I can understand why the topic wasn't spec addressed in TOS - the censors would have gone thermal - and none of the principal actors would have been comfortable with the idea.
But throughout the following series and movies, I cannot see where the subject has been directly addressed. Yes, I know Dr. Crusher was 'uncomfortable' with her Trill boyfriend becoming female - but she only mentioned it obliquely - saying someday humans could handle such changes.
I have yet to note any 'out' gays - or mention of them in Trek - whether alien or human - civilian or Starfleet.
When Enterprise was first announced, I heard that there would be a crewmember who would be openly gay. No sign yet.
Now I am wondering - apart from the studio's avoiding of the issue, what could be the 'Trek Universe' reason for such a lack of homosexuality (feel free to speculate - I myself am really puzzled):
1- It was a peculiarity of the human genome (okay, terran genomes since some animal species on Earth are homosexual). None of the other billions of species have it (or even knows what it is). [Seems a tad unlikely - and still doesn't address why no humans are gay!]
2- It eventually breeds itself out of the genome. [as if another 300 years of evolution would matter].
3- Federation medical science found the underlying cause - and 'cured' it. [not exactly genocide - since homesexuality by definition probably isn't 'passed on' genetically, but I personally find the idea offensive].
4- The tendency was deleted as an unexpected side-effect of Retinax 6. Thus, ever since we gave up eyeglasses, gays have been extinct. (This would explain the lousy decor aboard starships and starbases.) [Sorry - too much Wil & Grace the other night].
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
I'd go for option 3.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treknophyle: ...and none of the principal actors would have been comfortable with the idea.
Well, it's really only the main characters from each series that we've seen, mostly. For all we know, there could be hundreds of gays roaming the ships all the time. We just never saw any of them stick their heads onto the bridge and yell "Any of you fellas up for some buttsex?!", so we don't know that they're gay.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
In the TNG era, it seems that people have close friendships and families, but have evolved beyond the wild sexual gratification stage. Odd, considering that a society that by it's very nature has a lot more free time. I Suppose I would vote for option 2, and/or it just not mattering at all, socially.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I think it seems to just not matter anymore. When Jadzia and Lenara hooked up briefly, no one even flinched at the idea.
I've heard that Lt. Hawk in FC was originally supposed to be gay. It also seemed (to me anyway) that Malcolm Reed was going to be gay, there for awhile.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Don't forget gay Kira and gay Ezri from the Mirror universe.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
TPTB didn't "avoid" anything, but they did wisely decide against the inclusion of gay characters only for the sake of having them on show, if you catch my drift.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
I see your point, oh fellow Canuck, but while not including them for the sake of not including them is good, by now, in all of the canon stories, we should have run into a romance or two. We have certainly seen a few hetero romances - within our species and 'rishathra'. Why not have an Enterprise crewperson romance an alien of the week of the same apparent gender.
I say 'apparent' because, after all, we have more in common with an avocado than an alien. Therefore, sex outside our species should be even MORE bizarre to the bible belt than sex within our gender.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
An attempt to find some sort of "in-show" reason strikes me as, at best, intensely creepy, like those "Maybe all the Chinese were killed in WWIII" threads. Ick.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
"Don't ask, don't tell".
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"I've heard that Lt. Hawk in FC was originally supposed to be gay."
Not my Neal McDonough.
Anyway: real reason:
Men kissing men on TV is somewhat disconcerting for an overwhelmingly young male audience.
I mean: ew.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: An attempt to find some sort of "in-show" reason strikes me as, at best, intensely creepy, like those "Maybe all the Chinese were killed in WWIII" threads. Ick.
More like almost all the people of Middle Eastern descent, the Indian subcontinent, and Africans.
As for Asians... Everyone's for some reason, Koreans, or Koreans pretending to be Japanese...
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Starfleet's chief uniform designer in the early 2360s was gay.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Maybe they are all shacked up on Uranus.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Or Urectum.
*ducks*
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
More likely it's yet another example of why Star Trek isn't socially relevant any more. It's behind the curve in almost every meaningful way except optical effects. The producers are clearly afraid to even touch on the subject except for cheap thrills (mirror-Kira). Many dramas and hell even some sitcoms include gay characters and they don't necessarily make an "issue" out of it. Star Trek is tame and safe and takes no risks, even the ones that everyone else has proven don't really matter to ratings.
And as to the "ew" crowd...your insecurities are showing.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: And as to the "ew" crowd...your insecurities are showing.
Blow it out your... er...
Let me rephrase that.
What a ludicrous concept, assuming that people who find homosexuality unappealing are somehow insecure with their sexuality. How... sexist.
I could do without watching male-female tonsil-hockey, as well, you know. It distracts from the story. If I wanted to view sex, I'd watch pron.
Personally, I figure that TPTB realized that having a gay character would do NOTHING for the storyline, provide no real opportunities for storytelling, and alienate just enough of their already-small audience to make the act unwise.
"Well, then you could write a story about that character's gayness!" "Just like all those stories about Sulu's orientalness and Geordi's blackness, right?" In the trekverse, differences like race and sexuality are NOT focused on. Nobody CARES. Writing a gay character just to have a gay character is the OPPOSITE of your goal, here.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I thought that the idea of not having a gay character was because one's orientation was simply not an issue within the Trek universe...
The two times I can remember it being brought up in DS9, for example, the issue was never about the character being gay - that female Ferengi, for example, was assumed to have the hots for Quark while still disguised as a male, and nothing was made of it; likewise, the fact that Dax and Dr. Formerhost being in love had nothing to do with them both being women. At least within the context of the show for both examples, no one had a problem with same-sex couples. How do you have a show about homosexuality when no one has an issue with it? Hell, in that TNG episode about it, the Federation certainly had no qualms about what gender you "should" be attracted to. It was the alien race only; while all these examples ceratinly touch upon the issue for the audience, it's US that are making the decision about it, and not the characters.
"Enterprise", with all its "developing" (read: ignored) ethics for the Trek mythos, has the strongest possibility to develop the theme as a valid issue that the characters can deal with. But as has already been said, such "issue" shows can still be uncomfortable with the percieved demographic, and will likely never be done. It's hardly a ratings grab... You'll note that the three episodes cited above hardly rank as all-time favorites.
Mark
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: I could do without watching male-female tonsil-hockey, as well, you know. It distracts from the story.
But we see it on Star Trek all the time, from Captain Kirk and the gogo-booted babe of the week to Picard and Vash and Paris and Torres and on and on and on.
quote:Personally, I figure that TPTB realized that having a gay character would do NOTHING for the storyline, provide no real opportunities for storytelling, and alienate just enough of their already-small audience to make the act unwise.
It provides exactly as many "opportunities for storytelling" as hetero relationships do.
And they didn't always have a small audience. TNG was a top rated syndicated drama in its time. Their ratings problems now aren't the issue, it's the history of the entire thing.
quote:"Well, then you could write a story about that character's gayness!" "Just like all those stories about Sulu's orientalness and Geordi's blackness, right?" In the trekverse, differences like race and sexuality are NOT focused on. Nobody CARES. Writing a gay character just to have a gay character is the OPPOSITE of your goal, here.
Lumping ethicity and sexuality into the same boat proves my point, because while many ethnicities are represented in Trek without comment, only heterosexuality is presented week after week, series after series, and made story points (Picard and Vash, Riker and Troi, Riker and the babes in Angel One, Troi and Worf, Worf and Dax, Sisko and Cassiday, etc, etc). Alternatives are almost never presented without making an issue of it (The Choice, Mirror Kira, etc.).
I still don't see how having a character who happens to be gay is making "a story about that character's gayness!" while having characters who happen to be straight is not telling "stories about their straightness"?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
If I wanted to watch a love story I would, but don't put that crap in to my sci-fi, damn it. Leting us know that there is a thing between Character A and G is no problem, but focusing on it sucks....
My opinion anyway....
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
I have to go with Mr. Neutron. Trek no longer pushes the envelope - challenging the viewer to temporarily abandon his predjudices (some of which are all too visible in this thread) albeit in a fictional setting, so as to be able to think about a subject in an objective way.
TOS didn't do any episodes ABOUT Uhura's blackness... but they did feature the first white/black kiss on primetime TV - and did it without making an issue of the frontier they were crossing. Bravo to them - and too bad we've let the blood go thin. Now even the fans don't want their precious taboos threatened.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treknophyle: I have to go with Mr. Neutron. Trek no longer pushes the envelope - challenging the viewer to temporarily abandon his predjudices (some of which are all too visible in this thread) albeit in a fictional setting, so as to be able to think about a subject in an objective way.
For a lot of people, it's a religious conviction, not a prejudice.
I really dislike the "people who don't like homosexuality are repressed/prejudiced/evil" attitude. If people are free to do what they want, then other people should be free to disapprove of it, without being insulted and ostracised.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Archer played water polo.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Number 1 is out since other species on earth engage in homosexual conduct (I don't know if they do so exclusively. I have a male cat who always mounts another of my male cats. But he doesn't have access to female cats. I just think it's a dominance thing. But he also used to mount stuffed animals.)
Number 2 is out since homosexuality has been recorded in human history as long as we've had writing and is still with us. But to what extent homosexuality is genetically based is a very open question.
Number 3 is possible, but creepy. Some genes possibly associated with male homosexuality have been identified, and I read a poll saying that many American would abort a fetus carrying such a gene. (Of course, many Americans also said they would do the same if the child were carrying a gene for obesity). But the caveat of number 2 still holds.
Number 4, by a process of elimination, is the only possible answer!
Edit: Kirk, of course, is allergic to Retinax 6, which suggests that he was constantly trying to hide behind his Lady Killer persona and that slash writers were correct all along.
Seriously, Trek is safe and homogenized entertainment for the masses. It doesn't want to possibly alienate any possible viewers, so plays it safe all the time. Many series have had homosexual characters, but Trek has waited so long and the absence has become an issue. After all, Bonanza had gay characters and no one said anything.
(I made up that last part).
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: Number 3 is possible, but creepy. Some genes possibly associated with male homosexuality have been identified, and I read a poll saying that many American would abort a fetus carrying such a gene. (Of course, many Americans also said they would do the same if the child were carrying a gene for obesity). But the caveat of number 2 still holds.
Number 4, by a process of elimination, is the only possible answer!
I don't see how 3 can be creepy and not 4, to be honest.
3 and 4 seem to be the same, except with different causes: one is intentional and the other is unintentional. Perhaps it was caused by WW3, by some strange weapon side-effect, or perhaps in 2045 religious fundamentalists took over the Earth by hypnosis and operated on everyone.
Anyway, unless they mention it in an episode (which I doubt they will) it would appear that we may never know...
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
My opinion that number 3 was creepy is due to my general aversion to attempting to achieve some ideal of "perfection" through genetic manipulation before birth. Getting rid of diseases is probably ok but will put us on a slippery slope to getting rid of all other less than "perfect" traits, according to what is fashionable at the time. Also, we don't know to what extent homosexuality is genetically based.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I would have to say about as much as heterosexuality, or a favorite color, or food, or etc....
Is it really that important to have this issue covered in Trek? If so, why, or is sexuality that important to peoples lives that we need to be subjected to it every waking second?
Or is it that it is used to give a character 'depth'? If this is the case, what are the favorite colors of the various Trek characters?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I challenge the assertion that Star Trek has ever been at the forefront of any cultural reform. Involved with, sure, but mostly I think peripherally.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: I challenge the assertion that Star Trek has ever been at the forefront of any cultural reform. Involved with, sure, but mostly I think peripherally.
I worry that perhaps you're undermining the significance of what a chance they were taking. Gene had this ideal of this egalitarian society, this fantasy of a utopia where the color of your skin was not important, and so he put Uhura and Sulu on the bridge. It was an important thing for people to see at that time. A utopian future where the Klan has inbred itself out of existence and Uhura can be a bridge officer and it's no big whoop. You show people what's possible, how it could be good, and people start changing the way they see it, start thinking maybe. And if some people think it's window-dressing (and it is), then so be it, but he did it and it wasn't easy. And then the third Trek series had a (gasp!) black commander. It's not that Star Trek marched on Washington and demanded civil rights or anything even approaching that, but it showed us how it could be. It gave us a picture of what racial harmony might look like. And so I don't exactly know what the decision process for selecting Avery Brooks was, but I'll wager they (and when I say 'they', it's important to know that I'm talking about the studio) were looking for a 'colored' actor to play the commander.
So when they talk about putting a gay character on Star Trek, I would sincerely hope that they would make it an interesting character who just happened to be gay. Not like picking out window valences and sipping-fruity-drinks-with-pinky-extended ha-ha aren't fags HI-larious gay, but just preferring relationships with people of the same sex. Not like vaseline-smeared lens foggy beauty shots of immaculately groomed and well muscled handsome young men, but you know, like, just kind of matter of fact, not making a big deal of it, mentioned in passing sort of thing. Ideally it wouldn't matter. Ideally no one would notice that as being note-worthy. Maybe I'm desensitized to it because I live twenty miles from San Francisco (both a gay mecca and the future home of Starfleet Command), but for the most part it just isn't a big deal, really. It's pretty much just like heterosexual relationships except that both partners happen to be the same gender. It's not all assless leather chaps and thick mustaches. And maybe it's important that our society gets to see what that'd be like. Gets to see a world where two men can share the same things a man and a woman could, where two women can raise a cat togehter without the crude jokes, without the judgements that they'd face today. Maybe it's important that we see what it would be like, so we can imagine it, and maybe twenty years hence they'll get some heavy from a long-dead quasi-detective show and he'll be the Commander of the kind of boring space-station that gets more exciting after a bit who also happens to be gay. And maybe at that point we won't even notice that he's Chinese.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I agree that it should NOT be made a big issue, but just as a matter of casual fact. Some line like "Chef and Bobby are getting married" in with a list of other ship's weekly activities. Not a unique event.
TNG's season one occasionally showed men in starfleet dresses: most notably in the saucer seperation scene of the first episode. No big neon sign over this guy's head was added to the scene reading -"LOOK: HE'S GAY!" That's how it should be handled and how it was handled.
On DS9, when Dax was going to presue a relationship with her former lover, the scandal was NOT because it was a same-sex relationship, but only the Trill taboo on interference with past host's lives. Nobody even blinked about her being with a woman.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: TNG's season one occasionally showed men in starfleet dresses: most notably in the saucer seperation scene of the first episode. No big neon sign over this guy's head was added to the scene reading -"LOOK: HE'S GAY!" That's how it should be handled and how it was handled.
Excuse me? Just cause a man is wearing a "skant" (skirt/pant) -- as they were called -- that doesn't mean he's gay or that that was the intent (I sure hope not!). Most gay men wouldn't be caught dead in a dress...drag queens are another issue entirely.
If I'm misreading your intent, please let me know.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: For a lot of people, it's a religious conviction, not a prejudice.
Those same religions also typically condemn fornication (and a lot of other things), but you won't usually see the people who'd use such beliefs to complain about homosexuality likewise complaining about Picard doing Vash outside of holy matrimony.
Burn in Hell, Jean Luc! Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"You show people what's possible, how it could be good, and people start changing the way they see it, start thinking maybe."
Getting members of the KKK & other fundie groups to think would be an accomplishment akin to, uh, something damn near impossible.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
There isn't enough technobabble on all of Trek to make that happen. But it doesn't hurt to try . . . you never know when their children might be listening.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: Those same religions also typically condemn fornication (and a lot of other things), but you won't usually see the people who'd use such beliefs to complain about homosexuality likewise complaining about Picard doing Vash outside of holy matrimony.
Burn in Hell, Jean Luc!
There are different degrees of sin, you know.
I doubt even the most fundamental Christian would complain that the crew of the Enterprise don't stop work on Sundays. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane: Archer played water polo.
Well that's always seemed... strange to me - I don't think he watches it for the game! LOL! He likes the under-water shots!
A GAY CAPTAIN!!
No, I reckon that Trip will turn out to be gay!
A gay redneck... probably hook up with some dirty Vulcan! Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I doubt even the most fundamental Christian would complain that the crew of the Enterprise don't stop work on Sundays
This is a sin, now? Crrrrrap....
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: I doubt even the most fundamental Christian would complain that the crew of the Enterprise don't stop work on Sundays
This is a sin, now? Crrrrrap....
It is if you're a Reformist.....I know that much.....I also believe breaking wind at the table is for those people as well....
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Ah, the joy of legalism...
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: I doubt even the most fundamental Christian would complain that the crew of the Enterprise don't stop work on Sundays
This is a sin, now? Crrrrrap....
Well it's one of the Ten Commandments, isn't it?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
A) Honor the sabbath day and keep it holy. Depends on how you define sabbath.
B) The ten commandments were given to the jews, not Christians. Those of us who've actually read the New Testament do not recognize them as legally binding. Because we don't believe in legalism, you see.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: There are different degrees of sin, you know.
We could get into an entire theological discussion about what various religious texts say on the subject, and whether this line in Leviticus has more weight than the next, or even if it applies where Grace replaces Law (as Omega said "Those of us who've actually read the New Testament do not recognize them as legally binding. Because we don't believe in legalism, you see."), but that sorta gets way off the topic!
My point was that it's easy to pick out one bit of a religious text to support a presupposition or opinion, but that many who do so conveniently forget the bits they don't want to obey. (Leviticus being a great example of this...it says don't lay with another man as you do with a woman, but, oh yeah, it also say no tattoos, and don't wear cloth woven of two kinds of yarn, etc, etc...)
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Quiet with the religious talk, you. One more word and you'll be banned faster than an Enterprise Warp Core Breach. Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: Getting members of the KKK & other fundie groups to think would be an accomplishment akin to, uh, something damn near impossible.
Well OK, no, prolly not the KKK or the Mickey Mouse Club, but maybe like Guardian says, their kids. I'm just saying that if you show people how it could be, someone who might otherwise have been sitting on the fence (yes, I am aware and am consciously making reference to this homosexual axiom) might watch and be influenced and give them a better thought-out picture that is a little more positive and progressive than what Will And Grace might have to offer.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
That and T'Pol's boobs.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
"I challenge the assertion that Star Trek has ever been at the forefront of any cultural reform. Involved with, sure, but mostly I think peripherally."
Do you really think non-caucasions would be as accepted in positions of authority today (within Western society) - or mixed marriages would be as accepted today, if television shows like TOS hadn't dared to be at the forefront of cultural reform? The fact that you can even state that says that: a) you're too young to remember when such things were unheard of. Hell, I think there was a special name for the 'sin'. b) Gene did his job well in opening a crack in the established attitudes of the times.
You have seen "Guess Coming to Dinner?" - right? Did you notice what a big deal the whole thing was? Ever wonder why it isn't today? Trek didn't cause the changes, but it paved the way for such things to be discussed in the living room - which did cause the change.
ps: Apparently Dr. M.L. King did indeed find Trek at the forefront of cultural change. His pleading with M. Nichols to remain on TOS when the actress wanted to quit out of frustration was so that she could help Trek remain at the forefront of cultural change (by being a role model). And I'll take Dr. King's word for it...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Frankly, I find the claim that Star Trek was anything other than a minor hanger-on in the civil rights movement to be, at best, incredibly naive. I think you'll find that social change in this country had a bit more to do with the hundreds of thousands of people marching in places like Washington D.C.
Look, I get the power of narrative when it comes to reshaping culture. I've read the Republic. But come on, be honest with yourself here. Star Trek was a nice reflection of the more progressive elements of U.S. society. To claim that it was crafting those elements is, in my opinion, at least a little insulting to the people who were actually doing it.
Anyway, everybody have a nice Juneteenth.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Well, exactly, it was a nice reflection, I don't think we're claiming that if it weren't for Star Trek we'd still have segregated water fountains. But I do think that it did play a role in changing the way that a lot of people looked at the issue. And I mean it's not like we saw a huge number of colorful (or female or even non-human) captains, admirals, commodores, amigas, generals or whatehaveyou, but they did make the extra effort and take a chance. And as such I think it (and Gene) deserve some kudos.
And so if a Star Trek series were to feature an openly gay and unpersecuted character it might be a fitting tribute to the original. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
"For a lot of people, it's a religious conviction, not a prejudice.
I really dislike the "people who don't like homosexuality are repressed/prejudiced/evil" attitude. If people are free to do what they want, then other people should be free to disapprove of it, without being insulted and ostracised."
Phoenix - similar opinions were voiced in Alabama and Mississippi when 'Plato's Stepchildren' was aired. Nice to see some traditions of thought continue...
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I honestly am indifferent to a gay character now on Star Trek. Sure, it would have been nice to see one onboad the Enterprise-D or on DS9 or even Voyager. But TPTB just kept on saying the same thing over and over and I'm just sick and tired of it. It would have been something big to me if the other series did introduce one, even a lesbian because I have been growing up with Trek since 1987. But hell, Will and Grace and Queer as Folk came along to represent me somewhat in TV land, but I still waited for my representation in the Trek universe. Everyone else was basically represented in Trek, whether in the TV or movies, in detail or in the background. But where the hell am I being shown? Not on Trek that's for sure.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Well, as to Star Trek being progressive on social issues, as the book Inside Star Trek discusses, the multi-ethnic cast wasn't just Gene's idea (alebit he later took credit for it), NBC was encouraging it. A 1966 memo from NBC V.P. Mort Werner is reprinted where he specifically requests non-white cast members. So it wasn't just Star Trek being progressive, it was Star Trek reflecting a progressive trend being promoted by the network.
