We need GAYS in TREK....NOW!
Tamera Lenz Muente
I remember an episode of Next Generation in which Ryker fell in love with
a bi-sexual being. Or maybe it was non-gendered. In any case, it was
very refreshing seeing gender lines crossed and I would like to see this
issue addressed more in Voyager. As for Tuvok, I don't think so. . . I
don't see him as effeminate at all.
Robin E. Baylor
In article <4nehde$o...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, ri...@coreward.com
(Sheyva Rift) wrote:
>
> Does anyone else think it is was past due for Trek to have gay
> crewmen and gay couples in the various series? In the future, all
> prejudice will be gone and we will be accepted and loved everywhere,
> I think a positive portrayal on Trek would be a good start.
> Personally, I think the producers already have this in mind, and
> that is why Tuvok is so effeminate....I predict within a season or
> two he will come out and be openly gay, perhaps having a
> relationship with the Paris? Post what you think of this! (no flames
> please!!)
Can I laugh just a little?
Tuvok & Paris? How do you come up with that one?
& what makes you think a man has to be 'effeminate' to be
gay?
I don't see any likely 'pairings' in the current ST casts, but
almost anything is more likely than those two.
Tuvok & Chakotey (Probably not, but they have more common experiences
than any other two men on Voyager. Certain "native american"
cultures might have traditions of some homosexual practices, although
I'd hardly consider "Little Big Man" an authoritative source.)
Bashir & Garak (I would have put good odds on them, until Dukat's
daughter showed up. Garak has said he plays the character as 'bi'
and Bashir is just too pretty.)
Odo & anyone (What makes you think he's male, anyway? This might
not count.)
Paris & Kim. (Best friends, both a bit lonely but Kim's lonely
for missing his lady back home.)
Jake & Nog (Adolescent experiments, trouble is you'd really
have network problems because they're young. Besides, Nog
doesn't live on DS9 anymore.)
--
It's you & me against the world; When do we attack?
Robin
Morgan Dhu
ri...@coreward.com (Sheyva Rift) wrote:
>Does anyone else think it is was past due for Trek to have gay
>crewmen and gay couples in the various series? In the future, all
>prejudice will be gone and we will be accepted and loved everywhere,
>I think a positive portrayal on Trek would be a good start.
>Personally, I think the producers already have this in mind, and
>that is why Tuvok is so effeminate....I predict within a season or
>two he will come out and be openly gay, perhaps having a
>relationship with the Paris? Post what you think of this! (no flames
>please!!)
>Sheyva
>Think Pink
I usually lurk here but I can't resist responding to this.
1) You are absolutely right that it is time Paramount & co grew up and
portrayed positive gay characters in the Star Trek universe.
2) Suggesting Tuvok will come out as gay is inappropriate, not to
mention illogical. He is married, bonded telepathically, and to
Vulcans that seems to be that until/unless the bond is severed,
usually by death of one partner. However, we really don't know much
about Be'lanna's preferences... or how about Bashir turning out to be
bi?
Think Pink, definitely, but think in character.
Morgan Dhu
CTL
Greg Krehbiel <Greg_K...@thompson.com> Mumbled:
}Hmm. Do we need Moslems too? Born-again Christians? Pedophiles?
}Cannibals? I mean, if we want to be truly multi-cultural, shouldn't we
}put in everybody? How about a few popes? Maybe Mother Theresa should
}make a surprise appearance.
}The point is that in order to appeal to a wide audience, a show has to
}have a relatively bland cast. Putting in a fundamentalist Moslem would
}"offend" some people, so they don't do it. Putting in gays would
}"offend" other people, so they don't do it. But if you want gays, are
}you ready for priests too? How about sidewalk evangelists?
I don't know about that.. Babylon5 has featured one of it's main cast
members in a Lesbian relationship...
Chris
*************************************************************************
The CDA makes it illegal to even mention abortion information
like the address and phone number below on the internet!
Fight censorship!
Planned Parenthood Los Angeles Administration:
1920 Marengo Ave, Los Angeles, CA. 213-223-4462
*************************************************************************
Greg Krehbiel
Hmm. Do we need Moslems too? Born-again Christians? Pedophiles?
Cannibals? I mean, if we want to be truly multi-cultural, shouldn't we
put in everybody? How about a few popes? Maybe Mother Theresa should
make a surprise appearance.
The point is that in order to appeal to a wide audience, a show has to
have a relatively bland cast. Putting in a fundamentalist Moslem would
"offend" some people, so they don't do it. Putting in gays would
"offend" other people, so they don't do it. But if you want gays, are
you ready for priests too? How about sidewalk evangelists?
Greg
Tamera Lenz Muente
Ok. . . first of all, this has nothing to do with the show's being
multicultural--I think it would just be an interesting issue to explore.
Second of all, the show has touched on issues that could be
offensive--just the simple fact that humans are too advanced in the
future to have religion (if you remember, when the crew on TNG encounters
less advanced civilizations, one of the criteria is often that they still
believe in a god of some sort) could be very offensive to some, even
though their society is more positive than ours is today with religion.
Perhaps you should think more metaphorically about things. . . the other
races encountered by the Enterprise or Voyager have various beliefs (how
about the people in the episode in which Tuvok was stranded with the
"children" on that moon, who believed that their bodies turned into pure
energy when they died). They don't have to introduce a Moslem or a
Buddhist to get across the point that to be truly admirable one must
respect others who don't believe the same things they believe.
Kenneth New
ri...@coreward.com (Sheyva Rift) wrote:
>
>Does anyone else think it is was past due for Trek to have gay
>crewmen and gay couples in the various series? In the future, all
>prejudice will be gone and we will be accepted and loved everywhere,
>I think a positive portrayal on Trek would be a good start.
>Personally, I think the producers already have this in mind, and
>that is why Tuvok is so effeminate....I predict within a season or
>two he will come out and be openly gay, perhaps having a
>relationship with the Paris? Post what you think of this! (no flames
>please!!)
>
we have to consider the characters we've been given. Tuvok, Chakotay,
Janeway, Paris, Kim, Torres (at least considering her Chakotay fantasies),
Neelix (yuch!), Kes, the Doctor, Sisko, Jake, Bashir, O'Brien, Worf, Kira, Odo,
et as have been established as heterosexual (or at least with heterosexual
tendencies). So, if any character is going to come out, it would only
leave.... Hmmm. I guess there's no one left. So much for Paramount's
claim that sexuality isn't a part of TREK. Let's chalk another one up to the
Homophobic Good-Old-Boys Netweork at Paramount. Despite promises by
Roddenberry to include positive gay characters in TREK, after his death,
the Paramount folks have not deemed his wishes worthwhile. For a
history of the whole dialogue, check out the Gay Trekkers site. It can be
an eye-opening experience.
Morgan Dhu
Greg Krehbiel <Greg_K...@thompson.com> wrote:
>Greg
Islam is a vital religion and it would surprise me if it does not
survive to the 24th century. Let's have someone asking for the exact
orientation of Earth so that he/she can face Mecca during prayer. I'm
not asking for full story lines on gays or any other non-mainstream
(in the eyes of Hollywood) group, just indications that all the
diversity of human experience exists, as well as the diversity of
alien life that we already see. We know that Christianity survived -
remember Uhura's comments on the "Son of God" in TOS "Bread and
Circuses". We know that the Festival of Lights continues to be
celebrated (TNG, "Data's Day"). So by all means let's have references
to Islam, Judaism, etc.
I'd like to point out, however, that to compare gays and moslems with
pedophiles and cannibals misses the point entirely. The activities of
gays and moslems per se do not include causing harm to others. The
activities of cannibals _may_, and those of pedophiles most certainly
do.
-Morgan Dhu
Robin E. Baylor
In article <4nhvsm$d...@news.cais.com>, Greg Krehbiel
<Greg_K...@thompson.com> wrote:
> But if you want gays, are
> you ready for priests too? How about sidewalk evangelists?
>
What do you think Kai Wynn is?
DS-9 has had priests, which a lot of the rast-folk seem to approve.
CTL
Tamera Lenz Muente <tam...@csd.uwm.edu> Mumbled:
What the heck does "effeminate" have to do with being gay?
Tamera Lenz Muente
CTL-
Have you been reading the posts regarding this subject? In saying
effeminate, I was responding to the first post on this subject, in which
someone stated they thought Tuvok might turn out to be gay because he is
effeminate. I KNOW having feminine traits has nothing to do with being
gay.
Shane Glaseman
rba...@lmsc.lockheed.com (Robin E. Baylor) wrote:
>In article <4nehde$o...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, ri...@coreward.com
>(Sheyva Rift) wrote:
>
>>
>> Does anyone else think it is was past due for Trek to have gay
>> crewmen and gay couples in the various series?
Why? What makes you think that any of the characters are *not* gay? Simply
because you aren't invited into crew's quarters to observe their private
lives? I was under the impression that one of the "issues" of gay life was
that it was no one's business what someone does in the privacy of their home,
relationships, or intellect? If so, why do you think it needs to be dragged
out into the ship's corridors, for our cameras to see?
This "issue" will forever *be* an issue and be argued over as long as
proponents on both sides *continue* to belabor it. Can it not be
possible that, in the Trek universe, it is simply no longer an issue,
and is treated as personal/private, of no interest to those not
involved? Sheesh.
This is like that whole "Kira is pregnant" stuff on DS9 (I don't
watch DS9, so I may be behind the times here). But for a long time,
you all were arguing how and what was the best way to deal with
Visitor's pregnancy in terms of her character. My answer is, why
does it need to be dealt with at all? The character is pregnant. This,
it seems to me, is a personal decision. How the heck do *any* of you know
what Bajoran reproductive customs are? She's pregnant, it's a personal
decision and life-choice, it's no one else's business, bug off!
(Sorry. I get excited.)
Kevin Johnston
> Hmm. Do we need ... Pedophiles? Cannibals?
Is there some reason you didn't just say "I'm a troll. Flame me."?
Did we need a black female in the bridge in 1966? Did we need a non-human
second-in-command in 1966? Hell, did we need a FEMALE second-in-command
in the pilot episode?
Answer: no, it's just that Star Trek is so much more tepid than it used to
be, precisely because:
> The point is that in order to appeal to a wide audience, a show has to
> have a relatively bland cast.
And that's too bad.
Kevin
Dianne Hackborn
Hark! The herald Greg Krehbie <Greg_K...@thompson.com> posts:
| Hmm. Do we need Moslems too?
Yes.
| Born-again Christians?
Yes.
| Pedophiles?
Flame-bait.
| Cannibals?
And more bait.
[Sing along, now: "which of these things is not like the other ones..."]
| I mean, if we want to be truly multi-cultural, shouldn't we
| put in everybody? How about a few popes? Maybe Mother Theresa should
| make a surprise appearance.
Hey, why not, considering some of the things Trek has done?
| The point is that in order to appeal to a wide audience, a show has to
| have a relatively bland cast. Putting in a fundamentalist Moslem would
| "offend" some people, so they don't do it. Putting in gays would
| "offend" other people, so they don't do it.
When you get to the point of trying not to offend anyone, you are well down
the path to the land of shallow, superfluous mediocrity.
| But if you want gays, are
| you ready for priests too? How about sidewalk evangelists?
Yes, and yes.
-------------------------+------------------------------------------------
__ Dianne Kyra Hackborn | "My humble curse: May your shit come to life,
\/ Oregon State Univ. | and kiss you."
hac...@cs.orst.edu | -- Frank Zappa
The wheel turns... |
<URL:http://www.cs.orst.edu/~hackbod/>
Teresa Waterkuetter
Worf and Data--make Spiner earn his money
:)
--
Teresa
Londo Mollari
In article <4nio31$i...@news.inforamp.net>, moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan
Dhu) wrote:
[snip]
> alien life that we already see. We know that Christianity survived -
> remember Uhura's comments on the "Son of God" in TOS "Bread and
> Circuses". We know that the Festival of Lights continues to be
> celebrated (TNG, "Data's Day"). So by all means let's have references
> to Islam, Judaism, etc.
[snip]
Uhura's comment in BaC does *NOT* show that the Christian religion
has survived. What is shows is that she is not ignorant of it.
The episode featured an Earth-esque planet which that religion
rose 2000 years after it did on our Earth. That Uhura noticed
this does not mean that is a follower or even that it even still
exists. I sure some people here have detailed knowledge of
religions/beliefs that are now dead.
The Festival of Lights also exists in the B5 universe ("Fall of
Night"). Judaism still exists (several episodes), Islam and many
others are still around ("The Parliament of Dreams"), and there
are new ones ("In the Shadow of Z'Ha'Dum"). And of course
to get back to the subject, B5 has done homesexuality between
two major _human_ characters.
Morgan Dhu
lo...@uoknor.edu (Londo Mollari) wrote:
>In article <4nio31$i...@news.inforamp.net>, moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan
>Dhu) wrote:
>[snip]
>> alien life that we already see. We know that Christianity survived -
>> remember Uhura's comments on the "Son of God" in TOS "Bread and
>> Circuses". We know that the Festival of Lights continues to be
>> celebrated (TNG, "Data's Day"). So by all means let's have references
>> to Islam, Judaism, etc.
>[snip]
>Uhura's comment in BaC does *NOT* show that the Christian religion
>has survived. What is shows is that she is not ignorant of it.
>The episode featured an Earth-esque planet which that religion
>rose 2000 years after it did on our Earth. That Uhura noticed
>this does not mean that is a follower or even that it even still
>exists. I sure some people here have detailed knowledge of
>religions/beliefs that are now dead.
Uhura's tone on delivering those lines in BaC suggests to me that she
is not just an impartial student of ancient religions. Christianity
seems to be a personal experience for her, IMHO.
>The Festival of Lights also exists in the B5 universe ("Fall of
>Night"). Judaism still exists (several episodes), Islam and many
>others are still around ("The Parliament of Dreams"), and there
>are new ones ("In the Shadow of Z'Ha'Dum"). And of course
>to get back to the subject, B5 has done homesexuality between
>two major _human_ characters.
I was posting to a Star Trek group, about a problem I feel exists in
the Star Trek universe as portayed so far. I agree that B5 has been
more inclusive on these issues, more power to it.
IDIC, anyone?
--Morgan Dhu
C. Ryan Thrower
I wish people would stop with shoving gay people down the throat (no pun
intended) of the public. Do I say I'm straight? So why should you say
your gay. Who gives a shit.
Morgan Dhu
lo...@uoknor.edu (Londo Mollari) wrote:
>In article <4nj1v1$l...@news.inforamp.net>, moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan
>Dhu) wrote:
>> lo...@uoknor.edu (Londo Mollari) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <4nio31$i...@news.inforamp.net>, moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan
>> >Dhu) wrote:
>>
>> >[snip]
>> >> alien life that we already see. We know that Christianity survived -
>> >> remember Uhura's comments on the "Son of God" in TOS "Bread and
>> >> Circuses".
[snip]
>> >Uhura's comment in BaC does *NOT* show that the Christian religion
>> >has survived. What is shows is that she is not ignorant of it.
>> >The episode featured an Earth-esque planet which that religion
>> >rose 2000 years after it did on our Earth. That Uhura noticed
>> >this does not mean that is a follower or even that it even still
>> >exists. I sure some people here have detailed knowledge of
>> >religions/beliefs that are now dead.
>>
>> Uhura's tone on delivering those lines in BaC suggests to me that she
>> is not just an impartial student of ancient religions. Christianity
>> seems to be a personal experience for her, IMHO.
>I did not say that she was impartial -- she clearly was not.
>It could be that Christianity was a HUGE improvement over
>the previous belief structure in her mind. It could be
>interpretted as a stepping stone in a progression that
>would eventually to humanist Federation-esque morals. Also
>there is no other evidence in Trek that Uhura (or for that
>matter anyone else) is a Christian would seem to make my
>interpretation more likely.
I would be the last to insist that your interpretation is wrong. She
_could_ have simply been indicating approval of a step up the
spiritual ladder. However, my _gut_ reaction to Nichelle Nichols'
delivery of those lines remains. It is clear however, that in TOS,
humanism is portrayed as the norm. Nonetheless, I'd be willing to bet
that there are some Christians, Moslems, Jews, and other proponants of
human religions knocking around the corners of the ST universe. After
all, Native North American spiritualism is clearly still alive in ST,
so I expect the newer religions will survive as well.
>> >The Festival of Lights also exists in the B5 universe ("Fall of
>> >Night"). Judaism still exists (several episodes), Islam and many
>> >others are still around ("The Parliament of Dreams"), and there
>> >are new ones ("In the Shadow of Z'Ha'Dum"). And of course
>> >to get back to the subject, B5 has done homesexuality between
>> >two major _human_ characters.
>>
>> I was posting to a Star Trek group, about a problem I feel exists in
>> the Star Trek universe as portayed so far. I agree that B5 has been
>> more inclusive on these issues, more power to it.
>Well lot of people are still don't know that and it was relevent
>to the pre-existing discussion. I glad that agree. One good
>reason to mention it is that it really takes away one more
>excuse from not handling these issues.
Indeed. I was not disputing the appropriateness of your raising the
issue of B5, just saying why I had not. Sorry if I sounded snippy.
>> IDIC, anyone?
>Trek took the bold step of introducing the diversity of faces
>to U.S. SF TV. (Something which they should be proud of in that it
>is a major advance.) B5 introduced the diversity of ideas.
I think that may be a little severe a judgement on ST. But they have
wimped out on a few things in the past. Particularly the gay issue, to
return yet again to the original subject. It's all very nice to make
metaphorical statements, but it'd be nicer to just see gay couples as
part of the fabric. I was delighted to hear Kira ask, at the beginning
of "Rejoined", why Dax and Kahn didn't just get back together if they
still loved each other. It suggested to me that Kira, at least, saw
nothing wrong with two persons with female bodies in a relationship. I
hope that is a reflection of the general attitude among Federation
peoples.
Isn't it great that we have two fine SF universes to compare on issues
like this?
--Morgan Dhu
Morgan Dhu
I did not say I was gay. Or anything else for that matter. But when
Sisko kisses Yates, or Bashir flirts with Dax, or Kira overnights with
Shakaar, one could argue, if one were so inclined, that
heterosexuality is being forced on the public as well. To suggest that
we might see Bashir flirting with Garak as well, just to make a
suggestion, is no more "shoving gay people down the throat of the
public" that the other examples I've mentioned are shoving straight
people down the throat of the public. The public, after all, includes
gays and bisexuals as well.
--Morgan Dhu
Londo Mollari
> lo...@uoknor.edu (Londo Mollari) wrote:
>
> >In article <4nio31$i...@news.inforamp.net>, moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan
> >Dhu) wrote:
>
> >[snip]
> >> alien life that we already see. We know that Christianity survived -
> >> remember Uhura's comments on the "Son of God" in TOS "Bread and
> >> Circuses". We know that the Festival of Lights continues to be
> >> celebrated (TNG, "Data's Day"). So by all means let's have references
> >> to Islam, Judaism, etc.
> >[snip]
>
> >Uhura's comment in BaC does *NOT* show that the Christian religion
> >has survived. What is shows is that she is not ignorant of it.
> >The episode featured an Earth-esque planet which that religion
> >rose 2000 years after it did on our Earth. That Uhura noticed
> >this does not mean that is a follower or even that it even still
> >exists. I sure some people here have detailed knowledge of
> >religions/beliefs that are now dead.
>
> Uhura's tone on delivering those lines in BaC suggests to me that she
> is not just an impartial student of ancient religions. Christianity
> seems to be a personal experience for her, IMHO.
I did not say that she was impartial -- she clearly was not.
It could be that Christianity was a HUGE improvement over
the previous belief structure in her mind. It could be
interpretted as a stepping stone in a progression that
would eventually to humanist Federation-esque morals. Also
there is no other evidence in Trek that Uhura (or for that
matter anyone else) is a Christian would seem to make my
interpretation more likely.
> >The Festival of Lights also exists in the B5 universe ("Fall of
> >Night"). Judaism still exists (several episodes), Islam and many
> >others are still around ("The Parliament of Dreams"), and there
> >are new ones ("In the Shadow of Z'Ha'Dum"). And of course
> >to get back to the subject, B5 has done homesexuality between
> >two major _human_ characters.
>
> I was posting to a Star Trek group, about a problem I feel exists in
> the Star Trek universe as portayed so far. I agree that B5 has been
> more inclusive on these issues, more power to it.
Well lot of people are still don't know that and it was relevent
to the pre-existing discussion. I glad that agree. One good
reason to mention it is that it really takes away one more
excuse from not handling these issues.
> IDIC, anyone?
Merete
ri...@coreward.com (Sheyva Rift) wrote:
>Does anyone else think it is was past due for Trek to have gay
>crewmen and gay couples in the various series? In the future, all
>prejudice will be gone and we will be accepted and loved everywhere,
>I think a positive portrayal on Trek would be a good start.
>Personally, I think the producers already have this in mind, and
>that is why Tuvok is so effeminate....I predict within a season or
>two he will come out and be openly gay, perhaps having a
>relationship with the Paris? Post what you think of this! (no flames
>please!!)
>Sheyva
>Think Pink
how can you ask for people's opinions, and not expect to get flames?
I've been reading this newsgroup for awhile, and there are very few
posts that don't get flamed, they are usually credit posts.
As to gays, how do you know there aren't crew members who are gay? We
don't see a whole lot of anyone's personal life, so we don't know
who's straight and who's gay. We also don't see people talking about
their sexual orientation, either.
Unless of course you want movie-type stereotypical gays, which are
generally an insult to the gay community, and I don't think that will
add much to the series.
I do have problems with the idea that Tuvok will come out openly as
gay, too. (I also have a problem with him being gay, as he has a wife
with whom he has children, a wife whom he openly admits to caring for
very deeply.) I don't think given the nature of the Vulcan society,
you'll see Tuvok "come out" as anything.
M
Scott VanTussenbrook
: ri...@coreward.com (Sheyva Rift) wrote:
:
:
: >Does anyone else think it is was past due for Trek to have gay
: >crewmen and gay couples in the various series? In the future, all
: >prejudice will be gone and we will be accepted and loved everywhere,
: >I think a positive portrayal on Trek would be a good start.
: >Personally, I think the producers already have this in mind, and
: >that is why Tuvok is so effeminate....I predict within a season or
: >two he will come out and be openly gay, perhaps having a
: >relationship with the Paris? Post what you think of this! (no flames
: >please!!)
:
: >Sheyva
: >Think Pink
Perhaps the absence of gay characters on Trek is a subliminal suggestion
that in the future, the genetic "cause" of homosexuality will have been
discovered and eradicated? ;)
And as far as the one slightly effeminate character being the gay one,
i'd rather not see it. That's all we need on TV, more stereotypes. As
long as we're choosing, i'd like to see it on DS9, either Worf or Sisko.
(Gay Klingons. That's one hell of a closet to break out of. Of course
the leather bars there would be beyond belief... ;))
Scott
Scott VanTussenbrook
C. Ryan Thrower (thr...@traveller.com) wrote:
: I wish people would stop with shoving gay people down the throat (no pun
: intended) of the public. Do I say I'm straight? So why should you say
: your gay. Who gives a shit.
You don't need to say it because the majority of people around you are
and it's no big deal. Gay people would just like to see themselves on TV
once in a while, and not as the one-episode comedic gag stereotype.
Shipboard romances lend an interesting emotional component to all the
Trek shows, and i think some of us just wonder if the world is so perfect
in the 24th century, why at least one of those romances, once in awhile,
couldn't be a gay one.
Scott
pa...@pipeline.com
i think Garak an Tain were lovers(DS9) and the traitor on voyager seemed to
have a close relationship with another male crew member who also works in
engineering.(he was on last weeks episode). does anyone else think Tain may
have escaped>
rich
>
Mr Jason JG Hutchinson
Sheyva Rift (ri...@coreward.com) wrote:
: Does anyone else think it is was past due for Trek to have gay
: crewmen and gay couples in the various series? In the future, all
: prejudice will be gone and we will be accepted and loved everywhere,
: I think a positive portrayal on Trek would be a good start.
: Personally, I think the producers already have this in mind, and
: that is why Tuvok is so effeminate....I predict within a season or
: two he will come out and be openly gay, perhaps having a
: relationship with the Paris? Post what you think of this! (no flames
: please!!)
Been there, discussed that, and I'm afraid it ain't going to happen.
Trek has suffered enough problems from both the Gay Rights Movement and
the Bible-thumping brigade and whenever they've tried it have been
attacked left right and centre.
