Two conservative rabbis debated whether ordaining gay rabbis should be decided by moral guidelines or legal ones outlined in the Torah last night at the Florence ‘ Chafetz Hillel House at Boston University.

Jews have debated cultural rituals for many years, but the ethical decision to ordain gay rabbis is relatively new, said Rabbi Menachem Creditor, an associate rabbi at Temple Israel in Sharon. The interpretation of the Torah cannot morally exclude a group of people, he said.

“If the power to change the law is in human hands, how can we not change it when there’s a moral question such as this?” Creditor said.

However, ordaining gays is not a moral issue, but instead a practice that would be contrary to Halakhah — Jewish law — said Rabbi Loel Weiss, a rabbi at Temple Beth Ahm in Randolph. Weiss mentioned the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards decided in 2006 that the Torah forbids gay intercourse.

“Rabbis shouldn’t decide using ethics, which differ from person to person,” Weiss said. “They should decide using law.”

Creditor and Weiss fielded audience questions about family and homosexuality, lesbianism, premarital sex and the “healthy assimilation” of Jewish culture into Western tradition.

“I was very impressed with the seriousness of the event,” Weiss said afterward. “Sometimes, you can feel like the dinosaur on the more conservative side, and that you’re being attacked, but I wasn’t attacked here.”

“It was a tremendous opportunity for students to have a dialogue with two rabbis on an increasingly important national issue,” said Rabbi Avi Heller, who moderated the debate. “The questions and answers were excellent, and there was an appropriate level of disagreement.”

Hillel Student Board President Stephanie Sanger-Miller said ordaining gay rabbis is a major issue in the Jewish community that is increasingly becoming a national matter.

“Clearly, both [rabbis] have passionate views,” said Sanger-Miller, a College of Arts and Sciences junior. “They both feel they know the next move for the conservative movement, and both arguments are valid and informed.”