Friday, October 10, 2025

Finding Happiness - Gay People, Sex, and Marriage

He's gay. She's straight. (Washington Post)
One of the most difficult challenges that an Orthodox Jewish gay person must endure is finding a way to live a fulfilling life without satisfying his sexual urges. Satisfying them would constitute a major violation of Halacha. The sexual act most identified with male homosexuality is considered an abomination and a capital offense in the Torah. And yet, to say that this seems unfair to a gay man is an understatement.

This is why far-left Modern Orthodox rabbis twist themselves into pretzels trying to figure out how to religiously ‘justify’ a gay lifestyle. Even to the point of officiating at same-sex marriage ceremonies.

To say that this is not OK is also an understatement. Using tortured logic to provide a non-existent Halachic imprimatur to a lifestyle that will surely involve one of the gravest sins in Jewish law is, in and of itself, an abomination. Which, as I have said in the past, takes one out of the realm of Orthodoxy.

The rationalization made by these rabbis is based on their misplaced empathy. Which is that the societal persecution gay people have long suffered has often forced them to live lives of severe degradation often leading to clinical depression. And in far too many cases it has eventually led to suicide. Thus, they might argue that providing them comfort and support is a matter of pikuach nefesh (saving a life).

I have always maintained that one must have empathy for people who struggle with these issues and NEVER persecute or denigrate them. They are to be treated with the same human compassion as anyone else, regardless of any Halachic challenges they must overcome. But having compassion and empathy is not the same as celebrating or blessing a lifestyle that will inevitably involve sexual acts considered to be an abominable capital offense by the Torah

That would be like saying we feel sorry for someone who has an insatiable desire for a cheeseburger to the point of despair if he doesn’t get one - and therefore we must give him one. If something is a forbidden act, it cannot be permitted unless it is truly a matter of saving a life.

So, if a gay man cannot marry another man, what is he supposed to do? How can he ever find happiness in life?

What about marrying a woman anyway? Would that give him enough satisfaction in life in order to make up for the inability to fulfill his sexual urges?

The conventional wisdom says that it would be a disaster for a gay man to marry a heterosexual woman. It would end in tragedy for both husband and wife. To suggest such a solution, we are told, would be the height of irresponsibility, ruining two lives and gaining nothing but tragic consequences for all.

I used to believe that — even though I know of one such successful marriage. I was told that such cases are extremely rare. They are the quintessential ‘exception that proves the rule’.

Well, I am here to tell you that the conventional wisdom may not be all that wise after all. In fact, a gay man can marry a heterosexual woman, have children naturally, and live a happy life together. It is not only not impossible it is more common than one might think. So the only path to happiness for gay men may not lie in marrying another man. He can find it by marrying a heterosexual woman and living a monogamous lifestyle.

That was, in fact, the point of a Washington Post feature article, which described the following:

Samantha Wynn Greenstone knows her husband is gay, okay?
She knew he was gay when they met in a San Diego production of “Fiddler on the Roof.” She knew he was gay when he proposed. She knew he was gay when they got married in November.
He’s not bisexual. She’s not in denial. That hasn’t stopped them from being in a committed, monogamous relationship for nearly 10 years.
“If anything, I think we are taking the sanctity of marriage to a whole new level,” said Greenstone, 38, smiling widely as she sat beside her husband, Jacob Hoff, 32, at their home in Los Angeles…
Yes, she’s pregnant. Yes, it’s his. And yes — if you must know how they conceived — in Greenstone’s words, “we birds’d and we bees’d.”

Indeed. And they are not alone. This appears to be a new trend among some gay people, as indicated by the article’s subtitle:

A new crop of couples are making content about their mixed-orientation marriages, divorced from sexual attraction but not from love

Here’s the thing: when a gay man marries a heterosexual woman under the pretense that he too is heterosexual — when in fact he is not — that’s when the consequences can be tragic. But when a man and a woman fall in love, wish to live together as husband and wife, have children, and are honest about their sexual issues, that is an entirely different ballgame that seems to make all the difference in the world.

Many gay people complain that prejudice against children being raised by a loving gay couple is unfair. I would argue that it isn’t always prejudice that motivates such concern. Rather, it is the idea that a child will lack a parent who models the missing gender in the relationship. A child with two fathers will be missing out on what it means to have — and to be — a mother. I’m not saying that it’s the end of the world, but it is far from ideal.

By contrast, when a gay man marries a heterosexual woman and is honest about his orientation, the result can look very much like the couple in the Washington Post story.

What does all this mean? I believe it means that celebrating gay marriage on the grounds that the alternative is devastation is simply not true. There are, obviously, other alternatives that allow for a very happy life despite these challenges. One can live a happy, meaningful life as a gay man married to a heterosexual woman in a monogamous relationship, having children by natural means.

This should disprove once and for all the argument from empathy — that we must devise extremist reinterpretations of Halacha to permit gay men to live together and raise children. Doing so merely indulges their desires and accomplishes little else. Instead, they should be encouraged to marry and find the kind of true happiness that 32-year-old Jacob Hoff has and many like him have found.

