Relentless: Here’s what it boils down to, in my opinion:
— there is no example of a good homosexual relationship anywhere in scripture
— there is no condemnation of heterosexuals doing “that which is unnatural”
— Paul stated exactly what he meant: men lying with men, and women lying with women
— in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 (see also 1 Tim. 1:9-10) Paul lists homosexuality in a list of things the people had once been but were now cleansed from. (I understand some hold that Paul’s word “arsenokoitais” meant a particular kind of homosexuality, but this is begging the question.)
— the mere possibility of some doubt upon the meaning of a word does not overturn context
— If the Bible is malleable enough to throw context away, there’s no point in debating its content
— The charge of having an agenda to oppose homosexuality is no more true than the charge of having an agenda to accept it; that is, there is easily as much evidence that some are bent on getting it accepted, as that some are bent on getting it rejected
— Love does not mean accepting and tolerating any and every behavior society deems normal and healthy, and at times the Christian community seems to have lower morals than society
— see 1 Cor. 5, where Paul showed no concern over whether the couple were faithful and loving; not even heteros can have just anyone they want, such that it isn’t just homosexuals who are denied that freedom
And as I mentioned before, looking at Paul’s list of bad things, and picking only one item for nuances allowing certain types of that behavior, is the fallacy of special pleading and begging the question. The burden of proof for acceptance of some forms of homosexual practice lies with its supporters, and no such proof can be derived from scripture.

Joel H: Relentless:
"The comment I made before really has nothing to do with the nuances of the words but the section as a whole. Paul is portraying same-sex intimacy in a very bad light."
It’s clear that Paul is portraying same-sex intimacy as unnatural for some people, in particular, for those who start with heterosexuality (and “exchange” it for homosexuality). This doesn’t mean that it’s against everyone’s nature.
By comparison, Paul refers to “deceit” in verse 28. Do you think that deceit is always evil? What about the father using deceit to smuggle his daughter out of a war zone? Do you think Paul condemns such a parent?

Relentless: Joel, I just don’t see “for some people” in the context there. Would Paul also say that “for some people” heterosexuality is unnatural? Again, the burden of proof is on the addition of “for some people”.
As for deceit, you provided an example where it can have a good meaning, and such can even be found in scripture (e.g. when Samuel was told to lie about his reasons for going to anoint the next king of Israel). Please provide such a good example in scripture for homosexuality.

Robert Kan: It is not correct to say that they exchanged their natural affections with unnatural affections. The text claims that they “exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures”. And “they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator”. Paul goes on to condemn a lot of behaviors after describing the source of the problem, making it clear that it was God who “gave them over to degrading passions”. It may well be that the source of the “problem” today is not the same as it was during the time of Paul, but that does not change the status of the listed behaviors. People today attribute the “problem” to genetics, but it matters little in the end. At the end of the day, it’s the behavior that Paul ultimately condemns – “those who practice such things are worthy of death”.
Trying to find some “good” exceptions to justify a practice that would otherwise be evil is not helpful. Deceit is never good – but it may be the lesser of the two evils when push comes to shove.

Joel H: Robert,
You quote Romans 1:32 (“They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die — yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.) What do you think “such things” in this verse are? And why?

Robert Kan: I imagine that the list is not exhaustive. But it’s still pretty impressive to say the least. “Such things” closes the loop for those who might try too hard to find a way out.

Joel H. on June 12, 2015 at 8:55 am
What I meant is this:
The paragraphing in the NRSV suggests that the clause only refers to vss. 28-31 (and, therefore, the behaviors in 29-31). This would make sense, particularly if verses 28 and 32 bracket the list.
Do you agree with the NRSV, or do you think verse 32 refers back even further?

Relentless: Joel, I see 26-32 as one paragraph. There is a pericope in 24-26: God handed them over, they turned the truth of God into a lie, and God turned them over. Then the rest of the chapter is spent in describing the consequences of God having turned them over. Then, in ch. 2, Paul turns on the Jews who were reading all this and patting themselves on the back. Once again, the pervasiveness of sin does not excuse it, and the thief cannot judge the homosexual without hypocrisy. The solution is not to pretend that neither theft nor homosexuality is sin, but to admit both are, and to abstain from both.