On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:16:54 -0700, "Thomas"
wrote:
>"maxwell" wrote in message
>news:rW5Gg.19452$uV.424@trnddc08...
>> "Thomas" wrote ...
>>> wrote ...
>> <~>
>>> >I simply think it's superficial to ignore parts of the population
>>> >for
>> romance simply because of what organ they have
>>> > between their legs. Superficial. Organs do not make the person. A
>>> > person
>> is not defined by testicles, or clitoris, or penis or vagina...So
>> why would
>> someone limit themselves?
>>
>>> Okay, so you're Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and God all rolled into
>>> one.
>> You're way better than the billions of us poor deluded folks who
>> enjoy .
>> and like our partners' . organs. You're so much holier, worthier,
>> and
>> loftier. You're sooo above testicles, clitorises, penises, vaginas,
>> etc.
>> You're three Trinities all in one. There, make you happy?
>>
>> Good heavens, Thomas, if you toss all THAT much crap regarding
>> Annie's
>> having what seems to be a bi.ual (whether called 'universal,'
>> 'versatile,'
>> AC/DC or whatever. . .) orientation, what's left for you to throw at
>> homo.uals?
>>
>> -maxwell
>
>My goodness, another one with a reading comprehension problem. I'm
>beginning to see what they mean when they talk about America's
>education problem.
>
>Given that I am bi.ual, and that many of my friends are homo.ual
>and some of my lovers have been homo.ual men, I could hardly condemn
>anyone for being bi.ual or homo.ual.
>
>Now, go join Annie and Sue at remedial English class. The line is
>that way ----->
So you're saying you have hormonal issues?
Regards,
- Frawley |