Fuller: Gay Characters Considered For Voyager April 10, 2008
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Trek Franchise, VOY , trackback
In an interview with Logo networks After Elton blog, Star Trek Voyager writer/producer revealed that two gay characters were considered for the series, which would have been a Trek first. However Fuller, who is openly gay, actually didn’t support the idea because he felt the characters were ‘two dimensional.’
From the blog interview:
There was a pregnant ensign – Ensign Wildman – and she was going to have gay godparents to her child,” said Fuller, explaining the show’s potential plotline – that never got made. But Fuller found the characters so two-dimensional that he wasn’t disappointed it didn’t air: “It sounds weird to say – but I was kind of glad they didn’t do it the way it was written. Because it became really cliché.”
In the end Naomi ended up with Neelix as godfather
Gay Trek?
The subject of homosexuality in the Trek universe has been hotly debated for decades. While Trek is often credited for embracing diversity, it has never had an openly gay character. In the last two decades gay characters have become commonplace in both TV and film and there have been rumors that some Trek characters were considered as possible candidates (including Enterprise’s Malcolm Reed and First Contact’s Lt. Hawk), but those plotlines never materialized.
One of the more famous attempts at bringing a gay character into Trek was during the first season of Star Trek The Next Generation. With the apparent support of Gene Roddenberry, David Gerrold (writer of the classic TOS episode “The Trouble With Tribbles”) wrote a script titled “Blood and Fire” which was an AIDS allegory that featured a gay subplot with two male crewmembers. However, it met with resistance from the studio and was never produced. The script recently got a new life, adapted for the 23rd century by fan series Star Trek Phase II. (PII’s version of “Blood and Fire” should be released this summer). There have been other non-canon gay characters in fan films and some of the recent Trek novels as well.
Publicity still for Phase II’s “Blood and Fire”
VOTE: Is Abrams Trek the right time?
Do you think JJ Abrams new Star Trek feature should feature a gay character? Vote in our latest poll (right sidebar).
Loading ...
Comments
before the discussion gets started, intolerance will not be tolerated here
As long as people can find love in this world, that’s the important part…..
No..I don_t write it… firs……. :-)
On the subject: Of course there should be gay characters in Trek. But they should be portrayed as a normality. No big deal.
Anthony, thanks for the info on the Noami story..I didn’t know that
No No No No No No No No No and No! its just dont work for Trek!
I’m with Mark. They should appear as a normal thing, not as a thing to defend. They shouldn’t go arond the ship “being gay” one with the other, as no other crewman should go around the ship kissing each other, but simply “be”.
Yet (joking), I’ve allways believed that Neelix was gay and didn’t know it.
Im not so sure if it’s a good idea or not however I agree with post 3.
To be honest I hate the love stories in trek as it is, to watch gay love episodes I might just stop watching trek. Im not anti gay I work with a few get on well no problems, even have a gay friend and understands my point. Have gay characters by all means but just don’t do it in my face!
Does a gay subplot really help trek? I dont wanna see any hooking up on screen unless it relates to a story plot like kirk and some green chicks…
I’m really indifferent as to whether or not there are gay characters in the new Trek movie. I agree with #3 when Mark says that they should be portrayed as normality, but as soon as you put a gay character in there, the media latches on to that and suddenly all the effort that JJ and crew put into this movie is not the story, but the 15 seconds of a gay character in the film is, which isn’t right.
Ellen Page is a young actress from my province of Nova Scotia. She is a wonderful actress and was even nominated for an Oscar! I saw a tabloid that said “Juno fans want to know: is Ellen Page gay?” and it p*ssed me off. Who cares if she’s gay? Who cares if anyones gay? Shame on the tabloid for making her sexuality a bigger story than her talents as an actress. Shame on anyone who thinks one’s sexuality is more important than one’s talents or one’s contributions or hard work.
If there was a gay character in the Trek film, I fear the media would put so much attention on it, it would eclipse the rest of the film.
Maybe in some Heinlein-esque way like “it doesn’t matter who you’re sleeping with”. But to make any sort of substantial plotline inthe movie would take precious time from telling the story (unless I am really underestimating the writers which is probably so).
I think what star trek has always been good at is not making a big cliche thing about sexuality or anything like that. Which is what alot of other shows tend to do with those characters. They rely heavily on stereotypes so much that those stereotypes become the norm for representing those groups in shows, and it becomes hard for other shows to avoid/break away from those stereotypes.
Star Trek has always shown maturity in this respect. For example, Dax’s kiss. The issue in this was never that it was another woman from what I remember. Sisko nor any other character gave Dax any grief because it was a woman. It was because it was someone from a former host life. Therefore showing sexuality was never the issue.
I think what Star trek producers/writers have always been wary of is that if you make a whole plot point around a gay relationship, then it could turn it into an issue, which would not (hopefully) exist is the time periods trek represents. Its all about the maturity about how it was written. I think i explained that as well as i can…..
So personally I think a character who is gay wouldent be a problem, as long as that it was not the only reson for the character to exist and that the main issue/plot surrounding the character was not his sexuality.
lol whilst writing this, i now imagine a gay starship, multicoloured, USS RAINBOW – how bad would that be
it’s fun to stay on the USS RAINBOW
it’s fun to stay on the USS RAINBOW
they have everything for you men to enjoy,
you can hang out with all the boys …
it’s fun to stay on the USS RAINBOW
it’s fun to stay on the USS RAINBOW
you can get yourself beamed, you can have replicated meal,
you can do whatever you feel …
As long as the fact the characters are gay is not relevant to the plot, it’s fine.
That promo still makes it seem that B&F is actually about a gay couple being gay.
20 years ago when it was originally written, this may have been important, but it seems anachronistic now.
The best tribute Trek could pay to gay individuals would be to have them as contributing members of the crew displaying the quality of character and bravery of Starfleet Officers in an environment where they are treated as equals by their peers.
They can be openly gay when they are off duty to the extent that public displays of affection are accepted on board for couples.
I actually got into an email exchange with Ron Moore over this very issue a number of months prior to the release of Star Trek: First Contact.
I was in the test screening audience for the film, and paid close attention to the character of Lt. Hawk, as there was a rumor even then that he would be a gay character in the film.
At the time of the reshoots for the film, Moore was on an AOL message board fielding questions regarding the gay issue and Lt. Hawk, pointing out that in Star Trek’s future, gay characters would simply be themselves and their orientation wouldn’t even be a topic of discussion like it is now. Fair enough.
Knowing that the film was still in post-production, and given my background in TV, I wrote Moore, suggesting that he add an ADR line for Picard in the Holodeck scene with Lily, where she is shocked that he would be so callous about pulling a chip out of a now-Borgified crew member–one which he knew by name.
My suggestion to Moore was to re-do the line where Picard tells Lily that the former crewman is “Ensign Lynch,” to “Ensign Lynch, Lt. Hawk’s partner.” That’s it. By inserting three words there, I felt it would accomplish a number of things:
1. It would demonstrate that Picard knew his crew extremely well, even to the point of familiarity with their significant others.
2. It would further underscore Lily’s shock at Picard’s callous approach to the death of one of his crew members.
3. It wouldn’t be completely out of place, given Picard was identifying the crewman by name to begin with.
4. It would confirm the sexual orientation of a significant supporting character (Lt. Hawk) in an appropriately subtle way, without having to make a big deal of it at any other time in the film.
5. It would please the contingent of GLBT Trek fans by giving them the gay character they always wanted, without having to create a potentially embarrassing “gay subplot” that would require additional filming.
5. Unlike TV, which would be subject to standards & practices, the film was rated PG-13, which assumes a level of adult content that might not be normal for a weekly episode.
6. Finally, all this could be done extremely easily during the normal looping sessions for the film, with no extra cost to the production.
I wrote Moore a polite email explaining my reasons, and Moore was kind enough to answer me, but he gave a couple of lame reasons why this couldn’t be implemented. One, he felt adding the words would inject “a distracting element” into the scene (irregardless of points #1 through #3 above), and that it was too late into production to do so (even though they were still in the middle of reshoots).
I pointed this out to him, and reminded him that I have worked in post, so I know how easy this solution would be, but I never received an reply after that.
It’s too bad. I think it would have pleased a lot of viewers and worked out just fine.
“In an interview with Logo networks After Elton blog, Star Trek Voyager writer/producer revealed that two gay characters were considered for the series, which would have been a Trek first. However Fuller, who is openly gay, actually didn’t support the idea because he felt the characters were ‘two dimensional.’”
Weren’t most of the characters on Voyager two-dimensional? Besides, it’s much more fun to read the Janeway/Seven or Harry/Tom slashfic and then watch the series (especially “The Chute”) and read gay subtext into the episodes.
Seriously, though, I just don’t think they’d have been able to write gay characters into the series believably and without cliche.
Since gay characters have not been identified on screen one may wonder if homosexuality exists in the Star Trek future.
I would assume that the homosexual condition, which is being attracted to a member of the same sex, would still exist in the 23rd and 24th centuries.
By looking at the future optimistically, as Star Trek is known to do, I would hope that in the future those with these unnatural attractions would strive to live chaste lives. I would also hope that mankind would be tolerant, understanding, and that they would endeavor to help those with this condition.
As far as including gay characters on screen, I see no reason why you should not. For all we know gay characters were already on screen and we don’t know it, the issue just wasn’t addressed. A storyline focusing on homosexuality could work if it was used to show how the world can advance in showing, tolerance, understanding and compassion. I believe this would only work on the small screen during a series and not as part of a motion picture.
I look forward to seeing Phase II’s “Blood and Fire.”
14. Marvin the Martian
Marvin, I would have to agree w/ Mr. Moore on that one. It would have been distracting to hear that at that point in the scene. Also, the look of disgust look on Lily’s face after the comment could have given the audience the wrong impression.
Although a small comment such as that at the right time could be a way to introduce this issue into Start Trek, it the writers/producers, decide to. I would prefer homosexuals in Star Trek not to have partners (see my previous post).
16 — your misguided rightiousness knows no bounds.
As #11 points out, this was done in one episode of DS9 with Dax and a woman who had been one of the previous Dax host’s lovers. The “lesbianism” of the episode was only one of the points being made, and in fact almost in counterpoint to the episode in TNG in which the Trill were first introduced, and Dr. Crusher contends with the challenge of loving a Trill that changes host bodies.
I found both these episodes strong precisely because they deal with the issue of homosexuality as a subset of a larger question: to what extent can one love a person abstractly without reference to the particular embodiment of that person. Even when love is “pure”, most of us find ourselves attached to the particular physical qualities of the other – their face, their body, etc. and, of course, implicitly their gender – and not just for who they are.
Another episode of note in this vein is the one in Enterprise in which Trip contends with the issue of the species composed of three genders: male, female, and cogenitor. The relevance of this episode is that the viewer is challenged to understand the prospect of sexual relationships that depart from our traditional gender paradigms.
If Star Trek is to address homosexuality, it would seem that one or the other case should obtain: EITHER as a relationship that occurs between regular characters on the show, but is depicted as a run-of-the-mill love affair, without any special attention drawn to it (except maybe to depict the problem of intolerance of gay relationships in others), OR as a feature of a one-off episode where the issue is addressed squarely but not in a trivial or cliché manner, and preferably in a larger context where homosexuality is not the only issue at stake.
#16
Unnatural attractions?
Good grief.
# 16 – By looking at the future optimistically, as Star Trek is known to do, I would hope that in the future those with these unnatural attractions would strive to live chaste lives.
And I would hope, looking optimistically at the future, the concepts of unnatural attractions would have been consigned to history and every consenting adult could lead exactly the kind of life their desires direct them toward.
To think that at certain points in time, the questions that were posed were, “Can Star Trek have a woman in command?” and “Can Star Trek have Black person in command?”.
Here we are, with both of those hurdles surmounted, and neither one considered a big deal. The fact is, Star Trek has always been about humanity getting over its petty intolerances and prejudices.
Of course, TREK should include a gay character… just like they should include a character that is truly alien (I mean non-humanoid).
Stories need not dwell on this fact. Sexuality has normally not been the main point of any TREK story in the past. An honest to goodness, three dimensional character, one who is part of the team, need not be distracting.
In fact, generally speaking it is only the audience who may or may not take issue with a gay character… and make something of it (or not). If someone wants to make a big issue of it, I think they have failed to embrace or understand Gene Roddenberry’s concepts of IDIC.
Personally, I think ignoring this element of the human condition only serves to put more focus on it… let’s do it and be done with it.
I, too, look forward to “ST:Phase II’s Blood and Fire.”
I am all for a gay character. As long as they follow the David Fisher/Willow Rosenberg template of not making the sexuality the defining characteristic of the character.
I think that the subject of having gay characters is “the final frontier” that the writers need to cross. Although I’m not gay myself, I fully support the inclusion of one or more gay characters. It seems to be this last shred of diversity in Trek has been ignored, and for far too long, I think.
We will not get a gay character is Star Trek for the next 10 years or so, just due to the fact that Trek will not be on the small screen for the next few years. As for in a Trek Movie they will never be able to fit it into the plot.
I totally support the idea, but will the studio or the fans go for it, we know how hollywood is on certain ideas because they dont want to turn some fans off the shows they are making.
While im looking forward to Phase II i am also hanging out for the next Star Trek Titan book to see what happens as Lt Hawk (First Contact) gay partner is being written into the plots.
“However Fuller, who is openly gay, actually didn’t support the idea because he felt the characters were ‘two dimensional.’”
Um, I love Fuller’s newer shows, but let’s be honest here – Voyager had nothing but two-dimensional characters.
They curiously failed to mention all of the “slash” fan-fiction with Kirk and Spock.
#28
Too true sir.
‘Blood and Fire” features a Gay couple, but it is not about being gay. They just happen to be gay and caught up in the unusual circumstances that are happening on the ship. To everyone else on the Enterprise, they are just a normal couple who are in love with one another. Their have been many openly gay folks who have contributed to Star Trek’s creation over the last 40 or so years. It is time that they are included in Trek’s optimistic vision of the future, That is my prime reason in doing this episode, that and keeping Gene’s promise that gay people would be included in Trek.
James Cawley
The fact that we are still debating this topic in society today shows how far we need to go. I have never been able to understand why some people need to make it their business to dictate their moral, social, and religious beliefs unto others. We have partially overcome a lot of issues regarding acceptance of other races, religions, beliefs, but still not fully. As pointed out previously – gay characters should just be part of the overall Trek universe with no more special attention to them than any other particular group.
#16 Wow. I know there are many who share your views, but it seems so narrow minded when seen in print. It’s like racists that say “but I know some (insert race here) that are ok.
The 23rd century can’t get here quick enough.
I think now it’s almost too late to introduce a gay character into Star Trek. That would have been a good idea for TOS or TNG, because now the tolerance to gay people is much bigger than in the 60s or 80s, where it would have been needful to set an example.
Now the gay thing is so common (at least it should be) that you don’t need to draw a special attention to it – not even in Star Trek.
#28
Right. Irrespective of whether slash appeals to you or not – ST has been groundbreaking in that area, too.
Here’s a fact about entertainment: Most people just want good entertainment when they watch a show. The purpose of entertainment is to escape the real world, not have more of it stuffed down one’s throat. That’s why people don’t hang on to these types of projects for too long because this practice just exasperates the audience. People aren’t dumb. They know when when they’re being lead by the nose with a good story that is just a front to cover up big banner-carrying political statements.
Had they chosen to do that, Star Trek Voyager would have never had the success it had during it’s run. I believe the subject is controversial to the point that the audience would have been split. A large portion of people would have felt alienated, and would have lost interest in the series, therefore hurting Star Trek’s PR and the show’s ratings. In the end, I believe that decision would have done damage to the show–to the point that I am sure it would have been short run, and Star Trek in general may have been bruised from that time forward.
It was a wise decision to not utilize those characters.
If you can accept that a human would have sex with a Cardassian A DIFFERENT SPECIES you ought to be able to get over homosexuals.
to me a characters sexuality, unless it affects the plot, shouldnt even be brought up…whether they are heterosexual or otherwise. Like in FC, what would have been the purpose of having Lt. Hawk be openly gay other than for the sake of having a gay character?
By the way…isnt it a paradox for intolerance to not be tolerated? ;-)
Of all the comments #1! Pascale, just set the record straight!! Dont start none, wont be none!! LOL!! Obviously, this can get reall hot quick!!
#3-
I agree. By Voyager’s time in the future, being gay would be no more a big deal than the color of one’s skin. The characters could have been introduced and later through the series maybe a sub plot involving those characters could have given them more than a “2-dimensional” or stereotypical presents.
#34-
I doubt that anyone would have lost interest in STVOY because of gay characters. Political statements were always made on Star Trek in some way or form. People with strong beliefs against gay people might not have watched the show. Quite frankly I lost interest because I found it boring for the first few seasons simply because I was sick of the silly techno babble and the mean alien of the week premise. Not because of any political issues.
I think having LT Hawk on First Contact being gay would have just been one too many things to add to the plot. How would that have even been fit into the plot as it was?
Oops, I meant to say in post 38 that they would have more than a stereotypical PRESENCE, not “presents”–D’oh!
I’m surprised no one mentioned “Prophet and lace” as i think its spelled. I mean we had a sex change (quite disturbing on a ferengi) as well as that other episode (i think its the same ep actually) where the female ferengi was posing as a male… Transvestites both pre and post op in trek! unfortunately it was played for laughs and not seriously. I shudder what my girlfriend would think if i showed her that ep heheh. She already thinks im geeky,
Gays do exist in StarTrek. As do blacks and asians and christians and athiests and folks that get thier jollys with tribbles. They are already in the Trek universe.
Why some feel the need to make a point of showing it and drawing attention to it is what I really don’t understand. Understanding and tolerance is one of the great aspects of Roddenberry’s future. That is exactly why we DON’T have to draw attention to the fact that Uhura is black. Or that Number One was a woman. These antiquated ideas of intolerance are, for the most part, gone, especially on a starship.
The need to showcase intolerance by hanging a sign on a character and saying,”Hey look at me, I’m different and yet I’m a professional in starfleet” is absurd. In fact, I find that whole school of thought to be insulting to the universe that Roddenberry worked hard to create. Lifestyles won’t change. Gays are on board. As are many many many other types of people, all different races with various lifestyles and religious beliefs. Other than being gimmicky there really is no reason to glorify any of it.
We don’t have to be hit over the head and told that Gays, Lesbians, Catholics, or ballroom dancers exist on a starship….it is simply understood.
Well, goodby Star Trek for even thinking of such house cr#p.
Fuller’s probably right on this one. Voyager isn’t exactly known for its subtlety…
Seriously, there aren’t THAT many plotlines where romance is important to an episode. And to be honest, Star Trek romances often just slowed down the plot. But, if any gay characters were/are introduced, it shouldn’t be part of a forced plotline.
#1…so what your saying is you will be intolerant of intolerance?
Star Trek has always been a future analog of real life. It hasn’t removed human nature from the characters. For there to be gay characters in Star Trek just sounds natural to me. I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet, but the above mention of studio resistance explains that.
People, like the studio execs that nixed Blood & Fire, seriously need to get over it. Some people are gay. They’re not bothering you any more than you bother other straight people.
That poll was too general. It should have had more choices like…
No, Trek 2009 is not the right time
No, no gays in Trek ever
Yes, but only if it is important to plot
Yes, but only in a small role
Yes, gay character now!
I don’t care either way
“…the homosexual condition…”? “…endeavor to help those with this condition…”? “…unnatural attractions…”?
Adam (and one can only assume that there’s an “Eve” at home, and not a “Steve”), have you given any thought to the fact that it is polite condemnation–such as yours–and thinly-veiled dislike for homosexuality–such as apparently yours–is the reason so many GLBT folks stay IN the closet? That they can’t truly be themselves?
C’mon, man…who gives a damn WHAT goes on in the bedroom of two consenting adults, or WHO a consenting adult chooses to love, so long as that consenting adult is a good person? It’s the 21st Century; let’s at least be a little better at PRETENDING that we’ve grown as a species, and as a culture.
And, as far as homosexuality on Star Trek: who cares? Let’s just enjoy the movie! If a character turns out to be gay, so what? If an actor turns out to be gay, so what? But, to dwell–either positively or negatively–on sexual orientation cheapens us all, and is an insult to ANY relationships we might have.
Okay, I’m down off my soapbox now. I just want to see more pics of the new E! ;^)
Some excellent points all round and not the unpleasant exchange I was fearing.
I think that Marvin the Martian’s suggestion how to include a homosexual element to Trek was a perfect one.
It’s pointless and boring just mentioning some is gay because we haven’t seen it before, but if it’s done in a way that further’s the story (like the emotional involvement Picard would have knowing that a close colleague’s partner had just been killed) then it can only add to a scene as well as make gay people finally visible in the final frontier).
I think most gay people would like to just see a character that represents themselves and doesn’t make a fuss about announcing his/her existance to the whole world.
I’ve been watching some of Torchwood over here in the UK, and the gay/bi-sexual element to that seems a bit forced to me, almost if something different MUST be done.
I really look forwards to seeing BLOOD AND FIRE. I just hope they don’t linger on moments male to male affection to labour the point, just like how in TOS we were all supposed to be shocked that the Romulan Commander was a woman! Gasp!
Do it with subtley and temperence and I will be a happy Trekker. I nearly said “camper”, but perhaps that might have been inappropriate.
Some excellent points all round and not the unpleasant exchange I was fearing.
I think that Marvin the Martian’s suggestion how to include a homosexual element to Trek was a perfect one.
It’s pointless and boring just mentioning some is gay because we haven’t seen it before, but if it’s done in a way that further’s the story (like the emotional involvement Picard would have knowing that a close colleague’s partner had just been killed) then it can only add to a scene as well as make gay people finally visible in the final frontier).
I think most gay people would like to just see a character that represents themselves and doesn’t make a fuss about announcing his/her existance to the whole world.
I’ve been watching some of Torchwood over here in the UK, and the gay/bi-sexual element to that seems a bit forced to me, almost if something different MUST be done.
I really look forwards to seeing BLOOD AND FIRE. I just hope they don’t linger on moments male to male affection to labour the point, just like how in TOS we were all supposed to be shocked that the Romulan Commander was a woman! Gasp!
Do it with subtley and temperence and I will be a happy Trekker. I nearly said “camper”, but perhaps that might have been inappropriate.
:P
#41 That’s exactly how I feel.
Wiat! Wan’t Geordi gay?
sooooooooooooooooo, lets see if Hawk had been gay then the Borg threat would have been neutralized. Instead, they would have gone aroung redecorating the galaxy. lol WE ARE THE BORG….WE WILL MAKE YOUR TEXTILES AND BRICKABRACK PART OF OUR OWN…..YOU WILL BE REDECORATED….SNAP
If they do introduce a gay character someday in the movies or a future TV show, why NOT have the character’s homosexuality central to the plot? How many times on Trek has heterosexuality been central to story; “Wink of an Eye,” “Amok Time”, “The Cage”, etc. If you’re JUST going to have a gay character serving coffee on the bridge and walking off, you might as well make the gay person a prop! That’s not a statement, or even a good reason to have a character present. Have the gay element be critical to the story, but not raise eyebrows with the crew. That’s how Trek would do it. In Trek, you’d probably have a backwards alien beam aboard, comment on this crewmember, while the rest of the crew explains to that person that in the Federation there are no gender limits to love (as Uhura so easily dismissed the faux-Lincoln’s comment in “Savage Curtain” regarding her skin tone). Unfortunately, intolerance will always be with us, but to paraphrase Kirk in ‘Taste of Armageddon’, “The trick is to say, ‘I will not be intolerant today!’ Love long and prosper all!
The only solution is actually to have a gay Captain.
Or better: a bisexual or transgendered captain
Even better: a captain who can change sexuality and/or “parts” at whim (or will), or once in a while in sickbay.
And take it seriously.
Not – “the captain in drag” or “janeway becomes a man” episode – but a captain who can make all the decisions of a captain while freely changing their sexuality yet never losing “their inner character.”
Of course, then we can always have the mirror universe episode and they are boring and straight!
That would be “science fictional”
Well said, 41.
Blood and Fire will suffer if gayosity becomes a plot point. It cheapens the meaning of acceptance, which really is to ignore homosexuality because it’s just commonplace. Don’t need or want Brokeback Trek. But, I do appreciate the fact that that line has long ago been crossed and we didn’t even blink.
# 53 – In Trek, you’d probably have a backwards alien beam aboard, comment on this crewmember, while the rest of the crew explains to that person that in the Federation there are no gender limits to love (as Uhura so easily dismissed the faux-Lincoln’s comment in “Savage Curtain” regarding her skin tone).
I think that’s a bit too obvious really. Though I think there should definitely be a gay character in Trek – they don’t need to make a big deal about how he or she is gay, but they should show them romatically entangled if a story does call for it – and there are actually quite a few softly romantic storylines in Trek. Modern drama focuses on fully fleshed characters more and more, gone are the days when a character was just an accessory to the plot. Also, here in Britain at least, practically every soap or drama has one or more gay characters so it’s high time Trek dragged itself into the 21st Century.
Just one short comment to think about it:
In Star Trek there are relationships between characters of different species, but not homosexuality.
Come on guys, how logical and possible is THAT???
Would it REALLY be logical that there either exists a possibility of “alien” sexuality, but not homosexuality of the same species?
That already was a contradiction in TOS, Kirk could have sex with various female aliens, for example a green-skined Orion girl; but the viewers felt annoyed because he kissed a coloured HUMAN character???
Now THAT is ridiculous…just think about that…
I do not care if a character is gay or not, as long as it does not become a main story issue.
If a story revolves around a character which is gay, no problem with that. What I personally do not want is gayness thrown around for its own sake. It demeans them and the story.
What a consenting couple get up to behind closed doors is entirely their own business, I just don’t want to hear all the details. Same goes for the other way too.
As for #16’s comments I did have to do a ‘double take’ to make sure that I really read what I was reading. But before everyone launches into a tirade against him. If someone is doing something that another finds utterly incomprehensible, is it not an accurate statement to call it ‘unnatural’? Because that is how it feels to them.
