Changes

===Temple Prostitution Polemic===

===Temple Prostitution Polemic===

 

Less common is the position that Paul was only referring to pagan temple sex in Romans 1, so that the condemnation of homosex therein would not be unconditional. In response, a traditional response is to point out that temple ceremonies themselves are not the issue in Romans 1, but idolatry, which is the mother of all sins, and which takes many forms. In addition, homosex is listed as one of many fruits of idolatry, (Romans 1:28-32) while other passages dealing with forbidden vices are similarly given against the backdrop of idolatry. (Ex. 20:1-17; 1Cor. 6:9-20; Eph. 4:17-19; 5:3; 1Thes. 4:3-5) Thus, consistent with the pro-homosex hermeneutic used in seeking to disallow the unconditional nature of the condemnation of homosex of Lv. 18:22; 20:13, all the iniquity Paul refers to in Romans 1 could also be disallowed, as well as any moral laws in which the example of idolatrous pagans is used as manifesting what not to do, and or are instituted within such a cultural context. But which position is understood as being untenable.

Relative few hold to the idea that Paul was only referring to pagan temple sex in Romans 1, so that the condemnation of homosex therein could not be held as universal. In response, and in addition to other aspects, traditional writers point out that the rest of the iniquities vices listed (Romans 1:29-310 are not dependent on idolatry. And that consistent with the pro-homosex hermeneutic used in seeking to disallow the universality of Lv. 18:22; 20:13, all the iniquity Paul refers to in Romans 1 could also be disallowed, as well as any moral laws in which the example of idolatrous pagans is used as manifesting what not to do, and or are instituted within such a cultural context. (Ex. 20:1-17; 1Cor. 6:9-20; Eph. 4:17-19; 5:3; 1Thes. 4:3-5) And which position is manifestly untenable.

Jack Rogers,<ref>"Rogers, How I Changed My Mind on Homosexuality”</ref> provides a typical example of the pro-homosex contention here, to which Gagnon responds with 15 reasons for the traditional position.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoRogersResp2.pdf Bad Reasons for Changing One’s Mind]</ref>

Jack Rogers,<ref>"Rogers, How I Changed My Mind on Homosexuality”</ref> provides a typical example of the pro-homosex contention here, to which Gagnon responds with 15 reasons for the traditional position.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoRogersResp2.pdf Bad Reasons for Changing One’s Mind]</ref>