Hammond Literary Characters Quiz C/D 11...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Is It A Sin For A Political Leader To Hold His Or Her Own Personal Thoughts On Subjects Such As Homosexuality?
57 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If Tim Farron's personal beliefs have no bearing on his ability to treat gay people equally, then those beliefs are moot.
What he could have said is, "Yes, as a Christian, I think that gay sex is a sin, as laid down in the Bible. However, that doesn't reflect the way I feel about gay rights - and my record shows this".
He could then point to the fact that he voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry, and to make same sex marriage available to armed forces personnel outside the UK.
He also voted in favour of various amendments to acts of Parliament in light of the introduction of same sex marriage.
He would, however have to explain why he voted 'no' on Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations.
What he could have said is, "Yes, as a Christian, I think that gay sex is a sin, as laid down in the Bible. However, that doesn't reflect the way I feel about gay rights - and my record shows this".
He could then point to the fact that he voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry, and to make same sex marriage available to armed forces personnel outside the UK.
He also voted in favour of various amendments to acts of Parliament in light of the introduction of same sex marriage.
He would, however have to explain why he voted 'no' on Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations.
But as to the question of whether it's a sin for a political leader to hold personal thought on homosexuality.
No, it's not a sin, but MPs work for us. We need to know what kind of people they are. What are their beliefs and how those beliefs guide them.
We need to know this, because as elected officials, they work for us. If their faith dictates that they cannot be in favour of equal rights for gay people - we want to know.
No, it's not a sin, but MPs work for us. We need to know what kind of people they are. What are their beliefs and how those beliefs guide them.
We need to know this, because as elected officials, they work for us. If their faith dictates that they cannot be in favour of equal rights for gay people - we want to know.
youngmafbog
You wrote:
Mr Farron may think it is a sin to be a homosexual but at least his version of the 'book' does not instruct him to lob them off the top of tall buildings as some do.
Leviticus 20:13, states in no uncertain terms that homosexuals should be killed:
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
It's quite a famous Bible quote.
By the way - the Koran, tells the story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom - and sodomy in Arabic is known as "liwat," based on Lot's name.
Men having sex with each other should be punished, the Koran says, but it doesn't say how - and it adds that they should be left alone if they repent.
What I think you're referring to is the death penalty which comes from the Hadith (or accounts of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad).
The accounts differ on the method of killing, and some accounts give lesser penalties in some circumstances. But crucially, I think you're conflating the position of ISIS, who adhere to a radical interpretation of Islam, which commands that gays should be thrown from a high building then stoned if they are not dead when they hit the ground.
I think we should keep ISIS as a separate entity - they're barbaric terrorists. They are the ones killing gay people - but they are fundamentalist murderers.
You wrote:
Mr Farron may think it is a sin to be a homosexual but at least his version of the 'book' does not instruct him to lob them off the top of tall buildings as some do.
Leviticus 20:13, states in no uncertain terms that homosexuals should be killed:
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
It's quite a famous Bible quote.
By the way - the Koran, tells the story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom - and sodomy in Arabic is known as "liwat," based on Lot's name.
Men having sex with each other should be punished, the Koran says, but it doesn't say how - and it adds that they should be left alone if they repent.
What I think you're referring to is the death penalty which comes from the Hadith (or accounts of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad).
The accounts differ on the method of killing, and some accounts give lesser penalties in some circumstances. But crucially, I think you're conflating the position of ISIS, who adhere to a radical interpretation of Islam, which commands that gays should be thrown from a high building then stoned if they are not dead when they hit the ground.
I think we should keep ISIS as a separate entity - they're barbaric terrorists. They are the ones killing gay people - but they are fundamentalist murderers.
Naomi - // Oh for goodness sake, stop it. This is supposed to be a serious discussion. //
Even if this was your thread - which it's not - it is not for you to adjudicate you think constitutes a 'serious discussion'.
You are the first to shriek about posting what you want, so please extend that courtesy to others, and put your mortar board and cane away.
Even if this was your thread - which it's not - it is not for you to adjudicate you think constitutes a 'serious discussion'.
You are the first to shriek about posting what you want, so please extend that courtesy to others, and put your mortar board and cane away.
jno - //suppose we had a political leader whose personal thoughts were that Brexit was a mistake.
