JJ Abrams: Story Comes First For Star Trek Sequel + Open To Gay Character | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams: Story Comes First For Star Trek Sequel + Open To Gay Character August 4, 2011

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

While doing publicity this week for his upcoming TV shows and Super 8 (which opens this week in the UK and elsewhere in Europe), Star Trek sequel producer (and possible director) JJ Abrams has given an update on script progress, his thoughts on directing and even the notion of gay characters in the next Trek. Details below.


Abrams: Story comes first for Star Trek sequel

Star Trek sequel producer (and possible director) JJ Abrams spoke brielfy with IGN at a CBS TCA party (his new CBS show Person of Interest premieres this fall). He gave an update on the Star Trek sequel status and why they are being cagey about dates, focusing instead on getting the script right:

There have been a lot of things that we’ve been working on, a lot of important elements that we just know we need to really nail down and solve. Once you say, “We’re ready to go, but we don’t have a finished script yet,” or “I’m directing the thing and here’s the release date, but we don’t have a finished script,” what starts to happen – and I’ve seen this happen with a lot of friends of mine – is that you’re suddenly in production on a movie that they’re thinking, “Oh my god, we weren’t really ready. We thought we’d get it done in time, but we didn’t.” So, while we have a moment to say, “Let’s get the important things figured out,” then all the pre-production stuff will come. But, I just want to make sure that we’re putting the story and the characters, the cast and the crew, and most importantly the audience, first before we start talking about exactly which locations we’re going to be shooting at and what the wardrobe and visual effects budgets are. It just seems important
that we get the important stuff right first.

Abrams also noted that the studio are being supportive, saying they "have been great" and all they care about is getting a good movie.

Abrams jealous of any other Trek director

Abrams continues to say that the decision on if he will or will not direct has not been made, but he tells The Guardian:

The idea of someone else saying ‘action’ to those actors in those characters on that [Star Trek] set makes me jealous.

Abram will consider gay character

The site After Elton continues its campaign to promote the idea of having a gay character in Star Trek. They also had a chance to speak to Abrams about the idea and Abrams seemed open to it  but non-committal:

I would say that it is, you know, something that I would love to do, but just the way I would be careful doing a story that would involve any of the characters and their personal lives. The balance is always, what how does that story relate to sort of the bad guy, which by the way is always going to be that critical thing, what are they up against? The question how do you get into literally these are personal sexual lives of these characters? Like what is that going to be about. I don’t know who’s assuming characters aren’t gay or are gay.

But Abrams also said he would throw the idea "into the hopper" and bring it up at his next meeting with the writers.

JJ Abrams with Zachary Quinto on the set of "Star Trek"


POLL: Time for gay character in Star Trek?

So is it time for an openly gay character in Star Trek?.

Gay character in Star Trek sequel?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...




1. Harry Ballz - August 4, 2011

I just pray they come up with a compelling, dramatic story!

2. John Trowbridge - August 4, 2011

I hope JJ directs! First

3. That One Guy - August 4, 2011

Okay… I’m gay. Don’t go making gay characters for the sake of making gay characters. If it works, fine. Battlestar did a fantastic job of having them/us.

Too many shows nowadays have characters who are like “OH! I’m gay! My whole role in this show is to be the stereotypical gay man! PAY ATTENTION TO ME! I’M NEEDY! GIVE ME AN APPLETINI!!!!”

Irks me to death….

We live our lives. We are no different. The only way I could, and frankly SHOULD, ever see a gay character in Trek is:

SPOCK: How is Rick?
GUY: He’s fine. And Uhura?
SPOCK: She is also doing quite well. As you were.
GUY: Aye, sir.


rabble rabble rabble rabble

4. Dac - August 4, 2011

All they have to do is come up with something that at least makes sense. No wonder the Khan and Borg scripts got rejected simply because they were Khan and Borg scripts….

5. Spockanella - August 4, 2011

3. What you said.

6. I. Montoya - August 4, 2011

Gay, straight, human, alien… who the eff cares!! IDIC, son!

7. *into the bushes* - August 4, 2011

Spot on #3.

8. John - August 4, 2011

I was going to comment but That One Guy summed up everything I wanted to say. Thanks whoever you are.

9. dennycranium - August 4, 2011

@#3- What you said!

10. TheKeeper - August 4, 2011

I’m gay also, I don’t see what difference it would make in the film if only for a few lines of indirect un-needed dialogue…and Saints Preserve Us if only for a moment of comic relief!!!

Also the “After Elton” site should understand that adding a gay character would better be suited for any future TV series where they can carefully develop a back ground for him or her. A motion picture after all couldn’t dwell on the subject for very long given the two hour window of telling the main story.

11. David Fell - August 4, 2011

I would think that by the 23rd century no one would be concerned. If a romantic relationship makes a good Star Trek story, I don’t care who it’s between. But if it’s not a good story, do something else.

12. John - August 4, 2011


I love what JJ is doing but Trek is always best in a TV setting in general. Can’t wait.

13. tony morris - August 4, 2011

we need not bring 21st century issues to the 23rd century, i mean its not going to bring more fans to the cinamas. It will probally keep most @ home. Be smart people, dont do this.

14. Corinthian7 - August 4, 2011

It’s really quite embarrassing that for a show that pushed the boundaries in the sixties, Trek still hasn’t had a significant gay character. However what I would not like to see is characters that have been written as not gay for 45 years suddenly coming out of the closet. Its likely with the new movies that actors will move on (at least after the two movies they’re contracted to) and be replaced by new characters. If they do introduce a gay character then this would be the easiest away.

15. Corinthian7 - August 4, 2011

It’s really quite embarrassing that for a show that pushed the boundaries in the sixties, Trek still hasn’t had a significant gay character. However what I would not like to see is characters that have been written as not gay for 45 years suddenly coming out of the closet. Its likely with the new movies that actors will move on (at least after the two movies they’re contracted to) and be replaced by new characters. If they do introduce a gay character then this would be the easiest away.

16. mike - August 4, 2011

as long as it is lesbians ;)

17. Jack - August 4, 2011

3. Indeed. Wait, who was gay on BSG? Just the girls, no?

But, agreed. Just a line. (about the amazing scientist — I worked with his husband on Ganjitsu… or, her wife has a great rack). But better and less obvious…

18. jas_montreal - August 4, 2011

I’m looking at the poll numbers.

How far have we travelled and how far we’ve gotten… (sarcasm)

I don’t even know why ppl would reject the idea of a gay character. Its the FUTURE everyone…. Not the 1940’s…

19. Snugglepuff - August 4, 2011

OMG I hope there are no gay characters. They would totally ruin trek for me.

20. Tazzeh - August 4, 2011

How can having gay characters ruin it? There are gay characters in lots of shows and movies and it doesn’t do damage. Makes it more accepting but it doesn’t have to be the focal point.

@SnugglePuff: Homophobic retard.

21. Christopher Roberts - August 4, 2011

Given the jokes about hicks in the sticks, and their physical love for farmyard animals. Or jokes about ample nacelles. I kinda fear the worst in how it would be handled.

Some flamingly camp guy constantly singing showtunes no doubt. Not taking into account that stereotype exists, is often straight and just has an out-there personality and likes a catchy tune.

22. Mikeypikey - August 4, 2011

Aww snugglepuff lol go play with your lightsabre

23. Christopher Roberts - August 4, 2011

Subtlety in my view, would be to get an audience to see two guys (or two girls) married and then it’s like, so what? One partner is killed in an attack like in “Balance of Terror” and the Captain’s responsibility to say a few words of comfort.

24. Enterprisingguy - August 4, 2011

JJ Abrams: “There have been a lot of things that we’ve been working on, a lot of important elements that we just know we need to really nail down and solve.”

So in other words….they don’t have a script with a working plot and won’t have one anytime soon!

Why else would he STILL not know if he wants to direct this? Does he have that little faith in his pals ability to write a good story?

25. VZX - August 4, 2011

I think a gay character would work better on a Trek TV series than a Trek movie.

I also don’t understand why Abrams is being vague about if he directs or not. My guess it’s more about how much he’ll get paid and less about story.

26. njdss4 - August 4, 2011

I agree with #3 completely. I don’t mind if they put a gay character into Trek, but they should do it only if it works with the story. Purposely shoehorning an over-the-top gay character into the movie just to say “HEY LOOK WE’RE NOT MEAN TO GAYS CUZ WE PUT ONE IN OUR MOVIE” isn’t a good idea. I would suggest it be done like it was in Star Trek Phase II (the fan series) episode “Blood and Fire”. I thought that was handled well.

27. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - August 4, 2011

I am all for having the Story and the Fans First before anything else. Sounds like J.J will be directing which is a good thing. As far as Gay. Only if it is good for the Story. like others. I don;t want to see Gay just to say. Hey. Trek had a Gay Person. It has to work for the Story or don’t do it.

28. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - August 4, 2011

But. If they want to have 2 really Hot Red Shirt Lesbian Girls. Well. I can go for that.

29. That One Guy - August 4, 2011


Felix and Gaeta were together, up until the mutiny.

30. CanOpener1256 - August 4, 2011

Let’s get a story first …. NO MORE DISTRACTIONS! I want an excellent sci-fiction story, not Stargate Universe SOAP-OPERA. I don’t care about their sex lives or that their marriage at home sucks. If I wanted that, I would watch the SLOP on TV already. I want sci-fiction, adventure, battles, lives hanging in the balances, tribbles, etc. So FOCUS, O mighty Supreme Court less every group demand equal time.

Unless its between Uhuru and an Orion slave girl. Then I’m totally in. :)

31. AHM - August 4, 2011

The whole first movie was more about Kirk and Spock’s relationship than Nero; it’s hardly a stretch to make the sequel about them falling in love while aliens beat the shit out of them.
I don’t think a throw-away line or character would do it for me—it’s too much of an off-hand thing, throwing a bone to a minority.
I vote K/S goes public, they’ve had fifty years too many in the closet.

32. frank - August 4, 2011

One of the things with Trek, is that it never focused on everyone’s differences. Uhura didn’t come on the bridge and be a Black Lady, she was just a lady. Sulu was not some cookie cutter Asian guy, he was just a guy. Spock was Alien, but he was treated no differently. So I think it’s problematic introducing a gay character into a 2 hour movie that is really about these 8 characters – The 7 crew, and the Enterprise, and their ongoing Space Adventures and Social Commentary. The only way to really do it would be to take some existing 1 or 2 off crewperson that was known from the show, Like Riley or Kyle, and have some 1 line reference to a partner, or watching the dancing guys on Rigel 9 or something in a bar type conversation, But to never make that what the person is all about.
I always wonder what groups want such a character to look like or represent.

33. Ripped Shirt Kirk - August 4, 2011

W*F, this is Star Trek not a soap opera, there is no need to introduce a gay character just for the sake of it because certainly him/her sexual preference will not have no impact on the story.

And this has nothing to do with being gay, because I equally loathe at Spock/Uhura relation as it makes no sense whatsoever and in nothing contributed to the 2009 story except making them look bad.

If this is done then for me nuTrek will be dead an burried just like new voyager are.In it while there was no relatationships even if straights ones it was great but then they had to bring gay characters just because it looked hip and cool.

34. Joe - August 4, 2011

@ Tazzeh

Homophobia implies fear of gays. We do not fear them, we do not hate them. We simply do not approve of the lifestyle. There is a difference.

35. Thomas - August 4, 2011

I can’t vote in the poll because none of the possible responses apply to my feelings on this issue. As a heterosexual male, I’ve never objected to the presence of gay characters in Trek, but my concern is pretty well expressed by That One Guy; that is, that Hollywood has never really figured out how to portray LGBT characters in a manner that wasn’t “hey, look at us” hamfisted or over-the-top flamboyant.

By the way, wasn’t malcolm Reed on ENT supposed to be openly gay? Whatever happened with that?

36. That One Guy - August 4, 2011


Nix that, Gaeta and Hoshi were together. There we go.

37. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - August 4, 2011

I really do not care about the Gay stuff. Just get us a Story that will blow us all away.

38. I'm Dead Jim! - August 4, 2011

@29 Wasn’t that relationship closely covered only in the webisodes?

39. Browncoat1984 - August 4, 2011

I’m sorry, but if a political group like After Elton gets their way and has a gay character in Trek, then it’ll be there just for the sake of being there and that’s ALL that character will be about. Almost 99.99% of the time when a sci-fi show does a gay/lesbian character that’s all you know/care about the character.

I really like Aaron Ashmore’s new character on Warehouse 13 because he’s gay, but that’s not what he’s about. Any other TV show *cough* SGU *cough* you would see him hook up with another guy, probably even one of the main cast members within 1-2 episodes and you would see them making out. I fear that a gay character in a Star Trek movie would be just that…

Now, if Trek were episodic and they wanted to do a gay character, I probably wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it as long as they handled it the same way Warehouse 13 has – we know it but its not front and center about that character – but the movies should stay away from it. Period. Because I don’t go to the movies wanting to see a gay character, who, chances are will be a new character I won’t care about, I go wanting to see the characters I love on a new adventure.

40. That One Guy - August 4, 2011

Exactly. Who the hell cares what they did in their free time? There are countless on-ship romances in any series that we don’t see. Take Harry and the Delani sisters. Though, Harry is not exactly a good reference when it comes to romance… or character development….

41. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 4, 2011

Kirk and Spock simply become very good friends. How is platonic friendship a bad thing or considered less than other kinds of relationships?

They are not friends with benefits. At the moment Uhura appears to provide that for Spock and he for her and well, for Kirk…he just needs to meet (my Menosian character) Jasmia!

Perhaps Dr McCoy might develop a more intimate connection with another male friend (not Kirk or Spock), something he did not expect to happen… how long it lasts, where it leads – who knows?

42. Kertrats - August 4, 2011


Felix and Gaeta were together? Wasn’t his name… Felix Gaeta? Who is this other Felix? I don’t remember that at all…

43. Kertrats - August 4, 2011

Whoops, sorry, didn’t read far enough down the thread. My bad! Ignore the above!

44. Buzz Cagney - August 4, 2011

41. You are joking, right?

45. Christopher Roberts - August 4, 2011

35. “By the way, wasn’t malcolm Reed on ENT supposed to be openly gay? Whatever happened with that?”

It was mooted when the series got launched, and I could’ve bought that. Reserved character, secretive who turned out to have a Section 31 past. He often got a bit too excited and interested in what kind of weaponary the aliens they encountered we’re packing.

I doubt Dominic Keating would’ve had a problem with playing an openly gay character.

However halfway through Season One, that was basically nixed. “Shuttlepod One” revealed he had a relationship with a woman at the 602 club. Ruby. To add some extra tension to the two guys being trapped in a confined space, running out of air – it was revealed to be the same person Trip had been seeing for a while.

46. Buzz Cagney - August 4, 2011

#45 as Marty said in Frasier… ‘he’s English, they all sound gay’ !!! lol

47. Jeyl - August 4, 2011

Aww, man. More no votes than yes votes? Seems like we have a ways yet to go.

48. Jeyl - August 4, 2011

And don’t forget redlettermedia’s Star Trek review on how the writers planted many subtle lines of dialogue to explain how none of the characters are actually gay.

Case of the “NOT GAYS”.

49. Obsidian - August 4, 2011

41 – No.

3 – Amen, brother. People are just people. If one happens to be gay, it doesn’t have to be a big deal. Torchwood does that pretty well with Capt. Jack.

Speaking of Torchwood, why is it that I tried Dr. Who, can’t stand it, but I like Torchwood? (I came to Torchwood first, and figured since it’s a Dr. Who spinoff, logic suggests that I’d like Dr. Who as well. Didn’t happen.)

50. Christopher Roberts - August 4, 2011

46. Yeah, there’s that too. The US often looks at British TV and mistakes a lot of actors for that. While John Barrowman is simply rugid, manly and a fine All-American guy they like to go roughousing with! :)

51. The 76th Distillation of Blue - August 4, 2011

Enough allready with these blasted interviews in which they just keep reiterating the same ol thing.
instead of talking about not being ready yet, perhaps they should focuse themself on getting to the point that they are ready.

I would seriously stop complaining about the delay if they would quit doing interview after interview about how they arent ready and dont want to rush yada yada yada.
I would still be disapointed in having to wait but i would not be openingly complaining every day,

52. -H- - August 4, 2011

About gay characters, IMHO, it’s time to include them ‘a la Gene’. Let me explain.

In TOS we saw a multicultural crew, working together, without putting the action into how the potential conflicts of multiculturality were resolved in the past. So we had Uhura –black and woman on the bridge–, Chekov –a russian despite in the real world there still was a cold war–, Sulu –a japanese–, Scotty –a scotish– and Spock –a vulcan– among others. The Enterprise was, indeed, an Earth metaphore, remember?

Star Trek needs that again. And that implies a gay or bisexual character –or “omnisexual”, like Captain Jack Harkness in Torchwood–, and the crew opened to other cultures never seen before on the bridge –arabic, chinese, hispanic, etc.–

So, how introduce a gay/bisexual character in Star Trek? Imagine an away mission, where a crew man just kiss his/her/its partner before going to the transporter, dating for later, maybe dinner. Not disrrupting the story, no taking the action, just acting NORMALLY.

PS: I’d love to see again Janice Rand on the bridge, and she can be introduced like in the previous example, just taking notes on captain orders. I think these are simple examples enough to make my point.

53. Phil - August 4, 2011

Wait a minute, did I miss something? The guy with the British accent was gay?

54. Mikeypikey - August 4, 2011

More no votes than yes? Lol don’t be jealous that some of us are getting some, whether it be with the opposite or same sex! Star Trek used to tackle issues in the sixties, not so much in the nineties or noughties, hence a lot of people stopped watching.

55. Buzz Cagney - August 4, 2011

#50 wasn’t Barrowman born in the UK and is he not actually gay?

56. Andrews - August 4, 2011

Wow, I can’t believe 38% of respondents are against a gay character.

So what, a black woman and a Russki on the bridge in the early 60’s is fine, but a gay character in 2011 is ~pandering~ or ~too much~ or ~trendy PCness~? Don’t you think the same arguments were used against Uhura and Chekov back then? Roddenberry would be disappointed in you guys, I think.

Anyway, I vote reboot-Sulu. He was born after Nero messed with the space-time continuum, so he’s not the same character who had a daughter in TOS (not that that would preclude him from being gay, but people like to find reasons to object), and it would be a nice tribute to George Takei. :)

57. Obsidian - August 4, 2011

55 – Barrowman is openly gay.

58. Obsidian - August 4, 2011

56 – Well, if you include the maybe/subtle, you might have a majority. I voted “maybe if it’s subtle.” There really should have been a “yes if it’s subtle” option.

59. Andrews - August 4, 2011

58 — 39% say flat-out no.

60. Basement Blogger - August 4, 2011

Sigh. Yawn. First, J.J. Abrams is an excellent director, but I don’t believe he really gets Star Trek. I know Jack gets mad when I cite the evidence that say what I’m going to point out so if you don’t believe me check out Entertaiment Weekly. Here it is. Abrams didn’t make Star Trek (2009)) for fans of Star Trek. He thought Star Trek was too talky. He preferred Star Wars over Star Trek.

What would help in this difficult time, is for Abrams and the Supreme Court to tell the science fiction world that they understand Star Trek and care about it. Abrams could for example, host a TOS “best of”, and he could talk about say the philosophy benind the action packed but deep “The Doomsday Machine.” Embracing Star Trek would helpful for the fans. For example, Harve Bennett knew very little of Star Trek but watched all the TOS episodes. He got it.

61. Anthony Pascale - August 4, 2011

RE: all the new quotes from team
Bear in mind that the Star Trek team are not doing Star Trek interviews. They are out promoting other things and people keep asking them about Star Trek.

They wont be actually doing real Star Trek/Paramount promotional interviews for a very long time.

RE: Gay
I would be cool with something as that is fitting with Trek tradition, but i also agree that it shouldn’t be a big deal, just like it probably isn’t a big deal in the 23rd century to be gay.

62. Rusty0918 - August 4, 2011

It all depends on how it’s done.

There’s very little doubt in my mind that JJ will direct the sequel.

63. Christopher Roberts - August 4, 2011

55. Yes, he’s Scottish and lost the accent, being raised in the States. And yes, he is gay. He’s a bit of campaigner with it. In interviews making an issue out of it and making his opinion known about actors who chose to stay in the closet, for fear of how it would affect their established image in Hollywood. It’s always been that way hasn’t it? Going a lot further back than Rock Hudson.

One look at the split in opinion over this poll, suggests why they do it. One more barrier to be broken… and it’s all make believe – the actor’s private life between them and whoever they spend their lives with. On screen they could be toting a gun like a fashion accessory one week and playing a fashion designer the week after.

64. Captain Karl - August 4, 2011

What irks me is that we have to label every dang thing these days…what does it matter what a person’s sexual, religious or color preference is? What does it matter, really? Will we have a cannibal character? Will we have a character that perhaps has a foot fetish? Into leather? Likes to have all their food not touching…yanno, OCD? What does it matter? If the person is an intelligent, strong, dynamic character, it doesn’t affect me in the least what their sexual preference is…let’s not have something, just for the sake of having it…it devalues that character, it pigeonholes them, puts them in a cubbyhole of stereotype, and that is always wrong.

65. TrekMadeMeWonder - August 4, 2011

Why is it relevant what a Star Trek character does in bed? Why would it make it to the silver screen?

I’m sorry but it would have to be a major part of the story to be of any relevance. And just why would it be relevant in the first place?

How about the 1st Star Trek Hermaphrodite? Where is that character?
Its never been done. Is it relevant? More so than a gay character, IMHO.

66. Andrew - August 4, 2011

Flat out yes.

67. trekker 5 - August 4, 2011

Ah JJ!! I love to hear from you!! I am glad that your jealous my friend!! Give’s me the hope that you will take that chair for this movie!! :) As far as the gay character thing,Idon’t really care. I mean,have one,don’t have one;it does not matter to me,I just want some Trek!!

