Hmm you seem to be very confused I can try to explain it though I'm neither a Jew or a Muslim so it might not be perfectly accurate. So the reason they are against it is because sodomy is seen as a horrible abominable evil act. Now there is a concept called universality where moral evil is evil regardless of who it's done to. Christianity champions universal morality. Islam has some universal traits but not as much as Christianity it still has tribalism. Judaism and Paganism have the least ammount of universality. Even in modern secular western nations have universality because of the Christian legacy. For example look at laws that prohibit sex tourism or trafficking. If you care about you and yours(tribalism) then why would you care if someone goes to a foreign nation and engages in sex abuse where it is legal over there but illegal here. With tribalism you would make it illegal to do that to your own in group. But with universalism you would ban that everywhere because evil acts that hurt others are not acceptable. Even if they don't hurt you or yours.
There is still some logical issues here:
1. Homosexuality qua homosexuality, while being immoral and decadent (in the original sense of the word), does not necessarily require or connote child abuse (the two are linked more often than the alphabet community should be comfortable with, so yes, stricter scrutiny should apply). If you're killing people for engaging in child abuse - that would be a different matter, and would make sense as defending the young. But the land/faith that venerates a pederast is unlikely to start tossing
straight child molesters off of roofs. And all available evidence indicates that they do nothing of the sort. Nor have I seen a scintilla of evidence alleged or shared that the amateur involuntary homosexual base jumpers were diddling kids. Ergo, they are tossing the homosexuals for being homosexual, not for being actual or even potential child abusers.
2. On the scale of evil, murder is normally considered worse than child abuse. Yes, this is very much a frying pan/fire comparison. But the horrible truth is that victims of child abuse can and often have been able to go on to live decent lives of their own. The dead are
unlikely to do so. Also, for all you normies out there, I am given to understand that killing tends to reduce what little social conditioning you lot absorb during childhood, and hence lowers the bar for future killing, making more murders (of whomever is available at hand) more likely. Finally, all the universalist faiths (and most Islamic sects do retain universalist pretensions) have the concept of converting the sinner/infidel/pagan/etc to the true faith, causing them to repent of their sins and follow "the straight and narrow path" be it of the cross, submission, or otherwise. The dead can not repent, and having never repented, can not be held up as examples to follow for other wayward souls.
Killing non-child-abusing homosexuals is logically the bigger evil.
Expelling them from the tribe or reforming them (voluntarily or otherwise) would both be a better fit for the faith claims of Islam, and for the secular strategic imperatives of Islamic groups.
A final observation:
Hamas and similar groups seem to have settled on what amounts to an odd form of human sacrifice. It used to be that cultures would select unblemished sacrifices (originally livestock, but this is where the whole virgin sacrifice idea originated, I wager). Now we have a cult sacrificing what are, by their own declarations and estimations, "unclean vermin", to the Divine. I can not imagine the Almighty is overly pleased with the quality of the offerings, or the thought processes of those making them.
