Vanguard controversy

[mrs260]

I bet those naughty Klingons eat shellfish.

Not the Vulcans, though. They content themselves with wearing those abominable blended fabrics.

Personally, if I end up in Hell, I'm blaming the tactical anti-Kosher burgers in our freezer. (Burgers with bacon and mozzarella mixed into the patty. Next best thing to actually boiling a calf in its mother's milk.)

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Again, you guys are entitled to your opinions. You're upset with me because I returned two books.

Someone above mentioned a "lack of tolerance". Not tolerating that which is morally opposed to the will of God is not bigotry. It is God's will.

I support equal rights. I support your rights to read whatever you choose. In fact, there is now one extra copy each of SUmmon The Thunder and Reap The Whirlwind available for purchase at Borders, West Hartford, Connecticut location.

This should make you happy.

 

[mrs260]

I'm not upset with you for returning the books. I just think you're silly for being upset about a little sex when there's all those other "thou shalt not"s throughout Star Trek.

Personally, I'm morally opposed to violence. But Star Trek is fictional, and No Actual Sentient Beings Were Harmed. So I... am entertained by the excellent writing.

 

[David cgc]

TheLonelySquire said:
Someone above mentioned a "lack of tolerance". Not tolerating that which is morally opposed to the will of God is not bigotry. It is God's will.

Some of us disagree on that interpretation of God's will.

 

[Cicero]

Christopher said:

TheLonelySquire said:
Guys, why is it such an issue that I find glorifying adultery wrong and homoexuality equally distasteful? I'm not telling you guys not to read it, so why are you on my case?

C'mon, deal with it.

Many of us find homophobia wrong and distasteful. Deal with that.

It doesn't appear to me that TheLonelySquire is displaying a homophobic attitude. He's expressed no fear of or contempt for it, nor any indication that his positions are based in those feelings.

What he's expressed is moral disagreement (which, it should be noted, is foolish, since homosexuality is, in at least the vast majority of cases, beyond one's choice). He's advocated no repression - only stated that he thinks it's wrong.

I mean, come on, this is Star Trek. This is a universe that has been telling us for 40 years that prejudice against those with different appearances, different biologies, different religions, different cultures and value systems, different whatever is just plain wrong and will have been eradicated from human consciousness within a few centuries. How can it possibly come as a surprise that sexual orientation is included in that blanket philosophy of tolerance?

One reason a person might be surprised is that there is no evidence of continuing human homosexuality in Star Trek. Like autistics, there's no evidence for the continuance of this differently-wired population continuing.

To a mainline population, those wired differently (like homosexuals, those with Asperger's and with autism) are understandably considered to have a disorder, simply by virtue of being out of the main line. Life will be more difficult for them, and parents in the future will likely seek to minimize the chances (though enviromental choices, as well as genetic) that their children will be 'wired' normally.

If we as a species gain much significant control over reproduction, and come to understand the environmental factors involved, Asperger's, autism, homosexuality, etc. are all likely to disappear in short order. We'd lose diversity (and I, for one, will mourn autism), but our children would probably be happier.

It's reasonable to expect homosexuality to at least all but disappear.

How could you not have seen it coming that the members of a Star Trek board would mostly disagree with your attitude about this?

I would hope that members of a Star Trek board would be rational in their thinking, and not reflexively left-wing.

 

[mrs260]

Considering the Eugenics wars and the taboo against genetic manipulation, I should think that a 24th century human would find the idea of selecting against homosexuality disgusting and wrong. I doubt it would disappear. (The autistic spectrum would depend on whether it continues to be considered a disorder. I would hope it would be accepted as a neurological difference rather than a neurological disorder.)

As for it not appearing on the show... I know some fans who posit a homophobic 23rd or 24th century in which people must remain closeted. Personally, I find the idea too unpleasant to deal with, and just assume that the characters I read as queer are actually queer.

 

[William Leisner]

TheLonelySquire said:
Someone above mentioned a "lack of tolerance". Not tolerating that which is morally opposed to the will of God is not bigotry. It is God's will.

Funny... I thought Jesus said things like "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I also remember him making friends with prostitutes and (*gasp*) Roman tax collectors, and making outrageous claims like Samaritans could be decent people. Really, the only "intolerance" he had, as I recall, was against the Pharisees who thought being "religious" made them better than anyone else.

But, hey, if God wants us to be intolerant, fine: let's burn down the Red Lobster!!

 

[Turtletrekker]

Cicero said:

One reason a person might be surprised is that there is no evidence of continuing human homosexuality in Star Trek. Like autistics, there's no evidence for the continuance of this differently-wired population continuing.

There is no evidence to the contrary either. What's the saying...? "Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence" or something like that?

It's reasonable to expect homosexuality to at least all but disappear.

Just like Christianity? Somehow I find the thought of either of them "disappearing" to be unlikely and little disturbing.

How could you not have seen it coming that the members of a Star Trek board would mostly disagree with your attitude about this?

I would hope that members of a Star Trek board would be rational in their thinking, and not reflexively left-wing.

If acceptance of others despite different opinions and beliefs and lifestyles is "relexively left-wing" then so be it.

