• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Couple seeks right to marry. The hitch? They're legally father and son

Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Am I the only one who read the article long enough to find out they were only "father and son" on paper?

They've been a couple for forty years. They aren't related to each other. It's just another same-sex marriage.

Except that it is not because of that legal relation exists. Many state prohibit that, while others don't bother with it. Blood is the only consistent criteria across the states, and that only within one or two steps. Cousins would be three by my counting just so you know where I am coming from.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

So at some point people will be marrying their dogs or other animals, mothers will be marrying their daughters, fathers will be marrying their sons, brothers will be marrying sisters, astronomers will be marrying their telescopes. As long as society keeps on evolving, then the definition of marriage just keeps on evolving with it. It's ridiculous. It has to stop somewhere.
Agreed. It's called consenting adult.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you're not actually married until you get that piece of paper from the state. That's all that really matters. The rest is just ceremony.

This is a false statement. The paper isn't all that matters. It only matters if you want to be married in the eyes of the government. We are. It just discussing legal marriage here, although the OP is about that. But the issue is about marriage overall. I was married long before I got the paper from the state. We only did that because we needed the legal status for dealing with other issues that arose.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Marriage is a contractual arrangement and thus requires the consent of both parties. This eliminates non-humans and inanimate objects since neither could give consent. It also eliminates minors and I believe incest laws would cover your concerns about daughters. Sons, brothers, and sisters, too, for that matter.

It may leave open the door to polygamy, though...
You could have quoted various laws that prevented SSM at one point. Incest laws are irrelevant to the question of whether or not a legal marriage between two related people should be allowed. Whether it is a blood relation or a legal relation also brings up two separate issues.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Is there something beyond semantics you'd like to add?

Sometimes semantics are important.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

I've heard of the adoption thing before, for two people who want to establish an heirship or become relatives for some reason, so one of them adopts the other. I can see it happening on occasion with same sex, since marriage was not possible.

So it's probably been a gay relationship all along.

I'm not sure if it's against the law in all states for two non-biological relatives to marry, anyway. A father and stepdaughter, for example. Or stepbrother and stepsister. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

It does vary by the state. Some do include them some don't and others even separate out the degree of related ness depending on whether or not the relations is blood or legal.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

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

I'm curious - how would you define marriage in the United States, and why ?? I think a good starting point is - to establish a purpose of marriage. A person yells - usually - because they have a purpose. A person runs - usually - because they have a purpose.

A man can marry a man. A woman can marry a woman. And now - a father wants to marry a son. SO - why can't a son marry his mother? A brother marry his sister? A father marry his daughter?

Let's take it even further. Why can't a person marry their dog, or cat? Is marriage limited to two members of the same species? Can a person marry an object ... in the land of freedom? Can we marry a painting, a car, or a cell phone?

What is marriage? And how do you define it? And thus - how do you establish tax breaks for ANYONE !! ?? ... because let's be honest, it's all about the money in the end.

ITS fallacy
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Am I the only one who read the article long enough to find out they were only "father and son" on paper?

They've been a couple for forty years. They aren't related to each other. It's just another same-sex marriage.


I prefer we carry on pondering the meaning of marriage and if men marrying cats will be the next step.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

This is what happens when you try redefining what marriage has been defined as for centuries on top of centuries. When do we stop redefining it? There is no end.

It is like watching the NFL try to write down the rules to what a catch is. Every time they tweak it, it gets a little bit more grey instead of more defined.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

This thread is the reason government should not be a part of defining relationships. It is not the governments place nor should it be the government's right to reward based on your relationship status and gender of the person you are in a relationship with.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

I've heard of the adoption thing before, for two people who want to establish an heirship or become relatives for some reason, so one of them adopts the other. I can see it happening on occasion with same sex, since marriage was not possible.

So it's probably been a gay relationship all along.

....

Why isn't anyone reading the article?

"Before states across the country began striking down bans on same-sex marriage and the Supreme Court ultimately decided the issue nationwide, some gay couples used adoption laws as a way to gain legal recognition as a family, and the related benefits such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights.

151103063002-nino-esposito-and-drew-bosee-photo-medium-plus-169.jpg



Nino Esposito, a retired teacher, adopted his partner Roland "Drew" Bosee, a former freelance and technical writer, in 2012, after more than 40 years of being a couple.


Now, they're trying to undo the adoption to get married and a state trial court judge has rejected their request, saying his ability to annul adoptions is generally limited to instances of fraud.


"We never thought we'd see the day" that same-sex marriage would be legal in Pennsylvania, Esposito, 78, told CNN in a telephone interview.
The adoption "gave us the most legitimate thing available to us" at the time, said Bosee, 68.

The adoption process Bosee and Esposito went through was not uncommon.

Although it is difficult to gather hard numbers, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, a group supporting the couple, says it learned that many couples in states across the country lawfully took advantage of adoption laws in order to protect their relationships. Now these couples seek to marry, but first they must confront state adoption laws that provide no easy path to annulment
."


Father, adopted son seek same sex marriage in Pennyslvania - CNNPolitics.com
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Is there any state that is exempt from incest laws?

