Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Are Gays Harmful to Society

ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 12:05:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Are gays the most harmful members of Society?

There are several arguments i have heard, most of them involving the financial and disease world. From an article by Carm.org

$12.1 Billion annual cost in US: "Future treatment for the 40,000 people infected with HIV in the United States every year will cost $12.1 billion annually, a new study showed." (msnbc.msn.com/id/15528984/ns/health-aids/t/new-us-hiv-cases-cost-billion-year/)

And

Arguments that homosexuals have short lives.

So if the argument is about them getting diseases and worried about paying money to treat their diseases of sexual contact, simply start endorsing condoms more often because a condom can help from sexual diseases. Yes. Even you heterosexuals. You may think your making a baby, but you also play Russian Roullete with STDs.

Another poor argument. It REDEFINES marriage. It does redefine some traditional sense of marriage. Just like we redefined the business world by condemning slavery. Our founding fathers loved keeping slaves but it took years later for one man to pass a law banning slavery.

Mainly, the bible is used as defense. I will state this. I'm a Christian who believes Jesus is my personal savior by faith and I will not force it on people by saying I know he exists and that you need to convert. What does bother me is when people use the bible with a llama bean IQ of how the bible is read.

Genesis supposedly says marriage was invented to be one man and one women. Nowhere in the bible does in say that in genesis except an allegory to reference when a man is already married, he is to leave his parents house so he shouldn't rely on them. Sodom and Gomorrah's sin is clearly stated as inhospitality and not homosexuality.

Leviticus states sexual sleeping for several purposes (signs of cannanites, health laws since laws did say not to eat things with unclean blood, and preserving seed for created offspring).

Now New Testament lovers will be using Jesus' in Matthew to say he repeated the same genesis quote to mean what the OT people believed supposedly. But if you read the context, this was regarding divorce not a definition of marriage.

Romans 1 deals with idolatry. Don't believe me, read that entire chapter in its context and you'll see.

Corinthians and Timothy state Malokoi (soft or effeminate) is one who won't inherit kingdom. Where is the word emphasized as male? It didn't say effeminate men but effeminate PERIOD. What about effeminate women? This refers to the other times in the bible to people in soft clothing. Men and women who wore soft robes, make up and whatever. They were greedy people. The rich who loved only their money and greed. Then the term Abusers of themselves with mankind. Again, where is the context saying its a male abuser only. Mankind also means humans. So this cant mean homosexuality in an obvious tone.

So now that all those repeated arguments have been rebutted, I'd like somebody to make some comments or refute my rebuttal and claims.

I believe as an American citizen who is also more Christian than he is patriotic and American, that homosexuality is not harmful to society and that to say is out of prejudicial uncomftability like mississippians against blacks.

http://youtu.be...
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 12:27:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/23/2014 12:05:27 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Are gays the most harmful members of Society?

There are several arguments i have heard, most of them involving the financial and disease world. From an article by Carm.org

$12.1 Billion annual cost in US: "Future treatment for the 40,000 people infected with HIV in the United States every year will cost $12.1 billion annually, a new study showed." (msnbc.msn.com/id/15528984/ns/health-aids/t/new-us-hiv-cases-cost-billion-year/)

And

Arguments that homosexuals have short lives.

So if the argument is about them getting diseases and worried about paying money to treat their diseases of sexual contact, simply start endorsing condoms more often because a condom can help from sexual diseases. Yes. Even you heterosexuals. You may think your making a baby, but you also play Russian Roullete with STDs.

Another poor argument. It REDEFINES marriage. It does redefine some traditional sense of marriage. Just like we redefined the business world by condemning slavery. Our founding fathers loved keeping slaves but it took years later for one man to pass a law banning slavery.

Mainly, the bible is used as defense. I will state this. I'm a Christian who believes Jesus is my personal savior by faith and I will not force it on people by saying I know he exists and that you need to convert. What does bother me is when people use the bible with a llama bean IQ of how the bible is read.

Genesis supposedly says marriage was invented to be one man and one women. Nowhere in the bible does in say that in genesis except an allegory to reference when a man is already married, he is to leave his parents house so he shouldn't rely on them. Sodom and Gomorrah's sin is clearly stated as inhospitality and not homosexuality.

Leviticus states sexual sleeping for several purposes (signs of cannanites, health laws since laws did say not to eat things with unclean blood, and preserving seed for created offspring).

Now New Testament lovers will be using Jesus' in Matthew to say he repeated the same genesis quote to mean what the OT people believed supposedly. But if you read the context, this was regarding divorce not a definition of marriage.

Romans 1 deals with idolatry. Don't believe me, read that entire chapter in its context and you'll see.

Corinthians and Timothy state Malokoi (soft or effeminate) is one who won't inherit kingdom. Where is the word emphasized as male? It didn't say effeminate men but effeminate PERIOD. What about effeminate women? This refers to the other times in the bible to people in soft clothing. Men and women who wore soft robes, make up and whatever. They were greedy people. The rich who loved only their money and greed. Then the term Abusers of themselves with mankind. Again, where is the context saying its a male abuser only. Mankind also means humans. So this cant mean homosexuality in an obvious tone.

So now that all those repeated arguments have been rebutted, I'd like somebody to make some comments or refute my rebuttal and claims.

I believe as an American citizen who is also more Christian than he is patriotic and American, that homosexuality is not harmful to society and that to say is out of prejudicial uncomftability like mississippians against blacks.

http://youtu.be...

They are harmful only to the egos of bigoted heterosexuals.