Keeping in touch with gays

Isn't touching that isn't intended to be sexual not touching that is affectionate?

Life.
Since there is room for easing up on polite touching that has no pleasure at all, like a handshake. It is possible that it is also possible to ease up on touching between men and women in general, since there is no dimension of inciting an offense at all. And in terms of the matter of ”pleasure” there is much less of that dimension.

It is also possible that this is related to the dispute whether the prohibition of touching as a hug or pat on the shoulder is from the rabbis as a condition that helps not to reach the offense (and then perhaps there is the ability to ease when it comes to homosexuals, where the fear of reaching the offense does not exist at all in contact with women) or is it an independent prohibition from the Torah

For me personally, by the way. Although this logic is clear. I do not understand the rabbi's answer, as it has been repeated and said countless times here on the site. The correct. historical. and practical approach to the halacha. That it is not possible to cancel or ease laws just because of their taste (unless it is explicitly laws that have been studied only as a rule or only towards a finite reality (like the attitude towards Gentiles, for example). Because even if I have. As a straight person. There is absolutely no risk of reaching the offense with women. In terms of all the psychological and sociological data. And I do not have great pleasure. Waiting for a light hug from a woman. I was still forbidden to drive So. So how is that gay different from me?

Unless my entire premise. In one of the things I wrote is incorrect. Or I wrote a serious mistake.
And how can I forgive you. Of course, I did not come to disagree with someone who understands halakha more than me, but it only raised a serious error in me

And there's also the fact that he supposedly enhances the girl he touches, even if he himself is forbidden to do so, right?

The affection in question is sexual affection.

Rational, the question is whether touching is prohibited or an act that provokes reflection is prohibited.

Indeed, touching that provokes reflection in the girl is prohibited for her, and also for the man on the other hand, blind.

Indeed, that is how I understood it.
But today it is clear. According to all the poskim. Of all the Orthodox shades. That touching is completely forbidden. Even if it does not lead to an uproar (I know that there are disputes about things like shaking hands and the like. But even there. We are talking about polite touching of events that have ended and not as a regular way). And if so. What is the difference in this between a homosexual. Who does not lead to an uproar by touching. Between just a person who touches women does not lead him to be uproar worthy? (And it is true that the human instinct in these things is strong and so on. And there is no guardian for nudity and the like. And so on.)

Again, I may be wrong, of course. But from a brief memory of studying this issue once. And from polemics that I followed on the subject, for example, the dispute over whether it is permissible to extend a hand to a woman, etc. It seemed clear to me that there is no dispute as to whether the reason for the prohibition is because of the appeal of an offense and the resulting offense. And whether the prohibition is independent. Therefore, even if there is no appeal at all (as is likely to be assumed in many places where there is regular contact of affection between a man and a woman and this does not lead to appeals), then it is forbidden (and precisely for this reason I do not understand why this consideration comes into play when it comes to homosexuals.)

The Rabbi wrote that touching that arouses reflection in a girl is forbidden for her, and also for a man in front of a blind man. And apparently, what belongs in front of a blind man, and isn't it, O Hebrews of Danhara?

Thank you very much!
I'm 17 and currently still in the closet. I don't think I have any way to keep in touch with my friends. What should I do?

Pop,
First, it is indeed Teri Ivri Danhara. Without him, she would not have had reflections. If she wanted to reflect on someone else, that is a different matter. Even the monk can accept a glass of wine from someone else across the river.
Secondly, even in the Ivra Danhara there is a helpful prohibition (before a blind person from the rabbis) according to most opinions.

Asks,
There is a link in my first message that answers similar questions. I think you can touch as much as you have no choice, and try to guard against forbidden reflections as much as you can. The Torah was not given to the ministering angels.
In the margins of my words, I will add another general comment. As far as I know, at such an age, inclinations are not always clear and definitive. It is worth consulting with a professional (preferably an open religious one) and finding out. If you have come to the conclusion that this is indeed your inclination, perhaps you should consider coming out of the closet. At some point, you will probably do so anyway.
Good luck. Be strong and courageous and don't lose heart.

Rabbi, can't you go through a psychological process to change your tendencies? It sounds strange to me that atheists who support brain flexibility, etc., to a very extreme level of PM, are unable to accept flexibility on the other side just on this issue.
They say that Freud said that we are all bisexual, and the question is only in the dosage. After all, it is a very basic tendency, so it will certainly be difficult to change it.
But how can it be that today there are men who are not attracted to fat girls when once it was the model of beauty? And once they were not attracted to thinness. And in particular, there are periods when the most beautiful women look really strange, that today they will not even understand what is beautiful about it because it is against all contemporary culture.
And how can it be that while it is acceptable to come out of the closet, so many more are coming out of the closet? Because everyone has always been in the closet throughout all periods? It is simply that there is a lot in the middle that the global movement is influencing.

You are mixing up two claims. The question of whether a tendency can be changed is a scientific question, and it is controversial, and there are biases on all sides, so it is difficult to get a clear picture without getting into the thick of it ourselves. The question of why one group or another refuses to accept the possibility of change concerns intellectual honesty. This is lacking on all sides of this debate (and in general). There are also clear biases and dishonesty in your own claims. For example, you decide that it is unlikely that there were many in the closet over the generations and prefer the interpretation that the phenomenon was rarer (because of the norms). And where do you get this from? Because you are making prior value assumptions. This is dishonesty.

These preliminary assumptions are expressed almost explicitly, of course I thought they could be disputed, but they sound reasonable to me. And in combination with the change in the beauty ideal, it sounds very reasonable to me.
Anyway, the thing is that when a certain treatment is taken out of the law, you can never know if it is effective…

I don't know, it sounds very strange to me if there is a fundamental reason why we are attracted to picture Y and not picture X. Obviously, if everyone was straight then it could be explained by evolutionary motives. But if it is not like that, then there are homophobes, so it sounds very reasonable to me that a significant part of the general public perception is captured.

These are truly ridiculous arguments. If you think about it a little more, you will see the folly and blatant bias in them.

Indeed, I suppose that's true. And I also have explanations. I don't understand.
If sexual attraction changes throughout the generations and this is an agreed-upon thing, there's no reason why we shouldn't think that the very inclination itself can change from female to male. The fact that someone has a thin voice and long hair and different facial features and a few extraneous organs causes a fundamental change so that the body is determined from the beginning to be attracted to this description?
It just seems to me that all kinds of people, at first who are compounds of half and half or divas of various kinds, can also arouse sexual inclination. And then completely men.
It sounds like a very natural and simple process to me... I don't understand what the complication is. And indeed, recent history shows that.
It's clear that you can build closed closets upon closets and claim that they simply weren't ready to come out and all sorts of conspiracies like that. Or simply claim that sexual inclination is something that is partly born and largely acquired from the environment and oneself.

Thank you very much for the answer.
I will share that I have already been to a psychologist, and although I have not had any sexual experience, I am quite closed about my sexual orientation.
I will make a comment, I hope you will accept it:
It is not recommended to advise people to come out of the closet without their knowledge. As you know, today, even in Israel, there are communities that may harm a person with a different sexual orientation (whether physical harm or psychological harm - such as harmful conversion therapy).
Of course, as a 17-year-old boy, I have to make these considerations and decisions myself, but reason does not always play a central role in these considerations (there is a strong emotional desire to unload this baggage, and personally, I have or have had a certain search for a seal that will tell me to come out of the closet).

Personally, I am not in such a situation and place and I am certainly grateful for that. On the other hand, I live in a religious society. The gay spectrum, like the homophobic one, is found in every society, including my society, and unfortunately, also my parents and a large part of my friends. I have heard many times about the disgusting perversions of these people.
I will add that my parents are still the most significant part of my life and they are my favorite people on earth, I prefer to think of them as babies who were captured (the same is true for many of my friends of course) (:
My society is currently still dynamic and changing, I have no reason to cut ties or strain them (especially since these ties are largely beneficial to me myself).
I will add another thank you, for your sane and genuine attitude to the matter.

Beyond that, a rather interesting thread has arisen here. Dear T, your argument is interesting but has no practical implications. It is agreed that in societies where gays are accepted, there are more openly gay people (and from a complementary angle: the more oppression there is against same-sex tendencies, the fewer openly gay people). Even if we assume that many gays are “converted” because of the acceptance that exists, what practical implications does that have?
To argue that gays should not be accepted so that they don“t reproduce” is A delusional and immoral claim. Shall we impose a life of suffering on people who do not harm anyone so that there will be no more people who do not harm anyone?
Regarding conversion therapy, it seems to me that a much broader and deeper theoretical basis is needed than “it is something social”. I do not know of theories that convert a person and promise not to harm him. These are people's lives, not things that are “tested to see if they are effective”. Even if I think that humans are very similar to birds and if we throw them off rooftops as babies they will start flying, I do not think you expect the state to legally authorize me to conduct such an experiment (although no one has tried it, so we really do not know if it is effective). Moreover, it seems that on an empirical level, your claim simply does not hold water. I know of one first-hand story, and three more second-hand stories (all three stories from very conservative people), about those who tried to change their their sexual orientation and were unsuccessful. In fact, I know for sure that one of the people in question was very hurt by the treatment (I don't know if the rest came out with any damage). There are many thousands more such stories from around the world, despite the relative unpopularity of conversion treatments. As far as I know, by the way, the rabbi does not think that conversion treatments should be legally prohibited (I would be happy to be corrected if I am wrong).
I will conclude by saying that this is just a speculative view of things, since I side with rabbi Michi's opinion on this issue. To answer that, there have always been gays, they just weren't always outspoken.

A person has many values, and sometimes it is worth taking a risk to suffer for XYZ goals. I don't see it as a problem. Especially if it comes from within. There are people who undergo physical conversion therapy, and there is certainly suffering and pain and also risk in it. And yet it is worth it to them.
But since I don't know the treatment itself, it may be different if I read what is included in it. If it is a treatment that is completely illogical, like jumping off a roof, then I agree with you that a person should not undergo it and we as a society can also prevent it, but overall, if it is “regular” psychological therapy, I don't see anything so impossible that a person would try it. Of course, it is certainly possible to train therapists who will not aim 100% to change the tendency and stress the guy out, but will only “try”, if it is good, good, and if it is not good, good. And that way, maybe it will greatly ease the difficulty.

And I also understand the pain of a few in society at large, but still sometimes it's “worth it” for the sake of society as a whole. In a way that doesn't create chaos. And in particular, it's not about not talking to them and them being ostracized, but that the hypocrites don't publish and spread it around all the time. I didn't mean to tell them to do something in bed with their boyfriend. But not to write about it on Facebook, and not to hold protests. I think it's a pretty legitimate demand, if it does seriously affect others in society.
I personally think, as I wrote above, that once not everyone was in the closet, but there were simply fewer of them. And in times when there were more, it also broke out.

I didn't understand the rabbi's words about me being blind. Is the rabbi comparing the difficulty and opportunity between crossing a river and finding another man to contemplate?
Morning Light

Pop, this is not a question of difficulty. There is also no difficulty in finding someone else on the other side of the river who will hand me a glass. If he can't do it alone, there is a solution here. Some have doubted this, but that is the simple matter and the adjudicators.

And can she reflect alone with herself?

Good luck to her.

And regarding immodest clothing on the street as mentioned above?
Are pants, etc. included in this? Which finally deviate from the Torah norm.

Why are pants a deviation from the Torah norm? I don't know of such a verse, or even such a halakha. What is the question?

Honorable Rabbi, a woman can also touch a man on her own, and not him on her.
We both ask according to Halacha and answer according to the matter. And it is clear that if he does not ask according to Halacha, he is not answered according to the matter. And in our case, I asked according to Halacha, and the Rabbi answered me according to the matter. I am surprised.