Texas Says

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

Is this legal?

Thailand’s Only Pandas ‘Married’

November 09, 2005 6:19 AM EST

BANGKOK, Thailand - Thousands of people in Thailand came to the wedding party Wednesday, but the nuptial bliss belonged to a pair of animals: the country’s only two resident giant pandas.

As Chuang Chuang and his female partner, Lin Hui, have become adults and begin to mate, Thai officials decided it was time for the couple to make it official.

Thais dressed in panda and other animal costumes marched and played music in a traditional Thai wedding procession to northern Thailand’s Chiang Mai Zoo, where the pandas live.

The guests witnessed a Chinese tea ceremony and a feast of cake - a four-layer ice sculpture filled with fruits that pandas typically eat, said a zoo spokeswoman, Rossukhon Chuicomwong.

The pandas’ living quarters were decorated with a large, festive red ribbon and a carved dragon decoration.

Thailand rented Chuang Chuang and Lin Hui from China for $250,000 in October 2003 for 10 years.

The pandas are expected to generate millions of dollars in revenues from Thai and foreign tourists during their stay.

42

[quote]CaliKing wrote:
harris447 wrote:

Eww. You’re just a reprehensible little midget, aren’t you?

Who the fuck do you think you are talking to? Little midget? I am 6’3" and weigh 255 and carry 9% BF. I’ll post photos if you want. Harris, you have really outdone yourself this time, bravo, great insult. Doesn’t really apply in this case, keep working on it.

As for Chadman, the definition of marriage is the civil/religious union between a man and a woman. Don’t try to rewrite history, it has been that way since antiquity. Where did I ever mention the Bible? You speak as though you have contempt for the Bible, I don’t blame you, if I were a sodomite I would try to deligitimize what was said within and those who wrote said book. Your anger is understandable.

As far as having anal sex with a woman, no, never have, never will, not because religion tells me no, but because science tells me know. Particularly my two uncles who are physicians speak quite openly about how couples should avoid anal sex. The anus/rectum is a particularly unclean area of the body and penetration with a penis can cause tears in the dermis of the anal spinchter, thus leaving the particapant open to infection and anal difigurement. For someone with a small penis such as yourself, you could probably get away with it, me on the other hand.

It isn’t intolerant to denounce evil. I don’t dislike homosexuals, I have several queer friends, I don’t condone what they do. Their lifestyle is their choice, they will deal with the consequences when the time comes. I believe that it is foolish to allow our government to in essence sanction an immoral act, by saying the engaging in homosexuality has now become a normal practice within societal activity. Sorry, not normal. You guys need to come up with new arguments, I am not a religious zealot.

[/quote]

“Who the fuck do I think I am talking to?”

Wow, you’re a joke. Stop hiding behind your little bible and just come out ith it: you don’t like “queers”. Or “sodomites”.

Have you ever thought that perhaps your “queer” friends (and I think you’re lying about that) don’t condone your lifestyle. You know: hating stuff?

43

[quote]CaliKing wrote:
For all of those that claim to be conservative and feel that Prop. 2 would be infringing on our freedom, I really don’t see how banning marriage between Man and Man is somehow infringing on the freedom of sodomites. I would appreciate a little clarification on this claim. I don’t have a problem with queers, they can go and sodomize all they want, but we don’t have to have it shoved down our throats by allowing them to take part in a union that is specifically reserved for the use in between men and women. Explain it to me, I want to know how you can to that conclusion. Thanks[/quote]

You know, psychologists often talk about how those who are most vehemently anti-gay often have deep issues with their own sexuality.

Methinks maybe you want something else shoved down your throat instead?

44

[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, what the hell are you talking about?

The points you are raising haven’t even been aligned with what anyone had originally started saying.

People were basically agreeing with the sentiments of doogies post, nobody was complaining or otherwise bitching about the process.

You come along and make up a stance for everyone on the left, then proceed to go about knocking down this stance.

Wake up.

Also, when I referred to zealotry, that is exactly what I meant. I meant those that would look to find ways to legislate their beliefs on others. It has nothing to do with this particular issue – though you certainly want to go play with statistics and other malarky that isn’t on anyones mind.

Why don’t you try reading what people are saying and taking it at face value sometimes, instead of making up in your own mind what you think people really meant but didn’t say.

Sometimes people really do say what they mean… imagine that. We aren’t all career politicians you know. [/quote]

There is nothing in your posts that even approaches being on topic. And you have the gall to call me out about what I am saying.

To quote a great thinktard - “Wake Up!!!”

I’m sorry to tell you this - but this is not a place for your fucking relativism. The sides are pretty clear. So why don;t you take you idiotic ramblings and go sit under your thinking tree until somebody yanks your chain - 'Kay?

Besides - I could care less what some dill hole from Canada has to say about how my state is run. You are irrelevant.

45

[quote]haney wrote:
Here is a crazy thought.

Marriage was originally a religious institution. Why is there no one screaming seperation of Church and State over this?

Instead everyone is saying lets keep the religious ceramony, and get rid of the “Zealots”.

why is this issue a double standard. I am ok with the state recognizing couples of all sorts. I am not ok with them regulating marriage. That is only because in my mind it was a religious service long before it was the states.

I do feel like this is a double standard though from people who are always screaming about Church and State. Why not scream about this?

See everyone gets their freedoms then, and this issue can go away. [/quote]

I don’t think the religious ceremony is the issue. No one is trying to tell churches that they will have to perform or recognize gay marriages. But the zealots are dead set on having ballot issues to make sure that states can’t recognize those unions for tax, benefit or any other purpose. And there are a lot of people screaming about separation of church and state w/r/t this issue. In fact I’d bet that at least 90% of the people who voted for it aren’t gay, but don’t believe in imposing one group’s religious values on everyone else.

46

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Is this legal?

Thailand’s Only Pandas ‘Married’

November 09, 2005 6:19 AM EST

BANGKOK, Thailand - Thousands of people in Thailand came to the wedding party Wednesday, but the nuptial bliss belonged to a pair of animals: the country’s only two resident giant pandas.

As Chuang Chuang and his female partner, Lin Hui, have become adults and begin to mate, Thai officials decided it was time for the couple to make it official.

Thais dressed in panda and other animal costumes marched and played music in a traditional Thai wedding procession to northern Thailand’s Chiang Mai Zoo, where the pandas live.

The guests witnessed a Chinese tea ceremony and a feast of cake - a four-layer ice sculpture filled with fruits that pandas typically eat, said a zoo spokeswoman, Rossukhon Chuicomwong.

The pandas’ living quarters were decorated with a large, festive red ribbon and a carved dragon decoration.

Thailand rented Chuang Chuang and Lin Hui from China for $250,000 in October 2003 for 10 years.

The pandas are expected to generate millions of dollars in revenues from Thai and foreign tourists during their stay.
[/quote]

hahahha thats funny shit man, i cant believe they go to all that trouble but I guess pandas are a big deal over there.

47

[quote]rainjack wrote:
ron33 wrote:
Do your conservatives just say ,what they think will bring them the most votes? It seems they are against gays when it comes to popular opinion,but arent several of the top politicians children openly gay and what about the gay men that paid arnolds way when he didnt have any money ,and they helped promote him and get him where he is today.Can you honestly trust someone like that as you leader???

I’ll tell you what I can’t do and that is to read an unintelligible post. For the love of pete - learn how to convey a thought coherently through the written word, and I might respond.
[/quote]
In other words,arent they just lying pieces that will sway with popular opinion and say what they know will get them votes from the sheep or as you like to say the dumbfucks that follow them.

48

So when is Texas going to outlaw divorce? If marriage is so damn sacred then divorce should be outlawed, right?

49

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
CaliKing wrote:
For all of those that claim to be conservative and feel that Prop. 2 would be infringing on our freedom, I really don’t see how banning marriage between Man and Man is somehow infringing on the freedom of sodomites. I would appreciate a little clarification on this claim. I don’t have a problem with queers, they can go and sodomize all they want, but we don’t have to have it shoved down our throats by allowing them to take part in a union that is specifically reserved for the use in between men and women. Explain it to me, I want to know how you can to that conclusion. Thanks

You know, psychologists often talk about how those who are most vehemently anti-gay often have deep issues with their own sexuality.

Methinks maybe you want something else shoved down your throat instead?[/quote]
From the posts that RJ makes, thats what his issues seem to be.

50

[quote]ron33 wrote:
In other words,arent they just lying pieces that will sway with popular opinion and say what they know will get them votes from the sheep or as you like to say the dumbfucks that follow them.
[/quote]

I don’t know what you are even trying to say. Are you getting enough sleep? You seem to be incoherent.

51

[quote]ron33 wrote:
From the posts that RJ makes, thats what his issues seem to be.
[/quote]

I would quit now if I were you,. You are making your side look horribly stupid. You think I desire something shoved down my throat because of what in my posts?

Your idiotic, knee-jerked response are as pointless as you posts.

Great job - I would vote for involuntary lobotimization of people as fucking stupid as you are.

52

[quote]CaliKing wrote:
As for Chadman, the definition of marriage is the civil/religious union between a man and a woman. Don’t try to rewrite history, it has been that way since antiquity. Where did I ever mention the Bible?

[/quote]

What the society regard as moral or immoral changes with time. Years ago, it was socially acceptable to smoke in public places while not acceptable to marriage someone of an another race.

Gay people and couples are increasingly socially acceptable. It is merely a matter of time that it will be made legal. (Although currently 59% of Americans still oppose it)

Fahd

Fahd

53

[quote]doogie wrote:
Prop. 2, actually.

I’m conservative, my wife is conservative, all of my friends are conservative. We all voted against it.

True conservatives are for freedom. Religous zealots are for a Christian America.[/quote]

much agreed on this one, doogie. well said.

54

[quote]rainjack wrote:
ron33 wrote:
From the posts that RJ makes, thats what his issues seem to be.

I would quit now if I were you,. You are making your side look horribly stupid. You think I desire something shoved down my throat because of what in my posts?

Your idiotic, knee-jerked response are as pointless as you posts.

Great job - I would vote for involuntary lobotimization of people as fucking stupid as you are.

[/quote]
Don’t be afraid,Come out of that closet ,where the sun is shining and Have A Nice Day !!!

55

RJ always seem to be quite angry. Why? You guys are so far winning, you are in control of America.

Too much stress reduces muscle gain,

Fahd

56

I didn’t even try to say anything about how Texas should be run. And THAT is exactly the point I was making about your tangential attacks… dill hole.

57

[quote]vroom wrote:
Besides - I could care less what some dill hole from Canada has to say about how my state is run. You are irrelevant.

I didn’t even try to say anything about how Texas should be run. And THAT is exactly the point I was making about your tangential attacks… dill hole.[/quote]

vroom - in case you missed the title of this thread, it is about Texas. It is not a tangent just becasue you say it is.

How can me telling you to stay out of Texas politics be tangetial when Texas politics os the subject of this thread.

Now run back to your tree and think about what I said. I’m sure it will come to you as you are drifting off into your nice, comfy, relativist sleep.

58

[quote]fahd wrote:
RJ always seem to be quite angry. Why? You guys are so far winning, you are in control of America. [/quote]

I’m not angry. I just have no patience with utter stupidity as demonstrated by Ron69, or whatever his name is. Surely you have had to put up with people that are doing nothing but breathing air that could be put to much better use.

I am wondering what kind of lives you guys lead that would take this forum so seriously as to be stressed about it. If anything - this is the third best way I know of to blow off steam and avoid the dreaded catabloism fairy - right behind sex, and lifting heavy stuff over your head.

59

[quote]vroom - in case you missed the title of this thread, it is about Texas. It is not a tangent just becasue you say it is.

How can me telling you to stay out of Texas politics be tangetial when Texas politics os the subject of this thread. [/quote]

Rainjack, in case you missed it, as happens in most threads, other issues were discussed.

In particular, the topic of separating strongly held religious beliefs from the notion of conservatism had come up. It was in fact raised by someone of an apparent conservative bent.

Whether or not you like me discussing such tangential issue, is immaterial. Stop being such a riled hothead when there is no reason for it.

Try to keep up with the program Mr. angry ingnorant republican. Strange how you aren’t even happy when you are “winning”.

60

You’ve got a lot of stress in your life then bub, because you blow more steam than old faithful.

How about giving us a break every now and then, we aren’t here so we can be your support group. Go get professional help, you seem to need it.