Tag: Lesbian

More homophobic hate on AJN Watch

Over on AJN Watch…

Anonymous said…

It must be a slow news day if this topic can attract so many comments. I don’t know if anyone has researched yet if the Rebbe approved of AFL players attending Chanukah lightings but I find having gentile politicians and celebrities lighting candles (which I thought was a mizvah for yidden to perform) quite odious, even though I believe this was done in the past with the Rebbes blessing. I’m surprised AJNwatch hasn’t picked up on an egagement annoucement in the current AJN edition. There are three sets of parents for this one. The bride’s parents, the groom’s father and his second wife, and the groom’s mother and her gentile lesbian ‘partner’. I’m not criticising the AJN for printing the ad, but it really opens youe eyes to what a sick society this has become. It will be interesting to know the arrangement of who will be standing under the chuppah here.

Robert Weil

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 5:39:00 PM

and:

Ilana said…

B’H

Oh Dear, @ Anonymous
I know why you posted this anonymously.
” There are three sets of parents for this one. The bride’s parents, the groom’s father and his second wife, and the groom’s mother and her gentile lesbian ‘partner’. I’m not criticising the AJN for printing the ad, but it really opens youe eyes to what a sick society this has become. It will be interesting to know the arrangement of who will be standing under the chuppah here.”
You would have a certain Mikeybear on your case if he knew your name for posting the above and you would join me in the notorious Hall of Anti Gay Fame Activists Responsible of the Deaths of Every Gay Person who Ever Suicided Because of Rejection Real or Perceived (and not untreated or misdiagnosed mental health issues)or just plain bullying. I agree, it has become a really sick society that accepts anything in its strivings to be so PC and tolerant of others and society ignores the intolerance and lack of respect from those it strives to ‘protect and nurture’ against those who would differ in their opinion to the PC line of thought. I agree with Chabadnik, that Chanukah is about spiritual dangers to the Jewish Neshoma. On one hand we should not ape the customs and ways of the goyim but on the other we should strive to reach the disinfrancised Jews. Rav Gutnik who sponsors the event owns a football club or is a President of one, whatever, I am not a big fan of football, especially Aussie rules, give me a good book any day. I am even proud to say after living in Melbourne on and off since 1972 I have never, ever been to an AFL match or watched one on TV which is quite an achievement give the football madness of the winter season in Melbourne.
The good Rav with all due respect, has many interests not only football. He has an extensive knowledge of Torah and well entrenched Jewish values so he is probably not in any spiritual danger.
The Torah is a guide or blue print given to us by Hashem for our guidance and spiritual health. It is similar to having a very fancy GPS system but if you don’t know how to use it, you can still get horribly lost and if you don’t follow it correctly, you get led astray.
I have real concerns about this ‘acceptance’ of the gay lifestyle as ‘normal’. It is not. We should not confuse the issue here. Normal family life entails having a Mum and a Dad or a Tatty and Ima, not two tatties, not two imas. It is like the Torah, very concise and clear on the issue. Then we have a Zeidy or Saba who is married to a Bubba or a Savta. Just thing about the implications of lifestyles that are otherwise and what that entails for future generations. Imagine the family trees and yes on this branch we have two doddot who were married to each other and over here we have Dod Moshe who was married to Dod Manny and they used surrogate x who was not Jewish by the way and had three children (triplets) Rivki, Malkie and Michael and so on and so on. Wonderful, we will be so accepting of everything, so let’s not have any boundaries at all and live chaotically like……. (I am lost for words, as even the animal kingdom has rules and codes of conduct that in a lot of cases is superior to many humans in present society.)

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 7:27:00 AM

and:

Anonymous said…

Ilana, check carefully. I didn’t post as ‘anonymous’. My name (Robert Weil) is at the bottom. I am quite capable of taking on the Mikeybears and others. I’m sure Mr. Barnett will be posting here before long to label me a ‘homophobe’.

Robert Weil

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:16:00 PM

Robert Weil is not a stranger to being intolerant of gay people and the issues we face.  Back in 2007 he felt it necessary to reinforce his beliefs that AIDS was a gay disease, as published in the Australian Jewish News here and here.  The second letter by Robert Weil was in response to this by Luke Huggard.

The views that Robert Weil and Ilana Leeds proliferate are dangerous, fed by intolerant fundamentalist dogma, trotted out as divinely inspired and mandatory to observe.  The tragedy of the situation is that they, amongst so many others, simply don’t have a grip on reality, and consequently people get hurt, suffer and sometimes die.

