I do think there is some humor in contemplating a needy, perhaps emotionally fragile God, but that doesn't make it a less serious proposal.
I don't really understand why people have strong beliefs about God.
It seems to me that there are two main reasons that people believe in a God or Gods:
They are raised in culture that promotes such beliefs and taught some aspect of a God(s) based belief system by their family.
They have some personal experience of something that seems to transcend ordinary reality or beings. The mystic or epiphanic experience seems like a fairly universal, if rare, component of human beings. In some cultures it might be less theistic, like the moment of satori, but the sense of direct apprehension of a transcendent reality has been reported by people around the world and throughout recorded history.
Both of these can be understood as aspects of group or personal psychology and are inadequate as a rational basis for a belief in God, but both the cultural and mystical personal experience can be compelling reasons for irrational belief.
I understand that completely, but then some of those people get all worked up over the details to the point where they are ready to war over it, and I don't get that at all. Why not just be reverential for the powerful emotional thing that religious thoughts do in you, and then acknowledge that you just don't know about the details.
My general pro-agnostic position is that if there were a God of the kind people claim and that God really cared about the details of the personal dress, sexual practice or daily routine, that God would let us know in absolutely clear terms.
Since God doesn't say anything with undeniable clarity, God must either be incapable of clear communication, or all this stuff that religions make so much of is not important to God.
_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.