election or evangelism?

the recent email conversation with evangelist paul in comments to the fma post brought forth an argument about whether or not i should tell my gay friends they're going to hell. 
(note:  i am not telling my gay friends they are going to hell.)
 
the argument follows thusly:
1.  God does not condone sin A.
2.  Person indulges in sin A.
3.  Friend of Person indulging in sin A is a Christian.
4.  Friend, therefore, should clue in Person indulging in sin A.
5.  Person/Sinner will...
 
and here's where the argument breaks down.  Person/Sinner will...what?  So far, we have a pretty straight line of cause and effect.  But until this point, when the ball is thrown back in Person/Sinner's court, the game fails; it becomes a flow chart leading to the same zero-sum conclusion.
 
1.  Person/Sinner, told he is bound for hell, will either:
a.  Agree.
b.  Tell you to perform a physically impossible act upon yourself.
c.  Tell you to mind your own business.
d.  Tell you he doesn't believe in God, so there.
 
most evangelicals hope for (a).  but since this almost never happens (and i dare anyone to prove otherwise) let's think about options (b-d).  in all of these reactions, you've polarized the situation and each of you are entrenched.  no one's moving, there's no effect - except that now you feel really good that you've done what you were told to do.  you've just spread God's word.
 
but what about the doctrine of election? 
 
(thanks, dad.)