Gays on ST:TNG
Stephen Dennison
>From the Canadian newsweekly Maclean's:
>
>"Where no man has gone before
>
[Gay Protests Article deleted]
What do they want the phrase changed to now ? Something like:
"Where no man will admit to having gone before " :-)
This, BTW, is a *JOKE*. If it had been a heterosexual article that I found
amusing, I would have made a heterosexual joke. I am bi-humorous.
Stephen
You crucify your saviour. You choose to close your mind.
And in your fear you light the flame that finally burns you blind.
Glen L. Creasy
"Where no man has gone before
The top rated 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' is the latest
TV show to face pressure from a special-interest group. The
Gay Galactic Network, a Boston-based organization for homo-
sexual science-fiction fans, wants future 'Star Trek' episodes
to feature gay characters. Said spokesman Franklin Hummel,
who is spearheading an international letter-writing campaign:
"The series offers a vision of the future in which humanity
has put aside its differences to live in peace together.
However, in 25 years, 'Star Trek' has never shown an openly
gay character." But executive producer Gene Roddenberry is
balking. Said Susan Sackett, a spokesman for Roddenberry:
"any decision to have a gay character appear would depend
on the importance of the character's sexual orientation to
the story." Do not beam them up just yet, Scotty."
Accompanying promo photo of Crosby, Sirtis, and Frakes with
the caption "Star Trek cast: a push for open sexuality"
This was in the 22 July 1991 issue.
-glen
I can see myself running, but I'm standing still -(creasyg@
I can hear myself screaming, but there's no sound bionette.cgrb.
When I wake up crying, life brings me down orst.edu)
But it's not worth losing, until it's found --The Fixx
Anne H. Pfohl
>
>"Where no man has gone before
>Gay Galactic Network, a Boston-based organization for homo-
>sexual science-fiction fans, wants future 'Star Trek' episodes
>to feature gay characters. Said spokesman Franklin Hummel,
>"The series offers a vision of the future in which humanity
>has put aside its differences to live in peace together.
>However, in 25 years, 'Star Trek' has never shown an openly
>gay character."
The pressures of prime time... *sigh*. One of the reasons I liked The Host
was because it at least made an attempt (albeit a disappointing one) at
demonstrating some true openness with regard to sexual orientation and the
expression of intimacy regardless of gender. In The Outrageous Okona, they
illude to the ideas of shot gun weddings and marrying because the female is
pregnant as outdated and antiquated thinking. These old conventions are
foreign to these people of the 24th (25th?) century. Why, then, do they
persist in skirting around same sex attraction and intimacy?
10 to 15% of the population of the world is homosexual. How much more self
expression would there be with regard to same sex love and attraction if
there were a truly accepting environment? Who knows, since it doesn't exist
today. But the Trek Universe would have us believe that it has been realized
in their version of the future - but gays and lesbians are still invisible.
Are they so entrenched and myopic in their views that they would really have
us believe that this warmed over remnant of free love from the 60s and 70s is
what awaits us in the future? _That's_ progress - free love heterosexual
style? Hmmmm. Men still strutting around, women still swooning and batting
their eyes, scantily clad... well, at least that's _something_ to look
forward to :)...
>But executive producer Gene Roddenberry is
>balking. Said Susan Sackett, a spokesman for Roddenberry:
^^^^^ ^^^
I love it... these promo writers are such kidders
and don't get all worked up about man/woman, he/she, language, usage and all
that bull-pucky... it's a joke, son! :)
>"any decision to have a gay character appear would depend
>on the importance of the character's sexual orientation to
>the story." Do not beam them up just yet, Scotty."
Well, duh! It would be very important - isn't that the point? To shake
people of the 20th century out of their complacency and open their minds?
"We're out here to explore new life, not to kill it" - and we'll just
continue to ignore the various aspects of life we find it difficult to deal
with... ratings, you know...
I am entirely aware of the realities the producers must face in keeping the
show a success and on the air. It's just that I expect and want more.
IMNSHO, the Trek Universe should include openly gay and lesbian people,
living in families, working in their careers, living their lives - all as we
are doing today, as openly as we dare in a hostile world. Personally, I look
forward to the day when gays and lesbians will live in that open, accepting
utopia where material wants are eliminated. The fact that the powers that be
at Star Trek are still unwilling to show us that future as it may include 10
to 15% of the population is disappointing.
Anne
University at Buffalo Medical School - Office of Information Systems
======================================================================
*** Disclaimer...
*** These are only my thoughts. I never intended for them to be taken ***
*** seriously...
ois...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu | "Discard your facades and reveal your
ois...@mednet.bitnet | true being to me. Cast aside your
pf...@eng.buffalo.edu | masks and let me slip inside
| your mind..."
| "Muzzle it."
Anne H. Pfohl
afd...@lims03.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) writes...
>In article <1991Aug05.2...@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>,
cre...@bionette.cgrb.orst.edu (Glen L. Creasy) writes...
>>
>>"Where no man has gone before
>>
>
>"Where no man will admit to having gone before " :-)
or woman, for that matter - trust me :)
>
>This, BTW, is a *JOKE*. If it had been a heterosexual article that I found
>amusing, I would have made a heterosexual joke. I am bi-humorous.
Now _that's_ progressive! :)
Joe L. Blanton
address the subject of homosexuality. As the gist of it goes,
homosexuality no longer exists in the 24th century because of
proper detection of the genetics that make up a persons sexuality --
and an implied alteration to the correct orientation (unknown whether
they changed the person's sex or the genetic code).
--- if anyone else remembers this thread more clearly, please
feel free to comment.
___________________________________________________________________
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Joe L. Blanton, Jr. @@@@@@@@@@@@
e-mail: zjl...@computing.trc.amoco.com @@@@@@@@@@@
Research Scientist @@@@@@@@@
Amoco Research Center @@@@@@@
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104 @@@@@@
@@@@
e-mail: bla...@tusun2.mcs.utulsa.edu @@@
phone : 918 660 3236 @@
@
FAX : --- --- ---- \'/
In the Heart of Tornado
Country
___________________________________________________________________
James K. Huggins
might become a flame war ...
In article <86...@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> ois...@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu writes:
|In article <1991Aug05.2...@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>, cre...@bionette.cgrb.orst.edu (Glen L. Creasy) writes...
|>From the Canadian newsweekly Maclean's:
|>
|>"Where no man has gone before
|>[...]
|>The Gay Galactic Network, a Boston-based organization for homo-
|>sexual science-fiction fans, wants future 'Star Trek' episodes
|>to feature gay characters. Said spokesman Franklin Hummel,
| [...]
|>"The series offers a vision of the future in which humanity
|>has put aside its differences to live in peace together.
|>However, in 25 years, 'Star Trek' has never shown an openly
|>gay character."
ObComment: hmm ... seems deliberately provocative here, since
(if you add 1 year for each of StarTrek I-IV) Star Trek has only
been actively in production for 11 of those 25 years...
|Are they so entrenched and myopic in their views that they would really have
|us believe that this warmed over remnant of free love from the 60s and 70s is
|what awaits us in the future? _That's_ progress - free love heterosexual
|style? Hmmmm. Men still strutting around, women still swooning and batting
|their eyes, scantily clad... well, at least that's _something_ to look
|forward to :)...
I'll agree with you that I hope 'free love 80's style' finally dies
by that point in the future. But Star Trek is a cultural event,
reflecting the culture in which it was made. [Cf. from TOS:
yeoman's 60's style mini-skirts, Paramount's refusal to allow
a female first officer, and lots of Kirk's 60's free-love escapades]
It's inevitable that TNG will portray the future looking a *lot*
like the 1990s, since that's when it's being made.
This doesn't answer the question, but I'll get to that later ...
|>"any decision to have a gay character appear would depend
|>on the importance of the character's sexual orientation to
|>the story." Do not beam them up just yet, Scotty."
|
|Well, duh! It would be very important - isn't that the point? To shake
|people of the 20th century out of their complacency and open their minds?
|[...]
|IMNSHO, the Trek Universe should include openly gay and lesbian people,
|living in families, working in their careers, living their lives - all as we
|are doing today, as openly as we dare in a hostile world. [...]
|
|Anne
|University at Buffalo Medical School - Office of Information Systems
The problem is precisely what you hinted at in some comments I
accidentally deleted; namely, that any portrayal will cause controversy.
I can forsee a number of different approaches and reactions:
1) Suppose we work from the assumption that ST:TNG wanted to show an
openly gay/lesbian couple as an accepted part of 24th century society.
Certainly hard-line conservatives (you know what I mean here) would
protest here, but there might arise protests from the gay/lesbian
community itself. Consider:
a) If gays/lesbians are openly accepted in the 24th century,
then focusing a whole story on them would make for a pretty
dull plot -- i.e. no conflicts to resolve. While certain
interest groups would be happy, the episode as a whole could
be really boooooring.
b) The alternative is to put the couple in a 'throw-away' scene
or bit-part, which might anger some in the gay/lesbian
community as tokenism. ("Don't we deserve more than 30 seconds?")
2) If, on the other hand, we move to a more conflict-oriented centerpiece
(say, for example, the Enterprise visits a planet with a raging conflict
over this issue: cf. "Code of Honor", "The Hunted") which would make
for a better story, not only does Paramount still have to make a statement
on the issue, but activists on both sides will complain "Wait a minute!
This will all be solved by then! Gays/lesbians will be [accepted|rejected]!
Why are we making such a bing deal about it?"
In short, I don't see a good way for ST:TNG to make a statement about the issue
(about which our society is still divided) and not send one side or the other
(or both?) into attack-mode. And the last thing you do when you have
a hit on your hands (as ST:TNG is) is jeopardize your fan support.
Sure, it's sad, but that's the constraints of the system.
Jim Huggins, Univ. of Michigan
hug...@zip.eecs.umich.edu
P.S. I've deliberately tried to keep my view on homosexuality out of this
piece and stick to Star Trek related issues. PLEASE: if you follow-up
on this discussion, try to keep the conversation from drifting away
from Star Trek. If you want to know my views on the issue (which
can't be categorized easily into stereotypes), or you want to share your own,
send me email.
Timothy W. Lynch
>It seems that I recall a Star Trek TNG episode where Captain Picard
>address the subject of homosexuality. As the gist of it goes,
[...]
Sorry. Must've been some other series. TNG has never explicitly addressed
homosexuality.
Tim Lynch
Mathew Arcuarius MKA Matt Stum
> 10 to 15% of the population of the world is homosexual. How much more self
> expression would there be with regard to same sex love and attraction if
> there were a truly accepting environment? Who knows, since it doesn't exist
> today. But the Trek Universe would have us believe that it has been realized
> in their version of the future - but gays and lesbians are still invisible.
The Big-E, I believe, is but a small sample of the human/not-so-human
population. And of that we only see a scant dozen or so on a regular basis.
True, they could show a couple of [wo]men holding hands, etc. on 10-Forward
or something, but I think a full-fledged episode or character that is
homosexual and is accepted as being "okay" will get a lot of homophobes upset
and will start chanting "STTNG promotes Gays! STTNG is spreading AIDS by
promoting homos!" which is obviously some bad PR, although false PR.
I think the "background shot in 10-Forward" is a much better approach than
forcing down the viewer's throat. After all, if homosexuality (or any other
type of sexuality that may have sprung up between now and then) is accepted
and is "okay" then why would a big deal be made out of it? Everyday normal
stuff, right?
> Well, duh! It would be very important - isn't that the point? To shake
> people of the 20th century out of their complacency and open their minds?
> "We're out here to explore new life, not to kill it" - and we'll just
> continue to ignore the various aspects of life we find it difficult to deal
> with... ratings, you know...
Well, yeah, I'd like to shake some people... right out of the 20th century
too. And if this were a one-time deal like a movie, then I'd say "Go for it!"
But a series needs a more subtle approach. Or, a comprimise would be to start
out slow... put in a couple in the background... see what the viewer reaction
is. If it's not too awful bad and you get more praises than homophobic
rantings then keep going. I think for it to be successful STTNG would _also_
have to stress that being homo/hetero/whateversexual is _more_ than having
intimate sex with someone... us hetero's do other things with our SO's besides
sex... and so do homos and whatevers... I think _that_ would be an important
thing to stress if it were to be successfully done on Trek and still keep
their viewership.
> I am entirely aware of the realities the producers must face in keeping the
> show a success and on the air. It's just that I expect and want more.
> IMNSHO, the Trek Universe should include openly gay and lesbian people,
> living in families, working in their careers, living their lives - all as we
> are doing today, as openly as we dare in a hostile world.
Just remember... we're seeing only a _small_ part of the Trek Universe. I'm
sure there are some really cool things that have evolved in heterosexual
affairs as well (like weightless sex, etc. Okay, I guess that applies to
gays as well... but you get my drift.) but because this is a "family"
show we don't see it. Sigh...
Matt
Keep your flames to yourself...
--
Matt Stum VAX Systems Programmer
00MJ...@BSUVAX1.BITNET Ball State University, Muncie IN USA
00MJ...@bsu-ucs.bsu.edu
Anne H. Pfohl
hug...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (James K. Huggins) writes...
>At the risk of starting a huge discussion on a controversial topic which
>might become a flame war ...
[... cogent and well-thought-out comments by Mr. Huggins deleted
for brevity...]
>
>The problem is precisely what you hinted at in some comments I
>accidentally deleted; namely, that any portrayal will cause controversy.
>I can forsee a number of different approaches and reactions:
Yes - controversy - which is exactly why it "just isn't done". Sigh. I am
grateful for Star Trek in terms of what it has done for science fiction and
for presenting more imaginative and creative tv for the last 25 years - I
guess it isn't fair of me to want them (the producers, et al) to go even
further. A hit is a hit, and your points about not jeopardizing that are
well taken - but as a hit show (like LA Law, Thirtysomething, etc - who have
addressed the lesbian/gay lifestyle with honesty and integrity) the producers
of ST:TNG have an opportunity. It certainly is their choice as to whether or
not they take it.
> a) If gays/lesbians are openly accepted in the 24th century,
> then focusing a whole story on them would make for a pretty
> dull plot -- i.e. no conflicts to resolve. While certain
> interest groups would be happy, the episode as a whole could
> be really boooooring.
Oh, I dunno. What about in _When the Bough Breaks_ - one of the couples
whose child was taken could have been a same sex couple. Not an episode
about a gay/lesbian couple specifically, but representing that type of family
unit within the context of the story line would hardly seem token to me -
just a matter of fact in the 24th century.
> b) The alternative is to put the couple in a 'throw-away' scene
> or bit-part, which might anger some in the gay/lesbian
> community as tokenism. ("Don't we deserve more than 30 seconds?")
There are always those who will argue either way - you can't please everyone,
so why try? (Perhaps that is some of the reasoning behind not having visible
gays or lesbians on ST:TNG :) !) Still, I would not think of a recurring
character or recurring same sex couple whose prominence was on the order of,
say, Keiko and O'Brien as token.
A more high-conflict story line would not work - you're right, especially
since the crux of the matter is that in the future it is hoped that we'd all
evolve to a more accepting, integrated society. However, finding a way to
make such a statement is a creative challenge I would like to see ST:TNG
take, constraints of the system being duly noted.
Anne
University at Buffalo Medical School - Office of Information Systems
Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth
>zjl...@rental11.trc.amoco.com (Joe L. Blanton) writes:
>>In article <1991Aug6.1...@nntp-server.caltech.edu>,
>
>[...]
>
>Yep. That helps. There's still no such episode...nor, to my knowledge, a
>novel based on the concept. Unused script, perhaps, but nothing's ever been
>televised that even remotely follows that synopsis.
>
>Sorry.
>
>Tim Lynch
Yeah, no episode that deals with that storyline WITH HOMOSEXUALITY...there is
a similar storyline in "Transfigurations," but that had no mention of this
particular topic...perhaps that is the episode that Joe is thinking about?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz |"Suppose they went nowhere?"-McCoy
Astronomy Department |"Then this will be your big chance
California Institute of Technology | to get away from it all!"-Kirk
ir...@romeo.caltech.edu | from STII:TWOK
i...@deimos.caltech.edu |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <1991Aug6.1...@nntp-server.caltech.edu>,
>tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>> ] address the subject of homosexuality. As the gist of it goes,
>>
>>
>> Sorry. Must've been some other series. TNG has never explicitly addressed
>> homosexuality.
>>
Randy
Subject: Re: Gays on ST:TNG
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek
In-Reply-To: <289F29B...@ics.uci.edu
References: <1991Aug6.1...@nntp-server.caltech.edu <86...@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <1991Aug05.2...@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> <1991Aug5.2...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> <1991Aug6.1...@trc.amoco.com> <1991Aug6.2...@trc.amoco.com>
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Cc:
Bcc:
In <1991Aug6.2...@trc.amoco.com zjl...@rental11.trc.amoco.com
(Joe L. Blanton) writes:
>Maybe this will help, it was an episode where some members of a race where
>rescued from a ship that was on the verge of destruction. After they were
>healed, a representive of their people (on another starship) informed
>the Enterprise they were criminals and must be returned for punishment
>(death sentence). The reason they where considered to be criminals is
>because they wanted heterosexual marriage (whereas the rest of their
>world paired off with members of the same sex)... In fact I'm not sure
>if they were criminals or they were just being labeled as criminals so
>that they could be hunted down.
>After Picard realizes why they are being hunted, he breaks into this
>explanation of how we (the Federation) don't have that problem, because
>sexual orientation is corrected to a heterosexual orientation.
AH HA! I *knew* I recognized this plot. It is from a story
posted to this newsgroup (and perhaps others) a few months
back. The story was posted as a script. I'm not sure if
the author intended to sell said story to Paramount, or to
just use the net and ST as a medium to make a statement. I
don't recall being overwhelmed by the intricacies of the plot.
This story has not -- to the best of my knowledge -- actually
become a ST:TNG episode.
Hope this clears some of the confusion.
randy
----
I believe that in India "cold weather" is merely a conventional phrase and
has come into use through the necessity of having some way to distinguish
between weather which will melt a brass doorknob and weather which will only
make it mushy. - Mark Twain "Following the Equator" ra...@castor.cs.uga.edu
Cindy Tittle Moore
>Maybe this will help, it was an episode where some members of a race where
>rescued from a ship that was on the verge of destruction. After they were
>healed, a representive of their people (on another starship) informed
>the Enterprise they were criminals and must be returned for punishment
>(death sentence). The reason they where considered to be criminals is
>because they wanted heterosexual marriage (whereas the rest of their
>world paired off with members of the same sex)... In fact I'm not sure
>if they were criminals or they were just being labeled as criminals so
>that they could be hunted down.
>After Picard realizes why they are being hunted, he breaks into this
>explanation of how we (the Federation) don't have that problem, because
>sexual orientation is corrected to a heterosexual orientation.
