WHEN LGBT IS HURT BY RELIGION SHOULD THEY RESPOND WITH TOLERANCE OF RELIGION OR REJECTION?

I have always denied that pretending that LGBT+ sexual love can fit the Catholic faith.  True affirmation means that you will stand for this right to sexual love even if it means exposing the religion and drawing people out of it.

In practice this means letting the Church go and ticking the No Religion box in the census instead of Roman Catholic if you are of a Catholic background.

Some say to me: "Shouldn't we LGBT be campaigning for religious tolerance rather than round rejection of religion?  Is it not too pessimistic to say LGBT should find something else?"

I say,
 
How dare you say I campaigned for a round rejection of religion! I told people to have the honesty to go their own way and be their own religion. And I didn't mention rejection. If you find something does not suit you any more, you will move on. Moving on is not the same as rejection.

Why not be your own religion? Why not be your own man or one woman Church? It is the fashion! That is not rejecting religion but doing the right and honest thing. If you have to have a religion, then find one that does not unjustly condemn you or your actions. Saying, "I'll be my own religion and tick the No Religion box" is a rejection of a religious affiliation not a round rejection of religion.

Tolerance for what you don't like is not the same as tolerance for what is wrong. The objector seems to confuse the two. You must tolerate what you do not like. But you should not be part of anything that is wrong. You walk.
 
Objector you have a ridiculous concept of tolerance. Unlike you, I assert fully the right of the Church to condemn and exclude LGBT should it wish and the right of LGBT people to separate from the Church. I firmly assert that the Church should be punished for this.

You are implying that LGBT people who make the decision to leave the Church and tick the No Religion box in the census instead of Catholic where applicable are intolerant. That is offensive and many have sacrificed a lot to separate from the Church. Christianity is obligated by its scriptures to see those who leave as evil and misguided and in danger of everlasting torment. The Roman Catholic faith teaches, "Outside the Church there is no salvation." Christians bully those who leave by calling them intolerant and that is what you are trying to do. Go to bed with bullies and you will be bullied yourself.
 
Do you think the Catholic Church is intolerant for not allowing Muslims to celebrate Mass in its Churches (hypothetical). So why should I be called intolerant if I take steps to break with the Church for the sake of human rights or just because I have the integrity to do the right thing and be an official unbeliever if I don't believe? You want LGBT to be tolerated by the Church and not accepted. Tolerance implies putting up with something immoral or bad because there is no way of eradicating it.  Tolerance implies, "I have to tolerate my son making the choice to live as a gay man. I begrudge doing it and wish I could make the choice for him not to do this!
 
There are those who will not say, "Ok, this religion is not for me. I will find another one. There is plenty out there. I will not upset the leadership of the Church and its obedient followers by staying in it as I advocate for the Church to change to suit me. Why me? The Church cannot change to suit everybody who has a problem with its doctrines. If a religion is not truly from God but is man-made and I know it, then I shouldn't be in it." There is no genuine tolerance or respect in what they are doing.
 
Objector, you do not tolerate LGBT people who no longer identify as Catholic. You want them to tick the Roman Catholic box in the census and empower that dangerous faith by playing along with it.  The good done by the Church does not justify its hate or do not regard the hate as a serious matter?
 
The objector like everyone else, believes there are actions that should be hated. The Church says that gay sex is one of them. The objector who really believes in religious tolerance for the Catholic Church will have to insist that Catholics be given the right and even the encouragement to detest gay activity. Whose side are they on? Tolerance actually means you put up with somebody or something bad or dangerous but not that you like it or encourage it. Being part of a harmful religion is not tolerance. It is collusion. Tolerance for the objectors should mean that they leave the Church. They cannot ask the Church to tolerate them being in it when they oppose some of its teachings and certainly when they deny that the Church really is the voice of Jesus Christ and free from error. That is unfair and intolerant of them.
 
The progress Catholics have made in LGBT issues that they mention is not progress but disobedience of the Church. Church teaching is that no Catholic is fully living up to what a Catholic means.  They are both Catholic and not.  Pick and Mix fake Catholic believers are everywhere these days. You have fake pick and mix Christians like Tony Blair and all who boast about being men of honesty and peace while they lie and cheat to incite war.
 
Would you use that tolerance argument objector if it was a religion that taught that gay people must be destroyed as part of its official doctrine? Would it make any sense then to campaign for this teaching to be tolerated? No - you would feel then you were not part of the solution but the problem. The Catholic Church does not execute gay people but surely you must see that to tolerate its teaching against LGBT rights is to fuel efforts to destroy those rights.
 
Objector you have roundly rejected the Catholic religion yourself. You cannot come up with a way of telling where truth begins or falsehood leaves off in the Catholic Church. You reduce religion to human opinion. You want a Church that changes to suit you. You want to distort Catholicism while retaining the trappings, the culture and social benefits of Catholicism. You are not the only person that thinks the Church should change to suit you. Just be honest and admit you think it is the Church's job to suit you even if - hypothetically - it is right to condemn homosexuality. 
 