68. miguelito1701 - August 4, 2011

OMG the amount of nay-sayers. Really interested in their opinion, especially if it are trekkies.

69. Canon Schmanon - August 4, 2011

It’s fine with me, as long as they don’t take screen time away from the main crew. With four years between films, I’d like to see as much of the regulars as possible.

70. miguelito1701 - August 4, 2011

@65 nobody was talking about seeing them “in bed” A cry of a male con officer boyfriend when a “red shirt” dies would be enough, wouldn´t it?

71. SoonerDave - August 4, 2011

Regarding the poll numbers….perhaps there are people who still hold strong personal, moral objections to the “gay lifestyle,” but know there will be little or no tolerance of those positions here….so they simply vote, and move on.

72. The Dude - August 4, 2011

Clearly, what great story telling needs is gayness. Star Wars could have been improved if Chewie was gay. The King’s Speech would have been incredible if the king was gay…….seriously Hollywood, just tell great stories and quit trying to achieve your idea of social justice through cinema.

73. Mikeypikey - August 4, 2011

Everybody knew chewy was gay, especially Han

74. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 4, 2011

Yes, John Barrowman was born in the UK, Scotland I believe. His parents moved to the States when he was a small boy. He is an openly gay actor who lives in the UK.

Oh dear. You guys no likey my idea for Bones McCoy… Aww I am mortified…:(

Mind you, Karl Urban has proven he can play a gay character. One of the first television appearances he made was in a NZ show called Shortland Street, where he played a recurring character, a gay paramedic called Jamie Forrest and boy was he ever such a cute “gay boy”. Whoa!

75. Captain Bryan - August 4, 2011

@6 Bravo! IDIC, indeed! If there is to be a gay character ( and why not?), let it be done very matter of factly. People are gay- deal with it. Surely in the enlightened future of Trek, sexual orientation is not an issue.

76. Adrienne - August 4, 2011

So many comments here are disgusting, particularly ones suggesting that social justice isn’t something to seek in Star Trek.

Considering Gene tried telling morality tales, you’d think social justice would be an important thing to consider instead of the feelings of the privileged idiots who think there is something wrong with wanting diversity in fiction.

I hope the vast majority of people commenting here are not trekkies or else I’m really let down. I find it absurd that fans of a series that took to heart a view of the world where people could unite and accomplish great things could find fault with including gay characters.

77. Denise Dion - August 4, 2011

I also agree with what someone said…you really do need a background for the couple..you can’t just put them in the film for show….a t.v. series would be perfect…And I think it would distract us from the main plot.

78. TrekMadeMeWonder - August 4, 2011


Chewie was a family man, and a (apparently) Christian.
Life Day? C’mon. We know what it was celebrating.
Did’nt you see the Star Wars Christmas Special?


79. Karen Brown - August 4, 2011

I think the story should always be first. It IS a movie, not a series, there’s only so much background you can do. But I would love to see it portrayed organically. Not as a big plot point because, by the 23rd/24th Century, I hope, it won’t BE a big deal. It should be seen as just part of normal life and mentioned, in context, the way any relationship would be in the normal course of the plot.

80. Izmunuti - August 4, 2011

Btw, if you want more Trek with gay characters, don’t forget the fan-made Star Trek Phase II episode “Blood and Fire.” I just watched it recently, and it’s pretty good!

Official website:

It’s also on youtube.

81. Karen Brown - August 4, 2011

Oh, and btw, Star Trek has already done various alternative sexes, etc, when dealing with various aliens. There’s the symbiotes who go from one host to another, which has them changing their sex, and they did another where being asexual was the norm, and showing a particular gender was seen as abnormal. (Both of those were on the Next Generation.)

82. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 4, 2011

Just look at how the poll is all over the place. It seems a lot of people are voting on this issue. When I look at the results, more people are in favour of there being a gay character than not, whereas before the reverse was true an hour or so before… I might as well be looking at a “Shat or no Shat?” poll. We are all over the bleedin’ place and some of us wonder why the script is taking so long…:) There seems to be nothing definitive about our answers, ie either a good majority Yes or a good majority No, on any poll taken about anything.

If any of the Bad Robot team are reading this site, (we already know one does) then I can see some hair pulling going on, although I’m not sure where Damon Lindelof would need to go to find hair… We would like these guys to accommodate what we each consider our most important whim. There is even difficulty in fairly defining the words, “Make it a good movie!”


83. Pizza - August 4, 2011

I feel as a fan like a bride waiting at the altar, while the groom JJ is off having way too much fun at the bachelor party and forgetting he has a bride at the altar.

I Jeffrey Jacob do take …. where’s the bride?

84. Captain Bryan - August 4, 2011

I thought the relationship in “Blood and Fire” was very well done… it is no different than a plot with a man/woman relationship.

85. Sebastian S. - August 4, 2011


Well said. It shouldn’t be done for the sake of window dressing, but yeah it IS past due.

86. red dead ryan - August 4, 2011

I voted yes for a gay character. It doesn’t need to be heavy handed, it could be a same-sex couple holding hands in the background and saying hi to the captain as he passes by, or it could be a gay man mourning the loss of his boyfriend with the captain consoling him in a brief scene. Just something to acknowledge the fact that gays exist, in the real world, in the 23rd century, and in the Trek fan community.


Nice try. If you had said that you didn’t approve of someone being of a different race, you’d be a bigot and a racist. So when you say you don’t approve of a gay lifestyle, you’ve made it clear that it is a big deal to you and you don’t like it, meaning that you do fear homosexuality. So you are clearly a homophobe, no matter how you try to spin it, or deny it.

87. Bob Tompkins - August 4, 2011

Had Sulu not had a daughter in ‘Generations’ I’d say he would have been the perfect obvious choice. Everyone in the original series had their shot at heterosexual romance, so the only way it could be done is with a new character. With each of the main characters needing their ‘moment’ in the new movie, it would have to be, as 86 put it, a cameo appearance or a 2 1/2 to 3 hour movie. I’d rather it happen in a series with a fully developed new character…. and I would say it is a ‘must have’.

88. JP Saylor - August 4, 2011

Some one let #3 direct this movie. XD

89. 3m - August 4, 2011

Imagine a scene in a sickbay. A Gay comes with a broken arm or sth. When bones takes care of him, he shows some affection for the doctor. So Bones adds something to his medicine and a week later he is cured. Because 1. In 23 all human disfunctions/diseases are said to be curable. 2. Kirk has enough trouble with women and wouldn’t tolerate a Gay character on board.

90. Robert H. - August 4, 2011

It’s an excellent philosophy to put the story before the effects. Or else you have the Star Wars prequels.

And 35% say no to gay characters, so much for looking towards the future.

91. Jack - August 4, 2011

88. Agreed.

34. There is no ‘gay lifestyle,’ really (yes, some people go to bars, some have families, some are into rockclimbing, some are monogamous, some don’t want a relationship etc. etc) … and, yeah, it has nothing to do with you, or me. Who are you/we to approve of who someone else is physically and/or emotionally involved with? Who cares what you or I approve of?

To paraphrase – ‘I’m not afraid of it — I just don’t approve’ Although I don’t know what there is to approve of. Again. It’s voluntary — no one’s ever going to make you do anything you don’t want to. And in reality, homophobia refers to general bigotry against gays, not just fear. Sexism, racism, homophobia — they’re are all part of the same family, I think.

Nor is it (putting gay characters on screen) promoting an agenda or anything else, it’s a reflection of reality

No soapbox. Although, I am troubled by this attitude (although, it’s nice to see people speaking their minds) on this site. It’s Star Trek, for Pete’s sake. IDIC, anyone? It looks like we still have a long way to go.

And, I still like the idea of a gayish Chekov. Not sure why. And again, like everyone’s been saying — it doesn’t have to be an epic romance. Heck, they could have had a couple holding hands in Ten Forward on TNG years ago (although, in plenty of cultures now, like Korea, men holding hands, and even publicly cuddling, is common and doesn’t mean they’re gay).

And, I wonder if the poll results reflect — “we don’t like gay”

92. red dead ryan - August 4, 2011


You’re an idiot.

93. Sebastian S. - August 4, 2011


Wow. That’s some scary ignorance you decided to shared with us. The notion that homosexuality is a ‘disease’ that requires a ‘cure’ is even being laughed out of fundamentalist circles these days…

94. j11512 - August 4, 2011

@SnugglePuff: You have Morals. As I do. Please No Gay Character. That would ruin trek for me too

95. Darryl - August 4, 2011

If a gay character helps devleopment of the story, no problem. But if it’s wedged in just to make a political statement, then I say hell no. Do it right, give it meaning, or don’t go there at all. Keep it Roddenberry people. Story matters first.

96. red dead ryan - August 4, 2011


You have no morals.

97. JP - August 4, 2011

#95: A cynic would argue that Star Trek has been “wedging in” political statements since day one.

98. Tazzeh - August 4, 2011

So for those who say “why would sexuality matter?” Or “we don’t need relationships to be defined”
Could you please explain to me why then they decided to have Spock and Uhura together when there is no chemistry between them?!
I know Uhura no longer serves her purpose of strong female in a time of society thinking women can only wash dishes and black people aren’t very smart but did she really have to be reduced to the “girlfriend”?
I’m not saying she should be forever alone but it didn’t matter if she was dating anyone because she was awesome all on her own.
And I know Gene originally wanted the interracial kiss to be between Spock and Uhura but he also wanted Spock to have red skin and a forked tail.
Spock and Kirk have an amazing chemistry and whether they want to keep it as a deep friendship or not is cool with me but it any established characters would fit together better it would be them.
I can see how THAT relationship would be relevant since they’re always out to save each others necks all the time and DON’T tell me it’s because they’re just good friends.
How many men look at each other like Kirk and Spock do? How many men are comfortable having heart to heart talks with other men?
How many men (who are straight) can say any of these things?

99. Captain Bryan - August 4, 2011

I cannot believe how intolerant that some Star Trek fans, of all people, can be… do I dare be ashamed to be a trekkie?

100. Buzz Cagney - August 4, 2011

3M @89 you clearly don’t know your Trek or Kirk. Read the TMP novel. In it Kirk explains how he ignored the whispers that he and Spock were ‘an item’ and he had no problem or difficulty with any form of loving or lovemaking (i’m paraphrasing just a little as I can’t recall the exact wording) though he himself loved women.

It is sad how some people can call themself a Trek fan yet appear not to have learned the lessons the show is trying to teach them.
Most notably tolerance.

That being said if they do choose to include a gay character I hope they don’t use the Will and Grace type of stereotype. I’m sure they won’t, but I don’t want to see a mincing red shirt eyeing up the new recruits!

Wasn’t there some suggestion that Hawk in First Contact was gay? Not sure where I read or heard that though.

101. NCM - August 4, 2011

Trek nudged the envelope on behalf of minorities and women. It would be aprosos to do so now on behalf of the last minority against which our country yet institutionalizes discrimination.

An episode in a series which subtly addressed the issue would serve better than a film, but… But if the movie subtly demonstrated that in the 23rd century much more leeway’s given to sexual preference, I think it could make the film more authentic and would honor Trek’s forward reaching legacy.

History repeats itself, and a return to earlier Greek mores may be partially underway — with women leading the way. “Slash” appears to have a growing consumer base – even if no one’s making money on it, yet; Researchers note a trend among 40-something women to, for the first time, engage in same sex relationships after having heretofore lived hetero. lifestyles; and anecdotally, it seems young American woman, if not men, too, are more experimental with respect to sexual ‘crossover’ exploration than ever before.

102. Odkin - August 4, 2011

I love the “tolerance” that’s being exhibited by the “disappearing” of certain critical postings.

103. Thunderbubble - August 4, 2011

Hey there, first time posting on a website. Ever. So if i get this wrong i’m sorry.

I’ve been discussing this very subject with my husband and we both think it would be an awesome nod to George Takei to make Sulu gay in the new Trek movie.

Just wanted to throw that out there and see the reaction.

104. Anthony Pascale - August 4, 2011

89. 3m

105. Toothless Grishnar Cat - August 4, 2011

What’s the point in throwing in gay characters just for the sake of doing it? Is it at all meaningful, does it convey a message? Or is it just because it’s popular, buzz-generating, etc.?

If they decide to do it, it would be preferable to portray it similarly to how Uhura/Sulu/Chekov were shown on TOS. If you’ll recall, aside from one or two throwaway lines in the course of 79 episodes, they weren’t trumpeting their differences proclaiming “Hey, I’m black/Asian/Russian! Look at me! I’m an adorable cultural idiosyncrasy!” They just existed. This is an example of how saying nothing can communicate so much more than saying a great deal.

106. NCM - August 4, 2011


I think you’re on to something. In the 23rd, willful stupidity is curable, too. The process is simple. Doctor instructs ignoranus (sic) to bend over, then dons non-latex gloves and squeezes out a little lube. Go screw yourself.

107. Reign1701A - August 4, 2011

All you gotta do is show two dudes or two women holding hands in the rec room or something. Do that, at least.

108. Harry Ballz - August 4, 2011

To the 3ms of the world…………

people are BORN gay and, remember, God doesn’t make mistakes.

109. Odkin - August 4, 2011

There are 3 choices, none of which come with any moral judgement:
Voluntary Choice
Genetic error
Psychological issue

Pick one. I suspect that few here believe it to be a psych problem or a choice.

If it’s genetic, and someone prefers not to be homosexual, who are you to deny that person a “cure”?

110. CarlG - August 4, 2011

Imagine they had online polls back in the 60’s, and they asked people how they felt about Uhura (OMGBlack!!!), or Chekov (OMGCommie!!), or Number One (OMGBroadInCharge!!!)?

I would bet my life savings that the responses would be depressingly familiar.

111. Michael - August 4, 2011

If they add gay characters they cannot do what the Hidden Frontier fan series did: make 95% of their storyline about them being gay or discovering their sexuality. As a gay man that was incredibly irritating. In the 24th sexuality won’t be an issue (at least within the Trek universe) so why make a massive song and dance about it, give them some depth not just characters who were all about being gay

112. thegermanmatthias - August 5, 2011

They know what they do and they are are superb team. BUT… I am an amateur-writer and know, a story feeld never like being “perfect”. On every story you could make changes always. It is never “ready” in that sense. I hope, they do not too much!

Gay character? Alas, in Star Trek … why not? But it is not a “Freedom for Gay People” series, it is just a story about a time in which we have no longer problems with people who are or think a little different. So, why not?

Hey, People, how would it be if we are making a big world-wide pary, when they really begin to go into production?



113. Robert H. - August 5, 2011

Not just regular gay characters, in fact I think looking into New Voyages for a regular gay couple would be interesting.

One thing I would like to see is you know that the Vulcan salute is suppose to be thumb out:


But some have them thumb in:


I would like to see that as being a Vulcan version of flipping the bird:


114. thegermanmatthias - August 5, 2011

#3 I agree! That is exactly what I meant.

115. Captain Lonestar - August 5, 2011

Come on…. This is STAR TREK! NOT Brokeback Mountain… Or should I say BROKETREK GALAXY….

Personally, I’m getting a little tired of the “token” homosexual on tv shows and movies…..

116. Captain Hornblower - August 5, 2011

I vote for Chekov being gay.

117. Trekboi - August 5, 2011

I am Gay & I want a Gay character on Star trek no matter how token.
because I just want to prove that we made it into Gene Roddenberys star trek dream/universe.

I love Star trek & I deserve to see me in that world like all the black people & asian people & every other minority that have been given a place in that beautiful furure.

The other alternative is too horific- that the christian moral majority maintained the view that homosexuality is a disease & it was “cured” by the 23rd century.

118. Brevard - August 5, 2011

Today I am ashamed to be a Star Trek fan. The blatant stupidity and homophobia on display in some of the posts is most disturbing. Have some of you learned nothing from the world of Star Trek? I would encourage you to go back and watch ALL of the original episodes and see how many issues they tackled. The message of ST is tolerance for differences.

And if I hear one more fan say, “Well if they were lesbians,” I’m going to scream. Heterosexist privilege at it’s best. “I don’t like gays, but if you can make them hot lesbians and I can get my jollies, then I am all for it.” Shame on all of you.

Now, having said that, I think a gay character would be more suited to a TV version of ST. However, there are things that can be done in a movie to show us that there are gay men and lesbians in the 23rd century. Little things like many have already mentioned. It wouldn’t be a big deal by this time and it shouldn’t be treated as such. People are people and we all go through the same things. Some like the same sex and some don’t.

ST is an inclusive world and it always has been.

119. da laffin tlhIngan - August 5, 2011

I’m straight, and I have a lot of gay friends.

I do think there needs to be a (subtle) representation; there is no room for a smashed-out-of-his-skull Andy Dick in Star Trek (although he wasn’t bad in the one VOY episode).

Thankfully this *is* an alternate-universe continuum. These are not “strictly canon” characters, except for Spock Prime.

So the writers really do have a bit of free rein. Just don’t do campy kerrap.

120. Trekboi - August 5, 2011

You are all forgetting Gene Roddenberry wanted to put gay characters in star trek TNG.

It was the last fight with the studio’s but he didn’t win because he was too sick & died soon after.

JJ it’s about time.

121. pilotfred - August 5, 2011

there had a gay charactor in first contact which was never explored

i would like to see a gay charactor on star trek however given the amount of time and how much they have already set up in the first movie and if they are only going to 3 film adding to much migh not be a good idea

a gay charactor i feel like so many other would work best on tv

122. captain_neill - August 5, 2011

well in the last one story was a little weak and could have been a little fleshed out and be one based less on contrivance and coincidence, but what made the last film work was the character moments.

A gay character if it works well and not done as a stereotype token, like in so many British soap operas then it will be good to see.

123. captain_neill - August 5, 2011

I wonder if the waiting by Paramount for Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman, is showing that perhaps these people have a little too muchpower in the film industry.

I am not their biggest fans but at the same time I want to see another Trek movie.

124. Aurore - August 5, 2011

I agree with what That One Guy said in 3 .

125. Aurore - August 5, 2011

……And, with what Mr. Ballz said in 1, as well .

126. jeannie Spock - August 5, 2011

Looks like there is already one gay actor in there anyway…..according to the rumours…..

127. Øystein Håvard Færder - August 5, 2011

it’s ok if a gay shows up in trek, but pleeeeeeeeease DON’T focus too much on the fact that he/she’s gay. Don’t let people think of the next Trek as a gay movie!!!

128. Christopher Roberts - August 5, 2011

……………,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\…………………….. …….
…………..\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,……………………. ..

129. Christopher Roberts - August 5, 2011

126. “Looks like there is already one gay actor in there anyway…..according to the rumours…..”

[sarcasm]Before you know it, people will be conducting witchhunts and burning crosses on their front lawn.[/sarcasm]

Who’s gay in the cast?

I know, let’s ask Captain Pike!

Is it you?

#Beep #Beep.

Double yes! Well, that’s settled then.

130. NCC-73515 - August 5, 2011

It is so simple: Chekov/Sulu/Bones is bisexual. What we saw up till now was his heterosexual encounters, but he has homosexual desires as well.
Why not?

131. Aurore - August 5, 2011

@128 .

Christopher, may I have a big (chocolate) cake ?

Would it be so hard to draw ? Yeah, yeah…off topic , I know…


132. Tom - August 5, 2011

Seen as this is an alternate timeline I think it’s time we fully explore the Kirk Spock relationship.

133. Deflector Dish Guy - August 5, 2011


Very well said!!! I think all of us are “for” having a gay character, but I too am sick of throwing in a token stereotype just to get on GLAAD’s good side. Its completely ridiculous.

134. Sid - August 5, 2011

Sulu should be gay as a nod to George Takei! Maybe he could be in some ambiguously gay moments with Chekov :) make it a running gag and then finally they get time to really be alone and kiss… But they shouldn’t make a big deal out of it.

135. Sid - August 5, 2011

ah… and as a nod to ST: Generations (Sulu’s daugther, Scotty’s remarks). When they finally get together and just before they kiss Chekov could say something like: I nver thought we’d find the time. And Sulu says: If it’s important you make the time! And then they kiss…

Referencing previous actor: Check
Referencing previous on screen dialogue: Check
Gay character: Check
Funny alternate timeline coincidence/discrepancy: check (Sulu was the only character to have had a confirmed child in the original timeline)

136. Newman - August 5, 2011

I think it’s time for a gay character. Even if it’s just a homosexual couple holding hands in the background. I was actually looking for an address to write a letter to Mr. Orci about this, but I could never find one.

Sometimes people’s faith needs to be rewarded.

137. VulcanFilmCritic - August 5, 2011

I’m glad that JJ Abrams is concerned about the quality of the script and that he has all the little ducks in a row before they start shooting.
And at least the man seems to be expressing some kind of passion for this project. I hope that sentiment is genuine and not just “spin.”

And as I’ve said before Star Trek had several gay characters. They just didn’t announce it:

“Bread and Circuses” Proconsul Claudius Marcus was obviously gay.
Boy did he ever love those manly gladiators! And so was Captain Merik. How else to explain why he betrayed his crew and took up residence with Marcus?

Trelaine in “The Squire of Gothos.” Kind of a stereotype, but if a character looks like Liberace, walks like Liberace and talks like Liberace…

And if the deep-throated chick in “Gamsters of Triskelion” isn’t some kind of intersex or transgender character, I’ll eat the script.

That is the way a gay character should be handled. Just part of the story. As 32.Frank said above Uhura and Sulu didn’t have billboards above their heads saying, Hey, check out the minorities! And I too fully support the inclusion of GLBT characters whether bad guys, good guys or romantic interests, but the last thing I would want to see is some PC way of introducing them.

138. Cygnus-X 1 - August 5, 2011

128. Christopher Roberts – August 5, 2011

Yes. My reaction as well. Again with the gay character.

Talk about not being able to be all things to all people….(groan)….

