I want to re-visit two Biblical passages that are typically cited against same-sex relationships: Romans 1:18-32 and the creation narrative in Genesis. I was reading comments somebody left me back in the summer, and I came across this: I will concede that it is possible that he [Paul] is listing various religious practices in chapter 1 of Romans, but I don't feel it is definitely so. The reason being, Paul is not that kind of writer. His letters often have convoluted clauses and subclauses, even subtopics in the middle of sentences, making it nearly impossible to discern whether two consecutive statements are directly related, or if they will both be tied in 4 paragraphs in the future. This person was suggesting that Paul's writing style tended to be so all over the place - so random - that we cannot definitively know whether Paul's reference to same-sex activity was limited to a cultic sex. I disagree strongly. I think that it is obvious that Paul directly linked the same-sex activity to idolatry. I invite people to carefully look at the passage for themselves here. In verse 21, Paul refers to they [who] knew God, [but] glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened
Paul continues describing the aforementioned "they" in verse 22: professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Wait, who is "they"? The reference to "they" refers the same people spoken of in verse 21. He hasn't changed the subject yet. Verse 23 continues describing the people in verse 22. Here are verses 22 and 23 next to each other: [v. 22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, [v. 23] And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. So verses 22 and 23 are both refer to the same people spoken of in verse 21. Paul hasn't changed the subject yet. Now we come to verse 24: [v 24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves. Who is the unqualified "them" in verse 24? The word "them" here refers to the very same people in verse 23, who are the same people in verses 21 and 22. Paul hasn't changed the subject yet. Now we come to verse 25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen What does Paul mean by the word "who" in the beginning of this verse? Paul is continuing his description of the people in verse 24, and verse 24 refers to the same people in verses 21-23. Some people might think that Paul's use of "amen" implies a change in topic. However, the wording in the very next verse (v 26) shows that he hasn't changed the subject yet. Here is verse 26: For THIS CAUSE God gave THEM up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. Again, who is "them" that Paul is referring to? It must be the same people spoken of in verses 21-25. That explains why Paul says "for this cause". What cause? The "cause" he mentions here is the idolatry in verses 23-25. So Paul does not change the subject between verse 21 and verse 27. He is talking about the same people. The passage describes these particular people as engaging in specific forms of idolatry and engaging in certain sexual activities that were "para phusis", which is often (badly) translated as "unnatural". "Para" meant "beyond" and "phusis" had cultural connotations. For example, Paul also said that "phusis" teaches us that men should not have long hair. If phusis means "natural" then it would be unnatural for men to have long hair. Paul also described God as going against phusis for including the gentiles. Phusis could mean customary for a culture. In Jewish culture at that time, it was uncustomary to "waste" semen by having non-reproductive sex. It's possible (though I'm not certain) that phusis could also refer to a personal inclination, like somebody who hates dogs adopting a dog. From this perspective, it would be against phusis for a heterosexual man to have sex with another man. This background ties into the context of idolatry. It just so happens that in Paul's era, there were priests called galli, and these galli had sex with male worshippers in the temples. There were also female galli who used artificial penises to penetrate men, which definitely would have been beyond phusis. Townsley has a lengthy article here. Townsley also argues that the structure of Paul's letter uses parallelism. Specifically, Townsley argues that verses 26-27 (the sexual verses) were meant to parallel verses 23-25 (the idolatry verses). Verse 26 is usually thought to condemn lesbian sex, but it is not explicitly stated. The parallel between verses 26 and 27 is that both sex acts are "para phusis". Verse 26 refers to some kind of sexual activity that is para phusis, and 27 refers to men who engaged in activity that was "likewise" para phusis by having sex with each other. But this doesn't mean that verse 26 refers to lesbianism, and indeed the lesbian interpretation was not explicitly accepted by the church fathers until the 4th century (and was explicitly rejected by church fathers beforehand). Interestingly, the galli were sometimes called "malakoi", which Paul condemned in Corinthians 6:9 (along with the "arsenokoitai", which I won't discuss right now) As I said earlier, I think it is obvious that Paul was not condemning male-male sex per se. In my next post I will re-visit the creation narrative | 
