It's interesting that you and others ignore the multitude of sins that Paul wrote about in Romans, such as "envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice... gossip, slander, God-hating, insolence, arrogance and boasting ...ways of doing evil; disobeying their parents; no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy" [edited for punctuation] and focus on the one sin ad nauseum.
Maybe it's because we keep hearing that those sins aren't sins at all, and that we must accept them. Face it, lying doesn't have nearly as well-organized an advocacy group as homosexual activity does. No one says "God knows I'm a liar and He still loves me", and there aren't any Adulterery Pride marches through town that I've ever seen. No brightly colored Slanderers' flags, no apologists for chronic murderers. Only sexual sins have fan clubs and gigabuck political lobbies. They ought to get special attention, they've moved heaven and earth to get it. Their only gripe is that it isn't all positive.
At least the Pope is more enlightened than his legalistic, judgmental critics.
"Enlightened" apparently, as I pointed out, meaning devotion to the zeitgeist. Being "judgemental" is the only real sin in that theology. And of course, anyone who continues to believe that any kind of sexual activity at all isn't "love" is an infidel and has to be punished.
Me? I don't have time to worry about the other guy's sins. Got an abundant supply of my own, thanks. But I don't feel the need to advertise mine and demand that they be accepted by anyone at all. Neither do I think that anyone else has the right to demand that I accept their favorite sins as fine and good and normal and acceptable. Ain't happening. It's like the old song says,"Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to." ("Oh Well", Fleetwood Mac).
Zat make me "judgemental"? Well of course it does, and thus subject to judgement from the Righteous Worshippers of the Spirit of the Times. See, it isn't
judgement itself that the wonderfully trendy object to, it's judging their values, or lack thereof, idiotic.
I'm intentionally ignoring tragic statements such as "Are we to equate sexual behavior with "love"? and "Dang, there's a whole lotta "love" to be had in sleazie parts of town, isn't there?" and such terms as "do the horizontal bop" (really??)
I'm a child of the 70s and quote old rock songs a lot. "Horizontal Bop" was a Bob Seegar tune. And yeah, we are, de facto, being constantly told that sexual behavior is synonymous with "love". "North American Man Boy
Love Association", right? Isn't that what we're constantly being told, that love equates to sex? Even in the sleazy part of town: "And in a pipe she flies to the Motherland Or sells love to another man" (Ed Sheeran, "The A Team"). Tragic? Agreed. But that's what we've come to, isn't it? Can't be opposed to
love, now can we?
Is this where your faith leads you??
Yeah, it is. The Bible cites some activities as sinful, in the New Testament. Sexual behavior ("
love", if you prefer) of various kinds being amongst them. ("go, and
sin no more"). I see no reason to disagree. Do I expect the world to agree with me? No, why should I care what unbelievers think? Don't expect me to act as though it means anything. Do I support laws against homosexual behavior? No, not my problem. As I said, you can't legislate anyone into the Kingdom of God. Civil unions? Sure, why not? People should be allowed to have binding contracts between or amongst themselves to do whatever they like that isn't
malum in se. But "marriage" has a historical and cultural meaning unto itself, and ought to be left alone
Or is this part of the canon of the Anglican church??
Far from it. In the CoE, and certainly in the ECUSA (TEC?), celebration of homosexual behavior has all but become one of their creeds. Jack Spong seemed (is he still alive?) to believe that acceptance of homosexual behavior was the lynchpin of the Christian faith. He didn't seem to have much use for anything in the 39 Articles, though, and he systematically rejected every line in the Apostles' Creed, so I don't set much store by his opinion, or any allegedly Christian outfit that embraces his hand-wrought doctrine. I still look to the Creeds of the Church as Christianity 101.
Finally, there is one thing that we can agree upon: "I think love is actually different from sexual atraction [sic]".
Well dang, that's well-nigh heretical, innit? Walking a fine like there, mate.
BTW, thanks for the spell-checking; could I trouble you to vet all my posts to see whether I've nimble-fingered them to the point of being unreadable? I'd be ever so grateful.