There is *no* *such* *televised* TNG episode.
I can't speak for novels, comics, et alia. (It does vaguely remind me
of a TNG novel, but I can't be sure.)
But for TV, I can. No such episode.
--Cindy
aka the trek witch
--
Internet: tit...@ics.uci.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucivax!tittle
BITNET: clti...@uci.bitnet
Usnail: PO Box 4188, Irvine CA, 92716
Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std
>homosexuality.
Well, maybe not explicitly, but pretty close. Dr. Crusher does say
something like `I can't adapt to these body changes so quickly', with the
strong implication that she has nothing against lesbian relationships
per se, but that her mind was directed towards a hetero relationship at
that time.
I really doubt that TNG will get more explicit than that -- even though
TV has made a decent start with the positive gay character in
Doctor, Doctor.
--
Arnold Gill --- astrophysician trainee in exile gi...@physics.ubc.ca
Joe L. Blanton
Me = > ]
In article <1991Aug6.1...@nntp-server.caltech.edu>,
tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
> zjl...@backus.trc.amoco.com (Joe L. Blanton) writes:
>
> ] It seems that I recall a Star Trek TNG episode where Captain Picard
> ] address the subject of homosexuality. As the gist of it goes,
>
> [...]
>
> Sorry. Must've been some other series. TNG has never explicitly addressed
> homosexuality.
>
> Tim Lynch
Maybe this will help, it was an episode where some members of a race where
rescued from a ship that was on the verge of destruction. After they were
healed, a representive of their people (on another starship) informed
the Enterprise they were criminals and must be returned for punishment
(death sentence). The reason they where considered to be criminals is
because they wanted heterosexual marriage (whereas the rest of their
world paired off with members of the same sex)... In fact I'm not sure
if they were criminals or they were just being labeled as criminals so
that they could be hunted down.
After Picard realizes why they are being hunted, he breaks into this
explanation of how we (the Federation) don't have that problem, because
sexual orientation is corrected to a heterosexual orientation.
<Hey don't flame me for trying to remember a past episode --- not
you Tim, the other netters, I know you'd never do that ;-) >
I realize I am traversing this thread in a fairly slim manner, but I
am hoping someone else can remember this same episode for clarification.
KELSEY, Michael H.
Maloney) says:
>
>In article <1991Aug6.1...@trc.amoco.com> zjl...@backus.trc.amoco.com
>(Joe L. Blanton) writes:
>>It seems that I recall a Star Trek TNG episode where Captain Picard
>>address the subject of homosexuality. As the gist of it goes,
>>homosexuality no longer exists in the 24th century because of
>>proper detection of the genetics that make up a persons sexuality --
>>and an implied alteration to the correct orientation (unknown whether
>>they changed the person's sex or the genetic code).
>
>eradicate them before the little nipper is born?
[ Other examples of "non/sub-standard" genes to be "eradiated." Consider
the point made, eh? ]
Anyway, as ra...@castor.cs.uga.edu points out in another post, apparently
this is a synopsis of a story posted to the net (a.s.c or r.a.s)a while
ago, and hence IS NOT CANON! I would like to make the following
suggestion as WHY such a suggestion could _never_ be canon:
* KHAN NOONIAN SINGH *. Remember him, the last survivor of the "Superman
Insurrection" and the "Eugenics Wars"? Some group had genetically
manipulated humans to become supermen -- white (a ha, politically incorrect!)
but with Southern European accents and mid-Asian names. The implication was
that a rather serious war had ensued in which the "Supermen" had lost, and
been destroyed or driven into exile. Given this result to the "last time"
man tampered with his gene pool (okay, *tweet*, everyone out of the pool!),
I would seriously doubt that the 24th Century tried to do it again.
-- Mike Kelsey
P.S. Did I get Khan's middle name right? I'm doing this from memory :-)
[ My opinions are not endorsed by SLAC, Caltech, or the US government ]
What is your _name_? "kel...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu"
What is your _quest_? "To get a Ph.D. in high-energy physics"
When will you _finish_? "I don't know. Waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh..."
Ohlhausen, Esther LaNelle
>
>* KHAN NOONIAN SINGH *.
>P.S. Did I get Khan's middle name right? I'm doing this from memory :-)
>
It agrees with my memory...
I'd go look it up, but there's a cat asleep on my lap.
LaNelle Ohlhausen
'I have a pretty near photographic memory... I can remember anything that is
pretty near a photograph.' --Isaac Asimov
Bryan J. Maloney
>address the subject of homosexuality. As the gist of it goes,
>homosexuality no longer exists in the 24th century because of
>proper detection of the genetics that make up a persons sexuality --
>and an implied alteration to the correct orientation (unknown whether
>they changed the person's sex or the genetic code).
Lovely! And do they also detect to see if someone has "Jewish" genes to
eradicate them before the little nipper is born?
Hey! Maybe they could get rid of all those other nasty Untermensch traits
while we're at it.
Tell me, do the also "adjust" the genetics of a person who would be left-handed?
After all, left-handedness can pose serious difficulties in a world of
standardized equipment.
While they're at it, why don't the just geek off all those nasty genes for
brown hair, dark eyes, dark skin, big noses?
Gee, then everyone in the Federation can be an Uebermensch and march down
the street carrying torches and dancing in swastika formations!
The perfect society, at last.
Charles Lin
> * KHAN NOONIAN SINGH *. Remember him, the last survivor of the "Superman
> Insurrection" and the "Eugenics Wars"? Some group had genetically
> manipulated humans to become supermen -- white (a ha, politically incorrect!)
> but with Southern European accents and mid-Asian names. The implication was
> that a rather serious war had ensued in which the "Supermen" had lost, and
> been destroyed or driven into exile. Given this result to the "last time"
> man tampered with his gene pool (okay, *tweet*, everyone out of the pool!),
> I would seriously doubt that the 24th Century tried to do it again.
> -- Mike Kelsey
> P.S. Did I get Khan's middle name right? I'm doing this from memory :-)
>
Yup. It's Noonian. Though the novelization of the series by James
Blish gave it as something else. They made Khan his last name. But
then sometimes you wonder if Blish was watching the show when he
wrote down the plots in book format. Esp. the story, "Operation,
Annihilate" where the Enterprise goes to the planet where these
flying plastic creatures reside and decimate the residents. It
may have been the original script, but it certainly didn't air that
way.
There is some episode with these genetically engineered kids that
are telepathic. It has Dr. Pulaski getting afflicted with some
virus that makes her age rapidly. So, it *has* been done again.
--
______ __ __ ___ ____
/ ____ \ | | |__| | \ | | Charles Lin
| / \_| | | __ | \| | e-mail: cl...@eng.umd.edu
| | | | | | | |\ |
| | _ | | |__| |__| \___| University of Maryland
| \____/ | | |____ "I hate big sigs." -- Moo
\______/ \_______|
Joanna Bryson
> community itself. Consider:
> a) If gays/lesbians are openly accepted in the 24th century,
> then focusing a whole story on them would make for a pretty
> dull plot -- i.e. no conflicts to resolve.
> b) The alternative is to put the couple in a 'throw-away' scene
> or bit-part, which might anger some in the gay/lesbian
> community as tokenism. ("Don't we deserve more than 30 seconds?")
How about showing two of the main characters getting out of bed for a
red alert? Does bi count? My vote would be for Troy and Crusher.
Alternatively, you could have something ongoing, like the Transporter
cheif's marriage - not too much of any one episode, but referred to in
several.
>2) If, on the other hand, we move to a more conflict-oriented centerpiece
> (say, for example, the Enterprise visits a planet with a raging conflict
> over this issue: cf. "Code of Honor", "The Hunted") which would make
> for a better story, not only does Paramount still have to make a statement
> on the issue, but activists on both sides will complain "Wait a minute!
> This will all be solved by then! Gays/lesbians will be [accepted|rejected]!
> Why are we making such a bing deal about it?"
One thing to guard against is making the characters TOO defensive about these
things. I think that was part of the reason Tasha was so annoying, she was
supposedly the tough, "we aren't sexist", non touchy-feely woman, yet she was
intensely defensive anytime someone insulted her for being a woman. I
prefer the reaction of Uhura in the "The Squire of Gothos" (see, I know the
OLD episode names!), the "how could that be an insult?" aproach.
Actually, I've been thinking that TNG is way too complacent about racism.
Star Trek has such a reputation for a world where all peoples are accepted
as equals, earned almost entirely by TOS. Have you noticed that the only
main characters that aren't white anglo heterosexuals are blacks with
something obscurring their heads? What really got me thinking about this
was the episode where Data had to convince a colony to leave a planet. There
was ONE black family in this colony that had been isolated for several
generations. Granted we didn't see the entire population, but if that was
representative, wouldn't the blacks have inbreeding problems? Why aren't
more Star Trek people of mixed race? (are any?) Why aren't they ALL of
indeterminate nation-of-origin? Especially the colony planets? Ever
been to Brazil? It strikes me that, although the CHARACTERS of Star Trek
may not be racist, the CASTERS may well be.
Has there ever been an Hispanic character in 25 (or 11) years?
(Does 11 count the animated episodes? How many years were they made?
Does it count the comics? and the novels? Have there ever been any
gay or hispanic charcters ANYWHERE in a "canon" source? _Ishmael_
would be a good prototype for this whole discussion; it revealed that one
of the main TOS characters was of Jewish descent, without making too big
of a deal about it.)
Just causing trouble instead of packing...
Joanna
until Aug 7 The cheap drama brings cause and effect, will
joa...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu power and action, once more into relation and
after Oct 7 gives a man the thrilling conviction that he may
joa...@aifh.ed.ac.uk yet be master of his fate. -- Jane Addams, 1909
James K. Huggins
|Star Trek has such a reputation for a world where all peoples are accepted
|as equals, earned almost entirely by TOS. Have you noticed that the only
|main characters that aren't white anglo heterosexuals are blacks with
Not precisely accurate. Data is an android and thus probably shouldn't
be classified as 'anglo-saxon'. Picard is described as having French
ancestry ... forgive my ignorance of history, but wouldn't that make
him Norman instead of Anglo? Troi is described as being half-Betazoid,
half-human, so at most she would be half-Anglo (though we don't know
anything about that canonically).
If your point is that most of the characters are *portrayed* by
white Anglo-saxons, then I'll agree.
|Has there ever been an Hispanic character in 25 (or 11) years?
Ensign Gomez had a bit part for 2 or 3 episodes in season 2, but
that's the only reference I can recall.
|(Does 11 count the animated episodes? How many years were they made?
| Does it count the comics? and the novels? Have there ever been any
| gay or hispanic charcters ANYWHERE in a "canon" source? _Ishmael_
| would be a good prototype for this whole discussion; it revealed that one
| of the main TOS characters was of Jewish descent, without making too big
| of a deal about it.)
I counted 11 years as follows:
3 years of TOS
4 years of TNG
1 year each for ST:TMP, ST2:TWoK, ST3:TSFS, ST4:TVH
(STV:TFF was in production during TNG.
Besides, Tim Lynch completely denies the film was made. :-))
I forgot about the animated episodes, but I'm not sure how (or if) to count
those. Since the point of the original quote was that "ST hasn't shown
a gay character in 25 years", I was trying to show that Paramount hasn't
been actively in the ST business for all that time. So I don't believe
counting the years that novels have been around really counts towards
the total, since Paramount regularly ignores anything printed in the
novels. Same for the comics.
Matthew Wayne Gertz
Butler House in Mary Markley dorm had picked it up, so...
In article <1991Aug7.1...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> hug...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (James K. Huggins) writes:
>In article <joanna.6...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> joa...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Joanna Bryson) writes:
>|Star Trek has such a reputation for a world where all peoples are accepted
>|as equals, earned almost entirely by TOS. Have you noticed that the only
>|main characters that aren't white anglo heterosexuals are blacks with
>|something obscurring their heads? [...]
> [Stuff deleted where Jim points out that the *characters* on TNG are by-
> and-large non-Anglo]
>If your point is that most of the characters are *portrayed* by
>white Anglo-saxons, then I'll agree.
If we set aside the main characters for an instant (after all, once they're
cast, they're cast, eh?) and just look at the the rest of the crew, I think
you will see that a very high number of extras and guest stars have been
minorities. *Not* simply as phaser fodder, either. As far as the cast is
concerned, I don't think that having appliances on one's face is a big deal.
Wearing makeup, facial appliances, etc., simply goes along with the job
description of an actor... it's been this way for millenia (yeah, millenia).
I doubt whether anyone is forcing LeVar Burton into jobs where his face
must be covered by something, since he was already well-known as a good actor.
(Burton has said that doing Geordi was fun and challenging, since he had to
learn to express himself without using his eyes.)
Okay, that's about visible features. To drag this back to the original topic,
portrayal of homosexuality, I personally feel that this is a non-issue. I'd
simply rather not know what goes on behind close doors on the Enterprise,
be it heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual activity, or whatever. Call me a
prude, but I'm simply not that much of a voyeur, and IMHO I have always found
the romantic interludes in Trek (and other series) to be the weakest part of
a show.
--
--Matt Gertz--*
ge...@bilge.ece.cmu.edu
Brian E. Frost
|> Maloney) says:
|> >
|> >In article <1991Aug6.1...@trc.amoco.com> zjl...@backus.trc.amoco.com
|> >(Joe L. Blanton) writes:
|> * KHAN NOONIAN SINGH *. Remember him, the last survivor of the "Superman
|> Insurrection" and the "Eugenics Wars"? Some group had genetically
|> manipulated humans to become supermen -- white (a ha, politically incorrect!)
|> but with Southern European accents and mid-Asian names. The implication was
NO!!! Not PC word! Die! Die! Die!
I feel alot better now. :)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Frost Internet: b1f...@zeus.tamu.edu
Academic Computing Services Bitnet: b1f5814@tamzeus
Texas A&M University THEnet: ACS::B1F5814
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you post it, they will flame." - The voice from Field of Dreams.
Just another theatre geek.....
>red alert? Does bi count? My vote would be for Troy and Crusher.
Troi, maybe. Maybe even probable. 'Twould certainly give here some
sharp edges and badly needed character features.
Crusher, definitely NOT, given her reactions to her body jumping
lover this season...
>Alternatively, you could have something ongoing, like the Transporter
>cheif's marriage - not too much of any one episode, but referred to in
>several.
Even better. But hopefully better executed than the Miles/Keiko
disaster....
>One thing to guard against is making the characters TOO defensive about these
>things. I think that was part of the reason Tasha was so annoying, she was
>supposedly the tough, "we aren't sexist", non touchy-feely woman, yet she was
>intensely defensive anytime someone insulted her for being a woman.
Exactly. Wanna bet that those scenarios in the first season were
written almost entirely by men? Wanna bet that the Great Bird himself
rewrote a lot of those scenes?
>Actually, I've been thinking that TNG is way too complacent about racism.
Agreed. (oops, take another slug for the drinking game...)
>Star Trek has such a reputation for a world where all peoples are accepted
>as equals, earned almost entirely by TOS. Have you noticed that the only
>main characters that aren't white anglo heterosexuals are blacks with
>something obscurring their heads? What really got me thinking about this
>was the episode where Data had to convince a colony to leave a planet. There
>was ONE black family in this colony that had been isolated for several
>generations. Granted we didn't see the entire population, but if that was
>representative, wouldn't the blacks have inbreeding problems?
Yup. An extremely unlikely occurrence. Almost certainly, they were
cast as an afterthought to make the show seem less whitebread.
Why aren't
>more Star Trek people of mixed race? (are any?) Why aren't they ALL of
>indeterminate nation-of-origin? Especially the colony planets?
Now this is more arguable. I would be extremely skeptical that
everybody in the Federation would be of mixed genetic stock. Even after
400 years, you would have to have FORCED breeding to intermix the stock
so thoroughly. That aint about to happen, folks. The sheer intertia and
number of humans will almost guaruntee the persistence of genetic types in
sizable numbers until the far, far distant future.
And let's not talk about colonization, where its pretty probable that
the impulse for emigration will fall along ideological, political and cultural
line. Hence, you'll find about a third of colonists descended from pure
(more or less) strains, hence persistence of genetic types.
Ever
>been to Brazil? It strikes me that, although the CHARACTERS of Star Trek
>may not be racist, the CASTERS may well be.
No arguement here, though. It's well known in the Actors Guild how
much of a problem there is getting casting agencies to consider minority
actors in roles where race is not specified...
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu; Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club
"Originally, I got into theatre to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all
I found were women."
Neil P.G.
You seem to forget that it would be quite possible to have
regular/semi-regular charcaters who were gay/lesbian/bisexual.
e.g. O'Brien could just as easily have been a gay man and got
"married" (or 24th century equivalent) to another gay.
The point that Anne was trying to make (I suspect - I am not trying to
put words in her mouth!) was that all the main characters are
automatically assumed to be straight. Why couldn't Data be bisexual
(why should an android be especially attracted to females?)?
Get my point?
--
------ -------------------------------------------------------------- \
\ / | Neil Perret-Green E-mail: n...@cns.umist.ac.uk | \
\ / |[Homo Lexicographicus] "It's life Jim, but not as we know it"| \
\/ -------------------------------------------------------------- / \
Neil P.G.
>The Big-E, I believe, is but a small sample of the human/not-so-human
>population. And of that we only see a scant dozen or so on a regular basis.
>True, they could show a couple of [wo]men holding hands, etc. on 10-Forward
>or something, but I think a full-fledged episode or character that is
>homosexual and is accepted as being "okay" will get a lot of homophobes upset
>and will start chanting "STTNG promotes Gays! STTNG is spreading AIDS by
>promoting homos!" which is obviously some bad PR, although false PR.
ho hum! So perhaps we should just let these people continue to hold
these baseless views?
>I think the "background shot in 10-Forward" is a much better approach than
>forcing down the viewer's throat. After all, if homosexuality (or any other
>type of sexuality that may have sprung up between now and then) is accepted
>and is "okay" then why would a big deal be made out of it? Everyday normal
>stuff, right?
That's right, let's keep the gays in the background where they don't
make too much noise.
Yes, it should be accepted as everyday by the 24th century, but it
isn't now - and ST is made for a 20th century audience, who (mostly)
assumes that everyone is straight and anything else is
odd/weird/perverted, so a little visibility goes a long way...
>I think for it to be successful STTNG would _also_
>have to stress that being homo/hetero/whateversexual is _more_ than having
>intimate sex with someone... us hetero's do other things with our SO's besides
>sex... and so do homos and whatevers... I think _that_ would be an important
>thing to stress if it were to be successfully done on Trek and still keep
>their viewership.
I think we may be in violent agreement here :-)
>Keep your flames to yourself...
Well, I hope you didn't see it as a flame. Just some thoughts....
Neil P.G.
>It seems that I recall a Star Trek TNG episode where Captain Picard
^^^^^^^^^^^
Which one?
>address the subject of homosexuality. As the gist of it goes,
>homosexuality no longer exists in the 24th century because of
>proper detection of the genetics that make up a persons sexuality --
>and an implied alteration to the correct orientation (unknown whether
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did he actually say those words?
>they changed the person's sex or the genetic code).
If this is true, it's the biggest load of homophobic crap I've come
across for some time. I really hope it's not, because I did consider
ST to be above this.
I'd appreciate an answer.
And an e-mail from the original poster about their views on this might
be interesting.
lau...@ssdvx2.mdcbbs.com
>>
>>"Where no man has gone before
>>[...]
>>The
>>Gay Galactic Network, a Boston-based organization for homo-
>>sexual science-fiction fans, wants future 'Star Trek' episodes
>>to feature gay characters. Said spokesman Franklin Hummel,
> [...]
>>"The series offers a vision of the future in which humanity
>>has put aside its differences to live in peace together.
>>However, in 25 years, 'Star Trek' has never shown an openly
>>gay character."
>
Great!! Let's make a new list. What other lifestyle choices have not
been fully represented on Star Trek? I personally am a strong
beliver in moustaches. Other than Rikers full beard ( a bit too much
IMHO) very few people are shown with good facial hair. I suspect over
30% of the men in the country were a moustache at some point in their
lives (based on an informal poll around the office). When are we going
to see this!!!!
How about people who live for their plants? Very few are shown.
Is Roddenberry an Agraphobic?
Get a life folks. Not all life style choices can or need to be explored
in any series.
--
---
Opinions are mine, or someone elses, but definitely not MDSSC's!!
Internet: lau...@ssdvax.mdcbbs.com
UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,att}!ssdvax.mdcbbs.com!lauger (714) 896-1393
Tom Galloway
> Has there ever been an Hispanic character in 25 (or 11) years?
There was almost one. According to an Hour 25 show (sf oriented radio show
in LA) before ST:TNG premiered which had David Gerrold as a guest, Tasha
Yar was originally a hispanic character (under a different, hispanic, name).
The problem was that this was *way* too close to the macha hispanic marine
in Aliens, so they changed the character to Tasha to not make the similarities
too obvious.
Bruce Knight
About homosexuality:
Perhaps the reason you don't see open homosexuality is because in that time,
people DON'T CARE about one's sexual orientation. The reason you don't see
publicly displayed stuff is just being professional; in today's Navy, I think,
Public Displays of Affection are highly frowned upon. Of course, I could be
way off base with this.
About Yar:
I only want to post this once, so I'll say right out front, this is a THEORY,
it's MY OPINION ALONE, IMHO it could explain a lot, but it could still
have holes in it. Please don't flame off the cuff without considering it,
please don't tell me I'm wrong without citing something proving it in the
series.
Better put one of those control-L things here so I don't get flamed.
Spoilers:
There is a possibility that not all of the crew died on board the Enterprise-C.
Perhaps the self-destruct failed, or was never set. At any rate, the E-C
gets pounded after coming back through the rift. Let's assume Tasha survives
the battle in one piece. If the surviving crew were to abandon ship and make
for the Federation, Tasha couldn't join them; within a decade, she'd wind up
possibly running into herself and creating a paradox. Soooo... she couls
(yeeg - couls = could) hop into a stasis chamber or something and choose
to share the ship's fate. She wouldn't age in stasis.... So, fifteen years
pass, and the Romulans come across this floating hulk; maybe it's drifted into
the Neutral Zone, maybe not. At any rate, they find a solitary human in
hibernation on board. Her explanation for what she was doing on board? She
could pass herself off as a fleeing Federation criminal or some such; she's
quick-witted enough to realize that it's not an advantage to claim to be a
Starfleet officer, especially since there aren't records of her. To her
way of thinking, the Romulans are at war with the Klingons, who are at war
with the Federation; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So somehow she gets
into their good graces, manages to work her way to commanding the Klingon
destabilization project. So she's fighting the Klingons, just as she always
has been.
And there's just a hint of a possibility that her plan for this whole
escapade might not be quite what the Romulans want.
There. All IMHO. The precedent of Khan could easily be applied here.
No flames, please, just point out what doesn't make sense, and maybe cite
sources for why I'm wrong. Okay? :)
-BK
John Graziano
=>At the risk of starting a huge discussion on a controversial topic which
=>might become a flame war ...
Why not? Beats the hell out of the CFV/Tasha wars.
=>The problem is [...] that any portrayal will cause controversy.
=>I can forsee a number of different approaches and reactions:
=>
=>1) Suppose we work from the assumption that ST:TNG wanted to show an
=> openly gay/lesbian couple as an accepted part of 24th century society.
=> Certainly hard-line conservatives (you know what I mean here) would
=> protest here, but there might arise protests from the gay/lesbian
=> community itself. Consider:
=> a) If gays/lesbians are openly accepted in the 24th century,
=> then focusing a whole story on them would make for a pretty
=> dull plot -- i.e. no conflicts to resolve. While certain
=> interest groups would be happy, the episode as a whole could
=> be really boooooring.
=> b) The alternative is to put the couple in a 'throw-away' scene
=> or bit-part, which might anger some in the gay/lesbian
=> community as tokenism. ("Don't we deserve more than 30 seconds?")
=>
=>2) If, on the other hand, we move to a more conflict-oriented centerpiece
=> (say, for example, the Enterprise visits a planet with a raging conflict
=> over this issue: cf. "Code of Honor", "The Hunted") which would make
=> for a better story, not only does Paramount still have to make a statement
=> on the issue, but activists on both sides will complain "Wait a minute!
=> This will all be solved by then! Gays/lesbians will be [accepted|rejected]
=> Why are we making such a bing deal about it?"
You're leaving out one other option - have one of the main characters be gay.
There _is_ one character who's always having trouble with the opposite sex...
No smileys here - what about GEORDI? We know so little about his character as
is (he knows a lot about warp engines, never gets the girl (woman), and has bad
taste in music...that's about it). At this point, any character development
would be welcome. A show where he realizes and accepts his sexuality could be
very effective.
And there could still be conflicts. Maybe Klingons still have societal taboos
about homosexuals. The way that Worf and Geordi interact could be used to
portray a range of viewpoints.
=>In short, I don't see a good way for ST:TNG to make a statement about the
=>issue (about which our society is still divided) and not send one side or the
=>other (or both?) into attack-mode. And the last thing you do when you have
=>a hit on your hands (as ST:TNG is) is jeopardize your fan support.
If STV didn't do it, nothing will.
=>Jim Huggins, Univ. of Michigan
=>hug...@zip.eecs.umich.edu
--graz
PS. Don't bother telling me it'll never happen - I know.
Nicholas C. Hester
>
>In <1991Aug6.2...@trc.amoco.com zjl...@rental11.trc.amoco.com
> (Joe L. Blanton) writes:
>
>>After Picard realizes why they are being hunted, he breaks into this
>>explanation of how we (the Federation) don't have that problem, because
>>sexual orientation is corrected to a heterosexual orientation.
>
>AH HA! I *knew* I recognized this plot. It is from a story
>posted to this newsgroup (and perhaps others) a few months
>back. The story was posted as a script. I'm not sure if
Gee, I seem to remember that Picard made the reference to there being
a Criminal Tendency Gene, and that now it was taken care of thru
screening. I thought this was 1st or 2nd season TNG.
Nothing to do with sexual preference's.
-+- -+
Nicholas C. Hester | |
ia8...@Maine.Bitnet | "Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor, not a barber" |
ia8...@Maine.Maine.edu | - FurBall on TinyToons |
-+- -+
Just another theatre geek.....
>Get a life folks. Not all life style choices can or need to be explored
>in any series.
Sounds like youUre SERIOUSLY in need of a life yourself.
I tire of so-called open-minded people trivializing the very real
concerns of groups who are marginalized. GODAMMIT! They HAVE a life and it is
a HELL of a lot more difficult, a LOT more painful than you can imagine.
Get a life indeed. Try saying that to Jews in Nazi Germany. For that
matter, try saying that to gays in Nazi Germany.
Not all issues need to be dealt with in a series, but for a series that
claims to be progressive and free and clear of network censorship, the Trek
crew are being awfully cowardly about this issue. (And for those of you who
dont think this kind of issue makes for good entertainment, may I direct you
to your local gay/lesbian theatres or, for that matter, to your local
regional theatre period.....)
System Leprechaun
| proper detection of the genetics that make up a persons sexuality --
No, Picard said they'd learned to detect the seeds of criminal behavior.
The closest they've come to homosexuality is the story where Beaverly falls
in love with an ambassador who turns out to be a parasitic/host composit
being, and when it switches to a female host, she says she's not mature
enough to deal with the change.
Dave Wahlquist
>Me = > ]
>
>
>In article <1991Aug6.1...@nntp-server.caltech.edu>,
>tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>
>> ] It seems that I recall a Star Trek TNG episode where Captain Picard
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Sorry. Must've been some other series. TNG has never explicitly addressed
>> homosexuality.
>>
>> Tim Lynch
>
>Maybe this will help, it was an episode where some members of a race where
>rescued from a ship that was on the verge of destruction. After they were
>healed, a representive of their people (on another starship) informed
>the Enterprise they were criminals and must be returned for punishment
>(death sentence). The reason they where considered to be criminals is
>because they wanted heterosexual marriage (whereas the rest of their
>world paired off with members of the same sex)... In fact I'm not sure
>if they were criminals or they were just being labeled as criminals so
>that they could be hunted down.
>
>explanation of how we (the Federation) don't have that problem, because
>sexual orientation is corrected to a heterosexual orientation.
>
> you Tim, the other netters, I know you'd never do that ;-) >
>
>I realize I am traversing this thread in a fairly slim manner, but I
>am hoping someone else can remember this same episode for clarification.
>
>___________________________________________________________________
Sounds to me like you're talking about a TNG *script* that was posted on the
net by on of the r.a.s readers. If I remember right the title of the scripts
was "A Subtle Distinction". Tim is right. The *TV* show has never touched
the subject beyond "The Host".
For what its worth...
********************************************************************
David Wahlquist e-mail: da...@vixen.sandiego.ncr.com
NCR Corp.
Engineering and Manufacturing - San Diego
Anne H. Pfohl
>Several things I'd like to say.
>
>About homosexuality:
>
>Perhaps the reason you don't see open homosexuality is because in that time,
>people DON'T CARE about one's sexual orientation. The reason you don't see
>publicly displayed stuff is just being professional; in today's Navy, I think,
>Public Displays of Affection are highly frowned upon. Of course, I could be
>way off base with this.
I would hope that in a fictional representation of the future that "people
wouldn't care", but I don't buy the rationale about public displays of
affection. What about Ten Forward? People there are often depicted in
close, intimate tet-a-tete's - why not have two men holding hands? Two women
standing beside a table, talking to a friend, with their arms casually draped
around eachother's shoulders?
If "people" in this futuristic society on Star Trek "don't care", then why
not?
Because people in the "real" world do care.
>No flames, please, just point out what doesn't make sense, and maybe cite
>sources for why I'm wrong. Okay? :)
Opinions are opinions. No flames here. Chacun a son gout.
Anne
University at Buffalo Medical School - Office of Information Systems
======================================================================
*** Disclaimer...
*** These thoughts belong to -mi
-mi -mi
-mi -mi
mi -mi. Ahem. La la la...
*** Sounds like a personal problem to me... ***
======================================================================
ois...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu | "Discard your facades and reveal your
ois...@mednet.bitnet | true being to me. Cast aside your
pf...@eng.buffalo.edu | masks and let me slip inside
| your mind..."
| "Muzzle it."
Anne H. Pfohl
(System Leprechaun) writes...
>
>The closest they've come to homosexuality is the story where Beaverly falls
||
---------------
This made me laugh out loud. :)
(read following with brogue)
And shor'n ye should be watchin' what yer fingers air doin' on that keyboard
of your's, me boy!
Anne
University at Buffalo Medical School - Office of Information Systems
======================================================================
*** Disclaimer...
*** These thoughts belong to -mi
-mi -mi
-mi -mi
mi -mi. Ahem. La la la...
*** Sounds like a personal problem to me... ***
======================================================================
ois...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu | One more false move and I'll... I'll...
ois...@mednet.bitnet | sing a high C!
pf...@eng.buffalo.edu | - Dangerous Diva
(Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University
> In article <1991Aug7...@ssdvx2.mdcbbs.com> lau...@ssdvx2.mdcbbs.com writes:
>>Get a life folks. Not all life style choices can or need to be explored
>>in any series.
I agree with the above statement.
>
> Sounds like youUre SERIOUSLY in need of a life yourself.
>
> I tire of so-called open-minded people trivializing the very real
> concerns of groups who are marginalized. GODAMMIT! They HAVE a life and it is
> a HELL of a lot more difficult, a LOT more painful than you can imagine.
(rubbing tear from eye...)
Sigh, I am tired of this P.C crap.
I disagree with the statement above. Why? Its simple. It is not
possible to show every lifestyle that exists. As Gene Roddenberry himself
said "If I let the fans control the show the show would be crap", that
is of course not the exact statement. Certainly making a main
character openly gay would destroy Star Trek.
What if the Captain and first officer were gay. Would that really
improve the shows ratings? Do you think that the show would still
appeal to the masses? Do you think it would be suitable for children
to watch? I suspect you are crazy enough to say "yes" to all of
these questions. If you think so, then perhaps you could talk
Paramount into letting you produce a show that fits your correct
thinking. I, of course, will use my right to change the channel
when your program comes on the air.
If Star Trek turns into the P.C. show that you are advocating it will
die. Star Trek, like it or not is simple mind-numbing entertainment.
It is a business, and it must appeal to the masses.
Like it or not homosexuality does not appeal to the masses, no matter
how many times you and other cry it should.
Star Trek is entertainment. It is not a government program, it is not
a social statement--it is pure entertainment. Can't we leave
something alone? Must all things be politically correct?
Do yourself a favor---get a life.
>
> Get a life indeed. Try saying that to Jews in Nazi Germany. For that
> matter, try saying that to gays in Nazi Germany.
Perhaps we need a Jewish starship and a Arab starship and maybe even an
Iragi starship! Yeah, that sure would make Star Trek must more fun.
After all, Saddam Hussein is a human too!
>
> Not all issues need to be dealt with in a series, but for a series that
> claims to be progressive and free and clear of network censorship, the Trek
> crew are being awfully cowardly about this issue. (And for those of you who
> dont think this kind of issue makes for good entertainment, may I direct you
> to your local gay/lesbian theatres or, for that matter, to your local
> regional theatre period.....)
Have you considered that possibly that by ignoring homosexuality Star
Trek has dealt with it? It is just a thought.
>
>
>
> --
> Roger Tang, gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu; Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club
> "Originally, I got into theatre to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all
> I found were women."
I imagine my mailbox will be full of flames. I enjoy them. Please
understand that I am using my Constitutional Right in the freedom of
expression. I realize that too, is not P.C., but I will try to
understand your viewpoint..regardless.
-mark=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Manes // CIS : 74030,744
System Manager/Programmer // Email: ma...@vger.nsu.edu
Norfolk State University \\\// Amiga Phone: (804) 683-2532
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"AmigaDOS 2.0 is the future of the Amiga -- be a part of it!"
Atsushi Kanamori
>In article <1991Aug8.0...@milton.u.washington.edu>, gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes:
>> In article <1991Aug7...@ssdvx2.mdcbbs.com> lau...@ssdvx2.mdcbbs.com writes:
>>>Get a life folks. Not all life style choices can or need to be explored
>>>in any series.
>I agree with the above statement.
As do I.
>Certainly making a main
>character openly gay would destroy Star Trek.
Why?
>What if the Captain and first officer were gay. Would that really
>improve the shows ratings?
Other than the gawk gimmick factor, no.
>Do you think that the show would still
>appeal to the masses?
As much as I hate to say it, probably not. On the other hand, not all
of us are bigots, and not all of us confuse a show's artistic merit
with its political content.
>Do you think it would be suitable for children
>to watch?
Of course. (Though that's probably one of my complaints about the
show (:-))
>I suspect you [Roger Tang] are crazy enough to say "yes" to all of
>these questions.
(with no IMHO.) (1e-10 :-)
>If Star Trek turns into the P.C. show that you are advocating it will
>die.
>Star Trek, like it or not is simple mind-numbing entertainment.
On certain days. On many others, it's just plain mind-numbing.
>It is a business, and it must appeal to the masses.
>Like it or not homosexuality does not appeal to the masses, no matter
>how many times you and other cry it should.
>Star Trek is entertainment.
>It is not a government program, it is not
>a social statement
Like it or not, it is often a social statement. Now, if they
change their motto to "pure entertainment" (and they succeed regularly
at it), I have no problem with that either.
>Do yourself a favor---get a life.
>>
>> Get a life indeed. Try saying that to Jews in Nazi Germany. For that
>> matter, try saying that to gays in Nazi Germany.
>Perhaps we need a Jewish starship and a Arab starship and maybe even an
>Iragi starship! Yeah, that sure would make Star Trek must more fun.
>After all, Saddam Hussein is a human too!
And probably more interesting than the current TNG characters.
>>
>> Not all issues need to be dealt with in a series, but for a series that
>> claims to be progressive and free and clear of network censorship, the Trek
>> crew are being awfully cowardly about this issue. (And for those of you who
>> dont think this kind of issue makes for good entertainment, may I direct you
>> to your local gay/lesbian theatres or, for that matter, to your local
>> regional theatre period.....)
>Have you considered that possibly that by ignoring homosexuality Star
>Trek has dealt with it? It is just a thought.
>I imagine my mailbox will be full of flames. I enjoy them.
Somehow, I'm not surprised. Sorry to disappoint you, fella.
. . . . .
: : : :. : : :.. .: : . ::.: . ..: :
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.::::::
------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From "Yesterday's Enterprise" To "Redemption" ---
"You should not discount Jean-Luc Picard yet. He's human. And humans have
a way of showing up when you least expect them." -
lau...@ssdvx2.mdcbbs.com
>>Get a life folks. Not all life style choices can or need to be explored
>>in any series.
>
> Sounds like youUre SERIOUSLY in need of a life yourself.
>
> I tire of so-called open-minded people trivializing the very real
> concerns of groups who are marginalized. GODAMMIT! They HAVE a life and it is
> a HELL of a lot more difficult, a LOT more painful than you can imagine.
>
> Get a life indeed. Try saying that to Jews in Nazi Germany. For that
> matter, try saying that to gays in Nazi Germany.
>
> Not all issues need to be dealt with in a series, but for a series that
> claims to be progressive and free and clear of network censorship, the Trek
> crew are being awfully cowardly about this issue. (And for those of you who
> dont think this kind of issue makes for good entertainment, may I direct you
> to your local gay/lesbian theatres or, for that matter, to your local
> regional theatre period.....)
