ujm

No; no one does anymore.

Ubiq: I’m discussing exclusively homosexual for a reason. If someone is bisexual that indicates he can be attracted to both genders. As such, in regards to our discussion of helping Jews who have no other outlet for their taaivos other than their same gender, that point isn’t relevant to those who are bisexual, since they can find a shidduch of the opposite gender. Studies have consistently shown that a majority of people who say they experience homosexual taaivos, also say that they are attracted to the opposite gender as well, thereby those taaivos are non-exclusive. So for the purposes of this discussion, it is correct to focus on those with exclusive taaivos only.

The Gallup poll is an outlier and inconsistent. According to Gallup, if you take them at their word per the polling results, the percentage of the US population that identifies as homosexual has DOUBLED between 2012 and 2022. Do you credibly believe there was a doubling of this population in literally ten years? Public opinion issue pollsters such as Gallup, Harris, Marist, etc. have long been known to produce desired results for a left-wing audience. They consistently cater their results to comply with the left’s expectations. Also note that Gallup’s poll makes a cholent of combining transsexual, bisexual and homosexual all in that one figure that you quoted.

Other, more academic, research have shown significantly lower figures. The General Social Survey in 2017 reports it is 2.4%. ( sda dot berkeley dot edu/sdaweb/analysis/?dataset=gss16 ) in the US. Internationally, the Psychological Science in the Public Interest reports that less than 2% of the overall population identify as exclusively homosexual ( www dot researchgate dot net/publication/301639075 ).

With a larger percent of the population being attracted to children than to the same gender, it is clear the problem of pedophilia should be addressed with at least greater priority than the problem of homosexuality. Even if we were to accept the Gallup figure of 7% (which in reality, as explained above, is an unrealistic figure and combines the number with transsexual, bisexual, etc.), even that is within the same ballpark as the 5% of the population that is attracted to children. As such, you still cannot deny that the aveira of pedophilia (which also severely victimizes innocent children) should be addressed with at least the same alarcity as that of the aveira of homosexuality.

AAQ: Your point is absolutely correct. See my citations above.

ymribriat: If you accept YU’s solution to the homosexual problem is to create a YU Homosexual Support Club, then by logical extension you must insist that YU similarly create a YU Pedophilic Support Club for the pedophile problem.

DaMoshe: Your point is irrelevant. YU is claiming their university sponsored Homosexual Club is designed to help YU homosexuals overcome their homosexual taaivas. As such, by logical extension YU must similarly create a YU Pedophilic Club to help YU pedophiles overcome their pedophilic taaivas.

ubiq: According to research, approximately 1.7% of the population is of exclusive homosexual orientation. Whereas somewhat under 5% of the male population is of the pedophilic orientation. It is very clear that men attracted to children is notably more prevalent than men attracted to their same gender.

See the article entitled “Pedophilia” in Psychology Today.

Ubiq: Why are you accepting at face value that homosexuality is a more prevalent problem than pedophilia? The research is readily and easily available. But you admit above that you do not know the comparative figures. As such, you should have the humility to not deny the problem of pedophilia.

Rather than defend Y.U. on the basis you have, you should be questioning the lack of a Y.U. Pedophilia Support Club.

The oaths were between us and Hashem, and between the nations and Hashem. The fact that the goyim broke theirs does not mean we can break ours as well. To compare – if your neighbor is mechallel shabbos, does that mean you can be mechallel shabbos as well?

First, The Oaths are quoted L’Halachah in numerous sources, including but not limited to: Piskei Riaz (Kesuvos 111), Responsa Rivash #110, Responsa Rashbash #2, Megilas Esther on Sefer HaMitzvos of Rambam Ramban (Maamar HaGeulah #1 regarding why all Jews outside of Bavel – the majority of Jews at the time – did not go to Eretz Yisroel at Coresh’s call), Rambam (Igeres Taimon – warning peple not to violate the Oaths or else face grave danger), Maharal (Netzach Yisroel 24) writes that even if the Goyim try to force us to take Eretz Yisroel for ourselves during Golus, we must allow ourselves to be killed rather than take violate the Oaths, as well as other places.

Second, Rabbeinu Tam writes that you DO pasken from Agadita unless it is against Halachah.

Third, the Oaths are NOT Agada. By definition, Halachah means when the Gemora tells you it is forbidden to do something, which this does. In fact, it says You may nto do this, and if you do, you will die. That makes it Halachah. Thats the definition of Halachah. (Similarly, the Oath of Naaseh V’Nishmah is also used by Chazal as Halachah, as in Shevuah chal al Sehvuah etc.)

Fourth, even if it is not Halachah, it still represents the Ratzon Hashem, meaning, negation of Halachah would merely relinquish us of any obligations in regard to making a State. But the Gemora clearly says that doing so will cause the deaths of Jews, like animals in the field. Even if that does not create any Halachic obligations, it surely tells us that the State is against the will of Hashem and that its existence causes deaths of Jews.

The Oath that G-d gave us not to rebel against the Goyim was NOT for the sake of the Goyim, but for our OWN sake, that we dont end Golus early. It says this in every single interpretation in the commentaries about the Oath. It was not for the sake of the Goyim but for us. So just because the Goyim violated their Oath and hurt us does nto mean we can violate another one and hurt ourselves more! Shevet Efraim left Egypt in violation of the Oaths. Egypt surely violated their Oath when they tortured Jews for centuries. Yet Ephraim, Chazal say, were all hunted down and killed in the desert for violating their Oath by leaving Egypt early.

