To prohibit incest by law
From what I understand, the rabbi supports allowing couples to marry even if it is incest, assuming they are adults and it is consensual. The same goes for LGBT couples, etc.
Does the rabbi support recognizing them as a married couple for all intents and purposes, giving them benefits that regular couples receive (mortgage interest, etc.), allowing them adoption rights, and essentially considering them a family like any other family? Or is it just about having sexual relations that you will not restrict?
Is the problem here merely halakhic? Doesn’t the rabbi see a moral problem in a couple of men separating a child from his mother and raising him as an orphan without a mother?
Does the Rabbi want to live in a society that legitimizes such distorted family structures?
And another question:
From what I know, the rabbi claims that every human being has a right to their own body, and therefore, from a moral perspective, there is no problem with a person harming themselves and even committing suicide.
So, does the rabbi think that suicide should be prohibited by law or that the state should not intervene in such matters and therefore everyone should remain on their own?
I didn’t understand the question. When I said I was in favor, I meant the rights that the state grants. Of course. I don’t deal with sexual relations, and the state shouldn’t deal with them either. I don’t know if there is currently a ban on sexual relations between adult siblings of free will, but it’s clear to me that in any case it won’t be enforced.
Separating a child from its mother is a completely different discussion. And it exists in relation to any egg donation or surrogacy.
I also don’t understand the question about suicide. If you quote me as saying there’s no problem with it, then what are you asking? Do I think the state should ban it?
Are you sure you thought a little before you formulated the questions here?
That is, are you in favor of recognizing a mother and son who want to start a family or any other distorted constellation of incest as a married couple for all intents and purposes, and that the state encourage this with benefits and assistance as it does with a married couple?
Aren't you afraid of the dissolution of the family institution? Of harm to children who will be born into such a distorted reality?
What about more than two, such as polygamy or several friends who want to get married (for example, 2 men and 2 women), does the rabbi support this too?
And if not, then why not, and what is the limit that the rabbi sets?
Regarding adoption, does the rabbi support that such couples should have adoption rights like a normal couple or just allow them to live together?
Apparently I didn't fully understand your position on suicide.
Do you think that if I see a person about to jump off a bridge, I shouldn't stop him?!
If the state knows about a person who is going to commit suicide, shouldn't it intervene and stop him?!
Is there no moral obligation to stand by one's neighbor's blood, or is it not suicide but only if one is attacked?
Even if you repeat the same question 15 more times, my answer will not change.
I am definitely in favor of stopping a person standing on a bridge, but only because of the fear that he did not consider it properly (due to his mental state).
That's it. I've exhausted it.
Sorry to continue, but you're not really answering the questions, and it's really important for me to understand.
Aren't you afraid of the dissolution of the family institution? Of harm to children who will be born into such a distorted reality?
What about more than two, such as polygamy or several friends who want to get married (for example, 2 men and 2 women), does the rabbi support that too?
And if not, then why not, and what is the limit that the rabbi sets?
Regarding adoption, does the rabbi support that such couples have adoption rights like a normal couple or just allow them to live together?
16
Even if I am afraid (and I am not) this is not a reason to use the state to impose my opinions on others.
And I am not afraid that if this is what the majority wants then the institution of the family will fall apart anyway. And if it remains a small minority then it will not fall apart.
I'm not talking about imposing my opinions on others,
but I'm asking this:
The right to adopt is not a self-evident right like the right to life or even like the right to freedom to have sexual relations with any person with consent.
The right to adopt is a right that requires certain criteria from those people who want to adopt a child.
Since the picture here involves another person who does not choose to join the family institution, it is possible that there is harm to the person here.
This is not just about a couple of adults who decide to live together by choice,
but about adding another person to a system that is not necessarily worthy of raising him.
I gave some examples:
Polyamory,
several friends who want to raise a child,
incest,
and other vegetables (you are welcome to suggest your own).
My question is, do you think each of the above structures deserves the right to adopt a child, or is there some limit where you will not allow a person or a distorted family structure to adopt?
Are there certain criteria by which you will decide to grant the right to adoption, or can any person, regardless of their gender, come and take a child, and your beliefs should not be imposed on them?
17
I plan to – Give me a detailed answer and I'll leave you.
It's important for me to understand, and things haven't been clarified yet.
Do you think each of the above structures deserves the right to adopt a child, or is there some limit where you won't let a person or a distorted family structure adopt?
Are there certain criteria by which you will decide to give the right to adopt, or is any person, as long as they are human, can come and take a child, and your beliefs should not be imposed on them?
18
Begging*
“Long is the spirit of wisdom, but short is the spirit of bitterness and folly.”
Last reply🙏
You are really pushing my patience (a lot) to the limit. I have answered everything. Anyone who wants to adopt a child should be allowed to do so, while monitoring the child's welfare and detached from ethical questions. One more repetition and I will delete this entire trolling thread. See warning.
I think what Joshua is trying to argue is that you are right on a technical level only. Let's take the example of incest: if we examine the merits of the matter and the case of a couple of parents who support incest and come to the conclusion that *in this case* the child's best interests will not be harmed if they adopt him, then there really is no problem. But Joshua will argue against you that this is not just a technical level and therefore the empty formalism you propose in most cases does not work. Therefore, it is correct to exclude a category of certain practices.
Or, to put it more generally: the fail-safe mechanisms you propose do not fit the actual nature of the problem.
I don't understand. I don't have any fail-safe mechanisms.
Following the discussion, something interesting arose here. Does the Rabbi actually hold a libertarian view of the state? If the Rabbi has written posts or articles on the subject, I would be more than happy if you could direct me to a place where I can read them.
This is not exactly a libertarian view. I oppose the state's value-based involvement in the lives of citizens, certainly on controversial issues.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
