TREK future anti-gay?

[Deks]

You REALLY want to know who need a 'moral compass' ?
Religious people.
Not all of them granted, but about 90% of them yes.

Fight unsupported generalizations with unsupported generalizations!

Actually, it's not an 'unsupported generalization'.
I said 'ABOUT 90%' which is merely to allude to the notion that the numbers are high while not encompassing the total population of the planet or the total population of people in a group.
I live in a family, not to mention a country whose people define themselves as 'religious' and A LOT of those people would actually need a so called 'morality compass' if you want to define it as such to keep what they say and do in check with the 'established morals'.
Not to mention a lot of stupidities/contradictions I hear from those same religious individuals on a regular basis.

I speak from personal experience, so an educated guess or a personally conjured up fantasy are not the case here.

Why do a lot (but not all) religious individuals break their own rules, lie and act as hypocrites on a regular basis?
Because it is culturally acceptable.
However, when you point it out to them, a large number will deny it and hide from the truth.
I tested that hypothesis on numerous occasions and for the most part (but not in all cases) the results are the same.
And no, that doesn't prove that you can generalize about people ... I don't make generalizations ... which is why I say 'a lot' or a specific number (if I did research to back it up) but never 100%.

Not all religious individuals are alike ... however, a large number of them are the same in line of thinking and certain behavioral patterns.

As for TNG ... we saw making out in 10 forward.
There wasn't much of it (because we are not watching it for erotica or porn), but it was there.
The O'Brien's wedding, when Lal was learning up on human behavior ...
Right now I cannot think of more scenes, but I think (while not 100%) that there were more.
Wesley did kiss with a female of course If I'm not mistaken.

 

[number6]

Your hostility is showing through in your sarcastic last remark. There's no need for that in this forum. Am I acting that way toward you?

My answer to the the question is no, they should not have had a gay character for a number of reasons. One, they would have lost viewership. Two, they may not have felt it wholesome for kids to watch. Three, just because something is diverse doesn't mean it has to be included. Either way, I would have changed the channel.

Thanks for the exchange.

Gene Roddenberry was certainly anti-religion and that showed in several episodes.

Certainly in later episodes when they did explore sexuality, it less of a message that it's ok to be gay, but more to put a mirror in front of a sect of society that embraces intolerance and stigmatizes people and cultures for being different. TOS certainly tackled that too.

Perhaps you should block that from your children too.

TOS got away with a great deal of controversial issues for the 1960s and were at times so obliquely conceived that progressive thinkers could find that message hidden within the cool explosions, impressive fistfights, and go-go booted space babes. It is apparent from your posts that you've only observed the latter.

Roddenberry certainly was anti-religion. He was a man with a limited moral compass. Thankfully, he had others to keep him in line. He wasn't a one man band. If there hadn't been, there probably wouldn't have been as many references to Christ and God as there were.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. There was only one episode that dealt with Christianity in a positive way: Bread And Circuses.

Any other time religion was brought up in TOS, God was nearly always revealed to be a faulty computer or a delusional alien megalomaniac.

The only Trek show that really dealt with religion and faith on a regualr basis was DS9, which I believe handled it really well.


GR did have some people to keep him in line, but it was more about avoiding open-mouthed kisses and showing belly buttons, than his view of religion. This often went past the censors without a second thought.

Yes, TOS got away with a lot. However, I don't think being able to figure out LTBYLB makes one a progressive thinker.

You single out the conservative vs. liberal episode for what reason exactly??

In point of fact, being able to figure that one out and seeing that BOTH sides of extreme left and right are ultimately self defeating is a pretty progressive notion. I think people that can see that for what it is are certainly more forward thinking than those who don't.

And yes, I reserve the right as a concerned parent to block any programming that I deem as inappropriate for my kids. I feel the same way about MTV. Thankfully, I'll never have to block TOS.

Never in any of this conversation have I implied otherwise.
It is your compass for determining what is appropriate I find disturbing.

It's not "anti-gay" but it hasn't done anything to make gay relationships part of storylines either, and I think they should have. The only problem was that other than DS9 I wouldn't trust any Trek show's ability to write a well-developed gay storyline.

I just couldn't imagine Berman and Braga on VOY or ENT having the skills to write such a plotline.

I think they did a great job with Stigma and Cogenitor. There were a couple of TNG episodes that skirted that line as well. I don't think having a show about a "gay relationship" is really Trek's style. Trek has nearly always taken a more oblique path to get their message across. Their message has always been more about learning about people who are different and any episode that deals with that can certainly be applied to sexuality. Trek was great like that in the broad strokes it painted with issues of diversity.
I also thought that Reed and Hayes were totally hot for each other. The subtext was always there from the beginning. But that's a discussion for another day.

