Father wishes to marry his adopted son

[Pop23]

RWs are just sick.

There's nothing to object to here.

MYOB

Sure, adopting you're lover is sane....

Got it

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Still makes it creepy and wacko-ism. Or should I say WoodyAllenism?

Yuck.

Apples & Oranges.

it was their legal right and they took it.

It's been 10 minutes...

ROFL! They had a legal right?

What right was that?

And please be specific.

It worked great for friends. A man wanted to give his considerable fortune to his lover, and his legal opportunity was to adopt him. That gave his then son the right to visit him in the hospital and to inherit.

Well...that makes sense.

It bastardized the noble institution of adoption.

That's not a good thing

It is a deceit... OKA: A Lie. There is no legal right to enter into an institution, beyond the scope and purpose of the institution.

The individuals who allowed it, should be punished... to the fullest extent of the law. I would have no problem seeing a new law passed, for the purpose of prosecuting those who failed to defend the integrity of the law, and to punish them retroactive to the laws passing.

The reason for such is that their crime was and remains a crime against humanity itself.

 

[koshergrl]

SO... It's just a sexual deviant, who adopted a child...

No.

Yes indeed.

This is why fags want to adopt children.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Since when is a 65 year old a child?

Explain.

All my children are adults... yet they remain my children. My oldest is in her mid 30s... she remains my child.

My oldest Son is 31... he remains my child.

My youngest is in his mid twenties... he remains our baby.

He was adopted by the man who engaged in sexual acts with him... who now wants to marry him.

It is about as pathetic a situation as is humanly possible.

The individual who adopted him should be charged with whatever crimes are relevant, tried on the evidence and subjected to the most severe penalties prescribed by law.

It's amazing how the Lunatic Left doesn't get perpetual childhood. Isn't that what they're trying to achieve with Pajama Boy?

 

[Pop23]

Apples & Oranges.

it was their legal right and they took it.

It's been 10 minutes...

ROFL! They had a legal right?

What right was that?

And please be specific.

It worked great for friends. A man wanted to give his considerable fortune to his lover, and his legal opportunity was to adopt him. That gave his then son the right to visit him in the hospital and to inherit.

Well...that makes sense.

It bastardized the noble institution of adoption.

That's not a good thing

It is a deceit... OKA: A Lie. There is no legal right to enter into an institution, beyond the scope and purpose of the institution.

The individuals who allowed it, should be punished... to the fullest extent of the law. I would have no problem seeing a new law passed, for the purpose of prosecuting those who failed to defend the integrity of the law, and to punish them retroactive to the laws passing.

The reason for such is that their crime was and remains a crime against humanity itself.

In roughly 25 states, including their own, the mear mention that they had sex could prompt an arrest and prosecution on incest charges.

The good news is that the adoption would be voided, and when they get out of jail, they would be free to marry.

Lol

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Still makes it creepy and wacko-ism. Or should I say WoodyAllenism?

Yuck.

Apples & Oranges.

it was their legal right and they took it.

It's been 10 minutes...

ROFL! They had a legal right?

What right was that?

And please be specific.

It worked great for friends. A man wanted to give his considerable fortune to his lover, and his legal opportunity was to adopt him. That gave his then son the right to visit him in the hospital and to inherit.

Well...that makes sense.

It bastardized the noble institution of adoption.

That's not a good thing

It is Satan's mission to leave no pure thing uncorrupted. The demonic Left are his willing minions.

 

[Votto]

I thought this thread was going to be about Delta.

Who says it isn't?

 

[Votto]

A drop of incest here ... a drop of homosexuality there.... and VOILA! it's all a political correctness progressive heaven !

Nothing to see here. No slippery slopes can be detected.

All is well with the world. Keep voting hope and change.

 

[Pop23]

Apples & Oranges.

it was their legal right and they took it.

It's been 10 minutes...

ROFL! They had a legal right?

What right was that?

And please be specific.

It worked great for friends. A man wanted to give his considerable fortune to his lover, and his legal opportunity was to adopt him. That gave his then son the right to visit him in the hospital and to inherit.

Well...that makes sense.

It bastardized the noble institution of adoption.

That's not a good thing

It is Satan's mission to leave no pure thing uncorrupted. The demonic Left are his willing minions.

I'm not a religious Man, but it seems to me that another poster on this thread claims that this was a fairly common practice by gays........

Unless these couples are investigated and prosecuted, what basis would authorities have to prosecute any that abused adoption for sexual purposes?

This is not good, not good at all

 

[Gracie]

If the guy was adopted as a child previously to them deciding they were in love other than a father/son relationship, then the man adopting the child should have made moves to UNadopt. To the courts and the world, he is the father. So it turns out the adopted son is gay and by coinkydink, falls in love with the father figure?

The whole thing seems...messy. And creepy.

However, with that said, BEFORE it was legal for gays to marry, I can see going to the extreme of adopting ones lover so that partner can have the same rights as family..i.e. hospital visits, direction on what the sick partner would want done if not able to speak for himself; leaving goods and funds to the partner in the event of death; decision making on the couple's property etc.
But now that gay marriage is ok, adoption is not needed. And adopting a CHILD, then deciding once that child comes of age to MARRY that child....is gross. And a helluvalot more to it than just protection of a married couple for health or financial gain.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If the guy was adopted as a child previously to them deciding they were in love other than a father/son relationship, then the man adopting the child should have made moves to UNadopt. To the courts and the world, he is the father. So it turns out the adopted son is gay and by coinkydink, falls in love with the father figure?

The whole thing seems...messy. And creepy.

However, with that said, BEFORE it was legal for gays to marry, I can see going to the extreme of adopting ones lover so that partner can have the same rights as family..i.e. hospital visits, direction on what the sick partner would want done if not able to speak for himself; leaving goods and funds to the partner in the event of death; decision making on the couple's property etc.
But now that gay marriage is ok, adoption is not needed. And adopting a CHILD, then deciding once that child comes of age to MARRY that child....is gross. And a helluvalot more to it than just protection of a married couple for health or financial gain.

The adoption occurred when they were about 70 years old and had been together as a couple for 40 years. The adoption was an attempt to gain some legal protections unavailable since Civil Marriage was denied them at the time.

No children were raised as part of this story.

No child was adopted as part of this story.


>>>>

 

[ChrisL]

This is an old story anyways. I participated in a thread about the same thing like months ago. The two are OLD MEN. One adopted the other so that they could have the ability to make medical decisions, etc., for one another . . . probably because they are getting up in years and maybe they only have one another.

 

[ChrisL]

Although, OTOH, I don't see why they couldn't just make a living will with each other being the POA and beneficiaries of any "estate" if they so wish. Maybe it was also to receive tax benefits.

Really, since children were not involved, I don't see a need to be so upset about it. I do wonder what type of "precedence" something like this sets for future cases though. People should not be able to "adopt" another adult for benefits.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Then it isn't incest. It's wacko-ism.

Depends, I didn't read the article but perhaps this is a ploy to get benefits. Maybe the son is over 26 and needs health care and such. Which is interesting considering that to get health care for most states the couple didn't need to be married, common law.

But in the case of a Father and Son at 26 the Son would be cut off.....why? If marriage is now just a financial situation then it makes sense for the Father and Son to marry to allow for more benefits, supposedly, for the Son.

Still makes it creepy and wacko-ism. Or should I say WoodyAllenism?

Yuck.

There is no requirement that sex is involved if that is what is creeping you out. The SCOTUS made law and that law makes marriage a financial situation, nothing more nothing less.

You are correct, there are actually several states that, because of Supreme Court rulings, appear to allow same sex family members to marry. Odd though, affinity marriage (step, in law and adoptive) are not.

Also correct, no marriage law in the United States requires sex as a requirement to marry.

Used to be, and I bet still is, to get a marriage annulled it had to not be consummated. Used to be consummating a marriage was a big deal, not no more.

Hey Luddy, is this true?

 

[Pop23]

If the guy was adopted as a child previously to them deciding they were in love other than a father/son relationship, then the man adopting the child should have made moves to UNadopt. To the courts and the world, he is the father. So it turns out the adopted son is gay and by coinkydink, falls in love with the father figure?

The whole thing seems...messy. And creepy.

However, with that said, BEFORE it was legal for gays to marry, I can see going to the extreme of adopting ones lover so that partner can have the same rights as family..i.e. hospital visits, direction on what the sick partner would want done if not able to speak for himself; leaving goods and funds to the partner in the event of death; decision making on the couple's property etc.
But now that gay marriage is ok, adoption is not needed. And adopting a CHILD, then deciding once that child comes of age to MARRY that child....is gross. And a helluvalot more to it than just protection of a married couple for health or financial gain.

The adoption occurred when they were about 70 years old and had been together as a couple for 40 years. The adoption was an attempt to gain some legal protections unavailable since Civil Marriage was denied them at the time.

No children were raised as part of this story.

No child was adopted as part of this story.


>>>>

If I'm not mistaken, the age of the individuals are not a factor in many states incest statutes.

The integrity of this institution, and not those that abuse it should be of paramount importance.

 

[Pop23]

Although, OTOH, I don't see why they couldn't just make a living will with each other being the POA and beneficiaries of any "estate" if they so wish. Maybe it was also to receive tax benefits.

Really, since children were not involved, I don't see a need to be so upset about it. I do wonder what type of "precedence" something like this sets for future cases though. People should not be able to "adopt" another adult for benefits.

It makes prosecuting others more difficult.

 

[Gracie]

Well then...it's pretty damn sad that two grown older men could not find a way to protect themselves AND their assets except to use the law in a different way FOR that protection. This no shame on them. This is shame on those who ignore long term love between two individuals that wanted protection from vultures. Period.

 

[ChrisL]

Although, OTOH, I don't see why they couldn't just make a living will with each other being the POA and beneficiaries of any "estate" if they so wish. Maybe it was also to receive tax benefits.

Really, since children were not involved, I don't see a need to be so upset about it. I do wonder what type of "precedence" something like this sets for future cases though. People should not be able to "adopt" another adult for benefits.

It makes prosecuting others more difficult.

How so?

 

[Pop23]

Well then...it's pretty damn sad that two grown older men could not find a way to protect themselves AND their assets except to use the law in a different way FOR that protection. This no shame on them. This is shame on those who ignore long term love between two individuals that wanted protection from vultures. Period.

As pointed out before, there were many other ways to do just that.

When you violate the law for financial benefit, that is a crime.

When you violate the law for financial gain by using an honorable institution, it's a crime against us all.

 

[Pop23]

Although, OTOH, I don't see why they couldn't just make a living will with each other being the POA and beneficiaries of any "estate" if they so wish. Maybe it was also to receive tax benefits.

Really, since children were not involved, I don't see a need to be so upset about it. I do wonder what type of "precedence" something like this sets for future cases though. People should not be able to "adopt" another adult for benefits.

It makes prosecuting others more difficult.

How so?

Incest is a serious crime, refusing to prosecute one set, because they are gay presents a defense to other offenders. Why me, and not them?