Against Gay Christians

Incredibly, despite the Bible condemning sexual activity outside of marriage, gays who say they believe in Christ pretend that you can be a practicing homosexual and a Christian!

 

Jesus did not mention homosexuality directly but he did say marriage should be between one man and one woman for life.  Gay Christians reply that he was not saying same sex marriages are forbidden.  He was only speaking of context of the times in which the custom was for the opposite sex to marry.  This is only an interpretation.  It is only justified by what they want the Bible to say.  But that is no justification.  Nothing in the Bible indicates that same-sex marriages are acceptable.

 

They say that Jesus and the Bible never condemned homosexuality as it is understood today.  They like to add that in those days it was not suspected that some people were born with a gay or lesbian sexuality.  But the Bible certainly condemns homosexual activity. When it does that, it hardly matters if it understood homosexuality and lesbianism as they are understood today or not.  It is like saying that in those days, God made the command not to steal for people were poorer then, but we can ignore this command today for as long as we steal from the rich it is fine.

 

Romans chapter 1 has the apostle Paul declaring that men were sleeping with men and women were sleeping with women.  He said this happened because they were so evil and God abandoned them to evil same sex desire.  The Bible never teaches that homosexuality is not a choice.  So that alone forbids Christians to say it is.  It is the safe side to assume that God wants us to believe that gay people have made themselves gay.  And if homosexuality is caused by defiance of God, nobody can take it for granted that when gay people say they think they were born gay that they are telling the truth. 

 

Jesus said that we must treat others the way we like to be treated.  Does this mean that straight people must treat gays as being as free to have relationships like they are?  Judaism sternly forbade homosexuality and Jesus said that the Jewish Bible, which forbade homosexuality, was God's word.  So Jesus would have agreed with it.  Jesus would answer that homosexuality was caused by unrepented sin of some kind or was a choice.

 

Some Gay Christian organisations say that Jesus changed the laws of God given in the Old Testament.  They then speculate that as Jesus changed so many of the laws and made the law of love paramount that this implies that homosexuality may not be forbidden any more.  Christians believe the changes only came in when Jesus fulfilled the law of God by dying on the cross meaning that he kept it for us so we could be freed from some of its obligations.  So that means that prior to then Jesus would have advocated the rightness of putting homosexuals to death by stoning.  Even when Jesus saved the adulteress from stoning he agreed that she should be stoned to death but he argued that those condemning her were no better than her.  He was not condemning the idea of executing her so much as the idea that her execution by a corrupt legal system would be wrong.  He told her that nobody condemned her and he wouldn't condemn her to stoning.  That was because the men who wished to stone her had gone away and had decided against stoning her.

 

Gay Christians claim that casual sex among gays is not a sin.  They do not teach that sex should only take place in gay marriage.  No - rather they endorse the sex without marriage.  This is very far from Christian teaching.

 

Gay and lesbian Christians claim that God made them gay or lesbian so it is not a sin for them to have sex with the same sex.  But how a Christian can say this is bizarre considering that God set up the laws that babies would be born in original sin and with defects that need to be fixed by turning to Jesus Christ in baptism.  The Church says that some people feel only love for somebody else's wife or husband and such desires must not be willingly nourished or tolerated.   The Church says that this is a form of heterosexual orientation that is sinful.  It will not listen if those people say, "I was born this way with the need for that person.  I know I can only love once in my life."  The Church will say it condemns such orientations just as it condemns the gay orientation.

 

Gay Christians betray gay rights.  By claiming they follow Christ they are saying Christ was an authority that knew what he was talking about even if we on earth don't.  God can allow and forbid things for a mysterious purpose.  He sees the complete picture so we see only a part of it.  So they are saying that if they are wrong to think God condoned gay sex and he did forbid it then we should obey him and forbid it too.  By supporting Christianity, they are opposing gay rights thought they pretend they are not.

 

Gay and lesbian Christians are supporting a harmful faith.  If they don't want to be harmed or harassed for being gay or lesbian, then they should jettison that faith.

 

Nobody doubts that most religion gets its followers not through reason or discussion but by conditioning.  People are often lazy in relation to thinking.  We get the habit of assuming what the people around us assume in childhood and it stays with us.  There are so many religions and most of them are absurd beyond belief - they are stranger than fiction.  Their followers do not listen to reason and don't want to.  Only one religion can be right meaning the odds of being right are very very slim.  Christians despite all this have the bigotry and effrontery to support a faith that teaches that if your loved one commits suicide they could have gone to Hell to suffer forever for it.  Vicious religion like that shows how powerful conditioning is and how religion warps people.  To support religion is to support the worst form of conditioning.  And it is the most obvious form of conditioning.  Gay Christians by condoning Christian conditioning and intimidation of people have no right to complain about Christians who are conditioned to oppose homosexuality and who condition others to oppose it too. 

 

Gay and lesbian Christians will need to say that sex without love is an abuse.  In that way they are homophobic towards gays and lesbians who wish to have sex casually and who don't like being involved in relationships. 

 

Could they believe that sex without love isn't always intended to be the using of another person and letting them use you?  No.  They say there is no excuse for a rich employer who pays an employee slave wages.  They say that even if he says he does it to toughen the employee up, it is still abuse.

 

Christianity says that a baptised baby has God and his goodness producing power and an unbaptised baby does not.  It says that a baby comes into existence estranged from God and this is original sin and needs to be forgiven.  As in racism, the innocent are slandered and insulted and called dangerous because of something they cannot help.  Racists condemn because of skin colour.  Christians condemn a baby for not being baptised.  You can have treatment to change your skin colour and surgery to look like another race.  So clearly the Christians maligning the babies is worse than racism for a baby can't get itself baptised. 

 

Christians say they condemn the parents and those responsible for the child for not getting it baptised not the child.  This is a bare faced lie.  True, they do blame the parents.  Even if the parents don't mean to harm, they still are harming.  But if it is true that God is fair, then it is fair for him to reject the unbaptised babies until they are baptised - they in some way deserve it.  The child can be blamed for not being holy.  In other words, the child is to blame for not embracing God and making baptism unnecessary.  It is the child's fault that it needs baptism therefore we can blame the child for not being clean.

 

Even when Protestant Christians do not believe baptism reconciles the baby with God and puts God's holiness and goodness in the child, their doctrine that one must be born again by making a personal commitment of faith to Christ, is nearly as unacceptable as the Catholic doctrine that babies are saved by baptism.  These Christians say that babies may go to Heaven if they die but clearly what happens is that because they die God forgives them.  Babies that do not die are not cleansed of original sin and forgiven.  Those Christians are still accusing babies of being rejected by God and God will keep rejecting them until some arbitrary conditions are fulfilled!  A God who arbitrarily accepts or who requires silly conditions to be taken care of before he accepts is only insulting people by accepting them.  Would it be a compliment if you were only allowed to work as an accountant if you had red hair?  If the person really values you, they would accept you properly and not be inventing excuses for having rejected you before.  Gay and lesbian rights are nonsense if racism is acceptable and racism can hardly be wrong if the idea of babies being accepted by God and rejected by him for no sensible reason is true.

 

Catholic Christianity accuses an unbaptised baby of being inferior to babies that are baptised.  Since God is supposed to be fair, the baby must in some way deserve this treatment.

 

Christianity says that the whole Bible is the word of God despite God having commanded that homosexuals and adulterers be stoned to death.  The Christians absurdly claim the right to revere and adore an evil book as God's word.  They exclude any Christian who comes up with a better list of books that she or she thinks is the word of God.  When they do that, they have no business complaining if some people interpret the bible as a justification for doing harm. 

 

Pro-gay interpretations of the Bible are forced and fanciful.  The fact that gay and lesbian Christians advocate such a book as the word of God certainly proves that they cannot complain if somebody comes up with an anti-gay interpretation.  Interpretation is a free world.

 

The Bible never actually states that falling in love is to be recommended ever.  The love it advocates between wife and husband is love that is freely given.  It is self-sacrifice.  Falling in love is having an addiction for another person.  In so far as it is addictive, it is harmful. 

 

The doctrine of Jesus Christ that we must love God with all our hearts and love our neighbour as ourselves is harmful.

 

The idea of some writers that loving God with all our hearts merely means keeping his commandments is an over-simplification.  It is supposed to be that but more.  If you love God's commandments, that does not mean you necessarily love God as a person.  To love a person's rules is not the same as loving the person.  Jesus said that we are to love God as a person with all our hearts.  That means we do everything for God alone.  We love God with all our hearts.  Our neighbour is not to be loved with all our hearts.  Neither are we to love ourselves that way.  Why are we to love God then that much?  Is it because he is good?  It can't be for we are to love our enemies.  Is it because he is a person?  Then if he is, what about the people around you?  What about your children?   He might be a person with infinite power but he is still just a person.  His power or rank makes no difference.  Perhaps we owe him obedience because he made us?  But he needs nothing for he is perfect and happy.  So we owe him nothing.  God should not be loved more than any other person.

 

The idea that we must love God alone or first of all is arbitrary.  It is discriminatory.  Thus the most important teaching of the Bible advocates discrimination.  Gay and lesbian Christians should embrace and bless the persecution they get for being gay or lesbian when they implicitly endorse obnoxious Christian doctrine.  If they don't want the discrimination, then it is time to slam the Church exit door behind them forever.

 

A sin is not a thing.  Strictly speaking, a person never commits a sin but a sin shows what kind of person he or she is - a sinner and sinful person.  To hate the sin is to hate the sinner. 

 

Real love does not turn into hate.  Christianity by saying that doing serious evil is an almighty insult against such a wonderful God, that it deserves everlasting torment in Hell and that it gives others a bad example that could draw them to Hell is making it hard for love not to turn into hate.  It would be a betrayal of your friends and loved ones to embrace such a faith.  The love will make you suffer.  Love shouldn't do that.  It should make you happy to help the other person when the other person is going astray or in trouble.  Christianity preaches love but then puts barriers in its path.  It encourages hypocritical love not real love.

 

Even if you could hate the sin and love the sinner, you are deluding yourself to manage it.  You are demeaning yourself.  If you demean yourself you can't think much of those who love you or of other people.  You are also offering love based on lies and pretence to the sinner.  Its not the real thing.  Its true colours will show.  Outright hatred would do less harm in the long run.

 

Some say you have to hate a person sometimes to do the best thing for them.  Sometimes parents say they detested and hurt their drug-addict sons and daughters and this fuelled their efforts to help them so that they could be lovable to them again.  They hated them and wanted to help them in order to stop hating them and to start loving them again.  These parents do not hide behind the love the sinner and hate the sin goody goody hypocrisy.  Those who say they do are trying to stop hating their sons and daughters.  They are lying about loving them.

 

For a Christian to condemn the sin of hating sinners for their sins would be rank hypocrisy and would actually show a preference for hating the hater of sin than hating the sinner hated.

 

As Christianity teaches the love of sinners and the hatred of sin it is a religion based on lies.  Gay people should not trust such a faith.  A faith that is capable of hate and covering up that hate would be happy to turn on the most harassed members of society.

 

The thought that God makes all things implies that if I go out now and murder ten people then God is the bearer of the responsibility not me.  He creates the powers that tempt me.  He creates the free will I use to go and murder.  Correct Christian doctrine teaches that we never do evil in spite of God but because of him.  The concept of God is dehumanising if you accept that any doctrine denying human responsibility is degrading.  Am I to blame for the murders?  Not as much as he is.  Most people, when they understand, will surmise that the idea of God is degrading.  If it is, and people are encouraged by religion to degrade themselves then they will take out their anger and frustrations on other people- gay people in particular.

 

God must know he is God.  If he does not, then he should not be called God.  He is not supreme or all-wise and so on.  But God could be hallucinating that he is God.  Some insane people are convinced they are divine.  It is impossible for God to be 100% certain.  He is certain that he exists but not that he is God.  This gives us the right on earth to defy him if we sincerely think he is wrong.  So in that case, why not think for yourself?  Why bother with a God?   Why call any being God? And why bother with religion with all the distress and fear it causes?  The concept of God implies that you have a duty to obey him and that you don't have the right to think what you like.   If he is God then you have to obey him without question for he knows all and you do not.  Then you cannot have freedom of conscience.  You are his property.  You must only use your faculties as he wants you to.  His rights come first. 

 

Are we to ask a sincere person to do what God wants if he thinks God is wrong? 

 

Religion has to say YES.  It has to say God is right to be so sure that he is God even though he cannot be that sure!  Faith in God is evil.  It calls on you to say God tells the truth when he plainly lies.

 

Some say that if a person disagrees with God then God has to be doing with it.  He cannot change the person's mind for they have free will.  Thus they say that the person has the right of freedom of conscience for nothing can be done about it.  If a policeman cannot stop a burglar from murdering does that give the burglar the right to murder?  No.  When even God cannot make that person's decision for them, that does not imply they have a right to make their own choice.  He has the right to command implying that he has the right to be obeyed.  Command implies the right to urge a person to do something or else.  For example, in a career, you will be fired if you refuse to obey commands.  The threat of being fired is an attempt to pressure you to obey.  Commands imply the right to force - at least up to a point.  If John commands you to eat your breakfast and you want to, you only seem to obey.  You didn't eat the breakfast to obey him but because you wanted to.  This is not real obedience.  It only looks like it on the outside.  Real obedience involves self-denial all the time. It condemns doing what you want to do.  The concept of God implies that everybody should be unhappy.  It is mad to expect such a God to condone gay relationships.

 

It is foolish of Catholics and Protestants to blame their religious leaders when cases of child abuse and child molestation and cover ups by these leaders come out.  The worst blame lies with the licks who put the beasts in power and keep them there and who lavish adulation on them.  Nothing is better at making people want to look up to their leaders and paper over any evil these leaders do or condone than religion.  The Nazis looked up to Hitler.  And that wasn't religion.  But it was difficult for Hitler to achieve the standing he got in the eyes of Germany.  For him, it was luck.  But if you claim to be the representative of a supernatural God and that sometimes this God commands what looks evil to us but which isn't if we understood the plan of God, then it is surely considerably easier to manipulate people and to win their adoring trust.  Then you have a clever excuse for ordering evil deeds.  The Nazis should have known better - Hitler was only a man and that was all he ever claimed to be.  He never claimed to be a prophet or infallible.  The Nazis suppressed their natural compassion for the Jews to destroy them and there was no excuse.  They knew they were being irrational but still they went full steam ahead in their support for Hitler.  This was inexcusable and a violation of natural feeling and reason.  However, if God has a plan and appoints infallible popes and prophets there might be an excuse.  Then the pope or prophet is regarded not just as man but as a mouthpiece for the divine who has been given divine authority.  The phenomenon of religious leaders being adored and people refusing to believe the terrible things they got up to and side with them and not the victims is a common and a frightening one.  The adoration is stronger than that for a political leader or a pop star.  Nobody treats their political leaders or pop stars as perfect and as infallible no matter how much they love them.  Nobody believes everything they say.  But with religion, people tend to obey their leaders as infallible.  Religion is dangerous.  Religious leaders don't deserve to be imputed with altruistic motives when they get such a high estimation from much of their flock.  Gay people cannot complain if religion turns on them when they support it.  Religion is intrinsically self-important and looks down on people.  Even when it helps it does it condescendingly.  Religion depends on us looking up to certain people who may be dead or alive and treating them as revealers of what we must do even if we don't understand.

 

Religion often claims that religious faith is a source not of belief but of knowledge.  They say they know God and what his ways are.  Roman Catholicism teaches that faith is certainty.  The Nazis even at their worst could never have been that arrogant.  You can't claim to know when you are merely believing unless you believe in a magical God who is revealing the truths to you and helping you to see they are true.  Religion, however benign it seems, is paving the way for arrogance and evil and intolerance worse than the Nazis could have ever dreamed of.

 

For gay people to expect Christianity to change its teaching that homosexuality is wrong is for them to say that the religion is man-made and can be changed.  It can hardly be from God if it needs correction.  So when the gays indicate by their approach that Christianity is human not divine and has revelations that are simply wrong they say a lot about themselves when they campaign for change.  They want to fit in with a man-made faith.  They want to declare that man has the right to write books and give revelations and claim without proof that they are the musings of God.  That is actually disgusting.  They should abandon Christianity or start their own version and write a new Bible.  If they want equality, then acting as if the dogma makers of Christianity have the right to invent religion and they don't is hardly a good way to go about it!  They deny the equality they seek.

 

Secularists believe that we should judge things as if there were no Gods or magical beings or magical powers for it is hard enough to implement laws that are beneficial without the added encumbrance of religious belief.  Only secularism can take care of rights - even it is not very good at it that it is not its fault.   It would be worse otherwise.    Religion is intrinsically opposed to real human rights.  It only allows human rights in a religious context.  In other words, the rights it gives and supports only look like rights.  It tries to distort and oppose the one thing that can deliver on human rights: secularism.  It is akin to saying that you don't believe in justice but people have a right to their food.  It is the appearance of believing in rights.  And it is a false appearance. 

 

If there is a God then he made the AIDS virus.  Christians will say he did so for a purpose, perhaps so that we might lovingly tend to those who are afflicted and that the AIDS victims might learn from their sickness.  So God uses people like things.  The concept of God letting evil happen for a purpose is at heart quite callous.  You need very strong evidence before you can justify doctrines such as that people are bad enough to choose to rot in Hell forever and that God is right to let people suffer.  If you don't, then you can accuse the loner next door of being a killer just because you think you feel he is or because you have flimsy evidence.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

God cannot ask us to love him more than any other person.  Therefore he is not important enough to excuse attempts to justify him letting AIDS afflict people.

 

Even if a gay and lesbian person could support the Church by using its sacraments and attending worship, they certainly cannot justify giving the Church money.  The money is being used to promote a message, a message that includes the belief that homosexuality is a sin.  The money will not be used to promote any gay interests - rather it will be used to scare young people into thinking that if they have gay relationships they can go to Hell forever.  The Church thinks that they should go to Hell forever.  It will hypocritically answer, "We don't want anybody to go to Hell."  But what good is that?  The point is that they say a person under certain circumstances should be sent to Hell and belongs there.  To say such a thing is an act of hate.  Hate is not necessarily a feeling that you want somebody to suffer.  It is the will to see somebody suffer.  Suppose a person feels great hatred for you but does not act on it and can't help it.  Then suppose that person does good for you then that person loves you in spite of feeling the hate.  The person who hurts you is hating you in the real sense: hate is trying to bring pain on another.  Real hate is not a feeling.  It is not hate to feel a great dislike or a vindictive dislike.  It is hate to foment it or to do nothing good to weaken it.  It is hate to neglect to try to get rid of it.

 

Religion says that love is not a feeling but acting to help others while intending to help them.  But we need people to like us so this love will not do us much good.  Real love requires feeling or at least trying to like the person.  It is more accurate to say that hate is not a feeling.  Religion should not then be using the excuse, "We feel no hatred for those who go to Hell" to answer those who accuse it of hate.  If you hate somebody for insulting you then why can't you hate those who turn away from loving you and loving others and who turn away from loving God to endure the suffering of Hell?  They must hate everybody a lot if they would choose torment over love. Whether it manages to get a person to hate or not, the Hell doctrine is an attempt to incite to hatred.

 

The main reason people wish to believe in retribution from God in the form of everlasting suffering in Hell or in sickness or depression or whatever is in the hope that people will be deterred from doing wrong.  So they hope that people will be hurt for doing evil.  This is vindictive.

