God May Forgive...But the LDS Data Base Never Will

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh man, I can't let you get away with that logic

The dictionary establishes facts and what is right and wrong?

And your personal biases do not enter into YOUR judgement at all right?  And you are the ultimate judge of truth and facts?

Come on- what happened to all that respect for the forum?  Where has all this dogmatism come from?  You sound like a fundamentalist.  You know what is right for everyone. 

I still have great respect for MD&D despite Kemaras insufferable position. He feels that gays should be discriminated and treated differently I do not. That's the bottom line. All should be treated equally gay or straight period

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh man, I can't let you get away with that logic

The dictionary establishes facts and what is right and wrong?

And your personal biases do not enter into YOUR judgement at all right?  And you are the ultimate judge of truth and facts?

Come on- what happened to all that respect for the forum?  Where has all this dogmatism come from?  You sound like a fundamentalist.  You know what is right for everyone. 

No the dictionary does not establish right and wrong it defines words. This whole argument is based in Kemaras belief that it is right to discriminate Against gays, that they should be treated differently. That it's ok to annotate repentant gay members memberships but not serial hetero's. If he wants to be a bigot that's his right, I just disagree 

Edited February 14, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

No the dictionary does not establish right and wrong it defines words. This whole argument is based in Kemaras belief that it is right to discriminate Against gays, that they should be treated differently. That it's ok to annotate repentant gay members memberships but not serial hetero's. If he wants to be a bigot that's his right, I just disagree 

I happen to know for a fact that serial heterosexual adulterers records are also noted.

Words are defined in usage, and definitions change all the time, often depending on the context.  The meaning of words is quite fluid.  

A dictionary writer did not make up the usage of "gay" to indicate a homosexual, for example.  Words are defined by usage, not by dictionaries and are quite fluid in their meaning.  They are largely useless for anything  but confirming commonly accepted spelling as far as I am concerned.

I have no clue what could possibly be meant by the assertion that homosexual and heterosexual sex are the "same".  IN what sense are they the "same" OR "different"?  How indeed could one define that?

Edited February 14, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I still have great respect for MD&D despite Kemaras insufferable position. He feels that gays should be discriminated and treated differently I do not. That's the bottom line. All should be treated equally gay or straight period

You are not acting in a manner that is respectful of MD&D. Your refusal to engage the subject in any meaningful or logical manner and your dogmatic insistence that your worldview trumps all else is clear evidence of this fact. Even when your claims have been refuted you still carry blithely along as if nothing happened. You have been asked to provide evidence for claims you have made, as a matter of intellectual honesty, and you have refused to do so. It seems to me that this conduct is the very opposite of respect for the board and its purpose.

You could not be more wrong about the way I feel about homosexuals. I do not believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against at all, in fact it is you who is demonstrably discriminating against them. 

Homosexuals are different than heterosexuals in terms of sexuality. This is a fact that I don't think even someone as dogmatic as you will dispute. However, you are refusing to acknowledge this difference, you are refusing to give homosexuals their own identity, you are refusing to acknowledge their uniqueness. I assume that you believe that a homosexual's sexual orientation is part of their nature, that this nature is intrinsic and an essential part of their being. However, you refuse to acknowledge this intrinsic and essential characteristic, you refuse to acknowledge their identity and uniqueness. Instead you are arguing, as forcefully as your dogmatism and lack of logic and reason will allow, that they should be treated exactly the same as other people who are inarguably different, who do not share the same intrinsic nature and essential character. Unbelievably, you want them to be treated differently to what they actually are.

Good grief man, could you be any more discriminatory and bigoted against homosexuals? 

Edited February 14, 2016 by Kemara

[Johnnie Cake]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I happen to know for a fact that serial heterosexual adulterers records are also noted.

Fair enough... And do they remain after completing the repentance process?  If yes you've made the point of my OP

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

No the dictionary does not establish right and wrong it defines words. This whole argument is based in Kemaras belief that it is right to discriminate Against gays, that they should be treated differently. That it's ok to annotate repentant gay members memberships but not serial hetero's. If he wants to be a bigot that's his right, I just disagree 

I have answered your appeal to the authority of the all mighty dictionary and in so doing have shown that you define the words related to this topic in an incorrect and illogical manner. As such this should be case closed, but as I predicted you are the perennial blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there, carry on like nothing has happened.

