Posted on 02/07/2004 2:26:21 PM PST by quidnunc
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 explores how gay rights [3] activists use rhetoric, psychology, social psychology, and the media — all the elements of modern marketing — to position homosexuality in order to frame what is discussed in the public arena and how it is discussed. In essence, 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. [4]
The first strategy of persuasion 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. Pratkanis and Aronson refer to this as pre-selling. [5] 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.
Part II of this article provides a brief overview of the social climate and politics that ultimately led to the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) imprimatur of homosexual behavior. The declassification of homosexuality as a disorder by the APA provides context for the propaganda war proposed by Kirk and Madsen's homosexual manifesto fifteen years later. The section ends by reviewing the main elements of the campaign including the call to specifically discredit, intimidate, and silence opponents with particular attention paid to conservative Christians.
Part III presents the connection between persuasion and democratic processes. Rhetoric, persuasive communication, propaganda, and social psychology theories are foundational to the concept of selling homosexuality as presented in this article. The purpose of this section is to provide a greater understanding of why persuasion works in order to strengthen the later discussion of how it is applied in the mass persuasion techniques evidenced in today's "gay rights"-style marketing.
Part IV moves to the "4-P's" of the traditional marketing paradigm — Product, Price, Place, and Promotion — to deconstruct and to illustrate how homosexuality is packaged and sold as a competitive product in the marketplace often through education [6] and through positive media coverage. "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," [7] states Tammy Bruce, a self-described lesbian feminist and ex-president of the Los Angles chapter of the National Organization for Women. [8]
Part V presents several real examples of how this strategy is employed in five important markets of social influence. The areas examined, which touch every citizen in America, are government, education, organized religion, the media, and the workplace.
Part VI concludes by recapping some achievements of the gay rights campaign and discussing what these may portend for their opponents and American society in the future.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at regent.edu ...
Obviously if a person is attracted to members of his/her own sex (has Same Sex Attraction Disorder) but does not act out such desires, then that person will no more likely to get AIDS than anyone else.
However, and if you are really a nurse you know this, if a person engages in anal sex, especially with a large number of partners, or oral sex ditto, especially men with men, then the odds of his getting AIDS skyrocket.
Again, why are you pretending to be dense? What is your objective in posting to this thread? And lastly, do you consider homosexual behavior to be benign or beneficial, or dangerous and unhealthy?
My questions are not rhetorical.
The same efforts are being made with regard to crossdressing, transvestitism, transsexualism. What's your take on that?
You may not but effort is underway already to make the same changes with regard to diagnosis regarding other fetishes.
I agree, but as psychology/psychiatry is neither my profession nor my forte I would appreciate it if you would illuminate for me the dishonest portions of the article. Since you have not read the entire article I will summarize the actual assertions made regarding the APA and the DSM which can be found on pages 18-20. From my reading the assertions are as follows:
The APA leadership was co-opted and through political maneuvering a resolution was put forth. Of the 30,000 APA members only a third responded to the resolution and the DSM change was adopted. Concurrently, the author asserts that the NGTF (National Gay Task Force) paid for a mass mailing urging a "yes" vote on the subject to all members.
The author asserts that the APA’s Council on Research and Development did not “actually investigate the issue thoroughly before it gave formal approval for deletion of homosexuality from the DSM”.
The author further asserts that the Committee on Nomenclature “never formally approved the change”.
This isn't junk science — or any kind of science when it comes down to it.
It's a dissertation in a law journal laying out the particulars of the homosexual community's strategy to mainstream their lifestyle.
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.