Same Sex Marriage

[IndyJones]

This is why any inclusion of a gay character would be simply to satisfy a 21st century audience, but it would still have zero real meaning, because in the context of Star Trek's future, there'd be nothing special about said character or character couple.

Well, no.

If you're going to show a bunch of humans, and you're going to discuss their sexuality (show them on dates, reference their spouses) then it's perfectly reasonable to make some of the gay. To better illustrate the human condition.

Since gays exist, not showing gays is much more of a political move than showing them.

 

[Maurice]

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.

That's because Mars has no factual counter argument and relies on repeating the same tired contradictory excuses/evasions and false analogies.

 

[Timewalker]

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

Geordi.

Geordi is not wearing glasses. He is wearing a hair band on the wrong part of his head.

 

[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.

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

How very telling.

That's because Mars has no factual counter argument and relies on repeating the same tired contradictory excuses/evasions and false analogies.

Yeah, I know your point. Homosexuals are "special" and people who wear glasses aren't.

 

[Mars]

This is why any inclusion of a gay character would be simply to satisfy a 21st century audience, but it would still have zero real meaning, because in the context of Star Trek's future, there'd be nothing special about said character or character couple.

Well, no.

If you're going to show a bunch of humans, and you're going to discuss their sexuality (show them on dates, reference their spouses) then it's perfectly reasonable to make some of the gay. To better illustrate the human condition.

Since gays exist, not showing gays is much more of a political move than showing them.

Your assuming they exist in the 24th century. What if they showed Aids patients in the 24th century just to satisfy audience members who have Aids in the 21st century, does that make them feel better that they still don't have a cure for Aids even in the 24th century? Also consider what may happen if by the 24th century they determine exactly what causes homosexuality, and their doctors can do something about it. What if some prospective parents are conceiving a child, and the doctor comes up and says, we've determined by your child's genetic structure that he's going to be Gay, but we can fix it, your child can still be born, but he will not be gay if you like. What do you think the child's parents are going to do?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Let their child be gay because being gay isn't a problem?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Your assuming they exist in the 24th century. What if they showed Aids patients in the 24th century just to satisfy audience members who have Aids in the 21st century, does that make them feel better that they still don't have a cure for Aids even in the 24th century? Also consider what may happen if by the 24th century they determine exactly what causes homosexuality, and their doctors can do something about it. What if some prospective parents are conceiving a child, and the doctor comes up and says, we've determined by your child's genetic structure that he's going to be Gay, but we can fix it, your child can still be born, but he will not be gay if you like. What do you think the child's parents are going to do?

Gay is not a disease. The kind of eugenics you describe were outlawed after the Eugenics wars.

Or do you think Gay is a disease?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

What if some prospective parents are conceiving a child, and the doctor comes up and says, we've determined by your child's genetic structure that he's going to be Gay, but we can fix it, your child can still be born, but he will not be gay if you like. What do you think the child's parents are going to do?

Funny that your premise incorporates the notion that being gay is something that needs to be fixed. The fact that you chose to frame things that way makes your question at the end there seem rhetorical.

I don't believe that 24th century doctors will, as a rule anyway, be thinking of homosexuality as a condition that needs to be fixed. I don't believe that people in general will be thinking of homosexuality as a condition that needs to be fixed either.

Therefore, my answer is, to the literal text of your question: the parents will probably immediately seek a second opinion. The next doctor will probably simply tell them that their child seems perfectly healthy and there's nothing to worry about; homosexuality is not a condition which endangers the health of the individual or others, it's not even a medical condition at all, and incidentally nor is it anything that even remotely endangers the survivability of the species or the health of possible descendants (yes, gay people have children, too).

That being said, no doubt some parents and some doctors would favor genetic modification, à la Chakotay. (Of course, the premises that genes alone or at all cause homosexuality in the first place are problematic hypotheses, for numerous reasons, but for the sake of argument let's leave that aside.) The fact that some parents and doctors are this way might make for interesting stories, e.g. about brutality in utopia. As I said upthread, homophobia will probably still exist in the future, to some degree.

 

[Mars]

What if some prospective parents are conceiving a child, and the doctor comes up and says, we've determined by your child's genetic structure that he's going to be Gay, but we can fix it, your child can still be born, but he will not be gay if you like. What do you think the child's parents are going to do?

Funny that your premise incorporates the notion that being gay is something that needs to be fixed. The fact that you chose to frame things that way makes your question at the end there seem rhetorical.

I don't believe that 24th century doctors will, as a rule anyway, be thinking of homosexuality as a condition that needs to be fixed. I don't believe that people in general will be thinking of homosexuality as a condition that needs to be fixed either.

Therefore, my answer is, to the literal text of your question: the parents will probably immediately seek a second opinion. The next doctor will probably simply tell them that their child seems perfectly healthy and there's nothing to worry about; homosexuality is not a condition which endangers the health of the individual or others, it's not even a medical condition at all, and incidentally nor is it anything that even remotely endangers the survivability of the species or the health of possible descendants (yes, gay people have children, too).

That being said, no doubt some parents and some doctors would favor genetic modification, à la Chakotay. (Of course, the premises that genes alone or at all cause homosexuality in the first place are problematic hypotheses, for numerous reasons, but for the sake of argument let's leave that aside.) The fact that some parents and doctors are this way might make for interesting stories, e.g. about brutality in utopia. As I said upthread, homophobia will probably still exist in the future, to some degree.

The Vulcans and the Klingons have their own expectations of their offspring as well. What if a vulcan rejects the teachings of Surak? He's likely to face ostracism among his own kind, and what if a Klingon proves cowardly, he'd face some social prejudice from his community as well. I don't think humans ought to be portrayed as saints compared to them. And some humans may have some prejudicial attitudes toward Romulans and Cardassians as well.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Lots of complicated excuses for not having a gay character, I see.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

At this juncture, bringing in Vulcans, Klingons, et al. is just kicking up sand to muddy the waters and no doubt mix other metaphors; it's neither here nor there.

 

[Mars]

At this juncture, bringing in Vulcans, Klingons, et al. is just kicking up sand to muddy the waters and no doubt mix other metaphors; it's neither here nor there.

Probably not going to convince you otherwise. You've made up your mind that you want a politically correct gay character in the next Star Trek series, but where does political correctness stop?

 

[Sindatur]

At this juncture, bringing in Vulcans, Klingons, et al. is just kicking up sand to muddy the waters and no doubt mix other metaphors; it's neither here nor there.

Probably not going to convince you otherwise. You've made up your mind that you want a politically correct gay character in the next Star Trek series, but where does political correctness stop?

It stops with manipulating genes to "Cure" Homosexuality.

You seem to think Political Correctness only means inclusion or tolerance of things you object to. If you object to something, is it not Political Correctness on your side of the issue to exclude that thing? Liberal Political Correctness will tolerate/include/embrace Homosexuality. Conservative Political Correctness will demonize/exclude Homosexuality

 

[iguana_tonante]

I'm curious, Mars: why you don't want a gay character in Star Trek?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

At this juncture, bringing in Vulcans, Klingons, et al. is just kicking up sand to muddy the waters and no doubt mix other metaphors; it's neither here nor there.

Probably not going to convince you otherwise. You've made up your mind that you want a politically correct gay character in the next Star Trek series, but where does political correctness stop?

You've put words in my mouth. That's quite presumptuous to assume that I want a gay character in Star Trek for reasons to do with political correctness.

Since political correctness has no bearing, I'd say that to ask when does it stop is absurd, because it never got going in the first place.

If you can't conceive of any other legitimate reasons, besides political correctness, why I might have no objection whatsoever to a character with attribute X appearing in the show, for all kinds of X relevant to the human experience, then I can't really help you.

 

[Mars]

I'm curious, Mars: why you don't want a gay character in Star Trek?

