Other translations of that word have a much more weighty meaning than just “soft men.” While some of them didn't necessarily use the word “homosexual,” they often had a meaning tied to sexuality as well as “soft.” If you've ever spoken a foreign language, you know that you can't translate a word in a vacuum. Back in the day, if you said someone was “gay,” that could very well mean they were happy. Now if you said it, it means they are homosexual. So, if someone were to translate the word into another language from English, they would need to have a keen awareness of the concrete meaning in the correct culture of the word, not just the word itself. Once again, the general consensus for today's present semantics for the word which best encapsulated the meaning is “homosexual.”

Also, I noticed you concluded with a “same sex, monogamous, loving relationship” as escaping condemnation in the Bible. However, there is a whole other positive side to this argument as well. The negative is that homosexuality is condemned (which we discussed in a previous post above). The positive is that both marriage and sex are both defined and supported as to what they ought to be.

Mark 10 discusses marriage between a man and woman as well as sex: the two shall become one flesh (this concept is also defined 1Cor6:16). Just to have a nutshell argument, you see that marriage is representative of Christ and the Church. You see the language of the “Bride and Bridegroom” all over the NT and in the parables of Jesus, etc. The primary purpose of marriage is to display covenant keeping which represents Christ and the church. This is also the institution in which sex is to take place. You see references to the old testament and links to creation of man and woman when the Bible discusses marriage. This establishes a constant them of what is “natural,” –what God has set up. Now Romans makes a little more sense when addressing homosexuality as “contrary to nature.” Relationships, sex, and marriage have a significant role and design in glorifying God and are purposefully defined in the Bible, without exception, as being between a man and a woman.

In one sense, you are correct–the passage isn't solely about homosexuality. I'm not sure I ever claimed that it was. It it however included. Take a look at some of the other sins listed: envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice, insolent, arrogant and boastful….etc. These things are not just wrong in conjunction with idol worship. They are wrong independently of idol worship. The same is true with homosexuality. While there is the progression as you've said, I don't see the explicit link with idol worship and homosexuality as you claim. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Also, your take on this progression is: “while seeking favor from the gods, went to any lengths to secure their wants, even sleeping with someone they were not originally attracted to.” –This is your extraction, but it's not in scripture.

The move away from God was into sin. God “gave them over” to their sinful desires. So, indeed that had a desire which then led to sin. You see this illustrated in James 1:15 Then desire(D) when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and(E) sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

There is nothing to say they didn't develop the desire as they moved away from honoring God (which is the most likely case according to James). In fact, if anything, it shows that while some may perhaps be born with the predisposition to sin via homosexuality, some will turn to it as they turn away from God.

There is a whole other issue of marriage and the union of two people which I'll address in your other post below.

Other translations of that word have a much more weighty meaning than just “soft men.” While some of them didn't necessarily use the word “homosexual,” they often had a meaning tied to sexuality as well as “soft.” If you've ever spoken a foreign language, you know that you can't translate a word in a vacuum. Back in the day, if you said someone was “gay,” that could very well mean they were happy. Now if you said it, it means they are homosexual. So, if someone were to translate the word into another language from English, they would need to have a keen awareness of the concrete meaning in the correct culture of the word, not just the word itself. Once again, the general consensus for today's present semantics for the word which best encapsulated the meaning is “homosexual.”

Also, I noticed you concluded with a “same sex, monogamous, loving relationship” as escaping condemnation in the Bible. However, there is a whole other positive side to this argument as well. The negative is that homosexuality is condemned (which we discussed in a previous post above). The positive is that both marriage and sex are both defined and supported as to what they ought to be.

Mark 10 discusses marriage between a man and woman as well as sex: the two shall become one flesh (this concept is also defined 1Cor6:16). Just to have a nutshell argument, you see that marriage is representative of Christ and the Church. You see the language of the “Bride and Bridegroom” all over the NT and in the parables of Jesus, etc. The primary purpose of marriage is to display covenant keeping which represents Christ and the church. This is also the institution in which sex is to take place. You see references to the old testament and links to creation of man and woman when the Bible discusses marriage. This establishes a constant them of what is “natural,” –what God has set up. Now Romans makes a little more sense when addressing homosexuality as “contrary to nature.” Relationships, sex, and marriage have a significant role and design in glorifying God and are purposefully defined in the Bible, without exception, as being between a man and a woman.

In one sense, you are correct–the passage isn't solely about homosexuality. I'm not sure I ever claimed that it was. It it however included. Take a look at some of the other sins listed: envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice, insolent, arrogant and boastful….etc. These things are not just wrong in conjunction with idol worship. They are wrong independently of idol worship. The same is true with homosexuality. While there is the progression as you've said, I don't see the explicit link with idol worship and homosexuality as you claim. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Also, your take on this progression is: “while seeking favor from the gods, went to any lengths to secure their wants, even sleeping with someone they were not originally attracted to.” –This is your extraction, but it's not in scripture.

The move away from God was into sin. God “gave them over” to their sinful desires. So, indeed that had a desire which then led to sin. You see this illustrated in James 1:15 Then desire(D) when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and(E) sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

There is nothing to say they didn't develop the desire as they moved away from honoring God (which is the most likely case according to James). In fact, if anything, it shows that while some may perhaps be born with the predisposition to sin via homosexuality, some will turn to it as they turn away from God.

There is a whole other issue of marriage and the union of two people which I'll address in your other post below.

1 Corinthians 6:9
μαλακοί (malakoi), the greek word being translated as effeminate or homosexual literally translates as soft. It was a common greek work and had different connotations depending on the context. In terms of morality, it generally meant: laziness, degeneracy, decadence, frailty of body/character, sentimentality, or lack of courage (Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, Robert Brawley; Westminster John Knox Press, 1996, p 124.) It had the connotation of being “soft like a woman” or like the delicate expensive fabrics worn by rich men. Thus men who ate too much, liked expensive things, were lazy, or liked to dress well were considered “soft like a woman.” That is why KJV translates this as effeminate. Paul wasn't discussling purse-swinging swishy men, he was condemning moral weakness. In that culture, any man who was more interested in pleasure than duty was considered woman-like, you could have sexual relations with another man and be manly

More recently many have suggested that μαλακοί refers to male prostitutes who's role is passive as suggested in the NIV and NRSV. Since Paul uses μαλακοί in a list of sexual sins, it is possible to infer that he was referring to soft men in general. Does μαλακοί speak directly to a loving same-sex monogamous relationship? It does not.

Sleep beckons, and I must address 1 Timothy another day.

The entire context of the passage is at least Roman 1:18-33 (as it was originally written as a letter) and lays out a progression of hatred of God:

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (NIV)

This passage is not address referring to solely to homosexuality, but a search for unbridled pleasure.
1. Refused to acknowledge and glorify God (v 21)
2. Began worshiping idols (v 23)
3. More interested in earthly pursuits (v 25)
4. Gave up their innate passion for the opposite sex in an unbound search for pleasure (vs 26-27)
5. Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander, haters of parents and God (vs 29-32)

This passage address a model of homosexuality associated with idol worship, who while seeking favor from the gods, went to any lengths to secure their wants, even sleeping with someone they were not originally attracted to.

The Holy Spirit used Paul to record a progression from heterosexuality to homosexuality. We must seek other scriptures to address same-sex relationships as a whole.

First of all, I agree with some points of Ryan had, but I would argue the point of the Bible is God's glory through Jesus Christ. A big theme of the New Testament is establishing Jesus as the fulfillment of the “Law” with which the Jewish elders and Pharisees were familiar. When Jesus came, he came to fulfill the law, since by the law, no one is perfect. Only through Jesus can someone be saved. You'll see this time and time again if you read all the way through the New Testament (which I did in March–I would encourage everyone to do so).

To that end, Jesus established a New Covenant, making the first one obsolete–Hebrews 8:8. –This addresses your shrimp argument, etc. (along with a long list of laws and consequences). There are other passages supporting a distinct difference in adhering to the old covenant laws and being free in Christ and understanding the Christian's role under the new covenant.

So, now we need to look at the New Testament to see if there is anything under the New Covenant addressing homosexuality. In fact there is:

1 Cor 6:9: classifies “men who practice homosexuality” along with a long list of other sins as those who go on sinning deliberately and are not born of God (See my previous post for more on that–as it can be easily misunderstood). He “gave them over” to their desires.

1 Timothy 1:10: classifies “men who practice homosexuality” as a sin of “sexual immorality”

An argument of lack of context also doesn't work here. There are no contextual problems in homosexuality in and of itself being defined as a sin. Neither of these passages qualifies homosexuality as only a sin in regards to worshiping idols.
Your Romans argument also does not work because in describing homosexuality, it says that the act in and of itself is “contrary to nature.” The act being contrary to nature upholds whether the act is to worship idols or not.

There is no question that the Bible defines it as a sin. Also, you will not find another passage in the Bible which justifies it or says that it is not a sin–i.e. no circumstantial exceptions.

Speaking of frequency, sexual immorality is mentioned as much as if not more than any sin in the New Testament. An argument of “infrequency” simply doesn't work here–remember the Timothy passage classifies it as a sin of sexual immorality.

Scripture is indeed abundantly clear on the practice of homosexuality. The more difficult part in this is a person's temptation to it (which I think is what the original article is addressing). To that end, I refer you back to my original post as to how fighting sin and loving others works hand in hand.

Leviticus also says that its an abomination to eat shrimp. Ever eat at Long John Silver's? People choose what they want to follow out of Leviticus because of their own personal discomfort with homosexuality. You dont see anybody trying ot ban Long John Silver's from serving shrimp.

Paul was very clearly talking about idol worship in Romans. He never said anything about loving, commited gay couples. He was talking about Roman pagans who were doing sex rituals for their gods (false idols).

You are falsely assuming Paul was referring to loving, commited gay couples when the text just doesnt support that.