The Day I Decided to Stop Being Gay: Patrick Muirhead

in The Times (UK):

...But then my eyes lowered and I became transfixed by the sight of the boy’s tiny pink fingers gripping his father’s huge, workman-like fist. And I almost wanted to burst into song.

I think my life changed at that moment.

That’s love, folks. Simple really. A proud dad, an adored little boy and a beautiful display of dependence and responsibility. It was the epiphany I had needed and I emerged with a dashing new haircut and a desire to procreate.

Gays have children these days, of course they do, and not always to accessorise an outfit. Some gay couples adopt; others follow twisting paths to biological parenthood, often quite expensively, with the involvement of test tubes and cash changing hands. It is, really, a sort of snook to the system of nature. Shooting for the net without the chore of running with the ball. It’s just not for me.

And lately I have, almost imperceptibly, been laying the groundwork to make parenthood happen in the old-fashioned way. I have been flirting with someone at my local pub, thinking about her at odd times, making excuses to call her and wondering if she likes me. It’s rather strange.

This will come as a shock to — among others — my male former partner of ten years, gay pals from my former media career, my rabidly heterosexual chums in the aviation industry and, not least, my family (who rather hoped I was going through a phase — albeit for about 20 years). Well, it’s come as a shock to me, too.

I once attended the nuptials of a gay male friend to a girl with whom he had unexpectedly fallen head over heels in love. It was a curious affair: the wedding party was peopled with his ex-lovers — including me, the best man and even the vicar. There is a risk that a wedding guest list of mine could have the same casting issues.

more

Labels: culture, Fathers, homosexuality, United Kingdom

posted by Imapp Staff at 3:48 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

"We Cannot Agree," Says Marriage/Unions Panel of PC(USA): Church Executive Magazine

reports:

The Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Unions and Christian Marriage has acknowledged what has been clearly demonstrated in debates, governing body votes and judicial decisions throughout the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): Presbyterians are not of one mind on the role of same-gender relationships in the church.

The special committee, authorized by the 2008 General Assembly, unanimously approved its preliminary report to the 2010 Assembly here Sept. 17, answering the central question before it -- What is the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community? -- with a three word response: "We cannot agree." ...

The complexity of the relationship between church and civil law is particularly troublesome, said special committee member the Rev. William Teng of National Capital Presbytery.

"I believe we have to address two issues," he said, "Practical help on how to deal with ministers and sessions in states where same-sex marriage is legal and the whole relationship between church and state. Personally, I think we should encourage ministers not to serve as agents of the state [in formalizing civil marriage contracts] as a practical solution."

The report states, "We acknowledge that current law, in which clergy act as agents of the state, is a source of confusion. On behalf of the state, ministers are granted the authority to officiate at marriages, and yet no authority is granted them to dissolve such unions. Some argue the church should relinquish its state-sanctioned power to marry. Others feel that, even in confusion, it should be retained to further the cause of the gospel."

The report poses three prevalent perspectives it says are held in the church, with
"proponents of each view believing that their position is rooted in Scripture":

* That "laws that fail to give benefits equal to marriage to same-gender couples and their families violate the standards of social justice/equal protection," noting "the different cultural settings between modern society and biblical times ..."

* That differences in benefits don't violate social justice/equal protection norms because "traditional marriage is foundational" and that it's not true that "all family formations are equally stable and nurturing for children ..."

* That the church should not be complicit in "further separating appropriate sexual activity from marriage between a man and a woman" because such sexual activity is "explicitly proscribed by Scripture."

more

Labels: culture, gay marriage, homosexuality, Marriage, Presbyterian Church, religion, sex

posted by Imapp Staff at 4:59 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

CATHOLICS LIKELY TO SUPPORT (SOME) GAY CAUSES: The Advocate

reports:

A study to be published by Columbia University will examine how a state’s percentage of Catholic residents affects its opinion of gay marriage.

