[nommm-nommm]

How about joint adoption of children and spousal privilege for two really obvious flaws that come off the top of my head.

The other thing is it requires someone's actual parents to sever family ties. Removing someone's parents entirely from the next-of-kin hierarchy.

You're also missing something very very important from the article:

>They married 10 days later. After 52 years, marriage is “anti-climactic,” Novak said. But, he added, “psychologically, it makes you feel better. Like you’re a part of the human race.”

[gwern]

> The other thing is it requires someone's actual parents to sever family ties. Removing someone's parents entirely from the next-of-kin hierarchy.

No, you don't. That's just more paperwork. You don't need to sever relationships any more than the adoptee needs to look up to the adopter as a father rather than lover.

> You're also missing something very very important from the article:

That's pretty weaksauce.

[nommm-nommm]

Oh right, feeling like you are being treated humanely and respectfully is "weaksauce."

>No, you don't. That's just more paperwork. You don't need to sever relationships any more than the adoptee needs to look up to the adopter as a father rather than lover.

Legal family relationship.

From TFA:

> First, his biological mother had to legally disown him.

Meaning the mother isn't a legal next-of-kin anymore and also the reverse. So then you'd apparently have to have more legal paperwork to "fix" that I guess.... Mother would have to make sure her will/paperwork was perfect to not leave out child and child would make sure their will/paperwork was perfect so as to not leave out mother.

One example

If my mom died tomorrow my siblings and I would inherit her estate. If my mom had to disown me so I could be adopted by my spouse then the estate would go to my siblings only and not me. So my mom would have to first create a will and "add" me back in. Then I'd hope the siblings wouldn't try to challenge that in court or anything. After all that I still can't add my spouse (who is now legally my parent) to my health insurance! Sounds like a bum deal.

[gwern]

> Oh right, feeling like you are being treated humanely and respectfully is "weaksauce."

Yes, it is. When the best one can say for the culmination of a multi-generational civil rights struggle is that it makes you feel a little better, then that's not much of a improvement.

> Mother would have to make sure her will/paperwork was perfect to not leave out child and child would make sure their will/paperwork was perfect so as to not leave out mother.

Your parents should already be drawing up a will because the problems with dying intestate go well beyond accidentally leaving out a child. (You're worried about siblings challenging a will? Enjoy what will happen without a will!) Your hypothetical is only relevant in a situation in which people have already screwed up big time. As downsides go, this is very small compared to what one gained.

> After all that I still can't add my spouse (who is now legally my parent) to my health insurance

Children usually go on the health insurance, so you could have done it the other way around. I would also point out that in the relevant time period, employer health insurance was not as critical as it is now. (I don't know how Obamacare would enter in here.)

> Sounds like a bum deal.

The question is not whether it was worse than regular marriage, since it is. The question is whether adoption is so futile and useless a strategy that it was not worth doing at all. And that's not supported by OP at all.

[nommm-nommm]

Adult children do not go on health insurance. Adult children do not usually get any work provided benefits at all.