Father wishes to marry his adopted son

[Skylar]

So your perfect record of failure at predicting any legal outcome.....demonstrates the 'viability' of your claims?

I don't think 'viable' means what you think it means.

I predicted the Pope would come address his flock in the US before the next presidential election. And I'd say that's one exception to your "Sil is never right" rule..

....which isn't a legal outcome. Your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure. None of your pseudo-legal gibberish has ever panned out.

So much for your 'viability'.

 

[Silhouette]

You have to admit though, the prediction was pretty impressive in that it happened exactly as I said and, no Pope has ever addressed Congress before.

Not bad.

 

[Skylar]

You have to admit though, the prediction was pretty impressive in that it happened exactly as I said and, no Pope has ever addressed Congress before.

Not bad.

I don't know the context of your 'prediction'. Or if it even happened. I can speak to your legal predictions. And how spectacular your record is. I mean, *perfect* failure. The law of averages alone mandates that you'd eventually get one of them right. But somehow you defy the odds and manage to find a way to be wrong.

Its impressive.

 

[ogibillm]

Father, Adopted Son Seek Right To Marry Each Other

It's not as bad as it sounds, a gay couple, one adopted the other, Now they want to marry. But they want a major exception to how adoption is treated.

ROFLMNAO!

SO... It's just a sexual deviant, who adopted a child... and having formed a 'loving... caring relationship with the child... the two; the would-be Son and Father... now want to be Married?

What's it been kids? 6 MONTHS?

You're an idiot.
The adoption happened so their relationship have some legal rights.
It would not have happened if they had just been allowed to marry

Moral relativism at its very worst...

Explain the relativism

 

[JimBowie1958]

Explain the relativism

IF you cant see the moral relativism in a father marrying his adopted son then you are a fucking idiot.

 

[ogibillm]

Explain the relativism

IF you cant see the moral relativism in a father marrying his adopted son then you are a fucking idiot.

I don't think you understand what moral relativism is

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't think you understand what moral relativism is

Yes, I do, shit-for-brains.

Moral relativism asserts that there is no action or motivation that is always wrong or always right, but everything is relative to the situation at hand. Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is almost a universal moral standard among all the great religions and major societies that parents cannot marry their own children, adopted or not. You and the other libtards are saying that this is OK in this case since the adoption was for the purpose of clearing legal hurdles of various kinds. That is moral relativism as it is presuming that this very basic prohibition on parents marrying their children can be set aside in this case.

I also know that you are a lying degenerate, as seen from your posts.

 

[ogibillm]

I don't think you understand what moral relativism is

Yes, I do, shit-for-brains.

Moral relativism asserts that there is no action or motivation that is always wrong or always right, but everything is relative to the situation at hand. Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is almost a universal moral standard among all the great religions and major societies that parents cannot marry their own children, adopted or not. You and the other libtards are saying that this is OK in this case since the adoption was for the purpose of clearing legal hurdles of various kinds. That is moral relativism as it is presuming that this very basic prohibition on parents marrying their children can be set aside in this case.

I also know that you are a lying degenerate, as seen from your posts.

Well there you go. You're ascribing a parent/child relatiobship where one never existed.

I agree with you. It is a moral certainty that parents and their children should not marry.

 

[Pop23]

I don't think you understand what moral relativism is

Yes, I do, shit-for-brains.

Moral relativism asserts that there is no action or motivation that is always wrong or always right, but everything is relative to the situation at hand. Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is almost a universal moral standard among all the great religions and major societies that parents cannot marry their own children, adopted or not. You and the other libtards are saying that this is OK in this case since the adoption was for the purpose of clearing legal hurdles of various kinds. That is moral relativism as it is presuming that this very basic prohibition on parents marrying their children can be set aside in this case.

I also know that you are a lying degenerate, as seen from your posts.

Well there you go. You're ascribing a parent/child relatiobship where one never existed.

I agree with you. It is a moral certainty that parents and their children should not marry.

No he's not. It is an affinity relationship. A legal parent/child relationship.

adoption

"A two-step judicial process in conformance to state statutory provisions in which the legal obligations and rights of a child toward the biological parents are terminated and new rights and obligations are created between the child and the adoptive parents.

