• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

12 year old lesbian gets the smack down from her Morman church

CLAX1911 said:
This gobbledygook you typed is a tangled up mess. How a particular person within a culture acts and dresses is part of culture. Brainwashing children to follow a cult and believe it's lies unquestionably isn't culture.
Click to expand...

Culture India, Culture in Anthropological Perspective, Attributes of Culture

Culture

Culture has been defined in a number of ways; some thinkers include in culture all the major social components that bind men together in a society. In sociology we use the word to denote acquired behaviors that are shared by and transmitted among the members of the society. It is an accumulation that a new generation inherits. It is a heritage into which a child is born. Thus to the student of sociology a person lacking in culture is an impossibility because individuals of necessity share in the culture of their group.

The essential point in regard to culture is that it is acquired by man as a member of society and persists through tradition.
Click to expand...

My opinions are drawn from taking a politically liberal sociology course in college. And you were actually proving my point about dress associated with females having to do with culture. A woman's vagina is not cultural, however, what may be considered "female underwear" is.

Liberal (as statistically its an academic field disproportionately represented by liberals) sociology as a science has its own jargon like most professions and academic fields.

Categories and groups are not and the same.

A "group" are those that know each other or interact with each other.

A "category" are people that don't know each other but share some similar traits.

So, in sociology some examples of categories of people: women, transsexuals, Muslims, Mormons, Americans, blacks, drug addicts, Republicans, Mexicans.

People can fall into several categories. It is possible to be a Mexican woman that is a Mormon.

I would argue Mormons have their own culture. Just like there is a term called "political culture" which differs from one country to the next. The political culture of the United States is not the same as that of Russia and neither are the same as that of the United Kingdom. In the UK the frequent and large sums of money floating from corporations to US elected politicians Federal Government would be viewed as wide spread corruption.

Yeah, and?

No, that's part of a culture. Brainwashing occurs when you feed stupid bull**** lies to people until they believe that stupidity.
Click to expand...

Language is taught and frequently to little children without choice. No one asked me in Catholic grade school if I wanted to learn English and how to write in it. Nor did they ask me if I wanted to stand facing an American flag with my hand over my heart reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I was simply told to do it.

All my "Americanism" was taught to me as much as my "catholicity." I'm pretty sure it is the same with Mormons.

You know... I was brainwashed plenty in American education. Like with The United States sitting above Mexico. How do I know Mexico does not sit above the USA and Canada beneath the United States? The US claims the Americas has two continents: North and South America. But I think it might be the French who teach the Americas are one continent.

When Catholics teach marriage is between man and woman and can only be monogamous it is no more indoctrinating children than when Muslims teach kids a woman can only have one husband but a man can have four wives, or when American secular people teach children that two men can marry each other in monogamy because that is good but if three men married each then that would just be bad and is unlawful.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Mormons don't practice polygamy anymore due to social pressure. Social pressure works that's why it's used
Click to expand...

They were hunted down and killed. That partly helped. Hunted down and massacred by the US military, the US Government.

The United States derives its view of marital monogamy as morally superior to polygamy from its (the United States) Christian heritage.

There have been many societies that allowed men to have multiple wives (even Jesus was questioned in the New Testament about ancient Jews having multiple wives).

The science of biology does not object to it neither does the social science of sociology. The science of biology does not even care about marriage as that is a mere cultural and religious thing. Biology per the Theory of Evolution focuses on on what it terms "fitness." Which is something different than what Republicans, Libertarians, and Democrats think. That term and concept is not about "strength" or "making money."

"Fitness" as in "survival of the fittest" has two ways it is used as a concept in biology:

1) To denote an organism that produces more offspring relative to another organism of the same species.

2) The prevalence of certain genes in a population.

So, "survival of the fittest" has to do with rationally explaining why certain genetic traits are more prevalent in population relative to other genetic traits found in a population. Or it is used to help rational explanation why certain genetic traits disappear from a population.

What is important to note in this is that a non-married man impregnating over 100 women is an amoral issue in the science of biology. From the stand point of biology he has proven more fit than me (who has produced no offspring, consequently I do not contribute my genes to the greater population). He proves more "fit" than me even if he is a "Dead Beat Dad," and even if I adopt 100 children and provide for them all.

So, in terms of lesbian marriages, if being such is merely and only genetically determined (epigeneyics has replaced "genetic determinism" the prefix "epi" means "beyond," "above," or "more than"), then if all lesbians in America married and did not get impregnated by male sperm, we would expect then that the genetic trait of lesbians would eventually perish from the genetic pool found in the United States of America.

But genetic determinism is no longer held as a reasonable explanation for all traits found in individuals. Roughly around the year 2010 the science of biology underwent the beginning of a new revolution in which "epigenetics" is now the rallying flag.


Epigenetics and the influence of our genes | Courtney Griffins | TEDxOU
Click to expand...
Uploaded on Feb 23, 2012

This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED conferences.
Because we want to understand what genes are required for blood vessel development, Courtney Griffin studies certain enzymes that help turn genes on and off. These enzymes are specifically involved in relaxing DNA that is normally tightly coiled up in our cells.
Click to expand...



The young woman below misunderstands, misrepresents the Christian theological argument "homosexuality is not natural." The Christian argument for that is philosophical and not scientific. Furthermore, it uses Christian philosophical jargon from my understanding. From what I have been told anyways. So, the *jargon* is used to philosophically address what humans by nature of our higher intellects can apprehend using reason, to determine proper conduct.

So, for example, homosexuality is not only observed among the bonobos, but incestuous pedophilia as well. A Christian theologian using philosophy might argue that pedophilia, per use of human intellect, can be reasoned out to be unnatural. The "natural" being a proper order of things, and in the Christian perspective that would align with the Christian conception of how God wants order among humans. I'm not a theologian or philosopher nor well read on the subject, so, I could be butchering to position to some degree.


(The video brings up epigenetics. I did not watch the video all the way through.)
 
Henrin said:
So they don't need to be lectured. If she doesn't like their beliefs she can leave.
Click to expand...

She's twelve....where is she going to go?
 
CLAX1911 said:
She's likely been forced to there by parents and thus brainwashed that's what happens with cults
Click to expand...

If she's so brainwashed by the church...then why does she think she's gay?
 
FastPace said:
Culture India, Culture in Anthropological Perspective, Attributes of Culture



My opinions are drawn from taking a politically liberal sociology course in college. And you were actually proving my point about dress associated with females having to do with culture. A woman's vagina is not cultural, however, what may be considered "female underwear" is.

Liberal (as statistically its an academic field disproportionately represented by liberals) sociology as a science has its own jargon like most professions and academic fields.

Categories and groups are not and the same.

A "group" are those that know each other or interact with each other.

A "category" are people that don't know each other but share some similar traits.

So, in sociology some examples of categories of people: women, transsexuals, Muslims, Mormons, Americans, blacks, drug addicts, Republicans, Mexicans.

People can fall into several categories. It is possible to be a Mexican woman that is a Mormon.

I would argue Mormons have their own culture. Just like there is a term called "political culture" which differs from one country to the next. The political culture of the United States is not the same as that of Russia and neither are the same as that of the United Kingdom. In the UK the frequent and large sums of money floating from corporations to US elected politicians Federal Government would be viewed as wide spread corruption.



Language is taught and frequently to little children without choice. No one asked me in Catholic grade school if I wanted to learn English and how to write in it. Nor did they ask me if I wanted to stand facing an American flag with my hand over my heart reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I was simply told to do it.

All my "Americanism" was taught to me as much as my "catholicity." I'm pretty sure it is the same with Mormons.

You know... I was brainwashed plenty in American education. Like with The United States sitting above Mexico. How do I know Mexico does not sit above the USA and Canada beneath the United States? The US claims the Americas has two continents: North and South America. But I think it might be the French who teach the Americas are one continent.

When Catholics teach marriage is between man and woman and can only be monogamous it is no more indoctrinating children than when Muslims teach kids a woman can only have one husband but a man can have four wives, or when American secular people teach children that two men can marry each other in monogamy because that is good but if three men married each then that would just be bad and is unlawful.
Click to expand...

I am not reading all that crap. Being part of a culture isn't the same as brainwashing cultists. In you're blather you can't make the case that it is.
 
FastPace said:
They were hunted down and killed. That partly helped. Hunted down and massacred by the US military, the US Government.

The United States derives its view of marital monogamy as morally superior to polygamy from its (the United States) Christian heritage.

There have been many societies that allowed men to have multiple wives (even Jesus was questioned in the New Testament about ancient Jews having multiple wives).

