Wow. I guess "suicidal tendencies, murderous intentions" really does apply to you...

I've never met a manic depressive before - or Bipolar as you called it. (Like Jig, i've never heard of the term before)

I guess people have to be careful when playing BOTF around you?

Charge! Ram them! Flee! Charge!

As you said, most gay people aren't the feminine, flambuoyant type that most people who object to homosexuality seem to be "afraid" of. The fact the we didn't know you are a manic-depressive reiterates this. You seem like a "normal" guy. The fact that you have this problem shouldn't be a problem to anyone else, and I doubt it would.

If you had said you were gay though, there would probably have been people who object to it.

But how can you have a problem with someone if they are "normal" as far as you can tell, but one day you discover they are gay, bi, manic depressive, whatever?

To only have a problem once you found out would be hypocritical to say the least. Mental problems can be gotten around, and people understand that it isn't their fault.

So way isn't homosexuality treated the same way?

If we are dealing with Trek here, I find it hard to believe that (in that fictional universe) people would continue to discriminate against sexual orientations like we do today in a society where OTHER SPECIES are treated as equals!

There probably are/were/will be GLBT characters in Trek, we don't know because they:
1) wouldn't let their personal lives get in the way of their jobs, and
2) none of their crewmates would make a big deal out of it, or even care!

Hawk's homosexuality is not canon (yet), since it only is referred to in books involving him or his partner, yet I think that the books are the best place to discuss the "issue" in Trek, since it can be revealed in their own personal thoughts and reflections, while in a TV show, someone has to make a big deal out of it for it to be noticed by the audience, which probably wouldn't happen if Starfleet is as tolerant as they're supposed to be!

I was reading through the thread, and something stuck me as being almost self-evident: the reason why you don't see gay people in Star Trek (a narrative reason, at least) would be that by Star Trek's time (24th Century), it's more than likely they'll be able to cure someone of being gay, if that is what they wish.

I figure that if they can have ships that go faster than light, make sentient computers (eg. Data, who is a sentient computer in an android body), anti-gravity, replicators, transporters, etc., they should be able to cure ANY kind of genetic defect.

This statement may be interpreted by some as reactionary, of course, but consider this: I had a friend who was gay, and at one point, we had a conversation in which he stated that if there was a such a cure, he would take it in a heartbeat, especially when he was in his teenage years.

If there was such a cure, and if one of my sons were gay, I'd like to think that having the option to take the cure would at least be available to him, rather than having it denied to him for reasons of political correctness.

Just my two loonies worth,

Maniacal Man

But if homosexuality is purely genetic, then that means it should be classed as a disease. The stigma of homosexuality alone has been enough to drive some people to commit suicide, so imagine what it would do if it was "officially" a disease!

Besides, would they really "cure" it? Geordi couldn't see because he had a genetic condition, but they never cured him. They instead gave him a device that allowed him to see.

The Federation is completely against genetic engineering (Which in my mind is the wrong policy - i'm totally for it, as long as there are very tight controls on the technology) so they would never go to the extreme of curing all people of homosexuality.

Then again, there's the eugenics wars, and who knows what was done during those times...?

Homosexuality is not a genetic defect or anything of the kind. And if, I say IF it is genetic, it certainly is not a defect. You make it sound like you think homosexuality is a disease. There is nothing to be 'cured' of and I realy don't believe the friend you refer to realy wanted to be rid of how he is. It could be that he feels like he isn't fully respected for who he is and therefore wants to change.

Simply because 80% of the world is not gay, it doesn't make the other 20% less vallued. I agree with lots of the points Morden makes. Everyone is different. And that fact doesn't give anyone the right to change it just because they aren't like that themselves.

Kind of a dangerous path here, isn't it? I mean, if homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, is it a disease or isn't it? Is it something that is physically different about somebody that they can choose (or be coerced) to have cured? Or is that genetic difference somehow relating to which thoughts are acted on and which are not?

Do you see why this concerns me? If, hypothetically, in the future we are able to isolate genetic/chemical reasons for certain behaviours/impluses, and have the ability to 'correct' them, where does it stop? Homosexuality is not something that is inherently dangerous (especially if it is a genetic predisposition), nor does it affect anyone else negatively, at least medically, if they choose not to be. So if that is a 'problem' or 'defect' necessitating correction, where do those corrections stop? Do we 'cure' learning disabilities or genius? Do we 'cure' anti-social behaviour, or even shyness? Do we find genetic markers that predispose someone for a 'less desirable' contribution to society like the arts and slowly weed them out in favor of technical knowledge? Is there going to be some ideal human genetic template that people are judged against?

Does that scare anyone else?

At first I wasn't sure if I should say anything or just keep my mouth shut, but there comes a point where individuals of good conscience can no longer remain quiet. As I read through this thread, it saddened me to see so many derisive and divisive remarks--from both sides--on a site dedicated to an ideal of equality and harmony. Cure gays using gene therapy? I suppose next we'll cure the blacks, the asians, the Jews, the Muslims, and the Irish since--according to our rich cultural heritage of hatred and bigotry--these are all "genetic defects" as well. While we're at it, we should probably cure all religious groups, too, since talking to invisible creatures who watch and judge us, believing that dogs turn into people to marry princesses, and of course believing that the dead rise from the grave are all powerful markers of schizophrenia as well as various world religions. Perhaps we should simply get rid of any and all genetic "anomalies" or differences for the betterment of our race. Hmm, I guess Hitler, Torquemada, and their ilk were actually visionaries.

Some of you may think I'm being too harsh, and in some respect I actually agree with you. My anger comes from experience. When you've sat through as many suicide vigils as I have, hearing over and over again the lament of "Society hates me and will never accept me," any compassionate individual tends to develop a deep hatred of the social conditions which perpetuate these divisions. Denying homosexuals even the basic acknowledgement of existence--even worse labeling them diseased, a practice abandoned by the American Psychological Association (which represents largely the Americas and Europe) completely in 1986 check here http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/hist.html --sows the seeds of hatred and bigotry which drive so many people to their own deaths, just as surely as strapping every non-homosexual ally to a chair and forcing them to watch propaganda after propaganda.

In the final analysis, we are all one human race. The only "problem" with homosexuals, the reason why they and others might want to be "cured," is the social hatred and prejudice they are subjected to, often by people who never take the time to even attempt to understand or listen to them. With diseases, biological weapons, and even nuclear capabilities spreading across our globe, we need to stop focusing on meaningless categories. Gay, straight, Christian, Muslim and countless others are nothing but worthless names to describe simple aspects or traits. What matters, what actually carries value, are the people. I am increasingly convinced that if our race is to survive for much longer, it will be because we learn to stop wasting our time dividing ourselves into smaller and smaller categories and finally learn to work together. It's time to leave the fear-driven dark ages behind us and grow up as a race.

I couldn't have said it better.

Well i think that homosexual isn't normal. I'm not radical, that i want those people dead, but i do think that they have a problem. It's possible that they are in a stage of their live (around 14-20) where they are growing and learning, which might cause this. It's possible that you have got a traumetic experiecen or something. Or it's something do with your genes or something totally different.

But i find it hard that people want to see all groups equal. In a way you never can, because they are different. It's naive to think this will ever be 100% accepted.

From a religious view i can say that people who practice this with others will not inherit god's kingdom. God doesn't like gay people, and rejects them. So leaders in christian faith that have sex with the same sex are doing wrong according to the bible and should be rejected in such a post.

Now i don't feel hatred against those people, but it saddens me that people want this to be normal. It's not. Even for people that believe in evolution (not me!!!), you should think, if everyone was gay, then humanity is dead. It's not natural, because evolution is all about survival. Now from a christian view, it's forbidden to practise things like this.

So YES i do think those people are sick in a way and NO i dont want those people to be dead, since that will be decided in the future not now.

Now i think i was reasonable in my thinking. Just please don't flame and tell me why you think i'm thinking wrong or right.

iwulff if god rejects gay people why did he create them? the bible also says that people shouldn't kill each other. it doesn't provide any exceptions. does that mean you also disagree with all war and the death penalty?



if everyone was male or if everyone was female then humanity is dead as well. So does that mean being male or female is not natural?
By the way, even though you don't believe in evolution, being gay is as prominent in the animal kingdom as it is in humans. There is an evolutionary benefit to having some gay people, the fact that they don't produce babies is good because it means that when humans were in the hunter gatherer stage of evolution they would help out their tribe more than another baby which the tribe may not have been able to look after. And since the baby that the gay person helps to look after will have a greater chance of survival, and since the baby is related to the gay person, then the 'gay genes' will get passed on if there is any such thing.

