Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 312664 comments on the Newsday story from Jan 22, 2008, titled Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision. In it, Newsday reports that:

Thousands of abortion opponents marched from the National Mall to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in their annual remembrance of the court's Roe v. Wade decision.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#312454 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you can marry a female hose end to a male hose end but you can't marry twos ends that are the same.
LOL, you're ridiculous. Truly.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#312455 Oct 2, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
So it's not god-inspired? No ark, no dove, etc? No flooding the whole earth and killing everyone but noah's group? It's just folklore, then. You should explain that to biblical literalists.
<quoted text>
I don't know but the 'lore' does seem to have some basis in fact as well as a lot of other things in the bible that we wouldn't otherwise know of.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#312456 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been redefined. Do you have a mental block?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/07/2...
No, it has not. It has never had just one meaning. Ever.
Katie

Pacific, WA

#312457 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
They think it may have been like Niagra Falls.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-sug...
It's a "controversial" theory that hasn't been proven. What was proven were the freshwater shellfish going back some 7K years and the saltwater shellfish going back some 5K years.

You could analyze this paragraph if you wanted. "The earlier Mesopotamian stories are very similar where the gods are sending a flood to wipe out humans," said biblical archaeologist Eric Cline. "There's one man they choose to survive. He builds a boat and brings on animals and lands on a mountain and lives happily ever after? I would argue that it's the same story."
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-sug...
Ink

Havertown, PA

#312458 Oct 2, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
The words you are ignoring (or possibly misunderstanding as dumb as you are) are "some leaders", and "in our community". Meaning SOME rabbis, and applying only to Jews.
I never said there was no objection to homosexuality by anyone other than Christians. I said it's the Christian bigots who expect to dominate in the public sphere, and for everyone to live by their beliefs.
Are you living by my beliefs? I didn't think so.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#312459 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you living by my beliefs? I didn't think so.
Are you a Christian bigot who thinks Christianity should dominate our laws, and are working/voting to make it so? If not, then I wasn't talking about you, Witless.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#312460 Oct 2, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a Christian bigot who thinks Christianity should dominate our laws, and are working/voting to make it so? If not, then I wasn't talking about you, Witless.
Christians for the most part make all the laws even the ones you like.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#312461 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians for the most part make all the laws even the ones you like.
You've missed the point again. No surprise.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#312462 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been redefined. Do you have a mental block?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/07/2...
Yes it was redefined when they added that it is between a man and a woman. The original phrase in various cultures did not specify such a thing.

Stop pretending that the word has only had one meaning in it's entire existence. You continue to ignore facts and instead stomp your little feet when the world doesn't yield to your opinion.
Katie

Pacific, WA

#312463 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you shouldn't have any trouble providing the meaning of marriage from, say twenty-five years ago which includes same sex.
why don't you look into on Wiki? It goes further back than 25 years ago.

"Definitions

Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage in an attempt to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures.[7]

Legitimate sexual access

Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."[8] In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognized by custom or law".[9]

Drawing on Westermarck, Duran Bell describes marriage as "a relationship between one or more men (male or female) in severalty to one or more women that provides those men with a demand-right of sexual access within a domestic group and identifies women who bear the obligation of yielding to the demands of those specific men." In referring to "men in severalty", Bell is referring to corporate kin groups such as lineages which, in having paid brideprice, retain a right in a woman's offspring even if her husband (a lineage member) deceases (Levirate marriage). In referring to "men (male or female)", Bell is referring to women within the lineage who may stand in as the "social fathers" of the wife's children born of other lovers.(See Nuer "Ghost marriage")[7]

However, the necessary connection between marriage and sexuality is being questioned by asexual marriages.[10]

Legitimacy of offspring

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."[11] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances (the Ghost marriage), Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."[12]

In an analysis of marriage among the Nayar, a polyandrous society in India, Gough found that the group lacked a husband role in the conventional sense; that unitary role in the west was divided between a non-resident "social father" of the woman's children, and her lovers who were the actual procreators. None of these men had legal rights to the woman's child. This forced Gough to disregard sexual access as a key element of marriage and to define it in terms of legitimacy of offspring alone: marriage is "a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum."[13]

Bell criticized the legitimacy-based definition on the basis that some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy. He argued that a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular in societies where illegitimacy has no other legal or social implications for a child other than the mother being unmarried.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
Ink

Havertown, PA

#312464 Oct 2, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
why don't you look into on Wiki? It goes further back than 25 years ago.
"Definitions
Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage in an attempt to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures.[7]
Legitimate sexual access
Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."[8] In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognized by custom or law".[9]
Drawing on Westermarck, Duran Bell describes marriage as "a relationship between one or more men (male or female) in severalty to one or more women that provides those men with a demand-right of sexual access within a domestic group and identifies women who bear the obligation of yielding to the demands of those specific men." In referring to "men in severalty", Bell is referring to corporate kin groups such as lineages which, in having paid brideprice, retain a right in a woman's offspring even if her husband (a lineage member) deceases (Levirate marriage). In referring to "men (male or female)", Bell is referring to women within the lineage who may stand in as the "social fathers" of the wife's children born of other lovers.(See Nuer "Ghost marriage")[7]
However, the necessary connection between marriage and sexuality is being questioned by asexual marriages.[10]
Legitimacy of offspring
The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."[11] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances (the Ghost marriage), Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."[12]
In an analysis of marriage among the Nayar, a polyandrous society in India, Gough found that the group lacked a husband role in the conventional sense; that unitary role in the west was divided between a non-resident "social father" of the woman's children, and her lovers who were the actual procreators. None of these men had legal rights to the woman's child. This forced Gough to disregard sexual access as a key element of marriage and to define it in terms of legitimacy of offspring alone: marriage is "a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum."[13]
Bell criticized the legitimacy-based definition on the basis that some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy. He argued that a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular in societies where illegitimacy has no other legal or social implications for a child other than the mother being unmarried.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
So you have three people rejecting the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. How nice .
Ink

Havertown, PA

#312465 Oct 2, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it was redefined when they added that it is between a man and a woman. The original phrase in various cultures did not specify such a thing.
Stop pretending that the word has only had one meaning in it's entire existence. You continue to ignore facts and instead stomp your little feet when the world doesn't yield to your opinion.
Really when was it changed to a man and a woman?
Katie

Pacific, WA

#312466 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have three people rejecting the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. How nice .
That's what you got of the info provided to you at your request?

Did you bother to read the link? The history?

Will you at least concede it goes back further than the 25yrs you requested?

Why don't you, just for fun, look up the Greeks' idea of "love".

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#312467 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
if it really happened as the scientists say, who told us about it? Decendents of the people who survived it.
Uh huh...and how many centuries ago did this flood allegedly take place? And how many generations have been passing this story down? And what was the knowledge of the Earth's size and topography back in Noah's day? How would these people know the whole world was flooded? They didn't know what the whole world looked like, or how big it was, and it's more likely old climates drove regular flooding just as our modern climate does now, and those ancient people didn't know what to make of it. And usually the most popular explanation for things the ancients didn't understand was that some unseen god did it.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#312468 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know but the 'lore' does seem to have some basis in fact as well as a lot of other things in the bible that we wouldn't otherwise know of.
The only "fact" in the story is that floods are common on this planet and chances are a few happened a long, long time ago.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#312469 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know but the 'lore' does seem to have some basis in fact as well as a lot of other things in the bible that we wouldn't otherwise know of.
If you saw a neighbor working hard day and night for several weeks building an ark in his back yard, and you went and asked him what he was up to, and he told you God spoke to him and instructed him to build said ark because God was planning a huge flood that would wipe out most of the planet, you would probably think the guy is a nut.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#312470 Oct 2, 2013
Hoses can't marry at all.

BTW--if you have two male hose ends of different diameters, they can join together just like a male/female coupling.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you can marry a female hose end to a male hose end but you can't marry twos ends that are the same.
feces for jesus

Rockville Centre, NY

#312471 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Really when was it changed to a man and a woman?
You even quoted that it comes from old French. Trace the history. Go do your own research instead of making more incorrect claims.
feces for jesus

Rockville Centre, NY

#312472 Oct 2, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only "fact" in the story is that floods are common on this planet and chances are a few happened a long, long time ago.
She still refuses to acknowledge that there is no evidence of the noahs arc flood... Story,which we should just call a myth or a fable.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#312473 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me a dictionary that isn't recent that includes same sex relationship as a 'marriage.'
The meaning has been changed. Why not just accept it and be 'Gay Power Proud'
I accepted the fact that sexual orientation should have nothing to do with a person's rights, a long time ago.

When you accept the fact that gays can marry, without whining that they're getting 'special rights', get back to me.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min RoxLo 1,457,965
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 13 hr Brew In 32,590
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 18 hr Eagle 12 258,039
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite Fri Go Blue Forever 57
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Nov 28 Local Warming 10,372
Should child beauty pageants be banned? (Sep '14) Nov 22 Heatherfeather 780
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Nov 20 Sandra Tillman 16
More from around the web