How to abuse the abuse laws
jac...@melbpc.org.au
Cynical, yes, but contains many aspects of what happens every day to
all too many innocent people (you, me and our children come
immediately to mind!) in the grist mills* that are 'their' family
courts...
------------------------
From: John Raymond Skidmore <cniev...@aol.com>
ILLEGALLY ABUSING DOMESTIC ABUSE LAWS [AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL]
USING THE LAW AS THE WEAPON, AND THE CAUSE OF ABUSE.
Florida State Statute 741.30 Domestic violence; injunction; powers and
duties of court and clerk; petition; notice and hearing; temporary
injunction; issuance of injunction; statewide verification system;
enforcement.
Or [my belief, and description] The State instruction Manual, to
obstruct justice, destroy your spouse, abuse and ruin your children's
lives, deprive your spouse of life liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, deny your spouse every constitutional right guaranteed by
the United States Constitution, and to fulfill your need for greed,
get all of what you both have worked your whole life for.
NOTE: This is not a recommendation on my part, but a case study. If
you follow these steps you will be committing one or more felonies,
and is not recommended by the author. On the other hand the author is
a victim of these steps. Also if you love your children do not attempt
this.
Step One
File a petition for protection from Domestic Violence, you will need
to commit perjury, fraud, file false police reports, and make your
spouse appear to be a monster. Don't worry about consequences for
these crimes. This has become common place in the court system, and
the court seems unwilling to hear that perjury, fraud, and etc. is an
issue. The accused is just assumed to be guilty and it goes on from
there. Your spouse has virtually no right at this point. In most
cases you have already won your illegal pursuit at this point.
Step Two
If your spouse attempts to prevent you from executing step one, now is
the time to file additional perjury. The most damaging thing you can
do right away, is accuse your spouse of molesting your children. You
may need to file false reports to the Department of Children and
Families, and police departments. Don't be concerned about this. They
will spend all their time and power investing your spouse, even if
your spouse files a complaint that you filed a false report the
possibility of you even being investigated for this crime is minimal.
It just appears your spouse is trying to take the heat off themselves,
his plea for justice will be ignored, as ironically a false report.
Step Three
Retain your children at all cost, and prevent the children from any
contact with your spouse and their father, even if they want to be
with him, and they are being psychologically damaged by your actions.
You need to keep your spouse, totally alienated, and as alone in the
world as posible. You need to understand at this point that if you can
hold on to custody of the children you can hold on to everything. You
can even financially ruin your spouse (outlined in Step Four). It is
also a good idea to have your spouse's psychological state
misrepresented. In Florida you can exercise the Baker/Marchman Act,
which can, when used in fraud of justice, illegally incarcerate your
spouse, until such a time your spouse shows proof of their competency.
All it takes is to get a judge to sign the paper and believe your
spouse is suicidal, homicidal, or psychotic. You have already at this
point convinced the court, your spouse is a drug crazed, wife beating,
child molesting, alcoholic, who speaks to the children in biblical
rhymes, and believes himself to be the savior. The Baker/Marchman Act
should be no trouble at this point.
Step Four
Contact your spouse's employer, insurance company, credit card
company, doctors, or any other people or entities who allow your
spouse to exist on the face of the earth. In this contact say anything
you deem necessary to have these organizations sever ties with your
spouse. Note: If your spouse has finances, he may use these to fund
legal procedings to try to stop you in your illegal pursuit. You must
cut off this line of financial supply. That is why putting him in
jail, with false charges, is also helpful. You must under no
circumstances allow your spouse the ability to afford legal counsel,
this could be detrimental to your illegal pursuit. After you sever
your souse's income, make sure to demand child support, this also is a
way to jail your spouse. The State will be happy to help you
accomplish this. At this point the State will help you do just about
anything be it legal or illegal. The State does not know the
difference at this point, they assume you are telling the truth.
Step Five
If you are real daring, you can file false police reports, in
reference to any thing you wish to say about your spouse. The
likelihood of you being prosecuted for this is not very high, but this
form of harassment can be very beneficial and you can use this in
court as if you were not the one who filed the complaint.
Step Six
Always act innocent, and as if you have been abused, and beaten
physically and psychologically, even though you were the one who did
this to your spouse. After all you were the one who filed for this
injunction; remember you must be the aggrieved party. The court at
this point won't believe your children, or your spouse, are suffering
or the aggrieved parties. How could they be? - you are the one who
filed for protection. Everyone else must be a liar - how could it be
you? You are the one who filed a petition for protection from
domestic violence. Why should anyone care at this point if there was
violence or not; all concerned just want to get this over with. What
does legality have to do with anything? The court has other business,
you can depend on this point most of all.
Step Seven
If your spouse, is concerned enough about the children, to have a
Guardian Ad Litem appointed you will need to immediately begin a
campaign to get the guardian in your corner. This obstacle is
normally a roll of the dice. You may get lucky, as in this case, and
get a guardian, that on first contact with your spouse, who is a
devout follower of Jesus Christ, tells your spouse that only a moron
would have faith in Jesus Christ, resurrection, or a concept of God in
general. You might also get a guardian who immediately believes that
he must defend you from the children and your spouse, because after
all you filed an injunction for protection from domestic violence. The
children, the paternal grandparents, and your spouse must be liars,
how could they have the audacity to say you are less than angelic. If
this is not enough to persevere in your attempt to crucify your
spouse, you can do what my spouse did. She initiated Steps Eight
through to Fifty or so - and so it goes. No doubt Step One Hundred
will be coming soon; it just keeps getting worse. The State should
just invoke the death penalty for the accused, after Step One; this
would be more humane, and would not be cruel and unusual punishment,
as it is in when Florida State law is used as a weapon in fraud of
justice, and creates a situation of injustice, as is the current
status quo.
This should be enough to get you what you think you want. You did want
to destroy your family, hurt everyone who loves you, ruin your
children and your spouse's lives, violate most of Florida's criminal
Statutes, and above all win at any cost, didn't you? Does anyone
remember why the Punic Wars were fought? The one thing you can not
fight is the children's love for their father or your spouse's love
for the children. With this in mind, if this is an attempt to win
something, which I cannot understand how there could be a winner, it
appears you lose, the children lose, and your spouse loses. Remember
the movie War Games, this battle of your's is as tic tac toe, no one
can win.
---
This article should not be interpreted as myself telling anyone to
violate the law. This is merely what has happened to my family in the
past eighteen months, in what I believe is my wife's illegal pursuit
in an injunction and divorce case. Which has been dubbed the worst
divorce and custody battle in Volusia County Florida's history, in
open court on 28 April 1999, in family court case In The Seventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County [on going].
I am in no way or form suggesting that anyone commit the above
actions, for the actions above are mostly felonies of the third degree
and are violations under Florida State Statutes 837, 827, 741, 843,
and many others, and punishable, under Florida State Statute 775,
although this has not happened in this case.
My children and I have been the victims of this for so long. I have
tried to prevent this from continuing abuse, although the State of
Florida seems to have no interest in any prosecution of my spouse.
My belief is that the fact that the courts are over crowded, has
become an excuse for the citizens of Florida to be denied their
Constitutional rights.
For my sons Chris and Matty Boy
John Raymond Skidmore
1059 Beckman Drive
So. Daytona Florida 32119
<cniev...@aol.com>
---
Post Script: The author, believes that there is a need to protect
victims of true Domestic Violence, but the Statute should not be
allowed to be misused by a person who has the intent to use the
Statute in fraud of Justice, or use the Statute itself to inflict
abuse on the Respondent. It is also believed that this was not the
intent of the legislature, in the construction of this Florida State
Statute 741.
--------------------------------------
jay...@my-deja.com
jac...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
> From Florida, as edited (by me). Thanks to John Raymond Skidmore.
>
> Cynical, yes, but contains many aspects of what happens every day to
> all too many innocent people (you, me and our children come
> immediately to mind!) in the grist mills* that are 'their' family
> courts...
Why are we supposed to believe this?
I'll ask you, Lindsay, have you experienced this?
From when I knew you on Talk_Man, I thought you were happily married to
a woman you loved and had a good marriage. Extremely conservative,
anti-feminist, often homophobic, but not nearly as rabid as you appear
to be now. So, what has changed?
Jay
PS Since I'm sure Lindsay will bring this up: I'm gay, have no children
(although I have been asked to consider fathering a child for a couple),
and am partnered with a really great guy. Oh, and profeminist, too.
:-)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
jac...@melbpc.org.au
>PS Since I'm sure Lindsay will bring this up: I'm gay, have no children
>(although I have been asked to consider fathering a child for a couple),
>and am partnered with a really great guy. Oh, and profeminist, too.
And lurks in men's groups attacking men...
Nuff said.
jay...@my-deja.com
No, I don't think it's "nuff said."
If you're smarting from an ugly divorce, it could explain your rabidness
and misogyny. Hey, I can even offer sympathy. It's no fun to have a
relationship fall apart, especially when you're relatively happy with it
but your partner isn't.
BTW, I don't lurk to attack men. Criticism of you does not expand into
attacking men. That's like my claiming that since you're homophobic and
criticize gay men, you attack men.
Since I am considering fathering a child, I wonder if we could start a
discussion on what are the joys of fatherhood and what are its pains.
Maybe some common ground?
Jay
Wilbur Streett
>On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 Jay Anderson jay...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>PS Since I'm sure Lindsay will bring this up: I'm gay, have no children
>>(although I have been asked to consider fathering a child for a couple),
>>and am partnered with a really great guy. Oh, and profeminist, too.
>
>And lurks in men's groups attacking men...
>
>Nuff said.
Oh, he has a sexual fantasy ..
Wilbur
--------------------------------------------
Putting A Human Face On Technology ;-)
--------------------------------------------
Literally! http://www.monmouth.com/~wstreett/FaceIT/
Wilbur Streett
>Since I am considering fathering a child, I wonder if we could start a
>discussion on what are the joys of fatherhood and what are its pains.
>Maybe some common ground?
>
>Jay
I'm sorry Jay. If you want to have children, you have to play with the
other species. Anything else is not fair to your children.
They are quite fun, as long as you find the right one.
Anything else is not being a father, it's being a sperm donar.
jay...@my-deja.com
WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett) wrote:
> >Since I am considering fathering a child, I wonder if we could start
a
> >discussion on what are the joys of fatherhood and what are its pains.
> >Maybe some common ground?
> >Jay
>
> I'm sorry Jay. If you want to have children, you have to play with
the
> other species. Anything else is not fair to your children.
What other species? Men and women are the same species.
As far as I can see, I could be as good a father, not being married to
or living with the couple who are thinking of having a baby, as fathers
I see around me or hear about.
In fact, the child might be luckier than most because she or he would
have really four parents, two mothers and two fathers (me as biological
father and my boyfriend as the other father). Two loving mothers with
whom the child will live for at least half the time and then two loving
fathers for the rest of the time. How is that much different (except
more adults to care for the child) than divorced dads sharing custody
with their ex-wives?
> They are quite fun, as long as you find the right one.
I feel reasonably sure I've found my life mate.
Wordsmith
<<snip>>
> As far as I can see, I could be as good a father, not being married to
> or living with the couple who are thinking of having a baby, as fathers
> I see around me or hear about.
>
> In fact, the child might be luckier than most because she or he would
> have really four parents, two mothers and two fathers (me as biological
> father and my boyfriend as the other father). Two loving mothers with
> whom the child will live for at least half the time and then two loving
> fathers for the rest of the time. How is that much different (except
> more adults to care for the child) than divorced dads sharing custody
> with their ex-wives?
<<snip>>
> I feel reasonably sure I've found my life mate.
Forgive Wilbur: he's an embittered, defeated grump with far too much
time on his hands. I've given up so much as reading his posts, never
mind replying.
Now, I'd like to recommend a book: "The Velveteen Father," by Jesse
Green (ISBN 0-375-50164-9). It's an intelligent, beautifully written
book--and right on topic for you.
Wordsmith
--
If you must e-mail me, my correct address
is words2 (at) fls (dot) infi (dot) net
Charlie
correctness as if a fag could be a dad. This is sick shit. Get out of
dads-rights, and take the dyke fems with you. You are nothing less than an
abomination before God and when the pedophiles get recognition as "it's only
a sexual thing", you may finally get recognition from the other sick
perverts that coming out of closets is blessed. Do your thing, pork them
asses but stay away from my children and the peer group you wish to expose
this perverted lie too. By nature, the definition of men and women is
clearly defined for the strict purpose of carrying on a generation after
generation. It is a foundation of life, no amount of false victimization
will ever cause nature to determine that some fudge packer will carry on the
lives of offspring without violating their own code of perversion.
Your response to this group is twisted and unacceptable within it's
meaning. Spread your garbage in NGs which embrace the Disenfranchising of
Fathers. There, when you speak, you will be able to accept comfort in
knowing that the truth and success of mankind is grossly defined by sick
fucks like you. You ain't goina find it here and you ain't goina find suck
up liberals either. I don't tread into "daddy sucks momma's dick" and I
don't expect you to troll within dads-rights. Respect that you are not
welcome here, the same that I am not welcome there.
Chas
jay...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <37d153e6....@news.monmouth.com>,
> WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett) wrote:
>
> > >Since I am considering fathering a child, I wonder if we could start
> a
> > >discussion on what are the joys of fatherhood and what are its pains.
> > >Maybe some common ground?
> > >Jay
> >
> > I'm sorry Jay. If you want to have children, you have to play with the
> > other species. Anything else is not fair to your children.
>
> What other species? Men and women are the same species.
>
> As far as I can see, I could be as good a father, not being married to
> or living with the couple who are thinking of having a baby, as fathers
> I see around me or hear about.
>
> In fact, the child might be luckier than most because she or he would
> have really four parents, two mothers and two fathers (me as biological
> father and my boyfriend as the other father). Two loving mothers with
> whom the child will live for at least half the time and then two loving
> fathers for the rest of the time. How is that much different (except
> more adults to care for the child) than divorced dads sharing custody
> with their ex-wives?
>
> > They are quite fun, as long as you find the right one.
>
> I feel reasonably sure I've found my life mate.
>
Fathers' Manifesto
Dear Charlie,
We must never let our pure Christian principles get away from us. The
reasons for each and every one of them may have been lost to this society,
but the one thing we know for SURE is that they work, and that feminism and
homosexuality do NOT work:
If there is a man who lies with a male ..., they shall be put to death,
Leviticus 20:13
A poster today who claimed to be a Christian also claimed that Jesus is a
feminist. WHERE do such people come from?
Does this mean that we do away with the law by this faith? No, not at
all;
instead we uphold the law, Romans 3:31
And what is some of the basic law that Jesus is talking about?
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in
childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your
husband, and he
will rule over you.", Genesis 3:16
Is it a crusade yet?
God bless you, Charlie, and fight on!
John Knight
Charlie <d...@pcisys.net> wrote in message
news:37D5AE7F...@pcisys.net...
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MyPoints-Free Rewards When You're Online.
> Start with up to 150 Points for joining!
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/805
>
>
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/repeal19th
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>
>
Wilbur Streett
>In article <37d153e6....@news.monmouth.com>,
> WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett) wrote:
>
>> >Since I am considering fathering a child, I wonder if we could start
>a
>> >discussion on what are the joys of fatherhood and what are its pains.
>> >Maybe some common ground?
>> >Jay
>>
>> I'm sorry Jay. If you want to have children, you have to play with
>the
>> other species. Anything else is not fair to your children.
>
>What other species? Men and women are the same species.
Dachshunds and Dalmations aren't the same species, but have less genetic
differences than men and women.
>As far as I can see, I could be as good a father, not being married to
>or living with the couple who are thinking of having a baby, as fathers
>I see around me or hear about.
Oh, the dead beat dad syndrone?
>In fact, the child might be luckier than most because she or he would
>have really four parents, two mothers and two fathers (me as biological
>father and my boyfriend as the other father). Two loving mothers with
>whom the child will live for at least half the time and then two loving
>fathers for the rest of the time. How is that much different (except
>more adults to care for the child) than divorced dads sharing custody
>with their ex-wives?
You don't see, and you don't know, and I'm not going to explain it to you.
I have more important things to do with my time. Being a father is not
about being a boyfriend.
>> They are quite fun, as long as you find the right one.
>
>I feel reasonably sure I've found my life mate.
Then you have made your choice, so live with it.
fathersm...@usa.net
Well said, Wilbur!
This person isn't qualified to care for cats, much less human babies,
for more reasons than 10.
It makes no sense to try to explain it, because it's literally beyond
it's comprehension.
If there is a man who lies with a male ...,
they shall be put to death, Leviticus 20:13
http://fathers.ourfamily.com/God.htm to see why this is more important
now than it was 5,000 years ago.
John Knight
jac...@melbpc.org.au
and perverted in body and in mind. He is not fit to be a father;
especially still holding in all the anger he has toward his own father
and projects on to all other normal heterosexual men.
-----------------------------------
On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 19:31:59 -0500, Charlie <d...@pcisys.net> wrote:
Will it never end? Do we, as a society, have to succumb to the
political correctness as if a fag could be a dad. This is sick shit.
Get out of dads-rights, and take the dyke fems with you. You are
nothing less than an abomination before God and when the pedophiles
get recognition as "it's only a sexual thing", you may finally get
recognition from the other sick perverts that coming out of closets is
blessed. Do your thing, pork them asses but stay away from my
children and the peer group you wish to expose this perverted lie too.
By nature, the definition of men and women is clearly defined for the
strict purpose of carrying on a generation after generation. It is a
foundation of life, no amount of false victimization will ever cause
nature to determine that some fudge packer will carry on the lives of
offspring without violating their own code of perversion.
Your response to this group is twisted and unacceptable within it's
meaning. Spread your garbage in NGs which embrace the
Disenfranchising of Fathers. There, when you speak, you will be able
to accept comfort in knowing that the truth and success of mankind is
grossly defined by sick fucks like you. You ain't goina find it here
and you ain't goina find suck up liberals either. I don't tread into
"daddy sucks momma's dick" and I don't expect you to troll within
dads-rights. Respect that you are not welcome here, the same that I
am not welcome there.
Chas
----------------------------------
>jay...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> In article <37d153e6....@news.monmouth.com>,
>> WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett) wrote:
>>
>> > >Since I am considering fathering a child, I wonder if we could start
>> a
>> > >discussion on what are the joys of fatherhood and what are its pains.
>> > >Maybe some common ground?
>> > >Jay
>> >
>> > I'm sorry Jay. If you want to have children, you have to play with the
>> > other species. Anything else is not fair to your children.
>>
>> What other species? Men and women are the same species.
>>
>> As far as I can see, I could be as good a father, not being married to
>> or living with the couple who are thinking of having a baby, as fathers
>> I see around me or hear about.
>>
>> In fact, the child might be luckier than most because she or he would
>> have really four parents, two mothers and two fathers (me as biological
>> father and my boyfriend as the other father). Two loving mothers with
>> whom the child will live for at least half the time and then two loving
>> fathers for the rest of the time. How is that much different (except
>> more adults to care for the child) than divorced dads sharing custody
>> with their ex-wives?
>>
>> > They are quite fun, as long as you find the right one.
>>
>> I feel reasonably sure I've found my life mate.
>>
>> Jay
jay...@my-deja.com
WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett) wrote:
> jay...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >What other species? Men and women are the same species.
>
> Dachshunds and Dalmations aren't the same species, but have less
genetic
> differences than men and women.
No, you're wrong. Dogs are the same species. One may not want to mate
breeds of such different sizes if the male is the much larger breed
(makes it hard for the female to deliver the pups), but they are the
same species.
> You don't see, and you don't know, and I'm not going to explain it to
you.
>
> I have more important things to do with my time. Being a father is
not
> about being a boyfriend.
Considering I don't plan on being a boyfriend to anyone except my own
partner, that doesn't make much sense.
Cheers,
jay...@my-deja.com
d...@pcisys.net wrote:
> Will it never end? Do we, as a society, have to succumb to the
political
> correctness as if a fag could be a dad. This is sick shit. Get out
of
> dads-rights, and take the dyke fems with you.
The sad thing about this is that you're in this ng and say you have
children.
The fact is this: Some children will be homosexual. There's no getting
around it, since it has occurred in every society; it even occurs in
other species. There seems to be little correlation as to why some
people are homosexual. I don't know if it's heredity, environment, or a
combination of the two (I tend to that explanation). In my own life,
I've known gay men who are like me, with an emotionally distant father
who rejected me when I told my parents I'm gay. (Despite Lindsay's
claims to the contrary, I don't hate my father. Indeed, I love him and
try to maintain some form of relationship with him and hope the day
will come when, while I know he'll never be thrilled about having a gay
son, he can approach some kind of acceptance or tolerance.)
I've known other gay men who had great relationships with their fathers.
One friend's father, although confused when his son came out to him,
went so far as to invite his son and his son's boyfriend to dinner with
him. My own boyfriend has a good relationship with his dad and mom.
But the question then becomes - what do good fathers do with their
homosexual sons or daughters? IMHO what they don't do is what you've
done to me - the ugly jokes, the bad language, the obvious rejection.
Maybe you should think on this: There are no guarantees that your
children will be heterosexual. You may think there are, but there
aren't. (I'm sure my dad didn't think he was raising a gay son.)
The father of an aspiring Republican presidential candidate was gay.
One of the nicest men I've known online came out as gay in his late
40's.
You just never know. And if you really love children and want good
relationships between fathers and children, then you have to consider
that not all fathers or all children are heterosexual.
Wilbur Streett
>You just never know. And if you really love children and want good
>relationships between fathers and children, then you have to consider
>that not all fathers or all children are heterosexual.
Bullshit.
Your sexual preference does not define being a good father.
Wilbur Streett
>agreed. my children will always be my children, and will always have my
>love. no matter who they love.
Funny, he tried to extend that to being a father also.
I guess you like a father that doesn't care for his children.
But you already admitted that.
Wilbur Streett
>what the hell are you babbling about now?
>
>sorry you're too self righteous to have gotten my point.
I got your point of kissing up to a gay man that wants to make a kid, but
doesn't want to be a father.
Was there any other one?
Wilbur Streett
>sexual preferences have nothing to do with defining a bad father, either.
Really, did your soon to be ex husband think that way? Is that why you're
divorcing him?
>actually, the one has nothing to do with the other.
Funny, I think that you probably got married based on something else.
Ken certainly claims that's not true, and he's one of your great supporters
right now.
jay...@my-deja.com
WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett) wrote:
> jay...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >You just never know. And if you really love children and want good
> >relationships between fathers and children, then you have to consider
> >that not all fathers or all children are heterosexual.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Your sexual preference does not define being a good father.
Wilbur, that was one of my points. Gay men can be
good fathers, despite what Charlie and "John Knight" think.
Wilbur Streett
>actually, the impression i got was that he wanted to be a father.
He specifically stated that he didn't want to be a father, but a sperm
donar.
Wilbur Streett
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> Your sexual preference does not define being a good father.
>
>Wilbur, that was one of my points. Gay men can be
>good fathers, despite what Charlie and "John Knight" think.
Notice the bullshit part?
..as in being gay is not the definition of a good father.
Sorry that you don't understand english, or have the persistence of memory
to remember that I already explained that you aren't describing anything
close to being a father given the scenario that you described.
jay...@my-deja.com
> >good fathers, despite what Charlie and "John Knight" think.
>
> Notice the bullshit part?
>
> ..as in being gay is not the definition of a good father.
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the definition of being a good
father.
> Sorry that you don't understand english, or have the persistence of
memory
> to remember that I already explained that you aren't describing
anything
> close to being a father given the scenario that you described.
I understand English, I'm just an optimist. I knew you were hostile
before but I thought the fact that fathers can be homosexual and
children can be homosexual got through to you. Sorry it didn't. (Too
bad no one can ask Steve Forbes if having a gay dad was poor fathering
for him.)
I still don't see how my situation is much different from many divorced
husbands who probably see their children less than I would see my child.
I'd like for you to address that, if you will.
Wilbur Streett
>
>Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the definition of being a good
>father.
You can't maintain a male/female loving relationship with the person that
you create the child with, so it does have something to do with it.
You have no intention of having a loving male/female, ie BIRTH PARENT
relationship with the woman that would litter your offspring, so you are
not a parent, you are a sperm donar.
Anything else you need clarification on?
I can care for the neighbor's kid, but that doesn't make me a father.
I can donate sperm, but that doesn't make me a father.
>> Sorry that you don't understand english, or have the persistence of
>memory
>> to remember that I already explained that you aren't describing
>anything
>> close to being a father given the scenario that you described.
>
>I understand English, I'm just an optimist. I
No, optimism has nothing to do with your response.
>knew you were hostile
>before but I thought the fact that fathers can be homosexual and
>children can be homosexual got through to you.
Children that are homosexual are not a problem to me. Your sexual
preference is not a problem to me. I'm not gay, however. I believe that
is a choice.
A man donating sperm and pretending that having a relationship less than
what the men in this forum are forced into makes for good fatherhood
sickens me.
