07-24-2010, 11:15 AM
|
#49
|
Infamous Member
How Do You Identify?: femme
Relationship Status: attached
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,896
Thanks: 29,046
Thanked 13,118 Times in 3,391 Posts
Rep Power: 21474857
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJo
I simply like to at least try to understand where people are coming from before I condemn their actions.
This is their son that died. I think there's at least a reasonable chance that they are reacting out of grief, anger and all kinds of emotion that most of us can't understand.
I'm not saying they're right. I am literally trying to see all sides. The fact that Nikki is trans doesn't make her automatically right any more than it makes her automatically wrong. Relationships are complicated. Family dynamics are complicated. Greed is common. People tend to put their own blood family first (i.e. wanting everything for their grandkids instead of the "new wife'). This stuff happens. It doesn't make it right.
I am just bothered by the leap to judgment in either direction without getting as many facts as possible and trying to see all sides.
And, no I didn't read your reply as snark...and mine isn't either.
|
But, how can there be *sides* when, if Nikki was not trans, none of this would EVER be able to occur?
This case would not exist. She would be entitled to whatever assets/benefits any other wife would receive after her husband died. END OF.
I don't see the whole there are two sides to this story when, if this marriage was considered valid/legal, this fight to get her benefits would never even be able to be a logical or reasonable idea or thought.
|
|
|