 

The Church says that to sin you must consent to the sin.  If the feeling of hate takes you over and you maim and kill people, this is not a sin.  If it is not a sin then it must be something good under the circumstances that deserves a reward!

 

Christians who believe in evolution often argue that God through evolution has put a built in revulsion for same sex love and love-making into us.    They say that this is natures away of deterring us from unnatural sex and puts a limit on what should be acceptable sexually.  They will say that homophobia, distaste for the homosexual because of his or her sexual practices, is natural.  They will say that gay people are opposed to the right of heterosexual people to be repelled.  They will say that being repelled is a part of normal sexuality and accuse gay people of being opposed to heterosexual rights.  They may say that evolution pushes us towards reproduction and so gay sex is unnatural and it is unnatural for a straight person to feel no revulsion.  The revulsion is natures away of protecting us from becoming gay.

 

Gays and lesbians would agree that it is wrong to support a charity that engages in even in a small level of racist activity.  And then they go and support the Church with money!  That is worse for the Church is not a true charity.  It cares more about holy buildings and giving material comforts to men in funny collars than hospitals etc.  The Church says its job is not to build hospitals but to preach a message.  Its job is not to help people but to help people believe what it believes.  The gay and lesbian activist who pays money for the upkeep of the Christian religion is a hypocrite.

 

Gays and lesbians should accept exclusion from the Church.  They must not complain about this for it is as much a compliment to be expelled from the Church as it is the BNP.  Every organisation and business has to do some excluding.  You cannot complain if you are part of a Gay Liberation Movement and you start saying all gays and lesbians should be celibate for its a sin to express their sexuality and if you are expelled.  Gays and lesbians should welcome exclusion from the narrow and bigoted Churches instead of paying those Churches the compliment of valuing them so much that such exclusion distresses them. 

 

Gay and lesbians who support Christianity need to open their eyes.  They need to reject that faith.  Don't claim affiliation with Christianity when you tailor its doctrines to suit you!  You are not Christian then!  You are a religion of your own!

 

Any decent person leaves an organisation when the organisation does grave evil.  What does it take for you leave?  The Church has abused children.  Don't say the Church did what it knew was wrong and that because some go wrong it doesn't mean the religion can't be a good thing and worth supporting.  You would not be saying that about another religion.  If a religion came to you with a wonderful message and the religion wasn't practicing it you would not enter the religion because of its disobedience. Catholicism is worse than Protestantism in relation to the problem of clerics abusing children.  Yet Catholicism claims to be the true religion.  God should be able to make the true religion holier than the rest and to keep the ministry from having too many perverts and pervert sympathisers.  The argument that the faith should still be supported despite the evil is therefore wrong.  And to argue that way is simply to insult God.

It is not the pope and the bishops you must blame for the anti-gay message of the Church.  It is those who give them the money and who are listed as members of the Church.  The members need leaders.  The ordinary people are those who are ultimately to blame for the evil teaching and the vices that proceed from the leaders.  They haven't spoken with their feet.

Authority must be obeyed whether it is right or wrong.  If the boss orders you to use the fuck word in business letters that is what you must do.  Authority is often bad but it is still needed. Chaos would be worse.  You may say the Nazis reasoned like that and used the excuse, "Poor us!  We were only obeying orders!"  But in very serious cases authority should be defied to its face.  However this defiance still considered a necessary evil and not a good thing.  Religion is only a small part of the lives of most believers and most people are not religious and still are good people.  So religious authority cannot be justified because it is not a necessary evil.  If religious authority is a necessary evil then it has the right to ban homosexuality and exclude practicing gay people if it pleases.  Religious authority is not based on democracy.  Supporting gay rights and being a member of the Church is being contradictory.  If religious authority is an unnecessary evil, then then there is an even bigger contradiction between supporting it and supporting gay rights.  You can't be serious about gay rights if you support an unnecessary authority that opposes these rights and which teaches that they are wrong.  To teach that homosexuality is wrong is to teach that there is no right to practice it and to have gay relationships safeguarded by the law.  Even if religion tolerates homosexual relationships it cannot say that gay people have the right to declare homosexuality a right.  The Church denies that there is a right to practice homosexuality for rights are based on the dignity and needs of the person while homosexuality is seen to be undignified.

