S.S.M Debate, Dissecting The Process And Strategies Of Disinformation

[wenglund]

In the previous and now closed thread on Battling Disinformation in the SSM Debate, we attempted to expose specific points of disinformation in the hopes of interjecting reason and critical thinking into an otherwise relatively irrational/emotive debate on homosexual issues. And, as much as I would have preferred to continue with the expose, it no longer is my choice.

However, what I would like to do in this thread is focus on exposing the processes and strategies of disinformation in relation to homosexual issue--specifically those behavioral or relationship issues that involve public policy.

I doubt that anyone would dispute that our various cultures have, for the most part, changed their views about the homosexual lifestyle over the last 30 years or so. People didn't just suddenly go from viewing homosexual behaviors as perverse to then viewing them as perfectly wonderful. There was a slow and methodical process, strategically manipulated to get decent and oft reasonable people to see down as up, bad as good, and abnormal and dysfunction as normal and healthy, and take what was once consider a mental illness (mistakenly in my opinion) and now celebrating it as desirable.

Perhaps you have heard some variation on the following theme: First we abhor. Then we tolerate. Then we condone. Then we embrace. This, to me, identifies the plausible steps in the process. However, what I would like to focus on are certain evident strategies that have moved our various cultures from one step to another.

I can think of at least 4 such strategies. You are welcome to mention some you may have thought of and/or expound upon those I mention. I will discuss each in greater detail in posts to follow:

1. Pervasive visibility

2. Accentuate the positive

3. Sympathy and pity ploys

4. Celebrity factor

Each of these require, to some degree, controlling the public narrative, which in turn necessitates, to some degree and in various ways, controlling the mainstream media and certain influential institutions.

Again, the intent of this thread is to educate and encourage critical thinking on the topic and minimize people's vulnerability to being duped. Please try and stay on topic so that they thread wont be closed down.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 13, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

1. Pervasive visibility.

Oscar Wilde is quoted as saying: "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."

I believe gay activist have taken this to heart, and have learned from tobacco advertisers during the 40's to the 70s about generating pervasive visibility--they sponsored numerous radio, TV, and movie shows, and even had contracts that required actors to smoke on screen. It is all about getting people talking about homosexuality, and keep the subject at the fore of public consciousness.

This is a strategy that gay activists and their sympathizers in the media have been very successful in accomplishing. I mean even during times like nowadays, where our nation is faced with considerable economic hardships, where poverty is on the rise, and where there is the constant threat of war and violence, etc., look what we are talking about? That's right...homosexuality. And, for my own reasons, I am a willing contributor.

The desired outcome of pervasive visibility is that it creates the illusion of normalcy. If the subject is talked about enough, people start to think of it as typical, and a part of acceptable everyday life--even in the case of beating a dead horse.

There is also the desensitizing factor. If we hear about something repulsive often enough, it may become callous to us, and it may gradually begin to lose its edge, and may eventually become mundane or passe or even acceptable. I once experienced this phenomena after watching a terribly gory movie, where I mentioned to my buddy as we walked out of the theater, that after watching all the decapitations and bloody dismemberments and dark scenes, were a brutal car accident to happen in front of us I doubt that it would phase me.

And, there is the fatigue factor. Squeaky wheels get the grease, not necessarily because they always need it most or need it at all, but to stop the irritation. Repulsive demands that are made often enough may encourage compliance and acceptance--we will sometimes cave to a lot of public pressures, not because they are right and best, but just to silence the bleating and the fingernails on the chalk board.

Does any of this sound familiar with gay issues?

A term was invented in the early 70's for gay efforts to gain visibility. It was called zaps.

Organizations were also formed for this purpose, like the Gay liberation Front, Gay Activist Alliance, etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 16, 2012 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

In the previous and now closed thread on Battling Disinformation in the SSM Debate, we attempted to expose specific points of disinformation in the hopes of interjecting reason and critical thinking into an otherwise relatively irrational/emotive debate on homosexual issues. And, as much as I would have preferred to continue with the expose, it no longer is my choice.

However, what I would like to do in this thread is focus on exposing the processes and strategies of disinformation in relation to homosexual issue--specifically those behavioral or relationship issues that involve public policy.

I doubt that anyone would dispute that our various cultures have, for the most part, changed their views about the homosexual lifestyle over the last 30 years or so. People didn't just suddenly go from viewing homosexual behaviors as perverse to then viewing them as perfectly wonderful. There was a slow and methodical process, strategically manipulated to get decent and oft reasonable people to see down as up, bad as good, and abnormal and dysfunction as normal and healthy, and take what was once consider a mental illness (mistakenly in my opinion) and now celebrating it as desirable.

Perhaps you have heard some variation on the following theme: First we abhor. Then we tolerate. Then we condone. Then we embrace. This, to me, identifies the plausible steps in the process. However, what I would like to focus on are certain evident strategies that have moved our various cultures from one step to another.

I can think of at least 4 such strategies. You are welcome to mention some you may have thought of and/or expound upon those I mention. I will discuss each in greater detail in posts to follow:

1. Pervasive visibility

2. Accentuate the positive

3. Sympathy and pity ploys

4. Celebrity factor

Each of these require, to some degree, controlling the public narrative, which in turn necessitates, to some degree and in various ways, controlling the mainstream media and certain influential institutions.

Again, the intent of this thread is to educate and encourage critical thinking on the topic and minimize people's vulnerability to being duped. Please try and stay on topic so that they thread wont be closed down.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just because you, as an orthodox Mormon, believe on moral grounds that LGBT people should live lives of celibacy, does not mean that anyone who disagrees with you is part of a sinister campaign of disinformation. There's no sinister plot--it's just that there are people in this world who don't agree with your religious position. But that's okay, because we in the U.S. are supposed to have freedom of religious expression. You can try to convert them to Mormonism, but if they don't convert, then you have to respect their religious views, or lack thereof. This is a political issue, and like any political issue, there is going to be politics. You shouldn't be surprised, and you shouldn't think that the anti-SSM side is any less manipulative of voters than the marriage equality side. Also, even for Mormons who agree with you morally, there are constitutional reasons for many good, active Mormons to disagree with you politically.

Besides, replace every reference to "homosexuality" in your above post to "polygamy," and then tell me why you don't sound exactly like an anti-Mormon from the 19th century Republican Party.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[wenglund]

Just because you, as an orthodox Mormon, believe on moral grounds that LGBT people should live lives of celibacy, does not mean that anyone who disagrees with you is part of a sinister campaign of disinformation. There's no sinister plot--it's just that there are people in this world who don't agree with your religious position. But that's okay, because we in the U.S. are supposed to have freedom of religious expression. You can try to convert them to Mormonism, but if they don't convert, then you have to respect their religious views, or lack thereof. This is a political issue, and like any political issue, there is going to be politics. You shouldn't be surprised, and you shouldn't think that the anti-SSM side is any less manipulative of voters than the marriage equality side. Also, even for Mormons who agree with you morally, there are constitutional reasons for many good, active Mormons to disagree with you politically.

Besides, replace every reference to "homosexuality" in your above post to "polygamy," and then tell me why you don't sound exactly like an anti-Mormon from the 19th century Republican Party.

Your comments are entirely irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Please stop cluttering the proposed discussion with your wildly tangential nonsense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

2. Accentuate the positive

In conjunction with my previous point, while there may be some truth to the old adage that "there is no such thing as bad publicity," the effectiveness of negative campaigns may raise some serious doubt.

Be that as it may, I don't think it controversial to suggest that presenting a positive image of oneself and group or things tends to work far better in one's interest than presenting a negative image.

Take, again, the tobacco advertisers during the 40's through to the 70's. They carefully crafted the images of their product to show people happily smoking away and having a great time and being cool, while inconspicuously leaving out the images of people turning green at the gills when taking their first couple of puffs, or people hacking and coughing and dying from lung cancer, or people's eyes burning and stomachs turning from second-hand smoke.

I believe gay activist have taken this to heart, and have attempted to carefully control the public narrative, through editorial intervention in news and magazine coverage and production of gay-friendly TV shows and movies, so as to, for the most part, present a favorable homosexual image--the exception to this rule being the oft outlandish and bawdy displays common to gay pride parades.

