Vanguard controversy

[Geoff]

abeardall said:
Why not...
Folks in this thread have been dissecting Lonely Squire's reasons for not wanting to read a story with homosexual sex content. Due to those reasons, some provided by LS others projected onto him, he has been labeled a bigot.

Before you are so sure that my comparison is not apt, do we not need to go into my reasons for not liking Mexican food? Or do the folks on this board just respect my opinion without analyzing every part of it. After all, I am just talking about a culture's culinary expression, not a group's sexual expression.

First of all, I don't think anyone in this thread has been labeled a "bigot." Insensitive and intolerant, perhaps; but that's not the same thing.

Second, if your analogy is truly relevant to the original topic, you must answer this question: Is your dislike of Mexican food so intense that, were you to read a novel in which one of the primary characters was eating Mexican food, you would be so offended as to return the book and refuse to read any subsequent books in the same series?

If not, then you're comparing apples to oranges.

But if so, then your analogy is apt; however, I would rightly conclude that you have issues that go far beyond simple distaste for a given activity.

 

[Scott Pearson]

TheLonelySquire said:That being said, I can certainly deal with societal and artistic contributions from homosexuals. Would I have dinner with George and his boyfriend? As long as doesn't strip down ala "The Naked Time" and make a public display, then yes I would!

So, in closing, I don't hate gay people. A portion of their lives is simply incompatible with my beliefs. If you read my many posts here, you'll also see I am for legal financial and civil union protections for them under the law.

So, anybody feel like some Mexican?

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. I'm not sure how you balance some of those issues consistently, but you certainly wouldn't fully relate to my agnostic/humanist-based ethics either. But we'll always have Star Trek, whether we dine with a shirtless Takei or not!

 

[exalted one]

TheLonelySquire said:
Well, seeing as most conservatives are Christians, you can have the world after we're gone. In the meantime we'll maintain the moral compass.

There's an old anecdote about people like this.

Joe dies and goes to Hell. Satan shows him around: there's a beach, a huge bar, swimming pool full of champagne, lots of scantily clad girls for everybody to take, bikes and SUVs for everybody to drive. Food growing on trees (t-bone tree, ribs tree, pastrami tree, you get the idea).
"Everybody can live like that, forever... everybody can get whatever they want. No catches. All inclusive." said Satan. Joe liked it a lot, definitely persuaded to stay.

But then, they arrived to another circle of Hell and Joe was confronted by completely different image: it's full of fire and brimstone, sounds of rattling chains, wailing and gnashing of teeth. Devils torturing naked, malnutrished humans, scalding them with irons, breaking their bones, boiling them in molten sulfur...

"But Satan, what is this? I thought everybody can be happy in Hell!?" Joe demanded.

"Don't worry," said Satan. "Those are Christians. They wanted it like that."

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Scott Pearson said:

TheLonelySquire said:That being said, I can certainly deal with societal and artistic contributions from homosexuals. Would I have dinner with George and his boyfriend? As long as doesn't strip down ala "The Naked Time" and make a public display, then yes I would!

So, in closing, I don't hate gay people. A portion of their lives is simply incompatible with my beliefs. If you read my many posts here, you'll also see I am for legal financial and civil union protections for them under the law.

So, anybody feel like some Mexican?

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. I'm not sure how you balance some of those issues consistently, but you certainly wouldn't fully relate to my agnostic/humanist-based ethics either. But we'll always have Star Trek, whether we dine with a shirtless Takei or not!

Not a problem. See, we CAN discuss and not hammer each other constantly.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Being a guy, I admit that the T'Prynn/Lurqal scenes turn me on. I admit, I am not exactly sophisticated.

I don't know what I would do if I read a Trek novel and happened to see a M/M scene like that. Probably just keep reading. It wouldn't turn me on, of course, but it wouldn't make me hurl either. I doubt it would cause any kind of emotion at all in my mind. (I've only ever seen something like that once, and that was in a Clive Barker story. Didn't much care that it was there. <shrug> )


I mean, I have absolutely no problem with gays or the concept of gayness. I think they should be left alone. (And I don't think homosexuality is a sin, either...sure, there's Romans 1 and all that, but I interpret that as a cultural norm appropriate *to that time*. But that's another thread entirely)

I believe in a God who created all and loves all - He loves gay men and women as much as He loves me.

 

[Cicero]

Babaganoosh said:
Being a guy, I admit that the T'Prynn/Lurqal scenes turn me on. I admit, I am not exactly sophisticated.

I just wanted to get to the end of them. Stens blah blah blah. He wants to kill me. I want to kill him. I already did.

 

[Holytomato]

But here's the problem: Why is being Gay not the truth?

