Same Sex Marriage

[Temis the Vorta]

Whoah this thread sure took off. I was under the impression that there were only about five people who paid attention to this forum at all.

Even though it was a misfire and few people here have seen it, The River gave a good example of how to introduce a gay character. Several episodes into its run, one of the characters makes a random remark about a romantic partner who is male. The other guy in the scene (a long-time work colleague) is surprised to learn that - not offended, just kind of surprised he never knew, since he's been working with the guy for years.

The upshot is, the other guy is a snarky jackass who nobody would feel very inclined to share personal details with. So the scene wasn't "really" about telling us that one character is gay, a detail that didn't change anything about that character. The purpose was to tell us something about the other guy.

Any character detail needs to have a purpose in a story. If a character is just as "good" for the story being gay or straight, then his/her sexuality serves no purpose in the story. But there are many ways to give it a purpose, and then it's a legit part of the story.

Also, there was a reason for the character to refer to his romantic partner - it was in the context of everyone being lost in the Amazon and wondering whether they'd ever seen their loved ones again. So it wasn't just shoehorned into the scene for its own sake.

PS, The River was on broadcast - ABC - so that just goes to show how much of a non-issue it is for a character to be gay anywhere on TV, not just cable.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Really? In my admittedly limited experience, most individuals (men and women) tend to be more tolerant of gay women than gay men; which would seem to emphasize the need for more positive depictions of the latter.

I am admittedly biased.

I'm pretty sure that lesbians are less threatening to homophobes compared with gay men. Of course my acquaintance with homophobes is limited to online discussions rather than the real world, where I'm either really good at avoiding such people or they know to keep their opinions to themselves.

Men will support two females better then two men as it does not really insults them as much.

Well, yeah. That's why it should be two men. The fact that they're less threatened by lesbians just demonstrates that they are homophobes.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

What is more important, is to change the minds of the public in total.

As much as that would be great, there are always going to be small-minded bigots out there, who use whatever means necessary to justify discrimination against others. Those peoples opinions will never change, so why pander to the preaching of a minority and play it safe with a TV series set hundreds of years in the future, when such hatred and oppression have become extinct?

As for the whole discussion about where a new series would air, that means nothing to us Brits (or me at least), as if/when the next Trek series comes along it'll more than likely be shown on Sky over here.

 

[newtontomato539]

I would go with two men.

I was a Lesbian for many years. Then suddenly. . . . I became Omnisexual/Bisexual. I freaked. Now I'm omnigender/transgender. So. . .

How about a omnigender Muslim?

Why does the person's partner have to further our understanding of the plot? Why can't the partner just further our understanding of the person?

Dressing in feminine clothing: What in America is considered nowadays, "feminine clothing" for women was for the most part originally created for men. Live alittle.

 

[Solarbaby]

I'm merely hoping that the personal grooming choices of the people in the future will be less restrained by social stigma

Here here. bring on the bearded ladies!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm going with... NO ONE.

Are you accusing me of lying?

That wouldn't be unreasonable.

 

[horatio83]

It is long past time for Trek to have a gay character. The chance to make a statement about a same-sex couple being in Trek was left behind at the beginning of TNG. When they do include a character and/or couple(s), then it should be done in the exact same way as straight characters/couples are done, nothing flashy or melodramatic about it, just two people in love.

As for whether it should be a male or female couple, I'd say go with two men--it is still the more 'shocking' pairing.

Of course Trek should feature homosexual characters. But the question is whether you frame it into an identity politics or a more universal frame. Trek has always been about the latter and just because the contemporary left is unable to formulate an universal emancipatory agenda doesn't mean that Trek should repeat this foolishness.

You could neatly compare Uhura with STNV's "Blood and Fire" to realize the difference. TOS never emphasized in any way that there is a black woman sitting on the bridge. Of course the characters in Blood and Fire did not treat homosexuality as something unusual but the story itself emphasized it strongly ... to make a statement.
I do not want the big "look, this is a place for homosexual people" moment, I want the Federation to ALWAYS be depicted as a social space for everybody. Background instead of foreground.

 

[Ezri D]

What is more important, is to change the minds of the public in total.

As much as that would be great, there are always going to be small-minded bigots out there, who use whatever means necessary to justify discrimination against others. Those peoples opinions will never change, so why pander to the preaching of a minority and play it safe with a TV series set hundreds of years in the future, when such hatred and oppression have become extinct?

As for the whole discussion about where a new series would air, that means nothing to us Brits (or me at least), as if/when the next Trek series comes along it'll more than likely be shown on Sky over here.

No no no, not to change their minds within Star Trek Universe that would be on tv. To change the minds of people that watch the show.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I've said on another thread here that when a gay character is introduced, that shouldn't be used as a means of describing the character. It should just be something that comes up and is treated without any sensationalism or shock factor.

It is an aspect of the character, not their defining characteristic.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

What is more important, is to change the minds of the public in total.

As much as that would be great, there are always going to be small-minded bigots out there, who use whatever means necessary to justify discrimination against others. Those peoples opinions will never change, so why pander to the preaching of a minority and play it safe with a TV series set hundreds of years in the future, when such hatred and oppression have become extinct?

No no no, not to change their minds within Star Trek Universe that would be on tv. To change the minds of people that watch the show.

That's what I meant.

In universe, no one would need their minds changing. Being gay is as normal as being female, Muslim, etc.

In the real world, it is something that some bigots will never accept, but its something that has to be done to help show equality in Trek and not shyed away from or ignored because the PTB don't want to upset the hateful people in this world.

 

[IndyJones]

As for the whole discussion about where a new series would air, that means nothing to us Brits (or me at least), as if/when the next Trek series comes along it'll more than likely be shown on Sky over here.

Well, that's just myopic and wrong.

The network it airs on helps to determine budget, tone, season length, and a hundred other factors relating to the show you would see on Sky. The discussion isn't what which channel number we'll tune our DVRs to, it's about creative decisions tat will be made regarding the show.

 

[Ezri D]

There are going to be bigots. I live in the south, and I see from time to time the Confederate National Flag from time to time. I am not talking about the stars and bars, I am talking about the 3rd and final national flag around the state. True, it has been 150 years and they still cannot get over it.

But, to be fair, the big business community is the one that will be pushing for gay rights. It is going to come down to the bottom line. Say a gay person is making millions of dollars for a company in say a gay right to vote state. How can a big bussiness going to make their gay worker move to a anti-gay marriage state. They could, but the manager is not going to like it and a unhappy worker is less productive.

It will boil down to this, do you want to have your gay workers that make the company millions of dollars in all of the USA. And if not, do you want to say your stock in your personal 401(K) be at $45 with a some gay workers having the right of full marriage in American. Or, have your stock in your personal 401(k) be at $44 with some gay workers having rights of marriage in some states and some not in the rest of the state.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

There are a great number of opportunities for in-universe mind changing, or for highlighting the character's present-day perceived unusualness... Starfleet people happen to travel to the past, to visit cultures that are behind in their development, or cultures with flagrant display of stereotypes (sometimes even unusual in themselves).

Spock invites odd looks in Yesterday's Enterprise and The City on The Edge of Forever.
Worf invites odd looks in The Neutral Zone and First Contact.
Worf is in fact a victim of bigotry in Relics.
Worf and the blue guy get Mark Twain all excited.
B'Elanna and Chakotay invite odd looks and ridicule in Future's End.

If you're resourceful, you can take advantage of such opportunities to highlight how inequality is wrong without resorting to unrealistic topics like aliens, weird alien customs, to send the message. There are far more humanly things that would have been out of place in all of the above cases.

Show how humans of the 23rd century are untroubled by a social phenomena. Then contrast it with how it is condemned in the present day. Then in turn contrast it with how something that we now take for granted was condemned two centuries ago.

It can be funny, it can show how society has changed, it can be a history lesson, it can be a moral lesson, it can put the crew in an awkward situation, put them in danger of being discovered, or in real danger.

Granted, arranging a meeting between nearly naked Rose Tyler and Queen Victoria is Doctor Who's territory, but I'd like to see a more serious commentary on the prejudices of both the past and the present by confronting them with the future. Just putting some same-sex couples there is like... Doing what anything else I'm watching is already doing?

 

[DonIago]

I can't imagine TPTB would ever go for it, and I'm not at all sure it would be a good idea, and it would be somewhat of a retread of "Past Tense", but it might be interesting to see Our Heroes journey into their past but our future to a period when homophobia had gotten out of hand and gay people were openly persecuted, with steps taken to eliminate factors that caused it. Obviously the goal would be to portray all of this, via Our Heroes' reaction to it, as a Bad Thing. Hell, it wouldn't even have to be limited to gays as long as they're addressed explicitly.

Just a thought, and I don't claim that it's a good one.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

I don't think anyone has to invent historical downfalls such as this. There are places on Earth where gay people are openly persecuted right now. United Earth is as much a successor to those parts of our civilization as it is to the rest of it. This will all be part of United Earth and Starfleet's heritage, and they should view those things as part of their history. It doesn't have to happen in the USA.

 

[T'Girl]

TOS never emphasized in any way that there is a black woman sitting on the bridge.

The thing there is, you did not have to point out to the audience that there was a black woman seated on the bridge because simply by looking at her you would know this. That isn't the case with having a gay character, at some point the narrative of the story is going to have to overtly point out that they are in fact gay, or the audience is not going to realize it. Something is going to either have to be said, or some action is going to indicate that "hey looky, we got us a gay person here."

I want the Federation to ALWAYS be depicted as a social space for everybody. Background instead of foreground.

