If you ever have taken a survey, you may already be familiar with the leading question fallacy, as even the most professionally constructed surveys often contain them. A common example is "who do you intend to vote for in the upcoming election?" This question is loaded with the assumption that the person answering the survey intends to vote in the upcoming election. Even if the question is left open ended, or has the options "other (please state)", and "I do not intend to vote", the question "who do you intend to vote" leads the one being asked in a particular direction.
A similar fallacy, which is only subtly different, is the loaded question fallacy. Much like a leading question, the loaded question contains an assumption that leads in a particular direction, but also has implications about the person being asked. "What could possibly motivate you to vote for this candidate?", for example, implies that the person's motives for their vote are not entirely pure. Similarly, "why would you not perform your civic duty by voting?" assumes that one actually has a civic duty to vote, which they are failing to perform.
Leading and loaded questions are very common, particularly in the political and religious spheres. Indeed, God, being the ultimate political leader, often receives challenges to His leadership. It's called "sin".
One of those challenges, which is especially prominent in our culture, is why would God make people gay? The assumption in this question is, of course, that God does make people gay. In truth, although many people find their identity in their behavior, homosexuality is a behavior. It is not a trait, and is certainly not immutable.
LGBT activists like to compare homosexuality to skin color, and therefore "homophobia" (which is their buzz word for "any dissent from the LGBT agenda") is comparable to racism. The obvious problem with this is that you actually can be born with certain skin shades, which are inherited from your mother and father. By contrast, as homosexuality effectively removes reproduction from the equation, it cannot even be passed down. And of course, while you can "be" a certain skin color, you cannot "do" a certain skin color. By contrast, while you can do gay things, you are only considered to "be" gay if you find your identity in the desire to do them.
Objectively, there is no evidence that anyone is born gay. Even attempts to prove the claim claim that they are very often have the adverse effect, showing that one cannot be born gay, and homosexual desires are more likely a result of one's environment growing up. Thus, "why did God make people gay?" can be answered, very simply, with "He didn't".
Another aspect of the Christian faith people often object to is the doctrine of Hell. Hell is a place where impenitent sinners suffer the full wrath of God for all eternity. It is often understood as a place of everlasting fire, though how literal this is may be up for debate.
Hell is, of course, a horrible doctrine. And it's supposed to be! Hell is such an undesirable thing that God, out of love for sinners, sacrificed His only Son in order to ensure we never have to experience it. But we live in a world where "I don't like it" and "it's not true" are seen as synonymous, and "I find that offensive" carries as much weight as "you're a despicable person for preaching it".
This leads to loaded questions like "what sort of sick minded person would believe in Hell?" This kind of question implicates those who believe in Hell. We, according to this opinion, have "sick minds".
But this is akin to two criminals sitting in a courtroom discussing how they may be sentenced. One of them, knowing the son of the judge, offers to introduce the other to him. The other remains defiant, asking how his friend would dare believe in a place like prison? This kind of response may well dissuade his fellow criminal from addressing the matter further for fear of being considered in some way bigoted, but it does not change the existence of the prison, nor the justice of the judge.
In much the same way, we don't like to think of Hell as a real place, and it can be tempting to consider it unfair. But acting as if it is unfair, while it may dissuade Christians from discussing Hell, will not dissuade God from sending sinners there to receive their just punishment. The only thing that can dissuade God from making full use of His fiery prison is the blood of His Son, who has already suffered the penalty due for sin. The irony, therefore, is that it is not those who believe in Hell who have sick minds, but those who are so entrenched in their sin that they would willingly suffer eternally for it.
Leading questions are common even among professionals, so it's not entirely unexpected that one may be asked in religious debates. It is also such an easy mistake to make that when they show up, it cannot be reasonably assumed that they are dishonest. Nevertheless, they should not phase you when you encounter them. When an assumption in a question leads you in a direction you would not otherwise have gone, simply go in the direction you would have gone anyway. Do not be lead by a leading question, and if a question implicates your character, simply reject the implication. The one exception is if it is true. If, for example, it is implied that you are a sinner, grant it, for a sinner you are. But if you know Jesus, you know the solution.