Six Ways Homosexual Activists Manipulate Public Opinion
May 31, 2012
Anyone who is concerned about the influence of the homosexual agenda on
reshaping traditional values must become intimately familiar with the major
tactics that homophiles commonly employ in order to anticipate them and respond
in charity and truth. Homophile strategists are very adept (They are trained, and practice continually to hone their skills. As should every Bible Believing Christian) at manipulating
public opinion with an arsenal of six tactics that are based upon deceptions
and half‑truths:
·
Exploit the “victim” status;
·
Use the sympathetic media;
·
Confuse and neutralize the churches;
·
Slander and stereotype Christians;
·
Bait and switch (hide their true nature); and
·
Intimidation.
One reason these tactics have worked so well
is that homophile activists have succeeded in marketing a harmless and friendly
image of their movement. They have lulled people into thinking that the wider
society will not be adversely affected by their radical social agenda.
Homosexual strategists have, in many cases, toned down their extreme rhetoric
and have cloaked their agenda in soothing language. Over time, however, many
have begun to think of themselves and others as “homophobes” or “haters” if
they oppose any aspect of the homosexual rights agenda — or, incredibly, even
if they question it in their own minds.
Generals and attorneys often wish that their
opponents would write a book. Interestingly, leaders of the “homosexual rights”
movement did exactly that. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen clearly laid out
this agenda in the marching orders of the movement, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of
Gays in the 90s.[1] This volume is an absolute treasure chest of
information for those pro-family stalwarts who are actively engaged against the
homosexual rights agenda.
By far the most popular homophile tactic is
the claim to victim status, which is a very powerful, almost paralyzing, weapon
that gives them a distinct advantage in the public square. Kirk and Madsen
summarize the potent effectiveness of the victim status:
In any campaign to win over the public, gays
must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be
inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. … The purpose of victim
imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable; that is, to jam with
shame the self-righteous pride that would ordinarily accompany and reward their
antigay belligerence, and to lay groundwork for the process of conversion by
helping straights identify with gays and sympathize with their underdog status.
… the public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that
they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height,
skin color, talents, or limitations. … gays should be
portrayed as victims of prejudice.
Does this sound familiar? It does if one pays attention to
any mainstream media coverage of these controversial issues as they play out in
law and society. But the victim status requires a story to back it up. Thus,
perhaps the most common lament of the garden-variety homophile revolves around
the alleged “tidal wave of anti-gay” hate crimes.
An analysis of FBI statistics on hate crimes
committed against homosexuals during the time period 2000-2008 shows that the
probability of any individual homosexual being the victim of a hate crime during his or her entire life span is
slightly more than one percent.[2] Interestingly,
“gays” are more likely to commit hate crimes against “straights” than
“straights” are to commit hate crimes against “gays.” According to the FBI,
there are 3.98 hate crimes committed by each million heterosexuals annually
against homosexuals, and there are 4.44 hate crimes committed by each million
homosexuals annually against heterosexuals.[3]
Violence against homosexuals by others gets
all the press, but it is interesting to note that the great majority of
anti-”gay” violence is committed by other “gays.” The National Coalition of
Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) is the leading tracker of violence against
“gays” in the
Click “like” if you
want to defend true
marriage.
This confusion is now pervasive in society,
and questioning the agenda is simply not to be tolerated – especially among
For example, the classical notion that
universities should be “arenas for the free exchange of ideas” has been
completely discarded in the
The squashing of dissenting views on
homosexuality in the classroom has been going on for decades now. In 1991, a
student at the
Political science professor Jean Betheke Elshtain, while
highlighting the dangers presented by codes against racism, also points out the
difficulties associated with all
punitive codes of this nature: “My hunch is that, over the long haul, the
upshot of such endeavors [college speech codes] will not be a purified,
racist-free, collective student consciousness, but a simmering backlog of
resentment at being labeled as a racist, even if one has never committed a
racist act or uttered a racist slur.”[9]
No one should attempt to deny homosexuals
their basic human rights; which are the same basic rights that we all have as
being sons and daughters of God. But it has gotten to the point where we have
to fight to preserve our own basic rights — the rights to free speech,
religion, assembly, and teaching our own children our values – in order to
protect our own families and institutions.
Those who promote homosexuality are forcibly
tearing away more and more of the rights of Christians, and the situation is
rapidly deteriorating. Who could have possibly imagined just a few years ago
that companies would start firing people for writing pro-family articles on
their own time, or business owners would be sued for refusing to participate in
homosexual union ceremonies?
Now is the time to draw the line, to stand and
defend our families and our rights without apology in the public square.
[1] Marshall Kirk and
Hunter Madsen. After the Ball:
How
[2] Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
annual report entitled “Hate Crime Statistics.” Table 1, “Incidents,
Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Bias Motivation.”
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.
[3] Ibid.
[4] The National Coalition of Anti-Violence
Programs (NCAVP). Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender Domestic Violence: 2003 Supplement.
[5] Paul Weyrich.
“Politically Correct Fascism on Our Campuses.” New Dimensions Magazine, June 1991, page
44.
[6] Foundation for Individual Rights in
Education. “Victory At Tufts; Evangelical Christian
Group Regains Recognition.” May 16, 2000. http://thefire.org/article/137.html.
[7] “Student’s Homosexuality Comment Leads To Suspension.” CBSDFW.com, September 21, 2011.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/09/21/students-homosexuality-comments-lead-to-suspension-first-amendment-discussion/.
[8] Adam Cassandra. “University Reinstates
Professor Terminated for Teaching Catholic Doctrine on Homosexuality.” CNSNews.com, August 1, 2010.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/university-reinstates-professor-terminated-teaching-catholic-doctrine-homosexuality.
[9] Stephen Goode. “Efforts to Deal With
Diversity Can Go Astray.” Insight Magazine,
September 10, 1990, pages 15 to 19.
This article was adapted from its
original version in the Spring 2012 issue of FrontLines, the official magazine of Human Life
International. You can sign up to receive FrontLines here.
Dr. Brian Clowes is the director of education and
research at Human Life International (HLI).