« Israeli Immigration Cops Arrest Hungarian Pedophile Disguised As Orthodox Jew | Main | Rabbinical Alliance Of America: Israel Is The "Holy Land Not The Homo Land" »

July 28, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Sodium deficiency? WTF?

Posts like this always bring out the ortho-cretins. You people are a collective abomination. You haven't, among the lot of you, the brains your Imaginary Friend gave a piece of furniture. I can't wait for you to exit the stage of history once and for all - and please take the evangelicals with you as you go. B'Bye!

cant understand how jews talk like this

These rabbbis would be banned years ago by the Chasam Sofer and the other true gedolim theat made a sepration between reform and orthodox. In those days the reformes were not like today they were probably better then these rabbis tooday. Such a chilul hashem to say and pasken what how they pasken. Unbelievable to what a world we had come to. Any one who studied Chazal and gmuru and other books would see how full of it these rebbies are.

Hometown Postville

They won't let a woman walk on the same side of the street but they tolerate gay couples? This does not compute!


The community must still accept "practicing" homosexual couples

Sick and getting sicker. We need another thousand Yehuda Levin's to blaze against this massive chilul hashem.

While the signatories will defend the aforementioned "practicing" as meaning "playing house" (without violations of the Torah), they have nonetheless subtly nodded and blinked in the direction of allowing true sin. Especially in light of the fact that "Practicing" could mean just that.

The Talmud states, "ain apatrapus l'araiyos". Literally translated it means there is no one to watch or guarantee that in private a forbidden attraction won't falter to sin. Figuratively translated it means "who you fooling". It’s a sweeter way of saying, “cut the crap”. These Rabbis should know that passage in the Talmud. Huge Chilul Hashem; I don’t envy these “Rabbis”.


"If man were intended to shtup man then the rectus would self lubricate much like the vaginius."

In lesbian sex the vaginas self lubricate. So that seems to work.


If man were intended to shtup man then the rectus would self lubricate much like the vaginius. It don't. All this genetic predisposition is an excuse for messed up faygs with daddy issues and a sodium deficiency to prance around like Richard Simmons, whose real name is Dick Simonovitch.

Radical Feminist

A man cannot lie with another man the way he can with a woman for the simple fact that men don't have vaginas. End of problem. Uh unless your guy is now a girl that is, in which case, another can of worms.

A E ANDERSON | Brooklyn, NY

The real question for the haredi poofter is whether or not Astroglide needs a hecksher.


Not every law is meant to be enforced. Some are meant to set standards. Part of our problem is that we have a greater sense of individuality than even 4-500 years ago, when group identification was much stronger than the individual's happiness or distress. IOW the greater community was so important that the individual was expected to sacrifice for the greater good of the larger community. Sort of like the army.
Many have attempted to explain away the biblical verse as dealing with male on male rape, not consensual sex. I would truly like to go with that but it is too big a leap.

A E ANDERSON | Brooklyn, NY


I would not think the MOs could disagree with the literal word of God and remain in any sense Orthodox. They would by definition become heterodox, or MHs, Modern Heterodoxes.


That qualification bothered me too.... I would think the plain meaning is a man (top) who consorts with another man (the bottom), or in some way uses the other man as a woman substitute or replacement in the sex act. I suppose the MO should therefore accept specifically "gay sex" just as the MO accepts a woman's wearing of womens pants/trousers, as long as it is differentiated significantly from the way that a man lies with a woman. Perhaps with a שנוי, like driving with the left foot on Shabbes.


So according to this if a guy walks up to me in a bar and asks if I mind if he pushes my stool in I should be ok with that?

Radical Feminist

One of the things I love about being a Reform Jew is knowing that we are usually the first to start the most humane and progressive actions to insure human rights for all Jewish people. We were the first to have Bat Mitzvahs in shul, the first to ordaine female RAbbi's the first to recognize gay rights and the right to marry. I think it is funny that while being accused of not practicing Judaism properly, the other branches usually follow our lead by 50 years or so.


Maybe not perfect, but this is definitely a bright spark in an otherwise depressing scene of sinas chinom, Right-Wing chauvinism/nationalism run amok and a general race to the lowest of the low in the world of Orthodoxy, whether Chareidi or MO.


Doesn't it sound contradicting?

Posted by: Cheskel | July 28, 2010 at 12:05 PM

outing means, to make it publicly known that the person is gay.


[tr: And a man who lays a man in the way he would a woman is an abomination and they both shall certainly die.]


Posted by: A E ANDERSON | Miami, Fla. | July 28, 2010 at 12:13 PM

I do not see the problem, this gay guy would not lay with a woman since he is gay therefore he cannot "in the way he would a woman." He has no desire.

maybe the interpretation is, if a person is truly gay then it is a none issue.

But if he is truly a heterosexual, only then is a gay act a problem


AE Anderson, let me throw a hypothetical right back at you. If a man was found cursing his mother or father, and was warned, a sanhedrin is sitting, etc., would you interpret that as requiring death by stoning (Lev. 20:9)? Could you carry out that penalty in good conscience because God commanded it?

Mr. Apikoros

I have no particular love of homosexuality (unless it involves attractive, exhibitionist lesbians) or the gay lifestyle, including gay marriage, except for one thing:

It pisses off the othodicks.

A E ANDERSON | Miami, Fla.

Taking the "MO" out of "HOMO"

Sounds like the MOs (Modern Orthodox) are subscribing to St. Augustine's and Gandhi's principle of "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner."

At the risk of inadvertently pulling a Yitschak Shapira, I wonder what the MOs would say to this hypothetical: two male homosexuals are found en flagrante delicto per rectum following התראה by two witnesses when a Sanhedrin is sitting, etc. How would these MO rabbis interpret and apply the proscription in Leviticus:

וְאֶת זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה הִוא- ויקרא יח כב

[tr: And a man shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman]


- וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹת יוּמָתוּ ויקרא כ יג.

[tr: And a man who lays a man in the way he would a woman is an abomination and they both shall certainly die.]




"""The statement of principle states that Jewish Halacha prohibits only homosexual acts, and not orientation or attraction to members of the same sex"""

Jewish Halacha prohibits only eating pork,shrimp etc and not the desire to eat. In fact you must not say i don't have a desire to this or that sin but to say i do, but what can i do that the Torah prohibits.

""The rabbis are also opposed to "outing" any gay community members who have not openly declared their sexual tendencies""

Then it reads:
""the community must still accept "practicing" homosexual couples, as well as their biological or adopted children.""

Doesn't it sound contradicting?


I thought the original statement said that gays were free to REJECT "change therapy" if they feel that the therapy is worthless or dangerous. I think he gets the formulation wrong in this article, or am I misremembering?

You're correct, Jason.


I thought the original statement said that gays were free to REJECT "change therapy" if they feel that the therapy is worthless or dangerous. I think he gets the formulation wrong in this article, or am I misremembering?


One factual correction to the information presented in the article. The panel in New York six months ago was not "held by the rashei yeshiva ramim".

The comments to this entry are closed.

Failed messiah was established and run in 2004 by Mr. Shmarya (Scott)Rosenberg. The site was acquired by Diversified Holdings, Feb 2016.
We thank Mr. Rosenberg for his efforts on behalf of the Jewish Community


Comment Rules

  1. No anonymous comments.
  2. Use only one name or alias and stick with that.
  3. Do not use anyone else's name or alias.
  4. Do not sockpuppet.
  5. Try to argue using facts and logic.
  6. Do not lie.
  7. No name-calling, please.
  8. Do not post entire articles or long article excerpts.
***Violation of these rules may lead to the violator's comments being edited or his future comments being banned.***

Search this site with Google:


FailedMessiah.com in the Media