I don't know if it's realistic have a multi-species comglomeration like the federation, and have everyone basically think more or less the same, on a wide range of issues. Resently rewatched DS9's baseball episode, the Vulcan Captain despised Humans in general. When it comes to gays, obviously up to now something has been going on in the federation, or at least Starfleet, gays are completely absent. I for one would love to see this address in some fashion. And not just suddenly have it be "oh there was never a problem, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." We saw a cultural shift from the time of TOS, and the time of TNG. An indication that things are not alway the same in the future.

If there was say a societial problem within the overall federation when it came to gays and gay rights, drag it out into the open in the next series.

If the Star Trek universe is going to be a mirror for us to explore and examine aspects current Human society and culture, let do this. Gay acceptance is hardly a done deal in America, and certainly isn't around the world today in many nations.

Tolerance is hardly the same thing as acceptance, and in Starfleet up to now, we haven't even seen tolerance.

 

[horatio83]

I cannot stand the word tolerance. Plenty of people and stuff in this world which I do not tolerate.
Back in the good ol' days nobody who was engaged in an emancipatory struggle cared about tolerance. Imagine a second-generation feminist demanding to be tolerated by men or MLK demanding to be tolerated by Klansmen, it'd be a joke. These guys fought for more political and economical power and rights, not for tolerance.

I am not against gay characters in Trek but I fail to see why this is the only issue that bothers fans. Gee, even conservatives have no problems with homosexuality anymore (well, at least on this side of the big pond) so I definitely view it as a minor issue. Easy to imagine the world in twenty years, economically as reactionary as the 19th century but socially fairly progressive.

Just because we have not seen homosexual people yet doesn't mean that the Federation is homophobic.
This is again the old identity politics nonsense. Universalism is more important. As long as it is clear that the Federation is a good centralized progressive institution that does not tolerate reactionary bullshit I do not need to see gay Starfleet officers to know that they have all the rights heterosexual people have just like I do not need to see Inuit Starfleet officers to know that this group is not discriminated against.

 

[T'Girl]

As long as it is clear that the Federation is a good centralized progressive institution

Good God, I hope not!

I fail to see why this is the only issue that bothers fans

I hardly think that this is the sole issue on the minds of fans, just one example of a on going problem with the in-universe that needs to be addressed.

just like I do not need to see Inuit Starfleet officers to know that this group is not discriminated against.

There are currently about 150,000 Inuits in the world, so it would be possible for there to be none in Starfleet, if unlikely. There are well over a hundred million gays on Earth, we exist in every gender, racial group and ethnicity. It is statistically impossible for there to be no gays in Starfleet, and for there not to have been at least a few major characters who were gay.

I do not need to see gay Starfleet officers to know that they have all the rights heterosexual people have

Based upon what please?

 

[horatio83]

As I already said, I view the Federation is a good centralized progressive institution which does not tolerate reactionary bullshit. If a planet denies basic rights to a part of its population they are out. If the Federation were more federal this would not be possible. Of course it has to be pretty federal as you cannot govern trillions of people centrally but you get my point, there are certain basic principles which are not open for debate.
It suffices to be aware of these general principles to know that the Federation grants, homo-, bi-, intersexual and transgender people all rights, I do not need to actually see it.


I am well aware that you are are a libertarian and thus view the issue differently and I certainly do not mind economic conservative people who care for social progress but I view the former as more important. Think about MLK, he did not care for tolerance, he cared for more political and economic power for black people and, as he was universally progressive, he also tackled issues like the Vietnam War which were unrelated to the particular interests of his group. Nowadays all you got is identity politics, every emancipatory struggle is framed into a special interest.

Nothing wrong with "tolerating" black people, using political correct language, being happy about the first black POTUS and so on but I am disgusted that everybody seems to care about this kind of stuff while nobody cares about the worsening of economic chances for black folks. To be a bit polemical, I'd rather live in a world where racist assholes can say the N word than one in which so many black people are incarcerated.


I hope this has clarified how ideological differences shape one's view upon such issues.

 

[Ezri D]

Nothing wrong with "tolerating" black people, using political correct language, being happy about the first black POTUS and so on but I am disgusted that everybody seems to care about this kind of stuff while nobody cares about the worsening of economic chances for black folks. To be a bit polemical, I'd rather live in a world where racist assholes can say the N word than one in which so many black people are incarcerated.


I hope this has clarified how ideological differences shape one's view upon such issues.

Before 7 December 1941, the Republican party was looking at NAZI Germany as something they could do as well. During that time, American had a eugenics program all the way up to the 1970's. Back to my point, we had the America First, and they were very happy with Hitler. There are a number of if, if this or if that, but if American did stay out of World War II. American could have become a very more consertive country.

If you look at the consertive movement of today, they support the wing of consertive that wants small goverment. Reason, they understand if you have big goverment consertive, you will really have a consertive ideology.