Becomming Straight

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

selek,

I know you well enough to know that what you have posted above is very honest and heartfelt.

I'm actually very hopeful that we could discuss the various points you've raised in a productive manner. Perhaps a manner that can be quite rare when it comes to this particular subject. (And just so it's clear, I think both sides can sometimes be equally to blame on this front - that isn't a comment to try and 'score a point').

I began typing out a long, thourough reply - but fustratingly - I just don't have time to write the post I would like to right now. I wish I did, but I don't. I'll try and write it perhaps tomorrow or sometime over the weekend. (Hopefully the thread can stay open that long! )

When I made a first pass through your post, my first reaction was 'How can this be the reaction to what has been said in this thread?!'. But as I thought about it more, I clearly see your viewpoint. At least, I can clearly see why you have that viewpoint.

Anyway, just wanted to say that I appreciated your post. At a first glance it's hard to try see past the fact that it comes from a completely different perspective than mine. I mean, pretty much polar opposite. But then, by now, I think we know each-other well enough that it shouldn't be any big surprise that that is the case But I think we've also managed to develop the ability to 'cross the divide' somewhat. Hopefully we can do some of that again here... Not to say we'll agree on anything! But at least we may understand each-other a little better, and why we each see things the way we do.

But anyway - I will try and tackle the points you've raised, and give you my viewpoint on them soon. And I'm really going to make an effort to make sure I keep mutual understanding at the fore-front as I do it. Because I think the loss of that is what usually causes a lot of discussions on this subject to disentigrate rather quickly.

Anyway - I'll write more when I have more time...

[Pahoran]

Hi, Bach,

It's interesting to me that one could read words speaking about "lusting for a woman in his heart" and draw the conclusion that it isn't a condemnation of a sexual drive... but I guess anything could be open to interpretation.

Even if such an analysis that such a statement isn't about a SEX drive was correct, the desire for a gay man to enter into a relationship with someone to whom he is romantically, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually attracted to is far greater (though obviously encompasses) mere "sex drive." As such, the way I always understood it, the scriptures I quoted condemn anyone who, for any length of time, has desires in their heart to form a homosexual relationship contrary to what the LDS scriptures decree as "heterosexual"--whether that is solely based on the sexual, or encompasses it as something far greater than the whole.

While I understand that Mormons have a desire to appear more compassionate in this recently emerged teaching that "the sin lies in the act, not the desire," such a non-scriptural-based teaching is not consistent with my understanding of established Christian and LDS cannonical scripture.

That's because your "understanding," being driven by your polemical agenda, is necessarily faulty.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Thus we see that the sin is not in the desire, but in the actions. Your claim that this is a "recently emerged teaching" is simply false.

Let us look again at one of your darling prooftexts:

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Note the key words: Jesus is condemning an action with intent, not a moment of temptation.

Mormonism condemns homosexuality in any form, and someone who's natural, heart-felt desire is to have a gay relationship--and who dwells on that for any length of time--will not receive a "righteous" reward based on thsoe desires.

Of course they won't; the desire is not a righteous one. But those who continually "fight the good fight," as Mr. Glatze has chosen to do, will receive a righteous reward for that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Avatar4321]

Uh huh... and why is that homosexuality scares some people so much?

cacheman

I dont think it does scare anyone. I think people are simply disgusted by it.

[Avatar4321]

Et voila!

What we are seeing here is an exit story published on a site known to be stridently against his former lifestyle. In this context, he lets us know that he has now seen the light and knows the underlying motivations for all homosexual actions (not just his own). Compare to exit stories on rfm.

cacheman

"(Just saw that RoPh beat me to the punch when I finished the thread. Sorry.)"

Hey, it bears repeating.

There is nothing to compare the experiences are completely different.

Here we are seeing an exit story from a group that claims that they have no control over their actions that they are born that way, that they cannot change.

The mere fact that someone has changed totally undercuts the entire premise of his former association.

Like I said, there is no comparison.

[Avatar4321]

And what of all the closet gays who play at being straight? Are they heros when they admit the truth of their sexual orientation?

Tell me, how can one admit the truth when they have obviously spent years proving said truth wrong? How can they be lying about their sexual orientation while engaging in sexual activities with the opposite sex?

Such a case would not be admitting the truth as you say, but succumbing to a lie. Because their very life has proved that it is a lie.

[Avatar4321]

Trust me, this dude isn't a hero. He's just someone who changed their mind about their sexual orientation. He's called a hero by homophobes when he goes from gay to straight, but if he goes from straight to gay he's what? A pervert?

And thus refutes the claims that choice is not involved. that they cannot change. Which of course destroys the homosexual communities claims.

No doubt, he will convince you and like minded people.

For every ONE of him there's TEN THOUSAND, who had no choice or say about their sexual orientation when they were born.

Either way, if they live in United States of America or any part of Western World they have a chance to survive and live as productive decent human beings.

Everyone has a choice in life. To deny that is to insult all mankind.

[Avatar4321]

Glatze's primary sin in the eyes of the homosexual lobby (as opposed to those merely practicing the behavior) is that his is yet another voice raised to defy the idea that homosexuality is innate and immutable.

That is the sin of all Christians. Because the Gospel of Jesus Christ is centered on the presmise that through the Atonement human nature itself can be changed.

Those that deny the power of the Atonement have missed the point. Nature can be changed. Though we all sin, our sinful nature can be removed from us and replaced with the Spirit of Christ.

You deny this and you deny the atonement. Which is why Christianity is such a threat.

[Maidservant]

"Please, would you tell me," said Alice, a little timidly, ... "why your cat grins like that?"

"It's a Cheshire cat," said the Duchess, "and that's why."

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.

"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."

"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.

"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

Alice didn't think that proved it at all: however she went on. "And how do you know that you're mad?"

"To begin with," said the Cat, "a dog's not mad. You grant that?"

"I suppose so," said Alice

"Well, then, " the Cat went on, "you see a dog growls when it's angry, and wags its tail when it's pleased. Now I growl when I'm pleased, and wag my tail when I'm angry. Therefore I'm mad."

"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"

"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.

"I don't much care where â??" said Alice.

"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.

"â?? so long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation.

"Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

**************************************************************

If an individual wishes to reach their full potential as a being, the law for accessing, revealing and creating that potential must be planted, nourished (etc) so that it may be harvested.

Are there laws for the use of sexual power that are involved in this journey of potential? I believe so; in fact I believe they are unutterably crucial.

But not all human beings desire the same destination, or fruit. Homosexuality may fit in quite well with some goals for being; and not in others (the same may be said of any sexual expression). The trick is to make sure one is acting in a way that is taking you down the path you want to the destination you hope for and expect.

All uses of agency have both a benefit and a cost; a receipt of more power and agency OR a loss of power and agency; a consequence, I would say pain, but pain is actually neutral -- but we can experience consequences in the spectrum of misery or in the spectrum of peace. I think we all have experienced being mistaken in our choices when we thought we were in one spectrum but learned by experience we actually were in the other (such an adventure!).

[cacheman]

There is nothing to compare the experiences are completely different.

Here we are seeing an exit story from a group that claims that they have no control over their actions that they are born that way, that they cannot change.

The mere fact that someone has changed totally undercuts the entire premise of his former association.

Like I said, there is no comparison.

His former association claims that they have no control over their actions? CFR please. Claiming that they believe their attractions are inborn is different than claiming it's impossible to go against their tendencies. Many have done what this fellow has done, and I assume that is known by many homosexuals. I think your argument is based on a strawman,

I really do see a comparison. Why did he choose to "come out" to World Net Daily, known for their activism against homosexuality? Why does he claim to know the motivations of all who practice homosexuality? Why did he spread the false story about what happened at the EU? This all seems pretty comparable to an ex-LDS who publishes their exit story on an antimormon site, negatively characterizes all LDS, and makes up stories that bolster his case. I don't see much of a difference.

