It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[320 Years of History]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

...Let the flames begin!

Man has gone out to explore other worlds and other civilizations without having explored his own labyrinth of dark passages and secret chambers, and without finding what lies behind doorways that he himself has sealed.
― Stanisław Lem, Solaris

Let the flames begin! (Was that an intentional pun?) Looking at your opening paragraph, it's not clear to me what you wanted to see in response to your OP.....It is, however, clear to me that, as stated at the start of your post, you "just don't care" about much other than the righteousness and "infallibility" of your own viewpoint on this matter.

In reading your post, it appears you associate homosexuality only with men. Why is that? Has it not dawned on you that there are as many gay women as there are gay men?

Red:
Say what? Is the saying "it is what it is" incomprehensible to you? Are you truly unable to observe others, in particular gay people, and not pass judgment? Are you certain that nobody else can? It seems from your comments that you can't and are.

Blue:
I don't understand. What exactly are some examples of our being pushed "even further" and that show there to be "no end?"

I've heard fundamentalist theists assert, for example, that the legal recognition of gay marriage posed the biggest threat to heterosexual marriage. Poppycock! The biggest threat to any marriage is the existence of divorce.

Purple:
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about lesbians publicly forcing themselves on women? Do you find that notion offensive because it'd be an assault? Or do you find it appealing because it'd be gay women rather than gay men?

Green:
I too don't care much for the notion of "political correctness." I see PC as little other than a "guidebook" that shows moral miscreants how to behave and what to say, thereby allowing them to move through society without the rest of us being readily aware of their true nature.

Orange:
It stands to reason that if a television show's producers opt to depict characters and themes that you find objectionable, that the show might no longer be among your favorites. Why do you persist in watching a show you don't like? Why are you complaining here? Change the channel. Write to show's producers. (I might not have had these remarks, but as I wrote above, it's not clear just what you expected us to say in response to your OP.)

Pink:
You really should get out and read more.

• Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality? | Yale Scientific Magazine
  
• 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
  
• The Natural "Crime Against Nature": Homosexual Behaviors In Animals

It's one thing to just not know something. We can't all know everything about everything. Willful ignorance, however, is unpardonable when it's accompanied by very strong feelings and set of beliefs, beliefs so strong that one will compose and publish publicly such as the pink ones I've highlighted in your OP. It's clear that you've bothered to neither wonder whether you might be mistaken, to say nothing of even searching to determine whether there exist facts that might call them into question or plainly refute them.

I can respect that you find homosexual behavior among humans abhorrent (even though I don't agree), but asserting that same-sex pairings is abnormal, not natural, is quite simply wrong. Sure, homosexuality isn't the most commonly exhibited sexual behavior among animals (human or otherwise), but frequency of occurrence does not demonstrate abnormality. Indeed, that it exists at all indicates that it's normal. For example, cancer, though not beneficial, yet is a normal thing that happens. Cancer is undesirable, but it is normal.

Nothing limits intelligence more than ignorance; nothing fosters ignorance more than one's own opinions; nothing strengthens opinions more than refusing to look at reality.
― Sheri S. Tepper, The Visitor

 

[Pop23]

Nope, only opposite sex couples appear on the list.
595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.


See, no same sex.

And why do you keep pushing youre discredited opinion that a stepfather cans marry a stepdaughter? And an adopted son can Marry the adoptive Mother?

You are a weirdo.

I pushed no such thing. When do you stop lying, perv?

Your link, you're proof, says they can.

They are not blood related, and you keep highlighting blood related as those who can't...........

Pretty weak supportive evidence if say.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, that list is not exhaustive. That you can't argue without lying about my position reveals even you know you lost this debate.

Then you really need to support you're own arguments, which you obviously haven't.

I can't always do you're work for you.

Time to grow up little one

When do you stop lying?

When do you supply any evidence that would advance you're argument?

Showing you're foolishnes is not lieing

But it does provide me hours of free entertainment

 

[Pop23]

The evidence was given... no such couples could be found.

Is Pop still babbling about his fantasy incest couple that he has no evidence even exists?

Yeah, there's a reason why every one of Pop's pseudo-legal predictions has never happened. And this thread demonstrates it.

Perv23 says a loophole was created which would attract many inter-family members to marry each other for financial benefits ... but then none showed up.

He's as dumb as Stephanie who started the Operation American Spring thread. Same level of idiocy. She claimed tens of millions of people would show up for that moronic event -- then about 50 complete idiots did ... perv23 claims those among the "hundred of millions" of Americans would show up in Iowa to take advantage of a tax loophole -- then can't find any who did.

Please link to the Iowa law that makes DNA testing a requirement to Marry?

Without those test it would be impossible to establish a blood relationship.

Please also link to the part of the law that states sex is a requirement of marriage.

Do you know that Iowa 595 actually just call marriage a contract? And that contract does not include sex as a requirement.

Do you also realize that Iowa classifies sex with a blood relative as a crime, but that crime can't be uncorroberated?

So you still have a big hill to climb, no doubt you're spindly legs aren't up to it though.

If you want to fund the massive testing that would be required to DNA test everyone married in Iowa since 2009 I'm sure we can arrange them.

Here's a fun little bit of trivia.

If we found couples that were blood related:

The opposite sex couples would have their licences void.

Same sex family marriages would not.

Iowa still thinks you're an idiot.

http://www.co.carroll.ia.us/Recorder/Applicant Instructions.pdf

Oh well, C'est la vie.

Wow.....it says right there in the Applicant Instructions:

3) not closely related by blood or first cousins;

And Pop just pretends it doesn't exist. I'm guessing its this kind of pretending and willful ignorance that has led to his record of perfect failure. With exactly none of his pseudo-legal predictions ever coming true.

So I guess you support affinity marriage then?

Adopted parents marrying their adopted children, not blood related, would legal using you're logic. And step parents and their stepchildren as well.

You two are the perverted as hell.

Nice try though, this is the excluded, blood related couples in Iowa:


595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

None are same sex immediate family members.

Sorry. You backed a losing horse.

 

[Faun]

I pushed no such thing. When do you stop lying, perv?

Your link, you're proof, says they can.

They are not blood related, and you keep highlighting blood related as those who can't...........

Pretty weak supportive evidence if say.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, that list is not exhaustive. That you can't argue without lying about my position reveals even you know you lost this debate.

Then you really need to support you're own arguments, which you obviously haven't.

I can't always do you're work for you.

Time to grow up little one

When do you stop lying?

When do you supply any evidence that would advance you're argument?

Showing you're foolishnes is not lieing

But it does provide me hours of free entertainment

You're still lying -- I've provided it. Repeatedly.

If truth and facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

 

[Faun]

Is Pop still babbling about his fantasy incest couple that he has no evidence even exists?

Yeah, there's a reason why every one of Pop's pseudo-legal predictions has never happened. And this thread demonstrates it.

Perv23 says a loophole was created which would attract many inter-family members to marry each other for financial benefits ... but then none showed up.

He's as dumb as Stephanie who started the Operation American Spring thread. Same level of idiocy. She claimed tens of millions of people would show up for that moronic event -- then about 50 complete idiots did ... perv23 claims those among the "hundred of millions" of Americans would show up in Iowa to take advantage of a tax loophole -- then can't find any who did.

Please link to the Iowa law that makes DNA testing a requirement to Marry?

Without those test it would be impossible to establish a blood relationship.

Please also link to the part of the law that states sex is a requirement of marriage.

Do you know that Iowa 595 actually just call marriage a contract? And that contract does not include sex as a requirement.

Do you also realize that Iowa classifies sex with a blood relative as a crime, but that crime can't be uncorroberated?

So you still have a big hill to climb, no doubt you're spindly legs aren't up to it though.

If you want to fund the massive testing that would be required to DNA test everyone married in Iowa since 2009 I'm sure we can arrange them.

Here's a fun little bit of trivia.

If we found couples that were blood related:

The opposite sex couples would have their licences void.

Same sex family marriages would not.

Iowa still thinks you're an idiot.

http://www.co.carroll.ia.us/Recorder/Applicant Instructions.pdf

Oh well, C'est la vie.

