It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Faun]

How cute... perv23 has names for his blowup dolls.

Donna would be insulted, but I don't think she would care what a retard like you would think. Knowing Donna, she would pity you.

No worries, I don't care what plastic mannequins think of me.

You've never been laid by a human so I guess we understand your plastic fetish.

Holyfuckingshit!

My kids would get a good laugh at that one. Why are you sooo desperate?

Those plastic things are dolls, not kids you demented retard.

WTF are you talking about now?

 

[Pop23]

Oh I'm sorry...I guess I used the wrong word. Strong defense...is that better than support? You are a strong defender of incestuous marriages. You argue so effectively for them, it's hard to tell. For the casual observer of the thread, you are a strong and ardent supporter of siblings marrying each other "for the tax breaks".

Do you suffer from some sort of dementia? You've been making the claim for pages and pages now that Iowa allows siblings to marry. You can't produce a single closely related couple that has been allowed to marry in Iowa, but you don't need proof.

Whew...bringing out the big guns I see. I mean, wow..."big ugly dyke". Did it take you consulting with a 10 year old to come up with that biting response?

Yeah, now he's claiming not one family took advantage of a loophole he claims was created 6 years ago.

Prove your not a complete retard and link to where I made such a claim.

I guess if you can't, then you are a retard.

Well for one, I know the difference between "your" and "you're."

For another, I know when someone denies ever saying any families ever married each other and can't find a single couple who has, and then makes up excuses why no one has ... the logical conclusion is that none did.

Trying to logically justify a falicy is the most dishonest form of debate.

Prove your claim that I said these marriages had been entered into or you have proclaimed yourself a liar

Deflection in 3.....2.....1

I also can't prove your delusions... case in point, I never said you claimed anyone entered into such a marriage. Remember? I'm the one pointing out you can't find anyone who entered into such a marriage.

Isn't it kind of early in the morning for you to be this drunk?

Then you are admitting that, because you can't defeat my arguments, you instead deflect, dance and run.

Not drunk, but even if I were, I could still rip your ***** arguments into little scraps of bullshit.

 

[Pop23]

Donna would be insulted, but I don't think she would care what a retard like you would think. Knowing Donna, she would pity you.

No worries, I don't care what plastic mannequins think of me.

You've never been laid by a human so I guess we understand your plastic fetish.

Holyfuckingshit!

My kids would get a good laugh at that one. Why are you sooo desperate?

Those plastic things are dolls, not kids you demented retard.

WTF are you talking about now?

You've shown you do nothing but create one fantisy after the other, AND ADMIT AS MUCH, but then you expect anyone would beleive a single word you right.

You would lie about taking a shit if you thought it would help your weak ass bluffs.

 

[Faun]

Yeah, now he's claiming not one family took advantage of a loophole he claims was created 6 years ago.

Prove your not a complete retard and link to where I made such a claim.

I guess if you can't, then you are a retard.

Well for one, I know the difference between "your" and "you're."

For another, I know when someone denies ever saying any families ever married each other and can't find a single couple who has, and then makes up excuses why no one has ... the logical conclusion is that none did.

Trying to logically justify a falicy is the most dishonest form of debate.

Prove your claim that I said these marriages had been entered into or you have proclaimed yourself a liar

Deflection in 3.....2.....1

I also can't prove your delusions... case in point, I never said you claimed anyone entered into such a marriage. Remember? I'm the one pointing out you can't find anyone who entered into such a marriage.

Isn't it kind of early in the morning for you to be this drunk?

Then you are admitting that, because you can't defeat my arguments, you instead deflect, dance and run.

Not drunk, but even if I were, I could still rip your ***** arguments into little scraps of bullshit.

I am admitting you're delusional to think I ever said you posted families were marrying each other. And if you could defeat my argument, you would have done so rather than just claiming victory where there is none.

Instead, you quote a law that was affected by a Supreme Court ruling while ignoring the state says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender; and when it comes to proving your claims, since you can't prove any such couples actually got married, you insist others have to prove you wrong when you can't prove yourself right.

 

[Faun]

No worries, I don't care what plastic mannequins think of me.

You've never been laid by a human so I guess we understand your plastic fetish.

Holyfuckingshit!

My kids would get a good laugh at that one. Why are you sooo desperate?

Those plastic things are dolls, not kids you demented retard.

WTF are you talking about now?

You've shown you do nothing but create one fantisy after the other, AND ADMIT AS MUCH, but then you expect anyone would beleive a single word you right.

You would lie about taking a shit if you thought it would help your weak ass bluffs.

Your projections are noted as usual ... shame that's all you can do since you can't prove any family members married each other to avoid paying inheritance tax.

 

[Pop23]

Prove your not a complete retard and link to where I made such a claim.

I guess if you can't, then you are a retard.

Well for one, I know the difference between "your" and "you're."

For another, I know when someone denies ever saying any families ever married each other and can't find a single couple who has, and then makes up excuses why no one has ... the logical conclusion is that none did.

Trying to logically justify a falicy is the most dishonest form of debate.

Prove your claim that I said these marriages had been entered into or you have proclaimed yourself a liar

Deflection in 3.....2.....1

I also can't prove your delusions... case in point, I never said you claimed anyone entered into such a marriage. Remember? I'm the one pointing out you can't find anyone who entered into such a marriage.

Isn't it kind of early in the morning for you to be this drunk?

Then you are admitting that, because you can't defeat my arguments, you instead deflect, dance and run.

Not drunk, but even if I were, I could still rip your ***** arguments into little scraps of bullshit.

I am admitting you're delusional to think I ever said you posted families were marrying each other. And if you could defeat my argument, you would have done so rather than just claiming victory where there is none.

Instead, you quote a law that was affected by a Supreme Court ruling while ignoring the state says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender; and when it comes to proving your claims, since you can't prove any such couples actually got married, you insist others have to prove you wrong when you can't prove yourself right.

Your bullshit is duly noted.

Time after time you claimed that by not supplying you evidence that anyone ever married a family same sex member in Iowas, it was proof it was illegal. It was a logical falicy then, and it is now.

Second. I've linked many times to the EXISTING LAW and the IOWA SUPREME COURT ORDER THAT SPECIFICALLY ORDERS A CHANGE TO IOWA 595.2, NOT IOWA 595.19 which lists those specifically prohibited from marriage. Samesex family members ARE NOT ON THAT LIST.

Third, your only argument has been

1. A guideline pamphlet. I asked you many times if you are an Attorney. Why, because you know squat about supportive evidence. If you are an attorney. You are piss poor!

2. A proposed legislative bill to make same sex family marriage illegal. If it's already illegal, what? You propose to make it doubly criminal?

You are not only laughable, you are just plain sad.

 

[Faun]

Well for one, I know the difference between "your" and "you're."

For another, I know when someone denies ever saying any families ever married each other and can't find a single couple who has, and then makes up excuses why no one has ... the logical conclusion is that none did.

Trying to logically justify a falicy is the most dishonest form of debate.

Prove your claim that I said these marriages had been entered into or you have proclaimed yourself a liar

Deflection in 3.....2.....1

I also can't prove your delusions... case in point, I never said you claimed anyone entered into such a marriage. Remember? I'm the one pointing out you can't find anyone who entered into such a marriage.

Isn't it kind of early in the morning for you to be this drunk?

Then you are admitting that, because you can't defeat my arguments, you instead deflect, dance and run.

Not drunk, but even if I were, I could still rip your ***** arguments into little scraps of bullshit.

I am admitting you're delusional to think I ever said you posted families were marrying each other. And if you could defeat my argument, you would have done so rather than just claiming victory where there is none.

Instead, you quote a law that was affected by a Supreme Court ruling while ignoring the state says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender; and when it comes to proving your claims, since you can't prove any such couples actually got married, you insist others have to prove you wrong when you can't prove yourself right.

Your bullshit is duly noted.

Time after time you claimed that by not supplying you evidence that anyone ever married a family same sex member in Iowas, it was proof it was illegal. It was a logical falicy then, and it is now.

Second. I've linked many times to the EXISTING LAW and the IOWA SUPREME COURT ORDER THAT SPECIFICALLY ORDERS A CHANGE TO IOWA 595.2, NOT IOWA 595.19 which lists those specifically prohibited from marriage. Samesex family members ARE NOT ON THAT LIST.

Third, your only argument has been

1. A guideline pamphlet. I asked you many times if you are an Attorney. Why, because you know squat about supportive evidence. If you are an attorney. You are piss poor!

2. A proposed legislative bill to make same sex family marriage illegal. If it's already illegal, what? You propose to make it doubly criminal?

You are not only laughable, you are just plain sad.

Again, what you're calling a "pamphlet" is actually the guidelines Iowa adheres to for a couple to marry and they post them online from Iowa government websites. You can't find any such married couples because there are none because Iowa doesn't allow such marriages.

 

[Montrovant]

You know people have to present proof they're qualified to marry, right?

Yep, and only opposite gender family members and first cousins are excluded

Iowa code 595.19 says so

I would guess that if anyone tries to get married as a same sex, close relation couple, the state will adjust the law pretty quickly if they haven't already done so when it happens. I imagine we'll find out if/when it happens.

I would agree with this, but the adjustment could be problematic as well

On a side note, an off the wall story was on the radio about a:

Man who's unresolved twin brother (died in the womb), fathered his son.

The condition is called Chimara and it appears that there has been some research as a possible cause of homosexuality.

That would sure clean up the nature or nurture article:

She was a chimera. Tests revealed that while her blood cells had one set of genes, her ovaries held distinctly different ones. Those ovaries had produced the eggs that led to two of Keegan’s sons holding genes different from her own, said Lynne Uhl, a pathologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and co-author of the NEJM study. The researchers reported that these different genes most likely came from a lost twin of Keegan’s, one whose cells she had absorbed while she was an embryo in her own mother’s womb.

The true genetic mother was a twin sister who she never knew and who was never born — a ghost.[\quote]

Link:


This Man Failed A Paternity Test Due To His Vanished Twin’s DNA

This Man Failed A Paternity Test Due To His Vanished Twin’s DNA

I don't think the Iowa code would be too difficult to adjust. I actually found it overly specific. They could just say no to marrying a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt or uncle, with first cousins already being denied. Or change it to say marriage is not allowed between anyone who is a first cousin or closer relation, maybe.

They've had 6 years to do so. Must be a reason. 14th amendment perhaps?

If the 14th were to apply, it would be in requiring adjustment, not leaving things as is.

Perhaps no one has bothered as it hasn't come up; I wouldn't be shocked if the legislature didn't know about it.

Perhaps Iowa applies their incest laws to marriage requirements, which would prevent closely related same sex couples from marrying.

Perhaps the marriage license forms from various Iowa counties which are less specific, only saying that too closely related couples cannot get a license, are used throughout the state and so no closely related couple can get a license (without going through the courts).

The idea that Iowa has left a marriage statute which bars various types of opposite sex, closely related couples from marrying but has not changed the law to reflect the changes to marriage law allowing same sex couples access because of the 14th amendment is silly.

 

[Pop23]

Trying to logically justify a falicy is the most dishonest form of debate.

Prove your claim that I said these marriages had been entered into or you have proclaimed yourself a liar

Deflection in 3.....2.....1

I also can't prove your delusions... case in point, I never said you claimed anyone entered into such a marriage. Remember? I'm the one pointing out you can't find anyone who entered into such a marriage.

Isn't it kind of early in the morning for you to be this drunk?

Then you are admitting that, because you can't defeat my arguments, you instead deflect, dance and run.

Not drunk, but even if I were, I could still rip your ***** arguments into little scraps of bullshit.

I am admitting you're delusional to think I ever said you posted families were marrying each other. And if you could defeat my argument, you would have done so rather than just claiming victory where there is none.

Instead, you quote a law that was affected by a Supreme Court ruling while ignoring the state says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender; and when it comes to proving your claims, since you can't prove any such couples actually got married, you insist others have to prove you wrong when you can't prove yourself right.

Your bullshit is duly noted.

Time after time you claimed that by not supplying you evidence that anyone ever married a family same sex member in Iowas, it was proof it was illegal. It was a logical falicy then, and it is now.

Second. I've linked many times to the EXISTING LAW and the IOWA SUPREME COURT ORDER THAT SPECIFICALLY ORDERS A CHANGE TO IOWA 595.2, NOT IOWA 595.19 which lists those specifically prohibited from marriage. Samesex family members ARE NOT ON THAT LIST.

Third, your only argument has been

1. A guideline pamphlet. I asked you many times if you are an Attorney. Why, because you know squat about supportive evidence. If you are an attorney. You are piss poor!

2. A proposed legislative bill to make same sex family marriage illegal. If it's already illegal, what? You propose to make it doubly criminal?

You are not only laughable, you are just plain sad.

Again, what you're calling a "pamphlet" is actually the guidelines Iowa adheres to for a couple to marry and they post them online from Iowa government websites. You can't find any such married couples because there are none because Iowa doesn't allow such marriages.

More logical falicy.

Take you're pamphlet and see how it would stand alone in court. I bet the judge would rule that it is lacking and defer to Iowa 595.19 to define what "blood related" is since even the documents submitted in support (birth certificates" are not reliable sources iN determination of biological relationships.) do not accomplish what you wish they did.

Are you done with your dumbfuckery yet?

 

[Faun]

I also can't prove your delusions... case in point, I never said you claimed anyone entered into such a marriage. Remember? I'm the one pointing out you can't find anyone who entered into such a marriage.

Isn't it kind of early in the morning for you to be this drunk?

Then you are admitting that, because you can't defeat my arguments, you instead deflect, dance and run.

Not drunk, but even if I were, I could still rip your ***** arguments into little scraps of bullshit.

I am admitting you're delusional to think I ever said you posted families were marrying each other. And if you could defeat my argument, you would have done so rather than just claiming victory where there is none.

Instead, you quote a law that was affected by a Supreme Court ruling while ignoring the state says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender; and when it comes to proving your claims, since you can't prove any such couples actually got married, you insist others have to prove you wrong when you can't prove yourself right.

Your bullshit is duly noted.

Time after time you claimed that by not supplying you evidence that anyone ever married a family same sex member in Iowas, it was proof it was illegal. It was a logical falicy then, and it is now.

Second. I've linked many times to the EXISTING LAW and the IOWA SUPREME COURT ORDER THAT SPECIFICALLY ORDERS A CHANGE TO IOWA 595.2, NOT IOWA 595.19 which lists those specifically prohibited from marriage. Samesex family members ARE NOT ON THAT LIST.

Third, your only argument has been

1. A guideline pamphlet. I asked you many times if you are an Attorney. Why, because you know squat about supportive evidence. If you are an attorney. You are piss poor!

2. A proposed legislative bill to make same sex family marriage illegal. If it's already illegal, what? You propose to make it doubly criminal?

You are not only laughable, you are just plain sad.

Again, what you're calling a "pamphlet" is actually the guidelines Iowa adheres to for a couple to marry and they post them online from Iowa government websites. You can't find any such married couples because there are none because Iowa doesn't allow such marriages.

More logical falicy.

Take you're pamphlet and see how it would stand alone in court. I bet the judge would rule that it is lacking and defer to Iowa 595.19 to define what "blood related" is since even the documents submitted in support (birth certificates" are not reliable sources iN determination of biological relationships.) do not accomplish what you wish they did.

Are you done with your dumbfuckery yet?

Why would I do that, perv, when Iowa says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender?

 

[Pop23]

Then you are admitting that, because you can't defeat my arguments, you instead deflect, dance and run.

Not drunk, but even if I were, I could still rip your ***** arguments into little scraps of bullshit.

I am admitting you're delusional to think I ever said you posted families were marrying each other. And if you could defeat my argument, you would have done so rather than just claiming victory where there is none.

Instead, you quote a law that was affected by a Supreme Court ruling while ignoring the state says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender; and when it comes to proving your claims, since you can't prove any such couples actually got married, you insist others have to prove you wrong when you can't prove yourself right.

Your bullshit is duly noted.

Time after time you claimed that by not supplying you evidence that anyone ever married a family same sex member in Iowas, it was proof it was illegal. It was a logical falicy then, and it is now.

Second. I've linked many times to the EXISTING LAW and the IOWA SUPREME COURT ORDER THAT SPECIFICALLY ORDERS A CHANGE TO IOWA 595.2, NOT IOWA 595.19 which lists those specifically prohibited from marriage. Samesex family members ARE NOT ON THAT LIST.

Third, your only argument has been

1. A guideline pamphlet. I asked you many times if you are an Attorney. Why, because you know squat about supportive evidence. If you are an attorney. You are piss poor!

2. A proposed legislative bill to make same sex family marriage illegal. If it's already illegal, what? You propose to make it doubly criminal?

You are not only laughable, you are just plain sad.

Again, what you're calling a "pamphlet" is actually the guidelines Iowa adheres to for a couple to marry and they post them online from Iowa government websites. You can't find any such married couples because there are none because Iowa doesn't allow such marriages.

More logical falicy.

Take you're pamphlet and see how it would stand alone in court. I bet the judge would rule that it is lacking and defer to Iowa 595.19 to define what "blood related" is since even the documents submitted in support (birth certificates" are not reliable sources iN determination of biological relationships.) do not accomplish what you wish they did.

Are you done with your dumbfuckery yet?

Why would I do that, perv, when Iowa says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender?

You're statement is based on what. A friggin guideline pamphlet?

Unless you can supply supporting evidence that would make anyone believe that a guideline pamphlet has more merit then an actual duly inacted law...........

You simply look moronic.

And if looking moronic is your cup of tea, that is the only thing you've done well on this thread.

Good job, take a bow.

You and you're argument have been dispatched.

 

[Faun]

I am admitting you're delusional to think I ever said you posted families were marrying each other. And if you could defeat my argument, you would have done so rather than just claiming victory where there is none.

Instead, you quote a law that was affected by a Supreme Court ruling while ignoring the state says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender; and when it comes to proving your claims, since you can't prove any such couples actually got married, you insist others have to prove you wrong when you can't prove yourself right.

Your bullshit is duly noted.

Time after time you claimed that by not supplying you evidence that anyone ever married a family same sex member in Iowas, it was proof it was illegal. It was a logical falicy then, and it is now.

Second. I've linked many times to the EXISTING LAW and the IOWA SUPREME COURT ORDER THAT SPECIFICALLY ORDERS A CHANGE TO IOWA 595.2, NOT IOWA 595.19 which lists those specifically prohibited from marriage. Samesex family members ARE NOT ON THAT LIST.

Third, your only argument has been

1. A guideline pamphlet. I asked you many times if you are an Attorney. Why, because you know squat about supportive evidence. If you are an attorney. You are piss poor!

2. A proposed legislative bill to make same sex family marriage illegal. If it's already illegal, what? You propose to make it doubly criminal?

You are not only laughable, you are just plain sad.

Again, what you're calling a "pamphlet" is actually the guidelines Iowa adheres to for a couple to marry and they post them online from Iowa government websites. You can't find any such married couples because there are none because Iowa doesn't allow such marriages.

More logical falicy.

Take you're pamphlet and see how it would stand alone in court. I bet the judge would rule that it is lacking and defer to Iowa 595.19 to define what "blood related" is since even the documents submitted in support (birth certificates" are not reliable sources iN determination of biological relationships.) do not accomplish what you wish they did.

Are you done with your dumbfuckery yet?

Why would I do that, perv, when Iowa says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender?

You're statement is based on what. A friggin guideline pamphlet?

Unless you can supply supporting evidence that would make anyone believe that a guideline pamphlet has more merit then an actual duly inacted law...........

You simply look moronic.

And if looking moronic is your cup of tea, that is the only thing you've done well on this thread.

Good job, take a bow.

You and you're argument have been dispatched.

My statement is based on what Iowa says they allow.

 

[Pop23]

Your bullshit is duly noted.

Time after time you claimed that by not supplying you evidence that anyone ever married a family same sex member in Iowas, it was proof it was illegal. It was a logical falicy then, and it is now.

Second. I've linked many times to the EXISTING LAW and the IOWA SUPREME COURT ORDER THAT SPECIFICALLY ORDERS A CHANGE TO IOWA 595.2, NOT IOWA 595.19 which lists those specifically prohibited from marriage. Samesex family members ARE NOT ON THAT LIST.

Third, your only argument has been

1. A guideline pamphlet. I asked you many times if you are an Attorney. Why, because you know squat about supportive evidence. If you are an attorney. You are piss poor!

2. A proposed legislative bill to make same sex family marriage illegal. If it's already illegal, what? You propose to make it doubly criminal?

You are not only laughable, you are just plain sad.

Again, what you're calling a "pamphlet" is actually the guidelines Iowa adheres to for a couple to marry and they post them online from Iowa government websites. You can't find any such married couples because there are none because Iowa doesn't allow such marriages.

More logical falicy.

Take you're pamphlet and see how it would stand alone in court. I bet the judge would rule that it is lacking and defer to Iowa 595.19 to define what "blood related" is since even the documents submitted in support (birth certificates" are not reliable sources iN determination of biological relationships.) do not accomplish what you wish they did.

Are you done with your dumbfuckery yet?

Why would I do that, perv, when Iowa says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender?

You're statement is based on what. A friggin guideline pamphlet?

Unless you can supply supporting evidence that would make anyone believe that a guideline pamphlet has more merit then an actual duly inacted law...........

You simply look moronic.

And if looking moronic is your cup of tea, that is the only thing you've done well on this thread.

Good job, take a bow.

You and you're argument have been dispatched.

My statement is based on what Iowa says they allow.

Ok nitwit

You claim iowa does not allow close blood relatives to marry. I say they do as long as they are same sex.

Provide the link to the DNA testing lab that Iowa sends their swabs from EVERY person that applies for a license.

That IS THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE CLAIM HAS EVEN THE TINIEST SHRED OF MERIT

As I stated before. The state established what couples are excluded and placed them in 595.19

Without a DNA test of every candidate the state has to take the word of the candidate that they are qualified without being "closely blood related" WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE WITHOUT DNA TESTING OR A LIST OF EXCLUDED PAIRS.........taking us back to Iowa code 595.19 (using birth certificates and not DNA as the basis for exclussion)

You must just love getting slapped around idiot!

 

[Faun]

Again, what you're calling a "pamphlet" is actually the guidelines Iowa adheres to for a couple to marry and they post them online from Iowa government websites. You can't find any such married couples because there are none because Iowa doesn't allow such marriages.

More logical falicy.

Take you're pamphlet and see how it would stand alone in court. I bet the judge would rule that it is lacking and defer to Iowa 595.19 to define what "blood related" is since even the documents submitted in support (birth certificates" are not reliable sources iN determination of biological relationships.) do not accomplish what you wish they did.

Are you done with your dumbfuckery yet?

Why would I do that, perv, when Iowa says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender?

You're statement is based on what. A friggin guideline pamphlet?

Unless you can supply supporting evidence that would make anyone believe that a guideline pamphlet has more merit then an actual duly inacted law...........

You simply look moronic.

And if looking moronic is your cup of tea, that is the only thing you've done well on this thread.

Good job, take a bow.

You and you're argument have been dispatched.

My statement is based on what Iowa says they allow.

Ok nitwit

You claim iowa does not allow close blood relatives to marry. I say they do as long as they are same sex.

Provide the link to the DNA testing lab that Iowa sends their swabs from EVERY person that applies for a license.

That IS THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE CLAIM HAS EVEN THE TINIEST SHRED OF MERIT

As I stated before. The state established what couples are excluded and placed them in 595.19

Without a DNA test of every candidate the state has to take the word of the candidate that they are qualified without being "closely blood related" WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE WITHOUT DNA TESTING OR A LIST OF EXCLUDED PAIRS.........taking us back to Iowa code 595.19 (using birth certificates and not DNA as the basis for exclussion)

You must just love getting slapped around idiot!

You dumbfuck, I never said family members can't fool the state and get married despite Iowa's close-family restrictions. I said Iowa doesn't allow it. Whatever measures Iowa took years ago to prevent a brother from marrying his sister are the same measures they would use now to ensure a brother doesn't marry his brother.

Holyfuckingshit, perv. Stop hitting yourself with the stupid stick.

 

[Pop23]

More logical falicy.

Take you're pamphlet and see how it would stand alone in court. I bet the judge would rule that it is lacking and defer to Iowa 595.19 to define what "blood related" is since even the documents submitted in support (birth certificates" are not reliable sources iN determination of biological relationships.) do not accomplish what you wish they did.

Are you done with your dumbfuckery yet?

Why would I do that, perv, when Iowa says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender?

You're statement is based on what. A friggin guideline pamphlet?

Unless you can supply supporting evidence that would make anyone believe that a guideline pamphlet has more merit then an actual duly inacted law...........

You simply look moronic.

And if looking moronic is your cup of tea, that is the only thing you've done well on this thread.

Good job, take a bow.

You and you're argument have been dispatched.

My statement is based on what Iowa says they allow.

Ok nitwit

You claim iowa does not allow close blood relatives to marry. I say they do as long as they are same sex.

Provide the link to the DNA testing lab that Iowa sends their swabs from EVERY person that applies for a license.

That IS THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE CLAIM HAS EVEN THE TINIEST SHRED OF MERIT

As I stated before. The state established what couples are excluded and placed them in 595.19

Without a DNA test of every candidate the state has to take the word of the candidate that they are qualified without being "closely blood related" WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE WITHOUT DNA TESTING OR A LIST OF EXCLUDED PAIRS.........taking us back to Iowa code 595.19 (using birth certificates and not DNA as the basis for exclussion)

You must just love getting slapped around idiot!

You dumbfuck, I never said family members can't fool the state and get married despite Iowa's close-family restrictions. I said Iowa doesn't allow it. Whatever measures Iowa took years ago to prevent a brother from marrying his sister are the same measures they would use now to ensure a brother doesn't marry his brother.

Holyfuckingshit, perv. Stop hitting yourself with the stupid stick.

So dumbfuck. Daddy fools around on mommy. Daughter doesn't know this and Marries Mr. Wonderfull who turns out to be closely blood related. But the birth certificates don't show this.

The couple takes a DNA test and finds out they are blood related. The marriage is void.

If the couple is same sex it is VALID.

Dumbass

The term Closely Blood Related is open to interpretation. The state of Iowa chose to create an OBJECTIVE format to define it.

It is found in 595.19 of the Iowa state code.

If you wish to keep beating this dead horse, go ahead. I'll keep beating you.

You are indeed a glutton for punishment.

 

[Faun]

Why would I do that, perv, when Iowa says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender?

You're statement is based on what. A friggin guideline pamphlet?

Unless you can supply supporting evidence that would make anyone believe that a guideline pamphlet has more merit then an actual duly inacted law...........

You simply look moronic.

And if looking moronic is your cup of tea, that is the only thing you've done well on this thread.

Good job, take a bow.

You and you're argument have been dispatched.

My statement is based on what Iowa says they allow.

Ok nitwit

You claim iowa does not allow close blood relatives to marry. I say they do as long as they are same sex.

Provide the link to the DNA testing lab that Iowa sends their swabs from EVERY person that applies for a license.

That IS THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE CLAIM HAS EVEN THE TINIEST SHRED OF MERIT

As I stated before. The state established what couples are excluded and placed them in 595.19

Without a DNA test of every candidate the state has to take the word of the candidate that they are qualified without being "closely blood related" WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE WITHOUT DNA TESTING OR A LIST OF EXCLUDED PAIRS.........taking us back to Iowa code 595.19 (using birth certificates and not DNA as the basis for exclussion)

You must just love getting slapped around idiot!

You dumbfuck, I never said family members can't fool the state and get married despite Iowa's close-family restrictions. I said Iowa doesn't allow it. Whatever measures Iowa took years ago to prevent a brother from marrying his sister are the same measures they would use now to ensure a brother doesn't marry his brother.

Holyfuckingshit, perv. Stop hitting yourself with the stupid stick.

So dumbfuck. Daddy fools around on mommy. Daughter doesn't know this and Marries Mr. Wonderfull who turns out to be closely blood related. But the birth certificates don't show this.

The couple takes a DNA test and finds out they are blood related. The marriage is void.

If the couple is same sex it is VALID.

Dumbass

The term Closely Blood Related is open to interpretation. The state of Iowa chose to create an OBJECTIVE format to define it.

It is found in 595.19 of the Iowa state code.

If you wish to keep beating this dead horse, go ahead. I'll keep beating you.

You are indeed a glutton for punishment.

There ya go, projecting again. I point out you're a dumbfuck so then you mindlessly project that back.

And there you are, perv, talking about incest again.

Oh, and such a same-sex couple's marriage would also be void since Iowa doesn't permit any close family members to marry each other regardless of gender.

 

[Pop23]

You're statement is based on what. A friggin guideline pamphlet?

Unless you can supply supporting evidence that would make anyone believe that a guideline pamphlet has more merit then an actual duly inacted law...........

You simply look moronic.

And if looking moronic is your cup of tea, that is the only thing you've done well on this thread.

Good job, take a bow.

You and you're argument have been dispatched.

My statement is based on what Iowa says they allow.

Ok nitwit

You claim iowa does not allow close blood relatives to marry. I say they do as long as they are same sex.

Provide the link to the DNA testing lab that Iowa sends their swabs from EVERY person that applies for a license.

That IS THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE CLAIM HAS EVEN THE TINIEST SHRED OF MERIT

As I stated before. The state established what couples are excluded and placed them in 595.19

Without a DNA test of every candidate the state has to take the word of the candidate that they are qualified without being "closely blood related" WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE WITHOUT DNA TESTING OR A LIST OF EXCLUDED PAIRS.........taking us back to Iowa code 595.19 (using birth certificates and not DNA as the basis for exclussion)

You must just love getting slapped around idiot!

You dumbfuck, I never said family members can't fool the state and get married despite Iowa's close-family restrictions. I said Iowa doesn't allow it. Whatever measures Iowa took years ago to prevent a brother from marrying his sister are the same measures they would use now to ensure a brother doesn't marry his brother.

Holyfuckingshit, perv. Stop hitting yourself with the stupid stick.

So dumbfuck. Daddy fools around on mommy. Daughter doesn't know this and Marries Mr. Wonderfull who turns out to be closely blood related. But the birth certificates don't show this.

The couple takes a DNA test and finds out they are blood related. The marriage is void.

If the couple is same sex it is VALID.

Dumbass

The term Closely Blood Related is open to interpretation. The state of Iowa chose to create an OBJECTIVE format to define it.

It is found in 595.19 of the Iowa state code.

If you wish to keep beating this dead horse, go ahead. I'll keep beating you.

You are indeed a glutton for punishment.

There ya go, projecting again. I point out you're a dumbfuck so then you mindlessly project that back.

And there you are, perv, talking about incest again.

Oh, and such a same-sex couple's marriage would also be void since Iowa doesn't permit any close family members to marry each other regardless of gender.

******* moron.

The same sex family couple does not appear on the void list.

If it can't be made void, it is legal.

The state cannot exclude legal participants in entry into ANY CONTRACT.

IF IT COULD'NT BE MADE VOID AFTER ENTRY, THEN THE STATE CANNOT PROHIBIT ENTRY INTO IT.

Troll on, we all know you will while waving you're instruction pamphlet like a sidewalk uber right wing nutjob cult preacher.

And, once again, yet another source:

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

Prohibited Marriages Undissolved prior marriage; between descendant and ancestor, brother and sister, aunt and nephew, uncle and niece, first cousins; same sex

Which is very close to the list in Iowa 595.19 which is

595.19
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.


Findlaw continues with

Same-Sex Marriage in Iowa

Although Iowa's marriage statute says, "Only marriage between a male and a female is valid," the Iowa Supreme Court ruled the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in 2009. At the time, Iowa was just the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Since then the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges, ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. FindLaw's Same-Sex Marriage section has more information and updates on the latest same-sex marriage developments, including a list of states that allow same-sex marriage.

HUH, whaddya know.

Same sex family members are not excluded and legalizing same sex marriage didn't have any other effect but to make same sex family marriage legal.

Golly gosh Faun, but hey, you got that there pamphlet! Right?

 

[Faun]

My statement is based on what Iowa says they allow.

Ok nitwit

You claim iowa does not allow close blood relatives to marry. I say they do as long as they are same sex.

Provide the link to the DNA testing lab that Iowa sends their swabs from EVERY person that applies for a license.

That IS THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE CLAIM HAS EVEN THE TINIEST SHRED OF MERIT

As I stated before. The state established what couples are excluded and placed them in 595.19

Without a DNA test of every candidate the state has to take the word of the candidate that they are qualified without being "closely blood related" WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE WITHOUT DNA TESTING OR A LIST OF EXCLUDED PAIRS.........taking us back to Iowa code 595.19 (using birth certificates and not DNA as the basis for exclussion)

You must just love getting slapped around idiot!

You dumbfuck, I never said family members can't fool the state and get married despite Iowa's close-family restrictions. I said Iowa doesn't allow it. Whatever measures Iowa took years ago to prevent a brother from marrying his sister are the same measures they would use now to ensure a brother doesn't marry his brother.

Holyfuckingshit, perv. Stop hitting yourself with the stupid stick.

So dumbfuck. Daddy fools around on mommy. Daughter doesn't know this and Marries Mr. Wonderfull who turns out to be closely blood related. But the birth certificates don't show this.

The couple takes a DNA test and finds out they are blood related. The marriage is void.

If the couple is same sex it is VALID.

Dumbass

The term Closely Blood Related is open to interpretation. The state of Iowa chose to create an OBJECTIVE format to define it.

It is found in 595.19 of the Iowa state code.

If you wish to keep beating this dead horse, go ahead. I'll keep beating you.

You are indeed a glutton for punishment.

There ya go, projecting again. I point out you're a dumbfuck so then you mindlessly project that back.

And there you are, perv, talking about incest again.

Oh, and such a same-sex couple's marriage would also be void since Iowa doesn't permit any close family members to marry each other regardless of gender.

******* moron.

The same sex family couple does not appear on the void list.

If it can't be made void, it is legal.

The state cannot exclude legal participants in entry into ANY CONTRACT.

IF IT COULD'NT BE MADE VOID AFTER ENTRY, THEN THE STATE CANNOT PROHIBIT ENTRY INTO IT.

Troll on, we all know you will while waving you're instruction pamphlet like a sidewalk uber right wing nutjob cult preacher.

And, once again, yet another source:

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

Prohibited Marriages Undissolved prior marriage; between descendant and ancestor, brother and sister, aunt and nephew, uncle and niece, first cousins; same sex

Which is very close to the list in Iowa 595.19 which is

595.19
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.


Findlaw continues with

Same-Sex Marriage in Iowa

Although Iowa's marriage statute says, "Only marriage between a male and a female is valid," the Iowa Supreme Court ruled the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in 2009. At the time, Iowa was just the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Since then the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges, ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. FindLaw's Same-Sex Marriage section has more information and updates on the latest same-sex marriage developments, including a list of states that allow same-sex marriage.

HUH, whaddya know.

Same sex family members are not excluded and legalizing same sex marriage didn't have any other effect but to make same sex family marriage legal.

Golly gosh Faun, but hey, you got that there pamphlet! Right?

What a shame, no matter how many times you cite that statute, Iowa still says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender...

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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.​

 

[Pop23]

Ok nitwit

You claim iowa does not allow close blood relatives to marry. I say they do as long as they are same sex.

Provide the link to the DNA testing lab that Iowa sends their swabs from EVERY person that applies for a license.

That IS THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE CLAIM HAS EVEN THE TINIEST SHRED OF MERIT

As I stated before. The state established what couples are excluded and placed them in 595.19

Without a DNA test of every candidate the state has to take the word of the candidate that they are qualified without being "closely blood related" WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE WITHOUT DNA TESTING OR A LIST OF EXCLUDED PAIRS.........taking us back to Iowa code 595.19 (using birth certificates and not DNA as the basis for exclussion)

You must just love getting slapped around idiot!

You dumbfuck, I never said family members can't fool the state and get married despite Iowa's close-family restrictions. I said Iowa doesn't allow it. Whatever measures Iowa took years ago to prevent a brother from marrying his sister are the same measures they would use now to ensure a brother doesn't marry his brother.

Holyfuckingshit, perv. Stop hitting yourself with the stupid stick.

So dumbfuck. Daddy fools around on mommy. Daughter doesn't know this and Marries Mr. Wonderfull who turns out to be closely blood related. But the birth certificates don't show this.

The couple takes a DNA test and finds out they are blood related. The marriage is void.

If the couple is same sex it is VALID.

Dumbass

The term Closely Blood Related is open to interpretation. The state of Iowa chose to create an OBJECTIVE format to define it.

It is found in 595.19 of the Iowa state code.

If you wish to keep beating this dead horse, go ahead. I'll keep beating you.

You are indeed a glutton for punishment.

There ya go, projecting again. I point out you're a dumbfuck so then you mindlessly project that back.

And there you are, perv, talking about incest again.

Oh, and such a same-sex couple's marriage would also be void since Iowa doesn't permit any close family members to marry each other regardless of gender.

******* moron.

The same sex family couple does not appear on the void list.

If it can't be made void, it is legal.

The state cannot exclude legal participants in entry into ANY CONTRACT.

IF IT COULD'NT BE MADE VOID AFTER ENTRY, THEN THE STATE CANNOT PROHIBIT ENTRY INTO IT.

Troll on, we all know you will while waving you're instruction pamphlet like a sidewalk uber right wing nutjob cult preacher.

And, once again, yet another source:

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

Prohibited Marriages Undissolved prior marriage; between descendant and ancestor, brother and sister, aunt and nephew, uncle and niece, first cousins; same sex

Which is very close to the list in Iowa 595.19 which is

595.19
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.


Findlaw continues with

Same-Sex Marriage in Iowa

Although Iowa's marriage statute says, "Only marriage between a male and a female is valid," the Iowa Supreme Court ruled the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in 2009. At the time, Iowa was just the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Since then the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges, ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. FindLaw's Same-Sex Marriage section has more information and updates on the latest same-sex marriage developments, including a list of states that allow same-sex marriage.

HUH, whaddya know.

Same sex family members are not excluded and legalizing same sex marriage didn't have any other effect but to make same sex family marriage legal.

Golly gosh Faun, but hey, you got that there pamphlet! Right?

What a shame, no matter how many times you cite that statute, Iowa still says they don't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender...

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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.​

^^^^^ watch the beaten troll dance for Pop.

 

[Pop23]

Here's even more fun facts regarding Iowa's marriage law.

Iowa allows same sex family members to Marry.

Iowa had no residency requirement, so same sex family members from anywhere in the United States can Marry in Iowa.

And since the USSC ruled that all marriage licenses, regardless of where they were issued, must be recognized in all 50 states.......

BINGO:

Same sex family members can Marry IN Iowa AND YOUR STATE MUST RECOGNIZE THEM!