Roddenberry certainly was anti-religion. He was a man with a limited moral compass.

I find the implication of that very very offensive, and thats saying something, I never find anything offensive.

I find the remark very offensive as that it is meant to imply that GR perceived lack of morals were because of his stance on religion, which is absurd.

I'm staunchly anti-religion and I know many others who are also and I don't think their moral compass or mine is limited. I also find that more often than not the staunchly religious use their faith and belief systems to justify their own horrible and morally questionable acts upon other beings, which I find more reprehensible than any of the morally questionable activities we've heard involving Gene Roddenberry.

 

[Wowbagger]

Trek does do social commentary. But I'm increasingly aware as I learn more that its commentary is rarely cutting-edge.

For 1968, the issues that TOS dealt with certainly were cutting edge. Look at television circa 1968. It's easy to look back through the eyes of 2008 and say that it wasn't that controversial.

I'm not even talking about the obvious stuff like the interracial kiss.

The network was freaked out that the second in command looked like Satan!! They were worried about that Kiss and it wound up being no big deal.[/quote]

My point is that what worried the networks and what actually generated a stir among viewers--that is, actual controversy--were two very different things. That is to say, there was a lot of the former and much less of the latter than we Trekkies, looking back on TOS with rose-colored glasses, like to admit.

There was only one episode that dealt with Christianity in a positive way: Bread And Circuses.

And "The Empath."

 

[number6]

My point is that what worried the networks and what actually generated a stir among viewers--that is, actual controversy--were two very different things. That is to say, there was a lot of the former and much less of the latter than we Trekkies, looking back on TOS with rose-colored glasses, like to admit.

I see your point. I don't agree 100%, but I can see where you're coming from. Let's agree to disagree.

There was only one episode that dealt with Christianity in a positive way: Bread And Circuses.

And "The Empath."

The Empath? In what way? I'm interested in your interpretation of how that deals directly with Christianity.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Trek is not anti-gay. However, they try to weasel around the issue a bit, because they don't want to piss off anyone. So, Trek's "careful" stance on homosexuality is more or less... neutral.

As a result, we've got compromise episodes like DS9's "Rejoined": they're not really homosexual, they have already been in love with each other when they were in bodies with opposite genders, otherweise they wouldn't even have a relationship now etc.


Ideally, they could introduce a gay main character... but without making it a big issue. His or her sexuality should be implied or mentioned in passing only two times every season at the most. And he or she should have no more than one or two relationships/affairs in the entire series... if at all. And do NOT make his/her sexuality the central plot element of an episode (something like "Rejoined" for example). I'm no big friend of "Hey, look, we have a finally a gay character... we're at Paramount/CBS are so cool and brave. And he's/she's sooo gay, it shows in every episode and scene. It's awesome!"

It shouldn't be something that is in the spotlight all the time and that is dealt with in every second or third episode. In principle, it shouldn't be treated like something "special". But maybe it's about time they have a homosexual character who's homosexual without any curtailments or specific reasons and explanations why he/she is behaving homosexual...

And the worst thing they have ever done were those hot evil latex lesbians from the evil and "kinky" mirror universe...

 

[Alidar Jarok]

You REALLY want to know who need a 'moral compass' ?
Religious people.
Not all of them granted, but about 90% of them yes.

Knock it off. Find your own topic, not in here.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Roddenberry certainly was anti-religion. He was a man with a limited moral compass.

I find the implication of that very very offensive, and thats saying something, I never find anything offensive.

Sorry that you find it so. He was a serial adulterer. No one denies this. I'd rather stay on topic though. Again, I'm not trying to get off topic. I'm just responding to your point. Why is it very offensive to you?

 

[Wowbagger]

My point is that what worried the networks and what actually generated a stir among viewers--that is, actual controversy--were two very different things. That is to say, there was a lot of the former and much less of the latter than we Trekkies, looking back on TOS with rose-colored glasses, like to admit.

I see your point. I don't agree 100%, but I can see where you're coming from. Let's agree to disagree.

There's a sentiment I can embrace wholeheartedly.

There was only one episode that dealt with Christianity in a positive way: Bread And Circuses.

And "The Empath."

The Empath? In what way? I'm interested in your interpretation of how that deals directly with Christianity.[/quote]

Oh, I thought we were just going to positive treatments of Christianity. I suppose one could make an argument that an entire episode about a person laying down her life for her neighbors is a very Christian theme, but I was mainly referring to the two Bible quotations used in the episode: Psalm 95, referred to by one of the human scientists, and Matthew 13, used by Scotty to tie the episode together at the end of Act 5.

