RCA Reaffirms Policies regarding Same Sex Attraction and Marriage, while Clarifying its Position on Reparative Therapy / In light of the extensive media coverage concerning the attitude of Orthodox Judaism towards homosexuality, the Rabbinical Council of America, the largest Rabbinical group within Orthodox Judaism, has decided to issue the following clarifications: 1. The Torah and Jewish tradition, in the clearest of terms, prohibit the practice of homosexuality. Same-sex unions are against both the letter and the spirit of Jewish law, which sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony.

RCA on Gay Marriage

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Press release from the RCA
December 12 2012

RCA Reaffirms Policies regarding Same Sex Attraction and Marriage, while Clarifying its Position on Reparative Therapy

In light of the extensive media coverage concerning the attitude of Orthodox Judaism towards homosexuality, the Rabbinical Council of America, the largest Rabbinical group within Orthodox Judaism, has decided to issue the following clarifications:

1. The Torah and Jewish tradition, in the clearest of terms, prohibit the practice of homosexuality. Same-sex unions are against both the letter and the spirit of Jewish law, which sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony.

2. Attempts to ritualize or celebrate same-sex unions are antithetical to Jewish law. Any clergyman who performs or celebrates a same-sex union cannot claim the mantle of Orthodox Judaism.

3. While homosexual behavior is prohibited, individuals with homosexual inclinations should be treated with the care and concern appropriate to all human beings. As Rabbis we recognize the acute and painful challenges faced by homosexual Jews in their quest to remain connected and faithful to God and tradition. We urge those Orthodox Jews with homosexual tendencies to seek counsel from their Rabbis. Equally, we urge all Rabbis to show compassion to all those who approach them.

4. On the subject of reparative therapy, it is our view that, as Rabbis, we can neither endorse nor reject any therapy or method that is intended to assist those who are struggling with same-sex attraction. We insist, however, that therapy of any type be performed only by licensed, trained practitioners. In addition, we maintain that no individual should be coerced to participate in a therapeutic course with which he or she is acutely uncomfortable.

5. We pray that God will ease the way for all who struggle with a full heart to feel His presence in their lives.

Related posts: Orthodox Rabbis Stand On Principle,

About Gil Student

Rabbi Gil Student is the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of TorahMusings.com, a leading website on Orthodox Jewish scholarly subjects, and the Book Editor of the Orthodox Union’s Jewish Action magazine. He writes a popular column on issues of Jewish law and thought featured in newspapers and magazines, including The Jewish Link, The Jewish Echo and The Vues. In the past, he has served as the President of the small Jewish publisher Yashar Books and as the Managing Editor of OU Press. Rabbi Student serves on the Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America. He also serves on the Editorial Boards of Jewish Action magazine, the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society and the Achieve Journal of Behavioral Health, Religion & Community, as well as the Board of OU Press. He has published five English books, the most recent titled Search Engine volume 2: Finding Meaning in Jewish Texts -- Jewish Leadership, and served as the American editor for Morasha Kehillat Yaakov: Essays in Honour of Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks.

53 comments

  1. “Feel His presence”? Sounds a bit “new-age” to me. I’m surprised the RCA used this language.

  2. “We insist, however, that therapy of any type be performed only by licensed, trained practitioners.”

    a friend of mine attended the nefesh conference. he said there is big problem because many who offer counseling services in the orthodox community (in general, not just for gay issues) are not properly licensed and/or trained. a lot of this has been fueled by online degrees of a dubious nature. and then many who are licensed/trained in one area frequently work in areas outside their scope.

  3. Baruch: שויתי ה’ לנגדי תמיד?

  4. The first 3 points are basically a re-iteration of the statement signed by over 100 O rabbis circulating the print and electronic media. Point 4 is new and I believe correctly addresses that issue.

  5. MiMedinat HaYam

    point 4 — you dont need a license to practice / offer counseling services. otherwise rabbis would not be allowed to do the same. as part of their rabbi duties.

    unless you want to cancel someone’s smicha so he wont be able to counsel.

    it would have been better to ignore point 4, but then some commenters here would complain.

  6. “4. On the subject of reparative therapy, it is our view that, as Rabbis, we can neither endorse nor reject any therapy or method that is intended to assist those who are struggling with same-sex attraction. We insist, however, that therapy of any type be performed only by licensed, trained practitioners. In addition, we maintain that no individual should be coerced to participate in a therapeutic course with which he or she is acutely uncomfortable.”

