Relating to Homosexuality

An interview with Dr. Pelcovitz

By Sammy Steiner

Published: Sunday, November 22, 2009

Updated: Sunday, November 22, 2009

Commentator: Is homosexuality a matter of choice?

Dr. Pelcovitz: It poses a tremendous challenge and struggle for people. If it is a matter of choice, it is just not an easy choice to make. I do not think it is a univariate construct. I’ve never personally encountered anyone for whom it was a choice, but that is not to say that there is no one like that. There is a particular subset who knew from an early stage on that they were homosexual, and may have tried to explore other avenues of expressing their sexuality but just couldn’t. I’ve spoken with people who said they knew they were homosexual from age five and on. They just knew it. Very often they’ll fight it. For that subset, I do not think it is a choice. That is just the way they are. That is where the articles in the Commentator and Kol Hamevaser are coming from. It is as natural to them to be attracted to men as it is for heterosexual men to be attracted to women.

C: Is it healthy for homosexual men to marry heterosexual women in order to have a family and integrate into the Modern Orthodox community?

P: My heart goes out to the man who wrote the Kol Hamevaser article last year, who said that he desperately wanted to marry. Rabbi Chaim Rappaport has taken a very strong stance that he has never seen this type of marriage that has worked or been fair. I can understand that - ultimately it is hard to see how it could possibly work. There is a viewpoint that says it is possible, but I haven’t had any personal experience with a successful marriage like that. However, there are some psychologists who claim that they know some homosexuals who have married women in a way that the marriage has worked. It is a rarity and I have never seen it, but there might be some exceptions. It seems like a very cruel thing to do to a couple, to condemn them to a relationship that by its definition can’t fulfill some requirements of marriage in a fundamental way.

C: Is homosexuality against halakha?

P: I’m not qualified to talk about the halakhic aspect of this, but there is a huge difference between homosexual nature and homosexual activity. Homosexual activity is a clear-cut violation of the traditional Jewish view. There are many cases where people struggling with a specific Halacha can still be involved in the Jewish community. I don’t think this is about making homosexuality activity halakhicly ok.

C: Is homosexuality a disease or psychological disorder?

P: Until 1980, the consensus was that it was a disorder. However, the prevailing view now, as codified in the DSM IV, is that it is emphatically not an illness. Rather, it is a biologically driven choice that comes from the way people are wired.

C: How can heterosexuals try to understand homosexuals?

P: There is an approach that kind of names the monster. We educate people about the struggle and about the needs of people faced with this challenge. Validating someone’s pain is not the same as saying that it is ok to engage in something that is prohibited in mainstream Modern Orthodox Judaism. Like anything else, it is difficult but necessary to talk about it.

C: Is homophobia a problem on the YU campus?

P: I would be surprised if there isn’t a subset of people who are homophobic like in any community. When I was younger, there was a very strong tendency to judge and view homosexuality as an illness. However, when I talk to the guys there is much more openness to views that are empathetic. I’ve been impressed with the maturity amongst the guys I’ve discussed this with.

C: How would you advise YU students to respond if one of their friends reveals in confidence that he is homosexual?

P: Hear them out, accept them, and let them know that you are there for them. When you speak to anyone about their struggles, it is not as if you are saying, “go for it, do whatever you want to do.” There is a huge difference between validation, hearing, understanding, and emotional warmth on one hand and an active endorsement of certain behaviors on the other.

C: How can we at YU help to remove the taboo around homosexuality?

P: This is really a tough area. I think articles like this one are a part of a healthy process. It would be helpful if the Roshei Yeshiva would address the pain of those experiencing the struggle -that would help alleviate some of the silent pain of those individuals. You need to tell people not to be judgmental of something they don’t understand. There is a huge disconnect between the prevailing cultural view and halakha. Al tadin et chavercha ad shetagia bimkomo. This it is a very difficult and painful place to be and it is our responsibility to be as empathetic and as inclusive as we can. This is an exquisitely difficult challenge.

Dr. Pelcovitz is the Gwendolyn and Joseph Straus Chair in Psychology and Jewish Education at Yeshiva University’s Azrieli Graduate School of Jewish Education and Administration. He has consulted extensively with the Jewish community in the United States, Europe and Israel on a wide range of issues facing children and adolescents, and has published and lectured on various topics related to education, parenting, and child mental health.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

jay fein

Tue Dec 29 2009 14:12

To Joshua Teplitsky:

You say I have made a "wonderful point". However you go on to completely misunderstand my point. Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is inborn, the desire to gain "acceptance" for something the Torah clearly labels as disgusting can be nothing other than a denial of the Torah. Additionally, even post-denial of the Torah there is no solid reason to assume homosexual urges are inborn- for example reference Foucault. Also, in your second point you are guilty of setting up a strawman argument. Those who have homosexual inclinations are completely accepted by the Orthodox as long as they do not act on those urges (for example research R' Feldman's letter to a homosexual). What is not accepted is the viewpoint you espouse: that homosexuality is somehow a kosher identity. The homosexual person is not the issue; the issue is the espousal of whatever is the current hip approach in direct contradiction to the Torah's approach.

Joshua Teplitsky

Tue Dec 29 2009 02:06

To Jay Fein:

Thank you, you have made a wonderful point. Michel Foucault was an extremely influential philosopher and archaeologist of the "history of sexuality." While much historical and philosophical research over the past two decades has significantly questioned and critiqued his provocative theses, his suggestion re: homosexuality is an interesting one that perhaps merits some discussion.

Foucault writes: "as defined by the ancient civil or canonical codes, sodomy was a category of forbidden acts; their perpetrator was nothing more than a juridical subject of them. The nineteenth century homosexual became a personage, a past, a case history..." (History of Sexuality, v.1, pp 43).

There are several points here worthy of note:

1. "Ancient" is not always better. The findings of modern psychology that have helped us understand the intricate workings of the mind and the manifold ways in which actions and identities cannot easily be separated ought not to be disparaged as part of a "liberal agenda." Human beings are infinitely blessed to live in an age of modern science and medicine, mental health being no exception. It makes our lives more complicated to know more, but I would argue that it makes them better, none-the-less.

2. If Foucault is correct--and this is a big "if"-- one way or another, sexuality has become more than just an "act" and has become an entire identity. If it was merely an act, then men and women who refrain from the specific acts explicitly prohibited in the Torah would have little to worry about. The fact that they were attracted to members of the same sex and found unique companionship with members of the same sex would be immaterial, so long as they abstained from the forbidden sex act. Treatment of "the homosexual" as a distinct entity, however much it is a modern invention, has forced societies and halakhists to define ways in which the involvement of "the homosexual" is unacceptable, even when he or she abstains from the "act," thus reinforcing the assumption that there is a larger "identity" at work here. If only the act was at issue, and only the act, not the attraction or the identity was condemned, there would be little to discuss. Since those categories have been accepted by Western and Jewish societies as a whole, the Orthodox homosexual person must seek understanding on the terms set by his or her context. If people are excluded as identities, even when they do not do "the acts," then they must seek understanding for those identities, however "modern."

jay fein

Mon Dec 28 2009 21:17

I find it interesting that the very group of people who advocate a fusion of the secular worlds outlook and orthodox judaism, conveniently ignore anything but the absolute lowest-common-denominator media-hyped version of this very same secular outlook. Our societies current acceptance of homosexuality is clearly driven by it's broader Freudian liberal agenda: down with G-d, the Bible, "irrational" guilt, and all personal morals. You can do what you want, so that I may do what I want. Conveniently ignored are any even secular anti-religious opinions that sexuality is a choice. Take Michel Foucault for instance. Here is an ultra-liberal "philosopher" who was himself gay. Yet, throughout all his writings he clearly views sexuality as inherently undefined (or a "multivariate" as Dr. Pelcovitz might say). At the end, he says, we are nothing more than small figments of society's collective diseased conscience. [An interesting support for this theory can be brought from the changing nature of the heterosexual desire for woman. Skinny, fat, pale, dark? Society dictates the nature of our very basic physical desires.] Does this view receive support from the Left-wing of Modern-Orthodoxy? No. For the simple reason that their viewpoint is not dictated by truth, but by fashion.

Concerned Grad Student

Wed Dec 16 2009 14:09

(continued from below)
After speaking with many individuals who have been involved in JONAH, I have no doubt that it has managed to help a few people deal with their self esteem and sense of masculinity, however, these individuals are all either exclusively homosexual today or have occasional 'slips' where they engage in homosexual activity unbeknown to their spouse or partner.

Additionally, many also continue to experience severe depression and anxiety over doubt as to whether or not they are 'really gay', and blaming themselves for not 'trying hard enough' at changing. Consequently, your organization adds a layer of self-blame to people who are already pretty emotionally fragile. Any licensed clinician will tell you that treatment failures are always a limitation of the treatment, never the individual. It's not fair to say that an individual has not worked hard enough when in reality it's the responsibility of those developing treatments to minimize dropout rates.

As for the testimonies in your book, I personally know of at least one individual who you suggest is a JONAH success story but is currently out of the closet and in a gay relationship, which leads me to question the veracity of the claims and anecdotal stories in your book.

The American Psychological Association has already issued a statement condemning reparative therapy as ineffective and potentially harmful. Any benefits people may gain from JONAH they could gain more effectively by attending therapy with better trained, licensed mental health professionals. It is truly a shame that the Rabbis you mentioned endorse your work because it leads to blaming the victim, allowing religious communities to alienate homosexual individuals for 'not trying hard enough to be straight' when there's so little evidence to suggest that such a thing is possible, and that 'trying to change' involves paying exorbitant sums of money to your organization for a treatment with questionable ethics, validity, and efficacy. It is my sincere hope that those Rabbis have the courage to grapple with the challenges of an issue as complex and religiously difficult as homosexuality without simply taking the "easy-out". It might make their lives easier to simply tell an individual to "go to jonah", but it only makes that individuals life more difficult.

I would be happy to continue this discussion with you or anyone else off-list at concernedgradstudent@gmail.com

Concerned Grad Student

Wed Dec 16 2009 14:05

I apologize for re-posting, i was not aware that there would be a word limit.

For example, psychological research is never able to "prove" anything, it suggests relationships that occur at a level above chance. There are limitations present in any research approach which may bias results, and these are present in every study, so selectively pointing out flaws in certain studies without pointing out alternatives with stronger methodologies is suggestive of your personal biases, rather than a bias in the literature.

Second, the majority of researchers in the field of human sexuality do not take an "either/or" approach to understanding sexual attractions. It's not genetics versus environment, it's genetics via environment. We have enough evidence at this point to suggest that both play a role in determining sexual orientation.

Third, you seem to be suggesting that if sexual orientation is not purely genetic then it is subject to change. This statement is logically flawed. The environment often operates to produce permanent changes in an individual. For example, children born with PKU can develop severe mental disabilities if they are not fed the correct diet early in life. However, once the diet (which is clearly environmental) has been provided, the changes are irreversible.

It's not a question of how or why people become homosexual, it's a question of whether treatment is able to effectively alter their orientation. If you know of a peer reviewed study that indicates that this is possible (aside from Spitzer, which is widely regarded as severely flawed) I would be more than happy to read it because every study I've read to date seems to indicate that sexual attraction is highly resistant to change.

