A Rabbi speaks out
Rabbi Eliezer Ben-Porat should be applauded for giving us his version of what marriage should be, and is in his synagogue.
We can be sure he would not want to be coerced by the Federal government to do anything that runs counter to anything he finds rooted in his religious teachings, dogma, or doctrine. If this is so, then he should keep his fingers out of what is the government's responsibility.
If we follow Rabbi Eliezer Ben-Porat's theory on what the special character of marriage should be, as in the union between man and woman, then what do we make of the special character of marriage of the many major male figures of his religious book?
Can we then assume Rabbi Eliezer Ben-Porat approves of men marrying many wives?
The problem with using a book or religious teachings to justify many things, is that it has evolved over the years, at the hands of man, not god. God inspired maybe, but none the less man inspired. From that has come many things inspired by men based on what they put in the books themselves, that God definitively did not intend.
My love is for my god, and humanity. Not the words on the paper in the bible.
posted by Advocatus Diaboli @ 5:06 p.m.
1 Comments:
It is true that Rabbi Ben Porat does refer to an array of traditional Judaic texts to assert his position against gay marriage. But I think the essence of his point goes beyond the confinments of religious doctrine. Many laws, regulations and practices of modern day society, indeed even in the contemporary Secular State which seperates Church and State, hold their roots in Judeo-Christian practice and ideology. Truly, we have become so accustomed to the prevelence of Judeo-Christian concepts in our every day lives that we don't notice the uniqueness and realtive newness of these concepts in the timeline of history. What we now see as normative ideas and ideals such as peace, charity, benevolence, were not emphasized in the great ancient cultures of Greece, Rome and Egypt, in fact they were many times opposed.
Rabbi Ben Porat seems to be saying, it seems to me, is that marriage defined as a relationship between man and woman
is amongst the universal ideas that have become part of the norm of the Secular State. He mentions the proliferation of this marriage defenition amongst all major religions and cultures of the world as support to this idea of such a definition as having become a basic societal norm. Such is certainly not the case with polygamy.
Based on the above premise one may ask, as Rabbi Ben Porat did, why should any official, religious figure or state appointed, officiating at a marriage be compelled, or even asked by the State, to marry same sex couples as this idea requires an acquiescence to moral relativism of such an extreme degree that we should not expect it from anyone.
Anyway, I thought this could be his point.
Post a Comment
<< Home