Female Vs Male Homosexuality

[cnystrom]

I would agree that the unnatural thing the women are doing in that verse is probably them not bearing children, in whatever fashion they are avoiding it.

The "unnatural thing" that women are doing in v26 is the same thing that the men are guilty of in v27, which is "abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.". So basically it is wrong for women (and men) to exchange hetrosexual sex for homosexual sex.

The thing that complicates this, from a polygamist angle is that this says nothing about a man and two wives at the same time and even two women doing things to each other to please the man as it is not turning away from man, like this verse is describing.

The best answer always seems to end up being for every man to decide for their own family and for him to work it out with his owns wives and keep it to yourself and not judge others for having a different opinion on this controversial subject.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

The "unnatural thing" that women are doing in v26 is the same thing that the men are guilty of in v27, which is "abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.". So basically it is wrong for women (and men) to exchange hetrosexual sex for homosexual sex.

The thing that complicates this, from a polygamist angle is that this says nothing about a man and two wives at the same time and even two women doing things to each other to please the man as it is not turning away from man, like this verse is describing.

The best answer always seems to end up being for every man to decide for their own family and for him to work it out with his owns wives and keep it to yourself and not judge others for having a different opinion on this controversial subject.

I think the problem is that it’s easy to try and make this verse the sedes doctrinae, but you really can’t do that with verses that are unclear.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

There are three spheres. What God commands, what He prohibits, and the arena of Liberty in Christ. Within the realm of Liberty in Christ, there are two other spheres, namely, that which is not expedient and could cause my brother to stumble, and that which we are encouraged to do, which will bring rewards in heaven. Anything outside those two spheres, we may choose to do or refrain from doing, but whatever we do, whether in word or deed, should be done to the glory of God.

 

[Joleneakamama]

The "unnatural thing" that women are doing in v26 is the same thing that the men are guilty of in v27, which is "abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.". So basically it is wrong for women (and men) to exchange hetrosexual sex for homosexual sex.

The trouble with that is that it doesn't say the women were doin' anything with women, or that they left their men. This is why arguing back from what the men do likewise that IS worthy of death causes me to lean more toward believing the women wanted non procreative relations as in homo-man style so called sex.

Men nowadays are to a large degree not wanting children. They want to do the "fun thing" but without having to do the "family thing." Many women are the same. They want the fun....then want a morning after pill or to abort.

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

The "unnatural thing" that women are doing in v26 is the same thing that the men are guilty of in v27, which is "abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.". So basically it is wrong for women (and men) to exchange hetrosexual sex for homosexual sex.

I have to split hairs with you here.


Romans 1:26-27 KJV
[26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: [27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

The woman’s natural use isn’t specifically sexual, but rather her natural use is as a helpmate to a man. The creation account makes her roll as helpmate her natural use. Sex is part of her role as being a helpmate to her man, as is bearing children, being a keeper at home, and being submissive to her man. Specific sex acts in the bedroom between a man and his wife/wives isn’t what necessarily leads to women leaving their natural use or men leaving the natural use of the woman. Leaving the natural use is rebelling against God’s hierarchical design. Non-submission is the issue here. We have seen this verse exhibited in our culture as it was in the Roman culture. Feminism and male homosexuality go hand in hand. Women replacing the position of a man as husband, with a woman, is a vile affection. Notice it doesn’t say that the men, having left the natural use of the woman are now using the woman in an unnatural way. It says they left the natural use of woman and are with other men. This verse isn’t condemning a specific sexual act in the marital bed that is not mentioned in Torah. It is an illustration and condemnation of a perverting of God’s hierarchical order.

 

[Joleneakamama]

The woman’s natural use isn’t specifically sexual, but rather her natural use is as a helpmate to a man.

This verse isn’t condemning a specific sexual act in the marital bed that is not mentioned in Torah. It is an illustration and condemnation of a perverting of God’s hierarchical order.

I can agree to disagree.
I don't read Greek. I use a 25 year old Strong's concordance . I know that language can change. Here is what "My concordance" (grin and eye roll) says about those words that "natural" (top) and "nature" (bottom) are translated from. This picture might be worth a thousand words I might write.

That and the context of the verse means it's going to take more then what arguments I've seen so far to change my mind.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I can agree to disagree.
I don't read Greek. I use a 25 year old Strong's concordance . I know that language can change. Here is what "My concordance" (grin and eye roll) says about those words that "natural" (top) and "nature" (bottom) are translated from. This picture might be worth a thousand words I might write. View attachment 1840

That and the context of the verse means it's going to take more then what arguments I've seen so far to change my mind.

I can agree to disagree. I’m not arguing FOR anything, but rather I would just caution anyone about saying something is a sin if Scripture doesn’t declare it so. By the law is the knowledge of sin. Just because something is unnatural and dangerous doesn’t necessarily make it a sin. Heck, running toward the sound of gunfire is unnatural and dangerous, but that alone doesn’t make it a sin. Sin is disobedience to the commandments of God and God’s commands are unambiguous.

