TREK future anti-gay?

[3D Master]

Now the son of the one god though, there is a magnificent something to worship! The one god lead to persecution, murder, burnings at stakes, torture, wars, and more death than any other religion combined, but that's what an enlightened person worships. Yay!

Jesus, that is pathetic. Worship of God, or His Son does not lead to what you describe. It happens because "religion" is twisted by those seeking to further their personal agendas. Kinda the same pathetic notion of looking to a TV show to legitimize one's personal beliefs or behavior.

Yeah, that must be why only shortly after God decreed to his own people via Moses "thou shalt not murder", he ordered Moses to have a subsection of his own people murdered. That really shows how following the one God's path leads to peace and quiet.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Now the son of the one god though, there is a magnificent something to worship! The one god lead to persecution, murder, burnings at stakes, torture, wars, and more death than any other religion combined, but that's what an enlightened person worships. Yay!

Jesus, that is pathetic. Worship of God, or His Son does not lead to what you describe. It happens because "religion" is twisted by those seeking to further their personal agendas. Kinda the same pathetic notion of looking to a TV show to legitimize one's personal beliefs or behavior.

Yeah, that must be why only shortly after God decreed to his own people via Moses "thou shalt not kill", he ordered Moses to have a subsection of his own people murdered. That really shows how following the one God's path leads to peace and quiet.

Actually, it's "Thou shall not murder". Big difference.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Guys, you're off topic

 

[number6]

My apologies. I am aware we are not friends as this is a message board. It was simple conversation.

My opinions are dismissive? How? Because I disagree with yours? Please. I have been nothing but courteous during this entire discussion.

I'm not asking you to believe as I do. I'm not calling you stupid for holding your beliefs about this subject. I simply disagree and did so politely.

The problem I see is that it's not enough for some that people who don't support homosexuality acknowledge it. Some people want us to accept it as a moral thing. Many people simply don't.

Again, as far as my signature, there are MANY signatures here that are controversial. Too bad. Maybe we should just focus on the topic at hand.

And the Trek that I watch, TOS, most certainly was consistent with my ideals. The ones that followed, not so sure.

The issue in this thread is not about the morality of sexuality. It might be your issue, but that's not the topic. Your sig line speaks volumes about your value system. In fact, it is throwing it in the face of the people you engage in this discussion, especially when you post a reply such as "too bad." The fact that others may have "controversial" signatures does not in any way make yours less offensive.

The concept of embracing diversity in all its combinations was INTRODUCED in TOS. Any fan of TOS would know that.

Ah, so anyone not willing to embrace something they don't agree with cannot be a Star Trek fan? That's rich.


Also, IDIC was a marketing tool that failed miserably. All the actors also hated it.

No. I said that the concept of celebrating diversity was introduced in TOS, in response to your claim that those ideals were only true of "later" Trek series. The cast hated the marketing of the necklace. Every fan knows that, too.

Once again the topic is about whether or not Trek should have had a "gay character," and not on your"moral outrage" about Homosexuality. And yes I certainly noticed you avoided that part of my post. Naturally.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Guys, you're off topic

Sorry, I'l stay on the mark.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

The issue in this thread is not about the morality of sexuality. It might be your issue, but that's not the topic. Your sig line speaks volumes about your value system. In fact, it is throwing it in the face of the people you engage in this discussion, especially when you post a reply such as "too bad." The fact that others may have "controversial" signatures does not in any way make yours less offensive.

The concept of embracing diversity in all its combinations was INTRODUCED in TOS. Any fan of TOS would know that.

Ah, so anyone not willing to embrace something they don't agree with cannot be a Star Trek fan? That's rich.


Also, IDIC was a marketing tool that failed miserably. All the actors also hated it.

No. I said that the concept of celebrating diversity was introduced in TOS, in response to your claim that those ideals were only true of "later" Trek series. The cast hated the marketing of the necklace. Every fan knows that, too.

Once again the topic is about whether or not Trek should have had a "gay character," and not on your"moral outrage" about Homosexuality. And yes I certainly noticed you avoided that part of my post. Naturally.

