It was previously shown that Romans a could not be referring to homosexuals in general, for that would commit us to the absurd positions that a) all manifestations of homosexuality and same-sex behavior are punishment for the sin of literal idol worship, and b) all homosexuals are guilty of hating God, disobeying parents, and 20 other nasty character qualities. Anyone with the least bit of seriousness in their thought-life knows that both a & b are false. On the other hand, if we assume that Paul is speaking of the Aphrodite-worshipping Corinthians, this passage makes perfect sense (see February 16 post).
But one question still remains – despite the context of the passage, it seems that Paul goes on to condemn all homosexuality and same-sex activity in vv. 26-27. Perhaps it was not his intended target, but he does seemingly call same-sex lust “shameful”, “unnatural”, and “indecent”. Doesn’t this amount to a condemnation of homosexuality?
The answer is “no”, and the reason is that despite appearances, vv. 26-27 simply cannot be lifted out of their proper context. The question is, why are the activities and dispositions given in those verses wrong? Are they wrong because they are homosexual, or are they wrong because they are unnatural? This doesn’t seem like much of a difference, perhaps, but it makes all the difference in the world. If we have read the passage thus far as if Paul intended to condemn all homosexuality, then vv. 26-27 seem to be merely more of the same. But if we think that the perverted Corinthian worshippers are the object of wrath here, then we must wonder what is being condemned. Could it not be that they are doing some actions which are against their own nature, and hence are indecent and shameful? These actions are indeed homosexual, but only incidentally so. That is, the homosexual aspect of them is not what is being condemned. The problem with that particular manifestation of homosexual activity, then, is not that it is homosexual activity, but that it is a violation of their own nature that God had given them. That is, their homosexuality is not condemned as homosexuality, but as an unnatural act.
This amounts to asserting that some forms of homosexuality are indeed “natural”. This opens up an argument, because some conservatives still insist that homosexuality is not the result of nature but of a voluntary choice made on the part of the homosexual. I consider this position to be formed without enough experience (i.e. homophobic), but for the incredulous conservative, I will offer another piece of evidence.
In the back of the mind of the conservative, the idea that God would not make anyone homosexual in nature or disposition is motivated by the desire to “rescue” God from wrong-doing. That is, being gay is just so horrible as it seems to the conservative, that God could not possibly be guilty of creating someone with this disposition. It must be that the individual chose his or her own fate. But that just doesn’t square with the facts. We know that there are “intersex” individuals, sometimes called “hermaphrodites”, born with both sets of genitalia. By some counts, there are 50,00 of these individuals in the U.S alone. Even though we must admit that this is not the ideal of nature, we must also acknowledge that this just happens sometimes, and that it is not any one person’s fault. We must let go of this notion that nature only produces males with a masculine nature and desires and females with a feminine nature and desires. This position is not grounded in Scripture, and it is not true.
In summary, I am claiming that a reading of Romans 1:26-27 without any pre-formed assumptions is that the homosexual activity of these people is condemned as “unnatural”, indecent”, and “shameful” because they all had heterosexual natures, and flipped genders in order to engage is these orgy worship services. But this condemnation says nothing about homosexuals who did not choose or create their own homosexual disposition.
