It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Faun]

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

Nah, you just don't realize how stupid you look claiming not one single person out of a country of 250 million questionably eligible people took advantage of a loophole to avoid paying inheritance tax in what you called a "mess."

 

[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.

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

Yet Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry regardless of gender.

 

[Faun]

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?

Yeah, now he's claiming not one family took advantage of a loophole he claims was created 6 years ago.

 

[Faun]

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.

How cute... perv23 has names for his blowup dolls.

 

[Pop23]

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

Nah, you just don't realize how stupid you look claiming not one single person out of a country of 250 million questionably eligible people took advantage of a loophole to avoid paying inheritance tax in what you called a "mess."

Another logical falicy. My argument is the legality, not the participation.

You uber right wing bigots are laughable in your desperate attempts to deny rights afforded everyone under the constitution

 

[Pop23]

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.

How cute... perv23 has names for his blowup dolls.

Donna would be insulted, but I don't think she would care what a retard like you would think. Knowing Donna, she would pity you.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Yeah, now he's claiming not one family took advantage of a loophole he claims was created 6 years ago.

Prove your not a complete retard and link to where I made such a claim.

I guess if you can't, then you are a retard.

 

[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

Yet Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry regardless of gender.

I proved you wrong. It is legal.

But you have a pamphlet.....

 

[Faun]

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

Nah, you just don't realize how stupid you look claiming not one single person out of a country of 250 million questionably eligible people took advantage of a loophole to avoid paying inheritance tax in what you called a "mess."

Another logical falicy. My argument is the legality, not the participation.

You uber right wing bigots are laughable in your desperate attempts to deny rights afforded everyone under the constitution

That you think I'm rightwing only further proves your brain is broken beyond repair.

That aside, it's not believable that a tax loophole has existed for 6 years where any family could avoid paying inheritance tax and not 1 person in a country of 250 million eligible people took advantage.

 

[Faun]

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.

How cute... perv23 has names for his blowup dolls.

Donna would be insulted, but I don't think she would care what a retard like you would think. Knowing Donna, she would pity you.

No worries, I don't care what plastic mannequins think of me.

 

[Pop23]

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

Nah, you just don't realize how stupid you look claiming not one single person out of a country of 250 million questionably eligible people took advantage of a loophole to avoid paying inheritance tax in what you called a "mess."

Another logical falicy. My argument is the legality, not the participation.

You uber right wing bigots are laughable in your desperate attempts to deny rights afforded everyone under the constitution

That you think I'm rightwing only further proves your brain is broken beyond repair.

That aside, it's not believable that a tax loophole has existed for 6 years where any family could avoid paying inheritance tax and not 1 person in a country of 250 million eligible people took advantage.

Prove nobody has.

You can't, but you can whine like the uber right wing nutjob you are.

Us progressive thinkers enjoy watching your logical falicy game crumble.

It's a friggin riot!

 

[Pop23]

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.

How cute... perv23 has names for his blowup dolls.

Donna would be insulted, but I don't think she would care what a retard like you would think. Knowing Donna, she would pity you.

No worries, I don't care what plastic mannequins think of me.

You've never been laid by a human so I guess we understand your plastic fetish.

 

[Faun]

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?

Yeah, now he's claiming not one family took advantage of a loophole he claims was created 6 years ago.

Prove your not a complete retard and link to where I made such a claim.

I guess if you can't, then you are a retard.

Well for one, I know the difference between "your" and "you're."

For another, I know when someone denies ever saying any families ever married each other and can't find a single couple who has, and then makes up excuses why no one has ... the logical conclusion is that none did.

 

[Faun]

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

Nah, you just don't realize how stupid you look claiming not one single person out of a country of 250 million questionably eligible people took advantage of a loophole to avoid paying inheritance tax in what you called a "mess."

Another logical falicy. My argument is the legality, not the participation.

You uber right wing bigots are laughable in your desperate attempts to deny rights afforded everyone under the constitution

That you think I'm rightwing only further proves your brain is broken beyond repair.

That aside, it's not believable that a tax loophole has existed for 6 years where any family could avoid paying inheritance tax and not 1 person in a country of 250 million eligible people took advantage.

Prove nobody has.

You can't, but you can whine like the uber right wing nutjob you are.

Us progressive thinkers enjoy watching your logical falicy game crumble.

It's a friggin riot!

I don't have to prove a negative. You're claiming there's a legal loophole to avoid paying inheritance taxes. That would say e some families millions of dollars.

The onus is on you to prove your claim.

It's beyond obvious you can't, so you try, and fail, to shift the burden of proof upon others.

 

[Faun]

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.

How cute... perv23 has names for his blowup dolls.

Donna would be insulted, but I don't think she would care what a retard like you would think. Knowing Donna, she would pity you.

No worries, I don't care what plastic mannequins think of me.

You've never been laid by a human so I guess we understand your plastic fetish.

Holyfuckingshit!

My kids would get a good laugh at that one. Why are you sooo desperate?

 

[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.

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

Yet Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry regardless of gender.

I proved you wrong. It is legal.

But you have a pamphlet.....

A "pamphlet" which contains the guidelines for whom Iowa considers eligible for marriage.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Yeah, now he's claiming not one family took advantage of a loophole he claims was created 6 years ago.

Prove your not a complete retard and link to where I made such a claim.

I guess if you can't, then you are a retard.

Well for one, I know the difference between "your" and "you're."

For another, I know when someone denies ever saying any families ever married each other and can't find a single couple who has, and then makes up excuses why no one has ... the logical conclusion is that none did.

Trying to logically justify a falicy is the most dishonest form of debate.

Prove your claim that I said these marriages had been entered into or you have proclaimed yourself a liar

Deflection in 3.....2.....1

 

[Pop23]

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

Yet Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry regardless of gender.

I proved you wrong. It is legal.

But you have a pamphlet.....

A "pamphlet" which contains the guidelines for whom Iowa considers eligible for marriage.

Key words "pamphlet" "guidelines".

Those lines guide you the law, which is Iowa 596.19

Watch the nitwit dance everyone!

 

[Pop23]

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.

How cute... perv23 has names for his blowup dolls.

Donna would be insulted, but I don't think she would care what a retard like you would think. Knowing Donna, she would pity you.

No worries, I don't care what plastic mannequins think of me.

You've never been laid by a human so I guess we understand your plastic fetish.

Holyfuckingshit!

My kids would get a good laugh at that one. Why are you sooo desperate?

Those plastic things are dolls, not kids you demented retard.

 

[Faun]

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?

Yeah, now he's claiming not one family took advantage of a loophole he claims was created 6 years ago.

Prove your not a complete retard and link to where I made such a claim.

I guess if you can't, then you are a retard.

Well for one, I know the difference between "your" and "you're."

For another, I know when someone denies ever saying any families ever married each other and can't find a single couple who has, and then makes up excuses why no one has ... the logical conclusion is that none did.

Trying to logically justify a falicy is the most dishonest form of debate.

Prove your claim that I said these marriages had been entered into or you have proclaimed yourself a liar

Deflection in 3.....2.....1

I also can't prove your delusions... case in point, I never said you claimed anyone entered into such a marriage. Remember? I'm the one pointing out you can't find anyone who entered into such a marriage.

Isn't it kind of early in the morning for you to be this drunk?