People actually often do have sex with people they do not find physically attractive for a variety of reasons. One of the less savory but common reasons is that they are aroused and simply want to be with another person rather than masturbating. So I will ask yet again, if it is not relatively intrinsically repulsive, why do more people (not just in the west, but all over the world) not participate?
You... noted yourself, actually, that there are cases where people will engage in homosexual relationships because they're aroused. And, while yes, relationships between people who don't find each other physically attractive do happen, it's definitely not a primary or common occurrence. If it helps you understand the connection, though, replace "not physically attractive" with "grievously physically disfigured." Natural revulsion is not sufficient for the acts and positions the argument you're defending tend to support.
You speak of gays being denied rights, but there is no history of gays marrying or participating in religions that do not condone homosexuality, so the rights you say are being systematically stripped are not at all clear.
Do you genuinely think that denying people rights such as visiting a partner in the hospital or the ability to adopt (this is, of course, not an inclusive list) is not a systematic stripping of rights? Their homosexuality has no demonstrable impact on the rights I mentioned, and yet there is consistent opposition to homosexuals having such rights.
The rest of the issue with this issue in question is that the anti-homosexual proponents tend to favor and suggest
considerably worse infringements than ones such as those.
I'll ask again, would you be comfortable in accepting that guided persecution on a social and legal level based strictly on personal dislike is something we should abhor?
The fact that people who attack Christians and Christianity, constantly accuse people of hate, side with philosophies with demonstrated, well documented antipithay towards Christ, can then suddenly not be able to acknowledge that history, is just one more in a long list of evidence that there is something pretty openly subversive going on here. The lockstep adherence to very questionable arguments that are nevertheless identical....?
So... do you simply disagree with my statement that people can and do dislike
aspects of Christianity without discarding the whole thing? It's a pretty simple point: Most of the people arguing against the position you're representing
are not anti-Christian. They disagree with a specific aspect of dogma, but that's all there is to it.