A sample size can be a few thousand and still be pretty accurate if done right.
This is something that I love about politics: you will take something that fits your argument but ignore it if it doesn't, or benefits the other side. You only care about winning an argument.
The truth of the matter is you don't have a representative sample and therefore have no right to state this as a fact. It's just convenient for your worldview to believe that everyone is bisexual. It's an argument that's designed to undermine traditional values. I'm sorry, but you guys all still have both a mother and a father whether you like it or not.
Why does it even matter that this politician is bisexual anyway? Honestly, who cares? Well apparently you guys do. It shouldn't matter but you've made it matter.
I want real science. Replicate these facts to a satisfactory degree otherwise stop claiming that something is a fact when it isn't. Sorry to burst your bubble, but we don't live in a genderless world.
In 100 years time, assuming that humanity is still here, men and women will still be having children together.
I believe that the majority of people exist as extreme heterosexuals while a significant number of people are all over the map or exclusively gay.
History is on my side here. Even as less and less people are having children and sex doesn't revolve around having children, heterosexual couples vastly outnumber everyone else.
So which side of the argument stands up the most?
I believe there are varying degrees of bisexuality, but i also believe there are purely straight people and purely gay people. Hell, I'm the latter, and i wont let anyone online tell me that research was done that somehow makes it impossible for someone like me to exist (which would mean I'm either lying or subconsciously deceiving myself).
Rukentuts: I don't buy it. If you can prove it beyond all doubt like we can prove that gravity is real then I'll believe it. I'll believe it when I see it.
1000 people is not enough to be representative. If you asked 1000 Creationists whether they believed that God created the Earth in 7 days, just because they'd say yes does not mean that they speak for the rest of us.
Go outside and jump up and down 100 times. Now ask a million people to do it. Gravity will bring them all back down to Earth.
It's not a fact. It's a way to shut down the debate.
Also, I agree. I accept degrees of sexuality, but people need to accept that a lot of people fall into the extreme categories. And that's not going to change.
Now here is my position on politicians: we should elect the best people for the job regardless of their sex, race or sexuality. It simply shouldn't matter. This is being wielded as a weapon in a war of ideas in order to buy votes.
What if it turns out that she is a terrible politician? People overlooked that because of her gender and sexuality. Sorry, but that just won't work.
Last edited by curriednoodles; 2012-11-25 at 10:30 PM.
Why are democrats so fixated on sexual orientation and race? Who cares? I read this and all I can say is, who gives a crap?
Why does anyone care?
Anyone who isn't past the stigma of non-straight sexuality is ignorant and their opinion doesn't matter anyway. Everyone else has no reason to give a shit.
Good for her but honestly what does her sexuality have to do with anything?
Take A Walk On The Wild Side
As long as she gets her job done without corruption, idc what she does in the bedroom
I play many games. WoW, Rift, D3, PoE, SC2 I will not criticize your game choice if you don't mine.
Correction, first porn star to be elected. >_>
Her sexuality shouldn't matter. She shouldn't be treated better or worse than a hetero person. Did people vote for her based on sexuality? Thats just stupid.
---------- Post added 2012-11-26 at 01:35 AM ----------