TREK future anti-gay?

[Sean Aaron]

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.

How is kissing contributing to a stereotype? No one is talking about a full-on sex scene on the bridge...but you're right, Americans do seem to be a bit prudish when it comes to sex on the tv.

 

[Steve Roby]

1. Most viewers would not want to see this in any form. [...] I don't watch reality shows because they are stupid. I don't watch sitcoms anymore because most of them are unwatchable and unfunny.

Okay, first you're saying you speak for the majority, then you're saying you don't watch the stuff that's popular with the majority. Do you see the disconnect there? You're admitting that you're out of touch with what the majority likes, even while claiming to speak for them.

 

[JoeZhang]

I like this idea that Sci-Fi fans are somehow "forward thinking" - it's especially funny, when you consider this board constantly runs a number of leering "look at that rack on that bitch" type threads at all times.

Yeah... really forward thinking...

 

[TheLonelySquire]

1. Most viewers would not want to see this in any form. [...] I don't watch reality shows because they are stupid. I don't watch sitcoms anymore because most of them are unwatchable and unfunny.

Okay, first you're saying you speak for the majority, then you're saying you don't watch the stuff that's popular with the majority. Do you see the disconnect there? You're admitting that you're out of touch with what the majority likes, even while claiming to speak for them.

I wasn't speaking about the majority in terms of all television programming. I was speaking of Star Trek fans and my experiences with them.

I'll grant you that there are people watching logo channel (which I have blocked), but those people seek that material out.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

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.

Maybe YOU haven't seen people kissing on the bridge, but many others have. Watch Return to Tomorrow or Court Martial and you can catch it there.

Now, I respect your opinion but I respectfully disagree with it. As apparently, the writers and producers did. Right or wrong, they felt there would be a backlash and an outrage.

 

[RobertScorpio]

The Producers did, the writers didn't. And the producers were talking out of both sides of their mouths so as to appear to be progressive when this issue came up in the past.

Facts are facts. They never had a gay character, even in a time when such characters were starting to 'break through' in the 90s and early 2000s.

And to be honest? SOAP and Dynasty both had gay characters as I recall. So does this mean Dynasty and Soap were more progressive than the high and mighty Roddenberry creation of Star Trek....I guess so.

Rob
Scorpio

 

[TheLonelySquire]

The Producers did, the writers didn't. And the producers were talking out of both sides of their mouths so as to appear to be progressive when this issue came up in the past.

Facts are facts. They never had a gay character, even in a time when such characters were starting to 'break through' in the 90s and early 2000s.

And to be honest? SOAP and Dynasty both had gay characters as I recall. So does this mean Dynasty and Soap were more progressive than the high and mighty Roddenberry creation of Star Trek....I guess so.

Rob
Scorpio

Some people don't consider having a gay character a breakthrough though, Rob.

The "high and mighty Roddenberry" certainly had a vision and was progressive to some degree, bearing in mind we all have a different idea of progress.

 

[JoeZhang]

How come you post on every single thread to do with The Gay Agenda? Is there something you need to tell us?

 

[Balthier the Great]

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.

How is kissing contributing to a stereotype? No one is talking about a full-on sex scene on the bridge...but you're right, Americans do seem to be a bit prudish when it comes to sex on the tv.

Well what I mean is that the "gay kiss" business seems to be the start and end of a character being gay, just like the vision quest was the start and end of Chicotay bieng Native American (I believe Mayan), or as in my hypothetical example, Uhura just being "the jive talking black chick". It needs to be fleshed out a bit more -- what the person does other than being gay. Being straight isn't the sum-total of a straight person's life, and I don't think being gay should be the defining characteristic of a gay Trek character.

Uhura was ground breaking, not only for being "the black woman on the bridge", which she was, but for being more than that. She was a singer, she could stand up for herself (and did), stuff like that. It wasn't a case of just sticking a black person on the bridge just to do so, and they didn't write the character so as to have her every action depend on her being black. That's what I don't think modern hollywood is capable of.

 

[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.)

Steve,

I meant to address one more part of your post before and forgot. You said, "Why do homophobes always instantly focus on sexual activity?" in response to my post to you.

