What does Judaism say about same-sex marriage?

Answer 1

well many orthodox are against homosexuality because of the verse in the Torah, that says a man can't lie with another man (notice it doesnt say women) but if you read the whole passage, it's really saying not to impose you're will on someone you have control over. it talks about how a father cant rape his daughter, a brother cant rape his sister etc. and then it speaks about that famous verse and it makes it sound like a man can't RAPE another man, especially if he is in a position of dominance over him.

• Answer 2

The Jewish Torah prohibits male homosexual intercourse in the strongest language (Leviticus 18:22). All the verses in that chapter prohibit forbidden instances of consensual intercourse, and not only rape.

Answer 2

What the Bible says about Homosexuality

The Bible clearly states in both the Old and New Testaments that homosexual behavior and lust in general are sin

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1:26-27

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Note: Lust does not indicate a simple sexual desire or thought; simple passing desire is temptation. Lust is equated with lechery, the unrestrained indulgence of sexual desire, mentally or physically.

The Bible equates homosexuality with murder and kidnapping:

1 Timothy 1:9-10

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

The Word also says that such people will not inherit the Kingdom of God (heaven):

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

But indicates that turning away from all of these sins is possible through Christ and results in forgiveness:

1 Corinthians 6:11

And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

As for the Bible reference, I went to Catholic School and there was no mention of Same Sex Marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against, because these issues weren't even considered or on the radar during Biblical Times. Also, the Bible often speaks of sexual matters in vague terms, and there is a lack of understanding of how the people of several thousand years ago used and understood those terms. In addition, consensual homosexual acts were not prohibited by the Bible, but rather the Bible passages intended to apply only to homosexual acts of rape, prostitution, pederasty and idolatry, those same acts were equated with heterosexuals as well, and in much bigger abundance, but no one seems to address that for some reason. Lack of intelligence I imagine. Jesus also never uttered a word about homosexuality, his big thing was if you can't stay faithful to your "partner", then you should be abstinent.

The Corinthians Verse that is poorly referenced to was more a warning against creating a scandal by violating the "cultural norms" of that time in history, as in the case of slavery and it no longer applies. The problem with so many Bible Readers is they read it on the surface, but they don't delve deeper into the meanings. The Bible is an EXTREMELY complicated book that those that follow it verbatim are generally not considered to be all that highly educated on a college level, but rather they're just following what their neighbor says and those around them say, instead of educating themselves further on the subjects. I know many are trying to put their hearts in the right place and mean well from their perspective, but they're going to have to further educate themselves on issues that exist today that didn't in the hey day. They don't know much about homosexuality, clearly, and it's not too late to do so if they wans to repair relationships around them as well as with God.

They are also committing an even bigger sin by having an issue with Homosexuality. It's not uncommon that homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. They may let feelings of contempt or fear lead them into the greater sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those a human being considers to be a "sinner". He/She cannot afford to let their feelings or fears about homosexuality blind them to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself." God's grace is available to all.

Homosexuality in general is a very sensitive and emotional subject that is also controversial even in the bible. There are very little word for word translation bibles that translate directly from Hebrew to English. The King James Version states "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22). The word for word translation of this passage is actually "Not shall you lie with man [in the] bed of woman, [it is] abomination" (Leviticus 18:12) (But even the word abomination is not 100% correct in this translation as the word is highly ambiguous in the original text….ill address this later) However, many fail to realize that in order to understand the bible there are several other things you must address in order to fully understand each subject.

Leviticus is riddled with laws of old codes (otherwise known as the mosaic code), things that no longer apply to modern society. Some of these codes do not even apply to any gentile because most were merely intended in order to promote the Jewish traditions. And most of these codes apply only to Jewish priests. In the time that Moses wrote Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the Jewish people were oppressed by the pagan Egyptians. Some would argue that God's law does not change and is timeless. But, many scholars and pastors alike agree that in Leviticus things such as not eating pig meat, not wearing two different types of fabric at once, not tattooing the body, not having sex with a woman during her period, not charging interest on a loan, not harvesting the corners of a field, not shaving one's head or sowing mixed seed, not eating non-Kosher foods (aka: shrimp… this is satirized on the God Hates Shrimp website.), not eating fruit from a young tree, not allowing even a mildly disabled person to be a priest, and not collecting firewood on a Saturday so your family wont freeze; all of which are addressed as sin while in modern society they are seen as ordinary everyday conventional and acceptable social behavior. In modern society these things are banal. Why? The answer is simple. Each of these sins was considered sins at the time for various reasons (mostly only because the Jews didn't want to be akin to the Egyptian pagans). The tattoos were forbidden in order to separate the pagan worshipers of Egypt from the worshipers of Yahweh. Pagans tended to brand themselves with a mark of a deity or any number of their deities. Eating pigs was unhealthy and also the meat spoiled faster in the heat of the Arab world, and was therefore causing wastefulness. Though pig meat is inherently hardy it will spoil easily in heated areas. The forbidding of wearing clothing made of more than one fabric is just not applicable to modern society. We wear clothing made of many different fabrics…however this was intended to keep Christian clothing patterns modest, and not overly decorative as the Egyptians clothing was. The biggest problem is that most Christians ignore about 611 commands and prohibitions of the mosaic code while still referring to it to condemn homosexuality.

In fact, the only laws that the modern Christians consider binding are those they choose to see as binding. These include only the Ten Commandments, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (which pertain to homosexuality) as well as the laws that condemn bestiality, incest, adultery, and some laws that regard the execution of properly convicted murderers. What happened to the rest of the 611 codes, prohibitions, and commands? They are still there, so why choose these to follow but not the other 611?

There is also the argument of the translation. All the passages were translated by a human, written by a human hand, and therefore by nature (as the bible dictates) flawed. The word for word translation ("Not shall you lie with man [in the] bed of woman, [it is] abomination.") was intended to be (many scholars believe to mean in context) a branching off of the passage of lust for a woman being adultery in the heart and applying it also to a man. In this sense, a man (once married) can not lust after another woman or another man. How does one get this translation from the word for word passage? When a man marries a woman, both in modern and ancient societies, the bed is the property of the woman. For instance....who ends up sleeping on the coach when the man and woman argue? (Hint: the man does) The bed is without question the property of the wife. Many would wander what is Gods opinion on bisexuality. The problem with this is that the word for homosexuality in Hebrew is ambiguous. The word for homosexual in Hebrew also means many other sins and sinful people, but the word for homosexuality did not even exist until hundreds of years after Christ were even alive. The word used in the bible was "arsenokoite." This word is however used several other times in order to condemn premarital sex of any kind. Therefore every reference in the bible to so called "homosexuals" was not even referring to it because the word did not even remotely exist until many years after these books were originally written. The Hebrew language actually had no word for it. The actual word at the time that was used to describe men who have sex with other males was "paiderasste." Therefore each time the word homosexuality appears it is merely a rendering of the opinion of those commissioned to translate it. In fact, the man who commissioned the bible to be translated into English was he himself a homosexual. However the writers who were commissioned to translate it clearly had a bias against homosexuals. (perhaps they just didn't like their boss)

There is also the word used for abomination, which, in the Hebrew language, is synonymous with idolatry. (Idolatry defined- Excessive or blind adoration, reverence, devotion/ worship of an inanimate object as a deity). So lying in bed with a male outside of marriage is blind devotion, or worship of an inanimate object. It is perfectly clear that lying with a man is not the "worship of an inanimate object" and so by process of elimination the conclusion must be that it is blind devotion to have sex with a male while in a marriage with a female. This is the intended meaning of the passage. But the actual best translation for the word abomination is actually "against custom." Meaning a priest cannot do this because costumes applied (at the time) mainly to holy men.

But any person who takes the time to ask a pastor about the subject of homosexuality would need to be prepared to hear words such as Sodomy, Onanism, and Onanite. But in order to find God's perspective you have to understand that all of these terms are secular. They derived from modern translations of the bible and invented by men and are not found in the bible, at least not in a literal since. There is no such word as Onanism. It is not even registered in Microsoft Word, nor is onanite. Many of these words originate in past centuries when religious organizations believed homosexuality to be reversible. Scientists now know that it is genetic. These words originated from interpretations of biblical stories.

ORIGINS OF ONANISM AND ONANITE

The story of Onan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan) has nothing whatsoever to even do with homosexuality nor does it have any reference to masturbation (as some pastors would lead you to think). Onan was not killed because he "spilled his seed upon the ground" but because he disobeyed God.

ORIGINS OF SODOMY AND SODOMITE

Sodomy is meant to be a word referring to anal sex in modern times (which is seen as a sin by many churches due to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the belief that it is unnatural) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah ). In truth, this story refers not to homosexuality but to other sins of man. Many say that it has to do with homosexuality because of some of the remarks made by the crowd as they gathered around the house. The town asked that the angels in Lot's house be sent out so that they could "know" them. The word "know" referring to sex. The bible says that the town gathered around the house. The town would surely include men, women, and children. Furthermore, Lot offered the towns men his daughters. Therefore, Lot knew that his neighbors had heterosexual interests. There is also the fact that only 10% of the human population is homosexual. Never (even once) in history has there ever been a single town where every person is homosexual. Therefore the town's people were not interested in the sex for sex's sake. However, in biblical times, ritual rapping was used to take the power of the person in the submissive position. This hints to a possible motive. The town was interested in the visitors enough that the people ALL gathered. Is it then implausible that they would know that the visitors were angels? And they would therefore posses great spiritual power that the people could attempt to ritually take via sexual intercourse.

CONCLUSION

Neither of the stories (according to scholars) has anything to really do with homosexuality. Furthermore, Jesus himself never uttered a word about homosexuality. He did say that if you cannot stay faithful to your "partner" then you should remain absent. If Jesus didn't say anything about it and disagreed with it, then that is a pretty big omission. The bible does however forbid homosexual acts. These are widely misunderstood as well. Acts like rape, pederasty, and idolatry were forbidden as were any other violent or vile sexual acts. Most of what the bible says about homosexuality is the same for heterosexuality when read correctly and kept in context. Lustful acts for men are forbidden toward men and women alike. However, consensual homosexual acts were never even once said to be sinful in the bible. In fact, homosexuality was never actually addressed as a sin, but merely against custom.

The bible does however condemn non-consensual homosexual acts as well as non-consensual heterosexual acts. "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Notice it did not leave the word as simply homosexual but as "homosexual offenders." In modern society we have homosexual offenders, heterosexual offenders, and we even have youthful sexual offenders (pedophiles), all of which are detestable to God as the "sexually immoral." Meaning if a man rape a man, he is a homosexual offender. Some scholars even argue that the word for homosexual offenders would better be translated as another male prostitute. The counter to this argument is that Paul (who wrote this passage) would not have said male prostitutes twice. However, it is conceivable that the second male prostitute be referring to the one who performs the sexual intercourse with the first male prostitute. Therefore they both will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Otherwise, gay men would think it okay to simply have sex with the male prostitute. In this idea the prostitute will not go to heaven but the one who performed the sex still can. That is why the second recitation of male prostitute was there.

There is also the verse "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13 (this is not the King James Version). This passage would appear to be simple, self explanatory. However, if you read as I do in context you will get a very different view of what this passage's intent is. "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman"…is this referring to a man having sex with another man? Yes. Is this referring to a man having marital sex? No; that can easily be seen. It is a man lying with a man as he is also lying with a woman. (in lay man's terms this passage is referring to a bisexual orgy.) Two men and a woman having sex together; If the men have sex with the woman and with each other then "it is detestable."

Then there is another passage believed to refer to homosexuality as a sin. "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Again this looks self explanatory. However, if a heterosexual man and a heterosexual man hold lust for one another this would be unnatural. But I have already said that it is known that homosexuality is genetic, it is natural. But it would then be unnatural for a homosexual man to have intercourse in a heterosexual manner just as it is unnatural for a heterosexual male/female to have intercourse homosexually.

As seen in the last passage, some prefer to use the argument of nature; the idea that homosexuality is not natural and it is only natural for a male to be with a female. I will however be blunt about this. These people who argue this are not only ignorant they are idiots who have no idea what they are talking about. But first we will examine the biblical basis of their argument which is actually at first glance very convincing.

THE ARGUMENT

"To start with, let's take a look at the first two chapters of the Bible to see some things that God says about human relationships:

"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." ... God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day." (Genesis 1:26-28,31)

"The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:18-24)

Here are some interesting points in the above passages:

1. Humans were made "in the image of God, ... male and female he created them." Bible commentaries often take this to mean that men and women complement each other, and that together they reflect the image of God. Gays, on the other hand, tend to say that God is above gender, and that "in the image of God" has nothing to do with the union of male and female (in other words, we were spiritually created in the image of God, not physically).
2. The male/female relationship was blessed by God, and what we're going to see is that this is the only union which has been blessed by God in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible has God blessed male/male or female/female unions.
3. God said that the male/female union was "very good." No other union (male/male or female/female) has been called "good" or "very good" by God.
4. God said to the man and woman, "Be fruitful and increase in number." Notice that only the male/female relationship can be fruitful. If the original humans had been homosexual then there would have been no procreation. Some commentaries make the argument that this is the reason why the Bible calls homosexuality "unnatural" or "against nature" (we'll get to that later).
5. God made a "suitable" mate for the man, and it was not another man. It was a woman. Notice that among all of the animals, none was a suitable mate for the man, and among the possible types of humans, only a woman was a proper mate for the man. As we will see, the Bible never says that a man can be a proper mate for another man, nor does the Bible say that a woman can be a proper mate for another woman.
6. The first woman was physically created from the bones and flesh of the first man, so there is a sense in which male and female are each incomplete without the other (and in the next point we'll see that this is the reason why the Bible says that a husband and wife become "one flesh" together). This does not necessarily mean that an unmarried person should get married (because the Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 that Christians don't need to get married), but it means that a man cannot truly make another man complete, nor can a woman truly make another woman complete. Man wasn't created from man, nor woman from woman, so there is no "one flesh" union between two men or two women. Two homosexuals who are in love with each other might feel that they are "complete" in their relationship with each other, but this is an emotional feeling. It is not Biblical truth.
7. After describing the first woman being created from the first man, the Bible then says, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24, above). This gives us the reason why a man and a woman become "one flesh" when they are married (because the first woman was taken out of the first man), and this tells us that only a man and a woman can become "one flesh" together. There is no such thing in the Bible as a "one flesh" union between two men or between two women."

ARGUMENT COUNTER

Adam and eve; first male and first female. It is evident that it was necessary for the first two humans to be heterosexual; otherwise the human race would have been extinct by now.

He said be fruitful and multiply. So this makes it where if you are a homosexual and cannot multiply with your mate then it must inherently be sinful? I have a friend who lost his testicles to an accident (true story). He is physically INCAPABLE OF REPRODUCTION OR PROCREATION OF ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. Does this then make him sinful as well? And what of those who are incapable of marriage due to their disfigurement being undesirable; are they then sinning by not procreating as well? And what of women who are born without the ability to reproduce? Are they a blemished people because of their own nature? No. That makes no since at all. Homosexuality is believed by most of the scholarly community to be natural. It is most likely genetic and is able to be located in the hypothalamus.

Furthermore, Adam was not a homosexual, so it would be "natural" for him to be given a female as a mate rather than a male. None of the others fit him because he was heterosexual. That is why god had to go out of his way to make a woman. Had Adam been homosexual, he would have had a homosexual mate to be his own.

God had to test which animals and creatures and beings would best fit Adam. Therefore there is no set creature that god intended for man. There is no creature that can be said to fit all man. God himself didn't know what would fit man. He had to test and find and check and scavenge the earth and its various creatures instituted thereto and see what would fit, what would be natural for this PARTICUALAR MAN. God himself had no idea what would fit Adam the best, therefore God had no knowledge of a second sex, or sexuality. He invented them later as evident in the readings of the argument meant to degrade homosexuals.

