hopefully some gayness/lesbianess

[punkydrewster]

I mean they dodged this one in different ways ever since TNG. It's about damn time.

 

[blaXXer]

It is called 'homosexuality'.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

It is called 'homosexuality'.

Oh you're seeing sexuality everywhere!

 

[Shatterhand]

I have no problem with homosexuality depicted in a movie or television show, be it subtle or overt, but only if it's relevant to the characters or the story. I don't need it shoehorned in just so the movie can appeal to certain focus groups. It's not discriminatory or politically incorrect to omit homosexuals from a television show or movie if they're not relevant to anything the show or movie is trying to tell the audience.

 

[DRMidnite]

I have no problem with homosexuality depicted in a movie or television show, be it subtle or overt, but only if it's relevant to the characters or the story. I don't need it shoehorned in just so the movie can appeal to certain focus groups. It's not discriminatory or politically incorrect to omit homosexuals from a television show or movie if they're not relevant to anything the show or movie is trying to tell the audience.

Well said!

 

[The Borg Queen]

I have no problem with homosexuality depicted in a movie or television show, be it subtle or overt, but only if it's relevant to the characters or the story. I don't need it shoehorned in just so the movie can appeal to certain focus groups. It's not discriminatory or politically incorrect to omit homosexuals from a television show or movie if they're not relevant to anything the show or movie is trying to tell the audience.

Ditto for heterosexuality!

 

[Green Shirt]

Ditto for heterosexuality!

Whew, I thought there weren't any left here.

 

[ST-One]

I have no problem with homosexuality depicted in a movie or television show, be it subtle or overt, but only if it's relevant to the characters or the story. I don't need it shoehorned in just so the movie can appeal to certain focus groups. It's not discriminatory or politically incorrect to omit homosexuals from a television show or movie if they're not relevant to anything the show or movie is trying to tell the audience.

Well said.

 

[Kpnuts]

I have no problem with homosexuality depicted in a movie or television show, be it subtle or overt, but only if it's relevant to the characters or the story. I don't need it shoehorned in just so the movie can appeal to certain focus groups. It's not discriminatory or politically incorrect to omit homosexuals from a television show or movie if they're not relevant to anything the show or movie is trying to tell the audience.

Well said.

Is it? So show homosexual people, only if 'they have a place in the story'. Rubbish. Should they only depict heterosexual people only if they have a place in the story?

I remember an episode of Lost... I only had one eye on it so wasn't paying attention, but I think it might have been Lock meeting a non-regular character to have a discussion at his flat. Everything was normal, then he kissed his partner before the guy left. Completely out of the blue, completely pointless, but it just worked. In the same way, a guy kissing a girl would have.

I have no problem with homosexuality depicted in a movie or television show, be it subtle or overt, but only if it's relevant to the characters or the story. I don't need it shoehorned in just so the movie can appeal to certain focus groups. It's not discriminatory or politically incorrect to omit homosexuals from a television show or movie if they're not relevant to anything the show or movie is trying to tell the audience.

Ditto for heterosexuality!

That is well said.

 

[chardman]

I have no problem with homosexuality depicted in a movie or television show, be it subtle or overt, but only if it's relevant to the characters or the story. I don't need it shoehorned in just so the movie can appeal to certain focus groups. It's not discriminatory or politically incorrect to omit homosexuals from a television show or movie if they're not relevant to anything the show or movie is trying to tell the audience.

Sorry. I don't buy it. One might as well say that Black characters shouldn't be allowed in films or television, unless their race itself is somehow central to the story. That's clearly the exact opposite of what should be.

On the contrary, having an openly gay character would be best if their sexuality wasn't central to the story at all, but was merely another aspect of their character, akin to Troi's love of chocolate, or McCoy's distrust of transporters, etc.

 

[Kpnuts]

I have no problem with homosexuality depicted in a movie or television show, be it subtle or overt, but only if it's relevant to the characters or the story. I don't need it shoehorned in just so the movie can appeal to certain focus groups. It's not discriminatory or politically incorrect to omit homosexuals from a television show or movie if they're not relevant to anything the show or movie is trying to tell the audience.

Sorry. I don't buy it. One might as well say that Black characters shouldn't be allowed in films or television, unless their race itself is somehow central to the story. That's clearly the exact opposite of what should be.

On the contrary, having an openly gay character would be best if their sexuality wasn't central to the story at all, but was merely another aspect of their character, akin to Troi's love of chocolate, or McCoy's distrust of transporters, etc.

Well said

 

[NiteTrek]

Maybe homosexuality was cured by Kirk's time.

What about goat fuckers? I'm shocked and appalled that Star Trek has absolutely refused to depict any goat fuckers in any movie or series!

It could be a simple scene...Kirk getting ready to leave for the Enterprise and one of the cadets in the background could be doinkin' a goat...maybe a 2 or 3 second shot. Is that asking too much?

Goat fuckers unite! Make a statement! Your time is long overdue!!! BAAAH!! BAAAAH!!

(Oh wait, baah is a sheep noise...anyway you get the point.)

 

[DeafPoet]

Maybe homosexuality was cured by Kirk's time.

What about goat fuckers? I'm shocked and appalled that Star Trek has absolutely refused to depict any goat fuckers in any movie or series!

It could be a simple scene...Kirk getting ready to leave for the Enterprise and one of the cadets in the background could be doinkin' a goat...maybe a 2 or 3 second shot. Is that asking too much?

Goat fuckers unite! Make a statement! Your time is long overdue!!! BAAAH!! BAAAAH!!

(Oh wait, baah is a sheep noise...anyway you get the point.)

Take inflammatory shit like this over to TNZ where it belongs.

 

[Kemaiku]

Just something subtle and simple to show it exists and is accepted in Kirk's day would suffice. Homosexuality I mean, I don't wanna know what the previous poster is going on about.

 

[seigezunt]

Maybe homosexuality was cured by Kirk's time.

What about goat fuckers? I'm shocked and appalled that Star Trek has absolutely refused to depict any goat fuckers in any movie or series!

It could be a simple scene...Kirk getting ready to leave for the Enterprise and one of the cadets in the background could be doinkin' a goat...maybe a 2 or 3 second shot. Is that asking too much?

Goat fuckers unite! Make a statement! Your time is long overdue!!! BAAAH!! BAAAAH!!

(Oh wait, baah is a sheep noise...anyway you get the point.)

Yeah, I knew this wasn't going to go well. oink oink...

 

[Butters]

Obviously, not being gay, I'd rather not see men kissing, but it wouldn't stop watching the fim, but seriously, I'd rather not see men kissing.

I can understand why homosexuals would want to see some representation, and suspect the Welsh would like to see a character from Wales too, but where do you fraw the line? Its not the job of major studios to validate the views of minority groups. Besides, its not like it would be revolutionary to put a gay on the screen, its old news now. Lets some other minority have some of the spotlight.

 

[Deckerd]

Homosexuals, yes but the Welsh? Never!

 

[Shatterhand]

I have no problem with homosexuality depicted in a movie or television show, be it subtle or overt, but only if it's relevant to the characters or the story. I don't need it shoehorned in just so the movie can appeal to certain focus groups. It's not discriminatory or politically incorrect to omit homosexuals from a television show or movie if they're not relevant to anything the show or movie is trying to tell the audience.

Sorry. I don't buy it. One might as well say that Black characters shouldn't be allowed in films or television, unless their race itself is somehow central to the story. That's clearly the exact opposite of what should be.

On the contrary, having an openly gay character would be best if their sexuality wasn't central to the story at all, but was merely another aspect of their character, akin to Troi's love of chocolate, or McCoy's distrust of transporters, etc.

You completely misinterpreted and misrepresented the point of my post, but that's okay. I'm getting used to that here.

 

[Michael]

Maybe homosexuality was cured by Kirk's time.

What about goat fuckers? I'm shocked and appalled that Star Trek has absolutely refused to depict any goat fuckers in any movie or series!

It could be a simple scene...Kirk getting ready to leave for the Enterprise and one of the cadets in the background could be doinkin' a goat...maybe a 2 or 3 second shot. Is that asking too much?

Goat fuckers unite! Make a statement! Your time is long overdue!!! BAAAH!! BAAAAH!!

(Oh wait, baah is a sheep noise...anyway you get the point.)

Let's hope idiots like you will be cured by Kirk's time.

And by 'cured' I mean 'vanished', just like you.

 

[Butters]

Homosexuals, yes but the Welsh? Never!

What if their Welshness was really subtle and handled tastefully? Like a really really subtle accent, or it could be mentioned in passing that they had a samesex partner in Newport, I mean, how many non-Welsh people know where Newport is? I'm sure that would get past the critics but still satisfy the Welsh fans...