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.

 

[number6]

Ah, so anyone not willing to embrace something they don't agree with cannot be a Star Trek fan? That's rich.


Also, IDIC was a marketing tool that failed miserably. All the actors also hated it.

No. I said that the concept of celebrating diversity was introduced in TOS, in response to your claim that those ideals were only true of "later" Trek series. The cast hated the marketing of the necklace. Every fan knows that, too.

Once again the topic is about whether or not Trek should have had a "gay character," and not on your"moral outrage" about Homosexuality. And yes I certainly noticed you avoided that part of my post. Naturally.

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.

There's no hostility or sarcasm implied. Your attitude about morality speaks very plainly for itself.
As far as TOS being wholesome family entertainment:

TOS was never intended for children. It was marketed and presented as an adult show and on that show they have covered the following issues:

The War in Vietnam
Birth Control
A government creating and introducing a fatal disease to control population
Racism and racial profiling
The corruption of absolute power
The dangers of television and becoming passive to the point of destruction of a civilization
Taking drugs to boost self esteem
Far Left Vs. Far right and how far they will go to convince someone to take sides
Establishmentarianism vs Utopic Ideology
Man vs Technology
The dangers of blind devotion to flawed leadership
Rape
Genocide
Torture and exploitation of "Inferior" cultures and races
Embracing different cultures and ideals


That just scrapes the surface. Trek at its best was able to take on these topics with an underlying moral or lesson. The crew weren't just policing the galaxy and sometimes (expecially in the early episodes) the crew learned some hard lessons that didn't end with McCoy making fun of the ethnic minority and the crew giggling about it as the ship sailed off into the sunset.

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.

 

[3D Master]

Actually, it's "Thou shall not murder". Big difference.

No, actually, it isn't.

 

[Wowbagger]

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

Except, of course, "Bread and Circuses."

What I'm actually responding for, though, is to ask: TOS did rape? When was this?

Actual on-topic justification for this post: that's a great list, number6, but, by the time 1968 rolled around, most of the issues you listed there, and how TOS dealt with them, were not terribly controversial. Trekkies of course point to the fact that we had the first-ever interracial kiss... but we don't often point out that that kiss generated exactly one reported complaint.

According to ST: Where No One Has Gone Before: A History of the Future (page 44), that complaint read thusly: "I'm a white Southerner, I believe in the separation of the races, but any time that a red-blooded American boy like Captain Kirk gets a beautiful gal like Lieutenant Uhura into his arms, he ain't going to fight it." Which isn't much of a complaint at all.

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

 

[TheLonelySquire]

No. I said that the concept of celebrating diversity was introduced in TOS, in response to your claim that those ideals were only true of "later" Trek series. The cast hated the marketing of the necklace. Every fan knows that, too.

Once again the topic is about whether or not Trek should have had a "gay character," and not on your"moral outrage" about Homosexuality. And yes I certainly noticed you avoided that part of my post. Naturally.

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.

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

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.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

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

Except, of course, "Bread and Circuses."

What I'm actually responding for, though, is to ask: TOS did rape? When was this?

Actual on-topic justification for this post: that's a great list, number6, but, by the time 1968 rolled around, most of the issues you listed there, and how TOS dealt with them, were not terribly controversial. Trekkies of course point to the fact that we had the first-ever interracial kiss... but we don't often point out that that kiss generated exactly one reported complaint.

According to ST: Where No One Has Gone Before: A History of the Future (page 44), that complaint read thusly: "I'm a white Southerner, I believe in the separation of the races, but any time that a red-blooded American boy like Captain Kirk gets a beautiful gal like Lieutenant Uhura into his arms, he ain't going to fight it." Which isn't much of a complaint at all.

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

Balance of Terror and The Ultimate Computer as well.

 

[Wowbagger]

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

Except, of course, "Bread and Circuses."

Balance of Terror and The Ultimate Computer as well.

Point and point.

Also, "The Empath" and possibly "Who Mourns for Adonias."

Certainly, Gene was anti-religion. But it tended not to show in TOS. In fact, the opposite was shown: people of faith were scattered throughout the future. TNG, though, I'd agree that that model of the future was pretty much kicked out the window.

 

[pookha]

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.

uh reading that perhaps they should have done it earlier.
the network hacks kept on being resistant to things like having a multi racial crew and especially spock {"get rid of the guy with the ears" they said)
because they were afraid it would make viewers tune out.

and indeed in some parts of the south the show didnt air right away.

well, it turned out pretty well especially spock.

oh i forgot who said that all in the family did it first

 

[HRHTheKING]

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.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

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.

 

[Deks]

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

Religion is not the 'morality compass' or any other stupidity that some people would like to think.
'Morality' and the ability for compassion existed long before concepts of so called 'morality' or even 'religion' were invented.

And further more, if anything Roddenberry was on a rather decent track with the anti-religion and it brought a fresh perspective on scifi (apart from the concept of 'belief' ... he could have eliminated that one as well).

DS9 had numerous religious aspects (not to mention the titles of episodes), and the more they introduced those aspects into the show, the more I disliked it.
Drama?
It drastically reduced the intelligence and use of well established technology, the war could have been executed better, not to mention dozens of other things they messed up.
Roddenberry was not part of DS9, and it was evident.

But to call Roddenberry a man of 'limited moral compass' is a sheer sign of stupidity.
First of all, have you known him personally?
If not, then you cannot make such comments.
Second, I find nothing in TNG 'morally offensive', and Trek would not lose viewers for introducing a gay character.
Perhaps you, but then again I don't consider watching a show because it has an aspect of diversity integrated as something 'bad'.

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

 

[FalTorPan]

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!

 

[Sector 7]

Fight unsupported generalizations with unsupported generalizations!

Agreed. It does not help your case to fall to your opponent's level.
Many people confuse faith with religion. There is a difference. I am a man of faith, not a blind follower of religion. I have a personal relationship with My Creator, yet do not follow all the bias, prejudice and intolerance of religion.
Faith is a relationship with God. Religion is a set of man-made rules. There is a difference.
On topic: I re-iterate my earlier point that a gay relationship should be portrayed on Trek. Not making out in Ten Forward (I'm not much for public sexuality), but seeing an officer go off duty to meet his male spouse -or having to decide between his duty or the safety of his male spouse- would be much appreciated.
I would like to see people like me on-screen, just as the haters want to see only white male & female heterosexuals on-screen.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

Fight unsupported generalizations with unsupported generalizations!

Agreed. It does not help your case to fall to your opponent's level.
Many people confuse faith with religion. There is a difference. I am a man of faith, not a blind follower of religion. I have a personal relationship with My Creator, yet do not follow all the bias, prejudice and intolerance of religion.
Faith is a relationship with God. Religion is a set of man-made rules. There is a difference.
On topic: I re-iterate my earlier point that a gay relationship should be portrayed on Trek. Not making out in Ten Forward (I'm not much for public sexuality), but seeing an officer go off duty to meet his male spouse -or having to decide between his duty or the safety of his male spouse- would be much appreciated.
I would like to see people like me on-screen, just as the haters want to see only white male & female heterosexuals on-screen.

That makes sense...I don't think we saw ANYONE making out in 10 forward there wasn't much affection in TNG, they were like cardboard cutouts sometimes, I don't think we even saw Westley make out with that alien chick.

 

[number6]

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

Except, of course, "Bread and Circuses."

What I'm actually responding for, though, is to ask: TOS did rape? When was this?

Actual on-topic justification for this post: that's a great list, number6, but, by the time 1968 rolled around, most of the issues you listed there, and how TOS dealt with them, were not terribly controversial. Trekkies of course point to the fact that we had the first-ever interracial kiss... but we don't often point out that that kiss generated exactly one reported complaint.

According to ST: Where No One Has Gone Before: A History of the Future (page 44), that complaint read thusly: "I'm a white Southerner, I believe in the separation of the races, but any time that a red-blooded American boy like Captain Kirk gets a beautiful gal like Lieutenant Uhura into his arms, he ain't going to fight it." Which isn't much of a complaint at all.

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.