Notable is the passage "Our efforts in the past to assure the fact that the programs broadcast on our facilities are a natural reflection of the role of minorities in American life have met with substantial success."
That was 1966, and Star Trek was on the leading edge of TV programming in at least that regard, or at the very least contemporary with other shows at the time.
Not any more!
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
there was that one novel that finally revealed that LT. Hawk was gay. And then he died. with the borg and the deflector dish and stuff. as a gay man.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Why does star trek need a gay character? Wheres the gay character on stargate? how about many other shows you can think of...
Im sorry. i just dont buy the fact that since there isnt a gay character on star trek, that the trek universe is anti-gay. We dont need a token gay character.
Frankly, i dont think its ground that needs to be covered. Personally, i dont think theres a need for a gay rights movement. People choose to be gay, people dont choose to be black when they are born.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
People choose to be gay about as much as they choose to be straight.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Looky, me and Cartmaniac agree on something.
Proteus, you were right, up until that last statement, which was totally, completely, and utterly devoid of any connection with reality.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I'd hate to be seen to be agreeing with Twateus in any way, but the main problem I have with the gay rights movement is the same I have with any special interest group - that no matter what they achieve, they never go away. Homosexuality at this point has about as much recognition and acceptance as it's had at any time, since, I dunno, the Sacred Band of Thebes, yet, do they give it a rest? Nooo, all of a sudden they're complaining that some Paul Verhoeven film isn't very nice about them, or something like that. I might as well complain about the poor representation John Lithgow made of British people in Cliffhanger. . . 8)
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: I might as well complain about the poor representation John Lithgow made of British people in Cliffhanger. . . 8)
Yes it/he was simply awful but I can't remember the last time kids in Colorado tied anyone to their bumper and dragged them to death for being of the Brittish orientation.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane:
quote:Originally posted by Lee: I might as well complain about the poor representation John Lithgow made of British people in Cliffhanger. . . 8)
Yes it/he was simply awful but I can't remember the last time kids in Colorado tied anyone to their bumper and dragged them to death for being of the Brittish orientation.
Maybe in Northern Ireland?
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: Why does star trek need a gay character? Wheres the gay character on stargate? how about many other shows you can think of...
Replace "gay" with "black" and it's an argument right out of (and fit for) 1962. Where were the black cast members on I Love Lucy? Where were they on Our Show of Shows?
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: Im sorry. i just dont buy the fact that since there isnt a gay character on star trek, that the trek universe is anti-gay. We dont need a token gay character.
And we didn't need those token minority characters on TOS neither!
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: Frankly, i dont think its ground that needs to be covered. Personally, i dont think theres a need for a gay rights movement. People choose to be gay, people dont choose to be black when they are born.
People don't choose to be male, female, blue eyed or hairy chested, either, but they are.
And, if it were a choice, why on Earth (or any other planet) would someone make that decision, especially given how commonly it's persecuted? "Gosh I think I'll adopt a lifestyle that will make a lot of people hate me." What's the appeal? Why would and one choose it? Easy answer: they don't.
People don't choose what they're attracted to any more than what smells entice or offend them. Do straight people choose to find the opposite sex attractive? Do some men just decide "I choose to like big breasts"? That's just as ridiculous as thinking another man is going to consciously decide, "I choose to be attracted to other men".
You don't make decisions about what gives you wood (or the female equivalent).
quote:Originally posted by Lee: ...no matter what they achieve, they never go away. Homosexuality at this point has about as much recognition and acceptance as it's had at any time, since, I dunno, the Sacred Band of Thebes, yet, do they give it a rest?
Wasn't it only last week that the Supreme Court ruling meant that gays in Texas won't have to worry about being thrown in jail for doing something that was perfectly legal for straights? In most places in the US you can have a same sex partner for 20 years and have less rights than a bride on her wedding night. Fer instance:
--Your partner ends up in the hospital and you probably may not have any say in regards to their medical treatment. --Inheritance...forget it, the law doesn't recognize your relationship, and family can contest any Will your partner left. --Medical benfits from your employer extending to your spouse? Forget that too. --And in a lot of the country if you walk down the street holding hands you'll probably get dirty looks, hurled epithets, maybe plenty or worse.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Seems like plenty of reason to keep yelling and screaming for equality.
As to the subject, "Homosexuality in Star Trek - where is it?" still in the same closet it was in 1966.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR:
quote:Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane:
quote:Originally posted by Lee: I might as well complain about the poor representation John Lithgow made of British people in Cliffhanger. . . 8)
Yes it/he was simply awful but I can't remember the last time kids in Colorado tied anyone to their bumper and dragged them to death for being of the Brittish orientation.
Maybe in Northern Ireland?
There isn't a Colorado in Northern Ireland. And the collection of complete fuck wits known as the IRA are far more brutal than that.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
I love the direction this thread has gone - well, I like the discussion of gay rights - and I'm cheered to see that some people do indeed see that shows like ST need to champion the status and rights of minorities - or progress is never made. I am disappointed to see that there is still some bigotry in the ST community... but,
Niven's law (Dave's interpretation): No cause is so pure that you won't find an ass following it.
Back to the original question: Are there gay humans in the 24th century?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Of course there are. If there are humans, there are gay humans. I don't see any reason whatsoever why it should be any different 200, 400 or 1000 years from now. Unless one sees being gay as something abnormal, or something that 'will go out of fashion'. Which doesn't sit right with me at all.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Being GAY...going OUT...of FASHION.
OUT...of FASHION.
You see.
Comedy ore. You must be mined until collapse & then refined & sold through brokers in Caracas.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Okay, here's the thing.
Black crewmember.
Visibly: Black. Audibly: Nothing, because we see he is black. End of story.
Gay crewmember. Visibly: Normal. Audibly: "I am tho thexthy in thethe panths."
(Haha: Stereotype.)
So, if we didn't devote dialogue and, more importantly, narrative story fun time to get us to notice multiculturalism, why should we do it for The Gay?
I mean, unless you want to have them sticking their doodles in a bum on the bridge, I don't at all see how the similarities are similar in any fashion at all whatsoever.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Exactly. Who can say what it is to be gay? Chances are they'd just fuck it up, you'd get Will and Grace in Space. Which is actually quite a catchy title. . .
So ultimately it comes down to sex, and - I'm sure this will bring a chorus of dissenting voices, but here goes - Star Trek isn't about sex. Or love. How can it be? The constraints of a weekly hour-long family-oriented show make it impossible. Homosexuality in Star Trek? There's barely any heterosexuality! In all the 500+ hours of episodic Trek, how many brief relationships (of which more in a second) have there been? Not many, really. And how many lasting relationships? Even fewer? And of those, how many actually seemed to work and were handled well? About one - Sisko & Kassidy Yates.
Going back to the brief relationships: usually they've been of the format "cast member X meets guest star Y, but ultimately circumstance Z means they cannot continue the relationship." The days of TNG, when it was like they were taking it in turns to fall in love each week, are mercifully over - mostly. And - to me at least - these couplings devalued the whole thing. I don't want to come over as a 'shipper, but the way that, for example, Picard & Nella Darren clicked, then separated for the most simplistic of reasons, just pissed me off.
Now, given all that, how could they make a homosexual character work?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I guess it would have to be the same thing, except, instead of "Picard and Neela Darren", it would be "Picard and Nelson Darren".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: A) Honor the sabbath day and keep it holy. Depends on how you define sabbath.
Sabbath was Ozzy on vocals. No "Ronnie James Dio" bullshit.
quote: B) The ten commandments were given to the jews, not Christians. Those of us who've actually read the New Testament do not recognize them as legally binding. Because we don't believe in legalism, you see.
I agree with that thinking completely! I'm a DS9 fan and I try to ignore TOS, TAS and anything called "Phase II" whenever possible. I mean, why bother with the original version?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote: Of course there are. If there are humans, there are gay humans. I don't see any reason whatsoever why it should be any different 200, 400 or 1000 years from now. Unless one sees being gay as something abnormal, or something that 'will go out of fashion'. Which doesn't sit right with me at all.
Get to the bottom line. You believe that being gay has a genetic cause. It is not influenced by culture or by individual choice.
However, this assumption carries with it certain concessions. It would be a mutation, probably a rather simple mutation that would seem to reduce fitness. Noting that, if one viewed it as a medical condition, it could be prevented or corrected.
This assumption is actually interesting ...if it is genetic, than one would expect a mutation that so drastically reduces fitness to be bred out of the gene pool via natural selection relatively quickly. The only thing that might be keeping the gay population around, is the fact that many gays are pressured into leading straight lives..passing on their genes, having gay children. In this case, modern political correctness, leading gay people to live their lives openly might actually cause the extinction of the gay population. i.e. In the past, two gay individuals are pressured into living straight lives, have children, pass on their genes. Modern era, gay couple live together with no biological children, no gene passing.
PS: Obviously it wouldn't be simple dominant/recessive inheritance, one would hope someone would have noticed that by now. But you get the general idea.
Whether this is right or wrong, is beyond the scope of science, but I wouldn't blindly assume that being gay will automatically be around for however long humans are around.
In a way, its an unenviable catch-22. Assume its due to genetics: it can be cured. Assume its due to a choice: it can be changed.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith:
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR:
quote:Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane:
quote:Originally posted by Lee: I might as well complain about the poor representation John Lithgow made of British people in Cliffhanger. . . 8)
Yes it/he was simply awful but I can't remember the last time kids in Colorado tied anyone to their bumper and dragged them to death for being of the Brittish orientation.
Maybe in Northern Ireland?
There isn't a Colorado in Northern Ireland. And the collection of complete fuck wits known as the IRA are far more brutal than that.
Well I thought the comment was self-explanitory enough to omit "Maybe not Colorado but..."
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR:
quote:Originally posted by Wraith:
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR:
quote:Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane:
quote:Originally posted by Lee: I might as well complain about the poor representation John Lithgow made of British people in Cliffhanger. . . 8)
Yes it/he was simply awful but I can't remember the last time kids in Colorado tied anyone to their bumper and dragged them to death for being of the Brittish orientation.
Maybe in Northern Ireland?
There isn't a Colorado in Northern Ireland. And the collection of complete fuck wits known as the IRA are far more brutal than that.
Well I thought the comment was self-explanitory enough to omit "Maybe not Colorado but..."
Nestled Chocolate Quoted Cookies.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I can't wait until the genetic cure for whiteness is discovered!
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
I think tanning salons are well on their way to covering that base...
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
hiccup
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Damn honkeys.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
A few things...
1. The current thinking amongst a lot of geneticists who believe sexual preference has a genetic basis is that it is influenced by a lot of different genes (and possibly by some neo-natal and perhaps things as well), and not just a switch. So it might be everything from what colors and smells you're sensitive and a host of other things that influence what turns you on. This would tend to explain bisexuality as well, as it's not something as sinple as an on/off switch.
2. As to the choice argument, a lot of animals exhibit same sex coupling, and it's hightly doubtful they make choices. Some years ago I read statistics once on certain gull species that has a high rate of "lesbianism" with females nesting together as couples.
3. "Cure" makes it sound like an illness or a defect. In a world with over 6 billion people, maybe it's a benefit. Who really wants everyone out there to be breeders? Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...if it is genetic, than one would expect a mutation that so drastically reduces fitness to be bred out of the gene pool via natural selection relatively quickly."
Well, as a mutation, it doesn't need to be passed on to appear on its own. How do you think it came about in the first place?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Mutations don't get "bred out." They occur over and over and over again. That's why two totally unrelated people can have the same mutation.
Last I heard, the current thinking was a combination of genetic and natal factors.
I'm told there was a study that found notable differences between the structural makeup of homosexual brains (IIRC, mostly in the the hypothalamus) and that of heterosexual brains.
The belief was that this was due to a differing chemical balance in the fetus during natal development, and was theorized to be caused by extra stress on the mother during a certain period of the pregnancy.
So that the old saw is right... mother did cause it.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Mutations don't get "bred out." They occur over and over and over again. That's why two totally unrelated people can have the same mutation.
Exactly, which is how evolution works...mutations occur and occasionally provide some advantage and the mutation becomes the norm. Albeit most mutations are not benficial.
quote:I'm told there was a study that found notable differences between the structural makeup of homosexual brains (IIRC, mostly in the the hypothalamus) and that of heterosexual brains.
There was, but the validity of the study's since been challenged, partly because the sample group was so small and the method of subject selection could have been biased, amongst other things.
quote:So that the old saw is right... mother did cause it.
How Freudian! Haha
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote: 1. The current thinking amongst a lot of geneticists who believe sexual preference has a genetic basis is that it is influenced by a lot of different genes (and possibly by some neo-natal and perhaps things as well)...as it's not something as sinple as an on/off switch.
Right, as in there is no simple off switch for say blindness or deafness. A problem in any number of related genes can cause a change in function. Being influenced by a large number of genes (and as you said various environmental factors), there can be many degrees of blindness or deafness.
quote: 3. "Cure" makes it sound like an illness or a defect. In a world with over 6 billion people, maybe it's a benefit. Who really wants everyone out there to be breeders?
Sure, maybe Sickle-cell anemia confers certain advantages when dealing with malaria, and thus is more prevelant in African populations than say...well Canadian ones. But in the end, its society (or our individual beliefs) that determines whether sickle-cell anemia or deafness or blindness should be cured. I'm just saying that from a technological point of view (morality notwithstanding), there's not much of a difference.
quote:Mutations don't get "bred out." They occur over and over and over again. That's why two totally unrelated people can have the same mutation.
quote: Exactly, which is how evolution works...mutations occur and occasionally provide some advantage and the mutation becomes the norm. Albeit most mutations are not benficial.
Right, obviously. But it seems to me on a cursory glance that homosexuality would not be beneficial, and that natural selection would keep it at a background level. However, it seems that the gay population is much larger than could be explained through spontaeous mutation. (and someone can provide statistics either way *hint, hint*) Thus there probably is an environmental factor (possibly the neo-natal factors you mentioned)
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I don't know when and if we shall ever prove to everyone's satisfaction whether homosexuality is caused by genes, by environment, or by a combination. I really don't care. All I know is that homosexuality (rather than homosexual behavior alone) is not something that can be chosen. It exists now, has been recorded by most cultures through history (with various degrees of acceptance), and will likely continue to exist (despite occassional efforts to eradicate it). Learn to accept it. Trek should learn to accept it too.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
There is absolutely nothing that says it hasn't.
IN FACT: Maybe Heterosexuality is such that, in 2374, IT is the minority, and the reason we see episodes dealing with it is because, in 2374, nerds ask "Where's the Straight people?" on the HyperNet.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Perhaps homosexuality was ruthlessly targetted during the Eugenics Wars, and is only beginning to re-manifest in the human genome again some four centuries later?
--Jonah
Posted by Intruder1701 (Member # 880) on :
So I am pondering.. does Starfleet have a "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy??
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Wow, this conversation just dragged on didnt it?
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: Wow, this conversation just dragged on didnt it?
I dunno...at least it stayed more on less on-topic. That's a rarity!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge: But hell, Will and Grace and Queer as Folk came along to represent me somewhat in TV land, but I still waited for my representation in the Trek universe.
But they are as relevent today as, say, the Cosby show would have been in 1966. Which might have been a lot. I don't know. When did shows that I'm trying to avoid describing as "A bunch of black people living or hanging together with jokes in" start being made?
Will and Grace is about gayness. Or at least, it uses gayness as a source for jokes, like Frasier uses pompous psychiatrists as a source for jokes. Queer as Folk is a drama about gays. Star Trek wasn't a drama show about black people. It was a show that had black people in it.
Posted by Dr Phlox (Member # 680) on :
It's called a situation comedy cracker ass cracker. Just because it has blacks or gays doesn't make it different it just happens to have blacks or gays in it. And if u black u need Jesus.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I think YOU need the ban stick.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I dunno. I think he needs +1000 points for this:
"It's called a situation comedy cracker ass cracker"
And my point was that the show was still about an all black family, or a bunch of gay friends. On Trek, Geordi could have been white with pretty much no change at all.
And yeah, you could see the same thing for the sit-coms, but would Will be quite the same if he was "The cool white dude from Bel-Air"?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Well if we are to believe that Trek represents this liberal and egalitarian/utopian vision of society wherein everyone is accepted for who and what they are, I think the omission of openly gay characters is inconsistent and, well, kind of prudishly silly. (Again, not that they need to make a big fuss about the fact that this character is gay every FRICKIN' episode, just matter of fact, in the same way that Geordi was black (But not in the same way that he was handicapped.) But what I was talking about is the irrelevence/insignifigance of his skin-tone (see also Uhura)). So why not a gay character? At this point what could they really be risking? This would be doing good for the society of social progress and at the same time it'd likely garner Paramount some much needed publicity. I'm given to understand that the ratings for Enterprise are more or less in the bidet as is. He could be the ship's quartermaster if they needed to go that Will and Grace route.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
How about the interior decorator?
That ship could USE it.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yes! So, you have this ship that's searching for these people who attacked Earth, and they have a gay interior decorator onboard. Been there, done that - Crusade, "Appearances and Other Deceits."
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: For a lot of people, it's a religious conviction, not a prejudice.
I really dislike the "people who don't like homosexuality are repressed/prejudiced/evil" attitude. If people are free to do what they want, then other people should be free to disapprove of it, without being insulted and ostracised.
I completely agree with you brother. For myself and a lot of my sheet clad pals in the KKK, racism is a religious conviction not a prejudice. Don't you people know that hate is all right when it's endorsed by God?
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obi Juan: ...Don't you people know that hate is all right when it's endorsed by God?
As Osama keeps telling the Universe...
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
And if u black u need Jesus.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Don't you people know that hate is all right when it's endorsed by God?
Hate endorsed by God? When/where/what?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
"Suffer not the unclean to survive"...?
Our OT God was pretty straight about it early on in the Jewish empire-building. If it ain't Jewish, steamroll it.
--Jonah
P.S. Can we either move this back onto Trek or let the thread die?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
quote:Hate endorsed by God? When/where/what?
The Crusades? The Inquisition? Oh wait, that wasn't hate. That was teaching.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
No, those were the desperate gasps of an obsolete and obscene belief structure trying to dominate a larger world than it had been designed for.
(color me agnostic)
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treknophyle: (color me agnostic)
Funny, I can't find that hue in my box of Crayolas. Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
An almost off-topic comment here:
While the situation with canon Trek may be what it may be, the modern novels certainly have their share of homosexual relationships. Four recent examples highlight the different ways to do it:
1) The "DS9 Relaunch" series features odd sexual arrangements of alien lifeforms as a plot point. And NOT as an allegory to anything human. It's just scifi, and the relevancy here is that the concept of weird sex is deprived of any "titillation value". It's not done in order to have sex scenes as such. Which is a message in itself.
2) The "SCE" series has a male character aboard a ship, in correspondence with a male partner at the port. The relationship is somewhat "up on your face" to the reader, in the sense that a heterosexual relationship would not receive so much attention in a book. From the point of view of the characters, though, this relationship is highly "normal", which is a typical heavyhanded Trek message. The language used is also a bit awkward, with expressions like "partner" used a lot in character speech. It does depend on who's writing the SCE entry in question, though.
3) "The Sundered" features a human guest character who has two mothers (and presumably no father). The reader may miss this if he or she blinks, but it offers extra color to the story tapestry. The story would be less rich without the addition.
4) "Serpents Among the Ruins" features a female Romulan character who has a son and a female lover. The reader WILL miss this even if he or she doesn't blink - it all hangs on a single gender-specific pronoun on a single page (and no, this is not a typo, sez the author). This is stylistically the most intriguing way to do it. The reader is left to wonder about the details of the arrangement, but the book is so full of such subtlety that there are a thousand other things to wonder about. (And just to clarify, the Romulan character in question is a protagonist, not a devious pervert bitch who gets comeuppance at the end. *That's* a different Romulan character altogether. )
We're left waiting for (and dreading) how Peter David will handle it. I mean, he has sexual innuendo dripping even from his technobabble, but when he's unleashed with the instructions of inserting a homosexuality message...
I do wonder if there are explicit writer instructions to that end, or if it is just a voluntary fashion statement of some sort. There are other strange commonalities between recent books, too. Marco Palmieri would be quick to denounce any top-level decrees, of course...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The Crusades? The Inquisition? Oh wait, that wasn't hate. That was teaching.
It wasn't God. God != Catholic Church
Peter David's also got the fully hermaphroditic former engineer on the Excalibur, whose name and race escape me at the moment because the jerk hasn't released any NF books in two years. S/he's had both male and female lovers, and impregnated Dr. Selar.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Timo,
Also with the "DS9 Relaunch" ... one of the Bajoran deputies is involved with another woman.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
We never same homosexuality on TOS (except for those who chose to see it). But in Metamorphosis, Kirk and the boys suggest a rather open attitude towards relationships in the 23rd century. Of course, the Companion is clearly identified as female for the sake of tender 1960s sensibilities. I'm not saying this proves existence of homosexuality in Trek, but just offer this as evidence of more open attitudes. (Note: I'm not entirely sure who says what lines)
KIRK: You're a lover. COCHRANE: I'm a what? SPOCK: Her attitude toward you is profoundly different than when she contacts us. Her appearance is soft, gentle. Her voice is melodic, pleasing. I do not totally understand the emotion, but it obviously exists. The Companion loves you. COCHRANE: Do you know what you're saying? For all these years, I've let something as alien as that crawl around inside me, into my mind, my feelings. Kirk: It kept you alive. COCHRANE: It fed on me. It's disgusting. Kirk: There's nothing disgusting about it. It's just another life form.You get used to those things. COCHRANE: You're as bad as it is. SPOCK: Your highly emotional reaction is most illogical. Your relationship with the Companion has for 150 years been emotionally satisfying, eminently practical, and totally harmless. It may indeed have been quite beneficial. COCHRANE: Is this what the future holds, men who have no notion of decency or morality? Maybe I'm 150 years out of style, but I'm not going to be fodder for any inhuman monster. SPOCK: Fascinating -- a totally parochial attitude.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: We never same homosexuality on TOS (except for those who chose to see it). But in Metamorphosis, Kirk and the boys suggest a rather open attitude towards relationships in the 23rd century.
That's a great bit of dialogue. I'd forgotten it!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I suppose, at, a pinch, you could use the non-reaction of everyone in "The Emperor's New Cloak" as a sign that Starfleet (or at least, Sisko) doesn't get all whipped up (in either way) by the sight of two ladies kissing.
Of course, Sisko could be hating the white ho's on the inside. Word up.
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Don't you people know that hate is all right when it's endorsed by God?
Hate endorsed by God? When/where/what?
When is it not? You are telling me that some people do not use God to justify their petty little hatreds? Don't tell me you don't. I don't really care. Maybe you worship a kind loving God (or rather you are not a prejudiced person so your god is not). I did not say that all people who believe in God are racists, or even that all of the ones who are racists use God to justify their hate. However, a large number of racists base their hatred on God. Most organized racist groups are based around religions.
The Jews killed Christ and must be exterminated. You're right, no hatred there. What was I thinking? Religion has been used to justify slavery, every type of racism, sexism, and any other hatred imaginable. "When/where/what?" Hell I was replying someone that justified a hatred as a religious belief and said because of that, others could not condemn him for it. It's not prejudice if God says it's OK. Hell that's what started this whole tangent: "it's not a prejudice�it's a religious belief."
The real reason I brought this up was not to attack Phoenix or religion. I actually was hoping to get a response from Phoenix. I would sincerely like to know if he thinks his own justification would apply to others such as KKK member who justifies his beliefs because it is a religious belief. Does this mean he is not a racist? If it doesn't, why not? What's the difference?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
It made no sense when I re-read it...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Play nice, children.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You are telling me that some people do not use God to justify their petty little hatreds?
AH! I finally get it! The reason you're not making any sense is that you keep interchanging terms that aren't synonymous. Please note, for future reference: the Catholic church is not God, people who use God to justify their hatred aren't God, and disapproval of actions is not hatred of those acting. Thus Christians disapproving of homosexuality is not an expression of hatred, nor were the Catholic Crusades an endorsement by God of hate. Are we on the same page now?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Homophobia and bigotry are hardly exclusive to the catholic church.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Nor is pedophilia - but all three should be on their business cards...
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treknophyle: Nor is pedophilia - but all three should be on their business cards...
I fucking love your posts.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Because Catholic Church = Paedophile jokes are, like, sooooo 2003! To the max.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
gives a whole new meaning to the term 'priest hole'...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Er, what was the old meaning to that term?
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Gives a whole new meaning to "Having a priest's penis in your bum," too.
Well, maybe that's not so euphemistic.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:nor were the Catholic Crusades an endorsement by God of hate.
No, God's endorsements of hate are mostly in the OT. You know, "Go into that town there, my chosen savages, and kill every living thing except the young virgin girls. Those, you can rape."
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Thanks Proteus.
A 'Priest's Hole' was a hiding space (usually in the church) in which the clergyman could secrete himself if in danger.
BTW: I'm not a God basher. I'm also not an Easter Bunny basher. You can't hit what doesn't exist. Sorry if I'm hitting some people where it hurts - but console yourself with the long view:
500 years from now - people who believe in things they can't point to won't be mocked - they'll be medicated.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
EDGY
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
If God hated the people he wiped out, he wouldn't have given places like Ninevah so many warnings, now would he? Being omniscient means making hard choices sometimes. We've been over this.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Hypothetically speaking, if God was omniscient, he wouldn't have to give them warnings, he would already know the result of giving them warnings.
Heck, if you had total knowledge then he shouldn't have bothered creating them in the first place, because he would already know what the result would be.
Actually, thats an interesting question, would God be the only man-made construct that does not have to follow the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I eagerly await the day we recognize abstraction and imagination as dangerous forces of social decay.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hypothetically speaking, if God was omniscient, he wouldn't have to give them warnings, he would already know the result of giving them warnings.
Heck, if you had total knowledge then he shouldn't have bothered creating them in the first place, because he would already know what the result would be.
Actually, thats an interesting question, would God be the only man-made construct that does not have to follow the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?
Did you ever read Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's "The Watchmen"? Dr. Manhattan can see all of time at once and yet he's preordained to react to things as they happen.
MANHATTAN: This is where we hold our conversation. It commences when you surprise me with the information that you are Deiberg have been sleeping together.
LAURIE: Y...You know about me and Dan?
MANHATTAN: No. Not yet. But in a few moments you're going to tell me.
(snip)
LAURIE: Listen Jon, okay, I'll play it your way...but you have to help me understand. I mean, I can't tell the future.
MANHATTAN: There is no future. There is no past. Do you see? Time is simultaneous, an intricately structured jewel that humans insist on viewing one edge at a time, when the whole design is visible in every facet.
A bit later she mentions sleeping with Drieberg and he reacts as he just learned it, because it's all simultaneous to him. Would it be that way for God? Hmmm...
Okay, getting waaaaay off topic.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Watchmen, and to a lesser degree, Oxygen and the proper daily doctor recommended servings of minerals and vitamins, is what keeps me alive.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Well put.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Oops. Okay, now we're sequeing into a discussion of God (any particular flavor) - existance and morality.
I had this discussion last week with a fellow agnostic. We determined that if God (Jehovah) were a person, he'd be institutionalized: - schizophenic (multiple personalities) - messianic complex (thinks he's the second coming) - unstable (desperate need for anger management - kills people who piss him off) - psychotic (creates us and our problems - then blames us for them) - sadistic (has his own private torture chamber for anyone he doesn't like - well, Hell is hardly private) - obsessively externally validative (has an overwhelming requirement to be externally validated [believed in] by others)
As Heinlein would say, any God I choose to believe in has to be MORE moral (and saner) than me - and Jehovah doesn't cut it. Face it, he's just a fictional manefestation of a Stone Age patriarchal father-figure - drawn larger-than-life.
Besides, with the way the world is - if he existed, I'd have to hate him.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, that's nice and all, but I mean, it hardly works. You can't rightly be delusional when you claim to be the messiah if you actually ARE the messiah. If any god existed, especially the sort of all-encompassing Thomas Aquinas style god popular in modern Christianity, your attempt to frame it in human terms would be meaningless.
I mean, I'm an atheist, or at least a mildly angry agnostic. There are just no gods of any kind out there when I look, nor can I see a god-shaped spot in the universe for one to fit. But the idea that we can just sit around in the afternoon and quickly dismember a religion strikes me as kind of silly and pretentious, suggesting as it does that no one in thousands of years has ever had the same thoughts. Any theology so poorly constructed is quickly replaced by other, more robust species. Religion is an exceedingly Darwinian affair.
So, I don't know. This sort of thing just gets under my collar for some reason. Things like the problem of evil, or the nature of God or gods have not gone undebated or unconsidered.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Liam: A priest hole was/is those places where Catholic priests used to hide, mainly during Elizabeth I's reign- Mission England and all that stuff. They're usually found in noble's houses, quite a few still exist. Although they're not used as often now.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
But we now have a few advantages over our predecessors:
1- Science (by which I mean the use of deductive logic and experimentation) to define reality.
2- The freedom to use science/logic on any subject without being burned alive by the church.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
- unstable (desperate need for anger management - kills people who piss him off)
Kills people who need to die so that others can live.
- psychotic (creates us and our problems - then blames us for them)
- sadistic (has his own private torture chamber for anyone he doesn't like - well, Hell is hardly private)
Death and hell are natural consequences of our sin, not punishment meted out by a vengeful God. You're looking at things entirely backwards, as do quite a few people.
- obsessively externally validative (has an overwhelming requirement to be externally validated [believed in] by others)
God doesn't need us. We need God, and he knows it. Therefore, he wants us to believe in him because otherwise, we're screwed.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: God doesn't need us. We need God, and he knows it. Therefore, he wants us to believe in him because otherwise, we're screwed.
Which reminds me of...
'I refuse to prove I exist' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing'. 'But', says Man, 'The Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore you don't. QED'. 'Oh dear', says God, 'I hadn't thought of that' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and, for an encore he proves that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.*
*crosswalk
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, "Fit the First" by Douglas Adams
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
Mambo dogface in the banana patch!
[ September 25, 2003, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Obi Juan ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Excellent quote! Thankfully not relevant, but excellent none the less!
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
That's true Omega. My personal belief is actually the exact opposite: "A cruel man makes a cruel God."
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Catholic church is not God
I'll take your word for it.
quote:People who use God to justify their hatred aren't God
Okay.
quote:Disapproval of actions is not hatred of those acting
I totally agree with that. I like to tie people to my bumper and drag them around the desert because I disagree with their actions. Better yet, I like to attempt to exterminate an entire race because of the actions of a few of their ancestors 1970 years ago.
quote:Nor were the Catholic Crusades an endorsement by God of hate
I didn't say anything about God or what It might endorse. I am talking about people using God to justify their hatred and violence toward their fellow human beings.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I like to tie people to my bumper and drag them around the desert because I disagree with their actions. Better yet, I like to attempt to exterminate an entire race because of the actions of a few of their ancestors 1970 years ago.
...and those would be actions borne out of hatred, not out of any Christian belief. Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they're talking about.
I am talking about people using God to justify their hatred and violence toward their fellow human beings.
The hatred already existed. Religion in those cases was just a convenient excuse, not the root cause.
Posted by Tora Regina (Member # 53) on :
"The hatred already existed. Religion in those cases was just a convenient excuse, not the root cause."
I disagree. Hatred of human beings for one another stems from the belief that we are isolated beings separate from god, rather than one entity appearing to be separate. We hurt one another in the belief that it will help/heal us in some way, since your well-being is not necessarily connected to mine. In the belief in oneness, however, everyone and everything is a part of you and you are part of them, therefore hurting another is like biting your nose to spite your face, or something like that. And who teaches the notion of separateness? Most major religions. Jesus does mention something about whatever you do unto one of them you do unto me and we are all brothers and sisters and what not. But obviously Christians listen only once in a while.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
One time, I went and I found a pidgeon, and after finishing my milkshake I rammed him into this hole in the ground I found.
Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
Christians did not set up the death camps of WW2,Godless NAZI Fanatics did that. And most Christians are not perfect. If not for the teachings of Christ how do you think the European people would treat the rest of the world today. Carving the Blood Eagle into the backs of those who oppose us,making goblets of human skulls,using the flayed skins of our enemies as battle standards, blinding and castrating prisioners of war so they would make docile slaves, praying to Mars the god of war,etc. Christianity took centuries to make a dent in that kind of behavior. Would the world be a better place without Christianity?
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
quote: Carving the Blood Eagle into the backs of those who oppose us,making goblets of human skulls,using the flayed skins of our enemies as battle standards, blinding and castrating prisioners of war so they would make docile slaves, praying to Mars the god of war,etc.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
You know, we've been through this argument so many times, with various people on one side, saying, well, I can't keep half the things they're saying straight in my head. On the other side, you have Omega (plus, occasionally, a few others) saying that the actions of a few people shouldn't reflect on Christianity or God as a whole.
Well, fair enough. I don't believe in God, so it matters not to me what his streetcred is like. Neither do I think that all Christians are equally evil. But I guess the question I keep asking myself, and I never see answered in these discussions, is - if I can express it clearly enough, it's late and I'm about to go home! - this: Given how many evil deeds have been perpetrated by self-proclaimed Christians, supposedly in God's name, why shouldn't we (us non-believers) treat anybody who makes such a claim, no matter how good their intentions and actions, with suspicion? Just because (say) the current pope isn't Tomas de Torquemada, doesn't mean he might not be equally deluded about the source of his actions. And can you - Omeychops - see why people like me treat such supposed do-gooders with suspicion as a result?
I hope that makes sense, I'm really not very good at religious debate because much of the time it holds so little interest for me!
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Christianity took centuries to make a dent in that kind of behavior."
Took centuries to replace that kind of behavior by... the exact same kind of behavior, you mean.
"Would the world be a better place without Christianity?"
It wouldn't have been a worse one.
Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
What, to put it bluntly, the fuck are you on? Are you suggesting that if the Nazis had been crazed 'Christian' supremesists rather than crazed racial supremecists, the death camps wouldn't have been built?
The actions of a few nutters will always give the more moderate sections of a particular group a bad name. Much evil has occured in the past and some of it has been the result of religious hatred and some has not. It doesn't necessarily follow that all the other people in either group are evil or that God/a leader endorses it. There are bits in the Bible which, if misinterpreted or taken out of context could be used to justify violence against non-believers, homosexuals, etc. This does not necessarily mean that all Christians interpret it this way or that it was meant this way.
Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
And exactly how many crazed Christian Supremist death camps have been built? The Crusades were a long time ago and the Spanish Inquisition was not well recieved by the rest of the Christian world in its time. How does Belief in God somehow make one a party to all the mischief of western civilization? Were the Ancient Greeks less warlike because they excepted homosexuality as a natural thing? Or the Spartans.Or Alexander the great. Religion does not create hatred,that hatred is there in some to begin with. Without religion Hatred goes unchecked,as the Nazi party and so many others have proven. Homosexuals also died in those camps as well as many Christians. http://member-of-resistance.ww2.Klup.info/ P.S. I thought Bashir might be Bisexual But that was probably because of the british accent. Though he did spend a lot of time with The engineer who seemed kind of leery of him.
[ September 26, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Mountain Man ]
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mountain Man: P.S. I thought Bashir might be Bisexual But that was probably because of the british accent.
Oh yeah, that's always a dead giveaway... Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
To explain that a little better. The accent was an affectation. His attitude was that of some one who was hiding something. He was also unsure of himself. Not his manhood but his humanity. His hanging around Miles O'brian was not a sex thing, he looked at Miles as the Brother/playmate he never had as a kid. The Spy adventures on the Holodeck,and his friendship with the cardasian taylor reminded me of Kim Philby and his crew of communist spys. It all blends together,and was probably part of the plot all along. I'll bet that in the episodes where Bashir was really the founder changling he showed less of the uncertainty about himself than the real Bashir.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
quote: To explain that a little better.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
My goodness, a rational post on religion! From LEE, no less! Will wonders never cease...
Seriously, though, thanks for the effort. It's good to see someone try to break out of the circles we seem to lock ourselves into. In response, I'd have to say that you should examine the beliefs and actions of people on an individual basis, instead of letting your prejudices decide for you. Just because some guys claiming to be Christian did damage in the past doesn't mean you should write us all off.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
You should first define True Christianity, and that, as you may be aware, is a small point of contention even among those claiming to be Christians.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Why thank you Stephen. I just hope you won't hold it against me that I speak with an English accent and therefore am clearly bisexual. 8)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It is an affectation. Ignore it.
Still, I'm shocked that this has managed to stay as rational as it has. I am also mildly amused that the "God doesn't exist in any way, I am right, because I say so" people feel the need to proclaim that over and over again with almost...religious fevor. Does it make you feel better mocking people who do believe in God?
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: It is an affectation. Ignore it.
Still, I'm shocked that this has managed to stay as rational as it has. I am also mildly amused that the "God doesn't exist in any way, I am right, because I say so" people feel the need to proclaim that over and over again with almost...religious fevor. Does it make you feel better mocking people who do believe in God?
No. However, I rather enjoy mocking bigots, especially when they say religious beliefs cannot be called bigotry. I never said that all Christians are bigots or that even a majority are.
Hell, all I really wanted to know is if a certain homophobe thought that his "you can't call it bigotry when it is a religious belief" defense applied to those who used it as a justification for burning crosses on the lawns of people whose skin might be a couple of shades darker than theirs.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
To which the answer is that you are drawing a false parallel between disapproval of a lifestyle choice and hatred of someone's genetic makeup. There is zero similarity.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: To which the answer is that you are drawing a false parallel between disapproval of a lifestyle choice and hatred of someone's genetic makeup. There is zero similarity.
"Disapproval"? Is that what you call it? Then let me ask you a question: is it your lifestyle choice to be a bigot, or just your genetic makeup?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
big�ot, n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Since I have displayed no intolerance, simply disagreement, the only answer to your question can be "no".
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: To which the answer is that you are drawing a false parallel between disapproval of a lifestyle choice and hatred of someone's genetic makeup. There is zero similarity.
Are we back to that "choice" silliness again? No one chooses what they're sexually attracted to.
Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
Ladies, please. Is this gonna have to be moved down to the flameboard? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Just because some guys claiming to be Christian did damage in the past doesn't mean you should write us all off.
In the past? See: Pat Robertson
Just because the majority of Christians consider themselves to be "right" and "tolerant" sure does not mean that those who differ from your viewpoint should automatically trust you.
Nobody thinks of themselves as being wrong about anything their god (supposedly) approves of, so religion has become a crutch to sway and motivate believers to hate whatever their religous leaders want them to hate/discriminate/disapprove of.
In short: The masses are asses. Indivudals are smart, people are dumb. Treat each person as their own little universe with unique quirks and standards and don't judge them based on your own rules. Or kill them. Witchever.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Nobody thinks of themselves as being wrong about anything their god (supposedly) approves of
False.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Really?
Site an example where you'd be at odds with the christian God's direct spoken word (assuming you're jewish, christian or any of the refits, variants or kitbashes thereof).
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Are we back to that "choice" silliness again? No one chooses what they're sexually attracted to.
Again with the use of non-synonymous terms interchangably. Please don't do that. Again, for future reference: lifestyle != attraction.
Just because the majority of Christians consider themselves to be "right" and "tolerant" sure does not mean that those who differ from your viewpoint should automatically trust you.
I didn't say you should. I said you shouldn't let your prejudices get in the way of rational thought. If you're going to judge ME, or some other Christian you know, or our beliefs in general, don't judge Pat Robertson or Torquemada and simply transfer that judgement to someone else who happens to have the same name.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Again with the use of non-synonymous terms interchangably. Please don't do that. Again, for future reference: lifestyle != attraction."
Ah, so while you don't have any problems with homosexual attraction (it being part of someone's genetic makeup and all), you just don't agree how they express their feelings?
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
That seems a little strange to me, I will tell you that right now.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
*shrug* I hardly see a contradiction. Omega probably also has no problem with people feeling tempted to punch someone out on a stressful day. He probably does have a problem with someone actually going ahead and doing it.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Weak, Mucus, damn weak. Are you personally affected by someone's sexual interaction with his/her partner? Is there violence directed against you when two people have sex? Because that's the equasion you're making here.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
And just out of curiosity: what reasons would you have for disagreeing with something that 1) is really none of your fucking business and 2) doesn't impinge on your life in any way?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Ah, so while you don't have any problems with homosexual attraction (it being part of someone's genetic makeup and all), you just don't agree how they express their feelings?
what reasons would you have for disagreeing with something that 1) is really none of your fucking business and 2) doesn't impinge on your life in any way?
Sex outside of marriage can have exactly two possible effects. It can either a) form a bond between people that may eventually be broken, causing massive emotional harm; or b) it cheapens the concept so that the bond it is intended to strengthen can NEVER be formed. It either hurts the people involved or it destroys the gift. Both are Bad Things, whether it affects ME or not.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Assumption A: Please point me at your source for determining that homosexual tendencies are in fact genetic. While I strongly suspect that it is in fact genetic, I don't believe it has been proven beyond a tentative link.
Assumption B: I don't believe that I've ever said that I'm against same-sex marriages. By the same token, I don't believe I've ever said that I'm for it either.
All I have said to my recent recollection, is that by most rational interpretations, you normally don't get punished ("much") for sinful thought by the major Christian religions. Its the sinful behaviour that really gets you in deep.
PS: I really doubt that you're spineless enough only ever disagree with things that directly affect you. So why don't I just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're simply a hypocrite that tosses out expletives to cover for a lack of real thought.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
All I have said to my recent recollection, is that by most rational interpretations, you normally don't get punished ("much") for sinful thought by the major Christian religions. Its the sinful behaviour that really gets you in deep.
Mmm... it's not so much about acting right and not breaking the rules as it is about living life as it is intended to be lived. If your mind is changed to be like that of God, then you'll understand how life is meant to be, and your thoughts will follow.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Really?
Site an example where you'd be at odds with the christian God's direct spoken word (assuming you're jewish, christian or any of the refits, variants or kitbashes thereof).
Well, my argument would be based around the fact that "God's direct spoken word" has been rewritten, translated and "interpreted" so many times over the centuries that there's some doubt as to what it actually is. But, if we take the argument that, say, the Pope is suppossed to be the voice of God on Earth (if you are Catholic), then I could site a great deal many friends who were raised Catholic, who still believe in God, but who differ completely with the Church on homosexual relationships, contraceptives, and sex outside of marriages. And more that they probably aren't aware of.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Omega: You know, you almost sound like your next words should either be "you think thats air you're breathing right now?" or "I'm telling you, that when you're ready you won't have to (dodge bullets)" Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
If he starts offering blue or red pills, I'm leaving.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
"If your mind is changed to be like that of God, then you'll understand how life is meant to be, and your thoughts will follow."
Sounds presumptuous and arrogant, trying to accomplish such a feat. But if you pull it off, let me know. I want to know the meaning and purpose of earlobes, and no man of woman born has yet delivered.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Sex outside of marriage can have exactly two possible effects. It can either a) form a bond between people that may eventually be broken, causing massive emotional harm; or b) it cheapens the concept so that the bond it is intended to strengthen can NEVER be formed. It either hurts the people involved or it destroys the gift. Both are Bad Things, whether it affects ME or not."
Okay, I can sort of see where you're coming from. Why then are you opposed to legalizing homosexual marriages? You think they don't WANT to marry as much as any heterosexual couple?
"PS: I really doubt that you're spineless enough only ever disagree with things that directly affect you. So why don't I just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're simply a hypocrite that tosses out expletives to cover for a lack of real thought."
No, of course not. World hunger affects me. Pollution affects me. Wars affect me. Animal abuse affects me. Human rights violations affect me. A lot of stuff affects me. But homosexuality does not, so why would I disagree with it?
[ September 30, 2003, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Play nice children...
Once again, I'd like to remind you of the long view.
200 years from now (sooner if I'm lucky) - the person who shows any bigotry or bias about homosexuality will be looked upon as we would look now upon someone who is bigoted against left-handed people. You know, those with the hand of the devil.
At this point in history, were one so stupid, we'd look at him and ask: " 1- what possible business is it of yours? 2- What makes you think the left-handed can help it? 3- How did you ever notice in the first place? 4- Just which cock-eyed religion told you this?
So, since Trekkers are supposed to be more intelligent and futurists (supposition on my part - with certain exceptions allowed to religious fanatics) - why not just adopt the proper attitude now? If someone in Gallileo's time had spoken out against bigotry aimed at left-handed persons, today we'd be holding him up as an example of intelligence and forward-thinking in an otherwise barbaric age.
In any way I can, I try to display this type of forward-thinking now. Not only does it allow me great personal satisfaction in knowing I'm being as ethical as possible - it lets me poke fun at the feeble-minded.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Because all bigotry from 1803 is surely distant memory.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Not all that distant - some of our members still represent a few of the organized bigotries - I mean religions.
But just as tech development has accelerated - so I hope cultural and ethical development will - and attitudes such as Omega's will go the way of the T Rex.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Omega's going to crash a Mini Cooper into a tree?!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Cultural and ethical development is not as easy to judge as technological development, Treknophile, and I should hope you recognize that you just might be wrong about the nature of an optimal society.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
*kindly offers Omega a ten-foot pole to touch his last question with*
Posted by Tora Regina (Member # 53) on :
"Cultural and ethical development is not as easy to judge as technological development"
You're right. If a car has three blown tires, doors falling off the hinges, one working headlight, a blown transmission, and has led its last two owners to their deaths, nobody would insist that it still works and everyone should ride in it.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
...and since no such objective judgements can be made about ethical systems or cultures, no such comparison can be made. Thanks. Posted by Tora Regina (Member # 53) on :
I do not make a judgment so much as an observation. If Christianity is supposed to do what they claim to do (save the world, bring peace, and so on), why has it not been done it in the past 2000 years? And don't tell me because people are sinners/won't listen/etc. If it worked, people wouldn't continue to be so. I realize that Christianity does plenty of good. I've been there and I have a few Christian friends -- quite close ones, too. And do you realize that no argument against Christianity (at least that I'm aware of) ever criticizes Jesus? It's when you say "we are the one true religion, join us or be damned" that Christianity becomes a tool for exclusion, an excuse to increase church membership. And THAT is when it doesn't do what it says it would. If you say Christianity is good, then be an example of good unto others, and let them come to you.
And let me tell you a story regarding homosexuality. While I lived in England, one of my flatmates was a devout Christian. She was adventurous, loving, generous, and intelligent. And she always had wonderful things happening to her, such as one time she prayed for a job and a lady asked her to go to Hawaii for a week to babysit her children. She's okay with homosexuals *in theory*, but as another friend told me, when she walked on the street and saw gay people being openly intimate with each other, she'd turn to whoever she's with and go "that's so disgusting!" or "I can't believe they're doing that in public!", etc. That just saddens me, because her fear of gay people prevents her from loving them. It may not sound like a big deal written down, but imagine someone who's positive and loving most of the time, someone who is the light. Then they turn to you and say something like that. It's jarring and it feels..."off". I've had one-time church friends say things like to me, too. It's one of things that led to my eventual rejection of the whole thing.
[ September 30, 2003, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Tora Regina ]
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"...and since no such objective judgements can be made about ethical systems or cultures, no such comparison can be made."
I think it is safe to objectively say that current ethical systems are somewhat more evolved than those of 2000, 1000, and 500 years ago.
Still waiting.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Not necessarily. Well, one could say "time elapsed = evolution taking place", no matter how aimless or minor that evolution is. Then again, "time elapsed" would have to be reset for the start of every new society. The ethical systems of a millennium-old Mongol, Bactrian or Old Kingdom Egyptian society (all now long gone) would have had more time to evolve than those of a barely decade-old Free Estonian one, for example.
What modern ethical structures might have over old ones is the benefit (or burden) of interconnectivity. The old Egyptians couldn't have cared less about how the old Chinese treated their deviants. Modern-day Egyptians read all about modern-day Chinese oppression of Falun Gong.
...Which incidentally means that everybody must have an opinion on homosexuality. This was far from a necessity mere fifty years ago.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Exactly; just because something is new, it is not necessarily better (although it might be).
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Well, I personally find it intriguing to go through all the attitudes on homosexuality in the various cultures that either don't exist any more (like the Spartans), or exist only in drastically altered form (like the Jews). The entire spectrum is represented, from utter condemnation to wholehearted encouragement.
Given such relative morality, then and now, I try to look only at the objective. Homosexuality is not harmful to non-homosexual beings -- and I don't count the occasional annoyance of having a gay person try to pick you up as harm. Barring denial or alternative methods, homosexual couples cannot reproduce, which can have a marginal impact on population growth and density. Homosexual attitudes don't "lead" heterosexual children "down the wrong path", or else why don't straight role models make gay children straight?
The whole question of nature vs. nurture is still way too up in the air, so I am reserving judgement on that. I have several nebulous and interwoven models in my head and on paper to account for all the possibilities I see, and all I can say is that at the present time, we are in the middle of the mare's nest. In ages past, in our ignorance, it was fairly cut-and-dried, one way or another. We are now about in the place where we have learned a lot more about it, but not enough to form any scientifically testable conclusions. Thus, we are likely to do more harm than good, despite good intentions.
And Tora, as to your friend's reaction, I feel that way about any overt public displays of affection. I'm fairly Victorian in some of my attitudes, about the most pronounced being that there is a time and place for that sort of activity, and flaunting it out in public view is not one of them. Holding hands, an occasional light kiss or squeeze -- fine. But you want to make out, straight or gay, go somewhere at least semiprivate, or at the very least filled with other like-minded individuals.
--Jonah
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
"...and since no such objective judgements can be made about ethical systems or cultures, no such comparison can be made. Thanks."
Crap. (oh, excuse me) Fertilizer.
Tolerance for differing lifeforms is more ethically advanced than intolerance - so long as the differing lifestyle does not harm anyone else - which as Peregrinus has pointed out, gays do not. I thought we all learned that back in TOS with IDIC. How can one claim to be a Star Trek fan, and not embrace this most fundamental of axioms: Tolerance - even love for differences is the heart of Trek - and the beginning of enlightenment.
I think you dropped the ball, Omega. Tell the truth (you seem to be intellectually honest): Is this belief that homosexuality is bad a personal belief, or did you acquire it from your clergy? If the second, why can't you make up your own mind. 'God's a busy man' - why not do your own thinking?
Jesus of Nazareth (pretty sharp guy from what I've read - founded one of the most successful corporations in the biggest industry in history (the only one which doesn't require a product for its investors) said; 'It is harder for a rich man to enter the Kindom of Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.'
I put it to you that is should be just as hard for an intellectually-honest Christian person to enjoy Star Trek. I mean, really! We have persons carrying on fornication. We have an obvious acceptance of evolution (and of course, a true Christian believes that Dinosaurs never existed, that the fossils were created 'as is'. Heck, we have humans having sexual relations with non-humans - and having progeny! That has to be worse that a woman lying with a donkey - bestiality at its most foul! Why weren't the Christians protesting that abomination?
Unless one were intellectually dishonest (which I am sure you are not), a true Christian has to take the entire bible as the literal truth. Why? Because if one small crack appears in its omni-truth - if believers start saying 'this part I believe, but not this part because it is too unbelievable' - it opens up the Bible to Occams Razor of Logic - which states that the simplest explanations are most likely to be true, and the most complex explanations are least likely to be true. And I put it to you that an Eternal God, an Afterlife, and Creation are the least likely of all Biblical 'facts'.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Just thought I'd put another nail in Yaweh's coffin.
My sister, a God-fearing Christian with an unfortunate over-abundance of intelligence/intellectual honesty, found this on the internet and emailed it to me. I post it in the hopes that it may; 1- provide one and all a good laugh. 2- in some small way, advance the blessed day that reality and scientific fact conquer all. _________________________________________________
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a U.S.radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a U.S.resident, which was posted on the Internet. It�s funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God�s Law.
I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can�t I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don�t agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn�t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God�s word is eternal and unchanging.
your devoted fan, Jim _________________________________________________
And in this spirit, I am changing my signature line.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"occasional annoyance of having a gay person try to pick you up as harm."
It is next to near impossible to have a straight woman try to pick me up, so a gay come-on would be less harm, than a compliment.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Indeed. I am usually flattered that some gay (or even bi) men find me attractive along with at least a few straight (or even bi) women. I even feel a little sad that I have to turn them down, as my bread isn't buttered that side.
--Jonah
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Braggart.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Tolerance for differing lifeforms is more ethically advanced than intolerance
But I'm not advocating intolerance. If someone said all gays should be killed, I'd be the first to tell 'em they're wrong. You're confusing intolerance with disapproval. Why does everyone do that?
Is this belief that homosexuality is bad a personal belief, or did you acquire it from your clergy?
Church of Christ denomination (much as we might like to deny that we're a denomination) has no clergy.
I put it to you that is should be just as hard for an intellectually-honest Christian person to enjoy Star Trek.
No more so than for an intellectually honest scientist to enjoy Star Trek, in all its scientific inconsistancy. Just because I disagree with pieces of it on occasion, I don't have to throw out the whole thing. I enjoy Monty Python, even though it's borderline blasphemous on occasion. It's funny.
a true Christian believes that Dinosaurs never existed, that the fossils were created 'as is'.
