Do you think LGBT characters will feature more prominently?

[Guy Gardener]

Because, although it seems reasonable, a lot of people find that subtle sneaky approach incredibly offensive.

Pro-LGBT : "NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!"

Anti-LGBT: "TOO MUCH! TOO MUCH!"

It just comes down to who you value more, hateful bigots or normal people tired of being treated like a criminally disgusting malignant secret.

 

[borgboy]

Why not just have gay couples like it was revealed with Sulu in the Kelvinverse? Or the case in DS9's "Rejoined"? There was no "OMG TEH GAY!" It just was. And if you assume that by the 22nd-24th centuries, the fight is long over, then that's how it should be. No fanfare, it just is. Exchange between male commander and female captain might go as follows...
MC: Sir, how's your wife?
FC: Oh, she's fine. She's excited about our anniversary and she won't say what she's gotten the chef to do.

As gay man who can be slightly sensitive over diversity portrayal, that seems perfectly fine.
It shouldn't be made a big deal, but nor should it be so subtle that people will debate that the character is even gay. If you just write and perform the gay characters the same way as the straight characters are handled it would be fine. That's the way it should be.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

As gay man who can be slightly sensitive over diversity portrayal, that seems perfectly fine.
It shouldn't be made a big deal, but nor should it be so subtle that people will debate that the character is even gay. If you just write and perform the gay characters the same way as the straight characters are handled it would be fine. That's the way it should be.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Why not just have gay couples like it was revealed with Sulu in the Kelvinverse? Or the case in DS9's "Rejoined"? There was no "OMG TEH GAY!" It just was. And if you assume that by the 22nd-24th centuries, the fight is long over, then that's how it should be. No fanfare, it just is. Exchange between male commander and female captain might go as follows...
MC: Sir, how's your wife?
FC: Oh, she's fine. She's excited about our anniversary and she won't say what she's gotten the chef to do.

That's how you do it. Just acknowledge a character is gay and have the other characters treat as a normal part of life, they don't even have to comment on it.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

That's how you do it. Just acknowledge a character is gay and have the other characters treat as a normal part of life, they don't even have to comment on it.

Yeah, there need not be a "very special episode" to do it.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Yeah, there need not be a "very special episode" to do it.

The time to do that was 20 years ago. Unless there is something deeply wrong with them, gay people shouldn't be a big deal for the average television viewer. Now they're just an accepted part of life and by the 23rd century shouldn't even be seen as different. Humans are married to aliens and producing offspring by that point (something that isn't even commented on), sticking to your own species will be seen as normal no matter what gender they are.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Half of America wants the gays in camps to be converted straight.

TV has to ram the normality of LGBT issues down these cave peoples throats until they get in line, or die out... Which is not going to happen (quickly?) as long as there is more money to made being homophobic than being friendly and decent.

 

[Sgt_G]

Funny, but I got roped into this exact discussion at the game store a couple days before Christmas.

And if you assume that by the 22nd-24th centuries, the fight is long over, then that's how it should be. No fanfare, it just is.

Exactly what I said. However, as @Guy Gardener pointed out, the Pro-LGBT crowd were saying "NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!" Seriously, they want, DEMAND even, full episodes and multi-episodes exploring all the modern-day issues they deal with today, i.e., self-awareness, coming out, bigotry, etc. My point was, and still is, that doesn't make sense given that the "fight" as you call it will be a faded memory long before the Trek-era. To me, such a story line would be as out of place in the 23rd century Star Trek setting as talking about women's voting rights would be in an episode of Law & Order.

A couple of the people were complaining that none of the LGBT characters in any sci-fi show are "obvious enough". Not sure what they want to see, but to me most of the flamboyant LGBT characters on TV are not realistic. Take the couple on Modern Family (I don't watch the show as I don't watch sit-coms in general, but I have seen bits and pieces) for example: I don't know very many LGBT people in real life (or maybe I do and simply don't know they are LGBT), but those I do know look and act like any other (straight) person I know and nothing like this couple. Someone else in the discussion pointed this out, and the answer was "No, because they are caricatures that perpetuate the stereotype and thus further bigotry against LGBT people". And I fully agree with that. But what do you want then? You want characters who are "obviously LGBT" but aren't a negative stereotype. Okay, great. How do you do that? If a gay Hollywood producer/writer can't pull that off, I certainly wouldn't know how to do it.

As to the issues of becoming self-aware and coming out, I can't see how to do that save for introducing a teen-age character. Do we really want another Wesley Crusher on the show? Or more precisely, a Rusty Beck character?

Look, I could really not care less if there's a LGBT character on a show. They had one on NCIS and it was done perfectly fine. "Tim, I'm not after your girl because I'm gay." And that was that. They didn't make a big deal of it. Do that in Trek and I'm okay with it. But from the discussions I've had here on Trek-BBS and elsewhere going back for many, many years, there are a lot of LGBT advocates who demand much, much more.

 

[Sgt_G]

Half of America wants the gays in camps to be converted straight.

Half? Bull-s**t. A few, perhaps 5%-10%, maybe 15%, yes, say that. Half? No way. Most people couldn't give a rip.

TV has to ram the normality of LGBT issues down these cave peoples throats until they get in line, or die out

And that's the argument I've gotten from several Hollywood writers. A couple flat out stated they view it as their job to inflict and enforce social change upon an unwilling population.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Is that any better than certain segments of the population viewing it as their job to push anti-abortion legislation on an unwilling population?

 

[Guy Gardener]

Half? Bull-s**t. A few, perhaps 5%-10%, maybe 15%, yes, say that. Half? No way. Most people couldn't give a rip.

1/2 the country voted for Pence who actively believes in gay Conversion, and that's where I got that "inflated" number from.

%100 of the country did not vote, and those that did vote for Pence might not actively believe in converting all the homosexuals, but they didn't see it as a deal breaker either, which is as good as agreeing with the process and a man who might want to make it legally mandatory.

 

[m.lp.ql.m]

If you just write and perform the gay characters the same way as the straight characters are handled it would be fine.

"There you go, ramming your gay agenda down our throats again!" /s

 

[Tenacity]

A couple of the people were complaining that none of the LGBT characters in any sci-fi show are "obvious enough".

A good example of not obvious enought would be the last movie where Sulu meets a friend with a child, after neither a long embrace nor a passionate kiss they casually walk away.

If you didn't know before hand that Sulu was goin to be written as gay, or that there was going to be this "BIG GAY MOMENT" would you have thought for even a second that this short scene depicted Sulu as gay?

1/2 the country voted for Pence who actively believes in gay Conversion, and that's where I got that "inflated" number from.

And your basing your belief that Pence's supports gay conversion on a political website that Pence neither runs or contributes to?

That's the usual lame source for this belief.

 

[UssGlenn]

Funny, but I got roped into this exact discussion at the game store a couple days before Christmas.Exactly what I said. However, as @Guy Gardener pointed out, the Pro-LGBT crowd were saying "NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!" Seriously, they want, DEMAND even, full episodes and multi-episodes exploring all the modern-day issues they deal with today, i.e., self-awareness, coming out, bigotry, etc. My point was, and still is, that doesn't make sense given that the "fight" as you call it will be a faded memory long before the Trek-era. To me, such a story line would be as out of place in the 23rd century Star Trek setting as talking about women's voting rights would be in an episode of Law & Order.

I think we've all forgotten what show we are watching. Star Trek is an allegory. "Let that be your last battlefield" was all about racism but not African Americans. "A Private Little War" was about Vietnam. You want to do a multi-episode story about homosexuality, then invent a alien race with an analogous issue. TNG tried with the one-sexed race, and while that one wasn't particularly well received, there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea. If you want to be heavy handed about it you have the gay character remark about how it reminds him of how gay people used to be treated on Earth.

 

[dahj]

As to the issues of becoming self-aware and coming out, I can't see how to do that save for introducing a teen-age character.

Supergirl did it pretty freaking great this season with a 30 year old woman...

 

[Guy Gardener]

I tracked down the source.

Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.

Above is from his political manifesto when he ran for congress in 2000.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010519165033fw_/http://cybertext.net/pence/issues.html

A little wishy washy, but if he gave money to the KKK, or Boko Haram it'd be a clear case of following the money, that gets so many rich people in trouble.

 

[m.lp.ql.m]

^ And they'll still argue that "changing one's sexual behavior" is not the same as "gay conversion therapy" (though one needn't exclude the other).

Here's the thing. When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, conservatives insisted that just being gay was a sin. Now, they've softened up a bit and no longer claim being gay is a sin, but instead having a fulfilling life that includes love and sex, like straight people have, is the sin; in other words, it's the behavior that's the problem. Not sure when and why that distinction changed though.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Well, you go back to he 60s and homosexuality was illegal.

Their ground was a lot firmer back then.

The phrashing of the document also might imply that he is only providing the mechanisms for gay conversion to those gays who want to be converted... More so than rounding people up into kennels, and putting them on trains to the conversion plant.

Giving gay conversion 'systems' government money, draws an inverse parallel to defunding planned parenting.

You create a tool to be used, and you destroy a tool so that it cannot be used.

Money is blood.

 

[Awesome Possum]

^ And they'll still argue that "changing one's sexual behavior" is not the same as "gay conversion therapy" (though one needn't exclude the other).

Here's the thing. When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, conservatives insisted that just being gay was a sin. Now, they've softened up a bit and no longer claim being gay is a sin, but instead having a fulfilling life that includes love and sex, like straight people have, is the sin; in other words, it's the behavior that's the problem. Not sure when and why that distinction changed though.

It pushes the idea that it's a choice or a behavior, something that can be changed. That way they don't look like bigots hating someone for who they are, just what they do. But they're still bigots, they're just aware that public opinion is leaving them behind.

 

[Tenacity]

I tracked down the source.

But that quote had to do with people who were engaging in sexual behavior that put them at unusual high risk of acquiring HIV/AIDS, no condom use and large numbers of sexual partners.

Pience was advocating counseling and education on how not to become infected, not reprogramming gays to become heterosexual.