Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?
Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.
2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.
Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?
Are you sure there haven't been?
(Note the question mark)
Do you often report on laws that were not broken?
Today Syriously did not Rob a bank, and in other news Pop did not litter.
....... Or great great great great grandfather.
God you must be boring in real life.
Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?
Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.
2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.
Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?
Are you sure there haven't been?
(Note the question mark)
Do you often report on laws that were not broken?
Today Syriously did not Rob a bank, and in other news Pop did not litter.
"And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?"
Feel free to prove me wrong. In 2009 one of your fellow travellers in Iowa got just as pissy about Iowa law and gay marriage as you are- and since then- he hasn't published a single example.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
And for the third time I will point out that clearly you don't find all of them as outragious.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.
Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?
Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.
Both are deflections from the points brought up.
1. I am outraged by any forms of incest, I don't care how close, the sex of any, or how utterly preposterous they are.
2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.
Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009
Clearly you are not as outraged by all forms of incest- since you started a thread about how Iowa law now apparently makes the possibility of incestuous same gender marriage possible- but you mentioned nothing about how Iowa has always allowed a great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.
Thanks for pointing that relationship out for the third time, and for the second time may I point out that it is outrageous as well.
Now, is there anything else I can do for you, cuz your customers want extra salt on their fries b
....... Or great great great great grandfather.
God you must be boring in real life.
Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?
Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.
2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.
Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?
Are you sure there haven't been?
(Note the question mark)
Do you often report on laws that were not broken?
Today Syriously did not Rob a bank, and in other news Pop did not litter.
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
And for the third time I will point out that clearly you don't find all of them as outragious........ Or great great great great grandfather.
God you must be boring in real life.
Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?
Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.
Both are deflections from the points brought up.
1. I am outraged by any forms of incest, I don't care how close, the sex of any, or how utterly preposterous they are.
2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.
Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009
Clearly you are not as outraged by all forms of incest- since you started a thread about how Iowa law now apparently makes the possibility of incestuous same gender marriage possible- but you mentioned nothing about how Iowa has always allowed a great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.
Thanks for pointing that relationship out for the third time, and for the second time may I point out that it is outrageous as well.
Now, is there anything else I can do for you, cuz your customers want extra salt on their fries b
Clearly you are not as outraged by all forms of incest- since you started a thread about how Iowa law now apparently makes the possibility of incestuous same gender marriage possible- but you mentioned nothing about how Iowa has always allowed a great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.
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.
You posted the law moron. A Father marrying a Son is incesturous.
.
Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?
Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.
2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.
Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?
Are you sure there haven't been?
(Note the question mark)
Do you often report on laws that were not broken?
Today Syriously did not Rob a bank, and in other news Pop did not litter.
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
Haven't a clue professor, clue me in, k?
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.
You posted the law moron. A Father marrying a Son is incesturous.
.
Not according to Iowa- you have posted the law moron- and nowhere does Iowa law say that a Father marrying a Son is incestuous.
2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.
Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?
Are you sure there haven't been?
(Note the question mark)
Do you often report on laws that were not broken?
Today Syriously did not Rob a bank, and in other news Pop did not litter.
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
Haven't a clue professor, clue me in, k?
Yeah I don't know either- Iowa doesn't seem to be considering this a problem that needs solving.
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.
Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?
Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.
2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.
Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?
Copy and paste away individuals rights. Progressives crack me up!
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.
Of course not. There no way to license Degeneracy by citing self evident truth.
Alas, your subjective opinion doesn't establish 'self evident truth'. And you citing you is the only source you have.
While the USSC cited the constitution and existing caselaw.
What's more, there is no kinship with the U.S. Constitution and the licensing of Degeneracy.]
Says you. Which is obviously hopelessly subjective. And legally irrelevant.
Skylar is so very dynamic. The arguments start so often with
"says you"
You can't make this shit up folks
Says you. The Iowa law says differently:
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.
You posted the law moron. A Father marrying a Son is incesturous.
.
Not according to Iowa- you have posted the law moron- and nowhere does Iowa law say that a Father marrying a Son is incestuous.
EXCELLENT POINT DUDE
So your claim then is that incest can only occur in opposite sex couples.
Just want to make sure I have your opinion correct.
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?
Are you sure there haven't been?
(Note the question mark)
Do you often report on laws that were not broken?
Today Syriously did not Rob a bank, and in other news Pop did not litter.
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
Haven't a clue professor, clue me in, k?
Yeah I don't know either- Iowa doesn't seem to be considering this a problem that needs solving.
Or the solution is more problematic than the fix?
....... Or great great great great grandfather.
God you must be boring in real life.
Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?
Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.
2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.
Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?
Copy and paste away individuals rights. Progressives crack me up!
You think incestuous couples have the right to marry?
Well I am not surprised that you both think that they have the right to marry- and you also oppose them from marrying.
Because after all- this whole thread is just your response to same gender Americans having their rights recognized- rights you want to take away.
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.
You posted the law moron. A Father marrying a Son is incesturous.
.
Not according to Iowa- you have posted the law moron- and nowhere does Iowa law say that a Father marrying a Son is incestuous.
EXCELLENT POINT DUDE
So your claim then is that incest can only occur in opposite sex couples.
Just want to make sure I have your opinion correct.
So you support brothers marrying their sisters?
Just want to make sure I have your opinion correct.
Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?
Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.
2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.
Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?
Are you sure there haven't been?
(Note the question mark)
Section 595.19 goes back to at least 1962:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/shelves/code/ocr/1962 Iowa Code Index.pdf
You'll need to establish that;
1) it has been changed to allow for incestuous relationships;
2) that the change came after gay marriage was legalized;
3) that the change was caused by gay marriage;
4) That Iowa has recognized an actual incestuous marriage as legally valid.
All four would have to be valid for your premise to be valid.
And given that in Iowa incest is still a felony, and Iowa laws don't recognize marriages prohibited by law, you're gonna have a very difficult time proving that incest marriage is legal in Iowa for any reason.
Please do so now.
I must do so now?
Why, your just an interweb bully wannabe, not a true bully
I think I'll wait a bit and watch you whine.
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.
You posted the law moron. A Father marrying a Son is incesturous.
.
Not according to Iowa- you have posted the law moron- and nowhere does Iowa law say that a Father marrying a Son is incestuous.
EXCELLENT POINT DUDE
So your claim then is that incest can only occur in opposite sex couples.
Just want to make sure I have your opinion correct.
So you support brothers marrying their sisters?
Just want to make sure I have your opinion correct.
Link to my supportive post.
Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?
Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.
2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.
Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?
Copy and paste away individuals rights. Progressives crack me up!
You think incestuous couples have the right to marry?
Well I am not surprised that you both think that they have the right to marry- and you also oppose them from marrying.
Because after all- this whole thread is just your response to same gender Americans having their rights recognized- rights you want to take away.
My thought on the subject does not matter nearly as much as what the law reads.
If you have a problem with me pointing this out, it is indeed, your problem
Unbecoming as it is, it remains yours
2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.
Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?
Are you sure there haven't been?
(Note the question mark)
Section 595.19 goes back to at least 1962:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/shelves/code/ocr/1962 Iowa Code Index.pdf
You'll need to establish that;
1) it has been changed to allow for incestuous relationships;
2) that the change came after gay marriage was legalized;
3) that the change was caused by gay marriage;
4) That Iowa has recognized an actual incestuous marriage as legally valid.
All four would have to be valid for your premise to be valid.
And given that in Iowa incest is still a felony, and Iowa laws don't recognize marriages prohibited by law, you're gonna have a very difficult time proving that incest marriage is legal in Iowa for any reason.
Please do so now.
I must do so now?
If you want your argument to have any validity. I've already established that laws outlawing incenstuous marriage exist in Iowa. Contradicting you. I've already established that these laws go back to at least 1962. Robbing you of even hypothetical causation. And I've already established that Iowa outlaws incest while failing to recognize any marriage prohibited by law.
Incest is prohibited by law.
Leaving a smoldering crater where your argument was. With you unable to so much as ONE incestuous marriage legally recognized by Iowa, despite your claim that Iowa allows them.
Your argument is thus debunked. As each of the four requirements that I listed must be met for your argument to be valid. And you can't meet one of them.
Why, your just an interweb bully wannabe, not a true bully
I think I'll wait a bit and watch you whine.
Nah, I'm just shredding your argument with better logic, better reason and better sources.
And I have a firmer command of cause and effect. For example, I recognize that a ruling in 2015 couldn't cause a law in 1962 to be passed.
While your argument requires it. Can you see why your claims are a little....underwhelming.
California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.
Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?
And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?
Are you sure there haven't been?
(Note the question mark)
Section 595.19 goes back to at least 1962:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/shelves/code/ocr/1962 Iowa Code Index.pdf
You'll need to establish that;
1) it has been changed to allow for incestuous relationships;
2) that the change came after gay marriage was legalized;
3) that the change was caused by gay marriage;
4) That Iowa has recognized an actual incestuous marriage as legally valid.
All four would have to be valid for your premise to be valid.
And given that in Iowa incest is still a felony, and Iowa laws don't recognize marriages prohibited by law, you're gonna have a very difficult time proving that incest marriage is legal in Iowa for any reason.
Please do so now.
I must do so now?
If you want your argument to have any validity. I've already established that laws outlawing incenstuous marriage exist in Iowa. Contradicting you. I've already established that these laws go back to at least 1962. Robbing you of even hypothetical causation. And I've already established that Iowa outlaws incest while failing to recognize any marriage prohibited by law.
Incest is prohibited by law.
Leaving a smoldering crater where your argument was. With you unable to so much as ONE incestuous marriage legally recognized by Iowa, despite your claim that Iowa allows them.
Your argument is thus debunked. As each of the four requirements that I listed must be met for your argument to be valid. And you can't meet one of them.
Why, your just an interweb bully wannabe, not a true bully
I think I'll wait a bit and watch you whine.
Nah, I'm just shredding your argument with better logic, better reason and better sources.
And I have a firmer command of cause and effect. For example, I recognize that a ruling in 2015 couldn't cause a law in 1962 to be passed.
While your argument requires it. Can you see why your claims are a little....underwhelming.
You realize that the age of the law has no merit.
