TREK future anti-gay?

[mswood]

A few points.

On the issue of the "Gay Pill Cure" brought by a few posters. Sorry exceptionally doubtful.

You have to work with the assumption that humanity has a large issue with the idea of two people of the same gender being together, and that would then created social pressure to act closer to the median of human sexuality.

Well unfortunately that is highly doubtful. By TOS we already have and except both casual and serious relations between different species. If as a society (and that is how it is presented) that it is perfectly ok to have sexual relations with alien species, to have long term committed relations with alien species, to procreate with alien species then it is highly doubtful that any social bias would exist. Especially one strong enough to make some one want to treat it like a medical condition.

And we know that parents wouldn't do genetic work to change it since we know genetic engineering is illegal and has been for a long, long time.

And not only do we see people of different races mating, we have humans with beings of light, we have humans with robots/Androids, ect.

Also one has to consider one of the strongest reasons society teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and that is religion. We know that religion is not treated anywhere nearly as serious in the future (as the discover of Alien life forms, not to mention beings of godlike abilities, and knowing that aliens have come to earth and been gods) would seriously many current belief systems.

And yes story wise Trek is gay positive. It is in human terms never, and I mean never an issue.

Now was modern Trek cowards for not ever having true gay characters? Absolutely. And certainly they had the ability and financial security in the last 3 years of TNG run to have background characters that were gay (sense it would have been too late for the main cast where we already knew their sexual preference).

Even DS9 could have managed that (especially with their large and well crated secondary characters).

 

[Wowbagger]

." Note the 80-90% decrease in the incidence of Down Syndrome among infants in the past generation, because the vast majority of parents abort any child who shows signs of being Downs-positive. .

can you cite a source for this?

Scott Haydn covered for me fairly well, and I think we're citing the same study. Nonetheless, The Founders provide:

One study and the Times article that cites that study.

Meredith and Wowbagger, for what it's worth, I understand what you're getting at.

Gracious, you have no idea how nice it is to hear someone say that.

One thing you might have mentioned is that, if I understand the course of Star Trek's future history correctly, things get a lot worse on Earth before they get better.

Actually, I didn't, and I should have. (Meredith, on the other hand, might have done so.) I would be surprised if the twenty-fourth envisioned by Roddenberry would take such a course against homosexuals, prenatally or otherwise. The simple prohibition on genetic engineering would seem to see to an end to prenatal screening altogether--at least as a tool to see if a child is worth having or not. However, Trek also predicts some very dark, very turbulent times to come between now and then. Earth is not a paradise until as many as fifty years after Zefram Cochrane's historic warp flight--which gives us until as late as 2113 to screw things up royally.

I think it would be great to see an episode where twenty-fourth century Man has to come to grips with what it did in the twenty-first century to homosexuality as a facet of human diversity. Such an episode could be very powerful--and go a long way towards explaining how it is that we've never seen any homosexuals on Star Trek.

 

[pookha]

i tried to access that study and evidently you seem to need some sort of account.
and as i said other studies seem to contradict that number.

shrug

beyond that i also noted other reasons for the some of the decline beyond abortion.
and i still believe if abortion is being done it mostly involves the ones whose quality of life would be very short and difficult.

to me it is a long jump from something like that and saying a large percentage of parents would opt for an abortion if they knew their child was gay.

the simplest explanation for why no obvious gay characters have been seen is we know very little about the private lives of most of the characters we have seen,

numerous crewmen , colonists could have been gay without us being aware of it.

the real life one goes more along whether the producers and writers wanted to do it depending on the series they were dealing with a production company , network that was probably very concerned with alienating what they saw as their prime demographic .

 

[Wowbagger]

i tried to access that study and evidently you seem to need some sort of account.
and as i said other studies seem to contradict that number.

Bwahaha... clearly, you need one of my mad university database access codes.

I dunno. I looked at your study, and concluded that it didn't really deal with the question at hand (instead focusing on age groups and so forth). Combined with the fact that I've seen this study cited in about a dozen different places, I'm just trusting mine more. IANA scientist, so I could be wrong.

beyond that i also noted other reasons for the some of the decline beyond abortion.

