Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

[Skylar]

Marriage was never a contract between adults for the benefit of children. Children were never more than the result of men and women coupling.

Originally the marriage contract was the physical manifestation of peace agreements and trade treaties. Then marriage was a way to amass fortunes. Far from being a beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, girls were items of barter. With the consolidation of money and power came the protection of that money and power by primogenenture. The eldest son inherits everything. Far from being the beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, subsequent sons were worthless. Most of the time a caring mother might protect a juvenile. Once an adult second sons were normally cast out.

That's historically. Today, children are not only not part of a marriage contract, but contracts like pre nups and the like don't mention children at all. Children are raised by single parents that have never been married, divorced parents, same sex family members and same sex couples.

In Europe, somewhat ahead of the curve, most children don't live in families at all. They are raised by a single mother with transitory father figures which may be male or female. Marriage is just not that popular.

Its safe to say that marriage has many roles, many bases, many definitions over time. Making any argument that marriage comes in only one flavor and that flavor is absolute an act of desperate, willful ignorance.

 

[rightwinger]

Can you imagine if Silhouette was your mother?

 

[mdk]

Can you imagine if Silhouette was your mother?

Blaming every burnt dinner and crop failure on homos. lol

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage was never a contract between adults for the benefit of children. Children were never more than the result of men and women coupling. ....Originally the marriage contract was the physical manifestation of peace agreements and trade treaties. Then marriage was a way to amass fortunes. Far from being a beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, girls were items of barter. With the consolidation of money and power came the protection of that money and power by primogenenture. The eldest son inherits everything. Far from being the beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, subsequent sons were worthless. Most of the time a caring mother might protect a juvenile. Once an adult second sons were normally cast out.....That's historically. Today, children are not only not part of a marriage contract, but contracts like pre nups and the like don't mention children at all. Children are raised by single parents that have never been married, divorced parents, same sex family members and same sex couples....In Europe, somewhat ahead of the curve, most children don't live in families at all. They are raised by a single mother with transitory father figures which may be male or female. Marriage is just not that popular.

Hey so your points are that marriage in the past was a dysfunctional allegiance/contract including adults and kids...but not that it did not include kids...because you talk quite a lot about how the word "marriage" allowed adults to do certain things with or to kids. If married people tried to give away someone else's daughter in marriage, there'd have been a problem for sure. So the "marriage contract" was intrinsic to what adults could and could not do with children even back in the dark ages. However, BEFORE THAT when Og and Thula built their fire and fried their goat meat over it for sustenance, their society bonded them together for the sake of not wanting orphaned kids or a single mother where then that was a death sentence to any children she would bear or an undue burden upon the clan. So, marriage WAS invented to cure the ills of children not having a mother & father...LATER..marriage included some shady shit where kids were treated badly.

TODAY (if you will examine the poll above at top of this page) society deems marriage to be a contract that is "important" to children in that it bonds together a mother and father so that they can grow up in regular contact with these two people. So TODAY'S definition of the contract is the binding one. My points about Og and Thula are here for the oldest historical perspective on how society knows that children who are deprived of either a mother or father come to peril.

You can make your argument that an even newer interpretation of the original intent (mother and father for children) that gays would result in just as well-rounded of citizens as straights for parents of children who IN FACT share the marriage contract IMPLICITLY with adults. But you cannot make an argument that marriage and its terms do not impact children....because you just made that argument in your statement above!

But there is an obstacle in the way of any argument that "gays are just as good for kids as straights when it comes to married parents". And here it is: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY ...Added to the poll results at the top of the page where 80-90% of Americans believe a child having both a mother and father is "important" to that child....

 

[Skylar]

Marriage was never a contract between adults for the benefit of children. Children were never more than the result of men and women coupling. ....Originally the marriage contract was the physical manifestation of peace agreements and trade treaties. Then marriage was a way to amass fortunes. Far from being a beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, girls were items of barter. With the consolidation of money and power came the protection of that money and power by primogenenture. The eldest son inherits everything. Far from being the beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, subsequent sons were worthless. Most of the time a caring mother might protect a juvenile. Once an adult second sons were normally cast out.....That's historically. Today, children are not only not part of a marriage contract, but contracts like pre nups and the like don't mention children at all. Children are raised by single parents that have never been married, divorced parents, same sex family members and same sex couples....In Europe, somewhat ahead of the curve, most children don't live in families at all. They are raised by a single mother with transitory father figures which may be male or female. Marriage is just not that popular.

Hey so your points are that marriage in the past was a dysfunctional allegiance/contract including adults and kids...but not that it did not include kids...because you talk quite a lot about how the word "marriage" allowed adults to do certain things with or to kids. If married people tried to give away someone else's daughter in marriage, there'd have been a problem for sure. So the "marriage contract" was intrinsic to what adults could and could not do with children even back in the dark ages. However, BEFORE THAT when Og and Thula built their fire and fried their goat meat over it for sustenance, their society bonded them together for the sake of not wanting orphaned kids or a single mother where then that was a death sentence to any children she would bear or an undue burden upon the clan. So, marriage WAS invented to cure the ills of children not having a mother & father...LATER..marriage included some shady shit where kids were treated badly.

There's nothing 'intrinsic' about marriage. Marriage is our invention. Its basis, its meaning, its application.....is whatever we say it is. Or whatever another culture says it is in their own jurisdiction.

As the changing definitions of marriage over time and geography demonstrate.

In our culture and our law.....the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Simply destroying your argument.

 

[Katzndogz]

There's no historical perspective saying that a mother and father are important to a child's well being. Possibly because it was such a self evident truth it didn't need to be said.

Today, we find ourselves in the outrageous position that raising dysfunctional unhappy children into dysfunctional unhappy adults is preferable to normal well adjusted adults.

Whether you like it or not, this is the pathological society. Medicate everyone, everyone into therapy and there's no such thing as normal.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and this should probably be given the 2 minutes necessary to shred:

CHILDREN IMPLICITLY SHARE IN THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT, BUT WERE WITHOUT REPRESENTATION AT OBERGEFELL 2015.

No court nor law recognizes that a marriage of parents creates a minor contract. You made that up.

No supreme court hearing has ever had a 'representative' for 'all children' in the history of the Supreme Court. You made that up.

"...some contracts cannot be voided....perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed.

These are all explicit contracts, like say.....a minor trying to obtain a mortgage. Or child actors. No court nor law recognizes a marriage of parents as creating any minor contract. Destroying your entire argument.

<< A NECESSITY PER CONTRACT: FATHER AND MOTHER TO BOYS AND GIRLS Contracts of Minors ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit Prince's Trust 2010 Survey: http://www.youreffortmatters.com/princes-trust-2010-youth-index-survey.html

No court nor law has found that a father and mother to boys and girls is a 'necessity per contract'. You made that up.

The Prince's Trust Study never so much as mentions mothers or fathers. Nor gays, gay marriage, or same sex parenting. You made that up too.

And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

 

[Syriusly]

The gender of a child's parents isn't determined by marriage. Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents magically change them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents. Which hurts their children while helping none.

Of course, you are deliberately missing the important point, here. You're defending a situation in which children are intentionally put into a broken mockery of a “family”, that is missing one parent, and in which a duplicate of the other parent is offered in stead—a child who has no mother and two “fathers”, or a child with no father and two “mothers”.

This is an unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral situation in which to put these children; and piling on top of it the fraud of declaring these two same-sex “parents” to be “married” to each other does nothing to mitigate it. Just more lies and madness on top of a situation that is already based on lies and madness.

If you really care about the welfare of these children, then you ought to be totally opposed to putting them in this situation to begin with; rather than merely offering them a hollow fraud that tries to put an unconvincing veneer of normality on what is unalterably and undisguisably an abnormal and unnatural arrangement.

I think it is clear enough that your motive has nothing at all to do with the welfare of the children that are involved, but rather with the interests of the sick perverts who would use these children as cover for their own selfish and perverted agenda.

Even assuming that any of what you posted was actually true- preventing gay parents from marrying doesn't help any of those children.

Mary and Jane- unmarried- have 3 kids- kids have none of the legal protections of marriage.
Mary and Jane- marry- have the same 3 kids- now the kids have the legal protections of marriage.

Gay marriage only helps children- it harms no children.

Now- if your thesis is that being raised by gay parents is bad for kids- which it is- then tell us how you plan on preventing that?

Mandatory sterilization of gays?

 

[Syriusly]

No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.

A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.

And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?

And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.

I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.

But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children. THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind

We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.

After decades of watching families- I think a child is really lucky if they have one really good parent- they hit the jackpot if they have two really good parents.

 

[Syriusly]

Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.

What "dishonest misrepresentation"? .....

89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.

You answered your own question.

All you do is misrepresent facts- except for when you are outright lying.

 

[Silhouette]

Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.

What "dishonest misrepresentation"? .....

89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.

You answered your own question.All you do is misrepresent facts- except for when you are outright lying.

Oh, look~ You guys buried my points on a "lost page" with ad hominems and strawmen AGAIN. Where were we...? Oh, yes...

Marriage was never a contract between adults for the benefit of children. Children were never more than the result of men and women coupling. ....Originally the marriage contract was the physical manifestation of peace agreements and trade treaties. Then marriage was a way to amass fortunes. Far from being a beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, girls were items of barter. With the consolidation of money and power came the protection of that money and power by primogenenture. The eldest son inherits everything. Far from being the beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, subsequent sons were worthless. Most of the time a caring mother might protect a juvenile. Once an adult second sons were normally cast out.....That's historically. Today, children are not only not part of a marriage contract, but contracts like pre nups and the like don't mention children at all. Children are raised by single parents that have never been married, divorced parents, same sex family members and same sex couples....In Europe, somewhat ahead of the curve, most children don't live in families at all. They are raised by a single mother with transitory father figures which may be male or female. Marriage is just not that popular.

Hey so your points are that marriage in the past was a dysfunctional allegiance/contract including adults and kids...but not that it did not include kids...because you talk quite a lot about how the word "marriage" allowed adults to do certain things with or to kids. If married people tried to give away someone else's daughter in marriage, there'd have been a problem for sure. So the "marriage contract" was intrinsic to what adults could and could not do with children even back in the dark ages. However, BEFORE THAT when Og and Thula built their fire and fried their goat meat over it for sustenance, their society bonded them together for the sake of not wanting orphaned kids or a single mother where then that was a death sentence to any children she would bear or an undue burden upon the clan. So, marriage WAS invented to cure the ills of children not having a mother & father...LATER..marriage included some shady shit where kids were treated badly.

TODAY (if you will examine the poll above at top of this page) society deems marriage to be a contract that is "important" to children in that it bonds together a mother and father so that they can grow up in regular contact with these two people. So TODAY'S definition of the contract is the binding one. My points about Og and Thula are here for the oldest historical perspective on how society knows that children who are deprived of either a mother or father come to peril.

You can make your argument that an even newer interpretation of the original intent (mother and father for children) that gays would result in just as well-rounded of citizens as straights for parents of children who IN FACT share the marriage contract IMPLICITLY with adults. But you cannot make an argument that marriage and its terms do not impact children....because you just made that argument in your statement above!

But there is an obstacle in the way of any argument that "gays are just as good for kids as straights when it comes to married parents". And here it is: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY ...Added to the poll results at the top of the page where 80-90% of Americans believe a child having both a mother and father is "important" to that child....

*****

Make you a deal? Since the mods never step in to stop you, I'll stop reposting my points if you stop purposefully acting in conspiracy to bury pages, OK?

 

[Syriusly]

Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life. There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition.

Nevertheless, the closest we come to the tortured obligation of a third party is the third party beneficiary contract. That it's not applicable, or even useful, only illustrates that there is nothing in our laws that remotely applies.

I personally feel that imposing same sex parents on a child is a form of child abuse. There is no legal argument against same sex parenting. Raising children into twisted, dysfunctional adults is not against the law.

Oh but there absolutely is a legal argument. Marriage is a contract between two adults because of children. !

That argument failed in both Obergefell and Loving v. Virginia.

Both of them.

Virginia argued that mixed race marriages harmed children- the Supreme Court rejected that argument.
The States argued that gay marriages harmed children- the Supreme Court rejected that argument.

That is a 'legal argument' that has already failed.

Twice.

 

[Syriusly]

Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.

What "dishonest misrepresentation"? .....

89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.

You answered your own question.All you do is misrepresent facts- except for when you are outright lying.

Oh, look~ You guys buried my points on a "lost page" with ad hominems and strawmen AGAIN. .

You have no points- you misrepresent the facts except for when you are outright lying.

 

[Skylar]

Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.

What "dishonest misrepresentation"? .....

89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.

You answered your own question.All you do is misrepresent facts- except for when you are outright lying.

Oh, look~ You guys buried my points on a "lost page" with ad hominems and strawmen AGAIN. Where were we...? Oh, yes...

Oh, look. Sil's gonna start spamming again.

Hey so your points are that marriage in the past was a dysfunctional allegiance/contract including adults and kids...but not that it did not include kids...because you talk quite a lot about how the word "marriage" allowed adults to do certain things with or to kids. If married people tried to give away someone else's daughter in marriage, there'd have been a problem for sure. So the "marriage contract" was intrinsic to what adults could and could not do with children even back in the dark ages. However, BEFORE THAT when Og and Thula built their fire and fried their goat meat over it for sustenance, their society bonded them together for the sake of not wanting orphaned kids or a single mother where then that was a death sentence to any children she would bear or an undue burden upon the clan. So, marriage WAS invented to cure the ills of children not having a mother & father...LATER..marriage included some shady shit where kids were treated badly.

TODAY (if you will examine the poll above at top of this page) society deems marriage to be a contract that is "important" to children in that it bonds together a mother and father so that they can grow up in regular contact with these two people. So TODAY'S definition of the contract is the binding one. My points about Og and Thula are here for the oldest historical perspective on how society knows that children who are deprived of either a mother or father come to peril.

You can make your argument that an even newer interpretation of the original intent (mother and father for children) that gays would result in just as well-rounded of citizens as straights for parents of children who IN FACT share the marriage contract IMPLICITLY with adults. But you cannot make an argument that marriage and its terms do not impact children....because you just made that argument in your statement above!

There's nothing 'intrinsic' about marriage. Marriage is our invention. Its basis, its meaning, its application.....is whatever we say it is. Or whatever another culture says it is in their own jurisdiction.

As the changing definitions of marriage over time and geography demonstrate.

In our culture and our law.....the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Simply destroying your argument.

But there is an obstacle in the way of any argument that "gays are just as good for kids as straights when it comes to married parents". And here it is: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY ...Added to the poll results at the top of the page where 80-90% of Americans believe a child having both a mother and father is "important" to that child....

The Prince's Trust never so much as mentions 'married parents'. Or mothers and fathers. Or gays, gay marriage, or same sex parenting. It doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting.

All of which you know. Yet laughably lie to misrepresent.

And as an aside....why lie? I mean, you know that the study you're citing doesn't say anything you do. We know it doesn't. And you know we know. So who is your lie for?

 

[Debra K]

Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life. There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition.

Nevertheless, the closest we come to the tortured obligation of a third party is the third party beneficiary contract. That it's not applicable, or even useful, only illustrates that there is nothing in our laws that remotely applies.

I personally feel that imposing same sex parents on a child is a form of child abuse. There is no legal argument against same sex parenting. Raising children into twisted, dysfunctional adults is not against the law.

Oh but there absolutely is a legal argument. Marriage is a contract between two adults because of children. You'd have to prove that isn't historically true and contemporarily important.

No, Sil. You are wrong. There is no argument that would legally or morally justify discrimination.

Marriage is a "personal relationship" between two adults. Their civil contract consists of mutual obligations of respect, fidelity, and support. Children are not parties to the marriage contract nor third party beneficiaries of the marriage contract. Skylar has pointed out to you numerous times that the things you imagine are not the law. Although the marriage partners might have children, their contractual marital relationship does not exist "because of children".

If a marriage partner breaches the civil contract, i.e., violates the obligations of respect, fidelity, and support, then the other party to the contract has legal grounds to terminate the contract (dissolve the marital relationship). The aggrieved party may seek a divorce (dissolution of the marriage) based on "fault" such as mental cruelty (lack of respect), infidelity, or non-support. The law has evolved to provide the parties with "no fault" grounds for divorce, e.g., irreconcilable differences. The fact that the law does not force people to stay married "because of children" is strong evidence that your proposition is again a product of your imagination. No one has the burden of disproving the fallacies that swirl around in your head. We recognize that your proposition is borne from your personal animus and does nothing to protect children, but rather harms them as noted by our courts.

As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract. The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract. Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person. However, a child does not have standing to petition a court of law and enforce his married parents' obligations to respect each other, to remain faithful to each other, and to support each other. A child cannot force his parents to remain married. That does not mean that a child does not benefit from his parents' marriage when the married parents honor their contractual obligations to each other; he does. But benefiting from a parents' good marriage is not he same thing as being a "third party beneficiary" of the marriage contract itself. If the marriage contract is dissolved, a court will take into consideration the best interests of the child when determining custody and support issues in an action for divorce. But an incidental beneficiary of a contract does not have standing to enforce a contract.

Many years ago, I read a child custody case where a court denied a mother custody because she was a lesbian who was living with her partner. This deprivation was based on the father's alienation of the children's affection from their mother because she was a lesbian (known as "poisoning the well") and the court's fear that the children would suffer from "the slings and arrows of a disapproving society." Much later, however, the court reversed itself finding those dreaded "slings and arrows" never materialized. Furthermore "poisoning the well" is a factor that weighs against the party who is engaged in the alienation.

Sil, your entire argument has nothing to do with facts or the law nor even the best interests of the children. It has everything to do with your personal disapproval of same-sex marriage partners. You use poison to hurt rather than help children to thrive. You're the one who is harming them with your slings and arrows, and the rest of us say to you: Mind your own business, you mean, mean, mean person. Tend to your own life and your own children.

 

[sealybobo]

No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.

A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.

And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?

And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.

I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.

But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children. THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind

We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.

After decades of watching families- I think a child is really lucky if they have one really good parent- they hit the jackpot if they have two really good parents.

I hit the jackpot.

 

[Syriusly]

No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.

A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.

And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?

And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.

I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.

But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children. THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind

We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.

After decades of watching families- I think a child is really lucky if they have one really good parent- they hit the jackpot if they have two really good parents.

I hit the jackpot.

So did I. And frankly so has my daughter.

 

[Skylar]

As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract. The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract. Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.

I've searched the law looking for anyone, any court, any law that says that children are third party benefices of the 'marriage contract'. I've found absolutely nothing. Not a single state law, state ruling, federal law or federal ruling that has found this.

There are implied obligations between parents and child, namely support. But none I could find regarding marriage and any implied or explicit obligation to children. Nor any recognition of children as third party beneficiaries to marriage.

I've even found courts that found that marriage was a three party contract between two people and the State.
But never two people and their children.

It appears Sil pulled this sideways out of her ass.

 

[Skylar]

No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.

A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.

And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?

And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.

I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.

But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children. THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind

We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.

After decades of watching families- I think a child is really lucky if they have one really good parent- they hit the jackpot if they have two really good parents.

I hit the jackpot.

So did I. And frankly so has my daughter.

Going to Maker's Faire this year? Its random, but every so often I remember you live in the bay.

 

[sealybobo]

As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract. The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract. Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.

I've searched the law looking for anyone, any court, any law that says that children are third party benefices of the 'marriage contract'. I've found absolutely nothing. Not a single state law, state ruling, federal law or federal ruling that has found this.

There are implied obligations between parents and child, namely support. But none I could find regarding marriage and any implied or explicit obligation to children. Nor any recognition of children as third party beneficiaries to marriage.

I've even found courts that found that marriage was a three party contract between two people and the State.
But never two people and their children.

It appears Sil pulled this sideways out of her ass.

Define marriage and you find that:

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

How about when 2 parents die? Who gets their money? Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no? Why not the parents? They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.