Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/11/04 23:00:40
Subject: Father & Son Fight for Right to Marry Each Other
Even though they have been a couple for 40 years, for many legal purposes they were still just friends and not relatives. So in situations where a family member would be required to make a decision (one of them was hospitalized as an example) the other one was just a friend and not a relative, or in situations with taxes where family members are treated differently than friends. Prior to same-sex marriage one of the few ways to become "family" was adoption.
CptJake wrote: As a parent of three adopted kids who had to go through a long and intrusive process where gov't social workers put your life under a microscope in order to adopt, the fact these two were allowed to adopt annoys the gak out of me.
My wife and I who tried to adopt black/hispanic/mixed race kids in TX got told we could not 'raise them in their culture', but this guy can adopt his lover. That is fethed up.
g
I'm willing to bet the criteria is far looser to adopt someone in their mid to late 60's than a child.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/04 23:25:08
2015/11/06 06:21:38
Subject: Re:Father & Son Fight for Right to Marry Each Other
daedalus wrote: Is this that slippery slope I keep hearing about?
Considering the Greek's could have done it that slope is as flat as Oklahoma.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/11/06 13:44:37
Subject: Father & Son Fight for Right to Marry Each Other
You'd have thought it'd have been trivial to annul on the basis of it obviously not involving a parent/child relationship.
But I can see the merit in sending it to a higher court - you want a consistent result and in the mean time you've still got all of the adoption rights.
That you need to bend the law so much in order to get recognized as a couple after 4 decades is what is particularly messed up. Reading between the lines, these guys have been a couple since before 1972. Their relationship is older than the fething Watergate Scandal.
2015/11/06 21:35:43
Subject: Re:Father & Son Fight for Right to Marry Each Other
No just feth it. I'm not even going down this rabbit hole.
Did you read the article or did you just read the thread title?
It's an interesting question. Could they get charged with incest? Like the kid who had naked pictures of himself and his gf and got charged with possession of pedophilic material.
2015/11/07 01:43:58
Subject: Re:Father & Son Fight for Right to Marry Each Other
No just feth it. I'm not even going down this rabbit hole.
Did you read the article or did you just read the thread title?
It's an interesting question. Could they get charged with incest? Like the kid who had naked pictures of himself and his gf and got charged with possession of pedophilic material.
By definition, he is a pedophile, but that's still utterly slowed. Soemtimes Murican justice systems digust me. Funny, I didn't realize there were any laws regarding incest in the US.
To quote a fictional character... "Let's make this fun!"
Tactical_Spam wrote: There was a story in the SM omnibus where a single kroot killed 2-3 marines then ate their gene seed and became a Kroot-startes.
We must all join the Kroot-startes...
2015/11/07 01:46:07
Subject: Father & Son Fight for Right to Marry Each Other
I'd read the thread and was aware of their ages, circumstances, etc. Nevertheless, could they be charged with incest? Does incest have some sort of cut-off age where it stops being incest? Legally (although not genetically, obviously) they are father and son. It seems stupid to me, but so did the example i posted and that happened.
2015/11/07 02:48:37
Subject: Re:Father & Son Fight for Right to Marry Each Other
There is one main criteria for Pedophillia, and this is so far removed it'd require a visa to get close.
Curiously, Pennsylvania is laxer than many states in the definition of incest.
Ancestor or descendant, a brother or sister of whole or half-blood, or an uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece of whole blood (blood relationships without regard to legitimacy, and relationship of parent and child by adoption).
Other states such as Alabama are much more specific:
Either legitimately or illegitimately: (1) His ancestor or descendant by blood or adoption; or (2) His brother or sister of the whole or half-blood or by adoption; or (3) His stepchild or stepparent, while the marriage creating the relationship exists; or (4) His aunt, uncle, nephew or niece of the whole or half-blood (knowingly).
There is one main criteria for Pedophillia, and this is so far removed it'd require a visa to get close.
Curiously, Pennsylvania is laxer than many states in the definition of incest.
Ancestor or descendant, a brother or sister of whole or half-blood, or an uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece of whole blood (blood relationships without regard to legitimacy, and relationship of parent and child by adoption).
Other states such as Alabama are much more specific:
Either legitimately or illegitimately: (1) His ancestor or descendant by blood or adoption; or (2) His brother or sister of the whole or half-blood or by adoption; or (3) His stepchild or stepparent, while the marriage creating the relationship exists; or (4) His aunt, uncle, nephew or niece of the whole or half-blood (knowingly).
So... One could hypothetically date their cousin if they had no blood with them?...
I'm still not seeing why it would be incest considering there is no blood. This is what happens when we let paper work govern everything
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/07 04:12:43
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
2015/11/07 05:14:31
Subject: Re:Father & Son Fight for Right to Marry Each Other
I saw nothing in the article that would support your claim. The 'father' is 78 years of age, the 'son' is 68. They are not related by blood. Their legal parent/child status came about because of the previous inability of the partners to get legally married. They have been in a relationship for ~45 years. That places their ages at 33 and 23 respectively, which places both above the age of consent in Pennsylvania.
Where are you getting the notion that either party is sexually attracted to children?
2015/11/07 06:14:54
Subject: Father & Son (by adoption, both of who are over 60) Fight for Right to Marry Each Other
motyak wrote: I clarified the title, to hopefully help people who don't want to read the article not come in and be so off base.
Shouldn't it have been "both of whom" rather than "both of who"? The difference between who and whom is still a little confusing to me.
Who if it's the subject of the verb and you could substitute who with him/her (aka: Who doesn't want to read = He doesn't want to read)
Whom if it's the object of the verb and you could substitute whom with him/her (aka: She doesn't want to read to whom = she doesn't want to read to her).
Or combined for maximum confusion: (who doesn't want to read to whom = she doesn't want to read to her)!
At least I think that's it. English is my second language as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/07 22:23:19
2015/11/08 12:29:55
Subject: Father & Son (by adoption, both of who are over 60) Fight for Right to Marry Each Other
No one use 'whom' anymore expect as a joke or to be a language nazi (dick) No seriously. 'Whom' is kind of a dead word. Only in the most formal writings are you likely to see it used correctly and the people who write that stuff qualify the second part of the first sentence of this post
So the correct answer is: don't worry about it, no one really cares
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/08 12:31:17
The Undying Spawn of Shub-Niggurath 
bag!"