139. MoPo - August 5, 2011

Please, let’s just get on with it. We all know Sulu is gay. Big deal.

140. VOODOO - August 5, 2011

I would welcome the inclusion of a new gay character. Quite frankly I think society makes far too big a deal of the entire issue. I truly could not care who a man or a women is attracted too. I say live and let live, but please don’t make any of the established characters gay when it seems pretty evident that none of them are… It would seem very forced.

141. Claire - August 5, 2011

Why is this happening? Would you ask should we have a hetrosexual character on…? No! The only reason to show a characters sexual persuasion is if it adds significantly to the story!

142. Star Trek Sequel Fan Already - August 5, 2011

No gay characters, please. Do not start using the Star Trek series to promote campaigns that are going on nowadays. That ruins a good movie. It suddenly takes me out of the movie and the mood it’s creating and I think, “Oh. There’s a plug for the gay campaign.” and it ruins the moment. (The same goes for all other agendas and campaigns nowadays.)

Just make a good, decent movie with a great story. I loved the first one because of the focus on the main characters and how they represented the old series characters. Stick with that JJ. Hope to see you direct as well!

143. Brian - August 5, 2011

I think having movie Sulu be gay would be a very nice respectful nod to George Takei as well as an interesting thing for John Cho to sink his teeth into dramatically. It doesn’t have to be neon sign/token deals, but just real people living real lives.

It’d be funny if he was partnered up with the guy Kirk beat up in the Iowa bar.. the one he called Cupcake. ;)

(I say all of this as a proud human being who happens to be gay)

144. Sebastian S. - August 5, 2011


You forget that Star Trek (in all of it’s incarnations) has ALWAYS had a subtext or a theme that resonates with modern audiences (ST4 = saving the whales, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield = racism, Private Little War = Vietnam, etc). What do you think the show has been about these last 45 years??? It’s about US… today! If all you’ve ever gotten from ST is ‘phasers’ and ‘warp factor two’ then I’m really sorry for you…

And I really don’t think the next ST movie will be all about gay lifestyles. It’s not about recruitment (you can’t ‘make’ someone gay who isn’t), it’s about an acknowledgment and recognition of a sizable portion of humanity (the gay community). And frankly, it’s about time. Other series and movies are using gay characters and I think it’s time for Star Trek (a show about the future) to catch up with the present.

I think a gay character in any capacity is a good idea. It feels right for a show as historically progressive as Star Trek.

145. Janice - August 5, 2011

Well, I hope to read here someday that the sequel script is finally finished and they’re ready to go!! I just hope Pike is a part of the story–that’s what I’m waiting for.

And, for me, it’s a big NO for any gay type of story! Surely the writers can do better than that!

146. Landru - August 5, 2011

Plenty of Gay actors on Star Trek over the years – pretty much all of the security chiefs through the various shows as just one example- its about time they had characters as well – its part of life, reflect that.

147. AdamTrek - August 5, 2011

Star Trek has never been good at “in the bedroom” stuff. It should be left alone. “Star Trek: Enterprise” was trying to be the most sexy Star Trek since TOS, and it was laughable.


148. DP McGuire - August 5, 2011

I also say no to a gay charactor thing. If we do gay then why not sex with animals or a charractor with muslum pride or make Kirk a KKK member or put in Yoda as Spocks disadvantaged half brother. How about one using medical marajana or one who can’t stop picking his nose or someone with some other life situation. The show is not about proving to the world that your life decisions or problems are correct or to make the rest of the world agree to your life style.

Its simply about having fun with space opera and telling an interesting and fun story. Sometimes that may include comments on current situations and thats fine.

Now before I am accused of being anti gay and that I hate this and that, well you can just park it. I have friends and family that are gay and we get along great. However I don’t agree with that life style. That is nothing personal and it doesn’t mean I like the person less. It does mean that I don’t want them rubbing in my face. If you had a muslum friend or a guy with multiple wifes or a guy who dates farm animals, do you want them rubbing that in your face? Nope!

Be what you want to be without the need for others to agree.

149. Bryan - August 5, 2011

I have to say absolutely no to a Gay character. Not because I am anti-gay or anything but movies, and tv shows have a habit of portraying people differently than what they normally are. My wife’s co-worker is gay, had no clue until my wife told me about a conversation she had with him, My boss is gay, and honestly I had no clue until a christmas party he introduced his partner to everyone – not all gay people are flamboyant, lispy, sissy, or overly feminen types but you always see those traits in shows that stick a gay character on “just because.”

Additionally I don’t see the point of needing to introduce characters with a certain sexual preference when stuff like that rarely has a purpose in the storyline. I’m still scratching my head even trying to decipher why Spock and Uhura were a couple, the only time it was used was when she bitched about being assigned to the Farragut, and used her relationship to make him put her on the Enterprise instead. It really had no further bearing on the story. I watch Star Trek for the storyline – someones in trouble, the crew shows up to save them, some action happens in between and they fly off to the next mission.

150. Bryan - August 5, 2011

on a side note to my comment in 149, I read it and it might portray me the wrong way, but I am not anti-gay. I don’t frown upon people with those lifestyles – their sexual preference is their choice and it doesnt affect me in anyway who someone chooses to be with, but like I said I get more upset at gay people being portrayed incorrectly on shows and thats why I say I’d prefer no gay character.

151. David Tester - August 5, 2011


Since for myself I can guarantee is not a “Voluntary Choice” I either have a
“Genetic error” or even better a……
“Psychological issue”……

I am so glad you were able to diagnose why as to the fact that I am Gay (and anyone else who is including George Takei) so very clearly.

Now I just have to wonder if I am psychologically disturbed or have a Genetic Error in my DNA…..Oh dear, what to do!

152. Christopher Roberts - August 5, 2011

147. It’s unfair to single out Enterprise in my opinion.

Not when the Next Generation had the likes of “Justice” (planet of Edo and their spirit of freelove), any number of toe-curling come ons from Riker and the Planet Risa – we had to cringe our way through on other shows too.

Deep Space Nine faired better realistically, with married couples like O’Brien & Keiko or Sisko & Kassidy, where the relationship had gotten passed the sexual gymnastic stage, both partners already having kids.

I don’t remember too much about Voyager. Chakotay and Janeway seemed like a will they/won’t they. That was ruined at the end by an interested in Seven that just came from nowhere.

The Trip n’ TPol stuff on Enterprise may have started out like sexploitation, but it got much better when they began delving into Vulcan mythology – her already being betrothed and her family disapproving of the relationship.

153. Shannon Nutt - August 5, 2011

I thought Starfleet was a “don’t ask, don’t tell” organization? :)

Seriously though, wasn’t there already talk about Malcolm Reed on ENTERPRISE being gay? I know Dominic said that, even though they never addressed it on the show, that he always played the character as if he was.

154. Alec - August 5, 2011

Please, nothing at all controversial. We have just rebooted the entire franchise. That can’t be done very often. We need several popular films: Trek is still in its infancy with respect to the mainstream audience. After far too many poor films and series, Trek is returing to its popularity of the late 80s. Don’t threaten all this to make an unneeded preachy point….

I don’t want the sex lives of any of the characters to be explored. Besides, these films are ‘PG-13′ (’12’s ? – too many changes…) and so not much can be…explored, on that front.

155. P Technobabble - August 5, 2011

Human beings have been fighting for causes, arguing, beating each other over the head for centuries. And we haven’t learned a damn thing.

156. Kirk, James T. - August 5, 2011

On Abrams directing, He will. I think they’re doing the right thing though and although it’s a shame that we won’t get a Star Trek sequel sooner, I’d rather them get to a place where they KNOW they have a great film before they even shoot one frame.

I think its up to CBS Consumer Products and Paramount Pictures to get the brand recognised more.

Whilst completely off topic I think it’s important to say as Anthony I believe has used this as an argument against those who are upset at the delay. It is uncommon that a VERY successful film would not have a sequel in the works straight after. The gap between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight was 3 years because the studio wanted to keep the momentum going. My only worry is that by leaving it 4 years between Star Trek movies, is that all the hard work done to make the first movie a success, will have to be redone to make the second a success, the momentum has pretty much gone from the first movie and whilst it may still be enjoyed by the people who brought it on DVD, Star Trek is in no position to rest on the success of 1 movie if the studio want it to regain the presence it had in the early 90’s.

I think it’s been argued here before that the 4 year gap between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises is the same as what looks to be a 4 year gap between Trek’s. It’s not.

The Dark Knight’s production was particularly bad, not only did Heath Ledger die suddenly but so did a member of the production team during a stunt sequence. So I do believe that Christopher Nolan and the entire team (actors, production and studio) wanted to take stock of what had happened and take a longer break doing other things to recover from the truly upsetting things that happened during production on TDK, had those incidents not happened, I’m sure Nolan would have had his final Batman film out this year and still had time to do Inception.

I think lessons need to be learnt here – I agree with everything Abrams said but I would hope that for his final Star Trek movie, he’ll organise his time better doing other projects and take on less.

As for the franchise, as I said, CBS own the brand and they need to do more in making it popular with a new younger audience as well as trying to bring back the old audiences. Can’t all be left to Abrams and the 2 hours of film he did in 2009.

157. Silvereyes - August 5, 2011

# 104 You’re a good man, Anthony

158. Anthony Thompson - August 5, 2011

Funny that you put a pic of Quinto in the article, considering the rumors about him. : D

159. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - August 5, 2011

Well. If they must do Gay then let it be 2 Hot Red Shirt Lesbians. Lol. Really though. Only do Gay if it will help and or benifit the Story. Otherwise don’t. Don’t do Gay just for the sake of Gay. Do Gay only if it helps the Story on a whole.

160. weyoun_9 - August 5, 2011

Ok. So, as a gay man I voted no to a gay character in the new movies. Some of the Sulu talk is interesting, and probably wouldn’t hurt, but i don’t think it’s necessary and do think it would be a little gimmicky. Let the JJ team focus on these established characters and strengthening the francise to support a new TV series in, say, 5 years.

I do think it’s hilarious how many (I assume) men have said…”No gay characters…unless it’s two chicks making out.” Really?

@100 – Hawk’s partner was written into the books (I think the Titan books) having mourned the loss of Hawk after First Contact.

To all those afraid that a gay character on Trek would be stereotypical, I’m fairly certain that, to keep in the vein of what Trek has set out to do, they would avoid that trap. However, a TV series is a better place for that step, with new characters and new stories. Leave the films be.

To all those who think Trek doesn’t address sexuality. You are dead wrong. How many alien women did Kirk kiss/presumably sleep with? Riker? Picard and Vash? When a man and a woman are having a relationship that is a story about sexuality. It just happens to be sexuality that is familiar.

IDIC must, by definition, also include those who have opinions that are different than mine. However, I do have to ask…if a gay male character, who has been well established in the universe as an excellent, say…science officer, were grieving over the loss of his husband of 15 years after a battle with the Cardassians…would that really be enough to turn you off from Star Trek? In the long run…whose loss would that be…Trek’s or yours?

161. Jeyl - August 5, 2011

“Don’t go making gay characters for the sake of making gay characters.”

I don’t know. The last movie had that Spock/Uhura romance just for the sake of having it, and that didn’t do anything for the story. So I guess it’s ok to have a heterosexual relationship just for the heck of it, but when it comes to a gay relationship? That stuff should be off limits! How dare writers put in gay characters into stories because…. they want to include gay characters…

If you honestly believe “We live our lives. We are no different.”, than why can’t we put in gay characters just for the heck of it like we put in heterosexual romances for the heck of it?

162. Mega BiteMe - August 5, 2011

Speaking as a gay woman, I truly hope there is no gay character in Star Trek. I’d rather just assume there are gay people on the starship, and their sexual preference doesn’t matter one sh!t. That’s the way it should be.

I’m a true fan of the original trek. Kirk should be the only one who has sex, and of course, always with women.

163. Jack - August 5, 2011

To paraphrase: “I’m not antigay but i don’t want to see a character who has sex with farm animals…” or “I’m not antigay but Star Trek shouldn’t promote the gay campaign”

Oh, and for the “why not a hermaphrodite?” — done, subtly, in Nemesis “ladies and gentlemen and mixed gender species,” or something.

Star Trek has always reflected humanity. Are you saying that people attracted to the same sex aren’t human beings? I don’t understand how you can be a fan of Star Trek, which is about inclusion, and call for excluding someone because you don’t want their differences ‘in your face.’

I don’t mind them, as long as they stay hidden? They make me uncomfortable so they shouldn’t be seen? I believe what they are doing is wrong so they shouldn’t be doing it? I don’t approve of their lifestyle? My needs outweigh theirs? I am the right kind of human, they are not? Have we
missed the point of Star Trek? Why does what “I” want trump the right of someone else to have the same rights I do? Because there are more people like me? These questions are at the heart of Trek.

This conversation, today, shows exactly why this needs to be addressed in Star Trek.

164. Damian - August 5, 2011

Don’t automatically assume a no vote is a vote for homophobia. It could be that some are afraid it will be the stereotypical gay, lesbian character. They also may feel that sexuality in the future of Star Trek would be a moot point and would not be made a big deal. And finally, someone’s sexual preferences just may not be important to some people out there.

165. John from Cincinnati - August 5, 2011

I thought they already did a gay character in TNG? The symbiot remember? Was a guy then became a girl, crushing Dr. Crusher’s hopes and dreams.

I agree with JJ, I’m not against it but what’s the point in having one? It would have to be the right situation. Just the same as not having William Shatner in ST09. You can’t put him in there just to have him, it has to fit in the story and be believable and not forced.

166. kelly - August 5, 2011

I say, “no”. It’s not going to add fans. Those who like Sci-Fi are already there. I believe it could and probably will be the cause of losing fans. If it does add some it will be only because of the gay issue and not because of a love of Star Trek. If the gay community wants their lifestyle portrayed in space then come up with a whole new series and not hijack an established one.

167. Andrews - August 5, 2011

166. “If the gay community wants their lifestyle portrayed in space then come up with a whole new series and not hijack an established one.”

Should we say the same for black/Latino characters, disabled characters (Geordi), etc?

Your comment is incredible.

168. kelly - August 5, 2011

Not trying to offend. I’m addressing a moral issue not an ethnic or handicapped one. Don’t see what they have to do with each other.

169. The Dude - August 5, 2011

I’m all for gay tribbles in the next movie.

170. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - August 5, 2011

Dude. Gay Tribbles. Really. Oh Ok. Lol.

171. NCC-73515 - August 5, 2011

Some people simply keep ignoring neuroscience facts and stick to their non-knowledge. It is not a moral issue but belongs in the same category as disabled, left-handed or dark-pigmented.

172. Andrews - August 5, 2011

168 — Homosexuality is not a “moral” issue and the fact that you seem to think it is reveals your ignorance as clearly as if your pants fell down in public. I’m embarrassed for you right now, and you (and people who share your philosophy) should be ashamed to call yourself a Star Trek fan, when what you believe is the antithesis of everything Roddenberry stood for.

173. Big Gay Trek - August 5, 2011

Falt out “yes” for the same reasons Whoopi Goldberg became a Trek fan. I believe, she’s said, many times, that it was just inspiring to see Uhura on the bridge for the simple message that “we still exist in the future.”

I don’t think it needs to be a major part of the story, and in fact, shouldn’t be. The only way I can see that working is if you have some homophobic Vulcan nonsense since there are so little left and there is a “everyone must reproduce” movement. But, I agree that something like this is for Trek TV.

For the movie, I liked the idea of Kirk consoling a recent widow to introduce it, even if it’s just in some sort of montage. To anyone who says that it would be “overly PC,” it shows your own bias towards what you believe the “normal” or “regular” response should be. That if “he” was said, it’s an intentional departure from normal “she.” If the wife of a dead caucasion husband is shown to be black, it’s an intentional departure from normal same-race couples. Changing a pronoun to show that gay people are there and make no waves in the future does only one thing – accepts the existence of gays in the future and their equal value and treatment in society.

I don’t need a big gay Star Trek movie. I would, however, love a better “The Outcast” for Trek TV.

(As a side note, whoever responded by saying they weren’t a homophobe because they don’t “fear” gays…yeah, it’s because you “fear” the existence of a different lifestyle as somehow affecting your own. Not very IDIC, is it. Our lifestyle is not yours to approve or disapprove.)

174. Trek Nerd Central - August 5, 2011

I think the world will have come a long way when this sort of debate doesn’t occur any longer.

At some point, there won’t be any discussion over “gay characters” versus “straight characters.” There’ll just be “characters.”

175. Big Gay Trek - August 5, 2011

*Full out “yes”

176. Starfleet's Finest - August 5, 2011

Being bisexual myself, I am very happy to hear so many people respond positively to an openly gay character. That being said, if the writers feel the need for one in the sequel please do it discreetly. I think that to put one in and really acknowledge the character’s sexuality would be like taking some random side street to a dead end. Because let’s face it, most likely none of the major characters will be having any personal epiphany (and can you imagine the frenzy that it would have on the Trekkie community?) so most likely it will be a minor character and to dig that deeply into a small character would detract from the main story line. Though in my personal opinion, I can totally buy into the fact the Kirk is bisexual. Think about it, he was always a player, it never said he only played one side! Though I think some Trekkies would just fall over dead.

And I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to hear “Gays in Star Trek? Ick! But there should totally be a lesbian scene.” Ugh…seriously? Then Trek would turn into every other movie that throws in girl on girl for numbers only; Star Trek is better than that. Not only that, but the majority of the cast are men! And the movie is based on a history mainly following three very close friends. Sorry to break it to those of you holding your breath, but the odds are not in your favor.

So if you must then of course I’ve got your back, but I say let the fanfics cover that topic.

177. Dee - lvs moon' surface - August 5, 2011

I voted “maybe”… depends on the story… I do not think should be the most important issue of the script… that’s it!

And again JJAbrams with “jealous thing”… and there will almost three years since the debut of Star Trek… and we waiting for him… at least he should assume he will be the director…it’s time already!

…Yes AP is right, he is not talking about Trek sequel …but everyone wants to know about it …anyway!

:-) :-)

178. Starfleet's Finest - August 5, 2011

Oh, but I do think it would work better in a tv series. More time to really evolve the character and concept. Just thought I’d add that in as well…

179. Silvereyes - August 5, 2011

# 168 Kelly

“Not trying to offend. I’m addressing a moral issue not an ethnic or handicapped one. Don’t see what they have to do with each other.”

Homosexuality has NOTHING to do with morality. Get out of the dark ages and spare us your self-righteous stupidity.

180. Desstruxion - August 5, 2011

There’s an infestation of Tribbles across the universe. The Enterprise is sent to find a way to stop it. They hypothesize that if it were possible to switch on a “gay button” then the little critters would stop reproducing and the whole crisis would be averted. It’s just crazy enough to work.

There’s your sequel storyline.

181. Bruce Banner - August 5, 2011

All this debate is mute. If you read JJ’s response to the question of a gay charactor, he sidesteps the whole issue. Just like a presidential candidate does when asked about it. There will be no openly homosexual charactor in the movie, because they want to make money on the movie, not make a social statement.

182. RGClay - August 5, 2011

It’s always disappointing when the subject of homosexuality comes up on this site. Disappointing that so many people who obviously love Trek, just don’t get the core message of what this show is all about.

183. Bruce Banner - August 5, 2011

@179 The one thing Muslums, Jews, and Christians agree on is homosexuality is immoral. For almost two thousand years (longer for the Jews) all three faiths agreed on this. So its unfair to refer to someone of faith as being “in the dark ages” for professing what human beings (all over the world I might add) have professed throughout history.

184. Andrews - August 5, 2011

183 — Your ignorance is showing. For Christianity at least, the New Testament, and especially Jesus’s words, says NOTHING about homosexuality. That was later developed by Church leaders like the pope. As for Judaism, the anti-gay condemnations are nestled in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and are a lot less important than the stuff about not eating shellfish and pork.

It’s medieval, ignorant mumbo-jumbo that some modern people have decided to latch onto because it justifies their feeling uncomfortable. You notice how very few of them are anti-cheeseburger and anti-lobster with the same passion, even though the Bible is a lot more strongly worded about THOSE evils.

185. TBW - August 5, 2011

Now, c’mon, Bruce…you’ve got a PhD. You should know the word is “moot” by now.

And, kelly, I’m not one to usually talk about the “message” of Star Trek…but you clearly have missed it. There’s nothing immoral or wrong about being homosexual, and I’d have no problem with a gay character (as long as s/he wasn’t a characture, and that’s a standard I hold for ALLcharacters).

It’s like Mencken said (and I’m paraphrasing): “Morality is the idea that everything people do is either right or wrong, and 90% of it is wrong.”

186. Silvereyes - August 5, 2011

# 183 Bruce Banner

I won’t start a debate with you on this, except to say that just because religious faiths have made this into a morality issue, it doesn’t make it one. Homosexuality has nothing to do with religion either. That is also self-righteousness on their part. Any God who would send someone to Hell for being gay is no God I want to believe in.

187. Jeyl - August 5, 2011

162. “I’m a true fan of the original trek. Kirk should be the only one who has sex, and of course, always with women.”

You ask me, I think that’s exactly the problem. The original Star Trek series is such a product of it’s time that it doesn’t have any room or interest to have characters like that could be gay. And looking at the last film, it looks like it doesn’t want anything to do with what the other Star Trek series tried to do in handling those kinds of characters. I just don’t see how Star Trek can possibly move forward if all it wants to do is stick with the original crew.

188. TBW - August 5, 2011

Pre-anger Hulk, that’s a bit disingenuous. Not only is that not the “one thing” they all believe (I mean, seriously, they all pray to the same God), but not every person who is a follower of those faiths believes homosexuality is “immoral” (or even concerns themselves with morality).

Let me put it another way…if you think something is wrong because a religious text condemns that thing, don’t you then have to think that about everything a religious text condemns? Better hope you’re not wearing two different types of cloth.

189. Trek Nerd Central - August 5, 2011

#186 re: #162.

Umm, I don’t know about anyone else, but I sensed just a wee bit o’ irony in that last part of her post.

190. Commander JJ Adams - August 5, 2011

Personally, I would prefer not to have any gays in Star Trek. I appologoze. I’m one of those “old fashioned” folk who don’t believe homosexuality is “natural”. And don’t call me a “homophobe”. A “phobia” is a fear of something. I’m not afraid of gays. I simply believe that there is some type of chemical imbalance in their genetic makeup that causes them to be abnormal. I’ll refer to the old addage: “God made Adam & Eve, not Adam and Steve.” All higher species need a male and a female to procreate. That is normal. If homosexuality were “normal” the human race could not continue. I know I’ll be horribly flamed for my comments because they’re not politically correct. Bu so be it. I care not about political correctness. That’s whay has run this great nation and the rest of the world in to the toilet anyway. The hell with PC!!! Speak your mind!

191. David B - August 5, 2011

Surely the most obvious to make Sulu gay.

192. ashrond - August 5, 2011

I’m not against gay characters in the nest star trek, I’m just against any of the hackneyed writers of today writing them; I’m personally tired o having gay characters rammed down my throat by Hollywood in their idea of suitably, go watch Caprica to see how to do gay characters on TV/Movies.

193. NCC-73515 - August 5, 2011

Bruce has a PhD? In what? English literature, perchance? XD

About unnatural… humans are not the only species doin’ it. It’s not even restricted to mammals ;)

194. Pauln6 - August 5, 2011

Yes to an incidental gay character. A jokey one liner would work. Here’s an homage to Janice’s appearance in the Man Trap: Janice Rand minces down the hall carrying Kirk’s lunch. Crewman A says to Crewman B “How about that? Wouldn’t you love your own personal yeoman?” Crewman B says, “Sure. But I’m not really into women.” Exit stage left. Crewman A shrugs and continues to drool. Janice beats the cr*p out of him and says, “This is the 23rd century, not 1966.”

195. Khan was Framed! - August 5, 2011


This conversation is hilarious!

The thing to ask ourselves here is which of the TOS characters do we know for sure are straight?

Kirk. Spock. McCoy. Scott. Chekov. – all showed interest in the ladies in the original series, but I can think of few times I ever saw Sulu chase a girl.

Uhura showed some interest in men, so she is presumably straight, too.

This means we are talking about adding a gay character or honouring George Takei by making Sulu gay. Which will mean that in the JJ’verse, the Enterprise B will be short a helmsman.


If they are adding a gay character, I hope they will make it part of the core plot & not just a side bar. Perhaps an oppressed group of gays seeking refuge aboard the Enterprise from a cruel government. And Sulu understands how they feel.


I can’t believe it’s 2011 & we’re still talking about this. Who cares if people are gay or straight?!

It’s completely irrelevant.

196. N - August 5, 2011

Yes but no mincy campy stereotype for the love of god, go the Torchwood/Warehouse 13 way

197. NCC-73515 - August 5, 2011

I see something very important in this discussion though: if included, it will make the public talk ablout the movie! Can there be anything better than some big controversy and public debate about a movie?

198. JeffreyNdallas - August 5, 2011

I just want to point out that Sulu in the Prime universe having a daughter does not indicate he was not gay…the fact that Kirk says ” when did he find the time” does not indicate who Sulu was with, or how he came to have a child…I think based on what I remember about the character, nothing indicates a sexual preference…he would be a prime choice if the writer’s wanted to go in that direction….that being said, as a gay man, I would only want it in there if it moved the story forward and was not an overt nod to say “hey, we finally have a gay” in Star Trek. If there is a series in the future, then sure, that would be the time…just like in Caprica with Adama’s brother…very well done IMHO…

199. Sid - August 5, 2011

I assume there are lots of gay characters in Star Trek, but it’s like Gene Roddenberry said when a reporter asked why, by the 24th Century, nobody’d cured Picard’s baldness:

“In the 24th Century, nobody will care.”

Fortunately, looks like the Supreme Court isn’t just going to shoehorn a gay character into the movie unless it’d somehow be useful to the story. That sort of HEY HEY YOU YES YOU BE TOLERANT AND STUFF SEE hamfistedness ruined many an otherwise great episode of Trek.

200. Buzz Cagney - August 5, 2011

#197 its funny, but since Takei came out I can’t watch TOS without spotting some innuendo or euphamism! Its childish of me, I know!
In one episode he actually asks another crewmember to come down to the gym to work off some energy, or somesuch comment!
And c’mon, who can watch The Voyage Home without howling with laughter as he ask’s that guy about his chopper?!
I hooted with laughter. And no, i’m not particularly proud of myself for it!

201. Miroslav - August 5, 2011

Gay characters in Trek – no ay, this is not some crappy show like Doctor Who.

202. Miroslav - August 5, 2011

no way*

203. Sid - August 5, 2011


Oh snap!

204. Moxy - August 5, 2011

Seeing the poll results and the comments here is really depressing. Star Trek is the world of the future. By time the 23rd century, there would be acceptance. If alien races are going to mingle and create hybrid children together, then it is hardly a stretch that there would be people of the same sex together.

And I imagine sexuality wouldn’t be a defining point of a person by the 23rd century. It would just be another part of them that adds to the whole of a person.

I know JJ and the writers aren’t trying to make ST a message-driven movie series, but it wouldn’t hurt anybody to have a character that is gay. They don’t need to me a main character or even one vital to the plot. And even more so, they shouldn’t be stereotypical.

How hard is it to put in two same-sex crew members in the rec hall sitting together eating lunch from the same plate? Nobody would notice it unless they are trying to see it. You can easily say they are close friends, or they are gay. Just the same way I can see a man and a woman sitting next together eating from the same plate. I can either say “Oh what a cute couple” or “They are good friends”

The core message of Star Trek is diversity and acceptance. It appalls me that so many people here are stuck with such an old age way of thinking.

205. Sid - August 5, 2011

203: I hope that in the 23rd century, people care as little about other peoples’ sexual orientation as I do (which is to say, not an iota).

Therefore, making a big deal of a gay crewmember of the Enterprise would make about as much sense as everyone pointing at Picard and saying “LOOK AT HIS BALD HEAD THAT LACKS HAIR, OMG HE IS BALD.” Nobody will care!

And, since we’re seeing them all at work, where they’re focused on doing their job, it makes even less sense to hype their sexuality, Kirk excluded of course ;). Is a gay security officer going to fire a phaser differently from a straight one?

206. I Da Man - August 5, 2011

Yay! The “No’s” are winning!!!!!!

207. Moxy - August 5, 2011


Not really. If you add the “Maybe” and “Yes” together, they are winning.

208. Dr. Cheis - August 5, 2011

I would have voted “yes” except that I feel like the last movie spent so much time building up the old characters again that the sequel should keep any new characters to a minimum. Were they still making new episodes of the older shows though, I’d say they are long overdue.

209. DP McGuire - August 5, 2011

#179 Don’t be guilty of the same hate that you so dislike. There is no scientific evidence that gay is a physical condition like skin color or hair color. Just like there is no scientific evidence that a guy can’t be monogamous or has to sleep with 3 women at the same time or need 5 wives or must have sex with barn animals. The only truth is that those people feel that is the way it has to be for whatever reason. Those of us not gay can’t see any reason to be gay. Some find it repulsive. It doesn’t mean we don’t like or love the gay person. A person is a person. What they want to sleep with is a different matter entirely.

210. somethoughts - August 5, 2011


Exactly focus on Kirk, Spock and Mccoys growth and journey, and leverage supporting cast. Those 3 should get 50% of lines while the antagonist and aupporting cast should get 25%. Lots of visuals of space, enterprise and alien ships. Less discussion of sexual preference and more about problem solving and exploration with high octane action and drama.

211. Damian - August 5, 2011

204–Again, don’t assume a no vote is a vote for homophobia. It may very well be that some people just don’t feel a character’s sexuality is an important story line. For me personally, I’m much more interested in whether or not Engineering will look more like and engine room and less a brewery than whether Sulu is gay or not. For Star Trek, someone’s sexual preferences just are not that important to me.

212. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 5, 2011

The “No’s” may be winning now, but only just. Like most poll results here, the results tend to be evenly divided. Oh dear…what to do?

Have a gay couple in the sequel, but don’t make it a big deal. I have already “created” a hermaphrodite (wrote about shem a while ago on another thread here) and this person confuses Kirk as to their identity. At the beginning he meets *her*, later he meets *him*… but he’s not fussed, so long as this individual is doing shis’ assigned tasks.

Another scene may happen on the bridge at shift change. A gay couple (either two men or two women) look across to each other and it is clear they can’t wait for the shift to end. Kirk gives a look/a knowing smile to McCoy and McCoy says quietly, “Yeah, those two have got it bad”. Kirk gives a small nod in agreement, and whispers about longing for a little romance of his own. This is not to infer that he wants it to be with a man necessarily, just desires the kind of intimacy that the gay couple appear to have. Of course, if the writers follow my lead, Kirk will get some of that same loving intimacy of his own, with a lovely alien woman, Jasmia.

I actually suspect that JJ Abrams may be a little uncomfortable with the idea of having a gay/lesbian character and he is also not sure how to include such a character in the sequel, that would not seem gratuitous, and would be accepted by the majority of viewing audiences, not just in the USA, but worldwide.

213. somethoughts - August 5, 2011

The Gay Character would be better explored in a TV series IMO, there’s really not enough time in a motion picture space movie to deal with sexual preference and including a Gay Character would most likely piss off both sides of the fence.

Folks paying money to see adventure in space perhaps don’t want to see sexual preference pandering and those that are Gay may feel that the character is too stereotypical, it’s a case of a no win scenario.

I’ve had Gay superiors and co workers/friends and frankly do not judge them and they are quality people who I considered to be good people, gay or not gay, who cares?

214. Cygnus-X1 - August 5, 2011

Regarding the righteous finger-wagging….

Not everyone who voted against sticking a gay character into the new movie has a problem with gay people.

I voted no for a gay character and would have voted no for sticking in another woman character, Black, Asian or Hispanic character.

My vote isn’t about stereotyping anyone; it’s about being annoyed at the idea of sticking in a character of a certain orientation or background, just because people of that orientation or background have been saying, “Make someone like me! Make someone like me! And have his name be Frederick, because that’s my name and there aren’t enough characters named Frederick!”

What you’re likely to get, if you got what you whined for, would be a mediocre or even annoying character who had the superficial qualities you’d demanded. And then, that character wouldn’t be a pride to his/her people but more of an albatross. I wouldn’t want a character of my background on Star Trek unless there happened to be a good story behind him and/or a great actor of that background to play him. Otherwise, I’d be a little embarrassed by “that so-and-so character on Star Trek.” And, as it happens, there are no characters on Star Trek of my background. But it would never have occurred to me to ask the writers to have the new movie accommodate my personal psychological needs. And, in fact, there aren’t even any shows on TV, that I can think of, with characters of my background. Gay people really have it better than any minorities with all of the shows and movies that feature gay characters. They even have a few shows that have only or many gay characters.


215. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 5, 2011

#209 – “Just like there is no scientific evidence that a guy can’t be monogamous or has to sleep with 3 women at the same time or need 5 wives or must have sex with barn animals.”

There is no scientific evidence to suggest the reverse either. In terms of bigamy and polygamy, especially in the past where there may be a lot more young females than males, where the maternal and infant mortality is high, there may be a good biological reason for such marriage arrangements to take place. It is up to the various cultures to determine how well or badly these women get treated. Some fare better than others.

(In places like Papua New Guinea and other places where there is no available modern medicine and other technologies that we take for granted, the maternal death rates can be as high as 50%, with infant mortality even higher. That’s today, 2011!)

What is this obsession about sex with animals? Why not mention paedophilia as well? That is more damaging and degrading than someone who wants to hump a sheep (although, it is possible that the sheep may have a different opinion on the event…). There are even people, mostly older men, who would like to see adults having sex with children made legal.

As far as I know, gays/lesbians no more engage in bestiality or paedophilia than the vast majority of the heterosexual population. In fact, most of the paedophilia is done by males of heterosexual orientation.

Sex with animals and sex with children are in a different category from sexual relations between consenting adults. It is both frightening and sad that some people are not able to distinguish the difference.

216. NCC-73515 - August 5, 2011

For scientific evidence, check up on developmental hypothalamic neuroanatomy ;P

Btw I just found the solution to it all: the gay character doesn’t HAVE to be on the Enterprise.

I’d like to see a Klingon General who happens to have a boyfriend.

217. Richard C. - August 5, 2011

I’d like to see a Muslim character.
Religious intolerance, especially Islamophobia is a big issue today.
I think it’d be a great way to promote the idea of tolerance by showing characters with different personal beliefs working together towards a common goal.

218. NCC-73515 - August 5, 2011

148. DP McGuire
150. Bryan

Sexual orientation is not a choice, a decision, or a lifestyle.

McGuire, the important difference to zoophilia is that gay relationships and interactions are consensual and causes no harm to either participant.
The other aspects of human life that you compare sexual orientation to (religion, racism and drug addiction) are based on choices you or your parents made and can be changed depending on your personal opinion and the information you have.

219. jr - August 5, 2011

no need to be overtly sexual — in either direction — that is true trek.

220. RandomDude - August 5, 2011

217. Richard C. – August 5, 2011

I’d like to see a Muslim character.
Religious intolerance, especially Islamophobia is a big issue today.
I think it’d be a great way to promote the idea of tolerance by showing characters with different personal beliefs working together towards a common goal.

Well, when muslims stop trying to kill anyone and everyone who doesn’t share their religious beliefs, maybe…just maybe…I’ll try to tolerate them. But don’t count on it.

221. captain_neill - August 5, 2011

I think the current run of Doctor Who does the gay issue right. It’s done as a passing comment with characters in a natural way. Not done for shock tactics but just making it a normal comment in conversation.

I agree with a comment I heard at a con by the 23rd and 24th Centuries we should accept it as just another thing. Star Trek is all about embracing differences and I don’t think ti should be a shock tactic because that is too cliched

222. RandomDude - August 5, 2011

Oh yeah, “islamophobia” is not exactly the correct term. The suffix “phobia” implies fear. Personally, I’m not scared of muslims. So that term doesn’t apply to me. I simply don’t agree with their beliefs that the infadel must be eliminated. “Infadel” being anone who doesn’t share their beliefs. Once that stops and muslims start “tolerating” everyone else, then maybe they won’t be so disliked by most of the rest of the world.

Sorry, it had to be said.

223. Jack - August 5, 2011

214. Regarding the righteous finger-wagging….

…in response to people here bringing up sex with farm animals, curing gays, etc. In fact, the bulk (all?) of the people who’ve posted here and said they are gay have said they don’t want a gay character in the film (solely for teh sake of a gay character)

“And, as it happens, there are no characters on Star Trek of my background. But it would never have occurred to me to ask the writers to have the new movie accommodate my personal psychological needs.”

So what’s your background? And I think you’re making assumptions about why people would want this mentioned, in some form — again, not everyone here has been calling for a token character of any kind (and I think even using the term is insulting; is Uhura the token black? Kirk the token farmboy?) — but hell, even a single line of dialogue in hundreds of hours of programming). Heck, I’m gay, and I’m not a big fan of making a very special Trek movie.

But it is interesting to note that in a franchise of diversity, this has never been addressed, even in a throw-away line about an alien culture… and, you know that people of every background, including yours, are gay.

And, on this note, Trek should be about representation — hell, if you already have an interesting character in the script, why not make him Native American (back to my Adam Beach plug) or non-Northern-Western-European, or a woman. Why shouldn’t someone of your background be in the film?

It doesn’t even have to be an issue (this was done badly with Chakotay, where he was written as the mystical Native guy) or define the character. Or, yes, why not use Muslim names, or Latino names (it doesn’t mean we have to see Taco night on the Enterprise, and I apologize for that joke)

Hell, every McKenna or Oleson in the script could be a hell of a more interesting name (Ukrainian, Sri Lankan, Austrian, Jewish, Finnish, Maori, Brazilian… whatever).

There are a heck of a lot of people on Earth not named Kirk, Pike, April, Janeway or Archer.

And I’m not talking about being politically correct for the sake of it, or affirmative-action casting — but this is Star Trek, it’s about all of humanity working together.

224. Jack - August 5, 2011

And I’m glad that Anthony is letting this talk happen.

225. Clay Crash - August 5, 2011

I’m just thinking out loud here. No ranting. No pleading. No preaching. Not looking for an argument.

A) Is it correct to think most homosexuals are politically liberal/Democrat?

B) Are not most liberals/Democrats also evolutionists?

C) How can there be legitimate homosexuality in an evolutionist world view?

Perhaps the humanity of the 23rd century has worked itself free from the homosexuality issue.

226. NCM - August 5, 2011

Commander JJ Adams @190: No flames. I respect your moxy and your call to others not to bow to PC-ness. However…

If God didn’t create ‘Steve,’ who did?
If there’s only one God, Creator of all things, then God created homosexuality (I believe Jesus, one to press us beyond our comfort zones, also called upon us to cherish all of God’s varied creation).

I think homosexuality is a natural variation, like red hair – I know, actually a mutation (sounds worse than a ‘chemical imbalance’). Evolution hasn’t seen reason to weed out redheads nor homosexuality among humans, dogs, squirrels, etc.

Now then, if sex is honorable only as a means of procreation, then heterosexuals practicing ‘safe’ sex are no more honorable than homosexuals practicing ‘safe’ sex.

To others, who suggest homosexuality leads to sex with animals; unless you’re aware of evidence to support… then you deserve a flame. Why would anyone assume that one who prefers same sex relationships would be drawn to animals? Perhaps heterosexuality leads to such fantasies… Hmm.

227. Mike Thompson UK - August 5, 2011

Looking like 2013 to me….

The current series of Torchwood has a gay character

228. pock speared - August 5, 2011

trek has been loaded with gay characters and face it, gay stereotypes (“jimmy boy!”) since it’s inception.

trek usually dealt with “outside” parts of culture by creating entire PLANETS full of whatever was discussed. from nazis to peaceniks, whatever.

for me, trek-addressing-gay would involve a multisexual species who were learning to deal with a homosexual aspect of themselves that had been repressed until kirk shows up, who then “straightens” them out with some phasers or talking the ruling
teapartyian computer to death or whatever.

problem: does trek really want to pander to victorian-american attitudes towards gay life that everyone else except maybe the taliban has already dealt with?

229. pock speared - August 5, 2011

wasn’t khan a muslim?
he was pretty nippled and one gloved and all, so i guess not.

still, in the new universe, he could be like a really cool guy who represented the arab world (and hey, why not man-nipples as well?) and fought along side kirk & co. against the “intolaranxi”.

and even keep the “one glove”, as kinda of a michael jackson shout out.

230. Cygnus-X1 - August 5, 2011

223. Jack – August 5, 2011

—-…in response to people here bringing up sex with farm animals, curing gays, etc.—-

I’m not referring to indignant responses to idiotic comments. Feel free to finger-wag at them. I’m talking about the suggestion that, if you voted no for sticking a gay character in the next Star Trek, then it implies that you have a problem with gay people. I think that should be clear from what I wrote.

—-and, you know that people of every background, including yours, are gay.—-

So what? Bringing up this point would seem to raise the issue of further division amongst people, in that, if a gay character is introduced who happens to be white, then there is still left cause for further complaint about not having any Black, Asian or Hispanic gay characters, or if the gay character is male, then why aren’t their any lesbians? Or trans-gendered people? And if there’s a butch lesbian, then why aren’t there any lipstick lesbians to fairly represent that community, and so on. In any case, it should go without saying that you don’t need to tell me that there are gay people of all ethnicities.

—-Why shouldn’t someone of your background be in the film?….It doesn’t even have to be an issue….—-

Of course, I have no problem with someone of my background in the film. And it wouldn’t be an issue if the character arose naturally as part of the creative process in the writing of the screenplay. But clamoring for a so-and-so character is not the natural, creative process.

231. Schultz - August 5, 2011

As we all know, Mr. Plinkett has already proven that New Trek is an all-out case of the not-gays. But I guess it would be interesting to have a gay character in Star Trek, as one of the leading roles. We have no problem seeing Kirk go after the ladies, be in bed with that juicy green alien with the big babylons, so why not a gay couple? Trek has always been about sexuality as well, sometimes subtly, sometimes more openly. It’s time to up the ante, if you ask me. But this is a blockbuster, and while Hollywood may be politically liberal, its films feel conservative morally, almost old-testament style. So no gays, please, because I don’t want to see the typical goofy, embarrassing male homosexual on the screen.

232. Jack - August 5, 2011

190. Even if it is a mistake – well, so what? It’s a mistake shared by millions of people, who are physically and emotionally involved with, generally, to people sharing the same mistake.

The hitch seems to be the sex — the sex is disgusting, it’s unnatural, two guys aren’t meant to be together etc. etc…. believe me, for the people who are doing it, it’s completely natural. You’re not wired to want to do it, so you don’t get it, you can’t get it. And that’s normal.

And, of course, no one’s sex life is that pretty — I don’t really want to know about what you do with your wife, either.

Nobody’s asking you to like it, or understand it. Heck, as a gay man, I have to say that I viscerally don’t understand the attraction to women — I look at a woman’s body and nothing happens, there’s absolutely no attraction — it’s like I’m looking at a tree, or a cloud… beautiful, but no sexual attraction. And, yeah, straight grosses me out — even though I know the purpose etc. When I see lesbian sex, I feel like I’m watching aliens. Or trees. No attraction whatsoever. It makes no sense to me. I get it intellectually, but I don’t GET it.

Believe me, I’ve tried to be attracted to women, I stared at Playboys for countless hours as a teenager, hoping something would happen and it didn’t. I appreciate beauty, but I’ve never experienced that sexual attraction and, yeah, I don’t mean this as an insult to anybody, but, to me, the idea is a bit repulsive (women aren’t, they’re lovely, but, they don’t float my boat, in any way… and in the same way, and at the risk of sounding insulting… I like cats, but I’m not attracted to them [no double entendre intended]). I certainly experienced that attraction toward men, and sure didn’t want to.

