Again... if we are arguing what the law currently says and is, then I guess you win that argument.
I thought we were arguing about this hypothetical case and what your justification would be in denying him the right to marry the person he loves? I already know "how you look at it" ...you don't think he can have a second marriage cuz he already gotz one and datz what da law sez.
Men can't **** each other in the ass... that's what the law said. Once.
Men can't marry men.... that's what the law said. Once.
And again, I don't have any problems with polygamy, it just doesn't work with current marriage law. If the law is changed, I wouldn't be upset about it.
However, your silliness was not 'what if the law were changed or if we ignore the law?'. You were clearly continuing your dialogue about same sex marriage changing everything.
And you've still not explained how your "doesn't work with" is different than the "doesn't work with" arguments against gay marriage. You reeled off some things that would be effected and would have to be changed but that was also the case for gay marriage... things were effected and had to change.
No, Monty, I have never argued that Obergefell changed the law and now allows polygamy and sibling marriage. Again, if THAT is the argument you think we're having it's no wonder you're like a dog with a bone and think you've won. I totally realize none of these things are legal and would all have to be passed into law or challenged in court. We are discussing what your argument is going to be against it when this happens (and it will happen.) Thus far, your only argument seems to be that it's not going to happen because it's against the law and it "doesn't work."
Of course, now you've slowly revealed that you're really okay with polygamy. And you know what else, I believe you'll be okay with sibling marriages, hebephile marriages, zoophile marriages, or whatever other perversion of marriage comes down the pike.
Of course you think these things. You are a deluded twit.
I've never spoken against polygamous marriage that I can recall in a moral sense. My only problem with polygamy is in the practicality of its application. Many different laws about marriage would need to be changed for polygamous marriage to work. With same sex marriage there are very few changes needed. That you cannot see the difference is not my problem.
I would not support non-consensual marriage, whatever you may think. You are the only one who seems to feel consent is unimportant in these discussions. I don't expect any serious legal challenge to laws requiring humans be the participants in marriage to occur anyway, despite your histrionics.
You have argued that Obergefell has changed the law so that, if challenged, any joining which wants to gain legal marriage must get it. They may not be legal now but, based on what you've said, if someone takes it to court they must be legalized based on Obergefell. I have, on many occasions now, given arguments as to why your silly claims about potential forms of marriage will not be legalized. You seem to have decided to ignore them in order to try and winnow my arguments down to an easier to argue against straw man.
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of laws in which marital status plays a part. I believe it would be far more difficult to fit polygamous marriage into those laws, that many more changes or completely new additions would need to be made, than for same sex marriage.
Wrong again, I know exactly where that link goes to since I got the link from an Iowa government page.
As much as you want to dismiss the contents of their instructions because of who prints them up for the government, Iowa still approves of their marriage application instructions.
Again, your desperation is noted and dismissed since Iowa doesn't allow close-family members to marry, regardless of gender.
Also evidenced by your inability to find even one such couple to get married in 6 years.
6 years ... 250+ million American citizens 16 and older ... zero close-family marriages.
You see, Pops... Our laws and Constitution all rely upon Monty's knowledge. Nothing can be constitutional until Monty hears about it and let's us know that he knows it is constitutional. As long as he is in the dark or ignorant of things, they can't possibly be legal or constitutional. You need to get that through your thick head and understand how things are, by gawd!
You see, Pops... Our laws and Constitution all rely upon Monty's knowledge. Nothing can be constitutional until Monty hears about it and let's us know that he knows it is constitutional. As long as he is in the dark or ignorant of things, they can't possibly be legal or constitutional. You need to get that through your thick head and understand how things are, by gawd!
Again... if we are arguing what the law currently says and is, then I guess you win that argument.
I thought we were arguing about this hypothetical case and what your justification would be in denying him the right to marry the person he loves? I already know "how you look at it" ...you don't think he can have a second marriage cuz he already gotz one and datz what da law sez.
Men can't **** each other in the ass... that's what the law said. Once.
Men can't marry men.... that's what the law said. Once.
And again, I don't have any problems with polygamy, it just doesn't work with current marriage law. If the law is changed, I wouldn't be upset about it.
However, your silliness was not 'what if the law were changed or if we ignore the law?'. You were clearly continuing your dialogue about same sex marriage changing everything.
And you've still not explained how your "doesn't work with" is different than the "doesn't work with" arguments against gay marriage. You reeled off some things that would be effected and would have to be changed but that was also the case for gay marriage... things were effected and had to change.
No, Monty, I have never argued that Obergefell changed the law and now allows polygamy and sibling marriage. Again, if THAT is the argument you think we're having it's no wonder you're like a dog with a bone and think you've won. I totally realize none of these things are legal and would all have to be passed into law or challenged in court. We are discussing what your argument is going to be against it when this happens (and it will happen.) Thus far, your only argument seems to be that it's not going to happen because it's against the law and it "doesn't work."
Of course, now you've slowly revealed that you're really okay with polygamy. And you know what else, I believe you'll be okay with sibling marriages, hebephile marriages, zoophile marriages, or whatever other perversion of marriage comes down the pike.