 

[number6]

My point is that what worried the networks and what actually generated a stir among viewers--that is, actual controversy--were two very different things. That is to say, there was a lot of the former and much less of the latter than we Trekkies, looking back on TOS with rose-colored glasses, like to admit.

I see your point. I don't agree 100%, but I can see where you're coming from. Let's agree to disagree.

There's a sentiment I can embrace wholeheartedly.

There was only one episode that dealt with Christianity in a positive way: Bread And Circuses.

And "The Empath."

The Empath? In what way? I'm interested in your interpretation of how that deals directly with Christianity.

Oh, I thought we were just going to positive treatments of Christianity. I suppose one could make an argument that an entire episode about a person laying down her life for her neighbors is a very Christian theme, but I was mainly referring to the two Bible quotations used in the episode: Psalm 95, referred to by one of the human scientists, and Matthew 13, used by Scotty to tie the episode together at the end of Act 5.

Fair enough. Since The Empath was never one of my favourite episodes, I never picked up on the Bible passages quoted. Thanks for pointing it out. I will surely look for that next time I see it.
Cheers.

 

[Balthier the Great]

Roddenberry certainly was anti-religion. He was a man with a limited moral compass.

I find the implication of that very very offensive, and thats saying something, I never find anything offensive.

Sorry that you find it so. He was a serial adulterer. No one denies this. I'd rather stay on topic though. Again, I'm not trying to get off topic. I'm just responding to your point. Why is it very offensive to you?

Interestingly enough, the moral police are more upset than the guy's own wife. It one thing I never got about moral crusaders -- if you think something's wrong, then maybe YOU shouldn't do it. But if someone else disagrees, than why force everyone else along? I'm sure there are Jews and Muslims on this BBS who object to your ham sandwiches. Does that give you a limited moral compass for eating pork?

As far as I'm concerned if everybody concents, it's not my business.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

I dont' want to get off topic but

Sorry that you find it so. He was a serial adulterer. No one denies this. I'd rather stay on topic though. Again, I'm not trying to get off topic. I'm just responding to your point. Why is it very offensive to you?

I was offended by the implication that those who are not religious lack a moral compass.

On a side note, weither or not someone is an adulterer is their business, we should only be concerned with their work.

 

[Deks]

You REALLY want to know who needs a 'moral compass' ?
Religious people.
Not all of them granted, but about 90% of them yes.

Knock it off. Find your own topic, not in here.

Begging your pardon, but what have I done exactly?
I merely responded to a posters statement about the so called 'moral compass' since he so 'kindly' brought up and virtually implied (but not necessarily so) that non-religious individuals lack 'morals' (which are a purely made up concept by humans to begin with that vary from person to person in definition).
However the poster did direct that statement towards Roddenberry. So unless he/she knew the man in person, I think I haven't done anything wrong when making a statement which was actually tested and proved many times over.
Plus I'm a bit puzzled as to why he/she watched TNG at all (where some part of Roddenberry's personality is reflected after all), given the fact it was made by a man whom he perceived as 'immoral'.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I dont' want to get off topic but

Sorry that you find it so. He was a serial adulterer. No one denies this. I'd rather stay on topic though. Again, I'm not trying to get off topic. I'm just responding to your point. Why is it very offensive to you?

I was offended by the implication that those who are not religious lack a moral compass.

On a side note, weither or not someone is an adulterer is their business, we should only be concerned with their work.

Well, actually Roddenberry and gay Trek characters are all tied in together.

I wasn't implying that moral people don't lack a moral compass. I was speaking of Roddenberry specifically. Certainly, if he had believed in God he would have had a moral standard to live by. Since he didn't, whatever morality he did possess was relative to his own choices.

Oh, and I don't care what most people do in private. But since he made a complete spectacle of himself it's natural that it would wind up in print. And it did.

At the end of the day, Roddenberry was a businessman. He surely knew NBC would never have aired a gay character in the 60's. It's pretty simple.

 

[CaptainStoner]

Anyone reading this thread needs to go to Youtube and search "Brokeback Trek".

 

[TheLonelySquire]

You REALLY want to know who needs a 'moral compass' ?
Religious people.
Not all of them granted, but about 90% of them yes.

Knock it off. Find your own topic, not in here.

Begging your pardon, but what have I done exactly?
I merely responded to a posters statement about the so called 'moral compass' since he so 'kindly' brought it up and virtually implied (but not necessarily so) that non-religious individuals lack 'morals' (which are a purely made up concept by humans to begin with that vary from person to person in definition).
However the poster did direct that statement towards Roddenberry. So unless he/she knew the man in person, I think I haven't done anything wrong when making a statement which was actually tested and proved many times over.
Plus I'm a bit puzzled as to why he/she watched TNG at all (where some part of Roddenberry's personality is reflected after all), given the fact it was made by a man whom he perceived as 'immoral'.

