TREK future anti-gay?

[Orac Zen]

I think the Trek world would have to be pro alternative lifestyles in the future. If they can put aside racism, nationalism, regionalism, and sexism, and put together a unified world government then accepting other people's sexuality should be a piece of cake.

This is pretty much the way I look at the matter of homosexuality in Trek. It's simply a non-issue. People are people, and they're not defined or marginalised or discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality. Another poster mentioned that no one we've seen in the Trek universe seems at all concerned about having relationships with beings of other species, so it's difficult to believe same-sex relationships would be a big deal within the Trek universe.

Of course, the actual reason homosexual relationships weren't depicted in Trek is quite simple:

However, the lens that we see the Star Trek world through haven't been especially gay friendly, at least in regard to televised Trek. I would say that's more due to narrow minded business people who are worried going into the subject would affect the amount of money they would be making.

Fear of affecting the bottom line is a pretty powerful motive for not pushing the boundaries. There were a handful of attempts, but then again...

But all they really showed were women/women kissing scenes (which were find with me) but no men.

Your friend has a valid point. Star Trek, like a lot of TV aimed at men, is pretty cowardly about showing male homosexuality which certainly reveals the motive for showing lesbianism has nothing to do with being "enlightened."

Star Trek isn't anti-gay, it's just chicken.

Exactly. They took - for lack of a better term - the "safe" route to protect the ratings and thus Paramount's bottom line.

I've noticed alot of shows like soaps here in Europe like Hollyoaks and Skins have a gay character in a group of otherwise straght friends, in those shows they're shown as average joes with the gay thing being an aterthought, no big thing, they could have done it that way, they didn't.

If it is to be done, this is the way to go about it. Hetero- or homosexual, people are still people. Having one particular "trait" (for lack of a better term) basically define a character is almost always boring, not to mention pretty unrealistic.

 

[3D Master]

Interesting insightful analysis of my post, I guess the main part of post they forgot was the fact that the minority who were gay in the 24th century were accepted because those people who were bigots (most bigots we know these days are closeted cases), in the 24th century are given the "choice" to fix their sexual orientation via the amazing 24th century medicine. With the bigots out of the way because a truly straight person has no need to be angry about gay people. Reasoning being because it is not like the gay folk are going to steal away their love interests.

Except for that annoying problem that a. if no one has a problem with being gay in 24th century, no one would be afraid of being gay, so there'd be no one who is bigoted because he's gay himself, and b. someone who was like that, would never admit, not even to themselves that they are gay, so they would never "gay-away" their "non-existent" gayness.

Which leads us back to BULLSHIT.

With fewer closet case extremist bigots around more rational minds will prevail and those who choose to stay the way their genes and development made them will be able to live their lives free of hate. I would say int he time of trek it won't be a choice for a person to choose if they want to be gay, it will be a choice for them to decide if they want to remain gay.

And since gay is no longer looked upon as bad by anyone, EVERYONE gay will choose to remain that way.

Or it short, saying all the gays gayed-away themselves and that's why there's less bigotry (but gays somehow are still gaying themselves away) is thinly veiled bigotry of the worst sort.

Of course there will be a small number of folks who may even opt to become gay by choice because they have made a conscious decision to take genetic treatment to become that way.

Right, so now people choose the "straight-away" themselves?

In a way it is enlightening because today having tendencies towards homosexuality is not a choice, but something you are born with.

Ah, here we are. Now we get to the crux of it. It is enlightened to know that being gay is a choice, and in the 24th century they have finally excepted what us god-fearing straight folk have known all along, even if it means having to genetically re-engineer yourself with advanced genetic engineering! And they will burn in...

Well, I guess everyone can see where that's going.

But this could backfire spectacularly, because as Q mentioned that Starfleet is not much different than the Borg when it comes to social conformity. With the pressure to conform and the way to conform being as simple as taking a once in a lifetime hypo-spray it would be easier for people who find out that they have homosexual feelings to simply take a shot when they first realize they have these feeling early on. They would not be making a balanced judgment about their own orientation, but it would still be their choice.

