Q&A: LGBT vs. Pedophilia
LGBT vs. Pedophilia
Question
Hello and blessings,
I saw that you take the position that an LGBT orientation is defined as compulsion. I would like to ask: how is this different, for example, from a tendency toward pedophilia, which according to studies also cannot be changed, and yet no one relates to it leniently, and no one is willing to normalize the phenomenon on the grounds that someone who does this is considered "compelled"?
Answer
First, if it is compulsion, then it is indeed compulsion. Second, with a pedophile there are victims, which is not the case with homosexuals. And third, it seems to me that a pedophile can also have other kinds of relations, whereas a homosexual cannot.
Discussion on Answer
I don't understand the point of these insistences. The matter is completely simple. I'm not talking about law but about morality. And you're also mistaken that pedophilia is not seen as compulsion.
It is obvious that one can demand the same thing of both. But imprisoning a pedophile or forcing treatment on him is not the same thing as imprisoning or forcing treatment on every homosexual. The distinction is not very complicated.
If there is an option of having other kinds of relations, then there is no compulsion here. I don't understand these empty hairsplittings, and I'm not inclined to take an interest in what does or doesn't interest someone.
I didn't understand what the Rabbi answered to his claim that a homosexual can also have relations with a woman. So why, according to the Rabbi, is a homosexual defined as compelled?
If there is a pedophile who is attracted exclusively to minors, then it really is the same thing, and he too is compelled.
Two comments:
A. Even if we assume that there is an element of compulsion in the fact that he will fail in this at some point during his life, how does it follow from that that a person who lives permanently with a partner and has regular relations with him is considered compelled? (I assume he doesn't even impose on himself periods of abstinence as with a menstruating woman.)
B. Fine, you're not inclined to take an interest in what interests someone, but in practice it seems that you actually are very interested, and that is ultimately the issue, because you are apparently trying to hold up a mirror to religious society and ask what the difference is between Sabbath desecrators and those who have relations with menstruating women, and homosexuals. You assume that there the reason for the relative tolerance is that they are compelled, and in your view a homosexual is far more compelled.
According to your approach, perhaps you would argue that indeed even there it is not proper to behave tolerantly and invite them to perform?
The truth is that there too it depends less on whether it is compulsion or not. Rather, insofar as a person is perceived here as representing a wrong phenomenon, that person is disqualified. It's just that because this is a widespread plague and most of the public does not keep the Sabbath, Sabbath non-observance is not perceived as a challenge to the Torah, but rather as a kind of starting point for most people of this generation and, sadly, as the default. In practice, no one really cares whether he is truly "compelled" or not. (It is likely that if someone opened a business on the Sabbath contrary to the status quo, he too would indeed be disqualified from appearing in religious society.) But a person who declares that he is homosexual and lives with a partner—since this is probably something that will always remain a social minority, and since the phenomenon itself is wrong and forbidden—this disqualifies the person. Just as a pedophile is perceived as a flawed person in secular society and no one cares how compelled he is or isn't, a homosexual receives exactly the same treatment in religious society. (Presumably, if 95% of the population were pedophiles and sex offenders, no one would have a problem inviting them to performances, but since, thankfully, they are a minority, the attitude will probably remain.)
I don't know whether that's called compulsion. In any case, neither the law nor society relates to pedophilia as compulsion, and they do not treat it leniently; they expect a person who suffers from this to go to treatment, chemical castration, and the like.
The difference—that here it harms others and here it doesn't—is admittedly not something secular ears would accept, but from a religious perspective I don't understand why there should be any difference between the two. Whatever can be demanded of a pedophile can also be demanded of a homosexual; the question is whether one decides to demand it of him or not.
I also don't think it matters either to the public or to the court whether a pedophile can have other kinds of relations or not. (And by the way, even if technically he can, that doesn't give him satisfaction. A homosexual too can technically have relations with a woman, so I don't understand why that matters.) There is an unequivocal demand placed on him to refrain from his acts and to do everything possible for that purpose, even if as a result he is condemned never to experience sexual satisfaction his entire life.