Q&A: "Two People" Who Happened Upon an Inn(s)
"Two People" Who Happened Upon an Inn(s)
Question
A discussion came up at the Sabbath table regarding surrogacy in relation to gay men. The assumptions of the discussion were: 1. Surrogacy is harm to a woman's body, and despite her consent the law sees it as an immoral process (like prostitution). 2. Even so, the law allows couples who have been unable to have children for a long time to begin a surrogacy process. 3. The law does not allow this process for gay men.
Same-sex couples argue that they too, as a couple, cannot have children, and therefore they deserve the right to a surrogacy process. What is the difference between them and a male-female couple that cannot have children? Their further claim is that the law does not allow this only because it does not fully recognize their relationship.
My claim is that these cases are not similar at all. The law does not relate to couples; it relates to the individual. Therefore, it does not allow a certain couple that cannot have children to harm a woman's body for this purpose; rather, a person who has no possibility of having children is entitled to this process. A practical implication for this matter: a couple whose incompatibility does not allow pregnancy, but each of them individually has the physiological potential to have children, would not qualify for surrogacy. So too with a same-sex couple, who in my opinion the law should regard as a married couple, yet they are not entitled to this process.
I would be glad to hear the Rabbi's opinion on the matter, and in general to open a discussion (because on the Sabbath good arguments came up on both sides).
Answer
I don’t know the facts about whom they allow and whom they do not (your description seems contradictory on that point). In any case, I do not agree with your distinction. Gay men are similar to someone who cannot have children because of a medical problem.
Discussion on Answer
Also, the law requires the woman to undergo all possible treatments, and only if they do not succeed does it allow surrogacy.
Why not require a gay man to try conversion therapy before allowing surrogacy?
Okay, this is heading in the direction of pointless hairsplitting with no logic. Unfortunately, that’s typical of yeshiva boys. I’m done.
See Column 655.
To hear such a claim from Rabbi Michael Abraham is surprising. I thought critically about the arguments, and I retract my first claim, but: 1. There is no way to prove that so-and-so is gay. 2. If I treat a gay man as someone who cannot have children because of a medical problem, then he is obligated to treat that problem no less than a woman who has to undergo a series of surgeries, and only if the treatment fails does he become eligible.
I remind you that the starting point of the discussion is that the law sees surrogacy as a problematic procedure and tries as much as possible to limit it.
I saw the column. Agreed.
A bit too optimistic on the Rabbi’s part to think that a yeshiva boy would be satisfied with such an answer.
Even if he won’t be satisfied, talking to him is a waste of words.
The Rabbi referred me to Column 655; I will refer the Rabbi to Column 664, where the author expresses himself unusually sharply against silencing people and nitpicking details that are not actual arguments.
We may presume that the author of the column did not change his mind in a single Sabbath. (Even though these are permitted thoughts.)
The law allows it for women who have no other option.
A. Gay men have the physiological potential to have children; a woman without fallopian tubes in her womb has no such possibility.
B. If so, then maybe it should also be allowed for a person who does not want to marry out of laziness. And in general, how can one prove that someone is gay (and not bisexual; in my opinion there is no justification at all to give him surrogacy, since he has the option of marrying a woman).