equality blooms with spring

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, well perhaps he feared the lack of sex was going to open him up to recruitment as a suicidal bomber.



Newt had no problems getting sex. he didn't live in a society where there's a 40% unemployment rate and women are kept under lock, key, and birka.

ask yourself why 15 of the hijackers were Saudis.

and please answer my very specific question.
 
Newt had no problems getting sex. he didn't live in a society where there's a 40% unemployment rate and women are kept under lock, key, and birka.

ask yourself why 15 of the hijackers were Saudis.

There's much worse poverty and unemployment in Africa yet they don't seem to share this urge to self-detonate.

and please answer my very specific question.

I just stated a truth. I didn't place any legal or moral judgement on the relationship or the children.

Only the union of a man and a woman can naturally produce children with their genes. True or false?
 
Only the union of a man and a woman can naturally produce children with their genes. True or false?

So what?

I can call up a guy I know right now and get on that in a half an hour if you'd like, what argument does that further, exactly?
 
Only the union of a man and a woman can naturally produce children with their genes. True or false?

True and irrelevant since it's not a requirement. Unless you are for making reproduction a requirement of marriage, then what's the point of stating this?
 
There's much worse poverty and unemployment in Africa yet they don't seem to share this urge to self-detonate.


this is a totally different topic. i'll just say: give Somalia time.



I just stated a truth. I didn't place any legal or moral judgement on the relationship or the children.

Only the union of a man and a woman can naturally produce children with their genes. True or false?


yes, this is true. it is also limited.

do all unions of man and woman naturally produce children?

as has been asked: what does this "truth" have to do with marriage?
 
He asked you a serious question, why are you responding flippantly?
 
Do you have a preference between 'Daddy’s New Roommate' and 'Heather Has Two Mommies'?



why do these titles make you uncomfortable?

would you be uncomfortable with "Mommy's New Husband has Dark Skin" or "Daddy Converted, Now I Have To As Well"?
 
1. what is the moral difference between Irvine/Memphis and Martha/Steve?

be specific.

and please answer my very specific question.

So what?

I can call up a guy I know right now and get on that in a half an hour if you'd like, what argument does that further, exactly?

What does this have to do with my marriage?

Unless you are for making reproduction a requirement of marriage, then what's the point of stating this?

do all unions of man and woman naturally produce children?

as has been asked: what does this "truth" have to do with marriage?

All these serious and valid questions in light of the denial of access to rights.


And this is the answer we get:
Do you have a preference between 'Daddy’s New Roommate' and 'Heather Has Two Mommies'?
 
Bill Hicks or phillyfan? :eyebrow:

You are not from Indiana then?

Bill Hicks. I graduated in Houston and went to college in Oklahoma. Used to see Bill all the time at a comedy club in Houston.
Like Sir Bono, I don't pretend to agree with him on everything but I feel like I know where they are coming from. It's an end-of-the-babyboomer-thing.

Can't say the same of our president (same age group) however, but then he wasn't raised in the states.
 
But the reason that joke is funny is because it's coming from someone who isn't against gay rights.

Sam Kinison was just as funny and brutal on Christians but when he told AIDS and gerbil jokes...gays got mad. So maybe you're right. Yet what does it say that something is funny only when offered by someone you agree with politically or socially?
Ironically Sam started in the same club in Houston and also tragically died young.
 
Sam Kinison was just as funny and brutal on Christians but when he told AIDS and gerbil jokes...gays got mad. So maybe you're right. Yet what does it say that something is funny only when offered by someone you agree with politically or socially?
Ironically Sam started in the same club in Houston and also tragically died young.

It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with him. I'm saying that if he was a homophobe saying that, the entire context would be different: Bill is mocking the hypocrisy of people with that viewpoint by saying that.

But, again, we're straying off topic. You and I are engaged in a debate about comedic values while serious questions about your argument are being raised.
 
Kinison was himself a former evangelical preacher and evangelicals aren't a historically marginalized group in our country; the context is quite different.

But back to the question...
 
Witty.

He did live for four years in Indonesia ... gonna go out on a limb and say maybe that's what she's referring to.


Well, Bono didn't come to America until 1980 I'm guessing. So maybe Jenene Garofalo (a strikingly unfunny Bill Hicks protogé) is right and I don't "get" President Obama because I'm a racist.
 
Kinison was himself a former evangelical preacher and evangelicals aren't a historically marginalized group in our country; the context is quite different.


That's my point. In the 80's and early 90's these guys were originals.

Now evangelicals and fundamentalists are the fodder for every comic and, at least in pop culture, marginalized while homosexuals are the verboten target (unless you're for gay rights, same-sex marriage and-all-that of course, then you can poke a little fun.)

Nobody tells Mohammed jokes however.
 
Such as? What might a criticism of forbidding same-sex marriage that's worthy of an earnest response from your purportedly sadly marginalized standpoint look like? Is there such a thing? (And if not, why are you bothering to participate in this discussion?)
 
Let's wait and see if anyone here raises "serious questions" about same-sex marriage.

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/classify/animalia/uniramia/pterygota/cricket.wav

I've never seen a serious question to be honest?

I see: will it lead to marrying goats?

Why change a definiton of a word(despite the fact that it's already been changed several time but we'll ignore that)?

But but what about my religious freedom? I.E. If they are legal will I still be able to deny them service?

I find it puzzling that you even think you've ever raised a legitimate argument in this debate... Status quo, definitions, procreation, religious freedom; they've all had holes poked in them from the very beginning, and quite easily.

So if the debate will continue the way it has for years then I predict that we won't see any serious questions regarding gay marriage, because honestly there aren't any... The sooner that is recognized the sooner we can evolve as a society... uh oh I shouldn't have said 'evolve', that's a bad word. :censored:
 
Such as? What might a criticism of forbidding same-sex marriage that's worthy of an earnest response from your purportedly sadly marginalized standpoint look like? Is there such a thing? (And if not, why are you bothering to participate in this discussion?)

I like to be challenged. Which is why I found Bill Hicks refreshing... 20 years ago. Now the challenge for a comic in the 21st century would be "to be openly evangelical or conservative" and still be popular.
Can you think of any? Or recent TV or movie characters shown in a positive light?

Which is why, I suppose, this Miss USA contestant felt the need, in the middle of her answer, to apologize for her beliefs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom