Social commentary is fine, using Star Trek to metaphorically engage in social observation of our own society, again fine.
Why inherently bad? Many things that have become accepted and in the mainstream began as a "social agenda that only a fraction of the population agrees with" and the arts (popular and fine) have been vehicles in the forefront of advocating for such causes. Why should Trek not be among them? Of course, the persuasiveness of the argument and the risks of trying to bring such ideas into the mainstream need to be weighed by the creative staff and the production company financing the endeavour. In and of itself, though, there is nothing wrong with making the attempt. Audiences are not owed something familiar and comfortable--they do, however, have the right to express their satisfaction (or lack thereof) by choosing to watch or not.
Not all viewpoints have equally reasonable opposites. "Balance" should not be conflated with an obligation to provide "equivalency". Particularly as Trek is a private enterprise (pun intended
), its creative staff are not required to give "equal time" to opposing points of view. Again, it is for viewers to decide whether they find a particular idea, point of view, etc. palatable. If the creators choose to give "equal time", that's fine. But only if it is, indeed, their choice--not something imposed upon them.
Which fraction? Star Trek has often been seen as socially progressive. In 1966, a vocal, intelligent, independent black woman was on the bridge. Would you have felt, at the time, that it was unwise they chose not to include a member of the KKK?
There are no "well reasoned positions" for opposing LGBT civil rights now, just ones that ultimately fall back on "Because God told me so" which is itself just a convenient excuse for "Because I find gays icky". Which well reasoned positions do you imagine would suddenly appear in the next 200 to 300 years? Homophobes are a rapidly dying breed as we speak, so inserting one into a far future setting would immediately date the show and render it anachronistic and offensive to audiences.
I would not watch a new Star Trek that is conservative, and plays it safe. That's how we got the worst episodes of TNG, and DS9, as well as the paint-by-numbers Enterprise series.
If you meant social advancement not really, Star Trek is usually seen as lagging behind the rest of society in terms of social change. The exclusion of a gay main character until recently would be one example.
No, it's a world of openness, light and transparency. A world of free discussion of ideas and concepts.
I sincerely hope it does NOT "play it safe". I rarely ever want my entertainment to "play it safe". I want to have my expectations challenged and be pleasantly surprised whenever possible. I may still be entertained by "safe", depending upon execution, but it's always a little bit disappointing.
There are no "well reasoned positions" for opposing LGBT civil rights now, just ones that ultimately fall back on "Because God told me so" which is itself just a convenient excuse for "Because I find gays icky". Which well reasoned positions do you imagine would suddenly appear in the next 200 to 300 years? Homophobes are a rapidly dying breed as we speak, so inserting one into a far future setting would immediately date the show and render it anachronistic and offensive to audiences.
The idea that simply acknowledging the existence of a group constitutes an "agenda" that must have an opposing counterpoint present is ridiculous. What a terrifying world you must live in.
And with an attitude like that, we'll never be.
