The Discussion Itself gives Legitimacy
In almost twenty years that I have been writing this 
column (since 5754, that is, 1994) I think that only one time I wrote 
about "inverted sexual orientation" within the religious community, and I
 immediately regretted it. One solitary time I agreed to state my 
position in a television discussion, and I also regretted this 
afterwards. My reason is very straightforward: Every public discussion 
on this and similar issues adds to the legitimacy of the subject matter,
 even if the opinion that is voiced is very critical and sharply and 
strongly condemns the situation. Some sins are such that any public 
discussion about them spurs afflicted people to action, and even entices
 others to emulate them. This, for example, is thought to be true of 
suicide. Any report accompanied by a discussion – no matter how tragic 
and sad – is quite likely to encourage others to follow in its 
footsteps. This is all the more so true with respect to sins of the evil
 inclination, where every sinner who tells about his sins is interested 
and even strongly wants to encourage new people to join the "community 
of sin." Every act of publicity and raising the subject "against the 
sun" reduces social pressures and enhances the legitimacy, in the eyes 
of the perpetrators and those who surround them.
But this time I have decided to speak out, in the 
wake of the solving (?) of the murder in the Bar Noar Club, which has 
once again turned the spotlight on this dark corner of our lives. My 
main point is my outrage at the use of the phrase "the proud community" 
to describe this phenomenon, in this way making it the object of a 
sophisticated and friendly value judgment. I therefore come to raise my 
pen in protest at this flawed "community." These two words, prestigious 
and festive as they are, community and pride, are being used as an 
envelope of purity for anomalous behavior that is a dramatic perversion 
of family and social norms. And the entire phenomenon is a prime example
 of anti-religion (no matter which one) and anti-Judaism. [...]
I do not call for banishment, casting out, or 
out-and-out rejection from the religious community of the sinners who 
are aware of their situation and who seek help. They should be welcomed 
with bonds of love. I do not propose that we use the word from the 
Torah, an abomination, which can be seen as offensive and can have the 
effect of pushing a person away forever. A better word is "stiya" – 
deviation – but this too is considered as a rejection and no longer 
maintains its original meaning as being different from the norm (such as
 a deviation from an original plan for a building). But I do call for 
the religious – and secular – communications media to completely abandon
 the word combination "proud community." The proper word to use is 
"choreg" – a deviation from the norm. And this should not be used with 
any connotation of forgiveness and acceptance, but rather with the 
meaning of a deviation which can be treated and which deserves to be 
pitied.
On the other hand, I call for total rejection and for
 removal beyond the religious and social boundaries of anybody who shows
 pride about their fault, those who publicly flaunt their "status" or 
gather together to show "community pride" and who join active social 
clubs of this type. Every attempt to show off this way of life is to be 
considered "enticement and seduction," something that is very harmful 
and should be punished in a harsh way. Making the deviations public is 
treated in this week's Torah portion, in the verse quoted above: "Hang 
them in front of the sun." [...]













