2

In a teshuva issued by the Conservative Movement entitled Rituals and Documents of Marriage and Divorce for Same-Sex Couples by Rabbis Elliot Dorff, Daniel Nevins and Avram Reisner, it is claimed in a few places that the prohibition on intimate homosexual relations are on a rabbinic level. A few quotes from the teshuva state:

We acknowledged in our responsum that same-sex intimate relationships are comprehensively banned by classical rabbinic law

(emphasis theirs)

Also

We concluded that for observant gay and lesbian Jews who would otherwise be condemned to a life of celibacy or secrecy, their human dignity requires suspension of the rabbinic level prohibitions so that they may experience intimacy and create families recognized by the Jewish community.

(emphasis theirs)

How do these rabbis arrive at the conclusion that homosexual relations are forbidden only on a rabbinic level? How do they explain the verse in Vayikra 18:22?

וְאֶת זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה הִוא:‏

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination. (JPS)

Community
  • 1
Daniel
  • 24,888
  • 3
  • 48
  • 148
  • The verses in Leviticus 18 and 20 only prohibit sexual intercourse, but there is much more to an intimate relationship than sex. The prohibition of men being in a non-sexual relationship is rabbinic. – Shimon bM Sep 03 '13 at 05:13
  • 1
    @ShimonbM Right, but the second quote clearly seems to be making the claim that homosexual intercourse is prohibited on a rabbinic level. Note that it mentions people "who would otherwise be condemned to a life of celebacy..." – Daniel Sep 03 '13 at 05:15
  • I do not know, but I suspect they may have had in mind the word's original meaning of abstaining from marriage, from the Latin caelibatus. – Shimon bM Sep 03 '13 at 07:33
  • 3
    but then does secrecy mean 'secretly not abstaining from marriage'? – Annelise Sep 03 '13 at 14:20
  • The verses definitely prohibit intercourse, but couldn't they include other physical-sexual things? And in terms of the aspect of Oral Torah that's meant to reflect the inner meaning of the commandments rather than the rabbinic fences, maybe the emotional aspects of a relationship like that (which differ it from just close friendship) are also implied? – Annelise Sep 03 '13 at 14:27
  • That said, in light of all the discussion about this, it's meaningful that the verse seems to say not that the inclination is unnatural, but that the choice of those relations is. Just as with other aspects of sexual desire/interest and choice as well. Because that latter assumption is part of the ancient Israelite worldview and not the 'live and let live' moral ideal of most of our society, maybe it gets messy from that Torah viewpoint when the words on their own (if that''s possible) are reinterpreted in this context without any precedent or authority behind that. – Annelise Sep 03 '13 at 14:36
  • @Annelise Most other physical sexual interactions are forbidden even between a man and a woman (of course, as always, CYLOR) – Daniel Sep 03 '13 at 14:48
  • Important thought. But not all... I mean like hugging and kissing. Anyway, if people would ignore the so-called rabbinic ideas about homosexual relations then I don't know if they would be interested in other rabbinic ideas about sexual interactions. Maybe I generalise though. – Annelise Sep 03 '13 at 15:33
  • 2
    @Daniel Did you try reading the responsum? – Double AA Sep 03 '13 at 15:35
  • The responsum technically makes a lot of sense, though it's hard to compare its view with the strong language of this verse...which maybe doesn't lend itself to such a minimalised interpretation. Isn't it possible that when the Rabbis said they were banning all other acts that might lead to Torah violation, they were also banning them in light of the spirit of the mitzvah? But so much is at stake for people and idk, I may be wrong to feel that. – Annelise Sep 04 '13 at 01:17
  • I guess the discussion is complicated by the fact that most of the people in it do have a level of attraction to the opposite sex and therefore have that available to them when they feel deeply that to choose a homosexual marriage would go against the holiness of the way of closeness to God in His law. That practical decision, and the rightness of that value, would be hard to see for someone with no interest in the opposite sex at all... in which case technicalities are important. – Annelise Sep 04 '13 at 01:30
  • A problem though with the responsum is its ignorance of the fact that Torah does expect some groups of people to go without marriage, for a time or permanently (the latter is much harder) and one who finds reason to take Torah seriously accepts that kind of thing in the bigger context of life, if they have to. – Annelise Sep 04 '13 at 01:31

1 Answers1

12

If you read the original responsum of the committee (here), you will find that they choose to rule that all prohibitions other than homosexual male anal intercourse (such as the prohibitions of yihud and negiah) are all rabbinic and are superseded by the concept of kvod habriot. (How they deal with the issue of השחתת זרע לבטלה is less clear, which is likely why it was relegated to an extended footnote, #47.)

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
  • I find your language interesting. They "choose to rule"? Do other poskim also choose to rule, or do they just rule? – Shimon bM Sep 04 '13 at 00:55
  • 7
    @ShimonbM "Choose" has many different senses. In some senses every posek chooses. In some senses no posek chooses. In a certain sense, most Orthodox poskim don't choose to paskin like the Rambam over the Ramban regarding the prohibition of negia by relying on the Shulchan Aruch and the weight of the later rabbinic rulings in accordance with it; at least not in the same sense that the responsum discussed here chose how to rule regarding that machloket. – Double AA Sep 04 '13 at 02:14