    Mazal Tov. Finally, Orthodox Jewish leadership.

  7. MMY:

    “you dont need a license to practice / offer counseling services”

    you also don’t need a certification to perform brain surgery.

  8. at least #4 will differentiate them from the yeshivah world’s recent declaration making the rounds for signatures where reparative therapy is the only solution

  9. Glatt some questions

    Are we assuming that “licensed and trained professionals” only includes psychologists, social workers, and psychiatrists — and would not include rabbis?

    Or could a rabbi potentially be considered a “licensed and trained professional”?

    My guess is that if we are abiding by professional codes of responsibility of psychologists, social workers, and psychiatrists, reparative therapy would not be considered professionally responsible — and might even be grounds for misconduct within those professions.

    So is the RCA basically coming out against reparative therapy without actually saying it?

  10. “So is the RCA basically coming out against reparative therapy without actually saying it?”

    aren’t they actually saying it? “we maintain that no individual should be coerced to participate in a therapeutic course with which he or she is acutely uncomfortable.”

  11. So is the RCA basically coming out against reparative therapy without actually saying it?

    The last sentence of point 4 actually says that.

  12. So is the RCA basically coming out against reparative therapy without actually saying it?

    I don’t see that. They are saying only do it if you want to and if you use a licensed & trained professional.

  13. Sounds a lot like the SoP to me.

  14. “aren’t they actually saying it? “we maintain that no individual should be coerced to participate in a therapeutic course with which he or she is acutely uncomfortable.””

    no, it sounds like they are leaving it as an option

  15. MiMedinat HaYam

    abba — according to your line of thinking, the RCA would not object if a non neurologist would perform brain surgery.

    what justification does a rabbi have to do marriage / other counseling (let alone requested SSA counseling) if he’s not licensed as a counselor (which licensure is not really legally required.)

    2. “should be coerced to participate in a therapeutic course with which he or she is acutely uncomfortable”

    neither should a neurological surgeon advocate / pefform surgery if the procedure is medically indicated but the patient is uncomfortable, yet requests treatment.

    3. besides the lobby (APA) that claims SSA is not a pblm, who says such treatment is not indicated, esp if the patient requests treatment? we discussed before that even a 10% success rate does not bar medical procedures; here the admitted minimum of 20% success should not bar such procedures.

  16. MMY: I don’t know why you are having such a hard time with it. It seems to me, (and I think abba would agree) that what the RCA is saying is that what therapy works and what therapy should be administered to any particular patient is beyond their expertise as rabbis. Whether Ploni should undergo reparative therapy is to be decided between him and a competent (meaning licensed) therapist, same as if the issue was chemotherapy for cancer or brain surgey for a brain tumor.

  17. MMY:

    1) “we discussed before that even a 10% success rate does not bar medical procedures”

    such as?

    2)”here the admitted minimum of 20% success should not bar such procedures.”

    benefits AND risks are taken into account when choosing medical treatment. imho 20% success rate doesn’t seem high enough to outweigh risks.

    3) “what justification does a rabbi have to do marriage / other counseling . . .”

    i’m not convniced they are justified to do most types of counseling solely on acount of them having semicha

    4) “what justification does a rabbi have to do marriage / other counseling (let alone requested SSA counseling) if he’s not licensed as a counselor (which licensure is not really legally required.)”

    my point wrt to the brain surgery is that any licensed physician is legally permitted to perform brain but imho it would not be justified to expect a GP to do so. a rabbi (or any person for that matter) is legally permitted to offer counseling services, but in many cases he isn’t justified to do so.
    if he’s not licensed as a counselor (which licensure is not really legally required.)”

  18. MMY:

    “here the admitted minimum of 20% success should not bar such procedures”

    as a side note, i would note that even if reparative tx works for 20% with no risks, we are still left with a big problem (unless advocates dispute this 20% figure). people are pushing reparative tx as the gold standard and panacea, but meanwhile what does one do with the other 80% for whom it doesn’t work?

  19. MMY:

    ” the admitted minimum of 20% success”

    what is success? what was the study endpoint for efficacy? where is this success, however defined, documented?

  20. MiMedinat HaYam

    by the way, one of the main licensed psychologists who is affiliated with “reparative” is also a shul rav (and an RCA member, though not active enough to get involved).

