LGBT Poppies?

Seriously?

Feck off now you disrespectful wierdo.
Disrespectful? Weirdo?

I think you ought to read this thread through again from the beginning. If, after that, you think all the other messages on this forum have been particularly respectful, I suggest you give yourself a good talking to ... and then ignore everything you've said and think the opposite.

This thread is living proof that controversy still attaches itself to what is now largely a legal and social norm. Despite the nice little dits about knowing some bona gay individual person from the 'good old days' of the 70s and 80s, that was not, IME, the generally-held view by the public or members of the armed services; far from it, in fact. It held social stigma, often led to being bullied, and was a surefire ticket to civvie street if a member of the military was found out to be of that persuasion.

What do you think the chances of this happening in 1979 were?



Rainbow wreath and pink poppies. How disrespectful. Red's good enough for everybody. There should be a thread about that kind of thing! ... Oh, wait.

My children are growing up in a world where they are expected to be aware of people's preferences in relation to their gender and other identities, including the much-derided use of pronouns and the 'micro-aggressions' that can occur by their incorrect usage, and yet this very concept was a point of mockery in the 1979 film Life of Brian.

Consider the following article, not so much for its specific content, but for what it says about today's acceptance of the status of gay people and their aspirations:


A recent scientific development could lead to new infertility treatments and bring same-sex couples one step closer to conceiving a child with both their DNA.

Dr. Azim Surani, a prominent scientist at the University of Cambridge, said he and his colleagues made a major discovery in mimicking the way the body creates sperm from stem cells. During a conference in London last month, he discussed the results of his not-yet-published study. He claimed his team had witnessed embryonic cells undergo a process called “erasure” in a lab. The process is necessary to prevent DNA mutations from being passed to offspring.
...
He said that the finding offers “a glimmer of hope,” but that much more needs to be understood before a mature sperm can be created in a lab. He said scientists still need to figure out how to make embryonic cells develop into sperm and eggs in a complex process known as “meiosis.”

“To think that we could recapitulate the whole process outside of the body and end up with a sperm cell that could then be used to fertilize an egg, that’s an ambitious goal,” Albertini said.
...
If creating sperm and eggs from stem cells or skin cells does become a reality, it could have a profound impact on same-sex couples and heterosexual couples struggling with infertility. In theory, a skin cell from a woman in a same-sex relationship could be used to produce sperm, which could in turn be used to fertilize her partner’s egg.
Forty years ago, this would have been virtually impossible to consider as a reasonable expectation by society at large. Gay male couples wanting to have their own children? Now that's what was meant by proper "weird" [1], and in certain parts of the world still is. The barrier in much of Western society is now technological rather than social or philosophical.

Talking of other parts of the world:


On May 31st, 2019, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of Karnail Singh and others v State of Haryana, recognized all animals in the animal kingdom, including avian and aquatic species, as legal entities. All citizens of the state of Haryana were declared persons in loco parentis (in place of a parent), which will enable them to act as guardians for all nonhuman animals within the state of Haryana. This decision is the latest in a trend where courts are adopting eco-centric rather than anthropocentric views on legal issues concerning the protection of animals and the environment. The court also reiterated the NhRP’s argument that legal personhood has not and should not be restricted to human beings.
And that, right there, is a foot in the door for a more global adoption of animal personhood.

You might very well find my satirical viewpoint on the kind of debate that's occurred in this thread to be disrespectful, but I'll suggest otherwise and that it's a reflection of the current dichotomies in how to be truly inclusive and yet maintain a meaningful connection to the past. Furthermore, as your response indicates, the old ways of thinking never really disappear, they merely find a new target for their reactionary conservatism. Far from being weird, these ideas are already in the air and will become more concrete as our scientific and technological knowledge base expands - and that knowledge base is growing rapidly, with the internet allowing rapid exchange of information and the wider spread of ideas. Other concepts may also arise, with some falling in or out of favour as time progresses.

I didn't even mention the other strand of what it means to be human, Transhumanism. The full implications of technology such as direct mental control of artificial limbs are barely being addressed in the fields of law and philosophy.


Soldiers back on active duty defusing bombs with their artificial arms, with said arms being mounted on Spot the Dog [2], and them being a couple of hundred metres away.

Now give Spot an enhanced AI that can intimately interact with a soldier, let the soldier's normal anthropomorphization lead them to develop feelings towards Spot akin to those they'd have for a real dog, toss in some robot rights sentiments, and Marvin's silicon & copper poppy might not sound so far-fetched to them.



If you're still around in 40 years, you might find it interesting to see what hand-cranks the outrage bus - and what doesn't.

-----------------

References:

[1]


[2]
 

Chalkster69

Old-Salt
No problems with the LGB.

It's the "T" that I have no time for & will not have anything to do with.

Although, personally, I find the whole "Rainbow" thing a wee bit "Look at Meeeeeeeeeeeeeee".......

You'd be surprised at how little people actually care what you do in your (should be) Private lives - yet it keeps getting thrust in our faces in the street, at work - bloody everywhere!!!

Be as Gay as you like, just don't Bore me......
 
BTW for those who didn't realise it this was meant to be a bit of a joke...
I am't as subtle as you, I try to mark any jokes in my posts by making them funny.
 
I meant that Pride was a celebration that decriminalisation has happened.

Decriminalisation itself is due mainly to the efforts of Sir John Wolfenden, Leo Abse, Edwina Currie, Tony Blair and David Cameron.

Did you know it was still legal to be sacked from your job if you were caught having sex with another man on a UK flagged merchant ship up until 2017?
I reckon I would be sacked if I was shagging anyone of either gender in my workplace even if it was on my break or after knock off time.
 

endure

GCM
I reckon I would be sacked if I was shagging anyone of either gender in my workplace even if it was on my break or after knock off time.

It's slightly different when your place of work is your home for several months.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Does it also apply to MMF spit-roasts?

(Asking for a hamster friend)
MFM surely ?

But if the other is more appealing crack*on.
Yes that was deliberate.
 
It's slightly different when your place of work is your home for several months.
I will refrain from making droll comment on pregnant seawomen, proctologist-seeking seamen and whatever goes on in barracks/tent on long-term deployment.

.

RN BRd 3(1) Effective Oct 2018

e. Sexual Activity Onboard Ship. Any sexual activity onboard ship, whether
homosexual or heterosexual, involving two or more people, will prima facie be prejudicial
to good order and naval discipline and is likely to be an offence under Section 19 of the
Armed Forces Act 2006. If personnel are discovered taking part in sexual activity onboard
they should be taken to separate locations and questioned by Ship's Service Police.
 

endure

GCM
I will refrain from making droll comment on pregnant seawomen, proctologist-seeking seamen and whatever goes on in barracks/tent on long-term deployment.

.

RN BRd 3(1) Effective Oct 2018

The Royal Navy isn't the Merchant Navy. Wives were going to sea with their husbands back in the 70s in the merch. The only thing the RN and the merch have in common is ships.

There are no brigs, Captain's Tables, jankers or any of the other military discipline on merchant ships. If you're naughty you get sent home and get the sack. It's totally civilian (apart from the RFA).
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
The Royal Navy isn't the Merchant Navy. Wives were going to sea with their husbands back in the 70s in the merch. The only thing the RN and the merch have in common is ships.

There are no brigs, Captain's Tables, jankers or any of the other military discipline on merchant ships. If you're naughty you get sent home and get the sack. It's totally civilian (apart from the RFA).
Alcohol gone too.

Can't blame them when all that's left is sodomy and the lash.
 
And if things could not get any worse...

I’ve just seen a woman wearing a poppy on the 12th.

The filthy grief whore.
 
Peter Tatchell has a face I'd never get tired of hitting. I still chuckle at the thought of him getting 'restrained' by Mugabe's henchmen when he tried his citizen's arrest stunt in 2001.
As for the poppy, well, the red one was good enough for everyone at its inception so it's good enough now.
His attempt at arresting Mugabe was what actually impressed me most about him. He's a walking "look at me" case, but he had the balls to try to back it up.
 
His attempt at arresting Mugabe was what actually impressed me most about him. He's a walking "look at me" case, but he had the balls to try to back it up.
Bollocks, it was attention seeking, who the **** is he to arrest foreign heads of states in Belgium? What would have happened if the bodyguards had not given him a slap? The stupid **** was just going to hold onto Mugabe all day? He probably thought not much would happen to him with all the cameras and Belquie plod about.
 
Bollocks, it was attention seeking, who the **** is he to arrest foreign heads of states in Belgium? What would have happened if the bodyguards had not given him a slap? The stupid **** was just going to hold onto Mugabe all day? He probably thought not much would happen to him with all the cameras and Belquie plod about.
Yes, it was a publicity stunt. But how many others have worked so hard, for so long, for equality?

Its a shame his hard work is being undermined by the new generation of rainbow mincers.
 
Yes, it was a publicity stunt. But how many others have worked so hard, for so long, for equality?

Its a shame his hard work is being undermined by the new generation of rainbow mincers.

You mean like him posing at the Cenotaph with his poppies wreaths complete with rainbow flags?
 
The Royal Navy isn't the Merchant Navy. Wives were going to sea with their husbands back in the 70s in the merch. The only thing the RN and the merch have in common is ships.

There are no brigs, Captain's Tables, jankers or any of the other military discipline on merchant ships. If you're naughty you get sent home and get the sack. It's totally civilian (apart from the RFA).
Although the immediate matter under discussion was re Merchant Navy, @adouglasmhor's reply was more general in its reach and your statement was in response to that, without qualifying the scope.

I'm sure others know more about the background to the longevity of the ban, but I would suspect that there was more to it than simple Victorian morality. For example, having one's non-crew wife on board could be seen in a completely different light to bunking up with a fellow, likely male, crew member. I'm guessing this consideration is at least partially behind the original intent of making it illegal in the first place, ie, to mitigate the deleterious effects of personal relationships on crew effectiveness and morale, not to mention potential abuses of power. Considering points in isolation is possibly not the most effective way to understand matters.
 

Latest Threads

Top