Tuesday, October 18, 2005

It's About Manipulation

I do not normally take an entire article from a news source and post it here at my blog. But this article is so important, especially to parents, and it needs widespread publicity. This excerpt is so vividly comprehensive about how the gay rights movement has hoodwinked America through brilliant, yet evil, kind of manipulation tactics. Quite frankly, reading it will inevitably be a severe jolt to the heart, soul and mind of any reader.

It has been about 5 years since I gradually found out most of what is contained within this article. My opposition to the 'gay rights' movement started when the school my son and daughter were attending started a 'gay-straight alliance'. My Christian friend and neighbor sounded the alarm bells and alerted me about this new group which would meet on the campus of our children's high school. I began doing research on the organizations (such as GLSEN, GLADD, PFLAG etc.) and was absolutely horrified about what I found out.

My research led me to find out about the infamous Tufts University "Fistgate" and what filth was being taught to impressionable teenagers without the knowledge of their parents. The more research I did, the more disturbing evidence I discovered.

Parents rights were being usurped by radical homosexual activists in Massachusetts. California was most likely next in line to fall into the same trap if people (especially parents) continued to keep their heads in the sand on this issue. Thus began my efforts to do all I could to expose what was really happening and why.

This portion of David Kupelian's book, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom, encapsulates much of what I have learned over the past five years, as well as new information that truely astonished me.

I am buying this book today because after reading this portion, I realize that I need to know more....MUCH more!



This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows. To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46887

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

How 'gay rights' is being sold to AmericaExposed: Powerful manipulation techniques behind radical homosexual agenda

Posted: October 18, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: Following is the highly acclaimed – and to many, shocking – first chapter of WND Managing Editor David Kupelian's blockbuster book, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom." In it, Kupelian rips the veil off the previously hidden marketing strategies and powerful propaganda techniques used with such stunning success to "sell" Americans on homosexuality and the radical "gay rights" agenda over the last few years – a marketing juggernaut that continues to accelerate daily.

By David Kupelian
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

"I did not choose to be homosexual. I would change my sexual orientation if that were within my power."

So confessed Robert Bauman, the powerful conservative congressman from Maryland. Americans were stunned in 1980 when headlines revealed Bauman had been caught red-handed having a sexual rendezvous with a young male prostitute. In his book "The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a Gay Conservative," Bauman revealed the conditions that shaped his own tortured double life as a pro-family Republican congressman and closet homosexual.

At the tender age of five, Bauman had been sexually seduced by a twelve-year-old neighbor. Reflecting on that pivotal experience, as well as subsequent similar episodes, Bauman described the powerful feelings he found welling up within him at a young age:

"This was not a matter of chance attraction to a forbidden object. This was a frightening force from deep within my being, an involuntary reaction to the sight, smell, and feel of other boys. I neither understood nor accepted it. And I came to hate myself because of the presence within me of this horrible weakness, this uncleanness of spirit over which I seemed to have no control. …

I was sure my predicament was a unique punishment designed only for me. Unable to understand it myself, I could never even attempt an explanation to someone else. I countered my dilemma with a plan that constituted the essence of simplicity. I made up my mind that I was not "queer." I heard all those denunciations of homos by my military school peers and firmly resolved I could never be considered one of such a despicable breed."

Bauman was elected in 1973 as representative of the First Congressional District of Maryland, became chairman of the American Conservative Union in 1979, and, many thought, was on his way to becoming Speaker of the House. But he was leading a double life as a married man with four children while at the same time engaging in anonymous homosexual one-night stands. He described the wrenching emotional aftermath he experienced after every episode: "Each time I would feel great guilt and head for Saturday confession at St. Peter's or St. Joseph's on Capitol Hill so I could make amends with God and be in the state of grace for Sunday Communion. I would always vow to myself and God I would never do it again."

Submerging himself "in the excitement of politics where compliments, victories and deference helped reassure me I was a good person," Bauman looked every bit the quintessential conservative, family-values congressman. "If I could save the world," he later mused, "I might avoid having to save myself." Looking back on his secret double life, Bauman engaged in some painful self-examination:

"How could any normal and moral human being do what I did? How could anyone, however callous, repeatedly be unfaithful to one’s spouse (lying, evading responsibility, breaking solemn vows)? I have described how it could be done. Why I did it is the serious question. And I have no answer, even to this day. I do not know. In many ways I was driven by a force over which I seemed to have little control.

Of course, my choice was conscious and deliberate. It could have been altered. But some compulsion drove me, blotting out all I had learned, diminishing in importance all that was most dear and important. I seemed willing to risk my marriage, my wife and children, even life itself."

It's hard not to have compassion on a fellow human being desperately struggling to overcome a powerful compulsion he "neither understood nor accepted." What happened to Bauman was a tragedy. He needed help – not rejection and condemnation for being a "queer," nor acceptance and praise for being an "oppressed minority" – but real help in understanding and overcoming his sexual problem.

In today's polarized climate, however, it seems most of us either condemn homosexuals as evil corrupters of society or we fawn over them as noble victims and cultural heroes. We either accuse them of "choosing" to be "wicked sexual deviants," or we claim – utterly without evidence – that "gayness" is an inborn, genetic trait.

Reality, however, lies somewhere else. Deep down, people of conscience know homosexuality is neither an innocent, inborn "minority" characteristic like skin color, nor a conscious choice to become evil and to corrupt others. But without understanding what we're really dealing with, we're not only powerless to help others but easily confused and corrupted ourselves.

Bauman, under the sway of an overwhelming and self-destructive compulsion, even admits in retrospect that perhaps he wanted to be caught so he could get help:

"I can see numerous instances when my conduct, which I thought carefully discreet, was really designed to reveal to someone, anyone, what was happening to me. Perhaps my unconscious conclusion was that someone else must deal with the chaos of my life because I was rapidly reaching the point at which I could not do it myself."

Finally, in 1980, at the age of forty-three, Bauman got his wish and was found out. After the dramatic public exposure of his solicitation of a teenage male hustler, the congressman saw his political career crash. He lost not only his reelection bid but also his family, his historic home, and many of his powerful friends as well.

In truth, Robert Bauman’s sad story is in some ways not too different from that of many others in America before today's era of "gay pride," out-of-the-closet politicians and celebrities, "lesbian and gay studies" in most colleges, "Gay Day" at Disneyland, and powerful homosexual lobbying and journalistic and legal groups throughout the land.

Back then, most people like Bauman remained "in the closet" with regard to their homosexuality. And in their secret world they suffered conflict, fear of exposure, and sometimes worse.

Today, thanks to America's politically correct "gay-friendly" culture, millions of human beings in the grip of this same unnatural sexual compulsion find it much easier to accept – even to wear as a badge of honor.

But they still don't understand it. In fact, they have less desire than ever to understand it – just as the larger society has also lost interest in understanding homosexuality. But sometimes not knowing what you're dealing with can be dangerous. So let's take off the rainbow-colored glasses and objectively explore this phenomenon we call "gay rights."
It grew out of the "sexual liberation" movement of the 1960s. To be precise, the June 11, 1969, "Stonewall riot" – when a group of homosexuals at New York City's Stonewall Inn resisted police commands to disperse – is widely regarded as the birth of the "gay liberation" movement.

This emerging political force made considerable strides during the '70s, most notably in persuading – many say intimidating – the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 into removing homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. But "gay rights" was young, inexperienced, underfunded, and understaffed as political movements go, and the issue received little support from politicians or the nation in general.

"Equality for gays" was not yet a phrase that reverberated in the hearts and minds of Americans. Then came AIDS.

The problem of the plague

Surely, many activists thought, this would be their movement's death knell. For while they were trying to convince the mainstream that homosexuals represented a normal, healthy, alternative lifestyle, along comes a modern plague – horrible, incurable, fatal, and spread primarily by promiscuous homosexual men.

AIDS – originally named GRID (gay-related immunodeficiency disease) until activist homosexuals pressured the medical establishment to switch to the generic acronym AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) – was the ultimate public relations nightmare. It gave society a brand-new reason to fear and shun homosexuals – namely, concern over becoming infected with a nightmarish new disease.
And AIDS did something else. In order for the medical establishment and news media to communicate to the public how the disease was being transmitted, it became necessary to focus publicly on the one thing homosexuals most wanted to downplay – the sometimes-bizarre sexual acts in which they engage and their often astronomically high numbers of sexual partners. (A widely cited 1978 study by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Wineburg reported that 43 percent of homosexuals had more than five hundred sex partners during their lifetime.)

In addition, the "silver bullet" medical cure Americans had virtually come to expect, having grown up in the age of miracle drugs like the polio vaccine and penicillin, never materialized. Rather, AIDS experts and public health authorities issued dire warnings about a disease reminiscent of the bubonic plague of the Middle Ages:

"By the early years of the next century, we could have lost between 50 and 100 million people worldwide. There’s no question about that." –Surgeon General C. Everett Koop

"Ninety percent of the people infected [with HIV] don’t even know it." – Dr. Robert Gallo, co-discoverer of the HIV virus

In many areas, the number of persons affected with the AIDS virus is at least 100 times greater than reported case of AIDS. – Dr. James Curran, director of AIDS and HIV immunology and prevention activities at the Centers for Disease Control

Meanwhile, throughout the '80s and beyond, as AIDS infection and death rates skyrocketed with each passing year, high-profile figures were dying of the disease, including actor Rock Hudson in 1985, ABC News anchor Max Robinson in 1988, and ballet superstar Rudolf Nureyev in 1993.
During this time the public experienced two distinct and widespread reactions to the unfolding AIDS epidemic. One was the natural sympathy evoked by witnessing the terrible suffering and death of AIDS victims.
But the other, if less politically correct, was fear and loathing of homosexuals. After all, there was no way back in those early days of the disease to rule out AIDS transmission via "casual contact" – that is, by means other than sex and intravenous drug use. As prominent Harvard AIDS researcher Dr. William Haseltine warned at the time: "Anyone who tells you categorically that AIDS is not contracted by saliva is not telling you the truth. AIDS may, in fact, be transmissible by tears, saliva, bodily fluids and mosquito bites."

