Same Sex Marriage

[Knight Templar]

So wait. You have links(while saying that there is no need for internet links) and arguments that don't follow the collect thoughts on this subject. You also say that there is no reason to post a opinion then. So why come on a thread about said subject if you feel that there is no point to expressing your opinion? Does that sound fucked up to anyone else?

I was naive. I thought that outside the bounds of the Neutral Zone people would not be so (the term is one I actually hate but I can't think of a better one) "politically correct" about the subject.

That said, I did not come back into the "homosexuals in Star Trek" argument deliberately. I reentered the discussion a few pages back when people were maintaining (basically) that Gene Roddenberry was some kind of "sci-fi Norman Lear" which he clearly was not based on what he actually put onscreen.

Pssstttt....The thread is called "Same Sex Marriage", the thread is about Same Sex Marriage in Star Trek. If you clicked into the thread, how can you possibly say you didn't enter into the "Homosexuals in Star Trek" argument deliberately, when you clearly posted about it?

I posted early in it, then withdrew from the discussion. I only responded later to specific posts about Gene Roddenberry and the original series supposed liberalism.

When I responded later in the discussion, I made no reference to homosexuality.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Maybe Knight Templar is thinking of Joe Haldeman's The Forever War (link).

(The trick with Googling something like this is to assume you might be misremembering a detail, such as the author. I typed "scifi novel homosexuality the norm" into Google and the third result was "The Forever War".)

Could be. I remembered something about a short story about a group of soldiers that crashed on a planet of huge, very intelligence "wormlike" aliens with a hive mind. They refer to themselves collectively along with another group like themselves on another nearby planet that was called "Xiobrax" or "Xenobrax" or something to that effect.

The soldiers are the sole survivors of a large human fleet of ships that was supposed to force the aliens into submission.

There is a reference to a group of young men aboard that are referred to derisively by the old fashioned soldiers as the "queens boys" and about how the ability to control sex selection led to the glut of males and the vast increase in homosexuality.

Skimming the story I found no reference to "queen's boys" or a vast increase of homosexuals. Though a character does use the phrase "Momma's boys". The only time "homosexual" is mentioned is in this passage:

Robin One was an eminently typical member of this class, distractible, sulky, jealous, easily wounded, homosexual, lazy except when writing, and probably (to give him the benefit of the doubt, for 12-Upjohn had no ear whatever or poetry) the second-worst poet of his generation.

I assume the class in question would be "drones". Which I gather is a term for "expendables males" in the Matriarchy ( the human society/government in the story)

 

[Deckerd]

Sounds a bit like the premise of Starship Troopers.

 

[nightwind1]

 

[PopBoy]

Wow! So many pages of debate and discussion. My two cents: for sure being gay myself I'd like to see a series that included someone who just happened to be in a relationship with another who was his or her own gender. It would be also be a shame for it be polarizing or made political. In a way, I like how True Blood writes the character of Lafayette.

 

[DS9Continuing]

Somehow I can't see a character like Lafayette on a Star Trek series.

"Hookah please. Shut the fuck up and eat your AIDS burger."

.

 

[PopBoy]

For sure, that's never gonna happen. But something about Lafayette - his sexual identity isnt at all a core of the character but at the same time it isn't neutralized or ironed out. I think the audience will take it that way.

 

[The Castellan]

Once I get a new computer, and all the models I need, my Trek comic's gonna have a couple of gay characters and some other characters are going to have interesting genders.

And yes, I am sure that if a gay couple or character is on Trek, some folks will cry bloody murder, but that happened with Kirk kissed Uhura, but Trek still went on.

 

[RB_Kandy]

So what people want is a gay token in the next Star Trek?

If the gay is flamboyant, gay rights people will go ape over the stereotype of gays and claim that the producers are homophobic.

If the gay happens to just be gay, and it has no baring on his personality, than what's the point in making him gay?

If the idea is to "push the envelope" I think it's a little late for that. Being pro-gay isn't the least bit new, edgy, racy, or risky; it's the norm.

If Enterprise had a openly gay main character in 2001, it would have kept with the Trek trend of pushing for social equality.

But having a gay main character on any show today is about 10 years behind.

Hollywood, and its celebrities, supporting gay rights and gay marriage, is so common place it's like finding the King James bible in a church.
To be a Hollywood celeb, it's pretty much mandatory that you wave a rainbow flag.

Heck if you want to be racy, than create a genuine homophobic character, I mean DSM clinical homophobia where he is terrified that all the males around him are secretly gay and are trying to get him into homoerotic situations. Plenty of opportunities for laughs and we'd be laughing at homophobes.

We got Marilyn Manson, Lady Gaga, Kate Perry, and Ke$ha all supporting gay rights, putting gay kisses in their videos, and writing pro-gay songs.

I just hope the token gay character doesn't become as annoying as the token black character. Too often I see a black TV character and it is so crystal clear that he is just a token. I remember back in the day every show that came out had to have that one token black. Just google "black BFF trope"

The problem isn't that a character is black, it's that they are only there for the illusion of racial diversity. Token characters suck. Again a character can be black and interesting, or they can just be there to be black, and that's annoying.

We got white producers, white directors, and white television network owners, creating shows that will be watched by mostly white people, then they remember at the last moment they have to cater to this and that demographic, so they just shove a member of this and that demographic in there at the last moment, creating a few boring tokens that no one cares about. The black token is so famous and over used that South Park actually put in a black character and named him Token, to mock shows sticking black tokens in their shows. Gays are becoming the next Hollywood demographic token.

And I've heard talk in this thread about cross dressers or transvestites. But we already had Corprol Klinger from mash. I don't want to see a rehash of this for the sake of enforcing the newest trendiest former taboo.
And what is male and female clothing? In the future the style of clothing would change so much that maybe it's normal for guys to wear skirts and carry a purse, and for women to wear pants and a tie. And so the cross dressing male would be wearing pants and a tie, like a woman! That's so racy and cutting edge!
But if the next Star Trek wants to be cutting edge, here are some less used tokens.
The token fat person (ain't seen a lot of fat people in Star Trek, I guess Star Trek is anti obese).
The token Musslim
The token midget. Midgets, or little people, or what ever they call themselves, they watch Star Trek, I'm sure they feel underrepresented.

I think gays are becoming enough of a token as it is. Here is a link with a guy talking about token gays in Hollywood movies and reality shows http://stalepopcornau.blogspot.com/2009/12/token-gay.html

And here is a link from a gay man who is tired of girls and women wanting a gay guy friend like a fashion accessory. http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/01/29/i-dont-want-to-be-your-token-gay/
And I have to agree with this guy, that so many girls want a gay friend so that they can say "look at my gay friend".

I wouldn't be against a character who just happens to be gay, but I really wouldn't want to see any new shows coming out that have a token gay character just to ram liberalism and equality down our throats. I hate public service announcements, and I hate it when TV tries to ram a PSA down your throat under the guys of "entertainment".

Now what might be interesting is if two guys on the new Star Trek fell in love around the 3rd or 4th season, and which two guys it was that fell in love wasn't planned from the beginning, that way these characters could exist as well rounded characters who just happen to be gay.

And if all of this comes down to "I don't care about gays, I just want Star Trek to push gay marriage, I'm all about my politics" OK then how about if Star Trek just has one episode about two men who want to get married on a world that doesn't allow it, and they're given asylum on the star ship and the captain performs a wedding for them. And then we never see these two again, and we get the message out "vote for gay marriage rights".
That way we don't have to deal with poorly conceived tokens who end up being offensive to the target demographic that the producers were pandering to.

 

[R. Star]

Really visions of the future aside, the majority of modern Trek is rooted in the 80's and 90's. When they aired coincidentally. If they had an openly gay main character, it would nosedive the ratings, so it simply wasn't going to happen.

You might get away with having a gay character in the Abramverse series, today. I'd actually give them bonus points for irony if they made Sulu gay without making a big deal of it.

 

[RB_Kandy]

" I'd actually give them bonus points for irony if they made Sulu gay without making a big deal of it"

I agree that would be cool. Star Trek fans have known for ever that George was openly gay, but the Sulu character was straight. in the 60's you just couldn't have a gay main character. But in this day and age, I don't think anyone would mind Sulu being gay, except maybe old star trek fans who just some how never knew George Takei was gay LOL
Any time I see the old TOS episodes, I just pretend Sulu is gay LOL

 

[T'Girl]

So what people want is a gay token in the next Star Trek?

What (some) people want is a character, whose gay sexuality is just as evident and obvious as the sexuality of the straight characters.

The problem isn't that a character is black, it's that they are only there for the illusion of racial diversity. Token characters suck. Again a character can be black and interesting, or they can just be there to be black, and that's annoying.

In the sixties, Star Trek didn't just have Uhura, there were a number of black guest stars, one playing Kirk's superior, and a fair number of bit roles and background extras. And that would be one way of having a gay main character not be "The Token," by having them not be the only gay in evidence. If the gay had a steady love interest (Something like Keiko or Kasity Yates) they could be a reoccurring character. Guest stars who are gay characters, extras in the background.

See, not a token now are they?

Gays are becoming the next Hollywood demographic token.

Gays have long since become just a normal, average part of Hollywood's depiction of the real world.

The token fat person (ain't seen a lot of fat people in Star Trek, I guess Star Trek is anti obese).

Movie era Kirk, Scotty, Uhura, Riker?

The token Musslim

IIRC there has never been a Muslim (one letter S) on the show, maybe a female crew member with a nice modest hijab covering.

The token midget. Midgets, or little people, or what ever they call themselves ...

It's little people, and TOS had three little people actors, in two different episodes, one of whom had a major role.

... that so many girls want a gay friend so that they can say "look at my gay friend".

Kind of like the way I occasionally point out my one straight friend.

 

[R. Star]

IIRC there has never been a Muslim (one letter S) on the show, maybe a female crew member with a nice modest hijab covering.

The King of Jordan made a cameo at his own request in Voyager since he was a big Star Trek fan. Forgot what episode he was in, but he was wearing science blue and talking with Kim in one scene and walking down the hall in another.

Hardly a prominent role or even a credited guest star, but it's there.

 

[The Castellan]

The token fat person (ain't seen a lot of fat people in Star Trek, I guess Star Trek is anti obese).

T'Girl
Movie era Kirk, Scotty, Uhura, Riker?

Plus was not "Cupcake" (Yee, gods, how that one word in JJ Trek makes me cringe each time I heard it) a bit on the portly side himself?

Plus in a future, as opposed to today, where food presumably is actually fit to eat, without additives, presevatives, salt, chemicals, hydogenated oils, monosodium glutimate, sugar, white flurs, etc, I'd say obesity is not so much a problem anymore. Plus in starfleet, I am sure there has to be some type of weight limits, since there is neccisity for physical activity. Starfleet's not a bunch of police officiers with dougnuts, you know.


Now as for gay couple in Trek, why not? Could be somthing subtle as two dudes, or girls, holding hands when walking about in Ten Foreward; dancing togather at some social event, to something more direct, like you see two folks of the same sex necking or embracing in their quarters.

And sometimes, one has no idea what to call it...one of my own characters, while she looks female, sound female, act female, she is biologically male, and while she's got the reproductive organs of a male, she's a girl all the way, and she's had boyfriends in the past, and currently in story, married to a female, I could use some assistence in saying what this character's sexuality is. Fun part, many of the straight males thought she was the hottest of my characters before I made her bio.

 

[T'Girl]

The King of Jordan made a cameo at his own request in Voyager since he was a big Star Trek fan.

While the "actor" was a Muslim, was the character Muslim? It kind of like with the gay character, where in some way you have to tell the audience that they are gay. A Muslim character has to be indicated to be Muslim, that why when I suggested a female Muslim, I thought that she should wear some kind of hijab. While anyone could wear one, it would be like the Bajorian earpiece, and indicate to the audience that there is a religious affiliation.







.

 

[RB_Kandy]

In the sixties, Star Trek didn't just have Uhura, there were a number of black guest stars, one playing Kirk's superior, and a fair number of bit roles and background extras. And that would be one way of having a gay main character not be "The Token," by having them not be the only gay in evidence. If the gay had a steady love interest (Something like Keiko or Kasity Yates) they could be a reoccurring character. Guest stars who are gay characters, extras in the background.

See, not a token now are they?

Well that takes the small problem of wasting a character, catering to a target demographic, and creates the bigger problem of wasting an entire show to a political agenda.
It has been my experience that any time a political agenda is pushed too hard it feels preachy and the show, the movie, the cartoon, the musical band, the video game, or whatever medium it's in, feels perverted like a manipulative PSA. If your primary goal is to push an agenda, you become that annoying preacher guy that wants to tell you how wrong you are, and change your ways, and everyone think like me or you're bad.

I really hate politics and social causes getting pushed in mediums.

I recall watching cartoons as a kid, and every now and then one of the cartoons would have that one episode that preached about why you shouldn't use drugs, or smoke cigarettes. And I always hated it. It was a dumb episode, and I felt like I was being talked down to. It felt perverted that my favorite cartoon characters were now waving their finger in my face and preaching a message to me.
There is something about pushing a socio-political idea that just perverts the natural entertainment of a medium.

As for TOS having a lot of black guest stars: I really don't see it. I remember there being a few black guest stars but no more than any other show of that time period. Also having a black woman as a part of the main cast wasn't all that new around Trek's time.
But it's true that Uhora never felt like a token black, she felt like a genuine member of the crew.

