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

There are 605 comments on the The Lantern story from Jun 23, 2013, titled Commentary: Stonewall Columbus Pride Parade reminiscent of a Fourth of July parade. In it, The Lantern reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Lantern.

Broseph

New Castle, DE

#444 Jul 8, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Got your boxers in a wad, Broseph?
I never once implied that homosexual Americans are not Americans.
I applauded the tolerance of non-homosexual Americans.
Not one of you has addressed the tyranny and coercion evidenced by the recent news articles referenced in post #414.
http://www.topix.com/forum/columbus/T42LVCF4F...
No need to wonder why.
And, by the way, a coward wouldn't speak truth to LGBTQIABCDEF power.
Proof that this man broke the law.

http://cdn.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DORA-DCR...

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#445 Jul 8, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the best you could come up with? The government agencies gave money to the pride parade so they can have booths within the parade, in order to spread awareness about the harm of tobacco. Gay people have high rates of tobacco usage, so their spending of money made absolute sense. No one was coerced into anything. This was not a call made by politics, but one of health. The Fargo-Moorhead Pride Collective isn't even a political organization. Also, the baker broke the damn law. Your religious beliefs are your religious beliefs, but once you enter the public square, there are laws you must follow. The baker has a history of discriminating against gay people. The exact same thing would have happened to him if he discriminated against people simply because they were black, Jewish, or Catholic. His actions were a blatant breaking of the Sexual Orientation Employment Discrimination Act. Thank you again for lying, and proving once again that you're too much of a coward to come at me with facts.
The agencies are listed as "sponsors" -- not "exhibitors."

From the Fargo Pride Planning Committee sponsorship letter:

"We would like to bring your attention to the opportunity to participate in this celebration by helping to underwrite a portion of the costs as a sponsor."

http://www.pridecollective.com/fmpride/forms/...

And, again, I ask: Would government agencies sponsor a pro-life rally, gun show, or Tea Party event? And would you remain silent about it?

With respect to the Colorado baker:

...Conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious freedom will often involve some type of previously adopted nondiscrimination law or policy, and nondiscrimination laws can impose burdens on religious freedom even in jurisdictions that do not legally recognize homosexual unions as marriages [such as Colorado]....

“At its heart, this is a case about conscience,” said Nicolle Martin, his attorney.“It would force him to choose between his conscience and a paycheck. I just think that’s an intolerable choice.”

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/22/colorado-...

The civil rights movement in America was a call to recognize moral reality in light of immutable truth: skin color does not determine character/morality.

The LGBTQIABCDEF specal rights movement in America is a call to reinvent reality -- via the coercive state -- so as to fit an agenda of personal willfulness which rejects morality altogether.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#446 Jul 8, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
...The point is, you cannot run roughshod over the rights of any person...
Oh, the irony.
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your definition of marriage is not a compelling government interest. It's none of the government's business who gets married to treating all marriages the same) when they occur.
As has been demonstrated, it is not "my" definition of marriage.
It is the millennias'-old definition of marriage.

Further, as has been demonstrated, our government was founded on the cornerstone of natural and moral law [“nature and nature’s God,”“We hold these truths to be self-evident....”). If there is no moral law, then there is no morality at all -- there are no obligations of any kind for any person.

