Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Gay people in the 24th century

This is topic Gay people in the 24th century in forum General Trek at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/155.html

Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :

Has anyone ever noticed that with all the racial and cultural toleration that Star Trek showed, there has not once been any direct mentioned of homosexuality? There has been some hints on this subject, such as the kiss on Deep Space Nine between Jadzia Dax and her ex-wife from a previous host Lenara Khan and Dr. Chrusher's fling with a Trill who became a woman in TNG's "The Host." But other from those two, not much is shown. I still wonder about this from time to time, especially when I see certain characters in Star Trek, none of which I will mention since some of the forum members uses their names here.

------------------
"It's not right, but it's okay. I'm gonna make it anyway. Pack your bags, up and leave. Don't you dare come running back to me.

It's not right, but it's okay. I'm gonna make it anyway. Close the door behind, leave your key. I'd rather be alone than unhappy."

-Whitney Houston

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

Uh-oh. . .

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

Well, Bilby asked O'Brien whether or not he did like women in "Honour Among Thieves". But that hardly cuts it, I suppose.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")

[This message has been edited by Elim Garak (edited August 25, 1999).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Let's see if we can't address this quickly and smoothly.

I would say that there are two reasons for a lack of gay characters on Trek. The first being the rather cynical but sadly true observation that society does not appear ready to accept an openly gay character in any meaningful role. Support on a sitcom, sure. Lead on a sitcom? No way. Etc. That isn't much of a reason, of course. But it's the one in the minds of the executives, I'd imagine.

The second reason is a bit more interesting. What exactly qualifies a character as gay? Ultimately, attraction to the same sex. But how often does that come up? In most Trek series, we only get one character who really does most of the romancing. For the rest, sexuality isn't really a defining characteristic of their lives. At least, not onscreen. The problem is that you can't please everyone. I'm afraid that a gay character would immediately become nothing more than the "gay character" TM. A gay person in the idealistic Federation is not going to face the discrimination and hatred present today.

I think Star Trek is best when it leads from example. Sisko, for instance, isn't a black captain. He's simply a captain, like any other. That's the best way to treat a gay character, in my opinion.

------------------
"I am just a worthless liar. I am just an imbecile. I will only complicate you. Trust in me and fall as well."
--
Tool

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

There was a movement by some of the Gay groups to "Out" one of the trek characters, but it was never done. I'm afraid Sol it right, it would have drawn a lot of heat.

------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

I think the obvious choice, that Michael was reluctant to name, is Garak. There was a massive move to have him be gay. . . What were they hoping for? Big Gay Elim's Big Gay Tailor Shop?

------------------
Phase 1: Steal Underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit!

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

I for one never really saw these "subliminal signals Andy Robinson added to Garak" which made him gay...

Of course, there is the possibility that homosexuality is far less prevalent, period, in the 24th century. I may be treading on flameboard territory here, but what if the Eugenics Wars involved the standard "kill the Jews, Gays and Disabled" practices? What if all the gay pride of today evaporated if future medicine allowed for the extermination of of homosexuality genes? The above is pure speculation of course, and flies in the face of what we know so far, but it could be an explanation of sorts, albeit a rather ugly one.

------------------
"Well, I guess we're an Ovaltine family."
"MORE OVALTINE PLEASE!"
-American Radio Ads... *gag*... one more reason I'm glad to be above the 49th.

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Well, since homosexuals tend to not have too many offspring, I can't imagine that any such genes would last long naturally anyway.

Anyway, homosexuality seems to be common only in overpopulated societies, and we've never seen overpopulation in Trek. Well, except for "The Mark of Gideon" (TOS), but that had a poor premise (if they can build a replica of the Enterprise, couldn't they fly it to another star system?).

BTW, Brenna Odell asked Riker, "Do you not like girls?" in "Up the Long Ladder" (TNG). She obviously asked the wrong person, though...

------------------
Frank's Supernifty Page

Posted by PPG Skittles on :

In the book Pathways, written by Jeri Taylor, there were a few times where homosexuality was mentioned. In one chapter about Harry Kim's life, one of his friends, George, is gay and admits it to Harry, because he assumed he was gay because he didn't date women. And then, in another chapter, the away team (after being captured by an alien race and imprisoned with many other prisoners in a camp) had to split up (part of the big plan to escape).

quote:
"Everyone was willing to accept Chakotay's decision on that matter, although Brad Harrison and his partner, Noah Mannick, asked to stay together, a request Chakotay was happy to accommodate. They had only recently become a couple and were still in the early flush of romantic intensity."

