I pinged you because reaganaut chose to ping you first; it is common courtesy, correct?
You have called for the replacement of marriage with civil contracts - with no definition of "marriage".
On the contrary, as you quoted I called for doing away with Government-recognized marriage. There is a difference - marriage still exists, it is recognized by the Church - not the Government.
And in fact, our Government already recognizes such - there is no need to have a religious ceremony to be married, in the eyes of the Government it is merely a set of signatures on a purchased piece of paper, and entry into a Government registry that creates a union that was intended to only happen with the blessing of God.
Therefore to the observer - you have called for the elimination of marriage via replacement with "civil contracts".
To those who wish to drop the adjective phrase "Government-recognized" used to describe "marriage", sure. To those who read the words as written wholly and entirely, I would say no.
It is not missed that you stated any consenting parties you've opened the door to gay marriage as well as polygamy, polyamorism, etc.
For a civil contract - which I stated, and you claimed, absolutely. Such right to a civil contract exists TODAY. There is nothing that states it is illegal - or even immoral - to draw up a contract of responsibilities and sharing of assets with any other person or entity, is there?
So you are advocating ceasing to recognize any marriage. Civil unions are not marriages - thus you are advocating an elimination of marriage. You see, your arguments above do not recognize the Christian definition in favor of a 'civil union'.
Legitimize is to make legal; if you eliminate Government from recognizing marriage, then by definition it is no longer legitimate - it is not legal. That does not mean the marriage does not exist, nor does it imply anything about the religious aspect of marriage - which is the sacrament being defiled with legitimate gay marriages.
In an ever-increasing number of States, legitimate marriage IS heretical and an abomination in the eyes of God, because it allows for gays to marry. That is what legitimate - legal - marriage brings us today.
So remove the power of the State to even interfere with marriage. Give it back to the Church.
I have pointed out three citations from you where you have done exactly that - advocating the dissolution of the legal entity of marriage.
Dissolve the legal entity of marriage, yes. Dissolve the religious entity of marriage? Of course not
You have shown that not only have you advocated the dissolution of the legal entity of marriage, you advocated a non-Christian basis of marriage.
Now, to reach THAT conclusion you're going through some pretty interesting gyrations! How is removing the corruption of the sacrament by the Government, advocating a non-Christian basis for the sacrament?
Is gay marriage legal in some jurisdictions of the US? How does that square with a Christian-basis for marriage? Better to pluck the offending eye out than let the entire body be lost to sin. So remove the offending part - Government involvement in marriage - as to preserve the sacrament as a whole.
thank you for confessing that reaganaut's assertion from the original post is correct then - perhaps you can apologize to her now.
There is a difference - marriage still exists, it is recognized by the Church - not the Government.
As clearly cited - you advocate a 'civil union' between ANY PARTNERS - No church definition or association.
To those who read the words as written wholly and entirely, I would say no.
That is your story and you are sticking to it - other observers discern otherwise.
For a civil contract - which I stated, and you claimed, absolutely. Such right to a civil contract exists TODAY.
And you have liberally broadened the definitions and allowances to who can be in those 'unions' - except those contracts are still limited - contrary to your ANY partner definition.
<>Legitimize is to make legal; if you eliminate Government from recognizing marriage, then by definition it is no longer legitimate - it is not legal. That does not mean the marriage does not exist, nor does it imply anything about the religious aspect of marriage - which is the sacrament being defiled with legitimate gay marriages.
So your's becomes an anything goes proposition - as not everyone is under the Church.
How is removing the corruption of the sacrament by the Government, advocating a non-Christian basis for the sacrament?
Once again, yours is flawed - you replace the church with 'civil unions' .