If you could find a good story reason, sure. But I can see them adding this and adding that because various political groups are bugging them to do it as well, it sort of constrains the writers freedom of imagination if you tell them he must include one of those, then he gets a character he didn't intend and has to write a story around him, maybe include some homosexual love interest. It gets tiresome writing about man love man romances. Well actually there was a homosexual character, now that I think about it. How about the Mirror Universe's Kira, the Intendent of Bajor, she had the hots for herself, so that box was checked already, yep homosexual character, we can cross that off now.

 

[Romulus Prime]

How about the Mirror Universe's Kira, the Intendent of Bajor, she had the hots for herself, so that box was checked already, yep homosexual character, we can cross that off now.

Oh yeah, I forgot about her. Everyone always thinks of the "Dax" thing (which I never thought made much sense since she and Kahn were heterosexual), but Mirror Kira was...


...wait, didn't she go both ways?

 

[iguana_tonante]

I'm curious, Mars: why you don't want a gay character in Star Trek?

If you could find a good story reason, sure. But I can see them adding this and adding that because various political groups are bugging them to do it as well, it sort of constrains the writers freedom of imagination if you tell them he must include one of those, then he gets a character he didn't intend and has to write a story around him, maybe include some homosexual love interest. It gets tiresome writing about man love man romances. Well actually there was a homosexual character, now that I think about it. How about the Mirror Universe's Kira, the Intendent of Bajor, she had the hots for herself, so that box was checked already, yep homosexual character, we can cross that off now.

So, no reason at all, except your personal comfortableness with the concept (as your final quip clearly shows).

The story reason to include any homosexual character is the same to include any heterosexual character: people are going to be straight, gay, or bi. No other reason is needed.

 

[Sindatur]

I'm curious, Mars: why you don't want a gay character in Star Trek?

If you could find a good story reason, sure. But I can see them adding this and adding that because various political groups are bugging them to do it as well, it sort of constrains the writers freedom of imagination if you tell them he must include one of those, then he gets a character he didn't intend and has to write a story around him, maybe include some homosexual love interest. It gets tiresome writing about man love man romances. Well actually there was a homosexual character, now that I think about it. How about the Mirror Universe's Kira, the Intendent of Bajor, she had the hots for herself, so that box was checked already, yep homosexual character, we can cross that off now.

Tiresome, writing about Man Love Man Romances? Say what? That's pretty offensive, as others have repeatedly brought up, replace Homosexual in that sentence with Heterosexual, Black, or any other descriptor of a group. How can something be tiresome, that hasn't been written about yet. And no, the Intendent wasn't "gay" she was a Narcissist and she obviously had great sexual interest in men as well as in herself.

And again, there are Political Groups saying "Don't include Homosexuals", how is that any less Political pressure or limiting? If a writer is limited by the inclusion of a main Gay character or even background/scenery Gay characters, there is something seriously wrong with that writer, IMHO.

 

[Timewalker]

That being said, no doubt some parents and some doctors would favor genetic modification, à la Chakotay.

I have absolutely no recollection of ANY mention of Chakotay either being genetically modified OR being homophobic.

The Vulcans and the Klingons have their own expectations of their offspring as well. What if a vulcan rejects the teachings of Surak? He's likely to face ostracism among his own kind, and what if a Klingon proves cowardly, he'd face some social prejudice from his community as well. I don't think humans ought to be portrayed as saints compared to them. And some humans may have some prejudicial attitudes toward Romulans and Cardassians as well.

Surak advocated logic, IDIC, and "may we together become greater than the sum of both of us." He never said people had to be nice while they pursued those goals.

Else how do you account for T'Pring? She was a cold, selfish bitch - but she had her logical reasons, which even Spock acknowledged. It's interesting to see how T'Pring is portrayed in the novel Spock's World and in much of the fanfic I've read over the years. T'Pring is indeed not looked upon favorably by many of her fellow Vulcans. She is socially shunned to a great extent, but she is not banished from society completely.

As for the "cowardly Klingon" - I've already mentioned Arne Darvin. Add Worf to that - he's scared of Data's cat.