^ Forgive me, but what's a "rolling story line?"
![]()
Man On Street: "You're a Yankee's fan? Me too."Homosexuals are only linked by their homosexuality. Aside from seeking relationships, I don't see any reason for that to be a bonding trait.
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?Imagine heterosexuals getting together every third Thursday to bond over their heterosexuality.
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.In today's world, there are certain hardships and discrimination that they go through.
Coming to realize your sexuality I would think will be a standard life experience in any time period.As well as coping with the realization and acceptance that you're gay.
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.Support groups and activist groups are necessary. I don't envision that being the case in the 23rd/24th century.
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.
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.
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.
T'Girl said:Yes there are, sexual orientation is establish in the womb as the brain develops.J. Allen said:there are no gay children
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.Man On Street: "You're a Yankee's fan? Me too."Homosexuals are only linked by their homosexuality. Aside from seeking relationships, I don't see any reason for that to be a bonding trait.
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.
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!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.
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.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.
Romulans embrace emotion, including love and lust, where Vulcans would view sex as a purely reproductive act, and being attracted to the same sex would be illogical.
I don't see accepting homosexuality as illogical.
An individuals sexuality isn't a choice. The numerous species of animals expressing same sex provide an example.
A snake wouldn't wake up from it's winter hibernation and think, "I think I'll go queer this summer."
It's also been know for some time that human sexual orientation is set at a very young age.
The last I read on the subject is that sexuality is linked to genetics and the environment in the womb during pregnancy.
That of course doesn't mean a little boy who really likes the color pink will grow up to be a dancer on Broadway. But whether he did does or not it seems counter productive to be intolerant to something that is innate to the individual and causes no harm.
That being the case forcing one who's Gay to wed someone of the opposite sex makes little sense to me.
Anyway, at this time, I believe that a society which makes decisions based on pure logic will accommodate homosexuals.
As I type I recall this exchange from TOS episode in "Amok Time"
SPOCK: The marriage party approaches. I hear them.
KIRK: Marriage party? You said T'Pring was your wife.
SPOCK: By our parents' arrangement. A ceremony while we were but seven years of age. Less than a marriage but more than a betrothal. One touches the other in order to feel each others thoughts. In this way our minds were locked together, so that at the proper time, we would both be drawn to Koon-ut-kal-if-fee.
Now if like humans Vulcan sexuality is set at a young age would the logical action be to "betroth" those who would make as close to an ideal match as possible?
I think gay Vulcans would simply die during pon farr.
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.In Sarek's case, though, he and Amanda loved one another.
Stonn and T'Pring obviously had romance between them too.In Sarek's case, though, he and Amanda loved one another.
Or Sarek had an non-marital affair.That is true, but, Sarek was betrothed to another Vulcan woman ...
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.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.
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.From a strictly logical standpoint I would say that acting on sexual impulses for any other reason than to procreate could be considered 'Illogical' ...
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.From a strictly logical standpoint I would say that acting on sexual impulses for any other reason than to procreate could be considered 'Illogical' ...
That they would partake of loving making outside of pon farr, and with no intent of procreating, is really easy to believe.
![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.