Romans 1:17-32: Not a Condemnation of Gay People

Hi, jf12 (RE: Jun 23, 2011 at 23:22)--

Regarding Romans 1:17-32:

I’ve not made idols, “like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” I’ve never had a woman; hence, she couldn’t “change the natural use into that which is against nature”.

Covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murderousness, deceitfulness, despitefulness, backbiting, inventing evil things, disobedience to parents, arrogance, boastfulness aren’t my style.

I’m “argumentative” and “whisper,” but only when necessary. Clearly, I do “retain God in [my] knowledge” as is evidenced in my comments.

Verse 27 says “likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman…” The Greek word for “leaving,” “ἀφέντες,” is in the active voice. It expresses the subject’s active, volitional agency in “doing” an action. Because I NEVER was attracted to women, it was logically impossible for me to have left their “use,” as Paul so romantically puts it.

I don’t burn in lust toward other men (the verse is very “plural” specific); I have eyes only for my true love and life partner.

Whatever it might say, Romans 1:17-32 doesn’t condemn Gay people. Given that, and the christianists’ contention sexual relations are permissible only within marriage, it’s all the more reason why the passage should not be used as a pretext to deny civil marriage to same-sex couples.

--ez duz it Copyright © 24 June 2011