 

[Sci]

TheLonelySquire said:
Someone above mentioned a "lack of tolerance". Not tolerating that which is morally opposed to the will of God is not bigotry. It is God's will.

Then surely you don't mind us telling you that you're wrong to be opposed to homosexuality. After all -- we're just doing God's Will.

 

[Smiley]

I find it curious that just the sexual sins are being singled out. If you're condemning T'Prynn and Lurqal for their relationship, even though they are aliens, then consistency demands that you also condemn the Tholians for their gross violation of "Thou shalt not kill."

We do not live in a perfect world, so it is unreasonable to expect our fictional stories to contain perfect people. My view is that fiction should move me, entertain me, make me think, or some combination of the three. Family, friends, Scripture, priests, and plenty of other things can teach, affirm, and encourage moral values.

 

[Cicero]

Turtletrekker said:

Cicero said:

One reason a person might be surprised is that there is no evidence of continuing human homosexuality in Star Trek. Like autistics, there's no evidence for the continuance of this differently-wired population continuing.

There is no evidence to the contrary either. What's the saying...? "Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence" or something like that?

One might be surprised because it hasn't been seen, not because they know with certainty that it isn't there.

It's reasonable to expect homosexuality to at least all but disappear.

Just like Christianity? Somehow I find the thought of either of them "disappearing" to be unlikely and little disturbing.

Nor do I find the prospect of either's disappearance disturbing.

If I had to pick one, I'd rather religious Christianity (really, all religion) vanished. It's certainly been responsible for evils of many kinds, while homosexuality has not. To homosexuality, as it happens, I'm indifferent. But I recognize that it makes lives harder, even in an ideally tolerant society. Homosexuals will always be frustrated, to some extent, by living in a heterosexual world.

How could you not have seen it coming that the members of a Star Trek board would mostly disagree with your attitude about this?

I would hope that members of a Star Trek board would be rational in their thinking, and not reflexively left-wing.

If acceptance of others despite different opinions and beliefs and lifestyles is "relexively left-wing" then so be it.

It is not. Calls of homophobia in response to negative comments about homosexuality, even when there is no evidence of fear or contempt, however, is.

 

[Cicero]

mrs260 said:
Considering the Eugenics wars and the taboo against genetic manipulation, I should think that a 24th century human would find the idea of selecting against homosexuality disgusting and wrong. I doubt it would disappear.

Genetically selecting, perhaps (or maybe selection is normal, but physical engineering taboo). Controlling environmental factors, though, I doubt would be considered disgusting or wrong.

(The autistic spectrum would depend on whether it continues to be considered a disorder. I would hope it would be accepted as a neurological difference rather than a neurological disorder.)

In general, unless a difference presents some advantage (either to the species, or to the individual's chances of normal success), it's considered a disorder. That's unlikely to change, unless a society pursues diversity for its own sake (in which case all current disorders might be viewed as mere difference).

As for it not appearing on the show... I know some fans who posit a homophobic 23rd or 24th century in which people must remain closeted. Personally, I find the idea too unpleasant to deal with, and just assume that the characters I read as queer are actually queer.

That's an unlikely possibility, given the characters' attitudes when homosexuality has bee verged on (Rejoined, for instance).

Sci said:

TheLonelySquire said:
Someone above mentioned a "lack of tolerance". Not tolerating that which is morally opposed to the will of God is not bigotry. It is God's will.

Then surely you don't mind us telling you that you're wrong to be opposed to homosexuality. After all -- we're just doing God's Will.

To say so, you should probably present some argument in support of your assertion. (Spurious though all such arguments are bound to be.)

 

[William Leisner]

Cicero said:
Calls of homophobia in response to negative comments about homosexuality, even when there is no evidence of fear or contempt, however, is.

I'm curious as to why "negative comments" expressing the complete and unequivical opposition to an entire class of people does not amount to "contempt."

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

TheLonelySquire said:
Please don't get me wrong. I advocate equal legal protections for everyone, including homosexuals. They are people and deserve ths respect.

However, moral conduct is another matter. It's not homophobic to disagree with homosexuality on moral grounds. Same thing with adultery.

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.

Someone above mentioned a "lack of tolerance". Not tolerating that which is morally opposed to the will of God is not bigotry. It is God's will.

It is my experience that those who take the “moral high ground” or preach the good word and god’s will are they themselves besieged with an internal spiritual and sexual quandary that they feel compelled to manifest by calling others out on their "immorality."

What is really funny is that some of you preach tolerance, yada, yada. You don't seem to be very tolerant of opposing opinions. You really seem to get upset very easily, which is unfortunate.

Practice what you preach.

Are you, sir, no different?

Then if we are to be tolerant of yours than shouldn’t you be tolerant of ours?

What is upsetting is the ignorance that is spewed from those that have the “moral compass,” and it does disturb me greatly and gets me emotionally charged. It is that kind of misinformed opinion that should not be tolerated because it begins to separate us as human beings, and for what sexual identity? That kind of fear and hatred results in terror and injustice.

Despite having disagreeing with your “moral” values, which I find that there is a fine line between morality and judgment, I applaud you for doing what others of your “morality” are unable to do—return the book, or better yet turn off the damn television or not see the movie.

We are entitled to an informed opinion; however, the internet and conservatism seldom have anything to do with factual information.

 

[Cicero]

William Leisner said:

Cicero said:
Calls of homophobia in response to negative comments about homosexuality, even when there is no evidence of fear or contempt, however, is.

I'm curious as to why "negative comments" expressing the complete and unequivical opposition to an entire class of people does not amount to "contempt."

Moral disagreement (however ill-founded) does not equal disrespect or scorn. One can view another's actions as wrong, but still treat them with sincere honor as a person.

An example would be of Gandhi and the British Raj. He morally disagreed with the British, but harbored no contempt or ill will toward them. He loved them as he loved himself.

Even strenuous disagreement and contempt do not necessarily go together.

 

[SeerSGB]

One reason a person might be surprised is that there is no evidence of continuing human homosexuality in Star Trek. Like autistics, there's no evidence for the continuance of this differently-wired population continuing.

Is it that it's gone, or that it's no longer a real issue to people. No more "OMG, teh gayz!", which is entirely more plausible in a world where interspecies mating is accepted. After you find out your daughter is boning the Andorian she met at college, Little Johnny taking up the ass from the neighbor boy isn't such a big deal any longer.

It's entirely possible that homosexuality exists well into humanity's future-- remember humans have laws against genetic engineering due to the Eugenics war. And given that mankind met hundreds of alien cultures and religions, it's entirely possible that sexuality is no longer the shocker for them that it is for a lot of people today. To be sure there's probably going to be people that say "You're homosexual?! You sick fuck!" but then again that would be no different in the 24th c. than someone saying "You screwed a Vulcan?! You sick fuck!"

 

[Maestro]

Conservative Christians don't actual read the Gospels of Christ. They are more interested in the Letters of St. Paul. They glorify the teachings of Paul at the expense of the teachings of Christ. It's why mainline Christian denominations claim the fundamentalists and evangelicals preach a different Christ. They do, Paul of Tarses Christ.

 

[Turtletrekker]

As an aside, I have to say that given the subject matter, this has been a remarkably civil discussion. Go us! :thumbsup:

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Smiley said:
I find it curious that just the sexual sins are being singled out. If you're condemning T'Prynn and Lurqal for their relationship, even though they are aliens, then consistency demands that you also condemn the Tholians for their gross violation of "Thou shalt not kill."

Excuse me.

What sense does it make to judge non-humans on the basis of a morality defined by a human mythology two thousand years old? Judging T'Prynn by the writings of Paul makes no sense. Judging Pennington by Biblical standards ignores the sociological fact that sexual mores have changed as the times have changed, and sexual mores will change further into the future as science continues to increase the recreative aspect of sexuality while minimizing the procreative aspect of sexuality.

See, that's the thing with Biblical pronouncements--they make sense, when viewed in the context of nomadic tribes living in the desert 2500 years ago. Yes, there are certain things you shouldn't eat in the fucking desert. But today? We have refrigeration. We understand disease. We can remove the potential harm from our diet.

Apply that to sexual morality. Biblical pronouncements on sexual morality are fine, in a world without contraception. Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality are entirely about ensuring the birth of the next generation. Biblical prohibitions agsinst multiple sexual partners are entirely about not upsetting a close-knit community. But remove the possibility of pregnancy from sexual activity, and the Biblical prohibitions are out of touch.

Seriously, what the hell does the Bible have to do with living today? It's shit as history, it's piss-poor as theology. It's a poor prism for interpreting life in today's world.

 

[Cicero]

SeerSGB said:

One reason a person might be surprised is that there is no evidence of continuing human homosexuality in Star Trek. Like autistics, there's no evidence for the continuance of this differently-wired population continuing.

Is it that it's gone, or that it's no longer a real issue to people. No more "OMG, teh gayz!", which is entirely more plausible in a world where interspecies mating is accepted. After you find out your daughter is boning the Andorian she met at college, Little Johnny taking up the ass from the neighbor boy isn't such a big deal any longer.

We've not seen it, so either interpretation is equally valid.

It's entirely possible that homosexuality exists well into humanity's future-- remember humans have laws against genetic engineering due to the Eugenics war. And given that mankind met hundreds of alien cultures and religions, it's entirely possible that sexuality is no longer the shocker for them that it is for a lot of people today. To be sure there's probably going to be people that say "You're homosexual?! You sick fuck!" but then again that would be no different in the 24th c. than someone saying "You screwed a Vulcan?! You sick fuck!"

There are many reasons homosexuality might be eliminated by choice, some compassionate, some confused, some rational, and some hateful. And many things which a prohibition on genetic engineering might entail. Certainly persons are not randomly assigned mating partners, so the system allows for at least the natural engineering element present in mating with someone one finds attractive.

(The genetic element of homosexuality might even have been eliminated during the Eugenics Wars themselves.)

It's possible that it exists, but we've seen no evidence for it in our universe, despite apparently open attitudes, in the admittedly small sample we've seen so far. (It does appear to be present in the Mirror Universe, though, where it's possible no Eugenics Wars occurred.)