Same Sex Marriage

[Saito S]

You want to check the box for homosexual, fine, what's next do you suppose? Its not really science fiction and it doesn't add to the plot, most viewers would tolerate it out of politeness, because the writer wanted to include a homosexual in the 24th century, no one wants to be called a homophobe after all.

Holy hell on wheels.

Still? Twenty-three pages, and I've seen this exact same argument (slightly rephrased each time and made by a number of different posters, but it's still the same idea) I don't even know HOW many times... yet I have yet to see someone provide a compelling reason to NOT include homosexual characters. To NOT just have them be there.

Gonna lay this out one last time:

The idea that every last little detail - every background character, every piece of furniture, every ship cruising around near DS9, every potted plant in someone's quarters, every article of clothing worn by random passerby - the idea that EVERY LAST FUCKING THING matters, that every last one of them is specifically and deliberately chosen and put into an episode because it added to the plot or is in some way sci-fi, is DUMB.

Stuff is just THERE, because it's THERE. LOTS AND LOTS of stuff you see in a Star Trek ep falls into this category. This is a phenomonon that has been happening for decades. It's there because, while walking around the ship having a conversation that advances the plot, Picard might just walk by some of those random crewmembers or furniture or potted plants. They are simply part of the world. They don't have anything to do with "the plot", they are not there "because it's science fiction", they are just THERE to show what the world that the characters inhabit is like.

Having some of the characters be gay would just be MORE OF THE SAME in that they would just be there. Like eight dozen other things that are already present on a weekly basis in Star Trek, they wouldn't be there to advance a specific plot, but just to demonstrate that they EXIST in this fictional world.

This really is not that complicated.

As for the comment about the audience "tolerating" it: anyone who would have a problem with homosexual characters "just being there" - note, I do not mean "anyone who doesn't actively advocate for it"; I am talking about those who would actually say "There are confirmed homosexual characters in this universe now? Fuck that, I have a problem with this" - those people are homophobes and if they are bothered by this, they need to get over it and step on in to the 21st century.

And no, having aliens that are homosexual is not the same as having some of the human character being homosexual. It's certainly not at all BAD, and can be interesting from the standpoint of exploring said alien culture, but the issue is how homosexuality for humans is depicted in this show about humanity's future, about showing that in said future, our race has finally gotten over this incredibly outdated, worthless idea that being homosexual should be viewed as anything other than perfectly normal, perfectly healthy, and perfectly acceptable. Thus, the inclusion of gay characters who are human is important.

Thank you, and goodnight.

 

[Maurice]

You want to check the box for homosexual, fine, what's next do you suppose? Its not really science fiction and it doesn't add to the plot, most viewers would tolerate it out of politeness, because the writer wanted to include a homosexual in the 24th century, no one wants to be called a homophobe after all.

Change "homosexual" to "black" and maybe you'll see the point, but I doubt it. The double-standard is staring back at you from the mirror. Enjoy the view, ugly as it is.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

You want to check the box for homosexual, fine, what's next do you suppose? Its not really science fiction and it doesn't add to the plot, most viewers would tolerate it out of politeness, because the writer wanted to include a homosexual in the 24th century, no one wants to be called a homophobe after all.

It doesn't add anything. In which story was a major plot-point and development the fact that Troi, O'Brien or Kim were straight? There aren't any, so it doesn't need to be done for a gay character either.

It's about diveristy and inclusion in a series that shows that all are equal and appreciated and respected four hundred years into the future. Its insulting not to have same sex couples in the background or on the main cast, I've watched heterosexual couples on TV for years and I haven't yet started a campaign to have that banned from TV, you know what with all the lonely single people out there would feel discriminated again for having to watch such things.

If people out there are uncomfortable with such things or find them wrong and decide that they aren't "normal", well you might as well find the deepest, darkest, dankest cave possible and hide away from the rest of your days. Its something that you're only going to see and hear more of over the years, it'll take an age but bigotry will soon be left behind.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I've watched heterosexual couples on TV for years and I haven't yet started a campaign to have that banned from TV, you know what with all the lonely single people out there would feel discriminated again for having to watch such things.

Heh.

