It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

Who would report it? Those entrusted with citizens privacy?

The only reason same sex couples were newsworthy was because of Obergfell

Now it yawn

Suppose a same sex family couple would want noteriety? I doubt they would call the press sweetheart

Marriage licenses are public records. Siblings legally marrying would be all over the RW Nut news.

Note, the licenses do not require family relationship. Gonna make that a tough search SeaWytch, but you go for it. K?

You know people have to present proof they're qualified to marry, right?

Yep, and only opposite gender family members and first cousins are excluded

Iowa code 595.19 says so

I would guess that if anyone tries to get married as a same sex, close relation couple, the state will adjust the law pretty quickly if they haven't already done so when it happens. I imagine we'll find out if/when it happens.

I would agree with this, but the adjustment could be problematic as well

On a side note, an off the wall story was on the radio about a:

Man who's unresolved twin brother (died in the womb), fathered his son.

The condition is called Chimara and it appears that there has been some research as a possible cause of homosexuality.

That would sure clean up the nature or nurture article:

She was a chimera. Tests revealed that while her blood cells had one set of genes, her ovaries held distinctly different ones. Those ovaries had produced the eggs that led to two of Keegan’s sons holding genes different from her own, said Lynne Uhl, a pathologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and co-author of the NEJM study. The researchers reported that these different genes most likely came from a lost twin of Keegan’s, one whose cells she had absorbed while she was an embryo in her own mother’s womb.

The true genetic mother was a twin sister who she never knew and who was never born — a ghost.[\quote]

Link:


This Man Failed A Paternity Test Due To His Vanished Twin’s DNA

This Man Failed A Paternity Test Due To His Vanished Twin’s DNA

 

[Pop23]

Note, the licenses do not require family relationship. Gonna make that a tough search SeaWytch, but you go for it. K?

Sure Pops. Siblings are marrying in Iowa. Proof? Pops doesn't need proof!

I don't need proof they are, I only need to prove its legal.....

Which I have

Now you prove they are not.

Thanks much

Despite your delusions, Iowa still doesn't allow close-family members to marry regardless of gender...

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!

Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​

According to Iowa code 595.19 they sure do

But then you have an instruction manual on your side.

So you lose

What do I lose? According to Iowa, no families are allowed to marrying each other. Looks like you lose, perv. You're gonna have to move to Yemen if ya wanna marry your brother.

Nope, just Iowa

 

[Pop23]

Note, the licenses do not require family relationship. Gonna make that a tough search SeaWytch, but you go for it. K?

Sure Pops. Siblings are marrying in Iowa. Proof? Pops doesn't need proof!

I don't need proof they are, I only need to prove its legal.....

Which I have

Now you prove they are not.

Thanks much

Despite your delusions, Iowa still doesn't allow close-family members to marry regardless of gender...

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!

Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​

According to Iowa code 595.19 they sure do

But then you have an instruction manual on your side.

So you lose

What do I lose? According to Iowa, no families are allowed to marrying each other. Looks like you lose, perv. You're gonna have to move to Yemen if ya wanna marry your brother.

Are you an attorney?

 

[Seawytch]

Nope, that's your position. You're arguing exactly like those opposed to interracial marriage, right down to the slippery slope fallacy.

Nope, you're arguing that you got yours, screw everyone else.

Really? Find that post. I support YOUR voracious support for incest. I want you to stop just supporting it and DO something with your fierce support of incest.

Of course, your bullshit is just more slippery slope fallacies like this:

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

I don't support incest, but since you you bring it up in the context of marriage AND since sex is not a requirement of marriage, then you are supporting the illegal activities of incest and marital rape since you imply marriage requires sex to be valid.

Kinda disgusting.

The casual reader of this thread would disagree with you.


Just like after Loving, marriage remains between non familial consenting adults...despite you and R.. D. McIlwaine III predicting otherwise.

Except in Iowa and a couple others.

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

And after Obergfell we now welcome same sex family member marriage.

Next step? Who knows?

Right Pops...siblings are marrying in Iowa.

Seriously, I gotta thank you for your posts. You are an endless source of amusement for my co-workers. They love your defense of incest...and this latest thing with your insistence that siblings are marrying in Iowa? Freaking comedy gold.

(They wouldn't believe me until I showed them your posts). You're like a celebrity.

 

[Pop23]

Nope, you're arguing that you got yours, screw everyone else.

Really? Find that post. I support YOUR voracious support for incest. I want you to stop just supporting it and DO something with your fierce support of incest.

Of course, your bullshit is just more slippery slope fallacies like this:

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

I don't support incest, but since you you bring it up in the context of marriage AND since sex is not a requirement of marriage, then you are supporting the illegal activities of incest and marital rape since you imply marriage requires sex to be valid.

Kinda disgusting.

The casual reader of this thread would disagree with you.


Just like after Loving, marriage remains between non familial consenting adults...despite you and R.. D. McIlwaine III predicting otherwise.

Except in Iowa and a couple others.

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

And after Obergfell we now welcome same sex family member marriage.

Next step? Who knows?

Right Pops...siblings are marrying in Iowa.

Seriously, I gotta thank you for your posts. You are an endless source of amusement for my co-workers. They love your defense of incest...and this latest thing with your insistence that siblings are marrying in Iowa? Freaking comedy gold.

(They wouldn't believe me until I showed them your posts). You're like a celebrity.

Of course you will supply a link to any post in which I supported incest....

And a link to the post that I claimed any same sex family members had married in Iowa.

Get to work you butt ugly dyke, you got a busy night ahead of you. And your coworkers will demand that you get back to work bagging them fries bitch

Of course you understand your co workers are laughing at you, not with you. Everyone laughs at dykes. Everyone

Now supply the post where I supported incest.

Dodge in 3......2.....1.......

 

[Montrovant]

Marriage licenses are public records. Siblings legally marrying would be all over the RW Nut news.

Note, the licenses do not require family relationship. Gonna make that a tough search SeaWytch, but you go for it. K?

You know people have to present proof they're qualified to marry, right?

Yep, and only opposite gender family members and first cousins are excluded

Iowa code 595.19 says so

I would guess that if anyone tries to get married as a same sex, close relation couple, the state will adjust the law pretty quickly if they haven't already done so when it happens. I imagine we'll find out if/when it happens.

I would agree with this, but the adjustment could be problematic as well

On a side note, an off the wall story was on the radio about a:

Man who's unresolved twin brother (died in the womb), fathered his son.

The condition is called Chimara and it appears that there has been some research as a possible cause of homosexuality.

That would sure clean up the nature or nurture article:

She was a chimera. Tests revealed that while her blood cells had one set of genes, her ovaries held distinctly different ones. Those ovaries had produced the eggs that led to two of Keegan’s sons holding genes different from her own, said Lynne Uhl, a pathologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and co-author of the NEJM study. The researchers reported that these different genes most likely came from a lost twin of Keegan’s, one whose cells she had absorbed while she was an embryo in her own mother’s womb.

The true genetic mother was a twin sister who she never knew and who was never born — a ghost.[\quote]

Link:


This Man Failed A Paternity Test Due To His Vanished Twin’s DNA

This Man Failed A Paternity Test Due To His Vanished Twin’s DNA

I don't think the Iowa code would be too difficult to adjust. I actually found it overly specific. They could just say no to marrying a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt or uncle, with first cousins already being denied. Or change it to say marriage is not allowed between anyone who is a first cousin or closer relation, maybe.

 

[Faun]

Who says any were denied? Could be none even applied since Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to close-family family members regardless of gender.

Or maybe none were, since it's legal who would give a flying fuck?

But in your world the papers are 40 ft thick everyday full of reports on laws not being broken......

And instruction pamphlets.

You're fucking nuts.

There are 250 million Americans aged 16 and older, and now you're suggesting not one of them went to Iowa in six years to get married to a close family member to avoid paying inheritance tax where, according to your idiocy, it would have been legal for the first time since the adaption of those anti-close-family marriage laws thanks to a loophole created by Iowa's Supreme Court.

Your adventurous argument grows increasingly ludicrous in your vain attempts to bring that Frankenstein monster of a position back to life.

Prove none of them did.

Go for it. You got three people looking now, your job is now 3 times easier

Report your finding back. K?

Here ya go ... "close family members married in Iowa"...

No results found for "close family members married in iowa".

Your turn. Find even one such couple who actually got married.

Just one.

Googled Faun is a dipshit 4,123,585,765,124 results.

Good to see I'm getting under your skin. Let's me know I'm on the right track.

:

 

[Faun]

You don't think closely related family marrying in Iowa would be considered newsworthy?

Who would report it? Those entrusted with citizens privacy?

The only reason same sex couples were newsworthy was because of Obergfell

Now it yawn

Suppose a same sex family couple would want noteriety? I doubt they would call the press sweetheart

Marriage licenses are public records. Siblings legally marrying would be all over the RW Nut news.

Note, the licenses do not require family relationship. Gonna make that a tough search SeaWytch, but you go for it. K?

You know people have to present proof they're qualified to marry, right?

Yep, and only opposite gender family members and first cousins are excluded

Iowa code 595.19 says so

Not anymore. Now Iowa says they don't let any close-family members get married to each other regardless of gender..

 

[Faun]

Or maybe none were, since it's legal who would give a flying fuck?

But in your world the papers are 40 ft thick everyday full of reports on laws not being broken......

And instruction pamphlets.

You don't think closely related family marrying in Iowa would be considered newsworthy?

Who would report it? Those entrusted with citizens privacy?

The only reason same sex couples were newsworthy was because of Obergfell

Now it yawn

Suppose a same sex family couple would want noteriety? I doubt they would call the press sweetheart

Marriage licenses are public records. Siblings legally marrying would be all over the RW Nut news.

Of course it would. Especially if they were screwing the government out of taxes and due to a loophole created by the legalization of same-sex marriage?? Holyfuckingshit, their howls would be louder than 'BENGHAZI!!'

Perv23's position was killed a long time ago. Even he knows it. He's just making up any shit imaginable at this point because he's a troll.

They're not screwing the government anymore than any other legal marriage.

You get loonier and loonier dude

Of course they are. In no other marriage would a wealthy old man be able to pass his inheritance on to his son, if what you were claiming was true. You really don't know what you're talking about.

Even worse, they would get to boast about how they're getting away with it because the gay mafia got rid of traditional marriage. They would be ear-bustingly loud.

And you can't find one.

 

[Faun]

I would guess that if anyone tries to get married as a same sex, ...

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Not anymore. You're living in the past, gramps.

 

[Faun]

Really? Find that post. I support YOUR voracious support for incest. I want you to stop just supporting it and DO something with your fierce support of incest.

Of course, your bullshit is just more slippery slope fallacies like this:

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

I don't support incest, but since you you bring it up in the context of marriage AND since sex is not a requirement of marriage, then you are supporting the illegal activities of incest and marital rape since you imply marriage requires sex to be valid.

Kinda disgusting.

The casual reader of this thread would disagree with you.


Just like after Loving, marriage remains between non familial consenting adults...despite you and R.. D. McIlwaine III predicting otherwise.

Except in Iowa and a couple others.

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

And after Obergfell we now welcome same sex family member marriage.

Next step? Who knows?

Right Pops...siblings are marrying in Iowa.

Seriously, I gotta thank you for your posts. You are an endless source of amusement for my co-workers. They love your defense of incest...and this latest thing with your insistence that siblings are marrying in Iowa? Freaking comedy gold.

(They wouldn't believe me until I showed them your posts). You're like a celebrity.

Of course you will supply a link to any post in which I supported incest....

And a link to the post that I claimed any same sex family members had married in Iowa.

