Should the title of this article be changed? Perhaps to -- "What does the Bible say about homosexuality"?

I think that rather than change the original question, it would be good to create a new question, as you have suggested above. It would be good to separate them. Thanks.

When contributing to this article, please integrate your thoughts into either the conservative or liberal viewpoint, rather than alternating them. Thanks.

Conservative Viewpoint

The Bible gives clear direction on what causes homosexuality. It is caused by a damaged relationship with God. When God is at the center of a person's will and desires, God is glorified and he produces a righteousness that cannot be attained by human effort.

On the other hand, when the self is not completely yielded to God, it becomes like idolatry. The result is that the heart is darkened, judgement is clouded, and the ability to recognize sin is impaired. When this happens, people tend to make excuses for sin and find loopholes to satisfy their own desires.

The first chapter of Romans describes this in detail:

Keep in mind that this applies to all sin and should not single out homosexuality as worse than any other sin. The key moral question is whether or not you are completely yielded to God.

Liberal Viewpoint

The answer above is one Biblical answer to the question. For a differing viewpoint on this subject, see the book What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak. Briefly, this book presents the following argument on this topic:

In Romans 14:14 Paul states, "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself," i.e., he understands Jesus' teaching that the only real uncleanness is uncleanness of the heart. (Jesus rejected the importance of the Jewish purity laws since they were merely part of being a Jew and not necessarily part of being righteous before God.) This teaching is a major theme in Paul's letter to the Romans, and so to understand Romans 1:21-27 in context, an understanding of the rest of Paul’s letter is required. Урология мужское здоровье. Спортивная.

First of all, in his letter to the Romans, Paul uses the word "natural" to refer to what is ordinary or consistent for someone. So when he says "women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women," he means that these women and men were engaging in sexual practices that were not the ones they usually perform. (He could have used words that meant "ethically wrong," but he did not.)

But why is he bringing up this subject at all if Jesus was not concerned about the old Hebrew purity laws, and the Gentile Romans lacked any such Jewish concerns? He did so because the Christians in Rome were a mix of both Jewish and Gentile converts who were often at each other's throats, so Paul had the difficult task of appealing to both sides.

At the beginning of his letter to the Romans, Paul appears to sympathize with the common Jewish feeling that the Gentile culture is unclean by raising the issue of homosexual acts as uncleanness, and he does this because keeping or not keeping the Jewish Law was a hot issue of debate in early Christianity. Many Jewish Christians still kept the Jewish Law, and they felt a sense of superiority because of that, but Paul taught that faith in Christ and not fidelity to the Law is what justifies a person. (See, for example, Galatians 2:16). So in trying to win the good will of the Jewish Christians, he first took their side by referring to the Gentiles' homosexual practices. But then in Romans 2 he states that although the Jewish Christians avoid impurities according to Jewish Law, they still steal, commit adultery, and rob temples. Therefore, he says, the Jewish Christians have no right to feel superior to those who do not adhere to the Jewish purity laws. He dismisses their self-righteousness over not engaging in impure behaviors because in Christ's call for a purity of heart, the ritual impurities of Jewish Law do not matter.

Thus, seen in the context of his entire letter to the Romans, Paul refers to homosexual conduct first to win the good will of his Jewish Christian readers, and then to use that same issue to make his real point, which was that these ritual requirements of the Jewish Law are irrelevant in Christ.

Besides Helminiak’s argument, there is another way to view Paul’s reference to homosexuality in his letter to the Romans. Many pagan religions of his day taught that by granting sexual favors to the high priest, the one giving the favor would be rewarded with fertility of crops and offspring. With that in mind, we can see how Paul's reference could easily have been a condemnation focused on heterosexuals who, going against their own sexual nature, granted sexual favors to the leaders of pagan religions in expectation of reward by the pagan gods.

See also "Liberal Interpretations of Romans 1:26-27"

Psychological Viewpoint

A psychological explanation remains to be explored, but lies outside the scope of biblestudywiki.com

Response to Liberal point of view...

If there is doubt that homosexuality is a sin based on the wording of Romans 1, 1 Corinthians should clear it up:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1Cor6:9-10 NIV)

Regarding the statement that "nothing is unclean" found in Romans 14, the context of that passage involves eating certain kinds of food. The problem that Paul clears up in Romans 14 is that Roman Christians were both from hebrew and pagan faiths and there was confusion over what food was acceptable to eat. The same situation was found in 1 Corinthians 8. Contextually, the statement is not connected in any way with Romans 1. The actual passage states:

"As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food [or that nothing] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean." (Rom 14:14 NIV)

As far as the original question is concerned, I don't think the Bible addresses it. I think Romans 1 talks about a degeneration of mankind and a multitude of sins but I don't believe it specifically tells us what the "cause" is.

Rebuttal to the response to Liberal point of view...

The statement "nothing is unclean" (found in Romans 14) actually refers to the old Jewish Purity Laws in general, and thus includes sexual taboos as well taboos regarding foods. In fact, the Jewish Purity Laws (which Jesus specifically rejected) include dozens of rules and strictures, including those regarding circumcision, shaving, menstruation, clothing, etc. Virtually everyone living today in modern Western society would be considered unclean and abominable in light of the Purity Laws in the Old Testament.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." (RSV)

First of all, it is important to understand the cultural context in which this epistle was written. Prostitution (that of enslaved boys would have been especially despicable to Paul) was common in the temples -- and in secular life too -- at that time. In addition, it was a common practice for men to have slave boys that they sexually exploited.

Next, we must consider the mistranslations that have found their way into the Bible over the course of the last several hundred years. The term translated as "sexual perverts" in the above RSV translation is the combination of two different words. The first word is malakos (the singular form of malakoi), and the second term is arsenokoitai. (The NIV translation expanded these two terms into "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders".) The term malakoi, as an adjective, means "soft," but in this context, where it is used as a noun, its meaning is highly debatable. (The Jerusalem Bible, for example, translates the term malakos as "catamites," which refers to the "soft" prepubescent slave boys noted above.) As for arsenokoites, many Biblical scholars now believe it to mean "male temple prostitute." Alternatively, it makes sense to translate arsenokoitai, due to its proximity to the word malakos, as "men who sleep with male-prostitutes."

It is reasonable to presume that Paul would rebuke both temple prostitutes and the men who had intercourse with them, and so it makes sense that 1 Cor. 6:9-10 (as well as the similar 1 Tim. 1:10) condemns temple (and / or secular) prostitution -- both the prostitutes themselves and the men who used them. (Note that these passages may also be about pederasty in general.)

Given the ambiguity of these obscure terms, the question is: which is more likely that Paul was condemning? Male prostitution (especially in the temples) which was common in his day, or men who enter into loving relationships with other men, as is the modern issue regarding homosexuality /gay rights?