Participation in a demonstration for LGBT rights

But of course, the only ones to blame for these legislations are the secularists. The Haredim and the Jewish Home do it because they believe in it. The ones who allow them to do it are the secularists. The secularists are the majority, and if it was important to them and the politicians, it would be clear that they would not get the votes if they enacted such outrageous laws, the laws would not have been enacted. But the secularists prefer to allow the Haredim to do what they want and then whine. And so it is with all religious coercion, the Chief Rabbinate, and all other religious injustices. It is all the secularists' fault.

Wow, what nonsense.
The discrimination is not against gays but against men in general, and also against women without a medical problem. The idea behind the restriction is that the expansion could easily lead to harming women or to agreeing to serve as surrogates with a half-hearted heart just for the money (of course, one might think that there is no problem with that). The logic behind the restriction in practice is to allow a ‘replacement womb’ for someone who is supposed to have a womb but has a medical problem, and not for someone whose problem is different.
It is not about funding from the state at all. No one receives funding. The issue is who should allow the surrogacy procedure.
But why should one check before going out to protest? Ultimately, this is about social matters, and checking facts in the social sciences, as we know, is the science of regret (for the same reason, there is also no need for empirical evidence to determine that they are the science of regret, as the next question suggests, because such a determination would itself be regret).

It seems that the fairest arrangement is for women to conceive for women's sake and men to have children for men's sake 🙂 As it is written: upside down!

Regniol Ch”sh, the Cherub

Wow, so much nonsense and such impressive determination in arguing about nonsense. But what can be done when determination is no substitute for arguments and does not cover up foolishness.
There is a father of discrimination here, even if it is done under one pretext or another. The desire to allow a surrogate for women with a problem is no different from allowing a couple of men who have a problem to do so. A single man (if he is not gay) has no problem because he can get married. Therefore, what is not allowed for him is irrelevant.
As we know, a couple of men cannot give birth (nor can they get married), so what is the difference between them and women with a problem? So what if they were not born with a uterus? And if a woman was not born with a uterus, then they will not allow her to have surrogacy? These are words of utter foolishness. And if the man undergoes sex reassignment surgery, will they allow him?
Obviously, all of this is done to prevent this from happening to gays. Or do you think that the Haredim are fighting for this law simply because it is so important to them to take care of women without a uterus and not men, and the secularists for some reason don't care. After all, why do you think the debate is between Haredim and secularists? It has nothing to do with the question of gay rights? Interesting correlation, isn't it? Why are the Haredim pressing for this law?
Furthermore, the entire debate in the Knesset about this law revolved around gays, and that was the whole discussion. Men were excluded from the law because of gays and not because of anything else. Everything else (a replacement for women who cannot give birth and the other nonsense you cited) are excuses that are perhaps good for the people of the Haredi sciences and their limited abilities.

And finally, the question is funding. Because the gays are going to do it abroad and it costs a lot more money. Beyond the cost of the stay and flight, in Israel there is funding for medical procedures (except for payment to the surrogate mother, and there is supervision over that too). All in all, it comes out much cheaper.

And if anyone thinks that surrogacy is problematic in terms of the exploitation of women, let them respect it and ban it completely, and not get hung up on it to discriminate against gays. Isn't that just fire talk?

Didn't you write recently about an aesthetic-value perception? Doesn't it make sense not to fund exposing children to such a lifestyle that contradicts the elementary value perception? (And those who perceive it this way do not see it as "pointless discrimination" but as a distorted family).

In contrast to exposure to Sabbath desecration, this is about growing up in a distorted family. Why would the state financially support distorted families?

And beyond the above consideration.
Also, in practice, a same-sex man can bring a child into the world through shared parenting with a woman (and there is no shortage of such). Why would the state spend hundreds of thousands of shekels on every same-sex couple who are not disabled and can bring a child into the world through shared parenting with a woman? It would cost the taxpayer a fortune (probably much more than all of the straight surrogacy), when there is an alternative.
The reason homosexuals are interested in surrogacy is because it better suits their preferred family structure. But the state does not have to accept this preference.

