Same-sex marriage is not only one of the hottest-button topics in America, but it has also gained significant momentum. Although nothing is a guarantee in life, with the current trend line, same-sex in all fifty states is all but inevitable. Even with increasing tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals and same-sex marriage, not to mention that more and more think the argument against same-sex marriage is simply nonsensical, the Orthodox Jewish community is maintaining its ardent stance against homosexuality.
Although I am not Orthodox, I receive emails from the Orthodox organization Aish HaTorah. In it was a link to an audio shiur by Dr. David Luchins about how to "show non-acceptance of behavior yet give respect to the individual." Although the political commentary dates the shiur back a few years, the shiur is still relevant. Luchins' thesis is that you can separate the sin from the sinner because "halacha only judges actions, not intent or sexuality." Luchins was sporadic and off-topic, but I still have to ask whether in the context of dealing with homosexuals in an Orthodox community, can one love the sinner, but still hate the sin?
Before I begin to answer that question, I have to state that although Orthodox Jews across the spectrum of Orthodoxy view homosexual acts as forbidden, there are a relatively wide range of reactions. I'm not a fan of describing a group of people in general, blanket statements. When discussing issues in Orthodoxy, I tend to say that "the further Right you go, the more it's true." In this case, the further to the Right you go, the more animus there is against homosexuality and homosexuals. How far of a spectrum are we dealing with here? It goes as far to the Left as R. Shmuly Yanklowitz's reaction of "civil same-sex marriage is acceptable, but I'm still not sure about religious same-sex marriage" to the far Right's reaction of "homosexuals don't exist, and anyone who does that is proverbially sticking it to G-d (R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggrot Moshe, Orach Chayim, vol. 4 no. 115)." There are views in between, including "you can change your sexuality," "you can overcome this sinful impulse," and "we don't condone homosexual behavior, but we, as a community, are going to treat you like a human being." It is the latter view that Luchins was going for. He wants a framework in which you can have a major qualm with homosexuality, but still treat homosexuals as human beings. Although certain rabbis have signed on to that approach, which is a step in the right direction, "love the sinner but hate the sin" doesn't work, and I'll tell you why on the whole, it isn't being done in practice.
As Luchins himself said, in Judaism, G-d judges actions, and not one's intent. Judaism has such a strong belief in free will that it is decidedly axiomatic. Even so, I will say that free will does have its limits. With regards to homosexuality, even though we haven't determined the exact cause, we do know that one's sexuality is not a choice. Nevertheless, we do have choices about how we act. On the other hand, sexuality is a primal, base force in human nature, and is very much a part of being human.
[As a side note, this is why I find the call for celibacy a largely futile one, which is why I think it's ironic that a group of people so adverse to change, is willing to ask homosexual, Orthodox Jews to stay celibate, something that is essentially as halachially unprecedented as same-sex marriage. Others recommend a homosexual man marrying a woman in the hopes that "he'll find the right woman." Too bad sham marriages don't work. And under an Orthodox paradigm, same-sex couples are forbidden, so it really puts gay Orthodox Jews who want to remain observant/frum in a bind.]
The problem with Luchins' approach is that with the axiomatic concept of free will, one de facto cannot separate the sin from the sinner in Jewish paradigm, which makes sense since "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a Christian concept. In order for sin to exist, it requires an agent (i.e., a human being) to be actualized. Without an agent, sin is a mere abstraction. What's more is that people have a difficult time separating the two precisely because of that reason. As such, the homosexual is perceived as "anti-Torah."
How bad are homosexual acts viewed in a traditionalist mindset? As Luchins brought up, "Any conversation with homosexuality [in Orthodoxy] starts with the words 'it is assur (forbidden by Jewish law),'" and that is how the vast, vast majority of Orthodox Jews feel. I also think this view is misguided because in Jewish hermeneutics, there are multiple ways to interpret a verse, and confining a verse to a single interpretation, especially one that is tenuous, is contrary to the Jewish tradition of interpretation and reeks of intellectual laziness. Even so, "all homosexual acts are forbidden" is the Orthodox norm, and in all probability, that won't change anytime soon.
There are better ways to interpret the prohibition in Leviticus 18:22, but a few factors will solidify the Orthodox opposition to homosexuality or homosexuals. One is the biblical penalty. Although the death penalty was de facto talked out of existence by the rabbis, it is still the one proscribed (Leviticus 20:13), thereby speaking to its gravity. According to some, homosexuality falls under the prohibition in Noahide Law of sexual immorality (גילוי עריות). As an extension, גילוי עריות is so severe that it's better for one to martyr himself than commit the sin. The other three considerations have nothing to do with Jewish law. One is that one tends to fear that which he does not understand. Judaism teaches us to transcend that feeling, but there is enough anecdotal evidence to show the difficulty behind that. Two, Orthodox Judaism has stark gender roles. You think women donning tefillin is bad enough? What about men having sexual relations with another man? From this paradigm [with which I do not agree], a man "acting like a woman in the bedroom" is unacceptable. Three, Orthodoxy has not done the best job of adapting to change since the Enlightenment Period, and it has only been more pronounced in recent years. The fact that the Haredi fertility rate has increased doesn't help either because they make up a larger percent of the Orthodox Jewish community. This is made worse by the fact that they have gained more power in rabbinic and religious institutions, which means that normative Orthodox practice is dismayingly moving further and further to the Right (aka Haredization of Orthodox Judaism).
It does not matter how axiomatic "love thy neighbor as yourself" is to Judaism, that we should treat people with dignity (כבוד הברייות), or that if we were honest enough about ourselves, we realize that we all make mistakes (Ecclesiastes 7:20) and that we are in no position to judge people until we have walked a mile in their shoes. Orthodoxy generally views halacha in such black and white terms, even in spite of rabbis historically having an appreciation for the nuances and complexities that are engrained within reality, that homosexuality, and by extension, homosexuals, will be viewed as anti-Torah, no matter how much Jewish homosexuals are dedicated to the Torah, performing mitzvahs, or contributing to the Jewish community. Until the Orthodox view on homosexual acts changes, the communal [and in most cases, individual] Orthodox response will remain a visceral, antagonistic one that will only push homosexual Jews away from observance.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteUnsurprisingly, I find myself disagreeing with the basic concept you seem to back, which is that it is impossible to love the sinner but hate the sin. While I agree that doing so can be difficult (to varying degrees depending upon what sin we're talking about, and the people involved), difficult is not impossible.
I think one of the stumbling blocks to overcoming this difficulty, particularly regarding this sin, is that in this particular instance, gay people (and those supporting of the gay rights movement in all its facets) have conflated an action with their identity, thus blurring the lines and making it harder to distinguish between the two. It was probably hard enough to do that before regarding homosexuality, but is probably harder now. And this is intentional: the idea that a homosexual act is just a natural extension of "who I am" is calculated to frame the entire narrative in an all-or-nothing style. If one accepts that action is inseparable from identity, the only two options left are total exclusion of the person from everything (which is bad and not in keeping with Torah), or total acceptance without any rebuke for wrong behavior (also bad, also not in keeping with Torah).
And while I also agree with you that there are multiple interpretations for any given passage from Torah, I don't think it's logical to assume that multiple interpretations can result in opposite conclusions. What I mean is that, Torah and halacha have, for various reasons, come down to the basic conclusion that homosexual activity is sinful. The may vary on degree and why the prohibition exists, but the prohibition exists. You seem to be asserting that alternate interpretations (which you've blogged about before) exist (which they do) but that they somehow supersede the interpretations that deem this behavior sinful. Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, and if that's the case, I apologize, and do set me straight.
Overall, this idea that orthodox Judaism should somehow "get with the times" on this issue srikes me as an exercise in rationalization. And while rationalism isn't a bad thing, why stop here? We run into a serious problem (or at least a potential one) when we start tossing out whatever rules don't make sense rationally here and now. Orthodox Judaism effectively then would cease to exist and become either Conservative or Reform or something along those lines. I guess my point here is that picking and choosing what to follow robs Orthodox Judaism of its essence, and really seems to diminish the faith. And I use the word faith there specifically, since faith is believing (and doing) when we don't know for sure the why or the how or any of that.
Kol Tov,
Zac
Zac,
DeleteI have to start off by asking the question when I said it was impossible to love the sinner while hating the sin. I never said it was impossible. To quote myself in the blog, “what’s more is that people have a difficult time separating the two precisely because of that reason. As such, the homosexual is perceived as ‘anti-Torah’.” Yes, it’s theoretically possible to separate the two, but given everything I outlined in my blog entry, the probability of that happening is practically next to nil, and I truly, truly do not see it happening in the foreseeable future because there is nothing to indicate that mainstream Orthodoxy will be tolerant, let alone, accepting, of homosexuals.
Second, halacha has evolved and can evolve. The punishment of the rebellious son, the death penalty itself, slavery, shemittat kesafim, these are all examples of directives that are explicitly in the Torah, and the rabbis either found ways around them or explained them out of existence by interpreting it as such. Even with a divine text, human interpretation is inevitable, as our tradition teaches us. With such an inevitability, it is certainly possible to interpret verses with new insight or new information if it is relevant. As I brought up in my recent blog entry on Kol Isha, halacha is interpreted on reality, not how one perceives reality. Rabbis have the ability to enact takkanot, but choose not to. Judaism has a rich history of adapting to new situations, and the fact that Orthodoxy has abandoned this centuries-old tradition is one of the myriad of reasons I do not consider myself Orthodox, even with my love, appreciation, and observance of Judaism.
Third, you bring up the point about the slippery slope argument with Reform and Conservative Judaism. At least here, you have some historic basis for postulating that, and it needs to be addressed. But there is also a steep price that Orthodox Judaism pays for preservationist stagnation. What you do not bring up is that everyone picks and chooses with religion. The only differences are in magnitude and selection. When one “picks and chooses” but does so “l’shem shamayim,” they do so in a way that encompasses as much of Jewish values and mores as possible, which is what Orthodox Jews should be doing here instead of taking a narrow-minded approach that does not take everything into account.
Finally, are you bringing up the all-or-nothing mentality ironically? Because if anybody has the “all-or-nothing mentality” down to a tee, whether it’s with halacha in general or in the specific context of homosexuals and homosexuality, it’s modern-day Orthodoxy. People who support same-sex marriage and gay rights, myself included, realize that sexuality is much more than mere sexual acts. Yes, sex is a part of sexuality. That’s why they call it sexuality. However, as I have brought up with you in the past, homosexuals want relations with the same love, intimacy, and trust that heterosexuals desire. Take a look at Orthodox halacha on same-sex relations, and I can safely tell you that it is the Orthodox who set up the all-or-nothing paradigm. There is no permissibility whatsoever for same-sex sexual intimacy, sexual acts, or even same-sex relations that go beyond the platonic. I brought up in my blog entry the quandary that gay Orthodox Jews face, and the fact that there is no good alternative for gay Orthodox Jews, it is no surprise that so many have gone OTD (off the derech). To reiterate, until things change in Orthodoxy, the vast majority of gay Orthodox Jews will be pushed away from observance.
Kol tov,
Steve
Steve,
ReplyDeleteSorry it took so long to get back to this. While you're correct that you did not actually say the word "impossible," you did say the following: "The problem with Luchins' approach is that with the axiomatic concept of free will, one de facto cannot separate the sin from the sinner in Jewish paradigm..." That seems to me saying "impossible," but not in so many words. And I think it is incorrect, to boot. It is possible to separate doer from deed though, again it varies considerably as to how difficult this can be.
Secondly, my understanding of rabbinical use of takkanot is that it only takes effect when something no longer applies (sacrifices at the Temple, for example) or if we discover something new in Torah. It is not carte blanche to re-write halacha for ease, expediency or any other reason. I will admit, however, that your depth of Jewish law and Hebrew are beyond mine, so I may be wrong. While change may sometimes be necessary, and even an abbrogation of the law (breaking the Sabbath to save a life, for example) the idea that this is a good reason for a new halachic ruling? It's not as if homosexuality is new. I know we disagree on this, but even if we agreed that now that we are modern and not agrarian and can afford couples who can't procreate as a whole planetary society, the Jewish people is still pretty tiny.
Third, you are correct that Orthodoxy pays a price for strictness. That price IS observance. I don't know you outside this blog, but from what I've gleaned you seem to be able to navigate the waters of orthodoxy and maintain observance without really BEING orthodox, by your own admission. That, my friend, makes you a rarity. I would stipulate that most people are either in or out of both orthodoxy and observance together. They go together for most people, and when people start going from orthodox shuls to conservative or reforms ones, then invariably they begin practicing the conservative and/or reform way, which leads to them falling away from observance.
