Same Sex Marriage

[Nighthawk]

Sorry upset some.

I for one do not want to see same sex couples in the next incarnation of trek.

It does not belong in trek and should not held as means that if it is not there then it not good for trek.

We as fans regardless of our sexual preferences should not judge a show just because you think it would be good for gay rights to have an openly guy member character a member of the crew.

If you watch any incarnation of ST we have never fully seen what the characters do "off screen" as in off duty.

Yes, ST has always portrayed every body as straight but tell me and point any other show that deals with a military based organization has openly guy members?

I just happy they way ST is and if writers do decided to include such a character so be it and it will not detract from me watching the show but might be different for other and or sponsors in dealing with such thing.

Please enjoy ST and not think that it is time for this or that to happen on the show.

 

[horatio83]

As the military has been, historically speaking, a males-only club it has also been one of the most homophobic institutions. Obviously this has influenced you in one way or another but let me assure you that several of the the people you work with everyday have a male partner. Do you really think that having to hide what they are is beneficial to their psychological health and don't you think that psychological health is especially important for soldiers?
Back to Trek, do I really have to list all the girls of Kirk and all the straight couples to point out that we have seen plenty of heterosexuality on the screen?

 

[Deckerd]

Then again, the poll on part of this messageboard about sexual orientation shows that overwhelmingly at least on this board most people are hetero. What would the chances be that you had a gay couple on a ship?

 

[Avon]

i think the next show should have two main characters that are gay. however they should dislike each other intensely. over the course of the show they should gradually grow to merely tolerate each other.

 

[nightwind1]

Sorry upset some.

I for one do not want to see same sex couples in the next incarnation of trek.

It does not belong in trek and should not held as means that if it is not there then it not good for trek.

We as fans regardless of our sexual preferences should not judge a show just because you think it would be good for gay rights to have an openly guy member character a member of the crew.

If you watch any incarnation of ST we have never fully seen what the characters do "off screen" as in off duty.

Yes, ST has always portrayed every body as straight but tell me and point any other show that deals with a military based organization has openly guy members?

I just happy they way ST is and if writers do decided to include such a character so be it and it will not detract from me watching the show but might be different for other and or sponsors in dealing with such thing.

Please enjoy ST and not think that it is time for this or that to happen on the show.

Please step out of the mid-twentieth century and join the rest of us in the twenty-first century.

We promise it won't hurt.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Sorry upset some.

I for one do not want to see same sex couples in the next incarnation of trek.

It does not belong in trek and should not held as means that if it is not there then it not good for trek.

We as fans regardless of our sexual preferences should not judge a show just because you think it would be good for gay rights to have an openly guy member character a member of the crew.

If you watch any incarnation of ST we have never fully seen what the characters do "off screen" as in off duty.

Yes, ST has always portrayed every body as straight but tell me and point any other show that deals with a military based organization has openly guy members?

I just happy they way ST is and if writers do decided to include such a character so be it and it will not detract from me watching the show but might be different for other and or sponsors in dealing with such thing.

Please enjoy ST and not think that it is time for this or that to happen on the show.

I respect and understand your viewpoint, gay rights and equal representation are not for everyone.

I do believe you are wrong about same sex couples not belonging in Trek. Back in the 60s many probably said a black woman didn't deserve to be on the show. Trek was about doing topical issues and dealing with contemporary issues in a futuristic setting.

It may upset some fans, but if they fans will surely understand that inclusion and acceptance of others, regardless of their differences, is one of the cornerstones of Trek ideology.

 

[Knight Templar]

The frequency and number of sexual partners of Captain Kirk have been vastly, vastly overstated.

It is largely something that everyone thinks happened but never actually happened. Like Kirk saying "Beam me up Scotty".

 

[Xhiandra]

It'd be nice if the next Trek series (if one ever gets made) featured LBGT characters, but if they do it, I'd hope they'd do it right.
Personally, I think they should handle it like they did in Rejoined: none of the characters made any mention of Jadzia and Lenara being both female in that episode and I hope that, by the 24th/25th century (or whenever they set the series), we can reach a social stage where sexuality is simply no big deal.

Big drama over sexuality is fine for a show is set in the present, but in Trek it'd just be depressing if, in the utopian and distant future of Trek, society still hasn't accepted the simple "consenting adults behind closed doors".

Oh, and it can't take over the whole show.
A show like Torchwood oft erred in that regard.

Now, as to the debate over a male char or female char:
Why not both? Say, a male bisexual char and a lesbian char.

 

[DonIago]

I think there could be room for the occasional situation where the crew encounters alien species that ask the questions that Our Heroes have come to take for granted, but it would need to be handled deftly.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I like the way Doctor Who often handles the issue. Occasionally a male character will refer to their husband. ( or a female their wife). They also go "upfront" with the same sex couple right there on screen, but don't shine the spotlight on it in hey look at this way. A low key way of saying "they're here and they're queer and its no big deal."

 

[horatio83]

It'd be nice if the next Trek series (if one ever gets made) featured LBGT characters, but if they do it, I'd hope they'd do it right.
Personally, I think they should handle it like they did in Rejoined: none of the characters made any mention of Jadzia and Lenara being both female in that episode and I hope that, by the 24th/25th century (or whenever they set the series), we can reach a social stage where sexuality is simply no big deal.

Big drama over sexuality is fine for a show is set in the present, but in Trek it'd just be depressing if, in the utopian and distant future of Trek, society still hasn't accepted the simple "consenting adults behind closed doors".

Oh, and it can't take over the whole show.
A show like Torchwood oft erred in that regard.

Now, as to the debate over a male char or female char:
Why not both? Say, a male bisexual char and a lesbian char.

When your main character is pansexual and constantly horny you gotta roll with that.

 

[Maurice]

Sorry upset some.

I for one do not want to see same sex couples in the next incarnation of trek....

Please enjoy ST and not think that it is time for this or that to happen on the show.

I respect and understand your viewpoint, gay rights and equal representation are not for everyone.

Change to word "gay" to "equal" and you'll see how wrong that statement is.

I don't respect the viewpoint. I'm not tolerant about intolerance. Nighthawk is wrong. Period.

 

[starri]

Personally, I think they should handle it like they did in Rejoined: none of the characters made any mention of Jadzia and Lenara being both female in that episode and I hope that, by the 24th/25th century (or whenever they set the series), we can reach a social stage where sexuality is simply no big deal.

Indeed, in a point that I don't think has been raised, in a scene between Bashir and Kira, Bashir describes the idea of reassociation as "unnatural" to the Trills, and Kira, who didn't grow up with Federation broad-mindedness and who has been shown previously to be fairly conservative in her morality, is the one who says "What's unnatural about two people who are married resuming their marriage?"

It's certainly not as broad an endorsement as I would like, but given that it's pointedly gender-neutral, I choose to read it that SSM exists in both Bajoran and Federation society.

Also, people mentioned the episode "Rules of Acquisition" with the female Ferengi passing as a male, but missed something: Dax is completely unphased when she notices that Pel, who she thinks is male, has feelings for Quark, but IS surprised that she's a woman.

In the grand scheme of things, knowing the kind of battles they had behind the scenes, I'm kind of amazed they got away with as much as they did.

If anything, I think Trek should take an example from Caprica, which outed Sam Adama so casually that I didn't realize they'd done it at first.

 

[Deckerd]

I like the way Doctor Who often handles the issue. Occasionally a male character will refer to their husband. ( or a female their wife). They also go "upfront" with the same sex couple right there on screen, but don't shine the spotlight on it in hey look at this way. A low key way of saying "they're here and they're queer and its no big deal."

Doctor Who doesn't do that. That kind of labelling has no place in Doctor Who. It's matter of fact as it should be and it has no words like 'queer' in its lexicon.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I like the way Doctor Who often handles the issue. Occasionally a male character will refer to their husband. ( or a female their wife). They also go "upfront" with the same sex couple right there on screen, but don't shine the spotlight on it in hey look at this way. A low key way of saying "they're here and they're queer and its no big deal."

Doctor Who doesn't do that. That kind of labelling has no place in Doctor Who. It's matter of fact as it should be and it has no words like 'queer' in its lexicon.

I didnt say they would use the term "queer" in Doctor Who. It was a play on a protest chant used in the Gay Rights Movement here in the States. "We're here. We're Queer. And so are some of you."

