TREK future anti-gay?

[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

 

[number6]

Your friend needs to lighten up. Trek doesn't need to have an "openly gay" character to be "pro" gay. Trek has a history of showing tolerance. The fact that they don't have to guys making out in every scene doesn't betray those ideals.

 

[Mister_Atoz]

I'm gay myself, and I've never felt like Star Trek had a negative view of the lifestyle. I think however that by the 23rd and 24th century terms like gay or straight are archaic terms that respectable people don't use any more. I've always said that humans in star trek don't really think of themselves as black, white Asian, gay, straight, they are just human, and it just isn't proper to cling to distinctions like that in those centuries.

 

[tobindax]

he is gay

gay people aren't gods neither all agree with each other. e.g. the reply above me has a different opinion than your friend.

 

[Sagart]

I'm gay myself, and I've never felt like Star Trek had a negative view of the lifestyle. I think however that by the 23rd and 24th century terms like gay or straight are archaic terms that respectable people don't use any more. I've always said that humans in star trek don't really think of themselves as black, white Asian, gay, straight, they are just human, and it just isn't proper to cling to distinctions like that in those centuries.

Isn't this a bit naive? Even in the 24th century, I think people would want to know if the person they are interested in is straight or gay. Those terms or others with similar meanings will still be used. There wouldn't be much point in me pursuing a relationship with a lesbian!

 

[number6]

I'm gay myself, and I've never felt like Star Trek had a negative view of the lifestyle. I think however that by the 23rd and 24th century terms like gay or straight are archaic terms that respectable people don't use any more. I've always said that humans in star trek don't really think of themselves as black, white Asian, gay, straight, they are just human, and it just isn't proper to cling to distinctions like that in those centuries.

Isn't this a bit naive? Even in the 24th century, I think people would want to know if the person they are interested in is straight or gay. Those terms or others with similar meanings will still be used. There wouldn't be much point in me pursuing a relationship with a lesbian!

I don't think it's naive in the least. If i were interested in someone, by the time I got to know them I would know the level of relationship I could have with that person. That's just common sense, combined with a little bit of emotional maturity.

 

[Sagart]

I'm gay myself, and I've never felt like Star Trek had a negative view of the lifestyle. I think however that by the 23rd and 24th century terms like gay or straight are archaic terms that respectable people don't use any more. I've always said that humans in star trek don't really think of themselves as black, white Asian, gay, straight, they are just human, and it just isn't proper to cling to distinctions like that in those centuries.

Isn't this a bit naive? Even in the 24th century, I think people would want to know if the person they are interested in is straight or gay. Those terms or others with similar meanings will still be used. There wouldn't be much point in me pursuing a relationship with a lesbian!

I don't think it's naive in the least. If i were interested in someone, by the time I got to know them I would know the level of relationship I could have with that person. That's just common sense, combined with a little bit of emotional maturity.

I might be interested in someone who I don't know really well. They might be interested in friendship, I might be interested in more than that and the gay thing, for want of a better term, may never come up; one person not considering it, the other not thinking to mention it. I don't think that's being emotionally naive. And when it does come up, I'm still left with needing to define our positions. So what do I say? "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise you are...you know..that word we don't use anymore." Not being free to use 'gay' or 'straight' in a conversation doesn't strike me as an example of common sense.

 

[number6]

Isn't this a bit naive? Even in the 24th century, I think people would want to know if the person they are interested in is straight or gay. Those terms or others with similar meanings will still be used. There wouldn't be much point in me pursuing a relationship with a lesbian!

I don't think it's naive in the least. If i were interested in someone, by the time I got to know them I would know the level of relationship I could have with that person. That's just common sense, combined with a little bit of emotional maturity.

I might be interested in someone who I don't know really well. They might be interested in friendship, I might be interested in more than that and the gay thing, for want of a better term, may never come up; one person not considering it, the other not thinking to mention it. I don't think that's being emotionally naive. And when it does come up, I'm still left with needing to define our positions. So what do I say? "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise you are...you know..that word we don't use anymore." Not being free to use 'gay' or 'straight' in a conversation doesn't strike me as an example of common sense.

Again.. That's just a bit of common sense and emotional maturity. Not every relationship need be a sexual one. There is nothing wrong with a deep friendship with someone of the opposite sex, or an intimate relationship with the same sex. The process of getting to know one another usually sets up its own parameters, versus walking into a such a scenario with preconceptions.

 

[Dream]

 

[number6]

^Indeed.

 

[Sagart]

The naivete I was speaking of in my original post related to the suggestion that we will not need to describe people as gay or straight in the future. What I am saying is that we will continue to do so, just as we describe people as short, tall, fat, thin, white, black, etc, etc. The ideal future I hope for is not one where we are so politically correct that we don't use these terms but that we can use them without any negative meaning being associated with them.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Star Trek has had several episodes where allegories seem to be made towards gays and it has generally been supportive. It hasn't had gay characters, but that doesn't make it anti-gay.

 

[Mister_Atoz]

When Jadzia Dax decided to get involved with a previous host's lover, the fact that she was now a woman didn't seem to be much of a deal breaker. Everyone around her seemed a lot more concerned that she was breaking a Trill Taboo than the fact that it was a woman.

When Beverley was involved with that other Trill who later became a woman, she seemed more bothered by the fact that Odan might never be the same person from one moment to the next, but I get the impression she genuinely considered continuing her relationship even if she ultimately decided to end it.

The human story in Star Trek has always been that as a species we grew to emotional maturity and humans of race, gender whatever else came together to explore the galaxy. That may mean different things to different people who watch the series and want to relate to the world it illustrates.

For me, I see a world where sexual moires of other centuries no longer exist on earth. As offensive as it might sound to people of our era, I see humans in star trek as being largely pansexual; where a person's gender is not an integral to a lasting relationship, and that most humans are open to any possibility. I think this type of social trend is valid considering this is a society that comes into contact with other species where definitions like man or woman don't quite apply.

Wasn't there a plant-like chap on DS9 who was pregnant. I know phlox mentions a species with as many as five genders. I just feel that humans living in an era where they can have relationships with an entirely different species, some with completely different concepts of gender humans wouldn't be as afraid to experiment with diverse types of relationships. It would be part of their quest for personal growth they all seem to be on the various series.

 

[number6]

The naivete I was speaking of in my original post related to the suggestion that we will not need to describe people as gay or straight in the future. What I am saying is that we will continue to do so, just as we describe people as short, tall, fat, thin, white, black, etc, etc. The ideal future I hope for is not one where we are so politically correct that we don't use these terms but that we can use them without any negative meaning being associated with them.

I think the term is irrelevant.

The connotations of sexual preference in contemporary society are largely based on fear and prejudice. I would hope that by the 23rd and 24th centuries, we would be over our archaic notions of sexuality and just be people. That's clearly what Gene believed and it shows in the shows he created and in the shows spawned from that vision.

Going back to your "what if I want to date someone that might be a lesbian" scenario, I think it could just be as simple as a choice between interested and not interested. That's a little more pragmatic than living in fear of falling for a hot lesbian, doncha think?

 

[Sagart]

The human story in Star Trek has always been that as a species we grew to emotional maturity and humans of race, gender whatever else came together to explore the galaxy. That may mean different things to different people who watch the series and want to relate to the world it illustrates.

Yeah, I think it does mean different things to different people. I've always seen the Trek message being one of, not eradicating differences, but of being able to work together, regardless of those differences in a respectful way. It speaks of infinite diversity in infinite combinations, not trying to ignore or deny our diversities. The things that define me don't have to define my relationship with another person.

 

[Sagart]

I think the term is irrelevant.

The connotations of sexual preference in contemporary society are largely based on fear and prejudice. I would hope that by the 23rd and 24th centuries, we would be over our archaic notions of sexuality and just be people. That's clearly what Gene believed and it shows in the shows he created and in the shows spawned from that vision.

I don't think it's irrelevant at all. We cannot deny or ignore our race, sexual orientation, physicality - all these things say something about us, we're not just blank pages, we are complex unique human beings. How I am different from you is just as important as the bonds that unite us. They speak of individuality which ultimately makes one more interesting.

Also, I don't think our sexual preferences are based on fear and prejudice. I'm fairly sure that biology has a hand in it as well.

 

[number6]

I think the term is irrelevant.

The connotations of sexual preference in contemporary society are largely based on fear and prejudice. I would hope that by the 23rd and 24th centuries, we would be over our archaic notions of sexuality and just be people. That's clearly what Gene believed and it shows in the shows he created and in the shows spawned from that vision.

I don't think it's irrelevant at all. We cannot deny or ignore our race, sexual orientation, physicality - all these things say something about us, we're not just blank pages, we are complex unique human beings. How I am different from you is just as important as the bonds that unite us. They speak of individuality which ultimately makes one more interesting.

Also, I don't think our sexual preferences are based on fear and prejudice. I'm fairly sure that biology has a hand in it as well.

i was speaking of the connotations of sexual preference on contemporary society.

And no I don't think that sexuality, race or colour should be denied, but I don't put as much importance on it as you seem to. We are complex creatures and simply putting labels on us like gay, straight, black, red, yellow, blue or plaid doesn't convey in the least what dwells inside that box contemporary socienty seems content to place us in. I don't think it works now and in 300 years' time I would hope we have a better system for guaging people.

 

[grabmygoblin]

agreed, we may as well put a sticky at the top, this comes up often enough.

I agree that Trek could have handled LGBT issues better, but overall I think it has been at pace if not ahead on occasion with the greater American culture.

some of TNG's handling today makes me uncomfortable, and it's fairly heterosexist (people assume you're heterosexual) and there are no overtly "out" couplings (lots of subvertly out couples, though! ), but Trek is tolerant. DS9 probably handled things best.

 

[USS Excelsior]

How many TV shows do you know of have specifically gay characters, whether it be soap operas, sitcoms, comedies, other sci-fi, dramas, or whatever else.

The sad truth is they don't want to risk having them in fear of turning away anti-gay audiences.

In the 60's and 70's there were some gay characters in some comedies but their purpose for being there was to laugh at, something that wouldn't be acceptable today.

 

[BigC]

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.