Wow.....it says right there in the Applicant Instructions:

3) not closely related by blood or first cousins;

And Pop just pretends it doesn't exist. I'm guessing its this kind of pretending and willful ignorance that has led to his record of perfect failure. With exactly none of his pseudo-legal predictions ever coming true.

So I guess you support affinity marriage then?

Adopted parents marrying their adopted children, not blood related, would legal using you're logic. And step parents and their stepchildren as well.

You two are the perverted as hell.

Nice try though, this is the excluded, blood related couples in Iowa:


595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

None are same sex immediate family members.

Sorry. You backed a losing horse.

No matter how many times you repeat this idiocy, it will never be true.

595.3 prohibits affinity, regardless of gender.

 

[Pop23]

Perv23 says a loophole was created which would attract many inter-family members to marry each other for financial benefits ... but then none showed up.

He's as dumb as Stephanie who started the Operation American Spring thread. Same level of idiocy. She claimed tens of millions of people would show up for that moronic event -- then about 50 complete idiots did ... perv23 claims those among the "hundred of millions" of Americans would show up in Iowa to take advantage of a tax loophole -- then can't find any who did.

Please link to the Iowa law that makes DNA testing a requirement to Marry?

Without those test it would be impossible to establish a blood relationship.

Please also link to the part of the law that states sex is a requirement of marriage.

Do you know that Iowa 595 actually just call marriage a contract? And that contract does not include sex as a requirement.

Do you also realize that Iowa classifies sex with a blood relative as a crime, but that crime can't be uncorroberated?

So you still have a big hill to climb, no doubt you're spindly legs aren't up to it though.

If you want to fund the massive testing that would be required to DNA test everyone married in Iowa since 2009 I'm sure we can arrange them.

Here's a fun little bit of trivia.

If we found couples that were blood related:

The opposite sex couples would have their licences void.

Same sex family marriages would not.

Iowa still thinks you're an idiot.

http://www.co.carroll.ia.us/Recorder/Applicant Instructions.pdf

Oh well, C'est la vie.

Wow.....it says right there in the Applicant Instructions:

3) not closely related by blood or first cousins;

And Pop just pretends it doesn't exist. I'm guessing its this kind of pretending and willful ignorance that has led to his record of perfect failure. With exactly none of his pseudo-legal predictions ever coming true.

So I guess you support affinity marriage then?

Adopted parents marrying their adopted children, not blood related, would legal using you're logic. And step parents and their stepchildren as well.

You two are the perverted as hell.

Nice try though, this is the excluded, blood related couples in Iowa:


595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

None are same sex immediate family members.

Sorry. You backed a losing horse.

No matter how many times you repeat this idiocy, it will never be true.

595.3 prohibits affinity, regardless of gender.

I think I've stated that, even though you're pamphlet makes no mention of it.

Yet you claim IT as proof same sex family can't marry.

It's either one or the other.

Which?

 

[Pop23]

Your link, you're proof, says they can.

They are not blood related, and you keep highlighting blood related as those who can't...........

Pretty weak supportive evidence if say.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, that list is not exhaustive. That you can't argue without lying about my position reveals even you know you lost this debate.

Then you really need to support you're own arguments, which you obviously haven't.

I can't always do you're work for you.

Time to grow up little one

When do you stop lying?

When do you supply any evidence that would advance you're argument?

Showing you're foolishnes is not lieing

But it does provide me hours of free entertainment

You're still lying -- I've provided it. Repeatedly.

If truth and facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

No lies needed. If your pamphlet is proof, then affinity marraige is legal.

Clue: youre full of bullshit.

 

[Faun]

Please link to the Iowa law that makes DNA testing a requirement to Marry?

Without those test it would be impossible to establish a blood relationship.

Please also link to the part of the law that states sex is a requirement of marriage.

Do you know that Iowa 595 actually just call marriage a contract? And that contract does not include sex as a requirement.

Do you also realize that Iowa classifies sex with a blood relative as a crime, but that crime can't be uncorroberated?

So you still have a big hill to climb, no doubt you're spindly legs aren't up to it though.

If you want to fund the massive testing that would be required to DNA test everyone married in Iowa since 2009 I'm sure we can arrange them.

Here's a fun little bit of trivia.

If we found couples that were blood related:

The opposite sex couples would have their licences void.

Same sex family marriages would not.

Iowa still thinks you're an idiot.

http://www.co.carroll.ia.us/Recorder/Applicant Instructions.pdf

Oh well, C'est la vie.

Wow.....it says right there in the Applicant Instructions:

3) not closely related by blood or first cousins;

And Pop just pretends it doesn't exist. I'm guessing its this kind of pretending and willful ignorance that has led to his record of perfect failure. With exactly none of his pseudo-legal predictions ever coming true.

So I guess you support affinity marriage then?

Adopted parents marrying their adopted children, not blood related, would legal using you're logic. And step parents and their stepchildren as well.

You two are the perverted as hell.

Nice try though, this is the excluded, blood related couples in Iowa:


595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

None are same sex immediate family members.

Sorry. You backed a losing horse.

No matter how many times you repeat this idiocy, it will never be true.

595.3 prohibits affinity, regardless of gender.

I think I've stated that, even though you're pamphlet makes no mention of it.

Yet you claim IT as proof same sex family can't marry.

It's either one or the other.

Which?

It's no one's fault but your own that you're too stupid to understand the list of restrictions on Iowa's marriage instructions is not exhaustive.

 

[Pop23]

Iowa still thinks you're an idiot.

http://www.co.carroll.ia.us/Recorder/Applicant Instructions.pdf

Oh well, C'est la vie.

Wow.....it says right there in the Applicant Instructions:

3) not closely related by blood or first cousins;

And Pop just pretends it doesn't exist. I'm guessing its this kind of pretending and willful ignorance that has led to his record of perfect failure. With exactly none of his pseudo-legal predictions ever coming true.

So I guess you support affinity marriage then?

Adopted parents marrying their adopted children, not blood related, would legal using you're logic. And step parents and their stepchildren as well.

You two are the perverted as hell.

Nice try though, this is the excluded, blood related couples in Iowa:


595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

None are same sex immediate family members.

Sorry. You backed a losing horse.

No matter how many times you repeat this idiocy, it will never be true.

595.3 prohibits affinity, regardless of gender.

I think I've stated that, even though you're pamphlet makes no mention of it.

Yet you claim IT as proof same sex family can't marry.

It's either one or the other.

Which?

It's no one's fault but your own that you're too stupid to understand the list of restrictions on Iowa's marriage instructions is not exhaustive.

Yeah, I know. That's why using it as a basis for YOU'RE argument is bogus as hell.

 

[Faun]

Wow.....it says right there in the Applicant Instructions:

3) not closely related by blood or first cousins;

And Pop just pretends it doesn't exist. I'm guessing its this kind of pretending and willful ignorance that has led to his record of perfect failure. With exactly none of his pseudo-legal predictions ever coming true.

So I guess you support affinity marriage then?

Adopted parents marrying their adopted children, not blood related, would legal using you're logic. And step parents and their stepchildren as well.

You two are the perverted as hell.

Nice try though, this is the excluded, blood related couples in Iowa:


595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

None are same sex immediate family members.

Sorry. You backed a losing horse.

No matter how many times you repeat this idiocy, it will never be true.

595.3 prohibits affinity, regardless of gender.

I think I've stated that, even though you're pamphlet makes no mention of it.

Yet you claim IT as proof same sex family can't marry.

It's either one or the other.

Which?

It's no one's fault but your own that you're too stupid to understand the list of restrictions on Iowa's marriage instructions is not exhaustive.

Yeah, I know. That's why using it as a basis for YOU'RE argument is bogus as hell.

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/your-vs-youre/

Thank me later.

 

[Pop23]

So I guess you support affinity marriage then?

Adopted parents marrying their adopted children, not blood related, would legal using you're logic. And step parents and their stepchildren as well.

You two are the perverted as hell.

Nice try though, this is the excluded, blood related couples in Iowa:


595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

None are same sex immediate family members.

Sorry. You backed a losing horse.

No matter how many times you repeat this idiocy, it will never be true.

595.3 prohibits affinity, regardless of gender.

I think I've stated that, even though you're pamphlet makes no mention of it.

Yet you claim IT as proof same sex family can't marry.

It's either one or the other.

Which?

It's no one's fault but your own that you're too stupid to understand the list of restrictions on Iowa's marriage instructions is not exhaustive.

Yeah, I know. That's why using it as a basis for YOU'RE argument is bogus as hell.

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/your-vs-youre/

Thank me later.

Concession noted

 

[Faun]

No matter how many times you repeat this idiocy, it will never be true.

595.3 prohibits affinity, regardless of gender.

I think I've stated that, even though you're pamphlet makes no mention of it.

Yet you claim IT as proof same sex family can't marry.

It's either one or the other.

Which?

It's no one's fault but your own that you're too stupid to understand the list of restrictions on Iowa's marriage instructions is not exhaustive.

Yeah, I know. That's why using it as a basis for YOU'RE argument is bogus as hell.

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/your-vs-youre/

Thank me later.

Concession noted

Aww. How sad for you, perv? The only way you can win an argument is to declare yourself the winner. Too bad you can't do that by proving your position.

 

[Skylar]

I think I've stated that, even though you're pamphlet makes no mention of it.

Yet you claim IT as proof same sex family can't marry.

It's either one or the other.

Which?

It's no one's fault but your own that you're too stupid to understand the list of restrictions on Iowa's marriage instructions is not exhaustive.

Yeah, I know. That's why using it as a basis for YOU'RE argument is bogus as hell.

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/your-vs-youre/

Thank me later.

Concession noted

Aww. How sad for you, perv? The only way you can win an argument is to declare yourself the winner. Too bad you can't do that by proving your position.

Laughing......a perfect record of predictive failure. The inability to factually establish even one of the marriages he insists are occuring. And Iowa instructions for marriage explicitly contradicting him.

Sounds like a 'winner' to me!

 

[Pop23]

I think I've stated that, even though you're pamphlet makes no mention of it.

Yet you claim IT as proof same sex family can't marry.

It's either one or the other.

Which?

It's no one's fault but your own that you're too stupid to understand the list of restrictions on Iowa's marriage instructions is not exhaustive.

Yeah, I know. That's why using it as a basis for YOU'RE argument is bogus as hell.

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/your-vs-youre/

Thank me later.

Concession noted

Aww. How sad for you, perv? The only way you can win an argument is to declare yourself the winner. Too bad you can't do that by proving your position.

I did

You failed

Concession noted x 2

 

[Faun]

It's no one's fault but your own that you're too stupid to understand the list of restrictions on Iowa's marriage instructions is not exhaustive.

Yeah, I know. That's why using it as a basis for YOU'RE argument is bogus as hell.

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/your-vs-youre/

Thank me later.

Concession noted

Aww. How sad for you, perv? The only way you can win an argument is to declare yourself the winner. Too bad you can't do that by proving your position.

Laughing......a perfect record of predictive failure. The inability to factually establish even one of the marriages he insists are occuring. And Iowa instructions for marriage explicitly contradicting him.

Sounds like a 'winner' to me!

Not just their marriage instructions; Iowa law the instructions are based upon...

595.3 LICENSE.
Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that purpose must be obtained from the county registrar. The license must not be granted in any case:

1. Where either party is under the age necessary to render the marriage valid.
   
2. Where either party is under eighteen years of age, unless the marriage is approved by a judge of the district court as provided by section 595.2.
   
3. Where either party is disqualified from making any civil contract.
   
4. Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.
   
5. Where either party is a ward under a guardianship and the court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract a valid marriage.

​

 

[Faun]

It's no one's fault but your own that you're too stupid to understand the list of restrictions on Iowa's marriage instructions is not exhaustive.

Yeah, I know. That's why using it as a basis for YOU'RE argument is bogus as hell.

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/your-vs-youre/

Thank me later.

Concession noted

Aww. How sad for you, perv? The only way you can win an argument is to declare yourself the winner. Too bad you can't do that by proving your position.

I did

You failed

Concession noted x 2

If such marriages were legal in Iowa, then you'd be able to show an example of even one such marriage since even you agree that families would marry each other to avoid paying certain taxes. Yet you can't because Iowa never allowed family members to marry each other regardless of gender and they still don't.

 

[Pop23]

It's no one's fault but your own that you're too stupid to understand the list of restrictions on Iowa's marriage instructions is not exhaustive.

Yeah, I know. That's why using it as a basis for YOU'RE argument is bogus as hell.

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/your-vs-youre/

Thank me later.

Concession noted

Aww. How sad for you, perv? The only way you can win an argument is to declare yourself the winner. Too bad you can't do that by proving your position.

Laughing......a perfect record of predictive failure. The inability to factually establish even one of the marriages he insists are occuring. And Iowa instructions for marriage explicitly contradicting him.

Sounds like a 'winner' to me!

You realize that Iowa does not test for family status, right?

So, you fund the DNA testing that would be required to make such a determination, and here's a fun little fact:

If an opposite sex couple would turn up blood related, their marriage would be declared void.

If a same sex couple turned up blood related, thiers would be declared valid.

Got anything to actually add?

 

[Pop23]

Yeah, I know. That's why using it as a basis for YOU'RE argument is bogus as hell.

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/your-vs-youre/

Thank me later.

Concession noted

Aww. How sad for you, perv? The only way you can win an argument is to declare yourself the winner. Too bad you can't do that by proving your position.

I did

You failed

Concession noted x 2

If such marriages were legal in Iowa, then you'd be able to show an example of even one such marriage since even you agree that families would marry each other to avoid paying certain taxes. Yet you can't because Iowa never allowed family members to marry each other regardless of gender and they still don't.

Nope, I already won that point, but you can deflect until the cows come up......

You still lose

 

[Faun]

It's no one's fault but your own that you're too stupid to understand the list of restrictions on Iowa's marriage instructions is not exhaustive.

Yeah, I know. That's why using it as a basis for YOU'RE argument is bogus as hell.

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/your-vs-youre/

Thank me later.

Concession noted

Aww. How sad for you, perv? The only way you can win an argument is to declare yourself the winner. Too bad you can't do that by proving your position.

I did

You failed

Concession noted x 2

So you claim. But then, you can't even prove your case.

 

[Pop23]

Yeah, I know. That's why using it as a basis for YOU'RE argument is bogus as hell.

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/your-vs-youre/

Thank me later.

Concession noted

Aww. How sad for you, perv? The only way you can win an argument is to declare yourself the winner. Too bad you can't do that by proving your position.

Laughing......a perfect record of predictive failure. The inability to factually establish even one of the marriages he insists are occuring. And Iowa instructions for marriage explicitly contradicting him.

Sounds like a 'winner' to me!

Not just their marriage instructions; Iowa law the instructions are based upon...

595.3 LICENSE.
Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that purpose must be obtained from the county registrar. The license must not be granted in any case:

1. 
   
   
   • Where either party is under the age necessary to render the marriage valid.
   • Where either party is under eighteen years of age, unless the marriage is approved by a judge of the district court as provided by section 595.2.
   • Where either party is disqualified from making any civil contract.
   • Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.
   • Where either party is a ward under a guardianship and the court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract a valid marriage.

Old news. I've already posted a Iowa family practice attorney that blew that out of the water. The question was, can a great great uncle marry a great Neice. The answer:

Posted on Jun 11
Iowa Code Sec. 595.19 lists "void" marriages. This section doesn't prohibit marriages between a woman and her grandmother's brother.

Answers on Avvo are not to be considered a response to a specific legal issue in a specific jurisdiction - they are to be considered only general responses to hypothetical scenarios posed by the questioner. For specific legal advice, please consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. No information contained herein should be construed as a solicitation for business, an offer to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which the attorneys of R.J. Law Firm, P.C. are not licensed, or the dissemination of legal advice. No creation of an attorney-client relationship should be assumed or implied.

Mark as helpful

2 lawyers agree

Note: 2 lawyers agree

Can a woman and her great-uncle marry? - Avvo.com

Looks you lose again!