In my observations, Doctor Who treats same sex couple/marriage as perfectly normal with out the need for a "very special episode". Character in same sex relationships are treated in a matter of fact manner. Someone mentioning a samesex partner isn't a laugh line or a set up for an episode about tolarance, it just is.

 

[Sindatur]

I like the way Doctor Who often handles the issue. Occasionally a male character will refer to their husband. ( or a female their wife). They also go "upfront" with the same sex couple right there on screen, but don't shine the spotlight on it in hey look at this way. A low key way of saying "they're here and they're queer and its no big deal."

Doctor Who doesn't do that. That kind of labelling has no place in Doctor Who. It's matter of fact as it should be and it has no words like 'queer' in its lexicon.

I didnt say they would use the term "queer" in Doctor Who. It was a play on a protest chant used in the Gay Rights Movement here in the States. "We're here. We're Queer. And so are some of you."

In my observations, Doctor Who treats same sex couple/marriage as perfectly normal with out the need for a "very special episode". Character in same sex relationships are treated in a matter of fact manner. Someone mentioning a samesex partner isn't a laugh line or a set up for an episode about tolarance, it just is.

Hey now, you can't use the "N" word if you're not black

Deckerd, yea, we don't take offense in the word Queer, when used in the context Nerys Mike did, even if he is straight. Definitely appreciate the support against the possible offense, though

 

[Xhiandra]

I like the way Doctor Who often handles the issue. Occasionally a male character will refer to their husband. ( or a female their wife). They also go "upfront" with the same sex couple right there on screen, but don't shine the spotlight on it in hey look at this way. A low key way of saying "they're here and they're queer and its no big deal."

Doctor Who doesn't do that. That kind of labelling has no place in Doctor Who. It's matter of fact as it should be and it has no words like 'queer' in its lexicon.

It should contain the word "queer" in its lexicon.
It's a great word, much more apt at creating an atmosphere than its synonyms.

... when used in its archaic meaning, that is. Shame it became a slur.

I think there could be room for the occasional situation where the crew encounters alien species that ask the questions that Our Heroes have come to take for granted, but it would need to be handled deftly.

I disagree. I think that was one of the weaknesses of Voyager: that they met so many mysogynistic aliens (Kazon, Hirogen, some others I forget).
Even if Janeway humiliated them in the end, it still cheapened the fact that she was a Woman in charge of a starship; it would've been a stronger statement to just have her in charge and nobody, not even (most of) the aliens, questionning her ability because of her gender.

If they really want to do a tolerance episode, there's always the Trek way to do it: allegory!
Rejoined could even been seen as an allegory of same-sex marriage: a marital practice considered taboo for philosophical reasons? There's a similarity there.
In which case the fact they're 2 women is just hanging a lampshade on it.

 

[DonIago]

I never said the aliens should be homophobes.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Sorry upset some.

I for one do not want to see same sex couples in the next incarnation of trek....

Please enjoy ST and not think that it is time for this or that to happen on the show.

I respect and understand your viewpoint, gay rights and equal representation are not for everyone.

Change to word "gay" to "equal" and you'll see how wrong that statement is.

I don't respect the viewpoint. I'm not tolerant about intolerance. Nighthawk is wrong. Period.

I don't agree with his opinion, Maurice, but I understand that gay issues do make some uncomfortable--which is exactly the reason Trek should include gay character(s), so as to challenge that.

I do agree it is about equal rights and representation, which, as a gay man, I believe has been woefully lacking in Trek. That wouldn't however stop me from watching the next series (if/when we get one), but if one isn't included I will be disappointed.

 

[Maurice]

I don't agree with his opinion, Maurice, but I understand that gay issues do make some uncomfortable--which is exactly the reason Trek should include gay character(s), so as to challenge that.

I don't want it there to challenge people. I want shows to represent the spectrum of humanity that actually exists, especially shows that so blatantly claim to portray a more tolerant future . The side benefit of that is that when your portray people as people and not as types and/or stereotypes you do more good than sending obvious messages.

It's maddening that some audiences have trouble accepting a portrayal of commonplace human behavior whilst not batting an eye at portrayal of things like relationships amongst actors playing aliens, who aren't even supposed to be the same species.

A very useful tool for seeing what people are really saying is to noun-swap. "I am not comfortable with seeing NOUN on TV".