This makes it clear that gays are accepted in the 24th century, and in Starfleet, just the producers don't think that the 20th century can handle it yet.

There was also one episode of TNG ("The Outcast") where everyone in the J'naii species was non-sexual and it was considered wrong (as homosexuality is considered wrong by some on Earth in the 20th century) to consider oneself to belong to a gender. If one was found to belong to a gender, then others would attempt to 'fix' them. Pilot Soren considered herself to be female, and she and Riker had a sexual relationship. At the end of the episode, she agreed to be 'fixed'. The J'naii species that the Enterprise encountered, clearly mirrors 20th century Earth.

------------------
Do you eat your red Prozac pills last?

[This message has been edited by PPG Skittles (edited August 26, 1999).]

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Ezri Dax was a lesbian in the mirror-universe of "Emperor's new cloak". And so was Rom's wife, except they weren't married in the mirror universe.

------------------
-Smooth as an androids butt, eh Data?
-Yes, and remarkably similar in appearance!

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

I think all the women in the mirror universe were lesbians.

------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

Actually, Kosh, you're quite wrong. The Intendant got around with anyone... male or female.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Well while we're on the mirror universe subject. Some people prollay wont like this but tough...

I think the Regent (mirror Worf) was either homo or bisexual, but they never really played it... see "Shattered Mirror" and when Garak is trying to plead innocence to the Regent - he says something like, I'm very handy to have around... and Worf looks at mirror Garak and just goes in a gruff voice "your not my type" that was hilarious!

------------------
"All is full of love, all around you" - Bj�rk

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Now that it has been mentioned it is interesting how homosexuality is accepted in the parallel universe, while it wouldn't be in "our" universe. It seems to be the same as with the main and supporting sitcom characters.

------------------
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank!" (Scotty, TOS: "A Taste of Armageddon")
Ex Astris Scientia

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :

Garak???

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, DS9 'Tears of the Prophets')

Posted by deadcujo (Member # 13) on :

Well, there was the doc on the Prometheus :p

------------------
The Unknown Vulcan
http://www.phix-it.com/~perseus/stuff.html

Posted by Jaresh Inyo on :

I'm sure most of us have been caught off guard at one point or another when they learn that a long-time friend or even a family member revels that they are gay. I've known some gay people, and wouldn't have guessed it. I've also known some people who I were sure had to be gay, but weren't.

Gays aren't easy to spot. If you put one hundred people in a room, and put one gay in with them, unless they're wearing a tee-shirt that says "I like to have sex with other men" (Or women, as the case may be), I couldn't tell them apart.

The only way to have a gay character in Star Trek would be to show that person in a homosexual relationship. I don't know how I would react to that. I don't mean to offend anyone, I honestly don't, but I'm not sure if I would feel comfortable watching that.

I know there are some gay people here, and I apologize. I know you've had a tough go of it, and I feel bad for adding to it. I consider myself a fairly tolerant person, and yet I feel uncomfortable with this idea. If that's true of me, could a Star Trek series with a gay character survive?

Posted by O Deus on :

The issue isn't so much including a gay charachter on the show as much as addressing the issue of homophobia and discrimination possibly in a more veiled form as was often done on the original series. Some minor things showing that gays and lesbians are accepted and not considered aberrant in the 24th century would be nice. Some minor crewmembers holding hands during a crisi perhaps

Posted by PPG Skittles on :

Right-o, Deus! *L* That's what happened in the book I quoted. Did no one see my post? Jeri Taylor, co-creator of Star Trek Voyager (so she is definantly a reliable resource of information about Star Trek), wrote Pathways, and included a nice paragraph showing gays are accepted in the 24th century!

An additional note: From the official Star Trek Magazine, October 1999; "['Mosaic' and 'Pathways'] not only offer insights into the characters but, because of who [Jeri] Taylor is, they are the only novels that are considered to be an official part of the STAR TREK history."

------------------
Do you eat your red Prozac pills last?

[This message has been edited by PPG Skittles (edited August 29, 1999).]

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :

Jaresh Inyo hit the nail on the head. The only meaningful way to portray gay characters is to make it obvious (or even blatant). I don't think the producers would want to do that. It's a shame.

Oh, I don't actually think Garak is gay. He acts like he does because of the way he was brought up. He obviously had feelings for Ziyal. Even so, there is no defined proof either way.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, DS9 'Tears of the Prophets')

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

No no no!