Shows can have black characters, that's not a problem, it's when you get nothing but a white cast, and that one black token who happens to be the star's best friend, that basically never gets their own story arc.
This article gives an example of some sassy black best friend's who are just black token characters.
It's a good read because it is short and explains why this hurts African American actors, and compares the black best friend roll to Scarlet O'Hara's Mammy, the house negro.

And while I don't think token gays will hurt homosexuals like it does the African Americans, because you don't have to be gay to play a gay, I think it can annoy the heck out of people.

It's little people, and TOS had three little people actors, in two different episodes, one of whom had a major role.

Those were not token characters, they were guest stars. A little people first officer who get's his name mentioned in the opening credits of every episode would be a token little person.

I'm not really opposed to there being a gay character so much as I am afraid that a character slot will be gobbled up by a token just to be in vogue, to jump on the Hollywood hot topic bandwagon.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

So what people want is a gay token in the next Star Trek?

If the gay is flamboyant, gay rights people will go ape over the stereotype of gays and claim that the producers are homophobic.

If the gay happens to just be gay, and it has no baring on his personality, than what's the point in making him gay?

No. What I want is a character who is well thought-up, well written, well acted, with a compelling story arc throughout the series and an interesting backstory, who happens to be a man who likes men or a woman who likes women. I'm not looking for a tick box or stereotype, I'm looking for a character who is a great officer who people can relate to and support and like, who is also gay. The point of making him/her such a way would be to help show the diversity and acceptance of others who are different in a show that was suppose to pride itself on such a thing.

If the idea is to "push the envelope" I think it's a little late for that. Being pro-gay isn't the least bit new, edgy, racy, or risky; it's the norm.

If Enterprise had a openly gay main character in 2001, it would have kept with the Trek trend of pushing for social equality.

But having a gay main character on any show today is about 10 years behind.

True, true true. They dropped the ball a decade ago and we were left with a cast of characters, the majority of which were bland and unappealing. Hell making Travis gay would have at least given the character something, rather than being a glorified extra.

They have left it far too long to make the character a statement piece, but he/she shouldn't be. Did they make a huge thing about Picard being bald? Nope it just so happens that he is, which is exactly how a gay character should be used. Not sensationalised or hyped up, just an aspect of who he/she is.

Heck if you want to be racy, than create a genuine homophobic character, I mean DSM clinical homophobia where he is terrified that all the males around him are secretly gay and are trying to get him into homoerotic situations. Plenty of opportunities for laughs and we'd be laughing at homophobes.

We shouldn't poke fun, we should pity them. Its really pretty sad that there are such small-minded numpties out there who can't accept difference.

I just hope the token gay character doesn't become as annoying as the token black character. Too often I see a black TV character and it is so crystal clear that he is just a token. I remember back in the day every show that came out had to have that one token black. Just google "black BFF trope"

The problem isn't that a character is black, it's that they are only there for the illusion of racial diversity. Token characters suck. Again a character can be black and interesting, or they can just be there to be black, and that's annoying.

SEE: Mayweather, Travis

Gays are becoming the next Hollywood demographic token.

Well with the most conservative estimate at around 10% of the population being homosexual, not to mention how many bisexual/curious/questioning people are out there, its no wonder. Hell the Scottish Government are trying to get on their good side right now by legalising gay marriage

The token fat person (ain't seen a lot of fat people in Star Trek, I guess Star Trek is anti obese).
The token Musslim
The token midget. Midgets, or little people, or what ever they call themselves, they watch Star Trek, I'm sure they feel underrepresented.

Starfleet is a military, so there would be certain levels of fitness that officers and crew would need to reach and maintain in order to be on active service, so an obese officer wouldn't be seen because of that.

A Muslim character would be very interesting. We've seen alien religions in Trek and get the impression that Earth ones have all but died out, so it would be pretty cool to see how they would fit in with a life in Starfleet.

Again a little person would be good to see on screen too. There are small alien species out there that could be in uniform, and again it would be interesting to see how they got on in Starfleet.

Now what might be interesting is if two guys on the new Star Trek fell in love around the 3rd or 4th season, and which two guys it was that fell in love wasn't planned from the beginning, that way these characters could exist as well rounded characters who just happen to be gay.

Exactly my point

 

[Saito S]

So what people want is a gay token in the next Star Trek?

Not really, no.

If the gay is flamboyant, gay rights people will go ape over the stereotype of gays and claim that the producers are homophobic.

If the gay happens to just be gay, and it has no baring on his personality, than what's the point in making him gay?

If the guy happens to just be straight, and it has no bearing on his personality, then what's the point of making him straight?

If the idea is to "push the envelope" I think it's a little late for that. Being pro-gay isn't the least bit new, edgy, racy, or risky; it's the norm.

If Enterprise had a openly gay main character in 2001, it would have kept with the Trek trend of pushing for social equality.

But having a gay main character on any show today is about 10 years behind.

Just because these things may be true (and Trek HAS dropped the ball on this issue, I feel), doesn't mean Trek shouldn't have a gay character going forward. "Oh, it's been done? Well never mind, then."

In the sixties, Star Trek didn't just have Uhura, there were a number of black guest stars, one playing Kirk's superior, and a fair number of bit roles and background extras. And that would be one way of having a gay main character not be "The Token," by having them not be the only gay in evidence. If the gay had a steady love interest (Something like Keiko or Kasity Yates) they could be a reoccurring character. Guest stars who are gay characters, extras in the background.

See, not a token now are they?

Well that takes the small problem of wasting a character, catering to a target demographic, and creates the bigger problem of wasting an entire show to a political agenda.

You're missing the point.

Nothing is being "wasted".

Look at TNG. Look at the background characters, the people who never had names, and most of whom never had lines. They were just there, in ten-forward or wherever. Every now and then, we'd see a shot of two people being lovey-dovey or kissing or whatever. Or we'd hear a reference to "so-and-so's husband/wife" about a character that we never even see. These are little things that don't affect the plot, they are only there to maintain the structure of the show's "world" (in this case, the Enterprise), and they are already happening in the shows.

How many of those kinds of things were there in total? Take exactly one-quarter of them, and make them homosexual in nature. The couple in the corner in ten-forward are both women. The reference to "her husband" becomes "his husband." Etc. There. You're done. You just included gay people in the world of the 24th century in a non-obtuse, yet completely undeniable, way. Congratulations.

That isn't pushing a political agenda or "wasting slots" or any such nonsense. That is simply representing reality and showing - without shoving it down our throats and being preachy or what have you - that life in this setting includes gay people.

No. What I want is a character who is well thought-up, well written, well acted, with a compelling story arc throughout the series and an interesting backstory, who happens to be a man who likes men or a woman who likes women. I'm not looking for a tick box or stereotype, I'm looking for a character who is a great officer who people can relate to and support and like, who is also gay. The point of making him/her such a way would be to help show the diversity and acceptance of others who are different in a show that was suppose to pride itself on such a thing.

Exactly. I don't know why some people have so much trouble grasping this.

What we WANT is a character who is as well-written, as well-developed, as rounded and well-realized as ANY of Trek's better characters have been... who just happens to be gay.

When the subject of their sexuality comes up (and no, having it come up on the show IS NOT "shoving their gayness in your face" or any such garbage; we have been explicitly shown and/or told the sexuality of DOZENS of straight characters throughout Trek's life thus far), they are gay instead of straight. Simple as that.

Now what might be interesting is if two guys on the new Star Trek fell in love around the 3rd or 4th season, and which two guys it was that fell in love wasn't planned from the beginning, that way these characters could exist as well rounded characters who just happen to be gay.

That's exactly what many people have been saying.

But I must also point out that there is absolutely nothing about a character's sexual orientation being planned by the writers from day one that would preclude the character being well rounded or the romance seeming natural and believable (or, for that matter, the character "just happening to be gay").

And if all of this comes down to "I don't care about gays, I just want Star Trek to push gay marriage, I'm all about my politics"

Does anyone really feel this way?

 

[Maurice]

It's funny and sad how many people dance about rationalizing reasons why there shouldn't be gay characters, arguing that doing it to be political would be bad, but do it without being political would be pointless, etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam. It's not PC to reflect the human experience. To quote 1776, "Dear God, why can't you acknowledge what already exists?!"

Star Trek now appears antiquated instead of forward looking in its depiction of the breadth of human behavior. And it IS normal human behavior. Has been for thousands of years. Probably always has been. To deny it or pretend it's bad is basically being an anthropological flat-earther.

 

[The Castellan]

The King of Jordan made a cameo at his own request in Voyager since he was a big Star Trek fan.

While the "actor" was a Muslim, was the character Muslim? It kind of like with the gay character, where in some way you have to tell the audience that they are gay. A Muslim character has to be indicated to be Muslim, that why when I suggested a female Muslim, I thought that she should wear some kind of hijab. While anyone could wear one, it would be like the Bajorian earpiece, and indicate to the audience that there is a religious affiliation.







.

In Vulcan's Forge, I think, Spock's childhood friend was a Muslim.