Of course you think these things. You are a deluded twit.
I've never spoken against polygamous marriage that I can recall in a moral sense. My only problem with polygamy is in the practicality of its application. Many different laws about marriage would need to be changed for polygamous marriage to work. With same sex marriage there are very few changes needed. That you cannot see the difference is not my problem.
I would not support non-consensual marriage, whatever you may think. You are the only one who seems to feel consent is unimportant in these discussions. I don't expect any serious legal challenge to laws requiring humans be the participants in marriage to occur anyway, despite your histrionics.
You have argued that Obergefell has changed the law so that, if challenged, any joining which wants to gain legal marriage must get it. They may not be legal now but, based on what you've said, if someone takes it to court they must be legalized based on Obergefell. I have, on many occasions now, given arguments as to why your silly claims about potential forms of marriage will not be legalized. You seem to have decided to ignore them in order to try and winnow my arguments down to an easier to argue against straw man.
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of laws in which marital status plays a part. I believe it would be far more difficult to fit polygamous marriage into those laws, that many more changes or completely new additions would need to be made, than for same sex marriage.
All the same old tired nonsense.
No one is going to support "non-consentual" marriage... that's why we'd change the definition of consent, like we've done a million times and as is the case all over the country in various states regarding various laws. We've already been through the fact that animals aren't required to give consent because they aren't constitutionally protected. Age of consent is arbitrary and has been as low as 12-years-old in THIS country.
As for your argument against polygamy, it's even weaker. You're saying it would need to be accommodated.... okay, so what? Didn't we have to make accommodation for homosexuals? We don't disallow fundamental constitutional rights because we don't want to accommodate them or because we think it would be a pain in the ass to accommodate.
As for Obergefell, the equal protection clause is a booger. It has redefined traditional marriage based on the ruling and it will stand as legal precedent in any future challenge. You seem to think it happened in a vacuum and won't have any effect on any future case. It's about the most ignorant and asinine viewpoint I've ever heard. But then, it's coming from you!
And yet, Iowa still says close-family marriages are not allowed.Wrong again, I know exactly where that link goes to since I got the link from an Iowa government page.
As much as you want to dismiss the contents of their instructions because of who prints them up for the government, Iowa still approves of their marriage application instructions.
Again, your desperation is noted and dismissed since Iowa doesn't allow close-family members to marry, regardless of gender.
Also evidenced by your inability to find even one such couple to get married in 6 years.
6 years ... 250+ million American citizens 16 and older ... zero close-family marriages.
Again, my link is the actual law that defines what iowa considers to be those that are too closely related. Which are, and those that are void, thus having an empty claim to license:
595.19 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.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.
Notice the last word. Valid. Valid is the opposite of void. Those included in the list have an empty (void) claim to contract, those not listed have a claim (valid) to enter such contracts.
You need to supply the legislation that changes Iowa 595.19 or you're simply spamming the board with a link to a printing company.
You are completely toasted dude:
And yet, Iowa still says close-family marriages are not allowed.Wrong again, I know exactly where that link goes to since I got the link from an Iowa government page.
As much as you want to dismiss the contents of their instructions because of who prints them up for the government, Iowa still approves of their marriage application instructions.
Again, your desperation is noted and dismissed since Iowa doesn't allow close-family members to marry, regardless of gender.
Also evidenced by your inability to find even one such couple to get married in 6 years.
6 years ... 250+ million American citizens 16 and older ... zero close-family marriages.
Again, my link is the actual law that defines what iowa considers to be those that are too closely related. Which are, and those that are void, thus having an empty claim to license:
595.19 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.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.
Notice the last word. Valid. Valid is the opposite of void. Those included in the list have an empty (void) claim to contract, those not listed have a claim (valid) to enter such contracts.
You need to supply the legislation that changes Iowa 595.19 or you're simply spamming the board with a link to a printing company.
You are completely toasted dude:
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!
Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married 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.
Really? So the U.S. Constitution protects animals and they have rights now? How, exactly, are animals supposed to "give consent?" It seems to me you are attempting to deny someone the fundamental rights of marriage based on what an animal cannot do and is not obligated to do under the constitution.
Marriage required people to be of the same race. That was changed. Racists were as certain then of the slippery slope as you are now.
I'm spamming nothing. I'm replying to your idiocy that the statute you quote is still relevant despite Supreme Court rulings affecting gender in marriages. You're under the delusion that a SC ruling can create a loophole where people can violate the law. I say you're a retard who doesn't understand the spirit of the law prevents that from occurring.And yet, Iowa still says close-family marriages are not allowed.Wrong again, I know exactly where that link goes to since I got the link from an Iowa government page.
As much as you want to dismiss the contents of their instructions because of who prints them up for the government, Iowa still approves of their marriage application instructions.
Again, your desperation is noted and dismissed since Iowa doesn't allow close-family members to marry, regardless of gender.
Also evidenced by your inability to find even one such couple to get married in 6 years.
6 years ... 250+ million American citizens 16 and older ... zero close-family marriages.
Again, my link is the actual law that defines what iowa considers to be those that are too closely related. Which are, and those that are void, thus having an empty claim to license:
595.19 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.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.
Notice the last word. Valid. Valid is the opposite of void. Those included in the list have an empty (void) claim to contract, those not listed have a claim (valid) to enter such contracts.
You need to supply the legislation that changes Iowa 595.19 or you're simply spamming the board with a link to a printing company.
You are completely toasted dude:
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!
Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married 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.
Only those contained on this list are void:
595.19 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.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.
You need to quit spamming the board and link to the legislation that changed the above.
Or admit you're spamming the board with a link to a pamphlet from a printing company from Spencor Iowa
I'm spamming nothing. I'm replying to your idiocy that the statute you quote is still relevant despite Supreme Court rulings affecting gender in marriages. You're under the delusion that a SC ruling can create a loophole where people can violate the law. I say you're a retard who doesn't understand the sprit of the law prevents that from occurring.And yet, Iowa still says close-family marriages are not allowed.Wrong again, I know exactly where that link goes to since I got the link from an Iowa government page.
As much as you want to dismiss the contents of their instructions because of who prints them up for the government, Iowa still approves of their marriage application instructions.
Again, your desperation is noted and dismissed since Iowa doesn't allow close-family members to marry, regardless of gender.
Also evidenced by your inability to find even one such couple to get married in 6 years.
6 years ... 250+ million American citizens 16 and older ... zero close-family marriages.
Again, my link is the actual law that defines what iowa considers to be those that are too closely related. Which are, and those that are void, thus having an empty claim to license:
595.19 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.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.
Notice the last word. Valid. Valid is the opposite of void. Those included in the list have an empty (void) claim to contract, those not listed have a claim (valid) to enter such contracts.
You need to supply the legislation that changes Iowa 595.19 or you're simply spamming the board with a link to a printing company.
You are completely toasted dude:
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!
Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married 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.
Only those contained on this list are void:
595.19 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.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.
You need to quit spamming the board and link to the legislation that changed the above.
Or admit you're spamming the board with a link to a pamphlet from a printing company from Spencor Iowa
You wanna keep posting that obsolete statute? Go right ahead. Just know that every time you do, I will remind you that Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry; regardless of gender.
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!
Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married 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.
Goes your argument - loser
Idiot, gay sex, while illegal, was consentual. Animals, children, and dead people are about those who can't consent.
Why would I give two shits what their opinion is? Iowa still doesn't allow close-family members to marry; regardless of gender...I'm spamming nothing. I'm replying to your idiocy that the statute you quote is still relevant despite Supreme Court rulings affecting gender in marriages. You're under the delusion that a SC ruling can create a loophole where people can violate the law. I say you're a retard who doesn't understand the sprit of the law prevents that from occurring.And yet, Iowa still says close-family marriages are not allowed.Wrong again, I know exactly where that link goes to since I got the link from an Iowa government page.
As much as you want to dismiss the contents of their instructions because of who prints them up for the government, Iowa still approves of their marriage application instructions.
Again, your desperation is noted and dismissed since Iowa doesn't allow close-family members to marry, regardless of gender.
Also evidenced by your inability to find even one such couple to get married in 6 years.
6 years ... 250+ million American citizens 16 and older ... zero close-family marriages.
Again, my link is the actual law that defines what iowa considers to be those that are too closely related. Which are, and those that are void, thus having an empty claim to license:
595.19 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.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.
Notice the last word. Valid. Valid is the opposite of void. Those included in the list have an empty (void) claim to contract, those not listed have a claim (valid) to enter such contracts.
You need to supply the legislation that changes Iowa 595.19 or you're simply spamming the board with a link to a printing company.
You are completely toasted dude:
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!
Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married 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.
Only those contained on this list are void:
595.19 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.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.
You need to quit spamming the board and link to the legislation that changed the above.
Or admit you're spamming the board with a link to a pamphlet from a printing company from Spencor Iowa
You wanna keep posting that obsolete statute? Go right ahead. Just know that every time you do, I will remind you that Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry; regardless of gender.
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!
Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married 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.
Sure dummy, I'm sure a CPA financial planning practice. (Most of which have attorneys they run thing past prior to publishing). Have a different opinion then you.......
Too bad, so sad
Seems like those in the financial planning fields are catching on to the loopholes with the iowa laws:
"The state of Iowa chose to remain silent on this question; its statute declares as void any marriage 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" (and vice versa) in Iowa Code Ann. § 595.19. The court in Varnum v. Brien did not mention 595.19 or consanguinity and the legislature has not updated the statute since. As such, Iowa has seen fit to allow close same-sex relatives to marry; accordingly, an unmarried woman can marry her daughter and pass wealth to her tax free."
CPA at Law: Gay Marriage Cases Yield Estate Tax Planning Opportunities
Then they added this after Obergfell:
CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?
Interesting read by LICENCED professionals
but of course, you know better than them, Right?
