Conservative Rabbis Allow Ordained Gays, Same-Sex Unions [Archive]

View Full Version : Conservative Rabbis Allow Ordained Gays, Same-Sex Unions

JD3

12-07-2006, 01:41 PM

Michele

12-07-2006, 01:59 PM

KUDOS to this committee. their pragmatism is to be commended.

although I can't help wondering if that ban on anal sex is only for heterosexual couples or does it also apply to homosexual couples?

jamesrage

12-12-2006, 03:09 AM

OH NO!!!:shock: :shock: :shock:

Conservative Rabbis Allow Ordained Gays, Same-Sex Unions

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 7, 2006; Page A17

NEW YORK, Dec. 6 -- A panel of rabbis gave permission Wednesday for same-sex commitment ceremonies and ordination of gays within Conservative Judaism, a wrenching change for a movement that occupies the middle ground between orthodoxy and liberalism in Judaism.

(snip)

But a third answer allows same-sex ceremonies and ordination of gay men and lesbians, while maintaining a ban on anal sex. It argues that the verse in Leviticus saying "a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman" is unclear, but traditionally was understood to bar only one kind of sex between men. All other prohibitions were "added later on by the rabbis," Dorff told reporters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120601247.html

They can't really be that conservative if they allow gay marriages.Perhaps there is a misprint in the article and they really meant "Fake or liberal rabis Allow Ordained Gays, Same-Sex Unions".

conservative-Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

Even the other name for conservative judiasm seems to be a misnomer "Masorti Judaism(Hebrew for "Traditional")" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Judaism).

serenity

12-12-2006, 06:24 AM

Perhaps there is a misprint in the article and they really meant "Fake or liberal rabis Allow Ordained Gays, Same-Sex Unions".

"Fake or liberal"? Interesting. Sort of.

JD3

12-12-2006, 12:45 PM

Does disagree mean fake? Liberal? Maybe liberal, as in open. Maybe.

green lantern

12-12-2006, 01:52 PM

KUDOS to this committee. their pragmatism is to be commended.

although I can't help wondering if that ban on anal sex is only for heterosexual couples or does it also apply to homosexual couples?more like the committee should be condemned.

Ethos

12-12-2006, 02:44 PM

more like the committee should be condemned.

Curious. Condemned in what way and by whom?

Izdaari

12-12-2006, 03:12 PM

Though stopping short of endorsing same-sex marriage, the rabbis wanted to allow commitment ceremonies "because in Jewish sexual ethics, promiscuity is not acceptable either by heterosexuals or by homosexuals, and we do in fact have both a Jewish and a social and a medical need to try to confirm those unions," said Rabbi Elliot Dorff of Los Angeles, one of the authors of the change.

After years of discussion and two days of intense debate behind closed doors at a synagogue on Park Avenue, the law committee accepted three teshuvot, or answers, to the question of whether Jewish law allows homosexual sex. Two answers uphold the status quo, forbidding homosexuality.

But a third answer allows same-sex ceremonies and ordination of gay men and lesbians, while maintaining a ban on anal sex. It argues that the verse in Leviticus saying "a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman" is unclear, but traditionally was understood to bar only one kind of sex between men. All other prohibitions were "added later on by the rabbis," Dorff told reporters.
Seems reasonable to me. I think they made the right decision. :Peace:

jamesrage

12-12-2006, 03:28 PM

Does disagree mean fake? Liberal? Maybe liberal, as in open. Maybe.

They obviously can not be conservative or traditional rabis or even real rabis considering the fact the old testament/Tanakh forbids homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

JD3

12-12-2006, 03:37 PM

They obviously can not be conservative or traditional rabis or even real rabis considering the fact the old testament/Tanakh forbids homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

You may be unawar of this, but not everyone agrees that is what it says. Since I can't read the orginal, I can't say with certainty, but those who can argue over this. So, if it is questionable, they may well be quite accurate in not making it the ruling versus. Also, many things that are in the old testement are not practiced today by nearly anyone, and yet there are still real and conservative Rabbis.

jamesrage

12-12-2006, 04:34 PM

You may be unawar of this, but not everyone agrees that is what it says. Since I can't read the orginal, I can't say with certainty, but those who can argue over this. So, if it is questionable, they may well be quite accurate in not making it the ruling versus. Also, many things that are in the old testement are not practiced today by nearly anyone, and yet there are still real and conservative Rabbis.

I am well aware that there are some blatant misinterpretations so that fake Christians and fake Jews can fool themselves into thinking they are not doing any wrong.The thing is God doesn't give a **** if you can blatantly misinterpret the bible in order to continue sinning,God is a not a ACLU lawyer/judge.

Here are some blatant misinterpretations.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm
Some liberal Christian Interpretations:

bullet Some English translations of this passage condemn both gay and lesbian sexual relationships. This is a mistranslation. It refers only to male-male sexual behavior.
bullet This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice. 3
bullet The status of women in ancient Hebrew culture was very much lower than that of a man and barely above that of children and slaves. When a man engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman, he always took a dominant position, as a penetrator; the woman would take a submissive posture. When two men engage in sexual intercourse, one of the men, in effect, takes the role of a woman. When a man takes on the low status of a woman, the act makes both ritually impure.
bullet Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah " into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."
bullet This verse says nothing about consensual same-sex activity today. It only condemns same-sex religious prostitution.

This blatant misinterpretation I find the most amusing
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm
An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for heterosexual sex.

burntgorilla

12-12-2006, 06:32 PM

more like the committee should be condemned.

They're the ones that make the decisions. Are you Jewish? I don't really see what it's got to do with non-Jews, to be honest. Are you going to condemn those Jews? Why should they care about what you think?

burntgorilla

12-12-2006, 06:40 PM

I am well aware that there are some blatant misinterpretations so that fake Christians and fake Jews can fool themselves into thinking they are not doing any wrong.The thing is God doesn't give a **** if you can blatantly misinterpret the bible in order to continue sinning,God is a not a ACLU lawyer/judge.

And so who decides who is a "real" Christian/Jew? I'm guessing God, personally. I also think God cares less about who you have sex with than if you believe in Jesus and try and be good person. That is not incompatible with homosexuality. I'm going to go out on a limb and state that anyone condemning people for preferring men to women isn't really following the whole idea of Jesus. I was under the impression that Jesus came to Earth because the original message was being perverted by the Pharisees and the like. That is why Christians place more importance on the New Testament than the Old. The Old Testament does state that you shouldn't have sex with a woman on her period, do any work on the Sabbath, and also that you can buy slaves from neighbouring countries. Nobody follows them any more (with the possible exception of the second), so I don't see why everyone suddenly follows what Leviticus states. Here's a bit from Leviticus 19:

" 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

I just don't get it, to be honest. Why don't people follow those rules if they follow the ones in Leviticus 18? This post is a bit off-topic, so feel free to PM me if you prefer.

Izdaari

12-12-2006, 07:09 PM

I just don't get it, to be honest. Why don't people follow those rules if they follow the ones in Leviticus 18? This post is a bit off-topic, so feel free to PM me if you prefer.
None of the Mosaic Law (meaning the Law given through Moses) is for Christians. It was given specifically to the Children of Israel, and no other people in the world were ever expected to follow it.

But of course, this thread is about a council of the Jewish faith, and Jews do still follow the Mosaic Law, at least most of it, which is they're still debating the correct interpretation of it. Why not all of it? Well, parts of are pretty specific to ancient times and obviously no longer relevant. Which parts? That discussion is why there are Reform Jews, Conservative Jews and Orthodox Jews, and not being a Jew myself, I'm not too conversant with the exact differences between them beyond the obvious, that Reform is the most liberal branch of the three, Orthodox being the most conservative, with Conservative somewhere in between.

Izdaari

12-12-2006, 07:13 PM

Here are some blatant misinterpretations.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm
I'm rather fond of that site myself. But I suppose that's because I consider most of their interpretations to be quite reasonable and not misinterpretations at all.

burntgorilla

12-12-2006, 07:25 PM

Silly Izdaari, it has dirty words like "tolerance" in its name!

JustinH

12-13-2006, 03:50 AM

They obviously can not be conservative or traditional rabis or even real rabis considering the fact the old testament/Tanakh forbids homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death

Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Up for some killing James, or are you among the masses that decide which parts of the Bible you like and don't? I'm guessing I won't get a response.

serenity

12-13-2006, 05:26 AM

I've come to realize that my profesed atheism is, in part, something of a reaction against literalism. In truth, I'm ignorant enough--have more than my share of this--and I must stop deriding religion in the name of some pseudo-sacred secularism.

But my problems with out-and-out literalism remains...as it clearly does for an awful lot of the Faithful, probably most of them.

And Judaism has a long and precious history of intellectualism and debate; many Jews areTAUGHT, by their rabbis no less, to question.

Religions--all of them, without exception--are not static; they change, they grow, they step back and then forward again; and interpretations of their meanings are contested within each religion itself. I see nothing bad about this.

Izdaari

12-13-2006, 08:15 AM

Leviticus 20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death

Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Up for some killing James, or are you among the masses that decide which parts of the Bible you like and don't? I'm guessing I won't get a response.
I don't know if you'll get one from Jamesrage or not, but you got one from me. I like ALL of the Bible, but I know that the Mosaic Law was never intended for anyone besides the Children of Israel. For people who follow Mosaic Law, namely observant Jews, those verses matter, but I'm content to let their various rabbinical councils decide which ones they have to follow.

Christians don't have to worry about stuff like that, as we are not under the Law, but under Grace. All things are lawful for us, but not all things are beneficial for us. And no, that's not some novel doctrine but the teachings of St. Paul, who is considered canonical in every Christian denomination I'm aware of.

1 CORINTHIANS 6:12 (Amplified Bible)

12 Everything is permissible (allowable and lawful) for me; but not all things are helpful (good for me to do, expedient and profitable when considered with other things). Everything is lawful for me, but I will not become the slave of anything or be brought under its power.

1 CORINTHIANS 10:23 (Amplified Bible)

23 All things are legitimate [permissible--and we are free to do anything we please], but not all things are helpful (expedient, profitable, and wholesome). All things are legitimate, but not all things are constructive [to character] and edifying [to spiritual life].

jamesrage

12-13-2006, 10:49 PM

Bassman

12-13-2006, 11:03 PM

None of the Mosaic Law (meaning the Law given through Moses) is for Christians. It was given specifically to the Children of Israel, and no other people in the world were ever expected to follow it.
Wrong. There are two facets of the Law. There is the Ceremonial Law and then there is the Moral Law. The Ceremonial Law was meant for the Israelites to foreshadow the coming of Messiah. Since He came, the Ceremonial Law was abolished. The Moral Law, however remains in force today, and that includes the prohibitions against sexual deviance of any kind. And this applies to those who name the name of Christ.

JD3

12-13-2006, 11:18 PM

jamesrage

12-14-2006, 08:23 PM

And you know this, not believe this, but KNOW this, how?

Yes I know this.The article you provided for this thread is proof of it.I bet if fake Christians and and fake Jews were sitting there saying that adultery, stealing, other sexual abomination were alright I bet you wouldn't be sitting there as a non-Christian/non-Jew sitting there thinking how progressive they are.

JD3

12-14-2006, 08:48 PM

brainpan

12-14-2006, 09:38 PM

Yes I know this.The article you provided for this thread is proof of it.I bet if fake Christians and and fake Jews were sitting there saying that adultery, stealing, other sexual abomination were alright I bet you wouldn't be sitting there as a non-Christian/non-Jew sitting there thinking how progressive they are.Fake Christians? Fake Jews? Would those be the one who put sugar on their porridge or salt? ;)

When so many of your arguments contain or even rely upon fallacies (url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman), it might be time to re-examine them. "Fake Christian" has no more meaning than "Christian who doesn't agree with every personal doctrine of Jamesrage, some of which might not have anything to do with Christianity in the first place." See what I mean?

Izdaari

12-14-2006, 10:50 PM

Wrong. There are two facets of the Law. There is the Ceremonial Law and then there is the Moral Law. The Ceremonial Law was meant for the Israelites to foreshadow the coming of Messiah. Since He came, the Ceremonial Law was abolished. The Moral Law, however remains in force today, and that includes the prohibitions against sexual deviance of any kind. And this applies to those who name the name of Christ.
Care to provide some scripture or something to back that one up? I'm not going to take it on just your say so, since I read it differently.

jamesrage

12-15-2006, 01:48 AM

So, you don't know? Because like me you can't read the original either. So you depend on someone else to tell you, right?

So does that mean all the other commandments are wrong too since you or I can't read the original?Is it alright to steal,commit adultery,screw my brother's wife,have sex with animals because I can't read the original language the old testament was written in?The only reason you accept the bogus misinterpretations because it supports the leftist atheist version of tolerance.

jamesrage

12-15-2006, 01:53 AM

Fake Christians? Fake Jews? Would those be the one who put sugar on their porridge or salt? ;)

When so many of your arguments contain or even rely upon fallacies (url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman), it might be time to re-examine them. "Fake Christian" has no more meaning than "Christian who doesn't agree with every personal doctrine of Jamesrage, some of which might not have anything to do with Christianity in the first place." See what I mean?

A fake Christian is someone who corrupts the bible to allow something that is clearly written as a sin.The bible says to watch out for these fake prophets not congratulate them like a bunch of morons saying "oh look how tolerant they are,they allow gay priest,gay marriages even though the bible clearly forbids it".

I got to admit the fakers are getting good.Pretend to be religious for many years and then just corrupt the living **** out of it.

JD3

12-15-2006, 01:57 AM

So does that mean all the other commandments are wrong too since you or I can't read the original?Is it alright to steal,commit adultery,screw my brother's wife,have sex with animals because I can't read the original language the old testament was written in?The only reason you accept the bogus misinterpretations because it supports the leftist atheist version of tolerance.

Some translations are clear than others, not as disputed. But when those who can read the original text disagree on what it says, mixed with other evidence, like the fact Jesus says nothing about it, it's that room for doubt? How can anyone be so certain?

jamesrage

12-15-2006, 02:14 AM

Some translations are clear than others, not as disputed.

Leviticus 18:22 seems pretty clear.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."The only reason it is disputed is so that those who have no business what so ever in a church or synagogue can rot those religious institution to the core,thus being able to allow sexual immorality other abominations to flourish.

[QUOTE]
But when those who can read the original text disagree on what it says,

Those who disagree with what it says are lying their *** off in order to promote a behavior that is clearly a sin.

mixed with other evidence, like the fact Jesus says nothing about it, it's that room for doubt?

Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

How can anyone be so certain?

I seriously doubt you and others are uncertain as to what the certain verses say.This false uncertainty is a bull**** excuse invented by the immoral in order to promote a sinful behavior, others do so in order to corrupt religious institutions.

DPlague

12-15-2006, 02:20 AM

Just wondering James but doesn't the Bible also speak of owning slaves?
From Exodus 20:

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. *emphasis added*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

So therefore it must be perfectly fine for Christians to have slaves then? Now, if it is wrong to have slaves (which it is) could it not also be that that part of the Bible that speaks against homosexuality could be wrong as well? Or that it could be interpreted a different way so as to allow homosexuality?

brainpan

12-15-2006, 02:48 AM

Just wondering James but doesn't the Bible also speak of owning slaves?And you're going for the easy stuff there. Owning slaves is nothing compared to the commandment to stone children to death for dishonoring their parents. I have a feeling it might be necessary to drag out Squirrel's Bible Quiz again!

JD3

12-15-2006, 01:52 PM

Some translations are clear than others, not as disputed.

Leviticus 18:22 seems pretty clear.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."The only reason it is disputed is so that those who have no business what so ever in a church or synagogue can rot those religious institution to the core,thus being able to allow sexual immorality other abominations to flourish.

Those who disagree with what it says are lying their *** off in order to promote a behavior that is clearly a sin.

Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

I seriously doubt you and others are uncertain as to what the certain verses say.This false uncertainty is a bull**** excuse invented by the immoral in order to promote a sinful behavior, others do so in order to corrupt religious institutions.

It seems clear to you because you are not taking into account the context of the verse or the trouble interpreting the word that is translated to mean abomination. You're read the argument, but dismiss it for reasons that escape me. Perhaps you could articulat ethem better for me.

And Jesus talks about other laws, just not homosexuality. it is a curiousity.

Also, try not to tell others what they think. You might be wrong about that as I am pretty sure you can't read minds. ;)

jamesrage

12-15-2006, 03:44 PM

Just wondering James but doesn't the Bible also speak of owning slaves?
From Exodus 20:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

So therefore it must be perfectly fine for Christians to have slaves then? Now, if it is wrong to have slaves (which it is) could it not also be that that part of the Bible that speaks against homosexuality could be wrong as well? Or that it could be interpreted a different way so as to allow homosexuality?

Its not a commandment ordering you have slaves.

green lantern

12-15-2006, 05:24 PM

[QUOTE=jamesrage;916288]

It seems clear to you because you are not taking into account the context of the verse or the trouble interpreting the word that is translated to mean abomination. You're read the argument, but dismiss it for reasons that escape me. Perhaps you could articulat ethem better for me.

And Jesus talks about other laws, just not homosexuality. it is a curiousity.

Also, try not to tell others what they think. You might be wrong about that as I am pretty sure you can't read minds. ;) hmmm....that last line could apply to several here.....

DPlague

12-15-2006, 09:02 PM

Its not a commandment ordering you have slaves.

Yes, but it is saying that having slaves is alright. So the point I was trying to get at is that if the Bible tells you that it's alright then there should be no reason for you to think differently. Or at least that's what your logic seems to be saying to me. But since you are against owning slaves (I assume) even though the Bible says it's alright, you must disagree with the Bible. So why not be able to disagree with another part of it? Or is it that certain parts of the Bible hold more truth or are more important than other parts?

steveksux

12-15-2006, 09:36 PM

And Jesus talks about other laws, just not homosexuality. it is a curiousity.
Homosexuality didn't even make the 10 commandments. Seems there ought to be bigger fish to fry.

Randy

JD3

12-17-2006, 02:03 AM

Homosexuality didn't even make the 10 commandments. Seems there ought to be bigger fish to fry.

Randy

Well, I certainly believe it is a minor concern either way. We all have enough sin in our lives to put mere homosexulity to shame.

Michele

12-17-2006, 02:49 AM

more like the committee should be condemned.

why? I didn't mean condemned. I meant commended. There is little wrong with sanctifying a committed union between people of the same sex.

Michele

12-17-2006, 03:23 AM

Mosaic Law (meaning the Law given through Moses) is for Christians. It was given specifically to the Children of Israel, and no other people in the world were ever expected to follow it.

Here is something relevant to branches of Judaism as it reflects on Homosexuality.

Some gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews interpret the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 literally, as specifically prohibiting only anal sex between two men. Thus, they feel free to "...kiss, hug, and caress, may touch in ways that lead to orgasm (such as mutual masturbation), and may also have oral sex."

as to the question as to whether or not this committee represents conservative, reconstructionist or reformed Judaism according to the article the "Conservatives Movement's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards" is indeed representative of what is known as conservative Judaism. This recent reconsideration on Gays and Lesbians is truly remarkable as well as commendable particularly when one considers its views even as recently as 1999, at least according to the below overview.

P.S. in terms of liberal it would not be the conservative branch one would define as such. Pragmatic perhaps, but liberal might best define reconstructionist or reformed judaism as according to the below rundown they are more apt to reject Halakhic views. Generally speaking All branches express to varying degrees sensitivity to various forms of discrimination that they share with homosexual Jews and in this regard tolerance is to varying degrees encouraged.

Conservative Judaism
----------------------

There have been four separate teshuvot (responsa) approved by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards on homosexuality, all of which were used as backing sources for a unified movement consensus position. The CJLS consensus position is that given the current state of scientific, psychological and biological information on the origin and nature of homosexuality, homosexual relationships nevertheless can not be judged to be in accord with halakha (Jewish law). Some of the responsa note that there are certain leninencies in the law and potential legal novellae which may be utilized, depending on new information which may be discovered. As such, the CJLS holds the right to re-evauate this area at a future date.

The Conservative movement's consensus position is as follows.

(A) The Conservative movement does not ordain homosexuals as rabbis or cantors, because these positions are considered to be the most important halakhic role models.

(B) The Conservative movement does not approve of homosexual marriages or committment ceremonies.

(C) However, the Conservative movement does allow homosexual men and women to otherwise participate fully in synagogue life and the Jewish community. It sees homosexuality as the non-fulfillment of one mitzvah - but there are 612 other mitzvot that are open to be fulfilled. As such, one should not treat homosexual Jews any different than one would treat a Jew who is not fully observant in any other way, such as one who drives on Shabbat to places other than a synagogoue, or one who does not keep kosher, etc. Thus, Conservative Judaism affirms that homosexual men and women may lead prayers, have an aliyah to read from the Torah, and may even serve as youth group counselors or Hebrew scool teachers.

(D) The Rabbinical Assembly and the United Syangogue of Conservative Judaism have approved proclamations affirming that inherent dignity of all homosexual Jews. Their statements are almost identical, and RA text is reproduced below:

Whereas Judaism affirms that the Divine image reflected by every human being must always be cherished and affirmed, and

snip

Whereas gay and lesbian Jews have experienced not only the constant threats of physical violence and homophobic rejection, but also the pains of anti-Semitism known to all Jews and, additionally, a sense of painful alienation from our own religious institutions, and

snip

Therefore be it resolved that we, the Rabbinical Assembly, while affirming our tradition's prescription for heterosexuality,
1) Support full civil equality for gays and lesbians in our national life, and
2) Deplore the violence against gays and lesbians in our society, and
3) Reiterate that, as are all Jews, gay men and lesbians are welcome as members in our congregations, and
4) Call upon our synagogues and the arms of our movement to increase our awareness, understanding and concern for our fellow Jews who are gay and lesbian.

snip

http://www.gayjews.org/articles/conservative2.html

Reconstructionist Judaism
-------------------------

The Reconstructionist movement has rejected the traditional halakhic view in all areas relating to this issue; they view all restrictions on homosexualiy as null and void. As such, they ordain homosexual Jews as rabbis and cantors. The Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association permits Jewish homosexual marriages and homosexual intermarriages.

Reform Judaism
--------------

The American Reform movement has rejected the traditional halakhic view in all areas relating to this issue; they view all restrictions on homosexualiy as null and void. As such, they ordain homosexual Jews as rabbis and cantors. The Central Conference of American Rabbis permits its rabbis to perform Jewish homosexual marriages; one CCAR committee has issued a non-binding statement discouraging this, while a parallel committe has issued a statement promoting this.

CCAR officially discourages, but does allow its rabbis to perform, homosexual intermarriages.

Progressive [Reform] Judaism in Israel does not permit homosexual marriages, nor any intermarriages, niether homosexual or heterosexual.

Shalom,
Robert Kaiser

link (http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/judaism-homo.html)

JD3

12-17-2006, 04:03 PM

why? I didn't mean condemned. I meant commended. There is little wrong with sanctifying a committed union between people of the same sex.

No, there isn't.

green lantern

12-17-2006, 05:12 PM

No, there isn't.when it goes against the tenets of the religion you claim to practice, yes, there is.

Michele

12-22-2006, 03:45 PM

when it goes against the tenets of the religion you claim to practice, yes, there is.

Debatably where the wrong lies is with the tenets of the religion and any interpretation that sanctifies discrimination against any group. The problem is the tenets not Homosexuals who wish to marry. .:)