Houston voters elect 1st openly gay mayor

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091213/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_houston_mayor

Good news is good! Hopefully we'll start to see this elsewhere.

Agreed.

So?

Axeforhire wrote:

So?

Big deal for the gay community since there aren't many openly gay people in office, especially something like mayor of one of the largest cities in America. Same thing applies to any minority group that wasn't/isn't represented with a pubic figure.

I know that, but I sometimes get annoyed by things like this.

When Obama got elected, everyone was freaking out because he was the first black president. I don't see why it's a big deal. I'm all for equal rights for minorities and gays, but sometimes it seems like the media makes too big of a deal out of it. I just reread that and I kinda sound like a prick, but believe me that was unintended.

I don't give a toss. Politicians should be judged by their views, policies and actions. Race or sexuality shouldn't enter into the equation.

Dies Irae wrote:

I don't give a toss. Politicians should be judged by their views, policies and actions. Race or sexuality shouldn't enter into the equation.

Exactly. That's what I was trying to get at. This gay mayor could be a snot nosed little prick, he shouldn't be celebrated just because he's gay.

Thing is that they wouldn't be elected had it not been for their message/stance/whatever. People aren't voting in favor of a person just because of race or sexual orientation, most of the time it's the opposite.

Obama being president was a big deal because it showed that the person's ideas and views are more important than trivial things like the color of their skin.

Except now he's turning out to be worthless

"Hey! Lets give him a nobel prize for doing jack shit!"

Sorry, I understand what you're saying. But you have to admit, some people are f***ing insane. I can assure you people voted for Obama because he was black, and I can also assure you people didn't vote for him because he is black. Goes both ways

I'm with Taxer on this one completely.

I know what you're saying blackstar, but I think alot of people voted for him because he was black. Not because of his ideas, which are turning out to be horrible

Taxer666 wrote:

Thing is that they wouldn't be elected had it not been for their message/stance/whatever. People aren't voting in favor of a person just because of race or sexual orientation, most of the time it's the opposite.

Obama being president was a big deal because it showed that the person's ideas and views are more important than trivial things like the color of their skin.

You must be joking. For some reason, minorities feel they are being treated unfairly because they are a minority.

Obama was saluted and compared to Martin Luther King, and then goes and fucks the economy more with the stimulus package. The news media did nothing to announce that the plan was a failure, but when he won the Nobel Prize for doing (and he admitted this) jack shit, the media went crazy with praise. Admittedly, being a minority will help with his foreign relations policies, and can help when talking to other countries of different colors. However, the media created a sensation about him being the first black president.

This woman's policies were not stated in the article, and it was merely about how she was gay. Who gives a f***? We want to know what she's going to do when she gets into power, not what her sexuality is.

+ rep MC

Taxer666 wrote:

Master Cthulhu wrote:

Taxer666 wrote:

Thing is that they wouldn't be elected had it not been for their message/stance/whatever. People aren't voting in favor of a person just because of race or sexual orientation, most of the time it's the opposite.

Obama being president was a big deal because it showed that the person's ideas and views are more important than trivial things like the color of their skin.

You must be joking. For some reason, minorities feel they are being treated unfairly because they are a minority.

Obama was saluted and compared to Martin Luther King, and then goes and fucks the economy more with the stimulus package. The news media did nothing to announce that the plan was a failure, but when he won the Nobel Prize for doing (and he admitted this) jack shit, the media went crazy with praise. Admittedly, being a minority will help with his foreign relations policies, and can help when talking to other countries of different colors. However, the media created a sensation about him being the first black president.

This woman's policies were not stated in the article, and it was merely about how she was gay. Who gives a f***? We want to know what she's going to do when she gets into power, not what her sexuality is.

We aren't trying to be offensive or troll, but some people are so ignorant

Remember the little evolution thing? Here we go again...

Premise or Expectation: Gayness would negatively influence the election, or, put in better words, any hypothetical negative influence will more likely out-weigh any hypothetical positive influence.
Value Judgment: Gayness shouldn't influence an election.
Result A: Person not elected.
Inference: Hypothetical negative influence was 0-100%. In light of our value judgment this could be a good or bad. Hypothetical positive influence was 0-50%.

Result B: Person is elected.
Inference: Hypothetical negative influence was 0-50%. In light of our value judgment this could be a good or bad, but with less a range of possible negative influence. Hypothetical positive influence was 0-100%.

Assumptions (excluding premise) for the sake of simplicity: Positive influence is of equal "evil" to negative influence.

The Key Part: If we form a "probability cloud" for each result, both clouds are of equal statistical evil. However, *in light of our expectations*, the suspected majority negative influence is counter-confiscated for in testing. This would suggest that the severity of our expectations were more likely lesser than if result A had been the case. If we assume our original expectation was more appropriate than the opposite expectation, then result B was the lesser of the two evils.

Now...one could say that result B simply implies that our original expectation was exactly more likely the lesser appropriate expectation in contrast to the opposite expectation. True this is, however the difference must be split between the simple real chance that our original expectation was appropriate yet had a lesser confirming outcome than possible. It wins by a qualitative token, so to speak.

For example say A qualitatively more expected than B, yet X occurs suggesting B more than A. So now, perhaps, B qualitatively more expected (in retrospect) than A, but MINUS the chance that <A and X>. In other words, A expected more than B, but now B is a lesser more expected than A than the "more" in "A qualitatively more expected than B." Split the difference, and the original expectation comes out a "qualitative token" ahead.

And I know my language here is strange but it is intended. There is a good chance these things could be said in a much more concise way but I'm bad at compressing explanations. Oh yeah...I could be wrong about all of this, so check for me. There are some other nuances that should be mentioned but you know...f*** it.


Whether such expectations had any or sufficient grounds or not is another discussion that would involve cultural dissection and ultimately probably need a well-made and carried out survey to make a conclusion on. That's outside the scope of this analysis though, in which I only intend to make sense of a certain attitude and not question the foundations which it is based upon.

And my personal thoughts: the less influence sexuality, race, etc. have on an election the better.

I agree.

I think we need to focus on views and ideas rather than race/sexuality/etc. It's just stupid to elect someone because they are black, or not elect someone because they are black

Also there is nothing "wrong" with celebrating something like this. I don't feel like explaining why though because it's always the same essay just with a slightly different conclusion...and it gets tiring. And the shortened version of it is too potent. The very very very very short version: If you can f***(1) it and not f***(2) it up, then f***(1)(3) it.
f***(1) = genitally stab [as in gain pleasure]
f***(2) = mess
f***(1)(3) = genitally stab / don't care about [double meaning]
And this isn't in reference to homosexuality. It's in reference to celebration.

As long as celebrating doesn't entail something like voting for someone on purpose because they are homosexual (that would be f***ing(2) it up). Like in this case, I believe.

And I hate to be so vague and broad-stroked so don't take these things too absolutely.

I just think sometimes it's goofy

He would have to reveal it or else if someone finds out ppl will feel betrayed or something

Good news is good

Axeforhire wrote:

I just think sometimes it's goofy

Exactly. I find most fashion to be quite goofy, but that's just my impression of such. I find people chewing food with their mouths open to be gross. However for some people chewing food with their mouths open is an integral part of life. Feeling the cool breeze and wind lash against their open disgusting mouth brings them untold joys. The same could be said of many celebrations.

By the way, the whole food in the mouth thing was just my comical interpretation of why I might imagine some people chew the way they do.

VacuousReality wrote:

Axeforhire wrote:

I just think sometimes it's goofy

Exactly. I find most fashion to be quite goofy, but that's just my impression of such. I find people chewing food with their mouths open to be gross. However for some people chewing food with their mouths open is an integral part of life. Feeling the cool breeze and wind lash against their open disgusting mouth brings them untold joys. The same could be said of many celebrations.

By the way, the whole food in the mouth thing was just my comical interpretation of why I might imagine some people chew the way they do.

Open-mouth chewing is equally as gross as mouth breathers.

Blah