Woman's March on Washington 2017 - Page 6

Interesting that you accept human sexual differences but do not accept the liberal media portrayal of it.

You are either not being honest with yourself or are in deep conflict of what actually bothers you.... prolly both.

Anyhoo have you complained to the liberal media about how they report on human sexuality issues?

Be a good place to start yr personal war.

LoL. No, conflicts or wars here. You have missed a crucial point, is all. Be comforted that you are not alone in that. You liberals can't stand being the only one, I know, I know!

No you have made yr position clear. You accept the human sexual spectrum and have no problem with what consenting legal activities people do, you just don't like the liberal media.

Well, no, again. The liberal media is only a vehicle. The issues still have their drivers going down unknown roads. More like that.

OK so now it's not people's sexuality, it's not the liberal media it's in fact the "drivers going down unknown roads".

Clear as muddy water.

Which bit is unknown? That people are not all hetero?

I will give you credit ! Bingo, you are close! No cigar with the last one, though...

Reread carefully what I have written, and try to be thoughtful instead of insulting. There might then be an adult conversation looming, large.

Good luck exorcising those demons err drivers of unknown roads.

No demons. Sigh. That was weak. I had to bite my snide tongue, again.

Someday, a confident and brilliant mind will come again!. One that can be of a different philosophy and still appreciate the other person who thinks different.

I am out of this, with you, (deleted snide remark).

Beetree

1. Sexual fluidity is not what being bisexual, pansexual, asexual, lesbian, gay, is.  They know what they are, they know who they are attracted to.  It is the conservatives that need labels.  Dailybeast is a very biased source for news, may want to expand your sources to unbiased.

2. What is your driving point?

3. Nope, not at all, unless science is liberal views of thought.  I realize some conservatives believe science is a liberal conspiracy.

4. I never said you said AIDS was responsible for promiscuity, read my post.

5.  I prefer actual science to Google searches.  Real scientific research data to Google data.

6. I never said gay marriage wants to mirror heterosexual marriage, you commented on a "husband" and "wife" duties of gay marriage.

7. It is one person's experience and as that is not to discount that as a real and unique experience.  It has nothing to do with liberal view which is what conservatives always say when they don't get it.

8.  Again I use reputable unbiased sources unless I want to be entertained and  NOT educated, then I Google.  Sex can be enjoyed outside marriage, not everyone adheres to the the biblical interpretation of relationships otherwise there would be a ton of people in deep doo-doo since they did NOT marry a virgin and do not use sex for procreation purposes only.  Most strict interpretation of sex is to control a woman's sexuality not a man's. 

1. Then why do you contradict yourself... with the "Q", or do the avoidance thing as if I don't know what you said? If the Q thing isn't questioning their particular preference for self-labeling, and is a questioning of the consequences they face as a minority, then please try again with your point? I use all kinds of sources, not just one's for social commentary.

2. Happiness, of course, is the point.

3. We will have to agree to disagree about this one.

4. You attempted a history lesson on AIDS. That wasn't very useful and definitely not the point.

5. If you have scientific proof that serves the issues I brought up, bring it on. Otherwise, I am using what I have to start the discussion. It is up to you if you want to continue it, maybe you don't. That is okay with me.

6. I commented on the media stereotypes for a gay marriage on a popular TV show. If you were astute or really interested in teaching and enlightenment then you would proceed with what you do know. I would then be able to tell you what I know, or think I know through my own experience. If your only point is a motivation to discount all of my POV's based on that, then good luck.

7. "Don't get it." is liberal speak for failing to change someone else's mind because of their own set, closed minds. Of course "I get it." I just don't agree. That is probably why the DEMS failed so miserably in their predictions this past election.

8. You don't even know what studies I was referring to, so it would make more sense to provide the one's you do base your statements on. Which btw never touch upon the real point. See number 2. If you got those studies, please share.

9. You bring up points that certainly aren't relevant to this 21st Century conversation. I don't see what the history lesson has to do with this current affairs discussion. I am not denying there is a past history of male domination of female sexuality. Certainly more primitive cultures still do. Which brings me to the concept that 21st Century conversation of the exploding minority gender labels needs to be supported by the majority for equality status. The twist is, to get the majority support it is necessary to use the majority's own morals. What happens next? Do you know?