This is why we are frequently served up images of gays and gay couples happily doing everyday and uplifting things, and stories about their successes and achievements, rather than images of bath houses and gays trolling public restrooms, or stories about gay domestic disputes and violence and infidelity (the rare exception being select cases on the TV show "Cheaters" and "Judge Judy"), or gay substance abuse problems, each of which more typify the homosexual aspect of their lifestyle. And, there is a marked tendency to trot out the exceptions within the gay community who have long-term committed relationships, and brush under the carpet the rule of short-term, serial relationships.

This way, the public is lead to believe that the more positive exceptions are the rule, rather than the negative. And, by pervasively presenting this exceptional positive images and stories of homosexuality, oft in ways that have nothing directly to do with homosexuality, some people are led to believe that in many ways homosexuals are just like heterosexual, and that there is nothing apparently wrong with homosexuality, just as smoking cigarettes were thought to make people happy and were cool and desirable.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 14, 2012 by wenglund

[DavidB]

Is there a thread covering the disinformation propagated by those opposed to equal treatment of homosexuals? Here is a simply test.

If you say "I do not believe in granting homosexuals special rights", then you are most likely guilty of spreading disinformation about equal rights and how such comes into play with homosexuals.

The Church, via an Official spokesman, stated that it supports laws which protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Now some people like to claim that such laws "create special rights for homosexuals", the outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation protects all people and does not create a special right for anyone.

If you say "I do not support creating special rights for homosexuals via legalized same sex marriage", then you are guilty of spreading disinformation. SSM legalizes same sex marriage, you do not have to be homosexual to enter into a same sex marriage. Two person, for reasons of avoiding taxes or for inheritance reasons could enter into a same sex marriage. Thus, since same sex marriage is not limited to homosexuals, then there is no special right for created for homosexuals. The only right same sex marriage would create, a right currently limited to heterosexuals, is the right of a homosexual to marry the person of their own choosing - of course I already the lame response to come "what if a father loves his daughter" a mindless canard which shows not even a limited understanding of the issues involved with same sex marriage.

[ERayR]

Is there a thread covering the disinformation propagated by those opposed to equal treatment of homosexuals? Here is a simply test.

If you say "I do not believe in granting homosexuals special rights", then you are most likely guilty of spreading disinformation about equal rights and how such comes into play with homosexuals.

The Church, via an Official spokesman, stated that it supports laws which protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Now some people like to claim that such laws "create special rights for homosexuals", the outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation protects all people and does not create a special right for anyone.

If you say "I do not support creating special rights for homosexuals via legalized same sex marriage", then you are guilty of spreading disinformation. SSM legalizes same sex marriage, you do not have to be homosexual to enter into a same sex marriage. Two person, for reasons of avoiding taxes or for inheritance reasons could enter into a same sex marriage. Thus, since same sex marriage is not limited to homosexuals, then there is no special right for created for homosexuals. The only right same sex marriage would create, a right currently limited to heterosexuals, is the right of a homosexual to marry the person of their own choosing - of course I already the lame response to come "what if a father loves his daughter" a mindless canard which shows not even a limited understanding of the issues involved with same sex marriage.

HuH.

[wenglund]

3. Sympathy and pity ploys

To me, this is the most significant and effective strategy of all, and one that worked well in conjunction with the first two strategies.

For example, there was the so-called Aids epidemic that tugged at our heartstrings for a decade or more. Even though it affected a relatively small proportion of the U.S. population, it at times dominated the news and even found its way, through the use of ribbons, into sporting event, concerts, political events, TV programs, and cars on the road, etc., thereby satisfying the first strategy of pervasive visibility over a very long period of time.

The ploy was carefully crafted to present things in the best possible light and in the way that would generate the maximum amount of sympathy, thus satisfying the second strategy of accentuating the positive. This was done by muffling the alarming notion that all the deaths and suffering were completely avoidable and a function of selfish lust. Add to this the highly puzzling special treatment this disease received from the health and medical communities, where instead of going into quarantine and heavy prevention mode like with most other epidemics, the mere suggestion of abstinence and disclosure of infected parties was met with the harshest public rebuke.

The Aids sympathy ploy also worked well for its own purposes. It not only engendered empathy and pity and solace, but it had a way of causing people to side with gays against their plight, and it encouraged support in terms of time and energy and finances, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Once people were on the gay side against the plight, it wasn't much of a transition to get them on the gay side for other causes.

Accordingly, gay activists also drummed up sympathy through high profiling of selective "hate crimes" in which gays were targeted by non-gays for bullying and beatings. In keeping with the second strategy, though, mention was conspicuously absent that the rate of these kinds of bullying and beatings were proportionally less than general bullying and beatings suffered by the general population. Worse yet, these nongay-on-gay bullying and beatings were also proportionally less or the same than gay-on-gay bullying and beating, though this was conveniently kept hush-hush.

Then there was the sympathy invoked by gay teen suicides, which while proportionally much higher than the general teen population, because of the proportionally small number of gays in the population, was less quantitatively than the general teen population and the population at large, though it received far greater coverage.

Each of these sympathy ploys laid the foundation for the latest sympathy ploy, where gay activist again borrowed from the experience of smokers (who borrowed from the civil rights movement, and for a time, attempted to engender sympathy for the alleged discrimination and segregation in not being allowed to smoke in public places and being forced to smoke outside workplaces and business), and illegitimately plied the aforementioned and now debunked myths regarding rights, and equality, and discrimination, as played out in the SSM debate, gay clubs at school, and in the education curriculum.

So, a behavior and lifestyle that was once abhorred, began to be tolerated and condoned and even embraced through carefully and selectively orchestrated sympathy strategies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 14, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Is there a thread covering the disinformation propagated by those opposed to equal treatment of homosexuals? Here is a simply test.

If you say "I do not believe in granting homosexuals special rights", then you are most likely guilty of spreading disinformation about equal rights and how such comes into play with homosexuals.

The Church, via an Official spokesman, stated that it supports laws which protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Now some people like to claim that such laws "create special rights for homosexuals", the outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation protects all people and does not create a special right for anyone.

If you say "I do not support creating special rights for homosexuals via legalized same sex marriage", then you are guilty of spreading disinformation. SSM legalizes same sex marriage, you do not have to be homosexual to enter into a same sex marriage. Two person, for reasons of avoiding taxes or for inheritance reasons could enter into a same sex marriage. Thus, since same sex marriage is not limited to homosexuals, then there is no special right for created for homosexuals. The only right same sex marriage would create, a right currently limited to heterosexuals, is the right of a homosexual to marry the person of their own choosing - of course I already the lame response to come "what if a father loves his daughter" a mindless canard which shows not even a limited understanding of the issues involved with same sex marriage.

Sorry, much of what you are suggesting was debunked in the previous thread (see the link in the OP). However, if you would like to open a new thread with the intent of supposedly debunking disinformation on the pro-traditional marriage side of the debate, then have at it. Be prepared, though, to have your efforts scrutinized by people armed with information and critical thinking skills and functioning myth detectors--all the things so evidently lacking in your predictable response.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 14, 2012 by wenglund

[DavidB]

Wrond wade, nothing I have claimed has been debunked, you can continue to say such but there is no debunking the truth.

The Church supports and supported SLC ordinance which made discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is a truth and you are not honest if you deny this truth.

The SLC ordinance protects both heterosexual and homosexual from discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is a truth and you are not honest if you deny this truth.

Same Sex Marriage provides that persons of the same sex can marry, there is not requirement to prove homosexuality on the part of the persons desiring to marry, two straight people can otherwise marry under a same sex marriage law.

These are not myths.

Do not call other posters dishonest for having a different opinion if you want to remain in the thread.

[selek1]

The Illusion of Persecution (also known as the Mom, Billy Hit Me! Principle)

Dragged unwillingly (kicking, screaming, and clawing every pixel of the way) I noticed an MSNBC article that rehashed the recent manufactured Chick-Fil-A controversy.

In the article, the authors chronicled how LGBT activists have begun harassing the publishers of the classic Berenstien Bears childrens books and demanding that the publishers sever ties with the "hateful" corporation.

The headline?

"Berenstein Bears Enter the Cave of the Chick-Fil-A Controversy".

If it weren't so pathetically sad, it would be downright hysterical. The publishers were not the aggressors, they are the victims of a radical mob which brooks no dissent.