Moral relativism = Chaos

Something you refuse to admit.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#447 Jul 8, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
The agencies are listed as "sponsors" -- not "exhibitors."
From the Fargo Pride Planning Committee sponsorship letter:
"We would like to bring your attention to the opportunity to participate in this celebration by helping to underwrite a portion of the costs as a sponsor."
http://www.pridecollective.com/fmpride/forms/...
And, again, I ask: Would government agencies sponsor a pro-life rally, gun show, or Tea Party event? And would you remain silent about it?
With respect to the Colorado baker:
...Conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious freedom will often involve some type of previously adopted nondiscrimination law or policy, and nondiscrimination laws can impose burdens on religious freedom even in jurisdictions that do not legally recognize homosexual unions as marriages [such as Colorado]....
“At its heart, this is a case about conscience,” said Nicolle Martin, his attorney.“It would force him to choose between his conscience and a paycheck. I just think that’s an intolerable choice.”
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/22/colorado-...
The civil rights movement in America was a call to recognize moral reality in light of immutable truth: skin color does not determine character/morality.
The LGBTQIABCDEF specal rights movement in America is a call to reinvent reality -- via the coercive state -- so as to fit an agenda of personal willfulness which rejects morality altogether.
The government health organizations sponsored the Fargo-Moorhead Pride Collective so they can have a booth in order to promote awareness about tobacco. The LGBT Community is a community that has high usages of tobacco. The gays aren't coercing the government to do anything. The government health organization is paying money to them so they can do their job. The move made total sense. Also, if those groups had high usages of tobacco, then yeah. I can see the organizations paying to have booths in their events as well. You're painting a picture of coercion that doesn't exist. Also, what the Colorado baker did was a blatant breaking of the law. A law that also protects blacks, Jews, and women. No one forced this man to enter the public square, and start a business, so his complaint about religious discrimination is stupid. Everyone, with sense, understand that though we have rights, doesn't mean we can do anything we want. You are beholden to the laws of your area. Through your logic, Muslims should be allowed to kick out and beat women who aren't accompanied by men that enter into their stores, based upon their religious beliefs. Also, how are they rejecting morality? Simply because it's not your morality? What makes you such a moral authority?
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#448 Jul 8, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
The agencies are listed as "sponsors" -- not "exhibitors."
From the Fargo Pride Planning Committee sponsorship letter:
"We would like to bring your attention to the opportunity to participate in this celebration by helping to underwrite a portion of the costs as a sponsor."
http://www.pridecollective.com/fmpride/forms/...
And, again, I ask: Would government agencies sponsor a pro-life rally, gun show, or Tea Party event? And would you remain silent about it?
With respect to the Colorado baker:
...Conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious freedom will often involve some type of previously adopted nondiscrimination law or policy, and nondiscrimination laws can impose burdens on religious freedom even in jurisdictions that do not legally recognize homosexual unions as marriages [such as Colorado]....
“At its heart, this is a case about conscience,” said Nicolle Martin, his attorney.“It would force him to choose between his conscience and a paycheck. I just think that’s an intolerable choice.”
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/22/colorado-...
The civil rights movement in America was a call to recognize moral reality in light of immutable truth: skin color does not determine character/morality.
The LGBTQIABCDEF specal rights movement in America is a call to reinvent reality -- via the coercive state -- so as to fit an agenda of personal willfulness which rejects morality altogether.
I'd also like to add that the Fargo-Moorhead Pride Collective is a non-profit, non-political organization.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#449 Jul 8, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
The government health organizations sponsored the Fargo-Moorhead Pride Collective so they can have a booth in order to promote awareness about tobacco. The LGBT Community is a community that has high usages of tobacco. The gays aren't coercing the government to do anything. The government health organization is paying money to them so they can do their job. The move made total sense. Also, if those groups had high usages of tobacco, then yeah. I can see the organizations paying to have booths in their events as well. You're painting a picture of coercion that doesn't exist. Also, what the Colorado baker did was a blatant breaking of the law. A law that also protects blacks, Jews, and women. No one forced this man to enter the public square, and start a business, so his complaint about religious discrimination is stupid. Everyone, with sense, understand that though we have rights, doesn't mean we can do anything we want. You are beholden to the laws of your area. Through your logic, Muslims should be allowed to kick out and beat women who aren't accompanied by men that enter into their stores, based upon their religious beliefs. Also, how are they rejecting morality? Simply because it's not your morality? What makes you such a moral authority?
Broseph, you clearly do not reside in reality.

Our government is actively promoting homosexual behavior throughout this nation: sponsoring private gay pride events, hosting gay pride events within government agencies, adopting gay curriculum in public schools [K-12], allowing self-identified transgender students to use opposite sex bathrooms and locker rooms in public schools, adopting gay discrimination laws, laying the framework for nationalized same-sex marriage, et al, ad nauseam -- all based on the behaviors of less than 2% of our population.

Behaviors. Not immutable characteristics [such as gender/race].

No person can authenticate that they are homosexual; as such, anyone may make the claim and then demand special rights/reparations as a result. Pure chaos.

Further, these same-sex behaviors are deemed unnatural and immoral by a majority of society, including those who are constitutionally-guaranteed the right to free exercise of their religion -- freedom of conscience, as the Colorado baker states.

To repeat:

You are free to live your homosexual lifestyle as you see fit in this great nation.

However, you are not free to force every other American -- via the state -- to hold the same opinion about that lifestyle.

That is not tolerance.
It is tyranny.

And it is unAmerican in every way imaginable.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#450 Jul 8, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Broseph, you clearly do not reside in reality.
Our government is actively promoting homosexual behavior throughout this nation: sponsoring private gay pride events, hosting gay pride events within government agencies, adopting gay curriculum in public schools [K-12], allowing self-identified transgender students to use opposite sex bathrooms and locker rooms in public schools, adopting gay discrimination laws, laying the framework for nationalized same-sex marriage, et al, ad nauseam -- all based on the behaviors of less than 2% of our population.
Behaviors. Not immutable characteristics [such as gender/race].
No person can authenticate that they are homosexual; as such, anyone may make the claim and then demand special rights/reparations as a result. Pure chaos.
Further, these same-sex behaviors are deemed unnatural and immoral by a majority of society, including those who are constitutionally-guaranteed the right to free exercise of their religion -- freedom of conscience, as the Colorado baker states.
To repeat:
You are free to live your homosexual lifestyle as you see fit in this great nation.
However, you are not free to force every other American -- via the state -- to hold the same opinion about that lifestyle.
That is not tolerance.
It is tyranny.
And it is unAmerican in every way imaginable.
^Lies. The delusional ramblings of a fool who can't protect his views with facts, so he just ignores everything I have said, and resorts to calling gays "immoral", "unnatural", and "Un-American." The gays aren't out to get you, tip. You can rest easy. Also, I'm not gay. Believe it or not, the majority of people actually support gay people. Especially people who are under 30. You're a dinosaur, old man. You just don't know it.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#451 Jul 8, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
^Lies. The delusional ramblings of a fool who can't protect his views with facts, so he just ignores everything I have said, and resorts to calling gays "immoral", "unnatural", and "Un-American." The gays aren't out to get you, tip. You can rest easy. Also, I'm not gay. Believe it or not, the majority of people actually support gay people. Especially people who are under 30. You're a dinosaur, old man. You just don't know it.
Nothing that I stated is a lie.
Eternal truth is just that -- eternal.
You just don't recognize it.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#452 Jul 8, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing that I stated is a lie.
Eternal truth is just that -- eternal.
You just don't recognize it.
You've stated almost nothing but lies, but hey, that's not really something unexpected with you. I just find it entertaining that someone would make such grandiose distortions around something that doesn't even effect them(I'm going to avoid the obvious, and not assume you're a gay male but think you're a straight male with no gay friends or family). Also, eternal truth? Oh, you just mean YOUR twist on the actual truth. I get it. Ha.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#453 Jul 8, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing that I stated is a lie.
Eternal truth is just that -- eternal.
You just don't recognize it.
Is this the part where you try to covert me with the powah of jeebus?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#454 Jul 8, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, the irony.
<quoted text>
As has been demonstrated, it is not "my" definition of marriage.
It is the millennias'-old definition of marriage.
Further, as has been demonstrated, our government was founded on the cornerstone of natural and moral law [“nature and nature’s God,”“We hold these truths to be self-evident....”). If there is no moral law, then there is no morality at all -- there are no obligations of any kind for any person.
Moral relativism = Chaos
Something you refuse to admit.
Seems to me it's the religious nuts who are causing the chaos. If it weren't for you trying to take gays'(this time) rights away, there would be no need for gay (this time) activism.

The writing is on the wall. Polls say over 60% support it. The politicos will eventually catch up.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#455 Jul 8, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
You've stated almost nothing but lies, but hey, that's not really something unexpected with you. I just find it entertaining that someone would make such grandiose distortions around something that doesn't even effect them(I'm going to avoid the obvious, and not assume you're a gay male but think you're a straight male with no gay friends or family). Also, eternal truth? Oh, you just mean YOUR twist on the actual truth. I get it. Ha.
No lies.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-w...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/air-force-sec...

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stor...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/05/22/gay-c...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/california-p...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/tran...

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Transgen...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

This is where the USA is headed:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9804...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668...

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#456 Jul 8, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Broseph, you clearly do not reside in reality.
Our government is actively promoting homosexual behavior throughout this nation:
No they're not, they're promoting homosexuals' RIGHTS.
sponsoring private gay pride events, hosting gay pride events within government agencies, adopting gay curriculum in public schools [K-12], allowing self-identified transgender students to use opposite sex bathrooms and locker rooms in public schools, adopting gay discrimination laws, laying the framework for nationalized same-sex marriage, et al, ad nauseam -- all based on the behaviors of less than 2% of our population.
Behaviors. Not immutable characteristics [such as gender/race].
No person can authenticate that they are homosexual
No person can authenticate that they are heterosexual then.

Now you've done it. Created chaos.
; as such, anyone may make the claim and then demand special rights/reparations as a result. Pure chaos.
Further, these same-sex behaviors are deemed unnatural and immoral by a majority of society, including those who are constitutionally-guaranteed the right to free exercise of their religion -- freedom of conscience, as the Colorado baker states.
To repeat:
You are free to live your homosexual lifestyle as you see fit in this great nation.
No they are not... not yet.

However, you are not free to force every other American -- via the state -- to hold the same opinion about that lifestyle.
That is not tolerance.
It is tyranny.

Nobody is forcing you to hold any opinion at all. You don't have to like anybody or approve of anything anybody does. All you have to do is not violate their rights. Follow the law. If the law says (not saying it does, just an example) that you can't refuse to rent a home to someone because of their sexual orientation, then don't do it.
And it is unAmerican in every way imaginable.
They're more American than you are. They are fighting for their rights, just as the founders of this country were. You, on the other hand, are trying to prevent them from getting them. Kinda like King George.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#457 Jul 8, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing that I stated is a lie.
Eternal truth is just that -- eternal.
You just don't recognize it.
And you just don't get that you cannot force your version of "eternal truth" onto others who don't share it. Laws don't force an eternal truth onto anyone. They simply prevent us from trodding on each other's rights. If a law does not have that purpose, it can and ought to be struck down.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#458 Jul 8, 2013

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#459 Jul 8, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
And you just don't get that you cannot force your version of "eternal truth" onto others who don't share it. Laws don't force an eternal truth onto anyone. They simply prevent us from trodding on each other's rights. If a law does not have that purpose, it can and ought to be struck down.
It isn't a matter of rights; it is a matter of reality.

The case cannot be made that a same-sex relationship and a marriage are indistinguishable.

Therefore, the demand for "marriage equality" is invalid; it amounts to nothing more than same-sex partners demanding that they be allowed to label their relationship what they want regardless of the differences that exist in reality.

It is absurd on its face.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#460 Jul 8, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no. LGBT people are no longer looked at vile creatures of the night, and are continuing to be recognized as actual human beings with real feelings, dreams, and rights. The horror.
:/
"I'm sorry for calling you a liar" would have sufficed.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#461 Jul 8, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
"I'm sorry for calling you a liar" would have sufficed.
Nope. You're still liar. It's just entertaining to see you act like this. Your morals are pretty obtuse, as well.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#462 Jul 8, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't a matter of rights; it is a matter of reality.
The case cannot be made that a same-sex relationship and a marriage are indistinguishable.
No one is saying they are.
Therefore, the demand for "marriage equality" is invalid;
No two marriages are equal any more than two incomes are equal. They just want to be treated the same by the government. Just as our vote is treated the same.
it amounts to nothing more than same-sex partners demanding that they be allowed to label their relationship what they want regardless of the differences that exist in reality.
It is absurd on its face.
13 states and DC disagree with you. Soon the rest will too. What someone else calls their relationship doesn't affect your marriage in the least (well at least it shouldn't). Therefore there is no valid reason (compelling government purpose) to complain. Like the Supreme Court said: "You have no standing".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#463 Jul 9, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
We've discussed the Loving v. Virginia flawed analogy ad nauseam.
But, let's have at it again, because the LGBTQIABCDEF argument for this case proves my entire point:
"...Anti-miscegenation laws, therefore, were attempts to eradicate the legal status of real marriages by injecting a condition—sameness of race—that had no precedent in common law. For in the common law, a necessary condition for a legitimate marriage was male-female complementarity, a condition on which race has no bearing.
It is clear then that the miscegenation/same-sex analogy does not work. For if the purpose of anti-miscegenation laws was racial purity, such a purpose only makes sense if people of different races have the ability by nature to marry each other. And given the fact that such marriages were a common law liberty, the anti-miscegenation laws presuppose this truth. But opponents of same-sex marriage ground their viewpoint in precisely the opposite belief: people of the same gender do not have the ability by nature to marry each other since gender complementarity is a necessary condition for marriage. Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws believed in their cause precisely because they understood that when male and female are joined in matrimony they may beget racially-mixed progeny, and these children, along with their parents, will participate in civil society and influence its cultural trajectory.
In other words, the fact that a man and a woman from different races were biologically and metaphysically capable of marrying each other, building families, and living among the general population is precisely why the race purists wanted to forbid such unions by the force of law. And because this view of marriage and its gender-complementary nature was firmly in place and the only understanding found in common law, the Supreme Court in Loving knew that racial identity was not relevant to what marriage requires of its two opposite-gender members. By injecting race into the equation, anti-miscegenation supporters were very much like contemporary same-sex marriage proponents, for in both cases they introduced a criterion other than male-female complementarity in order to promote the goals of a utopian social movement: race purity or sexual egalitarianism.
This is why, in both cases, the advocates require state coercion to enforce their goals. Without the state’s cooperation and enforcement, there would have been no anti-miscegenation laws and there would be no same-sex marriage...."
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/race...
It might be helpful if you got out of your head and realized that we are talking about real people with real lives.

Let's see what blacks have to say about all that, hm?



http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

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
News Police officer's estimate good enough for speed... (Jun '10) 7 min d pantz 331
Worst President in History 17 min Duke for Mayor 153
Brelo not guilty 19 min Duke for Mayor 27
women and relationships 1 hr Seriouslady 47
News Aminah Robinson: Observant artist was powerful ... 4 hr Big Johnson 1
News Jeni's Scoop Shops Reopen After Listeria Scare 5 hr Big Johnson 1
Black Crime is out of control. 6 hr BoneYard 65
More from around the web

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]