Still waffling, you claimed Roddenberry said homosexuals wouldn't exist in the 24th century. You've provided nothing to back that up.
Same Sex Marriage
- Thread starter Ezri D
- Start date
- Status
Still waffling, you claimed Roddenberry said homosexuals wouldn't exist in the 24th century. You've provided nothing to back that up.
So the fuck what? As long as you are certain about the information you're citing and can tell the exact source that it came from, it doesn't matter if it can be Googled or not. If, on the other hand, you cite something that you're not sure about, from a source that you can't even remember, than it's on you to get the information to back up your claims.
Bingo.
So wait. You have links(while saying that there is no need for internet links) and arguments that don't follow the collect thoughts on this subject. You also say that there is no reason to post a opinion then. So why come on a thread about said subject if you feel that there is no point to expressing your opinion? Does that sound fucked up to anyone else?
Knight Templar
Commodore
I was naive. I thought that outside the bounds of the Neutral Zone people would not be so (the term is one I actually hate but I can't think of a better one) "politically correct" about the subject.
That said, I did not come back into the "homosexuals in Star Trek" argument deliberately. I reentered the discussion a few pages back when people were maintaining (basically) that Gene Roddenberry was some kind of "sci-fi Norman Lear" which he clearly was not based on what he actually put onscreen.
You brought up an alleged quote by G.R. that was significant and relevant to the discussion, and gave no source or proof of validation. You can't expect people to just believe you without questioning. Don't make wild assertions you can't back up, most people don't like that.
Not that I expect the right-wing to care about facts but let's see nonetheless what Roddenberry has actually said about the topic:
I'm sorry I never had a homosexual relationship, because I know there must be many joys and pleasures and degrees of closeness in those relationships. - The Last Conversation
In the early 1960s, I was much more a macho-type person. I was still accepting things from my childhood as necessary and part of reality — how men related to women, et cetera. My assistant, Susan Sackett, used to say to me, "You really put down women a lot for someone who is supposed to be thoughtful and liberal." I began listening to her and agreeing that she was right in her perceptions.
My attitude toward homosexuality has changed. I came to the conclusion that I was wrong. I was never someone who hunted down "fags" as we used to call them on the street. I would, sometimes, say something anti-homosexual off the top of my head because it was thought, in those days, to be funny. I never really deeply believed those comments, but I gave the impression of being thoughtless in these areas. I have, over many years, changed my attitude about gay men and women. - http://67.104.146.36/english/STAR_TREK/humanistinterview/humanist.html
Kinda nice that this little detail of his life matches the key idea of his show, progress, or as Picard would have said it, we work to better ourselves.
I'm sorry I never had a homosexual relationship, because I know there must be many joys and pleasures and degrees of closeness in those relationships. - The Last Conversation
In the early 1960s, I was much more a macho-type person. I was still accepting things from my childhood as necessary and part of reality — how men related to women, et cetera. My assistant, Susan Sackett, used to say to me, "You really put down women a lot for someone who is supposed to be thoughtful and liberal." I began listening to her and agreeing that she was right in her perceptions.
My attitude toward homosexuality has changed. I came to the conclusion that I was wrong. I was never someone who hunted down "fags" as we used to call them on the street. I would, sometimes, say something anti-homosexual off the top of my head because it was thought, in those days, to be funny. I never really deeply believed those comments, but I gave the impression of being thoughtless in these areas. I have, over many years, changed my attitude about gay men and women. - http://67.104.146.36/english/STAR_TREK/humanistinterview/humanist.html
Kinda nice that this little detail of his life matches the key idea of his show, progress, or as Picard would have said it, we work to better ourselves.
Because it backs up your own point of view and beliefs? Simply because I or other don't (or won't) accept your position is no reason not to explain it, advance it, or tie your position (through links) in with the thought and writings of others who also embrace your philosophy and mind set. Going beyond simply "this is what I believe," and explaining why you came to the conclusion you did (perhaps over time) could lead to a better understanding of the position you have taken.
If I was overly concerned with people always agreeing with me, I'd likely never post.
None of this mean that I'm going to accept what you put forward. But that shouldn't be a precondition of discussion, I'll admit that on this particular subject I am fairly entrenched. In order to convince me, you would have to literately rip out one of the major support pillars of my existence.
Knight Templar, alway feel welcome to question my preconceptions.
Knight Templar, its quite simple, don't put words in people's mouths that they didn't say. That's my real issue with what you've posted. (Okay, I'm not too keen on your opinion of Gay marriage either.) Attributing statements to an person living or dead that you can't back up is bad form, be it online, in person or in print. Especially if those statements cannot be properly sourced.
Why take the time stating your position when you know everyone here knows it's wrong. There are other boards where like-minded people can hate te gayz just as much as you do.
Excuse this (short) monologue...
One of the important parts of science fiction is a certain imaginative distance: from our own era, country, class, political state-of-play, and so on. Of course we will be motivated by today's anxieties and longings - we can't jump over our own shadows. But it helps to be aware of the specifics of the here and now.
Sexuality is a good example of this. Homosexuality is now undergoing a slow transformation: from stigma to toleration to normalisation. This is uneven, unpredictable and often painful, but it is happening. And it seems like a radical, very modern thing.
But scholars suggest that homosexual unions existed in sixteenth-century France, and the ancient Greeks were no strangers to homosexuality. Plato's - otherwise very conservative - philosophy included the idea that love of another man (typically a youth) can inspire chaste love of truth. What we see as radical and progressive now was actually quite common in years past. (And as commonly attacked, e.g by conservative Christians.)
(The same can be said for the so-called 'traditional family', which is actually a very modern idea.)
The best science fiction is informed by this. It's a speculative vision of the future, enriched by a good grasp of the past. It allows for a better idea of the diversity and changeability of human existence.
In this light, there certainly ought to be homosexuals in Star Trek. But their status, identities, politics and the like are up for grabs. We might see homosexuals who reduce themselves to their sexuality, and are mocked or celebrated because of it. We might see homosexuals discriminating against bisexuals. We might see homosexuals who think the label 'homosexual' is "so twentieth century", and stress the twenty-fourth century teachings of T'Shem on pan-sexuality.
In any case, I'm fairly certain that Star Trek on television hasn't explored this very much at all, and has remained very much bound within its own time and place.
One of the important parts of science fiction is a certain imaginative distance: from our own era, country, class, political state-of-play, and so on. Of course we will be motivated by today's anxieties and longings - we can't jump over our own shadows. But it helps to be aware of the specifics of the here and now.
Sexuality is a good example of this. Homosexuality is now undergoing a slow transformation: from stigma to toleration to normalisation. This is uneven, unpredictable and often painful, but it is happening. And it seems like a radical, very modern thing.
But scholars suggest that homosexual unions existed in sixteenth-century France, and the ancient Greeks were no strangers to homosexuality. Plato's - otherwise very conservative - philosophy included the idea that love of another man (typically a youth) can inspire chaste love of truth. What we see as radical and progressive now was actually quite common in years past. (And as commonly attacked, e.g by conservative Christians.)
(The same can be said for the so-called 'traditional family', which is actually a very modern idea.)
The best science fiction is informed by this. It's a speculative vision of the future, enriched by a good grasp of the past. It allows for a better idea of the diversity and changeability of human existence.
In this light, there certainly ought to be homosexuals in Star Trek. But their status, identities, politics and the like are up for grabs. We might see homosexuals who reduce themselves to their sexuality, and are mocked or celebrated because of it. We might see homosexuals discriminating against bisexuals. We might see homosexuals who think the label 'homosexual' is "so twentieth century", and stress the twenty-fourth century teachings of T'Shem on pan-sexuality.
In any case, I'm fairly certain that Star Trek on television hasn't explored this very much at all, and has remained very much bound within its own time and place.
Knight Templar
Commodore
Wasn't there a science fiction book series by James Blish (I think) where in the future the ability to select the sex of children had led to a huge glut of males and thus homosexuality had become more the norm?
Knight Templar
Commodore
Try a search and find out. I'm sure having words like "gay" and "homosexual" in your history won't kill you.
I tried. Plus a wikipedia search about the subject. But I'm unable to find it.
Really this is a debate that hopefully would have been resolved by the 24th century, assuming we haven't killed ourselves off by then.
