Every now and again, I read a short article which thoughtfully addresses the complex issues of homosexuality and gay marriage. The writers of most of these pieces tend to me men and women in their thirties and older whose life experience often informs their writing. But, yesterday, I read such a piece written by a Stanford freshman.
In his piece, “Addressing Negative LGBT Stereotypes,” Yishai Kabaker reflects on how his Jewish faith has helped him grapple with his sexuliaty. After distinguishing homosexuality from polygamy and bestiality, he turns to gay marriage and concludes by offering a theme familiar to readers of my posts, “if the LGBT community wants to eliminate the irrational fear of opening the deviant sex floodgates seen in the LGBT workshop article, it should vigorously show that it desires the responsibilities of marriage along with the rights.”
To be sure, this is a short essay which only begins to explore these themes. I’m looking forward to pieces where he addresses these issues in greater depth. And it’s a good sign that it appears in Stanford’s conservative paper, the Stanford Review. That a college conservative paper gives space to a piece by a young gay conservative shows how increasingly open those on the right are becoming to gay ideas. Now just read the whole thing!
From what this young man says, he was responding to an article in the Stamford Review that said gays support bestiality. It’s pretty sad that a conservative paper would try to push that type of bile.
Re-re-resp..uh…responsibility? OH NO!! You can’t expect libs to demonstrate that..uh…R word. Remember what holy water did to Linda Blair? Same thing.
Very interesting analysis. However, there is a point that most people overlook. At the time of Leviticus the Israelites were the smallest nation in the fertile crescent surranded by larger and powerful neighbors, (sound familiar). Therefore, 18:22, as well as, 15:24 prohibits heterosexual relations with a woman having her periiod. This is non-productive sex, which yields slow population growth. In the same chapter prohibits masterbation and coitus interuptus. The Israelites because of their smaller population couldn´t have the luxury of doing what their powerful and populous neighbors were doing. Chapter 19:28 prohibits tatoos. Probable reason, in the heat of battle a good chance clean arms means he´s not the enemy. Chapter 19:26 prohibits the use sorcery or astrology. When examined in context that I desribed, apart from the religious, there seems to be a very practical reason, survival.
Dan, thank you for this important, relevant topic. I admire the author’s commitment to reconcile his faith, his conservatism, and his sexuality (and in that order).
Although I agree with the article’s essence, I have trouble with the statement “Judaism is a living religion that adapts to changing times through the Oral tradition of responsa.” Not being Jewish and not knowing many Jews, I perhaps am not in the best position to comment, but I notice that this is the primary raison d’etre for Reform Judaism. That, basically, a religion (its spirit, its laws, its formulae, philosophy) are whatever a culture deems it to be and this humanistic view needs and embraces the corollaries of modern political and social liberalism. (How often have we heard that the United States Constitution is a living, breathing document that, as the Stanford author states, “…adapts to changing times…”?) In this sense, the title ‘Reform Judaism’ is honest and consistent: the term isn’t Reformed, implying that it is always subject to change. Is this conservatism?
I was ‘raised’ (so to write) in the Presbyterian church. We’re sometimes called God’s Frozen People. There is a deep split between its tony, croissant-munching, patronizing liberal elitists and us more common sense types. The efforts of Presbyterianism to reflect the values of each community (each church appealing to “the ‘hood”, thus increasing membership and offerings) in which it exists has only served to increase the likelihood that it will eventually break apart. I live in the DPRS (Democratic People’s Republic of Seattle) and, as you might expect, haven’t been to church in years.
“There is a deep split between its tony, croissant-munching, patronizing liberal elitists”
And this characterization is not patronizing?
On the substance, every religion is a living religion which adapts. Orthodox Judaism, being as it is the product of the rabbinical and medieval periods, is not the same as the Judaism described in the Hebrew Bible, for example. Presbyterianism, even the conservative/evangelical wing of it, is not the same as Christianity was at the Council of Nicea, nor even the same as it was in Calvin’s Geneva. Religions live and breathe in real time. Note that this does not mean that they necessarily simply reflect the values of contemporary culture and are thereby ensnared by them — but what they must do is articulate themselves in a way that addresses contemporary culture in every historical era. People disagree about that, and these disagreements are normal … they are present in every religious tradition.
#5:
Of course not. When a conservative describes someone that way, it’s “civil discourse.” And isn’t it fabulous how the commenter puts reconciling his faith and conservatism ahead of dealing with his sexual orientation? Sounds to me like a sure-fire prescription for a screwed-up closet case.
2: Responsibility? give me a break. If the conservatives in this country are *really* interested in defending marriage, then why don’t they tighten divorce laws in this country? Isn’t divorce something like 50% after 3 years for all marriages in the US? As long as a drunken singer can get married in Vegas and have it anulled immediately, I don’t exactly see it as the jewel-in-the-crown institution all these sanctimonious hypocrits claim it be. Free trade is held in more esteem than marriage in this country.
That’s why the whole idea of forcing us to have to debate the marriage issue is nonsense; it’s simply a civil right that doesn’t apply to all citizens and it needs to do so. By the way, how many of our family/conservative leaders in this country are divorced? anyone? anyone?
Nice, Kevin, instead of addressing his points, you attack conservatives.
(#5) And this characterization is not patronizing?
Do I respond to condescencion (especially within the context of the church where, so I’m told, all repentant sinners are equal before God) with condescencion of my own? You bet I do.
(#6) Of course not. When a conservative describes someone that way, it’s “civil discourse.”
Never accuse me of an intention I don’t claim, especially if you choose such carefully-considered language such as “…screwed-up closet case.”
Yes, Nova. As my two examples have illustrated and you’ve reiterated, religions change over time. I’m sure that each change has/has had its opponents and proponents.
Once again, more specifically:
Is the idea that changing a religion to “…adapt to changing times…” (not merely changing what a religion addresses, but changing the very religion itself, i.e. what it allows/disallows, etc.) conservative?
#8
Nice, Kevin, instead of addressing his points, you attack conservatives.
And advocating increasing government intrusion at the same time. Nice.
The fact remains that those who claim homosexuality leads to bestiality, as well as those who believe that the “misbehavior” of some gay men means that no gay person ought to have the right to marry, have one thing in common: a belief that gay people are inherently inferior.
“changing the very religion itself, i.e. what it allows/disallows, etc.) conservative?”
Conservative is a label that is irrelevant to faith — I don’t find it in the bible, in the presbyterian confessions or in the Catholic and Reformed Catehcisms … do you?
What I think your question raises, rather, is the imposition of an extra-faith ideological presupposition (i.e., that “conservatism” = faithfulness to tradition) on the actual sources of faith themselves, rather than drawing this out from the sources of faith. It’s more or less classical culturalist idolatry, as Rev. Peter Gomes would describe it, just on the conservative rather than the liberal side.
By the way, I do vote for conservatives often, so that is not my point here. My point relates to religion itself, where imposing culturally and politically originated presuppositions on the religious tradition can only result in mischief.
If the conservatives in this country are *really* interested in defending marriage, then why don’t they tighten divorce laws in this country?
Actually, many of us wouldn’t mind doing this, but do you know what the liberals would say, if we tried? This is really a dumb question.
I know that I have stated here and in other discussions that I think no fault divorce laws was one of the most harmful things we as a society have ever done to the institution of marriage.
You get no argument from me that lax divorce laws are bad for marriage, but I am pretty sure this is one horse that has been out of the barn too long to close the door now (even if I would like to).
I actually think no fault divorce is worse for marriage than gay marriage would be.
Hey Dan! I didn’t realize this article was written by Leah’s son when I linked it onto my blog until she emailed me today. Looks like he’s doing well for himself and I hope to see more from him soon. Give him a thumbs up for me. 🙂
Sorry, but I stand my ground here. Here’s an example: Newt Gingrich is known for his supposed morals, yet this man served divorce papers to his first while she was undergoing cancer treatment in a hospital. Ronald Reagan was divorced, Bob Dole was divorced; how many other conservatives who portray themselves as moral leaders have been divorced?
13: Great…then have your conservative political friends change the divorce laws insteads of attacking gays and lesbians for expecting equal rights.
Great…then have your conservative political friends change the divorce laws insteads of attacking gays and lesbians for expecting equal rights.
Well, as it turns out, that’s what they’re doing.
And if you want to play that “conservatives have divorced, so they’re all hypocrites” game, then please explain why leftist gays Julie Goodrich and her spouse, or Christy Woo and her spouse, are splitting up. By your logic, since these prominent leftist gays who demanded marriage are splitting up, gays are hypocrites as well.
#12 “Conservative is a label that is irrelevant to faith — I don’t find it in the bible, in the presbyterian confessions or in the Catholic and Reformed Catehcisms … do you?”
Terms not found in religious texts are therefore irrelevant to faith? Language, like religion, also adapts to changing times. Why do you think such texts as the King James version of the Christian Bible exist? This Hegelian definition of language == faith (and thus its relevance, as you put it) doesn’t wash. I would doubt, for example, that the word ‘ruthless’ appears often in most official religious documentation. Where do you think the word came from? At any rate, a word is meaningless without a definition and it is the definition (not the frequency or location of its appearance) of ‘conservatism’ that I am questioning. Since many here probably identify themselves as conservatives and since language does evolve, it is in my view an appropriate question.
Conservatism in the general sense is the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change, liberalism meaning preferring change to an existing or traditional situation. These terms (conservative and liberal) and the questions they imply (Do we change and evolve or resist change?) are relevant to any institution, from the Pope to the local PTA. For an explicit example, there are three main branches of Judaism: Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. Merely because Free Methodists are not named Conservative Methodists doesn’t make them any less conservative; conservatism is why they exist apart from, say, the United Methodists. Their desire to preserve the existing Method and adhere to its more strict interpretation is entirely relevant to their faith. Whether to conserve what is traditional or whether to change is usually why Papal encyclicals are issued.
Dan posted a link to an article found in a conservative publication written by an ostensibly conservative writer. I found his statement affirming a commitment to institutional change (adapting his religion to changing times) at odds with his conservative credentials, although I appreciate the general theme of his article. I was not questioning whether religions change and adapt; rather, I question whether an explicit commitment to doing so is conservative. Let me add that my questioning the author’s consistency does not imply a value judgment.
First of all, sex is between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS which could also be decided with regard to marriage. Goats, sheep, and the rest don’t qualify as adults, I don’t care if you do talk to your dog who is 42 in human life.
Second, any religious person who makes a statement that gay behavior is a choice, simply ask the individual, “your religion, were you born that way or did you choose it?”. This should end the conversation, at least any sane conversation.
Finally, Michael Medved is replete with linking gay marriage to placing a further financial burden on society as to one of his “reasons” for not allowing gay marriage. This man is a bigot.
If a gay man married a woman, they would place that same “burden” on society as a “heterosexual” couple – there’s no difference. Michael is a bigot and attempts this ridiculous argument at every turn he can.
Oh, one last thought, if a religious person wants to utilize Leviticus, simply state that we don’t adhere to the morals of the Old Testament any longer, if they did we’d be stoning women for not being virgins and people working on Sunday. If the person says that Christ says that in the New Testament that we are to hold true to the word of the old testament, see prior response and then ask, “by what criteria and standard are you removing certain behaviors from either testament?”.
Again, this should shut them up fairly quickly, they usually don’t have an answer.
Frankly, it’s none of your business who wants to get married. If your religion doesn’t support someone’s choices in life, so be it, but you don’t have any right or any business telling ANYONE what to do or not do based on a supposed historical text called a bible. Who’s minding your business while you’re so busy minding everyone else’s? And why are religious people sooooooooooo obsessed with the sex lives of other people????
Where the hell do you conservatives, of which I’m a registered Republican, get off telling anyone what they can or can’t do? Who said that Jesus died and left you all in charge? Your arrogance is astounding.
I got news for you, go ahead and base you stupid morality on the bible, but until someone can prove their bible, their god is THE one and ONLY, along with ANY EVIDENCE THAT GOD EVEN EXISTS, I suggest you shut the hell up!
Your days of thwarting governments, binding with fundamentalist islam and attempting to keep good people from making free choices in life, are just about over!
You got no god. You got no proof. If you did, you wouldn’t need your “faith”, but because of a lack of evidence you attempt to use it as a trump card.
GOD IS A PLACEBO IN YOUR LIFE, this way you have freedom be not think, be stupid, and not be responsible and accountable for your OWN life.
If you got the proof. BRING IT!
GOD IS A PLACEBO IN YOUR LIFE, this way you have freedom to not think, to be stupid, and not be responsible and accountable for your OWN life and the choices you’ve made.
Thought I should tidy that up a bit.
Cheers!