Then you have painted yourself into a corner that your reasoning faculty could have rescued you from had you not subverted it to protect your faith-based beliefs. I dropped number 1 above. I did. Now, I'm left with 2 and 3, which are compatible once one rejects scripture as a moral authority. Yes, the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination, meaning that an unrepentant, active homosexual is fit for perdition, and my conscience tells me that that is irrational bigotry. That leaves me with an internally consistent view. The believer has to contend with cognitive dissonance or learn to ignore it if you can.
There are dozens of examples of these kinds of problem resolving themselves following a transition to humanism. All of the enigmas and conundrums of Christianity evaporated away - why God allows gratuitous suffering, why the Bible seems to contradict itself, why prophecy is so weak and unconvincing, why God seems to not answer prayer, why God disapproves of homosexuals, why I can't move mountains with faith, why Christian morality seems flawed, why there are so many religions, why we never see God, why the creation and flood myths are so wrong, etc.. Believers have to try to reconcile all of these with their belief that a good God knows and loves them, and we know what that looks like. And you know how that feels. So do I, a former Christian apologist. But today? None of those are issues, which is powerful evidence that my previous beliefs were wrong.
Think about that. It never occurred to you that you were living with a narcissistic gaslighter, and now your head is filled with false beliefs that don't feel right. One day, you seriously begin considering that your basic beliefs about this person may be incorrect, and you notice that this one change of going from a believer of the abuser's words to a skeptic of them resolves dozens of these matters in one fell swoop. That's powerful evidence that you were wrong and now are correct.
Yes, same sex attraction and pedophilia are natural inclinations in those who have them. The argument for tolerating homosexuality is not based in it being natural, but in it being harmless among consenting adults behind closed doors, unlike sex with minors. There is no rational or compassionate argument against homosexuality, just religious ones.
No, the fact that it often conflicts with rational ethics does. Just as theists decide to believe their book morality is correct, humanists assume that the conscience is the source of moral guidance, and the consensus of rational ethicists is the proper moral authority against which other moral systems ought to be judged. Theists have long enjoyed the status of being able to call others immoral simply for not sharing their book's values. I'm loathe to use that language with theists, and tend to divert my moral criticism to the religion rather than its adherents, but I do consider them wrong and their moral system inadequate.
