The definition of "the law" was generally the defining reason for the split amongst early Christians. Jewish Christians, led by Sts. Peter and James in the Church of Jerusalem, believed that "the law" referred to the entirety of Mosaic Law, down to every last dietary and mixed clothing fiber prohibition. The original Gospel of Matthew was written by them:
"Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished." -- Matthew 5:17-18
This stance was vehemently opposed by Gentile Christians, led by St. Paul and his Church of Antioch. He rejected all forms of Jewish law, and believed that when Jesus arrived, Mosaic Law (and the Old Testament, for that matter) was fulfilled through Jesus--and, subsequently, obsolete.
"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." -- Romans 13:8-10
Such a defined and sometimes violent split between the two churches led to the Council of Jerusalem, which decided on the following compromise in Acts 15:28-29:
"'It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from "unlawful marriage" (Greek: "porneia," a reference to Jewish prohibitions against blood mixing / incest in Leviticus; an obsolete word that is often poorly translated)."
However, this compromise was in name only. The two churches never reconciled, and neither church upheld this compromise. This passage is the general example of how St. Paul thought of the law:
"For freedom, Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we can wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love." -- Galatians 5:1-6
And, likewise, in response to the Acts compromise, St. Paul still instructed his followers to do the contrary:
"There are some who have been so used to idolatry up until now that, when they eat meat sacrificed to idols, their conscience, which is weak, is defiled. Now food will not bring us closer to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, nor are we better off if we do. But make sure that this liberty of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak." -- 1 Corinthians 8:7-9
In the end, neither church reconciled, and the Jewish Christian "Church of Jerusalem" was wiped out by followers of St. Paul by the second century A.D. As such, all Christians today are descendents of Gentile Christianity, and if it weren't for sloppy Protestant revisionism over the last 500 years, the theology of the Church of Jerusalem would be dead and buried. We are not bound to any law, but to love God and to love one another.
Now as for whether homosexuals are sinners, I have dealt with this issue repeatedly here. If translated properly, the Bible would show that it rather explicitly condemns prostitution; most words translated as "homosexuals" are really references to "male temple prostitutes," who, in both in Greco-Roman and Semitic paganism, organized mass temple orgies. It was believed that sex would bring one closer to the gods. As such, both Jews and Christians would have been forbidden to engage in such blatant idolatry. St. Paul also makes a mention of the Greco-Roman practice of "pederasty," where it was highly common for an older man to have sex with a teenage boy until he reached a certain age, whereupon he would get married to a woman. St. Paul likely saw this in a similar way in which we are disgusted by pedophilia today.
In other words, the Bible really addresses three rather specific topics that we would all still condemn today: idolatry, prostitution, and pedophilia. The way these concepts have been terribly translated over the years would be equivalent to taking the story of Gibeah (Judges 20), where a group of men gang rape and kill a female concubine (the heterosexual analog to Sodom and Gomorrah), and then extrapolate God's destruction of Gibeah as a pronouncement against all heterosexual sex. This is precisely the sloppy Biblical scholarship that we are dealing with today.
Now as for the Episcopal Church, I am ashamed that the did not have the courage to stand up for what they believed in. They are cowards.
Melon
Although, it does say that the resolution is "non-binding."
