'Father' To Marry 'Son' In Bucks County (PA) -- With Court's Blessing

[Silhouette]

Different only to you.

LIke I said- you only care in this case because the couple is homosexual.

If they were heterosexual you would never have noticed.

I notice only what the media lets me notice. When Woody Allen shacked up with his adopted daughter and that hit the news, I was as disgusted then as I am now with these two guys. I guarantee you that. Anybody who does this is attacking the welfare of children.

I would say that when it comes to the media and the LGBT machine behind it, the exact opposite is true of what you allege. For instance, you folks profess faux-outrage at what the Duggar boy is accused of, while you carry packs of Harvey Milk US postage stamps around in your wallets; knowing what he did and unapologetically-admitted to doing to a minor boy and others like him. YOU only care when it's children involved in heterosexual molestation. When it's homosexuals you folks come on board in rabid-defense of them; even touting them as your cultural sexuality-icons. Wherease if the Duggar boy is guilty of these acts (especially if there is an age disparity even approaching that of Harvey Milk's and his boy-victims), the heterosexual community will outcast him in shame.

The difference in the two reactions of the two cultures is marked. Child molestors in LGBT land get a hero's welcome and rabid defense...anyone objecting to that stance is "a homophobe". Child molestors in hetero land get the scarlet letter and the walk of shame to their ranks as an example of "straighten up and fly right or else!". Oh what a world of difference between the two camps.

You are here with your buddy Chris L trying to downplay these two gay guys dissolving adoption and father/son to create conditions whereby any parent may divorce their child in order to marry them (have sex with them). Just in case folks lost track of where we are with the broader topic of "who actually cares about kids and who doesn't"

 

[Syriusly]

Different only to you.

LIke I said- you only care in this case because the couple is homosexual.

If they were heterosexual you would never have noticed.

I notice only what the media lets me notice.

You only notice- or pretend to care when you can use it to attack homosexuals.

 

[bripat9643]

When did heteros ever do this?

I posted it a few pages back- go look- Florida billionaire adopts girlfriend in order to protect his money- and then later on marries her- happened in 2012.

According to Wiki:

John B. Goodman industrialist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

During the civil trial proceedings, Goodman attempted to adopt his adult girlfriend, 42-year-old Heather Ann Hutchins, in a ploy to protect some of his assets from being attached by Wilson's family. This was not allowed by the courts.
​

So no banana.

Actually- plenty of bananas

A Florida court revoked a polo tycoon's adoption of his girlfriend, a scheme that aimed to funnel her millions of dollars as he battled lawsuits that could have cut into his fortune.

He adopted- and the adoption was revoked- and then he went onto marry the girl.

Just like this gay couple- who had their adoption revoked- and then went onto marry.

In other words, she was never legally adopted.

No banana.

And now according to the law- neither was the gay man.

The adoption technically never existed- just like if a marriage is annulled.

Wrong. The adoption was approved. They were legally father and son for years. The guy and his girlfriend were never legally father and daughter.

 

[Theowl32]

 

[NoNukes]

So let's see, they're a couple for 50 years who wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital and help each other in case of an emergency but they couldn't because the law prevented them; so they used adoption as a loophole.

I'm happy for them

It's a legal basis for justifying incestuous marriages.

And really none of your business.

 

[ChrisL]

Different only to you.

LIke I said- you only care in this case because the couple is homosexual.

If they were heterosexual you would never have noticed.

I notice only what the media lets me notice. When Woody Allen shacked up with his adopted daughter and that hit the news, I was as disgusted then as I am now with these two guys. I guarantee you that. Anybody who does this is attacking the welfare of children.

I would say that when it comes to the media and the LGBT machine behind it, the exact opposite is true of what you allege. For instance, you folks profess faux-outrage at what the Duggar boy is accused of, while you carry packs of Harvey Milk US postage stamps around in your wallets; knowing what he did and unapologetically-admitted to doing to a minor boy and others like him. YOU only care when it's children involved in heterosexual molestation. When it's homosexuals you folks come on board in rabid-defense of them; even touting them as your cultural sexuality-icons. Wherease if the Duggar boy is guilty of these acts (especially if there is an age disparity even approaching that of Harvey Milk's and his boy-victims), the heterosexual community will outcast him in shame.

The difference in the two reactions of the two cultures is marked. Child molestors in LGBT land get a hero's welcome and rabid defense...anyone objecting to that stance is "a homophobe". Child molestors in hetero land get the scarlet letter and the walk of shame to their ranks as an example of "straighten up and fly right or else!". Oh what a world of difference between the two camps.

You are here with your buddy Chris L trying to downplay these two gay guys dissolving adoption and father/son to create conditions whereby any parent may divorce their child in order to marry them (have sex with them). Just in case folks lost track of where we are with the broader topic of "who actually cares about kids and who doesn't"

YOu really cannot be so stupid. There was no molestation nor were there any children involved in this situation. This is nothing like the Woody Allen case. Retard.

 

[Silhouette]

And now according to the law- neither was the gay man.

The adoption technically never existed- just like if a marriage is annulled.

Wrong. The adoption was approved. They were legally father and son for years. The guy and his girlfriend were never legally father and daughter.

Correct. If an elected divorce of an adopted child results in the parent marrying their child, then any parent can sever the parent/child bond and marry their child. If Syriusly can't see this as a problem, then we know about the reasoning powers and trust factor when it comes to that mentality and children's welfare.

 

[Silhouette]

YOu really cannot be so stupid. There was no molestation nor were there any children involved in this situation. This is nothing like the Woody Allen case. Retard.

Isn't "retard" a derogatory term aimed at mentally disabled? Or is this a case of where like if you are black you can use the "N" word without reproach?

In any event, you're pretending not to see the legal and physical danger to children of electing to sever the parent/child relationship and then turn it into marriage. Do you honestly believe the ability to do so is limited solely to these two? Or do you believe as I do that if one person is allowed to do this, then by the law of equality, all parents will be able to sever from their kids and marry them in a system of blind-application of the law?

 

[Skylar]

Different only to you.

LIke I said- you only care in this case because the couple is homosexual.

If they were heterosexual you would never have noticed.

I notice only what the media lets me notice. When Woody Allen shacked up with his adopted daughter and that hit the news, I was as disgusted then as I am now with these two guys. I guarantee you that. Anybody who does this is attacking the welfare of children.

I would say that when it comes to the media and the LGBT machine behind it, the exact opposite is true of what you allege. For instance, you folks profess faux-outrage at what the Duggar boy is accused of, while you carry packs of Harvey Milk US postage stamps around in your wallets; knowing what he did and unapologetically-admitted to doing to a minor boy and others like him. YOU only care when it's children involved in heterosexual molestation. When it's homosexuals you folks come on board in rabid-defense of them; even touting them as your cultural sexuality-icons. Wherease if the Duggar boy is guilty of these acts (especially if there is an age disparity even approaching that of Harvey Milk's and his boy-victims), the heterosexual community will outcast him in shame.

The difference in the two reactions of the two cultures is marked. Child molestors in LGBT land get a hero's welcome and rabid defense...anyone objecting to that stance is "a homophobe". Child molestors in hetero land get the scarlet letter and the walk of shame to their ranks as an example of "straighten up and fly right or else!". Oh what a world of difference between the two camps.

You are here with your buddy Chris L trying to downplay these two gay guys dissolving adoption and father/son to create conditions whereby any parent may divorce their child in order to marry them (have sex with them). Just in case folks lost track of where we are with the broader topic of "who actually cares about kids and who doesn't"

Didn't you argue that Duggar was merely 'sexually experimenting' when he sexually assaulted his 5 year old sister?

 

[Skylar]

YOu really cannot be so stupid. There was no molestation nor were there any children involved in this situation. This is nothing like the Woody Allen case. Retard.

Isn't "retard" a derogatory term aimed at mentally disabled? Or is this a case of where like if you are black you can use the "N" word without reproach?

In any event, you're pretending not to see the legal and physical danger to children of electing to sever the parent/child relationship and then turn it into marriage. Do you honestly believe the ability to do so is limited solely to these two? Or do you believe as I do that if one person is allowed to do this, then by the law of equality, all parents will be able to sever from their kids and marry them in a system of blind-application of the law?

You do realize that the Court has never recognized either the legal or physical danger to children you describe with same sex marriage, right? But has in fact recognized the exact opposite:

That *denying* same sex marriage causes immediate legal harm to children.

Why would the court ignore its own findings....and instead believe whatever you make up?

 

[Silhouette]

Didn't you argue that Duggar was merely 'sexually experimenting' when he sexually assaulted his 5 year old sister?

Nope, when I first found out about that I assumed/heard it was with girls his own age. It's still wholly uncertain if the girl who came forward recently as still a minor (with Josh age 27) was actually molested by him or just a mole adding *emphasis* to Duggar's foul deeds.

Alas we will never know that for sure because the judge ordered everything destroyed.

YOu really cannot be so stupid. There was no molestation nor were there any children involved in this situation. This is nothing like the Woody Allen case. Retard.

Isn't "retard" a derogatory term aimed at mentally disabled? Or is this a case of where like if you are black you can use the "N" word without reproach?
In any event, you're pretending not to see the legal and physical danger to children of electing to sever the parent/child relationship and then turn it into marriage. Do you honestly believe the ability to do so is limited solely to these two? Or do you believe as I do that if one person is allowed to do this, then by the law of equality, all parents will be able to sever from their kids and marry them in a system of blind-application of the law?

You do realize that the Court has never recognized either the legal or physical danger to children you describe with same sex marriage, right? But has in fact recognized the exact opposite:
That *denying* same sex marriage causes immediate legal harm to children.
Why would the court ignore its own findings....and instead believe whatever you make up?

The Court most certainly did discuss "immediate legal harm" to children. What, does that phrase only apply when it helps the gay marriage Agenda? It can't also apply to their deliberative process when considering 9 people forcing 300 million to accept the institutionalizing of fatherless or motherless "marriages" around kids?

Or in this case you think it doesn't apply to childrens' wellbeing to disallow the divorce of the parent/child relationship? Does it bother you at all that a legal parent/child are going to be married as erstwhile legal father/son? Do you suppose, somehow, that this will be legally limited to just these two people?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Are gays ‘born that way’? Most Americans now say yes, but science says no

PRINCETON, NJ, May 20, 2015 -- For the first time, a majority of Americans say that homosexuals are "born that way."

According to the latest Gallup poll, 51 percent of Americans say that people are born gay or lesbian, while only 30 percent say outside factors such as upbringing and environment determine sexual orientation.

However, science would not bear that out. No fewer than eight major studies from around the world have found homosexuality is not a genetic condition.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says that these numerous, rigorous studies of identical twins have now made it impossible to argue that there is a "gay gene." If homosexuality were inborn and predetermined, then when one identical twin is homosexual, the other should be, as well.

Yet one study from Yale and Columbia Universities found homosexuality common to only 6.7 percent of male identical twins and 5.3 percent of female identical twins.

The low rate of common homosexuality in identical twins – around six percent – is easily explained by nurture, not nature.

Are gays born that way Most Americans now say yes but science says no News LifeSite

Just because there is no identifiable gene does not mean you were not "born that way"

There is no identifiable gene for being left handed ...yet you are born that way

Hmmmm. Born with a dick in their mouth. Interesting.

Were you born with a pussy in your mouth.

Wait. Don't answer that...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's beginning: the first step on the road to legalized incest:

Father To Marry Son In Bucks County -- With Court s Blessing Doylestown-Buckingham-New Britain PA Patch​

This week, Bill Novak and Norman MacArthur will go from being father and son to a married couple.

Before you jump to conclusions, consider this: Novak and MacArthur are not father and son biologically. Rather, their relationship through adoption was solely a technicality to enable the rights they desperately wanted but were not legally able to attain as a married couple.

The same-sex couple, who have been together for more than 50 years, registered as domestic partners in New York City in 1994. After moving to Bucks County, they learned that Pennsylvania law does not recognize domestic partners and prohibits same sex marriages.​

“The time came about to do estate planning,” MacArthur said. “We were told at that time ‘hell would freeze over before Pennsylvania approves same sex marriage’.”

They were advised by a lawyer that the only avenue to becoming legally related was through adoption. “It was the only legal method we could use in Pennsylvania to give underpinning to our relationship,” MacArthur said.​

Good news for you and your sister.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

So let's see, they're a couple for 50 years who wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital and help each other in case of an emergency but they couldn't because the law prevented them; so they used adoption as a loophole.

I'm happy for them

This is another thing that puts a nail in the gay argument. They were father and son. That's sick.

So, you didn't understand the OP.....

I am shocked.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Skylar]

Didn't you argue that Duggar was merely 'sexually experimenting' when he sexually assaulted his 5 year old sister?

Nope, when I first found out about that I assumed/heard it was with girls his own age. It's still wholly uncertain if the girl who came forward recently as still a minor (with Josh age 27) was actually molested by him or just a mole adding *emphasis* to Duggar's foul deeds.

Alas we will never know that for sure because the judge ordered everything destroyed.

Just a 'mole'?

So you invented yet another conspiracy to defend an admitted child molester?

 

[Statistikhengst]

So let's see, they're a couple for 50 years who wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital and help each other in case of an emergency but they couldn't because the law prevented them; so they used adoption as a loophole.

I'm happy for them

You would probably like to be one of them. Sick.

So, you missed the point of the OP as well....

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Silhouette]

Just a 'mole'?

So you invented yet another conspiracy to defend an admitted child molester?

Can't be sure. Judge destroyed all records. It was an accusation, not a conviction. If we had the girl to interview or her testimony, something. But alas, we have nothing. We'll see if Josh has a biography written about him where he openly brags about diddling minors who were at least 10 years younger than himself. If he does, you can bet I won't commission a stamp after him with a Christian cross or family values logo on it..

 

[Skylar]

Just a 'mole'?

So you invented yet another conspiracy to defend an admitted child molester?

Can't be sure. Judge destroyed all records. It was an accusation, not a conviction. If we had the girl to interview or her testimony, something. But alas, we have nothing. We'll see if Josh has a biography written about him where he openly brags about diddling minors who were at least 10 years younger than himself. If he does, you can bet I won't commission a stamp after him with a Christian cross or family values logo on it..

Wow. You will go to imaginative lengths to defend admitted child molesters won't you?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Just a 'mole'?

So you invented yet another conspiracy to defend an admitted child molester?

Can't be sure. Judge destroyed all records. It was an accusation, not a conviction. If we had the girl to interview or her testimony, something. But alas, we have nothing. We'll see if Josh has a biography written about him where he openly brags about diddling minors who were at least 10 years younger than himself. If he does, you can bet I won't commission a stamp after him with a Christian cross or family values logo on it..

Wow. You will go to imaginative lengths to defend admitted child molesters won't you?

IOKIYAAC

It's ok is you are a Christian.

 

[Hossfly]

Are gays ‘born that way’? Most Americans now say yes, but science says no

PRINCETON, NJ, May 20, 2015 -- For the first time, a majority of Americans say that homosexuals are "born that way."

According to the latest Gallup poll, 51 percent of Americans say that people are born gay or lesbian, while only 30 percent say outside factors such as upbringing and environment determine sexual orientation.

However, science would not bear that out. No fewer than eight major studies from around the world have found homosexuality is not a genetic condition.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says that these numerous, rigorous studies of identical twins have now made it impossible to argue that there is a "gay gene." If homosexuality were inborn and predetermined, then when one identical twin is homosexual, the other should be, as well.

Yet one study from Yale and Columbia Universities found homosexuality common to only 6.7 percent of male identical twins and 5.3 percent of female identical twins.

The low rate of common homosexuality in identical twins – around six percent – is easily explained by nurture, not nature.

Are gays born that way Most Americans now say yes but science says no News LifeSite

Just because there is no identifiable gene does not mean you were not "born that way"

There is no identifiable gene for being left handed ...yet you are born that way

Hmmmm. Born with a dick in their mouth. Interesting.

Were you born with a pussy in your mouth.

Wait. Don't answer that...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I might have. Don't remember. I was drunk.