Sadly, some adherents of some religions have to rely on an archaic book for such decisions, and by the rules of that faith, and feel they have to adhere to its laws, however Draconian they might be. From that, I can easily see why a person might conclude any member of certain religions to be homophobic.
I think that the argument is that the religion teaches homophobia, not that every adherent is equally receptive to that teaching or it informs his behavior the same way. This thread is a nice example of many Baha'i who credibly claim that they hold no malice for homosexuals, yet promote a homophobic doctrine whenever they say that their religion teaches that homosexuality is forbidden, even though they can't give a better reason for that than God says so. It's understood that they agree that this homophobic judgment must be moral if their god holds it even if they can't give any better reason for it being moral than that their god says so, even if they don't share that animus viscerally.
How often do we read, "You can't blame every Christian [or whatever] for what some do"? Antitheists answer, "We don't. We condemn the religion that teaches that dogma to the fraction receptive to it."
Something doesn't seem right about people having desires for sex and acting on these desires just because that have the desires...I do not believe in having sex out of wedlock. I never believed that was right, even before I became a Baha'i. It did not come from religion because I was not raised in a religious home.
People are asking you to examine why you feel that way. You say that some of these attitudes predate your entry into religion, which, if I understood you correctly, means that you don't think those sentiments come from religion. Not directly if you weren't being taught, "God teaches us such-and-such," but somebody put that notion in your head - parent, aunt, teacher - who served as a vector for a judgment that had to begin with somebody deeming something immoral and saying that a god told them that. That's what gods are for in the hands of clergy - to give their imprimatur to human commands.
When I went from Christianity back into atheism and secular humanism, and had a clearer understanding between the difference between the ideas I had imbibed uncritically and the ones that were based in experience, and why I wanted to purge the former from my mental map of the world, I began to systematically question why I believed the things I believed, and if I couldn't find a good reason for the belief, jettisoned it. This happened with sexual mores of Christianity, most of which were simply irrational or served a former time and place better than mine.
Most of these sexuality laws are based in inheritance (which children are the father's?) and the need to continually replenish the human stock in a world where infant mortality, maternal death, infection, and war depleted populations. Such people would oppose any practice that allowed fertile wombs to remain empty (refusing sex with a husband, rhythm method, homosexuality, masturbation, divorce, and later, birth control and abortion even when the world had changed and now overpopulation was the problem).
It's easy to see where these ideas came from and why, and they no longer make sense or serve any purpose. And who will be the vector for them into the future? People repeating ancient moral codes without knowing why.
I am not passing any moral judgments on anyone. To each his or her own. I am only responsible for my own behavior and I go by what is in the Baha'i Writings.
This is what all of the Baha'i posting here are saying, but it doesn't ring true to others. When you say that you go by the Baha'i teachings, you are endorsing them as good and moral. Think of the American with a Confederate flag who says, "I don't endorse slavery, racism, or civil war." Well, yeah, you do, whatever it is you actually believe and feel.
Earlier, you wrote to a Christian who was tolerant of fornication, "So you are not opposed to sex out of wedlock? How can you justify that position given what the Bible says?" I guess that you don't see that that is passing moral judgment. You might say, "I only asked a question, not made a judgment," but I would disagree. Simply mentioning that his holy book forbids that behavior as Christians understand its dogma is a moral punch in the shoulder. One could ask the Baha'i posting here the same regarding their apparent tolerance of homosexuality while carrying water for the Baha'i faith.
