Gay Characters in Star Trek

[Temis the Vorta]

Heck yeah, what's wrong with a gay character, I'd like to see it.

Cheap opportunity to plug my Shipper Frenzy poll. You can vote for canon and non-canon (including gay) characters or express your distates for shippiness, canon or otherwise.

Right now, Garak/Bashir is beating hetero couples like Xena/Ares, Malcolm/Hoshi and Padme/Obi-Wan. I'm not sure how to categorize R2-D2/C-3P0 tho...?

 

[unimatrix7]

Posted by Charles Trip Tucker III:
Personally, I think homosexuallity is gross, unnatural, and sinful (...) I might come off as "homophobic,"

Oh, ya think?

I'm not gonna make a big deal about it.

Yet here you are. Again.

However, like I said earlier, if it happens, I'm not going to make a big fuss about it. I'll just find a different sci-fi show to watch. :thumbsup:

Yeah, you've said that twice. Are you trying to convince us, or yourself?

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Oh not this again ...

All i will say is that it will be nice to have a gay character, but we should not be protesting about it. That's my two cents.

 

[tafkats]

Posted by Masao:
AGAIN? Tucker has to be the board's most homosexuality-obsessed member.

Alrighty, I think this would be a good time for a "discuss the post, not the poster" reminder.

 

[Lord Garth]

I think Series VI should have a gay character and a Middle Eastern character.

With Middle Easterners it would show we're not all terrorists. With gays, I'd have it be a normal matter-of-fact thing. Like it or not, they represent a part of our population and there's no point in pretending it doesn't exist.

 

[14thDoctor]

I don't think any new series should just have a "gay" character for the sake of having a gay character. Any new series should have a group of complex, fully developed characters, and should one of those characters be gay, so be it. (Captain Jack Harkin springs to mind.) But throwing in a token gay character, or a token character of any variety, is pointless.

You don't want a gay version of Chakotay, where a unique yet one dimensional character (strong native american male with a deep spiritual side) is introduced, and seven years later he's a glorified extra because the writers don't know what to do with him. (Poor Chakotay, why didn't they use you more often...)

 

[Russ]

Charles, judging from this post and all your previous ones on the matter, it would seem that you've completely missed the entire point of Star Trek.

It's completely in your right to "boycott" a show because of it's inclusion of a gay character, whether that character be a lead or just reoccuring, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. I mean, are you now going to boycott TOS and the TOS movies, or the Voyager episode "Flashback" because George Takei has now come out?

Personally, I think you need to at least attempt to be more accepting of others who don't share your beliefs. It's a shame thats not something you've learned from Star Trek.

As to your topic, it's none of my business what someones sexual preferences are (whether I agree or not), so a gay character on Trek wouldn't bother me.

 

[unimatrix7]

Posted by Lord Garth:
With Middle Easterners it would show we're not all terrorists. With gays, I'd have it be a normal matter-of-fact thing. Like it or not, they represent a part of our population and there's no point in pretending it doesn't exist.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realises that not all middle easterners are terrorists. The presence of a Middle Eastern character on a Trek show simply to prove that point is pandering to the lowest common denominator - the people that wouldn't have the clout to 'get' Star Trek anyway.

Besides, we had Alexander Siddig playing Bashir, and he exemplified what you're talking about here without beating us over the head with it.

 

[Lord Garth]

^ That's a fair point on Alexander Siddig even if they emphasized the more English part of him.

As for people with a mediocum of intelligence, I agree with you. Unfortunately, I think people in general are evenly divided. I'd love to be wrong.

 

[WillsBabe]

Posted by LieutenantHawk:
And this goes back to early TNG, where a script featuring a gay security officer and medical technitian was shafted.

I don't think that's the reason the script got unmade. The roles of those two characters was very small and insignificant. Had they liked the script they could have changed the characters.

 

[TorontoTrekker]

Posted by WillsBabe:

Posted by LieutenantHawk:
And this goes back to early TNG, where a script featuring a gay security officer and medical technitian was shafted.

I don't think that's the reason the script got unmade. The roles of those two characters was very small and insignificant. Had they liked the script they could have changed the characters.

Well, there were other issues involving David Gerrold's relationship with some of the production staff, and he left the show around that time, but at least the way David tells it, a large part of it was due to discomfort with doing an episode that was a pretty blatant AIDS allegory. There was a distinct lack of courage in the production offices.

 

[WillsBabe]

^ Just out of interest, have you read the script? I have it in the house, but it's years (getting on for 20 probably) since I read it.

 

[TorontoTrekker]

Posted by WillsBabe:
^ Just out of interest, have you read the script? I have it in the house, but it's years (getting on for 20 probably) since I read it.

I've not only read it, I have an autographed copy. I haven't read it recently, though.

Sure, it's flawed, but it's essentially a first draft.

One thing I remember noticing is that one of the gay characters, Daniel Eakins, shares the name of the protagonist of David's novel "The Man Who Folded Himself." Coincidence? I think not.

 

[WillsBabe]

Posted by TorontoTrekker:
I've not only read it, I have an autographed copy.

Me, too!

I haven't read it recently, though. Sure, it's flawed, but it's essentially a first draft.

I found it to be quite boring. The only bit that I recall is Picard talking about blood transfusions and trying to persuade his crew to donate.

[/QUOTE]

 

[aftermath]

Posted by Charles Trip Tucker III:
Personally, I think homosexuallity is gross, unnatural, and sinful.

I think you're gross, unnatural, and sinful. I make no distiction between racists and homophobics. You are all the same. All disgusting, all unnatural and all sinful. History will not be kind to people like you.

 

[StolenThunder]

I'm going to close this thread.

Charles Trip Tucker III, you seem to kick off this topic regularly. And yet time and time again you manage to open it with what I personally consider to be outdated, but more importantly in this context deliberately inflammatory and deliberately unexplained comments. Every time people (rightly, imo) take issue with what you say.. yet you either don't have the self-awareness or the desire to have a true discussion with them.

It's a shame. There were people in this thread trying to make good commentary, but it's too full of back and forth flaming and snappiness to remain open. (aftermath, others, please don't give us more work..)

If you do decide to open this thread in the future, why not leave your hang-ups at the door? It'd be better for all of us.