This ploy is both stunningly dishonest and dismayingly typical- it paints innocent third parties as the aggressor in acts against homosexuals.

The Berenstein Bears didn't enter the cave, they were mugged walking down the street.

Contrary to the myth, there is no evidence to suggest that Dan Cathy or his corporation are "anti-gay". Despite much wailing, sack-cloth, ashes, and cries of persecution- not one credible piece of evidence has surfaced implicating either Cathy or his corporation in any activity, speech or practice that persecutes homosexuals.

He and his corporation were minding their own business when they were set upon by the radical LGBT lobby.

Yet a massive media onslaught (and an abortive government onslaught) was waged against his family name and his corporation.

The same tactic is being brought to bear against the Berenstein Bear publishers.

Having been peaceably minding their own business, they are being painted as the aggressors by a radical minority which demands complete fidelity to their sacred cause- whether or not you have involved yourself in any fashion, form, shape or degree.

If you fail to toe the line, you are immediately denounced as the aggressor and a purveyor of hate- no matter what the facts say to the contrary.

Edited August 14, 2012 by selek1

[sethpayne]

3. Sympathy and pity ploys

To me, this is the most significant and effective strategy of all, and one that worked well in conjunction with the first two strategies.

For example, there was the so-called Aids epidemic that tugged at our heartstrings for a decade or more. Even though it affected a relatively small proportion of the U.S. population, it at times dominated the news and even found its way, through the use of ribbons, into sporting event, concerts, political events, TV programs, and cars on the road, etc., thereby satisfying the first strategy of pervasive visibility over a very long period of time.

The ploy was carefully crafted to present things in the best possible light and in the way that would generate the maximum amount of sympathy, thus satisfying the second strategy of accentuating the positive. This was done by muffling the alarming notion that all the deaths and suffering were completely avoidable and a function of selfish lust.

Hi Wade,

I apologize if I'm misreading you but are you downplaying the seriousness HIV/AIDS? Before the mass education efforts in the late 80s a lot of didn't know all of the risk factors involved. Sure, promiscuity and unprotected activity was/is the most common way to contract the virus but I think the educational efforts in the 80s were important for raising awareness for everyone by telling people that AIDS wasn't just the "gay disease."

In my ward as a teenager there was a woman who died of AIDS.

She contracted the virus, unfortunately, from her husband who had not been honest with her prior to their marriage about his promiscuous lifestyle.

Another family friend was a hemophiliac and died of AIDS due to a tainted blood transfusion.

A lot of the money spent 20+ years ago on AIDS is now producing great benefits for the people of South Africa and other countries where AIDS truly is an epidemic wiping out significant portions of the population. I applaud the efforts of George W Bush in his current efforts to fight AIDS in Africa.

I see where you are coming from, Wade, but I don't think AIDS should be considered as part of a wider campaign to promote acceptance of homosexuality. It is/was a serious problem.

Anyway .... sorry for the derail.

Seth

[wenglund]

Wrond wade, nothing I have claimed has been debunked, you can continue to say such but there is no debunking the truth.

I loved how you spelled the word "wrong" wrong. It was a fitting beginning to the rest of the sentence. LOL

The Church supports and supported SLC ordinance which made discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is a truth and you are not honest if you deny this truth

The obvious and rationally demonstrable truth is that the first sentence is incoherent and nonsensical, and thus renders the second sentence equally nonsensical.

The SLC ordinance protects both heterosexual and homosexual from discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is a truth and you are not honest if you deny this truth.

In terms of discrimination in regards to homosexual-specific legistation, I wasn't speaking in absolutes, but as a general rule. Congratulations, you found an exception that is, by your own admission, not homosexual-specific (since it protects heterosexuals as well). Note also the very important qualifier in my previous statement: "much of what you are suggesting was debunked" (not to be confused with "all of what you are suggesting."

Same Sex Marriage provides that persons of the same sex can marry, there is not requirement to prove homosexuality on the part of the persons desiring to marry, two straight people can otherwise marry under a same sex marriage law.

I have yet to question the meaning of "same-sex marriage" and what it entails. I simply question its mythical relevance to what I have actually said.

