Wednesday, April 19, 2017

The gay lobby just won't shut up


I'm getting very tired of the GLBTEIEIOBBQWTF lobby's insistence on throwing their sexual preferences, practices and peccadilloes in our faces, whether we're interested in them or not.  Quite frankly, I don't give a damn what they do to each other in the privacy of their own bedrooms, or what they use to do it.  It's their business, not mine.  However, when they insist on invading my privacy with their antics, and/or challenging the moral code by which I've chosen to live, they go too far.

I see that this same insistence is now bedeviling British politics.

Sue Perkins and David Walliams are among those who have criticised Lib Dem leader Tim Farron for being evasive when asked whether being gay is a sin.

Mr Farron has been branded a "bigot" and an "absolute disgrace" for failing to answer the question.

On Tuesday night, Channel 4's Cathy Newman asked the Lib Dem leader about his views on LGBT rights and gay people.

She asked: “A while back I asked you if you thought that homosexuality was a sin and you struggled to answer.

“Now you’ve had a while to consider that question, what is the answer?”

He replied: “I don’t think I struggled to answer it at all, Cathy. I think I’m not in the position to make theological announcements over the next six weeks.

“I’m not going to spend my time talking theology or making pronouncements.”

She reminded the Lib Dem leader that in 2015 she had asked him three times if homosexuality was a sin “and you said ‘we’re all sinners’. Is that still the answer?”

Farron replied ... “Just because I’m Christian, it would be a bit boring for everybody to spend the next weeks asking me to make theological announcements that I’m not going to make.”

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said on Good Morning Britain that it is "appalling" if Tim Farron believes homosexuality is a sin urged him to clarify his position.

Comedian David Walliams tweeted: "Mr @timfarron you are definitely a sinner for your continued intolerance & prejudice. Please try and join the rest of us in the year 2017."

There's more at the link.

I wish they'd all shut up . . . but they won't, of course.  They're absolutely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their liberal, progressive philosophy.

To make it clear to all concerned:  yes, biblical Christianity does condemn homosexuality as a sin.  There's no doubt about that whatsoever.  It's not just a 'cultural thing', but a deeply moral message.  It remains binding on all who accept the Bible as God's word, and that's final.  However, biblical sexual morality covers our sexuality and sexual conduct in a far broader context.  In short, any sexual relationship outside a monogamous, heterosexual marriage is considered sinful, no matter what sex(es) or numbers of people or actions are involved.  That's it, in a nutshell.  Homosexual sin is, in that context, no different from heterosexual sin.

Furthermore, each and every individual must decide whether or not the Bible is, in fact, God's word - and, of course, whether or not there is a God at all, and if so, who (or what) he (or she, or it) may be.  As a Christian, I can't demand that someone who doesn't accept the Bible as Divine revelation must agree with and/or observe its moral precepts, just as he or she can't demand that I have to accept their personal moral precepts as binding on me.  To say that it's "appalling" or "intolerant" or "prejudiced" to believe in a biblical moral standard is to implicitly deny freedom of religion and/or moral choice to others;  and if one denies it to others, then one has no grounds for complaint if and/or when others deny it to you.

As long as I don't seek to force my Christian views on others, they have no right to criticize me in any way for holding them.  They may dissent from them, of course;  but their right to disagree with Biblical morality is the same right that permits me to agree with it.  You can't have one without the other.  Either everybody has freedom of belief, or nobody has it.

I have more than a few gay and lesbian friends, and I continue to enjoy their company.  They know, I'm sure, that I don't approve of the moral code (or lack thereof) by which they choose to live;  but I don't have to approve, and my lack thereof doesn't mean I reject them as individuals.  I continue to like and respect them.  I do hope and pray that they find a better, more Godly way of life;  but they won't do so if I use the Bible as a club to beat them over the head.  Instead, my job is to love them as Christ does, and set an example to them that (hopefully) will make them think about things differently.  In their turn, they know that if they try to use their own moral choices and preferences to beat me over the head, it'll lead to a rupture between us;  so they don't.  Instead, we give each other the freedom to follow the different paths we've chosen, and do our best to support each other anyway.

Anyone who tries to make our worth as a human being dependent upon following their chosen moral code, or that of popular opinion (which is fickle, and changes year by year), is essentially denying our independence as a human being, and our own right to freedom of belief.  By doing so, they're demonstrating that the real intolerance is on their side, not ours.  I think it's a pity Mr. Fallon didn't make that point rather more clearly to his opponents.  Intolerant assholes abound, in politics as in every other walk of life.  They need to be exposed for what they are.

Peter

15 comments:

Mark Matis said...

There is an appropriate way to deal with such people when the nation's "Leaders" refuse, and when the "Law Enforcement" follow orders as long as that paycheck keeps comin' in.

Fun times are a-comin'...

Snoggeramus said...

The lefties don't really think beyond their slogans, so you can easily stymie them by throwing the conversation about gay sex in to unfamiliar territory. "But what about the smell?" tends to do it quite well.

SiGraybeard said...

What I've never understood is that if the person isn't a Christian and doesn't follow the Bible, why should they care what it says?

They seem hung up on the idea of the Bible calling their particular practices a sin. Why should they even give a rat's ass? I'm sure something I do is considered a sin to Muslims or Buddhists or some other group, and I don't care.

And if they did believe the Bible was truth, they'd know it's exactly right for him to say "we're all sinners" and a sin is a sin. None are worse than any others. There's only one unforgivable sin and if you worry if you've committed it, you haven't.

It's as if they despise the Bible but somehow want to be approved by it.

Anonymous said...

"It's as if they despise the Bible but somehow want to be approved by it."

I think this is one of the key reason they do this. They don't want tolerance, they want approval. They want to be told it is not a sin.
They want to make you say you approve of them and what they do.

Also they just want to use it as a hammer for the user cries of your a -ist and -phobe

Scott H said...

Demanding your approval would be classic narcissism.

On another topic, could you give me some references to Bible verses that condemn homosexuality? The only place I have found it condemned personally is in Romans I. Any references that you can give will be gratefully received.

BFR said...

Mr. Grant,

I would like to fraternally differ from you regarding your "remains binding on all who accept the Bible as God's word".

Jesus Christ is King of kings, and Lord or lords, and has received all authority in heaven and on earth. That anyone does not submit to His authority does not diminish or abrogate that authority.

Also, homosexuality, while classified as sin, receives greater condemnation from God, than for example, fornication. (The Scripturally prescribed remedy for fornication is to marry the female.)

God calls homosexuality an abomination and un-natural, and says that it is the terminal result in a sequence of those who actively "suppress the truth in unrighteousness".

There is a difference with a distinction between those who acknowledge a standard and then sinfully deviate from it, and those who call evil good.

Larry Thomson said...

Peter.

Thank you very much for this article. You have put into words the concepts and thoughts I have tried to live all my life.

While I am not a religious person, and cannot comment on any of the statements regarding religious prohibitions, your approach of toleration and individual responsibility is inspiring.

I agree wholeheartedly.

To put it in a nutshell, I would say "It is not up to me to tell you how to live your life."

Regards,

Larry

bmq215 said...

It strikes me that the voting public has the right to question candidates and politicians on any of their views. In turn, those individuals have the right to answer or not answer as they see fit. Since religious views have influence on decision-making, I see no reason why they should be exempt.

So no, neither you or Tim Farron has to approve of a group but there's nothing wrong with a group of voters taking issue with that stance. If they're a minority, no big deal. However, if majority of voters feel the same way (and strongly enough) you won't get elected. That's how the system works and (I believe) should work.

After all, it's called "representative" democracy for a reason.

B said...

They don't just want acceptance for their lifestyle, they insist upon APPROVAL.

I find that odd, almost as if they themselves are unsure of their lifestyle is OK or not, and insist that the rest of us provide them with approval to make up for their failure to just be happy in their choice.

Jonathan H said...

B - I think that is EXACTLY what the issue is; they feel there is something 'not right' about their choice and need affirmation from others to feel right about it. Not quite the ringing endorsement of it that they show in their public face ...

BFR said...

B,

You actually have spoken about a very salient point.

That "unsurety" as you put it, is actually the very fact of the presence of God Who is always speaking. He either approves or condemns our actions, based upon His immutable Character which is revealed in His Word. We all hear it; we know when we are wrong. They, for the most part (unless their consciences are seared like a third degree burn) also know that. They seek to apply a salve upon their guilt by obtaining approval, and not just obtaining it, but demanding it.

Dad29 said...

Clarification: the state of being homosexual is not sinful per se. However, homosexual ACTS are sinful.

MrGarabaldi said...

Hey Peter;

Your attitude is like mine, I believe what I believe but I will not force you to believe the same. We as creatures created by divine will have "choice", God gave us the ability to choose our direction of life. The issues I have with the LGBTEIEIO crowd is that they are sore winners and 30 years ago, talked tolerance and acceptance of different ideas, but now that the pendulum has swung the different direction, they use the outrage machine to shame those that believe differently than they do. What happened to tolerance and acceptance, I guess they were acceptable when they were peeking out of the closet and not on full display.

BFR said...

Dad29,

"the state of being homosexual is not sinful per se"

Of course it is. Any time that we lust for something that God has delcared evil is sin. It is as God says in 1 Peter: "to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul."

The desire itself is sin.

Nadnerbus said...

I am of two minds.

First, the question is of a typical leftist tactic, in where the question asked is designed to frame the debate in favor of the left. They know very well that if he is an observant traditional Christian, that he believes homosexuality is a sin. What they should ask, if they were fair, is "Would your Christian beliefs affect how you would govern in regards to the homosexual/LGBTKAUDHGKHH community, and if so, how." The question as asked is clearly designed to put him on the defensive, and scare the gay community into voting for the "correct" candidate.

This of course, would never happen if the candidate being asked the question was named Muhammed Muhammed. His views on homosexuals and women's rights would get a complete unexamined pass.

Which brings me to my second view. If the roles were flipped, and this were a Muslim candidate being grilled on his religious views that may conflict with modern Western secular democracy, I doubt many here would have much problem with the question at all. I do think it is the voter's right to know and understand how a candidate's religion would bear on his or her governing policies. Christian, muslim, athiest.

So in the end, the nature of the question is not out of bounds, but the obviously loaded phrasing was.