If he finds co-parenting, he will do it anyway. This is about someone who doesn't succeed.

Not necessarily.
It's not just about those who don't succeed, but mainly about those who don't want to, because they don't want a woman outside the family to be involved in the child's life.

Even if it's someone who doesn't want it, it's indeed unreasonable to give a child split parents.

‎Lek”y
Good luck and thank you very much for the quick answer.
Returning to the body of the question, before developing the ruling on whether or not there is discrimination - the halachic discussion I raised is on the side of saying yes to the seventh-day worker, which involves assisting those who commit an offense, even if he works with or without a “shukhi” on the part of those who observe the halachic law. I think you examined participation only on the side of a blind man, but assistance is a different problem. Is participation in a demonstration less than saying yes? In addition, there is the problem of modesty, which, as mentioned, is disgraceful in this community, which may constitute an additional consideration for the prohibition, if we do not discuss this as a later example.

And yet my main argument is the above. There is no reason for the state to fund the expansion of a distorted language.

*family

As usual, there is no need to know the facts.
A moment ago you thought it had to do with state funding, but of course now you won't go and check. I would recommend that you read the Mor Yosef Committee report to understand the situation a little. But there are two arguments against it: First, none of the committee members are named Michael Avraham, so it is clear that their opinion is complete nonsense anyway. Second, a priori, one can assume that the members of the committee were either doctors, in which case they simply don't understand the fallacy of "is ought", or they come from the sciences of regret, in which case they are just stupid.
And as for the reality, which you will of course jump in, because it is better for you to speculate about it than to check it yourself. I really have no interest in continuing a debate that is being conducted at such an infantile level. Do yourself a favor and read the committee report (which, as you know, all of its members are Haredi; after all, you explained that this is the only reason for discrimination), get to know the sequence of events that followed it, and then you can write a reasoned post. Right now you are just another one of those against whom you write columns about the shallowness of media discourse in Israel.

Surrogacy (and especially adoption) is a right that the state chooses to give to what it defines as a family. If two cats and a cloud demanded to adopt children, would you also protest about that?

And by the way, contrary to what you wrote above, it's not Haredim versus secularists, but liberals versus illiberals.
You can see how great the reservation is among the older ex-Soviet Jews, complete atheists, who were not “deserved” to be overexposed to the values of liberalism.

Why is the motive of the Haredim important? Gay men have an alternative - to have a child with a lesbian, as MK Merav Ben Ari did, as opposed to a woman with medical problems. In 2014, when there was a vote on male surrogacy, Shelly Yachimovich and Galon abstained, Tamar Rozin of Meretz explained the opposition: (https://twitter.com/YinonMagal/status/1021288384243929088/photo/1). Maybe because the Haredim oppose, then Pavlovite all the Haredim haters support?

There is no point in addressing Yishai's nonsense again. I have already explained.

Roni,
I think that the definition of a distorted family is a controversial value definition (which is probably not anchored in facts), and today the majority of the public does not think so. Therefore, the state cannot impose the values of the minority on the majority. This is unreasonable.

D,
If there is broad public recognition of the family of cats and a cloud (especially if the cats cannot live with each other but only with clouds) I might go out to protest about it too.

Roni,
Your words are evidence to the contrary. You yourself say that this is conservatism versus liberalism and not a matter-of-fact consideration of concern for sick women and not for men as explained here. In other words, this is a value debate, in which there is a majority in the public that does not agree with this decision. The government is imposing the minority opinion on the majority without any justification. The question of who deserved or did not deserve to be exposed to the pure truth is disputed between those two factions. Therefore, there is no point in using this requested assumption argument.

With me,
The motive is evidence that behind the law there is not an innocent concern for women but discrimination against gays. And the wrong cell about Pavlovism. There are quite a few liberals who oppose surrogacy in principle, because of the exploitation of women. And yet they protest the discrimination that allows surrogacy for some and not for others. It is a simple two-way law that every yeshiva student should understand.

Mikhi,
This is certainly a value definition, but:
A. Large parts of the public believe so. In my opinion, if you take Haredim + many religious + Arabs + ex-Soviet immigrants + conservative traditionalists + other non-liberal secularists, you may find that the majority opposes funding this surrogacy (I'm not sure of this, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case).
B. A very large part of the public is indifferent to it (a fact that most of the Likud easily gave it up in exchange for coalition silence). And if so, for the majority it is certainly not critical to fund this surrogacy.
C. Even if the majority does not agree with my opinion (which, as mentioned, is not at all clear), in the end every political decision is a matter of values, and everyone should try to promote their values as much as possible through politics (should the left, which supports a state of all its citizens, which is not the state of the Jewish nation, give up its political attempts so as not to impose itself on the majority? Or should it try every possible political deal within the framework of democracy?).

It is clear that the value consideration is the most important here, the health considerations presented here are only a branch (this is not evidence to contradict, of course).

There are polls that show otherwise, but I don't think that's the point of the debate. Even if the majority believes that its values should be imposed on the minority, I oppose it. A democratic state is not supposed to impose values on its citizens, except where this is harmful to others.
The indifference of the public is indeed a worrying phenomenon that causes all religious coercion. Without it, there would be no rabbinate and there would be no religious scandals. The majority in the country is secular, and therefore only its indifference is to blame for everything that happens. Only the secular are to blame for religious coercion. I completely agree with this, and I have written about it more than once.

A. The above surveys are almost certainly flawed, and it is almost a bet that a large portion of the respondents did not understand the question at all (in my opinion, most citizens also do not really know what the Surrogacy Law says).
B. The majority did not impose their values, they simply decided not to fund an activity that contradicts their values. There is a big difference between this and imposing values (and in my opinion, this is part of the ambiguity of the surveys, and the respondents did not understand that this is a matter of non-funding and not a blanket ban on surrogacy. There are also other points of ambiguity. I believe that I could easily have phrased the question in a way that would have yielded very different results).
C. The above branches also join in here, health, an alternative to shared parenting, etc.
D. The child's best interest is also not to be born into a distorted family (good from a moral perspective), so this is not just interference in the lives of adults.
E. The indifference of a large part of the public, in short, means that despite the liberal press, this value is not that important to the public. It is also a value position. And overall, if you add up those who oppose and those who are indifferent, there is a large majority who do not see the law as a significant violation of a basic value that is worth fighting for.

You are making a lot of biased assumptions here that fit your fundamental view. Polls that show the opposite are biased. The respondents did not understand. The best interests of the child mean not living in such a family because it is “distorted” (which, as far as I know, has no indication whatsoever except for a value assumption). And so on.
Regarding the majority that decided not to fund, if it is indeed in the best interests of the child, then they should be banned and not just not funded. And if the majority decides not to fund Arabs or Haredim, I think the Haredim will not support this matter and will make exactly my claims.
Well, I think we have exhausted it.

A. True. I assume they are biased, and I believe this assumption is correct (and this is true, by the way, in most polls in my opinion).
B. I wrote explicitly that the child's best interest not to be born into a distorted family is good from a *value* perspective. This is not an assumption, but a derivative of the value (and I intentionally did not include an empirical indication, because I am talking about a value-based benefit here, not a psychological benefit).
C. If it is indeed in the child's best interest, then should it be banned? First, politics is the art of the possible. There is a majority for non-funding, there is no majority for a blanket ban. Second, many support non-interference in a parental decision even if they believe it harms the child to some extent (education, circumcision, etc.) but do not support state funding for decisions that harm the child. Freedom of parental decision is also a value-based position.

In other words, you are not talking about the best interests of the child, but about moral coercion under the false guise of the best interests of the child. In fact, you would prohibit abortions and even just childbirth for secular people, Sabbath desecrators and slanderers, but politics is the art of the possible. Whereas I oppose moral coercion by the state even if it is washed under the lie of the best interests of the child. That is what I said.

Why false pretense? Where is the lie here? I truly believe that this is the best interest of the child from a moral perspective (even the mere funding of expanding a distorted family regardless of its benefit is enough for me).
And I would not prohibit procreation for slanderous remarks, etc. Even if I had the political power, I have already made it clear that I see a difference between a family whose very structure is distorted and a family that has sinners. I would also not prohibit procreation for shared parenting, even though there is distortion in that too (I just would not support financing from public funds. The public is allowed to determine the distribution of resources according to its values).
By the way, it is interesting to hear whether you yourself, for yourself, see this as a distorted and morally flawed family, and only support financing despite the distortion, or you do not see any moral flaw in it, and you are a liberal for all intents and purposes.

The lie is that you present the argument as if it is about the best interests of the child, when in fact it is about moral coercion. The best interests of the child is an expression used to say objective things (that the child will grow up healthy and feel good). If you are in favor of coercion – you can also force the parents not to act in a way that is not moral in your opinion.
As I wrote, the claim that this is a distorted family is distorted in my opinion. It is no more distorted than a family of Sabbath desecrators, but quite the opposite. Sabbath desecrators are much more problematic. I see this as a halakhic prohibition, like desecration of the Sabbath, and I do not want the state to impose values, even if I believe in them. Just as I would not want secular people to enact a law that prohibits religious people from surrogacy because of the child's best interests, or gay people to enact a law that prohibits straight people from surrogacy because of the child's best interests. Beyond my opposition to these actions, I will also add that in all these cases the use of the term “the best interests of the child” It is a lie, as I explained above.

Roni,
Do a little mental exercise and think about whether you demand from a woman everything you demand from a man:
A. Do you demand from every woman who does in vitro fertilization to have a father around or are you willing to settle for someone anonymous from Sockland?
B. Can't a woman's partner adopt her child even if he's not his biological child?
If you don't demand this from a woman, demanding it from men just because they're homosexual men is a form of discrimination. I agree that the state doesn't have to fund every whim, but it's requested that the state at least explain the logic behind its policy in an equal manner to everyone.

But my argument that it is in the best interests of the child from a moral perspective is not a lie. All the cards are on the table, nothing is hidden under cover and disguise. You probably simply oppose considerations of the best interests of the child from a moral perspective, and I understand the opposition, although I do not identify with it (and I also mentioned that the best interests of the child are not my only consideration for opposing state funding).
Ultimately, I think you are right that we have exhausted and clarified the points of disagreement.
To summarize the points of disagreement:
1. You do not see such a family structure as a distorted structure (which is not present in the family of Sabbath-breakers), while I see a distorted structure and find a big difference between a family of Sabbath-breakers and a distorted same-sex family (what you called an aesthetic value. Although I do not call it that). This is probably the deepest point of disagreement, by the way.
2. In your opinion, the majority of citizens oppose the current surrogacy law, I doubt it.
3. In your opinion, the indifferent should not be counted in the votes for or against, in my opinion they are. Because this value is almost unimportant to them.
4. In your opinion, the child's best interests from a *value* perspective are an invalid consideration from a state perspective, in my opinion it is a possible consideration in measure, weight, and sparingly. But I agree that one should be careful and be sparing with it.
5. In your opinion, there is no fundamental difference between non-funding and a blanket ban. If here there is harm to the child – then here too, if here there is a value-based objection – then here too, while in my opinion in the totality of considerations there is a significant difference between denying the freedom of parental decision (which is sometimes inappropriate even if it is in the child's best interest) and restricting freedom.
6. In your opinion, the state does not have the right to determine the distribution of resources according to the values of the voters if such a determination creates a difference between the types of families (even if the majority of its citizens do not see anything wrong with one of the family models). In my opinion, it has the right and obligation to act in accordance with the values of its citizens in the distribution of resources.
7. In your opinion, the alternative option is not a consideration because it harms the integrity of the family and involves the intervention of a foreign woman in the family. In my opinion, this alternative option is actually an additional consideration.

Y.D.,
Answer to your exercises:
1. A same-sex family is more distorted in my opinion than a single-sex family (and I am also against state funding for it).
2. A woman's partner can adopt.
3. I didn't say it wasn't discrimination (it depends on the definition of discrimination), but even if it is discrimination, it is justified in my opinion, because not all family models are equally good in my opinion.

Roni,
1. I didn't ask you about a same-sex family. The question was whether you require a relationship with a man even in the case where a woman does IVF from a sperm donor or not.
2. That is, you don't require a biological relationship.
3. Okay, but would you prohibit a lesbian woman living in a lesbian relationship from doing IVF from an anonymous sperm donor (or at least not finance it)?

Y.D.,
1. I demand. The law does not, unfortunately (I just mentioned that it is less severe in my opinion than same-sex surrogacy).
2. I do not demand a biological relationship. I do not oppose adoption in general.
3. Yes. I oppose state funding of a sperm donor for a single mother or a mother in a lesbian relationship.

In the 19th century, a person may believe that even though it is a serious Torah prohibition, LGBT people should be allowed to adopt children through surrogacy, just as adoption is not prevented from those who violate the Sabbath, so the adoption of a child from other offenders should not be prevented.

However, one should be aware that most Dainish are not “analytical philosophers.” Anyone who sees an observant Jew at such demonstrations, and even someone who is widely known as a rabbi, is interpreting his presence as supporting the LGBT demand to recognize their actions as legitimate and normative, in complete contradiction to the Torah.

Moreover, young people who are embarrassed and struggling with this urge, to see a Jewish observant and a rabbi at such a demonstration, get a clear impression: "The Pharisees allowed this," and there is no point in making an effort and trying to escape the temptations of this urge, and will sink into a hopeless prohibition.

This is one of the goals of the organizers of LGBT demonstrations, to sweep confused young people after them, including those whose problem is borderline and can be easily solved, in order to increase their public power. God forbid we help them and lead confused young people down a path that the more they sink into, the more difficult it will be to get out of.

Best regards, Sh”ts Levinger

Roni,
Okay, but do you see that if someone allows anonymous sperm donation to a woman but prevents anonymous egg donation to a man, does anyone suffer from inconsistency?
Make this a protest by the LGBTQ, the liberals, and other greens, but it seems to me that the main discrimination here is against men in general. Your position is consistent to a certain extent - a couple tried to do it the natural way and failed and are given a detour. The other position is simply inconsistent.

The fact that LGBTQ people are trying to reproduce themselves and recruit young people to strengthen their public power also has a serious impact on the problem of surrogacy itself, which is a serious moral problem in itself - exploiting the plight of women who are willing to part with their children, impoverishing a poor mother in order to bring happiness to the rich.

If this is only a limited book of fertility problems, problems that advanced medicine successfully solves - then it is to be expected that as medicine advances - the need for surrogacy will decrease.

However, when it comes to a growing need to grow tenfold - then accordingly, it will be necessary to increase the number of surrogates tenfold. - An unholy covenant A growing alliance is emerging between LGBTQ+ and child traffickers, with a common goal: to increase the demand and supply of children for sale.

Is this something we should be concerned about?

Best regards, Sh”t Levinger

And if it's just a single man who hasn't found a wife and now at 40 wants a child? Why is the state willing to fund a single woman but not a single man?

(Now that I think about it, maybe because the woman's child will be Jewish, but that's just a wild guess)

Y.D., I agree with this (and as mentioned, I oppose both things). Although here a side consideration may come into play, the cost of financing - surrogacy is incomparably more expensive than sperm donation.

