Discussion Forums - LGBTQ LGBTQ

Topic: The Marketing of Evil... need gay person to respond

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
  Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
Subject: The Marketing of Evil... need gay person to respond
Date Posted: 4/21/2008 2:27 PM ET
Member Since: 1/29/2006
Posts: 41
Back To Top


I read a book called, "The Marketing of Evil" a little over a year ago. I would like to know what a gay person's response is to the chapter called, "How 'gay rights' is being sold to America."

If you are gay and would read the whole chapter to respond, I'd be grateful to hear from you. THANKS!

Here is the link:


Thanks! Tamara

Date Posted: 4/21/2008 3:07 PM ET
Member Since: 5/9/2006
Posts: 851
Back To Top

I'll see if I have some free time at work today to read this and respond. I'm curious why you're looking for the opinions of those in the GLBT community. At first glance, the article looks rather negative.

Date Posted: 4/21/2008 9:34 PM ET
Member Since: 5/9/2006
Posts: 851
Back To Top

Well Tamara, I read the entire article. It was difficult, but I did it. It seems my first impressions were correct. The article is much more than "rather negative", it is inflammatory and offensive. I can call it nothing other than an attack on the GLBT community.

To briefly recap the article: homosexuality is "immoral" and "abnormal". To act upon it is to give in to a "bizarre sexual compulsion". Supporting gay right is participating in "brainwashing". The media is controlled by leftist homosexuals and their sympathizers. In addition to these provocative statements, the author purposefully spreads misinformation. For instance, though this was published in 2005 and Federal Hate Crimes Legislation was not passed in the house until May 2007, the author states: "Thanks to "hate-crimes" legislation, they are now afforded extra protections as a special class of people – protections not granted to all members of society." I also take issue with the implication in the following quote that GLBT people have had equal rights for years. "'I thought gays just wanted equal rights and to be free to do what they want in their own bedrooms.'" No, they've had that for years."

I think the authors conclusion sums it up for me. This article is hateful in the extreme. It goes beyond disagreeing with what the author terms a "lifestyle" and attempts to make the case for a "homosexual agenda":

"Their campaign will not end until Christians and other traditionalists opposing homosexuality are shut up, discredited, and utterly silenced – and all because of a little factor we've forgotten about in our cleverness, namely this: In truth, there is something wrong with homosexuality.

Simply put, it is unnatural and self-destructive – just as Western civilization has long understood it."

Tamara, I would really love for you to come back and explain yourself. I'm hoping you posted this in order to start a conversation on the topic and were not just trolling for strong reactions. After glancing at your profile and viewing your "homepage", I fear that you simply hoped to fool some members of this forum into reading this attack. If that was not your intention, I apologize. I have tried to respond in as calm a manner as possible, but I find it difficult when my life and relationship are so thoroughly condemned and threatened.

Date Posted: 4/21/2008 10:56 PM ET
Member Since: 11/10/2006
Posts: 3,012
Back To Top

Let's consider the source of this article, which also published the following: (From Wikipedia   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily )


WorldNetDaily published an editorial[39] in December 2006 written by Jim Rutz of "Megashift Ministries" where he claimed that eating soy at a young age increases the chance that a child will be gay, and that soy's estrogen content will feminize a young boy. Rutz is not a doctor or nutritionist, but has founded his own church. His claims are contradicted by research done by scientists at the University of Pennsylvania.[40] The article was referenced by Frank Rich in a New York Times op-ed piece on December 17, 2006, describing the reaction to homosexuality in the Republican Party.[41] The liberal advocacy organization People For the American Way mocked Rutz's claims in their online "RightWing Watch" feature, commenting "sometimes you just have to marvel at the things published by WorldNetDaily."[42] In response to the interest in the article, WorldNetDaily later published columns by Rutz providing documentation to back up his claims.[43][44]



I also would be interested in the OP's interest in the GLBT reaction to the article. I cannot help but think that they are merely trolling for outraged responses.

Date Posted: 4/22/2008 9:50 AM ET
Member Since: 6/19/2007
Posts: 5,931
Back To Top

Not sure if I should respond since I'm just a "gay sympathizer", but what the hell, I read the chapter and found it a) hateful and disgusting b) full of factual errors and c) sadly, not that different from a lot of other things I've read or heard from people who think they have the right to dictate how other people live their lives

There's no really comparable metaphor for homosexuality that I've heard, but this is what I usually respond to sentiments like those in that passage:

Homosexuality is not a choice.  You might as well blame a diabetic for having diabetes.

Homosexuality may be denounced in the Bible, but not everyone lives by the Bible.  The Bible also calls for the murder of disobedient children and "witches" but Christians don't usually go around lynching Wiccans or stoning their kids when they come home past curfew.  If you're a Christian, talk to your family about your beliefs, that's fine, but please don't try to run everyone else's lives. 

Christians, if they believe the Bible, should believe that all Jewish people are un-saved because they have not accepted Jesus.  But most Christians don't (anymore) go around making statements that Jews are going to hell.  If you start proselytizing  how one group that doesn't adhere to your idea of being "saved", because you think you are morally obligated to "save" them, then you'd have to do that for everyone whose behavior is contrary to the behavior you think leads to salvation.  Singling out one group, whether its Jews or homosexuals or atheists or people who eat shrimp is just scapegoating.

I'd also be interested to know the reasoning behind the OP's post and Tamara, I highly recommend a movie called "For the Bible Tells Me So".  It's a documentary about the reactions of several very devout, very spiritual Christian families when one of the children comes out.  It's very informative and moving and not at all Christian-bashing.  But please let us know what prompted this post.

Date Posted: 4/22/2008 12:43 PM ET
Member Since: 11/28/2006
Posts: 2,087
Back To Top

Singling out one group, whether its Jews or homosexuals or atheists or people who eat shrimp is just scapegoating.

And actually, according to the Bible, eating shrimp is a forbidden activity as well.  Most Christians that I know seem to ignore that part.

I read Tamara's links and homepage and I wonder what prompted this post as well.  Hopefully, a meaningful conversation.   Homosexuality is not a choice.  I don't recall choosing to be heterosexual. 

Date Posted: 4/23/2008 3:48 PM ET
Member Since: 6/23/2005
Posts: 379
Back To Top

Posts like this make me tired. Not only is the article the OP points to insulting, those who post these kinds of messages are revealing an equally insulting opinion of those of us who are gay and our straight allies.

What? You think a gay person will read it and say "oh, he's right - I'm a sinner" Raise your hand if you read something new in that article.

We're too stupid to post replies and let each other know that the linkis to garbage and tell others not to bother, so of course your "message" will reach throughout the forum. NOT.

What is that line? "Heterosexuality isn't right, just common"

So, evidently, is ignorance. I forget that sometimes.


Date Posted: 4/23/2008 4:29 PM ET
Member Since: 5/9/2006
Posts: 851
Back To Top

You know Mary, I thought about posting to let people know not to read the article, but in the end I decided it's important to know what the other side is thinking. Knowledge is power even if that knowledge makes you uncomfortable. I am still hoping very much that Tamara comes back to explain her motivations. I think that this could be a valuable discussion, but since she hasn't reappeared I'll simply let people know that the article is distasteful and everyone can make their own decision whether or not to read it.

Date Posted: 4/23/2008 4:50 PM ET
Member Since: 6/23/2005
Posts: 379
Back To Top

Lauren, what you did is admirable - you read it, gave a review, and left it for others to decide if educating themselves on the other side's progaganda was worth exposing themselves to such hate-filled speech.

Seriously - you done good. I wish I could say the same for the OP.

Date Posted: 4/24/2008 12:08 AM ET
Member Since: 9/16/2007
Posts: 1,002
Back To Top

The OP hijacked a great thread about LDS/Mormonism a few months back.  It had been going for 2-3 pages as an ongoing conversation about the religion, with a couple church-members answering some well-thoughtout and respectful questions.  But Tamra hijacked it to preach at and judge people.  I'm sure she was just trolling here.  Sad when people feel a need to violate our space with their hateful ideas.

Date Posted: 4/24/2008 4:11 PM ET
Member Since: 1/23/2006
Posts: 609
Back To Top

Sadly, after doing a search and reading her previous posts, I felt that she just posted here to stir up trouble as well.

Date Posted: 4/27/2008 8:13 AM ET
Member Since: 1/29/2006
Posts: 41
Back To Top



I've been pretty sick and haven't been able to answer this post or many emails unless they've been really important. Thank you for your responses. I'll get to posting here more in a while as I'm still getting myself back into "life" ya know?


No, I'm not trolling, but you know what I find interesting? I'm a Christian and when I'm out witnessing for Jesus Christ on the streets, people who love their sin (whatever it may be) usually say, "YOU'RE BEING JUDGMENTAL!!" but I found on this thread that I was being judged, called names, and that some had presuppositional positions about my post. That's quite interesting, isn't it? Who is doing the judging and why do you feel it's right to judge me?


So those who are not Christians here who thought the article was so bad, what are your thoughts on what happens when you die? (regardless of gender, sex preference, etc.)... I mean you as an individual will die one day, what will happen to you?


Oh, and as far as my OP, I really did want to know what a homosexual's point of view was. That's all. I thank those who took the time to look it over and give me your point of view... whethere we agree or disagree. Normally when I talk to homosexuals, I don't even bring it up or don't allow it to be brought up on their end either because it's a non-issue as far as the Bible, Heaven, Hell, Jesus, etc. is concerned. Just wanted to hear the views here  :)


I'll check back here in a few days. For those of you who are checking into this thread who are Christians - please pray for my husband and I... he's been sick for almost 2 weeks now and not one to take medication, but actually went in and got an antibiotic; I hope I don't get the same, but feeling sick off / on! Trying to take care of him....


God bless,


Date Posted: 4/27/2008 10:23 AM ET
Member Since: 11/17/2007
Posts: 3
Back To Top


Hello, Tamara, my sister in Christ:

I hope your faith has more to it than the zeal you appear to have for witnessing to people you choose to describe as "loving their sin."  That was a very telling statement to me.  Basically, you've just told us that when someone is not receptive to your message, it's because they have a problem, they have a sin.  It has nothing to do with your message or how you deliver it.  It's all their problem, and, apparently, you don't have any problems like that.  This may not be an accurate description of your feelings on the issue, but it is the impression you've made upon me.  You do come across as a smug and judgemental, and that has nothing to do with you believing Jesus is God's son (I believe that too, actually). 

Frankly, I don't have an issue with people whose moral convictions differ from mine re: what healthy, responsible sexual behavior is until they start using it as an excuse to treat me or others badly.  Jesus never addressed same sex sex.  He said a lot about loving your neighbors, your enemies, and your God.  He said if you say you love God, but treat people badly, then you don't love God. 

I've read portions of the Marketing of Evil book your article refers to.  The author is not just against gay people.  He is against anyone who doesn't want to dress, talk, and think like he does.  Among many other things, he equates tattoos and body piercing with evil.  And, although I admit to not reading the whole book, in the portions I read, he comes across as a hateful nutter with a warped view of history and an image of God based on his own likes and dislikes.

Since we're trading links, I would invite you to check this one out.  In particular, there's a .pdf file called What the Bible Says and Doesn't Say about Homosexuality.  It's under the resources/what the Bible says tab.


I will be praying for your husband.  Hope he gets better quickly.



Date Posted: 4/28/2008 6:52 PM ET
Member Since: 6/19/2007
Posts: 5,931
Back To Top

Uh oh, if body piercings are evil I'm in trouble.

But seriously Shelly, well said.  I may have to quote you.

Last Edited on: 4/28/08 6:53 PM ET - Total times edited: 2