Selling Homosexuality to America

CBN ^ | 7/11/03 | Craig von Buseck

[apackof2]

Selling Homosexuality to America

By Craig von Buseck
CBN.com Producer

In this exclusive interview, Paul Rondeau talks about his in-depth study, Selling Homosexuality to America, which was recently published in the Regent Law Review.

CBN.com – In his recent study, Selling Homosexuality to America, marketing expert Paul Rondeau explains, "Among America's culture wars, one of today's most intense controversies rages around the issue alternatively identified, depending on one's point of view, as "normalizing homosexuality" or "accepting gayness." The debate is truly a social-ethical-moral conceptual war that transcends both the scientific and legal, though science and law most often are the weapons of choice. The ammunition for these weapons, however, is persuasion."

This article and interview explores how gay rights activists use rhetoric, psychology, and the media to frame what is discussed in the public arena -- and how it is discussed. "In essence," Rondeau points out, "when it comes to homosexuality, activists want to shape 'what everyone knows' and 'what everyone takes for granted' even if everyone does not really know and even if it should not be taken for granted."

"The first strategy of persuasion," he goes on to say, "is to establish a favorable climate for your message so that the communicator (marketer) can influence the future decision without even appearing to be persuading ... This is at the heart of the homosexual campaign: to get consent via social construct today to determine whose idea of personal freedoms will prevail in our legal codes tomorrow."

Paul Rondeau has been a senior sales and marketing management professional with industry leaders for over 25 years. He holds an M.A. in Management, with a specialty in persuasive communication. Currently, he is a doctoral student in communication studies with a focus in rhetoric and persuasion.

READ STUDY HERE

[viaveritasvita]

You go girl!

[viaveritasvita]

WOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

[sweetliberty]

I sure seem to be finding myself on a lot of these threads these days. I'm somewhat surprised that there are so many apologists for homosexuality on FR.

[only1percent]

It seems you are confusing "natural" with "good."

Unnatural means atypical, artificial, or externally imposed. It is absolutely clear that a minority of the population having homosexual inclination is typical, universal, and organic among human populations.

Knowing this, we are still left with categories -- it could be protectible (like we protect disabilities and racial minorities), it could be totally ignored (like being left-handed), it could be regarded with distaste but not punished (like beign grossly overweight), it could be regarded as sickness and treated with pity and symptons (i.e., gay conduct) not punished, or it could be regarded as a sociopathology and treated with punishment and incapacitation.

The category you pick is going to be based on your values, but none of it goes to show that gayness is unnutural.

[knak]

Unnatural means atypical, artificial, or externally imposed. It is absolutely clear that a minority of the population having homosexual inclination is typical, universal, and organic among human populations.

You know, I look at that a completely different way. Since it is absolutely clear that a MINORITY of the population has homosexual inclinations that means that it is NOT typical.

[viaveritasvita]

>>"I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are ALL God's children...."<<

We are all God's creation; we are His children when we believe, follow and love Him by keeping His commandments. In crude earthly terms: There's a huge difference between a sperm donor and "daddy."

>>"...and he shows no favoritism....."<<

You might want to seriously research these points because your eternal soul is at stake. It may be true that God shows no favoritism among His children (see above), but the Bible is clear that there are those who are His people and those who are not. He will Judge us all.

[viaveritasvita]

>>"I'm sorry this makes you so angry, but one thing I keep in mind is that if a person makes me angry or disgusted, then I need to look in the mirror and figure out just why..."<<

Psychobabble if I ever heard it.

[sweetliberty]

I think on this issue alone I have come to understand why a lot of FReepers get so hostile towards libertarian ideas. There is a point where the "freedom" of individuals HAS to be weighed against the health of society. I still basically believe that people should be free to do whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anybody, but sometimes making the determination as to what point individual behavior hurts somebody else can be as elusive as the definition of "is" to a Clinton.

[viaveritasvita]

I know what you mean.

