How social conservatives became a minority in need of protection
During the Bush era, the religious right was ascendant and scarily intolerant. Now the same can be said of the secular left.
By Damon Linker | July 25, 2014


I came across the above article because Rod Dreher (TAC) was wailing about something related on his blog.

Damon Linker writes:

“Thirteen years ago, I was a committed social conservative, recently hired as an editor at First Things, a monthly magazine devoted to bringing traditionalist religion into American public life for the purpose of overthrowing the liberal secularism that had been growing in power and influence since the 1960s.”

I don’t know what FT was like it then, but just a few years ago, FT was and continues to be a profoundly morally corrupt publication, who is sturdily pushing for the normalization of homosexuality – and has that as a priority – while constantly censoring voices that sustain a real traditionalist – and healthy – view of sexuality (social conservatism).

After I got banned at FT for expressing traditionalist views, I created a blog to log a few of the censored comments (“Censored at First Things“) – which then turned into a repository of my continuously censored comments all around the Net, including on many so-called traditional religious blogs and sites.

Linker continues delineating his “evolution”:

Though I was skeptical about some aspects of the magazine’s agenda, I was broadly sympathetic with its goals. At least until I saw them guiding White House policy. I opposed the Iraq War before it started and found particularly outrageous the theologically tinged arguments the magazine published in support of it. I dissented from the sexism that pervaded the magazine’s offices and permeated its pages. I changed my mind on same-sex marriage, eventually becoming persuaded by Andrew Sullivan’s conservative case for allowing gay couples to marry — and feeling disgust at the Bush administration’s support for a constitutional amendment banning such arrangements.

FT is currently ruled by an ugly gay mafia, and given that the author was “persuaded” to adhere to the repugnant Andrew Sullivan, and his nasty homosexuality agenda, no surprise he was at FT – surely he was never much of a social conservative to begin with.

He’s the kind of “conservative” that hears a perverted way of thinking about sexuality and is immediately “persuaded” of its “truth”!

You have to laugh at these people calling themselves social conservatives…

Hasn’t anyone else noticed this? These “conservatives” who become so easily persuaded when they hear liberals pushing their homosexuality agenda, their porn agenda, their prostitution, adultery, hook-up agendas…

Doesn’t anyone realize there weren’t any socially conservative or religious fundamentals there to begin with?

No one that has a good grasp on healthy and wholesome frameworks for sexuality and relationships can be persuaded by the trash that the Sullivans of the world put forth. How can anyone who has a decent mind be “persuaded” by arguments produced by a perverted and dysfunctional homosexual like Sullivan?

Linker and others like him weren’t persuaded. They never had a grasp on what healthy and wholesome is in terms of sexuality. It’s only when you have a combination of shaky, corrupted, and ignorant views and misunderstandings of sexuality in addition to not having much of a clue of the real problems related to homosexuality in the world that you can jump on the homosexuality agenda bandwagon.

Linker was only persuaded in the sense of being duped. And maybe he was enthusiastically duped, maybe he was all to eager to be duped, obviously not for the best reasons. Quite a possibility there too.