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

More
6 years 11 months ago - 6 years 11 months ago #281469 by Brick

Cyan Sarden wrote: 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.


Whilst I see where you're coming from about his statements potentially hurting people's feelings, I have to disagree with you. I think what he said was incredibly well thought out, and in what way was what he said bigoted? It wasn't intolerant or prejudicial in the slightest.

He didn't say he thought it was a sin, he didn't say he thought it was wrong, he didn't say he thought it was anything. He simply pointed out that, by asking him if it was a 'sin', she was asking him a theological question which, as a politician (all be it a Christian one), he was not qualified to determine what is and is not a 'sin'. That is a question that is surely better suited to a vicar, no?

And he then went on to effectively say that whether he thinks it's sinful to participate in same-sex relations or not, is irrelevant as, as a Christian, he believes everyone on Earth is a 'sinner' anyway. And he then stated that he strongly believed in equality, and promoting equality for the LGBT community and ensuring that they get the same rights as everyone else.

I genuinely fail to see what about that could upset his secretary (sticking with your example here), unless she doesn't like the idea of having the same rights as everyone else? Also, as a civil servant/stroke government employee, it's almost impossible for her to get fired. Worst case, she gets moved to be someone else's secretary (and that would be a highly unlikely occurrence)

That's like you saying 'I think the sky is blue, but a lot of British people don't agree, do you think the the sky is blue Brick?', and I reply with 'I believe that you're entitled to think the sky is blue, and I will do everything in my power to prevent people from telling you that it isn't'. You might not be totally satisfied with that answer, but would you be offended by it?

Apprentice to Maitre Chevalier Jedi Alexandre Orion

Moderator | Welcome Team | IP Team

IP Journal | IP Journal 2 | AP Journal | Open Journal

'The only contest any of us should be engaged in is with ourselves, to be better than yesterday'

- Knight Senan
Last edit: 6 years 11 months ago by Brick.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rex

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
6 years 11 months ago - 6 years 11 months ago #281470 by Cyan Sarden
The secretary was a hypothetical scenario to illustrate a dependency situation. Please excuse my ignorance of British public work contracts :-)

As for the core question: by refusing to answer the question he did indeed expresse his bigoted views. Of course one can interpret this to death but if someone asks you on the spot if being gay is a sin, you'd say no. Hardly anyone who doesn't constantly think in terms of religious and philosophical questions would see this is a religious core question but simply as what it was: a direct question about Farron's world view.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt and doing so almost automatically honors anyone who is able to pull this off. But I personally have a very strong incling why he later gave his explanation of the situation. He wouldn't have been able to do so on the spot.

Do not look for happiness outside yourself. The awakened seek happiness inside.
Last edit: 6 years 11 months ago by Cyan Sarden.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Brick

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
6 years 11 months ago #281472 by Brick

Please excuse my ignorance of British public work contracts :-)


I excuse you :laugh:

As for the core question: by refusing to answer the question he did indeed expresse his bigoted views. Of course one can interpret this to death but if someone asks you on the spot if being gay is a sin, you'd say no.


You're right, I (and most other, tolerant, open minded, liberal people) would say no.

And if he had said yes, and that had been all he had said, then I would agree with what you're saying 100%.

BUT he didn't say yes. He said he that he was passionate about securing equal rights for LGBT individuals. So OK, he might not have openly agreed with their 'life choice' (and thus even implied that he perhaps disagrees with it), but he wasn't discriminating against them either. He was being tolerant, of something he disagreed with.

That's ultimately what a tolerant society is IMO. Everyone of us disagrees with everyone else on 100,000 different topics all the time, but that doesn't make one person right, or one person wrong, it just makes them different. And I don't see what is wrong with that, so long as one person is not trying to force their beliefs on another. And Farron was not trying to force his beliefs on anyone, in fact he was doing the exact opposite, he was trying to keep his beliefs entirely to himself :laugh:

That's the bit that I'm struggling to find offensive

Apprentice to Maitre Chevalier Jedi Alexandre Orion

Moderator | Welcome Team | IP Team

IP Journal | IP Journal 2 | AP Journal | Open Journal

'The only contest any of us should be engaged in is with ourselves, to be better than yesterday'

- Knight Senan
The following user(s) said Thank You: Cyan Sarden

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
6 years 11 months ago #281508 by

Rex wrote:

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.


fortunately or unfortunately, i don't know of and don't keep track of tim farron. Im rather more of a Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins fan, where possible.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
6 years 11 months ago - 6 years 11 months ago #281514 by JamesSand

but if someone asks you on the spot if being gay is a sin, you'd say no.


Would I?

Doubt it.

Much like Tim, I'm not in the Sins business*. - but ask if I think real estate agents are a lower order of lifeform, go on, I won't hesitate.

*I think this is important - The question "Is homosexuality a Sin?" is very different from "Are mlm and wlw just nasty people?"


