Having a gay old time

[murlough23]

From the perspective of the studying and calling upon the Spirit that I've done, it seems like you're still reading these sexual immorality passages from the perspective of an assumption that the Bible even talks about homosexuality at all, which is a big leap as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think it's that big of a leap to assume that Leviticus was talking about homosexuality (or at the very least, male homosexuality). The leap happens when we state that a Greek term in the NT, translated as "sexual immorality" in English was understood by the Jewish and/or Gentile audience at the time to mean exactly what Leviticus referred to. And I'm not sure how we can know this Vlad!s argument that the 1st-century audience clearly understood the intended context of this is as compelling to me as other arguments that state Paul was referring to specific sexual practices, and not same-sex relationships across the board.

Sodom and Gommorrah is a good example, because the text is rather clear that the cities were described for their treatment of outsiders and inhospitality, of which their sexual practices are simply an example.

Define "clear". I agree with you that this is what one would arrive at upon a deeper analysis of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, but this isn't immediately apparent to us when read on the surface. That might just be because we're culturally removed from the practices of their time. Either way, the right meaning does not seem to line up with what first appears to be the obvious one. (The word "sodomy" was even coined to refer to homosexual intercourse, so clearly this confusion has existed for a very long time.)

As far as I can tell, every place in the Bible where God condemns individual people or entire societies and it involves homosexual behavior, the behavior in question is usually of the type that would be abhorrent even if practiced in an entirely heterosexual context (i.e. men having young girls hanging around as their sex toys, female prostitutes in temples, group orgies where men only ever have contact with women and vice versa, men raping women after pillaging a town, etc.). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no examples of monogamous homosexual relationships in the Bible that specifically brought down God's condemnation on the two people involved, much less the society surrounding them. The issue here is not  necessarily "You had sex with the wrong gender", it's the cheapening of sex by having it outside of committed relationships, or against the will of one or more participants, or as part of pagan worship, etc. This seems to fall in line with accounts of people from the Bible who suffered the consequences of their immoral heterosexual relationships - like David and Bathsheba - or with idolaters whose sins were not even specifically sexual in nature. (Curiously, the common practice of taking multiple wives at the time doesn't seem to bring about any specific wrath. Not that I want to argue in favor of polygamy. One wife is a handful as it is.)

I think that it's really convenient to write off the Christians we see as hard to claim (slaveowners and fundies for instance) as only using the Bible to suit their own agenda, and as insincere. I think that these people  are often just as sincere as anyone else, and I think that history will look back on us as just as horrific for reasons we as yet know nothing about. I think that this puts us on dangerously high ground to say that we must be better or more sincere Christians than these.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that Christians today were knowingly being a bunch of bigoted bastards. And it's a good point that, while we realize how backwards the practice of slavery in this country was, it wasn't apparent to people at the time what the problem was. Some of them just went with what they were taught and a system that they thought the Bible, on a literal level, was commanding them to uphold. I think those who still hold out for a superior race or whatever nowadays are just being stubborn, but then if a father who never could wrap his head around the new paradigm teaches a son who teaches another son... then yeah. I don't want to justify racism in any form, but I do understand why there are holdouts even today. (As a side note, now that we understand better what a deep, damaging sin racism can be, it makes me wonder about the folks back in those days who were otherwise spiritual heroes, but due to the society they lived in, they never even became aware of that deep-seated bias within themselves. Did they die with this sin on their consciences if they weren't even aware to a reasonable degree that it was a problem?)

And to be clear, I'm not saying that our better understanding of the Bible's advice on slavery now is in any way equivalent to its advice on homosexuality. One does not prove the other - it only informs us of how we can easily let a misinterpretation drag on and out throughout centuries of history. Why'd it get translated as "slaves, obey your masters" instead of "servants, obey your masters"? Likely because "slave" didn't mean something so derogatory in its original usage, but since the connotations of words change over time, the way we'd naturally interpret such things probably also does. So why'd an obscure term referring to sexuality get translated variously as referring to the sexually immoral, the specifically homosexual, the effeminate, etc.? Maybe it's not the work of homophobic bastards, but there still could be bias there even if it was done innocently - or else just the changing of connotations over time like with the slavery thing.

So, to sum up, I'm not using the slavery analogy to accuse Vlad! or anyone else on the "homosexuality is a sin, period" side of the argument of just distorting the Bible to fit their own agenda. I believe wholeheartedly that you're trying to approach it with as much honesty and lack of bias as I am. This is why I think it's worth delving into the subtleties of possible biases that we might not even be aware we possess at first. Even with the best of intentions, we can read what we feel must be right into a passage that isn't exactly saying what we thought it was. This becomes a problem when we dig our heels in and insist that the text clearly says this or that. Not everything is that clear. Let's show our work.

I also think that it's really convenient to be able to simply claim the Spirit in arguments like this, as if those you are arguing with should simply pray harder or be wiser and then they would see things the way you do. In my community it seems like it's the people who pray the hardest and spend the most time in honest and sincere pursuit of the text and the will of God who come to the conclusions that I have.

And I've seen plenty of folks I look up to, who know their Bibles and have a lot of wisdom, come out on both sides of the fence here. The fact that spiritual giants believe something is not, in and of itself, enough to prove it to me. Seeing how they arrived at their conclusions is often persuasive, but hand-waving arguments about what the Spirit has led them to do or believe aren't really convincing. I might respect that in the area of personal convictions (i.e. the Spirit is moving me to be a missionary in Thailand, to reach out to the abortion protestors across the street, to fast for a period of time, whatever), but I quickly become suspicious of it when such an immaterial argument is submitted as evidence for how everyone must behave.

I feel like "agree to disagree" is amicable, but threatens to shut down a productive discussion. I think we can agree that (a) certain laws and rites of purity were established in the OT, (b) Jesus abolished a lot of those codes and made some previously "unclean" acts perfectly acceptable, and (c) certain passages in the NT seem to indicate that Jesus didn't intend to just give a blanket excuse to do whatever - there are still certain moral values that Christians are expected to uphold. The challenge is figuring out what exactly those NT passages are referring to - are they saying specific laws from the OT still apply exactly as written, or are they simply doing their best to flesh out corollaries of "Love God, love others" by showing the consequences of our various ways of grieving God by disrespecting Him and hurting one another? These seem to be two different paradigms - two different ways of understanding the intent of God's Word - that are very hard for one side to explain to the other. I believe both sides to have a very deep-seated respect for God's Word, though.

I know that we cannot necessarily arrive at the reason for every command God gave us by pure logic. The "whys" behind certain commands remain a mystery. Yet, the homosexuality thing seems to be the one command that doesn't fit the pattern. Pretty much every other thing the Bible has commanded Christians (meaning all of us and not specific individuals) to do, I can see how it either harms the reputation of God or harms the people God loves. Homosexuality does not appear to, in the context that we understand it today. (In the context in which it often appears in the Bible, sure. And one could probably say, "You dishonor God by disobeying a clear command", but that leads to a circular argument when you're trying to figure out why God gave the command in the first place. Similar thing when you argue that it undermines family values and whatnot - you need some evidence from outside of this loop to be assured that God solely values the nuclear family, to the point of exclusion of gay relationships - and then, what of childless marriages?) Just saying "I don't understand how this fits" isn't sufficient reason to disregard a command - shoot, Abraham didn't understand why God wanted him to sacrifice the son he'd prayed for all those years, but he was going to go through with it anyway. But it is enough of a mismatch to make us look deeper and question whether we're really clear on what God's asking of us here. This sets the homosexuality issue apart from other sins that I'd honestly love to give myself the excuse to get away with and not obey God's commands, but the Bible makes it pretty explicit how hurtful those actions can be. Hopefully that's sufficient to lead us away from any "slippery slope" arguments where people say, "If you can distort the Bible so that it allows homosexuality, where does it stop? Why not just do anything you want and believe God supports it all?"

[spacebrat311]

I don't think it's that big of a leap to assume that Leviticus was talking about homosexuality (or at the very least, male homosexuality). The leap happens when we state that a Greek term in the NT, translated as "sexual immorality" in English was understood by the Jewish and/or Gentile audience at the time to mean exactly what Leviticus referred to. And I'm not sure how we can know this Vlad!s argument that the 1st-century audience clearly understood the intended context of this is as compelling to me as other arguments that state Paul was referring to specific sexual practices, and not same-sex relationships across the board.

Except that the Leviticus passage is written in a time where, culturally speaking, what we refer to as homosexuality literally does not exist. The only thing that it can clearly, and without our interpretive lens, apply to is the practices that actually existed. It MAY refer to what we refer to now, but it cannot do so except insofar as we have determined that what we refer to now carries with it the same kinds of issues.

[murlough23]

Except that the Leviticus passage is written in a time where, culturally speaking, what we refer to as homosexuality literally does not exist. The only thing that it can clearly, and without our interpretive lens, apply to is the practices that actually existed. It MAY refer to what we refer to now, but it cannot do so except insofar as we have determined that what we refer to now carries with it the same kinds of issues.

It refers to a man lying with a man as he does with a woman. I can't really get around that one. Because of the NT, I don't feel that I have to. If there are translation ambiguities in Leviticus as well that I don't know about, feel free to let me know.

[Vlad!]

The Bible talks about homosexual acts, which it clearly condemns. It doesn't seem to address homosexuality as such; by which I mean the modern concept of sexuality which have as its polar extremes homosexuality and heterosexuality. Your argument is essentially that there's a difference between the homosexual acts condemned by the Bible and those of a committed homosexual relationship simply because the Bible (and, perhaps, the culture) did not have the concept of such a relationship.

