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

Brannon Braga calls lack of gay Star Trek characters 'a shame'

DriaLynn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 28

Report this Jul. 10 2013, 9:46 am

[quote]



I agree that in a normal Star Trek series any theme would be handled not exhaustively, but rather to frame an issue while showing common life situations. Maybe the new administration would find a way to make the issue a cheap gimmick I am afraid.



[/quote]


I think the new administration would be stupid about it if Abrams gets to be in it.


Jadzia/Kira

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jul. 10 2013, 10:16 am

Quote: rocketscientist @ Jul. 10 2013, 8:46 am

Quote: bunkey @ Jun. 26 2013, 7:53 am

>

>

>In related news. DOMA has been overturned as unconstitutional!

>Progress marches forward! It will not be stopped. Love is Love.

>

>

I saw this coming back during the prop 8 campaign.  For that matter, so did my Mormon bishop bro-in-law (he's a  smart, good guy and a realist). 

As long as it's not promoted in elementary schools and religious institutions are left alone, I'm personally fine with it.  I wish the country had gone with the civil union route, but whatever.  The sky won't fall down, that is, I don't think the impact on society will be significant, and equal rights and tolerance is what this country's supposed to be about.  The debate/issue is over.  Let's all go back to trying to be excellent to each other. 

 


I'm not sure what you mean by "promoted in elementary schools"


heterosexual couples are promoted in elementary schools...(if by that you mean a story in which a man and woman get married for example) so why can't same sex couples be talked about in schools? Would it be the horrible if kids were read a story in which two women got married? Kids SHOULD be taught that there are many different kinds of families and that none of them are "wrong". They should be taught that there are families with a mom and dad, families with only a mom or only a dad, families with no mom and dad at all but an uncle or aunt or grandparents, and yes families with two dads or two moms. Kids should be taught that nobody is "wrong" for how they live or who they love


 


but either way I fully believe that by the time my kids are adults this won't even be an issue. My generation is more accepting than the one before me, and the generation after me will be even more so. So yeah by the time my kids are adults same sex marriage will be just as run of the mill as interracial marriage

sinfultictac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Jul. 11 2013, 9:47 am

I scanned through the entirely thread and I got some things to say 


firstly:   Anyone mad about LGBT character in any ST series that will be made in the future is strange to me. since the entiry of the Series is based on the technology which basic breaks entirity of phyiscs as a whole. The only thing going faster than light is Space it self, and we're not sure why. So before you get all "Dem'gays" on me lets point out that THE ENTIRE SHOW IS BASED ON A TECHNOLOGY THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE. 


Secondly:  most star trek religions (even the alien ones) are at times displayed with some negitive light. Even the faith of Bajorans had some negitivity. Even with in a nicer light such as Native American Shamanism practice by philipinos -rolls eyes- was never clear cut and definitly never attacht some moralism to it, at best it was great way to make are philipino friend seem more Red faced (with Irony) 


Thirdly: I am pretty sure that OUR fandom gave birth to Slash and shipping. The earliest account of of Slash is most likely K/S. YES KIRK/SPOCK is the blame for why your 8th grade cousin is shipping the (th Doctor with Dean from supernatural. If you wanna cry about "dem'gays" lets take back all the way back. 


 


If you have a problem with homosexuals being protrayed in a science fiction show, your on the wrong bus and you've been on the wrong bus since it left the station. 


 

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jul. 11 2013, 11:12 am

Quote: sinfultictac @ Jul. 11 2013, 9:47 am

>

>I scanned through the entirely thread and I got some things to say 

>firstly:   Anyone mad about LGBT character in any ST series that will be made in the future is strange to me. since the entiry of the Series is based on the technology which basic breaks entirity of phyiscs as a whole. The only thing going faster than light is Space it self, and we're not sure why. So before you get all "Dem'gays" on me lets point out that THE ENTIRE SHOW IS BASED ON A TECHNOLOGY THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE. 

>Secondly:  most star trek religions (even the alien ones) are at times displayed with some negitive light. Even the faith of Bajorans had some negitivity. Even with in a nicer light such as Native American Shamanism practice by philipinos -rolls eyes- was never clear cut and definitly never attacht some moralism to it, at best it was great way to make are philipino friend seem more Red faced (with Irony) 

>Thirdly: I am pretty sure that OUR fandom gave birth to Slash and shipping. The earliest account of of Slash is most likely K/S. YES KIRK/SPOCK is the blame for why your 8th grade cousin is shipping the (th Doctor with Dean from supernatural. If you wanna cry about "dem'gays" lets take back all the way back. 

>If you have a problem with homosexuals being protrayed in a science fiction show, your on the wrong bus and you've been on the wrong bus since it left the station. 

>


who's to say that faster than light speed is impossible? We can't acheive it right now, but our technology is progressing fast, maybe in the future we will have faster than light travel. And about it being impossible...that's one man's theory that is untestable. How do we really know that nothing can travel faster than light


and what does the show being "BASED ON A TECHNOLOGY THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE" have to do with a gay character?

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 11 2013, 12:10 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 10 2013, 10:16 am

Quote: rocketscientist @ Jul. 10 2013, 8:46 am

Quote: bunkey @ Jun. 26 2013, 7:53 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>

>In related news. DOMA has been overturned as unconstitutional!

>Progress marches forward! It will not be stopped. Love is Love.

>

>

I saw this coming back during the prop 8 campaign.  For that matter, so did my Mormon bishop bro-in-law (he's a  smart, good guy and a realist). 

As long as it's not promoted in elementary schools and religious institutions are left alone, I'm personally fine with it.  I wish the country had gone with the civil union route, but whatever.  The sky won't fall down, that is, I don't think the impact on society will be significant, and equal rights and tolerance is what this country's supposed to be about.  The debate/issue is over.  Let's all go back to trying to be excellent to each other. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "promoted in elementary schools"

I'm not sure exactly what I mean either.  All I can tell you is that I'd rather my kids not get confused by all the issues dealing with gays and lesbians, including, ideally, their existence, until their own sexual identities are fully formed.  For their formative years (say up to 6th grade) I'd like them to just be raised like I and their mother were, based on the traditional nuclear family model, one dad, one wife.  That's in -line with our own personal religious beliefs on marriage (Catholic and Mormon).  If it comes up though, I'll certainly be willing to try to explain to them why some of their friends have two mommies or daddys.  I don't see why it's necessary for the school to do that, since they never had to explain to me why I had a mommy and a daddy.  I'd rather the school just not promote hetero or homosexual marriage altogether.  I mean is it really necessary in elementary school to do that?  Why can't we just let the kids just be kids?

You'll probably call my attitude on this issue homophobic, and I can understand why.  I think I've evolved quite a bit in terms of empathy over the last few years, and maybe I'll change my mind on this, particularly if I come to know some gay couples personally, but right now this is what my wife, who was a child psychologist for years, and I would prefer for our children.     

heterosexual couples are promoted in elementary schools...(if by that you mean a story in which a man and woman get married for example) so why can't same sex couples be talked about in schools?

That's not really what I was referring to at all.

Would it be the horrible if kids were read a story in which two women got married?

No, not necessarily.  That said, I'd question why such a story was being read in elementary school at all.  That seems like an example of promoting gay marriage.  I can't recall ever being read a story where the focus was about anybody getting married at all back when I was in elementary school, so why do that if not to promote gay marriage?  See what I'm getting at?  I don't want the state to usurp the religious or moral upbringing of my children.  I'll give you that this is something of a gray area, since our schools definitely do play a part in the moral development of our children.  That said, I would like my rights as a parent to be taken into account as well.  

 

Kids SHOULD be taught that there are many different kinds of families and that none of them are "wrong". They should be taught that there are families with a mom and dad, families with only a mom or only a dad, families with no mom and dad at all but an uncle or aunt or grandparents, and yes families with two dads or two moms. Kids should be taught that nobody is "wrong" for how they live or who they love

I agree with you on all that.  My only concern is when all that should be taught.

 

but either way I fully believe that by the time my kids are adults this won't even be an issue. My generation is more accepting than the one before me, and the generation after me will be even more so. So yeah by the time my kids are adults same sex marriage will be just as run of the mill as interracial marriage


You're probably right on all that. 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 11 2013, 12:16 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 11 2013, 11:12 am

Quote: sinfultictac @ Jul. 11 2013, 9:47 am

>

>

>I scanned through the entirely thread and I got some things to say 

>firstly:   Anyone mad about LGBT character in any ST series that will be made in the future is strange to me. since the entiry of the Series is based on the technology which basic breaks entirity of phyiscs as a whole. The only thing going faster than light is Space it self, and we're not sure why. So before you get all "Dem'gays" on me lets point out that THE ENTIRE SHOW IS BASED ON A TECHNOLOGY THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE. 

>Secondly:  most star trek religions (even the alien ones) are at times displayed with some negitive light. Even the faith of Bajorans had some negitivity. Even with in a nicer light such as Native American Shamanism practice by philipinos -rolls eyes- was never clear cut and definitly never attacht some moralism to it, at best it was great way to make are philipino friend seem more Red faced (with Irony) 

>Thirdly: I am pretty sure that OUR fandom gave birth to Slash and shipping. The earliest account of of Slash is most likely K/S. YES KIRK/SPOCK is the blame for why your 8th grade cousin is shipping the (th Doctor with Dean from supernatural. If you wanna cry about "dem'gays" lets take back all the way back. 

>If you have a problem with homosexuals being protrayed in a science fiction show, your on the wrong bus and you've been on the wrong bus since it left the station. 

>

who's to say that faster than light speed is impossible? We can't acheive it right now, but our technology is progressing fast, maybe in the future we will have faster than light travel. And about it being impossible...that's one man's theory that is untestable. How do we really know that nothing can travel faster than light

and what does the show being "BASED ON A TECHNOLOGY THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE" have to do with a gay character?


There's a whole bunch of experiments that tested Einstein's theory of relativity.  Faster than light travel using conventional means is impossible.  Nothing in nature goes faster than the speed of light.


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 11 2013, 12:17 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 11 2013, 11:12 am

Quote: sinfultictac @ Jul. 11 2013, 9:47 am

>

>

>I scanned through the entirely thread and I got some things to say 

>firstly:   Anyone mad about LGBT character in any ST series that will be made in the future is strange to me. since the entiry of the Series is based on the technology which basic breaks entirity of phyiscs as a whole. The only thing going faster than light is Space it self, and we're not sure why. So before you get all "Dem'gays" on me lets point out that THE ENTIRE SHOW IS BASED ON A TECHNOLOGY THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE. 

>Secondly:  most star trek religions (even the alien ones) are at times displayed with some negitive light. Even the faith of Bajorans had some negitivity. Even with in a nicer light such as Native American Shamanism practice by philipinos -rolls eyes- was never clear cut and definitly never attacht some moralism to it, at best it was great way to make are philipino friend seem more Red faced (with Irony) 

>Thirdly: I am pretty sure that OUR fandom gave birth to Slash and shipping. The earliest account of of Slash is most likely K/S. YES KIRK/SPOCK is the blame for why your 8th grade cousin is shipping the (th Doctor with Dean from supernatural. If you wanna cry about "dem'gays" lets take back all the way back. 

>If you have a problem with homosexuals being protrayed in a science fiction show, your on the wrong bus and you've been on the wrong bus since it left the station. 

>

who's to say that faster than light speed is impossible? We can't acheive it right now, but our technology is progressing fast, maybe in the future we will have faster than light travel. And about it being impossible...that's one man's theory that is untestable. How do we really know that nothing can travel faster than light

and what does the show being "BASED ON A TECHNOLOGY THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE" have to do with a gay character?


There's a whole bunch of experiments that tested Einstein's theory of relativity.  Faster than light travel using conventional means is impossible.  Nothing in nature goes faster than the speed of light.


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jul. 11 2013, 12:59 pm

Quote: rocketscientist @ Jul. 11 2013, 12:17 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 11 2013, 11:12 am

Quote: sinfultictac @ Jul. 11 2013, 9:47 am

>

>

>

>I scanned through the entirely thread and I got some things to say 

>firstly:   Anyone mad about LGBT character in any ST series that will be made in the future is strange to me. since the entiry of the Series is based on the technology which basic breaks entirity of phyiscs as a whole. The only thing going faster than light is Space it self, and we're not sure why. So before you get all "Dem'gays" on me lets point out that THE ENTIRE SHOW IS BASED ON A TECHNOLOGY THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE. 

>Secondly:  most star trek religions (even the alien ones) are at times displayed with some negitive light. Even the faith of Bajorans had some negitivity. Even with in a nicer light such as Native American Shamanism practice by philipinos -rolls eyes- was never clear cut and definitly never attacht some moralism to it, at best it was great way to make are philipino friend seem more Red faced (with Irony) 

>Thirdly: I am pretty sure that OUR fandom gave birth to Slash and shipping. The earliest account of of Slash is most likely K/S. YES KIRK/SPOCK is the blame for why your 8th grade cousin is shipping the (th Doctor with Dean from supernatural. If you wanna cry about "dem'gays" lets take back all the way back. 

>If you have a problem with homosexuals being protrayed in a science fiction show, your on the wrong bus and you've been on the wrong bus since it left the station. 

>

who's to say that faster than light speed is impossible? We can't acheive it right now, but our technology is progressing fast, maybe in the future we will have faster than light travel. And about it being impossible...that's one man's theory that is untestable. How do we really know that nothing can travel faster than light

and what does the show being "BASED ON A TECHNOLOGY THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE" have to do with a gay character?

There's a whole bunch of experiments that tested Einstein's theory of relativity.  Faster than light travel using conventional means is impossible.  Nothing in nature goes faster than the speed of light.


yes, nothing in nature goes faster than light. But who's to say that in the future that we won't come up with faster than light travel.


 


who would have imagined a whole computer could fit in your pocket 20 years ago? but just about everyone has a smart phone now

trollic

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Jul. 11 2013, 3:12 pm

I would be so disappointed in an openly gay main character that I would stop watching and move on.  That's why they should keep things as is.  Right now, there is nothing stopping straight people or gay people from watching.  I'm not a big fan of romance in my sci-fi but at least it appeals to most people since most people are straight.  If you start to gay things up, you will lose a large chunk of your audience, which will result in less money.... which is what star trek is REALLY all about.  The studio is out to make money and they want to keep their largest audience happy, not some fringe element. 


Why not a midget captain?  Why not a muslim science officer?  Why not a man who has to deal with his pedofile tendencies?  These things are just not APPEALING, in the same way that a gay character is not APPEALING to the masses.  The gay agenda is simply out of control and people have had enough. 


Gay relationships are gross to me and eating lamb is gross to me as well, I just don't like it.  Peopl who want to see gay stuff on tv have plenty of other stuff to watch without ruining Trek.  Leave it alone, or NONE of us might have Trek once they go gay and the franchise fails. 


 

rianne1134

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6

Report this Jul. 11 2013, 7:08 pm

You'll find references in several novels, the series Titan, and if you continue the Enterprise series though the Romulan War you'll find Trip's brother has a husband. Just a passing mention but something nonetheless, and DS9 did have it's episode so it wasn't completely absent...


 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Jul. 11 2013, 7:33 pm

Quote: rocketscientist @ Jul. 11 2013, 12:17 pm

>Nothing in nature goes faster than the speed of light.
That we know of

DriaLynn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 28

Report this Jul. 11 2013, 7:53 pm

Trollic did you really just compare a pedophile to a Muslim? That was really rude.

Jadzia/Kira

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 11 2013, 7:59 pm

Quote: DriaLynn @ Jul. 11 2013, 7:53 pm

>Trollic did you really just compare a pedophile to a Muslim? That was really rude.


I thought it was tasteless and bigoted.   Some people who post here, I just don't know what the heck went wrong with them. 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 11 2013, 8:14 pm

Quote: trollic @ Jul. 11 2013, 3:12 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>I would be so disappointed in an openly gay main character that I would stop watching and move on. 

>

I wouldn't necessarily do that.  It all depends on how it's done.  For example, I love watching Modern Family which has a gay couple.  I got a bit grossed out watching some of 6 feet under though.  And I gave up on Glee since it just seemed to have an agenda. 

That's why they should keep things as is. 

If they'd done that, we wouldn't have gotten a black and woman captain in Captain Sisko and Captain Janeway.  

Right now, there is nothing stopping straight people or gay people from watching.  I'm not a big fan of romance in my sci-fi but at least it appeals to most people since most people are straight.  If you start to gay things up, you will lose a large chunk of your audience, which will result in less money.... which is what star trek is REALLY all about.

  The studio is out to make money and they want to keep their largest audience happy, not some fringe element. 

Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't.  Again, it all depends on how it's handled.  You're right though.  I'm pretty sure that the reason there wasn't a gay or lesbian regular character on any of the franchises' series is because Paramount and maybe Rick Berman were afraid of losing viewers.

 

 

Why not a midget captain?  Why not a muslim science officer?  Why not a man who has to deal with his pedofile tendencies?  These things are just not APPEALING, in the same way that a gay character is not APPEALING to the masses.  The gay agenda is simply out of control and people have had enough. 

Now you've completely lost me.  You're comparing a midget and a muslim to a pedophile?!?!?!?  Where did that come from?  FYI, I'd have no problem having a short character or a muslim character on a ST series at all.  As a father and just a generally well-adjusted, law abiding citizen though, I would definitely have a problem with a pedophile character.  I imagine the vast majority of people here feel the same way about that.  I'm left wondering how you could possibly think a midget and muslim are as rephrehensible as a pedophile.  Unbelievable.

Gay relationships are gross to me and eating lamb is gross to me as well, I just don't like it. 


Another weird comparison. 


 


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this Jul. 11 2013, 9:19 pm

I can't recall ever being read a story where the focus was about anybody getting married at all back when I was in elementary school, so why do that if not to promote gay marriage? 


I can remember several. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Robin Hood, and The 101 Dalmations, for example. Or the Berenstain Bears, for the younger children. Scratch the surface of any children's story and you'll see how it promotes the heterosexual agenda. The point of a great deal of early childhood education is not just math and spelling (which most people never learn anyway), it's supposed to teach children about the society they're living in. If that society includes different ethnicities, or different religions, or nontraditional families, then they should all be part of the curriculum. Including that sort of stuff in a popular franchise like Star Trek would help to normalize it.


"Doctor Who" has done a fantastic job of including gay and lesbian characters in minor roles. So far I don't think any of the main characters have been gay, but there have been so many off-hand references -- the sort you might not even notice -- that they've managed to create a universe where alternative sexuality is so normal that it's barely worth mentioning. I'd love to see that carefree attitude on Star Trek.

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