Is it permissible according to Jewish law for homosexuals to live together?

To Rabbi Michael, Shalom Rav,
As you may have noticed, the homosexual problem bothers me (as do many others) greatly in terms of Torah and morality, and sometimes things are not clear to me based on my halakhic knowledge, and what I find in the answers given to homosexuals (I am not gay). I wondered if the rabbi could answer the question of whether homosexuals are permitted to live together for the purpose of a romantic relationship or also raising children, because according to my research that I will present here, and based on reading the answers given by rabbis, it seems in my humble opinion that this is permitted.

I saw that Rabbi Aralah Harel wrote here https://www.kamoha.org.il/?p=20377 that there is no permission for relationships between men in any way, and anyone who thinks there is permission needs to provide evidence, despite the quotes cited there, from rabbis who instructed that relationships are possible under limited conditions. I wanted to ask the rabbi whether the following does not teach that homosexuals are permitted to live together (and I would say that they should initially sleep in separate rooms or separate beds) for the purpose of a romantic relationship or one with the raising of children while trying to avoid a real male bed, that is, from “putting a brush in a tube” in the back entrance and at most they will pass by Shaz”l. (I think that things of this kind may also reinforce the understanding that no Torah keeper should have any interest in what anyone does in their home, but that’s politics.)
It is stated in the Mishnah: “Rabbi Yehuda says: A single man may not graze an animal, and two single men may not sleep in one tallit. And the sages permit it.” And in the Gemara, “It is stated: They said to Rabbi Yehuda: The Israelites were not suspected of having sexual intercourse or of having an animal.”
And one must ask-

1. Did the Sages not recognize sexual desire between males among Jews? This sounds factually unfounded. Even the opinion of the Rambam that “Israel was not suspected of having sexual intercourse with a male or with an animal, since this pure people did not attack its desire for these two acts that are outside the natural path.” (Commentary on the Mishnah Sanhedrin, Chapter 7), apparently meant that Israel would observe the prohibition with all force, because the inclination is unnatural and therefore they would be afraid of transgressing the abomination, and moreover, the Rambam writes the laws of sexual intercourse with a male for the Jews. And what the Shulchan Ibn HaEzer 24a said, “Israel was not suspected of having sexual intercourse with a male or with an animal, therefore there is no prohibition against having intercourse with them… and in these generations, when the perverts increased, one should stay away from having intercourse with a male.” And the Gra (ibid., Sect. 3) that even the Gentiles “are not suspected of having sexual intercourse with a male.” It only shows that it depends on society and time. And today, there are religious and secular people, and it is possible that religious people who declare that they observe the halakha are not suspected of having sex with a man, and secular people are. But it is clear that this is only for the sake of sufficient plausibility to rule on halakha about sleeping together, and it is clear that there are many who commit the offense in every society and time.
2. One still wonders why the exclusiveness is permitted, since it is certain that Israel is suspected of “and guarded against every evil deed” of the prohibition of contemplation and contemplation. And we have already ruled out in Section A that the Sages did not prohibit sleeping together in the same tallit because of male intercourse because Jews do not have a homosexual tendency, but because Jews strictly observe the halacha. But this still does not explain how it is permitted to arouse lust at all.

But it seems to me that the logic is like the logic in the issue of “the hereafter” in Bava Batra 57b – “And his eyes close, seeing evil.” Rabbi Hiyya: Bar Abba is the one who does not look at women while they are washing. Is it my blood? If it is the hereafter, he is wicked, if it is the hereafter, he is a fornicator. For ever, it is the hereafter, and even the most terrible thing for her is the sin of her soul.” That is, it is a matter of necessity, and in a place of necessity, one is not afraid to reflect.
And regarding the Shazl, the essence of Shazl – is because of contemplation from “and keep yourself from every evil deed,” because they permitted the permission to enter into contemplation is in any case the permission to enter into contemplation, as they said, “Let no one contemplate during the day and come into impurity at night.” And there is no difference between, among other things, risking contemplation and risking Shazl, and our sages could have prevented the physical layer from coming out in order to reduce the prohibition of someone coming into contemplation against their will by all sorts of techniques, such as nullifying the layer with various substances even before it actually comes out, and yet they did not command to act in this way because that is not the main thing, but contemplation (and in the Gemara they commanded to check whether he has cut off his urethra into hot bread, and it was also possible to use a bag like a condom that would nullify the layer, and the Rogochober in our days even permitted doing so inside a woman’s body, as the sperm that meets the condom is immediately nullified, only that the main prohibition is contemplation, and in his wife there is no contemplation).
If so, it seems that homosexuals are permitted to live together even if there is a risk that lust will arise, and the sages said that the likelihood that, by adhering to the halacha, they will not sin by having sex with a man is sufficiently high, even though they may reflect and repent.
It should be added, if this contradiction seems unlikely, “that they were not suspected of having sexual intercourse with a man,” but were suspected of having sexual intercourse with a woman, since both sexual intercourse and sexual intercourse with a man are forbidden, and how could a man know how to ejaculate and not sin in sexual intercourse with a man by entering from behind, like inserting a brush into a tube? It should be excused that this is not ” despite ejaculating,” but rather that the halakha of their time was clear that it is forbidden to ejaculate a layer of semen except for a purpose only, as the Gemara says, “And why so much, because one ejaculates a layer of semen for a purpose” (Nida 13:1), whereas one must ejaculate a layer of semen in order not to commit a transgression, such as in the case of sexual intercourse with a man. As the Sefer Hasidim writes and the bearers of the kilim cite it on the Shulchan Aruch to rule like it, if a man fears committing adultery, he has (that is, he must) ejaculate a layer of semen – “an act in which one who has asked his desire overcomes him and fears lest he sin by lying with another man’s wife or with his wife who is divorced or with other forms of adultery The prohibitions are for him if he can ejaculate so that he does not sin and he is returned to him at that time, he has to ejaculate. If that is not possible, it is better for him to ejaculate a layer of semen and not sin against the woman. But he needs to atone for sitting in the ice during the winter or fasting for forty days during the hot days.” – Because then it is for the purpose of a mitzvah, to avoid transgression (as explained in detail by the wise woman Shlomo in Rachel Beitech the Little One – “And this should be explained further, since it is permissible to establish a record of the events of a sexual intercourse, and the records of righteous people are good deeds, and since a person sits and does not commit a transgression, he is given a reward as if he were performing a mitzvah, and if so, a transgression comes to him, such as: a man’s wife or a prostitute, and he does not commit it, then he is considered as if he were performing a mitzvah, and he performs a mitzvah – it is a record of the events, and since it is permissible to establish a record of the events of a sexual intercourse, for this reason he is permitted to perform a sexual intercourse for this.”) (Of course, corrections of atonement are not from the Medina). Here, in order to avoid transgression of a male sexual intercourse, it is not a matter of performing it for the sake of performing it, but rather for the sake of performing it. Many have also written for various purposes, such as the mitzvah of penance, and to check whether he has cut off his penis, that he must perform it or that it is permitted to perform it (depending on the in context).
And according to all of this, it seems that homosexuals are permitted to live together for some purpose (according to the logic of the Darcha Akhirah issue), a need such as out of a desire to be together because “it is not good for man to be alone” or also to raise children together as a family, and if they see that their instincts are overcoming them, they should ejaculate without coming at each other from behind, that is, so that they will not be like putting a paintbrush in a tube, and thus the instinct will be calmed and they will not sin in sexual intercourse.
And it should be said that if they sinned in actual sexual intercourse, they should repent, but this does not change the fact that if they are religious, they are not suspected of sexual intercourse. “An Israelite who sins is an Israelite,” and “If you see a scholar who has committed a transgression at night, do not dwell on him during the day lest he repent,” and even couples who sinned in a marriage do not need to divorce or separate. And I saw that Rabbi David Stav and Rabbi Avraham Stav cited in their article in Zohar (Issue 40, pp. 81-100), “Laws of Seclusion for Those with a Same-Sexual Orientation,” the words of Rabbi Chaim of Pelaji from Ruach Chaim, Even HaEzer, section 24, section 1, “And it seems to say that anyone who has failed even though he has made a complete repentance is under the prohibition of sexual intercourse with males and will take upon himself a solemn oath and a pledge that he will never have sexual intercourse with males.” They said that if he committed adultery with a male, then he is considered suspicious even if he has made a complete repentance. However, this is far from understanding Rabbi Chaim of Pelaji in this way, since not only does the need for an oath show that this is not a prohibition from the law (because one does not swear not to transgress a prohibition), but even Ruach Chaim spoke in general about teachers of infants and those with public art, and this is a social correction, and these are his words in full. “And in these generations, when the Fritzim increased, one should stay away from being alone with the remembrance, and the Rabbis wrote that one should not stay away from the Dina, but rather from the measure of Hasidism, and it certainly seems that we have noted that a person has fallen short.” In his art In the bed of remembrance Be a teacher or some kind of artist That it is not permissible to have intercourse with a male anymore, and I have already written in my humble opinion in the Sahak Tokahat Chayin 60 and it came out P.7, Dach. A. Although Rabbi B.H. wrote that one should not stray from the standard of chassidism, he said that if one breaks out in fornication, one should stray from the religion, and even if one has failed in his art, one should not have intercourse, and as the Radbaz said in his reply to Ch.5, 30 [?] Pis. A.H. and in my reply in the Sahak Hakkaki Lev Chayid, 30, I have extended this to a question in the 23rd. To return him to his art And I brought the disagreement of the jurists on this, and it seems to say that anyone who has failed, even if he has made a complete repentance, is under the prohibition of intercourse with males, and he will be punished for it with a fine and a fine, because he will never have intercourse with males, neither during the day nor at night, and in this you will enjoy. Len From the answer he made, and everything according to the eyes of the judges in the city On them The obligation is imposed.” That is, “He is forbidden to have sex with him,” it is said about the public not to have sex with him, and this is a public matter of a court of law and oath that does not determine the laws of sex, but according to the order of society, that he should not rape people, and it is not about a person who has failed with his partner and has not violated the public order. Indeed, what is written in the book Hakkaki Lev Yod 346 (which it refers to) is that the sinner’s response should not be accepted out of respect for the public (and perhaps the Stav rabbis also thought of a public place like a boarding school and did not think of a relationship).
And if it is asked how it is possible that something that is stoning in the presence of witnesses would be permitted to be so obvious as it is likely to happen in retrospect in the way I propose, the answer must be: (1) In any case, many people commit many offenses that require stoning in general Jewish society, and therefore this is the reasonable design with which the Torah shapes society. (2) This is similar to what is not a rule of the Risha on Shabbat, that it is possible to repeat the same action many times even if it is certain that on one occasion a work on Shabbat will be caused by the action, but not with certainty on each of the occasions, so that they will probably commit sexual intercourse with a man, but this is about probability, and each time anew the Israelites were not suspected of sexual intercourse with a man. (3) The stoning is precisely in the presence of witnesses, that is, in public or in a place that is not private – since sexual intercourse between two men is not the nature of the public, those who are in public, and it causes reflection even for those who are unsure of their inclination, but if it is in a locked room, there is no stoning law at all.
And it should also be said that if you are already living together, it is possible that in any case, in a random way, it will be permissible to ejaculate without coming in from behind, that is, not like putting a brush in a tube, as the opinion of the Holy Assistant who throws out the ruling “He who comes from the field and is tired” that there is no difference between ejaculating with the hand alone and coming in from behind on a woman – “Even to allow one time that is not her way is far from distinguishing between one time that is her way and the hand, even as I wrote in another place, which is not a good thing, since the person is alone, this is not the style of the late Poskim at all, and by this there is a doubt about the spicah, perhaps as allowing one time, perhaps it is not just a reference, and there is a doubt about the spicah in the Da’wah and in the Drabs, one doubt about me, and a doubt about the spicah is better than a doubt about the spicah of oily fish and of children, because there is a place to say that there is a doubt about the spicah to be stricter as well, which is not true in this case and what comes to say is that this is a boundary of doubt about the spicah, doubt about the Da’wah, doubt about the Drabs, it should be said against it that it is not a doubt about the spicah that turns into a stricter one, and since a doubt about the spicah To be stricter is only learned from a sufficient proof, to be lenient is not to be stricter in the case of such a proof. But in any case, it is decided as above that it is only a reference and there is in any case doubt that it is permissible once. But in any case it is not permissible to begin with and in the above there is (according to the above in conjunction with the Mishnah in Maka) as a shield against the evil and in any case other than repentance through repentance and abandonment and confession there is no further opening here to make any impression of sin in any case regarding an accident:” And it seems that Rav Kook wrote about this in the paragraph “The Upheavals of Natural Tendencies” (Orot Hakodesh, Part 3, Chapter Two: Derech Hakodesh, Seder Third, Sign 35, p. 67) “And the accumulation of resentment in a way that may be found in an individual in a way that cannot be eradicated, the Sages foresaw this in advance and said about it, whatever a person wants, etc., like the example of a fish coming from the hunting lodge, he wanted to eat a roasted boiled sprat, eat it. And in this they deepened human nature to the point of compassion for those who were corrupted at the beginning of their creation.”
And finally, if we wonder why the Torah and the Sages would allow the risk of physical contact with the release of a sperm layer, and would not allow male intercourse, then male intercourse is a prohibition in general whose purpose is not entirely clear, and what gives rise to the question here? Nevertheless, it must be answered that coming from behind is coming that symbolizes exploitation without the personal connection symbolized by “face to face,” as opposed to any form of personal connection of true love, especially if we are engaged together in settling the world by raising children.