No, they're not violence. They are a possible consequence of it.

Violence, as per my dictionary, requires intentional action (but is not necessarily physical). The existence of gay people is not intentional, and therefore is not an act of violence against religious fundamentalists.

So a parent who relentlessly verbally bullies their child every day is what, just exchanging ideas?

I would say they are a terrible parent, they are a bully, and an awful human being.

But not violent.

Just the same as I wouldn't say pirating a movie was theft, but by saying that I'm not saying I think it's OK - these are just different concepts.

I understand, but completely disagree. I think the idea that physical harm is real but psychological harm doesn't exist is just wrong.

Who said psychological harm doesn't exist? It just isn't a form of violence, that's all.

It is important not to conflate the two concepts, because violence is widely criminalized and psychological harm is highly subjective. The immediate implication of bundling these completely disparate concepts is that somebody will have to arbitrate which verbal expressions constitute violent crime. This is not conjecture, activist groups have already regulated speech in several countries on the premise that words are violence.

The whole idea of "X is not being taken seriously but Y is, so I will start calling X Y instead, and anyone who corrects me tries to downplay X" is insane to me.

I said no such thing, and in fact was careful to disclaim such an idea. Perhaps not careful enough.

I meant to say it's not violent by my understanding of the term, not that it can't cause real harm. It absolutely can.