Rhode Island and New Jersey have decriminalized incest.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

So at some point people will be marrying their dogs or other animals, mothers will be marrying their daughters, fathers will be marrying their sons, brothers will be marrying sisters, astronomers will be marrying their telescopes. As long as society keeps on evolving, then the definition of marriage just keeps on evolving with it. It's ridiculous. It has to stop somewhere.

it really isn't marriage. they can attempt to call it that but it is a façade.
this isn't anything that we didn't predict would happen.

now all these alternate marriage people have no choice but to support whatever comes down the pike.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

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

I'm curious - how would you define marriage in the United States, and why ?? I think a good starting point is - to establish a purpose of marriage. A person yells - usually - because they have a purpose. A person runs - usually - because they have a purpose.

A man can marry a man. A woman can marry a woman. And now - a father wants to marry a son. SO - why can't a son marry his mother? A brother marry his sister? A father marry his daughter?

Let's take it even further. Why can't a person marry their dog, or cat? Is marriage limited to two members of the same species? Can a person marry an object ... in the land of freedom? Can we marry a painting, a car, or a cell phone?

What is marriage? And how do you define it? And thus - how do you establish tax breaks for ANYONE !! ?? ... because let's be honest, it's all about the money in the end.

No, man/woman cannot marry an animal or an object. Marriage requires that both parties in a marriage consent to marriage. Animals and objects cannot give consent. Kinda obvious to most people unless they're just trying to push an agenda.

As for parent marrying child. No. For the same reason that disallows teachers to have sex with their students. The one in position of power can influence the one without the power and coerce them into it. Coercing is not just about overt force, its also about subtle force.

Incest: The above line applies here also, but also includes the possibility of enhanced chances of birth defects in any children that are produced.

You're using the same arguments that people tried to use in order to dissuade SSM. Those arguments were defeated rather roundly then, still are today.

If marriage was only about money then all of those things that you mentioned would be allowed. As its not, your argument fails.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

We confuse ourselves into believing that social change is somehow analogous of evolution and evolution is "good" in and of itself. Change is not evolution. Useful and sustaining change is evolution. The vast majority of genetic change leads to death.

Is SSM an "evolution", a useless but benign change or is it a critical failure in our social DNA? Nobody can answer that at this point. The big trouble with Progressive movement is they don't really care because they think the only direction of change is "forward".
My signature good sir.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

No, man/woman cannot marry an animal or an object. Marriage requires that both parties in a marriage consent to marriage. Animals and objects cannot give consent. Kinda obvious to most people unless they're just trying to push an agenda.

As for parent marrying child. No. For the same reason that disallows teachers to have sex with their students. The one in position of power can influence the one without the power and coerce them into it. Coercing is not just about overt force, its also about subtle force.

Incest: The above line applies here also, but also includes the possibility of enhanced chances of birth defects in any children that are produced.

You're using the same arguments that people tried to use in order to dissuade SSM. Those arguments were defeated rather roundly then, still are today.

If marriage was only about money then all of those things that you mentioned would be allowed. As its not, your argument fails.

According to some in this thread society could possibly evolve to the point where we don't need animals to consent. Heck, we have some cultures now where people don't even have to consent. As far as a mother or father marrying their sons or daughters, as long as they are of the age of "consent" some in this thread would sanction it. As far as birth defects go, you could argue discrimination. Why would normal marrying couples who carry a gene defect be allowed to marry but not brothers and sisters, especially if one is sterile anyway?
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

Our definitions don't *have to* change. In this particular case a definition DID change but the idea that it HAD to is incorrect. It changed because the highest court in the land ruled that it was discriminatory not to change it.


That's not true. The definition had changed prior to the Supreme Court ruling. IIRC there were 19 States with SSCM prior to the Obergerfel ruling. SSCM had been achived by State action in State Court, in State Legislatures, and at State ballots.

To imply it didn't exist before Obergefel is wrong.



>>>>
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

According to some in this thread society could possibly evolve to the point where we don't need animals to consent. Heck, we have some cultures now where people don't even have to consent. As far as a mother or father marrying their sons or daughters, as long as they are of the age of "consent" some in this thread would sanction it. As far as birth defects go, you could argue discrimination. Why would normal marrying couples who carry a gene defect be allowed to marry but not brothers and sisters, especially if one is sterile anyway?

Bold: Fearmongering is all it is.

Underlined: Not in the US. Any other I don't care about.

Red: This doesn't get past coercing that I mentioned.

Rest: Discrimination is widely accepted in society. This also doesn't get past the "enhanced chances of birth defects". So the argument wouldn't work for the simple fact that there is a difference between "enhanced chances of birth defects" vs defects that happen as a matter of course and as such cannot be prevented.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

This is a false statement. The paper isn't all that matters. It only matters if you want to be married in the eyes of the government. We are. It just discussing legal marriage here, although the OP is about that. But the issue is about marriage overall. I was married long before I got the paper from the state. We only did that because we needed the legal status for dealing with other issues that arose.

Marriage in the eyes of the government is the only thing that demonstrably matters. Otherwise, it's just a state of mind, which is fine if that's all you want, but of course, everyone wants all of those other benefits that legal status confers. If religious people just wanted that state of mind, they'd just walk down the aisle and never bother getting the piece of paper from the state and nobody would care. Funny how that's not what they want.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

I compare it with Roe.....not a valid law.

Still the law, no matter how much you stomp your feet and hold your breath. Stop being childish.
 
Re: Couple seeks marriage. Legally: They are Father and Son (!!!!)

The "reality" is that SSM is now legal.

Marriage is an act of love, faith, and procreation in the eyes of God.

The court is only interested in how to tax it and handle a divorce.
 
Back
Top Bottom