Those who know me, know I destest labels because I find them limiting and use of same often causes more misunderstanding than clarification. How a person lives and how they respect themselves and others is much more important to me. In my mind, people (including their sexualitiy) are fluid beings no matter how they act on their carnal desires at a given time. Some folks take longer to know who they are and what they want, tasting a bit of this or that along the way. Some folks struggle to meet expectations of others before becoming comfortable and confident within themselves. And then there are some who follow their internal being and recognize their sexuality even before they really know what it even is or how they eventually prefer to express it. What bothers me the most about the term "bi-sexual" is that folks assume it indicates active promiscuity or a poly-amorous nature. I've found that to rarely be the case though and perhaps the term might better be applied to describe one's sexual history as opposed to their true identity. Good food for thought, misn0mer, and thanks for the discussion.

In your rush to these three pandering sluts on the heinie, you miss what has. ago, Albini called the Smashing Pumpkins and Phair "pandering sluts Irving Park, Jefferson Park, Logan Square, Portage Park, Other Northwest. Quiet in the City Council, Marty Quinn is Madigan's s muscle .

I want to go skiing.

Buckhead attorney seeks executive assistant.

Something missing night.

British Supreme Court rejects religious-based appeal from hotel owners who denied room to couple November 27, By Combs A bit of legal news out of the UK: Britain’s Supreme Court today rejected an appeal filed by a couple who were fined for refusing to allow a couple to rent a room at their hotel. Reuters reports: In its judgment, the court said the high-profile case and the legal issues it had raised were “a measure of how far we have come in the recognition of same-sex relationships”. The couple had argued that they should not be forced to facilitate what they regard as a sin by allowing unmarried couples to share a bed. They argued they were discriminating against homosexuals only “indirectly” because they would also have refused a room to unmarried heterosexuals. The court rejected their argument, noting that the couple were in a civil partnership, a union for same-sex couples recognized under British law which gives very similar rights to those enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. “Marriage and civil partnership exist both to recognise and to encourage stable, committed, term relationships. It is very much in the public interest that intimate relationships be conducted in this way,” the court ruled. A county court and appellate court both ruled against the couple, Hazelmary and Bull. The Bulls then appealed to Britain’s Supreme Court, which issued its unanimous decision in the couple’s favor today. A distinct but somewhat similar case make its way to the. Supreme Court: a couple in Albuquerque who own a wedding photography business have appealed a unanimous New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that held that businesses not refuse services to couples because they disagree with marriage equality. FULL STORY: