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? Its 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. Its 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 its 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.
Its 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.
LGB rights started off in force because of the number of LGB people who were committing suicide and being harassed by those who disapproved of LGB people and their relationships.  The objector wants to support an organisation that preaches homophobia in the form of refusing to support and encourage LGB relationships - that is often more harmful than an LGB 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.
The Bible contains vicious anti-gay and anti-unbeliever statements. If LGBT or atheist people want to change the Church, then those statements need to be excised from the Bible and declared to be of human not godly origin. Can you imagine the Church doing that and then having to do the same for other groups that are not happy with the scriptures? For the Church to do that would be to admit that it is a man-made religion that has a Bible that claims to be written by God which is really just human and unfit to be called a revelation from God.
You don't like my suggestion that LGBT people need to tick the no religion box as it "seems too pessimistic". The seems shows you have, not surprisingly, lost confidence in your own drivel.

To assert that the Church will never take the side of gay rights is not pessimistic. The Church can't please everybody and shouldn't even try. LGBT people are not the only people who want their own kind of change in the Church. The Anglican Communion wants the Roman Catholic Church to accept its bishops as real bishops and to accept the ordination of women and then they might consider reunion with Rome. Women want the teaching against contraception changed. The Roman Catholic Church is not going to risk a Church split of unprecedented proportions to accept gay people. LGBT people comprise less than 2% of the population for heaven's sake. If that acceptance were to happen, traditional Catholics would soon create their Roman Catholic Church Continuing or True Roman Catholic Church and there will be a number of men in Rome each claiming to be the one true Pope and to represent the true Catholic faith. To say the Church needs to change is really to ask the Church to deny that it teaches objective truth and to repudiate real Catholicism. It is to declare the Church as a system of doctrine to be just an assumption based on the absurd and loathsome principles of moral relativism. To take such a stance means that one follows the Church out of sentiment not faith and that is not following the Church at all. It is letting feelings be in charge.
Until you give me evidence that don't you refer to my proposal as pessimistic.  Tell me if the Catholic Church is going to consider making gay porn no longer a sin in order to protect the dignity of those who work in it.  Tell me if the Church is going admit people have the right to have casual sex without love.  Tell me if the Church is going give women the right to have babies without having a relationship with a man.  Tell me if the Church is going to affirm sexualities based around the right and desire to have open sexual relationships.  Tell me if the Church is going to make marriage optional and one valid lifestyle among many.  Tell me if the Church is going to promote the mental health of the Church and encourage young people over the legal age to experiment with sex with their own sex f they feel the need.

You know fine well that the Church would have to say that only lifelong gay relationships built on love are moral if the impossible happened and it changed its mind on gay people. But it will never go further than that. If it happens that lifelong commitment is accepted it will cause polarisation in the LGBT community which does tend, thanks to Christianity, to categorise LGBT people, who are very sexually free and feel no need for lifelong love as sluts. The teaching that we must not judge those who have lots of partners in bed is sneaky. It implies, "I don't know the full situation and so I can't judge. But if I could know it I would." The judging is still happening in principle. People will see through it and be gravely damaged by Christianity's promotion of holiness and opposition to sin.
We need change soon not in a hundred years or in a thousand. And the change cannot happen for it will be telling Catholics that man has the right to change what the Church calls divine revelation and turn the Church antichrist.
To support the Catholic system is to support an information network that seeks to make homosexuality and atheism look bad and look like a sin. Have you read Catholic Voice and Alive? They contain alarming fulminations against atheist parents in particular and atheists in general and contain rabid anti-LGBT teachings.