ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Homosexual Character(s) In Star Trek?

Report this
Created by: Zaltar

vulcanfriend16

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Aug. 13 2011, 9:43 am

Not in the show I suppose, but there have already been some homosexual characters in the novels....to me it seems a good idea to have them there....We like Star Trek because it gives us a feeling of peace and acceptance, does it not?  What's the difference between being accepted because you're blue and have antenae or because you like someone who is of the same sex of yourself?

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Aug. 13 2011, 1:40 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Leaving Star Fleet was the with the guy on the vanishing planet. Sorry, I kind of jumbled stuff.

>I didn't mean add another main character, I mean cast Lanara as a male.

>The story should have been about love and Trill taboo. Not another hollywood liberal statement.

>


Thank you for specifying on those points.

vulcanfriend16

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Aug. 13 2011, 8:36 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>"Not in the show I suppose, but there have already been some homosexual characters in the novels....to me it seems a good idea to have them there....We like Star Trek because it gives us a feeling of peace and acceptance, does it not?  What's the difference between being accepted because you're blue and have antenae or because you like someone who is of the same sex of yourself?"

>But being blue and having antannae do not ring of politics in a show which has done a great job at keeping politics at bay.

>


this is soooooo untrue...perhaps politics were not directly referenced in Star Trek, but really, much of the aliens and events are a larger metaphor for events that have already happened that do have to deal with politics.  Look at Deep Space Nine: much of the show's agenda was to promote Civil Rights....how are rights for homosexuals any different?


Long life and peace

Robsonnyboy

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this Aug. 14 2011, 7:53 am

  Personally I thout "Star Trek: The New Voyages" did a very good job when they dealt with it at www.startrekphase2.com. The characters were GAY, but they were also trained members of the Enterpriae Crew. And the Issue also hit close to a main character. Thiis is the Star Trek Universe right.


TODAY SEEMS LIKE A GOOD DAY TO FIGHT! MAYBE TOMORROW I WILL DIE! WE'LL SEE. HA HA HA HA HAAA!!!!! STAR TREK UNIVERSE 45th 1966-2011

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Aug. 14 2011, 9:34 am

Homosexuality caused by non-fermented soy? W-the? Where in the world is that coming from? - OtakuJo


Right... soy makes you gay. So what caused the well documented homosexuality that in Europe for the thousands of years before any European had heard of soy? - DS9TREK


Homosexuality is a condition of humanity dating back thousands of years. For some it is a choice, others not. Children, teenagers, and adults display distinctive behavior that indicates sexual preferences. I had a friend in high school like this. He dated girls at the time, but there were behavioral characteristics that were indicators. It wasn't a big surprise when he came out about it in college.  I have a friend who said his neice is a homosexual and they had strong indicators as far back as her being four.


People often ignore the connection between behavior and diet. Food is a significant contributor to behavior in fact. Food is ultimately a combination of different chemical constituents that get broken down to fuel the body, both physically and psychologically. Western medicine employs drugs in the treatment of psychological conditions, so food should strongly be considered as a source for affecting one's psychological makeup.


Metabolism is all about chemistry and working towards a balanced pH. Diet is the key to maintaining a balanced pH. If the body becomes too acidici or too basic, and the diet isn't correcting the imbalance, then the metabolism will go to the nearest source and the only source available - the cell - and breakdown the cell for the raw material needed to neutralize the chemical imbalance. The problem is that other chemicals get released as biproducts and the imbalance becomes cumulative. To prevent the cumulative effect, one needs to introduce the proper external energy source, which is an application of thermodynamics. If these chemical biproducts, which are the result of improper diet, aren't treated then one is subject to different types of physical degeneration and behavioral deviations.


I see both frequently from something as simple as a lack of water in my line of work as a caver. People get dehydrated, it influences their physical and behavorial performance. I had a friend that went caving with me one time, got so dehdrated that it triggered a form of terrets syndrome. He'd never had that problem before, and he returned to normal when he got a steady supply of water. He hasn't ever had terrets again, it was specific to the occasion.


Another example, I have some other friends whose child suffers from ADD and was on meds for it. The meds triggered side effects, and the kid was put on more meds to counteract the original treatment. They originally didn't want to eat organic food, because they thought they could save money buying conventional. But when all these meds made the situation worse for their kid and got too expensive, they decided to switch to organic food and buy from the local farmer's market. Now and in comparison to what they were spending, they're saving money and they've noticed significant improvement in the child's ADD. It's going away. So while this is overkill, there should be no doubt that diet influences behavior, whatever type of behavior that may be.


Homosexuality, while it has always been with society, it doesn't seem to have been in such a large proportion in the past as it exists currently. Soy enters the discussion, because soy is in virtually every food now, unless one eats 100% organic. That's the only way to avoid it. And many studies have demonstrated, as it applies to the United States, a correlation between the introduction of soy and a rise in homosexuality. It's necessary to understand that soy is one of the world's most heavily processed foods. This isn't to say if you eat soy, then you're immediately going to become homosexual. That's an oversimplication and a misunderstanding to which many are prone to defaulting. Just as one cigarette isn't likely to do much harm over the long term, soy doesn't have to be harmful either. The risk for harm and injury comes into play when it becomes a diet stable, eating it constantly. Eating soy constantly may not affect the immediate consumer, but it can affect the biological offspring and subsequent generations a Russian scientist has recently demonstrated.


A recently published study from biologist Alexey V. Surov explored the long-term effects of GM soy on multi-generational hamsters over a two-year period. In the study, four groups were tested: the first with a non-soy based; the second with a non-GM soy based feed; the third with a GM soy based feed; and the fourth an even higher GM soy based feed. Samples were collected from each test group, the first-generation of each appearing in good health. Problems manifested with second-generation hamsters, whose feeds was the GM soy. Observed were slower maturation rates, decreased litters, and higher infant mortality rates: a 25% death rate compared to the 5% standard in the first two control groups. Nearly all third-generation hamsters, from the 3rd and 4th groups, were sterile.


The study above, which in this specific case applies to a physical ability, demonstrates a cumulative effect from one generation to the next. But like I mentioned earlier, food impacts behavioral tendencies and should be considered in these terms too. We're in an age where soy is now the basis for soy milk and baby formula. The problem with soy is the amount of phytoestrogen it contains. Recommended servings for soy milk and baby formula can be equivalent to five birth control pills a day. That wouldn't have any impact on development? Commercials are constantly advertising how blood clots may be an adverse side effect of birth control pills.


DS9TREK countered with homosexuality being prevalent in Europe before the introduction of soy. I won't pretend to have all the answers, because they're simply not available. There are commercial interests that don't want such studies financed, because the result could impact their profits. But with respect to DS9TREK, phytoestrogen and other isoflavins are the key ingrediant to soy that may be linked with the issue at hand. Although soy was not available to Europe, flax and other oilseeds were available to Europe. Flax seeds and oilseeds contain a high amount of phytoestrogen, and they are in many foods as well being classified under vegetable oils.


 




 

Ayko

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 591

Report this Aug. 14 2011, 9:42 am

Oh man now the page long spammers are joining in, crap!

This back and forth with valid but trivial points is a big waste of time,

Homosexuality is taboo in Star Trek and thats that, Why? It goes against the principles of the first teams that created Star Trek and besides they want to keep all fans happy and so they dont touch the issue,

We know that humans have a more open mind without the prejudices in the Star Trek world and also that if there were homosexuals it would have to be okay and homosexuals are okay with that, Those contra homosexuality are also happy because for them it doesnt exist in the future Star Trek world,

It is simple diplomacy and logic to keep all fans happy this way so there will be no homosexuals in Star Trek screen stories and thats that, End of discussion,

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Aug. 15 2011, 6:08 pm

Was it a blind study?? Have the test results been duplicated yet (Though less than 2 years has passed, are there any undergoing studies showing similar results) ??


It was a general study published back in July. The researchers are planning to discover if the side-effects are specific to the GM soy or if the effects are due to GM soy + random ingredient. 


I have little faith in double blind studies as they can be manipulated too. For example, Gardasil, which is a cervical cancer vaccine, underwent double blind studies yet the vaccine is under scrutiny for clinical trial manipulation by Merck & Co, the manufacturer. Placebos are generally thought to be sugar pills, but the FDA has no legal definition. Merck & Co. researchers directed test results by including aluminum, a known toxin and Gardasil ingredient, in the placebo provided to control groups. Final results permitted researchers to conclude Gardasil had no significant or deviant side effects from the placebo.


So if a society finds out what makes it increase its homosexual rates, than do you fix the problem? Or do you say, "No, its a good thing". Are you hiding behind words and really saying that homosexuality is really a bad thing for society as a whole.


It is dependent on both the individual and their community's perception whether homosexuality is or is not a problem. But the science needs to be present and widely available for consumers to make those types of decisions within the market with any rationality. Homosexuality does not personally offend me, except perhaps when television pushes the issue (though television pushes a lot of other things too, so homosexuality isn't unique in that instance). I try to look on the bright side of most things. If a man is attracted to another man, then there are two less men in the world that I have to compete with when it comes to women. And it's always better to make love than war. Live and let live. But if homosexuality can be caused through food ingredients, then I do believe consumers have the right to know in order to live in accordance with their personal views, whatever those views are.


"Homosexuality, while it has always been with society, it doesn't seem to have been in such a large proportion in the past as it exists currently.""  Although I agree with you, how do you know this for sure?? It is extremely difficult to measure homosexuality historically (or presently).


I freely admit that I am not absolute in knowing the varying proportion of homosexuality across time, as it is so difficult to measure or even obtain such data. I rely, as best one can, on the accounts of older generations and doctors. At this point, scientific knowledge depends on investigating soy and other heavily processed ingredients to obtain any absolutes. I know doctors that refuse to eat a lot of that stuff, particularly soy, because the long term studies aren't present. Everyone shoudl be familiar with DDT. It was first synthesized in the late 1800's, over a half century later people discovered it could be used as an insecticide, and it took three decades from that to learn its negatively impacts human health.


Question: Does the revealing of genetic or environmental causes of homosexuality tell us anything at all about the value of it to society? Maybe homosexuality is not a bad thing, even if due to food sources or...


It's a good question. More than anything else, I think all the conflict surrounding homosexuals proves that society has not yet learned to appreciate individual differences, which is the real issue. Homosexuality is just one more way individuals can be persecuted and burned at the stake. My desire to investigate soy and other additives is primarily from a health standpoint. Secondary to that, if studies proved a link between phytoestrogen and behavior, then it might pave the way for greater tolerance of other's differences.

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Aug. 15 2011, 8:37 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>It is never a negative to have a blind study. The purpose is obvious; to remove any potential bias (be it concious or subconcious) from the experimentor onto the study. IT HAS GREAT VALUE. This does not mean that nothing can go wrong. But it has been shown to be very effective in bringing about more accurate results. 

>I will assume that the study was not blind. Which makes me say "Hmm". Have other similar studies been done? If so, with what results?

>Good Study, thanx.

>


Blind studies are great in theory, but they aren't tamper proof. That was my only point. One should be especially cautious when the manufacturer is responsible for their own testing in whatever method is being employed. No conflict of interest there! 


The GM soy study primarily adds to the mounting evidence against GM food.

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Aug. 15 2011, 8:42 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>You guys are so funny, you have no idea what it means to be homo.

>


Never claimed to, however, I'm always willing to see the world from another's point of view.

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Aug. 16 2011, 2:05 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>If a study like this is flawed it can do irreparable damage to certain businesses. Food is an industry that falls under this category. If a study comes out linking a particular product to cancer, than you will lose a tremendous amount of business and some of your customers will not return even after the study is shown to be flawed. It is very important for these studies to be reviewed by the appropriate agencies to rule out any tampering or mistakes.

>


The GM soy, upon which the study is based, is a product of Monsanto's, which has contributed to the development of other products like agent orange, aspartame, DDT, bovine growth hormore, terminator seeds... the list goes on. It's the leader in biotechnology, controlling 90% of genetically modified seeds in the U.S. It doesn't need to worry and it doesn't worry about the consumer. Here's a quote from Monsanto's director of corporate communications, Phil Angell, "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." They don't even care about the quality of their product. And interestingly enough, the FDA is run by former Monsanto employees. It's difficult for the right agencies to rule out mistakes when they've been infiltrated.

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Aug. 16 2011, 6:55 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>If people can get laid off, or if the study turns out to be a fraud, than it is a bad thing to have happen to all involved. To justify it, by saying they are so big they have nothing to fear, has no value which pertains to the situation as a whole.

>Secondly, they do care about the quality of their product. Thats why they are Monsanto. You are trying to put your own dimensions on their product. You might say that certain types of soy are unhealthy, but they would disagree with you, and as to evidence, up until today, they are correct. There have been thousands of studies done, and not one has made the FDA pull soy from the shelf. If the FDA is as corrupt as you say they are, wouldn't evry lawyer be lining up with a suit.  

>I am very skeptical over non-blinded studies. ONE study is simply not enough to go on. There have also been studies which have determined that soy causes kidney disease, breast cancer, brain damage, thyroid disorders, immunity problems, allergies, and the list goes on and on. Soy may very well cause these problems. Thousands of studies ,but not enough time, have fun choosing the studies that agree with your view of things.

>In the meantime, I got a date tonight, and I have to comb the hair on my tongue.

>


Actually, there are many lawyers lined up against the FDA, which simply defaults to the drug companies or in this case Monsanto. One pending lawsuite concers flouride and the FDA knowingly permitting its use despite evidence that it causes cancer. America is one of two countries that permits the use of flouride, which is banned in most other countries.  Drugs are routinely being removed from the market, which have gotten FDA approval. But going back to Monsanto, I suggest researching the amount of employees that have routinely worked for Monsanto, then gone to work at the FDA, only to return to Monsanto. Corporatism is at the heart of the U.S. Federal Government. Though in Monsanto's defense, it is not the only company.


There have been many studies conducted on GM Food, particularly soy. I suggest researching the Centor for Food Safety, which is an advocate group for consumers.


As far as picking and choosing studies, I at least read them instead of merely falling for propaganda via mass marketing. And at the end of the day, all that really matters is one's health and what works best for one as an individual. I am not sick in any form or fashion, so I'm going to keep on following studies that keep the precautionary principle in mind. I'd rather studies with that bias, then studies aimed at promoting a product for commercial gain.

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Aug. 16 2011, 7:59 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

> But I suppose you have nothing against the europeans selling you junk which gives you NO benefits.

>


I don't buy European products. I stick with locally made as much as possible. Enjoy your flouride.

lligevets

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 777

Report this Aug. 22 2011, 5:04 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Saw this, and thought how interesting, it is relatable to this topic.

>Store refuses to sell wedding dress to lesbian bride By Lylah M. Alphonse | Shine – Fri, 19 Aug, 2011 2:38 PM EDT

>Last weekend, Alix Genter found the perfect wedding dress. But on Tuesday, the store's owner called and refused to sell it to her.

>"She said she wouldn't work with me because I'm gay," Genter told The Philadelphia Daily News. "She also said that I came from a nice Jewish family, and that it was a shame I was gay. She said, 'There's right, and there's wrong. And this is wrong.' "

>Apparently, after Genter left Here Comes the Bride, a Somers Point, New Jersey, wedding boutique, the store's owner, Donna Saber, took a moment to look over Genter's customer-information sheet. That's when she noticed that Genter had crossed out "groom" and written in "partner" and her fiancee's name—and decided that she wasn't going to do business with her.

>In a voice mail (which you can listen to right here, thanks to Philly.com), Saber told Genter, "what you are describing in this paperwork here is illegal" and "we do not participate in any illegal actions." But it looks like Saber isn't much of a legal eagle: New Jersey allows civil unions, and Genter and her longtime partner planned to marry in New York, where gay marriage was recently legalized. Furthermore, in New Jersey, it is against the law to refuse to buy from, sell to, contract or otherwise do business with an individual because of the individual's sexual orientation, according to the state's Attorney General office—which means that Saber did participate in an illegal action after all, just not the one she incorrectly accused her customer of planning.

>Also, the irony: Some of the most popular wedding dress designers out there are gay, which means that Saber makes her living by selling things created by the same people she condemns.

>When Philadelphia Daily News columnist Ronnie Polaneczky called Saber to get her point of view, not only did Saber confirm Genter's story, she accused the bride-to-be of "stirring up drama." Polaneczky writes:

>She said that your writing the word"partner" was basically a provocation, evidence of a need "to show that she's different."

    "They get that way," she told me.

>By "they," she meant women who were fed up with men because "men can be difficult," and so now they "experiment" with female relationships because they're tired of having men boss them around. ... "It's a lot of drama," she said.

>  Both Saber and Here Comes the Bride have come under fire for poor service in the past, but we're guessing that business is about to get a lot worse given the new crop of comments over at message boards like Yelp.com and Superpages.com.

Last time we checked, stores were in the business of selling merchandise, not deciding who should or shouldn't get married. But what do you think? Is it OK to turn down a customer who doesn't share your point of view? Or did Saber cross a line and go from business to bigotry?

>



Obviously the retail shop is not gay friendly and homosexual couples should spend their money somewhere else.

lligevets

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 777

Report this Aug. 23 2011, 11:51 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>[

Obviously the retail shop is not gay friendly and homosexual couples should spend their money somewhere else.

Not sure if I added the last bit but it said, most top wedding designers are gay, and she probably is being a hypocrite for refusing to sell a dress made by the vary people she hates.



 Yes that was in the article and yes the shop owner appears to be a hypocrite non the less the owner is not gay friendly and gay couples will go to other stores where they feel more comfortable. In a retail business I think it’s pretty dumb not to serve all peoples and now the owner could loose future business as well.   

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Aug. 23 2011, 9:22 pm

No, no and no! Star Trek is a family show and we don't need that kind of crap trashing it up. Homosexuality is wrong, it's immoral, and it's unnatural, and I really don't care if anyone thinks I'm intolorant or I'm not being politically correct. Star Trek has been about accepting other cultures yes, but Star Trek is not and has never been about sexual orientation. And I've always loved that Star Trek has for the most part always been kept safe for kids and still great for adults, and as a kid gave me great messages about relationships and sex. Yes I know we have Kirk and Riker and Tom Paris always getting their girl of the week, but at most we see them kiss someone, we never actually really see or hear of a major sexual encounter, and we never see two crew members live together in the same quarters until they're married, which I think is awesome! And frankly, that's the way it should be. I loved that we never saw any type of sexual encounter between Riker and Troi until after their wedding in Nemesis, and even then it was mild and tastefully done. Star Trek has always done that type of things right.


 


And before anyone starts freaking out on me about how I've violated gays rights and shoving my beliefs down people's throats, is that not the exact same thing the gays do? Shove their beliefs down people's throats? And no one says a word? Because they're "expressing" themselves and heaven forbid we "offend" a gay person.


I just feel strongly about keeping that kind of crap out of Star Trek. That type of stuff has no place in a sci-fi series anyway.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: crimsyn

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum