Is Farron Constricted By His Devout Christianity?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/795958/general-election-2017-tim-farron-lib-dem-leader-avoids-gay-marriage-question-again
Traditional Liberals will have no problem with the questions of Gay marriage/sex but this is turning into a major problem for Farron. Now every interviewer will start asking these questions meaning that he'll get bogged down in something he doesn't want to talk about at the expense of propounding Lib Dem policies.

[Hopkirk]

Pre, not pressure (bleeding autocomplete)

[ToraToraTora]

ZM: "So have we concluded that he's not being restricted by his devout Christianity but by the media behaving like a dog with a bone? " - yes that's the whole point, he's not restricted by his views but by the inevitable way the media carry on thus the same results. Not sure why you are being so obtuse.

[ichkeria]

The media may well tire of this line.

Would the other parties be brave enough to raise it tho I wonder?

[-Talbot-]

Change Farron to Farage would the answer on this thread be so understanding?

[-Talbot-]

answers ^

Seems he is either lying or changing his views.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tim-farron-gay-sex-sin-believe-christian-liberal-democrat-leader-lib-dem-a7701846.html

[ichkeria]

He never said what his views were.
I assumed he probably DID think gay sex was a sin, but was either afraid to say so (understandably) or considered that as he says here, "pontificating" or talking about his religion would be irksome to many, as it surely would.
I suspect though that one way or another he's now knocked that particular one on the head, to the obvious irritation of the comments at the link!

[sp1814]

Farron should be judged on his voting record.

Whatever he thinks as a Christian, his voting record has been admirably libertarian.

Also, last week, he answered the question. He does not think that gay sex is sinful:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39703444

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tim-farron-gay-sex-sin-believe-christian-liberal-democrat-leader-lib-dem-a7701846.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/tim-farron-says-gay-sex-not-sin-admits-had-allowed-become-election/

[sp1814]

Sidebar

Have a look at the comments on the story in the Daily Express.

Horror show.

[ichkeria]

Quite sp.
And people say there's no freedom of speech ...

[jourdain2]

As a Christian, he has to accept homosexual sex as a sin. Not illegal, of course. I am in the same position. I have 'gay' friends (don't like that the word 'gay' has been hijacked) and totally accept their commitment and love for each other - in fact one man has my total admiration for the love and care with which he nursed his late partner. I hope that in the same case I could be as devoted - I value love between humans.
Nevertheless, gay sex is sinful - but I most certainly will not condemn because 'we are all sinners'. I'm certainly not perfect and have, like everyone, sinned. This brings gay sex into proportion, I think. I don't see the words as a problem t.b.h..

[Zacs-Master]

I wasn't being obtuse Tora. I was answering your question.

[Khandro]

TTT Why did you introduce the word sex ["marriage/sex"] into your original question?
Do you not understand that people, homosexual or heterosexual, can have relationships without it being sexual in nature?

[Jackdaw33]

I suppose it might be some consolation that when Farron turns up at the House he is possessed of the Holy Spirit, unlike his predecessor but one, who was just possessed of the spirit.

[jim360]

Not that it overly matters, jourdain, but to call the word "gay" hijacked is to misunderstand how English (and language in general) works.

And, anyway, although its primary meaning has been "carefree" for a long time, it has always had other meanings -- for example, in the 17th Century (or certainly by the 19th) a "gay woman" was a prostitute.

But language is changing all the time, words have no set meanings, and getting upset about hijacking isn't really reasonable.

[Khandro]

jim; Is there something wrong with the word 'homosexual', because I don't think there is anything wrong with 'heterosexual' so why appropriate 'gay', which can now no longer be used in everyday English.

[mikey4444]

Khandro.....I can't see why we shouldn't use the word gay in its original meaning....in fact, I regularly make a point of doing so !

[Garaman]

Khandro, 'heterosexual' originally meant a morbid fascination for the opposite sex, but the meaning of words often changes over time.

[jim360]

Two answers, Khandro:

1. What I literally just posted, ie describing "gay" as appropriated is just historically wrong; it already had been.

2. "Homosexuality" is a bit formal, but anyway was itself appropriated, in one sense, to be a bit rude and insulting. When homosexual activity was a crime (and considered a mental illness to boot), calling someone homosexual was to label them a criminal. No wonder people searched out other words to describe themselves, in order to avoid these connotations...

That's been lost now, in our modern day and age, but you can hardly overlook its historical importance.

[mikey4444]

I find it amazing but entirely expected, that people should be so obsessed about a politicians religious beliefs, rather than the policies of his Party !

Has anybody asked May, Corbyn, Sturgeon, etc, etc what their religion is ?

[Khandro]

jim; Point taken.
As Don Marquis' Mehitabel the cat said to Archy the cockroach, (in 1927)
"toujours gai Archy, toujours gai"