Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 309,000
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. Full Story

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322714 Mar 9, 2014
The RCC has always called it holy matrimony. It's irrelevant, though, because marriage has always been the LEGAL term. Civil unions are a recent concept, and not one has ever been equal to legal marriage.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are just looking for an argument. Civil unions for all, period.
If you want a religious ceremony rename the sacrament. The Catholic Church renamed the sacrament of pennance and extreme unction already and they can do it again.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322715 Mar 9, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
The RCC has always called it holy matrimony. It's irrelevant, though, because marriage has always been the LEGAL term. Civil unions are a recent concept, and not one has ever been equal to legal marriage.
<quoted text>
It seems you don't like my idea. Civil unions are a recent concept and a good one. Why not have it replace marraige and everyone will be equal. The legal term marraige has always meant a man and a woman . So it is old fashioned and needs to be changed to something more unisex like civil union.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322716 Mar 9, 2014
The problem is the reverse of what JFK faced running for president. Nowadays, catholics in office get flack for not being "catholic" enough--look at all the flack Pelosi takes for being pro-choice politically.

Well, that and catholic groups paying lobbyists to push their religious agenda into law.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Just on a quick look, I found some RCCs that you might like to know are protecting your interests.
Pelosi D
Collins R
Leahy D
Durbin D
Harkin D
Milkulski D
Murry D
Menendez D
Gillibrand D
What Catholics are you actually talking about in congress?
grumpy

West Haverstraw, NY

#322717 Mar 9, 2014
Atheist Perspective wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. Actual atheist here. Which means you don't have to worry about me becoming president because our body politic is chock full of protestants, who would NEVER vote for an atheist. Only reason I'm even mentioning prots vs. caths is that's one of the fattest threads here. And I just pointed out that protestant-originating stereotypical attacks on catholics overrides progressive's supposed enlightened sense of fair play and standing up for steamrollered minorities. Capiche? Just to make this clear, I'd be just as rant-spewing if I lived in Catholism-dominated Ireland, Mexico, Italy, or Quebec. Which led me in this forum to affirm my atheism to...what, Doubting Thomases? Sorry. I amuse myself. Anyway the touchstone for my social/"family" policy is: NO THEOCRACY! I assert that we live in one. And that we need regime change now!
As I previously posted to John K,
Who gives a shlt!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322718 Mar 9, 2014
Marriage is equally unisex, and there is absolutely no reason to create an entirely different legal institution just because some fools think they own the copyright.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems you don't like my idea. Civil unions are a recent concept and a good one. Why not have it replace marraige and everyone will be equal. The legal term marraige has always meant a man and a woman . So it is old fashioned and needs to be changed to something more unisex like civil union.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322719 Mar 9, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
The problem is the reverse of what JFK faced running for president. Nowadays, catholics in office get flack for not being "catholic" enough--look at all the flack Pelosi takes for being pro-choice politically.
Well, that and catholic groups paying lobbyists to push their religious agenda into law.
<quoted text>
Well they obviously aren't paying enough because Pelosi is still pro choice.

I would like to know who the Catholic lobbiests are because I believe that would be illegal.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#322720 Mar 9, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>As I previously posted to John K,
Who gives a shlt!
I think that response was directed at someone else---I'm fairly certain I'd have remembered that.

In any case...awesome post "Grump!"

;P
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322721 Mar 9, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Marriage is equally unisex, and there is absolutely no reason to create an entirely different legal institution just because some fools think they own the copyright.
<quoted text>
No marriage has never been unisex. That is a new concept and it needs a new word. Is it just the 'word' that is important to you or is it the equality regardless of what it's called?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322722 Mar 9, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No marriage has never been unisex. That is a new concept and it needs a new word. Is it just the 'word' that is important to you or is it the equality regardless of what it's called?
My parents were married...MARRIED mind you, by a judge, in an anteroom of the courthouse, reserved specifically for that purpose. Theirs was what used to be termed 'civil marriage', and with it came all the rights and benefits which accrued to those couples married in church, or by a pastor anywhere.'Civil Unions' have always meant something different, and did NOT come with said rights and benefits. It's ludicrous that this is so, still today.

"Marriage" has meant MANY things, across cultures, and has only been 'reserved' to the union of one man and one woman, by certain religious sects, for a few hundred years.

