Teh Gayz are taking over the synagogues now too
Homosexuals are in.
A follow up to my last post: Three of the 5 papers on the table passed with at least 6 votes, one of which was on the pro-ordination side. This means that Conservative seminaries are now permitted to admit gays and lesbians to their rabbinical and cantorial programs. Starting immediately, UJ will. JTS may follow suit.
Interestingly, all of the 3 papers that passed still forbid anal sex.
(h/t The 'school)
Update 6:46pm EST The Jewish Telegraphic Agency posted a longer article.
A follow up to my last post: Three of the 5 papers on the table passed with at least 6 votes, one of which was on the pro-ordination side. This means that Conservative seminaries are now permitted to admit gays and lesbians to their rabbinical and cantorial programs. Starting immediately, UJ will. JTS may follow suit.
Interestingly, all of the 3 papers that passed still forbid anal sex.
(h/t The 'school)
Update 6:46pm EST The Jewish Telegraphic Agency posted a longer article.

no subject
no subject
Even if they don't get released, I'm sure there'll be detailed summaries of them out eventually.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2006-12-07 08:15 pm (UTC)(link)DOn't see why they can't put hire someone to put their stuff online the way masorti does.
no subject
I'm assuming that the logic that follows from that is along the lines of, "Unless you're prepared to ask people on applications whether they engage in gay anal sex, there's no way to refuse a homosexual from admission on grounds of willful halacha violation."
no subject
no subject
Am I the only one who this this entire discussion is a bit . . . invasive?
no subject
As far as I can tell, Dorff would say that the Leviticus verse doesn't address these. I guess that means that they're okay?
Am I the only one who this this entire discussion is a bit . . . invasive?
Nope. Though I think it's more funny than invasive. To quote Rabbi Jill Jacobs, "One of the most amusing side effects of this whole debate is seeing every Jewish paper in the country have to print the words 'anal sex' over & over."
Though really, your point is another good argument against the anti-gay side of this issue. These teshuvot were about public things, ceremonies and institutions. They weren't designed to directly address the permissibility of bedroom acts (though some of them did address that to make their points). So to me, the fact that you'd have to get this invasive in order to deny people admission to seminaries on these grounds means that they're pretty bad grounds to begin with.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject