An Apology to Gay Latter-day Saints

[RevTestament]

I choose my personal pronouns to be emperor and emperor's, and if you fail to use them, you obviously have to go to jail...😎

I might just like this new law... When is it coming to Utah?

Don't tell me... I'll have to retire to California so I can be called emperor by force of law! How enlightened!

[canard78]

On 8/19/2018 at 2:20 PM, The Nehor said:

Not the pronouns thing. I know a guy/girl/something in the middle that wants to be called xhe. I just avoid talking to them at all.

 

On 8/19/2018 at 2:36 PM, carbon dioxide said:

Sounds good to me.  I am not going to start using newly invented terms to appease people over issues like this.   There are two sexes with rigid definitions for each.  Better to avoid these people than get caught up in all the nonsense.

You’re both a great example of why I’ll continue to call you Mormons and not (restored) Christians. There’s nothing Christian about you at all. 

Better still, maybe it’s better to avoid you completely and avoid getting caught up wasting my time trying to educate the socially illiterate. 

Banned for personal insults.  Debate ideas, not people.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I choose my personal pronouns to be emperor and emperor's, and if you fail to use them, you obviously have to go to jail...😎

I might just like this new law... When is it coming to Utah?

Don't tell me... I'll have to retire to California so I can be called emperor by force of law! How enlightened!

Interestingly enough, we in Californian wouldn't mind one bit to respect your wishes and would gladly call you emperor.  In fact, we relish individuality and quirkiness.  Unfortunately, you just can't put people in jail.

You wouldn't be the first.  Emperor Norton

Quote

He (Emperor Norton) had no formal political power; nevertheless, he was treated deferentially in San Francisco, and currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments he frequented. Though some considered him insane or eccentric,^[9] citizens of San Francisco celebrated his regal presence and his proclamations, such as his order that the United States Congress be dissolved by force and his numerous decrees calling for a bridge connecting San Francisco to Oakland, and a corresponding tunnel to be built under San Francisco Bay. 

On January 8, 1880, Norton collapsed at the corner of California and Dupont (now Grant) streets and died before he could be given medical treatment. Upwards of 10,000 people lined the streets of San Francisco to pay him homage at his funeral

We now have both a bridge to Oakland as well as a tunnel.  I love diversity.  I love the fact that as long as people aren't harming others, they can live their lives the way they see fit. If I can remember a person's name, I can remember what pronoun they wish to be referred to. WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL?  For me respect towards others  is an important attribute that I highly value.  Until someone gives me a reason not to respect them then I will continue to do so.  If prejudging people and wanting others to conform to how you live your life is who you are, then perhaps California is not the place for you.

Edited August 23, 2018 by california boy

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I know you said that.  I'm not claiming you approve.  I'm saying that even if the law doesn't provide jail time, that is what is going to happen if you refuse to pay the fine.  Probably.  Perhaps they could garnish someone's wages.  If they have any.

When you get right down to brass tacks, the government has guns, and every single law no matter how mild can lead to guns being drawn, if someone pushes hard enough.  It's either that or there's no law.  I'm not saying that that is wrong, by the way.  But one must always remember that government is force.  If not, it is not government.  Every law that is passed must answer the question, "Is this serious enough to draw guns over?"  If it isn't, then it shouldn't be a law.  And refusing to use a person's preferred pronouns should therefore not be subject to a law.

This is a law in CANADA.  Last time I checked, Canadians still have the right to vote.  If they don't like passing the law, then they can address that themselves.  What right does an American living in the U.K. have to complain about a law that may or may not passing Canada?  Guns?  Really?  Get a grip.  Your whole speech about respecting diversity kinda went out the window don't you think?

[Hamba Tuhan]

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

Guns?  Really?  Get a grip.

André Munro, 'State monopoly on violence', Encyclopædia Britannica:

Quote

State monopoly on violence, in political science and sociology, the concept that the state alone has the right to use or authorize the use of physical force. It is widely regarded as a defining characteristic of the modern state.

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

You’re both a great example of why I’ll continue to call you Mormons and not (restored) Christians. There’s nothing Christian about you at all. 

Better still, maybe it’s better to avoid you completely and avoid getting caught up wasting my time trying to educate the socially illiterate. 

You caught me. Cover is finally blown. I am actually a high-ranking member of the infernal lowarchy. Surprised it took people this long to figure it out what with my picture being right there.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Interestingly enough, we in Californian wouldn't mind one bit to respect your wishes and would gladly call you emperor.  In fact, we relish individuality and quirkiness.  Unfortunately, you just can't put people in jail.

You wouldn't be the first.  Emperor Norton

We now have both a bridge to Oakland as well as a tunnel.  I love diversity.  I love the fact that as long as people aren't harming others, they can live their lives the way they see fit. If I can remember a person's name, I can remember what pronoun they wish to be referred to. WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL?  For me respect towards others  is an important attribute that I highly value.  Until someone gives me a reason not to respect them then I will continue to do so.  If prejudging people and wanting others to conform to how you live your life is who you are, then perhaps California is not the place for you.

Well played. I always love a good Emperor Norton reference.

[california boy]

35 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

André Munro, 'State monopoly on violence', Encyclopædia Britannica:

 

Ok, you are one of those guys that think the government is going to subdue its citizens any day now by bringing in the tanks to a neighborhood near you.  And what does this have to do with the rest of my post you choose to completely ignore?  

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Ok, you are one of those guys that think the government is going to subdue its citizens any day now by bringing in the tanks to a neighborhood near you.

Really? Stargazer makes a standard and almost universally accepted shorthand reference to Weberian concepts of the state, you don't get it and therefore tell him to 'Get a grip', but if I gently point you in a helpful direction, you get to accuse me of being some kind of nut? You may want to rethink that strategy ...

Quote

And what does this have to do with the rest of my post you choose to completely ignore?  

Mate, how am I supposed to know what your obvious misreading of Stargazer has to do with the rest of your post? You wrote it. Do you know? And is there now some kind of rule that people can't interact with you in any way unless they address every single thing you write in one of your posts? 

Edited August 23, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Nemesis said:

Everyone, we will close this thread if we continue to receive reports on personal attacks. It is going on both sides. 

 

Nemesis

With the virtue signaling over political correctness that has been served up on this thread, I for one wouldn’t feel any great sense of loss if the thread were shut down. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

 

You’re both a great example of why I’ll continue to call you Mormons and not (restored) Christians. There’s nothing Christian about you at all. 

Better still, maybe it’s better to avoid you completely and avoid getting caught up wasting my time trying to educate the socially illiterate. 

Who is wanting Mormons to be called “restored Christians”? I thought the expressed preference was “Latter-day Saints.”

[smac97]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

This is a law in CANADA.  Last time I checked, Canadians still have the right to vote.  If they don't like passing the law, then they can address that themselves.  What right does an American living in the U.K. have to complain about a law that may or may not passing Canada?  

The same right that you use to endlessly complain about and criticize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which you are no longer a member.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 23, 2018 by smac97

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Interestingly enough, we in Californian wouldn't mind one bit to respect your wishes and would gladly call you emperor.  In fact, we relish individuality and quirkiness.  Unfortunately, you just can't put people in jail.

Why not? Ultimately, that is the enforcement arm the government has - either financial ruination or physical punishment.

Quote

You wouldn't be the first.  Emperor Norton

If you haven't gotten it yet, I believe this law to be absurd - like the emperor who thought he had clothes. I don't believe in fining or jailing people who refuse to call me Christian or by my proper name. That doesn't give me any more clothes than I already have. Demanding respect by the force of law is not my style.

Quote

We now have both a bridge to Oakland as well as a tunnel.  I love diversity.  I love the fact that as long as people aren't harming others, they can live their lives the way they see fit. If I can remember a person's name, I can remember what pronoun they wish to be referred to. WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL?  For me respect towards others  is an important attribute that I highly value.  Until someone gives me a reason not to respect them then I will continue to do so.  If prejudging people and wanting others to conform to how you live your life is who you are, then perhaps California is not the place for you.

I think diversity is fine - life would be perhaps a little boring otherwise. Enforcing diversity by law is just not the American way imho - but sadly I guess it is the Californian way. I thought watching progressive Sherpa LaRue fumble over these various new pronouns was informative. 

 Forcing citizens to say certain new words is such a reminder of those books I read in High School which parodied future totalitarian societies which force unanimity. Forcing unanimity in the name of diversity is really counterproductive if not illogical. It didn't take long for socialistic societies to learn that.

[Kenngo1969]

13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

... I think diversity is fine - life would be perhaps a little boring otherwise. Enforcing diversity by law is just not the American way imho - but sadly I guess it is the Californian way. I thought watching progressive Sherpa LaRue fumble over these various new pronouns was informative. ... [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

Areu.  She is entertaining, I'll give her that ... if a bit frighteningly so.  

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Why not? Ultimately, that is the enforcement arm the government has - either financial ruination or physical punishment.

If you haven't gotten it yet, I believe this law to be absurd - like the emperor who thought he had clothes. I don't believe in fining or jailing people who refuse to call me Christian or by my proper name. That doesn't give me any more clothes than I already have. Demanding respect by the force of law is not my style.

I think diversity is fine - life would be perhaps a little boring otherwise. Enforcing diversity by law is just not the American way imho - but sadly I guess it is the Californian way. I thought watching progressive Sherpa LaRue fumble over these various new pronouns was informative. 

 Forcing citizens to say certain new words is such a reminder of those books I read in High School which parodied future totalitarian societies which force unanimity. Forcing unanimity in the name of diversity is really counterproductive if not illogical. It didn't take long for socialistic societies to learn that.

Yeah. Did somebody say “Orwellian”?

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Areu.  She is entertaining, I'll give her that ... if a bit frighteningly so.  

She’s a good sport. Carlson brings her on whenever he wants to highlight some quirky new bit of leftist idiocy. 

[6EQUJ5]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With the virtue signaling over political correctness that has been served up on this thread, I for one wouldn’t feel any great sense of loss if the thread were shut down. 

You did not write the OP.  You have no right to request a thread be shut down.  Please keep your nose out of where it does not belong.  Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

You did not write the OP.  You have no right to request a thread be shut down.  Please keep your nose out of where it does not belong.  Thanks.

I didn’t request it be shut down. I’m just weighing in on the moderator warning. I’ll enjoy it while it lasts. If that ends up being briefly, meh. 

By the way, way back on page. 2 of this thread, Stargazer issued a CFR for your claim that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints originated the term same-sex attraction. Have you answered the CFR yet?

Edited August 23, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[kllindley]

33 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

You did not write the OP.  You have no right to request a thread be shut down.  Please keep your nose out of where it does not belong.  Thanks.

Welcome back. Are you ready to answer the CFR?

[6EQUJ5]

56 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Have you answered the CFR yet?

Asked and answered, brother.

[6EQUJ5]

24 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Welcome back. Are you ready to answer the CFR?

Asked and answered.  Several times.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Why not? Ultimately, that is the enforcement arm the government has - either financial ruination or physical punishment.

If you haven't gotten it yet, I believe this law to be absurd - like the emperor who thought he had clothes. I don't believe in fining or jailing people who refuse to call me Christian or by my proper name. That doesn't give me any more clothes than I already have. Demanding respect by the force of law is not my style.

I think diversity is fine - life would be perhaps a little boring otherwise. Enforcing diversity by law is just not the American way imho - but sadly I guess it is the Californian way. I thought watching progressive Sherpa LaRue fumble over these various new pronouns was informative. 

 Forcing citizens to say certain new words is such a reminder of those books I read in High School which parodied future totalitarian societies which force unanimity. Forcing unanimity in the name of diversity is really counterproductive if not illogical. It didn't take long for socialistic societies to learn that.

The thing is, I too believe the law to be an overreach by the government.  I don't think anyone should be compelled by law to use a term to describe anyone.  If there was a law passed that required citizens to use the term Doctor to anyone in the medical profession that was a licensed doctor, I would be just as opposed to that.  It is an unjust law.  I never suggested that I support the law.  

But I am not a Canadian.  I also respect the fact that they have a right to govern themselves as they see fit.  And if they don't like the law, they have ways of self government to fix that law. 

Do we really disagree that much?  I don't think so.  For me it is about our approach to things.  I just don't get freaked out about how someone wishes to call themselves and I respect the right of Canadians to govern as they see fit.  I also don't immediately go to a leap that it is going to happen in the U.S. with armed enforcement if people don't comply.

 I do love diversity.  I have met one person who identifies in the way that is being described.  She asked to be addressed as them.  Yeah I thought it was totally weird and didn't really fit how I view others.  But it certainly was not going to cause me any harm to address them how they wished to be called.  Spent the whole afternoon with them in a workshop.  I know, weird huh.  But I also though how difficult it must be to have this issue.  It kinda makes being gay look like a piece of cake. I can't imagine how much pushback and mockery them has to deal with.  If I could make them feel loved in just a tiny way, I was more than willing to do so. I made it through the afternoon just fine.  And them did as well.  Honestly I hope this idea doesn't catch on.  But if it does, I will treat future thems with the same respect.  In the same way, if you want to be referred to as emperor, I would honor your request.   

[kllindley]

10 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Asked and answered.  Several times.

No. Not actually. Could you link the comment where you answered either CFR? 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Asked and answered, brother.

I don’t think so. But if you can provide a link to the post where you answered it, I’ll reconsider. (Hint: Just pointing to Google hits where the term is used won’t do it. You have to show that the Church or a member or members thereof originated it. Failing that, withdraw the claim. 

Edited August 23, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

The thing is, I too believe the law to be an overreach by the government.  I don't think anyone should be compelled by law to use a term to describe anyone.  If there was a law passed that required citizens to use the term Doctor to anyone in the medical profession that was a licensed doctor, I would be just as opposed to that.  It is an unjust law.  I never suggested that I support the law.  

But I am not a Canadian.  I also respect the fact that they have a right to govern themselves as they see fit.  And if they don't like the law, they have ways of self government to fix that law. 

Do we really disagree that much?  I don't think so.  For me it is about our approach to things.  I just don't get freaked out about how someone wishes to call themselves and I respect the right of Canadians to govern as they see fit.  I also don't immediately go to a leap that it is going to happen in the U.S. with armed enforcement if people don't comply.

 I do love diversity.  I have met one person who identifies in the way that is being described.  She asked to be addressed as them.  Yeah I thought it was totally weird and didn't really fit how I view others.  But it certainly was not going to cause me any harm to address them how they wished to be called.  Spent the whole afternoon with them in a workshop.  I know, weird huh.  But I also though how difficult it must be to have this issue.  It kinda makes being gay look like a piece of cake. I can't imagine how much pushback and mockery them has to deal with.  If I could make them feel loved in just a tiny way, I was more than willing to do so. I made it through the afternoon just fine.  And them did as well.  Honestly I hope this idea doesn't catch on.  But if it does, I will treat future thems with the same respect.  In the same way, if you want to be referred to as emperor, I would honor your request.   

•  

Why are you saying “them” where grammatically it should be “they”? Did she really want you using the object form all the time, even where a subject form should be?

she — they (subject)

her - them (object)

her - their (possessive) 

Edited August 23, 2018 by Scott Lloyd