[Andrew86]

Originally Posted by colonyearth

Fanwriter, thank you for bringing up this very important issue. I "came out" here in another thread (not like "came out" came out, but to the folks here, without any fanfare, stated I was gay -- I'm very out in my life and other forums -- mainly around at the B5 forums).

On a quick side note Andrew...are you the Andrew over at the B5 forums? If not you're exactly like him. And that's a compliment.

Heheh well not knowing this Andrew from the B5 forums, I'll have to take you at your word and feel complimented. :P But no, I don't know what the B5 forums are!

Let me see if I can say what I want to say unique to my ways and concisely. First of all, to so many here, it's so great to see you all agreeing that gays are long overdue for representation in Trek, especially you straight men like HRH. GR stated some time before he died that he wanted a regular gay character in Trek, because he believed it was the last frontier of bigotry. He had at one time planned one for TNG, but wasn't able to get it through.

Stewart and Spiner fought Berman for a gay character and got Hawk, who, although the fact of his being gay was stripped from the film, it was, indeed, stated in the novel -- I can't recall the title – and was, in fact, treated as if it were simply the norm. Unfortunately, many bigoted Trek fans (now there's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) wrote hate filled letters and said many cruel things about even a novel having a character be openly gay in Trek. This made me extremely angry and I have to admit I lost a lot of respect for a lot of so called fans. These are usually the same people who associate some form of “religious morality” to Trek and forget that GR (like B5’s JMS) was an atheist.

As was pointed out here, as a Trekker, you either believe in the IDIC principle or you don't. And if you don't then...well...you aren't much of a Trekker.

I have to agree there.

No GR felt very strongly about this, but sadly was pushed out and died before his last "final frontier" could become a reality. The TNG episode with Riker was a weak cop-out and most of the gay community stated so at the time. For a universe that has always stood on the front lines of social and political commentary to make such a lackluster statement was an insult to me and the gay community. Later attempts were even worse.

I'd say that the analogous episode would be a good way of exploring issues - if it were done in concert with having a gay character on the bridge. Just as episodes like Let that be your last battlefield and others - in addition to having Uhura on the bridge - was a good way of exploring racial issues.

Under B&B, there were ideas for gay characters, but they were all rejected pretty much outright. Yes, Gerrold wrote a script with a gay character in it and it was rejected as being too controversial (it's now about to appear as an original cast story in the Star Trek: Phase II pantheon called "BLOOD AND FIRE" Pt. 1 & Pt. 2 where Kirk's nephew will become the first regular gay cast member -- isn't that wonderful?! Kirk's nephew is gay! Who better? Kudos to Cawley and his crew! And BTW, there's NOTHING in canon to suggest otherwise.)

Berman actually nixed the whole gay thing, except when it was between two women. Unfortunately, that's because under his reign, Trek had become middle-aged, white-male mentality all the way, even to adding T&A whenever possible (which is a sign of bad writing and bad vision when you have to resort to that to help make people watch). Now, it's different when the sexiness or sexuality of a character (male or female) is relevant to the story or character (IE: Six in BSG or Chiana in Farscape). But I digress and my rants on B&B can be found in other threads even though they were very much a reason behind no male gays in Trek.

Now, with all of that said, do I want to see a gay character on Trek? Hell yeah! Does it belong in this film? As an extremely out (and no, not femm) gay man, even I will say no. This isn't the right moment. We need to revive Trek first. We need to bring new people into the fold and then move to remind folks what Trek does best (or used to years ago) and that's make relevant social commentary and doing so boldly and bravely, not taking the easy way out.

Fair enough point, however I honestly believe that including recognition of gay people is one of the most important steps for reviving Star Trek. People want to feel part of something that has an important message. It's why people flocked to see Brokeback mountain. If it were a low budget, gritty, depressing indie film about a cowboy and some woman, then I doubt it would have got much interest. The reason it was so successful was people people realised that it was a story that was long overdue for telling, and they wanted to be part of that.

I'm not saying that the Trek movie should have a gay focus like that. I'm just saying it's something that people want to see. And it's something that would be popular with most of the target audience. People want a movie that says something. That way the feel like they're part of something important (which they are).

In actuality, most people now have no real problem with gays, and even during the "hate gays" rhetoric of the 2004 Presidential election (raised by Bush and his ilk), polls showed that over 70% of the US population had no problems with Civil Unions and giving gay couples the same legal rights as married couples...it was the word "marriage" that was the real hang-up.

As with the racial issue that was so dividing in the 50's and 60's, this is that era for gays. More people in general have no problems with gays. There's still a long way to go, yes. Hell, that's true even when it comes to race, unfortunately, just look what's been going on in the Democratic primary race (sadly).

The more we focus on our differences, the more pronounced they seem to become. Trek moved beyond that in TOS and tried to at various other times afterward. It's one of the main things it lost over the years...its powerful voice on the issues that rang so loudly in TOS.

I agree it's time Trek stepped up and became what it once was. Will there be people in the theatres or their homes that will be turned off like those who saw Alexander? Yes. But there are those who still are by racial issues, but that doesn't mean we stop showing it or talking about it. That means we should show it more...speak out more. People only move past things and learn to understand when there is a constant dialogue and Trek is one of the best places for such a dialogue. It's something Gene felt very strongly about.