I am also very curious to hear what your definitions of "success" are. Are these individuals who are no longer attracted to members of the same sex and develop significant attractions to the opposite sex? Guys who are faithful to their wives or girlfriends even though they are not attracted to them? People who are able to perform sexually with the opposite sex? People who decide to be celibate? All of the above? Again, anyone with a background in research methods would understand the importance of operationally defining a term as subjective as 'success'. Especially considering how misleading it may sound to anyone reading your post.

Concerned Grad Student

Wed Dec 16 2009 13:56

(continued from below) It is my sincere hope that those Rabbis have the courage to grapple with the challenges of an issue as complex and religiously difficult as homosexuality without simply taking the "easy-out". It might make their lives easier to simply tell an individual to "go to jonah", but it only makes that individuals life more difficult.

I would be happy to continue this discussion with you or anyone else off-list at concernedgradstudent@gmail.com

Concerned Grad Student

Wed Dec 16 2009 13:51

Dr. Goldberg,Since you speak with a great deal of authority on issues of mental health and sexual identity, I have to wonder: is your doctorate is in clinical psychology, developmental psychology, or psychiatry? Although you indicate that you are a "board certified counselor" and a "certified relationship specialist" those certifications do not suggest any graduate training, which is important in order to be able to effectively read and interpret research. The reason I mention this is because your statement below contains several logical flaws that anyone who has taken even a basic undergraduate research methods course would be quick to point out.For example, psychological research is never able to "prove" anything, it suggests relationships that occur at a level above chance. There are limitations present in any research approach which may bias results, and these are present in every study, so selectively pointing out flaws in certain studies without pointing out alternatives with stronger methodologies is suggestive of your personal biases, rather than a bias in the literature.Second, the majority of researchers in the field of human sexuality do not take an "either/or" approach to understanding sexual attractions. It's not genetics versus environment, it's genetics via environment. We have enough evidence at this point to suggest that both play a role in determining sexual orientation.Third, you seem to be suggesting that if sexual orientation is not purely genetic then it is subject to change. This statement is logically flawed. The environment often operates to produce permanent changes in an individual. For example, children born with PKU can develop severe mental disabilities if they are not fed the correct diet early in life. However, once the diet (which is clearly environmental) has been provided, the changes are irreversible.It's not a question of how or why people become homosexual, it's a question of whether treatment is able to effectively alter their orientation. If you know of a peer reviewed study that indicates that this is possible (aside from Spitzer, which is widely regarded as severely flawed) I would be more than happy to read it because every study I've read to date seems to indicate that sexual attraction is highly resistant to change.I am also very curious to hear what your definitions of "success" are. Are these individuals who are no longer attracted to members of the same sex and develop significant attractions to the opposite sex? Guys who are faithful to their wives or girlfriends even though they are not attracted to them? People who are able to perform sexually with the opposite sex? People who decide to be celibate? All of the above? Again, anyone with a background in research methods would understand the importance of operationally defining a term as subjective as 'success'. Especially considering how misleading it may sound to anyone reading your post.After speaking with many individuals who have been involved in JONAH, I have no doubt that it has managed to help a few people deal with their self esteem and sense of masculinity, however, these individuals are all either exclusively homosexual today or have occasional 'slips' where they engage in homosexual activity unbeknown to their spouse or partner. Additionally, many also continue to experience severe depression and anxiety over doubt as to whether or not they are 'really gay', and blaming themselves for not 'trying hard enough' at changing. Consequently, your organization adds a layer of self-blame to people who are already pretty emotionally fragile. Any licensed clinician will tell you that treatment failures are always a limitation of the treatment, never the individual. It's not fair to say that an individual has not worked hard enough when in reality it's the responsibility of those developing treatments to minimize dropout rates.As for the testimonies in your book, I personally know of at least one individual who you suggest is a JONAH success story but is currently out of the closet and in a gay relationship, which leads me to question the veracity of the claims and anecdotal stories in your book.The American Psychological Association has already issued a statement condemning reparative therapy as ineffective and potentially harmful. Any benefits people may gain from JONAH they could gain more effectively by attending therapy with better trained, licensed mental health professionals. It is truly a shame that the Rabbis you mentioned endorse your work because it leads to blaming the victim, allowing religious communities to alienate homosexual individuals for 'not trying hard enough to be straight' when there's so little to suggest that such a thing is possible and that 'trying to change' involves paying exorbitant sums of money to your organization for a treatment with questionable ethics, validity, and efficacy. It is my sincere hope that those Rabbis have the courage to grapple with the challenges of an...

