"Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"

[Pop23]

One goes hand in hand with the other.

You could not include one group without the other.

So, tell me the remarkable difference (legally) between a lesbian married couple and a straight same sex sister couple.

If you can't, then you see the problem.

Oh, and this was not a secret. There were warnings.

And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage.

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.

One supports the other. The laughable part is how your side kept (and still say) this ruling legalized gay marriage, it did in a roundabout way, but the truth is that it legalized SAME SEX MARRIAGE

The truth is that you are just lying.

Prove it. It's actually simple.

Name the compelling difference between a lesbian couple wishing to obtain the right of marriage and a same sex straight couple of sisters that wish to obtain the right to the marriage?

What is the difference that would qualify as a compelling state issue to accept one and deny the other?

We will wait, likely you'll just tear up a bit and post more of your dumbfuckery.

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

Difference #2: gays were denied marrying the one they love while straight folks could marry the one they love; that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All siblings are denied access to marriage, regardless of skin color or gender; no violation of the equal protection clause.

#1. Incestuos marriage is illegal due to their ability to procreate creating corrupt bloodlines. That argument is absurd now. No same sex coupling, regardless of family status had ever produced a child. So that argument is void of any merit at all

#2. Love is not a requirement of marriage, marriage is an institution that grants protection and financial benefits to consenting adults. To deny anyone from INCLUSSION now, is based on absurd and arbitrary law.

Name the compelling state interest to deny two same sex siblings from
INCLUSSION in marriage when this couple is not remarkably different than a lesbian or gay male unrelated couple?

 

[Faun]

ANd what possible relevance does that have with gay marriage?

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.... except for the rationalizations advanced by evil... which is the energy that Satan represents.

Ya see scamp, the Statue at issue symbolizes Satan, the utter personification of ... your 'lifestyle'.

Does that help?

Oh, look.... an ISIS wannabe professing about Satan. Sweet. Lemme guess .... you don't think the desire for American Liberals to be beheaded is inspired by Satan, right?

 

[Faun]

Seeing as how virtually every poll disagrees with you, what proof do you have that most Americans are against legalizing gay marriage .... ?

And why on Earth would I "get my gay on?" I'm not gay.

No one cares about gay marriage.

So prove it. You're even nuttier than you appear if you think I just take your word for it.

My word lol. Turn on CNN.

Why on Earth would I go hunting for your proof??

Either you could have proven your obviously fallacious claim or you can't. That you expect me to look for it means you can't; otherwise, you would have.

Yet more evidence that most people are in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

Claim? I have made no claim you fucking Millennial. Don't hunt for whatever you want. Maybe your local Chipolte holds the answer.

I see, so you have no fucking clue what the words you post mean. No worries, I shan't challenge you to tax your feeble brain again.

 

[Faun]

And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage.

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.

One supports the other. The laughable part is how your side kept (and still say) this ruling legalized gay marriage, it did in a roundabout way, but the truth is that it legalized SAME SEX MARRIAGE

The truth is that you are just lying.

Prove it. It's actually simple.

Name the compelling difference between a lesbian couple wishing to obtain the right of marriage and a same sex straight couple of sisters that wish to obtain the right to the marriage?

What is the difference that would qualify as a compelling state issue to accept one and deny the other?

We will wait, likely you'll just tear up a bit and post more of your dumbfuckery.

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

Difference #2: gays were denied marrying the one they love while straight folks could marry the one they love; that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All siblings are denied access to marriage, regardless of skin color or gender; no violation of the equal protection clause.

#1. Incestuos marriage is illegal due to their ability to procreate creating corrupt bloodlines. That argument is absurd now. No same sex coupling, regardless of family status had ever produced a child. So that argument is void of any merit at all

#2. Love is not a requirement of marriage, marriage is an institution that grants protection and financial benefits to consenting adults. To deny anyone from INCLUSSION now, is based on absurd and arbitrary law.

Name the compelling state interest to deny two same sex siblings from
INCLUSSION in marriage when this couple is not remarkably different than a lesbian or gay male unrelated couple?

1. Incest is illegal for everyone. Making it legal for just same-sex couples would violate equal protection, so it remains illegal for all.

2. While love is not a requirement for marriage; love, and making a life-long commitment to the one you love are the primary reason for getting married, which is why marriage is not just a right, but a fundamental right towards the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Pop23]

One supports the other. The laughable part is how your side kept (and still say) this ruling legalized gay marriage, it did in a roundabout way, but the truth is that it legalized SAME SEX MARRIAGE

The truth is that you are just lying.

Prove it. It's actually simple.

Name the compelling difference between a lesbian couple wishing to obtain the right of marriage and a same sex straight couple of sisters that wish to obtain the right to the marriage?

What is the difference that would qualify as a compelling state issue to accept one and deny the other?

We will wait, likely you'll just tear up a bit and post more of your dumbfuckery.

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

Difference #2: gays were denied marrying the one they love while straight folks could marry the one they love; that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All siblings are denied access to marriage, regardless of skin color or gender; no violation of the equal protection clause.

#1. Incestuos marriage is illegal due to their ability to procreate creating corrupt bloodlines. That argument is absurd now. No same sex coupling, regardless of family status had ever produced a child. So that argument is void of any merit at all

#2. Love is not a requirement of marriage, marriage is an institution that grants protection and financial benefits to consenting adults. To deny anyone from INCLUSSION now, is based on absurd and arbitrary law.

Name the compelling state interest to deny two same sex siblings from
INCLUSSION in marriage when this couple is not remarkably different than a lesbian or gay male unrelated couple?

1. Incest is illegal for everyone. Making it legal for just same-sex couples would violate equal protection, so it remains illegal for all.

2. While love is not a requirement for marriage; love, and making a life-long commitment to the one you love are the primary reason for getting married, which is why marriage is not just a right, but a fundamental right towards the pursuit of happiness.

1. No it's not

Iowa defines incestous marriage and no same sex couples appear on that list except that 1st cousins cannot (odd but true)

As many of seven states define incest as "vaginal penetration" between excluded relatives. How's that work for same sex couples???

Here's how, gays now have greater access to marriage than straights.

^^^you can't make this shit up^^^

2. Marriage is simply a contract between two consenting adults that grants them legal protections and financial benefits. Neither love, sex, commitment is included. Each couple is allowed to define there own.

 

[Syriusly]

The truth is that you are just lying.

Prove it. It's actually simple.

Name the compelling difference between a lesbian couple wishing to obtain the right of marriage and a same sex straight couple of sisters that wish to obtain the right to the marriage?

What is the difference that would qualify as a compelling state issue to accept one and deny the other?

We will wait, likely you'll just tear up a bit and post more of your dumbfuckery.

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

Difference #2: gays were denied marrying the one they love while straight folks could marry the one they love; that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All siblings are denied access to marriage, regardless of skin color or gender; no violation of the equal protection clause.

#1. Incestuos marriage is illegal due to their ability to procreate creating corrupt bloodlines. That argument is absurd now. No same sex coupling, regardless of family status had ever produced a child. So that argument is void of any merit at all

#2. Love is not a requirement of marriage, marriage is an institution that grants protection and financial benefits to consenting adults. To deny anyone from INCLUSSION now, is based on absurd and arbitrary law.

Name the compelling state interest to deny two same sex siblings from
INCLUSSION in marriage when this couple is not remarkably different than a lesbian or gay male unrelated couple?

1. Incest is illegal for everyone. Making it legal for just same-sex couples would violate equal protection, so it remains illegal for all.

2. While love is not a requirement for marriage; love, and making a life-long commitment to the one you love are the primary reason for getting married, which is why marriage is not just a right, but a fundamental right towards the pursuit of happiness.

1. No it's not

Iowa defines incestous marriage and no same sex couples appear on that list except that 1st cousins cannot (odd but true)

As many of seven states define incest as "vaginal penetration" between excluded relatives. How's that work for same sex couples???

Here's how, gays now have greater access to marriage than straights.

^^^you can't make this shit up^^^.

So change the law?

I find your angst to be rather hilarious- since for the last 200 years straights had far, far more access to marriage than homosexuals.

Want to make it equal- Iowa can change its overly convoluted restrictions to 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.

States have been changing marriage law to make them more gender neutral for a couple decades now- if you object to a State's marriage bans- then change them.

 

[Syriusly]

The truth is that you are just lying.

Prove it. It's actually simple.

Name the compelling difference between a lesbian couple wishing to obtain the right of marriage and a same sex straight couple of sisters that wish to obtain the right to the marriage?

What is the difference that would qualify as a compelling state issue to accept one and deny the other?

We will wait, likely you'll just tear up a bit and post more of your dumbfuckery.

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

Difference #2: gays were denied marrying the one they love while straight folks could marry the one they love; that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All siblings are denied access to marriage, regardless of skin color or gender; no violation of the equal protection clause.

#1. Incestuos marriage is illegal due to their ability to procreate creating corrupt bloodlines. That argument is absurd now. No same sex coupling, regardless of family status had ever produced a child. So that argument is void of any merit at all

#2. Love is not a requirement of marriage, marriage is an institution that grants protection and financial benefits to consenting adults. To deny anyone from INCLUSSION now, is based on absurd and arbitrary law.

Name the compelling state interest to deny two same sex siblings from
INCLUSSION in marriage when this couple is not remarkably different than a lesbian or gay male unrelated couple?

1. Incest is illegal for everyone. Making it legal for just same-sex couples would violate equal protection, so it remains illegal for all.

2. While love is not a requirement for marriage; love, and making a life-long commitment to the one you love are the primary reason for getting married, which is why marriage is not just a right, but a fundamental right towards the pursuit of happiness.

2. Marriage is simply a contract between two consenting adults that grants them legal protections and financial benefits. Neither love, sex, commitment is included. Each couple is allowed to define there own.

According to the Supreme Court marriage is far more than that- and speaking as a married husband- marriage is far more than that.


InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

I like the 'bilateral loyalty' in particular

You can believe any definition you want- but the rest of us don't believe your definition.

 

[Syriusly]

And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage.

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.

One supports the other. The laughable part is how your side kept (and still say) this ruling legalized gay marriage, it did in a roundabout way, but the truth is that it legalized SAME SEX MARRIAGE

The truth is that you are just lying.

Prove it. It's actually simple.

Name the compelling difference between a lesbian couple wishing to obtain the right of marriage and a same sex straight couple of sisters that wish to obtain the right to the marriage?

What is the difference that would qualify as a compelling state issue to accept one and deny the other?

We will wait, likely you'll just tear up a bit and post more of your dumbfuckery.

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

Difference #2: gays were denied marrying the one they love while straight folks could marry the one they love; that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All siblings are denied access to marriage, regardless of skin color or gender; no violation of the equal protection clause.

#1. Incestuos marriage is illegal due to their ability to procreate creating corrupt bloodlines.

You keep saying that.

But as I have pointed out- the State's do not care whether siblings can procreate or not- they still don't allow siblings to marry.

Procreation is one reason- but clearly not the only reason- otherwise States that allow Sterile First Cousins to marry- would allow Sterile Siblings to marry.

Just you repeating the same failed argument, again and again and again.

 

[Syriusly]

And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage.

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.

One supports the other. The laughable part is how your side kept (and still say) this ruling legalized gay marriage, it did in a roundabout way, but the truth is that it legalized SAME SEX MARRIAGE

The truth is that you are just lying.

Prove it. It's actually simple.

Name the compelling difference between a lesbian couple wishing to obtain the right of marriage and a same sex straight couple of sisters that wish to obtain the right to the marriage?

What is the difference that would qualify as a compelling state issue to accept one and deny the other?

We will wait, likely you'll just tear up a bit and post more of your dumbfuckery.

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

Difference #2: gays were denied marrying the one they love while straight folks could marry the one they love; that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All siblings are denied access to marriage, regardless of skin color or gender; no violation of the equal protection clause.

#2. Love is not a requirement of marriage, marriage is an institution that grants protection and financial benefits to consenting adults. To deny anyone from INCLUSSION now, is based on absurd and arbitrary law.\

According entirely to you.

As I have pointed out- one Judge has specifically disagreed with you.

Essentially this is just a continuation of your meltdown because of same gender marriage now being legal in all 50 states.

It has been legal in Mass for 11 years- yet incestuous marriage has not become legal- nor has polygamy.

You have no evidence, you have no consistent argument, and you have argument that stands up to scrutiny.

Just your meltdown because you oppose same gender marriage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I guess you have to decide whether America represents a place where the words of the Declaration of Independence offering the right of every individual in their own "pursuit of happiness," is an empty concept or an actuality. If another person's gay marriage bothers you, then you don't really support the concept of America as a place guaranteeing individual rights. No one's "pursuit of happiness" in their own personal life, especially one as personal and private as marriage to a lover, should ever be a concern for anyone outside that relationship. I believe in the Declaration of Independence's descriptor of an American, and try hard to live up to its ideals personally. Yes, marriage is a religious institution, but it is also a legal one, and as a legal one, affects the human rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Since I believe every person has a natural right to pursue his or her own inner joy, I support gay marriage equally with hetero-marriage. Whatever actions spread personal freedoms in this country or elsewhere is always a good idea.

Yes... Because the Charter of American Principles licenses Degeneracy.

ROFLMNAO!

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. This established by the design of human physiology, wherein Nature provides for two distinct but complementing genders; each respectively designed to join with the other, forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body.

It's not even a remotely debatable point.

The pretense that two males are in ANY WAY qualified for marriage is so absurd as to be symptomatic of DELUSION.

There is no potential for a RIGHT to perpetual delusion, contributor... and there's absolutely NOTHING in the Declaration of Independence that so much as SUGGESTS SUCH.

 

[Skylar]

And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage.

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.

One supports the other. The laughable part is how your side kept (and still say) this ruling legalized gay marriage, it did in a roundabout way, but the truth is that it legalized SAME SEX MARRIAGE

The truth is that you are just lying.

Prove it. It's actually simple.

Name the compelling difference between a lesbian couple wishing to obtain the right of marriage and a same sex straight couple of sisters that wish to obtain the right to the marriage?

What is the difference that would qualify as a compelling state issue to accept one and deny the other?

We will wait, likely you'll just tear up a bit and post more of your dumbfuckery.

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

Difference #2: gays were denied marrying the one they love while straight folks could marry the one they love; that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All siblings are denied access to marriage, regardless of skin color or gender; no violation of the equal protection clause.

#1. Incestuos marriage is illegal due to their ability to procreate creating corrupt bloodlines. That argument is absurd now. No same sex coupling, regardless of family status had ever produced a child. So that argument is void of any merit at all

#2. Love is not a requirement of marriage, marriage is an institution that grants protection and financial benefits to consenting adults. To deny anyone from INCLUSSION now, is based on absurd and arbitrary law.

Name the compelling state interest to deny two same sex siblings from
INCLUSSION in marriage when this couple is not remarkably different than a lesbian or gay male unrelated couple?

You are literally ignoring the judiciary that contradicts you....while insisting that the judiciary agrees with you and will implement your every prediction. Contradiction isn't agreement. No matter how hard you pretend otherwise.

This despite the fact that in the 10 years or so that same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in this country, absolutely nothing you've predicted has ever come to pass.

So contradiction by the judiciary....and perfect failure of your every prediction.

Why am I supposed to give a shit about your pseudo-legal gibberish again?

 

[Skylar]

Yes... Because the Charter of American Principles licenses Degeneracy.

Neither the Windsor nor the Obergefell quoted your 'Charter of American Principles'. But instead, the US constitution and caselaw.

You may want to eventually read the rulings. They're quite instructive.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. This established by the design of human physiology, wherein Nature provides for two distinct but complementing genders; each respectively designed to join with the other, forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body.

Nope. What you're describing is fucking, not marriage. Marriage can involve procreation. But it doesn't have to. And its this lack of exclusivity that renders your entire argument moot. As there is obviously a perfectly valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

It's not even a remotely debatable point.

Obviously nonsense. As all the debate going on demonstrates. And with all the legally sanctioned same sex marriage occuring in every state. Including yours.

Remember, just because you close your eyes doesn't mean that the world disappears.

 

[Pop23]

One supports the other. The laughable part is how your side kept (and still say) this ruling legalized gay marriage, it did in a roundabout way, but the truth is that it legalized SAME SEX MARRIAGE

The truth is that you are just lying.

Prove it. It's actually simple.

Name the compelling difference between a lesbian couple wishing to obtain the right of marriage and a same sex straight couple of sisters that wish to obtain the right to the marriage?

What is the difference that would qualify as a compelling state issue to accept one and deny the other?

We will wait, likely you'll just tear up a bit and post more of your dumbfuckery.

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

Difference #2: gays were denied marrying the one they love while straight folks could marry the one they love; that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All siblings are denied access to marriage, regardless of skin color or gender; no violation of the equal protection clause.

#1. Incestuos marriage is illegal due to their ability to procreate creating corrupt bloodlines. That argument is absurd now. No same sex coupling, regardless of family status had ever produced a child. So that argument is void of any merit at all

#2. Love is not a requirement of marriage, marriage is an institution that grants protection and financial benefits to consenting adults. To deny anyone from INCLUSSION now, is based on absurd and arbitrary law.

Name the compelling state interest to deny two same sex siblings from
INCLUSSION in marriage when this couple is not remarkably different than a lesbian or gay male unrelated couple?

You are literally ignoring the judiciary that contradicts you....while insisting that the judiciary agrees with you and will implement your every prediction. Contradiction isn't agreement. No matter how hard you pretend otherwise.

This despite the fact that in the 10 years or so that same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in this country, absolutely nothing you've predicted has ever come to pass.

So contradiction by the judiciary....and perfect failure of your every prediction.

Why am I supposed to give a shit about your pseudo-legal gibberish again?

You are aware of Iowa statute 595.19, that lists those individuals not allowed to marry due to the incesturous nature of their relationship?

It only excluded male/female, blood related marriage, with the odd exception of first cousins. Same sex blood reletives are nowhere to be found, thus, unwittingly, I appear correct in the prediction that incest would be legal.

Did you also know that in several states, the statute requires "vaginal penetration" to be considered incestuous?

How's that work with same sex siblings?

 

[Skylar]

The truth is that you are just lying.

Prove it. It's actually simple.

Name the compelling difference between a lesbian couple wishing to obtain the right of marriage and a same sex straight couple of sisters that wish to obtain the right to the marriage?

What is the difference that would qualify as a compelling state issue to accept one and deny the other?

We will wait, likely you'll just tear up a bit and post more of your dumbfuckery.

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

Difference #2: gays were denied marrying the one they love while straight folks could marry the one they love; that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All siblings are denied access to marriage, regardless of skin color or gender; no violation of the equal protection clause.

#1. Incestuos marriage is illegal due to their ability to procreate creating corrupt bloodlines. That argument is absurd now. No same sex coupling, regardless of family status had ever produced a child. So that argument is void of any merit at all

#2. Love is not a requirement of marriage, marriage is an institution that grants protection and financial benefits to consenting adults. To deny anyone from INCLUSSION now, is based on absurd and arbitrary law.

Name the compelling state interest to deny two same sex siblings from
INCLUSSION in marriage when this couple is not remarkably different than a lesbian or gay male unrelated couple?

You are literally ignoring the judiciary that contradicts you....while insisting that the judiciary agrees with you and will implement your every prediction. Contradiction isn't agreement. No matter how hard you pretend otherwise.

This despite the fact that in the 10 years or so that same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in this country, absolutely nothing you've predicted has ever come to pass.

So contradiction by the judiciary....and perfect failure of your every prediction.

Why am I supposed to give a shit about your pseudo-legal gibberish again?

You are aware of Iowa statute 595.19, that lists those individuals not allowed to marry due to the incesturous nature of their relationship?

It only excluded male/female, blood related marriage, with the odd exception of first cousins. Same sex blood reletives are nowhere to be found, thus, unwittingly, I appear correct in the prediction that incest would be legal.

Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal.

Its been 10 years. Where is it?

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?

 

[Pop23]

Prove it. It's actually simple.

Name the compelling difference between a lesbian couple wishing to obtain the right of marriage and a same sex straight couple of sisters that wish to obtain the right to the marriage?

What is the difference that would qualify as a compelling state issue to accept one and deny the other?

We will wait, likely you'll just tear up a bit and post more of your dumbfuckery.

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

Difference #2: gays were denied marrying the one they love while straight folks could marry the one they love; that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All siblings are denied access to marriage, regardless of skin color or gender; no violation of the equal protection clause.

#1. Incestuos marriage is illegal due to their ability to procreate creating corrupt bloodlines. That argument is absurd now. No same sex coupling, regardless of family status had ever produced a child. So that argument is void of any merit at all

#2. Love is not a requirement of marriage, marriage is an institution that grants protection and financial benefits to consenting adults. To deny anyone from INCLUSSION now, is based on absurd and arbitrary law.

Name the compelling state interest to deny two same sex siblings from
INCLUSSION in marriage when this couple is not remarkably different than a lesbian or gay male unrelated couple?

You are literally ignoring the judiciary that contradicts you....while insisting that the judiciary agrees with you and will implement your every prediction. Contradiction isn't agreement. No matter how hard you pretend otherwise.

This despite the fact that in the 10 years or so that same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in this country, absolutely nothing you've predicted has ever come to pass.

So contradiction by the judiciary....and perfect failure of your every prediction.

Why am I supposed to give a shit about your pseudo-legal gibberish again?

You are aware of Iowa statute 595.19, that lists those individuals not allowed to marry due to the incesturous nature of their relationship?

It only excluded male/female, blood related marriage, with the odd exception of first cousins. Same sex blood reletives are nowhere to be found, thus, unwittingly, I appear correct in the prediction that incest would be legal.

Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal.

Its been 10 years. Where is it?

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

It's your choice to care or not, I can't stop you hitting the submit button.

 

[Syriusly]

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

Difference #2: gays were denied marrying the one they love while straight folks could marry the one they love; that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All siblings are denied access to marriage, regardless of skin color or gender; no violation of the equal protection clause.

#1. Incestuos marriage is illegal due to their ability to procreate creating corrupt bloodlines. That argument is absurd now. No same sex coupling, regardless of family status had ever produced a child. So that argument is void of any merit at all

#2. Love is not a requirement of marriage, marriage is an institution that grants protection and financial benefits to consenting adults. To deny anyone from INCLUSSION now, is based on absurd and arbitrary law.

Name the compelling state interest to deny two same sex siblings from
INCLUSSION in marriage when this couple is not remarkably different than a lesbian or gay male unrelated couple?

You are literally ignoring the judiciary that contradicts you....while insisting that the judiciary agrees with you and will implement your every prediction. Contradiction isn't agreement. No matter how hard you pretend otherwise.

This despite the fact that in the 10 years or so that same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in this country, absolutely nothing you've predicted has ever come to pass.

So contradiction by the judiciary....and perfect failure of your every prediction.

Why am I supposed to give a shit about your pseudo-legal gibberish again?

You are aware of Iowa statute 595.19, that lists those individuals not allowed to marry due to the incesturous nature of their relationship?

It only excluded male/female, blood related marriage, with the odd exception of first cousins. Same sex blood reletives are nowhere to be found, thus, unwittingly, I appear correct in the prediction that incest would be legal.

Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal.

Its been 10 years. Where is it?

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

It's your choice to care or not, I can't stop you hitting the submit button.

It is also legal in Iowa for a Great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Iowa's incest laws need revamping- they could look at California's for a great example of a gender neutral law that would include fathers and sons- and greatgrandfathers and great grand daughters.

 

[Skylar]

Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

Difference #2: gays were denied marrying the one they love while straight folks could marry the one they love; that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All siblings are denied access to marriage, regardless of skin color or gender; no violation of the equal protection clause.

#1. Incestuos marriage is illegal due to their ability to procreate creating corrupt bloodlines. That argument is absurd now. No same sex coupling, regardless of family status had ever produced a child. So that argument is void of any merit at all

#2. Love is not a requirement of marriage, marriage is an institution that grants protection and financial benefits to consenting adults. To deny anyone from INCLUSSION now, is based on absurd and arbitrary law.

Name the compelling state interest to deny two same sex siblings from
INCLUSSION in marriage when this couple is not remarkably different than a lesbian or gay male unrelated couple?

You are literally ignoring the judiciary that contradicts you....while insisting that the judiciary agrees with you and will implement your every prediction. Contradiction isn't agreement. No matter how hard you pretend otherwise.

This despite the fact that in the 10 years or so that same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in this country, absolutely nothing you've predicted has ever come to pass.

So contradiction by the judiciary....and perfect failure of your every prediction.

Why am I supposed to give a shit about your pseudo-legal gibberish again?

You are aware of Iowa statute 595.19, that lists those individuals not allowed to marry due to the incesturous nature of their relationship?

It only excluded male/female, blood related marriage, with the odd exception of first cousins. Same sex blood reletives are nowhere to be found, thus, unwittingly, I appear correct in the prediction that incest would be legal.

Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal.

Its been 10 years. Where is it?

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

Says you. The Iowa law says differently:

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.

Iowa Code 595.19

So you say Iowa allows incestuous marriage. And Iowa says those marriages are void.

Why would I ignore Iowa and instead believe you?

 

[Pop23]

#1. Incestuos marriage is illegal due to their ability to procreate creating corrupt bloodlines. That argument is absurd now. No same sex coupling, regardless of family status had ever produced a child. So that argument is void of any merit at all

#2. Love is not a requirement of marriage, marriage is an institution that grants protection and financial benefits to consenting adults. To deny anyone from INCLUSSION now, is based on absurd and arbitrary law.

Name the compelling state interest to deny two same sex siblings from
INCLUSSION in marriage when this couple is not remarkably different than a lesbian or gay male unrelated couple?

You are literally ignoring the judiciary that contradicts you....while insisting that the judiciary agrees with you and will implement your every prediction. Contradiction isn't agreement. No matter how hard you pretend otherwise.

This despite the fact that in the 10 years or so that same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in this country, absolutely nothing you've predicted has ever come to pass.

So contradiction by the judiciary....and perfect failure of your every prediction.

Why am I supposed to give a shit about your pseudo-legal gibberish again?

You are aware of Iowa statute 595.19, that lists those individuals not allowed to marry due to the incesturous nature of their relationship?

It only excluded male/female, blood related marriage, with the odd exception of first cousins. Same sex blood reletives are nowhere to be found, thus, unwittingly, I appear correct in the prediction that incest would be legal.

Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal.

Its been 10 years. Where is it?

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

Says you. The Iowa law says differently:

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.

Iowa Code 595.19

So you say Iowa allows incestuous marriage. And Iowa says those marriages are void.

Why would I ignore Iowa and instead believe you?

You did note that the law makes a marriage void if, for example, a father married his daughter, but is silent if he married his SON.

You do realize what an incestuous marriage is, right?

 

[Pop23]

#1. Incestuos marriage is illegal due to their ability to procreate creating corrupt bloodlines. That argument is absurd now. No same sex coupling, regardless of family status had ever produced a child. So that argument is void of any merit at all

#2. Love is not a requirement of marriage, marriage is an institution that grants protection and financial benefits to consenting adults. To deny anyone from INCLUSSION now, is based on absurd and arbitrary law.

Name the compelling state interest to deny two same sex siblings from
INCLUSSION in marriage when this couple is not remarkably different than a lesbian or gay male unrelated couple?

You are literally ignoring the judiciary that contradicts you....while insisting that the judiciary agrees with you and will implement your every prediction. Contradiction isn't agreement. No matter how hard you pretend otherwise.

This despite the fact that in the 10 years or so that same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in this country, absolutely nothing you've predicted has ever come to pass.

So contradiction by the judiciary....and perfect failure of your every prediction.

Why am I supposed to give a shit about your pseudo-legal gibberish again?

You are aware of Iowa statute 595.19, that lists those individuals not allowed to marry due to the incesturous nature of their relationship?

It only excluded male/female, blood related marriage, with the odd exception of first cousins. Same sex blood reletives are nowhere to be found, thus, unwittingly, I appear correct in the prediction that incest would be legal.

Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal.

Its been 10 years. Where is it?

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

It's your choice to care or not, I can't stop you hitting the submit button.

It is also legal in Iowa for a Great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Iowa's incest laws need revamping- they could look at California's for a great example of a gender neutral law that would include fathers and sons- and greatgrandfathers and great grand daughters.

....... Or great great great great grandfather.

God you must be boring in real life.

 

[Skylar]

You are literally ignoring the judiciary that contradicts you....while insisting that the judiciary agrees with you and will implement your every prediction. Contradiction isn't agreement. No matter how hard you pretend otherwise.

This despite the fact that in the 10 years or so that same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in this country, absolutely nothing you've predicted has ever come to pass.

So contradiction by the judiciary....and perfect failure of your every prediction.

Why am I supposed to give a shit about your pseudo-legal gibberish again?

You are aware of Iowa statute 595.19, that lists those individuals not allowed to marry due to the incesturous nature of their relationship?

It only excluded male/female, blood related marriage, with the odd exception of first cousins. Same sex blood reletives are nowhere to be found, thus, unwittingly, I appear correct in the prediction that incest would be legal.

Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal.

Its been 10 years. Where is it?

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

Says you. The Iowa law says differently:

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.

Iowa Code 595.19

So you say Iowa allows incestuous marriage. And Iowa says those marriages are void.

Why would I ignore Iowa and instead believe you?

You did note that the law makes a marriage void if, for example, a father married his daughter, but is silent if he married his SON.

It explicitly voids marriages based on incestuous relationships. You said such bans are against the law. And that incestuous marriage must be legalized.

Obviously Iowa disagrees with you.

How do you reconcile this explicit contradiction by State law with your assumptions of what the States must do? No state, no court, no judge has ever found incestuous marriage to be a constitutional right. Or found a law banning incestuous marriage to be a violation of the constitution, the due process clause, or any constitutional guarantee.

Its almost like you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.