Tim Farron says he regrets saying gay sex is not a sin - Polidicks

[url]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/10/tim-farron-regrets-saying-gay-sex-not-sin[/url] [quote]The former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said he regrets telling people he did not believe gay sex was a sin when he was forced to clarify his position during the election campaign. The MP said he had felt “isolated” and under pressure from his party to say gay sex was not sinful, suggesting he ended up misleading the public about his views. He said he had spent weeks dodging the question but wanted to draw a line under the issue, which led to him “foolishly and wrongly” giving an answer that was “frankly not right”. Throughout the campaign, Farron was pursued by questions over his views on homosexuality. He eventually clarified in a BBC radio interview last April: “I don’t believe that gay sex is a sin.”[/quote]

I at first thought there was some kind of typo in the title but no this guy is just kind of an asshole

no taking backsies you greasy fuck

Nobody gives a shit about so-called sins other than assholes like you. Let people do whatever the fuck they want without crying sin just because your feelings got offended.

I thought Farron was okay apart from this episode, but imo if you can't say gay sex isn't a sin then you're not fit to lead the Liberal Democrats. He was right to resign Glad I ended up not voting for them

Hahahaha, not only is he a homophobe but he's a homophobe with no backbone.

The party was right in this case - the pressure was a good thing. You don't want candidates (especially party leads) openly contradicting the party's policy positions. If he had gone out and said "well, I personally think it's a sin, but I still support a path to marriage for those who disagree," it still likely would've hurt him as a candidate, and hurt the image of the Lib Dems as a party.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;53041612]The party was right in this case - the pressure was a good thing. You don't want candidates (especially party leads) openly contradicting the party's policy positions. If he had gone out and said "well, I personally think it's a sin, but I still support a path to marriage for those who disagree," it still likely would've hurt him as a candidate, and hurt the image of the Lib Dems as a party.[/QUOTE] I think it's more damaging to have a candidate that is willing to lie about his own views in order to retain control of power. In that case, the public loses all trust - trust that the Liberal Democrats are trying to rebuild after the tuition fee scandal.

Isn't lying officially a sin tho?

[QUOTE=.Isak.;53041612]The party was right in this case - the pressure was a good thing. You don't want candidates (especially party leads) openly contradicting the party's policy positions. If he had gone out and said "well, I personally think it's a sin, but I still support a path to marriage for those who disagree," it still likely would've hurt him as a candidate, and hurt the image of the Lib Dems as a party.[/QUOTE] I'd still be fine with someone who is willing to see the harm their viewpoint is causing and work in ways that may contradict that. Absolute doctrine for single issues is a cancer to our political sphere. As long as he is open and transparent and understanding. On the flip side, in 2018 its still astounding that gay SEX is considered morally evil. You know what's evil? Manipulation of the public to hide the rapid degredation of our enviroment. People strapping bombs to their chests and walking into crowded places. People that devote their life to erradicating another race/tribe/ethnicity/sect. Those are evil. What sex of the person your genitalia touches? That is your deal and nobody else's

[QUOTE=Noss;53041602]Hahahaha, not only is he a homophobe but he's a homophobe with no backbone.[/QUOTE] I was under the impression that you had to provide extensive medical documentation to prove that you have undergone a procedure to surgically remove your spine before you could even attempt to join the Lib Dems.

Literally all this dude had to do to get votes was not be a cunt and he couldn't contain himself and had to blurt out this gem during the election.

The Libs have a really great way with choosing leaders. He's behaved like a weasel and deserves the treatment that poor Cleggy got.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53041305]Nobody gives a shit about so-called sins other than assholes like you. Let people do whatever the fuck they want without crying sin just because your feelings got offended.[/QUOTE] Well tbh I don't think he intended to stop anyone from having gay sex or anything, this is just his personal belief I think the fact that he joined the lib dems shows that he doesn't think that his feelings about gay sex should be law or anything it is a bit weird that he decided to join the lib dems at all while having these beliefs though lol [editline]10th January 2018[/editline] unless i'm wrong ofc, if he does feel gay marriage and other rights shouldn't exist or something he can go fuck himself

