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

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#399 Jul 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Your position posits no truth whatsoever; it adheres to no moral standard.
Of course it does. Do not unjustifiably harm others.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#400 Jul 7, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it does. Do not unjustifiably harm others.
Upon what standard is "unjustifiably" based?
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#401 Jul 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Upon what standard is "unjustifiably" based?
You show up at my door, thumping your Bible. I tell you to leave. You refuse. I tell you to leave again. You refuse again, and get in my face and tell me that I'm going to hell.

I tell you again to leave. You carry on, in my face telling me I'm going to hell.

I thump you in the nose with your own Bible, breaking it (your nose...the Bible is just fine).

Justifiable.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#402 Jul 7, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
You show up at my door, thumping your Bible. I tell you to leave. You refuse. I tell you to leave again. You refuse again, and get in my face and tell me that I'm going to hell.
I tell you again to leave. You carry on, in my face telling me I'm going to hell.
I thump you in the nose with your own Bible, breaking it (your nose...the Bible is just fine).
Justifiable.
woof
Sister Mary Frances beat your arse but good with that Bible, didn't she, grumpy dog?

I will remind you again that you do not follow discussions well and often interject inappropriately.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#403 Jul 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Sister Mary Frances beat your arse but good with that Bible, didn't she, grumpy dog?
I will remind you again that you do not follow discussions well and often interject inappropriately.
Despite the fact that they displease you, my interjections are quite directly on point Tippy.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#404 Jul 7, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Despite the fact that they displease you, my interjections are quite directly on point Tippy.
woof
No, they are not.
No one has referenced door-to-door evangelism.

Tony and I are discussing the standard upon which law is based.

Run along now.
A hydrant is calling your name.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#405 Jul 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they are not.
No one has referenced door-to-door evangelism.
Tony and I are discussing the standard upon which law is based.
Run along now.
A hydrant is calling your name.
You asked what standard would apply to determine the limits of "(un)justifiable harm".

I provided you a hypothetical example.

Not my fault you don't like it.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#406 Jul 7, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked what standard would apply to determine the limits of "(un)justifiable harm".
I provided you a hypothetical example.
Not my fault you don't like it.
woof
You are incapable of engaging in adult discussion.
Not my fault you can't deal with it.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#407 Jul 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Upon what standard is "unjustifiably" based?
On the understanding that others have rights too, and it is harmful to violate those that are superior to your own, except in cases like self-defense, defense of a superior right, or emergency (for example, If I see a toddler drowning in a pool with no one else around, I can trespass (violate a superior right) in order to save him).
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#408 Jul 7, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
On the understanding that others have rights too, and it is harmful to violate those that are superior to your own, except in cases like self-defense, defense of a superior right, or emergency (for example, If I see a toddler drowning in a pool with no one else around, I can trespass (violate a superior right) in order to save him).
Or, If tippy shows up on my property violating my right of peaceful enjoyment, and he refuses to leave, and then assaults me, I get to thump him in the nose with his own Bible.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#409 Jul 7, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
On the understanding that others have rights too, and it is harmful to violate those that are superior to your own, except in cases like self-defense, defense of a superior right, or emergency (for example, If I see a toddler drowning in a pool with no one else around, I can trespass (violate a superior right) in order to save him).
Homosexuals have no superior right to redefine marriage.
The fact that they must qualify the term as "same-sex marriage" reveals the naked truth.

It is not, and will never be, marriage -- a social institution that precedes the state, and has in fact been recognized by both religious and secular thinkers for ages.

It is the state's duty to recognize reality -- not to reinvent it on a political whim.

How coercive.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#410 Jul 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuals have no superior right to redefine marriage.

Anyone can define marriage any way they please absent laws to the contrary. Such laws have been created, and courts are now beginning to dismantle them because they are determining that the right to define it IS superior to the law banning it.

[QUOTE]The fact that they must qualify the term as "same-sex marriage" reveals the naked truth.
It is not, and will never be, marriage -- a social institution that precedes the state, and has in fact been recognized by both religious and secular thinkers for ages.
It is the state's duty to recognize reality -- not to reinvent it on a political whim.
How coercive.
Coercion is always needed to assert one's rights when they are not being respected. It used to be simply that might made right, and who was stronger could coerce the weaker into submission whether justly or not. But we've grown to realize (well, some of us at least) that the mighty (and the majority) are not always right, and the coercion now comes from elected officials (or appointees of elected officials) ostensibly chosen for their wisdom, thus have the valid weight of ALL of the people behind them.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#411 Jul 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuals have no superior right to redefine marriage.
The fact that they must qualify the term as "same-sex marriage" reveals the naked truth.
It is not, and will never be, marriage -- a social institution that precedes the state, and has in fact been recognized by both religious and secular thinkers for ages.
It is the state's duty to recognize reality -- not to reinvent it on a political whim.
How coercive.
But you have the superior right to dictate what marriage for everyone, whether they agree with you, or not?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#412 Jul 8, 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.
"Sodomy", as you've used it, is a historical religious misnomer.