It may be true that neither the ancient Hebrew culture nor the ancient Greco-Roman culture didn't have the concept of monogamous, committed homosexual relationships; I don't know. However, I note that the Bible also does not discuss issues such as pornography or copyright violation, but this does not give Christians carte blanche to engage in such acts. I think it's unsupportable to say that the apostles and the early church implicitly condoned the concept of homosexual marriage, so the best you can get out of that approach is that the Bible is completely silent on the issue.

If, as you posit, the Bible is completely silent on the issue, what recourse do we have? We can look at Biblical precedent, we can seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and we can use logic.

To me, Jewish law is clear. It is impossible to live under the Law and to engage in homosexual acts, even in the context of a committed relationship. Leviticus does not have a "marriage exception". Therefore, Jewish Christians in the first century would be starting from the position that everything in the Law still applied to them (for instance, see Peter's refusal to eat an unclean animal or enter the house of a gentile until explicitly told by the Spirit to do so).

What we see from the teachings of Christ is that the Law isn't a set of statutes which must be obeyed mechanically and legalistically but rather an indication of how the spiritual person should live. However, we can still assume that the early Christians retained that shared culture (so much so that, as I described earlier, Acts 15 tells of a conflict between some who believed that gentiles had to become Jews before they became Christians).

While we know that as Christians we are free from the Jewish Law, it is certainly very reasonable to state that when Paul, James, and others urge against sexual immorality, they did in fact have a very clear idea about what constitutes morality and immorality. Though again homosexuality in the context of an exclusive love relationship doesn't come up in the New Testament, given the cultural context with which the authors were writing, assuming that saying nothing of this topic implies acceptance is a very tenuous assumption. After all, the New Testament does not explicitly condemn prostitution either; shall we then assume that since we have freedom from the Law we have freedom to become a prostitute? Certainly not!

It's clear to me, then, that even assuming you're correct and the Bible contains no references to the type of homosexuality you are discussing and even if we evaluate the passages in their own context, the most you can say about the Bible and homosexuality is that early church fathers would probably have disapproved but were silent on the matter. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

[murlough23]

The Bible talks about homosexual acts, which it clearly condemns.

Other than Leviticus, where are specific acts referred to? The NT seems to almost exclusively discuss people who are "X". Whatever "X" is. More of a state of being something - the word we got translated as "homosexual" rather than a specific sex act.

It doesn't seem to address homosexuality as such; by which I mean the modern concept of sexuality which have as its polar extremes homosexuality and heterosexuality. Your argument is essentially that there's a difference between the homosexual acts condemned by the Bible and those of a committed homosexual relationship simply because the Bible (and, perhaps, the culture) did not have the concept of such a relationship.

Not so much the distinction between acts and orientation, but more of a description of acts that are vile because they degrade sex for other reasons. I strongly believe that the actual use of the word "homosexual" could be an over-generalization made by the translator. I'm more inclined to believe the reference to homosexual acts in Leviticus was specific, but I also believe that was a command given for a reason in a particular situation, just like not eating pork or shellfish.

It may be true that neither the ancient Hebrew culture nor the ancient Greco-Roman culture didn't have the concept of monogamous, committed homosexual relationships; I don't know.

Whether or not they had the concept of homosexuality that we do now, God obviously understood the concept. The question is not whether the Bible is limited in its understanding, but whether God was trying to refer to something people wouldn't understand yet, or something that they would. My feeling is that God would probably speak through the writers in terms that would make the most sense to their immediate audience; the rest of us have to do some work to get at what it would have meant to them. (This isn't always true - see Revelation, which we still don't understand. But it seems reasonable for books that are largely instructional in nature.)

However, I note that the Bible also does not discuss issues such as pornography or copyright violation, but this does not give Christians carte blanche to engage in such acts.

Pornography is a specific form of lust, which Jesus pretty clearly condemned. Copyright violation is (arguably) a form of theft. These are specific methods of committing more general sins. A is a subset of B, and B is condemned. A committed, monogamous homosexual relationship may not be a specific form of the acts described and condemned in the NT. A (monogamous homos) and B (homo prostitution, pederasty, etc.) are both subsets of C (the whole same-sex relations ball of wax), but B is the specific thing condemned, not A, and therefore, not everything within the larger set C. That, again, depends on our understanding of the language.

I think it's unsupportable to say that the apostles and the early church implicitly condoned the concept of homosexual marriage, so the best you can get out of that approach is that the Bible is completely silent on the issue.

I think they probably wouldn't have been capable of understanding it at the time, and thus would have condemned it because it looked like something they knew to be very, very bad. I kind of see this as similar to condemning rock & roll because of its "jungle rhythms" that apparently remind some people of backwards tribes that commit human sacrifice. Steer clear of that usage of it, certainly, but that doesn't make the thing itself bad, just the way it's unfortunately known for being used. I could probably come up with a better analogy here, but it's late and I'm tired.

If, as you posit, the Bible is completely silent on the issue, what recourse do we have? We can look at Biblical precedent, we can seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and we can use logic.

If the Bible's silent on something specific, see if it discusses something more general for which the specific thing would fall under that umbrella. If you can't even find that, then as far as I'm concerned, no problem.

To me, Jewish law is clear. It is impossible to live under the Law and to engage in homosexual acts, even in the context of a committed relationship. Leviticus does not have a "marriage exception". Therefore, Jewish Christians in the first century would be starting from the position that everything in the Law still applied to them (for instance, see Peter's refusal to eat an unclean animal or enter the house of a gentile until explicitly told by the Spirit to do so).

I'd imagine it must have come as a great shock to Peter to be told "You are now free to do this" after a lifetime of believing that he should not. Others were likely scandalized by this and quoted all manner of chapter and verse at him. What defense did he have other than "the Spirit told me"? We all take that for granted because the Bible states that it happened, but for those folks back then before this was all written down and canonized, it must have seemed like quite a leap.

The interesting question to me is: Why were those foods and those locations once off-limits to Jews, but now OK for the Jews who became the early Christians? What changed? God's truth is constant; He does not arbitrarily change His mind. The only thing that could have changed there was people. My guess: They had now learned how to prepare these foods in a way that wouldn't get them sick and kill them off, and there was no longer a need to strictly forbid these people from intermingling their culture with that of the cultures around them. Back when these laws were first given, God was giving a dwindling band of refugees the tools they needed to stay alive and one day flourish and spread His Word. I do wholeheartedly believe that God gives us laws out of love for us, to protect us from unnecessary harm that we may cause to ourselves or others. We're just not always smart enough to see how this is accomplished at the time.

Thus, if we're not meant to be gay, what's God trying to save us from here? Our population problem is the opposite of what it once was, so I don't think God's trying to keep us pumping out babies as fast as possible. There were once concerns with the spreading of disease, but that's been proven to be a risk that depends on the number of sexual partners you have, not specifically their gender. (Not knowing then what we know now about germs and bacteria, etc., I can see how homosexual sex - or even a man doing similar with a woman - could literally be very unclean. Don't make me describe this in further detail.) We've pretty much debunked all the rumors about gays being sexual deviants who are always amazingly promiscuous, so aside from the possible repercussions of not allowing them to legally marry, I don't think being gay predisposes someone to have more sexual partners than your average horny hetero. Again, this might be a worldview thing, because I am coming from a very pragmatic place here, but I just can't see for the life of me why God would command us to uphold this law from Leviticus in this day and age, when so many of those other laws are so not a big deal that most Christians aren't even aware of such bizarre laws existing in the first place. If you come from a worldview where you just do it because God said it and you don't get to ask why, then I could see why none of this flies. That might be where we come to an impasse.

What we see from the teachings of Christ is that the Law isn't a set of statutes which must be obeyed mechanically and legalistically but rather an indication of how the spiritual person should live. However, we can still assume that the early Christians retained that shared culture (so much so that, as I described earlier, Acts 15 tells of a conflict between some who believed that gentiles had to become Jews before they became Christians).

If I recall correctly, the Jews were on the bad side of that conflict, in terms of trying to enforce their strict codes on all new converts. I remember Paul having a rather amusing response to those who insisted everyone must be circumcised, saying something to the effect of "I wish they would just go the whole way and castrate themselves!"

After all, the New Testament does not explicitly condemn prostitution either; shall we then assume that since we have freedom from the Law we have freedom to become a prostitute? Certainly not!

You're paraphrasing Romans, I take it, because I think that's where Paul says something about the body of Christ joining itself to a prostitute, to illustrate the absurdity of it, because there were charlatans within the Church teaching that you could completely detach the physical being from the spiritual, and thus the physical body couldn't sin and it was all irrelevant. Paul was making an analogy here, but my guess is that the underlying assumption that prostitution was detestable had to be in place for this to make any sense. Anyway, since a prostitute cannot be married to more than one of the men she sleeps with, this falls under adultery and/or fornication, which have been mentioned and prohibited.

It's clear to me, then, that even assuming you're correct and the Bible contains no references to the type of homosexuality you are discussing and even if we evaluate the passages in their own context, the most you can say about the Bible and homosexuality is that early church fathers would probably have disapproved but were silent on the matter. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Yep. That's more or less what I'm driving at. I don't think the early church fathers would have understood or appreciated it, but I don't think there was a theologically provable position for that view in place then, just as I think there is not one now. Unfortunately, we can't speak to Paul directly, so we may never know. In the absence of a resounding "no", we have a tenuous one depending on interpretation. Were I Christian and struggling with my sexual orientation, I would have to wrestle with this. Since I am not gay, I really see no recourse but to give the benefit of the doubt and let those who are work it out with God personally. As soon as we assume that everything the Bible is silent on is prohibited, we suddenly start eliminating a lot of things from our lives. That would be a crazy way to live. But "the Bible is silent" is sometimes a harder position to prove than "The Bible definitively says yes or no."

[Vlad!]

If you don't like the Leviticus passage, how about one in the first chapter of Romans:

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another....Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
(v24-27...I cut out a verse in the middle for space concerns, but I don't think it detracts from the point)

I'm not saying that you can necessarily extrapolate "homosexuality is wrong in every context" from this verse, but it's another example of the homosexual act being condemned.

