Conservatives approve gay rulings

[Levite]

As you know, you and I already spoke about this. The only problem I have with what you wrote here is that you make it seem like your way is the right way because God is understanding, and the orthodox way is wrong because God would need to be cruel.

You may not like that God, perhaps, makes people homosexual against their will in the purpose of a Tikkun, according to some orthodox opinions, but you can in no way say God is cruel because he does. Elu Ve Elu, no?

I support the right of machloket l'shem shamayim, in this case for Orthodox people to refuse to make radical change in the halachah around homosexuality on the grounds they read the isur d'orayta as immutable. But I have seen attempts in the leftmost wing of Modern Orthodoxy to at least be compassionate to gay Jews and understanding that this is how their Creator made them. I may not agree, but I at least respect that, and the theology that goes with it.

But I have seen all too often in more right-wing Orthodoxy a willingness, if not eagerness to read those two pesukim with harsh simplicity, and use them as an excuse for hatred, supported by ignorance or denial about what homosexuality really is.

While I very much believe in machloket l'shem shamayim, I also believe that saying that homosexuality is merely evil or abomination and gay people should just not be gay is harmful. And saying that God would create people who are gay and call them abomination for something they had no control over, and therefore they must live lonely, celibate lives of self-negation and self-loathing is, IMO, horrible theology.

I think it goes against important overarching principles of the tradition, like va-chai bahem, and our longstanding teachings that God does not directly cause the helpless to suffer.

 

[CMike]

I have never seen hatred among the orthodox toward homosexuals.

That said they don't accept homosexual marriages, nor that it's the norm.

There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuals are born that way.

The orthodox are simply going by what the Torah says. The Torah guides their views not the other way around.

 

[dantech]

I support the right of machloket l'shem shamayim, in this case for Orthodox people to refuse to make radical change in the halachah around homosexuality on the grounds they read the isur d'orayta as immutable. But I have seen attempts in the leftmost wing of Modern Orthodoxy to at least be compassionate to gay Jews and understanding that this is how their Creator made them. I may not agree, but I at least respect that, and the theology that goes with it.

But I have seen all too often in more right-wing Orthodoxy a willingness, if not eagerness to read those two pesukim with harsh simplicity, and use them as an excuse for hatred, supported by ignorance or denial about what homosexuality really is.

While I very much believe in machloket l'shem shamayim, I also believe that saying that homosexuality is merely evil or abomination and gay people should just not be gay is harmful. And saying that God would create people who are gay and call them abomination for something they had no control over, and therefore they must live lonely, celibate lives of self-negation and self-loathing is, IMO, horrible theology.

I think it goes against important overarching principles of the tradition, like va-chai bahem, and our longstanding teachings that God does not directly cause the helpless to suffer.

I believe in machloket l'shem shamayim as well, obviously. But how can you say God does not directly cause the helpless to suffer? I believe God is the most perfect judge who exacts justice on the guilty, even if it is in different lives (Gilgulim).

If God does not directly cause the helpless to suffer, how do you explain couples who have been trying to have children their whole lives, and can't. Or better yet, couples who try for long periods of times, finally get pregnant, give birth, and the child passes, still a baby. These parents will carry this pain and suffering, helplessly might I add, probably for ever.

I don't know the millions of possibilities on why God would find it fitting for a person to be stuck as a homosexual, when not allowed to be, because of something he may have done in a previous life. I may not like it, but I accept it the same way I accept parents who lose their babies.

God asks you to procreate, and then sterilizes you. Is he cruel?

If you make this an issue about suffering, then it no longer really only applies to homosexuality does it? Surely all of life's injustices could be attributed to God being cruel, couldn't they?

What about a man who goes his whole life not finding a zivug? Let me tell you, this man will suffer quite a bit, especially if he is religious and refuses to have any sort of sexual relief, out of marriage...

What about a man who lived in the concentration camps? Can this be attributed to God's injustice and cruelty?

I may have taken it a bit far, but I believe that just because something may seem unjust, doesn't mean God has to be cruel.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe in machloket l'shem shamayim as well, obviously. But how can you say God does not directly cause the helpless to suffer? I believe God is the most perfect judge who exacts justice on the guilty, even if it is in different lives (Gilgulim)..

Enter Job ...

 

[Levite]

I believe in machloket l'shem shamayim as well, obviously. But how can you say God does not directly cause the helpless to suffer? I believe God is the most perfect judge who exacts justice on the guilty, even if it is in different lives (Gilgulim).

If God does not directly cause the helpless to suffer, how do you explain couples who have been trying to have children their whole lives, and can't. Or better yet, couples who try for long periods of times, finally get pregnant, give birth, and the child passes, still a baby. These parents will carry this pain and suffering, helplessly might I add, probably for ever.

I don't know the millions of possibilities on why God would find it fitting for a person to be stuck as a homosexual, when not allowed to be, because of something he may have done in a previous life. I may not like it, but I accept it the same way I accept parents who lose their babies.

God asks you to procreate, and then sterilizes you. Is he cruel?

If you make this an issue about suffering, then it no longer really only applies to homosexuality does it? Surely all of life's injustices could be attributed to God being cruel, couldn't they?

What about a man who goes his whole life not finding a zivug? Let me tell you, this man will suffer quite a bit, especially if he is religious and refuses to have any sort of sexual relief, out of marriage...

What about a man who lived in the concentration camps? Can this be attributed to God's injustice and cruelty?

I may have taken it a bit far, but I believe that just because something may seem unjust, doesn't mean God has to be cruel.

I said God doesn't directly cause suffering. I don't deny God is indirectly responsible for suffering: He created this universe and made it as it is, and made life to evolve in the ways it did, and the universe and the processes of evolution produce natural disasters, illnesses, and such. And He created human beings with free will, which results in abuses and cruel injustices perpitrated on one another.

But these things are general, not done with any particular malice toward any indivdidual or group of individuals.

What is more, He doesn't punish other people for the way they simply inherently are. There is a commandment to procreate, but we don't hold someone physically unable to procreate as a sinner. Nor would we find it reasonable to imagine that God would condemn people for being left-handed, or for being blond, or being too short or too tall.

As for those who don't find a mate, it's not for lack of trying, usually, and more importantly, we don't label such people as transgressors, and hold them to be sinners.

I would reject any theology that holds God directly responsible for such things, or imputes that such instances are intentionally directed at individuals or groups of individuals as punishments. I think they are without intention or malice, examples merely of the concepts of olam k'minhago noheg (the world works the way the world works-- that's just life).

And as for the Shoah or similar events, I absolutely refuse to assign blame for those to God: human beings did those things to each other. God's only blame is that he created us with free will. And I reject utterly the idea that such events are divine punishments for anything.

Gay people are anousim: compelled by forces outside their control. The only understanding of the two pesukim I can come to is that whatever they mean, it must be something not obvious, something we have been unable to discern. Perhaps they are specific to homosexual acts in idolatry-- the section they are in is bracketed by commands concerning idolatry-- or perhaps they refer only to male rape, or to using sex to assert dominance, or to something even less apparent.

That's why I think, since we lack the halachic authority to reinterpret them entirely afresh, the best we can do is to mitigate the harm of our previous interpretations by lenient teshuvot, and ultimately, I favor the radical solution of a bet din issuing a takkanah l'akor davar min-ha-Torah: a rabbinic injunction of limited duration (1000 years or until the moshiach comes, whichever comes first) that essentially puts those two pesukim in abeyance, and says that they are not open as bases for practical halachah. We clearly don't know how to interpret these verses in ways that don't harm a large fraction of the Jewish People, and engender hate and stigma. Therefore, we should wait for Eliyahu ha-Navi to come and explain to us how these two verses should be used practically in ways that don't end up creating injustice.

 

[CMike]

The passage doesn't need interpretation.

G-D clearly said that man shall not lie with man because it's an abomination (paraphrase)

I don't see how it can be clearer than that. Do you?

 

[Rakhel]

The passage doesn't need interpretation.

G-D clearly said that man shall not lie with man because it's an abomination (paraphrase)

I don't see how it can be clearer than that. Do you?

I think the question that comes in is why is it an abomination?
The sages questioned just about every piece of Torah but that, and I wonder why?
And I really don't want because G-d said so. For if we were only to accept Torah as it is written we would not have Talmud

 

[dantech]

I said God doesn't directly cause suffering. I don't deny God is indirectly responsible for suffering: He created this universe and made it as it is, and made life to evolve in the ways it did, and the universe and the processes of evolution produce natural disasters, illnesses, and such. And He created human beings with free will, which results in abuses and cruel injustices perpitrated on one another.

I am pretty certain you believe in Gilgulim, but do you not believe that certain Tikkunim involve the person suffering? Do you not believe that someone will be punished for his sins unless repent is in order?

But these things are general, not done with any particular malice toward any indivdidual or group of individuals.

What is more, He doesn't punish other people for the way they simply inherently are. There is a commandment to procreate, but we don't hold someone physically unable to procreate as a sinner. Nor would we find it reasonable to imagine that God would condemn people for being left-handed, or for being blond, or being too short or too tall.

I don't hold someone who has a very deep urge to rob a bank as a bankrobber until he does so. The Torah does not say that wanting to be with a person of the same sex, inherently, is a sin. Acting upon it and sleeping with the individual is what the Torah calls an abomination.

I did not say we hold someone physically unable to procreate as a sinner. I was saying that just because they aren't able to do so, doesn't make God cruel. You were saying that God would not give a commandment about lying with another man unless he was cruel. I am in no way comparing a bank robber to homosexuals, it's just an example that shows that the urge, or the want of the person does not make him a sinner. And no matter how unjust it may seem, it doesn't make God cruel. It only makes God the perfect judge who knows how to make the calculations based on every individual aspect and variable possible. In many cases, we cannot understand. It certainly doesn't mean He is cruel.

As for those who don't find a mate, it's not for lack of trying, usually, and more importantly, we don't label such people as transgressors, and hold them to be sinners.

I wasn't saying we were. But causing this constant pain to the individual is surely cruel, isn't it? Couldn't God just snap his fingers and find him the perfect wife?

I would reject any theology that holds God directly responsible for such things, or imputes that such instances are intentionally directed at individuals or groups of individuals as punishments. I think they are without intention or malice, examples merely of the concepts of olam k'minhago noheg (the world works the way the world works-- that's just life).

Sorry to say Rabbi Levite, but how many times do you see God punish people in the Tanakh? It happens fairly often, and He only does so because the individual, or group of individuals deserve it. Couldn't it be that God issued gayness as a punishment for the work of a previous Gilgul?

And as for the Shoah or similar events, I absolutely refuse to assign blame for those to God: human beings did those things to each other. God's only blame is that he created us with free will. And I reject utterly the idea that such events are divine punishments for anything.

But why these specific people. Why not you or me? Is it just wrong place wrong time?

Gay people are anousim: compelled by forces outside their control. The only understanding of the two pesukim I can come to is that whatever they mean, it must be something not obvious, something we have been unable to discern. Perhaps they are specific to homosexual acts in idolatry-- the section they are in is bracketed by commands concerning idolatry-- or perhaps they refer only to male rape, or to using sex to assert dominance, or to something even less apparent.

Or maybe it is the form of repentance for idolatry in a previous life? Anyone can come up with plenty of ideas.

That's why I think, since we lack the halachic authority to reinterpret them entirely afresh, the best we can do is to mitigate the harm of our previous interpretations by lenient teshuvot, and ultimately, I favor the radical solution of a bet din issuing a takkanah l'akor davar min-ha-Torah: a rabbinic injunction of limited duration (1000 years or until the moshiach comes, whichever comes first) that essentially puts those two pesukim in abeyance, and says that they are not open as bases for practical halachah. We clearly don't know how to interpret these verses in ways that don't harm a large fraction of the Jewish People, and engender hate and stigma. Therefore, we should wait for Eliyahu ha-Navi to come and explain to us how these two verses should be used practically in ways that don't end up creating injustice.

Just because you disagree with the way they have been interpreted doesn't mean "we clearly don't know how to interpret them"

 

[Levite]

I am pretty certain you believe in Gilgulim, but do you not believe that certain Tikkunim involve the person suffering? Do you not believe that someone will be punished for his sins unless repent is in order?

I believe in consequences for sins, but not punishment. I don't believe that God is retributive. One of the reasons I believe in gilgulim is that I believe that rather than punish someone for sinning, which accomplishes nothing but vengeance, God gives people endless opportunities to complete teshuvah, and opportunities to learn wisdom and compassion, so that they can do positive actions to "balance the scales" for any negative actions they may have done.

If I believed in punishment, I wouldn't bother with gilgulim, I'd just believe in gehinnom.

The reason I don't believe in punishment is because I think it's unworthy of God, or of His purposes in making us. I believe God is wise and compassionate and full of chesed. And I think He made us as we are so that we could learn wisdom and compassion and chesed, also. Punishment doesn't foster those things. Teshuvah fosters those things, and teaching and learning, and spiritual openness-- which comes from experience, empathy, and emotional and psychological openness. Punishment creates resentment, anger, fear, and psychoemotional shutdown. It makes no sense to me, that God, who sees all and has the patience of eternity to let change happen, would go for punishment, which is a short-sighted and short-term "solution" to problems.

I don't hold someone who has a very deep urge to rob a bank as a bankrobber until he does so. The Torah does not say that wanting to be with a person of the same sex, inherently, is a sin. Acting upon it and sleeping with the individual is what the Torah calls an abomination....You were saying that God would not give a commandment about lying with another man unless he was cruel. I am in no way comparing a bank robber to homosexuals, it's just an example that shows that the urge, or the want of the person does not make him a sinner....

But first of all, nobody is born a bank robber. Nobody inherently created as any kind of robber. And second of all, bank robbing harms others. But no one is harmed by loving someone, regardless of the gender of who they love. There is excellent reason for robbing to be a transgression. There is no supportable reason why loving another person who is of the age of consent, and is not a blood relation of too close a degree, should be in and of itself a transgression. Perhaps it should be limited by monogamy and endogamy, but it should require no further restriction than that.

Gay people have no choice about who and what they are. They merely are as they were created. And while it may seem reasonable to say that the desire is not the sin, the action is the sin, that is precisely equivalent to telling ten percent of the Jewish People: "Don't worry, you're not a sinner. Just be sure never to have an intimate relationship with anyone, or fall in love, or try to have a normal life and a family. If you can just live out your life in isolation and desperate loneliness, everything will be okay."

I'm sorry, but any God who would command that does not deserve to be called rachum vechanun...rav chesed v'emet. Because it is cruel. And since I absolutely refuse to believe that God is not rachum vechanun...rav chesed v'emet, nor will I believe that God is cruel, I can only conclude that those pesukim must mean something we don't understand. I find it infinitely easier, in fact, to believe that there are a couple of pesukim of Torah we don't know how to correctly interpret for practical halachah than to believe that God would permit evolution to consistently produce gay people and then tell them they are unnatural.

I wasn't saying we were. But causing this constant pain to the individual is surely cruel, isn't it? Couldn't God just snap his fingers and find him the perfect wife?

There is a difference between God passively not intervening in order to alleviate someone's pain and God actively causing that pain Himself. I don't believe God is omnibenevolent, but I also don't believe He's malicious. Good, but sometimes a little ruthless, is maybe a decent ten-words-or-less summary.

Sorry to say Rabbi Levite, but how many times do you see God punish people in the Tanakh? It happens fairly often, and He only does so because the individual, or group of individuals deserve it.

I often tend to interpret such stories metaphorically, rather than literally, or find some other drash to them, or read them in light of some more lenient midrash. We are not espousers of Biblical theology: all of us are espousers of some form of Rabbinic theology, even if greatly modified and reshaped. I see no reason why I need to take the pshat of any given narrative in Tanach as my theological model. Why use pshat when one can drash, one can find homiletical remazim from other authorities and times that may be more theologically palatable, when one can make theology from the sodot of Kabbalistic writings. We have always had far more leeway to make and evolve theology than to make radical changes in halachah: the theology in this case is, IMO, far easier to reconcile than the halachic solutions I deem necessary.

But why these specific people. Why not you or me? Is it just wrong place wrong time?

Pretty much. God made this universe the way it is, and some of the ways it works involve randomness, chaos, and coincidence.

Just because you disagree with the way they have been interpreted doesn't mean "we clearly don't know how to interpret them"

I have seen no interpretation of these pesukim in halachic literature that doesn't end up vilifying, stigmatizing, and oppressing people for being who they are, how they were made to be.

I refuse to believe that those things are what Torah is for. Torah exists to raise us up, not to crush us down. It exists to foster kedushah, not to create sinat chinam. If we cannot come up with an interpretation of these pesukim that don't crush and oppress and created hatefulness, then we don't know how to interpret them correctly.

 

[CMike]

I think the question that comes in is why is it an abomination?
The sages questioned just about every piece of Torah but that, and I wonder why?
And I really don't want because G-d said so. For if we were only to accept Torah as it is written we would not have Talmud

That's easy. It's an abomination because it's immoral behavior.

The Talmud never contradicts the Torah.

 

[Rakhel]

That's easy. It's an abomination because it's immoral behavior.

The Talmud never contradicts the Torah.

in what way is it immoral?

 

[CMike]

in what way is it immoral?

It's perverted sex.

 

[Rakhel]

based on what?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's perverted sex.

Why is it perverted?

 

[CMike]

G-d said so. He called it in abomination.

That said if two people have homosexual sex that is their business.

However, I don't accept homosexual marriage. G-D condemns the acts.

 

[Rakhel]

So why did the sages have to whittle down what constituted work and not homosexuality?
Work is work.

 

[CMike]

So why did the sages have to whittle down what constituted work and not homosexuality?
Work is work.

What?

 

[Rakhel]

Think about it.

 

[dantech]

So why did the sages have to whittle down what constituted work and not homosexuality?
Work is work.

I may be wrong but doesn't this argument actually go against what you have been saying?

 

[Levite]

I may be wrong but doesn't this argument actually go against what you have been saying?

I think that's her point.

Chazal looked at lo ta'aseh chol melachah ("do no kind of work," which one might think is more than clear enough on its own) and said, nope, this pasuk cries "darsheni," and they came up with an incredibly complex interpretation that resulted in the 39 av melachot and the potentiality for the thousands of toledot that arise from them. They themselves admitted, when it came to hilchot shabbat, hakol talui b'chut ha-se'ar (the whole thing hangs by a single hair). But they felt that it was necessary.

Yet these same rabbis look at zachar lo tishkav mishkevei ishah, and they do nothing? These brilliant sages who drashed all our wonderful Shabbos out of the hidden nuances of melachah, and they've got nothing for this other pasuk that has peculiar construction and interesting hermeneutical intertexts and whatnot?

It's strange. And I think Rakhel is indicating-- as many of us in Liberal Judaism movements have done-- that Rabbanan dropped the ball on this. The pesukim are crying "darsheni," and they didn't drash. Maybe they had reasons for this that made sense to them at the time. I don't know.

But it's a problem, now, and needs addressing. When it comes to something puzzling, like, say, why is this animal kosher and that animal treyf, it might be perfectly reasonable to shrug, consign the topic to endless debate in the beit midrash, and never actually move to practically address it: because no one is hurt by keeping kosher. But when we consign the question of the apparent willingness of Chazal to let the pshat ride on these two pesukim to idle debate, gay Jews suffer for it.

If Rabbanan dropped this ball, then it has to be up to us to pick it up. But the option to let the matter lie and allow people to suffer just because of how they were created is no option at all.