[iluvlucy]

“What once would have been a local decision has international implications because the Anglican Communion's growth since the 1970s has drawn congregants in Africa and South America who favor literal, conservative interpretations of the Bible and condemn homosexuality.”

Wrong totally wrong. The reason it would have stayed a local decision is because the local action would never ever consider such a thing. The writer’s implication is the Africans, and Latin Americans are Homophobes, be that the intention or not. I wonder if the writer would ever consider rewriting the sentence as follows:

“What once would have been a local decision has international implications because the Anglican Communion’s weakening attention to moral values in the West where it originated leaving the congregants in Africa and South America to bear the burden of moral virtue and instruction based on conservative interpretations of the Bible to overcome the rise of homosexuality in the Western Churches.”

I can dream can't I?

[TaxRelief]

What's wrong with calling a sin a "sin"?

Participating in homosexual activities and any other sexual practice outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is a SIN. It is also physically and emotionally harmful to everyone involved.