As to the reasons why someone is physically attracted to a member of the same sex. I have always thought that there must be a psychological/physiological reason for it. If that is the case then does it not mean that as the usual orientation is male/female (in the most basic requirements, for procreation) there is something amiss in that persons biological make-up? Ultimately, everything, even how we think is driven chemically.
Am I saying there could or should be a ‘cure’ investigated? No, of course not.
Just that it is an interesting way to ponder these things, where most people say ‘Oh, it’s just how they are.’ as an explanation.
What I wonder is why? Is it a choice or an irresistible drive?
Because after all gay people have a hard time in society, generally speaking.
One last thing though, if a ‘cure’ for being gay was invented and made available, bearing in mind the physical and mental abuse that gay people can and have suffered. Would it be taken up by anyone?
No offense is meant or offered here.
Resident little queer mexican trekkie here. Thanks so much, Anthony, for this article and for reiterating the rules right off the bat.
Admittedly I’m of the Yes vote leaning towards don’t care. Here’s why, based on what I’m reading above:
11, 13, 19
I totally agree
14
Great way to bring gays on-screen. It would have been great to have seen and heard Lily’s reaction to the information about who had died. Although, no offense intended, its kind of awkward that it would take the death of a crewman to bring it up. Regardless very good idea because sometimes in real life, that’s unfortunately what it takes.
30
Very well said
41
I respectfully disagree. People with different sexual orientations and religious backgrounds are an invisibile minority unless an action, a statement, or a visibile indication is given.
53
My points exactly. We also seen non-gay people check each other out, hold hands, get joined in a union, mourn the loss of loved ones, you name it. Countless exacmples come to mind, some more blatant than others. People with different sexual orientation and gender identities do all this, they just live life a different way.
Its about time are portrayed like other people SOMEHOW in a venue such as the next movie. I don’t care, as long as its done in a positive manner, I just want something. Being a major part of a storyline would be a much-added bonus. (Thank you James Cawley for Blood and Fire! Can’t wait!!)
Should it not be about the person or persons’ contributions to the world around them, and not about their sexual orientation I seriously wouln’t care if my helmsman is a gay man, or my chief engineer is a lesbian, or my whatever-it-is First officer likes its fellow beings of the same gender. So what? Does it affect their performance of their jobs? Hell, no! Any brilliance or incompetence at their duties speaks about them as a person, certainly not whether they are in love with someone of the same gender.
Somebody above said it already, and I agree. We as audiences can tolerate different species hooking up (Worf/Dax, Neelix/Kes, hell, even Sarek/Amanda) but not two of one species of the same gender? Please.
(By the by never liked that phrase “SEXUAL orientation” anyway, it puts too much emphasis on the physical aspects of their relationship, which frankly too many straight, intolerant, insecure types focus on when dealing with or confronted with gay folks. Besides, it sounds like something involved in basic training. “Alright, maggots, form up for sexual orientation!”).
#58 – “As for #16’s comments I did have to do a ‘double take’ to make sure that I really read what I was reading. But before everyone launches into a tirade against him. If someone is doing something that another finds utterly incomprehensible, is it not an accurate statement to call it ‘unnatural’? Because that is how it feels to them.”
#16 is not correct to call it “unnatural”. Homosexuality is a naturally occcuring orientation in many animal species, not just human beings. Someone does not “choose” to be gay – they just are, whether that be down to biology or environmental factors.
#16 would however be quite within his rights to call say he finds it “unusual” or “uncomfortable”, but that’s his issue.
“One last thing though, if a ‘cure’ for being gay was invented and made available, bearing in mind the physical and mental abuse that gay people can and have suffered. Would it be taken up by anyone?”
I would imagine that most well adjusted gay people would not take a “cure”, however there must be some people who find their situation so difficult thanks to society’s prejudices that they might prefer to change. Which is a bit sad in a way.
#54 and #56, Well said! #54; I am wrong; YOUR idea is a modern Trek solution. I’m still thinking classic Trek! My favorite. And #56, you are also right. “Torchwood” and “Doctor Who” being immediate examples of British sci-fi with gay characters. But, for some reason, many on this side of the pond still struggle with the idea of what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. As for #16 “unnatural attractions” comment; I don’t think that comment was meant to project hostility, but it came off as somewhat limited in imagination. Even American psychiatry dismissed homosexuality as a ‘condition’ almost 35 years ago. And #57 another fine point! Intolerant audiences as that time (1969) might have been OK with Kirk kissing a green woman over a black woman because bigots knew under the green paint, the actress was safely “white.” We’re in the 21st century; time to grow up and let people practice their sexuality with a real-life “non-interference directive!”
BTW, meant no offense….
Exactly what would it gain Star Trek? Forcing such things into the show or movie will do more to turn people off. Trek, and SF is at its best when it tells allagorical stories that inform and raise questions. It is at its worst when it gets preachy one way or another.
#64 – ” It is at its worst when it gets preachy one way or another.”
It doesn’t need to be even slightly preachy. They just need to have someone there to be representative. If just including someone who’s gay challenges peoples’ prejudices then it can only be doing a good job.
Not including someone gay shows Star Trek to have become staid, “safe” and conservative and not worthy of the ideas behind it’s creation. Yes, it’s just entertainment, but it always used to be entertainment with ideas.
The main problem, other than the moral issue, with just throwing a token gay character in the movie is just that it seems like such a overtly preachy thing to do, and it usually just ends up harming the story… offending a good deal of your audience (including me, thank you very much) in the process.
As for homosexuality itself, I’m not sure I’m willing to get into the debate here about it…but suffice to say, I am most definitely not pro-gay rights; and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone on this among Trek fans…
They should treat it in the same “offhand” manner as any other marriage/relationship. E.G. an officer could ask a (Male) crewman “How’s your partner?” just in normal conversation. You know, something like, “I heard he’s been sick.” Just like that. It’s not detrimental to the story, it isn’t done with great bombast or fanfare or for it’s own sake. It’s done in a way to merely show that same-gender partnerships are commonplace and so accepted by this time in the future as to be so-to-speak “ignored”, that is, to be taken as much for granted as garden-variety MF partnerships.
In fairness, of course, the above question could be asked of any female crew person, too. Asking after the partner “Is SHE okay.” Same thing.
And if gay characters make it into Trek, please oh please don’t make them stereotypically, “obviously” gay. No “butch”, short-hair, mannish lesbians, simply because that’s what Hollywood thinks of when they see the word Lesbian. And no light-in-the-space boots Carson-from-Queer-Eye gay fellas, for the same reason. It demeans them as people, as characters, and insults our intelligence as an audience.
66
“…I am most definitely not pro-gay rights; and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone on this among Trek fans…”
Speak for yourself. Your statement seems to be in direct contradiction to what Trek stands for. Infinite diversity, and all that. Seems to me to be a highly intolerant point of view. Alas, however, it is yours and you are entitled to it, however misguided…
51. sirbroiler – April 10, 2008
Wiat! Wan’t Geordi gay?
(ignoring the spelling)
No, he was just a “holophile”, and only could deal with women of his own creation (based on real people). The character of Geordi LaForge only was portrayed as heterosexual. With issues.
You know it’s amazing that this particular subject causes so much debate and rancor. When Im watching a drama be it trek or anything else. i dont give it any thought as to whether a character is gay or straight, because to me its just not an issue Torchwood ’s Captain Jack ,he’s bisexual and the actor is gay ,so what , I like Captain Jack the character and i like the actor John Barrowman, I would have love to see him take over the Ethan Hunt role in Mission impossible if Abrams decides to do a 4th movie. Trek is a drama dealing with the future it stands to reason that society will be alot more tolerant then it is now so yeah, why shouldn’t there be gay characters on trek having relationships like everyone else?
67: While it’s not actually Trek, the that photo from Blood & Fire makes it quite obvious that these two characters are “obviously” gay, despite James’s entry above. We’ll have to watch before we judge.
Some have mentioned that love as a subplot has never worked on Trek. I disagree: Chapel’s longing for Spock, Tasha and Castillo, even the engaged couple in “Balance of Terror,” were all positive.
But, TNG’s on-board romances were generally crap: Riker-Troi, Worf-Troi, and Picard-Crusher always seemed quite forced and leaden.
I just hope the two guys in Blood and Fire are good at subtly showing emotion and care for one another without waving a rainbow flag on the bridge.
70
Well, said, Garo. Bravo!
…yukk…it’s a sci-fi saga..not a pro gay show..
#61 – After you’ve been spit on by someone because you are gay and they are repulsed, a cure isn’t so far outside the realm of consideration.
I don’t go around ringing the “gay bell” and drawing attention to myself.
I find I tend to enjoy more programming nowadays because of the inclusion of gay characters. They are not central to the storyline but they do make me feel represented among the masses now and I find that conforting.
I don’t need to see two guys getting hot and heavy into a kiss on Star Trek or some other show to feel validated. Just have a character in there that represents me is enough.
To do more would be pushing something that a lot of mainstream America just isn’t ready for yet.
Regardless of personal opinion, none of us should be attacking the opinions of anyone else here, whether their opinions are of the pro-gay or anti-gay sentiment. A few of the members here have posted very level-headed, non-offensive, and fair expressions of their anti-gay feelings and have gotten attacked by other members for them. That’s just as wrong as attacking a pro-gay person for their opinions.
Let’s practice UNIVERSAL tolerance here, people; a one-way street (in either direction) is NOT progress.
“Infinite Diversity in Infinate Combinations” doesn’t just encompass ONE opinion on a certain issue, it encompasses ALL opinions and teaches us to practice tolerance for them.
Really, who cares?
As long as the character is well-written and has something important to do in the story other than “be gay.”
Honestly, I don’t think it will be a big deal to the general public, as long as Abrams isn’t perceived as trying to “make a statement.” He should be making Trek. Serve the story, not an agenda.
(Agendas are for the TV shows.)
Ok, I’m done now. :)
73:
It’s a sci-fi show which, at its best, slips in commentary on man’s cruelty to man, and how we can overcome prejudices of the past to create a more tolerant future for all.
That future is inching closer and closer, and mainstreaming the issue in Trek allows young fans to identify with the good guys who show this kind of tolerance and wisdom every day. The show was never “shoot first, and ask questions later,” but “Let’s see what’s out there.”
Tolerance of homosexuality is not a huge issue today in the West, and the world still grapples with senseless endless war, state-sponsored human rights violations and economic inequality. Yet, it’s an issue that has been churning in the belly of Star Trek for over 20 years.
Aside from the allegorical stories which have been aired already, someone will eventually write “the” story, and if it does its job, it will fit in quite well with your “sci-fi saga.”
Neelix was totally gay
It’s funny. Some reviews I read of TVH 22 years ago pegged McCoy as gay because of the way he was dressed, and his exchanges with Spock on the ship.
There have been other non-canon gay characters in fan films and some of the recent Trek novels as well.
“Recent” only in the geologic sense. *wry grin* The fiction (both in prose and comics) has had gay characters here and there for quite a while. Most notably, characters who would be considered opening-credits regulars in both the Titan and Starfleet Corps of Engineers series are gay.
80:
C’mon, Jay. Neelix had a hot teenage girlfriend.
#57 — you are so right. Inter-species relationships would no doubt be truly bizarre. Just because on Star Trek series the aliens happen to look like humans should not obfuscate that point.
If you are a purist about sexuality, you should regard inter-species relations as the equivalent of bestiality — and I cannot imagine anyone regarding bestiality as more acceptable than homosexuality. I mean, surely, no matter how homophobic you are, sex between humans of the same sex has to be less objectionable than bestiality involving members of two different species, even if the two are of different genders, right?
On a completely separate note — Nemesis should have included Picard getting it on with Shinzon… is it homosexuality if you’re having sex with yourself? :-)
Hey #1 Anthony, Thanks for telling the rest of us what to think from the get-go…I can think for myself…and why is it if someone disagrees with homosexual plotlines on a Trek show we are being intolerant… sounds to me you are the intolerant one from the very beginning..
TV at the moment finds it difficult to deal with any kind of difference, be it ethnicity, gender or even sexuality. It’s nice to hear these comments from Fuller as it demonstrates that the argument over gay characters in Star Trek in the past 20 years doesn’t begin and end with David Gerrold’s ill concieved Blood and Fire episode for TNG. Although the buzz for its upcoming appearance in Phase II has me interested.
I’d recommend anyone who is interested in the history of Star Trek’s relationship with the subject homosexuality I’d ask you to check out this site
http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/trek.html
It hasn’t been updated in a number of years but the articles and research it cites would be valuable to this argument.
It’s probably difficult for people born past a certain time to grasp, but in 1966, the inclusion of non-Caucasian characters in regular, upfront positions of responsibility was almost — not quite, but almost — as controversial a step for Star Trek at the time as the alternative-lifestyle issue is today. It was even more controversial for another TV series running on NBC around the same time: “I Spy,” which featured Bill Cosby as one of the series leads, and was the first American network television drama series to boast a black person as a star.
Both TOS and I Spy handled this in the most sensible way possible: by making no fuss about it whatsoever. On I Spy, the character of Alexander Scott was just THERE, doing TV-hero things, and none of the characters ever blinked, looked twice, or had a single thing to say about it. Similarly, Uhura and Sulu were just THERE, doing their jobs professionally and being treated as professionals in return.
In other words, the statement was made in the simplest way possible: by not making a statement at all.
That’s how it’s done; and if some current or future Star Trek production team opts to do it for gay people, that’s how it should be done.
Having a Gay Character for the sake of it would detract from the film.
If it’s incidental, and not a plot element, then all well and good. But I don’t want to “make a point of it”.
Perhaps seeing a couple of guys pairing off in the background with no reaction is enough.
#85
So. If someone precludes an intolerant person from being intolerant, that means… we’re being intolerant of… the intolerant?
Heh.
I’m reminded of the story about the boy who kills both parents, then asks the court for leniency because he’s an orphan…
#86 – “TV at the moment finds it difficult to deal with any kind of difference, be it ethnicity, gender or even sexuality. ”
You might be right, but I think it’s a problem particular to US television – British TV seems to have no problems in dealing with these matters, but then the British broadcasting landscape is very different to that of the US, with Public Service Broadcasting at the forefront etc. TV in Britain has always had a responsibility to represent the unrepresented and highlight issues in society, and I wonder if this has helped drive forward a more accepting culture than that of the US where TV is run almost purely commercially and so could be less prone to wanting to “rock the boat” just in case it puts off the audience.
#90 –
I think your point about the difference between American and British TV is very well taken, but I think it goes even further than that.
By and large, Americans — and I’m speaking as one — tend to get more hysterical about *every* hot-button issue, no matter what it is. Every perceived transgression about any taboo is received as if it’s going to cause either the imminent fall of the Republic, the wholesale slaughter of entire races, the collapse of Judeo-Christian religion, or — even worse, god forbid — just plain offend someone.
My friends from the UK and other countries find us very amusing and perplexing sometimes. They can’t understand why we get so damned worked up, and I can’t either. It seems as if we’ve become a nation of crybabies and busybodies.
It would have been much easier to “deal” with the idea of Gay characters in Star Trek’s future when there was at least one weekly TV show running and the fact that it never happened is a bit of a shame.
The way you do it is this – you take a story that you’re working on anyway and you just invert the casting of one of the characters. A lot of characters in Star Trek (of any ilk) aren’t ‘coded’ strongly of a particular gender anyway, which neatly skips over the ‘woman playing character written as a man’ (or vice versa) issue.
So, say ‘Balance of Terror’ being exactly the same in every single way, except the couple getting hitched at the beginning are both played by men or both played by women. Or having the character Geordi is attracted to in ‘Aquiel’ played by an actor, not an actress. Or having Ben Sisko having a dead husband, not a dead wife. Or having the character Lwaxana Troi falls in love with in ‘Half a Life’ played by an actress, not an actor. Havign Janeway having a girlfirend called Marcia back home in the Alpha Quadrant, whose married when she finally gets back in contact with it in Season 7.
No changes of dialogue, no flagging it up, just doing it. It’s isn’t even hard.
None of these impact on the story being told, but they constitute visibility. The constitute a portrayal. That’s what I think, anyway.
Full power to James Cawley for what he’s doing over on PHASE II, btw.
Since it is a military ship, I assume the “don’t ask, don’t tell” credo will still be in effect, but other than that, I’m kind of over Hollywood’s preachy, politically correct lessons it endeavors to thrust on the viewing public. I think the world would be a better place if people would quit stressing their differences. You know, if you want me to treat you the same, then stop telling me why you’re so different. It’s such a crazy mixed up world because on the one hand kids are taught to be tolerant while on the other they’re taught zero tolerance. If that’s not mixed signals, I don’t know what is. In 300 years, I wouldn’t think you’d be able to notice if someone’s gay or not so why try to make it a point now?
The only thing that bothers me about having gay characters in Star Trek would be if it was any kind of issue at all. Since it shouldn’t be an issue, why even bother?
I’d really hope that after 300 years go by there isn’t any reason to have any concern over a gay character at all. To me, placing a ‘gay is ok’ message in a show based so far in the future is as depressing as having a show about how Kirk struggled to accept having such a multicultural bridge crew. In a positive vision of the future it just doesn’t fit to still be struggling with accepting any kind of minority.
I would hate to see a show that has gay characters and is ALSO an ‘AIDS allegory’. I’m pretty sure we’ve all learned by now that AIDS isn’t just a gay disease. Any plotline that indicates gay people are victim to hazards that straight people are not just seems irresponsible.
The only way I see it really working is if they visited a planet with a backward notion on how to treat sexual diversity in their own society, but TNG already did this, and they did it really well.
It was called “The Outcast”, the one with the planet of the androgenous people where some of the population felt drawn to one gender or another and had to hide it from the rest of society because society viewed it as a perversion. Riker had to work with a scientist from the planet who actually had typical female attractions toward men. They eventually started a relationship of sorts, people found out, the scientist was arrested. Remember how awful it felt at the end of the episode after she had been ‘cured’ ?
I’d like to note that both Battlestar Galactica Reimagined and Lost have gay characters, and in both cases this fact about the characters was revealed casually, well after the introduction of the character, and not foregrounded as a big to-do. This, I believe, is the shape of things to come.
B&F should prove quite interesting, as long as- all together now- the WRITING is good.
Voyager? OVER it already!!
Anthony, you forgot to scream, “First!!!”
Shame on you.
#92 – “So, say ‘Balance of Terror’ being exactly the same in every single way, except the couple getting hitched at the beginning are both played by men or both played by women. Or having the character Geordi is attracted to in ‘Aquiel’ played by an actor, not an actress. Or having Ben Sisko having a dead husband, not a dead wife. Or having the character Lwaxana Troi falls in love with in ‘Half a Life’ played by an actress, not an actor. Havign Janeway having a girlfirend called Marcia back home in the Alpha Quadrant, whose married when she finally gets back in contact with it in Season 7. ”
I think that’s exactly the way to handle it. Probably doing it in the film will be a bit more difficult, but if there’s ever another series that’s the way they should go.
#87, you’re totally right
#97 – Thanks. Nice to be appreciated. The thing about doing it that way is that there are literally hundreds of examples one can conjure up, none of them intrusive to the story being told.
#94 – The problem isn’t about flagging it, it’s about visibility. We’ve seen hundreds of hetero (and inter species!) relationships represented in ‘Star Trek’ but not one gay one. You can do it without being extreme, that’s the point. If it’s there but no one mentions it, that’s real life, if it’s not mentioned and not seen, then it’s the “elephant on the table” so to speak.
I agree with Mr. Fuller that Voyager would’ve been the wrong Trek for a gay couple to appear on. Although it is overdue most of the spin-offs have been family-oriented shows and avoided dealing with ‘big issues’. Not that this had to be presented as a big issue (it could, like many suggest, be just a matter-of-fact reality in the form of a recurring couple without the ‘need’ for showing gay passion or cheezy stereotypes that could offend either camp) but given the hot-button nature of the subject and the mandated family-orientation of TNG, etc it’s obvious they couldn’t have done this subtly and without making a big deal out of it.
I don’t feel the place to raise this is a movie either as there’s enough going on in such a short amount of time there isn’t room to bring it up without shortchanging everyone. No, recurring characters or a bridge officer who happens to be gay on a future Trek television series would be fine. And I’d like to see Trek become less family-oriented than it has become in the past 20 years. Even DS9, the black sheep of the franchise (and a personal favorite of mine) was still uneasy at the prospect. And there is the notion that the Berman-era of shows suffered a bit from sitcom-itis. That each episode dealt with a problem-of-the-week that had to be simplified and resolved in less than an hour and the issue of gayness would’ve just been treated as another problem to be solved and left behind and forgotten on some planet we’d never revisit again. With literally hundreds of existing hours of family-friendly Trek already out there the time has come for a grown-up version (maybe even on HBO?) for those of us who have grown up ourselves but still love the core of what Trek represents. With a less ham-fisted approach that would be a more appropriate venue for introducing homosexuality into the franchise.
TNG and VOY were the kind of show you’d watch with the kids after an episode of Family Ties or whatever. The producers always talked about that all-important males-18-to-35 key demographic but I doubt the writers had them in mind when they came up with VOY episodes “Once Upon a Time” (Neelix and Naomi Wildman spend an episode on the holodeck in a fairy tale), “The Haunting of Deck Whatever” (Neelix tells ghost stories to the Borg Kids for an episode), the two (!) episodes wasted in a holodeck-created rustic Irish village with the crew walking around doing nothing and the introduction of the less-scarier Borg Kids. Same goes for all the gee whiz times Wesley saved the 1701-D during Season 1 or having Worf play dress-up cowboy on the holodeck with Alexander. Not exactly the forum for serious issues and I think the Producers (Berman had produced kid shows for PBS prior to taking over for Roddenberry) felt the same. It was somewhat amusing when the same folks decided to make ENT less family-oriented and they didn’t know how to do it other than adding puzzlingly-unneccessary explitives and potty humor (that makes it more grown-up?) in the first couple seasons. I think Malcolm Reed would’ve benefitted as a character had he actually been portrayed as gay.
It’s disappointing that Trek, the show that gave television the first interracial kiss, has to date still avoided something that in many ways is already commonplace on many TV shows. It is also disappointing to read some of the arguably contradictory-to-the-nature-of-the-Trek-philosophy anti-gay rumblings on this thread but I understand people have their reasons for what they believe and to each their own, I suppose.
Star Trek 1966 didn’t parade the fact there was a black, or a black woman on the bridge. Or a woman in the command circle (Cage). Nor did it parade the fact there was an Asian at the helm, and a Russian at the nav. They were just there. There was no social commentary, no episode explaining it, and the characters certainly didn’t bring attention to it.
Which is why Blood and Fire, unless handled the same, will fail miserably. Anything that casts a light on a homosexual relationship for the sake of the relationship, just ain’t gonna work.
This has been done several times in Trek before; Outcast, The Host, Rejoined… and it was done within the context of the 24th Century.
#90 – Yeah every single british TV show I watch has a gay/bi/lesbian character. Even the most watched TV in the UK has a transexual. I’m in the UK and the issue of having a gay character on a TV show is non-existant. Not having a gay character in shows where one could easily fit now seems a little strange when new TV shows arrive.
Look at Dr Who – gay and bi characters all the time. Never in your face. Mostly just there. Trek should learn from Dr Who in regards to this issue!
Overall, yeah, I’m all for the inclusion of more gay / lesbian / other characters in Trek. Maybe a movie isn’t the right place strictly because you have a limited amount of time to focus on certain plot points and tell a story, but in any future series, definitely.
Some may not like this, but not everyone in the world is straight. It’s been that way since the dawn of time. Other cultures TODAY have practices regarding sex, gender and sexuality that are natural to them, while quite at odds with our mainstream, and similarly, our culture flaunts sexual attractiveness and desire from every billboard in the name of selling products, which other cultures view with disdain.
Recent news items, like the raid of the polygamist compound in Texas, shows that even within a single society, there are highly divergent points of view as to what constitutes “normality.” (Note that I’m not defending them, as most of what went on there seems to have been both illegal and non-consensual).
Trek has always been “the present, reflected to us from a future vantage point,” to broadly paraphrase Gene Roddenberry. Science fiction allows us to take today’s viewpoints and extrapolate them to their logical limits, such as racism in “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield”, proxy wars between the 1960s superpowers in “A Private Little War,” etc.
That said, some social taboos are still entrenched, and The Powers That Be are always tentative about dealing with them outside of the confines of shows specifically targeted at those groups. Trek has brushed the issue of “other sexuality” but has never really dealt with it properly, I think.
To go a bit further, sex has been *crucial* to some Trek episodes. Any episode that dealt with a Vulcan character’s pon farr, for instance, made that character’s sexuality a central plot point.
The idea that you could have Americans, Asians, Russians, Africans, Europeans and aliens working peacefully side-by-side was groundbreaking. They inspired people to become scientists, astronauts, leaders, artists, actors. (How many African-American women did Nichelle Nichols inspire, for a start?) Their mere presence was affirmation that the future belonged not just to White Straight Men but to everyone.
Doctor Who and Torchwood share the character of Captain Jack Harkness, a Kirk-like leader and adventurer from 30 centuries in the future, by which time sexuality has become a lot more flexible. Trek could do worse than to have someone like that on board.
Come on – the first gay character was Sulu. Oh my.
And that’s kicking it old school Trek. So to da hataz who dont want dem gays in the Star Treks, me say YO diggity check yo self before you wreck yo self. Listen up. Whenever you have peoples, you have dem gays. Even da animals be doin tha gay things sometimes, aiiiight?
I find it a bit self-indulgent, however, that when given the opportunity to introduce that storyline that Fuller didn’t support it for the reasons he gives. The reasonable argument is that if you support the idea that you should take even a compromised concession – if even it was that, you atleast open that door. Boo hoo, he thought the characters were two dimensional. And here it is 2008 and no gay characters on the star trek there. You could have had them in 1995.
I’m not even going to comment on the dialgue in STIII – “Your son meant more to me than you can ever know” sort of speculation. However, I think it understood that at the very least the whole Spock / Kirk / McCoy thing has the undertones at times. Let’s just say that when the choice is a Romulan, a young Vulcan Scientist, and your OWN SON – and all you care about is that the Klingons didn’t kill the young Vulcan scientist… Klingon Bastards!!! Why didn’t Kirk steal the Enterprise to go get his son back from the Genesis planet?
