Will we (finally) see...

[Triskelion]

Re: We'll we (finally) see...

When will we see a character that has AIDS?
You mean today's issues might not be the 24th century's issues?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here for the sake of a balanced argument:

I had a psychology prof once who argued that homosexuality could possibly be (but not necessarily was) a genetic hiccup, which hypothetically, could be treated with gene therapy; and as such, may very well be interpreted as (not my opinion) a treatable condition. Which of course is a can of worms I don't wish to open, but - his argument was that, from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality represents a deviance from reproductive health.

(Which, I'm sure is what the J'naii thought about sexuality when they "corrected" gendered citizens with their psychotectic neural reconfigurations).

My argument is that, what if it were possible to genetically modify embryos to determine sexual orientation (and other aspects)? What if it were a simple matter of waving a wand? My question is, would society correct for it, or would it still be considered an individual trait? Could the same be said for albinism?

I'm not saying Trek had a political agenda about who was "in" and who was "out". I rather think it just avoided certain issues to optimize marketability. Business decisions.

In no way do I wish to trivialize people's humanity with this post. I'm just positing a "what if". What if homosexuality were a deviated gene? Would it be the same as correcting for say, a curved spine? There are no people with curved spines in Trek for the most part (ok, the Cage lady, but that was botched surgery).

I'm just saying that the future (fictional or otherwise) wouldn't necessarily contain the same social issues as we have today. Yet I fully understand the need to feel represented in such an optimistic cultural staple as Star Trek and I don't begrudge anyone the right to be included!

Also? Why are there no Bushmen of the Kalahari in Trek? Are we to assume they are not around in the 24th century? Or is it...just a TV show, and Bushmen don't buy laundry detergent?

Man I really hope I haven't offended anyone. Not my intention to.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Re: We'll we (finally) see...

Well, TPTB aren't making the movie for a 23rd century audience. They are making it for a 2009 audience.

So if a determination is made (right or wrong) at some point in the future that homosexuality is something to be "corrected" (and I'm not even going to begin to debate that), then a Star Trek movie for that time period could address it.

For now, gay rights and/or acceptance are very much a current issue, and there are many disenfranchised gay people (and their families, friends, neighbors, etc.) who are affected by these issues.

Given that there is no current significant evidence to indicate that homosexuality is an aberration and/or that homosexuals should be shunned or treated as "lesser than," the Star Trek IDIC mentality is pretty clear that it would embrace them. And celebrate them.

As for why there are no Bushmen of the Kalahari in Trek...

First of all, we don't know that there aren't.

Second of all, to say, "Well if you want gays, why shouldn't you also want a Mormon Japanese kid with a broken leg to be on Star Trek?" both misses the point and trivializes it.

Some of the major issues on the docket today (the American docket, anyway), are (in no particular order):

1. War/Terrorism
2. Immigration
3. Gay Rights
4. Health Care
5. Economic Policies/Depressed Economy

There are others, to be sure. But to act like homosexuality is some random obscurity pulled haphazardly out of a grab bag is to be disingenuous.

Plenty of movies have been made about #1. Star Trek XI will likely feature that, to some degree.

#2 and #3 are probably the next topics most easily (and appropriately) addressed by Star Trek.

#4 and #5 would be fine, too, but those might be harder to write dramatic stories around.

I'm not necessarily advocating for the homosexuality issue to be addressed in Star Trek XI. But given that we are talking about Star Trek, it would certainly be appropriate to do so. As would any of the other issues on my list. Anyone who disagrees is, again, speaking more from personal feeling than they are from an awareness of what Star Trek, especially TOS (on which this next movie is based), is all about.

If someone had posted a topic 30 years ago in this forum (assuming that were possible) saying "Should they save the whales in the next Trek movie?", they would have been ridiculed and derided. It's all a matter of boldness, perspective, and execution.

 

[Triskelion]

Re: We'll we (finally) see...

^ And certainly science fiction's function is not to predict, but to investigate contemporary values. So I pretty much agree with your entire post.

Trek is great but in many ways simplistic. Alien cultures are often homogenous, characters speak of their own cultures in stereotype, racism is overt at times (Kirk & Klingons, B'Elanna & Cardassians, Picard & Ferengi), but I also like that these biases can be exposed as we ourselves change.

For the record, were Trek to include gay characters, I would welcome it. A fan series has done this issue justice, Star Trek Hidden Frontier: http://www.hiddenfrontier.com/newtohf.php

I taught a class in Shanghai about a ship that visits alien cultures. One of the students called the aliens "barbarians" - because they were, after all, not Chinese.


What a world.

 

[EnsignYoshi]

You didn't offend me triskelion. you made it quite clear it wasn't meant like that.

I'm no geneticist so I can't exclude the possibility that "the gay gene" (if that exists) is a hiccup (I would be biased if I said it's not true). Though my personal believe is that it is not a hiccup. This "hiccup" has been present in humanity since day 1.

However, even IF this was the case and they would ever invent a supressant, "cure",... I wouldn't want it. However the moment such thing would come into existance it's my personal belief that people will be cohersed or forced into being treated. It probably would be voluntary but I can already see the intimidation,...and it won't be voluntary in every country in the world. Mugabe from zimbabwe sure will be glad to have those creatures he deems lower then pigs "cured".

Ok entirely differend debate and probably TNZ matter. But if I were ever given the choice, I'd refuse. It's not me who needs to change, but society. if society can't accept homosexuality, then they are going to change me? or think they need to find something to "cure" me.

It's like 7 and harry in the voyager episode "the disease" (ironic i can quote star trek on this). love has a lot of characteristisch with a "disease" according to 7, yet harry refused treatment. Letting 7 conclude it wasn't a disease, cause he underwent it voluntarily.

Also I like to add that I find the very idea of the existance of a "cure" dispickable, discusting and loathsome. I can already see the suffering it would cause. To continue the jewish parallel PKtrekgirl mentioned. Saying you could cure homosexuality hurts me as much as denying the holocaust would to a jewish person (I reckon).

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Well, I'm not really sure what happened here, but just to set the record straight (Ha!), I haven't even had a chance to read most of the posts in this thread. I just picked one post and responded to that one. So (for once ) my comments were not meant to single out anyone. I haven't even had time to read PKTrekGirl's threads yet.

I haven't read all of Dennis' posts yet, either, but it looked to me like he was giving a to my post more than he was trying to insult anyone. If there's more going on than that, I don't know what it is. Nor, I think, do I want to know.

This is a controversial issue where we know that there will be little consensus.

My thoughts are just that. My thoughts. Give them as much or as little weight as you like.

The only one who knows that I am always right is me. I can't expect everyone else to realize that. Not yet, anyway.

Seriously, where is Rodney King when we need him.

Well, I have no objection whatever to you or anyone else expressing their views with regard to the topic. And I've tried to give people a bit of wiggle room here, on all sides of the argument, because it is, in fact, a controversial topic....and an emotionally charged one for many people.

But we really don't need to be calling other posters' IQs into question, simply because they might not happen to agree with us, do we? That was my only beef with Dennis. Not what he believes or posted about the actual topic. It is possible for sincere, decent, and intelligent people to disagree on this topic or that, after all. And what we have going on in this thread is a multi-layered argument, I believe...which is making a very sensitive topic even more sensitive.

Here is what I see:

I think we have some people in this thread who simply want to see gay individuals in this film - as quickly as possible, because it's high time. In fact, it is long past time. They are done waiting, and they are tired of the Trek writers being weenies with regard to this issue.

I think we have other people in this thread who are not at all opposed to seeing gay characters in Star Trek, but think that perhaps a 2-hour movie with a new and unfamiliar TOS cast, when there has been no new Trek adventures in 2+ years, might not be the best time to shoehorn in ANY 'issues'. Not only this issue, but a myriad of other 'issues'. These people just want, for a variety of reasons, to get a good action/adventure film that will flood the theaters with new fans and get us more Trek...where we can then address all the 'issues' we like. Including, but not limited to, homosexuality. Needless to say, this is the camp that I personally fall into, so it is clearly the correct one.

And then we have a third camp that does not want to see a gay character in this film - or any Trek at all, necessarily. This might be for any number of reasons...some of them perhaps more legitimate that others.

Now, there might very well be very sincere and intelligent individuals in each of these camps. But this is a topic that fed by alot of factors.

If a person happens to be gay, clearly there is a certain amount of self-interest involved - to see a character 'like you'. A perfectly reasonable position, and I do not blame them a bit.

Others of us, who might be more of the 'liberal activist' bent, want to see the issue dealt with because it should be - because it's the right thing to do, because it's past time, and because Trek at one time DID address social issues (although in my view, this has not happened since DS9...but I digress).

Others of us, who are used to looking at many matters from a cold, hard business perspective (*raises hand*) are chiefly concerned with the financial success of this venture - because we understand financial success will mean more Trek, and that is absolutely our most important priority. Screw the 'issues' (at least for the time being)...and even screw canon - this film needs to be a rockin' good action filck that will get tushies in the seats. And whatever it takes to make that happen needs to happen. And damn the issues...and the torpedoes. We wanna see a tight script, good acting, lots of action, nifty 'splosions and cool CGI - not because it is what we personally might like...but because that will drag in the target demographic and get asses into the damn seats. And yes - we are prepared to sell out our own pet interests (whether they be our pet social issues or canon itself) in the interests of the Greater Good - that being, more Trek.

And even in the third camp, there are sincere individuals. Perhaps someone was raised in a particular religious background, for example...and they believe very deeply in that background. Religious freedom is, after all, just as important a right as is sexual freedom. And while this individual might not go out and picket Boy Scout troops with gay leaders...they personally hold certain religious convictions about the issue and frankly, don't what to have their children watch it on a big screen in a PG rated film. To write all of these individuals off as bigots is easy to do, but grossly unfair...and is, quite frankly, immensely hypocritical. Because once again...the ability to hold one's personal religious convictions is just as important a right as is the ability to hold one's sexual preferences. BOTH are civil liberties issues and should be protected. And some in this third camp might very well be of the opinion that "I don't force you to accept my religious beliefs...and you don't force me to accept your moral beliefs on sexuality - we will just 'agree to disagree' and go on our separate ways".

In my view, anyone who blabs on and on about 'tolerance', but who is intolerant themselves toward anyone who disagrees with them, is the worst kind of hypocrite. And that includes those who yap on endlessly about 'tolerance' while ripping down other people's religious faith left and right. That is not tolerance. That is just the other side of the same bigoted coin they claim to detest.

Anyway...I guess what I'm saying is that it is quite possible that there are many sincere and intelligent individuals posting in this thread...and not all of them agree. We all think our answer is the right answer - otherwise it wouldn't be our answer. We all think our position is the correct position - otherwise it would not be our position.

But what I am suggesting is that we all give 'the other guy' some credit here and not immediately leap to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with us on this issue is a bigot, a bad person, or lacking in intelligence.

Oh...and by the way, you left the issue of civil liberties/security off your list of important issues. Speaking only for myself, it's the most important issue out there right now.

Well...except for the goddamn GAS PRICES!!!!!!

 

[EnsignYoshi]

In my view, anyone who blabs on and on about 'tolerance', but who is intolerant themselves toward anyone who disagrees with them, is the worst kind of hypocrite. And that includes those who yap on endlessly about 'tolerance' while ripping down other people's religious faith left and right. That is not tolerance. That is just the other side of the same bigoted coin they claim to detest.

Did I give you that impression PKtrekgirl?

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Just as long as we're still clear that I'm always right...

 

[PKTrekGirl]

However, even IF this was the case and they would ever invent a supressant, "cure",... I wouldn't want it. However the moment such thing would come into existance it's my personal belief that people will be cohersed or forced into being treated. It probably would be voluntary but I can already see the intimidation,...and it won't be voluntary in every country in the world. Mugabe from zimbabwe sure will be glad to have those creatures he deems lower then pigs "cured".

Well, I think you also have to consider the possibility that many parents would probably rush right out and have their kids 'cured' before the child was even fully aware of what was going on.

I mean, I am not gay...but I know that I personally became aware of sexual matters - even about myself, only over time while growing up. And I can't help thinking that a 'cure' might end up generating Julian Bashir-like situations - parents taking matters into their own hands to 'fix' the 'problem' they think their child has before the child is even fully aware of what that supposed 'problem' really is.

Personally, I think that is just as likely to happen as 'society' being the ones to push it.

All the proof you need of that is to go stand out at a kiddie league soccer match. Parents these days are CRAZY about making sure their child is considered to be the best at whatever they do. And is considered to be 'perfect' in every way, by all.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

In my view, anyone who blabs on and on about 'tolerance', but who is intolerant themselves toward anyone who disagrees with them, is the worst kind of hypocrite. And that includes those who yap on endlessly about 'tolerance' while ripping down other people's religious faith left and right. That is not tolerance. That is just the other side of the same bigoted coin they claim to detest.

Did I give you that impression PKtrekgirl?

Oh, absolutely not! No worries there. I was just explaining my position in general...and trying to do the 'mod thing' by cautioning all posters that good and intelligent people can disagree for various reasons...and so we must all work toward understanding and acceptance in this thread - not bigoted posturing - on ANY side of the issue.

Just as long as we're still clear that I'm always right...

Well, you are definitely right when you agree with me. As for the small minority of the time for which that is not the case? Well, that's another matter entirely.

Fortunately for me, I can just delete any incorrect posts you make and we can move on from there....in complete agreement.

 

[martin]

I am not sure if it is just some aboration in the genes, after all, there are many animal species with homosexuals in.

 

[Triskelion]

There are plenty of parents who wouldn't stop with aberrations, but would go ahead and custom order every conceivable aspect of the child, from height to hair to skin color, but especially attractiveness, intelligence and earning ability. There are parents who would create children who never grew up, too, just to keep their precious vicarious obsession around forever.

Me? I would correct for the Trek gene. Put it in, Doc!

 

[MisterPL]

Even if The Powers That Be said, "Hey, as far as we're concerned, homosexuality is nature's genetic way of controlling overpopulation, and since there's no overpopulation in Star Trek, there are no homosexuals," people back here in the 21st century would have problems with it. Until we know more about it, I think it's in Paramount's best fiscal interest to leave it alone.

 

[EnsignRicky]

Even if The Powers That Be said, "Hey, as far as we're concerned, homosexuality is nature's genetic way of controlling overpopulation, and since there's no overpopulation in Star Trek, there are no homosexuals," people back here in the 21st century would have problems with it. Until we know more about it, I think it's in Paramount's best fiscal interest to leave it alone.

I don't know if I would agree with the natural overpopulation control angle. There are many cases of people having a bunch of kids and quite a few failed marriages before coming to terms with thier homosexuality. and there are many more who just walk the path for religious or societal reasons. If it's a plan, it's not a very good one.

 

[HRHTheKING]

Gay characters in Star Trek are best suited for a TV series, where their relationship could be developed in an ongoing storyline. A movie simply doesn't give you enough time to do that. It's been said that Hawk from "First Contact" was originally supposed to be gay. Personally I think that would have been idiotic since he was a redshirt who's sole purpose in that movie was to die horribly. What was he going to do? Say "Hi, my name is Hawk and I'm gay and....ARGHHHH the Borg have got me!!!!!"

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Gay characters in Star Trek are best suited for a TV series, where their relationship could be developed in an ongoing storyline. A movie simply doesn't give you enough time to do that. It's been said that Hawk from "First Contact" was originally supposed to be gay. Personally I think that would have been idiotic since he was a redshirt who's sole purpose in that movie was to die horribly. What was he going to do? Say "Hi, my name is Hawk and I'm gay and....ARGHHHH the Borg have got me!!!!!"

*teehee*

See...you said in a paragraph what took me a novella to try and convey. Well done!:thumbsup:

 

[God Magnus]

Re: We'll we (finally) see...

...a black velvet painting of Elvis. There are an infinite number of things is doesn't need, so why force the issue?

Oh man...now I SO want to see that hanging on the Enterprise or at Starfleet Command somewhere!

 

[Wowbagger]

And even in the third camp, there are sincere individuals. Perhaps someone was raised in a particular religious background, for example...and they believe very deeply in that background. Religious freedom is, after all, just as important a right as is sexual freedom. And while this individual might not go out and picket Boy Scout troops with gay leaders...they personally hold certain religious convictions about the issue and frankly, don't what to have their children watch it on a big screen in a PG rated film. To write all of these individuals off as bigots is easy to do, but grossly unfair...and is, quite frankly, immensely hypocritical.

Hey. Thanks for saying that. When homosexuality comes up in a Trek forum (or worse, an IM conversation with a Trekkie) and the criticism of the writers' avoiding the issue begins to pile up, it can be very, very intimidating to be a person who, like me, happens to be member of that third camp. Frankly, just to hear someone say out loud that we aren't all knee-jerk bigots goes a long way. I appreciate it, and I suspect there are a few other lurkers on this thread who do, too.

I would only add that not all of us make religious arguments about it. Some of us aren't even religious.

Again, thanks. I'll leave now.

 

[EnsignYoshi]

Now since there is actually a change in regime (no more B & B, Abrams now) do you think anything will change on the issue?

 

[TigerOfDarkness]

The trouble with TOS and romance is that it usually does it badly. The Scotty romances, for example were pretty badly handled.

In support of the view that sexual orientation is not an issue of any importance in TOS, consider Turnabout Intruder - Janice Lester is loved by her assistant (sorry, I can't remember his name) who is helping her with her plan to become male (steal Kirk's body).

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Re: We'll we (finally) see...

Babylon 5, Farscape, Buffy/Angel/Firefly, BSG, and Roswell are all leaps and bounds ahead of Trek in this area.

Yeah, BSG is leaps and bounds ahead of Star Trek in characterization:

*A drunken XO who in any modern Navy would be told to get his drinking under control or be thrown out:

*A whiny CAG (later Commander, now a civilian) who can't seem to pull it together:

*A self-destructive Viper pilot who wouldn't be able to exist in any air force we know of.

​

People like these would be great in any Trek show-yeah, right! Most likely they'd be told to get their shit together or get the frack out of the Service(es) pronto. And in Starfleet, that would be pronto. Also, characters like this would piss off most of the fan who expect their Star Trek characters to be better than that, ensuring a rapid ratings drop if these characters were in a series, as well as a ton of negative mail. And then we'd be back here complaining about it like always.

When is it going to get through to some people that Star Trek ain't like that, and deal with it?