Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey on Same-Sex Marriage

tora (40)in #ssm • 7 years ago

This draft (there may be numerous typographical errors) is not an instruction as to how to vote in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, but a critique of the views and sources offered in the Facebook thread mentioned below, as well as views seen in opinion pieces published in the AJN, presented in approximate chronological order.
.
Having seen many opinions out there regarding the same-sex-marriage (SSM) vote debate, this, in part, is a reaction to a Facebook thread with a rather odd question of “HOW CAN I BE AN ORTHODOX JEW AND STILL VOTE YES TO GAY MARRIAGE?” prefaced by many words, but scant reference to sources, to the effect of Orthodox must = no.
.
The dramatic tone of the question is odd, because:

No one is being forced to take a stand on the issue, the vote is not compulsory, that is, one will not be served with a fine should they fail to vote,
This is a vote with regards to civil union, it will not affect how religious marriage is conducted.
Many other western nations, including Israel (1), have recognised gay marriage after it has taken place abroad, or like our close neighbour New Zealand in 2013 have out-right legalised it (2), and so far (and possibly to the chagrin of fanatics seeking vindication) no social chaos has ensued in these societies.
.
An aside, before the sources mentioned in the discussion of that thread are examined, and somewhat echoing Justice Kirby’s initial dismay, this matter would probably have been better resolved in parliament, rather than this becoming an issue for the public to divide upon. Also, it is a shame that resources are being poured into this vote, as opposed to being invested in social programs; $122 million could really have improved the lives of many Australians (3).
.
.
Now onto the examination of the arguments for (YES) and against (NO), approximately in the order they appeared in the thread:
.
.
NO: It is a biblical sin, a yes vote, is a vote supporting the sin, especially a problem if there is a Jew involved. The source (4), which will next be read in congregations during the afternoon service of Yom Kippour:
אחרי מות - The seventh reading in the portion of Aḥǎre Môth
יח,כב וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּֽוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃
וְיָת דְּכוּרָא--לָא תִּשְׁכּוֹב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִתָּא: תּוֹעֵיבָא, הִיא.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.
.
The sixth reading in the following portion of Qᵉdhoshîm - קדושים
כ,יג וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה תּֽוֹעֵבָ֥ה עָשׂ֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם מ֥וֹת יוּמָ֖תוּ דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם׃
וּגְבַר, דְּיִשְׁכּוֹב יָת דְּכוּרָא מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִתָּא--תּוֹעֵיבָא עֲבַדוּ, תַּרְוֵיהוֹן; אִתְקְטָלָא יִתְקַטְלוּן, קַטְלָא חַיָּבִין.
Leviticus 20:13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
.
Discussion:
God’s abomination is mentioned many a time in the TaNaKH (5), it is primarily mentioned with regards to (i) forbidden relations, and (ii) idol worship. From a biblical-legal standpoint, a Jewish man engaging in the act would be condemned to death, while a Jewish woman engaging in lesbian relations would not be, that is, no clear mention is made regarding such relations. This would mean that if there were options in this vote to allow for (i) male-male marriage, and (ii) female-female marriage; from a strictly biblical position, the first option would be a no vote while the second option, female-female marriage, could be a yes vote. However, Jewish society, has not conducted itself according to biblical law for quite some time, let alone forcing this world-view on a society which is 99.55% not Jewish (112,000 Jews in Australia out of a population of 24.6 million (6); this percentage may differ as recent data, recently mentioned in the AJN, has indicated that there are 200,000 people of Jewish origin in Australia, but 50,000 who are active in their observance, in that they will be attending high holiday services (6a). Looking beyond biblical sources RaMbaM mentions that female to female relations are not allowed (6b):
הִלְכּוֹת אִסּוּרֵי בִּיאָה פֵּרֶק כא
ח נָשִׁים הַמְּסוֹלְלוֹת זוֹ בְּזוֹ--אָסוּר, וּמִמַּעֲשֵׂה מִצְרַיִם הוּא שֶׁהֻזְהַרְנוּ עָלָיו: שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ-מִצְרַיִם . . . לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ" (ויקרא יח,ג); וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים, מַה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂים--אִישׁ נוֹשֵׂא אִישׁ, וְאִשָּׁה נוֹשְׁאָה אִשָּׁה, וְאִשָּׁה נִשֵּׂאת לִשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים.
