Dear Tina,

You are right in saying that "a sin could be defined as something that harms you or someone else". It could be. The problem with your argument is that it isn't. Sin is in fact defined as "an offence against, reason, truth and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbour caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. it wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as 'an utterance, a deed or a desire contrary to the eternal law'." You can read all about it in The Catechism of the Catholic Church paras 1846 to 1876.

John Anthony, London,

Finally we see some steps that reflect serious thinking about where we are in the real world of Christian relations and identity (i.e. as opposed to playing to the "galleries" cheering on a worldly agenda). The difficulty is it comes so late in the process - is it a real rethinking of the gospel grounds of this issue or is it only concession? That makes it hard to trust this as more than concession. What is needed is not mere concession but repentance (not to say that repentance is all for one side) if there is to be renewed Christian identity in this area of the church's life as a basis for trust and reconciliation.

Ben W, beamsville, Ontario

Actually, that is NOT what they agreed to...the maintained the status quo, in which they continue to bless ssbs without the use of a formal blesssing rite...what they agreed to was not to authorize a new rite until the GC meets in 2009....which is the earliest such a new rite could have been approved, in short, they agreed to nothing on this issue, rejecting the Primates call for change.

The flying bishops plan had already been rejected by conservatives as ineffective at the parish level...all they did was expand it the the diocesan level.

John Pegues, Magnolia, Texas

They will still ordain priests and deacons in unwholesome relationships. They will still allow, and some even participate in, 'unofficial' liturgies blessing same sex partnerships. They have done nothing to satisfy demands for alternative primatial oversight. But they have probably made good enough fudge to sell to the media.

Nigel, London,

A sin could be defined as something which harms you or someone else. Gay people are not doing any harm when they get married. Not every marriage has to be about procreation, otherwise why do straight couples ever have sex if they are not trying to conceive? Or why does any married person suffer infertility? Marriage is also about love, commitment and companionship.

If it is a problem for gay people to have sex outside marriage, the answer is simple - let them marry. God appears to have made gay people as well as straight, so surely would not object to them forming loving, committed relationships? God is in favour of love.

Homosexuality is mentioned only a few times in the Bible, in the context of the laws of the day. There are many other outdated laws from that time, such as not eating shellfish or wearing clothing of mixed fibres, which we ignore as they do not apply these days. Jesus does not mention homosexuality so it does not seem to have been one of his priorities.

Tina, South Wales, UK

Darleen,
To imply that a relationship with another individual is simply for sexual relations (procreate) is both an offense to hetero- and homo-sexuals. I don't believe most heterosexuals would claim their marriages were simply to satisfy that desire. Talk to a few gays and lesbians in committed relationships and you will find that sex is just one part of the equation. Many just want to be accepted by others and live their lives in peace.

Why is it that others feel so compelled to intrude on the lives of homosexuals and limit their lives? If you want to live your life according to the part of the Bible that labels homosexuality an abomination then you also might want to think about your dietary habits -- because it also indicates that eating shellfish is an abomination. Something to ponder on.

John, Lenexa, KS

Darlene Danenhower admirably expresses the most reasonable and lucid approach to the subject of marriage and homosexuality that I have ever read.

I will quote her, properly attributed of course.

Joseph Pasulka, Southport, NC

I still don't understand why there is so much commotion over the rights for people when their only difference is who they wish to sleep with. Because someone decides to sleep with a same-sex individual, why should that decision automatically give them insurance coverage for their sex partner, or the right to be "married" or the right to have a child together. The definition of marriage is a legalized union between a man and a woman, and according to the Bible, it is a union designed for procreation.

Our forefathers came to this country in search of religious freedoms; they depended on the Bible for the way they led their lives; the practice of homosexuality, according to the Bible, is an abomination. To be "homosexual" is not a problem; to desire sexual relations with the opposite sex is not a problem. The problem is the practice of sexual relations OUTSIDE of marriage. It's in the Bible, it's in the 10 Commandments. What part of this don't you understand?

Darleen Danenhower, New Orleans, LA, USA