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 (Page 21)

Showing posts 401 - 420 of605
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

-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.
Except that it hasn't at all.

Marriage has meant a wide number of arrangements throughout the eras, only quite relatively recently coming to mean a man and woman choosing to partner with each other.

Historically, gay and lesbian marriages have existed in a wide number of cultural contexts. As have concubines, multiple marriages, warbrides, really a dizzying array of interesting options!

The idea that marriages have mirrored a modern structure throughout the ages is one born of poor historical knowledge and a failure to do basic research.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422
Jul 8, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that it hasn't at all.
Marriage has meant a wide number of arrangements throughout the eras, only quite relatively recently coming to mean a man and woman choosing to partner with each other.
Historically, gay and lesbian marriages have existed in a wide number of cultural contexts. As have concubines, multiple marriages, warbrides, really a dizzying array of interesting options!
The idea that marriages have mirrored a modern structure throughout the ages is one born of poor historical knowledge and a failure to do basic research.
...says the Wikipedia jockey.

If that were so, then the LGBTQIABCDEFs would not need to qualify the term and coerce its redefinition, now, would they?
Broseph

New Castle, DE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#423
Jul 8, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're one of them.
When have I stated all people should live a certain way? When? Unlike you, I haven't. Also, why the hell is your standard better than anyone else's? What makes you so special?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#424
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
When have I stated all people should live a certain way? When? Unlike you, I haven't. Also, why the hell is your standard better than anyone else's? What makes you so special?
You are free to live your homosexual lifestyle as you please.
We Americans have been, and remain, ever so tolerant in that regard.
You may not, however, force everyone to have the same opinion about your lifestyle.

That's not tolerance.
That's tyranny.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#428
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to live your homosexual lifestyle as you please.
We Americans have been, and remain, ever so tolerant in that regard.
You may not, however, force everyone to have the same opinion about your lifestyle.
That's not tolerance.
That's tyranny.
I'm not gay. Way to jump the gun, instead of actually taking the time to get the facts. And I like how you also created that binary of yours. Gays, and people that support them, are Americans too. Why are they not Americans in your eyes? Because they're not like you, or think like you do? Also, nobody is trying to take away your right to have an opinion. That's BS. Name me one instance where someone wasn't allowed to have their opinion on gays. Go ahead.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#429
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
...says the Wikipedia jockey.
If that were so, then the LGBTQIABCDEFs would not need to qualify the term and coerce its redefinition, now, would they?
You don't even have to look it up, it's common sense.

Just looking at modern times, variations on the defenition of marraige being "one man and woman for life" are glaringly apparent.

Divorce, multiple wives, multiple husbands, handfasting, walking marriages, gay marriages, termed contract marriages, ghost marriages, group marriage, open marriage, ceremonial marriages to plants, animals or other objects,...there is a dizzying array.

If we look back, across the span of human history, as you've suggested, we get an even more incredible array. Even using the bible as a historical source, we see an incredible range of what marriage means, who it involves and what the power dynamics within it are.

I'm not really entirely sure how you can claim that marriage has always been one man and one woman, being a reader of the book yourself...
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#430
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't even have to look it up, it's common sense.
Just looking at modern times, variations on the defenition of marraige being "one man and woman for life" are glaringly apparent.
Divorce, multiple wives, multiple husbands, handfasting, walking marriages, gay marriages, termed contract marriages, ghost marriages, group marriage, open marriage, ceremonial marriages to plants, animals or other objects,...there is a dizzying array.
If we look back, across the span of human history, as you've suggested, we get an even more incredible array. Even using the bible as a historical source, we see an incredible range of what marriage means, who it involves and what the power dynamics within it are.
I'm not really entirely sure how you can claim that marriage has always been one man and one woman, being a reader of the book yourself...
Wasn't Eb on Green Acres gonna marry his horse in one episode?

woof

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#431
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said the sole purpose of a relationship is to procreate.
Relationships within Nature, however, are by default complementarian and designed to do so.
Otherwise, the species would cease to exist; thus, it is irrational for the members of a species to pursue a relationship that leads to such a biological dead-end.
Your entire thought process is irrational. The human race is nowhere near in danger of becoming an extinct due to relationships that you claim have a biological dead-end.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#432
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You must assume, then, that cannibalism, rape, incest and filicide are natural -- and that our civil authorities spend "way too much time worrying about what other people do" in regard to these matters.
If you believe in god, then surely you must believe that god created all of us with the abilities to engage in activities you claim are unnatural. Regardless if you believe that or not, your religious beliefs have no say in how society conducts itself.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#433
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
The parties in Loving were one man and one woman.
Same-sex partners do not, and cannot ever, meet the definition of marriage.
Says who? Says you? Says some other bible thumpers? You do not own the institution of marriage. You may own weddings because those are often a religion ceremony, but a marriage is a legal contract between two people. You don't get to say who can marry or where or when. People don't need a god to condone or acknowledge their relationship, therefore it's a question of legality. And legally, the definition of marriage, just like the definition of many things throughout history, is changing because people's attitudes are changing and they are realizing bigotry is not the answer.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#434
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Reality controls the actions of all:
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
Same-sex partnerships are not, and will never be, the equivalent of marriage.
Further, homosexuals have no right to redefine the term in an attempt to alter reality so as to make themselves feel better about their aberrant behaviors.
You have no right to claim it as your own. Your idea of marriage is your own, it has nothing to do with anyone else's.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#435
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

-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.
Marriage has changed a lot over the years. Laws have been created to further define or redefine marriage. It will continue to be redefined. Fact of the matter is that a person choosing to marry another person has absolutely no effect on your life. You're trying to control the personal lives of others while claiming to be a conservative - a group of people who constantly claim that their personal lives are interfered with by the government.

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#436
Jul 8, 2013
 
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Why do you bother with him?

He doesn't listen.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#437
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you bother with him?
He doesn't listen.


I really shouldn't bother. He's a coward.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#438
Jul 8, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You neglect to address the core issue: homosexuals have no right to redefine marriage as it has been understood for millennia.
You are wrong. They have the right to call their relationships anything they want to call them. There is no copyright on the word "marriage".
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.
THEY don't call it that, straights do, to try to keep it differentiated.
Through political pressure, a mere ~2% of the population has enjoined our government to coerce the remaining ~98% into acceptance of an altered reality.
That's the wonderful thing about due process, the little guy CAN win.
Furthermore, Tony, I doubt that you believe Obamacare has "the valid weight of ALL of the people behind" it.

It certainly does! every representative and senator who legislated it and the president who signed it were elected by the people. The weight of the people is not identical to the vote of the people.

[QUOTE] Coercion is not representative of the ideals set forth by our framers.
Then you disagree with Loving v. Virginia?
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?
I’m guessing they probably wouldn’t, 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 isn’t equality. This is the government enforcing a particular point of view about a lifestyle on the public at large.
What’s 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 doesn’t have that same freedom to disassociate himself from people he doesn’t like."
****
The LGBTQIABCDEF movemement is as unAmerican as it gets.
I disagree. America is about ANY citizen having the opportunity to redress grievances with their government. Something you obviously do not support as much as you think you do.

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#439
Jul 8, 2013
 
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
I really shouldn't bother. He's a coward.
That too.

btw, I'm spamming this atm:

Boy-on-boy action in tonight's episode of MTV's "Teen Wolf". 3 weeks ago it was girl-on-girl. Steady jokes all along.

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

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

Enjoy. lol

(Back episodes from seasons 1 & 2 available on Netflix and at MTV.com . If you do MTV with Internet Explorer, the show get'$ adverti$ing point$$$. The producer/writer is one of ours, and contributes to our causes.)

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#440
Jul 8, 2013
 
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not gay. Way to jump the gun, instead of actually taking the time to get the facts. And I like how you also created that binary of yours. Gays, and people that support them, are Americans too. Why are they not Americans in your eyes? Because they're not like you, or think like you do? Also, nobody is trying to take away your right to have an opinion. That's BS. Name me one instance where someone wasn't allowed to have their opinion on gays. Go ahead.
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.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#441
Jul 8, 2013
 
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. They have the right to call their relationships anything they want to call them. There is no copyright on the word "marriage".
<quoted text>
THEY don't call it that, straights do, to try to keep it differentiated.
<quoted text>
That's the wonderful thing about due process, the little guy CAN win.
<quoted text>
Then you disagree with Loving v. Virginia?
<quoted text>
I disagree. America is about ANY citizen having the opportunity to redress grievances with their government. Something you obviously do not support as much as you think you do.
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...
Broseph

New Castle, DE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#442
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

-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.
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.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#443
Jul 8, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
We've discussed the Loving v. Virginia flawed analogy ad nauseam.
I'm discussing it in the context of a law enacted by those elected by the majority of the people being overturned because it violated the rights of a minority of people. I could have also used Lawrence v. Texas.

The point is, you cannot run roughshod over the rights of any person simply because you have the votes to do it (though you DO have a limited amount of say in your local community (defining obscenity, allowing alcohol sales (but not use), etc.). You have to show a compelling government interest. 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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 401 - 420 of605
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••