The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Gay character in ST XI?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-14-2008, 01:30 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257

I've read it before..I suppose it can be googled.
genetic predisoposition to violence. It's been used in a court of law at least once that I can remember.

Heres one...I've seen before. It states that this isn't new at all.

Old 03-14-2008, 01:31 PM
_Eris_'s Avatar
_Eris_ _Eris_ is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado/Kurill Prime, Gamma Quadrant
Posts: 507

Originally Posted by Zardoz View Post

I know that wasn't easy to say. I for one applaud you for saying it. Keep being who you are, wherever it takes you.
You're right, it wasn't easy...Even though bi-sexuality is somewhat commonly accepted, it's not something I'm going to tell my parents...It might hurt them to know of my experiences and feelings.

Originally Posted by Elizadolots View Post
I always find it amusing when people claim homosexuality is a "choice"....I usually ask them questions like: "Would you tell me when you made the choice to be straight? What was it that decided the debate for you?" and "What is it you find so attractive about homosexuality that makes you think people would choose it?"

People don't usually answer me.

Eris, nice to meet you!
Nice meeting you, too.

Originally Posted by tejdog1 View Post
3rd grade? Really? I have a good amount of gay friends who tell me stuff like that. It just...never happened for me? LOL. I didn't know I was "different" until I was 12. *shrug*
A friend I once had didn't know until he was 16...My cousin also didn't know until just a few years ago and he is 25 (I blame his mom for that, she is pure evil, I can see why he wouldn't want to ever go near girls )

"It might not be so bad. For all we know the Vorta could be gluttonous, alcoholic sex maniacs."
~Quark and Ziyal
Old 03-14-2008, 01:39 PM
tejdog1 tejdog1 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 335

Originally Posted by Damage75 View Post
Whoa man....that is a pretty strong comment, and I don't see anything in what he said that refers to that.

I'm sure you have strong feelings about this matter, but try and keep a level head, ok?
From his post on page 34...

"If homosexuality isn't a choice then neither is actions behind child molestors...but we still convict them."
Old 03-14-2008, 01:40 PM
Oregon_Coast_Trekkie's Avatar
Oregon_Coast_Trekkie Oregon_Coast_Trekkie is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,271

I just don't think that we need to have an obviously gay character. It just seems that drawing more attention to it makes it a bigger deal.
Old 03-14-2008, 01:42 PM
tejdog1 tejdog1 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 335

No one said anything about being obvious.

I wrote a scene which would be perfect back on page 16 or 17. Let me see if I can find it.
Old 03-14-2008, 01:44 PM
tejdog1 tejdog1 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 335

INT Enterprise corridor. Kirk making his way to some crewman's quarters.

Kirk: *buzzes door*
Voice from inside tiredly: Enter
Kirk: *walks into the room* Chris, I'm sorry. During the mission to Zabradesc 45a8u9, Mike was killed by a native. I know you loved him...I'm sorry I have to bring you bad news.
Chris: It's...we always knew there was this possibility. We didn't go into this eyes closed. *Looks at the ground, then up at Kirk* Is there a...body?
Kirk: *nods* We'll be holding a funeral in the cathedral at 2100 tomorrow morning.
Chris: Thank you, Captain.
Kirk: Allow me to dispense some advice?
Chris: *nods*
Kirk: Spouts off some inspirational motivational speech about love, loss, greiving, and moving forward, then leaves.
Old 03-14-2008, 01:44 PM
Andrew86 Andrew86 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 62

Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
Even a direction implies choice.
Well could you explain how?
Movement toward a goal is choice.
The inate response is sex...
who to have it with is...choice.

Let's not get to the game accusations.
Homosexuality has also been condone in the past by people in power. It's not the first time this issue has arised. They haven't been seen as lesser humans, but yes perverts. I have yet to see such an example as to say men who have sex with men are not human. That's is a perceptional exageration. The behavior was considered criminal...not inhuman.
Well I'm still not sure what the practical difference is here. This is something that has made a good many parents disown their children.

You're wrong on the racist view of blacks.
This was an issue of property. Not behavior. In order to maintain their free labor they desired to isolate Blacks as PROPERTY. Not from behavior. That's basic to what slavery was about.

You're equally wrong in your relation of women. The excuses were irrelevant the agenda...the intent was important. Every criminal act has a bad excuse and human right crimes are just as bad.