Hey, wait a minute. Didn't you just imply all the bigots were gone because they gayed themselves away? Then why the hell are the other gays now suddenly conforming to those non-existent, gayed-away bigots?

Ah, right, I see: thinly veiled bigoted bullshit.

I know several people who are gay and at some point in their life they have said they if they could have taken a "magic pill" to cure them selves (and some have even gone to Jesus camp, like brainwashing really is all that effective..... sarc...) they would have taken the pill with no hesitation. So in a way being gay may very well be virtually extinct in the 24th century, partly by their own choice, partly by the conformity pressure, and partly by easy effective gene therapy / neuro medicine.

Because they're being discriminated against by bigots, who you said gayed themselves away. No one to be bigoted against them, no one who's going to chance themselvs in an open, non-discriminated, non-bigoted society.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too...

Oh, right, thinly veiled...

Is it right? Not sure about that one, ask a philosopher, i am wearing the rationalist hat right now, ask me when i have had a few drinks in me and have put on my philosopher's hat.

A rationalist would only need remember the episode with the genderless species, and know it's bullshit.

Conformity seemed to be the norm in starfleet culture, kinda like the . Q even mentioned this. However the federation is known for tolerance, so there is some hope. Choosing to remain gay or choosing to become straight will become a choice in the 24th century. Today you are pretty much hard wired either way. A fair number of those who are gay may not allow themselves to experince their born into lifestyle because there is a human need to be accepted and to conform and they will be like this: Well kinda like cardassians, even though they are humans. The human needs for conformity is very and very . Some will be proud of who they are will be gay, in a way they will be loud and proud gender/sex warriors: .

Complete bullshit. There's not Starfleet culture. Starfleet is a military slash exploratory organization. Saying that Starfleet has a culture is saying that Fireman Headquarters has a culture. People IN Starfleet have their OWN culture. There is not a shred of conformity going on, either in Starfleet or the Federation at large. You only have to follow Starfleet rules and regulations while on duty (and to an extent off duty), while people in the Federation barely have any rules beyond, "Don't harm others." You can do whatever you want to do.

And oh, yeah, "born into lifestyle". If there isn't contradiction in terms if I have ever seen one.

Once again: thinly-veiled...

 

[Steve Roby]

But if the story is off-duty, then the characters' sexuality should have a direct bearing on the story being told - otherwise, it's too possible that it's either grandstanding or pandering to make a point of it.

Harry Kim's girlfriend back on Earth was white, even though he's Asian. Did that fact have a direct bearing on the story being told? There are still people opposed to interracial relationships, after all. Were TPTB just grandstanding, or pandering to people who don't have a problem with interracial relationships?

 

[RaymondJames]

Rob, CaptainKirkFan thank you for replying to my post/reply. I like when I get imput on my ideas/suggestions.

 

[kissthestar]

RE TOS and male/male intimacy: what could be more intimate than a mind meld?

 

[ktanner3]

Friend of mine, and yes he is gay, can't stand star trek because of its anti-gay stance. I had always thought that TREK was pro-gay, or at least, was open to the subject.

Then he went on and on how some of the later shows promisef gay-issue episodes, or a character would be gay, or something like that. And he is right. I do remember something about this in the TNG days, toward the end, and again in Enterprise. But all they really showed were women/women kissing scenes (which were find with me) but no men.

Did the producers and writers of TREK speak out of both sides of their mouths on this issue? Its one thing to say you are going to do a thing, and another when it seems like its just being to appease a certain sect.

As for me? I am not sure how they would have done it. And if you look at all the hours of TREK we have seen now, from TOS-TNG, then it might even suggest that Gay people are still forced to keep it in the 'closet' even then.

In fact maybe they were forced to keep it in the closet after some historical event brought back this kind of intolerance. Could have been a great episode or book if done in that way.

I know many of you might respond that it isn't addressed so it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But I go on what is on that screen, and I never saw anything on any Star Trek episode, with exception of the Women/women episodes (and the only woman/woman kiss in the Alpha Quadrant happened behind closed doors) that would imply otherwise (Doc Crusher's line included)

Rob
Scorpio

Who cares? I didn't watch Star Trek because it was a soap opera. I watched it because it was great science fiction. I fail to see how two men kissing is great science fiction.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Star Trek is at it's core a business. And business exist to please their customer base and make money. Two men "interacting" would turn off 98% of it's target audience. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just a fact.

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

[3D Master]

Star Trek is at it's core a business. And business exist to please their customer base and make money. Two men "interacting" would turn off 98% of it's target audience. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just a fact.

Bingo. We have a winner.

Except that the target audience wouldn't be turned off by it, that's just what the idiots in charge think, just like they thought we wouldn't be watching Star Trek if it didn't have the words or phrases "Starfleet", "Phase", "set to stun", "photon(ic) torpedo", "... down to XX%", "turbolift" in it. Along with several other trappings of the earlier shows.

 

[Steve Roby]

Who cares? I didn't watch Star Trek because it was a soap opera. I watched it because it was great science fiction. I fail to see how two men kissing is great science fiction.

Do you yell "Yuck! Girl cooties!" every time a man and a woman kiss in Star Trek? It happens pretty frequently. Is there a reason that's not soap opera?

Star Trek is at it's core a business. And business exist to please their customer base and make money. Two men "interacting" would turn off 98% of it's target audience. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just a fact.

Bingo. We have a winner.

Bullshit.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Star Trek is at it's core a business. And business exist to please their customer base and make money. Two men "interacting" would turn off 98% of it's target audience. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just a fact.

Bingo. We have a winner.

Except that the target audience wouldn't be turned off by it, that's just what the idiots in charge think, just like they thought we wouldn't be watching Star Trek if it didn't have the words or phrases "Starfleet", "Phase", "set to stun", "photon(ic) torpedo", "... down to XX%", "turbolift" in it. Along with several other trappings of the earlier shows.

The American audience would be. At least 90% of them. Do you really think they would want to watch two guys kissing on the bridge?

 

[RobertScorpio]

Friend of mine, and yes he is gay, can't stand star trek because of its anti-gay stance. I had always thought that TREK was pro-gay, or at least, was open to the subject.

Then he went on and on how some of the later shows promisef gay-issue episodes, or a character would be gay, or something like that. And he is right. I do remember something about this in the TNG days, toward the end, and again in Enterprise. But all they really showed were women/women kissing scenes (which were find with me) but no men.

Did the producers and writers of TREK speak out of both sides of their mouths on this issue? Its one thing to say you are going to do a thing, and another when it seems like its just being to appease a certain sect.

As for me? I am not sure how they would have done it. And if you look at all the hours of TREK we have seen now, from TOS-TNG, then it might even suggest that Gay people are still forced to keep it in the 'closet' even then.

In fact maybe they were forced to keep it in the closet after some historical event brought back this kind of intolerance. Could have been a great episode or book if done in that way.

I know many of you might respond that it isn't addressed so it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But I go on what is on that screen, and I never saw anything on any Star Trek episode, with exception of the Women/women episodes (and the only woman/woman kiss in the Alpha Quadrant happened behind closed doors) that would imply otherwise (Doc Crusher's line included)

Rob
Scorpio

Who cares? I didn't watch Star Trek because it was a soap opera. I watched it because it was great science fiction. I fail to see how two men kissing is great science fiction.

Oh please...please...spare me that over used line. Did you happen to miss the episodes (many of them) about race, or the ones about anti-religion or anti-sexism?

Why not one single episode about a gay person? Or heck, not even an episode but something in the background..two women kissing...two men kissing? look at all those crowd shots and tell me why no gay people?

We know why...Star Trek wasn't as progressive on this issue. They (Berman and company) caved. And since as a TREK purist I can only go by what I see? I see a society on TREK that doesn't have any gay people anywhere, except maybe in the mirror universe.

Rob
Scorpio

Rob

 

[Steve Roby]

The American audience would be. At least 90% of them. Do you really think they would want to watch two guys kissing on the bridge?

You know, there are two reasons I said bullshit a couple of posts back.

1. You're saying that the only way to present gay characters is by showing them being physical in their relationships. A lot of Star Trek relationships focused on things like sexual tension, humour, misunderstandings, etc before the relationships began. Any reason that can't happen between two men or two women? Why do homophobes always instantly focus on sexual activity?

