Just to show you how different our parties are, we of the LP also regard Romans 1 as the clincher.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

The topic is about idol-worshippers

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

The subjects did not worship God

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Men and women who clearly COULD HAVE ENJOYED the "natural use" of the opposite sex had they not been idolaters "abandoned" that use (turned against it through an act of free will) and burned in ? love? no, there is no love here, is there?

What does this description best match, the loving gay relations of men who could never have enjoyed the "natural use of the woman" anyways?...

--OR --

the purely lustful surrogate relations of those who are turning to their own sex purely as a sexual entertainment in a society where loving relationships have been devalued?

Clearly the latter is a much better fit. Think about it.

What is a "natural use" by the way? (a whole book could be written about Paul's usage of "nature.")

compare Romans 11:24
"For if you were cut out of a field olive-tree, and against the natural use were united to a good olive-tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be united again with the olive-tree which was theirs?"

God's pre-ordained all-encompassing universal plan for olive grafting? Or an expression meaning, essentially, "contrary to common sense or sensible ordinary practice."

"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him" (I Cor 11:14)

Haircuts, farming activities, and sexual practices, all conforming or not conforming to some definition of "nature": is it the fundamental design of the cosmos, or merely what seems sensibly appropriate? Clearly the latter, I would argue, as have many previous authors I would rank among the LP, so that the standard evoked here is what's sensible. Well, clearly it is not sensible for straight men to defile their marriages by going out and getting some young male ass for recreation (surrogacy), but neither is it sensible for gay men to mislead women into thinking they are straight and then becoming botched and false husbands, all the while ignoring the real potential love partners whom the Lord has provided for them and who need them.


28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

You are here given the means to actually recognize who this whole Romans 1 passage applies to because all the people involved are greedy, violent, disrespectful, and (look at that word!!!!):

UNLOVING !!!

This Romans 1 passage is EXPLICITLY, IN ITS OWN WORDING, NOT ABOUT LOVING PEOPLE IN LOVING RELATIONSHIPS!!!!

It CANNOT apply to gay loving relationships. They simply DO NOT MATCH THE DESCRIPTION AT ALL. Now do you understand why so many people who know some gay partner find that they CANNOT apply this passage to gay relationships?



Lord, let the scales fall and not just my tears.