<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 08/16/2010 08:08 PM, Dianne Dawson wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:989139.45190.qm@web110803.mail.gq1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style>
<div
style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">
<div>From a purely secularist point of view you make some good
points. However, you and I both know the reason for "civil unions" is
NOT a "life partnership." The purpose is to legitimize an immoral
state of living. I think you are way off the mark by equating modern
day, same sex, "civil unions" to (what you call) "life partnerships" of
biblical times OR monastaries and convents of any time.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Civil unions do not directly condone immorality (unlike gay "marriage",
which does). They have a legitimate and needed purpose (my dads mom
and her brother sure could have used them). They do not pretend to be
the same thing as marriage. Sure it is possible to abuse them, just
like marriage. But I would much rather have gays abusing civil unions
than have some abomination called "gay marriage". <br>
</body>
</html>