A similar survey by Mark Silk of the blog Spiritual Politics suggests that in issues related to marriage, adoption and civil unions, a conservative majority would win. However, when presented with issues concerning hate crimes, health benefits and job protection, research shows Catholics typically sympathize with civil rights causes despite guidelines passed down from Vatican City.

more [I'm assuming this is everyone who answers "Catholic" to pollsters, rather than e.g. weekly Massgoers; still of course it's notable, and in line with other data I've seen--Eve]

Labels: adoption, Catholic Church, civil unions, gay marriage, homosexuality, religion

posted by Eve at 10:56 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Hijras Officially Recognized in Pakistan; And a Thought About India's "E" Gender Designation: SepiaMutiny

blogs:

Amidst all the high-level news about terrorism, the internal war in Swat Valley, and various military/foreign-policy questions, other topics in the news sometimes get overlooked.

To wit, Basim Usmani has an informative column up at Comment is Free on a recent ruling by Pakistan’s recently re-constituted Supreme Court, regarding Hijras:

Pakistan’s supreme court recently ruled that all hijras, the Urdu catch-all term for its transvestite, transgender and eunuch community, will be registered by the government as part of a survey that aims to integrate them further into society. The ruling followed a petition by Islamic jurist Dr Mohammad Aslam Khaki, who said the purpose was to “save them from a life of shame”.Khaki’s petition was prompted by a police raid on a hijra colony in Taxila, an ancient city filled with some of the oldest Buddhist ruins in Pakistan. Two of the three judges on the bench that ruled in favour if the hijra petition, chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, were under house arrest for
the better part of the past three years. This, coupled with the clobbering the police gave the lawyers during their demonstrations against the suspension of the judiciary in 2007, makes it easy to regard the hijra ruling as being directed against the police. (link)

...It’s intriguing to me that until just a couple of weeks ago, homosexuality was a crime under Section 377 in India; meanwhile transgendered individuals had, for at least a short while before that old law was overturned, a level of official recognition that few other countries could match. The disparity is of course understandable — Hijras are an endemic part of South Asian culture, while the concept of homosexuality is only recently gaining visibility. Still: does anyone know whether transgender or intergender individuals in any western countries have the equivalent of an “E” (or better, “T”) designation?

more

Labels: culture, hijra, homosexuality, India, Pakistan, transgender issues

posted by Imapp Staff at 5:18 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

BRITISH GROUP ISSUES GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE WORKPLACE: Nan Hunter

blogs:

The Stonewall Foundation has published a report on "Religion and Sexual Orientation: How to manage relations in the workplace" that Congress ought to read in advance of its consideration of ENDA. Aside from some platitudinous guidelines ("treat everyone with respect"), the core of the document is a series of case studies, including a local clerk who refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies, a counselor who balked at providing psychosexual counseling to same-sex couples, and a senior employee who constantly quoted Bible passages to a junior employee. The rule in Britain is that religious organizations can discriminate only if the job position or activity in question is directly associated with the doctrine of the faith group. By contrast, the religious exemption in ENDA would grant religious organizations essentially a blanket waiver of ENDA's requirements. As this report documents, the British system is workable and fair.

links here

Labels: discrimination law, homosexuality, religion

posted by Eve at 2:55 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

British House of Lords Keeps Free-Speech Defense to Inciting Hatred Against Gays: Religion Clause

blog:

In Britain last Thursday, the House of Lords, by a vote of 186-133, deleted from the proposed Coroners and Justice Bill section 61 which would have done away with a statutory free speech defense to the crime of inciting homophobic hatred. The defense is found in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which outlaws inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation, but goes on to provide:

In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be
threatening or intended to stir up hatred.

more

Labels: homosexuality, religious liberty, United Kingdom

posted by Imapp Staff at 7:07 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Gay Altar Server Contests Firing: Canada's National Post

reports:

A gay man has filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal against a Catholic bishop after he was removed from his volunteer job as an altar server because of his sexual orientation.

The case is the latest involving the human rights tribunal to address whether Church doctrine should be subject to review by a secular body.

Jim Corcoran, who owns a high-end resort and spa near Cobourg, was asked this year to step down from his role at St. Michael's Church after 12 of his fellow parishioners complained to the Diocese of Peterborough.

"In their letter the group had tried to establish that I am married to my same-sex partner, that I am a homosexual leading an open homosexual lifestyle, and they implied I may be in relationship [with my priest]," Mr. Corcoran wrote.

"[The parishioners] have used their distaste towards homosexuality to limit my right to serve the Church."

In an interview, Mr. Corcoran said he was told by his parish priest in April that he and his partner would have to end their altar duties.

