26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
I've heard a lot of differing interpretations of these two verses, and as a gay man it's kind of important to me. I'm not a Christian anymore by any means, but it would be nice to have a way of showing that the Bible doesn't really condemn homosexuality to shut bigots from the Phelps to my own family members up.
I've read about this being in conjunction with idolatry because of technical reasons in the language used, and I've also seen some of an explanation involving a crucial distinction in Old Testament law between two different categories. None have seemed very persuasive to me. And when I saw something I really think is there, the question is pretty settled for me. Almost.
What I saw is definitely there in the Greek (I dabble), and can be seen in the NIV interpretation as well. Classically this verse is seen as condemning lesbians and then gay men. But I don't think so anymore -- I mean, at least the lesbians are off the hook.
You see, the women in verse 26 are explicitly stated as exchanging natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. An act for an act, the Greek couldn't be clearer. And yet the men in verse 27 are exchanging acts with women for shameful acts with other men. The verb "abandoned" there in verse 27 is the same verb "exchanged" in verse 26. It reads better in English like that, but the main action (exchange) is the same.
Women exchange an act, and men exchange a natural act with women for a shameful one with men. The mens' exchange also includes a switch of partner gender, but the women are not stated as doing so.
I'm pretty sure these days that Paul is trying his euphemistic best to talk about oral and anal sex, that is, anal sex between heterosexual couples, initiated by the woman, and then oral and anal sex between male couples. Indeed, even the way that Paul orders these two situations implies a causality in my mind. Women initiate non-vaginal sex with men (possibly as a way to avoid pregnancy) and "in the same way" the men then begin having sex with men.
In other words, women turn men gay by offering them non-vaginal sex. That makes this passage a rather hideous Pauline midrash on the second creation myth, where the woman offers the man the forbidden fruit. And I'll let you work out what "due penalty" the men receive into their bodies because of this. It's all about ritual impurity.
Once I realized this, I knew right off that the Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality. Well, male homosexuality, anyway. It's not fair that lesbians keep getting away with murder just because these Bronze Age moralists didn't think sex could happen without a penis being involved. The word commonly interpreted as homosexuals in various lists of bad people going to Hell in the Bible is a composite of two Greek words used in the Septuagint in the famous Leviticus passage on men laying with men like with women. So there really is no getting around it.
In my opinion, gay men who want to use the Bible in their lives, be a Christian or whatnot, have a choice. They can accept this teaching and stop having sex, or they can recognize that Paul is full of crap here. Women don't turn men gay. Men don't turn other men gay, for that matter. People don't turn any sexual orientation. This passage, harped on by religious bigots and obsessed over by gay people trying to deal with an imported hatred, is utter baloney.
(There's more to this, of course. Paul is speaking to two groups, Jews and Gentiles, about how ignoring God and how he made the world and all the things leads to all sin. He starts off with an example that is sure to get the Jews and the Gentiles to agree. We can all come together when it's time to bash on the gays, right? Well, you see, there's a penis and a vagina. One goes in the other, just like God made them to fit. It would take somebody mighty committed to ignoring the naturally seen will of God to get that particular combination wrong, amirite? Some crafty woman trying to avoid getting pregnant, introducing men to alternate sexual acts, and voila, the dumb guys finally clue in - hey, I can get laid in all sorts of different places, not just a vagina! And I like my buddies better than any old nutty woman, hyuck, hyuck, hyuck.
(So you can also see the perennial argument of physical compatibility of the sexual organs here as well, also just as idiotic as "women turn men gay." Yes, we get it. If you want to make a baby, then tab A goes into slot B. But there are more tabs and slots than are dreamt of in your philosophy, missionary man, and as long as consent is exchanged between those who have said tabs and slots, there ain't nothing wrong with it under the blue sky.
(And finally, Paul is writing this as his formal introduction to the Romans. If anybody had heard any rumors about St. Paul and his tendency to travel with young men, some that abandon him midtrip, others that hadn't, well, bashing the gays straight off the bat is a great way to smooth over those kinds of tales. Thanks for nothing, Paul, you old closeted bastard.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
imo)
-8