There is an old saying, "To life is truth."

Also, The Bible supports Slavery of anyone who is different from you.

 

[donners22]

I'm not going to get into a moral debate - I doubt anyone who has formed their own morals by a reasonable age will be swayed by the arguments of another and would not want someone with such flexible morals to believe the same as me if they did.

Nor can I go into specifics about the Vanguard books. I had a glance at them in my local library yesterday and saw neither anything that was particularly offensive nor anything that attracted me to read them.

This discussion is interesting to me, however, because I'm rather concerned about some of the gratutous scenes that are appearing in Star Trek books lately. I'm sure Trek authors much prefer the freedom of these times to what their predecessors experienced, but I often get the feeling reading books these days that a scene is there less because it is relevant to a good story, but more...well, "Because I can".

The Mirror Universe books especially frustrated me, with quite interesting storylines constantly marred by scenes of violence and sex that were all too often empty, pointless and often badly written, to the point of being downright trashy. It was a shame to have such promising ideas wasted by unnecessary elements, and it's the sole reason those books don't line my shelves.

I was prepared to write that off as something specific to the Mirror Universe setting, but a few other novels, and this discussion, suggest that may not be the case.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Holytomato said:
But here's the problem: Why is being Gay not the truth?

There is an old saying, "To life is truth."

Also, The Bible supports Slavery of anyone who is different from you.

Can anybody translate this post?

 

[William Leisner]

donners22 said:
The Mirror Universe books especially frustrated me, with quite interesting storylines constantly marred by scenes of violence and sex that were all too often empty, pointless and often badly written, to the point of being downright trashy. It was a shame to have such promising ideas wasted by unnecessary elements, and it's the sole reason those books don't line my shelves.

Have you ever seen any of the Mirror Universe episodes????

 

[donners22]

Of course, I do realise that the tone of the Mirror Universe as depicted in the episodes certainly featured plenty of sex and violence. The difference is that while those episodes were outside the usual Star Trek limits, they were still constrained by the limits of the networks they screened on. Hence, the more extreme events were implied rather than clearly depicted.

This is a clear contrast to the books, which left little to the imagination, and also featured elements that went a fair way beyond anything the episodes showed.

I thought the idea of trying to flesh out this universe was a rather pointless one, as it was used almost purely for comedic purposes in the latter stages of DS9's run and was quite contradictory and silly in nature. Still, as I said, the book actually showed some promising ideas. It's just a shame, IMHO, the execution was off.

 

[JD]

donners22 said:



This discussion is interesting to me, however, because I'm rather concerned about some of the gratutous scenes that are appearing in Star Trek books lately. I'm sure Trek authors much prefer the freedom of these times to what their predecessors experienced, but I often get the feeling reading books these days that a scene is there less because it is relevant to a good story, but more...well, "Because I can".

I'm sorry but I don't really see where any of the scenes in recent Trek books have been that gratuitous. Yeah, they have started to incorporate more sex and violence, but I don't really think any of it has been much worse than what we see on TV now. I mean it's not like they're really go into any detail about what's going on or anything.

 

[RookieBatman]

I haven't read through this whole thread, but I would like to give my opinion about the books. For myself, I didn't especially enjoy the first Vanguard book, in part because of the content discussed here. But, to paraphrase the old Voltaire quotation, I disagree with what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it. Star Trek is, after all, about diversity, and America is about free speech. I, personally, didn't enjoy Vanguard, but that does not in any way mean that I think those books shouldn't be printed. A diverse body of viewpoints in writing styles will only make Trek Lit stronger; the literature as it its weakest when all the books are the same.
I recently read "Federation," and as I described in another thread, I pretty much think it's the best Star Trek book I ever read. But you know what? That's not a universal opinion. That is to say, different people have different books and different styles that resonate with them. Just as different people have different touchpoints that bother them. If one person doesn't like reading about sex, we shouldn't berate him for that, just as we shouldn't berate someone for not minding it.
And as to how this relates to my oft-discussed Christianity, I'm becoming more and more convinced that my role as a follower of Christ is not to point at every non-Christian and say "you're a loser, and you're going to hell," but simply to show you love. So, Vanguard didn't really work for me, but if it works for you (the collective You) then I'm okay with that.

 

[iguana_tonante]

RookieBatman said:
And as to how this relates to my oft-discussed Christianity, I'm becoming more and more convinced that my role as a follower of Christ is not to point at every non-Christian and say "you're a loser, and you're going to hell," but simply to show you love.

Well, it's a step in the right direction!

(Seriously, I really wish more people could think like you.)

 

[FatherRob]

Trent Roman said:

Cicero said:
Out of curiosity, would any of this apply to Pennington if he isn't Christian?

