Romans 1:26-27 - It's really about idolatry, and Paul is using Roman fertility cults as an example of humanity's fallen nature, where both heterosexual and homosexual sex rites occurred frequently. If you read the passage, homosexuality is not listed with the rest of sins at the end of the passage, but clearly related to those as he says "therefore" and "because of this." He's using a very specific (and very familiar in that day) example of it as the unnaturalness of turning from God in such a way where both Jews and Gentiles (a big reason for his writing of Romans was to reconcile the Jews and Gentiles in the church in Rome) can say "Yes, How immoral and disgusting!". Don't get me wrong, he clearly has nothing positive to say about it in this passage, at most he does call it a sin, and at the very least "shameful". It's also worth noting he uses the same word to describe homosexuality in this passage as he does men with long hair in
1 Corinthians 11:14, a passage we consider to be culturally applied.
1 Corinthians 6:9/1 Tim 1:10 - The only other mentions to homosexuality in the New Testament, besides in Jude, which is a misunderstanding/mistranslations of what actually happened in Sodom, but I'll touch on that in a second. In these passages, Paul mentions the "arsenokoitai", a sinful group. The thing is that we really don't know what the word actually means, which is why it has so many different translations. We don't know what it means partially because of how rare is it used in ancient writings. Anyway, he word, arsenokoitai, is a compound word in Greek that makes references to "male" and "bed", those same words appear in the Greek translation of the Leviticus passage. However, compound words in Greek work different than ours, for example "Cyclops" literally means "round eye". From what we do know, I think it's fairly safe to assume Paul was referencing some kind of homosexual behavior. The problem is that we really have no idea what kind of homosexual behavior, again we really don't know what the words means. I'd say it's likely talking about the practice of married men who would have sex with male youths on the side, a practice frowned upon by many Greeks even though it was publicly practiced. This would also explain why it's not listed with adultery, as according to Greek thought, a side-boy wasn't adultery, and why the "malakoi" (which many scholars think are referencing the young men in these relationships) is mentioned.
Leviticus 18-20 - The beginning of this section of rules in verses 1-4, God is saying he wants to keep the Israelites pure and separate from the cultures surrounding them. This is why people usually list the other things in this passage we look past today, such as getting tattoos, shaving, wearing mixed clothing, or having sex during a woman's period. There's less quoted ones about sacrificing children to Molech (18:21) and eating fruit too quickly from a tree (19:23). Outside of the context of keeping the Israelites separate, it's a very strange collection of rules.
Sodom - Ezekiel says what the sin of Sodom and Gomorra was "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it" (EZK 16:49-50). You can definitely argue that "abominable things before me" is talking about their homosexuality, but you could also argue that he's referring to the rape (it's safe to assume they did it previously). It's a very big stretch to assume that all same-sex relationships are equal to that, especially when you look at what the mob is actually doing in this story. They've formed an angry mob and are threatening to gang rape the visitors, which isn't the only time it happens in scripture, it also happens in
Judges 19. Does these mean that during Bible times, cities were full of gay people looking to rape others? No, it is a threat of humiliating violence, a way of saying "We are in charge around here and you are not welcome" in the worst imaginable way. If you were in prison and a group of large men threatened to rape you. You wouldn't assume they were gay men hitting on you, you would assume they were threatening you with the worst possible punishment. It's the same thing happening in this story and in
Judges 19. Although these stories seem strange to us, they would have been readily understood by the earlier readers.
The problem with the view that homosexual relationships are sinful goes much deeper than how we interpret scripture. It says that not only are those referred to in scripture, as there is no reference to committed, monogamous homosexual relationships in scripture, but all gay relationships are sinful.
For example, you know two couples: one gay and one straight. These couples are both Christian, equally devoted to Christ. Both have made a commitment to stay together and be faithful to each other the rest of their lives. They both have a certain sense of balance. In every respect, they are completely identical with the only exception of one being gay and the other straight. We're supposed to celebrate one couple and condemn the other?
Here's another way of explaining that. Suppose my friend James meets and falls in love with a person named Sam. They spend years getting to know each other, and get closer to each other and Christ. They decide to promise to be together for the rest of their lives in marriage. So James comes to me about it, someone who condemns all homosexual relationships, I say "That's immoral! You and Sam are doing a sinful thing before God!" James replies, "Sam is short for Samantha". Suddenly, my opinion changes to "That's wonderful, the best to you! Blessings on your marriage!" The only thing that changed is that in my mind, Sam went from male to female. That one thing, changed the relationship from wrong and disgusting to holy and beautiful - even though literally nothing else changed about anyone's motivations. To me, that doesn't seem to be quite right. There's a discrepancy, and I think people even realize this and that's why they say it's God saying this and not me.
That view is based on the idea that we need to follow Biblical commands regardless of how much sense it makes to us, which people usually cite "Trust in the Lord and lean not on your own understanding" or "the heart is deceitful above all things" to support. There's nothing wrong with that, except, as I just showed you, the texts that condemn homosexuality, can, and have been explained other ways. Furthermore, they mention nothing about committed, monogamous relationships. There's also a big problem with interpreting scripture that way. For example,
Romans 13:1, the passage about governmental authorities. We would have to claim that American revolutionaries, civil rights movements, the Nazi resisters, etc. were sinning. While there are those that claim that, the majority of us just know that can't be right. After all, God wrote his law on the hearts of men, and we just inherintely know what the Nazis did was evil. Furthermore, it also shows that no one consistently applies scripture in a literal, word-for-word direct application. Anyone is honest will admit
some passages either 1) Don't apply at all today, 2) Still apply, but not what they mean on the surface, 3) Are overruled by other passages or themes. The third of which is where I believe God takes no issue with committed, loving, selfless homosexual relationships.
Romans 13:8-10 "Owe no one anything, 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 murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law." This should sound like something Jesus said, because Paul is merely rewording/expanding what Jesus is said are the greatest commandments, and is a different wording of what the writer of 1 John is saying in chapter 4 of his. Paul is saying every commandment can be summed up to the rule of "love your neighbor". If we lived our lives in such a way with a truly loving spirit, in loving ways, we would automatically fulfill every one of God's laws. Jesus says the same in gospels, but with Jewish phrasing.
Adultery, murder, greed, etc. are all inherently unloving acts. If you loved your spouse, you don't cheat on someone. If you loved the poor, you wouldn't act greedy towards them. If you love someone, you don't covet what they have you, you are happy good things have come their way. We could literally do this for everyone single one of God's commands. How can you do this with two equally loving, selflessness, etc relationships? You cannot rule one of them sinful just based of gender because it completely contradicts this rule Paul gives here, Jesus says in the gospels - a rule that apply to every commandment.
This isn't just a random passage, Paul spends almost the entire book of Romans building an argument about law, grace, and sin. He uses the word 74 times, this is last time. It's the conclusion of his argument, one that goes back all of the way to the Old Testament "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." A passage, that Jesus references about the principle of the law and how we're supposed to read scriptures.
Jesus and Paul aren't saying we're allowed to break rules sometimes, nor that God is getting soft on sin. God, like us, also knows that mere rules and regulations are not always sufficient to actually define sin, the specifics make a huge difference. For example, killing is a sin and terrible crime, but there are situations, such as self-defense or even accidents, which we do not hold someone accountable, and neither does God, which is why he provided the "Cities of Refuge". As Jesus made clear in his incidents with Pharisees, God judges our actions on a case-by-case basis, taking into account our heart, motives, and specifics of the the situation, not just mindlessly applying a set of rigid rules.
Every one of God's laws has a purpose, and we can see in scripture, even outside of Jesus, when that purpose was no longer needed. Just compare Duet. 23:1-3 to
Isaiah 56:3-8, Eunichs are excluded to demonstrate God's holiness, but later that command is no longer necessary to accomplish that purpose and becomes obsolete. Looking at the reasons behind each command rather than just the letter is exactly what Jesus' does with the Sabbath. It explains why God's standards seem to change even though God Himself does not change, and why Christians are getting inked, they don't serve the same purpose anymore as when they were first commanded. Jesus even takes us a bit further to point out the principle of the law actually holds us to a higher standard. That's the entire purpose of the Sermon on the Mount, and over and over again in the rest of the gospels Jesus reiterates that God is more interested in the underlying principles than rules themselves. To suggest a command that doesn't fit into God's underlying principle, love, is not only inconsistent, but unbiblical.
We have a great example left for us by the early church, circumcision. The only scriptures the church had were the Jewish scriptures which commanded circumcision as a sign of allegiance to God, and there was probably less wriggle room in scripture than this. The issue was over whether or not gentiles could become Christians without first being circumcised. The Gentiles in question knew two things: they trusted Jesus and didn't want to take a knife to their manhood. Even Peter and Paul had a public confrontation about this (Gal 2:11-14). The churches ultimate decisions was is that it's following the rules for the sake of the rules.
There's always going to be great arguments on both sides, and that's where I think we need to look at the fruit of the relationship. Sin always shows itself, it promises good things, but never delivers. We see sin as good because we think that's what we'll get out of it, but we never do. If all same-sex relationships were sinful, we wouldn't need theological arguments to tell us that. The bad fruit from those relationships would be readily and clearly apparent. There are those in the gay community that do produce bad fruit, just like there are some heterosexuals that produce bad fruit from their heterosexual relationships and actions. If you ever met Christ-centered gay couple, you'll notice they are identical to our straight counterparts with the exception of one partner's sex. They are really proof that God can and does bless same-sex relationships. After all, bad trees cannot produce good fruit.