The Oaths are brought down l’halachah in Rishonim and Achronim as viable and very real. This, despite the fact that the Goyim have been violating their Oath for thousands of years.

The Rambam in Igeres Taimon warns the Jews not to violate the Oaths, or else. He writes there that the Jews are suffering an evil, persecuting government that commits atrocities and wars against the Jews, and therefore the Jews should watch out not to violate the Oath by rebelling against them. It’s clear that even though the Goyim violate their Oath we cannot violate ours.

The Medrash Aichah says clearly that the Romans violated their Oath, yet the generation of Bar Kochba was punished Chazal say because they violated the Oaths.

The Maharal writes that even if the Goyim force us with torturous death to violate the Oath, we should rather submit to torturous death than violate them.

And the Gemora itself disproves the idea, since the Gemora says that the reason Chazal commanded us not to go from Bavel to Eretz Yisroel is due to the Oaths, even though Bavel violated their Oath for sure with the atrocities they committed during the Churban (The Shulchan Aruch writes that the Brachah of Vlamalshinim was enacted to praise Hashem for destroying the evil kingdom of Bavel).

The Gemora then asks on R. Zaira who says that the Oaths only include not taking Eretz Yisroel forcefully, but the Oath not to rebel against the nations is nto included. The Gemora could easily have answered that Bavel violated their Oath and therefore our Oath of rebelling against them is null. But the Gemora says no such thing.

R. Avrohom Galanti (Zechus Avos) brings a story of the people of Portugal who wanted to defend themselves against the government by making a rebellion. The government then was making forced Shmad and all sorts of persecutions. They asked the “shem hameforash” and were told not to do it because it would violate the Oaths.

And besides all this, the second Oath, nshelo yaalu b’chomah has nothing to do with the Goyim, and woud not be dependent on the Goyim’s Oath anyway. The Maharal and R. Yonason Eyebushitz write that even if the Goyim give us permission to take Eretz Yisroel we are not allowed to do it. Better we should die than take Eretz Yisroel, the Maharal says.

Anyone who learns about the Oaths is immediately confronted with the reality that they Goyim violated theirs but we still cannot violate ours.

“If there was a need I’d feel terrible if they DIDN’T create such a group
It sounds dangerous not to!”

ubiq: So why aren’t you denouncing Y.U. for NOT creating the Y.U. Pedophilic Support Club, just like they’re creating the Homosexual Club? Are you in denial that pedophilia is a real, serious and consistent problem in our community, MORE so than even homosexuality? I’m sure you’ve heard all the many stories in the Orthodox community over the last 20 years of pedophiles being arrested.

Or do you simply think pedophilia is a less serious problem than homosexuality? If so, be advised that you are grossly in error.

To answer the title, YU is officially a treif institution.

Ubiq: GYE works too help those with the nisoyon of the aveiros they deal with OVERCOME AND STOP doing it. Is this YU group trying to help homosexuals STOP ENGAGING IN HOMOSEXUALITY?

YES OR NO?

Forshayer: You’re referring to her getting speed camera tickets. That’s a different issue.

“OF course that letter was written almost 50 years ago
Attitudes and perspectives change.”

Are you implicitly saying that Rav Moshe’s attitude and perspective on this issue expressed in the referenced teshuva is no longer acceptable in today’s day and age?

Rav Miller was opposed to Kahane’s activities.

Rashi is THE basic staple of any Gemora.

The Alte Heim is Yiddish for the “old home”. It is referring to when most Yidden lived in Europe in the Shtetl.

YU has already been considered beyond the pale of the Torah world for many many decades.

Current thinking is Vote Republican.

“Schumer claims his wife converted but I’m sure it was not an halachic conversion”

It isn’t possible to convert without becoming observant of the 613.

Zeldin. (Nevertheless, Hochul will unfortunately win.)

So you’re trying to communicate that we should only refrain from engaging in the worst iteration of aveiros; but commiting an aveira in not the worst way, isn’t so bad?

Rav Moshe Feinstein held that we can’t apply tinok shenishba status to someone who lived near an Orthodox community and was aware of religious Jews. (Even if he didn’t grow up frum.)
Igros Moshe OC 5:28 , Igros Moshe EH 1:82:11 Igros Moshe EH 2:20 and OC 1:33.

Rav Ovadia Yosef held similarly that it depends on whether they were familiar with a Torah community. In practice that means non-religious Israelis and “in town” Americans are not considered tinokos shenishbau.
Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer OC 10:55) and Rav Binyamin Zilber (Az Nidbaru 9:55).

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach held that non-religious Israelis are not considered tinokos shenishbau and that the they are mumarim.
Halichos Shlomo Pesach pp. 326-7 and Madenei Shlomo p. 27

Reb Eliezer,

a) who said that if it was a tinuk shenishbah that changes the Halacha in regards to this case?

b) the article says his father is frum but his father’s brothers (who are business partners with the father) are not frum. Therefore those brothers were likely brought up frum, but even if not they are clearly exposed to frum life — which means that they are NOT tinuk shenishbah.

Women in power is not a good thing.

How do these neighborhoods compare to Meah Shearim (in terms of Yiddishkeit, demographics, cost, amenities, etc.)?

Menachem: Why haven’t you let his parents know what he has?

Menachem Shmei,

Yasher Koach for sharing this beautiful thought from the Rebbe.

Gut Moed