A person's sexuality has a lot to do with their overall brain architecture, so it wouldn't just be a matter of changing part of their brain, you'd have to rebuilt the whole structure. Realistically, this would have to happen genetically prior to conception. Eugenics, sociological control, political ideology. But in that case, the current host were "channeling" former hosts who were married. One of the former hosts was male, and the other female. Star Trek has never shown a gay relationship or marriage. The production staff certainly did. I would disagree, every marriage depicted in-universe was heterosexual, every relationship the same. There was never even a hint of a actual gay character. Then explain the lack of gays in the future. Not a single gene to be sure. That isn't how heredity works. It has to do with dominant and recessive alleles, just because you and your partner have brown eyes, does stop your child from having blue eyes. Just because you and your partner are both heterosexual, does stop your child from being born gay. But whether you're attracted to brunette men or brunette women is genetic. (OO)
Unfortunately, I have to agree with a lot of the above. IF Star Trek were truly pro gay - then they would have had at least one major character by now who WAS gay. The only example was the Jadzia Dax thing...and the poster above explained that. There hasn't even been secondary minor characters that were gay. The ONLY example that I'm aware of is Peter Kirk in Star Trek Phase 2. And I don't think that was particularly cannon. I don't think the episode even aired...but went directly to youtube. I've heard of books with gay characters. Really the only one that I know for sure in the books is Uhura and she admits to being bisexual and has an affair with a woman. But I HAVE to agree with the poster above. Just where the heck are all the gay people in the future in Star Trek land?
Not to be argumentative, Trek hasn't done heterosexual marriage particularly well. For the most part, character are married to the job or to the ship, and relationships are mostly passing flings. There are casual references to off-screen marriages, but otherwise there have only been three real depictions of marital life, two coming from the same series, only one being between two actual humans. Indeed, Trek doesn't do well with adult relationships, heterosexual or homosexual or otherwise. At least with Dax-Kahn, the renewal of the relationship had to be worked out in their current bodies rather than wait for the right configuration to occur that would allow them to carry on as their marriage had been founded (and indeed, there are plenty of couples, gay and straight, who must deal with changes to one partner's body, be it due to violence, accident, or diseases--it's not that easy).
There are some who take a stand though. In "Offspring", Guinan was supposed to tell Lal something along the lines of 'when a man and woman love each other...', but Whoopi refused to and substituted the line 'when two people love each other' instead. Simple things like that are always nice to see, but it shouldn't have to fall to an actor to make the change--that should be the ethos from the very top down to the very bottom (no pun intended ).
Totally agree though I'm thinking after so many decades the slash is like some secret crack and maybe I don't want to give that up?
I hadn't heard that before. That was subtle enough that I missed it. The thing of it though, the country as a whole was a lot less tolerant twenty years ago than it is now. So I can see why the execs and writers wouldn't go out of their way to embrace the idea. But yeah, as juvenile as Trek typically is about anything sexual, it's probably a good thing they really didn't try to get out the homosexual message lest it become a farce.
I've been disappointed twice by how Trek has presented androgynous species. With TNG: The Outcast and ENT: Cogenitor, both of the regular characters were men, and the androgynous objects of their interest were played by women. I can understand it in terms of comfort levels for the actors, but acting is about taking RISKS! goddammit, and would have put an entirely different spin on it with male guest actors.
I just watched a few more Star Trek Phase II episodes. Peter Kirk has disappeared suddenly. Last I saw him he was promising his Uncle Jim that he was going to stay aboard the Enterprise. Well...so much for that gay character. I noticed in this series that the actors playing the characters seem to change in every episode...except for Kirk and McCoy. I just watched World Enough And Time. I don't know what they did to the actor who portrays Kirk...but he was actually kinda hot looking in this particular feature. They really did a makeover on the actor and WOW! George T. the original Sulu also has a part in this feature. But I missed Peter Kirk.
You're a playah! I have no idea about genetics. I do think it's funny though that people will say it's a choice for everyone and yet if you asked them if they are consciously choosing to only be attracted to their opposite gender or if they could choose to be attracted to their own gender they will deny it. I am NOT saying anyone in this thread does so, it's just an easy way to flip it round when people say it's a choice. Our hardwiring is often so hardlwired we don't see it, we just notice wiring in other people that seems glaringly different to our own. I also think some of us are so bi or pan or fluid or whatever word you want to use that we can choose to pursue one of our many preferences over others, for whatever reason. But the majority of people don't have that.
Well, I did used to watch some of those awful Italian sword-and-sandal movies from the 60s that were collectively branded as a "Sons of Hercules" series, because there wasn't anything else on at the time. ["Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?"] And there have been some male actors that I thought were ridiculously good looking (like Richard Denning in his Creature from the Black Lagoon days), but I never felt sexually attracted to them. They just had better physiques and looks than me. That's what I keep telling myself anyway.
In the case of Outcast, Jonathan Frakes did advocate having the "love interest" be played by a male actor, but to no effect. Even there, it was after Lal observe a man and a woman courting in Ten Forward. The only series I'm willing to give a pass to would be TOS, by the late eighties there were regularly gay characters on various TV series. Despite it's occasional reputation, Star Trek was unwilling to push the envelope. By the time of ENT there was no longer any excuse, some of the people I went to High School with commented on the lack of a gay character, in some cases it was a part of the reason they switch to viewing different a show in the same time slot. Some people point to Reed as the "should have been," looking back now I think that Travis would have been a better choice. Despite some of his comments in the pilot, having him in a relationship with another Enterprise crewman would have worked nicely. At least it would have given him something to do.
Being gay is not a choice. I never chose to be straight, and I doubt you did either. So either people choose to be gay (in which case it seems that anyone who is faced with the choice chooses to be gay, so how is it a choice?) or people don't choose to be gay. In any case, having Down's Syndrome is very much genetic, and it hasn't bred itself out, so your argument that a gay "gene" would have been bred out of humanity is a flawed one.
I tihnk they would be able to do it in Trek, what with all the other crazy stuff they do. None of which seem to apply to the Federation. Perhaps, but I doubt it. I can't imagine Sisko being okay with Dax having a relationship with Lenara, but then being aghast at the idea of Dax and Kira. The production staff don't exist in-unioverse. How many gay people did I pass when I walking down the city street just now? Probably quite a few. Just because it isn't immediately obvious that a person is gay, doesn't mean they aren't. Maybe Ensign Rager is a lesbian. Maybe Wesley is bi. I'd say Riker could be pansexual, given that he was once in love with a woman who came from a species with only one gender!
Lieutenant Hawk in FC was gay, was it an important story point? No, so it didn't need to be mentioned. We don't see every part of the characters personal lives, so we don't know if Data's last sexual partner before Tasha was a guy, or if Janeway experimented with a female partner at the Academy. Going by the reasoning the "since we never saw it, it doesn't happen", that would mean that Uhura was a virgin, since we never saw her having a romance with anyone aboard ship (unless you want to count that awkward moment with Scotty in TFF). Whilst NuUhura was banging all her professors at the Academy.
I've read this claim before in articles, and watched FC again last month. As with any plot element, if it's not presented in the film's theatrical cut, it basically doesn't exist, regardless if it was in the original script, a deleted scene, or if Neal McDonough used it as a background for his character. Whether Hawk is gay or not is irrelevant in the film. Sexual/gender identity should really be irrelevant in terms of how we relate to people in our everyday lives as well, unless we're in some sort of sexual relationship with them. It's no one else's business. It's like when someone asked Dominic Keating if Malcolm was gay, and he enigmatically quipped, "God knows I played him gay."