Pornography is a specific form of lust, which Jesus pretty clearly condemned. Copyright violation is (arguably) a form of theft.

But you're making associations which aren't supported by the text itself. I could just as easily say "homosexuality is a specific form of sexual immorality". That was my point.

I'm a little leery of the "stand back and let them figure it out for themselves" approach. It's very true that the Holy Spirit can convict our hearts and tell us that we're in sin. However, I think it's also true that there comes a point when we have hardened our hearts to this and where in fact God has decided to leave us to our own devices. After all, that passage in Romans 1 says "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts".

If we posit that homosexuality is not a sin, those practicing it will not feel conviction. If we posit that homosexuality is a sin, I infer from this passage that it would not be surprising if those practicing it did not in fact feel conviction either. I once had someone who attended my church try to explain to me that masturbating to pornography wasn't a sin for him because it was keeping him from going out and having sex, and that he didn't feel convicted about it so it must be OK. He later got a girlfriend and didn't like what the church told him was an appropriate relationship with that girlfriend so he stopped attending. I say this to point out that I don't necessarily trust the convictions of a person regarding his or her sin (or lack thereof).

[murlough23]

If you don't like the Leviticus passage, how about one in the first chapter of Romans:

It's not a matter of not liking it. It's a matter of whether it still applies. I "like" it just fine, in terms of thinking it made all kinds of sense at the time the command was given.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another....Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Sounds like an orgy to me. This would be cheap, degrading sex either way. I've seen various comments on what this might mean. It's curious to me that "God gave them over" - what did this result from? What's before the "Therefore"? What were these people like before all this happened? The issue here seems to be more one of "exploration" among heteros looking for cheap thrills, basically the use of others sexually for the purpose of "finding oneself" or whatever. That's just how  read it now that I have a better understanding that most gays aren't promiscuous pervs, I guess.

I'm not saying that you can necessarily extrapolate "homosexuality is wrong in every context" from this verse, but it's another example of the homosexual act being condemned.

Yes. And why is it being condemned here? What's really going on? These are questions I always make sure to ask myself. Would God be any happier with this situation if these people had given themselves over to heterosexual lust?

But you're making associations which aren't supported by the text itself. I could just as easily say "homosexuality is a specific form of sexual immorality". That was my point.

We could dig deeper into those things and discuss why something like pornography is necessarily a subset of lust. My basis here is Jesus's statement that whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If you can look at porn and not lust, you're a better man than I.

My problem with the term "sexual immorality" is that it needs more specifics to flesh it out. It's an umbrella term that is meaningless without knowing what sexual acts fall under it and what do not. Heterosexual sex between two married partners is a sexual act that is not immoral. That's an obvious example of a sexual act which does not fall under this umbrella term. The only acts which I can assume do fall under this term are those that have been specifically listed as such. Specific homosexual acts have been listed, and pretty much all of them (as described in the NT, anyway, since that's the only set of laws I can assume has ongoing applications, and even then I need to consider the audience and context) involve things that would still be immoral if practiced among heterosexuals. What's described as sexual immorality that implicitly includes all homosexual acts?

I'm a little leery of the "stand back and let them figure it out for themselves" approach. It's very true that the Holy Spirit can convict our hearts and tell us that we're in sin. However, I think it's also true that there comes a point when we have hardened our hearts to this and where in fact God has decided to leave us to our own devices. After all, that passage in Romans 1 says "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts".

That's quite true, as I know what it's like to harden my own heart regarding some other sin that I'm stubbornly unwilling to give up. I'm not saying the human conscience is infallible here, nor am I saying that we should let everyone's conscience figure it out for themselves.

But if you're gay, or struggling with homosexual thoughts, or however you want to describe it, you've got more of a stake in this than we do, since we're mostly just sitting here discussing it academically, and our conclusions only ever affect what we think other people should do. I'd be leery of that if I were gay. I'd want someone who had really been there and struggled with it and come out on the other side to explain it to me, I guess.

I can only imagine what it's like to be gay, to read this, and to honestly think, "That isn't me". Not in the sense of trying to weasel one's way around it, but just in the sense of really looking at the acts that God is punishing, seeing how abhorrent they are because it's just unbridled lust that doesn't care for any sort of commitment or responsibility toward the multiple people they're having sex with, or that takes advantage of the innocent, or that is done as an act of worship to a false god, and so forth. To look at it and clearly see a distinction that indicates, "These things are not love", but to know that what you feel is love. (How would a person know that? Well, how do I know that what I feel for my wife is love, and it's not just a convenient arrangement for me to get sex, a little help around the house, and child care someday?)

I'm not using this to make a feelings-based argument, since that would hold no water. I'm just trying to point out that the actual root of the problem here might be something a bit deeper than the obvious, and that a person reading it without the bias against gays that the Church has held for thousands of years (due to misreading this even when it was first written) might be able to see that more readily when reading it. To someone with this bias, any attempt to look at it more deeply probably just looks like a convenient way of weaseling around "the truth" in order to get away with stuff.

If we posit that homosexuality is not a sin, those practicing it will not feel conviction. If we posit that homosexuality is a sin, I infer from this passage that it would not be surprising if those practicing it did not in fact feel conviction either.

Further complicating matters, people can be taught something is a sin even when it isn't, and then feel so-called "conviction" about it and either cut it out of their lives altogether when this wasn't necessarily, or live with a guilt complex because they can't stop doing it. I think we can safely say that conviction =/= sin, even if it is true that God will always seek to convict people of their sins. Not all who sin will be honest enough with themselves to feel conviction, and not all who think they feel conviction are actually sinning. So I'm not at all trying to say that just because someone honestly feels perfectly OK with something, that actually makes it OK.

To sum up: For it to be provably true that homosexuality in general is a sin, it must be categorically labelled in the text as sexually immoral (or otherwise sinful, but I'm going with your argument that it specifically falls under sexual immorality). I can't see from the text that all homosexual acts are sinful any more than I can see that all rectangles are squares.

[Vlad!]

Well, let's try your same argument on pornography. With porn, you're not actually looking at a woman, you're looking at an image of the woman. Once could even argue that you're not looking at the woman as a woman so much as a sex object, so Jesus' comments don't really apply to this circumstance. And how does that apply to pornography where the woman's face has been airbrushed out, say, or something like an erotic nude painting where the woman was not modeled after a real subject but the product of the artist's imagination?

Obviously I don't believe this argument, but I view the rationalization that passages like Romans 1 only really refer to orgies as equally specious.

I understand that it's a bothersome circumstance to have straight people saying that homosexual behavior is inappropriate; it feels like men telling women that they can't vote. But it seems to me like you're setting a double standard here. You're perfectly willing to add one and one to infer that certain behaviors are sinful while you're unwilling to do so in other cases. The New Testament is frustratingly vague in this department; in one letter Paul tells a church that they are free from the Law, while in another he urges a different church to kick a dude out for his behavior. While the Old Testament certainly devoted itself to a near-exhaustive list of what constitutes a sin, I don't think we can take that same position with the New Testament. Rather, I am forced to go with what the text does say, along with what I feel like the Spirit is trying to reveal through the text.

[murlough23]

You are right. I should think through my stance on pornography a little more carefully.

[murlough23]

This might help to explain some of the point that I have not done the greatest job at summing up. Particularly the points about ambiguous translation, Old Testament Holiness code (actually, even that is not quite as strict as how I had interpreted it), and the issue in Romans of heterosexual people giving themselves up to homosexual desires that, for them, were unnatural.

http://www.truthsetsfree.net/study.html

You'll obviously find the source to be off-putting and possibly biased (and let's be honest: who on the other side of this argument is going to make any of these concessions?), but let's look at the logic here and see how well it stands up regardless of the source.

[Vlad!]

I think the section on Romans 1 is particularly strained.

As I previously argued, the early church fathers (in which I include Paul) almost certainly would have looked unfavorably upon even a committed, loving relationship between two people of the same gender. We can't conclusively say that they would call it sin--and I feel that I'm being gracious in granting even this much--but I see no grounds for argument that absent a revelation as profound as the one given Peter on the rooftop the first century leaders would have accepted that concept.

So then what Mr. Cannon wants me to believe is that not only did Paul accept the modern conception of homosexuality but actually considered it to be a natural phenomenon; i.e. that for a certain subset of the population, the natural sexual relationship was a same-sex one. Preposterous.

What Paul is obviously saying is that the "natural relations" are heterosexual and the "unnatural" are homosexual. While one might take issue with his wording (or the wording the translators chose), his meaning is clear.

The only other alternative is that Paul had a revelation of such magnitude that it overcame his Jewish predisposition against homosexual behavior, that this revelation went unrecorded, and that he didn't feel that his audience (the church in Rome, which we know based on the content of Romans and the historical record was composed primarily of Jews) would need any particular convincing to accept his assertion that homosexual relationships might be natural. You can make most texts say a lot of different things with fancy semantic footwork, but I fail to see how anyone could consider the historical concept and still accept this argument at face value.

You said "let's look at the logic here and see how well it stands up". I completely reject the logic and assert that it does not, in fact, "stand up" at all.

[murlough23]

As I previously argued, the early church fathers (in which I include Paul) almost certainly would have looked unfavorably upon even a committed, loving relationship between two people of the same gender.

I only gave you the benefit of the doubt on that when I thought there was no way around the Leviticus passage. Now I see that differently.

We can't conclusively say that they would call it sin--and I feel that I'm being gracious in granting even this much--but I see no grounds for argument that absent a revelation as profound as the one given Peter on the rooftop the first century leaders would have accepted that concept.

I don't think they would have accepted it, but for me this is likely because they would have similarly misunderstood the Leviticus passage and/or still feel constrained to follow that law much as they did the myriad of other Jewish purity laws.

So then what Mr. Cannon wants me to believe is that not only did Paul accept the modern conception of homosexuality but actually considered it to be a natural phenomenon; i.e. that for a certain subset of the population, the natural sexual relationship was a same-sex one. Preposterous.

I don't think one needs believe that Paul accepted anything in particular. Not everything that God was trying to communicate necessarily needed to be something that His chosen conduit understood. (See: Any parts of the Bible we still don't understand.) Paul likely applied the things he was led to write down to the best of his understanding. So he likely would have had a difficult time with a monogamous and otherwise well-adjusted same-sex relationship, had the concept of such a thing even been presented to him.

What Paul is obviously saying is that the "natural relations" are heterosexual and the "unnatural" are homosexual. While one might take issue with his wording (or the wording the translators chose), his meaning is clear.

The fact that we're having this debate illustrates that it is not clear. You keep using this word as if these things are self-evident. Even if true, they take some digging to confirm.

The point of "natural", to me, is that heteros don't just turn into homos and vice versa. God made a person to have natural inclinations; to deny those is sin. If your point is true, then He made them all to be heteros, but that's becoming a more and more difficult position to maintain in recent years. Really? You think someone would choose to go against their natural urges and choose all of the persecution and mistreatment that comes with the "unnatural"? Why in the hell would anyone ever do this?

The only other alternative is that Paul had a revelation of such magnitude that it overcame his Jewish predisposition against homosexual behavior, that this revelation went unrecorded, and that he didn't feel that his audience (the church in Rome, which we know based on the content of Romans and the historical record was composed primarily of Jews) would need any particular convincing to accept his assertion that homosexual relationships might be natural.

I don't think we need to even grant such outlandish possibilities. His writings were already asking people to accept things which would have been difficult for them, given their strict Jewish background and the fact that they were now being asked to mingle with Gentiles and so forth. These lessons were probably even difficult for him to accept.

You're still working from the premise that (a) there was an established historic understanding among the Jews that all homosexuality was bad across the board, and (b) that God only gave Paul and his followers words that they would immediately understand. I don't think any of this is self-evident. (I'm going back on a position I stated earlier regarding (b), because my original position seemed short-sighted after I thought it through.)

[Vlad!]

His arguments regarding the Leviticus passage are equally ridiculous, and the only reason I don't want to take the time to address them is because they are not particularly relevant to this conversation. We've already established that just because it appears in Mosaic law does not mean it applies to us today but that, mistaken or not, Jewish tradition and the beliefs the early church fathers were working from both are that homosexual acts are sinful and, in fact, despicable. That Paul would receive divine revelation sufficient to convince him that this no longer applies and rather than sharing it would keep it to himself except for a single oblique reference at the beginning of one of his letters--to me, this is unsupportable.

But to me, the most concerning claim of yours is this:

God made a person to have natural inclinations; to deny those is sin. If your point is true, then He made them all to be heteros, but that's becoming a more and more difficult position to maintain in recent years

Absolutely not! Claiming this is like claiming that God made us with natural urges and denying them is sin, so obviously there's nothing wrong with having sex before marriage. I think all of us have a natural predisposition toward some sin or another. Whether this is a predisposition to sexual sin or to material sins such as greed or idolatry or theft or to relational sins such as unwholesome speech, slander, gossip, anger, lack of forgiveness, or lying...to say that denying a "natural inclination" is sin is to completely miss the point of the Christian life! What does Paul spend many chapters in Romans talking about if not the relationship between the old self and the new? If our natural impulses indicate the way we should go, why does Paul loudly lament in Romans 7 how the natural impulses are so hard to resist but make us a prisoner? Indeed, would Paul have said "who will rescue me from this body of death" if he had felt free to follow his natural desires?

No, while the fact that some people feel homosexual urges and even are completely attracted to the opposite sex is troubling, it is equally troubling that many men--even those in the church who outwardly lead lives that give the appearance of spirituality--are addicted to pornography and masturbation and are unrepentant prisoners of the flesh. I don't think we can call one any more or less natural than the other, but that doesn't make either one right.

[murlough23]

We've already established that just because it appears in Mosaic law does not mean it applies to us today

Then it seems any attempts to confirm or refute the Leviticus passage are moot. We can drop that from the conversation.

Jewish tradition and the beliefs the early church fathers were working from both are that homosexual acts are sinful and, in fact, despicable.

Perhaps you've established this. I still don't see this as self-evident despite your insistence that it is. But this, too, may be a moot point.

That Paul would receive divine revelation sufficient to convince him that this no longer applies and rather than sharing it would keep it to himself except for a single oblique reference at the beginning of one of his letters--to me, this is unsupportable.

Again, my point is not necessarily that Paul himself believed this, or needed to in order for us to understand it this way now. I do believe it's possible for him to have written things that had applications beyond what he or the Church in general could have understood at the time. I believe this specifically because I believe the Bible was divinely inspired by God, and because other parts of it were written via human conduits who likely did not fully understand the implications of what they were writing, but who probably applied it to the best of their knowledge where possible. The homosexual acts and relationship that the early Jews and Christians were aware of, they likely avoided and abhorred. This is fine. In terms of what they knew, they were right in surmising that it was all bad stuff.

This is, of course, not sufficient to prove a pro-homosexuality position. It merely leaves the possibility open that what God was really communicating here is a prohibition of specific acts, not homosexuality as a whole. It is because of this uncertainty that I have backed way off on my former position on the issue (which, many years ago, was more or less the same as your position now) and decided to give the benefit of the doubt. I have these discussions on many occasions with folks on the staunch anti-homosexuality side just to test it, and thus far I haven't seen any silver bullet that proves with certainty that it's an across-the-board prohibition. (Sorry. I know you've been trying and you probably just feel like I'm choosing to ignore the obvious. I'm honestly not.)

Claiming this is like claiming that God made us with natural urges and denying them is sin, so obviously there's nothing wrong with having sex before marriage.

I wouldn't equate one urge to all urges here. This is an over-simplification. I think it's clear from the Bible that humans do often gravitate toward urges that are unambiguously sinful. To that point, it may be silly to even discuss what urges are "natural", since "natural" does not necessarily equate to "given by God" - in other words, I wasn't created to be an alcoholic or a sex addict. I only used "natural" because the text used it. We may be confusing multiple meanings to which that word can be assigned (human nature vs. God's intended design).

But let's argue that God definitively created every human being to be heterosexual (aside from perhaps a few that He intended to be celibate, and I even those folks still have hormones). Perhaps the better question is not why some do have an urge toward the same sex, but rather why they don't have an urge toward the opposite sex. If that's what's natural, you'd think they'd feel it from the get-go, and not be struggling with sexual identity issues pretty much from the point of hitting puberty and realizing they have sexual feelings at all. The common Christian argument is that this is a perverted desire that comes as a consequence of rebellion, but looking at it empirically, we've got a lot of evidence to support the notion that some folks were always this way. (Which I know most conservative Christians reject out-of-hand, as is common when they don't like the things that science appears to be discovering. Most Church vs. Science fights throughout history have ended in way-belated apologies from the Church, so I'm trying not to jump to conclusions either way on this one.) I'm sure some of those folks who feel urges toward the same sex would love to significantly un-complicate their lives by simply focusing on their "natural" urge toward the opposite sex, but if it's not there in the first place and they can't conjure it up, how does one account for this? (Here is where Christians often hand-wave once again and surmise that there was sexual abuse in their childhood, etc. I think we've seen enough counterexamples where it's happened to kids with "perfectly normal" upbringings.)

The comparison between homosexuality and the sexual compulsions you mentioned is also a bit of an apple-and-orange situation. It is true that pretty much all of us heteros (at least the honest ones) do struggle with wanting some form of sexual intimacy with someone inappropriate (e.g. prostitution, pornography, promiscuity, etc.), or at an inappropriate juncture in our relationship with that person (e.g. premarital sex), or at the very least letting that lustful gaze linger a bit longer than it should. But I think for us, we can generally hold out hope for that experience to one day happen within its proper context. So it's an urge that can be channeled. If your urge is toward the same sex, that's just something you can never fulfill if you're to believe what the traditional view of the Bible says. That alone is not sufficient to prove that we're viewing it wrong... I'm just establishing that we're comparing things which don't equate here.

I don't mean to suggest at all that we should just give ourselves over to whatever urges feel right. Even if my hunches on the homosexuality issue turned out to be right, this is in no way related, nor does it give me license, to just let my heterosexual urges run rampant. You'd think I'd spend more of my effort trying to argue my way into letting myself get away with my hetero lust while coming down hard on the homos, rather than the other way around. But I know the cross that I have to bear as a heterosexual male, and it's just something I learn to work through as I go. I don't say "God made me this way" as an excuse. I know He did not. I know the difference between genuine love for, and attraction to, my wife, and the desire for a cheap thrill that I could get elsewhere.

it is equally troubling that many men--even those in the church who outwardly lead lives that give the appearance of spirituality--are addicted to pornography and masturbation and are unrepentant prisoners of the flesh.

I agree that it is troubling (though not all that surprising these days), but it's a separate issue. I can see why you would lump them into the same category, but I think we're working from separate premises here. Maybe this is the point where we should agree to disagree and not push it any further, since we're starting from things we believe to be axiomatic that we're not going to convince the other of any time soon.

[Vlad!]

I am willing to accept the offer of an armistice, but before we back off entirely I do think it's important to address one point you bring up above:

Perhaps the better question is not why some do have an urge toward the same sex, but rather why they don't have an urge toward the opposite sex.

I think this is a good and important question; if some people feel the same aversion to heterosexual activity that most do to homosexual, can one really be said to be more natural? If the argument is that there are individuals who forsook natural relations, we first have to establish a baseline for what constitutes natural.

If you work from the position that homosexual activity is a sin, I think you actually provide the answer for this question yourself above. Even in our relatively accepting society, it can be difficult to identify as a homosexual because there is persecution and alienation that comes with that--including from the Church, since if you take the stance that homosexuality is an identity and an orientation and not sinful, you will likely be ostracized at best and formally thrown on your ear at worst. Thus, if there was an easy out--if heterosexual relationships were as fulfilling and attractive as homosexual ones--then the natural inclination would be to resist the homosexual urges in favor of the heterosexual ones.

In other words, for homosexuality to even exist as we consider it today then it must necessarily involve a repudiation of heterosexual tendencies.

(It is perhaps worth noting that there is still homosexual activity of the sort that went on in the first century, where men who enjoy heterosexual relationships and activity also engage in homosexual activity on the side. Homosexual activity itself does not depend on the absence of heterosexual urges. However, homosexuality-as-identity does.)

This does not act as any sort of proof that homosexual behavior must be a sin. However, I feel that it at least provides a comfortable rebuttal to the argument that if heterosexual behavior really is natural, why do some people feel it to be profoundly unnatural. For the same reason that if chastity were easy there would be no fornicators. The devil knows his business.

[murlough23]

If you work from the position that homosexual activity is a sin, I think you actually provide the answer for this question yourself above.

Except that this makes your argument circular. You're starting with the thing you're trying to prove and working backward. I can't work from this position. I see how this makes the lack of heterosexual desire easily explainable as a deception of the enemy from your reference point, but the whole crux of this argument is that I'm not starting from that reference point.

And while it's true that Satan is a manipulative bastard, I think it's a bit too easy to just write off everything otherwise unexplainable as a con on his part. We sin because the sin looks more desirable than doing the right thing. Given all of the difficulties and persecution that one will likely run into even in our relatively tolerant society, as you so helpfully described, I can't see how choosing homo over hetero would look attractive at all, unless it was just that ingrained in the core of your being.

Thus, if there was an easy out--if heterosexual relationships were as fulfilling and attractive as homosexual ones--then the natural inclination would be to resist the homosexual urges in favor of the heterosexual ones.

Right. It would be one hell of a tall order to still sell that person on homosexuality if it were presented as a conscious choice between the two.

In other words, for homosexuality to even exist as we consider it today then it must necessarily involve a repudiation of heterosexual tendencies.

You seem to be arguing that heterosexuality is being consciously rejected, to the point where a relationship with the opposite sex is as a repulsive to that person as a relationship with the same sex would be to you or me. Rejecting the thing God designed you for leads you to a point where you're desensitized to what once came naturally. A leads to B. But where does "A" come from in the first place? What would cause you to do the initial rejecting, at some earlier point where you supposedly have things straight in your head and heterosexuality is your natural inclination? That's the leap that I can't make. People don't seem to cause this to happen to themselves, at least not initially.

This mirrors the passage about God giving them over to their lustful desires. OK, I can see how God would say, "You made your bed, now lie in it." But where'd they come from in the first place? We can't argue that God made them sin. That would make no sense, unless you take a hard-line Calvinist stance that states they were destined for condemnation from the get-go and that God did purposefully make them broken and irredeemable.

It is perhaps worth noting that there is still homosexual activity of the sort that went on in the first century, where men who enjoy heterosexual relationships and activity also engage in homosexual activity on the side. Homosexual activity itself does not depend on the absence of heterosexual urges.

Sure. There's bi-sexuality. (In which case I'd still expect monogamy - pick a person of either sex and stick with them, which was clearly not happening here.) Then there's experimenting just because you're curious. (Which is as bad as experimenting sexually with the same sex. Don't fool around outside of the marriage covenant.) There's just plain being horny and wanting to screw anything that moves. None of these things equate to the kind of homosexual relationships we're discussing in the here and now.

However, homosexuality-as-identity does.

That's the key. Actually identifying with this, to the point where you say, "I'm sure that I am solely attracted to members of the same sex, this is part of who I am and not just some wayward path that I chose to explore because I thought it was interesting." Not having a wife and then messing around with one or more guys on the side, not trying out both flavors just to see what they're like, but drawing a line in the sand and saying, "I am this and not that." While I'm willing to believe this may have existed in much less publicized forms throughout history, it doesn't seem to be the type of relationship that was commonly known and demonstrated within any of the cultures that the writers of the Bible had to deal with. Could they have known about such apparently rare cases? Maybe, but I have my doubts, and it seems difficult to prove this hunch right or wrong.

For the same reason that if chastity were easy there would be no fornicators.

Fornication is looked at as no big deal by most of "secular" society. Sounds like the prevailing attitude among the Greeks, Romans, and other assorted heathens back in the day was similar. In that sense, it's easier to just go with the flow - the Church will give you a slap on the hand for it, but will generally treat it as a temporary fall from grace unless you're a rampant womanizer or something. Even then, someone who does this doesn't get nearly the same level of utter rejection and condemnation that an otherwise chaste person who merely admits to having gay thoughts will probably get.

I'm not denying that all sin looks attractive. We are usually tricked into seeing the short-term benefits while not thinking about the long-term consequences. I just can't see so many people choosing folly to such a deeply ingrained point where they would risk being completely ostracized from their faith community. Some people do illogically choose extreme things, but the fact that this is happening more and more as people within the Church surprisingly come out of the closet, often facing pretty severe treatment from the crowd for it, seems to indicate that this runs a bit deeper than just something you give into in a moment of weakness such as a one-night stand or whatever. (That's not to say that if enough people do something, it makes it right... but I do find it hard to believe that, if this were all just folly and deception, that so many would cling to it so stubbornly, at the risk of their social standing, if not their careers or even their lives in some cases, after being outed. There generally comes a point where self-preservation kicks in.)

[Vlad!]

I was just saying that I didn't expect the argument to convince anyone who didn't already believe that all homosexual behavior is sinful. The point wasn't to prove a theorem from first principles, it was to provide an alternative explanation to a troubling question.

I just can't see so many people choosing folly to such a deeply ingrained point where they would risk being completely ostracized from their faith community

Really? You've never heard of pastors having an affair or stealing from the offering box? Even Judas, one of the disciples of the Son of God, chose to help himself from money earmarked for the poor, despite the fact that he risked the very same thing. We are not a rational people, much as we might try to delude ourselves. Again, if sin didn't look appealing, there would be no sin. If the fruit of the tree of knowledge had been pretty gross-looking and repulsive, things might have turned out differently.

Even then, someone who does this doesn't get nearly the same level of utter rejection and condemnation that an otherwise chaste person who merely admits to having gay thoughts will probably get.

Depends on the church; I have a good friend at mine who admits just that and who is treated no differently from a dude who admits to being tempted by heterosexual fantasies. It's not the thought that's sinful, it's the action. When the church tells people with homosexual desires that there's something so wrong with them they can't be a part of the body, it has done a far more reprehensible deed than any homosexual act. I realize that when I say something is obvious it may only be obvious to me and those who agree with me anyway, but hopefully this statement is if not universally obvious at least agreed-upon in this forum.

[murlough23]

BTW, I wanted to fully acknowledge that my "Why would somebody choose this?" argument is more of a feelings-based argument, and not something I'd expect to provide hardcore proof. It's an interesting discussion, but it probably only leads us to generalities and assumptions rather than provable truths. While I have alluded to science possibly backing this up, at this point it's still just a possibility. I have hunches and best guesses here, and all I'm really trying to illustrate is that I don't see the Bible directly refuting my working theory. I haven't seen enough hard evidence either way to sway me completely to one side. I'm leaning toward the side that I'd rather err on, if I'm going to err at all, because to me that seems to be the loving/understanding thing to do. This does not mean that I think your argument shows a lack of compassion or understanding or anything like that; I just can't consciously make those leaps with the evidence I've seen and live with myself for telling people those things as if I believed them to be the indisputable truth. (If faced with somebody who was completely in the "Gay is OK" camp, I'd probably approach with caution, wanting to give them the space to wrestle with the text on their own, but not wanting to come across as giving tacit, blanket approval if I myself wasn't sure I had an airtight argument to support it.)

You have defended your side with a healthy dose of level-headedness and careful thought - I may not agree with your conclusions, but I appreciate your willingness to discuss these points with civility rather than just to shut it down immediately with broad, derisive dismissal. That's the sort of thing that I usually get when attempting to broach this subject, and it's why I don't share my views on it except with people whom I really trust.

[murlough23]

Looks like we posted replies almost simultaneously.

I was just saying that I didn't expect the argument to convince anyone who didn't already believe that all homosexual behavior is sinful. The point wasn't to prove a theorem from first principles, it was to provide an alternative explanation to a troubling question.

Fair enough. As I stated above, I don't expect that line of thinking to prove anything either way, so I probably shouldn't have gone there.

Really? You've never heard of pastors having an affair or stealing from the offering box? Even Judas, one of the disciples of the Son of God, chose to help himself from money earmarked for the poor, despite the fact that he risked the very same thing.

I guess so, but these things are isolated and unbelievably foolhardy incidents that don't seem to be the kind of thing people commonly delude themselves into thinking they can get away with. We're not talking a sizeable portion of the population there. Everybody sins, everybody gives into temptation, but to continue doing something so bad for you as a blatant lifestyle choice when there are alternative options present? That's where I don't see much precedent.

We are not a rational people, much as we might try to delude ourselves. Again, if sin didn't look appealing, there would be no sin. If the fruit of the tree of knowledge had been pretty gross-looking and repulsive, things might have turned out differently.

While I realize not everyone will do this in the heat of the moment, a sin that you base your identity around has to be something that you choose in an ongoing fashion - not just a one-time slip-up. A guy having a makeout session or even a one-night stand with another guy is very, very different from a guy identifying as gay and continuing to pursue relationships with men in the clear light of day, for example.

The irony here is that a lot of these other sins - cheating on a spouse, stealing, etc. - have pretty clear consequences, or at least if you're caught. They're things that you either don't do because you don't want the trouble it brings, or if you're foolish enough to do them, you're probably aware in the back of your mind of the hurt it will likely bring upon you and/or the people you're violating. With homosexuality, aside from the even more reprehensible treatment a segment of the Church will give them (which we both agree is a troubling sin on the Church's part), there seem to be no "natural" consequences or people getting hurt. You're aware, if you're a gay Christian and choose to come out, that you can expect fellow Christians to sin against you, and for some folks, that might be enough to keep 'em in. But it's interesting that, aside from interpretations that insist, "God directly cursed these people or struck them down because they were homosexuals", we never really see the natural consequences of disobeying these supposed commands. Just about anything else the Bible tells us to do, I can see who is hurt (be it myself, another person, or the way that people view God) when I disobey. This makes me wonder if the Church continues to stubbornly persecute people because we are worried that they otherwise won't see any potential consequences for their actions.

(I realize that one could theoretically make the "it hurts nobody and has no apparent negative consequences" argument about something like a three-person marriage, or people consenting to be "friends with benefits", etc. So this isn't an airtight argument. Just something that adds on to the pile of reasons that make me think, "Hmmm, one of these things is not like the others.")

Depends on the church; I have a good friend at mine who admits just that and who is treated no differently from a dude who admits to being tempted by heterosexual fantasies. It's not the thought that's sinful, it's the action.

That's commendable. It's not common, I'm afraid. How would it play out if he acted on those homosexual fantasies?

When the church tells people with homosexual desires that there's something so wrong with them they can't be a part of the body, it has done a far more reprehensible deed than any homosexual act. I realize that when I say something is obvious it may only be obvious to me and those who agree with me anyway, but hopefully this statement is if not universally obvious at least agreed-upon in this forum.

Absolutely. That point far transcends the debate about the finer points of what the Bible is/isn't allowing. We should know better than to persecute fellow believers - we might need to take a stand and say we believe something is wrong at times, but this is not the same as cutting them off from the body. I feel like a lot of Christians acknowledge this in theory, but fail to do it in practice, because they're terrified of appearing to give the "other side" of a controversial issue even an inch.

Whether God is prohibiting homosexuality across the board or just illustrating that specific homosexual acts are reprehensible for the same reason that certain heterosexual acts are, my responsibility to love people is the same.

[Vlad!]

That's commendable. It's not common, I'm afraid. How would it play out if he acted on those homosexual fantasies?

A valid question, and I'm not sure I know the answer. I know personally I would love him as much as I already do. I'm sure there are people in the church who would react much more strongly than if he had done the same with a woman, but I think (or perhaps just hope) that they'd be well in the minority. I know that if any of them approached the leadership and said "this happened; kick him out", the elders and pastors would be more likely to toss the complainer out than my friend.

As for your other points, I'm mulling them...I don't really buy them, but I'm not sure that I have a response that's more worthwhile than rehashing what it's already obvious I believe.

[Silvah]

So reading through this and skimming some parts (there's only so many times I can trudge through the debates about greek words and homosexuality in Paul's times before I want to shoot myself), I wondered if anyone has read Rowan William's (Archbishop of the Church of Canterbury) The Body's Grace which, IMO, takes a much needed departure from the mainstream way of discussing homosexuality in the church and looks at what LGBT bodies have to teach to the body of Christ/the Church, about God's grace. It's really fascinating stuff and has shaped my thinking about sex and sexuality and bodies a lot.

Also, from there I think Eugene Rogers is another theologian who has done some really good work on sexuality, vocation, and LGBT bodies as a part of the body of Christ and situates the discussion inside understandings of Eucharist, Trinity, and Body (looking at your works cited page, Spacebrat, I see there's a good deal of that in your paper. Totally want to read Cavanaugh's Torture and Eucharist soon) and locates the purpose of sexuality in sanctification. He then discusses how LGBT bodies find sanctification in someone of the same and not opposite sex. It's all a lot deeper and more theological than that (and he does deal with Paul and other biblical arguments against homosexuality, but it's all a lot stronger theologically, I think, than most inclusive and reconciling arguments which I've usually found to be pretty weak), and I'm still making my way through his book "Sexuality and the Christian Body," but there are some essays of his available online that aren't dense (Marriage as a Discipline, An Argument for Gay Marriage). I feel these theologians are both finding ways of pushing the discussion (not this one in particular-- mainly the larger discussion in the church) into more fruitful and better theological waters.

[Vlad!]

Regarding the Body's Grace address, it's a somewhat long and wandering discourse, and I found that a lot of it addressed specific failings in the Catholic church rather than Christianity at large. However, here is the money quote relevant to this discussion:

In fact, of course, in a church which accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous texts, or on a problematic and non-scriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures. I suspect that a fuller exploration of the sexual metaphors of the Bible will have more to teach us about a theology and ethics of sexual desire than will the flat citation of isolated texts; and I hope other theologians will find this worth following up more fully than I can do here.

The thrust (if you pardon the double entendre) of his article seems that human desire is not only natural but illustrative of God's own desire for us. The relationships that we are intended for are designed to be relationships which fulfill our needs physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Thus, his reasoning goes, it is only "abstract fundamentalism" and "problematic non-scriptural theory" preventing us from sanctioning homosexual unions.

This reasoning is troublesome because it seems to suggest that our feelings and desires are indicators of God's intent for our lives. My question is: where does it stop? What about polyamory? Or pedophilia (which he mentions and casually dismisses)? Do we really want the rallying cry of the modern church to be "if it feels good, do it"? I find the naturalistic argument to be on shaky ground because in no case do I see Paul or other contemporary evangelists suggesting that our innate desire is necessarily the right one!

[spacebrat311]

The thrust (if you pardon the double entendre) of his article seems that human desire is not only natural but illustrative of God's own desire for us.

I haven't finished the article, but so far that doesn't seem to be the thrust at all, rather thankfully.

Also, thanks fr the recommendations, Silvah!

[Silvah]

Just a little bit about The Body's Grace: It was a speech transcribed and reprinted, so that could account for it's 'wandering' tone.

[Vlad!]

I haven't finished the article, but so far that doesn't seem to be the thrust at all, rather thankfully.

Once you have finished it, I would appreciate your insight on what his thesis is. I felt like he spent the first few paragraphs building up to this concept, which then was expressed first as a coherent thought thus:

But it is still grace, a filling of the void, an entry into some different kind of identity. There may be little love, even little generosity, in Clark's bedding of Sarah, but Sarah has discovered that her body can be the cause of happiness to her and to another.  It is this discovery which most clearly shows why we might want to talk about grace here.  Grace, for the Christian believer, is a transformation that depends in large part on knowing yourself to be seen in a certain way: as significant, as wanted.

The whole story of creation, incarnation and our incorporation into the fellowship of Christ's body tells us that God desires us, as if we were God, as if we were that unconditional response to God's giving that God's self makes in the life of the trinity. We are created so that we may be caught up in this; so that we may grow into the wholehearted love of God by learning that God loves us as God loves God.

[spacebrat311]

I think that the way Rowan is using language of 'desire' here really defies the characterization of grace in terms of what we want. In fact, it seems that Williams wants to turn this language on its head—that grace may have something to do with finding oneself desired—much like the divine Yes! that Barth speaks of as pronounced over human activity in spite of the No that that activity can only bring upon itself in its humanity. Thus, the way in which grace has to do with desire, for Williams, seems to have its impetus not on the human side of that equation.

Williams reminds me of Stanley Hauerwas here a bit, as he finds both sides of the traditional argument on this subject to be operating from a distinctly anti-theological basis, and states that any forward movement in discussion can only come as the very nature of the discussion shifts completely. Both only seem to hint at such a way forward, as they seem more concerned with indicating how impossible the state of current discourse makes such a way.

[Vlad!]

I don't know...he states that discovering the "Body's Grace" involves finding oneself to be desired, but it doesn't seem like he would use the Isaiah analogy if he wasn't trying to draw comparisons between our desire for one-another and God's desire for us.

The problem with Rowan trying to lead the way to a new way of looking at the concept is that his Catholic background seems to lead him to a place where one can make supra-scriptural arguments about theology. I'm sure my bias is showing since my beliefs fall much more on the sola scriptura side of the fence, but I can't help but see his talk as being an attempt at rationalizing his way out of a teaching he disagrees with. While reason has its place--I'm sure some of the most abhorrent abuses of religion stemmed from someone reading the Bible with his brain turned off--I feel like it requires more than just reason to refute a teaching which is if not crystal clear at least a reasonably straightforward extrapolation from the Biblical text.

He urges a fuller exploration of the sexual metaphors in the Bible as a more productive path than "the flat citation of isolated texts", but I have difficulty understanding how developing these metaphors could result in an increased understanding of the homosexuality issue. The only argument he seems to make to address this difficulty is the one I mentioned earlier, that since the Bible uses sexual metaphor laced with the concept of desire to explain the occasionally paradoxical relationship between God and man we should assume that the presence of desire indicates a divine sanction of sorts. The implication--and here I'm reading between the lines, so I want to chew on it a bit more before committing fully to this thought--seems to be that trying to "fix" individuals experiencing homosexual urges is to rob them of their Body's Grace by labeling their desire as taboo. As stated above, I find this to be a profoundly troubling assertion, if it is indeed the assertion that he is making.