A child needs more than just a mum and a dad as an ideal paradigm

The following comment (excerpt) was posted on the Jewish web site Galus Australis recently:

Geoff Bloch says:

…

Lest I be called a bigot and various other similar epithets, may I hasten to add that I acknowledge the difficulty in maintaining a secular argument against homosexuality (although they do exist) and I don’t believe we should pry into people’s bedrooms (only two weeks ago we read hanistarot ladonai eloheinu – hidden sins are left to God, they are not our concern). I also readily concede that there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality – there would not be a clear biblical prohibition against it were it not perfectly natural (it only seems unnatural to heterosexuals who have been raised in societies which honour a rather different paradigm). Moreover, how can its universality otherwise be explained?

But by the same token, I personally think it should be more than enough for the gay lobby that the mainstream be tolerant of their preference. Regrettably, the gay lobby wants society to affirm that homosexuality is as desirable a preference as heterosexuality on which the building block of society, namely the family, should be based.

I requested a clarification from the author around his use of the word “regrettable” and received this response:

Geoff Bloch says:

I have been asked by a reader to clarify a comment I made in a previous post that although the mainstream should be tolerant of gays’ sexual preference, it was regrettable that the gay lobby wants society to affirm that homosexuality is as desirable a preference as heterosexuality on which the family should be based.

I affirm that comment because, amongst other things, it is my opinion that children are entitled to a mother and a father as an ideal paradigm. I should not, however, be taken to imply that a mother and a father would necessarily do a better job raising a child than would a same sex couple in all cases. Stating such a general principle would be absurd.

I’m not entirely comfortable with the language used in these comments.  They show a person who does not appear to have any close connections with gay men or women, and perhaps a person who does not see gay people simply as people.  However, that is an aside to what I am writing about.

The author makes the statement: “it is my opinion that children are entitled to a mother and a father as an ideal paradigm”.  Presumably the author is referring to the biological parents of a child, namely the woman and man whose genetic material formed the child.

I find myself trying to understand what exactly an “ideal paradigm” is.  Superficially, it probably means “if everything was perfect”.  One might ask the question “what is perfect?” and then go on to ask “by whose standards?”  We might all have our own interpretation of these concepts.  Some may even defer to a higher authority, if that’s what they believe in.

I need to prefix the following statement by saying that I am not a student of biology, so I hope to be corrected if what I am about to write is incorrect.  A lesson in evolutionary biology would reveal that all living things have arrived at where they are because of mutations that occur during genetic reproduction.  Given these mutations, which occur naturally and effectively uncontrollably, one could say that it is because of the imperfections in nature that we have arrived where we are today, as decendents of primitive cellular organisms, via way of the apes, over many millions of years.

It is that there are imperfections in nature that are so vital to our existence that I wish to challenge the notion of an “ideal paradigm”.  In nature, there is nothing “ideal”.  There are simply life-forms that adapt to their environment successfully and others less so.  The life-forms that adapt best become prolific, and the ones that don’t adapt so well are prone to extinction.

With this in mind I put it that “ideal paradigms” are contrary to the way nature works and that there is no “ideal”; only successful and unsuccessful.

I would like to explore the notion of it being ideal that a child have both a mother and a father.  This does sound good, and why wouldn’t anyone want a child to have a mum and a dad?  It is after all what nature gave us.

So here we have a child with a mum and a dad.  It’s ideal, and presumably best, according to the author.  The child has a lot of needs, in order to grow up healthy and well adjusted.  Let’s assume the parents are both capable of supplying the child with all that it requires, namely a safe home, clothing, bedding, food, education, entertainment, love, constant and abundant care, financial stability, a happy household, and so on.  This child is really lucky because it’s mum and dad provide it everything it needs, and maybe more.

But wait a minute.  Not everyone’s household is quite like this.  Sure, plenty of kids have a mum and a dad, but do they all have the rest?  Lots of parents are unemployed, or cannot provide a decent meal, or are unwell, or are abusive, or cannot afford to rent a nice home, or are just not capable of providing everything the child needs.  Yet the child has a mother and father, and this is good, because that’s ideal, according to the author.

Let’s consider a different scenario.  A child has two dads or two mums, simply due to circumstances.  One of the parents will most likely be biological, the other not.  Now take the scenerio of this child’s parents being able to provide an identical, ideal family scenario as I described above.  The only difference being that both parents are the same gender.

Compare the “ideal” situation of the child having a mum and a dad, who can only provide a scant, bare-bones existence, with the less preferred situation of the child with two dads or mums, who can provide a delightfully abundant existence.

I don’t think it takes a genius to see that the child coming from the impoverished household is more likely to suffer in their development, either physically, emotionally or both, whilst the child from the plentiful environment will probably thrive in most areas.

The point I am making here is that when the author writes “it is my opinion that children are entitled to a mother and a father as an ideal paradigm” he should actually be saying “it is my opinion that children are entitled to a mother and a father, who are healthy, happy, intelligent, employed, financially stable, and love each other, as an ideal paradigm”.

That would be great, in an ideal world.  However we live in a real word, one that mostly doesn’t conform to ideals, and we have to make do.  So if a child has two loving mums or two loving dads I’d say that’s a pretty ideal situation to be in and be satisfied with that.  Anyone wanting more is being unrealistic and unfair.

The Potential Wedding Album

In Australia it is currently illegal for two men, two women, or two people who just don’t identify as a male-female couple to get married.

There is no logical or valid explanation for this discrimination.  The legislation was put in place in 2004 under the Howard Government and remained in place under the Rudd Government and the current Gillard Government.  None of these “leaders” can justify this decision aside from a woeful “because”.  We all know they did it so they didn’t lose the vote of the hateful and bigoted Christian lobby.

Let’s pretend for a moment, however, that instead of legislating hate, the government decided to legislate love.  What might this love look like?  The Potential Wedding Album is a beautiful glimpse into this dream of what could be, and dare I say it, what will soon be.

Take a wander through the pages of this magnificent piece of work.  Journey through the lives of the photos you see, and the happy people in them.  There is a lot of love and joy there.  If marriage was permitted to be between any two consenting adults, just think what a better society we would have.

The world will still go on when same-sex couples can marry.  The sky won’t fall in.  There won’t be a cataclysm or a rapture, but there will certainly be enrapture.  What there will be is an abundance of love, happiness, acceptance, inclusion, and so much more.

Religious fundamentalists, whether they be Jewish, Muslim, Christian or whatever, will increasingly be shown to be the intolerant, narrow-minded bigots and haters that they are.   Their beliefs, or more accurately, their make-beliefs, which are based on antiquated, irrelevant nonsense, have no place in the 21st century.  These ideologies and dogmas need to be expunged from humanity because of their destructive and hurtful capacity.

Sooner than later our society will accept and nurture the relationships between homosexual couples, bi-sexual couples and couples that simply don’t conform to the stereotypical male/female gender binary.

Love is, by far, the best option.

Anti-Defamation Commission Must Speak Out

[SOURCE]

As per the media release below, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has spoken out about the hate and bigotry perpetrated by Carl Paladino (who acted it in conjunction with Ultra Orthodox Jewish leaders in New York), against gay men and women.

I call on the Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) in Victoria to speak out and support the Anti-Defamation League in their criticism of Carl Paladino and anyone else who sends a similar message of hate and intolerance, especially in our community.

Paladino’s attack on gay men and women in New York is an attack on all gay men and women, including those here in Victoria, Australia.

The ADC claims it has no authority to speak out on homophobic hate when it is targeted at Jews.  I genuinely believe this is an act of cowardice.  If the organisation was genuine in its care about Jews in Victoria, especially gay and lesbian Jews, it would take a stand.  If it remains silent on this issue it will confirm to all that it is does not take the issue of hate and discrimination seriously.

I quote from the ADC Mission Statement:

The ADC supports the following objectives stated in the preamble to the United Nations Charter:

  • “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
  • to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
  • to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, …”

The ADC aims to serve the Jewish and wider Australian community by reducing antisemitism, and combating racism and religious and ethnic prejudice.  We seek to secure justice and fair treatment for all people.

This is matter of human rights.  The ADC must speak out immediately.  As an arm of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, the ADC must act in the best interests of all members of the Jewish community.

ADL Denounces Carl Paladino’s Comments Denigrating Homosexuality

New York, NY, October 12, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today criticized Carl Paladino for a series of anti-gay remarks, including his assertion that children should not be “brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option.”

Ron Meier, ADL New York Regional Director, issued the following statement:

We are appalled by Carl Paladino’s comments denigrating homosexuality and suggesting that a homosexual lifestyle is not “valid.”  His statements are an affront to all New Yorkers, and are particularly disturbing in light of several recent hate crimes targeting the LGBT community in the New York Metropolitan Area.

We have repeatedly urged all candidates to refrain from appeals to prejudice and bigotry.  Such appeals are offensive, counterproductive and contrary to our nation’s democratic values.

Earlier this year, ADL urged our national leaders – and candidates – to commit themselves to restoring civility to our public discourse.  We renew that call today.  A truly effective candidate is one who engages in thoughtful and reasoned debate and rejects divisive and hateful rhetoric.  That is an essential ingredient of leadership.

A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, ADL neither supports nor opposes candidates for political office.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

In Australia it’s ok to fuck the faggots over

[SOURCE]

Last week the NSW government passed a bill allowing same-sex couples the right to adopt children.  There was a concession made though that Christian adoption agencies could refuse services to gay and lesbian couples.

Ms Moore had agreed to amend her private member’s bill, calling for same-sex couples to be allowed to adopt, to give church adoption agencies the right to refuse services to gay and lesbian couples without fear they will breach anti-discrimination laws by doing so.

Take a step back and look at this.  Let’s change the words “gay and lesbian” to “black”.

Ms Moore had agreed to amend her private member’s bill, calling for black couples to be allowed to adopt, to give church adoption agencies the right to refuse services to black couples without fear they will breach anti-discrimination laws by doing so.

or we could try again and use the word “disabilities”

Ms Moore had agreed to amend her private member’s bill, calling for couples with disabilities to be allowed to adopt, to give church adoption agencies the right to refuse services to couples with disabilities without fear they will breach anti-discrimination laws by doing so.

Do you think in 2010 that either of these statements would be possible?  Yet it’s ok to allow the government to make concessions to Christian about gay and lesbian couples.

I’m a gay man in a relationship.  It’s outrageous and embarrassing that my government treats me worse than blacks or disabled people.

Worse than this though is that no one is getting upset or angry about this obscene discrimination.  The marginalised GLBT community is sitting back and copping it fair and square.  The rest of society who aren’t bigots are just sitting back and letting the politicians and fundamentalists ride rough-shod over us.  What is wrong?  Australia is supposed to be a civilised country that is supposed to treat all its citizens equally.

Clearly in Australia it’s ok to fuck the faggots over.

Michael.

GLBTI, Jewish and enrolled to vote in Melbourne Ports or Wentworth?

With the federal election looming, there are a number of political parties offering to fight for increased rights and equality of GLBTI people and families.  The key parties offering this are the Greens, the Australian Sex Party and the Secular Party of Australia.  The Liberal Party offers no hope for advancing the rights of GLBTI people and families in Australia.  The Australian Labor Party has previously advanced the rights for GLBTI people and removed a lot of the discrimination that we had been facing, however it is currently not prepared to turn around any significant existing discrimination facing GLBTI people, most notably in the area of marriage.

The Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group (TGLRG) has set up a web site “Moving Forward“.  They have surveyed a number of political parties and posted their responses online.  Take some time to read these survey responses.  TGLRG will post responses from other political parties as they are received.

The electorates of Melbourne Ports (VIC) and Wentworth (NSW) contain the largest Jewish populations in the country.  They both also contain significant gay, lesbian and bisexual populations.

The Greens’ Sue Plowright, the Australian Sex Party’s Christian Vega and the Secular Party’s Gregory Storer are candidates in Melbourne Ports.  The Greens’ Matthew Robertson and the Secular Party’s John August are candidates in Wentworth.  [I have provided links here for candidate’s web sites that I am aware of.  I will post others if they are brought to my attention.]

If you are in Melbourne Ports, LIVE are running a candidates forum on August 10.  Click here* for details and to RSVP.  You can also send a question to the candidates via the web site.

If you are in Wentworth, Network (for Jewish young adults who are searching for, questioning and celebrating their Jewish identity) are running a pre-election candidate forum on August 11.  Click here for details and to register.

As I become aware of further such meetings or supportive candidate details prior to the election I will post them to my blog.  If you have any relevant details feel free to post a comment below.  Thanks.

Michael.

* http://live.org.au/community-events/candidates-forum

What sort of people don’t take youth suicide seriously?

I asked the question on my Facebook profile:

What sort of people don’t take youth suicide seriously?

The responses so far:

  • Luke: people who put their own self interests ahead of the safety and well-being of vulnerable, young Australians…evil, hateful people…
  • Leigh: The Victorian labor party! We campaigned for YEARS and they were not interested! 13 young people in our tiny area (6 country towns) died in one year and they didn’t think it was a problem.
  • Jason: The church
  • Elvira: People who don’t see youth suicide as having any correlation with glbti community. People stuck in the middle ages.
  • Tony: People who don’t take GLBT youth suicide, or any youth suicide seriously have their head in the sand, and it is just an ignorant, disgusting and narrow-minded stance to take.
  • Gregory: Amazing comments Michael – good to see some people have an idea about what’s going on!

I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine where the real problem is.

Mark Baker: a Jewish perspective on gay equality

Mark Baker has written a particularly poignant piece for Galus Australis challenging discrimination against same-sex attracted people, from his Jewish perspective:

When a Kiss Means Death

We need more intelligent, compassionate and articulate people like Mark fighting for the dignity and equality of same-sex attracted people in the Jewish and wider community; people who are not scared of religious bigots.

On the contrary, John Searle, JCCV President, could learn a lesson from Mark Baker.  Searle should be ashamed of himself.  He claims to be looking after the best interests of the members of the Jewish community yet he is too spineless to speak out on this critical issue, preferring to pander to the traditonal intolerant and antiquated orthodox bloc.  Just what sort of a leader and man is he?

Thank you very much Mark.

Michael.

A Pluralist Panel on Homosexuality & Judaism: comment, photos and my address

I was invited to participate in “A Pluralist Panel on Homosexuality and Judaism” by Hineni (Melbourne) and the Monash Jewish Students Society on Thursday June 3 2010.  The other panelists were Michael Cohen, Rabbi Shamir Caplan (Orthodox), Rabbi Ehud Bandel (Conservative), Rabbi Fred Morgan (Progressive).  Absent from the panel due to illness was Hinde Ena Burstin who was to talk from a Jewish lesbian perspective.

Kudos to the event organisers Hineni and MonJSS for bringing this much-needed discussion to the community.  It is perhaps the first time an intelligent, informed public discussion has been had in the Melbourne Jewish community on anything to do with homosexuality.

It was put to me that the evening was going to be controversial, not so much because of homosexuality being in the topic, but that there was going to be one each of a Progressive, Conservative and Orthodox rabbi (a Neapolitan assortment?) in the same room at the same time.  I’m sure there’s a joke in there somewhere.  🙂

Aside from a few minor technical and logistical glitches the evening went really well.  Each of the first four speakers delivered their address from their respective professional perspectives with no real surprises or revelations.

The Orthodox perspective given apologised for being intolerant of homosexuality and didn’t offer very much real hope for same-sex attracted people.

The Conservative perspective was up front about being “in the middle” of tradition and change, yet said that gay men and women were equal within the community and their sexuality needed to be taken into account and not ignored.

The Progressive perspective similarly acknowledged the importance of a person’s sexuality and went on to say that the Progressive movement was supportive of same-sex relationships and would acknowledge them as much as possible, yet they weren’t on par with heterosexual relationships.

Both the Conservative and Progressive perspectives put forward also acknowledged that children could be successfully raised in a same-sex relationship, something that the Orthodox perspective didn’t seem to have the capacity to understand.

Audience members were asked to write questions down on paper supplied and then at the end of the panel presentations, a selection of questions would be put to the panelists.  The questions asked were intelligent for the most part but didn’t ask the tough questions that I felt needed to be asked of the rabbis.

What made me most unsettled about the line-up of speakers (aside from me) was that they were all heterosexual men, dictating the terms of acceptance, to one degree or another, of same-sex attracted men and women and our relationships.  I would really like to have seen a female rabbi (yes, they do exist in the Progressive world) or an openly gay one (yes, they do exist) speak on the topic.

My thanks again to Hineni and MonJSS for organising the evening.  My thanks also to my wonderful partner Gregory Storer for giving me the necessary support.  His photographs of the evening can be viewed on Google Albums and Facebook.

My address from the evening is here.

Michael.

Sydney’s Jewish community adopts anti-homophobia/anti-transphobia policy

Hot on the heels of the Victorian Jewish community calling for respect for same-sex attracted Jews, the NSW Jewish community has passed a history-making motion for a policy on counteracting hatred and discrimination against gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender persons*.

The New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies has voted overwhelmingly to implement an anti-homophobia/anti-transphobia policy.

This is fantastic news for the Jewish GLBT community as the NSWJBD finally recognises that there is a demographic within the Jewish community that needs more support.

Roy Freeman — J-Wire, May 26 2010

Congratulations to everyone who supported this history-making policy change, and most especially the dedicated team lead by Roy Freeman from Dayenu.

It is long overdue for the entire Jewish community to understand that same-sex attraction and gender-identity variation is normal and valid, just like being left-handed.  There is no room for intolerance of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, or who simply do not conform to heterosexual or conventional male/female stereotypes.  The Jewish community must move with the times and learn that these are normal, acceptable human behaviours.  The cost of not doing this will continue to be counted in human lives.

* 2010 copy of policy statement on Dayenu archives here.