Venus Magazine is a new national publication whose mission is:
to
encourage, educate and assist those who desire to leave a life of
homosexuality.
There is also a Venus Blog, with entries such as Redeemed! 10 Ways to Get Out of the Gay Life If You Want Out.
The founder was a prominent black gay rights activist before becoming a Christian. Oops! Change of direction, for the better. The cover story includes, of course, the testimonial of an ex-lesbian.
See an interview with the founder here. Any of you guys want a gift subscription?
APA to Review Stance on Gays
Christian views on homosexuality are tainted with prejudice and ignorance. I see no reason to pay any attention at all to this crud.
Well, it is wise to listen to your critics, even if only part of what they have to say is actually correct. Esp. if they are not alone in their criticism.
I always listen to my critics. How else would I know what the enemy is thinking?
Not all critics are enemies ;)
Note to new readers: Seeker is an in-the-closet gay man with mental health and sexual abuse issues.
Note to new readers: Truthseeker is a troll projecting his own issues ;)
Christian views on homosexuality are tainted with prejudice and ignorance.
I would say that every person's views on homosexuality are "tainted" to some degree by their own prejudice and experience and/or ignorance. (just like anyone's views on anything else, really)
That doesn't mean anything, except we are different and not all like you.
Think about this in relation to how you treat my (more christian) views on homosexuality:
Those people who APPROVE of homosexuality (but who are not doing homosexual actions) are allowed, even encouraged, by you to approve, even though they are not homosexuals, and must therefore be ignorant of the positives and have some kind of prejudice against it, personally.
Then you have those like me, who you say BECAUSE I am not doing the homosexual thing, and because I happen to disapprove of doing it, my disapproval is based on prejudice and ignorance.
So I guess what I am wondering… WHY is it not the same for those who approve? With only those who disagree being "tainted with prejudice and ignorance."?
If you were consistent, you would tell the people who approve the lifestyle without doing it that they have no right to approve the lifestyle til they tried it.
This is just pure nonsense. All you're saying is that you don't like my accusations and therefore are trying to negate them with some relativistic claim. I say, and have been saying and proving, that conservative Christian beliefs about homosexuality are based on religious ideas which have no basis in fact. They are simply assertions taken from ancient texts reflecting the ignorance and prejudices of the times. You are literally pre-judging (prejudice) the issue based on religious dogma not on science or psychology. The "studies" seeker cites have been shown to come from the margin of the scientific community, from people who, like you, base their views on religious or conservative political dogma. The entire mainstream scientific community, individuals and organizations, has discarded anti-homosexual dogma along with such superstitions as astrology and creationism.
If you want to continue to live in the 12th century, be my guest. Just don't inflict it on the rest of us.
The "studies" seeker cites have been shown to come from the margin of the scientific community, from people who, like you, base their views on religious or conservative political dogma.
I believe this is an untrue allegation.
The entire mainstream scientific community, individuals and organizations, has discarded anti-homosexual dogma along with such superstitions as astrology and creationism.
As I discussed, the current opinions on hx in the medical community, are based, not on science, but on politics, because the science has not determined anything definitive yet.
As much as you would like to paint those who view hx as immoral as throwbacks, the truth is, you are using a logical fallacy, relying on "it's right because it's new" or "it's wrong because it is old."
That may be your opinion, but it is not logic. Science has begun to indicate the increased disease, mental illnesses, and death associated with homosexuality, and the evidence that SOME gays have reversed their orientation means that, despite any abuses in ex-gay therapy, opponents are operating on wishful thinking and willing blindness to the facts.
As usual, seeker ignores all previous discussion and simply repeats himself. This is exhibit one in my contention that his hatred of homosexuality is visceral rather than rational and that no amount of reasoning will change his mind.
Since I addressed this in a previous post (which he simply ignored), I'll just copy and paste it here:
NARTH links selectively to studies which agree with its value-based programme on homosexuality. These so-called "primary" sources are usually done by fringe researchers using doubtful methodology. It is a fact that the vast majority of scientists, psychologists, sociologists, and their professional organizations no longer categorize homosexuality as a mental disease or social disorder. It is a fact that it is now mainstream thought to regard homosexuality as a simple variation of human sexuality, while only the traditionalist die-hards, religiously motivated, and political reactionaries see it as abnormal or deviant. This is beyond dispute. Yes, I know that you like to dismiss all this as "politically" motivated. In answer, I would point out that the anti-gay forces are now, and have always been, politically motivated, that they are/were determined to ignore studies and facts contrary to their ideology and theology, and that it took a certain amount of activism to get them to change their opinions. The same pattern has occurred throughout the history of science (e.g., establishing microbe-based theory of sickness, the theory of evolution). The fact that I have the entire scientific establishment on my side indicates that, contrary to your assertions, it is my side that has the stronger hand and yours that is weak and juvenile.
Further, I put it to you that your intent is to put the worst face on homosexuality, no matter what opposing evidence and/or arguments that are put to you. No one in their right mind can maintain that you are anywhere near "neutral" on this subject. Time and again, when pressed, you fall into your old habits of condemnatory, condescending, and disrespectful speech patterns. And you are consistently intent on twisting any data you come across to make all homosexuals
appear mentally unstable and perverse (your word). You simply refuse to consider that it is the very positions you promulgate that are the root cause of any mental disorders gays may suffer from. You get offended when accused of hate-mongering or bigotry, but I simply judge you by your words and positions: when they are hateful in themselves, and result in untoward and measurable suffering, then you are being hateful. The fact that you refuse responsibility for this, that you always seek to establish a double standard, and that your position is not based on the established science indicates to me that there is something else going on here besides a rational debate based on the facts. And that something is, of course, religion. Your basic assumptions, your diction, your mode of argumentation, the spin you put on the data, is, throughout, indicative of a religious-based outlook and motivation. Why don't you just admit it? Religious hatred of gay people is an established fact. Its nefarious effects continue to this day. That's at the root of the problem, and that's at the base of your arguments. And, of course, why should everyone be subjected to your religious superstitions?
In addition to the above I point to the untold amount of suffering your religion and its associated pseudo-science has inflicted upon generations of gay people. Any disorders, mental or social, they may suffer can be laid directly at the doorstep of the homophobia that you and your allies throughout Christendom and conservatism so strenuously defend. An excellent parallel is the aforementioned controversy surrounding the microbe-based theory of illness. The conservative establishment scoffed when it was brought forward and its defenders were scorned and persecuted. As a result, people continued to suffer and die from microbial caused illnesses. Your position, seeker, is analogous to those who used to bleed the patient to clean imperfections from the blood: their victims not only suffered from the loss of blood, they died. Your false science, coupled with your religious and personal bias, is directly responsible for the suffering, not only of gay adults, but of gay children, making you complicit with child abuse.
I find your position, along with your on-going jihad against gay people, both cruel and ignorant. You really make a great spokesman for your faith!
You are literally pre-judging (prejudice) the issue based on religious dogma not on science or psychology.
You judge whether homosexuality is morally right based on science or psychology?
So why am I pre-judging the issue by not approving of it as a "good" thing for people to engage in?
You judge whether homosexuality is morally right based on science or psychology?
Morality has nothing to do with it. Morals change according to culture and individual.
So why am I pre-judging the issue by not approving of it as a "good" thing for people to engage in?
Your mind has been closed by your religion. You approach the science and sociology of it through the lens of Christian disapproval. And you could care less about the damage your views cause. You are as heartless and cruel as your co-hater, seeker.
Homosexuality could be unhealthy and harmful and you wouldn't care.
Your mind has been closed by your faddism. And you could care less about the damage that lifestyle may cause because you approach it through the same old lens of cultural approval and "I will do what I want, whether it is good for me or society or not".
One could say the exact same thing about Christianity or heterosexuality.
I agree. Anything can be taken too far or made to be unhealthy imo.
Anything can be taken too far or made to be unhealthy
Thus my dislike of organized religion.
I don't approve of everything every "christian" church does, either.
But I would rather debate than argue with them about it. (Debate, each person has their turn to reason about each point)…
:)