    2. a GP who performs brain surgery is not in danger of losing his license, but is definitely guilty of malpractice (and the inherent loss of license.)

    unlike a rabbi who does so.

    3. what risks are involved in “reparative” besides social stigmatization by losing one’s previous circle of SSA “friends” (indicating insufficient commitment to the process)? (physical issues notwithstanding; they seem to me to be bunk, or poor practice.)

    4. whether or not a rabbi (or other person) has rights to practice, is irrelevant — they do. often at congregants request. in fact, many shuls prob prefer such a rabbi. (though one shul i know, the PsyD Rav does not treat congregants.)

  21. Dr. David Pelcovitz recently told a class at RIETS that reparative therapy should be removed from our method of dealing with homosexuality unless the individual in question is very committed to that endeavor. Basically he was saying that he’s happy for it existing, but only for a select few individuals, because it basically doesn’t work and does more harm to those who go through it than not.

  22. MiMedinat HaYam

    20% is the rate claimed by opponents.

    advocaes want a study, which “establishment” will not do (they claim its not an illness).

    2. whatever the success rate, it is irrelevant to performing rituals / ceremonies for them. or otherwise condoning their actions in the context of judaism. (perhaps in other contexts.) which is the (first three focii) of the RCA stmt.

  23. MiMedinat HaYam

    nate — see my point 3 of 7:18pm

  24. MMY:

    “whether or not a rabbi (or other person) has rights to practice, is irrelevant — they do. often at congregants request”

    again, we’re not disputing that they have the right to practice. the question if it’s justified. not justified legally, but justified practically. the fact that is is often congregatnts’ request, now that is irrelevant.

    “what risks are involved in “reparative””

    aside from the psychological stress of the process itself (ok, i’m making this up, i really don’t know about the process itself), i’m thinking about the risks not to the patient but rather to the family that he might start when he is cured.

  25. From the editor’s introduction to the article by Spitzer in the Oct 2003 edition of the professional journal Archives of Sexual Behavior:

    It is really only in the last couple of years that we are beginning to see the semblance of some research about who exactly are the types of clients who seek out this form of treatment and some data on outcome (Beckstead, 1999, 2001; Beckstead & Morrow, 2003; Nicolosi, Byrd, & Potts, 2000b; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). From a scientific standpoint, however, the empirical database remains rather primitive and any decisive claim about benefits or harms really must be taken with a rather substantial grain of salt and without such data it is difficult to understand how professional societies can issue any clear statement that is not contaminated by rhetorical fervor. Sexual science should encourage the establishment of a methodologically sound database from which more reasoned and nuanced conclusions might be drawn.

    NYPL Catalog URL: http://nypl.bibliocommons.com/item/show/19080873052_archives_of_sexual_behavior

    [I shared a longer excerpt in a previous thread on Hirhurim in which a discussion of the Spitzer article occurred]

  26. “20% is the rate claimed by opponents.”

    Um, no. If by “success” you mean changing the patient’s sexual orientation, then 0% is a better estimate of the rate believed by opponents. If success means some improved heterosexual functioning, as in that study by Spitzer, then maybe slightly above 0%, although many people are extremely skeptical of the little anecdotal evidence that exists. Virtually no one outside of JONAH and their fellow travellers believes that reparative therapy has a 20% success rate by any reasonable definition.

  27. There is an hashkafic issue relevant to reparative therapy.

    One of the declarations of the pro-reparative therapy stmnt. is ” The concept that G-d created a human being who is unable to find happiness in a loving relationship unless he violates a biblical prohibition is neither plausible nor acceptable.”

    On the other hand, R. Rappaport was quoted that “I am not obligated to believe in a failed therapy because it fits my theology better”

    My questions are A) How well can the need to endorse the pro-reparative concept be sourced or proven in hashkafah? Is this based on “ein HKBH ba b’tarnoya im briyosav”? B) Are there any parallels or contra-examples(eg, psulim lava b’kahol)?

    (I hope medical science develops an effective treatment that even the RCA can endorse)

  28. what do frum celebrity mental health professionals like the twerskys think of this issue?

  29. “what do frum celebrity mental health professionals like the twerskys think of this issue?”

    I know the issue was an issue at the recent Nefesh Conference(the Jewish Press wrote that they plan to cover the conference in general).

  30. You wrote that you were opposed to the decision of the “100 Orthodox Rabbis” to sign a public letter (but signed anyway etc.). Do you support this RCA statement or the RCA’s earlier silence?

  31. Hirhurim on November 21, 2011 at 10:54 am

    IH: I’m not a member of the RCA (my application has been long pending for what I consider bureaucratic reasons) […]

  32. I believe the RCA wanted to let this die quietly but that Greenberg’s Op Ed in the Jewish Week made them realize it wouldn’t go away. That’s my speculation.

  33. Shachar Ha'amim

    “and then many who are licensed/trained in one area frequently work in areas outside their scope.”

    you mean like most rabbis in terms of most things that they do.

  34. This is really not on the main point, but one really should refer to same-sex marriage rather than gay marriage. At least here in MA the town clerks do not inquire about sexual preference before issuing either opposite-sex or same-sex licenses. In know of at least one marriage between (presumably) heterosexual widows that was essentially an exchange of childcare services for health insurance.

  35. ” it basically doesn’t work”

    He’s right. See Byrd AD, Nicolosi J. A meta-analytic review of treatment of homosexuality. Psychol Rep. 2002 Jun;90(3 Pt 2):1139-52. They claimed to find an effect, but only by combining parallel-arm and before-after studies, which was not the original protocol (which showed no effect). I’ve seen no study since that changes that conclusion. The reported positive findings are mostly from observational studies that are highly subject to confounding. Based on the standards that apply to any other medical or behavioral intervention, one would have to say that there is a lot of evidence that reparative therapy does not work and little if any that it does.

    What is striking to me is that the advocates of reparative therapy have not attempted to do the kind of study that would conclusively prove or disprove efficacy: a properly randomized controlled intervention study. They appear to have plenty of funding. I wonder if they are afraid what it would show.

    Is there a halachic problem recommending someone pay for something for which the preponderance of evidence is that it is worthless?

  36. You want it not to work, don’t you?

  37. “You want it not to work, don’t you?”

    And wishing doesn’t make it so.

  38. Well, Joseph, I’d like to ask you, Charlie, and all the other good liberals out there some direct questions:

    1. Do you think homosexuality is normal?

    2. Do you think homosexuals would be better off not being homosexual?

    3. If such a treatment existed, would you support homosexuals taking it, voluntarily or not?

    The third question is, admittedly, hypothetical. The first two are not. A simple “yes” or “no” will do, however that might damage your standing vis a vis Orthodoxy or, worse (?) at cocktail parties of other bien pensants. I am perfectly comfortable giving my answers, which are no, yes, and yes.

  39. Nachum — a Jew always answers a questio with a question, so:

    1. Do you think eating to’eva (Deut 14:3) is normal?

    2. Do you think Jews would be better off not eating to’eva?

    3. If such a treatment existed, would you support Jews taking it, voluntarily or not?

  40. Nachum,

    1. I’m not a psychologist and I don’t know what you mean by “normal.” If you’re asking whether homosexuality is a mental disease, the experts say no and, again, it’s not my area of expertise. If you’re asking whether I think it’s a type of behavior that folks who we colloquially call “normal” may participate in, my answer is yes.

    2. Orthodox homosexuals would certainly be better off not being heterosexual because that would eliminate a difficulty in their observance of halacha and, at present, their integration within the halachic community.

    3. If, hypothetically, there were such an effective treatment (though I note that from my reading and speaking to experts it appears that no such treatment has proven effective), I would support anyone, Jewish or not, taking it voluntarily; I would not support anyone being coerced into taking it.

    My treating your question seriously does not mean that I approve of your typical smugness and snarkiness.

  41. NAchum,
    I invite you to examine the vast philosophical literature on the meaning of normal in relationship to (possible) diseases, and then clarify your question. Any recent paper by Christopher Boorse will discuss the matter and have references to other positions on the matter. Until you do, you first question is essentially meaningless.
    As fr your second question, the answer is probably yes, but that is a comment on current social realities, nothing more. Gays would also be better off if our society would accept them without reservation as they are. but that would take some effort on the part of you and others of your (extra-halachic) beliefs. (Nowhere in the torah or halacha does it say that being gay is not normal or that one would be better off not gay, any more than it says this regarding other unhalachic desires, or to’evot.

