Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

Many details of Star Trek are being changed for the new movies. i don't think anyone has argued that any character should leave a relationship. But a character's sexuality can certainly be changed with other details.

You can imagine that homosexuality simply does not exist in Vulcan psychology. We have only seen heterosexual couples on screen so the canon is silent on the matter of homosexuality. Of course, because canon is silent on the matter, imagining the existence of homosexuality among Vulcans is also possible.

I'm not sure what you mean by Christian/Jewish rights. If you mean freedom to have religious beliefs, then the human society espoused in Star Trek clearly allows for it. However, as another poster noted, it does not espouse religious belief as preferable. Star Trek has a secular humanist theme in it.

 

Let's play a little game called word substitution.

... as an atheist and a person strong on skepticism, I have never personally promoted or supported christianity. However I am very tolerant of it because you can not escape it...

I could do this all day.

 

Kira, the most religious character in Trek, had no issues with Jadzia and Lenara, even encouraging for them to be together.

Hopefully by Trek time, people will realise that religion loves all, it's people that discriminate in its name.

 

The deliberate decision on the part of the network, various producers and other in "TPTB" to exclude non-heterosexual relationships (both romance and sex) is not an example of silence, within the canon it speaks quite loudly.

 

I was referring solely to the Vulcan context, in response to xavier.


But more broadly (and we've sparred on this point before), the viewer is completely free to imagine that homosexuality exists and is accepted in human society. This conclusion is based on two premises:

1) Homosexuality has not been stated to be non-existant.

2) If homosexuality exists, it non-acceptance would be inconsistent with the nature of human society as it is shown in the canon.

 

Be really nice if that was backed up by something (anything).

 

stay on the discussion ...we have been told.

 

Don't agree. As indicated, this is not the forum get into it and/or "name and shame", but many religions most certainly do not "love all" and use their "holy" texts to justify exclusion and outright persecution.

 

Bogboi this thread is about homosexual rights in star trek so there will obviously be some who argue for it and some who argue against it and some who are in between. this is a forum. people all have different opinions. that is the beauty of fandom fourms and the topic that came up for a discussion like was called homosexual rights in star trek. if everyone said the same thing it would be so boring.

It is not so simple to say it is not my place to agree to disagree with sexuality this topic is after all a discussion on a sexual subject.

we all agree to disagree on things, that is why we have elections and like i said ...forums. In all my life I have never supported or promoted homosexuality and I never will. So it is expected to say, I may have a different take on homosexual rights in trek and I am free to discuss that in the context of this thread because this thread is about homosexuality.

You can not say I am prejudice for that. you saying I am prejudice for that will also mean that I could say you are prejudiced for not accepting my beliefs but I have said no such thing and this is because I do not need to hide under a prejudice card to try and make people look bad and hateful because our opinion varies.

we all have different views on many life issues. Homosexuality rights seems to be one. it does not mean we are prejudice, it means our social views are different.

to call me prejudice because i dare to disagree with the political correct answer is sad and not the way to have a civil debate like this thread topic.



The discussion of homosexuality is trek is not new.yes fans have romanctise Kirk and Spock but it has never been canon because Kirk and Spock are actually not homosexuals.Also the romance has always be done by a majority of female fans. Male fans hardly romanticize the kirk and spock friendship as sexual.

I am all for diversity as well as long as people of faith are included for real and not there to be hypocrites or to be public comic reliefs and end up changing their views to suit others views.

I can not say for trek novels they are not canon and are written by ghost authors who do not own the write to the characters. Savik is a different issue because she is a canon character although she is not mentioned in name.

When Spock appeared in TNG, it was stated that he was married. in star trek 4, there was a behind the scene of savik been pregnant with his child but that never made it into the film.

Vulcan marriage was done so that male and females can mate during the pon farr.

I do not necessary want to start a Christian thread, I only brought up Christianity because we were talking of diversity. I have never used my faith as a weapon against anyone. that is just silly. I also do not understand when you say other minorities? you mean like blacks or Latinos?

I do not think it is fair to compare homosexuality/sexuality rights to race. they are complete two different things. its like apples and oranges.

There is no difference between a black,white and Asian man. there are immense and significant differences between a man and woman.

the notion that race and sexuality or race and gender can be compared or is the same thing is wrong and invalid.


We are having a discussion on homosexual rights in star trek and i can tell you that homosexual rights can not be compared to things like black slavery or the jewish holocaust, topics that star trek has touched upon in the past. They are completely two different things because race and sexuality are completely two different things.


I will fully respect the writers discussion to put a gay character in trek. Overall I love trek and I accept everyone regardless of our different social views.

 

Small rant.

"Some humans harbor a strong prejudice against Vulcans." noun

"The treaty is likely to prejudice the planet's status." verb

"But not all us humans are so prejudiced." adjective

Also...

"Homosexuality" and "Christianity" cannot have rights, as they are things.

"Homosexuals" and "Christians" may, because they are people.

Finally,

Jews are not a race, so do not fall under such a neat umbrella.

 

I'm with you 100 percent in Kirk's case. I once again refer you all to the SHORE LEAVE teaser featuring James T. ''Kink-in-my-back.'' But since I enjoy triangular relationships, I also assume McCoy's affection for ''JIM!!!'' may go beyond the platonic. So it becomes a fan-fiction ''Three's Company'' of sorts with three times the dissatisfaction, and it makes the TOS episodes funnier while rewatching them.

 

When I say race, I also mean nationality and ethnicity. I don't think it is accurate to compare the horrors that a race or a nationality faced in the world to the human sexuality or to rights based on people's sexuality. it is completely two different things and therefore can not be compared.

I find it interesting that many African Americans have said in a majority that the black civil rights can not be compared to homosexual rights. most African American support the definition of marriage which is a union between a man and a woman and this same African Americans largely support interracial marriage by 88% but then again, interracial marriage never redefined marriage and many African american are aware of this.

What interracial marriage did was strike down racism that interfered and prohibited the definition of marriage and this violated the rights of people who were in interracial relationships that wanted to get married.

The rights of interracial marriage never changed the definition of marriage by making it a union of two people. interracial marriage was still a man and a woman in holy matrimony as husband and wife and this therefore met the definition of marriage.

homosexual rights does not met the definition because it changes the definition of marriage interracial marriage did not change the definition of marriage and this is why I said you can not compare race/nationality/ethnicity rights to sexuality rights.

Like I said,in trek I welcome everyone regardless of their faith and beliefs but if we are talking of rights, I believe the rights needs to be fair and proportionate to what falls under the rights and this applies to the characters rights in star trek as well who are homosexual and this is the topic of this thread.

 

Interesting way of following instructions.

 

Isn't it just.

 

This is still going off topic, but I can't let this pass without comment.
Persecution is persecution regardless of it's origin being race or orientation. Hilter was putting gays in concentration camps alongside Jews and other "undesirables" and gays were actually treated worse in the camps than anyone else. There are still countries that have lengthy prison sentences and even executions for being gay.
Many African American leaders, including the great Coretta Scott King have compared the civil rights struggles of gays to African Americans.
Of course interracical marriage redefined marriage, it just did it in a way that doesn't bother some people. Race was once seen to be only for people of the same race just as it is defined, in some places, as only between the opposite sex. The pain of people denied marriage for their orientation is the same pain that people denied marriage for their race. Our feelings are the same as straight people, which may surprise some people.
"Fair and proportionate" rights would be equal. If you don't believe in equality then at least be honest enough to admit it.
I hope to God that people in the 22nd, 23rd and 24th century of the real world will be beyond this kind of petty bigotry we have to deal with now, and at least we have Star Trek to show us a better way to be (even if they still have fallen short of their promise of equality thus far in representation). I despair that I won't live long enough to see bigotry die out. I don't think some people realize just how much hurt they spread with their casual bigotry.

 

the DS9 episode where Jadzia was romantically involved with another woman?

And then dudes wearing dresses in season 1 of TNG.

Roddenberry certainly intended to press the issue of what gender normative meant. Now, maybe the networks put too much pressure on them to tone it down. But it`s fairly plain to see what Roddenberry`s intentions were.

 

I love TNG unisex mini-dress. I wish they had kept it for Deanna Troi, as well as for other men and women supporting characters.
I think it just shows up in the first episode, and then again in flashbacks to the first episode in the series finale. Does it show up anywhere else?

 

I had thought so. But I haven`t watched much of season 1 in a couple years. You may be right. I missed Deanna`s skirts.

edit: another one that comes to mind is when Riker falls for that person from the Androgynous species. There was a lot of subtext in that one.

 

I much prefer Troi's cheerleader look over the uptight look with the bun she wore most of season one. I prefer her in a uniform over the casual catsuits - but the very best is the mini- dress uniform. It suits her. I don't think it would suit Beverly, and of course Yar wouldn't be caught dead in it.
I can't really imagine any of the guys of TNG in it, too much macho and serious personalities, except Data who wouldn't care, and Wesley. Wesley I think would wear the mini-dress.