"Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"

[Pop23]

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

But you keep providing your opinion, regardless of what the law reads.
So

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.

Mutual exclusivity is your problem not mine.

I might agree that you have the right to bare arms, yet disagree that you should use that weapon to shoot your neighbor because his dog shit in your yard.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You do realize that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, right?

I realize your a moron, but youve likely heard that enough in your life, one more time shouldn't hurt you.

 

[Syriusly]

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

But you keep providing your opinion, regardless of what the law reads.
So

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.

Mutual exclusivity is your problem not mine.

I might agree that you have the right to bare arms, yet disagree that you should use that weapon to shoot your neighbor because his dog shit in your yard.

So you think incestuous couples- say a Mother and son- have a right ot marry?

 

[Skylar]

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.

You do realize that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, right?

I realize your a moron, but youve likely heard that enough in your life, one more time shouldn't hurt you.

At least I can tell that a ruling in 2015 didn't cause a law in 1962 to be passed. Which puts me head and shoulders above your pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Pop23]

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

But you keep providing your opinion, regardless of what the law reads.
So

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.

Mutual exclusivity is your problem not mine.

I might agree that you have the right to bare arms, yet disagree that you should use that weapon to shoot your neighbor because his dog shit in your yard.

So you think incestuous couples- say a Mother and son- have a right ot marry?

Not at this point and time I can't see a single State that allows such a right to a Mother and a Son.

You?

 

[Pop23]

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.

You do realize that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, right?

I realize your a moron, but youve likely heard that enough in your life, one more time shouldn't hurt you.

At least I can tell that a ruling in 2015 didn't cause a law in 1962 to be passed. Which puts me head and shoulders above your pseudo-legal gibberish.

It sure as hell changed its intent.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

You do realize that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, right?

I realize your a moron, but youve likely heard that enough in your life, one more time shouldn't hurt you.

At least I can tell that a ruling in 2015 didn't cause a law in 1962 to be passed. Which puts me head and shoulders above your pseudo-legal gibberish.

It sure as hell changed its intent.

Says you,citing you. And you don't know what you're talking about. Nor can you cite even ONE incestuous marriage in Iowa.

But you can dream, I suppose. If imagination were evidence, you'd be irrefutable.

 

[Syriusly]

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

But you keep providing your opinion, regardless of what the law reads.
So

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.

Mutual exclusivity is your problem not mine.

I might agree that you have the right to bare arms, yet disagree that you should use that weapon to shoot your neighbor because his dog shit in your yard.

So you think incestuous couples- say a Mother and son- have a right ot marry?

Not at this point and time I can't see a single State that allows such a right to a Mother and a Son.

You?

I think that all Americans have the right to marriage- BUT states can and do restrict those rights when the states can provide a legitimate basis for the discrimination.

California provides a good, inclusive example- Iowa provides a poorly written, underly inclusive example.

Ultimately it is up to the states to decide whose marriage is legally incestuous marriage.

 

[Pop23]

You realize that the age of the law has no merit.

You do realize that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, right?

I realize your a moron, but youve likely heard that enough in your life, one more time shouldn't hurt you.

At least I can tell that a ruling in 2015 didn't cause a law in 1962 to be passed. Which puts me head and shoulders above your pseudo-legal gibberish.

It sure as hell changed its intent.

Says you,citing you. And you don't know what you're talking about. Nor can you cite even ONE incestuous marriage in Iowa.

But you can dream, I suppose. If imagination were evidence, you'd be irrefutable.

Says you........

 

[Skylar]

You do realize that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, right?

I realize your a moron, but youve likely heard that enough in your life, one more time shouldn't hurt you.

At least I can tell that a ruling in 2015 didn't cause a law in 1962 to be passed. Which puts me head and shoulders above your pseudo-legal gibberish.

It sure as hell changed its intent.

Says you,citing you. And you don't know what you're talking about. Nor can you cite even ONE incestuous marriage in Iowa.

But you can dream, I suppose. If imagination were evidence, you'd be irrefutable.

Says you........

And yet you still can't cite a single instance of legally recognized incestuous marriage in the State of Iowa. While I can quote Iowa explicitly voiding incestuous marriage and criminalizing incest.

But don't quit chasing the legal unicorns!

 

[Pop23]

I realize your a moron, but youve likely heard that enough in your life, one more time shouldn't hurt you.

At least I can tell that a ruling in 2015 didn't cause a law in 1962 to be passed. Which puts me head and shoulders above your pseudo-legal gibberish.

It sure as hell changed its intent.

Says you,citing you. And you don't know what you're talking about. Nor can you cite even ONE incestuous marriage in Iowa.

But you can dream, I suppose. If imagination were evidence, you'd be irrefutable.

Says you........

And yet you still can't cite a single instance of legally recognized incestuous marriage in the State of Iowa. While I can quote Iowa explicitly voiding incestuous marriage and criminalizing incest.

But don't quit chasing the legal unicorns!

Got it, you will insist that since the Iowa law does not list Same Sex closely related individuals as being incestuous, therefor they aren't.

Word salad and lame.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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. The law exists, and as of yet has not been deleted not amended.

The law of 2015 created the paradox within the law of 1962.

Of course it did... and that's because the valid law rests in objective reason, serving the principles on which the nation is founded and the interests of everyone. Where the 2015 'Law' rests entirely in subjective fiction... having absolutely no kinship with the Founding Principles, the Charter of Law created to sustain recognition and respect for those principles or any other tenet of Western Jurisprudence.

What it does however bear kinship with, is former decisions which also rejected the principles that sustain the legitimacy of the nation, the culture and the judiciary itself.

 

[Syriusly]

I wonder how long Pop will blame Gays for Iowa's poorly written marriage laws when it comes to related couples.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I wonder how long Pop will blame Gays for Iowa's poorly written marriage laws when it comes to related couples.

What's poorly written about the law?

And as always... as simple as that seems, it flies beyond your stark intellectual limitations, where it requires SPECIFICITY!

 

[Pop23]

I wonder how long Pop will blame Gays for Iowa's poorly written marriage laws when it comes to related couples.

More word salad, with cheesy dressing

 

[Skylar]

At least I can tell that a ruling in 2015 didn't cause a law in 1962 to be passed. Which puts me head and shoulders above your pseudo-legal gibberish.

It sure as hell changed its intent.

Says you,citing you. And you don't know what you're talking about. Nor can you cite even ONE incestuous marriage in Iowa.

But you can dream, I suppose. If imagination were evidence, you'd be irrefutable.

Says you........

And yet you still can't cite a single instance of legally recognized incestuous marriage in the State of Iowa. While I can quote Iowa explicitly voiding incestuous marriage and criminalizing incest.

But don't quit chasing the legal unicorns!

Got it, you will insist that since the Iowa law does not list Same Sex closely related individuals as being incestuous, therefor they aren't.

Actually, I've never insisted that. You're hallucinating again, much like you did when assuming the Obergefell or Windsor made the slightest mention of incestuous couples. Neither ever happened.

I've said that Iowa doesn't recognize incestuous marriages as valid, holds incest to be a felony, and doesn't hold valid any marriage prohibited under the law.

Which incest is.

Which might explain why you can't cite even one legally recognized incestuous marriage in Iowa. Not one.

And why in 10 years since same sex marriage was legalized in this country, none of your predictions have come to pass. There's a phrase that beautifully sums up both the accuracy of your predictions and your understanding of the legal principles involved:

"Perfect failure."

 

[Skylar]

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. The law exists, and as of yet has not been deleted not amended.

The law of 2015 created the paradox within the law of 1962.

Nope. As the conflict exists exclusively in your imagination. The 2015 rulings never even mention incest. Or authorize it in any way. In fact, the only one citing incestuous marriage......

....is you. Citing yourself. Which, unsurprisingly, is the exact same source that cites this imaginary conflict. Every voice in your pseudo-legal melodrama.....is you. And you're nobody.

Back in reality, incestuous marriage isn't legal. No court, State nor law recognizes them. And the law you're citing as being caused by the 2015 rulings....

....was passed in 1962.

Yeah, I don't think 'caused' means what you think it means.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nah, I'm just shredding your argument with ... better sources.

ROFLMNAO!

WELL... There's nothing particularly subjective about THAT!

 

[Skylar]

Nah, I'm just shredding your argument with ... better sources.

ROFLMNAO!

WELL... There's nothing particularly subjective about THAT!

I've quoted Iowa law. Pop quoted himself. In a matter of the law, the law wins over subjective opinion.

Its how I wipe the floor with you all the time. I quote the actual rulings in question. You quote yourself. And in any contest of legality between you and the USSC....the USSC wins.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The 2015 rulings never even mention incest.

So what?