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: 46327

Report this Jul. 18 2013, 1:17 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:09 pm

>man set up those rules. If it was a rule of a god that you can't have kids until you're married then he/she would have made it impossible to do so until marriage. People can biologically have kids without being married. The restriction on being married first is a man made one.

>and if as you say the function of marriage is reproduction then following that logic infertile people or people who don't want kids should not be allowed to get married
I can undestand why you take these arguments so far out in left field.  It sounds like it bothers you that there are absolutes.  God said that we shouldn't lie or steal or murder either, but that doesn't mean he took away our abilities to do so.  There's a difference between what we can do and what we should do.


And I don't think you're meaning to, but trying to equate gays (who obviously can't reproduce) with an infertile heterosexual couple is very demeaning and hurtful to the infertile couple that wants children. 

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Jul. 18 2013, 1:19 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:03 pm

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Jul. 18 2013, 12:59 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 18 2013, 10:51 am

>

>

>

>In the christian religion it's ok to sodomize a boy too. The church tends to look the other way when there are cases of priests molesting boys.

>

You're way out of line on this comment.  It might not do much, but this one has been reported.

can't face a fact of your own religion? or do you deny that this happens?


You're trolling.  Suggesting that anyone finds such a reprehensible action "ok" is out of line.  I will not debate with someone whose only purpose is to inflame the thread. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Jul. 18 2013, 1:21 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:13 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:09 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:04 pm

>

>

>if your view is that two people who love each other can't get married simply because they're the same gender, that IS intollerant. That is denying people basic rights. Why can't you see that?
You have failed to explain why going against nature is a right.

Reversing this... why can't you can't see denying people basic religious rights are "intolerant."

Why is it that believe in the "freedom of religion" is now considered "intolerant"?

it is a right for two people who love each other to get married.

if you believe they are going against nature because they can't biologicaly produce a child, then by tha same logic  you should also deny the right of marriage to infertile people.

You've still failed to answer my question.  Oh well.


You might as well argue that nature ignore the law of gravity so I can have the "right" jump off a 1000 foot cliff (without gear) and not fall. 


 


Nature has laws. If we break them, don't we deserve to live with the consequences?

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jul. 18 2013, 1:24 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:17 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:09 pm

>

>man set up those rules. If it was a rule of a god that you can't have kids until you're married then he/she would have made it impossible to do so until marriage. People can biologically have kids without being married. The restriction on being married first is a man made one.

>and if as you say the function of marriage is reproduction then following that logic infertile people or people who don't want kids should not be allowed to get married
I can undestand why you take these arguments so far out in left field.  It sounds like it bothers you that there are absolutes.  God said that we shouldn't lie or steal or murder either, but that doesn't mean he took away our abilities to do so.  There's a difference between what we can do and what we should do.

And I don't think you're meaning to, but trying to equate gays (who obviously can't reproduce) with an infertile heterosexual couple is very demeaning and hurtful to the infertile couple that wants children.


it's not left field at all. YOU were the one who said that the function of marriage is to reproduce. So if someone can't reproduce, then following YOUR statement they shouldn't be allowed to get married. and by the same token, if an infertile couple CAN get married despite not being able to reproduce (going against nature as you say) then by that same logic a gay couple can get married despite not being able to reproduce.


if you disagree wtih this then you've just invalidated your whole "the point of marriage is reproduction" argument

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jul. 18 2013, 1:30 pm

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:19 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:03 pm

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Jul. 18 2013, 12:59 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 18 2013, 10:51 am

>

>

>

>

>In the christian religion it's ok to sodomize a boy too. The church tends to look the other way when there are cases of priests molesting boys.

>

You're way out of line on this comment.  It might not do much, but this one has been reported.

can't face a fact of your own religion? or do you deny that this happens?

You're trolling.  Suggesting that anyone finds such a reprehensible action "ok" is out of line.  I will not debate with someone whose only purpose is to inflame the thread. 


I guess you haven't actually read any of my posts. oh well

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Jul. 18 2013, 1:34 pm

I guess you haven't actually read any of my posts. oh well


I've read your posts.  Your statement was false and its only purpose was to inflame.  There is a vast divide between something occurring and its moral permissability.  To suggest that because something happened makes it ok is not only a false assertion, but a disservice to those you gloss over in your broad and sweeping generalization. 


