We speak of “gays”, implicitly accepting the skewed notion that one sexual problem defines a person, and implicitly accepting the canard that homosexuality is genetic and an intrinsic part of the person.

In fact, there is a solid body of psychological theory that explains homosexuality as a maladapted response to lacks or traumas in a person’s development. These theories were never disproved, just shouted down by gay activists.

This therapeutic approach is more consonant with Torah teaching.

to which of my two pieces are you refering?

I pasken like RYA

I also take issue with those who characterized Rav Moshe’s teshuva as a “psak.” The teshuva he wrote was for advice to a particular young man who apparently asked him the best way to do teshuva for his past indiscretions, and how to avoid falling prey to the same activity in the future. Rav Moshe responded in part with an analysis of how gay activity occupies its own niche in the Torah’s list of illict relations, as demonstrated by the repetition of the word “toevah,” making it sui generis. Going on to explain why that might be, Rav Moshe wrote that there is no natural inclination towards gay behavior. Rav Moshe may have meant his analysis to apply to all gay men, or he may have not. (In the latter case, the Torah’s extra “toevah” would apply only to those who experiment with gay activity, and therefore create new desires for themselves; the behavior, of course, as a matter of halacha is forbidden to all.) Even if the former, it does not constitute a “psak.” The analysis of the Gadol Hador of the last generation should not be taken lightly, of course, but it does not rise to the bar of psak. (In fact, many would call such an analysis “derush,” based as it on his understanding of a Scriptual pleonasm.) One of the great tragedies of our times is people confusing “psak” with other forms of Torah writing, creating huge pressures for conformity that makes full affiliation with the Torah world unattractive to too many people.

In any event, I do side with JO, that even if it were psak, RAF in principle could disagree, based on his own observations of reality. (Some of the other commenters will minimally have to concede that things have changed since Rav Moshe’ teshuva, since he writes there that “the entire world, even evildoers, mock the practioner of sodomy. He is even dispareaged in the eyes of his partner…” Do they believe that this is true today?)

I am probably even more radical that JO. I believe that in most cases Tosafos indeed did anticipate the Pnei Yehoshua, and rejected it. Nonetheless, not seeing the flaw in his reasoning, it is the duty of the Pnei Yehoshua to set forth his proposal - and our responsibility to study them both

Applying it to learning would be the equivalent of saying, “surely Tosfos factored in - and rejected - what the p’nei yehoshua is conjecturing, so what right does does the P”Y have to suggest it.” or “surely reb chaim rejectd my chiddush, so I had better keep quiet.”

RAF is allowed to disagree with RMF and we surely are allowed to accept RMF.

Also, for what it’s worth I clearly remember when Rav Aharon Feldman’s letter came out and
at the time I was troubled by what do you do with Rav Moshe’s teshuva. This question still bothers me.
If anyone knows if Rav Feldman has ever addressed this I would appreciate knowing what he said.

America is in the midst of a culture war, and the radical Homosexual movemnet is th the vanguard of those who seek to tear down all standards of decency and family.

Moreover, there is an active campaign to “normalize” what is a perverted lifestyle for . Winess the current popular academy award winning film “Brokeback Mountain.”

To discuss Homosexuality without an awareness of the scoial context may result in giving aid and comfort to this dangerous cancer that is spreading rapidly thoughout our socirty.

When something becomes “normal,” and even fashionable, you can expect to get a lot more of it.