"Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

ROFLMNAO!

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

I've quoted

Oh! Well, why didn't ya say so?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

The 2015 rulings never even mention incest.

So what?

So, its much more difficult to argue that Windsor and Obergefell authorized something neither ever even mention.

The difference between you and I, Keyes...is I've actually read the rulings. You never have. I cite the rulings. You cite yourself.

Its also the reason why I was able to predict virtually every significant part of the Obergefell ruling. And you were incompetently wrong on every point.

 

[Skylar]

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

ROFLMNAO!

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

I've quoted

Oh! Well, why didn't ya say so?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And.....your tell. Your white flag where you abandon the entire debate, summarily declare victory....

......and run.

That was easy.

 

[Pop23]

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."

Why would I need to cite a single incestuous marriage when my argument has always been that the Iowa law makes incestuous marriage legal?

It's legal for me to drive a Cadillac, but I'd be hard pressed to show evidence that I had.

It's legal for me to test for a pilots license, but that doesn't mean I have.

Now, prove that a same sex straight couple of sisters, is commiting incest by getting married.

Let's look at the law in Iowa and look for the requirement for sexual intercourse.

Not there?

Too bad, so sad

 

[Skylar]

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."

Why would I need to cite a single incestuous marriage when my argument has always been that the Iowa law makes incestuous marriage legal?

To demonstrate that your 'ramifications' have some basis in reality and isn't simply meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. If nothing you've claimed has ever happened....then your record of predictive accuracy is essentially worthless.

So show us what you've predicted actually happening. As as a product of same sex marriage. Both the cause and the effect.

You do know what 'ramifications' means, right? I'll give you hint: its not whatever hapless nonsense you make up. Its actual consequences.

Its been 10 years since same sex marriage was first legalized. Show us the actual consequences. Don't tell us.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The 2015 rulings never even mention incest.

So what?

So, its much more difficult to argue that Windsor and Obergefell authorized something neither ever even mention.

You... are an imbecile.

Windsor codified that Marriage and matters of sexuality with regard to such, is exclusively, the domain of the states... two years later, THAT was completely ignored in Obergefell ... for the Federal Licensing of DEGENERACY.

Now you're an unapologetic, enthusiastic supporter of that absurdity.

You don't get the stand up and apoplectic applause... over the disembodied popular vote of a judicial body, which divines a fundamental right, where no such right CAN EXIST... and simultaneously demand that the law must list every potential scenario to be applicable... .


"Well my name is Yasheka.... day ain't nuttin' in dat law dat sez yasheka cain't do dat shit! GET YA HANDS OFF ME, RACIST!"

 

[Pop23]

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."

Why would I need to cite a single incestuous marriage when my argument has always been that the Iowa law makes incestuous marriage legal?

To demonstrate that your 'ramifications' have some basis in reality and isn't simply meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. If nothing you've claimed has ever happened....then your record of predictive accuracy is essentially worthless.

So show us what you've predicted actually happening. As as a product of same sex marriage. Both the cause and the effect.

You do know what 'ramifications' means, right? I'll give you hint: its not whatever hapless nonsense you make up. Its actual consequences.

Its been 10 years since same sex marriage was first legalized. Show us the actual consequences. Don't tell us.

Iowa statute 595.19

 

[Skylar]

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."

Why would I need to cite a single incestuous marriage when my argument has always been that the Iowa law makes incestuous marriage legal?

To demonstrate that your 'ramifications' have some basis in reality and isn't simply meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. If nothing you've claimed has ever happened....then your record of predictive accuracy is essentially worthless.

So show us what you've predicted actually happening. As as a product of same sex marriage. Both the cause and the effect.

You do know what 'ramifications' means, right? I'll give you hint: its not whatever hapless nonsense you make up. Its actual consequences.

Its been 10 years since same sex marriage was first legalized. Show us the actual consequences. Don't tell us.

Iowa statute 595.19

A law that voids incestuous marriages. Which you insist can't be done. An explicit contradictions of your claims.

A law passed in 1962. Which you're offering to us as a consequence of a 2015 ruling. I don't think 'consequence' means what you think it means. As in our universe cause precedes efffect. It doesn't follow it by half a century.

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

So much for your 'ramifications'. All that you're left with is pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A law passed in 1962. Which you're offering to us as a consequence of a 2015 ruling.

You're basing that, upon what?

I ask because ... it didn't happen.

 

[Skylar]

A law passed in 1962. Which you're offering to us as a consequence of a 2015 ruling.

You're basing that, upon what?

I ask because ... it didn't happen.

I've asked him for the consequences he insists are the product of same sex marriage.

He offered Iowa Statute 595.19. A law passed in 1962.

I'm quite familiar with how confusing you find causation. But for the rational folks among us, how can a 2015 ruling cause a 1962 law?

And of course, the law voids incestuous marriages. Which Pops insists it can't do. So Pops is having his ass handed to him by both basic causation and the laws of Iowa. Both of which contradict him.

Can either of you show us even ONE legally recognized incestuous marriage in Iowa?

Just one. I mean, if these 'ramifications' are inevitable as you claim, then you should have dozens and dozens to chose from. Hundreds even.

I'm just asking for one.

 

[Faun]

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.

Good god.

You do understand what the ":" is, right?

The list of who this relates to are as follows.

Ya think they just kinda left out all same sex couplings, cuz....

They ran out of ink?

It is

1.

a.

b.

c.

"A" "B" and "C" explains "1"

Now "c", for some odd reason excluded ALL INCEST BETWEEN ALL SEXES.

If "a" and "b" had the same intent, it would simply state it in those same terms.

And incest is illegal, even in Iowa.

 

[Politico]

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.

Please don't. Get gay married and move on.

 

[Faun]

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.

Please don't. Get gay married and move on.

Why would I get gay married? I already said I'm not gay. As far as moving on, sure ... I've already proven most people are in favor of it being legal and you failed miserably to prove otherwise.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Syriusly]

Same gender couples have been getting married in Iowa for 5 years now- ever since the Iowa Supreme Court found that Iowa law violated the Iowa Constitution.

Same gender couples getting married were in the news:
Iowa Marriage Equality Celebrating Four Years of Equality in the Heartland Donna Red Wing
Since the ruling roughly 6,000 same-sex couples have wed in Iowa.

No record of, no mention of incestuous couples getting married in the last 5 years.

Matter of fact- the marriage license application says

http://www.co.hardin.ia.us/files/Marriage_License_Application.pdf

Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract
between two persons who
are(1) 18 years of age or older; (2)
not alreadymarried to each other or still legally married to
someone else;
(3) not closely related by blood or first cousins;
and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Not according to the law.

 

[G.T.]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Not according to the law.

Keyes is top 3 biggest meltdowns in usmb history.

Dude is still going like he has tourettes!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Same gender couples have been getting married...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Not according to the law.

Yet... Marriage remains the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Not according to the law.

Keyes is top 3 biggest meltdowns in usmb history.

Dude is still going like he has tourettes!

ROFLMNAO ... Adorable