Deks,

I don't take offense to your comments at all. Everyone's moral compass needs adjusting now and then, whether religious or not. Again, I'm not implying irreligious people don't have morals. I very much agree with you completely that they vary from irreligious person to irreligious person. There is just no set standard for them.

As for why I watched TNG? I tried to take it simply as a sci-fi show and not some personality statement or political statement. I will tell you I found a lot of if very boring. Some was good though.

Anyway, hasn't this issue run it's course?

 

[number6]

Well, actually Roddenberry and gay Trek characters are all tied in together.

Explain that.

I wasn't implying that moral people don't lack a moral compass. I was speaking of Roddenberry specifically. Certainly, if he had believed in God he would have had a moral standard to live by. Since he didn't, whatever morality he did possess was relative to his own choices.

There are plenty of people who believe in God who have no moral compass whatsoever. You shouldn't condemn someone just because they don't believe in God. There are many beliefs around this world. It's not up to you to decide for anyone which one is right or wrong.

Oh, and I don't care what most people do in private. But since he made a complete spectacle of himself it's natural that it would wind up in print. And it did.

Sure you care.. at least to the extent of making it an issue. As far as "making a spectacle," that should be taken with a grain of salt since the only print he's gotten about his private life has been from sensationalised "tell all" books. I don't deny that he probably did all that stuff. I just don't think its any of our business and I don't think it matters at the end of the day. You're the one demonizing him for his "moral standard."

At the end of the day, Roddenberry was a businessman. He surely knew NBC would never have aired a gay character in the 60's. It's pretty simple.

He also rejected David Gerrold's Blood and Fire for TNG.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Well, actually Roddenberry and gay Trek characters are all tied in together.

Explain that.

I wasn't implying that moral people don't lack a moral compass. I was speaking of Roddenberry specifically. Certainly, if he had believed in God he would have had a moral standard to live by. Since he didn't, whatever morality he did possess was relative to his own choices.

There are plenty of people who believe in God who have no moral compass whatsoever. You shouldn't condemn someone just because they don't believe in God. There are many beliefs around this world. It's not up to you to decide for anyone which one is right or wrong.

Oh, and I don't care what most people do in private. But since he made a complete spectacle of himself it's natural that it would wind up in print. And it did.

Sure you care.. at least to the extent of making it an issue. As far as "making a spectacle," that should be taken with a grain of salt since the only print he's gotten about his private life has been from sensationalised "tell all" books. I don't deny that he probably did all that stuff. I just don't think its any of our business and I don't think it matters at the end of the day. You're the one demonizing him for his "moral standard."

At the end of the day, Roddenberry was a businessman. He surely knew NBC would never have aired a gay character in the 60's. It's pretty simple.

He also rejected David Gerrold's Blood and Fire for TNG.

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.

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. And I am personally not condemning anyone for not believing in God. That's not what I'm doing and it's not what I'm saying.

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

 

[number6]

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.

And I am personally not condemning anyone for not believing in God. That's not what I'm doing and it's not what I'm saying.

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?

 

[AlanC9]

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.

Squire, I think you're right about Roddenberry, but right in a way that makes the debate pointless. We know that Roddenberry was a serial adulterer, but we don't know if his values said that being a serial adulterer was OK or not - as far as I know he never said any such thing. Maybe he thought he was being a bad person when he cheated. Maybe he really thought that monogamy makes no sense for humans. But since we don't know these things... what are we talking about , again?

Anyone remember why Blood and Fire was rejected?

 

[number6]

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.

Are you serious? Values are imposed from a variety of sources. I would certainly think that a non believer who has a moral compass does so because he is a moral person, not a sheep. That's absurd!

Squire, I think you're right about Roddenberry, but right in a way that makes the debate pointless. We know that Roddenberry was a serial adulterer, but we don't know if his values said that being a serial adulterer was OK or not - as far as I know he never said any such thing. Maybe he thought he was being a bad person when he cheated. Maybe he really thought that monogamy makes no sense for humans.

The Mormons certainly felt that way and some still do. None knows for sure how GR felt about this, except maybe Majel.

Anyone remember why Blood and Fire was rejected?

David Gerrold has written many comments about it on his own site and I'm sure there is some mention about why on the New Voyages/Phase II site--they're producing the script (under Gerrold's guidance) for their upcoming fan production.