RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 147,642
Posts: 5,837,726
Members: 26,162
Currently online: 489
Newest member: Ember

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Elogium
By: Michelle Erica Green on Aug 28

Trek Swype Keyboard
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Meaney In Talks For McGuinness Role
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Stewart And Son To Act Together
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Quinto: If I Wasn’t An Actor…
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Star Trek Beyond Update
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Red Shirt Diaries Returns Next Month
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

ISS Astronaut May Join Trek Fan Film
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Quinto Sports New Trek Uniform
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Star Trek: Renegades Released Early
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old July 20 2014, 06:39 AM   #451
Bry_Sinclair
Commodore
 
Bry_Sinclair's Avatar
 
Location: Tactical withdrawl along the Klingon border
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

urbandefault wrote: View Post
But back to topic, why specify "homosexual rights"? Aren't basic God-given rights enough for everyone?
That's if you believe in any such figure. Since I don't, I see equal rights for all as a basic credence for human decency.

In a Trek context, I would see such acceptance and inclusion for all as being the corner stone for all Federation members. Other galactic powers would, of course, have their own stance on same-sex partners. Until such time as Trek drags itself out of its repressed mind set on such things and actually starts to explore them then we'll never know--though given the direction its heading (all style, with hot actors and big explosions, and little in the way of substance) then its doubtful we'll get much in the way of intelligent and intensive Trek in the immediate future.
__________________
Avatar: Captain Naya, U.S.S. Renown NCC-1415 [Star Trek: Four Years War]
Manip by: JM1776 (STPMA.net)
Bry_Sinclair is offline  
Old July 20 2014, 08:32 AM   #452
xavier
Commander
 
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

urbandefault wrote: View Post
My position on "homosexual rights" has evolved.

If two people of the same sex want to enter into the social contract called marriage, great. More power to them.

In my opinion, government should not be involved. Two consenting adults should be allowed to join together for their mutual benefit.

That said, churches and businesses should not be forced to participate in anything that goes against their own individual fundamental beliefs.

If a church declines to provide their facilities for a gay wedding, so be it. There are plenty of public places to hold a wedding. If a baker declines to put a double groom on top of a cake, fine. That is their prerogative. I'm sure there are plenty of bakers more than willing to take the cash.

Bringing suit against these people is, in my opinion, a waste of time and money. That's not how you change minds, and most certainly not how to change hearts.

The free market system works absolutely, and if there is enough demand for these services someone will supply them.

But back to topic, why specify "homosexual rights"? Aren't basic God-given rights enough for everyone?

the only problem is a marriage was solely created as a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. that is the definition of marriage. no one has the right to change the definition of marriage any more than they have the right to change what was written in our Constitution.
xavier is offline  
Old July 20 2014, 10:37 AM   #453
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Location: Looking for somewhere to put my urine sample down
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

Bry_Sinclair wrote: View Post
Until such time as Trek drags itself out of its repressed mind set on such things and actually starts to explore them
At best the next movie might barely mention a minor gay character in passing. To truly explore our new gay character we need a new TV/cable series. Something that will let us do a nice in depth get to know ya over the course of say a hundred and fifty plus episodes.

borgboy wrote: View Post
When watching/reading science fiction, I think it's pretty common to imagine what our lives would be like in that world, but as a gay man, I often don't know where and how I'd belong in those worlds, so I do appreciate that the Trek novels at least have explored LGBT characters.
During a previous discussion on this subject, a poster told me that it wasn't necessary for me to see myself in the show to enjoy the world being presented. I don't know that that is completely true, I mean I do enjoy the show despite the absence of a Christian hispanic bi-sexual transsexual character, but would my enjoyment increase substantially with the inclusion of someone with a few traits from my little demographic?

I did like the brief appearances of Ensign Gomez, because she looked like someone who could be right out of my own family. If she had also been "un-straight" I might have like her appearances that much more.

JirinPanthosa wrote: View Post
And despite what the conservative activist supreme court says, companies can't invoke freedom of religion in order to exempt themselves from the law
With the supreme court decision in place it isn't a exemption to the law, it's now is the law.

... and you can't force your beliefs on your employees because freedom of religion does not apply to what corporations offer for employee benefits.
Actually you can control what health services you as a business offer your employees, if those services violate the morals of the owners.

One example, the Hobby-Lobby business covers sixteen different types of birth control that prevent pregnancies, but not four types that destroy fertilized eggs.

T'Girl is offline  
Old July 20 2014, 01:32 PM   #454
borgboy
Fleet Captain
 
borgboy's Avatar
 
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

What people call "gay rights" is just the rights that are currently reserved for heterosexuals only. We're not trying to get anything straights don't already take for granted.

Marriage evolves all the time. Women are no longer, in Western culture anyways, sold by their fathers to their husbands. Divorce is much more common. Polygamy in the Bible means that marriage wasn't always between just one man and one woman. Besides, "We've always done it this way" is no reason to deny equal rights to gays. Slavery was once a time honored tradition, and it has Biblical support too. Things change, and often for the better.
__________________
Resistance is futile
borgboy is offline  
Old July 20 2014, 01:49 PM   #455
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: North America
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

xavier wrote: View Post
the only problem is a marriage was solely created as a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. that is the definition of marriage. no one has the right to change the definition of marriage any more than they have the right to change what was written in our Constitution.
Since marriage isn't defined in the US Constitution, that's certainly false. And anyway, the US Constitution does allow itself to be amended, thereby changing what is written in it.

What's happening across the country is a trend that both state and federal courts are recognizing that there is no legal basis for denying homosexual couples the numerous civil benefits of marriage. Among those numerous civil benefits is the use of the term legally married.
__________________
“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP” — Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)

Last edited by CorporalCaptain; July 20 2014 at 03:00 PM.
CorporalCaptain is offline  
Old July 20 2014, 03:28 PM   #456
xavier
Commander
 
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
xavier wrote: View Post
the only problem is a marriage was solely created as a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. that is the definition of marriage. no one has the right to change the definition of marriage any more than they have the right to change what was written in our Constitution.
Since marriage isn't defined in the US Constitution, that's certainly false. And anyway, the US Constitution does allow itself to be amended, thereby changing what is written in it.

What's happening across the country is a trend that both state and federal courts are recognizing that there is no legal basis for denying homosexual couples the numerous civil benefits of marriage. Among those numerous civil benefits is the use of the term legally married.

I was drawing similarities not saying it was in our constitution. what i meant was that you can not change the definition of marriage. the people that created marriage around 1250–1300 CE said it was an institution of a man and a woman. the male and female beings as husband and wife. The word marriage also goes as far as the Jewish tradition in the BC calender where it was the union of a man and woman.

those are the only people that have a right to change the definition.

Its the same for our Constitution. the founding fathers are the only ones that have a right to change what was written.

so yes, no one can change the definition of marriage anymore so than they can change the definition of our Constitution.

marriage is for no one to redefine because unless you are the original author
xavier is offline  
Old July 20 2014, 03:36 PM   #457
Melakon
Admiral
 
Melakon's Avatar
 
Location: Unmarked grave
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

Just use the term matrimony then, if redefining marriage is somehow improper.
__________________
Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard: For duty and humanity! --Men in Black (1934)
Melakon is offline  
Old July 20 2014, 03:38 PM   #458
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: North America
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

xavier wrote: View Post
Its the same for our Constitution. the founding fathers are the only ones that have a right to change what was written.
That's false, because the Constitution can be added to, by the process of amendment, as spelled out in the Constitution itself. Amendments can alter the force of text already in the Constitution. I said that already.

I don't believe that General Trek is the forum for this particular cluster of topics. I've stated my position, and I'm sticking to it. If you'd like to create a thread in a more appropriate forum of the board, perhaps I'll have something to add there. For now in this thread, though, I'm done.
__________________
“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP” — Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)
CorporalCaptain is offline  
Old July 20 2014, 03:43 PM   #459
Elias Vaughn
Captain
 
Elias Vaughn's Avatar
 
Location: Dead. Or in the Celestial Temple. One of the two.
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

I don't understand why you can't change the definition of marriage.

In case people don't pay attention to language, it's forever evolving. Words change meanings all the time. Usage, syntax, definitions, it's not literally written in stone. This is why nobody talks like Shakespeare unless they're acting in one of his plays or they're a super pretentious neckbeard.

xavier wrote:
the people that created marriage around 1250–1300 CE
Hey, you want to know what language didn't even exist back then?

edit: My bad, I didn't realize you said CE. I assumed you'd said BC because I'm still half asleep and not really paying attention to things. But marriage predates recorded history. It was not invented in the thirteenth century. And a tidbit in case you don't want to click the link:

The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time
And even if that weren't relevant, people back then also believed that the sun rode across the sky on a chariot, so I think we can pretty much assume that ancient people weren't infallible.

Last edited by Elias Vaughn; July 20 2014 at 04:01 PM.
Elias Vaughn is offline  
Old July 20 2014, 04:11 PM   #460
nightwind1
Commodore
 
nightwind1's Avatar
 
Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

xavier wrote: View Post
the only problem is a marriage was solely created as a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. that is the definition of marriage. no one has the right to change the definition of marriage any more than they have the right to change what was written in our Constitution.
Really? Please quote the original document that set down that definition. I've always wanted to read it, but unfortunately, my library doesn't seem to have a copy.

Would a copy of that original defining document be stored in the Enterprise's memory banks?
__________________
Remember: No Matter Where You Go, There You Are...88

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.
nightwind1 is offline  
Old July 20 2014, 04:39 PM   #461
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

T'Girl wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Okay, now make those examples about institutions and bakers declining black people, women or disabled. Sueing is a waste of time and money, just let "free market" handle everything and discrimination goes away...
Making discrimination go away will never be accomplished through legislation. A business refusing to sell to any group would be bad for business, but it should not be illegal, nor subject that business to litigation.

Now, if people discover that business's policies and choose to take their patronage elsewhere, that would their choice.

If Starbucks refuses to sell me coffee because I carry a concealed weapon, I go elsewhere (or just don't tell them).

So it should not be illegal to refuse black passengers front seats in a bus, and force them to give them up to white passengers. Just wait until a bus company offers a different policy and then let free market handle everything...
__________________
A movie aiming low should not be praised for hitting that target.
JarodRussell is offline  
Old July 20 2014, 07:39 PM   #462
Misfit Toy
Caped Trek Mod
 
Misfit Toy's Avatar
 
Location: Transporter buffer
Re: Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

And even with repeated requests, the thread drifts away from Trek once again. Thread closed in Gen Trek, but feel free to discuss people's rights in Misc or the Neutral Zone.
__________________
Woof.
Misfit Toy is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.