Arthur Goldberg

Wed Dec 9 2009 01:06

To the YU Commentator:

I am astounded to have read the interview of Dr. David Pelcovitz, a man whom I greatly respect. First of all, the way in which the questions were asked do not indicate an unbiased questioning. For example, by asking "Is it healthy for homosexual men to marry heterosexual women in order to have a family and integrate into the Modern Orthodox community?" assumes that the individual is homosexual rather than a heterosexual person with a homosexual issue. However, no one is born homosexual. There is not one scientific study that has been replicated that proves the genetic or any other purely biological origins of homosexuality. This view is compounded by quoting Dr. Pelcovitz as suggesting that there is indeed a homosexual gene or some other kind of purely biological cause and effect, of which no evidence exists to support - Quite the opposite in fact.

Secondly, as the co-director of JONAH (www.jonahweb.org) and as a Board Certified Professional Counselor who has counseled innumerable sexually conflicted men and women, I am further astounded to read the pessimistic statements concerning the process of change of sexual orientation. We have worked with over 1,000 men over ten years and our successful record of intervention proves that people desiring change of sexual orientation and who do the process work suggested can indeed change. Several testimonies to that effect can be found in my book Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change (www.redheiferpress.com) which has haskamas from leading gedolim such as Rabbis Shmuel Kamenetsky, Michel Twerski, Noach Weinberg, and Zev Leff and secular endorsements from innumerable mental health professionals including a former president of the American Psychological Association.

Anyone interested in hearing another side of the story, should feel free to review our website, www.jonahweb.org or call us at 201 433 3444.

Thank you,
Dr. Arthur Goldberg
Co-Director, JONAH
Board Certified Professional Counselor and Certified Relationship Specialist

Mordechai Levovitz

Mon Dec 7 2009 01:05

When I was a student at YC MYP, I had a frum friend who dormed on my floor in Rubin, who was in reparative therapy because his family made him go. He complained that it wasn't working, and was blamed each time, that he wasn't working hard enough. In my sophomore year, he ended up committing suicide, his body was found in the east river.

Five years later another friend, trying to 'change', married a woman, only to later commit suicide. I personally know of SEVEN marriages just in the last 5 years, that broke up because the man withheld the information that he was gay.

This is a real and pressing issue in the Frum world. When some confuse religious ideology with mental health, the victims are those who are already desperately vulnerable. We should be very careful about what we pressure those already vulnerable to undergo. The results can be tragic.

What saved me from depression and isolation, was learning that there were other frum Jews like me who were gay. Boruch Hashem there is a thriving frum gay community in NYC. JQYouth.org for younger people, and GLYDSA.org for adults. Meeting other frum gay jews, sharing our experiences, our hopes and our fears, and our different approaches helped me know that i am really not alone. These are resources that every Frum Therapist should know about.

Thank you again for breaking the silence on this issue,
-Mordechai Levovitz

Joshua Teplitsky

Sun Nov 29 2009 18:58

I am thankful that the editors of the commentator decided to conduct an interview like this, and that Dr. Pelcovitz offered a message of inclusion and empathy while abstaining from making halakhic prescriptions beyond the realm of his authority.

I am more than a little disturbed by the messages that have followed on this discussion board that see Dr. Pelcovitz’s inclusive message as an attempt “to take away that opportunity” from people who wish to change. While I remain dubious as to the possibilities of change, I feel certain that stifling the voices of inclusion so as not to upset one’s inner drive to change is a position that is very unhealthy. I cannot see how Eric Rustman, CSR, can suggest that offering a space of understanding to lesbian women and gay men will remove opportunities. Does the world exist in patterns of either/or?

