This is a stupid question. Homosexuals are people and like all people, some have the capacity for evil. The homosexuality has no relationship to the evil. If you are against people who happen to be homosexual, then there might be something wrong with you. If you are against homosexual activities, then that is more supportable.
A better question is “Are homosexual people sinners?” and the answer to that is yes, at least for those who engage in or fantasize about homosexual activities. This in itself does not make them bad people, it just makes them at odds with God. He tells us not to engage in certain behaviors, not because He is a killjoy, but because those behaviors are harmful to us and/or to His plan.
Some people think that homosexuality is a worse sin than most others. I beg to differ. As far as I can tell, there is exactly NO difference between two people of the same gender fornicating and two people of opposite genders who are not married fornicating. Sin is sin. Keep in mind that a “sin” is an offense against God, and often against oneself. Therefore, it is up to God and the people involved to deal with it. Not me and not you and not the government. What people do in private is their business as long as nobody gets hurt.
By the way, this brings up an interesting question. Are a couple who got married in front of a Justice of the Peace (or an Elvis impersonator) really married? In the eyes of man and most legal systems, absolutely. In the eyes of God? I do not know; if He was not invited to the ceremony, He might not recognize the marriage. There is the possibility that they, too, are sinning when they indulge in lovemaking.
As mentioned, many homosexuals are not “bad people”, but sadly, a few are. These are the people who think than anyone who is not wholeheartedly in favor of homosexuality is “the enemy”. That there are no negative aspects of homosexuality. That “all” heterosexuals and/or religious people and/or Republicans are out to get the homosexuals (sadly, some of the listed people ARE out to unreasonably damage homosexuals). A reliable sign of this sort of people is someone who applies the term “hater” to anyone who disagrees with any homosexual agenda, even those who actually love the people who are homosexual but just disagree with some of their behaviors. These are the most radical of the homosexual activists; people who seek to force homosexuality as the new “norm”. Many of these people can be considered to be evil, not because they are homosexual, but because their tactics and sometimes even their goals are evil.
Let us consider three recent cases which made the news. In case one, a gay couple went to a baker to get a wedding cake, and the baker refused to make such a cake because he did not believe that gay people can be legitimately (as opposed to legally) married. In case two, another gay couple went to a photographer to cover their ceremony, and again, the photographer would not comply due to his religious beliefs. Now in either case, if the couple had been normal, reasonable, intelligent people, their response would have been something like “Ok, we won’t buy your bread/get our portraits taken here either, and we’ll tell all our gay friends about you so they won’t bother you.” And everybody would have gotten what they wanted, or at least deserved. But no; in both these cases the couple whined about “discrimination”, and there was a big outcry and government involvement and court cases, and as a result, the photographer and baker have been damaged if not actually ruined. For doing the gay couples a massive favor. And as an even worse result, other bakers and photographers and even other wedding related artists may not dare to express their beliefs, which makes makes the odds of future gay couples being at risk for having their ceremonies damaged has been significantly increased.
What? Consider. Making a superior wedding cake is an art form, and so is meaningful wedding photography. A ceremony is hoped to be a once in a lifetime experience; do you really think it is low risk to have the cake and photography (or anything else) to be done by people who are not in full agreement with the joining? Really? If a person is “forced” to do art, do you really expect truly good work if the artist is not “feeling” the moment? Or even is repulsed by the moment? Or is it more likely to result in a standard cake which could be bought at Safeway for a tenth of the price, and photographs which do not capture all (or even any) of the joy of the ceremony?
But what about “equal rights”? Aren’t homosexuals “discriminated against”? Certainly there are occasions where a person’s actual rights are violated because of their homosexuality. This needs to be addressed on a case by case basis, since homosexuals already have “equal rights” wherever they happen to reside, because they are people and thus must be allowed the same human rights granted to everyone else in that area. But many occasions in which homosexual people are denied something just because they are homosexual are not really discrimination.
In many cases, what they are desiring are not “rights”. Consider the push for “gay marriage”. Marriage is not a “right”; it is a privilege granted upon the acceptance of, and the ability to, satisfy the accompanying responsibilities. Or at least it should be. Are there gay couples who want to get “married”? Of course there are, but how many of them want to do so because they want to contribute to the institution of marriage as the building block of society and child rearing? Certainly not all of them; some want to get married to get “for free” the benefits automatically granted to the people in a marriage, which an unmarried gay couple must set up for themselves or in some cases influence modifications to the laws. Some want to make a statement about their relationship with another person. I suppose it is possible that some think they may be able to “fool” God into accepting their homosexual lovemaking. It is likely that at least a few view it as a means of thumbing their nose at society or even to “destroy” or at least further devalue the institution of marriage.
In the cases above, if the couples had been black, which not only is something over which they have no control, but does not have any provable or viable theoretical link to their suitability to be married, then a really good case for discrimination could have been made. Then the baker’s/photographer’s beliefs could have been considered unreasonable and they might well deserve to be put out of business. Homosexuals have a choice about engaging in homosexual activities. And many people who believe in God and follow His word do not think that homosexuals can be validly “married”. Ditto for some people who study society and history. Are they right? Maybe; at least it is a valid theory. Thus calling this sort of thing “discrimination” cheapens the word. True discrimination is an evil act; to apply the word to lesser offenses weakens the disapproval the word causes, and thus the censure for engaging in true discrimination.
The couples in these two cases either were activists who were eager for an opportunity to push their beliefs on others and punish people who disagreed with those beliefs, or were normal people who were “conditioned” to be horrified by the rejection rather than glad not to get the wrong baker/photographer for their event. Or perhaps neither, and unrelated activists seized the opportunity to further their goals.
I promised three cases, didn’t I? The third is Brendan Eich, who started Mozilla and became its CEO. Six years ago he donated $1000 to the campaign (California Proposition 8) which attempted to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The proposition was approved in the election, but after several years of legal wrangling was declared to be invalid. Even though they “won”, gay activists went through donation records from six years ago and found Brendan’s name and raised a fuss, even though the matter had already been finally settled and Brendan could no longer have any impact on the issue (and there does not seem to be any evidence he is anti-gay, just the contribution as indication he is, or was, anti-gay-marriage). Just as a punishment, and a warning to others not to disagree with them, they managed to cause him to lose his job (he was forced to resign). Evil. Just pure evil.