Just to be earlier than the flames, tielee, I want to support you in it and say I completely agree with any single word you've written in that post. Only comment I have is to the beginning in which you state that being gay is something you chose. I do not think that is the case. You just notice after you've grown older that you feel differently than how everyone arround you tells you you should feel.

About gay people and religious people, I do think you make a mistake by generalising the groups too much. But the phenomenon you describe has to do with the fact that religious people are openly proud of what they believe in and mostly cannot understand how other people do not believe the same thing. Either that or they feel it is their 'duty' as, undoubtedly described in the bible (being something of a Christian myself, I never have read the book), to convert as many people they can. Believe is an opinion. Something that CAN be changed. sexual preference is for a great deal set and can't be stone. I'm sure for gay people the idea of having sex with a female is as disgusting as the idea of having sex with a man is to us. They now that, so why try to change your mind?

One final thing about God, though. I honestly believe God loves gays as much as He loves everyone else. Nothing more, nothing less. To go even further, I think he frowns upon everyone who says otherwise. It's about what you make of your live. In total.

Hmmm, interesting topic...

I'm pretty divided on this one, I'll explain why;

Star Trek has a long and consistent history of doing things in an overly immature and childish manner. Don't get me wrong, I love Trek, but it can't seem to do certian issues very well. Take Voyager and Enterprise for example, their version of titilation and sexuality were a chick in a stupidly and impractically tight outfit, or people oiling each other up, respectively. Why couldn't they just have mature sexual relationships, that revealed more than they had previously? If you had bought into the characters and relationship it might even help the story.

IF Trek ever had a gay character one of the following routes would likely be taken, maybe a combination of all of them...

*Overly camp, supergay character- seems to be the trend in TV right now.
*Overly manly and badass gay character- "breaking the steriotypes" by reverting to the opposite extreme and actually appearing way unrealistic. Trek has done this before, pretty much all women in Trek are at least as strong and capable fighters as men. This isn't the case in real life, I'm not saying that all women are pathetic, but they've over-compensated in Trek
*Constant referrals to who Lt Fudgepacker has been sleeping with.
*The straight characters being overly "ok with it", to the point where they seem like they want some of the action themselves.

As a result, it would probably be more insulting to actual gay people than satisfying, and by it's very nature would put off a fair few straight people of a certain mindset, by it's very existence, (hell, I'm totally cool with people's sexual preferences, but I won't watch Brokeback Mountain cos I literally couldn't stomach watching guys being all intimate).


So in summary, if they brought in a character who at some point in the third season said "my boyfriend's an Admiral" or something, then I wouldn't bat an eyelid. Although we all know that such a big deal would be made of it that it would look so dated in 10 years time, far moreso that TOS' attitude to women.


Edit- I also want to comment on the religious viewpoint by reiterating my belief that while ever logical, educated humans are basin their prejudices off of 2000 year old books written by various unknown people in foreign languages at a time when most people didn't even know the world was flat yet, let alone round, then this race is so doomed.

Star Trek should have dealt with this issue back in the 80's when homophobia was worse due to the Aids panic. The early seasons TNG should have had something, in a Gene Roddenberry style about the future and it's utter lack of prejudice...

Star Trek was responsible for the first interracial kiss on television... now were all young pups and that sentence will never have the total impact on us (partly due to Star Trek's boldness), but you have to remember there was far more opposition to an interracial kiss in the 60's than a homosexual relationship today. This is the same time Mohammed Ali is saying he wont go to Vietnam because no vietcong ever called him a nigger. This is the time Martin Luther King is assasinated, and the first million man march. This is time of the Birmingham riots, and during all this the vast white television viewing population still had no desire to see an interracial anything... never mind a kiss

I think we take the boldness of having "a jap, a ruskie and a black WOMEN in space" for granted because things have changed, due in part to Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry isn't everyones cup of tea, his aetheist,communist ideal of the future still raises eybrows today, and he aired Star Trek in one of the most crucial stages of the Cold War. He didn't just eliminate them from government he eliminated all religion from the entire Galaxy.. But you have to take note that if Roddenberry could take all these taboo's, expose them for the shams they were, and make the greatest television of the 20th century then you have to wonder why Trek couldn't work a gay relationship into its succesor series...

The disturbing thing is most of the guys arguing against any kind of real homosexual relationship in Star Trek are using the same kind of arguments a rascist would;

1. they probably do, i just dont want to see it because it disgusts me
2. as long as they stay away from my kids
3. they are a different species
4. they chose to be the way they are
5. bible says this

Cmon guys, the situation arent exactly alike but there are striking similarities....


