RAFO Messageboard: Yes, well, I'm not saying her speech was necessarily all that good. by Legolas

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Yes, well, I'm not saying her speech was necessarily all that good. Legolas Send a noteboard - 21/06/2017 10:08:26 PM

View original postSo then she's making a straw man argument, or you are. Her speech was all sorts of nonsense about how she is so wonderful and also a lesbian, so therefore there is nothing wrong with being a lesbian. IDK what the Mormon doctrine is on temptation and sins and so forth, but in traditional religion, there is also nothing wrong with having sexual feelings or interests or attraction. The sin, the "horrible sinner" issue to which she referred pertains to a category of specific activities, ALL of which are way beyond the pale for 12 year olds. In other words, if she's right, everyone owes Milo Yiannopolis a massive apology and a book deal.

Just because she isn't ready for the actual sinful acts and hasn't actually committed any yet, doesn't mean she can't protest against them being considered sins. I do appreciate that there is a difference between 'lesbian sex is a sin' and 'being a lesbian is a sin' and that most Christian churches believe the former but not the latter. But nevertheless, if the church's position is 'your straight friends will be allowed to have physical relationships with the people they love when the time is right without it being a sin, and you will not', she obviously does have something to complain about.

Which, of course, doesn't mean that the church has to agree with it. By the way, genuine question, which I can't easily find the answer to: would the Church qualify kissing (the kind involving tongues, obviously) as a sexual and sinful act?

View original postI cannot fully articulate the enormity of your lack of a right to tell people that their 12 year-olds are old enough to hear about sex. It is an individual level of awareness and capacity, that should be determined by people who have the longest and closest degree of acquaintance with said children and presumed to have their best interests at heart. In other words, their parents. If parents think their kids are old enough to hear a talk about why lesbians are awesome, that's their right. No one else has the right to subject their children to such a talk however, absent the parent's prior approval. As I said in the original post, no one brought their kid to that event expecting to have them exposed to that, and the speaker and her idiot parents had no right to impose it on them.

You realize you said this in reply to a paragraph where I wasn't even talking about sex, right? Talking about people being straight or gay is not automatically 'talking about sex', it's just talking about romantic relationships. That's perfectly compatible with the usual explanations for children on relationships and on how children are made.

View original postInsert the word "your" into the appropriate place, and the statement is fine. Without it, absolutely not.

The 'should' part was a personal opinion which I wouldn't want to force on people. But while I could sympathize with parents complaining about their children having been unexpectedly exposed to a speech about sex, I can't say the same about the case where the speech is about gay or lesbian relationships or inclinations, without touching on sex.

View original postNot necessarily a good thing.

I'm hardly saying we need to return to that, or that we should reduce the age of adulthood. Just that 12 year olds can certainly have the abilities to do and say meaningful things - maybe not as meaningful/valuable as what they or others can do and say as adults, but meaningful nevertheless.

View original postNot at all. And I know lots of people who were confirmed at 7, BTW. It does not entitle you to anything. It does not change your status or your rights or privileges. An unconfirmed adult is still of superior status and dignity to a confirmed child. Confirmation or the age of reason are entirely internal states of being, between you and God. "Age of reason" merely means the age at which someone can be held responsible for their own sins, and thus need to confess them, and inversely, the age at which it is possible to appreciate and respect the Eucharist.

Interesting, about the confirmation at 7. I'd never heard of that happening myself (in here we do have a religious ceremony at 7 or 8, but that's just the 'first communion', with confirmation following 4 years later). And my (very) quick check suggested that American parishes were more likely to go for confirmation at a higher age than our 12, than at a lower one. My bad.

As for the rest - you don't think it's a little ridiculous to state that a kid of 7 can be held responsible for their own sins, but a kid of 12 can't express any opinion worth listening to? Which, once again, isn't about this particular 12 year old or the validity of her speech.

Reply to message

So the Mormons cut the mike on a lesbian coming out to her church...what is wrong with people? Cannoli - 20/06/2017 05:31:05 AM 959 Views

You should apologize to Justus of Beauvais. Or whatever you quasi-idolators do to pray to not-God. *NM* Ghavrel - 20/06/2017 09:35:33 AM 228 Views

Can we get an English translation of this comment?

*NM* Legolas - 21/06/2017 07:09:59 PM 216 Views

He referenced a juvenile saint, and took a shot at the Catholic practice of venerating saints Cannoli - 22/06/2017 12:01:17 AM 402 Views

Hand tremors! I grow old! *NM* Cannoli - 22/06/2017 12:01:17 AM 225 Views

I was being wildly offensive about Cannoli's religious practices to see what it felt like.

*NM* Ghavrel - 22/06/2017 03:04:17 AM 330 Views

Isn't it fun? *NM* Cannoli - 22/06/2017 10:09:55 AM 215 Views

I admit nothing, papist. (yes it is) *NM* Ghavrel - 22/06/2017 10:55:30 AM 233 Views

A kid who was canonized for keeping his mouth shut is basically, the opposite of Savannah the Mormon *NM* Cannoli - 20/06/2017 01:59:18 PM 244 Views

There's bigger issues here then her sexuality... Jeordam - 20/06/2017 08:43:52 PM 487 Views

Do you remember yourself from when you were 12? *NM* Nebhead - 21/06/2017 02:32:24 PM 588 Views

I do and like her I was a lesbian *NM* random thoughts - 21/06/2017 06:58:46 PM 236 Views

Yes. And? *NM* Cannoli - 21/06/2017 08:59:47 PM 229 Views

I'd agree on the points about not seeing what's so terrible about the church's reaction. Legolas - 21/06/2017 07:53:38 PM 409 Views

They don't get ordained at 12, and lay people do not get to preach. Cannoli - 21/06/2017 08:59:22 PM 524 Views

Yes, well, I'm not saying her speech was necessarily all that good. Legolas - 21/06/2017 10:08:26 PM 570 Views

Because they don't write that kind of thing down. Cannoli - 21/06/2017 11:58:29 PM 497 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="295887">
<quote id="295884">So then she's making a straw man argument, or you are.  Her speech was all sorts of nonsense about how she is so wonderful and also a lesbian, so therefore there is nothing wrong with being a lesbian.  IDK what the Mormon doctrine is on temptation and sins and so forth, but in traditional religion, there is also nothing wrong with having sexual feelings or interests or attraction.  The sin, the "horrible sinner" issue to which she referred pertains to a category of specific activities, ALL of which are way beyond the pale for 12 year olds.  In other words, if she's right, everyone owes Milo Yiannopolis a massive apology and a book deal. </quote>
Just because she isn't ready for the actual sinful acts and hasn't actually committed any yet, doesn't mean she can't protest against them being considered sins. I do appreciate that there is a difference between 'lesbian sex is a sin' and 'being a lesbian is a sin' and that most Christian churches believe the former but not the latter. But nevertheless, if the church's position is 'your straight friends will be allowed to have physical relationships with the people they love when the time is right without it being a sin, and you will not', she obviously does have something to complain about.

<quote id="295884">I cannot fully articulate the enormity of your lack of a right to tell people that their 12 year-olds are old enough to hear about sex. It is an individual level of awareness and capacity, that should be determined by people who have the longest and closest degree of acquaintance with said children and presumed to have their best interests at heart. In other words, their parents.  If parents think their kids are old enough to hear a talk about why lesbians are awesome, that's their right.  No one else has the right to subject their children to such a talk however, absent the parent's prior approval.  As I said in the original post, no one brought their kid to that event expecting to have them exposed to that, and the speaker and her idiot parents had no right to impose it on them.</quote>
You realize you said this in reply to a paragraph where I wasn't even talking about sex, right? Talking about people being straight or gay is not automatically 'talking about sex', it's just talking about romantic relationships. That's perfectly compatible with the usual explanations for children on relationships and on how children are made.

<quote id="295884">Insert the word "your" into the appropriate place, and the statement is fine. Without it, absolutely not. </quote>
The 'should' part was a personal opinion which I wouldn't want to force on people. But while I could sympathize with parents complaining about their children having been unexpectedly exposed to a speech about sex, I can't say the same about the case where the speech is about gay or lesbian relationships or inclinations, without touching on sex.  
<quote id="295884">Not necessarily a good thing.</quote>
I'm hardly saying we need to return to that, or that we should reduce the age of adulthood. Just that 12 year olds can certainly have the abilities to do and say meaningful things - maybe not as meaningful/valuable as what they or others can do and say as adults, but meaningful nevertheless.

<quote id="295884">Not at all. And I know lots of people who were confirmed at 7, BTW.  It does not entitle you to anything.  It does not change your status or your rights or privileges.  An unconfirmed adult is still of superior status and dignity to a confirmed child. Confirmation or the age of reason are entirely internal states of being, between you and God. "Age of reason" merely means the age at which someone can be held responsible for their own sins, and thus need to confess them, and inversely, the age at which it is possible to appreciate and respect the Eucharist. </quote>
Interesting, about the confirmation at 7. I'd never heard of that happening myself (in here we do have a religious ceremony at 7 or 8, but that's just the 'first communion', with confirmation following 4 years later). And my (very) quick check suggested that American parishes were more likely to go for confirmation at a higher age than our 12, than at a lower one. My bad.

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password