I can't prove what? That you're the one bringing up incest, not me?
You can't prove that though. According to the state of iowa, same sex adults don't commit incest (as disgusting as it is), according to the National Association of District Attorney's it isn't incest in Iowa either. Same finding at findlaw.com.
I've said many times that marriage does not require sex to be valid, but you imply it MUST. You just did it again.
Using YOUR LOGIC, no married partner can refuse sex as they consented to enter into a contract THAT REQUIRES SEX.
So in your warped mind that makes marital rape acceptable.
You are one sick ****.
Of course I can... here you are posting a list of incest statutes...
Because iowa only prohibits marriage between opposite sex couples, not to closely related.
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Incest Statutes 2013.pdf
So Sayeth those that practice this law.....
Bring a subject up for discussion and using logic to promote marital rape are two completely different things. See you did it again.
Incest is a crime.
Marriage requires no sex to be a valid contract.
By assuming that two siblings would marry to have sex, with no requirement that sex occurs, it is you advocating sibling sex and logically marital RAPE.
You are one sick puppy.
I'm trying to figure out how assuming a married couple will have sex is the same as advocating rape.
Marriage does not require sex, but lack of sex can be a valid reason to dissolve a marriage.
I think it is safe to assume that some amount of sex occurs in the vast majority of marriages. Strangely, while I feel that is a safe assumption, I do not advocate rape.
Oh, I'm still wondering about your statement that in Iowa same sex couples do not commit incest.
I'm not saying anything about anyone having sex. You're the one talking about incest, not me. Sadly, your comprehension sucks, probably because you're a pervert, and don't understand I am saying Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry; regardless of gender. That says nothing about sex. Even worse for your personal problems is that I even pointed out how if you were right, many people would have flocked to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance tax. Also doesn't speak of sex.I can't prove what? That you're the one bringing up incest, not me?You call projection, "logic?"
The only one here talking about incest .... is you.
You can't prove that though. According to the state of iowa, same sex adults don't commit incest (as disgusting as it is), according to the National Association of District Attorney's it isn't incest in Iowa either. Same finding at findlaw.com.
I've said many times that marriage does not require sex to be valid, but you imply it MUST. You just did it again.
Using YOUR LOGIC, no married partner can refuse sex as they consented to enter into a contract THAT REQUIRES SEX.
So in your warped mind that makes marital rape acceptable.
You are one sick ****.
Of course I can... here you are posting a list of incest statutes...
Because iowa only prohibits marriage between opposite sex couples, not to closely related.
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Incest Statutes 2013.pdf
So Sayeth those that practice this law.....
Bring a subject up for discussion and using logic to promote marital rape are two completely different things. See you did it again.
Incest is a crime.
Marriage requires no sex to be a valid contract.
By assuming that two siblings would marry to have sex, with no requirement that sex occurs, it is you advocating sibling sex and logically marital RAPE.
You are one sick puppy.
I'm trying to figure out how assuming a married couple will have sex is the same as advocating rape.
Marriage does not require sex, but lack of sex can be a valid reason to dissolve a marriage.
I think it is safe to assume that some amount of sex occurs in the vast majority of marriages. Strangely, while I feel that is a safe assumption, I do not advocate rape.
Oh, I'm still wondering about your statement that in Iowa same sex couples do not commit incest.
You'll have to ask the poster that keeps making such assumptions. That poster claims that siblings can be denied marriage license because they might have sex.
Sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage in any state.
It has been pointed out that, making such assumptions are not logical, but he rants on about it, so by logical extension that poster sees sex a requirement of marriage. If that's the case, he participants must perform sex acts since the consented to the contract. Neither would be able to deny the other.
clear nuff
I'm not saying anything about anyone having sex. You're the one talking about incest, not me. Sadly, your comprehension sucks, probably because you're a pervert, and don't understand I am saying Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry; regardless of gender. That says nothing about sex. Even worse for your personal problems is that I even pointed out how if you were right, many people would have flocked to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance tax. Also doesn't speak of sex.
I'm trying to figure out how assuming a married couple will have sex is the same as advocating rape.
Marriage does not require sex, but lack of sex can be a valid reason to dissolve a marriage.
I think it is safe to assume that some amount of sex occurs in the vast majority of marriages. Strangely, while I feel that is a safe assumption, I do not advocate rape.
Oh, I'm still wondering about your statement that in Iowa same sex couples do not commit incest.
You'll have to ask the poster that keeps making such assumptions. That poster claims that siblings can be denied marriage license because they might have sex.
Sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage in any state.
It has been pointed out that, making such assumptions are not logical, but he rants on about it, so by logical extension that poster sees sex a requirement of marriage. If that's the case, he participants must perform sex acts since the consented to the contract. Neither would be able to deny the other.
clear nuff
Sorry, perv23, but you don't get to project your psychosis onto me. You're the one talking about sex when you talk about incest. I'm the one saying close-family marriages are banned in Iowa, regardless of gender, which says nothing about incest or sex.I'm not saying anything about anyone having sex. You're the one talking about incest, not me. Sadly, your comprehension sucks, probably because you're a pervert, and don't understand I am saying Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry; regardless of gender. That says nothing about sex. Even worse for your personal problems is that I even pointed out how if you were right, many people would have flocked to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance tax. Also doesn't speak of sex.
I'm trying to figure out how assuming a married couple will have sex is the same as advocating rape.
Marriage does not require sex, but lack of sex can be a valid reason to dissolve a marriage.
I think it is safe to assume that some amount of sex occurs in the vast majority of marriages. Strangely, while I feel that is a safe assumption, I do not advocate rape.
Oh, I'm still wondering about your statement that in Iowa same sex couples do not commit incest.
You'll have to ask the poster that keeps making such assumptions. That poster claims that siblings can be denied marriage license because they might have sex.
Sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage in any state.
It has been pointed out that, making such assumptions are not logical, but he rants on about it, so by logical extension that poster sees sex a requirement of marriage. If that's the case, he participants must perform sex acts since the consented to the contract. Neither would be able to deny the other.
clear nuff
You did it again. I simply mention the word and I'm a Perv. You deny those that could benefit from marriage from entry into the contract because they might have sex, EVEN THOUGH ITS NOT A REQUIREMENT of marriage and you're not?
You make the assumption that sex is a requirement of marriage, therefore justifying marital rape.
Sick dude, you want it both ways. Typical of the delusional personality you obviously have.
As for your claim same sex family members can't msrry.....
Iowa classifies marriage as a license. No one can be denied entry into a contract as long as it meets all requirements of a legal contract.
A contract is valid if it meets all requirements. It is void if it is missing any requirements the State requires.
Check what the State of Iowa constitutes as which family relationships that are too closely blood related, thus creating a void marriage that would not be considered valid in Iowa.
Same sex directly related family members are not listed.
You lose loser.
Sorry, perv23, but you don't get to project your psychosis onto me. You're the one talking about sex when you talk about incest. I'm the one saying close-family marriages are banned in Iowa, regardless of gender, which says nothing about incest or sex.I'm not saying anything about anyone having sex. You're the one talking about incest, not me. Sadly, your comprehension sucks, probably because you're a pervert, and don't understand I am saying Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry; regardless of gender. That says nothing about sex. Even worse for your personal problems is that I even pointed out how if you were right, many people would have flocked to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance tax. Also doesn't speak of sex.
I'm trying to figure out how assuming a married couple will have sex is the same as advocating rape.
Marriage does not require sex, but lack of sex can be a valid reason to dissolve a marriage.
I think it is safe to assume that some amount of sex occurs in the vast majority of marriages. Strangely, while I feel that is a safe assumption, I do not advocate rape.
Oh, I'm still wondering about your statement that in Iowa same sex couples do not commit incest.
You'll have to ask the poster that keeps making such assumptions. That poster claims that siblings can be denied marriage license because they might have sex.
Sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage in any state.
It has been pointed out that, making such assumptions are not logical, but he rants on about it, so by logical extension that poster sees sex a requirement of marriage. If that's the case, he participants must perform sex acts since the consented to the contract. Neither would be able to deny the other.
clear nuff
You did it again. I simply mention the word and I'm a Perv. You deny those that could benefit from marriage from entry into the contract because they might have sex, EVEN THOUGH ITS NOT A REQUIREMENT of marriage and you're not?
You make the assumption that sex is a requirement of marriage, therefore justifying marital rape.
Sick dude, you want it both ways. Typical of the delusional personality you obviously have.
As for your claim same sex family members can't msrry.....
Iowa classifies marriage as a license. No one can be denied entry into a contract as long as it meets all requirements of a legal contract.
A contract is valid if it meets all requirements. It is void if it is missing any requirements the State requires.
Check what the State of Iowa constitutes as which family relationships that are too closely blood related, thus creating a void marriage that would not be considered valid in Iowa.
Same sex directly related family members are not listed.
You lose loser.
Now you're flat out lying, perv23. Iowa does NOT allow same sex family members the ability to marry.Sorry, perv23, but you don't get to project your psychosis onto me. You're the one talking about sex when you talk about incest. I'm the one saying close-family marriages are banned in Iowa, regardless of gender, which says nothing about incest or sex.I'm not saying anything about anyone having sex. You're the one talking about incest, not me. Sadly, your comprehension sucks, probably because you're a pervert, and don't understand I am saying Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry; regardless of gender. That says nothing about sex. Even worse for your personal problems is that I even pointed out how if you were right, many people would have flocked to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance tax. Also doesn't speak of sex.I'm trying to figure out how assuming a married couple will have sex is the same as advocating rape.
Marriage does not require sex, but lack of sex can be a valid reason to dissolve a marriage.
I think it is safe to assume that some amount of sex occurs in the vast majority of marriages. Strangely, while I feel that is a safe assumption, I do not advocate rape.
Oh, I'm still wondering about your statement that in Iowa same sex couples do not commit incest.
You'll have to ask the poster that keeps making such assumptions. That poster claims that siblings can be denied marriage license because they might have sex.
Sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage in any state.
It has been pointed out that, making such assumptions are not logical, but he rants on about it, so by logical extension that poster sees sex a requirement of marriage. If that's the case, he participants must perform sex acts since the consented to the contract. Neither would be able to deny the other.
clear nuff
You did it again. I simply mention the word and I'm a Perv. You deny those that could benefit from marriage from entry into the contract because they might have sex, EVEN THOUGH ITS NOT A REQUIREMENT of marriage and you're not?
You make the assumption that sex is a requirement of marriage, therefore justifying marital rape.
Sick dude, you want it both ways. Typical of the delusional personality you obviously have.
As for your claim same sex family members can't msrry.....
Iowa classifies marriage as a license. No one can be denied entry into a contract as long as it meets all requirements of a legal contract.
A contract is valid if it meets all requirements. It is void if it is missing any requirements the State requires.
Check what the State of Iowa constitutes as which family relationships that are too closely blood related, thus creating a void marriage that would not be considered valid in Iowa.
Same sex directly related family members are not listed.
You lose loser.
Then your argument fails at its base.
The 14th amendment declares all are to be treated equally unless the State has a compelling interest in denying the individual fundamental rights.
That's why Iowa allows same sex family members the ability to marry, there is no great societal damage caused by such.
What, is that a couple dozen loses to me in this thread alone.
You can recite that section all you want, I will still show you that Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to immediate family members regardless of gender.
I can't because such a couple being denied a marriage license is not newsworthy. Your claim, however, is that either such couples got married but didn't make the news or not a single family filed for a license to avoid paying taxes. Either of which is completely ludicrous.
I am. My rules dictate the news doesn't report on common occurrences. Such a family being denied a marriage license would be a common occurrence in that such couples are always denied a marriage license. Not newsworthy. On the flip side, had such couples been granted a marriage license, that's not common at all and would have been a huge headline.
They had not established that "marriage" could be redefined to include sexual propensity. They certainly didn't establish racially-pure marriage was a fundamental right. You are all on record here as acknowledging we can restrict fundamental rights but it only seems to apply whenever YOU think it should. Meanwhile, we can deny others their constitutional rights on the basis that... hey, the law says so!
Obergefell established that marriage could be redefined to include sexual propensity, did it? It seems to me that it established that denying same sex couples access to marriage law did not serve a compelling state interest.
Same sex couples didn't have access the same reason siblings don't have access, it's not what marriage is. Before they decided compelling state interest, they decided marriage could include a sexual proclivity it didn't include before.
No rights were being restricted. The definition of something had to be changed so that a right could be claimed that was supposedly being denied. It would be like, if I wanted to run around nude in public, claiming it was my right to free expression. Well, we have a constitutional right to free expression but it has never included public indecency... so the court alters the definition of "free expression" to include indecent behavior and voila... my rights ARE being restricted!
You have been given reasons to deny various forms of marriage legitimacy over and over. That you choose to dismiss the reasons given to try and make the argument against your silliness seem without merit is your own issue.
And when it comes to having a valid basis for arguments, maybe when you're willing to actually cite the relevant documents or rulings you argue about instead of avoiding doing so as though it's beneath you, you'll have some credibility.
No, I've not been given ANY valid reason. You keep presenting the very same reasons that SCOTUS just shot down in Obergefell. Somehow, those reasons magically become valid again, they just didn't apply to homosexuals.
And here you are again, demanding I show you where the law says it can be challenged and changed! But I don't recall anything in the law before Obergefell that said "marriage is the union of a man and woman but this can all be challenged by homosexuals and changed to include their sexual behavior!" In fact, most of the time, the law does not specifically authorize the SCOTUS to redefine things. So what the **** do you mean? I can't show you where the law says one day the SCOTUS can overturn it by reinventing what things are!
