British Politician Tim Farron Fails To Say Gay Sex Isn’t Sinful, Suffers Celebrity Scorn

The particular personages in this story are not what’s most interesting, nor is the outcome of the UK politics which started it.

What is fascinating is the browbeating and indignation and astonishment by the Powers The Be that anybody might deign to call sodomy a sin. Here’s the story.

A British politician, Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, was asked by a reporter, “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?”

Farron (the media reports) is “a committed Christian” who had one time said, “My faith is in Jesus Christ, I put my trust in Him. I count Him as my Lord and saviour, and I’m in no way ashamed of that.”

Very well. Now there is no reading of Christianity—nor Orthodox Judaism nor Islam—in which sodomy is not sinful. This in itself is not controversial. True, there are some outlying theologians who read scripture and who conclude, “When God condemned sodomy, He was only kidding.” But the knowing award these efforts a wink and a smile, understanding the plain words of God and St Paul and so forth are unambiguous. They do this because they desire the whole thing just be forgotten. After all, this is, the fallacy goes, 2017 (insert most current year here).

Put it another way. Everybody knows people of The Book, as the Muslims say it, must admit sodomy is sinful. To ask a “committed Christian” to say sodomy is not sinful is like asking an electrician to say sticking your finger in a wall socket isn’t harmful. If the Christian says sodomy is not sinful, he loses a great deal of the authority which allows him to label himself a Christian. Just as the electrician would lose much of his authority were he to endorse electrocution.

Back to the question put to Farron. I’m afraid he took the Path of Biden and waffled. He said he was “for” NOWM rights—oops: make that LGBT rights—but that “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.”

Fine, whatever. His choking is understandable. What happened next is amusing. Celebrities took offense, and their indignation was duly noted. Because, after all, it doesn’t do to offend celebrities. Besides, whose authority on scripture—or on any subject, really—is more valuable than celebrities?

A “comedian” called Farron “a fundamentalist Christian homophobe.” Another celebrity said, “Mr @timfarron you are definitely a sinner for your continued intolerance & prejudice. Please try and join the rest of us in the year 2017.”

Then came the willful misinterpretations, which is to say, the lying. Farron was asked whether he thought sodomy is sinful, but cynics twisted that and condemned Farron for intimating “being gay is sinful.”

Well, being gay is not sinful, for the very great reason that there are no such things as “gays”, nor can one be “gay”. Since one cannot be gay, being gay cannot be sinful.

If there are such things as “gays”, then there are in the exact same way necrophilics, pedophiles, objectum sexuals, woofies, and on and on, each sexual desire creating a new kind of being. Which is absurd. People are beset by all kinds of temptations, but temptation does not and cannot be the defining characteristic of anybody. This is a metaphysical impossibility.

Since temptation isn’t the point and sinful acts are, we’re right back to admitting (or not) sodomy, an act, is sinful.

(These points I tried to make in yesterday’s satire.)

For the false and scurrilous charge of intimating being gay is sinful, Farron was duly called an “absolute disgrace” et cetera, et cetera. So the clever Farron sought out the nearest microphone and said, “I do not think being gay is a sin.” Which is, as we can now see, an unassailable answer.

It also allowed him to dodge the sodomy question—again.

But it wasn’t forgotten. A Guardian writer, who enjoys the Liberal Democrat party and “gay rights” and would not see these damaged, excused Farron’s unspoken thoughts on sodomy.

The writer said, “I don’t care what he [Farron] considers sinful, so long as it doesn’t translate into policy.”

Meaning if a question of sodomy came up in legislation, he would have Farron violate his conscience. That sin is forgivable by the writer, who ended with, “can we extend to Farron the same courtesy he affords us, and love the sinner, while hating the sin?”

The only sin left is to say there is sin. And that is the main point.