Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

[JarodRussell]

See, showing homosexuality in Star Trek would have been so easy to do.
Let's take the last two films as examples:

Abramstrek 1: Kirk rolls around with a male Orion before Uhura comes into the room. Done.

Abramstrek 2: Kirk rolls around with two male cat thingies, or one female, one male. So Kirk is bi, big fucking deal. Done.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I think there should be homosexual characters in Star Trek, but it should just be treated as a normal part of who they are, and it shouldn't be used as the central issue of their character

So there should be episodes like City On The Edge and The Perfect Mate if they involve individuals of the same sex?

Shouldn't there be?

The only reason not to, as I mentioned earlier, is that it would seem more like a coincidence whenever the one person they meet in the story just happens to be gay. It would come off as more transparent that a character was designed exclusively to be an MC's love interest, especially if they did it really often.

 

[Sindatur]

So there should be episodes like City On The Edge and The Perfect Mate if they involve individuals of the same sex?

Shouldn't there be?

The only reason not to, as I mentioned earlier, is that it would seem more like a coincidence whenever the one person they meet in the story just happens to be gay. It would come off as more transparent that a character was designed exclusively to be an MC's love interest, especially if they did it really often.

I disagree.

Sure, you couldn't do it every week, but, you shouldn't do so every week, with any specific character. But, why would it be so unbelievable on occasion, yet, it's not unbelievable when the Alien Babes are willing to go Human all the time? And I can tell you from personal experience, it's not unheard of to have people interested in same sex encounters in a variety of places/situations you didn't go into expecting to see a same sex encounter. And let's not forget, that weren't not just talking about "Out and Gay" folks here, there's also open minded folks wanting to try a same sex encounter or Bi-sexual ( or Omnisexual)

 

[T'Girl]

On a ship the size of the Enterprise Dee, the average gay poulation (assuming alien have about the same straight/gay ratio as Humans) would be upward of a hundred people. Enough too form a social group/community aboard ship.

There have been humorous references among fans to something called "spacebook," actually might make sense that this would actually exist in some form. Location someone to interact with aboard ship might not be all that difficult.

Or maybe LaForge could help you find a date.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

So there should be episodes like City On The Edge and The Perfect Mate if they involve individuals of the same sex?

Shouldn't there be?

The only reason not to, as I mentioned earlier, is that it would seem more like a coincidence whenever the one person they meet in the story just happens to be gay. It would come off as more transparent that a character was designed exclusively to be an MC's love interest, especially if they did it really often.

Star Trek has a poor record when it comes to representing relationships, and it doesn't help that romantic couplings are more often than not just flings. Putting nuKirk in bed with the male of whatever species (or correspondingly, nuUhura in bed with a woman) would be just as trite: it would not be representative, and it would probably be nothing more than a celebration of youth.

On the other hand, Star Trek can do amazing things when it focuses on relationships. There should be the opportunity to use homosexuality in the context of science fiction in order to explore the human condition. Certainly, there are twists that can make the experiences of a gay man or woman--or better yet, gay couple--relevant to my life. I hug my son every time I watch The Visitor, but given the centrality of loss and morning to the human experience, I know that the same format could have been used to explore other relationships beyond family. Rather than simply tossing nuKirk into bed with a dude, maybe the loss that he carries with him through the Abramsverse relate to the loss of an adopted David at the hands of the Klingons?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So there should be episodes like City On The Edge and The Perfect Mate if they involve individuals of the same sex?

Shouldn't there be?

The only reason not to, as I mentioned earlier, is that it would seem more like a coincidence whenever the one person they meet in the story just happens to be gay. It would come off as more transparent that a character was designed exclusively to be an MC's love interest, especially if they did it really often.

You know what's a coincidence? When something is possible in real life and not really rare, but it never comes up in the show, even though there have been enough opportunities for it to have been expected by now, at some point along the line. That's evidence that the dice are loaded.

 

[CTGuyton]

On a ship the size of the Enterprise Dee, the average gay poulation (assuming alien have about the same straight/gay ratio as Humans) would be upward of a hundred people. Enough too form a social group/community aboard ship.

I think you're off a bit. The US is estimated at about 3.8% LGBT and I believe the UK is about half that. But assuming 4% on a total compliment of around 1000 ppl on the D it would be closer to 40-50 people rather than 100+. Still large enough to form a group if you want(although I think groups based on sexual orientation or race would probably be frowned upon by the 24th century)

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Shouldn't there be?

