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'

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Jul. 15 2013, 5:34 pm

Quote: trollic @ Jul. 15 2013, 4:56 pm

>

>I think a captain who has pedo needs but refuses to act on them is just as valid as a gay character.  Both seen deviant by society, both born that way, etc.  In some alien cultures it's probably perfectly normal for 50 years olds and 5 year olds to get together.  Why push YOUR morality onto the show right?  Amiright?  You see, the problem with going deviant, is you don't know when to stop.  One person may like beastilality, but another might think it's disgusting.  For that same reason, we should avoid going gay and stick to the mainstream forumula that works.  I would be totally happy if they simply avoided ALL romancec in Trek and make stories out of other topics which there are no shortage of. 

>I'm a paying customer.  I buy the dvds, watch the movies, buy the shirts, etc.  If Trek goes gay, I say no way.  Me, and others like me (who make up a larger percetage of viewers than gays, believe it) will simply look for the next best thing, and that's something that the studio fears and is right to fear.  They gotta get paid right.  If they're smart, they will continue on as usual and find new and fresh ideas in other areas that won't cause them to lose viewers.  There is a whole universe out there, no need to go gay for stories.

>
Absolutely true that such a thing is a very slippery slope (which is something I think I alluded to in one of my previous posts.)  Some people just don't see that it's a logical and natural extension of what's going on and some others know exactly this fact, and are trying to hide this fact and say it'll never happen.


But there was a lot of non-marital sex throughout Star Trek.  Additionally, polygamy was was shown/discussed 4 times that I can remember off the top of my head.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Jul. 15 2013, 8:45 pm

Hey WillowTree,


I was watching a news show tonight and this exact subject came up (teaching LGBT in school) and one of the experts brought up a case I hadn't heard of before.  It had to with young children getting taught about this and a parent wanting to opt-out... to which the school absolutely refused.  When the parent tried to work through the problem, not only was the parent arrested, the parent was permanently banned from school property via a restraining order (which means, no parent-teacher conferences, no picking up kids, etc.)  According to what I undestand, the charges and ban were dropped, but the school still refused to allow an opt-out.


http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/main.html


http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1230620&page=1#.UeS-km25GqA

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Jul. 15 2013, 9:12 pm

Maybe I missed the non-religious argument willowtree asked for about fifteen pages back.


I can make a non-religious argument just fine, but it isn't nearly as charitable of an argument.  In a completely secular society, human beings only have a value that is communally agreed upon.  Differences in the individual are thus subject to the "reason" of the group; there are no such things as true rights.  Rights are only inalienable because they are endowed from a metaphysical source (the Creator in the worlds of the Declaration).  There is no room for something as ethereal as rights in a solely empirical world.  Therefore, no supernatural, no rights.  


If there are no rights, then there is merely the whimsy and rationale of the group.  A person's value lies solely in their contribution to society.  The problem is, though, what society needs the most is progeny in order that it may ensure its continuance.  There is, then, no value in concepts of sentimentality, love, or any real emotion.  Ergo, a homosexual cannot provide for the most fundamental need of society, and so they become an abberation, much as minority groups would be.  Burdened by the sick, the old, the deviant, too?  Hmm... this is starting to go down a very slippery slope that ends in things like "cleansings" or Soylant Green.  These minorities exist merely on the good will of the group.  Should a secular society tolerate, promote, or in any way tolerate such a person who fails to contribute?  No, that would be illogical.  Concepts such as tolerance and equality only weaken a society.  Uniformity brings cohesion, and through cohesion, strength.  Survival of the fittest is the rule of nature, and in a secular society, man is no better than nature.  A man's reason only makes him the most cunning of predators, but he is not cosmically special in any particular way.  In a truly secular world, promoting homosexuality in any way would be anathema to society.  


I find the reduction of man to such a base denominator to be distasteful and false, though, as I believe that human beings have a greater value than is provided for by nature.  Nature gives no metaphysical meaning to the universe, and it is only in the metaphysical that concepts such as love, compassion, tolerance, forgiveness, etc. have any meaning.  Ergo, I think arguments that factor in a metaphysical stance are both more relevant and more rewarding in their conclusions.


What has largely been argued here is alternative metaphysical stances.  Each stance is equally valid from an empirical point of view, as the supernatural (or lack thereof) cannot be proven.  Thus, an orthodox Catholic viewpoint that says homosexuality is a sinful, deviant lifestyle has as much credibility as an staunch atheist who claims it to be the most liberating form of humanity (not sure if any are actually making that particular claim).  Society must then judge which viewpoint is given a say in the authority structure.  Here's the kicker, though: society itself is made of the various peoples competing for that power.  The only way to truly legitimize that authority is through outside-influence (a God concept), conflict, or compromise.  Much of the vocal segement of the LGBT crowd openly rejects the outside-influence option, thus conflict and compromise are their methods.  Yet, the strongest of their opposition has already chosen the outside-influence option, and thus there is no common ground on which this matter can be solved.  That said, there is nothing invalid about any of the choices in and of themselves.  Some here are trying to frame the question in a way that comes under conflict (calling people bigots) or compromise (i.e., "I could see a minor role as okay"), but those solutions do nothing to address the outside-influence crowd.  


One can chose to ignore the religious, but every individual must make a metaphysical choice at some point in their lives.  What follows is in inherent belief about the way the universe works that cannot be empirically verified.  Each of us can make an argument for why one choice is better than the next, but ultimately, the individual is the arbiter of their own response*.


Thus, when a person says they want a gay character on Star Trek, that response is just as valid as a person who says they want nothing of the sort.  It is only a person's belief in how the universe works that determines if they've made a right or wrong choice.  While some of us believe there are universal factors that govern right and wrong, that again comes down to our own perception of the universe.  Sadly, truth can only be known about who is ultimately right or wrong until the other side of death.  If the religious are right, then there will be consequences depending on which system was the correct one.  If the atheists are right, well... nobody will be conscious of that fact.


 


 


 


*Unless you're a five-point Calvinist, in which case you would likely see no value in trying to convince anyone here of anything.  They will either come around to the conclusion themselves or have already been condemned to their fate.


 


Shouldn't religous education be provided free by churches if it's such a big deal?


Actually, I've always felt there were massive deficits between what churches preach and what they actually provide as a serviceable alternative.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jul. 16 2013, 5:36 am

Quote: trollic @ Jul. 15 2013, 4:56 pm

>

>I think a captain who has pedo needs but refuses to act on them is just as valid as a gay character.  Both seen deviant by society, both born that way, etc.  In some alien cultures it's probably perfectly normal for 50 years olds and 5 year olds to get together.  Why push YOUR morality onto the show right?  Amiright?  You see, the problem with going deviant, is you don't know when to stop.  One person may like beastilality, but another might think it's disgusting.  For that same reason, we should avoid going gay and stick to the mainstream forumula that works.  I would be totally happy if they simply avoided ALL romancec in Trek and make stories out of other topics which there are no shortage of. 

>I'm a paying customer.  I buy the dvds, watch the movies, buy the shirts, etc.  If Trek goes gay, I say no way.  Me, and others like me (who make up a larger percetage of viewers than gays, believe it) will simply look for the next best thing, and that's something that the studio fears and is right to fear.  They gotta get paid right.  If they're smart, they will continue on as usual and find new and fresh ideas in other areas that won't cause them to lose viewers.  There is a whole universe out there, no need to go gay for stories.

>


how is being gay even remotely comparable to being a pedophile?

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jul. 16 2013, 6:38 am

These two are beyond ridiculous. I think Trollic may be just what the name implies. Now I'm waiting for FleetAdmiral_BamBam to claim that his imaginary LGBT group agrees that being homosexual is the same as being a pedophile.


*waits*


 

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jul. 16 2013, 6:46 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jul. 15 2013, 8:45 pm

>

>Hey WillowTree,

>I was watching a news show tonight and this exact subject came up (teaching LGBT in school) and one of the experts brought up a case I hadn't heard of before.  It had to with young children getting taught about this and a parent wanting to opt-out... to which the school absolutely refused.  When the parent tried to work through the problem, not only was the parent arrested, the parent was permanently banned from school property via a restraining order (which means, no parent-teacher conferences, no picking up kids, etc.)  According to what I undestand, the charges and ban were dropped, but the school still refused to allow an opt-out.

>http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/main.html

>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1230620&page=1#.UeS-km25GqA

>


 


The way you describe it you make it sound like the parent was arrested for objecting to the teaching itself. The parent was arrested for refusing to leave school property and probably causing a disturbance. 


And where in the article did it say the parents were refused an opt out? The parent asked to be notified ANYTIME homosexuality was being discussed in the classroom. The schools reply was :


"The school department said, 'Look, we'll work with you, but we cannot assure you what a child is going to say and that we can immediately stop a discussion that you find objectionable,'" said Ash. "One of the central units in kindergarten is the discussion of families and we show families of all different types." Ash says the discussions "ended up in an irreconcilable difference."


Which basically means that they can't stop the entire lesson anytime someone says something about homosexuality. The parent was basically asking for a huge disruption every time the subject came up. If the subject comes up, is the teacher supposed to stop the lesson, email the parent and wait for a response, all for one kid while the rest of the class hangs in limbo? If the parent objects so much, homeschool the kid.  This parent is a media whore.


And you are a terrible liar and even worse spin doctor. You should go work for FoxNews.


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this Jul. 16 2013, 8:34 am

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 12 2013, 11:58 am

>

>Of course, if parents want to teach their children religious values, or whatever values they choose, that's their business. It's not the public school's job to teach children about the Bible -- nor should they "promote" gay marriage, any more than they "promote" fractions or photosynthesis or plate tectonics.

>I don't understand this, what do you mean by promoting fractions or photosynthesis or plate techtonics? That's not promoting, that's teaching math and science.

>


That's exactly what I meant, willowtree. Schools teach math and science, the same way they teach about different religions, families, and sexuality. Early education can be purely factual regardless of the subject. "Promotion" suggests that public schools are trying to sell homosexuality to children as if it were a product, rather than just another facet of the real world that children should learn about. It's an inaccurate term chosen by one side of the argument to color people's perceptions: Of course no one wants homosexuality "promoted" to their children -- or the "gay agenda", whatever that is -- but would they mind so much if children just "learned" about it?

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jul. 16 2013, 8:43 am

Of course no one wants homosexuality "promoted" to their children -- or the "gay agenda", whatever that is -- but would they mind so much if children just "learned" about it


 


Says who? Don't speak for me. Or anyone else.

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this Jul. 16 2013, 8:47 am

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Jul. 12 2013, 1:04 pm

>

>I'm sorry, but calling 101 Dalmations "heterosexual propoganda" is quite amusing.  I hope that was meant in jest.  You don't get a story about puppies without two, opposite-sex dogs.  

>


All stories contain morals and ideas, whether or not the authors intend it. Children's stories are often more obvious about the messages their readers are meant to take away, and fairy tales moreso than most. "The One Hundred and One Dalmations" was the first children's story that came to mind when RocketScientist said he couldn't think of any children's stories about marriage. Well, as you pointed out, it's got two opposite-sex dogs and lots of puppies. Their human owners are a married couple. The story is about the pups and their parents trying to get the family back together.


I wouldn't exactly call it "heterosexual propaganda", but it certainly "promotes the heterosexual agenda".


The point of my post (several pages back, from sometime last week) was that images of traditional families in the quasi-Victorian sense are ubiquitous in children's literature. Even stories about orphans usually construct surrogate families in the traditional mold. This is society's way of teaching children about the world they live in, and what sort of things are normal and proper. It indoctrinates society's values, whatever they may be.

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this Jul. 16 2013, 8:53 am

Quote: bunkey @ Jul. 16 2013, 8:43 am

>

>Of course no one wants homosexuality "promoted" to their children -- or the "gay agenda", whatever that is -- but would they mind so much if children just "learned" about it

>Says who? Don't speak for me. Or anyone else.

>


The people who don't want homosexuality "promoted" obviously don't want homosexuality "promoted", bunkey. I'm on your side here, but did you read the part of my post where I wrote that words like "promoted" inaccurately present the argument in terms more acceptable to the conservative side? "Promotion" is something people do with marketing campaigns and propaganda -- they think their children are being brainwashed.


I tried to say that "promoting" homosexuality or gay marriage was as stupid as "promoting" fractions, as if children are being brainwashed to believe that 3/4 equals 6/8. They're taught about math, and they should be taught about sexuality.


Actually, I'm not even sure you finished reading that sentence before you replied to it.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Jul. 16 2013, 9:48 am

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 16 2013, 5:36 am

>how is being gay even remotely comparable to being a pedophile?
NAMBLA thinks it's the same.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Jul. 16 2013, 9:56 am

Quote: Pooneil @ Jul. 16 2013, 8:53 am

>The people who don't want homosexuality "promoted" obviously don't want homosexuality "promoted", bunkey. I'm on your side here, but did you read the part of my post where I wrote that words like "promoted" inaccurately present the argument in terms more acceptable to the conservative side? "Promotion" is something people do with marketing campaigns and propaganda -- they think their children are being brainwashed.

>I tried to say that "promoting" homosexuality or gay marriage was as stupid as "promoting" fractions, as if children are being brainwashed to believe that 3/4 equals 6/8. They're taught about math, and they should be taught about sexuality.

>Actually, I'm not even sure you finished reading that sentence before you replied to it.

>
I think we all know there's a difference between teaching and promoting - it's all in the context of how the lesson is done.  There's a difference between saying that something exists vs. that something is right/wrong.  And there's a huge difference between math and a behavior.


Question:  Then why doesn't schools "teach" / "promote" guns the same way?  Nowadays, a child wears a shirt with a gun on it and they get suspended.  Another child was suspended for playing imaginary soldier.  Another child was suspended for chewing a poptart into the shape of an "L" which the teacher said looked like a gun.  etc... etc.... etc...

trollic

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Jul. 16 2013, 10:04 am

Quote: chator56 @ Jul. 15 2013, 5:27 pm

>

>trollic,

>what does "If Trek goes gay" mean? Trek has already had several gay actors, notibly George Takei who played series regular Sulu on the original Star Trek. Trek has already had episodes promoting unconventional types of sexual relationships usually among alien species. I'm thinking of the Cogenitor episode on Enterprise, or the Outcast episode from Star Trek:The Next Generation. There was also the lesbian kiss scene in the Rejoined episode on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. In your opinion, these episodes don't constitute Trek going gay?

>


 


I mean if there is a main character that plays a gay character, not a gay person that plays a straight character.  What they are in real life doesn't concern me, it's all about the show.

trollic

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Jul. 16 2013, 10:14 am

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 16 2013, 5:36 am

Quote: trollic @ Jul. 15 2013, 4:56 pm

>

>

>I think a captain who has pedo needs but refuses to act on them is just as valid as a gay character.  Both seen deviant by society, both born that way, etc.  In some alien cultures it's probably perfectly normal for 50 years olds and 5 year olds to get together.  Why push YOUR morality onto the show right?  Amiright?  You see, the problem with going deviant, is you don't know when to stop.  One person may like beastilality, but another might think it's disgusting.  For that same reason, we should avoid going gay and stick to the mainstream forumula that works.  I would be totally happy if they simply avoided ALL romancec in Trek and make stories out of other topics which there are no shortage of. 

>I'm a paying customer.  I buy the dvds, watch the movies, buy the shirts, etc.  If Trek goes gay, I say no way.  Me, and others like me (who make up a larger percetage of viewers than gays, believe it) will simply look for the next best thing, and that's something that the studio fears and is right to fear.  They gotta get paid right.  If they're smart, they will continue on as usual and find new and fresh ideas in other areas that won't cause them to lose viewers.  There is a whole universe out there, no need to go gay for stories.

>

how is being gay even remotely comparable to being a pedophile?


 


They are people that are considered deviant by large groups of people and are generally not wanted on screen in Trek.  Both are born with these urges.  People who are gay don't believe gay behavior is deviant, but they do seem to think pedo behavior is deviant... well, I guess everybody draws their own lines at a point AFTER what they are.  "Everything below ME is deviant"  Murderers probably think gays are deviant while their own actions are justified and gays probably think murderders are deviant.  Better just not to go there and leave gay romance out of Trek since it adds nothing of value and turns off a lot of people. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Jul. 16 2013, 10:47 am

Quote: trollic @ Jul. 16 2013, 10:14 am

>They are people that are considered deviant by large groups of people and are generally not wanted on screen in Trek.  Both are born with these urges.  People who are gay don't believe gay behavior is deviant, but they do seem to think pedo behavior is deviant... well, I guess everybody draws their own lines at a point AFTER what they are.  "Everything below ME is deviant"  Murderers probably think gays are deviant while their own actions are justified and gays probably think murderders are deviant.  Better just not to go there and leave gay romance out of Trek since it adds nothing of value and turns off a lot of people.
Good point.  The whole idea of "deviant" is basically a deviation from the "norm."  Why do we consider it okay for a 20 year old to get marrried, but it isn't okay for a 5 year old to do the same thing?  Why is it okay (at least to some of us) for a man to marry a woman, but consider it a deviation for a man to be married to 20 others simultaneously?  Now, if we go to another part of the world, both of those "deviant" behaviors would be considered okay.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: Starcruiser51, miklamar, DS9TREK

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