Should she be considered unfit to carry Brexit through? Or is it okay as long as she doesn't let her personal opinions interfere with the way she does her job? //
I can see the point you are making, but in my view, the comparison doesn’t quite fit.
As Home Secretary, Theresa May was a ‘remainer’ and that is a matter of record, so it’s pointless her trying to deny it. Instead, her stance is that of someone following the will of the people – effectively saying that her personal view is not the issue, she is mandated to follow the electorate decision to the best of her ability, and she is going to do just that.
The difference comes because Mr Farron’s position is a matter of conscience, not political viewpoint – and because it is conscience, it can only ever be personal, leading him into the area of conscience taking precedence over political responsibility.
Mrs May is able to argue, with some success, that her opposition to Brexit is known (she can hardly deny it) but that does not mean that she will not do her best with the negations, given that she is the PM of an electorate that has given its decision, which is different from her personal positon – but not her political responsibility.
So although the two look like comparable situations, I suggest that my analysis shows that they are not.
Should she be considered unfit to carry Brexit through? Or is it okay as long as she doesn't let her personal opinions interfere with the way she does her job? //
I can see the point you are making, but in my view, the comparison doesn’t quite fit.
As Home Secretary, Theresa May was a ‘remainer’ and that is a matter of record, so it’s pointless her trying to deny it. Instead, her stance is that of someone following the will of the people – effectively saying that her personal view is not the issue, she is mandated to follow the electorate decision to the best of her ability, and she is going to do just that.
The difference comes because Mr Farron’s position is a matter of conscience, not political viewpoint – and because it is conscience, it can only ever be personal, leading him into the area of conscience taking precedence over political responsibility.
Mrs May is able to argue, with some success, that her opposition to Brexit is known (she can hardly deny it) but that does not mean that she will not do her best with the negations, given that she is the PM of an electorate that has given its decision, which is different from her personal positon – but not her political responsibility.
So although the two look like comparable situations, I suggest that my analysis shows that they are not.
andy hughes, I think the OP is just about whether a politican's private views should be held against, or in favour of, him or her. Brexit was after all a conscience vote too, with MPs (and anyone else) free to campaign on whichever platform they saw fit.
I personally don't have any problem with the opinions of either May or Farron; my only concern is their actions.
I personally don't have any problem with the opinions of either May or Farron; my only concern is their actions.
andy-hughes
/// AOG - There is nothing in any of my posts that suggest I am confusing anyone with anyone
else. ///
Really?????????????
That is of course (unlike the rest of us), you are referring to some other politician, who goes by the name of Fallon .
/// By discussing the concept in terms of 'sin' Mr Fallon has instantly crossed the line from objective political view to personal faith-based opinion. ///
/// If, as you say, you refuse to debate with me, then please don't bring me into your point-scoring, especially when your point is invalid in the first place ///
Please don't lecture me when I decide to 'bring you in,' for a little point scoring, at least unlike yours mine are 'valid' points.
/// AOG - There is nothing in any of my posts that suggest I am confusing anyone with anyone
else. ///
Really?????????????
That is of course (unlike the rest of us), you are referring to some other politician, who goes by the name of Fallon .
/// By discussing the concept in terms of 'sin' Mr Fallon has instantly crossed the line from objective political view to personal faith-based opinion. ///
/// If, as you say, you refuse to debate with me, then please don't bring me into your point-scoring, especially when your point is invalid in the first place ///
Please don't lecture me when I decide to 'bring you in,' for a little point scoring, at least unlike yours mine are 'valid' points.
Naomi // Do us all a favour and give it a rest. That's all I have to say on the subject. //
Once again you see fit to appoint yourself spokesperson for some unidentified group.
Speak for yourself by all means, ore in this case, apparently, don't bother - but leave the self-aggrandisement out of it. You don't represent anyone but yourself.
Once again you see fit to appoint yourself spokesperson for some unidentified group.
Speak for yourself by all means, ore in this case, apparently, don't bother - but leave the self-aggrandisement out of it. You don't represent anyone but yourself.
Latest Posts
Well, This Is How I Spent My Day
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Film, Media & TV12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
How it Works46 mins ago
Film, Media & TV51 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.