Dr. Greg Barker, an exceptional teacher, posted an article on his teaching/coaching website concerning a Jewish organization with many queer members. Empathetically, he posed the question, “Which teachings in Judaism could be used to support the inclusion of the LBGTQ+ community?“
This is a subject that has received much attention by Jews, so I will not be offering any dramatically new insights here, but perhaps this post can stand as a brief summary of how Jews have opened their eyes, their minds, and their texts to a more accurate and expansive understanding of the norms of human sexuality.
Let me state first and foremost that, for the vast majority of Jews in the US and Western Europe, the issue of total acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community has already been fairly thoroughly resolved. That community is widely welcomed in most non-Orthodox shuls (synagogues), and even in some Orthodox shuls. As for Israel, I’m not informed enough to know whether “vast majority” also applies there, or just “majority.”
As for the specific issue that Dr. Barker poses, let me mention just a few verses and teachings.
As noted in the helpful article at the My Jewish Learning site, here, a common response to Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 (the primary but not exclusive verses that have been used to vilify queer sex) has been with the often repeated demand that 'there must be one law for the home-born and the stranger alike,' with 'stranger ' often being replaced by (or understood to mean) 'weak and outcast' or 'orphan and widow'. Quoting the My Jewish Learning article:
This verse is one of the most problematic in the entire Torah; its meaning seems to be quite obvious, and yet it is extremely difficult for many Jews to take at face value. Could the Torah — which has at its core the message that Israel must not despise or abuse the weak, helpless, or outnumbered in its midst — really be declaring that loving relationships between two consenting adults is abhorrent, even worthy of the death penalty?
To that end, Torah provides us with another text to challenge our narrow understanding of human sexuality. In Genesis 1:27 we read:
And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
This verse can be read quite literally as declaring the androgyny of humans, countering any homophobic inclination readers may have.
Judaism rejects a fundamentalist understanding of Bible. The Talmudic sages, who lived 1000-1500 years after the Torah was composed, said that every verse of Torah has 70 (or, at least 70) viable interpretations. These sages, with their expanded vision of Torah and Jewish practice, formulated and instituted the 2nd great reformation of Judaism. (FYI, the biblical Prophets instituted the first great reformation, and we are living now amidst the 3rd great reformation which began with the Enlightenment.) So if we look at Leviticus 18:22 (which is comparable to Leviticus 20:13, but without adding the death penalty) it’s translation is very reliably rendered:
Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence....
We can read this verse quite simply and honestly as NOT prohibiting males from having sex together, but simply saying they shouldn't do it the same way men have sex with women. I'll leave further explication to your imagination. Nor does the text say ANYTHING about lesbian sex. This kind of reading of these verses is in no way contorted. The Torah has NO problem with stating its intentions clearly. "Thou shalt not murder." If Torah wanted to preclude any kind of non-heterosexual intercourse, it could have very easily done so. BUT IT DIDN'T. Not anywhere.
Now, I'm not saying that traditional Judaism didn't use these and similar verses to promote a homophobic agenda and to produce homophobic constraints on behavior. I'm simply saying the TEXT is open. Human minds and hearts are often not open; but that's a different problem entirely, at least in my view.
Finally, as the My Jewish Learning site (and many others) note, the Hebrew term translated as "abhorrent" or "aberrant" (etc) is "to-ayvah," which is a term that is used almost exclusively to refer to Canaanite religious practices that were forbidden because they were abusive or otherwise unacceptable. So it's likely that the text would have been understood in ancient Israelite times (~1000BCE to ~300BCE, when Biblical Hebrew was the spoken language — and thus, its implications well understood) differently than it came be understood in rabbinic times (post ~200CE, when Aramaic and other languages were spoken, and Hebrew was a learned language). This later, Rabbinic reading, is the understanding we have inherited. Originally, this verse may have been prohibiting sex as a cultic (religious) act, or it may have been prohibiting non-consensual male-male sex. (Again, there is no mention/prohibition of lesbian sex anywhere in Torah, or Bible, to the best of my knowledge.) Thus, if this is true, verse 18:22 quoted above might be more accurately translated as:
Do not have sex in a public, religious setting; it is an abhorrence....
or:
Do not force yourself sexually on another person; it is an abhorrence…
To sum up, by understanding that Torah is (and always was) a multivalent text, we can recognize at least 4 ways that the text allows us to dismantle homophobic interpretations:
1. It supersedes them with ethical values that are more pertinent and more elevated.
2. It uses terminology that is specifically and intentionally vague to allow multiple understandings.
3. It offers contradictory statements to open the text to a wider understanding.
4. It limits the applicability of the texts to unacceptable Canaanite practices.
No doubt, the astute and ethical reader of Torah will be able to find still other ways of expanding our practice of respect, justice, and moral responsibility. And here’s one final thought. This is NOT a matter of compassion. Compassion is a looking down on others; it is about pity and/or empathy for those who are less than us. LGBTQ people are not less than heterosexuals, and gay/lesbian sexuality, tho less common, is not aberrant in any way. Thus, I speak of expanding respect, not compassion.
Just sayin’.