Commentary: Stonewall Columbus Pride Parade reminiscent of a Fourth of July parade

Jun 23, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Lantern

A Pride Parade walker looks to throw bracelets at crowds that lined the street. Pride Parade, part of Stonewall Columbus Pride Festival 2013, took place June 22 on High Street.

Comments
301 - 320 of 605 Comments Last updated Jul 20, 2013

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#319 Jul 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, when it demonstrably harms or violates the rights of another. Just as you are controlled from trespassing on my property.
[I apologize if this is a double post; I lost my last reply page.]

I may believe that it harms children to teach them that same-sex relationships are normal.

I may believe that pornography demeans and objectifies women, harming their status in relationships.

I may believe that the government requiring religious organizations to fund insurance coverage for abortifacients prohibits those organizations' free exercise of religion.

I may believe that two adults who mutually agree to burn down their house, or gouge out each other's eyes, are harming themselves. You do not.

You see, Tony, "harm" is subjective.
And the government -- via its three branches -- is not always correct in its determination thereof.

But common sense informs me that 2% of the population -- via politicians and political pressure groups -- should not have the power to dictate to the other 98% what constitutes "harm."

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#320 Jul 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
TWICE! When the majority is wrong, their mandate should be tossed aside! Just like if the legislature is wrong, their law should be tossed aside. That's one of the reasons we HAVE courts. Otherwise a sufficient number of me and my friends could decide to vote away your property rights. You wouldn't much like that, would you?
<quoted text>
Someone would likely challenge that statute, and it would be overturned because it doesn't meet the "valid government purpose" test (for one).
<quoted text>
The STATE declared them married, according to the rules of due process. Soon all states will.
For a libertarian, you sure have a penchant for invoking the state's authority on this matter -- a matter which flies in the face of reality.
Brunhilda

Dayton, OH

#321 Jul 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, when it demonstrably harms or violates the rights of another. Just as you are controlled from trespassing on my property.
The US constitution says explictly the people decide what are rights, not fedgov....

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#322 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
[I apologize if this is a double post; I lost my last reply page.]
Happens to me occasionally too. I'm technically a little beyond the range of the local internet provider (18,000 feet to the nearest hub), and while I talked them into hooking me up, I have to contend with a lost connection once in awhile. For my trouble they gave me a permanent 10% discount. Any further out and I would have went with satellite.
I may believe that it harms children to teach them that same-sex relationships are normal.
Use due process to see if your belief supersedes gay's rights.
I may believe that pornography demeans and objectifies women, harming their status in relationships.
Due process has already determined that pornographers first amendment rights in most cases are superior to the right to impose that belief.
I may believe that the government requiring religious organizations to fund insurance coverage for abortifacients prohibits those organizations' free exercise of religion.
I'm not even religious and I agree with that one (In fact, I would argue that NO employer should have to fund coverage that violates his conscience, or be required to fund ANY coverage, for that matter).
I may believe that two adults who mutually agree to burn down their house, or gouge out each other's eyes, are harming themselves. You do not.
Burning down a house creates a significant risk of harm to others. Mutually permitted combat is not a problem for me, as long as they don't commit another crime in the process (disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace). Personally, I think they should allow duels.
You see, Tony, "harm" is subjective. And the government -- via its three branches -- is not always correct in its determination thereof.
Nevertheless, their determinations ARE the final say unless and until they are overturned.
But common sense informs me that 2% of the population -- via politicians and political pressure groups -- should not have the power to dictate to the other 98% what constitutes "harm."
That's easy to say when you're not the one being harmed. Which is why we have a Republic, rather than a pure Democracy. If the majority were against you, you'd more easily see it.

Tolerance means accepting that others are allowed to live differently than you. Intolerance means forcing them into practicing your lifestyle. It is the antithesis of choice.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#323 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
For a libertarian, you sure have a penchant for invoking the state's authority on this matter -- a matter which flies in the face of reality.
Government exists to protect the rights of all individuals within it's jurisdiction (in my opinion, that should be its ONLY job). Not just the majority's rights. Naturally, it requires some authority in order to carry out that mission. That authority includes the ability to prevent one individual or a group of individuals from harming or violating the rights of another individual or group of individuals, no matter the size of either group.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#324 Jul 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's easy to say when you're not the one being harmed. Which is why we have a Republic, rather than a pure Democracy. If the majority were against you, you'd more easily see it.
Tolerance means accepting that others are allowed to live differently than you. Intolerance means forcing them into practicing your lifestyle. It is the antithesis of choice.
Same-sex couples are not harmed by the fact that their relationship is not, and will never be, the equivalent of marriage. In fact, by entering into a same-sex relationship, they have explicitly rejected the concept of marriage. That they live differently than 98% of the population, and are free to do so, is obvious.

Intolerance is refusing to accept the reality that marriage does not apply to one's chosen situation, and then forcing 98% of the population to redefine that term so that you can pretend it does.