Sorry for saying this, but i pretty much know that i wont be able to change your view because you are religious. (that is not to say that other religious people agree with you, but because you are religious, i have to go into the bible or something like that to really argue with you and i can't be bothered since that would be a long and drawn out process)


I hope you are meaning sick as a disease type thing and not sick as in you are disgusted with them.


i hope none of that was considered flaming cause it wasn't intended to be.

Iwulff, I want to thank you for being willing to say what I'm sure plenty of people are thinking, and I'm glad to hear that you don't explicitly wish death on all homosexuals (a significant step up from some people I've encountered). Knowledge, questions, and debates are the seeds from which wisdom and understanding grow, so the more points of view brought in the more beneficial the discussion. In the final analysis, I believe that religion is the center of the debate over homo/bisexuality. Though in name this thread may seem addressed to you, but I speak to all in the hopes of encouraging questions and exploration of thought. With that in mind, let me throw out a few thoughts to be considered.

First, quickly, I'd like to speak to this:
[/quote]But i find it hard that people want to see all groups equal. In a way you never can, because they are different. It's naive to think this will ever be 100% accepted.


I have no idea if I did that right since this is my first time trying to use the "Quote" command, but hopefully it shows up. When I read this, the question which immediately pops into my mind is, "Just because something is difficult or may not be attainable by us, does that mean we abandon it?" It seems that humanity does almost nothing but pursue the impossible. Even if we don't ever reach the final destination--having a complete map of the universe, truly and fully understanding the concept of "god," cataloguing the various thoughts and abilities of mankind, etc.--we certainly learn a great deal along the way. I digress, but I wanted to point out that idea.

In the case of religion, I must first ask how any of us can know what a divine being thinks or desires. Setting aside the question of which interpretation of "god" or "gods" is actually correct, we must ask ourselves how humans can understand the intentions of divine beings. Humans are flawed creatures and make mistakes. For instance, let's look at the Catholic church seeing as it is historically the largest and most recognizable guiding force of the larger Christian faith.

The church, of course, is guided by humans. According to the church's own doctrines, the pope guides the church and possesses the singular ability to pass laws and the like which automatically receive divine ratification. Essentially, the pope speaks for god and Jesus Christ on Earth, and everything he says is divinely approved of. This past year, the pope and Vatican have announced that limbo--a place incorporated into the beliefs of the faith since at least the 13th century--does not in fact exist. This, then, means that either the previous popes and leaders who endorsed the idea were wrong or that the current pope is wrong in denying it. Humans make mistakes and misinterpretations.

Of course, not all Christians are followers or even fans of the Catholic church. To this, I ask, "When was Christ [the central, unique figure of Christianity] born?" The ready answer would of course be December 25th, yet this is itself debated as the scriptures do not provide an actual date. December 25th is simply the date picked by the bishop of Rome in 354 (more than 300 years after the fact, so to speak), a date which coincided with a feast in honor of the god Saturn. Other dates have been suggested ranging from January 6 to sometime in the year prior to the onset of winter (before the third week in October) with scriptural support (see http://www.truechristian.org/are_you_a_ ... istmas.htm for such instance). This would seem to me a rather fundamental part of the religion, yet even that it raises doubt. While my intention is not to undermine the faith, I do believe this points out how easily people can make mistakes. Therefore, how can we truly know what any particular god feels?

Next question to raise, are homosexuals against any particular god's plan? In the strictest, biological sense, homosexuals can't procreate, so this does seem to go against a natural order. However, people who are infertile or sterile do not create biological offspring, so are they also loathed by this god? What about priests who take a vow of celibacy, or individuals such as myself who choose to take no part in romance/sex because we follow life courses which don't offer room for raising children? Are all of these groups also rejected?

As sensou pointed out, creating an actual child is not the only means to contribute to the growth of society. Adoptive parents don't create the child, but they certainly do raise and care for it. Preventing deaths contributes to the growth of society. Priests attempt to spread the word of their chosen god, a contribution I should think that god would hold in favor. It would seem to me that attempting to be the best human being you can be and trying to improve as many lives as possible would be admirable actions upon which sex or child creation has no bearing. To me, this looks like a paradox. Also, as sensou mentioned, why would a god create a group of people it rejected? Based on what we currently know, I don't see how we can make firm conclusions about what a divine entity might think.

