They could be the happily married member of the crew, with a partner either onboard or elsewhere that they talk to on a semi-regular basis.
Lack of LGBT characters and the "magic bullet"
- Thread starter V
- Start date
Thank you! Sorry! I should have responded sooner, but it is a long post...and a lot of the time, I'm not in the best of mood. And I also have severe brain fog a lot of the time; that's why some of the posts are not the best in writing.
Well, they don't allow regular couples to do that in the military (only when they're off duty); why do you think they would allow that with the same sex couples? [laugh]
Who the hell said anything about that?
You've got your chronology mixed up. The 9/11 attacks happened in September 2001. The United States invaded Afghanistan and intervened in its civil war in retaliation for the Taliban's support for al Qaeda in Fall 2001. Then the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, about a year and a half after 9/11 and Afghanistan.
Well, they don't allow regular couples to do that in the military (only when they're off duty); why do you think they would allow that with the same sex couples? [laugh]
Yes, when has Star Trek ever had married couples aboard a ship together? I mean, it's not like Worf and Dax were married, or Riker and Troi, or the O'Briens, or any of those couples with kids hanging about the Enterprise...
Technically there's no difference, you're right. But then there was technically no difference between "White" water fountains and "Black" water fountains fifty years ago. And if it is the same, why not let them call it marriage. Who really gets hurt by that? No one.
Separate but equal was wrong. You were asking people to use different facilities (and in most cases, substandard) based on skin color.
I'd much prefer that 'marriage' be left to religious organizations to approve or not approve of. Being married for 17 years I've found the word means little in the context of long standing relationships it's nothing more than a generic identifier. Words like 'love', 'respect', 'common interest' and 'common goals' mean far more.
Too many have gotten far too wrapped up in the meaning of a single word. As long as all couples are offered bondings that are recognized under the law as having common parameters... what it's called shouldn't really matter.
As all things... your mileage may vary.
Last edited:
I understand what you are saying, and as someone who probably wont be getting married I even agree that some things are more important.
And it's great that there is an option under the law for same sex couples, not saying otherwise.
The part I was getting at was, like the example I gave, it is a form of discrimination. At least it looks like it to me, and it doesn't even effect me directly.
See, most things in this world I take in stride. I try to stay calm and rational, and consider other viewpoints. But one thing that I get in a huff about is discrimination. Saying "We'll let you do this, but we wont allow you to call it the same" is a form of discrimination.
Another example from mid to early 20th century would be african americans getting the right to vote. Sure, they were allowed to vote, but it only counted as a 1/2 vote.
And like you said, if it's all the same why worry about what it's called. Ironically in that sense we have the same opinion, just facing the opposite direction. lol
And it's great that there is an option under the law for same sex couples, not saying otherwise.
The part I was getting at was, like the example I gave, it is a form of discrimination. At least it looks like it to me, and it doesn't even effect me directly.
See, most things in this world I take in stride. I try to stay calm and rational, and consider other viewpoints. But one thing that I get in a huff about is discrimination. Saying "We'll let you do this, but we wont allow you to call it the same" is a form of discrimination.
Another example from mid to early 20th century would be african americans getting the right to vote. Sure, they were allowed to vote, but it only counted as a 1/2 vote.
And like you said, if it's all the same why worry about what it's called. Ironically in that sense we have the same opinion, just facing the opposite direction. lol
And like you said, if it's all the same why worry about what it's called. Ironically in that sense we have the same opinion, just facing the opposite direction. lol
I'm saying you don't call any of it marriage... whether it be man/man, man/woman or man/sandwich.
It solves a ton of issues around a single word. As an added bonus... we'd never have to have another debate over it. Let the religious nuts have the word.
Though I do notice that many gay people seem more hung up on the word 'marriage' than what the word actually represents. Putting the cart before the horse.
That's like asking why black people didn't just use the other fountain. "I see little difference besides the location."
That's separate-but-equal. But separation is inherently unequal. In Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court found that marriage is a fundamental right of all people. Ergo, any attempt to deny anyone the right to marry is oppression, period. A violation of a fundamental right.
And, no, not every state even gives you that much. Ohio, for instance, bans anything -- same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.
Then you'd be violating the right of atheists to marry in a civil ceremony.
Religious organizations already have the right to view as valid according to their beliefs any given marriage, and they're Constitutionally protected from being forced to perform or recognize a marriage with which they disagree.
Any denial of the right of LGBTs to marry in a civil ceremony violates their fundamental rights, violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law, and is oppression. Period.
I noticed. You were wrong when you argued against it the first time.
I noticed. You were wrong when you argued against it the first time.
First time? I only brought the point up once and that was in response to another poster...
I don't think anyone would expect anything less.
Marriage has become an institution of the church and so, gays can't really force this issue on them...just like the church can't force them not to live together becoming a couple. It's like a bikers' club.... If you were to go in there and tell them how to dress and how to act, they'd get extremely pissed off.... [laugh]
You might even get shot! 
OK! That's a little extreme but that's what this is..... The church has been around for a long, long time....
You might even get shot! OK! That's a little extreme but that's what this is..... The church has been around for a long, long time....
Factually inaccurate. Marriage is both a religious institution and a civil institution (that is, one administered by the government) simultaneously. There are two different kinds of marriage: Religious and civil. Most people combine the two into a single ceremony when they use a minister licensed by the state to issue marriage licenses on its behalf, but that's not a necessity by any means. Any man and woman can walk down to the local magistrate's office and have a justice of the peace officiate a civil marriage for them instead.
Therefore, any attempt to deny to same-sex couples a civil marriage inherently violates their fundamental right to marry (established in Loving v. Virginia) and their 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law.
ETA:
As I said above, all churches are already protected under the First Amendment from being forced to perform or recognize the moral or religious validity of a same-sex marriage. No one can force same-sex marriage upon an unwilling religious organization. The issue is equal access to civil marriage -- which the church has no right to decide upon.
That's not true you know. Marriage has become institutionalized and part of cultural believes. It is come to be defined as between a man and woman. They have offered another way out to satisfied both groups.... You get the same benefits and rights as regular married couples without the government getting in your hair since there are no marriage license. Even some regular couples prefer to do it this way...just living together.
Well, they don't allow regular couples to do that in the military (only when they're off duty); why do you think they would allow that with the same sex couples? [laugh]
Maybe because Starfleet isn't the US Military? <sarcasm> [laugh]
</sarcasm>
I guess we could pass new laws for gay couples, but they already offer a solution with less hassle and headaches. Marriage license is just a peace of paper. Well, I supposed that could be left up to each state to decide, depending how the people of each state view it.
Similar threads
