First Things Magazine: Any piece of writing which is anti-gay marriage results in a host of comments castigating the author- while socially conservatives commenters are systematically censored

In this post:

“Opponents of gay marriage are now treated by the press in the same way queer-rights agitators were in the past: as strange, depraved creatures, whose repenting and surrender to mainstream values we await with bated breath,” writes Brendan O’Neill in Spiked! Which raises the question: “How do we account for this extraordinary consensus, for what is tellingly referred to as the ‘surrender’ to gay marriage by just about everyone in public life?”

“And is it a good thing, evidence that we had a heated debate on a new civil right and the civil rightsy side won? I don’t think so. I don’t think we can even call this a ‘consensus’, since that would imply the voluntaristic coming together of different elements in concord. It’s better described as conformism, the slow but sure sacrifice of critical thinking and dissenting opinion under pressure to accept that which has been defined as a good by the upper echelons of society: gay marriage. Indeed, the gay-marriage campaign provides a case study in conformism, a searing insight into how soft authoritarianism and peer pressure are applied in the modern age to sideline and eventually do away with any view considered overly judgmental, outdated, discriminatory, ‘phobic’, or otherwise beyond the pale.”

This “extraordinary consensus” or “conformity” was not achieved by gay rights activists changing public opinion, he argues, but by elites led by judges in particular.

William, a subscriber and reader of FT, wonders (May 17th, 2013):

No, not judges, but the media; both the old mainstream and the new social media. Why think this way? First Things is an academic-minded, rather conservative and orthodox journal, yet a piece of writing which is anti-gay marriage results in a host of comments castigating the author. As a subscriber I should be happy that my favourite magazine has such a wide range of readers yet I wonder if they are readers and, if not, where did they come from?


Well, if William and other subscribers would ever wake up and smell the coffee, they might start to wonder why many socon commenter are systematically censored and not allowed to comment in FT threads related to homosexuality and people normalizing homosexuality flood the comment section.

You don’t need more than two neurons to figure out this is deliberate. And that it is a disguised way for FT to push a homosexual agenda.

The question is: Who’s pink and pushing for this agenda inside FT?

As long as these subscribers continue to give their money to FT, the problem will only worsen.