Shalom Bob,

 

I know how much you've been struggling with this issue.  I have just finished reading Rabbi Nevins' (et al) teshuvah now that it has been made public.  I have not yet been able to find any of the other submissions considered by the Committee.  I strongly urge you to read Rabbi Nevins' teshuva.  As you know, I have very strong feelings about this issue, and I tend toward the Marxist view that there can never be too much critique;  however, and though I disagree with a few points, I thought it was a brilliant, respectful, reverent and thorough treatment of the issues that were on the table.  I really think that it provides the best hope for future reconciliation among Conservative Jews on this topic--not because of the answer it reaches, but because of the methodology and reasoning.  It lays out the halachic issues with clarity and dignity and provides a framework and vocabulary for us to discuss this issue without allowing our instinctive reac tions to engage in a bit of post hoc reasoning.  

 

I cannot speak to the USCJ's statement about the "third paper" because it has not yet been made available.   However, there a few considerations that might make their statement seem more reasonable to you.  First, the mainstream media was reporting that the "third paper" advocated reparative therapy.  Frankly, I was ready to throw out the baby with the bath towel in thinking that a paper advocating such bad science and harmful acts could be accepted by our movement.  The USCJ's statement at least gave me (and the general public) some breathing space in allowing us to believe that there were more reasonable minds at work.  Second, it has been a point of some contention and pain that the USCJ would not hire openly gay or lesbian employees.  They may have been trying to make a point that, now that it is halachically permissible, they understand the difficulty gay Jewish professionals have faced.  Finally, it is not unlikely that they, like us, hadn't had a chance to look at the papers and were reacting to mainstream media reports.

 

As to your question about bisexuals, which you and I have discussed off-list at some length, it is on this one point that I disagree most vigorously with the adopted position. The paper intimates that if one can be attracted to those of the opposite sex, one should pursue such a relationship for marriage.   I believe that this is essentially your position.  The  paper does not address the question of how bisexuals who are currently in long-term, monogamous same-sex relationships (perhaps with children) should at this point conduct themselves.  But, as is recognized in Rabbi Nevins' paper, scientific understanding of sexuality suggests that it is a spectrum...and no one, I think, wants to get into drawing a line as to how "gay" one needs to be for it to be acceptable to stop trying to be straight.  So, effectively, I think most bisexuals are left to their own consciences as to "proper" behavior given their own assessment of how comfortabl e they might be in a heterosexual relationship.

 

I respect your struggle, as I know you have shown respect for mine.  May it be G-d's will that all of us involved in this struggle will, in five years' time, find a comfortable, vibrant, spiritual, Torah-filled home in the Conservative  movement. 

 

Kol tuv,

Dahlia 

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: bob smith <Bob_Smith@...>

I look forward to reading the responsa and hope I am not out of place in voicing some immediate concerns. One thing I find extremely disturbing is a statement in the memo from USCJ as follows:

> Although we have the greatest respect for the Law Committee’s
>decisions, we do not agree with the recommendations of the
>third paper it accepted, which said that gay men and lesbians
>are best advised to find “restorative therapy” to change their sexual orientation.

This seems way way out of place and counterproductive with respect to reported goals Klal Yisrael and the process being described. How dare they do this? Even Rabbi Nevins, in his journal has more considered words re Rabbi Levy. It is an accepted responsa that passed so how dare USCJ poskin against this?

Rabbi Nevins states:

It has been reported that Rabbi Leonard Levy called for “reparative therapy” for gay and lesbian Jews to function as heterosexuals. This is, as Len likes to say, a “sweeping generalization.” In fact, his point was that while most people who experience same-sex attraction may never be able to change that, even if highly motivated, a small percentage nevertheless may, and they should be offered that opportunity. I don’t think anyone disagrees that people should be able to understand their sexual orientation with the assistance of open minded counselors. Where we disagree with Len is in his claim that you can maintain an exclusive public policy that bans all homosexual intimacy and the recognition of homosexual families while also creating a welcoming and respectful environment for people who identify as gay or lesbian. I voted against Len’s paper, but I don’t think it should be distorted.

He must be responding to USCJ!

I think this touches on a major problem that I see ---- people and especially children on the line who could go either way. Can we or can we not say we love you all but it's better to be straight if you c an! Do we believe that or does it just not matter -- are these to become two modes among equals? I also voiced previously voiced a related question about bisexuals -- is that also a valid approach for a Conservative Rabbi to take according to the Dorff Responsa. And how about experimentation -- will it now be valid for Conservative Jewish youth to try out both opposite sex and same sex dating to see which appeals to them? What is the view of the gay community on this. Will we now be in a "friendly competition" to see which side can attract more of our youth? What if a child has questions about their identity -- how should they be counseled to decide? Will committed gay couples be within their rights as Conservative Jews to try bring their children up as gay or will they be expected to initially assume that the children will be straight? What is the stance of the Gay community on this? Is there an analogy in the Deaf Community where many/some would prefer that their children be deaf . in this regard, I had an interesting conversation with Rabbi Leonard Levy a couple of years ago at a symposium at JTSA on cochlear implantation in children. He was trying to understand the reaction of the Deaf Community who were rejecting the possibility of hearing via electronic means now available through implants. The Deaf Community felt that they were not disabled, but rather different, even when given the opportunity to be less different. They felt that it was wrong to implant children since it would remove them from the Deaf Community. Is the analogous attitude on the part of the Gay community a prevalent one and is it a Jewishly valid one?

I hope you realize that I ask these questions with respect and love for all Jews and all human beings, and apologize for my own prejudices which no doubt are many, but I have concerns.that I pray are unfounded.

R.L. Smith