I've cited your posts and your words - 0bamaesque word parsing at this stage of the game shows your failure. Your hole is just getting deeper.
And many times prenuptial agreements are used - legal contracts to spell out the civil union arrangements between the parties
And yet you still want government involvement after all - seriously confused I'd say.
The distinction is quite clear and obvious for those willing to read my words plainly, without preconceived notions.
As already cited numerous times, your words do not match or have consistency.
As far as an apology for reaganaut, if my words were hateful, I apologize. They were not meant as such, but as correction in a manner which I deemed she would understand, as it was the manner in which I was addressed and my words taken out of context and abused.
As was displayed- her statement was confirmed in three separate posts - so your bleat was out of order and as you did the previous post - proved further your errors.
Says the man who's willing to lie about what I posted by removing critical words from my quoted text. Thank you, that says a lot about the integrity of discussing anything with you...
And yet you still want government involvement after all - seriously confused I'd say.
SHOW ME WHERE. You can't, because I never said that. I said marriage is for the Church, and Government is out of the marriage business. Civil unions EXIST TODAY, and have existed for hundreds of years.
You want to twist my words and the Deceiver would? Go ahead - but the truth is here for all to read. It is your folly, and your false witness against me that is the failure here, not mine.
As already cited numerous times, your words do not match or have consistency.
You do not understand because you choose to not understand. You refuse to acknowledge the very words you quoted. You put pride for others ahead of the truth. That is simply not Christian at all. And yes, I just went there.
Can you admit that I was quite explicit in qualifying the elimination of marriage only in context with Government-sanctioning? Can you? Simple question - yes or no. If I get nothing else from this reply, either one of those words would tell me immensely about the type of person you are, in terms of posts on threads.
As was displayed- her statement was confirmed in three separate posts - so your bleat was out of order and as you did the previous post - proved further your errors.
One last time - GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED. You have a mental block on those words? It was always quite clear, and only when people read what they wanted to read do they find something else.
The failure is on the reader's part; I don't know what else I can do. I can show you the words, but I cannot force you to read - you have to want to do that on your own.
Barring your ability to state one way or another that I clearly qualified my statement as GOVERNMENT-RECOGNIZED, I'll just assume you're not much more than a concern-troll who bounced to the aid of an online friend who got caught in their own error.
Government sanctioned ‘civil unions’ are the same as government recognized or sanctioned ‘marriage’.
Changing the name will not change the legal aspects of it, however it will destroy the traditional definition of marriage and open it up to all sorts of perversions.
BTW, polygamy was never sanctioned by God. Even in the OT, it is MAN’s doing - not God’s.