Despite what ST:TM says, Jeri Taylor's books are not really canon. Look at "Gravity", for example, and tell me that's the Tuvok in Pathways. I didn't think so, personally. )Besides, this is the same magazine that says there's a torpedo launcher where the deflector is on the Defiant and that the ship's phasers looks precisely like quantum torpedoes.)

I think most people agree canon is just what's on-screen.

They're the closest thing to canon that there is written, however, right up there with the Encyclopedia. (For example, Neelix's entire backstory was practically used in "Mortal Coil" and "Once Upon a Time".)

And now we should get back to the topic at hand after Elim's obessive rant.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")

[This message has been edited by Elim Garak (edited August 29, 1999).]

Posted by O Deus on :

Well debating canon, what is and what isn't, can be fun in the way that extracting teeth at home with a pair of pliers and a wooden plank to bite on is fun. Generally we accept that what's on screen in canon even though other shows do accept books as canon too. Because of the glut of Trek novels, most bad or just bizarre like the Omne novels, and the fact that many of them are a step up from fanfic and often a step down that's not practical. Still everything on screen isn't necesarilly canon either. GR said ST5 wasn't canon, is Treshold canon? Next time our heroes go warp 10 do they turn into catfish? Since there's no real offical policy or central creative mind on Trek anymore things are more dangling in the wind and fans often decide for themselves what is and isn't canon. Taylor's novels are a good candidate for being canon, better than most.

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Yes, Pathways - the closest 'book' that should be considered canon - although not canon - although I wouldn't mind Mosaic and Pathways as canon - I really, REALLY enjoyed Pathways... It is a good book. And the thing is - even though Tuvok, Kim, Neelix and Chakotay - are woefully 'undernourished' on Voyager - in Pathways - these were probably the 4 best of the stories!

I didn't think I would like the Tuvok part - but I couldn't put that section down!

Anyways.

Andrew

------------------
"All is full of love, all around you" - Bj�rk

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

Mosaic was a very god book, I'll have to get Pathways.

------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I've only read Pathways, and while it was an enjoyable read, I'm in no hurry to make it canon.

------------------
"Something I can't comprehend. Something so complex and couched in its equation. So dense that light cannot escape from."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by PPG Skittles on :

Regardless if Pathways is canon or not, it still protrayed two obvious gay characters (very minor, but obvious). But still, I agree. "The only meaningful way to protray gay characters is to make it obvious (or even blatant)." And I think ALL the movies are all canon, because they include them in Star Trek Chronology, which HAS TO BE canon, because it lists and explains all the episodes, and has short biographies on the characters. And you know, regardless of ya'll think or say, I still say Pathways and Mosaic are canon. They are written by Jeri Taylor for heavens sake! And you know, she didn't write that by herself or from scratch.

quote:
When Taylor sat down to write, she wasn't starting with a completely blank page. She, Rick Berman, and Michael Piller had established a few basic details about the characters' histories when they created STAR TREK: VOYAGER, but there still some important gaps.

She wrote from canon (but then again, most people do that anyway), and since she practically wrote with other producers, it has to be canon. Besides! I think it's neat knowing Tuvok once knew the meaning of life and all things.

------------------
Do you eat your red Prozac pills last?

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Actually, the pseudo-mysticism added to Tuvok's backstory is the main reason I don't want the book to be canon. It contradicts most of what we know about Vulcans.

------------------
"Something I can't comprehend. Something so complex and couched in its equation. So dense that light cannot escape from."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

The Jeri Taylor books are not canon, simply because only the TV shows and films are canon. Writers for future episodes and movies will generally only need to be consistent with previous episodes and movies, not books, no matter whom they're written by. Plus, Taylor gives the name of Chakotay's ship as "Liberator," when a draft of the script for "Parallax" calls it "Zola"; she thus couldn't be deriving all her information from a supreme source of potentially-canon info.

------------------
Frank's Home Page, which you've never seen before and want to visit right now

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

TPTB have said that none of the books are canon, although, part of Janeways story, from Mosaic, was used in a episode of Voyager.

Canon is what ever Berman and company say it is, and they have gone as far as saying they don't consider TOS canon, which is the base of a lot of my problems with them. They would rather rewrite the story, instead of working with the original story.

------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Ah, but statements by people like Berman aren't canon; only the shows/films are.

------------------
Frank's Home Page, which you've never seen before and want to visit right now

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

CTTOI, the first Karemma we saw in "The Search I", who wanted tulaberry-wine, was a little gay. That actor also played gay secretary in "Murder One".
"must... keep.. thread alive..cough cough"

------------------
-Smooth as an androids butt, eh Data?
-Yes, and remarkably similar in appearance!

