Re: [Apologetics] First Rush, then Coulter, and Now Glenn Beck … What’s Happening?

[Dianne Dawson]

Stuart,

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.

Dianne
 
Like a deer that longs for running waters so my soul longs for you, O God.
Ps 42:1
 
 




________________________________
From: Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com>
To: Dianne Dawson <rcdianne at yahoo.com>
Cc: Apologetics Group <apologetics at gathman.org>
Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 7:30:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Apologetics] First Rush, then Coulter, and Now Glenn Beck … What’s 
Happening?

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Dianne Dawson wrote:

> Republican Party, GOProud.  And on July 29, although his position had been 
> revealed before, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh again came out in favor of 
> homosexual civil unions, while being opposed to same-sex 'marriage.'

Actually, civil unions are the reasonable approach for a secular state, and
Rush gets my kudos.  First, they are needed for many non-immoral situations.
For instance, my dad was raised by his mom and her brother (Uncle Chester)
after his dad was killed in WWII.  They were not married, and the lack of civil
unions made things much more difficult.  Similarly, there are life partners of
the same sex from Biblical times to American literature that were not sexually
immoral.  For that matter, many Catholic monks are part of life partner groups,
with brothers have medical decision authority, and property is owned by the
group.  A civil union is not required in that case because the institution will
have already prepared the legal documents necessary for the lifetime
commitment.

A civil union is a one stop package with medical decision privilege, common law
inheritance, etc, that comes with your civil marriage license.  And if same sex
couples with a civil union are sexually immoral, it doesn't imply that their
relationship is the same thing as a marriage.

By allowing gay couples to "marry", the term "marriage" is confused
resulting in great harm.  A civil union doesn't confuse itself with
"marriage", and while sexually immoral people can use it (just like
for marriage), immorality isn't expected as it is for gay "marriage".

Furthermore, with civil unions legally distinct from marriage, it is
at least possible to have distinctions made for things like adoption.
A marriage is much preferable to a civil union for adoption, even
if the civil union partners are not sexually immoral.  (And marriage
partners could easily be equally immoral - perhaps they are into
wife swapping.)

-- 
          Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com>
    Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20100816/8539dfe7/attachment.html>