The "real" sin of Sodom

[abelisle]

February 28, 2010

Op-Ed Columnist

Learning From the Sin of Sodom

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

For most of the last century, save-the-worlders were primarily Democrats and liberals. In contrast, many Republicans and religious conservatives denounced government aid programs, with Senator Jesse Helms calling them “money down a rat hole.”

Over the last decade, however, that divide has dissolved, in ways that many Americans haven’t noticed or appreciated. Evangelicals have become the new internationalists, pushing successfully for new American programs against AIDS and malaria, and doing superb work on issues from human trafficking in India to mass rape in Congo.

A pop quiz: What’s the largest U.S.-based international relief and development organization?

It’s not Save the Children, and it’s not CARE — both terrific secular organizations. Rather, it’s World Vision, a Seattle-based Christian organization (with strong evangelical roots) whose budget has roughly tripled over the last decade.

World Vision now has 40,000 staff members in nearly 100 countries. That’s more staff members than CARE, Save the Children and the worldwide operations of the United States Agency for International Development — combined.

A growing number of conservative Christians are explicitly and self-critically acknowledging that to be “pro-life” must mean more than opposing abortion. The head of World Vision in the United States, Richard Stearns, begins his fascinating book, “The Hole in Our Gospel,” with an account of a visit a decade ago to Uganda, where he met a 13-year-old AIDS orphan who was raising his younger brothers by himself.

“What sickened me most was this question: where was the Church?” he writes. “Where were the followers of Jesus Christ in the midst of perhaps the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time? Surely the Church should have been caring for these ‘orphans and widows in their distress.’ (James 1:27). Shouldn’t the pulpits across America have flamed with exhortations to rush to the front lines of compassion?

“How have we missed it so tragically, when even rock stars and Hollywood actors seem to understand?”

Mr. Stearns argues that evangelicals were often so focused on sexual morality and a personal relationship with God that they ignored the needy. He writes laceratingly about “a Church that had the wealth to build great sanctuaries but lacked the will to build schools, hospitals, and clinics.”

In one striking passage, Mr. Stearns quotes the prophet Ezekiel as saying that the great sin of the people of Sodom wasn’t so much that they were promiscuous or gay as that they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49.)

Hmm. Imagine if sodomy laws could be used to punish the stingy, unconcerned rich!

The American view of evangelicals is still shaped by preening television blowhards and hypocrites who seem obsessed with gays and fetuses. One study cited in the book found that even among churchgoers ages 16 to 29, the descriptions most associated with Christianity were “antihomosexual,” “judgmental,” “too involved in politics,” and “hypocritical.”

Some conservative Christians reinforced the worst view of themselves by inspiring Ugandan homophobes who backed a bill that would punish gays with life imprisonment or execution. Ditto for the Vatican, whose hostility to condoms contributes to the AIDS epidemic. But there’s more to the picture: I’ve also seen many Catholic nuns and priests heroically caring for AIDS patients — even quietly handing out condoms.

One of the most inspiring figures I’ve met while covering Congo’s brutal civil war is a determined Polish nun in the terrifying hinterland, feeding orphans, standing up to drunken soldiers and comforting survivors — all in a war zone. I came back and decided: I want to grow up and become a Polish nun.

Some Americans assume that religious groups offer aid to entice converts. That’s incorrect. Today, groups like World Vision ban the use of aid to lure anyone into a religious conversation.

Some liberals are pushing to end the longtime practice (it’s a myth that this started with President George W. Bush) of channeling American aid through faith-based organizations. That change would be a catastrophe. In Haiti, more than half of food distributions go through religious groups like World Vision that have indispensable networks on the ground. We mustn’t make Haitians the casualties in our cultural wars.

A root problem is a liberal snobbishness toward faith-based organizations. Those doing the sneering typically give away far less money than evangelicals. They’re also less likely to spend vacations volunteering at, say, a school or a clinic in Rwanda.

If secular liberals can give up some of their snootiness, and if evangelicals can retire some of their sanctimony, then we all might succeed together in making greater progress against common enemies of humanity, like illiteracy, human trafficking and maternal mortality.

[doug yowell]

Thanks for the post up,Alex. I'm not sure how the title of the thread or the op/ed fits the details but, oh well. Kristof's piece is a mixed bag of both truthful recognition and misleading presentation. Good that Mr. K finally recognizes the overall contribution that conservative Christianity is making to the masses in a hurting world. Though this will probably have little effect on the criticisms coming from those who hate conservatives, at least one of their own has shown some factual integrity and deserves props for doing so. Misleading, however, is Kristof's implication that this conservative Christian social consciousness is a Johnny-come-lately to the ranks of the "caring". Sort of a deflection of the charges that they are only concerned about fetuses and sexuality. He quotes from the writings of "conservative Christians" who attempt to bolster this perception. Lost (conveniently?) in the presentation are the historical facts about Conservative work for the poor of this world. Somehow, Kristoff neglects to mention that World Vision was founded in 1950. He also fails to note that most of the opponents of abortion and "sexuality" have had ministries to the poor in existence decades before their critics pounded them for not caring for anything else but their personal pet agenda's. Overlooked is Mother Teresa (a prolifer),and the Catholic Charities organization.Even SDA's had SAWS/ADRA begun in the 60's,and health clinics spread over the world long before that.Interestingly, Catholic Charities has just recently had to close down their adoption agency in D.C.(?)because of government pressure to insure homosexual couple inclusion, after an 80 year existence! Did someone mention the Salvation Army? Teen Challenge? ect...ect...ect...Nicholas Kristof has done a good service in attempting to evaporate one myth, so let's now tell the "rest of the story."

[karl]

Some Americans assume that religious groups offer aid to entice converts. That’s incorrect. Today, groups like World Vision ban the use of aid to lure anyone into a religious conversation.

Some liberals are pushing to end the longtime practice (it’s a myth that this started with President George W. Bush) of channeling American aid through faith-based organizations. That change would be a catastrophe. In Haiti, more than half of food distributions go through religious groups like World Vision that have indispensable networks on the ground. We mustn’t make Haitians the casualties in our cultural wars.

A root problem is a liberal snobbishness toward faith-based organizations. Those doing the sneering typically give away far less money than evangelicals. They’re also less likely to spend vacations volunteering at, say, a school or a clinic in Rwanda.

I agree with the above except that we do promote Christianity through World Vision. We have been involved in World Vision for about ten years. The help we give is overtly Christian. We are not trying to "lure" anyone into any given denomination, but this is a Christian organization and we are promoting Christianity to anyone who will listen. People are not denied help if they are not Christian (few are) but many of those we help become Christian.

Here it is from the World Vision website mission statement:

We are Christian

We acknowledge one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In Jesus the love, mercy and grace of God are made known to us and all people.

We seek to follow Jesus — in his identification with the poor, the powerless, the afflicted, the oppressed, and the marginalized; in his special concern for children; in his respect for the dignity bestowed equally on women and men; in his challenge to unjust attitudes and systems; in his call to share resources with each other; in his love for all people without discrimination or conditions; in his offer of new life through faith in him.

We hear his call to servanthood, and to humility.

We maintain our Christian identity while being sensitive to the diverse contexts in which we express that identity.

-----------

This kind of overt Christianity is upsetting to many liberals, but... it IS what it is.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, the real sin of Sodom... Sounds familiar... Oh yes, I remember. I have been singing that song around here for some time and have been met with great resistance by those who would rather excoriate homosexual Sodomizers than recognize God's wrath is kindled most hot at those who arrogantly squander their wealth in self-indulgences and ignore the poor and those in need.

[aldona]

Yes, the real sin of Sodom... Sounds familiar... Oh yes, I remember. I have been singing that song around here for some time and have been met with great resistance by those who would rather excoriate homosexual Sodomizers than recognize God's wrath is kindled most hot at those who arrogantly squander their wealth in self-indulgences and ignore the poor and those in need.

amen...

Homosexuals are an easy target - we can easily sit back and think "that doesn't apply to me" and, like the Pharisee, "I thank you, God, that I am not like those people."

But denouncing selfishness and pride means that each of us has to take a good look at ourselves too.

aldona

[aldona]

Quote:

I agree with the above except that we do promote Christianity through World Vision. We have been involved in World Vision for about ten years. The help we give is overtly Christian. We are not trying to "lure" anyone into any given denomination, but this is a Christian organization and we are promoting Christianity to anyone who will listen. People are not denied help if they are not Christian (few are) but many of those we help become Christian.

