Some of the secular media is very conservative regarding LGBTQ issues, but much of it is either neutral or positive on those topics. There is no general "media" one can talk about in this country, especially on specific issues. The media, also, in large part, is neutral on religious issues, out of concern for its audience, which includes people from all religious and non-religious positions.

It is a mistake to lump all media into one group - a grievous mistake. It implies that most media is similar to Fox News, which has a clear and obvious bias on both LGBTQ and religious issues. That is not the case, on those issues, at least.

Guess which television news media has the highest numbers of viewers? It is ABC, CBS and NBC broadcast news, by a very, very large margin. You will not find open bias for anti-LGBTQ issues nor for right-wing Christianity on any of those three. They simply do not have those biases, generally, but take a neutral to positive view of LGBTQ issues and mainstream religion.

The author is mistaken, if he or she lumps all media together. That is simply not correct.

you are incorrect there, too. You quoted the salient paragraph, and it does not say simply that the secular media TAKES that position. Instead it says that that position "is OFTEN SHARED in ignorance by the secular media." In leaving out those qualifying modifiers and changing the verb used in the article, you changed the statement you quoted in your very excerpt to suit your own biases.

Why try to change what the author has written by restating it incorrectly? You cannot make the author say what the author did not say, by reframing it, Why change the author's words? That you do it while quoting those very words is awkward for you, I think.

The author's words are highlighted. Mine are not.

Careful reading is essential.

between what the author said and what you changed it to. Why did you change the authors verb and leave out the qualifier? There is an an enormous difference between "taking" a position and "often sharing" that position.

You also used highlighting that was not used in the article to emphasize something. It's a common enough thing to do in posts. i just followed your example, you see.

It's right there in your post, Monsieur B.

We both know that the words predominantly and all are not synonymous.

It's all there.

But you continue to mistakenly insist that my commentary is something else.

And, you avoided the point of the actual article, which challenges the prevailing view of what Christians are.

You whine about blasphemy, you want clergy exempted from laws, and now you rant about the "secular media."

Connecting those dots draws a very scary picture.

You are trying to make the article say what you want it to say, rather than what it said. The author of the article is clearly better with the English language than you are, it seems. The author says precisely what is meant, leaving it for you to reframe in your own materials.

Apply that definition to my commentary on the piece.

You are trying to do something, but so far you are demonstrating that you misread the post.

And the callout of secular media is disturbing. What does non-secular media have to say about the subject?

But why does the term secular media bother you?

The obvious explanation to me is that the author wished to distinguish between the religious based media sources and non-religious sources.

then claiming it has nothing to do with this thread and attacking anyone who asks you about it.

It apparently bothers the article author, otherwise he wouldn't have said it, why did you choose it, and specifically highlight it?

It's really odd to say that, and betrays a bias.

My view is that the media deliberately promotes this view.

That's way further than I thought this would go...

My term is conservative, not secular.

Thus my disagreement with the author as to intent.