Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ok. They are in legal hot water (possibly)I would think there would be an emancipation process.Oh i don't necessarily disagree that the adoption was wrong.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.
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.
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.
Doesn’t have an impact on the morality of their actions
Im sorry, i thought we were discussing the morality of a "father" and "son" marrying - something i was accused of being a relativist about.Ok. They are in legal hot water (possibly)I would think there would be an emancipation process.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.
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.
Doesn’t have an impact on the morality of their actions
I will disagree. If you take a noble and honorable institution, such as adoption, and game it for you're own financial gain (especially when there were other methods legally available to take care of most of you're concerns) that is morally unacceptable.
You were correctly accused of that and being a moral degenerate and a scumbag...well I added the last there just for clarity.Im sorry, i thought we were discussing the morality of a "father" and "son" marrying - something i was accused of being a relativist about.
Two things - morality often isn't black and white.You were correctly accused of that and being a moral degenerate and a scumbag...well I added the last there just for clarity.Im sorry, i thought we were discussing the morality of a "father" and "son" marrying - something i was accused of being a relativist about.
Good answer!Two things - morality often isn't black and white.You were correctly accused of that and being a moral degenerate and a scumbag...well I added the last there just for clarity.Im sorry, i thought we were discussing the morality of a "father" and "son" marrying - something i was accused of being a relativist about.
Second, i have stated that i find it always morally reprehensible for a parent to marry a child where such a dynamic exists. However, i do not agree that such a dynamic existed in the case of a 78 year old adopting for legal reasons a 68 year old that he had had a 40 year romantic relationship with
I do not let the law define morality
Two things - morality often isn't black and white.You were correctly accused of that and being a moral degenerate and a scumbag...well I added the last there just for clarity.Im sorry, i thought we were discussing the morality of a "father" and "son" marrying - something i was accused of being a relativist about.
Second, i have stated that i find it always morally reprehensible for a parent to marry a child where such a dynamic exists. However, i do not agree that such a dynamic existed in the case of a 78 year old adopting for legal reasons a 68 year old that he had had a 40 year romantic relationship with
I do not let the law define morality
What existed? A legal relationship, that is all. In no way shape or form, other than in the eyes of the government, was one man ever father or son to the otherTwo things - morality often isn't black and white.You were correctly accused of that and being a moral degenerate and a scumbag...well I added the last there just for clarity.Im sorry, i thought we were discussing the morality of a "father" and "son" marrying - something i was accused of being a relativist about.
Second, i have stated that i find it always morally reprehensible for a parent to marry a child where such a dynamic exists. However, i do not agree that such a dynamic existed in the case of a 78 year old adopting for legal reasons a 68 year old that he had had a 40 year romantic relationship with
I do not let the law define morality
It existed the moment they signed the document.
Just as it exists for millions of others. The difference? This was a gay couple.
Then why use those terms if it's strictly a business arrangement?What existed? A legal relationship, that is all. In no way shape or form, other than in the eyes of the government, was one man ever father or son to the otherTwo things - morality often isn't black and white.You were correctly accused of that and being a moral degenerate and a scumbag...well I added the last there just for clarity.Im sorry, i thought we were discussing the morality of a "father" and "son" marrying - something i was accused of being a relativist about.
Second, i have stated that i find it always morally reprehensible for a parent to marry a child where such a dynamic exists. However, i do not agree that such a dynamic existed in the case of a 78 year old adopting for legal reasons a 68 year old that he had had a 40 year romantic relationship with
I do not let the law define morality
It existed the moment they signed the document.
Just as it exists for millions of others. The difference? This was a gay couple.
Then why use those terms if it's strictly a business arrangement?What existed? A legal relationship, that is all. In no way shape or form, other than in the eyes of the government, was one man ever father or son to the otherTwo things - morality often isn't black and white.You were correctly accused of that and being a moral degenerate and a scumbag...well I added the last there just for clarity.Im sorry, i thought we were discussing the morality of a "father" and "son" marrying - something i was accused of being a relativist about.
Second, i have stated that i find it always morally reprehensible for a parent to marry a child where such a dynamic exists. However, i do not agree that such a dynamic existed in the case of a 78 year old adopting for legal reasons a 68 year old that he had had a 40 year romantic relationship with
I do not let the law define morality
It existed the moment they signed the document.
Just as it exists for millions of others. The difference? This was a gay couple.
What existed? A legal relationship, that is all. In no way shape or form, other than in the eyes of the government, was one man ever father or son to the otherTwo things - morality often isn't black and white.You were correctly accused of that and being a moral degenerate and a scumbag...well I added the last there just for clarity.Im sorry, i thought we were discussing the morality of a "father" and "son" marrying - something i was accused of being a relativist about.
Second, i have stated that i find it always morally reprehensible for a parent to marry a child where such a dynamic exists. However, i do not agree that such a dynamic existed in the case of a 78 year old adopting for legal reasons a 68 year old that he had had a 40 year romantic relationship with
I do not let the law define morality
It existed the moment they signed the document.
Just as it exists for millions of others. The difference? This was a gay couple.
You're kidding me. Do you think they ever had the same sort of relationship that you had with your father, or presumably your kids had with you? Was one ever responsible for the care and upbringing of the other?What existed? A legal relationship, that is all. In no way shape or form, other than in the eyes of the government, was one man ever father or son to the otherTwo things - morality often isn't black and white.You were correctly accused of that and being a moral degenerate and a scumbag...well I added the last there just for clarity.Im sorry, i thought we were discussing the morality of a "father" and "son" marrying - something i was accused of being a relativist about.
Second, i have stated that i find it always morally reprehensible for a parent to marry a child where such a dynamic exists. However, i do not agree that such a dynamic existed in the case of a 78 year old adopting for legal reasons a 68 year old that he had had a 40 year romantic relationship with
I do not let the law define morality
It existed the moment they signed the document.
Just as it exists for millions of others. The difference? This was a gay couple.
No, when they signed the documents THEY AGREED TO THAT RELATIONSHIP.
You're kidding me. Do you think they ever had the same sort of relationship that you had with your father, or presumably your kids had with you? Was one ever responsible for the care and upbringing of the other?What existed? A legal relationship, that is all. In no way shape or form, other than in the eyes of the government, was one man ever father or son to the otherTwo things - morality often isn't black and white.You were correctly accused of that and being a moral degenerate and a scumbag...well I added the last there just for clarity.
Second, i have stated that i find it always morally reprehensible for a parent to marry a child where such a dynamic exists. However, i do not agree that such a dynamic existed in the case of a 78 year old adopting for legal reasons a 68 year old that he had had a 40 year romantic relationship with
I do not let the law define morality
It existed the moment they signed the document.
Just as it exists for millions of others. The difference? This was a gay couple.
No, when they signed the documents THEY AGREED TO THAT RELATIONSHIP.
No. They had a legal father and son relationship, because it best suited their wants and needs in lieu of marriage. But one was never "father" to the "son"
Are you really having a tough time with this or are you being wilfully obtuse?You're kidding me. Do you think they ever had the same sort of relationship that you had with your father, or presumably your kids had with you? Was one ever responsible for the care and upbringing of the other?What existed? A legal relationship, that is all. In no way shape or form, other than in the eyes of the government, was one man ever father or son to the otherTwo things - morality often isn't black and white.
Second, i have stated that i find it always morally reprehensible for a parent to marry a child where such a dynamic exists. However, i do not agree that such a dynamic existed in the case of a 78 year old adopting for legal reasons a 68 year old that he had had a 40 year romantic relationship with
I do not let the law define morality
It existed the moment they signed the document.
Just as it exists for millions of others. The difference? This was a gay couple.
No, when they signed the documents THEY AGREED TO THAT RELATIONSHIP.
No. They had a legal father and son relationship, because it best suited their wants and needs in lieu of marriage. But one was never "father" to the "son"
Until THEY established the relationship.
I guess we just let anyone state whatever they wish.
Even when they create documentation.
Are you really having a tough time with this or are you being wilfully obtuse?You're kidding me. Do you think they ever had the same sort of relationship that you had with your father, or presumably your kids had with you? Was one ever responsible for the care and upbringing of the other?What existed? A legal relationship, that is all. In no way shape or form, other than in the eyes of the government, was one man ever father or son to the otherIt existed the moment they signed the document.
Just as it exists for millions of others. The difference? This was a gay couple.
No, when they signed the documents THEY AGREED TO THAT RELATIONSHIP.
No. They had a legal father and son relationship, because it best suited their wants and needs in lieu of marriage. But one was never "father" to the "son"
Until THEY established the relationship.
I guess we just let anyone state whatever they wish.
Even when they create documentation.
They created a legal relationship after 40 years of a romantic relationship. I do not believe that a legal document ever changed the dynamic between the two.
For example, if a woman meets and becomes romantically involved with a man who has a young son, who she helps raise to adulthood, living in the home but never marrying the man, i would find it morally wrong for her to begin a romantic relationship with the son. She is legally nothing to him but there is still a parent/child dynamic.
In this case there was never a parent/child dynamic, just a legal relationship which does not matter to me morally
I don't necessarily disagree. I don't know what benefits they gained through adoption they could not otherwise have had, but assuming all things were equal using adoption to "game" the system is wrong.Are you really having a tough time with this or are you being wilfully obtuse?You're kidding me. Do you think they ever had the same sort of relationship that you had with your father, or presumably your kids had with you? Was one ever responsible for the care and upbringing of the other?What existed? A legal relationship, that is all. In no way shape or form, other than in the eyes of the government, was one man ever father or son to the other
No, when they signed the documents THEY AGREED TO THAT RELATIONSHIP.
No. They had a legal father and son relationship, because it best suited their wants and needs in lieu of marriage. But one was never "father" to the "son"
Until THEY established the relationship.
I guess we just let anyone state whatever they wish.
Even when they create documentation.
They created a legal relationship after 40 years of a romantic relationship. I do not believe that a legal document ever changed the dynamic between the two.
For example, if a woman meets and becomes romantically involved with a man who has a young son, who she helps raise to adulthood, living in the home but never marrying the man, i would find it morally wrong for her to begin a romantic relationship with the son. She is legally nothing to him but there is still a parent/child dynamic.
In this case there was never a parent/child dynamic, just a legal relationship which does not matter to me morally
Except the very relationship THEY CHOSE to accept is one that MUST remain morally pure.
If they had no other way, then perhaps, but that was not the case.
They chose to accept all the benefits and none of the responsibilities.
That is morally unacceptable
The law enforces morality. That's why when an adult has sex with your underage child you can go after them and put them in jail. The law serves to reinforce society's deeply held standard of right and wrong.Then why use those terms if it's strictly a business arrangement?What existed? A legal relationship, that is all. In no way shape or form, other than in the eyes of the government, was one man ever father or son to the otherTwo things - morality often isn't black and white.You were correctly accused of that and being a moral degenerate and a scumbag...well I added the last there just for clarity.
Second, i have stated that i find it always morally reprehensible for a parent to marry a child where such a dynamic exists. However, i do not agree that such a dynamic existed in the case of a 78 year old adopting for legal reasons a 68 year old that he had had a 40 year romantic relationship with
I do not let the law define morality
It existed the moment they signed the document.
Just as it exists for millions of others. The difference? This was a gay couple.
Because the law does, obviously.
Does the law establish morality?
The law enforces morality. That's why when an adult has sex with your underage child you can go after them and put them in jail. The law serves to reinforce society's deeply held standard of right and wrong.Then why use those terms if it's strictly a business arrangement?What existed? A legal relationship, that is all. In no way shape or form, other than in the eyes of the government, was one man ever father or son to the otherTwo things - morality often isn't black and white.
Second, i have stated that i find it always morally reprehensible for a parent to marry a child where such a dynamic exists. However, i do not agree that such a dynamic existed in the case of a 78 year old adopting for legal reasons a 68 year old that he had had a 40 year romantic relationship with
I do not let the law define morality
It existed the moment they signed the document.
Just as it exists for millions of others. The difference? This was a gay couple.
Because the law does, obviously.
Does the law establish morality?
The immorality is abusing a system designed to get children and invalids into caring homes.The law enforces morality. That's why when an adult has sex with your underage child you can go after them and put them in jail. The law serves to reinforce society's deeply held standard of right and wrong.Then why use those terms if it's strictly a business arrangement?What existed? A legal relationship, that is all. In no way shape or form, other than in the eyes of the government, was one man ever father or son to the otherIt existed the moment they signed the document.
Just as it exists for millions of others. The difference? This was a gay couple.
Because the law does, obviously.
Does the law establish morality?
But no one involved was underaged. Instead, they were senior citizens.
So where is the 'immorality'?
The immorality is abusing a system designed to get children and invalids into caring homes.The law enforces morality. That's why when an adult has sex with your underage child you can go after them and put them in jail. The law serves to reinforce society's deeply held standard of right and wrong.Then why use those terms if it's strictly a business arrangement?What existed? A legal relationship, that is all. In no way shape or form, other than in the eyes of the government, was one man ever father or son to the other
Because the law does, obviously.
Does the law establish morality?
But no one involved was underaged. Instead, they were senior citizens.
So where is the 'immorality'?
Oh that's so sadThe law enforces morality.Then why use those terms if it's strictly a business arrangement?What existed? A legal relationship, that is all. In no way shape or form, other than in the eyes of the government, was one man ever father or son to the otherTwo things - morality often isn't black and white.
Second, i have stated that i find it always morally reprehensible for a parent to marry a child where such a dynamic exists. However, i do not agree that such a dynamic existed in the case of a 78 year old adopting for legal reasons a 68 year old that he had had a 40 year romantic relationship with
I do not let the law define morality
It existed the moment they signed the document.
Just as it exists for millions of others. The difference? This was a gay couple.
Because the law does, obviously.
Does the law establish morality?
