| > 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. |