Well, the study I dealt with was very specifically about the link between Downs and abortion. No other reasons factored into that 91-93% figure, with the study concluding that, if all mothers received the same prenatal screening, the decline in Downs babies would be even sharper than it is at present.

and i still believe if abortion is being done it mostly involves the ones whose quality of life would be very short and difficult.

to me it is a long jump from something like that and saying a large percentage of parents would opt for an abortion if they knew their child was gay.

Valid hypothesis. Only way to find out is to test it, and that's not likely to happen soon.

So, yeah, I'll go with "shrug."

numerous crewmen , colonists could have been gay without us being aware of it.

My problem with this theory has always been: and we never saw any evidence of any of them? There've been, what, something like two hundred romantic relationships shown on Trek, and we've never seen a single same-sex one?

I mean, if you assume, say, 4% of the population is gay, then, if the homosexual population has not been reduced and the community has not been for some reason driven back into the closet, around ten of those relationships should have been same-sex, if not more. It strikes me as unlikely.

 

[CaptainKirkFan]

The connotations of sexual preference in contemporary society are largely based on fear and prejudice.

That's total crap. I am not prejudiced or afraid of gays. I'm simply not attracted to men. Am I afraid of vanilla ice cream because I like orange sherbet?

Also, I agree with the guy that says distinctions still exist, they just don't have the negative connotations.

 

[pookha]

numerous crewmen , colonists could have been gay without us being aware of it.

My problem with this theory has always been: and we never saw any evidence of any of them? There've been, what, something like two hundred romantic relationships shown on Trek, and we've never seen a single same-sex one?

I mean, if you assume, say, 4% of the population is gay, then, if the homosexual population has not been reduced and the community has not been for some reason driven back into the closet, around ten of those relationships should have been same-sex, if not more. It strikes me as unlikely.

uh of those 200 hundred or so relationships how many included at least one person who we knew not to be gay involved in multiple relationships.

what percentage of that involved say kirk or riker.

we still i say know very little about 90 percent of the crew of the respective ships including their sexual preference.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I can't help but winder what Trek is expected to do with the gay issue, or the race issue or anything else. Gayness on TV at least in my childhood TV shows (late 80-early 90's) dealt with gayness by having one-off "very special" episodes of the series. Basicly, a random gay person rolls into town, kisses the main character, the main character struggles with their masculinity issues, and the gay character rides off into the sunset. I think that's somewhat condecsending to gays. I would be offended if Trek handled gayness in the same way.

On the other hand, I can't see much good coming from a gay character in the other extreme -- sort of a gay Chicotay. It's time for the Gay Guy to have his storyline, so we set him up with hot alien men (or her with hot alien women). I didn't like how Chicotay's Indian-ness came down to nothing but vision quests and speeches about sacredness of the land, and I don't think a gay character who's "queer eye for the straight guy" and having sex with random crewmembers of the same sex is the right way to handle the issue.

These kind of complex issues are almost impossible to protray without going to one extreme or the other. I'd rather make sexuiality incidental to the character. You know he's an engineer, he likes to play pyrisees square, and BTW he digs men. I just don't see hollywood able to pull that off.

 

[Meredith]

I think Trek needs a "Captain Jack Harkness" so to speak someone charming like Kirk but will bang anything that is willing and that is hot regardless of gender, planet of origin etc.....

 

[grabmygoblin]

I think Trek needs a "Captain Jack Harkness" so to speak someone charming like Kirk but will bang anything that is willing and that is hot regardless of gender, planet of origin etc.....

that would be kind of awesome... but as the first openly gay regular character, I think I'd prefer someone a bit more toned down, just to avoid the bad jokes and stereotyping. not Kirk, Sisko.

 

[Sheliak]

"The truth is just an excuse for lack of imagination."

 

[Steve Roby]

I can't help but winder what Trek is expected to do with the gay issue, or the race issue or anything else.

