Here's the thing: the basis of that position isn't reasonable. It's faith over reason, belief in dogma over discussion to reach a common conclusion. They have not concluded through reason that homosexuality is a sin, they have been told and accepted it as part of their faith. And I'm not saying that's wrong in itself, I'm not disagreeing with people's right to faith. I'm simply saying that it doesn't share a reasonable basis with the other side of the argument. Whichever side a person holds, there is a lack of common ground for what you're saying to really hit home. They are not being treated with reason.

Furthermore, the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin" which seems to be more or less where this comes from, means that the "sin" is still hated. To the person who believes it is a sin, that's fine, their rejection of it and desire to see others shed it is out of love for that person.

But only by their perspective. By the perspective of a gay person, a core aspect of who they are is being hated. Called a sin. They are told to reject it, that it is not part of them.

So if you argue that we should be aware of the love from the perspective of the person who considers homosexuality a sin, you must also understand the other perspective. From the perspective of the person being told that a part of who they are is wrong, is a sin, and in itself is hated, from their perspective they are not being treated with love.

There's an asymmetry to the way you're evaluating this. And ultimately, if you disagree on what constitutes reason, or what is or isn't part of a person, then the whole thing about being treated with "love" loses a lot of its meaning. The two parties don't have a shared basis for those concepts to hold the same meaning, if someone rejects a part of me but tells me they love me, then being "treated with love'' loses much of its potency as a concept.

I think it's semantically slippery to argue that people are actually treated with love on this basis. To get out of saying that someone hates gay people by arguing that they reject the idea of homosexuality as a part of that person, and thus they simply hate a sin. I'm not even disagreeing that this is true from their perspective, but I think that it's relativism to the point of being near meaningless.

People do many things because they love someone, because they think it's the right thing to do. And as I said I think that should inform what you think of them in some ways. Because it's important to recognise what is and isn't malicious. But it doesn't change things. Without trying to be too emotionally loaded, is a parent who acts in a way which is reasonably identified as being detrimental to their children, but does it because they think it's the right thing, being a good parent? They're doing what they do out of love. But the subject of that does not feel loved, nor are they helped.

In short, if you look at things in terms this relativistic then the weight of "acting with love" is largely undermined, because it means very little to either party relative to one another. And once again I maintain that as a more absolute rebuttal, it simply isn't a position of reason.