Do you consider yourself an independent thinker? What is the
source of your conclusions regarding right or wrong? How do you
determine your opinions regarding the news and political events?
Professional marketers develop strategies to influence and persuade
potential customers to purchase their products. Some are very
successful, as you can probably hum or sing dozens of pithy jingles or
recognize the logos of many companies.
But you should also realize that people are affecting our culture who
you’ve probably never heard of. How about Dan Wieden, co-founder of the
advertising agency Wieden+Kennedy? Have you ever repeated the Nike
slogan “Just do it”? Wieden developed that phrase in 1988.
Have you ever used the expression, “Where’s the beef?” Wendy’s
hamburger chain profited from that slogan’s creator, Cliff Freeman, around
1984. You’ve probably never heard of him either.
You’ve also likely never heard of Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.
Nevertheless, these men have directly affected your life and American
culture—strategically, gradually, subtly and definitely intentionally.
In the November 1987 edition of
Guide, a magazine for homosexuals, the two men authored an article titled “
The Overhauling of Straight America
.” There Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Madsen, a public
relations consultant, laid out a blueprint to fundamentally change
Americans’ attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality. In 1989 they
expanded that blueprint into a 398-page book titled
After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s.
The “bible” of the homosexual agenda
Their goal was to make homosexuality acceptable and to forge
negative opinions of any who disagree. The article began by stating: “
The first order of business is desensitization of the American public
concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it
view homosexuality with indifference … She likes strawberry and I like
vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.
” (We quote from the
Guide
article rather than the book, which at times is quite vulgar and
graphic. Interested readers can find the article in whole or in
part online.)
One person described “The Overhauling of Straight America” as the
“bible” of the homosexual agenda. It is quite a contrast to the Bible
of Christianity.
The authors, relating to the culture of the late 1980s, were realistic. They continued:
“At least in the beginning we are seeking public desensitization and
nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full ‘appreciation’ or
‘understanding’ of homosexuality from the average American. You can
forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good
thing. But if you can only get them to think that is just another thing …
, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.
”
To understand how startlingly successful their blueprint proved to
be, consider this: In 1987, the year that article was published, Gallup
polls showed that only 33 percent of those polled thought that same-sex
relations between consenting adults should be legal, while 55 percent
thought such action should be outlawed (numbers don’t total 100 percent
because some offered no opinion). By 2015, the numbers were more than
reversed—68 percent believed such sexual relations should be legal and
only 28 percent were opposed.
Same-sex
marriage was so off the radar that it wasn’t even
asked about in Gallup polls until 1996, when only 27 percent approved
and 68 percent were opposed. Today, Gallup polls show that 58 percent
approve and 40 percent disapprove—another startling turnaround
in attitudes.
Gallup polls in 1989 showed that only 19 percent of Americans
believed people were born homosexual, with 48 percent believing it was
due to environmental factors such as upbringing. By 2015 those numbers
had dramatically shifted to 51 percent believing homosexuals were born
that way and only 30 percent attributing it to other factors. (This is
in spite of the fact that extensive genetic research and many studies of
identical twins where only one was homosexual have disproven
genetic determinism.)
Well-researched surveys (as opposed to some with markedly skewed
samples and/or methodology) have consistently placed the homosexual
population of America at around 2 to 3 percent—yet the influence of
homosexuals on American culture is vastly out of proportion with their
actual numbers. How did this come to be?
For those who remember what American culture was like in 1987 when
the blueprint was first published, you can easily evaluate whether the
six strategies they outlined have been successful. For those too young
to remember the late 80s, consider how pervasive these things are in the
culture you experience today.
What was their blueprint for overhauling American attitudes? Following are the six steps they advocated a quarter-century ago.
Step 1: “Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.”
Authors Kirk and Madsen say that “
almost any behavior begins to
look normal if you are exposed to enough of it … The way to benumb raw
sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a
great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way … Constant
talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on
the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices
homosexuality.
Consider this quote: “
And when we say talk about homosexuality,
we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight
America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature
exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex
should be downplayed … First let the camel get his nose inside the
tent—only later his unsightly derriere!
”
When we are exposed to anything repeatedly, it becomes routine and
normal. What initially might shock someone eventually can become
acceptable. And acceptability is the ultimate goal. What at one time was
highly offensive to the vast majority of Americans is now no big deal.
They’ve been lulled into complacency.
“
Where we talk is important,
” wrote Kirk and Madsen. “
… The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed …
“
So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in
the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past ten
years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films … On the whole the impact has been encouraging.
”
Have you noticed the number of homosexual characters appearing in
TV programs and how they are overwhelmingly depicted positively? From a rarity on
TV in the 1980s, such characters are now almost inescapable. A
USA Today
article last year reported 32 regularly appearing bisexual or
homosexual characters in primetime network scripted series for the
2014-15 television season, with another 64 appearing in cable
TV shows (Bill Keveney, “Yes, You Really Are Seeing More
LGBT Characters on
TV,” Oct. 1, 2014).
If a child grows up hearing about the gay lifestyle and seeing it
portrayed positively his entire life, won’t that make it seem normal?
Kirk and Madsen also described a strategy by which the homosexual
movement could counter and largely nullify opposition from America’s
churches. They wrote: “
When conservative churches condemn gays,
there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true
believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means
publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising
theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of
biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency.
”
This they have certainly accomplished—enlisting liberal scholars to
explain away biblical teachings about homosexual practices,
reinterpreting their plain meaning.
They continued: “
Second, we can undermine the moral authority of
homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly
out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology.
”
Again, their strategy has succeeded remarkably well. Those who hold
to biblical teachings about homosexuality and marriage are condemned as
bigots, homophobes and backward thinkers who are a threat to progress.
Some who have stood up have been fined, ordered to attend pro-homosexual
“sensitivity training,” lost jobs or had their businesses sued out of
existence by government agents and agencies that support the
homosexual agenda.
The next step in their stated strategy similarly turns truth on its head.
Step 2: “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.”
“
In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as
victims in need of protection,” Kirk and Madsen wrote. Of course this
does not address the issue of whether the gay lifestyle is right or
wrong. It is an attempt to emotionally manipulate others with the motive
of getting them to accept values they otherwise wouldn’t agree with
.
“
If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe
promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more
likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and
oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our
‘gay pride’ publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image
,” they wrote.
“
… This means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very
low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while
sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive
women would be featured.
”
They then add this caution for those who would want to push the gay agenda too far: “
It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA
[the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which as its name
suggests promotes adult-child homosexual sex] must play no part at all
in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like
victims …
“
Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims …
To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be
decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards … they
should be indistinguishable from the straights we would like to reach.
”
It should be obvious that we are beyond this strategy today. The gay
community should no longer be considered victims in the United
States—and in reality those in the gay movement have become aggressive
challengers of traditional values and biblical beliefs on many fronts.
This brings us to the next step in their strategic blueprint.
Step 3: “Give protectors a just cause.”
“
A media campaign that casts gays as society’s victims and
encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for
those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness. Few
straight women, and even fewer straight men, will want to defend
homosexuality boldly as such … Our campaign should
not demand direct support for homosexual practices, [but] should instead
take anti-discrimination as its theme
.
“
The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of
association, due process and equal protection of laws—these should be
the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.
”
Again, this tactic is antiquated now. Law and due process should’ve
always protected all citizens equally. The real issue is whether there
is a true Creator God who authored the Bible and if that God has the
right to determine right and wrong and what is best for those
He’s created.
Step 4: “Make gays look good.”
“
In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have
to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign
should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad
press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the
campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society.
”
This approach can be considered mission accomplished. Kirk and
Madsen also pointed out the benefits of “the celebrity endorsement.” It
doesn’t matter whether the celebrity is straight or gay, the important
thing is the endorsement of homosexuality as normal.
Of course, most celebrities are part of the entertainment world,
where values are overwhelmingly liberal and opposed to biblical
standards. Is it any wonder that so many celebrities have “come out of
the closet” in recent years or proclaimed their support for gays?
Step 5: “Make the victimizers look bad.”
Kirk and Madsen continued: “
At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights … it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified …
Our goal here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s
self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second,
we intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types
” (emphasis added throughout).
