Home Home / Letters to the Editor: On Homosexuality…

Article

1968

Letters to the Editor: On Homosexuality (1968)

Marriage & Sexuality
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

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

Letter to the Editor of Jewish Life about "A Hedge of Roses" Review (1966)

To the Editor: I am grateful for the flattering remarks about my "A Hedge of Roses” by your reviewer, Mrs. Sifra Tendler (Jewish Life, May-June, 1966) – sufficiently grateful to break the unwritten rule about an author responding to a reviewer. While I appreciate Mrs. Tendler's gracious comments, I do wish to react to her assertion that the work contains a number of errors of fact. Her charge is authenticated by her in a footnote averring that she consulted competent Halachic authority before offering the criticisms. While no book is perfect, and mine no doubt is flawed in more ways than one, I do not believe that Mrs. Tendler, despite the undisputed credentials of her anonymous authorities, is correct in the specific errors she has purported to discover.First, the halachic distinction between the prohibition of niddah and the tum'ah of niddah is no doubt valid – but largely irrelevant to the point I made. The fact remains that the term tum'ah is used to describe the prohibition of niddah even in post-Temple times. Even a cursory glance at the laws of niddah in Yoreh De'ah, beginning with the very first paragraph, will confirm this usage. Furthermore, the question of whether or not the technical law of tum'ah is operative for niddah today is not germane to the psychological problem one encounters in trying to persuade a person to abide by these laws. If the classification is derogatory – which, of course, it is not – then the principle remains objectionable regardless of contemporary halachic inapplicability. A legal nicety may appeal to one trained in halachic dialectics; it has little effect on the psychological and philosophical difficulties which we are called upon to deal with.The reviewer’s objection to my footnote (p.85) on the difference between "natural” and "artificially accumulated" water is another example of being over-technical. The note begins with the comment, "Interestingly, there is a difference..." Quite obviously, I did not try to "sell" mikvah …
Marriage & Sexuality

Correspondence

Letter to Saul Bernstein about Homosexuality Article (1968)

Dear Saul: I am returning to you the photocopy of Morris Smith's letter to the editor, and including a letter from Rabbi Richard Israel of Yale, plus a response by myself. I suggest that the Smith letter be printed first, followed by the Israel letter, and then my answer. Israel first sent his letter to me as a private communication. I then received his permission to reword the letter referring to me in the third person, and have it printed as a letter to the editor of Jewish Life. Since these are communications and not articles, they should be uncensored by the editor. Nevertheless, I would very much appreciate any comments you may have to make about my response. Please let me know when you expect to have these letters published, and please arrange to let me have several extra copies.Rabbi NormanMorris Smith 84 Fifth Ave. New York, N.Y. 10011Dear Mr. Bernstein:Rabbi Lamm’s article on homosexuality in your January–February 1968 edition 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 troublesome — 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 is 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 the Rabbi 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 its practices. And I also assume that it is desirable …
Marriage & Sexuality