I'm reading a book by Billy Graham, Storm Warning, and in it he says (regarding the fall of the Berlin wall in 1990): "I spoke to a group of wide-eyed East Germans at the wall who told me they were both hopeful and frightened. They were hopeful that peace and freedom would improve their way of life, but they were frightened by the scenes of greed, materialism and immorality they saw in the West. They said they would rather remain behind the wall, in poverty and bondage to Communism, than discover that "freedom" was nothing more than moral decadence, corruption, sin, violence, and greed....."

[PurVirgo]

Yes, I would try to stop a child from running into the street. Yes, I would warn somebody if their actions are causing them harm. In the first instance, a child who runs into the street and narrowly escapes death will probably learn from his or her mistake. However - in the second scenario, it is perhaps likely that what we perceive as harmful, in fact is a source of pleasure for that person. Since he or she does not see the harm in it, he or she is not going to listen. My responsibility is to always be of help, never to harm.

What is the difference between a spiritual disease and a physiological one? Say your best friend has schizophrenia, a diagnosis made after you have known him for years. Suddenly, he is not the same person you knew for so long. I am willing to bet that, Christian as you are, you will remain his friend, no matter what. If his condition deteriorates to the point of institutionalization (sp?), chances are you will visit him and let him know you are still there for him.

Now, replace the schiz with homosexality. And the institution with a relationship with another man. Would you still do the same?

[PurVirgo]

He will Judge us all.

Which is why judgement is not our (man's) job.

"Judge not, lest you be judged the same"

[Aarchaeus]

...a federal court ruling that found Connecticut is within its rights to exclude the Boy Scouts...

All this proves is that there are some federal judges who need to lose their jobs.

[sweetliberty]

I have had friends and co-workers over the years who were homosexual. I currently have a boss who is. As individuals, I treat them no differently than anyone else, but I don't attend their parties or partake in socializing with their "inner circle", nor do I believe it would be appropriate for me to do so. Would I be bothered if they contracted AIDS? Yes. Would I visit them in the hospital? Maybe. Would I be there if they needed me? Sure. Would I tell them that I thought what they were doing was acceptable? Absolutely not.

[PurVirgo]

Just an observation. My problems center in me. If I have a problem with you, I need to understand why, not just give in to the emotion behind it.

IOW, it doesn't matter what you think about me, but what I think about you.

[PurVirgo]

beleive me, I don't think of you any less a person because of that. I guess I have placed homosexuality in the same boat as race, age or gender. It's a nonissue with me. And I'm not sure if it should be, because, as I said, I honestly don't beleive it's a choice, just as race, age and gender are not either.

[I got the rope]

I'm somewhat surprised that there are so many apologists for homosexuality on FR.

I believe most of them are Liberaltarian/DU trolls. Just wait. They'll see this thread and go into a homosexual orgasmic frenzy. The attack will be relentless.

[viaveritasvita]

Judge by the same measure.

"Test the spirits" (sorry, don't have scripture passage at hand) as the Bereans did to judge whether what is being said/done/promoted is Biblical.

We all make judgements every day; the deeper question is: By what (or Whose) measure are we making judgments?

[sweetliberty]

But IF you believe in God and the Bible, it is quite impossible to believe homosexuality is the same as race, age or gender, because that would require that God deliberately put people in a catch 22 where they had no choice in what they were but were still judged for it. God creates us male or female, black or white and we are born when we're born, but He does not create us to a certain sin. As I alluded to in a previous post, I will concede that the possibility exists for a predisposition to homosexuality in SOME cases, but in that case, it would really be no different than than someone who may have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. It doesn't mean that it then becomes okay to be a drunk, just that the individual might have to work harder than the next guy to resist the temptation to drink.

[I got the rope]

Which is why judgement is not our (man's) job.

"Judge not, lest you be judged the same"

My friend...Jesus didn't say this so that we would accept moral anarchy.

[PurVirgo]

Maybe my spirituality is just different. I don't beleive in human judgement, because it's not my job. The courts deal with issues of the flesh, and God will deal with issues of the spirit. I can show people God's promises in return for a narrow path, but I can not force them down it. If I do, then I have destroyed any chance that I can be of help to them in the future. Does that make sense?