The six ways homosexual activists manipulate public opinion

May 31, 2012 (HLIWorldWatch.org) - 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 at manipulating public opinion with an arsenal of six tactics that are based upon deceptions and half‑truths:

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:

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 United States. According to the NCAVP’s statistics on anti-”gay” violence, 83 percent of all violence committed against “gays” is carried out by other “gays” in domestic situations. This does not even count “gay-on-gay” violence committed outside the home.[4]

This confusion is now pervasive in society, and questioning the agenda is simply not to be tolerated – especially among America’s youth.

For example, the classical notion that universities should be “arenas for the free exchange of ideas” has been completely discarded in the United States. More than three-fourths of U.S. colleges and universities now possess codes of conduct that ban behavior and speech based upon, including many other things, “homophobia.” The danger that these codes represent to academic freedom far outweighs their usefulness. This has already been amply demonstrated, as many colleges have severely punished students for merely desiring to debate the topic of homosexuality.

The squashing of dissenting views on homosexuality in the classroom has been going on for decades now. In 1991, a student at the University of Michigan announced his intention to establish a counseling program to help homosexuals leave their lifestyle. He was dragged before a panel of university administrators, unanimously found guilty of “sexual harassment,” and was thrown out of the university.[5] In 2000, the Student Judiciary of Tufts University voted officially to “derecognize” the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF) club for taking into account, for purposes of selecting leaders, the beliefs of a member whose views of Scripture and homosexuality were opposed to their own.[6] The TCF was stripped of funding, not permitted to use the Tufts name, not permitted to meet in any room that required a reservation, and not allowed to advertise or announce any of their events or meetings. In 2011, a Fort Worth, Texas high school student was suspended from school for reportedly saying, “I’m a Christian, and I don’t think being gay is right,” during a class discussion.[7] And teachers don’t have it any easier. In 2010 a professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign was accused of “hate speech” and relieved of his teaching duties for teaching Catholic doctrine on homosexuality in his Introduction to Catholicism class.[8]

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 America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s [New York City: Plume Books], 1989.

[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.

[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.

You're entirely missing the point, which is that men and women are fundamentally different - different in ways that make complementarity possible and beneficial. Big deal if, as you say, the woman plays games of "reverse psychology" on their "unwitting" husbands, that only proves the point. (Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe wives are being manipulated into thinking that THEY are getting their way - tit for tat?)

In almost every case, men are physically stronger than women. Men are more emotionally aloof and controlled, an asset in many cases in which pure rationality is absolutely needed to survive. Men are the natural leaders, when this is not the case marriages suffer, I believe.

In almost every case, men are physically stronger than women.

Yes.

Men are more emotionally aloof and controlled, an asset in many cases in which pure rationality is absolutely needed to survive.

I work with many women who run circles around men when it comes to being cool under fire. Seems you watch too many 50's movies where the women all they did was scream and faint when danger appears. I can tell you that is not how it is in real life.

Men are the natural leaders, when this is not the case marriages suffer, I believe.

Are you married? But hey if that belief works for you and your wife that's all the matters right? Just don't say that all women and marriages/relationships are like this..not even close.

So, apparently, you think men and women are fundamentally the same.

Pretty much..except for strength etc. as you mentioned and other physical attributes. There are other differences of course but nothing where the women should be the submissive one.

Wouldn’t you be more comfortable at the DUmp?

Nope. So I disagree with you I'm a lib huh?

I remember in school how they used to hammer this nonsensical view upon us.

I pointed out, how could being gay be considered natural and healthy if it inhibits the most essentially and basic function of any life-form(Reproduction)?

The anther is right a lot of people and organizational won’t even let you talk about the subject to them its as if being Gay is natural and healthy, and there is no room for anyone to ever question that absurd position. Frankly much of our education system is taking a book from Marx and trying to making everyone believe the absurd by denying them any other option.

I'm sorry you are a bitter little man...Apparently you were “falsely accused” of domestic violence and then screwed in divorce court.

Ha. Nice try, buddy, but no. However, I have seen what these situations have done to other men. And you are the one who should lighten up. If you were joking around about being controlled by your wife, then, yeah, I didn't catch that, but if you are such a manly man as you claim, you should also understand why that sort of thing would be repugnant. No need for you to get so defensive.

OK, maybe we’re getting hung up on the word “submissive”. In some people’s minds that might conjure up the image of some woman groveling in front of her husband like a slave. A better word might be “subordinate”. A woman naturally wants her man to take the lead, even if she doesn’t consciously realize it. No, it’s not a religious thing - this is from a lifetime of observation. Also, “subordinate”, even “submissive”, doesn’t necessarily mean inferior. It’s like dancing - someone has to lead and someone has to follow for it to work, but the one doing the following isn’t necessarily the worse dancer. That’s just the dynamic that allows things to work more smoothly.

A man taking the lead doesn’t necessarily mean that he controls every little thing and makes every little decision, either. If the wife is a mathematical genius or a finance wiz (more so than her husband), a smart husband would say, “Hey honey, you handle the finances.” But if she is bad with money, he’ll say “Hey honey, I’ll handle the finances.” In either case, the husband assessed the situation and allocated the resources properly. That is leadership.

You missed the point, we share. And yes I value her opinion. I would be a fool not to. She is one of the most level headed people I know. Almost being killed by your ex. has a way of doing that although she was great prior. I, like you, have seen marriages go in the crapper. That is why I married late(28)and made sure of the one I was going to spend my life with. Most men think with their d^&ks and that is where that thinking leads. I still don't understand having a wife that you have no respect for. How do you respect someone you consider under you? I am asking a serious question. Maybe you are referring to males who are afraid of their wives or do in fact let the wife call all the shots. My real reference was to the times when I embark on some “project” and she generally is better at setting out a framework to accomplish said task. And I am happy to acknowledge her ability. If I wanted to move and told her the reasons she would start packing. On the other hand we had a situtation where she had a position in another state. She turned them down, no fuss, because she knew I didn’t want to leave.
It just seems to me you are looking for someone to slavishly accept your every command. I come from the old days where men respected women. I remember Ike.
The men I have known who fear the wife are those who chose the wrong mate and further have such low self-esteem that they fear loosing the wife and never finding anyone else. Perhaps that was your point. If so I agree with you on that.

Your definition of “submissive” is where you err.

Women and men are both human beings-—and they are equal in worth—both in the eyes of God and under the law (in the US). I do not disagree with you here—and dignity and worth is equal in all human beings-—even the old and unborn. A mature person respects all people who deserve it.

Being submissive to a “husband” is an act of selflessness. It shows respect and understanding of the nature of a man. Likewise, men are supposed to be submissive to God—which in fact, will make him love and honor the needs of his wife and children—do his duty. This “submissiveness” by BOTH the male and female is a selflessness, which is necessary for people to feel truly loved and appreciated. Sacrifice is necessary in all solid relationships.

Selflessness is the only act of true love. Selfishness (narcissism) —is a quality that will ruin all relationships-—not just that of a spouse—but especially the mental health of children. Selflessness is when you love someone more than your own life (like many women have for their babies—or used to before they were conditioned to give them up to strangers to raise and mold).

Of course-—the “me-generation” is about self-love-—and is why the divorce and dysfunction and wrecked families skyrocketed with that generation. Me-First —it is impossible to love God and anyone else with that attitude. You use people for your own selfish gratification-—toss them when they are no longer fun or advantageous to have around. It is not love.

I just read this post prior to replying and I agree with your points. I wish you had made them sooner. It really sounded at first like you had a grudge with women in general.

What, and deny people here the chance to get prematurely outraged?

The PC feminist line is that men and women are exactly the same, and that the male/female roles in a relationship are interchangeable. The reality is that women prefer, consciously or unconsciously, to be subordinate to a strong man. However, say that out loud and the PC police start screaming "You must just hate women!" when its really just a recognition of male vs. female psychology. So I expected some flames.

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

Yes, it is sexist..the woman naturally submissive? That's muzzie/15th century talk. The wife should never be submissive...should both be equals with equal decision making and give and take.

Keep dreaming like the lefts does.

Men and women ARE different. They are NOT equal in many regards no matter how much some wish they were or no matter how much legislation attempts to create such an equality.

Part of the problem today is equality crap that flies in the face of nature -idiots attempting to legislate against natural law are known as progressives.

Yes there are many differences, too numerous to mention but they are equal as human beings..not a subordinate to their husband...

Your blanket statement is more leftist propaganda. Husbands and wives are subordinate to each other in many ways. Just as men and women are. The left has perverted what was once naturally evident and accepted as truth.

Pretending this is not so does not make it go away.

Women and children to the life boats first...

Homosexual sex practitioners to the lifeboats 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.