Quite right too

Tim Farron says on Wednesday that he does not think homosexuality is a sin following a question from Conservative MP Nigel Evans.

Specifically, he says that he does not think that being gay is a sin.

Which is obviously true, not even the Pope nor Iain Paisley thought being gay was or is a sin.

Homosexual acts however….

56 comments on “Quite right too

  1. Ah but that’s why clever channel 4 newswoman cathy newman asked Tim “do you consider homosexual sex a sin?”.

    And he said we’re all sinners.

  2. Considering Jesus’s remarks about thought and deed that doesn’t really help Farron very much. As for Paisley/The Pope (ie an actual Catholic Pope as opposed to the Marxian scumbag now on the job) I think they probably do (or would have) considered sodomitic thought as sinful as sodomitic activity.

  3. There’s something ineffably sad about playground weed and all-purpose cry-baby Tim Farron being duffed up by the snowflakes and luvvies.

    Short of joining the International Gay & Lesbian Offence-taking Organisation (IGLOO), his capitulation is complete.

  4. @TMB, Yet if it were May, you’d doubtless be praising her for keeping her personal views out of her politics. As Farron is doing.

    Come to think of it, I’m amazed the company here assembled isn’t rallying to a politician who isn’t actually all that keen on teh gaystuff. So much vitriol is (rightly) slung at the diversity-political complex, so why criticise someone who isn’t playing along, to the politically-correct tune?

  5. Can’t speak for others but my vitriol is at the complex, not the diversity. I simply do not give a damn about the sexual excitements of other people–not unless that excitement is being offered directly to me that is. Which is why I get very wound up about people who insist that I must celebrate, respect, when all I actually have to do is tolerate.

  6. Tim

    +1

    I draw the line gays trying to pick me up AFTER I have said I’m not interested. The first time is flattering, the second an impingement. I am simply not that way inclined. Insisting that it is because I haven’t tried could be considered by a snowflake as sexual assault.

    Do you what you want. Just don’t try and pressure me into joining in. I do not care where you put your body parts provided it is with somebody who wants them put there.

    Don’t ask me to like it.

  7. There is something inherently wrong with the intrinstically disordered. They need help. But still, as there is little public damage by their mere existence, so if they are willing to mind their own business I am willing to mind mine.

    However we have moved beyond that position and they are determined to bully everyone who disagrees with them in any way. As with this fool. He thought the Gays were on his side. They are not. Now he must grovel and beg for forgiveness.

    The solution involves jail for the activists.

  8. @Tim,

    Which seems to be, at least reading between the lines, close to Farron’s position. In his case even, going further than that, and tolerating something that he believes people shouldn’t be doing.

    Which is pretty liberal of him, aye?

  9. BiG

    Ignoring all the idiots – David Walliams, Owen Jone, David Baddiel, etc, etc screaming “intolerant bigot” at him whilst failing to look in the mirror – why is it that people have problems understanding that people might disapprove, even strongly, of something and yet still not want to criminalise it?

    Just to use, by way of example, what Christianity condemns, most people would say that adultery, greed, selfishness, anger and so forth are wrong – sinful if you like – but are unlikely to want them criminalised. But no. If it involves sex, especially of the gay variety, you must sign up in blood to the nostrum du jour.

    It’s a funny old world when tolerate becomes a synonym for celebrate without a scintilla of demurral.

  10. “why is it that people have problems understanding that people might disapprove, even strongly, of something and yet still not want to criminalise it? ”

    I think it’s projection. The folks that have trouble with this – in my experience – tend to be of the leftie/statist variety.

    Conservative tastes != conservative politics
    I hate olives != ban olives
    etc.

    @BiG: I think the schadenfreude at Little Timmy Farron is because his socialist gang make a mockery of the term “Liberal”.

  11. Perhaps the reason why many liberals see little distance between disapproving of homosexual acts and criminalizing them is that for most of history illiberals have criminalized homosexual acts because they disapprove of them.

  12. Dr Cromarty – Sure they believe in sin: racism, sexism, homophobia and Brexit.

    Social Justice Warrior – Funny old world.

