Feck off now you disrespectful wierdo.
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 biological child.
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" , and in certain parts of the world still is. The barrier in much of Western society is now technological rather than social or philosophical.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.
Talking of other parts of the world:
With this decision, India takes another big step forward in the global struggle for recognition and protection of nonhuman rights.
And that, right there, is a foot in the door for a more global adoption of animal personhood.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.
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.
Johnny Matheny of Port Richey, Florida, who lost his arm to cancer in 2005, received the prosthesis back in December.
Soldiers back on active duty defusing bombs with their artificial arms, with said arms being mounted on Spot the Dog , 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.