Lavender
Haha, and you all thought I was having a good time while not writing…
“No bad dates recently for She”, eh? Oh, do I have a tale to tell you all.
Without going much into details – We met in a coffee shop. He was more than interesting, fascinating, intelligent, smart, funny, all of that good yummy stuff. He even looked great, I mean, I recall girls in that coffee shop giving me the wicked envious stare, which felt oddly nice. We went out few times, he was very sweet to me, phoned lots and did all the good “guy things” that have been missing from my life for so long.
He was absolutely fantastically fantastic.
I mean, not only relatively to all the Les Miserables that I usually meet, he was okay even in regular non-desperate standards.
Of course he also had his bizzare episodes, like getting very excited from one of my rings and asking me if he can try it on and spending a good amount of time admiring how it suits his little finger there.
There was also this one time that we sat there and sipped our drinks calmly when he suddenly turned to me and announced, completely context-free, that he really loves women. I admit that was weird.
It appears that we have a mutual friend. Well, maybe not as such, a friend of mine knows him, from the PAST. From before he became all holy and pure. I decided to ask this friend of mine about him, and when I did he looked at me secretly and only managed to say that he’s nice. Very nice, even.
Well, very nice is all I need folks.
The next day while I was getting ready to meet with him again, my mobile phone rang and there was my friend again, obligated by his loyalty to me and my healthy steady sanity, calling to say that now that he comes to think of it, he DOES have some info for me, but that I better sit down first. Of course I had to stand. No, no, really, you should sit.
Oh bloody hell, just tell me what it is and get this over with.
Okay, he used to be gay.
I sat down.
Now my bunnies, don’t ask me what does USED TO BE gay mean, as I don’t have the faintest. It’s either you are or you’re not, correcto?
Oh fun.
I made up my mind to confront him that same evening, who knows, maybe it’s an evil rumour, maybe someone hates him to bits and therefore spreads all those vicious tales about him being a cabaret singer, doing the odd bit of moonlighting as a flamenco dancer, the usual stuff we spread around about people who seriously offend us, like overtaking us on the highway, injuring that serious male pride.
Then I thought – well if that’s not the case, well then the reality is that I am dating a homosexual. Tonight, in fact. Now, I have nothing against homosexuals per se, in fact a couple of my good friends from school are a little more open-minded (shall we say), swinging both ways, starting to feel free to leap out of the closet, and I really am okay with the whole thing. In fact, I embrace it. In a very detached, thank-Gd-I-never-have-to-go-near-THAT way.
But I do have a problem with dating a gay guy. Call me old-fashioned if you like, but I do. I have a problem with both of us admiring the waiter. I have a problem with him being overly interested in my lipstick. I have a problem with always wondering if he wishes he was wearing MY clothes. I have problems with all these things. I want to be the GIRL in the relationship, dammit.
So, I thought – I’m doomed to stay single for eternity. More like it.
So we met.
Suddenly everything made sense. The ringy thingy, the Desire For Women Declaration, the niceness, I mean, he UNDERSTOOD me. The millions of little feminine things that used to be sweet and sensitive, and now just SCREAMED out, Hey, look at me, I’m GAY!!
So, on our coffee table were two little candles, how sweet, one was white and was called Lavender, the other one was light purple and was called Violet. I asked the waitress for a light and I lit them both. Quite the right atmosphere, isn’t it. I decided to ask him then; to tell him that I’ve heard that he used to have relationships with men (my other gay friend told me how to define it, said it was very politically correct of me); that I’d like to know if it’s true, basically.
It’s very embarrassing, really. I mean, I don’t even know this guy that well, and now I have to ask him about the most personal intimate things.
It was quiet. I looked at the two little candles and I said to myself, in a very radio-talk-show-broadcaster-kind of tone: Okay, Lavender or Violet, who would you rather be?
“Lavender”, he said immediately.
(Don’t say Lavender, don’t say Lavender, PLEASE don’t say Lavender, it is the GAYEST word ever. The gayest scent ever. A manly guy, even if he WANTED to say Lavender, or even BE Lavender, at this point, would restrain himself.)
“Excuse me?” I said. “I didn’t quite hear you.”
“Lavender”, he said again, “Of course”.
Why of course. Lavender. Gosh.
At that moment I knew that I’m not up for The Homosexual Confrontation. I ordered me some whisky instead. Ahh, don’t you just adore my coping with life techniques?
Feeling a little fuzzy from the drink and supremely confident in getting myself out of this mess, I asked him if he thinks that we suit each other, at all.
He said that it’s interesting that I bring it up, because he was just thinking the same thing. And immediately added “Though I really love women, you know”.
Oh yes, I know.
We fumbled around a bit, trying to extricate ourselves. I just wanted to get exceptionally drunk and go home. He thought we weren’t so right for each other also, apparently. Thank Gd. None of his reasons had anything to do with MY being gay, so huh. I felt superior, in a small way. Trying to salvage me some dignity. But I guess he could feel superior to me in other ways. I mean, he’s thinner than me.
June 4th, 2003 00:20
OH-MY-GOD! Hey, at least you found out BEFORE!
June 4th, 2003 00:52
o-boy, you are SO narrow minded…
Asking me, however, I would not not say violet either… I would give u this “what is this question” stare… (like any normal guy/girl will do).
June 4th, 2003 01:31
A nice comeback, I really thought you were all out of stories.
Basically, the only thing you have yet to do is date a convicted murderer. I’ll give you a month.
Go.
June 4th, 2003 01:39
Wow, fascinating story. She, how did this experience enrich you as a person?
So that’s what all girls really want a straight guy who acts gay … (make a note to self)
June 4th, 2003 02:22
Hey, if you don’t understand the advantages…
http://www.ryantown.com/gayboyfriend/
June 4th, 2003 03:04
words fail me
i’ll get back to you once i’ve processed
June 4th, 2003 03:45
OH MY GOODNESS!!!!
and here we were thinking “SHE’s not writing anymore… Whats going on…???”
I mean we were practically taking bets, when this website would shut down or change names to “broken glass”
Ok, I’m obviously kidding, BUT what a story…
As always, my heart is with you.
June 4th, 2003 06:08
lol funnnnny!
June 4th, 2003 08:24
WOW!!! just imgine what would happen if no one told you that he was gay!!!
June 4th, 2003 08:37
I’m sure we would have spent some really nice evenings together, playing monopoly.
And “K” – I haven’t dated anyone who used to be a woman either, or a clown who ran away from the circus, or an aging pop icon, or a keymaker , or a replicant, or anyone who serves in Burger King.
Can I please get an extension?
June 4th, 2003 09:32
She, I have no words!
I agree with Snark, I would have said “I don’t care” and given you the look of why are you asking me.
Seperately:
Once on a hasgacha job at a very classy place, The Kitchen Manager was gay. This was a big Hasgacha Job and the gay manager wanted to know about kosher and Kashering, and why everything hat to heated with a blowtorch.
I was abit nervous I had never had a openly gay person around me. Then his questions went from Kosher to religion and then ended about homosexuality in the Jewish religion and how Judaism views it. This had gone on our 4 hours
I finally said this “Why are you heterosexually Challenged”. He was shocked, and didn’t speak to me again.
Also as you mention about the closeted community.
You reminded me of what a friend once said;
“Charedi communities are unique in that coming-out-of-the-closet means proving your heterosexually”.
Well there goes that thoery!
June 4th, 2003 15:02
Well, in fact, I want to be a little gay, you know, it’s classy. Girls love you. Men love you. What can be better?
June 4th, 2003 17:18
She, I am soo soo sorry. Did he at least dress well?
June 4th, 2003 17:28
If I’m occasionally a little over-dressed, I make up for it by being immensely over-educated.
The only thing that men and women have in common, is that they both prefer the company of men.
June 4th, 2003 18:13
Well dressed is okay, but a guy who eagerly awaits the next months InStyle/Vogue magazine can be a little scary, at best.
June 4th, 2003 19:30
SM, how do you know all these intimate details about me? Humbert is scared… real scared. How about yourself, what do you await anxiously?
June 4th, 2003 20:13
Hum, hey, whatever makes you happy, I am not here to judge…
As I purport to be intelligent I can honestly (almost) say I anxiously await the next edition of the Economist.
June 4th, 2003 20:22
ok so its not like i have THAT much of a problem with it………but you folks have NO IDEA, i mean NO CLUE AT ALL in re: the straight gay guy thing. i get asked on a regular basis if im gay. by this point its halfway between being a joke and being extrememly rude and annoying. im not (“not that theres anything wrong with that”), but i readily admit to certain habits and tendencies that might make people think i am (like cashmere sweaters and excellent taste in music….among other things which i wont discuss) and i can tell you this much. girls THINK they want a guy like me till they meet them, at which point they say “hmmm id rather have him as a friend to go shopping with and share all sorts of stuff with but no way in hell am i going out with him!” so yeah, SHE has the typical mentality that most women do (again, not that theres anything wrong with that…..) so oscar, yoz bugler and all others…..think twice about acting “more gay”
š
June 4th, 2003 20:40
“Excellent taste in music”? I hardly think there’s anything gay about that. I mean, c’mon.
There are things that (and whether it’s right or wrong isn’t the issue here), are considered to be more “manly”. Believe it or not dear, girls actually get attracted to “manly” stuff, not davka because it’s considered manly, but because that’s how we’re programmed. Well, I am anyway.
As I’ve said, it’s not the “being gay” that troubles me as much as marrying a gay bloke, which he clearly was. It’s no joke, he was gay. Or is, or whatever.
June 4th, 2003 20:51
I have an excellent taste in music and Iām not gayish at all.
I like Barbara Streisand, Donna Summer, ABBA, Sherā¦
June 4th, 2003 20:53
SM, I never intended to imply anyone isn’t intelligent. I’m not, and I’m proud of it. What is the Economist anyway? Teach me.
June 4th, 2003 20:54
see that was my point. in many ways i do things that are very guy-like: pints of guiness come to mind among other things, but its the few things that might be considered “gay” (likes to shop, knows tons about makeup since im in photography) that tend to turn girls off, despite the overwhelming awesomeness that is me (yeesh did i just say that???)………..
and as far as the music thing, i tend to listen to stuff that most straight guys havent even heard of. theres a stereotype that most guys are into typical radio rock and stuff.while im into all sorts of radom excesses (i knew about two step and garage (pronounced ga-RAGE LOL) and am down with anything from miles davis to digweed)
June 4th, 2003 21:04
oops……forgot to make my point…….
i think it should be more an individual case by case basis that should be the crietion for deciding whether or not theyre “manly” enough (or girly enough in my case) to consider marriage material.
in your case i think it was safe to say you had someone “not your speed”….but dont you think people should judge it on a continuum? if you meet a great guy who absolutely IS straight, but does some stuff thats not your bag, cant you just chalk it up to personal quirks rather than “im sorry he a flamin queer, not for me……”
dont get me wrong i like “girly” stuff in girls, but if this otherwise absolutely great girl comes to pick me up on a harley while listening to the baseball game, ill probably look the other way when it comes to that.
June 4th, 2003 21:08
Look, I drink Guinness and gin and tonic at my own leisure (Womanhood at its best) and still, I think, no one misreads me for not being straight; it has nothing to do with those things, I suppose it’s what a person radiates rather than what he actually does. It’s not what you know or don’t know about makeup or whatever, I can assure you that my other gay friend doesn’t have the faintest idea from which angle do you look at a makeup tube, and still, history and research have shown that he is, in fact, gay.
And again, it’s not the “girly” things he did that spooked me, I’m all okay with that.
IT’S THE FACT THAT HE IS GAY.
Really.
PEOPLE KNOW HIM AND SAID SO.
Please.
ALL THE OTHER “GIRLY” THINGS JUST ADDED TO THAT.
Honest.
June 4th, 2003 21:16
so then let me ask you (and everyone else) this
if you met a nice guy, who wasn’t gay, but acted it, would you go out with him??
June 4th, 2003 21:17
Applause for She! GO girl! That’s the way to think. Shooo, I feel relieved already. Have really insignificant history with manly relationships. I used to live on a farm and there was this pet bull once …
June 4th, 2003 21:17
Did the shadchan know he was gay? If so, why on earth would they set him up with anyone. And if not, how did they not know?
June 4th, 2003 21:19
I feel the tension climbing dramatically ….
June 4th, 2003 21:20
He bribed the shadchan, the usual story.
June 4th, 2003 21:22
Boo! Because it’s hardly a piece of information you’d want a shadchan to know about you.
And anyway, now he’s *frum* so obviously he managed to magically get cured of the “homosexual disease”.
What else.
June 4th, 2003 21:28
Maybe they set you up. The friend and the guy. AMybe they are now rolling on the floor laughing.
June 4th, 2003 21:33
Friend! Reveal yourself!
June 4th, 2003 21:36
“No way I’m going to reveal myself. I’m top secret. How can I frame myself? I’m undercover.”
June 4th, 2003 22:12
wow she!! I really thought you were getting married cos you didnt write in a while!
great story though š
June 4th, 2003 22:36
hum, intelligence is definetly overrated. I just try to seem that way. Sometimes fool even myself. The Economist is a magazine thats *informative*. The type that makes you look good if your seen reading it.
June 4th, 2003 23:02
SM, do you really think intelligence is overrated? Perhaps. But I think humanism, relativism, nihilism and hedonism are overrated.
So what is intelligence. Is intelligence something separate from culture, and distinct from Midos Tovos, or is it a package deal? Is intelligence an art, a skill, or a posed act?
June 5th, 2003 01:27
humberthumberthumbert
what a great book that was. and yet so dirty. not right for a bas yisroel. in the end i forced myself to throw it in the trash. what is intelligence? what is thinking? is it just pictures in our head? and who knows which is which, and who is who….. i am trying to figure out if you really are sharp or if you are just faking it. have a good shavuos nonetheless.
June 5th, 2003 01:56
Hey, lolita, I have no idea what book you’re talking about, but I’ll try not to read it, if it wasn’t right for bas yisroel: because I want to be a little bit a bas yisroel myself – not too much, they’ll think I’m, you know, lavender.
And if it isn’t right for bas yisroel, I hope you threw it out after you finished it.
I never said I was intelligent, so I have nothing to fake. Except dullness.
June 5th, 2003 02:05
the book i am talking about is called lolita. and i only threw it out on my third round. i was in seminary that year. humberbhumbert is the old pedophile guy who keeps trying to feel her up while she is like sixty years younger than him. what subconscious impulse made you decide to call yourself that, do you think?
and for my final point – the fact that you did not claim to be intelligent (unlike almost EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON ON THIS SITE) is a clear indication that you very well might be. also you write funny stuff.
June 5th, 2003 02:43
Thank you for your kind compliments – love those babies.
I don’t agree that everyone claims intelligence, She called herself shallow. SM said
“I just try to seem that way. Sometimes fool even myself.” Let’s see, Yoz said something of that sort about Douglas Adams story which he “just happened to know”. Intelligence is a taboo. Nobody wants to admit it. It’s like Dao: those who know it – don’t speak about it; and those who speak about it – don’t know it.
I find it very funny that you read that book in Seminary. (I really never read the book, only it’s literaly analysis)
Gosh, you are a rebellious type. Did you have earings in the nose and blue hair or anything like that? (One sec, are you the one with patent lather combat boots and a kissing mother-in-law?) I admire the fact that you read it 3x before throwing it out, nice move.
Well, you also write funny stuff. Did you Participate in the great bat sheva debate?
In any case, you’re quite OK except you’re a little pushy sometimes. Are you from NY? I really have no idea of any other nicks you’re using here. So I can’t extrapolate. I wonder how you do it.
June 5th, 2003 04:25
She – you are granted an extension, but go for the man who used to be a woman thing soon, cause I would love to hear about that…and hopefully, one of these will turn out to be the one…
On another note, this place has really gotten popular…I remember the good old days when there were like 8 comments per post. We should start a message board!
June 5th, 2003 04:33
Lo Lol loli lolita and dear Professor, (isnāt it like Na nach nachmaā¦ me-uman?)
Here is an example for some kind of intelligence – Nabokov. And itās a great example of how intelligent ppl can have a huge ego.
Btw, I must admit that not like some well-read ppl in here, I struggled to finish the book. You get the point at some point. At the inn or something like this. But what can I say – a poor un-educated guy. I āll go back to my Daniel Still.
June 5th, 2003 05:28
Hey! I read The Economist… its a great magazine better than the not-so-well written Time or Bulletin magazines..
June 5th, 2003 05:33
asif your a girl who reads the economist. One a seperate how are you brothers S & R doing?
June 5th, 2003 06:16
Snarkobov you’re terribly funny. You finished the book nevertheless. You have to read the book together with literary criticism to chap the pshat. LOL. (Lol.?!)
Lolita, dear. Don’t delude yourself, I’m not a perverse gray-head hunting for lasses. I’m more of the blue-beard type …
June 5th, 2003 09:28
My brothers are doing very well thanks very much – they are currently living in eretz hakodesh and ruvi just got married a couple of months ago there to a nice dutch girl. (Was that your not-so-subtle way to tell me u know who i am?).
your a girl who reads the economist””- What does that mean?
All this talk about Lolita and I suddenly feel inspired to read the book. On the other hand whilst I can tolerate most things in the world out there, there are some things I think that are so not “holy” that I cant even bear to read/ watch it – it doesnt happen often but Lolita might be one of those things..
Okay so back to this gay thing SHE, if judaism and this is what i learnt feels that we all have different drives but that its our responsibility to work on them (or at least not act on them)if they are not positive like a same sex attraction, then whats to say that he didnt turn his life around? (I actually think thats crap but u know who am i to argue with the holy ones?)
Good yom tov one and all.
June 5th, 2003 10:52
This Lolita discussion brings me to say some explicit things.
Asif ā itās not a matter of Judaism and dating (and getting married) is not a matter of Zdaka (charity). Since we are all adults here (but Lolita of course), it will not strike you when I say that sex is part of the marriage (and good sex part of a healthy marriage). Do YOU want a partner that has āworkedā on himself in order to āoperateā or that you want some natural passion? (I think passion is not a dirty word).
I think the poor character in the situation is HIM and not SHE (sorry she), since he has the āpastā to carry and I think no passionate woman will agree to establish a commitment with him. If they were not religious they could try things beforehand and check the dynamics but under the current situationā¦ itās putting too much on stake.
Now lets put the sex aside and go pure and talk about literature. Prof, I did finish the book cause I wanted to know the end. I was disappointedā¦
Who says Iām not familiar with the ādrashā and āsodā of the story? BUT ā a good story should be read without the āmeforshimā. Those layers should come later.
The core of the story is how the author is a snobbish arrogant Russian, who thinks the American culture is childish and shallow (ok, I have to agree about that ;-> ). Funny enough he enjoyed it very much. Some of his short stories are much more appealing to me.
(see how smart and intelligent the snark is? He even knows Nabokov early Russian stories. The snark does not read the economist, though).
Ah! chag sameach!
June 5th, 2003 11:07
AsIf – Maybe it is possible to work on yourself in that sense. Maybe. I don’t know. All I know is that I don’t plan to be someone you can “function with”. Does anyone? I want to be loved and desired, but maybe I’m odd in that way.
June 5th, 2003 11:20
humbert why am i pushy? i have to say here, for posterity, that i was THE FIRST comment on this site, because i helped She write the early stories… in fact, i’m sitting in her apartment as we speak, and She has gone to buy the milk for our much-needed coffee.
but since the site became an instant hit and got featured on bangitout and stuff, i quietly retreated. not wanting to spoil the mood and such. therefore i did not participate in the great batsheva debate (i had to restrain myself). i post the VERY occasional comment here, always under a different name, and altogether they are maybe ten. i was making fun of yuri at some point (together with the best of them) but that era has faded into memory.
so the whole literary analysis thing, for you and snark and everybody else who reads the economist and prides themselves on it – its an aspiration of sorts. but its not mine. i read lolita because it was such a beautiful book. the words, and it was almost radiant in beauty. but when we are frum, the yetzer hora knows how to dress itself up into the book of your dreams, or the woman of your dreams, or your favourite song. and we are at war, because suddenly beauty is impurity, and cold logic is often portrayed as holy, and then we have to remember that one day moshiach will come, and everything will be as it seems.
June 5th, 2003 11:25
Um, okay, anyhow, managed to kick her off my machine in order to say Chag Sameach to all.
Gut Yomtef.
June 5th, 2003 12:49
Oh! i said I DO NOT read the economist – don’t over estimate me.
(I hate to spoil the naive attitude [and it might be only my private thing] but I don’t think that when “moshiach” comes everything will be as it seems. Nothing will never be as it seems. why? for things are complex and ppl are different… siimple as that. Maybe it is just my pasimism. On the other hand, maybe it’s just my optimism. the wold will be hell boring with all the ppl see things in the same way. Moreover – the world will stop spinning when this happens).
June 5th, 2003 15:35
Ok, girls, girls, She and Lolita make peace with eachother. Meanwhile I’m contemplating the likelihood of you being the same individual. She wouldn’t that be zanny?
Yes Lolila is a great book. I’ll have to read it some day.
Good Yom Tov.
June 5th, 2003 16:32
wow, what is up with this Lolita stuff? Suppressed yeshiva guy urges?
I went out with this guy for a long time b4 I realized something was wrong. Like insisting on being shomer but refusing to keep shabbos. Oh and something about making out with some guy in a club on a dare. Lol.
have a great shavuot!
June 9th, 2003 00:18
but really, what can this guy do? never get married, although he did teshuva? can he not build a home and raise a family now?
June 9th, 2003 00:21
He can find himself a nice handsome fellow to do it with š
June 9th, 2003 05:11
Micro, He should tell his shadchanim he is looking for a very sensitive woman. I am sure there are women who would really enjoy his unique features.
She says “But I do have a problem with dating a gay guy. Call me old-fashioned if you like, but I do. I have a problem with both of us admiring the waiter. I have a problem with him being overly interested in my lipstick. I have a problem with always wondering if he wishes he was wearing MY clothes. I have problems with all these things. I want to be the GIRL in the relationship, dammit.”
This story is about 1 woman and 1 man. Good on She for her brutal honesty, to herself. She saved herself heartache, because he is not for her.
June 9th, 2003 09:41
In all seriousness, the whole gay thing is one of the hardest things for me to accept in the Torah. Obviously gays are born that way b/c why would someone want to go through all that trouble and hardship? Who would choose to be that way besides hipper than thou Ivy League students? I’ve seen the Orthodykes and other gay frum sites. I’ve read explanations by Rabbi Boteach and others. What it comes down to is “I dunno, but it says it in the Torah so uh…um…I dunno…”
Anyone have any insight?
June 9th, 2003 11:58
unfortunately we are not the same person.
similar, but two unique individuals.
snark – when moshiach comes, it will be the tikkun olam of everything that has happened since cheit ha rishon. when good and bad got mixed up and there is always a “klipa” around the good and pure thing – this is what we are trying to be metaken our whole lives. separating the holy and the unholy, and getting horribly confused by it all the time. because of books like lolita, and mindblowing pink floyd songs and all this crazy stuff that is, intrinsically, a load of crap (as much as it pains me to say it). when moshiach comes, good will be good and bad will be bad, and our scope of bechira will be dramatically decreased, and we will all begin doing that which we were originally meant to be getting on with, 6000 years ago when things got screwed up.
June 9th, 2003 13:40
Hmmmmmmmmmm… I cant work out if you truly have internalized this type of argument and really believe it or its just a big fat cop out because you dont have the right answers to the tough questions?
June 9th, 2003 14:54
For future reference, let it be known that ‘the great bat sheva debate’ should be ‘The Great Bat Sheva Debate’
Shimra,
Gays are not born gay. They may be born with a gene that gives them the tendency to be gay, but this gene can be activated or de-activated through their expiriences (see latest issue of Time magazine article ‘What Makes You Special’) But even accepting this new evidence, we still have the question of them being gay not by choice. I’m no rav, but I think the answer would be in the Rashi about Yisro deciding to join B’nai Yisroel based on hearing about Krias Yam Suf and Amalek attacking the Jews. Rashi explains that Yisro saw that Amalek could ignore what they knew about Hashem protecting us; right after the miracle of splitting the sea they decide to attack us anyway. Yisro understood that he could either learn from what he expirienced or ignore it (like the Amalekites).
So from my combined but limited knowledge of Torah and genetics, based on the Time article, my best answer is that a person could choose to activate or de-activate a gene (not all can be activated in this way, but genes that can be activated through expiriences) by ignoring or learning from expiriences.
Anyway, do you think this makes any sense? I’m not going to be too dogmatic about this one since I have no intention of starting ‘The Great Gay Debate’
June 9th, 2003 15:01
I took a few genetics classes in college, and walked away from them with the distinct impression that we CAN NOT chose at whim which alleles in our genome are activated.
Rest assured, if we could I’d have made myself a red head with mile high metabolism years ago.
June 9th, 2003 17:01
SHIMRA, dear, it’s unfair, but, hey, lots of unfair thigns happen. Is it fair for six million innocent jews to perish in the holocaust; for children to be born with the downs syndrom; for mamzeirim to be born ostracized; and for a boy to be born with gay genes? Fortunately there aren’t as many genuine gays as people think, but a tiny percentage of the population.
LOLITA, well you and she are similar, are you into chasidus or kabbalah or something? R’ A. Kaplan fan? Moshe Idell fan? Madame Blavatsky fan? What you said about things becoming the way they seem – it’s paradoxically cute. So it’s not the appearances that are deceptive rather the pnimius? Hmmm…
ASIF, why are you so nitpicky? I have a quote for you from The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wilde, Ch1: “If one puts forward an idea to a true Englishman – always a rash thing to do – he never dreams of considering whether the idea is right or wrong. The only thing he considers of any importance is whether one believes it oneself. Now, the value of an idea has nothing whatsoever to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it. Indeed, the probabilities are that the more insincere the man is, the more purely intellectual will the idea be, as in that case it will not be coloured by either his wants, his desires, or his prejudices. However, I don’t propose to discuss politics, sociology, or metaphysics with you. I like persons better than principles, and I like persons with no principles better than anything else in the world.”
READER, I agree with your theory (thanks for the article info). I also heard about the genes thingy, but not in connection to homos, rather in connection to learning and memory. I saw on Charlie Rose, the nobel laureate Prof Khanmen (or something of that sort from princeton) explaining that when we learn new things, some neurons, in the brain, undergo learning on a genetic level. Which shtims beautifuly with what I’ve heard Rav Avigdor Miller z”l say once: that the Alter of Slabodka told R.M. that the Avos changed their genetic makeup; they were big baalei avodah, and baalei mussar. So, indeed, it’s possible to try to change your genes, at least by learning. Sometimes they change on their own, the chromosomes just swap, swap, swap, and – boink – changed.
CHANI, well, the genes don’t ask you if you want them to change but that doesn’t mean they always stay the same. For example, just recently, a mule got pregnant. Genetically it’s an impossibility as they should be sterile, but this one got so horny, you know … when there is a will there is a way. Also, there were cases of species, which normaly dont’t mix or produce offsprings, doing all that under certain circunstances. So much for genetics. It’s not so well understood. Hey, only recently scientists discovred that they were misunderstanding proteins the whole time. They were studying proteins outside of water, while the pr. really had to be studied only in water, for in water they “open up” and adopt all different shapes, which makes all the difference somehow. Don’t ask me.
June 9th, 2003 19:04
It was more than just disturbing reading this OrthoGays FAQ, (?) let alone the layout which is, let’s face it, horrid.
Go purple and bright blue, yo.
It’s a fascinating reading material actually, I couldn’t stop reading, and got me to the point of hypnotism. And slight disgust.
June 9th, 2003 19:17
are they MAD???? they’re saying that two men can enjoy each other and “may touch in ways that lead to orgasm” and that it’s OK with the torah????
SHE- where did you find this thing???????
June 9th, 2003 19:59
hi humbert
humbert
humbert
i am not a kabbalistic sort. not so much of an rav aryeh kaplan fan either. i just kind of do what i gotta do. i was in seminary for two years and thats where the whole spiritual aspect of me comes into play (and probably threw you off – understandably). and to AsIf – if i was trying to cop out, dont you think i’d be able to do a better job and be laying on a beach in tahiti or something?
June 9th, 2003 21:18
She, now that I have cleaned the vomit, That site was a shocker!
Seriously, I am considering calling Rabbi Shlomo Riskin to ask him if he knows that his name is on their site.
