No matter how we choose to see it, here's the reality of how the show functions:
Trek works out current societal issues via the morality play formula. Thats what makes it stand above regular sci-fi. Too many examples to mention. We all get that.
The second way Trek functions, is it breaks past norms of our present day, purposefully, to propose how the future will be. Examples: Uhura, Sulu and Chekov as main characters. The Kirk/Uhura kiss. This was done specifically to attack the prejudices of the time and to say, "Hey, we can get past that."
So, then, would creating a homosexual character make sense in Trek? Seems to me it is right in the pocket for what Trek does.
A contrived character, no matter what he or she is, would be a drag on a show. right? People are posting that.
But, how many contrivances have we seen so far? When someone says "Borg show" or "Space Battle" I dont hear any geeks rising up and saying, " Well, we just dont want it to be a contrivance. We want it to be an organic part of the story" or "Borg battles are the past."
No, they say, "Cool! Space battle!" or "I love the Borg!"
Because people are still geeked out by homosexuality and they have a double standard. All of a sudden because its homosexuality we become drama critics? No, no. It's prejudice plain and simple. And I'm as guilty as anybody else.
So, I think a gay character would be fine. Maybe a gay couple would do the job even better!
OK, just for the record I'll stand up as the guy that wouldn't have stayed with Trek, had there been gay characters featured regularily in any of the shows.
I can accept people who live out their gay tendencies because everyone has the right to do what they want; that's the essense of free will. I don't have to like it, however, and I don't have to watch it. It's true that by the time mankind is able to colonise other planets, this probably won't be an issue anymore. But I also don't think we'll go into deep space until, maybe the 33th century. Until then, there will be time to sort out these things. It's inevitable that society will change in a number of ways, and I see no good reason to mock people now, because they don't agree with me. Time will deal with the tough issues, and there isn't much you or I can do about it anyway.
-
Quote:
But I also don't think we'll go into deep space until, maybe the 33th century. Until then, there will be time to sort out these things.
Hmmm....
I think we are looking at a faster time frame than that.
--------
Visit My Blog
The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. -- the eminent conservative rag, National Review
-
I can accept people who live out their gay tendencies because everyone has the right to do what they want; that's the essense of free will.
You view gay people as simply wanting or choosing to act out upon some tendancies. Except they're not. Gay people are not acting out on something that tickles their fancy. They're attracted to and have feelings for people of the same gender in the same way that you are attracted to and have feelings for those of the opposite. That is a fact. You don't have to like that either. I only ask: What's not to like about people being happy?
It's true that by the time mankind is able to colonise other planets, this probably won't be an issue anymore.
Not trying to attack you here: What do you mean by that? Do you mean gay people won't exist? Or do you mean people (such as yourself) will not be so frakking squeemish about their existence?
I know I'm likely talking into the wind, and I do not wish to offend. It just fascinates me when people recoil at the sight or mention of anything to do with gay folks. If it's religious conviction, that's one thing, but many times it isn't, and I always wonder what the impetus is.
One thing nobody can deny: Even among Star Trek fans, who are like-minded on many issues, this is a topic in our society that generates just as much controversy as any other the show has tackled. In my mind, that makes it more than worthy of debate and examination by a franchise created for social commentary.
--------
"A billion robot lives are about to be extinguished! Oh, the Jedis are going to feel this one..."
-Hubert Farnsworth (Futurama: Crimes of the Hot)
----
"The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!"
-Shran (ENT: Proving Ground)
-
Thanks for your polite response. I hope you weren't offended. I'm not posting this in aggression. I'm well aware that by voicing my opinion I make myself a bit unpopular. Some will categorise me a homophobe, even though I am not, well not according to google's definition of the word anyway.
We can speculate about the future. There are of course many unknowns. Some people think our western society (the more tolerant one) in time will win over the rest of the world. The battle won't be painless for sure, but people in my country do consider our western values in general to be superior. Maybe that's because our part of the world is more wealthy, and a bit more stable than, say, the middle east. But for this secular democracy to spread across the world, one other thing must happen: Todays major religions must fade or mutate (and eventually give their blessings to homosexuality as well).
Maybe this is what you believe will happen? But things may take a surprising turn. This is what I believe. Based on my bible study, I think the world is in even bigger trouble. Do you even want to know about this? People normally don't care to listen. But even Star Trek mentions a third worldwar. Suffice it to say, I believe this war will change pretty much everything, for the better. But it won't be an easy ride. Religion itself might ignite this war, and those who survive will understand that a harmonic world cannot exsist with this religious confusion. It must change.
What this means for homosexuals, well, we will really have to wait and see. That's the nicest answer I can give you. As I said, many things will change in the future. For the better. That's what I believe. But it requires that religion unites people across the world, instead of splitting them. Love must be the uniting factor, upon which religion rests. For the first time ever, the whole world will get to know the God Of Love.
This may sound hollow to you: "The God of Love". But to me it's the key to paradise. It doesn't mean we'll learn to tolerate everything or be allowed to do whatever we want. Even if we think it makes us happy. We will have to learn, what is right. Humanity will grow up. If we allow this transformation, we will be cured for our imperfections, both mentally and physically.
The difference between this worldview and that of Gene's is this: Religion won't fade, instead it will facilitate changes for the better. I think of humanity as kids, and I see the biblical God as "our heavenly father". I know from my bible study that He is a lovingly father. It is unfortunate that many people fail to reflect His love, in their everyday business. Including their way of treating gays. But that is another story. We're all imperfect. My connection to "The God of Love" is all that really, *really* matters to me. I have made this choice, to stand on His side, to the best of my knowledge, in every aspect of life. It doesn't mean I act independant of Him. I listen to his teachings and I have reason to believe the bible contains His teachings. Sometimes I must make sacrifices. I'm not gay, but there are other things, that I probably would have done, if it wasn't for my religion. For example, I have never been drunk, in my 31 years of exsistance. I don't miss it either. But it's not a common way of living, is it? For some people it is unthinkable to never get drunk. To me it is unthinkable to GET drunk. My whole being is shaped by my religion. Occasionally there are times when I have to restrain myself, and stop doing something I believe is wrong. Then it becomes hard, and I don't always succeed. That's reason enough for me to be humble, and hope for forgiveness, and not try to force my belief upon others. I know some religious people make a lot of noise, for example to slam homosexuals. That's brutal. It's not what any of us needs.
Quote:
that makes it more than worthy of debate and examination by a franchise created for social commentary.
Ah well, I prefer Star Trek as a fun, but not controversial, look into humanity.
-
Quote:
What do you mean by that? Do you mean gay people won't exist?
I think its clear. We won't get into deep space until the 33rd century, so there's *plenty* of time to sort out the gay rights thing.
Don't be so impatient.
--------
Visit My Blog
The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. -- the eminent conservative rag, National Review
People who are as sad and deluded as to think this will even be a topic of discussion in the 23rd Century are morons.
Morons lacking any imagination.
Morons seeking external validation in the present day for something that will not be a topic of discussion in the positive future Roddenberry outlined.
So anyone making an issue of it now, is either looking to cash in or get press coverage.
And anyone who claims that putting such storylines into a show doesn't make it "all about the gay characters" is an either an idiot, lying to others and themselves, or self-deluded in that aspect as well.
Pathetic.
-
You can almost see the disdain soaked into your words. Where on Earth does that come from?
You could make the exact same argument against portraying any of the social issues Trek has dealt with over the past four decades. And you would be just as wrong then as you are now.
But I'm guessing you're not a member of this particular minority, and could give two shits about them or their egalitarian plight in a society that values "freedom" and "equality." That's fine, fair, and entirely your right. Your need to belittle this issue and insult those who wish to see it addressed is the actual source of what is "Pathetic" in this thread.
--------
"A billion robot lives are about to be extinguished! Oh, the Jedis are going to feel this one..."
-Hubert Farnsworth (Futurama: Crimes of the Hot)
----
"The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!"
-Shran (ENT: Proving Ground)
The only problem I've had regarding gay characters in Trek is that, in all likelihood, the powers that be would have done something to hammer the point over our heads, sledgehammer-style. Trek wasn't known for its subtlety. And the problem is there's so much of a push for gay characters in Trek that the temptation might be to make the show (or episode) about being gay, in which case it just becomes The L Word, a show that means well but still pushes the titillation factor away from any "serious" approach to the subject.
And then you had Whedon who derailed Buffy with the whole Willow/Tara thing that took away from the show.
For the gold standard on how to showcase a gay character in a science fiction motif, Jack Harkness in Doctor Who and Torchwood is the way to go. And I consider it authoritative in some respects because the man who created Torchwood (if not necessarily Harkness, though he probably had a hand in guiding writer Stephen Moffatt), Russell T Davies, is not only gay himself but also created the acclaimed Queer as Folk. And he should know how it should be done. If Trek were to follow that lead (hell, cast John Barrowman as a Starfleet captain when he's done with TW), then they would be able to come up with a mixture that not only does justice to the gay characters BUT (and this is paramount - pun intended) in such a way that is appealing to the audience as a whole. There were worries that Torchwood, featuring a gay main character and supporting characters all of whom have some bisexual leanings, would not appeal to the same wide audience Doctor Who does. The ratings have proven this to be unfounded.
I never really had much faith in the production regimes of Trek (from Roddenberry through to B&B) to handle it properly.
Al
-
How the hell did Joss Whedon's portrayal of gay characters in Buffy ruin that show? It was a very poignant and beautiful relationship. It wasn't like the stories ever took a backseat to Tara and Willow's relationship. Now, if it freaks you out that they kissed and cuddled every now and then, well too damn bad. That's what gay people do in the real world, just like straight ones. At least Whedon didn't pull a Dawson's Creek by making Willow gay be her only trait.
Wasnt Lt. Hawke from Star Trek: First Contact gay? I heard there was supposed to be a backstory about this in the movie but was cut for time.
-
While rumors have persisted that Lt. Hawk was originally intended to be Star Trek's first openly gay character, the producers of Star Trek: First Contact and actor Neal McDonough have denied this. However, Hawk is indeed depicted as being gay in the novel Section 31: Rogue, which has been referenced again in the Star Trek: Titan novel series, where his partner, an unjoined Trill male named Ranul Keru, serves as the Titan's Chief of Security.
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
-
I heard that too. Evidently, Hawke is in one of the novel series, and he's presented there as a gay character.
I read some talk during pre-production of ENT about Reed possibly being gay. We know that didn't end up happening.
I also read years and years ago (in TV Guide, I believe) that the same line of thinking was being considered for Harry Kim.
--------
"A billion robot lives are about to be extinguished! Oh, the Jedis are going to feel this one..."
-Hubert Farnsworth (Futurama: Crimes of the Hot)
----
"The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!"
-Shran (ENT: Proving Ground)
-
...that the same line of thinking was being considered for Harry Kim.
Which would explain his reaction when Seven wanted to jump his bones... :p
--------
Growing up leads to growing old and then to dying,
And dying to me dont sound like all that much fun...
-John Mellencamp
Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria.
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Samuel T. Cogley, Attorney at Law
-
When I saw that episode first-run, I was so sure that they were actually going to follow through. I remember thinking, "omg, this is it. They're actually going to make him end up being gay. Look at how squeemish she's making him?"
Alas, he ended up being just another boobie-lover. Nothing wrong with that, of course. I sometimes wonder why we need to know about some characters' romantic inclinations at all.
There are many short stories out there (tomes worth) detailing an erotic fantasy relationship between Harry Kim and Tom Paris.
--------
"A billion robot lives are about to be extinguished! Oh, the Jedis are going to feel this one..."
-Hubert Farnsworth (Futurama: Crimes of the Hot)
----
"The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!"
-Shran (ENT: Proving Ground)
-
I read that book. Its somewhat embarrassing. Although the treatment of Hawk is nice. It incorporates the most defining feature of his character (in one scene, he operates the console almost as fast as Data) quite nicely. Because of these talents he is approached by Section 31 to do a job for them.
--------
Visit My Blog
The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. -- the eminent conservative rag, National Review
(1)
| 
