The Marketing and Selling of Homosexuality

Homosexualists and their supporters like to present their "movement" as a grass roots movement, much like the black civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The movement is always presented as a "strugle" that ocurred as a natural repsonse to the bigotry -- or the word they invented, "homophobia" -- heaped upon homosexuals by a viciously-bigoted straight (read "normal") community.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The illegitimate homosexual rights movement is based on a lie (Kinsey's "10 percent" theory) that was further advanced with threats, intimidation and violence directed at the APA in the early 1970s.

The efforts and strategies of the last two decades have been nothing but a contrived and calculated propaganda campaign orchestrated by very smart and skilled opinion-makers in the homosexual community. It has been a very successful effort, one that has thousands of years of common sense and morality on its ear. But it has worked -- there is no doubt.

Dave Kupelian wrote in

The Marketing of Evil

in 2005. The premise of the book is that the political left, in order to get normal people to buy its ideas and policies, must repackage, market and "sell" their agenda to people because if their true intentions were known, no thinking individual would buy into it. Therefore, abortion becomes "family planning," and "atheism" is merely a "separation of church and state." No fetish of the Left has been morphed into normality and hard-sold to the public like homosexuality.

"There was a time," writes Kupelian, "when most Americans knew that homosexuals were not 'born that way' but rather had their normal gender-identity development disturbed and redirected through early childhood experiences. There was a time when we recognized on some level that unhealthy relationships with mothers and fathers could cause girls and boys to grow up with gender confusion...if not dealt with properly."

Of course this "time" Kupelian writes of was "a time when Judeo-Christian morality inspired the culture and the law of the land." Those days have disappered under a deluge of rhetoric and media-blitzes about "equality," "diversity," and "fairness."

While the Stonewall riot may be the beginning of the disturbing movement, it took, oddly, a catastrophic epidemic to "change" Americans' minds on homosexuality: AIDS. Homosexual activists cynically used this deadly disease to advance its agenda by painting homosexuals as "victims" of oppression.

ACT-UP, a homosexual group founded in the early days of the AIDS crisis, was the face of homosexuality for most of the 1980s and early 1990s. Their radical "in-your-face" tactics -- throwing condoms in packed church pews during Sunday services -- reviled most Americans. Traditional America understood that the message of ACT-UP was not merely one of tolerance, but one of forcing acceptance of homosexuality. "We're here, we're queer, and we're in your face!" was a common cry screamed by ACT-UP members and other homosexuals during the "street theater" they often performed. The implied meaning of the chant could not have been more clear: "You will accept homosexuality, whether you like it or not."

Of course, angry cross-dressers, transvestites, and leather-clad sado-masochists are not the best spokesmen to deliver a message of "We're just like everyone else." With AIDS still very much a mysterious disease in the mid-1980s, many Americans were scared to death of contact with the disease, and these sort of "ambassadors" did little to garner any sympathy for homosexuals. In fact, such people likely accomplished the opposite: scorn.

Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, two Harvard-educated homosexuals, understood that angry, radical, and militant homosexuals might not be the best messangers to have as the face of homosexuals in America.

In February 1988, Kirk and Madsen held a homosexual summit, of sorts, in Virginia, much like the politically active homosexual community did in Chicago in 1972. The purpose was to devise a strategy for the "movement." One hundred and seventy-five activists gathered to discuss a new "civil rights" approach, one that would move homosexuality into the mainstream. The efforts resulted in the 1989 book

After the Ball: How American Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s.

While most homosexualists saw AIDS as a disaster for the movement, Kirk and Madsen saw an opportunity: "As cynical as it may seem, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of American's special protection and care...How can we maximize the sympathy and minimize the fear? How, given the horrid hand that AIDS has dealt us, can we best play it?"

Sounds like Kirk and Madsen are from the Rahm Emmanuel school of thought -- take advantage of every crisis.

Kirk and Madsen's book became the Bible for the movement, literally brainwashing America inside a decade. Kirk and Madsen understood incremental change; one might not get everything they demand in one sitting, but stay in the battle for the long haul, and eventually you will have everything you desire: "When you're very different, and people hate you for it, this is what you do:

first

you get your foot in the door, by being as

similar

as possible; then and only then -- when your one little difference is finally accpeted -- can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one.

You hammer in the wedge narrow end first.

As the saying goes, allow the camel's nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow.

In other words, the freak-a-zoids of the tallywhacker political culture must be kept out of sight until the sales job is complete. Once you get a seat at the table, only then do you day, "Oh, by the way, I brought these people with me too."

Using the word "gay" was very purposeful and beneficial for the homosexual movement. "Gay, after all, is a synonym for happy," and it, in the words of Kupelain, "masks the controversial behavior involved and accentuates instead a vague but positive-sounding cultural identity..."

Kirk and Madsen also felt it important to emphasize "rights" instead of "acceptance." By using the term rights, the movement could plant the seed that homosexuals were somehow victims, denied basic rights of the Constitution. After all, the American people are very fair-minded group and will fight for everyone who is fighting for their full citizenship. The issue of homosexuality gets lost in the language of the debate.

Using their training -- Kirk, a researcher, and Madsen, an expert on persuasion tactics -- the two devised a three-step strategy to rid the nation of its fear of homosexuals: Desensitize, Jam, and Convert. In other words, propagandize the entire movement.

The strategy was a brilliant one. Densensitization means flooding the market with "gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can't shut off the shower, then they may at least eventually get used to being wet." Desensitization also means talking up homosexuality, to the point that it becomes "boring." If homosexuality becomes, in the words of Kirk and Madsen, a "shrug of the shoulders," then the battle is half won.

Once homosexuality is a "shrug of the shoulders," the "jamming" ocurs. "Jamming," writes Paul E. Rondeau of Regents University, is "psychological terrorism" designed to silent any and all opposition. Americans are, by now, used to the protests that accompany any person saying anything critical of homosexuality. Carrie Prejean, Miss California, is just the latest person to invite the wrath of the homosexual community (and the Left) and their "jamming" (an accurate term to use with homosexuals).

"Convert," the final step in the process, is nothing more than converting people to your side. Once you convert, an enemy has been transformed into an ally.

Of course, the "conversion" of Black Californians didn't take, as in November 2008, they voted 70% in favor of Propostion 8. Black Americans are largely a church-going group of people. They are socially conservative on many issues, homosexuality being one of them. I imagine Black Americans are also a little tired of hearing the homosexual movement compared to their "real" movement." Apparently, Black Americans don not believe that being born with dark skin is akin or equal to the urges of one man to sodomize another.

How did this transformation occur in America in such a short period of time? Simple. Traditional Americans have been too busy to fight back. When your political activism is merely going to the polls on election day, it leaves 364 days of the year when you're not engaged. Homosexual activists are politically active every minute of every day. While the majority of Americans are busy with families, careers and personal lives, the homsexual is not. With no children and family to dominate his or her time and money, homosexual activists, armed with time, money and energy, wake up each and every day to work on the movement. And they won't stop until they have a decisive victory.

Dave Kupelian warns of where this movement is headed: "Their campaign will not end until Christians and other traditionalists opposing homosexuality are shut-up, discredited, and utterly silenced."

The future is clear, Homosexuals want a world where preachers are arrested on Sundays for hate speech when they deliver a sermon. Homosexuals want hate crime laws enacted that actually punish thought. How long before we hear demands in Congress for homosexual quotas in the work force? You know, every school, college, and business must look "like America," or, at least, San Francisco.