Commentary: Stonewall Columbus Pride ...

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.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#485 Jul 9, 2013
They cannot kill a spook wrote:
<quoted text>
Given it volunteered yo be a subject not a citizen stupidity is the only explanation.
I try to rarely interrupt your process. But you must know, with your wealth of worldy knowledge, that US citizens retain their status when living overseas.

Even when seeking other citizenships, unless with a nation that requires sole citizen status.

It's all rather straightforward, though it might seem a bit strange for someone without a passport!
They cannot kill a spook

Toledo, OH

#486 Jul 9, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
I try to rarely interrupt your process. But you must know, with your wealth of worldy knowledge, that US citizens retain their status when living overseas.
Even when seeking other citizenships, unless with a nation that requires sole citizen status.
It's all rather straightforward, though it might seem a bit strange for someone without a passport!
Yet you are a subject while in England. Hopefully a muslim will beat the green teeth out if your head and burn your fingers before raping you. A volunteer subject deserves no less.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#487 Jul 9, 2013
They cannot kill a spook wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you are a subject while in England. Hopefully a muslim will beat the green teeth out if your head and burn your fingers before raping you. A volunteer subject deserves no less.
Alas, this is not the case.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishciti...

If the idea of my being uncomfortable delights you though, I'm happy to report that we're out of Pimms at the new flat. While it may seem minor, in this heat, it's dire.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#489 Jul 9, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never met a group of folks mre detached from reality than you all. You keep calling it marriage, but it's not.
It is in 13 states and the District of Columbia, ad will soon be throughout the country.
[QUOTE]Some libertarians you are.
Libertarians believe in leaving other people to hell alone unless you can demonstrate, using due process, that they are harming you. You have yet to show how the specific act of two gays marrying harms anyone or violates their rights.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#490 Jul 9, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Libertarians believe in leaving other people to hell alone unless you can demonstrate, using due process, that they are harming you. You have yet to show how the specific act of two gays marrying harms anyone or violates their rights.
You're no libertarian, Tony.

On this forum, you have eagerly invoked state intervention seeking to lay claim to rights and possessions that are not your own, namely:

1) to redefine "marriage," which existed prestate, in order to claim benefits for which you [meaning same-sex practitioners] do not qualify absent a coercive, reality-altering redefinition; and further, without regard to the infringement upon the freedom of conscience due other equal citizens; and,

2) to levy a "wealth tax," in order to claim and redistribute, from other equal citizens, possessions which you did not earn and do not own.

Stop kidding yourself.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#491 Jul 9, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're no libertarian, Tony.
On this forum, you have eagerly invoked state intervention seeking to lay claim to rights and possessions that are not your own, namely:
1) to redefine "marriage," which existed prestate, in order to claim benefits for which you [meaning same-sex practitioners] do not qualify absent a coercive, reality-altering redefinition; and further, without regard to the infringement upon the freedom of conscience due other equal citizens; and,
2) to levy a "wealth tax," in order to claim and redistribute, from other equal citizens, possessions which you did not earn and do not own.
Stop kidding yourself.
Ugh. Here we go again.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#492 Jul 9, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never met a group of folks mre detached from reality than you all. You keep calling it marriage, but it's not.
REPEAT:
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.
Our government has now complied and is coercing all citizens to do so as well. Without coercion, the face of "marriage equality" would not exist.
Some libertarians you are.
That just the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.

Common problem with your ilk.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#493 Jul 9, 2013
What has ANY of this to do with

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

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#494 Jul 9, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're no libertarian, Tony.
On this forum, you have eagerly invoked state intervention seeking to lay claim to rights and possessions that are not your own, namely:
Everything is a right, until it isn't. The way it changes from "is a right" to "it isn't a right" needs to be monitored to be sure making it becoming "not a right" is a just process.
1) to redefine "marriage," which existed prestate, in order to claim benefits for which you [meaning same-sex practitioners] do not qualify absent a coercive, reality-altering
redefinition; and further, without regard to the infringement upon the freedom of conscience due other equal citizens; and,
Marriage "pre-state" was little more than a decision to cohabit (not unlike "common-law" marriage, in those jurisdictions that permit them) with or without "God" being involved. When states started to exist (many centuries ago), they took over the term "marriage" to mean "a state sanctioned union". This state controls the definition within its jurisdiction, not religious organizations. And that definition, like any other, is subject to change when circumstances (like a court determining that the current definition deprives some people (even a small minority) of rights) dictate.

The state must accommodate all citizens, not just a subset. They are already accommodating you, by sanctioning your man-woman union, and they are going to accommodate others. Since that accommodation has no effect whatsoever on the accommodation given you, you have no standing to deny it. I hope you can come to grips with it, since it is inevitable.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#495 Jul 9, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
That just the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.
Common problem with your ilk.
How ironic.
You're just like concrete: all mixed-up and permanently set.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#496 Jul 9, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything is a right, until it isn't. The way it changes from "is a right" to "it isn't a right" needs to be monitored to be sure making it becoming "not a right" is a just process.
In other words, you recognize no objective standard; however, you insist that others are morally obligated to respect yours.

How quaint.
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage "pre-state" was little more than a decision to cohabit (not unlike "common-law" marriage, in those jurisdictions that permit them) with or without "God" being involved. When states started to exist (many centuries ago), they took over the term "marriage" to mean "a state sanctioned union". This state controls the definition within its jurisdiction, not religious organizations. And that definition, like any other, is subject to change when circumstances (like a court determining that the current definition deprives some people (even a small minority) of rights) dictate.
The state must accommodate all citizens, not just a subset. They are already accommodating you, by sanctioning your man-woman union, and they are going to accommodate others. Since that accommodation has no effect whatsoever on the accommodation given you, you have no standing to deny it. I hope you can come to grips with it, since it is inevitable.
Marriage, from its inception, is a reflection of Nature's laws.
The state has always recognized and supported this fact because all good civil law flows from the natural law.

Bad laws are based on a different moral system -- like relativism or utilitarianism [though you deny any moral system exists].

The fact remains that either way, we legislate morality --- the only question is which morality ought to be legislated.

Strangely, you believe that 21st century homosexuals are suddenly wiser than the natural law, and all of the great thinkers of the ages who acknowledged it as the basis of our civilization.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#497 Jul 9, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you recognize no objective standard; however, you insist that others are morally obligated to respect yours.
How quaint.
<quoted text>
Marriage, from its inception, is a reflection of Nature's laws.
The state has always recognized and supported this fact because all good civil law flows from the natural law.
Bad laws are based on a different moral system -- like relativism or utilitarianism [though you deny any moral system exists].
The fact remains that either way, we legislate morality --- the only question is which morality ought to be legislated.
Strangely, you believe that 21st century homosexuals are suddenly wiser than the natural law, and all of the great thinkers of the ages who acknowledged it as the basis of our civilization.
Homosexuality is natural, retard. We can tell for it exists in nature, for nature is all-encompassing.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#498 Jul 9, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
How ironic.
You're just like concrete: all mixed-up and permanently set.
It's also called the "Reification Fallacy"

And your bad pun was also an example of "Red Herring" and "Equivocation"..

You attempt to pass off quite a few fallacies. Shall I list them, their definitions and examples from your posts?

(What has ANY of this to do with the Columbus PRIDE Parade?)
Lamar Lotran

Dayton, OH

#499 Jul 9, 2013
Beside teaching that typical pervert behaviors are normal and good, organized LGBTQ are majorily responsible for the kind of national socialism in the USA.

USA is dominated by an organized majority of victim cult people, and LGBTQ are easily recognizable leaders of the cult. The US congress and fedgov is crawling with out and closeted LGBTQ.

Whenever this fact is identified as true, their typical method of retort is juvenile denial, and projection and transference of culpability.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#500 Jul 9, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuality is natural, retard. We can tell for it exists in nature, for nature is all-encompassing.
Well, what are you doing on Topix nature-lover?
You should be in D.C. demanding that Congress pass legislation protecting and promoting cannibalism, rape, incest and filicide.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#501 Jul 9, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
It's also called the "Reification Fallacy"
And your bad pun was also an example of "Red Herring" and "Equivocation"..
You attempt to pass off quite a few fallacies. Shall I list them, their definitions and examples from your posts?
(What has ANY of this to do with the Columbus PRIDE Parade?)
The only fallacy promoted on this thread is the fallacy that same-sex behaviors are natural and moral behaviors for rational mankind.

And, what's your problem?
Who's stopping you from discussing your parade?
Lamar Lotran

Dayton, OH

#502 Jul 9, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuality is natural, retard. We can tell for it exists in nature, for nature is all-encompassing.
AIDS is natural too, along with other STD.

Monkeys do abortions and sodomy too, just like LGBTQ.

Why do LGBTQ behave like a lower jungle animal, but demand that straight people not respect them like a lower jungle animal?
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#503 Jul 9, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, what are you doing on Topix nature-lover?
You should be in D.C. demanding that Congress pass legislation protecting and promoting cannibalism, rape, incest and filicide.
Tip's Plan for Success:

1. Labels marriage between people of the same sex "immoral" for it is "unnatural."

2. Turns his back on his stance that natural=good, and equates gay marriage with "cannibalism, rape, incest and filicide."

3.?????????

4. Profit!!!

^Man, you're a dumbass. You're getting mad at gay people not being straight, yet you can't even keep your argument straight.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#504 Jul 9, 2013
Lamar Lotran wrote:
<quoted text>
AIDS is natural too, along with other STD.
Monkeys do abortions and sodomy too, just like LGBTQ.
Why do LGBTQ behave like a lower jungle animal, but demand that straight people not respect them like a lower jungle animal?
Tip, can you be less of a coward for once, and drop the puppets? It's embarrassing.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#505 Jul 9, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Tip's Plan for Success:
1. Labels marriage between people of the same sex "immoral" for it is "unnatural."
2. Turns his back on his stance that natural=good, and equates gay marriage with "cannibalism, rape, incest and filicide."
3.?????????
4. Profit!!!
^Man, you're a dumbass. You're getting mad at gay people not being straight, yet you can't even keep your argument straight.
Cannibalism, rape, incest, filicide and same-sex behaviors are observed in the animal kingdom; irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick by which to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.

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.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
where guys and gays hangout in jeddah (Sep '10) 2 hr manmac 1,977
jeddah riyadh dammam top and bottom (Jun '11) 2 hr Ali25 939
News Transgender male student suspended for using bo... 6 hr zyondra 1
News New UN stamp supports gay rights 6 hr Phyllis Schlafly ... 4
News Top House Democrat vows gay rights debate will ... 7 hr Belles Echoes 1
Massage(Yanbu) (Feb '13) 10 hr jeddah_bottom69 748
meet here gays.(. jeddah) (Feb '10) 13 hr Alone with place 14,136
More from around the web