Some do, some believe other things, some believe in evolution.
And I put it to you that an Eternal God, an Afterlife, and Creation are the least likely of all Biblical 'facts'.
Ah, but you can't compute their likelyhood, can you? They're not anything that can be handled by statistics. Besides, woudln't the presence of an omnipotent being that spoke things into existence be simpler than an unending chain of unlikely coincidences of carbon chemistry? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, here. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
This is why I'm a nihilist. We always are proven right....in the end. Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
quote:Is this belief that homosexuality is bad a personal belief, or did you acquire it from your clergy?
Church of Christ denomination (much as we might like to deny that we're a denomination) has no clergy.
That doesn't answer the question, though.
Is your belief based on your own personal feelings, on the teachings of your church, other teachings (i.e. parents), or something else?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Why "unlikely" carbon reactions? When biophysicists can put hydrocarbons and water in a pressure vessel, hit it with ultraviolet light, bombard it with electricity, and within a week get primitive amino acids that can make crude copies of themselves, I'd call that pretty "likely".
There are people who point to us and the Earth as proof of the obviousness of a creator, as our planet is just the right distance from its star for these "unlikely" carbon reactions to occur. I think that reasoning is exactly 180� off. I think that the vagaries of planetary accretion resulted in the star Sol having one (and almost three) planets within its habitable zone, as determined by its radiation output -- the habitable zone being the range where these carbon reactions have enough respite from the cosmic dark to happen, but not so much that they get fried.
There are clouds of these carbon compounds hanging out there in space in the dark between stars. They are easily made -- the ash of previous generations of stars. Water -- at least in solid form -- is about as abundant. I'd say those two classes of molecule are right up there in abundancy below Hydrogen and Helium in a typical galaxy with a few stellar generations under its belt.
As for the unliklihood of evolution some argue, I just feel sorry for them that they can't wrap their heads around the timescales involved -- and not know they can't wrap their heads around the timescales involved. If the precursors to life form as easily on a planet like this one as laboratory experiments suggest, then what we would call "life" (primitive DNA) probably arose shortly after the Earth stopped getting pummelled by planetisimals and its crust could cool. But for another billion years or so, that life progressed no further than blue-green algae.
I've always loved the "cosmic calendar" model, as it puts everything in modern cosmology into perspective. With the Big Bang (or whatever) occurring in the first second of January 1st, the Milky Way didn't develop until about May. Our sun and its planets didn't coalesce until mid-September. The first humans appeared around 10:30pm on December 31st. The domestication of plants and animals happened around 11:59:20pm. All of recorded human history occupies only the last ten seconds of the last minute of the last day. Kind of humbling...
--Jonah
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
While all of this is really interesting as a discussion about if such Earthly faiths actually condemn homosexuality, and while I'm tempted to put on my biblical scholar's cap and discuss law vs. Grace and whether or not Old Testament teaching has any revelance to New Covenent followers, I'm not going to, because it's all rather moot to Star Trek.
What individual Flare members think of the subject of homosexuality, or what this or that religion does or doesn't say about it, or whether or not said religions are used to forgive or condemn it seem like a subjects outside of the topic.
To sort of summarize the early parts of this post, the lack of it's portrayal on Star Trek probably has everything to do with the worldview of the production staff and/or their desire to please (or pander to) their audience, and nothing to do with what they think would actually be going on in their fictional world. After all, in this fictional universe that tolerates Kirk porking every alien babe in gogo boots Klingons breeding with humans, Trills carrying slugs around inside them, mind melds, and consensual "possessions" (Return to Tomorrow, TOS) it's difficult imagining homosexuality even getting a blink.
Just my two credits.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Damn, Charles asked exactly the question I was going to ask. Scary. But he's right, you did sort-of avoid answering that one, Omey. 8)
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Thanks, Neutron. I'd been aware we were straying from the topic, but I love following conversational threads wherever they lead, so... *shrug*
The few times it's come up in the past, it's been handled clumsily and often titillatingly. I find that annoying. There should be as little hubbub in Trek over a homosexual character as a heterosexual character. The way David George handled it in the recent "Serpents Among the Ruins" book was spot-on in my estimation.
This matter, like time travel, is one I'd rather the writers leave alone until they and their writing ability matures to the point they can avoid such amateurish blunders. And lest anyone think I'm tooting my own horn here, I'm not -- I recognize my limitations as a writer and am working on developing my ability. I just wish they'd show similar self-knowledge and honesty. But then, honesty isn't a trait much admired in the big studio structure...
Viacom needs to divest itself of Trek so the property can go to being an independent production. I'm not saying going indy guarantees quality and success, but it definitely would free the Trek universe from the mentality responsible for the formulaic twaddle that the Machine has been churning out year after year. They don't respect Trek as anything other than a popular moneymaker and it shows.
--Jonah
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Is your belief based on your own personal feelings, on the teachings of your church, other teachings (i.e. parents), or something else?
Found it in a book somewhere.
Why "unlikely" carbon reactions? When biophysicists can put hydrocarbons and water in a pressure vessel, hit it with ultraviolet light, bombard it with electricity, and within a week get primitive amino acids that can make crude copies of themselves, I'd call that pretty "likely".
Ah, so if you take certain chemicals and place them in circumstances that MIGHT have existed at one point, you get something that resembles life slightly more than a crystal does. I know I'm impressed.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
It just happens to be that �something� is our greatgreatgreat-adinfitum-father.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
"Is your belief based on your own personal feelings, on the teachings of your church, other teachings (i.e. parents), or something else?
Found it in a book somewhere."
Touche. PS: I do not agree with any of your beliefs - but I do admire the strength of your convictions. I wish I still had them. I was raised Mennonite in a small town. I still would be if I hadn't come across that damn Heinlein novel. It forced me to examine each and every one of my beliefs under the microscope of scientific objectivity - and not too many of them survived.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
A conviction that you've arrived at yourself is worth more than one you've been spoonfed to hold.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Indeed. A wise man (Ted Sturgeon - guest writer for TOS btw) once came up with the only reasonable definition of religion vs. cult.
To paraphrase; a religion is a belief structure which you are exposed from birth - before you have a chance to form logical thought processes of your own. A cult is a belief structure which you are stupid enought to embrace while presumably a thinking, intelligent, functional adult.
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
Thus explaining the resemblance in fanaticism between a born-again Christian and your average Rajneesh.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
or the steadfast convictions and stance of those that lost their belief....
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
I didn't exactly lose it. I examined it, and found it wanting. I read that Heinlein novel and discovered the scientific method when I was 10.
I stopped believing in the Easter Bunny and Santa at the same time (personal trinity of debunked superstitious dieties).
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
This thread deserves the giant rolling eyes.
A religion is a cult with a military.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Threw it away then, pretty much the same thing I've done....
I guess another thread could be Black People in Leading Star Trek Rolls (i.e., the Captains Chair) - Where are they?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Well, so far we've had one white Canadian man (I'm not counting the pilot -- sorry, Jeff), one white Englishman, one brown American man, one white American woman, and one white American man. Seems like a pretty accurate reflection of society as a whole (unfortunately), but it's a start.
--Jonah
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Off-topic a bit: Wait a sec, so Archer is Canadian? Or are you referring to the backgrounds of the actors themselves, so thus the fact that William Shatner is Canadian?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
The actors.
--Jonah
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You forgot Sulu! Sulu's black.
Scotty was a Captain as well: for your "drunk scottsman" quota.
And what's up with Uhura?!? She had to sit at the back of the bridge! Bastards!
And Admiral Nachayev! What the hell is she anyway? A total bitch, I think...
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Meanwhile, we're talking about the series leads -- the Captains of the ships (and station).
--Jonah
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Sulu is black?
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Seems like a pretty accurate reflection of society as a whole (unfortunately), but it's a start.
Er, why unfortunately? Are you saying that all white people should stop breading for a century or so to allow black people to catch up?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Sulu was black in one of those old comics (Gold Key?), and Uhura was a white blonde. And M'Ress looked like an Orion slave girl.
Probably had something to do with copyright or something, and the comic only possessing the rights to the likenesses of Kirk, Spock and McCoy...
When you lament "poor continuity" in modern Trek, remember to think of the alternatives...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
There's a DC comic where Spok has two left hands in one panel. Baaaad art fuck-up there.
Nothing new to comics though: I have a X-Force comic where Wolverine's claws are far longer than his forearms.
Really, the idea of new captains being of a certain ethnic mix to be P.C. is silly: The real minorities among captains are the aliens. A Bolian Captain would be pretty easy to make-up each week....mabye Captain Rixx could star. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes, not starting as a commander, but coming on as the Captain....
Hell, if they follow O'Brian long enough he'll have a ship before too long....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
O'Brien's not an officer so he'll never get a ship. ....unless mabye it's a SCE ship. Mabye.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The problem with an alien captain is that the captain is the lead character, and the audience is expected to relate to that character. Aliens are rarely written that well in televised Trek. We always seem to come back to the fact that we don't trust the writers to handle a good premise. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: We always seem to come back to the fact that we don't trust the writers to handle a good premise.
Well, we just don't really trust the majority of writers with any part of Trek....
Black people are aliens????
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: Black people are aliens????
Only if they cross into another country. If they do so without papers they'd be "illegal aliens". Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Liam, when I said it was a pretty accurate reflection of society, I was referring to the rough distribution of people in authority positions -- largely white males.
--Jonah
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So you're saying Captain Rixx got his job via some kind of alien Affirmative Action?
Mabye they could make Al Sharpton a Klingon or something....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So you're saying Captain Rixx got his job via some kind of alien Affirmative Action?
Mabye they could make Al Sharpton a Klingon or something....
Posted by Capped in Mic (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Well, so far we've had one white Canadian man (I'm not counting the pilot -- sorry, Jeff), one white Englishman, one brown American man, one white American woman, and one white American man. Seems like a pretty accurate reflection of society as a whole (unfortunately), but it's a start.
--Jonah
you mean a white Canadian Jew!!!!
(not racist)..
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sulu's Jewish.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Liam, when I said it was a pretty accurate reflection of society, I was referring to the rough distribution of people in authority positions -- largely white males.
--Jonah
Accurate distribution of U.S. American society, maybe. I bet there aren't as many white males in positions of authority in say, Japan. Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Oh my God! Isn't it just such an amazing coincidence then that Star Trek is an American-made show!
Jeez...
--Jonah
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: Accurate distribution of U.S. American society, maybe. I bet there aren't as many white males in positions of authority in say, Japan.
What about General MacArthur?
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao:
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: Accurate distribution of U.S. American society, maybe. I bet there aren't as many white males in positions of authority in say, Japan.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
In the trekverse, differences like race and sexuality are NOT focused on. Nobody CARES. Writing a gay character just to have a gay character is the OPPOSITE of your goal, here.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)