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

Jun 23, 2013 Full story: The Lantern 605

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.

Full Story

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#379 Jul 7, 2013
Limey Lehman wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.ontheissues.org/Takes_A_Village.ht...
This book is Hillary's classic -- not so much a political book as a definition of her view of the world. It was written in 1996, well before she was considering running for the presidency. Hence it does not have much in the way of policy prescriptions. However, Hillary added an introduction in December 2006, for the "10th Anniversary Edition," along with a new set of end-notes commenting on her updated thoughts on the original text. Those 2006 additions were written with her presidential run in mind, and constitute the bulk of our excerpts.(The 2006 additions are cited as roman-numeral pages for the introduction, and page numbers above 299 for the end-notes).
The theme of Hillary's book (and its title) is that children are raised not just by their parents, but also by all of the other people in the society around them. Therefore, according to Hillary, all the components of that society -- the schools and the government, but the businesses too -- have an obligation to consider their impact on children that they affect. Apparently Hillary's belief in this philosophy has been strengthened in the past 10 years, because her new commentary reinforces her original policy prescriptions with a decade of additional evidence.
Yes, I know about the book, but she did not originate it in American consciousness.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#380 Jul 7, 2013
Zebulon wrote:
<quoted text>
People who promote elective abortion and sodomy as virtuous are very poor candidates for an institution that is based on the raising of children, not adult hedonism.
Religion has little to do with this fact.
"virtuous" and "sodomy" are essentially a religious concepts, so you kind of contradict yourself right off the bat. While it is true that hedonism is an unstable basis for decision-making, your particular slant on it is pejorative and moralistic, hence also essentially religious.

Didn't know you were SO religious, did ya?
Zebulon

Dayton, OH

#381 Jul 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"virtuous" and "sodomy" are essentially a religious concepts, so you kind of contradict yourself right off the bat. While it is true that hedonism is an unstable basis for decision-making, your particular slant on it is pejorative and moralistic, hence also essentially religious.
Didn't know you were SO religious, did ya?
Well then let me re-phrase that for you...

The people that openly admire and value sodomy and elective abortion and pornography are very poor candidates for an institution that cherishes and values child raising, not hedonism.

No religion mumbo-jumbo required.

The facts as I've stated are still correct.
Zebulon

Dayton, OH

#382 Jul 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"virtuous" and "sodomy" are essentially a religious concepts, so you kind of contradict yourself right off the bat. While it is true that hedonism is an unstable basis for decision-making, your particular slant on it is pejorative and moralistic, hence also essentially religious.
Didn't know you were SO religious, did ya?
Sodomy is not a religious concept.

The activity of sodomy existed long before it was ever described in a bible.

Sodomy is oral and anal and anal/oral copulation; no religion mumbo-jumbo is required to understand this as a fact.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#383 Jul 7, 2013
Zebulon wrote:
<quoted text>
People who promote elective abortion and sodomy as virtuous
Where is the law that states people have to be virtuous?
are very poor candidates for an institution that is based on the raising of children, not adult hedonism.
I prefer the term "the pursuit of happiness".
Religion has little to do with this fact.
You're right. Most religious people don't try to CONTROL others, only a small vocal minority of them do. They get louder the more their influence declines. Soon enough you will find yourself hoarse, much to the relief of everyone else.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#384 Jul 7, 2013
Zebulon wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then let me re-phrase that for you...
The people that openly admire and value sodomy and elective abortion and pornography are very poor candidates for an institution that cherishes and values child raising, not hedonism.
No religion mumbo-jumbo required.
The facts as I've stated are still correct.
You are confused and obviously immature. Just as one does not have to admire and value what a speaker says in order to support his right to say it, one does not have to admire and value what someone does in order to support their right to do it.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#385 Jul 7, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the law that states people have to be virtuous?
<quoted text>
I prefer the term "the pursuit of happiness".
<quoted text>
You're right. Most religious people don't try to CONTROL others, only a small vocal minority of them do. They get louder the more their influence declines. Soon enough you will find yourself hoarse, much to the relief of everyone else.
At 2:00 in, Fred Eaglesmith expounds upon a theory that might also be applicable.

&li st=PL75C00FC66A61352E

woof
Zebulon

Dayton, OH

#386 Jul 7, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused and obviously immature. Just as one does not have to admire and value what a speaker says in order to support his right to say it, one does not have to admire and value what someone does in order to support their right to do it.
Explain what you believe is "right" about elective abortion, sodomy, and pornography.

Don't claim that libertine knuckle-draggers hurt nobody with their libertine behaviors; that's BS.

Also, explain why you believe fedgov has the constitutional authorization to force local governments to embrace and support elective abortion, sodomy, and pornography.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#387 Jul 7, 2013
Zebulon wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain what you believe is "right" about elective abortion, sodomy, and pornography.
Don't claim that libertine knuckle-draggers hurt nobody with their libertine behaviors; that's BS.
Also, explain why you believe fedgov has the constitutional authorization to force local governments to embrace and support elective abortion, sodomy, and pornography.
Personally, my research has caused me to conclude that religion and the pursuit of wealth are the most destructive forces when one looks at their negative impacts upon society, not abortion, sodomy or pornography.

woof

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#388 Jul 7, 2013
Zebulon wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain what you believe is "right" about elective abortion, sodomy, and pornography.

There's a difference between "right" and "their right". The courts have determined the latter.

[QUOTE]Don't claim that libertine knuckle-draggers hurt nobody with their libertine behaviors; that's BS.
Prove it via due process.
Also, explain why you believe fedgov has the constitutional authorization to force local governments to embrace and support elective abortion, sodomy, and pornography.
They are not forced to embrace and support the behaviors, only to allow. Like the KKK speaking at the park.... it's vile and disgusting what they say, but they have the right to say it.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

Don't like sodomy? Don't participate in it.