17 comments:

  1. "So, if a gay man cannot marry another man, what is he supposed to do? How can he ever find happiness in life?"

    That's a classic canard of the gay lobby. There's absolutely no reason why any man who can find sexual satisfaction with a woman (including all bisexuals) can marry a woman, have children and be happy. Any man in a normal marriage is only limited to one woman too. And, somehow, there are many single straight men who manage not be celibate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And if he managed to engage in the "birds and the bees" with his wife and have children, he's not actually gay, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong. That a gay man can have sec with a heterosexual woman doesn’t mean he isn’t attracted to men sexually anymore. Jacob is still gay and sexually attracted only to men. But the happiness he has found being married to the woman ge loves and the children that relationship has brought him happiness that far surpasses the sexual gratification that living a gay lifestyle would have given him. He loves his wife. Love does not equal sex.

      Delete
    2. Although the two are very closely linked, at least in the forms that lead to natural reproduction.

      Delete
  3. "That would be like saying we feel sorry for someone who has an insatiable desire for a cheeseburger to the point of despair if he doesn’t get one - and therefore we must give him one. If something is a forbidden act, it cannot be permitted unless it is truly a matter of saving a life."
    That's a pathetic analogy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Statistically insignificant events are anomalous; we can draw no realistic conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of all the billions of bombs set off during the history of warfare, only two were nuclear. Are you therefore suggesting that the effects of nuclear attack are statistically insignificant, anomalous, and unable to yield realistic conclusions?

      Delete
  5. I don't get it. If he's gay and not bisexual, then how's he aroused when with her, how's he having an erection? Fantasizing about men?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was wondering about that too. But he claims he is still gay who is able to have children the natural way. It would be interesting to see his own response to that question.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Seems to me he's bisexual, attracted to males and females. Why is that an inaccurate assessment?

    ReplyDelete
  8. When Kinsey made his infamous study, one of the things that was trumpeted was the idea that "everyone is on a spectrum." That is, people can generally go either way, to one extent or another. And he had a point- up until the 20th century there were few if any "homosexuals"; there were people who enjoyed, to one extent or another, relations with the same sex while not excluding the opposite. (Oscar Wilde being a very famous example; ancient Greece and Rome another, and big parts of the Muslim world to this day, as well as members of certain, um, groups in the US. Leonard Bernstein is another famous example of a gay man who was deeply in love with his wife. And digging through my posts I came across a NY Time obituary of a mystery writer who described his marriage "as that of a gay man and a woman who happened to love each other. 'Here was this remarkable person who I wanted to spend the rest of my life with. We were married 51 years. So something was right about it, however bizarre it may seem to the rest of the world,' he said." And yes, all those people had children the old-fashioned way.)

    Of course, Kinsey, we now know, made a lot of stuff up; in addition, he had a very loose definition of including people in the "fluid" or even the "homosexual" categories. But what matters is that this claim was huge for an era that ignored that such behavior existed at all, and soon became gospel truth among the bien pensants.

    (Herman Wouk famously spoke against those who would ignore all such behavior entirely, or insist that it didn't exist. Kinsey, he said, had inadvertently handed a great gift to the religious world, as they could now point out that God had a really good reason telling us not to do all these deviant acts. Up until then people assumed it was some old-fashioned Biblical stuff that didn't apply anymore. Unfortunately, Wouk was ignored, and the world went straight from "doesn't exist" to "perfectly OK.")

    However, as time went on and gays became more and more liberated, the idea of "spectrum" disappeared. Now, if you betrayed the slightest interest in the same sex, you were deemed to be locked into it for life. Therapy was about the worst thing that could be done- it became an actual *crime*. No one was on a spectrum anymore.

    And even today, when to the right of the "LG" we have a whole alphabet soup of completely unrelated "on the spectrum" letters- "BTQWERTY..."- for some reason the ratchet still only goes in one direction. The second you attach one of those letters attached to your name, it's almost considered freakish if, among all your choices, you happen to make the one that virtually all human beings throughout history, and today, do. Here we enter the realm of sexual politics rather than actual sex.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This column makes it clear how much Rabbi Maryles is troubled by the inability, in his understanding of Halacha, for gay Jews to both have a family and stay in his community. He resolves this moral dilemma by finding a few exceptional cases that are completely unrepresentative and pretending that they are an example that all - or at least a significant percentage Of - gay Jews can aspire to.

    Sorry, Rabbi Maryles, it won’t work. Any more than telling a Black person that separate but equal is OK because 5 percent of Blacks think so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you capitalize "Black"? Because someone told you to.

      Delete
  10. Simple question: would you allow/advise your heterosexual daughter to marry a gay man? My guess is that the answer is no. In which case this suggestion is hypocritical—it’s a great idea, for someone else’s kid, not for yours thigh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see that my comment showed up as anonymous. I want to stand behind my comment.

      Delete