Bill Conner: Ignorant as Plywood II.
Daniel A Ashlock
my posts about him (hooray) but I just uncovered more
evidence that he is an ignorant bigot, so I thought I'd
pass it along. For those of you who don't enjoy flames,
it's a moderately interesting news items as well.
Recall Bill's thesis of roughly three weeks ago that
homosexuals are not subject to any exceptional level of
discrimination and that they do not need any form of
special statutory protection? I responded to this
showing that only a homophobic bigot would think this
was the case. Another example of stunning discrimination
against homosexuals appeared in todays Des Moines Register
(that's a newspaper, Bill, I'm using it as a _source_).
Apparently there is a custody case out Virginia way
with the parties being a two year old boy, his mother, and
his maternal grandmother. The boy's mother is lesbian and
lives with a lover. The maternal grandmother sued for
custody on the grounds that a lesbian is an unfit mother
and the judge agreed. So far this is quite unfair and
bigoted, but stay tuned.
The judge noted that the mother had admitted to having
oral sex which was a felony in Virginia and hence she was,
as a fellon, clearly an unfit mother. Clearly this is an
unjust law, to make a fellon of a person for comission
private acts between consenting adults, and the enforcemnt
is a little uneven, but I've left the best for last.
The grandmother, aged 42, had caused her boyfriend of some
17 years to move out of her house on advice of council before
the custody hearing started. It is the mother's contention
that she was sexually abused (raped) around 800 times by this
man. Either the judge considerd the testimony of an admitted
homosexual without any shred of merit or he considers growing
up in a lesbian household to be worse than growing up in a
household where rape of the children was commonplace.
Did anyone else's paper give more details?
Ready to retract your claim yet, Bill?
No charge, Bill, for helping you to peel back your ignorance
of the vast unjustices heaped upon the homosexual community.
Charles Reichley
parent and give that child to someone else, absent any proven harm to
the child.
If we adopt the 'best interest of the child' philosophy, it won't be
long before any rich couple will be able to claim a poor couple's child.
This almost happened in the Baby Jessica case.
>
> The grandmother, aged 42, had caused her boyfriend of some
> 17 years to move out of her house on advice of council before
> the custody hearing started. It is the mother's contention
> that she was sexually abused (raped) around 800 times by this
> man. Either the judge considerd the testimony of an admitted
> homosexual without any shred of merit or he considers growing
> up in a lesbian household to be worse than growing up in a
> household where rape of the children was commonplace.
felony act', not because she proclaimed herself a lesbian.
If her testimony was without merit, the judge would have to discount her
claims of committing felony acts. So it appears the judge believed her
claim of felony commission, and then discounted or disbelieved her other
claims.
If any of you are happy with this, just wait until a judge who finds
YOUR personal beliefs or activities offensive gets to take YOUR child
from you.
>
> Did anyone else's paper give more details?
take sides in the case. He did however make an observation which
mirrors one I make below, for which I apologize, even though I made said
observation independent of hearing Rush.
>
> Ready to retract your claim yet, Bill?
clearcut evidence of such, since the judge was ruling based on the past
and continued commission of felony acts by the mother, NOT on her
proclaimed sexual orientation.
Maybe the existance of the law making some acts felonies is itself
evidence, but not the ruling in this case.
Funny how homophobes would applaud this case as 'protecting the child
from an environment fostering homosexual behavior', when in fact the
child has been awarded to a mother who raised a lesbian child.
>
> No charge, Bill, for helping you to peel back your ignorance
> of the vast unjustices heaped upon the homosexual community.
>
> Dan
> Dan...@IASTATE.EDU
>
Charles W. Reichley, IBM FSC, Manassas, Va.
Reminder : This post has nothing to do with IBM or its subsidiaries
Mark Rupright
>In <1993Sep...@IASTATE.EDU> dan...@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>
>> Ready to retract your claim yet, Bill?
>
>While Bill's claim is obviously incorrect, this particular case is not a
>clearcut evidence of such, since the judge was ruling based on the past
>and continued commission of felony acts by the mother, NOT on her
>proclaimed sexual orientation.
>
Two points of clear anti-gay bias on the judge's part:
(1) The judge not only pointed out that her actions were illegal,
but that he found her relationship personally immoral.
(2) I would seriously doubt if the grandmother was ever questioned as
to whether she had ever engaged in oral sex. In fact, since the
vast majority of heterosexual couples have engaged in oral sex,
fairness would dictate that most children in Virginia be taken from
their homes. Has this judged ever based a heterosexual custody
case on the "oral sex is a felony" question?
>>
>> Dan
>> Dan...@IASTATE.EDU
>>
>
>Charles W. Reichley, IBM FSC, Manassas, Va.
>Reminder : This post has nothing to do with IBM or its subsidiaries
_______________________________________________________________________________
Mark Rupright | "Washington is a city of Southern efficiency
UNC Physics | and Northern Charm."
rupr...@physics.unc.edu | John F. Kennedy
Bill Conner
Charles,
Since Dan Ashlock is one of those hyperactive extremists that seem so
common on the net, I refuse to address his nonsense directly. I am
curious though if you are argeeing with his characterizations of me
and my posts. If so, maybe you could demonstrate how his ranting
relates to the world we must share with him since he cannot. I'm not
sure why this thread exists since it's obviously not about me and
pertains to nothing I've said but since you responded to it maybe you
see something I missed.
Bill
Daniel A Ashlock
writes:
> Charles,
>
> Since Dan Ashlock is one of those hyperactive extremists that seem so
> common on the net, I refuse to address his nonsense directly.
Sure, Bill. Wasn't there a lying yahoo named, uh, Conner that was
objecting to namecalling as a substitute for honest, mature debate?
> I am
> curious though if you are argeeing with his characterizations of me
> and my posts. If so, maybe you could demonstrate how his ranting
> relates to the world we must share with him since he cannot.
Bill, I already explained to you how your can understand my
remarks. Save your own posts and reread them. This will act to
compensate for your complete inability to remember what you have
said.
> I'm not
> sure why this thread exists since it's obviously not about me and
> pertains to nothing I've said but since you responded to it maybe you
> see something I missed.
CAUGHT! Bill lies again. Not only did Bill specifically claim
that homosexuals had no special need for protection (as discrimination
against them was nothing out of the ordinary), but I quoted that post
to him when I was demonstrating he was in fact a bigot. This thread
was a demonstration (at least IMO) that there is astonishing
discrimination against homosexuals. It was a direct refuatation of a
Conner claim. Bill's new claim? "A direct refutation of one of my
claims is obviously not about me".
(Fact Summary)
A Virginia Judge decided to give custody of a lesbian woman's child to the
woman's mother because she was a fellon (oral sex) even though the
grandmother's boyfriend had sexually abused the woman. The judge's homophobia
was so extreme he prefered rape to lesbianisim as an environment for a child...
(resume flame)
Also, I notice that Bill is like an alcholic that keeps a stash of
southern comfort in the glove compartment. In grotesque violation of
the spirit of his promise not to respond to my posts he followed
up the very first time anyone else responded to my post.
I've got Bill's measure now. He's going to snivel, whine, cry, and
turn handstands until he thinks we've forgotten his bogus claims and
then disappear into net.obscurity. It's sort of sad to see someone
choose to be a lying yahoo when they could be a member of the
marketplace of ideas.
> Bill
Donn F. Pedro
>Charles,
>
>Since Dan Ashlock is one of those hyperactive extremists that seem so
>common on the net, I refuse to address his nonsense directly.
Translation: I can't win the argument so I'm trying to ignore him.
>I am
>curious though if you are argeeing with his characterizations of me
>and my posts.
Your posts speak for themselves.