Finally, well, it kind circles back to my first point. So yeah. I hope your week is going well, friend.
Kol Tov,
Zac
Zac,
DeleteAs for the first point, let’s stop for a moment here. We both agree that it is possible to separate the sinner from the sin. It’s just that you think it’s more possible than I do. You say that “it varies considerably as to how difficult this can be,” and I agree. Let me ask you a relevant question: What in Orthodoxy’s treatment of homosexuals or homosexuality makes you think they are able to separate the two?
As for “homosexuality not being new,” yes, homosexuality has been around since time immemorial. I’m not going to argue with you there. What I am going to contend with is when humanity conceptually understood what homosexuality was. Prior to the 19th century, it was merely thought in terms of sexual acts. Only in the late 19th century did people start to conceptualize homosexuality as a sexual orientation. Even in recent times, we have realized that conversion therapy doesn’t work, and that homosexuality (whether it is genetic, chemical, or neurological in origin, it’s currently irrelevant) is an immutable trait. There are a sizable number of Orthodox rabbis that think homosexuality either doesn’t exist [per my R. Feinstein citation in the initial entry] or that it can be altered to heterosexuality. If the plurality, if not the vast majority, of Orthodox rabbis cannot even accept that homosexuals exist (I evidently haven’t polled Orthodox rabbis, but it’s an educated guess), then yes, this is a new issue that was unknown to previous rabbanim, and should be discussed in the full detail that this topic, much like any other halachic topic, deserves. However, this discussion cannot be had until its existence is recognized.
As for the third point, yes, there is a huge correlation between observance and Orthodox affiliation. It didn’t used to be that way. There was a time when there were a lot of observant, Conservative Jews, but that has regrettably changed over the past half-century. Finding observant non-Orthodox Jews are rare, but they are still out there, and a few of them I call “friend.” The fact that the “black/white” divide exists is sad. Although I would attribute some of it to the non-Orthodox movements, I can venture that I am going to attribute more of it to Orthodoxy’s movement towards the Right on the religious spectrum than you would.
My week is actually going well thus far, and I hope yours is, as well. Kol tov, chaveri!
-Steve
1) That’s a very, very broad question. As you yourself pointed out, the Orthodox reaction to the growing homosexual movement has been varied. I’m honestly not sure how to answer that question. I currently write to a Jewish pen pal in prison I met through the Aleph Institute program that puts people together. I treat him as a man, despite the act he committed to get incarcerated. I admit I’m not Orthodox (merely moving in that direction) but my point is that one does not have to define the sinner by the sin. I’ll not say here what he was incarcerated for, but I don’t think of him, nor (to my conscious knowledge) treat him as a offender first, and a Jewish man second. Rather he’s a Jewish man first who’s simply dealing with the repercussions of his actions second. I’m not sure if that answers your macro question, though. But if it can be done on a micro level in other circumstances, it can be done in broader strokes. And no, I’m not conflating homosexuality with criminality, though both are sinful.
ReplyDelete2) Here we tend to part ways at least a little bit. I’m unconvinced that homosexuality is an immutable trait. I have known plenty of people who have gone through their rebellious phases, which included gay and bisexual phases. And the whole time they swore they were gay or bisexual. Until they weren’t. So for starters, there’s a segment of the gay population that is basically acting out. How large of a portion is really anyone’s guess. And therein lies the problem. And this is also why I find it troubling to conflate race with homosexuality. One (race) is objectively definable regardless of behavior of an individual. The other (sexual orientation) is not. Absent that sort of evidence, it will be hard to convince people, particularly on an individual basis, that someone is actually, truly, immutably gay…assuming that exists. My personal opinion is that nature predisposes us towards certain behaviors, but is not deterministic. Therefore I technically fall into the camp that does not see homosexuality as immutable.
3) We may even agree that Orthodoxy has moved reactively (is that a word?) to the right, but I would argue it has done so with good reason.
Kol Tov,
Zac
Zac,
Delete1) I'm glad that you are able to view a Jewish prisoner as a Jew first and as a criminal second. I'm glad that you can separate the sinner from the sin, and give you kudos for doing such work. However, my question was definitely a macro question. The Orthodox maltreatment of homosexuals and the prima facie disgust with homosexuality is common knowledge for those who are in the Orthodox community. In a mainstream Orthodox synagogue, if the community finds out that someone is gay, they will either ostracize him or simply kick his toches out of the community. Although in an Orthodox paradigm, homosexuality is a sin, for the reasons I listed in my blog, it is seen as more heinous as other sins, hence the increased animosity towards gay people.
One of the reasons I prefer to deal with individuals over communities is because it tends to be easier to reason with and discuss topics with individuals than it is with groups of people (e.g., mob mentality). I know certain individuals in the Modern Orthodox community that do not have a problem with homosexuals or homosexuality. However, communal norms move a lot more slowly, and even if there were a trend in that direction (which on the aggregate, it is heading in the opposite direction), it would take longer.
2) We probably need to get a better hold of what we mean by "immutable" in this context, especially given how those who buy into conversion "therapy" frame it. Instead of asking ourselves whether sexuality is fluid (as opposed to being fixed) or "are there forms of sexuality somewhere in between exclusive heterosexuality and exclusive homosexuality (e.g., bisexuality)" (because bifurcating sexuality is simply false), we should ask "whether through an individual's efforts, can one change their sexuality?" And the answer to that is a resounding "No!" It's like wishing to naturally or miraculously having a change of skin color without the help of plastic surgery à la Michael Jackson. All the prayer, wishful thinking, or marrying of an opposite-sex marriage partner cannot change one's sexuality. It would explain why after all their years of trying, Exodus International closed their doors. If sexuality were a choice, I'm curious: when did you choose your sexuality?
Plus, given the stigma behind homosexuality, if sexuality were a choice, why in the world would any sane person want to choose to be homosexual in a community that stigmatizes it so?
3) I think the word you want to use is "reactionarily," and moving further to the Right simply because it's easier to self-isolate than deal with the changes of the modern world is not the way to go, which is why I have much more respect for Modern Orthodoxy than I do the rest of Orthodoxy.
Kol tov,
Steve
Steve,
ReplyDelete1) If same sex attraction is to be defined (at least by those who feel it) as something that should not be ridiculed primarily on the basis of "b/c I just naturally feel that way" the same applies towards feelings of disgust towards same sex activity. Either one (SS attraction or disgust) is simply feelings that should need no further justification; rather it is the action taken based on such attraction or disgust that is at issue. And I again think a large part of the problem is homosexuals (and mainstream society, or at least the media) continue to conflate same sex activity with identity. That makes it hard to even frame a conversation properly, since an attack against the activity is seen as an attack against who that person intrinsically is.
2) Definitions are always tricky, but I also happen to fall into that camp that believes people (at least some, perhaps all, but who knows?) can change their innate desires. I think Spitzer's experiment that showed conversion was possible was not scientifically debunked at all. It was merely shouted down by those with an agenda. He said one of the primary reasons he decided it was a bad study was b/c he questioned how accurate the statements were that some made, also noting that since it covered such a long period of time, maybe they didn't remember correctly. While it's true it covered a long period of time for some individuals, that was known going into the study itself. Whether or not conversion therapy works isn't something that you or I will know anytime soon b/c some people who didn't even like the fact that Spitzer was asking the questions got him to back off. There will probably be no serious studies done anytime soon for the same reason, and if they are, they'll get blackballed. Society has made up its mind on this and doesn't want to question that decision. I know at least a few people in my life who are either actively gay and admit for them that it's a choice, or who are straight having formerly been homosexual, so that element is real. How large is that element? I have no idea. And given that there is currently nothing objectively verifiable to indicate whether someone is gay or not, we'll probably never know.
And I don't think anyone chooses to be gay, per se. But as I've mentioned, there are those who chose to engage in that lifestyle for various reasons. Some stay committed to it and make it their identity. Some don't. Although the answer to the question of "why" is probably different for everyone.
And I didn't choose my sexual orientation. That's a whole 'nother debate about whether sexual orientation is an immutable trait in everyone, or not.
