I find the usage of the mentioned Biblical passages to condemn homosexuality

egregious in the sense that, especially for the passages in Genesis, there are
indisputably sinful acts present that could be what are actually being condemned in
the passages instead of general homosexuality. The usage of the Genesis passages for
such a purpose is particularly questionable and suspect to me as in doing so, the
condemners of homosexuality seem to completely disregard acts such as power rape
and incest—the sinfulness of which are as clear as day and beyond dispute—just to
prove their point. It almost seems like those who wished to condemn gay and lesbian
individuals scoured the Bible for the slightest mentions of homosexual activity and
used whatever they had found for their intended purpose, failing to check if these
passages actually and undeniably condemned homosexuality. If such claims were to
be taken seriously, then their arguments and evidence must be airtight; however, we
know that they are so clearly not.
The texts not belonging to Genesis require a greater level of analysis in that one
must first be aware of the norms, assumptions, and beliefs of the relevant cultures
and peoples of the time in order to more properly examine the said passages. In
general, however, that these passages are written quite vaguely or that they do not
each have a universally acceptable interpretation tells me that it is difficult to say with
certainty that the texts really do or do not condemn homosexuality. As such, I think
that using the given passages for that purpose would be faulty, discriminative logic at
best.
The pastoral message, on the other hand, is one on which my thoughts are a bit
more conflicted. Although I can see that the general, overarching message is positive
in that it intends to encourage parents to be more accepting and supportive of their
homosexual children, the wording in some parts seems a bit strange to me. Perhaps, it
is nitpicking, but for one, it personally seems a bit much to posit a parent’s discovery
of an important aspect of their beloved child’s identity as akin to a parent discovering
that their child has done something quite bad. However, I guess the intended audience
for this message are ultimately still individuals who have conflicting feelings over their
child’s homosexuality; therefore, the message being written in such a way that the
parents feel seen and understood, especially coming from who they would consider to

1 of 2
be an authoritative figure in terms of religion, might actually be the appropriate
approach.
Moreover, the message makes several, very important points that need to be
understood by its target audience. A key example of such a point is the explicit advice
to parents to not reject their child, followed by a brief mention of the consequences of
such an action. As the message itself says, such rejection—which can be as extreme
as reaching the point of disownment of the child—is a common experience and fear of
queer youth in terms of their parents discovering their homosexuality. Another
important point takes the form of a reminder: that the child is still the same person
they were before the parents discovered their queerness. Ultimately, seeing as this
pastoral message was intended to help conflicted parents accept and support their
homosexual children, and that it actually makes good points, I would therefore say it
was a step in the right direction.

2 of 2