Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options

What unpopular opinions do you have?

1242527293038

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The point is they shouldn't have to live in fear of their lives because of other peoples issues with the way they were born.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Accipiter wrote: »
    You are more than welcome to keep the baby. :)

    But it'd be two women raising the child? That isn't "natural" in your eyes...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Accipiter wrote: »
    Bisexuality (not sure if that is a real word lol) confuses me so much I would not know what to do, really. But the baby was conceived naturally, and people do split up. It strikes me as more of a broken family kind of situation more than a sexuality thing. But then again, it would seem I interpret a lot of things wrong lol.

    It isn't natural, but if you're bisexual, there is no knowing that if the relationship with the woman breaks down, you would not then enter a relationship with a man.

    I don't understand the difference between a women having a baby with a man, and then raising it with another women... than two women or two men adopting a baby who was also naturally conceived by a man and a women.

    Also, are you against IVF and surrogacy? They are not "natural" forms of conception.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Accipiter wrote: »
    Ah, right, I get it now.

    People should not have issues with the way they were born. But they do. The world is a cruel place.

    I don't make homosexuals live in fear because of the way they were born. And the views I have would not cause them to live in fear, so I don't get what the problem is.

    But people do, people are really unpleasant, the world is, as you say, a cruel place. But homosexuals like me and your "annoying" friend don't want it to be cruel to us. So we're trying to change it. Why isn't that ok?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    But people do, people are really unpleasant, the world is, as you say, a cruel place. But homosexuals like me and your "annoying" friend don't want it to be cruel to us. So we're trying to change it. Why isn't that ok?

    :yes: I'd absolutely love to come out openly as bisexual, but I'm scared. The world shouldn't be like that at all.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I barely see any difference in the mentality of a person who says "Problem: I think my breasts/lips/whatever are too small/big/whatever. Solution: Surgery!" and someone who says "Problem: I think I have one arm too many. Solution: Amputation!".

    agreed. I see no problem with either.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Accipiter wrote: »
    if they are in danger, surely they should leave?
    Leaving a country is pretty hard to do.
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,287 Skive's The Limit
    No this is a few pages back but..
    The uncomfortable truth about many chavs is that they are vermin. They're not vermin because they're poor, or because they're working class, or because they wear a bit too much sportswear. They're vermin because they are determined to drag everyone else into the gutter with them.

    If what they wear is so irrelevent than how can Suzy call me a Chav simply because I used to wear trackies and Henri Lloyd jackets and have a Staffordshite Bull Terrier?

    Seems to me everybody has a different definition making the word even more idiotic to use.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,287 Skive's The Limit
    Dog Breed Specific Legislation is stupid.
    Banning Pit Bulls has been a complete waste of time.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Accipiter - I'm curious as to whether you know what the differences are between a marriage/civil union and a civil partnership (apart from the obvious hetero vs homo difference)?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    No this is a few pages back but..



    If what they wear is so irrelevent than how can Suzy call me a Chav simply because I used to wear trackies and Henri Lloyd jackets and have a Staffordshite Bull Terrier?

    Seems to me everybody has a different definition making the word even more idiotic to use.

    I was using a very dilute definition
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    a loveable chav. Not a cunty one
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,287 Skive's The Limit
    If a religious organisation wants to marry a gay couple, and that gay couple wants to get married what's the fucking problem?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Dog Breed Specific Legislation is stupid.
    Banning Pit Bulls has been a complete waste of time.

    I think I would probably agree, but dog ownership needs to be regulated if the breed is not. Some dogs can be extremely dangerous, because of their size and breed, but temperament and training is down to ownership and breeding.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    whats wrong with being unnatural?

    all the best sex is completely unnatural
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    why on earth anyone would want to stop two people who love each other, get married is beyond me.

    Although I think it is way too easy for heterosexual people to get married
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm a bit behind with the specifics of this, but what is granted to a married heterosexual couple that is being denied to a gay couple in a civil union?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    I'm a bit behind with the specifics of this, but what is granted to a married heterosexual couple that is being denied to a gay couple in a civil union?

    Firstly, for pendantics sake, it's a civil partnership, I only say this because heterosexual couples can have a civil marriage.
    Secondly, in a civil partnership, adultery is not grounds for dissolution, because consummation doesn't exist and sex is nothing to do with a gay relationship. (I understand that it's possible that this will STILL not be grounds under equal marriage, which bothers me, if the rules are different, they're not equal. Thought I also think that the phrasing used for dissolution and divorce may be similar I.E "irretrievable breakdown". but shagging around in a civil partnership doesn't count. Though some judges may consider it unreasonable behaviour, they don't actually have to.)
    Thirdly, my understanding is that you are prohibited from having any religious thingys as part of your ceremony to enter into civil partnership.
    Fourthly, if you change your gender, your marriage or civil partnership are automatically no longer recognised. I don't think that's fair on trans people.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'll agree that the 4th one is probably unfair (only 'probably' as I have no experience of it and neither do I know of anyone - that I'm aware of - who has been affected by it) but the 2nd and 3rd.......just seem more like wanting equality for the sake of equality rather than wanting change due to an actual and tangible lost borne out of 'discrimination'.

    And while I'll agree that generally there's little wrong with equality, I consider it a bit of a challenge to be fully committed to a cause when the reason is 'change for the sake of change'.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My girlfriend is religious. If she want to enter into a civil partnership with me, she's prohibited from having any of the religious things she wants at her ceremony for no good reason.

    Frankly, the 4th one is a BIG deal for some people, and I know people who have had problems with it. I also know people who consider themselve inter-sex, i.e. not having a gender, so having to declare it public by having EITHER a marriage OR a civil partnership isn't fair on them.


    One more inequality, is that civil partners don't get courtesy titles. Prince William is the Duke of Cambridge, his wife is the Duchess, not because she was made duchess, but because she married William. Similarly if you are made a lord in the upper house, your wife is automatically called a lady. I admit, I don't know what Baroness Thatcher's husband's courtesy title would be, but he would probably have been address as my lord automatically, because of marriage.

    If I get made a Dame, or a Lady or a Baroness, and am in a civil partnership, there is no courtesy title for my partner.

    These may seem like small things, but, perhaps being asked to sit at the back of the bus because you were black was a small thing too.

    If it's not the same, it's not equal, and if it's not equal, it's not right.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    My girlfriend is religious. If she want to enter into a civil partnership with me, she's prohibited from having any of the religious things she wants at her ceremony for no good reason.

    Frankly, the 4th one is a BIG deal for some people, and I know people who have had problems with it. I also know people who consider themselve inter-sex, i.e. not having a gender, so having to declare it public by having EITHER a marriage OR a civil partnership isn't fair on them.


    One more inequality, is that civil partners don't get courtesy titles. Prince William is the Duke of Cambridge, his wife is the Duchess, not because she was made duchess, but because she married William. Similarly if you are made a lord in the upper house, your wife is automatically called a lady. I admit, I don't know what Baroness Thatcher's husband's courtesy title would be, but he would probably have been address as my lord automatically, because of marriage.

    If I get made a Dame, or a Lady or a Baroness, and am in a civil partnership, there is no courtesy title for my partner.

    These may seem like small things, but, perhaps being asked to sit at the back of the bus because you were black was a small thing too.

    If it's not the same, it's not equal, and if it's not equal, it's not right.

    That seems to be quite a bit of detail and I'm sure if you had the time and inclination you'd be able to bring up more. However....we aren't all equal. Granted we should be, and if humans were created like robots it would be a whole lot easier.

    If we made legislation for each and every differing detail, view and opinion etc then I can't see how the hell we would get anything done. No, I'm not saying you should just have to accept it (and neither am I saying I think the status quo re: civil partnerships is right/wrong) but surely a line has to be drawn somewhere - and again, I'm not saying where the line is right now is correct. But within reason.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    That seems to be quite a bit of detail and I'm sure if you had the time and inclination you'd be able to bring up more. However....we aren't all equal. Granted we should be, and if humans were created like robots it would be a whole lot easier.

    If we made legislation for each and every differing detail, view and opinion etc then I can't see how the hell we would get anything done. No, I'm not saying you should just have to accept it (and neither am I saying I think the status quo re: civil partnerships is right/wrong) but surely a line has to be drawn somewhere - and again, I'm not saying where the line is right now is correct. But within reason.

    I think there should be ONE system. Not one system for heterosexuals, and one for homosexuals. It's not on. What I want, is for civil partnerships to be done away with, and marriage law re-written so that two people and join in law and love and be together.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Religious references are not permitted in a civil wedding ceremony either, to be fair. It has to be entirely secular. But being straight, we had the choice to get married in a church, we just didn't take it.

    Like Suzy said further up - this is about love. Why do people want to taint such a lovely issue with hate?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    I think there should be ONE system. Not one system for heterosexuals, and one for homosexuals. It's not on. What I want, is for civil partnerships to be done away with, and marriage law re-written so that two people and join in law and love and be together.

    I believe you will get that one day - and this is coming from a God-botherer.

    My only concern/gripe/whatever in all this is how quickly it is being forced on society with almost a link-it-or-lump-it attitude. For such a transition in society to run smoothly as possible I think you would need to have as many people on-board as possible. Having these changes 'rushed' through will only serve to make people defensive and resistive.

    OK when I say 'rushed' I know this has taken many years. Progress has not gone as well as one may hope however progress IS happening yet it will be hindered if any resistance is met with the classic "You're just an evil bigot" line.

    Up until about 10 years ago I was against any sort of official 'union' between gays. Nothing to do with my faith, it's just how I was brought up. I have sympathy with those that are still against it but I recognise things must change. However what took me so long to change my view was the verbal attacks and insults I received when airing my views. THAT is what I think will impede required progress.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kaff wrote: »

    Like Suzy said further up - this is about love. Why do people want to taint such a lovely issue with hate?

    Again, that's a notion I take issue with. Objection does not necessarily mean hate.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dunno if this will actually be an unpopular opinion, but the Catholic church should be completely banned from being involved in any activities that require the care of children, since they've shown themselves completely incapable of ensuring the safety of children in their care, and completely unwilling to assist authorities in bringing those responsible to justice. I don't know how anyone could possibly defend their continued involvement in things like schools.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dunno if this will actually be an unpopular opinion, but the Catholic church should be completely banned from being involved in any activities that require the care of children, since they've shown themselves completely incapable of ensuring the safety of children in their care, and completely unwilling to assist authorities in bringing those responsible to justice. I don't know how anyone could possibly defend their continued involvement in things like schools.

    There was a programme on recently about the same issue (child abuse) in the Jewish community, as they are generally discouraged from reporting to authorities from outside the faith and encouraged to let rabbi's deal with it. It was quite scary
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Brown sauce is better than red sauce.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dunno if this will actually be an unpopular opinion, but the Catholic church should be completely banned from being involved in any activities that require the care of children, since they've shown themselves completely incapable of ensuring the safety of children in their care, and completely unwilling to assist authorities in bringing those responsible to justice. I don't know how anyone could possibly defend their continued involvement in things like schools.

    On that basis should the BBC be banned from making programmes involving children?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    accipter. The world is bigger than your own backyard
Sign In or Register to comment.