What are your unpopular opinions?

[aaron_2000]

Rostfritt said:

The issue here is there are better terms than disease. That implies that it needs to be fixed or solved somehow. It is more a condition, like autism. You have also ignored the fact that it is more of a spectrum. There are bisexuals, there are also other ways that you can procreate these days. I have heard of gay men and lesbians having like one straight relationship to have a child, which may seem like bizarre behaviour but may point to a natural instinct to have children, regardless of sexual orientation.

It is an unpopular opinion when it is used as a reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry or to claim that there is some reason they shouldn't be near children.

I don't like children, they are always sticky for some reason and sound like far too much responsibility, so even if I was straight I wouldn't want them.

I also have no issue with anyone on the LGBT spectrum, my sister is gay, my girlfriends sister is Bi, and most their friends are something on that scale. The way I see it is we have gay people, bi people and whatever else, so they deserve every right that everyone else has, obviously. However, would it not be great if we could take it out of the picture? If we could pinpoint the gene that causes it and remove it? I'm obviously not saying purge anyone on the spectrum what I'm saying is through genetic science, we could have the ability to make sure the gene isn't in newborns. It's a complex issue, but can anyone really deny the world would be better if nobody had to go through the pain of figuring themselves out, and questioning themselves constantly for years?

[Rostfritt]

aaron_2000 said:

I also have no issue with anyone on the LGBT spectrum, my sister is gay, my girlfriends sister is Bi, and most their friends are something on that scale. The way I see it is we have gay people, bi people and whatever else, so they deserve every right that everyone else has, obviously. However, would it not be great if we could take it out of the picture? If we could pinpoint the gene that causes it and remove it? I'm obviously not saying purge anyone on the spectrum what I'm saying is through genetic science, we could have the ability to make sure the gene isn't in newborns. It's a complex issue, but can anyone really deny the world would be better if nobody had to go through the pain of figuring themselves out, and questioning themselves constantly for years?

Not at all. I am really happy about who I am, even though it took a long time to figure it out. I wouldn't change that in myself or wish to go back in time and flick a switch to make myself straight. Society is the issue, we have almost come to a point where it is not an issue any more. I think it would make the world a duller place if there were no gay people in it. I say that having met some extraordinarily dull gay people. That would be like removing the gene for curly hair because it is harder to brush.

[bristolracer]

aaron_2000 said:

However, would it not be great if we could take it out of the picture? If we could pinpoint the gene that causes it and remove it? I'm obviously not saying purge anyone on the spectrum what I'm saying is through genetic science, we could have the ability to make sure the gene isn't in newborns. It's a complex issue, but can anyone really deny the world would be better if nobody had to go through the pain of figuring themselves out, and questioning themselves constantly for years?

I seem to remember some bloke in Germany had similar ideas about cleaning up the gene pool. I don’t think he had much success.
I don’t think your position on the sexuality spectrum has much to do with your anxieties either,life will provide you with plenty.

[Westblue]

Is London REALLY the capital of England? When British people are in the minority there How can that be?

Should the capital now be somewhere proper 'English' - Worcester, or Berwick, or Lincoln?

Is this an unpopular opinion?

(Two disclaimers here - forgive the England bias - I'm not excluding Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast because it may cause Celtic offence and, number 2 - I'm Cornish- so Truro is the capital of Cornwall - not England)!!!

Another 'unpopular' opinion?

[glazbagun]

Westblue said:

Is London REALLY the capital of England? When British people are in the minority there How can that be?

Should the capital now be somewhere proper 'English' - Worcester, or Berwick, or Lincoln?

Is this an unpopular opinion?

(Two disclaimers here - forgive the England bias - I'm not excluding Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast because it may cause Celtic offence and, number 2 - I'm Cornish- so Truro is the capital of Cornwall - not England)!!!

Another 'unpopular' opinion?

I've long felt that London isn't England, it feels like something else. Though to be fair, I've spent most of my (English) time in the North/Midlands, so perhaps the SE are very Londony.

[Rostfritt]

Westblue said:

Is London REALLY the capital of England? When British people are in the minority there How can that be?

Yes it is. British people are not the minority there. Even if for whatever reason you remove the number of not British people there, it would still be more than anywhere else in Britain.

Why does the capital have to have the most people anyway? Canberra, Wellington, Bern, Washington DC, Edinburgh to name a few all are not the biggest cities in their country, but are still the capital.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Westblue said:

Is London REALLY the capital of England? When British people are in the minority there How can that be?

I appreciate that we have huge numbers of foreign tourists at any given point in London, plus loads of foreign workers, students etc, but surely they don't make up over 50%. Where's your evidence that foreigners outnumber the British in London?

[p1esk]

Blown2CV said:

IJB1959 said:

bristolracer said:

Blown2CV said:

i have nothing against people who are gay, it's totally fine with me. If my kids ended up being, then that's fine too.

However, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it stops the breeding line, it is technically a disease (as extremely unfashionable as it is to say openly... unfortunately i can't think of another word but i am very much not using it as an attacking term), in the same way that anything that stops procreation or causes it to fail is.

I thinks its fair to say that may well be an unpopular opinion.............

Yep, need to be VERY careful not to get banned on PH with some views on that subject.

oh for fks sake if you just read my post you'll see it is clearly not about how I feel about homosexuality and people that are.

It seems that holding the (perfectly reasonable) views that you have expressed on homosexuality is increasingly going to bring you rudeness and abuse on PH these days, and the forum is the worse for it. Whatever happened to the notion of having respect for differing viewpoints?

We should all be free to hold whatever views we like, and so long as they are expressed in a reasonable manner there is nothing wrong with that.

[IJB1959]

poing said:

The Don of Croy said:

I also think the Sinclair C5 was years ahead of it's time, and his Sovereign calculator the forerunner to Apple success (premium pricing for everyday tech wrapped in a nice case etc).

I'd agree with that. However, if we had a new C5 today it would be banned from the roads on safety reasons. Lots of potentially great travel ideas have died off because health and safety overreacts before anything even goes wrong.

The Don of Croy said:

Trackballs are better to use than a mouse.

Nope. Smart (multi touch) trackpads are better than any other option.

The Don of Croy said:

Abolish the TV licence and set the BBC free to compete on equal terms with allcomers.

Most of the UK agree with this so I wouldn't say it's unpopular.

I HATE watching adverts, and the BBC would have to advertise if no license fee.

[Too Drunk to Funk]

grumbledoak said:

I thought The Monkeys were better than The Beatles.

Who wasn't better than The Beatles?

[Too Drunk to Funk]

glazbagun said:

I've long felt that London isn't England, it feels like something else.

That can only be a good thing.

[Voldemort]

Too Drunk to Funk said:

grumbledoak said:

I thought The Monkeys were better than The Beatles.

Who wasn't better than The Beatles?

It's The Who and weren't, not wasn't.

[IJB1959]

Too Drunk to Funk said:

grumbledoak said:

I thought The Monkeys were better than The Beatles.

Who wasn't better than The Beatles?

The Monkeys. They used to mime quite a lot, have session musicians to play instruments, as they could not sing or play well at all. They never wrote a song and were in fact just actors initially. They did play and sing a little later on, but it never rally caught on.

[captain_cynic]

IJB1959 said:

I HATE watching adverts, and the BBC would have to advertise if no license fee.

This.

The BBC produces quality programming that could never exist on commercial stations.

[Dr Jekyll]

captain_cynic said:

IJB1959 said:

I HATE watching adverts, and the BBC would have to advertise if no license fee.

This.

The BBC produces quality programming that could never exist on commercial stations.

Have you seen Netflix?

[captain_cynic]

Dr Jekyll said:

Have you seen Netflix?

Yes, Netflix are also not bound to advertisers whims, they also prove my point as Netflix are also not a commercial network (note I said commercial, not private as the BBC is technically a private firm with one shareholder).

[singlecoil]

captain_cynic said:

IJB1959 said:

I HATE watching adverts, and the BBC would have to advertise if no license fee.

This.

The BBC produces quality programming that could never exist on commercial stations.

And an awful lot of st too. And some of that st is seriously expensive.

[Voldemort]

singlecoil said:

And an awful lot of st too. And some of that st is seriously expensive.

You expect the entire output of the BBC to match your tastes? That's some vanity, there.

[alorotom]

Voldemort said:

singlecoil said:

And an awful lot of st too. And some of that st is seriously expensive.

You expect the entire output of the BBC to match your tastes? That's some vanity, there.

I agree with SingleCoil ... in fact I would suggest that probably 90% of current BBC aired or produced shows are dross

[FredClogs]

captain_cynic said:

Blown2CV said:

bristolracer said:

Blown2CV said:

i have nothing against people who are gay, it's totally fine with me. If my kids ended up being, then that's fine too.

However, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it stops the breeding line, it is technically a disease (as extremely unfashionable as it is to say openly... unfortunately i can't think of another word but i am very much not using it as an attacking term), in the same way that anything that stops procreation or causes it to fail is.

I thinks its fair to say that may well be an unpopular opinion.............

only because people don't understand science and get all emotive rather than just be rational.

For which you are case in point.

Evolution or more accurately, natural selection, which you are referencing works on the macro level, it's to do with the behaviour of the species, not the behaviour of the individual. Using individual behaviours to predict the fate of a species demonstrates you don't understand the science.

Are you honestly trying to say that gay people are causing the entire species to stop procreating? Because given that the human population is growing, that seems horribly flawed.

You are of course, entitled to your own opinion on homosexuals... but you're not entitled to your own facts.

Blimey, its all gone a bit 1920s in here...

There are several observed instances in the "natural" world of species with the ability to change gender or sexual behaviour in response to localised environmental or "social" needs, perhaps even consciously as far as I understand it in the case of some of those funny fish like octupus things. They also change the colour of their skin, that could really fk with some of the little hitlers on here..