Fears that AIDS would "break out" into the general population were further fanned by horror stories such as that of Kimberly Bergalis, a Florida girl who contracted AIDS (along with several other patients) from her homosexual dentist, David Acer.

As a matter of fact, many Americans not part of the two main "at-risk groups" (male homosexuals and IV drug abusers) were dying, mostly from HIV-tainted blood transfusions. One of them, Ryan White, an eighteen-year-old Indiana boy with hemophilia who became infected with HIV through a blood transfusion, died of AIDS in 1990 and became the poster boy for rallying Americans to support AIDS research. Two years later tennis great Arthur Ashe, also infected by an HIV-tainted transfusion, succumbed to the disease.

As a public relations matter, AIDS was daunting. This modern plague, if not handled brilliantly in the court of public opinion, could result in homosexuals being widely shunned. On the other hand, perhaps the sympathy factor could be harnessed and multiplied to advance the activists' cause. The movement definitely needed help.

The defiant, storm-trooper tactics of in-your-face groups like ACT-UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) may or may not have been successful in pressuring the federal government to increase its commitment to combating AIDS. But such tactics definitely were successful in giving activist homosexuals a very bad name.

One infamous incident was the assault on New York’s famed St. Patrick's Cathedral on December 10, 1989. While Cardinal John O'Connor presided over the 10:15 Sunday morning Mass, a multitude of "pro-choice" and "gay rights" activists protested angrily outside. Some, wearing gold-colored robes similar to clerical vestments, hoisted a large portrait of a pornographically altered frontal nude portrait of Jesus.
"You bigot, O'Connor, you're killing us!" screamed one protester, while signs called the archbishop "Murderer!"

Then it got really ugly. Scores of protesters entered the church, resulting in what many in the packed house of parishioners described as a "nightmare."

"The radical homosexuals turned a celebration of the Holy Eucharist into a screaming babble of sacrilege by standing in the pews, shouting and waving their fists, tossing condoms into the air," recounted the New York Post. One of the invaders grabbed a consecrated wafer and threw it to the ground.

Outside, demonstrators, many of them members of ACT-UP, carried placards that summed up their sentiments toward the Catholic Church: "Keep your church out of my crotch." "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries." "Eternal life to Cardinal John O'Connor NOW!" "Curb your dogma."

Clearly, the young movement was flirting with oblivion if it persisted in such ugly, indefensible tactics. It needed a new, more civilized direction if it ever hoped to convince Americans that homosexuality was a perfectly normal alternative lifestyle.

This new direction would somehow have to convert the fearsome AIDS epidemic from a negative into a positive. What was needed was a comprehensive, long-term public relations campaign that had to be brilliantly conceived and skillfully executed.

War conference

In February 1988, some 175 leading activists representing homosexual groups from across the nation held a war conference in Warrenton, Virginia, to map out their movement’s future. Shortly thereafter, activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen put into book form the comprehensive public relations plan they had been advocating with their gay-rights peers for several years.

Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys – very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, worked with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing. Together they wrote "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s."
"As cynical as it may seem," they explained at the outset, "AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America's special protection and care. At the same time," they warned, "it generates mass hysteria of precisely the sort that has brought about public stonings and leper colonies since the Dark Ages and before. … 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?"

The bottom line of Kirk and Madsen's master plan? "The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising."

Arguing that, skillfully handled, the AIDS epidemic could conquer American resistance to homosexuality and form the basis of a comprehensive, long-term marketing campaign to sell "gay rights" to straight America, "After the Ball" became the public-relations "bible" of the movement.

Kirk and Madsen's "war goal," explains marketing expert Paul E. Rondeau of Regent University, was to "force acceptance of homosexual culture into the mainstream, to silence opposition, and ultimately to convert American society." In his comprehensive study, "Selling Homosexuality to America," Rondeau writes:

"The extensive three-stage strategy to Desensitize, Jam and Convert the American public is reminiscent of George Orwell’s premise of goodthink and badthink in "1984." As Kirk and Madsen put it, "To one extent or another, the separability – and manipulability – of the verbal label is the basis for all the abstract principles underlying our proposed campaign."
Separability? Manipulability? Allow me to translate this psychological marketing jargon: We can change what people actually think and feel by breaking their current negative associations with our cause and replacing them with positive associations."

Simple case in point: homosexual activists call their movement "gay rights." This accomplishes two major objectives: (1) Use of the word gay rather than homosexual masks the controversial sexual behavior involved and accentuates instead a vague but positive-sounding cultural identity – gay, which, after all, once meant "happy"; and (2) describing their battle from the get-go as one over "rights" implies homosexuals are being denied the basic freedoms of citizenship that others enjoy.

So merely by using the term gay rights, and persuading politicians and the media to adopt this terminology, activists seeking to transform America have framed the terms of the debate in their favor almost before the contest begins. (And in public relations warfare, he who frames the terms of the debate almost always wins. The abortion rights movement has prevailed in that war precisely because it succeeded, early on, in framing the debate as a question, not of abortion, but of choice. The abortion vanguard correctly anticipated that it would be far easier to defend an abstract, positive-sounding idea like choice than the unrestricted slaughter of unborn babies.)

Okay, you might be wondering, even granting the movement's cutting-edge marketing savvy, how do you sell middle America on those five hundred sex partners and weird sexual practices? Answer, according to Kirk and Madsen, you don't. Just don't talk about it. Rather, look and act as normal as possible for the camera.

"When you're very different, and people hate you for it," they explain, "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 accepted – 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, sadomasochists, leather fetishists, cross-dressers, transgenders, and other "peculiar" members of the homosexual community need to keep away from the tent and out of sight while the sales job is under way. Later, once the camel is safely inside, there will be room for all.

Rondeau explains Kirk and Madsen's techniques of "desensitization," "jamming," and "conversion" this way:

"Desensitization is described as inundating the public in a "continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can't shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet." But, the activists did not mean advertising in the usual marketing context but, rather, quite a different approach: "The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome." They add, "[S]eek desensitization and nothing more. … If you can get [straights] to think [homosexuality] is just another thing – meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders – then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won."

This planned hegemony is a variant of the type that Michael Warren describes in "Seeing Through the Media" where it "is not raw overt coercion; it is one group's covert orchestration of compliance by another group through structuring the consciousness of the second group."
"Structuring the consciousness" of others? If that phraseology is uncomfortably reminiscent of various mind control and brainwashing tales you might have heard over the years, don’t be surprised. Manipulating the emotions and thereby restructuring the thoughts and beliefs of large numbers of people is what modern marketing is all about.
"Jamming," explains Rondeau, "is psychological terrorism meant to silence expression of or even support for dissenting opinion." Radio counselor and psychologist Dr. Laura Schlessinger experienced big-time jamming during the run-up to her planned television show. Outraged over a single comment critical of homosexuals she had made on her radio program, activists launched a massive intimidation campaign against the television program's advertisers. As a result, the new show was stillborn.

But perhaps the highest-profile example of jamming occurred after the 1998 murder of University of Wyoming freshman Matthew Shepard. Lured from a bar, robbed and savagely beaten by two men, Shepard died five days later of head injuries. In the frenzied, saturation media coverage that followed, the press and homosexual activists singled out conservative Christians as having created a "climate of anti-gay hate" in which such a brutal act could happen.

NBC's Today show took the lead, focusing on a Christian ad campaign running at the time that offered to help homosexuals change their orientation. Reporter David Gregory narrated: "The ads were controversial for portraying gays and lesbians as sinners who had made poor choices, despite the growing belief that homosexuality may be genetic. … Have the ads fostered a climate of anti-gay hate that leads to incidents like the killing of Matthew Shepard? Gay rights activists say the ads convey a message that gay people are defective."

And in a now-infamous interview, Today's Katie Couric asked Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer: "Some gay rights activists have said that some conservative political organizations like the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are contributing to this anti-homosexual atmosphere by having an ad campaign saying if you are a homosexual you can change your orientation. That prompts people to say, 'If I meet someone who's homosexual, I'm going to take action to try to convince them or try to harm them.' Do you believe that such groups are contributing to this climate?"

Consciously or not, the media were following Kirk and Madsen's playbook to the letter, discrediting anyone who disagreed with the homosexual agenda by associating them with lowlife murderers. In reality, none of the Christian groups smeared by NBC had ever condoned mistreatment of homosexuals – in fact, they had explicitly condemned it.
As if to add even more shame to the whole-hog jamming of Christians after the Shepard murder, in 2004 a comprehensive new investigation by ABC News 20/20 concluded that homosexuality very likely wasn't a factor in Shepard's murder, but rather Shepard had been targeted for his money.

So much for desensitization and jamming. But what about "conversion"? Here, Kirk and Madsen announce defiantly:

"We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean "subverting" the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends – using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard – whether they like it or not."

Transforming another person’s hatred into love ("warm regard") is the object of classic brainwashing. As Kirk and Madsen explain:

"In Conversion, we mimic the natural process of stereotype-learning, with the following effect: we take the bigot's good feelings about all-right guys, and attach them to the label "gay," either weakening or, eventually, replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype. … Whereas in Jamming the target is shown a bigot being rejected by his crowd for his prejudice against gays, in Conversion the target is shown his crowd actually associating with gays in good fellowship. Once again, it's very difficult for the average person, who, by nature and training, almost invariably feels what he sees his fellows feeling, not to respond in this knee-jerk fashion to a sufficiently calculated advertisement."

We're talking about some serious messing around with Americans' minds here. Do the homosexual activists thus engaged really know they're deceiving the public, or are they convinced they're just telling the truth?
"It makes no difference that the ads are lies," write Kirk and Madsen, "not to us, because we're using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones."

Homosexualizing history

Another important technique promoted by "After the Ball," and employed repeatedly to great effect in recent years, is to claim that famous historical figures – "from Socrates to Eleanor Roosevelt, Tchaikovsky to Bessie Smith, Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, and Leonardo da Vinci to Walt Whitman" – were homosexual or bisexual.

Although the authors know these claims are unproven at best and often baseless (they refer to them as "suspected 'inverts'"), that doesn't stop them from advocating the tactic.

A recent example of this was the highly publicized, though utterly unsubstantiated, speculation that Abraham Lincoln was a homosexual. Even more outrageous was the suggestion by openly "gay" New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson – a comment he quickly retracted after a firestorm of protest – that Jesus Christ was a homosexual!

As Kirk and Madsen explain:

"Famous historical figures are considered especially useful to us for two reasons: first, they are invariably dead as a doornail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel. Second, and more serious, the virtues and accomplishments that make these historic gay figures admirable cannot be gainsaid or dismissed by the public, since high school history textbooks have already set them in incontrovertible cement."

The flip side of this "celebrity endorsement" tactic consists of associating all detractors of the radical homosexual agenda with negative images of universally despised tyrants and lowlifes. "After the Ball" lists some of the negative images with which opponents should be associated – including "Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered or castrated," "hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate," "menacing punks, thugs and convicts who speak coolly about the 'fags' they have bashed," and a "tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed."

Indeed, says Rondeau, "perhaps the most menacing focus of the campaign is the special treatment reserved for the religious dissenters. The strategy is to 'jam homohatred by linking it to Nazi horror.'"

Kirk and Madsen explain the leverage gained by this nasty technique:

"Most contemporary hate groups on the Religious Right will bitterly resent the implied connection between homohatred and Nazi fascism. But since they can't defend the latter, they'll end up having to distance themselves by insisting that they would never go to such extremes. Such declarations of civility toward gays, of course, set our worst detractors on the slippery slope toward recognition of fundamental gay rights."

Homosexual activists love to compare their opponents with Adolf Hitler and Nazis, apparently undaunted by the fact that, according to William L. Shirer's twelve-hundred-page "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," widely regarded as the definitive book on Nazi Germany, "many of the early Nazis" were homosexuals.

But this is not about truth. It's about manipulation. In a sense, modern psychology-based marketers understand people better than people understand themselves. They use emotional threads to tie their "product" (in this case, homosexuality) to preexisting positive attributes in the consumers' mind. And in a cultural-political campaign like this, they also successfully tie all who oppose their agenda to preexisting negatives, such as Nazis. The net effect of this conditioning can be so powerful over time that ultimately one's prior beliefs – based on experience, religious training, conscience, and common sense – are overwhelmed and replaced as a result of successive waves of emotion-driven reprogramming.

Still, one wonders how the press could allow itself to be used in such a blatantly propagandistic way and in pursuit of such a subversive agenda. And make no mistake, the "gay rights" agenda, which includes indoctrinating kindergartners with pro-homosexual propaganda and legalizing same-sex marriage, is extraordinarily subversive to America's foundational values and institutions.

For the answer to that question you have to realize what's happened to the news media in recent years.

As you no doubt already know, the establishment press is oriented far to the left of the American mainstream, as study after study for the past three decades has documented beyond rational dispute. But did you know that, in addition, a major homosexual presence has emerged in the "mainstream" media, especially since the dawn of the 1990s?

Indeed, part of the mobilization that occurred in the wake of the 1988 War Conference was the recognition that the news media represented the prime tool for changing the hearts and minds of Americans.

And if getting your message before the media was the name of the game, how much better would it be to actually be the media? Thus 1990 saw the launch of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), which has since grown into a formidable organization.
To celebrate its tenth anniversary, homosexual journalists from many major news organizations gathered in San Francisco for NLGJA's gala conference held September 7-10, 2000. The discussion on center stage was surreal. It focused on the question of whether or not, when reporting on stories related to homosexuality, mainstream journalists have a responsibility to include any viewpoints that contradict those of homosexuals. You heard me right.

MSNBC producer Ramon Escobar framed the issue this way: "This whole issue of 'balance' that we as journalists are supposed to achieve. … When we cover the black community, I've never seen a newsroom where you're covering one side and then you have to go run out and get the Klan's point of view: 'Well, I've got to go do my Klan interview.' How do you be fair?"
NLGJA member Jeffrey Kofman, at the time a CBS correspondent who later migrated to NBC, restated the question: "The argument [is]: Why do we constantly see in coverage of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues the homophobes and the fag-haters quoted in stories when, of course, we don't do that with Jews, blacks, etcetera?"

Paula Madison, vice president of diversity at NBC and news director of WNBC in New York, added: "I agree with him. I don’t see why we would seek out … the absurd, inane point of view just to get another point of view."

"All of us," Kofman rejoined, "have seen and continue to see a lot of coverage that includes perspectives on gay issues that include people who just simply are intolerant and perhaps not qualified as well."

Are you getting the picture? Whereas fifty years ago a news story portraying homosexuality as normal and respectable was unheard of, now we're facing exactly the opposite spectacle. Up on that glitzy convention stage were representatives of top broadcast news networks debating whether or not professional journalists should give voice to the Christian or traditional viewpoint on homosexuality. Or, they suggested, Wouldn't it be better just to censor such "hateful" and "bigoted" viewpoints as being the moral equivalent of a "pro-racism" or "pro-bigotry" viewpoint, and thus beyond the margins of civilized debate?

By the way, lest you think this was just an unrepresentative group of radical journalists blowing off steam in their off-hours, here’s who sponsored this particular homosexual journalists conference: Hearst Newspapers; Knight-Ridder, Inc.; CBS News; Gannett Foundation; CNN; Bloomberg News; NBC News; the Dallas Morning News; Fox News Channel; the Los Angeles Times; the New York Daily News; the San Francisco Chronicle; Time, Inc.; the Wall Street Journal; the Washington Post; and the San Jose Mercury News.

No wonder the "mainstream press," overwhelmingly sympathetic toward the "gay rights" agenda, seems to be on the same page as homosexual activists engaged in desensitizing, jamming, and converting Americans to their world view. As a matter of fact, as we saw in the Matthew Shepard case, it's hard to tell them apart.

Thus a lot of the credit for the "gay-ing of America" can be laid at the door of the news media who, intentionally or not, have worked in tandem with the movement's public relations machinery for years now.

We forgot one thing

Today, the homosexual activist movement is a juggernaut, racking up success after success. Even the occasional losses, such as voter rejection of same-sex marriage in the 2004 election, are simply the expected "one step back" in the time-honored "two steps forward one step back" mode of most long-term political wars. (After all, by audaciously conducting thousands of illegal same-sex marriage ceremonies, homosexuals all but guaranteed legal and social acceptance of their fall-back position – homosexual civil unions with the full legal force of marriage, something most Americans regarded as radical and unacceptable just a few years ago.)

As just one of a multitude of success indicators, consider that the popular teen magazine Seventeen conducted a reader poll in 1991, shortly after activist homosexuals abandoned the streets in favor of the television studio. At the time, only 17 percent of the magazine's adolescent readers accepted homosexuality as appropriate. In 1999, after eight years of intense "gay rights" marketing, a whopping 54 percent, more than three times as many teens, accepted homosexuality as appropriate. This stunning turnaround is reflected in virtually every area of society.
Whether in culture, politics, law, business, the news media, entertainment, education, or even the church, homosexual strides have been nothing short of astonishing. Once condemned as "immoral deviants," homosexuals and lesbians today are honored, idealized, defended as victims, and celebrated as role models. Thanks to "hate-crimes" legislation, they are now afforded extra protections as a special class of people – protections not granted to all members of society. (If you were assaulted, the perpetrator would get one sentence, but if you were assaulted because of your homosexuality, the perpetrator would receive a more severe sentence under hate-crimes sentencing guidelines.)
Meanwhile, in what was once a vibrant Judeo-Christian culture, Christians and other proponents of traditional biblical principles are routinely cast as bigots and "homophobes," thanks to constant jamming.
Direct quotes from the Bible regarding homosexuality are routinely condemned as "hate speech," and – as we have seen – pro-homosexual journalists piously agonize over whether or not they should dignify the traditional, biblical viewpoint by even acknowledging it.

Multitudes of activists – with almost limitless time and energy to devote to advancing their agenda, largely unencumbered by any need to change diapers, pay for dental braces, or attend their children's soccer games, as do most heterosexual married people – have succeeded in their goal of transforming society. As public relations campaigns go, it’s been an unqualified success.

However, in the "gay rights" movement's relentless struggle to legitimize homosexuality, and in the greater society's veneration of them as heroes of the great civil rights crusade of the new millennium, we've forgotten one thing. In the endlessly clever media campaign that's bamboozled everyone, "restructured their consciousness," turned their hate into love and their rejection into acceptance, something crucial has been lost.
We've forgotten about reality. We've been living in a Madison Avenue fantasy world of marketing images and carefully crafted rhetoric in the foreground, with court battles, fascistlike intimidation, and relentless waves of persuasion in the background.

But what about the truth we've left behind? What about the reality of homosexuality, of what causes it, and of what it means physically and spiritually for those so oriented? Do we even care any more?

Let's rewind and go back to former Congressman Robert Bauman, who in poignantly describing his internal struggles against his homosexual compulsions confided that he had been sexually seduced when he was five years old by an older boy.

Did that experience have anything to do with Bauman’s future homosexuality?

There was a time when psychiatry, psychology, religion, and common sense all said "yes." In fact, sexually abused young males are "up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused," concludes the peer-reviewed 1998 study, "Sexual Abuse of Boys," by William C. Holmes, M.D. and Gail B. Slap, M.D.
On that topic, a reader recently wrote to me: "We are a family of eight siblings and the oldest is gay, and has lived with the same partner for 41 years. At various times, my siblings and I have tried to discover why he is gay and none of the rest of us are. We finally found out through an older cousin that my brother was repeatedly sexually molested when he was six years old by a 19-year-old man."

Even Kirk and Madsen, who advise activists to claim they were born homosexual, know better. "We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay," they write, "even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence."

If "environmental factors" are involved – and everyone knows they are, whether or not they publicly admit it – why then advise homosexuals to claim they were "born gay"?

"To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen," Kirk and Madsen explain, "is to open the can of worms labeled 'moral choices and sin' and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it."

Unfortunately, with all the brainy marketing behind the campaign to mainstream homosexuality, what's been swept under the rug is the recognition – once commonplace in America – that flawed early relationships or sexual victimization can put a child on the road to homosexuality.

Children are exquisitely impressionable, so much so that sexual seduction or assault is a major trauma that can, and often does, reprogram the victim's identity – his view of who and what he is. While the Holmes and Slap study confirms this, the point is self-evident: our prisons are full of child molesters who were molested as children and batterers who were battered as children.

What about the twelve-year-old who molested Bauman? What caused him to sexually seduce a five-year-old boy? No doubt he felt a strong compulsion to do to a new kid what had been done to him. But why?

An innocent young child has a "bright light" quality that feels mysteriously threatening to those in the grip of corruption. In fact, many see this dynamic at the core of a great deal of child abuse.

To the person who's already been "converted" and is acting out the homosexual "lifestyle," it’s deeply satisfying – far beyond mere sexual pleasure – to "initiate" an innocent person. Doing so serves to anesthetize his own conscience and assuage his inner conflict by destroying the innocence of another person, since that innocence tends to make him aware of his own corruption.

There was a time 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 – just like emotionally devastating traumatic experiences of molestation – if not dealt with properly.

But that was a time before much of America itself was seduced into believing there was no God, or if there was a God, He is inconsequential to the affairs of the world. It was a time when Judeo-Christian morality inspired the culture and laws of the land.

Today we've basically abandoned "old-fashioned" notions of right and wrong in favor of "consensuality," which means two people can do whatever they want, no matter how abominable, as long as they "don't hurt anybody else." The problem with that – aside from the fact that it denies the existence of God and His laws – is that in such a deluded state you have no basis for determining if you’re hurting another person or not. A pedophile justifies sex with children precisely because he doesn't believe he's hurting the child; rather he believes he's loving him!

You might wonder: Where and when will this "gay rights" public relations steamroller stop? The end game is not only to bring about the complete acceptance of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, but also to prohibit and even criminalize public criticism of homosexuality, including the quotation of biblical passages disapproving of homosexuality.

In other words, total jamming of criticism with the force of law. This is already essentially the case in Canada and parts of Scandinavia. "Why?" you might ask. "I thought gays just wanted equal rights and to be free to do what they want in their own bedrooms." No, they've had that for years.
Their campaign will not end until Christians and other traditionalists opposing homosexuality are shut up, discredited, and utterly silenced – and all because of a little factor we've forgotten about in our cleverness, namely this: In truth, there is something wrong with homosexuality.
Simply put, it is unnatural and self-destructive – just as Western civilization has long understood it.

Homosexual activists fancy their cause as identical to that of blacks and the '60s civil rights movement. But being black is not unnatural and self-destructive. Being of African origin obviously doesn't involve fleeing one's own conscience and the author of that conscience – God.

But it is precisely because of this difference that the "gay civil rights" movement is not about changing the laws so homosexuals can have equal opportunity for advancement or access as it was for blacks during the '60s. Homosexuals already live in freedom and can reside, work, or play virtually anywhere they want. In fact, as a group, homosexuals enjoy a higher income level than the general American population.

It's not about rights. It's about redefining truth and censoring all criticism so that militant homosexuals can be comfortable in their "lifestyle" without having to be disturbed by reality.

Remember, all of us – homosexuals included – have a conscience (that other-dimensional standard that God has tucked away inside each of us) that causes us inner conflict when we're doing the wrong thing.

But if we tumble into the grip of dark forces we don't understand and then start to defend our obsessions and compulsions, we inevitably come to regard our conscience as an enemy. And although we may be somewhat successful in drowning out that inner warning bell, what happens when this same rejected conscience factor appears in another person and gets too close to us for comfort? We feel threatened.

Therefore, we feel compelled to silence the "voice of conscience" – not just the one inside of us, but the one in other people, which tends to revive our own conscience with which we're at war. This means we can't tolerate dissent. We simply can't stand it. It makes us want to scream.

To the homosexual living in denial, then, even a loving offer of help from, say, a Christian ex-gay ministry or "reparative therapy" counselor (to help overcome homosexual addiction) feels like the most vile, abusive hatred. In fact, it's real love – which we misinterpret as hatred and "bigotry" simply because it causes us to confront a truth that is not welcome in us.

Love and redemption

When all is said and done, the "mainstreaming" of homosexuality over the last few decades has been a great tragedy. But of all the societal confusion, chaos, and corruption it has ushered in, the most tragic dimension of all is what it has done to people struggling with homosexual and "transgender" attractions and compulsions.

Remember, our conflicts contain the seeds of redemption – that is, as long as we know we have a problem, there’s hope for a change. But if we deny there's a problem, we are literally robbed of the chance to find healing. That's exactly what America has done in buying into the "gay rights movement." We have betrayed our homosexual brothers and sisters.

Glorifying dysfunctionality and corruption, we have relieved homosexuals of the inner conflict they once felt over their condition – something they desperately need, indeed all of us need, if we're ever going to overcome our problems and find wholeness.

A generation ago, we understood there is such a thing as sin, and that sin is a serious matter and to be avoided. Now there is no societal consciousness of sin – only limitless "freedom," "choice," and "consensual relationships." Beguiled by our scientific and technological advances into believing we are enlightened, in reality as we move further and further away from our Judeo-Christian spiritual roots, we actually understand less and less about ourselves. Most of all, we've forgotten as a society what love is because supporting and justifying homosexuality is not real love any more than glorifying drinking helps the alcoholic or celebrating smoking helps wipe out lung cancer.

We defend our own corruption at great peril. And if defending that corruption becomes a national movement, as it has with our cultural and legal adoption of the "gay rights agenda," we're all in serious trouble.
In truth, most homosexuals experience guilt and conflict when they first discover homosexual urges. Thus there is a strong temptation – especially in today's pro-"gay" culture – for them to "resolve" the conflict by giving in to the compulsion and affirming, "It's okay to be gay."
But if they do, there is just no way out for them. For this reason, the most loving stance for others to take is not to serve as enablers of self-destructive and immoral compulsions, but to stand in patient but firm opposition. In other words, we need to side with the afflicted person's conscience. In America, we've done the opposite.

"“Hating the sin but not the sinner," the classic Christian expression for loving your struggling neighbor by nonjudgmentally disagreeing with his errant behavior, actually has great power – more than we realize. By resisting the temptation to hate, yet still standing firm against what's wrong, God's love is able to come through that obedient "neutral zone."
We started this journey into the world of "gay rights" with the poignant words of former congressman Robert Bauman, who said: "I did not choose to be homosexual. I would change my sexual orientation if that were within my power." Sadly, we've failed Bauman and millions suffering with similar sexual problems by glorifying and pandering to their dysfunction and pretending it's normal.

In the end, we have to ask ourselves which is worse – the previous era in America, when homosexuals were reviled and driven underground? Or today's America, when the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that those in the grip of powerful self-destructive compulsions are fawned over and lionized as heroes?

Either way, because the rest of us have failed to find real love, they remain victims.

The preceding was reprinted with permission from "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom." by David Kupelian, Chapter 1, "Marketing Blitz: Selling 'Gay Rights' to America," published 2005 by WND Books.

David Kupelian is vice president and managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com and Whistleblower magazine, and author of "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom.


Christinewjc said...

What the rest of the book covers is equally important:

Americans have come to tolerate, embrace and even champion many things that would have horrified their parents' generation – from easy divorce and unrestricted abortion-on-demand to extreme body piercing and teaching homosexuality to grade-schoolers.

Does that mean today's Americans are inherently more morally confused and depraved than previous generations?

Of course not, says veteran journalist David Kupelian.

But they have fallen victim to some of the most stunningly brilliant and compelling marketing campaigns in modern history.

"The Marketing of Evil" reveals how much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to them as though it had great value. Highly skilled marketers, playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America’s founding regarded as grossly self-destructive – in a word, evil.

In this groundbreaking and meticulously researched book, Kupelian peels back the veil of marketing-induced deception to reveal exactly when, where, how, and especially why Americans bought into the lies that now threaten the future of the country.

For example, few of us realize that the widely revered father of the "sexual revolution" has been irrefutably exposed as a full-fledged sexual psychopath who encouraged pedophilia.

Or that giant corporations voraciously competing for America's $150 billion teen market routinely infiltrate young people's social groups to find out how better to lead children into ever more debauched forms of "authentic self-expression."

Likewise, most of us mistakenly believe the "abortion rights" and "gay rights" movements were spontaneous, grassroots uprisings of neglected or persecuted minorities wanting to breathe free.
Few people realize America was actually "sold" on abortion thanks to an audacious public relations campaign that relied on fantastic lies and fabrications. Or that the "gay rights" movement – which transformed America's former view of homosexuals as self-destructive human beings into their current status as victims and cultural heroes – faithfully followed an in-depth, phased plan laid out by professional Harvard-trained marketers.

No quarter is given in this riveting, insightful exploration of how lies, both subtle and outrageous, are packaged as truth.

From the federal government to the public school system to the news media to the hidden creators of "youth culture," nothing is exempt from the thousand-watt spotlight of Kupelian's journalistic inquiry.

In the end, "The Marketing of Evil" is an up-close, modern-day look at what is traditionally known as "temptation" – the art and science of making evil look good.


Christinewjc said...


"David Kupelian dares to tell the truth about the overwhelming forces in our society which take us far away from our original American concept of freedom with responsibility, happiness with commitments, and traditional values. 'The Marketing of Evil' is a serious wake-up call for all who cherish traditional values, the innocence of children, and the very existence of our great country." – DR. LAURA SCHLESSINGER, talk-show host and author

"It's often said that marketing is warfare, and in 'The Marketing of Evil,' David Kupelian clearly reveals the stunning strategies and tactics of persuasion employed by those engaged in an all-out war against America's Judeo-Christian culture. If you really want to understand the adversary's thinking and help turn the tide of battle, read this book!"
– DAVID LIMBAUGH, syndicated columnist and author

"David Kupelian's research brings into sharp focus what many have sensed and suspected for a long time: The effort to change America's mind on issues like abortion, homosexuality, church-state separation, and more, is a well-thought-out strategic campaign that uses the methods of Madison Avenue to market rank lies. But the good news is that the truth will eventually win out, and Kupelian's important and groundbreaking book makes enormous progress toward that end."
– D. JAMES KENNEDY, Coral Ridge Ministries

"Every parent in America needs to read this book. David Kupelian skillfully exposes the secular left's rotten apple peddlers in devastating detail. From pitching promiscuity as 'freedom' to promoting abortion as 'choice,' the marketers of evil are always selling you something destructive – with catastrophic results. Kupelian shines a light on them all. Now watch the cockroaches run for cover."
– MICHELLE MALKIN, Fox News Channel

"Over just a few years, life in America has become indescribably more squalid, expensive, and dangerous. Like the dazzling disclosures in the final page of a gripping whodunit or the fascinating revelation of a magician's secrets, 'The Marketing of Evil' irresistibly exposes how it was done. It will elicit an involuntary 'Aha!' from you as you discover who did it and your soul will soar with optimism as you discover the only way we can undo it. In years to come Americans will acknowledge a debt of gratitude to David Kupelian for his honesty, courage, and laser-like insight in this must-read book."
– RABBI DANIEL LAPIN, Toward Tradition

"Marketers are out to get America's youth, and they'll stop at nothing to do it. In 'The Marketing of Evil,' David Kupelian treats parents to a rare insider look at exactly how our children – and adults too – are being lied to, confused, and seduced by radicals and phony experts. The game's over, folks – the con men have been exposed. I urge every parent to read this eye-opening book."
– REBECCA HAGELIN, the Heritage Foundation

"Did you ever want to know – I mean really know – how and why America is being transformed from a unified, Judeo-Christian society into a divided, false, murky, neo-pagan culture? Even if you think you know the answers to those questions, in fact, especially if you think you know the answers, you must read David Kupelian's 'The Marketing of Evil.' So clearly does it expose the incredible con game to which Americans have been subjected that it offers real hope – because when our problems come this sharply into focus, so do the solutions."
– JOSEPH FARAH, WorldNetDaily

"Excellent! Simply excellent. If you want to solidify your Christian worldview – or just understand what the culture war is all about – you owe it yourself to read David Kupelian's 'The Marketing of Evil.'"
– DONALD E. WILDMON, American Family Association

mamalicious said...

What I think is really interested - and incredibly sad - is that in your previous post, you expressed an interest in taking a stand on your blog, yet creating an environment where conversation can take place, where people can try to UNDERSTAND one another. Isn't that the quote you posted - that we should seek to understand where our "enemy" is coming from (even though I don't like the word "enemy" in this case, I think it's a good way of looking at things). I think you were sincere in saying that you were going to try and "understand" so that we can better have the conversation...

Then you post this article about the "gay agenda" and how homosexuality has been marketed in an evil way to the American public. I don't think you took your last post very seriously. The article posted is polarizing, to say the least and I'm incredibly disappointed. I honestly don't think we can have a conversation here anymore (not me anyway).

I have a daughter. She's two. She will grow up with gay parents...people who love one another and who believe strongly in the validity/goodness of our family. She will feel that, too. She should not be subjected to the negativity that this book espouses. Children are involved here...just remember that when you say mean things about gay people.

Susan Smith said...

Hi Christine:

I am on chapter 6 of "The Marketing of Evil". The read is slow for me, one chapter at each reading, because I find it difficult to read about such evil happenings in the country I love dearly. David Kupelian did an outstanding job. His book is well-researched and very candid.

I wish every American citizen (Christian & Non-Christian, heterosexual and homosexual) would read this book. Love from the City of Peace. (ss)

Christinewjc said...


This post is disturbing to all of us. It exposes the manipulation that has been done by radical gay activists and the methods they used to get mainstream America to think differently about gays and lesbians. The point the article makes is that they LIED to the public about many things in order to get their way.

I will admit to you, I don't like hearing about this either. It disturbs me no end. But I think it needed to be said.

Please know that I don't lump every gay or lesbian person in with the radical gay activists. To do that would be like you lumping me and Stephen in with the Fred Phelps types. (Unfortunately, as we all know, associating Stephen with Phelps has unashamedly been done in the past at a blog that shall remain nameless.)

With that said, is it possible to discuss this article openly and honestly? I don't know. I was waiting for the first reaction here to determine if that would be possible. I can certainly understand if you don't want to. It might turn out to be a heart-wrenching endeavor.

Christians and regular friendly gay and lesbian people can have a wonderful dialogue about this; or, it can turn ugly. I sincerely hope that we can keep the friendly dialogue going and see where it leads.

I once read a message board post that claimed that Christians and gays have a lot in common. Both groups have been demonized. Both groups have been labeled unfairly. Both groups have been persecuted. Both groups have been often misunderstood, mischaracterized, unfairly treated by the opposing side, and the list could go on and on. This concept could lead us to more dialogue, or, we could just say forget it, it's too hard and part ways.

I guess that is the choice of anyone coming here to read.

The portion of the article that I would choose to focus on here at my blog would be:

"Remember, our conflicts contain the seeds of redemption – that is, as long as we know we have a problem, there’s hope for a change. But if we deny there's a problem, we are literally robbed of the chance to find healing. That's exactly what America has done in buying into the "gay rights movement." We have betrayed our homosexual brothers and sisters."

Now, keeping that paragraph in mind, let's include this great quote from Longfellow:

"If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility." —Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Something we all have in common as human beings is sorrow and suffering. Determining why this is so and where our future hope lives (and in Whom) is a goal we all share. Amen?

If you go back and read the article in a 'third person's story' view, perhaps you will then see the underlying goal of healing and redemption being expressed and shared by this author.

This blog is about love and redemption, Mamalicious. People coming here may believe that they are not in need of redemption.

No one really wants to choose to admit they are sinners. However, without dropping their self-pride and humbly submitting to the Lord, redemption is missed. If they choose not to confess and repent, then they are missing the ONLY means for reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ.

We could talk about love all day long for there are many kinds and types of love to discuss. My main focus here is to point people to their need for the love, mercy, forgiveness and grace of Jesus Christ. My focus is on discussing the agape love that He has for all of us. But that love came at a huge price. That price was the redemption afforded us at the cross and subsequent Resurrection for our salvation which leads to reconciliation with God the Father. This is where I attempt to lead most of the discussions here. People can either accept or reject it. But, because Jesus' last command (the Great Commission)was to "go and tell the world" about the Gospel of Christ, that is ultimately what I will focus on here. How we get to that point differs only by how people are led into conversation. Whether they come because a certain post angered them or blessed them, my desired end result is obeying Christ's command of the Great Commission.

Jesus, himself, often angered his hearers when he walked the earth in his 3 year ministry. He also blessed many through his incomparable and infinite wisdom and knowledge. You see, it is based on the perception of the hearer, not the messenger.

Well, I didn't mean to ramble on and on, but I wanted to try and convey to you my ultimate motive here. Sometimes I am successful, sometimes I'm not. But I have realized more and more that through my mistakes I learn more than through my successes.

If this post was a mistake, my fellow Christian believers will rightfully admonish me about it and I will accept their criticism. Perhaps they will add something crucial that I have failed to share which will help in our discussion.

If this post helps those who have struggled for years with unwanted homosexual behavior and orientation, then it might be viewed as a success.

If this post helps a teenager who is currently "sexually questioning" and they now realize that it has been through this manipulation of gay activists that has led them down a road that they do not want to follow, then this post might be viewed as a success.

If someone who has never been told that homosexual behavior and orientation change is completely possible through the saving power and grace of Jesus Christ, then this post might be viewed as a success.

jpe said...

It exposes the manipulation that has been done by radical gay activists and the methods they used to get mainstream America to think differently about gays and lesbians.