Don't like pornography? Don't read it.

Don't like same-sex marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex.

Don't like purple? Don't paint your house purple.

See how easy that is... Live and let live.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#389 Jul 7, 2013
Antonin Scalia, LLB, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, wrote in his June 27, 2005 dissenting opinion in McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (163 KB):

"I shall discuss first, why the Court’s oft repeated assertion that the government cannot favor religious practice is false...

George Washington added to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art. II,§1, cl. 8, of the Constitution, the concluding words 'so help me God.'

The Supreme Court under John Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer,'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'

The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer.

The same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate.

The day after the First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress that had proposed it requested the President to proclaim 'a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God.'

...The same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article III of which provided:'Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'

And of course the First Amendment itself accords religion (and no other manner of belief) special constitutional protection.

These actions of our First President and Congress and the Marshall Court were not idiosyncratic; they reflected the beliefs of the period. Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality."

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#390 Jul 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
Antonin Scalia, LLB, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, wrote in his June 27, 2005 dissenting opinion in McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (163 KB):
"I shall discuss first, why the Court’s oft repeated assertion that the government cannot favor religious practice is false...
George Washington added to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art. II,§1, cl. 8, of the Constitution, the concluding words 'so help me God.'
The Supreme Court under John Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer,'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'
The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer.
The same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate.
The day after the First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress that had proposed it requested the President to proclaim 'a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God.'
...The same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article III of which provided:'Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'
And of course the First Amendment itself accords religion (and no other manner of belief) special constitutional protection.
These actions of our First President and Congress and the Marshall Court were not idiosyncratic; they reflected the beliefs of the period. Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality."
I notice they don't mention "which" God, "a" God, or even "the" God (and I believe for good reason). One does not have to follow a particular religion (or any at all for that matter) to believe in (a or the) God. The God I believe in is different from the descriptions of God in the documents of the religion you follow. Now that could either mean the Gods are actually different, or that one of the descriptions is less than accurate. I believe it's the latter.

In any case, none of the actions the courts are protecting require you or anybody else to abandon their beliefs.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#391 Jul 7, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice they don't mention "which" God, "a" God, or even "the" God (and I believe for good reason). One does not have to follow a particular religion (or any at all for that matter) to believe in (a or the) God. The God I believe in is different from the descriptions of God in the documents of the religion you follow. Now that could either mean the Gods are actually different, or that one of the descriptions is less than accurate. I believe it's the latter.
In any case, none of the actions the courts are protecting require you or anybody else to abandon their beliefs.
A god that denies eternal truth, and embraces moral relativism, is no god.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#392 Jul 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
A god that denies eternal truth, and embraces moral relativism, is no god.
A) Says Who?
B) Says Who?

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#393 Jul 7, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
A) Says Who?
B) Says Who?
woof
Scalia's examples confirm that morality is central to the concept of religion; and both were central to the maintenance of our government.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#394 Jul 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
A god that denies eternal truth, and embraces moral relativism, is no god.
This is *why* having freedom of religion has been such a great idea.

*Everyone* thinks *their* god is the one and only source of truth. Which makes making religion and the rules associated with each religion opt in work so well.

What's the difference between your religion and that of your neighbor?
Well, if I ask you, it's that your religion is the true one.
And if I ask him, it's that his religion is the true one.

Asking him (or us) to live under the rules proscribed to you by your faith doesn't make any more sense than requiring you to live under the rules of your neighbor's faith.

Adding subscripts may help. When you say "This is true because of god", adding in "This is true [for me] because of [my] god" may prove to help further illustrate the relative nature of truth and personal faith.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#395 Jul 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
A god that denies eternal truth, and embraces moral relativism, is no god.
You mean denies YOUR version of truth...

NOT!

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#396 Jul 7, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean denies YOUR version of truth...
NOT!
Your position posits no truth whatsoever; it adheres to no moral standard.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#397 Jul 7, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
This is *why* having freedom of religion has been such a great idea.
*Everyone* thinks *their* god is the one and only source of truth. Which makes making religion and the rules associated with each religion opt in work so well.
What's the difference between your religion and that of your neighbor?
Well, if I ask you, it's that your religion is the true one.
And if I ask him, it's that his religion is the true one.
Asking him (or us) to live under the rules proscribed to you by your faith doesn't make any more sense than requiring you to live under the rules of your neighbor's faith.
Adding subscripts may help. When you say "This is true because of god", adding in "This is true [for me] because of [my] god" may prove to help further illustrate the relative nature of truth and personal faith.
There is no need to reference "religion" at all.
We are speaking about absolute truth.
If it doesn't exist, law is unnecessary.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#398 Jul 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Your position posits no truth whatsoever; it adheres to no moral standard.
You can't know anything about whether other people's "positions" are accurate.

You're a control freak...the very most dangerous sort.

woof

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.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Connecticut: Democrat arrested Voter Fraud 7 min Duke for Mayor 9
Armed Contractor on Elevator with President 9 min Black Rhino 37
Dear Duke (Got a problem, I've got your solution) 9 min Duke for Mayor 78
The Political Nazi's are at it again! 23 min Male 81
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 25 min Free Pizza 4 U 3,549
Double standards for muslims, bending league rules 51 min Black Rhino 44
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 1 hr Duke for Mayor 31,491
Two fish were swimming upstream.... 5 hr Duke for Mayor 385

Columbus Jobs

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 ]