Why is he a liberal democrat, I don't get it

I'd like to preface my comment (so as not to get my head bitten off by you kindhearted people here on polidicks) by saying I have a nontraditional belief in God and do not view gay sex or homosexuality or any kind of butt stuff as a sin or anything that God would even care about (also prostates exist, so if anything, we're intended to do be able to do butt stuff). Here I go: Within the scripture of Christianity, gay sex IS a sin. Tim Farron is 100% correct in saying that gay sex is a sexual sin. The scripture is what decides what is and isn't considered a sin, not Tim Farron. If he believes in the scripture, he MUST believe gay sex is a sexual sin. This: [quote=Leviticus 20:13] If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. [/quote] Is not fucking allegorical or open to interpretation. The CofE (of which I assume Farron is a member) strangely claims its position is that gay sex is not a sin (the bible was wrong?), but my experience with these people is one of condescension towards anything remotely queer. It seems to me like a position held ecclesiastically for fear of backlash or to entice more bums to pews, rather than a heartfelt belief of a majority of followers. I have overheard one Anglican describing AIDS as 'God teaching the gays what their backsides are for!', though that is admittedly just one person. Outside of the context of organized religion and their story books, there is no such thing as a divinely ordained 'sin', it's just some shit some guys made up when writing books about people they never met so I don't see why atheists or free-thinking theists really care what is and isn't considered a 'sin' by a group of (oft-pederastic) men. It wouldn't change how a true Christian interacts with or represents anybody; Jesus hung out with prostitutes and criminals and tripped balls on ergot-spiked bread. I don't think Tim Farron is a bad man or an asshole, he seems to want to do right by people. I don't even see him as a weaseling career politician, else why would he be a lib dem? I think he is a man who's been bamboozled out of true spirituality by the corrupt and for-profit social control cults that are organized religions. Nevertheless, he shouldn't have had to lie about what he believes in, that's not his fault. That's our fault as a society. We can either accept people have ugly beliefs we do not agree with and not vilify them for it and try and understand why the fuck they think like that (because ugly beliefs can sometimes be valid), or we can live in world where everybody we vote for or even interact with must masks their true beliefs and intentions out of fear. There really is no 'right' set of beliefs and you're as bad as the sanctimonious flock if you think otherwise.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;53042639]Old Testament is moot, is the argument most used. It is not a satisfying argument really, but it is important for a lot of Christians (at least on these forums) so it is not up to me to say what scripture is valid in Christianity and what is not. It seems like homosexuality being a sin *is* up to debate while homosexual marriage is pretty much solidly deemed wrong.[/QUOTE] A man and a woman having sex with a condom is the same amount of wrong as two men or two women or a blow job. For Christians the entire purpose of sex is to have babies and only that, doing it for anything else is wrong. Marriage is pretty much a licence from the Church to make babies. Also Leviticus is fucking weird, its got a lot of jacked up stuff. Like what women should do on their period. Which varies depending on which translation you read but basic involves burning everything that the woman touches to bringing birds to the temple. Or turtles for King James.

[QUOTE=th0rianite;53042498]Within the scripture of Christianity, gay sex IS a sin. Tim Farron is 100% correct in saying that gay sex is a sexual sin. The scripture is what decides what is and isn't considered a sin, not Tim Farron. If he believes in the scripture, he MUST believe gay sex is a sexual sin. [/QUOTE] There's a lot of stuff in the bible that people pick and choose to follow anyway, homosexuality being a sin shouldn't be any different. I think demanding people believe everything that's in a holy book otherwise you're not a christian/muslim/jew will just breed fundamentalism.

"Whoops, almost looked like a half-decent person for a second there." -Tim Farron

I mean, it's basically impossible to follow any of the popular Holy books to the letter anyway. They contradict themselves wayyyy too often, you wouldn't know whether you were coming or going.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;53042743]I mean, it's basically impossible to follow any of the popular Holy books to the letter anyway. They contradict themselves wayyyy too often, you wouldn't know whether you were coming or going.[/QUOTE] See that's not a problem though for the fundamentalists because THEIR interpretation has to be the only interpretation, everybody else that doesn't do it their way is wrong.

Farron was a decent enough leader but not Prime Minister or even proper Opposition material. Still, I think he was a good man who had some beliefs not everyone shared, but he didn't ever attempt to force those on the party. That's what liberalism is about.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;53043054]Farron was a decent enough leader but not Prime Minister or even proper Opposition material. Still, I think he was a good man who had some beliefs not everyone shared, but he didn't ever attempt to force those on the party. That's what liberalism is about.[/QUOTE] I don't think someone with homophobic beliefs is a "good man" who should be anywhere near government

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53043132]I don't think someone with homophobic beliefs is a "good man" who should be anywhere near government[/QUOTE] You're not gonna believe it but you sound just as bad as people who says muslims shouldn't be in government because they can't possibly be fair to the christian voters. In the us theres people like roy moore and arpaio running and moore suing because hes a sore lose, we have fucking trump the emperor of flip flops, Do you know how much less people would have a problem with politicians if they stepped down after they switched sides on an issue? The job of a politician is to govern, and democratic politicians must balance the wellbeing and whats best for their people and party and what they believe in. So what do you do when what you believe in isn't whats best for the people or what they want? Do you put what the people want first or do you stand up for what you believe in. Sure fuck it he played the politicians card and went along with his party despite what he believed in but in this case he did it because its what was best for the people and his party, and when he decided he wanted to stand up for his beliefs over whats best for the people he stepped down as their leader. I'm willing to take whatever flak anyone in the world wants to throw at me for calling this man good. "He said he could have tried to explain the theology behind his beliefs better but it would have been naive to think journalists would have been interested." EDIT: I mean for christ sakes look at fucking moores spokesman supporting the idea of homosexuality being illegal [QUOTE] TAPPER: Does Judge Moore still believe that homosexual conduct should be against the law? CROCKETT: The reason people support Judge Moore in the state of Alabama is because he's a biblically based custom law of the Bible, the mosaic English law. Homosexuality is a sin in the biblical sense. That is where Roy Moore is in the state of Alabama. [/QUOTE] where as this guy [QUOTE]He said he could have tried to explain the theology behind his beliefs better but it would have been naive to think journalists would have been interested." [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53043132]I don't think someone with homophobic beliefs is a "good man" who should be anywhere near government[/QUOTE] Shock horror, people can hold beliefs you find objectionable and still be good people. Farron literally never did anything to prompt the media jumping on him for this - he merely said he was a Christian. Everyone then went crazy because they asked a bad faith question about his personal beliefs - none of which was ever intended to be part of government policy or even his own campaigns - and he answered honestly. I don't think people should have abortions - but I'm not going to try and make them illegal, or persecute those people who do choose to have them or think they should be allowed. It just means that for me, personally, abortion isn't an option. Am I now barred from being a good man?

[QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;53043190]You're not gonna believe it but you sound just as bad as people who says muslims shouldn't be in government because they can't possibly be fair to the christian voters. In the us theres people like roy moore and arpaio running and moore suing because hes a sore lose, we have fucking trump the emperor of flip flops, Do you know how much less people would have a problem with politicians if they stepped down after they switched sides on an issue? The job of a politician is to govern, and democratic politicians must balance the wellbeing and whats best for their people and party and what they believe in. So what do you do when what you believe in isn't whats best for the people or what they want? Do you put what the people want first or do you stand up for what you believe in. Sure fuck it he played the politicians card and went along with his party despite what he believed in but in this case he did it because its what was best for the people and his party, and when he decided he wanted to stand up for his beliefs over whats best for the people he stepped down as their leader. I'm willing to take whatever flak anyone in the world wants to throw at me for calling this man good. "He said he could have tried to explain the theology behind his beliefs better but it would have been naive to think journalists would have been interested." EDIT: I mean for christ sakes look at fucking moores spokesman supporting the idea of homosexuality being illegal where as this guy[/QUOTE] i don't give a shit if "american politicians are worse" if someone can't answer if they believe gay people having sex is a sin, suggesting that it's going on the same tier as other sins such as fucking murder, theft etc, then i'm not inclined to think they're a good person he can pat himself on the back for standing up for his beliefs, but if his belief is "gay people having sex is a sin" then he can go fuck himself - i'll take it in balance with everything else, but at the end of the day, i'm sure a fair chunk of people in this country are pretty glad that a dude who believes they're sinners for having sex and being gay is nowhere near a seat of power (if that is his belief) [editline]11th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;53044617]Shock horror, people can hold beliefs you find objectionable and still be good people. Farron literally never did anything to prompt the media jumping on him for this - he merely said he was a Christian. Everyone then went crazy because they asked a bad faith question about his personal beliefs - none of which was ever intended to be part of government policy or even his own campaigns - and he answered honestly. I don't think people should have abortions - but I'm not going to try and make them illegal, or persecute those people who do choose to have them or think they should be allowed. It just means that for me, personally, abortion isn't an option. Am I now barred from being a good man?[/QUOTE] "bad faith"? clearly it was a pretty pressing question to ask if he struggled to answer it what you're saying about abortions is not in the same ballpark - do you think abortion is a sin? clearly "good" isn't some sort of binary flag that people get or don't

