A Conservative Jew's News and Views: On the ruling concerning the ordination of homosexuals
'Two Jews, three opinions,' as the saying goes.
To be honest, I'm not the best person to discuss this issue. For openers, I'm too lazy to read the actually t'shuvot (rulings?) of the Rabbinical Assembly's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards. For closers, I'm not really knowledgeable enough to discuss halachah (Jewish religious law). But that's never stopped me before, so you're forewarned.
From what I've read in the papers and on the blogs, and from Rabbi Jeremy Kalmanofsky's discussion on the subject last Shabbat at Ansche Chesed, I gather that three t'shuvot were submitted. The one that supported the end of all prohibitions against homosexual activity was not accepted by the Committee. The two that were accepted were a) continued support for the traditional perspective forbidding homosexual acts and, hence, the ordination of openly homosexual men and women, and b) continued support for the Written Torah's (Bible's) prohibition against "lying with a man as with a woman," (i.e., anal sex), but removal of the requirement to follow the additional rabbinic restrictions, and support for the ordination of open homosexuals.
The impression that I got from Rabbi Kalmanofsky was that health was a serious consideration in the latter decision. There seems to be an opinion that it's better to recognize and allow monogamous relations among homosexuals than to discourage them, hence indirectly encouraging promiscuous relationships and risking the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
What's missing in this discussion, assuming that I'm interpreting it correctly, is an acknowledgment of a crucial difference in attitude between the Conservative and the Orthodox that has nothing to do with homosexuality. According to a strict Orthodox perspective, the only difference between a Jew with same-sex attraction and an unmarried heterosexual Jew is that the unmarried heterosexual Jew can always harbor the hope of being married one day, whereas a strictly observant Jew with same-sex attraction faces a lifetime alone min hahatchalah (from the beginning). In practical terms, both are required to remain celibate. The Conservative rabbinate's attitude toward both pre-marital and homosexual sex seems to be that expecting any human being to remain celibate for life is unreasonable, possibly bordering on inhumane. Having married at 28, I know how it feels to "go without." So I am not without some understanding of what observing this particular law in accordance with the traditional interpretation entails. And I'm not sure that I could ask that of any human being.
posted by Shira Salamone at 8:46 PM
14 Comments:
Shira wrote:
There seems to be an opinion that it's better to recognize and allow monogamous relations among homosexuals than to discourage them, hence indirectly encouraging promiscuous relationships and risking the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
... except that (compulsive!) promiscuity is the norm in the gay "community", and will not be "encouraged" by a ruling that finally calls the gay rights movement on that reality.
This construction has things backwards - the gay "community" has overwhelmingly adopted a pattern of conspicuous promiscuity, such that even "committed" relationships are sexually open. This is being omitted from media coverage in order to win legal acceptance of homosexual unions - not because there will be very many such unions (judging by the experience in Holland and Scandinavia, where gays have eschewed the marriage rights offered them) but because such legal recognition will make it much more difficult to roll back the normalization of homosexuality.
To anyone with even passing familiarity with the gay world, the notion that "We have to recognize homosexual unions or else there will be promiscuity" is a laughable reversal of cause and effect - typical of the victimology politics of the gay rights movement.
The Conservative rabbinate's attitude toward both pre-marital and homosexual sex seems to be that expecting any human being to remain celibate for life is unreasonable, possibly bordering on inhumane.
Actually, the CJLS does not officially condone premarital sex, and this is quite clear in even the more liberal Dorf/Nevins/Reisner teshuvah on homosexuality. What might be confusing you is that the Conservative movement relatively recently released a "pastoral letter" advising rabbis on how to offer guidence on sex and sexuality. This letter (which I haven't read) supposedly acknowledged that many Conservative Jews engage in premarital sex and suggested that they, too, should endeavor to imbue those relationships with "Jewish values," but it did not condone this behavior halakhically.
except that (compulsive!) promiscuity is the norm in the gay "community", and will not be "encouraged" by a ruling that finally calls the gay rights movement on that reality.
My impression is that promiscuity in the "gay community" declined pretty sharply once the AIDS crisis came to a head. In any case, it stands to reason that gays would engage in marginal, risky behavior once they were given a bit more freedom (back in the seventies) after centuries of oppression, just as many adolescents who are raised in restrictive environments tend to "overdo it" once they leave home. Normalizing same-sex unions through marriage or something like it should logically lead to more "normal" behavior.
I have also read that "open" relationships, though more common among gay men than among heterosexuals, are actually quite rare among lesbians, who tend to form more stable relationships than heterosexuals. So this may actually have more to do with gender than with sexual orientation.
Ben-David, I agree with Elf on this one: Since the freedom to be openly gay has only begun to be a possibility within the past couple of decades, it stands to reason that some initial excess will follow. I don't see that giving homosexuals an opportunity and encouragement to form sanctioned monogamous relationships can possibly make promiscuity more prevalent.
Elf, I wasn't very clear in my initial post. I didn't mean that the Conservative rabbinate condones non-marital sex halachically. But they're more willing to acknowledge the reality that many people engage in pre-marital sex, even though it's against Jewish law. Hence, what I do mean is that the willingness to acknowledge that people *will* have *unsanctioned* sex may have colored the RA's decision to try to give more opportunities for *sanctioned* sex. (I hope that makes at least a little more sense.)
Shira
I am fellow Conservative Jew. Unfortunately our movement doesn't have leadership or a consistent Halacha . Some Count women, some don't some have musical instruments on Shabbos some don't, some will allow gay Clergy some wont....We try to be all things to all people and end up being really nothing
Yid with Lid, I think it might be reasonable to say that the Conservative Movement hasn't really decided that it *wants* a consistent halachah. It's still trying to decide whether being all things to all people is a good thing or a bad thing.
My husband just asked, "Does every shul have it's own halachah?" Good question.
what I do mean is that the willingness to acknowledge that people *will* have *unsanctioned* sex may have colored the RA's decision to try to give more opportunities for *sanctioned* sex. (I hope that makes at least a little more sense.)
It does, and I agree.
I don't have much to say about the question of whether Conservative Judaism has a consistent take on halakhah -- clearly it doesn't, but I'm not sure I care.
"I don't have much to say about the question of whether Conservative Judaism has a consistent take on halakhah -- clearly it doesn't, but I'm not sure I care." Is it possible that some Conservative rabbis, perceiving that many congregants are indifferent to halachic consistency, might not concern themselves with consistency as much as might be preferable?
What is the current position of the Rabbinical school at JTS as to pre-marital sexual relations of its students? It is my understanding that rabbinical students are not allowed to 'live with' a person the opposite sex in a sexual situation. That is to say pre-marriage couples may not live together. Is this in any way modified by the newly stated understanding regarding activities of homosexuals who may become rabbinical students at JTS?
Actually, as I'm sure you've seen this summer, premarital sex isn't strictly against Halacha, although as a policy decision it's better to keep things the way they have been. I haven't read the Conservative teshuvot myself, but from the quotes I've seen, it seems to me as though they're deliberately clouding the issue, and taking a don't-ask-don't-tell attitude. In other words, they're saying they're not officially condoning anything regarding homosexual unions, but that they're just going to look the other way. I suppose one could legitimately ask the question: If it's not OK to ordain openly homosexual people to the rabbinate because of the taavah status of homosexual anal intercourse, then why is it OK to ordain anyone who openly engages in any of the other sins listed as taavah? Also, this ruling raises questions concerning intermarriage. There is a minority oppinion, (albeit a decidedly minor one), that states that Devarim 7:4 applies specifically to those nations listed, and not to all Gentiles. I don't have the source off the top of my head, but I'll find it and leave it here as a comment. At any rate, it can be argued that, if we're going to allow something which is specifically prohibited by the written Torah, then are we going to allow something else which is not only ambiguous in the written Torah, but has minority support within the rabbinic tradition? Just my two-cents, and, I'm not advocating for the Halachic sanction of intermarriage. I'm just raising the question.
Max, I don't know the official position of JTS, but I think it's a good bet that they're not going to officially condone gays living together outside of a monogamous relationships during rabbinical school any more than they officially condone unmarried straights living together during rabbinical school.
Rahel, please educate me--I haven't encountered the term "taavah" before, so could you kindly explain it?
As for your comment about intermarriage, I wish I'd seen that before I posted this.
Rahel, I've copied the relevant part of your comment to that other post (click on the link in the previous comment). Thanks for helping clarify for me what the issue is.
Hi Shirah,
The explanation I'm going to post for Ta'avah is kind of long, and it comes from a Christian source, but I think it will give a good illustration.
Note: Fixing the transliteration scheme and undefacing G-d's name.
...The word most used for this idea by the Hebrews and indicating the highest degree of abomination is ta‘avah, meaning primarily that which offends the religious
sense of a people. When it is said, for example, "The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians," this
is the word used; the significance being that the Hebrews were repugnant to the Egyptians as foreigners, as of an inferior caste, and especially as shepherds
(
Ge 46:34).
The feeling of the Egyptians for the Greeks was likewise one of repugnance. Herodotus (ii.41) says the Egyptians would not kiss a Greek on the mouth, or
use his dish, or taste meat cut with the knife of a Greek.
Among the objects described in the Tanach as "abominations" in this sense are heathen gods, such as Ashtoreth (Astarte), Chemosh, Milcom, the "abominations"
of the Zidonians (Phoenicians), Moabites, and Ammonites, respectively (
2Ki 23:13),
and everything connected with the worship of such gods. When Pharaoh, remonstrating against the departure of the children of Israel, exhorted them to offer
sacrifices to their God in Egypt, Moses said: "Shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians (i.e. the animals worshipped by them which were taboo,
ta‘avah, to the Israelites) before their eyes, and will they not stone us?" (
Ex 8:26).
It is to be noted that, not only the heathen idol itself, but anything offered to or associated with the idol, all the paraphernalia of the forbidden cult,
was called an "abomination," for it "is an abomination to Hashem thy God" (
De 7:25,
26).
The Deuteronomic writer here adds, in terms quite significant of the point of view and the spirit of the whole law: 'Neither shalt thou bring an abomination
into thy house and thus become a thing set apart (cherem = tabooed) like unto it; thou shalt utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is a thing
set apart' (tabooed). Ta‘avah is even used as synonymous with "idol" or heathen deity, as in
Isa 44:19
;
De 32:16
;
2Ki 23:13
; and especially
Ex 8:22
ff.
Everything akin to magic or divination is likewise an abomination ta‘avah; as are sexual transgressions (
De 22:5
;
23:18
;
24:4),
especially incest and other unnatural offenses: "For all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you" (
Le 18:27
; compare
Eze 8:15).
It is to be noted, however, that the word takes on in the later usage a higher ethical and spiritual meaning: as where "divers measures, a great and a small,"
are forbidden (
De 25:14-16)
; and in Proverbs where "lying lips" (
Pr 12:22), "
the proud in heart" (
Pr 16:5), "
the way of the wicked" (
Pr 15:9), "
evil devices" (
Pr 15:26),
and "he that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous" (
Pr 17:15),
are said to be an abomination in God's sight. At last prophet and sage are found to unite in declaring that any sacrifice, however free from physical blemish,
if offered without purity of motive, is an abomination: 'Bring no more an oblation of falsehood—an incense of abomination it is to me' (
Isa 1:13
; compare
Jer 7:10). "
The sacrifice of the wicked" and the prayer of him "that turneth away his ear from hearing the law," are equally an abomination (see
Pr 15:8
;
21:27
;
28:9).
One Christian translation, namely the New World Translation, translates Ta'avah as "disgusting thing". I hope that helps.
Wow, Rahel, thanks! That does help clarify matters.
"Among the objects described in the Tanach as "abominations" in this sense are heathen gods, . . . and everything connected with the worship of such gods." I have heard it said that homosexual intercourse was practiced as part of pagan worship, and that that's why it was deemed a "taavah." Some say that, now that homosexuality is divorced from pagan ritual, it should no longer be condemned by rabbinic law.
Post a Comment
<< Home