I am not an evangelical. I am on the LGBTQ spectrum, and most Christians would not consider me one. So, whether I have skin in this game is debatable.
When these subjects come up, I try to take as rational an approach to analysis as I can, questioning my own preconceptions as well as those of other parties; and I find the following statement, which appears in some form not infrequently in these discussions, deeply problematical:
When searching online homophobia is defined as “dislike of or prejudice against gay people”.
While the suffix "phobia" can be used in a technical sense to refer to mere aversion, i.e. aversion to homosexual practice, aversion to homosexuals, or both -- let's be sure to be specific; these are distinct categories -- my sense is that it is almost always used to refer to an irrational aversion. And here's the problem: what is rational depends, not only on how you build upon your axioms, but also upon your selection of the axioms themselves.
People on the LGBTQ spectrum frequently seem to take the position, "Love me, love my dog," i.e., you can't love me without loving this about me. I think this is because the quality being discussed is seen by the person possessing it as so deeply a part of who they are that it is inseparable from their being -- a position that is more of a belief than a verifiable fact. If I use my own life as an example (I'm a trans woman), I take the position that I am female and a woman, because to take the alternative position is so deeply distressing to me that it makes life an unrelenting agony. But can I prove it objectively? No. It remains a belief, adopted for the same reason all beliefs are adopted: it gives meaning to my life.
The idea that homosexuality is a departure from divine design, and the idea that God expects His people to avoid homosexual behavior, as propositions are as potentially valid as their contraries. You can build a philosophy of life upon either. Evangelicals choose to subscribe to these propositions, and you choose not to. Each of you is choosing beliefs that make your life meaningful.
To characterize the choice the evangelicals have made as "irrational" is not logically consistent; it's not so much irrational as it is non-rational. They are not the same thing. All beliefs are fundamentally non-rational: they cannot be substantiated by reason alone. It is, therefore, not reasonable to call these beliefs "phobic," unless you can demonstrate that they are based in fear, hate, pride, etc. -- and you cannot simply assume that these are the motivating factors.
To return to the "love me, love my dog," idea: I think it really comes down to whether or not you believe in free will. If you believe that human beings can choose their behaviors, then they are necessarily separate from those behaviors. There are gay Catholics who live celibate lives; the RC church doesn't condemn being gay, just acting on it. Some evangelicals believe that homosexual attraction is always a choice, which seems ridiculous to most of us; and, truth to tell, I suspect their motivations in doing so, as expressions of either fear or pride, or both. But I also recognize that it is logically possible to take this position without either of these factors being involved. It is, like the other positions herein described, a belief.
It always hurts to be excluded from a body you wish to be part of, or to accept limitations placed upon you by church authority that you yourself don't agree with. The answer to the first is, ultimately, that association between any two people or groups should be voluntary on the part of both parties, each participating in setting the limits of that association and agreeing thereto. The answer to the second is, surrender to temporal spiritual authority is part of the Christian package, unless that Christian is solitary. I think this value has been largely lost among Protestants, because Protestantism is founded in rejection of church authority; it remains very much alive in Catholicism.
On a final note: another value largely lost in today's world is the value of suffering, particularly when it is unjust. I am reminded of Acts 5:40-41, where disciples rejoiced in suffering (at the hands of religious people) for Jesus, and of Paul's words in Colossians 1:24. Bearing your cross and suffering for His sake mean something, even when no one else sees -- indeed, especially when no one else sees.
Thank you for sharing your photos; I rejoice with you in finding a loving partner. Personally, I would find a faith community that is supportive of your beliefs and practices, and commit these others to His care and discipline.