Also, to my knowledge, there is no same-sex marriage laws. Rather, there are laws that extend marriage also to homosexuals by eliminating the part of the traditional definition that reserves marriage as between a man and a woman. So, again, you aren't making sense.

These are not myths.

Myths? Nonsense? What's the difference?

Now, with that banality out of the way, if we can just get back to the topic of this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

I apologize if I'm misreading you but are you downplaying the seriousness HIV/AIDS? Before the mass education efforts in the late 80s a lot of didn't know all of the risk factors involved. Sure, promiscuity and unprotected activity was/is the most common way to contract the virus but I think the educational efforts in the 80s were important for raising awareness for everyone by telling people that AIDS wasn't just the "gay disease."

I see where you are coming from, Wade, but I don't think AIDS should be considered as part of a wider campaign to promote acceptance of homosexuality. It is/was a serious problem.

Anyway .... sorry for the derail. Seth

No, I am not downplaying the seriousness of AIDS. To me, any death and life-threatening illness is serious. Rather, I am looking at it comparatively in relation to other serious diseases at the time (like cancer, pneumonia, major viruses, etc.) in terms of the nature and extent of media coverage and cultural support, and I am suggesting that rather than AIDS being treated like other serious diseases, it was used, in part, as a sympathy ploy--including the mass education effort, which focused on the use of condoms and was virtually silent about abstinence. And, you are right, the mass education effort attempted to down-play the "gay disease" aspect, even though it was by far the prevailing means for spreading the disease in the U.S. This down-playing, in my opinion, was an attempt at damage and image control--minimize the negative stigma of homosexual behavior.

In short, I believe AIDS deserved to be treated seriously, and it should not have been used reprehensibly as a means for manipulating public sentiment in favor of homosexuals and homosexual behavior. If anything, it should have rightly worked against the destructive behavior--though, this thread and the previous thread are intended to expose why and how the opposite occurred.

I appreciate you posing the question so that I could clarify and clear up any confusion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DavidB]

So I take it your style then is wade, personal insult.

Nothing, not even "much of what you are suggesting", of what I have posted has been debunked.

[CASteinman]

The strategy and process was outlined by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the90's".

I know a bit about Marshall Kirk. He was an avid and excellent genealogist. But he suffered from depression and poor self image. I believe he killed himself. His co-author, who first went by the pseudonym "Erastis Pill", has indicated that the book has been mislabeled as being THE guideline that gays have since followed -- but was, instead, merely precocious in prediction. Maybe. Or maybe the activists read it and agreed. Who can know?

[CV75]

1. Pervasive visibility

2. Accentuate the positive

3. Sympathy and pity ploys

4. Celebrity factor

Two other strategies, which may already be included in the above: Removing God from the public square; Accentuate the negative of other trends.

[CV75]

Two person, for reasons of avoiding taxes or for inheritance reasons could enter into a same sex marriage.

And this is about as high as the aspirations get.

[california boy]

1. Pervasive visibility (Public service spots, Mormon stories, web site, broadcasting conference etc)

2. Accentuate the positive (Producing movies, videos, books, temple visitor centers, etc.)

3. Sympathy and pity ploys (Reminding people of extermination order, assignation of JS, Mormon pioneer stories etc.)

4. Celebrity factor

(Donny Osmond, ok the whole Osmond family, sports heros Steve Young, Mark Wilson, Politicians like Mitt Romney actors like Wilford Brimley etc.)

The "sinister plan" or agenda or whatever you want to call it is practically identical as the one used by the church. So what exactly is the point of this thread? That some gays use similar approaches to get their story out to the public that the church uses?

The church pr department have used all of the above approaches very effectively to getting the churches message out. Is there something wrong with either group using that strategy? Or are you just trying to show the similarities between the gay community and the church?

I mean even during times like nowadays, where our nation is faced with considerable economic hardships, where poverty is on the rise, and where there is the constant threat of war and violence, etc., look what we are talking about? That's right...homosexuality. And, for my own reasons, I am a willing contributor.

I have to ask the same question. Do we really need another thread from you disparaging the gay community?

You are welcome to mention some you may have thought of and/or expound upon those I mention.

I think you did forget a very effective strategy for both the church and gay community.

