Talk:Same-sex marriage and Judaism

Orthodox Jews can be gay, can support gay rights
Some recent edits suggest that they are based on the assumption that because homosexuality is against standard Orthodox belief, that no one who supports gay rights or engages in gay behavior can be Orthodox. This is a form of the No true Scotsman fallacy. We cannot discount someone as Orthodox just because they violate an individual law or fail to support a belief. One might argue that their failures, sins, or variances make them a poor Orthodox Jew, but that's quite different from them not being one at all. - Nat Gertler (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reread the article, NatGertler, and you are correct that the article calls them Orthodox; thanks for fixing that. -- Avi (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "poor Orthodox Jew"...at which point is someone such a big "poor Orthodox Jew" that he/she is not Orthodox anymore? Also, it is a fallacy to argue for the No true Scotsman fallacy. Its use requires the absence of "reference to any new specific objective rule or criterion", which is not necessarily the case here. Indeed, being an Orthodox Jew is not nearly as vaguely defined as being a "true Scotsman". Indeed, there are many traditional rules in Judaism, these are spelled out in black and white, and an Orthodox Jew is probably best defined as someone that tries to practice these traditional rules (he/she might fail from time to time, but tries and seems them as goals). In this sense, someone that agrees with homosexuality and its practices cannot be an Orthodox Jew -- probably being homosexual in itself, and not committing homosexual acts doesn't break any traditional rules, so would be compatible with the Orthodoxy. Indeed, it makes sense for the definition of e.g."Reform Judaism" to be vague/open, because that is within the nature of reforming Judaism. However, the word "Orthodox" itself asks for a rigorous definition, not something vague. I wonder if there is a term for the typical fallacy among pseudo-intellectuals of one thinking that others are wrong just because one can give his wrong argument a "fancy" name: "You are wrong because of the No true Scotsman fallacy".
 * It is not our place to deny someone's being a member of a group because of how we view the group. Your vision of how an Orthodox Jew should be defined is a poor one; if the person identifies as Orthodox and the Orthodox community recognizes them as so - and they have recognized many who have broken laws over the years - then it is not Wikipedia's place to deny it. That the word "orthodox" has a definition does not mean that the group that calls themselves that really meets that defintion. Not all Marvel Comics are Marvels (and as the publisher of About Comics publications, I can tell you that they are not all about comics.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not wiki's place to make anyone feel good or bad about themselves. If identify as a cat that does not make me a cat and wiki should not allow me to change the page on cats, or humans, to reflect my unique opinion. Wiki should reflect sources, and logical consistency. It is not my view, or your view. It is a matter of seeing if there are more sources supporting, or not, the idea that Orthodoxy means following the Torah closely, and thus being against homosexual practices. The fact that there are a few people that call themselves Orthodox Jews that disagree with major laws, should not make wiki change just like it would not make sense for wiki to say that "scientists do not necessarily agree that the earth is flat" just because I can find a handful of crazy scientists that think this is so. Again, sources and logic, not one or another individuals' opinion. The consensus matters. Mentioning one article about one or two Rabbi that calls him self Orthodox and agrees with homosexual practices is cherry picking of sources and a hiding of other sources

Removed redundant and biased information
The Friedrich Naumann Foundation is described in Wikipedia as a liberal German organization and the poll was of an extremely limited number of people. Removed as not credible. The other information was about Israel, not Judaism. Z554 (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Midrash section removed
I removed the section on Midrash because it's unsourced. The citations it brings do not actually say what that section claimed. Genesis Rabbah says the generation of the Flood was destroyed because they wrote gemumsiot for men and beasts. Leviticus Rabbah says the generation of the Flood was destroyed because they wrote gomsiot for men and women. Neither of them says anything about writing anything for men and other men, and gemumsiot has also been translated as sexual songs, as in songs that would be sung by an audience watching sexual activity. I didn't write that in the article itself, because that's equally unsourced. You have to know the material. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Completely wrong information on lead.
this is borderline ridiculous. someone typed out that the "traditional view is that same-sex marriage is categorically forbidden by the Torah" and that this position is held by REFORM JUDAISM?? the judaist denomination that excercises religious same-sex marriage? even pew research shows that reform Judaism supports same-sex marriage. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/21/where-christian-churches-stand-on-gay-marriage/ https://rac.org/lgbtq-rights-and-position-reform-movement https://reformjudaism.org/learning/answers-jewish-questions/my-partner-and-i-are-planning-our-same-sex-wedding-will-rabbi MianMianBaoBao (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)