55Marrying for Love, Mating for Life
understanding o marriage that refects neither Biblical nor sociologicalrealties.s or his second set o objections, which would dismiss the biblicalprohibition against homosexual acts as inapplicable or merican soci-ety, Klinghoer explains:ommenting on the original text in eviticus, thenotorious verse 18:22”You shall not lie with a manas one lies with a woman, it is an abomination”JacobMilgrom points out that it occurs in the context o specically Jewish legislation. us the name o the in-tended recipient o the commandment against homo-sexual intercourse is Jews, not gentiles. ndeed, verse18:20 warns married couples not to engage in sexualintercourse when the emale partner is menstruating, aeature only o Jewish law.o, these rules apply to Jews alone, and
to the greater mericanpopulace.But in basing his opinion on the usage o the word
, “abomina-tion,” which he explains as “designat[ing] a range o morally culpableacts,” Klinghoer makes a telling and unorgivable error, completely ignoring the “ritual,” and thereore a-political, nature o many o the“abominations” discussed in the Bible.e eort to categorize the orah’s commands as ritual or moral laws,(with a claim that
reers only to the latter) is problematic becausethe Bible makes no such distinctions between “ritual” or “moral” dicta. commandment is a commandment is a commandment. e rabbisdealt with problems like these by erasing the dierences between theorah laws, claiming that one could not speak o relative rewards o asmall commandment and a greater one. or the rabbis, small laws exactthe same meticulous adherence as the bigger, fashier laws.