  42. I guess I’m a “liberal.” I sort of disagree with Joseph.

    1. “Normal” is a loaded term, but it certainly doesn’t mean that folks who we colloquially call “normal” engage in it. Isn’t whether we call it a “disease” also a loaded question, more concerned with connotations than actually meaning?

    2. Yes. Does anybody (Jewish or not) think that being homosexual is easier than being heterosexual?

    3. Agree with Joseph.

  43. Nachum,
    I should add that your comment “You want it not to work, don’t you?” and the follow up questions are based on false premises. No one denies that ego dystonic sexual attraction is a problem and should be treated. Certainly one way to treat it is to change the sufferers orientation. Therefore, a therapy that changed homosexuals to heterosexuals would be a good thing according to (almost) all, regardless of their position on the nature of homosexuality generally. As long as no one was pressured to undergo such therapy.

  44. Richard, I don’t really think we disagree. While I was positing several possible meanings of the word normal as used in the question, I agree that it is, essentially, meaningless in that context. As for the other 2 questions/answers, I see no difference at all.

  45. Wow! The equivocating here is incredible.

    I am predicting that homosexuality, like gender roles and feminism, will be a major wedge issue for MO in the next few decades to come. We see it already. I wouldn’t be suprised for the LWMO to accept gay marriage, or at least gay commitment ceremonies going forward

  46. Wow. So you people are liberals first, Orthodox second. It’s sad, but I pretty much expected it. How you reconcile the fact that (dare I say it) you think you’re more correct than the Lord God Almighty is beyond me.

    IH: The answers to your question are exactly the same. For Jews, of course. And to Joseph, I knew what your answer would be and formulated the answer in anticipation: What do I care what mental health “experts” say? Apart from being untrustworthy here, I’m sure they’d say that being, say, a Christian or pagan is perfectly normal too. (Hell, probably a bunch of them would argue that psychosis is normal as well. That, by the way, is what I mean by the word, if you want to be Clintonesque about things.) I don’t think so. Do you? (And yes, my questions are perfectly serious. Your answers are not.)

    “(Nowhere in the torah or halacha does it say that being gay is not normal or that one would be better off not gay, any more than it says this regarding other unhalachic desires, or to’evot.”

    Operative words being *any more*. Do you think it’s fine for Jews to eat pig?

    Rafael, it’s not just equivocating, it’s deconstruction. Look at Richard Kahn, for example, who’s trying to say that words have no meaning.

    MDJ: Apparently, there are people who *don’t* agree. Look at these answers: People who refuse to admit that men are supposed to be sexually attracted to women.

  47. Did I say that words have no meaning? Words are just often more connotation-driven. In this case, calling something “normal” is probably more normative than descriptive. I’m not sure how useful it is to say normatively that homosexuality is “normal,” considering it’s not a choice. Also, you’re clearly not using “normal” in the colloquial sense, as Christianity would not generally be considered abnormal.

    (I usually get pushback from liberals more often than conservatives with this line of reasoning. When they say that Zionism is racism, I’ll respond that homosexuality is a disease.)

    Obviously, insofar as “normal” is used descriptively, heterosexuality is normal. But “normal” is usually not used descriptively, as you have demonstrated, which is probably why “liberals” may avoid using the term. Saying that men “are supposed to be sexually attracted to women” is all well and good until someone isn’t sexually attracted to women. No amount of telling them that they are “supposed” to will change that.

    How exactly are you using “normal”?

  48. “Wow. So you people are liberals first, Orthodox second.”

    Only to someone as obnoxious as you who decides that his definition of Orthodox is THE definition.

    “How you reconcile the fact that (dare I say it) you think you’re more correct than the Lord God Almighty is beyond me.”

    And now you speak for the Lord. Well, I am impressed — with your arrogance, that is.

    “And yes, my questions are perfectly serious. Your answers are not.”

    My answers wre quite serious. Of course, anything you disagree with becomes non-serious. Typical. But then you say: “I’m sure they’d say that being, say, a Christian or pagan is perfectly normal too.” Are you saying that all Christians are not “normal”? Since that’s what you appear to be saying (as outrageous as that is), perhaps you can give us your definition of “normal” so we can, perhaps, give “serious” answers. But you really don’t want answers; you simply want to speak for God and bash liberals.

  49. Richard, I get the feeling that we agree more than not. But let me just say:

    “I’m not sure how useful it is to say normatively that homosexuality is “normal,” considering it’s not a choice.”