BTW, about Alexander, it sadly didn't go far enough. No matter what he says, Stone shied away from Alexander and Hephaistion's relationship and made it a seriously downplayed side story, when in fact it was a very important part of Alexander's life. Hephaistion's death is what mainly caused Alexander to simply give up, driving him into a depression from which he would never return. It was one of the reasons why the film didn't really work that well IMO. Their relationship wasn't developed at all yet it was the key to the end of the film and any emotional buy-in you would need to feel for Alexander in the end. Other films have simply chosen to ignore the true stories they're attempting to tell to avoid the gay issue that was originally central to the main characters, such as TROY where the film made Achilles and Patroclus' relationship about the fact that they were cousins instead of what they really were in the story which was lovers. It was Achilles’ anger and grief at the death of Patroclus by the hands of the Trojans that caused him to change his mind and join the fight against Troy. Patroclus was Achilles' lover, period.

With such blatent "rewrites" is it any wonder that Trek would shy away? Yes and no. Trek should be on the forefront, but it the mentality of Hollywood never ceases to amaze and annoy me.

However, not in this film, unless it is simply something seen in the background. But even then, why lay all of this at JJ and crew's feet, when for years B&B side-stepped it when opportunity after opportunity were presented to them?

Another good point. But again, I think that Abrams inherits all that is good of Trek - and all that needs improving. He inherits the franchise that put the first black woman in a position of respect on TV, but also the franchise that has made a concerted effort to rid their universe of gays. So where it goes next is Abrams' responsibility.

This is best handled in a series format. Let us hope that there will be the chance for more opportunities and that those in charge (hopefully JJ and crew) won't duck and cover like the weak leaders of Trek past.

Yeah, I'd like to see a gay regular in a series too. Then you could really explore relationship issues etc.

Lastly, how do you depict a gay character in Trek? Like a person, who loves a man (or woman, though I strongly agree with HRH that it needs to be 2 men at this point). No stereotypes should be needed, nor should they necessarily be avoided either. Make him a 3 dimensional character that people are attracted to. Brave and strong and real.

Agreed.

[Zardoz]

After casting aside my anger, and some disgust, with things said by many on the previous thread, I will make the following comments.

I feel there are those who speak not from a logical standpoint on this topic, but a moralistic one.

The problems with morals is that they are vauge. Deliberatly so. Many choose to see tham as absolutes, when in fact they are guidelines. Guidelines are supposed to be flexible and changable by their very nature.

Many use them to hide their own fears, or questions about themselves they fear.

Some will say their religon says, "blah blah blah." Well many religon also say in their texts that women are property, and how to treat your slaves, neither of which we as a society belive anymore.

I find too that this flies in the face of our society that encurgaes women to be bi-sexual, but if a man has a bi-sexual experience, he's labeled for life. This makes no sense.

Having gay/lesbian family members and freinds, I just don't see what is so worng with it. You love soembody, or like someone, what could be more natural? It's not contagious, if it was, I would have quit being streight decades ago.

Isn't hard enough to find love in this world, without telling people how to do and whom to do it with?

But to my second point-

I can see a gay/lesbian charater in Trek, it should be there first and foremost as a Starfleet offcier. Just like female charters, alien chararters, ect. There shouldn't be a sign saying "I am a gay charater." But first and foremost they are an Officer on a Starship.

The story potential for a gay/leasbian charater is intruiqing, why? Beacuse they love and laugh and live, like anyone else!

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by Andrew86

Details about practices have no place in this discussion. At all. (Besides they have rules here, everything should be suitable for 13 year olds.) So let's leave this side of things now okay?

If anyone wants to read about practices that some gay people (and straight people to) engage in there are plenty of places on the net they can go to for that.

Personally this entire discussion is inappropriate for thirteen year olds.
I know I would yank the plug out on this one.

[CapnHowdy]

Hello, this is my first post on these forums and I hope not to offend everyone, but I just have to sound off on this subject.

Speaking as a straight man and someone who keeps an open mind (just like Gene taught us with the IDIC concept), I have trouble believeing that ther are no homosexual people, not even from other races. I also have several homosexual friends who are fans of the show who find it a little disheartening that the People In Charge, completely ignore their demographic. I leave you today with the words that say and express it all.

INFINATE DIVERSITY IN INFINITE COMBINATION - what could be better?

[Zardoz]

Welcome Howdy! I hope you enjoy!!

Gee, I seem to rember saying just that in the last thread about this.....LOL.

Well said sir, well said!

[Saquist]

Yeah Welcome up CapnHowdy.
More the merrier.

[FanWriter45]

Yes, Saquist, I know you would yank this discussion if you could (that's why you PMed me when I first posted the revival of the thread, ID'ing yourself as a Mod, and "warning me off" from starting it again.) Your intentions are quite clear, and I would like to point out to any Mods reviewing this discussion that YOU have been the main instigator of dragging this discussion into the gutter, repeatedly.

We're trying to discuss the inclusion of minorities to our favorite science fiction universe, and you keep wanting to spew stereotypes, and graphic detail of sexual practices on a board that's meant to be PG13.

[ST Redshirt]

These boards are for everyone, and we have a diverse mix of people, from all different backgrounds. People need to respect each other, even if they disagree.

It's OK to have a thread discussing the possibility of gay characters. It's not OK to derail the thread by comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, or starting side discussions about if homosexuality is right or wrong.

For that reason this thread is being closed once again. If someone wants to restart the thread and stick to the topic of "Gay characters in Trek" please go ahead. If people want to get into the side debates, take it to PMs.

Thanks