Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think a flamingly gay Star Trek Character would've been great. Like Daffyd from Little Britain, only less flaming. Maybe just a Pink shirt, or a Larry Dallas neck-kerchief.

Data, the gay android perhaps?

dogma wrote:Data, the gay android perhaps?

Data had sex at least once during the course of the show. Which isn't a lot, but is at least one more time than most of the show's audience...

Peter David introduced a gay Vulcan in one of his New Frontier novels, brother to Dr. Selar. Their parents were frustrated by the waste of his genetic material. Also one of his main characters is a "Hermat", possessing both male and female characteristics and using s/he and hir for pronouns. That character ends up with a female partner (Dr. Selar again, as it happens - pesky Vulcans). Though NF isn't canon, as is the way with such things, it has a lot of love (I despise tie-in fic, but David writes well enough for me to forgive).

Star Trek NG is a poor area for this. The characters in that show were so stuck no one had partners. In fact, I'm not quite sure they were human. Sure occasionally Stewart would utter something epic like "we will fight you" but that really was about it. You'd find more personality in Lord Olivier's reading of a soup can.

Monster Rain wrote:Maybe, in the future, more gay people have outgrown having to behave like flamboyant, attention-seeking drama queens.

Just thinking out loud here. Maybe they just show up to Starfleet and do their jobs and not make a big deal out of it.

So you're calling all homosexuals "flamboyant, attention-seeking drama queens". How homophobic of you.

In response to homosexuality in the star-wars universe i give you this
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/4/29/
also George Takei total badass i wish i could talk like that.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Susan Ivanova was openly lesbian in Babylon 5.

I don't remember it being open, I remember it being so concealed you probably wouldn't notice it if you didn't read JMS commentary, Lurker's Guide, or something similar. I didn't even realize there was supposed to be a relationship when I first watched it.

There was an episode where they were supposed to reveal one secret as part of a Membari ceremony or something. Her secret was her love for the psyker chick who's name suddenly escapes me.

Melissia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Maybe, in the future, more gay people have outgrown having to behave like flamboyant, attention-seeking drama queens.

Just thinking out loud here. Maybe they just show up to Starfleet and do their jobs and not make a big deal out of it.

So you're calling all homosexuals "flamboyant, attention-seeking drama queens". How homophobic of you.

What a catastrophic reading fail. There's some words in there to qualify the statement to not match your off topic strawman, if you care to look.

I personally think that its more homophobic to think that a gay crewman should be behaving like this, otherwise we wouldn't know he was gay.



Not to mention that dogma and I already cleared this up. I'd quote it, if I thought you had the grace to ever actually admit that you were talking directly out of your ass. Perhaps, in Star Trek, people in general are a bit less histrionic.

Frazzled wrote:There was an episode where they were supposed to reveal one secret as part of a Membari ceremony or something. Her secret was her love for the psyker chick who's name suddenly escapes me.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that part. It was the early part where Talia wakes up and it's sort of implied that they were in the same bed that flew past me on first viewing, and that was the big scene that JMS talked up a lot.

I wish I had watched more of Babylon 5 nowadays, alas, for some reason it didn't hold my interest back then. I wonder if it's on Hulu.


That qualification doesn't really help put your statement in a better light.

Melissia wrote:That qualification doesn't really help put your statement in a better light.

"Gay or straight, constantly making a big deal out of your sexuality in a professional setting is uncivilized" is the most distilled form of what I was saying.

You didn't really succeed in saying that until just now...

Regardless, it's not like there weren't frequent romantic subplots in the various ST series. Especially later ones, for good or ill...

Melissia wrote:While I understand the reasoning, the actual statement you used confuses me-- why would it fly in the face of it?

Just having an openly gay character wouldn't fly in the face of it. Making an issue about it would.

Because if it's not such a big deal, why even mention it? Is actually a pet peeve of mine, the need for a gay person to 'come out'. And this stems from both sides. I couldn't give a monkies who the next person fancies. Unless it's me, in which case my interest is piqued. Unless they're a minger. In which case I'll politely decline and skulk off.

Mr Mystery wrote:

Melissia wrote:While I understand the reasoning, the actual statement you used confuses me-- why would it fly in the face of it?

Just having an openly gay character wouldn't fly in the face of it. Making an issue about it would.

Because if it's not such a big deal, why even mention it?

Exactly. "Openly Gay" doesn't have to mean:

Thanks guys and y'all kept it more or less on topic too.

For ST, yeah it should be no big thing who/what/how you love but ST was once cutting edge, it had the first interracial (well black and white) kiss in TV (technically I suppose Lucy and Ricky would be the first interracial kiss) with Kirk and Uhura, it was a BIG MAJOR taboo back in the day, like a hang 'em from the tallest tree taboo. And IIRC the Dax girl on girl kiss was also billed as a first.

But all that is beside the point if they've not yet had the guts to put it on camera as no big thing.

Really in the next film all you need to do is "RED ALERT, RED ALERT".

Spock stops his 3D chess game and runs.
Uhura puts down her harp thing and runs.
Sulu stops making out with a guy and runs.

Done.

For Star Wars it's a bit harder, the whole Flash Gordon pulp thing is not the most flexible framework. But you'd think they'd have something by now besides one video game character. And hey if Dr Who can do it Star Wars should.

Oh and I always figured Watto was Italian, I mean listen to that accent, that ain't Jewish!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS which will we see first, a gay SW character or a gay Power Ranger?

