Do you think LGBT characters will feature more prominently?

Exactly. Caprica had a gay mob assassin who was the uncle of Adama from BSG. He had a husband and it would come up in dialogue in a natural way because in their society it was completely accepted.

 

I want hardcore, graphic nudity, and I want it to be between a Klingon male and his Vulcan husband. It's going to be on CBS All Access, they can do it without worrying about the FCC! Let's shake some things up!

 

Re: sex sells

You're thinking of "asexual", which isn't a thing in normal human drama.

Even Disney movies mention husbands and wives. Those are family friendly.

 

I remember watching shows like Friends in the 90's and they would regularly mention or show gay characters (Chandler's father being transgender). There was no sense that this was adult or non-child friendly stuff. Friends was hugely popular with families and kids (still is).

Meanwhile in the exact same era, a show that was set in the future and had an (undeserved IMO) reputation for celebrating progressive, plural society failed miserably to achieve the same feat. Star Trek couldn't even muster one solitary gay character because apparently that would be just too much for this family-friendly show.

Seems a bit fishy to me.

 

For a while there, someone of the LGBT persuasion was used for comedic relief. Hard to cram Paul Lynde into forehead of the week cap and treat it like a regular episode of Trek.

They could've just thrown a line in where one of the characters casually mentioned a boyfriend or girlfriend and not even have it acknowledged by the other crew members.

It's not like you have to have hardcore porn on the screen to establish someone's sexuality.

 

I can't think of a single Trek main character who didn't manage to establish their heterosexuality on screen in some way. There's no reason new rules need to be written for gay characters. Just treat everyone equally.

 

Many the show could feature feature one of Mrs. Kirk's many love instructors?

After-all it's what the great bird wanted (and a hypersexed three breasted woman).

 

Star Trek II: The Wrist of Khan

 

Re: sex sells

Well, maybe they should have one of those people too. Y'know, to be fair.

 

True, even Data who was an emotionless android.

 

He could do that head tilt thing:

'Ah top and bottom, a reference to...'

Thank you mr. Data

 

You know, I don't really have a "side" in this discussion, the new show can have a gay character or not, I'll watch it either way but to those who do I just want to say be careful what you wish for. Twenty two years ago, DS9 did an episode with a disabled character. "Melora", remember that? I was excited. I was a young guy who still bought into the whole "Roddenberry's Vision" bullshit, and thought, finally! I'll be represented in the future!". But, that episode could not have been more cliched or demeaning to disabled people if it tried. Even the episode's writer (a disabled man himself) disowned it.

I'd hate to see that happen again.

 

I thought Melora was an interesting character because she wasn't disabled until she left her native environment. It was the homogenised Federation environment that disabled her. There has long been a debate within the disabled academic world about whether a persons physical impairment is what disables them (medical model) or the environment does (social model).

The episodes played with that which was interesting plus, it also looked at the the human-centric nature of the Federation. The fact that almost every aspect of the utopia is built on human values, beliefs, technologies, ambitions and needs. All other cultures appear to be slowly but surely brought into line with that.

 

I'm for having a regular LGBT character. Time to drag Star Trek, kicking and screaming, out of the 1960's.

 

It's not even a progressive thing any more, it's almost to be expected.

 

There's no reason to be respectful of anti-LGBT bigotry.

 

This. It's essentially the same as saying "surely we can be respectful of the anti-Semitic people as well as Jewish people."

The latter is just a group of people being who they are, as they were born, while the former is a racist, bigoted hate group. No, that group does not have to be tolerated, and should not be tolerated. If you hate black people, Jewish people, gay people, trans people, white people, and so on, because of who they are, then you do not deserve respect. You have chosen to class one or more groups of people outside of humanity, in an effort to oppress and silence them. That is unacceptable.

 

It's appalling to suggest that we should respect hatred.
It's also sad that Trek has gone this long without gay characters on screen. I get that it was more taboo in the past - as a gay man I lived thru a lot of those years. Positive representation would've been ground breaking, even life saving, years ago. At this point it's just embarassing, and it kind of has made me a little angry each time the new movies have failed to even try for LGBT diversity, even after JJ made statements that it should be done. There's time for gratuitous underwear shots of Carol Marcus, but not for diversity.

 

Well, Star Trek has had its share of racist characters that are still respected. I don't think it would be bad to have a character who was wrong, but then learned and changed. However, that mostly works with race (or rather, species) because it's such a safe topic. Sexuality hasn't been a topic addressed well by Star Trek. They've always gone the easy route, and having a gay man isn't going to be that difficult at this point. Maybe a bisexual, pansexual, or polyamorous man might be. But they probably won't do that.

 

Phlox was polyamorous, so that's not all that groundbreaking.
At this point a gay man in a committed on screen relationship is probably the most daring gay character Trek can do.