Changes

The intent of the attempt by Scroggs and others to restrict Romans 1 to a certain category is to allow for “loving monogamous” homosexual relationships, but it is incongruous that Paul would not make such a distinction here. Moreover, laws regarding forbidden sexual partners throughout the Bible are never based upon motive (only divorce once was). In the light of the abundant moral and covenantal material in the N.T, it is untenable is any supposition that a form of homoeroticism could be sanctioned without the Bible making that evident, being clearly sanctioned by marriage and doctrinally stated, especially as such is all the more necessary due to homoeroticism being condemned without any apparent conditions, and being intrinsically contrary to the heterosexual union instituted by God, and which is clearly and consistently but uniquely sanctioned by marriage between the male and female.

The intent of the attempt by Scroggs and others to restrict Romans 1 to a certain category is to allow for “loving monogamous” homosexual relationships, but it is incongruous that Paul would not make such a distinction here. Moreover, laws regarding forbidden sexual partners throughout the Bible are never based upon motive (only divorce once was). In the light of the abundant moral and covenantal material in the N.T, it is untenable is any supposition that a form of homoeroticism could be sanctioned without the Bible making that evident, being clearly sanctioned by marriage and doctrinally stated, especially as such is all the more necessary due to homoeroticism being condemned without any apparent conditions, and being intrinsically contrary to the heterosexual union instituted by God, and which is clearly and consistently but uniquely sanctioned by marriage between the male and female.

Gagnon submits that Paul's culturally surprising inclusion of lesbian sexual practice in verse 26 'casts a wider net than abusive, male, pederastic relationships, inasmuch as lesbianism in the ancient Mediterranean world was not confined to pederastic models or rigid active versus passive roles.' And that, 'The fact that Paul segues from lesbianism in 1:26 to male homosexual behaviour in 1:27 with the words, "and likewise also" (homoios te kai) suggests that he rejects both forms of homosexual behaviour for the same reasons; that is, not the grounds other than their exploitative or oppressive character.' He thus concludes that the contrast here 'is not between exploitative homosexual relationships and loving homosexual relationships but between heterosexual and homosexual conduct.'<ref>Gagnon, homosexuality and the Bible, p.348>/ref>

Gagnon submits that Paul's culturally surprising inclusion of lesbian sexual practice in verse 26 'casts a wider net than abusive, male, pederastic relationships, inasmuch as lesbianism in the ancient Mediterranean world was not confined to pederastic models or rigid active versus passive roles.' And that, 'The fact that Paul segues from lesbianism in 1:26 to male homosexual behaviour in 1:27 with the words, "and likewise also" (homoios te kai) suggests that he rejects both forms of homosexual behaviour for the same reasons; that is, not the grounds other than their exploitative or oppressive character.' He thus concludes that the contrast here 'is not between exploitative homosexual relationships and loving homosexual relationships but between heterosexual and homosexual conduct.'<ref>Gagnon, homosexuality and the Bible, p.348</ref>

===Temple Prostitution Polemic===

===Temple Prostitution Polemic===