I phrased it differently, of course, and I notice how you rephrase it for your own purposes.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 11:28 am I'm still waiting for your answer, AJ. You say that you have come to some sort of conclusive realization about homosexuality being wrong action, would you share it with the rest of us?
Thinking over the issue of the appearance and rise of the homosexual normalization movement in America, which is a post-Sixties movement inspired by the radicalism of the era, and as part of my own process of review of the social and historical processes culminating in “our present”, I referred to the movement that gained steam in the late 1980s and defined, or outlined, in the manual or manifesto by Kirk and Madsen “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s”. One author being a psychologist, the other an advertising expert and as such a propagandist, homosexuality was repackaged as a manifestation of normality, and the traditional social opposition to it branded as the real deviance. Here I noticed the “transvaluation of values” but one brought about through campaigns of media productions introduced into popular culture.
Now, in my own case I also did at that time (10-12 years ago now) study essays such as “The Marketing of Evil”, a polemical exposition by a dedicated Christian who pointed out, convincingly, how marketing techniques were and are used to introduce products and ideas that, just a while earlier, were considered “wrong” “destructive” and also as “evil”. So for example take the social phenomenon of Only Fans which is said to influence girls and young women to sell themselves like prostitutes for material gain. Why would someone define this as wrong or, going further, as an “evil”? In your case — you have your own private perversions of course, but you are not stupid — I assume that you could examine a cultural movement that markets the prostitution model to girls (say your own daughter though you are an incel) as being both “bad” and possibly as “evil” but of course, given your own deviancies, I cannot be 100% sure.
That was just an example of the notion of “the marketing of evil”.
Now we know that homosexuality will always be present in human culture. Roger that. But we can simultaneously see that if, as in campaigns involving selling it as a viable alternative to traditional male-female matrimony and family life, if it becomes a pervasive movement, let’s say a social fad, that it will have negative effect socially and culturally. I.e. as part of an “attack” on the traditional family and of “family values”. And we can also very easily notice the evolution of the normalization of deviancies in our present: gender dysphoria they call it. Mental illness surrounding one’s gender “assignment”, profound disassociation from what one is — briefly a whole raft of strange psychological maladies.
I regard all of this as “concerning” however it is possible that you might see it all as “positive evolution”.
To recap: I believe we must accept homosexuality and in this sense tolerate it, but it is best if a culture generally holds it in distain. I.e. does not encourage it. Does not advertise it. Does not “sell” it. What would be the mechanism by which this distain is manifested? Just exactly what I have done here: explained marketing and propaganda; defined normal and even eternal social structures (the family and family life) and associated certain deviancies with certain forms of “attack” on these structures.
It is only when there is a general mood in a culture that discourages these manifestation (when they go to excess) that could rein-in a toleration that has become unhealthy.
You can do your own research: look up both Kirk and Madsen’s book and read (if it pleases you to do so) The Marketing of Evil. You will 1) see and understand the advertising and public relations techniques and strategy that normalized homosexuality and shamed opposition to it, and 2) understand a coherent outline of a morality and ethics-based opposition to the selling of all things that we might consider bad, wrong, destructive and “evil”.
).