As outlined in the post above, it is you who believes it is right to discriminate against homosexuals. I on the other hand believe that their uniqueness should be acknowledged and that matters concerning them should be dealt with in the manner of this uniqueness. I am not in favour of having another sexual orientation classification, such as hetomosexual, even if you are, in order to placate your bigotry. Neither am I in favour of lumping everyone together and forcing square pegs into round holes, even if you are, in order to placate your bigotry.

[Johnnie Cake]

15 minutes ago, Kemara said:

You are not acting in a manner that is respectful of MD&D. Your refusal to engage the subject in any meaningful or logical manner and your dogmatic insistence that your worldview trumps all else is clear evidence of this fact. Even when your claims have been refuted you still carry blithely along as if nothing happened. You have been asked to provide evidence for claims you have made, as a matter of intellectual honesty, and you have refused to do so. It seems to me that this conduct is the very opposite of respect for the board and its purpose.

You could not be more wrong about the way I feel about homosexuals. I do not believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against at all, in fact it is you who is demonstrably discriminating against them. 

Homosexuals are different than heterosexuals in terms of sexuality. This is a fact that I don't think even someone as dogmatic as you will dispute. However, you are refusing to acknowledge this difference, you are refusing to give homosexuals their own identity, you are refusing to acknowledge their uniqueness. I assume that you believe that a homosexual's sexual orientation is part of their nature, that this nature is intrinsic and an essential part of their being. However, you refuse to acknowledge this intrinsic and essential characteristic, you refuse to acknowledge their identity and uniqueness. Instead you are arguing, as forcefully as your dogmatism and lack of logic and reason will allow, that they should be treated exactly the same as other people who are inarguably different, who do not share the same intrinsic nature and essential character. Unbelievably, you want them to be treated differently to what they actually are.

Good grief man, could you be any more discriminatory and bigoted against homosexuals? 

Did you even read my OP?  Do you even understand my point?  The church treats gays and hetero's differently with respect to annotating membership records. Correct me if I have misunderstood your point but from what I have gathered, you support this. So don't pretent that you don't believe in discriminating against gays...you do, you support the churches position...it hurtful, it's discrimination and it's wrong and by supporting it you too are discriminating...so stop being so disingenuous 

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Fair enough... And do they remain after completing the repentance process?  If yes you've made the point of my OP

I have totally lost you.

Notations can be removed.  Is that your question?  

[Johnnie Cake]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have totally lost you.

Notations can be removed.  Is that your question?  

Notations remain even after completing the repentance process...  

[mfbukowski]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

Notations remain even after completing the repentance process...  

When is the repentence process complete?

[Johnnie Cake]

24 minutes ago, Kemara said:

I have answered your appeal to the authority of the all mighty dictionary and in so doing have shown that you define the words related to this topic in an incorrect and illogical manner. As such this should be case closed, but as I predicted you are the perennial blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there, carry on like nothing has happened.

As outlined in the post above, it is you who believes it is right to discriminate against homosexuals. I on the other hand believe that their uniqueness should be acknowledged and that matters concerning them should be dealt with in the manner of this uniqueness. I am not in favour of having another sexual orientation classification, such as hetomosexual, even if you are, in order to placate your bigotry. Neither am I in favour of lumping everyone together and forcing square pegs into round holes, even if you are, in order to placate your bigotry.

You're a Kiwi right?  You should know better

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Did you even read my OP?  Do you even understand my point?  The church treats gays and hetero's differently with respect to annotating membership records. Correct me if I have misunderstood your point but from what I have gathered, you support this. So don't pretent that you don't believe in discriminating against gays...you do, you support the churches position...it hurtful, it's discrimination and it's wrong and by supporting it you too are discriminating...so stop being so disingenuous 

Yes of course I read your OP and yes I understand your point, its just that your point is wrong and bigoted as I have demonstrated.

The Church's position of identifying homosexuals for exactly who they are is not discriminatory. The Church's position on the matter of annotations acknowledges homosexual uniqueness and identity. The Church's position on the matter of annotations acknowledges homosexuals as homosexuals. 

You on the other hand are arguing that the Church should identify homosexuals for exactly who they are NOT. You on the other hand are arguing that the Church's position of handling the matter of annotations should NOT acknowledge homosexual uniqueness and identity. You on the other hand are arguing that the Church's position of handling the matter of annotations should NOT acknowledge homosexuals as homosexuals. 

Its a very simple concept to comprehend. Good grief man, who exactly is being disingenuous here?       

[Kemara]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You're a Kiwi right?  You should know better

Being a Maori I have been exposed personally to a great deal of discrimination, from bigots such as yourself, during my life and I don't expect that to change. I know the stink of it very well and I can smell you. The worst sort of bigots are those who believe that their bigotry is what is best for those they discriminate against. This sort of bigot believes so adamantly in the superiority of their world view that they actually and firmly believe that what they are doing is right and honourable....if only those darkies could get it through their thick heads. You Oz, are one of these types of bigots. You cant see that your right and honourable intentions are in fact promoting discrimination by denying homosexuals their individuality and uniqueness. The Church on the other hand is validating homosexual uniqueness and individuality. So who is discriminating here? The organisation that acknowledges homosexual uniqueness or the Wizard hiding behind the curtain who refuses to do the same?  

Homosexuals are different from heterosexuals, in terms of sexuality, that is an absolute fact end of story. Homosexuals engage in sexual acts differently than heterosexuals, that is an absolute fact end of story. Homosexuals not only acknowledge but also celebrate these differences. The Church also acknowledges these differences in regard to the annotation policy. You on the other hand do not acknowledge or accept these differences and refuse to let homosexuals be treated as homosexuals. Wake up man.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Kemara

[sjdawg]

On 2/12/2016 at 4:35 AM, Avatar4321 said:

having been a membership clerk with I can say I've never seen any such thing. Either I lived with angelic saints or this policy isn't as broad and/or existent as the op claims

I was told by a Stake President that no one who had ever confessed or faced discipline for a financial crime would ever be called as a finance clerk (some notation on a file).   It makes sense to me if true however it does seem to go against the notion of having your sins wiped clean.

[sjdawg]

On 2/12/2016 at 5:05 AM, SmileyMcGee said:

Book 1, 6.13.4-8. It's not as simple as "hey you hooked with a dude and you're a dude, so...annotation." Basically a person who has harmed children, embezzled church funds, been a polygamist, had a transsexual operation or is an adult who had repeated homosexual encounters will likely have an annotation. 

I wonder if anyone has ever been called to serious church leadership with such an annotation on their record?  My guess is no simply because it could be embarrassing for the both the church and the individual if it became public later.

[sjdawg]

On 2/12/2016 at 8:38 PM, ksfisher said:

There is also a note with a number to church headquarters that the bishop can call.  The bishop calls the number and is told that the member, while in good standing, shouldn't be given a calling that involves children (for example).  No one in the ward but the bishop needs to know anything more.

Interesting.  I was Ward Clerk and I don't remember ever seeing a file with any type of annotation on it.

[sjdawg]

On 2/13/2016 at 4:16 AM, Kemara said:

Still waiting for the reasoned logical response, because what you have written here is completely illogical and mind numbingly stupid. 

The very fact that we are discussing homosexual sex and heterosexual sex clearly indicates that they are different. The very fact that we are talking about homo and hetero sexuality, as two subsets of our species, clearly denotes that they are different. The very fact that we "differentiate" (different-iate: nudge nudge wink wink) between the two clearly denotes that they are different. Therefore, from a logical standpoint, what is wrong with one does not necessarily apply to all. To deny the difference between homosexual and heterosexual sex is absolutely ludicrous and requires the denial of an absolute fact. Water is wet, sugar is sweet, homosexual sex is different to heterosexual sex. The lengths that you must go too in order to maintain this position are preposterous, so much so that I am actually embarrassed for you.    

I can't believe someone actually gave out reputation points for a poster who called someone's argument "mind numbingly stupid"  We can disagree.  We don't have to be jerks about it.

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, sjdawg said:

I can't believe someone actually gave out reputation points for a poster who called someone's argument "mind numbingly stupid"  We can disagree.  We don't have to be jerks about it.

How long should I wait for your righteous indignation to reign down on he who posited the mind numbingly stupid argument for misrepresenting my position, calling me illogical and refusing entirely to a address a post that I directed specifically at him? Please note that these things were done before I provided my entirely accurate description of Oz's post as mind numbingly stupid. Now before you go all board nanny on me again and explain that I should take the high road, wasn't it you who just characterised me as a jerk? Perhaps, and I an only guessing, the reason I received a rep point is because of the clear and succinct argument I presented that showed just how mind numbingly stupid Oz's entire argument really was. Finally, if you want to call me out for my conduct I am totally fine with that and support your right to do so, but you need to apply the indignation consistently and across all the thread participants (even those who posit demonstrably mind numbingly stupid arguments) and displays of hypocrisy are fairly poor form...some might even say the form used by a jerk.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Kemara

[sjdawg]

52 minutes ago, Kemara said:

How long should I wait for your righteous indignation to reign down on he who posited the mind numbingly stupid argument for misrepresenting my position, calling me illogical and refusing entirely to a address a post that I directed specifically at him? Please note that these things were done before I provided my entirely accurate description of Oz's post as mind numbingly stupid. Now before you go all board nanny on me and explain that I should take the high road, wasn't it you who just characterised me as a jerk? Perhaps, and I an only guessing, the reason I received a rep point is because of the clear and succinct argument I presented that showed just how mind numbingly stupid Oz's entire argument really was. Finally, if you want to call me out for my conduct I am totally fine with that and support your right to do so, but you need to apply the indignation consistently and across all the thread participants (even those who posit demonstrably mind numbingly stupid arguments) and displays of hypocrisy are fairly poor form...some might even say the form used by a jerk.

Note: I received two rep points for the post in question, please don't undersell me or the astute people who reped' the post.

I didn't notice the comments where he was being rude to you but didn't study everything in detail.   I certainly did notice that he disagreed with most of what you said. I will note that calling something illogical is substantially different than calling something mind-numbingly stupid (at least to my mind)  No righteous indignation here.  (and yes,  I occasionally, maybe even often, act like a jerk myself.  Sometimes I even do it on purpose just for fun)

Edited February 14, 2016 by sjdawg

[Johnnie Cake]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

When is the repentence process complete?

Come on cut me some slack...once the process dictated by the institution has run its course, courts, excommunication or other discipline followed by reinstatement or restoration of blessings...the annotation remains in place

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, Kemara said:

Being a Maori I have been exposed personally to a great deal of discrimination, from bigots such as yourself, during my life and I don't expect that to change. I know the stink of it very well and I can smell you. The worst sort of bigots are those who believe that their bigotry is what is best for those they discriminate against. This sort of bigot believes so adamantly in the superiority of their world view that they actually and firmly believe that what they are doing is right and honourable....if only those darkies could get it through their thick heads. You Oz, are one of these types of bigots. You cant see that your right and honourable intentions are in fact promoting discrimination by denying homosexuals their individuality and uniqueness. The Church on the other hand is validating homosexual uniqueness and individuality. So who is discriminating here? The organisation that acknowledges homosexual uniqueness or the Wizard hiding behind the curtain who refuses to do the same?  

Homosexuals are different from heterosexuals, in terms of sexuality, that is an absolute fact end of story. Homosexuals engage in sexual acts differently than heterosexuals, that is an absolute fact end of story. Homosexuals not only acknowledge but also celebrate these differences. The Church also acknowledges these differences in regard to the annotation policy. You on the other hand do not acknowledge or accept these differences and refuse to let homosexuals be treated as homosexuals. Wake up man.

Hyperbole, mis characterization and misdirection...let me know when you want to talk about the points in my OP and we can talk, until then have a lovely day

 

edit to add:. I love the Maori people. Many of my friends are Maori I don't know where exactly our conversation went wrong, I apologized in an earlier post directly to you if I had some how mis understood your point cuz frankly I don't get what your arguing in support of. At some point we went off the rails. I even went back and re read your posts, but other than your continued insistence that the sexes are different male and female (which is such a basic human understanding even children understand this) but other than this I don't see your point.  I concede that humans come in two sexes Male and Female, each with their unique characteristics I've never disputed this, the thought is almost laughable. 

you've introduce ad hominem attacks, calling me names and such which only makes me want to ignore everything you post. But you're a Maori. I love the Maori people and so it is out of this love I'm willing to push the reset button and see if it's possible to begin again...if not I'll move on but it's in my nature to view people in their best light and with the best of intentions 

Edited February 14, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[SmileyMcGee]

8 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I wonder if anyone has ever been called to serious church leadership with such an annotation on their record?  My guess is no simply because it could be embarrassing for the both the church and the individual if it became public later.

I think it would be very unlikely since  from significant ward callings on up there are several people vetting the person and these days those doing the vetting have a canned report of all those with disciplinary action or annotations available on their lds.org account. My guess is those with annotations wouldn't even make it to the recommendation pool.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Come on cut me some slack...once the process dictated by the institution has run its course, courts, excommunication or other discipline followed by reinstatement or restoration of blessings...the annotation remains in place

Repentance ends when the person has stopped committing the same sin. How is the institution supposed to know that?

[Johnnie Cake]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Repentance ends when the person has stopped committing the same sin. How is the institution supposed to know that?

Ok we'll play it your way....So repentance ends when the person has stopped committing the same sin ( for the record I believe that this is the point that repentance begins but I'll go along with your premise for the sake of argument). But the church maintains the annotation for life...god my forgive but the LDS data system does not

[Kemara]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Hyperbole, mis characterization and misdirection...let me know when you want to talk about the points in my OP and we can talk, until then have a lovely day

 

edit to add:. I love the Maori people. Many of my friends are Maori I don't know where exactly our conversation went wrong, I apologized in an earlier post directly to you if I had some how mis understood your point cuz frankly I don't get what your arguing in support of. At some point we went off the rails. I even went back and re read your posts, but other than your continued insistence that the sexes are different male and female (which is such a basic human understanding even children understand this) but other than this I don't see your point.  I concede that humans come in two sexes Male and Female, each with their unique characteristics I've never disputed this, the thought is almost laughable. 

you've introduce ad hominem attacks, calling me names and such which only makes me want to ignore everything you post. But you're a Maori. I love the Maori people and so it is out of this love I'm willing to push the reset button and see if it's possible to begin again...if not I'll move on but it's in my nature to view people in their best light and with the best of intentions 

This is the second time that you have accused me of hyperbole and this is the second time that I will state that I don't think you know what hyperbole means because you characterisation of my post as hyperbole is false, unless of course you can show me the exaggeration and/or embellishment of my post.

I have addressed directly and specifically the point of your opening post. You on the other hand have entirely refused to address the points I have made. The totality of your response, in a nutshell, has been "it is cause I say it is" and "check the dictionary".  

I can tell you exactly where our conversation went "wrong":

1. My first post on this thread was directed specifically at you and discussed the differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Your reply to my reasoned post was, and I quote, "Wow". You failed completely to address the points I made that dealt specifically with the points you raised. Ok fine, you want to play it like that, I am good to go.

2. My second post directed specifically at you called your out on your very weak response.

3. Following being called out you stated you would now give me a well reasoned logical response, and you did this by appealing to your opinion that all sex is sex regardless of who or what.

4. I addressed this post by pointing out why it was mind numbingly stupid. I pointed it out using clear and succinct logical deduction that homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are different. The point being that if they are different then there is a logical allowance for them to be treated differently without the tag of or "bigotry" or "discrimination" necessarily being attached...unfortunately you kept attaching the tag. Not acknowledging the logical allowance shows intellectual dishonesty.

5. Your response to my post, and I quote, "Haha, Hyperbole". You make the claim but fail entirely to substantiate it with anything at all.

6.  I rebuff your claim.

7. You next post you restate your opinion that sex is sex regardless of who or what, however, realising that you have offered absolutely no logical reasoning for this position you appeal to the authority of the all-knowing, all-powerful dictionary, and I quote, "Look it up in a dictionary. The fact that you hold a dogmatic definition doesn't change its definition." Then you make the statement that pretty much nothing I have claimed is factual, and you made this statement but fail entirely to substantiate it with anything at all.

8. I take you up on the matter of a dictionary definition and simply lay to waste your appeal to its authority. You did not comment on this at all and continued to use your personal definition, another glaring example of intellectual dishonesty. I request that you back up your statement that "pretty much nothing" I have claimed is factual, I ask you to show me or retract the statement as intellectual honesty requires. You refused to substantiate your statement with anything at all and you also refused to retract the statement. Do you see a pattern developing here? Are your really unsure of where the conversation went wrong?

9. In response to mfbukowski you stated that you have great respect for MD&D. You also state that I, Kemara, feel that gays should be discriminated against. Again you fail entirely to substantiate your claim about how I feel with anything other than your all mighty opinion.

10. I address your claim of respect for MD&D and point out how your refusal to engage the subject in any meaningful or logical manner, your refusal to acknowledge when your claims have been refuted (e.g. dictionary), your refusal to answer requests for you to provide evidence for your claims and your intellectual dishonesty is the opposite of respect for the board and its purpose. I then show, using very specific yet very simple deductive reasoning, that my position is not discriminatory as you claimed. I use the deductive reasoning to show that it is you who is discriminatory.  

11. You respond by claiming that I have not read or do not understand the point of your opening post and then accuse me of being disingenuous. You do this despite all evidence to the contrary, you do this despite my specifically addressing your opening post and the problem that you have with the Church's annotation policy particularly as it relates to homosexuals. 

12. Further, you claim that my being a Kiwi would necessarily mean that I should agree with your discriminatory view! Good grief!!

13. In response I used even simpler and even more specific deductive reasoning to show exactly why the Church's policy was not discriminatory and your position was.

14. In response to the Kiwi issue, I pointed out that my personal familiarity with bigotry led me to believe that you are a very special kind of bigot. I restated my position that while the Church's annotation policy validates homosexual uniqueness and individuality you do not. I asked a rhetorical question which bears repeating:

"So who is discriminating here? The organisation that acknowledges homosexual uniqueness or the Wizard hiding behind the curtain who refuses to do the same?"

So that is where it all went wrong. In a nutshell your refusal to engage the issues I raised, your refusal to acknowledge points I raised, your ongoing intellectual dishonesty, your refusal to provide any evidence for your position, your refusal to provide any evidence for your claims about my conduct, your ongoing mischaracterisation of me and my position and your bigotry is where we went wrong. Is that clearly understood?

Now, your latest post:

1. You claimed hyperbole, nothing to substantiate this claim of course. 

2. You inferred that I have not addressed the points of your opening post and you infer this despite all evidence to the contrary which is simply dishonest and delusional. Nothing to substantiate this delusional claim of course. 

3. Apparently you apologized to me in an earlier post, sorry I must have missed that, can you point it out to me please. 

4. You claim that except for my insistence that the male and female genders are different that you don't see what my argument is but in the same breath you state that you went back and read all my posts! Unbelievable!  Your overarching position is that the Church's annotation policy is discriminatory against homosexuals, here are a couple of examples of my posts that you are claiming you didn't see: 

"The Church's position of identifying homosexuals for exactly who they are is not discriminatory. The Church's position on the matter of annotations acknowledges homosexual uniqueness and identity. The Church's position on the matter of annotations acknowledges homosexuals as homosexuals." 

"Homosexuals are different from heterosexuals, in terms of sexuality, that is an absolute fact end of story. Homosexuals engage in sexual acts differently than heterosexuals, that is an absolute fact end of story. Homosexuals not only acknowledge but also celebrate these differences. The Church also acknowledges these differences in regard to the annotation policy. You on the other hand do not acknowledge or accept these differences and refuse to let homosexuals be treated as homosexuals. Wake up man."

But you re-read all my posts, right? And I said nothing but the two genders are different, right? You don't have agree with me, but you cannot honestly claim that all I said was that the genders are different.

5. You have claimed ad hominem, please show me where I have evaded the topic by attacking you. Yes I have attacked you but never to evade the topic.

6. You derided me for calling you names - pot meet kettle.   

7. You love the Maori people, you have many Maori friends....ok then .

Edited February 14, 2016 by Kemara