[Silvah]

I think it is important to understand this speech as a very bodily oriented way in which Williams speaks of Grace. It's not just the idea of desire here, but desire in the body (and more particularly in Gay and Lesbian bodies), the body that is the person and not something outside or separate from the soul that is saved. Grace, then, as transformative of actual bodies works in a unique way in Gay and Lesbian bodies. The Church is confronted with the end of sexuality in itself in a way that heterosexual couples don't reveal. Thus, the difference of same sex couples, particularly the inability to procreate children is not a perversion or unnatural, it's an opportunity to see God's grace as a procreation of joy and delight in the very bodies of the believers, and Gay and Lesbian couples become a sign of God's working in the world in a way that enhances the Church community and their own movement towards sanctification through relationship with one another's bodies. I think, as Williams points out, the recognition of the sign Gay and Lesbian bodies become to the Church helps us from falling into a lazy and abstract theological understanding of sexuality and what it is for.

Decisions about sexual lifestyle, the ability to identify certain patterns as sterile, undeveloped or even corrupt, are, in this light, decisions about what we want our bodily life to say, how our bodies are to be brought in to the whole project of "making human sense" for ourselves and each other.

To be able to make such decisions is important: a conventional (heterosexual) morality simply absolves us from the difficulties we might meet in doing so.  The question of human meaning is not raised, we are not helped to see what part sexuality plays in our learning to be human with one another, to enter the body's grace, because all we need to know is that sexual activity is licensed in one context and in no other.  Not surprising, then, if the reaction is often either, It doesn't matter what I do [say] with my body, because it's my inner life and emotions that matter" or, "The only criterion is what gives pleasure and does no damage". Both of those responses are really to give up on the human seriousness of all this.

Williams, then, is wholeheartedly opposed to your reading, Vlad, that because something feels good it should be done. Rather, he points to Gay and Lesbian bodies as signs of the serious nature of the body and sexuality and the meaning of knowing and desiring another's body as a means of communicating the self and through self, something about who God is and how God moves in our bodies (I like to think of Eucharist here. The knowledge and desire to participate in Eucharist. Christ's communication of himself through the sacrament). It seems to me that Williams assertions emphasize just how sacred the body is instead of diminishing that. Also, (and I have evolving views on polyamory so I won't touch on that) in my eyes Williams addresses fairly well why something like pedophilia is wrong.

Nagel makes, in passing, a number of interesting observations on sexual encounters that either allow no "exposed spontaneity" (p 50) because they are bound to specific methods of sexual arousal - like sadomasochism - or permit only a limited awareness of the embodiment of the other (p 49) because there is an unbalance in the relation such that the desire of the other for me is irrelevant or minimal - rape, paedophilia, bestiality. These "asymmetrical" sexual practices have some claim to be called perverse in that they leave one agent in effective control of the situation - one agent, that is, who doesn't have to wait upon the desire of the other.

The italics are mine, and they highlight the importance of seeing this as a theology not abstracted from actual human bodies. The Grace and desire Williams communicates as being found in the body of the other comes through the awareness that:

My arousal is not only my business: I need its cause to know about it, to recognise it, for it to be anything more than a passing chance. So my desire, if it is going to be sustained and developed, must itself be perceived; and, if it is to develop as it naturally tends to, it must be perceived as desirable by the other - that is my arousal and desire must become the cause of someone else's desire (there is an echo here of St Augustine's remarkable idea that what love loves is loving, but that's another story).So for my desire to persist and have some hope of fulfilment, it must be exposed to the risks of being seen by its object.

Thus, in a pedophiliac's sexual encounter, the arousal and desire is turned back in on the self, taking advantage of another's body for the indulgence of one's own desire. There is the imbalance of power and knowledge that would allow the two bodies to know each other and encounter a larger awareness of each other and God, for the one body is not interested in the other except as a means of attaining pleasure for the self in isolation from the care of the other's body. There is the inability in pedophiliac's sexual encounter for there to be a relationship with the other that has to do with the mutual enjoyment of each other's bodies. There is not the recognition of one's arousal being relational but instead the sexual encounter becomes predicated on domination of another's body. I think you would have to stretch William's words mighty far to find an argument for sexual abuse.

William's work (and he notes as much occasionally) also has at it's foundation a lot of feminist theology about the body and it's makeup and it's real value and importance in theology. The body's desires and feelings are often as reasoned and intelligent as creeds, they're just expressed differently.

[Vlad!]

I think his discussion about pedophilia only addresses half the equation; embodied in our cultural mores is the idea that there is a range of ages where an individual might consent to and even desire sexual contact but may not have the prudence or understanding to make correct decisions in this area. I feel like the mutuality he extols could be achieved in contexts which are at best morally questionable and at worst ethically reprehensible.

I feel that passages such as Romans 7 provide adequate refutation to the idea that the body of a saved Christian is sanctified in its desires. It's an appealing doctrine, but many false doctrines are.

[spacebrat311]

I feel that passages such as Romans 7 provide adequate refutation to the idea that the body of a saved Christian is sanctified in its desires. It's an appealing doctrine, but many false doctrines are.

But, in the way that you are using these terms, that is exactly what Willams is not saying.

[Silvah]

I feel that passages such as Romans 7 provide adequate refutation to the idea that the body of a saved Christian is sanctified in its desires.

Only if you think of sanctification as a static event that happens and is done. But throughout Roman's Paul speaks of the sanctification of the believer's baptized bodies as a process of cooperation with the Holy Spirit, the reign of the Spirit being something I think all bodies are capable of participating in, not just heterosexual bodies. It seems that only if one ignores other areas of Paul where he speaks to grace transforming baptized believers does Romans 7 read as a refutation of grace working to sanctify believer's desires (he speaks of the transformative grace in Romans 6). Furthermore, association of desire as something solely "fleshly" instead of God given seems to be embedded in your reading of Romans. I don't think it can be said that Romans, Paul, or the bible don't present holy and righteous desire as very good (Song of Solomon comes to mind right off the bat) and sanctifying. I think it's a mistake to say that our bodies and their desires are somehow outside of Christ's salvific work. In fact, I'd say that's leaning towards gnosticism. And not only that, it seems to lean towards a very dull and legalistic sexuality instead of the dynamic, relational, and sacred gift that it is.

[Vlad!]

OK, well, maybe you people need to get together on your own time and work on your messaging, then. Silvah is telling me that Williams is referencing "...desire in the body...the body that is the person and not something outside or separate from the soul that is saved.". If this sentence is to be interpreted as saying anything useful at all with respect to this conversation, it has to be interpreted as pertaining to heterosexual versus homosexual desire and how both are equally indicative of the same grace. I fail to see how, when interpreted thus, the way I am using these terms is in any way contrary to Williams' message.

Silvah, if you think I'm saying that desire is something wholly fleshly rather than God-given, you're reading something into my writing that isn't there. Much of Williams' message is directed at the (predominantly Catholic) idea that there is something intrinsically wrong with enjoying our own sexuality for its own sake, and I applaud this approach. However, I think it's very possible to take this message too far and justify too much. Could the same rhetoric, for example, not be used in support of an extramarital affair?

When I read the writings of Paul regarding salvation and sanctification, I see a definitive change, a passing over from old to new. There is no part of our life--from our physical bodies to our thoughts and actions to even how we use our time and resources--which is not given over to God. However, I don't see sanctification as meaning that you keep doing what you did before but now it's holy.

I think that you're ascribing to me beliefs that I don't actually hold. I'm not saying that sexuality is dirty or worldly or needs to be hidden or anything like that. However, I also think that it's troublesome to say that desire--in any sense of that word--is necessarily God-given and worthy of being acted upon.

[murlough23]

However, I think it's very possible to take this message too far and justify too much. Could the same rhetoric, for example, not be used in support of an extramarital affair?

Just because something like that can be taken too far isn't sufficient in and of itself to disprove the argument. I've often heard it said that we can't use such arguments to support homosexuality, because then, what's to stop three people from being in a sexual relationship together, and pedophilia, and all that. It assumes that the argument is being made in a vacuum, that these other behaviors are not separately addressed (or implicitly forbidden) for other reasons in other texts, and that people are just seeking to justify any old behavior they want. It's a bit of a straw man setup.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not a fan of "slippery slope" arguments. Let's give people some credit for trying to seek out the truth rather than just manipulating things to make anything true that they want to be true.

[Vlad!]

Murlough, you have to consider the context. It's one thing to say "I can't accept the idea of church-sanctioned homosexual marriage because that opens the door to other things I don't agree with", and it's another thing to say "this argument is invalid because not only does it support homosexuality, it also supports other things that we know to be false". It's an argument by counterexample:
* Assume A
* If A, then B
* We know that B is false
* Contradiction; if B is false then A must also be false (the contrapositive)

[murlough23]

* If A, then B

The problem here is that someone else is saying "If A, then C", and you're assuming that also means "If A, then B". That has to be shown. We can't just take for granted that A leads to both things.

What's really happening here is:

* Assume A
* If A, then C
* If A and not D, then B
* B is false
* Therefore, either A is false or D is true

"D" in this case is some other condition explaining why something like a menage a trois or pedohpilia or other "natural" urge is forbidden to be satisfied. My conjecture is that such a thing exists, that the Bible deals with this elsewhere. A being true does not nullify all other things that we're told not to do.

To put it another way, this argument allowing homosexuality doesn't also mean it works to allow any other sin you can name that has been addressed as a sin for separately stated reasons elsewhere. It doesn't allow pedophilia any more than it allows murder.

[Vlad!]

It seems that talking in the abstract has clouded the issue. To use terms of formal logic, by defining your first predicate (If A, then C) without referencing D but then defining your second in terms of D, you are begging the question. I will explain why below.

Let's say that someone said "God made me, which means he made my sexual desire, which means that having sex with anything I desire must be from God" (I'm not characterizing anyone's argument thus, but by making a straw man here I can illustrate my point).

Assume that this is true.
If this is true, it must mean that committing adultery is from God.
We know from the Bible that committing adultery is not from God.
This gives us a contradiction, so our premise must be invalid.

So now let's look at an actual argument made in this thread: that sanctification applies to the entire self, and that one cannot separate the innate desires from the self, so these desires have also been sanctified [1]. We will call this premise A.

If A is true, then it must necessarily be true that if I am naturally inclined to a certain activity and thus I can make the argument that this activity is part of my sanctified nature. I will restrict this argument to activities which are sexual in nature because sexuality is at the core of this discussion. I will choose an extramarital affair with the consent of the wife as my example, because I feel like it's the least controversial of the several at my disposal. "An extramarital affair with the consent of all parties is sanctified by God" we will call B.

Let's look at "If A then B".

If A is true, the argument seems to exist that if my needs and desires are not being met within the confines of my marriage, I'm not doing anything wrong by fulfilling those desires outside of marriage, so long as it doesn't hurt my wife. However, I don't really see much in the way of Biblical support for this conclusion.

Let's call "conclusion contradicts Biblical teaching" as D.

We note that the predicate "If A then B" is false by D. I chose to represent this as "We know that B is false" and leave the D to be implied, but let's look at how murlough formulates it:
If A and not D, then B.

This is true. We cannot assume that B is false (because it is already assumed to be true). Therefore, the discussion is around whether or not B contradicts the Bible.

Now let's look at homosexual behavior; call it H.

If A and not D then H.

Well, we've asserted that H is true. So the only discussion is around "not D". In other words, even though Williams decried the way that current discourse was going as unproductive, we've gotten back to our current discourse, i.e. back to "is homosexual behavior OK by the Bible".

I'm sorry that this post wound up being both long and undoubtedly quite boring for most spectators (and possibly most participants as well). However, I think in addition to showing the difference between my argument and the slippery slope argument it also reveals an important point about Williams' claims: that even though his ostensible goal is to lead the conversation on this topic in a different direction, it's hard to get away from the question "what does the Bible say on the issue".

[1] Every time I try to characterize this argument I get criticisms, either by someone apparently reading my mind and telling me that the way I'm trying to use a word is different from the way he's trying to use a word or by someone telling me that I'm not understanding the argument in question and then restating the argument in a way that seems functionally identical to the way I stated it myself. I tried to be extra-careful this time, but I'm sure either Silvah or spacebrat will chime in to tell me that I'm getting something wrong.

[Silvah]

Hmm, I feel like you've taken what I mean by sanctification of one's desires to mean I can do anything I want and it's holy. Which is not what I mean or William's means. What I'm trying to say about desire is that it is for the purpose of our sanctification, but, of course, it must be rightly ordered and under the reign of the Spirit. I think, then, you are assuming homosexuality to be disordered inherently (correct me if I'm wrong), which Williams does not. So for you, the sanctification of desire would be one submitting desire for the same sex to Christ and not acting upon homosexual attractions. What I think Williams does in TBG, is start from the point of sexuality as a good purposed for sanctification and look at the ways in which sexual desire in homosexuals can be ordered towards experiencing and revealing God's Grace uniquely. This is not to say that all sex is good sex, or that all homosexual sex is good, just as all heterosexual sex is good. Rather, the argument seems to be that sex between people of the same sex can be good, because one can experience God's grace through it and come to see how God loves and desires the person, seeking to take them up into community with God's self. It is, then, God's desire that is the example of how we should desire one sexually. That is in making the self a gift to the other. Does this help clarify where I'm coming from/think Williams is coming from?

[spacebrat311]

I wish I had read Williams' speech before writing my paper. I don't think it would have significantly changed my approach, but it would have made a very helpful conversational partner, especially for my third section.

[Vlad!]

No, I don't think you're interpreting my interpretation correctly. I understand that Williams isn't giving total license to give in to our feelings.

Traditional Catholic teaching is much more along the lines of "all your desires are bad, and you must overcome them". Williams spends a lot of time explaining why this is not the case. For example, the official Catholic stance is that the purpose of sex is babies, and having sex for pleasure is sinful. When read through that lens, I think we see that the majority of Williams' words are aimed at this doctrine, explaining that desire is not inherently sinful. However, many of us who follow Protestant doctrine don't have to be convinced of this, which is where I'm at. Not all bodily desires are inherently sinful; in fact, temptation (even homosexual urges) are not inherently sinful. After all, we see that Jesus was tempted, and he was without sin.

Where Williams goes astray is in trying to lead the discussion in a new direction. Although I share his frustration that talking about Greek words for homosexual behavior and theorizing about what the church fathers would say regarding an issue is unproductive, I'm not sure that someone can read the Bible and then honestly start from a position that homosexual behavior is OK. Obviously by playing some semantic tricks and tilting your lens of interpretation the right way it's possible to arrive at that conclusion, but I feel like in order to make the case in a way that convinces most Christians, the argument has to be Biblically based and has to adequately explain why the passages which condemn homosexual behavior do not, in fact, apply. If he wants to move away from this area then he will fall into the trap I tried to outline above of begging the question by assuming that homosexuality is OK by the Bible when that's really what we need to prove.

[Silvah]

I'm not so sure the burden of proof lies on the side of those who would legitimize same-sex couples, particularly when one looks at the trend Christians have had of using scripture to condemn whole groups of people (women, slaves, blacks, Jews, gays and lesbians) as Eugene Rogers characterizes the argument, who house "a natural difference, innocent in itself, which nevertheless tends toward a moral defect". Forgive me as I quote him at some length, but I think he brings up points worth thinking about in regards to what is natural and unnatural when one looks at how the God of Israel has worked throughout history.

In the standard argument, therefore, a religious objection to equality for Gentiles, Jews, women, blacks, or gays in religion or society can claim to be based not on mere prejudice, but on the disfavored group's characteristic but freely chosen behavior, which does constitute a moral fault. . . . Sexual restrictions can therefore claim to protect both the religious and labile group. Thus Jews might not marry Gentiles, Christians might not marry Jews, blacks (until 1967 in Virginia) might not marry whites-or indeed, when slaves, legally marry each other. . . .

Nature and morality come together, as they did in the defense of slavery. . . . In the standard argument, women are called to childrearing, blacks to service, gay and lesbian people to celibacy, in each case as a group, whether the particulars to which God usually attends indicate that vocation, or not.

And then in looking at Romans passage, and the idea of homosexuality being "contrary to nature", Rogers locates the conversation about homosexuality in a larger look at the working on Nature and Grace and Romans:

Not only do I propose that the standard argument has been unjustly used so often, that the burden of proof must shift. I propose that God's providential order of salvation specifically overturns the standard argument.
"Rabbinic sources actively associate homoerotic intercourse with Gentiles" and the proclivity toward it as an "inherent characteristic." Indeed, to understand the theology of the claim we have to understand not only that God pours out the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles without requiring that they be circumcised or keep Torah. . . . "Gentiles, like women, are portrayed by the rabbis as totally lacking the ability to control themselves." Just as the rabbi Paul in Romans 1:23-7 associates Gentile lack of control. We also have to understand the famous "contrary to nature" passages in Romans. Against certain liberals, I argue that Christians may not simply cast out that passage. Against conservatives, I argue that they must not take it too narrowly. They must take it in the context of the letter as a whole, that is, in the context of Paul's preoccupation with Jews and Gentiles. That preoccupation is, for Paul, both the primary issue about God and the body, and the primary issue in eschatology. All of Paul's reflections on sex--including his rhetorical stereotyping of the Gentiles in Romans 1 as prone to homosexual activity--are informed by his conviction that since God is now calling in the Gentiles, the end is now taking place.
For the church to understand sex, it must lose a sense of entitlement and recover a sense of grace. For that reason it is crucially necessary for the Church to acknowledge its overwhelmingly Gentile nature. For only thus will it come to lose its sense of entitlement and appreciate appropriately the grace of the God of Israel

He then goes on to discuss how God takes on characteristics of the Gentiles, acting "contrary to nature", with excessive grace in bringing them into the community of God:

Gentiles, even Gentile Christians are not God's first love. . . . Gentiles are so foreign to the God of Israel that Paul can say that God acts "contrary to nature" para phusin [Romans 11:24], in grafting them in. . . . Both the first and second para phusin have to do specifically with Gentiles. The first use, like the second, distinguishes not a modern class of people, homosexuals, but a biblical class of people, Gentiles, and distinguishes them not from heterosexuals, but from Jews. in Romans 1 Paul let his readers regard same-sex sexual activity as a characteristically Gentile sin of excess, one that they could temporarily pride themselves in avoiding until chapter 2 comes in with what Richard Hays has called Paul's "rhetorical sting operation," according to which Jews turn out also to be without excuse. . . . Paul sees the activity that Characterizes God, like the activity that characterizes the Gentiles, as excessive, profligate, prodigal.

The sting is this: in saving the Gentiles, God shows solidarity with something of their nature, the very feature that had led the Jew Paul to distinguish himself from them: their excessive sexuality. . . . It has become natural that God should love God's natural children, that is, the children of God's covenant with Israel. What has become natural is that the domestic olive--the olive of the household and economy of God--should bear domestic fruit. And yet God loves also the Gentiles: wild olives, adopted desires in excess of nature, para phusin. . . . God saves the Gentiles by adapting to God's own purposes that apparently most offensive Gentile characteristic. Just as God saved flesh by taking it on and defeated death by dying, here God saves those who act in excess of nature by an act in excess of nature. Gentile christians owe their salvation to God's unnatural act. That is how much grace it is. . . .

Paul's baptismal formula requires openness to the work of the Holy Spirit in overturning the frequent religious arguments by which natural or apparently natural distinctions, such as those between Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, men and women are judged to depend upon sexual lability. If so, then the community of the baptized must be open to the possibility that the Holy Spirit is able to pour out holiness also on gay and lesbian couples, without erasing the distinction between gay and straight, as the Holy Spirit rendered the Gentiles holy without circumcision and keeping Torah.