He said it was Bishop Nicola De Angelis's decision and the priest had no choice.

Mr. Corcoran added that he and his partner of 19 years have been chaste for years, which makes the decision to remove them even more difficult to comprehend. (Mr. Corcoran's partner does not want to be named and did not file a complaint with the tribunal.) ...

Mr. Corcoran said he is seeking $20,000 from each parishioner and $25,000 from the bishop. He said he wants the money to be donated to a charity of his choice.

more

Labels: Canada, Catholic Church, homosexuality, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 5:12 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

How Women Will Be Hurt By Gay Marriage: David Klinghoffer

quotes Joshua Berman:

...Because of what you read in the the writers of imperial Rome. Some people are indeed homoerotic by nature. But others, as Aristotle noted, develop this as an acquired passion. Homoeroticism is, to a large degree, socially constructed. It turns out that where homoeroticism is granted full social sanction, as it was in Rome, it flourishes -- so much so, that one writer noted that the emperor Claudius exhibited an unusual trait: he was sexually interested in women alone!

Men, we learn from ancient Rome, will enjoy sex with other men, if there is no social censure. Now, all of this should be fine for us as well -- after all, we should let free choice and tolerance reign.

The real problems begin, however, when we read what these writers had to say about marriage.

more

Labels: gay marriage, homosexuality, Marriage

posted by Imapp Staff at 5:04 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Two National Rabbinic Groups Issue Religious Ban on Voting for Pro-Homosexual Agenda Politicians: Press release

states:

In light of recent developments in the ongoing push to legislate a Federal Hate Crimes Bill in Congress and same gender marriage legislation in New York and other states, Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the 65 year old Orthodox Jewish national Rabbinic organization Rabbinical Alliance of America, surrounded by Rabbis, issued a religious ban on voting for any politician or office holder who supports any aspect of the homosexual political agenda.

Go to www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8VkYFAGR9I to see the actual video of the statement.

more

Labels: gay marriage, homosexuality, Judaism, religion

posted by Imapp Staff at 12:21 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM IN AFRICA: UU World

reports (there's obviously a lot more in this article--I'm just pulling out a few bits):

...I traveled to Kenya in November 2008 on assignment for UU World to report on Unitarian Universalism’s rapid growth in Africa. Ten years ago, the continent counted only a handful of UU congregations—four in South Africa, where Unitarianism was introduced in 1857, and two in Nigeria, where a Unitarian church was founded in 1919. Recently, congregations have emerged in places such as Kampala, Uganda; Bujumbura, Burundi; and Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo. But the most spectacular growth has occurred in Kenya, where local leaders say sixty-eight congregations have sprouted in the Kisii province, a six-hour drive west of Nairobi. Several dozen more have emerged in Nairobi and central Kenya. ...

A few blocks from his home, Magara stopped at another house he owns, this one occupied by his other wife, with whom he has seven children. Theresa Magara, 54, lives with their widowed daughter and her five children, all of whom Magara supports. One of his sons by Theresa, Justine, oversees a second group of UU congregations in Kisii District. After a short visit, Theresa asked Magara to lead a prayer, and he obliged. As he left, he gave her a 50-shilling note (about 60 U.S. cents).

Unitarians in Kisii condone multiple marriage, which is part of Kisii culture. That stance sets them apart from other denominations in Kenya, which discourage the practice. Isaac Choti, who runs a Unitarian-sponsored elementary school in a nearby village, has two wives, both of whom are teachers at the school. “I had been a Christian all my life,” Choti said, “but my church had policies I didn’t like. Some churches make it hard for us. They say you can only come with one wife. But Jesus said come as you are. In UU, they welcome everyone.”

In other important ways, Kisii Unitarians embrace a progressive view of the role of women in society. For example, the churches take an activist position against domestic violence, which is a particular problem in Kisii, where women often are saddled with much of the heavy farming work while husbands idle away their days smoking and talking with friends. Female circumcision also remains a common practice. But the Magaras, and most Unitarians here, preach against it. ...

Okenyuri used to belong to another church, but she became interested in Unitarian Universalism “because I felt it was a church with freedom, a church that wasn’t always pounding people.”

“We found that Unitarians defend women very much,” she added. “We have a problem in Kenya and we are determined to change a system where a pregnant woman has to carry sticks on her head, push a wheelbarrow, or work in the field while the men sit around. Unitarianism teaches our husbands that we are equal. Those other churches tell us we must obey.” ...

Mbugua’s wife, Eliza Nyambura, said she stresses that message of inclusion in the congregation of seventy members that she oversees north of Nairobi. “What we tell them is that if you become a UU there is no difference between a Kikuyu, a Masai, or a Luo,” she said. “They are all the same in the eyes of God. That message really resonates with people.”

The social issues that bring many UUs together in the United States take a back seat for most Kenyan UUs. While domestic violence and women’s rights are important to Kenyan UUs, most of them are opposed to abortion and homosexuality. In fact, some Kenyan UU leaders joined a recent protest against abortion in front of Kenya’s Parliament.

“We promote positive practices like unity, peace, love, and the care of others,” said Justine Magara, Patrick Magara’s son and a KUUC director. “But we discourage people from homosexuality, alcohol, rape, and incest. Homosexuality is not all that common in Africa, anyway; it’s something we feel has been introduced by Western influences. But we do have a problem in Kenya with domestic violence.”

A church recently launched by Mark Kiyimba in Kampala, Uganda, however, has an active lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender group--in a country where homosexuality is against the law--and its congregants are mostly middle-class professionals. His congregation runs an orphanage and school for more than 200 children who have HIV/AIDS or who have lost one or both parents to the disease.

more

Labels: Africa, homosexuality, polygamy, religion

posted by Eve at 1:52 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Marriage and gay history

By David Benkof
DavidBenkof@aol.com

GaysDefendMarriage.com contains a few new items that apply gay and lesbian history to the marriage debate. The first is a 3,000-word essay (http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/phantom-past/) showing the falsehood of the widespread assumption behind the gay-marriage debate that being gay means being part of a naturally occuring minority that appears in every society. I cite a half-dozen leading gay and lesbian historians and anthropologists to show how those with the best expertise and the most evidence all acknowledge that being gay is a phenomenon limited to the last 150 years.

Then there's my short essay, reprinted below, about how understanding a particular rhythm in American gay and lesbian history can help explain the current "marriage equality" obsession by gay and lesbian leaders.


Gay marriage in historical perspective

The debate on same-sex marriage needs to be understood in the context of the role of both freedom and equality in the American gay and lesbian past.

Since sexual minorities began to organize in the United States the 1950s, gays and lesbians have experienced alternating periods - some emphasizing freedom, and some emphasizing equality. For example, during the McCarthy era, gays emphasized equality - not losing security clearances because of your sexuality, and not having the government stigmatize and even arrest you because of the way you have sex.

In the 1970s, however, freedom was more important. After all, the most visible gay organization right after the 1969 Stonewall Rebellion was the Gay Liberation Front. Liberation, of course, means freedom. And the lesbian separatist movement that promoted books like Jill Johnston's Lesbian Nation and events like the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (founded in 1976), by definition didn't want to integrate into American society, but to have the freedom to build self-contained lesbian-feminist communities.

Today's same-sex marriage movement has all the hallmarks of a return to equality. Most "marriage equality" activists are so focused on the current emphasis of the gay community that they fail to remember that the pioneers who started the gay liberation movement believed in freedom for everyone. Thus, many gay and lesbian activists I have spoken with say that once gay marriage passes, they want the government to force traditionally religious people to use the gay definition of marriage in their jobs and businesses or face punishment. And in both Massachusetts where adoption agencies cannot give even a slight tiebreaker preference to families with both a mother and a father, and in California where the Supreme Court appears set to force religious fertility doctors to violate their consciences and inseminate lesbians, few if any voices in the gay community have stood up and asked, "Wait, isn't our movement about freedom?"

It's time for everyone to accept that sometimes, gay people just aren't equal. That's not an insult, it's a fact. Other groups seem to understand this. Women know they're not equally qualified to be major league baseball players. Asian-American actors know they're not equally qualified to play Othello or Lena Younger. Similarly, while lesbians may be terrifically qualified to be mothers, they are not equally qualified to be fathers.

Who knows how long the current gay emphasis on equality over freedom will last? If history is any guide, it won't last forever - but then it will be back. In the meantime, is it really a good idea to make a radical social change that expands gay equality but limits everyone else's freedom just because that matches the present priorities of the gay and lesbian community?

