I am wondering what people here will think about the following: from Yosef Reinman, an Orthodox Jew, in a letter to a Reform Jew (the letters were published as a dialogue between followers of the two strands of Judaism talking about their faith; the points on which they agree and the points on which they don't):
The Torah forbids homosexuality, period. That is a fact. Does that mean we should be insensitive to the feelings of gay people? Certainly not. But sensitivity does not necessarily mandate approval.
Homosexuality results from a combination of internal and external factors. Both may often be subject to change and modification. Contemporary society, however, conspires to prevent any adjustment in sexual orientation. Positive messages about alternative lifestyles saturate modern literature and the visual arts. At the same time, science has been forced to abandon research into psychological techniques that might be effective in returning the homosexual to the heterosexual fold. In effect, by refusing to acknowledge homosexuality as a problem, society is forcing homosexuals to remain as they are, without the benefit of psychological or spiritual counseling. According to the Torah, this is wrong.
Understand me, Ammi. I do not advocate laws against homosexuals. I do not believe secular governments should regulate sexual morality. But the clergy should speak up on all moral issues, and their positions should be based on religious truth, not the changing attitudes of secular society. Indeed, if enough of them would do so, perhaps society would allow science to do serious research on the issue of sexual deviation.
Nu?
Actually the thread of this thinking makes sense to me. Homosexuality was not unknown in the society under the Torah's laws, and its place in morality was made clear. If you accept that, and really believe that homosexuality is not as good and moral as heterosexuality, then what WOULD it be like to see "positive messages about alternative lifestyles" so prevalent? He is also right that secular societies have their own ways of indoctrinating people; in America definitely.
And I agree, more scientific research by all means; it's an interesting topic and not everything is answered, of course. And in the meantime, compassion and legal recognition of same-sexual couples, who live in a world with clergy but under secular laws. Mr. Reinman's position becomes a question of the reconciliation of a faith with life in a secular world.
You know, until a few days ago I had no idea people still thought like Mr. Reinman.
I think his wording is a little strong, but otherwise I respect what he says. It seems to me that there is a lot of potential conflict between fundamentalists and those who rely on reason and experience (or society) to guide them in their reading. Maybe especially in America, which is still puritan in a lot of ways.
In any case, he makes much more sense (to me) than James Dobson, whose book MARRIAGE UNDER FIRE I actually read (I was wondering what on earth he could be saying in so many pages, although it's not that long, maybe 20 minutes of reading - I wanted to see if he made any sense at all
). Dr. Dobson botches some of his argument in various points and I am not totally doing justice to everything he says (maybe I'll go into more detail), but the core idea that comes across is close to Mr. Reinman's: "The reason for supporting the institution of marriage is rooted not just in child rearing. Man and woman were made for each other, and the state has a compelling interest in supporting this undeniable and ancient truth." This is basically the thrust of Dr. Dobson's thinking - at least Mr. Reinman expressly does not want to dictate to the state what to do.
I think that the secular and religious connotations of marriage should be finally and unambiguously separated. On one hand we are talking about a commitment that is legally recognized by the state and that carries with it certain benefits and corollaries, while on the other hand we mean a religious or spiritual sacrament falling under the provenance of the church. The United States is not a religious government, and so what the Bible - or any religious text - says or does not say about homosexuality shouldn't have any bearing on the issue.