2. You're saying 90% of Americans would be repulsed, at a time when there are loads of gay characters on TV series that aren't Star Trek. Even American TV shows. Sitcoms, cop shows, reality shows, SF shows, you name it, there are gay characters. If you're spending all your time watching Bill O'Reilly you may not have noticed that things have changed on the other TV channels. (Not that all that change is all that recent. Billy Crystal played a sympathetic gay character on a hit TV series thirty years ago.)

 

[TheLonelySquire]

The American audience would be. At least 90% of them. Do you really think they would want to watch two guys kissing on the bridge?

You know, there are two reasons I said bullshit a couple of posts back.

1. You're saying that the only way to present gay characters is by showing them being physical in their relationships. A lot of Star Trek relationships focused on things like sexual tension, humour, misunderstandings, etc before the relationships began. Any reason that can't happen between two men or two women? Why do homophobes always instantly focus on sexual activity?

2. You're saying 90% of Americans would be repulsed, at a time when there are loads of gay characters on TV series that aren't Star Trek. Even American TV shows. Sitcoms, cop shows, reality shows, SF shows, you name it, there are gay characters. If you're spending all your time watching Bill O'Reilly you may not have noticed that things have changed on the other TV channels. (Not that all that change is all that recent. Billy Crystal played a sympathetic gay character on a hit TV series thirty years ago.)

1. Most viewers would not want to see this in any form. Otherwise Star Trek probably would have done it as they tackled many other hot button topics. Just my opinion and I base it on having a wide variety of Star Trek friends.

2. You used the word "repulsed". I didn't. I don't watch reality shows because they are stupid. I don't watch sitcoms anymore because most of them are unwatchable and unfunny. As far as the other shows, I wouldn't watch them if they promote homosexuality. I also returned the Vanguard book series for this reason.

Commercials are also over the top on both sides. I wrote to Heinz to thank them for pulling their gay ad. I also just wrote to New Balance today to admonish them for featuring a (straight) guy working out and thinking out loud about his desire for a menage a trois. It was on at 9:30 am and it was almost vomit inducing. Kids watch this stuff and it's wrong.

I acknowledge these things exist, but I don't have to spend my entertainment time watching them.

 

[Wowbagger]

Ah, right, I see: thinly veiled bigoted bullshit.

You're aware that Meredith went on a few posts later to endorse a "Captain Jack Harkness"-like character on Trek, right?

Which pretty well demonstrates that both your posts are the thinly-veiled work of a bigoted moron whose worldview can't deal with predictive speculation that involves drawing distinctions. Imagine that! Distinctions! In a logical discussion!

Sigh. I suppose it is to much to ask someone to read a whole discussion before judging it.

I would like to thank everyone who expressed that they understood what Meredith and I were proposing as a possibility without agreeing with it. It went a long way towards restoring my faith in the idea that there is intelligent life on the Internet.

 

[3D Master]

Bingo. We have a winner.

Except that the target audience wouldn't be turned off by it, that's just what the idiots in charge think, just like they thought we wouldn't be watching Star Trek if it didn't have the words or phrases "Starfleet", "Phase", "set to stun", "photon(ic) torpedo", "... down to XX%", "turbolift" in it. Along with several other trappings of the earlier shows.

The American audience would be. At least 90% of them. Do you really think they would want to watch two guys kissing on the bridge?

Neither would I, but then I wouldn't want to watch ANY two people kiss on the bridge. After all, it's the BRIDGE! Kissing belongs in off duty places. Of course, we've never seen any two people kiss on the bridge, so why the bridge is named is beyond me.

Finally, you're wrong. You see, the "American audience" isn't watching Star Trek. American science fiction, and Star Trek fans would be watching Star Trek. And guess what; the large majority of them are people who look to the future, who are progressive, and would have not a lick of problem with the occasional kissing men, as long as it is tastefully done. Aka, NOT as sensationalist, NOT "look we've got kissing men", but simply ever bit as prevalent, or rather non-prevalent as kissing people of any other gender.

Ah, right, I see: thinly veiled bigoted bullshit.