The science of biology does not object to it neither does the social science of sociology. The science of biology does not even care about marriage as that is a mere cultural and religious thing. Biology per the Theory of Evolution focuses on on what it terms "fitness." Which is something different than what Republicans, Libertarians, and Democrats think. That term and concept is not about "strength" or "making money."

"Fitness" as in "survival of the fittest" has two ways it is used as a concept in biology:

1) To denote an organism that produces more offspring relative to another organism of the same species.

2) The prevalence of certain genes in a population.

So, "survival of the fittest" has to do with rationally explaining why certain genetic traits are more prevalent in population relative to other genetic traits found in a population. Or it is used to help rational explanation why certain genetic traits disappear from a population.

What is important to note in this is that a non-married man impregnating over 100 women is an amoral issue in the science of biology. From the stand point of biology he has proven more fit than me (who has produced no offspring, consequently I do not contribute my genes to the greater population). He proves more "fit" than me even if he is a "Dead Beat Dad," and even if I adopt 100 children and provide for them all.

So, in terms of lesbian marriages, if being such is merely and only genetically determined (epigeneyics has replaced "genetic determinism" the prefix "epi" means "beyond," "above," or "more than"), then if all lesbians in America married and did not get impregnated by male sperm, we would expect then that the genetic trait of lesbians would eventually perish from the genetic pool found in the United States of America.

But genetic determinism is no longer held as a reasonable explanation for all traits found in individuals. Roughly around the year 2010 the science of biology underwent the beginning of a new revolution in which "epigenetics" is now the rallying flag.







The young woman below misunderstands, misrepresents the Christian theological argument "homosexuality is not natural." The Christian argument for that is philosophical and not scientific. Furthermore, it uses Christian philosophical jargon from my understanding. From what I have been told anyways. So, the *jargon* is used to philosophically address what humans by nature of our higher intellects can apprehend using reason, to determine proper conduct.

So, for example, homosexuality is not only observed among the bonobos, but incestuous pedophilia as well. A Christian theologian using philosophy might argue that pedophilia, per use of human intellect, can be reasoned out to be unnatural. The "natural" being a proper order of things, and in the Christian perspective that would align with the Christian conception of how God wants order among humans. I'm not a theologian or philosopher nor well read on the subject, so, I could be butchering to position to some degree.


(The video brings up epigenetics. I did not watch the video all the way through.)
Click to expand...


What is wrong with you? What is all of this nonsense?
 
CLAX1911 said:
What is wrong with you? What is all of this nonsense?
Click to expand...

It's called education or at minimum being willing to intellectually grow. Which by the way does not mean a person has to subscribe to all views they come across. I don't subscribe to a trillion different views. And that's just the ones I know about or have come across. And there are views from different schools of thought (that can include religion like Zen Buddhism) where I may pick ideas from if I feel they are useful for myself, and then leave the remainder of it alone.

Everyone one of us ignorant of something. There is simply too much to know. Know one can know everything about all things. Even in medicine there is not one single doctor on earth that knows everything about the field of medicine. And that's just one branch of knowledge. So, the likelihood that doctor can fix motorcycles and find employment as a software engineer is slim.

Willful ignorance is another matter.




I quickly pulled this up on youtube. It is about Natural Law (philosophy) as put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas. Now, the guy in the video claims this type of philosophy as penetrated Western thinking on some level and that even mainstream Protestants have been influenced by it. The Mormons are in Catholic and Protestant views neo-Christians. Think of it like the Nation of Islam are viewed by many as neo-Muslims. So, to what degree Mormons are influenced if at all by Natural Law philosophy I am not sure.

The video is only 9 minutes and in my view very interesting. Aquians argued there were 7 "Basic Goods" if I remember from the video correctly. The first one was life, survival. And reproduction was #2 I believe. Anyways, the video lays it out. Whether or not one subscribes to all or any of the views it still is an interesting look. It helps me better understand what some Christian intellectuals when they argue homosexuality is unnatural or goes against natural law.


Published on Nov 7, 2016

Our exploration of ethical theories continues with another theistic answer to the grounding problem: natural law theory. Thomas Aquinas’s version of this theory says that we all seek out what’s known as the basic goods and argued that instinct and reason come together to point us to the natural law. There are, of course, objections to this theory – in particular, the is-ought problem advanced by David Hume.
Click to expand...
 
CLAX1911 said:
I am not reading all that crap. Being part of a culture isn't the same as brainwashing cultists. In you're blather you can't make the case that it is.
Click to expand...

I already stated the Mormons have their own culture.

I was reared Catholic but what gets me is when secular people accuse Catholics of being the intolerant ones. :lol: Yet, they (secular people) are intolerant of a wide range of people.

Listen my sympathies are with Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christianity and not with Mormonism. Eh, if I left Christianity it might be to Zen Buddhism or Islam. But Zen Buddhism you can apply to nearly any religion or even atheist belief to some measure.

But my thing is let people be. And I wish the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses would let me be. These two neo-Christian organizations proselytize on the streets like nobody's business. You don't find Muslims or Jews out there stopping you on the streets or ringing your doorbell. And I hope Catholics don't pick up the habit. But the Mormons can educate their children as they want. That's my view.



Now, I have taken a past philosophy course on political freedom (liberty).

So, we had to learn about positive liberty vs negative liberty.

The Libertarians are supposedly the harbingers of "negative liberty." So, I see you list yourself as leaning Libertarian and right on the political spectrum. Are you aware then of the philosophical conception of freedom as "negative liberty"? It's a more simple concept of freedom than "positive liberty." Negative liberty is more or less "Free from x to do or not do Y." It's been some years so my memory of the exact formula might be off. But its basically like that.

The Republicans and Democrats basically promote a concept of freedom that falls under "positive liberty." All religions view freedom in the conception of positive liberty.

A few components I can remember about positive liberty:

1) The individual can not know if they are free.

2) Only a group or an elite class can judge and inform the individual if they are free.

3) It is the obligation of the group (society as a whole) or the elites to lead the individual to freedom.

4) A person can be locked in a cell in a prison 23 hours out of the day and be free.

5) A person--like a drug addict--can walk around outdoors and do as they want and not be free.

6) Freedom is interior and not exterior and come "self realization."


Self realization is some abstract, biased concept so far as I can tell. But it explains why liberals, Democrats, think they have to "free" people in their minds from objecting to homosexuality. Likewise, why a church will try to "free" people from homosexuality.

The Libertarian supposedly views freedom as 100% exterior. It's about the government or armed groups forcing or coercing you to do something or stopping you from doing something. So, libertarians are often for legalizing drug use or allowing 5 men to marry each other.
 
FastPace said:
It's called education or at minimum being willing to intellectually grow.
Click to expand...
It's called trying to come off as educated. Pontificating endlessly about this isn't educated. Genius is in simplicity.

Notice I'm not even discussing the subject with you? I don't want to read your diatribe. It's been pretty common that the excessively verbose posters really just use way to much language to describe a rather simple concept.
 
FastPace said:
I already stated the Mormons have their own culture.
Click to expand...
It's a cult. Having it's own culture really makes that point clearer.

I took philosophy as well. And I know how brilliant everybody thinks they are when they pass the course. Try finishing your degree, working in your feild (assuming you have one with the degree you chose) for ten years than talk to me about your intellectual prowess.
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
It's called trying to come off as educated. Pontificating endlessly about this isn't educated. Genius is in simplicity.
Click to expand...

Here is some simplicity for you: you don't seem to know anything you are talking about.

Kind of like you implied that earlier that the history of Mormon's giving of polygamy in the US came through peaceful social pressure. Wrong. They were put on the run and hunted down by the US Army by orders of the US Government and massacred in numbers, over their practice of taking multiple wives.

Social pressure over time may have had something to do with their change but it was not the only historical component of pressure placed on them.

And you seem to be one of these people that thinks the natural sciences preach and teach morality. Wrong again. Everything in the natural sciences from homosexuality, to pedophilia, to a lesbian getting impregnated from the consequences of a gang rape by men are all amoral issues. The best the natural sciences might do is try to explain the existence of altruism *observed* among humans or some other species.

Philosophy and religion step in to teach morals including sexual morality.

But assuming morality and sexual morality are purely subjective then why would a true libertarian advocate for authoritarian monopoly in the market place of moral ideas? Would not the free market of ideas lead to the best ideas becoming most widely adopted (purchased)?

So long as a parents are legally held responsible for their children don't they then have some authoritarian say in how their children will be educated and raised or even a say in how their children spend money or behave in public?