DESPITE my personal, strongly held beliefs on real estate agents, I'll defend their right to use the same public pools as me and be treated with dignity in death.

If I'm elected to office, it may become polite for me to keep my opinions on real estate agents to myself, so when you see me walking up the steps to parliament house on my way to work, and you work for ABC news, and you come up and say "Hey, Prime Minister James, do you feel being a real estate agent is a guaranteed ticket to the dark side and an eternity separated from The Force?" I may very well say "In my capacity as Prime Minister, my opinions, whatever they may or may not be, on the subject of real estate agents is not relevant. Now if you don't mind, I'd like to get the to cafe before they run out of banana bread"

And that would be, I suggest by most standards, the most professional and chivalrous answer I could come up with.
Last edit: 6 years 11 months ago by JamesSand.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Brick, Rex

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
6 years 11 months ago - 6 years 11 months ago #281515 by JamesSand
double post two fer one!
Last edit: 6 years 11 months ago by JamesSand.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
6 years 11 months ago #281735 by ZealotX
In my opinion, it would tell me whether or not he is a hypocrite or how much he's willing to lie for political gain.

The truth is that the definition of sin in the bible is "the transgression of the law". It's therefore not complicated. Is there a law (in the bible) against homosexuality? Yes. Therefore, according to the bible it is a sin. According to the bible it is an abomination which simply means something God hates.

I believe humans wrote the bible and therefore it was actually humans hiding behind a magical Wizard of Oz type of mask, saying these things because they were afraid of gay people and homosexuality. If a Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. wants to believe the bible they should have every right to hold any opinion whether right or wrong. I think it's only a problem if:

1) they cannot admit what they really believe
2) they are cherry picking what to believe
3) expressing only parts of their belief that are popular

I think they need to own it all. I think they need to own the Inquisitions as well as the Salem witch trials. Without owning it they never have to take responsibility for the past which enables it to happen again or allows the same basic fundamental bigotry to be expressed in new/other forms. If they don't want to take responsibility for their religion they should pick a new one. That's how I feel. Go hard or go home. One should be true to one's beliefs. And if you believe "thus saith Yahweh" then that's what you should believe.

The same right they have to believe something unpopular is the same right the masses have to know what their beliefs are and judge them in return for their judgment. Homosexuality is not for me but I'd be lying if I said 2 attractive women going at it wasn't hot. The reality is that a lot of people are hypocrites on the subject and sexuality isn't necessarily a black and white thing for us to label and control. People's thoughts on different things matter insomuch that it could have implications on governance. In the US Planned Parenthood is under threat based on false religious ideology. A person may not say publicly how they feel about abortion and human rights. That doesn't mean they won't vote that way or even propose legislation. I find the most religious people are the ones who most want to dictate what other people can do. That doesn't mean they will do that. It's just more likely.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
6 years 11 months ago #281762 by Rex
Warning: Spoiler!

Tim Farron is a politician, Hitchens and Dawkins aren't so I'm not sure what the comparison is here other than that Farron is an evangelical Christian while the latter two are evangelical atheists.

Warning: Spoiler!

I like this so far.

Warning: Spoiler!

That's how many Christians interpret it. Many see it as a product of the context of its original audience and purpose as well, and take it with a grain of salt.

Warning: Spoiler!

I appreciate the disclaimer. It's common knowledge that humans wrote the bible (many books are named after their authors) although I disagree with your rationale that the multiple authors spanning Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were afraid of homosexuality and made conscious effort through religious ventriloquism to mention it.

Warning: Spoiler!

I agree, as I mentioned above, followers of Abrahamic religions also understand that their books were written to an evolving audience. Many Christians see the Bible as accurate for that audience and try to find corollaries for their own life. i.e. just because in the Torah there was a command at one point to free slaves after a certain amount of time doesn't mean modern Jews, Christians, and Muslims need to have slaves.

Warning: Spoiler!

You're right, persecution in the name of religion is never right and I hope everyone agrees with me. The biggest figurehead for Christianity, the Pope, has called for apologizing to gays specifically for the poor treatment they've received in the name of religion. You can't just excommunicate, stop people from using a description, or "no true scotsman" willy-nilly, so there definitely are many incredibly hypocritical "religious" people.

Warning: Spoiler!

Yes, but Farron's point in his silence is that he wants to be judged by his policy. His voting record says volumes more than beliefs confined to his personal life, and they say that Farron supports equal rights in the eyes of the government. Strawmanning Planned Parenthood and people with religious convictions are a totally separate topics.

tl;dr If you judge anyone by the worst of their group, you're going to hate everyone. Blanket criticisms on out-groups generally don't have positive results, and I think Farron understands that.

Knights Secretary's Secretary
Apprentices: Vandrar
TM: Carlos Martinez
"A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes" - Wittgenstein

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZerokevlarVerheilenChaotishRabeRiniTavi