"Elective abortion" and "pornography" have nothing to do with:

"Stonewall Columbus Pride Parade reminiscent of a Fourth of July parade"

The thread topic. Perhaps you read it?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#414 Jul 8, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Coercion is always needed to assert one's rights when they are not being respected. It used to be simply that might made right, and who was stronger could coerce the weaker into submission whether justly or not. But we've grown to realize (well, some of us at least) that the mighty (and the majority) are not always right, and the coercion now comes from elected officials (or appointees of elected officials) ostensibly chosen for their wisdom, thus have the valid weight of ALL of the people behind them.
You neglect to address the core issue: homosexuals have no right to redefine marriage as it has been understood for millennia. And again, the very fact that they must use a qualifier [i.e., "same-sex"] in front of the word indicates that what they seek is not marriage.

Through political pressure, a mere ~2% of the population has enjoined our government to coerce the remaining ~98% into acceptance of an altered reality. Furthermore, Tony, I doubt that you believe Obamacare has "the valid weight of ALL of the people behind" it. Coercion is not representative of the ideals set forth by our framers.

****

And coercion reaches its highest form when taxpayer dollars are dedicated to the promotion of homosexuality:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/fargo-gay-pr...

Fargo Gay Pride March Gets Thousands In Sponsorships From State, Local Government"

"Let me ask you this question: Would the City of Fargo and NDQuits sponsor a gun show? A pro-life rally? A tea party event?

Iím guessing they probably wouldnít, and nor should they. Sponsoring such events is not the proper role of government."

And further coercion:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/a-year-in-ja...

A Year In Jail For Refusing To Bake A Cake

"Gay marriage has been banned in Colorado since 2006. Yet, despite that, a baker in Denver is facing a year in jail for refusing to bake a cake for a gay marriage ceremony:...

This isnít equality. This is the government enforcing a particular point of view about a lifestyle on the public at large.

Whatís ironic is that the same people who invoke their freedom of associate with who they want, in this instance their freedom to enter into a social contract with someone else of the same sex, seem to be arguing that this baker doesnít have that same freedom to disassociate himself from people he doesnít like."

****

The LGBTQIABCDEF movemement is as unAmerican as it gets.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#415 Jul 8, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you were just saying that words don't mean anything. So you religious zealots can keep the word "married" and the rest of us can use the word "Fred." People who are married and people who are Fredded have the exact same rights and responsibilities under the law. How's that? That ok?
No, moron, I never said that words don't mean anything.

What I have said is that racist words are not more hateful than the vile anti-Christian insults meted out daily by you and your Akron dawgs.

The matter has absolutely nothing to do with the coercive redefinition of an eras'-old word.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#416 Jul 8, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
But you have the superior right to dictate what marriage for everyone, whether they agree with you, or not?
Natural law and history have, for millennia, demonstrated that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.

It is YOU who does not agree with this self-evident standard.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#418 Jul 8, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a word. Big deal.
<quoted text>
Indeed, Miss Slow-on-the-Uptake, "marriage" is a word.

A word whose definition [i.e., a relationship between one man and one woman] has been acknowledged by secular and religious thinkers for millennia.
It means what it means, regardless of LGBTQIABCDEF attempts to alter it.

And your hateful anti-Christian insults mean what they mean.
They are no more or less hateful than racist insults.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#419 Jul 8, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural law and history have, for millennia, demonstrated that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.
It is YOU who does not agree with this self-evident standard.
Why should people live to YOUR standard? What makes you so great that you can dictate what standard is best for EVERYONE. Just because you think you know a thing or two about biology? History is also full of men who have sought to impose their will on everyone else.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#420 Jul 8, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
History is also full of men who have sought to impose their will on everyone else.
And you're one of them.

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
Censoring Male. 29 min Trash Collector 21
Public Flogging 1 hr They cannot kill ... 20
Topix gets rid of Canton and Twinsburg posters!!! 2 hr White cop 32
Live or fake Christmas tree? (Nov '13) 2 hr They cannot kill ... 10
"Humanized" deer sculptures arrive in Columbus 3 hr Melodie Thompson 3
CIA Torture Report Comes Out Tomorrow 4 hr Reality Speaks 337
Merry Christmas! What's your favorite memory? 4 hr Reality Speaks 285
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 6 hr Neutral Party 4,802
Columbus Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:03 pm PST

ESPN 1:03PM
Browns' Mingo fined $16,537 for hit on Dalton
NFL 1:47 PM
'Sound FX' spies Manziel's meeting with Marvin Lewis
NFL 1:47 PM
'Sound FX' spies Manziel's meeting with Marvin Lewis
Yahoo! Sports 2:09 PM
RT Eric Winston quickly settling in with Bengals
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Broncos vs. Bengals: TV Info, Spread, Injury Updates, Game Time and More