A gay character would be too risky. What would be done with
them. OK, most of the time they would be treated like everybody else,
which is good, but if a gay storyline was ever written for them, war
would break out, as it has in the past.
As for Tuvok coming out, since he is married and incapable of
emotion, this is also unlikely. It would also be too funny to
contemplate.
Even non-gay stories are misinterpreted. Take DS9's "Rejoined".
It wasn't a gay story, it was a Trill story. But it was misread and then
slated by the Christians for being pro-gay, the gay groups for not doing
enough, and the perverts who just liked seeing two women kiss.
People are people. Why should we expend so much energy on
depicting them as icons for any particular group?
--
Things never said on the X-Files:
4)"Now what do you want, you cigarette smoking son-of-a-bitch?"
"Well Mr Mulder, I though it was time I told you the truth...."
drsoran
Kevin Johnston (kjoh...@macromedia.com) wrote:
: > Hmm. Do we need ... Pedophiles? Cannibals?
: Is there some reason you didn't just say "I'm a troll. Flame me."?
: Did we need a black female in the bridge in 1966? Did we need a non-human
: second-in-command in 1966? Hell, did we need a FEMALE second-in-command
: in the pilot episode?
Exactly right.. so is it so hard to believe that out of billions
of Federation citizens there isn't *one* Christian among them? I'm
totally all for a homosexual character if the writers had the balls to
put in a Christian character as something more than comical filler.. "Har
har.. there's the token Christian.. look how ignorant he is".. Is it so
hard to believe that a 2000 year old religion today will survive into the
24th century? I'm sure there are Hindus and Muslims, etc, etc.. in the
24th century as well.. its just everyone's not so anal (no pun intended)
about it in front of everyone...
--
----------------------------------------------------
drs...@ni.cba.csuohio.edu
M$-Win95 user: "Why is this running so slow today?"
Tony Warmuth
In a previous article pa...@pipeline.com says:
>>>...and the traitor on voyager seemed to have a close relationship with
>>>another male crew member who also works in engineering.(he was on last weeks episode).
I noticed this too. In the episode where the traitor barks at Janeway
about not negotiating with the Kazson I think, the ensign in engineering
went up to him to support him. He put his hand on his shoulder in
a way that to me seemed to imply something more than "I agree with you"
I know this is reaching, but I still wonder.
Tony
Evelyn C. Leeper
In article <4nhvsm$d...@news.cais.com>,
Greg Krehbiel <Greg_K...@thompson.com> wrote:
> Hmm. Do we need Moslems too? Born-again Christians? Pedophiles?
> make a surprise appearance.
In "The Sword of Kahless" we had a Klingon boasting of committing mass
murder and cannibalism, all the "good guys" on DS9 there cheering him
on, and *no one* on rec.arts.startrek,current saying zip about it.
And just how old is Kes anyway?
So spare me your protestations when someone says that Trek should have
someone gay.
(Strangely enough, BABYLON 5 manages to have people of various religions
whose religions mean something to them--even including monks, a rabbi,
and other clerics--without destroying the show. Many of us think this
sort of thing improves it, actually.)
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | ele...@lucent.com
"There isn't a limited amount of love in Iowa. It isn't a non-renewable
resource. If Amy and Barbara or Mike or Steve love each other, it
doesn't mean that John and Mary can't." -Rep. Ed Fallon, Iowa
Brendan Guy
sv4...@cc.utah.edu (Scott VanTussenbrook) wrote:
>: ri...@coreward.com (Sheyva Rift) wrote:
>Perhaps the absence of gay characters on Trek is a subliminal suggestion
>that in the future, the genetic "cause" of homosexuality will have been
>discovered and eradicated? ;)
That seems rather unlikely, if you remember the episode of TNG about the
planet that had been perfectly genetically engineered, Picard seemed
pretty compteptous about the idea. That seems to suggest that trying to
breed our genetic traits isn't thought highly of in the Federation.
>
>And as far as the one slightly effeminate character being the gay one,
>i'd rather not see it. That's all we need on TV, more stereotypes. As
>long as we're choosing, i'd like to see it on DS9, either Worf or Sisko.
>(Gay Klingons. That's one hell of a closet to break out of. Of course
>the leather bars there would be beyond belief... ;))
Actually highly militatistic male centered societies tend to have high
levels of male homosexuality. At least the Spartans did. What are the
rights of Klingon women. We know they aren't allowed to serve on the High
Council, and they seem to be discriminated against, but are they allowed
to fight alongside their males.
As for the gay issue, it is just a lack of guts that is keeping Star
Trek from having a gay character. This isn't exactly uncharted ground,
homosexuals have appeared on almost every show on television in some form
or another, and of course Babylon 5 and Alien Nation have shown
homosexuality, (Alien Nation even had a homosexual relationship between
people of different species which I thought was pretty cool) I am not
necessarily demanding a main character has to be gay but they could maybe
at least now and then show a same sex couple or at least have a bisexual
character. (I personally believe that deep down everyone is bisexual, but
that is another matter altogether)
Brendan W. Guy
Kraig Blackwelder
In article <4nq8d2$k...@csu-b.csuohio.edu>, drs...@ni.cba.csuohio.edu
(drsoran) wrote:
> Exactly right.. so is it so hard to believe that out of billions
> of Federation citizens there isn't *one* Christian among them? I'm
> totally all for a homosexual character if the writers had the balls to
> put in a Christian character as something more than comical filler.. "Har
> har.. there's the token Christian.. look how ignorant he is".. Is it so
> hard to believe that a 2000 year old religion today will survive into the
> 24th century? I'm sure there are Hindus and Muslims, etc, etc.. in the
> 24th century as well.. its just everyone's not so anal (no pun intended)
> about it in front of everyone...
Actually, I suspect that by the 24th century, Christianity (and Islam and
Hinduism, etc) will be in their rightful place on the shelves next to the
other old mythologies where classicists can study them and mystics,
philosophers, and psychologists can analyze them, but where they can't
cause any harm through, say, holy wars, inquisitions, or public policy.
K.
John
Morgan Dhu wrote:
>
> "C. Ryan Thrower" <thr...@traveller.com> wrote:
>
> >I wish people would stop with shoving gay people down the throat (no pun
> >intended) of the public. Do I say I'm straight? So why should you say
> >your gay. Who gives a shit.
>
> Sisko kisses Yates, or Bashir flirts with Dax, or Kira overnights with
> Shakaar, one could argue, if one were so inclined, that
> heterosexuality is being forced on the public as well. To suggest that
> we might see Bashir flirting with Garak as well, just to make a
> suggestion, is no more "shoving gay people down the throat of the
> public" that the other examples I've mentioned are shoving straight
> people down the throat of the public. The public, after all, includes
> gays and bisexuals as well.
>
> --Morgan Dhu
The point being that this is what the general population expects from a Star Trek
episode, Paramount is not ignorant and will give the "general" public what it wants. I
do not say this to be misinterpreted as homophobic, but I do realize that Paramount
knows what sells, even if they don't always come up with a selling storyline.
Paramount is not going to bend and risk the numbers that it has AND the commercial
sponsors that it needs. I do not think that this is right, necessarily, but I do
recognize why they do it. Got to admit that it would make for interesting storylines
during the sweeps.
Victor
sv4...@cc.utah.edu (Scott VanTussenbrook) wrote:
>C. Ryan Thrower (thr...@traveller.com) wrote:
>: I wish people would stop with shoving gay people down the throat (no pun
>: intended) of the public. Do I say I'm straight? So why should you say
>: your gay. Who gives a shit.
>
>and it's no big deal. Gay people would just like to see themselves on TV
>
I'm not gay-bashing, I'm for a workplace that is blind to ethnicity, preferences, religions, etc. I believe in respecting people wit=
h whom I disagree, so long as they respect me.
My home is my castle, and in my castle respect for all human beings is a key value. When I raise my children, I choose to teach them=
old-fashioned family values, which fit hand-in-hand with respect of others and of self. In my home, I will allow my children to rec=
eive information and entertainment that is consistent with how I want them to be when they are adults, and I'll tell you, the tube g=
oes off on any show that does as you suggest.
Aside from that, I think ST has bigger problems than the lack of same-sex romance (if that IS a problem). I respect you and your req=
uest, but Trek writing is way behind where it should be, and introducing same-sex stuff at this point is like the Edsel engineers re=
designing the ash tray.
VM
Morgan Dhu
John <jesc...@texas.net> wrote:
>Morgan Dhu wrote:
>> "C. Ryan Thrower" <thr...@traveller.com> wrote:
>> >I wish people would stop with shoving gay people down the throat (no pun
>> >intended) of the public. Do I say I'm straight? So why should you say
>> >your gay. Who gives a shit.
>>
>> I did not say I was gay. Or anything else for that matter. But when
>> Sisko kisses Yates, or Bashir flirts with Dax, or Kira overnights with
>> Shakaar, one could argue, if one were so inclined, that
>> heterosexuality is being forced on the public as well. To suggest that
>> we might see Bashir flirting with Garak as well, just to make a
>> suggestion, is no more "shoving gay people down the throat of the
>> public" that the other examples I've mentioned are shoving straight
>> people down the throat of the public. The public, after all, includes
>> gays and bisexuals as well.
>The point being that this is what the general population expects from a Star Trek
>episode, Paramount is not ignorant and will give the "general" public what it wants. I
>do not say this to be misinterpreted as homophobic, but I do realize that Paramount
>knows what sells, even if they don't always come up with a selling storyline.
>Paramount is not going to bend and risk the numbers that it has AND the commercial
>sponsors that it needs. I do not think that this is right, necessarily, but I do
>recognize why they do it. Got to admit that it would make for interesting storylines
>during the sweeps.
I think the point is, actually, that the "general" public has in
recent years shown that it does accept stories told about
non-mainstream people. Not too many years ago, it was considered a
risk to include people of color as major characters on TV. Now it is
expected. Many people feel the time has come for other groups which
have experienced the profound psychological discrimination of being
ignored, made non-visible, and hence non-existant, in the popular
media, to be shown to be human beings just like other human beings,
with the same range of issues, values, and concerns, and the same
interesting stories to be told.
Star Trek was a pioneer in the portrayal of people of color on TV. I
would urge that it join other pioneering series in portraying gays.
--Morgan Dhu
Robin E. Baylor
In article <4nic5h$4...@detroit.freenet.org>, ac...@detroit.freenet.org
(Teresa Waterkuetter) wrote:
>
> Worf and Data--make Spiner earn his money
> :)
Wouldn't work. We already know Worf doesn't find Data attractive
(A Fistful of Datas)
> --
> Teresa
--
It's you & me against the world; When do we attack?
Robin
Duane Gundrum
Kraig Blackwelder (kra...@nwu.edu) wrote:
: Actually, I suspect that by the 24th century, Christianity (and Islam and
: Hinduism, etc) will be in their rightful place on the shelves next to the
: other old mythologies where classicists can study them and mystics,
: philosophers, and psychologists can analyze them, but where they can't
: cause any harm through, say, holy wars, inquisitions, or public policy.
No offense, but Christianity has been around for two thousand years, so I
don't see it disappearing in the next four hundred. The mystical beliefs
you talk of were the forerunners of Christianity (because it didn't come
from a vat of nothing), so if anything's going to happen, Christianity is
going to evolve as the rest of humanity does. It may not be the same
animal we know today, but I tend to believe it's going to be around in
one incarnation of sorts.
I may not be a personal follower of Christianity myself, but I'm
objective enough to know that there are too many people who will not
change their ways just because the cultural elite tends to believe otherwise.
Duane Gundrum
du...@crl.com
C Lassiter
Evelyn C. Leeper (e...@mtcts2.lc.att.com) wrote:
[]
: So spare me your protestations when someone says that Trek should have
: someone gay.
: (Strangely enough, BABYLON 5 manages to have people of various religions
: whose religions mean something to them--even including monks, a rabbi,
: and other clerics--without destroying the show. Many of us think this
: sort of thing improves it, actually.)
And, lest you forget, Ivanova confessed (Yes, that's the term used, and
it would hardly have been a confession had she merely been talking
friendship.), "I think I loved Talia."
cl, who'd be thrilled with a gay trek character.
________________
c.l. lassiter
SEA...@UNC.EDU
Reza Sadeghi
Did'nt you see the episode where Crusher gets romantically involved with
that woman. It even says it on her CCG card. What about that ?
Victor (cot...@lmsc.lockheed.com) wrote:
: sv4...@cc.utah.edu (Scott VanTussenbrook) wrote:
: >C. Ryan Thrower (thr...@traveller.com) wrote:
: >: I wish people would stop with shoving gay people down the throat (no pun
: >: intended) of the public. Do I say I'm straight? So why should you say
: >: your gay. Who gives a shit.
: >
: >You don't need to say it because the majority of people around you are
: >and it's no big deal. Gay people would just like to see themselves on TV
: >
: >Scott
: I'm not gay-bashing, I'm for a workplace that is blind to ethnicity, preferences, religions, etc. I believe in respecting people wit=
: h whom I disagree, so long as they respect me.
: My home is my castle, and in my castle respect for all human beings is a key value. When I raise my children, I choose to teach them=
: old-fashioned family values, which fit hand-in-hand with respect of others and of self. In my home, I will allow my children to rec=
: eive information and entertainment that is consistent with how I want them to be when they are adults, and I'll tell you, the tube g=
: oes off on any show that does as you suggest.
: Aside from that, I think ST has bigger problems than the lack of same-sex romance (if that IS a problem). I respect you and your req=
: uest, but Trek writing is way behind where it should be, and introducing same-sex stuff at this point is like the Edsel engineers re=
: designing the ash tray.
: VM
--
Jason Sadeghi
a035...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Morgan Dhu
kra...@nwu.edu (Kraig Blackwelder) wrote:
>Actually, I suspect that by the 24th century, Christianity (and Islam and
>Hinduism, etc) will be in their rightful place on the shelves next to the
>other old mythologies where classicists can study them and mystics,
>philosophers, and psychologists can analyze them, but where they can't
>cause any harm through, say, holy wars, inquisitions, or public policy.
> K.
I rather expect that Christianity, Islam, and other newer religions
will still have adherants, just as today, older religions such as
Judaism and various animist and shamanist spiritual practices survive.
After all, we know that Chakotay follows a native aboriginal animist
spiritual tradition in the 24th century.
--Morgan Dhu
Greg Krehbiel
K. wrote,
>Actually, I suspect that by the 24th century, Christianity
>(and Islam and Hinduism, etc) will be in their rightful place on
>the shelves next to the other old mythologies where classicists
>can study them and mystics, philosophers, and psychologists can
>analyze them, but where they can't cause any harm through, say,
>holy wars, inquisitions, or public policy.
Oh, I get it now. Chakotay can consult his "spirit guide," and that's
not an outdated silly mythology, but Christianity, Islam and Hinduism
will be "in their rightful place."
Typical PC thinking!
Greg
Brad Filippone
: Cannibals?
Now this provokes an interesting thought! If someone when up to the
replicator and said "Leg of human, medium rare" what would they get?
Not that I would do it, mind you!!!
--
Londo Mollari
In article <4nsl4q$n...@apollo.isisnet.com>, al...@ccn.cs.dal.ca (Brad
Filippone) wrote:
Cannibalism without actually killing someone. Now that is a thought.
It would remove the moral problems involved and could be used to
make a truely _alien_ culture. Brad, if you can think of a story
to go with it submit a spect script and see if the Trek staff has
any real guts. ;-)
(I would note that most cannibalism on this planet is really
a funeral rite -- a sign of respect.)
Junsok Yang
In article <4nsl4q$n...@apollo.isisnet.com>, al...@ccn.cs.dal.ca says...
>: Cannibals?
>Now this provokes an interesting thought! If someone when up to the
>replicator and said "Leg of human, medium rare" what would they get?
>Not that I would do it, mind you!!!
I'm pretty sure I would *try* it; I'm not sure if I would eat it though.
And according to Niven and Pournelle's novel "Lucifer's Hammer," human
meat should be eaten well done. Appearently, for the most part, the meat is
filthy compared to, say, beef. (Not to mention the higher chance of
catching a disease from it altogether - like what happened with the "Mad cow
disease" which was probably spread by cows eating powdered cow carcasses
from diseased cows...)
Also, (I think it was the same source) human meat is not nutritious
enough to sustain a human being for an extended period of time...
(Me, I'm just having spagetti for dinner tonight...) :)
--
*********************************************************************
"Of course life is bizarre. The more bizarre it gets, the more
interesting it is. The only way to approach it is to make yourself
some popcorn and enjoy the show." ...David Gerrold
Junsok Yang (yan...@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu)
(yan...@minerva.cis.yale.edu)
Victor
hate ALL forms of morality. ;-)
VM
Russ Kava
When I first saw that scene, I thought the same thing. I guess I'm
just glad I wasn't the only one.
Russ
--
"Are we testing my social skills?
Does Starfleet have rules about THEM too?"
-- Crewman Dalby, "Learning Curve"
Kenneth New
Hating religion isn't PC anymore than hating anything else is PC. It's
rather discouraging, for me at least, to have been one of the most vocal
supporters of including religion in TREK to feel like I'm being lumped
together with hate-mongers such as 'K' above. If TREK is ever to do
more than talk about being a show with positive messages, it will have
to do many things, including:
1) Begin to deal with religion in an intelligent and informed manner,
showing that MOST (yes, I said MOST) Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus,
Buddhists and followers of all the various religions on this planet are
compassionate, thinking individuals. No meaningless stereotypes. No
more purposeful skirting of the issue. No more Bowdlerizing of a show
that has potential to really make a difference in our culture.
2) Begin to show homosexuals as normal, healthy adults. We don't need
any shows about the 'problems' of homosexuality. TREK should show us a
future where all people are equally valued and respected. The absence
of such characters is a seriously negative message (the same goes for
#1, above).
3) Stop watering down female characters by portraying them as weak and
helpless (e.g. Janeway in 'that episode where she was stuck on a planet
with Chakotay because of a disease') or causing them to experience
sexual tension with their closest male lead. Why is there such tension
between Janeway and Chakotay (besides the obvious that she is an
attractive, heterosexual woman and he is an attractive heterosexual
man)? Picard was never encumbered with such distractions (bad example,
as there were no female command staffers on TNG). Sisko is never
encumbered by such tension between him and Kira or Dax. Is it only
because Janeway's a woman?
4) Add more female characters. Janeway and Torres are token females.
I don't say that because I think the characters are weak or ineffectual,
but because there are entirely too few female characters on TREK,
especially in command positions. DS9 is much better in this regard than
VOY. If slightly more than 50% (by a VERY small margin) of the
population is female, what does it say that only a handful of characters
on any given TREK show are female?
These are just my thoughts and my values.
Michael Kubler
In article <4nt48t$1...@news.ycc.yale.edu> yan...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Junsok Yang) writes:
>In article <4nsl4q$n...@apollo.isisnet.com>, al...@ccn.cs.dal.ca says...
>
>>: Cannibals?
> I'm pretty sure I would *try* it; I'm not sure if I would eat it though.
Not raw, mind you....broccoli, stuffing....
>
> And according to Niven and Pournelle's novel "Lucifer's Hammer," human
>meat should be eaten well done. Appearently, for the most part, the meat is
>filthy compared to, say, beef.
Ummmm, no. Sure *I'd* cook the heck out of it but then, I do the same
with beef. Muscle tissue should be fairly clean where ever it comes
from. If not there is a problem. The main source of bacteria in meat
comes from the butchering process (Oh, my and there might be *children*
here). Now there can be virus particles and larger organisms (tapeworm
eggs) in the meat. Heat should kill the viruses easily. The only
reason human meat would be more hazardous is we have more diseases in
common with ourselves than with cows. Even though cows *are* destroying
the planet.( They are more organized than you'd think <Dogbert>)
(Not to mention the higher chance of
>catching a disease from it altogether - like what happened with the "Mad cow
>disease" which was probably spread by cows eating powdered cow carcasses
>from diseased cows...)
To some extent yes. But the same is true for ape meat.
> Also, (I think it was the same source) human meat is not nutritious
>enough to sustain a human being for an extended period of time...
Not any more true than for any other mammal meat. Think about it, we
*have* to have what we need to survive or we wouldn't. However, we *do*
need fruits and veggies for the long term. So, dine on Californians? -no
that's *not* what I meant.
I can't believe I am writing this.
Hmmm, trek tie in.
Survey: Which Captain would you most like to see as the main course?
Um, Mr. anonymous.....yeah that's it.
Victor Luk
>>Now this provokes an interesting thought! If someone when up to the
>>replicator and said "Leg of human, medium rare" what would they get?
>>Not that I would do it, mind you!!!
> I'm pretty sure I would *try* it; I'm not sure if I would eat it though.
> And according to Niven and Pournelle's novel "Lucifer's Hammer," human
>meat should be eaten well done. Appearently, for the most part, the meat is
>filthy compared to, say, beef. (Not to mention the higher chance of
>catching a disease from it altogether - like what happened with the "Mad cow
>disease" which was probably spread by cows eating powdered cow carcasses
>from diseased cows...)
Human meat is comparable to pork. In fact any recipe that can be used
for pork is usable on humans (called long pig by some cannibal tribes
for this reason.) You cook it heavily for the same reason you don't
eat rare pork. Lots of disease in that meat. Make sure its well done
and there's no problem unless you crack the skull and go after the
brains. There's some rare diseases in there that may get past the
cooking precaution.
> Also, (I think it was the same source) human meat is not nutritious
>enough to sustain a human being for an extended period of time...
Its not, because you could get away with cannibalism as long as you
cook it well. It has the same calories as pork with the same
serving. Same nutrition too.
The thing is that replicator human meat could be considered
vegetarianism since no one was butchered in order to get it.
Victor
Mange Grrrl
okay, i have a question. why do people feel that star trek in particular
needs to have homosexual characters? why not "we need gays on TV . .
.now"? i realize that star trek is set in the future, and we all hope
that by the 24th century homo- and bi-sexuals will be completely
accepted. however, the fact of the matter is that ST is still made in the
present day and is therefore subject to all of the same threats of
censorship, etc., as every other show. i agree that it would be great to
have queer characters on ST, but i feel that it would be equally great to
have positive queer characters on any other show.
--
** Mange Grrrl
ejo...@gl.umbc.edu
"If you don't like the rules they make, refuse to play their game"
-CRASS, "Big A, Little A"
Dianne Hackborn
Hark! The herald me2...@surrey.ac.uk (Mr Jason JG Hutchinson) posts:
| Even non-gay stories are misinterpreted. Take DS9's "Rejoined".
| It wasn't a gay story, it was a Trill story. But it was misread and then
| slated by the Christians for being pro-gay, the gay groups for not doing
| enough, and the perverts who just liked seeing two women kiss.
Technicalities aside, Paramount -definitely- marketed it as a "gay
episode" so, when it comes to people's reactions to it, for all intents and
purposes it -was- one.
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
__ Dianne Kyra Hackborn | "The strongest defense any nation can have is a
\/ Oregon State Univ. | robust economy."
hac...@cs.orst.edu | -- Frank Zappa
The wheel turns... |
<URL:http://www.cs.orst.edu/~hackbod/>
Morgan Dhu
ejo...@umbc.edu (Mange Grrrl) wrote:
>okay, i have a question. why do people feel that star trek in particular
>needs to have homosexual characters? why not "we need gays on TV . .
>.now"? i realize that star trek is set in the future, and we all hope
>that by the 24th century homo- and bi-sexuals will be completely
>accepted. however, the fact of the matter is that ST is still made in the
>present day and is therefore subject to all of the same threats of
>censorship, etc., as every other show. i agree that it would be great to
>have queer characters on ST, but i feel that it would be equally great to
>have positive queer characters on any other show.
1. In an ST group, it makes sense to advocate gay characters in ST. In
ngs devoted to other shows/media outlets, one would advocate for a gay
presence in those shows.
2. ST was a pioneer in casting people of color. Some people hope that
a pioneering spirit in casting still exists within the ST franchise
and can be extended to showing ST as gay-positive.
3. As a science fiction series, ST is somewhat distanced from the
"real world", which makes it easier for it to make statements about
social and political issues, something which it has always done in the
past, largely because of that freedom.
-- Morgan Dhu
Bill Huber
In article <4nsgf9$g...@news.cais.com>,
Greg Krehbiel <Greg_K...@thompson.com> wrote:
>
>Oh, I get it now. Chakotay can consult his "spirit guide," and that's
>not an outdated silly mythology, but Christianity, Islam and Hinduism
>will be "in their rightful place."
>
>Typical PC thinking!
>
>Greg
>
>
Bill
Junsok Yang
In article <4nvq1l$8...@news.inforamp.net>, moo...@inforamp.net says...
>ejo...@umbc.edu (Mange Grrrl) wrote:
>>okay, i have a question. why do people feel that star trek in particular
>>needs to have homosexual characters? why not "we need gays on TV . .
>>.now"? i realize that star trek is set in the future, and we all hope
>>that by the 24th century homo- and bi-sexuals will be completely
>>accepted. however, the fact of the matter is that ST is still made in the
>>present day and is therefore subject to all of the same threats of
>>censorship, etc., as every other show. i agree that it would be great to
>>have queer characters on ST, but i feel that it would be equally great to
>>have positive queer characters on any other show.
[snip]
>3. As a science fiction series, ST is somewhat distanced from the
>"real world", which makes it easier for it to make statements about
>social and political issues, something which it has always done in the
>past, largely because of that freedom.
But the method of making the points has been sometimes direct and
sometimes not. For example, take the example of TOS "Let That be the Last
Battlefield." We did not have a specific "black" character or a specific
"white" character, but it set up some clear parellels which very few people
could have mistaken.
In TNG ("The Outcast") and DS9 ("The Rejoined") they also set up stories
with fairly clear parellels, but that did not satisfy some of the "gay
advocates" in this newsgroup because these characters were not
*specifically* gay.
Personally, I think having gay characters or even gay extras at this
point would smack of "politically correct" casting which would be irritating
at best and harmful to the show at worst. (As would the adding of any other
character based on specific gender, race or religion.) Also, to establish a
character (even an extra) as "gay" would involve some "gay acts" (same sex
kissing; holding hands; - though in some countries, heterosexual males and
females do hold hands with the people of same sex -; same sex dating, and so
on) which would probably take attention away from the main focus of the show
(for the most part - you could do a specific show around the "gay" issue,
but then these have already been done IMO. See above paragraph.)
Unless, of course, you can tell from sight which people are gay and who
are not merely by looking at how they look or act in normal, everyday, work
circumstances... but then, who's being prejudiced around here?
Franklin Hummel
* gosh * Are people -still- watching STAR TREK?
I thought the cool gay and bisexual and religious Science
Fiction fans would know by now that BABYLON 5 is the show to see!
STAR TREK has come and gone. B5 is the present and future.
-- Frank Hummel [ hum...@netcom.com ]
--
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
* NecronomiCon, 3rd Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
August 15-17, 1997 - Providence, Rhode Island
For info: http://www.oneworld.net/sf/companies/necropress/necronomicon.html
MD 'n' Iras
In article <4nhvsm$d...@news.cais.com>,
Greg Krehbiel <Greg_K...@thompson.com> wrote:
>Hmm. Do we need Moslems too? Born-again Christians? Pedophiles?
>Cannibals? I mean, if we want to be truly multi-cultural, shouldn't we
>put in everybody? How about a few popes? Maybe Mother Theresa should
>make a surprise appearance.
>
>The point is that in order to appeal to a wide audience, a show has to
>have a relatively bland cast. Putting in a fundamentalist Moslem would
>"offend" some people, so they don't do it. Putting in gays would
>"offend" other people, so they don't do it. But if you want gays, are
>you ready for priests too? How about sidewalk evangelists?
>
>Greg
>
>
Typical thinking.
Being gay isn't a religion. Being gay is a natural act. I was born this way.
I like Star Trek. I bleed. I breathe. Big deal.
I do think that gay and lesbian children and teenagers need a role model, and
Star Trek provides that. I remember watching as a child, thinking how much I
would love living in that century because I would be accepted for what I am.
You heard me right. What I am. Gay is just a part of me, like Vulcan is a
part of Spock, like Black is part of Uhura, like Asian is a part of Kim.
As for the Native American comment someone else made... C'mon people, no one
ever said that religion didn't exist period. For MOST people it didn't exist.
Picard said once that he didn't believe in the afterlife, but I think his
opinion changed when he met Q in the "afterlife." As for Voyager, in one
episode, the aliens from another dimension didn't die... their neural energy
moved on while their corpses died.
So, I think that gay characters should be included. It's only a natural
evolution of a show that has stopped the press before (remember the first
interracial kiss? Uhura and Kirk? Men wearing SKANTS? The first episode of
TNG?) It is just another logical step.
Peace,
Iras
Greg Krehbiel
Mange Grrrl wrote,
> and we all hope
>that by the 24th century homo- and bi-sexuals will be completely
>accepted.
We all do, eh? Thanks for speaking for everyone. I, for one, hope
that by the 24th century everyone will be happily married
(heterosexually). :-)
Greg
Robin E. Baylor
In article <londo-21059...@ppp96.modems.uoknor.edu>,
lo...@uoknor.edu (Londo Mollari) wrote:
> Cannibalism without actually killing someone. Now that is a thought.
> It would remove the moral problems involved and could be used to
> make a truely _alien_ culture. Brad, if you can think of a story
> to go with it submit a spect script and see if the Trek staff has
> any real guts. ;-)
Howabout rewriting "Candide" to fit into the Trek universe
In it, an old lady has "only one buttocks" because the
other one was cut off to sustain a beseiged town. They did
this to all the [low status?] women, instead of killing
a single woman for meat. The seige broke soon after.
Added advantage: The story contains the recurring theme,
"We live in the best of all possible worlds."
Junsok Yang
In article <hummelDr...@netcom.com>, hum...@netcom.com says...
> * gosh * Are people -still- watching STAR TREK?
> I thought the cool gay and bisexual and religious Science
>Fiction fans would know by now that BABYLON 5 is the show to see!
> STAR TREK has come and gone. B5 is the present and future.
For "cool gay and bisexual and religious" people, maybe. But for religion
at least, ST has decided (more or less consciously) to extrapolate a future
where most organized religions are de-emphasized in human society. The last
time I heard, SF was still allowed to make such an assumption. (In fact,
with notable exceptions such as Moorcock's "Behold the Man," Blish's "A Case
of Conscience" and Clarke's "The Star", Christianity does not seem to be a
very popular subject for SF writers.)
My two pennies: While I do like B5 and watch and tape it, based on what I
see, while there are some elements in B5 that I find more satisfying than
ST, notably the slow building up of individual plotlines, more consistent
technology, and some others; overall, I do like Trek better even as SF.
For example, even with all its faults and inconsistencies, Trek does an
admirable job in trying to set up and explore various facets of its alien
societies (Klingons, Cardassians, Romulans, Bajorans, and even other
single-shot planetary cultures) whereas I personally don't see such variety
or indepth exploration of each cultures in B5. (Centauris and Narns are
somewhat exceptions, they have been somewhat better defined and explored
than Minbari and Vorlons or the minor powers, but even there, I don't think
they are developed or explored as half as well as the Klingons or
Cardassians. The feeling I get when I watch B5 aliens are that they are
merely other human countries and not "aliens." -- and that feeling has
nothing to do with makeup effects.)
Besides, since JMS is planning for B5 to be a 5 year show, ST will still
be here when B5 has finished...
Deane Geiken
In article <4nh1lk$7...@news.inforamp.net> moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan Dhu) writes:
>From: moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan Dhu)
>Subject: Re: We need GAYS in TREK....NOW!
>Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:06:24 GMT
>ri...@coreward.com (Sheyva Rift) wrote:
>
>
>>Does anyone else think it is was past due for Trek to have gay
>>crewmen and gay couples in the various series? In the future, all
>>prejudice will be gone and we will be accepted and loved everywhere,
>>I think a positive portrayal on Trek would be a good start.
>>Personally, I think the producers already have this in mind, and
>>that is why Tuvok is so effeminate....I predict within a season or
>>two he will come out and be openly gay, perhaps having a
>>relationship with the Paris? Post what you think of this! (no flames
>>please!!)
>
>>Sheyva
>>Think Pink
>
>I usually lurk here but I can't resist responding to this.
>1) You are absolutely right that it is time Paramount & co grew up and
>portrayed positive gay characters in the Star Trek universe.
>2) Suggesting Tuvok will come out as gay is inappropriate, not to
>mention illogical. He is married, bonded telepathically, and to
>Vulcans that seems to be that until/unless the bond is severed,
>usually by death of one partner. However, we really don't know much
>about Be'lanna's preferences... or how about Bashir turning out to be
>bi?
>
>Think Pink, definitely, but think in character.
>
>Morgan Dhu
>
>
Don't quote me, but I had read in some obscure interview with a Star Trek
Important Person, (can't remember who), when asked why we don't see gay
characters in the Star Trek universe, he said that, again, don't quote me,..
they had cured it by the 24th century. I busted a gut!! I sorry, but it
was funny!
Deane Geiken Phone: (217) 333-0850
Master Control Operator FAX: (217) 333-7151
WILL AM/FM Radio Internet: dge...@uiuc.edu
University of Illinois
Franklin Hummel
In article <4nqka6$m...@newz.oit.unc.edu> sea...@email.unc.edu (C Lassiter) writes:
>
>And, lest you forget, Ivanova confessed (Yes, that's the term used, and
>it would hardly have been a confession had she merely been talking
>friendship.), "I think I loved Talia."
together. Plus the fact that both actresses have been qoute in various
publications that their characters were bisexual. Plus the fact the B5's
producer/creator/and often writer has said the two women "did it".
>cl, who'd be thrilled with a gay trek character.
But, you know, I don't care nowadays -if- TREK ever gets a gay
character. It would be too little, too late. As a Science Fiction
series, as a ground-breaking series, as a show which was once creative
nad original and thought-provoking, STAR TREK is pretty much -dead-.
It's just a money-making Franchise, cranking out a product to make bucks
and not much else.
In many, many ways, BABYLON 5 *is* what STAR TREK, the original
STAR TREK, was. B5 now boldly goes where TREK timidly tiptoes.
pa...@pipeline.com
does anyone else think that Garak is gay and that the big secret between
him and Tain was that they were lovers? How about the traitor that was
contacting seska on Voyager?
Sharon T. Wise
Okay, I would have to say that Garak is bi. The actor who plays him,
Andy Robinson, has said that Garak's sexuality is "up for grabs,"
which would indicate bi.
What makes you think he and Tain were lovers? From the episode,
I got that Tain was his mentor, his father figure, and that
they had a close *emotional* relationship.
(Anyone who is confused at this point, please take a moment
and repeat: just because someone has strong feelings for another
person does not mean they want to go to bed with them. Thank you.)
Garak also seems to have a close friendship with Bashir, which has
also generated a lot of speculation. I think it's safe to say that
TPTB only have in mind for Garak to have platonic relationships
with men, although they may have a romance planned for him
and Dukat's daughter.
There are no openly gay characters in ST, only one actor, Mr. Robinson
(bless him) who has decided to play his character as bi. I would love
it if ST introduced a m/m or f/f couple. That would be just fine
with me.
S.T. Wise
Jeff Schwartz
B5 writers are not restricted by the "Law of Homogenous Characters."
>==========C Lassiter, 5/20/96==========
>
>Evelyn C. Leeper (e...@mtcts2.lc.att.com) wrote:
>
>[]
>
>: So spare me your protestations when someone says that Trek should have
>: someone gay.
>
>: (Strangely enough, BABYLON 5 manages to have people of various
>religions
>: whose religions mean something to them--even including monks, a rabbi,
>: and other clerics--without destroying the show. Many of us think this
>: sort of thing improves it, actually.)
>
>And, lest you forget, Ivanova confessed (Yes, that's the term used, and
>it would hardly have been a confession had she merely been talking
>friendship.), "I think I loved Talia."
>
>cl, who'd be thrilled with a gay trek character.
>
>________________
>c.l. lassiter
>SEA...@UNC.EDU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Schwartz jeff.s...@SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM
NCR Corporation Global Partner Labs
17095 Via del Campo ms 9853 San Diego, CA 92127
(619) 485-2052 VoicePlus 440-2052
===============================================================
Morning would be fine if only it would come later in the day.
GO REDWINGS
Jeff Schwartz
Ya hafta admit that homosexuality is not a very viable strategy in
terms of evolution. It is possible that the practice might simply
wane to the point of near extinction by then. One thing about Trek
that I admire is that they seem to take the opinion that what
consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own damn business and
not mine.
Nick Nussbaum
Jeff Schwartz wrote:
>
> Ya hafta admit that homosexuality is not a very viable strategy in
> terms of evolution. It is possible that the practice might simply
> wane to the point of near extinction by then. One thing about Trek
> that I admire is that they seem to take the opinion that what
> consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own damn business and
> not mine.
Ya hafta admit that anyone who thinks that evolution requires that all members
of a species pair off in heterosexual breeding couples in order to thrive is
waving around a rather stupid theory of evolution that ignores the fact that
social organization eliminates the need for every member to propagate. That's
why ants haven't died out even though relatively few individuals in any
species participate in reproduction. Even if homosexuality was an unsucessful
mutation ( and it's not ), it would continue to occur.
Trek doesn't take the opinion that consenting adults can do what they want in
the bedroom. They always show heterosexual couplings that are drifting into
the bedroom. It's like saying a show with all white actors doesn't make an
issue out of race.
Lars Eighner
In our last episode <4o552f$8...@rap.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>,
Broadcast on rec.arts.startrek.current,soc.motss
The lovely and talented Jeff Schwartz <jeff.s...@sandiegoca.ncr.com> wrote:
>Ya hafta admit that homosexuality is not a very viable strategy in
>terms of evolution.
No. No one has to admit that. There is every reason to suppose
that human populations which include a proportion of homosexuals
will survive better than those populations that do not.
--
=Lars Eighner===4103 Ave D (512)459-6693==Pawn to Queen Four==QSFx2==BMOC==
=eig...@io.com=Austin TX 78751-4617 ==Travels with Lizbeth==Bayou Boy==
= http://www.io.com/~eighner/ =====American Prelude==Gay Cosmos==
="Yes, Lizbeth is well."=======Whispered in the Dark==Elements of Arousal==
Anderson Jeff
"C. Ryan Thrower" <thr...@traveller.com> wrote:
>
> I wish people would stop with shoving gay people down the throat (no pun
> intended) of the public. Do I say I'm straight? So why should you say
> your gay. Who gives a shit.
>
I think most people are missing the point. Start Trek is about
exploring the human condition in a science fiction setting.
When it talks about religions it will talk about the vulcan katra ,
or bajoran prophets. When talking about sexual taboos it talk
about Trills and the past life of lovers, not homosexuality or adultery.
Yes Star Trek will have to have some references to 20th century
terran life,but for comparing it to the Star Trek time and place.Watch
NYPD Blue or ER , not Star Trek if you want to see more familiar
characters. I must also point out that all plot elements introduced
in a story must be of some interest to its audience and relevant to
its own mythos. I can see where maybe they could have some sort of
alien connection to a major religion, but if not done right it
would be just another ridiculous, like that stupid warp 10
lizard story. AQnd all you tofu munching sprig eating granola
heads can say whatever you want homosexual characters will not
do a thing to help Star Trek's ratings and is not what it's fans
expect from this show.Much of the interest in homosexuality in
the media today (NYPD blue,or that Robin's William film based on the french
movie "La cage au Folles") is derived from comparing and
contrasting it to a more conservative mode of person.(detectivr Sippowitz)
or Gene Hacman's in the above mentioned movie). We watch and
sympathize as they deal with their own uncomfertableness , and
gradually we accept the homosexual character as they do. In Star Trek
their would just be that gay character....la de da la la...boring.
I could just see it. Bones: "DAMN IT JIM I'M A DOCTOR NOT YOUR BOY TOY"
Kirk:"Aw come on , I'm just tying to go where no man.. where no one
has gone before!"
Noel Turner
John <jesc...@texas.net> wrote:
>Morgan Dhu wrote:
>>
>> "C. Ryan Thrower" <thr...@traveller.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I wish people would stop with shoving gay people down the throat (no pun
>> >intended) of the public. Do I say I'm straight? So why should you say
>> >your gay. Who gives a shit.
>>
>> I did not say I was gay. Or anything else for that matter. But when
>> Sisko kisses Yates, or Bashir flirts with Dax, or Kira overnights with
>> Shakaar, one could argue, if one were so inclined, that
>> heterosexuality is being forced on the public as well. To suggest that
>> we might see Bashir flirting with Garak as well, just to make a
>> suggestion, is no more "shoving gay people down the throat of the
>> public" that the other examples I've mentioned are shoving straight
>> people down the throat of the public. The public, after all, includes
>> gays and bisexuals as well.
>>
>> --Morgan Dhu
>The point being that this is what the general population expects from a Star Trek
>episode, Paramount is not ignorant and will give the "general" public what it wants. I
>do not say this to be misinterpreted as homophobic, but I do realize that Paramount
>knows what sells, even if they don't always come up with a selling storyline.
>Paramount is not going to bend and risk the numbers that it has AND the commercial
>sponsors that it needs. I do not think that this is right, necessarily, but I do
>recognize why they do it. Got to admit that it would make for interesting storylines
>during the sweeps.
That's funny... Melrose Place has a recurring gay character on it and
*they* don't seem to be having problems getting commerical sponsors.
Please, people. We're talking about a show that takes place in the
24th century. If you can't stand seeing two men and/or two women
kissing or holding hands, you don't belong watching the show. It has
always been a radical one at that. I think that is what made it so
unique.
Roddenberry started with what some people call an "angry young man"
ideal in writing the original Trek. It didn't carry over too much
into TNG, but if he were still alive, I think it would have. I think
that he would've introduced a gay or lesbian character long ago.
And please, let's not slam each other on this. Yes, we have our
personal opinions, but calling someone a homophobe, whatever on this
is *not* fair. You don't know the other person you are talking to, so
you can't make an adequate judgement.
Thanks folks.
Peace,
Iras
*A "Straight-Looking" Gay Guy*
John
Noel Turner wrote:
> >
> That's funny... Melrose Place has a recurring gay character on it and
> *they* don't seem to be having problems getting commerical sponsors.
Perhaps, but they also "aim" at what is GENERALLY considered a more "enlightened"
audience( after all, you don't see too many gay-bashing rednecks settling down to watch
Melrose Place, now do you?). They go for a target audience, and they nail it right on
the head, as it were.
> Please, people. We're talking about a show that takes place in the
> 24th century. If you can't stand seeing two men and/or two women
> kissing or holding hands, you don't belong watching the show. It has
> always been a radical one at that. I think that is what made it so
> unique.I personally don't have an opinion about gay, lesbian, homosexual...etc...I never
understood the "labeling" perfectly good human beings, for any reason. Course, that is
my opinion, and I'm sure to get a few flames on account of it. But my point is that
Piller and Berman are unwilling to risk the "cash cow" of Star Trek for what is
considered even in 1990's America, to be a controversial theme. Not that Paramount is
afraid to discuss the issue, they have placed gay characters in many movies, some in
what would be considered to be prominent positions. I don't like the fact that it seems
that the future is less than realistically portrayed in Trek because of the lack of
participation by gay characters, but I don't really look for the topic to come up
either.
> Roddenberry started with what some people call an "angry young man"
> ideal in writing the original Trek. It didn't carry over too much
> into TNG, but if he were still alive, I think it would have. I think
> that he would've introduced a gay or lesbian character long ago.
In fact, before he died, he planned on introducing a gay character on TNG, but he died
and the idea was shelved permanently.
> And please, let's not slam each other on this. Yes, we have our
> personal opinions, but calling someone a homophobe, whatever on this
> is *not* fair. You don't know the other person you are talking to, so
> you can't make an adequate judgement.
True. I never understood the capacity for some neanderthal people to get a kick out of
making fun of others because of who they are attracted to. After all, some people might
look at the people we married a number of years previously, and wonder why in the world
we would want to marry such...well shall we say...homely(?) people. Look deeper into
the person's soul and you will know the true person. Judging a person by who they spend
their life with is like judging them because they like to eat broccoli.
Wow, never thought I'd get done!
thanks for the soapbox.
John
Try out my web page!! It will make you cry only if you are peeling onions!
http://www.texas.net/~jescoent
Jools
Gee, WOW, u have all the stats.
If any of u want FAGS on trek, just look at Wesley or Paris.
Unfortunately, they don't have one in DS:9., gee whiz, i bet all o' u
like the outcast(TNG) by JERRY TAYLOR - make a newsgroup on misc. ways
2 kill her :)
CYA's
MD and Iras
Jeff Schwartz <jeff.s...@sandiegoca.ncr.com> wrote:
>Ya hafta admit that homosexuality is not a very viable strategy in
>terms of evolution. It is possible that the practice might simply
>wane to the point of near extinction by then. One thing about Trek
>that I admire is that they seem to take the opinion that what
>consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own damn business and
>not mine.
First off, big mistake. Homosexuality is *NOT* a practice. It is the
way someone is born. That is like saying, "Well, all people who are
born with blue eyes should be an extinct practice by the 24th
Century."
Right now, this planet has 5 BILLION people, with an estimated 5-10%
of them gay, bi, or lesbian. This measure, I would believe, is a
failsafe in nature. We are at a point that our planet cannot hold
many more people.
I was born gay. Sorry to burst everyone's bubbles, but this is the
way I was born. I don't wear it on my shoulder. I just HATE people
who are so ignorant. People who are straight say that they
understand...but they don't unless they themselves have been
persecuted against for the reason of their skin, religion, etc. Yes,
it is true that what people do behind their bedroom door is their own
damned business, but you have to realize that I cannot hold hands with
the man I love down the street. I can't have a wedding or a commitment
ceremony that is recognized legally. You see, 20th century society
puts ME in a bind. "God, these homos screw around," yet when we want
to make a commitment to someone, "That's a big no-no." Don't win
either way.
What the people lobbying for gays and/or lesbians in Trek are saying
is that they want to see that this bigotry and prejudice against gays
and lesbians is gone. That there are NO sexual barriers. Everyone is
not 100% straight or gay or lesbian or whatever. There are varying
degrees of it (see Newsweek last year for an article on Bisexuality.
It explains it well.) It also would give gay and lesbian children and
teenagers a roll model. Let's face it, Whoopi Goldberg said that
Uhura had been a roll model to her... I never had a roll model to grow
up to. How do you think that feels? I don't want kids going through
what I had to go through. A lot of suicides in teenagers are
contributed to being gay or lesbian or bi. They are confused about
their feelings.
And no, AIDS won't finish anyone off. Doctor Crusher had said in an
episode that doctors in the early 21st Century had found a cure for
it. The World Health Organization says of the population now that has
HIV/AIDS is as follows:
92% "Straight" men and women
8% "Gay or Bisexual" men and women
0% Lesbians (just a handful... rounds down)
So I do think that it is important that gays and lesbians are
included. Not as bad guys or anything... but as good guys. As
normal, everyday people helping the Federation move along. Quite
frankly, I am sick of ST dancing around the bush, afraid to take
chances when years ago, they LOVED doing it.
Maybe Bablyon 5 is better. At least they seem to know what people
want to see... and they have taken up the contraversies that Star Trek
has seemed to loose.
Peace,
Iras
Mitchell Heldt
You could make a whole human with the replicator, but it would be dead
because of the numerous single-bit transposition errors in the DNA
sequence. Like happened in Data's Day. But then you could get Neelix to
make a big human roast. This is also why they tried to get Worf to give
his blood to that Romulan; the replicator doesn't work well enough to
make it.
Julie
Christopher D. Hale
In <4nnkvj$p...@moreinfo.com> kav...@atlsysnet.com (Merete) writes:
>
>ri...@coreward.com (Sheyva Rift) wrote:
>
>
>>Does anyone else think it is was past due for Trek to have gay
>>crewmen and gay couples in the various series? In the future, all
>>prejudice will be gone and we will be accepted and loved everywhere,
>>I think a positive portrayal on Trek would be a good start.
>>Personally, I think the producers already have this in mind, and
>>that is why Tuvok is so effeminate....I predict within a season or
>>two he will come out and be openly gay, perhaps having a
>>relationship with the Paris? Post what you think of this! (no flames
>>please!!)
>
>>Sheyva
>>Think Pink
>
>
>I've been reading this newsgroup for awhile, and there are very few
>posts that don't get flamed, they are usually credit posts.
>As to gays, how do you know there aren't crew members who are gay? We
>don't see a whole lot of anyone's personal life, so we don't know
>who's straight and who's gay. We also don't see people talking about
>their sexual orientation, either.
>Unless of course you want movie-type stereotypical gays, which are
>generally an insult to the gay community, and I don't think that will
>add much to the series.
>I do have problems with the idea that Tuvok will come out openly as
>gay, too. (I also have a problem with him being gay, as he has a wife
>with whom he has children, a wife whom he openly admits to caring for
>very deeply.) I don't think given the nature of the Vulcan society,
>you'll see Tuvok "come out" as anything.
>M
>
While the future may be without prejudice it is also more medicaly
advanced and has figured out that the scourge of AIDS in the 20th
century (now cured) was largly perpetrated by the homosexual community
and will have weeded them out of society. Certanly not through any
cruel or unusual means but by simple education.
The society that the Voyeger (and all of Star Trek) is part of holds to
a much higher moral code than the one that we live in as well. Could
this explain the absence of gays on the show?
zaltar
pa...@pipeline.com
In article <4ocmvi$l...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, D. Hale writes:
>NNTP-Posting-Host: mon-ca5-22.ix.netcom.com
>X-NETCOM-Date: Mon May 27 11:58:26 AM CDT 1996
>Xref: psinntp rec.arts.startrek.current:81824 soc.motss:99906
pa...@pipeline.com
queer rich
Zouaves2
Sorry, but Garak is not gay....just because robinson won't say if he's gay
or not doesn't mean that he's gay. Remember the episode when Garak was
trying to reach Tain? He still had feelings for Tain's maid.
Sharon T. Wise
Okay, Mr. Andrew Robinson, the actor who plays Garak, said that
Garak's sex life was "up for grabs," which many people, myself
included, have interpreted to mean bisexual.
And, Mr. Robinson, went on to say that Garak is "attracted" to
Dr. Bashir. That makes sense to me, because I've sat through
some scenes asking myself if Garak wasn't flirting a little
with Bashir. Then again, Garak is a big flirt, if for no other
reason than he *loves* to talk. With Garak, who knows? Bashir,
babehound wantabe, has shown himself to only be attracted to women.
As to Tain's maid, yes, I would agree that Garak had feelings for
her. Strong feelings of friendship and respect. IMO, she was
a mother figure to him--someone he considered family. Were did
you pick up sexual attraction from Garak for Tain's maid? I
missed it.
I have to say this again: because one person has *intense*
feelings for another, it doesn't mean they want to have sex
with them.
S.T. Wise
(who is still trying to figure out how she
became Andrew Robinson's press secretary.)
Greg Krehbiel
Iras wrote,
>Jeff Schwartz <jeff.s...@sandiegoca.ncr.com> wrote:
>>Ya hafta admit that homosexuality is not a very viable strategy in
>>terms of evolution. It is possible that the practice might simply
>>wane to the point of near extinction by then. One thing about Trek
>>that I admire is that they seem to take the opinion that what
>>consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own damn business and
>>not mine.
>First off, big mistake. Homosexuality is *NOT* a practice. It is the
>way someone is born. That is like saying, "Well, all people who are
>born with blue eyes should be an extinct practice by the 24th
>Century."
I think, Iras, that you are merely reacting to Mr. Schwartz' use of the
word "practice" without listening to what he's saying. By couching it in
terms of evolution, he seems to me to be saying that people _are_ born
homosexual -- at least that's how I read his statement.
>Right now, this planet has 5 BILLION people, with an estimated 5-10%
>of them gay, bi, or lesbian. This measure, I would believe, is a
>failsafe in nature. We are at a point that our planet cannot hold
>many more people.
So are you saying that homosexuality is some kind of built-in defense
against overpopulation?
Paula Peter-Dennis
Brendan Guy (RG...@vvm.com) wrote:
: >long as we're choosing, i'd like to see it on DS9, either Worf or Sisko.
: >(Gay Klingons. That's one hell of a closet to break out of. Of course
: >the leather bars there would be beyond belief... ;))
I wouldn't mind seeing Kira (who is actually bi in real life) come out,
but what I'd *really* like to see is Quark or Nog. Homosexuality would be
very interesting in a Ferringi environment, and it wouldn't take away
from the other characters as much.
: Actually highly militatistic male centered societies tend to have high
: levels of male homosexuality. At least the Spartans did. What are the
: rights of Klingon women. We know they aren't allowed to serve on the High
: Council, and they seem to be discriminated against, but are they allowed
: to fight alongside their males.
Ferringi society doesn't even allow women to wear clothes, and the
females have to pre-chew the food of the male. Can't get much more male
centred than that. *8-)
--
******************************************************************************
Wide red eyes searched the bredth of the skies. They searched the length
of the lands. Silently, they kept watch. The newborn cocked his
iridescant head and listened to the wretched cries of humanity. The
Fledgling craned his downy neck as he unfolded and flexed the mighty
wings of change. - Mary Summer Rain
Bamfer
Jeff Schwartz (jeff.s...@sandiegoca.ncr.com) wrote:
: Ya hafta admit that homosexuality is not a very viable strategy in
: terms of evolution. It is possible that the practice might simply
Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they can't reproduce (they
aren't sterile, for goodness sakes!) or that they don't want
children. So your argument is rather silly.
: wane to the point of near extinction by then. One thing about Trek
: that I admire is that they seem to take the opinion that what
: consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own damn business and
: not mine.
Even if as much as 10% of the population were gay, there'd be no
danger of the human race dying out. We are overpopulating the
planet as it is.
Sonja
--lans...@scf.nmsu.edu bam...@acca.nmsu.edu
"Independence limited, Freedom of choice
Choice is made for you my friend, Freedom of speech
Speech is words that they will bend, Freedom with their exception"
-- "Eye of the Beholder", Metallica
Bamfer
Mange Grrrl (ejo...@umbc.edu) wrote:
: okay, i have a question. why do people feel that star trek in particular
: needs to have homosexual characters? why not "we need gays on TV . .
Well, I think I can answer this (at least my view on the matter in any
case).
I don't necessarily think we need a gay character or regular. I think what
I'd like to see (and others) is that acknowledgement that gay and
bisexual people exist in the Star Trek universe, and that no one bats
an eye at it.
It can be as subtle as two men or two women holding hands and gazing
at each other adoringly it the Replimat. Or a same-sex couple dancing
with each other at some ambassadorial reception. Or some crewman
grieving over the loss of his husband. There are a thousand easy
ways to acknowledge the fact that these people do exist. As things
stand now, gays and bis are invisible in the ST universe. They aren't
even that invisible in real life.
: .now"? i realize that star trek is set in the future, and we all hope
: that by the 24th century homo- and bi-sexuals will be completely
: accepted. however, the fact of the matter is that ST is still made in the
: present day and is therefore subject to all of the same threats of
: censorship, etc., as every other show. i agree that it would be great to
: have queer characters on ST, but i feel that it would be equally great to
: have positive queer characters on any other show.
I don't want to see it done as some kind of statement either. I just
want it to be a fact of life.
Bamfer
Jools (jo...@net1.nw.com.au) wrote:
: Gee, WOW, u have all the stats.
:
: If any of u want FAGS on trek, just look at Wesley or Paris.
Hey, didn't Wesley have a couple of girlfriends? And Paris had
those twin sisters...
: Unfortunately, they don't have one in DS:9., gee whiz, i bet all o' u
Are you sure? I always thought Garak was flirting with Bashir.
: like the outcast(TNG) by JERRY TAYLOR - make a newsgroup on misc. ways
: 2 kill her :)
: CYA's
I'm afraid I don't know *what* you are talking about.
Bamfer
John (jesc...@texas.net) wrote:
: Noel Turner wrote:
: > >
: > That's funny... Melrose Place has a recurring gay character on it and
: > *they* don't seem to be having problems getting commerical sponsors.
:
: Perhaps, but they also "aim" at what is GENERALLY considered a more
: "enlightened"
: audience( after all, you don't see too many gay-bashing rednecks settling
: down to watch
: Melrose Place, now do you?). They go for a target audience, and they nail
: it right on
: the head, as it were.
The horror, the horror! Is it possible that "Melrose Place" has a more
enlightened audience than Star Trek???! Judging by some of the responses
on this thread, the answer could actually be "yes".
Sonja (who's sometimes embarrassed to be a Trek fan)
Bamfer
Christopher D. Hale (zal...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: While the future may be without prejudice it is also more medicaly
: advanced and has figured out that the scourge of AIDS in the 20th
: century (now cured) was largly perpetrated by the homosexual community
: and will have weeded them out of society. Certanly not through any
: cruel or unusual means but by simple education.
: The society that the Voyeger (and all of Star Trek) is part of holds to
: a much higher moral code than the one that we live in as well. Could
: this explain the absence of gays on the show?
Gee, I hope not! AIDS is not a gay disease (that's right, anyone
can get it, you just need to be promiscuous and/or practice unsafe
sex, or get really unlucky and get it from a different source like
tainted blood transfusion).
In Africa, where it's quite rampant in some countries, it's almost
exclusively passed by heterosexual sex. Same in Thailand, where
a big source is female prostitution.
Since homosexuality isn't exclusively linked to genetics, and new
homosexuals are being born all the time from straight parents (and have
been in existence for as long as recorded history), I doubt they will
be gone by the 24th century, AIDS or no AIDS.
Sonja
C Lassiter
Jeff Schwartz (jeff.s...@sandiegoca.ncr.com) wrote:
: Ya hafta admit that homosexuality is not a very viable strategy in
: terms of evolution. It is possible that the practice might simply
: that I admire is that they seem to take the opinion that what
: consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own damn business and
: not mine.
Well, I'd like to think that doing our bit to prevent over-population is
one of the perks of being gay.
cl, who wonders if JS would prefer to go back to a time when "blacks
aren't forced down our throats"
________________
c.l. lassiter
SEA...@UNC.EDU
ComicMax
It's easy to show a black person or someone who is hispanic but to have a
homosexual person they might have to lean to steriotypes. I know a lot of
gay men and they don't look or act it. they are a part of society. Thats
the way it will be in the future.
and That Think Pink lady who said that Tuvok and Paris should get it on is
what caused aids. Promescuity causes aids not Homosexuals
Max Blaska
gregg
ComicMax wrote:
>
> It's easy to show a black person or someone who is hispanic but to have a
> homosexual person they might have to lean to steriotypes. I know a lot of
> gay men and they don't look or act it. they are a part of society. Thats
> the way it will be in the future.
Hey Max, and then again maybe those 24th Century gays/queers may gender
fuck things up the way other EXTRAterresterials have challenged
earthcentric/huanoid images. Bald headed women, ferocious women, passive
men, emotionless men. We've seen them, wondered about them, loved them. A
futruristic portrayal of glbts as just regular people is devoid of the
realities/possibilities that we are.
Maybe someday we will transmutate as lavender skinned beings. Then at
least we will be as recongnizable as POC for who we are. Or perhaps we
would have eyes that telepathically speak to each other. Excluding
heterosexuals from the knowledge of who we are. But like most telepaths,
we would recognize each other instantly. WOW, I really like that concept.
gregg
Michael Kubler
Someone...sorry my newsreader lost the primary post. ( and I *don't* want
to list the wrong person)
>>>Ya hafta admit that homosexuality is not a
very viable strategy in >>>terms of evolution. It is possible that the
practice might simply >>>wane to the point of near extinction by then.
One thing about Trek >>>that I admire is that they seem to take the
opinion that what >>>consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own
damn business and >>>not mine. >
<stuff snipped so I can respond to the root post>
As a friend said when I discussed this thread, "good sex never goes out
of style". I think you are missing the point concerning homosexuality if
you are looking at it in terms of evolution. It is simply a word which
is used to discribe how some people love. There *may* be a genetic
factor, but I have my doubts that if there is we'll be able to understand
it despite what is in the newspaper we know alot less about even 'simple'
genetic traits than we'd like, and such a complex behaviour is not going
to be handled by a simple gene system.
In my view of the trek universe, there would be *more* gay/bi people than
now simply because people would have the option of moving beyond how
other people think they should live and doing what they want to
concerning their personal lives.
It is only sex. There is no reason to get uptight about it. I hope by
then we will know this.
Peace,
Michael
Lewis M. Brooks, III
> * gosh * Are people -still- watching STAR TREK?
Yes, that's what the intelligent people are watching.
>
> I thought the cool gay and bisexual and religious Science
> Fiction fans would know by now that BABYLON 5 is the show to see!
>
> STAR TREK has come and gone. B5 is the present and future.
Oh that's funny. Tell us another one.
Lewis
Scott Brady
On 29 May 1996, ComicMax wrote:
> It's easy to show a black person or someone who is hispanic but to have a
> homosexual person they might have to lean to steriotypes. I know a lot of
> gay men and they don't look or act it. they are a part of society. Thats
> the way it will be in the future.
Yeah, but how many times have we seen a man kiss a woman on that show,
even in the background. They could easily show a man kiss another man
(or a woman kiss another woman). Hell, I'd be thrilled if that was in
the background of some scene. Holding hands would be nice. You don't
have to resort to stereotypes to have a gay character.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Brady ds...@acpub.duke.edu
Duke University Class of 1996
Biomedical Engineering http://www.duke.edu/~dsb3
Jeff Schwartz
>==========Greg Krehbiel, 5/28/96==========
>
>Iras wrote,
>
>>Jeff Schwartz <jeff.s...@sandiegoca.ncr.com> wrote:
>
>>>Ya hafta admit that homosexuality is not a very viable strategy in
>>>terms of evolution. [ ... ]
>>First off, big mistake. Homosexuality is *NOT* a practice. It is the
>>way someone is born. That is like saying, "Well, all people who are
>>born with blue eyes should be an extinct practice by the 24th
>>Century."
>
>I think, Iras, that you are merely reacting to Mr. Schwartz' use of the
>word "practice" without listening to what he's saying. By
couching it in
>terms of evolution, he seems to me to be saying that people _are_ born
>homosexual -- at least that's how I read his statement.
Sorry, I missed Iras' post, but you're correct about my meaning.
People who are born homosexual are less likely to reproduce and
over the course of many generations, that gene combination will
effectively die out.
>
>>Right now, this planet has 5 BILLION people, with an estimated 5-10%
>>of them gay, bi, or lesbian. This measure, I would believe, is a
>>failsafe in nature. We are at a point that our planet cannot hold
>>many more people.
Iras, you are saying basically the same thing that I did from a
different perspective. We are both saying that people who are born
homosexual (if that really happens) are less likely to reproduce than
people who are born heterosexual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Schwartz jeff.s...@SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM
NCR Corporation Global Partner Labs
17095 Via del Campo ms 9853 San Diego, CA 92127
(619) 485-2052 VoicePlus 440-2052
===============================================================
Morning would be fine if only it would come later in the day.
GO REDWINGS
Franklin Hummel
In article <1996May2...@cronus.bentley.edu>
>> * gosh * Are people -still- watching STAR TREK?
>
>Yes, that's what the intelligent people are watching.
>> I thought the cool gay and bisexual and religious Science
>> Fiction fans would know by now that BABYLON 5 is the show to see!
>> STAR TREK has come and gone. B5 is the present and future.
>
>Oh that's funny. Tell us another one.
-- Frank Hummel [ hum...@netcom.com ]
Morgan Dhu
Scott Brady <ds...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
Another way to include gays without making a whole storyline out of it
is in the little "life on the station/ship" sidelines that get
included in dialogue. One of O'brien's staff needs time off to for a
family obligation ... and from the use of given names and pronouns you
know that the crew member and his/her partner are the same sex. Tom
Paris telling Harry Kim not to bother trying to date "Louise" because
she's seeing "Eliza". It would be so easy to slip small ocasional
references such as this, or the background visuals suggested by the
previous poster (Scott), into the fabric of life on DS9 and Voyager.
It should not be an "in your face" kind of thing, because what we want
from these shows is solid character-driven SF/adventure stories. But
it's time for ST to do the right thing with respect to gays and
bi-sexuals. After all, they have been doing it for years with
visible minorities, even when that was a risky thing to do in some
people's opinions.
--Morgan Dhu
MD and Iras
Greg Krehbiel <Greg_K...@thompson.com> wrote:
>Iras wrote,
>>Jeff Schwartz <jeff.s...@sandiegoca.ncr.com> wrote:
>>>Ya hafta admit that homosexuality is not a very viable strategy in
>>>terms of evolution. It is possible that the practice might simply
>>>wane to the point of near extinction by then. One thing about Trek
>>>that I admire is that they seem to take the opinion that what
>>>consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own damn business and
>>>not mine.
>>First off, big mistake. Homosexuality is *NOT* a practice. It is the
>>way someone is born. That is like saying, "Well, all people who are
>>born with blue eyes should be an extinct practice by the 24th
>>Century."
>I think, Iras, that you are merely reacting to Mr. Schwartz' use of the
>word "practice" without listening to what he's saying. By couching it in
>terms of evolution, he seems to me to be saying that people _are_ born
>homosexual -- at least that's how I read his statement.
>>Right now, this planet has 5 BILLION people, with an estimated 5-10%
>>of them gay, bi, or lesbian. This measure, I would believe, is a
>>failsafe in nature. We are at a point that our planet cannot hold
>>many more people.
>So are you saying that homosexuality is some kind of built-in defense
>against overpopulation?
Well, when I took a Geology class three years ago (this is in
college,) the professor offered this as an explaination. Now for me,
personally, I find it a plausable explaination. Ducks have been
noticed to exhibit homosexual behavior. Many species have. My dog
exhibits lesbian behavior. What does that all mean?
I don't know. I was just born this way. I don't have all the answers
:)
What I do know I learned in this class that if the Earth isn't already
at its over-population point, it will reach it definately sometime
within the beginning of next century... between 2005-2010, boasting
about 10 billion people (I found this hard to believe, but if you sit
down and figure it all out, it makes sense.) Our birth rate is just
so much higher than the death rate these days that it is overtaking
us. Therefore, there might not be enough food for all of us (there
isn't now!!!) (scary, eh?)
Just wanted to put my two cents in. And then some.
Peace,
Iras
MD and Iras
zal...@ix.netcom.com(Christopher D. Hale) wrote:
>While the future may be without prejudice it is also more medicaly
>advanced and has figured out that the scourge of AIDS in the 20th
>century (now cured) was largly perpetrated by the homosexual community
>and will have weeded them out of society. Certanly not through any
>cruel or unusual means but by simple education.
>The society that the Voyeger (and all of Star Trek) is part of holds to
>a much higher moral code than the one that we live in as well. Could
>this explain the absence of gays on the show?
>zaltar
Zaltar, dear,
92% of AIDS patients are straight, dear. How do you explain that?
As for your closed-minded attitude towards gays, "EDUCATION?" I'm
sorry, dear, but if we can educate your body to grow six fingers on
your left hand, then you can educate me not to be gay. I was born
this way. In the future, people will be born this way. Straight
people have gay children. Gay people have straight children.
I wish all you ignorant people would get a clue.
Besides, being GAY isn't a choice. There is NO morality behind it
EXCEPT for the fact that I am NOT lying to myself or anyone else.
That is the choice I make.
Anyways, who says what is moral and what isn't? It doesn't seem that
the crews of ANY of the ships/stations have a HIGH moral standard,
compared to the CHRISTIAN standpoint. How many women has Kirk slept
with? Picard? How many men has Troi been with? Bev Crusher?
I want all the people who persecute against gays to put themselves in
my shoes. It is a sad story, but I am proud that I made my way
through it. In the end, I found who I am and what I am, and I am
proud of myself. *I* am sick of Bible-Beaters and "Morally-Just"
people telling me how to live my life when they haven't been in my
shoes. Well, my friends, don't JUDGE until you've been there. Don't
JUDGE until you know what it is like being persecuted for the way that
you were born by people who are too frightened of you because they are
ignorant and they'd rather not understand.
I'm sorry that you don't like the way that I live, but if you don't,
you never cared to try and learn. You, my friend, are the one who
needs education. Uneducated means you never had the chance to learn
about something. But ignorance means you had the chance but chose to
ignore it.
So, I find your remarks both ignorant and revolting.
Iras
MD and Iras
jo...@net1.nw.com.au (Jools) wrote:
>Gee, WOW, u have all the stats.
>If any of u want FAGS on trek, just look at Wesley or Paris.
>Unfortunately, they don't have one in DS:9., gee whiz, i bet all o' u
>like the outcast(TNG) by JERRY TAYLOR - make a newsgroup on misc. ways
>2 kill her :)
>CYA's
Typical Australian. Ignorant.
Doesn't even know how to spell "you." Just sit down and suck on some
marmite, Ozzie.
You make the rest of the world sick at your ignorance.
craig edward malmgren
In <hummelDs...@netcom.com> hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel)
writes:
want to see is to fairies making out on public tv.
Morgan Dhu
Jeff Schwartz <jeff.s...@sandiegoca.ncr.com> wrote:
<much snipped>
>People who are born homosexual are less likely to reproduce and
>over the course of many generations, that gene combination will
>effectively die out.
<more snipped>
>different perspective. We are both saying that people who are born
>homosexual (if that really happens) are less likely to reproduce than
>people who are born heterosexual.
While it is not always as easy for homosexuals to reproduce, given so
of the homophobic attitudes floating around in our society today, I
wouldn't take it as proven that they are less likely to reporduce.
Many gays marry because they are unaware of their dominant sexual
orientation, or are unwilling to accept it, and those marriages often
produce children. Other gays marry deliberately in order to have
children. Many who do not marry have found and continue to find
innovative means of producing their own biological children. The
desire to pass on one's genetic material seems to be quite as storg
and prevalent among the homosexual population as it is among the
heterosexual population. Desire for family and children is not a trait
exclusive to straights.
Also, the genetic determinants of homosexuality are probably not a
simple case of one locus, two alleles, one for gay, one for straight.
Like other traits, the tendency may require just the right combination
of alleles at several loci in order to fully express. That means
there will always be people who have some but not all of the
determinants expressing as straight and passing on their "hidden" gay
genes.
And then there are bi-sexuals, who usually have at least one straight
relationship in their lives and often reproduce. There is probably
some variant of "gay genes" that they are passing on as well.
Gays have been around for a long time, will be around for a long time
to come (barring genocidal genetic engineering as speculated in this
or related threads). Get used to it. Which brings us back to topic.
There will be gays among humans in the 24th century and beyond, so why
don't we see them on Star Trek series? <g>
--Morgan Dhu
drsoran
Scott Brady (ds...@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
: On 29 May 1996, ComicMax wrote:
: > It's easy to show a black person or someone who is hispanic but to have a
: > homosexual person they might have to lean to steriotypes. I know a lot of
: > gay men and they don't look or act it. they are a part of society. Thats
: > the way it will be in the future.
: Yeah, but how many times have we seen a man kiss a woman on that show,
: even in the background. They could easily show a man kiss another man
: (or a woman kiss another woman). Hell, I'd be thrilled if that was in
: the background of some scene. Holding hands would be nice. You don't
: have to resort to stereotypes to have a gay character.
I know this may be weird of me to say.. but what if there ARE no
gay/lesbian humans in the 24th century? Or at least such a tiny minority
that seeing them even in the background on a distant starbase like DS9
would be EXTREMELY rare.. maybe they isolated some sort of genetic trait
towards homosexuality and during the "dark times" following World War
III evil ignorant humans decided to eradicate homosexuality entirely?
Would you be opposed to a plot like that? The old "look how humans
screwed things up way back then.. they were so ignorant of the diversity
of human culture" bit.
--
----------------------------------------------------
drs...@ni.cba.csuohio.edu
M$-Win95 user: "Why is this running so slow today?"
Rayder
In article <4okcbv$3...@csu-b.csuohio.edu> drs...@ni.cba.csuohio.edu (drsoran) writes:
>Scott Brady (ds...@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
>
> I know this may be weird of me to say.. but what if there ARE no
>gay/lesbian humans in the 24th century? Or at least such a tiny minority
>that seeing them even in the background on a distant starbase like DS9
>would be EXTREMELY rare.
Impossible. You would not see any TV show at all. There would be no set
designers, no dialog coaches, no makeup artists, no script doctors, no
lighting technicians. The crew would sit around belching under a bare
lightbulb in their teraester garments comparing how many aliens they
shot down that day. That is all.
Rayder
--
Rayder is the [ Industrial Strength Irritant and Dance Dog ]
e-mail: hka...@panix.com, web: <http://www.panix.com/~hkaplan>