Marriage predates Christianity. Native Americans have revered homosexuals as the "two-spirit" people for centuries, and have, from time immemorial, married them to each other. Don't be so quick to claim ownership of a term that's far older than you. Your religion just co-opted it, changed it to suit, and now resents those who want to 'change' it again.

Tough.
Atheist Perspective

United States

#322724 Mar 9, 2014
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Good afternoon "A-P,"
Forgive the inquiry, but are you in need of a dose of Lithium?
Your posts are growing increasingly incoherent, and you are coming across as rather, manic.
I don't believe I've bashed Catholics(or Latinos) by route, or in any other fashion. Please feel free to point out to me examples of where I've done so.
"Waste of bigotry...?" Am I to infer you believe then, that there are cases where bigotry is justified?
Oh, you still haven't explained your throwaway aspersion regarding "gutless agnostics..."
OK. OK, the "waste of bigotry" thing was a joke. The joke is: a lot of self-styled liberals just won't see their own blatant bigotry. Hardee Har Har? Didn't mean to muddy the waters. My bad. I've just met more than my share of real-life "Brian Griffins." And...yeah, you do deserve an explanation of "gutless agnostics," because it was meant provocatively. It's an actual philosophical issue. Long story short, there's no reason for people who don't believe in Glurf to say, "I'm not sure, one way or the other, about the existence of all-powerful, universe-creating, personal wish-fulfilling Glurf." It's the meaningless questions and anthropomorphic qualities of "God" I reject. That's why I suggested substituting"Glurf" for "God." This helps point up how silly (though deadly) Glurf/God really is. My usual targets for ridicule are the Big Three monotheisms currently ravaging the planet. Hate 'em. Oh, you characterized some drift and apparent non sequiturs -- sorry. Autocorrect on my phone is partly to blame (if, instead of of; the, instead of their). I admit sometimes I answer more than one post at a time, and I can see how scattershot that can look. Point taken.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322725 Mar 9, 2014
Atheist Perspective wrote:
<quoted text>The touchstone for my social/"family" policy is: NO THEOCRACY! I assert that we live in one. And that we need regime change now!
I wish I could say I disagree with you on the former. I cannot. With the latter, I am completely in agreement - but we'll have to wait until 2016 to see, and even then, I doubt it will actually occur.

Given that the current President's policies are interchangeable with his predecessor's, I see no future President for whom the (relatively newly) vast Executive Power, isn't a temptation to reserve more.

And our next one, mark my words, WON'T be a "democrat". He/She will be a theocrat. The rabid religious right will get their numbers out in force for this one. Hide and watch. They pretty much have to, before the pendulum can swing the other way....

:)
Atheist Perspective

United States

#322726 Mar 9, 2014
Right Wing Conspiracy wrote:
<quoted text>
What Church were you forced to join by the government?
Hopefully the religously intolerant never become too powerful. They seem way too eager to take all freedom of religion away from US citizens.
The Church with God on the money and prayer in the Congress and at the White House. The Church of Manifest Destiny. The Church of continual holy wars across the Earth.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322727 Mar 9, 2014
....Not to mention, the Church of the Religiously Exempt - from things like paying taxes, selling contraceptives, providing basic health insurance to one's gestationally-capable employees, and filling combat positions in wartime....yeah, the Church gets TONS of support from our illustrious 'government'.

We're not a democracy, by any means....we're certainly no longer a republic...Hell, the 'United States' are about as politically divided as it's possible to get.

If we're not a theocracy now, we're absolutely headed in that direction.
Atheist Perspective

United States

#322728 Mar 9, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I wish I could say I disagree with you on the former. I cannot. With the latter, I am completely in agreement - but we'll have to wait until 2016 to see, and even then, I doubt it will actually occur.
Given that the current President's policies are interchangeable with his predecessor's, I see no future President for whom the (relatively newly) vast Executive Power, isn't a temptation to reserve more.
And our next one, mark my words, WON'T be a "democrat". He/She will be a theocrat. The rabid religious right will get their numbers out in force for this one. Hide and watch. They pretty much have to, before the pendulum can swing the other way....
:)
Scary! But, Yeah...we've had so many screwball Presidents -- who knows what's coming up next!:P
Atheist Perspective

United States

#322729 Mar 9, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
....Not to mention, the Church of the Religiously Exempt - from things like paying taxes, selling contraceptives, providing basic health insurance to one's gestationally-capable employees, and filling combat positions in wartime....yeah, the Church gets TONS of support from our illustrious 'government'.
We're not a democracy, by any means....we're certainly no longer a republic...Hell, the 'United States' are about as politically divided as it's possible to get.
If we're not a theocracy now, we're absolutely headed in that direction.
Thank you. I forgot to mention the tax shelter. You're right. What a ginormous scam! It's a real entanglement of Church with State!
Ravianna

Coos Bay, OR

#322730 Mar 10, 2014
Roe v Wade basically said a human being has no rights when they are in the womb. Does that no sound familiar? The Dred Scott case said that if you are black you have no rights. Roe v Wade is just like the Dred Scott case and will be remembered in the same light. Dred Scott led to the American Civil War and Roe v Wade has led to the murder of 50 million people+how ever many people that have been murdered in abortion clinic bombings.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322731 Mar 10, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>My parents were married...MARRIED mind you, by a judge, in an anteroom of the courthouse, reserved specifically for that purpose. Theirs was what used to be termed 'civil marriage', and with it came all the rights and benefits which accrued to those couples married in church, or by a pastor anywhere.'Civil Unions' have always meant something different, and did NOT come with said rights and benefits. It's ludicrous that this is so, still today.
"Marriage" has meant MANY things, across cultures, and has only been 'reserved' to the union of one man and one woman, by certain religious sects, for a few hundred years.
Marriage predates Christianity. Native Americans have revered homosexuals as the "two-spirit" people for centuries, and have, from time immemorial, married them to each other. Don't be so quick to claim ownership of a term that's far older than you. Your religion just co-opted it, changed it to suit, and now resents those who want to 'change' it again.
Tough.
Since you brought up Native Americans this is how they handled marriage. It worked for them so why not follow the practice now?

In Indian cultures marriage was neither religious nor civil. There was usually no religious ceremony involved, only a public recognition of the fact of marriage. In most cases there was no formal ceremony: the couple simply started living together.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322732 Mar 10, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I wish I could say I disagree with you on the former. I cannot. With the latter, I am completely in agreement - but we'll have to wait until 2016 to see, and even then, I doubt it will actually occur.
Given that the current President's policies are interchangeable with his predecessor's, I see no future President for whom the (relatively newly) vast Executive Power, isn't a temptation to reserve more.
And our next one, mark my words, WON'T be a "democrat". He/She will be a theocrat. The rabid religious right will get their numbers out in force for this one. Hide and watch. They pretty much have to, before the pendulum can swing the other way....
:)
Hillary is projected to be the next pres.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322733 Mar 10, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
....Not to mention, the Church of the Religiously Exempt - from things like paying taxes, selling contraceptives, providing basic health insurance to one's gestationally-capable employees, and filling combat positions in wartime....yeah, the Church gets TONS of support from our illustrious 'government'.
We're not a democracy, by any means....we're certainly no longer a republic...Hell, the 'United States' are about as politically divided as it's possible to get.
If we're not a theocracy now, we're absolutely headed in that direction.
You aren't headed anywhere different than were you have been. Nothing has changed in 250 years. Why is it now bothering you?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322734 Mar 10, 2014
Ravianna wrote:
Roe v Wade basically said a human being has no rights when they are in the womb. Does that no sound familiar? The Dred Scott case said that if you are black you have no rights. Roe v Wade is just like the Dred Scott case and will be remembered in the same light. Dred Scott led to the American Civil War and Roe v Wade has led to the murder of 50 million people+how ever many people that have been murdered in abortion clinic bombings.
It's clear that you have never even read Roe v Wade, because it says no such thing. It's our Constitution, actually, that says only citizens have civil rights, and foreign nationals (citizens of OTHER countries) have rights some rights. One must be BORN to be a citizen of this, or any, country.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 43 min John Galt 1,193,084
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr thewordofme 235,842
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr Bruin For Life 29,092
Kentucky Wildcats Basketball: Kyle Wiltjer Comm... (Sep '10) 3 hr patty sue 5
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 3 hr Quantummist 4,370
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 3 hr RiccardoFire 201,446
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 8 hr squeezers 762
More from around the web