Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by The Overlord, Feb 7, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. xavier

    xavier Commander

    Jun 26, 2014

    You need to stop calling people bigots because they disagree with you. that is not right and that is not even the point of star trek and the point of this thread. this thred is called homosexual rights in star trek so things like the definition marriage and if it is a right to change the definition in relations to homosexual rights in trek as well will be discussed and people will have different views

    there is also no solid proof anywhere that Hitler was putting gays in concentration camps. this is once again another hollywood mythology that has spread like wild fire to so that they can push their agenda on us.

    the truth is that in the 1940s homosexuality was hidden and hardly talked about. So the reality there could have hardly been no gays put in concentration camps because most homosexuals were closeted by 99% in the 1940s.

    Star Trek has been a champion of civl rights and sometimes it shows the horror that people faced to get equal rights. Remember that episode with Captain Sisko trying to make it as a black writer in the 1960s?

    star trek has touched on world war 2 in a couple of episodes, However I have yet to see them cover this issues of gays been put in concentration camps.

    I have also heard a myth that some blacks had white slaves during the days of slavery in usa. the reality is that when people think of holocust, it is about 6 millions jews being wiped out and when people think of slavery it is about a whole race being enslaved by another race. there is no solid proof anywhere of the other latter that Hollywood has pushed on people. I have yet to see the history channel talk about gays being put in concentration camps and the history channel has done great documentaries in world war 2.

    It is great that gay people want homosexual rights in fiction like star trek and in the real world but it is also good to not go overboard with a history by trying to pass a myth as fact.

    I find it horrific that many gays are killed for being gay but you know what? chrisitans are also slaughted in many countians for being Christians or for even holding a bible in public. there are Christians churches that are bombed daily with thousands of chritians killed. there are Christians who had also jailed and excutected when they choose not to return to the old faith.In many middle and african countries it is against the law to be a Christian. So where is your outrage over that as well?

    In Hollywood if you want a career boost, you can come out as gay and get it. in Hollywood if you want your career to die, just say you are are bible believing Christian and no one will give you an acting job ever again.

    This is why I think homosexual rights in trek is just as importance as faith freedom. if any Hollywood franchise can cover both, it is star trek.

    There are some African afrirican leaders that have compared this issues but the majoirty of afirican americans do not. majority of afirican americans have said you can not compare civil rights to gay rights.in america gays have all the rights there is, what they do not have is to redefined the definition of marriage.a defination that has existed for thousands of years and has been the bedrock of our civilaztion.

    Also interracial marriage never redefined marriage. what it did was strike down racism that stooped the definition of marriage. interracial marriage never changed the definition that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. gay marriage changes the definition of a man and a woman to a union of two people regardless of their sex.that is not the same thing. which is why I have never supported the rights for gays to get married and i will not support that right even in star trek because the marriage requirements says a marriage is a union between a man and a woman as husband (male)and wife (female). I will like to see star trek uphold that view if they go into a topic like homosexual rights in the trek universe.

    the problem is that everyone is hurting because people are easily called prejudice and hateful when you choose to disagree with them.

    lastly you really need to stop calling people bigots because they do not agree with you.

    You have been calling me a bigot since two days and not once have i ever called you a Christian bigot because i disagree with you. I d not need to play the bigot card because I can have a real civil debate with people on such complex issue like homosexual rights in the trek universe.

    people in the real world have spoken,the courts may strike down a lot of stuff but every time the american people vote on the issues. it always them voting to keep the definition of marriage as a man and a woman. star trek should be a reflection of that should they dicuss the debate of homosexual right in the trek universe but trek being part of Hollywood it is no secret which root they will take.

    Star trek was about the human philosophy, such philosophy is what gives us our rights and if star trek was to be accurate, i am sure the issues of gays will be be accepted because overall all we humans should have tolerance regardless of our differences but in no way should star trek ever air an episode or a film where they have one rights trumple over another rights. we can all agree to disagree and trek should have that presented well.
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2014
  2. PhoenixClass

    PhoenixClass Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Aug 16, 2013
    But it does not have to be backed up by something. Canon is silent on it so the issue is fair game for the viewer to fill in at will.

