Is this a justifiable reason to support LGBT normality as a Christian?

[libertpaulian]

I haven't studied the passages in depth, but you'd certainly have some verses in Romans and 1 Corinthians to contend with.  If you don't consider those books of the Bible as inspired, then it's very reasonable to support LGBT normality in the church as a Christian, but it's a trickier proposition if you do.

I believe the entire Bible, from Genesis 1:1, up to Revelation 22:21, is the Word of God, and I believe that sexuality is a lot more nuanced from a Scriptural perspective.

[libertpaulian]

I haven't studied the passages in depth, but you'd certainly have some verses in Romans and 1 Corinthians to contend with.  If you don't consider those books of the Bible as inspired, then it's very reasonable to support LGBT normality in the church as a Christian, but it's a trickier proposition if you do.

I believe the entire Bible, from Genesis 1:1, up to Revelation 22:21, is the Word of God, and I believe that sexuality is a lot more nuanced from a Scriptural perspective.

Perhaps, but if you consider the whole of scripture to be God’s word, as I do, you have to have a good reason to interpret all the passages that seem to condemn homosexual sex (in the New Testament in particular) in a manner other than the most straightforward one.  I understand the arguments from historical context by folks like Matthew Vines and while I don’t know enough about the topic to render a verdict on his arguments, one has to be careful when discarding the traditional understanding of the scriptures that has not been contested seriously until recently.

I honestly think while Matthew Vines means well, he is very young and could use a LOT of training as to making theological and academic arguments.  His work is good as a "The Gay Christian Movement for Dummies," but beyond that, I wouldn't recommend him.

Jim Brownson's "The Bible, Gender, and Sexuality" is a much better work, IMO.

[libertpaulian]

This is the way I look at it:

The New Testament condemns homosexual behavior.  This was never controversial among Christians until the rapidly secularizing culture began to accept such behavior.  Increased tolerance of homosexual sex is correlated strongly with increased secularism.  This is not controversial among Christians who live in countries where there isn't cultural tolerance for homosexuality.  In Africa and Asia, Christians continue to believe what the Bible has always taught on the subject.  This leads me to believe that pro-SSM Christians are compromising with the culture.

Here's another thing to consider:

Christianity was born into the Roman Empire, an empire that mostly tolerated homosexuality and a whole host of other sins (abortion, infanticide, gladiatorial games just to name a few).  By AD 400 these things were no longer tolerated.  Early Christians understood all these things to be immoral.  Now that the West is becoming less and less religious, abortion and homosexuality (and in some cases, euthanasia of infants) are becoming more and more tolerated. 

I think Kingpoleon gave a pretty good analysis above.

[libertpaulian]

Arsenokoitai means something along the lines of men sleeping together (its a compound of men and bed).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romans 1:27

This passage seems to be talking about men and women abandoning marriage in order to pursue homosexual relations.  I can't get anything else out of it.

That passage refers to acts of homosexual sex in temple idol worship, not all gay people as a whole.  This is pretty clear when it's put into context:

Romans 1:22-25 - Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

It was common for male and female shrine prostitutes to be the receiver of seed for the idols, and women were also used as vessels for the idol worshiping men.  And note that they were inflamed with lust for one another, which does not describe loving committed relationships.

I think that's really a stretch.  If this was simply a reference to temple prostitution, then why are men committing shameful acts with other men singled out?  Why doesn't it mention men committing shameful acts with female temple prostitutes?

Man/boy "love" was very common in ancient Greece and Rome, and Paul was very well-aware of that.  He wasn't stupid.

[libertpaulian]

The only thing that irks me about fundamentalists is that they seem to be allergic to ANY form of Biblical scholarship.