As long as your name is on the member rolls of the Church, you are obligated to obey the authorities of the Church.  The Christian Religion says that God needs to reveal his message to men who teach it to the people because there is so much we cannot understand.  We must just obey.  To pick and choose what authority says and what you like out of the faith is really to say the faith is man-made.  Yet the basic attitude of Christianity is that the Christian faith is to be considered of divine and not merely human origin.  To deny that is to cease to be a Christian in everything but name and outward appearance.  Why would you want to be a gay Christian when you pick and choose?  You are not even Christian then?  Your sincerity in relation to gay rights can be doubted because when God has to tell us what we cannot know or understand he might know why homosexuality is wrong even if we can never know.  To say God knows and has to tell us is to open the door to people who say God has said the practice of homosexuality is wrong.  You are diminishing the credibility of your work for gay rights.  You are supporting doubt about the rightness of gay equality with heterosexuals.

The Church is based on lies and hypocrisy.  For example, it allows you to tell a person, "That was a very bad thing you did, it was abominable.  It upsets and angers me greatly".  Bizarrely you are not allowed to say, "You were a very bad person when you did that."  So you are allowed to judge the act but you are to pretend you are not judging the person.  You can't judge one without the other.  Worse it is not the act that is hateful it is the character of the person - in other words it is the kind of person that the act reveals that is hateful.  Strictly speaking, hating the act is only a figure of speech.  It is the person doing the act that is hateful.  Is it any wonder there is so much "sin" in the Church with its hypocritical lies!  And it is a lie that has to be told every minute and day in and day out.

It is silly to argue that Jesus was good therefore Jesus would have supported gay rights.  He made slight improvements to the treatment of women.  Jewish women were married as children to their men.   He did nothing about that and even banned divorce.  These women were compelled and they made no vow to the husband during the marriage ceremony.

When you agree with the Church insulting babies in the whitewashing baptismal ceremony you can't complain about it insulting you or your sexuality.  Instead of, "Welcome to this world you precious little angel and we accept you and honour you unconditionally", it is, "You are outside God's Church, you are not one of his people.  You are in the same state as Adam was after he sinned so grievously against God.  You will always be damaged.  To help stop you becoming the evil thing you would become we heal you in baptism.  Now that you are baptised you are one of us."  You cannot accuse a baby of being justly rejected by God unless you are putting faith before evidence and before your natural instincts which are to adore the child as an angel.  Baptism is the vow to make the religion come before people and to judge as the religion judges and to believe what it believes.

A consistent Christian cannot complain about homophobic language.  Jesus used abusive language in Matthew 23.  Curiously, it was not a sin for Jesus to speak abuse to the Jewish leaders who he said were going to Hell.  The usual excuse was that Jesus was so overcome with love for them that he lost his temper and had to be very blunt for their sakes and to make them wake up.  There is no hint of love in the passage and besides Jesus said to them they cannot escape their fate in Hell.

People may sometimes confuse belief and faith.  Belief is not certainty.  But religious faith is regarded by the Bible and the Roman Catholic Church as a form of knowledge or certainty.  This is a very dangerous attitude.  Religious belief is bad enough but when the religionists start claiming to know they are right it causes a lot of trouble.  Suppose a Muslim and a Roman Catholic are in the same room.  The Muslim claims to know that the Koran and the Islamic faith is true.  The Catholic claims to know that the Roman Catholic Church is the only right religion.  Obviously at least one of them is deluded or lying.  They must suspect each other of lying.  Thus Catholics and Muslims making peace together is really just superficial.  It cannot last.  The devout Roman Catholic who says he knows that homosexuality is wrong must accuse the homosexual Christian who claims to know it is not wrong of self-deceit. To support religion is to support people who pretend they know more than they should and to promote an arrogance that can lead only to war and persecution.