What group doesn't use marketing and persuasion? The fact that some gays got together and tried to come up with ways to gain rights in an antipathetic culture hardly strikes me as surprising.

In fact, I'd be surprised if they hadn't tried to ameliorate their situation.

mamalicious said...

What if I were to say you all of that I never suffered molestation or any kind of sexual pervision as a child? What if I told you that I didn't suffer any outrageous trauma as a child? What if I told you that I didn't fall prey to some lesbian who got a thrill out of introducing me to the lifestyle? What if I told you that I was certainly not manipulated by the media into thinking that gay was okay so I should go that way? What if I said that I was raised in a very conservative home, attended church every day, attended a conservative Christian college for four years and AM STILL A LESBIAN? What if I told you that I believe in God? What if I told you that I believe that God loves me? What if I told you that I have heard all of your arguments about "leading the sinner to repent" my entire life? What if I told you that for anyone (of any religion or persuasion) to judge me for who I am is the biggest insult to my intelligence, maturity and personal belief system that I could ever encounter?

What if I said okay, so maybe the gay folks have used effective marketing tactics. Do you think that the Christian right or any political group does anything differently???

I will never see how a message that seeks to promote love and acceptance will do anyone any harm. I find fault with the article because of its pious and judgmental tone. I think some of his claims are ridiculous and I think that once again the right-wingers are using gay folks in their quest to affect and change politics however they want. In that respect, they are no different than the people this article describes.

If we want to talk about love, let's talk about the love that is needed in order to embrace people who are different...children included. I pray that my daughter does not encounter information like this when she's little...or big. I pray that she will be met by a community that is not driven by fear. I pray that God will show lots of people why judgment is NOT the way to go. I don't know why it's so hard for people to get that message when it seems to be one of God's biggest and best proclomations.

Yep, I'm angry. I'm tired of the silly gay bashing that is this article.

mamalicious said...

Sorry about all of my typos - I was typing too fast!

Christinewjc said...

Let me ask you, is this a gay bashing comment?

"It's hard not to have compassion on a fellow human being desperately struggling to overcome a powerful compulsion he "neither understood nor accepted." What happened to Bauman was a tragedy. He needed help – not rejection and condemnation for being a "queer," nor acceptance and praise for being an "oppressed minority" – but real help in understanding and overcoming his sexual problem."

Or this?

"In today's polarized climate, however, it seems most of us either condemn homosexuals as evil corrupters of society or we fawn over them as noble victims and cultural heroes. We either accuse them of "choosing" to be "wicked sexual deviants," or we claim – utterly without evidence – that "gayness" is an inborn, genetic trait.

Reality, however, lies somewhere else. Deep down, people of conscience know homosexuality is neither an innocent, inborn "minority" characteristic like skin color, nor a conscious choice to become evil and to corrupt others. But without understanding what we're really dealing with, we're not only powerless to help others but easily confused and corrupted ourselves."

No. I don't think your assessment of the article is accurate or fair.

I am glad that you were not molested, traumatized, or unwillingly indoctrinated. Many others are not so fortunate. Plus, these are not the only reasons why lesbianism occurs.

On a side note, I think that the article was geared more towards describing the male homosexual agenda movement.

But we must consider those who have left homosexuality or lesbianism. Is their release from unwanted attraction a bad or negative thing?

In an earlier post, my friend Susan shared her journey out of 20 years as a lesbian:

"To answer your question: More than 20 years of my 56 years of life were spent wallowing in a pit of lesbianism and alcohol abuse. My deliverance began in 1985 when God delivered me from homosexual acts. He delivered me from the identity in 1988. Years later he delivered me from alcohol abuse and after that from a 40+ year addiction to tobacco. It was 14 years after I stopped believing God made me "gay" when I first gave my testimony in public here in Jerusalem in 2002 to the staff of my organization.

It took years for God to prepare me for His good purpose. He is faithful even when we are not. Praise His Name. (ss)"

She sees God's hand in her deliverance. It took many years. Is her testimony not valid because it doesn't agree with yours?

What is your testimony, Mamalicious? Have you ever shared it here? Have you been born again? Jesus said we MUST be born again. Have you taken that step?

I will be out for a while this afternoon, but will be back to continue this discussion.

Also, could you explain what you meant by this:

Mamalicious stated: " I pray that God will show lots of people why judgment is NOT the way to go."

mamalicious said...

What do I mean when I pray that God will allow people to see that judgment is not the way to go? It's easy - why do so many Christian folks think that they should judge...judge, judge, judge. That is all that article is! That's all we hear when we read about those who want to "convert" homosexuals to become ex-gays! It's all based in judgment and isn't that precisely the thing God tells us NOT to do?

I have never said that those people who have converted shouldn't have done that. I'm only happy that people find peace. I'm only happy that people stay where they should be. I've told Stephen that many times and I'll say the same about Susan: good for them. I'm just glad they're making the best decisions for their lives. I trust that they can make those decisions.

I just wish people would grant me the same. Trust that I'm living the life I know is right for me. That's all I ask. Stop judging my validity as a parent, as a partner, as a teacher, as a contributing member of society. Please stop saying that evil is the motive behind my wanting to protect my family...that I am a second class citizen...that I don't deserve the rights that others have. That's all I am saying here...

Does that make a bit of sense?

Christinewjc said...

Mamalicious stated: "It's easy - why do so many Christian folks think that they should judge...judge, judge, judge. That is all that article is! That's all we hear when we read about those who want to "convert" homosexuals to become ex-gays!It's all based in judgment and isn't that precisely the thing God tells us NOT to do?"

No Mamalicious. Judgment is not all that the article is about. In fact, I found an article about a related book that shows just what is at stake for Christians if the radical pro-homosexual laws continue to their desired end. It isn't pretty, either. But that is the 'political' part of this issue.

Right now, I will focus on and answer your objection to Christians 'judging'.

The Scripture verses that talk about not judging are not meant to be blanket statements against all critical thinking, but a call to be discerning rather than negative.

We make judgments about many things every day. Proper judgment has it's place in our lives. That is undeniable. When it comes to spiritual matters, the Bible shows and teaches us what is right and what is wrong. We either follow it all, or reject it all. We, as Christians, can't pick and choose according to our fleshly desires.

I do agree with you that judgment can be improperly used against others; especially when it is used in a way that is to tear others down in order to build oneself up.

This often is perceived as happening to gays by Christians because of a misunderstanding of motives. Christians are often unfairly labeled as hypocritical.

Jesus does tell us to examine our own motives and conduct before we make judgments about others.

1 Cr 6:2 - Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

As a sinner in need of the Savior I HAVE been judged and found guilty! I see my sin right in front of me and have become convicted. I have surrendered it all to the Lord, have repented and asked for forgiveness. Through faith in the cross of Christ I know that I have been forgiven and His mercy and grace endureth forever. I want to share this with everyone.

We all sin and fall short of the glory of God. Those who repent will find the same forgiveness, mercy and grace that the Lord has bestowed upon me. I am no better or worse than any other sinner. However, those who don't repent will miss heaven. I must warn them of that. That is my motivation. Some reading this may never believe it, but I pray that others will recognize this as genuine and from my heart.

Jesus is to be the final Judge.

John 5:30 - I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

In Noah's time, the scoffers mocked and ridiculed him and his family while they built the ark on dry land. The people didn't believe that there would be an impending judgment. When it happened, it was too late for those who refused to repent. (please see my Bible study notes in the "God's Creative Call" for more conprehensive information).

The world today is much like in the days of Noah and the days of Lot. I covered this in a previous post. There are scoffers today who don't believe that there will ever be a time of judgment. God keeps his promises. It isn't a matter of will it happen? It's a matter of when. Are you prepared? Are the people around you ready to face Jesus Christ?

When Christ returns, the time of calling others to come under the grace and mercy of his love will be over. All that will be left is his judgment. He will separate the wheat from the tares, the goats from the sheep. His words, from the Bible, not mine.

I have a genuine concern for anyone who is a homosexual, because I do believe it's a sin. I certainly believe that a person can be a Christian and struggle with the sin of homosexuality, in the same way a person can be a Christian and struggle with alcoholism. But I also believe that every born again Christian has the Holy Spirit (Ephesian 1:13-14) and the Holy Spirit convicts people of their sin (John 16:7-11); both believers who are being sanctified and unbelievers whom God is calling to faith in Him. Therefore as with any sin, if you are a believer the Holy Spirit will convict you of it and you will be very miserable until you repent and submit to God's word.

It doesn't mean you cannot struggle with it, but you are resolved that it is sin and you are going to strive to get it out of your life. No one said it's easy, but Christ will bring you through it.

It has to be a conviction of your own that homosexuality is sin before you can really repent and begin to ask Christ to help you defeat it.

Romans 1:18-32 is where Paul talks about the effects of sin, the result of the Fall. He goes on to list numerous things that the entrance of sin into the world caused. Anything from murder to gossip, and yes, the description (although the word was not invented yet) of "homosexuality".

Romans 1:26-27 (English Standard Version)

26"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

My honest heart is for those involved in homosexual behavior and identity to find Christ (like Susan and Stephen have) and repent. You may think I am wrong about this, but what if I am correct? And for those who may have trusted in Christ but struggle with this or any other sin to be convicted and strive towards Christ.

This is certainly not a message of hate, but a message of love and hope. It is geared to those who "have an ear to hear." I know that not everyone will accept it.
But Christians are called to share the truth... in love. Sometimes that involves 'tough love.'

Jesus said, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" Condoning sin is not in Jesus' repertoire. He told the adulterous woman to "go and leave her life of sin." These bishops and clergy that are condoning (and blessing!) same-sex marriages are commiting heresy and apostasy. They must be exposed for who they are and what they are doing. There is not a 'soft' way to do this. It has to be harsh (IMO). There are too many souls of homosexuals (and those that think they are doing "good" by supporting them in their sinful behavior) at stake to treat it lightly!

It is the bad news, then good news of the Gospel of Christ.

I will close by sharing some notes from a Galatians Bible study.

(see Galatians 1:3-5)

Notes: God's plan all along was to save us by Jesus' death. We have been rescued from the power of this present evil age - a world ruled by Satan and full of cruelty, tragedy, temptation, and deception. Being rescued from this evil age doesn't mean that we are taken out of it, but that we are no longer enslaved to it. You were saved to live for God. Does your life reflect your gratitude for being rescued? Have you tranferred your loyalty from this world to Christ?

Christinewjc said...


Janet Folger Article

Christinewjc said...

Quote from former comment:

"In this groundbreaking and meticulously researched book, Kupelian peels back the veil of marketing-induced deception to reveal exactly when, where, how, and especially why Americans bought into the lies that now threaten the future of the country."

I could just hear the scoffers saying, "what threat?" I have learned of another book that just came out that reveals the exact threat.


Her new book explains what's happening to religious
liberties in the courts and what the future holds if we
don't protect those rights.

Janet Folger Article

This link shares some details that are truly revealing of the threat that liberal courts could impose upon Christian beliefs in order to not only silence them, but to actually criminalize them!

The warning is this: If Christians don't stand up for their First Amendment rights, it won't be long before speaking out becomes a crime. Think it won't happen here? Think again. It's already happening. Go read this excerpt and find out the sad truth.

jpe said...

This link shares some details that are truly revealing of the threat that liberal courts could impose upon Christian beliefs in order to not only silence them, but to actually criminalize them!

The threat is twofold: 1) Christians may not be able to use public office as a channel of proselytizing. 2) It's possible that, in the future, Christian business owners may be prohibited from discriminating against gays.

(1) is as it should be; Christians should have to proselytize on their own time and dime like anyone else. (2) is arguably more problematic, but whatever else could be said about it, it's a far cry from the criminalization of Christianity.

The rest is hysterical kneejerk victim politics; it's all heat, no light.

mamalicious said...

Christine, I did indeed read through your post - please know that I read it and tried to understand. I know where you're coming from, I know your motivation - as I've said before, I lived in your world and know what you're trying to say.

You believe that I can't be a Christian and gay (I always think it's funny that Christians won't use the word "gay") and I believe I can. You believe that your truth is bigger, more enlightened, therefore you won't ever take as valid what I say is true for myself. In other words, even if I say I believe in God, my faith won't ever be enough because we don't agree about homosexuality and Christianity. Is this where the conversation stops?

I'd like to have a conversation without judgment. I'd like to talk about love and life and where this world is headed - without someone judging where I'm coming from. Yes, we make judgments every day, but I think God directs us to keep those judgments for ourselves...judging someone else and making decisions for the general public based on those judgments is scary.

I appreciate your efforts with me, but I'm not looking to become "ex-gay." It's just not going to happen. That said, can we continue the conversation or should I just stop trying?

Christinewjc said...

Hi Mamalicious,

I am glad to see that you don't lump me into the "pit-bull" category of Christians. Please know that I didn't even have a gay person like you in mind when I posted the article about the gay activists. I may not have this exactly right, but I do perceive the difference between such activists and those who just want to 'live and let live', so to speak. In fact, I could share some surprising stories about that in the future.

With that said, I would be happy to discuss the things that you want to discuss.

One correction though. I don't see my own beliefs as "more enlightened" or that "my truth is bigger." My calling as a Christian is to reveal who Christ is and what God's Word says. Jesus said, "Your word is truth" in his prayer to the Father. Was he lying about that? That means that ALL of the Bible is God's truth, not "my truth".

Quite a while ago, I asked a question that no one on your side of the issue seems to want to answer. My lastest attempt was directed at a guy named Joel at a blog called Bene Diction. It was a question that I posed to you a few months back. I have found that the only answer I get is, "we will just have to agree to disagree." This, quite frankly, is not satisfying to me. I think that it is such an important issue that is currently being agonized over and heatedly debated in many Christian denominations as we speak.

You may not think this is fair, but I do believe that if I am wrong about my side of this particular issue, then no one is destined for eternal separation from God. However, if I am correct, then the other side is leading their flock into eternal damnation. I don't know if you want to discuss it or not, but I just wanted to share it again here for anyone who might come along and desire to answer the question.


Here is a portion of what I wrote to Joel:

When people are coming from the opposite sides of the religious, political, ideological, and moral spectrum, it is difficult to do anything more than to "agree to disagree" because, logically, both cannot possibly be correct.

Relativism flourishes today because it allows for religious pluralism which allows for people to choose "what is right in their own eyes" rather than what God's Word would have us do.

So, the questions still remain. Is there such a thing as moral absolutes? Is there such a thing as absolute truth? If so, then how do we determine this? What criteria must we use?

These are deep philosophical, moral and spiritual questions. How one answers them determines what one believes and ultimately, in Whom one believes. Our eternal destiny depends on how one answers such questions.

I see the liberal left churches falling into the trap of 'gay theology' deception. I know that you will vehemently disagree with what I just wrote. But that leads us to the question I have for you.

"I truly wonder how such a bitter conflict between the liberal church ideologies and the bible-based born-again evangelical church views can ever be solved?"

End of post to Joel


Again, Mamalicious, if you don't want to get into a discussion about this, I will understand and respect your wishes. It is my hope, however, that SOMEONE might eventually come along here and meet the challenge.

OK. Please post what you would most like to discuss next. We can keep the convo going here, or I can lift it and post it in a new 'create post' and get the conversation rolling!

Most of all, I'm glad that we are still talking, Mamalicious. I'm sure that we will learn a lot from each other on many other issues.

God bless you,

Thomas said...

Christine, we all have a low opinion of marketing and PR. That's natural. But you accuse anybody who ever tried to share an idea with anybody else as a "marketer."

What was Paul of Tarsus doing as he travelled around Asia Minor and Greece, spreading his new-fangled religion, if it was not marketing? He had an idea that he wanted to sell, and he was a very persuasive salesman at that. The early Christians were just as slippery with the truth as any modern PR firm. Why not invent a virgin birth for our product? Who could ever disprove it?

It's too easy just to accuse your opponents of issuing propaganda. by doing that, you too are issuing propaganda! If you want to promote a valid critique of the gay rights movements, show us what the "lies" are, explain why they undermine the case for gay rights, and demonstrate that world of sodomy laws and broken families and mandatory sexual reeducation for gays is better than a world of freedom.

If Nabisco wants to spend a million dollars to convince me to buy their crackers, they can go right ahead. But unless they taste good, I'm not going to eat them. Similarly, you can advocate for your lifestyle all you want, but I'm not going to abandon mine unless you can prove that I ought to. Bible quotes mean nothing to me, sweetheart.

What's such a big deal about freedom and mutual toleration? You don't have to like me, care about me, or approve of the way I make love. Just keep your stinkin' laws off me, and I'll leave your life alone too!

Christinewjc said...


Have you not heard of the arrest, jailing and trial of a Christian parent in Massachusetts named David Parker who went to the public school to request that his kindergarten aged son be exempted from the homosexual curriculum that was being forced upon 6 year old children at that school?

David Parker Trial

mamalicious said...

Christine, in my case, a question such as this "I truly wonder how such a bitter conflict between the liberal church ideologies and the bible-based born-again evangelical church views can ever be solved?" goes unanswered only because it hurts my brain. I am a thinker and like to discuss important issues but I'm not sure I can wrap my brain around that one at the moment.

I will say this: does it matter if it is ever resolved? It's like asking if the Christians and Muslims might ever agree on issues of faith and belief? Isn't that the beauty of this world -- that people can have differing opinions and belief systems and still come together to talk about ways to be decent and kind to one another?

I don't know why tolerance is such a big deal. Honestly, I don't. I understand why some become concerned when "values" are taught, in any setting. I understand when people are upset by what they see on television, but I honestly think, too, that if you don't like it, go somewhere else...or turn it off. We all make choices for ourselves and our kids and only we can be the best judge for our lives in that regard. The message of tolerance has been "propaganda-ized" (how's that?) so that people think it's evil. In reality, we just want to live in the same world that you live in - in peace, in kindness and in safety. I really believe that's all it is...

Christinewjc said...

Now Thomas,

My favorite agnostic! Yours was truly the typical blast-filled kind of retort. Guess you might be likely to label me as one of those 'pit-bull' Christians after all?

Speaking of pit bulls...

I have just been reminded of a commercial that has been playing of late on TV. It's an ad for a document shredding company.

The scene opens with a real live pit bull dog tearing apart everything in sight at the man's home (or maybe it's his office?) The dog is growling and snarling as it rips into and shreds up all that is in the room.

Next, the scene turns to the owner arriving home.

The dog stops with shreds hanging from its mouth.

The man looks at the room filled with nothing but shredded paper.

There is a moment of silence as the tension builds...

What will the owner say?

Then the man say, "good dog".

Heh heh...I just love that commercial...

Just a bit of levity for the day.

Susan Smith said...

When I was a senior in high school (1967) I was required to take a course called "Americanism versus Communism". I will never forget the words of the teacher that first day in class. He said if we learned only one thing from his instruction, he wanted us to be able to recognize propaganda.

Some Christians do indeed use propaganda and some Christians do indeed lie about the truth. Self-righteousness is just as damnable as unrighteousness. It is the truth that sets us free; however, it is not the truth about others, it is the truth about ourselves.

Love from Jerusalem. (ss)

Thomas said...

Another important technique promoted by "After the Ball," and employed repeatedly to great effect in recent years, is to claim that famous historical figures – "from Socrates to Eleanor Roosevelt, Tchaikovsky to Bessie Smith, Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, and Leonardo da Vinci to Walt Whitman" – were homosexual or bisexual.

Although the authors know these claims are unproven at best and often baseless (they refer to them as "suspected 'inverts'"), that doesn't stop them from advocating the tactic.

Christine, I know you didn't write that, but still: Tchaikovsky and Walt Whitman (!) were totally, definately, positively gay. Socrates and Alexander the Great were positively, definitely bisexual -- as were most of the famous Greeks. It was the done thing in those days. The other folks I don't know much about -- although as for Eleanor Roosevelt, I mean, "common" as our friend Bru used to say.

Once again, World Net Daily reinforces its position in the world of scholarship.

Thomas said...

EARTH! my likeness!
Though you look so impassive, ample and spheric there,
I now suspect that is not all;
I now suspect there is something fierce in you, eligible to burst forth;
For an athlete is enamour’d of me—and I of him; 5
But toward him there is something fierce and terrible in me, eligible to burst forth,
I dare not tell it in words—not even in these songs.

--Walt Whitman, unproven "invert"?

jpe said...

Have you not heard of the arrest, jailing and trial of a Christian parent in Massachusetts

He was arrested for trespassing, not his beliefs. Say I go down to the police station and demand that they allow me to sit there and read the Bhagavad Gita aloud, and I refuse to stop when asked.

When arrested, I won't be arrested for my religious beliefs, I'll be arrested for being a jerk that trespassed. Much like Parker.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Susan,

VERY well said!

I am currently reading the Sept. issue of Brainwashing 101 and it appears to me that it would be better described as "Brain-dirtying".

The dangerous propaganda that is being taught at colleges and universities is truly astounding! Think I'm exaggerating? Read some article at WND by Ben Shapiro. He lived it, saw it with his own eyes and wrote a book called "Brainwashed" about it. The excerpt I read from his book in the Whistleblower magazine had to include a warning that it contains "graphic sexual language that may be offensive to some readers." What I read was very ugly...can't even type it here.

However, here is an excerpt from Jim Nelson Black's article called, "A Crisis on Campus" -

"It's in this arena, where administrators exercise absolute control over students, that one finds the enforcers of political correctness, the mandatory sensitivity classes, the seminars on race and gender, and the encounter sessions through which students are indoctrinated, often by invasive and manipulative means, including various kinds of role-playing, in the dogmas of "diversity" and "tolerance" that are a mask for the anti-American and hyper-sexualized agenda of the universities."

And this -

"The impact of what's being done to today's undergraduates, largely behind closed doors, is 'something truly chilling,' Kors and Silverglate say (from their study, "The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America's Campuses) It is 'a hidden, systematic assault on liberty, individualism, dignity, due process, and equality before the law.' The universities, as these distinguished authors conclude, 'have become the enemies of a free society.' "

What is really frightening, Susan, is that teachers like the one you described are no longer warning about propaganda, they are using it to indoctrinate America's youth!

Susan said, "It is the truth that sets us free; however, it is not the truth about others, it is the truth about ourselves."

And, the ultimate "truth about ourselves" is unequivocally revealed in the Bible. Scripture is unequaled in showing us Who the Truth is, and how the "truth sets us free"!

Christinewjc said...


You obviously didn't go to the site and read about the incident. If you did, you wouldn't have written what you wrote. It had nothing to do with reading a text out loud. The trespassing charge was totally bogus. He was invited there in the first place for a parent/principal conference. He was told in previous letter correspondence that the purpose of the meeting was to address and resolve his concern about his son being able to be opted out of class when material is being presented that goes against their religious beliefs. The principal refused to acknowledge the parent's concerns, disagreed that the parent has the right to have his son opted out during the objectional material presentation, and then, in addition, blatantly dictated that no parent has the right to request that their child be opted out in such a situation. Sounds like dictatorship to me!

Perhaps you will read up about the latest as the trial begins and the events unfold. There are millions of parents across this country who are absolutely outraged by this man's mistreatment, bogus charges and unnecessary arrest and trial.

Trial Over "Pro-gay" Book

jpe said...

The principal refused to acknowledge the parent's concerns....

Then the principal ended the meeting. Then Parker said he wasn't leaving until he got his way (perhaps he should've said he'd hold his breath until he got his way? Both strategies are equally mature).

The cops came, told him not to be stupid, just leave now and there won't be any problems. Parker said, in effect: g'head and arrest me.

So they did.

Then Parker decided to stay the night in jail to get publicity.

He just sounds like a knucklehead.

jpe said...

He was invited there in the first place for a parent/principal conference.

C'mon, now. If you invite me to your house for dinner, and then I refuse to leave, you can have me arrested for trespassing. Maybe the principal wasn't as accomodating as he could have been, but he didn't "entrap" Parker, and the charges weren't bogus.

The two parties disagreed about the law; the next step for Parker should've been to call the ACLJ. Instead he acted like a 4 year-old and threw a giant temper tantrum.

Christinewjc said...


Perhaps that is your opinion of Mr. Parker and you are entitled to it.

As a parent who went through something similar at my daughter's former high school (not the arrest part), I can see why he needed to stand his ground in order to uphold his parental rights. If going through all of the abuse he is currently receiving from gay activists; seeing his complaint being dismissed and dictatorially ruled valid by the school principal (in quite a disgraceful manner, I might add); being threatened with arrest; being arrested and jailed; bogusly charged with "crime"; and enduring a trial brings to light the unrelenting pro-gay propaganda that is going on in public schools, then perhaps it is well worth it to him (as well as millions of other parents who are witnessing this debacle).

Christinewjc said...


Is it more important for Tchaikovsky and Walt Whitman to be acknowledged for their accomplishments in their field of endeavour or because they happened to be gay?

The point that was being made by Kupelian is that some of the people mentioned by the gay journalists as being gay either were not ever gay and/or their assumptions could not be confirmed or proven as fact.

What made matters worse is that they lumped in some big names like Eleanor Roosevelt (and I have read about the gay theory tales being told of Abraham Lincoln elsewhere) and they did so for the obvious reason and purpose to embellish their own propagandistic motives.

If we can't trust them with the truth about this part, why should we trust them with anything else they might say?

And you sit there and say that WND lacks scholarship ability? Sheesh!

Christinewjc said...

If you are an NCTimes newspaper reader and you found your way here via the Faith & Values letters section, I'd like to thank you for reading the article and through all of these comments posted!

Since the Times found it necessary to omit one statement, I will include it here:

"One parent, David Parker had been jailed and forced into a trial against the school officials because he didn't want his kindergarten son exposed to pro-gay indoctrination."

I am also including a link to an article where radical gay activists spewed their hate-filled rhetoric outside a Boston church which was hosting a Focus on the Family "Love Won Out" conference. For a group that used to scream for 'tolerance' they are now acting more like the ACT-UP group described in David Kupelian's book!!

The Anger, Hate and Rage exhibited by radical homosexual activists SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED AT CHRISTIANS INVOLVED IN EX-GAY MINISTRY is downright SCARY.

Gay activist terrorism may be the term that fits better to describe the foul and blatant display of INTOLERANCE towards a group that met for a conference at a Boston church.

Perhaps homosexual people don't like the reality that ex-homosexuals exist. Perhaps they hate the fact that they are not going to hide in an 'ex-gay closet' anymore and are willing to risk the bashing and hate-spewing rhetoric of those who consider them 'traitors' to their how exposed manipulative 'gay' cause. As Mr. Kupelian's article points out, the tactics and techniques of "desensitization," "jamming," and "conversion" are now being shown to the general public. Americans will see how they have been hoodwinked by gay activists through manipulation.

This is good. Because now, ex-homosexuals will more likely now want, and deserve, THE FREE SPEECH RIGHT to speak out about their successful release from unwanted same-sex attraction, behavior and orientation.

The fact is that they are here, they exist, and they are sharing the saving grace and power of Jesus Christ to show others the TRUTH IN LOVE and that THEY TOO, can break free from the deception that is homosexuality.

Hmmm...it's interesting. Who are the haters now?

1Jo 3:13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.

Jhn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.

Jhn 7:7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

Christinewjc said...

More Rave Reviews about David Kupelian's, "The Marketing of Evil" book.

Dr. Laura states, "'The Marketing of Evil' is a serious wake-up call for all who cherish traditional values, the innocence of children, and the very existence of our great country."

D. James Kennedy says, "David Kupelian's research brings into sharp focus what many have sensed and suspected for a long time: The effort to change America's mind on issues like abortion, homosexuality, church-state separation, and more, is a well-thought-out strategic campaign that uses the methods of Madison Avenue to market rank lies. But the good news is that the truth will eventually win out, and Kupelian's important and groundbreaking book makes enormous progress toward that end."

And, I really think that Rabbi Daniel Lapin absolutely nails it when he states, "Over just a few years, life in America has become indescribably more squalid, expensive, and dangerous. Like the dazzling disclosures in the final page of a gripping whodunit or the fascinating revelation of a magician's secrets, 'The Marketing of Evil' irresistibly exposes how it was done. It will elicit an involuntary 'Aha!' from you as you discover who did it and your soul will soar with optimism as you discover the only way we can undo it. In years to come Americans will acknowledge a debt of gratitude to David Kupelian for his honesty, courage, and laser-like insight in this must-read book."