Sunday, October 27, 2013

Gay

Last week a student asked me, "Does the Torah say you can't be gay?" I get that question or a similar question every so often. Although I wrote the following piece some time in the past, I wanted to post it to this blog in order to make it more widely available.
=============
May 18, 2004
RE: Judaism and homosexuality
Dear [Student’s name]:
It's very hard to write about a complicated subject as background for a newspaper article. In the nature of things, a newspaper article can't digest an essay; you need short points and short quotes. I'll try to put my thoughts into a useful format.
1.       Reform Judaism in the U.S. is represented by the congregational organization, the Union for Reform Judaism, and the rabbinic organization, the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Both organizations have passed resolutions supporting equal civil rights for gay and lesbian couples, including secular marriage. In addition, the CCAR encourages (but does not require) its members to officiate at commitment ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples. The links to these resolutions are given below:
2.    The written Torah forbids one possible sexual act which a man might perform with another man. Based this, people often say that the Bible condemns homosexuality. However, the written Torah forbids no sexual act which a woman might perform with another woman. It forbids a variety of sexual acts which a man might perform with a woman. It also forbids a variety of foods. No one has asserted based on this that the Bible is against heterosexuality, or against eating.
3.      The Tradition, going beyond the letter of the Torah, forbids most sexual acts which a person might perform by himself/herself or with another, except for sex between a married woman and her husband that culminates in vaginal intercourse. Based on the Bible, even in marriage, sex may take place only at a time when a wife is free from her menstrual period and has prepared herself through the mikvah.
4.    People differ from each other in terms of the strength of their sex drives and the focus of their sexual orientation. Some people are only attracted to people of the opposite sex and would find it impossible to bond in the same way with a partner of the same sex. Such people are heterosexual or "straight." Some people are attracted only to people of the same sex and are homosexual or "gay." Some people are bisexual and can be attracted to males and females. These are not rigid categories – there is an entire spectrum. A person's sexual orientation is discovered, not chosen – like one's preference for chocolate or vanilla ice cream, for blondes or brunettes, etc. The Torah does not (and could not) forbid any sexual orientation.
5.      If human nature has stayed the same since Biblical times, clearly some people in Biblical times were gay. The way King David expresses himself about his friend Jonathan has homoerotic overtones. There is no evidence that King David acted sexually on his feelings, but the feelings themselves were clear: "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2 Samuel 1:26)
6.     A famous homoerotic relationship among the Talmudic sages was that between Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan. Again, there is no evidence that they acted sexually on their feelings. See:          
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=757&letter=S
7.      My own point of view is impacted by the fact that I have had friends in committed gay relationships whose lives were positive and healthy. I have also had friends who attempted to bury homosexual feelings inside a "straight" marriage, and I was witness to the constant daily suffering that came from the attempt. I've been present as a musician and friend at a Jewish wedding ceremony between two women, and found it very moving and wholesome.
8.      Because I believe that sexual behavior is best directed into a socially-constructive relationship, I think that heterosexual sexual activity, whenever possible, should be reserved for marriage. I think that homosexual sexual activity, whenever possible, should be reserved for a committed relationship. Of course, no one is coming up to me and asking me what they should do in their sex lives, and I don't judge, so long as the activities people are engaging in are responsible. Responsible means that people accept the consequences along with the act: children, health consequences, the emotional bonds that are created, etc. Where people act as if their actions do not have predictable, foreseeable consequences, they are unethical and immoral.
9.      In agreement with the statements from the Reform movement which I gave you above, I certainly support full civil rights for gay people. The government has no legitimate interest in what goes on inside our bedrooms. I also support commitment ceremonies for gay couples. I know of nothing in the Torah or the Jewish tradition that prohibits any two people from making any contracts with each other or promises to each other that they choose to. The community can certainly honor them by witnessing their promises and celebrating with them.
10.   I personally would not use the word "Kiddushin" for the relationship that is created by such a ceremony. The English word "Marriage" is fine with me. This is for technical reasons and has nothing to do with the moral quality of the relationship created.
My understanding of halakhah is that the marriage ceremony, between a man and a woman, changes the personal status of the woman, rendering her mekudeshet, with the result that if she sleeps with any Jewish man other than her husband, the union is called adultery and the children produced are mamzerim. The personal status of the husband remains unchanged. He assumes contractual obligations toward his wife, but he does not become mekudash toward her. If he has a relationship with a single Jewish woman, that relationship would not be called adultery (under Jewish law) and the children produced would not be mamzerim.
The kind of relationship created between two men or two women by a commitment ceremony would be, in my view, similar to the bond binding a husband to his wife under Jewish law – a bond created by contract or promises rather than a bond which changes the personal status of the parties. The only practical difference is that, if a woman bound by a commitment ceremony should have an affair and produce children, the affair is not "adultery" and the children are not mamzerim.
To anyone other than a student of Jewish law, this may seem like silly semantics. However, those are my reasons. Kiddushin is the relationship which binds a Jewish married woman to her husband (not vice versa), the violation of which is adultery (ni'uf).
The English word "Marriage" is fine with me because in our civil society, "marriage" creates a mutual obligation between two partners, equally binding in the same terms on both parties. That is exactly what a commitment ceremony for a gay couple seeks to create, and I see no reason, civilly, to hinder the creation of such a partnership.
11.    Bottom line: Neither the Bible nor Judaism prohibits "being gay." I think people should reserve sex for marriage. I think marriage should be possible under the law for gay people. I think appropriate Jewish ceremonies should be available for gay marriage. I think that people who think differently than me are OK.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

An Article, in Which the Author Fails to Resolve Whether He is an Atheist

What concept am I referencing when I refer to G‑d?
Before I can answer the question of whether I believe in G‑d  I must know what conception of G‑d I am talking about. I personally speak of G‑d in three basic contexts.
1.      By “G‑d” I may mean, the Universe personified. If it rains, I might say that G‑d has sent rain. When a child is born, I may celebrate G‑d's gift of life. When a loved one dies, I may sadly accept the will of G‑d  By “G‑d” in this context, I mean “the Power behind whatever happens,” or more precisely, “Whatever happens, Personified.” I don’t believe that such an entity “really” exists apart from Its effects. The personification of reality is a vivid and useful way of thinking, sometimes. It is not “true.”
2.      By “G‑d” I may mean, the main character of the Bible [as eloquently described by Jack Miles]. The personal traits which would explain Its words and actions would be the traits I would ascribe to G‑d as a literary character. The relationship of Conception #1 to Conception #2 is perhaps the main problem for theologians in the Jewish tradition and related traditions. “G‑d” of the Bible is to “G‑d” of the Universe as “Hamlet” of Shakespeare is to “Hamlet” of history. Any connection is interesting but really unimportant. The main character of the Bible is a fascinating literary figure, but any resemblance to reality is entirely coincidental.
3.      By “G‑d” I may mean, the figure addressed in the Jewish Prayer Book. It is a fascinating synthesis of views 1 and 2. In prayer, I seek to find my place in the scheme of the Universe, so that I give importance to that which is important, and gain perspective on what is unimportant. It so happens that many of the prayers address G‑d the traditional literary character, especially those drawn from the Psalms and other parts of Scripture. I shamelessly recite such passages and completely transpose them in my mind. I sing the praises of G‑d #2 as if It were really G‑d #1 (which, as far as I know, does not particularly desire or enjoy praise). I recite the biblical words while discounting the over-personifications inherent in them.
To our ancestors, it was very important to believe that G‑d #2 is the only G‑d  and all others are idols. I do not believe that G‑d #2 is real. I don’t think that G‑d #2 is, in essence, any different than any other imagined G‑d.  The lack of visible physical representation is very important to Jewish culture, but is not philosophically significant. The Main Character of the Bible has psychological traits and may be analyzed like any other literary character. It is, in that sense, finite.
When someone asks, “Do you believe in G‑d ” I think that they are usually referencing version #2, as they understand It. The G‑d of the Ten Commandments, the seven day Creation, and the Exodus. No, I do not believe in that G‑d  but I do cherish It. It represents the way my people understood Ultimate Reality for thousands of years. It has become, for me and my tribe, a symbol of Ultimate Reality – but not an accurate portrayal of It.
[I should also entertain the figure of G‑d as portrayed by various world religions and philosophies. On a day to day basis, though, they do not come into my mind and this is a personal “blog.”]
Do I believe in the natural G‑d which I designated version #1? “Believe” is just not the right word. I often view things from that perspective. A perspective is not a belief. I don’t think the natural G‑d exists apart from the Universe of which It is a personification. There is ultimately no practical significance to whether It exists or not, except for a measure of personal inspiration that I derive from the imagery. Certainly the World exists, Life exists; however we make sense of it is up to us.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Why Would a Skeptic Study World Religious Literature?

What do I expect to find when I explore sacred texts?
  1.  I do not expect to find revelation. The text will not show me something which could otherwise not be known about the nature of reality or the intentions of G-d.
  2. I do expect to find the results of religious experience, religious imagination.
  3. I do expect to find wisdom, along with failed attempts at wisdom.
  4. I expect to find important expressions of culture and language, root stories and social norms.
  5.  I expect to find legal traditions and models of behavior – some of enduring relevance but some not worthy of perpetuation.
  6. I expect to find superstitions – supposed links of cause and effect that do not bear up under examination.
  7. I expect to find intolerance and hostility toward that which is unfamiliar or frightening.
Beyond all that, when I explore sacred texts, I hope to discover and generate value for myself and my growth as a moral / spiritual person:
  1. I hope to find inspiration, and renewed dedication. I hope to find examples of people who transcended the smallness of petty concerns and made a great contribution with their lives. I hope to discover what inspired and moved them.
  2. I hope to find conversation partners, companions for the journey. Through texts ancient and new, I hope to engage in the dialogue of the ages about the deep structures of life, and make my living more rich and intentional.
  3. I hope to achieve peace of mind and focus, as my concerns shift from fleeting anxieties to more enduring matters.
I do not expect to find a perfect dialogue partner in the ancient text. I want to take what is of value and acknowledge where I see flaws. I also am a mixture of light and darkness and I hope that just as I critique the text, the text will critique parts of me, and out of the creative tension of our dialogue a better person will gently emerge.