Since you recognize that "we must diligently study Scripture" I thought I'd call this to your attention. I believe you've misinterpreted Romans 1:18-32. From a historical-critical interpretation, this passage cannot be shown to morally condemn homosexuality or homogenital acts (the latter referring exclusively to homosexual acts, and not including being born a homosexual, homosexual relationships, and homosexual marriage). There are three main reasons for this, and more than sufficient contextual evidence, as first put forth by the biblical scholars John Boswell and L. William Countryman:
1) Paul's diction clearly describes homogenital acts as 'impure' much like in Leviticus--which makes sense, because Paul was a 'reformed' Jew. The distinction here is that, like all 'impure' acts described in Leviticus, homogenital acts were socially unacceptable, but not morally wrong. Emphasis should be placed on 'were' as this was the attitude 2000 years ago in Rome, not today. Furthermore, homogenital acts between a Roman man and non-Roman men (slaves and non-citizens) were perfectly acceptable and transparent in Roman society. The homogenital acts unacceptable in Roman society were those where a Roman man penetrated another Roman man. This is clearly a product of sexism, and not even a consequence of homophobia, as men of the ancient world (and perhaps today) express their perceived dominance over woman by penetrating them. To be penetrated is seen as a woman's 'place.' Also, though a literal interpretation of this passage would suggest that this is the only reference to lesbian sex in the Bible, if we recall that, according to Leviticus, lesbian sex is not 'impure,' it should be clear that this passage cannot be talking about lesbian sex at all.
2) The structure of this passage is divided into two distinct parts: morally wrong acts and socially unacceptable acts. There are, in fact, two different things on Paul's mind in this passage: impurity and immorality. Paul is saying that it is because of one moral wrong, idolatry, perpetrated by the Romans, those among them who were already filled with wickedness turned to other ethical wrongs. However, it is because of the idolatry in particular (emphasized in verses 21 through 23), that God "gave them up" to socially unacceptable acts--acts that Gentiles were already known to be engaged in from as early as the writing of Leviticus, which is primarily to distinguish Jews and Gentiles based on amoral (not immoral) cleanliness laws. These "shameful" and "dishonorable" acts may have been offensive to the sensitivities of Roman citizens at the time, but there was nothing morally wrong about them, and nothing Paul writes suggests that.
3) Overall, Paul's intent in writing his epistle to the Romans, according to Dr. Daniel A Helminiak, a Roman Catholic priest, is in order "to teach that in Christ the purity concerns of the Old Law no longer matter and they should not be dividing the members of the Christian community." The emphasis is my own. This is important, because there are obviously real moral ills to be concerned with, such as slavery, adultery, war, and greed.
I don't doubt your good intentions in calling for Christians to treat gay and lesbian persons better, but I think it should be obvious that if religious conservatives did not conflate religious institutions with civil institutions, gays and lesbians would enjoy equal citizenship in this country and that status would inspire people to treat us like human beings. The supposed notion that homosexuality is morally wrong is not a crux of faith--in fact, it serves no purpose whatsoever. Let's not forget the Doctrine of Two Swords, after all. The City of God and the City of Earth must have different rulers, and I think it is clear from Paul's writings that what is socially unacceptable to man can be morally neutral to God.
Submitted by Kevin Endsley on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 12:25.
misinterpretation of Romans
1) Paul's diction clearly describes homogenital acts as 'impure' much like in Leviticus--which makes sense, because Paul was a 'reformed' Jew. The distinction here is that, like all 'impure' acts described in Leviticus, homogenital acts were socially unacceptable, but not morally wrong. Emphasis should be placed on 'were' as this was the attitude 2000 years ago in Rome, not today. Furthermore, homogenital acts between a Roman man and non-Roman men (slaves and non-citizens) were perfectly acceptable and transparent in Roman society. The homogenital acts unacceptable in Roman society were those where a Roman man penetrated another Roman man. This is clearly a product of sexism, and not even a consequence of homophobia, as men of the ancient world (and perhaps today) express their perceived dominance over woman by penetrating them. To be penetrated is seen as a woman's 'place.' Also, though a literal interpretation of this passage would suggest that this is the only reference to lesbian sex in the Bible, if we recall that, according to Leviticus, lesbian sex is not 'impure,' it should be clear that this passage cannot be talking about lesbian sex at all.
2) The structure of this passage is divided into two distinct parts: morally wrong acts and socially unacceptable acts. There are, in fact, two different things on Paul's mind in this passage: impurity and immorality. Paul is saying that it is because of one moral wrong, idolatry, perpetrated by the Romans, those among them who were already filled with wickedness turned to other ethical wrongs. However, it is because of the idolatry in particular (emphasized in verses 21 through 23), that God "gave them up" to socially unacceptable acts--acts that Gentiles were already known to be engaged in from as early as the writing of Leviticus, which is primarily to distinguish Jews and Gentiles based on amoral (not immoral) cleanliness laws. These "shameful" and "dishonorable" acts may have been offensive to the sensitivities of Roman citizens at the time, but there was nothing morally wrong about them, and nothing Paul writes suggests that.
3) Overall, Paul's intent in writing his epistle to the Romans, according to Dr. Daniel A Helminiak, a Roman Catholic priest, is in order "to teach that in Christ the purity concerns of the Old Law no longer matter and they should not be dividing the members of the Christian community." The emphasis is my own. This is important, because there are obviously real moral ills to be concerned with, such as slavery, adultery, war, and greed.
I don't doubt your good intentions in calling for Christians to treat gay and lesbian persons better, but I think it should be obvious that if religious conservatives did not conflate religious institutions with civil institutions, gays and lesbians would enjoy equal citizenship in this country and that status would inspire people to treat us like human beings. The supposed notion that homosexuality is morally wrong is not a crux of faith--in fact, it serves no purpose whatsoever. Let's not forget the Doctrine of Two Swords, after all. The City of God and the City of Earth must have different rulers, and I think it is clear from Paul's writings that what is socially unacceptable to man can be morally neutral to God.