Granted, my "get a life" line may have been uncalled for. My point is that
every couple of months a flurry of posts shows up debating the various points
about various politically correct "issues" of the day. Granted, Gays, Jews,
Blacks, American Indians, Mongols, Lebanese, Mayans, Performers, Actors,
Snake Oil Salesman etc have been persecuted throughout the ages. Should Star
Trek be used as a vehicle to redress all or any of these concern? Do the
writers/producers/directors/actors have an obligation to push the political
agenda of any particular group that has been/is beening slighted? The gay
"issue" may be important to you, but must it be important to everyone
involved in Star Trek?
All in all I think Star Trek (both series) has done an admirable job of
exploring mans inhumanity to man. I applaud the efforts of all concerned
in dealing with the large issues, and not getting caught up in the
hot "issue" of the moment.
Chris Harmon
|> In article <1991Aug8.0...@milton.u.washington.edu>, gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes:
|> > In article <1991Aug7...@ssdvx2.mdcbbs.com> lau...@ssdvx2.mdcbbs.com writes:
|> >>Get a life folks. Not all life style choices can or need to be explored
|> >>in any series.
|>
|> I agree with the above statement.
|>
|> I disagree with the statement above. Why? Its simple. It is not
|> possible to show every lifestyle that exists. As Gene Roddenberry himself
|> said "If I let the fans control the show the show would be crap", that
|> is of course not the exact statement. Certainly making a main
|> character openly gay would destroy Star Trek.
|> If Star Trek turns into the P.C. show that you are advocating it will
|> die. Star Trek, like it or not is simple mind-numbing entertainment.
|> It is a business, and it must appeal to the masses.
|>
|> Like it or not homosexuality does not appeal to the masses, no matter
|> how many times you and other cry it should.
|>
|> Star Trek is entertainment. It is not a government program, it is not
|> a social statement--it is pure entertainment. Can't we leave
|> something alone? Must all things be politically correct?
It seems to me that this is a very limited view of what ST is. Superficially,
it is an epic entertainment yarn. But sometimes I find that it provides
a vehicle to ask interesting questions. It can be a platform for interesting
socialogical experiments, where we can witness what one person thinks is the
logical conclusion of a set of circumstances. Sort of like fables for a
modern age.
WAIT BEFORE YOU FLAME! I'm not saying ALL ST episodes, old or new, function in
this way. Sometimes they are just cops and robbers in outer space. But let
me give a few examples of episodes that fit what I'm describing. (And I
grant that they are not all that common.)
TOS:A Taste of Armageddon
An interesting point here is "what happens when we take away all the uglyness
of war and make it palatable?" One author's answer: we stop finding reasons
to end it. Interestingly, this has become a controversial topic in recent
times as the military try to use telerobotic fighting machines on the battle
field. Is this a good development? Where might it lead, if everyone had
robot fighting machines, and there were no battlefield casualties? Would our
society become like the one in AToA?
TOS:Where no Man Has Gone Before
Would the sudden acquisition of near-infinite powers make someone evil? So
quickly? Can the human psyche show the restraint necessary to live with such
a burden? Or would we just be 'nice' as Riker tried to be when Q made him a
member of the Continuum?
TNG:The Measure of a Man
This story concerns the question "Is Data alive? What would that imply?" These
questions are morally relevant to our attempts to construct intelligent,
self-motivated thinking machines. Were such a thing to be built, would
switching it off be considered murder? What about erasing its store? If the
machine is a self-directed entity, it seems like it should qualify as some
kind of life form. And just because we constructed it, can we treat it as
a slave, or should it be able to pursue its own independant course? Why should
we treat constructed entities any differently than naturally evolved ones, if
they show the same degree of sophistication in their behavior?
TNG:The Price
Is it immoral to use mind-reading abilities against someone else when they
don't know you can do this? Even if they are aware?
TNG:The Host
I think this triggered this thread long ago. I was fascinated by the kind
of culture Odan's world must have. S/he obviously thought nothing of relating
to Beverly in this new way; on his world, because a change of gender is
always a possibility, they must look at sexuality in an incidental way, where
gender doesn't enter into your selection of a 'mate,' since that gender could
change at any time. This left me filled with questions which the show didn't
answer, probably for fear of making mainstream americans have to think a bit.
TNG:The High Ground
Is terrorism justified? Where does the Federation get off saying its wrong,
when they have everything all worked out already; their own history is full
of it. Desperation drives people to use any means they can to win freedom to
follow their beliefs.
I have some thoughts on some of these, and some I'm not sure about. I think
other people do too. The point is that there are some (few) stories that pose
interesting questions about what is so, humanity, relationships, and morality.
So, back to the original thread, why do some people find different kinds of
relationships objectionable? Where do these criteria come from, and what is
natural or absolute about any of them? (No, don't send me an answer, I'm just
trying to show that ST can get these questions asked, show that prejudices are
learned. Consider TNG:Suddenly Human.) ST shows that differing viewpoints do
exist, and co-exist peacefully, given a chance.
I would not advocate having the captain and first officer gay as you suggest.
But if there were one character, it might occasionally come up. There's been
another posting in this thread suggesting that Geordi might make a good
candidate; the suggestion mentioned having a Klingon proscription against
homosexuality that might come up between Worf and Geordi occasionally. It
could demonstrate, as TNG:Suddenly Human, or TNG:Half a Life, that we have to
learn to accept each other's cultural values, and that once we do, we can move
ahead together into the rest of our lives, instead of wastefully trying to
prove each other wrong.
(Now that I think of it, Worf has quite a few lines to other Klingons, in
various stories, of the form "While serving the federation/Capt Picard/with
humans I have learned it is not always best to __________ because if you don't
you can do this other better thing _______________." I guess my ideal would
be for lots of people watching ST to go away thinking something like that.
As long as its not preachy......)
--
Chris
Flappety, Floppety, Flip!
A mouse on a moebius Strip,
The strip revolved,
The mouse dissolved,
In a chronodimensional skip!
-- from _A_Space_Child's_Mother_Goose_
John Graziano
B. Lauger) writes:
>Great!! Let's make a new list. What other lifestyle choices have not
>been fully represented on Star Trek? I personally am a strong
>beliver in moustaches. Other than Rikers full beard ( a bit too much
>IMHO) very few people are shown with good facial hair. I suspect over
>30% of the men in the country were a moustache at some point in their
>lives (based on an informal poll around the office). When are we going
>to see this!!!!
>
>How about people who live for their plants? Very few are shown.
>Is Roddenberry an Agraphobic?
I'll leave the moustache comments to Josh & Stephen because I'd like to say -
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP! Nobody ever got the shit beat out of them for wearing a
moustache. No government ever ignored/persecuted people because they were
dying of something perceived as a "guys with moustaches" disease. Gays/Lesbians
have been the objects of too many bigoted acts is this society to be dismissed
as "just another weird lifestyle." A show as self-consciously progressive as
Star Trek _needs_ to address this issue.
>Get a life folks.
Get a clue, John.
>Not all life style choices can or need to be explored
>in any series.
How many times does it have to be said - HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A "CHOICE"!
I suppose you woke up one day around your 12th birthday and said "Hmm..seems
like a good day to start liking girls..."
>Opinions are mine, or someone elses, but definitely not MDSSC's!!
>Internet: lau...@ssdvax.mdcbbs.com
>UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,att}!ssdvax.mdcbbs.com!lauger (714) 896-1393
--graz
I should probably put in a disclaimer here - it's generally not a good idea to
flame someone from a company that makes its own thermonuclear warheads.
Chris Harmon
|> Several things I'd like to say.
|>
|> About homosexuality:
|>
|> Perhaps the reason you don't see open homosexuality is because in that time,
|> people DON'T CARE about one's sexual orientation. The reason you don't see
|> publicly displayed stuff is just being professional; in today's Navy, I think,
|> Public Displays of Affection are highly frowned upon. Of course, I could be
|> way off base with this.
Sure. But we see plenty of hetero PDA on Trek, so this theory doesn't hold up.
I would expect 10-15% of the PDA to be gay. Now, if the PDA level is zero,
there wouldn't be any. But, as I said, there's plenty of straight PDA. What
happened to the other 10%?
Tim Pierce
> About homosexuality:
>
> Perhaps the reason you don't see open homosexuality is because in that
> time, people DON'T CARE about one's sexual orientation.
Then, logically, people wouldn't care if gay couples displayed
affection in public, or were even given a nod toward their
_existence._ Heterosexuality certainly exists in the Star Trek
universe -- I've seen at least a few episodes of TNG that portray
opposite-sex affection (mostly just in passing, yes, but not even that
appears with same-sex couples), and for heavens' sake! Kirk was a
swinger!
The only thing stopping gay couples today from observing affection for
one another in public (i.e. holding hands, hugging, kissing) is the
widespread disapproval of homosexuality. It follows, then, that if
sexual orientation is a non-issue in the 25th century, we'd see at
least a LITTLE same-sex love.
--
____ Tim Pierce \ "If God didn't like homosexuals,
\ / w1...@arnor.UUCP (<- mail HERE!) \ there wouldn't BE homosexuals."
\/ (twpi...@amh.amherst.edu) \ -- Joshua Geller
Andrew Hackard
>>>Not all life style choices can or need to be explored
>>>in any series.
>
>I agree with the above statement.
Much though it pains me, so do I, although in this specific instance I
tend to disagree. Trek has always been a vehicle for social commentary,
as well as entertainment. Gene & Co. have already passed up some good
chances to make a statement, which is their right, but we don't have to
like it.
>Certainly making a main
>character openly gay would destroy Star Trek.
Uh-oh. Get the butane ready, Ma. (Pray continue, Mark...)
>What if the Captain and first officer were gay.
** FLAME ON LOW **
No one is talking about making a lead character gay, simply a recurring,
supporting role. Get a grip and go reread the messages you knee-jerked
to.
>Would that really improve the shows ratings?
** FLAME ON MEDIUM **
Immaterial and symptomatic of your problems with life. The point of
making a character gay on Trek is not to boost ratings, it is to make
one of the statements Trek is supposedly--and correctly--famous for.
While I certainly wouldn't complain if ratings went up, that shouldn't
be the main reaon for such a move.
>Do you think that the show would still appeal to the masses?
Yes, because I have a higher opinion of the masses than you seem to, and
from my experience, you are NOT representative. Anyone who is so offended
by the sexual orientation of a character on a TV show that it gets turned
off is someone we can afford to lose. IMHO, of course.
>Do you think it would be suitable for children to watch?
** FLAME ON HIGH **
Absolutely, since I don't want my children growing up with the same
narrow-minded attitudes that you and your psychic companions so blatantly
throw down as "enlightment" and, God help us, "morality." You may certainly
raise your own children any way you like, but stay the hell away from mine.
Your children will be in for a rude jolt later when they discover the
whole world isn't one big, happy, lobotomized family. By then, though,
they'll realize Aldous Huxley didn't write child-care manuals.
>I suspect you are crazy enough to say "yes" to all of these questions.
** FLAME ON LOW **
Umm...you need to recheck your thesaurus. "Crazy" and "sane" are antonyms,
not synonyms.
>If you think so, then perhaps you could talk Paramount into letting you
>produce a show that fits your correct thinking.
Oh, so you *admit* it! Or, heavens me, was that sarcasm?
>I, of course, will use my right to change the channel
>when your program comes on the air.
Oh, horrors, say it ain't so, Joe. Damn, we'll miss you.
>If Star Trek turns into the P.C. show that you are advocating it will
>die.
Beg to differ, but the response of the net folks in general disputes
that claim; I think most of them would be more than happy to see MORE
social issues, not less. (BTW, merely acknowledging the existence of
differing views on life isn't sufficient reason to be branded PC. On
the other hand, they do appear to equally threaten your world view.)
>Star Trek, like it or not is simple mind-numbing entertainment.
>It is a business, and it must appeal to the masses.
Yes and no. It's more than simple mind-numbing entertainment, because
GR has publicly committed to providing a show that tackles the social
issues of his day. Sure, it has to appeal to the masses, but that doesn't
mean we can't have any spice in our food. That's more offensive that
any other option. Again, IMHO.
>Like it or not homosexuality does not appeal to the masses, no matter
>how many times you and other cry it should.
No one is claiming that it should appeal to everyone, or even most people,
just that an acknowledgment of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle would
be a nice thing for GR et al to do. I think you're missing the point of
the argument--removing people's blinders, not forcing them to DO anything
they don't want to do.
>Star Trek is entertainment. It is not a government program, it is not
>a social statement--it is pure entertainment.
GR disagrees--see above.
>Can't we leave something alone? Must all things be politically correct?
If Trek went all the way to political correctness, *I* would switch it
off, because the PC folks are nauseating. Differences DO exist, and to
pretend they don't is blind idealism of the worst sort. That does NOT
mean, however, that we need to judge them, merely acknowledge them.
>Do yourself a favor---get a life.
I fail to see how you have one to spare. You'd be pressed to come up with
two clues to rub together.
>> Get a life indeed. Try saying that to Jews in Nazi Germany. For that
>> matter, try saying that to gays in Nazi Germany.
>
>Perhaps we need a Jewish starship and a Arab starship and maybe even an
>Iragi starship! Yeah, that sure would make Star Trek must more fun.
^^^^^ Huh? (obligatory spelling flame)
>After all, Saddam Hussein is a human too!
Ah, so you're arguing that saying other types of people exist means they
have to be segregated? Gee, I suppose that would keep you nice and
insulated fron reality, wouldn't it?
>Have you considered that possibly that by ignoring homosexuality Star
>Trek has dealt with it? It is just a thought.
Yes, I have. I just don't have to feel they have dealt with it effectively.
[No one yet has made the argument that homosexuals are so accepted in the
24th century that being gay doesn't even rate a mention, which surprises
me; it's a convenient out for people who want to sound PC without dealing
with actually converting attitudes.]
>> Roger Tang, gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu; Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club
>I imagine my mailbox will be full of flames. I enjoy them. Please
>understand that I am using my Constitutional Right in the freedom of
>expression. I realize that too, is not P.C., but I will try to
>understand your viewpoint..regardless.
Gee, thanks for the consideration.
>-mark=
** FLAME OFF **
--Andrew
an...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Disclaimer:Given X, where X is a member of the set of my opinions, it is
not the case that X must be a member of the set of the opinions
of any given Y, such that Y != me.
Lisa Paul
Subject: Re: Gays on ST:TNG
References: <1991Aug05.2...@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> <86...@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <1991Aug7...@ssdvx2.mdcbbs.com> <1991Aug8.0...@milton.u.washington.edu> <1283.2...@vger.nsu.edu>
Sender:
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
In article <1283.2...@vger.nsu.edu> ma...@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes:
>[...]
>What if the Captain and first officer were gay. Would that really
>improve the shows ratings? Do you think that the show would still
>appeal to the masses? Do you think it would be suitable for children
>to watch? I suspect you are crazy enough to say "yes" to all of
>these questions. If you think so, then perhaps you could talk
>Paramount into letting you produce a show that fits your correct
>thinking. I, of course, will use my right to change the channel
>when your program comes on the air.
Why do you use the phrase: correct thinking? Do you think someone would become
involved in this discussion just because they thought it was PC? or maybe
you are being sarcastic, to emphasize that this thinking is wrong?
>[...]
>Star Trek is entertainment. It is not a government program, it is not
>a social statement--it is pure entertainment. Can't we leave
>something alone? Must all things be politically correct?
When you say star trek is only entertainment, I presume you refer to the fact
that it should disregard any values of human kindness. Does politically correct
mean to you that something has values of any difference from your own?
>>[...various nasties deleted...]
>
>Have you considered that possibly that by ignoring homosexuality Star
>Trek has dealt with it? It is just a thought.
Yes, the thought being that there is your social statement- that it is okay to
make the show as whitebread as possible as long as our captain shows his
cultural senstivity by growling at the Klingons.
>> Roger Tang, gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu; Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club
>> "Originally, I got into theatre to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all
>> I found were women."
>
>I imagine my mailbox will be full of flames. I enjoy them. Please
>understand that I am using my Constitutional Right in the freedom of
>expression. I realize that too, is not P.C., but I will try to
>understand your viewpoint..regardless.
>
>-mark=
>
Mark, why is not PC to have freedom of expression? I agree with that but I
don't think you have to worry about using the Constitution to voice your
opinion.You represent the mainstream, and as you say, that would appeal to
the masses.
Just another theatre geek.....
!In article <1991Aug8.0...@milton.u.washington.edu>, gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes:
!! In article <1991Aug7...@ssdvx2.mdcbbs.com> lau...@ssdvx2.mdcbbs.com writes:
!!!Get a life folks. Not all life style choices can or need to be explored
!!!in any series.
!! Get a life indeed. Try saying that to Jews in Nazi Germany. For that
!! matter, try saying that to gays in Nazi Germany.
!! Not all issues need to be dealt with in a series, but for a series that
!! claims to be progressive and free and clear of network censorship, the Trek
!! crew are being awfully cowardly about this issue. (And for those of you who
!! dont think this kind of issue makes for good entertainment, may I direct you
!! to your local gay/lesbian theatres or, for that matter, to your local
!! regional theatre period.....)
!Granted, my "get a life" line may have been uncalled for. My point is that
!every couple of months a flurry of posts shows up debating the various points
!about various politically correct "issues" of the day. Granted, Gays, Jews,
!Blacks, American Indians, Mongols, Lebanese, Mayans, Performers, Actors,
!Snake Oil Salesman etc have been persecuted throughout the ages. Should Star
!Trek be used as a vehicle to redress all or any of these concern? Do the
!writers/producers/directors/actors have an obligation to push the political
!agenda of any particular group that has been/is beening slighted? The gay
!"issue" may be important to you, but must it be important to everyone
!involved in Star Trek?
Only if a good, dramatic story comes out of it.
What is bothersome about the issue is the weasally hypocrisy Paramount
seems to be showing on this issue. The apparent REAL reason they donUt have
a gay character is that they lack the guts and fear the reaction of the
loudmouthed Moral Minority.
I think we can all agree that we dont want a gay character on the
show just for the sake of having a gay character. Thats tokenism. And I think
none of us would really mind having a gay character show up in the course of
a riproaring, needle-behind-the-eyeballs story. What sticks in the craw is the
weak-kneed silence of Paramount.
Even a statement saying, Sorry, we dont have a script that can use
a gay character without making them a token, would be easier to take than
the current silence.
(and make no mistake...a good story doing this would be hard to come by...)
Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std
>((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes:
>>Do you think that the show would still appeal to the masses?
>Yes, because I have a higher opinion of the masses than you seem to, and
>from my experience, you are NOT representative. Anyone who is so offended
>by the sexual orientation of a character on a TV show that it gets turned
>off is someone we can afford to lose. IMHO, of course.
You must have a far higher opinion of the masses than I have. The
intelligence of the average population is rather low. IMHO.
>>If Star Trek turns into the P.C. show that you are advocating it will
>>die.
>Beg to differ, but the response of the net folks in general disputes
>that claim; I think most of them would be more than happy to see MORE
>social issues, not less. (BTW, merely acknowledging the existence of
>differing views on life isn't sufficient reason to be branded PC. On
>the other hand, they do appear to equally threaten your world view.)
My impression is that the people who have a differing opinion on
this particular subject are being silent for fear of the ever
pervasive sword of political correctness. And that is essentially
what is happening in academia, where many of those same net folk
reside. People who dare to voice opinions different from those of
the vocal politically correct group are being hounded. So much for
free speech, or even tenure, for that matter.
>>Like it or not homosexuality does not appeal to the masses, no matter
>>how many times you and other cry it should.
>No one is claiming that it should appeal to everyone, or even most people,
>just that an acknowledgment of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle would
>be a nice thing for GR et al to do.
Unfortunately, homosexuality is as highly emotional an issue as
abortion is, and I doubt that the majority of people in the US would
be willing at this time to admit that homosexuality might be a valid
lifestyle option. As such, it is not surprising that TNG has not
focussed on it more than the few seconds at the end of "The Host".
GR still has to sell this to Paramount who pays the bills, and Paramount
still has to sell it to the syndicated networks.
Which reminds me, exactly what did Crusher say at the end of "The Host"
when the new host came in to talk to her? I'd like a direct quote
here -- I only remember generalities, and we all know how misleading
those can be.
--
Arnold Gill --- astrophysician trainee in exile gi...@physics.ubc.ca
Neil P.G.
>>>However, in 25 years, 'Star Trek' has never shown an openly
>>>gay character."
>Great!! Let's make a new list. What other lifestyle choices have not
>been fully represented on Star Trek? I personally am a strong
>beliver in moustaches. Other than Rikers full beard ( a bit too much
>IMHO) very few people are shown with good facial hair. I suspect over
>30% of the men in the country were a moustache at some point in their
>lives (based on an informal poll around the office). When are we going
>to see this!!!!
>How about people who live for their plants? Very few are shown.
>Is Roddenberry an Agraphobic?
>Get a life folks. Not all life style choices can or need to be explored
>in any series.
Perhaps you might consider getting a life.
a) Homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice"
b) comparing homosexuality and facial hair has to be one of the
stupidest things I've ever heard. (IMHO)
I do hope you were just joking....
Neil P.G.
>Okay, that's about visible features. To drag this back to the original topic,
>portrayal of homosexuality, I personally feel that this is a non-issue. I'd
>simply rather not know what goes on behind close doors on the Enterprise,
>be it heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual activity, or whatever. Call me a
>prude, but I'm simply not that much of a voyeur, and IMHO I have always found
>the romantic interludes in Trek (and other series) to be the weakest part of
>a show.
I agree that the "romantic" bits are usually pretty weak, but as they are
there, and are solely heterosexual, a little balance would help.
Either keep everything behind closed doors or be fair about it, IMHO.
Iain McCord
>
> Gee, I seem to remember that Picard made the reference to there being
> a Criminal Tendency Gene, and that now it was taken care of thru
> screening. I thought this was 1st or 2nd season TNG.
>
> Nothing to do with sexual preference's.
>
Basic story of peacful planet brainwashing citizens to be wariors and after
the war is over puting the veterans in prison rather than deprograming...
Don't remember who they were fighting ( Nam, Kong maybee :-)
Perhaps the confusion is between homocidal and homosexual..... :-)
-Iain McCord-
Matthew Wayne Gertz
>ge...@bilge.ece.cmu.edu (Matthew Wayne Gertz) writes:
>
>>I'd
>>simply rather not know what goes on behind close doors on the Enterprise,
>>be it heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual activity, or whatever. Call me a
>>prude, but I'm simply not that much of a voyeur, and IMHO I have always
>>found
>>the romantic interludes in Trek (and other series) to be the weakest part of
>>a show.
>
>I agree that the "romantic" bits are usually pretty weak, but as they are
>there, and are solely heterosexual, a little balance would help.
>Either keep everything behind closed doors or be fair about it, IMHO.
I agree, and it's certainly unrealistic of me to think that a totally natural
part of life can be kept in the background (sex in general, I mean). If it's
important to the show, then I think it belongs there. If it's
gratuitous, though, I've got ask "As long as you're trying to summarize an
adventure of the _Enterprise_ in a mere 44 minutes, couldn't you put in
something more consequential to the plot?"
Judging from all the requests for info about nude photos of Crosby and Sirtis,
though, and the sometimes-somewhat-erotic fan stories that show up on the
net occassionally, I bet I'd be outvoted... 8^)
--
--Matt Gertz--*
ge...@bilge.ece.cmu.edu
Jari Junikka
>Perhaps the reason you don't see open homosexuality is because in that time,
>people DON'T CARE about one's sexual orientation. The reason you don't see
>publicly displayed stuff is just being professional; in today's Navy, I think,
>Public Displays of Affection are highly frowned upon. Of course, I could be
>way off base with this.
Why do we so much heterosexuality in the show?
Assuming lesbians, bisexuals and gay men are accepted,
you'd assume they'd be open about. People do tend to
express their feelings for the people they care and
this is much more than what happens behind the bedroom
doors. Why would they hide their love and feelings
in a society where sexual orientation is NOT an issue?
And why is it supposed to be so hard to write an episode
with gay characters in it. You don't need to have the character's
sexual orientation to be the focus of the plot. In the course
of the charcters normal duties just let her or him show concern
for someone of the same sex. Or what about a character wondering
how to approach someone? We've seen several episodes where
a character's romantic feelings and how to express them have
played a background to the storyline development.
Writing a gay, bisexual or lesbian character in the series
is no harder than writing an episode, because it's just that.
jari
swan...@beowulf.acc.stolaf.edu
in well. Last night I was watching "Remember Me."
At the beginning, when Bev asks why the Dr. who
first disappears is leaving, he says something like
"After Nancy died, I couldn't contunue to work in that
lab, sleep in that bed without her. The absence of her
was too distracting."
Why not change it to Kevin, and Him? Too late now,
but it might have worked.
The idea of having Worf and Geordi is a good one as
well. We know that Worf doens't exactly like the idea.
Remember the look on his face when he escorted the
female Odan into Sickbay?
Karen Swanberg
swan...@carleton.edu
"I weave a web of rhyme upon the summer night"
-Neil Diamond "Longfellow Serendade."
Brian E. Frost
subject I don't particularly care for. I don't like homosexuality and don't like
people to shove it in my face and say you MUST accept it.
I have my opinions and I will live my life the way I want. So please don't start
sending me flames calling me a bigot, homophobe or what ever else you can
come up with, they will be promptly sent to that big bit bucket in the sky.
If any PC ppl get offended, pissed off, or excited that they've got a new
victom to take shots at, let me assure you you're in for a disappointing trek.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Frost Internet: b1f...@zeus.tamu.edu
Academic Computing Services Bitnet: b1f5814@tamzeus
Texas A&M University THEnet: ACS::B1F5814
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you post it, they will flame." - The voice from Field of Dreams.
Stephen Dennison
>bkni...@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Bruce Knight) writes:
>
>>Perhaps the reason you don't see open homosexuality is because in that time,
>>people DON'T CARE about one's sexual orientation. The reason you don't see
>>publicly displayed stuff is just being professional; in today's Navy, I think,
>>Public Displays of Affection are highly frowned upon. Of course, I could be
>>way off base with this.
>
>Why do we so much heterosexuality in the show?
If this is not a rehtorical question, I'd guess that in the 24th century
heterosexuality is still the dominant sexual preference. We see so much of
it for the same reason we see so many Ford Escorts.
There really is *no* compelling reason I can see that homosexuality would
quickly "catch on" and become the dominant preference once the silly
persecution of homosexuals is erased. That's kind of like expecting the
black population to take a sudden jump once racial prejudice is wiped out.
>Assuming lesbians, bisexuals and gay men are accepted,
>you'd assume they'd be open about. People do tend to
>express their feelings for the people they care and
>this is much more than what happens behind the bedroom
>doors. Why would they hide their love and feelings
>in a society where sexual orientation is NOT an issue?
They wouldn't, of course, but you're missing the point. I didn't hide my
Shelby when I had it either, but a large number of folks have never seen
one because they're a relatively small percentage of the total vehicals on
the road.
>
>And why is it supposed to be so hard to write an episode
>with gay characters in it.
Uhh, right or wrong, fiscal considerations make it difficult. Given the
threats from sponsers over that thing between two women on LA Law, and
given the current tenuous cost/profit balance on TNG, it *could* cost the
fans *dearly* to portray homosexuality on an episode, even subliminally. I
really doubt that a token portrayal would do anything but stir up a
hornet's nest anyway as it might well be construed as "throwing them a
bone" (no pun intended, honestly).
> You don't need to have the character's
>sexual orientation to be the focus of the plot. In the course
>of the charcters normal duties just let her or him show concern
>for someone of the same sex. Or what about a character wondering
>how to approach someone? We've seen several episodes where
>a character's romantic feelings and how to express them have
>played a background to the storyline development.
Again, I doubt that it would be enough to satisfy those who are asking for
it.
>
>Writing a gay, bisexual or lesbian character in the series
>is no harder than writing an episode, because it's just that.
I think it *is* for the above reasons, and moreover, may risk the
continuation of the series to a small degree. To paraphrase a quote I saw
somewhere:
"I'd rather have heterosexual Star Trek than no Star Trek at all." :-)
Stephen
You crucify your saviour. You choose to close your mind.
And in your fear you light the flame that finally burns you blind.
Vicki Holzhauer
>I thought of a great time they could have put this topic
> in well. Last night I was watching "Remember Me."
>At the beginning, when Bev asks why the Dr. who
>first disappears is leaving, he says something like
>"After Nancy died, I couldn't contunue to work in that
>lab, sleep in that bed without her. The absence of her
>was too distracting."
>Why not change it to Kevin, and Him? Too late now,
>but it might have worked.
I doubt it would have had the same impact.
>
>The idea of having Worf and Geordi is a good one as
>well. We know that Worf doens't exactly like the idea.
>Remember the look on his face when he escorted the
>female Odan into Sickbay?
>
>
I had the impression that he had that expression on his face because
he *knew* that Bev would be disappointed. I doubt it was because he
was homophobic.
And I don't consider myself homophobic, but this whole discussion is
really getting on my nerves! Why is it so damned important to have
someone on STTNG who is openly gay? They don't even have that many
heterosexual relationships featured ... why do gay ones? They've said
over and over that tolerance is the rule in the 24th century, so why
not leave it at that? That means that homosexuality is tolerated.
Having openly gay characters would offend a lot of viewers, so why do
it?
It reminds me of the first season, when I was dating someone who
didn't want to give TNG a chance. I finally got him to watch it, and
it turned out to be that horrible one with the drug addicts and the
people from the other planet who supplied them drugs. After Tasha's
anti-drug "speech" to Wes, my (liberal) friend said, "and you *like*
this crap?" He never watched TNG again ... (and I won't watch that
episode either).
Preaching on *any* subject irritates me.
And I thought the final scene with Bev and the female Odan was
*beautifully* handled. The kiss on the wrist was just the right
touch. It let people know that Bev was *not* a homophobe, but it
wasn't enough to offend those in the audience who are.
--
Vicki Holzhauer, NCAR/Research Aviation Facility
Internet: vi...@ncar.ucar.edu
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said
I didn't know." --Mark Twain
Stephen Dennison
>The idea of having Worf and Geordi is a good one as
>well. We know that Worf doens't exactly like the idea.
>Remember the look on his face when he escorted the
>female Odan into Sickbay?
I can see a really hilarious scene developing from this idea:
Tasteless warning ** Tasteless Warning ** Tasteless Warning **
..press 'n' to retain your lunch.
GUINAN: "Why don't you seek HUMAN females for companionship, Worf?"
WORF : "Human females are too fragile for Klingon methods ... and human
*males* are too tight ."
Sorry, I just thought it was time to inject some humor into this thread.
Gary L Dare
>>bkni...@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Bruce Knight) writes:
>>
>>>Perhaps the reason you don't see open homosexuality is because in
>>>that time, people DON'T CARE about one's sexual orientation.
That would be nice ...
afd...@lims03.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
>jun...@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Jari Junikka) writes...
>>And why is it supposed to be so hard to write an episode
>>with gay characters in it.
>
>Uhh, right or wrong, fiscal considerations make it difficult. Given the
>threats from sponsers over that thing between two women on LA Law, and
>given the current tenuous cost/profit balance on TNG, it *could* cost the
>fans *dearly* to portray homosexuality on an episode, even subliminally.
Another problem might be the limited perceptions of some writers, for
both gays and non-whites. Why are all the non-white characters so
hard-wired into the root cultures typical of their race and/or ethnic
background? From canon Star Trek IV, Mr. Sulu is descended from
Japanese-Californians and yet he isn't written to act as American as
the white Alaskan Commander Ryker; some 300 years had passed from the
time of the whale-napping to "The Voyage Home", right? If a writer
a) lives in California, b) goes to sushi bars in L.A. (often operated
by Japan Japanese) and c) doesn't pay much attention to all the Asian
faces who speak English the way s/he does, then they would do Mr. Sulu
in that way. If anything, injecting the California connection to Sulu
happened late in the old crew cycle so maybe I shouldn't make such an
issue out of the old writing. But, the same process is still at work
with other characters (captains from disabled starships in ST IV,
non-whites in TNG -- in fact, what about having whites from
non-Western cultures? And why is Keiko (Mrs. Miles O'Brien) more
traditionally Japanese than real people in Japan?).
gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare Re: Stupid,idiot,macho,jerks:
> g...@cunixD.cc.columbia.EDU "Ladies, if there was no demand,
> g...@cunixc.BITNET there'd be no supply!"
(Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University
> ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes:
>>gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes:
>>>lau...@ssdvx2.mdcbbs.com writes:
>>>>Not all life style choices can or need to be explored
>>>>in any series.
>>
>>I agree with the above statement.
>
> Much though it pains me, so do I, although in this specific instance I
> tend to disagree. Trek has always been a vehicle for social commentary,
> as well as entertainment. Gene & Co. have already passed up some good
> chances to make a statement, which is their right, but we don't have to
> like it.
Who is the "we"? I certainly feel that most of television today deals
with the social problems of today. Why do we need to add star trek to
the list? I find it most disquieting to have every show preach that this
is acceptable and that is acceptable on every program. I am tired of it.
I want television to become what it once was -- entertaining.
Star Trek, does (at times) talk about social issues, but it has been
nice not to have it done week to week as so many other television
programs seem to.
>
>>Certainly making a main
>>character openly gay would destroy Star Trek.
>
> Uh-oh. Get the butane ready, Ma. (Pray continue, Mark...)
>
>>What if the Captain and first officer were gay.
>
> ** FLAME ON LOW **
>
> No one is talking about making a lead character gay, simply a recurring,
> supporting role. Get a grip and go reread the messages you knee-jerked
> to.
I believe I did see a request from someone to make a leading character
gay. Suggesting that it would be a nice change. I, unfortunately, can't
find the post to back this claim. So I submit to your description.
What would be the point of adding a recurring gay supporting role? Do
homosexuals really need this kind of vindication? Do they need to be
told their lifestyle is acceptable?
I find it acceptable! See!? That does surprise you does it not?
I just don't think that the decision should be made one way or another
on a television program and having that decision preached world-wide.
You see, doing this does not help people decide for their self, since
the other side of the issue would never be displayed. I happen to
believe that the masses can make up their own minds without being
told what is _right_ and what should be accepted.
You see, I happen to think that Star Trek and the rest of television
for that matter is written for the 8 year old mentality. If the
television industry can not figure out that there are people out there
who can handle programs with plot and depth, then I certainly do not
want them deciding the hot political issues of today on their programs.
>
>>Would that really improve the shows ratings?
>
> ** FLAME ON MEDIUM **
>
> Immaterial and symptomatic of your problems with life. The point of
> making a character gay on Trek is not to boost ratings, it is to make
> one of the statements Trek is supposedly--and correctly--famous for.
> While I certainly wouldn't complain if ratings went up, that shouldn't
> be the main reaon for such a move.
What problem is that? I don't ever remember saying that I need to have
a fictional television show support my way of life. I feel very
comfortable with my position in this world, but thanks for asking
anyway.
You sir, no nothing about television if you say rating are immaterial
to Star Trek. Ratings is the bottom line. You are completely misguided
if you think anything else. Gene & Co. are not about to go out and
create contreversy when they have a working/winning show. Why should
they?
You assume that Star Trek (Gene & Company) agrees that homosexuality
is acceptable. I know that it is P.C. to say that is acceptable, but
perhaps, just perhaps Gene doesn't think so.
>
>>Do you think that the show would still appeal to the masses?
>
> Yes, because I have a higher opinion of the masses than you seem to, and
> from my experience, you are NOT representative. Anyone who is so offended
> by the sexual orientation of a character on a TV show that it gets turned
> off is someone we can afford to lose. IMHO, of course.
Let me see... in your survey of life you have determined that I am not
part of the majority. May I ask how you came to this conclusion? So
far my mailbox does not agree with your poll.
"Anyone who is so offended by the sexual orientation of a character on a
TV show that it gets turned off is someone we can afford to lose" is an
interesting statement. It says two things. It says that you only care
about the opinions that agree with your own, meaning that those who do
not agree should be silenced. The second thing your statement points
out is that you don't care what it costs, even if it kills Star Trek.
Suppose your polling information is wrong, and the silent majority do
not happen to agree with your concept of "what is right" and they all
switch off. Who would that hurt? Does that matter to you?
>
>>Do you think it would be suitable for children to watch?
>
> ** FLAME ON HIGH **
>
> Absolutely, since I don't want my children growing up with the same
> narrow-minded attitudes that you and your psychic companions so blatantly
> throw down as "enlightment" and, God help us, "morality." You may certainly
> raise your own children any way you like, but stay the hell away from mine.
Glady. You see I accept your right to do with your life as you wish.
Unfortunately your group doesn't believe that. I don't object to
homosexuality; I object to it being forced on me via a television
program. I don't happen to accept homosexuality in the same way
you do. It is my opinion that television is for entertainment, not
an avenue for the P.C. to tell me what I should think and how I
should think it.
I feel this way about a number of other subjects besides homosexuality
by the way.
>
> Your children will be in for a rude jolt later when they discover the
> whole world isn't one big, happy, lobotomized family. By then, though,
> they'll realize Aldous Huxley didn't write child-care manuals.
Lobotomized? Interesting.
Let me see if I understand this socially acceptable utopian thinking of
yours. You think simply because I disagree with the P.C. thinking that
the world has to accept homosexaulity with open arms that I am lobotomized,
and once more my children would be too? To borrow a favorite quote of
mine "Fascinating".
I wonder if we could get this in Star Trek as well. Perhaps we could
represent the P.C. movement more fairly by letting them be the Romulans?
That would certainly make the show more enjoyable to me! What about the
rest of the silent majority?
It is amazing with this new air of open mindedness how closed minded
a response I am getting.
>
>>I suspect you are crazy enough to say "yes" to all of these questions.
>
> ** FLAME ON LOW **
>
> Umm...you need to recheck your thesaurus. "Crazy" and "sane" are antonyms,
> not synonyms.
Thanks for the grammar lesson. :-) By the way is "Umm" in the dictionary
anywhere? They say when the argument gets to the point where a person
starts to dissect your sentences you are at that point wasting time. I
guess I am wasting time.
>
>>If you think so, then perhaps you could talk Paramount into letting you
>>produce a show that fits your correct thinking.
>
> Oh, so you *admit* it! Or, heavens me, was that sarcasm?
>
>>I, of course, will use my right to change the channel
>>when your program comes on the air.
>
> Oh, horrors, say it ain't so, Joe. Damn, we'll miss you.
Once again who is "we"?
>
>>If Star Trek turns into the P.C. show that you are advocating it will
>>die.
>
> Beg to differ, but the response of the net folks in general disputes
> that claim; I think most of them would be more than happy to see MORE
> social issues, not less. (BTW, merely acknowledging the existence of
> differing views on life isn't sufficient reason to be branded PC. On
> the other hand, they do appear to equally threaten your world view.)
PC branding is done when people like you say that if you don't see it
my way you are having trouble adjusting to life. You said it to me
yourself.
You see I am comfortable in the world I live in. I recoginize
homosexuality exists. I just don't think it needs to be played
up as perfectly acceptable on a public medium. I also think that
it would be equally wrong to have a Catholic on Star Trek telling
us that the only way to heaven is through being a Catholic. Do
you see my point yet?
>
>>Star Trek, like it or not is simple mind-numbing entertainment.
>>It is a business, and it must appeal to the masses.
>
> Yes and no. It's more than simple mind-numbing entertainment, because
> GR has publicly committed to providing a show that tackles the social
> issues of his day. Sure, it has to appeal to the masses, but that doesn't
> mean we can't have any spice in our food. That's more offensive that
> any other option. Again, IMHO.
Umm.. (your word, not mine) care to tell me what major social issues
have been dealt with in the Next Generation with any crediability? To
date, I have seen perhaps two or three episodes. Most do not. I would
agree that the old star trek did. However, the issues were a bit different
then.
The concept of equality between the races is not anything but right. No
realistic human can say otherwise. Can you really equate homosexaulity
in the same light? Remembering of course that you have to respect the
religions of other people and the rights of other people?
Just how bold was the old Star Trek anyway? Sure, there were a lot of
television firsts, but not one of the firsts were caused by activist
groups.
>
>>Like it or not homosexuality does not appeal to the masses, no matter
>>how many times you and other cry it should.
>
> No one is claiming that it should appeal to everyone, or even most people,
> just that an acknowledgment of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle would
> be a nice thing for GR et al to do. I think you're missing the point of
> the argument--removing people's blinders, not forcing them to DO anything
> they don't want to do.
So let me see. You would be vindicated if Star Trek showed just a little
homosexuality. Tell me, where does this vindication end? Does Star Trek
have to answer to every group that thinks their way of life is "ok" and
we all should share in it-- like it or not?
>
>>Can't we leave something alone? Must all things be politically correct?
>
> If Trek went all the way to political correctness, *I* would switch it
> off, because the PC folks are nauseating. Differences DO exist, and to
> pretend they don't is blind idealism of the worst sort. That does NOT
> mean, however, that we need to judge them, merely acknowledge them.
Wait a sec! How can you do that!? Wouldn't the collective "we" miss
you if you just switched off. What? You are exercising personal
choice! Oh my... what a wonderful concept. Perhaps you should
realize that I am doing nothing different, but exercising my same
choice.
Now, you should understand why Star Trek (and all television for that
matter) should go back to entertainment and get away from politics in
entertainment oriented programming. After all, politics is what this is
all about.
>>Perhaps we need a Jewish starship and a Arab starship and maybe even an
>>Iragi starship! Yeah, that sure would make Star Trek must more fun.
> ^^^^^ Huh? (obligatory spelling flame)
Ah.. there he goes again! The great grammar checker is at it again!
Durn! :-) You will note that "Durn" can not be located in the dictionary
either! I really hate people that resort to this type of flaming.
>>After all, Saddam Hussein is a human too!
>
> Ah, so you're arguing that saying other types of people exist means they
> have to be segregated? Gee, I suppose that would keep you nice and
> insulated fron reality, wouldn't it?
That is your interpetation.. but what of my question? Why not have
some Jews and Arabs? Perhaps Star Trek really could become the cast
of thousands.
>
>>Have you considered that possibly that by ignoring homosexuality Star
>>Trek has dealt with it? It is just a thought.
>
> Yes, I have. I just don't have to feel they have dealt with it effectively.
I, on the other hand, think they have handled it wonderfully by realizing
that is a potential bomb that could ruin their show.
>
>>I imagine my mailbox will be full of flames. I enjoy them. Please
>>understand that I am using my Constitutional Right in the freedom of
>>expression. I realize that too, is not P.C., but I will try to
>>understand your viewpoint..regardless.
>
> Gee, thanks for the consideration.
Your welcome! You will note, unlike you, I have not told you that your
thinking is lobotomized. I can agree to disagree with you on this issue
without getting too personal. Can you? Will P.C. allow that?
> --Andrew
> an...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
>
> Disclaimer:Given X, where X is a member of the set of my opinions, it is
> not the case that X must be a member of the set of the opinions
> of any given Y, such that Y != me.
-mark=
Kyle Jones
anything to do with society's approval or disapproval; it may just be
logistics. Unless every crewmen, cadet and officer has private
quarters, housing becomes a tricky problem. Where do you put the gays?
For that matter where do you put the bisexuals? It's not that you
can't expect people to restrain themselves; there are issues of
personal modesty, sexual tension, and appearances of impropriety that
have to be dealt with.
Lisa Paul
>
>non-Western cultures? And why is Keiko (Mrs. Miles O'Brien) more
>traditionally Japanese than real people in Japan?).
>
This could be because real people in Japan at that time are not so traditional, but need some way to hold onto a heritage they have somewhat lost.
Similar things happen in this century, like historical fairs, especially in
Williamsburg Virginia
I do not remember exact quotes, so I apologize if she did imply the opposite.
--
--Rowan Now this religion happens to prevail
I am not responsible, My > Until by that one it is overthrown, -
cat is the one with the > Because men dare not live with men alone,
opinions here. > But always with another fairy tale.
John Burns
>Another problem might be the limited perceptions of some writers, for
>both gays and non-whites. Why are all the non-white characters so
>hard-wired into the root cultures typical of their race and/or ethnic
>background? From canon Star Trek IV, Mr. Sulu is descended from
>Japanese-Californians and yet he isn't written to act as American as
>the white Alaskan Commander Ryker.
Is that the same Sulu whose hero is D'Artagnan? Who had an interest
in 20th century firearms? He may have some ethnic background, but he's
no Chekov. If you review the crews, it's white men who take a beating
in the ethnic stereotype department.
"Ethnic": Scott, Chekov, McCoy, Picard, O'Brien, Keiko
Neutral (USA): Kirk, Riker, LaForge, Crusher (2)
Misc. human: Yar (colony), Sulu, Uhura (both became more ethnic later)
Alien: Spock, Troi, Guinan
Mechanical: Data
My theory has always been that ethnic polarization is deliberate, in the
spirit of IDIC. We never see conflict: in fact, Uhura has made a point
of putting black/white strife in the past.
John A. Burns (bu...@thurifer.harvard.edu)
Charles Lin
I was under the impression that crew members had individual quarters.
In any case, there might be the impropriety of different aliens living
in the same quarters as well.
--
______ __ __ ___ ____
/ ____ \ | | |__| | \ | | Charles Lin
| / \_| | | __ | \| | e-mail: cl...@eng.umd.edu
| | | | | | | |\ |
| | _ | | |__| |__| \___| University of Maryland
| \____/ | | |____ "I hate big sigs." -- Moo
\______/ \_______|
D. J. McCarthy ~
I was going to add a lot more quotes to this reply, but this one
paragraph makes a perfect starting point all by itself:
ma...@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes:
[ in reply to an article by an...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) ]
> So let me see. You would be vindicated if Star Trek showed just a little
> homosexuality. Tell me, where does this vindication end? Does Star Trek
> have to answer to every group that thinks their way of life is "ok" and
> we all should share in it-- like it or not?
There are a lot of extremely touchy "societal acceptance" issues
in the world today; the acceptance of homosexuality is but one. If Star
Trek did indeed start answering to every group that thinks their way of
life is okay, do you think the following things would fly?
- Bev performing an abortion (to the chagrin of protesters
outside Sickbay, perhaps)
- Picard and Troi introducing Worf to the refreshingly
different perspective on life one gains while indulging
in, say, a little marijuana or LSD (*)
- Geordi making a pass at some male nurse in the hallway
- Data running a Ten Forward "escort service" for lonely
ensigns
- a Fundamentalist Christian crewmember doing what he feels
is an "okay way of life" and trying to convert Riker - and
succeeding
All these are provocative topics; people on both sides of the
issue are absolutely convinced that they are correct. Would you like
them to cover all of these issues? What if they decide on the side you
*don't* agree with? They will, you know, for at least *some* people.
(*) Which brings me to the drug issue. Of all the issues
brought up above, this is the one they've already done the most in-depth
story on (_Symbiosis_) and even that was half-baked. It wasn't the
drugs that were evil, but the greedy Brekkian pushers. Even so, the
"just say no" speech Yar gave to Wesley made it absolutely clear which
side of the issue the Power That Be Roddenberry was on.
Which brings me back to the "disagreement" issue. This is key.
If their attempt at dealing with homosexuality ends up with the
character in question being treated in what, in your opinion, is The
Wrong Way, would you be content? Would you say to yourself, "Well, for
good or for bad, they FINALLY dealt with the issue, even though they
dealt with it in the way I disagree with", and let it rest at that?
Think about it. If you demand that an issue be addressed,
in the context of Star Trek or no, you better be prepared to be
disappointed as well.
--
| D. J. McCarthy And this is artificial moonlight...
| dmc...@swtec1.intel.com
| ...!intelhf!mipos3!modl01!dmccart ...and artificial sky.
Joe Leonard
The effort to get a Gay Character on ST:TNG is not part of a political
agenda. It is a simple desire for gay and lesbian Star Trek fans to be
part of the 25th Century. I feel qualified to say this because I am a
member of the Gaylactic Network, a Fan Organization made of of gay,
lesbian, bisexual people and their friends. And trust me... We are the
furthest things from a political organization. We just want to see
ourselves in the Star Trek Universe.
Leo
--- QuickBBS 2.66/O (Eval)
* Origin: THE ALTERNATE UNIVERSE A Gaylactic Network BBS (1:267/202)
--
Joe Leonard - via FidoNet node 1:267/202
UUCP: ...!uunet!neis!gaylax!root
INTERNET: ro...@gaylax.fidonet.ORG
Karl R. Kistler
har...@Metaphor.COM (Chris Harmon) writes:
> Sure. But we see plenty of hetero PDA on Trek, so this theory doesn't hold up.
> I would expect 10-15% of the PDA to be gay. Now, if the PDA level is zero,
> there wouldn't be any. But, as I said, there's plenty of straight PDA. What
> happened to the other 10%?
Two possibilities:
Perhaps the Kinsey report isn't 'canon'
-this 10% estimate is highly exagerated IMHO
Or maybe Starfleet excludes homosexuals
Just another theatre geek.....
!In article <10...@cronos.metaphor.com>
!har...@Metaphor.COM (Chris Harmon) writes:
!! Sure. But we see plenty of hetero PDA on Trek, so this theory doesn't hold up.
!! I would expect 10-15% of the PDA to be gay. Now, if the PDA level is zero,
!! there wouldn't be any. But, as I said, there's plenty of straight PDA. What
!! happened to the other 10%?
!Two possibilities:
!Perhaps the Kinsey report isn't 'canon'
Correct. It is an accepted part of what is called the literature.
!-this 10% estimate is highly exagerated IMHO
Also correct. It is probably significantly higher, given parallel
studies in animal behavior.
Rob Bernardo
>In article <1991Aug7.2...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, bkni...@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Bruce Knight) writes:
>|> Several things I'd like to say.
>|>
>|> About homosexuality:
>|>
>|> Perhaps the reason you don't see open homosexuality is because in that time,
>|> publicly displayed stuff is just being professional; in today's Navy, I think,
>|> Public Displays of Affection are highly frowned upon. Of course, I could be
>|> way off base with this.
>
It's not even a matter of explicit PDAs. We've seen plenty of heterosexual
romantic desires (e.g. Ryker or Geordi and that engine engineer) where
not PDAs occurred.
I think some people who haven't really thought about the invisibility of
gay people think that showing someone gay must mean showing someone
having sex (or at least PDAs). Not so. Our sexual orientation shows up
in many different ways in our social interactions. Many people who are
heterosexual take this for granted and don't even see it. Gay people
often are more aware about this because they are aware of stifling their
own similar behavior much of time. This sort of issue often comes up in
other news groups when discussing being gay at work; the naive often
say, "But why is discrimination against gays a problem unless you are
flauting your sexuality by having or discussing sex explicitly in the
office." Our sexuality is intimately intertwined with a great deal of
our social behavior.
Sorry to get on a soapbox. I'm not trying to start a political debate;
I'm trying to shed some light gently.
--
Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions
email: r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US home phone: (415) 827-4301
Rob Bernardo
>Granted, my "get a life" line may have been uncalled for. My point is that
Well I think it depends upon whether you see the issue as:
1. ST:TNG should address the oppression of gay people.
2. ST:TNG should show us a society in which sexual orientation
isn't an issue.
Compare this to:
1. ST:TNG should address the oppression of black people.
2. ST:TNG should show us a society in which race isn't an issue.
I think many of us here who have been discussing this issue
personally believe that sexual orientation ought not to be an issue
in our current society. We believe that in a more socially utopian society,
such as that presented in ST:TNG, sexual orientation would not be an
issue. In other words, for ST:TNG to only have white humans would
be to reflect some real world social values of 20 years ago that most
of us reject as outdated. Similarly for ST:TNG to only show heterosexuals
reflects some real world heterocentrist social values that most of us
reject as well.
>All in all I think Star Trek (both series) has done an admirable job of
>exploring mans inhumanity to man.
I agree that is has done a moderate job in certain areas (other shows
have been much more pioneering); its complete heterocentrism todate has
been glaringly obvious to many of us.
> I applaud the efforts of all concerned
>in dealing with the large issues, and not getting caught up in the
>hot "issue" of the moment.
Hm. You see, some of us don't see the "gay issue" as the hot issue of
the moment. Heterocentrism has been an issue for a loooong time. It may
appear hot to many hetersexuals who don't think abouty it simply because
the issue is currently getting more attention than it used to.
Many of us are hoping to see gay characters not as tokens to reflect a
hot issue, but rather to see gay characters well integrated into the
shows, into the society being portrayed.
Rob Bernardo
>I disagree with the statement above. Why? Its simple. It is not
>possible to show every lifestyle that exists.
To many of us, showing only heterosexuals shows an imbalance, a bias,
just as if ST:TNG only showed white humans. Leaving out gay people
is not just an omission of one "lifestyle"; it's tunnel vision.
>What if the Captain and first officer were gay. Would that really
>improve the shows ratings?
I thought we were discussing how the show might be improved for
artistic merits, not the purpose of ratings. You're subtly switching
emphasis.
> Do you think that the show would still
>appeal to the masses?
Sure! Gay characters have showed up on other tv shows recently. It doesn't
seem to have been a negative issue except for a small vocal organized
group of people itching to find an object of their spleen-venting.
> Do you think it would be suitable for children
>to watch?
Sure!
> I suspect you are crazy enough to say "yes" to all of
>these questions.
Add me to your crazy list.
>Star Trek is entertainment. It is not a government program, it is not
>a social statement--it is pure entertainment. Can't we leave
>something alone? Must all things be politically correct?
There's a flaw in your thinking (one which many conservatives deliberately
make when they toss around the buzzword "politically correct"):
X is a politically correct stance.
A believes X.
Therefore A promotes X simply because it's political correct.
Not everyone who is openly unbigoted about homosexuality is acting
out of political correctness. To believe they are is to be paranoid.
>Perhaps we need a Jewish starship and a Arab starship and maybe even an
>Iragi starship! Yeah, that sure would make Star Trek must more fun.
>After all, Saddam Hussein is a human too!
Bad analogy. A more appropriate analogy would be if they only showed
characters as being Christian when being religious. The absence of
other religions in the show would be a glaring hole.
>Have you considered that possibly that by ignoring homosexuality Star
>Trek has dealt with it? It is just a thought.
Sure! And ..... ?
>I imagine my mailbox will be full of flames. I enjoy them.
I see. You're one of those people who just likes to engage in angry
debate rather than discuss with an open mind. Really, why should any
of us discuss this issue any further with you?
Rob Bernardo
> My impression is that the people who have a differing opinion on
> this particular subject are being silent for fear of the ever
> pervasive sword of political correctness.
On what evidence to you base this opinion of yours?
Everyone has an opportunity to speak here. If someone is afraid to
voice their opinion for the reason you suggest, that's *their* problem.
I have seen little coercion or intimidation here.
> People who dare to voice opinions different from those of
> the vocal politically correct group are being hounded.
So far, the shrillness has been initially on the part of those who
have expressed anti-gay attitudes.
> Unfortunately, homosexuality is as highly emotional an issue as
> abortion is, and I doubt that the majority of people in the US would
> be willing at this time to admit that homosexuality might be a valid
> lifestyle option. As such, it is not surprising that TNG has not
> focussed on it more than the few seconds at the end of "The Host".
Compared to several other tv shows, ST:TNG actually wimped out. Other
tv shows have been much, much more direct in their dealing with sexual
orientation and in presenting gay characters.
Rob Bernardo
I think the idea of Geordi discovering, after all this time, that
he is homosexual would be *ill* fitting for a society in which
sexual orientation wasn't an issue.
> We know that Worf doens't exactly like the idea.
>Remember the look on his face when he escorted the
>female Odan into Sickbay?
Hmmmm. The way I remember it it wasn't a grimace of displeasure but
rather a grimace because he knew that Crusher would be shocked.
Rob Bernardo
>I don't really care to see homosexual characters on STTNG.
>Homosexuality is a subject I don't particularly care for. I don't like
>homosexuality and don't like people to shove it in my face and say you
>MUST accept it.
Open WIDE! :-)
Paul Moloney
>And I thought the final scene with Bev and the female Odan was
>*beautifully* handled. The kiss on the wrist was just the right
>touch. It let people know that Bev was *not* a homophobe, but it
>wasn't enough to offend those in the audience who are.
..and gee, it was, like, soooo sweet, cuz like, y'know, kissing someone
on the wrist is just daring enough like, y'know, to show that Bev
weren't about to take a tire-iron to her or anything. Jes like the French.
Like.
P.
>--
>Vicki Holzhauer, NCAR/Research Aviation Facility
>Internet: vi...@ncar.ucar.edu
>"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said
>I didn't know." --Mark Twain
--
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the rem
james Trinity College, Dublin mind." PMOLONEY%vax1....@pucc.princeton.edu vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Rob Bernardo
>I find it most disquieting to have every show preach that this
>is acceptable and that is acceptable on every program. I am tired of it.
Why is it that you feel that the mere presence of gay characters (without
the gayness being an issue in the plot) is preaching? I think that many
of us are simply wanting gay people to be depicted in tv shows because
there *are* gay people around, and that the depiction be true to life
(as opposed to being based on stereotypes and myths), i.e. in a
matter of fact way.
>I want television to become what it once was -- entertaining.
And???
>Star Trek, does (at times) talk about social issues, but it has been
>nice not to have it done week to week as so many other television
>programs seem to.
Okay. And???
>What would be the point of adding a recurring gay supporting role? Do
>homosexuals really need this kind of vindication? Do they need to be
>told their lifestyle is acceptable?
Because gay people are under-depicted on tv.
>I find it acceptable! See!? That does surprise you does it not?
>I just don't think that the decision should be made one way or another
>on a television program and having that decision preached world-wide.
>You see, doing this does not help people decide for their self, since
>the other side of the issue would never be displayed. I happen to
>believe that the masses can make up their own minds without being
>told what is _right_ and what should be accepted.
I think that fictional tv unfortunately is a force in molding our
images of reality. I think there have been studies that show people
believe violent crimes are more common than they are because violent
crimes occur on tv disproportionately more than they do in real life.
If tv were to more faithfully reflect gay peoples lives, there would
probably be less anti-gay sentiment in this country. By under-depicting
gay people, tv unwittingly contributes to the invisibility of and
ignorance about gay people. By depicting gay people in stereotypical
ways or in negative ways, tv unwitting contributes to stereotypes
and negative feelings towards gay people. The issue here is the
depiction of mere gay people in mundane life, because, face it,
gay people's lives are more or less just us mundane as straights'.
>Glady. You see I accept your right to do with your life as you wish.
>Unfortunately your group doesn't believe that. I don't object to
>homosexuality; I object to it being forced on me via a television
>program.
Aw, come on. You're not forced to watch any particular tv show.
Heck, you're not even forced to watch tv. But anyway, why would
you find a mere faithful depiction of gay people offensive?
>You see I am comfortable in the world I live in. I recoginize
>homosexuality exists. I just don't think it needs to be played
>up as perfectly acceptable on a public medium. I also think that
>it would be equally wrong to have a Catholic on Star Trek telling
>us that the only way to heaven is through being a Catholic. Do
>you see my point yet?
You're comparing apples and oranges. You should be comparing
the presence of gay characters to the presence of Catholic characters.
But what you're comparing is the presence of gay characters to
Catholic characters preaching. No one here said they wanted the
gay characters to preach on the virtues of homosexuality.
>The concept of equality between the races is not anything but right. No
>realistic human can say otherwise. Can you really equate homosexaulity
>in the same light? Remembering of course that you have to respect the
>religions of other people and the rights of other people?
Remember that religion was often used to defend slavery and segregation.
Do we have to respect *those* religious values as well?
>So let me see. You would be vindicated if Star Trek showed just a little
>homosexuality. Tell me, where does this vindication end? Does Star Trek
>have to answer to every group that thinks their way of life is "ok" and
>we all should share in it-- like it or not?
Well, you're viewing this in a skewed way. It's not that every group
should be portrayed. It's that by only showing heterosexuals, the show
is unbalanced just as if it only showed humans who were white.
To answer your question, in general, I think it would be good for tv
to not under-depict groups for which invisibility is a valid concern.
>Now, you should understand why Star Trek (and all television for that
>matter) should go back to entertainment and get away from politics in
>entertainment oriented programming. After all, politics is what this is
>all about.
Would you have said that about non-whites 15 years ago when non-whites
were very much under-depicted on tv?
Rob Bernardo
>And I don't consider myself homophobic, but this whole discussion is
>really getting on my nerves!
Why do you think that is? You're choising to read the articles, and
the subject lines haven't been misleading.
> Why is it so damned important to have
>someone on STTNG who is openly gay?
To repeat what I just said in another postling: to more faithfully
represent reality. The same reason why it's so damned important to
have non-whites on tv shows.
> They don't even have that many
>heterosexual relationships featured ... why do gay ones?
To repeat something else I said in different posting, sexual orientation
doesn't just show up inside of a relationship. It shows up in many
ways in ordinary social interactions.
> They've said
>over and over that tolerance is the rule in the 24th century, so why
>not leave it at that? That means that homosexuality is tolerated.
To you maybe, but not to everyone. To answer your question: because
it still leaves gay people as not there.
>Having openly gay characters would offend a lot of viewers, so why do
>it?
I don't know if it would be "a lot of viewers". On the other hand,
it would intrigue other viewers. Ironically, there was an item
on the news about the lesbian affair on LA Law. They reported that
studies have shown that viewers *like* controversial issues on
tv fiction.
>It reminds me of the first season, when I was dating someone who
>didn't want to give TNG a chance. I finally got him to watch it, and
>it turned out to be that horrible one with the drug addicts and the
>people from the other planet who supplied them drugs. After Tasha's
>anti-drug "speech" to Wes, my (liberal) friend said, "and you *like*
>this crap?" He never watched TNG again ... (and I won't watch that
>episode either).
>
>Preaching on *any* subject irritates me.
Preaching can be pretty awful. But I think most of us who would
like to see gay characters don't want any overt preaching about
homosexuality, simply a mundane depiction of gay characters.
Gym Z. Quirk
>swan...@beowulf.acc.stolaf.edu () wrote:
>>The idea of having Worf and Geordi is a good one as
>>well.
>
>I think the idea of Geordi discovering, after all this time, that
>he is homosexual would be *ill* fitting for a society in which
>sexual orientation wasn't an issue.
I'd like to take this a step further. It seems almost stereotypical
to have a person who isn't having much romantic success with the
opposite sex turn out to be homosexual.
I, for instance, havn't had *any* opportunity for romantic involvement
for 3 1/2 years now. (Partially due to my own problems, partially due
to circumstances beyond my control, partially because I'm trying to
concentrate on shcool now.) Does this make me gay? I don't
think so. I have a male bi friend and ample opportunity to pursue
such a relationship if I wished to. I simply *don't* consider it an
option.
It seems that something in american society thinks it's not "normal"
for a person not to be romantically involved (hetero or homo). I'd
like to see a complete shut-in on Trek to deal with this! ;-)
Lonely Nerds of the world, Unite!!!
;-) ;-)
>Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions
>email: r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US home phone: (415) 827-4301
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) tko...@triton.unm.edu
Veteran of the "Grand sf-lovers reorganization" of July-August '91.
-= Insert witty quote here =-
J. Kurt Tappe
>In article <1991Aug7...@ssdvx2.mdcbbs.com> lau...@ssdvx2.mdcbbs.com writes:
>>Get a life folks. Not all life style choices can or need to be explored
>>in any series.
>I tire of so-called open-minded people trivializing the very real concerns
>of groups who are marginalized. GODAMMIT! They HAVE a life and it is
>a HELL of a lot more difficult, a LOT more painful than you can imagine.
1) I did not interpret the original poster as trivializing the issue.
2) He is correct: just because there is a problem with our society
accepting gay rights, does not mean every series on TV has to dedicate
an episode to the issue. As soon as you say they HAVE to deal with
it, every group will say they HAVE to deal with every little issue.
That is not to say that Star Trek SHOUDLN'T deal with it; please do
not confuse the two statements. I agree that Star Trek SHOULD do it,
but I do not think they HAVE to.
>Get a life indeed. Try saying that to Jews in Nazi Germany. For that
>matter, try saying that to gays in Nazi Germany.
This is not Nazi Germany. It does, however, come a lot closer to Nazi
Germany if you start FORCING the producers of TV shows to produce certain
episodes out of fear. The hatred of Jews was also spread with fear, just
as the fear of gays is currently being spread with misinformation about
AIDS. Fear is a powerful weapon; please use it with discretion.
>Not all issues need to be dealt with in a series, but for a series that
>claims to be progressive and free and clear of network censorship, the Trek
>crew are being awfully cowardly about this issue.
On this we totally agree. After all, it WAS Star Trek that had the first
interracial kiss on TV. Why that and not homo (or bi) sexuality?
>Roger Tang
Kurt
J. Kurt Tappe
>A show as self-consciously progressive as
>Star Trek _needs_ to address this issue.
^^^^^
No they don't. They _should_ address the issue, but they do not
_need_ to. Again, please do not impose your views on others. I
agree with everything you said except this. We can ask Paramount
all we want to cover the issue, but Paramount has every right
not to do so, and we need to respect that right or we are just
as wrong as they.
>--graz
Kurt
John Graziano
=>I don't really care to see homosexual characters on STTNG. Homosexuality is a
=>subject I don't particularly care for. I don't like homosexuality and don't
=>like people to shove it in my face and say you MUST accept it.
=>
=>I have my opinions and I will live my life the way I want. So please don't
=>start sending me flames calling me a bigot, homophobe or what ever else you
=>can come up with, they will be promptly sent to that big bit bucket in the
=>sky.
Of course they will. Narrow-mindedness requires careful screening of incoming
ideas. You appear to have done quite nicely so far.
=>Brian Frost Internet: b1f...@zeus.tamu.edu
=>Academic Computing Services Bitnet: b1f5814@tamzeus
=>Texas A&M University THEnet: ACS::B1F5814
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Now why doesn't this surprise me?
--graz
J. Kurt Tappe
>gi...@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std) wrote:
>> People who dare to voice opinions different from those of
>> the vocal politically correct group are being hounded.
>So far, the shrillness has been initially on the part of those who
>have expressed anti-gay attitudes.
^^^^
Right. IMHO, the readers of all of netnews are *generally* a bit more
educated and intelligent than the populous as a whole. Again, IMHO,
readers of rec.arts.startrek take this a bit further. Such people are
not *generally* going to be as receptive to "anti-____" attitudes because
they are much faster to realize that being "anti-" something means you
support suppression of someone else's rights.
>> Unfortunately, homosexuality is as highly emotional an issue as
>> abortion is, and I doubt that the majority of people in the US would
>> be willing at this time to admit that homosexuality might be a valid
>> lifestyle option. As such, it is not surprising that TNG has not
>> focussed on it more than the few seconds at the end of "The Host".
>Compared to several other tv shows, ST:TNG actually wimped out. Other
>tv shows have been much, much more direct in their dealing with sexual
>orientation and in presenting gay characters.
I would truly appreciate a short list of examples of this. Even the
Simpsons wimped out in their season-premiere gay episode, and I find
it hard to believe that NBC, CBS, and ABC are more liberal than FOX...
*I* sure haven't seen the gay issue openly presented. Perhaps if we
had a list of the ways other shows dealt with it, we could conjecture
on how Star Trek could present it...
>Rob Bernardo
Kurt
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|| Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || With. Without. And who'll ||
|| 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. (home) || deny it's what the fighting's ||
|| Malvern, PA 19355-2214 458-5000 || all about? - Pink Floyd ||
|| (work) --------------------------------||
|| tap...@infonode.ingr.com OR jkt...@psuvm.psu.edu QLink: KurtTappe ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
J. David Bavousett
by saying that I am hetero-, but accept homosexuality as an alternative; not a
choice *I* would make, but an acceptable option (as in, I have a couple of gay
friends, accept them, love them as my friends and Christian bretheren, but
don't participate in homosexuality).
In article <1991Aug11.0...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US>, r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Bernardo) writes...
>gi...@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std) wrote:
>> Unfortunately, homosexuality is as highly emotional an issue as
>> abortion is, and I doubt that the majority of people in the US would
>> be willing at this time to admit that homosexuality might be a valid
>> lifestyle option. As such, it is not surprising that TNG has not
>> focussed on it more than the few seconds at the end of "The Host".
Mr. Gill is (IMO) essentially correct here, but doesn't say *why*...someone
else did, tho, and I'll mention that in a minute.
>
>Compared to several other tv shows, ST:TNG actually wimped out. Other
>tv shows have been much, much more direct in their dealing with sexual
>orientation and in presenting gay characters.
So? Does that make ST:TNG heinous-sinners, non-Politically-Correct,
let's-cancel-them-at-once? It very well could be that TPTB wish to stay out
of this issue--call 'em and ask! If any of the heavies in TPTB saw all this
flamage in here, I wouldn't blame them a bit for steering well clear. ..Or
could it be, just maybe, possibly, a teeeny little bit, that they wish to
remain "entertainment," pure and simple, no big issues attached?
My personal opinion on this agrees with someone else who said (paraphrasing)
that if a [full-time, as opposed to guest] gay character was implemented, the
show would see an early demise, primarily at the hands of homophobes. They
might get away with showing in a "guest" character who was homosexual (hey!
what a great idea for a "heavy" character-builder show...now, who will this
new character make advances to, causing them to have to make serious
one-way-or-the-other decision?----naah! just kidding..maybe.), but a
full-timer? No way. Falwell and Jesse Helms types may not exist in the
ST:TNG universe, but they are HERE and NOW. Don't ever let yourselves forget
that these types of people will gladly flame you out of existence, given the
slightest opportunity. And Trekkers though they be, there are Falwells and
Helms('s? Helmses?) among us here, and would flame ST:TNG out, if it proved
necessary, to "keep the faith" pure from such "vile things."
Sigh. One of these centuries, such people may be in the minority, but for
here-and-now, they are a glaring majority, particularly in the US South. Act
accordingly, folks. Be quieter, and convert them a few at a time. This takes
longer, true, but it works better than throwing your issue in their face and
making them hate you.
Serious comments can followup, flames, if you feel you must, should go direct
to me, not the group...I've seen all I care to in r.a.s.
J. David Bavousett
BAVO...@ACUVAX.BITNET
@ACUVAX.ACU.EDU
The PegLeg, Of Course.
*************************************************************************
* Abilene Christian University * Normal disclaimer: My opinions *
* Department of Computer Services * belong to me, not my employer. *
*************************************************************************
Brian E. Frost
You can play tennis with a homosexual.
EDDIE: "I think I'm going to go get a beer, what about you?"
HOMO: "I think I'll go suck somebody's d*ck."
EDDIE: "I'm going to go get a beer. You go suck that d*ck."
The point is that you can work with a homosexual, but that doesn't mean you
have to sit there and have a homosexuals life style shoved in your face.
Since the crew of the Enterprise have all gone through Starfleet Academy, I'm
sure that they all act professionally and their actions are based on their
experience and training and not on their sexual preferences. To make a
homosexual character stand out on ST, they would have to push it to the point
where not all viewers are interested in what the character is doing. What goes
on behind closed doors is not dealt with in ST and thank God it's not, we
don't need another soap opera. The only time relationships are dealt with is
when it is important to the episode.
there and
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Frost Internet: b1f...@zeus.tamu.edu
Academic Computing Services Bitnet: b1f5814@tamzeus
Texas A&M University THEnet: ACS::B1F5814
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you post it, they will flame." - The voice from Field of Dreams.
Windsor A. Morgan
> Given this result to the "last time"
>man tampered with his gene pool (okay, *tweet*, everyone out of the pool!),
>I would seriously doubt that the 24th Century tried to do it again.
> -- Mike Kelsey
Well, the Feds wouldn't, sure. But who is to say what a member planet
or a nonmember (Klingons, Romulans, Ferengi ("You clothe your
women!"), Pakleds, et cetera) would do?
--
'Verily, there be no leader as wise as the Vision!'
Windsor Morgan (wmo...@stsci.edu OR N...@PSUVM.BITNET)
Space Telescope Science Institute
Baltimore, MD 21218
Paul Shand
>it would intrigue other viewers. Ironically, there was an item
>on the news about the lesbian affair on LA Law. They reported that
>studies have shown that viewers *like* controversial issues on
>tv fiction.
This is interesting. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that TV
fiction allows one to vicariously "test the waters" without having to live the consequences,
if any. At any rate, I took no offence to LA Law's storyline between Abbey and
CJ, and doubt I would take offence to whatever TNG writers decide to do with
the subject at hand. Actually, I find the reactions to the suggestion of this
thread more interesting/provoking than any depiction of gay/lesbian relation-
ships on TNG.
Davy Jones
> In article <86...@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>,
> ois...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Anne H. Pfohl) writes:
> >In article <1991Aug7.2...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, bknight3@eleazar.d
> >>Several things I'd like to say.
> >>
> >>About homosexuality:
> >>
> >>Perhaps the reason you don't see open homosexuality is because in that time
> >>people DON'T CARE about one's sexual orientation. The reason you don't see
> I would just like to point something out about this ENTIRE thread.
> The argument thaat they don't care, is obviously false. Even in that
> century they are still homophobic. My example?? The Episode that has
> the symbient creature inside of Dr. Crusher's lover. (argh, wh
> was the title..) When the Odan is tranferred to the body of a woman
> Crusher replies to something like. "If times were different." I
> can't remember the exact wuote. But she was obviously bothered
> by the fact that she would be having relations with someone who
> appears to be the same sex as she is.
>
> Maybe somebody else can fill in the specifics, because the painters
> and the carpet cleaners are coming, so i boxed all my tapes and mags
> away.
First of all, you have made an invalid assumtion. Just because a person is
not a homosexual does not mean that they are homophobic. You example above
makes that assumption.
Secondly, if you also rember she had said that she did not want to continue
the relationship becuase she couldn't deal with the continuing change of
Odan having to change bodies (which I agree with). Granted, I think their
realtionship would have gone on a little longer had the next replacement
been a male, but eventually, I think she would have gotten tired of it.
Finally, just because one person (Bev) does not like the idea of
homosexuality does mean that every one else in that era shares her opinions.
Dagwaafah
Memory Alpha BBS (memalph.UUCP), Phoenix, AZ +1 602 943 0287
-= The Sum of All Knowledge =-
Paul Shand
>where not all viewers are interested in what the character is doing. What goes
>on behind closed doors is not dealt with in ST and thank God it's not, we
>don't need another soap opera. The only time relationships are dealt with is
>when it is important to the episode.
