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.