The Bible says Jesus authorised Paul as apostle to speak for him and produce scripture for the Church and that the two were frequently in touch and the apostles accepted his revelations even if they did at times wonder about his personal claims.  Divine inspiration involves God educating a person or speaking to them directly.  Paul talks about homosexuality as if he investigated it with God's help and came to certain conclusions.  It is Christian teaching that God can inspire and direct a prophet or apostle through him doing his homework.  It is a fact that you don't have to be Christian or religious to think that homosexuality is unnatural and that it leads to unhappiness and promiscuity.  In fact not all homosexuals think homosexuality is good and they approach it with caution.

Let us study Romans 1:18-32 where Paul condemns homosexuality as extreme depravity.

Romans 1 is often dismissed by "Christian" gay activists.  Though Paul is talking about sin they lie that he means not sin but cultural rules.  So his saying homosexuality is wrong only means it is wrong in his culture.  That is absurd for pagan culture did accept homosexuality and he goes back to Genesis about the complementarity of male and female relations in marriage.  He goes back to Genesis as a sexual model for the whole human race for that book covers how all people on earth began.  There is no mention of culture or cultural mores in the text.  It is about morality.

Paul refers to the same Genesis text as Jesus did when Jesus said marriage was between one man and one woman.  That alone shows Jesus was not accepting of gay sexual activity.

Like addicts the "Christian" activists do not give up.  The text is even distorted by gay activists for political reasons to make it seem like it does not condemn committed loving gay relationships but only lustful ones.  Then why not condemn lustful relations instead of being pointed and just mentioning gay ones?  The arguments that it refers to temple same sex prostitution or lustful abuse of others of the same sex are far-fetched speculation.  Oddly enough despite his mentioning of desire for the same sex, some argue he refers to people who are straight but act gay for some reason.  If homosexuality is not inherently bad then how can playing gay be that bad?

Incredibly some say the text does not say homosexuality is wrong but is a punishment for sin!  Surely that is hinting it is wrong for God makes the punishment fit the crime?

None of that is in the text.

Let the words mean what they say.

The reality is that there always have been gay people who claimed they were born that way and couldn't change.  The modern gay is not a new thing.  We cannot pretend that Paul didn't meet people who said they had a dominant or exclusive attraction for the same sex.  There is no room for saying he is not thinking of gays and how they are today.  He is.

Paul declared elsewhere that it was best to be single and unmarried though he that married did not do wrong in doing so for it is better to marry than to burn with passion and fall into sin. The single life leaves one free to serve the Lord better and spread the gospel. When Paul discouraged marriage and by implication from what he said about needing marriage to avoid sexual sin he did not regard masturbation as a solution either so it was a sin too. When you have to marry to avoid sexual sin if your passions are strong and you can’t masturbate it is clear you cannot have sex outside of marriage even if it is homosexual sex. If Paul had allowed homosexuality he would have allowed gay marriage.
Back to Romans.
First he says that it is because people reject God who has made his existence clear enough to all and hate his laws and are selfish that he abandoned them to sinful lusts. He teaches the doctrine of many that people are homosexual because of sin and God abandons them to these evil feelings. “God abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one. And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze with lust for one another – men committing shameful acts with me and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong doing and going astray, which was their fitting retribution” (Romans 1:26,27).  Some translate it as due penalty.  He says God delivered them up to disgraceful passions meaning homosexuals are a disgrace and we should be ashamed to have them in our midst. Then he says the women gave up natural sex for unnatural and the men did the same and burned with lust for one another.

Paul's wording that GOD gave the men with men and women with women sinful desires seems to reflect the "God made me LGBT" line you hear today. And he says they degraded their bodies with one another.  Here he says that the act is forbidden.  Loving or not, it is objectively the misuse of the body of another.

Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version of the Bible follows the most ancient existing copy of the text of Romans 1:32 which is among the Chester Beatty papyri. It tells us the right text is, “Those who do these things are hated by God. And not just those who perform them but those who approve them.”  This is a text that clearly says that certain sin, homosexuality as in sex acts, and giving any level of approval to them makes God hate you.  It is no wonder so many try to distort it.
Paul stated that men burned with lust for men and women gave up sex for unnatural sex.  “men did shameful things with men and received in their bodies the penalty of their perversity”.
What is this penalty?
Some say that since he says after that that God delivered them up to further evils like hatred and disloyalty that this deepening depravity is the penalty. Others say it is the death they deserve which he mentions in the last verse. But the answer is in the sentence itself. The answer is that the degradation of gay sex is the penalty for it is so shameful. Since it is the sex it is the desire to have this sex too so homosexuality, in practice and in orientation, is regarded as a punishment for sin. Now the pagans he had in mind flaunted their sin and people looked up to them for it. So Paul means they know deep down that what they are doing is wrong for God has implanted this knowledge in them. He is saying that it is impossible to let yourself have any gay pleasures or dirty gay fantasies without being a terrible sinner. This tells us that straights who make themselves do gay things are not who he has in mind for they like those who think they were born gay both feel that this is natural for them. To those gay people who would say that they have no sense in them that being gay or having gay sex is wrong the Bible God would say, “Then you are so sinful that you can’t see the truth. You are the most godless of the godless”. There is no doubt that homosexuals are being accused of one of the worst possible sins: stubborn hatred of what is right and self-inflicted blindness.
Paul is also indicating that the homosexual orientation itself is a penalty for he said in the next sentence that the men did not obey God and so they were abandoned to their lusts. So if you are gay it is your own fault for it is a punishment for sin.
Paul says that gays deserve to die. That means that when a gay man dies of AIDS it is less than what he deserves. It was Paul who should have died. The Humanist position is that no matter what you do you never deserve to die for life is the absolute value. There is real hatred in Paul’s theology and in the God who was allegedly writing these letters in unison with him.
Some surmise that Paul condemned heterosexuals forcing themselves to be like homosexuals in Romans 1 but not real homosexuals. They want to suggest that Paul didn’t mind real homosexuals doing stuff which is totally off the mark for Christianity was clear from the start that homosexuality was bad and inherited homophobia from the Jews. It even condemned masturbation! Paul would not have been allowed into the Temple at all had he accepted homosexuality and we read in Acts that he had no problems there. Paul says nothing about forcing but of giving up natural desire for the opposite sex.
Is he saying that all homosexuals or just some have chosen to be gay? He gives no indication that he means some so he means all. He gives no hint that he means just the abuse of homosexuality is wrong so he means that homosexuality itself is wrong. You must take the straightforward interpretation for that is the intended one.
He is certainly saying they indirectly choose to be gay because they know God and won’t worship him but go after idols instead so God abandons them to perverse desires. Remember, the same would apply to a person who prefers to make up his own version of God for that is making an idol in the imagination. A person without the aid of modern psychology and scientific research would naturally assume that since homosexuality was supposed to be unnatural it is not natural to be gay and so the person must be gay through their own fault. If Paul was against homosexuals who were once heterosexual but who did not force themselves to change then he was against all homosexuals. The text is not about married men running after men or about men who sleep with boys or who use homosexual sex in pagan rites as some suggest for these suggestions are just speculation and are unsupported in the text. Stick to what is there.

In the letter, idolatry is a judgement.  It is not only a sin but a punishment.  So it is bad for you and your life to have the wrong God.
Paul never hints that the gay sex is done in honour of pagan gods and that is the kind of gay sex he condemns. He says it is a sign of separation from and hostility to God but that is not the same as saying that the sex is a form of idol-worship though some theologians tell us it is.

To say that Paul only condemns artificial gays is ridiculous because why would he be so strong against them if homosexuality is ever tolerable? And the idea that there are natural gays is a modern idea that Paul wouldn’t ever have thought of. It’s an anachronism to say that Paul never meant to condemn natural gays who are in a loving mature relationship.
It is wrong to claim that Paul is condemning loveless homosexual lust and acting upon it for sexual acts without love are evil for he would have just settled for condemning the evil passions. Then the acts would not be shameful in themselves but the attitude behind them but he condemns the acts as shameful things. And why single out homosexuals for that complaint when straight people can be complained about too? Paul is denouncing same-sex sex.
It is wrong to argue that since Paul talks about gay sex being shameless and dishonourable he is not saying it is unethical but that he socially disapproves. It’s like behaviour that is not really bad but just rude. He means bad because he says those who have gay sex pay for it in suffering meaning it is punished by God. He makes no distinction between people doing it privately or publicly so he means gay sex is shameless in the sense that gays should be ashamed of their sin. He uses the word para physin (unnatural) which can mean not ordinary like it means at Romans 11:24. But we know that Romans 11:24 where he says that God acts para physin he cannot mean unnatural in the sense of forbidden but he can mean that in Romans 1 so that is what he means.

Some Christians argue that Paul is not condemning homosexuality but just the homosexual act which makes one man play the role of the woman by receiving the other man (page 12-13, Saint Saul). But in 1 Corinthians 6:9 he calls them arsenokoitai which is an extremely insulting word meaning butt-fuckers so the men who dominate are still condemned. So passive and active homosexuals are despised. The thought that it is only the penetrator or penetrated makes no sense. The fact that Paul called homosexuals abusive names shows that they are to be hated and despised.
Paul singles out homosexuality in the passage and gives it more space than any of the other sins he mentioned as an example of what happens when men turn away from God. He regarded it then as especially horrific and the best example of how bad people can get.
It is wrong to say that Paul only condemns homosexuality that results from godlessness for when he could be saying that homosexuality results from godlessness that is what he means. He would have been clear if he had meant the first.

In conclusion, Paul and his God were saying that homosexuality is caused by human selfishness and that those who have always been gay have a selfish streak that causes their desires. The orientation then is a symptom of sin and therefore sinful and unholy and the act is as terrible.
1 Corinthians 6:9 says that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. They are not God’s friends. He does not say he means only homosexuals who are not naturally gay.

Paul and the whole Bible never said anything positive about homosexuality or allowed gay weddings so they were opposed to homosexuality.
The Church condemns the word gay because it implies that one is proud to be attracted to and having relations with one’s own sex while the Church says that this happiness is false happiness. The only true happiness is in keeping God’s commandments. Try telling that to the virtuous people who are raped and die of AIDS as a consequence or to women who find themselves married to evil men. To describe yourself as gay then is a grave sin and blasphemes God and gives bad example and it is a heresy. To use it must entail excommunication. The Church might not go that far for it likes to pinch pennies off gay people but the fact is that if you contradict the teaching of the Church given as the word of God you are a heretic and have broken from the Church.
If homosexuality is sinful then the love a man has for a man and a woman for a woman is artificial. When the love is evil and not sinful for the persons are weak then it is still evil and undesirable and to be disparaged and hated. Good fruit does not come from bad trees like Jesus said.

Paul condemns female gay sex though nobody back then ever mentioned it and it was not part of culture or religious worship.  It appears for Paul must have talked to women who said they wanted to have sex with women.  It is mentioned to highlight that sex should only be between a man and a woman.

The arguments that the Bible does not condemn loving homosexuality in an erotic relationship are thin and will only destroy LGBT rights in the end.

Conclusion by David Malick

"A contextual and exegetical examination of Romans 1:26–27 reveals that attempts by some contemporary writers to do away with Paul’s prohibitions against present-day same-sex relations are false. Paul did not impose Jewish customs and rules on his readers; instead he addressed same-sex relations from the transcultural perspective of God’s created order. God’s punishment for sin is rooted in a sinful reversal of the created order. Nor was homosexuality simply a sin practiced by idolaters in Paul’s day; it was a distorting consequence of the fall of the human race in the Garden of Eden. Neither did Paul describe homosexual acts by heterosexuals. Instead he wrote that homosexual activity was an exchange of the created order (heterosexuality) for a talionic perversion (homosexuality), which is never presented in Scripture as an acceptable norm for sexuality. Also Hellenistic pederasty does not fully
account for the terms and logic of Romans 1:26–27 which refers to adult-adult mutuality.  Therefore it is clear that in Romans 1:26–27 Paul condemned homosexuality as a perversion of God’s design for human sexual relations." - © Bibliotheca Sacra

No Copyright