Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:40:20 -0400, Randy Poe <rpoePA@yahoo.com> wrote: On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:27:56 GMT, "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:In this day and age, *everyone* feels that they are a special case, andentitled to special privileges, benefits, and entitlements! Which "special" privileges and entitlements are you talking about for gays? Why is equality "special" and "entitlement"? Redefining the term "marriage" to include two men or two women.

Changing a civil institution to include a minority who has been
previously left out isn't extending a "special" privilege, but a
normal one.

Did abolition give blacks the "special" privilege of freedom?"

Strange notion of special privilege. It seems to mean someone you
don't like asking for the same privileges as anyone else.

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote:
But regardless, the privilege of being able to marry your life partner isn't "special" - it's something most of us take for granted. You are redefining marriage, as Tony said.

If it improves things, why not? I'm still waiting for you to tell me
why you characterize wanting to marry your life partner as a "special"
privilege when it is one that most of us already have.

_Would_ you characterize blacks wanting full voting rights in the US
as asking for "special" priviliges? It required a redefinition of
"voter" in the US.

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: But regardless, the privilege of being able to marry your life partner isn't "special" - it's something most of us take for granted. You are redefining marriage, as Tony said. If it improves things, why not? I'm still waiting for you to tell me why you characterize wanting to marry your life partner as a "special" privilege when it is one that most of us already have.

Well, I think we should redefine marriage to allow for one husband and ten
wives. And vice versa. So where is the (enlightened) new age sign up sheet?
Do you have it?

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Doug Anderson wrote:> But regardless, the privilege of being able to marry your life partner> isn't "special" - it's something most of us take for granted. You are redefining marriage, as Tony said. If it improves things, why not? I'm still waiting for you to tell me why you characterize wanting to marry your life partner as a "special" privilege when it is one that most of us already have. Well, I think we should redefine marriage to allow for one husband and ten wives. And vice versa. So where is the (enlightened) new age sign up sheet? Do you have it?

Do you actually think that would be an improvement?

in article phhe34jub0.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu, Doug Anderson at
ethelthelog@yahoo.com wrote on 9/22/03 5:08 PM:

We have this problem with many things in the states, unfortunately. Separation of church and state is enshrined in the constitution, but a large number of people including (sometimes) a majority of our politicians would like to ignore that fact. Doug "in god we trust" Anderson


I forgot to mention (actually I mentioned it last week, but I'll mention it
again) that Canada's parliament declined to "reaffirm marriage as a
relationship between a man and a woman" (exact wording unknown), by a narrow
margin.

M.

Doug Anderson wrote:
Well, I think we should redefine marriage to allow for one husband and ten wives. And vice versa. So where is the (enlightened) new age sign up sheet? Do you have it? Do you actually think that would be an improvement?

Wouldn't it be a great improvement for those who want to have multiple partners?
There are people who already do that either secretly, unofficially, or sometimes
illegally.