Any more clarification that you need?
>Sorry it didn't. (Too
>bad no one can ask Steve Forbes if having a gay dad was poor fathering
>for him.)
I don't think much of Steve Forbes.
>I still don't see how my situation is much different from many divorced
>husbands who probably see their children less than I would see my child.
>I'd like for you to address that, if you will.
Already done.
Now get lost until you are a dad, which will be never.
jac...@melbpc.org.au
<Pug_...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>sexual preferences have nothing to do with defining a bad father, either.
>
>actually, the one has nothing to do with the other.
Amy,
Thanks for once again demonstrating the alliance between feminism and
homosexuality - in their diminishment on normal heterosexual men as
fathers.
What you say is wrong. There is a difference between a normal
heterosexual man being a father and a pervert thinking he can be the
same from the start with another man and without a mother for the
child.
Children have rights. And one of those rights is to grow up in a
normal heterosexual union/family of one father and one mother.
For homosexuals - whether they be male or female - to decide and to do
otherwise is unnatural and perverted and a gross injustice to the
child(ren).
jay...@my-deja.com
jac...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
> What you say is wrong. There is a difference between a normal
> heterosexual man being a father and a pervert thinking he can be the
> same from the start with another man and without a mother for the
> child.
I guess I'm the "pervert" mentioned above, but, as sometimes happens,
you've missed the boat. If I agree to father a child with my friend,
she'll be the mother. The two couples (she amd her girlfriend, my
boyfriend and I) are thinking of joint custody, so our child would have
two sets of parents. I don't see how the child will be without a
mother, since she or he will have a biological mother and another woman
who is the partner of the biological mother. Unless you think that a
woman who is a lesbian can't really be a mother. (Strange reasoning
IMHO, but Wilbur engaged in similar reasoning about fatherhood and me as
a gay man.)
> Children have rights. And one of those rights is to grow up in a
> normal heterosexual union/family of one father and one mother.
One interesting thing is that of the four people considering this, three
of us come from non-divorced, married heterosexual couples. One woman
was abandoned by her father when she was three, and so she was raised by
a single mother. So, three quite traditional married couples managed to
raise one lesbian and two gay men.
I agree that childre have rights, but I've not seen any studies which
show that gay or lesbian parents are any worse parents than heterosexual
ones. A lot of assertions that we're terrible parents, but no facts.
Also, think about the gay or lesbian child who often grows up in a
homophobic environment. Or do gay and lesbian children not have rights?
Jay
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jac...@melbpc.org.au
It is unnatural to then seek out and bring into the world and into an
unnatural relationship a child who will not daily be living with his
father and mother.
Having made their CHOICE homosexuals should not inflict them on to
others, against their wills - particularly innocent children.
Homosexual parenting is an oxymoron - in reality homosexuals with
children is either pedophilia or recruitment.
jay...@my-deja.com
jac...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
> Homosexuality is childless sex.
If you mean it's non-procreative sex, you're right. Like a lot of
heterosexual sexual acts. (Think about some forms of birth control,
some sexual acts, post-menopausal women, and so on.)
> It is unnatural to then seek out and bring into the world and into an
> unnatural relationship a child who will not daily be living with his
> father and mother.
It's "unnatural" for us, you in Melbourne and me in California, to be
able to have a discussion on the net. But we are doing this, and it
doesn't seem to be doing either of us any harm.
A lot of children don't see both parents daily. That doesn't make it
unnatural and it doesn't mean the children can't turn out well.
> Having made their CHOICE homosexuals should not inflict them on to
> others, against their wills - particularly innocent children.
When did you choose to be heterosexual? And all parents "inflict" on
their children, since children have no choice in being born. That's
life, and the best that I've been able to figure out is that if I do
father this child, I need to ralize that they will be their own person.
My job is to raise them right, and to love, protect, and cherish the
child.
> Homosexual parenting is an oxymoron - in reality homosexuals with
> children is either pedophilia or recruitment.
Where do you get this stuff? The pedophilia comment is nothing more
than a hateful stereotype. As for recruitment, studies show that
children of gay or lesbian parents are no more likely to be gay or
lesbian than other children. It just doesn't work like that, Lindsay.
If it did, every child would be heterosexual because the world surely
doesn't make it easy on children who aren't.