“Why are some Christians "hung up" about homosexuality? Because they have a sick obsession with what goes on in the bedrooms of gay men and lesbians. They are the same people who publicly abuse gays - and watch so-called lesbian pornography”.

With respect, DavidJS, this is nonsense – just how many church going types do you know? They would be (un)lucky enough to endure a sermon on the evils homosexuality once in a blue moon if that.

However, a fair proportion of Christians and lots of others as well, think the homosexual lifestyle has a few deficiencies, and not just AIDS, and they do object to homosexuals forcing acceptance of that lifestyle down their throats. Quite frankly for myself, I think as little as possible about what goes on in the bedrooms of gay men and lesbians and I’m certainly not into lesbian pornography – you can keep that to yourself.

Bruce,

I notice you saying, “it is said to be a matter of conscience on the grounds that the offence of the North American churches is so bad that they cannot be associated with. But is not the Christian model to associate with sinners and tax collectors? And is it not a commendable activity for Christians to engage and argue face to face with their fellow Christians when they disagree with them?”

Two comments:

If it was all about engaging and arguing face to face, I’m with you. The problem is as I understand it, the North Americans stopped engaging/arguing – they actually went and acted in contradiction to what was agreed at Lambeth 1998, not only that, but they have been persecuting dissident Parishes and priests over the issue.

Historically, we know there comes a point when the dissonance becomes so extreme it is better to walk separately – witness the Reformation that led to the separate formation of your own Church. Actually the recent Conference/Pilgrimage in Jerusalem has come up with a rather neat solution, a church within a church, so to that extent I would have thought you should be pleased.

DavidJS,

Of course no honest study would be done to how many paedophile Priests are/were practicing homosexuals. '

'They are the same people who bash or murder gays - then (what a surprise!) come out as gay themselves. They are the same ones that lambast the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras and go there to "disapprove" (yeah, right) every year without fail from a good vantage point. And they are the same ones who use this forum to vent their obsession - notice how any article about homosexuality gets heaps of responses but, for example, the one on elder abuse did not.'

Are you just dishonest or bitter and twisted

Not as bitter and twisted as you, sweetie. I've seen www.godhatefags.com. I have your number.

Anyway, back to the topic which is about disagreement in the Anglican Church. Jensen et al need to realise that their "church" was only set up because Henry VIII wanted to get rid of his Missus and shack up with a good-time girl. At least Pell (despite her back dress sense) has a longer tradition in Christianity.

I look forward to World (Catholic) Youth Day.

rhian, you said it exactly, much better than me.

david palmer, "homosexual lifestyle" is as meaningless as "heterosexual lifestyle".

I like to think of homosexuality as a life with style.

It is also worthwhile to remember that the concept of 'homosexuality' as an identifier of sexual identity is less than 150 years old. Prior to 1869 the term homosexual did not exist.

People behaved in homosexual ways, in the same way that some people today revel in adultery, as 'swingers' (I am waiting for 'swingers' to be included as a form of sexual identity).

So the question has to be asked, given around 4000 years of recorded human history, whether 150 years of homosexuality as an identifier is valid, particularly as researchers have claimed that just under 50% of males have indulged in homosexual acts, or have been aroused at least to a degree in response to 'homosexual' stimulus, which implies that homosexuality is part of a spectrum of behaviours, rather than an identifier to hide sinfulness.

The Bible does not identify sin by the sinner, but by the behaviour of the sinner. Why should Christians go along with recent trends that attempt to claim that sinners should not be held responsible for their sin, whether they are adulterers, those who indulge in homosexual behaviour and drunkards (also drug users..) in the name of a self imposed identifier?