For women to engage in lesbian relations is forbidden, and it is among the customs/deeds of Egypt upon which we were warned, as is said: “according to the deeds of Egypt....you shall not do" (Leviticus 18:3), and our wise sages stated, what did they do? Men would marry men, and women would marry women, and women would marry two men.
.
.
NO: The fourth Noahide Law states that non-Jews are not allowed to engage in illicit relations.
Seventh Chapter of Babylonian Talmudic Tractate Sanhedrin (7 - numbering added)
מסכת סנהדרין פרק ז - דף נו,א גמרא:
תנו רבנן שבע מצות נצטוו בני נח 1 דינין 2 וברכת השם 3 ע"ז 4 גילוי עריות 5 ושפיכות דמים 6 וגזל 7 ואבר מן החי
The rabbis taught, seven commandments were given to the children of Noah [non-Jews] 1. [establishment of] laws 2. blessing God (a euphemism for cursing) 3. idol worship 4. [not to engage in] illicit relations 5. [not to be involved in] bloodshed 6. [not to be involved in] robbery 7. [not to eat a] limb from a living being.
.
Discussion:
The Sanhedrin tractate is concerned with how the Jewish nation conducts itself in its own lands, that is, where there is clear Jewish sovereignty, with a functioning Sanhedrin (akin to the Australian High Court), temple, and a Jewish King. This is clarified in RaMbaM’s restatement of Jewish Law (where he also discusses the seven Noahide laws) by the laws he first mentions (8):
א שָׁלוֹשׁ מִצְווֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשָׁעַת כְּנִיסָתָן לָאָרֶץ--לְמַנּוֹת לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ" (דברים יז,טו), וּלְהַכְרִית זַרְעוֹ שֶׁלַּעֲמָלֵק שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "תִּמְחֶה אֶת-זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק" (דברים כה,יט), וְלִבְנוֹת לָהֶם בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "לְשִׁכְנוֹ תִדְרְשׁוּ, וּבָאתָ שָּׁמָּה" (דברים יב,ה).
Three commandments were given to Israel upon entering the land [of Israel], to appoint a king...to destroy Amaleq...and to build the temple.
.
ד [ג] אֵין מַעְמִידִין מֶלֶךְ תְּחִלָּה, אֵלָא עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין שֶׁלְּשִׁבְעִים זְקֵנִים וְעַל פִּי נָבִיא--כִּיהוֹשׁוּעַ שֶׁמִּנָּהוּ מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ וּבֵית דִּינוֹ, וּכְשָׁאוּל וְדָוִיד שֶׁמִּנָּה אוֹתָם שְׁמוּאֵל הָרָמָתִי וּבֵית דִּינוֹ.
A king is not appointed, in any manner other than by a court of seventy-one elders [a Sanhedrin] and a prophet, such as Joshua who was appointed by Moses and his court, and like Saul and David who were appointed by Samuel and his court.
.
Clearly, the state of Israel is not functioning in this manner, at this point there is no king, there is no functioning Sanhedrin, meaning the Noahide laws, are not presently enforceable when it comes to non-Jews residing on the land of Israel.
This then begs the separate question as to whether the Noahide laws were ever intended to be enforced in Australia.
In RaMbaM’s restatement there are certain rulings that lend themselves to misinterpretation (9):
הִלְכּוֹת מְלָכִים וּמִלְחָמוֹת פֵּרֶק ח
יג וְכֵן צִוָּה מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ מִפִּי הַגְּבוּרָה, לָכֹף אֶת כָּל בָּאֵי הָעוֹלָם לְקַבַּל כָּל מִצְווֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוָּה נוֹחַ, וְכָל מִי שֶׁלֹּא קִבַּל, יֵהָרֵג.
And likewise Moses was commanded by God to compel the non-Jewish people to accept the Noahide laws, and whoever did not accept would be executed.
.
If that was the end of the ruling it would seem that this is a universal law, however the continuation of the ruling:
וְהַמְּקַבֵּל אוֹתָם--הוּא הַנִּקְרָא גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב בְּכָל מָקוֹם...
"And one who accepts them [the laws], he is known as a resident alien..."
This status of resident alien, is not referring to Australian residence, but to that of the kingdom of Israel.
However, there is an opinion for how the Noahide Laws could apply beyond the scope mentioned. In the messianic fervour that surrounded the Chabad movement, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menahem Mendel Schneerson z”l, stated in a speech he gave in 1983 that (9a) (in translation):
“
The future Redemption will apply not only to Israel, but to the whole world as well. As we say in the Aleinu prayer “...to perfect the world under the sovereignty of G‑d.”
In preparation for this Redemption, therefore, action needs to be taken so that the world at large will be ready for such a state. This is to be achieved through the efforts of the Jewish people to influence the nations of the world to conduct themselves in the spirit of the verse that states that G‑d “formed [the world] in order that it be settled” — in a civilized manner, through the observance of their seven mitzvos.
“
While Melbourne has a large number of Chabad hasidim and observant Jews who affiliate with the Chabad movement, or attend a synagogue with a Chabad rabbi, not all would necessarily agree with this stance. That is, not all Jews are interested in trying to influence the non-Jews around them, by telling them what they can and cannot do. For example, one such campaign, mentioned in passing, involved trying to stop restaurateurs from offering customers fresh seafood such as raw oysters, as apparently this was a transgression of tearing a limb from a live animal. While animal welfare campaigners would have been pleased with such an initiative, there was no transgression in this act, as seafood is not included in this prohibition (9b). In other words, there is the possibility that not all potential fights/arguments are worth having; of the websites online that mention the Noahide laws, they seem to fall discretely into two categories, fringe religious Jews and odd non-Jews deciding on how to observe these laws, and, anti-semites quoting the laws and trying to prove that Jews are trying to run the world.
.
.
NO: allowing SSM is a slippery slope and a green light to bestiality, the example given was marriage to a goldfish.
Source (what seems to be):
The immediate proximity of the verse regarding homosexuality, to this verse regarding bestiality, i.e. (4):
ח,כג וּבְכָל־בְּהֵמָ֛ה לֹֽא־תִתֵּ֥ן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ֖ לְטָמְאָה־בָ֑הּ וְאִשָּׁ֗ה לֹֽא־תַעֲמֹ֞ד לִפְנֵ֧י בְהֵמָ֛ה לְרִבְעָ֖הּ תֶּ֥בֶל הֽוּא׃
וּבְכָל בְּעִירָא לָא תִּתֵּין שְׁכֻבְתָּךְ, לְאִסְתַּאָבָא בַּהּ; וְאִתְּתָא, לָא תְּקוּם קֳדָם בְּעִירָא לְמִשְׁלַט בַּהּ--תָּבְלָא הוּא.
Leviticus 18:23 And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto; it is perversion.
.
Discussion:
In context, the above claim, at face value, makes some sense when read with all the verses prior and which conclude with:
יח,כד אַל־תִּֽטַּמְּא֖וּ בְּכָל־אֵ֑לֶּה כִּ֤י בְכָל־אֵ֨לֶּה֙ נִטְמְא֣וּ הַגּוֹיִ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִ֥י מְשַׁלֵּ֖חַ מִפְּנֵיכֶֽם׃
לָא תִּסְתָּאֲבוּן, בְּכָל אִלֵּין: אֲרֵי בְּכָל אִלֵּין אִסְתָּאֲבוּ עַמְמַיָּא, דַּאֲנָא מַגְלֵי מִן קֳדָמֵיכוֹן.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out from before you.
יח,כה וַתִּטְמָ֣א הָאָ֔רֶץ וָֽאֶפְקֹ֥ד עֲוֹנָ֖הּ עָלֶ֑יהָ וַתָּקִ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ אֶת־יֹֽשְׁבֶֽיהָ׃
וְאִסְתָּאַבַת אַרְעָא, וְאַסְעַרִית חוֹבַהּ עֲלַהּ; וְרוֹקֵינַת אַרְעָא, יָת יָתְבַהָא.
25 And the land was defiled, therefore I did visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomited out her inhabitants.
.
