[FanWriter45]

Obviously, this is something that the fans feel passionately about, one way or the other. The previous thread on this subject quickly maxed out the buffer. So, to continue, we have to ask the question: do gay characters exist in the Trek universe, or has homosexuality been "cured" by then? (Perhaps using a device similar to the one in "Dagger of the Mind." (i.e. people have been brainwashed into being something they are not. )

DS9 had the perfect opportunity to cover this subject with the trills, but blew it. Instead, Torchwood was the series that broke the "gay barrier" on science fiction television. (and did so spectacularly, I might add.) Firefly too delt with this subject, although in an unaired episode that can only be seen in the DVD box set. Dr. Who has also touched on it. So now, with Trek NOT having gay characters in evidence, really is beginning to show a certain level of bigotry to its format. I mean, it's really becoming obvious that they are avoiding it, and in doing so, they (Paramount) are betraying their unstated homophobia.

[Andrew86]

Just for posterity, here's a link to the previous thread.
http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1032

[Andrew86]

Saquist still hasn't told us how homosexuals = child molesters, as he's stated on two seperate occasions.

To be fair, Saquist didn't equate the two, only clumsily compared them. However I think it's fair to say that comparing someone to a child molester without a really solid reason for doing so is disrespectful.

Of course the comparison doesn't hold up because there is no mechanism by which humans can be innately attracted to children in a sexual way - children (by definition) are not sexually developed.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, have been observed to be attracted to sexual characteristics ingrained into our brains over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. It just appears there has been a switch in gender.

[Botany Bay]

I think Star Trek had some episodes facing the issue homosexuality. The one where Riker falls in love with a person from an androgyne species who has "chosen" to be a "women" and by this faces a "cure" for her "perversion" was a pretty clear stand on the issue (and making Riker a man with an obvious bisexual tendency).

TOS had an episode of an alien lifeform that has chosen to be female because it fell in love with Zephram Cochrane. Taking into account how cryptic messages about gender and sexuality had to be send in the sixties we can count this episode as a clear stand for looking at characters in terms of love instead of bodies.

But I agree, Paramount seems to be afraid of just showing a normal and natural gay that is not a symbiotic lifeform or androgyne or something. Thats a bit coward in my eyes.

[jerhanner]

Child molesters are almost always straight men. I learned this from an FBI agent who was lecturing a class I took in college. We should assume that the FBI knows WAYYYYY more about such things than Star Trek fans. (Unless, of course, the agent is also a fan.)
Mr. Agent also told us that more than 80% of child molesters were themselves molested as children. It has very little to do with genetics.

[tejdog1]

Saquist obviously has some strong opinions/feelings on this issue. As do I. I can best sum up my feelings with this verse from a song:

Now I'm not looking for absolution
Forgiveness for the things I do
But before you come to any conclusions
Try walking in my shoes
Try walking in my shoes

You'll stumble in my footsteps
Keep the same appointments I kept
If you try walking in my shoes
If you try walking in my shoes
-------------

Saquist - a challenge. I want you to stop being straight and be gay. Isn't that exactly what you want gay people to do? It's a choice, right? I could, in your eyes, turn straight?

[FanWriter45]

Okay, I can see we are drifting from the original intent of the thread. The question was: should there be gay characters on Star Trek? Not: what's the anti gay stereotype du jour?

[Oregon_Coast_Trekkie]

I wouldn't go as far as to say it is showing bigotry or homophobia. But the question is: What would be considered "addressing the issue?" Do you show a couple of guys just holding hands in the mess, is that enough? Do you show Pike wedding two men, is that enough? What about homosexual WOMEN? Do we want see someone who is flamboyant, or do we want see someone and be suprised by it? Someobody said in the other thread "Show Pike or Kirk informing the partner of a death." Would that fuel a reaction such as, "oh yeah, kill the gay guy"?

It seems to me another question is "How do you have a homosexual character without offending homosexuals?" It also opens up a can of worms about needing the "obligatory homosexual" in future Trek.

[Andrew86]

Originally Posted by FanWriter45

Okay, I can see we are drifting from the original intent of the thread. The question was: should there be gay characters on Star Trek? Not: what's the anti gay stereotype du jour?

I'll rephrase my original reasoning for including gay characters, perhaps more bluntly.

In 1966, Roddenberry included a black woman on the bridge of a Star Ship. This sort of thing had never been seen before. It no doubt cost them a number of viewers. But the move was vindicated when you look at the franchise now. How many other shows from the '60s have become the phenomenon that is Star Trek. This is purely because of Star Trek's inspirational quality. People saw Uhura and the ideas of Star Trek and were inspired.

One can only imagine what the response would have been had there been internet forums back in 1966. No doubt many people would have expressed their distaste for a black woman being put into a position of authority. And today we have a couple of people expressing their distaste for the idea of homosexuals being allowed into the Star Trek universe.

Roddenberry went ahead with the idea, knowing that a number of backwards people would not be happy with it. For the same reasons there should be a gay character - a character worthy of respect, not someone camp, no gay stereotypes - in Star Trek XI.

It might lose the movie a few homophobic viewers. But it would make the movie, and the whole franchise, much more meaningful.

[Botany Bay]

Originally Posted by Oregon_Coast_Trekkie

It seems to me another question is "How do you have a homosexual character without offending homosexuals?" It also opens up a can of worms about needing the "obligatory homosexual" in future Trek.

For sure, thats the traps that an author can also (and many did) step into when adressing racism.

However, seeing how high the waves can go about the issue shows also the potential it has for intruiging and challenging entertainment.

For instance: The evil guy being gay. By this he is a serious menace. But his partner is helping our heroes and thus showing gays as normal people and homosexuality as what it really is - a thing of no real meaning.