Home Home / Letter to Saul Bernstein about Homosexuality Article (1968)

Correspondence

Apr. 25, 1968

Letter to Saul Bernstein about Homosexuality Article (1968)

Marriage & Sexuality
Background Information
Background Information
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.

RELATED CONTENT

Article

Letters to the Editor: On Homosexuality (1968)

Los Angeles, California. Rabbi Norman Lamm’s article on homosexuality in your January–February 1968 issue is most interesting. It represents an application of Jewish principles to a modern subject, an updating of Jewish law to modern life. It is a welcome addition to Jewish thinking for relatively unlearned individuals such as myself. However, one of the conclusions (or side remarks) I find most disturbing — if it reflects the general attitude in the Orthodox leadership. I refer to the statements that the author presents for advocating that homosexuality should not be treated as a criminal offense. Briefly, the two reasons given are: (1) our present society and its judiciary are such that the courts do not wish to intervene when other individuals and society are not directly involved; and (2) our prisons as now constituted would worsen the homosexual’s condition. I assume that Rabbi Lamm agrees that the Orthodox Jew (and others) whom he seeks to guide as well as to teach should be involved in American social and political life, and should participate in developing its laws and practices. And I also assume that it is desirable for the Jew to foster the implementation by the general community of the Noachide laws. On the basis of these two assumptions, I strongly question the validity of the two conclusions of Rabbi Lamm noted above. On the first, we accept the thesis that Judaism is unequivocally committed to higher moral practices. For Jews only? Obviously not — so obviously that we need not say more on this point. We may safely say that the Jew accepts the yoke of the Torah for himself and believes that the non-Jew should accept those moral and ethical ideals as are stated or implied in the Noachide laws. With this purpose, the Jew may act by example, by teaching and explaining, and by cooperating with the general community in specific actions, including community and political activities. The current attitude in some parts of the general community and of some cou…
Marriage & Sexuality

Correspondence

Letter to Franklin Rothenberg about Booklet on Marriage for His Upcoming Wedding (1964)

Dear Franklin: Thank you very much for your letter and for confirming the arrangements for your forthcoming wedding. It was a pleasure to meet Bernice. She is obviously a lovely girl, and I hope that the two of you will have many many years of uninterrupted bliss together. I am enclosing a copy of a booklet about which I spoke to Bernice rather extensively. I have already mailed her one. I would like you to read it with the greatest attention, and to remember that a happy married life is much too important a thing to expect to happen casually and thoughtlessly. If you will determine to observe the contents of this booklet, you will at least be fortifying yourself with the elemental necessities for a happy married life. My fondest regards to Bernice and to your folks and to Harriet. Best wishes for a Happy and Kosher Passover. Sincerely, Rabbi Norman Lamm
Marriage & Sexuality

Correspondence

Letter from James Lively about Halachic and Psychiatric Views of Homosexuality (1976)

Dear Rabbi Lamm, Thank you for your letter of 16 March. Although I fear I have exhausted your patience and tolerance, I cannot forbear expressing puzzlement over your assertion that your subject was exclusively the Jewish attitude on homosexuality. The “halakhic solution,” which I find the essential contribution of the article, rests on an appeal to secular science, mainly psychiatry, to exemplify some “sticky” Gays to some extent, while preserving the condemnation of homosexuality intact. But where one enlists secular science, is there not an obligation to know the literature of the field and to be guided by the canons of that science and by the authority of the acknowledged experts, whose established position is wholly contrary to the broad and facile generalizations of the article? Where considerations of homiletic and apologetic usefulness leads, I would submit that it should be a matter of indifference to the psychiatric profession whether a psychotherapist is Jewish or non-Jewish. The opinion about Gay mental health which I cited is, of course, not mine, but that of the bulk of the psychiatric profession. I would argue that, within the methodology of your “halakhic solution,” it effectively eliminates as a guiding or mitigating circumstance the finding that “Jewish law” bans homosexuality. But this is not your special pleading, for in the Jewish law homosexuality is a sinful offense, always and eternally condemned. The “halakhic solution” is not a halakhic solution, it remains, I regret to maintain, a contradiction in terms – a category mistake. The grounds for mitigation lie not beside what the human sciences establish about sexual needs and frustrations, but in the stance of moral position, I presume, and a frazzled but real compassion. After all, there may be no solution. I am disturbed, too, by the rejection of civil-libertarian argument. Does objectivity depend on whether the psychiatrist is a psychiatrist or a Jew, and subjectivity depend on whether th…
Marriage & Sexuality