Treating sexual preference or race as an issue is itself a big part of the problem. It's identifying people as being nothing more than their race or preference, unless they're white and straight, in which case they're allowed to have actual personalities.

I don't think a gay character who's "queer eye for the straight guy" and having sex with random crewmembers of the same sex is the right way to handle the issue.

Why not? If you eliminate every movie or episode of every incarnation of Star Trek that involves scenes of heterosexual attraction or romance you're going to have very few left over. Trek's done plenty of episodes with guest star love affairs; most of the TOS crew had one, and every continuing character in every post-TOS series had one. Modern Trek's also done a few ongoing relationships: Miles O'Brien and Keiko Ishikawa O'Brien, Will Riker and Deanna Troi, Ben Sisko and Kasidy Yates, Tom Paris and B'Elanna Torres, Trip Tucker and T'Pol, etc. We've seen dozens, possibly hundreds, of romantic dalliances in Star Trek. Why, they've even presented relationships between men and women of different ethnic backgrounds, which would have been an issue not too many years ago. Why does a gay relationship have to be handled any differently than any of those straight ones?

 

[CaptainKirkFan]

I can't help but winder what Trek is expected to do with the gay issue, or the race issue or anything else.

Treating sexual preference or race as an issue is itself a big part of the problem. It's identifying people as being nothing more than their race or preference, unless they're white and straight, in which case they're allowed to have actual personalities.

I don't think a gay character who's "queer eye for the straight guy" and having sex with random crewmembers of the same sex is the right way to handle the issue.

Why not? If you eliminate every movie or episode of every incarnation of Star Trek that involves scenes of heterosexual attraction or romance you're going to have very few left over. Trek's done plenty of episodes with guest star love affairs; most of the TOS crew had one, and every continuing character in every post-TOS series had one. Modern Trek's also done a few ongoing relationships: Miles O'Brien and Keiko Ishikawa O'Brien, Will Riker and Deanna Troi, Ben Sisko and Kasidy Yates, Tom Paris and B'Elanna Torres, Trip Tucker and T'Pol, etc. We've seen dozens, possibly hundreds, of romantic dalliances in Star Trek. Why, they've even presented relationships between men and women of different ethnic backgrounds, which would have been an issue not too many years ago. Why does a gay relationship have to be handled any differently than any of those straight ones?

If it is done like that, I think it would be awesome, and would be in the true spirit of Trek. However, if it is done like Meredith suggests it should...*pukes*

 

[RaymondJames]

I would suggest the Titan book series for your friend since one of the characters is openly gay male unjoined Trill who lost his partner.

I do very much see your friends point, gays really were not expressed in any trek series other than purhaps the trill Jadzia women kiss thing but to me that doesnt count, since the joined trill is not gay/straight or bi for that matter. The hosts is male or female true but their symbiont is non gender.

A gay character would of been fine by me as long as he/she wasn't focused on and centerd around plot wise due to sexual orientation. The writers, creator, producers had that option and its a shame they din't take it. They crossed the racial lines by having a african American actress in TOS in such a front and center role, she may not have been focused on much but Uhura was in practly every bridge scene. Michelle made an impact and by playing Uhura she became a factor in the Black movment for equality, as Doctor King himself was a fan of Star Trek TOS. Sulu was Asian.

They could of made Wesley Crusher's character gay and I wouldn't of minded. Oviously one would assume they would be forced to do an episode where he came out to his mother or an issue of his orientation arised but THEY DIN'T HAVE TO. If they did choose to make his character gay they could of implied his orientation by him dating members of his own gender but never have conflict with such a matter or just acknowledge his orientation like it was nothong.​

 

[CaptainKirkFan]

I would suggest the Titan book series for your friend since one of the characters is openly gay male unjoined Trill who lost his partner.

I do very much see your friends point, gays really were not expressed in any trek series other than purhaps the trill Jadzia women kiss thing but to me that doesnt count, since the joined trill is not gay/straight or bi for that matter. The hosts is male or female true but their symbiont is non gender.

A gay character would of been fine by me as long as he/she wasn't focused on and centerd around plot wise due to sexual orientation. The writers, creator, producers had that option and its a shame they din't take it. They crossed the racial lines by having a african American actress in TOS in such a front and center role, she may not have been focused on much but Uhura was in practly every bridge scene. Michelle made an impact and by playing Uhura she became a factor in the Black movment for equality, as Doctor King himself was a fan of Star Trek TOS. Sulu was Asian.

They could of made Wesley Crusher's character gay and I wouldn't of minded. Oviously one would assume they would be forced to do an episode where he came out to his mother or an issue of his orientation arised but THEY DIN'T HAVE TO. If they did choose to make his character gay they could of implied his orientation by him dating members of his own gender but never have conflict with such a matter or just acknowledge his orientation like it was nothong.​

Exactly. That's how Trek should handle issues like that. That's how Uhura was handled, that's how Geordi was handled.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I would suggest the Titan book series for your friend since one of the characters is openly gay male unjoined Trill who lost his partner.

I do very much see your friends point, gays really were not expressed in any trek series other than purhaps the trill Jadzia women kiss thing but to me that doesnt count, since the joined trill is not gay/straight or bi for that matter. The hosts is male or female true but their symbiont is non gender.

A gay character would of been fine by me as long as he/she wasn't focused on and centerd around plot wise due to sexual orientation. The writers, creator, producers had that option and its a shame they din't take it. They crossed the racial lines by having a african American actress in TOS in such a front and center role, she may not have been focused on much but Uhura was in practly every bridge scene. Michelle made an impact and by playing Uhura she became a factor in the Black movment for equality, as Doctor King himself was a fan of Star Trek TOS. Sulu was Asian.

They could of made Wesley Crusher's character gay and I wouldn't of minded. Oviously one would assume they would be forced to do an episode where he came out to his mother or an issue of his orientation arised but THEY DIN'T HAVE TO. If they did choose to make his character gay they could of implied his orientation by him dating members of his own gender but never have conflict with such a matter or just acknowledge his orientation like it was nothong.​

Exactly. That's how Trek should handle issues like that. That's how Uhura was handled, that's how Geordi was handled.

I agree..and if they had done it like that then I think even I would have been okay with it. To be honest, I never gave it a thought until my friend brought it up. And I think he makes his point. Though I told him I think featuring a character like that would have been troublesom for a network/producer...but then again, with shows like MTV where the girl is picking her next 'squeeze' with boys and girls as contestants, a gay character on TREK might be more acceptable today..

Rob

 

[Balthier the Great]

I can't help but winder what Trek is expected to do with the gay issue, or the race issue or anything else.

Treating sexual preference or race as an issue is itself a big part of the problem. It's identifying people as being nothing more than their race or preference, unless they're white and straight, in which case they're allowed to have actual personalities.

I don't think a gay character who's "queer eye for the straight guy" and having sex with random crewmembers of the same sex is the right way to handle the issue.

Why not? If you eliminate every movie or episode of every incarnation of Star Trek that involves scenes of heterosexual attraction or romance you're going to have very few left over. Trek's done plenty of episodes with guest star love affairs; most of the TOS crew had one, and every continuing character in every post-TOS series had one. Modern Trek's also done a few ongoing relationships: Miles O'Brien and Keiko Ishikawa O'Brien, Will Riker and Deanna Troi, Ben Sisko and Kasidy Yates, Tom Paris and B'Elanna Torres, Trip Tucker and T'Pol, etc. We've seen dozens, possibly hundreds, of romantic dalliances in Star Trek. Why, they've even presented relationships between men and women of different ethnic backgrounds, which would have been an issue not too many years ago. Why does a gay relationship have to be handled any differently than any of those straight ones?

I think we may actually agree. My fear with an openly gay character is that he'll be sort of a gay stereotype -- as I mentioned before, whenever Chicotay the Native American got some development, it was always something around the old stereotypical vision quests and sacredness of the land bits. He wasn't well rounded, especially compared to Paris or Kim who got other parts of their lives brought out. We found out about Tom's love of ancient scifi, Kim was known to be a musician. Chicotay ... had vision quests.

It shouldn't be treated any different, but it would be. I don't want a gay character per say because I don't want yet another gay stereotype. I don't want to see a flaming gay guy dressed in bright colors and all the other stereotypes. I would see that as worse than doing nothing because at least you aren't perpetuating the anti-gay myths of our culture.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

I know you many of you guys are in the US so some of what I mention may not make sense to you as they're not screened there but...

I agree with the above, thats the way I would have wanted it done, a romance/love/sex interest story treated the same as the other characters, done now and then, with the occasional refrence to it, not a big special episode where a character has one of those cheesy "coming out parties" in 10 forward.

I'd say the model they should use is the likes of Skins, desperate housewives rather than will and grace, integrated, ordinary joe and jane soap characters.

Someone clearly is intent on them not doing it tho

 

[Ptrope]

I would think that the fact that Trek has had several inter-species romances would make the question of gay characters/relationships somewhat superfluous - if peoples from entirely different gene pools can be accepted as romantically and sexually involved, two people of the same gender should be a non-issue to the characters we see week after week.

As for "openly gay," unless the story is completely off-duty, I would think that "openly gay" would be a serious breach of decorum ("... and this is our gay engineer!" or "Hey, Bill, can you bend over for that spanner again?") - about the only place where it might be a valid story point on duty would be a character's reticence in placing a same-sex partner in a hazardous duty-related position, as we've seen occasionally with heterosexual relationships on Trek. But if the story is off-duty, then the characters' sexuality should have a direct bearing on the story being told - otherwise, it's too possible that it's either grandstanding or pandering to make a point of it.

 

[stj]

As far as I know all characters are explicitly shown to be heterosexual. Yet none of the show have any notion of genetic engineering on the general population. Alien species on Trek are metaphorically different races, so interspecies sex is metaphorically miscegenation, which is why it's approved even though the idea is completely insane, scientifically speaking. The conclusion is perfectly obvious---Trek doesn't want to show gays. That implies disapproval. For the original series, the obstacle (internal and external) were enormous. For the others, not.

 

[3D Master]

I think it is a different than we think, I think by then they would have a medicine that would make you straight if you wanted to and a lot of people wanting to conform to societal norms find it easier to visit Dr. McCoy and get a hypo spray of "gay-away" than to deal with being gay. Probably also the attitudes towards gays are more like far east cultures where they don't make a big deal out of being gay and being gay is okay, but again there aren't very many gay people around because it is easier to "hypo spray" the "gay-away". With a lot of the people who are gay by medical tests removing their gayness by hypo there are less repressed gay homophobes so tolerance for gay folks is much better and less of a big deal as it is these days.

Seeing as how horrified and offended Riker and Picard were over the girl that should have been genderless being "gayed-away", I'm 100% certain, the above is bullshit.

Homophobic? Hardly. Meredith is making a simple, rather obvious observation about the human condition: human beings will do almost anything to conform to social norms. Assuming that, at some point in the future, sexual orientation will become a trait that can be medically detected and subsequently altered--and, yes, this is a very big assumption, and relies on the idea that sexual orientation is something immutable you are "born with"--it stands very much to reason that parents of gay children will do anything in their power to "correct" that "imperfection" because "our child doesn't need that hardship." Note the 80-90% decrease in the incidence of Down Syndrome among infants in the past generation, because the vast majority of parents abort any child who shows signs of being Downs-positive. Parents just don't want to deal with kids who are in any way "unusual" (or, to use the word in the archaic sense, "queer").

Wow, so being gay is now the equivalent of having Down-syndrome, huh? And the only reason people abort them is because they they don't like "unusual". Right!

I'm so glad I got that cleared up.

About the 24th century though, I reiterate my earlier answer: no.