I said I wouldnt go into all that and I am sorry because I did a little. I apologize as I have many gay thoughts about Star Trek. Just like in life, it doesnt always reveal itself right away. If Star Trek is a future envisioned, I cannot see how it could preclude the gay folk. Of course there are gays in Star Trek. BUT… who is in the closet? Who is here and proud to be queer? Do we have a sheep in lambskin clothes among us? Is it wrong to be private about your sexuality?
These are the true questions to be answered.
BEST!!
=h=
#98 -
Thanks. :)
This seems like an appropriate time to plug (shill!) the Brokeback Trek trailer I made a few years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HETmGE09Mco
Enjoy!
Who gives a shit? Really. The only reason this even sparks debate is because we’ve been trained as a society to look for controversy in all corners. I’m straight, and I’m happy. If you’re gay and you’re happy, then good for you- you’ve managed to do something millions seem incapable of.
even after my warning there are some borderlines here. For now Adam E is banned for a week.
As for those saying this site should embrace the intolerant…sorry but intolerance is not part of the diversity I believe in. You have a problem and think you are better than any group of people…I don’t want to hear about it here
comments to http://trekmovie.com/about/feedback
Exactly, #102. With regard to the Dr. Who reference I concur wholeheartedly…
I don’t particularly need to know what anyone is doing in their bedroom.
It’s really none of my business. Don’t know…don’t want to know…don’t care.
Roddenberry himself said that homo- or heterosexuality wasn’t an issue in his Trek future, people would simply choose a person regardless of race or sex.
Although this view sounds a bit odd as it would imply anyone’s sexual preferences are arbitrary, it does go some towards explaining why there were no explicit gay references. if it’s not an issue there is no reason to adress it in a story.
I feel however that was a mistake. by not adressing it the implication isn’t so much that it’s so accepted that it’s not an issue but more that there are no gay people in the Trek future.
On a positive note, the books have introduced gay story-lines and Dax (as all Trill) was a multi-sexual being.
Star Trek has dealt with homosexuality before. The thing is, a lot of people don’t want to see direct homosexuality, they don’t want to see men kissing — I know I don’t. They’ve dealt with it when Riker fell in love with that sort of woman on the planet in which every one had one gender/no gender.
They dealt with it when Dax in Deep Space NIne had one of her old trill loves from a previous host come aboard. The idea was to make the audience accept the situation so they can ask, alright, if it’s no big deal here, is it really a big deal in real life.
If they want people to think about issues — that’s the way to do it. If they want people to accept it — then there’s no reason to even mention it.
I was frustrated in the few DS9 episodes when Sisko mentioned being black. I thought it was stupid and didn’t believe in the Star Trek reality that there would ever be reference to or consideration of skin color, as if it did not at all exist. Yet they decided that SIsko had to find being black important, and participating in a 40s themed holographic game undignified for black people. It was stupid, and indirectly racist. I feel that adding a gay character that makes a point of being the ship’s or cast’s homosexual would bring attention to a minority group that wouldn’t necessarily exist in the Star Trek future.
My dad always complains that there has to be a gay guy in everything. And he has a point. Because throwing a stereotypical homosexual into a plotline that doesn’t call for a homosexual character just furthers homosexual stereotyping and makes the issue of judgement worse not better. As far as I could tell Lt. Hawk was gay, do we need to see him making out with a man to prove it? Do we need to see waving his hand effeminately calling people “girlfriend,” to be aware? I think not.
WTF I THOUGHT HARRY -WAS- GAY!?!?!?!!!
#68 A quick note for you, I would suggest that you not use the IDIC defence only when defending homosexuality in Trek, because IDIC in that sense could cover all types of diverse sexual practices that I am sure most here would be appauled at like pedophilia, etc. There has to be a moral element involved with the argument or else everything (even the stuff that no one would support) would be permissable. So argue the point that being homosexual is moraly correct and you will be on more solid ground.
I mean havin gay characters wouldn’t bother me any. I really dont care but my thing is….
is it really necessary that we have gay trek characters?
As for not wanting to know what anyone does in the bedroom.
That’s strange. There have been numerous heterosexual affairs and kisses and so on.
Also, the assumption is always that someone is straight, therefore there’s no need to see into the bedroom to know what goes on there.
As for gay characters, there’s nothing wrong with being gay so why not show that mankind has evolved beyond the stupidity of todays bigots.
#102
But they shouldn’t be shoehorned into the shows. It’s like on Doctor Who and Torchwood. On Doctor Who it seems like every third couple is interracial. I understand the point they are trying to make, but it’s turned into a mallet and a joke. On Torchwood HOW many characters are gay or bisexual at this point? Putting homosexual characters into Trek is fine as long as they remember a couple of things.
1) Homosexuals are a minority. Doing what Torchwood has done is like making every character on a show set in Montanta Jewish. It will look ridiculous and damage any sense of realism.
2) Do not make it “a big deal” that they are gay, ESPECIALLY on a sci-fi show. A good example of this is Susan Ivonova on Babylon 5. She admitted that she may have been in love with the telepath Talia Winters. It was more the fact that she had fallen in love with a hated telepath than another woman that bothered her. Make it part of the character’s life, but not their WHOLE life. Making them a caricature would be doing a grave disservice to homosexuals, which ties in with what Mr. Fuller said about the Voyager characters.
It would be nice if people stopped thinking so much about Star Trek’s diversity, or lack thereof, and began thinking about ours…
Just a thought.
If they had a gay character(s) it would fit in with the IDIC concept. But I don’t think it would be a smart move if they made it too blatant at first. It would be a first for Trek, so it’d be wisest to start subtle and see how people react before taking it to any further levels.
I applaude Mr. Fuller for not allowing TPTB of Voyager trivialize the gay community. If gay characters are just going to be cliche, then why have them in the show? One’s preference in the bedroom show only be a small aspect of the person as a whole.
>> On Doctor Who it seems like every third couple is interracial
That’s ‘cos it’s largely set in London, when it’s set on Earth in the present and that’s, in my experience, pretty much the case.
#116 “On Torchwood HOW many characters are gay or bisexual at this point? ”
I have to agree in that sometimes I think they go a little over the top with it – I think every character in it has had some kind of gay tryst, which just seems a bit silly. I certainly don’t condemn it for having gay characters in though – overall the message is positive because the young people watching Dr Who will hopefully see same-sex couples as no big deal and help create the foundations of a more open minded future.
Another pointless discussion
Fact: Most everyone involved with TOS was either gay or Jewish (Shat/Nimoy/Keonig, etc). GENE Was a little squeemish about gays, but after several years of working with them, especially W W Thesis, he GOT OVER IT. Did he know about Takei? Maybe, maybe not. Does it matter? Not really.
Here’s why: Gays consider themselves to be 10% of the population. To pander to 10% of the population is absurd. What’s next, an all black Trek? All Hispanic? ( Hispanics were barely recognized in TOS, should we play the race card about that? Duh, No! ) All Jew Trek? With the captain played by Mel Brooks? ( Finally Jews in Space! Lachaim and prosper?) No, no, and no. Trek is fine as it is.
Why? Because it’s a Space Opera. We watch it to see what’s out there in space.
Where do you go when you want to watch gays? Bravo. MTV. VH-1. The entire MTV family of networks. If you live in a medium sized city, go to the mall. If you live in a large city, go outside. Gays have their real life forums without taking over Trek.
Gay issues cannot be seriously explored in what is essentially a children’s television show. Civil rights were barely explored, and it was the 1960s! It was happening, right then.
In the 70s the fans had Kirk & Spock as gay lovers that GENE himself debunked in the novelization of TMP. If you read Nimoy’s I AM SPOCK, he rejects the “Spock in Bondage” fan fiction.
Let Bravo explore homosexuality.
Another major question – Gay Klingons – myth or fact?
Let’s not be so arrogant to only presume that da humonz™ gots da gays, aaiiiiight?
BEST!!
=h=
#122 – “Gays consider themselves to be 10% of the population. To pander to 10% of the population is absurd. What’s next, an all black Trek? All Hispanic?”
I don’t think anyone’s said the “gays” should overtake Star Trek, that the Enterprise should be 100% homosexual – all anyone’s asked for is a little representation.
Star Trek is about exploring the human condition, and sexuality is part of that.
A character needs to have a purpose other than “to have a gay character”.
I’m all for a gay character if that character came about in the following manner:
Show producer #1: We need a new character to be our new science officer…here are his character traits: Bright and ambitious, but a bit of a maverick who bends the rules and sometimes considers “orders” to be “suggestions”, but dependable when he needs to be.
Producer #2: I like that…he sounds like an interesting character. Anything else about him?
Producer #1: Yeah — make him a “lovable smart-ass practical joker-type”, and maybe also make him a gay.
That would be an acceptable way to create a gay character. If you set out saying “we should create a new gay character”, then that character is destined to be the “Token Gay”…and I think that’s what Fuller was talking about when he said he feared the character would be two-dimensional — the character would be first and foremost the “gay character” rather than (in the example I gave) that “maverick science officer character”.
…although I do agree that if the character I mentioned happened to be gay, then most fans will still say “that gay character”, but that’s inevitable until society itself changes a bit more — but I believe society is headed in the right direction.
They should include a gay character as long as the character does not become the focus of any episode or movie just because they are gay. It should be done exactly like it was done in the begining. no one cared that Uhura was black, Sulu was Asian, or Chechov was Russian. It should not define the character but be an aspect of the character.
#122: The inclusion of gay characters in Star Trek is not “pandering” to anyone, it’s simply a fact of life. Also, it may not have been intended that way, but your comments come across as being wildly homophobic, which would cloud your judgement and therefore any opinion you had would be one-sided.
If you were scared of clowns chances are seeing clowns on TV would freak you out.
I also think you’re over-reacting slightly suggesting people might be looking for an ‘all black Trek’ or an ‘all Jewish Trek’…
Gay issues CAN and SHOULD be explored on Star Trek, after all using a futuristic allegory is a great way to comment on a current social issue. But I agree with the comments that it shouldn’t be done for the sake of doing it. In the Star Trek universe homosexuality isn’t an issue (for humans), there is no homophobia, so there’s no conflict, which means no storylines. Besides, how do you know the two guys sitting in the corner in Ten Forward weren’t also lovers?
“Producer #1: Yeah — make him a “lovable smart-ass practical joker-type”, and maybe also make him a gay.”
You’ve summed up the great h69 in one sentence. Awesome.
BEST!!
=h=
#122 – Essentially a children’s show?
WOW! Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
Since I do not agree with homosexuality in any way, I feel that gay characters would ruin Star Trek for me, or at least any Trek’s that were produced airing flamboyantly gay characters. In other words, I don’t want gay characters shoved in my face just for the sake of doing so.
Case and Point, I’m not sure how many of you watched the recent Knight Rider sequel which aired on NBC back in February, but at the beginning of the TV movie, there was a femal FBI agent who was shown getting ready for work with an apparently naked woman in her bed. Nothing was ever said for the rest of the movie regarding her sexuality, leaving the bedroom scene completely out of place and meaningless. It was shoved in my face, like “Hey, this character is gay!”, but otherwise it had absolutely no impact to the rest of the movie. It was pointless, meaningless, and showed gay people more in the light of sexual deviants, as most people believe them to me.
There are circumstances where gay people genuinely love each other, but it’s difficult to argue that the vast majority are sexually deviant, and that is not what I want splattered in my face on TV on a weekly episodic bases.
#16 Adam E
“By looking at the future optimistically, as Star Trek is known to do, I would hope that in the future those with these unnatural attractions would strive to live chaste lives.”
What, as chaste as heterosexual people are today? You’ve obviously never been to a fetish party filled with straight people having indiscriminant sex on the floors and in bathroom stalls. Don’t automatically assume that because one is gay, one is “open for business” and that because one is straight, they are moral (depending on your definition of the word).
What makes you so sure that homosexuality is unnatural. Unless you’ve spoken with Mother Nature or God personally, perhaps you might consider that in areas that are dense with population, in an effort to help conserve natural resources, homosexuality becomes more prevalent. As maybe nature’s way of saying “there are too many people here” and thus, natural birth control. Less people reproducing, less strain on the living-environment, less waste, etc.
Another possibility is simply that some people are attracted to others of the same sex. No more, no less. No matter the case, I still cannot find how it is of anyone’s business other than the participants of the relationship, and God bless them for finding happiness somewhere. Most people today are miserable, and not just with their relationships, gay or otherwise.
And though a straight man myself, I take offense at you calling homosexuality a “condition”, as though it were a sickness that needs curing, or some affliction. I have gay friends, and they are some of the most well adjusted people i know. Personally, if people want to have inter-gender relations, and you have an issue with it, you’re the one with the issue. Try to keep your fear of some people from manifesting itself through hate disguised as malevolent “understanding”.
As far as homosexuality in a Star Trek movie, I can see it, though only in terms of helping define the fact that in the future that’s not an issue anymore, just as a lack of using money or material greed isn’t. It should simply be a part of what the human race has overcome in order to progress society to the next level of understanding and human advancement. I would be opposed to it were it being used as part of a plot in order to prove to people that it’s ok to be gay. Intelligent people already know this, and those yet to figure it out won’t through a movie’s plot device. Brokeback Mountain is a good example. Some people are still ignorant no matter what you explain to them in movies or TV.
113
“#68 A quick note for you, I would suggest that you not use the IDIC defence only when defending homosexuality in Trek, because IDIC in that sense could cover all types of diverse sexual practices that I am sure most here would be appauled at like pedophilia, etc. There has to be a moral element involved with the argument or else everything (even the stuff that no one would support) would be permissable. So argue the point that being homosexual is moraly correct and you will be on more solid ground.”
You are of course entitled to your own interpretation of this.
That being said, I find the ground on which I stand plenty solid, thank you. I in no way by using IDIC defended “only…homosexuality in Trek” (your words). I’m sorry if my reference to IDIC confused or bothered you. My response to the individuals comments (Post #66) was driven by the fact that said comments smacked of the automatic, knee-jerk disgust and intolerance of the typical quasi-religious (particularly the Fundamentalists and Southern Baptists here in the South) by which I am surrounded. I cannot and will not speak for the poster as an individual in this regard, as I do not know them and do now know their particular religious affiliation, or possible lack thereof.
And their assigning their feelings to other fans (”…and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone on this among Trek fans…”) is arrogant presumption. I for myself do not share the poster’s feelings of intolerance about gays, and I did not then and do not now appreciate being lumped into a group that does simply by the fact of also being a Trek fan. I didn’t appreciate their finding me sort of “guilty” by association in that regard.
So, #113, accept my apologies, but we apparently agree to disagree.
#66, also accept my apologies if my reponse to your post offended in anyway…
“However Fuller, who is openly gay, actually didn’t support the idea because he felt the characters were ‘two dimensional.’”
As opposed to all teh other 2 dimensional characters populating Voyager?
“before the discussion gets started, intolerance will not be tolerated here”
Wow- intolerance is intolerance.
So… you’re intolerant of intolerance.
Does anyone else see the problem with this position?
Someday, in a decade or so, there will be a new Trek series that will incorporate at least one gay character into the series and we’ll wonder why people thought something like this was so controversial all those years ago.
I don’t see it happening in the movie. All the main characters and even some of the minor ones are established heterosexuals, and I just don’t see their being any room this time around. But I’m all for it.
#130 Brad: [quote]****”Case and Point, I’m not sure how many of you watched the recent Knight Rider sequel….there was a femal FBI agent who was shown getting ready for work with an apparently naked woman in her bed. Nothing was ever said for the rest of the movie regarding her sexuality….It was shoved in my face, like “Hey, this character is gay!”….It was pointless, meaningless, and showed gay people more in the light of sexual deviants, as most people believe them to me.” *****[/quote]
So how is that different than if there was a man in her bed as she was getting ready for work?
The fact that they didn’t make a big thing of her homosexuality nor mention it again IS the point. If she was straight, do you think that every 30 minutes there would need to be a scene that reinforces the fact that she is straight??
#16
I find your comment very disturbing, Homosexuality is not a “Condition” as you so clinically put it. And The “unnatural” tag is just plain arrogant.
To support ths refer to the DSMIV.
The inclusion of a gay character is not as important as the inclusion of ‘a’ character. I would rather have seen a regular character involved in a same sex relationship.
I think this would establish the character first, then we could learn about them over time, revealing aspects of their personal life in a natural story-relevant way.
#130 – Your use of the word “deviant” is offensive.
Moving along — so, getting it on with an alien is not “deviant” if the alien in question is of the opposite sex (whatever that means — if and when humans ever encounter aliens, you can be sure that the concept of gender is not going to be a cut and dry issue), but having a relationship with another human being of the same sex is?
How is this supposed to be remotely logical?
#133
“Wow- intolerance is intolerance.
So… you’re intolerant of intolerance.
Does anyone else see the problem with this position?”
Actually no, I don’t. This is Anthony Pascale’s website. He’s perfectly entitled to run it any way he pleases, and is under no obligation to allow or disallow anything.
And if I, or you, or anyone else doesn’t like it, we’re under no obligation to visit the site.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
^addendum to #137 — I forgot to establish this: I bring up the point of inter-species sex because it was there from the beginning (Spock, half-Vulcan, half-Human), and yet no one has a problem with it.
As a ’straight’ man, I have absolutely no problem with two gay guys being in Star Trek. Or two gay girls. Who look hot. And wear tight leotards. And kiss a lot….
I think Admiral Cain’s relationship with Gina was handled excellently in BSG’s “Razor.” Although you only got little hints about the relationship, you weren’t beaten over the head with it and the rest of the crew didn’t blink twice.
However, their affair did ultimately become integral to the story as when Gina ultimately betrays Cain, Cain seeks some vengeance in the worst way. That has the effect of making her actions in the Pegasus/Resurrection Ship arc somewhat understandable (although yeah, definitely cruel). And, to me at least, it all seemed pretty natural. The leader falls in love, is betrayed, then seeks revenge, and it ultimately costs her her life.
There wasn’t once where I thought there was anything forced or unnatural about what I was watching. So, kudos to the BSG team on how that was handled.
My only complaint is I think it would’ve been more gutsy to have a dude in that kind of situation. But, one thing at a time.
OK now Brad earns a week long ban
and yes i am intolerant of the intolerant. You can get pedantic about it or understand that this site will not be a forum for hate
#132 Trust me, you didn’t offend me at all. I was just giving you some devil’s advocate advice as to a hole in your argument. if you don’t want to take it thats your choice :). As for me, i feel that if they do put it into an epidoe or series, it will be handled with the heavy hand of self righteousness that all “contriversal topic” moral question have been attacked on Trek. i love the series, but when they make a statment its made with a hammer. Thoes are the episodes I grit my teeth through.
Okay, so Fuller found the gay characters cliche and 2D? What did he do in terms of fighting to get characters that were less 2D and fully rounded characters? What kind of long term effort did he put into getting more believable gay characters or dealt with an issue about or related to gay issues?
Cuz it sounds like he didn’t do anything to fight for a better portrayal before the characters were dropped or afterwards.
As for gay characters….they should be portrayed no differently than any other character. Their sexuality should not define the character, rather it should just be one aspect of their character. It’s Star Trek, and the primary focus of Star Trek is people at their jobs…the rest is ancillary.
Star Trek is long overdue for having a gay character. It has addressed most other social issues, except this one. If it were a real priority, it would have been accomplished by now, so obviously “they” don’t care enough about the issue.
133. “‘However Fuller, who is openly gay, actually didn’t support the idea because he felt the characters were ‘two dimensional.’”
As opposed to all teh other 2 dimensional characters populating Voyager?”
I think that was Fuller’s point. VOY was populated with one-note characters. A gay character or gay couple on the show would be hopelessly stereotypical. VOY just didn’t do compelling or even believable characters and I think Fuller was aware of this. Since in a way introducing gay characters on VOY would set a precedent, it wasn’t worth the risk knowing how poorly said character or characters would’ve been serviced. I certainly don’t believe the VOY writers could’ve handled gay characters any better than, say, an episode of “Two and a Half Men”. It would’ve been childishly preachy or imbarassingly campy. Especially since the proposed characters would’ve been filling a role ultimately realized by Neelix. We would’ve gotten gay characters who were always explaining themselves to Naomi Wildman. Just as ham-handed as Tasha Yar and Wesley Crusher’s cornball “Say no to drugs” scene in “Symbiosis”. The writers would’ve been constantly addressing the subject of homosexuality in the context of explaining it to children (which ultimately would be how the audience would feel it was being treated as).
#142 So Express feelings in line with your own or be banned. Hmm that’s an encouraging atmosphere for a blog. Are you that self centered that you need to see a string of comments that echo your own opinion?
I think Star Trek missed the boat on breaking new television ground with this issue. That ship has unfortunately sailed. Now, if you go out of your way to depict a homosexual character, it is juct too cliche and there will be a great deal of eye-rolling in the theater. It has to be subtle and depicted as a non-issue—a small bit of reference within the dialogue, for example.
Personally, I do not care, as long as it is not an issue within the storyline. It should not be, since we are talking about the 23rd Century.
All you people saying NO NO NO… really need to grow up. Gay people are people. “.” I myself and straight. But that doesn’t mean that I should force my belive’s on other people. Gene saw thru all the negitivity in the world, and so should you. There are gay people in this world of ours… get use to it.
hmm , hot topic this,
i would like to point out in my opinion , its not intolerant or narrow minded , for someone to have their own view , if they think there should not be gay characters in star trek, well then thats their right, they might have reiligous or just psychological reasons or whatever. i just dont think someone is anti gays , for having an opinion.
Honestly i care less about what they have in star trek (expect more vulcans and andorians there cool) as long its a good story )
oh and dont go down the torchwood road , that show is so very very forced its painfull to watch
Homosexuality is mother nature´s way to deal with overpopulation. BUT with countless of planets to colonize out there, there won´t be need for it in a space faring civilization.
I have no problem with homosexuality. But if you’re adding gay charachters in to a tv show just to prove you’re not a homophobe, you take away from the show itself. gays on tv should be portrayed as normally as any other character on that show with no special attitude towards them….
this can be best seen in the scifi show Torchwood where the main character is openly bisexual but doesn’t draw any special attention to it….
140
LOL (snort)
143
No sweat. Isn’t logical, itelligent interaction what we’re here for?
147
Better raise your shields after that one….
#150
if you don’t like Torchwood then that’s your opinion and that’s that…
if a tv show doesn’t suit you because you’re uncomfortable with certain views shown in it than don’t feel you’re being racist or sexist, just accept the show is bad in your point of view and move on…
I guess if their was to be a gay character in Star Trek, it would have to be handled the right way.
I really do not think the fans would care if a character was gay or straight.
But, the question is… Do you make a big deal and shine a spot light on the gay character, or just make it subtle?
Because wither way could offend some people.
Besides, who is to say that some of the people in the past series and movies were not gay, but they were just never covered by a written line.
Wasn’t Voyager gay enough already?
Homosexuality may indeed be the final (unexplored) frontier for Trek. They’ve explored just about every other facet of the human condition. If there are to be gay characters in Star Trek, it needs to handled (pardon the bad pun) straight. No heavy-handedness, no beating the audience over the head with a hammer. Just let it come naturally.
We refuse to tolorate the views of those who don’t agree with us!
So remember children, if you disagreee with us on this, you are by nature a bad person and intolerant.
We are the Borg….we will think for you.
It shouldn’t really be drawn attention to, yeah there can be a gay character, maybe at night when he/she goes back to his/her quarters, they curl up in bed with there boyfriend or girlfriend, or husband or wife, respectively, When Miles O’Brien finished up a long day in engineering he’d go home to his wife, she was hardly ever a major character but we saw her so that we could have a glimpse into the life of this character that wasn’t tied to his work life, but it was almost never a plot point, it was never like “OH MY GOD MILES! YOU HAVE A WIFE?” that’s the way it should be played with gay characters. Also I’d hope that Gay marriage is accepted by the 24th century.
#157 Sez: “No heavy-handedness, no beating the audience over the head with a hammer [...]”
Amen. On these grounds alone, we can be VERY grateful that Voyager didn’t do it.
#159,
Have you ever read Roddenberry’s Novelization of the origial Motion picture. Gene pretty much states the “marriage” as such doesn’t exist, it’s all pretty much a contractual relationship.
What a romantic the great bird was…………though of course Gene in real life didn’t have much use for marriage vows.
151. “Homosexuality is mother nature´s way to deal with overpopulation. BUT with countless of planets to colonize out there, there won´t be need for it in a space faring civilization.”
WTF?! I guess next we’ll play the “God made AIDS as punishment for the gays” card. This is getting sad and I’m getting depressed.
#152
I have to argue that Torchwood is a bad example of this. As I said earlier, on Torchwood it seems like everyone is gay or bisexual, which just isn’t the way the world is. It goes out of its way to do this. It’s as inane as having a show that goes out of its way to have no homosexuals in it. If it was just Jack that was openly bisexual that would be fine. As someone above mentioned, Battlestar Galactica: Razor portrayed it very well. Captain Cain was sleeping with a Cylon, the same as Chief Tyrol and Helo. Both Tyrol and Cain were betrayed by their Cylon. What mattered to the story was how they dealt with it. Tyrol reacted badly but acted to protect Caprica Sharon. Cain had her Cylon brutally tortured and raped by her men and tried to do the same to Caprica Sharon. The fact that both Cain and her Cylon were women was incidental to the plot and was never mentioned, let alone exploited the way the gay trysts are on Torchwood. I know that the shows are very different in concept. BSG is a serious space opera about character and story. Torchwood is a sexy sci-fi series. There’s nothing wrong with a sexy sci-fi. Heck, I love the show. I just wouldn’t use it as an argument for gay inclusion in sci-fi anymore than I would use Charlie’s Angels as an argument for feminism.
#158
Oh, please. Give me a break.
How tolerant are YOU of people who don’t agree with you? Like, um, let’s just take one example here, erm…. gay people?
Right. I thought so.
Grow up. This isn’t a guaranteed forum for the airing of all possible views, it’s a frickin Star Trek website. The Constitution does not guarantee that your views or opinions must be respected or tolerated wherever you happen to air them. It just guarantees that you can’t be arrested for them… or it did before the current administration came in, anyway.
But believe me, if you come into my home talkin’ stuff I don’t want to hear, I’m gonna ask you to leave. This is Anthony’s forum, Anthony’s home in a sense.
So honestly… take your “Borg” nonsense, your “the Man is shuttin me down” crap and whine to someone who’s worried about it.
I’m damned tired of hearing bigots use “freedom of speech” as a defense of their own sad limitations.
#163
Agreed .
BSG Razor is a far better example of this compared to Torchwood..
#130
“It was shoved in my face, like “Hey, this character is gay!”, but otherwise it had absolutely no impact to the rest of the movie. It was pointless, meaningless,”
IIRC, that movie served as pilot which has now been picked up as a regular series, so it served a point. Just not an immediate one. As for how it was done, judging by a fair amount of comments, it was done in a way that most would find okay.
Remember the time they showed Kirk putting his boots on with the girl in bed? Where the message was “they had sex, but we dont’ need to show it to make you aware of it?”
A similar, yet updated version of that was done here. Basically they made you aware of it in a brief scene, but didn’t focus on that aspect of the character. Pretty much addressing here sexuality in the way that sex was depicted on t.v. in an age when t.v. was terrified of showing sex.
Funny how that method was okay for those with the mindset you seem to posses in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, but it’s somehow not okay now, decades later in the 21st century.
And given the nature of the scene you described, I’d hardly say it was “shoved in your face.” Sounds like it was done pretty tastefully, or at least as tastefully as someone against representing gays could deal with.
Would it surprise you that “Amok Time” was a gay allegory? This, I believe, i so. After all, that episode was written by the great Theodore Sturgeon. That should give ya a clue.
I know, people will dispute this. But as far as I know, it’s all right there in the show.
I await the outrage. ;p
And isn’t it interesting how Trek has always had a core gay fanbase? Has had since the beginning of the show. And it’s interesting how after nearly 40 years of trying Trek still can’t bring itself to deal with the subject realistically instead of allegorically… wonderfully done though those shows had been. But hey… this is many, many, moons later and anti-gay hate mongering is popular again. Heck, the government establishment ran on anti-gay rubbish as an election issue! How intolerant is that? What next? Stoning?
What would really offend alot of people and innocently create the most intolerance would be an ex-gay character.
Speaking from the point of view of one who was once a gay activist and has left the ‘lifestyle’ and become whole,I can say that confusion exists on both sides of the argument.
So if You want DIVERSITY, ‘gay activists’,don’t attack,marginalize and censor the people who have come out of it (homosexuality).
After all ,everyone has the right to be informed and make decisions about leaving or staying in that ‘lifestyle’
The fact that gay activists are able to label anyone who disagrees with them as furthering ‘hate speech’ is anti- intellectual and borders on fascism
It just shows what a sad state of affairs our so called culture is still in, that this is still such an issue. I don’t understand the people who say they aren’t homophobic but question ‘why we need to see it on Star Trek’- do they also question the in your face heterosexual themes throughout the show and in every other episode? Sex and relationships are as much a part of Star Trek as phasers and Klingons, why does it matter which orientation it is?
151.
That’s a very interesting take.
For the record, though it’s none of my concern. I thought Brad fairly expressed his opinion and a ban was unfair, he wasn’t spreading hate spech. He was letting everyone else know how he felt and I thought that was the whole point.
No one needs to quote me on that, but I figured since he was banned he couldn’t say that, so I would. I hope this doesn’t furtther enflame.
#164
You’d have a hard time calling me a homophobe, but I’d have to disagree with you a bit on this one. If someone doesn’t like homosexuals, that is their right. Same as if you don’t like blacks, Irish, Democrats, or Republicans. It is my opinion that people who don’t like these groups are idiots to be pitied. Yes, this is Anthony’s site and he can do whatever he damn well pleases here. But frankly, I can say whatever I want to here too. He can then punish me, delete my comment, and ban me. The bigots DO have the right to Freedom of Speech in many countries, including the US and Canada. They can say whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. They just have to learn to accept the consequences of it. I could go to a meeting of the DNC and shout “Hillary eats puppies!”. I could go to a meeting of the GOP and shout “McCain knives hobos!”. That is my right. I will then be shown the door and if I try to stay, I will be arrested. If I am invited into your home and start spouting nonsense that you don’t want to hear, you can kick me out or have me arrested if I refuse to leave. What you can’t do is force me to shut up in public. Its a distinction, but a very important one. So Jim can say whatever he wants here, he’ll just be punished for breaking the rules in a private place.
124 “Star Trek is about exploring the human condition”
…not really. I mean a lot of people like to think so, but that high handed “idealism” is more wishing than reality. To be honest, Star Trek was just an action adventure drama set in space…and a darn good one. Gene just came off of The Lietenant and writing westerns like Have Gun Will Travel (a damn fine series) and Star Trek was just more of the same. It just happened to be set in outer space.
Hey 164,
Did I ever state what side of the argument I was on?
Nope, and I don’t intend to. As a matter of fact the comment I made was aimed at both sides for the incredible intolerance of anyone’s ideas and values that are outside of their world view.
Thansk for proving my point SB. Because you are being as intolerant and the Homophobes on here, thanks for proving my point.
# 130 Case and Point, I’m not sure how many of you watched the recent Knight Rider sequel which aired on NBC back in February, but at the beginning of the TV movie, there was a femal FBI agent who was shown getting ready for work with an apparently naked woman in her bed. Nothing was ever said for the rest of the movie regarding her sexuality, leaving the bedroom scene completely out of place and meaningless. It was shoved in my face, like “Hey, this character is gay!”, but otherwise it had absolutely no impact to the rest of the movie. It was pointless, meaningless, and showed gay people more in the light of sexual deviants, as most people believe them to me.
Wow, simply wow. By that logic Sisco wouldn’t be allowed to wake up black.
How can showing something in a visual medium be “shoving in our face”? When I think of gayness being shoved in my face I get a completely different visual than a naked woman happening to be in the bed of another woman. (And hey, naked woman! What’s wrong with that? ;)
Hey, 173,
Yeah, you’re right. I am intolerant of people with a simplistic, boilerplate view of the world.
Personally, I don’t see a thing wrong with intolerance. The trick is learning to be intolerant of the right people. ;)
Oh, and I’m glad I was able to “prove your point.” Hope it gave you a little glow of validation.
171,
Merat,
That’s pretty much exactly what i said. I just said it shorter:
“The Constitution does not guarantee that your views or opinions must be respected or tolerated wherever you happen to air them. It just guarantees that you can’t be arrested for them… or it did before the current administration came in, anyway.”
Wow! This thing drew so many comments so fast that I couldn’t read them all.
I’m somewhat torn on this issue, which may seem odd as a gay male.
I’d like to see a gay character in Trek, but I’m not sure who would be able to write it.
When the story was pitched to Roddenberry at the beginning of TNG he liked the idea, but when he actually saw the way it was written he hated it. He said that in 24th century, being gay would be no big deal and no one would care.
The truth is we’ve already seen bisexual characters in DS9. It was actually handled quite well in that no one seemed to care.
One thing I find funny while going through these comments is the belief that this could offend people and shouldn’t be done. How quickly we forget how big civil rights and racism were in the 1960’s when Uhura was introduced.
I’m sure if we looked back on the people that were offended by that and saw what they probably said, we’d probably be a bit disgusted by their intolerance and bigotry.
#175
Wow, you don’t see anything wrong with intolerance???
Remember the people you accuse of intolerance feel the same thing about you, and, by what you just said, they are right.
In this case your logic is a “Pretty Flower That Smells Bad”
#176
I was responding more to your “I’m damned tired of hearing bigots use “freedom of speech” as a defense of their own sad limitations” statement.
This whole thread is now bordering on the absurd, no actually it is absurd.
no…No…NO!!!!!! By all that is Holy, NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way, “Jim Durdan”, homophobia refers to a fear of homosexuals. I don’t fear them and I don’t hate them. I hate their sinful lifestyle just as the Lord does. As it says CLEARLY in Leviticus 18:22, the King James Version: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Here’s what it says in the New International Version – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.”
The Contemporary English Version says: “It is disgusting for a man to have sex with another man.”
I don’t think you can get any clearer than that. Anyone who claims that it’s okay to be Christian and gay at the same time is ignoring scripture.
I leave you with a quote from Romans chapter 1 (CEV) that sums it up nicely:
“26 God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural. 27 Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds.
28 Since these people refused even to think about God, he let their useless minds rule over them. That’s why they do all sorts of indecent things. 29 They are evil, wicked, and greedy, as well as mean in every possible way. They want what others have, and they murder, argue, cheat, and are hard to get along with. They gossip, 30 say cruel things about others, and hate God. They are proud, conceited, and boastful, always thinking up new ways to do evil.
These people don’t respect their parents. 31 They are stupid, unreliable, and don’t have any love or pity for others. 32 They know God has said that anyone who acts this way deserves to die. But they keep on doing evil things, and they even encourage others to do them. ”
Sounds like people of today, doesn’t it?
I thought you weren’t going to tolerate intolerance Anthony. I am stunned by how many homophobes call themselves Star Trek fans. Get on the ball Anthony!
177. “One thing I find funny while going through these comments is the belief that this could offend people and shouldn’t be done. How quickly we forget how big civil rights and racism were in the 1960’s when Uhura was introduced. ”
Thank you! That was the missing equation! The Trek producers have been too frightened over possibly offending someone that they’ve opted for bland family fare much of the time. I say again, it is time for Trek to grow up. It was Roddenberry’s idea to use the science fiction format to discuss topics that you couldn’t open discuss on television in the 60s. It has been at the core of what Trek is. This very thread has opened up a big discussion. I take back what I said earlier about being depressed after reading many of the above comments. This is a challenging topic and an important one.
If Battlestar Galactica can become must-see adult fare why can’t Star Trek? Let’s stretch ourselves a little. Open our minds to other possibilities. And still have cool space ships.
#181 Captain this is not the place start quoting the Bible or any other sacred books.
Well, anyone who is against it should take a look at this ORIGINAL clip. No fan-edited stuff, but real stuff!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNZt-9Afdi4
It is evident that as a society we still have a lot of growing to do. the way some you think is quite frankly disturbing.
How much does the human culture in Trek consider who you’re attracted to an important part of your identity?
“before the discussion gets started, intolerance will not be tolerated here”
How intolorant of you :P
I think it’s an odd issue to tackle in a show that’s meant to be a few hundred years in the future, where I personally think genetic engineering will be the norm for the human race. You’ll be able to decide everything from hair and eye colour to sexuality, and let’s face it people are going to opt for ’standard’. Does anybody else think this will happen?
#178
Jim,
Next’s week’s lesson will be on irony.
Next time I’ll put up a great BIG SIGN, with flashing neon letters and animated Klingon Targ, that reads, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A JOKE.
Not that it would do anything but outrage the Targ-Rights Activists…
#179
Merat,
Yes, well, but the problem is, I AM tired of that. Sorry. (shrug)
181. Hate to burst your bubble but Mr. Roddenberry was a secular humanist and I believe he would take great issue with your argument which you back up with words from your own religious beliefs.
I personally prefer to look for answers in the future and here-and-now, not in words written by ancient humans. To each his own but, wow, trying to balance evangelical Christianity with the secular humanism evident in Star Trek must be difficult for you given their being at odds with each other.
In a way I used to be just like you but logic won out in the end. I couldn’t both hope for a future like the one I see in Star Trek and condemn the times I live in as ‘the end times’. Humans can do some great things and without the need for religious rhetoric.
People throw around the words intolerance and homophobia too much.
Clearly everyone on here TOLERATES it, they may just not want to.
Boston Legal is a topical show, it deals with homosexual storylines frequently. I don’t like homosexuality but don’t neccesarily begrudge someone for being homosexual. I couldn’t tell you if it’s natural or a choice. I know some CHOOSE and I know that makes it a heck of a lot more difficult for anyone that claims to be, and may in fact feel as though they were born gay. The point is Boston Legal depicts a homosexual character, and it makes sense, it’s a trial, the homosexuality has something to do with the trial, it is fairly tried and more often than not it makes you think about the issue.
Like someone said above, Star Trek really is just an action adventure show set in space. Themes depict the human condition and sometimes the show is relevant, but at its root, it is about going on an adventure in space. I don’t see how a character who is characterized by homosexuality fits into that. I don’t see why there needs to be homosexual storylines in Star Trek, I don’t see where they would find drama in that because I don’t see that being what the show is about, unlike Boston Legal, and all I see that would come out of it is characters walking around commenting on it, which they wouldn’t in the Star Trek future, making sure the viewers at home know absolutely for certain that there’s nothing wrong with being gay. What a worthless character that would make for and honestly some cringe inducing moments, I don’t want to see men falling in love, and I have a hard time believing that homosexuals could argue the opposite, that it grosses them out to see men and women falling in love, which is why it’s two completely different things.
I think that all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired.
I’m certainly not — and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am.
(Hmm… should I put up the neon sign now, or later…?)
#113 — It always gets to me when people use the paedophelia argument regarding homosexuality. There’s a difference between sex with someone who is not of the proper sexual, mental or emotional maturity to provide real consent (paedophelia) and mutually consensual sex between two people. A big, and very important, difference.
#122 — Including some gay characters — not even necessarily prominent ones, perhaps just in the background as some have suggested — isn’t pandering, it’s adequately representing the diversity of the human (and, more broadly, sentient) condition. What’s wrong with having about 10% of the characters on ST be gay if that is how it is in the population? Also, it is possible that this statistic is different in other cultures/species. Just a thought…
#124 — LMAO. All-gay Enterprise…sounds like a bizarre parody or something.
185. NCC-73515
I don’t see your point.
There is absolutely no reason other than people feeling it’s “politically correct” to put gay characters in Star Trek. Before someone calls me a homophobe, first let me state that I have no issue with someone’s sexual preference and it does not affect my outlook on them. This is just another way for the gay community to force their presence into pop-culture. If it is relevant to the story that the character HAS to be gay and deals with issues surrounding that fact. FINE. Otherwise, there is no room to work such a complicated issue into this upcoming Star Trek film that has to cover so many other topics and ground already.
Love is love. I think that our persption of love is messed up and that we need not judge people. Unless we oursleves want to have someone think we are something that we are not.
As for gay charaters on ST. Most people that have no idea what the show is about think that all Trekkies are gay. So why have a discussion on this.
And why have I added my two bits.
There are more important things going on in the world than worring on if a person’s sexuallity makes them not human.
#181 — While we’re at it, let’s make the next ST series be about a group of good, God-fearing Christians who explore space on the USS Trinity, seeking out new life and new civilizations in order to convert them to the One True Religion of Jesus Christ.
#194
That’s fine, I’m sick of people not really getting the whole “free speech with consequences” thing (not saying you necessarily don’t). You complain about yours, I’ll complain about mine, and we’ll both be relatively happy. And no fair bringing Monty Python into this! Not only does that show trump everything else, but what does a show written in part by Graham Chapman that often has men dressing up as old women have to do with a debate about alternative lifestyles on TV? Erm… never mind.
FIRST OF ALL,THIS IS STAR TREK, NOT QUEER TREK. THE ORIGINAL SERIES WAS MAINLY ABOUT MORALS. NOT PROMOTING ,SICK IMMORAL,UNATURAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR. ITS TIME FOR PEOPLE TO WAKE UP AND STOP STICKING UP FOR WHAT IS WRONG,WHATS NEXT,ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO ACCEPT PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS,AND HAVE A CHARACTER LIKE THAT IN STAR TREK? THE ONLY GUIDE WE HAVE FOR HOW WE SHOULD LIVE IS THE BIBLE. AND IT SAYS HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG,AND THAT MEANS THAT IT IS WRONG,BECAUSE THATS WHAT GOD SAID.ITS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION. SO, MR SULU, ITS TIME TO GET STRAIGHTENED OUT,YOUR NOT GETTING ANY YOUNGER,AND ITS NEVER TOO LATE TO TURN TO GOD.
It amazes me that bigots even like Star Trek… and if they claim to, how could they be so imprevious to its core messages.
I have pity for these sheep.
Anthony, please close this topic. It makes me sad to see such enlightenment and forward thinking soiled by some of these sad lost people.
Turn to God… yeah, okay… where should I turn? Where is this god? When you figure that out, let me know.
#201…
“Carefully reads entire post, then falls under his desk laughing hysterically.*
*Catches breath and drags self back into chair.*
Fellow posters…
START YOUR ENGINES!!!!!
*sits back with popcorn*
Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.
Intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance.
And being opposed to homosexuality isn’t bigotry.
I don’t understand the point of this thread. Right before the comments, it asks if Star Trek should have a gay character. But then anyone that says no is rapidly slapped down, denounced and in certain cases banned as a bigot or some sort of sociopath. What’s the point of asking whether gay characters should be on ST if it’s merely a rhetorical question in the minds of the moderators? Is there a way that someone could say “no, no gays in Star Trek” that won’t result in insults or a ban for “intolerance”?
Just askin’
# 181 – Captain Amazing (yeah, right…)
Since when is Star Trek based on Christianity?! Reality check: Star Trek encompasses all religions and beliefs in case you hadn’t realized it yet… Why should the story lines be influenced by what YOUR God says is right or wrong?
205: That’s like saying being opposed to blacks or Asians isn’t bigotry… or being opposed to heterosexuals isn’t bigotry. What is it then?
#199
While we’re at it, let’s make the next ST series be about a group of randy gays who explore space on the USS Fabulous, seeking out new life and new civilizations in order to build trendy nightclubs for them.
Why would this statement be bigoted and awful and yours not? I’m all for having a character on Trek who happens to be gay, but I’d also like to see a character on Trek who happens to be Catholic or Jewish or of some other faith. Or is tolerance just towards people we agree with?
If Star Trek does have gay characters, great, it’s a part of life. In my experience gay people are just as diverse as anyone else. Some are openly gay, some aren’t. But they are PEOPLE not just “gay people”. My question is this: Is it important for star trek to make sexual orientation a focal point of a story or character anymore? Maybe some of the characters are gay and we dont know it? Is that good enough? What about gross stereotypes? I’ve never once watched an episode of any Star Trek show and cared about any of that. As I type this I’m wondering if a new Trek series was launched and the new captain was gay, and instead of going and making out with chicks on every planet, he seduced and made out with dudes to get what he wanted. KIrk in reverse. Why not?
Sorry everyone but I’m just trying to be comedic here for better or worse.
This thread has truly become rediculous, as I’ve seen after reading the last ten or so posts.
Like # 181, wow, let’s tell people how to live their lives. Real cool. Go join a cult. A suicide cult. Why post that crap here???????? WHY. Can’t we just be freindly Trek fans? Why post insulting inflamitory remarks like those? People don’t come to this site to be hurt. They come here for community. This thread has damaged my outlook of this community, or should I say some in this community.
This has been a very interesting discussion, but I think that the discussion itself highlights the very problem with this issue.
While a lot of credit has been given to Star Trek for its diversity, that diversity has never been the focus of Star Trek’s stories or its characters.
For example, Sulu didn’t wear traditional Japanese clothes, eat sushi with chopsticks, ask for green tea, use a samurai sword, or engage in any other stereotypical Japanese behavior or mannerisms. His Asian heritage never came into play in any plot line. The fact that he was Asian didn’t make him a better navigator. He wasn’t chosen to lead a landing party because the planet’s population was Asian or they related to Asians better. Only in the episode, “Shore Leave,” does his ethnic heritage play into a plot element. (And frankly, that was lame.)
The same can be said of Uhura. While placing an African-American in a such a prominent role was groundbreaking for the times, beyond her being able to speak Swahili, her ethnicity never was a plot point or the focus of her character. She wasn’t the best communications officer because she was black, her language abilities were not due to the color of her skin, she was not chosen for landing parties because her African heritage meant only she could understand the, “natives.” More importantly, she never, “acted black,” or “acted African,” to draw attention to her ethnicity or heritage. In other words, at no time did her race or heritage play into a plot point.
Of course, with these two characters, their ethnicity and heritage doesn’t have to become a plot point for them to have an impact on diversity. Simply by their presence among the crew, their diversity is, well, quite visible.
But how does one make it known that a gay character is gay without delving into stereotypes? Unless a gay character acts like Jack from, ‘Will and Grace,” and wears a pink feather boa, we are never going to know that the character is gay.
The only way for the audience to know that the character is gay is to give us plot lines and plot points where the character’s sexuality becomes the focus of our attention. We will have to have scenes of the gay character being intimate with a same sex partner. Whether that means we see them holding hands, kissing, hugging, or being in the same bed, the focus will have to be on the character’s sexual behavior with a same sex partner.
In order for us to know that the character is gay, the character’s sexuality will have to be a plot point at some moment. When that happens, it is no longer the character’s skills and talents that will make the character who he is. It will be the character’s sexuality.
In my opinion, that is the most dangerous stereotype of all.
No No No No No No No No No and No! its just don’t work for Star Trek!
Keep it hetro & No homo. Otherwise I just click to the next channel.
#205:
“A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding ideology.
The origin of the word bigot in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of “religious hypocrite”, especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.
Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.”
You were saying?
#200
Merat,
Phew. At least *someone* got the Python reference… :)
[...] Trek? TrekMovie.com reports that two gay characters were considered — and quickly scrapped — for Star Trek: Voyager. A Voyager [...]
@ Irish Terran
yea just in my opinion Torchwood at times is forced , but yea BSG Razor was way better in my opinon ,
and just as always happens online , this typical has failed, and turned into a argument
Its been said before in this post but yes, a gay character on Star Trek would just broaden its diversity. And yes, they should act normal.
Thats my 2 cents.
If anyone watched NYPD Blue, do we remember the last Lieutenant of the 15th was a rigid, inflexible commander that everyone hated?? remember the show when his character was revealed to be gay, this was after Sipowicz found his credit card at a gay nightclub! The dialogue in the end of that show was something like him asking Sipowicz what does he intend to do with his newfound knowledge about his boss?? (the guy was ambitious) Sipowicz’s reply was one thing has nothing to do with the other. To memory that subject was never explored again..
My point is if a gay person is introduced to ST, there is NOTHING I can do about it!! If the producers slide it in delicately and dance away from it fine. Lets look at what Joel Schumacher did when he let his own sexuality run wild on Batman & Robin, it was a DISASTER!!! Let’s not detract from why we all watch the show, please. If TREK is all about sex, then lets turn the Enterprise into one big brothel and have interplanetary ORGIES!!
No disrepect intended!
Yes, #201. Please let’s not yell with upper case letters. I’m in favor of embracing all people. And all people are sinners. Being gay is just as bad as simply telling a lie. We should also not exchange wrong with wrong. Let’s speak the truth yes. But with care & consideration. My hope is that George can see his shock ways are only popular for a time. The proper way of behavior has been set in commands of our Creator. His gentle Grace is the proper power for change. Let’s all stand for Truth in its proper place. In the heart. Have Mercy on us all, Lord. And we need Trek as this uniting force. Why not show on Trek someone actually turning straight. We’ve always seen on the opposite. Not fair people. Live Long and prosper Truth, Justice, & Mercy. Love & Embrace everyone. Lead them to true peace & maturity within the proper lifestyle.
Two things have really upset me tonight, some peoples attitudes on here, and the washing machine leeking downstairs and soaking the Kitchen. Call me dull, boring etc etc but can’t people just accept all and get along?
all from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_characters_in_the_Star_Trek_universe
In 1987, series creator Gene Roddenberry stated that there would be gay characters in The Next Generation
“It is entirely fitting that gays and lesbians will appear unobtrusively aboard the Enterprise — neither objects of pity nor melodramatic attention.”
-Leonard Nimoy on LGBT in Star Trek
“Yes, there’s certainly some of that—certainly with love overtones. Deep love. The only difference being, the Greek ideal—we never suggested in the series—physical love between the two. But it’s the—we certainly had the feeling that the affection was sufficient for that, if that were the particular style of the 23rd century.”
-Gene Roddenberry on K/S
“It’s the 24th century. By that time nobody gives a s**t! It’s an issue of the 20th century and maybe the 19th century, but it has nothing to do with the 24th century. By that time it’s your choice of whoever you want.”
-Herbert Wright on LGBT in Star Trek: The Next Generation
219:
“Being gay is just as bad as simply telling a lie”?
Way to go with the embracing, there.
Spare me the religious trappings. When we look at history at the horrific things christians have done in the name of their god it sickens me that they want to put those ideals into Star Trek. And obviously Anthony isn’t checking these messages. Do you need help?
#219 – “Being gay is just as bad as simply telling a lie. ”
Oh cheers for that. Telling a lie is a choice. Being gay isn’t. You’re gay or your not, but it’s not a choice.
#220 – “Two things have really upset me tonight, some peoples attitudes on here, and the washing machine leeking downstairs and soaking the Kitchen. Call me dull, boring etc etc but can’t people just accept all and get along?”
Agreed!
#223
As opposed the horrific things done by people who called themselves humanists? Neither group can play the innocent in this.
#211 -Thank you. The voice of common sense is one rarely heard these days. Well said.
This thread is getting a bit out of hand. Now scripture is being quoted, as though that archaic medieval piece of superstitious toilet paper holds any water with most intelligent people anymore (except maybe those that still look up into the sky and think the sun is god, too). If you’re going to bring god to the table as a “defense” for why you should be allowed to hate another human being, at least pander to all the gods. Invoke Shiva and Zeus while you’re at it.
And try to remember, your god was the “prince of peace”, so follow your own rhetoric and be peaceful.
212. “Yes No. 42 – Good bye Trek & Disney both”
Just how many log-on names do you have going on on this thread?
“its just don’t work for Star Trek!” is essentially what you said (in broken english) as #5. 8472 – “No No No No No No No No No and No! its just dont work for Trek!” I assume you are also the person who posted as “Good Bye to Star Trek” earlier (since removed). Am I missing any?
Go troll somewhere else, please.
I do not have time to police this so i am closing it down.
a discussion about if and how trek could deal with gay characters is one thing. However, this is not a place to flame any group of people.
This thread is closed