Aren't most world religions against lgbt equality?
Traditionally, Abrahamic religions. Notably, however, Jews have a liberal component that is not anti-gay and the Orthodox often distinguish personal practice from civil law. Christianity is divided along conservative and liberal branches/approaches, but historically quite anti-gay.
Hinduism and Buddhism, to me, seem to say next to nothing about it. Given that asceticism and celibacy are often idealized, I'm not very surprised that it isn't looked at very different from heterosexual sex. But culturally, that's another matter; there are plenty of Hindus who consider homosexuality adharmic, which is quite bad. That said, the earliest approaches (i.e., the laws of Manu) treat male homosexuality as something that must be followed with ritual bathing and mild penance, while female homosexuality is treated a little more harshly.
The Theravada tradition of Buddhism contains some admonitions against certain classes of homosexual males being monks, pandaka. These are usually described as sexually insatiable men who want to be passive partners in anal penetration, and are excluded for the purpose of maintaining celibacy, if I recall correctly. Modern views range from accepting to condemnatory, and this often varies based on one's view of laity obligations with respect to sexuality. In Theravada all monks must be celibate.
Tibetan Buddhism condemns, I believe, all acts of anal and oral sex. But frankly there are lots of Buddhists who consider this religion to be more in line with Bon and Hinduism than Buddhism. I can't imagine that the most conservative Theravada practitioners actually believe this is even Buddhism, since it embraces tantric practices that are probably a one-way trip to rebirth.
Mahayana is extremely diverse, but my impression has been it is largely more open to monogamous same-sex relationships, at least in the West. It is also more lay oriented than Theravada.
Sikhism I think is condemnatory, but not based on scriptures, which I believe are silent. I think it is a function of tradition and elevation of heterosexual marriage.
Functionally, the religious traditions , to me, seem to reflect more than inculcate sexual norms, including the approach to homosexuality. In the Islamic world and Christendom we see both periods of intense homophobia and relative tolerance, institutionalized pederasty, homosexuality within monastic orders in Christian and Buddhist periods, etc. Also, most of the issues are relatively new; LGBT marriage was unthinkable in different periods not so much because such relationships were unfathomable but because marriage served certain functions, primarily property functions, that were unworkable in an egalitarian setting. Similarly, the civil rights statutes that protect people on the basis of sexual orientation in market transactions, for example, are relatively new in large part because the concept of civil rights statutes are relatively new. The historic example of institutionalized homosexuality is pederasty, which was also laden with concerns about power, coercion, etc. Even the examples of societies we use to illustrate tolerance or acceptance were not necessarily open to the idea of two equals engaged in homosexual sex; they often preferred sharp demarcation lines based on social status (slave/free, citizen/non-citizen), age or role. And these attitudes continue to exist and inform our understanding of homosexuality today, both in the West and in other areas.
