Ramifications of Same Sex Marriage

[Pop23]

So same sex marriage is causing Iowa farmers to marry their sons

Even lamer than the wedding

Any lamer than dudes doing other dudes, at least the farmer son makes bank.

 

[Pop23]

I got a better plan pop

Make your son divorce his wife then marry her and leave the farm to her when you die

Then have your son remarry

Why the extra step? In Iowa a same sex father can marry a son.

Geez, winger. THINK DAMMIT

 

[Pop23]

Then why does iowa not exclude all family members?

Your post has little to nothing to do with the blanket protections and financial benefits afforded in marriage.

Because Iowa's marriage statute is not gender neutral and is very convoluted.

Others- like California are more inclusive and gender neutral

2200. Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and
descendants of every degree, and between siblings of the half as well
as the whole blood, and between uncles or aunts and nieces or
nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning, whether the
relationship is legitimate or illegitimate.

I don't blame iowa. Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country, even a complete ban on first cousin marriage which many states allow.

Without as much as laying a pen to paper, they became one of, if not the, weakest protectors of marriage in the country.

What a paradox

Not a paradox- their anti-incest laws were always among the weakest- compare their laws to California's- California's was always more comprehensive.

Because Iowa's anti-incest laws never covered same gender relatives- they were always weaker than California's or most states.

Of course Iowa has had 6 years to 'fix' this problem- and apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you do- since Iowa doesn't seem to be doing anything.

Or marrying any same sex siblings.

Nope, same gender was never an issue prior to 2009. They were extremely strict, even excluding first cousins.

But you do such like to babble

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

No one in 1962 would have ever thought 1 dude would want to do another dude for anything other than a Quicky.

 

[Pop23]

The funny thing about this argument is that Pop keeps trying to pretend that the bans on incestuous marriage are about procreation.

But then there is the issue of exemptions from inheritance tax.

IF the purpose of marriage is procreation- and IF the purpose of spousal benefits are for procreation- then WHY does a spouse inherit their joint estate tax free- but children do not?

IF the benefits for marriage were for children- then why does the spouse get the exemption- and not the children?

Simple really, the spouse is co creator.

Why the spouse- and not the children- if marriage is for procreation?

The spouse is co creator. They together spend the money to raise..........

A future tax payer


You can thank us later

Or they don't.

My 80 year old uncle recently married a woman in her 70's- when he dies, she will likely survive him and be able to inherit his estate tax free- while his children from his previous marriage will have to pay inheritance tax.

Again- if marriage is about 'procreation' why do the benefits accrue to the spouse- not the children?

Spousal support.

The remaining spouse would be responsible to maintain the children. Often times after one spouse dies, the surviving spouse is left with:

A. Minor children
B. Lower income
C. A handicapped child requiring help
D. Spouses elderly health and nursing requirement.

 

[Syriusly]

Because Iowa's marriage statute is not gender neutral and is very convoluted.

Others- like California are more inclusive and gender neutral

2200. Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and
descendants of every degree, and between siblings of the half as well
as the whole blood, and between uncles or aunts and nieces or
nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning, whether the
relationship is legitimate or illegitimate.

I don't blame iowa. Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country, even a complete ban on first cousin marriage which many states allow.

Without as much as laying a pen to paper, they became one of, if not the, weakest protectors of marriage in the country.

What a paradox

Not a paradox- their anti-incest laws were always among the weakest- compare their laws to California's- California's was always more comprehensive.

Because Iowa's anti-incest laws never covered same gender relatives- they were always weaker than California's or most states.

Of course Iowa has had 6 years to 'fix' this problem- and apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you do- since Iowa doesn't seem to be doing anything.

Or marrying any same sex siblings.

Nope, same gender was never an issue prior to 2009. They were extremely strict, even excluding first cousins.

But you do such like to babble

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

No one in 1962 would have ever thought 1 dude would want to do another dude for anything other than a Quicky.

And?

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren- unlike States like Wisconsin and California.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

 

[Pop23]

I don't blame iowa. Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country, even a complete ban on first cousin marriage which many states allow.

Without as much as laying a pen to paper, they became one of, if not the, weakest protectors of marriage in the country.

What a paradox

Not a paradox- their anti-incest laws were always among the weakest- compare their laws to California's- California's was always more comprehensive.

Because Iowa's anti-incest laws never covered same gender relatives- they were always weaker than California's or most states.

Of course Iowa has had 6 years to 'fix' this problem- and apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you do- since Iowa doesn't seem to be doing anything.

Or marrying any same sex siblings.

Nope, same gender was never an issue prior to 2009. They were extremely strict, even excluding first cousins.

But you do such like to babble

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

No one in 1962 would have ever thought 1 dude would want to do another dude for anything other than a Quicky.

And?

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren- unlike States like Wisconsin and California.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

And?

Apparently you like same sex brother sex????

 

[Syriusly]

The funny thing about this argument is that Pop keeps trying to pretend that the bans on incestuous marriage are about procreation.

But then there is the issue of exemptions from inheritance tax.

IF the purpose of marriage is procreation- and IF the purpose of spousal benefits are for procreation- then WHY does a spouse inherit their joint estate tax free- but children do not?

IF the benefits for marriage were for children- then why does the spouse get the exemption- and not the children?

Simple really, the spouse is co creator.

Why the spouse- and not the children- if marriage is for procreation?

The spouse is co creator. They together spend the money to raise..........

A future tax payer


You can thank us later

Or they don't.

My 80 year old uncle recently married a woman in her 70's- when he dies, she will likely survive him and be able to inherit his estate tax free- while his children from his previous marriage will have to pay inheritance tax.

Again- if marriage is about 'procreation' why do the benefits accrue to the spouse- not the children?

Spousal support.

The remaining spouse would be responsible to maintain the children. Often times after one spouse dies, the surviving spouse is left with:

A. Minor children
B. Lower income
C. A handicapped child requiring help
D. Spouses elderly health and nursing requirement.

And again- if it was for the benefit of the children- then the children could inherit those funds without any inheritance tax. The handicapped child could inherit the funds tax free for his or her own benefit, as could the minor children.

The reason spouses- not children- are exempt from inheritance tax is because spouses are partners who commit to a lifetime partnership.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all.

 

[Syriusly]

Not a paradox- their anti-incest laws were always among the weakest- compare their laws to California's- California's was always more comprehensive.

Because Iowa's anti-incest laws never covered same gender relatives- they were always weaker than California's or most states.

Of course Iowa has had 6 years to 'fix' this problem- and apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you do- since Iowa doesn't seem to be doing anything.

Or marrying any same sex siblings.

Nope, same gender was never an issue prior to 2009. They were extremely strict, even excluding first cousins.

But you do such like to babble

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

No one in 1962 would have ever thought 1 dude would want to do another dude for anything other than a Quicky.

And?

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren- unlike States like Wisconsin and California.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

And?

Apparently you like same sex brother sex????

And apparently you like mother son sex?????

 

[Pop23]

Simple really, the spouse is co creator.

Why the spouse- and not the children- if marriage is for procreation?

The spouse is co creator. They together spend the money to raise..........

A future tax payer


You can thank us later

Or they don't.

My 80 year old uncle recently married a woman in her 70's- when he dies, she will likely survive him and be able to inherit his estate tax free- while his children from his previous marriage will have to pay inheritance tax.

Again- if marriage is about 'procreation' why do the benefits accrue to the spouse- not the children?

Spousal support.

The remaining spouse would be responsible to maintain the children. Often times after one spouse dies, the surviving spouse is left with:

A. Minor children
B. Lower income
C. A handicapped child requiring help
D. Spouses elderly health and nursing requirement.

And again- if it was for the benefit of the children- then the children could inherit those funds without any inheritance tax. The handicapped child could inherit the funds tax free for his or her own benefit, as could the minor children.

The reason spouses- not children- are exempt from inheritance tax is because spouses are partners who commit to a lifetime partnership.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all.

What was for the benefit of children?

Marriage, silly syriously, children can't marry.

 

[Pop23]

Nope, same gender was never an issue prior to 2009. They were extremely strict, even excluding first cousins.

But you do such like to babble

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

No one in 1962 would have ever thought 1 dude would want to do another dude for anything other than a Quicky.

And?

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren- unlike States like Wisconsin and California.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

And?

Apparently you like same sex brother sex????

And apparently you like mother son sex?????

I think I've posted, what, five times now that I object to all forms of incest.

 

[Pop23]

Simple really, the spouse is co creator.

Why the spouse- and not the children- if marriage is for procreation?

The spouse is co creator. They together spend the money to raise..........

A future tax payer


You can thank us later

Or they don't.

My 80 year old uncle recently married a woman in her 70's- when he dies, she will likely survive him and be able to inherit his estate tax free- while his children from his previous marriage will have to pay inheritance tax.

Again- if marriage is about 'procreation' why do the benefits accrue to the spouse- not the children?

Spousal support.

The remaining spouse would be responsible to maintain the children. Often times after one spouse dies, the surviving spouse is left with:

A. Minor children
B. Lower income
C. A handicapped child requiring help
D. Spouses elderly health and nursing requirement.

And again- if it was for the benefit of the children- then the children could inherit those funds without any inheritance tax. The handicapped child could inherit the funds tax free for his or her own benefit, as could the minor children.

The reason spouses- not children- are exempt from inheritance tax is because spouses are partners who commit to a lifetime partnership.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all.

And again Syriously plays word salad games.

Tell me Syriously, what possible additional expenses might a opposite gender couple have that a same sex couple would not.

Doesn't really matter now does it, cuz your going to tie yourself up like a pretzel.

In 3.....2......1

 

[Seawytch]

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

No one in 1962 would have ever thought 1 dude would want to do another dude for anything other than a Quicky.

And?

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren- unlike States like Wisconsin and California.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

And?

Apparently you like same sex brother sex????

And apparently you like mother son sex?????

I think I've posted, what, five times now that I object to all forms of incest.

Sure Pop...that must be why you're arguing so stridently for it in thread after thread.

Good luck with your pet issue.

 

[Syriusly]

Why the spouse- and not the children- if marriage is for procreation?

The spouse is co creator. They together spend the money to raise..........

A future tax payer


You can thank us later

Or they don't.

My 80 year old uncle recently married a woman in her 70's- when he dies, she will likely survive him and be able to inherit his estate tax free- while his children from his previous marriage will have to pay inheritance tax.

Again- if marriage is about 'procreation' why do the benefits accrue to the spouse- not the children?

Spousal support.

The remaining spouse would be responsible to maintain the children. Often times after one spouse dies, the surviving spouse is left with:

A. Minor children
B. Lower income
C. A handicapped child requiring help
D. Spouses elderly health and nursing requirement.

And again- if it was for the benefit of the children- then the children could inherit those funds without any inheritance tax. The handicapped child could inherit the funds tax free for his or her own benefit, as could the minor children.

The reason spouses- not children- are exempt from inheritance tax is because spouses are partners who commit to a lifetime partnership.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all.

And again Syriously plays word salad games.

Tell me Syriously, what possible additional expenses might a opposite gender couple have that a same sex couple would not.

I have no idea- since I was not talking about that.

You are the one playing word games here Pop- just part of your meltdown since the Supreme Court told all 50 states that they can not discriminate against same gender couples.

 

[Pop23]

No one in 1962 would have ever thought 1 dude would want to do another dude for anything other than a Quicky.

And?

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren- unlike States like Wisconsin and California.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

And?

Apparently you like same sex brother sex????

And apparently you like mother son sex?????

I think I've posted, what, five times now that I object to all forms of incest.

Sure Pop...that must be why you're arguing so stridently for it in thread after thread.

Good luck with your pet issue.

Post anywhere that I posted in favor of any incestuous marriage.

Go ahead

Or, admit you're a troll Attacking the messenger, not the message.

So, any comment on the OP?

I thought not.

 

[Syriusly]

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

No one in 1962 would have ever thought 1 dude would want to do another dude for anything other than a Quicky.

And?

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren- unlike States like Wisconsin and California.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

And?

Apparently you like same sex brother sex????

And apparently you like mother son sex?????

I think I've posted, what, five times now that I object to all forms of incest.

And I have never said I like 'same sex brother sex'- but that doesn't stop you from saying I do.

Stop misrepresenting what I say- and I will stop misrepresenting what you say.

 

[Syriusly]

And?

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren- unlike States like Wisconsin and California.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

And?

Apparently you like same sex brother sex????

And apparently you like mother son sex?????

I think I've posted, what, five times now that I object to all forms of incest.

Sure Pop...that must be why you're arguing so stridently for it in thread after thread.

Good luck with your pet issue.

Post anywhere that I posted in favor of any incestuous marriage.

Go ahead

Or, admit you're a troll Attacking the messenger, not the message.
.

Post where I anywhere said I am in favor of same sex brother sex

Go ahead

Or admit you're a troll attacking the messenger, not the message.

 

[Pop23]

The spouse is co creator. They together spend the money to raise..........

A future tax payer


You can thank us later

Or they don't.

My 80 year old uncle recently married a woman in her 70's- when he dies, she will likely survive him and be able to inherit his estate tax free- while his children from his previous marriage will have to pay inheritance tax.

Again- if marriage is about 'procreation' why do the benefits accrue to the spouse- not the children?

Spousal support.

The remaining spouse would be responsible to maintain the children. Often times after one spouse dies, the surviving spouse is left with:

A. Minor children
B. Lower income
C. A handicapped child requiring help
D. Spouses elderly health and nursing requirement.

And again- if it was for the benefit of the children- then the children could inherit those funds without any inheritance tax. The handicapped child could inherit the funds tax free for his or her own benefit, as could the minor children.

The reason spouses- not children- are exempt from inheritance tax is because spouses are partners who commit to a lifetime partnership.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all.

And again Syriously plays word salad games.

Tell me Syriously, what possible additional expenses might a opposite gender couple have that a same sex couple would not.

I have no idea- since I was not talking about that.

You are the one playing word games here Pop- just part of your meltdown since the Supreme Court told all 50 states that they can not discriminate against same gender couples.

Oh, such a quick and witty come back.

In Iowa and apparently a few other same gender couples include relatives.

OBTW the point of the OP.

 

[Syriusly]

Why the spouse- and not the children- if marriage is for procreation?

The spouse is co creator. They together spend the money to raise..........

A future tax payer


You can thank us later

Or they don't.

My 80 year old uncle recently married a woman in her 70's- when he dies, she will likely survive him and be able to inherit his estate tax free- while his children from his previous marriage will have to pay inheritance tax.

Again- if marriage is about 'procreation' why do the benefits accrue to the spouse- not the children?

Spousal support.

The remaining spouse would be responsible to maintain the children. Often times after one spouse dies, the surviving spouse is left with:

A. Minor children
B. Lower income
C. A handicapped child requiring help
D. Spouses elderly health and nursing requirement.

And again- if it was for the benefit of the children- then the children could inherit those funds without any inheritance tax. The handicapped child could inherit the funds tax free for his or her own benefit, as could the minor children.

The reason spouses- not children- are exempt from inheritance tax is because spouses are partners who commit to a lifetime partnership.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all.

What was for the benefit of children?

Marriage, silly syriously, children can't marry.

And Pop does his usual word games.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all

 

[Pop23]

And?

Apparently you like same sex brother sex????

And apparently you like mother son sex?????

I think I've posted, what, five times now that I object to all forms of incest.

Sure Pop...that must be why you're arguing so stridently for it in thread after thread.

Good luck with your pet issue.

Post anywhere that I posted in favor of any incestuous marriage.

Go ahead

Or, admit you're a troll Attacking the messenger, not the message.
.

Post where I anywhere said I am in favor of same sex brother sex

Go ahead

Or admit you're a troll attacking the messenger, not the message.

I guess imitation IS the greatest form of flattery.

 

[Pop23]

The spouse is co creator. They together spend the money to raise..........

A future tax payer


You can thank us later

Or they don't.

My 80 year old uncle recently married a woman in her 70's- when he dies, she will likely survive him and be able to inherit his estate tax free- while his children from his previous marriage will have to pay inheritance tax.

Again- if marriage is about 'procreation' why do the benefits accrue to the spouse- not the children?

Spousal support.

The remaining spouse would be responsible to maintain the children. Often times after one spouse dies, the surviving spouse is left with:

A. Minor children
B. Lower income
C. A handicapped child requiring help
D. Spouses elderly health and nursing requirement.

And again- if it was for the benefit of the children- then the children could inherit those funds without any inheritance tax. The handicapped child could inherit the funds tax free for his or her own benefit, as could the minor children.

The reason spouses- not children- are exempt from inheritance tax is because spouses are partners who commit to a lifetime partnership.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all.

What was for the benefit of children?

Marriage, silly syriously, children can't marry.

And Pop does his usual word games.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all

Those benefits don't help raise children?

Do tell