    I’m old enough to remember when being in favour of civil partnerships made you an enlightened tolerant sophisticate, before it made you a vile gay-bashing bigot who had no place in polite society.

    We’re not as bad as the United States, where mincing bullies will travel hundreds of miles to find a Christian-owned pizzeria or B&B to ruin. But we’re not a million miles off it.

    A fatwa on weaponised homeopathy.

  13. SJW–If are Mr Logic now SJW what is the reason for socialisms love of mass murder ?

    Don’t give us–for the love of God–the “it’s just a few rotten apples” crap. That doesn’t wash from crooked bluebottles let alone you murdering bastards.

  14. BiG: Yet if it were May, you’d doubtless be praising her for keeping her personal views out of her politics. As Farron is doing.

    But that’s not what’s happened and I think you must be a bit behind the curve. Farron tried to keep his personal views to himself but has ended up being bullied into denying what many think is his true (and for that matter perfectly legitimate) position.

    This makes him a bit of a broken reed (as though we need another of those around here) and a hollow vessel so what’s not to mock?

  15. @SJW – “illiberals” didn’t exist for most of history. You’re talking anachronistic bullshit.

  16. Oh and btw SJW, I suspect I would disapprove of everything about you, from your nose piercings and meaningless Sanskrit tattoos through your shitty musical taste and love of Ken Loach & Michael Moore films – that doesn’t mean I want to criminalise you.

    See how it works?

  17. Dr C: I don’t follow you: are you saying that homosexual acts have seldom been criminalized, or merely disapproving of my irregular use of “illiberal” as a noun?

    For your information, I haven’t got any tattoos. Leviticus disapproves of them.

  18. TMB BiG – yes Farron got asked a question several times that he didn’t answer very well. May should be asked the same question, Everyone should, “do you approve of gay sex?” It’s actually not a very difficult question to answer unless you’re an evangelical christian political leader.

  19. Hallowed Be

    Do you actually mean “approve of”, or do you mean “accept that others might engage in” / “tolerate” or whatever?

    Or have I missed the point?

  20. @PF

    I suspect the sane answer (“I don’t really give a shit, actually”) wouldn’t win you brownie points.

    So to speak.

  21. @TMB, Yet if it were May, you’d doubtless be praising her for keeping her personal views out of her politics. As Farron is doing.

    But for Farron, and other Progressives, there is no ‘personal’, separate from the political. They have excoriated other people many, many times for personal views they oppose. Quite pleasant to see one of them getting it back for a change.

  22. Rob: Quite pleasant to see one of them getting it back for a change.

    Yes, it’s very pleasant to see progressives eating their own and satisfying to observe that there is no à la carte progressivism.

    You have to subscribe to the entire package to avoid being pilloried and since the contents of the package are in constant flux and there is no arbiter to define the contents either, this process is without end.

  23. JS

    OK, yes, I did completely miss the point – not thinking clearly. It was the “everyone should” that distracted me.. Of course, HB simply meant those politicians being put on the spot.

    Though I prefer your answer – “I don’t really give a shit, actually” – and I suspect the large majority of normal voters would be just fine hearing precisely that?!

    Who really cares tuppence (in the real world) about what brownie points the Guardian doles out? After all, Farron – if he is serious – needs to extend his appeal way beyond that particular / narrow market?

  24. Rob, +1.

    He also proves that he is just a spineless piece of shit. I know its a pre-requisite for a lib-dem, but its nice to see it publically demonstrated.

  25. @SJW
    Liberalism didn’t exist in any meaningful sense until the Enlightenment. How were “illiberals” criminalising homosexuals when there was no “illiberalism”?

  26. And we also seem to be labouring under the impression that the Liberal Democrats are ‘liberals’ in the English (not American) sense. They aren’t.

  27. Dr C: thank you for the clarification. Before liberalism existed as a concept, governments generally presumed that it was proper to interfere in what we now think of as private morality. They were all illiberal. I think you know that really.

  28. PF
    “HB simply meant those politicians being put on the spot.” – yes.
    It’s reared its head and a political leader has fluffed it somewhat, see how the others do, and yes the “approve of” is a slightly loaded question, i think that’s fair enough.

  29. If the concept didn’t exist, how could they be ‘illiberal’. Your thinking is anachronistic. Try again.

  30. You’re not making sense. Famously, the Pirahã language has no concept of counting numbers. That doesn’t mean that there can’t be a group of five speakers of it.

  31. @SJW

    If you can’t understand the idea of anachronism, I’m afraid I can’t help you. Until you learn to clarify your language and ideas, you will remain unable to persuade others of your point of view.

  32. “SJW–If are Mr Logic now SJW what is the reason for socialisms love of mass murder? Don’t give us–for the love of God–the “it’s just a few rotten apples” crap. That doesn’t wash from crooked bluebottles let alone you murdering bastards.”

    It’s for the same reason that God and all his angels carpet bombed Sodom and Gomorrah with brimstone and fire, in contravention of the Geneva conventions on use of chemical weapons. I think religious authorities through the intervening 4000 years have generally approved of that. What’s with religion’s love of mass murder? Bad apples?

    There are authoritarians on all sides.

    “f you can’t understand the idea of anachronism, I’m afraid I can’t help you. Until you learn to clarify your language and ideas, you will remain unable to persuade others of your point of view.”

    His/her usage is correct. Definitions and descriptions can be applied retrospectively. Or we’d not be able to talk about dinosaurs roaming the Earth millions of years ago, because the word “dinosaur” was only invented quite recently.

  33. Famously, the Pirahã language has no concept of counting numbers.

    Well, duh. They’re fish.

  34. Parsing out the echt Biblical stance on chutney ferrets requires more exegesis than I am willing to undertake, but I am pretty sure that come Judgment Day, Tim Farron and all his hangers-on will be swimming in a lake of fiery fire just for being such awful sanctimonious double-dealing cunts.

  35. @Nautical Nick, April 20, 2017 at 9:20 am

    The TV interviews were much better than the TV “debates” last time round. Not least because the questioning was so much more challenging rather than general.

    Indeed. In the EU Ref QT Special watching Cameron’s face become redder with each question, then losing his temper and insulting the questioners was a joy to watch. He revealed his true character – a pompous bully.

  36. “But for Farron, and other Progressives, there is no ‘personal’, separate from the political. They have excoriated other people many, many times for personal views they oppose. Quite pleasant to see one of them getting it back for a change.”

    Rob nails it. The point is that little Farron is a hypocrite. He wants to make other people’s personal behaviour/beliefs political but not his own.

    PS When referring to male homosexual practices, please could we avoid any mention of ‘shit’ or its cognates? It puts me off sausages in gravy.

  37. @Rob Moss, April 20, 2017 at 9:28 am

    Damn. Does this mean doing the wife up the chuffer is a sinful act?

    Yes. Sodomy is a sin.

    It’s also disgusting. Shag a pile of cow dung if you enjoy immersing your penis in poo.

  38. @Bloke in Germany, April 20, 2017 at 10:48 am

    +1

    Farron should have stuck to his principles and refused to answer

  39. We need to keep politicians out of morals. On the basis that everything should be legal unless specifically criminalise the only question a politician should be asked is “Do you believe gay sex should be criminalised?

    If the answer is no then move on, if its is yes they need to justify their answer. Whether or not they believe it is a sin is none of our business, let them be judged on their actions not their thoughts..

  40. “@NIV What utter Bullshit. It’s an anachronism and it weakens his/her point.”

    No it’s not. It’s a modern adjective applied to ancient practices.

    I suspect you’re interpreting the meaning of the word “liberal” as referring the political movement itself, rather than being descriptive of the policies they espoused, as it was intended. There was no illiberal political movement at the time, but there was very definitely illiberal government back then. All government was illiberal. The modern definition of “illiberal” perfectly describes the form of government they had back then.

    Words can have more than one meaning.

    “Parsing out the echt Biblical stance on chutney ferrets requires more exegesis than I am willing to undertake, but I am pretty sure that come Judgment Day, Tim Farron and all his hangers-on will be swimming in a lake of fiery fire just for being such awful sanctimonious double-dealing cunts.”

    Matthew 7:1-5

  41. illiberal…A sense of “narrow-minded politically; unconcerned with the rights or liberties of others” is attested from 1640s

    But I have to acknowledge that the history I mentioned goes back to the 11th century BC. I apologise to Dr C and anyone else who was confused by my decision not to write in Akkadian.

  42. Niv–Always pure tripe from you.

    “Authoritarians on every side” is the rotten apples shite re-polished.

    The Bible speaks of the S&G event which–unlike the all too modern antics of socialism is likely a myth. Are you suggesting that the Christian faith has racked up a score of corpses to equal socialism? The Church did its far lesser total of dirty deeds in ages of universal barbarity and massive suffering/ignorance. Whilst the scum of socialism have done their heavy harvest of evil not merely in times changing for the better but while claiming to be a Utopian system OF betterment.

    Never mind your cod biblical quotes either –I doubt the Almighty has much time for SJWs or their trained monkeys such as you.

  43. @NiV

    I think you need to follow your moniker and actually read the New International Version. I think a large part of the problem with Sodom and Gomorrah was the state sponsored homosexual rape that was prevalent there.

  44. ““Authoritarians on every side” is the rotten apples shite re-polished.”

    As usual, you’re just trying to excuse your own authoritarianism while pointing at everyone else’s. It’s hypocritical.

    “The Bible speaks of the S&G event which–unlike the all too modern antics of socialism is likely a myth.”

    Everything in the Bible – including God and all his angels – is likely a myth. But religious people have and still do believe it, and have acted on it as if it was actually true/moral/authoritative.

    “Are you suggesting that the Christian faith has racked up a score of corpses to equal socialism?”

    Are you suggesting that numbers make a good excuse? Mass murder is mass murder – whether it’s ten, a hundred, a thousand, or a million – and condoning it is still condoning it.

    If you was *actually* against mass murder, you’d have said “Yes, and them too”. But you’re not. You’re all in favour of mass murder if it’s *your* side doing the murdering. You only object to being the victims.

    “I think you need to follow your moniker and actually read the New International Version. I think a large part of the problem with Sodom and Gomorrah was the state sponsored homosexual rape that was prevalent there.”

    I think *you* need to read it more closely, too. The issue wasn’t rape. Lot offered up his virgin daughters to the crowd to be raped, while the angels watched him do it, and that counted as a sufficient virtuous act for him to be the only man rescued from destruction. Hence, it’s clearly not rape per se that’s the issue. It’s homosexual sex.

    (Nor does it actually specify that it was to be rape. According to the NiV, all they said was “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” The assumption might have been that anyone coming to visit Sodom, knowing its reputation and still choosing to stay the night in the public square, was probably looking for it. After all, they weren’t asking for Lot himself to come out to them; they knew he wasn’t interested. “But [Lot] insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house.” Clearly, a couple of the lads who were well up for it had been coerced into the house of the local busybody prude who was trying to stop other people’s fun. It would have been easy not to realise it was an attempt at entrapment! 😉 )

    However, my point was not really about God’s personal persecution of homosexuals, but about the attitude of religious people to the story. Most recognise that the issue in Sodom and Gomorrah was widespread homosexuality, not rape, and most think they deserved destruction for that sin, and condone it. It’s only in recent times with the advent of political correctness that I’ve heard them trying to wriggle out of that position.

    And this is precisely the authoritarian attitude that condones and justifies mass murder in the name of forcing “sinners” (of various definitions) to live as the authoritarians demand they should, or die. The socialist regimes of the 20th century did exactly the same thing, for exactly the same underlying psychological reason. They were simply better at it.

    My point is that persecution and mass murder of groups that deviate from society’s norms was *not* only invented in recent times by the socialists as part of Socialism. There have *always* been people like that.

    You could turn the Sodom and Gomorrah story around to make it a classic Socialist fable. God heard that there was a city practicing Capitalism (Yeugh!!) in the middle of his Socialist utopia. So he sent two angels with a market barrow full of trinkets to set up in the town square, to see what happened. The one local socialist immigrant saw them and insisted that they come into his house, and dragged them there against their protests, plying them with free food and drink for which he would take no payment. When the townspeople heard, they came and asked him to bring the men out to them, that they might trade with them.

    Such a sinful city surely deserves to be turned into a scorched wasteland as an example to others!

    Ecksie gets the arrow of causality the wrong way round. It’s not that they’re socialist and therefore evil. It’s that they’re evil and therefore invented revolutionary socialism. The same evil invented lots of other atrocities and persecutions, too, some of which are things Ecksie himself supports. Hence him predictably making excuses for it.

    Apparently, all those acts were done “in ages of universal barbarity and massive suffering/ignorance”. But that is just to say that evil was in control, and religious atrocities were just one among the many. But how could evil be in control and inflicting “universal barbarity” if Socialism hadn’t been invented yet?! After all, Socialism is the root of all evil!

    But I’m told that ““Authoritarians on every side” is the rotten apples shite re-polished.” That was mere “universal barbarity” and “massive suffering”, and perfectly excusable because it was the “age” for it. They weren’t evil, merely ignorant. The modern day Socialism Ecksie crusades against, doing exactly the same sort of things the religious tyrants did but on a larger industrial scale, is morally totally unique in human history.

  45. “Ecksie gets the arrow of causality the wrong way round. It’s not that they’re socialist and therefore evil. It’s that they’re evil and therefore invented revolutionary socialism. The same evil invented lots of other atrocities and persecutions, too,”

    So the REASONS people do things don’t matter –they are servants of evil–perhaps of Satan himself? You really have got religion haven’t you.

    “some of which are things Ecksie himself supports. Hence him predictably making excuses for it.”

    Specifically which “things” do I support evil in NiV? If you mean not wanting to allow dicks-attached males masquerading as women to go in women’s toilets then you are being a very silly boy. That compares to millions of murders does it?

    “Apparently, all those acts were done “in ages of universal barbarity and massive suffering/ignorance”. But that is just to say that evil was in control”and religious atrocities were just one among the many,”

    Satan stalked the land eh?

    . “But how could evil be in control and inflicting “universal barbarity””

    You tell me –you are the one positing evil as some kind of independent force doing its own thing.

    ” if Socialism hadn’t been invented yet?! After all, Socialism is the root of all evil!”

    It is a manifestation of the callous and preditory elements of human nature certainly. Satan MAY have a hand in it for all I know. Never claimed it was the root of ALL evil –as far as I can recall. If you know better then quote.

    “But I’m told that ““Authoritarians on every side” is the rotten apples shite re-polished.”

    You didn’t listen. You NiVer listen. Obviously not even to yourself half the time.

    “The modern day Socialism Ecksie crusades against, doing exactly the same sort of things the religious tyrants did but on a larger industrial scale, is morally totally unique in human history.”

    The scale of its evil and the scope of its intrusiveness and its moral inversion–ie 2+2=5 (which you DO support NiV albeit via bogus scienctism)–is far worse than anything Christianity ever did.

    I’m glad you put these last paragraphs in as it saves me have to fisk your usual 3 million words of shite–esp now you are become like unto a Biblical commentator as well .

    “That was mere “universal barbarity” and “massive suffering”, and perfectly excusable because it was the “age” for it. They weren’t evil, merely ignorant.”

    Never said that Numpty. That is your projection. Murder is ALWAYS bad but when everyone is at it –from innkeepers cutting the odd travellers throat for his purse to footpads and brigands with “dead men tell no tales” as their motto then the Church would be exceptional indeed to renounce violence and murder at a time it was universal and regarded as inevitable and necessary. That doesn’t make it right and I never said that it did. But sociallismo scum butchered in ages when that sort of evil was otherwise well on the wane and gloried in their crime even as their gobs gravelled out sanctimonious clichés.

    That last–clichés-is a characteristic you share with them.

  46. “So the REASONS people do things don’t matter –they are servants of evil–perhaps of Satan himself?”

    You believe in Satan?! Hmm.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.