Not to mention the fact that only part of the Bible that says not to be gay doesn't apply to Christians. It's one of the Old Testament which was effectively voided by Jesus. The whole covenant being fulfilled thing. It's the same reason Christians don't have to keep kosher.
I bet at least half of these stupid motherfuckers are still against interracial marriage too.
You know, that's not exactly true. First of all, not all Christians "reject" the Old Testament. I know that Jehovah's Witnesses do, which is (partially, at least) why they don't observe the Sabbath. And it's not like Jesus said: "OK, guys, I'm here, now let's chuck out that thick book, and I'll replace it with a much shorter one." When Jesus quoted from scripture in the New Testament, he certianly wasn't quoting Paul and Peter, he was quoting the Old Testament. I think the Law of Moses is what specifically was fulfilled. All that stuff about not eating pigs and bats. So why do Christians still place heavy emphasis on the Ten Commandments? Well, because Jesus did. He said that not only shouldn't you commit adultery, you shouldn't lust after a woman in your heart. Not only shouldn't you murder, but that it's also just as sinful to be angry. Paul talks about the Law being fulfillied in Galatians, basically saying that the Law was a teacher to prepare for Christ, and so now that Christ has come, it isn't needed anymore. But many of the principles taught in the OT still apply, because they were principles given by God. Why would God incarnate reject them?
Specifically about homosexuality:
1 Cor. 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Is that clear enough? I believe that "effeminate" refers to boys who have relationships with men, and "abusers of themselves with mankind" are male homosexuals in general. I could be wrong about the effeminate, but I think abusers of themselves with mankind is pretty clear.
The kicker is--fornicators. Most Americans fornicate. Paul puts it on the same level of sinfulness as homosexuality. But most people don't accept this.
It also helps to explain why Justice Scalia, dissenting from the Lawrence v Texas opinion, ranted about the slippery slope leading to the acceptance/legalization of beastiality, incest, blah blah, and, get this, fornication and masturbation! Now there's someone who takes his NT seriously. It's rare that fornication is seen as a sin at all these days, let alone one on par with homosexuality.
OK, the reason why I posted this is not because I hold these views. I don't care whether someone is Christian or not. I just think it's important to take the Bible for what it is. I also realize that many will disagree with the interpretation I just posted, but I feel that mine is at least plausible. My point is that you can't say to people who think that homosexualty is sinful "Well, you just don't get Christianity." It's in there. Every Christian chooses what they want and don't want to take out of the Bible. Even so-called fundamentalist Christians. It's just another interpretation.