Judaism & Gayness

LONDON: Some years ago, Rabbi Dow Marmur of the North-Western reform Synagogue was asked to comment upon the Wolfenden Report. Seeking advice from a colleague, he was told, “What is there to say? It (homosexuality) doesn’t exist among Jews”. Rabbi Marmur saw little reason to doubt that the generally accepted figure of 5% of the population being homosexual applied equally to the Jewish community.

He was speaking to an attentive and crowded meeting of‘“Integroup” at Golders Green, which is a society of homosexual and heterosexual men and women meeting to promote integration and a better understanding of human relationships.

Rabbi Marmur traced the history of Jewish attitudes to homosexuality and the abhorrence with which it has been traditionally regarded. However, homosexuality was only one example of the inevitable tension between the individual and the orthodox tradition. In Judaism the collective interest had always come first. This did not mean that orthodox rabbis could not be – indeed no doubt they often were – compassionate when faced with homosexuality but what could they do in the face of the Law?

He regarded the task of religion as to make people whole. Persons came before principles; but how could the Law accommodate to this?

Despite the Law, he felt that Jews of all people should have a special feeling for and sympathy with persecuted or misunderstood minorities. Their history was such that it could be said that Jewish homosexuals stood in the same relation to Judaism, as Judaism stood in relation to the Gentile world. There were those present who doubted whether it was characteristic of minorities to tolerate other minorities; indeed often quite the contrary.

Rabbi Marmur expressed some dismay at the separatist tendencies of Jewish Gay Liberation, feeling very strongly that the congregation should not be divided. This provoked some debate. One member of the audience who said he was both gay and Jewish felt that the attitude of the synagogue had rendered it totally irrelevant to him. Another speaker felt that gay separatism might bring the Jewish establishment to its senses and encourage liberalisation.

Certainly there was plenty of lively discussion, leaving no doubt that this is a topic which needs airing openly and with understanding.

Integroup, Golders Green.

Integroup – A Social Experiment

Integroup came into being in the Autumn of 1970 as a society of heterosexual and homosexual men and women, meeting to promote integration and a better understanding of human relationships, both within the group and in society generally. It was founded in Catford, London, where the pilot group still meets, and about a year later, a second Integroup formed in Golders Green, London. It is still therefore at a very formative stage, and must still be regarded as a social experiment.

Behind Integroup lie certain assumptions, most of which will be familiar to and accepted by readers of Gay News, but which have a generally less certain currency elsewhere. As far as we can see, human sexuality has always been, in all ages and societies that we know about, extremely variable as it still is today. Why this should be so we cannot tell. There are of course any number of theories – sometimes the consensus leans towards environment, sometimes towards heredity. In this writer’s view, it is probable that the causes are complex and involve both factors, and are likely to vary according to the individual. Perhaps we should rather ask why shouldn’t there be this variability. Since human nature is so variable in other ways, why should we expect or desire conformity in this respect? In any case whatever opinion or attitude is held, the facts of the matter can scarcely be disputed, namely that there is a scale of sexuality with heterosexual men and women at the one end, and homosexual men and women at the other. Between these two poles are bi-sexual men and women. All of us are somewhere on this scale of sexuality, with its many, often subtle, graduations. Integroup accepts that these diverse expressions of sexuality are all natural in society, and considers that social and legal discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexual preference is both unhealthy and immoral.

When Catford Integroup came into being, the local press called it a ‘club for homosexuals’. This isn’t so, and to so regard it is to miss the whole point. There are of course any number of gay clubs and pubs for those who want them, as well as GLF and CHE. Integroup is not opposed to these and feels sure that all of these have important roles to play. Gay may be good, as may straight, but 1 doubt whether either have a monopoly of virtue. The distinctive thing about Integroup is that it is just as much for heterosexuals as for homosexuals, and as much for men as for women. It is true that some degree of contrivance is necessary to achieve and maintain this balance. It is also true that since no-one is required to state their sexual preference unless they want to, the proportions are not absolute. Nevertheless the whole point of Integroup is ‘gay-straight’ integration, that is for mutual benefit.

Initially then, Integroup seeks to promote among its members mutual understanding and respect, to create in microcosm what it feels society at large should reflect. At this stage, probably, heterosexuals have the more to gain, for through they might have liberal attitudes in intent, to practice them and experience them is often something very different. Certainly many of the straights at Integroup have said how personally enriching this contact has been for them. On the other hand the gays have said that they have benefitted immensely from the experience of simply being themselves in an integrated group. And so purely on this level, Integroup has enabled people from all over the Kinsey scale to discover each other as people. And looking to society as a whole – and that is of course predominantly heterosexual society – we reckon that it is losing a great deal in effectively causing the homosexual minority to segregate itself into special groups and to live even today to a very large extent in an atmosphere of secrecy and fear. A healthy society is one in which minority groups – as long as they believe in and practise toleration themselves – can live openly and responsibly.

In the long term then Integroup is concerned to foster healthier social attitudes, and differs from purely homophile organisations in believing that heterosexuals must be as actively engaged in this as homosexuals. It is true of course that this kind of programme is in itself a minority appeal within a minority. Some straights have come out of curiosity, and some gays have come mistaking us for a gay club. Of these a few have been converted, others have left. This is inevitable.

At present Integroup meets socially, holds serious meetings and discussions, offers to provide speakers, monitors the press and aims to increase its strength and influence in a number of directions.

ED: Thanks to Integroup for this article. If any other group or organisation would like to use the pages of Gay News to communicate their ideas and describe what they are doing, then please remember that you are most welcome to do so.

Harrow Is Hard

HARROW: The Harrow area has one of the highest rates of convictions of gays of any courts of London, claimed a priest who runs a group that aims to integrate the gays and heterosexuals as a “social experiment”.

The Rev Keith Gilley, who’s the Unitarian minister of Golders Green was talking about what goes on at Golder’s Green’s Integroup group to the Harrow Humanist Society.

Reiernng to discrimination against gays he said Harrow had one of the highest rates of homosexual convictions of any part of London. “In the year up to last February there were about 200 convictions in Harrow for homosexual behaviour,” he said. “The person convicted usually receives heavy fines, and worse, a mention in the local newspaper.”

Mr Gilley condemned the police for using spy holes in two cottages in Harrow and added that policemen in “camp” clothing were put on duty outside cottages.

He said “Integroup is a society meeting to promote better understanding of human relationships, both within the group and among the general public, an even balance of men and women is maintained, although no-one is asked to state their preference.

“As far as we know, human sexuality has always been extremely variable. The situation at the moment is one of non-knowledge.”

No Bread but Good Vibes for Gay News

01-197205XX 4The National Federation of Homophile Organisations was born on 30th October 1971. The insemination took place 15 months previously at York University during July 1970. This slow gestation period reflects the changes in attitude and heart of its founder members (SMG, CHE, St. Catherines, womens’ groups) as much as the turtle’s pace which NFHO has tended to move since October, 1971. The Meeting in Catford on Saturday 1O June, 1972 – thanks Tony Cross of INTEGROUP – was to formulate planning and financial policies for the year ahead. 2O people representing most of the structured homosexual organisations in the U.K. attended.

Sadly we began too formally. This imposed a deadness on the proceedings which proved hard to lift, though one or two tried. Quite a few of us were strangers and didn’t really know who was representing what. The rest, (the old guard), were glad of the rare chance to socialise and exchange gossip. We needed no introductions having been active in structured homosexual society since its beginnings in the 1960’s. Wise old cheshire cats we are, delighted and yet bewildered at the great growth and diversification in the gay world since GLF shattered the silence late in 1970.

There was agreement on limited non-controversial topics. Michael Butler’s suggestion of a residential weekend conference 2-3 September at St. Catherine’s on the subject of “Befriending”, was enthusiastically received. We also decided, though less cheerfully, to seek NFHO offices (rented) in principle, which would also house a CHE office, Albany Trust, Albany Society Limited, and A’3. Group meetings would also take place there. “GAY NEWS” was also discussed at some length. The idea of the newspaper as an “official organ” of the National Federation was rejected, but a strong plea was made that individuals should write in to the paper because the quality of the paper depends on the strength of the articles it receives.

NFHO’s best function will be as an organisation for information collation and exchange. It will be best equipped to talk directly with the large Foundations and organisations such as the National Council of Social Service, Marriage Guidance Council, Home Office, D.E.S. However, overshadowing everything is the nagging realisation that NFHO is an extra financial committment for its member organisations.

Anthony Grey urged everyone to think big in cash terms, otherwise the gay movement would never finance itself.