The man and woman in a marriage become "one flesh." This argument asserts that a man cannot complete another man nor a woman complete another woman. Man was made in the image of God. Therefore one can assume god to either be manlike in some way or woman like or perhaps (and most likely) both. Therefore he/she has neither identifiable sex nor sexual preference. This would explain well how he was so unable to find Adam a mate instantly because God did not distinguish between sexuality or sexual preference. In the Christian faith we offer Jesus to come into us thereby becoming one with us. By this argument we are not intended to invite Jesus into our hearts because we can never be one with him.

And about the whole God referring to a relationship as "good"…he never said it about any other marriage or relationship else in the bible. Does this then mean that all marriages or friendships or relationships of any kind way shape or form outside of Adam and Eve are then inherently unholy? This would mean any friend that is not the opposite sex as you would be a sin.

Answer 3

Torah-Judaism forbids it, based on Leviticus ch.18.

Other sects of Judaism are more lenient. See the Related Questions below for more of a discussion of this topic.

Does Judaism permit same-sex marriage?

Does the Torah prohibit same-sex marriage?

Does the Talmud prohibit same-sex marriage?

Answer 4

Most Orthodox Jews condemn homosexuality, but even those that do see it as not as serious a crime as violating Shabbat. See related links for information about Orthodox Jewish acceptance of LGBT people.

Virtually all non-Orthodox denominations do NOT condemn homosexuality. Both Reform and Conservative Rabbis may perform commitment ceremonies as well, and Reform rabbis will even perform marriages.

Answer:The above contains an inaccuracy. According to the Torah, the prohibition of sexual intercourse between two males is precisely the same stringency as that of violating the Shabbat or worshiping idols (skilah). Talmud, Sanhedrin 54a, commenting on Leviticus 20:13.

Answer 5

It depends on what type of Judaism you practice. The strict orthodox, do not support it at all, but do not shun down on it. While the more allowing Judaism sanctions will not discourage it in the slightest. Some of these less strict groups include the conservative and reformed. I belong myself to a conservative temple, and I have a female Rabbi that is lesbian, no one seems to mind.

Answer 6

· Jehovah's Witnesses teach others what The Bible teaches. We use the Bible as our authority; believing that Jehovah God created mankind, and has the right to set-up his righteous requirement for humankind.

· The Bible in Acts 15:20 (among other places) clearly states: "Abstain from . . . fornication."

· Clearly the Bible condemns ANY kind of fornication.

· The Bible condemns a) sex before marriage; b)adultery; c) child sexual abuse; d) bestiality; etc

Even though Jehovah's Witnesses do not condone homosexual relations, true Christians show kindness to all people. Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses, as genuine Christians, are not homophobic.

Answer 7

All branches of Judaism except one accept homosexuality and recognize same-sex marriage. The only exception is Orthodox Judaism. Some Conservative synagogues still reject homosexuality as well, but most do not.

No, it does not. Judaism is based upon the Torah, and the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse between two males (Leviticus ch.18 and ch.20). Any statements, beliefs or practices to the contrary, involve an abrogation of this law.

All branches of Judaism except one accept homosexuality and recognize same-sex marriage. The only exception is Orthodox Judaism. Some Conservative synagogues still reject homosexuality as well, but most do not.

Answer 8

All branches of Judaism except one accept homosexuality and recognize same-sex marriage. The only exception is Orthodox Judaism. Some Conservative synagogues still reject homosexuality as well, but most do not.

Answer 9

No, it does not. Judaism is based upon the Torah, and the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse between two males (Leviticus ch.18 and ch.20). Any statements, beliefs or practices to the contrary, involve an abrogation of this law.

Answer 10

The Torah doesn't address the issue explicitly, but it does explicitly forbid sexual intercourse between two males (Leviticus 18:22).In speaking of marriage, the Torah endorses the paradigm of male-female marriage (Genesis 2:22-24).