Cheryl Schatz

Charis,
The natural “use” in this context is about the body. It doesn’t say that the “natural use” of a woman’s mind or her emotions or her friendship. The context is about abusing of the body and shame and lust. All I need is a second witness to show that “natural use” can refer to something other than the physical.

I am completely with you on the issue of marriage and relationships and that a husband should not be expecting a sexual relationship with his wife while refusing to bond with her emotionally. What I am saying is that the passage is not talking about emotional relationships between husband and wife. I am not saying that God didn’t create women for intimate emotional relationships with men. He absolutely did create the woman for this purpose. In this way I am not debating you at all because I agree with you. I am just saying that you are using Romans 1 out of context. Romans 1:24 says “body”. It is only talking about the sin done in the body. It is a sinful acting out what started in the mind. God is not saying that He created women only for a physical “use”. But the term “use” is never used for an emotional relationship. If I am wrong, then it would only take a second witness from scripture to prove me wrong. If you can find a second witness I would be willing to revisit this issue.

I think that it is very noble to encourage men to honor and cherish their wives and not to look at them as if they were objects to “use” instead of an outworking of a loving, emotional relationship. But I would caution you at reading into a passage something that is not there. If you remove the sinful lusting of one man for another man’s body, you are removing what God has said is sin and it removes one of the witnesses from the NT against homosexuality. Does this make sense?