The Biblical witness about homosexuality centers on Romans 1 because the passage is clearly a NT doctrinal passage which refers to both men and women. Any discussion of the Bible and homosexuality today must address 43 years of pro-gay arguments about Romans 1. What are these arguments?
Derrick S. Bailey (1955) argues that Paul is culture-bound because Paul speaks about perversion (what heterosexually oriented folks do when they commit homosexual acts) instead of true inversion (what homosexually oriented folks do). Paul could not have made such a distinction, Bailey claims, so Paul condemns all homosexuality as devolving from idolatry. So we today have no reason to treat the Bible's condemnation of homosexual acts any differently than we now treat the Bible's endorsement of certain forms of slavery. "It was fine for then, but we know better now. " In the case of homosexuality, we have modern science to thank for showing us that homosexuality is a non-neurotic variation of human sexual experience, the argument continues (Lance 1989).
One twist on the argument from cultural relativity is a 1978 book by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott, who write out of an evangelical heritage. They argue that sexual acts that homosexuals do are condoned by evangelicals when done in a heterosexual marriage, so obviously it is not the acts that are at issue (despite sodomy laws in most states) but the gender of the partner that is at issue. Considering the variety of sexual practices that the OT winks at (concubines, polygamy, silence about female homosexuality), they argue that traditionalists are making too much of something the Bible makes little of.
A pro-gay reading of "against nature" argues that Paul says that short hair for a man is "natural" in I Cor. 11:14, proving that his view is culturally relative. The traditional view of, say, Aquinas, holds that "nature" means "natural law," more absolute than either human laws or cultural convention.
John Boswell (1980) similarly finds arsenokoitai "man-bedding," and malakoi "soft" unclear, words that are usually translated "homosexual" in I Cor. 6:9-10. Richard Hays (1991) in contrast argues convincingly that Paul has the Septuagint of Leviticus 18 in mind in inventing the word arsenokoitai.
A third strategy is to say that Paul is condemning lust, condemning sex-centered exploitation, but not committed caring emotional same-sex relationships. Victor Paul Furnish first defended Paul on this score in 1979. In 1994, Furnish modified his view to criticize Paul. He argued against Paul on four grounds: Paul assumed that homosexuality was a choice, Paul assumed that there would be an active and a passive partner in a homosexual relationship, Paul assumed that homosexual activity would result in the extinction of humanity, and Paul viewed sex patriarchally.
A fourth strategy is to argue that one cannot adduce ethical norms from theological passages. Pim Pronk's (1993) dissertation is the most extended argument along these lines. See my critique of Pronk in a recent essay review (Chase 1997). Comstock (1993) argues that the Song of Songs is a better place to find a sexual ethic in the Bible.
We must be careful however not to assume that we can read God's mind, or that our inductive reasoning from specific passages is universally applicable. In the wake of modern feminism, we all see complementarity differently today than Paul did, in particular, not nearly as hierarchically.
Still, Paul used marriage as an analogy between Christ and the church. Thus if C.S. Lewis is right that, in contrast to God, we are all feminine, God's creation intent is reinforced in Christ's redemptive intent. I personally feel that marriage images God as Other. Pro-gay apologists would point out that God is immanent as well as transcendent. In fact, Pronk challenges Karl Barth's theological critique of homosexuality on exactly this ground: if God's image is in everyone, then how is His image specially in heterosexual couples?
Coleman (1980) specifically argues that Paul's appeal is to Noachide laws, laws that Jews expect Gentiles to keep, not Jewish laws. Pro-gays argue that just as God taught Peter to leave behind his narrow-minded legalism to welcome gentiles, so gays should be given full status in churches today (Siker 1994). They fail to note that the Jerusalem Council wisely kept porneia "fornication" among the list of things that Gentile Christians should avoid. I maintain that Jesus' argument against porneia is a criticism of homosexual behavior. Gays say that Jesus is silent on the subject of homosexuality. (See Chase 1989.)
Another argument in favor of a traditional view is simply that the church has uniformly held that homosexual behavior is wrong for two millennia. Community ethics should take precedence over personal feelings. Boswell (1994) notwithstanding, there is no tradition of same-sex unions in the church.
Catholics argue against homosexuality on the grounds that it is not potentially procreative. But on the same grounds they argue against birth control. So that Catholic argument is not welcome in Protestant circles. Protestants do not find in Paul's writing that procreation is a principal goal of sex. Nonetheless, Catholics and evangelicals agree that homosexuality is proscribed.
Tradionalists who use Leviticus 18 and 20 to argue against homosexuality need to explain why the death penalty is no longer called for. The usual argument is that we are now in an age of grace, but Grayston, who is otherwise pro-gay, argues that I Cor. 6:9-10 replaces the death penalty with separation from God (1988).