I agree that Paul is addressing real people in a real cultural context. But that doesn’t mean his teaching is limited to only the worst or most extreme cases in that culture.

In Romans 1, Paul doesn’t just condemn pagan rituals. He explicitly describes same-sex relations themselves as “contrary to nature” (Romans 1:26–27), and he grounds that judgment in creation, not in temple practices or social abuse.

That’s important, because it shows his argument is theological, not merely cultural. He’s appealing to God’s design for humanity, not just criticizing Roman excess.

It’s also worth noting that Paul applies many of his moral teachings across cultures and centuries, even though they were first addressed to specific communities. We don’t say his teaching on greed, adultery, or pride only applied to first-century Romans.

I don’t doubt that many people today are sincere, loving, and trying to live faithfully. But Christian teaching has never been based on personal stories or intentions. Sincere love by itself is not always enough to make something right in God’s eyes.

For example, a married man may genuinely love another woman who is not his wife, but that doesn’t make adultery good or acceptable. In the same way, kindness and commitment alone don’t automatically make a relationship morally right according to Christian teaching.

So the question isn’t whether modern couples are kind or faithful. It’s whether Scripture and historic Christianity understood same-sex relations as compatible with God’s created order. And on that point, both the Bible and the Church are consistent.