[Berengarius7]

Originally Posted by Elizadolots

sure...there's never been any indication that Kirk was a p u s s y chasing creep.... huh?

It's true that Kirk is portrayed as being promiscuous, but i never thought of him as a "creep". To me, he was always a brave, clever, heroic captain and insightful strategist. "Creep" makes him sound tawdry and ugly and although revisionists and humorists have portrayed him in that manner, he really wasn't portrayed like Leisure Suit Larry in the series or films. Just a healthy adult male with a healthy heterosexual appetite. I really think "creep" is too strong a word.

[Andrew86]

Originally Posted by angryibanezguy

Agreed, making sexuality an issue would point out a difference that need not be mentioned, its like.....water...you know someone drinks it... who cares what flavor they put in it ya know?.. its still water, and it still has no place on the bridge of the enterprise, hetoro, gay, whatever.

Again, I'd agree with this if there hadn't been the history that Trek has had in aggressively making sure every character has a heterosexual experience or anecdote, thus specifically excluding gay people. And I think this needs to be addressed if Trek wants to regain it's moral high ground.

[Elizadolots]

…thanks, sir num nums…I pride myself on being able to get around filters…I didn’t work hard on that one though, it was just so easy…


Andrew has said it perfectly, as I knew he would.

Saquist…the issue of homosexuality has long since been introduced to the world…recognizing it and incorporating it would only further understanding.

[MissionTrek08]

My only question would be how to you raise the topic or such a relationship casually without also calling attention to the character as "special" or different as an statement? That would seem to fly in the face of TREK's history of NOT labeling people with social prejudice or labeling.

I agree that TREK has never left sex out of the picture, but at the same time Kirk bedding some alien babes never constituted "relationships" for him, either.

Do the writers invent "the gay character" just to have one in the film? Was Uhura "the black one" on the bridge, or just another member of the crew? The only one I recall mentioning her color specifically was Abraham Lincoln, and he was a few centuries behind the times, literally.

I guess my point is: how do you tell if a crewman is gay or straight without making an issue out of it... and why would a 23rd century character do so? And will putting "the token gay" in the crew be satisfying or just pandering?

[Andrew86]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Sometimes I think we can be so consumed by these issues that it takes a life of it's own. But we're talking about sex. And we're talking about a pg-13 movie. The idea behind these is that commonly kids can watch it with out asking certain very difficult questions that really needs to be in the hands of the parent to address.

This is entertainment. Certain real life issues really needs to steer clear of entertainment. If view discretion becomes and issue...then trek has really mutated. I want my kids to watch trek with these sort of questions coming up. Give me the chance to decided when they exposed to this real life stuff. This isn't a slavery black/white issue, it's sex...and I think Star Trekk nemesis was creepy enough that I don't endorse kids watching it untill 15... But explaining what's going on to my daughter or son is not something I'll ever look highly upon when it shows up and I know it will.

The Crusher thing with the Trill was not as obvious.
But guys in most cultures don't kiss unless there is something more going on then friendship.

Well there already is plenty of sex in Star Trek, Elizadolots already pointed out, Kirk was always after the girl. And in most cultures, men don't kiss women unless there is something else going on there either.

But I'm not talking about including sex. Why not just a reference to a loving committed relationship?

[MissionTrek08]

Well, a bunch of posts were added while I was off writing my reply, which is mostly redundant by now. No need to address it really...

If an "incidental" reference to a character's partner satisfies, I have no problem with that at all.

[Elizadolots]

Gee...I provided one example off the top of my non professional writing head...one can only imagine how those who are paid to be creative might deal with it...meaning, it would be excruciatingly easy.

Remember, this is a show that has had Kirk having sex on many, many planets with females of many, many species...why (oh, why!) is it hard to imagine acknowledging that two crewmen or crewwomen are married?

[sir num nums]

Well, I guess the easiest way, and blunt way would to just have a gay couple saying good bye to one another before a mission.

Do not shine a spotlight on it, but still just show it. I doubt anyone would get made when they saw it.

[MissionTrek08]

I wouldn't think it would be hard, Eliza, for the reasons you mention.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by Andrew86

I have found most Trek fans enlightened enough to have no problem with gay people or gay relationships. It's the whole "infinite diversity", respect for others and equality that is so important to Star Trek, and this tends to be represented in most Trek fans in my experience.

This isn't really about enlightened.
It's about morality. People have different moraly...

As I'm typing I'm watching...Will and Grace on TV....it's funny. I like the situational comedy. Would i let the kids watch it? NO
Why...
because eventually there going to cross over from addressing the life style to enacting the life style.

The soon we realize that there are different moral perspecitve the better off we'll be. I don't have a problem with Gay/Lesibian...it's not my life...Right?

But we're talking TV and entertainment...SEX is a large part of it and eventually the end result is gay loves scenes.

opposite sex love scenes are awkard enough
how much more so for same sex to those who view it as wrong?

Why alienate so many people.