Why Do Christians Hate Gays?

Okay, well I am a heterosexual that has engaged in coitus and I can say that I have done so without pregnancy being my plan, goal, or design.

Once again, your "state of mind" is not being scrutinized; if you're a heterosexual who engaged in coitus which resulted in insemination, then you engaged an act intended for pregnancy. Your "wanting" pregnancy is a moot point.

intended alludes to plans, goals, purposes, and design which is relevant and more pertinent to the context of our discussion

Heterosexuals engage in coitus, so heterosexuals.

Once again, your "state of mind" is not being scrutinized; if you're a heterosexual who engaged in coitus which resulted in insemination, then you engaged an act intended for pregnancy. Your "wanting" pregnancy is a moot point.

You defined "intended" as:

intended alludes to plans, goals, purposes, and design which is relevant and more pertinent to the context of our discussion

And when I asked whose plans, goals, purposes, and design we are talking about, you said:

Heterosexuals engage in coitus, so heterosexuals.

So, as a heterosexual engaging in coitus, I am telling you it was not (always) my plan, goal, purpose, or design to induce pregnancy, and therefore doesn't meet your own criteria for the act being "intended for pregnancy."

Once again, your "state of mind" is not being scrutinized; if you're a heterosexual who engaged in coitus which resulted in insemination, then you engaged an act intended for pregnancy. Your "wanting" pregnancy is a moot point.

Once again, I am using your own words that you provided that you stated were relevant to this conversation.

The Old Testament is never what true Christians devout themselves too

There have many LGBTQ+ people who have been relieved of sin if they step into the church and are forgiven.

Incorrect. I am using your words as provided in this post here:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3644/why-do-christians-hate-gays?page=3&post_number=52

Since you helpfully provided those words I have only used those words and made no reference to anyone's state of mind.

What makes the act "intended for pregnancy?"

Sorry if I'm late here, but am I correct that one argument is "Well, they don't hate gays per se, they hate that they have non-reproductive sexual activity?" It's akin to they don't hate gays, they hate what they do. I hope that's incorrect and I'm just in TLDR mode, but there's an awful lot of talk about that. Wouldn't that make getting a blowie from your wife the same as being gay, and punishable by stoning in the streets according to Levitican law? 

It seems to me like such an argument is just some weird permission structure for discrimination.

Anyone ever heard of a group of people harassing a gay person on the street of (insert Christian-heavy town here, say Birmingham AL) by saying "YOUR SEXUAL ACTIVITY ISN'T REPRODUCTIVE!"

Any gay bashers admit to dragging a gay kid behind their truck because he didn't have a desire to have reproductive sex?

Would it be right for a grown woman's family to disown her because it came to light that her husband went down on her? 

I think the ones that DO hate them would look for any reason to do so

For the record, I don't think the majority of Christians DO hate homosexuals.

That's a better question. The primary function of insemination during coitus is fertilization, which typically results in pregnancy.

But insemination during coitus is out of the control of the participants. So why should we attach moral value to it?

Inseminating your wife's mouth during a blowie is considered sodomy, which is condemned by some Christians.

One doesn't need permission to discriminate.

How is harassment relevant?

Non sequitur. Oral sex is not sodomy. Insemination during oral sex is.

Since when does on need or required to look for a reason to "hate"?

That's what this whole conversation is about. Please do keep up, it would make this process a lot easier.

No one is carrying signs at funerals that proclaim "God Hates When You Finish In Your Wife's Mouth," though, we can agree the number of Christians who are proud to say "God Hates F@gs" is apparently far greater than those who condemn finishing in your wife's mouth with equal ferocity, no? 

But it's sure nice to have a divine mandate to fall back on, rather than having to say "Oh, I don't WANT to, but what can I do? Jesus said to!"

This is how hatred is often manifested. Not always, but often. Same applies to the subsequent examples. 

So your position is only sodomy is outlawed, and the crux of that is insemination, such that any sexual act wherein male ejaculation is achieved and the semen is NOT issued directly into a vagina with at least the chance of a woman getting pregnant (volition of the participants aside) is all the same and prohibited? It's a genuine question, I just want to understand where you're coming from. 

Furthermore, you make mention of "volition," what do you mean? Are you referencing circumstances where one of the parties is raped?

And even if we were to entertain your premise that Christians hate "fags" in greater quantity, what would be the relevance of said quantity?

How does that qualify their alleged discrimination?

How do you know that it is often manifested in harassment?

Whether or not you accept it as part of the conversation, do you have an answer for the question?

I'm referencing one or both of the parties not wanting to get pregnant, so they employ birth control. Which seems like it would turn regular old sex into sodomy, because pregnancy is out of the question. Would that also mean that having sex in non-fertile weeks is sodomy, and therefore the same sin that gay people are apparently committing?

That they seem more comfortable with denigrating gay people than they are denigrating those whose wives let them finish in their mouths. 

As 'sanctioned by Jesus.'

What else would drive harassment of a certain group, like gays or Christians?

What does their increased comfort implicate? Is it merely a difference in number?

But if their code of conduct, their impressions, their decisions, their feelings, even, are dictated by their adherence to Jesus and his philosophy, why would it then be "nice" to have Jesus "back them," so to speak, as opposed to... what?

An argument can be made that harassment incorporates some "hate," but does "hating" someone or something incorporate the manifestation of some harassment? That has yet to be argued sufficiently.

I guess it would imply that the bible calls one behavior (laying with a man as with a woman) an abomination but makes no comment specifically on blowing your load in your wife's mouth, and therefore, Christians have more solid biblical foundation for hating gay sex than they do hating oral sex finishers. 

I'm a little unclear on what you're asking here, so I'll take my best shot at it. It's nice to have Jesus back them, rather than have to take sole responsibility for their hatred and subsequent attitudes and potential harassment.

For me, for example, if I decided I hated Asian people, and someone asked me why, I'd just have to admit "well, their eyes are weird" or "they seem shifty" or whatever, and the person would be free to judge me as a bigot. If I said "Well Jesus said to," now that same person, in my eyes, if they're judging me is not only bigoted against ME, but against my religion too. It's much easier for me to live with considering Jesus warned that I'd be so persecuted for standing up for his beliefs and all. 

I don't think I argued all people who hate harass, rather that it seemed to me that most group harassment is in some way informed by hatred, as one of the factors. Can you rephrase the last two questions if I missed them?

I agree that there's a more solid foundation for rejecting homosexuality in juxtaposition to oral insemination, but your initial scrutiny was that it should be deemed the same as homosexuality.

My question is, if their sense of self is heavily influenced by the backing of Jesus, wouldn't their taking "sole responsibility" be a reflection of their relationship to Jesus?

My point is, if this was always the case, what is one's reference for comparison?

then what relevance does harassment have, given that the subject of the discussion examines the alleged hate of homosexual,

I don't believe the description expands to the circumstances you mentioned.

Christians have often uttered the adage, "We don't hate homosexuals. We just hate what they do".

Such a dictum has no weight to it since homosexuals are no different from heterosexuals in what they do. In any case, isn't "we just hate what they do" no more than a euphemism for saying "we hate them"?

If we take a look at the Bible we can see where Christians get their mandate to hate homosexuals. The book of Leviticus states that "it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman."

But then, the same chapter tells Christians (men) not to cut their hair.

Do we see many Christian homophobes wearing long hair as well? 

Which brings us to the word "homophobic".

Here we can get a good insight as to why Christians are so hateful.

As with any phobia, homophobia is a fear of homosexuals.

Experts will tell us that the key cause of fear is ignorance or lack of knowledge (of what is feared). This is born out by the saying that the greatest fear is the fear of fear itself.

All Christian institutions urge their followers to shun any information (for example, scientific publications) that contradicts their beliefs and even promote the idea that followers should not associate or do business with others outside their circle.

Is it not fair to say then that Christians hate gays for no other reason than ignorance?