Home Home / Exchange with R. David Hartman about De…

Correspondence

February 1968

Exchange with R. David Hartman about Defining Homosexuality as a Sin, Sickness, or Crime (1968)

Marriage & Sexuality

1. R. David Hartman to R. Lamm

1. R. David Hartman to R. Lamm (Feb. 14, 1968)

1. R. David Hartman to R. Lamm (Feb. 14, 1968)

View The Text

This content is currently available in its original PDF format. As we expand the library, we plan to add a text version as well.

Next Letter

RELATED CONTENT

Article

The New Dispensation on Homosexuality: A Jewish Reaction to a Developing Christian Attitude (1968)

The much heralded “sexual revolution” of our times has finally infiltrated the very bastions of official morality in our Western world. A number of influential Christian churches, suddenly aware of their isolation in the face of the rapidly deteriorating moral level of the Christian world, have begun to reassess their codes of sexual conduct. As has happened so often in the history of the West, Christianity has begun to accommodate itself to Christendom, and the abyss that does and should keep morality apart from mores has shrunk ever more.One of the most significant documents of this astounding development is “Sex and Morality,” the Report by the Working Party to the British Council of Churches, published in October, 1966. It is the harbinger of a new dispensation in sexual morality, and presages the most serious consequences for the future of our society. New thinking on the Christian view of sex and sex practices is also evident in pronouncements and reports by Swedish and German churches.These developments are deserving of special treatment from a Jewish perspective. For the present, let us turn our attention to a recent meeting of American churchmen that was widely reported in the press of this country. On November 28, 1967, ninety Episcopalian priests gathered in New York to discuss their church’s approach to homosexuality. Their conclusions were sensational but, alas, predictable.A large majority of the priests, according to the New York Times reports, believed that homosexual acts should not be dismissed as wrong per se. Such acts “between two consenting adults should be judged by the same criterion as a heterosexual marriage — that is, whether it is intended to foster a permanent relation of love,” or whether the two individuals are merely "using” each other. A homosexual relationship “can be as fulfilling or as destructive as heterosexual ones.” Of course, the disclaimer follows: this does not mean that such acts should be “encouraged.” And so, the “Judae…
Marriage & Sexuality

Correspondence

Exchange about Providing Therapy for Young Gay Man (1976)

Dear Rabbi Lamm: עמו"ש, After reading your article in the 1974 Encyclopedia Judaica Yearbook on "Judaism and the Modern Attitude to Homosexuality," I feel that you could possibly help me in recommending some behavioral therapists or any other professionals in the New York area. I know of a 21 year old Orthodox boy who is seeking help, and would like to see him get the right counselling. I would greatly appreciate your giving this your prompt attention, and hope to hear from you at your earliest convenience.Anonymity is requested by the young man,Sincerely yours,"לה' הישועה על עמך ברכתך סלה"תהילים ג'ט'
Marriage & Sexuality

Correspondence

Exchange with R. Pincus about Homosexuality as a Criminal Offense (1969)

Dear Rabbi Lamm, I read with stark disbelief your statement in today’s N.Y. Times, p. 49, that “homosexuality between consenting adults should not be treated as a criminal offense.” Surely, you couldn’t mean that homosexuality is not a criminal offense to התורה for when we have פסוקים in the Torah that prohibit משכב זכור and is punishable by death. If you referred to דינא דמלכותא, you also overlooked a רמב"ם (הלכות סנהדרין פרק יח הלכה ו) which expressly says that a זכר חייב מיתה גם בדיני הגוים. Also the שולחן ערוך (אבן העזר סימן כד) states: אסור למשכב זכור הוא מכלל עריות, והעובר על זה חייב סקילה.
Marriage & Sexuality