Another pre-Yom Tov Response
Briefly, before Yom Tov, some quick input into both recent guest contributions… because there is a relationship between them.
I. Abortion: I do not know the source for Rabbi Dr. Broyde’s claim that per Agudath Israel, “a fetus is not a person in the Jewish tradition.” I have not seen such a statement from the Agudah; on the contrary, to my reading the Agudah has said the opposite. And how could it be otherwise?
מאי טעמיה דרבי ישמעאל? דכתיב שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך איזהו אדם שהוא באדם הוי אומר זה עובר שבמעי אמו
What is the reasoning of the House of Rebbe Yishmael? It is written, “one who spills blood of man in man, his blood will be spilled” [Breishis 9:6]. Which is a man that is in man? They said, this is the fetus in the belly of its mother. [Sanhedrin 57b]
It is explicit in pesukim, in mishnayos, and in practical halacha that a fetus is a distinct human being for which one must be mechalel Shabbos. The reason why termination of pregnancy is permitted to save the mother’s life, even at the cost of the fetus’ life, is because “her life precedes his.” This clearly says that a fetal life is a life, and must be taken into account.
Before Coalition for Jewish Values issued its statement supporting the Texas Heartbeat legislation, I brought the question of this particular law and its practical implementation to a member of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah. [One need not speculate what would happen if the law provided for a “religious exemption:” Reform activist rabbis would pass them out like candy at an auf ruf, and they would not be alone.]
The situation we must consider is, as the questioner to the Agudah apparently wrote, “cases when a posek might see a threat to the life of a mother that isn’t so regarded by physicians.” This requires a situation in which a competent posek, who cherishes human life and is extremely averse to telling a woman to do something as traumatic as losing a baby, nonetheless rules that this is necessary to protect her life (including mental health)… and a physician cannot be found in the state of Texas, including those who performed abortions every “Montag un Donnershtag” (and Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, too, and probably weekends) until passage of this law, who agrees.
This is where the aforementioned Gadol agreed with our understanding that this is, in pragmatic terms, essentially inconceivable. And this brings us to a very important point: activists like to talk about worst-case scenarios, even impossible ones, while using them to justify a policy of “abortion on demand” (such as that which passed the House of Representatives last week).
There isn’t time at present to go into the multitudinous harms done to the fabric of society by the notion of “abortion on demand,” which actually go far beyond the fetal murder itself and callous attitude towards human life. It suffices to say that such a policy is utterly foreign to a Torah perspective on fetal life, as the Agudah has previously said, and that is why CJV viewed (and views) the Texas law as a step in the right direction.
II. LGBTQ+ “identity” and the frum community: There is one more piece to the LGBTQIA discussion which highlights a profound difference from mechalelei Shabbos, which goes beyond that which Rabbis Gordimer and Rosenthal have already said. I believe Rabbi Motzen misconstrues matters when he writes that he “would assume that the reason readers did not naturally think of this second category of people [those who go quietly about their lives, while violating Torah prohibitions] stems from a lack of interaction with anyone in this population.”
Indeed I think he has assumed incorrectly. There are two more salient reasons readers are not discussing those in the “everyone else” category. First of all, I am unaware of anyone researching those quietly living their lives, including quiet conversations with their rabbis that they were already having, to see whom we might exclude from having aliyos. So, of course, these individuals are not those about whom we are speaking. The second, and far more significant issue, is that the “LGBTQ+ community” is not merely “b’farhesya mamesh” (they call it “coming out”), but, regarding the activists as a group, is also engaged in a campaign to label every Torah-observant Jew (and others following our Torah’s guidance on these matters) a hateful, “phobic” individual for not agreeing with them.
According to the “Equality Act” passed by the House earlier this year, holding a traditional Jewish wedding (with a mechitza, in a catering hall) is a bias crime. Individual business owners have faced legal battles and been unjustly called bigoted for declining to provide their creative services to celebrate events that violate their religious conscience, although they happily provide service to anyone, regardless of race, orientation or anything else, for an event that accords with their religion. Meanwhile, of course, a coffee shop owner who refused to simply serve coffee, a commodity product, to members of a pro-life group, was celebrated by the LGBTQ+ community. If you think it’s the LGBTQ+ folks who face persecution, welcome to 5782.
No one suggests that we should have an environment where people faced with same sex attraction do not “feel comfortable enough to come forward,” meaning privately, to their rabbis. On the contrary, Rabbi Gordimer emphasized that “This is not an issue of dispute; individuals with SSA impulses and self-identity questions should of course privately seek and receive guidance from their rabbonim and rebbeim, as should everyone else with personal struggles and challenges.” Rabbi Motzen agrees that this issue isn’t “easily discussed from the pulpit,” meaning that there is clear guidance against it in the Gemara. So the way to do this is for every rabbi or rebbe to demonstrate welcome and concern towards every congregant or talmid, not tied to any particular issue. Would anyone disagree that this should already be the case, and indeed already is so, far more often than not?
In other words, to me, at least, it seems that Rabbi Motzen is advocating for “creating” an environment that we should expect every competent Rav or Rebbe to already have, implying incorrectly that Rabbi Gordimer does not share the view that such an environment should exist, and inadvertently granting credibility to bigoted assertions against us as a religious community. The major problem facing our community is not that there are people who need help with attractions and aren’t getting it. [I am not saying this phenomenon doesn’t exist. We have a lot of issues that need to be addressed.] The major problem is that we are all at risk of being labeled hateful “bigots” and our lifestyle criminalized, simply for endorsing Torah law.
No discussion of whether the approach taken by activists is actually correct and compassionate is tolerated. What you are permitted to read must be curated to exclude any material that questions the accepted narrative. Amazon refuses to sell you a book called When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, by Dr. Ryan Anderson, because, Amazon says, it has “chosen not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness.” [This misstates the book’s thesis, but this is besides the point.] The equally woke American Booksellers Association called it a “serious, violent [sic] incident” to have shared with subscribers a copy of Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters by Abigail Shrier.
Everyone understands that phenomena such as same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria cause psychological distress, and have a direct and ongoing impact upon mental health. We also know that psychotherapists have made great strides helping people to quell many different sorts of unwanted feelings, and to be more comfortable with their life circumstances. We regard psychotherapy as a great benefit to a great many people, in any area.
With one notable exception: LGBTQ+. According to what we are now told, LGBTQ+ is both innate and immune to treatment, and to believe otherwise, much less attempt to provide such help, is evil. Per the new rules, it is wrong to help a religious person quell feelings of same-sex attraction. On the contrary, LGBTQ+—including both same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria—is an unchangeable “identity” whereas religion is an ideology, and thus subject to change. Thus the only acceptable course for the psychologist to follow is to counsel the individual to change (“mollify“) his or her religious views, and the correct course of treatment for dysphoria includes surgical and chemical disruption of the body’s natural structure. One is not permitted to question whether these are the best course of action for any individual; there are no exceptions. I know I wrote “welcome to 5782” above, but perhaps the year in question is 1984.
These positions are not merely incompatible with Judaism, but there is compelling evidence that they are not the course of action that truly compassionate people, not blinded by a new agenda of “progressivism,” would take. But, as already said, this is evidence that they would prefer you not read.
A final, salient data point for consideration: a young child with autism returned to therapy after COVID’s shutdown equipped with a new gender. For comparison, be aware that a young child with autism is, for the sake of their well-being, not permitted to determine what he or she wants for lunch. Is the problem with this situation that the family’s rabbi isn’t endorsing the child’s decision?
So again, we have a situation where activists are claiming that synagogues are not accepting of people with private, personal struggles, and even failings, which they do not share publicly. In reality, groups are actively declaring and promoting a lifestyle at odds with Torah, criminalizing psychological treatment at odds with their new truth, and castigating those who follow the Torah’s guidance as “phobic” bigots. We need to look past the narratives and focus upon the real issues at hand, while of course showing compassion for each individual and his or her unique situation, as in every area of life.
In the article you write that following as a fallacy:
“On the contrary, LGBTQ+—including both same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria—is an unchangeable “identity” whereas religion is an ideology, and thus subject to change.”
The problem with your argument is that is TRUE. While we see all the time people evolve as far as religiosity, going off the derech or becoming baalei teshuva, when it comes to sexuality and affection, every study from the largest universities, NGOs and experts indicate there’s no successful way to change that.
Quite the contrary, extensive studies show it is extremely harmful to attempt to change someone’s orientation as it reinforces negative feeling about self and has led to extreme suffering and suicide without any measurable success. Every public case of people who claimed to have changed their sexual orientation ended up being farces, led double lives and have come around over time.
I find it insidious to frame someone’s sexuality as “unwanted feelings”. It either shows an extreme misunderstanding of sexual orientation or an easy way to make an unfounded argument.
You have to make up your mind: Either it’s hardwired or it’s not.
And it’s kind of presumptuous of you to assume that every person with homosexual feelings is happy about it. Our religion, all of human history, and science all say it’s an aberration, and just because some people announced ten minutes ago that it’s not you expect everyone to be happy about it?
You’re both wrong if you chose to follow the actual doctrine of the LGBTQ+… as only the first part of that alphabet soup is deemed immutable… however the Q or all the numerous components of the + are fluid and can change daily or even hourly. We are told that one can literally be one today and another one tomorrow. So they are clearly changeable.
Even the L and G and B individuals, especially those in Hollywood, seem to think they can be switched… at least if their ratings are getting too low.
So clearly the doctrine of ideology vs identity isn’t on solid ground when it comes to the lgbtq question.
This is very helpful, as the comment explicitly authenticates my claim that LGBTQ activists see “psychotherapy as a great benefit to a great many people, in any area” except LGBTQ. Here, and here alone, it is “extremely harmful,” and every “public case” of quelling that attraction is merely a “farce.” “A lesbian marrying a man” does not exist, nor has a “gay” man happily married to a woman ever existed [more 1984]. No one’s feelings change over time.
The commenter gets to say such things because LGBTQ activists work to censor these stories, preventing them from becoming public. This is why Amazon won’t sell When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, a book that poses numerous challenges to advocates, while documenting numerous cases of people who realized that they only wanted to be “transgender” due to underlying issues that were in no way ameliorated, much less resolved, by “transitioning” into something they later realized they simply weren’t. This book, which you should read if you are interested in this area, offers some of the “compelling evidence that they are not the course of action that truly compassionate people, not blinded by a new agenda of ‘progressivism,’ would take.”
As Nachum pointed out, no one is allowed to imagine that same-sex attraction is an “unwanted feeling,” even a person who sincerely wishes to observe the Torah. As the commenter said, “people evolve as far as religiosity,” and thus will have to do with observing 612 Mitzvos, no matter what Chazal say about that. Per the commenter, it is foolhardy and will only lead to “extreme suffering” for a person with same-sex attraction to attempt to tackle that last “pesky” Mitzvah (chalilah). And this, of course, is the “tolerant” view: that such an individual must not be permitted assistance if he or she gets silly ideas in his or her head about aspiring to full Torah observance.
Many of these activists want to upset the moral order altogether, and Torah represents a major obstacle to their designs. In fact, Torah seems to be the last true obstacle standing against the whole societal madness we see in allegedly advanced countries. Everything else has been or is being compromised.
Formally joining the wreckers in this assault is not exactly what a seeking Jew does.
I personally am aware of any number of Orthodox children/teens in my community who have “come out”. Some have even transitioned.
They are not rabble-rousing activists. Their parents are not progressives by any stretch of the term.
You simply do not know what you do not know. The “struggle” they feel is not about their sexual identity. The main struggle is rather about how much of so-called mainstream Orthodoxy (and to a lesser extent, society in general) is stigmatizing them for this.
And yet they and their families wish to remain within Orthodoxy. Luckily, they and I live within a community where this is, indeed, possible and where they and their families continue to be active members and embraced.
It’s not the 1950s anymore. This is reality. It’s not going away.
if by coming out , you ultimately mean acquiring a life partner to be sexually active with , the halachic community has no option but to to oppose that option….
By coming out I mean that it becomes known in the community, often through their loving parents. They might be age age 10, 15, 20 or 25. They don’t have partners. They are still visible in the community (or at least in ours, which is welcoming).
All too often in these type of threads, it is the victims who are further stigmatized and vilified.
Homosexuality was also widely embraced by the Greeks. The writings of Chazal show that it was often suspected within the Jewish community. But it’s not 200 anymore. The Greeks went away. We’re still here.
Calling something Orthodox that is not negates reality — whenever.
is it not interesting that in our mesora , the fate of the dor hamabul was decided when homosexuality was recognized either with coupling ceremonies or idolized in song , depending on how one reads the medrash.
we can’t say our society is any different….
Why not just read the posuk with the explanations of the gedolei rishonim? The fate was sealed due to stealing. Dishonesty in business dealings is also toieveh.
The general attitudes and general thrust that must be dealt with
when upholding moral tradition is: well even if/though
you have some valid points
you’re not from the 21st century
to which my rejoinder invariably is: .. we’re from the 22nd
“They are still visible in the community (or at least in ours, which is welcoming).”
wonderful. and what is the community response when they couple up ?