That is, the verses seem to group the different forbidden relations as a reason to why the Israelites will be exiled, however, it lists each of these acts separately, so that such an inference cannot really be made i.e. correlation of mentions of different forbidden relations is not a claim that one engaging in one forbidden relation is going to necessarily engage in a different forbidden relation. This refutation, of homosexuality and bestiality being completely separate matters, was given further down the thread by a man openly stating his homosexuality, and disconcertingly, was received with a laughing response by someone identifying as a rabbi.
Furthermore, connecting this discussion point with a previous point looking at who the Noahide laws are addressing with regards to forbidden relations is this verse:
יח,כו וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֣ם אַתֶּ֗ם אֶת־חֻקֹּתַי֙ וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַ֔י וְלֹ֣א תַֽעֲשׂ֔וּ מִכֹּ֥ל הַתּֽוֹעֵבֹ֖ת הָאֵ֑לֶּה הָֽאֶזְרָ֔ח וְהַגֵּ֖ר הַגָּ֥ר בְּתֽוֹכְכֶֽם׃
וְתִטְּרוּן אַתּוּן, יָת קְיָמַי וְיָת דִּינַי, וְלָא תַּעְבְּדוּן, מִכֹּל תּוֹעֵיבָתָא הָאִלֵּין: יַצִּיבַיָּא, וְגִיּוֹרַיָּא דְּיִתְגַּיְּרוּן בֵּינֵיכוֹן.
Leviticus 18:26 Ye therefore shall keep My statutes and Mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you--
.
Therefore, it seems that from a strict biblical perspective these laws are restricted to Israelites and the resident aliens living in the land of Israel, upon whom they rule, and the punishment for failure to comply with these laws would be exile.
.
.
NO: One cannot call oneself orthodox and vote yes, it is a biblical prohibition, just like one cannot advocate driving on the Sabbath.
Discussion:
This is a conflation of concepts, however, given its presentation it will be addressed with a further conflation. It is known that forbidden relations and Sabbath desecration are both punishable by death according to biblical law. Many orthodox identifying Jews in Melbourne, including many rabbis among them, use the Sabbath boundary, the eruv, which is effectively nothing more than a piece of string standing in place of a physical wall and gates, and is not acceptable according to biblical law, but accepted through a legal fiction not unanimously endorsed by rabbinic authorities.
Furthermore, in the biblical text there are no examples of people being punished for male to male relations, which carries the same penalty of seqila - death by stoning, as violating the Sabbath for which there is an example (4a).
However, if we were to get specific, there are certain circumstances where one can drive a car on the Sabbath and call oneself orthodox. For example, to save a life, as some of the pro-YES voters have mentioned that voting yes will save lives, then perhaps this is such a circumstance under which an exception can be made. However, while there is not much in terms of evidence that can be located at present as to whether allowing SSM necessarily does save lives, other than a recent study that linked government policies favourable to LGBT minorities (9c), one could argue that even a sliver of doubt is enough, that one should try to avoid causing psychological anguish to people that would lead them to commit suicide.
.
.
NO: Any rabbi who votes YES should not be called a rabbi
Discussion:
This is problematic as it sets a precedent that if certain people or rabbis disagree with another rabbi’s opinions they can bully that rabbi and attempt to have the rabbi shunned.
On a separate note, from a historical standpoint, no one should actually qualify to be called a rabbi nowadays, as the institution of semikha, rabbinic ordination, died out many years ago, which is why religious leaders until recent history were given different titles such as Ḥakham (wise one) or Mori (my teacher). See for example, Don Abravanel’s commentary on Pirqe Abhoth (9d):
אחרי בואי לאיטליה מצאתי שנתפשט המנהג לסמוך אלו לאלו... וראיתי התחלתו
בין האשכנזים, כולם סומכים ונסמכים. לא ידעתי מאין בא להם ההיתר הזה, אם לא
שקנאו בדרכי הגויים העושים דוקטור ויעשו גם הם
(פירוש על אבות ו, ב\2)
After I arrived in Italy I saw that the custom of people ordaining each other had taken hold...and I saw that this had begun among the Ashkenazeem, who ordain and become ordained. I do not know from where they sourced this leniency, other than them harbouring jealousy of the ways of the non-Jews who receive doctorates, and so they wished to do likewise.
.
.
YES: Others [gays and lesbians] should not be judged, God made everyone.
Discussion:
While God made everyone, it is hard to really say what the intention is, if there is one, behind creating people with a gay/lesbian preference, or to even make that claim in the first place. Debate still abounds as to whether homosexuality is something that someone is born with, or a behaviour that is learned over time, although it seems that at present the consensus seems to lean more towards the biological argument (10).
In any event, the argument that is often mentioned in these debates is that this preference should be sought to be cured, whether biological or learned. Supporting such sentiment is that the gold standards in mental health, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10), until 1987 and 1992 respectively, still classified homosexuality as a mental health disorder (11). A criticism of the decision to remove it from classification was that the psychologists involved in the decision to remove it from the DSM only took a vote on it, and were simply reacting to social pressure. However, a similar criticism can be levelled at the decision to have included it in the first place, likening this definition to the debunked condition known as drapetomania, the mental health condition that was said to compel slaves to run away from their masters (12).
.
.
NO: there is a need to take a stand against militant practitioners of the atheist religion, in their fight they are: i. suffocating free speech, ii. tearing down established institutions and belief systems which have stood the test of time.
Discussion:
Although some atheists come across as dogmatic, there is no atheist religion, by definition there cannot be an atheist religion because atheism precludes the lack of a belief in God necessitated by religion. Now to address the claims:
.
i. This is certainly observable, and counterproductive. There have been people who have voiced a well-researched NO, only to be harassed. There is a basis to claims that once SSM is legalised that people who want to maintain their religious convictions could be vilified, the most cited example being that of the US-based bakers, Aaron and Melissa Klein, who in 2013 refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple’s wedding, because they said it was against their religious beliefs and were then subsequently fined and ordered to pay $135,000 for emotional trauma caused, and whom in 2017 are still appealing the decision (13). What was particularly surprising about this case is that the bakers had previously served the lesbian couple, but only declined service when it came to the marriage occasion, so it would seem that the case of discrimination based on sexual orientation would have been particularly difficult to prove (14). Should such an occurrence happen in Australia, there are already anti-discrimination laws in place (15).
.
ii. This is a particularly hard claim to make, for marriage is an institution, to tear it down would mean that no one would get married.
There are an abundance of resources that deal with the more secular issues of this secular matter (16).
.
.
YES: Marriage is not the same as relations
Discussion:
This argument seems a little disingenuous from a Jewish perspective as was mentioned in the thread, marriage from a Jewish perspective involves relations, this is the opening mishna in tractate qidousheen (16a).
.
.
NO: RaMbaM’s commentary on the Mishna Sanhedrin mentions that male to male relationships are forbidden.
Discussion:
Otherwise known as the Kitab al-Siraj, the commentary while being extremely useful to understand Jewish law, was never designed to be instructional in terms of deciding on law; his other work, the Mishne Tora, was written with this purpose in mind.
.
.
NO: No posing as Do Nothing:
This was seen outside this thread. The AJN article was long, a full page in fact, and ended off by prising the Talmoudhic advice of: when in doubt, shebh weal taase, sit and do nothing, in this context meaning not casting a vote.
This, by itself, would be fine, but instead, of reading this instruction in the plain meaning, the author takes it a step further by stating that the intention behind this injunction was to mean that in this instance it would mean voting no, as this would mean that the status quo would remain, meaning nothing would have changed.
.
The single, greatest advantage of doing nothing, is that hopefully one saves oneself the hassle of making a decision or engaging in unending debates with people on either side. Also, depending on how much one’s paranoia-mileage varies, one can be sure that the government is not tracking one’s vote on this issue, as all voting pages mailed out, have unique, potentially identifying, codes on their side.
.
.
YES: The prohibition on SSM relations has similar language to the prohibition of eating shellfish.
Discussion:
There are some editions of the bible which translate the words toebha and sheqeṣ as abomination. In the TaNaKH, toebha is primarily used to describe immoral relations and idol worship (5), while sheqeṣ is disgust related with eating foods which are unclean and idol worship (17). However, the difference between the two is that the sins of sexual immorality being described as toebha are punishable by death, while those paired with sheqeṣ are not. However, as mentioned earlier, such punishments could only be enacted if the Beth Din Gadhol would reconvene, and even then these punishments would not necessarily be meted out, as capital cases ceased 40 years prior to the destruction of the second temple (18).
.
.
All said and done, to return to a point mentioned earlier, it is a shame that such discussions are taking place; surely $122 million could have been spent on more worthwhile projects. While the area is under-researched (19), there is the possibility that some of the opposition to SSM, that is the less polite forms of homophobia, are in fact people’s repressed sexuality being expressed (20).
.
Hopefully, with Yom Kippour upon us, people will have time to pause and reflect upon not only one’s own challenges, but those of others too, and make resolutions to improve not only themselves, but the society around them, hatima tova.
.
.
====
FOOTNOTES
====
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Israel
.
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand
.
(3) http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/terrible-message-samesex-marriage-postal-vote-faces-legal-showdown-20170905-gyay13.html
.
(4) http://www.mechon-mamre.org/c/ct/cu0306.htm
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0318.htm
and
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/c/ct/cu0307.htm
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0320.htm
.
(4a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_corporal_punishment_in_Judaism#Stoning_.28Skilah.29
See:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/c/ct/cu0404.htm
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0415.htm
טו,לב וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר וַֽיִּמְצְא֗וּ אִ֛ישׁ מְקֹשֵׁ֥שׁ עֵצִ֖ים בְּי֥וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽת׃ וַהֲווֹ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּמַדְבְּרָא;
וְאַשְׁכַּחוּ, גְּבַר כַּד מְגָבֵיב אָעִין--בְּיוֹמָא דְּשַׁבְּתָא.
32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks upon the sabbath day.
טו,לג וַיַּקְרִ֣יבוּ אֹת֔וֹ הַמֹּֽצְאִ֥ים אֹת֖וֹ מְקֹשֵׁ֣שׁ עֵצִ֑ים אֶל־מֹשֶׁה֙ וְאֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֔ן וְאֶ֖ל כָּל־הָֽעֵדָֽה׃
וְקָרִיבוּ יָתֵיהּ, דְּאַשְׁכַּחוּ יָתֵיהּ כַּד מְגָבֵיב אָעִין--לְוָת מֹשֶׁה, וּלְוָת אַהֲרוֹן, וּלְוָת, כָּל כְּנִשְׁתָּא.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
טו,לד וַיַּנִּ֥יחוּ אֹת֖וֹ בַּמִּשְׁמָ֑ר כִּ֚י לֹ֣א פֹרַ֔שׁ מַה־יֵּֽעָשֶׂ֖ה לֽוֹ׃ {ס}
וַאֲסַרוּ יָתֵיהּ, בְּבֵית מַטְּרָא: אֲרֵי לָא אִתְפָּרַשׁ לְהוֹן, מָא דְּיַעְבְּדוּן לֵיהּ. {ס}
34 And they put him in ward, because it had not been declared what should be done to him. {S}
טו,לה וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה מ֥וֹת יוּמַ֖ת הָאִ֑ישׁ רָג֨וֹם אֹת֤וֹ בָֽאֲבָנִים֙ כָּל־הָ֣עֵדָ֔ה מִח֖וּץ לַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה׃
וַאֲמַר יְיָ לְמֹשֶׁה, אִתְקְטָלָא יִתְקְטִיל גֻּבְרָא; רְגוּמוּ יָתֵיהּ בְּאַבְנַיָּא כָּל כְּנִשְׁתָּא, מִבַּרָא לְמַשְׁרִיתָא.
35 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.'
טו,לו וַיֹּצִ֨יאוּ אֹת֜וֹ כָּל־הָֽעֵדָ֗ה אֶל־מִחוּץ֙ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה וַיִּרְגְּמ֥וּ אֹת֛וֹ בָּֽאֲבָנִ֖ים וַיָּמֹ֑ת כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהוָ֖ה אֶת־מֹשֶֽׁה׃ {פ} וְאַפִּיקוּ יָתֵיהּ כָּל כְּנִשְׁתָּא, לְמִבַּרָא לְמַשְׁרִיתָא, וּרְגַמוּ יָתֵיהּ בְּאַבְנַיָּא, וּמִית: כְּמָא דְּפַקֵּיד יְיָ, יָת מֹשֶׁה. {פ}
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died, as the LORD commanded Moses. {P}
.
(5) https://www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-hebrew-H8441-towebah.html#concordance
.