Get to work you butt ugly dyke, you got a busy night ahead of you. And your coworkers will demand that you get back to work bagging them fries bitch

Of course you understand your co workers are laughing at you, not with you. Everyone laughs at dykes. Everyone

Now supply the post where I supported incest.

Dodge in 3......2.....1.......

WTF??

Does this mean you're now finally admitting there have been no such marriages?

For months now you've been pushing this nonsense that close family members could marry each other to avoid paying inheritance taxes .... you [idiotically] believe it's been legal to do so in Iowa for 6 years now ... but now you challenge others to show where you ever claimed anyone did??

So? What is it? Did any such marriages take place or not?

 

[Pop23]

You don't think closely related family marrying in Iowa would be considered newsworthy?

Who would report it? Those entrusted with citizens privacy?

The only reason same sex couples were newsworthy was because of Obergfell

Now it yawn

Suppose a same sex family couple would want noteriety? I doubt they would call the press sweetheart

Marriage licenses are public records. Siblings legally marrying would be all over the RW Nut news.

Of course it would. Especially if they were screwing the government out of taxes and due to a loophole created by the legalization of same-sex marriage?? Holyfuckingshit, their howls would be louder than 'BENGHAZI!!'

Perv23's position was killed a long time ago. Even he knows it. He's just making up any shit imaginable at this point because he's a troll.

They're not screwing the government anymore than any other legal marriage.

You get loonier and loonier dude

Of course they are. In no other marriage would a wealthy old man be able to pass his inheritance on to his son, if what you were claiming was true. You really don't know what you're talking about.

Even worse, they would get to boast about how they're getting away with it because the gay mafia got rid of traditional marriage. They would be ear-bustingly loud.

And you can't find one.

Your premis is wrong. If they were able to pass it on without tax, they would be thankful, not angry.

What world do you live in?

 

[Pop23]

I don't support incest, but since you you bring it up in the context of marriage AND since sex is not a requirement of marriage, then you are supporting the illegal activities of incest and marital rape since you imply marriage requires sex to be valid.

Kinda disgusting.

The casual reader of this thread would disagree with you.


Just like after Loving, marriage remains between non familial consenting adults...despite you and R.. D. McIlwaine III predicting otherwise.

Except in Iowa and a couple others.

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

And after Obergfell we now welcome same sex family member marriage.

Next step? Who knows?

Right Pops...siblings are marrying in Iowa.

Seriously, I gotta thank you for your posts. You are an endless source of amusement for my co-workers. They love your defense of incest...and this latest thing with your insistence that siblings are marrying in Iowa? Freaking comedy gold.

(They wouldn't believe me until I showed them your posts). You're like a celebrity.

Of course you will supply a link to any post in which I supported incest....

And a link to the post that I claimed any same sex family members had married in Iowa.

Get to work you butt ugly dyke, you got a busy night ahead of you. And your coworkers will demand that you get back to work bagging them fries bitch

Of course you understand your co workers are laughing at you, not with you. Everyone laughs at dykes. Everyone

Now supply the post where I supported incest.

Dodge in 3......2.....1.......

WTF??

Does this mean you're now finally admitting there have been no such marriages?

For months now you've been pushing this nonsense that close family members could marry each other to avoid paying inheritance taxes .... you [idiotically] believe it's been legal to do so in Iowa for 6 years now ... but now you challenge others to show where you ever claimed anyone did??

So? What is it? Did any such marriages take place or not?

Another logical falicy that I've pointed out many times.

Because it's legal does not mean anyones taken advantage of it.

Here's a fun fact. Did you know if a brother and s sister marry in Iowa without knowing they were closely blood related, their marriage would be void. But if the two were same sex, it would be valid.

Another fun fact. Birth certificates do not establish biological blood relationship. Odd iowa doesn't demand DNA testing of all applicants, don't you think?

But maybe it's because sex isn't a requirement of a valid legal marriage.

BOOM

Made you look the retard again.

This is almost too easy

 

[Pop23]

I would guess that if anyone tries to get married as a same sex, ...

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Not anymore. You're living in the past, gramps.

In Iowa it can be the joining of to brothers according to iowa code 595.19

 

[Pop23]

Note, the licenses do not require family relationship. Gonna make that a tough search SeaWytch, but you go for it. K?

You know people have to present proof they're qualified to marry, right?

Yep, and only opposite gender family members and first cousins are excluded

Iowa code 595.19 says so

I would guess that if anyone tries to get married as a same sex, close relation couple, the state will adjust the law pretty quickly if they haven't already done so when it happens. I imagine we'll find out if/when it happens.

I would agree with this, but the adjustment could be problematic as well

On a side note, an off the wall story was on the radio about a:

Man who's unresolved twin brother (died in the womb), fathered his son.

The condition is called Chimara and it appears that there has been some research as a possible cause of homosexuality.

That would sure clean up the nature or nurture article:

She was a chimera. Tests revealed that while her blood cells had one set of genes, her ovaries held distinctly different ones. Those ovaries had produced the eggs that led to two of Keegan’s sons holding genes different from her own, said Lynne Uhl, a pathologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and co-author of the NEJM study. The researchers reported that these different genes most likely came from a lost twin of Keegan’s, one whose cells she had absorbed while she was an embryo in her own mother’s womb.

The true genetic mother was a twin sister who she never knew and who was never born — a ghost.[\quote]

Link:


This Man Failed A Paternity Test Due To His Vanished Twin’s DNA

This Man Failed A Paternity Test Due To His Vanished Twin’s DNA

I don't think the Iowa code would be too difficult to adjust. I actually found it overly specific. They could just say no to marrying a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt or uncle, with first cousins already being denied. Or change it to say marriage is not allowed between anyone who is a first cousin or closer relation, maybe.

They've had 6 years to do so. Must be a reason. 14th amendment perhaps?

 

[Seawytch]

Really? Find that post. I support YOUR voracious support for incest. I want you to stop just supporting it and DO something with your fierce support of incest.

Of course, your bullshit is just more slippery slope fallacies like this:

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

I don't support incest, but since you you bring it up in the context of marriage AND since sex is not a requirement of marriage, then you are supporting the illegal activities of incest and marital rape since you imply marriage requires sex to be valid.

Kinda disgusting.

The casual reader of this thread would disagree with you.


Just like after Loving, marriage remains between non familial consenting adults...despite you and R.. D. McIlwaine III predicting otherwise.

Except in Iowa and a couple others.

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

And after Obergfell we now welcome same sex family member marriage.

Next step? Who knows?

Right Pops...siblings are marrying in Iowa.

Seriously, I gotta thank you for your posts. You are an endless source of amusement for my co-workers. They love your defense of incest...and this latest thing with your insistence that siblings are marrying in Iowa? Freaking comedy gold.

(They wouldn't believe me until I showed them your posts). You're like a celebrity.

Of course you will supply a link to any post in which I supported incest....

And a link to the post that I claimed any same sex family members had married in Iowa.

Get to work you butt ugly dyke, you got a busy night ahead of you. And your coworkers will demand that you get back to work bagging them fries bitch

Of course you understand your co workers are laughing at you, not with you. Everyone laughs at dykes. Everyone

Now supply the post where I supported incest.

Dodge in 3......2.....1.......

Oh I'm sorry...I guess I used the wrong word. Strong defense...is that better than support? You are a strong defender of incestuous marriages. You argue so effectively for them, it's hard to tell. For the casual observer of the thread, you are a strong and ardent supporter of siblings marrying each other "for the tax breaks".

Do you suffer from some sort of dementia? You've been making the claim for pages and pages now that Iowa allows siblings to marry. You can't produce a single closely related couple that has been allowed to marry in Iowa, but you don't need proof.

Whew...bringing out the big guns I see. I mean, wow..."big ugly dyke". Did it take you consulting with a 10 year old to come up with that biting response?

 

[Pop23]

I don't support incest, but since you you bring it up in the context of marriage AND since sex is not a requirement of marriage, then you are supporting the illegal activities of incest and marital rape since you imply marriage requires sex to be valid.

Kinda disgusting.

The casual reader of this thread would disagree with you.


Just like after Loving, marriage remains between non familial consenting adults...despite you and R.. D. McIlwaine III predicting otherwise.

Except in Iowa and a couple others.

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

And after Obergfell we now welcome same sex family member marriage.

Next step? Who knows?

Right Pops...siblings are marrying in Iowa.

Seriously, I gotta thank you for your posts. You are an endless source of amusement for my co-workers. They love your defense of incest...and this latest thing with your insistence that siblings are marrying in Iowa? Freaking comedy gold.

(They wouldn't believe me until I showed them your posts). You're like a celebrity.

Of course you will supply a link to any post in which I supported incest....

And a link to the post that I claimed any same sex family members had married in Iowa.

Get to work you butt ugly dyke, you got a busy night ahead of you. And your coworkers will demand that you get back to work bagging them fries bitch

Of course you understand your co workers are laughing at you, not with you. Everyone laughs at dykes. Everyone

Now supply the post where I supported incest.

Dodge in 3......2.....1.......

Oh I'm sorry...I guess I used the wrong word. Strong defense...is that better than support? You are a strong defender of incestuous marriages. You argue so effectively for them, it's hard to tell. For the casual observer of the thread, you are a strong and ardent supporter of siblings marrying each other "for the tax breaks".

Do you suffer from some sort of dementia? You've been making the claim for pages and pages now that Iowa allows siblings to marry. You can't produce a single closely related couple that has been allowed to marry in Iowa, but you don't need proof.

Whew...bringing out the big guns I see. I mean, wow..."big ugly dyke". Did it take you consulting with a 10 year old to come up with that biting response?

Proof of something being legal and proof of participation are two completely different standards as well as a logical falicy (and plain ass desperate in your part)

It is legal to screw two different college cheerleaders within 24 hours of each act (beleive me, it was hawt! Especially Donna), but I don't have to prove it happened for its legality to be without question.

Glad I could straighten out your lame argument.

And to the dyke comment. I use only appropriate descriptive language.

 

[Seawytch]

The casual reader of this thread would disagree with you.


Just like after Loving, marriage remains between non familial consenting adults...despite you and R.. D. McIlwaine III predicting otherwise.

Except in Iowa and a couple others.

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

And after Obergfell we now welcome same sex family member marriage.

Next step? Who knows?

Right Pops...siblings are marrying in Iowa.

Seriously, I gotta thank you for your posts. You are an endless source of amusement for my co-workers. They love your defense of incest...and this latest thing with your insistence that siblings are marrying in Iowa? Freaking comedy gold.

(They wouldn't believe me until I showed them your posts). You're like a celebrity.

Of course you will supply a link to any post in which I supported incest....

And a link to the post that I claimed any same sex family members had married in Iowa.

Get to work you butt ugly dyke, you got a busy night ahead of you. And your coworkers will demand that you get back to work bagging them fries bitch

Of course you understand your co workers are laughing at you, not with you. Everyone laughs at dykes. Everyone

Now supply the post where I supported incest.

Dodge in 3......2.....1.......

Oh I'm sorry...I guess I used the wrong word. Strong defense...is that better than support? You are a strong defender of incestuous marriages. You argue so effectively for them, it's hard to tell. For the casual observer of the thread, you are a strong and ardent supporter of siblings marrying each other "for the tax breaks".

Do you suffer from some sort of dementia? You've been making the claim for pages and pages now that Iowa allows siblings to marry. You can't produce a single closely related couple that has been allowed to marry in Iowa, but you don't need proof.

Whew...bringing out the big guns I see. I mean, wow..."big ugly dyke". Did it take you consulting with a 10 year old to come up with that biting response?

Proof of something being legal and proof of participation are two completely different standards as well as a logical falicy (and plain ass desperate in your part)

It is legal to screw two different college cheerleaders within 24 hours of each act (beleive me, it was hawt! Especially Donna), but I don't have to prove it happened for its legality to be without question.

Glad I could straighten out your lame argument.

And to the dyke comment. I use only appropriate descriptive language.

Pop, you don't have to admit you don't have proof, we already know that no closely related couples are marrying in Iowa, you're just being the anti gay bloviator you are. What you say is no different than:

‘[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.’

‘The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.’

‘The State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.’​

Same bigots, different decade.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Except in Iowa and a couple others.

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

And after Obergfell we now welcome same sex family member marriage.

Next step? Who knows?

Right Pops...siblings are marrying in Iowa.

Seriously, I gotta thank you for your posts. You are an endless source of amusement for my co-workers. They love your defense of incest...and this latest thing with your insistence that siblings are marrying in Iowa? Freaking comedy gold.

(They wouldn't believe me until I showed them your posts). You're like a celebrity.

Of course you will supply a link to any post in which I supported incest....

And a link to the post that I claimed any same sex family members had married in Iowa.

Get to work you butt ugly dyke, you got a busy night ahead of you. And your coworkers will demand that you get back to work bagging them fries bitch

Of course you understand your co workers are laughing at you, not with you. Everyone laughs at dykes. Everyone

Now supply the post where I supported incest.

Dodge in 3......2.....1.......

Oh I'm sorry...I guess I used the wrong word. Strong defense...is that better than support? You are a strong defender of incestuous marriages. You argue so effectively for them, it's hard to tell. For the casual observer of the thread, you are a strong and ardent supporter of siblings marrying each other "for the tax breaks".

Do you suffer from some sort of dementia? You've been making the claim for pages and pages now that Iowa allows siblings to marry. You can't produce a single closely related couple that has been allowed to marry in Iowa, but you don't need proof.

Whew...bringing out the big guns I see. I mean, wow..."big ugly dyke". Did it take you consulting with a 10 year old to come up with that biting response?

Proof of something being legal and proof of participation are two completely different standards as well as a logical falicy (and plain ass desperate in your part)

It is legal to screw two different college cheerleaders within 24 hours of each act (beleive me, it was hawt! Especially Donna), but I don't have to prove it happened for its legality to be without question.

Glad I could straighten out your lame argument.

And to the dyke comment. I use only appropriate descriptive language.

Pop, you don't have to admit you don't have proof, we already know that no closely related couples are marrying in Iowa, you're just being the anti gay bloviator you are. What you say is no different than:

‘[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.’

‘The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.’

‘The State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.’​

Same bigots, different decade.

The absolutely coolest thing about the use of the word bigot is that it is a classic demonstration of bigotry.

 

[Faun]

Who would report it? Those entrusted with citizens privacy?

The only reason same sex couples were newsworthy was because of Obergfell

Now it yawn

Suppose a same sex family couple would want noteriety? I doubt they would call the press sweetheart

Marriage licenses are public records. Siblings legally marrying would be all over the RW Nut news.

Of course it would. Especially if they were screwing the government out of taxes and due to a loophole created by the legalization of same-sex marriage?? Holyfuckingshit, their howls would be louder than 'BENGHAZI!!'

Perv23's position was killed a long time ago. Even he knows it. He's just making up any shit imaginable at this point because he's a troll.

They're not screwing the government anymore than any other legal marriage.

You get loonier and loonier dude

Of course they are. In no other marriage would a wealthy old man be able to pass his inheritance on to his son, if what you were claiming was true. You really don't know what you're talking about.

Even worse, they would get to boast about how they're getting away with it because the gay mafia got rid of traditional marriage. They would be ear-bustingly loud.

And you can't find one.

Your premis is wrong. If they were able to pass it on without tax, they would be thankful, not angry.

What world do you live in?

A world you don't live in. It's called reality. Case in point, I never said they would be angry. I said they would be ecstatic over it being an unidentified consequence of same-sex marriage. What the fuck is wrong with you, perv23?