Mr Mystery wrote:Because if it's not such a big deal, why even mention it? Is actually a pet peeve of mine, the need for a gay person to 'come out'. And this stems from both sides. I couldn't give a monkies who the next person fancies. Unless it's me, in which case my interest is piqued. Unless they're a minger. In which case I'll politely decline and skulk off.

It's because the default assumption is straight, and even when we believe we're open minded we frequently keep a lot of assumptions that just don't work with a gay person.

Fortunately this is getting a lot better.

It's a difficult situation, with something like 3% of the population being strictly homosexual, and a somewhat larger percentage being more or less interested in pair-bonding with members of the same sex, quite apart from those who identify as heterosexual and go to some lengths to have sex with men (the 'down-low', or the 'closet'), and those filthy stinking asexuals.

I am reminded, oddly, of the Alastair McGowan sketch with Mr Izzard as a TNG Enterprise Bridge officer - worth a google if you don't know it

Mr Mystery wrote:Because if it's not such a big deal, why even mention it?

Why mention/show a character's heterosexuality (which is done frequently I should note) if sexuality isn't a big deal?

Ah-ha!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgrHF0fyAjs

C3P0

You know, I've always wondered about this aspect of Star Trek.

Many homosexuals describe their sexuality as being innate, saying things like "I was born this way." If that is true, there has to be a genetic reason behind a person's sexuality.

Assuming that is true, being homosexual is a disadvantage from a purely evolutionary perspective. Heterosexual people would pass on their genes more often than a homosexual person.

So, if you have a society where a person's sexuality is completely accepted no matter what form it takes, you wouldn't end up with homosexuals "in the closet" being socially obligated to have unhappy heterosexual relationships. Homosexual couples would be completely able to have children, but for couples choosing not to use invetro, adoption is a good option. But, adopted children don't get their parents genes.

Consider the following:
A) Sexuality is defined by genetics
B) Openly gay people pass on their genes less frequently
C) In an accepting society, no one would choose to not be open about their sexuality
D) Star Trek has a totally accepting society and has been for many generations

C+B: In an accepting society, homosexuals won't pass on their genes as often
A+above: In an accepting society, homosexuals will become a smaller proportion of the population as the genes defining homosexuality become rarer
D+above: In the Star Trek universe, there would be a very small number of homosexuals compared to our society

So, maybe by not having homosexual characters, Star Trek is actually being progressive.

I know this is a bit of a thread derail, but Grakmar's point is actually very interesting.

It doesn't really even take an "accepting society," it's still a strange thing that homosexuality would be genetic, and yet still in the gene pool.

I've always been of the mind that homosexuality is indeed genetic, and also a believer in Darwinian principles, so that's a very odd situation.

Even a gay caveman is going to mate less often/successfully, social pressures or not. Considering the sorts of ridiculous adaptations that some animals come up with, you'd think that it'd take no time to "breed out" homosexuality.

Phryxis wrote:I know this is a bit of a thread derail, but Grakmar's point is actually very interesting.

It doesn't really even take an "accepting society," it's still a strange thing that homosexuality would be genetic, and yet still in the gene pool.

Allow me to say what some internet geneticist is going to say any second...

"Genetics don't work like that."

Though I agree with you, Phryxis. Something genetic that is kind of a deterrent to breeding seems like it would be somewhat self-destructive over a long period of time.

Something genetic that is kind of a deterrent to breeding seems like it would be somewhat self-destructive over a long period of time.

Right, especially when it's a DIRECT deterrant to breeding.

You look at some of these birds with their crazy assed mating rituals... Like, for some birds it was worthwhile to have a REALLY big orange puffy sac on your neck that you can blow up and make strange noises with. That worked for them. But somehow simply not wanting to procreate wasn't enough to remove homosexuality from the gene pool.

Imagine the tiny evolutionary mating advantage it would be to have a SLIGHTLY bigger, stretchier throat sac. It's minimal.

Now compare that to simply not wanting to.

Strange.

Phryxis wrote:I know this is a bit of a thread derail, but Grakmar's point is actually very interesting.

It doesn't really even take an "accepting society," it's still a strange thing that homosexuality would be genetic, and yet still in the gene pool.

I've always been of the mind that homosexuality is indeed genetic, and also a believer in Darwinian principles, so that's a very odd situation.

But it isn’t just genetics but also biology. Much of how we turn out comes from hormones given to the child in the womb, with girls getting greater doses of estrogens than boys. The theory with gay children is that the hormone mix isn’t quite right. This might possibly be enough by itself, or it could interact with certain genes, to produce homosexuality.

In general Sebster is correct. Genetics only determine so much about what a person will become. To my understanding they essentially define a possible field in which biology can operate within a given individual, and that's just before the neuroscientific ramifications of a plasticene brain.

So, even if there is a gene that allows for homosexuality, its very likely that heterosexuals carry it as well. Or so epigenetics would have it.

There's also a point that can be made regarding homosexuality as a simple preference that is acquired in life, like a special love for a certain food, or even a certain person; something wholly distinct from choice, and yet consistent with homosexuality being extra-genetic.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Watto is often also accused of being an Arab stereotype. In fact, I've heard that accusation far more than the Jewish one.

I can see merit in both arguments, but my understanding of the Arab stereotype is essentially flowing robes and the name "bin al Saud".

That may not jive with everyone else, of course.

Or they're greedy tyrannical dictators, ala the Socialist Democratic Federated Republic of Carbombya, the country so stereotypically Arab, it broke Teletraan 1!