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53044654] "bad faith"? clearly it was a pretty pressing question to ask if he struggled to answer it what you're saying about abortions is not in the same ballpark - do you think abortion is a sin? clearly "good" isn't some sort of binary flag that people get or don't[/QUOTE] Why is it pressing? The Lib Dems introduced the passed the legislation that got same sex marriages legalised in this country during the coalition. It's a non-issue and a pretty irrelevant question seeing as it isn't in the party manifesto and isn't a hot political topic. He's not saying he doesn't think gay people are people, he's not demanding they be sterilised, he's not calling for gay marriage to be repealed, he just thinks it's a sin. This is where theology comes into it because you'll recall from Sunday School that all sins are forgiven, and equally that humans don't get to judge people based on their sins. Farron wasn't passing judgement, or suggesting any remedy to the fact that gay sex is a sin. He just said it was. Whether you like it or not, gay sex IS a sin. It's what we do with that information that's relevant, and that's not what Farron was asked. Similarly, abortion IS a sin. Life, in the church, begins at conception. That is what I believe. That has no relevance on my politics because I'm also a liberal, and I also believe that everyone has the right to have sex with whoever they like and do whatever they want with their bodies. That's Tim Farron's position as well. [editline]11th January 2018[/editline] remember that 'sin' in this context refers to 'transgression against divine law', not 'morally wrong'. There's no value judgement being made, just a confirmation that God said, in Leviticus, that man shall not lay with another man etc etc. That sin, along with all others, is washed away with baptism and communion, so it's irrelevant. And if you don't believe in God, then really, what's your problem? Clearly you also don't believe in sin, so...

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;53044764] remember that 'sin' in this context refers to 'transgression against divine law', not 'morally wrong'. There's no value judgement being made, just a confirmation that God said, in Leviticus, that man shall not lay with another man etc etc. [/QUOTE] Surely that's a total oxymoron - Farron is a self-proclaimed Christian: if he believes something is a sin, against divine law, he also believes that it is immoral otherwise, what is the purpose of divine law? You're either rejecting the goodness of god, or you are selectively applying divine law - either of these is massively inconsistent if you believe in the Christian doctrine If Farron holds that belief, I wouldn't judge him as wrong for it, I would judge it as extremely confusing because he simultaneously holds gay sex as a sin, but also tolerable/acceptable

I don't really see what the problem is if these are merely his personal views and he thinks that others should be able to do whatever they want I mean, isn't this what most people want from religious people? That they don't enforce their own religious views like these on others?

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;53044764] remember that 'sin' in this context refers to 'transgression against divine law', not 'morally wrong'. There's no value judgement being made, just a confirmation that God said, in Leviticus, that man shall not lay with another man etc etc. That sin, along with all others, is washed away with baptism and communion, so it's irrelevant.[/QUOTE] This isn't a correct description. Being a sin is equivalent to being morally wrong. It's inherently a judgement on the act, though I will say that it isn't a unique judgment. In Christian theology, everyone is a sinner. With that said, thinking something is a sin is entirely different than wanting to legislate on it. For example, most Christians would say that drunkenness is a sin, but, at least in the modern day, no one wants to make all drunkenness illegal.