Talk:Homosexuality and morality

Great start Ed! Very interesting read -- I think we all write much better when we try to be fair and balanced. --maveric149

Ed, I don't think many people claim that there are *no* morals that apply to sex. For instance, not that many people in Western culture, regardless of their views on homosexuality, would view rape as anything other than highly immoral. Therefore, I consider your third group, as stated in the article, largely illusory.

Whilst I stand firmly in the "liberal" camp by saying what consenting adults do behind locked doors is their business, is that not in itself a position on the morality of sexuality? To clarify, I'm *not* saying that you or anyone else have to agree or endorse that view, but I am asserting that it is a position. --Robert Merkel

I am sorry but the opening statement about immorality is ridiculous, and then people who would reject this assumption are cut down in the next statement by being called "advocates." That is offensive. I cannot speak about Christianity first hand, but i will give some insight on the Jewish view.

According to most contemporary Jewish authorities, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. It cannot condemn homosexuality, because the very concept is a late nineteenth-century construct.
One biblical verse (repeated, as are many other commandments) says that consensual anal sex is forbidden between two men.
Commentators, including the most noted medieval Jewish biblical commentator, Rashi, state clearly that the prohibition refers to anal sex only.
The Hebrew word to'eva is used to describe the act. In the King James version of the Bible, it is translated as "abomination."
To'eva is similarly used to describe a number of other forbidden acts, including using false weights and eating shrimp.
Oddly enough, no one who condemns homosexuality as immoral would say the same about eating shrimp.
The Talmud explains to'eva as a play on words: To'eh ata ba, i.e., you err with it. The precise meaning of what that means is open to various interpretations.
Given the above, most contemporary Jewish religious authorities do not condemn homosexuality as immoral, even if they do continue to forbid anal sex.
In fact, homosexuality figures very little in Jewish responsa literature, which covers just about anything and everything else.
No where in the Bible is lesbianism forbidden. If anything, it is a rabbinic injunction in Judaism.

I will agree that many leaders of the Orthodox community have not been willing to embrace gays. That is probably because of two major factors: a. The importance of the family in transmitting Jewish tradition; b. The influence of Western ideas on Jewish life and law. Nevertheless, change is certainly underway. I would invite whomever wrote that statement to go see Trembling Before G-d," a documentary film that addresses the issue of homosexuality in the Orthodox community (and see if you can find my name in the credits ...) And finally, even the concept of immorality can be argued as being foreign to Judaism, but this is not the place to argue that. It is really a problem of imposing the terminology of one culture on another (see the Talk section on Jews for more on that). But please, do not impose your belief system on mine. Danny

These are good points, and I agree with them all. I think you have summarized quite well the traditional Jewish view on this difficult subject. It is interesting to note, however, that the most left-wing and right-wing Jewish groups have both deviated from this mainstream traditional rabbinic view. The left wing of Reform Judaism (itself the theological left wing of Judaism) holds that homosexuality is a moral issue, and that it is now immoral to be against it! To some in this movement, one must be pro-homosexual, or one is immoral and a bigot. Surprisingly, many in the ultra-Orthodox community (the theological right-wing of Judaims) have now adopted the theology of conservative Christians, and has made homosexuality a moral issue as well. Many ultra-Orthodox rabbis slander homosexuals as immoral perverts, and even use worse language. These groups have a right to their opinions, but a historian must note that (a) these are new positions, innovations, and not the historical Jewish view, and (b) these are still minority positions that most Jews do not agree with. RK

From the article:

Although a lot of these "gay rights" group exist, their funding, and therefore their media outreach, is arguably limited compared to the collective spending power of the churches that oppose homosexuality.

I don't know what "arguably limited" is supposed to mean, but it sounds like anti-homosexuality churches are outspending the gay rights organizations. Is there any evidence for this? It seems to me that pro-homosexuality PR spending dwarfs that of anti-homosexuality.

Also, it's nearly impossible to find any anti-homosexuality messages in the non-advertising, non-paid-announcement part of the media. The view that (B) homosexuality is not immoral or (C) that morality is irrelevent to sex altogether is the new orthodoxy.

(Please note that despite being a 'sysop' I claim no more right than anyone else to edit this article.)

--Cousin Eddie

Don't get any in the UK, but I've ben told that the USA has various fundie preachers with their own TV/radio shows, and they sometimes use those shows to criticise homosexuality. The only other thing I can think of is the preaching and sermons inside churches. I wouldn't like to guess whether that compares to the pro-gay "media outreach" -Martin