Ah yes, stomping your feet and calling people liars. Well, that is a clear mark of a n00b - can't carry the argument, start making false accusations.
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.
civil unions - by definition are set up and acknowledged by government. Must be a mental block eh?
You put pride for others ahead of the truth. That is simply not Christian at all. And yes, I just went there.
Oh and mind reading too, hmmmm talk to me about Christian eh.
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.
If that was the case I would have responded to her ping instead of yours. Yet it was her observation that set you off n00b. Now apparently you need to thicken your skin. With your GREAT concern for our society you apparently want to strip ALL restraints, let a small group be "married" while the rest of society does everything and anything they want - through 'civil union' - oopsie, there's that gov't intervention angle again.
DelphiUser perhaps?
The facts are here - Government sanction, Government recognition of marriage is what I oppose. Somehow you twist that to be opposition of marriage. You cannot show where I stated what you wanted me to state. You twist my words for your own use. I'm still here - apparently the Religion Moderator does not see your side.
Oh and mind reading too, hmmmm talk to me about Christian eh.
OK then, it was from pure spite. Why else would you twist a man's words to mean what he did not say, to edit them to state something other than original? It was either for pride because of a mistake the first time and refusal to admit the error, or spite. You can choose - but neither is right or good.
Yet it was her observation that set you off n00b.
Actually, it was her mischaracterization of what I wrote that I responded to. Her attitude in doing it was one of contempt - and she was dealt with appropriately (and apparently needs her champions to fight her battles).
Now apparently you need to thicken your skin.
Yes, when you lost your way, and been shown to be a willful liar and refuse to admit the facts, you claim I'm at fault. Who's been called names in this thread, who's had their words consistently mangled here? You and your happy little gang...
With your GREAT concern for our society you apparently want to strip ALL restraints, let a small group be "married" while the rest of society does everything and anything they want - through 'civil union' - oopsie, there's that gov't intervention angle again.
Are you seriously this ignorant? Civil unions have been allowed since the beginning of Government. They're called "contracts", and we use a civil union for everything from formation of a partnership or LLC to surrogates for atheist weddings. The facts are, you only think marriage is valid if Government blesses it - show me where in the Bible the laws of God are subservient to man. Show me where my relationship with other believers is dependent upon the Government sanctioning and blessing my union.
Go ahead, put God below Government. That is a very liberal thing to do!
Enjoy, may God give you some peace today.