I don't think you have to subscribe to a particular organized religion to accept the spirit, rock - just because that is necessary for you doesn't mean it has to be the path for John. And it does seem rather odd that passages that don't affect most of us personally are being dragged out and declared as sins. . .as if those were essential understanding passages to learn about for heterosexuals.
One point I will give John is that there is a difference between inspiration and transcription - and that organized religions make many adaptations to social changes. Interpretations over time have also changed - for example, when sodomy laws were first developed, they related to sexual conduct involving any kind of intimate relationship. In those states which eventually limited it to homosexual contact, the laws for many years were limited to male expressions only, and usually only enforced against the one discharging "babies," not the recepient.
In this same way, images of Jesus were created to accommodate the need to fill church pews. In the late 19th century, for example, Jesus was portrayed as softer and pale, almost effeminate, since the majority of people attending services at the time were women. It was during Teddy Roosevelt's time that the images became more buffed as the churches tried to attract more men. There are more recent examples of this in depictions of the "hippie" Jesus, etc.
There's nothing wrong with you viewing homosexuality as sinful, as long as you apply that only to your own behavior. That tends to be a rather easy thing to believe if you aren't one of them.