For all I know, he's much happier in his current situation, and he's probably a nice enough person. But, I'm not sure why I should trust this person in his characterizations of an entire group of people.

cacheman

[Bach]

I find it fascinating that even among putative Christians (pot-stirring athiests such as MC don't count), we can't have a rationale discourse on this matter. The invariable demonizing is both mystifying and heart-rending.

Glatze has renounced behavior that most religions have always considered sinful, at best.

He has turned away from a practice and a behavior that is demonstrably unhealthy, and that for a variety of reasons is destructive to its practitioners both physically and morally.

Can I see some evidence for this, please? I want a convincing argument that homosexual behavior is "destructive" on a level that the things that Mormons do (e.g. heterosexual behavior, driving cars, skiing, etc.) aren't. I wouldn't even bother with the 'moral' aspect of it, either, because participants in the behavior are consenting adults with knowledge of the consequences of their actions.

Had Glatze been a crack addict and done precisely the same things- including the condemnations of the lifestyle- no one here would be condemning him.

It's possible to engage in homosexual behavior and still be a functioning, contributing member of society. The same is not true of crack addicts. Your comparison here is inapt -- and highly offensive.

But because this involves one's intimate choices and challenges the rationalizations heaped up to justify them, Glatze is subject to scorn and ridicule.

Glatze's primary sin in the eyes of the homosexual lobby (as opposed to those merely practicing the behavior) is that his is yet another voice raised to defy the idea that homosexuality is innate and immutable.

Those two characteristics are the lynch pin of the current propoganda war and agenda. If they fail, the whole campaign fails. And by serving as living proof that the behavior and practice can be changed, he is a threat to their agenda.

Your own Church doesn't actively denigrate the idea that homosexual inclinations are innate and immutable:

"Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such (homosexual) feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others." -Elder Oaks

Glatze doesn't make this distinction. To him, there are no people who are attracted to the same sex -- only people who think they're attracted to the same sex. That idea certainly deserves ridicule.

[Pahoran]

Can I see some evidence for this, please? I want a convincing argument that homosexual behavior is "destructive" on a level that the things that Mormons do (e.g. heterosexual behavior, driving cars, skiing, etc.) aren't. I wouldn't even bother with the 'moral' aspect of it, either, because participants in the behavior are consenting adults with knowledge of the consequences of their actions.

Since when, and for whom, is the "consenting adults" cop-out the one and only determinant of the morality of an action?

You reject the LDS moral paradigm. That is, of course, your privilege, but it requires a degree of chutzpah that makes arrogance look humble to demand that believing Latter-day Saints must substitute your moral paradigm for theirs.

It's possible to engage in homosexual behavior and still be a functioning, contributing member of society. The same is not true of crack addicts. Your comparison here is inapt -- and highly offensive.

To crack addicts, I suppose it is.

Your own Church doesn't actively denigrate the idea that homosexual inclinations are innate and immutable:

"Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such (homosexual) feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others." -Elder Oaks

Glatze doesn't make this distinction. To him, there are no people who are attracted to the same sex -- only people who think they're attracted to the same sex. That idea certainly deserves ridicule.

As much as the false claim that homosexual acts are morally neutral?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bach]

Since when, and for whom, is the "consenting adults" cop-out the one and only determinant of the morality of an action?

It's the only one which I can imagine to apply universally to people of all religious creeds (although some people, including Mormons, may choose to add others to their personal standards, which is acceptable).

You reject the LDS moral paradigm. That is, of course, your privilege, but it requires a degree of chutzpah that makes arrogance look humble to demand that believing Latter-day Saints must substitute your moral paradigm for theirs.

That's not what I'm requiring at all, Pahoran, and if you read a little more closely you'd be able to see that. Glatze and his army of supporters have clearly moved clearly out of "the Church is true... to me!" territory and moved into the realm of "my conception of morality should apply to EVERYONE". I will fight to the death against moralities that I find to be absurd being foisted upon me, and I support others who do the same.

To crack addicts, I suppose it is.

This is a deplorable thing to say, and I hope that you retract it, for YOUR sake. You've really made yourself look like a complete dirtbag on this board before, buddy, but this takes the cake.