5. Every member a missionary

As mentioned in the previous thread, Harvey Milk motivated the gay community to be visible in the community. Let others know who you are and what you stand for. I think this strategy is one of the most effective strategies for both communities. It is not so easy to demonize someone you know and can see for your self that many of the stereotypes pushed upon either group is not like the neighbor, or work partner or shop keeper that you know.

[wenglund]

The strategy and process was outlined by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the90's".

I know a bit about Marshall Kirk. He was an avid and excellent genealogist. But he suffered from depression and poor self image. I believe he killed himself. His co-author, who first went by the pseudonym "Erastis Pill", has indicated that the book has been mislabeled as being THE guideline that gays have since followed -- but was, instead, merely precocious in prediction. Maybe. Or maybe the activists read it and agreed. Who can know?

Have you read the book? If so, could you disclose some of the key points? I am interested to see how closely they match my observations.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

(Donny Osmond, ok the whole Osmond family, sports heros Steve Young, Mark Wilson, Politicians like Mitt Romney actors like Wilford Brimley etc.)

The "sinister plan" or agenda or whatever you want to call it is practically identical as the one used by the church. So what exactly is the point of this thread? That some gays use similar approaches to get their story out to the public that the church uses?

The church pr department have used all of the above approaches very effectively to getting the churches message out. Is there something wrong with either group using that strategy? Or are you just trying to show the similarities between the gay community and the church?

I have to ask the same question. Do we really need another thread from you disparaging the gay community?

I think you did forget a very effective strategy for both the church and gay community.

5. Every member a missionary

As mentioned in the previous thread, Harvey Milk motivated the gay community to be visible in the community. Let others know who you are and what you stand for. I think this strategy is one of the most effective strategies for both communities. It is not so easy to demonize someone you know and can see for your self that many of the stereotypes pushed upon either group is not like the neighbor, or work partner or shop keeper that you know.

I have not suggested that the process/strategies are "sinister." That is a word you mistakenly put into my mouth. Please stop.

To me, the process/strategies are neutral, and can be used for good (as in the Church's case) and for ill (as with the homosexual agenda). The point of the thread isn't to condemn the process/strategies, but to inform people about them and how they work so that they can intelligently analyze to what end they are being used and decide whether that is a direction they wish to go--decide whether they wish "up" to be viewed as "up" and "good" to be viewed as "good" (as in the case with the Church), or "down" to be viewed as "up" and "bad" to be viewed as "good" (as in the case of the gay agenda).

Besides, your comparison is more than a little strained. For one, we LDS don't have the mainstream media in our pocket. If anything, they are prejudiced against us. And, for another, the mention of things like the extermination order are the rare exception rather than the rule with the Church and its members, and more often than not it is in apologetic response to attacks on my faith. Our best strategy is #5 you listed, whereas for your side it is the sympathy ploy, for reasons that are obvious. But, nice try anyway.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 14, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

So I take it your style then is wade, personal insult.

Nothing, not even "much of what you are suggesting", of what I have posted has been debunked.

I am not going to get sucked any further into your Pee Wee Herman-like banter ("is not," "is too," "is not," "is too"....). If you have something to say that is intelligible, rational, and on-topic, I will respond in-kind. Otherwise...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zeta-Flux]

wenglund,

So how do we counter the ideological bias of the press? How do we get them to cover the fact that 15 states have filed a brief with the Supreme Court, in favor of DOMA? And do so without calling it a bigoted effort, but represent that actual arguments made in the brief?

[DavidB]

I am not going to get sucked any further into your Pee Wee Herman-like banter ("is not," "is too," "is not," "is too"....). If you have something to say that is intelligible, rational, and on-topic, I will respond in-kind. Otherwise...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I seriously doubt you would do such, as your post already show. You insult me based on a spelling error. And you insult me and separately you do avoid a truth due a missing word, which word you knew or should have known was missing.

[wenglund]

wenglund,

So how do we counter the ideological bias of the press? How do we get them to cover the fact that 15 states have filed a brief with the Supreme Court, in favor of DOMA? And do so without calling it a bigoted effort, but represent that actual arguments made in the brief?

It looks to me like the only viable option is to rely on the alternative press and to notify each other of things like this. I appreciate you bringing these things to our attention. DO you have access to the brief and do you know which states filed?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-