Galva's latest nonsense

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

This is the latest article written by the GALVA people (Gay and Lesbian something or other).

 

Here they very clearly state that homosexuality is not sinful. Oddly, the guru they claim to follow, Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, very clearly says that homosexuality is a sin. I wonder how they justify their deviating from their guru. To disobey the instructions of the spiritual master is a great offense, and it stops one's advancement in sadhana.

 

"Is homosexuality a sin?"

 

No, homosexuality is a natural behavior of the third sex. Natural and loving homosexuality is no more sinful by nature than heterosexuality. According to strict brahminical and Vaishnava standards, all attachment to material sexuality must ultimately be abandoned in order to achieve liberation, and this applies equally to everyone regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. The vast majority of people require loving relationships and physical intimacy in their life as a matter of personal fulfillment and good mental health. This should not be denied to anyone whether they are gay or straight. Only the most stonehearted of men would prevent another human being from experiencing loving relationships. The practice of celibacy is a very serious undertaking that cannot be forced upon others or adopted artificially.

 

And look at this one:

 

"What about the regulation of 'sex for procreation only'?"

 

This is a general rule that applies to heterosexuals or 95% of all people. Since gays and lesbians do not engage in the procreative act by nature and as a matter of definition, how could this statement possibly have any relevance for them?

Srila Prabhupada taught that this regulation applies for all of his disciples. The GALVA fellows want us to reject the instructions of the Acharya in favour of their own speculations.

 

"Do any Vedic verses specifically condemn homosexual behavior?"

 

There are no Vedic verses that condemn homosexual behavior among people of the third sex.

They missed this verse from Mahabharata:

 

"Foolish and evil men engage in all forms of sexual intercourse without a female womb, forcing themselves upon other men. They are born again without their organs as neuters." (Mahabharata 13.145.52)

 

And this is what they say about Srila Prabhupada:

 

The Victorian view of the homosexual male was that of a person so consumed by lust he engaged in sexual relations not only with women, but also with other men. Srila Prabhupada apparently shared this uninformed and old-fashioned stereotype of that time period, and he made several statements reflecting that view... We can only conclude, therefore, that Srila Prabhupada, like most people of his day, was not well informed about homosexuality or the third sex.

 

Thus they are stating that Srila Prabhupada's teachings, instructions, and writings (including Srimad Bhagavatam) are materially influenced and therefore imperfect.

 

I think this throws a lot of light on the opinion and views of the GALVA people, who claim to follow Srila Prabhupada, but openly reject him and his teachings, and consider him to be materially influenced.

 

My original response to the Tritiya Prakriti (GALVA) article is here:

http://www.indiadivine.com/galva-reply.htm

 

 

[nine9]

My dear Jahnava Nitai prabhu,

 

Thank you for noticing I had posted Amara dasa's Q&A on my site. I am sorry but I do not have enough time right now to comment on your points. This is mostly because I work night-shift and it is now the morning (hence my night).

 

I would like to say one thing, however. Please notice this:

(Amara):

The practice of celibacy is a very serious undertaking that cannot be forced upon others or adopted artificially.

True my friend Amara prabhu has said that homosexuality is not a sin, and that it is the natural behaviour of the third-sex. This is certain, just as the natural expression of the sex drive in heterosexual persons is to couple with those of opposite sex. Please do not let any of this infer that celibacy is not important for us, too. By your arguments heterosexual sex is a sin, too. In fact, any sex, not for procreation is lusty, sinful, and materially binding. I agree with you whole-heartedly. However, I feel that the only way we can free ourselves from these vices it to recognise our respective positions. This does not change the order of the spiritual master. I have my vice. You have yours. And I pray that both of us can be free of them.

 

Please also remember that homosexuality does not always equate to the adhorata, or intercourse without a female womb that you so disparage and see as a sin. I would like to point out that

 

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI> to be "homosexual" includes far more than just the physical, as a heterosexual relationship based on celibacy conists of more than just physical attraction; and<LI> secondly the portion of the Mahabharata that you quote from (13.145.52) can has oft been mistranslated into the English language. The word viyoni, or improper womb, refers to the womb of another man's wife, the mother, sister, animal or child. This word was commonly mistranslated by early British scholars to mean "anything other than the female organ" in order to unfairly associate natural homosexuality with criminal behavior.

Please bear these points in mind, and remember, above all that celibacy is equally important to us. I am at your disposal to answer any questions you may.

 

I remain,

Your humble servant,

 

Rama Kesava dasa

(Mark A Miles)

rama.kesava.BVTS@pamho.net /

nine9@ukshells.co.uk

 

PS You attempted to join the GALVA108 e-Group didn't you?

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 10-23-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

True my friend Amara prabhu has said that homosexuality is not a sin, and that it is the natural behaviour of the third-sex.

But Srila Prabhupada, who happens to be the guru Amara Das has rejected, teaches that homosexuality is a sin. It's your freedom to choose who you wish to accept, but as a follower of Srila Prabhupada I would expect you to accept Srila Prabhupada's instruction.

 

Desire for illicit sex is very natural in the material world; it is what causes our bondage. To give in to this lower urge is the way of further entanglement in maya. Srila Prabhupada, keeping our eternal benefit in mind, instructed us to give up sinful activities which lead to bondage. These include homosexuality and any sexual activity not for conceiving children. To follow one's animal instincts, or what comes "naturally" to the conditioned soul, is not the advice of the sages and saints. They instruct us to develop our divine nature by controlling the senses and cultivating spiritual sadhana.

 

This is certain, just as the natural expression of the sex drive in heterosexual persons is to couple with those of opposite sex. Please do not let any of this infer that celibacy is not important for us, too. By your arguments heterosexual sex is a sin, too.

These are the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. Any sex that is not for procreation is sinful. Perhaps you give more importance to the kama-sutra than to the words of your spiritual master. That is a cultural defect prevelant in the west, to reject the order of the guru in favour of one's own opinions.

 

I agree with you whole-heartedly. However, I feel that the only way we can free ourselves from these vices it to recognise our respective positions. This does not change the order of the spiritual master. I have my vice. You have yours. And I pray that both of us can be free of them.

The difference is I will admit that my vices are sinful, but some others, such as those writing for GALVA, state homosexuality is not sinful, it is the natural activity of homosexuals.

 

The word viyoni, or improper womb, refers to the womb of another man's wife, the mother, sister, animal or child. This word was commonly mistranslated by early British scholars to mean "anything other than the female organ" in order to unfairly associate natural homosexuality with criminal behavior.

I am versed in sanskrit and know the meaning of "viyoni". Contrary to your claims, it means literally "without a female sexual organ". Those who have no knowledge of sanskrit write articles claiming viyoni means "another mans wife", that "napumsaka" means "homosexual", etc. These are absurd statements which can only fool those who have no knowledge of the language, and who have a preset conclusion that homosexuality is not sinful.

 

A similar example can be found in the common word vairagya, which means detachment or dispassion.

 

Or one can analyse the usage of the word "viita" as found in the Gita verse 'vIta-rAga-bhaya-krodha'. 'Being free from attachment, fear and anger.'

 

The meaning of 'viyoni' is self evident. The language itself has a direct meaning and does not require twisting and tearing to fit one's preset philosophy. The meaning is "without a female sexual organ".

 

Regardless, the context of the verse is itself self-evident and requires no illumination.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 10-23-2001).]

[Bhaktaboy]

Hare Krsna to all participants on this discussion,

 

I often grow tired of the obsession people have with another's sexual behavior. I also believe that throughout the history of religion there have been people who interpret the scripture of their religion literally and/or allegorically. The important thing is to truly look at the substance behind the form. Following regulations for the sake of the regulation is Vaidhi-Bhakti (ritualistic devotion). This has much benefit and should be practised. However our goal is to cultivate Raganuga-Bhakti (the path of passionate Love) by following in the footsteps of those that follow the footprints of the inhabitants of Vrindavana. Vaidhi-Bhakti in its highest form is only useful in its allowing us to cultivate Raganuga-Bhakti. So everyone should be concerned with their own Sadhana rather than offending another Sadhaka. In our lineage we have a Siksa Guru, Sridhar Maharaja. He says, "The footprints of those that are going to the divine world chalk out the broad path. This is our surest guidance. Only they may be reliable guides. All else may be eliminated because calculation is fallible." Therefore, we should all follow what has been set before us by OUR spiritual master. But beware of interpretation and speculative thinking. Although there is some value to reasoning, it is limited. We should follow the active agent and avoid calculation. The spiritual master is said to be all-knowing, all-seeing, subjective. He/She can only see the ultimate reality subjectively or else he is making the Supreme Lord an object of vision.

 

Please follow your own Guru, develop your Bhakti, and avoid judments and offenses directed at other Vaisnavas. What we should really do is utilize our energy to look at our OWN attachments and do something about them.

 

Your friend and servant,

Gopa Kumara Dasa

Disciple of Om Sripad Bhaktivedanta Tripurari Swami Maharaja

[Gauracandra]

Oh Nine9 you are quite pathetic. It is you and your Galva friends who seem to be obsessed with homosexuality. Has anyone else noticed that Nine9 and his Galva friends only post in these forums about homosexuality? They never discuss things like differences in Vaisnava traditions, or post jokes, or talk about world events. ALL they ever discuss is that they are gay.

 

What was being objected to was a deliberate lie by some homosexuals who posted to these forums, and worked with the website called Chakra to broadcast this lie to the greater Vaisnava community. Jahnava Nitai simply deconstructed this lie, and showed based on Sanskrit definitions that these were untrue.

 

Of course the typical gay response is "Oh you disagree with me, so you must be gay." How completely typical. Absolutely pathetic.

 

Does anyone really believe these folks have discovered something not known to the Vaisnava Acharyas. We know Srila Prabhupada very specifically said homosexuality was a sin. Now, what if you were to ask the top acharyas of the various Vaisnava traditions (Sri, Madhva, etc...). How much you want to bet they too would say homosexuality is a sin? They are very orthodox.

 

Give it up people. I don't think you even believe this nonsense. You must have some real cognitive dissonance going on, and the only way you can cope with it is to fabricate this nonsense.

 

Gauracandra

 

[This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 10-23-2001).]

[nine9]

Dear Gauracandra prabhu,

 

Thank you for your "insightful" comments. Unfortunately you are slightly misinformed. I would post regarding other topics, however my time and resources are slightly limited. I was given this link by a friend and chose to reply since it mentioned the web-site that I administrate. Do you expect me to do anything else? Wouldn't you reply if you were in my position.

 

Unfortunately arguing is a waste of time, and we will never come to a clear compromise. I propose therefore that we cease to debate these things.

 

I remain,

Your humble servant,

Rama Kesava dasa

rama.kesava.BVTS@pamho.net /

nine9@ukshells.co.uk

(disciple of HH B.V. Tripurari Swami Maharaja)

 

PS Please address me by my given-name.

 

[nine9]

Jahnava Nitai prabhu,

 

Here is something my friend Amara wrote regarding the translation of "viyoni", that you may (possibly?) find insightful:

 

(Amara)

"Karma" refers to action or activities. "Akarma" refers to inaction

or without action. Sukarma refers to pious or good actions, and vikarma refers to impious or bad actions. These are the standard applications for these prefixes according to Sanskrit scholars and as used by Srila Prabhupada himself.

 

I mention this common example due to its corresponding application to the word "yoni" or female organ. "Ayoni" refers to a non-womb and often refers to anal intercourse. "Suyoni" refers to a good or proper womb, and "viyoni" refers to a bad or improper womb.

 

Regardless of how one translates or mistranslates these words, there are still two important points to understand regarding Sanskrit verses that mention "ayoni" and "viyoni." First of all adhorata, or anal sex, is not recommended for any of the three genders, including people of the third sex. Verses condemning its practice cannot be assumed to be condemning all homosexual behavior and love-making. Nowadays it is quite common for straight people to identtify homosexual behavior as being primarily anal intercourse, but this is simply not true. According to the Kama Shastra, oral sex is the natural practice of the third gender and not adhorata. Secondly, these verses typically describe and refer to "pumsaka" or first-gendered males. They do not refer to "napumsaka" or third-gendered males.

 

Instead of misusing these verses to discriminate against gays, I suggest we take their true meaning to heart as a warning against the risky and unhealthy practice of adhorata for all genders. After all, the modern day epidemic spread of AIDS in Africa can be directly linked to similar practices among heterosexuals. Within the gay community, AIDS is almost entirely transmitted through unsafe anal sex. We need to educate all people about the dangers of unhealthy sexual practices. If we foolishly misuse these verses to condemn and reject other groups of people, we are missing the point they make and are only creating a worse situation for everyone.

And an interesting quote:

"Another noteworthy feature (of the Kama-sutra) is Vatsyayana's treatment of oral sex as the primary form of same-sex sexual interaction. He is clearly aware of anal sex performed on men and also penetrative sex with a dildo. However, here, as in other ancient Indian texts, oral sex, not penetrative sex, is represented as the model of sex between men. This leads one to wonder why penetrative sex later came to displace oral sex in the popular imagination as the primary form of sex etween men."

"Same-sex Love in India," by Ruth Vanita and Saleem Kidwai, p. 52.

 

Ys., Rama Kesava dasa

rama.kesava.BVTS@pamho.net

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 10-23-2001).]

[Gauracandra]

Rama Keshava Das,

 

Thank you too for your "insightful" posting. It has made me realize just how far this Galva website needs to distort the Vedic teachings.

 

First of all adhorata, or anal sex, is not recommended for any of the three genders, including people of the third sex. Verses condemning its practice cannot be assumed to be condemning all homosexual behavior and love-making. Nowadays it is quite common for straight people to identtify homosexual behavior as being primarily anal intercourse, but this is simply not true. According to the Kama Shastra, oral sex is the natural practice of the third gender and not adhorata.

 

Well its good to see that it is acknowledged that anal sex is "condemned". Anal sex is ejaculating semen into the rectum of another man. And this is "condemned". But then we are told that oral sex is (by inference) not condemned.

 

Now the result of oral sex is to cause the ejaculate to be consumed by the other party. Simply read the Fifth Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam to see that this activity is considered abominable. It is considered a black magic used by low class people.

 

Of course I can hear the protest already. "Who says oral sex means consumption of semen?". Now either semen is ejaculated into the mouth of the other party, who consumes it, or it is spit out, or it is ejaculated outside the mouth of the other party.

 

Now we know that ejaculating into the rectum is condemned. So now somehow ejaculating into the mouth is alright? What sort of logic is this?

 

Again, we know Srila Prabhupada says homosexuality is a sin. And I repeat, does anyone think that the orthodox Brahmins of India's Vaisnava schools (Sri, Madhva etc...) would say that homosexuality is not a sin? This idea is silly. No Vaisnava tradition accepts homosexuality.

 

Gauracandra

 

[This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 10-23-2001).]

[nine9]

Dear Gauracandra prabhu,

 

Most of your assertations are quite correct and I agree with you by and large. However, as I have been trying to argue for some months now, homosexuality is not merely about the sexual act, just as heterosexuality does not revolve around copulation. This is so important. Yes, we are sinful, but only as sinful as those heterosexuals who copulate for sense-enjoyment. It's the same coin, just a different side. This is what I meant when I said to Jahnava Nitai prabhu that he (meaning heterosexuals) has his vice, and I mine.

 

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

No Vaisnava tradition accepts homosexuality.

Hah! Um, so I'm not a Vaisnava, and neither are my third-gendered (tritiya-prakrti) godbrothers and godsisters, eh? I would, of course beg to differ, but we're never going to agree, so I embrace you as my godbrother and offer you my humble dandavat pranams. You have your view, I have mine. Can we not agree to differ, and discuss more important things of a common interest?

 

Ys., Rama Kesava dasa

rama.kesava.BVTS@pamho.net

 

PS As a small side note - not all sexual acts are accompanied by orgasm (i.e. ejaculation). And I agree with you such things are not at all too nice, and (when you consider STDs, the Big Nasty, and the like) quite a dangerous thing to do.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 10-23-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Yes, we are sinful, but only as sinful as those heterosexuals who copulate for sense-enjoyment.

But Amara Das claims Homosexuality is not sinful, and that oral sex is not sinful, and that homosexuals are "more detached" than heterosexuals. Do you really expect us to believe you don't see a difference between these views and those of our Acharya, Sri A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada?

 

If someone would start a "Promiscuous Heterosexual Vaishnava Association", and then claim they were following the "spirit" of Srila Prabhupada's teachings, I would criticize them for their distortions as well. Do not distort the direct teachings of the Vaishnava Acharyas.

 

 

Gaurachandra said:

No Vaisnava tradition accepts homosexuality.

 

You replied:

Hah! Um, so I'm not a Vaisnava, and neither are my third-gendered (tritiya-prakrti) godbrothers and godsisters, eh?

You are not a vaishnava tradition, plain and simple. It does not mean you are not a vaishnava.

 

No traditional Vaishnava lineage in the history has ever stated that homosexuality is not sinful. In the Madhva and Ramanuja lines these points are obvious and unquestionable. Speak to Pejavara Swami, speak to Chinna Jeeyar Swami. Even try to tell this nonsense to Jayendra Saraswati of Kanchipuram Matha. They won't even waste time to reply to these absurdities.

 

Can you cite a single traditional Vaishnava Acharya who has ever stated homosexuality is not sinful? If, as you claim, 10% of the population in ancient India was homosexual, than one of the Vaishnava Acharya's must have addressed this point. The fact is, homosexuality was rarely practiced in ancient India, it was considered sinful, and Vaishnava Acharya's wouldn't even waste time on the topic, just as they didn't waste time explaining how its sinful to sleep with one's mother.

 

 

Regarding Amara Das's claims on viyoni, his understanding of the prefixes is childish. Based on context and combination, the prefixes and roots develop their meanings. To simply say, "look! vikarma means 'bad activity', so viyoni must mean 'bad womb'! Therefore it refers to 'the neighbors wife!'" is simply absurd. I would suggest he seriously study sanskrit under a proper teacher, and not make ludicrous claims without knowing the language.

 

Napumsaka does not mean homosexual. It never has, and even today it does not. No sanskrit dictionary will define it as homosexual. A homosexual named Amara Das comes along and states 'napumsaka' means "homosexual" (in opposition to all rules of language), and we are supposed to blindly accept it? If we don't accept this absurdity, we are narrow-minded, prejudice, gay-bashers, etc.?

 

All I can say is he should first learn the language and then try to teach it to me.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 10-23-2001).]

[nine9]

Dear Jahnava Nitai prabhu,

 

Thank you for your comments. You believe what you believe and Amara prabhu and I believe what we believe. However our views are irreconcilable, and we will never change each other's position. I respect you for views however; you have conviction.

 

However, I don't feel that it's proper to have yet another, third, round of debate on homosexuality. Nothing new is accomplished...and all we do is go round in circles.

 

The topic of whether every statement Srila Prabhupada ever said relating to ordinary subjects (such as homosexuality and women's issues) as being eternal truths is something that is currently being debated within ISKCON and on websites such as CHAKRA. Such debate is healthy. Srila Prabhupada wanted us to use intelligence in applying his instructions, and Lord Caitanya wanted everyone to be included in His sankirtana movement. We can see from instances such as the recent conference in Alachua that a good majority of ISKCON devotees are open-minded and perfectly willing to accommodate gay persons within the movement.

 

One other point I would like to make is that the views I posted on "Questions and Answers" are Amara's own views and not necessarily those of other members or even the "official" views of GALVA. He and I do believe they are correct, however, from everything we have studied so far on the subject matter of the third sex and also from our respective understanding of the mood of our beloved gurudeva Srila Prabhupada.

 

So, can we bury this issue? I cannot begin to imagine why people like you are even the least bit interested in this topic of homosexuality. Most of my devotee friends are straight, and they could care less about these types of conversations. Please do not be so obsessed with gay people and their concerns for equal treatment. It is quite unhealthy. In fact these modern-day psychologists would say there would be some deep-seated reason why you keep pursuing it... but I will not. I should much rather discuss important things, such as your work at the Bhaktivedanta Ashrama.

 

I remain,

Your humble servant,

 

Rama Kesava dasa

rama.kesava.BVTS@pamho.net /

nine9@ukshells.co.uk

(disciple of HH B.V. Tripurari Swami Maharaja)

 

[This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 10-23-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I cannot begin to imagine why people like you are even the least bit interested in this topic of homosexuality. Most of my devotee friends are straight, and they could care less about these types of conversations. Please do not be so obsessed with gay people and their concerns for equal treatment.

Our concern is that there are people distorting the teachings of the Vedic scriptures and of our Acharya, Srila Prabhupada.

 

To say that homosexuality is not sinful, when Srila Prabhupada directly says the opposite, while claiming to follow Srila Prabhupada is certainly offensive to him. Do you seriously think you and Amara Das have understood dharma-shastras better than Srila Prabhupada? Do you think that you have uncovered some Vedic truth that Srila Prabhupada was ignorant of?

[gHari]

In Romans 1, the apostle Paul reveals that we all have the knowledge of God within us, and then what happens when we ignore this truth and Krsna. It is apparent that there were 'third-sex' folks back in his time:

18

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

It somehow seemed appropriate for this discussion.

 

gHari

 

------------------

Gary Stevason

Seeking the Kingdom of God

 

[This message has been edited by gHari (edited 10-29-2001).]

[gHari]

Even for those who have ears to hear, that King James old English is a little difficult to comprehend. Here are newer versions:

 

King James (Old English as in above post)

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

New King James

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

New International Version

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

New American Standard Bible

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Revised Standard Version

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,

27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Darby Transalation

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature;

27 and in like manner the males also, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their lust towards one another; males with males working shame, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was fit.

New Living Translation

26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

I hope that leaves the meaning clear.

 

gHari

 

------------------

Gary Stevason

Seeking the Kingdom of God