 

[Timewalker]

Now what might be interesting is if two guys on the new Star Trek fell in love around the 3rd or 4th season, and which two guys it was that fell in love wasn't planned from the beginning, that way these characters could exist as well rounded characters who just happen to be gay.

This is what they should have done with Bashir and Garak. Yes, I know Bashir likes ladies, and so does Garak. But they also happen to like each other... rather a lot, is the impression I always got.

Honestly, I just don't see what the problem is. It seems that fanfiction grew up socially a long time before the pro novels or TV/movies. And if some viewer refuses to "tolerate" gay marriage in Star Trek (or any other show), said viewer can easily turn the channel or turn the TV off. Problem solved.

 

[Mars]

You want to check the box for homosexual, fine, what's next do you suppose? Its not really science fiction and it doesn't add to the plot, most viewers would tolerate it out of politeness, because the writer wanted to include a homosexual in the 24th century, no one wants to be called a homophobe after all.

It doesn't add anything. In which story was a major plot-point and development the fact that Troi, O'Brien or Kim were straight? There aren't any, so it doesn't need to be done for a gay character either.

It's about diveristy and inclusion in a series that shows that all are equal and appreciated and respected four hundred years into the future. Its insulting not to have same sex couples in the background or on the main cast, I've watched heterosexual couples on TV for years and I haven't yet started a campaign to have that banned from TV, you know what with all the lonely single people out there would feel discriminated again for having to watch such things.

If people out there are uncomfortable with such things or find them wrong and decide that they aren't "normal", well you might as well find the deepest, darkest, dankest cave possible and hide away from the rest of your days. Its something that you're only going to see and hear more of over the years, it'll take an age but bigotry will soon be left behind.

The only married couple I've ever seen on Star Trek was Miles O'brien and Keiko, that's it, and that didn't last long either. Usually the show found a way to move one of the spouses off stage. Star Trek wasn't about married people, most of the members of the crew were single, so if your going to have any sort of marriage, you are asking for a big exception to be made.

I think a race for which same sex marriage is the norm is the obvious choice for Star Trek, such as the Hermaphrodite race I mentioned, but for some that just ain't weird enough, it has to be a race for which same sex marriage is not the norm, and for humans I'm afraid its not the norm. But while were doing that, why not include an illogical Vulcan and a cowardly Klingon while were at it.

 

[Timewalker]

The only married couple I've ever seen on Star Trek was Miles O'brien and Keiko, that's it, and that didn't last long either. Usually the show found a way to move one of the spouses off stage. Star Trek wasn't about married people, most of the members of the crew were single, so if your going to have any sort of marriage, you are asking for a big exception to be made.

Tom Paris and B'Elanna Torres were married on Voyager, and they had a baby. The pregnancy was a significant part of quite a few episodes. And even though they were separated physically by tens of thousands of light-years, it was always a part of Tuvok's character that he was married, with children. He went through pon-farr, and other crewmembers came to him for parenting advice.

But while were doing that, why not include an illogical Vulcan and a cowardly Klingon while were at it.

Those have been done - Sybok, the illogical Vulcan, and Arne Darvin, the cowardly Klingon spy (scared of a Tribble!).

 

[Mars]

The only married couple I've ever seen on Star Trek was Miles O'brien and Keiko, that's it, and that didn't last long either. Usually the show found a way to move one of the spouses off stage. Star Trek wasn't about married people, most of the members of the crew were single, so if your going to have any sort of marriage, you are asking for a big exception to be made.

Tom Paris and B'Elanna Torres were married on Voyager, and they had a baby. The pregnancy was a significant part of quite a few episodes. And even though they were separated physically by tens of thousands of light-years, it was always a part of Tuvok's character that he was married, with children. He went through pon-farr, and other crewmembers came to him for parenting advice.

But while were doing that, why not include an illogical Vulcan and a cowardly Klingon while were at it.

Those have been done - Sybok, the illogical Vulcan, and Arne Darvin, the cowardly Klingon spy (scared of a Tribble!).

One might argue that an illogical vulcan or a cowardly Klingon might face similar sorts of problems as homosexuals in a heterosexual world, and a heterosexual world it is, it is the norm. On vulcan logic is the norm, and among Klingons bravery is of utmost importance, if one of their own defies those norms then there is a price to be paid by that individual. But if you want a starship full of misfits, that should be quite amusing. Imagine a homosexual human on the bridge next to the illogical vulcan and the cowardly klingon, I think what we would have here would be the makings of a comedy. What do you think?

