gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by Hugh Janu » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 00:53:09


On Apr 10, 11:32?am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"

Quote:


> > On Apr 10, 8:39?am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"

> > > > discovered within a reasonable amount of time--before the child
> > > > becomes dependent on the family unit--courts will grant an
> > > > annullment.

> > > Well, isn't dependency pretty much immediate upon birth?

> > Not if she's trying to scam the guy out of child support or into
> > marriage, it's not. ?Ask any pro athlete about that.

> My bad - I meant in terms of the child is immediately dependent on the
> parents

> > > Hah - that's a pandora's box in and of itself. ?Studies have
> > > repeatedly shown that children of divorced parents are more likely to
> > > do worse in school, get pregnant and engage in *** and drinking at
> > > higher rates than kids of married parents. ?By this logic, divorce
> > > should be restricted due to the welfare of the children involved.

> > All true, but at a point, the courts can only mitigate the damage to
> > the kid by allocating money, custody, and visitation. ?The whole no-
> > fault divorce laws were enacted because the party who had more money
> > usually won.

> And it's still not "in favor" of the child.

> > > > For every case where a woman tricked a man into marrying him when she
> > > > got pregnant by another person, there are cases where the man knew
> > > > what he was getting into and married her anyway, as well as cases
> > > > where the woman was sleeping with multiple partners (including the
> > > > father) and simply didn't know. ?So the court looks at who was in
> > > > position to avoid the harm, and it's never the child, so they won't
> > > > punish the child--it leads to some patently unfair outcomes, but life
> > > > sucks sometimes. ?It's a cautionary tale you might want to share with
> > > > your sons if you have any

> > > Absolutely life is unfair.

> > > I appreciate the need for the "welfare of the child" - I also
> > > appreciate the desire to not punish people for legal activities they
> > > didn't do or were defrauded into doing.

> > Just put yourself in the position of the court, where you have people
> > lying at you from all sides, and you have to develop a reasonable
> > midpoint approach.

> Indeed

> > And here's a little anecdote that is true: ?Back in the early '70s, my
> > brother married a woman who had a child from a previous marriage.
> > They were together for about five years, but decided to separate. ?The
> > woman was visiting friends across the state and got hit head on by a
> > drunk driver and was killed. ?Under the law at that time, because they
> > had legally separated, and because the girl wasn't my brother's
> > natural child, he was off the hook financially. ?Not that it mattered--
> > he was pretty poor at the time, anyway, and the grandparents stepped
> > in and took care of the girl, but had the girl had no living relatives
> > she could have become a ward of the state and my brother could have
> > walked away.

> > While it didn't work out that way--my brother stayed close to the girl
> > and provided her with as much support as he could, he was *legally*
> > entitled under the laws at that time to completely bail. ?His case is
> > different in that there was no fraud, but the kid would have suffered
> > regardless, had my brother been a*** and the circumstances were
> > different, hence the change in the laws to protect kids

> Your brother sounds like a good man

> Good discussion, btw

Thanks, and one more thing.  You can bond with, and grow to love a
child who isn't your biological kid, as well.  Those laws that can
***a guy who got duped also protect the guy who wants to maintain a
relationship with a child who isn't theirs, biologically, by providing
visitation and custody rights as well.  If you marry a woman who has a
child already and it turns out she is an unfit mother due to say, drug
***ion or mental illness, you can be awarded custody of the child
even though its not yours biologically.
 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by michael anderso » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 01:25:13

lying at you from all sides, and you have to develop a reasonable midpoint approach. And here's a little anecdote that is true: Back in the early '70s, my brother married a woman who had a child from a previous marriage. They were together for about five years, but decided to separate. The woman was visiting friends across the state and got hit head on by a drunk driver and was killed. Under the law at that time, because they had legally separated, and because the girl wasn't my brother's natural child, he was off the hook financially.

he would have been off the hook financially even had they not legally separated.  If you marry a women with a kid from another relationship, and you don't legally adopt them, you are not responsible for that kid if your wife dies.  You are if you legally adopt them of course.

 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrio » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 01:30:23


Quote:
> On Apr 10, 11:32?am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"



> > > On Apr 10, 8:39?am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"

> > > > > discovered within a reasonable amount of time--before the child
> > > > > becomes dependent on the family unit--courts will grant an
> > > > > annullment.

> > > > Well, isn't dependency pretty much immediate upon birth?

> > > Not if she's trying to scam the guy out of child support or into
> > > marriage, it's not. ?Ask any pro athlete about that.

> > My bad - I meant in terms of the child is immediately dependent on the
> > parents

> > > > Hah - that's a pandora's box in and of itself. ?Studies have
> > > > repeatedly shown that children of divorced parents are more likely to
> > > > do worse in school, get pregnant and engage in *** and drinking at
> > > > higher rates than kids of married parents. ?By this logic, divorce
> > > > should be restricted due to the welfare of the children involved.

> > > All true, but at a point, the courts can only mitigate the damage to
> > > the kid by allocating money, custody, and visitation. ?The whole no-
> > > fault divorce laws were enacted because the party who had more money
> > > usually won.

> > And it's still not "in favor" of the child.

> > > > > For every case where a woman tricked a man into marrying him when she
> > > > > got pregnant by another person, there are cases where the man knew
> > > > > what he was getting into and married her anyway, as well as cases
> > > > > where the woman was sleeping with multiple partners (including the
> > > > > father) and simply didn't know. ?So the court looks at who was in
> > > > > position to avoid the harm, and it's never the child, so they won't
> > > > > punish the child--it leads to some patently unfair outcomes, but life
> > > > > sucks sometimes. ?It's a cautionary tale you might want to share with
> > > > > your sons if you have any

> > > > Absolutely life is unfair.

> > > > I appreciate the need for the "welfare of the child" - I also
> > > > appreciate the desire to not punish people for legal activities they
> > > > didn't do or were defrauded into doing.

> > > Just put yourself in the position of the court, where you have people
> > > lying at you from all sides, and you have to develop a reasonable
> > > midpoint approach.

> > Indeed

> > > And here's a little anecdote that is true: ?Back in the early '70s, my
> > > brother married a woman who had a child from a previous marriage.
> > > They were together for about five years, but decided to separate. ?The
> > > woman was visiting friends across the state and got hit head on by a
> > > drunk driver and was killed. ?Under the law at that time, because they
> > > had legally separated, and because the girl wasn't my brother's
> > > natural child, he was off the hook financially. ?Not that it mattered--
> > > he was pretty poor at the time, anyway, and the grandparents stepped
> > > in and took care of the girl, but had the girl had no living relatives
> > > she could have become a ward of the state and my brother could have
> > > walked away.

> > > While it didn't work out that way--my brother stayed close to the girl
> > > and provided her with as much support as he could, he was *legally*
> > > entitled under the laws at that time to completely bail. ?His case is
> > > different in that there was no fraud, but the kid would have suffered
> > > regardless, had my brother been a*** and the circumstances were
> > > different, hence the change in the laws to protect kids

> > Your brother sounds like a good man

> > Good discussion, btw

> Thanks, and one more thing. ?You can bond with, and grow to love a
> child who isn't your biological kid, as well.

Oh - of course.  I have a VERY good relationship with my step-father.

?Those laws that can

Quote:
>***a guy who got duped also protect the guy who wants to maintain a
> relationship with a child who isn't theirs, biologically, by providing
> visitation and custody rights as well. ?If you marry a woman who has a
> child already and it turns out she is an unfit mother due to say, drug
> ***ion or mental illness, you can be awarded custody of the child
> even though its not yours biologically.-

Excellent point.

 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by Kyle T. Jone » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 03:04:10


Quote:
> On Apr 9, 11:10 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"


>>> Bear with me for a second

>>> Gay marriage is a fait accompli - might take a little time still, but
>>> it's done and in the books.  Cool beans - glad it's happening finally.

>>> And one of the compelling arguments re gay marriage was equal
>>> protection under laws of survivorship - now a gay can pass on his/her
>>> estate to their partner w/o legal ramifications - just like a regular
>>> marriage enjoys.  Cool.

>>> But - wtf does this have to do with '***"?

>>> Well - consider this for a second - what's to prevent a man from
>>> marrying his son?  In fact, you can argue this makes terrific tax
>>> planning - avoids estate taxes, etc.

>>> but but but but - *** is illegal!!!!

>>> For procreative reasons, it is.  And where there is NO procreative
>>> possibility, why should it be "outlawed"?

>> This is where your argument breaks down, for me.  Even if I buy your
>> claim that *** is illegal for procreative reasons, from that you
>> can't conclude anything with no procreative possibility should be legal.

>> Robbing banks - another activity with no procreative possibility (*).

> Robbing banks is "marriage" aka a familial grouping between consenting
> ***s?

> But the depositers get ***ed a lot so maybe.......

Completely irrelevant.  What I'm telling you is that your argument is
invalid based only on it's structure, absolutely disregarding content.
You're committing a very common fallacy known as "denying the antecedent".

You're saying:

Assume A->B
Therefore, ~A->~B

This doesn't work.  You can get to ~B->~A; you could also get to where
you want to take this if the A->B relationship was an iff (A<->B), but
that would require the only illegal activities to be those that result
in genetically malformed offspring.

So, for your specific argument - it simply does not follow from the premise:

If a marriage arrangement will likely result in genetic malformations
(A), then it should be illegal (B).

To conclude:

If it's not the case that a marriage arrangement will likely result in
genetic malformations(~A), then it is not the case that it should be
illegal (~B).

Cheers.

--
Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012

 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrio » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 05:35:06

On Apr 10, 1:04?pm, "Kyle T. Jones"

Quote:


> > On Apr 9, 11:10 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"


> >>> Bear with me for a second

> >>> Gay marriage is a fait accompli - might take a little time still, but
> >>> it's done and in the books. ?Cool beans - glad it's happening finally.

> >>> And one of the compelling arguments re gay marriage was equal
> >>> protection under laws of survivorship - now a gay can pass on his/her
> >>> estate to their partner w/o legal ramifications - just like a regular
> >>> marriage enjoys. ?Cool.

> >>> But - wtf does this have to do with '***"?

> >>> Well - consider this for a second - what's to prevent a man from
> >>> marrying his son? ?In fact, you can argue this makes terrific tax
> >>> planning - avoids estate taxes, etc.

> >>> but but but but - *** is illegal!!!!

> >>> For procreative reasons, it is. ?And where there is NO procreative
> >>> possibility, why should it be "outlawed"?

> >> This is where your argument breaks down, for me. ?Even if I buy your
> >> claim that *** is illegal for procreative reasons, from that you
> >> can't conclude anything with no procreative possibility should be legal.

> >> Robbing banks - another activity with no procreative possibility (*).

> > Robbing banks is "marriage" aka a familial grouping between consenting
> > ***s?

> > But the depositers get ***ed a lot so maybe.......

> Completely irrelevant. ?What I'm telling you is that your argument is
> invalid based only on it's structure, absolutely disregarding content.
> You're committing a very common fallacy known as "denying the antecedent".

> You're saying:

> Assume A->B
> Therefore, ~A->~B

> This doesn't work. ?You can get to ~B->~A; you could also get to where
> you want to take this if the A->B relationship was an iff (A<->B), but
> that would require the only illegal activities to be those that result
> in genetically malformed offspring.

> So, for your specific argument - it simply does not follow from the premise:

> If a marriage arrangement will likely result in genetic malformations
> (A), then it should be illegal (B).

> To conclude:

> If it's not the case that a marriage arrangement will likely result in
> genetic malformations(~A), then it is not the case that it should be
> illegal (~B).

Perhaps - but let me ask you this then - since "marriage" is no longer
a unit based on procreation AND *** is illegal for procreative
reasons - why, legally speaking, should *** be illegal if there's
NO procretive possibility?

Been faaaaaaaaaar too long since I've taken Rhetoric/Logic, so I'll
just use the simple method of legal basis.

 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrio » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 05:38:59

On Apr 10, 3:35?pm, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"

Quote:

> On Apr 10, 1:04?pm, "Kyle T. Jones"



> > > On Apr 9, 11:10 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"


> > >>> Bear with me for a second

> > >>> Gay marriage is a fait accompli - might take a little time still, but
> > >>> it's done and in the books. ?Cool beans - glad it's happening finally.

> > >>> And one of the compelling arguments re gay marriage was equal
> > >>> protection under laws of survivorship - now a gay can pass on his/her
> > >>> estate to their partner w/o legal ramifications - just like a regular
> > >>> marriage enjoys. ?Cool.

> > >>> But - wtf does this have to do with '***"?

> > >>> Well - consider this for a second - what's to prevent a man from
> > >>> marrying his son? ?In fact, you can argue this makes terrific tax
> > >>> planning - avoids estate taxes, etc.

> > >>> but but but but - *** is illegal!!!!

> > >>> For procreative reasons, it is. ?And where there is NO procreative
> > >>> possibility, why should it be "outlawed"?

> > >> This is where your argument breaks down, for me. ?Even if I buy your
> > >> claim that *** is illegal for procreative reasons, from that you
> > >> can't conclude anything with no procreative possibility should be legal.

> > >> Robbing banks - another activity with no procreative possibility (*).

> > > Robbing banks is "marriage" aka a familial grouping between consenting
> > > ***s?

> > > But the depositers get ***ed a lot so maybe.......

> > Completely irrelevant. ?What I'm telling you is that your argument is
> > invalid based only on it's structure, absolutely disregarding content.
> > You're committing a very common fallacy known as "denying the antecedent".

> > You're saying:

> > Assume A->B
> > Therefore, ~A->~B

> > This doesn't work. ?You can get to ~B->~A; you could also get to where
> > you want to take this if the A->B relationship was an iff (A<->B), but
> > that would require the only illegal activities to be those that result
> > in genetically malformed offspring.

> > So, for your specific argument - it simply does not follow from the premise:

> > If a marriage arrangement will likely result in genetic malformations
> > (A), then it should be illegal (B).

> > To conclude:

> > If it's not the case that a marriage arrangement will likely result in
> > genetic malformations(~A), then it is not the case that it should be
> > illegal (~B).

> Perhaps - but let me ask you this then - since "marriage" is no longer
> a unit based on procreation AND *** is illegal for procreative
> reasons - why, legally speaking, should *** be illegal if there's
> NO procretive possibility?

> Been faaaaaaaaaar too long since I've taken Rhetoric/Logic, so I'll
> just use the simple method of legal basis.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

Here - let me put it in even simpler terms - if Hugh and Igor wanna
get married, who are we to stop them?
 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by Kyle T. Jone » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:08:29


Quote:
> On Apr 10, 1:04 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"


>>> On Apr 9, 11:10 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"


>>>>> Bear with me for a second

>>>>> Gay marriage is a fait accompli - might take a little time still, but
>>>>> it's done and in the books.  Cool beans - glad it's happening finally.

>>>>> And one of the compelling arguments re gay marriage was equal
>>>>> protection under laws of survivorship - now a gay can pass on his/her
>>>>> estate to their partner w/o legal ramifications - just like a regular
>>>>> marriage enjoys.  Cool.

>>>>> But - wtf does this have to do with '***"?

>>>>> Well - consider this for a second - what's to prevent a man from
>>>>> marrying his son?  In fact, you can argue this makes terrific tax
>>>>> planning - avoids estate taxes, etc.

>>>>> but but but but - *** is illegal!!!!

>>>>> For procreative reasons, it is.  And where there is NO procreative
>>>>> possibility, why should it be "outlawed"?

>>>> This is where your argument breaks down, for me.  Even if I buy your
>>>> claim that *** is illegal for procreative reasons, from that you
>>>> can't conclude anything with no procreative possibility should be legal.

>>>> Robbing banks - another activity with no procreative possibility (*).

>>> Robbing banks is "marriage" aka a familial grouping between consenting
>>> ***s?

>>> But the depositers get ***ed a lot so maybe.......

>> Completely irrelevant.  What I'm telling you is that your argument is
>> invalid based only on it's structure, absolutely disregarding content.
>> You're committing a very common fallacy known as "denying the antecedent".

>> You're saying:

>> Assume A->B
>> Therefore, ~A->~B

>> This doesn't work.  You can get to ~B->~A; you could also get to where
>> you want to take this if the A->B relationship was an iff (A<->B), but
>> that would require the only illegal activities to be those that result
>> in genetically malformed offspring.

>> So, for your specific argument - it simply does not follow from the premise:

>> If a marriage arrangement will likely result in genetic malformations
>> (A), then it should be illegal (B).

>> To conclude:

>> If it's not the case that a marriage arrangement will likely result in
>> genetic malformations(~A), then it is not the case that it should be
>> illegal (~B).

> Perhaps - but let me ask you this then - since "marriage" is no longer
> a unit based on procreation AND *** is illegal for procreative
> reasons - why, legally speaking, should *** be illegal if there's
> NO procretive possibility?

Logically, because there's simply no interesting relationship between
the two assertions.

If you want to draw me into the sort of legalese rhetoric that tends to
sway dumnass jurors...

(1) There has never been some "ability to procreate successfully"
requirement for marriage.

(2) *** is not illegal strictly because of procreative ramifications
- there's always been NO procreative possibility for same-sex ***,
and it's still been just as illegal as mixed-gender ***.

(3) Although the restrictions apply across the board, much of the intent
in making *** illegal is to protect young folks from their older
relatives.

Quote:
> Been faaaaaaaaaar too long since I've taken Rhetoric/Logic, so I'll
> just use the simple method of legal basis.

It's fair enough to ask "hey, seriously, why should *** be illegal?".
  That's not the same thing as presenting "since we've taken the
procreative requirement out of marriage by allowing gays to join the
party, doesn't that imply same-sex *** should be legal?"

Or human-donkey marriage, dogs marrying cats, corporations getting into
Mormon style twenty-ways for the tax benefits, whatever.

And, sure, the ridiculous slippery slope arguments get under my skin a
bit.  A century ago, the definition of marriage was "between two
consenting *** humans of mixed-gender and same-race".

I can see at least three glaringly ridiculous requirements in that
definition.  "Two" down!

The other part - consenting *** humans - that part I like.

Hey, maybe we should add more restrictions!:  "between two consenting
*** humans who have each reached at least their thirtieth year" -
think that one might be a winner!

Hey, you know, we decided to let blacks vote, and then women, shouldn't
Fluffy McWhiskers get his chance soon?

Cheers.

--
Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012

 
 
 

gay marriage, "incest" and inheritance

Post by Thomas R. Kettle » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:44:54



Quote:
> Hey, you know, we decided to let blacks vote, and then women, shouldn't
> Fluffy McWhiskers get his chance soon?

Fluffy can't vote until Johnny Five has voted first.

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091949/?ref_=sr_1>
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096101/?ref_=tt_rec_tt>
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.