Though I personally believe-- as I have mentioned elsewhere-- that the teshuvah of Rav Dorff doesn't go far enough, nonetheless, I do think it is worthwhile to clarify his position, which is a perfectly defensible one.
In seeking to limit the scope of the application of the two verses in Leviticus, and constrained by the limitations of halachic authority to not reject the traditional interpretation in its entirety, Rav Dorff has created a compromise position.
This position is based in the argument that halachah prescribes limitations on sexual activity for everyone, not just for gay people: straight people are prohibited from sexual intercourse during menstrual periods, for example. So he argues that the proscription on anal sex between men is no different: a limitation of permissible activity that bounds otherwise permissible relations.
I do have my reasons for believing that this position does not go far enough: I don't think it adequately offsets the still-extant stigmatization of gay relations in our society, and it may be too central a deprivation to be a truly analogous limitation. It is appropriate to limit gay relationships to monogamy, and preferably in a long-term bonding; and it is appropriate to extend by implication the inverse 'arayot (proscriptions of incestuous relationships, bestiality, and sex in the context of avodah zarah) to those applicable to heterosexuals. That may be sufficient. But my objections do not mean that Dorff's solution is not potentially highly defensible halachically and morally, and they certainly do not mean that Dorff's solution is homophobic. Not only is that simply not a reasonable conclusion from the teshuvah itself, but speaking as one who counts Rav Dorff amongst his close mentors, it is simply ludicrous to accuse him of being a homophobe: he is one of the most open, warm, kind-hearted people, and least judgmental people I have ever encountered. Not just a talmid chacham but a real tzaddik.