Posted by HMS White Star (Member # 174) on :

Actually if you take combine all of the Canon statments, none of the show is Canon and all of it is Canon, see. What's it doesn't make sense, well it's not supposed to it Star Trek don't you know

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Er, they've said that TOS isn't canon? Okaayyyy.

The thing is, if they did show a gay couple holding hands, then the scene would immedietly shift from 'Oh no, the Enterprise is about to be destroyed' to 'LOOK! THEY'RE GAY! Aren't we being really cool and hip?'

Besides, how often do you see crewmembers holding each other in a crisis anyway (don't start with Kirk and Rand, okay?)
It's not like Voyager is about to be shot down, so she hugs Chakotay.
Even on DS9, when the Defiant was under attack, did Worf run across the bridge and hug Jadzia?

------------------
"Ray...the next time someone asks you if you're a god you say 'Yes!'"
-Winston Zeddmore

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :

Arguing what is (or isn't) canon is like arguing religion. We all have our own faith.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, DS9 'Tears of the Prophets')

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

No. By canon we mean, 'accepted by all.' That is constantly changing, of course, and there are some things that aren't agreed on at all - witness the SWDAO page. But for now, you're not going to find any major support for a view that Jeri Taylor's novels are canon. After all, any arguments that her position makes anything she says near-canon may then be applied equally successfully to Shatner's books, and believe me - you don't wanna go there.

For now, canon means books and shows, excepting the Animated Series and most of Star Trek V. Encyclopaedia is canon except where contradicted onscreen, and there you'll likely find that the info (like ship classes and registries) was usually made up on the spot by Okuda without proper research. Usually, anything Okuda or Sternbach say can be taken as canon (they're not often wrong) but not Stipes. . .

------------------
Phase 1: Steal Underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit!

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

Lee's definition of canon fits it best.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Er...not quite. "Canon" would only be what writers of future episodes would feel obligated to be consistent with, which, again, is the shows and movies. They're not likely to hear about a random comment by Okuda unless Okuda were to explicitly tell them about it.

BTW, most of the registries and classes in the encyclopedia come from various Okudagrams and such; they weren't all made up. Some apparently were, though.

The notion that Star Trek V isn't canon is absurd, because if you start cutting out what you don't like, people could arbitrarily decide that other stuff wouldn't be canon, even though it would.

------------------
Frank's Home Page, which you've never seen before and want to visit right now

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

Which they have been doing for some time. Read over some of the interviews in the great link. More then one makes the staement "I don't really care what happened in the past, as long as it works for our episode". As much as I like Ron Moore, he is (was) in this camp.

------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :

See, ya can't get everybody to agree

Some of what we see in episodes and movies is absolute bull. The turboshaft scene in ST:V comes to mind.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, DS9 'Tears of the Prophets')

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

Now I find myself agreeing with Frank, but there are certain things that are obviously flase, like the Enterprise getting to the galactic core so quickly without any help and the height of the Enterprise-A in ST5.

But other than that, I like Frank's point. Okuda's comments could be considered official, however.

Kosh, I'm not sure if that could be taking what was said a little too far. I have a lot of respect for Ronald D. Moore and I somehow find it unlikely that he'd be among the first to say something like that, but I could, unfortunately, be wrong...

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

There's lots of ways to rationalise the problems in STV. We could say that the turboshaft was taken from an old starbase in order to finish the Ent-A on time. We could also say that the galactic core, as defined here, is really large, and they were only at the edge. Or there's a wormhole leading there.

------------------
Frank's Home Page, which you've never seen before and want to visit right now

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

RDM against continuity? Yeah, and Pol Pot was the founder of the Red Cross.

The only Trek writer who's ever made comments like that was Braga, and frankly I think his entire "Cochrane should be Picard's love interest" thing has been taken out of context and warped a bit into an urban legend of sorts which is propagated by the rather large "Braga is the Anti-Christ" faction. The slightly smaller "Ira Behr is the Anti-Christ" faction has also been known to blow his "anti-franchise" comments out of proportion.

------------------
"Well, I guess we're an Ovaltine family."
"MORE OVALTINE PLEASE!"
-American Radio Ads... *gag*... one more reason I'm glad to be above the 49th.

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

I went over the the Great Link and looked around. I know it was some time ago, but I couldn't find anything old enough, that had RDM name on it. I was sure that I had seen that there, but perhaps it was Braga.

------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

*feels relieved*

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")