Adoption involves the creation of the parent-child relationship between individuals who are not naturally so related. The adopted child is given the rights, privileges, and duties of a child and heir by the adoptive family."

Additionally, the Pennsylvania incest statute appears to make sexual contact between the parent/child a felony.

 

[ogibillm]

I don't think you understand what moral relativism is

Yes, I do, shit-for-brains.

Moral relativism asserts that there is no action or motivation that is always wrong or always right, but everything is relative to the situation at hand. Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is almost a universal moral standard among all the great religions and major societies that parents cannot marry their own children, adopted or not. You and the other libtards are saying that this is OK in this case since the adoption was for the purpose of clearing legal hurdles of various kinds. That is moral relativism as it is presuming that this very basic prohibition on parents marrying their children can be set aside in this case.

I also know that you are a lying degenerate, as seen from your posts.

Well there you go. You're ascribing a parent/child relatiobship where one never existed.

I agree with you. It is a moral certainty that parents and their children should not marry.

No he's not. It is an affinity relationship. A legal parent/child relationship.

adoption

"A two-step judicial process in conformance to state statutory provisions in which the legal obligations and rights of a child toward the biological parents are terminated and new rights and obligations are created between the child and the adoptive parents.

Adoption involves the creation of the parent-child relationship between individuals who are not naturally so related. The adopted child is given the rights, privileges, and duties of a child and heir by the adoptive family."

Additionally, the Pennsylvania incest statute appears to make sexual contact between the parent/child a felony.

Yes, they were legally parent and child, but no parent/child dynamic existed.

Let me put this a different way - i believe that if a man has a long term romantic relationship with a woman that has a child from a previous relationship it would be morally wrong for the man to later have a romantic relationship with the now adult child.

The two would never have been legally parent and child but that dynamic would have existed

 

[Pop23]

I don't think you understand what moral relativism is

Yes, I do, shit-for-brains.

Moral relativism asserts that there is no action or motivation that is always wrong or always right, but everything is relative to the situation at hand. Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is almost a universal moral standard among all the great religions and major societies that parents cannot marry their own children, adopted or not. You and the other libtards are saying that this is OK in this case since the adoption was for the purpose of clearing legal hurdles of various kinds. That is moral relativism as it is presuming that this very basic prohibition on parents marrying their children can be set aside in this case.

I also know that you are a lying degenerate, as seen from your posts.

Well there you go. You're ascribing a parent/child relatiobship where one never existed.

I agree with you. It is a moral certainty that parents and their children should not marry.

No he's not. It is an affinity relationship. A legal parent/child relationship.

adoption

"A two-step judicial process in conformance to state statutory provisions in which the legal obligations and rights of a child toward the biological parents are terminated and new rights and obligations are created between the child and the adoptive parents.

Adoption involves the creation of the parent-child relationship between individuals who are not naturally so related. The adopted child is given the rights, privileges, and duties of a child and heir by the adoptive family."

Additionally, the Pennsylvania incest statute appears to make sexual contact between the parent/child a felony.

Yes, they were legally parent and child, but no parent/child dynamic existed.

Let me put this a different way - i believe that if a man has a long term romantic relationship with a woman that has a child from a previous relationship it would be morally wrong for the man to later have a romantic relationship with the now adult child.

The two would never have been legally parent and child but that dynamic would have existed

Then the law should read that way. It does not.

 

[ogibillm]

I don't think you understand what moral relativism is

Yes, I do, shit-for-brains.

Moral relativism asserts that there is no action or motivation that is always wrong or always right, but everything is relative to the situation at hand. Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is almost a universal moral standard among all the great religions and major societies that parents cannot marry their own children, adopted or not. You and the other libtards are saying that this is OK in this case since the adoption was for the purpose of clearing legal hurdles of various kinds. That is moral relativism as it is presuming that this very basic prohibition on parents marrying their children can be set aside in this case.

I also know that you are a lying degenerate, as seen from your posts.

Well there you go. You're ascribing a parent/child relatiobship where one never existed.

I agree with you. It is a moral certainty that parents and their children should not marry.

No he's not. It is an affinity relationship. A legal parent/child relationship.

adoption

"A two-step judicial process in conformance to state statutory provisions in which the legal obligations and rights of a child toward the biological parents are terminated and new rights and obligations are created between the child and the adoptive parents.

Adoption involves the creation of the parent-child relationship between individuals who are not naturally so related. The adopted child is given the rights, privileges, and duties of a child and heir by the adoptive family."

Additionally, the Pennsylvania incest statute appears to make sexual contact between the parent/child a felony.

Yes, they were legally parent and child, but no parent/child dynamic existed.

Let me put this a different way - i believe that if a man has a long term romantic relationship with a woman that has a child from a previous relationship it would be morally wrong for the man to later have a romantic relationship with the now adult child.

The two would never have been legally parent and child but that dynamic would have existed

Then the law should read that way. It does not.

That's another problem. You're confusing the law with a moral code

 

[Pop23]

Yes, I do, shit-for-brains.

Moral relativism asserts that there is no action or motivation that is always wrong or always right, but everything is relative to the situation at hand. Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is almost a universal moral standard among all the great religions and major societies that parents cannot marry their own children, adopted or not. You and the other libtards are saying that this is OK in this case since the adoption was for the purpose of clearing legal hurdles of various kinds. That is moral relativism as it is presuming that this very basic prohibition on parents marrying their children can be set aside in this case.

I also know that you are a lying degenerate, as seen from your posts.

Well there you go. You're ascribing a parent/child relatiobship where one never existed.

I agree with you. It is a moral certainty that parents and their children should not marry.

No he's not. It is an affinity relationship. A legal parent/child relationship.

adoption

"A two-step judicial process in conformance to state statutory provisions in which the legal obligations and rights of a child toward the biological parents are terminated and new rights and obligations are created between the child and the adoptive parents.

Adoption involves the creation of the parent-child relationship between individuals who are not naturally so related. The adopted child is given the rights, privileges, and duties of a child and heir by the adoptive family."

Additionally, the Pennsylvania incest statute appears to make sexual contact between the parent/child a felony.

Yes, they were legally parent and child, but no parent/child dynamic existed.

Let me put this a different way - i believe that if a man has a long term romantic relationship with a woman that has a child from a previous relationship it would be morally wrong for the man to later have a romantic relationship with the now adult child.

The two would never have been legally parent and child but that dynamic would have existed

Then the law should read that way. It does not.

That's another problem. You're confusing the law with a moral code

No, it's your problem. If this were a heterosexual couple the argument would be the opposite.

 

[ogibillm]

Well there you go. You're ascribing a parent/child relatiobship where one never existed.

I agree with you. It is a moral certainty that parents and their children should not marry.

No he's not. It is an affinity relationship. A legal parent/child relationship.

adoption

"A two-step judicial process in conformance to state statutory provisions in which the legal obligations and rights of a child toward the biological parents are terminated and new rights and obligations are created between the child and the adoptive parents.

Adoption involves the creation of the parent-child relationship between individuals who are not naturally so related. The adopted child is given the rights, privileges, and duties of a child and heir by the adoptive family."

Additionally, the Pennsylvania incest statute appears to make sexual contact between the parent/child a felony.

Yes, they were legally parent and child, but no parent/child dynamic existed.

Let me put this a different way - i believe that if a man has a long term romantic relationship with a woman that has a child from a previous relationship it would be morally wrong for the man to later have a romantic relationship with the now adult child.

The two would never have been legally parent and child but that dynamic would have existed

Then the law should read that way. It does not.

That's another problem. You're confusing the law with a moral code

No, it's your problem. If this were a heterosexual couple the argument would be the opposite.

A heterosexual couple would not be in this situation.

But again, i do not let the law decide morality.

 

[Pop23]

No he's not. It is an affinity relationship. A legal parent/child relationship.

adoption

"A two-step judicial process in conformance to state statutory provisions in which the legal obligations and rights of a child toward the biological parents are terminated and new rights and obligations are created between the child and the adoptive parents.

Adoption involves the creation of the parent-child relationship between individuals who are not naturally so related. The adopted child is given the rights, privileges, and duties of a child and heir by the adoptive family."

Additionally, the Pennsylvania incest statute appears to make sexual contact between the parent/child a felony.

Yes, they were legally parent and child, but no parent/child dynamic existed.

Let me put this a different way - i believe that if a man has a long term romantic relationship with a woman that has a child from a previous relationship it would be morally wrong for the man to later have a romantic relationship with the now adult child.

The two would never have been legally parent and child but that dynamic would have existed

Then the law should read that way. It does not.

That's another problem. You're confusing the law with a moral code

No, it's your problem. If this were a heterosexual couple the argument would be the opposite.

A heterosexual couple would not be in this situation.

But again, i do not let the law decide morality.

Sure they could be. A couple, wishing to live in a polygamist relationship could add any number of partners through adoption.

This couple agreed to the terms of adoption. So they did so fraudulently. Morally unacceptable.

 

[ogibillm]

Yes, they were legally parent and child, but no parent/child dynamic existed.

Let me put this a different way - i believe that if a man has a long term romantic relationship with a woman that has a child from a previous relationship it would be morally wrong for the man to later have a romantic relationship with the now adult child.

The two would never have been legally parent and child but that dynamic would have existed

Then the law should read that way. It does not.

That's another problem. You're confusing the law with a moral code

No, it's your problem. If this were a heterosexual couple the argument would be the opposite.

A heterosexual couple would not be in this situation.

But again, i do not let the law decide morality.

Sure they could be. A couple, wishing to live in a polygamist relationship could add any number of partners through adoption.

This couple agreed to the terms of adoption. So they did so fraudulently. Morally unacceptable.

Oh i don't necessarily disagree that the adoption was wrong.

I just dont find the desire to correct that with a marriage to be wrong

 

[Pop23]

Then the law should read that way. It does not.

That's another problem. You're confusing the law with a moral code

No, it's your problem. If this were a heterosexual couple the argument would be the opposite.

A heterosexual couple would not be in this situation.

But again, i do not let the law decide morality.

Sure they could be. A couple, wishing to live in a polygamist relationship could add any number of partners through adoption.

This couple agreed to the terms of adoption. So they did so fraudulently. Morally unacceptable.

Oh i don't necessarily disagree that the adoption was wrong.

I just dont find the desire to correct that with a marriage to be wrong

Once they admit to the crime I would think that the State would have little choice but to void the adoption and allow the Marriage.

 

[ogibillm]

That's another problem. You're confusing the law with a moral code

No, it's your problem. If this were a heterosexual couple the argument would be the opposite.

A heterosexual couple would not be in this situation.

But again, i do not let the law decide morality.

Sure they could be. A couple, wishing to live in a polygamist relationship could add any number of partners through adoption.

This couple agreed to the terms of adoption. So they did so fraudulently. Morally unacceptable.

Oh i don't necessarily disagree that the adoption was wrong.

I just dont find the desire to correct that with a marriage to be wrong

Once they admit to the crime I would think that the State would have little choice but to void the adoption and allow the Marriage.

I would think there would be an emancipation process.

 

[Pop23]

No, it's your problem. If this were a heterosexual couple the argument would be the opposite.

A heterosexual couple would not be in this situation.

But again, i do not let the law decide morality.

Sure they could be. A couple, wishing to live in a polygamist relationship could add any number of partners through adoption.

This couple agreed to the terms of adoption. So they did so fraudulently. Morally unacceptable.

Oh i don't necessarily disagree that the adoption was wrong.

I just dont find the desire to correct that with a marriage to be wrong

Once they admit to the crime I would think that the State would have little choice but to void the adoption and allow the Marriage.

I would think there would be an emancipation process.

Sure, but that does not relieve the parent from the incest prohibition.

The law on “consensual” incest - Salon.com

This link goes to two such consensual incest cases, both of which ended in convictions.

 

[ogibillm]

A heterosexual couple would not be in this situation.

But again, i do not let the law decide morality.

Sure they could be. A couple, wishing to live in a polygamist relationship could add any number of partners through adoption.

This couple agreed to the terms of adoption. So they did so fraudulently. Morally unacceptable.

Oh i don't necessarily disagree that the adoption was wrong.

I just dont find the desire to correct that with a marriage to be wrong

Once they admit to the crime I would think that the State would have little choice but to void the adoption and allow the Marriage.

I would think there would be an emancipation process.

Sure, but that does not relieve the parent from the incest prohibition.

The law on “consensual” incest - Salon.com

This link goes to two such consensual incest cases, both of which ended in convictions.

Ok. They are in legal hot water (possibly)

Doesn’t have an impact on the morality of their actions