Labels: homosexuality, Marriage

posted by David Benkof at 12:17 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Marriage equality for incest-lite?

By David Benkof
DavidBenkof@aol.com

The people who want to redefine marriage insist they share our values and aren't trying to change the nature of what marriage means in America. So it is clearly fair game to look carefully at the full range of how gay and lesbian relationships over the last decade or more have worked.

Though most straight people have never heard of it, there's a small but not insignificant subculture among gay and bisexual men known as the "Daddy-boy" scene. (Google it for some examples.) These are typically two adult men with a large age difference - which is the erotic point of the relationship. The older man is referred to as "Daddy" by his "boy," sometimes called his "son." While virtually none of these men desires an actual incestuous liaison, gay "sexperts" acknowledge that some of the excitement of these relationships comes from role-playing incest fantasies.

I am certainly not suggesting this behavior should be illegal - any more than that of two consenting adults who act out a child molestation "scene." But this form of relationship has no clear counterpart among couples married using the longstanding definition of the word. To my knowledge, there has never been an adult age-diverse "Mommy-boy" couple looking for applause as they march in a mostly straight parade. But the equivalent absolutely happens in the gay community by members of the Daddy-boy subculture.

Daddy-boy couples are not stigmatized at all by the gay community, or criticized in editorials in the gay press. It represents an unusual (though not the most unusual) but completely accepted way for two gay men who love each other to arrange their relationship.

Now, we're constantly told that adding same-sex couples to the marriage rolls will make very little difference in what marriage means and won't harm any presently married couple. But I think starting to call couples who model their love after incestuous realtionships "married" would would do incredible damage to the institution.

I know many decent, basically moral people who disagree with me on same-sex marriage. I would invite them to show good faith in their claim that same-sex marriage won't change the basic nature of what marriage means by agreeing that if and when the definition of marriage ever changes, they will work with me to make sure couples who base their relationship dynamic on incest will not be included.

To be clear: I am not saying that "Daddy-boy couples" are a legitimate reason to deny people in more conventional same-sex relationships inclusion in some future definition of marriage. I am saying, however, that because everyone can agree that the subset of the gay community that eroticizes incest would materially hurt the hallowed institution of marriage, we should all make sure that if a redefinition of marriage does occur, it won't include this legal but troubling way of letting people experience the taboo thrill of incest without actually doing it.

Labels: homosexuality, incest, Marriage

posted by David Benkof at 3:21 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

John Corvino responds to David Benkof

David Benkof very thoughtfully invited me to reply to his comments on my "What's Morally Wrong With Homosexuality?" lecture. I appreciate the opportunity.

First, a clarification: Benkof writes that "Corvino's approach to morality is similar to Descartes' approach to reality - one can sit alone in a room and think hard about morality and figure out what's moral and what isn't." Actually, that's about the furthest thing from my approach to morality. I'm an empiricist; my doctoral dissertation was on Hume's moral theory. I don't think we can figure out moral issues without carefully consulting human experience, and in particular, facts about whether actions, traits, and principles are conducive to human flourishing. Indeed, I think the main problem with most critiques of homosexuality is their failure to attend to the real experience of gay and lesbian people.

But Benkof's central argument against me, to put it simply, is the following: God knows what's best, and God says it's wrong, so it's wrong. As he writes, "Now, Corvino could probably sit in his room and come up with lots of reasons that aspects of Judaism are 'immoral' while things Judaism rejects are actually 'moral'…. The problem is, Corvino is not divine."

Let me be clear on something: if an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent creator of the universe says that homosexuality is immoral, then homosexuality is immoral. Or to put it another way, given a choice between what I say and what God says, by all means go with God.

The problem is, while I am not divine, neither is Benkof. Here I'm reminded of a dialogue I once had with an evangelical Christian friend. Exasperated with my position on homosexuality, she blurted out, "You trust your own fallible mind, but you don’t trust the infallible mind of Christ!"

"And with whose mind am I supposed to trust Christ?" I responded. "My own, fallible one, or some other?"

The point is that belief in an infallible God does not make one infallible. That’s true whether one believes in Christ or Yahweh (or both, or neither). Many people—with widely disparate views—have claimed to know God’s mind, and they can't all be right. As humans, we are fallible. So this is not Corvino versus God; it's Corvino versus Benkof—each one trying to figure out what's right.

As an Orthodox Jew, Benkof takes the Torah to be the inspired word of God. He is correct that I find much there to criticize (as well as much to admire). For instance, I am far more confident in the wrongness of slavery than in the infallibility of the Torah.

But there is room for discussion even among those who treat the text as infallible. For example, when Leviticus states that man shall not lie with a male "as with a woman," is it prohibiting all male homosexual sex or merely penetrative anal intercourse? If the latter, then (contra Benkof) the text does not forbid "virtually all sexual contact between males."

I will leave it to Orthodox Jews to work through such questions from an Orthodox Jewish perspective. From our shared human perspective, however, I think moral questions deserve a more thoughtful treatment than simply "God says so"—beginning with the humility to acknowledge our limitations in discerning God's voice.

Again, I thank David Benkof for his invitation to respond.

Labels: homosexuality, morality

posted by David Benkof at 12:50 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

What's morally wrong with "What's morally wrong with homosexuality?"

By David Benkof
DavidBenkof@aol.com

Dr. John Corvino's talk, "What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality," has been canceled by Aquinas College in Grand Rapids, Michigan (a Catholic school) and the same talk has been rescheduled for tomorrow night at the Fountain Street Church.

Corvino has been giving versions of this talk in many venues over the last decade, challenging his listeners to articulate exactly what - if anything - is morally wrong with gay sex and gay relationships. He has quick, thoughtful comebacks to many of the standard answers ("It's harmful," for example, and "It's unnatural.") I've read some of Corvino's arguments at the Independent Gay Forum Web site, and I admire the fact that Corvino acknowledges that decent, intelligent people can disagree on moral issues relating to homosexuality. However, I must say that Corvino's approach could never convince an Orthodox Jew like me.

First off, I should make it clear that Orthodox Judaism does not believe that homosexuality (as a set of attractions or an orientation) is itself immoral. Gay sex and gay marriages, however, are considered immoral.

Corvino's approach to morality is similar to Descartes' approach to reality - one can sit alone in a room and think hard about morality and figure out what's moral and what isn't. Judaism rejects this approach. Instead, we believe that morality comes from G-d - as revealed in His written Torah (the five books of Moses) and oral Torah (codified in the Talmud and elaborated in other rabbinic texts).

Exactly which kinds of intimacy are moral and immoral - and between whom - are spelled out in this legal corpus. Virtually all sexual contact between males, and much sexual contact betwen females is forbidden, and same-sex marriages are rejected for both Jews and non-Jews.

Now, Corvino could probably sit in his room and come up with lots of reasons that aspects of Judaism are "immoral" while things Judaism rejects are actually "moral." He could claim that it is never OK to perform elective surgery without the patient's consent - and infant circumcision, the very sign of G-d's covenant, would be out. He could rail against G-d's commandment that the Jewish people annihilate the Amalekites (a people we no longer can identify) and claim that genocide is "always immoral." He could claim that even though Jewish methods of slaughtering are clearly humane, newer methods actually cause less pain and therefore kosher slaughter is immoral. And he could argue (as he has) that gay sex makes certain people happy, and it therefore must be moral.

The problem is, Corvino is not divine. We may think we've figured out why certain behaviors are moral or immoral, and even find some of G-d's moral calculus to be frankly troubling. But we are moral dwarves compared to the infinite wisdom and goodness of the creator of the universe. One rabbi has compared the situation to a young child who is perplexed as to why his mother would allow the doctor to inject him with painful needles. But parents know that inoculations, while painful, are essential to a child's well-being. Similarly, we may feel that for us, avoiding gay sex is painful and it may even seem "immoral," but G-d knows better than we do what is best for us.

I doubt that anything written above will change the mind of anyone who isn't an Orthodox Jew. And I have no idea to what extent the argument I'm making applies to religious Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims. It's even possible that Dr. Corvino doesn't really have a beef with Orthodox Jews, since none of his arguments seem to address people like me. But I think it's important to point out that for some of us who believe that gay sex is immoral, Corvino's clever ripostes and well-rehearsed arguments are pretty much beside the point.

Labels: homosexuality, Judaism, morality

posted by David Benkof at 8:24 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT