North Carolina Files Bill to Make Gay Marriage Illegal Again

out.com/news-opinion/2017/4/11/breaking-north-carolina-files-bill-make-gay-marriage-illegal-again

How long before homosexuality becomes completely outlawed? I'm so fucking tired of queers and trannies. Can we just get rid of the kikes already?

Other urls found in this thread:

washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/04/12/north-carolina-bill-banning-same-sex-marriage-again-wont-be-heard-house-speaker-says/?utm_term=.f91624b4c335
sfgate.com/health/article/S-F-gay-community-an-epicenter-for-new-strain-of-3298359.php
google.com/search?q=church sued dor not marryng homosexual couples&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS724US724&oq=church sued dor not marryng homosexual couples&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.8421j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States#Rights_and_benefits
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

bump

Based Carolina.

They'll need to make sure their judges and county clerks enforce the new law, though. And be ready to confront the (((federal judiciary)))

literally nothing wrong with gay marriage

Its a contract and nothing more, same as straight.
If people dislike it, they should take their desert religion home and stay there.

Choose one: Trump's eye beams of annihilation, or Pence's lightning of gay-to-straight conversion? The former is more merciful, but the latter is more appropriate for you.

Man i love my neighbors to the south.

If only Virginia could get its act together...

Why don't we just abolish marriage as a government concern altogether. If you want to draw up a stupid co-dependency contract with another person and have a ridiculous ceremony to celebrate it then do that. Do not give a fuck

Doubt it's gonna happen man; people backlashed when women got their rights, but it blew over eventually. I don't give a shit where someone puts their dick, but if they eccentrically portray their sexuality, then I get pretty pissed; bump

Why do christcucks want government intervention
Just keep the government out of marriage and have churches decide what to do, after all it is a religious thing

That is actually how it is.
Marriage is a contract overseen by the government as the arbitor, or a notarized justice or a justice of the peace, or even just somebody with five minutes and access to the contract deposit box in city hall.

Churches are free to do as they please, except in Indiana where the state gov stepped in and over ruled their views to say no gay ever.

>Why do Christians want to keep the law defined as it is
>Church and state separation!

Christianity and western civilization has defined what this institution is. The only people causing issue are people wishing to change the definition of it.

First the gays want their misbehavior legalized, then they want their "marriage" legalized. Now they want pedophilia legalized and bans on devout Christians from being bakers, caterers, wedding photographers, county clerks, etc.

How long before churches get sued for not allowing homo ceremonies in their buildings? Pastors jailed for not officiating such "weddings"?

The Christian faith is the one true faith. Therefore any law that oppresses the Christian faith is worse than any other abrogation of liberty, and must be avoided at all costs.

A contract is a contract, it can be entered by any consenting groups.

Is this why Net Neutrality became a fight?
People refusing to follow and honor contracts?
Activates the almonds.

Pretty much, Christcucks are scared to have to be lions of God cause they know less than a Snackbar.
They want safespaces where they can believe Santa is actually Jesus and the Easterbunny told everyone about Christ rising.

>A contract is a contract, it can be entered by any consenting groups.

Given they can provide the details of it, which marriage cannot unless the details of it are changed. And they have been changed, hence the issue people who wish to retain it have.

Making gay marriage legal is government intervention

Haha awesome.

Great job burgers

Christians are to weather through persecution when it happens, and let it make them stronger and make the Church more pure.

We aren't told to intentionally seek out persecution in a country where we are supposed to have freedom from it. I don't want to LARP as an oppressed apostle of the early church, even if it's a popular holiness spiral in modern day Protestantism.

ding ding ding

Explain why you should make an exclusionary entry to a contract that does not have terms and conditions related to said exclusions.

IE, a contract for a night with a trap can not be awarded to a female as she lacks the parts, but can issue a contract.

because government intervention is what allowed in the first place. there would have been no gay marriage with a supreme court ruling so how about liberal fags stay out of it and leave it to the churches

It's not just that, it's intervention of a branch of government that has nothing to do with legislative definitions of marriage.

Judicial Activism is a usurpation of a type of political power by another type of political power. It's similar to a Bill of Attainder, except it's judges usurping lawmakers instead of the other way around.

Give that man a (You)

You also aren't supposed to force Church law on nonchristians, hence the whole bits about following all Earthly laws as God put those leaders over you.
Such as paying taxes.
As well, Christians today seem to fear converting inside their country, spending more time running abroad than at home.
Worry not about the splinter in your brother's eye but the log in your own.
Maintaining your home, etc...

That's old news.
washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/04/12/north-carolina-bill-banning-same-sex-marriage-again-wont-be-heard-house-speaker-says/?utm_term=.f91624b4c335

So is making it illegal which was my point
Let the churches decide whether or not to preform ceremonies for fags

If they allow marriage, they'll start pushing for more rights such as adoption.

The only common sense thing to do.
Its time we start hanging fags again.
sfgate.com/health/article/S-F-gay-community-an-epicenter-for-new-strain-of-3298359.php

literally nothing right about marriage that isn't for the production and maintenance of a biological family

>inb4 childless strait couples shouldn't be married
That's right they shouldn't. If you over 40 and still without biological kids, you no longer get legal marriage status and benefits.

Tell me, which churches are being forced to do gay marriage?
Please do provide proof.

Not recognizing so-called same-sex marriages isn't exclusive to canon law, it's the norm in every historical society.

Canon law, biblically at least, would be to exile someone from the congregation who calls themselves Christian, and then joins in a same-sex marriage, after numerous warnings, investigation by church elders and clear lack of repentance.

>Explain why you should make an exclusionary entry to a contract that does not have terms and conditions related to said exclusions.
You're begging the question.

For all the western civilization, before and after Christianity took control, marriage was a contractual agreement about the birthing and raising of children. This is why being impotent (not infertile) has been terms of annulment and why annulment and divorce on the grounds on lack of consummation existed throughout the western world. This is also why marriage gives benefits for marriage and not just when with children and also why honeymoons are even a thing.

Homosexuals are inherently incapable of fulfilling the role of marriage. Me, a single male, adopting a child doesn't mean I'm married to myself. It would not apply to a homosexual couple or any number of people simply adopting children. If I am married and have a different woman do literally all parts of the raising of the child it does not mean that the woman is part of the marriage either. Marriage is about a union in love for making and raising children.

They are excluded from the marriage contract by virtue of the nature of the contract.

Why are you such a snake, original sinning matrilineal feminist womany rabbi?

google.com/search?q=church sued dor not marryng homosexual couples&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS724US724&oq=church sued dor not marryng homosexual couples&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.8421j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

4u

>he hasn't heard of the Knapps lawsuit, where it was attempted(and failed because it took place in a part of the country where everyone is either libertarian or full-on RWDS)

good, this should be the first bricks laid on the path to abolishing state run marriage.
the whole point of the law was to allow faggots to gain access to the tax exemption. if it wasn't, then they would've pushed for more secure legislation on civil unions to allow them by their aids ridden bedside in hospitals.
if one person has something, then another person wants it and when everyone has something, no one has it.

The state should recognize marriage for reasons of:

>inheritance
>breadwinner obligation
>coverture obligation
>rape law exemption
>adultery lawsuits
etc.

At least that's the traditional answer. Feminists already destroyed this system even though it worked.

>Why do christcucks want government intervention
>federal government literally hamfisted gay marriage on the entire nation nullifying 32 state constitutional amendments

Why do Sodomites want government intervention in marriage
Here's your free reply
Good

Ah right, so it wasn't the Greek ROman, Norse, Egyptians, Chinese or Celts that made up antiquity.
Thank God it was only the Arabs moving us forward.

So none?
Cause that's all lovely conditionals and a couple of, nope nothing will happen.

That'd be lovely if it was about birthing and not dealing with material possessions.
Your argument falters as well should any couple not have kids by choice or biology.
In point of fact, your argument encourages cuckoldry, adultery, and sexual immorality in the name of ensuring children first.

So again, no?
Come on I can go off and say Communism worked perfectly, just it wasn't allowed to work by this.

If the states wanted rights, they shouldn't have lost the civil war.

Romans were the only culture that did it, and it was literally a couple lunatic emperors at the height of decadence. And such unions didn't have the binding nature of actual Roman marriage law afaik, which was almost sharia-tier in terms of raw dyke-triggering patriarchy.

Because too many tax bennies/rights are tied into it.

I wouldn't give a fuck otherwise.

But if my partner was dying in a hospital, and we weren't married, his family could stop me from seeing him before he passed.

Beyond that, I don't give a fuck. Make it a separate institution if sharing the word bothers you.

Marriage is not a civil right - it's a religious rite and should remain with religion.

David and Jonathan. Ruth and Naomi. Centurion. Born eunuchs. Are "grab ems" married?

>That'd be lovely if it was about birthing and not dealing with material possessions.

People have been interested in changing the role of marriage in the west since the 60s. It is still traditionally this way and only makes sense this way.

>Your argument falters as well should any couple not have kids by choice or biology.

Contracts need be freely entered. To not do this has always been grounds for annulling the contract. And the inability to not have children - being infertile - must not be assumed to be definite. In this case the people involved did nothing wrong and the issue is out of their control and does not mean either side failed to do the contract.

>In point of fact, your argument encourages cuckoldry, adultery, and sexual immorality in the name of ensuring children first.

What?
How does that make sense at all?

Seriously, giving the liberals a righteous cause to rally around like giving nice productive gay couples equal rights will give strength to the left like we haven't seen since the nineties.

The right will see a whole new generation grow up to hate them if they choose this battle. Everything the contemporary progressives whined about Christian rightwingers taking away our freedoms and being the biggest threat we face will be justified. It's exactly the distraction and opportunity that multiracial third worlders need to further encroach themselves as the "future" of society, since whites will be sick of fighting each other and crave the break of a purely consumerist culture again.

Depends on what you mean

If it's forcing religious agencies to marry fags, then no, that should never be legal

But, if it allows for state marriage, then sure

best carolina

Inconsequential to this time period and invalid as an argument. That was 2 dispensations ago there was no homosexual activity with David/Jonathan, Ruth/Naomi.

Leftist usurper's created marriage licenses to control who got married. It violates the First Amendment as marriage is a religious rite. Would one go to the DMV for sacrament?

They get tax benefits to produce kids not to buttfuck each other.
also
>why doesn't my sodomite boyfriend's family not want me to see their dying son. :((

They're welcome to have allt he fun they wish, plenty of contracts out there, including freeform to be exactly as they wish if they don't want a standard form.

A man who inseminates more women is guaranteed more children.
A women who sleeps around is more likely to get pregnant/superior seed.
Hence why its always remarked on when a species is monogamous and not the standard of gets whatever goes.

The only state forcing in the US on religion is Indiana violating the Presbyterian's church ability to do gay marriage.
Everywhere else, its as standard as getting a driver's licence.
The objection is from a fear campaign no different than the need to give up freedom of the press in the name of fighting terrorism.

Fag marriage is banned here and other than some whining from the media and Melbourne

They can have "civil unions", though, which is the same thing for all intents.

The fags just want to force religious .orgs to marry them. Christians, Jews and Muslims here all said fuck off.

>They get tax benefits to produce kids not to buttfuck each other.

No, having children gives you entirely different benefits.

People don't get married to have children, that practice has been dead for close to 3 decades now.

Marriage has been separated from its religious roots, if it didn't, divorce rates wouldn't be higher than marriage rates. I'm sorry you're unable to come to terms with this fact.

lol

>dispensation
Kike lover detected

Exactly

>They're welcome to have allt he fun they wish, plenty of contracts out there, including freeform to be exactly as they wish if they don't want a standard form.

How does that relate to what I said? At best you're supporting other contracts existing that you just call the same thing when they aren't. You simply confuse the issue.

>A man who inseminates more women is guaranteed more children.

Marriage is about the birthing and RAISING of children of those who partook. You can only get pregnant one at a time so there cannot be a harem situation with multiple husbands and they cannot abandon the marriage after birth as they need be raising them as well.

Monogamy is a succession trait for the flourishing of all people.

see
Then read

...

Fill out the appropriate forms ahead of time and that can happen. You didn't need homosexual marriage for that or any other rights. Just had to fill out the right paperwork.

All homosexual marriage is is a lefty attempt to slap religion for not being under their control. There's no way to prove it's legitimate outside of watching same sex people sodomize each other repeatedly. There's no genetic trait that distinguishes someone as homosexual - we have to take their word for it.

Fine with me to abolish homosexual marriage. Marriage is not a State function, anyway.

I'm Mormon

If you could keep your obnoxious holier than thou tripfagging to one thread that would be great, thanks.

I don't care. Marriage is not a State function. The argument is invalid.

Becuase if marriages were the only thing, we could ditch civil unions, live together and divorce, seperated as well.
The entire issue comes down to people wanting to say the word in question, marriage, is one of the defenitions that is not the one on the contract but sounds good.

You want a custody agreement, not a marriage or oher contract.
Go get one of those.

Actually, there is a genetic trait, hence people like King Richard, or farmers having to use retroviral therapy on rams to make them actually go after ewes.
You know, stuff actually being done beyond mere chemical suspension.

Magic undies and enemy of the US

No.
Your home is next.

It's a contract that is given rights due to its importance to the state but are right that is is not state-created. Gay marriage simply doesn't exist in nature.

>Becuase if marriages were the only thing, we could ditch civil unions, live together and divorce, seperated as well.

This is worded strangely. Could you rephrase this for me please?

You are DQ'd from the 144,000 because pussy. Enjoy

Supreme court already rules on this. States North Carolina is literally just wasting taxpayer money

Marriage is about creating a family to raise children between a man and a woman.

Ronaldo does it better. Surrogacy and boxer bf

The various classes of marriage contracts in the US.
The issue for most is just this, marriage has degrees and defenitions, courtesy of ENglish and the need to have specific contracts.

Ergo, the government should stay out of marriage and the Church should stay out of Marriage are equally true and false.
Its nothing more than autistic screeching ignoring that English abuses words like a nigger with a cat.

Why'd you ruin all those first one's then?

In that case, I can't wait for the Supreme Court to rule that Trump is mandated to NUKE your country until no human beings remain on the DAY OF THE RAKE

I don't care if two fags wanna get married. I care that they constantly shove their lifestyle down people's throats and brainwash children with their bullshit. I'm not saying two men can't raise a child, I'm saying that 90% of them completely fuck it up and can't be trusted. Fags ruin their own reputation and blame other people for it. Fuck everything

bout to move to North Carolina

Women should have never gotten the right to work or vote

Okay, you obviously don't understand genetics. The drive to misappropriate one's sex organs is clearly a behavioral/psychological problem.

A genetic trait is a physical manifestation of the genes present (physical features). Without a genetic trait that denotes one as homosexual, then, IF it's ever shown to be genetic, then it's classified as a genetic disorder or disease.

As for my underwear: many faiths have religious garb they wear as a sign of their dedication and faith. Our religious garbs just happen to be worn under the clothing. If that's a problem for you, please take it up with The Lord, Jesus Christ. And Mormons are loyal to the Constitution and the country. Not your particular ideology. Deal with it.

>retarded burger not understandng how nukes work
You know the nuclear fallout would travel south and radiate the upper half of your country right? Are all burgers mentally challenged.

Based North Carolina

It's a marriage between two men. It's not that hard to fucking comprehend, you dumb shit.

>Believing there are humans in Canada right now

Sounds like any other group.
I'm tired of all the Protties shoving their shit down my throat, those technophiles acting like its so good to have electricity, to have their women not clothed as proper of a Mennonite, the only true following of God.

See, those phrases are so easy to twist, i can use them on child proof medecines bottles.
Get some facts.

True, but not what this thread is on.

Mormons were in a state of open rebelion with the US in the territory of Utah, you fled because you broke our laws, bth from man and God, on polygamy.
Your magic clothes are just there like soaking, attempts to deny that which is your flesh in a missapropriation of Christianity.
Get married, stop letting the elders hog all the women.

And it has been shown, hence the big complaint.
THe only issue is working out a human safe retrovirus, seeing as in the rams it has a tendency to killt he heart and pancreas.
So you know, murder, just like abortion.

Mmm, irradiated and sterilized burger.
I'll never have to use the scrubbing bubbly pole again!

Feminists destroyed all of those except inheritance, and a will can already control inheritance. The state no longer needs to be involved in marriage or to even recognize the existence of marriage at all.

The only thing marriage does in the eyes of the state is it makes next of kin implicit rather than explicit. If you die unexpectedly then they know who to give your estate and pension to, if you become comatose then they know who has visitation rights, etc. You can work around this by requiring people to have wills, and falling back on biological relations (e.g. your children inherit your stuff if you haven't made arrangements for your wife to inherit it).

The 144,000 refers to those who shall hold the priesthood in high office during the Reign of Jesus Christ - not the remaining population.

>various classes

No. Marriage and unions are two different formal contracts, not versions of a single kind.

You are correct that a couple can have children together, settle down, and raise them to themselves and it functionally be marriage (a private informal version) but to secure the contract and protect it the state and the church would be advisable given the person's understanding of the scenario. Both are not necessary but both provide insurance and express dedication and so having them and using them express that to one another involved.

Technically, we were driven out almost 200 years ago because Congress refused to acknowledge our constitutional rights; much like how folks are today. Polygamy wasn't a factor in public opinion until after we began our exodus. And we practiced plural marriage because many non-Mormons were rampantly killing my ancestors. What'd you think we were going to do? Besides, we've made treaties with the Feds. And are expanding worldwide.

The rest of your response is incoherent.

>this entire post
you need another dose friend

Just get rid of marriage as a legal concept. Government should have no role in a religious institution. Millenials dropping out of marriage fast, and it's proving to be more of a detriment to the state then a benefit at this point.

The problem is that the government has no business legislating or recognizing anything about marriage.

Once the federal government recognizes marriage then yes, equal protection clause compels states to let fags marry. The problem is that marriage is a purely religious institution. Neither states nor the federal government should have anything to say about marriage, just let each individual church decide what the fuck it wants to do.

>Your argument falters as well should any couple not have kids by choice or biology.

not an argument

the purpose of marriage is to facilitate the creation and competent raising of children.

Because a given married couple can't have a child (too busy, infertile etc.), the purpose of their union, in principle, still accords with that core purpose of procreation. Just because it is incidentally not possible for them not to have children doesn't make their union different in principle from any other heterosexual marriage.

Fags, on the other hand, enter marriage on the basis that it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to procreate without adopting or the assistance of someone outside the marriage (surrogacy, sperm donation etc). Therefore, a homosexual marriage has no connection whatsoever to the only substantive purpose marriage.

>no business legislating or recognizing anything about marriage.
Spotted the underage
Here is why marriage IS directly related to the government

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States#Rights_and_benefits

If marriage doesn't exist as a legal concept anymore, none of those "rights and benefits" exist anymore either. I don't see the problem.

>I don't see the problem.
Then you clearly never plan to get married.

Under current U.S. Marriage and Divorce laws... no. I never plan on getting married.

Thx for admitting that you are just shitposting then.

Those rights and reposponsibilities are VERY useful for people who do get married. Like are you kidding right now? Without that kind of shit you wouldnt be able to see your wife if she was in the hospital, she could get full custody of the kids with no say from you if you divorced, having kids would be a nightmare, filing taxes when living together for a long time would be a nightmare.

Did you even read the page? This has to be a troll post

>and express dedication
Signing a pact with the state is not an expression of dedication. Random government cronies have nothing to do with whether or not two people are dedicated to one another or whether they're not.

>You wouldn't be able to see your wife in the hospital
>Full custody of the kids

If Marriage isn't a legal entity, I think hospitals would have to change their own policies.

Custody still get determined by courts in non-marriage scenarios in most states.