What percentage of the crew were gay?
- Thread starter Guy Gardener
- Start date
I saw the movie. The scale was invented in the mid 20th century, so really the only excuse for such a subconscious serene acceptance about this nature of human beings being part of basic cognitive tool box is... A whole bunch of "isms" that usually stem from badly taught religion.
On that How I met Your Mother a couple months back Robin remarked on how all new York Men are at least 10 percent gay, before she starts creaming on about how drunk toothless Hockey thugs get her engine purring.
On that How I met Your Mother a couple months back Robin remarked on how all new York Men are at least 10 percent gay, before she starts creaming on about how drunk toothless Hockey thugs get her engine purring.
Not exactly stupid; but not thinking clearly either. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone bring up the elephant in the room: genetic engineering. Will homosexuality be engineered out of the gene pool?
Rii
Rear Admiral
It's possible, would depend upon whether and to what degree progress towards social acceptance of homosexuality outpaces scientific advancement. One suspects that such genetic tampering would be illegal in the Federation, but the damage could've already been done. The potential for homosexuality to be detected and "treated" much as a congenital defect or genetic risk factor is one of the more uncomfortable implications of homosexuality being an innate rather than learned inclination.
I didn't think of that but according to TOS there were a series of Eugenics Wars so who knows what got mucked about with...
Remind me what happened in TNG Master Piece Society as far as the casting call went?
Khan's lot started off with 90 people and by the time Checkoff and Tyrol(sp?) found them, there were no children to be seen. Maybe homosexuality was programmed into the Genome back int he early 1970s?
Rojohen, gay people want children. Most people that are not emotionally stunted do want children. Emotionally stunted people are so much better off.
B'Elanna was apparently able to manipulate Miral's DNA, even though she didn't do it. It's already a question people are asking now, with science discovering sexual identifiers.
The consensus I've seen discussed is that some parents would not object to or would seek a homosexual offspring, but that a majority would opt out.
The consensus I've seen discussed is that some parents would not object to or would seek a homosexual offspring, but that a majority would opt out.
People are idiots, that's why we need laws. Muzzles and riding crops too.
Just because they can play with fetus dna, it doesn't mean that thy should or that it isn't horribly illegal despite what Pulaski was doing on the black books for Starfleets shadier elements, and other than fixing up basic disease (Actually according to enterprise they had a moratorium on even correcting terminal or debilitating genetic abnormality, but by DS9's time they did clarify that it's alright to fix sickness on at least a persona by personal basis.) but as Admiral Ross said "For every Julian Bashir, we could just as easily get another Khan Singh."
Just because they can play with fetus dna, it doesn't mean that thy should or that it isn't horribly illegal despite what Pulaski was doing on the black books for Starfleets shadier elements, and other than fixing up basic disease (Actually according to enterprise they had a moratorium on even correcting terminal or debilitating genetic abnormality, but by DS9's time they did clarify that it's alright to fix sickness on at least a persona by personal basis.) but as Admiral Ross said "For every Julian Bashir, we could just as easily get another Khan Singh."
I am gay. I do not want children. And I take offense to the idea that people who don't want children are 'emotionally stunted.'
That was probably the most homophobic thing I've ever heard on this website. Intelligence fail.
The journal that the psychological community uses to diagnose psychological illness removed homosexuality in 1977, give or take a year. So it's doubtful that Human's in the 21st century "cured" homosexuality. The notion that you can "cure" something that ISN'T dibilitating to one's life is in and of itself a showcase of ignorance. Being gay is natural, it's documented in 500 species on Earth, and observed in over 5,000. There is no way to tell how many people are gay because society for a large part shuns it (less and less nowaday's thank god.) so they are forced to live lies. Or they live lies out of habit.
In any case, there are too many people who are gay, with the number growing mind you, to think it some disease to be cured. It's not contagious, it's not transferrable by any means, and there are no symptoms in the traditional sense. Those are all categories needed to call homosexuality a disease. And before the argument that a lisp, or wearing flamboyant clothing, and being iffeminate are symtoms is even argued, I could easily say that watching sports with your buddies at the bar, wearing a Patriot's jersey, playing rugby, and saying dude a lot are all symptoms of being a straight man. Then again, I've met plenty of gay men who like to say dude a lot and drink beer with his buddies for the superbowl, and iffeminate men who do the same. That's what makes those "symptoms" unreliable.
To say that homosexuality should be cured goes down a dangerous route, the same route that basically includes genocide. It's disgusting.
All that said...
There were undoubtedly, by COMMON sense, gay people in the Star Trek universe. If it's supposed to be a continuation of our universe, then logically there were gay people as there were gays in the 1960's. Sadly, homophobia via the writers, producers, networks, society, and yes even Gene himself, stubbed that away. Even when Star Trek could've done it with Voyager, which was launched in 1995 (a more than okay time to go into it. It's star trek what do people expect of a show that champions equality and rights.), they still didn't. That was a sad sad event.
Even still, there are no gay people in star trek and it's the 21st century.
It would be ridiculous to think that Human's would genetically breed out homosexuality, or that there would even be a "test" for it. Look how society is now...Massachusetts allows gay marriage, Connecticut allows gay marriage, New Hampshire is about to allow gay marriage, and California did allow gay marriage before all those bigots voted. And even now the state has hundreds of lawsuits against it because of the reverse decision, and Connecticut put into their constitution that it would be unconstitutional to even reopen the subject. And, Obama is calling a panel to investigate the legitimacy of don't ask don't tell. It's just not the way society is going, and it's sad Star Trek didn't understand that.
That aside, Voyager was a small ship, and they way people are randomly assigned to ships negates any "statistic", such as the 1:10 ratio. There were either some gays/lesbians/bi's, or none, there was no way to tell because the topic wasn't even covered. Not to mention in the 24th century more and more people could be "out", making our current stats completely void.
Right, but typically speaking, gay couples (especially male couples) have to adopt pre-existing children. They don't usually procreate themselves, so the population doesn't increase as a result.
That's all I was getting at.
That is mostly true.
However, as a gay man who's been in a relationship for seven years, I can say I've been thinking more about having children too. Adoption is extremely expensive, I know I was adopted. It's basically a legal form of buying a child for thousands upon thousands of dollars. In my case, I don't have that type of money if I am going to be supporting a child.
I'd like to adopt. I probably will adopt. But the drive to spread my genetic code is still strong within me, so I'd also like to have a surrogate. If technology improves and becomes cheaper, I wouldn't be opposed to having my boyfriend's chromosones and my chromosones manipulated into an x and a y, which is in the beginning stages of genetic technologies.
That said, yes adoption doesn't increase population, but that doesn't preclude surrogates or other genetic options. So really, the numbers aren't calculable.
However, as a gay man who's been in a relationship for seven years, I can say I've been thinking more about having children too. Adoption is extremely expensive, I know I was adopted. It's basically a legal form of buying a child for thousands upon thousands of dollars. In my case, I don't have that type of money if I am going to be supporting a child.
I'd like to adopt. I probably will adopt. But the drive to spread my genetic code is still strong within me, so I'd also like to have a surrogate. If technology improves and becomes cheaper, I wouldn't be opposed to having my boyfriend's chromosones and my chromosones manipulated into an x and a y, which is in the beginning stages of genetic technologies.
That said, yes adoption doesn't increase population, but that doesn't preclude surrogates or other genetic options. So really, the numbers aren't calculable.
Nor did I make any effort to calculate them.
And my original comment was half-joking, too.
Wow, I think I just found my new signature quote.
I am gay. I do not want children. And I take offense to the idea that people who don't want children are 'emotionally stunted.'
Ditto.
Obviously you missed my "Jesus Christ I'm scared to fucking death of homosexuals!" thread last summer. Too bad, it had a bit of everything. Homophobia, misogyny, racism, infanticide... now, yeah, you'll hear rumors about sodomy and necrophilia but really those were all insubstantiated rumors. Circumstantial evidence. Nothing was ever proven.
I was once an idiot child who had an idiot child. Planned parenting is superb.
I am gay. I do not want children. And I take offense to the idea that people who don't want children are 'emotionally stunted.'
Henry Rollins had a comic bit where he was talking about population control via a "gay pill" to ease off all the troubles of hurtling towards a census result of 6 billion people. I repeated this, less the glibness, to a gay friend of my mothers, I was very young at the time, and he replied "That's silly, why wouldn't we want children?" Sexual orientation is the tip of the iceberg, every one is the same and completely different... Though I also recall the Bill Hicks routine about where he compares the "little miracles" of a female trailer park career breeder with his ability to have a dump in the toilet.
Maybe I should have said "Gay people can want children."
After all it's not a get out of jail free card.
There's an emotional spectrum out there that goes from sub-stunted to kinda normal to hopelessly manic. Someone's interest and reasons for procreating can be yea or nay for confusing reasons at different points on such a hypothetical scale which usually make no sense to anyone else.
Emotions are just how we express reasoned decisions. Gravy and icing.
Nor did I make any effort to calculate them.
And my original comment was half-joking, too.
I have a child. Nothing makes you wonder what not having one is like than when you actually have to put up with daily drone and that chalk board angst dirge of that pubescent rusty squeak where every conversation ends in tears or a hand out of the last coins keeping my wallet from floating away.
Rii
Rear Admiral
Because societies throughout history have always followed a straight line from the depths of barbarism to shining enlightenment?