 

[Saito S]

The only married couple I've ever seen on Star Trek was Miles O'brien and Keiko, that's it, and that didn't last long either. Usually the show found a way to move one of the spouses off stage. Star Trek wasn't about married people, most of the members of the crew were single, so if your going to have any sort of marriage, you are asking for a big exception to be made.

Big exception?

Is this a joke?

-Beverly & Jack Crusher
-Jennifer & Ben Sisko
-Keiko & Miles O'Brien
-Deanna Troi & Will Riker
-Jadzia Dax & Worf
-B'Elanna Torres & Tom Paris
-Ezri Dax and Julian Bashir (no, they weren't actually married, but despite the thread title, the current argument is clearly about the depiction of heterosexual romantic relationships, and the complete lack of such relationships being shown involving same-sex couples; actual marriage isn't required).

That's just off the top of my head.

Also: didn't last long? The O'Briens? They were married during TNG season 4, stayed married through the end of DS9 season 7, and are STILL married if you read the novels. No idea what you meant here.

Also also: "Star Trek isn't about married people." Is this another flailing attempt at the "It wouldn't advance the plot!" angle? Star Trek isn't about poker, playing the trombone, having drinks in ten-forward, Sisko's collection of African art, etc., either. Did you even READ my post about how background elements work? I'm guessing not, since you didn't address anything from it.

I think a race for which same sex marriage is the norm is the obvious choice for Star Trek, such as the Hermaphrodite race I mentioned, but for some that just ain't weird enough, it has to be a race for which same sex marriage is not the norm, and for humans I'm afraid its not the norm. But while were doing that, why not include an illogical Vulcan and a cowardly Klingon while were at it.

It actually is well past time for Trek to show something like an illogical Vulcan or a cowardly Klingon, to break the long-running concept of "monoculture" that has infested the franchise when it comes to aliens. Still, they at least have made some strides in that area, with Nog and Rom on DS9.

Norm? As in, "Dominant"? Please. No one is asking for same-sex relationships to be depicted as somehow occurring MORE OFTEN than heterosexual relationships. The issue at hand is, quite specifically, the complete lack of ANY same-sex relationships among Humans through five TV series and eleven movies.

EDIT: Good points on Sybok and Darvin! I'd forgotten about both of them.

 

[Mars]

"Is this a joke?

-Beverly & Jack Crusher
-Jennifer & Ben Sisko
-Keiko & Miles O'Brien
-Deanna Troi & Will Riker
-Jadzia Dax & Worf
-B'Elanna Torres & Tom Paris
-Ezri Dax and Julian Bashir (no, they weren't actually married, but despite the thread title, the current argument is clearly about the depiction of heterosexual romantic relationships, and the complete lack of such relationships being shown involving same-sex couples; actual marriage isn't required)."

I think if it says marriage, it ought to mean marriage. I never seen Jack Crusher in the Next Generation, he was dead by the time of the first episode. I'm not counting off stage spouses, or spouses that only appear as guest stars. Both have to be main characters for it to count. One thing being married does is it eliminates a potential plot hook for the series, that is why they try to keep all the main characters single, in case a pretty or handsome guest star should arrive that they can have a fling with.

Jennifer Sisko died early on, they had to make Ben single in a hurry to make him available for all those pretty guest stars.

Keiko is one example, but she is a botanist, not much role for her in many episodes.

I don't remember Deanna every marrying Will Riker, yes there was something going on between them, but that was conveniently discarded whenever the script called for Will to have a guest star love interest for an episode.

Yes Jadzia Dax did marry Worf and they lived happily ever after at the end of the series. Marriages usually come towards the end of the series, when all the characters get their affairs in order and their issues resolved.

"Norm? As in, "Dominant"? Please. No one is asking for same-sex relationships to be depicted as somehow occurring MORE OFTEN than heterosexual relationships. The issue at hand is, quite specifically, the complete lack of ANY same-sex relationships among Humans through five TV series and eleven movies.

How about the complete lack of any characters wearing glasses? I wear glasses for instance, why doesn't anyone the the 24th century wear them? You'd think they'd at least have one character in the series that wears glasses. Why not?

To answer my own question I'd say that in the 24th century they'd found ways to cure bad eye sight and corrective lenses are obsolete, except for Captain Kirk in the movies, but that was only for reading, and that was in the 23rd century.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

You had better count off the stage spouses since these are starships.

And how about Sisko and Kasidy?

The Grand Nagus and Moogie?

ROM AND LEETA!

There was a lot of marriage on DS9.

Also you are pretty much wrong about all those couples. Wrong as in facts wrong.

 

[Saito S]

I think if it says marriage, it ought to mean marriage.

Tough? This is where the discussion has gone (it had already arrived at "not just about marriage specifically, but about the lack of homosexual characters in Trek in general" before I even posted in this thread).

If you think we've been talking about "Gay marriage, specifically, and ONLY gay marriage", then we aren't even having the same conversation.

I never seen Jack Crusher in the Next Generation,

Then you missed the episode "Family."

he was dead by the time of the first episode.

So?

I'm not counting off stage spouses, or spouses that only appear as guest stars. Both have to be main characters for it to count.

This statement shows that you have missed my point by such a wide margin that you could fly the Enterprise through the intervening space quite comfortably.

One thing being married does is it eliminates a potential plot hook for the series, that is why they try to keep all the main characters single, in case a pretty or handsome guest star should arrive that they can have a fling with.

"Romance of the week" stories are idiotic, and are usually among each series' worst episodes. Doing away with them would hardly be a bad thing.

You had better count off the stage spouses since these are starships.

And how about Sisko and Kasidy?

The Grand Nagus and Moogie?

ROM AND LEETA!

There was a lot of marriage on DS9.

Also you are pretty much wrong about all those couples. Wrong as in facts wrong.

HOW did I forget these?

Martok & Sirella, is another one.

 

[Mars]

What about the characters wearing glasses, should Star Trek have characters wearing glasses just so some of the viewers who also wear glasses have somebody they can identify with? Maybe the next Captain should wear horned black rimmed glasses just so the glasses wearing viewers don't feel excluded.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Glasses don't exist in the future. Gays do.

 

[Timewalker]

Kirk's lawyer wore glasses (in "Court-Martial"), I believe. And Kirk wore glasses in the movies.

Hell, some people wear them just for fashion. A couple of weeks ago, I was coming out of a 7-11 and a 20-year-old girl stopped me and said she really liked my glasses. Since I basically need them to see clearly more than 2 inches in front of my face, my first reaction was ... and I asked her, "You like glasses?" 'Cause I'd love to have healthy eyes again.

Turns out she liked the frames, and said she would just have had clear, non-prescription, non-magnifying lenses put in.

Seems weird to me... but at least now I know that somebody likes my taste in frames.

 

[Nerys Myk]

What about the characters wearing glasses, should Star Trek have characters wearing glasses just so some of the viewers who also wear glasses have somebody they can identify with? Maybe the next Captain should wear horned black rimmed glasses just so the glasses wearing viewers don't feel excluded.

false equivalency.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Uh, teacake? Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Glasses do exist in the future, particularly for those who are allergic to certain treatments for eye issues.

Mars? I have a feeling you didn't see Nemesis... Will and Deanna got married.

 

[Saito S]

What about the characters wearing glasses, should Star Trek have characters wearing glasses just so some of the viewers who also wear glasses have somebody they can identify with? Maybe the next Captain should wear horned black rimmed glasses just so the glasses wearing viewers don't feel excluded.

Nothing to say about any of what I said in any of my posts?

How very telling.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

One of the transporter technicians in The Cage definitely wore glasses. (ETA: It's this guy.)

While Samuel T. Cogley read books and had a lot of them, I don't recall him having glasses.

Homophobes might still exist too, in the future, in some number anyway.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Uh, teacake? Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Glasses do exist in the future, particularly for those who are allergic to certain treatments for eye issues.

Well okay, but judging by how ever other person I know has gotten lasik and this is only 2012 I assume they will be rare.

But wait! We DO have a main character in glasses already!

Geordi.