No personal insults, Bach. You know this. ~The Mods.

As much as the false claim that homosexual acts are morally neutral?

I wasn't saying that homosexual acts are morally neutral. I was saying that selek would have a tough time proving that they are immoral to people who don't share his system of morality.

Pahoran gets his reading comprehension test back:

[Pahoran]

It's the only one which I can imagine to apply universally to people of all religious creeds (although some people, including Mormons, may choose to add others to their personal standards, which is acceptable).

Very magnanimous of you, I don't think. The point is that the "consenting adults" non-standard does not "apply universally to people of all religious creeds." From our POV it is a quite non-controversial fact that large numbers of "consenting adults" daily choose to do immoral things.

That's not what I'm requiring at all, Pahoran, and if you read a little more closely you'd be able to see that. Glatze and his army of supporters have clearly moved clearly out of "the Church is true... to me!" territory and moved into the realm of "my conception of morality should apply to EVERYONE". I will fight to the death against moralities that I find to be absurd being foisted upon me, and I support others who do the same.

Good. Then you will support me as I refuse to have the snivelling, relativistic "consenting adults" non-morality foisted upon me. Thank you.

You see, Bark, ultimately believing Latter-day Saints aren't in any "the Church is true... to me!" territory. We believe that what God has revealed through prophets is true, all the time, for everyone. Did you not know that?

This is a deplorable thing to say, and I hope that you retract it, for YOUR sake.

Why? Because you are sympathetic to homosexuals, but not to crack addicts? Because you can't imagine that some crack addicts might be offended to be compared to homosexuals? Because I don't share your politically correct trendy assumption that sexual immorality is morally superior to substance addiction?

You've really made yourself look like a complete dirtbag on this board before, buddy, but this takes the cake.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a "complete dirtbag" are they? Buddy?

I really don't think that a self-appointed apologist for gross immorality has any business calling anyone else a "dirtbag."

I wasn't saying that homosexual acts are morally neutral. I was saying that selek would have a tough time proving that they are immoral to people who don't share his system of morality.

So what?

Being more generous and less judgemental than you are, I shall explain a few things to you.

We have no responsibility to "prove" anything to anybody. Our responsibility is to "testify and warn the people." Once we have done that, we have done our part. The Holy Ghost bears witness that our testimony is true, at which point the hearer is responsible for how they respond. If they think they can get away with the "you didn't prove it" defence at the day of judgement, they are welcome to try. If they are unaware of the witness of the Holy Ghost, it is because they have, through their own diligent dedication to sin, made themselves past feeling.

There is no "proof" sufficient to convince someone who is determined to persist in his sins. You can't even "prove" that smoking causes lung cancer to someone with a vested interest in tobacco.

Is that clear now?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jersey Girl]

A true hero for our time.

Someone posted this same article on another board. Nowhere in the article doe it indicate that Michael "became straight". If you feel otherwise, would you please highlight the portion of the text that you feel demonstrates that Michael "became straight"?

[Phillistine]

God certainly has expressed that it is perverse, and an abomination and as far as I know the reason for evaporating a whole city. Correction 2 whole cities.

The actualy reason for and methodology for the destruction for the "two cities" is a matter of complete conjecture. No specific sin was given as "the" reason for the destruction. For all we know (and archeology tends to bear this out), they PO'ed another city.

[SolarPowered]

For all we know (and archeology tends to bear this out), they PO'ed another city.

Oh really? And where, exactly, are these archeological ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah?

[Phillistine]

There is nothing to compare the experiences are completely different.

Here we are seeing an exit story from a group that claims that they have no control over their actions that they are born that way, that they cannot change.

The mere fact that someone has changed totally undercuts the entire premise of his former association.

Like I said, there is no comparison.

I think this is truly the point. No "straight" person can adequately judge a "gay" person (or vice versa) for their sexual orientation. I would imagine that for those that are purely homosexual, the transition to heterosexuality would be as repulsive as the transition from the other direction. I, therefore, can't judge that because I can't even remotely imaging having homosexual feelings.

In the LDS faith, homosexuals have a particularly difficult burden to bear. They must become celibate. [Edit: they would need to become celibate OR change their sexual orientation, find a woman that was OK with their previous orientation, then figure out a way to marry her.] What heterosexual in the LDS faith (male, under the age of 80) would be willing to commit to that?

Let's be realistic. Sex is just behind breathing air in terms of innate desires. It is a very difficult thing to control for ANY orientation. Heterosexuals in the LDS faith tend to flippantly demand that homosexuals change their orientation and behavior without regard to the enormous task that is.

[Phillistine]

Oh really? And where, exactly, are these archeological ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Just south and east of the Dead sea. Modern names are Bab edh-Dhra (Sodom) and Numiera (Gomorrah). The method of destruction is still a bit of a controversy but it appears that the towns were overthrown by a stronger enemy. The buildings in which many of the bones were found at first seemed to indicate a massive destruction. It was later discovered that the mass graves were actually that - graves used over a period of hundreds of years. Evidence of war and death by implements of war is present. The walls seem to have been destroyed more by siege engines than fire from the sky.

There are some evidences that fire was involved. It is entirely [possible] that both accounts are true. A powerful enemy could have used something akin to St. Elmo's Fire (like many of the Greeks used in warfare at the time). Still, there are no conclusive evidences from which to draw a strong conclusion.

Anyway, based on the biblical account of the way they treated neighbors, motivations could hardly be questioned. It's surprising that someone didn't finish them off earlier. It would seem to me that these folks had more than one type of sin on their heads, not just homosexuality.

[SolarPowered]

I think you will find that there is far from universal acceptance of that identification.

For another take on Sodom and Gomorrah, see: http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm

Up front, I do agree that that site is also not necessarily the most authoritative However, they have indentifed ruins on the plains next to the Dead Sea that were in fact destroyed by fire and brimstone. And, in addition, a great deal of brimstone still remains in the ruins.

[SolarPowered]

The actualy reason for and methodology for the destruction for the "two cities" is a matter of complete conjecture. No specific sin was given as "the" reason for the destruction. For all we know (and archeology tends to bear this out), they PO'ed another city.

Here are some reasons:

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

14 I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.

4

[Bach]

Very magnanimous of you, I don't think. The point is that the "consenting adults" non-standard does not "apply universally to people of all religious creeds." From our POV it is a quite non-controversial fact that large numbers of "consenting adults" daily choose to do immoral things.

That's fine, but it can't possibly be a component of a universal morality of the kind to which Glatze's supporters (such as selek) pretend.

Good. Then you will support me as I refuse to have the snivelling, relativistic "consenting adults" non-morality foisted upon me. Thank you.

If you don't like the "consenting adults" morality, that's fine -- I honestly didn't think you'd find it sufficient, which is why I allowed for the fact that other people might want to add things to it. I was only offering it up because nothing else seems to me be something that people across faiths might be able to agree to. Certainly your morality, Pahoran, isn't accepted by everyone on the planet, no matter how much, you, Glatze, and his other supporters would like it to be. That's all I'm saying here. The onus is on you and selek to show how homosexuality is uncontroversially immoral.

You see, Bark, ultimately believing Latter-day Saints aren't in any "the Church is true... to me!" territory. We believe that what God has revealed through prophets is true, all the time, for everyone. Did you not know that?

I've seen many a Latter-day Saint -- and not a few on this board -- fall back onto the "wull, the Church is true to me" position when it's clear that they have no solid basis for getting other people to believe it.

Why? Because you are sympathetic to homosexuals, but not to crack addicts?

Not true.

Because you can't imagine that some crack addicts might be offended to be compared to homosexuals?

No.

Because I don't share your politically correct trendy assumption that sexual immorality is morally superior to substance addiction?

Say what you will about homosexuality, but at the very worst, it only harms the participants. There's no reason whatsoever to put it in the same class as crack addiction. If you want to make a case explaining why it should be, go ahead, but the burden is certainly yours at this point. I feel compelled to add that I highly doubt that you'll succeed in your attempt. Good luck.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a "complete dirtbag" are they? Buddy?

Anyone who would be so unbelievably crass as to stamp on Daniel's undeniably sincere feelings by comparing people who share those feelings to crack addicts deserves such an appellation, yes.

I really don't think that a self-appointed apologist for gross immorality has any business calling anyone else a "dirtbag."

You're entitled to believe that I am a spokesperson for immorality when I defend homosexuals. Just don't expect everyone on the planet to agree with your assessment, or even to take it at all seriously.

So what?

Being more generous and less judgemental than you are, I shall explain a few things to you.

We have no responsibility to "prove" anything to anybody. Our responsibility is to "testify and warn the people." Once we have done that, we have done our part. The Holy Ghost bears witness that our testimony is true, at which point the hearer is responsible for how they respond. If they think they can get away with the "you didn't prove it" defence at the day of judgement, they are welcome to try. If they are unaware of the witness of the Holy Ghost, it is because they have, through their own diligent dedication to sin, made themselves past feeling.

There is no "proof" sufficient to convince someone who is determined to persist in his sins. You can't even "prove" that smoking causes lung cancer to someone with a vested interest in tobacco.

I see the nature of our disagreement now: I don't think that the erm, odd beliefs that you hold -- and which you have no compelling evidence for, I might add -- should dictate how the rest of the world lives their personal lives. You do. Okay -- fine. Tell me this, though: why should the other 99.95% of the people on this planet take you seriously, or even allow your opinion to be expressed?

[Phillistine]

I think you will find that there is far from universal acceptance of that identification.

For another take on Sodom and Gomorrah, see: http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm

Up front, I do agree that that site is also not necessarily the most authoritative However, they have indentifed ruins on the plains next to the Dead Sea that were in fact destroyed by fire and brimstone. And, in addition, a great deal of brimstone still remains in the ruins.

Quite interesting. The site of Bab edh-Dra has some similar geological history but seems to be more a result of an earthquake and petroleum products. Numeira appears to be pretty much a match for Gomorrah (apparently, the name translates directly).

I'm a bit more leery of archeological research with a clear religious motivation. I like the "pure truth", unvarnished by researchers' beliefs. It doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means they're suspect. I prefer secular research, although those can be equally tainted by a researcher's agenda.

Well, that was certainly off topic. I absolutely love history, archeology and cosmology. Maybe a new topic would be appropriate.

[Phillistine]

Here are some reasons:

These are references to some of the sins. Most cities in the day suffered from this type of deviant behavior. Obviously, these folks practiced buggary, adultry, and probably many other forms of deviant behavior that go along with this line. I guess my point is, the Lord didn't say, "I destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because there were a bunch of gays there."

I also think it's interesting that Lot offers his daughters into prostitution then later gets drunk and has sex with them. Yet he is spared and his wife is turned into a pillar of salt (ash?). It also seems to me that the only one that had a first-hand account of all of this was Lot and his daughters. Who wrote the account, Lot the pimp or the incestuous daughters? It sounds like they all lacked a proper upbringing. Maybe the Lord was being merciful to Lot's wife when he took her in a flash.

I certainly wouldn't argue the fact that homosexuality as a lifestyle is wonderful, productive, and a goal to be sought by straight folk. As far as it being the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, I still think that is pure conjecture.

[Bach]

I certainly wouldn't argue [for] the fact that homosexuality [is?] a goal to be sought by straight folk.

I think that's fair, as it would be if someone were loath to argue that heterosexuality is a goal to be sought by gay folk.

[SolarPowered]

I guess my point is, the Lord didn't say, "I destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because there were a bunch of gays there."

Not specifically those words. But Jude makes it quite clear that an important part of the reason was that they were "going after strange flesh." And the account in Genesis 19 prominently features the townsmen's demand to produce the two angels so that they might have homosexual relations with them. Other than that fact, the Genesis account doesn't appear to record any specific evil, so it is difficult to infer that there was something other than homosexuality that was the primary cause of the Lord's rath, when homosexuality is all that is mentioned.

And, of course, it has long generally been understood that "sodomy" was the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.