14
The committee's consideration of discrimination against men was twofold. The committee did not think that they should be prevented from surrogacy in principle, just as they should not be prevented from donating eggs or from donating sperm. The argument was that those who receive surrogacy services should be prioritized because they are not available (and this is intentional, the law makes surrogacy difficult so that there is as little exploitation as possible), and within this framework the argument is that women should be preferred over men – since there are not enough surrogates for women either, this means denying it to men and allowing it only to women. This is a completely consistent argument, which one may not agree with, but it is worth recognizing (and for this it takes a little effort and recognition that ’I don't know everything’, and there are people who unfortunately don't have it).
Although, the committee was consistent with this logic, and its proposal allowed voluntary surrogacy for men because it is not at the expense of women (although I need to look into this). Although it turns out that this option would hardly have been realized anyway. The committee's recommendations were not adopted by German and she wanted men not to be discriminated against and anyway proposed a law in which men are like women. In the meantime, the government fell and Litzman replaced it and he removed this option. It is certainly plausible that Litzman does not want to give the option to gays, but overall his 'excuse' is completely plausible since it is based on the committee's position.

If I may return to the body of the question, before developing the discussion on whether or not there is discrimination - the halachic discussion I raised is on the side of saying yes to the seventh-day worker, which involves assisting those who commit an offense, even if he works with or without “shokiyyah” from those who observe the halachic law. It seems to me that you examined participation only from the side of a blind man, but assistance is a different problem. Is participation in a demonstration less than saying yes? In addition, there is the problem of modesty, which, as mentioned, is disgraceful in this community, which may constitute an additional consideration for prohibition, if we do not discuss this as a last resort.

Mickey,
If the discrimination here is more general against men, there is no helpful law here. I come to protest against discrimination against men (and here even if the committee is consistent, de facto men are discriminated against). The fact that there is a private group of criminals who are also discriminated against because they are men does not matter. Besides them, there are enough men who are not criminals who are discriminated against.

As for modesty, I have no idea. I assume the rabbi will say something about gabra and heftza.

Mickey,
I don't see a statement of righteousness here. On the contrary, if there were participants in the demonstration who see homosexuality as a crime and oppose it, and make it clear that the demonstration is against discrimination and not in favor of homosexuality, this would diminish the public statement of righteousness that they are somehow receiving.
Regarding the problem of modesty, it exists on every street corner. The difference is only quantitative. The unpleasant feeling exists for me too, but it is not a halakhic problem. Anyone who thinks that this will arouse forbidden thoughts in him should not go.
The Ritva at the end of the Kiddushin wrote:
Everything is according to the will of God. And so the way of life is according to what a person knows for himself, if it is appropriate for him to distance himself from his desire, he does it, and even looking at a woman's colorful clothes is forbidden, as is stated in Tractate Avoda Zara (22:2), and if he knows for himself that his desire has surrendered and is subject to it and does not harbor any grudge, he is permitted to look at and speak with the nakedness and ask about the peace of a man's wife, and that is what Rabbi Yochanan (22:44) said of Ash'ari, who bathed and did not hesitate to think about the evil desire, and Rabbi Ami Denfaki said of her, "Amma'ta Debi Caesar" (Ketubot 17:1), and several of the rabbis of the Demishta tribe, who are also Matronyta (above 4:1), and Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who said in Ketubot (ibid.), "He covered her shoulders and danced in her and did not hesitate to contemplate her." From the reason they said this, but it is only fitting to be lenient in this regard for a great pious person who recognizes his inclinations, and not all scholars trust in their inclinations as much as they do in listening to all that they worship, and blessed is he who overcomes his inclinations and his labor and training in the Torah, for the words of the Torah stand firm for a person in his childhood and give him an afterlife and hope for his old age, as it is said, "They will again be fruitful and become fresh in their return."