You're aware that Meredith went on a few posts later to endorse a "Captain Jack Harkness"-like character on Trek, right?

Classical distraction, or self-delusion (which would be just about as bad). All the bigoted terms and bigoted ways of describing things above isn't really bigoted, you see, cause...

People who claim, maybe even to themselves, they believe one thing because it's the majority views, when in fact the way they talk about things shows the opposite.

 

[broberfett]

Trek is made in Hollywood. I half expect to see Spock nailing Kirk in the ass in the new movie.

 

[FalTorPan]

Except that the target audience wouldn't be turned off by it, that's just what the idiots in charge think...

The American audience would be. At least 90% of them. Do you really think they would want to watch two guys kissing on the bridge?

...You see, the "American audience" isn't watching Star Trek. American science fiction, and Star Trek fans would be watching Star Trek. And guess what; the large majority of them are people who look to the future, who are progressive, and would have not a lick of problem with the occasional kissing men, as long as it is tastefully done. Aka, NOT as sensationalist, NOT "look we've got kissing men", but simply ever bit as prevalent, or rather non-prevalent as kissing people of any other gender.

This thread contains a lot of claims about what "the majority" of Trek viewers think, not one of which is substantiated.

 

[Wowbagger]

People who claim, maybe even to themselves, they believe one thing because it's the majority views, when in fact the way they talk about things shows the opposite.

"She's such a bigot, she doesn't even know she hates gays!"

This reminds me of a scene from Miracle on 34th Street, where Alfred is told he has a complex and Kris Kringle hits the Macy's company psychologist on the head with a cane, but I digress.

 

[Green Shirt]

Neither would I, but then I wouldn't want to watch ANY two people kiss on the bridge. After all, it's the BRIDGE! Kissing belongs in off duty places. Of course, we've never seen any two people kiss on the bridge, so why the bridge is named is beyond me.

Lets see, Kirk and Lt. Shaw in "Courtmartial", and Chapel and Uhura in "What are Little Girls Made Of?", just to name off the top of my head two instances of people kissing while on the bridge.

I'm sure there are at least two other instances, can anyone help out with this?

 

[Balthier the Great]

Except that the target audience wouldn't be turned off by it, that's just what the idiots in charge think, just like they thought we wouldn't be watching Star Trek if it didn't have the words or phrases "Starfleet", "Phase", "set to stun", "photon(ic) torpedo", "... down to XX%", "turbolift" in it. Along with several other trappings of the earlier shows.

The American audience would be. At least 90% of them. Do you really think they would want to watch two guys kissing on the bridge?

Neither would I, but then I wouldn't want to watch ANY two people kiss on the bridge. After all, it's the BRIDGE! Kissing belongs in off duty places. Of course, we've never seen any two people kiss on the bridge, so why the bridge is named is beyond me.

Finally, you're wrong. You see, the "American audience" isn't watching Star Trek. American science fiction, and Star Trek fans would be watching Star Trek. And guess what; the large majority of them are people who look to the future, who are progressive, and would have not a lick of problem with the occasional kissing men, as long as it is tastefully done. Aka, NOT as sensationalist, NOT "look we've got kissing men", but simply ever bit as prevalent, or rather non-prevalent as kissing people of any other gender.

Ah, right, I see: thinly veiled bigoted bullshit.

You're aware that Meredith went on a few posts later to endorse a "Captain Jack Harkness"-like character on Trek, right?

Classical distraction, or self-delusion (which would be just about as bad). All the bigoted terms and bigoted ways of describing things above isn't really bigoted, you see, cause...

People who claim, maybe even to themselves, they believe one thing because it's the majority views, when in fact the way they talk about things shows the opposite.

Well, here again we're back to the original problem I have with the idea of a gay character in Trek. It seems that the only idea we have about what a gay character would be like is to see them kiss on the bridge. To me that's almost as bad as if in the 1960's they'd had Uhura jive-talkin'. You don't show anti-bigotry by creating a stereotype. You show anti-bigotry by showing real humanity in the people who are the victims of the stereotype.


Maybe we think this way because we as americans have massive sexual issues. We can't deal with sex honestly or admit to ourselves that it's a natural part of life.