Objector you would tell people, "You can be Catholic and not believe in the Church's teaching about sex." Why stop with sex? Why not say you can be a good Catholic and advocate culling most of the human race to avoid the nightmare that awaits us when the world population is fifty billion? What's so special about sex? You are guilty of a misrepresentation and not genuine loyalty to the Church. You are not speaking as a Catholic but as a heretic. You cannot believe these teachings. Are you trying to by reading Church literature and praying, "God help me to believe for faith is your gift"? If you are then your attitude is, "The Church has to be right though I cannot see it yet but I will. Therefore I must still support and advocate the Church's teaching." There is just no way somebody can claim to be infallible and to speak for the Church like you do without the right or authority to can be a true Catholic.
 
People who use religion as a convenient label are hypocritical and I find them irritating.
 
I wonder are you as keen at picking up the pen to defend gay rights as you are tolerance towards the Catholic Church?
 
The objectors are saying we must tolerate Catholic homophobia and not reject this faith because of it. Obviously they turn a blind eye to how dangerous the Church's attitudes are. Official Church and Bible teaching says sexual sin, including LGBT acts and relationships are a serious sin and deserve everlasting punishment. Jesus said in Matthew 18 that we must ostracise and despise anybody who does not accept the teaching of the Church. Jesus said you are better to lose an eye than to use it to incite lust. People have committed suicide, been cut off by their families and suffered mental illness because of these teachings. The spiritual and social power of the Church are very intimidating to the vulnerable LGBT person. We only tolerate what is tolerable. The harm the Church does is not. He turns a blind eye to the fact that society is prone enough to homophobia without the Church adding to it.
 
The vitriol some gay people direct at the Church is still less bad than the Church teachings that homosexuality is a grave evil and if the person knows the Church forbids it and still does it with full consent that person will suffer forever in the retribution of hell if they die unrepentant.
 
How the gay or atheist "Catholic" or "supporter" of the Church who the Church sees as an unrepentant rebel can expect people to be impressed by their ways and their distaste of the Church's anti-gay teaching is a good question. They will just see them as the Church does, stubborn sinners.
It is a strange kind of religious tolerance that supports a dangerous religion instead of you being your own similar religion and pope and prophet. The objector is not the fan of tolerance they pretend to be.
 
A round rejection of religion is one thing. A round rejection of the Church on the census form is another. That is a must.  You can still go to Mass etc for sentimental reasons or whatever. You can invent your own version of /Catholicism and be your won Church. That is not a round rejection of religion.
 
Interesting that you want LGBT to campaign for tolerance of religion instead of campaigning for religion to tolerate LGBT. I suppose you are aware that tolerance really is just people stomaching one another reluctantly. You should want the Church to accept you instead of merely tolerating you. If you felt that people were tolerating you, would that help your sense of self-worth? It would do you more damage in the long run than getting beaten up by Christians outside a gay club.
 
The Church gets away with the things it does and says because of its apparent size. And that is the fault of people who are not truly Catholic but who go through the motions and label themselves as Catholics. Most so-called Catholics are not real Catholics. It is because their names are on the books that the pope is taken so seriously as a major world figure. Having your name on the books is contributing to the prestige the pope is held in. Because he has it, he can use it to come to your country and plead with believers to stop gay rights. If greater numbers of gay men have to live with HIV and AIDS, that will be a challenge for health service funding. The Church will say, and indeed does say, that nobody forced most of them to have sex. It will say they contracted those illnesses through illicit sex and so must take responsibility for this. The Church will conclude that those who are sick not through their own fault should be given priority. The Church will kill gay men through its teaching. It already does that by conditioning people to feel good about refusing to use condoms. The person who has unsafe sex sins less than the person who has sex with a condom on.
 
LGBT rights started off in force because of the number of LGBT people who were committing suicide and being harassed by those who disapproved of LGBT people and their relationships.  The objector wants to support an organisation that preaches homophobia in the form of refusing to support and encourage LGBT relationships - that is often more harmful than an LGBT person suffering abuse or even the odd slap. The Church ignores the fact that its disapproval of gay relationships encourages promiscuity among many gay people. It makes them feel their relationships are dirty.
 
To claim to be Catholic and then reject required teachings of the Church is intolerance. Better to shake hands with the Church and make a peaceful departure. Those individuals who refuse to admit they are inventing a religion of their own when they reinterpret the religion they were born into are annoying. And such are not solid support for LGBT rights for they only have a minority interpretation. Support for LGBT rights should be based on facts not on interpretations. Interpretations cannot be taken any more seriously than opinions can.  Giving your pro-LGBT opinion or interpretation is telling others to have an opinion or interpretation too even if it means rejecting yours so how are such things supposed to help?  Evidence and truth are the real allies.

Wanting a religion to violate Jesus who said your yes must be simply yes and your no no, is asking for oppression by liars and hypocrites.