Hand Grenades may work also?
Did not work for Michelle Bachmans husband either.
Male and female: that seems to be the question. One side is looking at appearances and the other essence. If gender is possibly deeper than telling a book by its cover, might there be room for a broader interpretation of "male and female"?
fiatlux wrote:
Male and female: that seems to be the question. One side is looking at appearances and the other essence. If gender is possibly deeper than telling a book by its cover, might there be room for a broader interpretation of "male and female"?
Don't think so, if one can't determine one from the other something is very bad wrong.
fiatlux wrote:
Male and female: that seems to be the question. One side is looking at appearances and the other essence. If gender is possibly deeper than telling a book by its cover, might there be room for a broader interpretation of "male and female"?
Look inside your pants, that should be your first clue.
JMHO wrote:
Look inside your pants, that should be your first clue.
Yes that would tell it all.
PRM2014 wrote:
Yes that would tell it all.
A hermaphrodite describes a person who is born with both female and male physical characteristics. Increasingly, however, intersex is becoming a more popular description when referring to individuals of this congenital state. A hermaphrodite may be born with both sex organs or may be born with one main sex organ, but possess part of a second opposite organ. Beyond visible features, other physical characteristics may also cause a person to be defined as intersex, such as the chromosomal differences apparent in Klinefelter syndrome where a male is born with two X chromosomes and one Y chromosome.
The hermaphrodite label is not only applied to humans, but is often used to describe certain plant species, as well as other animals that possess both sex organs. Historically, humans born with this condition often undergo surgery during infancy. For all intents and purposes, surgery is intended to eliminate one of the sex organs and, thus, make the child anatomically either female or male.
fiatlux wrote:
Male and female: that seems to be the question. One side is looking at appearances and the other essence. If gender is possibly deeper than telling a book by its cover, might there be room for a broader interpretation of "male and female"?
I think the definition is fine--the problem is that we associate gender with our sexual orientation. Clearly it's not and that's what people can't quite get a handle on...
PRM2014 wrote:
Don't think so, if one can't determine one from the other something is very bad wrong.
Why? Homosexuality has been here as long as man has walked this planet. It mentioned in Egyptian texts that are far older than the bible so clearly it is simply part of the nature of man--just not all men, or women. And this is where the problem lies because straights assume something is wrong with it simply because they are repulsed by it. Well, flip the coin and homosexuals are repulsed by sex with the opposite sex. So does that mean there is something "very bad wrong" with straight sex? We all tend to judge the world from our point of view-- the question that needs to be asked is if that view actually matters...
JMHO wrote:
Look inside your pants, that should be your first clue.
And if your dick gets hard when you see a man what does that tell you?
PeterS wrote:
And if your dick gets hard when you see a man what does that tell you?
Typical moronic comment from a closet faggot. Get a life jerk.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.