I would like to offer a simple solution and simple redirection of the issues in this thread.
First, the observation that there are two separate discussions going on:
Issue A - How does Jewish law look on- permissible, optional, prohibited, strongly prohibited- two same gender people living together, calling themselves husband and wife, and raising children which they call “their children.â€
Issue B - How does Jewish law view the educational rights of “the children†of such a couple.
What I would like to suggest is that Issue A is problematic and should be discussed. However, issue B is very clear. I would like to cite the thoughts of Rabbi Shore, then over a 100 years old, who spoke on this. Some background might be useful. I attended Etz Chaim elementary school in Boro Park. This was the first elementary school in the US which used an English-English approach to learning Jewish studies. As an alumnus of Etz Chaim I was invited about a decade or so ago to attend a dinner to raise money for the school which was not doing so well (The school has since gone out of business).
Rabbi Shore, over a 100 years old, spoke at the dinner. During the speech, he reminisced about the creation of the elementary school. He dealt with the issue, discussed at the school’s founding, of whether the school should be open for enrollment to children of parents who desecrated the Sabbath publicly.
Rabbi Shore explained how he simply dealt with this issue using the “community-individual†distinction a distinction that facilitates understanding several dozen Talmudic controversies. Rabbi Shore proceeded to explain
*If* the goal of school enrollment is *communal* image then indeed it would seriously mar the communal image if it accepted children of parents who publicly desecrate the Sabbath.
If however, the goal of school enrollment is to ensure education access to all Jewish children then the school is required to seek and enroll children whose parents desecrate the Sabbath.
I would add to Rabbi Shore that however horrible (or not horrible) the parent’s behavior, the children have not sinned. We can’t penalize them from a Jewish education because of their parent’s deeds.
I return to issue A) mentioned above which has resurfaced in this thread. I think it would be fruitful to re-discuss this issue. A model of issue discussion is found in the responsa of Rav Moshe. Rav Moshe would never give a psak: He would rather tell you several reasons why you might think differently and after refuting them tell the psak. What disturbs me about discussion on homosexuality and same-gender parents is the lack of discussion of opposing sources. This lack of thoroughness is uncharacteristic of advanced Jewish scholarship. I modestly point out three general omissions I have found in the discussions:
1) Counter sources: It has been said that there are no sources indicating that same gender couples are prohibited. Independent of the final psak and conclusion, this is simply wrong. There are very strong sources against same-gender couples. Again, my concern is not on final conclusion but on the fact that they are not mentioned and discussed.
2) Exaggeration: There seems to be much exaggeration (stretching things beyond their intended scope) in these discussions. For example, while it is true that same-gender couples are created in the image of God, “image of God†cannot be used to say that no prohibition is being made. As another example, while it is true that abstention from certain practices means no cut-off (Kareth) prohibitions are violated, it does not imply that other prohibitions (of lesser severity) are not being violated. The discussion on these topics if it is to be respectable must include sources within their scope of applicability.
3) Recusement: It is accepted in the scientific community (less religious than us) that if you write on something in which you have a conflict of interest then you **disclose** that conflict of interest. This doesn’t prevent you from presenting your case but the reader is entitled to know the conflict of interest. Clearly any endorsement of same-gender couples aligns with current secular views of same-gender couples while opposition to same-gender couples would create a confrontation with current secular (and legal) views. Thus discussions of final psak should disclose this conflict of interest. I should add that the coupling of silence on conflicts of interest with exaggeration and omission of sources creates an atmosphere of lack of credibility.
In closing, I emphasize, independent of one’s views on same-gender couples, the children must be “held harmlessâ€; they must be given education.
Respectfully
Russell Jay Hendel; Ph.D., www.Rashiyomi.com/
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2017 06:46PM by mlb.