Christianity is an all or nothing system of divinity that has no room for alternatives. You can either be saved through Christ or you can go to hell; there's no way to buyout from the system altogether. From that worldview, Christian tenets and codes of conduct would apply to him whether he likes it or not.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

I suppose I am chiming in rather late here, but the above statement is not exactly true.

There are many Christians (myself included) who believe that all will have a chance to hear the real, honest to goodness, unadulterated message of God and will be given the chance to accept or reject it. That means that the primitive tribesman in Brazil who hasn't even developed a written language and who a missionary cannot contact has the chance.

You see, for all non-Christians there is the principal of natural law. Some would also say that the laws of the Noahic Covenant apply to all believers of any form.

Either way, everyone will have a true chance to hear the real message of God, and accept or reject it. Rejection is a personal choice, as is acceptance.

Now, on to Vanguard...

While I think that some of the 'steamy' stuff could be done without, I can see it in the broader context of a fallen universe in which we are all striving to become better than we are.

My only real concern with Vanguard is that I could never in good conscience let an eight or ten year old read the book, which saddens me, because I remember picking up my first Star Trek novel in a small bookstore in Muncie, Indiana when I was about 7. Most modern Trek books, well, I wouldn't let my kids read them until they were teens.

That's a sadder commentary on Trek than any percieved promotion of 'lascivious' lifestyles or whatever you want to call them.

Rob+

 

[Maestro]

FatherRob said:
My only real concern with Vanguard is that I could never in good conscience let an eight or ten year old read the book, which saddens me, because I remember picking up my first Star Trek novel in a small bookstore in Muncie, Indiana when I was about 7. Most modern Trek books, well, I wouldn't let my kids read them until they were teens.

That's a sadder commentary on Trek than any percieved promotion of 'lascivious' lifestyles or whatever you want to call them.

Rob+

Father Rob is wise.

 

[RookieBatman]

iguana_tonante said:

RookieBatman said:
And as to how this relates to my oft-discussed Christianity, I'm becoming more and more convinced that my role as a follower of Christ is not to point at every non-Christian and say "you're a loser, and you're going to hell," but simply to show you love.

Well, it's a step in the right direction!

(Seriously, I really wish more people could think like you.)

It's my sincere hope, and expectation, that this will become a much more common stance among Christians within the next few generations.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

FatherRob said:
My only real concern with Vanguard is that I could never in good conscience let an eight or ten year old read the book, which saddens me, because I remember picking up my first Star Trek novel in a small bookstore in Muncie, Indiana when I was about 7. Most modern Trek books, well, I wouldn't let my kids read them until they were teens.

That's a sadder commentary on Trek than any percieved promotion of 'lascivious' lifestyles or whatever you want to call them.

Rob+

Look at it this way: Your kids can read the same books as you did when you were a kid (assuming you still have them or can get hold of them) and then they can read the other books later on. It's something for them to look forward to.

 

[iguana_tonante]

FatherRob said:
There are many Christians (myself included) who believe that all will have a chance to hear the real, honest to goodness, unadulterated message of God and will be given the chance to accept or reject it. That means that the primitive tribesman in Brazil who hasn't even developed a written language and who a missionary cannot contact has the chance.

Sorry to ask, but how?

You see, for all non-Christians there is the principal of natural law. Some would also say that the laws of the Noahic Covenant apply to all believers of any form.

Rob+

I'm not sure I understand. How could someone that have never heard of the Bible (and Noah in particular) be expected to respect its laws?

To me, the "natural law" argument is a fallacy, since no one agree of what is "natural law".

 

[RookieBatman]

iguana_tonante said:

FatherRob said:
There are many Christians (myself included) who believe that all will have a chance to hear the real, honest to goodness, unadulterated message of God and will be given the chance to accept or reject it. That means that the primitive tribesman in Brazil who hasn't even developed a written language and who a missionary cannot contact has the chance.

Sorry to ask, but how?

You see, for all non-Christians there is the principal of natural law. Some would also say that the laws of the Noahic Covenant apply to all believers of any form.

Rob+

I'm not sure I understand. How could someone that have never heard of the Bible (and Noah in particular) be expected to respect its laws?

To me, the "natural law" argument is a fallacy, since no one agree of what is "natural law".

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."
David Gerrold actually made the comment (I can't remember if he was quoting Solomon Short, apparently his favorite philosopher) that "there are no atheists in space," because when you get out there and see the vastness and the beauty of it, you can't doubt God's existence. I'm sure many will disagree with that assertion, but that is, I believe, the essence of what FatherRob was saying. There are some ways that God makes himself self-evident, where you can come to know God without having to be told about him.