All that said i have to agree that the current wigs in charge of Trek would be so hopeless at writing gay character(s) that if they did right now it would be a farce...

I think Trek has lost the vital part of what made it so popular, its vision of a better, more understanding and socially cohesive future where the issues of today when brought up in the show turn the stomach of the hereos.. Think of Star Trek IV when they are picked up in the truck

"don't try anything funny i have a tire iron right where i can get at it" - followed by a look between kirk and spock that says it all

homosexuality is as free today as it needs to be. there are gay pride marchs, gay priests, gay presenters, gay politians, gay monkeys. Only the minority are completely against homosexuality, and would completely remove themselves from their company, but then, there still are alot more rasists than homophobs....

As perhaps the token bisexual on this site, I believe it time to venture my own opinion on this matter.

Simply because homosexual tendencies might be a genetic variation, it does not mean that it might a disease. All humans deviate to some extent from others; otherwise we would all be clones.

The best analogy I can think to describe it would be to equate such a 'gay' gene to say the gene that gives you blue eyes, or green eyes or brown eyes, for example.

All I can say is that such a gene, should it actually exist, manifests itself in puberty. I never had attraction to men until the beginning of adolescence. For a fact, suffice to say, there was nothing I could do about it and therefore it is not a choice.

That said, I still think their is a stigma in society towards homosexuality. Despite the advance in openness, the press for example still goes wild whenever a celebrity of sorts is 'outed'. I myself could see stigma throughout school life which is why I kept my feelings to myself for many years. Now that I am out as a bisexual, I feel happier and more confident as a person.

The following is what my dictionary says about the term 'disease': "A more or less severe or longterm defect in the functioning of mind or body."

I am perfectly sure that both the body and mind of Mangan here is functioning perfectly. Ergo, homo- or bi-sexuality is not a disease. It's a property. Just like differences in eye or hair color are properties.
A property that, on average, one in ten human beings have. That, given that the population on this site is randomly chosen in respect to sexual preference, means that approximately 150 of our members are in fact gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

That said, I wonder what you, Mangan, think of the subject at hand. Namely, should there be some gay-, lesbian-, or bisexual character in Star Trek. Would it benefit, or would it be more like how SoM bescribed and work only contra-productive?

While it perhaps could be mentioned once or twice as a subject (considering the fact that one in ten people have such a property), it is generally something I accept as being a social norm within Star Trek and that it is not an issue within such a universe. I have never really thought about it much.

I don't think it would in anyway be counter-productive to include a character or a story-arc involving homosexuality at some point; it may even do for gay/bi/lesbian people what the inter-racial Kirk-Uhura kiss did for African Americans which (despite being banned from the airwaves) was a movement (perhaps a small one at the very least) towards greater tolerance and acceptance.

In the end, as with any normal episode, it would depend entirely on the quality of writers.

Reading through the last few posts makes me so glad that I'm nearly done with the book I'm currently working on. So many of the questions being asked in this thread are exactly the types of things I chose to write about, and they definitely require at least an entire book to properly address and answer. The whole idea of banning homosexual unions based on the exact same reasons for banning "interracial" (I hate that term, but it is the legal one) ones is actually an integral part of one chapter's argument. It's quite eerie to put arguments given by attorneys in court in defense of such bans side-by-side. Despite the decades of difference and "cultural growth," they read almost exactly the same.

As to whether or not Star Trek--which to the best of my knowledge isn't even in production anymore--should tackle these issues, it depends on where you're at, I think. Coming from the US, I would definitely say that it needs to be handled tastefully after watching the 2004 elections with the homosexual marriage right bans in virtually every state of the union, but other nations--especially in Europe--I don't think so much need the opportunity for education. From my own experience, I'd say that the major issues Star Trek would need to tackle in the tradition of shattering cultural barriers are homo/bisexuality and Muslim/Arabic culture, but this may be different in other areas of the world.

Oh, and I know for a fact that Mangan is not the sole, token homo/bisexual on this site, so there's no need to be concerned about that.

totally, which is why i reckoned this issue should be long buried because it should have been in the early seasons of TNG during the homophobic AIDS backlash

yea i been looking up on the guy Hawk form the movie and there is a book about his deilings with section 21(or whatever) and it says in there he is gay and give you a bit of a story about so there are books with it in

and there are some things like there a NG episode were they are aliens with no sex and there dateing human (riker) so its kinda a little seen on ish lol

Billy, bringing up a old thread isnt cool. Dont do it again.

Get a grip on your panties guys.

I didn't know about this thread. I'm glad it got bumped because I'm sure it was burried pretty deep. A very interesting discussion. If the discussion itself wasn't dead, I'd be inclined to post about it.

I don't see the harm in bumping old threads.