    Psychosis isn’t a choice either. It’s not normal. That’s how I mean the word.

    “who decides that his definition of Orthodox is THE definition.”

    I’m not talking about my definition of Orthodoxy. But there are lines, especially when there are clear Biblical and Talmudic statements and millennia of Jewish tradition.

    “And now you speak for the Lord. Well, I am impressed — with your arrogance, that is.”

    The Lord is perfectly capable of speaking for Himself. And He has. That’s what being an Orthodox Jew is *about.* He thinks that homosexuality is a disgusting perversion, which renders entire societies eligible for destruction. Do you disagree?

    And why wouldn’t you react as strongly if I said that the Lord opposes the eating of pig, and says it’s disgusting and that no Jew should do it? Or that the Lord opposes the worship of idols, and says no human being should do it? Or that the Lord encourages kind treatment of the weaker members of society, and says all human beings should do it?

    “Of course, anything you disagree with becomes non-serious.”

    God forbid.

    Of course Christians are normal. I was merely listing two groups who would make the cut with the APAs, rightly or wrongly. It doesn’t mean that Christians aren’t wrong.

  50. Due to the post about R. Rackman’s yahrzeit, I found an interview with him from 1990(!) which contains this apropos excerpt:

    Jewish Review: In the case of mamzerus it seems that there are indeed two important values that cannot be reconciled with one another.? On the one hand we don’t want to countenance illicit sexual relations while on the other hand, we don’t want to punish the child for the sins of the parent.?Both are legitimate values, and we can certainly have sympathy for this whole line of thought.? But in the case that you have cited, that of homosexuality, it is perhaps harder for some to see that there is a similar dichotomy.?Are you saying that we frown on homosexual relations but that some other value is served by not exacting punishment?
    Rabbi Rackman: In that case we don’t have punishment because you need, according to the halakha, two witnesses to the act who had forewarned the accused of the illegality of the homosexual relations.? That made punishment unrealistic.? What I would say is that the act is not moral and we didn’t want it to become an acceptable mode of behavior for males, because a homosexual man is not fulfilling his function in society to help procreate.? (Incidentally you know that lesbianism doesn’t come into that category.?There is no punishment, even theoretically, for women being lesbians because it is regarded as simply prezutza, immorality plain and simple.)? While there is a punishment for homosexuality theoretically it is never applied in practice.?Indeed we don’t punish a gay person today.? We give him an aliyah when he comes to shul even though he is known for being a homosexual.?But this does not mean that we would want to abolish any laws or change any statutes forbidding homosexual activity, because that would give the impression that it is an equally acceptable form of sexual behavior.
    Jewish Review: We’ve received letters at the Jewish Review from individuals who are deeply troubled by this issue: who want to come closer to Judaism yet who fear so the rejection and judgment that they would face as Orthodox Jews who are gay?
    Rabbi Rackman: A grandson of ours was at a yeshivah in Israel and there was a young man who was a brilliant student of Talmud and ultimately committed suicide because of this conflict.?It was a terrible tragic thing.?He committed suicide.? He was discovered and he just couldn’t live the one way and while most would have probably abandoned the tradition, he was so immersed in Judaism that he saw no way out.
    Jewish Review: What kind of counselling could have been given to him?
    <b<Rabbi Rackman: I don’t know.? I understand that Rabbi Scharfman at the Young Israel of Flatbush (one Rabbi) dealt with the problem and was very sympathetic and very understanding and helped the person to adjust in the synagogue, not to talk about his sexual life, but not to leave the synagogue either.
    Jewish Review: Now, a person who was a known rasha, an evil person, say a felon, we couldn’t give an aliyah to?
    Rabbi Rackman: We shouldn’t.
    Jewish Review: But in the case of the homosexual we don’t have such a stricture?
    Rabbi Rackman: We don’t, because in the case of a homosexual the person acts in private, and to declare someone a rasha the person has to commit their sins in the presence of at least 2 witnesses and in some cases in the presence of a minyan, and the witnesses themselves must be pure, guiltless of any crime.

    http://thejewishreview.org/articles/?id=184

  51. Even if homosexual reparative therapy rarely works, should it be made illegal? Some in California say “yes”:
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/26/California-bill-psychotherapy

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to our Weekly Newsletter


The latest weekly digest is also available by clicking here.

Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter

Archives

Categories

%d bloggers like this: