Jesus would want us to follow his teachings in that verse, and elsewhere as well. If you don't mean to say you see his words in that verse as hate, why did you bring up hate about that?
There are two things one can mean by hate, the first is malice and the desire to destroy someone, the second is choosing someone, or something over them (hate by comparison). The first is the kind we shouldn't have for people as Christians.
type 1
"You must not harbor hatred against your brother in your heart. Directly rebuke your neighbor, so that you will not incur guilt on account of him. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against any of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." (Leviticus 19:17-18)
type 2
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
A Christian should love God above everyone else (see Matthew 22:37-40). Many of the LGBT want Christians to choose validating their choices over the Christian's own love for God. The "hate," as they call it, is choosing God over them, not malice, or a desire to destroy them.
By love the Bible doesn't mean universal affirmation of behavior to make someone feel good, or accepted. It means seeking the good of the other, which can, at times, involve telling them no, or some truth they find harsh. It could even involve rebuking them for their behavior, as the first verse above says, instead of remaining silent. Hate that Christians are to avoid has nothing to do with non-approval of behavior. They shouldn't have malice-hate for people, but they are supposed to hate sin, and evil.
"Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." (Romans 12:9 )
Historically allowing same-sex relationships in some places isn't the same as pretending that they are marriages. You say nobody's redefining things, but saying marriage isn't by definition opposite-sex is doing exactly that. Judges legislating from the bench instead of letting people vote on it is forcible redefinition to a tee.
If God made marriage, and made it rooted in the union of male and female, as Jesus said, then someone saying it can be same-sex is not speaking the truth. Marriage is something real, and defined, not just a perception, or feeling people have about themselves, or even an invention by human government. God made it, and defined it.
According to Jesus, marriage is created by God, and is, by nature, opposite-sex. It was in the verse I listed above, but here it is in full.
Mark 10:5b-9 NIV
__
Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
__
It's strange for a Christian to disagree with Jesus' words. If God says he created marriage and made it a certain thing, when man disagrees he is objectively wrong.
As for history, same-sex marriage was not a thing being legally recognized by any governments until 2000. Yes some people were involved in homosexuality historically, that's different than redefining marriage. That's like saying a man wearing a dress, and legally declaring the man is a woman are the same thing. A man isn't a woman if he feels like it, and marriage is not same-sex, those are simply lies. According to Christianity, lies won't endure, so neither of those will last.
Proverbs 12:19 NIV
__
"Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue lasts only a moment."
__
Technological advances, and forcibly redefining institutions with a historical and religious meaning lasting 1000s of years, to suit the feelings of a small group, aren't remotely the same. There's a reason one would continue, and the other would die off like some silly trend. I'm not worried at all that same-sex marriage will last the rest of history; at least if the rest is more than a couple hundred years.
If a Christian is for a law against murder, for the reason that it breaks one of the ten commandments, that doesn't mean they're forcing people to be Christian, or imposing a theocracy. Since nations that are not inhabited by Christians haven't switched to having same-sex marriage, how can that be, if it's supposedly imposing a Christian theocracy to not switch? Was every nation in history that didn't have it before 2000 imposing a theocracy? I'd say the one imposing morality is the one trying to make a revolutionary change, not the one sticking with tradition.
Making moral laws that align with Christian values in and of itself is not requiring people to practice the religion. In a representative government the laws should fit the morality of the people if things were working properly. If those people are Christians, that would be Christian morality.
Would you think putting "woman" in quotation marks was strange if it was the way some male felt about himself, but wasn't reality? You may reject the notion that marriage is a God created and God defined relationship as Jesus says in (Mark 10:6-9.), but there is also a historical reality to what marriage means throughout all of history. If the Bible represents this historical reality that doesn't mean you can get out of it by dismissing it as, "just something in a religious book."
For the sake of argument let's say it's all relative and words have whatever meaning we want. There's still marriage existing for the rest of history as an opposite-sex relationship universally until Demark in 2000 decided to recognize it as not just opposite-sex. This idea is still a blip in history compared to the constant of it being opposite-sex. If it were really all relative I'd still bet on something that has been constant in history reasserting itself in time.
Has the world even decided marriage can be same-sex even now though? It's really only some Western nations saying same-sex "marriage" is marriage. This is at the same time in the West as relativism and postmodernism are all the rage. The later believes words, rather than having defined meanings expressing real concepts, are nothing more than tools used for acquiring power, and can be changed on a whim.
I doubt this trend toward new speak will last forever. My guess is same-sex "marriage" as being considered marriage has 50 years or less in the US (like Roe v Wade had.) It will not make 200. The thousand year concept will win, the historical reality will win. In reality one was always the true concept the word refers to then.
A scheme to change people's thoughts by judicially redefining language for them may work for a while, but it won't last. The ad hoc redefining of laws by changing the meaning of words in the law then interpreting based on the changed word meaning is definitely dangerous to any form of representative government in the mean time though, which is a major reason why it matters in the mean time.
I'm not sure where the threshold is, and I have no intention of wrongly categorizing, but I figured general implying and straight up saying would be different.
I don't know, maybe feminism means something different in Poland, but here in the US women have already had equal rights for a while, and now feminism means getting special rights men don't have. The movement is fundamentally dishonest with most of their shock statistics. An example would be how they say that women are paid less, and cast that as oppression, but they don't say that's actually because women on average choose to work less hours, and tend to choose different, less dangerous, jobs than men. That's fine for women to make those decisions, but it is not fine for feminists to pretend women are being unjustly treated when they receive less pay for less work, and safer work.
One of the reasons why men make more is that even women with jobs still expect a man to provide for them, and be the primary breadwinner. It's their instinct. For men a good paying job is a requirement for a woman to even consider having a family with them. Most men don't put that requirement on a woman, so there's way more motivation for men to try their hardest to get the highest paying job they can.
So 50% women workers earning 50% of the money overall actually means not allowing equal opportunity, and preferring women over men, since they're not equally motivated to make the most money. In the end women cause men to make more than them, feminists get upset about it, are dishonest about its causes, and blame men. After that they demand policies are put in place trying to stop men from making more money, and then as a result women get upset that they can't find a man who makes more than them, and blame the men too. Men aren't the root cause in that situation.
