Its hard to know from the world of heteronormativity just what the world outside is like. On the one hand are friends and family we know who live quiet, ordinary lives. On the other hand are people living a racier lifestyle, as reported by Peter Ould. An underestimated problem by those who tend to use the epithet 'homophobic' as sufficient deconstruction of conservative arguments over homosexuality is confusion as to what is being promoted. Is the Anglican Communion being asked to accept any and all expressions of homosexuality? Or is it being asked to accept a monogamous, faithful, permanent, exclusive parallel to marriage between a man and a woman? Peter Ould's post draws out the sense of confusion conservatives feel when some agenda are revealed. Changing Attitudes wants to change too much, methinks.
Meanwhile Bishop Andrew Burnham, guest blogger for Fulcrum, offers a true moderate conservative vision for the conclusion to Lambeth re sexuality:
"The deal I should like to see is that homosexual marriage is a first order issue - a first order disorder - but that how, quietly and pastorally, we deal with disciples in homosexual relationships is a second order issue. We need to leave room for conscience and difference but not explain away the weight of biblical teaching and exegesis in the tradition. Not sure that would work but it has worked in England. There have to be no more V G Robinson cases."