During the Conservative Movement’s deliberations on homosexuality, “rabbi” Elliott Dorff argued that the Bible should not be the sole authority in determining Jewish law. While the more resourceful “rabbis” twisted the Torah to serve their political objectives, Dorff elucidated the conservative approach: the Bible is no guide to Judaism.

“Rabbi” Mayer Rabinowitz exemplifies the dilemma that faces moral but rationalist rabbis. He accepts abrogating the commandments but argues that homosexuality does not meet the Conservative Movement’s criteria for abrogation: bettering the lives of all Jews rather than a few. His colleagues in the Rabbinical Assembly predictably disproved that flimsy rationale.

“Rabbi” Reuven Kimelman abstained from theological debate and only pled against homosexuality because it gives children a bad example. If, however, homosexuality is not bad per se, then niether is the example bad. Pro-gay “rabbis” challenged Kimmelman to produce biblical proof, forgetting that they also have none.

Proponents of gay marriage employed an old moral objectivist trick: bury morality in words, discredit it with minute discussion of every word. Soon the debate shifts from the moral plane to mundane issues which warrant no defense. So the rabbis bizarrely engaged in a picturesque discussion of various forms of homosexual intercourse, as if Leviticus 18:22 is not clear enough: “You shall not lie with man as with a woman”; any homosexual action is prohibited. They claim that Lev18:22 doesn’t specifically mention homosexuality. Do they expect anatomical illustrations?

Dorff waived the prohibition of homosexuality for some odd sex involving the partner’s thighs out of concern for human dignity; quite a dignity that is. What about the dignity of those who practice zoophilia? That abomination is prohibited alongside homosexuality; both must be permitted simultaneously, if at all.

The rabbis twist arguments not a little. Thus, “rabbis” Geller and Fine argue from Hullin 17a that inadmissible things can become admissible. Hullin, however, merely surmises that during the Hebrew conquest of Canaan, soldiers were allowed to eat non-kosher meat as an emergency measure.

The conservative rabbis have a point that the Talmudic sages often twisted the words of the Torah to make them fit current circumstances. The sages did so overwhelmingly to avoid harsh punishment. In that, they followed the Torah which intended the punishments as threats. To redefine abomination as a moral positive is beyond rabbinic practice.

Geller’s example of heter iska, the circumvention of usury laws through profit-sharing partnership between creditors and borrowers, is silly: partnership presupposes sharing risks, while loans reward creditors regardless of their debtor partners’ profit or loss. One shameful legal fiction is no precedent for another.

Geller and the two Fine rabbis compared homosexuality to slavery, condoned in the Bible but abhorred in the modern world. That’s a logical error. The Torah frowns upon slavery but accepts it de facto and regulates it to near impossibility. There is no commandment to have slaves. Rejection of slavery, therefore, does not contradict the Torah and likely vindicates its attitude. Homosexuality is expressly prohibited, and lifting the prohibition plainly violates the Bible.

Conservative rabbis claim to penetrate the divine mind and know the rationale behind the prohibition of homosexuality. As such, they follow the rationale while disregarding the letter of the law. The sanctity of life and therefore of marriage and procreation is indeed paramount in the Torah, but is not the immediate rationale of the commandment against homosexuality. Jews engaged in sex not only for procreation. Our ancestors surely enjoyed recreational sex, but recreational gay sex is condemned. Women are prohibited from copulating with beasts, though the resulting loss of animal semen is irrelevant for human life and the Torah surely does not regret forbidding Jewish women to marry donkeys. The Torah prohibits gay sex not simply because homosexuals cannot marry or procreate. The abominable character of the action is a rationale per se. Why? Because. Ask why having sex with one’s mother is abomination or eating excrement. Because. Society evolved that way. The opposite behavior attitude proved evolutionarily competitive. Jews outlived homosexual Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. Do ethical standards change? Yes, usually before societies collapse.

Conservative rabbis are ready to change the commandments if they prove the rationale behind them wrong. They want to imitate God in setting the commandments, so why not in creation? Why don’t they go create a world, another world for themselves?

The rabbis seek to sanctify homosexual relations by giving them the status of marriage. Marital bonds make homosexual relations no purer than pasteurizing purifies excrement. Marital status raises many concomitant questions, notably about gay couples, trios or quartets adopting children and debauching them with their adopted parents’ example. Geller and Fine would allow gay people to adopt children.

The Rabbinical Assembly’s stress on the equality of all Jews is incorrect. A law-abiding Jew is not equal to a murderer, a rapist, or a sinner. Justice depends on recognizing that people are not equal: some people sin and should be punished.

The rabbis say homosexuality is a physiological condition, not a matter of free will. That is a gross misunderstanding. Even if the homosexual drive is inborn, its realization is a matter of choice. The concepts of ethics and law are about controlling natural desires: not raping every good-looking woman, not stealing others’ possessions, and abstaining from possibly pleasant homosexual relations.

Homosexuals were virtually unheard of before the 1960s. In many cases, homosexuality is recreational sin. Eunuchs arrived at their state unintentionally and don’t enjoy it, yet are positively prohibited from the assembly. All the more are homosexuals prohibited.

The Reform and Conservative movements proclaim tolerance of sin and redefine Judaism to serve the tastes of their atheist congregations; a pet religion. They elevate violations into precedents and use them to substantiate further violations. The Torah prohibits extramarital sex, but the prohibition is no longer enforced and synagogues welcome adulterers. Why not welcome homosexuals? For one, the rabbis should reproach adulterers. The Talmudic Rabbi Zeira associated with bandits hoping to reform them, but contemporary rabbis disapproved of him. Modern rabbis associate with transgressors without condemning them because the transgressors pay synagogue fees and make donations. Second, marital infidelity is a lesser transgression than homosexuality: infidelity affects individuals while homosexuality pollutes the entire community. Jews must oppose every immorality, but Judaism never presumed all judges righteous. Sinners may detest other sinners.

Rabbi Joel Roth asked correctly, how can pork-eating, Sabbath-violating rabbis exclude gay people? In Jeremiah’s words, “Is this house, called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight?” It apparently did, and one kind of robber sees no reason to exclude another.