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.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
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.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
I guess it would have to be the same thing, except, instead of "Picard and Neela Darren", it would be "Picard and Nelson Darren".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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..."
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
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.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic