Why does it matter if Tim Farron thinks being gay is a sin?

Frankly I think how he held himself is really idealistic.

He cares to champion the idea of equality, despite not agreeing with the stance of the people he is representing.

And about the free speech bit; I think he realized that what he had to say about LGBT might be considered insulting and out of respect for his fellow human being he was absolutely right to hold his comment. What is appalling is to be forced to make a statement one way or the other. Part of freedom of speech is knowing when to employ it.

If I don't like a certain quality about someone I'm not just going to blurt out that I think there a terrible person, especially not in a public forum.

It's all tricky when it comes to politics though.

Some of us don't believe sin exists so his opinions become his own and that's ok as long as he doesn't Infringe on the rights of others.

Just curious, are there any people who disagree with the "As long as what he thinks doesn't impact his secular policy, he can think whatever he wants religiously" line? Also, how many people agree with his stance of personally thinking that being gay is wrong in a religious sense, but that the government shouldn't discriminate against them since the government (in the UK and US) is secular?

I guess my real question is why were celebrities, politicians, the media, and members of the public so appalled by what he said?

Two fairly likely possibilities.

A) They weren't, but it's important to be seen to be on the right side of any argument, even one that doesn't exist - so anyone who is anyone and is likely to have their dollar value affected by popular opinion jumps on, and it quickly turns ridiculous.

They're all pushing the gay agenda, tryna keep the SP (Straight People) down.

Rex wrote: Just curious, are there any people who disagree with the "As long as what he thinks doesn't impact his secular policy, he can think whatever he wants religiously" line? Also, how many people agree with his stance of personally thinking that being gay is wrong in a religious sense, but that the government shouldn't discriminate against them since the government (in the UK and US) is secular?

As long as one abides by the law and pays their taxes, the government should keep their noses out of their citizen's business. Whatever they identify as or whomever they want to be with is really not of national concern, so personally they (the government) should be viewing the LGBTQ+ community as they are, citizens with the same rights as everyone else.

His stance that it is wrong is a touchy area. Some faiths condemn the act of homosexuality, even to the point of a death sentance. I am going to assume the man on the stand here is a Christian, and for the purpose of my point I will keep it at that. Yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality. But Jesus, you know, the Big Guy's son, saviour of all mankind, said "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" and "Treat others the way you want to be treated".

So is it a sin? According to his faith, yes. Congrats. But no one is perfect. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", "the penalty of Sin is Death". We are not in a postion to judge those for what they do, sin or otherwise. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, go ahead.

I personally admire the fact that he refuses to stoop to the level of the radical SJW movement and create another us vs them arguement. His job does not require him to know what you identify as. Whatever he sees it as, sin or otherwise, is not really of his concern and he knows that. Or I hope at least.

And thats another 2 cents in the piggy bank for ya.

So is it a sin? According to his faith, yes. Congrats. But no one is perfect. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", "the penalty of Sin is Death". We are not in a postion to judge those for what they do, sin or otherwise. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, go ahead.

I'm heaping assumption on assumption here, but let's say your premise of his religion is correct (and any wording in the original discussion included the word "sin") - The issue should really be of interest to other people of the same faith who don't think it's a sin, not "The Gays" (or any other spud) at large.

If you don't follow V8 Supercars, having an opinion on Mark Skaife is fairly pointless.

By my standards, anyone who eats white bread is an abomination and spitting in god's eye. Now, I'm sure I'll take my licks from the TipTop crowd for this, but that's what I believe.

Still, I'm perfectly willing to let these degenerates make and consume sandwiches, it really has no bearing on how I conduct myself (If I found a White-Bread eater starving in the desert (it's always a desert isn't it) I'd probably give them a wholegrain loaf and let them convert or die, so I might be a bit more hardline than society usually finds tolerable)


Where was I going with this?

Oh right, as far as I can tell the bloke did the right thing, but the Big Bad Media could give two shits about that, anyone is a target to those vampires and demonising people sells papers. It's a *very* slow news week when you've got to run a story about puppies or something. People like villains, and pollies (and the odd actor or athlete) are prime candidates for sacrifice.

homosexuality is only a 'sin' if the Doctrine of a religion is geared towards domination through conquest and/or conversion, either culturally or militarily. In that System, having the most babies (typically male) is both beneficial and necessary, as it can then lord over smaller, nicer and more civil doctrines, ultimately to assimilate or decimate them. According to the mind-think of the Doctrine, anyone Not having babies, is then committing a HERESY, and needs to be executed for treason. This is one part of why i think homophobia is a thing. ( the other part of homophobia, is that hetero men hate/fear that gay men will treat them the same as they usually treat women.; ie, Not Nicely, in most cases.)

to the best of my knowledge, none of the other religions except for middle-eastern originated monotheisms, place a priority negative on homosexuality and a priority positive on mass reproduction.

Now, im not denouncing heterosexuality, if you're straight, then you're straight, if not, then you're just not. Simple as dogs and cats, imo.

and, conversely, overpopulation and the need for depopulation is only a factor when a populace is confined within a specific space, and not allowed to expand as needed.

Rebekka wrote: homosexuality is only a 'sin' if the Doctrine of a religion is geared towards domination through conquest and/or conversion, either culturally or militarily. In that System, having the most babies (typically male) is both beneficial and necessary, as it can then lord over smaller, nicer and more civil doctrines, ultimately to assimilate or decimate them. According to the mind-think of the Doctrine, anyone Not having babies, is then committing a HERESY, and needs to be executed for treason. This is one part of why i think homophobia is a thing. ( the other part of homophobia, is that hetero men hate/fear that gay men will treat them the same as they usually treat women.; ie, Not Nicely, in most cases.)

to the best of my knowledge, none of the other religions except for middle-eastern originated monotheisms, place a priority negative on homosexuality and a priority positive on mass reproduction.

Now, im not denouncing heterosexuality, if you're straight, then you're straight, if not, then you're just not. Simple as dogs and cats, imo.

and, conversely, overpopulation and the need for depopulation is only a factor when a populace is confined within a specific space, and not allowed to expand as needed.

Rebekka, do you think that Tim Farron wants more Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Zoroastrian babies to racially conquer Britain? Or that he politically is pro-gay as a way to assuage his conscience of all the weighty misogyny?
Religious texts are a product of their times, and so many religion texts just don't bring up the subject since it was a non-issue for the original audience (mind you that the only religious texts I can think of that are explicitly pro-homosexuality are all modern pagan ones).

Anyways, on the flip side, celebrities and media personalities can think that Tim Farron is an absolute pig for all I (and he) care, but they shouldn't let it affect their creative output by the same standard we expect of Farron. Even if they decide to vocalize their disgust, it shouldn't make a difference for our MP protagonist since they most likely aren't his constituents anyways. If you don't like his statement that to "understand Christianity is to understand that we are all sinners" in regards to his personal/religious views on LGBT marriage, you likely will enjoy his voting record on the subject. He puts his money where his mouth is, which I appreciate even though I'm not a fan of many of his policies.

You can't say anything today without having a label slapped upon you, which, in my opinion, is what the liberals like to do. I'm gay and I don't mind in the slightest if anybody doesn't agree with it, they're entitled to their opinions and their beliefs. As long as what is being said or done is not directly harming people I don't see the issue.

The main problem I see here is that of influence and the potential for abuse. As a leader (be it political or otherwise) you have a certain responsibility: for every person in power, there are many more who depend directly or indirectly on that person. Those who are dependent aren't always at liberty to express their thoughts and are thus prone to follow at great personal cost - as anything else can damage their own position (in relation to the one in power).

So let's say Farron has a personal secretary who is a member of the LGBT community or is friends with someone who is. While Farron's statements might be condemned by the general public, his secretary won't be able to do so without risking the job, putting great emotional stress on that person.

In that respect, anything Farron says, however legal it may be, should be considered carefully by him. And when he said what he said, he hurt a lot of people. It was a bigoted statement that probably didn't do much damage to the community as a whole, but I bet he did a lot of damage to those who are in his direct or indirect sphere of influence. As such I have to say that I can't let stuff like that stand. He may not have personally attacked anyone, but he's more than likely done so indirectly.