torah explicitly, but this is what the commentators understood from it:
See the hand section here: http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/i/5101.htm#s14
My arguments are not chosen for the purpose of being beautiful for one purpose or another.
The only criterion is willingness.
My arguments are true and yours are false.
The homosexual tendency is an innate tendency. You can call her sick and I might agree with you.
I don't know if you know, but a tendency to catch a runny nose as a result of citrus blossoms is also morbid and so is stupidity - from a certain level and above.
Unlike the other tendencies - homosexuality does not directly make homosexuals miserable. It does this through people like you.
In every field there is a norm and there are exceptions.
For example, in the field of intelligence - we are both exceptional (although in opposite directions, but it is an exception in any case) is this a reason to punish us?
There is no logic in punishing people who do not harm their environment and homosexuals do not harm anyone.
A disproportionate part of the revelations of pedophilia that you for some reason decided to relate to the matter are discovered in the ultra-Orthodox community, so the whole argument you put forward in this matter is horribly stupid.
I definitely support setting limits on human behavior. The line that a person must not cross is the line of harming another person.
The homosexual does not cross this line.
you are!
to Jonathan There is a reason why I ask to review every response addressed to Michael, regardless of whether it is you or someone else.
Regarding your question, the science site reflects the scientific consensus and not all kinds of consensuses that may be common in the general public. This is not a publicity campaign. This is a completely scientific article.
To my father
I would love to know the reason why my last response to Michael's response was censored?
Is it possible that the science site also joined the predatory media publicity campaign for homosexuality?
Maybe tell us how this is done?
Are you paid money?
Threaten with lawsuits?
To Michael
The Torah does not command to "murder" homosexuals.
Your arguments can be beautiful from the point of view of the personal good of the gays, but not from the point of view of the good of society in general.
The homosexual tendency is a morbid deviation that makes its owner miserable. There is no point in legitimizing this. No one here suggests hanging gays. All we want is to put things in the right context. There should be clear boundaries between the natural and the normal and the sick and the distorted. When one such border blurs, many more borders also blur and thus society loses itself in knowing.
Why do you think there has been such a big boom in pedophiles in recent years? They see the legitimacy of the homosexuals and get the feeling that their deviation is not so terrible either.
Adults are not so different from children. Just as in front of your children, I hope you set limits, so too should limits be set in front of humans. As soon as they don't have clear boundaries, they allow themselves everything and cause a lot of damage to themselves and their environment. We need to learn from history.
Jonathan:
It doesn't belong at all.
Do you think anyone at the time the Torah was written held homosexual demonstrations?
And yet the Torah commands to kill homosexuals.
Do you think the ultra-Orthodox homosexuals hold demonstrations?
Do you think that the ultra-orthodox's attitude towards them stems from the demonstrations of the secular homosexuals?
Society's attitude towards homosexuals in all societies that started with the religions that are based on the Torah is a monstrous attitude.
In Iran there are also no homosexual demonstrations except for those where they swing with great pleasure on the gallows.
Even in Turing's time there were no demonstrations. On the contrary - all homosexuals hid their tendency as much as they could and certainly much more than those who are not homosexuals and yet society thought it was its duty to enter people's private closets, bring them out and punish them.
Therefore, your claim has no basis in reality.
And in relation to the demonstration of sexual orientation - actually the normal sexual orientation is demonstrated non-stop, but because it is normal it is not called a demonstration.
To Yossi
Have you ever thought how similar the word "to show off" is also to "to show off", and "to show off" and "to get high"?
Michael Shalom
If you were to walk down the street with a sign saying: "I have anal sex with my wife", you would probably also be deprived and persecuted. I don't think there were many employers who would agree to hire you, and most people would look at you askance. Not because of what you do in your private room but because you announce it in public, causing a feeling of disgust and corrupting the souls of children as well as adults.
In the previous post, instead of "Shlani" they read "Leshani".
I guess many of the readers don't know what it is to be an outsider, I didn't know either. Unfortunately, this verb has not yet come to the attention of academia and therefore I am forced to commit the sin of amateur linguistics.
communicate (p)
On weight to fuck.
From the language of public relations, the profession of the publicist, i.e. the person dealing with PR (public relations).
In addition, from the idiom, to cross, to divide.
1. What Rani Rahab is doing.
2. Engage in public relations other than the natural way, that is, in guest rooms and not on television. (The opposite of Rani Rahab)
3. Carry out self-crossing, i.e. division of the individual into two offspring similar to mitosis in unicellular organisms.
4. Treat yourself cynically (rare).
Examples:
1. Have you ever seen Rani Rahab on TV talking about Rani Rahab? So communicating is just like that.
2. This talkative Mookie, listening to his new CD in the bathroom.
3. Mrs. Cohen really bargained, carbon coffee her daughter came out.
4. Yossi elaborated on the last example he gave in his post.
Jonathan:
You just don't understand!
They are disadvantaged and persecuted.
I didn't just bring a link to a story about Turing.
This is a man (homosexual by the way) who saved millions of people by the power of his mind and they rewarded him by the power of their nakedness leading to his suicide.
The blacks did not get equal rights without publicists, and the women still need publicists to this day in their war on gender deprivation.
There is nothing in their war that leads to the collapse of society. On the contrary - the dark factors against which they are fighting - are exactly the factors that will bring us down.
The problem with homosexuality is not the degree of prevalence of the phenomenon (much lower than they try to present), nor the question of what these people do in their bedrooms. It doesn't interest me at all.
The main problem is the legitimacy and publicity of homosexuality.
Historically, this legitimization has always gone hand in hand with the breakdown of social order and the collapse of society.
Ancient Egypt, the peoples of Canaan, ancient Greece and Rome, the Incas, China before the communist revolution, and much more.
Homosexuality is undoubtedly a form of sexual deviance, just as having anal intercourse between heterosexuals is also a form of deviance.
When these deviations begin to be expressed, a slippery slope begins in which other and more difficult deviations are manifested, such as pedophilia, sadomasochism, sexual relations in the family, etc. In this way, a general moral deterioration begins in the society in question, when the boundaries between what is allowed and what is forbidden and between what is moral and what is immoral blur and fade, until finally even fraud, theft, rape and murder no longer seem so threatening, until the inevitable collapse, that is, another company's takeover of the collapsing society's resources .
It is exactly this process that we see taking place today in Western and Israeli society in particular.
Amazing article
It's fun to read such intelligent and educated things
Lovely and waiting
Asaf:
Homosexuals and lesbians among humans would not be "flailing" their uniqueness if our stupid society had not shunned them for that uniqueness.
Every deprived minority in human society establishes for itself over time an organization designed to fight deprivation and holds demonstrations for that need.
How many times does Alan Turing's sad story need to be repeated for us to understand?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-man-that-knew-too-much-0208090/
post Scriptum.
Thank you Abbi for an interesting article,
Happy holiday to all those in the know.
My friend Dr. Avi Arbel points out in detail that any homosexual behavior is in her possession
cannot be considered natural, the same applies to domestic/farm animals.
My father goes on to point out that in nature a male's "climbing" over another is a gesture of control,
The same is true in human society... in prisons, (that is, not under natural conditions),
The dolphins, black swans and others mate with females to have offspring..
The bonobos also "make love and not war",
Since no "norm" was defined, all the examples do not make homosexuality a "norm",
It is clear that homosexual behavior is the exception,
What's more, the animals don't have organizations that demand to recognize their uniqueness!
Not every exception is obliged to externalize its uniqueness and flaunt its difference!
Relevant to understanding human nature but not to the question of homosexuality. Man is much more than an animal and the question of homosexuality between humans has many aspects that go beyond instinct.
Without disputing the truth of the facts appearing in the article, it is clear that what is important is the interpretation of the facts and not the facts themselves. The opponents of the legitimacy of homosexuality in human society will claim, in defense of their view, that this is a selective and trending selection of unusual examples, prepared by those who want to prove that "homosexuality is a normal natural phenomenon" but in fact the examples given in the article constitute a deviation from the norm in animal society. Supporters of homosexuality will argue the opposite, that is, as argued in the article.
Without expressing an opinion on the topic in question, it seems that here is a classic demonstration of the claim that the social-value worldview of the researcher also shapes his scientific-research worldview.
I really enjoyed reading the article.
Where can I read more about the subject?
The company of bonobo monkeys is peaceful, similar to certain human companies, which are characterized by peace and broad shares - this is of course referring to matriarchal companies