TREK future anti-gay?

[TheLonelySquire]

Sure, I'll explain. Roddenberry could have added a gay character if he wanted to. So, either he thought he wouldn't get it by the censors or Solow, Justman or others intervened, I don't know.

Or maybe it never occurred to him.

I agree with you that there are plenty of people that believe in God that have no moral compass. I agree 100%. The difference between those folks and the irreligious ones that have lost their bearings is that the religious folks HAVE a moral standard to live by already laid out for them. They just choose to ignore it. The irreligious folks do not have a set standard.

Sure they do. They have laws set by a community standard. You don't need to be a believer to know right from wrong. There are plenty of atheists who are law abiding citizens.
Sure it is. You devote threads about it. By condemning something as being immoral, you certainly imply that you think people who do that thing are immoral. You have also condemned non believers as not having a moral standard to live by (in this very post I might add) and your signature line defines "Secular Progressives" as Godless Lawless Babykilling America Haters.

When I say I don't care what anyone does in private, I mean that.

If you truly meant that you wouldn't be here posting about it.

However, if it were private it would not be known. Gene was very open about what he was doing. And I'm not demonizing him. If he didn't want to be known as an adulterer, he shouldn't have committed adultery. Then again, maybe his own moraility allowed him to think this was not a problem. Who knows?

You certainly don't. And you are demonizing him as you demonize anyone who doesn't believe in God and religion the way you do. Does the "Gene Roddenberry was a Dirtbag" thread ring a bell with you?
Do you suppose if someone found out you fuck poodles you'd want people writing about it? And once someone writes about it, would you want people on a message board to discuss how you're a poodlefucker instead of all the good things you've done?

I'll agree with you that yes, maybe it never occurred to him. I won't discount that possibility.

However, if laws set by the community standard constitute morals, then there is no moral standard as laws often change. Using your definition of morality, every person that breaks a law is immoral. Or, as I said earlier, if a person uses his OWN definition of right and wrong, regardless of what the law says, ala illegal immigration, then that standard would be relative as well.

And I'll say it again. If people kept their own business private there would be nothing to comment about. GR didn't. I love the guy for what he did for sci-fi tv. I really do. But the guy was in fact a serial adulterer and that makes him a dirt bag. It's not a private matter once it goes public. Most people form an opinion on public matters.

Oh, and if I had done what you suggested in your scenario and it became public knowledge, I certainly wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't be surprised if people were talking about it. Thankfully, I'm not that kind of person!

Oh, one more thing. SP's generally don't believe in God. The generally support the killing of unborn children and from what I can see they dislike America so much as it currently stands that they are trying to remake it in their own image. I don't believe I said lawless though.

Now, I am more than willing to discuss the OP's topic. Is there anything else or can we wrap this up?

Feel free to take this up with me via PM if you wish. I enjoy the exchange.

 

[number6]

Laws are made in this country based on the standards of the community in which those laws are made and the judiciary decides whether said law impugns the rights of people. I have made no definition of morality here. The words you use to describe how I feel are yours alone.

You are the one who made issue with morality and GR's personal relationships. Not everyone thinks or believes as you do. Why bring immigration into this discussion at all? It is NOT relevant.

if you really care about discussing the OT, then why bring all this other shit into it?

Also, because you continue to flaunt your sig line, you are offending the very people you wish to debate. Until your sig line is changed I can't believe you're willing to listen to any dissenting point of view for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Laws are made in this country based on the standards of the community in which those laws are made and the judiciary decides whether said law impugns the rights of people. I have made no definition of morality here. The words you use to describe how I feel are yours alone.

You are the one who made issue with morality and GR's personal relationships. Not everyone thinks or believes as you do. Why bring immigration into this discussion at all? It is NOT relevant.

if you really care about discussing the OT, then why bring all this other shit into it?

Also, because you continue to flaunt your sig line, you are offending the very people you wish to debate. Until your sig line is changed I can't believe you're willing to listen to any dissenting point of view for the purposes of this discussion.

You don't have an absolute definition of morality. That's my point.

I wasn't the person who first mentioned "the high and mighty" Roddenberry. The OP was. I simply responded to him.

I assume you're an SP based on your statement of "you are offending the very people you wish to debate". If that's the case and you can't believe I'm "willing to listen to any dissenting viewpoints" then why are you debating me? And if you're not debating me, then why are you speaking to me?

If you want, let's start again. Why should Star Trek have featured gay relations? If you'd rather not, that's okay too.

Either way, my signature is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[number6]

Laws are made in this country based on the standards of the community in which those laws are made and the judiciary decides whether said law impugns the rights of people. I have made no definition of morality here. The words you use to describe how I feel are yours alone.

You are the one who made issue with morality and GR's personal relationships. Not everyone thinks or believes as you do. Why bring immigration into this discussion at all? It is NOT relevant.

if you really care about discussing the OT, then why bring all this other shit into it?

Also, because you continue to flaunt your sig line, you are offending the very people you wish to debate. Until your sig line is changed I can't believe you're willing to listen to any dissenting point of view for the purposes of this discussion.

You don't have an absolute definition of morality. That's my point.

I wasn't the person who first mentioned "the high and mighty" Roddenberry. The OP was. I simply responded to him.

I assume you're an SP based on your statement of "you are offending the very people you wish to debate". If that's the case and you can't believe I'm "willing to listen to any dissenting viewpoints" then why are you debating me? And if you're not debating me, then why are you speaking to me?

If you want, let's start again. Why should Star Trek have featured gay relations? If you'd rather not, that's okay too.

Either way, my signature is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

My definition of morality is irrelevant to this discussion. It certainly doesn't mean I don't have one.

This discussion isn't about morality. That might be your discussion, but it isn't the discussion of the OT. The discussion is about how homosexuality was handled in Trek. I certainly don't think they avoided having a gay character because of the moral outrage it would cause some people. Trek has always been able to put a mirror up to both sides of an issue, like TOS did.

Should I not speak to you because you believe in that whole "secular progressive" rubbish?? Meh. If people didn't talk to each other and exchange ideas, then no one learns. You certainly have a great deal to learn.

 

[Sector 7]

Also, because you continue to flaunt your sig line, you are offending the very people you wish to debate. Until your sig line is changed I can't believe you're willing to listen to any dissenting point of view for the purposes of this discussion.

I agree with this statement. I choose to no longer respond to The Lonely Squire (or anyone with similar offensive material) until it is changed. He has the right to the signature line, but I have a right not to communicate with a person who uses such a signature line.
My suggestion is for you to do the same. If he has no one to spar with, perhaps he will stop.

 

[number6]

Also, because you continue to flaunt your sig line, you are offending the very people you wish to debate. Until your sig line is changed I can't believe you're willing to listen to any dissenting point of view for the purposes of this discussion.

I agree with this statement. I choose to no longer respond to The Lonely Squire (or anyone with similar offensive material) until it is changed. He has the right to the signature line, but I have a right not to communicate with a person who uses such a signature line.
My suggestion is for you to do the same. If he has no one to spar with, perhaps he will stop.

I'm sure he'll find some other pet cause to vent his "moral outrage."

 

[3D Master]

Sure they do. They have laws set by a community standard. You don't need to be a believer to know right from wrong. There are plenty of atheists who are law abiding citizens.

But I think the point is that the subjective experience of having values is different for a believer than it is for a nonbeliever. If you're a believer, then part of that belief is that your values are in some sense objectively true and necessary (I'm just guessing here, mind -- Squire, please correct me if I'm wrong). Nonbelievers have values, but but they're not imposed from without unless you're a sheep. You choose to keep them. Edit: or you choose to have these values without actually living by them.

Which doesn't matter one little bit. For one thing, if a believer doesn't like the values everyone says is in his religion and its holy books, he'll simply rewrite the religion and what the books say in his own mind, problem solved.

 

[StolenThunder]

I figure we're done here, anyway. There's been some discussion of Trek and as usual some off-topic discussion. It's just round and round from here.

Closed.