Again, a leading case that's too general about Christian belief at a few
points.
Interpersonal abusive behavior is discouraged scripturally. Spiritually, the
believer is encouraged to pull for the other for God and leave the judgment
about it to God, not just leave bad human behavior to God. Complimentarianism
is conservative vs. liberal. The conservative choice and worse is also due to
social trends that are broader and older.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_domestic_violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism
More generally, being irresponsible about the known things (evolution) and
harm (rights for women and LGBT people) over a possibility is conservative
stipulation added to belief (or socially or politically added by a non-believ-
er), not just belief.
The known things and concern to not harm will never make a case against belief
in God, only what religious and political stipulations to not add to belief or
non-belief in the basic God concept.
To be a credible possibility, it has to be reconciled to the known things,
including the bad things of it (tragedies, death) and people (overindulging
the self at other's unfair regard or treatment, needless harm).
Those things are debated regarding how to reconcile them with an all-benefi-
cent God concept--do you blame God for the bad or allowing the possibility of
it, see a freedom of choice in it, etc. But that problem is eliminated by not
requiring the stipulation. You can still rue the bad just as much but it's then
like being able to believe in life for the good in it, and to believe in helping
with and encouraging the good in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
With God, you could believe He wants you to do that and add afterlife as a
sweetner. Just blaming God for the bad then turns on itself as a judgment
parallel to arguing against belief in life due to the bad of it. It's not the
perspective I'd recommend for a possible God presiding over life any more than
for life.