I'm not sure what you're talking about between perversion and choice...but one thing is for sure...If homosexuality isn't a choice then neither is actions behind child molestors...but we still convict them.
Woah hold on a moment there! The human brain has a very precise picture of what it finds attractive built in. Children have yet to develop sexual characteristics. Therefore it is not possible to be innately physically attracted to children.

If you're going to compare gay people with child molesters, you should have a pretty logically sound reason for doing so!! Your comparison is helpful, however, in showing us your ignorance of what this is all about. Homosexual people are attracted to the physical characteristics outlined in the brain for a sexually developed person of the same sex.

That's the inherent flaw in your logic. You believe there is no choice...So how could you ever chose? It's actually a struggle against a desire...and addiction...there are good habits and bad habits. All are breakable.

There have been no genetic scientific studies to find a "gay gene"
"God made DNA, DNA determines sexual orientation, so God is immoral"

This is non sequitor argument. Heres a common example:
  1. If I am a human (A) then I am a mammal. (B)
  2. I am a mammal. (B)
  3. Therefore, I am a human. (A)
God created DNA Understood
DNA determines orientation False, This is undetermined.
Thus God is immoral.
Logical fallacies get bandied about by wrongly all the time and it means they tend to lose their meaning after a while - so be careful to use them correctly! I do appreciate that you looked this one up on wikipedia... but you were actually looking for the fallacy of the "false premise." It's a logical enough sequence, but hangs on the premise that sexuality is genetic (which you do not accept).

To avoid this potential religious discussion let's just say being ruled by your hormones is not one of the ten Commandments.

Many things have genetic markers.
There are markers for violence, sex, and OCD's...
Predetermined does not equal influence.
You still have a choice
kill or not to kill
men or women
profanity or propriety

The choice isn't taken...but it is influence.
It is the biggest fallacy to suggest otherwise.
You still have provided no evidence that sexuality is not innate, and most people seem to agree that it is.
Old 03-14-2008, 01:48 PM
Elizadolots's Avatar
Elizadolots Elizadolots is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,466

Saquist, there is nothing in that article to suggest the specific gene which causes a tendency toward violence has been found. I point this out because people love to say "They haven't found the gay gene, have they? That shows there's not one." That's BS. They haven't found a whole poopload of genes, but we still accept that things are caused by genetics. The fat gene? The thin gene? Not found. I don't even think they've isolated the baldness gene, but we all know it exists, right?

There is substantial evidence that sexual orientation is genetic. I've already mentioned that there are measurable physical differences in certain brain structures. I've already mentioned that there are "packages of traits" which seem to be associated with homosexuality and these traits are accepted as genetic though, yet again, I do not believe the specific genes have been located. There have been studies showing that homosexuals have different senses of smell than heterosexuals.

Measurable physical differences and verifiable affiliation with other known genetic traits pretty well means it's genetic. So, if it's genetic, then any prejudice against it is exactly comparable to prejudice based on other genetic characteristics such as size of nose, number of freckles and yes, skin color.

Thanks to Ron Salon for the signature banner!
Old 03-14-2008, 01:51 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257

Non sequitor means "does not follow"
His statements did not follow a logical reasoning with all the facts that are available. I can only conclude it was a purposeful exclusion or a great lack of knowledge.

The evidence you require is in the case of those who have no genetic predisposition to the attraction yet have engaged in the activity. Of those, the molested are counted, not to mention simple experimentation. Which means the premise that it is innate is false.

Old 03-14-2008, 01:52 PM
RedShirtWalking's Avatar
RedShirtWalking RedShirtWalking is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,020

Originally Posted by Botany Bay View Post
Yes, of course not everyone who calls himself conservative sees the world as I discribed in my post. Conservative is a very flexible term anyway.

However, as you write yourself, there are people (conservative, religious right, whatever we want to call them or whatever they call themselfes) who see homosexuality as something immoralic.

What is a crime? Something, forbidden by law. Why is it forbidden? Because its seen as an immoral act. Why is something immoralic? Because it has to potential to seriously harm the peace of the society.

It comes down to the same thing at the end: Denial and demonization.
Come now, there's plenty that's considered immoral that's also 100% legal. Things that are forbidden by law aren't because they're necessarily immoral, but they are illegal in the scope of the laws written.

In some religions abortion, caffeine usage, smoking and pre-marital sex are all immoral but totally permissible in the eyes of the law.

Crimes aren't seen as immoral acts, but illegal acts. There's a big difference.

Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:31 PM.

Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.