What Does St. Paul Say — No. 2: Romans 1:27

Here's the next bit of my take on Romans. I'll have at least one more post on Romans, in which I'll look beyond the words of the verses themselves to things in scripture beyond St. Paul's writings specifically on homosexuality. I think these other passages will help us interpret these verses from St. Paul. But for now, here's something on Romans 1:27 by itself.

Romans 1:27

"[A]nd the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." The phrase translated "natural relations" is the same as in the preceding verse. Here natural relations are specified as being "with women."  I see the phrase "with women" as clarifiying Paul's understanding. To him, "natural relations" are heterosexual. The same question as to what is natural applies as in the previous verse: is this only because he is unaware of homosexuality as an orientation? Would he have been equally against homosexually oriented men giving up "natural relations" with men, as some have suggested? And in any event, is that how we should understand the verse in the light of modern psychology? In addition to what I said about the question in discussing verse 26, there is more to be said.

In the first place, there seems to be consensus that sexual orientation is a continuum. So if it is agreed that the verse applies to heterosexual men, what are we to say of men who are 90% hetero, or in the middle, or 80% gay? When does heterosexuality stop becoming natural and get replaced by homosexuality? If both are natural for someone who is in the middle of the scale, where does one or the other stop being natural? Or is there no single natural for anybody? That seems to be the necessary conclusion, as I cannot find a point at which one could reasonably say that one stops being natural and the others starts. So what somebody is doing is natural at that moment even if it is only expressing 5% of their sexuality. But in that case, the verse is empty. To me it seems that to find it meaningless is unacceptable for someone who believes that scripture is in a meaningful sense, the word of God, which is the premise of caring about what it says.

Then there is the phrase about "committing shameless acts." Other translations use other adjectives such as "indecent," "filthy," or "shameful." But the meaning is substantially the same. The commentators I'm aware of explain this as a case of Paul accepting the culture of his time, which regarded the receiving position in anal intercourse as unfit and degrading for one who was socially superior to the other party. In Stoic thinking, Byrne says, "The 'reduction' of the male to the female [role] constituted a 'shame' contrary to nature." I think it's reasonable, if not inescapable, that a Christian must not cause someone else to commit shameful acts any more than he should do them himself. So if it is shameful to be the "bottom" in anal intercourse, it is equally wrong to be the "top."