The other solution is to accept the teaching and realize it was not a mistake because it came from God, and an infallible God cannot make any mistakes.
That's the faith-based approach to evidence - pick an idea to believe, assume it's true, and then evaluate the evidence from that prospective not to see if it supports one, but rather, whether he can find a few ideas that seem to support his faith-based conclusion and disregard the rest. We can call this motivated thinking.
Critical thinking requires that the evidence be examined first, be examined dispassionately (open-mindedly), and that sound conclusions be derived from them through the proper application of reason.
The humanist looks at the teaching first - in this case, that gay people displease a good god - finds it immoral and unbefitting of a good god, and concludes that it did not come from one.
I do not believe that God is ever jealous since God has no competition. I think that verse was meant to convey that we should worship the one true God rather than false gods that do not even exist.
Here's more motivated reasoning. The believer can't very well change the words to make them comport better with a more modern monotheistic ideology, so he just changes what he says it means. I see that a lot when discussing turn the other cheek and blessed are the meek. Turn the other cheek is retranslated to mean something like forgive rather than what it says - stand down offer your tormentor another cheek to strike, because who would give that advice? The same ones who claim that meekness is a virtue. Of course, the modern believer changes meekness to humility, which is very different.
It's rather clear what those comments mean in their greater context in which they are paired with instructions to be longsuffering and to basically accept one's lot however exploited he is without rising up, for his reward will come later in a house of many mansions in which he will at last be an equal. It's not hard to see the appeal of a religion that teaches that to an emperor or a king.
All of this is sanitizing the warts, which is what I believe all of the Baha'i posting on this thread are doing. These homophobic teachings (two of the Baha'i have already objected to that language, claiming that words or laws can't be homophobic, but I think they might prefer it to the teachings of a homophobic god or a man claiming to speak for one) are warts. So how to sanitize them? As we see in this thread: 'They must be good if they come from a god. Love the sinner. I have no hatred in my heart for any gay person.' Anything but what everybody else seems to see there. The believer does that to relieve his own cognitive dissonance, but only other motivated reasoners accept it.
The way society looks at sexuality has nothing to do with what is moral since society does not determine what is moral, God does.
Then you understand the humanist position and why he rejects all received "wisdom." The claims that prophets and messengers make in the name of gods are human in origin just like all other words ever. They declare what is moral and immoral for those willing to believe them. This is how you make any words seem superhuman, but you've got to find people willing to believe what they are told without evidence, which, fortunately for the religions, is most of the world, critical thinkers being the set that recognize that this should never be done ever. That is a basic tenet of humanist thought - skepticism, or the idea that nothing should be believed without sufficient evidentiary support. Master that, and one is forever immune from indoctrination, including being made to believe that homophobic doctrine means that homophobia is wrong rather than that its authors were bigots.
My religion's claims are from a Messenger of God who speaks for the deity.
The skeptic has no reason to believe that, because it lacks supporting evidence. You have said in the past that the words themselves are evidence for you that they come from a god, but that is just motivated reasoning again. If one assumes that they are from a god, then whatever they say is godly.