Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
- Status
^ Forgive me, but what's a "rolling story line?"
I'm guessing he means more serialized storytelling and ongoing character arcs--as opposed to old-fashioned Love-Interests-of-the Week standalones.
At least that's how I'm reading it.
Man On Street: "You're a Yankee's fan? Me too."
Commonality leads to bonding. There's more to being gay than just what happen while engaging in sexual activity, that's why the term "lifestyle" is used.
The thread title uses the term homosexual, I've been also using the term gay. The lives of male and female gays are different from each other, and different from their male and female hetero counterparts. My transsexuality makes my life, my lifestyle, different than either a straight or gay woman's.
Transsexuals also tend to congregate, we talk about and do things that stem from being a "tranzee," not all of these things are sexual.
Groups of hetero women don't get together over tea or wine and talk about the particular aspects of their lives that are a result of their sexuality? Aspects that would manifest themselves very differently than those of gay women, straight men, gay men, et cetera?
Complain about their husbands and giggle about their lovers.
Yes but that depends on where you find yourself. The city I live in has much less discriminate than is found elsewhere, the gays still congregate.
We recently swore in a gay mayor (not relevant, just bragging).
Coming to realize your sexuality I would think will be a standard life experience in any time period.
Because there is a multi-species mix, Starfleet Command likely fosters a culture of acceptance among it's officers and crew, and not just in the area of sexuality. As posted up-thread, this easily might not be the case with every Federation Member world.
I'm imagining less "support and activist groups" and more people forming a social community because of them have something in common, a link, that would lead to a ongoing socialization. And while it wouldn't be the only reason, it has been pointed out that the dating pool aboard a ship would be limited.
A
Amaris
Guest
In short, it's ridiculous. I always found it funny that this stuff would get pointed out on a regular show and the family focus organizations would scream it off the air; yet professional wrestling continues to go unnoticed. *sigh*
You misunderstand, and that's okay, because you don't know me well enough yet, and I tend to lay on sarcasm awfully thick. You'll get used to it after a while. I'm speaking directly of fundamentalists; the people who think two guys holding hands is an affront to god and wish to ban it from happening in public (or private).
I am a former Evangelical Christian minister. I've been on that side of the fence, and I've seen where it can be vicious, and nasty, and so, so cruel. There's all this hate disguised as love, and all of this judgment disguised as compassion. It is horrible, and it hurts so many innocent people. Those are the people I'm talking about here. Not your average everyday religious person. There are actually a large number of religions that I respect. Buddhism, many forms of Christianity, Jainism, etc.
Being religious isn't a bad thing to me, not automatically anyway, but I can generally spot the ones who are out for blood, and are awash in the energy that comes from a moral crusade.
I'm quite familiar with the fundamentalist mindset.
When I speak of fundamentalists, I'm referring to the ones you find in the United States, where open faith has become so comfortable that disagreeing with one's religion is seen as oppression. My post was certainly a mockery, but a mockery of hateful ignorance, which is a hallmark of the most fundamentalist religions, and unfortunately, we do have a lot of people like that here.
T'Girl said:
Of course there are (that post was mostly sarcasm), and it certainly is.
Either I'm going to have to work on my sarcasm and biting wit, or you guys are going to have to visit TNZ more often so you can see me at work.
I understand what you're saying, but the conversation is about the common link. It'll go something like "How do you think the Yankees are doing this year? What do you think about the A-Rod situation?" etc. I'm finding it difficult to see where you go after "you're gay? me too!" Maybe this is just my ignorance, but I don't think common sexuality is really something to bond over. Ok, so we're both gay. I'm a sports fan and you're into theater. I like NASCAR, you like Opera. So I'm going to go have out with these very hetero sports fans and you can go hand out with other artsy folk.
Transsexuals is definitely somewhere that I can't really contribute many thoughts to a discussion. To my knowledge, you're the only one I've ever had a conversation with. I could see where this could differ from normal Hetero or Homo men and women, and lead you to want to be with other trans. Similar to men spending more time with men, and women with women. Transexual has always appeared to me as being more similar to a third gender. Again, I'm completely ignorant in this subject though, so forgive me if I've said or say anything offensive or just plain wrong. I'm a conservative southern white redneck straight man. I'm bound to say something stupid!
they do but I don't see it as something that is exclusive to straight women. I think a feminine lesbian or gay man would fit right in to most of those conversations. Though I'm not a gay man, or a woman or any kind so my experiences on this is pretty much limited to chick flix. I would welcome a "butch" lesbian into groups with my friends where we bond over football and such though. I have a few friends that are gay men who we do bond over such things. Play fantasy football and such.
And I think this board is another example. We're bonding over Star Trek. I went to a Mustang and Ford car show earlier. These are things I think of when I think of things to bond with people over. The subject or gay or straight doesn't come up. Eventually, during the course of a friendship it'll probably be discussed, but I would find it odd to say something like "You're a straight guy? Cool, let's hang out and get to know each other."
I think today, you're absolutely right. People don't bond over their sexual orientation, but homosexuals flock together over a shared life experience of how the world views them. In a time though, when prejudices and discrimination has been eradicated and homosexuality is normalized, I don't see why it would be considered something to bond over versus shared interests or common cultures.
Of course, this thread is about the federation and I've more or less limited my thoughts to Earth. I could see "How are gays treated on your planet or in you history" being a common interest. I would imagine quite a few minorities, or heteros interested in history in general would be interested too. That really could be a spin off thread from this one! lol
I know that I feel a kinship with those in the LGBTQ community because they have gone through similar experiences. They, too, had to come out to their family, had to deal with the media interpretations that I have to see and listen to, and they have tried to date within the confines of the community. Coming out is a life-affirming experience and I embrace the day when we don't have to conglomerate for rights and to stick with our brethren.
However, I think the ties of the community wouldn't dissipate if tomorrow we no longer had to bond over rights. Just as those that are Irish still celebrate St. Patrick's Day with a lager and a parade, even though most are actually Americans with history of a Irish community, we would still have gay pride parades. It would be a celebration of self-acceptance, not just that of the community. It would be a way of newly out gays of being welcomed to the club of not fighting yourself. And, of keeping the traditions alive.
Some questions that come after "Me, too" are about their dating experience, who and when did they come out to, their view of life and how it has changed since coming out, and how they are treated in the world, etc.
Still, being 2014, I find it difficult to imagine the day in 200 years where this hypothetical question might be answered.
However, I think the ties of the community wouldn't dissipate if tomorrow we no longer had to bond over rights. Just as those that are Irish still celebrate St. Patrick's Day with a lager and a parade, even though most are actually Americans with history of a Irish community, we would still have gay pride parades. It would be a celebration of self-acceptance, not just that of the community. It would be a way of newly out gays of being welcomed to the club of not fighting yourself. And, of keeping the traditions alive.
Some questions that come after "Me, too" are about their dating experience, who and when did they come out to, their view of life and how it has changed since coming out, and how they are treated in the world, etc.
Still, being 2014, I find it difficult to imagine the day in 200 years where this hypothetical question might be answered.
I think gay Vulcans would simply die during pon farr.
If there are gay Vulcans and gay Vulcans suffer from pon farr too (and why wouldn't they), then why wouldn't a gay Vulcan mating with his partner be able to restore the neurological balance, just as it does with straight Vulcans?
Vulcan marriage might have nothing to do with attraction, love, or sexual preference. It seems... logical... to think that it has to do almost entirely with either procreation or consolidation of resources within family groups.
By way of explaining the next part of what I'm about to say, I should lay out that I don't believe in "straight" or "gay", and I think and hope that someday those words used that way will be considered archaic. Human sexuality is a spectrum in each and every one of us, determined by chemical balances that are mostly established in gestation but that can and do fluctuate based on changes at different points in our development, or even slightly based on what we have ingested recently. Most of us (if recent studies are to be believed, then approximately 80% of us) have a balance that puts us strongly and more or less stably into the category that we consider "straight" - our attractions of significant note are almost entirely to people of the opposite gender. There is another minority (again, studies, about 10%) that has that balance reversed, and has strong consistent attraction to the same gender as themselves. And then there is the final group that has a biochemical makeup that makes their attraction a bit more fluid - what we call "bisexual". But we're ALL bisexual, just most of us are on points in the spectrum where we aren't aware of it. And then, of course, add the part where we're thinking beings capable of opinions about potential mates or in some cases damaged opinions - positive or negative - about entire genders due to abuse, and oh, boy.
Vulcans with a normally strong attraction toward others of the same gender as themselves, assuming that they have a relatively similar sexual spectrum to our own, may find themselves temporarily chemical overwhelmed by a desire to mate with a member of the opposite sex, anyway. This once-every-seven-year *reproductive* instinct doesn't mean that the Vulcan in question should be considered "straight" any more than a human woman who has gone through menopause and has lost almost all sexual desire entirely should no longer be considered "straight" (or whatever she was before that happened).
So they get this whapjammy put on them by their hormones and whatever that psychic betrothal ritual they went through as kids did to them, and they make a baby, and then they make arrangements as to how the baby will be cared for (or really this is probably even prearranged), and then they go on about their lives with the minimum logical amount of alteration that that entails - whether that life be cohabitation with a same gendered partner, or on a starship. After all, I never got the impression that Spock wouldn't have been able to continue his his duties aboard the Enterprise once matters in "Amok Time" were completed - at least, not until T'Pring threw her curve ball into the mix.
By way of explaining the next part of what I'm about to say, I should lay out that I don't believe in "straight" or "gay", and I think and hope that someday those words used that way will be considered archaic. Human sexuality is a spectrum in each and every one of us, determined by chemical balances that are mostly established in gestation but that can and do fluctuate based on changes at different points in our development, or even slightly based on what we have ingested recently. Most of us (if recent studies are to be believed, then approximately 80% of us) have a balance that puts us strongly and more or less stably into the category that we consider "straight" - our attractions of significant note are almost entirely to people of the opposite gender. There is another minority (again, studies, about 10%) that has that balance reversed, and has strong consistent attraction to the same gender as themselves. And then there is the final group that has a biochemical makeup that makes their attraction a bit more fluid - what we call "bisexual". But we're ALL bisexual, just most of us are on points in the spectrum where we aren't aware of it. And then, of course, add the part where we're thinking beings capable of opinions about potential mates or in some cases damaged opinions - positive or negative - about entire genders due to abuse, and oh, boy.
Vulcans with a normally strong attraction toward others of the same gender as themselves, assuming that they have a relatively similar sexual spectrum to our own, may find themselves temporarily chemical overwhelmed by a desire to mate with a member of the opposite sex, anyway. This once-every-seven-year *reproductive* instinct doesn't mean that the Vulcan in question should be considered "straight" any more than a human woman who has gone through menopause and has lost almost all sexual desire entirely should no longer be considered "straight" (or whatever she was before that happened).
So they get this whapjammy put on them by their hormones and whatever that psychic betrothal ritual they went through as kids did to them, and they make a baby, and then they make arrangements as to how the baby will be cared for (or really this is probably even prearranged), and then they go on about their lives with the minimum logical amount of alteration that that entails - whether that life be cohabitation with a same gendered partner, or on a starship. After all, I never got the impression that Spock wouldn't have been able to continue his his duties aboard the Enterprise once matters in "Amok Time" were completed - at least, not until T'Pring threw her curve ball into the mix.
A
Amaris
Guest
In Sarek's case, though, he and Amanda loved one another.
That is true, but, Sarek was betrothed to another Vulcan woman who apparently died sometime before he met Amanda - presumably his Pon Farr cycle was broken or at least mediated by the absence of their mental link. And if "Spock's World" is to be believed (and in my case, the answer to that is always "Of course, and above screen canon if necessary") then their union was ALSO logical, since he could advance his knowledge of the civilization he was the ambassador to, and she could advance her knowledge of the language the UT translation of which she was trying to improve, by them being in close proximity to one another.
But it has also occurred to me that part of the reason it always seemed to be so important to Sarek that Spock be a super-orthodox Vulcan was that he felt guilt that his son was already tainted at birth with the perhaps less-than-perfectly logical choice of mate that he had made. Spock lost his mother in Star Trek '09, but he may have also *gained* his father in a way that he never had him in the Primeverse, because Amanda is dead and the society that made Sarek feel that guilt is greatly reduced as an influence on him.
From a strictly logical standpoint I would say that acting on sexual impulses for any other reason than to procreate could be considered 'Illogical', but during pon farr sexual impulses overpower their logic.
My understanding of current science is that sexual preference is determined by hormone levels in the womb. I'd have trouble believing it were genetic as it doesn't seem to me like a survival-selected trait. And I've heard cases of identical twins where one is gay and one is not. But really it doesn't matter what the cause of sexuality is, people want what they want for their physical and physiological needs. Homosexuality certainly isn't a choice, but the question shouldn't be "Is it a choice", it should be "Is it anybody else's business?" What if it were a choice? Would biggoted assholes then have the right to treat people like garbage for making the one they didn't agree with? Of course not. It'd still be none of their business.
My understanding of current science is that sexual preference is determined by hormone levels in the womb. I'd have trouble believing it were genetic as it doesn't seem to me like a survival-selected trait. And I've heard cases of identical twins where one is gay and one is not. But really it doesn't matter what the cause of sexuality is, people want what they want for their physical and physiological needs. Homosexuality certainly isn't a choice, but the question shouldn't be "Is it a choice", it should be "Is it anybody else's business?" What if it were a choice? Would biggoted assholes then have the right to treat people like garbage for making the one they didn't agree with? Of course not. It'd still be none of their business.
^Assuming sex for Vulcans is tied to longevity, as it is in humans, would not not reproductive sex also be considered logical?
Stonn and T'Pring obviously had romance between them too.
Or Sarek had an non-marital affair.
There are a lot of reasons humans have sex, and some of those can be based in logic. And you have to remember two things: 1. T'Pring showed us that just because a line of thinking is logical to Vulcans does not mean it is good or noble, and 2. Just because they try to live logically does not mean that their biology was designed to do so. Point being that I personally have on occasion engaged in sexual activity strictly to clear the effects that a desire to do so was having on my brain so that I could make a decision about something important with clearer thought processes afterward. And I don't know about you, but that seems entirely logical to me.
We've seen Vulcans playing games, eating food dishes that are not simply bland nutrition, engaging in conversation and socializing, form friendships, keep pets, wear clothing that showed a sense of style and display ornamental items in their living areas.
That they would partake of loving making outside of pon farr, and with no intent of procreating, is really easy to believe.
We've seen Vulcans playing games, eating food dishes that are not simply bland nutrition, engaging in conversation and socializing, form friendships, keep pets, wear clothing that showed a sense of style and display ornamental items in their living areas.
That they would partake of loving making outside of pon farr, and with no intent of procreating, is really easy to believe.
They've also been known to play a mean Vulcan lute and take part in jam sessions . . . .
So, yeah, the Vulcans are hardly opposed to various forms of recreation even if they're not exactly party animals.
- Status
Similar threads