Finally, for the sake of argument, let's assume for the moment that the Judeo-Christo-Islamic god is the correct "choice" in gods, and that it does in fact reject homosexuals. Let's assume that homosexuality was perhaps introduced by a demonic creature of sorts to corrupt or destroy humanity, and that it is in fact a disease of some sort which we can't yet fully fathom. What, then, makes a god worth being worshipped and revered?

I throw out this question for thought because it strikes me as a serious contradiction. Even in the worst-case scenario--that homosexuality is a demonic disease--apparently this benevolent god rejects and condemns people simply for being infected, something which they have little to no control over. True, we use quarantines on deadly contagions, but shouldn't a god be able to cure a disease without killing the patient, and shouldn't it be humane enough to do so? This doesn't seem like the act of a creature I would even respect. Even worse, what if homosexuality isn't really a disease, but simply a difference in genetics, opinion, hormone levels, etc.? Then this creature wantonly condemns hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people for the crime of being different. Whether it exists or not, I would never willingly bend my knee to a creature which behaves in such a petty manner. In fact, I would be hard-pressed not to do everything in my admittedly little power to fight against such tyranny. So, again, I must ask what makes a god worthy of worship?

I ask these questions because they have constantly popped into my mind. A lot of people do say that homosexuality is against the will of a particular god or group of gods, and honestly I don't know how to go about reconciling those doubts. By asking and talking about them, I hope to expand my own understanding and move closer to an answer. Hopefully, my thoughts can even be of use to someone else either in exposing false beliefs or gaining a deeper understanding of divine wisdom.[/quote]

Well said ritter,

The point is Homosexuality is a preference. Everyone has their own tastes some like Broccoli some don't. To be honest I can't understand how a man could choose a guy over a gal. But the point is it is there preference, I don't object to them as long as they do not force their ideals onto others and in the grand scheme of things. The more homosexuals there are the less competition there is.

Well that used to be my philosophy but I'm married now.
No one can say there were no gays in Starfleet.
The Federation prides itself on understanding different cultures and respecting people's beliefs. I think its safer to just let it be then to continuously debate about it, to question the rights they have or ask one another what they think about them.

Simply put there is no THEM, you cannot separate them. They are human beings like you or me and to put them in a separate caste from the rest of us is not only futile its pointless. You can not stop change and homosexuality has been around a long time.

It is no epidemic it is just that more and more groups that feel outcasted are stepping forward and demanding to be accepted. George Takei for example. So if you continue this topic just stop referring to /THEM/ because the only thing you are separating from society is yourself by not getting with the times and accepting that they have the same rights you do and they should.

And if you can't see that it just means more girls for you and you keep a grudge against them then perhaps you should take a few moments to question your own sexuality because Homophobia is generally attributed to projection of your own insecurities more so then prejudice.

I mean think of it logically, why should it bother you. What do you have to fear? Oppression? Oppression from who? just what makes you afraid?

Anger is nothing but fear, fear is nothing but the unknown.

Does it actually say in the bible that god is against Homosexuality or is that just what people have assumed.

Being gay or lesbian doesn't change how we should think of a person. I know a few outward gay people and they are perfectly nice andi get along fine with them. It's not even our business what sexuality they are but just because they're GBLT they get beaten-up and harassed. That's just unacceptable. And ye, if God don't like them then why did he create them - just like terrorists

@ ritter do you mean purgatory when you say limbo?
@tbc yes it does in fact say in the bible thou shalt not lay with the beasts of the field or with another man as thou would with a woman.

Yes in the bible god says he is against it. There is a difference between having those feeling and actually doing it. And please we are all born in sin, God didn't create homosexuality, he merely let humans choose there own paths. Otherwise we would be forced into doing everything we do. Sin never should have happened, but when Eve and Adam understood the difference between right and wrong and disobed God, they were in sin. And now because we are their children, we are also in sin.

