Sign in to follow this  
prometheus

Gay People On Star Trek

Recommended Posts

This has been a hot topic of debate in the past. Should a more open portrayal of Gay people be made on Star Trek? We've had the kiss on DS9. The a-sexual race on TNG. But what about, say, two male crewmembers dating? Programmes like Six Feet Under have managed to integrate gay people into their scripts quite well, without the old stereotypes. In Sex in the City, there is an element of camp comedy value. I heard a rumour once that Travis Mayweather may be gay (and i mean the character). However whether or not this will happen remains to be seen. If a gay character is to be introduced then because Enterprise is closer to present times, a certain level of homophobia may still exist in that century. This may be a good era in which to introduce the character as it solves the whole problem of "anything goes man, it's all good" that was in the TNG plus era. In that era everything, no matter what, seemed to be ok and that would mean gay characters would be accepted on screen much more liberally than they would be off screen causing discomfort in some viewers. In Enterprise we could base the character on a more contemporary gay person and how they are treated by society. Whatt are your opinions? And no. Im not gay :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ktrek

Statistically ony 2 to 3 % of our population is gay. That leaves 97% who are not. Statistics also show that of the 97% who are not an overwhelming majority do not want gay activity openly displayed. So, the networks are not fools and will not cut off their nose to spite their face. If a majority of their viewing audience is not gay and they were to introduce a gay character, it's likely that they would lose half their audience to only gain a 2% audience. That is if they could convince all the gay community to support the show. It's a numbers game. It was reported early on that one of the charcters on ENT was going to be gay. I thought it was Trip. However, that was abandoned after there was so much outcry by the fans. they decided it was not worth the risk of losing so much of the fan base they have worked so hard to keep. I'm not saying that it's not possible to see gay issues dealt with on Star Trek but it's not likely you will ever see a main character be gay. That's just my opinion. I'm also not gay nor am I homophobic.

 

Ktreksmilie_mech.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star Trek and all it's components may take place in the future, but the series is shot in the here and now. And if you've noticed how all the networks and their executives think nowadays, I think you'll come to the conclusion nthat it won't happen anytime in the near future. Paramount executives do not have the same thought patterns as the world of star trek. They may think IDIC for the sake of keeping the franchise alive but they don't live in it or necessarily believe in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know i have seen it adressed in a TNG novel (The section 31 books) The guy who went out with Worf and Picard and got killed...in the book, he was gay and he and his lover had been together for many years...if i remember right.

I don't have an problem with it if it is done right and with tact. No matter which way you go, talking about ones life partner and the context of sex is only proper on rare occations. The thing is that this is a private thing and if it is brought out that someone is gay in a way that jsut seems a cheap invation of their privacy or them just rubbing someones nose in it to try and shock others...it had no place in the show....IMHO. Done right...no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are thinking of Lt.Hawk,I read that book too and liked it.Actually rumor has it that Lt.Hawk was gay in the film First Contact,but TPTB decided to leave out all refrences to his lifestyle before releasing the film.

I see nothing wrong with a gay character,as long as he or she performs their duty aboard the Enterprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the bottom line is the bottom line - if it will risk profits it isn't going to happen.

 

But then I'm not interested in seeing any of the regular cast members become romatically involved with anyone. Civilization is about the only episode where a little romance worked and that was more just a hint. Oasis had even less a hint but I liked it too. ANIS still makes me cringe as does "Precious Cargo" . In other words the people writing this show don't know anything about real relationships.

 

I think "Stigma" vaguely tried to address the issue of stereotypes and prejudice but it sounded more like obvious preaching down to us than meaningful examination of an issue. And that tactic definitely will not win viewers. IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think "Stigma" vaguely tried to address the issue of stereotypes and prejudice but it sounded more like obvious preaching down to us than meaningful examination of an issue.  And that tactic definitely will not win viewers.  IMO

Agreed, that is the one and only thing that I am not too keen on i.e. Preaching rather than examination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not condone homosexuallity, nor do I like it, nor do I believe it has any place on televission. I think it's sick and unatural. I'm not even going to go into ethics and spirituallity! :laugh:

 

If they do an episode, I can skip it. If it's a story arc, I can not watch for a while. If it becomes anything bigger than that, I may well have to abandon ENTERPRISE.

 

It's not about hate. It's about being against something man does. It's about upholding one's principles, and it's about not condoning that which I'm against.

 

Hope I was clear. :wow:

 

Editted: My original message may seemed offensive, so I editted to come off more tactfull. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't condone homosexuallity myself, however it's none of my business what two consenting adults do in private. I just don't see any reason to bring up a person's sexual preference. If it came up in an episode, fine. Just skip the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VBG posted about a Marina Sirtis' interview in the Announcements forum but I thought it was appropriate to copy an excerpt for this thread:

 

Marina also addressed the subject of a gay character in Star Trek. "I'm going to give the answer that Gene [Roddenberry] always used to give," she said, "and that is, how do you know who was gay and who wasn't? They didn't walk around with a sign saying 'I am gay'. So any of those people that you met as guest stars or saw sitting in Ten Forward or whatever, how do you know they weren't gay? He just didn't want it to be a 'thing'. He felt that by the 24th century, it wouldn't be a 'thing' and one wouldn't have to make a point of it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is certainly nothing wrong with gay people,most are born that way.But I agree what goes on in the bedroom is nobodys business.I bet you'd be surprised at how many gay actors have appeared on Star Trek.In real life Armin Shimerman's best friend and best man at his wedding is gay.How do I know this you may ask? I work in theatre and had the pleasure of working with Frank (Armin's friend).Frank also appeared on a DS9 episode.

 

I like what Ms.Sirtis said about in the future being gay is no big thing so why point it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not condone homosexuallity, nor do I like it, nor do I believe it has any place on televission.  I think it's sick and unatural.  I'm not even going to go into ethics and spirituallity!

If everyone in the world was gay. If all the men slept with men, and all the women slept with women and that was the way it had always been, would you do it? Would you marry a man? Sleep with him? Live with him forever? Or would you go to straight bars? And go out with a girl. And say to heck with everybody: you like women and that is that. If you dont like it then tough!??? Spirituality has nothing to do with it. A person is no less spiritual if they are gay. And if you cant tolerate things like homosexuality, people who are different then you miss the whole point of Star Trek. There are people who, in the 60's, wouldnt watch an inter-ratial kiss. Where are they today? The same place you will be a couple of decades from now. :tear:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spirituality has nothing to do with it. A person is no less spiritual if they are gay. And if you cant tolerate things like homosexuality, people who are different then you miss the whole point of Star Trek. There are people who, in the 60's, wouldnt watch an inter-ratial kiss. Where are they today? The same place you will be a couple of decades from now. :tear:

If one were to tackle this issue in the strictest sense then it could be argued that there is a difference between homosexuality and racial groups.

 

Also, since none of the major religions condone homosexuality then you might find it hard to argue the issue of spirituality.

 

My point is not to provide you with a social lecture about the morality of homosexuality or the rights of those who practice it, but I strongly believe that we cannot draw comparison between the racial issues of the 1960s and the social issues and problems that we face today. The problem is that many people create this comparison between these issues that have entirely different foundations; hence specificity is replaced by generalisation.

 

Let me highlight that I am not trying to single you out or 'have a go at you', as I am simply discussing constant comparison with the sixties from many sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If everyone in the world was gay. If all the men slept with men, and all the women slept with women and that was the way it had always been, would you do it? Would you marry a man? Sleep with him? Live with him forever? Or would you go to straight bars? And go out with a girl. And say to heck with everybody: you like women and that is that. If you dont like it then tough!??? Spirituality has nothing to do with it. A person is no less spiritual if they are gay. And if you cant tolerate things like homosexuality, people who are different then you miss the whole point of Star Trek. There are people who, in the 60's, wouldnt watch an inter-ratial kiss. Where are they today? The same place you will be a couple of decades from now. :D

Men with men, women with women? What if it had allways been that way? That's not possible. If that happened, very few would reproduce, if any, and whe'd have the genocide of humanity within a thousand years.

 

Spirituallity has a lot to do with it. I do not know of any religons who condone homosexuallity. I myself am a Christian, but I didn't want to get into that as it seems most Trek fans are aetheist. I never said someone would be less spiritual if they're gay, but from a spiritual standpoint, it's still wrong.

 

I can tollerrate homosexuallity as it's up to the person to choose their life style. That doesn't mean I have to like it, nor do I condone it. Murderrs are different than me, should I tollerate them too? After all, you said if I can't tollerrate those different from me, I missed the point of Star Trek.

 

Anti-ractial kissing and the unatural act of 2 of the same sex engaged in a relationship are entirely different things. It's like comparring cars and horses.

 

:tear:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Picard.

 

The big difference between this issue and others is that homosexual people can't reproduce!!! It is not a viable means for the species to survive! Scientifically, homosexuality is unnatural!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it is natural,most gays are born that way its not a choice for them.Did you know in Amsterdam there is a gay animal exhibit at their zoo? Here in Tucson and in other cities there are places for gay children (Mostly teens) to go and hang out without fear of being harrased.

When I hear people say its wrong because of some religious reason it really makes me glad I'm an Athiest,but you do know there are churches that support gays and some even have gay preachers that are probably just as religious as many of you.

Since I don't have any religious myths to hold me back I can accept and respect most everybody,I'm a big believer in the Vulcan IDIC (Infinate Diversity in Infinate Combinations).

 

I just don't understand why some people are so down on others that will probably never have anything to do with them.Everyone has the right to love who they want without being condemed by anybody.

 

People need to learn to accept that there are differences in other people,once thats learned the world will become a safer place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let's just assume you're right for argument's sake and that humans and animals can be born gay. If this is the case, then I see it as a genetic flaw. Animals may not be able to overcome such a feat, but humans can. If we can replace lims with artificial devices, attempt to clone, bypass psychological problems, then I believe we can overcome genetic flaws as well.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a gay hater. In fact, I refuse to hate any form of life, no matter how evil it can act, not even Suddam Hussien could I hate.

 

With that said, since I'm a Christian, let me give a simplified point of view, OK?

 

It's not about being "held back", but as a Christian, God has rules, commandments, and so forth that he expects us to follow. He doesn't make these rules to control us, but rather so that we can prosper. Like not having sex before marriage for example. By doing so, when you finally "do" have sex with your spouse, and only that person, the rewards are far greater, the bond closer, and so forth. So, if he doesn't wish for humans to be homosexual, beyond not being able to reproduce, I don't quite understand it, but if God wishes it, then I agree with it. I never question God. I may question something that happens, but never God himself.

 

Anyway, I have 3 reasons for being against homosexuallity:

 

1. It's not natural.

2. You can't reproduce.

3. It's against God's wishes. (and it's a sin)

 

So, in conclussion, it is the act of homosexuallity, not the man that I hate. Infact, one of my best internet friends is gay. He knows I'm against homosexuallity, yet he is still a best friend.

 

Anywho, I had to go do something, and then came back while typing this, so I kinda lost my train of thought.

 

If any of what I've said does not make sense, or if you believe I've not been clear, please post a reply! :tear:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it is natural,most gays are born that way its not a choice for them.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I didn't mean they wanted to be gay. I meant, if left completely to nature - homosexuality would never be a signifigant aspect in any species.* Scientifically, I must say gay people are not a signifigant enough population (and can never be) to warrant such outcry and representation. I am also not for opression and discrimination. I do not sponsor or am against gay people. I just think they don't need a huge amount of representation.

 

*Thoretically a survival mechanism might arise which in some way use homosexuality to benefit the species, but under any normal circumstances it will not be significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, let's just assume you're right for argument's sake and that humans and animals can be born gay.  If this is the case, then I see it as a genetic flaw.  Animals may not be able to overcome such a feat, but humans can.  If we can replace lims with artificial devices, attempt to clone, bypass psychological problems, then I believe we can overcome genetic flaws as well.

 

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not a gay hater.  In fact, I refuse to hate any form of life, no matter how evil it can act, not even Suddam Hussien could I hate.

 

With that said, since I'm a Christian, let me give a simplified point of view, OK?

 

It's not about being "held back", but as a Christian, God has rules, commandments, and so forth that he expects us to follow.  He doesn't make these rules to control us, but rather so that we can prosper.  Like not having sex before marriage for example.  By doing so, when you finally "do" have sex with your spouse, and only that person, the rewards are far greater, the bond closer, and so forth.  So, if he doesn't wish for humans to be homosexual, beyond not being able to reproduce, I don't quite understand it, but if God wishes it, then I agree with it.  I never question God.  I may question something that happens, but never God himself.

 

Anyway, I have 3 reasons for being against homosexuallity:

 

1. It's not natural.

2. You can't reproduce.

3. It's against God's wishes.  (and it's a sin)

 

So, in conclussion, it is the act of homosexuallity, not the man that I hate.  Infact, one of my best internet friends is gay.  He knows I'm against homosexuallity, yet he is still a best friend.

 

Anywho, I had to go do something, and then came back while typing this, so I kinda lost my train of thought.

 

If any of what I've said does not make sense, or if you believe I've not been clear, please post a reply! :tear:

No offence intended, I'm a devout Christian myself, but I really don't feel this is the place to preach Christianity. A lot of people do not share our beliefs and it's not respectful to push them on anyone. Besides, this debate isn't about weather or not being gay is right or wrong, it's about weather they should be represented. To say they shouldn't is like saying other religions shouldn't be represented because I don't agree with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm. Let's see. Ive heard here that gay people cannot be compared to treatment of black people in the 1960s. In no way whatsoever? Black people are born black, they cant help it. It's who they are and they faced discrimination in the 60s because of something they couldnt help. Gay people cant help who they are either, and they face discrimination as a result. Spirituality and religion are not the same thing. You could be 'Mr Church goer 2003' and practice every belief the Bible throws at you, yet you could be as spiritual as a lemon. Kai Winn was a good example of this. Organised religion forces a beliefs system on you as opposed to letting you discover yourself and what is right for YOU. Some of the most spiritual people I know have gone on voyages of self discovery and have come out knowing what is right for them - and in some cases that has meant coming out - and as a result they have become much happier and enlightened individuals with a great sense of what is spiritual. My example earlier on of 'a world where homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuality was frowned upon', was merely a hypothetical situation designed to create a role reversal: to see whether or not a person who KNEW they were heterosexual would practice homosexuality in a homosexual world because THAT was the norm. Of course gay people cannot have children. But does everyone have to? Also, 'gay people aren't a significant enough number' to be represented. Did you watch Insurrection? What is a significant number? 100? 1000? A million??? And who can say that being Gay is a genetic flaw? Flaw! What a word. This suggests that being gay is wrong and shouldnt be in existence at at. But it is in existence. And i believe that all designs for life are not flaws. What would you do with a 'flawed' gay foetus, if it could be detected? Alter it? Do i hear eugenics? Julian Bashir? Hmf! I have heard no mention of acceptance and a lot of criticism and i see that we have a long way to go before we create the tolerant society of the Star Trek Universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make it sound like there is no such thing as a genetic flaw. Like we are all born just perfect as we are. I can assure you that is not so. Just because this "flaw" affects who one wants to love and not some other area, does not make it "just great" I know many gay people who would like very much to not be gay and one poor guy who had been trying all his life to deny it, but is not married with a wife and kids, so it had not worked out too well.

 

I have a cousin who is gay, but can't "come out" because his mother is a bible thumper and would have a heart attack if he did, so he just avoids her. Now, this is not to say that some gay people are not jsut fine with it. I knew two girls that got married and were as happy as clams. But ever the one of them that was my good freind said she would give anything to not be gay.

People are Black, because that is the way they conformed and addapted to the climate, not because of a genetic deveation.

 

and not all fans turn from God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think we should discriminate against homosexual people. I think that homosexuals do not, however, need a lot of representation. They, as Ktrek said, are not a signifigant portion of the population. Since they cannot reproduce, homosexualality is a genetic flaw. You can have a society of blacks or whites - but not homosexuals. They are a flaw, but are not to be discriminated against.

 

Also - I do believe that a ST-like tolerant society may still emerge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, homosexuals should not be discriminated against.

 

I don't think they need any more representation, then said, mussicians do. Homosexuallity is a life style, not a race.

 

I also agree that homosexuallity is a genetic flaw, like being born without feet. However, as human beings, we have learned to bypass genetic flaws.

 

I have 2 reasons for believing that the Star Trek Utopia will never happen.

 

1. Humanity is on the verge of self destruction.

2. It's my opinion that Revelations from the bible might very well happen this century, or at least before we become a space faring civilizartion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe it is a lifestyle,a lifestyle is something you choose.People that are born that way don't have much of a choice.

I'm not even going to comment on the revelations issue since to me the bible is just a book of myths written by man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Humanity is on the verge of self destruction.

I don't think so. What eveidence do you have.

 

2. It's my opinion that Revelations from the bible might very well happen this century, or at least before we become a space faring civilizartion.

Please, if your going to bring up religion, be careful and less preachy - it is one of the three most dangerous topics:

1. Religion

2. Politics

3. Windows vs. Mac

...and my personal opinion is - "I don't think so."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being Gay is like being born with no feet? Ha ha ha!!! Oh dear. I dont think it's that bad now. Someone mentioned there that some people are gay, and not by choice. Well that shows that it's not a lifestyle choice then, as such. They said those people would chose not to be gay. But from what has been said it would seem that that is society's fault. Religion mad mothers, frowning neighbours. If society was more tolerant then they wouldn't have to want to change themselves. As for not being born perfect, WHAT IS PERFECT? Can we put a standard on what is the perfect human? Was Khan the perfect human? Sarin: "You stand here as a mistake, by your flawed human friends" (Voyage Home). We are all flawed then in some way. No-one is perfect and we should never try to by-pass these flaws as they are that make us what we are. If a small group of people shouldnt be represented then the Baku should have been ripped off their planet in Insurrection as they are too small to be counted. I have tried to use Star Trek to illustrate my points. Those who quote passages from the bible (a book of allegories and metaphors intended to bring order and ethics to a simplier man of 2000 years ago) are lazy and dont want to think about sociological problems with any great insight or understanding. 'Oh let's look up this book and see what it says', rather than examining our own feelings. Now, I have enjoyed this debate. I like reading other people's opinions and getting a good argument going once in a while - it's healthy. I dont want anyone thinking i'm being 'nasty' or annoying just because my views differ froim theirs - we have to be adults here, so no-one please report me or anything for being the bad guy who argues.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prometheus, you don't want anyone to judge gay people but you just judged all us Christians as being lazy. We just hold a different point of view from you. Do you think it's ok for me to say that because you reject the Bible you're stupid? That was a very insulting comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this