To follow the implications of Eric Rustman, Dr. Elan Karten, and Adam Jessel seems to say that if we allow sympathy and understanding for gay men and women then we remove hope for change. This seems like an unfair trade-off, as well as an unrealistic one. Are you saying that we should deny empathy to all gay people because some people might not want to be gay? How does empathy do anything other than help people understand themselves without the added complications of self-loathing and self-deprecation that they invariably feel as a result of communal pressure? Your suggestions imply that we ought to keep the pressure on, for otherwise, what motivation do people have to change? If human empathy is the greatest stumbling block to personal “growth,” the foundations for that “growth” are very weak indeed.

Finally, while Karten and Jessel argue that men and women who were once gay can "fulfill the requirements of marriage in a fundamental way,” we might benefit from considering the human casualties. If marriage bears with it any measure of “requirements,” it also has a universe of intangibles. Are we, as members of the Orthodox community, as parents, siblings, and friends, prepared to marry off daughters and sisters to men who can only "fulfill the requirements of marriage in a fundamental way?” I, for one, believe that my straight siblings and friends are entitled to more than requirements fulfilled.

Rob Jones

Sun Nov 29 2009 16:53

Although I agree with the bulk of the article, I must present a slightly different viewpoint. Although am not a YU student, I have been involved in the organization JONAH for several years. Although, from my experience, I do not believe I will ever be "straight". I am frightened by the notion of spending the rest of my life with a woman- a woman who I am not attracted to, who I might even be lying to. Perhaps, I will tell her, and she might even understand. But the marriage will ultimately be a farce: a marriage not generated or sustained by genuine desire to build a relationship with another woman, rather the internal and external pressure that I feel from myself sense that I “should” build a family, as well as my own family pressure to conform to the "orthodox way of life" that has been set before me. I dare break from such tradition, for it will cause "too much anguish" and will be viewed as blatantly punishing my parents.
That's not to say that my experience of Jonah has been a negative, or even remotely harmful. They have enabled me to learn to be assertive, and not to carry around crippling guilt that used to intensely damage my personal interactions, especially with other men. But, I sense that they must concede that marriage might only work in highly exceptional circumstances (one or two of which I know of, personally), but as a whole it is too often a “one-way street” to much unnecessary pain, confusion and even embarrassment. But, hey, that’s my 2 cents!
Ultimately, I do not believe that my same sex attractions will ever disappear or transform to heterosexuality; they might wax and wane, but they will never vanish. But, I tend to create a more holistic perception of who I am and the lifestyle I need to establish and sustain. Will I marry? Not likely! Do I want to marry, or at least engage in long-term relationship? I, like most of us, do. As of now, I don’t know what my future will look like, but that is something that I need to decide and decide alone.

Eric Rustman

Sat Nov 28 2009 23:02

It's very difficult to read an article like this when it's a subject that hits so close to home.
I personally have whittnessed many marriages of "gay men" to heterosexual women where both have continued to lead healthy, happy, fullfilled lives while the man takes initiatives to change his inclanations and grow past his homosexuality. There is litirature out there stating that men can change. To take that opportunity away from someone who suffers with his attractions is unfair.
In my experience these men want understanding of where these feelings are stemming from. I have whittnesses support groups and therapy sessions and there are men who have changed and completely grown past their same sex attractions. Please don't make statements that take that opportunity for change and growth beyond struggle away from other men.

Thank you,
Eric Rustman
CSR

Elan Karten

Thu Nov 26 2009 11:16

Thank you Dr. Pelcovitz for granting an interview on such a controversial topic. It exists. It’s very real, and it warrants discussion. I really enjoyed reading your article--specifically the parts where you indicated our role in validating and accepting those dealing with this struggle. Al tadin et chavercha ad shetagia bimkomo rings very true here. They need our support, not our judgment.

I do have to say however that the dissatisfied same-sex attracted man or woman reading this article may not find that validation you refer to here.

In my work with men dealing with same sex attraction, they do want understanding. Their sexual attraction pains them. They are ashamed of the differences that exist between them and the “normal man.” Often they experience this pain on a daily basis. But we cannot forget their other pain. They long to be married. To father children. To be a part of the community, and they do not want to be “condemned to a relationship” as you put it. They want to enjoy it. They do this by understanding what their homosexuality is about. And it is understandable how it is hard to see how it could possibly work because it is a hard process. But if that is our position, just imagine how someone reading this article will feel. Do we want them walking away from this article believing that the most they can hope for is our pity?

The reality is that a positive healthy heterosexual relationship can “possibly” work. Like Shlomo Zalman, I work with such men, and I see in the future of these same-sex attracted men the potential to become excellent husbands and fathers.

As an aside, I tend to disagree with men who have shared that they knew they were homosexual from age five. That one would experience a homosexual predilection, not to mention any sexual predilection at age 5 contradicts my education on sexual development. I tend to believe they felt a same-sex gender identity deficit, or experienced a longing to connect to men. When this need wasn’t met that longing became sexualized. (I recommend an excellent book on this topic by Joseph Nicolosi called Preventing Homosexuality: A Guide for Parents) As a gay adult, perhaps this was their retrospective opinion, but the likelihood is someone dropped the ball at this crucial stage and couldn’t meet their emotional needs in a healthy way. What was exotic (i.e, masculinity) then became erotic.

Sincerely,

Elan Karten, PhD
Psychologist
Jerusalem

Adam Jessel

Tue Nov 24 2009 15:26

If this article is an accurate portrayal of what Dr. P said, then he believes that people with homosexual attractions are very unlikely to have a successful marriage. I have difficulty understanding how someone as greatly respected as Dr. P. could make a claim that is so clearly contradicted by my own observations and experience.

As a therapist who works extensively with people struggling with unwanted attractions, I've met countless married individuals and couples who have succeeded in having good marriages in the presence of homosexual attractions. Just because a man deals with homosexual attraction does not preclude him from being able to also develop opposite sex attractions. And in most of the cases I have worked with, these men are able to "fulfill the requirements of marriage in a fundamental way." It may not have been easy, and I certainly wouldn't advise people with homosexual attractions to go into marriage without the guidance and advice of rebbeim and therapists very experienced in this issue (both before and after marriage). It is not a decision to take lightly. But to declare the notion as probably doomed to failure is to remove hope and support from those who aspire to marry and create a Jewish home.

Homosexuality is caused by a constellation of factors, and orientation is rarely only one or the other. Rather, most homosexual men can experience attraction to some women, and many men and especially women experience changes and fluctuations in their orientation over their livespan.

Perhaps the way to reconcile Dr. P's experience with my own is that he primarily has seen marriages where people come to him because their marriages began under duress or with misleading impressions or to "solve" an issue. Without proper pre- and post-marital therapy and guidance, no wonder these couples have such a tough time.

Here in Israel we have support groups for married men with homosexual attractions and also for their wives. Anyone who is interested in finding out more can contact me by Skype (szjessel) or email (szjessel at gmail).

Shlomo Zalman (Adam) Jessel
Individual and Family Therapy
Jerusalem Institute of Therapy

David Jacobs

Sun Nov 22 2009 18:32

I would like to thank both Dr. Pelcovitz and Sammy Steiner for discussing the issue. Every public discussion is a step towards the objectives I put forth in my article. My gratitude is both personal and on behalf of the many Orthodox Jews who face the challenge of homosexuality.

From the author of "The Gay Question: Time for Modern Orthodoxy to Take Off the Blindfold".

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now