Dennis Prager

Commentary on Dennis Prager and Judaism’s View on Homosexuality

I wish to commend Dennis Prager’s article as an excellent discussion of the subject. Thanks for sharing the link to it.

-from a comment made by ProclaimLiberty

I started this as a comment in response to PL, as well as to my friend Mel who originally provided the link to the Prager story Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality on a prior meditation, but as I kept writing and writing, it seemed like my response needed more room. Hence this blog post.

Prager’s article goes a long way to explain why the Torah specifically prohibits male on male sexual intercourse but is silent about woman on woman sex.

The revolutionary nature of Judaism’s prohibiting all forms of non-marital sex was nowhere more radical, more challenging to the prevailing assumptions of mankind, than with regard to homosexuality. Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That division was the Bible’s doing. Before the Bible, the world divided sexuality between penetrator (active partner) and penetrated (passive partner). (emph. mine)

Also quoting Martha Nussbaum:

Ancient categories of sexual experience differed considerably from our own… The central distinction in sexual morality was the distinction between active and passive roles. The gender of the object… is not in itself morally problematic. Boys and women are very often treated interchangeably as objects of [male] desire. What is socially important is to penetrate rather than to be penetrated. Sex is understood fundamentally not as interaction, but as a doing of some thing to someone…

I’m now curious about David Greenberg’s book The Construction of Homosexuality since it’s described as “the most thorough historical study of homosexuality ever written” and may go a long way to explain how/if homosexuality was normalized in any past civilizations and if same-sex marriage/mating was considered on moral/social par with opposite-sex marriage/mating.

However, Prager quotes Greenberg as saying:

“With only a few exceptions, male homosexuality was not stigmatized or repressed so long as it conformed to norms regarding gender and the relative ages and statuses of the partners… The major exceptions to this acceptance seem to have arisen in two circumstances.” Both of these circumstances were Jewish.

Prager further states:

Jews or Christians who take the Bible’s views on homosexuality seriously are not obligated to prove that they are not fundamentalists or literalists, let alone bigots (though, of course, people have used the Bible to defend bigotry). Rather, those who claim homosexuality is compatible with Judaism or Christianity bear the burden of proof to reconcile this view with their Bible.

Greenberg bookThis is what I believe Matthew Vines is trying to do in his book God and the Gay Christian, however, Prager says in his article that the Bible’s attitude on homosexuality is “unambiguous” and in his opinion, it’s impossible to reconcile that attitude with any sort of statement that same-sex coupling is acceptable to God.

This may be the key to understanding “abomination” (toevah) as used in Leviticus 18:22. Prager quotes Greenberg again:

“When the word toevah (“abomination”) does appear in the Hebrew Bible, it is sometimes applied to idolatry, cult prostitution, magic, or divination, and is sometimes used more generally…” (emph. mine)

Not all abominations, according to Professor Greenberg, have to be directly related to idolatry or cult prostitution, thus the prohibition against male to male coupling can be reasonably understood as more generalized within Judaism and by inference, Christianity.

Relative to Judaism (and I include Messianic Judaism here), Prager says:

Judaism cannot make peace with homosexuality because homosexuality denies many of Judaism’s most fundamental principles. It denies life, it denies God’s expressed desire that men and women cohabit, and it denies the root structure that Judaism wishes for all mankind, the family.

I agree with PL that Dennis Prager’s article Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality is a “keeper” and goes a long way to summarize both the history of homosexuality in the ancient world and why Judaism (and of course, God) rejected same-sex partnering as a way to promote life, growth, elevation of the status of women, and service to God.

This brief missive was originally conceived as a comment in another blog post so it is understandably brief (compared to how much I usually write). Please read the Prager’s original article in its entirety so you can benefit from all of the details he provides. Remember, Prager is politically and socially conservative, so if you have a more liberal bent, you aren’t going to like what he says.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Commentary on Dennis Prager and Judaism’s View on Homosexuality”

  1. And yet a Muslim might say a Jewish or Christian woman is a sinful whore for not wearing a Burqa… So is this a pointless discussion on quantum suppositions?

  2. Greetings, pinkagendist.

    I young fellow named Matthew Vines who is gay and a Christian wrote a book called God and the Gay Christian and he says his research proves that the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality as most Evangelical Christians tend to believe. I’m interested in reviewing the book and taking a look at the evidence. Does he have a compelling case? I don’t know. It would sure solve certain problems if he does. But I’ll reserve a final opinion until I’ve read his book.

    If someone says “I’m gay and I don’t believe in your religion” or “I’m gay and I don’t believe there is a God,” I don’t have a problem with that. The proscriptions of Jewish and Christian faith only apply to those who identify as religious Jews (ultimately, any Jewish person, but God will have to address that part) and Christians. If Matthew Vines or any one else identifying with the LGBTQ community stated they were atheists and disagreed with what the Bible said, I never would have written a word in response.

    But if someone makes a statement about my faith that seems to contradict what the Bible appears to proclaim in the plain meaning of the text, I want to know more, just as if someone made a controversial statement about any other aspect of my faith as I understand it.

    I suppose that was more of an answer than you expected. Sorry to be so long winded.

  3. Recruiting ten heterosexuals to win (or for a chance to win, not sure which) a toaster is a stereotypical disrespect that reflects badly on gay people, pinkagendist. But there are different kinds of homosexual participants as there are both thoughtful and crude, self-absorbed (as well as other descriptive, such as abused, confused) heterosexual participants.

    I am curious if you have more to say as to why what Muslims say has a bearing on Jewish understanding.

  4. I’m sorry. I seem to have missed something. What about recruiting heterosexuals to win a toaster and Muslims on Jewish understanding?

  5. The Muslim part you can see from what pinkagendist entered in response to this specific topic. The other part is to be seen if you click on pinkagendist’s icon/avatar/whatever it’s called.

  6. The fellow made a quick statement and then was gone. I’m not overly concerned about his opinion and I’m sure by now, he’s not concerned about mine.

  7. The toaster depletion is likely a joke or statement on the high number of men who do participate in homosexual behavior, even men who say or even really think they are “not gay.” Even now, a lot of people define themselves by who does the penetrating (the penetrating aspect is “NOT” gay, such people insist). And this still goes on in militant Islam as well, the “doing” of something to someone (by Muslim men who are not gay) [which is not to be taken as my meaning that it’s mainly a Muslim issue].

  8. Yes, he’s probably gone. I really did want to hear him articulate better the relation of this topic. I suppose it had to do with fundamentalism.

  9. The article above was thoroughly discussed, and persuasive even to those that have a great deal of sympathy for the victims of a non-heterosexual inclination. What was nice about the discussion is it helped me to realize that despite my sympathy for those who engage in non-heterosexual behavior and their consequent personal difficulties, they are essentially indulging themselves in activities that are not the species norm, and are not supportive of the species norm. If you simply look at it as survival of the fittest, under non-technical situations, they are doomed.

    No wonder there are activists that hate those who are ‘against’ them on religious or secular grounds, and desire complete normalization within society, regardless of how the majority population of heterosexual individuals are impacted. They may not be conscious of the fact, but no matter how it is put, nor how hard anyone tries to make that lifestyle normal to the species, it is not, and cannot survive.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s