Arguements against homosexuality usually stem from religious morality. Yet the ones most ardently against it, the ones who think homosexuals will all burn in hell, are the most in your face about the issue. Really.. if you believe in that, then they'll get theirs in the end, so leave it be.
I'm heterosexual, the concept of two men together frankly makes me uncomfortable. I also like spinach. Other people don't. That doesn't make either wrong. As long as everyone involved is of age and consentual, people should just mind their own business.
Part of the problem is government defined definitions(and tax breaks) for marriage. Marriage to be technical, is a religious term and the government shouldn't be regulating that one way or the other. Government shouldn't be telling people how to live their lives and instilling what values people live by. Freedom is just that. Freedom to live how we want.
Inevitably this is also going to bring up other radical notions such as poligamy and bigamy. Frankly... again if everyone involved is consentiual, why not? You may not approve of it, and that's fine.. don't do it. But if all the individuals are of age(this is usually the problem in most of the current poligimy taboos) and consenting.. who are we to tell them how to live?
As far as we've come, frankly I wonder at times how much further we have to go. Seems half the human race has a natural tendency to find reasons to hate the other half.
Arguements against homosexuality usually stem from religious morality. Yet the ones most ardently against it, the ones who think homosexuals will all burn in hell, are the most in your face about the issue. Really.. if you believe in that, then they'll get theirs in the end, so leave it be.
I'm heterosexual, the concept of two men together frankly makes me uncomfortable. I also like spinach. Other people don't. That doesn't make either wrong. As long as everyone involved is of age and consentual, people should just mind their own business.
Part of the problem is government defined definitions(and tax breaks) for marriage. Marriage to be technical, is a religious term and the government shouldn't be regulating that one way or the other. Government shouldn't be telling people how to live their lives and instilling what values people live by. Freedom is just that. Freedom to live how we want.
Inevitably this is also going to bring up other radical notions such as poligamy and bigamy. Frankly... again if everyone involved is consentiual, why not? You may not approve of it, and that's fine.. don't do it. But if all the individuals are of age(this is usually the problem in most of the current poligimy taboos) and consenting.. who are we to tell them how to live?
As far as we've come, frankly I wonder at times how much further we have to go. Seems half the human race has a natural tendency to find reasons to hate the other half.
It is the sort of thing Blish would write about? He died in 1975, would such a book have been published prior to early 70s?Try a search and find out. I'm sure having words like "gay" and "homosexual" in your history won't kill you.
I tried. Plus a wikipedia search about the subject. But I'm unable to find it.
Maybe Knight Templar is thinking of Joe Haldeman's The Forever War (link).
(The trick with Googling something like this is to assume you might be misremembering a detail, such as the author. I typed "scifi novel homosexuality the norm" into Google and the third result was "The Forever War".)
(The trick with Googling something like this is to assume you might be misremembering a detail, such as the author. I typed "scifi novel homosexuality the norm" into Google and the third result was "The Forever War".)
Knight Templar
Commodore
Could be. I remembered something about a short story about a group of soldiers that crashed on a planet of huge, very intelligence "wormlike" aliens with a hive mind. They refer to themselves collectively along with another group like themselves on another nearby planet that was called "Xiobrax" or "Xenobrax" or something to that effect.
The soldiers are the sole survivors of a large human fleet of ships that was supposed to force the aliens into submission.
There is a reference to a group of young men aboard that are referred to derisively by the old fashioned soldiers as the "queens boys" and about how the ability to control sex selection led to the glut of males and the vast increase in homosexuality.
Knight Templar
Commodore
Found it.
The story by James Blish in 1959 "This Earth of Hours" in the June issue of "Fantasy & Science Fiction".
I read it in the science fiction anthology series "There Will Be War" created by Jerry Pournelle. Third volume subtitled "Blood and Iron".
The story by James Blish in 1959 "This Earth of Hours" in the June issue of "Fantasy & Science Fiction".
I read it in the science fiction anthology series "There Will Be War" created by Jerry Pournelle. Third volume subtitled "Blood and Iron".
Pssstttt....The thread is called "Same Sex Marriage", the thread is about Same Sex Marriage in Star Trek. If you clicked into the thread, how can you possibly say you didn't enter into the "Homosexuals in Star Trek" argument deliberately, when you clearly posted about it?
- Status
Similar threads
