Logic vs. Religion

I just had a thought.

Romans 1:27 is a passage in the Bible frequently cited as evidence that homosexuality is a sin. At first glance, this passage appears to call it indecent. It says: the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts.

It seems like the author of this statement is calling the act of men getting with other men "indecent." Here is where those who assume this statement condemns homosexuality go wrong. It's very significant that the author refers to the acts as indecent and not the men themselves. At a second glance, it appears that this passage specifies that the acts are wrong, not the people who engage in them, which diminishes the strength this passage provides to the biblical argument against homosexuality, but doesn't completely destroy it. After all, these people, although not specifically sinful, immoral, etc., are still doing "indecent things." However, a third glance completely skews the meaning of this passage.

What if this passage is not referring specifically to homosexual coupling as indecent, but is generally referring to all sexual activity as indecent. There are numerous possibilities of meaning in this vein of intepretation. For example, the words, "burned in their desire" clearly indicate that the men in this passage felt lust for eachother, so it's possible that the word indecent refers to engaging in sex for the purpose of lust and not love.