READER please do some research into current genetic testing. THERE IS NO WAY to prove That any genes can be changed by anything. Don’t misread what you tread in the time magazine as fact “it is only 1 project with a preset aim, being done a research team That has an intrest in proving it to be correct, They are all Gay”
that was said to me by a College student doing a doctorate in “Genetic Development”. He had also read the article and laughed. He also said “If it was respectable work in the field it would have been published in respected scientific Journals”
June 10th, 2003 00:23
so if we go by what Humbert says G-d is not necessarily merciful or kind. Either that or He is basically indifferent to human suffering. Therefore “life is not fair”. I’ve often wondered about that. I’m not getting into the whole “why do bad things happen to good people” thing. But surely there has to be a better explanation than “that’s the way the ball bounces”.
As for that Time Magazine article, I haven’t read it. This is how I’m understanding it – some people are born with certain genetic vulnerabilities, such as a tendency toward schizophrenia, depression, cancer or what-have-you. These people can be fine their whole life and something triggers the illness. For example a death in the family could trigger depression or even OCD etc. In someone without the genetic vulnerability this wouldn’t be happening. That’s the difference. Maybe that’s how gayness works. Otherwise what you guys are saying makes no sense. You cannot change your DNA!!! That’s a bunch of crap.
June 10th, 2003 01:40
No, G-d IS merciful sometimes. But this mercy is not humane mercy, it’s unintelligible to humans. Does G-d care about us? Well He doesn’t care enough to let us understand Him or His actions. Basically G-d is very far away. Sometimes He performs miracles, but not too very often.
June 10th, 2003 02:32
Several people here have said that they want to avoid The Great Gay Debate, but, let’s face it, it’s a bit late for that now.
I will start and end this comment by saying that if you are remotely interested in this topic (and if you’re not, then you shouldn’t be debating it) then you should see this film:
http://www.tremblingbeforeg-d.com/
It is *essential* viewing. Most Orthodox people I’ve met who have made up their minds about homosexuality have never spoken to a frum homosexual, nor considered even half of the scenarios that are described in the film. In features interviews with people like the aforementioned Rav Riskin, Rav Nathan Lopez Cardozo and Rav Aharon Feldman.
In order to take part in the debate fully, you have to have heard the stories of the people who have been thrown out of their communities, who have been ostracised by their families, who have struggled for many years with something they discover that they can never change despite being assured otherwise by people who know nothing, who have committed suicide because they thought that they would never be allowed to love a person and their religion at the same time.
Now, one can either claim that “life is unfair” and use this as an excuse to let someone else’s life continue to be hell, or realise that just because life is unfair, people don’t have to be.
Regarding the FAQ that She posted: I would genuinely like to know exactly which bits people object to and why. The only specific bit I’ve seen referenced is something that micro appears to have misunderstood. (The bit he quotes is talking about what some homosexual men do; it’s not talking about what the Torah says is okay.) If you find homosexual sex distasteful, fine: it means you’re not homosexual, and are subsequently not going through the major dilemmas faced by homosexual Jews. (Imagine what they feel about heterosexual sex, and then how they feel about being told that they should try and have children anyway) But that has nothing to do with what the Torah does and doesn’t permit. (Personally I find the idea of sex with three-year-old girls distasteful, but that didn’t stop me learning the gemara that talks about how to marry one)
As for being able to change your genetics by while alone: Oh for g-d’s sake. I mean, really. Same goes for “there aren’t as many genuine gays as people think, but a tiny percentage of the population”. I’d love to see the statistics for that one.
Personally I doubt that homosexuality and genetics are that closely related, but who can be sure? I currently follow the view that one’s sexuality is decided in the first five or so years of life, and then pretty much solidified. I also follow the view that once it’s solid, you can’t do much to change it, so is practically the same as having been born that way. Not everything unchangeable is down to genetics, y’know.
It’s an unfortunate fact that as orthodox Jews we are raised with a ludicrously over-simplified understanding of sex, if we’re given one at all: Men and women get married and they love each other (sometimes, that’s allowed to happen in reverse order) and they have children (presumably by having sex, though we tend to skim quickly over that part) and then their children get married etc. etc. Anything that doesn’t follow this plan is obviously SICK and WRONG and these people are TWISTED and obviously not real Jews at all. (I have met plenty of people who simply refused to believe that frum homosexuals existed. After all, why would any nice Jewish person choose to be so perverted?) So when this ludicrously simple worldview is challenged, it’s easier to just go “Yeuch! Nasty!” than actually think that hey, maybe issues of people and sexuality are more complex than we thought. And maybe we should try and work out what we can do to help the people who would otherwise be stuck living a life that’s hell because they’re told that if they don’t change into something that they’re not, they aren’t a proper person.
Once again:
http://www.tremblingbeforeg-d.com/
Go learn and think.
June 10th, 2003 03:05
Hey, Yoz, you seem very agitated by the issue. Look, it’s not a normal condition, it’s a disease. It’s found among mice too, and when male mice mount eachother, in scientific experiments, it’s understood that something went wrong, that it’s not healthy. In any case, this area of psychology has to do more with thoughts than with behaviour, so it can’t be too scientific, at least not according to Skinner. So nobody really understands the nature of homosexuality. It’s interesting to note that according to the Rabbi it’s a spiritual disease, as they say Jews were clensed from this Tumah at the Sinaitic epiphany.
In any case, the Torah doesn’t care much for personal happiness. In fact, there is no real word for happiness in hebrew. The Jewish system is one of moral absolutism, which means, probably, that it doesn’t matter whether one is happy or not, as long as he/she/it is moral.
As for it all being fixed by age 5, what of Oscar Wilde who turned homo in his 30s?
June 10th, 2003 03:33
I wanted very much to watch ātrembeling before godā (lefanecha bereāada) but I didnāt have the chance.
However ā there is NO halachic problem in being a gay and in getting the kick by boys. There IS a halachic problem with anal homosexual interaction. I think this is an important distinction and some of u may have skipped it. I didnāt follow the link but I guess they meant that two guys can touch each other in a way that is not under the āhomosexual sectionā of the Jewish law. They might fall under different problem and u can just use your imagination.
Frum gays are in terrible situation since they cannot have full and satisfying relationships by halachic terms. It doesnāt mean they have to get married with a woman. On the contrary ā I think they mustnāt get married because it will be unjust for them as well as for the unfortunate girl. Please girls, will any of you agree to marry a gay guy?
About genes ā pleeeeeeeez, donāt quote the TIME magazine for scientific views. The existence of the homosexual gene is still an open question.
Humbi ā donāt quote Oscar wild ā the greatest liar of all. The guy that will bullshit his mother in order to say something that sounds witty.
Loli, I have nothing to tell u since we have totally different approaches so no discussion is available. Just twothings: 1. my Rambam says that the only difference will be āshiabud malchuyotā (=politic power). 2. I can assure u Iāll keep on listening to Pink Floyd and I will keep on reading the Lolita kind of things (and thatās probably why Iāll burn in hell).
And now Iāll go to sleep since I was in a trip the whole day long and Iām tired. This is also a good reason for forgiving my grammar mistakes.
June 10th, 2003 05:47
Snarko, that was a charming little comment. I’m not sure which quote of Oscar Wilde you were reffering to. The quote from Dorian Gray, or the fact that he turned gay at 30? It’s cute how you put it about Wilde. I happen to agree with you, but I love his witty quotes percisely for the vast truthfulness they communicate despite their seeming deceitfulness.
Unfortunately I understand your stance on Moshiach, and on Pink Floyd, and on reading ‘evil books’ too well. But I think you better not brag about it. If you have issues with G-d, keep them to yourself, for your own benefit; society doesn’t appreciate trouble makers, revolutionaries, and eccentrics.
June 10th, 2003 08:49
I just woke up and I have no milk for my coffee and am insanely late for work. Again.
So, I don’t really have much time now, so I’ll make it brief.
Yoz, I can see why Micro misunderstood that FAQ – I mean, seriously, would I need a detailed FAQ page to tell me exactly how to do whatever I want to do anyway? The page is there to answer and help orthodox gays to understand what does the Torah say about their situation, and what can they do about it.
As for me, I haven’t watched that film yet. I didn’t say that I don’t feel, as much as I can, for their conflicts and troubles, though, seriously, I can’t see anything that can be done about it to actually make it easier for them other than empathy, that’s the truth. Do you see anything? Change the Torah rule? What?
What I’m saying that I wouldn’t want to marry anyone who “was” gay. I believe that even if I wasn’t frum today, even if I was secular it would have troubled me doing so.
I love you Yoz, and I wanted you to know that.
June 10th, 2003 14:38
I’ve been dying to see “Trembling before G-d” for years. That movie took incredible balls (sorry) to make.
Believe it or not I actually do know some gay frum people. They don’t act on it and two of them are even married. They have a deep love for Torah and halacha and so would never choose to be this way.
We used to have such incredible gaonim and deep thinkers all the way to Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l. They were not at all concerned with “politics” or fulfilling the status quo. Read Rambam, Ramchal and the Kuzari sometime. Brilliant thinkers who couldn’t give a damn what people thought. Only the truth mattered. Even if they’d be put in cherem. True mesirat nefesh for the torah.
There is no one like that leading the Jewish world today. Simply so-called gedolim that get where they are by family connections, showy piety, and putting down other sectors of frum society. There used to be great leaders in the modern Orthodox world but now they’ve kind of devolved into academics preoccupied with theory and not real life. I know I’m generalizing but if you think for a moment you’ll see what I mean.
We are truly an orphaned generation. Orthodoxy today does not encourage aspiration to higher knowledge of G-d and the Torah. As long as you look the part and know the right people no one gives a sh%#.
That’s why we’ll never get any real answers to this very pressing and urgent problem.
June 10th, 2003 17:37
Come on, nopthing ever changes. The Rabbis of yesterday are the Rabbis of today. The stories are all lies. Read “The Making of a Godol”. All stories are myths. They are circulated in numerous contradictory versions and the only thing they reflect is wishful thinking. The Rabbis are Rabbis, some are nice, many are not. Some are wise, many are not. Some are true, many are motivated by power and prestige. If you want to know how the Gedolim of the past were, look at the way they are now, it was always the same.
June 10th, 2003 17:40
PS
Shimra, I love (not in a romantic way) you, but I don’t want you to know that becasue you’re already a little bit married.
June 10th, 2003 17:55
Yoz, I love you too, dear. You are truly the best, I mean it. You’re the coolest web master in the world as far as I know. And tech-smart, so much brains in the head! Does the cranium ever feel small on you?
June 10th, 2003 18:11
Humbert, u specifically said that your love to Shimra is “not in a romantic way”. U didn’t specify it for Yoz? Do u like lavender as well?
And shimra dear, I know you think I’m tactless but saying that there are no Gdoilim today? I would take u to court for this. What about the snark? Rabbi Snark! Hagra”s (=hagaon rabi snark).
Or that it’s better be haGrass.
(“everybody must get stoned”,Rabbi Zimmerman)
June 10th, 2003 18:16
Shimra, it was actually a moving post.
Again, I realise it must be *terribly hard* being an orthodox homosexual. I can only imagine the pain and difficulty.
But see, the Torah has rules. Limiting rules.
We all have SOME issues, ANY issues with those rules, and each and every one of us deals with something that he finds *fundamentally* troubling and restraining.
With all empathy and understanding, the real question is what do you about it?
I know this guy who did teshuva and then found out that he’s a mamzer. His mother was conceived by a man who was definitely not her husband. He is a healthy, sweet, 25 year old guy. He isn’t looking for heters to get married, he knows he’ll never get any. He’ll never get married. He deals with it, he says that he never had doubts in his belief for sticking with the truth, though realising that he will *never* get married was absolutely devastating for him.
We all deal with something. I’m sorry, but the Torah has rules, and painful and heartbreaking as it may very well be, this is reality.
And back to what Shimra wrote, we don’t know why things happen the way they do.
I can show moderation and honest empathy for those who try and deal with it; but I dont see it legitimate to do whatever you want just because life it tough.
June 10th, 2003 18:21
Yoz in mine.
Mine!
Mwahahahahahaha
June 10th, 2003 18:48
Snark, it takes one to know one. I don’t buy this mamzer thing. Are there eidim that the woman conceived by someone else? Are there eidim the mother is a real jew? Maybe she is a goya, and the guy needs to do geirus. We don’t know anything these days. It’s so easy to be machmir and say you can’t do this you can’t do that. And yet it’s so possible to be meikel, and say you can do this and that and the third thing as well.
June 10th, 2003 18:59
Humbert, you’re too sweet. It’s nice to get a surprise “i love you”. Harav HaGaon Snark Shlit”a, I’m so sorry. How could I have not mentioned you as the top gadol of our times? Maybe you could give me a bracha so that I should get this job I’m interviewing for today? Thanks.
Seriously now. I’m going to reiterate my point. “Life sucks” is not an explanation. If we had a Rav Moshe or a R. Shamshon Refael Hirsch in this day and age I’m sure they’d address this issue eloquently and in a way that makes sense intellectually. I mean in every other generation tzaddikim have been answering the tough questions without wincing. Examples: The 18 Letters, The Kuzari, anything by R. Aryeh Kaplan, Moreh Nevuchim,…etc.
Maybe the truly knowledgeable and righteous people are hidden. They don’t look for fame so they aren’t well known. Maybe we have to seek THEM out.
She, I don’t know if this is true, but a Rov once told me that as long as no one knows you’re a mamzer you can still marry within the Jewish people. It’s only when people know about it, I think. I love you anyway.
Thanks all of you guys for hearing me out. I think I’ll go take a Prozac now:)
June 10th, 2003 19:12
No he’s not. It’s a mishnah in Baba something:
When two people find an object and each one says it’s all mine, so they swear a little bit and split the object.
How should we split, She? Just don’t tell me lateraly, into forntal & dorsal halves.
June 10th, 2003 19:14
humbert seems a little negative tonight, or is it every night? at first i just assumed you were a frum jew, shomer torah and mitzvos, but i dont know if i am wrong? you certainly seem to know alot about torah, but clearly you “disagree” with many of the fundamentals… perhaps you could clarify, i just wanna get to know you better š
(even though you are my pedophilic stalker.)
everybody seems to have their own (very definite) opinions about homosexuality “within” judaism. as She said – its not an aveira to BE homosexual, only to act on it. just like its not an aveira to want to eat a cheeseburger, only to actually eat it. we learn that hirhurei aveiros are not aveiros at all, and that hirhurei mitzvah is a mitzva in itself.
so go fantasize about those cheeseburgers (or anal sex, whichever floats your boat).
i also like shimra’s comments because that is the way i feel about our sad frum community nowadays. how can anybody say that the tano’im of the gemora were not great? i dont understand that. but to me it seems, too, that today the drive is for politics and social status more than emes and glorifying shem Hashem (which is really the point).
why does everybody always miss the damn point.
June 10th, 2003 20:02
Lol,
I am not negative.
June 10th, 2003 20:53
I don’t know Shimra, he asked Rabbis all over the place. Not getting married isn’t a decision he made on his own.
June 10th, 2003 22:31
Dearest She- Hmmm. Well that rov was kind of controversial anyway. He’s frum but some people consider him a bit heretical. I don’t, but he’s definitely not mainstream. But I’m almost 100% positive a mamzer can marry a ger. I know it.
June 10th, 2003 22:38
Shimra which Rov are you talking about? Rabbi Shteinzalts?
June 10th, 2003 22:51
Hey Shimra, I never Woo Yay’d you properly for coming back and visiting here more often. I missed you.
Woo Yay for that.
June 10th, 2003 22:55
Lolita, where did Ie go against ‘fundamentals’?
June 10th, 2003 22:59
She is that a pic of you thinking Woo yay?
June 10th, 2003 22:59
i misunderstood?
“The important thing to remember is that whatever you decide, you are always a Jew and you can also be frum.”
according to that, you’d have to redefine JEW and FRUM for me.
June 10th, 2003 23:01
Ok. Jew means non-jew. And Frum means not Frum. How about that?
June 10th, 2003 23:05
Oh yes, back in the days when I was commanding the Enterprise.
Yes, did you notice that minor paradox also?
June 10th, 2003 23:07
Ok, friends, the size of this board is rapidly approaching the size of the Bat Sheva board, which goes to show that it isn’t our fascination with Tanakh, but that it’s always fun to talk about sexual misconduct.
June 11th, 2003 01:01
Shimra, I do not give blessings but in some cases I can help women to get pregnant. I think the new baby born will fall into the mamzer duscussion.
As far as I remember mamzer is a “mamzer” if only bes-din declared his mamzerut (=masur lebeis din). Even if a declaration was made, he can however, marry a mamzeret without any halachic problem or he can live with someone and their son might be a pasul chitun.
June 11th, 2003 01:29
I recently found this excellent site, and enjoy it even though I recently got married.
Anyway, with regard to the topics at issue, Shimra is correct that a mamzer can marry a convert, but there is a catch: his children will also have the status of being a mamzer. Interestingly, if the mamzer has children with a non-Jew and then the non-Jewish woman and children convert, the kids are not mamzerim. Obviously, having kids with a non-Jew also would be a violation of halacha.
As for Shimra’s view that Rav Moshe Feinstein would have a more tolerant view toward homosexuality, in fact, in Iggrot Moshe, Orach Chaim, Part 4, Responsa 115, Rav Moshe is very harsh toward homosexuals, stating that human drives must be controlled and that since there is no purpose for the homosexual drive, it must not be a true drive and homosexual conduct is therefore a rebellion against Hashem.
I don’t understand R. Moshe’s position. However, it seems to me that generally, the Torah focuses more on the Jewish community than on particular individuals. This results in challenges to everyone in various areas. For example, with regard to sexuality, halacha requires people to remain not only celibate but shomer negiah until marriage.
Finally, the notion that there are no gedolim today is accurate only in part. It is true that tragically, there is nobody in the U.S. who is recognized by all frum Jews as a gadol who must be respected. There are various reasons for this. On the other hand, many people have a particular rav or rosh yeshiva who they rely upon for halachic or hashkafa issues.
June 11th, 2003 01:45
Thanks Joe. I actually remembered that Rav Moshe holds a very harsh opinion regarding homosexuals but since it’s been ages since I read it I thought I am mistaken.
You mentioned a very interesting point. I don’t think that it ever happened that a rav was accepted by all the ppl. Shimra mentioned the rambam, well, his books were burned in many places and he (and his students) were banned. He even had to take his words back (originally he wrote that mishne tora is supposed to replace all the halachic literature from the talmud and on.. that was his big plan). After some threats and after his books being burned he rephrased his words and said he only meant that it will replace all the previous books for baalei batim. It is clear, however, in his letters to his pupils that the original plan was indeed his original plan ā to raplace the Talmud with mishne tora..
The revision of his plan didn’t help much and he (and his followers) were still banned.
History, as u all know, is written by the winners and after few generations the rambam became more popular and that’s why we all take him for the “accepted by all the ppl” guy.
Reading the Megilah (Ester) we see that even after the grate ‘ness’ Mordochai, a member of the Sanhedrin (according to midrash) was “ratsoy le-rov echav” (=accepted by most of the ppl)
June 11th, 2003 02:05
Snark, are you the snark from the hebrew hunting of the snark blog?
June 11th, 2003 07:20
I’ve missed you too She. *smooch*. awwwww. Couldja e-mail me sometime, maybe?
I never said that R. Moshe or anyone else would be more lenient when it comes to homosexuality!!!
Arrrrgh! To clarify, I meant that R. Moshe or someone like him would give an intellectually sound explanation for it and relevant halachot instead of just saying “ew disgusting” or “they should have more self control” etc.
I didn’t know about that Iggros Moshe thing though. However I am fully confident that if he were alive today and knew more about the genetic and biological factors involved that his opinion would be quite different.
In regards to what Joe said about having a personal Rav or Rosh Yeshiva to advise you and stuff: There are quite a few wonderful rabbonim and teachers out there who are truly sincere. But they are generally not well known. Therefore, as I said in another post, we have to seek THEM out.
Actually the holiest guy I ever met was the cashier at the local shwarma joint. I’m serious. An incredible tzaddik.
June 11th, 2003 08:41
So it’s really odd then, him not getting married.
June 11th, 2003 11:32
It’s not an argument just an interesting story:
Few (about 8) years ago I attended a Rabbi Tendler lecture. He was talking about a new research (8 years agoā¦) that proves that homosexuality has something to do with the genes. He was furious. He said that it cannot be. He said that saying that it is genetic means that the gay has no ābchiraā and therefore cannot be punished, since the punishment is not moral.
Rabbi Tendler is doing biology and I think this was a case where the wishful thinking or the Jewish perspective shadowed the scientific point of view. I donāt know whether it is genetic or not. I can say that Iād like to hear scientific claims and not dogmatic claims like āit doesnāt suit the halacha as I know itā.
June 11th, 2003 11:40
Whoa! Wild!
After ignoring my i-net for a few days, I return to find 20 e-junks in my box and many much posts on this lovely landing for lonesome lovers. First off, props to Rivka Bloch for an excellent point. Yes folks, the really good disscusions DO revolve around sex. Kacha Zeh. the annonimity helps. Though, it is very refreshing to see the openness that all this is disscussed with. Out of different problems in our “modern-meets-trad. judaism” world this is a real one. Sorry I don’t have any deep insights or halachic sources. I’ll have to remain sidelines for this. /YS
June 11th, 2003 12:35
Wow, I didn’t check the site for a while, and 30+ entries. All that I can say is “Anybody for ‘Bag the Fag'”
Humbert I asked my friend the Lab-Mice Killer, (he is doing it for his doctorate) he said he never heard of such a thing. But he did say that when only male adult mice are grouped together they “Tend to masturbate” on each other. He also said that when 1 or 2 female mice are placed with many (25 or more) males the females are very popular.
Also re the Mamzer/Ger thing, he/she can only marry a Ger and there children and childrens children until even the 10th generation cant marry back into mainstream judaism
Also the Mamzer/mamzer issue is intresting. The Rabbinical student I asked said he will look it up but thinks it depends on what type of mamzer.
Appeaently if the Father was a Cohen the mamzer has a great degree of mamzeeraus or something will comment more on it.
Yoz I don’t think the “trembling before G-d” film is too popular: I couldn’t find it on the FastTrack network (Kazaa Lite – k++ version)
June 11th, 2003 12:41
I just found this on Aish.com
A new film examines the dichotomy of the Orthodox homosexual
June 11th, 2003 13:07
“If you want to know how the Gedolim of the past were, look at the way they are now, it was always the same.”
“In any case, the Torah doesn’t care much for personal happiness. In fact, there is no real word for happiness in hebrew. The Jewish system is one of moral absolutism, which means, probably, that it doesn’t matter whether one is happy or not, as long as he/she/it is moral.”
Humbert – these fundamentals??
Sefer Devorim, where Hashem instructs us to listen to the rabbis of the future, in order to keep torah dynamic, and for guidance and insight, because He has a direct connection with them???
the word “simcha” which (as far as i know) means happiness or joy, in yiddishkeit, and “mitzvah gedolah liheyot besimcha”, and “tachas asher lo avadetem es Hashem elokecha besimcha” and the fact that, at the end of the day, we FOLLOW the torah because it is the objective truth and the right thing to do, and we dont do it for our personal happiness. but to say that the Hashem doesnt care for our happiness – why the hell did he create us in the first place then? so we could walk around being moral? try reading derech Hashem, and reading that the ONLY reason Hashem created us is because He is Good and He wanted to create beings that he could give all His Goodness to. the only way for Him to do that is to give us olam haba – eternal happiness and peace – and the only way for us to truly be happy in olam haba is if we have EARNED our right to be there, and therefore, He gave us a torah of guidelines (difficult ones) to follow, to work for our place in gan eden, so that it will be valuable to us.
Those are the fundamentals I’M talking about.
June 11th, 2003 15:35
Lolita, dear, which fundamentals? I didn’t say all Rabbis were bad, some are good actually.
In Sefer Devorim, Hashem instructs us to follow the Halachos of the Sanhedrin or Novi or Shofet – none of these today unless you give a New Age psaht that Rav Shach was a Shofet! Yes of course you’ll find such interpretations in some sources
(sefer ha’hinuch) but what’s the authority? The talmud doesn’t say so.
I don’t remember it saying anywhere we must keep the torah dynamic, or anything about guidance and insight. Nothing about G-d having a direct connection with them – that’s a very mystical new fangled Yeshivish thing. Although, it does say “bkerev Elohimn yishpot” that G-d’s Schina hovers over a beis din, but that doesn’t mean it’s a *direct connection* – no neviim these days.
The word “simcha” which (as far as i know) means physical manifestation of joy, like singing dancing and making believe you’re having a groovy time (like on chasunahs, when everyone is tired & bored, but fakes having fun anyway, prancing in maddening circles to look ‘frum-enough’, oh, yeah, while the choson strangely dreams.)
Correction: in Breslov “mitzvah gedolah liheyot besimcha”, and you can see how happy they all really are – when you see a spaced out depresso, staring into nowhere, on the street, you know he is a Breslover. “tachas asher lo avadetem es Hashem elokecha besimcha” means you have to sings songs, it doesn’t mean you have to BE happy. And if it does it was never put into Shulchan Aruch or the Rambam or anything like that, at most I’ll conceed a line or two in Orchot HaTzadikim, which is popular literature for ignorami.
At the end of the day, we FOLLOW the torah … each for his/her own personal reason, and some even get paid for it. We *believe* it’s the objective truth and the right thing to do. And yes we dont do it for our personal happiness – that’s my point – that in Torah it doesn’t really matter if you’re happy or not (infact some halachos are designed to create a major humanitarian crisis: ex divorce/agunah, nida, mamzeirus and nobody does much about it, althoug again there definitely were excellent Rabbis in the past who tried to tackle these issues: the Nodah Beyehuda come to mind for attempting to allow men to shave on chol hamoed (but he was shut up by later “Authorities”).
To say that the Hashem doesnt care for our happiness – why the hell did he create us in the first place then? Good question, R’ Moshe Chayim Luzzato’s guess is as good as mine, as none of us are prophets. By the way Ramchal is one of the Rabbis I don’t particularly like, because of his mystical inclination, (anyone who claims to have spoken with angels in the past 2400 years is a liar; but he wrote really good plays, of which nobody in the frum world ever heard of: their jaw’s would drop … yes he was an eccentric … he wrote a new Zohar … isn’t that rediculuous – Zohar v2.0)
I read derech Hashem. It’s nice to think that G-d is G-d and all, and I’m sure He is as He created us and gave us life, but when you think that everybody dies and some do so horribly it doesn’t sound like the human concept of goodness.
He wanted to create beings that he could give all His Goodness to … which are … goyim?
Those are the fundamentals I’M talking about. Ok, just to make sure – these are not the fundamentals the Rambam was talking about, so I don’t see anything fundamental about them, as you can deny every one of them and still believe in all 13 principles and most of the Talmud except some minor points which you pointed out, like believing G-d made the world for it’s own good. How about this quote: “it would be better for Man not to have been created”? Sounds too good to be true, ah?
So in the bottom, line I think it’s safe to say we don’t know why G-d created us, and we won’t be capable of understanding that, ever, unless we become Eliyohy Hanovi’s, which is a slim eschatological possibility (whatever that means, haven’t a clue).
June 11th, 2003 16:39
I was just reading the controversy brought up in these 107 (now 108?) comments. d boy’s suggestion was a good one – read the aish article about the film “Trembling Before God.” I would suggest reading the comments (there are about 40 comments there) about the article as well – the reaction to it was quite strong on both sides.
June 11th, 2003 17:02
Well, I’m straight and porud of it, and I refuse to stoop to read gayhood for dummies.
June 11th, 2003 17:33
Humbert, š no one is asking you to do so. Au contraire, I would be horrified if a book of a similar name was on the market. You never know what “shtuyot” are out there nowadays. My suggestion was to read what other people had to say about something you were discussing.
June 11th, 2003 17:37
Regarding Joe’s point about a mamzer having kids with a non-Jew: the gemara actually does state that “y’cholin mamzerin litaheir” – a mamzer can potentially have a non-mamzer kid who will be allowed to marry pretty much any Jew s/he wants. For while it is assur to have kids with most non-Jewish women, someone who owns a shifcha C’na’anit (non-Jewish maidservant) is permitted to have children with her. Therefore, [sarcasm]all the mamzer needs to do[/sarcasm] is find a non-Jewish woman who would be willing to become his shifcha/wife, and have kids with her. The kids will also be his (not Jewish) servants, but once he frees them, they attain the status of fully kosher Jews and can marry almost anyone.
Not very practical (What woman would be willing to do that? Would people really marry a person who resulted from such a series of events?) but at least possible.
June 11th, 2003 19:03
Devora means a bee. What’s your buzz?
PS
I understand whta you’re saying. bli neder I’ll check it out, when I have some free time on my hands.
June 11th, 2003 19:56
In her response to my previous comment, Simra wrote:
“I never said that R. Moshe or anyone else would be more lenient when it comes to homosexuality!!!
Arrrrgh! To clarify, I meant that R. Moshe or someone like him would give an intellectually sound explanation for it and relevant halachot instead of just saying “ew disgusting” or “they should have more self control” etc.”
Shimra, the halacha here is very clear, as the Torah absolutely condemns homosexual behavior as a toeava – an abomination. If you want an explanation for it, R. Moshe offered one, which you might not like or be able to accept. In light of R. Moshe’s other teshuvot on similar topics, I doubt his views would have changed. For example, he strongly condemned the notion of a (female) BT having slept with non-Jewish men before she was frum (I don’t recall the cite for the teshuva). He simply wasn’t tolerant or sympathetic of what he viewed as deviant behavior.
In my view, it’s important to remember that the Torah regulates sexual behavior by prohibiting all sexual conduct – including hetrosexual – outside of marriage (and to a large extent within marriage also). While the burden on those with homosexual inclinations is obviously more severe, objectively the burden is the same on everyone.
R. Soloveitchik once told a group of Stern girls and YU guys that if they observed the halachos of nidah (i.e. were shomer negiah), they were achieving a high level of kedusha and became closer to G-d. Perhaps those with gay inclinations can be viewed as having a similar challenge – to become closer to G-d by observing halacha and not acting on their prohibited desires.
June 12th, 2003 06:10
Joe,
Chabad Chasidism sees homosexuality as a Tai’va (wild desire) rather than Toeva (abomination). The Rabbeim basicly said that a frum Jew should always strive to conquer his desires.
Which basically agrees with Rav Soloveitchik.
I wonder if jewish Lesbians are shomer halachos Niddah?
June 12th, 2003 06:35
First off,
I hope everyone on this board living in Yerashalyim/Israel is ok and safe. Thank G-d Sharon has the guts to retaliate so swiftly.
Now for my next comment:
Joe sweetheart,
I never said that gay sex was ok! If it’s forbidden in the Torah then there’s nothing you can say about it. You have completely missed my point. I’m not upset that rabbonim aren’t scrambling around for heterim. What I’m upset about is that rabbonim are not properly addressing the issue. Just saying “tough s*&t” is not good enough! Whatever R. Moshe zt”l said, it was 20 years ago when almost no one else was even addressing the issue. It was too taboo to even think about. That’s what makes him so great.
Interestingly enough, gay sex in the Torah is always rape. Usually gang rape. Anyone ever notice that? Examples: Men of Sedom surrounding Lot’s house, Pilegesh in Givah.
June 12th, 2003 09:23
ha, keeping nidah between lesbians…. they might never touch, you know, if they are not syncronized.
June 12th, 2003 10:50
Micro, they would be able to touch for a few days a month, but there are other halachos they would have to follow like “not kissing the lower lips” and what it implies…
June 12th, 2003 12:30
Shimra,
I fully understand your point; you’re missing mine. What I’ve been trying to explain is that the reason rabbis don’t publicly address the issue is because the halacha is so clear. Rabbis are trained to deal with halachic ambiguity; in this case there isn’t any. You assume that rabbis are too cowardly to address the issue, but in fact most of them have no idea how to explain the halacha in a manner that will address the questions of those will homosexual inclinations. Anyway, some rabbis have addressed the issue and been strongly criticized, such as Rabbi Aron Feldman of Ner Yisroel in Baltimore.
June 12th, 2003 13:10
I’m not only talking about addressing halacha. People not only want halachic decisions from rabbonim they want compassion and guidance. What are you suppossed to feel if you’re gay then? You’d probably say “get over your taavos”. So how about you become celibate? Let’s see how long you last! A rov needs to address gay people’s concerns with compassion. Give them encouragement, support, validation. Demystify the whole subject. Answer tough questions like “why did G-d decide this was assur?” Talk about hashkafic aspects. Besides no one said two men couldn’t kiss and hug.
As for R. Feldman, kol hakavod. My whole point is that rabbonim shouldn’t be concerned with public criticism.
June 12th, 2003 15:41
3rd try at this.
I know of a Frum Homo guy. That is exactly how he lives. He is celibate and single. He has told his friends he would rather be single and celibate than go against Halacha.
Seperately Homosexuality is Forbidden froim the
7 Noahide Laws (7 Mitzvoth Beni Noach).
June 12th, 2003 15:49
D boy, why write vulgarities?
June 12th, 2003 16:05
Halacha requires everyone to be celibate outside of marriage. This applies to singles before marriage (and people are getting married much later – especially in the UWS where I lived until recently), widows/widowers, divorced people, etc. I fully agree about being compassionate and privately rabbis almost always are in these situations, but as for answering questions like why G-d decided homosexuality is assur, rabbis do not necessarily have the capability to answer this. Finally, it is definitely not true that “no one said two men couldn’t kiss and hug.” While the biblical prohibition doesn’t apply to this, no halachic authority have permitted other forms of intimate contact.
As for your suggestion that I would say “get over your taavos,” please don’t attribute to me things I never suggested. While there may be ways to suppress one’s taavos, obviously they aren’t going to be eliminated.
June 12th, 2003 16:25
Humbert I was literially translating what is written in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch.
Although I was prompted to mention it because a secular co-worker, who also reads this site asked about it.
June 12th, 2003 17:44
That was disgusting.
She, is it possible to remove a comment like that?
June 12th, 2003 17:57
yes please
please remove it
i dont like it much
humbert – evidently you are no match for me. your brilliant insights and witty comments and use of the word “eschatological” (even though you dont know what it means – at least you can spell it) so i am withdrawing gracefully from this discussion. i dont even know what its about anymore.
what is simcha anyways? who are the rabbis anyways these days? who can we trust? the fact is that we’re all just copies of copies of copies, unable to lead objective lives of truth, we are all biased in one way or another and not a drop of pure emes has been able to penetrate our brain for centuries, avraham avinu was the last original i think. after that it was nobody’s DECISION in the real sense of the word, not the “well we all have free choice” “decision” term like we use it stupidly today (without knowing what we’re talking about).
i often feel like i dont know what i am talking about. that is why i am going to stop.
June 12th, 2003 18:44
Just “out”: Haaretz has a long feature in tomorrow’s paper about Orthodox gays. The article is at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=302601&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y.
June 12th, 2003 19:14
LOL LOLITA! Sweety-mooshy-pie – contrariwise, we are the perfect match, for we are indeed similar, for I too find myself witty and brilliant, which means we agree on at least one but crucial concept – that is – my intellectual superiority to everything on this rotten earth, excluding myself: that’s the unparadox.
Lolita, please don’t leave me, I might start drinking and you’ll be to blame – not only for my drinking but also for me turning manipulative on this rotten earth.
I hope you’re joking about objectivity and originality. Why, the Rambam was objective, and original. And if he wasn’t, at least I am.
The only problem with me – and you should know this if we are to get married – is that I’m compulsively arrogant on this rotten earth: I am steadfast in my conviction that I am in a different league than everyone else on this rotten earth, being, as I am, the most worthless egotist to ever walk on this rotten earth.
June 12th, 2003 23:29
Joe,
being celibate till you’re married and being celibate FOREVER are 2 different things. i’d like a source for your assertion that two men cannot kiss each other. All the Torah forbids is gay sex. Nothing else. You are about as thick headed as a brick so I am done debating with you.
June 13th, 2003 00:07
Ow come on. Being celibate is not that bed: it’s the second best thing after not being celibate.
June 13th, 2003 00:25
Shimra: “i’d like a source for your assertion that two men cannot kiss each other. All the Torah forbids is gay sex. Nothing else. You are about as thick headed as a brick so I am done debating with you.”
I didn’t know I was debating, will ignore the insult, and following this post promise to leave and let the rest of you fight (only verbally – no negiah please) amongst yourselves, but will offer a couple of sources in response to Shimra’s rant. I’m not a halachic expert and there are certainly others:
1. Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer, 20: “If in a prohibited relationship there is closeness of flesh but no intercourse, the punishment is malkos.” This is applied both to homosexuals and hetrosexuals when a woman is a niddah. (The Even HaEzer also prohibits lesbian relationships, either in chapter 20 or 21)
2. Rambam, Sefer Hamitzvos – don’t have exact cite, but believe Rambam dealt with sexual laws towards the end of the negative commendments. Rambam deals with both male homosexuals and lesbians.
3. Rambam, Mishna Torah, Essurei Biah, similar to 2 – might go into the issue in more detail.
As stated previously, the biblical prohibition applies only to gay sex.
June 13th, 2003 00:50
Please don’t leave.
June 13th, 2003 01:04
I quitted this discussion a long time ago. There is, however, one thing I want to say to Pedic Center. What halacha has to do with modernity?!
what kind of argument is this???
Be modern eat serials for breakfast!
be modern watch sex and the city!
be modern be gay!
Be modern use a mobile phone!
Be modern and listen to Phillip Glass and not to Beethoven!
what’s modern anyways?
June 13th, 2003 02:00
Joe, sweetheart, you are absolutely right.
Snark come on I was joking. I thought you were smart, snark. Are you from princeton?
June 13th, 2003 02:08
You’re really beginning to annoy me.
June 13th, 2003 02:50
Sorry. Thank you for telling me.
June 13th, 2003 04:27
So Joe
going by what you say two people of the same sex can never touch each other? a woman who is a nidah can’t touch anyone? you can’t sleep with your pets either so I can’t pet my cat?
June 13th, 2003 04:28
will definitely check out your sources though.
