Ramifications of Same Sex Marriage

[Pop23]

I firmly oppose incestuous marriage and have been struggling to find a legal basis as to how many incestuous marriages could be banned. I've been called foolish, but it appears it's already legal in at least one state, or at least, not prohibited, if I read the statute correctly.

The link below is to the State of Iowa code addressing who is eligible to marry:

Iowa Code 595.19

Did you notice that only opposite gender closely related individuals are listed as those prohibited to Marry? Same sex closely related relatives are not prohibited from marriage.

The law was written prior to same sex marriage being ruled legal obviously, but it is now the law.

This creates an interesting paradox.

A straight farmer, looking to pass his farm onto his son without the burdon of the inheritance tax could simply Marry his son and POOF, no inheritance tax, but he could not do that with his daughter?

I came across this odd situation from a brief submitted to the ninth circuit, and apparently ignored. That lead me to research if anyone thought that same sex siblings actually wanted the right.

In a marriage equality forum a couple of people posted that they were in same sex sibling relationships and were upset that they could not Marry as other same sex couples now could.

It also appears that several other states have similar laws to Iowa, and others define incest as vaginal penetration.

What a mess we made.

 

[Obiwan]

Darn, it doesn't prohibit them from marrying their mule, either...

Sounds like a Lib paradise!!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I firmly oppose incestuous marriage and have been struggling to find a legal basis as to how many incestuous marriages could be banned. I've been called foolish, but it appears it's already legal in at least one state, or at least, not prohibited, if I read the statute correctly.

The link below is to the State of Iowa code addressing who is eligible to marry:

Iowa Code 595.19

Did you notice that only opposite gender closely related individuals are listed as those prohibited to Marry? Same sex closely related relatives are not prohibited from marriage.

The law was written prior to same sex marriage being ruled legal obviously, but it is now the law.

This creates an interesting paradox.

A straight farmer, looking to pass his farm onto his son without the burdon of the inheritance tax could simply Marry his son and POOF, no inheritance tax, but he could not do that with his daughter?

I came across this odd situation from a brief submitted to the ninth circuit, and apparently ignored. That lead me to research if anyone thought that same sex siblings actually wanted the right.

In a marriage equality forum a couple of people posted that they were in same sex sibling relationships and were upset that they could not Marry as other same sex couples now could.

It also appears that several other states have similar laws to Iowa, and others define incest as vaginal penetration.

What a mess we made.

You don’t understand the statute, it doesn’t authorize ‘incestuous marriages.’

The premise of your thread fails as a slippery slope fallacy, straw man fallacy, and red herring fallacy – you are both foolish and ignorant.

Obergefell addressed solely same-sex couples who were eligible to enter into marriage contracts, having nothing to do with ‘incestuous marriages,’ and in no way ‘authorizing’ such ‘marriages.’

Consequently there is no 'mess.'

 

[IsaacNewton]

Dennis Hastert and the Catholic church must be thrilled. Incest and child molesting is almost exclusively a conservative trait.
All you have to do is look at the evidence. The question is, when will conservatives address this abhoration in their midst.

 

[Mad Scientist]

"RAMifications"

 

[Pop23]

I firmly oppose incestuous marriage and have been struggling to find a legal basis as to how many incestuous marriages could be banned. I've been called foolish, but it appears it's already legal in at least one state, or at least, not prohibited, if I read the statute correctly.

The link below is to the State of Iowa code addressing who is eligible to marry:

Iowa Code 595.19

Did you notice that only opposite gender closely related individuals are listed as those prohibited to Marry? Same sex closely related relatives are not prohibited from marriage.

The law was written prior to same sex marriage being ruled legal obviously, but it is now the law.

This creates an interesting paradox.

A straight farmer, looking to pass his farm onto his son without the burdon of the inheritance tax could simply Marry his son and POOF, no inheritance tax, but he could not do that with his daughter?

I came across this odd situation from a brief submitted to the ninth circuit, and apparently ignored. That lead me to research if anyone thought that same sex siblings actually wanted the right.

In a marriage equality forum a couple of people posted that they were in same sex sibling relationships and were upset that they could not Marry as other same sex couples now could.

It also appears that several other states have similar laws to Iowa, and others define incest as vaginal penetration.

What a mess we made.

You don’t understand the statute, it doesn’t authorize ‘incestuous marriages.’

The premise of your thread fails as a slippery slope fallacy, straw man fallacy, and red herring fallacy – you are both foolish and ignorant.

Obergefell addressed solely same-sex couples who were eligible to enter into marriage contracts, having nothing to do with ‘incestuous marriages,’ and in no way ‘authorizing’ such ‘marriages.’

Consequently there is no 'mess.'

The Iowa code addresses the law AND lists those not eligible, no same sex, closely related relationships appear on the list.

Please post where these couples are ineligible either in Iowa State law, or how Obergfell vacates the Iowa statute.

I'll wait.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well I guess God will be sending us a couple Katrina's as punishment. And Franky Graham says Obama will be smote by him. So I guess that should be happening any day now

 

[Pop23]

Well I guess God will be sending us a couple Katrina's as punishment. And Franky Graham says Obama will be smote by him. So I guess that should be happening any day now

^^^snarky remark without any argument.

Noted

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I firmly oppose incestuous marriage and have been struggling to find a legal basis as to how many incestuous marriages could be banned. I've been called foolish, but it appears it's already legal in at least one state, or at least, not prohibited, if I read the statute correctly.

The link below is to the State of Iowa code addressing who is eligible to marry:

Iowa Code 595.19

Did you notice that only opposite gender closely related individuals are listed as those prohibited to Marry? Same sex closely related relatives are not prohibited from marriage.

The law was written prior to same sex marriage being ruled legal obviously, but it is now the law.

This creates an interesting paradox.

A straight farmer, looking to pass his farm onto his son without the burdon of the inheritance tax could simply Marry his son and POOF, no inheritance tax, but he could not do that with his daughter?

I came across this odd situation from a brief submitted to the ninth circuit, and apparently ignored. That lead me to research if anyone thought that same sex siblings actually wanted the right.

In a marriage equality forum a couple of people posted that they were in same sex sibling relationships and were upset that they could not Marry as other same sex couples now could.

It also appears that several other states have similar laws to Iowa, and others define incest as vaginal penetration.

What a mess we made.

You don’t understand the statute, it doesn’t authorize ‘incestuous marriages.’

The premise of your thread fails as a slippery slope fallacy, straw man fallacy, and red herring fallacy – you are both foolish and ignorant.

Obergefell addressed solely same-sex couples who were eligible to enter into marriage contracts, having nothing to do with ‘incestuous marriages,’ and in no way ‘authorizing’ such ‘marriages.’

Consequently there is no 'mess.'

FACTS have no place in this discussion but I do appreciate your efforts.

The OP is idiotic as usual but the funniest part is saying that the family farmer is multimillionaire.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well I guess God will be sending us a couple Katrina's as punishment. And Franky Graham says Obama will be smote by him. So I guess that should be happening any day now

^^^snarky remark without any argument.

Noted

It's at least as valid as the nonsense you've been spewing here every day since the ruling was passed down. Gym bathing, marrying your children... you're insane.

 

[Pop23]

Well I guess God will be sending us a couple Katrina's as punishment. And Franky Graham says Obama will be smote by him. So I guess that should be happening any day now

^^^snarky remark without any argument.

Noted

It's at least as valid as the nonsense you've been spewing here every day since the ruling was passed down. Gym bathing, marrying your children... you're insane.

Mine are fact based, yours are simply trolling

The real fun is noting the lack of evidence you have.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well I guess God will be sending us a couple Katrina's as punishment. And Franky Graham says Obama will be smote by him. So I guess that should be happening any day now

^^^snarky remark without any argument.

Noted

It's at least as valid as the nonsense you've been spewing here every day since the ruling was passed down. Gym bathing, marrying your children... you're insane.

Mine are fact based, yours are simply trolling

The real fun is noting the lack of evidence you have.

Evidence of what you nincompoop? You. Are. Nuts.

 

[Pop23]

I firmly oppose incestuous marriage and have been struggling to find a legal basis as to how many incestuous marriages could be banned. I've been called foolish, but it appears it's already legal in at least one state, or at least, not prohibited, if I read the statute correctly.

The link below is to the State of Iowa code addressing who is eligible to marry:

Iowa Code 595.19

Did you notice that only opposite gender closely related individuals are listed as those prohibited to Marry? Same sex closely related relatives are not prohibited from marriage.

The law was written prior to same sex marriage being ruled legal obviously, but it is now the law.

This creates an interesting paradox.

A straight farmer, looking to pass his farm onto his son without the burdon of the inheritance tax could simply Marry his son and POOF, no inheritance tax, but he could not do that with his daughter?

I came across this odd situation from a brief submitted to the ninth circuit, and apparently ignored. That lead me to research if anyone thought that same sex siblings actually wanted the right.

In a marriage equality forum a couple of people posted that they were in same sex sibling relationships and were upset that they could not Marry as other same sex couples now could.

It also appears that several other states have similar laws to Iowa, and others define incest as vaginal penetration.

What a mess we made.

You don’t understand the statute, it doesn’t authorize ‘incestuous marriages.’

The premise of your thread fails as a slippery slope fallacy, straw man fallacy, and red herring fallacy – you are both foolish and ignorant.

Obergefell addressed solely same-sex couples who were eligible to enter into marriage contracts, having nothing to do with ‘incestuous marriages,’ and in no way ‘authorizing’ such ‘marriages.’

Consequently there is no 'mess.'

FACTS have no place in this discussion but I do appreciate your efforts.

The OP is idiotic as usual but the funniest part is saying that the family farmer is multimillionaire.

You don't think there are multimillionaire farmers? Have you seen land prices since ethanol?

You really are an idiot.

 

[Pop23]

Well I guess God will be sending us a couple Katrina's as punishment. And Franky Graham says Obama will be smote by him. So I guess that should be happening any day now

^^^snarky remark without any argument.

Noted

It's at least as valid as the nonsense you've been spewing here every day since the ruling was passed down. Gym bathing, marrying your children... you're insane.

Mine are fact based, yours are simply trolling

The real fun is noting the lack of evidence you have.

Evidence of what you nincompoop? You. Are. Nuts.

You still can't dispute my argument.

Attacking the messenger, and not the message is trolling.

You are exactly that, a troll, and not exactly good at it.

One more time, a link to the Iowa law in case you want educated:

Iowa Code 595.19

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I firmly oppose incestuous marriage and have been struggling to find a legal basis as to how many incestuous marriages could be banned. I've been called foolish, but it appears it's already legal in at least one state, or at least, not prohibited, if I read the statute correctly.

The link below is to the State of Iowa code addressing who is eligible to marry:

Iowa Code 595.19

Did you notice that only opposite gender closely related individuals are listed as those prohibited to Marry? Same sex closely related relatives are not prohibited from marriage.

The law was written prior to same sex marriage being ruled legal obviously, but it is now the law.

This creates an interesting paradox.

A straight farmer, looking to pass his farm onto his son without the burdon of the inheritance tax could simply Marry his son and POOF, no inheritance tax, but he could not do that with his daughter?

I came across this odd situation from a brief submitted to the ninth circuit, and apparently ignored. That lead me to research if anyone thought that same sex siblings actually wanted the right.

In a marriage equality forum a couple of people posted that they were in same sex sibling relationships and were upset that they could not Marry as other same sex couples now could.

It also appears that several other states have similar laws to Iowa, and others define incest as vaginal penetration.

What a mess we made.

You don’t understand the statute, it doesn’t authorize ‘incestuous marriages.’

The premise of your thread fails as a slippery slope fallacy, straw man fallacy, and red herring fallacy – you are both foolish and ignorant.

Obergefell addressed solely same-sex couples who were eligible to enter into marriage contracts, having nothing to do with ‘incestuous marriages,’ and in no way ‘authorizing’ such ‘marriages.’

Consequently there is no 'mess.'

FACTS have no place in this discussion but I do appreciate your efforts.

The OP is idiotic as usual but the funniest part is saying that the family farmer is multimillionaire.

You don't think there are multimillionaire farmers? Have you seen land prices since ethanol?

You really are an idiot.

There are multimillionaire corporate farms. And there will be more if you fools get a Republican in the WH.




+++++

How about this:

Keeping in mind that its really none of your business, how about you describe your absolute worst case scenario for SSM and then say EXACTLY what the "ramifications" of that would be.

IOW, not what YOU don't personally like but rather, actual, real life consequences.

I'll be back to see what you wrote.

 

[Moonglow]

The family farm is a dying breed...literally...

 

[G.T.]

Is incestuous marriage really something youre oh so concerned about, or what?

Lets do the old adage about guns.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people with guns.

Gay marriage doesnt cause incestuous marriage. Incestuous marriage causes incestuous marriage.

The "two" concepts are unique, not the same and certainly not "married" to one another.

 

[Pop23]

Is incestuous marriage really something youre oh so concerned about, or what?

Lets do the old adage about guns.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people with guns.

Gay marriage doesnt cause incestuous marriage. Incestuous marriage causes incestuous marriage.

The "two" concepts are unique, not the same and certainly not "married" to one another.

Marriage is law, the Iowa law defines eligibility. The change caused the INCLUSSION. Funny this wasn't included in the 9th circuits decision as at least one brief submitted include it.

 

[G.T.]

Is incestuous marriage really something youre oh so concerned about, or what?

Lets do the old adage about guns.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people with guns.

Gay marriage doesnt cause incestuous marriage. Incestuous marriage causes incestuous marriage.

The "two" concepts are unique, not the same and certainly not "married" to one another.

Marriage is law, the Iowa law defines eligibility. The change caused the INCLUSSION. Funny this wasn't included in the 9th circuits decision as at least one brief submitted include it.

That doesnt mean take away gay marriage.

It means fix a stupid fucking law in Iowa.



Next issue?

 

[Pop23]

I firmly oppose incestuous marriage and have been struggling to find a legal basis as to how many incestuous marriages could be banned. I've been called foolish, but it appears it's already legal in at least one state, or at least, not prohibited, if I read the statute correctly.

The link below is to the State of Iowa code addressing who is eligible to marry:

Iowa Code 595.19

Did you notice that only opposite gender closely related individuals are listed as those prohibited to Marry? Same sex closely related relatives are not prohibited from marriage.

The law was written prior to same sex marriage being ruled legal obviously, but it is now the law.

This creates an interesting paradox.

A straight farmer, looking to pass his farm onto his son without the burdon of the inheritance tax could simply Marry his son and POOF, no inheritance tax, but he could not do that with his daughter?

I came across this odd situation from a brief submitted to the ninth circuit, and apparently ignored. That lead me to research if anyone thought that same sex siblings actually wanted the right.

In a marriage equality forum a couple of people posted that they were in same sex sibling relationships and were upset that they could not Marry as other same sex couples now could.

It also appears that several other states have similar laws to Iowa, and others define incest as vaginal penetration.

What a mess we made.

You don’t understand the statute, it doesn’t authorize ‘incestuous marriages.’

The premise of your thread fails as a slippery slope fallacy, straw man fallacy, and red herring fallacy – you are both foolish and ignorant.

Obergefell addressed solely same-sex couples who were eligible to enter into marriage contracts, having nothing to do with ‘incestuous marriages,’ and in no way ‘authorizing’ such ‘marriages.’

Consequently there is no 'mess.'

FACTS have no place in this discussion but I do appreciate your efforts.

The OP is idiotic as usual but the funniest part is saying that the family farmer is multimillionaire.

You don't think there are multimillionaire farmers? Have you seen land prices since ethanol?

You really are an idiot.

There are multimillionaire corporate farms. And there will be more if you fools get a Republican in the WH.




+++++

How about this:

Keeping in mind that its really none of your business, how about you describe your absolute worst case scenario for SSM and then say EXACTLY what the "ramifications" of that would be.

IOW, not what YOU don't personally like but rather, actual, real life consequences.

I'll be back to see what you wrote.

The average acre of farmland in Iowa is over $8,500.

To have a net worth of $1,000,000 the farmer would only have to own 117 acres. That's tiny

The average size farm in Iowa is 333 acres.

Do the math idiot, the average farmer has net farmland only of roughly 3 million. That doesn't include equipment and homes, buildings, pushing that number way up.

OBTW: some areas in Iowa have prices of over 10,000 per acre. A millionaire would own only 100 acres, in a lot of places that called a hobby farm.