3

Vayikra 20:13 forbids anal intercourse according to Rashi who describes the offense as "inserting a paint stick in a tube." Since non-Jews are not generally subject to laws asur mi'd'rabbanin, no fence should forbid them from approaching this prohibition as long as they don't commit the offence itself. True? So shouldn't non-Jewish males be allowed to show affection to one another and even to have sexual contact together as long as they don't commit sodomy? I know the idea may be repulsive to many Jews, yet isn't this halachikly correct?

  • 2
    Um, no. The prohibition and it's definition in Wayyiqra (Leviticus) is specifically for Jews (who are not suspected of such things, etc.), whereas the prohibition of homosexual relations for non-Jews extends from their directive of peru urevu and such acts are not permitted with men or animals. Look into the midrash, you'll find that these types of things were said to have been part of what led to the flood. – user3342 Nov 8 '15 at 0:37
  • Note approaching this prohibition is not a rabbinic fence but a biblical fence. – Double AA Nov 8 '15 at 15:14
  • Ray, couples might have sex various ways that lead to completion. What I'm suggesting is that for a NON-JEW only one act out of many possible acts is all that is forbidden to them by Lv. 18:22 and 20:13-- and nothing else. Of course, those texts are part of the Jewish Torah for Jews, but in defining the Noahic laws on sexuality, rabbis refer to those verses as applicable to non-Jews. No fences need be recognized by non-Jews because they don't have to abide by rabbinic preventative legislation, only the actual 7 laws themselves. – Jerry Kent Nov 9 '15 at 15:33
  • 1
    Almost a dup f unanswered judaism.stackexchange.com/q/32098/501 - – Danny Schoemann Nov 11 '15 at 8:27
  • 3

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .