NuTrek: A homosexual's perspective

[moogybaby]

Ultimately, for any socio/ethnic group to seek representation in a fictive enterprise like Star Trek is self-serving.

The current main cast demographic is determined by history and marketability.

Kirk isn't a woman. Spock isn't a Horta.

To assume that the fundamental chemistry among the main characters should be changed to serve a politically aware agenda is as unrealistic as assuming that there'd be a direct transfer of TOS Enterprise - unchanged- into the alternate timeline.

 

[Captain Fine]

Sorry, I'll wander down to the VOY forum and fix that right quick...

Also, in response to your Scotty mention, if we're to assume these are basically the same characters (minus Chekov) then Scotty's pretty hetero, if unfailingly hard-luck at it (when your woman is either killed by Jack the Ripper, stolen by a Greek God, or stolen by Khan, Fate's just playing with you...)

And now abed...

Well JJ could kill off Scotty and replace him with a gay man named Welshy...

I dunno, that sounds more like something from Torchwood...

(Yes, I understand the Futurama reference.)

Torchwood? Oh the killing off part

But that's one thing I like about Torchwood. That the characters are pretty open sexually. That's what I imagine Star Trek's future should look like. Or even what our future should look like. A day when basically any two adults can fall in love, regardless of their sex or sexual identity.

 

[Trilliam]

But that's one thing I like about Torchwood. That the characters are pretty open sexually. That's what I imagine Star Trek's future should look like. Or even what our future should look like. A day when basically any two adults can fall in love, regardless of their sex or sexual identity.

Why does being "futuristic" need to negate modesty or decorum?

 

[IndyJones]

Personally I think Poles are more underrepresented. The only one we got was Dr. Pulaski and she wasn't exactly popular. Canadians are pretty underrepresented too.

Sure...but Eddington was a Hell of a character!

I assume you mean that jokingly? Cuz I really disliked him lol.

I never liked him either, but I still thought he was a good character.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

But that's one thing I like about Torchwood. That the characters are pretty open sexually. That's what I imagine Star Trek's future should look like. Or even what our future should look like. A day when basically any two adults can fall in love, regardless of their sex or sexual identity.

Why does being "futuristic" need to negate modesty or decorum?

There's buttloads of decorum that human civilization has gotten rid of over the ages. We've jettisoned an impressive amount during the 20th century, in fact.

Imagine what 300 years'll do to that.

 

[Trilliam]

Why does being "futuristic" need to negate modesty or decorum?

There's buttloads of decorum that human civilization has gotten rid of over the ages. We've jettisoned an impressive amount during the 20th century, in fact.

Imagine what 300 years'll do to that.

Yes, manners and courtesty, repsect for others , self-respect (eg Paris Hilton et al), especially elders (83 yo charity worker grandmother bashd to death last week), seem to have slipped by the wayside, and that's just in the last 40 years.

 

[IndyJones]

But that's one thing I like about Torchwood. That the characters are pretty open sexually. That's what I imagine Star Trek's future should look like. Or even what our future should look like. A day when basically any two adults can fall in love, regardless of their sex or sexual identity.

Why does being "futuristic" need to negate modesty or decorum?

There's buttloads of decorum that human civilization has gotten rid of over the ages. We've jettisoned an impressive amount during the 20th century, in fact.

Imagine what 300 years'll do to that.

On the other hand the age of consent has gone from 12 to 18 in the last 150 years. In another 300, it could be 30...

83 yo charity worker grandmother bashd to death last week), seem to have slipped by the wayside, and that's just in the last 40 years.

Oh, I'm sure there was plenty of senseless violence 40+ years ago.

 

[Trilliam]

On the other hand the age of consent has gone from 12 to 18 in the last 150 years. In another 300, it could be 30...

They're increased how many hours learner drivers have to log before the can get their Provisional licences, and have increased P licences from 12 months (when I got mine) to 3 years. They have mentioned raising the drinking age back to 21, and have raised the school leaving age.

 

[Trilliam]

83 yo charity worker grandmother bashd to death last week), seem to have slipped by the wayside, and that's just in the last 40 years.

Oh, I'm sure there was plenty of senseless violence 40+ years ago.

I'm only commenting on the changes I've seen.

 

[Sci]

I'm gay and would like to have seen some hint that Sulu was gay. Would have been appropriate. As long as it didn't come out to be some grand, flashy OUTTING, I would have been happy to see JJ Abrams take that little risk... and step. Though, in this movie it was all about building a loyal base. Maybe next time.

~String

While George is gay, it's on screen that Sulu apparently wasn't gay since he had at least one daughter.

The fact that Sulu had a daughter doesn't mean he can't be gay.

Having said that, the fact that Sulu was drooling all over Ilia in TMP does. He can, at best, be bisexual.

ETA:

For all the smartasses saying that there ought to be a Serbian, or a Canadian, or whatever:

Serbians and Canadians aren't oppressed minority groups that are denied the right to marry, or serve in the military, or gain employment, or raise families in most of even the advanced liberal democracies, and who are flat-out executed for daring to exist in other parts of the world. LGBT individuals are. If Star Trek is supposed to be a story about a future where bigotry has been defeated and everyone is equal, then it has a moral obligation to depict LGBT characters in a positive, egalitarian light.

 

[Captain Fine]

I'm gay and would like to have seen some hint that Sulu was gay. Would have been appropriate. As long as it didn't come out to be some grand, flashy OUTTING, I would have been happy to see JJ Abrams take that little risk... and step. Though, in this movie it was all about building a loyal base. Maybe next time.

~String

While George is gay, it's on screen that Sulu apparently wasn't gay since he had at least one daughter.

The fact that Sulu had a daughter doesn't mean he can't be gay.

Having said that, the fact that Sulu was drooling all over Ilia in TMP does. He can, at best, be bisexual.

ETA:

For all the smartasses saying that there ought to be a Serbian, or a Canadian, or whatever:

Serbians and Canadians aren't oppressed minority groups that are denied the right to marry, or serve in the military, or gain employment, or raise families in most of even the advanced liberal democracies, and who are flat-out executed for daring to exist in other parts of the world. LGBT individuals are. If Star Trek is supposed to be a story about a future where bigotry has been defeated and everyone is equal, then it has a moral obligation to depict LGBT characters in a positive, egalitarian light.

Thanks for putting it so eloquently

 

[Gryffindorian]

While George is gay, it's on screen that Sulu apparently wasn't gay since he had at least one daughter.

The fact that Sulu had a daughter doesn't mean he can't be gay.

Having said that, the fact that Sulu was drooling all over Ilia in TMP does. He can, at best, be bisexual.

ETA:

For all the smartasses saying that there ought to be a Serbian, or a Canadian, or whatever:

Serbians and Canadians aren't oppressed minority groups that are denied the right to marry, or serve in the military, or gain employment, or raise families in most of even the advanced liberal democracies, and who are flat-out executed for daring to exist in other parts of the world. LGBT individuals are. If Star Trek is supposed to be a story about a future where bigotry has been defeated and everyone is equal, then it has a moral obligation to depict LGBT characters in a positive, egalitarian light.

Thanks for putting it so eloquently

Aye. Took me awhile to read the new posts. I retract my comment earlier about making Sulu gay as an homage to Mr. Takei. Surely, his orientation would have to serve a purpose. But the argument that he can't be gay because of Demora is ludicrous. Besides, Demora might not even exist in this reality.

 

[exalted one]

In before the lock.

Listen, I don't really care one way or the other. I don't need to see a gay guy in a StarFleet uniform (or as a villian) to validate myself. All I was saying is that the writers found it relevant enough to make it clear that at least 12 people in the film had heterosexual relationships. You can make the argument that it's not important, but you can't argue how many direct references were already in the film.

I doubt they went out of their way to show someone's heterosexuality. You know, heterosexuality is omnipresent, you don't really have to try hard to show it... it shows itself, as it is a basic prerequisite for having kids. On the other hand, there's only one thing that can result from homosexual intercourse: a diarrhea. If you want to show people having kids (which you want, because without kids there wouldn't be no adults), you got to show heterosexuals. Heterosexuality is there by default.

Can you name some reasons why homosexuals should be in Star Trek, aside of the usual "we want to see them" and "they deserve it"? Including homosexuality requires extra effort from writers; can you come up with a valid reason to exert that effort? What would a homosexual character help the story? What would it change? What point would they serve, aside of making a very minor part of audience feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

We've never seen a christian in Star Trek, either. Nor a muslim. We've never seen a stamp collector, or an apiatrist. Yet you don't see these groups running around forums, yelling "Include a christian / a muslim / a stamp collector / an apiarist in Star Trek!" What makes gays special enough to be included by default? They can't reproduce, which makes their sexual orientation a rather marginal and uninteresting thing. Unlike apiarists, who, at least, can make honey.

 

[IndyJones]

SNIP!

I have nothing in response to your post except to say that you are a perfect reason why there should be a ghey in the next movie.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Captain Jack doesn't have an orientation; he's every direction at the same time.

Yes, and you gotta admit he does it with style.

 

[Sci]

In before the lock.

Listen, I don't really care one way or the other. I don't need to see a gay guy in a StarFleet uniform (or as a villian) to validate myself. All I was saying is that the writers found it relevant enough to make it clear that at least 12 people in the film had heterosexual relationships. You can make the argument that it's not important, but you can't argue how many direct references were already in the film.

I doubt they went out of their way to show someone's heterosexuality. You know, heterosexuality is omnipresent, you don't really have to try hard to show it... it shows itself, as it is a basic prerequisite for having kids. On the other hand, there's only one thing that can result from homosexual intercourse: a diarrhea. If you want to show people having kids (which you want, because without kids there wouldn't be no adults), you got to show heterosexuals. Heterosexuality is there by default.

Can you name some reasons why homosexuals should be in Star Trek

Just to make sure that bigots like you feel alienated from it.

You, sir, are a disgusting heterosexist whose bile violates the spirit and philosophy of equality promoted by Star Trek. You are creating rhetoric to justify the oppression of a minority group whose human rights are routinely violated in every society on this planet, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

 

[skep155]

Any gay character should be new and their sexual orientation should be entirely incidental and not a key plot point. The kind of thing that crops up in a conversation now and again but their character isn't entirely based around it. I dont think a "hey look at me, im gay!" character would be appropriate since it lends credence to the idea that homosexuals are not like other people and everything about them is defined by their orientation.

 

[ST-One]

In before the lock.

Listen, I don't really care one way or the other. I don't need to see a gay guy in a StarFleet uniform (or as a villian) to validate myself. All I was saying is that the writers found it relevant enough to make it clear that at least 12 people in the film had heterosexual relationships. You can make the argument that it's not important, but you can't argue how many direct references were already in the film.

I doubt they went out of their way to show someone's heterosexuality. You know, heterosexuality is omnipresent, you don't really have to try hard to show it... it shows itself, as it is a basic prerequisite for having kids. On the other hand, there's only one thing that can result from homosexual intercourse: a diarrhea. If you want to show people having kids (which you want, because without kids there wouldn't be no adults), you got to show heterosexuals. Heterosexuality is there by default.

Can you name some reasons why homosexuals should be in Star Trek, aside of the usual "we want to see them" and "they deserve it"? Including homosexuality requires extra effort from writers; can you come up with a valid reason to exert that effort? What would a homosexual character help the story? What would it change? What point would they serve, aside of making a very minor part of audience feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

We've never seen a christian in Star Trek, either. Nor a muslim. We've never seen a stamp collector, or an apiatrist. Yet you don't see these groups running around forums, yelling "Include a christian / a muslim / a stamp collector / an apiarist in Star Trek!" What makes gays special enough to be included by default? They can't reproduce, which makes their sexual orientation a rather marginal and uninteresting thing. Unlike apiarists, who, at least, can make honey.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

What's with all the "them vs. us" ? Bleeding Christ. I never got why this subject has people tearing each other to shreds anyway. I don't care either way; if romance is done well, it doesn't matter who's involved, it'll be a good romance.

 

[ST-One]

What's with all the "them vs. us" ? Bleeding Christ. I never got why this subject has people tearing each other to shreds anyway. I don't care either way; if romance is done well, it doesn't matter who's involved, it'll be a good romance.

I'm with you.
The problem is (as evidenced by Phase II's Peter Kirk - who is a regular on that show now) that certain people always see anything even remotely homosexual as 'shoving it down our throats'.