"You know there are men who never get married because they never find a wife or for other reasons, right? And are they celibate all their lives? Do they not struggle with urges as a single, sexually healthy, heterosexual man? They sure do. And I'm sure they don't succeed and pass every test."
Yes, and these single heterosexual men have sexual relations in their lives as well.
Some do and some don't. But I JUST IMPLIED THAT! (or that they do other things while alone).
I said:
Do they not struggle with urges as a single, sexually healthy, heterosexual man? They sure do. And I'm sure they don't succeed and pass every test."
Keep in mind, I'm referring to pious people that actually think they need to be married in order to have sexual relations with a wife. They will struggle with this challenge their whole life. People who don't think it's a problem or a sin or forbidden will act on their desires and don't struggle with anything except that they did not find a spouse to make a family with.
Now, I'm sure you would consider this to be a sin, but my question is do you consider heterosexual sex outside of a marriage to be just as egregious as homosexual sex?
It is a sin. It's not for me to judge what sins are worse than other sins. All sins are supposed to be avoided and people are supposed to be discouraged from doing them. However, it is a fact that G-d called homosexual sex an abomination. Sorry if that bothers you, but that's the fact.
That doesn't mean I'm going to encourage a single man to have sexual relations outside of marriage! In fact, I implied the exact opposite with what I quoted above.
If not, why so? Also, while we're on this topic, do you consider heterosexual oral and anal sex to be just as big of a sin as homosexual sex?
With a wife? NO! It's not a sin at all from what I understand. (I'm admittedly not an expert in this area of Torah, but I remember reading that the Talmud and/or the Rambam permit multiple kinds of relations with one's wife).
"But when the same-sex attracted man decides to live-in with his "partner" in a so-called "marriage" arrangement because he just can't live a life without unlimited sexual gratification at his every whim, he has basically given up the struggle and said that it doesn't matter what G-d says."
It sounds to me like you're promoting the false stereotype about gays in that their entire livelihoods revolve around sex.
Excuse me, but you were the one who promoted that because you implied that I was an evil dictator for suggesting that homosexual men stay single. Can I ask you again to explain to me why that's a "wrong" suggestion?
Nothing could be further from the truth. They're human beings just like us
Oh, put a sock in it with this ridiculous propaganda, I know they are humans and never suggested otherwise, this leftist zombie rhetoric you employ is incredibly irritating.
where sex only plays one part of their lives just like heterosexuals. Please forgive me if this is not what you said and if I misunderstood.
Ok, you're forgiven because you did misunderstand.
"They are prohibited from that behavior by G-d - It doesn't affect my quality of life but theirs!"
Fine. Then let G-d be the judge and not us.
Indeed, but it is a sin for us to promote their behavior or tell them it is ok when it isn't! And THAT does affect us.
"Why should the degree to which it affects my quality of life be relevant to this discussion."
Because if something doesn't affect us personally and isn't doing harm to anyone else,
Logical fallacy - it is doing harm because encouraging a person to sin is a sin for us (and it harms the person being encouraged too).
then we should just live and let live and let G-d take care of the rest.
There's a logic to this which I agree with.
Live and let live does not mean sanctioning unions of homosexual "partners" where the intention is to live together and have sex with one another in a loving relationship or putting female rabbis in kippas to sanction it. (And that's what marriage does entail!) It would mean staying the hell out of it.
"In Judaism this behavior is a sin. Period. It seems that you're coming from a place where you don't care what Judaism says. So there is no way to have a commensurable conversation. However, the Jewish community functions with adherence to our peculiar Jewish religion."
This just proves the point of Sam Harris that G-d and religion are conversation stoppers. It doesn't matter what the rational merits and reasons of an argument or issue. If G-d says it, then there's no debate. It's the end of the conversation. Plain and simple.
So what? Why can't certain conversations have conversation stoppers? Why is there no such thing as a red line in society?
Such absolutistic dogma to live by! I, for one, don't believe that things in life are that simple. But that's a whole other issue for another discussion.
Judaism is not an "absolutistic dogma" but an obvious issues like this where G-d quite plainly says certain things are forbidden, there really can't be an argument about it. It doesn't mean "things in life are that simple" (that's a quite general statement) and there can be many difficult and complicating circumstances surrounding that prohibition. But nonetheless the prohibition exists, difficult or complicated as circumstances might be and we have to bear that in mind despite whatever obstacles...
I don't think it's accurate to assert that obeying G-d is "believing that things in life are simple."
