Takei On Trek’s Diversity January 10, 2008
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: TOS, Trek Franchise , trackback
In a new interview with Metro Weekly George Takei (TOS: Sulu) talks in depth about the diversity in Star Trek. Takei said that he he was proud to be part of the production with the first interracial kiss calling it “a real breakthrough.” But Takei also defended the series for not having a gay character saying that it would have pushed the envelope too far. Also in an unrelated bit, Takei revealed a bit about what we may see with John Cho’s Sulu in the new Star Trek.
Excerpts from the interview
METRO WEEKLY…[in] the mid 1990s, there was an effort to get a gay character onto Voyager or Deep Space 9, I believe.
TAKEI: I remember having a discussion with Gene Roddenberry. He was an extraordinary man, a real visionary. He used to tell the Star Trek cast frequently that the Starship Enterprise was a metaphor for Starship Earth. And the strength of the starship was its diversity, the crew coming together and working in concert. You saw not only the visual diversity of race and ethnicity, but we had a Russian at the time of the Cold War, when we were mortal enemies. We had a Russian as a trusted member of the team. [Roddenberry's] view was that even that kind of adversarial position — intense, fierce adversarial position — can be overcome. The irony is today we have the International Space Station, a spacecraft out there, and once-mortal enemies, Russians and Americans, are working side by side.
Gene was truly an enlightened person, and he said, ”It’s silly, this homophobia and all this legislation and prejudice against equality.” But he felt that in order to make the statements that he had been making on Star Trek, it was important for Star Trek to be on, and network television is the most conservative medium of communication. If he pushes the envelope too far, the envelope gets burned up.
….
METRO WEEKLY: Despite no gay characters, the nuance of inclusiveness must have gotten through, as Star Trek’s gay following seems huge.
TAKEI: It’s been huge! They get the idea of diversity. We can all be part of this larger society and make our own unique contributions. That was Gene’s philosophy. Unfortunately, Gene passed away after The Next Generation was put together. The Next Generation was still with Gene’s participation, but after his passing a different group of people took over and they did not necessarily share Gene’s humanistic philosophy. David Gerrold, who wrote the script for ”The Trouble with Tribbles,” wrote a gay script, which he wanted to have done on The Next Generation. But that couldn’t be done because of the temper of the times. However, that script now has been filmed and is being put together by the fan manifestation of Star Trek [Star Trek: New Voyages].
METRO WEEKLY: If you’d been as publicly out in the 1990s as you are now, do you think producers and writers would have evolved the Sulu character into a father and made him a captain?
TAKEI: Well, that’s an iffy question, isn’t it? They knew I was gay, but I was not talking to the press. So I don’t know. It’s kind of tantalizing. But I do think that my character, becoming a father and becoming a captain, I’d like to think that would’ve been possible. Some of the people knew [I was gay], but they still made my character grow the way it did. If I had talked to the press back then, I don’t know. It’s a big if.
MINOR SPOILER FOR NEW MOVIE
Takei also revealed a bit about John Cho’s Sulu
It’s a younger Sulu. As a matter of fact, he has some bravura heroics in this movie coming out. We know that Sulu’s passion is fencing and there’s a lot of fencing going on.
NOTE: This ties in to John Cho’s recent comments about Sulu being a ‘badass’ and doing a lot of training for action scenes
Full interview at Metro Weekly
NOTE ON COMMENTS
TrekMovie.com tolerates a diversity of comments, but bear in mind we do not tolerate intolerance.
Loading ...
Comments
It’s cool that he’s still showcasing his support in any way he can. He’s a strong guy to have in your corner when it comes to reinvigorating Trek.
Oh my!!
John Cho fencing? Sounds awesome!
George Takei is an awesome guy. I met him once at an Alzheimer’s Walk and it was nice to know that I had a member of the original cast that I could connect with, as we had both lost family to Alzheimer’s.
I met George the first in 1979 as a kid and gave him a drawing/cartoon of CAPTAIN Sulu. Years later (and much taller) I was tasked to pick him up at SeaTac Airport for a convention appearance. Imagine my surprise when we picked him up and he looked at me for a moment and said,”Arent you the young man who did that lovely picture for me a few years ago? I have it hanging in my living room.” I spent the next several hours hanging out with George and discussing politics and running. At another event a few years later it was around teh time of his birthday and my mom wanted him to have a Mt St Helens ash blown glass orchid from our Jewelry store. I gave it to him at the convention in one of our gift boxes. 4 days later my mom calls me and tells me she received a lovely hand written thank you letter and photo from George, not a general thank you, but in Georges hand complete with home return address and the admonition to ‘keep in touch’. Every time Ive run in to him over the (OMG) almost 30 years since then he has greeted me warmly. George is an original..a class act…and is not only what TREK is all about but what being a human being is all about.
First post of a long time TrekMovie Lurker!
Personally, I don’t see what possible bearing an actor’s sexuality should have in the development of a character, and feel it was simply opportunistic of Metro Weekly to ask the question. it strikes me more as gratuitously keeping sexual orientation part of the article, regardless of the relevancy to the subject.
I find it somewhat offensive that so many ‘entities’ wish to sensationalize Mr Takei’s personal choices. Leave the man be!
( Just my 2c)
#4
cool story!
,,TAKEI: I remember having a discussion with Gene Roddenberry. He was an extraordinary man, a real visionary. He used to tell the Star Trek cast frequently that the Starship Enterprise was a metaphor for Starship Earth. ,,
I really like this philosophy from Roddenberry. I hope Abrams realizes this too. We need show real racial and ethnicity diversity among Enterprise crew in the new movie. That will give movie flavor that can be appealing to international movie audience.
to finish, i am still unsure about Cho(35+) as Sulu. He seems way too old to play young Sulu..
To George:
Hoorrah! It takes a couragous individual to do what you have done. Maybe we can incoporate some of these idea’s on starship Excelsior? Those could be “the voyages…”
To Hikaru Sulu, Captain of the Excelsior!
and George Takei, the one, the only!
#4: Great story about George Takei! It’s refreshing to hear that he is just as nice of a person as he appears to be in interviews!
#5: “Metro Weekly” is a gay & lesbian-geared publication; it’s only natural that at least a portion of their interview would revolve around the sexual orientation of the person being interviewed, and the possible impact of a G/L character on the Star Trek universe–and its impact on OUR universe…
It will be facinating to see if JJ puts any gay relationships or individuals or a gay arc into the movie. Particularly since it’s like “flavour of the month” to do so in many many TV shows and other movies these days.
Sulu fencing in the new movie. Good God! Could there be even more time travelling than we thought! ;)
“I remember having a discussion with Gene Roddenberry. He was an extraordinary man, a real visionary. He used to tell the Star Trek cast frequently that the Starship Enterprise was a metaphor for Starship Earth. And the strength of the starship was its diversity, the crew coming together and working in concert.”
This is the real Trek philosophy. Not canon or starship bridges or the color of console buttons.
As a former gay activist who’s come out of the ‘lifestyle’ I’ve learned alot about what really propells this behavior.Thanks for Your tolerance.
Takei truly is a class act isn’t he? Of all the original crew of Enterprise Takei-as-Sulu had the most unexplored potential, as I think ‘World Enough and Time’ demonstrated magnificently and it’s marvellous to see him in his ‘indian summer’ role in ‘Heroes’. Aah, if only Paramount had had the sense to make Sulu the Captain of the USS Voyager.
I entirely understand why homophobia was not directly tackled in TOS and even in the early years of TNG – the networks would have freaked out at that time. BUT, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise could have taken on the matter without much controversy. Don’t tell me Dawson’s Creek or the OC could do it, and not Trek.
Sure, the issue has been skirted around, but the fact remains that in 28 seasons of TV and 10 movies, there hasn’t been one confirmed gay character. That is a blight on a show that has tackled just about every other prejudice you could name, and I really hope that JJ Abrams fixes this. It is a situation whereby some people claim that homosexuality has been “cured” in humanity in the 23rd-24th centuries. And they can say that without anyone being able to point to anything to prove them wrong. I still believe that that is a problem.
I don’t buy for a second the argument that members of the crew just might be gay and why should it be “in your face”. The romantic life and attractions and past girlfriends, etc, of just about every member of the crew in TNG, VOY and ENT were in our faces all the time.
The new movie doesn’t have to revolve around a gay love triangle or anything like that, but if an academy staffer brings his or her same-sex partner to the graduation ball, then I will cheer (and breathe a sigh of relief).
While TNG never had a gay character, they did have a couple of episodes that made very strong statements about the subject. Check out “The Host” and “The Outcast”.
#4
Awesome story!
#9
Thanks for clearing that up re: Metro Weekly.
#15
Agreed – but as Mr. Takei points out, just a grim reminder that even one man’s vision can be hindered by a network’s greed. And, each network is different.
Some network and production may be more tolerant towards it shows compared to others. My guess is this why some shows can do it, and others cannot. Take Bravo network and its programming, NBC and Will & Grace. ABC and Desperate Housewives. Anyone take notice if any Paramount production, TV or otherwise, or CBS property has included gay characters and not made a joke about it?
At any rate, Mr. Takei’s comments to me at least are a grim reminder that society (at least in the U.S) is largely based on greed and intolerance, no matter what the cost and who is hurt / exploited in the process. Regrettable when “who” is sometimes entire groups of people which simply exist and are different than others.
Back to Trek: I’m remembering DS9 addressed homosexuality with the first season episode, “Dax.” One of my all-time favorites.
WTF? Homo sexuality is just a disease which will soon be cured like any other.
To #18. Oh my.
Back in 17 I meant to type, “Some network and production companies may be more tolerant towards its shows..” Fingers are working faster than the brain this morning.. time to go to work..? ;-)
#16 is right, and I think that those two episodes sufficiently handles the topic, and handled it in a tasteful and appropriate manner. We need to remember that Star Trek is still a family show, and wether we like it or not, the gay topic is one better suited for mature audiences, not family audiences, so even with Star Trek, there should be a practical limit as to the extent that Trek handles topics. You dont want to come out with a gay-themed episode solely for the purpose of coming out with a gay-themed episode.
Remember the TNG episode “Angel One”? It dealt with a society where women were the dominant gender, and men were the submissive gender. It was a somewhat decent episode that made its point. If the Trek writers came out with that type of episode every three or four years, it would have been seen as agendizing the topic, eventually getting to the point where viewrs ask, “How many shuttlecraft does Voyager have??”
It’s true that Gene’s Trek was about addressing topics, but Gene’s Trek was NOT about agendizing.
I’ll second #5.
#15 a friend of mine once suggested that a way to ‘deal’ with Homosexuality in TNG would have been to have had one of our regulars (Picard or whoever) horrified by it being in the list of things that Romulans are allowed to kill their children for, as given in some third season episode. It would have fitted into that scene easily enough and entirely established the egalitarian nature of the Federation’s attitude to sexual orientation.
#23: “a friend of mine once suggested that a way to ‘deal’ with Homosexuality in TNG would have been to have had one of our regulars (Picard or whoever) horrified by it being in the list of things that Romulans are allowed to kill their children for, as given in some third season episode.”
A good idea – but to be fair to people I disagree with, there are quite a number of folks who are intolerant of gays who would nonetheless be just as horrified at the notion of *killing* children for their perceived sexual orientations.
“Homo sexuality is just a disease which will soon be cured like any other. “
Unfortunately, moronic bigotry probably won’t be. But we can hope.
#18 How does someone who posts on a Star Trek fan forum manage to miss the entire point of Star Trek altogether? Infinite diversity in infinite combinations! I suppose that infinite diversity inevitably includes bigots and ignoramuses.
They dealt with prejudice against sexual preferences by metaphor on Star Trek in the Next Generation episode “The Outcast”. Poster of comment 18 should go watch that episode.
“We do not need to be cured. How can you dictate how people love each other?”
- Soren, the sexually liberated J’naii, speaking moments before they rape her brain with drugs to make her ‘normal’.
#12 – PaoloM
Amen, brotha. IDIC is the core of Star Trek.
#18 – Don’t Care
Actually, they’re working on a cure for bigotry instead.
#15–You’ve obviously missed some episodes, particularly DS9 (which most directly explored a homosexual relationship in “Dax”). TNG also dealt with it, although less directly–probably a sign of the times. It is extremely common in the novels as well.
#18–While anyone may have an opinion, I’m not sure you “get” Star Trek. To think that such an ignorant and intolerant attitude to have prevailed in Mr. Roddenberry’s universe is so far off base it’s in another quadrant!
“Homo sexuality is just a disease which will soon be cured like any other.”
I think the poster of this messages has it all wrong… Homo phobia is just a disease which will soon be cured like any other (I hope).
I really wish some people would join the 21st century. Roddenberry so preached tolerance and diversity (remember IDIC?) as the one of the show’s major philosophies; I just don’t see how someone can love TREK and still not get it.
I do find it interesting that the books and the internet voyages have been far braver in addressing this issue than has the film-side of the franchise. Supposedly, (and I guess which story you believe) Ensign Hawk in “Star Trek: Nemesis” was originally intended to be a gay character (he is/was in the novels… but of course, that isn’t considered canon). Perhaps someday soon.
#4–that was the coolest story I’ve yet read about how classy Mr. Takei is. Takei has always been one of my favorite actors and have enjoyed attending any convention that he was one of the guest stars.
I just finished listening to the audiobook of his autobiography: “To The Stars”, an entertaining and emotionally powerful story read by George himself, I recommend it to any Trek and Takei fan.
Homosexuality was the focus of a couple of episodes in TNG and DS9. Once again Takei is speaking without having all the facts.
Many years ago, I had lunch with George Takei. He was in London, and myself and a colleague went to meet him with a view to him being a motivational speaker at an event we were working on. He realised very quickly we were both Trekkies, and the pretense of the lunch being about work was dropped. We then proceeded to have a hugely entertaining couple of hours where he talked at length about Trek’s impact on his life and career.
Needless to say, the speaking project didn’t happen, but he was extremely friendly, down-to-earth, and decent, and if I remember correctly, even picked up the bill.
#28
I haven’t missed those episodes – none of them depict a gay character. I like ‘The Outcast’ as allegory, although it falls down by depicting “the cure” as 100% successful. If it were a true allegory, it would at least have hinted that “reparative therapy” can lead to psychological damage.
DS9’s ‘Rejoined’ was certainly Trek’s boldest venture in this area, but neither Dax nor Kahn were gay characters, per se. The novels aren’t canon, and frequently violate it, so I’ll leave those to the side.
I just want confirmation that gay people exist in the Trek future. This could be done very easily, without feeling tacked on. For example, in the new movie, young Kirk could try his charms on a young woman, who tells him “Sorry, you’re not my type.” We could see Kirk’s stunned face turn to a smile as the woman’s girlfriend arrives and takes her hand. That could be a funny Kirk character bit, and still achieve something important.
dont worry about number 18….he wont be bothering us again
#33
Exactly right.
I don’t think in this day and age being gay should be a trek “episode topic”. Just casually show us that a gay character exists *somewhere* in the 23rd century!
I believe (and certainly hope) that in 300 years someone’s sexual preferences will be non-issues.
#33- They did, however, at least for a time,explore a same-sex relationship. Nothing in that episode suggests that such a relationship would not have been tolerated due to a belief that homosexuality is a disease, or that it is immoral, intolerable, etc. In fact, nothing was made of that aspect of the relationship at all. The two people loved each other without any regard for the status of their gender.
I don’t see how anyone could believe that homosexuality would not exist in the future. It is more accepted now than it has been since the time of the Roman Empire. What would cause that to change?
My wife and I both have close siblings who are openly homosexual or bisexual. Even the oldest of our family members recognize that being uncomfortable with that is a thing of the past, and the young children in our family do not recognize that there ever was an issue, and more importantly, that people who choose to love within their own gender are any different from my wife and me.
It is obvious to me that Mr. Roddenberry’s universe doesn’t exclude anyone…If these people to whom you refer feel that homosexuality has been cured by the 23rd-24th centuries, I do not see that their opinion has ever been justified by anything done in Star Trek. For such a ridiculous opinion (inconsistent with everything Star Trek stands for) to be accepted, they would have to prove it to me, not the other way around.
Infinite Diversity In Infinite Combinations
Trek was marketed as a wagon train to the stars, but everyone seems to think that the spirit of Trek was preaching a social-leftist utopia on everyone. But to me, Trek was at its best in episodes like The Ultimate Computer or The Tholian Web.
More dealind with events and less dealing with issues. Besides, counding skin colors and sexual preferences is racist, bigoted and displays the worst of humanity, not the best.
IDIC all the way, man :)
Takei was the first Trek actor I ever got to meet in person, and he’s always just awesome. I remember once when I was a guest at I-Con, he was in the Green Room doing a radio interview about his biography (at a time when there were multiple Trek-actor biographies coming out) and I still smile at some of his turns of phrase; he’s a witty guy. One exchange I recall pretty clearly (quoted from memory, so apply grains of salt):
Interviewer: Does your book include lots of dirt about Bill Shatner?
Takei: Well, my book is the truth. Some people look at truth and see it as “dirt,” some people see it as “light.” I do think my book sheds some light on Bill.
I don’t care if Takei is gay, straight, or anywhere in between. I met him briefly several years ago at a mall in the OC, and he’s one of the nicest guys I’ve ever met. My wife and I received a framed photo he sent us for our wedding, that reads, “Congratulations on your wedding day!”.
I don’t need to agree with all his political views to respect the guy. And I’ll tell you, I respect him a lot!
Sulu’s going to kick ass with a sword! Sweet!!!
“but after his passing a different group of people took over and they did not necessarily share Gene’s humanistic philosophy”
I guess if a lie is repeated long enough, people begin to believe it. There’s no hard evidence that the NextGen, DS9, VOY, or Ent episodes were any less “humanistic” than TOS. One of the things that separates Trek (in ALL it’s forms) from all other Scifi is it’s emphasis on inclusion, optimism, and humanism. Many stories in the later series’ and many of the casting choices (afro-american commander, female captain, etc) reflect this.
People may prefer TOS over the other series, but there is no basis in saying that it was more “humane” than the others.
#39
Well, Nimoy and Kelley for example are (were as for Kelley) very good friends of Shatners. And although there’s never only one camp to blame, Shatner didn’t need to shed any “light” on Takei in his own biography, nor does he need to constantly rehash those old stories that only suggest Takei’s never coped with envy.
Apart from that, I like what Takei says in the above article about diversity and Roddenberry’s vision and I think this is one of the main reasons for the enduring success of TOS.
So much for IDIC.
I’ll never understand them touting the “first interracial kiss” on Trek. This is the same episode where Parmen makes Spock laugh, cry, and flamenco dance and makes Kirk whinny like a horse with little Alexander riding on his back. The kiss was but one of several “humilations” perpetrated on the crewmembers. As Kirk kisses Uhura, his eyes burn with intense hatred. There was nothing uplifting or inclusive about the scene at all. That’s not to say that Roddenberry’s personal opinion of interracial relationships wasn’t positive – we know it was – but all the episodes aired (including the abridged “Alternative Factor) were never allowed to promote that cause.
I hate the fact that homosexuality is even an issue of discussion. Eventually, our society will evolve to the point where gay people have just as many rights and will be just as highly respected as everyone else. Just like women gaining the right to vote and the Civil Rights Act, there will be legislation that will end this nonsense. The Constitution says We the People, and as Kirk once said in a bad episode with a great monologue, to paraphrase: “look at those three words, bigger than all the rest…they mean NOTHING unless they apply to everybody!”. Not We the Straight People. Not We the White Males. WE THE PEOPLE. It simply boggles my mind that it’s even discussed whether or not gays can get married, whether or not they choose the lifestyle…irrelevant. ANY Star Trek “fan” who believes that homosexuality is immoral, won’t exist in the future, should not be depicted, etc…is NOT a true Star Trek fan at all. Clearly these people have missed the entire point of the whole frickin’ vision of the show.
Anyway, it’s awesome that we’ll see some Sulu-fencing action. I always loved that aspect of his character (wild, adventurous) and I glad they’re exploring it more with the new film.
I should also add that Takei’s comments are even more eloquent than usual.
#42– I do prefer TOS, but because of the magic in the main characters’ interactions. You are correct, IMO, that some of the criticism of the later series as going outside of Roddenberry’s vision is reaching. For instance, DS9 and ENT were often criticised as being too militaristic, but Roddenberry’s vision was of humanity as a whole, not that the entire universe had adopted their ways. No matter what their own philosophy was, the Federation would have to contend with the counter philosophies of others, and sometimes, that would inevitably lead to conflict. The only thing I can say with confidence that Gene probably would not have approved of was the existence of Section 31 in his benevolent Federation, and the complacency of its leaders over its actions. Then again, if he knew what we do about the state of affairs right now in the world, he may have done something like that to address it. Star Trek, then and now, has never shied away from the frontline of social issues. He was the one who started us on that path.
43^
I think De Kelley forgave the TOS Shatner by the time of the movies. Shatner told a story of Kelley not speaking to him for years after Shatner laughed at how Kelley’s dog had died (died in a nasty way at that.)
I think most of the cast (except Doohan) got over their S-hat-red. I wish George could. It’s silly to think of these two sitting in their rockers at the old farts’ home exchanging harangues.
“Any Star Trek “fan” who believes that homosexuality is immoral, won’t exist in the future, should not be depicted, etc…is NOT a true Star Trek fan at all.”
Well, I guess that excludes me, then; I believe that homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral, but that doesn’t make me “homophobic” or want to burn gay people at the stake…homosexual people are human beings too, and I respect them just as much as I would anyone else. At the same time, that does not mean I sanction their behavior… I believe it is wrong…and I’m not going to pretend I don’t.
Having said that, I find it extremely offensive and tiresome to be constantly reminded of how “intolerant,” “bigoted,” and “prejudiced” I am, and being told I’m not a “true Star Trek fan” for refusing to affirm gay people in their happy okay-ness really irks me… I understand that you have a strong opinion in this matter, but that doesn’t give you the right to act like a jerk.
Oh, and the tidbit about the new movie looks nifty…I can’t wait to see Sulu kick some butt!
George Takai is a class act and down to earth human being. I remember back in 1984 during the opening weekend of Star Trek 3-TSFS. I was standing in line at the Royal Theatre in San Francisco along with about 20 other fans, for the first showing on Saturday. I was reading a novel when I heard someone yell out loud, “Hey Sulu!”. I looked up and see this jogger that had run by stop and come back. It was George! He was in the city that weekend for a Star Trek Creation Convention. George stopped, signed autographs, and chatted with us for about 15 mins before resuming his jog. It was pretty cool to interact with him in a regular setting outside of the usual convention circus.
The utopians here make me laugh.
They don’t believe in “INFINITE DIVERSITY, INFINITE COMBINATIONS”. They onlt believe in pushing their views upon everone else. How exacly is it “enlightened” to invent names like “homophobia” to demonize others they disagree with, and force them to think and feel the same way?
I fail to see the difference between curing a person of their homosexuality and curing a person of their bigotry. Both are behaviours. Both are to be banned- especially by those who preach “tolerance”. Those screaming for tolerance the most are the most intolerant themselves.
Otherwise, #18 would have been accepted as equal.
IDIC my arse.
#48- Amen brudder!
#49–You may think it is immoral (I personally think that term is completely out of place and better suited to describing acts which deceive or harm other people), but that is not the relevant question. You claim that you respect them as you respect everyone else, and I assume that means you would not exclude them from anything available to everyone else. Being tolerant does not mean that you agree with everyone, rather that you accept people even if you do not agree with them. I doubt if gay people care whether you “sanction” their activity or not, just that you do not oppress them. I am not gay, either, nor am I a female, Black, Asian, Latino, Muslim, Jewish, etc., but I enjoy the fantasy of a universe in which none of that really matters anyway. There is no intolerance, no hunger, little disease, and little mention of organized religion either (Oops).
I think that is what IDIC is all about. In Star Trek, we can forget that we, as human beings, have any issues with those differences in that most utopian of possible futures.
Fellow fans, I hereby tell you openly (for the first time) that I am bisexual. When I read about Takei’s coming out, I considered to do that as well. But my situation doesn’t allow it. My father has some very strong opinions about how to deal with anyone who is not heterosexual, and I need his support for my university studies. Therefore, I have been “bending” the truth several times although I try to never lie. It is easier of course, since I also have some interest in women. That makes it much easier to hide the truth from him. My mother knows it, and so do all my friends.
Anyway, I will always love Rolf. Here’s to ya, lad…
#44
Considering the times, making the kiss part of such a story frame was the only possibility to show it at all. But I think everybody involved was aware that the kiss would set off a fuse when screened. And the public outcry that followed demonstrated how controversially the scene was met with.
Kirk’s hatred is directed towards Parmen, not towards Uhura; their short talk before they kiss is rather comforting and tender given the circumstances. So the statement is in the kiss itself, the kiss being the symbol, and in boldly showing it, and that’s what made it so important and what it will be remembered for.
It’s not an issue of morality. There’s nothing wrong with adhering to the idea that certain sex acts are immoral. No one should be condemned for believing that same-gender sex is immoral, or that sex outside of marriage is immoral, etc. Condemning someone for having morals is ridiculous, and it’s appalling, imo.
In regards to trek, that’s not what the topic is about. The topic is about whether Trek episodes have adequately addressed the topic. They have, citing two prior episodes that did so.
#51– You bring up an interesting point about #18. In the Star Trek Universe, he would certainly be allowed to voice that opinion, as he can today on a talk show or other media outlet. His view would certainly be met with opposition, but tolerated nonetheless. However, in all fairness, this is not Star Trek. It is a private forum for discussion by fans of a TV series, and the site operator has chosen not to allow bigotry here.
The subject matter was about whether homosexuals had been, are, or should be depicted in the Star Trek Universe. Intolerants HAVE been depicted, so therefore there is no comparison such as you suggest. #18 posted here with the intention of attacking a harmless lifestyle by referring to it as a disease that should be cured. It has also been suggested here that there are those (apparently among Star Trek fans) who feel that homosexuality would be eradicated by the time of the show’s setting. Many of us believe that such an action as to force a man or woman to change his/her sexuality is contrary to what Star Trek is all about. There is nothing to suggest that in the history of the Star Trek storyline or the diversity of its characters.
To 57, you forget one thing, though. Part of the ST universe is also the allowing of individual cultures to set boundaries for themselves. If, for example, a culture has decided that polygamy is wrong, why should that culture be labeled as intolerant or bigoted? They should not. Neither should a culture that has decided that same-gener coupling is immoral. I might not like it, but that doesn’t make it intolerance.
#51: If you use the logic that homosexuality is a behavior, one could easily use that same argument that heterosexuality is too.
I tend to believe that what exists does so within the confines of nature. As such, it is not up to anyone to agree or disagree with it. I’ve never understood attitudes that condemn something because it is outside of their range of experience; such intolerance drives me batty.
IDIC clearly says that embracing our differences are what make us human.
To #49: What I love about Star Trek is that in its depiction of mankind in the future, the beliefs that you hold about homosexuality don’t exist. Just as racist attitudes towards black people are no longer the norm, the attitude that homosexuality is “immoral” will become out of the norm, antiquated. And the world will be a better place for it. I’m not going to argue with you about the issue, and I’m sure you’ll continue to watch Star Trek for years to come. I just hope that at some point you will get the point of Star Trek.
#58–I do not forget that, but such circumstances are depicted as being both outside of Star Fleet policy, and particular to an alien culture. Even Federation member worlds can practice their own cultural beliefs, even if they are intolerant, except when it comes to operating within Star Fleet–which has never proven to be intolerant. The “utopian” society in Star Trek is what Terran humanity has achieved, no one would suggest the possibility that all races would have come to the same point in their social evolution, although many of them are depicted as having done so.
To 59: Heterosexuality IS a behavior. So is bisexuality, monogamy, and polyamory.
Capt. Kirk to Lt. Stiles–” I’ll tolerate no bigotry on my bridge.” (TOS-”Balance of Terror”)
That may be paraphrasing the quote (haven’t watched it in years), but I believe that is the essence of it…
To 61: Starfleet is definitely itolerant according to your standard. Let’s say that my culture requires me to mate in front of an audience. I can’t find anything in Starfleet requlations that permit me to get it on in the middle of a starship corridor. Therefore, Starfleet is intolerant of my beliefs.
Sorry, but the “intolerant” label is ridiculous, and inconsistently applied when used by many who wield it.
#62: “Heterosexuality IS a behavior.”
Granted. Question is, and this is where those I perceive as homophobic or intolerant trip up. Is it a learned behavior or one that is intrinsically ingrained?
Those who scream out against gays say they choose to act accordingly. I’d say that is not the case in most situations. I mean, does someone choose to be straight, or left handed or (you fill in the blank)? That is such a ridiculous idea that one should almost be embarrassed to ask the question.
I’d like to think that in TREK’s future that questions of orientation would have been long discarded as unimportant.
We should invite Fred Phelps to comment on this issue. I’m sure it would bring a lot of clarity to the discussion.
I thought Takei was awesome on the Shatner roast, by the way.
To 65: I don’t think there’s an easy answer. Most typical human behavior is a combination of nature and nurture. That said, I don’t think that either nature or nurture exclusively should be the determining factor of societal appropriateness, moral standards, etc.
For example, it’s said that it’s the human male’s nature to sleep with multiple partners. Does that mean society should tolerate infidelity? Of course not! Is the societal condemnation of infidelity intolerant? Most definitely not!
This ethics debate is interesting, but those of you who say being intolerant of bigotry is hypocritical, while making an important point, are missing one aspect of philosophy that modern cultures, especially Americans, hold very dear. You are allowed to hold any opinion you want, but are not always allowed to act based on that opinion. Your rights only extend until they infringe on the rights of another. So, it’s perfectly fine to give hypothetical situations like those that #64 addressed, though in that situation the logic is flawed as I’m sure Starfleet wouldn’t actually prevent you from practicing your beliefs as long as you did it in such a way as it would not be detrimental to anyone else. However, those who want to “outlaw” homosexuality are just as bad as people who think african americans should be segregated or other beliefs based on ethnicity, religion, or similar factors. Homosexuals have the right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” just like anyone else, though sadly these rights are often denied. I have friends who identify as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, pansexual, and transgender. I dislike anybody who believes that for some reason they should be denied their rights for something as trivial and harmless as their sexuality or gender identity, as the case may be.
#64–I disagree with your definition of tolerant, and your contention that Star Fleet is not. Let’s take “freedom of speech”, for example. Even that most basic human right is going to be limited to speech which does not infringe on the rights of others. This is overused, but yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is not protected under freedom of speech, because it infringes on the rights of others, as do violations of noise ordinances. To use your example, why does your mating practice have to be done on a starship? If it is involuntary, like “Pon Farr”, for example, exceptions are made in Star Trek. Star Fleet seemed to be tolerant of Vulcan mating rituals, even though they can sometimes reach the extreme. Betazoids marry in the nude, and that did not seem to be a problem. Ferengi brides are unclothed, and again, no problem.
The bottom line is, two men who have a sexual relationship does not infringe on someone else’s rights. There is no reason for it to be any less private than my own heterosexual relationship with my wife.
#57- #51– You bring up an interesting point about #18. In the Star Trek Universe, he would certainly be allowed to voice that opinion, as he can today on a talk show or other media outlet. His view would certainly be met with opposition, but tolerated nonetheless. However, in all fairness, this is not Star Trek. It is a private forum for discussion by fans of a TV series, and the site operator has chosen not to allow bigotry here. ”
I appreciate it.
However, #18’s post wasn’t bigotry.
Besides… if gays “are the way they were born” and should be tolerated, then why can’t a perceived ‘bigot’ be considered “born that way” and be tolerated?
I think of Animal Farm, and how some animals were more uqual than others. We don’t like the religious right telling people how to think and act… but are we any better when we set out to depose of ‘bigotry’?
In their usage(s), I fail to see the difference between “immoral” and “homophobic”.
#65- “#62: “Heterosexuality IS a behavior.”
Granted. Question is, and this is where those I perceive as homophobic or intolerant trip up. Is it a learned behavior or one that is intrinsically ingrained?
Those who scream out against gays say they choose to act accordingly. I’d say that is not the case in most situations. I mean, does someone choose to be straight, or left handed or (you fill in the blank)? That is such a ridiculous idea that one should almost be embarrassed to ask the question. ”
You know how much “tolerance” and “love” that gay activists show for the ex-gays out there?
Not a whole lot. It would appear that the ex-gay’s exiastance interfere’s with the gay activist’s message and agenda.
There’s a huge difference between tolerating a gay person and tolerating a bigot. A gay person has no interest in telling other people how to live their lives. Most gay people don’t go around saying heterosexuality is immoral, inferior, unnatural, whatever. In short, they’re harming nobody…they just want to live their lives (i.e. they don’t wish to infringe others’ lives). The bigot, however, unless he keeps his opinions to himself and doesn’t let his personal beliefs influence his behavior (unlikely), condemns homosexuality, calls it immoral, unnatural, etc. In short, they want to tell other people how to live (i.e. infringe on others’ rights). So does the bigot deserve the same “tolerance” for his/her opinions? No.
Try it from this viewpoint then:
Judge not that ye be not judged.
It is not your place to cast judgement on a man or woman unless you yourself is worthy of such close scrutiny. I would rather there be more love in the world and less judgement.
He that is without sin among you, let him cast a stone-
If one is to proscribe punishment for another’s percieved sin, then they should have led a life beyond reproach and be righteous. We are all human and it is time that we all strive for unity and against divisiveness.
I’m using some wisdom taken from the Bible to make a point to some who may use it for their interpretation of what constitutes how a person should behave, particularly when it doesn’t affect those opposed to other’s lives.
I expect a backlash, but I will remain unswayed.
Re: 64
“To 61: I can’t find anything in Starfleet requlations that permit me to get it on in the middle of a starship corridor. Therefore, Starfleet is intolerant of my beliefs”
To quote Lt. Ilya, “My oath of celibacy IS on record.” :)
Re:55: I didn’t mean to suggest that Kirk’s hatred was directed at Uhura. All I’m saying is, yes, that sequence was designed to shock at that time, it did not in any way show that an interracial kiss was a “good thing”.
Interesting topic–and points of view. Nice to read people thinking and using reason here. I really enjoy this Trek site!
My favorites are the religious ones against homosexuals. IF there is indeed a creator who is loving and forgives all, then why on Earth create homosexuals? Why create a group of people that will automatically go to Hell for being that which was created for them? Why all mighty creator would do such a thing?
OF the “it’s a choice of life style” thing is rich too. I had no choice, if so, would I not choose be the norm, to avoid all the hate and horrible things I had to deal with as a young person. Why is it that people who believe in such a creator–with love and forgiveness–condemn anyone? I just don’t understand the whole concept.
Back to Trek–anyone now what remastered TOS will be showing tomorrow night?
Topic: Homosexuality – learned or born with?
The scientific community has interesting evidence that homosexual people are born that way. We know that hormones shape the brain in its development (as an embryo/fetus). We also know that there seems to be a genetic factor that raises the possibility of being homosexual. What most intrigued me was the finding that the 3rd interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus appears to be smaller in gay men, about the size of those in straight women!
(I’m a neurobiology major with minors in medical physiology and zoology)
#38 “counting skin colors and sexual preferences is racist, bigoted and displays the worst of humanity, not the best.”
Consider racist hiring practices. If a large workplace situated in a predominantly black area does not employ a single black person, by the above logic it is the person who points this out that is the racist – not the employer. It doesn’t take much effort to count to zero.
#62 “Heterosexuality IS a behavior. So is bisexuality, monogamy, and polyamory.”
It is specious to define heterosexuality or homosexuality simply as behavior – there are gay people who are celibate, but they are still gay. Therefore, we are talking about people, not actions. That is why I say I would like to see a gay character in Trek – not necessarily a same-sex kiss or any other intimate act.
Gay people exist now, and what’s wrong with establishing that they still exist in the 22nd-24th centuries?
A little off topic here, (though by all means I support tolerance on the issue at hand…) – but i have to say, I just saw for the first time “World Enough and time” and I have to say, I’m pretty blown away… the production, effects and sets are all as good or better than the original series. I can suspend any issues with replacement actors and feel some of the regulars really play their parts very well.
Just had to chime in… their new delivery system is also very easy. I’m really impressed.
Doug L.
I love George Takei.
He is a wonderful man and a terrific human being.
God bless you, George – and thanks for the autographed picture that’s hanging on my wall!
#76- “The scientific community has interesting evidence that homosexual people are born that way. We know that hormones shape the brain in its development (as an embryo/fetus). ”
We also know that a study supposedly locating a ‘gay gene’ was debunked because the scientists were actually gay themselves.
We also know that at one time the APA declared homosexuality was a mental illness, but senior members of the APA are homosexuals themselves and speak at homosexual activist events. The APA no longer supports the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness.
#80-
I think you need to provide some sort of proof to back that up. I am not familiar with the information about the senior members of the APA.
Taken at face value, your comment seems rather inflammatory.
Thank you CW.
I was a gay activist.I came out of homosexuality.Gay activists don’t celebrate diversity.they censor ,threaten and harass.that’s not tolerance.
Well some people are still a bit in denial–love the APA and the gay gene comment. Where are the facts?
And the general Gay activists comment-activists come in all shapes, colors forms, genders, sexual orientations-some may indeed censor, threaten , etc, but not the ones I know. Same old tired arguments of the narrow minded.
Sounds just like the crap people used to say about Martin Luther King JR.–a non-violent activist who of course, was shot to death by a hate filled person.
Why is homosexuality such an issue for people? What are you afraid of? Homosexuality has been around since recorded history so come on already, get over it.
#70 cw
Because the bigot’s behavior is learned. No child on this earth is born bigoted. It’s taught by those who raise it.
I know simply by life experience homosexuality is not a choice, nor a learned behavior simply because homosexuality runs in my father’s side of the family. There is at least one, if not two, gay/lesbians (mainly lesbian) *that we know about* per family unit per generation going back to the great-great-grands, skipping Dad’s generation, and going forward on into my generation’s children. Out of Dad’s generation, all but one sister has a gay child.
Interesting, oui?
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
Have to confess my affection for the argument that essentially states, “So what you’re saying is that you don’t like bigots? Well, that just makes you prejudiced yourself! Hypocrite!” What’s most amusing about it is the absolute conviction the purveyors of such sophistry display that they’ve made some kind of a telling point.
Doug L., agreed on “World Enough and Time.” I was accepted to The Dave School, which did the bulk of the visual effects, a few months back, but had to put it on hold when a job offer came along that I couldn’t refuse. Hope to take them up on it in a year or two, though. :-)
#80
What are these “homosexual activist events”, and where can I get a ticket? They sure sound more fun than reading tall tales about respected doctors and scientists.
I love the idea that the American Psychiatric Association (not to mention the scientific community) are in the stranglehold of the gays! It’s funny at first blush, but then I wonder if the poster is actually serious and I think of similar comments about Jews controlling world finances, etc, and it leaves me stone cold.
#85
Thanks for injecting some much-needed sanity back into this thread, Vulcanista.
#78 and #86
LOVED ‘World Enough and Time’ – New Voyages rocks.
Resident queer mexican trekkie here. What an interesting discussion tonight. So let’s spin it a little bit. There’s something that hasn’t been talked about: the Prime Directive, good ol’ non-interferance.
Usually I think of this in a broader sense. As in, societies and nations should be careful about how and when they meddle into the matters of others. But what about non-interferance in terms of individual people?
I’m biased and know my answer to that question, but I’m interested in seeing what other people think.
Could the laws banning civil unions and gay marriage be considered meddlesome? On a not-so-different note, what about entire states banning smoking? Personally, I’m a non-smoker yet I’m appalled that governments are passing smoking bans, no matter how good-intentioned they are. What is that saying..? “Keep your laws off my body?”
Discuss..
#85 Agreed!
And another thing to drive Vulcanista’s point home. I’ve observed adults protesting abortion clinics and gay pride events that have made it a family event. In other words – they bring their CHILDREN to the protest and have them carry signs. I don’t even want to post my opinion of this but I will say it greatly saddens me.
Frankly, if I used a caricature of gay rights people that showed as little knowledge about actual homosexuality, and was as deeply offensive as the ones most gay-rights people use to represent anti-gay rights people, I’d be rightfully condemned as a bigot…but since it’s on the other side of the debate, used to condemn so-called “homophobes,” then apparently it’s perfectly all right. Doesn’t that seem a little off to you?
But, really, it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference whether homosexuality is inborn or something learned. What is certain is that homosexuality is not simply “another sexual orientation, an equal and opposite “alternative” to regualar sexuality. From a purely rational standpoint, this much is obvious; our bodies are clearly designed for heterosexuality, which furthermore serves a biological purpose in extending our race. Homosexuality, on the other hand, cannot be seen as anything other than a “takeoff,” or perversion, of heterosexuality. Whether or not it is ’sinful’ is a matter for morality, of course, but this much must be clear to both sides of the debate.
“IF there is indeed a creator who is loving and forgives all, then why on Earth create homosexuals? Why create a group of people that will automatically go to Hell for being that which was created for them? Why all mighty creator would do such a thing?”
Oh, Lord…this has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve read in a long, long, long, time. Homosexuals do not ‘automatically go to hell,’ anymore than heterosexual people do; Christian objections to gay rights to not amount to God creating people, then throwing them in hell for being gay.
Basically, different people by their nature are predisposed to certain types of sin; some people have natural tendencies to pedophilia, or covetousness, or stealing; just being that way is not sinful; it is acting on that predisposition that is a sin. Everyone naturally is disposed towards certain types of sin; being homosexual means you are naturally disposed to sinful homosexual acts, not that you are inherently evil and going to hell…it is still perfectly possible (and even quite likely) to be a homosexual and go to heaven; just as much so as for a heterosexual. Being homosexual isn’t an “unforgivable sin,” anymore than being naturally disposed to envy, or lust, or greed, is unforgivable. It is simply one in a long list of ways in which our nature is susceptible to sin. The fact that the majority of us are not susceptible to one particular kind of sin does not makes us “better” than those who are; we are both sinners, and we both are called to fight against our sinful impulses, whatever they are…
At the same time, and having said that, Christianity affirms the fact that homosexual acts are indeed sinful; it is not the Church’s place to condone wilfull sin, and it never will be. Those coming to Christianity merely to be told that they are already okay the way they are clearly do not understand the point of Christianity in the first place…
Really, the message of Christianity toward homosexuality is not one of “homophobia,” or “intolerance”…it is one that is deeply accepting and tolerant, but that at the same time still is willing to call sin sin, and not hide it behind comfortable platitudes designed to makes us feel we are all right “just the way we are.”
I hope no one finds my comments offensive…that is not my intent. These are my honestly held beliefs; if someone wishes to call me a bigot for having these beliefs, then that is their right…
“I hope no one finds my comments offensive.”
Frankly–and with all due respect, Nathan–they aren’t well thought-out enough to be provacative, let alone offensive.
Anthony said not to go anywhere near this topic, yet here you all are, like moths to a flame!
Let’s leave sexual orientation, politics and religion at the door, shall we?
Anyhoo, back to Star Trek… :)
I learned from a trusted source that in First Contact one version of the script Lieutenant Daniels was gay and a few scenes showed the fact. But the script was revised and changed as all scripts are removing this part of Daniels.
#90-
I wouldn’t call you a bigot, just not experienced with gay people.
I just wrote this big old post about God, Sinners, homosexuality is a social sin not a sin of God, my experiences with some ( not all) Christians and their reactions to their own family members, the really ignorant comparisons of pedophilla to being gay, etc.. How can they say only certain people can have rights and others cannot because of who they love.
Then I realized it is the same old argument with the same old fearful people who cannot move forward to a universe that Star Trek portrays. Where no one person is judged less than another. I think many of us born gay found a safe and hopeful place in Star Trek. After daily beatings in Jr. High from being a suspected “fag”, and having no one to turn to, I would have 45-50 minutes of peace each day when I would come home and watch the adventures of the drew of the Enterprise. I taught myself to be like my straight friends and hide any evidence of being the slightest bit different but the feelings were their and painfully, unavoidable. As I grew older, I realized how there is no way God would want me to suffer life like this at all. Not the God I as taught about in Catholic school.
Now you said it was stupid of me to ask why did God create us? Actually I think you only addressed the “Going to Hell remark” I had made. It has been said to me many, many times by all sorts of “God fearin’ folk”. So for me, it is not stupid, it is what I have had to deal with all my life.
But you didn’t answer my question–why did this God you worship create me and others like me? Why create the temptation for us–why the test? Why such a cruel creation? I would love to hear an answer to that.
I would not label myself a gay activist. But I am experienced as a gay man with having less rights than heterosexual people only because I fell in love with someone of the same gender. And yet, I do have to pay all the taxes involved to the system that keeps me from enjoying equal ( not more) rights. I do, however, have the power of free speech thank “God” for that! This country may have it’s troubles but what a fantastic place to live and therefore, I will continue to support even thought I am a second class citizen here.
Look, I am not bashing anyones religion nor am I trying to promote this thread simply because this really isn’t the place for it. Nor am I trying to be offensive to you and your beliefs, Nathan. I really appreciate all the wonderful people on this site who have their opinions and are not afraid to express them in a mature, and adult manner.
Now, back once again to Star Trek–does anyone know if there is a new remastered show on tomorrow?
I think it’s all well in good that people have their own belief systems and yardsticks for measuring what they believe to be acceptable and unacceptable, and clearly, you need some sort of guideline to navigate about and make sense of the world, whether it be drawn from a religious philosophy or something as purely pragmatic as Kantian ethics. The great thing is, you can follow your own belief system, and I can follow my own.
I think #68 hit the nail on the head by bringing up the notion of rights infringement. Certainly the historically monogamous humans didn’t condemn Denobulans for their polygamy. They understood that it was part of the culture and history of their planet, and the humans wouldn’t have demanded that every species they come in contact with adhere to human values. You don’t have to like or agree with how some person or some species lives their lives, but you certainly shouldn’t infringe upon them, just like #88 was alluding to.
I just looked at my post and realized I went way too long and should have stopped–apologies to you all! I get on the soap box and just can’t slip off.
Harry: yeah, well.. you know how it is. Hard to stay away from a good controversy. Maybe its human nature. But may I point out: you stopped by to place a comment too.. tee-hee-hee..
Ooh, and what a provocative comment it was!! :)
With all due respect, people aren’t discussing this merely because it’s controversial, but because peoples’ lives are truly affected by some of the attitudes expressed on here, whether it be dirty looks from complete strangers for holding a boyfriend or girlfriend’s hand, or the passage of legislation prohibiting people of the same sex from getting married. Once again, people are entitled to their opinions and viewpoints, but don’t start trying to push for legislation outlawing polygamy on Denobula.
Well – never thought I’d see the day where sexual orientation, religion, and politics would be lumped together as topics to avoid.. remember when that was limited to religion and politics? Thanks, I think..? :-)
#94: Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post; I probably went a bit far, but it really irks me to see my beliefs repeatedly caricatured and condemned by people who know less than nothing about them. I was merely trying to clarify the Christian position on Homosexuality as opposed to all of the lazy caricatures of it, your “going to hell” remark being one extremely egrarious example…
There is much more I could say about the topic, but this really isn’t the place for such a debate; until next time, Live Long and Prosper, my fellow Trek fans!
Is this the right site to talk about the NFL playoffs? What are your guys’ picks?
Mine are:
Hawks +3 (total homer pick)
Cowboys +7
Colts +7
Pats + 10
(where am I?)
ShawnP, thanks for pointing that out. Controversy wasn’t the best choice of words (besides its a challenge to convey sarcasm over text). Believe me, I know and understand, having a boyfriend of nine years. Being an activist I can most definitely appreciate the discussion!
Hey, THX, how about those Bears? Harumph…..humph…… :)
#43: I was praising Takei’s wit, not endorsing any aspect of whatever conflicts do or don’t exist between the actors (a topic I have no interest in).
Take wasn’t just being witty, either, he was deflecting against the interviewer’s own obsession with the topic, and doing so with grace and humor.
Hell, they should have an entirely gay ship. Maybe that would drive away the homophobes. We don’t need their kind in the Trek universe. ‘Phobes are only about hate, and vast historical ignorance concerning the Bible, or whatever “holy” book from which they justify their hate.
Takei had it rough in the 60s. That wasn’t a good time for Asians OR Gays. The fact that he has survived is a testament to his strength. Especially having to work with a big ham like Shatner. Shat was a different guy then, too. Today he’s a gentle, funny, self-effacing man. I like them both.
I think it’s interesting to note that Mr. Takei has had an incredible number of roles since he came out. In fact, I’ve noticed him on shows more since he came out than in the entire decade before! Clearly, at least in Hollywood, being gay is not quite the box office and ratings poison it once was. Would that that were the case in the rest of the country!
#9 ah, that makes more sense, thanks for the clarification.
( I still think it’s making too much of a private issue !)
#7 – “to finish, i am still unsure about Cho(35+) as Sulu. He seems way too old to play young Sulu.. ”
John Cho is very young-looking. He could easily pull off mid-20s.
#16 – “The Host” and “The Outcast” are pathetic excuses for “gay episodes”. In “The Host” Crusher’s little let’s-all-be-tolerant speech seemed really awkward and tacked-on: it would’ve been much more natural – and much more appropriate – if she’d said “I’m sorry, Odan, I still love you and I wish it could be like it was but it can’t any more because I’m heterosexual.” And “The Outcast” seemed to me to be more about transsexuals than gays (I mean, it was about gender identity), and in a way it did more harm than good in that all the gendered J’naii were heterosexual.
On another subject, IIRC Manny Coto said that he was planning a real-true bonafide multi-part “gay episode” for Enterprise (I think it was something about two alien lesbians fleeing their planet under penalty of death and seeking sanctuary on the Enterprise or something like that) but, of course, the show got cancelled.
Homosexuality on Trek has been touched on. I think it would be great to see a full time gay crew member on a show or in a movie. Post 109, I read the same thing, I also heard that one of the cast members would turn out gay or something??hmm.
As a bisexual I must say I DID not wake up one morning and think “Hang on…if I go for guys and chicks I can have twice the fun!” no there is no choice. I cant remember who it was claiming that much of the scientific community and APA who do research into Homosexuality are gay themselves rather funny and un-supported.
But I must say I never attack or demonise those who believe in Christianity, the opposite actualy, yes there a parts of the bible that seem to condem Gays, but as one if my scripture teachers once said “The bible was written by man, not the lord himself, I doubt he who created this world could turn on any of his children.” Either way each person has the right to believe what they want, and THAT is also part of the Trek Universe
Gene’s future was on of inclusion, all the diversity on our world was accepted (mostly) and we had moved past the horrors of the 20th – 21st centuries, there will come a day I believe where that will happen, but I also believe that before then a nother Trek “prediction” will come to pass and our species and our world will suffer a 3rd world war. Rodenberry saw a bright future for our species, but he also saw one last struggle. And out of the ashes I would hope that the world that Gene Rodenberry created, and that Gene L Coon, Harve Bennet, Ronald D. Moore, Rick Berman, Branon Braga, Manny Coto and everyone else who worked on Trek, populated does come to fruition. And that ALL of humanity will learn to accept that we are not all the same.
# 18
mong!
#47, not to stray too far off topic, IMO,,, Section 31 would have been ok with Gene…
^
Section 31 is the metaphor for secret societies. And yes they would have no relavance in a Trek Universe, however I believe S31 was introduced to portray the desperation of a Federation at War…
Something VERY relevent today….
^
I have to say reading these posts here are a great indication that IDIC is alive and well!!!!!!
Takai is just great and I loved #4 story! Shatner would have thrown that drawing in the trash, don’t get me wrong I love KIRK, but shat is kind of an as#
#99- “With all due respect, people aren’t discussing this merely because it’s controversial, but because peoples’ lives are truly affected by some of the attitudes expressed on here, whether it be dirty looks from complete strangers for holding a boyfriend or girlfriend’s hand, or the passage of legislation prohibiting people of the same sex from getting married. Once again, people are entitled to their opinions and viewpoints, but don’t start trying to push for legislation outlawing polygamy on Denobula. ”
Ya know, whenever it comes to vote on the topic of marriage, I vote status quo. A vocal minority wants to legetimize itself by wanting the majority to change their views, and they want to do it thru the passing of laws. If the majority doesn’t vote the way the way the minority wants them to vote, then they sue. Personally, I think if we are to change the rulles for one fringe groupe, then I think we should change it for all fringe groups. Don’t stop with the same sex couples and still discriminate against Mormons and Muslims- legalize multiple marriages too.
And, the sarcastic side of me demands an open mind from others and calls for tolerance and acceptance for incestual couples and progressives from Seatle who die from horse humpings. After all… when a brother and sister or man and dog are celebrating life and love, just how are they harming others?
133- “Ya know, whenever it comes to vote on the topic of marriage, I vote status quo. A vocal minority wants to legetimize itself by wanting the majority to change their views, and they want to do it thru the passing of laws. If the majority doesn’t vote the way the way the minority wants them to vote, then they sue. Personally, I think if we are to change the rulles for one fringe groupe, then I think we should change it for all fringe groups. Don’t stop with the same sex couples and still discriminate against Mormons and Muslims- legalize multiple marriages too.
And, the sarcastic side of me demands an open mind from others and calls for tolerance and acceptance for incestual couples and progressives from Seatle who die from horse humpings. After all… when a brother and sister or man and dog are celebrating life and love, just how are they harming others?”
That is an extremely ignorant and badly thought out argument. Polygamy is illegal because when it was legal many of the women were found to be mistreated by their husbands and forced into unwanted marraiges by their families. Not that those things don’t still happen, but they don’t happen on the scale that this kind of abuse once had. Incest is harmful to any children of that relationship- genetic inbreeding causes genetic mutations. I’m not saying we should go around sterilizing everyone who has a chance of passing on faulty DNA, but incest adds another unnescessary factor to the reproductive process, something we as a species are naturally disinclined to allow. And I know someone is going to use this against me, so I’m going to respond preemtively: Homosexuality is not something we are naturally disinclined to allow, thought it may not have been evolutionarily beneficial when the species was less numerous, it has evolved to be a useful method of creating social bonds (see newscientist’s recent article on the subject) and it is purely a cultural stigma that people have against it. As for beastiality, the argument is that the relationship is harmfull for the animal, who has not way to consent, and again not evolutionarily beneficial. QED
#102–As someone who will be in Texas Stadium cheering my hometeam Cowboys on Sunday, I hope you are correct with your picks.
#112–Like I said, were he alive today to see what is taking place in the world, he may indeed have introduced something of that nature to address the issue…However, it was clear that during his time on Earth he did not foresee his Federation still struggling with such moral issues, particularly the aformentioned complacency of its leaders about it. I think his method of addressing it would more likely have been for the civilian leadership of the UFP to act much more aggressively to eradicate it upon learning of its activities (for example, the intentional infection of Odo as a way to committ genocide against The Founders). They (Star Fleet) were allowed, by the civilian government, to be enabling in their non-response. I think Gene’s Star Trek universe was more enlightened, and this was born out of his personal experiences during WWII and his own hope for humanity’s future. I’m not saying that he would not have approved of the concept of a covert agency within Star Fleet, just that he would have attacked that issue from another direction. Just my opinion. The idea that the same Federation who would sacrifice its own Star Fleet explorers lives’ just to keep the Prime Directive intact would lower itself to enabling genocide in wartime would be more than appalling to a man whose own generation witnessed the effects of the Holocaust, the carpet bombing of Central Europe, and Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I know that this is somewhat off-topic, but I would be interested in my fellow Trek fans’ opinions.
#66:
No thanks to inviting Fred Phelps and his Kansas Taliban. Their graveside protests at services for troops who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defending freedom is a disgrace.
Last year I saw a piece on TV about a remote community in Russia that was founded by a man who believes he is Jesus reborn. Forgive me for having forgotten the man’s name but “Jesus Reborn” not only allowed polygamy in his community but encouraged it so more children are born. If you want to overrun other people or territories with a religion and amass power to dictate the rules in a society, forced breeding is the way. Conversion is a risky business, since people might say, thank you, but no thank you, we’d like to keep the gods we already have. Christianity has a very bloody history of evangelization by the sword for that matter. But to stay atop other ideologies or religions, power in numbers is needed. Hence very restrictive rules on contraception, abortion, and of course homosexuality. By default, same sex partnerships produce no children. They therefore do not take part in the forced breeding that would allow the representatives of a religion to wield power. Violence against, and banishment of homosexuality is a religio-political measure against those that are seen as a threat to that power. It is also rather revealing in this light that usually only the unborn life is sacred while it is totally acceptable that a child may be born into any thinkable situation of abuse, poverty, hunger, war etc. I read a very interesting article about war ravaged Europe in the latter Middle Ages (the region that today is southern Germany), where families at the end of their rope, with little hope left and unable to have means of reducing the number of children born because that was outlawed by Christianity in conjunction with feudalism that needed soldiers for their wars and bond-slaves to tend to their fields turned to a practice that was called “himmeln”. “Himmeln” means they were sending their surplus offspring that they had no means to feed, cloth or promise any kind of future to heaven by means of neglect of the newborn. Those people can’t even be condemned, since they truly believed they were doing well by their offspring since life was perceived as hell on earth at the time with troops coming through ever so often through the rural communities commandeering what there was to eat or destroying the crops during battle. Violation of their natural inclination to number their offspring had those people effectively aborting their children after birth. The paper stated the number of wanted children at 4 to 5 with the fifth, sixth and following children very much at high risk of not surviving their first few months.
Interestingly, when the subject of homosexuality is brought up, no reason is usually given, why it should be a sin. Homosexuality does no harm to others in and by itself. One would have to ask what the political dimension for it being declared a sin then is.
Also, intolerance of intolerance and bigotry has it’s place in this discussion. Homosexuals usually do not go out to physically harm others and deny them their human rights because they are heterosexual, green or yellow. Homophobes on the other hand do. If one group threatens harm to another, that is something that should, indeed, not be tolerated.
“Also, intolerance of intolerance and bigotry has it’s place in this discussion. Homosexuals usually do not go out to physically harm others and deny them their human rights because they are heterosexual, green or yellow. Homophobes on the other hand do. If one group threatens harm to another, that is something that should, indeed, not be tolerated.”
#117-That is a good point, but I would take it a step further by suggesting that not only should one group who threatens harm to another not be tolerated, but any group who threatens exclusion of another group (provided that the latter group is not infringing on the rights of others) should not be tolerated either. I find it hard to believe that Mr. Roddenberry would have allowed it in his vision of the future, and that is what Star Trek is all about–Mr. Roddenberry’s vision of a better future than the world in which he lived.
He proved it time and again by including an African-American officer on the bridge, a half-breed alien, along with Asian and Russian bridge officers–all cast as protagonists in a television series which aired during one of the most volatile social climates in 20th Century American history. Society was barely ready for that, and unfortunately not yet ready to include alternative lifestyles. It is a shame that he is no longer here (now that he could do such a thing) to have pioneered that in Star Trek as well, and that his successors failed to do so in a way that would satisfy some of the people on this forum. Instead, it seems as though Star Trek will be seen, by some, as having missed the boat on that particular issue, rather than being on the front lines as it had always been.
#116 MrRegular – It was pure sarcasm on my part. You’re the only one who mentioned it though.
#113 CW – For the life of me, I don’t understand why animals always get brought into this discussion by those opposed to LGBT rights. No one that I know advocates the legalization of relationships between humans and animals, so people who include animals in the equation just end up looking like [insert pejorative here].
#117- “Also, intolerance of intolerance and bigotry has it’s place in this discussion. Homosexuals usually do not go out to physically harm others and deny them their human rights because they are heterosexual, green or yellow. Homophobes on the other hand do. If one group threatens harm to another, that is something that should, indeed, not be tolerated.”
It’s interesting that this be mentioned. Matthew Shephard became the poster boy for so-called “homophobia”, and the emotional recourse was to parade the need for hate crime laws. The gay community had a very good example to draw on the emotions of everyone else, and the left wing news media milked the issue for all it was worth- and then some.
Until (NBC?) News did a story and re-visited the so-called “homophobic murderers” in prison and learned that SHephard was not killed because he was gay. His killers were drug addicts looking for their next high, saw his nice clothes, recognized him from other drug hangouts and assumed he had some drugs on him. He didn’t and wound up dead.
When the truth came out, the gay community was in an uproar. It seems that the truth of the matter interfered with their agenda.
Not only that, a young boy was kidnapped in an airport by 2 gays and raped and sodomized, quite literally, to death. The killers were caught, but strangely they faced NO hate crimes charges and the media buried their story.
Just like the fact that the Beltway snipers were gay as well. That angle was downplayed by the media.
#119- Same way that anyone who doesn’t drink the GLSTN Kool Aid is automatically alligned with Fred Phelps.
Also, because most people- tolerant as they are- believe that same gender sex isn’t too far removed from beastiality.
#116- aggred. No love from Fred Phelps here either.
#114- So one still finds a way to rationalize one form of discrimination and not the other. Rights are rights, aren’t they? Or are we still dealing with some being more equal than others.
“Don’t legislate your morality! It violates my rights! Legislate my morality instead.”
‘Eventually, our society will evolve to the point where gay people have just as many rights and will be just as highly respected as everyone else.”
One could argue that everyone is already equal.
First of all, I find it repugnant that homosexual supporters have to separate gays from everyone else in society. I personally they are the same as everyone else. The onlt thing that separates a so-called “straight man” from a “gay man” is who they want to have sex with. There are no divisions of brocolli lovers from brocolli haters- just sexuality.
That arguement is that 2 gay men can’t marry each other.Well guess what? Neither can 2 straight men! Has anyone figured that? Quite simply, single people- so-called gay or so-called straight, have entirely the SAME rights and SAME restrictions as each other. 2 people absolutely cannot marry whoever they want in this country. Even heterosexuals face limitations.
But we can say “don’t discriminate against gays. But we can still deny other cultures their rights and beliefs.” We lose sleep because gays might face a difficult decision, but we force taht upon other societies should they desire to assimilate into ours. How is that right or rational?
If anything, so-called “gays” have more.
Consider a job promotion: 4 people are up for promotion- 3 straight, 1 gay. 1 person is picked, and it wasn’t teh gay person. But it WAS the gay person who files discrimination charges! It actually happen in my town!
Some are more equal than others.
Highly respected by everyone else? Why are great people considered great? Because of the sex they have? No, because of their achievements. And, there are many accomplished gay people whose achievements are celebrated.
In others words, many gays already ARE highly respected by everyone else. To say that we must scrutinize everyone’s sexual intercourse is highly misguided and perverted.
So really, gay and straight people are the same. They are people. 1 is no better than the other, and their sexual practices should NOT be a part of it.
#120
“(NBC?) News did a story and re-visited the so-called “homophobic murderers” in prison and learned that SHephard was not killed because he was gay.”
Heaven help us all. The two bastards who murdered Matthew Sheppard CLAIMED the above to try to get their sentence reduced. It’s so telling that CW sides with the version of events of brutal killers, and not the lawful justice system of the US.
“Just like the fact that the Beltway snipers were gay as well. That angle was downplayed by the media.”
That “angle” was downplayed because it is bull. The National Inquirer speculated that they might have been lovers. There isn’t a shred of evidence to support that.
Mods, it’d be great if this thread were locked – it’s beginning to tarnish this wonderful website.
120- Again, your rights only extend until they infringe on some one else’s. Legislating against polygamy, incest, and bestiality is “ok” because it is extremely likely that these acts lead to the abuse of someone* Much like legislation banning guns is made to reduce the high likelihood of gun violence. And please don’t argue that people have just a high chance of being abused in non-incestual, non-polygamus, non-bestial relations because it simply isn’t true, and besides, it would be impractical to stop people from having perfectly nice evolutionarily beneficial relationships. In addition, your response to #117 is ridiculous. Sexual orientation doesn’t make a person anymore likely to commit a crime. Think of how many people who have commited crimes aren’t gay and then tell me that homosexuality leads to crime. And, BTW, where did you read that the beltway snipers were gay. I live near that area and I never heard anything of the sort.
As for your arguments about equality in society, you are right on some points but approach the topic with a naive viewpoint. People are still legitamately discrimated against if they “come out of the closet,” ask the thousands of gays and lesbians who have been disowned and cast out of their family, refused housing, jobs, and other opportunities. The “one straight man can’t marry another” argument is just stupid. If you find your life partner, someone you really care about, you should be able to have the rights that come with marriage. A straight man should really have no desire or need to marry another straight man, so postulating that a gay relationship is equal to a “straight” relationship is simply faulty logic.
*In this case, I’m including animals.
I would just like to add that it is irrelevant whether or not homosexuality is something you’re born with or something that is chosen. Why does that even matter? If someone WANTS to be gay and CHOOSES to have sex with his/her own sex, they have every right to do so. People are FREE in our society to pursue whathever lifestyle they see fit so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. The point is moot. If you disagree with this, you 1. don’t understand the Constiution and 2. have no business on a Star Trek website.
Sorry HB, the Bears have been Grossmaned for too long. Currently my Hawks are geting killed by Favre.
Wow, CW, I’m not even sure how to react. However, it’s nice that your sentiments now are laid out for everyone to evaluate.
First, despite the fact that Matthew Shepard’s killers said in a “20/20″ interview that the motivation was money for drugs, it’s difficult to believe that Shepard’s sexuality had nothing to do with the killers’ subsequent beating, torturing, and tying of him to a fence to die. Seems a bit overboard for people who only wanted drug money, but hey, it’s their word against a dead body’s.
Further, you note: “Not only that, a young boy was kidnapped in an airport by 2 gays and raped and sodomized, quite literally, to death. The killers were caught, but strangely they faced NO hate crimes charges and the media buried their story.” Clearly, this is a case of child abuse and murder, although I’m not familiar with this story (I suppose it’s because it was buried by the media, as you purport). I fail to see how you find it strange that this wasn’t a hate crime, when clearly there is a much greater issue of the victim being a child.
Plus, your mention of the Beltway Snipers being gay is, from my quick research, drawn from the National Enquirer?!? I’m not even sure how that plays into your “argument”, but it sure indicated what you deem as reliable information.
And I think that you’d be hard pressed to find support for your comment that “most people- tolerant as they are- believe that same gender sex isn’t too far removed from beastiality.”
Wow. Just wow. I can’t wait for that all-inclusive world that Star Trek portrays. This movie needs to get here soon!
Hey, wait a minute. You’re not tolerant of intolerance? Why not? Am I no longer aloud to choose my own values in life? What I choose to accept and what I don’t? I’m new here, just found this site; so I assume others have been using this board for insults and putdowns and so forth, but I hate being lectured on what I’m supposed to think and what I’m not. Anyway, the Sulu character has always seemed to be capable, although I don’t know how he got to be a captain without being a first officer. Oh well.
I would contend strongly that #120 crosses the line of acceptable comment on this site, as it seeks to devalue the impact of a notoriously brutal and cowardly murder.
Surely, this is in contravention of Trekmovie’s policy, stated clearly at the outset of this thread:
“TrekMovie.com tolerates a diversity of comments, but bear in mind we do not tolerate intolerance.”
However, whether CW is banned for this or not, that particular poster has explicitly admitted to accepting the words of convicted torturers/killers as “the truth of the matter”, despite the factual evidence as heard by a judge and jury. Enough said. All thinking people will utterly disregard anything else that person has to say.
“You’re not tolerant of intolerance? Why not?”
Because this is a Star Trek site. And in the words of James T Kirk in ‘Balance of Terror’:
“Here’s one thing you can be sure of, mister – leave any bigotry in your quarters. There’s no room for it on the bridge. Do I make myself clear?”
“I have never trusted Klingons, and I never will.”
*Rolls eyes*
C’est la vie.
THX….after reading through this here thread I have a mighty strong hankerin’ to drink me a pile of beer and go rassle me a polar bear! Whatcha y’all tempted to do? (spits into spitoon) :)
#130 “I have never trusted Klingons, and I never will.”
Just shows Kirk’s human side – his son was murdered by Klingons, after all. He later says: “People can be very frightened of change. I know I was.”
Azetbur: You’ve restored my father’s faith.
Kirk: You’ve restored my son’s. [He hugs her hard.]
Well, because unlike you folk, I actually consider “gays” and “starights” equal.
Seems to me that thinking otherwise is, well, bigoted.
““Here’s one thing you can be sure of, mister – leave any bigotry in your quarters. There’s no room for it on the bridge. Do I make myself clear?”
“I have never trusted Klings, and I never will.”
#134 That last line (which you’ve misused twice now) nicely mirrors your own views. That is a viewpoint that Kirk later leaves firmly behind him – if only you would follow his example.
Believe it r not, I have friends who practice homosexuality. Obviouly, we don’t have this discussion. I believe and conduct life- and vote- my way, thy do likewis theirs.
We don’t see eye to eye, nor are we required to.
But when he great open minded set out to tell me what I can and cannot think, feel and believe, and manipulate laws and facts to reflect your case, then free thinkerslike myself raise a snit.
I’ve experience way too much hate and exclusion from those who preech love and tolerance.
Hi Robohunter. Whoever defined the modern interpretation of the word “bigotry”, I simply do not accept it. I will think whatever I feel is right in my heart, about anything, and I don’t need a bunch of “tolerant” people to tell me otherwise. People who accept everything without thinking about it in their heart and conscience have no ground to stand on, just because they’re afraid to stand up and to go against so-called “enlightened” opinions. I respect people’s opinions, but I hate it when it crammed down my throat from every single facet of the media. You’re right, this is a Star Trek site, so why can’t there be articles only about Star Trek, so we can avoid these confrontations based on self-guided morality. How about it, whoever runs this message board? Can we just discuss STAR TREK from now on and avoid all this lambasting of each other, talk about ships and characters, and not talk about what actors decide to do in their personal lives? There’s the key: PERSONAL. If you don’t want to post warnings about commenting against something that is going to encourage that sort of thing, don’t create the board where you know that’s going to happen in the first place. It’s called wisdom and common sense.
“That last line (which you’ve misused twice now) nicely mirrors your own views. That is a viewpoint that Kirk later leaves firmly behind him – if only you would follow his example.”
Oh… if only I would quit being who I am and be what you want me to be?
Where have we heard that before?
What some would mistake for passion toward a given topic, others recognize as misplaced anger, hostility and resentment to the world around them…………..c’mon, everybody………GROUP HUG!! :)