“
The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America
,” Kirk and Madsen wrote. To this end, they then suggested that those
who oppose the homosexual agenda be linked with images such as the Ku
Klux Klan, “bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred,”
thugs and convicts, and Nazi concentration camps.
This strategy—aided and abetted by sympathetic news media and
government agencies—has led to us entering a stage of aggressive attacks
by some in the gay community against those who sincerely believe that
homosexual behavior violates the laws, instructions and principles of
God. Bible-believing Christians are indeed “vilified” and branded as
bigots and homophobes.
Do rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religious beliefs and
freedom of association work both ways? We’re seeing a time in which
constitutionally guaranteed citizens’ rights are being stripped away to
accommodate new supposed rights invented by various court rulings and
government policy.
Step 6: “Solicit funds: The buck stops here.”
“
Any massive campaign of this kind would require unprecedented
expenditures for months or even years—an unprecedented fundraising drive
,” they acknowledged.
Yet at the same time, they made a statement showing that gays really
aren’t the oppressed, victimized group Kirk and Madsen advocate they be
portrayed as: “
Because those gays not supporting families usually
have more discretionary income than average, they could afford to
contribute much more. ”
If you’ve ever wondered why so many American businesses cater to a
gay clientele, donate money to support homosexual causes and celebrated
the
U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing
same-sex marriage, it’s because they recognize this simple fact:
Homosexual couples, who typically don’t have children, have
substantially more discretionary income than families who do.
The impact of this is also being felt in the political arena, where
wealthy gays help bankroll campaigns for sympathetic candidates who will
advance their interests and fund ads attacking those who stand for
traditional and biblical values.
Kirk and Madsen go on to praise the fact that homosexuals have been
able to infiltrate American news media to advance the cause of issues
important to them. “
Because most straightforward appeals are
impossible, the National Gay Task Force has had to cultivate quiet
backroom liaisons with broadcast companies and newsrooms in order to
make sure that issues important to the gay community receive some
coverage.
”
In the 26 years since they wrote that, most
U.S.
media has tilted even more to the left, so proponents of the homosexual
agenda are usually assured of favorable coverage and free publicity for
their cause.
What is the right Christian response?
Those who believe the Bible and care about the future of America
should be aware that today’s issues regarding the gay lifestyle have
been orchestrated by activists for more than 25 years. This was no
accident or chance course of events.
A gay person should not be afraid of a Christian as some
hate-monger. True followers of Jesus Christ are to always show love
toward others (
Matthew 5:44), recognizing that all have sinned and need God’s mercy and forgiveness (
Romans 3:23). But this does not mean excusing and accepting sin.
Recall that Jesus didn’t condemn a woman who was caught in adultery and brought before Him (
John 8:2-11). But He didn’t say that what she was doing was acceptable either. He told her to “go and sin no more” (
John 8:11). Moreover, He had to die to pay the penalty of her sin—and ours.
We should call sin what it is. And the Bible clearly labels homosexual activity a sin (
Leviticus 18:22;
Leviticus 20:13;
1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Of course, we must have compassion for those who don’t understand—and for those who do who struggle with this sin.
In communicating with others, Christians should be wise enough not
to be trapped by phrases mislabeling the Christian approach. “Are you
anti-gay?” can be a very misleading question. Understanding the
definitions of someone you are having a discussion with is important.
Acceptance, tolerance and inclusivity can be controversial and
emotionally charged words.
Speaking on the issue of tolerance, mega-church pastor and
bestselling author Rick Warren observed that our culture has accepted
two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s
lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love
someone means you agree with everything they believe or do.
Both notions are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions
to be compassionate. Disapproval is not hate. Disapproval of what is
wrong and harmful is a part of godly love.
Don’t let your life be controlled by the clever marketing of evil as
good and good as evil. Look to God’s Word as the blueprint for your
life. One day this wayward world and its vile influences will end, but
the way of God will prevail. Stand firm with Him and you will
stand forever!
MP3 Audio (5.13 MB) 
Maulaff via Wikimedia Commons 
Photos.com 
Thinkstock 
