Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

[T'Girl]

The Federation seems to be portrayed as a sort of liberal paradise.

Actually I would describe the Vulcans (for one) as being quite conservative.

... I would think that homosexual equality would not be far-fetched in the Federation.

As I mentioned up-thread, I think that it would depend on which Member world you were looking at, things would vary widely within the Federation.

Since the liberal view is generally pro-LGBT, then it is fair to assume that the hyper-liberal Federation would have laws in place to ensure LGBT equality.

I don't know that the Federation would have any laws on this matter. Starfleet would have it's own internal policies. And (again) the numerous Members would have their own laws, individual colonies might also have separate laws from their originating home worlds.

 

[Maurice]

... and your comment seems to only be talking about gay men and not gay women, who aren't prone to flaming.

You've not known some of my lesbian friends, obviously! But then, again, I don't think we're using the same definition of flaming. What I'm talking about is the period right after a person comes out of the closet when they discover and begin displaying the rainbow, the pink triangle, etc. When they start listening to a lot more gay music like the aforementioned Erasure and Pet Shop Boys and also Etheridge and Mercury and so on, and watching a lot of gay movies like "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert", "Boys Don't Cry", "To Wong Foo", and such. They suddenly want to go to a gay/lesbian bar when they may not be the sort of person that even likes bars at all, and they want to go to a pride rally even though they're an introvert that hates crowds. And for a little while, they frequently make the mistake of thinking that ALL LGBTQ people must be NICE because "they've been through what I've been through", before they painfully learn that, no, being an a*hole is equal opportunity.

Before very long (varies, of course, on how long), they settle back down into being themselves again, just with their homosexuality integrated in - watching a movie with straight characters no longer automatically provokes a conversation about "I think character A was actually gay", and the aforementioned introvert is now okay being gay in the same comfortable places where they were trying to play straight before - nothing to prove to his- or herself anymore that requires getting out in crowds.

I think you think by "flaming" I'm talking about acting like Jack off "Will and Grace". No, this is a subtler thing, but I've seen it a LOT.

Nomenclature is fun. See, I wouldn't consider that "flaming". I would consider that "putting it out there." Flaming has a particular context in the community that I don't think quite is what you're describing, but I take your point.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Nomenclature is fun. See, I wouldn't consider that "flaming". I would consider that "putting it out there." Flaming has a particular context in the community that I don't think quite is what you're describing

I know, and we could say "buzzing gay" or "newmo" or I don't know what else - but to me it seems closely related to the definition of flaming that you're referring to: demonstratively gay. So I'd rather use "flaming" and consider my version as a candidate to be definition #3 in the OED. (I'd assume definition #1 is something about actually being on fire. )

 

[Amaris]

Either way, it's very liberating, and feels wonderful, and I think we can appreciate that feeling to some degree.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

My guess on the requirements for joining the Federation is that you must not abuse or incarcerate people based on sexual orientation, but other than that, there are no requirements surrounding marriage laws.

We get this interesting contradiction in Star Trek where characters talk as if culture is liberal but act as if culture is conservative. People are open and accepting to all people, but choose to enter traditional family units. People are opposed to militarism but have the biggest military in the galaxy. Liberal in theory, conservative in practice, like they had a progressive movement, then once they settled on the new cultural values became very conservative about them, and by 2364 are very resistant to change.

 

[Shawnster]

Liberal in theory, conservative in practice, like they had a progressive movement, then once they settled on the new cultural values became very conservative about them, and by 2364 are very resistant to change.

This is how I understood Liberal vs. Conservative back in Jr. High School. It was explained (overgeneralized) that Conservatives resisted change/were slow to make change and Liberals were eager for change/quick to make change. So I concluded that someone who was Liberal would seek change and, once their changes were made, would become conservative because they would hate to see the changes they worked for to go away or change once again.

 

[DonIago]

Doesn't that tie into the theory that as people grow older they tend to swing towards the right?

 

[CTGuyton]

Liberal in theory, conservative in practice, like they had a progressive movement, then once they settled on the new cultural values became very conservative about them, and by 2364 are very resistant to change.