(6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Australia
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Web+Pages/Population+Clock?opendocument
.
(6a) The Australian Jewish News, September 22, 2017, pg. 21. “So just how many Jewish people are there in Australia?”
.
(6b) http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/5121n.htm
.
(7) http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l4407.htm
.
(8) http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/e501n.htm
.
(9) http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/e508n.htm
.
(9a) http://www.sie.org/templates/sie/article_cdo/aid/2321827/jewish/Chapter-4-Catalysts-of-the-Redemption.htm
See also: http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380332/jewish/The-Mitzvot-of-Non-Jews.htm
.
(9b) http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/5301n.htm
משנה תורה - ספר קדושה - הִלְכּוֹת שְׁחִיטָה פֵּרֶק א
ד [ג] דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים--אֵינָן צְרִיכִין שְׁחִיטָה, אֵלָא אֲסִיפָתָן הִיא הַמַּתֶּרֶת אוֹתָן: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר "הֲצֹאן וּבָקָר יִשָּׁחֵט לָהֶם, וּמָצָא לָהֶם; אִם אֶת-כָּל-דְּגֵי הַיָּם יֵאָסֵף לָהֶם, וּמָצָא לָהֶם" (במדבר יא,כב), אֲסִיפַת דָּגִים כִּשְׁחִיטַת בָּקָר וָצֹאן; וּבַחֲגָבִים נֶאֱמָר "אֹסֶף הֶחָסִיל" (ישעיהו לג,ד), בַּאֲסִיפָה לְבַדָּהּ. לְפִיכָּךְ אִם מֵתוּ מֵאֵלֵיהֶן בְּתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם, מֻתָּרִין; וּמֻתָּר לְאָכְלָן חַיִּים.
Mishne Tora - Book of Holiness - The Laws of Slaughter
Fish and locusts do not need to be slaughtered....and one is allowed to eat them alive.
.
(9c) http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2604258
.
(9d) http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/sinay/smicha-4.htm - there is much irony in this reference, as they present Don Abravanel’s quote with:
: מספר ר' יצחק אברבנאל…
Rabbi Isaac Abravanel recounts:...
See more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Abarbanel
.
(10) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cross-cultural-evidence-for-the-genetics-of-homosexuality/
.
(11) https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/when-homosexuality-stopped-being-mental-disorder
.
(12) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania
.
(13) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/6/sweet-cakes-melissa-christian-bakers-oregon-appeal/
.
(14) https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/march/oregon-bakers-lose-everything-before-ever-going-to-court-today-that-changes
.
(15) https://www.business.gov.au/info/plan-and-start/start-your-business/what-is-customer-service/refusing-service (for Australian context)
http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/turnbull-governments-proposed-gay-marriage-bill-would-leave-bakers-and-florists-exposed/news-story/25e01a05d72c19af06221d8cf7d8d0de (relating to Austrailan bakers and florists)
.
(16) for example: https://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/biggest-same-sex-marriage-myths/3224690/
.
(16a) http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/h/h37.htm
א,א האישה--נקנית בשלוש דרכים, וקונה את עצמה בשתי דרכים: נקנית בכסף, ובשטר, ובביאה…
A woman is acquired [in marriage] in three ways, and acquires herself [(i.e. separates herself from her husband)] in two ways. [She is] acquired with money, a bill [(of marriage i.e. a kethuba)], and with relations...
.
(17) https://www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-hebrew-H8263-sheqets.html
https://www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-hebrew-H8262-shaqats.html
https://www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-hebrew-H8251-shiqquwts.html#concordance
.
(18) http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/e114n.htm
הִלְכּוֹת סַנְהֶדְּרִין פֵּרֶק יד
אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה קֹדֶם חָרְבַּן בַּיִת שֵׁנִי בָּטְלוּ דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגָּלוּ הַסַּנְהֶדְּרִין, וְלֹא הָיוּ בִּמְקוֹמָן שָׁם בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.
Forty years prior to the destruction of the second temple, capital punishment was no longer a part of Jewish law...
.
(19)https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pop-psych/201608/homophobia-isnt-repressed-homosexuality
.
(20) https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay-and-lesbian-well-being/201307/are-homophobes-really-gay
=====