Well, TNG has been characterized as being a "soap opera" in space, and already
has many of the ingredients thereof. True, it doesn't go as far as an LA Law
or General Hospital; but, compare it to Law and Order, and TNG looks like
a soap opera.
Kyle Jones
> It seems that I recall a Star Trek TNG episode where Captain Picard
> address the subject of homosexuality. As the gist of it goes,
> homosexuality no longer exists in the 24th century because of
> proper detection of the genetics that make up a persons sexuality --
> and an implied alteration to the correct orientation (unknown whether
> they changed the person's sex or the genetic code).
jac...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
> Lovely! And do they also detect to see if someone has "Jewish" genes to
> eradicate them before the little nipper is born?
Take it easy. If homosexuality were some sort of genetic mishap,
one would think that the gays, by their very natures, would have
taken themselves out of the gene pool in fairly short order,
nest'ce pas?
> Hey! Maybe they could get rid of all those other nasty Untermensch traits
> while we're at it.
> [...]
> Gee, then everyone in the Federation can be an Uebermensch and march down
> the street carrying torches and dancing in swastika formations!
>
> The perfect society, at last.
I guess the net pundits were right. No flame war is truly
complete unless someone brings in the Nazis... 1/2 :-)
Neil P.G.
>Perhaps the reason you don't see open homosexuality is because in that time,
>people DON'T CARE about one's sexual orientation. The reason you don't see
>publicly displayed stuff is just being professional; in today's Navy, I think,
>Public Displays of Affection are highly frowned upon. Of course, I could be
>way off base with this.
IMHO, while you have in one sense hit the nail on the head, in another
you missed it altogether.
Yes, I am fairly sure that by the 24th century no-one will be in the
slightest bit bothered by homosexuality.
Remember, however, that ST has always worked portraying (in one sense)
20th century people in the 23rd/24th century.
Whilst homosexuality is not a problem then, and presumably is as
visible as heterosexuality, it is not now. The heterosexual element of
TNG is quite obvious (e.g. Data's relationships with Yar and the other
crew-member (whose name escapes me), Riker's almost relationship with
Troi, and with other women, Picard and Crusher (albeit usually played
down), O'Brien and his wife). There is no evidence that there are
gays/lesbians/bisexuals on board - even though they make up at least
10% of the population.
I am _not_ suggesting that a story be devoted to the issue, simply
that it could be an integral part of some characters make-up.
--
------ -------------------------------------------------------------- \
\ / | Neil Perret-Green E-mail: n...@cns.umist.ac.uk | \
\ / |[Homo Lexicographicus] "It's life Jim, but not as we know it"| \
\/ -------------------------------------------------------------- / \
John Graziano
=>In article <1991Aug11....@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US> r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Bernardo) writes:
=>>swan...@beowulf.acc.stolaf.edu () wrote:
=>>>The idea of having Worf and Geordi is a good one as
=>>>well.
=>>
=>>I think the idea of Geordi discovering, after all this time, that
=>>he is homosexual would be *ill* fitting for a society in which
=>>sexual orientation wasn't an issue.
=>
=>I'd like to take this a step further. It seems almost stereotypical
=>to have a person who isn't having much romantic success with the
=>opposite sex turn out to be homosexual.
=>
=>>Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions
=>>email: r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US home phone: (415) 827-4301
=>
=>--
=>Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) tko...@triton.unm.edu
=> Veteran of the "Grand sf-lovers reorganization" of July-August '91.
=> -= Insert witty quote here =-
Since I was the one who first brought this up, I think I should say that you
both are absolutely right. Perhaps I should have stated it better.
My original thought about Geordi was simply that he was the only lead who
hasn't been irrevocably established as a flaming hetero. Since his character
has already been accepted by TNG fans, Paramount could avoid the microscopic
scrutiny that would accompany the introduction of a new gay role. The use of
Geordi would send a strong message to the gay community that Paramount is
willing to go beyond mere tokenism in its portrayal of gays. It would also
present homophobic fans with a challenge - to continue to accept Geordi as a
positive character.
I also feel strongly that if Trek is _only_ going to have one gay character
(let's hope not), it should be a gay man. This would have the greatest impact
on TNG's predominantly male audience, and would avoid accusations of catering
to the fantasies of many heterosexual males (ie the Troy-Bev postings we've
seen).
Unfortunately, no matter what TNG does, the portrayal of a gay character is
going to piss off a lot more people than just the homophobes. I hope we can
appreciate what they are trying to do and cut them some slack if (when) they
don't meet everyone's expectations.
--graz
D. J. McCarthy ~
thought, while personally staying as neutral a Devil's Advocate as I can.
With that in mind....}
pie...@watson.ibm.com (Tim Pierce) writes:
> by dmc...@elvis.intel.com (D. J. McCarthy ~):
>> Which brings me back to the "disagreement" issue. This is key.
>> If their attempt at dealing with homosexuality ends up with the
>> character in question being treated in what, in your opinion, is The
>> Wrong Way, would you be content? Would you say to yourself, "Well, for
>> good or for bad, they FINALLY dealt with the issue, even though they
>> dealt with it in the way I disagree with", and let it rest at that?
First off, I'd like to point out that the part quoted above is
not the part Mr. Pierce is replying to. The part above boils down to
"What would you think if they took a stand on a touchy subject that you
don't agree with?" Mr. Pierce is replying to another part, which said
roughly "If they address the gay issue, should they not also address
other controversial issues?"
The disagreement question still stands, by the way.
> No. Asking Paramount to put a queer character on STAR TREK is
> entirely different from asking them to observe a pro-abortion stance,
> a pro-drug stance, a pro-whatever stance (and your analogy to
> fundamentalist Christianity was laughable in this context).
I don't see this as different at all. And as for Fundamentalism
being "laughable in this context", well, maybe it was there intentionally,
to prove a point. Maybe they were _all_ laughable to prove a point. I
mean, can you in your wildest dreams see Data as a pimp?
One man's "laughable lifestyle" is another man's One True Path.
> My reason for wanting such a character is simply that since the STAR
> TREK audience (particularly that of TNG) has a large adolescent and
> preadolescent viewing population, adding a queer character would send
> a positive message about being gay to the many thousands of confused
> gay, lesbian, or bisexual teenagers out there.
So the show should cater to the psychological needs of confused
teenagers? This is an argument I haven't seen before. If anything, this
strengthens my argument for having shows on both drug use and abortion.
Okay. You think to help unconfuse teenagers, Star Trek needs a
gay character. On the other hand, a lot of people in the Deep South may
want a Fundamentalist character *for the exact same reason*. So how do
we decide whose side is worth listening to? And what do you do if the
side chosen is *not* your side?
> If STAR TREK's message is really that an ideal future is one where
> people are not persecuted for their preferences (or "lifestyles," much
> as I hate that term), then I believe they have a responsibility to
> live up to that message in their portrayal of the ST universe.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
--
| D. J. McCarthy And this is artificial moonlight...
| dmc...@swtec1.intel.com
| ...!intelhf!mipos3!modl01!dmccart ...and artificial sky.
Tim Pierce
> Which brings me back to the "disagreement" issue. This is key.
> If their attempt at dealing with homosexuality ends up with the
> character in question being treated in what, in your opinion, is The
> Wrong Way, would you be content? Would you say to yourself, "Well, for
> good or for bad, they FINALLY dealt with the issue, even though they
> dealt with it in the way I disagree with", and let it rest at that?
No. Asking Paramount to put a queer character on STAR TREK is
entirely different from asking them to observe a pro-abortion stance,
a pro-drug stance, a pro-whatever stance (and your analogy to
fundamentalist Christianity was laughable in this context).
My reason for wanting such a character is simply that since the STAR
TREK audience (particularly that of TNG) has a large adolescent and
preadolescent viewing population, adding a queer character would send
a positive message about being gay to the many thousands of confused
gay, lesbian, or bisexual teenagers out there.
If STAR TREK's message is really that an ideal future is one where
people are not persecuted for their preferences (or "lifestyles," much
as I hate that term), then I believe they have a responsibility to
live up to that message in their portrayal of the ST universe.
--
____ Tim Pierce \ "If God didn't like homosexuals,
\ / w1...@arnor.UUCP (<- mail HERE!) \ there wouldn't BE homosexuals."
\/ (twpi...@amh.amherst.edu) \ -- Joshua Geller
Tim Pierce
> [quote from Eddie Murphy's DELIRIOUS deleted]
I'm not sure how your point is helped by quoting from an Eddie Murphy
skit. <smile>
> The point is that you can work with a homosexual, but that doesn't mean you
> have to sit there and have a homosexuals life style shoved in your
> face.
By "lifestyle" I assume you mean "sex life." Please refrain from
using the term "lifestyle" -- many gays, lesbians, and bisexuals
consider it rude.
> Since the crew of the Enterprise have all gone through Starfleet
> Academy, I'm sure that they all act professionally and their actions
> are based on their experience and training and not on their sexual
> preferences. To make a homosexual character stand out on ST, they
> would have to push it to the point where not all viewers are
> interested in what the character is doing. What goes on behind closed
> doors is not dealt with in ST and thank God it's not, we don't need
> another soap opera. The only time relationships are dealt with is
> when it is important to the episode.
Brian, either you haven't been reading the messages in this thread or
you're consciously ignoring them. No one has said -- and no one
believes, I bet -- that they want to see lots of gay sex on STAR TREK.
No one wants to see a queer character "stand out" by learning
everything about his/her sex life. I don't particularly want to SEE
sex on ST. That goes for gay sex, straight sex, sex with anvils,
whatever.
However, we know that sex HAPPENS on the Enterprise. This should be
no mystery to anyone. A few nights ago I watched "The Nth Degree," my
first TNG episode in a couple of years. (Did I mention this already?)
Troi mentions that Mr. Barkley, the super-genius, made a pass at her
last night. When Riker asks her if he was successful, all she has to
do is raise an eyebrow at him. If you don't think that this has
HETEROSEXUAL SEX written all over it in big red flaming letters, then
you have an awful lot to learn about human interaction.
Why would it be so absurdly inappropriate to hear male officer X
mention a hot date he had with male officer Y last night? I don't
want to know what Troi and Barkley did in bed, but there it is.
Where's the other ten to thirty percent of society?
--
____ Tim Pierce \ "I'm sorry, dear. You just don't
\ / w1...@arnor.UUCP (<- mail HERE!) \ look like beef negimaki."
\/ (twpi...@amh.amherst.edu) \ -- Beth A.
Jari Junikka
>Homosexuals may not be allowed in Starfleet, period. It may not have
>anything to do with society's approval or disapproval; it may just be
>logistics. Unless every crewmen, cadet and officer has private
>quarters, housing becomes a tricky problem. Where do you put the gays?
>For that matter where do you put the bisexuals? It's not that you
>can't expect people to restrain themselves; there are issues of
>personal modesty, sexual tension, and appearances of impropriety that
>have to be dealt with.
Can we say naive? Even the US Military is going to change their
policy within next decade. So far there's only three studies
done BY THE MILITARY refuting their excuses (and the above postings)
for the exclusion of queers from the armed services.
And they keep spending over $100 million dollars just to keep
queers out of the military. Talk about wasted money.
jari
Rob Bernardo
>The point is that you can work with a homosexual, but that doesn't mean you
>have to sit there and have a homosexuals life style shoved in your face.
(Um, what does this have to do with Star Trek? Is anybody shoving
"homosexuals life style" [whatever *that* means] in your face? You're
acting rather emotional about this issue (e.g. use of the loaded "shove"
phrase). Why is that?)
>Since the crew of the Enterprise have all gone through Starfleet Academy, I'm
>sure that they all act professionally and their actions are based on their
>experience and training and not on their sexual preferences. To make a
>homosexual character stand out on ST, they would have to push it to the point
>where not all viewers are interested in what the character is doing. What goes
>on behind closed doors is not dealt with in ST and thank God it's not, we
>don't need another soap opera. The only time relationships are dealt with is
>when it is important to the episode.
Sorry, but you're simply wrong. Sex is highly intertwined in our social
interactions, and this shows up in ST:TNG all the time without any
real sex being shown: the various romances, flirtations, attractions, etc.
The "problem" is that it has all been heterosexual.
Sergio L Aponte
IMHO.
>Well I think it depends upon whether you see the issue as:
> 1. ST:TNG should address the oppression of gay people.
NO. Why? The show is a fictional adventure escape for our minds,
not the solution to the problems of the planet.
> 2. ST:TNG should show us a society in which sexual orientation
isn't an issue.
By making the show portrai this, you ARE making an issue out of it.
I think sexual preferences are better left out of the plots, unless
it directly affects the plot. They had episode with societies were
woman are in power, and men adorn themselves to please them. It was
done within the story and worked well.
I think the best portrai of acceptance is that it never becomes an
issue. If there are gay people on the Enterprise, it should never have
any impact on their duties or the running of the ship, and thus,
never surface.
There are plots were Riker's relationships are highlighthed, but I
don't think that having this sidelines on the show mean you have to
have sidelines on ALL possible permutations...
>Compare this to:
> 1. ST:TNG should address the oppression of black people.
No. Not directly. It should address opresion, which it does every
now and then.
> 2. ST:TNG should show us a society in which race isn't an issue.
Yes. Of course. But is it? Thru the whole Star Trek, TOS and TNG,
HUMANS seem to dominate the federation. This probably reflects
the fact that it is writen by humans... Come to it, it seems
Vulcans should be in charge everywhere.
IMHO
Sergio
--
=============================================================== _|||_
Sergio L. Aponte, MTS @ ASK Computer, Ingres Product Division <*,*>
Internet : ser...@coqui.ingres.com [`-'] Keko
UUCP : {sun,mtxinu,pyramid,pacbell}!ingres!coqui!sergio _"_"_ Jones
Hash Browns
>Certainly making a main
>character openly gay would destroy Star Trek.
This is probably true. Tolerance is not a trait you can attribute to
the masses.
>What if the Captain and first officer were gay. Would that really
>improve the shows ratings? Do you think that the show would still
>appeal to the masses? Do you think it would be suitable for children
>to watch? I suspect you are crazy enough to say "yes" to all of
>these questions.
In order: No, no, yes. Any depiction of homosexuality showable on
FCC regulated TV would have to be suitable for children. Any depiction
of homosexuality which was no more detailed than ST:TNG's depiction of
heterosexuality would be dandy for children. Kids shouldn't be sheltered
from ideas with which grown ups are uncomfortable. Let the youth escape
our hang-ups. It will give them a stronger moral base with which to
make their own decision.
>If Star Trek turns into the P.C. show that you are advocating it will
>die. Star Trek, like it or not is simple mind-numbing entertainment.
>It is a business, and it must appeal to the masses.
Spoken like a studio executive, not as a progressive. And being progressive
is one of Trek's greatest's appeal. The original series is known for having
made great strides in racial relations. The optimistic future that Trek
portrays is why so many fans have found and stayed loyal to Trek. It
doesn't have to be militant or P.C. or mindnumbing to be both
entertainment and a continuing example of a better human race.
>Like it or not homosexuality does not appeal to the masses, no matter
>how many times you and other cry it should.
True it does not apeal to the masses. Neither do mixed race relations.
But in canonical Trek, humans have mated with Vulcans, Betazoids, Klingons,
and Romulans. Kirk fell in love with an Indian. O'Brian is married to
Keiko. Kirk kissed Uhura. Yar and that guy from "Code of Honor" were attracted
to one another. Another taboo is unmarried women giving birth and raising a
family. But Troi gave birth to a son. Carol Marcus raised Kirk's son, David.
These things are all on the edge of our society's narrow margin of tolerance
and acceptance.
>Star Trek is entertainment. It is not a government program, it is not
>a social statement--it is pure entertainment. Can't we leave
>something alone? Must all things be politically correct?
No, it has worked hard to be more than mere entertainment. Can't we allow
ourselves to be challenged by the shows we watch. Who cares about P.C.ness.
A social conscious is not the death of entertainment.
>Have you considered that possibly that by ignoring homosexuality Star
>Trek has dealt with it? It is just a thought.
Har har. I love how "This Old House," "Victory Garden," and, "Car Week"
have all made grand social statements concerning homosexuality.
I have to say, however, that the current discusion here in r.a.s. has been
admirably civilized and enlightened. More proof of Trek being a socially
progressive program? Let it continue to progress. Live long and prosper.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mark D. Manes // CIS : 74030,744
> System Manager/Programmer // Email: ma...@vger.nsu.edu
> Norfolk State University \\\// Amiga Phone: (804) 683-2532
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "AmigaDOS 2.0 is the future of the Amiga -- be a part of it!"
--
________ __________
/_______/ __________ /_________/ SIn...@Eng.Auburn.EDU
_______ ________/____ ___/__ __ ___ _________________ _ _
\_____ \/ ____/ ___ / /_ __/ / / / \/ / ____/ _ / __ \/ \/ \
_______/ / /___/ /__/ / / / / ____/ /___/ /\ / /_ / _ / __ / \
/________/\_____>_____/_/ /_/ /_________/_/ \_/___ /_/ \_\/ /_/__/\_/\_\
/_/
Neil P.G.
>Two possibilities:
>Perhaps the Kinsey report isn't 'canon'
>-this 10% estimate is highly exagerated IMHO
I'm sure you have some experimental data to substantiate that. :-)
>Or maybe Starfleet excludes homosexuals
But why would it in the 24th century when homosexuality is tolerated?
It that was the case, Starfleet (and all its wonderful activities)
would suddenly become a little sour.
--
....... ---------------------------------------------------------- .......
..... | Neil Perret-Green E-mail: n...@cns.umist.ac.uk | .....
... | The Word Man - Homo Lexicographicus "In the Pink" | ...
. ---------------------------------------------------------- .
Neil P.G.
>Should Star
>Trek be used as a vehicle to redress all or any of these concern? Do the
>writers/producers/directors/actors have an obligation to push the political
>agenda of any particular group that has been/is beening slighted? The gay
>"issue" may be important to you, but must it be important to everyone
>involved in Star Trek?
a) homophobia is more than gays and lesbians being "slighted", but I
presume you are straight and haven't experienced the hostility gays
and lesbians have to face
b) as someone else mentioned, ST has slways addressed "issues" through
its storylines, and basically shown that the 23rd/24th centuries are a
good place (in general terms) for all people to live, but strangely
enough - silence on homosexuality
>All in all I think Star Trek (both series) has done an admirable job of
>exploring mans inhumanity to man. I applaud the efforts of all concerned
>in dealing with the large issues, and not getting caught up in the
>hot "issue" of the moment.
Homosexuality and homophobia is a "big" issue and not a "hot" issue of
the moment. Do you really think gays and lesbianss have just appeared
this decade? This century?