Father wishes to marry his adopted son

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How many times will we see this thread?

Until you offer a legitimate reason why Leftards want incest marriage.

It's not incest, dumb ass. Read your own article.

No?

Let's test that, shall we?

Incest: sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.

Now... Father and Son. That's pretty close, in terms of 'relations', isn't it?

 

[Freewill]

Is it his real son? Or adopted?

Adopted, the adoption only took place because they were denied marriage.

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.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Is it his real son? Or adopted?

Adopted, the adoption only took place because they were denied marriage.

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.

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.

 

[Freewill]

Is it his real son? Or adopted?

Adopted, the adoption only took place because they were denied marriage.

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.

Apples & Oranges.

Much like heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage is apples and oranges.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Is it his real son? Or adopted?

Adopted, the adoption only took place because they were denied marriage.

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.

The SCOTUS, does not have the power to MAKE LAW.

Now that is an incontrovertible FACT.

So... the SCOTUS has made NO LAW.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Adopted, the adoption only took place because they were denied marriage.

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.

Apples & Oranges.

Much like heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage is apples and oranges.

There is no such thing as 'homosexual' marriage.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Freewill]

Adopted, the adoption only took place because they were denied marriage.

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.

The SCOTUS, does not have the power to MAKE LAW.

Now that is an incontrovertible FACT.

So... the SCOTUS has made NO LAW.

they certainly did. Both with Obamacare and SSM. What the SCOTUS should have done, if they were not making law, is to declare all the states that didn't allow SSM those laws become invalid and the states would have to change them. But that isn't what they did, they made all laws read something they don't, the SCOTUS made law pure and simple and there is nothing we can do about it. Old men and old women deciding law in the US.

 

[Freewill]

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.

Apples & Oranges.

Much like heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage is apples and oranges.

There is no such thing as 'homosexual' marriage.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

The SCOTUS thought otherwise, that is why they made law.

 

[Pop23]

Is it his real son? Or adopted?

Adopted, the adoption only took place because they were denied marriage.

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.

Check this link. An attorney references it here:

CPA at Law: April 2014

 

[Political Junky]

Adopted, the adoption only took place because they were denied marriage.

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.

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.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

they certainly did.

You're an idiot.

The Federal Judiciary, its duties and power, are specifically enumerated in the US Constitution. The Power to Make Federal Law... is held ENTIRELY by the US Federal Judiciary.

The SCOTUS does not make law.

 

[Gracie]

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.

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.

 

[Freewill]

Adopted, the adoption only took place because they were denied marriage.

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.

 

[Freewill]

they certainly did.

You're an idiot.

The Federal Judiciary, its duties and power, is specifically enumerated in the US Constitution. The Power to Make Federal Law... is held ENTIRELY by the US Federal Judiciary.

The SCOTUS does not make law.

Can we both agree that the SCOTUS is not suppose to make law? Much like Obama isn't suppose to make law through executive orders but does?

I agree that the SCOTUS is not suppose to make law by the COTUS. But they DID in effect make law when they effectively changed the laws of the majority of states. How you can argue otherwise I don't understand.

 

[Pop23]

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.

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

 

[Pop23]

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.

Sex cannot be a requirement. That would mean that:

1. The state could dictate what kind of sex is the required type.

2. A partner could not deny their partner and that would be state sponsored rape to keep a valid license.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

So, what you're saying is that you have no means to cite the Legal Right.

Thus your former statement claiming such exists, was a deceit, given that the only means for such to have been true, is for you to have known such a principle at the time ya made the statement.

You've now demonstrated that you have no knowledge of such a principle... thus that you're not only foolish. You're a LIAR!

ROFLMNAO!

How positively adorable!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

RWs are just sick.

There's nothing to object to here.

MYOB

 

[guno]

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.

So, what you're saying is that you have no means to cite the Legal Right.

Thus your former statement claiming such exists, was a deceit, given that the only means for such to have been true, is for you to have known such a principle at the time ya made the statement.

You've now demonstrated that you have no knowledge of such a principle... thus that you're not only foolish. You're a LIAR!

ROFLMNAO!

How positively adorable!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Some dumb goy

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

they certainly did.

You're an idiot.

The Federal Judiciary, its duties and power, is specifically enumerated in the US Constitution. The Power to Make Federal Law... is held ENTIRELY by the US Federal Judiciary.

The SCOTUS does not make law.

Can we both agree that the SCOTUS is not suppose to make law? Much like Obama isn't suppose to make law through executive orders but does?

I agree that the SCOTUS is not suppose to make law by the COTUS. But they DID in effect make law when they effectively changed the laws of the majority of states. How you can argue otherwise I don't understand.

We can agree if your position is that the SCOTUS does not have the power to make law.

That conventional wisdom claims otherwise is IRRELEVANT.

obama's executive orders are NOT law. They are orders, advanced by the Executive to the Executive Branch.

They hold no force of law, PERIOD!