But i see a failure in your thinking, ridder. It's not the church that creates a religion. The churches like catholic and such are totally wrong because they are not following rules in the bible. I do not accept the pope as our liasion. Our contact to God, is Jesus Christ and there is the holy spirit. It's actually a goal for a christian, to know God more and more.

The issue when Christ was born has no importance, i don't celebrate his birth, i don't do christmas. And no i don't feel fear, i don't fear death, because i know that God exists and didn't i say that i don't feel anger to those who are gay? It's not my place now to condemn those people. i feel anger towards the devil, because he is the cause for all the problems.

Also god doesn't like prostitutues but Rahab is praised for her faith. Just that you know.

Don't contradict yourself.

Preference is not the same as choice. Choice implies that homosexuals choose to be gay which most homosexuals would say is a fallacy.

Preference is a word more akin to the sense of taste or smell. A person does not choose the determination of what he likes and dislikes; there is no choice. In the case of taste, he simply likes and dislikes because of what his taste buds are telling his brain.

For example, I want to eat fish as it is a healthy meat which has many beneficial constituents; that is my choice. However I do not eat it because my taste buds repel the taste. I cannot stand the taste of fish so even if I want to eat it, I cannot because it tastes vile in my mouth. Preference is not necessarily respective of choice.

In the same way, some homosexuals may desire to become heterosexuals (due probably to discrimination and hatred) but because their brains relay signals that indicate a preference towards the same sex, they have no choice and have difficulty denying themselves their preference. It goes against their core.

In the end, the only real choice lies with bisexuals.

Ooh,
Bible Verses

How about this one,

Deuteronomy 28: "The tender and delicate woman" will be forced to eat her own children "that cometh out from between her feet." 28:56-57
Well that doesn't sound right, so he's against natural birth? Cesareans all around!

Ezekial 25: "For thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast clapped thine hands, and stamped with the feet, and rejoiced in heart with all thy despite against the land of Israel." Debatable it may mean anyone who conquered the land.

Leviticus 20: "A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them." "Oh, well gosh. How do I tell if they are a witch or wizard eh? Does that mean when my kids watch Sword in the Stone I should tell them if they see anyone dressed like Merlin they should bludgeoned him to death with a rock? I wonder if that verse had anything to do with the Spanish inquisition or Salem witch trials.

Exodus 29: "And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy."
Yeah don't let anyone watch you eat your animal sacrifices. You sin every time you have a Barbecue!

And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.--Lev.15:24




Leviticus 15: And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

Jumpin Jesus H. Christ!
We're not allowed to help hurt people or hug our daughters while they are on their period?


The Bible has too many contradictions to even bother listing here.

Simply put, if you're basing your prejudice on the bible then you are closely related to another group of people I know that wear white hoods and burn crosses.

The Bible was Translated by man, written by man. man is not perfect so you can bet there are errors in it. But that's odd, God is infallible. He made us in his Image? Why would God make the most flawed species on the planet in his Image? Why if all he makes is perfection are we so flawed?

I believe in God, I just don't believe any religion has got it right. Christianity especially considering it seems like a form of control. Telling people that their actions while alive will serve to exonerate or prosecute them in the afterlife.

So rather then let every man be responsible for his own actions they faith places it on divine spirits. If you are good you are guided by the hand of god, if you are evil you are surely being lead by the Devil.

The only person who makes the decisions in your life is yourself. Blaming them good or bad on another person or being is ridiculous. It is a form of control they use Fear, Thinking, " if they fear the afterlife they may straighten up and act civil in this one. "

Leviticus 15: And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

Jumpin Jesus H. Christ!
We're not allowed to help hurt people or hug our daughters while they are on their period?
oi dingbat this refers to incest, not her period.

I think you should reread that page. the surrounding parts are talking about menstration.

A useless rule if I do say so myself as one man may find it incredibly difficult to lie with a man as he does with a woman when men afterall lack the appropriate feminine genitals.

I do not contradict myself.
I believe it is a preferance, I never said my ideals or beliefs were similar to that of a homosexual man. I believe I stated that in saying I could not understand how a man could choose another man over a woman.

Preferance and choice. you are more likely to choose what you prefer and most homosexuals say they are forced into it because they live in a society which thinks them different or much like you just said, "their brains relay a preferance." society thinks them ill after awhile they will start to believe that.

Choice and Preferance go hand in hand, you would be more likely to choose soemthing your prefer to something you don't.

Please, guys! The bible is an ancient book that has been written and rewritten hundreds or thousands of times. It is completely irrelevant what it says about things like this.

I consider myself a religious person. As in, I believe in God, I believe in Heaven. I do not believe that every word that is written in the bible is true. The bible, as is Christianity (or the Islam, or any other Religion around), is a way of life and (EDIT: this was supposed to say 'NOT') a rulebook by which to live or else be doomed. What is the next step in this debate? Declare all gay people to be Heretics?

God judges people to the way they lived their lives. If they were good persons, if they loved their fellow men, if they did some good deeds now and then, etc. etc. He doesn't care who someone loves. If it's someone from their own gender or not. As long as he loves them and not hates them. That's what life is about and that's what Religion and God is about. Do you realy think the Guy has got nothing better to do than to keep track of the sex-lives of every human on this planet?

Hi, I've read this thread from start to finish and to be honest, I thought that people these days were more open minded.

I agree that Star Trek should not have a "Token" character ... that seriously annoys me and yes i can understand that it would make people feel a minority is pushing itself on everyone else.

At the same time, a christian reading the bible/praying in a muslim state for example, would be exactly the same thing.

Now while i appreciate everyone is different (myself being Buddhist and bisexual) i have no respect or patience for anyone without any tolerance.

Some people think that their way of life is paramount to everyone elses and that they can critise everyone else... i really pity those people.

Personally i think that star trek is a great program, and the reason we haven't seen any GLBT characters is because Paramount didn't want to loose viewer ratings. So what if there isn't a GLBT character - its not the end of the world ... as long as belana can remux the aft secondary deflector reamplification subsystem using her amplitude volumator (I know a bad example) in a program that delivers excellent sci-fi viewing then i am happy.

If they want to work on existing current affairs then so be it ... but if they are preluding this then they should encorporate all people and scenarios, not those that have been deemed "PC" by the AFA.

You are forgetting one thing Reinhardt. Most of those rules were only intended for Jews. It was to show that we can't get salvation through a law. Only Jesus was able to be without sin, and because of his death, he became the ultimate sacrifice.

About all of your ideas of God. God knows everything that has been done by you. Yet why doesn't he put an end to it, right now? Easy, he doesn't want just any humans. He want people that want to follow Jesus and become cleansed in his blood.

Most of you people are like going along of what the public thinks. If you think being openminded is saying that you should accept everything around you, then you are wrong. What about stealing, murder, rape? Should they be seen as normal in the next 20 years? I won't be openminded towards things like these. I know what is wrong and what is right.

Our path in this live isn't just to love eachother (important), it's also about knowing God and loving him.

Edit by admin: You can pm an admin for reasons to close this topic. I have not seen any offensive conversations going on here.
Iwulff

whats this about then?

He was claiming that we should have ended this thread a long time ago when we took believe into it and that it should be closed and such. Well it's normal to contact a moderator or admin for this. If there are any flames the topic will get closed and such posts will get deleted.

I don't think we should close the thread for it, but I must say I do wonder what religion has to do with the subject at hand (the discussion about a homophilic character in startrek). I still fail to see the connection with religion and besides, from the looks of it, religion doesn't realy exist anymore among humans during Star Trek. (the only exeption perhaps is Chakotay, but I don't see his animal guide object if he discovered he's actualy gay)

So, back to the subject. Since relations never are a real storyline within Star Trek (ok, you've got Miles and Keiko, and Paris and Torres, but that's about it) I realy do not think it needs to become a set character. But just in a single episode of trek where they'd discover a civilisation which is on the brink of self-destruction since 80% of the population is homophilic, for example, I'm just brain storming here, I don't see why not.

For anyone who doesn't know, the LSAT sucks and is not fun at all to take. My brain feels about fried.

As far as why religious belief even came into the thread, I think it's because largely the debate over homosexuality has to take into account religious philosophies. From my own research, I've found very little support for an "anti-gay" stance outside of religious thought. Very little current biological or social evidence can truly undermine the practice of homosexuality, so it does tend to come down to a debate over a larger question of morality and philosophy, of which religion plays a significant part. If religion no longer truly exists in the Star Trek world--Worf said the Klingon gods are dead (although they still have beliefs in the afterlife), I remember Picard talking about "forcing a society to move backward" or something when it was suggested he play to the Mintakans' belief that he was some type of godly figure, Janeway was adament in one episode that a religious ceremony had to create scientifically measurable physical changes or something to protect from...energy...sacred...something, and I don't recall the Romulans or Cardassians ever really talking anything about something remotely like religion--then there may not be any actual thought about homosexuality as anything more than just another difference like hair or eye color. The one real exception I can think of would be the Ferengi, but they've also been referred to as what humans "once were" with advanced technology. Of course, this would assume that no reason for arguing against homosexuality has been found outside of religion.

One thing I did notice as I was watching an old episode of Next Generation during a much needed study break, the topic of romance and marriage came up without any reference to genders at all. The episode was the one with the "Vulcan" ambassador who was really a Romulan spy, faked death, chaos ensues, etc. Data had been talking with Troi about marriage, what it takes, all that stuff, and of course got into a discussion about how he had been considering one day marrying. Neither he nor Troi used any gendered terms in the discussion, but instead referred to "a potential mate" and such. Later when he was learning to dance, it was assumed that he would practice dancing with a female partner, but during the actual discussion of marriage it was extremely ambiguous. Just something which caught my attention after participating in this thread which I thought I'd share.

Anyway, just based on the content of this thread of discussion, I really think that there should be a gay character/subplot/something addressed in Star Trek at some point just because this is clearly an issue which could use discussion. Truth be told, I'd kind of like to see how the Klingons or Cardassians would react to a homosexual Federation representative.

Tis only natural to be different.
If everyone was the same there would be no change, no grown, no new knowledge, just basicly a waste.

Being black or white is something your born with.
Being gay, can be something your born with or something you choise.
As far as im concerned, if someone wants to be gay thats just fine, as long as he/she dosent force me to change my choices in life.

Thats part of freedom and free will.
Personaly ild much rather know that someone is gay, even in a gay relationship then the hundreds of (to me) more objectional things people can do.

(to name a few) Rape, Murder, Incest, Theft.

I personaly dont dislike someone because he is *gasp* gay. In fact i have several friends i know that are gay. When i meet someone and find out they are gay im totaly ok with it. The only thing i tell them is that i myself am not gay, dont want to be flirted with or hit on by the gay person, and have no interest in changing how i feel. Anything else, im fine with.

Most of the people i say that to are first shocked that im so forward with them on the subject, then realize im simply stating the facts. Of all the gay people i have met, i have become close friends with every one of them, and never have had any problems with them.

Why? Simple. I dont try to change them, and i dont object to the way they feel about it. I only wish it would be the same with religious people. I have never had a problem with a gay person, however nearly every religious person ive met and said similar things to has resulted in those people trying to change the way i feel and treat religion.

The problem isint with people being gay. The problem is with over-religious people thinking their way is the *only* correct way and trying to change others. I have no problem with anyone choising a form of worship, and practicing it. My problem is when those people choise to try and change the way i feel or think about religion or any of numerous other subjects.

Case and example:
For a short while i lived in texas, specificly in the area known as the bible belt. While there (i being a single white male) met 2 diferent people.
The first i met was a single black man, who i later found out was gay. He wasent very religious, much like myself. Once i found out he was gay i simply let him know how i felt and how it didnt bother me if he didnt *force* the gay subject on me. To this day (thou i now live in a different state) he and i are still friends and e-mail each other.
I got along (and still get along) good with him because he wasent trying to force his choices down my neck.
The second i met was a married black woman, who was very religious. Upon finding out how religious she was, i told her that i myself was not very religious. I made the mistake of saying i was fine with whatever she choise (religion wise) as long as she didnt preach it to me and try to change me on it. As expected she would preach to me about religion all the time, eventully to the point where it was one of a few reasons for me to leave texas. Now if she had let the subject be and not preached religion over and over to me, ild probaly still talk to her.

These are not isolated incodents.
Most every religious person i meet that i let know im not very religious trys to change me, while nearly every gay person (including lesbians) ive met does not try to change my feelings.

(I know this statement will draw flames, but what the hell).
Makes me wonder why religious people think they are more right when gay people have more respect for other people's feelings.

Tielee
P.S. And yes, i know this is long, but i wanted to rant so deal with it.