As I said I am not Mormon nor do I sympathize with the Mormon message. I don't sympathize with atheism as a message either but I don't deny atheist have a right to educate their children as they see fit.





At roughly the 8:00 minute mark of the video to about the 10:00 minute mark the woman talks about addicted smokers, drug addicts, having been commonly used in positive liberty as examples of people who lack freedom. Due to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th order desires and so on (and that is usually related to lack of "self realization").

So as I said, religions, as well as the Republicans and Democrats subscribe to a concept of freedom that falls under positive liberty. Irrespective if they don't realize it. Albeit, both political parties at times promote negative liberty (e.g., legalized abortion arguments, legalized guns arguments).




The Libertarian really shouldn't be concerning himself with others choices unless their choices means externally restricting his freedom to do or not do X thing. My view.
 
Elvira said:
Obviously not...she's not going to change their beliefs any more than they will change hers...
Click to expand...

In the end, you're right.

She does, however, have the right to voice her beliefs and grievances. Whether or not it was prudent to use her church congregation as a platform to do that. That's debatable.

The Mormon Church has a right to not be forced to listen. The church responded by interrupting her statement.

The girl at least saw for herself that her church won't accept her as she is. There's at least some closure in what she did.

Unfortunately, the little girl will have to go on with her life knowing that the church she grew up in is based on bigotry and hypocrisy. Thus she'll have to seek inner peace and tolerance regarding her being rejected and surround herself with people who don't condone the Mormon's tenets and teachings.
 
Removable Mind said:
In the end, you're right.

She does, however, have the right to voice her beliefs and grievances. Whether or not it was prudent to use her church congregation as a platform to do that. That's debatable.

The Mormon Church has a right to not be forced to listen. The church responded by interrupting her statement.

The girl at least saw for herself that her church won't accept her as she is. There's at least some closure in what she did.

Unfortunately, the little girl will have to go on with her life knowing that the church she grew up in is based on bigotry and hypocrisy. Thus she'll have to seek inner peace and tolerance regarding her being rejected and surround herself with people who don't condone the Mormon's tenets and teachings.
Click to expand...

No, it would have been hypocritical of them to accept her the way she is...many have changed in order to serve God in the way He approves of...

"9 Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality,

10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom.

11 And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

The Bible has that power...

"For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints from the marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart." Hebrews 4:12
 
Elvira said:
No, it would have been hypocritical of them to accept her the way she is...many have changed in order to serve God in the way He approves of...

"9 Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality,

10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom.

11 And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

The Bible has that power...

"For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints from the marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart." Hebrews 4:12
Click to expand...

You do have the right to make the claims that you just did above. However there no quantitative proof that people decide that they won't be gay because of any religion's tenets or teachings. In fact, there are now laws in a number of states against churches being allowed to practice conversion therapy on minors who are gay.

Quite frankly, I don't care about what scriptures say or about church's tenets, which condemn homosexuality. Being a member of any religion is 100% voluntary. There are no Church Police who imposes consequences for church members failure to comply with their respective church beliefs and teachings.
 
Removable Mind said:
You do have the right to make the claims that you just did above. However there no quantitative proof that people decide that they won't be gay because of any religion's tenets or teachings. In fact, there are now laws in a number of states against churches being allowed to practice conversion therapy on minors who are gay.

Quite frankly, I don't care about what scriptures say or about church's tenets, which condemn homosexuality. Being a member of any religion is 100% voluntary. There are no Church Police who imposes consequences for church members failure to comply with their respective church beliefs and teachings.
Click to expand...

It is clear you don't understand how organizations like the Mormons work...
 
Removable Mind said:
You do have the right to make the claims that you just did above. However there no quantitative proof that people decide that they won't be gay because of any religion's tenets or teachings. In fact, there are now laws in a number of states against churches being allowed to practice conversion therapy on minors who are gay.

Quite frankly, I don't care about what scriptures say or about church's tenets, which condemn homosexuality. Being a member of any religion is 100% voluntary. There are no Church Police who imposes consequences for church members failure to comply with their respective church beliefs and teachings.
Click to expand...

Excommunication and ostrasization is devastating for some Mormons that were raised in the church.
 
Elvira said:
My question is why does she need acceptance from a group who believes differently than she does...why does she care?
Click to expand...

LOL Why does anybody need acceptance? It could be that the Mormon church is/was a big part of her life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom