Ramifications of Same Sex Marriage

[Pop23]

Agree.

Its their business and your sex life is yours.

Its truly bizarre to me that some want to control what consenting adults do together in the bedroom.

Beyond bizarre...when they keep thinking and talking about male gay sex.......way more than any gay man I know.

I also think about how John Wayne Gacy also wore a clowns mask and was gay.

Interesting to say the least.

So I guess since you wear a clowns mask........

It is your theory afterall.

Maybe if he wasn't raised to hate himself by a Christian society.

This will be highly interesting on a number of ways.

First, will one small group, those that are not remarkably different than ordinary same sex partners (sisters wanting the benefits of marriage vs. a lesbian couple) be excluded because another group also seeking the same benefit, can procreate?

I think that went down in flames the last time it was tried

And, since at least one brief was given to the court (likely more) and that court said his ruling would not lead to legal incest, did the court willfully lie?

And think about it, did Kennedy actually make certain forms of incest legal in Iowa as well as a few other states states that describe incest as "vaginal penetration"?

You would think a Supreme Court judge, given the resources at his command, and this being a law effecting all 50 states would have, at a minimum, taken the time to find how each state defind the institution?

Maybe he was playing golf that day?

I can't see myself supporting incest, can you? Are they trying to make a point? Are you? Go ahead make your case for incest then nambla.

No, not me, I am firmly against incestuous marriage.

Read the first line of the OP.

When the courts legalized same sex marriage, the way the Iowa marriage law reads, is that same sex incestuous marriage is legal in Iowa (link to the statute is in the OP), or so it would appear.

Now, how do you remove those rights from those allowed to be incestuous, without using PROCREATION as the basis.

The reason I use two sisters, let's say they're straight, and their reason to marry is for financial benefit.

What makes them remarkably different than two lesbians?

It's a mess that I would have thought would have made headlines!

Seen any?

 

[Pop23]

$4.00 last year $6.50 the year before. Ethanol isn't driving up the price of farmland, actually the price is dropping because crop prices are falling.

Wow, those farmers were rolling!

Yes, it is dropping with crop prices, but it rose also because of crop prices.

Ok,

 

[sealybobo]

Beyond bizarre...when they keep thinking and talking about male gay sex.......way more than any gay man I know.

I also think about how John Wayne Gacy also wore a clowns mask and was gay.

Interesting to say the least.

So I guess since you wear a clowns mask........

It is your theory afterall.

Maybe if he wasn't raised to hate himself by a Christian society.

This will be highly interesting on a number of ways.

First, will one small group, those that are not remarkably different than ordinary same sex partners (sisters wanting the benefits of marriage vs. a lesbian couple) be excluded because another group also seeking the same benefit, can procreate?

I think that went down in flames the last time it was tried

And, since at least one brief was given to the court (likely more) and that court said his ruling would not lead to legal incest, did the court willfully lie?

And think about it, did Kennedy actually make certain forms of incest legal in Iowa as well as a few other states states that describe incest as "vaginal penetration"?

You would think a Supreme Court judge, given the resources at his command, and this being a law effecting all 50 states would have, at a minimum, taken the time to find how each state defind the institution?

Maybe he was playing golf that day?

I can't see myself supporting incest, can you? Are they trying to make a point? Are you? Go ahead make your case for incest then nambla.

No, not me, I am firmly against incestuous marriage.

Read the first line of the OP.

When the courts legalized same sex marriage, the way the Iowa marriage law reads, is that same sex incestuous marriage is legal in Iowa (link to the statute is in the OP), or so it would appear.

Now, how do you remove those rights from those allowed to be incestuous, without using PROCREATION as the basis.

The reason I use two sisters, let's say they're straight, and their reason to marry is for financial benefit.

What makes them remarkably different than two lesbians?

It's a mess that I would have thought would have made headlines!

Seen any?

Now I see. But its illegal to marry your sister, even if you are a sister.

I'd marry my sister if she had a pension. Then if she died I would continue getting 65% of it. That's why you can't marry a sister. But you can do this with a cousin if you want. Go for it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Incest is not allowed because any potential children would be harmed. Also two people who are closely related are already closely related. Marrying wouldn't do anything, they're a family member, they don't need the govt to make them that.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

So change Iowa law- if you think incest is wrong.

Make it gender neutral like Wisconsin's

No marriage shall be contracted while either of the parties has a husband or wife living, nor between persons who are nearer of kin than 2nd cousins except that marriage may be contracted between first cousins where the female has attained the age of 55 years or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit signed by a physician stating that either party is permanently sterile. Relationship under this section shall be computed by the rule of the civil law, whether the parties to the marriage are of the half or of the whole blood. A marriage may not be contracted if either party has such want of understanding as renders him or her incapable of assenting to marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Depends on your argument- if your argument is that current Iowa law appears to allow a father to marry his son- sure appears that way.

If your argument is that this has any bigger meaning- no.

The citizens of Iowa can decide whether or not they want a father to be able to marry his son- if they do not- they can just adopt the language in one of the majority of states that has simple gender neutral language preventing incestuous marriage.

If the citizens of Iowa don't want to do that- why would you care?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Why is that funny to you exactly?

Would not have changed the legal arguments at all.

 

[Syriusly]

Beyond bizarre...when they keep thinking and talking about male gay sex.......way more than any gay man I know.

I also think about how John Wayne Gacy also wore a clowns mask and was gay.

Interesting to say the least.

So I guess since you wear a clowns mask........

It is your theory afterall.

Maybe if he wasn't raised to hate himself by a Christian society.

This will be highly interesting on a number of ways.

First, will one small group, those that are not remarkably different than ordinary same sex partners (sisters wanting the benefits of marriage vs. a lesbian couple) be excluded because another group also seeking the same benefit, can procreate?

I think that went down in flames the last time it was tried

And, since at least one brief was given to the court (likely more) and that court said his ruling would not lead to legal incest, did the court willfully lie?

And think about it, did Kennedy actually make certain forms of incest legal in Iowa as well as a few other states states that describe incest as "vaginal penetration"?

You would think a Supreme Court judge, given the resources at his command, and this being a law effecting all 50 states would have, at a minimum, taken the time to find how each state defind the institution?

Maybe he was playing golf that day?

I can't see myself supporting incest, can you? Are they trying to make a point? Are you? Go ahead make your case for incest then nambla.

No, not me, I am firmly against incestuous marriage.

Read the first line of the OP.

When the courts legalized same sex marriage, the way the Iowa marriage law reads, is that same sex incestuous marriage is legal in Iowa (link to the statute is in the OP), or so it would appear.

Now, how do you remove those rights from those allowed to be incestuous, without using PROCREATION as the basis.

Quoting the court again:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

Iowa could simply copy and paste Wisconsin's law- vote it in, and the Governor sign it and it would be done- perfectly legal ban on incestuous marriage just like in the majority of states.

 

[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?

Yes, fix it, explain how?

Case by case, explain how a legislature can exclude a same sex couple of sisters while allowing lesbians from marrying?

Neither can procreate, and they are not remarkably different in nature.

You can go down the list if you want, each have a right in Iowa to marry and the state must demonstrate a compelling interest in denying each subsets right to marry

And so why does it matter if they marry, exactly....?

You would not object to the farmer marrying his daughter?

Object by law? No.
Object morally? Yes.

 

[amrchaos]

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?

Yes, fix it, explain how?

Case by case, explain how a legislature can exclude a same sex couple of sisters while allowing lesbians from marrying?

Neither can procreate, and they are not remarkably different in nature.

You can go down the list if you want, each have a right in Iowa to marry and the state must demonstrate a compelling interest in denying each subsets right to marry

To fix the law, you include the same bar to same sex marriages as you do to hetero marriages.

In any case--why is there an inheritance tax on family farms in Ohio anyway? That is a stupid law too.

And a sound legal reason you would include all in the prohibition?

Procreation sounds absurd, so go for one

Regardless if or if not the relationship revolves around procreation, you can ban relationships of an incestrous nature due to the psychological problems associated with incestuous relationships.

However, even with this in place, there is nothing that bars an incestuous couple from going elsewhere to get married and forcing the State to recognize their marriage by treaty!! This is especially possible with female couples since female coupling is allowable even in fantastically homophoic nations such as Kenya!!

 

[G.T.]

The fact is, incest is rare because you have to have some sort of mental illness to do it......not because "its illegal."

If you think tons of people are "suddenly" going to fuck and marry relatives......got news for ya-ITS NOT SUDDEN.

if you think ppl will do it "just for the benefits," i say "so?"

They can still only have 1 spouse at a time and still face the social awkwarditity of being seen as incest.

Your fears about it.....are if course FAKE

Gay marriage is not and should not be contingent on your feelings if other types.....thats just justifying your bigotry.

Stop doing backflips to do so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, ‘marriages’ of an incestuous nature aren’t ‘banned,’ persons in such a relationship are simply not eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

We can see this with the Iowa code cited in the OP, where such marriages are invalid, not ‘banned.’

That’s why Obergefell had nothing to do with ‘incestuous marriages,’ because that ruling concerned same-sex couples eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

Consequently, there is no ‘discrimination’ with regard to ‘marriages’ of an incestuous nature, no civil rights ‘violations,’ as one cannot be ‘discriminated against’ with regard to a law that doesn’t exist.

As a result, the OP’s thread premise fails, the produce of his ignorance, hate, and stupidity.

 

[Pop23]

Actually, ‘marriages’ of an incestuous nature aren’t ‘banned,’ persons in such a relationship are simply not eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

We can see this with the Iowa code cited in the OP, where such marriages are invalid, not ‘banned.’

That’s why Obergefell had nothing to do with ‘incestuous marriages,’ because that ruling concerned same-sex couples eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

Consequently, there is no ‘discrimination’ with regard to ‘marriages’ of an incestuous nature, no civil rights ‘violations,’ as one cannot be ‘discriminated against’ with regard to a law that doesn’t exist.

As a result, the OP’s thread premise fails, the produce of his ignorance, hate, and stupidity.

But if you read the statute, being closely related in same sex marriage is not either

A. Excluded from full eligibility

Or

B. Invalid.

 

[Pop23]

The fact is, incest is rare because you have to have some sort of mental illness to do it......not because "its illegal."

If you think tons of people are "suddenly" going to fuck and marry relatives......got news for ya-ITS NOT SUDDEN.

if you think ppl will do it "just for the benefits," i say "so?"

They can still only have 1 spouse at a time and still face the social awkwarditity of being seen as incest.

Your fears about it.....are if course FAKE

Gay marriage is not and should not be contingent on your feelings if other types.....thats just justifying your bigotry.

Stop doing backflips to do so.

Seems no backflips required. The statue recognizes several forms of incest as legal.

 

[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.

Incest is not allowed because any potential children would be harmed. Also two people who are closely related are already closely related. Marrying wouldn't do anything, they're a family member, they don't need the govt to make them that.

What potential children in same sex relationships?

Which are not excluded under iowa statute?

 

[Pop23]

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?

Yes, fix it, explain how?

Case by case, explain how a legislature can exclude a same sex couple of sisters while allowing lesbians from marrying?

Neither can procreate, and they are not remarkably different in nature.

You can go down the list if you want, each have a right in Iowa to marry and the state must demonstrate a compelling interest in denying each subsets right to marry

To fix the law, you include the same bar to same sex marriages as you do to hetero marriages.

In any case--why is there an inheritance tax on family farms in Ohio anyway? That is a stupid law too.

And a sound legal reason you would include all in the prohibition?

Procreation sounds absurd, so go for one

Regardless if or if not the relationship revolves around procreation, you can ban relationships of an incestrous nature due to the psychological problems associated with incestuous relationships.

However, even with this in place, there is nothing that bars an incestuous couple from going elsewhere to get married and forcing the State to recognize their marriage by treaty!! This is especially possible with female couples since female coupling is allowable even in fantastically homophoic nations such as Kenya!!

I would and do agree. But take the case of the two straight sisters. Is there any research on the harm you speak of in a non sexual relationship that the two simply desire for financial gain?

I don't know of a single one that exists.

 

[G.T.]

The fact is, incest is rare because you have to have some sort of mental illness to do it......not because "its illegal."

If you think tons of people are "suddenly" going to fuck and marry relatives......got news for ya-ITS NOT SUDDEN.

if you think ppl will do it "just for the benefits," i say "so?"

They can still only have 1 spouse at a time and still face the social awkwarditity of being seen as incest.

Your fears about it.....are if course FAKE

Gay marriage is not and should not be contingent on your feelings if other types.....thats just justifying your bigotry.

Stop doing backflips to do so.

Seems no backflips required. The statue recognizes several forms of incest as legal.

does matter, has nothing to do with gays.

 

[Pop23]

The fact is, incest is rare because you have to have some sort of mental illness to do it......not because "its illegal."

If you think tons of people are "suddenly" going to fuck and marry relatives......got news for ya-ITS NOT SUDDEN.

if you think ppl will do it "just for the benefits," i say "so?"

They can still only have 1 spouse at a time and still face the social awkwarditity of being seen as incest.

Your fears about it.....are if course FAKE

Gay marriage is not and should not be contingent on your feelings if other types.....thats just justifying your bigotry.

Stop doing backflips to do so.

Seems no backflips required. The statue recognizes several forms of incest as legal.

does matter, has nothing to do with gays.

Same sex does not equal gay.

 

[deltex1]

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.'

Inscest happens....embrace it.

 

[amrchaos]

That doesnt mean take away gay marriage.

It means fix a stupid fucking law in Iowa.



Next issue?

Yes, fix it, explain how?

Case by case, explain how a legislature can exclude a same sex couple of sisters while allowing lesbians from marrying?

Neither can procreate, and they are not remarkably different in nature.

You can go down the list if you want, each have a right in Iowa to marry and the state must demonstrate a compelling interest in denying each subsets right to marry

To fix the law, you include the same bar to same sex marriages as you do to hetero marriages.

In any case--why is there an inheritance tax on family farms in Ohio anyway? That is a stupid law too.

And a sound legal reason you would include all in the prohibition?

Procreation sounds absurd, so go for one

Regardless if or if not the relationship revolves around procreation, you can ban relationships of an incestrous nature due to the psychological problems associated with incestuous relationships.

However, even with this in place, there is nothing that bars an incestuous couple from going elsewhere to get married and forcing the State to recognize their marriage by treaty!! This is especially possible with female couples since female coupling is allowable even in fantastically homophoic nations such as Kenya!!

I would and do agree. But take the case of the two straight sisters. Is there any research on the harm you speak of in a non sexual relationship that the two simply desire for financial gain?

I don't know of a single one that exists.

Like I said, in Ohio they could cite psychological issues that may be inherit in an incestuous relationship that will bar their marrying in Ohio. again, the question of sex does not enter it.

In this case, fraud could enter in the equation if the two sisters wish to marry in Ohio if they are doing this for financial reasons. However, in Kenya, such arrangements are allowable and usually arranged.