I want to clarify I am not a homophobe if you define that as having a fear of homosexuals. I don't, and I want to make my stance clear and get your reply. I disagree with homosexuality on moral and religious grounds. I do advocate equal rights for them as well as everyone else.

If you want to classify as a homophobe based on the fact that I speak out against the morality of it, then I accept that label willingly. But it is not out of fear.

You'll see me voice my opinion on this in various forums on this board. It's not to create trouble. It is to speak out for what I believe in. Some take that the wrong way and some don't.

I'm not saying that cannot appear on television or in movies. I am just saying that I wouldn't watch it and many others wouldn't want to either. Just my opinion, okay?

 

[TheLonelySquire]

How come you post on every single thread to do with The Gay Agenda? Is there something you need to tell us?

Joe,

See, remarks like yours show that you are not willing to accept an opposing viewpoint. I'm certainly willing to listen to yours. Or would you rather everyone agreed all the time?

I actually answered your first question right above this post. Your second question is an attempt to provoke me and it's unwarranted. I'll let it slide though in the spirit of good fellowship, ok?

 

[Steve Roby]

I meant to address one more part of your post before and forgot. You said, "Why do homophobes always instantly focus on sexual activity?" in response to my post to you.

I want to clarify I am not a homophobe if you define that as having a fear of homosexuals. I don't, and I want to make my stance clear and get your reply. I disagree with homosexuality on moral and religious grounds. I do advocate equal rights for them as well as everyone else.

If you want to classify as a homophobe based on the fact that I speak out against the morality of it, then I accept that label willingly. But it is not out of fear.

Allow me to rephrase. Why do people who disapprove of homosexuality for whatever reason always instantly focus on sexual activity?

This is Star Trek. Not porn. You're not going to see gay sex. Instead, imagine an episode beginning like this: Ben Sisko and Kasidy Yates are walking down a DS9 corridor. They meet up with a couple of other characters, both male or both female, and head to the Promenade for a double date at Quark's. They get their drinks and start chatting, and suddenly Sisko's combadge transmits the voice of someone asking him to come to Ops because an unidentified fleet of ships just came through the wormhole. Go to opening credits, then return with Sisko in Ops talking to Kira. Kasidy and the other two characters appear a couple of times in the episode as captives of the invading mysterious aliens, and the situation is resolved and the episode ends with the four finally having a chance to relax at Quark's. No kissing, no sex. Just the fact that those two characters exist and have a relationship.

Would you object to an episode like that? I really don't know. Because you're going on about how people would react to scenes of that couple kissing. How would you react if those characters are there and they don't kiss?

I'm not saying that cannot appear on television or in movies. I am just saying that I wouldn't watch it and many others wouldn't want to either. Just my opinion, okay?

One more time: "I am just saying that I wouldn't watch it" is your opinion. Okay. "and many others wouldn't want to either." There you're speaking for other people, not just for yourself. Not so okay.

ETA: Squire, your tone of civility in this discussion is somewhat at odds with your signature:

"I'm a secular progressive. Weak national defense. No God in public. No family values. Pro-murder of children. Pro-drugs! Income redistribution for crack heads & welfare deadbeats! No hand up, yes...hand out! I hate America."

Doesn't apply to me personally, because I'm not necessarily a secular progressive; I'm an atheist liberal. For that matter, I'm not American. But a signature file like that is not the sign of someone who has any respect for those who disagree with him; it's insulting and it misrepresents what a lot of people believe in. If someone else's attempt to provoke you is unwarranted, can you really defend using this quote as your signature?

 

[RobertScorpio]

How come you post on every single thread to do with The Gay Agenda? Is there something you need to tell us?

yes..I love you

 

[number6]

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.

I couldn't agree more and to that end Star Trek has accomplished that on several occasions without the need to show an "openly gay" character. I put this in quotes only because so many of us have different ideas and connotations of what that could or should mean. While the fact that Trek plays to the middle of the road (i.e. "safe") with this issue may be dissapointing to some, at the end of the day no one winds up being truly alienated.

BTW: I am a heterosexual male. I am also comfortable in my own sexuality to be able to relate intelligently to so called "Pro-Gay" issues. In my mind most of these issues are about being Pro-Humanity and not stigmatizing someone based on sexual preference.

I also happen to enjoy a lot of great programming on the Logo Network. Not everything shown there is a documentary on how to lube your man's asshole. Blocking the network solely on principle is just another display of intolerance I find disturbing for fans of a show that embraces diversity.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I meant to address one more part of your post before and forgot. You said, "Why do homophobes always instantly focus on sexual activity?" in response to my post to you.

I want to clarify I am not a homophobe if you define that as having a fear of homosexuals. I don't, and I want to make my stance clear and get your reply. I disagree with homosexuality on moral and religious grounds. I do advocate equal rights for them as well as everyone else.

If you want to classify as a homophobe based on the fact that I speak out against the morality of it, then I accept that label willingly. But it is not out of fear.

Allow me to rephrase. Why do people who disapprove of homosexuality for whatever reason always instantly focus on sexual activity?

This is Star Trek. Not porn. You're not going to see gay sex. Instead, imagine an episode beginning like this: Ben Sisko and Kasidy Yates are walking down a DS9 corridor. They meet up with a couple of other characters, both male or both female, and head to the Promenade for a double date at Quark's. They get their drinks and start chatting, and suddenly Sisko's combadge transmits the voice of someone asking him to come to Ops because an unidentified fleet of ships just came through the wormhole. Go to opening credits, then return with Sisko in Ops talking to Kira. Kasidy and the other two characters appear a couple of times in the episode as captives of the invading mysterious aliens, and the situation is resolved and the episode ends with the four finally having a chance to relax at Quark's. No kissing, no sex. Just the fact that those two characters exist and have a relationship.

Would you object to an episode like that? I really don't know. Because you're going on about how people would react to scenes of that couple kissing. How would you react if those characters are there and they don't kiss?

I'm not saying that cannot appear on television or in movies. I am just saying that I wouldn't watch it and many others wouldn't want to either. Just my opinion, okay?

One more time: "I am just saying that I wouldn't watch it" is your opinion. Okay. "and many others wouldn't want to either." There you're speaking for other people, not just for yourself. Not so okay.

ETA: Squire, your tone of civility in this discussion is somewhat at odds with your signature:

"I'm a secular progressive. Weak national defense. No God in public. No family values. Pro-murder of children. Pro-drugs! Income redistribution for crack heads & welfare deadbeats! No hand up, yes...hand out! I hate America."

Doesn't apply to me personally, because I'm not necessarily a secular progressive; I'm an atheist liberal. For that matter, I'm not American. But a signature file like that is not the sign of someone who has any respect for those who disagree with him; it's insulting and it misrepresents what a lot of people believe in. If someone else's attempt to provoke you is unwarranted, can you really defend using this quote as your signature?

Steve,

Thanks for the reasonable reply. i appreciate it.

With regard to your DS9 scenario, I would object to watching it even if there were no sexual activity. The show is supposed to be entertainment and to include that would not entertain me. By continuing to watch it at that point would be silent approval. I am aware homosexuality exist. I don't need Star Trek to promote it. If they do, I turn it off. Simple consumer choice.

I also objected to my local newspaper running an explicit ad for sexual performance on page 2 of the sports section this morning. It was disgusting. Some 10 year old wanting to read about the Yankees or Red Sox opens up the paper and sees this? It's just not right.

Oh, about the signature, I'm aware it can be viewed as inflammatory, but it shouldn't have anything to do with this discussion which has been pretty calm. Discuss issues civilly with me and you'll get the same in return, regardless of your signature or mine.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

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.

I couldn't agree more and to that end Star Trek has accomplished that on several occasions without the need to show an "openly gay" character. I put this in quotes only because so many of us have different ideas and connotations of what that could or should mean. While the fact that Trek plays to the middle of the road (i.e. "safe") with this issue may be dissapointing to some, at the end of the day no one winds up being truly alienated.

BTW: I am a heterosexual male. I am also comfortable in my own sexuality to be able to relate intelligently to so called "Pro-Gay" issues. In my mind most of these issues are about being Pro-Humanity and not stigmatizing someone based on sexual preference.

I also happen to enjoy a lot of great programming on the Logo Network. Not everything shown there is a documentary on how to lube your man's asshole. Blocking the network solely on principle is just another display of intolerance I find disturbing for fans of a show that embraces diversity.

Number 6, are you referring to my statement that I blocked the channel?

Regardless, I AM the consumer. I can block or watch any channel or show I wish. Same as you can do. I don't want my child seeing it. I also don't want them watching MTV until they're old enough.

I'm not telling you what to watch and I don't care if you watch logo all day long, bud. SO what's the problem?

 

[MichaelJCO]

I'm a bi guy here and I have always given Star Trek the benefit of the doubt about this issue. Yes they could have acutally had an openly gay or even bi character but the episodes that Star Trek has that address the "gay" issue have always been positive and Star Trek had much more shows on the subject than the average tv show ever does. However, I have to say one thing that has always bothered me in regard to this issue. In the TNG episode Up the Long Ladder the colonist woman ask's Riker if he doesnt like girls when he doesnt seem to be interested in her. His response is "OF COURSE I DO !!!" -as if there is NO other alternative. Maybe I'm reading into it but it always struck me as saying that-unintentionally I'm sure because the very same episode delivers a strong pro-choice message.Anyone else notice that?

Oh yeah there was also Crushers reaction to the new female host for Odan but that was I'm sure just more shock that to her Odan was no longer Odan as opposed to any anit-gay message.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I'm a bi guy here and I have always given Star Trek the benefit of the doubt about this issue. Yes they could have acutally had an openly gay or even bi character but the episodes that Star Trek has that address the "gay" issue have always been positive and Star Trek had much more shows on the subject than the average tv show ever does. However, I have to say one thing that has always bothered me in regard to this issue. In the TNG episode Up the Long Ladder the colonist woman ask's Riker if he doesnt like girls when he doesnt seem to be interested in her. His response is "OF COURSE I DO !!!" -as if there is NO other alternative. Maybe I'm reading into it but it always struck me as saying that-unintentionally I'm sure because the very same episode delivers a strong pro-choice message.Anyone else notice that?

Oh yeah there was also Crushers reaction to the new female host for Odan but that was I'm sure just more shock that to her Odan was no longer Odan as opposed to any anit-gay message.

I think Riker's response of "of course I do!" was to show her he was interested in her. That's what I got out of it anyway.

 

[3D Master]

I like this idea that Sci-Fi fans are somehow "forward thinking" - it's especially funny, when you consider this board constantly runs a number of leering "look at that rack on that bitch" type threads at all times.

Yeah... really forward thinking...

Oh, please. First, nobody has ever used the word "bitch". Second, a person being sexually attracted to a person of whatever gender they are attracted too (they come in male flavors too, don't you know), is not backward, not "not forward thinking", nor is it even anything bad. In fact, it's something GOOD. It's a simple biological fact, and the expression of being attracted to people shows we're biologically still in working order.

I'm a bi guy here and I have always given Star Trek the benefit of the doubt about this issue. Yes they could have acutally had an openly gay or even bi character

I'm pretty sure Jadzia is bi, and openly so.

Bi guy here too, by the way.

I want to clarify I am not a homophobe if you define that as having a fear of homosexuals. I don't, and I want to make my stance clear and get your reply. I disagree with homosexuality on moral and religious grounds. I do advocate equal rights for them as well as everyone else.

Except that there's nothing moral or amoral about homosexuality, it's simply a biological fact.

Also, the bible not only is not against it, it doesn't even have a problem with it.

 

[pookha]

With regard to your DS9 scenario, I would object to watching it even if there were no sexual activity. The show is supposed to be entertainment and to include that would not entertain me. By continuing to watch it at that point would be silent approval. I am aware homosexuality exist. I don't need Star Trek to promote it. If they do, I turn it off. Simple consumer choice.
.

i wonder if the people who are opposed to seeing gays on tv is close to a majority even more.
even among the young gay crowd.
there have been tv shows that did very well with regular characters who were also gay.

and having a character that just happens to be homosexual isnt promoting it.
it is what it is.

i keep on going back to we really know very little about all the other crew ect we saw on the series and this is the important part unless they got involved with one of the star characters.

see two men or two women sitting together in ten forward.. for all we know they could have been gay.

as for the homosexualty being abolished through abortion.
the one thing i have been waiting for someone to notice (maybe they have and i missed it) is that the people most horrified by homosexuals are the least likely to have an abortion.