First open bisexual congresswoman elected

[Garian]

By that logic, you'd need to ask the entire Earth to prove something. Seriously, what kind of an argument is that?

Again, you're just fixating on silly values that no living scientist on Earth uses when conducting research that requires polling people.

It's called science dude. You're suddenly against it when it doesn't fit your point of view.

I want an unbiased representative sample. Then I want it again. And maybe again to truly confirm the veracity of the study.

No bias. No wishful thinking. No social engineering. Just facts.

Someone claiming that most of us fall between the extremes of a spectrum as a fact should in fact be stating it as an opinion. Until it's proven properly.

Like I said, I can prove to you that micro-evolution is real with fruit flies. You can't prove that all people are bisexual, however.

People are simply wielding that idea as a weapon to win a war of ideas in order to undermine traditional values. We don't live in a genderless world. No one can change the fact that a child has and (in my opinion) should have both a mother and a father.

Are you one of those people who believes that gender is a social construct too?

Huh? Find me 1000 people, I'll ask them the same question 100 times and you'll have your proof and your repetition.

You're missing the point. Gravity is a proven fact. It's easy to prove. That was my point.

I'm not letting Semaphore tell me anything, I'm just too scared of her to debate her.

If you don't stand up to ideological fascists like her, then one day people like her will be ruling you.

The far left basically want the state to become God, which is ironic considering that they generally don't believe in God.

You decide what you want. A government that protects your rights or benevolent dictators deciding what's best for everyone.

What makes you think she was voted for because of her sexual orientation or gender? I'd say it was in spite of both.

If that were the case then it wouldn't be a big deal. The left wing want minorities to vote for them so they create these "symbols" of victory over bigotry instead of simply selecting someone who can get the job done.

Which would you prefer?

Why do you think they are so pro-immigration? It builds up their voter base. Socialists did it here in Europe. They will do it there too.

If we lived in a genderless world we'd all be hermaphrodites. I still don't get your point.[COLOR="red"]

Heterosexuals are still the majority despite all the brainwashing.

I am all for gay rights but this social engineering is going too far.

[Wikiy]

It's called science dude. You're suddenly against it when it doesn't fit your point of view.

Yeah, might have something to do with you calling science something that's actually totally useless when it comes to proving ANYTHING by your standards.

Someone claiming that most of us fall between the extremes of a spectrum as a fact should in fact be stating it as an opinion. Until it's proven properly.

I agree.

Like I said, I can prove to you that micro-evolution is real with fruit flies. You can't prove that all people are bisexual, however.

If it were true, i could prove it easily, you've just decided to add another silly argument to somehow boost your position as the true one, namely, telling people that it couldn't ever be proved, and effectively calling their entire argument unscientific when it's actually not. It's testable. It hasn't been tested yet, that's the difference.

People are simply wielding that idea as a weapon to win a war of ideas in order to undermine traditional values. We don't live in a genderless world. No one can change the fact that a child has and (in my opinion) should have both a mother and a father.

Might have something to do with traditional values mostly being shit. Also, no one is trying to show that we live in a genderless world (though, again, i don't even understand what that's supposed to mean or how it relates to sexual orientation). As for children not having both a mother and a father, it's something we aren't allowed to discuss since it would be delving too deep into the sexual orientation debate, which is forbidden as it is. This thread is on the verge of being closed anyways.

Are you one of those people who believes that gender is a social construct too?

No.

You're missing the point. Gravity is a proven fact. It's easy to prove. That was my point.

So would the fact that everyone is bisexual be, if it were true.

If you don't stand up to ideological fascists like her, then one day people like her will be ruling you.

She's not an ideological fascist, she just has far more experience with logical arguments and debates that i do. After all, I only got logics as a subject in school this year. Once I'm finished with that, I'll be able to debate with her properly.

Either way, I'd vote for someone like her to rule me any day.

The far left basically want the state to become God, which is ironic considering that they generally don't believe in God.

Hmm, let me see, do i want a group of capable people ruling me or do i want to be comfy knowing that the people (who are mostly incapable idiots) chose a ruler themselves? Look at my location, i live in a former Communist country. I'm not so brainwashed as the rest of Western society to adore capitalism as the only true way.

You decide what you want. A government that protects your rights or benevolent dictators deciding what's best for everyone.

So let me see, in the previous line you're all against the state, and in the next one you're all for it? You're jumping all over the place in this post, what does government even have to do with anything? Anyways, I'd prefer a government that protects my rights. How does that preclude someone like Semaphore managing to get into it?

If that were the case then it wouldn't be a big deal.

It's a big deal exactly because of it, how can you not see that? Maybe it's not such a big deal for us Europeans, but for the US, it's a huge step forward, and why the hell shouldn't we be happy for them?

The left wing want minorities to vote for them so they create these "symbols" of victory over bigotry instead of simply selecting someone who can get the job done.

Sometimes electing symbols to win over bigotry is more important than electing someone who can get the job done. Also, you're kind of relying on the "job being done" here as only economics and the such, which simply isn't all that a government has to do. People sometimes seem to forget the government has an obligation to protect the social rights of its citizens. Someone like who was just elected is usually more likely to protect the rights of various groups than your random person that's capable of economically improving the county/state/country.

Why do you think they are so pro-immigration? It builds up their voter base. Socialists did it here in Europe. They will do it there too.

Not really, you're calling socialists out on something that isn't true. Socialists like the idea of socialism because that's simply what they like (i should know, I'm one of them). The fact it coincides with what sounds like the best for the people is just a bonus.

Heterosexuals are still the majority despite all the brainwashing.

You're imagining the brainwashing.

I am all for gay rights but this social engineering is going too far.

Blame the heterosexuals that oppressed the rest of us (and still do) before you. Until life becomes properly liveable for the rest of us, you know, how it is for you, you'll just have to deal with it. I'm sure certain people were also sick of all the "social engineering" back when women and blacks started to get rights.

[Magpai]

HUrray, finally someone who will be judged and put down by both the religious right and the gay community!

[Wells]

HUrray, finally someone who will be judged and put down by both the religious right and the gay community!

You do know most of the gay community has no problem with bi people right?

[obdigore]

You do know most of the gay community has no problem with bi people right?

Oh please! If you aren't with them you are against them! /grabs pink pitchfork just to complete the image.

[Magpai]

You do know most of the gay community has no problem with bi people right?

I would beg to differ based on my personal experience, if not for the obvious sample problems and dubious quality of anecdotal evidence in general.

It would be worse if she was a man at any rate, so I'm sure she'll be just fine.

[obdigore]

I would beg to differ based on my personal experience, if not for the obvious sample problems and dubious quality of anecdotal evidence in general.

It would be worse if she was a man at any rate, so I'm sure she'll be just fine.

Two chicks getting it on are totally awesome. Two dudes are totally gay!

/sigh. This is a bad thread and people trying to force their beliefs upon other people are bad.

[Shinybutton]

Where is her nod for the hottest Congresswoman? Give credit where credit is due.

[Skizo]

You do know most of the gay community has no problem with bi people right?

The only problem I've seen is that LGBQT groups will try to recruit people who are not sure of their sexuality to help them figure stuff out
They aren't really the group of people I would trust for helping me figure that kind of stuff out, the same as I wouldn't trust a group on the opposite end of the spectrum.

[Magpai]

Two chicks getting it on are totally awesome. Two dudes are totally gay!

/sigh. This is a bad thread and people trying to force their beliefs upon other people are bad.

I hope you realize that I'm commenting on how other people act towards bisexuals in my experience, and not my personal attitude towards bisexuals.

---------- Post added 2012-11-26 at 07:53 AM ----------

The only problem I've seen is that LGBQT groups will try to recruit people who are not sure of their sexuality to help them figure stuff out
They aren't really the group of people I would trust for helping me figure that kind of stuff out, the same as I wouldn't trust a group on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Yeah, the most common consensus seems to be if you're 99% straight then you're 100% gay.

[obdigore]

I hope you realize that I'm commenting on how other people act towards bisexuals in my experience, and not my personal attitude towards bisexuals.

I hope you realize I'm making a terrible joke?

[Magpai]

I hope you realize I'm making a terrible joke?

Ah... well even if I didn't realize it then I'm glad you realize it :-P

IDK it's late

[semaphore]

I don't see this bisexual trend that you are claiming exists.

Strawman. I never said all or most or even a lot of people are bisexual.

Replicate the results a few hundred thousand times

In other words you have no idea how science works, and don't understand the concept of statistics.

Semaphore believes that most of us exist between the extremes.

Which is not nearly the same as saying everyone is bisexual. So apparently you're still on the exact same strawman as yesterday. Aren't you just creative.

---------- Post added 2012-11-26 at 08:27 AM ----------

If you don't stand up to ideological fascists like her, then one day people like her will be ruling you.

The far left basically want the state to become God, which is ironic considering that they generally don't believe in God.

Lol, the hell did this become about left vs right politics? Then again it's not like you offered any logically sound argument all thread.

[Garian]

Yeah, might have something to do with you calling science something that's actually totally useless when it comes to proving ANYTHING by your standards.

They aren't my standards. It's just science. You are happy when it fits your worldview but dodge it and twist it to fit your argument when it doesn't.

That's called bias. I assure you that I am quite neutral. You, however, are easily provoked.

If it were true, i could prove it easily, you've just decided to add another silly argument to somehow boost your position as the true one, namely, telling people that it couldn't ever be proved, and effectively calling their entire argument unscientific when it's actually not. It's testable. It hasn't been tested yet, that's the difference.

Evidence is not proof.

Learn the difference.

I will not accept a biased unrepresentative study as proof, because it's simply not. You believe what you want. That doesn't mean it's true.

Might have something to do with traditional values mostly being shit.

I want you to answer this very simple question: do you have a mother and a father?

Now here's a better one: do you believe that children should have both a mother and a father? Ideally. Not everyone are good parents but assuming they are, children not only have both a mother and a father, but should have both in their lives too.

Those are traditional values.

I am sorry if you don't like them.

So would the fact that everyone is bisexual be, if it were true.

You've not proven that. It's just political cannon fodder designed to shut down the debate.

She's not an ideological fascist...

Yes she is. She is incredibly vicious. It is quite telling when a Conservative is more civil than someone on the left.

Now I am used to debating with worse, so it doesn't bother me at all. But people like her will discourage people from joining the debate, and that my friend, is wrong.

You stick together though. Left wingers have a Borg mentality anyway so this doesn't surprise me.

Once I'm finished with that, I'll be able to debate with her properly.

Either way, I'd vote for someone like her to rule me any day.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you are weak.

Hmm, let me see, do i want a group of capable people ruling me or do i want to be comfy knowing that the people (who are mostly incapable idiots) chose a ruler themselves? Look at my location, i live in a former Communist country. I'm not so brainwashed as the rest of Western society to adore capitalism as the only true way.

Then you are a fool. Where do you think the computer you are reading this on came from? It came from someone's desire to make a better life for themselves. Nothing in life is free. It seems that you haven't fully escaped your country's past. I know how hard escaping a drained uninspired collectivist mentality can be, but if people truly want to escape that cycle, then it has to be broken.

So let me see, in the previous line you're all against the state, and in the next one you're all for it? You're jumping all over the place in this post, what does government even have to do with anything? Anyways, I'd prefer a government that protects my rights. How does that preclude someone like Semaphore managing to get into it?

Because the left wing has been taken over by big government control freaks who won't listen to us. They will happily use a tyranny of the masses to force their worldview on us. It's called a soft tyranny where instead of killing people they kill your ideas instead.

It's a big deal exactly because of it, how can you not see that? Maybe it's not such a big deal for us Europeans, but for the US, it's a huge step forward, and why the hell shouldn't we be happy for them?

The U.S. was the land of pornography but electing a bisexual politician is considered progress.

You are missing the point again. All that matters is who can get the job done. You don't have to be X, Y, Z in order to push for equality. It's just a blatant PR move and you've bought it.

Sometimes electing symbols to win over bigotry is more important than electing someone who can get the job done. Also, you're kind of relying on the "job being done" here as only economics and the such, which simply isn't all that a government has to do. People sometimes seem to forget the government has an obligation to protect the social rights of its citizens. Someone like who was just elected is usually more likely to protect the rights of various groups than your random person that's capable of economically improving the county/state/country.

All that will happen now thanks to these divisive politics is people of different political stripes will consolidate elsewhere. That person you just elected won't represent everyone.

You have made sexuality an issue when it simply should not matter. No one cares except for you.

I want to solve problems that effect us all.

Putting ideology ahead of the country is not progress. Just remember this if she turns out to be a terrible politician.

Not really, you're calling socialists out on something that isn't true. Socialists like the idea of socialism because that's simply what they like (i should know, I'm one of them). The fact it coincides with what sounds like the best for the people is just a bonus.

That shows how naive you are then. Left wingers (the new left I should say) are pro-uncontrolled immigration because it builds up their voter base. They are playing this game to win just like the other side.

You're imagining the brainwashing.

No I think you are blind.

Blame the heterosexuals that oppressed the rest of us (and still do) before you. Until life becomes properly liveable for the rest of us, you know, how it is for you, you'll just have to deal with it. I'm sure certain people were also sick of all the "social engineering" back when women and blacks started to get rights.

I don't remember oppressing you. You can't blame whole groups for the actions of individuals.

Civil rights are another story. You are creating a false equivalency. Lincoln freed the slaves and he was a Republican.

Strawman. I never said all or most or even a lot of people are bisexual.

You said that everyone falls between the extremes. Do you want me to quote you again?

In other words you have no idea how science works, and don't understand the concept of statistics.

You have a biased unrepresentative sample.

That's not science.

Which is not nearly the same as saying everyone is bisexual. So apparently you're still on the exact same strawman as yesterday. Aren't you just creative.[COLOR="red"]

Now you're just hiding behind nuance.

If everyone isn't exclusively straight or exclusively gay (like you said in your own words) then that would make them bi to a certain extent.

You're not very good at arguing semantics.

Lol, the hell did this become about left vs right politics? Then again it's not like you offered any logically sound argument all thread.

This won't work on me Semaphore. I know that you people will do anything to win an argument, but I am happy to let others decide who is right and who is wrong. All I am doing is letting the facts do the talking.

<Infracted>

[Tinykong]

Calling attention to one's personal beliefs and preferences is, imo, nothing more than an attention whore move (using the term here in general, not just with this woman.)

Why does it matter that she is bi-sexual, or lesbian, or straight?

It's purely anecdotal, but my wife and I have a mutual friend who is flamboyantly gay, and while I don't care about his preferences, the way he is constantly trying to get approval for his lifestyle makes me wonder if he is really seeking equality, or if he just enjoys the attention. Any opportunity to call out how he is gay, or being treated differently because he is gay is an opportunity to bitch and complain about how the community is being oppressed and segregated. Apparently it's also quite common in the community (according to him, anyway) to classify different types of gay people, and certain types belittle other types no differently than how homophobic people belittle gays. But, it's acceptable for one gay to do it to another gay why?

I've never understood why any of it mattered, the woman in this case should succeed or fail based on her merits and effort, her gender preferences have no business being quanitified or discussed in regards to her holding elected office.

[Rukentuts]

It's purely anecdotal, but my wife and I have a mutual friend who is flamboyantly gay, and while I don't care about his preferences, the way he is constantly trying to get approval for his lifestyle makes me wonder if he is really seeking equality, or if he just enjoys the attention. Any opportunity to call out how he is gay, or being treated differently because he is gay is an opportunity to bitch and complain about how the community is being oppressed and segregated.

To be fair, I don't think this woman is declaring it as much as it is others propagating it. However, in your case it is true: people will pretty much do what they have to in order to be the center of attention.

[Tinykong]

To be fair, I don't think this woman is declaring it as much as it is others propagating it. However, in your case it is true: people will pretty much do what they have to in order to be the center of attention.

Whether or not the lady in this case is the one pushing the story is really not relevant to my issue with it, the very act of the news media, or community needing to say "first bi-sexual congresswoman elected" is no different than the cries of "first black president elected," it's calling attention to something that doesn't need to be.

No amount of intelligent discussion or information is going to change the mind of a bigot, and for the vast majority of people who simply don't care about other people's preferences (or race, religion, etc. for that matter) such loud mouth behavior is annoying and divisive.

[Rukentuts]

Well, I think major milestones like "First Woman" or "First <Major Race>" are somewhat important as they show significant milestones, but shit like "First <Race> <Sexual Orientation> <Gender>!" just seems to be begging for attention for planting what I consider to be an incredibly insignificant flag.

[Tinykong]

Well, I think major milestones like "First Woman" or "First <Major Race>" are somewhat important as they show significant milestones, but shit like "First <Race> <Sexual Orientation> <Gender>!" just seems to be begging for attention for planting what I consider to be an incredibly insignificant flag.

If this was 1960, I might agree with you. I find it hard to believe that most people (Americans, anyway) really have racist beliefs or opinions. It's not something I can post a graph or a chart of, but in my personal opinion, I would say most Americans are middle of the road on most subjects, and are not fervently opinionated. I'm sure there are people who have those beliefs, but I would be shocked if they were not in an extreme minority.

[Themius]

It's purely anecdotal, but my wife and I have a mutual friend who is flamboyantly gay, and while I don't care about his preferences, the way he is constantly trying to get approval for his lifestyle makes me wonder if he is really seeking equality, or if he just enjoys the attention. Any opportunity to call out how he is gay, or being treated differently because he is gay is an opportunity to bitch and complain about how the community is being oppressed and segregated. Apparently it's also quite common in the community (according to him, anyway) to classify different types of gay people, and certain types belittle other types no differently than how homophobic people belittle gays. But, it's acceptable for one gay to do it to another gay why?

.

I don't know where you're finding "acceptable" I consider it highly unacceptable how many gays discount bisexuals. Tom (I think that's his name) comes to mind. The guy who started the "it get's better" he seems biphobic honestly.