Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SELLING HOMOSEXUALITY
Boundless (a Webzine) ^ | 7/10/02 | Matt Kaufman

Posted on 07/10/2002 7:19:19 AM PDT by DoctorMichael

Selling Homosexuality

by Matt Kaufman

You generally know an ad campaign when you see it, and you don't take it seriously. You may buy Pepsi, but you don't really believe drinking it makes you cool because Britney Spears pitches it.

But you may not recognize an ad campaign so easily when it's not relegated to paid 30-second spots. Or when the product being sold isn't a soft drink, but an idea, or an attitude, or a worldview.

Which brings us to a fascinating article in the Regent University Law Review. In an issue analyzing various aspects of gay activism, one piece is especially noteworthy: “Selling Homosexuality to America” by Paul Rondeau, a longtime sales and marketing consultant for corporate America. Rondeau shows how homosexual activists have pursued a specific marketing campaign aimed at moving America in their direction — a strategy that's worked precisely because it was both clever and covert.

Rondeau's evidence doesn't come just from right-wingers. He quotes people like Tammy Bruce, a lesbian and ex-president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women who these days voices concern that gay activists are squelching other citizens' freedoms. Speaking of the marketing strategy, Bruce notes that "What is pitched is different — a product brand versus an issue — but the method is the same. In each case, the critical thing is not to let the public know how it is done."

But Rondeau's most compelling evidence comes straight from the people who designed the gay PR campaign: Harvard-trained social scientists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, who in the late ‘80s issued a call for gay activists to adopt "carefully calculated public relations propaganda."

Their strategy came dressed up in marketing jargon: “Desensitize, jam and convert.” As it turns out, though, you could use one word to summarize all those others: manipulation.

Desensitization, write Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to 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.”

Again, this doesn’t mean conventional advertising. “The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome,” they say. “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.” Turn on the TV practically any night, watch the endless stream of gay characters and references, and you’ll get the idea.

Jamming means, simply, smearing anyone who disagrees with their agenda. “Jam homohatred [i.e., opposition to homosexuality] by linking it to Nazi horror,” urge Kirk and Madsen; associate all detractors with images like “Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,” “hysterical backwoods preachers,” “menacing punks,” and a “tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.”

Moreover, they add,

gays can undermine the moral authority of homohating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step . . . with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of Old Time Religion one must set the mightier pull of Science and Public Opinion. . . . Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. . . . [T]hat alliance can work for gays.”

Conversion means “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.” Here, too, the portrayal of homosexuality on TV fits the mold perfectly. The viewer who’s not on board with homosexuality (whom they call “the bigot") is to be “repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs . . . of gays . . . carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or like any of his other stereotypes of all the right guys.”

Kirk and Madsen don’t want to stop there, though. They want to “paint gay men and lesbians as superior — veritable pillars of society.” To this end, “famous historical figures are considered especially useful to us;” not only do they bring prestige, they’re also “invariably dead as a doornail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel.” (Good thing, too, considering the flimsy evidence that often gets trotted out in these cases. Gays and their allies have even claimed biblical figures like Abraham and David for their camp.1)

Of course, Kirk and Madsen are well aware that there are also plenty of things not to portray. They stress the need to keep quiet about the details of homosexual practices, at least until the public is thoroughly desensitized. “First you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then — when your one little difference [sexual orientation] is finally accepted — can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one.”

What “peculiarities?” Well, to take one that’s been in the news lately, sex between adults and minors, as advocated by groups like the North American Man-Boy Love Association. “We’re not judging you, but others do, and very harshly; please keep a low profile,” Kirk and Madsen tell such groups. “You offend the public more than other gays.”2

What else? As Rondeau says,

Pederasts, gender-benders, sado-masochists, and other minorities within the homosexual community with more extreme “peculiarities” would keep a low profile. . . . Also, common practices such as anal-oral sex, anal sex, fisting and anonymous sex — that is to say what homosexuals actually do and with how many they do it — must never be a topic.

Beyond reporting on the details of the PR campaign, Rondeau’s great service is to show readers that it even exists. “It is not common practice to think of social movements in terms of marketing,” he notes. “Perhaps this is because using terms like ‘selling’ or ‘marketing’ seems to denigrate noble activities” usually portrayed by their supporters “in terms of grass roots and the will of the people.” In reality, however, “homosexual activists envision that a decision is ultimately made without society ever realizing that it has been purposely conditioned to arrive at a conclusion it thinks is its own.”

That last point is an important one. We all like to think we make up our own minds — after full consideration of all the issues, with equal time for both sides, etc. We also like to think that public opinion arises spontaneously, more or less organically from ordinary people reacting to their own life experience. After all, it’s not very flattering to think of yourself and the people you know as, well, sheep. (Someone has defined public opinion as “what everyone thinks everyone else thinks.”)

In short, one reason we can be manipulated is that we don’t want to know we’re being manipulated. Yet when someone blows the lid off the manipulation campaign — as Rondeau has — we can hardly miss it. And once we know what’s going on, we naturally and rightly resent it.

Rondeau’s article isn’t likely to get much coverage in the standard media outlets, for obvious reason. Nor is it likely to get wide attention among academics, since it ran in the journal of a conservative Christian university. (Academic snobbery can play as big a role as liberal politics.)

But the Internet transcends traditional media and academic gatekeepers. If half the people who read this column forward it to a few of their friends, word will get around to an awful lot of folk. Not as many as watch Will & Grace, mind you, but maybe enough to get a real debate going on the merits of homosexuality — on issues like where it comes from (click here and here), what's wrong with it and how it distorts God's plan.

A real debate. Somehow I think that’s the last thing the Kirks and Madsens of the world want to see.

1 According to Debra Haffner, former head of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, scriptural passages positively portray “sexual contact and love between men.” David and Jonathan were lovers, and Abraham asks his servant to swear an oath by putting “your hand under my thigh” (Genesis 24:2).

But a team of theologians led by Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary points out (in "What the Bible Really Says About Sex") that “only modern Westerners unfamiliar with the physical expression of friendship between men in the Middle East would mistake the Bible's references for homosexuality.” The placement of Abraham’s servant’s hand near an intimate location, for example, was an expression of the solemnity of a vow.

The authors are especially unimpressed with claims of homosexuality in the case of the unmistakably heterosexual David. “After Jonathan has been killed in battle, David does indeed lament that 'his love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.' But . . . David's whole point in this text is that Jonathan was his 'blood brother' with a loyalty that surpassed that which mere eroticism creates.”

2 Unlike the other quotes from Kirk and Madsen, this one doesn’t appear in Rondeau’s article. But it comes from the same source as many of their other quotes, their book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s (New York: Plume, 1990 edition, pp. 146-147).


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: agenda; antiamerican; antibible; antichristian; anticreator; antifamily; antigod; bisexual; campaign; campus; catholiclist; gay; gayagenda; gaynazis; gayreligion; gender; genderneutral; girlyman; governmentschools; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; lesbian; marketing; mindcontrol; parentsabdication; politicalcorrectness; propaganda; publicrealtions; publicschools; queer; queertheory; schools; secularhumanism; sexualdeviance; sexualimmorality; sin; transgender; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last
Rondeau's most compelling evidence comes straight from the people who designed the gay PR campaign: Harvard-trained social scientists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, who in the late ‘80s issued a call for gay activists to adopt "carefully calculated public relations propaganda."

Their strategy came dressed up in marketing jargon: “Desensitize, jam and convert.” As it turns out, though, you could use one word to summarize all those others: manipulation.

Go to this link..........http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/lawreview/issues/v14n2.html..............for some really long and involved articles on this subject.

1 posted on 07/10/2002 7:19:19 AM PDT by DoctorMichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
"To this end, “famous historical figures are considered especially useful to us;” not only do they bring prestige, they’re also “invariably dead as a doornail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel."

The latest victim of this is Father Mykal Judge, the FDNY Chief Chaplin killed at the WTC on 9/11. A homosexual he tried to help has been going around everywhere claiming Father Judge was a homosexual. Untrue, but the media never tells us this.

2 posted on 07/10/2002 7:30:06 AM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Here's your LINK.
3 posted on 07/10/2002 7:34:20 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
..........claiming Father Judge was a homosexual........

...........an opportune target..........the dead cannot defend themselves.

4 posted on 07/10/2002 7:35:25 AM PDT by DoctorMichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Thanks!
5 posted on 07/10/2002 7:37:41 AM PDT by DoctorMichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael; Buffalo Bob
I am really tied up now-- BB, do you have some relevant links handy?
6 posted on 07/10/2002 7:41:20 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Film director Steven Mendes very skillfully employed the tactics suggested by Kirk and Madsen when making the Oscar-winning film American Beauty. The only normal people in the film were the gay couple next door, and typical middle-class Americans were portrayed as being depraved evildoers.

Black is white; up is down; evil is good; wrong is right.

7 posted on 07/10/2002 8:48:01 AM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beckett
..........Film director Steven Mendes........the Oscar-winning film American Beauty...........

I remember shocking some friends at a polite dinner party who asked me what I thought of the movie (BTW: They thought it was very 'cutting edge') when I replied................

That I "feel that a movie made by a homosexual British writer/director whose point was to lampoon America's middle heterosexual class had very little to offer me as far as valid criticism and insight into the current state of U.S. affairs".

Needless to say, a few jaws dropped and the conversation was changed very quickly.

8 posted on 07/10/2002 9:04:05 AM PDT by DoctorMichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Time for the "Religious Right" to produce ads featuring Barney Fwank promoting homosexuality. That would be enough to turn anybody off to it!
9 posted on 07/10/2002 9:08:28 AM PDT by Destructor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beckett
Film director Steven Mendes very skillfully employed the tactics suggested by Kirk and Madsen when making the Oscar-winning film American Beauty. The only normal people in the film were the gay couple next door, and typical middle-class Americans were portrayed as being depraved evildoers.

I have heard several people say this, but I do not agree. First, the queer neighbors were very minor characters in the story. They were basically used to communicate the marine dad's "feelings" to the audience. And note, it does turn out that the marine is a "repressive queer" or whatever, and is not the slightest bit normal. In addition, Kevin Spacey's chracter was not protrayed as a "depraved evildoer". He was just someone(like many Americans) who one day realizes he has done nothing over the past 15 years of his life and finally "wakes up".

10 posted on 07/10/2002 9:10:09 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Its been pretty effective. Most people don't even know homosexuality and AIDS are intimately related. And the gays that are portrayed look like attractive and charming people. Its hard to argue someone shouldn't be allowed to pursue their chosen sexual preference, even when its clearly detrimental to their health, not to mention to their life. That's not the issue. All the homosexual PR has brilliantly succeeded in doing is in making straights feel uncomfortable with defending the virtue of normal sexual conduct. And any one who does so runs the risk of hurting gays' feelings. Homosexuals and Lesbians have certainly come a long way from the days when they were simply the subject of whisper in polite society.
11 posted on 07/10/2002 9:12:17 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
I suppose that if I suggested that homosexuals should be in prison then they would call me a Nazi or something? Tell me it's not true. Geeee I've never noticed < /sarcasm>
12 posted on 07/10/2002 9:15:19 AM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Ih by the way.... Homosexuals belong in prison.
13 posted on 07/10/2002 9:16:00 AM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael; beckett
American Beauty could very well be the most immoral movie of all time. It's portrayal of all that is ugly as "beautiful" should shock anyone with even the most attenuated conscience.
14 posted on 07/10/2002 9:18:43 AM PDT by bourbon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bourbon
Yeah but its also a perfect portrait of the Age Of Clinton.
15 posted on 07/10/2002 9:20:00 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
good point. I sure hope we have left that age behind, but I have serious doubts.
16 posted on 07/10/2002 9:22:22 AM PDT by bourbon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
That I "feel that a movie made by a homosexual British writer/director whose point was to lampoon America's middle heterosexual class had very little to offer me as far as valid criticism and insight into the current state of U.S. affairs".

Sir, with all due respect, I believe either you saw a different "American Beauty" than most people, or that idea was put in your head before you saw the movie. Let me explain my POV.

The marine dad was obviously a "repressive queer". He knew his "homosexual feelings" were wrong, and had spent his entire life being the most "manly man" he could be to hide and supress his feelings. He was ashamed and had been tormented all his life by the feelings(hence his attitude twoards his son when he thought he might be queer). Then finally, when he expressed his feelings to someone(Spacey), who he had misunderstood, he was so ashamed he killed him.

Secondly, everyone in the film was outwardly accepting of the two queer neighbor guys - except the marine dad who we later find out about. So to say the film was some sort of "lampoon" on the "heterosexual middle class" is quite funny to me. Its almost as if you watched the film hoping to see come away with that impression. If there had been more queers in the film, who were protrayed as "normal", then youy may have a valid point. But the two queers were really incidental characters - only there to convey the marine dad's feelings to teh audience.

17 posted on 07/10/2002 9:23:28 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

18 posted on 07/10/2002 9:26:45 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
You bought into the construction of reality that Mendes is selling, and, it appears, you are unaware of it.

Mendes' very subtle, even somewhat subliminal, techniques were consciously designed to undermine and mock the very idea that psychological norms exist and are worthy of emulation and adherence. The Marine colonel is a caricature --- not a character that one finds in real life. The hardass colonel represents homophobia, a nonsense word whose etymology is purely political. As an actual, diagnosable psychological syndrome, it doesn't exist. Violence springs from homophobia in Mendes' construct, for all heterosexual men fear hidden homosexual urges, and they lash out rather than face the truth. Sexual ambivalence and bisexuality are universal and their denial is the source of the rotten core at the heart of every American middle-class family. For Mendes, only homosexuals possess true authenticity.

If this message is unclear to you, Mendes has done his job well. He meant to confuse the message, and, as I say, deliver it subliminally.

19 posted on 07/10/2002 10:22:33 AM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
poor PINGUS
20 posted on 07/10/2002 10:22:55 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Funny, I got a similar reaction when I said I would never watch a movie like American Beauty because it basically trashed my own upbringing and made it appear that everyone raised in a suburban environment was a deviant freak of some sort or another... unless you're a homosexual...

Pretty much turned the lunch room at work upside-down for a while.
21 posted on 07/10/2002 10:30:55 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
a strategy that's worked precisely because it was both clever and covert.

Not to mention the FACT that the homosexual is the State's ideal citizen in many key respects.

22 posted on 07/10/2002 10:32:12 AM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Not surprising that our resident homosexual apologist shows up on this thread...
23 posted on 07/10/2002 10:35:02 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
How certain are you that Judge was not a homosexual? Your claim is the first I've heard that he WASN'T... Could you please provide a link to some evidence?

I'm very interested in this.
24 posted on 07/10/2002 10:35:28 AM PDT by Silly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: beckett
LOL!!

Link me to this lengthy discussion you had with Mendes where he says such things. Like I posted to DoctorMichael, you will never convice me you didn't watch the film with those notions already planted in your head.

You guys read too much into movies. Nothing can be entertainment anymore. I thought the movie was an accurate portrait of how screwed up many people are.

25 posted on 07/10/2002 10:58:02 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: beckett
If this message is unclear to you, Mendes has done his job well. He meant to confuse the message, and, as I say, deliver it subliminally.

The sort of "message" you claim is there can not be conveyed "subliminally", one has to cognitively accept it, as you obviously have. Based upon your claim, my views have been changed by this movie, and I do not even know it. LOL!!

26 posted on 07/10/2002 11:00:11 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
bttt
27 posted on 07/10/2002 11:02:53 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beckett
Mendes' very subtle, even somewhat subliminal, techniques


28 posted on 07/10/2002 11:08:40 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
You're obviously wrong. The message is subliminal. We can't see it. Some of the folks here are privy to the message because they have special insight. The rest of us must rely on their reviews to know what is really going on. : )
29 posted on 07/10/2002 11:09:23 AM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Jungle Fever did the same thing, but that wasn't the intended message. I haven't seen American Beauty. I doubt if I will, because it looked stupid and boring. But, hey, I'm a manly-man, I want my entertainment to be violent
30 posted on 07/10/2002 11:12:48 AM PDT by Cobra Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
A bump to the top for better understanding the enemy.
31 posted on 07/10/2002 11:12:59 AM PDT by ELS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: breakem
You're obviously wrong. The message is subliminal. We can't see it. Some of the folks here are privy to the message because they have special insight. The rest of us must rely on their reviews to know what is really going on. : )

Yes, that was a consideration of mine. In the future, I'll make sure I get reviews from these guys before every movie I watch, just to make sure I understand the proper message ;-)

32 posted on 07/10/2002 11:14:34 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
It's fun to be ironic and super-hip. It's a blast to skewer old foggies and mock the ernest.

Irony is a delicate mental pose, though. It's very difficult to balance on it, or to keep your eye on the truth from its vantage point. One stiff wind and you fall off into the pit of the lie.

33 posted on 07/10/2002 11:28:00 AM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Sorry, sweetums, while you may accuse the rest of the world of creating an insidious 'homophobic' plot out of whole cloth, I still challenge you to offer one clinical bit of proof that homosexuality is a physical compulsion and not a lifestyle choice.

I ask you one simple question. If a body is on a slab at the morgue, can the examiner of the cold one point to ONE verifiable indicator of a predisposition to homosexual behavior? (Other than the physical damage caused by homosexual activity.)

C'mon! A strand of DNA, a fragment of tissue from deep inside the skull that can only be spotted with a microscope. A cell with pink, lacey panties, a neuron that solicits anonymous sex acts in public bathrooms, a phagocyte in leather and chains?

34 posted on 07/10/2002 11:31:48 AM PDT by jonascord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Best wishes and watch out for the homosexual mind meld.
35 posted on 07/10/2002 11:36:06 AM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
The marine dad was obviously a "repressive queer".

Sorry, with all due respect, I disagree. I believe either you saw a different "American Beauty" than most people, or THAT idea was put in your head before you saw the movie. Let me explain my POV.............

Using the article I posted for this Thread as a reference point................the marine dad/character obviously was put there to JAM; ie. the character illustrated one of the points of the strategy listed above in the article.

In other words he was there to Jam homohatred [i.e., opposition to homosexuality] by linking it to the military (Nazi horror). Much the same as Kirk and Madsen urge the association of all detractors with images like “Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,” “hysterical backwoods preachers,” “menacing punks,” and a “tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed”..............the homosexual screenwriter/propagandist links 'homo-hatred' to this military dad. The dad beats up his neighbor for showing, what the believes to be homosexual tendancies!.........How horrid of him!; How non-open-minded!, How repressive!, How unliberated!, How antiquated!; How close-minded!; How American middle-class! How military of him!

NOT ONLY THAT BUT.............the dad beats up his son for loving a girl! Therefore additionally, by having the same character show disdain for both his neighbor's AND his son's behaviors the writer not only accomplish the 'Jamming' but he successfully links in the viewers mind natural heterosexual yearnings for love AND homosexual lust.

Bottom-line on my POV: Congratulations! You have been successfully programmed by the screenwriter!

36 posted on 07/10/2002 11:39:40 AM PDT by DoctorMichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Like I said, I'll make sure I let you guys explain the proper message of all films from now on before I watch them.

The dad beats up his neighbor for showing, what the believes to be homosexual tendancies!.........

This scene was not in the editors uncensored cut. I have no idea what part of the movie you are talking about. The dad never beat up a neighbor.

Congratulations! You have been successfully programmed by the screenwriter!

You guys keep saying this, but have never explained what I have been "programed" of. My views on queers has not changed. How you can claim a movie has "subliminally affected" people you have never met is beyond me. Wait, are you really Ms. Cleo? Come on, fess up.

37 posted on 07/10/2002 11:50:13 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Sorry if my logic and opinions were to much for you. Let's get back to your original criticism............ ..........either you saw a different "American Beauty" than most people...........

Please read the following review from NATIONAL REVIEW by Jonah Goldberg:

http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-goldberg101200.shtml

An interesting paragraph:

"American Beauty won the Oscar for best picture last year, but it wasn't alone in its message. Indeed, the winners in almost every major category involved some variation on the theme that external moral authority is illegitimate, or that personally designed morality is superior. For example, another academy favorite was Boys Don't Cry, a film about a petty criminal, a transsexual woman who prefers masquerading as a boy in order to seduce and bed teenage girls. What raised the film to heroic status for Hollywood is its assertion that America remains, at heart, a nation of sexual fascists who cruelly impose conventional bourgeois standards on courageous nonconformists...........contention that not only should sexual appetites be indulged, but those who most fully indulge them, without regret or remorse, are living the most authentic lives"

Hmmmmmmmmmm..............it appears that this reviewer from NR saw "a different American Beauty" from yourself.

I'm sorry, but this movie was rotten to the core and other people saw this too.

Good luck to you.

38 posted on 07/10/2002 12:33:56 PM PDT by DoctorMichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Oh man, the trump card. Jonah Goldberg says it, so it must be true. How dumb of me.

(And you still never explained how I have been programed by not accepting your view of the movie).

39 posted on 07/10/2002 12:41:40 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
A blueprint for Soddom and Gommorah.

Within a generation you'll be a societal outcast if you don't practice homosexuality.

40 posted on 07/10/2002 12:47:08 PM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Jonah Goldberg says it, so it must be true.

Thank you. So at least you admit that other people may have seen a different movie than yourself and that your point of view is not the standard.

As I said previously, good luck.

41 posted on 07/10/2002 1:22:53 PM PDT by DoctorMichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Who'd want to be homosexual, anyway? I mean, you could put a guy in panties on a bed of roses and I still wouldn't want to have sex with him! Whatever the advertising campaign, no one's going to become homosexual or even see the sense in it. I don't understand homosexual attraction and never will, no matter how ANYONE paints it. Do you believe normal people are that gullible?
42 posted on 07/10/2002 6:54:19 PM PDT by 135steward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
What else? As Rondeau says,
Pederasts, gender-benders, sado-masochists, and other minorities within the homosexual community with more extreme “peculiarities” would keep a low profile. . . . Also, common practices such as anal-oral sex, anal sex, fisting and anonymous sex — that is to say what homosexuals actually do and with how many they do it — must never be a topic.

Just about says exactly what our job should be to confound and expose this massive, long term propaganda assault by these perverted jerks. TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO in terms of their fisting proclivities, anonymous sexual appetites, etc. If the mothers and fathers of America begin to focus on what homosexuals do to each other...they will want their children as far away from that life choice as possible.

43 posted on 07/10/2002 7:00:19 PM PDT by Republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
Ih by the way.... Homosexuals belong in prison.

By the way, these kinds of statements probably help promote the homosexual agenda more effectively than any gay rights campaign could ever do.

Saying homosexuals belong in prison feeds right into the stereotype of homophobic bigots and hate mongers who want to put people in jail for what they do in their bed rooms.
Even people who normally won't support gay rights would prefer that if it means stopping fanatics who might just next suggest stoning adulterers.

44 posted on 07/10/2002 7:14:45 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Your argument is like saying that one should not say people who rob stores should be in prison because if we do that then someone may suggest that shoplifters should be executed. This will scare people so bad that they will actually join with robbers in their effort to legalize robbery.

Golly we should not speak out against anything for fear that someone will take it as hate speech or they may think we will not ever change our minds about them. (A bigot is one who holds views that they are not willing to change) Well what the hell is wrong with not wanting to change your mind about some things? What’s wrong with me not wanting to change my mind about homosexuality being a criminal behavior?

Do people have the right to engage in criminal behavior as long as it is behind closed doors or in the privacy of their own homes? Should we be more tolerant of it because they only do it with the door closed? Maybe society should let me beat my wife as long as I do it in the privacy of my bedroom and she is unwilling to complain. Maybe we should not suggest that wife beaters belong in jail for fear that someone will say we should execute people who spank their children. This will scare the rest of us into siding with the spousal abusers.

Where do you come up with this type of thinking?
45 posted on 07/11/2002 6:37:11 AM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: 135steward
Do you believe normal people are that gullible?

No..............but the general idea of the main article is twofold: 1)Heap shame on good people so that they DON'T/WON'T speak up, 2)Avoid all the bad stuff (Pederasts, gender-benders, sado-masochists, anal-oral sex, anal sex, fisting, anonymous sex) and relegate it to a 'low-profile' so as to NORMALIZE the overall lifestyle ({Big Smiley-face} "We're just plain folks. Just like you.").

SELL IT

Once this happens (.......and is happening, as highlighted here in many Posts on FreeRepublic!!!!) they can gain access to the schools (to RECRUIT children into their lifestyle) or to the adoption agencies (Rosie O'Doughnut), or any number of other state-sponsored agencies where they can get fresh meat.

46 posted on 07/11/2002 7:33:38 AM PDT by DoctorMichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
I really don't care what David or Abraham did. I know for sure that men/women love relation is the norm. There is of course some nuts who like to copulate with animals! That is there prerogative. You do what you like in your house. Please do not take your lover dog to the park to make out with it, and force the rest of us to accept it as a "life style"
47 posted on 07/11/2002 7:55:34 AM PDT by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Sorry............Three-fold: Desensitize, Jam and Convert

1) Desensitization- "Subjecting the public to a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible..........talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome...........get [straights] to think homosexuality is just another thing".

2) Jamming- "Smearing anyone who disagrees with their agenda".

3) Conversion- "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".

48 posted on 07/11/2002 8:17:29 AM PDT by DoctorMichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
Your argument is like saying that one should not say people who rob stores should be in prison because if we do that then someone may suggest that shoplifters should be executed. This will scare people so bad that they will actually join with robbers in their effort to legalize robbery.

No, stealing and robbery are illegal in this country, and most people believe they should be.

Homosexuality and adultery are not illegal and most people are not too keen on the idea of putting people in jail for these things.

Therefore when they hear a person saying they want homosexuals in jail, they realize the same thinking could be very easily applied to adulterers....and most don't want to live in a country where people are stoned for adultery and homosexuality.

As a result, these kinds of inflamatory statements inadvertantly increase empathy for gay rights.

49 posted on 07/11/2002 6:08:40 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: All

TONIGHT (6pm pdt/9pm edt) on UNSPUN!

ANN COULTER and JESSE LEE PETERSON!

Click HERE and Listen LIVE while you FREEP!

ALSO! RadioFR's new CHAT SERVER IS UP! Come on in and CHAT!


50 posted on 07/11/2002 6:09:28 PM PDT by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson