The definition of religion is a worldview that propounds a cosmological view( how the world works), ethical perspective (what we should do in our lives) and eschatological (matters of life after death), as well as regards at least the central maxims as incontrovertible. The last aspect (acceptances of propositions as incontrovertible) is what demarcates religion from philosophy.
On that note, blind obedience to authority is the most notable aspect of religiosity. The psychological and the sociological reasons why people accept religion are very simple. Namely, most people struggle to think for themselves and therefore do not understand how to live, or what kind of a worldview they should endorse. Such a lack of knowledge is uncomfortable to them.
They find religion to be compelling because it solves all of the problems above, it tells them exactly how to live and what to think of the world. Their religious teaching insists that all of the issued commands must be obeyed without question. Hence, because they think that the Bible exhorts them to condemn homosexuals, they do so accordingly.
The question to follow is, does the Bible or does it not explicitly condemn homosexuals? It likely does both. There were many authors many of which held beliefs that were incompatible with other authors of the Bible. Moreover, many of the authors of the Bible were not philosophers or learned men, hence they lacked the ability to think cleary and to express their thoughts clearly. Thus many of the statements they have with regard to homosexuality were in themselves incoherent and were expressed in an ambiguous way. On that note, it is not at all surprising that there is myriad of different kinds of religious zealots who purport that their actions are justified by the Bible. On that note, it is also not surprising that many adherents of the Bible assert that their actions are justified by the book of dogma.
I have expressed more of my thoughts here,
In conclusion, the topic is not intellectually challenging. It is merely about stupid people doing stupid things. Yet, I am glad that you posted it anyways. The topic has the potential to discuss ethical issues that are of deep concern to many of us.
I have expressed more of my thoughts here, Poverty of Conventionalism
Whilst religion in itself is not intellectually stimulating, philosophy of religion may be. In this book, I was concerned chiefly with the endeavor of philosophy of religion. Philosophy of religion is intellectually interesting because it is concerned with doing exactly what religions have failed to. Establishing a coherent worldview (in relation to cosmology, ethics and eschatology). However the chief difference between a philosophical approach to this endeavor and a religious is that the former does not regard any proposition as incontrovertible, whilst the latter clearly does.