Comments on: More debate please – Pluralist panel offers too much agreement

By: Michael Barnett

Michael Barnett — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:29:23 +0000

Apologies for the few typing mistakes in my previous posting. I would correct them if it were possible here.

“Galus Australis…”
“As for Lubofsky…”

Michael.

By: Michael Barnett

Michael Barnett — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:26:35 +0000

I just stumbled across this topic. Pity the Galus Austris doesn’t offer an option to subscribe to new topics by email.

I remain bewildered that people find it necessary to have any debate on the acceptability or otherwise of any aspect of homosexuality. I posted current respected scientific literature earlier on GA that clearly demonstrates any intolerance of homosexuality leads to harmful behaviour in affected individuals. What you get is depression, anxienty, self-harm and suicide in same-sex people who are not allowed to express their nature desires.

The real debate should be on why religions should be allowed to get away with perpetuating this form of sick abuse on society.

Just for a moment think about if people were debating whether it was permissible to practice being Jewish in Australian society, because it was seen to be a perversion and a sickness.

As Lubofsky, I’m glad that he’s dead because the way he tricked and deceived me in 1999 was about one of the lowest things I would have ever expected of a ‘respected’ rabbi. He was a sick, depraved individual who was not worthy of any respect. In 1999 he called me to his house, we chatted amicably for about an hour on what was happening regarding the Aleph Melbourne membership application to join the JCCV, then turned everything I told him against me on the fated night at the JCCV Plenum meeting in May that year. Read his address in the transcript. It has overtones of a Nuremberg rally. The way he abused me was simply disgusting.

Michael.

By: Daniel Harris

Daniel Harris — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:20:43 +0000

Yaakov – a couple of comments:
1) “However, you’d expect that even in a toned-down and respectful discussion, panellists of differing backgrounds would have a machloket (debate).” – The question really is what kind of machloket would it be? A worthy machloket, in my opinion, would be one that asked the question “How do we create a space within halakha to allow same-sex relationships to take place for those members of our community who are gay/lesbian/bi etc?” This would be a machloket l’shem shamayim, and one that should be embraced and encouraged, and could take place across denominational boundaries. But I fear that this isn’t the machloket that would take place at the kind of panel you envisage – I think that the machloket would turn into something questioning the very value of someone being in a same-sex relationshiop and questioning the validity of the relationship itself. This would not be a machloket l’shem shamayim – it would be a machloket based on fear of those members of our community that have traditionally been located on the fringe or outside the community. I can’t accept that this quesion would even be valid nowadays, let alone the associated machloket.
2) “I thought that the job was to reinterpret our lives and faith so that they are still congruent with those ancient texts.” I think this is part of the problem of orthodoxy today! Halakha has always been catching up to society, until a couple of hundred years ago. Our halakhic values were defined by our social values – e.g., the halakhic status of women was defined by their social status. When social values change, halakha can and should adapt to suit these. At some point things got swapped around, and now in the orthodox world the social role of women is being defined by their halakhic status, which is of course rather outdated. But now there are communities where this paradigm is being questioned, and the halakhic status of women is being updated to reflect their equal status in society. The same thing can be said for same-sex relationships – maybe it’s time halakha caught up with society. That’s not to say that we ignore halakha or think that it’s irrelevant – on the contrary, our value of halakha should be such that we are willing to adapt it and develop it, not simply ignore it.

By: Simon Holloway

Simon Holloway — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:55:59 +0000

I agree with Ari: an orthodox debate on homosexuality would be excellent, and there is much halakhic scope to allow such a thing. To paraphrase an eminent New Testament scholar, Bishop N.T. Wright, this is a debate that is currently not being held. Instead, people are simply saying that “you’re only saying that because you’re Orthodox”, without any regard for the manner in which Orthodox Jews are constructing their opinions. As it is, too many Orthodox Jews are not constructing their opinions: they merely repeat by rote that which they think they are supposed to be saying. Perhaps a panel of Orthodox rabbis would do much to dispel that climate and get us thinking again?

By: Ari

Ari — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:21:25 +0000

In a pluralistic panel the debate will in general be muted. That is the reason I believe R’ Soloveitchik opposed inter-faith dialogue on theological issues. That is, in contesting theologies there is no room for debate. So to here – there is not room for debate – The Orthodox believe that all of the Law as passed down through the generations in the Gemarra and the later authorities will always be binding. The view of the other streams rejects this in some way or another. That is the crux of the debate. A pluralistic panel in a such a debate by nature contains no real debate. At the most, such a debate could revolve around treatment of homosexual members of the community – but that is unlikely to generate any differences in response all the more so when the speakers are representing to the wider community their movements.
What would be interesting is an Orthodox Panel on homosexuality or a Reform Panel on homosexuality or a Conservative Panel on homosexuality.
(I live out of the country and did not attend – these are just some thoughts)