In the same vein, I don’t understand transsexualism because I’ve never experienced it. I understand it intellectually (clearly, some people are transsexual) but I’ve never felt like I was the wrong gender, I’ve always been happy being a guy, and, so, honestly, I don’t understand it viscerally. It doesn’t make gut sense to me, even though it clearly exists.

And it would be tempting for me to theorize that, heck, since I don’t feel that way, they shouldn’t either… maybe they’re mistaken, or they’re really gay and can’t face it… but seriously, how could I possibly know what they’re feeling. What do I know about it, other than that I’m not like them? And what does it have to do with me?

A little too much honesty here, but I wish I wasn’t gay. I wish I could be like everyone else and marry a woman and have a family. Who would choose this? When I was a teenager, I swore I’d kill myself before ever “giving in” to the temptation. And you’re right that it’s not the norm. But a gay relationship, of whatever kind, shouldn’t be unnatural to the people in it (although we grew up in the same world as everyone else, so, yeah, a lot of us share your views… and apply them to our selves… and live in constant shame… which is where the idea of gay pride first came from… having some pride in ourselves instead of self-loathing)…

As for the argument that, well, if you have sex with another man, then what’s stopping you from (bestiality, pedophilia, mass murder, armed robbery)? I guess the reasoning is that, well, if you’re doing one thing that’s against the norm, you’ll be doing everything else?

Well, the same thing that’s stopping you from those things (and not to make light of any of them)?

I’m sure other people will bring up the arguments that same sex activity is seen in most species, and that a certain percentage (we don’t know how much) of gay people exist in all cultures, thoughout time, in every socioeconomic, religious and political group.

And, of course, homophobia doesn’t really mean fear of gays, it’s a blanket term for bigotry against gays.

But there’s a difference between saying “I don’t get it,” “I don’t like it” and “everyone else should be exactly like me, because the majority pf people are, and if they’re not, I don’t want to see them.” All people are equal, but the right people are more equal than others?

These questions are central to Star Trek, and they apply to everyone, not just gay people.

226: I think homosexuality is a natural variation, like red hair – I know, actually a mutation (sounds worse than a ‘chemical imbalance’). Evolution hasn’t seen reason to weed out redheads nor homosexuality among humans, dogs, squirrels, etc.


233. Jack - August 5, 2011

230. Hey man, just going by what you wrote — I know nothing about you or what you know beyond that.

And who’s clamouring? I voted no.

And I think pointing out (a ridiculously obvious point, I know) that there are people of all backgrounds, and varied backgrounds, well, everywhere, isn’t divisive at all. Of course every single combination can’t possibly be represented. But it’s important to remember that those people are there. The only point I really have is that Star Trek is about inclusion.


“I voted no for a gay character and would have voted no for sticking in another woman character, Black, Asian or Hispanic character.

“My vote isn’t about stereotyping anyone; it’s about being annoyed at the idea of sticking in a character of a certain orientation or background, just because people of that orientation or background have been saying, “Make someone like me! Make someone like me! And have his name be Frederick, because that’s my name and there aren’t enough characters named Frederick!””

Agreed. But again, I don’t see anybody doing that here, today anyway. I don’t see anyone saying I’m gay and I need a gay character, or I’m a Yiddish chiropractor who burns easily and has a dairy allergy and I need to see me up on screen (granted, I scrolled through the last few comments pretty quickly). Nor have I seen Black, Asian or Hispanic people doing that here.

I’m not a woman, but I’d like to see more strong women in Trek. I think Trek 09 was sexist. And why shouldn’t a new character happen to be a woman, Black (Did Lily in First Contact need to be white? Or a man?), Asian or Hispanic?

I’m none of those things, but I’d like to see the tradition started on the bridge of the Enterprise in 1966 continue — did we need to see a Black woman and an Asian there? I think we did. Especially because they were capable people who were black, asian, Russian, whatever. The whole point was that it was an international crew.

It’s central to what Star Trek is about.

Why not make characters who represent the reality on this planet? Why not include more people? I don’t see how this is divisive.

Why would it make more sense to have a character be a white guy named Jones, of average height and build?

234. Cygnus-X1 - August 5, 2011

232. Jack – August 5, 2011

—-A little too much honesty here, but I wish I wasn’t gay. I wish I could be like everyone else and marry a woman and have a family. Who would choose this?—-

Are you kidding? The gay community makes it look like a BLAST.

What straight guy WOULDN’T choose to be gay if he could?!?

Do you have any idea how hard it is to find the right person of the opposite sex to live a life with, when having children is the central focus of the agenda? You don’t have to worry about any of that, unless you want to adopt. And you certainly don’t have to worry about an unplanned adoption. And you must have had conversations with women over the years. They’ll be the first to tell you how crazy they can get. Yes, men can be difficult, but there’s a special kind of craziness that goes along with having a female significant other. Maybe not always. There’s a small minority of women who never get crazy, but it’s certainly not the norm in my experience, nor in the experience of any of my female friends.

Dude, you have no idea how good you have it. And if you live in an area that’s intolerant of gays, then move to better city like NYC or one in CA. Hell, a few weekends ago, after a particularly bad date that I had, I popped into the Stonewall Inn (the most famous gay bar in the country from which sprang the modern gay rights movement) just for some attention!!

Getting some affection from a gay guy is the easiest thing in the world, because there’s no subtext or unspoken motives. You know what they want and they know what you want within a very short amount of time. There’s no issue of male vs. female, mating rituals and so on. So be thankful for what you have, pal.

235. somethoughts - August 5, 2011

What mating rituals? I meet attractive woman at the gym, airport, sporting event, party and make out and have wild sex and if both wanted to choose to continue seeing each other or just move on and enjoy more hot females.

I find it flattering if a gay guy finds me hot or whatever but that isnt my cup of tea, I just dont find it appealing to make love to the same sex, but that is me and to each their own.

236. Cygnus-X1 - August 5, 2011

Well, how old are you?

I lived like that too, when I was in my 20s.

But, I’ve been there and done that. When you get serious about having a committed relationship, it gets a lot more complicated than a one-night stand.

237. somethoughts - August 5, 2011


I was referring to when I was younger, I am happily married and know that in any relationship there will be challenges and arguments. Also enjoy watching hot woman get it on in adult films.

238. Steve0261 - August 5, 2011

As long as it;s Chekov, a gay character is fine by me!

239. max - August 5, 2011

I’m all for a gay character but it is tricky with all the TOS characters having already been established as heterosexuals. Enterprise really missed an opportunity when they were creating their new cast.

240. Cygnus-X1 - August 5, 2011

237. somethoughts – August 5, 2011

—-I was referring to when I was younger, I am happily married and know that in any relationship there will be challenges and arguments. Also enjoy watching hot woman get it on in adult films.—-

Yeah, but there wouldn’t be as many challenges at the beginning if the issue of children was most likely not a factor, and the issue of long-term coupling did not have an evolved instinctual component relating to the former, as it tends to be with men and women. There’s primal psychological stuff going on between men and women in courting/mating rituals that just isn’t as much in play between gay men.

241. Basement Blogger - August 5, 2011

@ 190. Commander JJ Adams. says

“I simply believe that there is some type of chemical imbalance in their genetic makeup that causes them to be abnormal. I’ll refer to the old addage: “God made Adam & Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

You cite absolutely no evidence to support your theory. And using the term “abnormal” is harmful. We cannot let gay teenagers believe they are “abnormal.” This is why many are concerned about gay teens committing suicide. See the “It Gets Better” Project. In fact, there is evidence that homosexuality is inherited. Link.

You then say,

“Bu so be it. I care not about political correctness. That’s whay has run this great nation and the rest of the world in to the toilet anyway. The hell with PC!!! Speak your mind!” @ 190

Look, not all politcal correctness is evil. It’s PC to be anti-racist. And I’m not one who embraces all PC. I believe Larry Flynt has the same right to publish Hustler magazine as Tim LaHaye has to wrtie fundamentalist Christian novels. But some PC is good. It has helped us to be more tolerant. As for speaking your mind, I’ll paprahpase Voltaire. I may not agree with your speech but will defend your right to say it.

Scientific evidence of being born gay

242. Basement Blogger - August 5, 2011

By the way, @ 190. Commander JJ Adams., your comment that gayness is a chemical imbalance would seem to indicate you can cure “homosexuality.” This is as ludicrous as threrapist Marcus Bachmann, husband of presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, saying you can “pray away the gay.” By the way in Michele Bachmann’s world, being gay is not PC.

But I dgress. Some therapists at Bachmann’s clinics have indicated that God made man to be attracted to a woman’s breasts. Yeah, sounds funny. So why don’t I let Trekker Stephen Colbert talk about it in the hilarious piece below.


243. somethoughts - August 5, 2011

If the human race slowly became 100% homosexual and no technology in the world can reproduce human beings (arguments sake) would the human race cease to exist?

If there is another lifeforce in the world that slowly became homosexual 100% without the ability to reproduce would this not be a doom switch?

This theme of being different was done to dealth in the Xmen movies where they draw upon the hatred, bigotry, and fear to someone that is different. Where they pitted humans vs mutants

244. Desstruxion - August 5, 2011

Identification tags on uniforms. That’s it. Then we’d know who liked boys and who liked girls.

245. Capt Who Cares - August 5, 2011

Ugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Abrams is ruining everthing.

246. Odkin - August 5, 2011

People keep saying “chemical imbalance” when they mean “genetic defect”.

247. ree - August 5, 2011

What I want to know is why there can’t be a BISEXUAL character. Why must the characters be either straight or gay? How about flirting with both men and women openly?

So I vote for a bisexual Kirk. Just give him a male yeoman and throw in a short and subtle suggestive exchange between the two. Because I’m sure that it would be more than acceptable in the 23rd century to spread the love among different genders and alien species.

248. C.S. Lewis - August 5, 2011

How about a devout Anglican officer on the U.S.S. Enterprise, morning prayer and all? He could even be a tortured Anglo-Catholic worried sick over the on-going schism with Rome and Orthodoxy.

Oh, well maybe not. It’s not like the officer corps of the Royal and US navies have ever held an Anglican in their ranks. (God forbid a Presbyterian, no that simply would not do. Next you’ll have Ian Paisley and his Old Sword running about the bridge condemning the homosexual and adulterous characters. Sacre bleu!)

Besides, it’s too preposterous. Too offensive. Too divisive to portray an actual believing, praying man in the service of his country (and who is not a secret, closeted sociopath).

C.S. Lewis
(Placing wagers on the demonstrated tolerance of such a ludicrous idea…)

249. CarlG - August 5, 2011

@154: “Please, nothing at all controversial…”

“Private Little War”, “Let that be your Last Battlefield”, and “Measure of a Man” would like a word with you.

250. CarlG - August 5, 2011

@149, 150: Yeah, that is true — either they should do it well, or they shouldn’t bother. That would be the only real reason I would consider voting no.

@248: If I correctly understand what you’re getting at, I agree that a non-douchebag Christian character wouldn’t go amiss. Or non-douchebag religious person in general. Not particularly religious myself, but I just think that Trek does itself no favors by ignoring such a huge part of the human experience (for good or ill).

Ahh, hell with it, let’s just have Captain Jack show up and teach the crew how to “dance”, if you know what I mean? :)

251. JP - August 5, 2011

I’m surprised to see so much homophobia amongst Trek fans. I always assumed the “Trek fans are so tolerant” charge was overplayed but I had no idea it was quite this widespread.

On a side note, the “sex with animals” argument is a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

252. C.S. Lewis - August 5, 2011

Only a narcissist would assume anyone cares whether he lives or dies let alone how he pleasures himself. “Homophobia” and other selfish red herrings are irrelevant.

While many sinful lives are barren and destructive, homosexuality is considered the worst because malum in se it interdicts even the possibility of grandchildren.

It is the passive murder of an entire family line, of generations of children never born and generations of sacrifice and heartache wasted, terminated for the cheap thrill of a few moments’ selfish gratification.

Diversity and tolerance have nothing to do with narcissistic self-love. It is a Darwinian dead end. (Are you surprised a Christian sees no conflict between his faith and evolution? Why should there be? Life ***is***.)

“Honour thy mother and father that your days may be long upon the land the LORD thy God giveth thee.”

253. NCM - August 5, 2011

Jack, credit to you. Though it’s disheartening to hear that you wish you weren’t as you are. I know people with disabilities who wouldn’t change their circumstances, it’s part of who they are; challenges do make us stronger. As parent to a child with a disability, I have some awareness, here. I hope most gay people are reasonably content with who they are, what they are. I find it appalling that our modern culture leads many such people to feel suicidal – what’s the big deal? Why on earth does one man or woman care about the sexual practices between any two consenting adults.

To some extent, sex is sex. With eyes closed, one wouldn’t necessarily know the difference… So it’s the mindset and it seems to me that people are too hung up on that mindset. Seriously, I think the last thing most copulating Americans want, at any given moment, is to procreate. So what’s the big deal? Again, sex is sex; a limited variety of anatomy’s involved and who in his right mind cares about how any two other people align those body parts?

254. =A= - August 5, 2011

no to gay wtf!

255. NCM - August 5, 2011

Holy crap; just read post 252. Talk about aberration of nature. C.S. Lewis would surely sue for defamation of character… Presumably this imposter would have us believe that anyone who has sex for reasons other than procreation and anyone who doesn’t procreate is evil. Or perhaps I just missed the joke. If creepy was what he was going for, he achieved his goal in this case.

256. Let Them Eat Plomeek Soup - August 5, 2011


I absolutely agree.

I don’t think they should work overtime to get a gay character into the next movie. If one happens to end up there in the process of writing a kick-ass story, then by all means keep him/her there. I personally am not a fan of Kirk/Spock or Chekov/Sulu or or Bones/Whoever etc…so I’m going to say please don’t make any of the TOS characters come out of the closet…however, a new character with gay undertones…that’s a different story.

By the way–I’m speaking very technically here–in the argument of gay people and IDIC…IDIC is Infinite Diversities for Infinite Combinations. Unless a person can get pregnant with someone of the same sex, how does homosexuality contribute to the Combinations?

Just asking.

257. No one in particular... - August 5, 2011

While I may disagree with his choice of lifestyle, I agree with #3, “That One Guy”, 110% . Having a gay character for the sake of having a gay character would be a disservice to anyone who has made that choice. “After Elton” is NOT doing anyone who considers themselves gay ANY favors with this hellbent pursuit.

I am even more in agreement with #256…on both points.

Whether you believe in a Creator or you believe everything happened accidentally, it’d be hard to argue the point that homosexuality is natural when in either case procreation is the order of things; in the latter it’s the drive that pushes a species to evolve, and in the former, procreation is a commandment of God.

258. DeShonn Steinblatt - August 5, 2011

On a planet of 7 Billion people we need all the gay we can get. Not that your average trekkie has ever participated in reproduction, but still, them gays and lesbians may just be humanity’s last hope.

259. Will_H - August 5, 2011

If they did do a gay character I hope they wouldn’t do it just to have a gay character. So far the only show I’ve seen to pull it off well was BSG. Hoshi and Gaeta were people we already knew and it just happened that they were gay, it didn’t define them in the show. I’d be perfectly fine with something like that, but some movies and shows make a gay character just to try and apease the PC and gay crowd and I think that hurts a movie. Make a film about people, not their sexual orientation.

260. LukasKetner - August 6, 2011

224, Me too, but I also hope he’s taking a few names. Some here have made far more insulting and bigoted comments than those already ousted.

261. AJ - August 6, 2011

I am in full agreement with TOG in #3, but I also think, perhaps, the train has already left the station for a gay character in Trek to have any cultural impact beyond altering the discussion to how was he/she integrated into the story. Certainly, it would not be as ‘groundbreaking’ as GR’s original show.

262. NCC-73515 - August 6, 2011

239. max “but it is tricky with all the TOS characters having already been established as heterosexuals”

Not at all. They could easily be bisexual.

263. chrisfawkes.com - August 6, 2011

Addressing the sexual orientation of any character other than the main ones is going to look forced. Kind of like having screen time devoted to a red shirt picking up the girl.

264. alejandro - August 6, 2011

It dosn’t matter as long as there is part two

265. chrisfawkes.com - August 6, 2011

Of course you could do it then change the line to “going where 90% of man has never gone before”.

266. Damian - August 6, 2011

Can someone tell me WHY was the fleet in the Laurentian system?

Sorry, just thought I’d throw that out there:)

267. Chain of Command - August 6, 2011

I’m not going to go see the movie for any other reason than to be entertained by 7 of my favorite fictional characters that I have followed since I was a child.

I want to see a film that’s about our hero’s working together to achieve a goal or solve a problem that concerns the fate of millions. I want to see them explore and show us something we’ve never seen before. I don’t want to see a movie that has another English speaking, over-the-top Khan wannabe, or a doomsday weapon that’s going to be used to destroy Earth.

In regards to a gay character: No problem with it, but what would be the point of broadcasting a characters’, any character’s for that matter, sexual orientation (main character or otherwise) in the new film? How is their sexual orientation going to relate to stopping a galactic calamity, repairing the warp drive, or beaming the crew out of a tight spot?

If something isn’t organic to the story you’re telling then it isn’t necessary.

268. Mel - August 6, 2011

I wouldn’t mind a gay character if it is done in a certain way.

The character shouldn’t be a stereotype. So no overly flamboyant feminine looking gay man or very masculine looking gay women.

No long make out or pillow talk scenes. I have the same opinion in regards to heterosexual pairings. I watch Star Trek more for the science fiction aspects and less for things, which I can see in romantic movies. So in short, not too much soap! You can have a gay character without making it soapy.

I also would prefer a gay man over a lesbian in the movie. Most sex movies intended for heterosexual men include scenes, in which two women have sex with each other. It seems most men really enjoy watching naked women touching each other. Not many seem to have a problem with “hot lesbians”. Unfortunately a lot of those men voice the most homophobic comments, if they only see two men holding hands. So I am all for making hypocritical men like these feel uncomfortable!

But I think it would probably be less problematic, to make a character simply bisexual. There wouldn’t be any problems with TOS canon. If a male character was shown together with a women in TOS, it wouldn’t be easy to make him gay, but it would be easy to make him bisexual.

269. chrisfawkes.com - August 6, 2011

Carson Kressley as Harry Mudd

270. Commander Thor - August 6, 2011

See!! See!! Told ya all along that new Kirk is completely opposite from the real Kirk.

271. Obsidian - August 6, 2011

59 – “58 — 39% say flat-out no.”

While a combined yes or maybe is 60%.

272. BaronByng - August 6, 2011

Star Trek is, let’s remember, the HUMAN adventure. Every really good story in Trek has been about people, and that means culture, cultural conflict, sex and sexuality, and how all of this drives us.

If it was just a show about spaceships and explosions and phaser beams, we could edit out all the human dialogue and introduce Star Trek: Special Asperger’s Syndrome Edition.

It can drive us in one direction (the diverse, accepting, nurturing, post-nationalist, post-racial, post-speciesist Federation) or another (the honor-driven Klingon culture, the supremacist/authoritarian Romulan and Cardassian cultures, etc.) or still others, like the xenophobic Malcorians, with gender roles, sexual mores or sexuality that is alien to us (TNG: The Outcast, ENT: Cogenitor, TNG: Angel One, etc).

Even in TOS, it was clear that race still mattered (at least, as a metaphor for human racism) – Spock’s biracial nature was a plot point on many an occasion, and inter-species relations were far from settled (Journey to Babel); plus as mentioned above, there were plenty of episodes that played on the “why can’t we all just get along” theme.

In the context of the 1960s, with SO MUCH GOING ON (race riots, Voting Rights Act, Vietnam, student protests, post-JFK assassination, MLK and RFK assassinated 1968, the rise of mega-corporations, and huge cultural and urban/suburban shifts happening…it was VITALLY important that Star Trek had people of all races and nationalities working together for the common good.

And yes, while it doesn’t have to be the focus of the movie (and it’s unlikely a feature film could develop the ideas well enough without it being a major part of the plot), minority VISIBILITY matters. That was the ENTIRE point of DS9’s “Far Beyond The Stars.” If you can’t see someone like yourself represented positively in popular culture (not just sci-fi) it is like society says you don’t exist, you’re not worthy.

How many young black people were encouraged to do great things by the presence of Uhura, a strong, intelligent, competent professional, on the bridge of the Enterprise? Or Dr. M’Benga in sickbay? Or even Dr. Daystrom
– who was allowed to be an arrogant genius and a tragic figure? Getting a black captain after 30 years was maybe late, but still, a milestone.

So I say yes, it’s long overdue. But yes, it has to be there for a reason, and well-written.

273. dave - August 6, 2011

Not having an overtly bi or gay character is certainly better than doing it wrong. Sure, in the future no one will care. It’s still stupid that even after states have sanctioned gay marriage that we have people still calling for a Constitutional amendment to prohibit it. The cat is out of the bag and nothing but a dictator or a group pandering and winning votes on fear will change that…….maybe if the new character is Kahn they will touch base on his attempt to have outlawed it during his reign and how in the 23rd century the notion is so completely alien. How will those societies today be remembered tomorrow?

274. Commander Thor - August 6, 2011

Just so we include all the sexual oreintations, we need an asexual character, a zoosexual character, and definately need a homicidial-sexual character. Remember the villian from Passenger 57 with Wesley Snipes? Thats a homicidal-sexual.

If you object to the above, just remember, that there is nothing wrong with it. You’re just afraid of it. Right?

275. DeShonn Steinblatt - August 6, 2011

“I’m okay with a gay character, but”

“I wouldn’t mind a gay character if”

“I’m not a homophobe, however”

“Nothing against gays, although”

Well, I do believe I see a repeating pattern around here.

276. BaronByng - August 6, 2011

Points of fact:

Khan Noonien Singh would be ethnically Sikh, not Arab. We can only speculate on his religious beliefs, if any, but it is unlikely that he was Muslim.

On the word “lifestyle:”

Being a foodie is a lifestyle.
Being a city-dwelling urbanite, or a SUV-driving suburbanite, is a lifestyle.
Being outdoorsy and fitness-y is a lifestyle.
Being green, moving to the country and growing all your own food is a lifestyle.
Being religiously observant is a lifestyle.
Being a drug dealer is a lifestyle. (And how’s that workin’ for ya?)

I could go on and on, but these are all easily-recognizable as personal choices, moral/ethical codes and cultural preferences.

Being homosexual is not a personal choice nor is it a cultural preference, anymore than being straight, dark-skinned, redheaded or left-handed is.
Sexual orientation is a complex product of a person’s mental, biological and neurological makeup, but it’s not a choice.

The science (SCIENCE!) is increasingly pointing to genetics as part of the cause, hormones during pregnancy another, as another poster linked upthread. For the record, we don’t know what makes people heterosexual either, probably because, as the majority in most cultures, the norm is much less interesting to study than the statistical deviation from the norm.

Which brings me to another point, about the word “normal.”

Normal does NOT mean “good.” It means “conformance to an average” in mathematics, or “expected patterns of behaviour,” in sociology.

Of course, in any population, sampling for some criteria or another, you see bell curves. If you rated frequency of sexual activity, a minority would
be asexual / abstinent / incapable, a large majority would be in the middle, and another minority would be (for the sake of argument) wildly promiscuous. Statistically speaking, the norm is the middle, the average, the “expected.”

Sexual orientation is the intersection of multiple bell curves. For the sake of argument, there might be attraction to humans / attraction to inanimate objects. But also, scales of emotional volubility. Fetishes. Hair color preferences. Sure, opposite/same-sex attraction, but even within a certain gender grouping, there’s spectra yet again, from “heterosexual, if I could only find someone to have sex with” to Warren Beatty’s character in Shampoo. (Or Captain Kirk, for that matter.)

I mean, if you’re straight, do you think you and all your straight friends go home and have the exact same straight sex with your straight significant others? I highly doubt it.

It’s also worth exploring where intolerance comes from. In my book, it’s usually when people in a group feel that they don’t recognize themselves in the culture anymore; or when they’re doing worse off, economically. You just have to look at history to see that when times are bad, people circle the wagons and distrust the Other, and vote for people that promise a return to mythical better times, or who subtly send signals that they want to reinforce or raise their core voting group in the cultural status game. And other people exploit this feeling of uncertainty for their own benefit…the Commissioner Beles of the world.

277. NCM - August 6, 2011

Gay = not natural? Rubbish! Homosexuality is widely observed in animals. If it isn’t ‘natural,’ if it’s a genetic defect, why would we see cross-species consistency?

Nature/God ensures variation within species and certain types of ants, for example, demonstrate that God/nature do not intend for all members of all orders of species to reproduce; that some are intended to fulfill other roles.

According to Wikipedia (you may question the source, but claims are well referenced and could easily be checked out by looking into the diagnostic manuals of the noted professions): “Concensus of behavioral and social sciences, as well as health and mental health professionals is that homosexuality is a normal and positive variation.” – Statement is well referenced.

Medical and psychological professions don’t always get it all right, but they base their opinions on more information and hard facts than most of us rely on, here. Even if you don’t believe… you might consider the possibility that God/nature, didn’t get it all wrong with about 1 in 10 humans.

278. CarlG - August 6, 2011

@272: Well said.

@256: IDIC is about culture and philosophy, not procreation.

@255: Is is just me, or is “CS Lewis”‘s hijacking of a dead author’s name vaguely on the macabre side? Regardless, post 252 makes me want to dice my Federation passport and emigrate to The Culture instead.

279. Commander Thor - August 6, 2011

Right on! Let’s start by ensuring the rights of all
gay-cannibals everywhere. It’s only natural. Even if you are a vegetarian something has to die for you to live.

The Romans were not just homosexuals they were everything-sexual. And they were also cannibals. When Rome was under seige by the Barbarians, they sold and ate the meat of the freshly killed gladiators. That’s a historical fact.

In TOS: Taste of Armageddon, Kirk says that we are natural born killers with 10K years of blood on our hands. It’s only natural, eating is only natural. Science shows that its bell curves and hormones during pregnacy that determines if someone will become a killer. After all, there are more murderers in the human population than any other demographic.

So its natural, normal, and positive variation of the human condition.

So I hope all of you will join the cause and donate part of your liver to the cannibalistic rights org.

Remember don’t h8.

Wait a tick……….

Don’t we have laws against that sort of thing. Maybe our old legal system will have to get with the times.

280. Marvin the Martian - August 6, 2011

“I don’t hate Vulcans. I’m not prejudiced against them. I’m just don’t support the Vulcan lifestyle.”

“It’s okay for people to be Vulcan, I just don’t want them to flaunt their logic in public.”

“Why are Vulcans always pushing their logic down our throats? Why can’t they just keep it to themselves?”

–Quotes from Focus on the Human Family, 2389.

281. Platitude - August 6, 2011

#3 is spot on.

Something subtle would be fine, I just don’t anything like “look at us we have a super flamboyant gay character we’re so progressive and stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

282. N - August 6, 2011

Deep Space Nine had mutiple same-sex relations which weren’t treated any differently. It also featured the religious elements.
Islamophobia or whatever the term is, is a redundant issue as mankind is past religion (cultural traditions may remain obviously) but having gay and lesbian couples should just be treated as a fact of life. No different than a person’s race.

I don’t understand how anyone can justify what love is and who love has to be between, there’s too much hatred and bigotry in the world. No offense to anyone patient/stupid enough to read my comments but I believe religion needs to go before there’ll ever be true equality.

283. CarlG - August 6, 2011

@279: I don’t know which is worse, your grasp on history or your grasp of prejudice. But you do get top marks for false equivalence, so I hope that’s some small consolation.

284. CarlG - August 6, 2011

@282: I’m right with you up to your last sentence — people should also be free to worship / believe / not believe / whatever in whatever way they choose, otherwise we’re back at square one. It’s not religion thats the problem, it’s what humans choose to do with it.

285. N - August 6, 2011

@284 fair enough, that’s more just my perspective… my family/upbringing left me sour when it comes to religion. I’ll admit I’m bias there :/

It would be unfair and prejudice of me to accuse everyone who follows a religion of being a bigot because there are people who do believe in tolerance and love for all their fellow people.

286. Adolescent Nightmare - August 6, 2011

We are not going in the closet to please the grayhairs.

That is all.

287. somethoughts - August 6, 2011

Cant win if you have a smithers or a lenny, it would come off as either funny, pandering or annoying for a space movie.

288. JP - August 6, 2011

279: You’ve also commited the logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

I think it would make a good reminder to provide you all with Carl Sagan’s baloney detection kit. So here we go:

Based on the book The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric :

Ad hominem – attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from “authority”.

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an “unfavourable” decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god’s will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not “proved”).

Non sequitur – “it does not follow” – the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc – “it happened after so it was caused by” – confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question (“what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle – considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the “other side” look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term – a subset of excluded middle (“why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?”).

Slippery slope – a subset of excluded middle – unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Straw man – caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words – for example, use of euphemisms for war such as “police action” to get around limitations on Presidential powers. “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public”

289. Anthony Pascale - August 6, 2011

I have not had to close this down yet but some people here have gone over the line.

Firstly a reminder that posting under multiple names = instaban and deletion.

Secondly, labeling any group of people as “unnatural” “immoral” “defective” etc. is trolling and not allowed here. I can see many reasons to vote no in the above poll, and that is fine. It is quite possible to make arguments without such personal attacks on a group of people.

290. Jack - August 6, 2011


Heh. I hope they’re grayhairs… sometimes I wonder.

Again, all this is pretty darned central to what Star Trek should be about…

291. Let Them Eat Plomeek Soup - August 6, 2011


“We felt… Spock’s torture, of course. But Amanda and I also had a dream. One that justified even the risk of our precious son’s life and sanity. What point is there in any life surviving unless it has meaning? The meaning of Spock’s existence is the very meaning of our marriage: What our two lifeforms combine, and offer something of value to other lifeforms.”

-Sarek of Vulcan

Combining other lifeforms…to make another lifeform? The very meaning of their marriage?

Sounds like procreation to me.

292. NCM - August 6, 2011


I’m glad you haven’t shut us down. This may be the most meaningful discussion you’ll have on this site, for a long time. It is really interesting to hear the many perspectives and some of us may actually be learning something, even if we’re not likely to change our views much.

I apologize to all for crossing the line in one of my posts.

293. NCM - August 6, 2011

@265: “…going where 90% of man has never gone before…”
But where 20%, in at least one study, reported fantasizing about going.

@276: BaronByng – Well said

@278: Yeah, I know.

@279: Commander Thor – I probably shouldn’t bother to respond – your views are as extreme as your rhetoric, but my cursory check into your ‘facts’ on Roman cannibalism was fruitless. The unsavory practice was once widespread around the world, having cultural implications unrelated to homosexuality. Quite clearly, the majority of cannibals throughout history have been straight men. I’m sorry that you see “gay cannibals everywhere.” That would, indeed, be frightening.

I, for one, am glad that the prevalence of gay people is much greater than the prevalence of the murderers and cannibals you feel deserve equal representation should gay people have equal representation. But I guess I can go with that; one in ten crewmen/women on Enterprise should be gay in the next movie. I’m not sure what the prevalence of murderers is, world-wide, but I think .5 to 2.0 would be sufficient, and perhaps 1 in several million should be a cannibal – Wow, they’re going to need a lot of extras!

294. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 7, 2011

I find it strange that people have problems with seeing a gay or lesbian couple even holding hands on the screen, yet movies and television programmes constantly bombard us murderers, serial killers, rapists etc and there are even times when the viewer may feel a certain sympathy for some who have done these crimes because of the extenuating circumstances that may have been presented within a particular story line. There is even a popular television series called Dexter. Dexter is a serial killer and the series deals with his story, his perspective etc.

Somehow all this is OK, but some people are saying they don’t want to see or can’t handle the sight of gay or lesbian couple, on a Star Trek movie, who may also happen to be law-abiding, responsible Starfleet members and crew of the Starship Enterprise. Am I missing something here?

Apparently some of the NZ Maori tribes practiced cannibalism. It occurred at very specific times, after a battle had been won. The victorious tribal warriors would eat the flesh of the adversary they had killed in battle. The greater the defeated warriors’ fighting skills, courage etc, the more chance he would get eaten by the victors. The Maori believed that by eating the flesh of such a worthy, but obviously beaten, adversary, they would gain some of the *mana*, spirit of those warriors and so gain even greater strength for any other battles they may engage in later on.

This is believed to be one of the reasons why many Maori embraced Christianity so quickly and easily. The Eucharist ritual (Communion), where it is often referred to “eating the Body and drinking the Blood of Christ” made sense to them. If some saw it as OK to eat the flesh of a great warrior, how much more spirit/mana could be gained from eat the flesh and drinking the blood of God himself, if only done symbolically. Partaking in Holy Communion replaced cannibalism, for which many were no doubt rather grateful.

What this has to do with homosexuality, I have no idea, but I thought I would share my meagre understanding of cannibalism, pre-European Maori style.

295. somethoughts - August 7, 2011


That is why the western world is so fat, the warriors there feast on the milk and flesh of cows thus gaining the cows mana and strenght ;)

296. Pauln6 - August 7, 2011

I think one of my posts was deleted – probably because I used a phrase that might be more offensive in the USA than it is here in the UK. Oh well.

Hollywood has a poor record on homosexuality. Look at 300 where the macho Spartans on screen berated the Greeks as ‘boy-lovers’ when in fact homosexuality was the cultural norm among teenagers because the sexes were segregated. I was also rather sad that the good guy Homosexual MI6 agent in the movie version of State of Play was written out, leaving us with only an amoral bi-sexual character where they felt the need to ram home the fact that he was bi in the dialogue when (unlike the MI6 agent who’s relationship with an an American does have some bearing on the plot) his sexual preference was pretty much irrelevant.

Going back to the overall discussion – Roddenberry deliberately avoided religion in Star Trek, at least among the crew and that was carried on through the whole series so that it added an nice juxtaposition in DS9. I don’t think they should change that philosphical approach. However, they often alluded to spiritual beliefs – Uhura’s clear approval of blossoming Christianity on a planet in one episode for example. They don’t need to ram it home and they shouldn’t do that with homosexuality either. The writers in Xena milked the lesbian undertones without needing to be specific. Keep it brief, keep it subtle, get people talking, and then do a J K Rowling and tell everybody that yes, Sulu was meant to be bisexual a few years later.

Also note that Arcturians are asexual and reproduce by cloning, while Rhaandarites are androgynous and all look male to the human eye – women wear jewellery.

297. somethoughts - August 7, 2011

As long as its a great story and organic, I dont care. Still a gamble imo as cleary both sides maybe offended which may lead to poorer than expected box office results.

298. DNB - August 7, 2011

@ 294 Keachick: In American (and also European) conservative thought the family is regarded as the smallest and central entity of society. Greater societal entities (communities, states, nations) stand and fall with the health of the traditional family. You can even find that definition in some old encyclopaedias. In that view, however, homosexuality is considered a specific menace because it threatens traditional family structures from within, while representations of the usual ‘bad guys’ rather highlight and reinforce the unity of traditional morals.
I do not share that belief, since it is rather orthodox and neglects that a) modern societies do not function in that way and are actually quite robust, and b) there have always been non-traditional ‘lifestyles’ without communities desintegrating, actually diversity has always been characteristic of thriving societies. Anyhow, that might give you an explanation.

Gays in the new Trek? Do it. But I agree with others: It has to be subtle. If you present it as something special it will hardly been seen as the norm. And I have to disagree with some statements here that social background and sexual orientation have never played a central role in Trek. Of course they have! The social qualities, characters and backgrounds have always constituted the group of heroes that have together faced the unknown in the plot of the week. Love interests have played a role in countless Trek stories. All that personality stuff creates a social reality without which science fiction would not work. So, to show gay as normal in Trek you would have to make it part of the personality of one of our heroes i.e. one of the enterprise crew. Make it subtle, people could hardly feel offended, and critics and intellectuals would give you a lot of kudos for that.

299. DNB - August 7, 2011

… and the overwhelming majority of fans as well, of course!

300. N - August 7, 2011

Just get the writing team to watch Rejoined.

301. Christopher Roberts - August 7, 2011

The danger is written by hetrosexual, gay characters end up little more than titilation. “Rejoined” on DS9 was more about the story, although it obviously sprang from the starting point of how can we get guys to watch this? If they had been two men, I think they’d have had a fight on their hands with Executives. That used to be a man aspect of Dax, also played well in the Season 1 story of the same name.

302. Jack - August 7, 2011

292. I think lots of posts have been deleted, mine have too — as happens here whenever this topic comes up. Believe me, it’s not about politics. But, yes, I’m glad the site’s finally allowing debate and discussion.

303. Steve - August 7, 2011

21st century earth bound idiologies have remaind very transparent within the Star Trek university, that’s what has made it so successful, as viewers we want to escape our time and planet not be subjected to a futuristic version of coronation street in space. The idea of introducing gay characters to Trek is flying in the face of Gene’s original concept of Trek, and let’s face it if that’s what he wanted he could have easily introduced the idea in next generation.

304. NCM - August 7, 2011

@303: Steve – There’s a lot of evidence, from all those who’ve posted re: homosexuality in ST, including DS9, etc… that Roddenberry would hardly be rolling over in his grave. In fact, when asked how he felt about all the K/S slash fan fiction, he had no problem with it. He even wrote the forward for a book of short stories, by fans, one of which braved that territory.

305. Will - August 7, 2011

If JJ puts a gay guy in the Star Trek mix, he’d better do it with taste, or lots of diehard fans will split. Any gay character should be no more noticeable than any other roll, such as any white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or Russian roll. If we are suddenly to watch a major character floating around the Enterprise wearing feminine clothing and obviously flirting with the other male characters, or if we are forced to watch a gay sexual scene, I’ll be sure NOT to buy a ticket. I don’t care about any ones sexual preference, but I don’t want it shoved in my face, not any more than homosexuals want the “straight” life shoved in theirs. Like one gay person who posted earlier said, the majority of gays are just as normal as anyone else. In other words, the “flamers” are not the norm. So, JJ, if you put a “flamer” in the mix, in my opinion, you’re gonna start a Star Trek interest die-off that you won’t be able to stop.

306. Daniel - August 7, 2011

@ #32, Frank. The “. . . the dancing guys on Rigel 9″??? OH, count me in for that one! I can just imagine a Vulcan glancing at that and saying: “Fascinating,” which would be a totally sensational context for such a mild comment. I’d like to request one white and two green dancers. No need to dwell on such a scene though. A moment would be enough.
Perhaps Kirk and Spock have had to go meet a secret agent at a certain bar and it turns out to be a men’s bar, by surprise. lolz! So, after this quick stopover for getting “driving directions” from the gay secret agent and a polite but speedy exit from the bar, they can return to the ship, travel in the indicated direction and set up for the next battle scene.
To get the timing right for a motion picture, this event would have to occur at a planet they were already on for other business, and directly before leaving the planet.
The extra friendly secret agent could then reappear as needed, briefly, at some point later in the film.
In this way, you have an important gay character who’s not a crew member. You’ve also added 1 more interesting place to visit.
This doesn’t approve or disapprove, but the point, is that it doesn’t exclude.
And I’d like to volunteer for that part.

307. Jack - August 7, 2011

303. Again, it doesn’t have to be a soap opera (although TNG certainly had elements of that built-in from the start). And it doesn’t have to define a character, anymore than an accent or skin colour. And again, it’s a show about human beings, whether they procreate or not. Caprica (a space opera) did this pretty well – it established a character, and then worked in that he was part of a male couple.

The same sex love stuff was mentioned in the Roddenberry-authored (although, really Alan Dean Foster) TMP novel, and other movie novelizations, I think, had stuff about group marriages and love instructors. He certainly talked about doing it. And TNG – a big-budget, studio-run, late 80s show, was a little too conservative for the topic.

301. Agreed. All the DS9 stuff seemed there only to titillate. Heck, even Will & Grace was afraid to show men embracing or kissing at all, and that was, I think, a little while after DS9.

I was surprised by the reaction of a bunch of female coworkers to Queer As Folk — they loved all the action (“It’s hot dudes, and they’re banging each other! It’s fantastic!” – a verbatim quote). I guess titillation is a, er, 2-way street.

But yeah, off the topic of a gay character, Trek hasn’t really done sex and romance very well. It was always kind of embarrassing whenever there was a romance on TNG. All the decon stuff on Enterprise was more icky and silly than sexy. And, yeah, the last thing I wanted to see in Nemesis was anyone, Riker or Shinzon, on top of Troi — it was like what I imagine walking in on my parents (shudder) would be like.

308. Paul - August 7, 2011

Did it occur to anybody that by 23rd century, we’ll already have means to prevent the child’s development from being adversely affected by mother’s hormonal instability? I mean, come on, they can cure cancer, they can raise dead, they can disassemble a person into molecules and put them into one piece once again… why on the Earth would they let kids suffer a major sexuality dysfunction? :-P

309. pauln6 - August 8, 2011

Well they would definitely have the means but it would be illegal. The Trek universe has a strong aversion to any form of eugenics. Impotence is sexual dysfunction, transgender dismorphism, homosexuality, and bisexuality are naturally occurring states of being most likely caused by a combination of genes and hormonal exposure in the womb (this is why fraternal twins are more likely to both be gay that than ordinary siblings and monozygotal twins are more likely to both be gay than fraternal twins). Since most Trek characters have sex for fun with no intention of procreating there is no logical reason to assume that same sex action would be viewed negatively. More than a few species also have marriages with multiple partners.

310. Brevard - August 8, 2011

I posted several days ago how ashamed I was to be a Star Trek fan based on this discussion thread. Unfortunately, I’m still ashamed. I cannot believe how many ST fans are so intolerant. Not only do I see homophobic responses, but also those that show religious intolerance, as well. AND those that just show plain old ignorance.

Just for the record, those who practice Islam are not all extremists nor terrorists, just as all Christians are not fundamentalists. Homosexuality is not a choice or a lifestyle or a preference. Using the “having sex with farm animals” argument is just plain stupid.

A lot of folks on here have missed the fundamental elements of what Gene Roddenberry created with Star Trek: an inclusive universe.

I am saddened by much of what I see in this discussion thread. I honestly wish Anthony would just shut it down. It’s a sad day for Star Trek and the legacy of Mr. Roddenberry.

311. pauln6 - August 8, 2011

No I think it’s wrong to close the thread while the debate is realtively polite and interesting. Federation is liberal and always has been. Roddenberry was pushing his own vision and agenda when designing it that way. It’s very illuminating to see the kinds of people who like Trek and yet don’t ascribe to its liberalism, inlcuding the commonalities they have with other intolerant groups of people with whom they are in strong idealogical opposition. It’s of more concern to me that NuTrek is subtley eroding his legacy of liberalism e.g. by failing to address the sexism in the show 30+ years after equality legislation in the modern world and where Kirk and co summarily and actively execute Nero and his crew at the end of the last movie with a degree of satisfaction even though (as seen on screen) it wasn’t necessary for them to do so.

312. AC - August 8, 2011

Star Trek has had gay characters…

Neelix. Obviously. He was not fooling anyone.

Oh, and the helmsman from First Contact was “supposed” to be gay. They just did not discuss is, as it should be. Who really cares or discusses where you stick your thingy when there is a borg takeover happening?

313. Mega BiteMe - August 8, 2011

“The original Star Trek series is such a product of it’s time that it doesn’t have any room or interest to have characters like that could be gay. And looking at the last film, it looks like it doesn’t want anything to do with what the other Star Trek series tried to do in handling those kinds of characters.”

That is simply the craziest thing I ever read. You realize you are talking about Star Trek right? Have you seen Star Trek? Wow dude, Star Trek broke boundaries all over the place.

Don’t fault the 2009 movie either, the show was a re-introducing us to the established characters, not introducing new ones.

Having a gay character is perfectly fine, I just don’t think it is necessary to have a gay plot point.

If Saavik was gay, if perhaps she mentioned her girlfriend in one scene but otherwise the movie hadn’t changed, then I’d be perfectly fine with that.

314. BaronByng - August 8, 2011

305 and 308, your bigotry is showing.

If you don’t want minority sexuality “shoved in your faces”….then we have to cut ALL sexuality in Trek, straight, gay, asexual reproduction by budding…you name it.

Fair is fair. Otherwise it’s just majority mob rule, and if you don’t like it you can go BACK TO RUSSIA (h/t to Eddie Izzard).

And, um, the fact that some people seem to love telling everyone about how much they hate having things “shoved down their throats”… thou dost protest too much, my liege. ;)

309, great point. It’s not an error, it’s just genetic diversity. You can’t pray (or medicate) the gay away.

315. Desstruxion - August 8, 2011

I’m in agreement with 314. Leave all sexuality out of Trek period. It has no place here anyway.

316. Me - August 8, 2011

Why do people feel that they HAVE to have a gay character in Star Trek? I always thought it was stupid to feel like you HAVE to have any certain type of character when it seems to be motivated by politics. Can’t you just write a good story that we’ll all just enjoy? The Star Trek writers shouldn’t be FORCED to insert certain characters or story lines because of the current political situation in the United States.

Dear Abrams & Company, please just give me a good story and leave the “politically correct” politicing at home. Thanks.

317. Pauln6 - August 8, 2011

# 316 You are missing the underlying message of Trek. The story comes first, absolutely, but the trappings surrounding that story should reflect Roddenberry’s message about what we want for our future. Call it political correctness if you like – but that IS Star Trek! He wanted a future where people of any race, creed, colour, or nationality could work together for the greater good at a time when black people did not have equality and when there was a real risk that the USA and USSR could go to war. The struggle that homosexuals still suffer in many parts of the world is exactly the kind of struggle that chimes with those ideals. Reflecting a time where homosexuals are accepted and equal is PRECISELY WHAT should be shown. Negative attitudes reflected on this forum shows PRECISELY WHY it should be shown. Just don’t make a big deal out of it on screen.

318. N - August 8, 2011

@315 I’d argue sexuality should be in Trek, sex however should not. Star Trek shouldn’t/doesn’t need sex scenes. If it can’t hold the audience’s attention without it, then fire the writing staff :P

There are gay characters sure (someone said in an interview anyone could be gay/bi) and an attitude of tolerance has been shown (mainly in DS9 – maybe it was going for the LESBIANS WILL HOOK MALE TEENS skewing but the story was done right)

IIRC after Whoopi Goldberg refused to define love as between a man and a woman (legend) the producers wanted to put gay couples (just holding hands) in Ten Forward but Paramount wouldn’t allow it.

319. Amorican - August 8, 2011

I don’t care who kisses whom on screen, just as long as it’s not Shatner and Iman again. That was nasty.

Star Trek, of all franchises, should have worked gay characters in a long time ago. This is exactly the sort of envelope-pushing that made the show what it is. (Gasp!! A black female officer on the bridge in 1966?!?)

This should have been done in 1987 with TNG, when it would have really meant something special. A bold statement. Something really forward thinking. Now it will just look like pandering from franchise that’s trying to play catchup on this issue.

But, since this is where we are, and there’s no going back to fix the past, I say pander away.

320. VorlonKosh - August 8, 2011

Agree with #3.

321. VorlonKosh - August 8, 2011

I find it strange that people have less of a problem accepting 2 people of different species being lovers (Amanda/Sarek), but 2 guys of the same species is out of the question.

322. VorlonKosh - August 8, 2011

How about if we compromise and have 2 males of different species in a relationship… Spock’s brother Sybok can be Sulu’s’ significant other. How’s that?

323. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 8, 2011

I think why gay characters were not introduced into previous Star Trek incarnations may have had to do the US laws regarding homosexuality at the time. It was not until 1986 in NZ that homosexual acts between consenting adults 18 years and over was not a prosecutable crime with time spent in prison. What has been the situation in this regard in the US? What is the situation in some states at the moment even? Where would the studio have stood legally in the past in terms of what they could shown or alluded to?

Obviously, they got away with Dr Phlox (Enterprise) having many wives and many of his wives having several other husbands ie both he and his wives were polygamous, but it also appeared that all these relationships were heterosexual, although there could be little reason to believe in such a society that in fact bisexuality may not have been the norm.

Too many uptight prudes, me thinks. There are people who still equate the mere sight of skin with sex… Duh

324. NCM - August 8, 2011

I’d read, somewhere, that fraternal birth order has a significant association with homosexuality in males – not in females. Read on, at least the first line of the quote below. It really does appear that nature plays a role in homosexuality. The following is copied from Wikipedia:

The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known predictor of sexual orientation, with each older brother increasing a man’s odds of being gay by approximately 33%.[12][13] Even so, the fraternal birth order effect only accounts for a maximum of one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men. There seems to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect of the number of older sisters.

In the book Homosexuality, Birth Order, and Evolution: Toward an Equilibrium Reproductive Economics of Homosexuality, Edward M. Miller suggests that the birth order effect on homosexuality may be a by-product of an evolved[citation needed] mechanism that shifts personality away from heterosexuality in laterborn sons. This would have the consequence of reducing the probability of these sons engaging in unproductive competition with each other. Evolution may have favored biological mechanisms prompting human parents to exert affirmative pressure toward heterosexual behavior in earlier-born children: As more children in a family survive infancy and early childhood, the continued existence of the parents’ gene line becomes more assured (cf. the pressure on newly-wed European aristocrats, especially young brides, to produce “an heir and a spare”), and the benefits of encouraging heterosexuality weigh less strongly against the risk of psychological damage that a strongly heteronormative environment poses to a child predisposed toward homosexuality.

325. NCM - August 8, 2011

@309: pauln6. You said so well what I’ve tried to say so often – wish you’d said so sooner!

Brevard @310: People are participating in this discussion because they’re getting something out of it. Why keep tuning in if you wish we’d all stop conversing. We’re not in the next cubicle. You don’t have to participate. You bemoan the presence of people with narrower (forgive, can’t think of a better, accurate description) views than you think befitting Trekkies/Trekkers, but I see that a strong majority here have no problem with other people’s sexual preferences – I find this discussion mostly encouraging.

I think the main reason for having gay characters is simply to make Trek more realistic – in the future, there’ll likely be lots of gay people making no more effort than the rest to hide their preference – I don’t think anyone has suggested JJ give a flamboyant gay man an act of his own in the next movie.

The crew should also be more representative of the widely inclusive Federation, but a couple of same sex extras holding hands in a corridor would be much more economical than adding 2 or 3 convincing aliens to the bridge.

326. Me - August 8, 2011

My point is that people get way too carried away when they are trying to be politically correct all the time. People say Star Trek HAS to have things in order to be politically correct. For instance, who has Hispanic blood I could say that Star Trek needs to have more Spanish people. The studio heads and Star Trek powers that be MUST BE RACIST since Hispanic people have not been given a major place in Star Trek lore. In American culture Spanish people are becoming more and more prevalent. We cannot be continued to be ignored by the racists at Paramount. Now, let’s go down the list of different races, religions, creeds, sexual preferences, hair colors, eye colors, height, weight, etc. of everyone else that has been ignored by Star Trek.

My point is that it gets ridiculous. No, just because I have Spanish blood does not mean that I think Paramount or the Star Trek powers are racists just because there aren’t enough Hispanic Star Trek characters (& I can’t think of any right now). Let the writers want the stories they want to write. Let’s not fit them into a box and say their stories have to reflect the hot political issues in America.

327. Me - August 8, 2011

^ Sorry, I wrote a typo in the third line of the first paragraph. I meant to say that as someone who has Hispanic blood, I could say that Star Trek needs to have more Spanish characters.

328. somethoughts - August 9, 2011

The enterprise encounters a alien planet which the aliens are all gay.

These gay aliens reproduce by means of test tubes since many eons ago their race slowly became 100% gay and their society embraced the gays and provided freedoms and rights to the gays. The hetersexuals became the ones hated on and suffered from being different and was outcasted, these hetersexuals are now hunted by these aliens as they pose a threat to the gays for being different, the irony.

Kirk is targeted by the leader of the planet and wishes to make kirk his partner. Lots of internal and past reflection commentary by kirk as to how earths past used to treat gays on internet forums and how kirk himself is a texan homophobe.

Btw no gay hand holding on the enterprise, ppl dont do that at work, its unprofessional and frowned upon, keep that stuff in their personal time on earth or vacation.

329. pauln6 - August 9, 2011

@328 – People leave their posts to comfort their lovers and waste time kissing on transporter pads just prior to a cucial mission but no holding hands? Actually I agree with you – two wrongs don’t make a right. However, off-duty crewmen can still hold hands on the Recreation Deck just fine.

@ 326 – I agree that Trek’s human crews have been a bit too dominated by caucasian actors, although there were quite a few jewish people in that category. There was defnitely an hispanic crewman in the Cage, and Sonia Gomez, springs to mind but yeah, caucasian and african actors have always dominated. It must be difficult to cover all their bases – how many Hawaiians have there been? Once again, two wrongs don’t make a right.

330. somethoughts - August 9, 2011


Nothing suspends belief in a movie than 2 characters holding hands in a epic sci fi movie, gay or straight.

I dont want to see spock and kirk holding hands while blasting aliens, spock or uhura, sulu and chekov or scotty and mccoy, that would be more akward than picard and his love interest in insurrection. I do,nt want to see 2 klingons, borgs or romulans either, its a epic sci fi space movie not titanic and the love story between different classes and a jealous husband.

Get on with the epic sci fi story and stop clowning around with twitter and planking pics. Yes to gay character only if relevant to epic storyline if not no thanks!

331. BaronByng - August 9, 2011

315 – Let’s have a story all about robots and Jefferies tubes, then?

328 – It was done in TNG, the episode was called “The Outcast.”

330 – Yeah, so Han Solo and Leia falling in love in Empire Strikes Back (and her rescuing him from Jabba the Hutt at the beginning of Return of the Jedi) was totally misplaced?

I mean, why rebel against the Empire anyway? Logically speaking they’re efficient and their goal is an ordered world. Alderaan got what it deserved, and no-one should even feel an iota of sympathy for all their dead relatives.

It seems like some of you really DO have Asperger’s syndrome. You relate more to the light switch on the wall in a background of a movie scene than to the emotional conflict between the actors in the foreground!

I mean the reason Episodes I-III were so terrible was because the actors were essentially little action figures for George Lucas to move around his expensive green-screen playsets, none of the emotion between any of the actors was really believable at all. It fell flat. THAT is what caused failure to suspend disbelief.

Abrams and crew have shown that they know that audiences need a HUMAN story to relate to. And humans are a mixed bag: flawed, vain, lusty, sexual, power-hungry, artistic, sensual, brilliant, nothing is ever really black and white. It is those things that drive our actions, it is those elements that create drama that is interesting to an audience. Spaceships flying around look neat, but a whole movie of that is just a video game. Love – whatever form it comes in – is a powerful motivator and pretending that love doesn’t exist or is somehow “lesser” than the love you feel is inhuman.

If there was a flaw in the first movie, it was not showing enough of Nero’s backstory…leaving only a single scene for us to get an idea of his rage at Romulus being destroyed, his wife and child killed, and 25 years in a Klingon prison.

332. Bob Bruman - August 9, 2011

I HAVE HEARD as a joke that in the reason there are no quadriplegics or gays in Star Trek is because in the future these things are cured! Well yes to the quads, YES, but as for gays…it is not funny, and it is not funny that gays who will go to this movie by the millions are not represented…every other minority is there!

333. Commander Thor - August 9, 2011

Yes, the Romans were cannabalistic. One example– (which comes from the History Channel, btw)– during the Barbarian seige of Rome in 410 the spectators at the Roman Colosseum bought the meat of the dead gladiators. There are many other cases which I don’t have room for here. We tend to glaze over the bloody history of Rome (and others) because we admire their civilization. The Romans had no problem with murder after all they took their kids to see it on a daily basis.

334. Commander Thor - August 9, 2011

Reading some of your posts, I would like to address this to those here who identify themselves as Latino/a or Hispanic. I am an expert in European history and a genealogist.

I would like to know what makes a person with Spanish ancestry different from any other person with European ancestry. Most people that identify themselves as Latino are a mix of Spanish and Native American. If you look at me, I’m white. But I have Cherokee, Creek, Irish, Scottish, Saxon, Celtic, Jewish, Gothic, and yes, Spanish ancestry.

I mean that if your ancestors came from Spain and mine came from France, then what’s the big deal. We don’t need the token “this” character or the token “that” character. We just need good characters that we can believe in.

Bill Murray, in Stripes, called Americans “mutts.” And really that’s what we are. We’re a mixture of a lot of different cultures.

If you trace your genealogy back far enough, then you’ll find that you too are a mixture of many different people. And with the way that humans love to make war, you’ll probably find that you had ancestors on both sides just like I did during the Battle of Haistings in 1066.

335. Commander Thor - August 9, 2011

My bad-

Typo in above, I meant “Battle of Hastings”.

336. Desstruxion - August 9, 2011

@331 Robots and Jefferies tubes? Funny. My point is that it would just be nice to go and see a movie with my kids (who also like Star Trek) and not have to find out what’s going on in the crew bedrooms. Hetero or otherwise.

337. Pauln6 - August 9, 2011

I thought, although Uhura did abandon her post without premission, the scene in the turbolift was note perfect. The characters were on duty, buttoned up, and trying to display a stiff upper lip in a tragic, difficult situation. The scene in the transporter on the other hand was indulgent, overplayed, and inappropriate in a time of crisis (your girlfriend is allowed to wander into the transporter to kiss you goodbye?). Not quite as bad as the movie 2012 where there was lots of excrutiating hugging going on while a woman was slowly drowning in the next room but almost. The transporter room scene could have been played out in a much more subtle way, maybe a bit of Vulcan finger-rubbing (they are telepaths after all) while she checks their communication boosters or whatever, and just make it equally obvious that Kirk has picked up on the vibe. If a gay scene is going to be as laboured and inappropriate as that scene in the transporter then I’ll vote no – lol. I’m all for humanising the characters but I’m not for making them look incompetent or unprofessional.

338. N - August 9, 2011

@337 I have to agree, Worf and Jadzia never let their relationship get in the way (barring that episode when Jadzia was severely wounded)

339. Commander Thor - August 9, 2011

In all seriousness folks, I go to Star Trek to see space battles and action. I don’t want to see people going to the bathroom (like in BSG) or a lot of making-out.

If you’re like me, then your girlfriend probably wants to see every drama film that comes out. So, after sitting through “Dear John”, I don’t want to set and watch “Sex Trek” in a turbolift.

340. Pauln6 - August 9, 2011

@339 True but they got the relationship balance largely right in the last movie. They simply went over the top with that one scene in the transporter room. It did feel as if the plot and common sense was shuffled to one side for a nice long scene for the ladeeez. Conversely, the movie’s portrayal of women in general was quite poor. No high ranking female officers on the Enterprise or the Kelvin, no female admirals with any lines, only one female vulcan on the science acadamy panel and she sat silently. Why no Number One or T’Pau for goodness’ sake? Uhura was fluent in Romulan and a computer expert. Captain Pike was injured. And an advanced Romulan ship from the future can’t detect incoming transporter signals and transport its own crew to the site? Really? Why didn’t Kirk organise a proper strike team with the skills necessary to complete the mission? That final scene was the polar opposite of the transporter scene – the plot and common sense was shuffled to one side for a nice long mindless action scene for the boyzzz. No movie can please all of the people all of the time I suppose. But tehy should try to strike a balance and featuring a gay character will help to do that.

341. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 9, 2011

#326 I think you miss the point here. Homosexuality, like the far more common heterosexuality, is not confined to certain groups of humans in the way skin colour, language and culture can be. Sexual orientation is an essential part of the overall human condition and is something we all share, irrespective of who we are, where we come from. From this perspective, it seems strange that different sexual orientations, ie homosexuality and asexuality (male and female), while both being in the minority, don’t appear to have had any representation within any of the Star Trek movies produced so far.

Something of an oversight, perhaps.

342. somethoughts - August 9, 2011


I agree, but do we really need this sexuality preference theme in a sci fi space movie? The reason it hasn’t been done in the past is not because it is too controversial or what not but because it’s boring and pits the left wing nuts with the right wing nuts and the people in between wouldn’t give a rats.

I wouldn’t pay a dollar to see a movie tackle a theme of sexuality, they be lucky if I rent it.

All I want to see in a sci fi space movie is drama, mystery, exploration and explorations with lots of special effects.

Gay or not Gay, open to Gay, who cares? This isn’t a issue in most modern cities that embrace diversity so why should this be a issue in the 23rd+ century?

343. somethoughts - August 9, 2011


344. somethoughts - August 9, 2011


Just look at Attack of the Clones, the chemistry between Hayden and Natalie was horrible and the casting for Vader was a mistake. Chris Hemsworth would have made such a better young Vader.

In Empire Strikes Back the love story was more subtle and came off less whiny or awkward.

George Lucas should cast Chris Hemsworth as Vader and make part 3.5 showing Hemsworth kick ass as Vader vs the Rebels. Nobody cared to see a baby Vader or teenage Vader, people wanted to see Vader kick ass and have some crazy story of betrayal and rebirth.

In Star Trek I would prefer they focus on the relationships between Kirk, Spock and McCoy and the Uhura relationship can be dissolved as her role in ST2009 was served and that was allowed to have Spock lean on Uhura’s shoulder to cry since Spock and Kirk/McCoy were not good friends then.

It could be simply written as Quinto Spock wishes to help rebuild Vulcan and he pursues a Vulcan female over a earth female and Uhura understands this and they remain friends.

345. Gerry Alanguilan - August 9, 2011

There have *ALWAYS* been gay characters in Star Trek. The difference is, they don’t go around saying, “Hey, I’m gay, DEAL with it!” because you know, it’s the future not the 21st century where people still go apeshit about stuff like this. But in the future, NOBODY CARES. Did anybody go around saying, “Hey, I’m a gay Orion. DEAL with it!”. Nobody cares. Everything and anything is already accepted. To impose our 21st century attitudes to the future of Star Trek is just idiotic.

346. NCM - August 9, 2011

Some here mischaracterize one group while promoting another. I can’t believe I actually feel the need to say that people with autism, including Asperger’s, actually do care about other people. As teens and beyond, those who have language at least – which includes those with Asperger’s – tend toward an audacity to share every basic human interest the rest of us have – sex, boyfriends/girlfriends, action films, etc.

347. BaronByng - August 10, 2011

346 – I get that. What I meant is that some people don’t seem to want any human story in their Star Trek, they want a “sci fi space movie™” which means lots of PEW PEW PEW! BLAM! ROKKIT SHIPS!… and none of the subtleties or complexities that make up Trek at its best.

I think maybe it’s some sort of extreme-male-brain thing. Any time something isn’t moving fast or blowing up or people aren’t fighting, or especially if there’s some relationship scene, their eyes glaze over.

336 – I don’t think any Star Trek was EVER aimed at kids, except for the Animated Series. It was always full of complex morality, political and social allegories; it was a reflection of our own world through the lens of sci-fi.

While I appreciate how you might feel, as a thinking adult, I resent it when the Concerned Parent line is pulled out of mothballs as an excuse to drag art down to the lowest common denominator. (Harrison Bergeron, etc.)

Yes, some people’s art (even popular/populist art) might contain something that you yourself are uncomfortable with, or that you’re not entirely prepared to discuss with your kids. You always have the option not to see the movie, although I would say you’re shortchanging your kids’ development by not challenging them. I would say trust your kids; they’re smarter than adults give them credit for, and they’ll ask questions if they have ’em. And trust yourself when it comes to finding the right answers.

348. Desstruxion - August 10, 2011

347 – I don’t think any Star Trek was EVER aimed at kids
Then why all the toys for every incarnation of the franchise?

The Motion Picture was probably the most artistic film in the series. No one needed to see who liked boys and who liked girls to appreciate it. Everyone could enjoy it. I guess we’ll just “drag it (Trek) down” with offensive social commentary from now on.

As far as being a “concerned parent”, that’s my job. The day they were born I became concerned and always will be.

349. BaronByng - August 10, 2011

348 – Ok, well, it wasn’t PRIMARILY aimed at kids.

Sure, you and I both probably watched it as kids, but I’m betting we were both too young to see it in first-run; its original audience was mostly college kids. The MEGO toys actually came much later, when it was in syndicated re-runs and/or TAS was on the air (1970s).

The best TOS episodes weren’t typical formulaic pap…they were highbrow stuff written by a group of well-known, award-winning science fiction authors – Harlan Ellison, Theodore Sturgeon, Robert Bloch… morality and sexuality, issues of power, gender, and race were the basis of nearly every great episode.

Where would ‘City on the edge of Forever’ be without the love story between Edith Keeler and Kirk, and the horrible moral choice he has to make to let her die to restore history?

How many times did we basically see Kirk pulling his boots on after (ahem)… interludes with the ladeez, and that relationship being crucial to the story? “The Mark of Gideon” is really about how a girl volunteers to, basically, get an STD from Kirk in order to alleviate the overpopulation of her species. And he certainly helped Kelinda learn more about kissing, even after seeing the Kelvans reduce poor Yeoman Thompson to crumbled styrofoam…

And it’s strongly implied that Kirk and Deela get it on in ‘Wink of an Eye’. Did he help repopulate their race?

And, um, Amok Time? The Pon Farr? (Invented by Theodore Sturgeon, I might add.) The whole episode is about Spock’s mating drive!

McCoy’s in the service because he got divorced. It’s mentioned pretty explicitly in the 2009 movie when he meets Kirk for the first time on the shuttle for new recruits. How does THAT not raise questions?

I agree that TMP was beautiful to look at. But there wasn’t any sexuality in it? Decker’s former relationship with Ilia (the Deltan who sends out pheromones like crazy and talks about her ‘oath of celibacy’…remember?) is the only thing that keeps V’Ger from absorbing the ship…that’s a major plot point. I’m sure the fact that she spends most of the movie in a very short dressing gown didn’t entice moviegoers at all.

Anyway, I get your point. Being a parent is an enormous responsibility, and of course I don’t know you or your kids so I’m in no position to judge. Only you can determine what’s best for your family. Then again, I also think kids are much more sophisticated than we give them credit for. I was reading “Again, Dangerous Visions” when I was 8 and I didn’t grow up warped…

But my hackles are raised whenever someone says “I just want a movie I can take my kids to.”

I remember watching the old At The Movies with Jeffrey Lyons and Michael Medved around the time Medved, who used to champion gutsy films, had kids and turned uber-conservative because “he couldn’t find movies to take his kids to,” and he supported conservative pressure groups who demanded changes in the ratings system, we got the creation of PG-13 and the dreaded R rating… it was the start of a real bowdlerization of American movie culture. Critically acclaimed movies from the early 1970s probably couldn’t even get made or distributed today based on MPAA standards. (Watch ‘This Film is Not Yet Rated’ for more on that…)

To me, kids are extensively catered to at all levels. And most movies are dumbed-down as it is. I’m a grown-up. I not only can handle a little more intellectual challenge from my entertainment, I welcome it.

What is ‘offensive’ social commentary always depends on history and your personal perspective. I think if it disturbs some people, then good. It means you have to examine why it disturbs you. But too many people don’t want to engage in any kind of self-questioning. Our culture has become narcissistic; rather than think to ourselves “Maybe I’m wrong about this, or I don’t know as much as I ought to,” we lash out at anything that questions our prejudices and attitudes. That’s exactly what the spirit of Trek is about… RISK…IS…OUR BUSINESS!

350. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 10, 2011

#349 Very well put.
Children need to learn that it is OK to be human and be comfortable in the (naked) physical bodies they have been endowed with. I really believe that many of the messages sent to children by Concerned Parents, religious groups and others are confusing and not that healthy.

That does not mean to say that I want to see gay or heterosexual couples going at it throughout half the movie, but having that aspect of our natures being totally denied/excluded throughout an entire 2. something hour long movie is basically unnatural and inhuman. Star Trek is about human beings, first and foremost…

351. charles charles - August 10, 2011

I voted maybe. I agree with the third commenter… Don’t make a gay character for the sake of it. I mean the original characters had no gays in it. So introducing a new character thats gay would have to include a personal scene or maybe even several. Of corse Roddenberry’s philosiphy was to accept all that didn’t harm and I think gay people should be accepted because its their thing and it does no harm. Even today though people are more open minded every single time there is a gay character the audience/viewers goes “Oh, he/she’s gay.” and then expect something certain. This goes against the philosophy. Doing a gay character would be VERY, EXTREMELY dangerous from a critical point of view as a movie maker. If they do do this the writers would be boarder-line gods. I think they should be Roddenberry’s point of philosiphy with the old Federation Prime Directive story mechanic. BTW im only 18 so if this seems unintelligent or ignorant excuse it.

352. Mega BiteMe - August 11, 2011

As I said earlier, I don’t think it is necessary to add a gay character to Star Trek.

Star Trek’s social messages have often been allegory, and Star Trek has already created a masterpiece of allegory regarding non-standard sexual gender roles. I’m talking about the ST:TNG episode ‘The Outcast’.

This episode is genius. It tackled homosexuality (and perhaps even transsexuality) with compassion and understanding in the *80s* and didn’t even bring up the H word once.

I cannot understate how amazing this episode is because it not only made the viewer accept the notion of non-standard sexuality, but one actually experienced shock, remorse and a sense of loss when the ‘deviant’ was cured.

Growing up non-standard as I did, watching The Outcast may have changed my life.

353. Desstruxion - August 11, 2011

As a parent I just think it’s healthier to let children be children and keep that innocence for as long as needed. Society will throw enough crap at them when they’re grown. What’s wrong with a little purity?

354. Mega BiteMe - August 11, 2011


What impurity are you implying?

355. Desstruxion - August 11, 2011

Purity in a child 354. Something that used to be appreciated.

356. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 12, 2011

Since when do people not appreciate *purity* of and in a child? Actually, many cultures actually go about destroying any innocence or purity of children at a very young age, the cruelest and worst example of this is the crime of female circumcision, performed on little girls as young as five years of age. This is somehow meant to maintain her purity. I only found out about this unspeakable cruelty, that can cause extreme pain, dysfunction and even death, and which still persists in North Africa, Bangladesh and other countries in that area of the world when I was 20 and since that day, any genuine purity or innocence I did have was destroyed.

Please do not talk about purity, especially when it concerns what children should see in terms of people expressing affection (hugging, kissing, holding hands) towards one another (albeit gay or heterosexual) or the (complete) nakedness of another human being. There is nothing impure about these things. There is impurity in the above atrocities, however. Strange that these cruelties should take place in places where words like “virtue”, “sexual purity”, “innocence” get put on a pedestal and are then used to excuse the continuation of what can bring about the very opposite.

Frankly, when I hear people rabbit on about “purity” and virginity, in particular, I just want to puke!

357. Desstruxion - August 12, 2011

Apparently I’m only supposed to be open minded when it’s your opinion huh Keachick. Not sure how circumcision came out of my posts. Makes me think you missed some medication today. I meant purity in letting a child be a child. I don’t want my kids to know certain things until they need to know them. There is such a thing as sexuality purity and we teach that to our children because it was taught to us and has served us well. My wife and I waited for one another and are glad we did. We had many opportunities to lose our virtue to others before that but we practiced self control. It’s a shame that so many don’t know how to do the same. I am perfect by no means but I will not apologize to anyone because I teach my kids right from wrong and protect them from things they will have plenty of time to learn later. There’s nothing wrong with someone wanting to take their kids to a movie and not have to cringe at foul language and not have to explain why everyone is taking their clothes off. If Trek ever stoops to that level it will then be dead for me. I think your next move would be to go and puke now.

358. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 12, 2011

The problem is that you call something a virtue that many others do not believe is necessarily a virtue. Also there is nothing inherently virtuous or otherwise about maintaining one’s virginity. Virginity is a physical state and having a sexual relationship or not does not in itself confer any kind of impurity or purity. True purity is a state of the heart/mind/soul. For the purposes of procreation at least, once puberty and sexual maturity has been attained, sexual relationships are normal and necessary. Sex is about a lot of things that includes procreation, which is why abortion (in quite probably the majority of cases) is an unhealthy, unnatural and unnecessary act. It is also obviously destructive.

As far as taking clothes off – well, for the most part, wearing of clothes is not essential (especially in modern controlled environments). People do it because it is what is expected of them and it can be a creative expression . However, this is not what you are talking about. You appear to make the act of not wearing much, if any, in the way of clothing, as some sort of sin and that it is not OK to feel comfortable simply being in one’s own skin, instead you insist that people have an unhealthy and unnatural attitude towards their own nudity or that of others.

I don’t need to explain why I am (near) naked in my own home. My family knows – it is because I have just come out of a bath or shower and need to dry off properly; I am hot (Auckland can a hot humid place in the summer) or because I don’t know what to wear or just can’t be bothered getting dressed until I need to. Being naked should be as natural as breathing. It is not just about sex and in fact often has little to do with sex. Ask any naturist – one can pretty much do anything at all while being naked, except for wearing some footwear perhaps and a cook’s apron, and that includes, of course, having sex or as I prefer to call it, making love.

If people were more comfortable with their nakedness, then, for the most part, no explanation would be necessary. It is time we grew up as human beings. This obsession and fear of the sight of our own skin or the sight of another’s is doing the Earth a lot of harm. A good deal of serious pollution around the world is the result of the clothing industries!

I mentioned female circumcision as an extreme example of how notions of “virtue” and “sexual innocence” have been and are used to maintain the continuation of a seriously perverted crime.

Star Trek also shows pitched space battles, a planet being imploded by a Romulan sent crazy with grief and a desire for revenge, a guy being punched repeatedly in the face, someone being run through by a katana and falling to his death etc. As far as I can tell, you have not made one single comment on the need to protect your children’s innocence by not having them see on the big screen such destruction and violence. Why should children have to deal with the sight of such mayhem and why should parents have to explain to them the whys of such scenes? However, these types of scenes are typical in many movies with PG-13 ratings and it appears that parents have few problems explaining these things… One wonders what messages people are really sending their children?

359. N - August 12, 2011

@Desstruxion I’m assuming by 357 you’re implying keeping children away from ALL sexuality?
I can understand not wanting children to see sex scenes (age ratings exist for a reason)
But what about romance/love? Surely love (gay and straight) is purely innocent? And education in basic love between two people of any gender can only help a child’s development and if a child sees innocent romantic love between two men or two women on an equal level to between a man and woman will help end homophobia and intolerance…

360. Mega BiteMe - August 12, 2011

#355 I asked what impurity you were implying.

Are you saying homosexuality is impure?

361. Desstruxion - August 12, 2011

My personal opinion is that homosexuality is outside of normal behavior. Men and women are designed to produce offspring. Two men together or two women together produce nothing. So I guess I am saying it’s impure. Actually any sex outside of marriage is impure. Now I’m sure I’ll be called a “homophobe” or “intolerant” but I could really care less. My opinion is just as valid as any other on this forum.

362. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 13, 2011

What about men and women who are in a sexual relationship, even married, and choose not to produce offspring? Quite a few married heterosexual couples are choosing that option and some make absolutely sure they don’t procreate by having themselves sterilized.

363. Lineman - August 13, 2011

As one reads down posts its amazing how off narrative they all get
Back to the Question at hand..Should there be Gay Characters included in the new Star Trek , Script?, Script I say better stand on its own merits before playing the”Gay Card”

I so tired of Hollywood playing the gay card for shock and aw, IT would surprise most people that a majority of (us)(me)gay people are just regular folks dealing with regular life situations, I mean WE ARE NOT A Species to be explored at the expense of science fiction , some of us are Lineman, Construction workers, Cops and what we do in bed is not necessarily how we define ourselves as people, or Worse Hollywood Writers Directors trying to salvage a poor script by including a Gay Klingon..And as a childhood fan of Star Trek now a 50 yr, old succesful man it would look to me like a scene from Desperate Housewives if I saw a Gay Star trek character parading across the screen..This is the problem when a Guy like JJ has people whispering into his ears , Please for Pete’s sake just stay on target with developing the new cast characters,You already have!

364. N - August 13, 2011

@Desstruxion by definition that is homophobia, but your opinion is your opinion and personally I think actions speak louder than words. Everyone has things they don’t agree with or believe in.

And I think Lineman raises very valid points, ultimately our sexualities (IDIC as they are) are part of WHAT we are, not WHO we are. And ultimately if people are good people does anything else really matter?

365. Desstruxion - August 13, 2011

Thanks N for being civil and respectful. I agree that it’s important for all to do good for others as often as possible, regardless of situation.

Lineman, my supervisor at work is a lesbian. I love her like as sister. She is also successful at her job and a fun person to be around. We don’t let our sexual orientations get in the way of our friendship. What we each do in the bedroom stays there. I’m glad you’re successful and are having a great life. As a lifelong fan of Star Trek also, I don’t want to see cheap exploitation of anyone. I really didn’t like the way women were portrayed in the last flick. I would have preferred a much more serious military epic where everyone wore the standard uniform and behaved professionally. Maybe there was a gay character in every scene. Do we need to put name tags on them that say ”gay”? I would just like to see a fun Trek movie and not have to mull over blatant social commentary. Many in the core fan base of Star Trek have deserted including several friends of mine that said the last movie was not Star Trek enough for them. The new fans are in it for the Star Wars feel to it (IMO). If the next film were to become overly preachy about any topic I think the response in ticket sales for any further Trek endeavors would rival Nemesis. I’ll end my posts on this thread with one more observation. In TWOK, Khan and his crew member Joachim had a special bond it seemed. It was apparent that they had an affection for each other. Maybe they were gay. If the gay fans saw that in them It would be no big deal. If the rest of us didn’t see it then that would be ok too. A great movie would be enjoyed by all. Wouldn’t that be a better approach for the next film?

366. Mega BiteMe - August 13, 2011

@Lineman, that is exactly it.

@Desstruxion, at some point you have to quit hiding behind the “my opinion is just as valid as yours” bullsh!t. Your opinion actually *is* invalid.

It’s funny you are so concerned about the purity of your children, yet you probably teach them to be a$$holes.

367. N - August 13, 2011

@Desstruxion I’m inclined to agree with part of what you say. I would be very happy with gay characters on Star Trek but I also feel that in the 23rd/24th century the word gay would be obsolete as such distinctions wouldn’t need to exist in a truly accepting and unified society.

Watching DS9: Chimera right now, there’s a sense of homoeroticism in this episode as well as tackling the issue of homophobia (though disguised as shape-shifting)

368. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 13, 2011

#365 – “I would have preferred a much more serious military epic where everyone wore the standard uniform and behaved professionally.”

Well, you have just proved my point. So much for your children’s sensibilities and purity. You would rather see, and have them see, people fighting, killing one another, injuring one another, ships being partially destroyed and Captain Kirk being put into a position of possibly giving what, at any other time, would be totally inhuman and despotic orders. No doubt you will also be telling your children that it is wrong to kill…

But God forbid, a Star Trek movie should show glimpses of two human beings in an affectionate embrace or that of a naked body.

If it is alright to show violence, destruction and their aftermath, then it is equally valid that the other side of human nature being shown – the loving, nurturing and, yes, even the sensual/sexual aspects of our natures. It is likely that the majority of any (sexual) relationships in Star Trek will be heterosexual because that is what the majority of human sexual orientation is – heterosexual. However, seeing one or two relationships that appear to be other than heterosexual (ie gay/lesbian) is also in order, because that homosexual orientation is also part of humanity.

Laws relating to sexual assault and rape also apply to gay and lesbian people as well and I doubt that the majority of them have any problem with the notion and practice of behaving in a lawful manner.

369. meme - August 16, 2011

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO is JJ trying to destroy Trek or what

370. meme - August 16, 2011

i will stop watching the new trek if they put gay characters on it I have had enough of all of this change I don’t even get the spock uhura relationship this would be totally it for me i will be done with trek for good i really mean it

371. meme - August 16, 2011

WHAT IS WRONG WITH U PEOPLE with this gay stuff everybody do not have to accept this lifestyle if they don’t u try to bully them and just for the record Jesus and God is against this yes it is in the bible old and new testament romans and genesis so stop it trying to push this agenda on a movie that has nothing to do with this lifestyle . calling people intolerant U PEOPLE R INTOLERANT OF CHRISTIANS AND PEOPLE WHO DON’T AGREE WITH YOUR LIFESTYLE I AM LEAVING THIS STUPID TREK SITE YALL MAKE ME SICK TO MY STOMACH

372. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 17, 2011


I hope you are not venting your own anger at me and my lifestyle. Which one of our lifestyles are you referring to? I, for one, do not live a homosexual lifestyle. I am a heterosexual woman who likes having babies by getting pregnant the very old fashioned way and I would seriously resent anyone who thinks that I should not be this way. On the other hand, there are also some people who do not feel, or have never felt, the way I have always felt about this aspect of living. By doing some basic reasoning and exercising a little empathy, I am able to place myself in the shoes of someone who does not/cannot feel as I do and be able to understand a little of where they may be coming from. Perhaps you could try it some time.

I do not wish to be yelled at like this when I come here to read posts on this site. JJ Abrams is not trying to destroy Star Trek. He was simply asked about the possibility of including a character who may have a homosexual orientation. He was not sure how it could work. Read the article.

I am not sure if anyone posting on this thread mentioned Christianity and implied intolerance towards Christians. So I do not know where you are getting this from. Anyway, I thought that God and Jesus were supposed to be against killing or bearing false witness, but that has not stopped playwrights and film makers from showing these immoral activities. In fact, the film industry spends millions of dollars bringing many scenes depicting violence and deceit to viewers around the world. They’ve even done it in Star Trek movies and television programmes. So how is this better than showing the “illicit” kiss of a (gay) couple? It’s NOT better. In fact, it is worse if you have to be the victim of violence. Trust me, I know.

Star Trek is about exploring strange new worlds, new life and new civilizations etc. What if there was a world out there that had equal numbers of homosexual and heterosexual people, or a world of hermaphrodites, or a world like the Denubulans, who go in for having multiple spouses? Anything is possible. It is a very big universe. In fact, not much is known about the lifestyles of even the main characters of TOS Star Trek when they are off-duty so your complaint makes no sense.

Calm down.

373. Randy8 - August 17, 2011

Many seem to think that in order to have a gay character, they’d have to introduce someone new, but they don’t. This is an alternate universe, and just as they’ve re-booted Spock and Uhura to be a couple, there’s no good reason why they couldn’t re-boot Chekov to be gay. They’ve already re-booted him to be the brainy ensign. He’s the perfect choice. No need to introduce someone new. He could be involved with a Gung-ho Red Shirt who bites it. Instant side story. Otherwise, introduce a new Security Chief – who just happens to be gay. Actually, the new Secuirty Chief could be Chekov’s boyfriend.

374. N - August 17, 2011

Guess whoever it was who said sci-fi fans were more tolerating, being a minority themselves and open to far-out storylines never read Trekmovie comments.

Look it’s a homophobic christian (and probably redneck), what a surprise! would you like to discuss the ways your religion promotes and encourages prejudice, intolerance, segregation, slavery and war?

Remind me, who is sickening again?

375. spockatatic - August 19, 2011

Okay, so, I just want to let it be said that I am a Christian, but at the same time, I am all for a (subtly) done gay character/relationship. I know that it doesn’t necessarily affect the story, but it’s about time, IMO.

People seem to forget that Trek has never been about the story. It has always been about opening peoples minds to controversial subjects. I mean, everyone’s like, “OMG JUST FOCUS ON THE STORY PPLS” but really, what do you have if that’s all you do? You have Star Trek XI, which was awesome, but it was more a feel-good type movie that really didn’t hold any meaning to it.

Look at TOS. We had the first interracial kiss, phrases like “we represent many different religions” which was also pretty big back then, and so many other little things.

I do at times get angry at other Christians who hate on homosexuality, because God did tell us to love *everyone*. You don’t have approve, you don’t have to promote it, but love is key.

But then again, I do have to agree with meme in one thing: 374, you talk about tolerance, but you’re showing the same type of prejudice towards Christians that many Christians show towards the GBTL community. Please guys, can we just all accept each other, despite sexuality and religion? Trek has always been about this. Why can’t we

/end rant

376. N - August 20, 2011

I only act that way towards the stereotypical hateful Christians

377. backlink watch - August 22, 2011

Beyond Bullet Points: Using Microsoft PowerPoint to Create Presentations that Inform, Motivate, and Inspire, 3rd Edition http://ow.ly/69GLq?e=811l97

378. Dylan Clearbrook - September 5, 2011

after having read most of these, I have to say that #3 summed it up the best.. I voted no simply because I don’t believe new characters should be added…just because they are gay. The story should always come first. If a gay character fits…fine. But it should not be forced. Star Trek has done a lot in breaking new ground….hell, they had the first inter-racial kiss on tv!

I do believe another poster also made the point that perhaps a movie would not be the place for it….but would be better suited for a new tv series (please please please LOL) where there could be more development and even the introduction of new, central characters. There is no reason that a new series should remain almost exclusively focused on the central characters like the original series.

379. Dylan Clearbrook - September 5, 2011

Just had to comment on meme…..you said you were leaving this site…hope you did. You gripe about people being intolerant of YOU ….and don’t even see your own hypocrisy. I guess the point is…if you want people to be tolerant of YOU, you need to be tolerant of them. (the sad thing is, there seem to be too many people, on both sides, that can’t seem to grasp that simple concept).

380. Casey - January 27, 2012

Okay, I had to throw my two cents in. When I was growing up and in high school, I was tormented by other students for being gay… from 1999-2005 (8th grade to graduation). It was during that time that I discovered Star Trek. I loved the series, and the movies and I relished everything about it. However, what initially drew me in and kept me in was the fact that it depicted the Federation, which was a society free from bigotry, where you were judged only by your character. Every day at school, it was hell, and then when I came home and waited for Voyager to come on or throw in a VHS (yea, a VHS) of one of the movies or one of the episodes I had taped, it was my safe haven.

I’ll say this right now, and I mean it. Without Star Trek, and it’s message of inclusiveness, I probably would have killed myself in middle school. Star Trek, and its message, literally, saved my life.

Today, I’m work in politics, and I’m still a Star Trek fan. I live those “Federation values”, and I work every day to bring about a future similar to the one Gene Roddenberry envisioned. I’ve never been prouder to be who I am, and truth be told, I’m about six days away from proposing to my boyfriend. I’m happy and strong and I have Star Trek to thank for it, because it came into my life during some of my darkest days, when my future seemed bleak and life seemed hopeless. It gave me hope, it gave me strength, it gave me inspiration to stand up for myself and work hard and never give up.

In a future where human/non-human relationships are commonplace, male-male and female-female relationships surely are just as a part of every day life. I refuse to believe that I and others like me would be unwelcome in the “Federation”. Mr. Abrams: It’s time for a gay character. Make sure it’s done with class and dignity, and make sure it isn’t treated any differently than Spock/Uhura, Dax/Worf, Riker/Troi, or Harry Kim/Half of the Delta Quadrant.

Thank you.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.