This is how I understood Liberal vs. Conservative back in Jr. High School. It was explained (overgeneralized) that Conservatives resisted change/were slow to make change and Liberals were eager for change/quick to make change. So I concluded that someone who was Liberal would seek change and, once their changes were made, would become conservative because they would hate to see the changes they worked for to go away or change once again.

I've never thought of it like that but it's an interesting way to look at the Republican party and their roles in abolishing slavery, promoting civil rights, etc and how it's been generally accepted that the parties "switched". You two have given me something to ponder.

 

[T'Girl]

So I concluded that someone who was Liberal would seek change and, once their changes were made, would become conservative because they would hate to see the changes they worked for to go away or change once again.

Never saw it in quite that fashion before, but your conclusion makes a lot of sense.

Bravo!

My guess on the requirements for joining the Federation is that you must not abuse or incarcerate people based on sexual orientation, but other than that, there are no requirements surrounding marriage laws.

Don't know, it would depend on how much of a open door policy the Federation Membership has.

There's also the factor of how much the Federation might themselves need that particular new Member, what the new Member would bring to the group. The world might occupy a desirable section of the sky, would bring a couple of dozen star systems with them, have pre-existing diplomatic relation with civilizations farther out.

If a world wanted to join the Federation's community and had a strong fleet of starships at a time when the Federation needed just such a fleet on one of it's frontiers, the Membership might be willing to overlook certain aspects of their society.

Ardana's social structure would have been pretty easy to figure out in a relatively short period of time, but they possessed the only source of zenite and might have had other attributes too.

 

[USS Triumphant]

how it's been generally accepted that the parties "switched"

I really think this had more to do with Nixon's "Southern Strategy" - he (his advisors, anyway) saw an opportunity to appeal to the values of religious "conservatives" in the south to steal them away from the Democrats, with the result that the Republicans are increasingly beholden to that faction. Which left the Dems increasingly dependent on the black vote.

And now I'm trying to imagine what things would be like if Nixon's strategy had been "the Black Strategy", instead.

 

[jmampilly]

So I concluded that someone who was Liberal would seek change and, once their changes were made, would become conservative because they would hate to see the changes they worked for to go away or change once again.

Never saw it in quite that fashion before, but your conclusion makes a lot of sense.

Bravo!

My guess on the requirements for joining the Federation is that you must not abuse or incarcerate people based on sexual orientation, but other than that, there are no requirements surrounding marriage laws.

Don't know, it would depend on how much of a open door policy the Federation Membership has.

There's also the factor of how much the Federation might themselves need that particular new Member, what the new Member would bring to the group. The world might occupy a desirable section of the sky, would bring a couple of dozen star systems with them, have pre-existing diplomatic relation with civilizations farther out.

If a world wanted to join the Federation's community and had a strong fleet of starships at a time when the Federation needed just such a fleet on one of it's frontiers, the Membership might be willing to overlook certain aspects of their society.

Ardana's social structure would have been pretty easy to figure out in a relatively short period of time, but they possessed the only source of zenite and might have had other attributes too.

I was always under the impression that the Federation held dear its standards, and didn't easily budge. However, I could be wrong, and the Federation may well be willing to forego certain values for the sake of strategic advantage.

 

[CTGuyton]

And now I'm trying to imagine what things would be like if Nixon's strategy had been "the Black Strategy", instead.

I think that was LBJ's though I imagine it wasn't named that at the time. lol

I was always under the impression that the Federation held dear its standards, and didn't easily budge. However, I could be wrong, and the Federation may well be willing to forego certain values for the sake of strategic advantage.

Insurrection and the UFP's relationship with the Son'a seem to prove that they're willing to overlook some things when it benefits them or they're weakened by war.

 

[T'Girl]

I was always under the impression that the Federation held dear its standards, and didn't easily budge. However, I could be wrong, and the Federation may well be willing to forego certain values for the sake of strategic advantage.

I'm not suggesting that no standard exist, just that the Federation Membership is capable of being pragmatic.

If Vulcan at the time the Federation was formed had still been a central command governed world, it's unlikely that the other handfull of founders would have refused to allow that important and powerful world to be a part of their new community.

There's the example of Ardana.

If the Federation and another power both want the same piece if interstellar territory, the Federation is perfectly willing to use deadly force to get the disputed territory.

Bajor was told that their dyjaras (sp?) caste system would keep them out of the Federation, but if the Bajorians were a interstellar powerhouse, had more going than just the location of their star system, then their caste system might not have been mentioned.

Standards yes, but pragmatic.

 

[yousirname]

Doesn't that tie into the theory that as people grow older they tend to swing towards the right?

It depends a little on what you mean by that, IMO. If you mean that on some absolute scale, people tend to move to the right as they age, as far as I'm aware that's largely mythical. But from the point of view of the ever-changing Overton Window, assuming that people remain basically unchanged would predict that they'll find themselves in a different position relative to it as they age.

In other words:

It was explained (overgeneralized) that Conservatives resisted change/were slow to make change and Liberals were eager for change/quick to make change. So I concluded that someone who was Liberal would seek change and, once their changes were made, would become conservative because they would hate to see the changes they worked for to go away or change once again.

Though oversimplified a little, as Shawnster says.

 

[robau]

What about those of us who don't give a literal fuck about sexual relationships of any sort. Are we to have it shoved in our faces to remind us of our inferiority?

 

[-Brett-]

What about those of us who don't give a literal fuck about sexual relationships of any sort. Are we to have it shoved in our faces to remind us of our inferiority?

Yes.

 

[robau]

What about those of us who don't give a literal fuck about sexual relationships of any sort. Are we to have it shoved in our faces to remind us of our inferiority?

Yes.

I appreciate the straight answer.

 

[Cyke101]

What about those of us who don't give a literal fuck about sexual relationships of any sort. Are we to have it shoved in our faces to remind us of our inferiority?

Well, that's confusing. But I'll put it this way: nobody bats an eye if Riker and Troi show affection and play the "will they/won't they" game for seven seasons. But have Jadzia kiss a woman in one episode and everybody loses their minds.

Frankly, we'd never have a thread about heterosexual rights (at least, not a thread of this length and depth) in the Star Trek universe because it's present in the vast majority of episodes -- from the tension between Trip and T'Pol to Kirk flirting with an alien babe of the week in the 60s to Data going on a date to Kim getting flustered every time a female crewmember says "hello."

Also, homosexual relationships (or any sort of intimate relationship) need not include sex, either. Homosexuality does not mean rampant sex; just like any other relationship, there are degrees of expressing attraction.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

What about those of us who don't give a literal fuck about sexual relationships of any sort. Are we to have it shoved in our faces to remind us of our inferiority?

Well, that's confusing. But I'll put it this way: nobody bats an eye if Riker and Troi show affection and play the "will they/won't they" game for seven seasons. But have Jadzia kiss a woman in one episode and everybody loses their minds.

Frankly, we'd never have a thread about heterosexual rights (at least, not a thread of this length and depth) in the Star Trek universe because it's present in the vast majority of episodes -- from the tension between Trip and T'Pol to Kirk flirting with an alien babe of the week in the 60s to Data going on a date to Kim getting flustered every time a female crewmember says "hello."

Also, homosexual relationships (or any sort of intimate relationship) need not include sex, either. Homosexuality does not mean rampant sex; just like any other relationship, there are degrees of expressing attraction.

I think it's worth saying that the dominant relationship paradigm in Star Trek is still heterosexuality, regardless of whatever tolerance is explicitly and implicitly in place. All the episodes that put sexual identity front and center were still heterosexual relationships. Even in Rejoined, the primary attraction was between the symbiotic organisms, not the hosts, each which had begun when they were in different bodies.

 

[CTGuyton]

Homosexuality does not mean rampant sex.

I thought about going gay once till someone told me this. I figured If i wasn't getting laid either way, might as well stick to women