The only reason not to, as I mentioned earlier, is that it would seem more like a coincidence whenever the one person they meet in the story just happens to be gay. It would come off as more transparent that a character was designed exclusively to be an MC's love interest, especially if they did it really often.

I disagree.

Sure, you couldn't do it every week, but, you shouldn't do so every week, with any specific character. But, why would it be so unbelievable on occasion, yet, it's not unbelievable when the Alien Babes are willing to go Human all the time? And I can tell you from personal experience, it's not unheard of to have people interested in same sex encounters in a variety of places/situations you didn't go into expecting to see a same sex encounter. And let's not forget, that weren't not just talking about "Out and Gay" folks here, there's also open minded folks wanting to try a same sex encounter or Bi-sexual ( or Omnisexual)

I agree it shouldn't be hard to find people out there who are interested in a homosexual relationship with you, if you encounter this person while actively looking for it. But my point is it's harder for it to happen accidentally with the one specific person the mission revolves around.

Having gay relationships among the crew can happen completely naturally without it seeming forced. But if they repeatedly do "I am the one person you happened to meet on this mission, and by the way I just happen to be gay!", that's when it would start to seem forced.

I suppose if they did it as "We met this big group of people, and one of them is interested in a same sex encounter", that would be fine.

 

[IndyJones]

The only reason not to, as I mentioned earlier, is that it would seem more like a coincidence whenever the one person they meet in the story just happens to be gay. It would come off as more transparent that a character was designed exclusively to be an MC's love interest, especially if they did it really often.

You know what's a coincidence? When something is possible in real life and not really rare, but it never comes up in the show, even though there have been enough opportunities for it to have been expected by now, at some point along the line. That's evidence that the dice are loaded.

Agreed. Gay people seem to meet each other rather often in real life, why should it be surprising when these people are jetting off to new worlds every week?

Still large enough to form a group if you want(although I think groups based on sexual orientation or race would probably be frowned upon by the 24th century)

I don't agree.

There will always be social clubs based on similar interests. I don't have a problem believing single nights will exist in the future, so why shouldn't gays have the same opportunity to meet others that they could possibly end up dating?

 

[Greg Cox]

I agree it shouldn't be hard to find people out there who are interested in a homosexual relationship with you, if you encounter this person while actively looking for it. But my point is it's harder for it to happen accidentally with the one specific person the mission revolves around.

As opposed to the visiting scientists, delegates, and ambassadors always including at least smoking-hot member of the opposite sex, who, more often than not, is an old flame of one of our series regulars? Or who gets involved with Kirk or Riker or Picard or Jadzia after knowing them for only a few hours?

If Trek fans can accept straight characters routinely hooking during a diplomatic conference on dilithium mining, I'm not sure why gay love interests need to be held to a higher standard of probability, if that's even an issue. It's a TV show. Attractive guest-stars, who may or may not have chemistry with the series stars, are a given.

You might as well ask what the odds are that private eyes would get so many sultry babes as clients. Or why the patients on Grey's Anatomy contain so many potential love interests for the doctors . . .

 

[CTGuyton]

Still large enough to form a group if you want(although I think groups based on sexual orientation or race would probably be frowned upon by the 24th century)

I don't agree.

There will always be social clubs based on similar interests. I don't have a problem believing single nights will exist in the future, so why shouldn't gays have the same opportunity to meet others that they could possibly end up dating?

I wasn't thinking of something like singles night. I was more referring to groups like GLAAD and the NAACP. I think at some point groups like this will ultimately do more harm than good by dividing people based on race or sexual orientation. I would hope by the 24th century, we've stopped doing that to ourselves.

 

[USS Triumphant]

I wasn't thinking of something like singles night. I was more referring to groups like GLAAD and the NAACP. I think at some point groups like this will ultimately do more harm than good by dividing people based on race or sexual orientation. I would hope by the 24th century, we've stopped doing that to ourselves.

Groups like this usually grow out of a need, obviously, but the problem with them is that they create a power structure that wants to hang onto that power even if/when the original purpose of the group is ever fulfilled. Ultimately, they may even come to contradict the purpose as they seek to keep up the cause that gives them their power. I believe there are some elements in the upper ranks of the modern NAACP that fit that description to a tee. I don't think GLAAD has gotten to that point, yet, but it is worth bearing in mind for the future.

 

[T'Girl]

For gays to form a informal social community would be no different than if members of the ship's Vulcan population tended to associate with other Vulcans off duty, more so that with non-Vulcans.

Or if there were a species that had too wear a breather mask in most areas of the ship, for them to get together with other species who naturally breathed the same atmosphere and socialize with their masks off, that would be perfectly reasonable.

It not that gays would socialize with other gays exclusively, and such socialization would not solely be for the purpose of seeking out a possible romantic partner.

... and then get Federation marriage benefits ...

I don't think there would be any, not out of the Federation itself anyway.

... there shouldn't be any in the US either. No tax breaks, etc.

Government does encourage marriage. If nothing else, married couples make less of a pull on government social services, lowering that particular budgetary item.

For households headed by a single male, 15% are living in poverty. 30% of households headed by a single woman are living in poverty, in comparison 7% poverty for married couples.

Married people commit fewer crimes, and the same for their children.

Married people tend to be healthier than those that cohabit in a equal environment, live a bit longer too.

So yeah, government does encourage marriage.

 

[Amaris]

IMHO, the great debate is not whether homosexuality should be depicted onscreen, but what degree of sex should be depicted onscreen.

As I have put forth in many other threads, Keiko/Miles O'Brien was the perfect example of depicting married life on Trek. A Trek gay couple could have been portrayed in those scenes without any display of sexual activity.

My typical "gay" scene would show two men in their quarters talking about the same thing any two working couples would. Red Alert suddenly sounds and general quarters is ordered. Before rushing out of their quarters they hug, tell each other to be careful and hope they see each other for their "date night" in Ten Forward. IMO, one should be an away team member. Perhaps one jokes that it is a good thing neither wears a Red Shirt. [Or wishes his husband did NOT wear a Red Shirt!] NO SEX to offend those looking to be offended. A positive portrayal of gay married life.

Your scenes may vary in scope and portrayal, but the goal is the same: gay people exist in the future, have regular lives, regular relationships, regular hopes and fears. THIS is the real "gay agenda".

See, that would be nice. I would be happy to see that. You do realize, of course, that even the passive mention of two people possibly being even somewhat remotely gay in any way on any level by a passing whiff of a scintilla of an idea, would be enough to get the fundamentalist religious right up in arms, right? Now Star Trek is pushing the gay agenda! We already had to see that black girl and white guy being familiar with each other, now we have to watch hummusexuals degrade our precious straight children* too?!

I mean, we can show a guy get shot in the chest and have blood spatter on his co-worker, or bloodied corpses laying on the floor being examined by the coroner, but by god you ever show two people of the same sex having anything other than a platonic relationship (not too platonic, because hugging and sharing feelings between two men causes lust and teh gay syndrome!), and it's war.



*there are no gay children

 

[HaventGotALife]

IMHO, the great debate is not whether homosexuality should be depicted onscreen, but what degree of sex should be depicted onscreen.

As I have put forth in many other threads, Keiko/Miles O'Brien was the perfect example of depicting married life on Trek. A Trek gay couple could have been portrayed in those scenes without any display of sexual activity.

My typical "gay" scene would show two men in their quarters talking about the same thing any two working couples would. Red Alert suddenly sounds and general quarters is ordered. Before rushing out of their quarters they hug, tell each other to be careful and hope they see each other for their "date night" in Ten Forward. IMO, one should be an away team member. Perhaps one jokes that it is a good thing neither wears a Red Shirt. [Or wishes his husband did NOT wear a Red Shirt!] NO SEX to offend those looking to be offended. A positive portrayal of gay married life.

Your scenes may vary in scope and portrayal, but the goal is the same: gay people exist in the future, have regular lives, regular relationships, regular hopes and fears. THIS is the real "gay agenda".

See, that would be nice. I would be happy to see that. You do realize, of course, that even the passive mention of two people possibly being even somewhat remotely gay in any way on any level by a passing whiff of a scintilla of an idea, would be enough to get the fundamentalist religious right up in arms, right? Now Star Trek is pushing the gay agenda! We already had to see that black girl and white guy being familiar with each other, now we have to watch hummusexuals degrade our precious straight children* too?!

I mean, we can show a guy get shot in the chest and have blood spatter on his co-worker, or bloodied corpses laying on the floor being examined by the coroner, but by god you ever show two people of the same sex having anything other than a platonic relationship (not too platonic, because hugging and sharing feelings between two men causes lust and teh gay syndrome!), and it's war.



*there are no gay children

And they were made by straight parents (for the most part). I tell this story to confirm that it will put them up in arms, anyone sickened by two men having a gay relationship.

I watched "Smash" religiously. I was in musical theater in High School and I enjoyed the original songs and it wasn't a Picasso, but it was enough to keep me entertained. Now, Smash is about Broadway, so gay people, right? It's not a cliche. It's true.

So, a scene with one of the regulars, the songwriter for a musical about Marilyn Monroe goes on a first date with Sam, a dancer for the workshop they are doing for the musical. The end of the night comes, Tom leans in for a kiss, Sam pulls away.

I tried to find the scene on Youtube, apparently it's not popular enough to be on there. Sam lectures Tom. Tom is 37, his longest relationship is 5 months. Sam says "sex is holy to me." He wants to take things slow. He says that Tom jumps in too soon and that "(Sam's) way is better." The slow way. He leans in for a kiss, and then leaves.

Well, Facebook went crazy on the Smash page. Some woman vowed her and her four kids would never watch again. Never mind that Megan Hilty (Ivy Lynn) is constantly showing her breasts in bed with Derek, the director. Never mind that the songs with Marilyn are suggestive. The USO number encourages teenage girls to seduce their teachers. Well, any child that has hit puberty. Derek is a Grade A womanizer. Stuck around for all of that. One kiss between two male gay characters, "No one wants to see that."

So Star Trek should just do it and continue their history of being ahead of society.

 

[CTGuyton]

For gays to form a informal social community would be no different than if members of the ship's Vulcan population tended to associate with other Vulcans off duty, more so that with non-Vulcans.

Or if there were a species that had too wear a breather mask in most areas of the ship, for them to get together with other species who naturally breathed the same atmosphere and socialize with their masks off, that would be perfectly reasonable.

It not that gays would socialize with other gays exclusively, and such socialization would not solely be for the purpose of seeking out a possible romantic partner.

I disagree completely. You're talking about different species who have different needs, cultures, beliefs, etc. If Hoshi spent time with other asians or linguists, Worf and Klingons, Jordi with engineers or blind people. That would make sense. Homosexuals are only linked by their homosexuality. Aside from seeking relationships, I don't see any reason for that to be a bonding trait. Imagine heterosexuals getting together every third Thursday to bond over their heterosexuality.

In today's world, there are certain hardships and discrimination that they go through. As well as coping with the realization and acceptance that you're gay. Support groups and activist groups are necessary. I don't envision that being the case in the 23rd/24th century.

See, that would be nice. I would be happy to see that. You do realize, of course, that even the passive mention of two people possibly being even somewhat remotely gay in any way on any level by a passing whiff of a scintilla of an idea, would be enough to get the fundamentalist religious right up in arms, right? Now Star Trek is pushing the gay agenda! We already had to see that black girl and white guy being familiar with each other, now we have to watch hummusexuals degrade our precious straight children* too?!

I mean, we can show a guy get shot in the chest and have blood spatter on his co-worker, or bloodied corpses laying on the floor being examined by the coroner, but by god you ever show two people of the same sex having anything other than a platonic relationship (not too platonic, because hugging and sharing feelings between two men causes lust and teh gay syndrome!), and it's war.



*there are no gay children

I don't think it's necessary to label religious people as racists and homophobes. Especially in a thread that is contemplating how far tolerance and acceptance has come by the 23rd and 24th centuries.

You're characterizing an activist. Most of the people who have a problem with it enough that they couldn't just ignore it, would simply change the channel and stop watching. But more importantly, they have the right to their beliefs. Just as CBS/Paramount have the right to show or not show homosexual relationships at their discretion. You should be just as tolerant and accepting of them as you expect them to be of you.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

... there shouldn't be any in the US either. No tax breaks, etc.

Government does encourage marriage. If nothing else, married couples make less of a pull on government social services, lowering that particular budgetary item.

For households headed by a single male, 15% are living in poverty. 30% of households headed by a single woman are living in poverty, in comparison 7% poverty for married couples.

Married people commit fewer crimes, and the same for their children.

Married people tend to be healthier than those that cohabit in a equal environment, live a bit longer too.

So yeah, government does encourage marriage.

But how much of that actually has anything to do with them being married? And how much of it can really be said of married couples and ONLY married couples? Correlation is not causation, and limiting the categories to married or single is an unrealistically narrow view of the world.

 

[T'Girl]

One kiss between two male gay characters, "No one wants to see that."

Some people don't, that's their privilege, and how they raise their children is their business too. There are other influences on their kids, and the children will make their own choices in time.

So Star Trek should just do it and continue their history of being ahead of society.

Yes, Star Trek should do it and as soon as possible, in a two hour movie would (debateably) be the wrong venue.

As to Star Trek's "history of being ahead of society," that train left the station a long time ago.

but by god you ever show two people of the same sex having anything other than a platonic relationship (not too platonic, because hugging and sharing feelings between two men causes lust and teh gay syndrome!)

I'm Latin, in our culture (right here in America) men commonly hug and kisses on the cheek are occasionally on display too. Here in Seattle there is also a Arab community, very common to see men holding hands as they walk on the street and sit in restaurants and cafes.

While my particular brand of Christianity isn't fundamentalist, I have friends who are, the fact that I am a gay bi-sexual transsexual doesn't fill them with horror. No, it is not how they would conduit their lives, and yes, there have been (very polite) discussion on my lifestyle, that's fine.

You might not be in total understanding of fundamentalist religion. The extreme isn't the standard by any means, you apparently are referring to the extreme end of the spectrum of fundamentalism, and there aren't that many people there .

there are no gay children

Yes there are, sexual orientation is establish in the womb as the brain develops.

But how much of that actually has anything to do with them being married?

The 7% poverty rate is linked to the couple being married. Cohabiting (unmarried) poverty rate is 14%.

Cohabiting couples statistically average two-thirds of the combined income of married couples, and are less likely to pool all of their incomes. The U.S. Census Bureau in 2011 puts that figure at 75% for cohabiters verses 83% for married couples. Cohabiting couples who've had children together are more likely to pool their money.

Cohabiting couple are more likely to separate than marrieds (of course they do separate as well, just less) and therefor have less chances to accumulate financial assets over time.

 

[HaventGotALife]

One kiss between two male gay characters, "No one wants to see that."

Some people don't, that's their privilege, and how they raise their children is their business too. There are other influences on their kids, and the children will make their own choices in time.

Yes, but she didn't say "I don't want to see that. It's against my beliefs and I think the show shouldn't be condoning that." She said "No one wants to see that." Well, I'm somebody and I want to see non-effeminate, realistic portrayals of homosexuals on television to show the youth coming up that they have a place in this society. So, here point is fallacious. Is it her right to be a bigoted, close-minded individual? Sure. But it's also my right to fight against that.

So Star Trek should just do it and continue their history of being ahead of society.

Yes, Star Trek should do it and as soon as possible, in a two hour movie would (debateably) be the wrong venue.

As to Star Trek's "history of being ahead of society," that train left the station a long time ago.

True, but it will offend people just as desegregation was a decade along before the first interracial kiss on television.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The 7% poverty rate is linked to the couple being married. Cohabiting (unmarried) poverty rate is 14%.

Cohabiting couples statistically average two-thirds of the combined income of married couples, and are less likely to pool all of their incomes. The U.S. Census Bureau in 2011 puts that figure at 75% for cohabiters verses 83% for married couples. Cohabiting couples who've had children together are more likely to pool their money.

Cohabiting couple are more likely to separate than marrieds (of course they do separate as well, just less) and therefor have less chances to accumulate financial assets over time.

As they will say in the first class of any statistics related class, correlation does not imply causation.

Perhaps the poverty rate for married couples would be even lower if young people who were not ready for married were less pressured into it by society.

And perhaps people who defer gratification and make long term plans are both more likely to get married and more likely to save money.

These statistics, at best, prove that there are covariables between people who choose to get married and people who are financially secure. They prove in no way that the status of marriage causes lack of poverty.

It's certainly people's right to not approve of homosexuality. But that does not mean that TV studios should bend over backwards at the expense of a sizable portion of the population just to placate them.