Same Sex Marriage

[horatio83]

I think there is a difference between European fascism which was partly a response to unfettered capitalism and American fascism which was even more than European fascism basically just a form of corporate power ran amok.
The contemporary small government talk is clouding the fact that it is small government for the ordinary people and big government for the corporations. It's socialism for the rich, keep profits privatize but socialize losses.

About the eugenic stuff, it is indeed sad that instead of putting nazi scientists on trial the US treated them as assets in the upcoming cold war and basically allowed them to continue with some of their stuff. But eugenics in general seems to have been fairly unrelated to political ideologies, it has been done for a number of decades independent of who has been in power.

 

[Ezri D]

I think there is a difference between European fascism which was partly a response to unfettered capitalism and American fascism which was even more than European fascism basically just a form of corporate power ran amok.
The contemporary small government talk is clouding the fact that it is small government for the ordinary people and big government for the corporations. It's socialism for the rich, keep profits privatize but socialize losses.

To be off the subject, I feel on 1 Januray 2101, if American is still around and still has a stable goverment. It would be more inline with fashism more then we are willing to accept. With global warming, over population, lack of clean water -- the goverment is not going to walk away from capitalism. recall in the book Road to Serfdom that fascism is the last stage of capitalism.

Still, I feel that capitalism would be demanding same sex marriage so they can transfer their workfoce from one state to the other without being a negative to their workforce. In time, one man and one woman marriage will be a negative regulation onto capitalism. Like I tell a number of people, the reason that abortion has not been overturned, because capitalism does not want two different regulations dealing with their female workforce.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Ok this thread is heading in an entirely new direction.

Seeing how fascism is on the extreme right of the political scale, I doubt that ultra-conservatives would support same sex marriage (in Nazi Germany homosexuals were among those sent to concentration camps).

But anyways, by the time of Trek such notions are dead and buried on Earth, so couples of pretty much any origin would be allowed to marry, adopt, serve, etc without discrimination under Federation law.

 

[T'Girl]

Before 7 December 1941, the Republican party was looking at NAZI Germany as something they could do as well.

With it's emphasis on the absolute power of the State, centralization of political power at the top, and control/direction of industry by the state, it's difficult to see how you feel the Republicans wanting to emulate national socialism.

During that time, American had a eugenics program

Eugenics were more identified with the left of center politically.

all the way up to the 1970's

In terms of government programs, eugenics died in America after the second world war. Although many laws stayed on the books for decades, they increasingly weren't applied. The American Eugenics Society changed it's name in the early seventies, but is still around.

 

[Ezri D]

Before 7 December 1941, the Republican party was looking at NAZI Germany as something they could do as well.

With it's emphasis on the absolute power of the State, centralization of political power at the top, and control/direction of industry by the state, it's difficult to see how you feel the Republicans wanting to emulate national socialism.

During that time, American had a eugenics program

Eugenics were more identified with the left of center politically.

all the way up to the 1970's

In terms of government programs, eugenics died in America after the second world war. Although many laws stayed on the books for decades, they increasingly weren't applied. The American Eugenics Society changed it's name in the early seventies, but is still around.

Will say I am a conservative, but a different type. With global warming, with overpopulation, with an unwillingness to find new sources of green energy and understanding that the energy we have are finite – the outcome without changes will be an unstable national and an unstable global governments. The primary goal of being a conservative is to have a stable society and a stable government. Global warming, overpopulation, finite energy, are stressors for any type of government. Have to say, I do not understand how the modern conservative movement that started after World War II is really a conservative movement when it has to understand its policies are unstable.

When it does become unstable, just like the conservative movement in Europe after World War I, and the collapse of the global economy, and the failed policy dealing with a defeated Germany -- the business community will embrace fascism.

With eugenics, number of people says it was a liberalism policy. The policy came from Sir Francis Galton and was knighted by Queen Victoria. True, his family member was Charles Darwin, still, just because today feel that evolution and the parts from it are from the left. Eugenics is, to limit the diversity of a population (case with Nazi Germany to blonde hair and blonde eyes). It is the conservatives that want to limited diversity in a community. Like today, conservatives want to limit the diversity with marriage to only one man and one woman. Conservatives, refute because of DNA, which determines a person’s drive toward a sexual partner.

 

[horatio83]

It is useful to distinguish between actual conservatives who wanna conserve something and reactionaries.
People who care about climate change are conservative because they wanna conserve our planet. People who care about deficit spending during recessions with a liquidity trap are, to quote Keynes' self description, "mildly conservative". People who care about manners, common decency and the maintenance of classical culture are conservative.
People who always talk about low taxes, small government (for the ordinary folks of course, not for big business) and so on and ignore real world problems are reactionaries. They do not want to conserve anything.

You can play a similar game with the words liberal and progressive.

 

[Deckerd]

I think you need to look up the difference between conservative and conservationist.

 

[Ezri D]

You can play a similar game with the words liberal and progressive.

When I say I am a conservative, I am talking about in philosophy like in the core being Plato, who was already been dead more than three hundred years before Jesus. I am not really interested in dealing with current events with news stories about wedge issues. In fact, a conservative should not be interested with minor wedge issues that may only affect a small percentage of the population just to swing a political election. A true conservative, is not interested in say the 2010 election just to swing the balance of power within the congress or the state forum of government. In my judgment, a tea party supporter is not a true conservative, as a conservative should not be interested with issues that only effect congress for only two years. A true conservative should be interested in issues that were just as important to humanity in centuries of the past.

Now, if you are a true conservative, like with Plato – you should know that democracy is the worst forum of government to a conservative.

 

[horatio83]

I have not read Plato but as far as I know he wasn't an enemy but a proponent of democracy. If you are anti-democratic you are reactionary in my eyes.

 

[T'Girl]

I have not read Plato but as far as I know he wasn't an enemy but a proponent of democracy.

Plato believed that only a few elite were fit to rule, and to vote for rulers. The mass of the populace were to be excluded from both activities.

Plato's perfect government would have been a aristocratic state, a guardian class of philosopher-kings, who would rule though wisdom and reason.

 

[horatio83]

Thanks, I didn't know that (and obviously haven't missed a good read either).

 

[darkshadow0001]

Thinking over the past few months on my own, that Star Trek should have the first same sex couple in their next Star Trek television series – as Star Trek has opened new doors for people. Star Trek during TOS was the first show to ever show a kiss between a black woman and a white man. Star Trek was a first for a number of taboo type conflicts since the 1960’s. Star Trek, would not take the leading role with a same sex marriage, but, it can follower.

To make it more acceptable, I would say it may be more acceptable if the same sex married couple are female then male.

I'm not prejudice when it comes to same-sex marriages or couples, but what is the obsession with wanting this in a Star Trek series? It's science fiction and shouldn't have to have same-sex marriages. Maybe as a side story is okay, but I wouldn't want it as the main subject of the show. That could get old.

 

[Maurice]

I'm not prejudice...

The word is prejudiceD. And that correction is aimed at a lot of people at this board who misuse that word. Prejudice is a noun or a verb. Prejudiced is an adjective.

...when it comes to same-sex marriages or couples, but what is the obsession with wanting this in a Star Trek series? It's science fiction and shouldn't have to have same-sex marriages. Maybe as a side story is okay, but I wouldn't want it as the main subject of the show. That could get old.

It's human nature to want to see people like you represented on the screen. And some of us like to see a balanced representation of humanity in fictional scenarios that have—as part of their stated premise—the idea that people are equal and enlightened and we're from a united world or worlds and not from one country or other.

Also, I don't see anyone arguing for it to be "the main subject of the show". Furthermore, do the straight relationships on the shows "get old"?

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Maybe as a side story is okay, but I wouldn't want it as the main subject of the show. That could get old.

As a gay man I'd love to see a homosexual character/couple/background extras on the next Trek series, but I strongly believe it shouldn't be hyped up or made the focus of an episode or the defining trait of a character.

A character should be introduced, with a strong sense of being, a compelling backstory, lots of potential for development...and oh yeah he/she happens to be interested in their own sex...now on with the show.

They should be as good as Starfleet has to offer, who has close friends and fleeting romances as with any other character on the show, before meeting the man/woman of his/her dreams and settling down--just as many people in this world do.

 

[Sindatur]

Thinking over the past few months on my own, that Star Trek should have the first same sex couple in their next Star Trek television series – as Star Trek has opened new doors for people. Star Trek during TOS was the first show to ever show a kiss between a black woman and a white man. Star Trek was a first for a number of taboo type conflicts since the 1960’s. Star Trek, would not take the leading role with a same sex marriage, but, it can follower.

To make it more acceptable, I would say it may be more acceptable if the same sex married couple are female then male.

I'm not prejudice when it comes to same-sex marriages or couples, but what is the obsession with wanting this in a Star Trek series? It's science fiction and shouldn't have to have same-sex marriages. Maybe as a side story is okay, but I wouldn't want it as the main subject of the show. That could get old.

So, does it get old having black characters or hispanic characters, or married or single characters or male or female characters, or Human and Alien characters on a Trek Show?

As the MAIN subject is exactly what we don't want. See Bry_Sinclair's post, we just want the character to be Gay, we don't want the Gay part to be all the character is, nor do we want the Gay part to have strobelights and Spotlights shining on it and no "Will and Grace Stereotypes", it's simply a part of the character, just as being black, or being married, etc.

 

[T'Girl]

It's science fiction and shouldn't have to have same-sex marriages.

But opposite sex marriages would still be okay, right?

Maybe as a side story is okay, but I wouldn't want it as the main subject of the show.

Except that the hetero principal characters have had their sexuality, sex hookup, and love affairs on screen since the original series. So gay characters should also talk about their feeling, desires, past relationships, and be able to openly brag about who they banged on shore leave.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Kemaiku]

Indeed, if we added up all the airtime spent by heterosexual characters talking, brooding, crying, agonising, gossiping about relationships, sex, marriage, feelings and pining for opposite sex attractions it would be significant.

But one single gay character mentioning one relationship that happened offscreen like any other character on any of the shows or films so far in all those 43 years? nope can't have that!

Good grief, not being the focus of the story ok, but not mentioning or showing them at all? how about we eliminate every reference to sex, feelings and relationships altogether then?

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

how about we eliminate every reference to sex, feelings and relationships altogether then?

Have the next series be all Vulcan? Fascinating

 

[Kemaiku]

how about we eliminate every reference to sex, feelings and relationships altogether then?

Have the next series be all Vulcan? Fascinating

Even they have Pon Farr, and in the extended novelverse, they do take partners they feel most comfortable and safe with when it happens, be it same or opposite gender.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

how about we eliminate every reference to sex, feelings and relationships altogether then?

Have the next series be all Vulcan? Fascinating

Even they have Pon Farr, and in the extended novelverse, they do take partners they feel most comfortable and safe with when it happens, be it same or opposite gender.

The first rule of Pon Farr is, you do not talk about Pon Farr.

The second rule of Pon Farr is, you DO NOT TALK ABOUT PON FARR