Considering that these folks reject marriage, their actions are, in fact, the antithesis of choice.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#325 Jul 5, 2013
Brunhilda wrote:
<quoted text>
The US constitution says explictly the people decide what are rights, not fedgov....
That power is not unlimited. For example, the majority cannot vote to have you executed for no good reason.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#326 Jul 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Government exists to protect the rights of all individuals within it's jurisdiction (in my opinion, that should be its ONLY job). Not just the majority's rights. Naturally, it requires some authority in order to carry out that mission. That authority includes the ability to prevent one individual or a group of individuals from harming or violating the rights of another individual or group of individuals, no matter the size of either group.
There is no doubt that the Parkers', et al. rights were violated.

http://www.davidparkerfund.org/html/2008/01/d...

“In the ruling,[Judge] Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is ‘reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.’ According to Wolf, this means teaching ‘diversity’ which includes ‘differences in sexual orientation.’

“In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers’ only options are (1) send their kids to a private school,(2) home-school their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the School Committee who agree with them. Can you imagine a federal judge in the Civil Rights era telling blacks the same thing – that if they can’t be served at a lunch counter they should just start their own restaurant, or elect a city council to pass laws that reflect the U.S. Constitution?” the organization said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2007/02/40339/#d9J8FcEyJ7s...

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#327 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no doubt that the Parkers', et al. rights were violated.
http://www.davidparkerfund.org/html/2008/01/d...
“In the ruling,[Judge] Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is ‘reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.’ According to Wolf, this means teaching ‘diversity’ which includes ‘differences in sexual orientation.’
“In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers’ only options are (1) send their kids to a private school,(2) home-school their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the School Committee who agree with them. Can you imagine a federal judge in the Civil Rights era telling blacks the same thing – that if they can’t be served at a lunch counter they should just start their own restaurant, or elect a city council to pass laws that reflect the U.S. Constitution?” the organization said.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2007/02/40339/#d9J8FcEyJ7s...
Nothing wrong with teaching FACTS. The existence of homosexuality is a fact. Now I WOULD have a problem with teaching that homosexuality was PREFERABLE to heterosexuality, or vice versa, but the acknowledgement of the fact is not a problem.

And yes, those three choices are your only legal recourse, but be aware that the last one may result in further litigation if the policy you institute violates anyone's rights.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#328 Jul 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing wrong with teaching FACTS. The existence of homosexuality is a fact. Now I WOULD have a problem with teaching that homosexuality was PREFERABLE to heterosexuality, or vice versa, but the acknowledgement of the fact is not a problem.
And yes, those three choices are your only legal recourse, but be aware that the last one may result in further litigation if the policy you institute violates anyone's rights.
"...Teachers are being postured to have a constitutional right to coercively indoctrinate little children [into whatever they choose to teach,]. It's not just exposure to an idea, to the [offensive] books, It's the teacher's manipulating the mind of children to embrace dangerous ideologies, because the teacher happens to believe it's a good ideology.

It brings these battlegrounds to the psyches and minds of little children. Their little minds should not be the battleground for culture wars. Proper boundaries have to be established. This is absolutely of national significance. No parent wants to put their very little children in positions in which they're minds are being used as battlegrounds.

What the pro-homosexual camp has done is positioned so-called 'gay' rights' to completely trump parental rights and parental authority in public schools."

"This despicable ruling is not of the people, nor for the people, and nor by the people -- but against them. We, the people, must take back our government for the sake of our children and the sake of this nation."

-- David Parker

The story read by the teacher to the class goes as follows:

There was a young king whose mother was desperately trying to match him in marriage to a suitable princess. To her dismay, the prince failed to show interest in any of a large number of contenders he was presented with. That is until one day he falls in love, and eventually marries, the brother of one of the princess suitors. Even the queen, the book says,“shed a tear or two” of joy at the wedding. The story ends with an image of the “king and the king” kissing.

Is this the kind of story you imagine your six-year-old child or grandchild reading in his first grade class?

And, further, you -- the parent -- are denied pre-notification for your child's opt-out? Because although the state admitted that the book was read to "influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage," but said that because the case is on the "influence-toward-toleran ce end," it was not a breach of civil rights, and that because Massachusetts allows same-sex “marriage,” the state has a “rational interest” in fostering its acceptance.

Now, Tony...you see where the intolerant redefinition of marriage campaign is going...don't you?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#329 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
"...Teachers are being postured to have a constitutional right to coercively indoctrinate little children [into whatever they choose to teach,]. It's not just exposure to an idea, to the [offensive] books, It's the teacher's manipulating the mind of children to embrace dangerous ideologies, because the teacher happens to believe it's a good ideology.
It brings these battlegrounds to the psyches and minds of little children. Their little minds should not be the battleground for culture wars. Proper boundaries have to be established. This is absolutely of national significance. No parent wants to put their very little children in positions in which they're minds are being used as battlegrounds.
What the pro-homosexual camp has done is positioned so-called 'gay' rights' to completely trump parental rights and parental authority in public schools."
"This despicable ruling is not of the people, nor for the people, and nor by the people -- but against them. We, the people, must take back our government for the sake of our children and the sake of this nation."
-- David Parker
The story read by the teacher to the class goes as follows:
There was a young king whose mother was desperately trying to match him in marriage to a suitable princess. To her dismay, the prince failed to show interest in any of a large number of contenders he was presented with. That is until one day he falls in love, and eventually marries, the brother of one of the princess suitors. Even the queen, the book says,“shed a tear or two” of joy at the wedding. The story ends with an image of the “king and the king” kissing.
Is this the kind of story you imagine your six-year-old child or grandchild reading in his first grade class?
And, further, you -- the parent -- are denied pre-notification for your child's opt-out? Because although the state admitted that the book was read to "influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage," but said that because the case is on the "influence-toward-toleran ce end," it was not a breach of civil rights, and that because Massachusetts allows same-sex “marriage,” the state has a “rational interest” in fostering its acceptance.
Now, Tony...you see where the intolerant redefinition of marriage campaign is going...don't you?
Yes. Acceptance.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#330 Jul 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Acceptance.
No. The infringement of others' rights in the name of "acceptance."

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#331 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The infringement of others' rights in the name of "acceptance."
What superiorright of yours is being infringed by gays being allowed to marry each other?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#332 Jul 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
What superiorright of yours is being infringed by gays being allowed to marry each other?
You didn't read the actions of the state schools?
You can't force acceptance of aberrant and/or immoral behavior, particularly on the parents of innocent first-graders.

http://www.topix.com/forum/columbus/TDNI3S8H6...

"...opinions not only aren’t changing, but positions are hardening."
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#333 Jul 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
What superiorright of yours is being infringed by gays being allowed to marry each other?
That would be Tippy's inherent fundamental right as a Christian Bible Thumper to dictate the legal constrictions on the personal relationships and sex lives of others.

Its right there in the Constitution....errrrr, I mean the Bible.

woof

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#334 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me plain: the "whole" is psychologically disordered, as are the practitioners of the remaining 547 paraphilias, as defined by the APA. That the APA, under political pressure, removed only one sexually aberrant behavior -- namely same-sex behavior -- from their list does not mean that society agrees, or must agree, that it is normal.
It is not.
And violent behaviors of the psychologically disordered come as no surprise.
Orientation is not a "behavior".

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#335 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't read the actions of the state schools?
You can't force acceptance of aberrant and/or immoral behavior, particularly on the parents of innocent first-graders.
They're not forcing acceptance, they're presenting information, the kids will make up their own minds. If you don't like what they're presented with, you can use one of the three methods posted earlier, or you can make your own presentation that more bullies and control freaks are what this country needs. It's your right as a parent.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#336 Jul 5, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be Tippy's inherent fundamental right as a Christian Bible Thumper to dictate the legal constrictions on the personal relationships and sex lives of others.
Its right there in the Constitution....errrrr, I mean the Bible.
woof
Again, you prove that you failed Constitutional Law.

Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772, 117 S. Ct. 2258 (1997).

"In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the 'liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right ... to direct the education and upbringing of one's children" (citing Meyer and Pierce).

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#337 Jul 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
They're not forcing acceptance, they're presenting information, the kids will make up their own minds. If you don't like what they're presented with, you can use one of the three methods posted earlier, or you can make your own presentation that more bullies and control freaks are what this country needs. It's your right as a parent.
To 6-year olds? R-i-i-i-g-h-t.

So...you have finally revealed that you believe anyone who opposes same-sex relationships is a "bully" and/or "control freak."

Wow, Tony.

The bullies and control freaks are not allowing opt-outs for these "informational sessions."

Geez.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#338 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you prove that you failed Constitutional Law.
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772, 117 S. Ct. 2258 (1997).
"In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the 'liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right ... to direct the education and upbringing of one's children" (citing Meyer and Pierce).
Ok Professor...Explain how Glucksberg, Meyer, and Pierce apply to same sex marriage or homosexuality?

woof

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 10 min Anonymous of Indy 30,526
Xenos Christian Fellowship is a CULT! (Jul '12) 31 min PaijheSwann 915
Are ISIS and Obama in Cahoots? 39 min Sleeping Cell 19
Ohio landlord orders removal of American flag 48 min Patriotic American 1
Almighty God OR rabid allah??? 49 min tsheridan 21
WHY Does America Hate Obama so much? 55 min tsheridan 29
WHEN did Obama tell the truth? 1 hr tsheridan 1
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 5 hr get alife 2,292
Where are all the original legacy posters? 6 hr sidekick 114
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••