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?

1262729313238

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If they continued to actively cover things up and refused to cooperate with investigations, yes. But to my knowledge, the BBC hasn't done this.

    Really? You think they've been forthcoming with all the facts in this?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Really? You think they've been forthcoming with all the facts in this?

    There is a feminist in me that totally agrees that the history of marriage is oppressive to women, etc. I know feminists who don't wear rings and weren't given away and I've a lot of sympathy with that.

    To my mind, normalising marriage for ask couples as being about love, stability, etc., not just gender norms is good for women in that it shoes marriage has moved on from simply passing the burden and child-bearing hips of a woman from father to husband.

    Also, being told you can't do something is a powerful motivator towards wanting it! :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Randomgirl wrote: »
    I'm pro-gay rights and pro equal marriage but I don't think that because something doesn't directly affect you it is hateful to oppose it. I can think of many examples of things I feel strongly about that don't directly affect me. For example if the government proposed sending unwanted children into space to get rid of them, well I'm not an unwanted child and I don't have an unwanted child but I would be strongly again this idea.

    Do you see a difference between opposing something which doesn't affect you but harms others, and opposing something which doesn't affect you but benefits others?

    I'd say they were very different things.
  • Options
    Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Kaff wrote: »
    Do you see a difference between opposing something which doesn't affect you but harms others, and opposing something which doesn't affect you but benefits others?

    I'd say they were very different things.
    Playing devil's advocate here (in case it's not obvious):
    What if gay people getting married hurts their souls? If (for whatever reason) you believe that to be true I can see being opposed to it for the same reason you'd care if a baby was killed.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You make perfect sense and it sounds like its something you struggle with a lot. So coping in the way you do by making lists is quite a sensible idea.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Playing devil's advocate here (in case it's not obvious):
    What if gay people getting married hurts their souls? If (for whatever reason) you believe that to be true I can see being opposed to it for the same reason you'd care if a baby was killed.

    I see where you're going with that. I don't think the law should pander to people with outdated beliefs, though. Even if they are using religion to excuse them!
  • Options
    Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Kaff wrote: »
    I see where you're going with that. I don't think the law should pander to people with outdated beliefs, though. Even if they are using religion to excuse them!
    What defines a belief as outdated? People who believe something today would obviously disagree with you about it being outdated. What makes you right and them wrong?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    but it hurts my soul that theyre against it
  • Options
    Annaarrr!!Annaarrr!! Posts: 876 Part of The Mix Family
    Kaff wrote: »
    I see where you're going with that. I don't think the law should pander to people with outdated beliefs, though. Even if they are using religion to excuse them!

    How can they be outdated when there are massive groups of people who still have the same beliefs?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Annaarrr!! wrote: »
    How can they be outdated when there are massive groups of people who still have the same beliefs?

    I think kaff means because the bible was written 2000 years ago, society was very different back then. What may have been normal then may not be normal now.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Really? You think they've been forthcoming with all the facts in this?

    They've certainly given the police full access to all of their records, yes. They haven't whisked anyone off to Rome to be beyond the reach of authorities.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't get started on on what a "biblical" definition of marriage is - it certainly isn't what we have in this country.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Annaarrr!! wrote: »
    How can they be outdated when there are massive groups of people who still have the same beliefs?

    Catholics are anti-contraception. There are a fair few Catholics in the world. Should we, on that basis, do away with contraception?
  • Options
    Annaarrr!!Annaarrr!! Posts: 876 Part of The Mix Family
    Didn't you make that statement in reference to gay marriage?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Annaarrr!! wrote: »
    Didn't you make that statement in reference to gay marriage?

    I did, but I'm making the point that just because many people hold a religious belief it does not mean it has a place in a modern world.

    Unless we are picking and choosing which bits of religion we can update and which we can't?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kaff wrote: »
    Unless we are picking and choosing which bits of religion we can update and which we can't?

    Thing is that it's not the religion which needs updating, it's the interpretation of parts of it and it's influence over our lives regardless of whether individually we believe. Too much power in the wrong hands IMHO
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thing is that it's not the religion which needs updating, it's the interpretation of parts of it and it's influence over our lives regardless of whether individually we believe. Too much power in the wrong hands IMHO

    That I would definitely agree with! I would welcome a greater divide between church and state. And maybe in an increasingly multicultural country, this is what we will eventually see? Much to the horror of Daily Mail types, obviousiy!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kaff wrote: »
    I did, but I'm making the point that just because many people hold a religious belief it does not mean it has a place in a modern world.

    Unless we are picking and choosing which bits of religion we can update and which we can't?

    My general interpretation of the various religious texts (purely as an interested person, not a theologian or practitioner of religions myself) is the healthiest interpretation is that they are allegorical. The stories told are there - in the same way childrens stories on cbeebies are told - to convey an idea or concept that we can use to live our life in the best way possible.

    As such then absolutely 'you' (or rather theologians and practitioners) can kind of pick which bits to update and which bits not to update. Religion shouldn't impose itself on people like an arbitrary list of rules with no meaning, but instead should be a reflection on how people can best live their lives within their context. There's always moral dilemmas, always problems regardless of whether you are a vatican nun or an abusive alcoholic living in a caravan in Telford.
  • Options
    Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Playing devil's advocate here (in case it's not obvious):
    What if gay people getting married hurts their souls? If (for whatever reason) you believe that to be true I can see being opposed to it for the same reason you'd care if a baby was killed.
    By the way, my own answer to this is that a baby can't choose what happens to them, gay adults can. Even if others believe something is going to harm them, they have no right to prevent it (at least as long as there's no hard proof about it harming them).
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    By the way, my own answer to this is that a baby can't choose what happens to them, gay adults can. Even if others believe something is going to harm them, they have no right to prevent it (at least as long as there's no hard proof about it harming them).

    That's pretty much what I would have had said. There's no proof that being gay harms my soul (if such a thing even exists), and if it did, I'm a grown up making my own informed decisions.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kaff wrote: »
    That I would definitely agree with! I would welcome a greater divide between church and state. And maybe in an increasingly multicultural country, this is what we will eventually see? Much to the horror of Daily Mail types, obviousiy!

    I don't think that multiculturalism will change anything because many religions believe the same things, or have the same prejudices.

    The key is to restrict religions influence generally. They are possible the most insipid pressure and lobbying groups of all.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Accipiter and CM Punk Just as an update to Fiend's original list of differences, here are some of the legal differences between civil partnerships and civil/religious unions (marriage):
    civil partnerships don't have the same legal benefits. if you were in a civil partnership, you wouldn't get the same property rights, you have no say over your partner's treatment in hospital, you are viewed differently for adoption purposes. there are a whole host of other things that are legally different.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think that multiculturalism will change anything because many religions believe the same things, or have the same prejudices.

    Hmmm, yes. Probably a good point.

    Then let's hope for a situation where religion is entirely self-contained!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That black/coloured people are genuinely different to white people.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Shikari wrote: »
    That black/coloured people are genuinely different to white people.

    In what ways?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    p3b00w wrote: »
    You have the right to have your baby.

    I was trying to make a point that babies can be raised by same sex couples... I don't actually have a baby.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Controversy is interesting.:chin:
  • Options
    Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    In what ways?
    Skin, mostly.
    And there's no one more "coloured" than the whites.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In what ways?

    well all people are different, and white people encompasses many different races, and so does black people.

    I think pretty much all differences apart from that are cultural rather than some evolutionary, apart from appearance-wise . After all we are exactly the same species, and any differences between a black person and a white person, will be found between two white people or two black people.

    When you say different, what do you mean??
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Different races are certainly biologically different, at a gene level. Source: an edition of new scientist I read about 5 years ago.

    That doesn't mean they should have different natural rights though, or the same freedoms.
Sign In or Register to comment.