Good shabbos to all, even Joe.:)
June 13th, 2003 09:16
Oh Pedic! my response was meant to some ppl that really think that modernity is a magic word. (Tomi Lapid is the archetype). Don’t take things too personal. your comment just triggered me.
(i was actually specifying it but I lost the comment and forgot to add it again).
And no Princeton. Harvard (NOT!).
I’m an Israeli. can’t even speak a proper English. Better try the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
June 13th, 2003 13:22
I can’t speak proper English either.
Or, as one of my non-Israeli friends had told me few days ago : “I’m not speaking to you till you lose this accent”.
An odd mix of basically everything.
June 13th, 2003 13:44
I am so upset and frustrated!!!! I googled “Making of a Godol”, Humbert. It’s been banned by the powers that be!!! It’s being auctioned for $500 and up! Help me! Humbert Humbert I need your assistance! Pleeeeeeez.
June 13th, 2003 16:18
Shimra, I’m here to your rescue. How can I help you? What can I do to you? I never read the making of a godol myself. I’be heard they have excerpts on the net somewhere. Never found it. Gave up in the middle of my search. SO if you stumble on it by any chance post the website address somewhere here. Thanks.
June 13th, 2003 16:33
Shimra, Humbert and anyone else asking,
I just came accidentally came across this online:
“Making of a Godol file back online. A reader: The file can be accessed at the following
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~jellis/godol.pdf
IMPORTANT Anyone who downloads the file is required to send $10 or the NIS equivalent to the author, R. Nosson Kamenetsky.
His address is:
9b Sorotzkin St.
Jerusalem, Israel 94423
Thank you.”
June 13th, 2003 16:35
whoopsy on the typing there
June 13th, 2003 16:44
Hey Devorah, hunny-bee, thanks a million! I love (not in a romantic way) you. You made my day, b’emet. By the way, is this R. Nosson Kamenetsky related to the grandchildren of R’ Yaakov Kamenetsky who live in the honney-comb shaped apartments in Ramot (bet, gimel, or dalet), you’re a Bee, you should know?
June 13th, 2003 19:03
Humbert, Glad I “b’emet” made your day. I don’t actually know if they are related, though I did go to school with some of R’Yaakov’s grandchildren in New York and a quite a number of them live in Israel. I’ve been inside those apartments in Ramot Polin. I believe they were designed that way to win some architecural prize. One particular apartment that people are invited into has these amazing murals on the walls to showcase the design and make the awkwardness of the setup more appealing.
June 13th, 2003 19:04
Humbert,
R. Nosson Kaminetzky is the son of R. Yaacov Kaminetzky, so yes, he is related to R. Yaacov’s grandchildren – either they’re his kids or his nephews and nieces. The book is a rather heavy read and not particularly controversial except for the fact that some zealous rabbis decided to go after it.
June 13th, 2003 19:35
Some??? The entire chareidi/black hat community has banned it! aaaargh!
June 13th, 2003 20:17
No, not all the chareidim have.
June 13th, 2003 20:43
Devora, wow, don’t you think the frum are so lucky to get the best top-notch architectural design; other people would pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege; but at the same time, isn’t it a little dehumanizing to live in a honeycomb as is? Where is the all important gadlus ha’adam?
I’ve heard that one Rosh Yeshiva, on Coney Island Ave, condemned a fun-time children’s place, when it opened up, because it was not befitting the grandeur of mankind – Gadlus ha’adam – for children to play in a place full of monkey bars, and stuff, or to crawl, and generally goof off like monkeys – as they are little humans, after all. So I’m wondering what should be said for Ramot Polin? Hmmm… Yerushalmis are not hornets, after all, but they are people …
June 13th, 2003 20:57
Joe, dear, it depends what you call controversial, and in relation to which religious circles. Relative to the conservative reformed it wasn’t controversial at all. Relative to Lakewood’s Beis edrash Gevoha it was heretical. Relative to YU it was normal. This book was not only controversial in some circles but like Shimra said, banned and burned. It might actually start a new movement within the Yeshiva orthodoxy – the antiyeshivish yeshivish orthodoxy, sort of self castigating, self hating yeshiva style. Groovy.
June 13th, 2003 21:48
Humbert,
I agree with much of what you say. However, you earlier said you haven’t read the book. Obviously there was huge controversy within charedi cirlces about the book, but if you read the book you will find that the “controversial” material is very minor, mainly relating to the fact that many gedolim fought through existential struggles, that most yeshiva students in Europe left Orthodoxy, that gedolim studied secular subjects, etc. Until the book was banned it was obscure; it only became controversial because it was banned.
As for who banned it, it was a group of charedi rabbis in Israel, including Rav Elyashiv and Rav Scheinberg. Charedi rabbis in Israel are far more right-wing than their U.S. counterparts. In the U.S. most charedi people (as distinsguished from rabbis) are against the ban. Many charedi rabbis are also against it but do not feel they can criticize Rav Elyashiv. Anyway, the people paying $500 and up are generally curious charedim. Suffice to say I very strongly oppose the ban and know nobody – even among charedim – who is not at least ambivalent about it.
Just as I’ve stopped posting on the gay issue, this will be my last post here on the MOAG issue. So if you’re interested in further discussing this topic, feel free to contact me privately.
June 13th, 2003 22:45
Hi, Joe, what you said is thought provoking.
Please don’t leave us I really like you.
June 15th, 2003 08:04
Devora! Thanks for the link! I’m ever so happy I get to read godol gossip. I’m not listening to Joe. There’s gotta be some steamy secrets in there, no?:)
Maybe some hunky photos of a godol or two in their undies? Ok now I know it’s time to go to sleep. I’m getting too weird even for me.
June 15th, 2003 17:46
Shimra, boo, shame on you. Everyone knows that gedolim are on such a high level they don’t need to wear undies.
June 15th, 2003 21:30
humbert
do you think theres enough space on this page for me AND your ego?
on this rotten earth, there are not many people like you. and thats why we cant get married.
did i crush you?
like a grape?
(nothing rhymes with grape).
June 15th, 2003 21:39
ape, crepe, chafe, dilate, drape, effete (?), equate, fate, gape, irate, late, mate, Nate, nape, plait, rate, rape, shape, state, slate, trait, tape
finish your poem:)
June 16th, 2003 00:18
Did I crush you
like a grape.
No shit.
No shit.
(call me ba’al gaiveh, but I think my blank verse beats the crap out of my primitive rhymed rhapsody.)
June 16th, 2003 03:31
Did I crush you like a grape –
I did crush you like a grape?
You did crush like I a grape.
Crush! I did you. Like a grape?
June 16th, 2003 20:23
bravo
June 17th, 2003 03:03
Yoz,
Excellent post.
June 17th, 2003 04:30
I hate the world. The world is dumb. Dumb like a dumbell or a drum. I hate the shidduch process. The miscommunication of it all; the superficiality of it all. The slyness and the stab-in-the-back of it all. Hate it for the false niceties, pouring salt on the wound. For the unspeakable, invisible, caste system shelving you exactly where you belong. I hate the world for having evolved into a darwinian cult of diddling excerements. I hate the world. And the world hates me.
June 17th, 2003 08:15
join the Underground of Innocents
June 17th, 2003 16:16
What’s that?
June 17th, 2003 19:02
It’s just a name I made up. Cool name for a band, eh? Actually what i mean is find other unspoiled people such as yourself who still have ideals and morals. i’m still looking.:)
June 17th, 2003 19:46
What are you looking for, dear? Your patent leather combat boots? Let’s see, where did I put them? Nothing in the fridge, nothing in the stove, nothing between the pages of britanica … Hmmm, where are my patent leather combat boots?
June 23rd, 2003 02:05
The Old
The old were old since conception –
not their’s, the universe’s.
It’s true without exceptions.
And there’s only falsehood
for the false blue teeth
that ate micro-lobsters and plastic
kimonos off somebody’s unknown
invisible hand.
July 18th, 2003 20:45
Im not sure if LAVENDER is the gayest word ever. Id say FABULOUS is fairly gay. As is SPIFFY.
August 7th, 2003 16:59
what i don’t get is: if u’r gay, why not just be
hiz beard and carry on, on your own (so to speak).
Also all this b.s. about this 100% forbidden stuff
gets 2 me.
1) Even if uz born this way, so what , people born
with palsy and other stuff are still SICK even if
born that way.
2) Being / wanting something don’t make it right.
August 11th, 2003 10:48
Ahavas Yisroel seems to be a popular mitzvah…. ….!! except that we’ve been forgetting to love our selves…. HHMMM!!???? EEVER THINK OF CALLING OFF A DATE???!!!???
August 11th, 2003 17:21
I got two words, peoples, especially snark: ANNE HECHE.
August 12th, 2003 22:45
I agree with JAJA,
The whole conversation about the gay lifestyle
being legit is false.
Say someone has feelings for a 10 yr. old
boy/girl should those feelings be acted upon.
Should this be allowed because the adult was
born with a pedophile tendancy, hell no.
Same here homo tendancy is just as wrong in a
way.
G-d bless us all.
August 14th, 2003 22:59
Hey night writer,
cool name, is it based on the tv thing night rider
anyhoo,
good points
but can’t compare philes to gays now, can u???
August 14th, 2003 23:02
jaja is gay
August 19th, 2003 20:07
sir shmoozalot: it’s all one, man, it’s all one. nambla.
August 20th, 2003 20:12
hey x,
how can u say it’s all one not all gays are philes
and not all philes are gay..
hey hey,
sir schmoozalot….
August 20th, 2003 20:12
hey x,
how can u say it’s all one not all gays are philes
and not all philes are gay..
hey hey,
sir schmoozalot….