THAT is what Trek meant to me *without* a gay character. Imagine what it could mean to young people if there *were* a gay character.

1. The very existence of a gay character is somehow an “in your face” statement

2. That the only way to portray gay people is by overt sexuality (and by the way, what the hell is wrong with a gay love scene like any other straight love scene?)

Here’s the deal. Star Trek has always been about progressive, open-minded values. In 2008, the absence of a gay character is extraordinarily conspicuous. Really. How likely do you think it is that hundreds of years in the future, no one will ever even make a casual reference to the very existence of gay people? Not an even the normal, everyday remarks like, “how’s your boyfriend” that are dropped in conversation? Not likely, folks. The days of gays as second-class citizens are drawing to a rapid close.

For those of you who think it’s “inappropriate” or “controversial” to even mention gay people, please, please step back and put yourselves in our shoes. Do you think the same thing when Riker makes a pass at Troi? Is it a “controversial” statement when Janeway makes a wistful remark about her fiancee lost at home? Really – think about what you’re saying.

We’re just people, damn it. We get up in the morning, we work, we date, we hold hands, we bring each other to dinner parties. The same staid, NORMAL, non-remarked-upon things you straight people do all the time. Those things don’t become “dirty” or “statements” except in the minds of people who are small-minded and need to have little more rationality and basic human empathy.

Stop saying the presence of gay people is offensive or unnecessary. THAT is what’s really offensive.

Another Tigers and Trek fan checking in here. My opinion of Mr. Pine just went up several points seeing him with the Ol’ English “D”.

That’s fine, except that it doesn’t really depict a gay character in Star Trek. All it does is confirm that homosexuality still exists in the future, and that it is accepted.

“And while an openly gay character would have been great, I would have settled for knowing that the Future accepts and includes us.”

I would argue that’s already been done.

When Jadzia Dax temporarily resumes her relationship with the wife of her former host, the fact that it is a same-sex relationship is never the issue. The issue is that an intimate relationship with the lover of a past host is taboo.

Even in her conversations with Ben Sisko over the relationship, the homosexual nature of it never once comes up.

In fact, Jadzia does not even feel awkward about that aspect of it herself (nor does the other Trill female for that matter), even though the rest of her relationships in the series are depicted as heterosexual.

The fact that the resumption of that relationship is homosexual is a non-issue. It can therefore be concluded that people do not even consider such things to be noteworthy by that time.

I guess I fail to see the difference between that and what you are suggesting.

“Should there be other lines where people announce they are _________ (fill in the blank), just so that everyone knows he/she is _________ (fill in the blank)?”

You mean, like this?

“Don’t tell me, you’re from outer space.”
“No, I’m from Iowa, I only work in outer space.”

As you can see, we already do this, and it’s called fleshing out the character. Except, for some reason, when it’s Kirk declaring he’s an Iowan, it’s a non-issue. This is part of the problem. Announcing a character’s sexuality in an offhand manner should similarly be considered a non-issue: instead, it is “in your face” and “unnecessary”.

I don’t need characters saying “GUESS WHAT BRIDGE CREW?! I’M GAY!” I want a line like “Lieutenant Smith, I heard your brother got married. Give him and his husband my congratulations.” Or, (female character walks into briefing) “Sorry, I’m late, Sir, I was playing nurse-maid to Elise.”

I don’t need scenes of wild, passionate sex, or long soap-opera eye gazing. I want to see extras of the same gender holding hands in a background shot. Something to suggest that society, while perhaps still heterosexually normative, has no problem with alternative sexuality. Star Trek hasn’t said that yet, not in a way that has stuck.

Instead, we are told, through visual and dialogue cues, that the Future it still virulently straight. In a show that, as is my understanding, prides itself on its progressivism, this is a problem. There are lots of gay teenagers who are Star Trek fans. I was one of them. And while an openly gay character would have been great, I would have settled for knowing that the Future accepts and includes us.

My wife and niece certainly have.

#78—-”I like how this list consists of actors who are all in upcoming Paramount releases, and compiled onto a Paramount produced entertainment show. I love Hollywood propaganda.”

Last time I checked, Tony Romo had nothing to do with Paramount…Did I miss something? Did Jerry Jones suddenly buy the studio?