This psak is hopefully not relevant to most of us, but it is interesting and definitely is unique - I have not seen this question, or any like it dealt with publicly until now.
Rav Yuval Cherlo was asked a halachic question by someone describing himself as a religious homosexual who is "mitchazek" - becoming more religious, becoming stronger in religion. He says he is being more careful about a number of mtizvos and aveiros..
This fellow explained that he accepted upon himself to be shomer negia, avoid touch generally applicable with the opposite gender but this fellow applied it to men because that is the gender he is attracted to, and not touch other males. This leads to a problem in shul, and other social settings I presume, as he will not shake hands with his fellow congregants and they at times get insulted. He asks Rav Cherlo what he should do.
Unusual question. Interesting self-application. Interesting "chumra" for him to take upon himself.
Rav Cherlo's response was that his acceptance of being careful to not touch other males need not prevent him from shaking hands. Shaking hands, Rav Cherlo says, is a technical matter with absolutely no sexual implications. Even having accepted such behavior on oneself would not require him to enter such problematic situations, as he could still shake hands.
(source: Kipa)
This psak is in line with Rav Cherlo's psak with shaking hands with members of the opposite sex. Rav Cherlo has said, to much criticism, that shaking hands has no sexual implications, and nobody must refrain from shaking. Applying it to man-man is an interesting application, but is in line with his general psak.
Rav Cherlo explained his rationale further to Ynet. He explained that shaking hands with women has no sexual meaning and is not prohibited between man and woman, and between homosexuals it is even more permissible. Giving sexual meaning to acts that have no sexual meaning, Rav Cherlo explains, is itself immodest and destructive to the holiness of the Jewish nation. What is prohibited, is prohibited. What is not prohibited - one should carefully consider the reward of [creating] the prohibition vs the loss [created by said prohibition.
Religion Magazine
