Lack of LGBT characters and the "magic bullet"

[Paradon]

All that would do is deny to heterosexual couples their right to civil marriage, too. And it would have the de facto effect of denying marriage of any sort to atheistic couples, since they would not be able to get a religious institution to perform a religious marriage for them without lying about their beliefs.

As far as atheistic couples go... I'm sure little wedding chapels would pop up to serve that segment of society. They just wouldn't be sanctioned by the government or the church.

Capitalism usually finds a way to turn a profit by offering services to underserved markets.

You and I see the problems, but you think it's capitalism that's at fault, but it's actually corporatism. OK! I'm getting side track.

 

[BillJ]

All that would do is deny to heterosexual couples their right to civil marriage, too. And it would have the de facto effect of denying marriage of any sort to atheistic couples, since they would not be able to get a religious institution to perform a religious marriage for them without lying about their beliefs.

As far as atheistic couples go... I'm sure little wedding chapels would pop up to serve that segment of society. They just wouldn't be sanctioned by the government or the church.

Capitalism usually finds a way to turn a profit by offering services to underserved markets.

You and I see the problems, but you think it's capitalism that's at fault, but it's actually corporatism. OK! I'm getting side track.

I have no idea what your actually talking about. Never did I blame capitalism.

 

[Paradon]

Perhaps they can portray the problems that is prevalent among the mainstream gay culture, and show them how to deal with it. Just like some of the British TV shows, such as "Skins". I don't think they 100% agree with everything kids these days do, but they do try to set a good example and mix in down-to-earth good humor to make the show fun to watch.

 

[Sci]

All that would do is deny to heterosexual couples their right to civil marriage, too. And it would have the de facto effect of denying marriage of any sort to atheistic couples, since they would not be able to get a religious institution to perform a religious marriage for them without lying about their beliefs.

As far as atheistic couples go... I'm sure little wedding chapels would pop up to serve that segment of society. They just wouldn't be sanctioned by the government or the church.

Capitalism usually finds a way to turn a profit by offering services to underserved markets.

Who the hell wants to be married by some private business (other than drunkards in Las Vegas)? People want to get married by organizations they recognize as having some sort of authority -- either by a church or by the state or by both.

Besides, it's a moot point. Marriage is a right in the United States, period.

I think you do prefer it this way!

I prefer what what way?

You just don't like it because I don't really care! [chuckle]

I do, indeed, argue that your attitudes (a combination of indifference and bigotry against LGBTS) are deeply heterosexist and constitute a prime example of non-governmental oppression against LGBTs in every culture.

Your attitudes also constitute a prime example of why Star Trek, a program which in theory advocates for equality for all people, should have LGBT characters who are depicted in a positive manner.

I'm a hetero-sexist?

The beliefs you are espousing are heterosexist beliefs, yes. That means, they are beliefs which advocate for the supremacy of heterosexuality over non-heterosexual orientations and identities.

So, are all straight people are evil, psychopathic?

No.

Are you going to kill me now!

No.

 

[BillJ]

Who the hell wants to be married by some private business (other than drunkards in Las Vegas)? People want to get married by organizations they recognize as having some sort of authority -- either by a church or by the state or by both.

Besides, it's a moot point. Marriage is a right in the United States, period.

That's the problem. Sometimes, in order to solve a problem, both sides have to be willing to think outside the box.

For some reason, many believe its' important that marriage be between a man and a woman... its' a fundamental fact of their existence and many are unwilling to let it go (hence the disagreement over gay marriage).

So you can let this continue to play out for the next 50-100 years with the many twists and turns society will take (and no guarantee how it will turn out) or you can try to come up with a satisfactory conclusion to the debate in the 'here and now'. Guaranteeing that all bondings between consenting adults are respected at the Federal and State level and that the fruits of those bondings are able to be shared.

In the governments eye, you simply create equal bondings between any consenting adults called 'civil unions' or 'domestic partnerships' which guarantee the rights of marriage to all consenting adults without offending a portion of the population and dragging out the process for an unknown amount of time.

Marriage gets shunted to the private sector, where churches and other private entities can perform legally non-binding marriages.

Sometimes both sides have to be willing to bend in order to accomplish something for the common good. YMMV.

 

[Sci]

Who the hell wants to be married by some private business (other than drunkards in Las Vegas)? People want to get married by organizations they recognize as having some sort of authority -- either by a church or by the state or by both.

Besides, it's a moot point. Marriage is a right in the United States, period.

That's the problem. Sometimes, in order to solve a problem, both sides have to be willing to think outside the box.

For some reason, many believe its' important that marriage be between a man and a woman... its' a fundamental fact of their existence and many are unwilling to let it go (hence the disagreement over gay marriage).

So you can let this continue to play out for the next 50-100 years with the many twists and turns society will take (and no guarantee how it will turn out)

Eh, it won't take 50-100 years. I'll be surprised if same-sex marriage is still controversial in 30.

And, yes, I for one say we go that route. Even if it takes 100 years, it's better to struggle for equal rights than to take away everybody's rights.

Sometimes both sides have to be willing to bend in order to accomplish something for the common good. YMMV.

No. No bending, no compromises. Marriage equality and nothing else.

 

[Nick086]

Does the general public want to hear about gay problems and gay drama on Trek?

 

[BillJ]

No. No bending, no compromises. Marriage equality and nothing else.

No ones rights are being taken away. The terminology is simply being tweaked to take into account changes in society.

 

[BillJ]

Does the general public what to hear about gay problems and drama on Trek?

I don't want to hear about personal problems or relationship drama on Trek. Period.

 

[Sci]

No. No bending, no compromises. Marriage equality and nothing else.

No ones rights are being taken away.

Marriage is a right, and terminology matters. You don't have a right to civil unions in the United States, you have a right to civil marriage.

Marriage for all. Marriage equality. No compromise.

 

[T'Girl]

Marriage gets shunted to the private sector, where churches and other private entities can perform

legally non-binding marriages.

If you wouldn't mind terribly, what do you mean by this?

You're as bad as the George Bush Republicans... "if you're not for us, you're against us".

BillJ, You might be confusing Hillary Clinton (a Democrat) for President Bush.

Two days after September 11, 2001 Hillary Clinton said; "Every nation has to either be for us, or against us."

President Bush said (seven days after Clinton's statement); "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

The quote you used in your post would seem to more closely reflect Ms. Clinton words, more so that the former President's.

 

[Paradon]

Does the general public what to hear about gay problems and drama on Trek?

I don't want to hear about personal problems or relationship drama on Trek. Period.

Isn't that what life is all about...sex, friends, food, fun and family? And everything else just falls into place.... (By the way...I deliberately put sex first for a reason....) [laugh] If you don't make the show about those things, people are not going to be able to relate to the show. You are basically talking about the reasons for our very existence! [chuckle]

 

[Paradon]

Marriage gets shunted to the private sector, where churches and other private entities can perform

legally non-binding marriages.

If you wouldn't mind terribly, what do you mean by this?

You're as bad as the George Bush Republicans... "if you're not for us, you're against us".

BillJ, You might be confusing Hillary Clinton (a Democrat) for President Bush.

Two days after September 11, 2001 Hillary Clinton said; "Every nation has to either be for us, or against us."

President Bush said (seven days after Clinton's statement); "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

The quote you used in your post would seem to more closely reflect Ms. Clinton words, more so that the former President's.

If you look at just regular people, nobody believes are exactly the same.... No one fits into a nice neat categories. That would be great if they did, so I can tell who are my enemies and friends. So I can get rid of them! [laugh] But seriously, everybody says something that pissed off other people and other people also say things you don't like. A good way to deal with this is to take it easy and not take yourself way to seriously and punch the person right in the teeth. Because you know why? If they do something bad to you, they can't bring up some of the dog crap you did and use it against you. Usually, when somebody do something to me, I make a joke right back at them. It's all a good laugh! Only be serious when you have to....

 

[Captain Mike]

Does the general public want to hear about gay problems and gay drama on Trek?

IMO,...NO!...It seems that it is being brought up by the "minority"...
I can't believe this topic is still open to debate, since It certainly is not about LGBT characters in Trek. BUT about "Gayism" instead anymore.

 

[BillJ]

If you wouldn't mind terribly, what do you mean by this?

That the ceremony itself is non-binding.

 

[AstroSmurf]

I can't believe this topic is still open to debate, since It certainly is not about LGBT characters in Trek. BUT about "Gayism" instead anymore.

It is still open because the debate has remained civil and keeps coming back to the original topic on its own. If it had deviated in negative way or people had stopped being civil or it had gone completely off the rails I would have closed it by now. Just because a member does not appreciate or agree with the topic in question does not mean it should be shut down. Granted it is highly unlikely the question will ever be fully resolved or even answered here in this forum but open discussion does lead to better questions... and a better understanding of the problem.

 

[Sci]

I can't believe this topic is still open to debate, since It certainly is not about LGBT characters in Trek. BUT about "Gayism" instead anymore.

What is "gayism?"

 

[JB2005]

Gayism

 

[ColeMercury]

Does the general public want to hear about gay problems and gay drama on Trek?

Nope. Doesn't really fit in a utopian future, does it?

But think about the equivalent question from about 50 years ago: "Does the general public want to hear about racial problems and racial drama on Trek?" The answer would still be "Nope". But they still included Uhura as a main character, and featured many black guest stars. The correct response to that question is not "Nope, and that's why the cast should be completely lily-white."

 

[Sci]

Does the general public want to hear about gay problems and gay drama on Trek?

Nope. Doesn't really fit in a utopian future, does it?

But think about the equivalent question from about 50 years ago: "Does the general public want to hear about racial problems and racial drama on Trek?" The answer would still be "Nope". But they still included Uhura as a main character, and featured many black guest stars. The correct response to that question is not "Nope, and that's why the cast should be completely lily-white."

Exactly. And the correct response to, "Does the general public want to hear about gay problems and gay drama on Trek?" is not, "No, and that's why the cast should stay all-heterosexual." The correct response is, "We're including LGBT characters but the show will not be about homosexuality. The show will be about equality, like it has always been."