Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cornell.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!mf From: mf@cornell.UUCP (mf) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Controlling one's ([homo]sexual) urges and Halakha Message-ID: <1891@cornell.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-May-85 09:53:01 EDT Article-I.D.: cornell.1891 Posted: Tue May 21 09:53:01 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 07:39:25 EDT References: <411@oakhill.UUCP> <564@sfmag.UUCP> <1672@cornell.UUCP> <1594@aecom.UUCP> <572@sfmag.UUCP> Reply-To: (Uucp) cornell!mf (ARPA) mf@cornell-gvax (Bitnet) MF AT CRNLCS Organization: Cornell Universe City Lines: 83 The initial article on this topic raised several questions and prompted for a *Hala'hik* discussion; the Talmud--as well as the subsequent responsa literature--is full of argumentations about human actions, some of which sinful, some not. They include very meticulous and precise definitions (in the case of sexuality: down to anatomical considerations). One of my initial contentions was that there is no such discussion about homosexuality, and that one possible approach to this lack is through analogy with other discussions in the Hala'hik literature, and following the rules and forms of Hala'hik discourse. There are other possible approaches to the problem of homosexuality: emotional, social, cultural, moral and political. None of these is Hala'hik in nature, some even conflict with it. A response that labels those who raise the problem as ``fools and reshoim [wicked]'' is emotional. The many Rabbis who discussed the contemporary problems that faced the society of their times were not accused of ``apparent purpose of advocating indulgence towards'' this or that problem. Few doubted their attempts at approaching it in a humane way, from *within* Hala'ha. One of the counter-arguments falling in the ``social'' category is ``impracticality,'' as in: " Generations ago, chilul shabbos was met with strong communal " sanctions. Today, this is impractical as a means of rectifying " what has already occured. for it sanctifies what has already become a social norm, and it could as well apply to homosexuality in not too far a future, should its incidence in the Jewish community continue to rise. Generations ago, homosexuality was virtually unknown among Jews, ergo the almost inexistent attention given to it in the Talmud and elsewhere. Those laws that are extensively discussed reflect the problems that faced the community at that time. As a matter of fact, the common explanation for the laws *against* homosexuality (and other sexual and non-sexual acts) is that such practices *were* a normal life-style among the pagans (`Toevot ha-Goyim'). Hence, the following argument is both factually and categorically wrong: " Homosexuality represents a major violation of what non-Jews " have until recently accepted as a normal lifestyle. Homosexuality is forbidden *because* it was a pagan life-style; but whatever the reason, Gentile social norms are no *Hala'hik* consideration. The comparison with observance of the Shabbat was intended to bring out the fact that *attitudes* in the Jewish community are different towards two prohibitions that are Hala'hically passible of the *same* punishment. And indeed, the response was: " [M]ost non shabbos-observant Jews are not actively casting " off yiddishkeit. Such a statement is statistical in nature, and would require a more serious research. But what does it mean, religiously speaking? That most ``non shabbos-observant'' are non-shabbos observants. ``Yi- dishkeit'' cannot mean, in this case, religious practice (for non- observance is countrary to religious practice), but some vague notion of Jewish "culture." Besides, ``many'' gay Jews do not reject it either. Some even try to preserve [other] aspects of their religious observance, in spite of their ostracisation by the established communities, as witnessed by the existence of gay synagogues. I wonder how one compares, in this respect say, reform (or conservative) synagogues to gay synagogues, from the orthodox point of view. Both are predicated on a different interpretation of, or rejection of, some parts of the Hala'ha. And yet the reaction to either is different. In summary, I would like to point out that the main negative reactions against homosexuality and homosexuals seem to me not to come for *religious* reasons, but rather from other considerations, as pointed above. Statements such as ``[w]e should wage war against this serious social disease'' ascribed to ``the media and liberal groups'' are yet another point in case. I am *not* saying, nor did I say anywhere, that the original religious prohibition is invalid. It needs a religious definition and discussion.