Just can't make this stuff up

[NamecipS]

Father, adopted son seek same sex marriage in Pennyslvania - CNNPolitics.com

 

You just can't make this stuff up. Comical

[jericho]

Not really shocked, it's the perverted world we live in so may as well get used to it.

[ThrillVille Cardinal51]

Who would walk who down the isle?

[thehotsnakes]

I'm disgusted by what two legally consenting adults want to do.

 

 

How dare they! How! Dare! They!

[capt278]

I'm disgusted by what two legally consenting adults want to do.

 

 

How dare they! How! Dare! They!

 

It's a father and his adopted son. It is the same as if he was a biological child of this man, for all legal purposes.

 

Yeah, how dare they make a mockery of parenthood. As an adoptive father I find this ludicrous.

[Getslow]

It's not that shocking really. Lots of gay couples had sham adoptions so that one partner could gain certain privileges that were forbidden them as a couple. That's what's going on here. The laws as they existed made a mockery of the adoption process. To an extent, that's no longer the case.

 

They should certainly have to undo to adoption somehow before being allowed to proceed.

[InItToWinIt]

I knew I was out of line on June 26 when I suggested inter-family same sex marriage would be coming soon. I knew that was a crazy, unrealistic idea.

[OlDog75]

Not really shocked, it's the perverted world we live in so may as well get used to it.

 

I'll never get used to it MR.

[lawildcat]

I didn't know Woody Allen had a brother.

[B-Ball-fan]

It's not that shocking really. Lots of gay couples had sham adoptions so that one partner could gain certain privileges that were forbidden them as a couple. That's what's going on here. The laws as they existed made a mockery of the adoption process. To an extent, that's no longer the case.

 

They should certainly have to undo to adoption somehow before being allowed to proceed.

 

Who needs to bother understanding the real circumstances here when it's oh so much more fun to try to paint it what it is not?

 

How many people now do you think will try to pass this story along to others in protest and disgust while conveniently leaving out a FEW RELEVANT DETAILS?

 

If this thread is any indication, it's already off and running, and the usual suspects are among the misinformed mix conveniently misunderstanding and misrepresenting the story.

 

Has anyone taken notice that these guys are 78 and 68, and have been together for 40 years, and are not biologically related, and became related for legal reasons since SSM wasn't legal when they sought to earn their rights by using a legal loophole?

 

Thanks for providing the link so that anyone who cares to see what the real deal is can by simply just reading it.

 

It's sorta sad, but not a surprise that a couple of us have needed to explain.

 

When a biological father and son seek to marry I will share in your objection.

[Habib]

It's almost as if CNN crafted a sensationalist headline to get people to click on their website.

[ggclfan]

Article title, while accurate, was very misleading. I find it interesting that they entered into a total sham relationship to gain tax advantages and it was allowed. How can a 65 year old man be adopted? The real problem is the stupid death tax that they were trying to avoid. It should be illegal IMO. Why does the government get a payday when someone dies? Never understood that and never will.

[capt278]

Who needs to bother understanding the real circumstances here when it's oh so much more fun to try to paint it what it is not?

 

How many people now do you think will try to pass this story along to others in protest and disgust while conveniently leaving out a FEW RELEVANT DETAILS?

 

If this thread is any indication, it's already off and running, and the usual suspects are among the misinformed mix conveniently misunderstanding and misrepresenting the story.

 

Has anyone taken notice that these guys are 78 and 68, and have been together for 40 years, and are not biologically related, and became related for legal reasons since SSM wasn't legal when they sought to earn their rights by using a legal loophole?

 

Thanks for providing the link so that anyone who cares to see what the real deal is can by simply just reading it.

 

It's sorta sad, but not a surprise that a couple of us have needed to explain.

 

When a biological father and son seek to marry I will share in your objection.

 

As an adoptive father, I again say this is ludicrous.

 

I read the entire article and understand what was done and why. My objections come from a perspective that is was a sham and could be damaging to legitimate adoptions in the future.

 

It would be nice if some would stop defending and try to understand something from a different perspective for a change.

[B-Ball-fan]

As an adoptive father, I again say this is ludicrous.

 

I read the entire article and understand what was done and why. My objections come from a perspective that is was a sham and could be damaging to legitimate adoptions in the future.

 

It would be nice if some would stop defending and try to understand something from a different perspective for a change.

 

Thankfully now with legalized SSM this adoptive loophole sham will no longer happen under these type of circumstances.

 

You being an adoptive father, and these guys doing what they did are two completely different scenarios. The one with the perspective issue just might be you deeming it ludicrous. Perhaps you're not making any attempt to understand? Perhaps there are factors you are not considering while indicating that I should try to understand a different perspective for a change. Why should I have a different perspective when I'm seeing it for what it is? Are you allowing yourself to see it for what it is?

 

In the past a gay couple could be together for years while some family members object, and while one might be in the hospital or die, family can swoop down and try to prevent the long term partner from visiting the other, or sometimes wills have been contested by family members because they never recognized the gay couple's union as real or significant when their greedy bigoted selves are only concerned with what they can get from the estate, and not the long term love that the two people have shared. Sometimes family had disowned their family member only to show up years later to cash in. These guys using a legal loophole with adoption to prevent this from happening is rooted in sensible reasons.

 

If these are things that you might not have previously considered, perhaps now you have enough new knowledge regarding such matters, and the capacity to understand that which perhaps you previously had not.

 

Again, when a biological father and son seek to marry I will share in your objection.

[InItToWinIt]

B-Ball-Fan, I owe you an apology. I am completely guilty of merely reading the headline (until a minute ago), so my first post was clearly misinformed.

 

But the new issue that I think comes to light (and I don't know if you'll agree or disagree - I'm not looking to provoke an argument) is that I don't know what to think about this 'adoption.'

 

 

 

I guess it makes sense that the two did it for their "rights" (which I assume is tax breaks, health insurance, etc.). The problem IMO then is that whatever "rights" the two men protected by adoption cannot be protected for simply same-sex couples. There should be the same rights (tax benefits, health insurance, etc.) for same sex couples IMO. Just without calling it marriage, which is a discussion we will have to agree to disagree on.