Here it is from the World Vision website mission statement:

We are Christian

We acknowledge one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In Jesus the love, mercy and grace of God are made known to us and all people.

We seek to follow Jesus — in his identification with the poor, the powerless, the afflicted, the oppressed, and the marginalized; in his special concern for children; in his respect for the dignity bestowed equally on women and men; in his challenge to unjust attitudes and systems; in his call to share resources with each other; in his love for all people without discrimination or conditions; in his offer of new life through faith in him.

We hear his call to servanthood, and to humility.

We maintain our Christian identity while being sensitive to the diverse contexts in which we express that identity.

I don't think that's the kind of Christian service that people object to - applies more to the approach I have heard of some groups taking, for example, whereby people will only get food or clothing after they have sat through a "Jesus" video or a sermon. (Yes, it does ghappen, although thankfully not in any Adventist groups I've heard of.)

aldona

[teresaq]

great article alex. soooo glad to meet my brother tom and sister(?) aldona.

i tried to start a thread on whether sodom and gomorrha were destroyed because of homosexuality or not based on bible study as opposed to "tradition". funny thing, it was locked on a couple of sites. good sda christian bible thumping sites.

i got a lot of flack from some traditionalists from other sites, and a good dose of hatred....

sodom and gomorrha were destroyed for just the reasons the bible says!!

Quote:

A growing number of conservative Christians are explicitly and self-critically acknowledging that to be “pro-life” must mean more than opposing abortion. The head of World Vision in the United States, Richard Stearns, begins his fascinating book, “The Hole in Our Gospel,” with an account of a visit a decade ago to Uganda, where he met a 13-year-old AIDS orphan who was raising his younger brothers by himself.

“What sickened me most was this question: where was the Church?” he writes. “Where were the followers of Jesus Christ in the midst of perhaps the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time? Surely the Church should have been caring for these ‘orphans and widows in their distress.’ (James 1:27). Shouldn’t the pulpits across America have flamed with exhortations to rush to the front lines of compassion?

thank God!! and praise the Lord!!

[Gerr]

Just tagging on.

I think there seems to be a perception that conservative Christians are only concerned about your soul, and the liberals are only concerned about your body. I am happy to see an article about World Vision.

Christ's ministry and the Bible's consistent message has to do with both. That's why the health message has been a part of our message since the founding of our church.

[GreatLakesGramma]

Christians have always done relief work. Maybe not always on a worldwide basis or through large organizations, but they've always been concerned with the needs of others.

[Dr. Shane]

Of course Adventists are ahead of the curve. Adventists have been doing this long before World Vision came on the scene.

[John317]

The real sins of Sodom included the practice of homosexuality, all kinds of immorality, as well as all the sins described in Ezekiel 16: 49, 50.

To make it sound as if perhaps sexual immorality had nothing to do with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, does an injustice to the Genesis account, to say nothing of Jude 1; 7; 2 Peter 2: 6-8; Lev. 18: 23; Romans 1: 26, 17; 1 Cor. 6: 9-11; 1 Tim. 1: 10; and the writings of Ellen White.

According to Ellen White, the sins of "sodomitish impurity," "indulgence of unlawful things," "dissipation," and "perversity," were the result of the sins that Ezekiel 16 describes-- "pride, fulness of bread, abundance of idleness," and neglecting the poor and needy. (See Testimonies On Sexual Behavior, Adultry, and Divorce, pp. 119-121.)

"The prophet has here [Ezekiel 16: 49] specified the particular evils which led to dissolute morals" (4 SDA BC 1161). She is saying that the particular evils of idlessness and self-centeredness, etc., led to "dissolute morals," i.e., sins which included the practice of homosexuality.

"There is a strange abandonment of principle, the standard of morality is lowered, and the earth is fast becoming a Sodom. Sodomitish practices which brought the judgment of God upon the world, and caused it to be deluged with water, and which caused Sodom to be destroyed by fire, are fast increasing. We are nearing the end. God has borne long with the perversity of mankind, but their punishment is no less certain. Let those who profess to be the light of the world, depart from all iniquity." RH Nov. 10, 1884. She goes on to mention the "unrestrained passions," the "widespread impurity," and "the indulgence of animal propensities" that are "gaining strength" in our world today.

One cannot help but see that Ellen White is not primarily referring to neglecting the poor in those lines. Her choice of words in this connection--- "perversity," "passions," "impurity," "animal propensities," "dissolute morals," and "dissipation,"--- all have primary reference to sexual immorality.

Also, significantly, the narrative of Gen. 18 and 19 shows that it was the widespread practice of homosexuality in Sodom which demonstrated that the city deserved to be destroyed. See Gen. 18: 20, 21. Those things were an illustration of the sins which the Lord was speaking of when He went down to see if the people were acting according to the outcry that had reached Him.

It makes no biblical sense to conclude that the narrative just happens to contain this rather long and detailed story, and that it is coincidental to the punishment that God sent upon the city.

This is particularly true in light of the inspired commentary in 2 Peter 2: 6-9:

"The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, these also God condemned and reduced to ashes; He destroyed them completely, making them an object-lesson for godless men in future days. But He rescued Lot, who was a good man, shocked by the dissolute habits of the lawless society in which he lived; day afer day every sight, and sound, of their evil courses tortured that good man's heart. These are all examples of how the Lord can rescue the godly out of trials, and hold the wicked for their punishment until the day of Judgment. Above all he will punish those who follow their abominable lusts. They flout authority; reckless and headstrong, they are not afraid to insult celestial beings."

Without question, God hates both the sins in Ezekiel 16 and those sins in Gen. 19. But it would certainly be a mistake to give homosexuals the impression that the sins of Sodom did not include the practice of homosexuality. When those in the church speak as if homosexual practices were not among the sins which brought down God's wrath on Sodom and Gomorrah, whether they know it or not, they provide some people encouragment to believe homosexuality is not a sin, and thus they are helping spread the very sins that Ellen White and the apostle Peter were inspired of God to warn us against. Homosexuals need the message that it's a sin to practice homosexuality and that God has the power to help them resist and overcome ALL sin in their lives. This is the message God wants Seventh-day Adventists to give to all the world-- and that includes the millions of gay people whom God loves and wants to save.

I'm a gay person and would still be practicing these very sins today if it weren't for my personal study of this subject and the decision to allow God to change my desires. As a member of the gay church in San Diego, I used to see pamphlets containing the same specious argument made today by some SDAs that the sin of Sodom had nothing to do with the practice of homosexuality. It may indeed look sophisticated and "open-minded," perhaps "progressive," but it is really without any firm foundation, and is contrary to both the testimony of Scripture and the Spirit of prophecy.

[phkrause]

Great OP Alex but I think ADRA is as large as World Vision. And also I believe are in every country or almost every country in the world. But I must say that I agree with John's post.

pk

[abelisle]

I didn't read this as a specious argument that SDA's can use to condone their homosexuality if that's their leaning but rather an argument for a more Biblical approach to what it really means to be a Christian in our world - a return to the powerful messages of the OT prophets to tend to the needs of the impoverished rather than rant against gay marriage, stem cell research and all other sundry sorts of things of lesser importance.

I firmly believe that the most important question we will have to answer on Judgment Day will be, "What have you done to help the poor and needy?"

Alex

[Bravus]

It's what Matthew 25 says

[John317]

The argument is being made today even by some thought-leaders in the SDA church that homosexuality is not a sin and that the church ought to recognize same sex relationsships. They make the same argument that is being made here, that homosexual practices had nothing to do with God's destruction of Sodom. My point is that both Ezekiel 16 and the Bible verses condemning the practice of homosexuality as a sin must be acknowledged.

[John317]

The argument about Ezekiel 16: 49 can be made without negecting to mention the fact that the practice of homosexuality is also a sin.

I have noticed that virtually every time since 1972 that I have seen this argument made-- beginning in the gay churches I attended-- there's either no mention that homosexual practices are condemned in the Bible, or, more commonly, there's an outright deniel of it.

How do you stand on this issue? Is the practice of homosexuality sinful?

[John317]

I fully agree with you there, degrimm.

Both kinds of sins-- in fact, all kinds of sins-- will keep people out of God's kingdom. That's the message of 1 Cor. 6: 9-11; Rev. 22: 15; and Matt. 25.

[doug yowell]

I didn't read this as a specious argument that SDA's can use to condone their homosexuality if that's their leaning but rather an argument for a more Biblical approach to what it really means to be a Christian in our world - a return to the powerful messages of the OT prophets to tend to the needs of the impoverished rather than rant against gay marriage, stem cell research and all other sundry sorts of things of lesser importance.

I firmly believe that the most important question we will have to answer on Judgment Day will be, "What have you done to help the poor and needy?"

Why the emphasis on the either/or Alex? As has been pointed out,conservative Christians HAVE been doing these things for decades before there was a gay rights movement or the legalized killing of the unborn or a host of other "lesser" moral evils. The Bible lays on it's followers no moral mandate to eliminate all human suffering. We are instructed to do what we can, not devote 100% of our resources to feeding the world's hungry. In fact, our most immediate obligation is to care for the poor and unfortunate in our own "household of faith".And lest we forget,the apostle Paul reminds us that " knowing the righteous judgment of God,that those who practice such things(of "lesser importance")are deserving of death..." We've got people to save as well as feed.

[teresaq]

no one is denying that those cities were also destroyed because of sexual immorality. the fact that they, the whole city, tried to rape the angels shows that. that was how perverse they had become.

Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

if it was homosexuality we have a problem because there were women in this crowd also.

Quote:

"There is a strange abandonment of principle, the standard of morality is lowered, and the earth is fast becoming a Sodom. Sodomitish practices which brought the judgment of God upon the world, and caused it to be deluged with water, and which caused Sodom to be destroyed by fire, are fast increasing. We are nearing the end. God has borne long with the perversity of mankind, but their punishment is no less certain. Let those who profess to be the light of the world, depart from all iniquity." RH Nov. 10, 1884. She goes on to mention the "unrestrained passions," the "widespread impurity," and "the indulgence of animal propensities" that are "gaining strength" in our world today.

you are reading homosexuality into these statements. it is not there. ellen white never mentions homosexuality, nor singles it out.

she appears to have seen all sexuality immorality as the same. so should we.

[abelisle]

The argument about Ezekiel 16: 49 can be made without negecting to mention the fact that the practice of homosexuality is also a sin.

I have noticed that virtually every time since 1972 that I have seen this argument made-- beginning in the gay churches I attended-- there's either no mention that homosexual practices are condemned in the Bible, or, more commonly, there's an outright deniel of it.

How do you stand on this issue? Is the practice of homosexuality sinful?

John,

I think your question is deserving of a separate thread in and of itself. I myself am very careful in separating "being a homosexual" from "practicing homosexual acts". I also have issues with how we quickly condemn homosexual couples who live in a committed monogamous relationship but have less to say about heterosexual relationships that have a multitude of issues.

Let me ask you a question(s). Is homosexuality "nature" or "nurture?" And if it is "nature" how stridently do we expect them to change, for them, their normal sexual tendencies? Will only non-practicing homosexuals be saved?

Alex

[teresaq]

But it would certainly be a mistake to give homosexuals the impression that the sins of Sodom did not include the practice of homosexuality. When those in the church speak as if homosexual practices were not among the sins which brought down God's wrath on Sodom and Gomorrah, whether they know it or not, they provide some people encouragment to believe homosexuality is not a sin, and thus they are helping spread the very sins that Ellen White and the apostle Peter were inspired of God to warn us against. Homosexuals need the message that it's a sin to practice homosexuality and that God has the power to help them resist and overcome ALL sin in their lives. This is the message God wants Seventh-day Adventists to give to all the world-- and that includes the millions of gay people whom God loves and wants to save.

I'm a gay person and would still be practicing these very sins today if it weren't for my personal study of this subject and the decision to allow God to change my desires.

there are people who will be convicted of what sin is and those who will not. and if they choose not to be convicted we cannot shove it down them harder and harder.

it is the Holy Spirits job to convict of sin. it is not our job to help Him no matter how well-meaning we might be.

