Homosexuality
I have now read interviews conducted with you in the past on the subject and you stated there that neither the Torah nor anyone else has the ability to determine whether the matter is natural or not. However, as far as I know, the phenomenon also exists in animals, where psychological explanations are a little less relevant. And whoever wants to say that the situation is different in humans, the burden of proof is on him.
In addition, you made a comparison between Sabbath desecrators and homosexuals, both in the attitude that should be toward them in a religious society and in the opposition to the surrogacy law toward them. I don’t understand the latter at all, because the constitutional permit to have children will certainly encourage, increase, and bring legitimacy to members of the gay community, and it is directly related to marital life and, in any case, to committing an offense, unlike other offenses. Apart from that, this is the only offense where everyone unites in an official statement and even holds marches for it, it is for this offense. I am sure that on the day they hold the Sabbath desecrators’ parade, there will also be extremely strong opposition.
I didn’t say that no one has the ability, nor did I say that the Torah doesn’t have the ability. What I said is that to the best of my knowledge, there is currently no complete scientific information on the matter, and I also said that it is impossible to draw conclusions from the Torah on this subject.
Your view of animals is not evidence, as it is possible that in some cases it is innate and in others it is acquired. Beyond that, in animals it is almost non-existent, and if it is, then there is evidence to the contrary.
I explained the difference between Sabbath desecration and homosexuals. Sabbath desecration is done without the distress that homosexuals have, and therefore Sabbath desecrators are greater offenders. Raising a child in a home with Sabbath desecration will cause him to desecrate Sabbath, and this is a complete prohibition, but raising him in a home with homosexuals will not cause him to be gay, and there is no prohibition in that at all.
The question of whether to fight them or not is a tactical question, not a substantive one. In my opinion, this war is bringing the Pride parades upon us. If they were given equality, there would be no parades.
“The Torah cannot have a statement whether it is natural or not, just as no one else can have such a statement “…
This is the wording you used… We can discuss it…
By the way, if in humans this is an unnatural phenomenon, you create two assumptions, both that the matter exists in nature and that as a psychological phenomenon it is found that the innovator is you.
Moreover, it seems to me more logical to compare two species in which the phenomenon is found and exists than to compare humans with a type of animal in which it does not exist.
If so, this is a mistake in the formulation. The Torah may have such a statement, but in practice it does not. And no one else can have such a statement now, in the current state of knowledge.
Beliefs are a beautiful thing, but information needs empirical findings. Beyond that, I can raise contrary beliefs.
I'm not really clear what the discussion is here.
Does anyone think this is supernatural and violates the laws of physics? No.
It's crystal clear that it's natural, and there's no dispute about that.
(Those who say that ”this is unnatural” mean it in the normative sense, from the perception that the proper values are part of the nature of the human soul or mean identifying the biological purpose [reproduction] as the definition of ”natural”).
And if in your words “natural” = “genetic” then it is truly proven in terms of identical twins that in most cases it is not genetic, if there is no way to rule out a minority of cases that it is.
(What is clear is that if homosexuality is not genetic, then heterosexuality is not genetic either. It is the other side of the same coin).
And to the questioner, non-genetic homosexuality may also exist in animals. There is no reason to think not.
The acquisition of sexual orientation is a complicated process.
Suppose a male baby is born, who is ”supposed”to be attracted to women in the future, he was not born with an image of a woman in his head. How did he know who to be attracted to? He does not have an innate image that he is supposed to compare it to.
The answer is that there is probably a complicated learning process here, in which the baby learns to associate appearance and complex features with primitive sensations (which later degenerate), such as certain odor molecules that are distributed by men or women and act on the sexual centers in the brain, etc.
And such a complex learning process (most of which is unknown to us) is liable to fail. In animals no less than in humans.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