 

[steve]

I think that there are things that all would consider wrong that are not specifically enumerated.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think that poisoning people is mentioned. (or animals for that matter) If they were to die from it, that’s covered by the no murder rule, but if they were to only get sick it isn’t listed as unlawful.

 

[Joleneakamama]

I can agree to disagree. I’m not arguing FOR anything, but rather I would just caution anyone about saying something is a sin if Scripture doesn’t declare it so. By the law is the knowledge of sin. Just because something is unnatural and dangerous doesn’t necessarily make it a sin. Heck, running toward the sound of gunfire is unnatural and dangerous, but that alone doesn’t make it a sin. Sin is disobedience to the commandments of God and God’s commands are unambiguous.

I agree. The complication is that without changing a word of biblical text, the purpose and meaning can be lost if the usage of words change. My mom was asked once at a high school dance if she was gay. Being unaware of the current meaning her answer was "Yes! Isn't everyone?" Because duh, you are at a fun social function.
Goy does not mean non Israelite.
Just because the word circumcise is used of a biblical ritual and a modern operation does NOT mean they are describing the identical procedure.

Semantics isn't just being picky about what synonym you use, it is a study of the significance or the substance that the word represents. This is obviously important when doctrine is considered.
A new testament passage NOT considered scripture by the man that wrote it is weak support indeed if nothing in the law affirms something as questionable as unnatural homo-style relations.

As a private matter. What others do in private is no matter to me, but I would never recommend or defend a practice that had so little scriptural support and that kind of negative association.

 

[FollowingHim]

@Joleneakamama, am I right to summarise your view by saying that vaginal intercourse is "natural relations", and everything other than vaginal intercourse is not, due to being either not natural (instinctual), or not procreative, or both?

And that that would mean that all forms of vaginal intercourse (regardless of sexual position - "missionary", "doggy", whatever) are valid, and all forms of non-vaginal intercourse (anal, oral, hand-stimulation) are invalid and therefore sinful due to not being procreative? Logically, that's where this takes me.

Or are you solely condemning anal as disgusting, because it is associated with excrement, while allowing other forms of non-vaginal sexual stimulation as within the spectrum of allowable marital fun?

I have points to make here, but want to ensure I am not arguing against a position you don't actually hold.

 

[Keith Martin]

I think that there are things that all would consider wrong that are not specifically enumerated.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think that poisoning people is mentioned. (or animals for that matter) If they were to die from it, that’s covered by the no murder rule, but if they were to only get sick it isn’t listed as unlawful.

Good point, @steve, but there might also be a distinction between 'wrong' and 'sin.' Scripture asserts that sin is -- in addition to being wrong, destructive, etc. -- the turning of one's back to God.

And I don't have the time to research this right now, but I'd also be surprised if we couldn't come up with some aspect of Torah that addresses the administering of substances to cause suffering shy of death in another.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Or are you solely condemning anal as disgusting, because it is associated with excrement, while allowing other forms of non-vaginal sexual stimulation as within the spectrum of allowable marital fun?

Basically because of the context and definitions of those words used in Romans 1:26 I believe it is talking about the women choosing anal sex. I believe that was forbidden in the law and would avoid it because there is no reason or benefit. A lot of other stimulation is natural and progressive. Holding hands leads to touching other places....nothing wrong with that. Not forbidden is up to comfort level and choice. Choices otherwise lawful might be wrong if they defraud like having sex with yourself (masterbating) instead of with your partner. I hope that is clear enough.

 

[FollowingHim]

@Joleneakamama, I think your assumption that this particular passage may be referring to women choosing anal sex is a reasonable possibility. However, I do not think your arguments used to support it are conclusive at all, as those arguments would logically also forbid many other things that you consider permissible. The argument does not lead to the conclusion you have come to. So I fundamentally think this comes down to "eww, yuck", rather than sound exegesis. I agree with you on the "eww, yuck" bit, but don't feel it is sufficient grounds to build theology on.

Although this is very unnatural, and I have zero interest in it, I can see a very limited application of it to allow couples struggling with specific medical issues that prevent vaginal intercourse to maintain the closest level of intimacy that they are able to achieve within the limitations of their specific circumstances. I strongly believe that the marriage bed is undefiled. Therefore, I would be reluctant to conclude it is absolutely sinful without some clearer scriptural argument. But I do put it in a very questionable and inadvisable category.

 

[bluearrow89]

Good point, @steve, but there might also be a distinction between 'wrong' and 'sin.' Scripture asserts that sin is -- in addition to being wrong, destructive, etc. -- the turning of one's back to God.

And I don't have the time to research this right now, but I'd also be surprised if we couldn't come up with some aspect of Torah that addresses the administering of substances to cause suffering shy of death in another.

Are you saying that there are three categories here?(Right, wrong, and sin) And in my opinion, wrong is the same as sin. Is anything truly wrong if it isn't sin? I mean, if something is "wrong" there needs to be an entity that deemed it so. As Christians, the only entity that we base right and wrong on is Scripture and the commands of God.

 

[steve]

James 4:17 (KJV)
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

It would seem that sin encompasses more than simply what is written in the Law.

 

[Keith Martin]

I could be guilty of messing with semantics here, but this is an example of what I'm asserting:

• Most everything can be defined as either being right or wrong.
• It is not right to break the law.
• It's wrong to break the law.
• Engaging in polygamy is breaking the law.
• Therefore, polygamy is wrong.
• However, it has not been defined by God as sinful.
• Therefore, polygamy is not sinful.

Perhaps another way to put it is that sin is a category of behavior that is mostly a subset of what is wrong, because many things are wrong that aren't sinful, given that we don't turn our back on God when we behave in those ways.

I would therefore rest easy in comforting ourselves with the knowledge that sometimes, given the nuanced complexity of life's choices, the better choice will involve simultaneously doing something that is wrong but that is not sinful.

 

[steve]

to him it is sin.

But we know from clear scripture that it is not wrong, so it cannot qualify as sin.
To those that believe that polygyny is wrong, it would be sin.

 

[frederick]

Ladies and gentlemen, we need to exercise caution here or we will be in no better situation than the ruler of the synagogue who was indignant at the actions of our Lord. Healing on the Sabbath violated social convention and offended religious sensibilities, but did not break God's law. Jesus didn't do anything wrong nor did He sin by His actions (cf. Heb. 4:15). We must be careful not to condemn those who might offend our religious sensibilities but who don't break God's laws. The event is recorded in Luke 13:10-17 (NKJV); Now He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. 11 And behold, there was a woman who had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bent over and could in no way raise herself up. 12 But when Jesus saw her, He called her to Him and said to her, “Woman, you are loosed from your infirmity.” 13 And He laid His hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.

14 But the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath; and he said to the crowd, “There are six days on which men ought to work; therefore come and be healed on them, and not on the Sabbath day.”

15 The Lord then answered him and said, “Hypocrite! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or donkey from the stall, and lead it away to water it? 16 So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound—think of it—for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?” 17 And when He said these things, all His adversaries were put to shame; and all the multitude rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by Him.

 

[cnystrom]

I have to split hairs with you here.

I think I am mostly in agreement with you.

The woman’s natural use isn’t specifically sexual, but rather her natural use is as a helpmate to a man. The creation account makes her roll as helpmate her natural use. Sex is part of her role as being a helpmate to her man, as is bearing children, being a keeper at home, and being submissive to her man.

Genesis 3:16 "...Your desire will be for your husband.." - This is natural. The women were not doing this in Romans and instead were interested in each other, thus, not doing what was natural.
I agree that the desire is not specifically only sexual. The women described in Romans have no use for men, either for sex or anything else.

Specific sex acts in the bedroom between a man and his wife/wives isn’t what necessarily leads to women leaving their natural use or men leaving the natural use of the woman.

Agreed. There is nothing about specific sex acts here. Speculation that this is anal sex, or sex outside of procreation are just that: speculation and unwarranted by just what the verse says.

Leaving the natural use is rebelling against God’s hierarchical design. Non-submission is the issue here.

The verse does not really say anything about submission either. The problem that Paul is addressing is women being attracted to women instead of men and men being attracted to men instead of women.

The reason is the phrase "And likewise also the men" that you quoted ties the two thoughts together (women and men) and indicates that he is talking about the same sin for both sexes. They are not separate statements. Paul is creating an equivalency.

While I agree that women not being in submission would be wrong and not part of God's order, I do not think that is what is being referred to here. Since the problem the men are having has nothing to do with submission then I do not believe that submission specifically is what Paul is referring to for the women either.

1 Cor 7:2 - "Nevertheless to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." - This is natural. You can not do this if men are interested in men and women are interested in women. This would be unnatural, but part of what the depraved do, according to Paul.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I think I am mostly in agreement with you.



Genesis 3:16 "...Your desire will be for your husband.." - This is natural. The women were not doing this in Romans and instead were interested in each other, thus, not doing what was natural.
I agree that the desire is not specifically only sexual. The women described in Romans have no use for men, either for sex or anything else.



Agreed. There is nothing about specific sex acts here. Speculation that this is anal sex, or sex outside of procreation are just that: speculation and unwarranted by just what the verse says.



The verse does not really say anything about submission either. The problem that Paul is addressing is women being attracted to women instead of men and men being attracted to men instead of women.

The reason is the phrase "And likewise also the men" that you quoted ties the two thoughts together (women and men) and indicates that he is talking about the same sin for both sexes. They are not separate statements. Paul is creating an equivalency.

While I agree that women not being in submission would be wrong and not part of God's order, I do not think that is what is being referred to here. Since the problem the men are having has nothing to do with submission then I do not believe that submission specifically is what Paul is referring to for the women either.

1 Cor 7:2 - "Nevertheless to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." - This is natural. You can not do this if men are interested in men and women are interested in women. This would be unnatural, but part of what the depraved do, according to Paul.

I get what you’re saying, however the verse doesn’t say that the women are burning with lust for other women. The men are the ones burning with lust for one another. What the men and the women are both doing is leaving the natural use of the woman. To say that the women are burning with lust for one another is also speculation.