Kol Tov,
Zac
Zac,
Delete1) I feel like we're going back to a previous issue, which is why should the prima facie disgust of certain individuals dictate public policy. If an individual's or group's disgust is the basis for banning things, then oh dear! I know there are homosexual individuals who find coitus disgusting, but again, that's no basis for banning it, which is why you haven't given me an answer that any policy analyst would ever use to justify its prohibition.
2) Now you're bringing in yet another flawed study to try to prove your point, even though you have expressed that you don't buy into studies? You are once again proving my point that studies don't work unless they bolster what you think, and I continue to find that behavior to reek of hypocrisy. You either need to stop citing studies to prove your point or accept that you're cherry-picking to make a point. If you're going to cite academic literature of this kind, there is something to be said for academic consensus, which in this case, goes in favor of "homosexuality not being a choice." You either would need to point out what is wrong in the current academic consensus or find studies that bolster your case. Since you have not been able to do so in the latter, I would suggest pointing out the flaws in the former if you want to make a better case.
Peer-reviewed studies are the gold standard in social sciences, which are also open up to criticism. By his own admission, Spitzer pointed out just how flimsy self-reporting is. And much like the Regnerus study, the Spitzer study lacks a valid comparison group, which is a faux pas in scientific research. He was even surprised about how few "success stories" there were (http://prospect.org/article/my-so-called-ex-gay-life/). Spitzer backed off because his research was flawed and realized what damage his so-called study caused, not because he was getting blackballed. This is also why the anecdotal self-reporting of your friends is also unimpressive. If you want to express doubts and be "agnostic" on the issue, fine! But don't dismiss the possibility of immutability simply because it doesn't line up with your haskafah. Another reason I have found that Orthodox are gung-ho on going with "reparative" "therapy" is because the immutability argument is because "G-d wouldn't give us something we couldn't handle," and immutability (or at least an inability to change one's sexuality) would put a considerable damper on their interpretation of "homosexuality and halacha."
3) It's nice to see you didn't choose your sexual orientation. If I had to make an educated guess of the highest order, no one else does, either. And just a reminder on your end, homosexual acts are not the same thing as same-sex attraction or homosexuality. I wouldn't want you to conflate them, either.
Kol tov,
Steve
PS: If you're willing to take the words of the few who say they chose their sexuality, for consistency's sake, you should also take the words of the vast, vast majority who say that their sexuality is not a choice.
DeletePPS: Given that the thesis of this blog entry is "Why Orthodoxy Won't Tolerate Homosexuality," I would appreciate a response to "which of my highlighted trends do you think are inaccurate" because just about everything else has been tangential (I still don't mind the conversation, but I would like an answer to the initial point).
DeleteSteve,
ReplyDelete1. I did not say, nor mean to imply, that disgust should drive policy, per se. I simply meant to put it on equal footing with same-sex attraction, as both are just "feelings" that emanate from individuals and cause strong reactions.
2. I also did not intend (nor did I, I think) hold up the latest Spitzer study as "proof" of anything. Well, that's not true. I held it up as proof that there's really been no serious study of conversion therapy other than Spitzer's, and that his own rationale for dismissing it was, in my humble opinion, very weak. My contention is that the social science community has, largely as a result of guilt for having kept homosexuality listed as a mental illness for so long, bent over backwards and overcompensated in the other direction. The lack of any serious studies looking into the results of conversion therapy bolsters that, I think.
3. I agree. Orientation (assuming it exists as an immutable trait) is not action.
1st PS. If all things were equal, that would follow. Except that I don't see all things as equal. For those who admit that they choose (or chose, then opted out) of "being gay" I don't see (particularly in the current climate of modernity) what's in it for them. What is their vested interest in going against the socially acceptable grain? On the other hand, those who want to make their (alleged) choices their identity do have something to gain, so long as the momentum continues and the logical outcome, which is to have gays treated as a specially protected class comes to fruition. In some jurisdictions that is already the case, and the momentum is heading that way. And being a specially protected class obviously has benefits.
2nd PS. Going back to your original posting, my disagreement was on the feasibility of separating sinner from sin. The answer seems as simple as treating Jews as Jews who would benefit from observance first. As for where I think you're wrong...I disagree with your interpretation on the homosexual activity prohibition in Leviticus.
Kol Tov,
Zac