[teresaq]

I didn't read this as a specious argument that SDA's can use to condone their homosexuality if that's their leaning but rather an argument for a more Biblical approach to what it really means to be a Christian in our world - a return to the powerful messages of the OT prophets to tend to the needs of the impoverished rather than rant against gay marriage, stem cell research and all other sundry sorts of things of lesser importance.

I firmly believe that the most important question we will have to answer on Judgment Day will be, "What have you done to help the poor and needy?"

my apologies for helping to derail this topic.

yes, i agree completely.

i wonder how many "sinners" will be in heaven who meet these requirements:

Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

[John317]

Quote:

teresaq(sda): there are people who will be convicted of what sin is and those who will not. and if they choose not to be convicted we cannot shove it down them harder and harder.

it is the Holy Spirits job to convict of sin. it is not our job to help Him no matter how well-meaning we might be.

Don't you believe that the Holy Spirit uses Christians, particularly Seventh-day Adventists, in these last days, to help convict the world of sin through the preaching and teaching of the Word?

But if homosexuals hear the arguments from Christians that the practice of homosexuality is not a sin, and that they can be saved while practicing it, it certainly makes it easy for them to feel that they don't need to stop those sins.

In this thread, I'm not addressing the question of how to communicate the message to gay people. But of course it is not something that should be "shoved down them" at all. That would NEVER do. But that's an entirely different topic altogether. The first thing, though, is to settle the question whether the practice of homosexuality is sinful or not.

[John317]

Quote:

abelisle:

I think your question is deserving of a separate thread in and of itself.

It certainly would if it was going to be a debate or a discussion of whether homosexuality is condemned by the Bible or not. But I am interested in knowing if the argument is being made on this thread that the practice of homosexuality was not even included among the sins that brought down the wrath of God on Sodom.

Quote:

I myself am very careful in separating "being a homosexual" from "practicing homosexual acts".

I understand that. I have been gay all my life and practiced it most of my life since I was in my late teens until about 4 years ago. I still consider myself gay, although I no longer practice.

Quote:

I also have issues with how we quickly condemn homosexual couples who live in a committed monogamous relationship but have less to say about heterosexual relationships that have a multitude of issues.

Both relationships are sinful from the biblical viewpoint. Neither one is more OK than another. But whether a gay lives in a monogamous relationship or not is irrelevent as far as its sinfulness is concerned. It's "better" than have multiple sexual relationships, of course, because it's less dangerous in terms of STDs, etc., but being monogamous doesn't make it less sinful. In fact, being monogamous can be more spiritually harmful because the individual can become convinced that he/she is doing what's right and that God is blessing them and their relationship.

Quote:

Let me ask you a question(s). Is homosexuality "nature" or "nurture?"

It depends a lot on the person, but it is probably a combination of both, athough with some gays, it is no doubt mostly nature. I believe I was "born gay." I don't remember any time when I wasn't attracted to other males. Some male's brains are feminized in the womb during early development by being exposed to female hormone and some female brains are exposed to too much male hormone. It has been proved that this does happen, but this does not account for all or even for most gays.

Quote:

And if it is "nature" how stridently do we expect them to change, for them, their normal sexual tendencies? Will only non-practicing homosexuals be saved?

Yes, I myself am a non-practicing homosexual and I expect to be saved-- but not IN my sins, but rather FROM my sins. I believe with all my heart and mind what Ellen White has written-- that the power of Christ is able to save us even from hereditary weakness and tendancies.

[abelisle]

Thank you for your thoughtfelt response. I want to say that I have a lot of respect for you in admitting that you are a homosexual, especially on a religious forum.

I agree with just about everything you've said except for how God views those committed monogamous couples. Thank God, that he's the one who's judging them.

It seems that sex is at the root of this issue not a misdirected love? If there was never any sex involved in homosexual relationships, would the love for another of the same sex be what is sinful? There is even a Biblical example of same-sex love with David and Jonathan.So, I ask again is it the "sex" that's a sin and/or the "love"?

Or is it that a same-sex, no-sexual activities relationship is sinful because it hinders the procreation mandate given to us by God? The Bible clearly condemns homosexual relationships and uses language that concentrates on the sexual aspect but does the Bible ever tell us what the underlying reason(s) are?

Alex