    A viewer could, as you seem to, imagine that homosexuality is gone from humanity. How such an situation would be feasible, I do not know, but since canon is silent on the matter one can choose that interpretation.
  3. Maurice

    Maurice Vice Admiral Admiral

    Oct 17, 2005
    Walking distance from Starfleet HQ
    I think it's VERY "accurate" to compare the experiences of various groups who suffer long histories of persecution and unequal treatment under the law.

    To try to put this back on-topic, as Star Trek portrays humans in relationships which are basically beastiality (humans mating with other species) thus a society which accepts that seems unlikely to have a problem with two or more consenting adults of the same species engaging in a relationship, regardless of their genders. (I suspect this has been mentioned upthread, but I didn't see it.)
  4. 1001001

    1001001 I Like the Beats and the Shouting Moderator

    Nov 3, 2001
    People's Gaypublic of Drugafornia
    Are you fucking kidding me?

    Paragraph 175?

    The Pink Triangle?


    Either you're a troll or a terribly misinformed homophobe. In either case that's enough. Do not post this stuff again. If you want to debate this topic, join TNZ and enter the debate there.
  5. Ensign_Redshirt

    Ensign_Redshirt Commodore Commodore

    Aug 3, 2007
  6. 1001001

    1001001 I Like the Beats and the Shouting Moderator

    Nov 3, 2001
    People's Gaypublic of Drugafornia
    I understand your desire to reply, but I've addressed it so please let it go. This has been a pretty good discussion on topic, and if we can keep it open, I'd like to do so.

  7. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Aug 20, 2009
    More likely the producers who succeeded Roddenberry had other viewpoints and priorities, as Roddenberry's health faded his influence over the show's direction faded as well.

  8. junkdata

    junkdata Lieutenant Commander

    Jul 10, 2014
    Reading up on this thread, as someone directed me to it.

    Your long post interested me Xavier...

    Bigots are defined by intransigent opinions, that refuse to conceive of contradictory evidence, and a refusal to countenance or respect those who disagree with them. it is a thin line between faith and bigotry, but I think most people would agree the concept of attacking those who think different is a landmark on that border.

    Actually wikipedia has quite a bit to say about homosexuals in ww2, and wikipedia is not "hollywood". Is it accurate? Biased? Can anyone change it? Well good luck messing around with a holocaust page on wikipedia...

    So lets look at the "facts"-


    Hitler was clearly no fan of teh gays. Furthermore, his whole ideology and the contradiction with previous licentiousness in Germany, is pretty clear for people to see.

    No. Thats conjecture, a bullsh-t statistic and a circular argument. And pretty s____ conjecture at that.

    This is true, to an extent. Nothing with regard to homosexuality though. And as stated in the other thread, Roddenbery and his friend Rod Serling, have both been documented substancially as homophobic, although I fully accept this wouldnt have been considered as such in their era.. So essentially you are looking at people who were hostage to their era, (like slave traders or nazis...)

    Roddenbery definitely changed his mind after the AIDs crisis. Serling died before it.

    Well thats a point for the wrong team bro.

    White slaves existed. I dont know about black ownership, but white slaves are very well documented.

    Anyone who thinks slavery is a whole race being enslaved, is developmentally challenged. One word. Africa. It is fair to say the rationale for slavery largely created the prevailing concept of "race" and cast a large section of people as animals and established an idea of northern europeans as superior and a whole separate color to other people, on the basis of translucent skin and a melatonin deficiency.

    No one is slaughtered for going about their business. They are slaughtered because others are incapable of the same.

    Muslims are the biggest victims of slaughter on the planet, last I checked. Even if we look at Israel/Palestine, - what is the ratio again, innocent or not?

    Simply not true. Lots of christians in hollywood and a lot of people who were blackballed or shunned because of their sexuality. Being "gay" was not the new black, until very recently, and it is still debatable what effect this has on peoples careers. Brokeback mountain is two straight actors for a reason.

    Zachary Quinto has no great worries about coming out as a Catholic.

    Ish. Homosexuality isnt really a right, any more than being black is. Freedom of belief is one of the most basic freedoms though, so I guess we agree on its prominence to the human experience. The thing is bigotry is not to be tolerated because thats one set of rights trumping another, and religious bigotry does exist almost endemic to religion, whereas the only bigotry associated with homosexuality is a lack of regard for sexually associating with the opposite sex. Frankly the real issue underpinning this is a fluid understanding of gender and sexuality rather than a binary one. When it comes to religion, often it is built on paradigms that are socially outmoded, however much they are relevant to people are an individual/familial lifestyle choice.

    The two do come into conflict somewhat, as religion has a social role of emphasizing the family unit as established as normal by that religion. In reality, our nuclear family is in no way normal, and sexuality and even gender look more like fluid concepts by the day.

    Nice to know you have spoken to them...

    In the work place as least, society has spoken and however different, all the isms are targeted and shunned by our prevailing orthodoxy.

    The concept of marriage is neither hostage to christianity, nor is it in any way a bracket that is synonymous with the nuclear family and monogamy.

    There were literally miscegenation laws around at the time, but agreed in principal. America was a messed up place.


    To an extent. Also people are accused of playing card when they bring up legitmite issues and the same idiots then try to sweep any mention of the issues under the carpet and call the person mentioning them "baiters" or such.

    And again - America is one of the worst nations on the planet for this crap and also just happens to be one of the most messed up socially when it comes to these issues, compared to western europe anyways.

    For now...

    Not really. ST should be a view of the future with American values, and one would hope human values. It should also feature a diverse array of alternatives. Some respected and close to home and some completely messed up.

    Its really more akin to liberal American philosophy.

    Right "trumple" all over other rights constantly, however the core rights, if they exist should indeed be cherished by ST.
  9. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Aug 20, 2009
    Beastility is people having sex with animals, that where you get the "beast" in bestiality. Which of Trek's intelligent species do you believe to be "animals?"

    I never considered this before, but given how Vulcans feel about Humans and non-Vulcans in general, I wonder how they felt about Spock?

    A contaminate in the Vulcan superiority?

  10. xavier

    xavier Commander

    Jun 26, 2014

    Do you think Kirk having a three way in Star Trek Into Darkness with women who had cat features qualifies as bestiality?.:eek:

    What would Spock think? I don't know.

    Spock seems to dislike prejudice so my guess is if they can still pass as humans or Aliens then Spock would not mind.
  11. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Jul 2, 2009
    Bestiality/zoophilia is about humans having sex with non-humans. It's a subdomain of interspecies sex. Intelligence has nothing to do with it.
    If gorillas could read, write, talk and build computers, having sex with them would still be bestiality.
  12. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Aug 23, 2001
    Land of Enchantment
    Or for Star Trek purposes, Salome Jens humanoids having sex with non-Salome Jens humanoids.

    All Star Trek "species" are an extension (or supplementation) of Earthbound races.
  13. borgboy

    borgboy Commodore Commodore

    Sep 3, 2005

    I think we see lots of hints that both versions of Spock is looked down upon by "pure" Vulcans.
    The strongest examples I can think of are Spock being bullied by Vulcan children who make racist comments about his human heritage, Sarek seems very concerned that Spock be Vulcan. Why would it be so bad if Spock were more human, like his mother? I always found it hard to like Sarek completely because of his attitude towards Spock. I find Sarek interesting and charismatic, but not always likable.
    There's a big storyline running thru Enterprise about Vulcan/human relations, and how the Vulcans treat humans as needed their custodial control for their own good. On ENT, Vulcan attitudes towards humans are seen the way a weary parent handles a rebellious child who needs to be controlled to stop them from hurting themselves. That relationship does evolve, and it's clearly not the same as it would be in the 23rd and 24th century, but it's the strongest look we have at human/Vulcan relations.
    Have you seen Enterprise T'Girl?
  14. DonIago

    DonIago Vice Admiral Admiral

    Mar 22, 2001
    Burlington, VT, USA
    I would say one of the longest arcs of Star Trek is Sarek's initial discomfiture and/or disapproval with Spock's non-Vulcanism, which he gradually conquers. In that respect I'm very glad we got to see him in the films.

    Spock being bullied by children doesn't really mean much to me, as children bullying children is, for better or worse, not exactly an uncommon phenomenon, and to my mind shouldn't be used as a representation of how adults might feel.

    While there's obviously some anti-humanism sentiment during ENT and in the Nuverse, I'd like to think that by the time of TNG (and hopefully earlier), that's become a thing of the past for the most part. Heck, given the isolated incidents we see, we could be seeing exceptions rather than rules in any cse.
  15. Elias Vaughn

    Elias Vaughn Captain Captain

    [citation needed]




  16. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Jul 2, 2009
    Any non-human being is considered an animal, a remnant of this religious "humans are something special" idea. Humans are animals as well. So it is interspecies sexuality. There is no difference between a dolphin fucking a monkey, and a human fucking a sheep. Intelligence has nothing to do with it either. Intelligent gorillas would still be animals.

    And that definition doesn't include "extraterrestial animals" because no such thing has been proven to exist. Vulcans, Klingons, Ferengi, etc... are all extraterrestial primates, we are terrestial primates.
  17. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Aug 20, 2009
    The sisters were (it seemed) portraying sapient beings, so I'd say no bestiality there.

    Take Me Out to the Holosuite.

    On this planet currently that would be true, there's us and the animals (And birdies, fishies etc.). However, bestiality is a prohibition against having sex with animals, the fictional intelligent sapient alien beings depicted in Star Trek are not animals.

    They're people.

    Not in my family we're not.

    Humans can act "beast-like," but we are not beasts.

    Last edited: Jul 19, 2014
  18. JirinPanthosa

    JirinPanthosa Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Nov 20, 2012

    Let's not call a belief in universal personal freedoms 'American values' or 'Western values'. All that accomplishes is to support the narrative that paints any Eastern country that tries to increase personal freedoms as surrendering to Western desires. Just because John Locke was a European and he was the first one to write down that all people have a natural right to life, liberty and property and the government only has the right to intervene when one of those rights is threatened, doesn't mean that those values only apply in the West.

    Also, let's draw a line in between an individual's personal beliefs about homosexuality and the role of the law in enforcing those beliefs. You have a right to think homosexuality is wrong but neither you nor the law has any right to stop anybody from practicing it. Nor do either you or the law have any right to stop two consulting adults from voluntarily entering into a contract called 'Marriage' purely on the basis of being the same gender. Just like I think that teaching kids to distrust science is morally wrong but I know neither I nor the law has any right to illegalize it.

    Star Trek philosophy is presented more as a Natural Law philosophy, and since homosexuality does not interfere with anybody's right to life, liberty and property, there's no reason to think anybody in the Star Trek universe is opposed to it.

    @Jarod Russell

    Technically, the definition of a species is a group of organisms that resemble each other and are capable of producing viable offspring who are also capable of reproducing. So by the dictionary definition, humans, vulcans, klingons, and most of the Star Trek races are all the same species.
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2014
  19. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Jul 2, 2009
    Makes me wonder if it was ever attempted to cross a human and a monkey.

    There it is, the theoretical concept of the Humanzee.
  20. urbandefault

    urbandefault Commodore Commodore

    Dec 3, 2013
    Sickbay, dammit
    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?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.