Joseph, you claim that “just because someone has taaivas (he doesn’t act upon) for the same gender, does not make them a homosexual, any more than someone who has taaivas for married women (that he doesn’t act upon), it does not make him an adulterer.” Actually, you’re wrong. The definition of a homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same gender. It doesn’t matter whether you act on the attraction or not. An adulterer is only someone who has relations with a married person, other than your own spouse.
There is nothing wrong with admitting that you have this attraction, and need help. Time for Truth, nobody suggested that these people are hanging out with criminals. Even if they are, this club is there to help them. Imagine someone who is part of a gang. He wants to get out of it, so he goes for help. Yes, he’s still a gang member, and still hangs out with the rest of them. Does that mean he doesn’t deserve help leaving them? The purpose of this club is to help them lead a frum lifestyle.
Aveirah, I actually did answer Joseph’s question about a pedophile club. There isn’t a need for it. Joseph differentiated between monetary crimes and homosexuality. He wrote “The guy who committed financial crimes knows its wrong. He doesn’t march in the Embezzlers Pride Parade down Fifth Avenue. He doesn’t write articles in the Y.U. Commentator defending theft like the homosexuals who write in that rag defending their anti-Torah deviancies.”
Yet when I made the same point about pedophiles, he argued it with me. That’s because financial crimes fit his narrative, but pedophiles don’t. He is trying to play it both ways, because that’s Joseph – logic doesn’t matter to him, he is the ultimate troll.
Menu