Equal rights for LGBT people
Is the rabbi’s position, that LGBT people should be given equal rights, a pragmatic position or a value-based position?
I would be happy to explain.
This is a value position. I advocate a broad basket of values: the religious, the moral, and the democratic-liberal. Even if there is a conflict between them, it does not mean that it is impossible to hold onto both. Therefore, for me, LGBTQ is a halakhic prohibition, and on the religious level, I am against it. But on the moral-liberal level, I support giving equal rights to everyone. And in general, I would not want the state to interfere with values (in the terminology of this column: I am in favor of a secular state in the narrow sense).
Thus, I also support opening the marriage market to everyone, although on the religious level I of course support religious marriages such as the religion of Moses and Israel. But the state should not dictate this to all citizens. Not only pragmatically but also ethically. There is a value in autonomy for a person to do what he understands.
To clarify, I will return to the trite example of chocolate. A person can support eating chocolate because it is delicious and oppose it because it makes you fat. He advocates both arguments, and the bottom line decision is a weighting of both (and regarding the weighting, he must decide separately).
Yaakov wrote:
I'm not sure I understood the connection of the chocolate example to the matter. In chocolate, there are two different considerations that are directed towards the same matter (i.e., eating). In the case of LGBTQ+ and civil marriage, these are different matters (the person's act and the intervention of the establishment, if I understood correctly). In other words, this is not a real conflict, these are different questions. Can the duality (or breadth) of values also be applied in a frontal contradiction (like chocolate)? I will try to explain my words. The rabbi is dividing here (again, if I understood correctly) between the personal judgment of such and such an act and the need for institutional intervention (or personal, because there is no reason to divide according to the given set of assumptions) by using the value of personal autonomy, a value that ostensibly belongs to the basket of liberal democratic values. But it seems to me that even within the two aspects that have been created (personal judgment and institutional coercion) there is a contradiction between the two different value systems. Against the negative halakhic judgment towards LGBT people, there is the sympathetic judgment of liberal morality that advocates self-realization (or something like that). And against the liberal position that sees value in personal autonomy, the religious position actually sees a need, sometimes, to break personal autonomy and force people to do things contrary to their beliefs (or to punish them for certain behaviors and actually make them refrain from performing them). Is it possible here too, where the value contradiction is frontal, to hold to both value systems?
My comment:
Indeed, chocolate has two different considerations regarding the same matter, and therefore this is just a borrowed example. I meant to say that I make this division both in relation to the values themselves and in relation to coercion upon them. Even if halakhic law instructs to impose values, I am against the democratic state doing so. Halachic coercion can be discussed when there is a Halachic state (and this is distilled from the consent of the citizens and the Halachic commitment of everyone). In general, it is not right to coerce someone who does not accept the system. Coercion is relevant only to someone who believes in the system and sins due to their evil inclination. It is a bit difficult to determine what my position would be in a Halachic state because it is a utopian situation and must be experienced and understood when formulating a position within its framework, but it is possible that even within the framework of a Halachic state I would oppose coercion due to moral considerations, and this at the same time with the understanding that Halachic law dictates coercion in the Halachic realm. I may find myself in a conflict like chocolate. But this is a completely hypothetical discussion and it is not worth having.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