Shame on you.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Jul. 18 2013, 1:35 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:24 pm

>it's not left field at all. YOU were the one who said that the function of marriage is to reproduce. So if someone can't reproduce, then following YOUR statement they shouldn't be allowed to get married. and by the same token, if an infertile couple CAN get married despite not being able to reproduce (going against nature as you say) then by that same logic a gay couple can get married despite not being able to reproduce.

>if you disagree wtih this then you've just invalidated your whole "the point of marriage is reproduction" argument
hahah... you think that you've backed me into a corner, but your deduction isn't logical.  You still haven't addressed nature's laws yet, the very foundation of the argument.  Also, trying to equate infertility as the same as choice doesn't make sense.  Infertility, like other defects, is not normal - it is an aberation, not a choice.


I guess I put it into the same category as a mathematical formula where there are rules.  If you ignore the rule, you get the wrong answer.


Obviously, we'll never agree on the equation / definition of marriage and now we're just going around in circles.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Jul. 18 2013, 1:40 pm

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:34 pm

>

>I guess you haven't actually read any of my posts. oh well

>I've read your posts.  Your statement was false and its only purpose was to inflame.  There is a vast divide between something occurring and its moral permissability.  To suggest that because something happened makes it ok is not only a false assertion, but a disservice to those you gloss over in your broad and sweeping generalization. 

>Shame on you.

>
hahaha... She says the same thing to me when I reply back to her with something she doesn't agree with.  But... as inflamatory as her original statement was to you, I really don't think she was trying to troll.  It's just from her view (a self-proclaimed athiest,) since the church has had a history of looking the other way in some cases, it could be misconstrued as acceptance.


 


Yet... she doesn't understand why the church doesn't want to look the other way when it comes to non-traditional marriage...

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Jul. 18 2013, 1:44 pm

It's just from her view (a self-proclaimed athiest,) since the church has had a history of looking the other way in some cases, it could be misconstrued as acceptance.


The statement was said with no such conditional caveats. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Jul. 18 2013, 1:46 pm

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:44 pm

>

>since the church has had a history of looking the other way in some cases, it could be misconstrued as acceptance.

>The statement was said with no such conditional caveats. 

>
Yes, I know.  I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Jul. 18 2013, 1:49 pm

Yes, I know.  I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt.


I'd make a joke about how tolerant you're being, but I think the irony would be lost on some. 


 

starfan97

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 235

Report this Jul. 18 2013, 3:42 pm

I really do think that being gay is wrong. If you guys don't agree with me, thats fine. My religion says that being gay is wrong. 


But what is really wrong is that parents of gay children who abuse thier kids because they are gay. I think that is just awful. 


I say being gay is wrong. So heres my question to you guys: if guys and guys and girls and girls were supposed to get married, why can't thery have children together? that is not the way God made us. 

trollic

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Jul. 18 2013, 4:10 pm

The bottom line is that while there is a fringe group who would LIKE to have openly gay relationships in Trek, it's not worth pandering to this group at the risk of losing a larger group who are against it.  Gay people will still watch Trek for all the reasons they have watched in the past.  It just makes sense to keep things as is and have everyone watch. 

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 18 2013, 8:21 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:24 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:17 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:09 pm

>

>

>man set up those rules. If it was a rule of a god that you can't have kids until you're married then he/she would have made it impossible to do so until marriage. People can biologically have kids without being married. The restriction on being married first is a man made one.

>and if as you say the function of marriage is reproduction then following that logic infertile people or people who don't want kids should not be allowed to get married
I can undestand why you take these arguments so far out in left field.  It sounds like it bothers you that there are absolutes.  God said that we shouldn't lie or steal or murder either, but that doesn't mean he took away our abilities to do so.  There's a difference between what we can do and what we should do.

And I don't think you're meaning to, but trying to equate gays (who obviously can't reproduce) with an infertile heterosexual couple is very demeaning and hurtful to the infertile couple that wants children.

it's not left field at all. YOU were the one who said that the function of marriage is to reproduce. So if someone can't reproduce, then following YOUR statement they shouldn't be allowed to get married. and by the same token, if an infertile couple CAN get married despite not being able to reproduce (going against nature as you say) then by that same logic a gay couple can get married despite not being able to reproduce.

if you disagree wtih this then you've just invalidated your whole "the point of marriage is reproduction" argument


It's not the sole point of marriage, but it is the primary reason for the institution to exist. 


BTW, whenever someone makes that argument wrt infertility for this debate, it does hurt.


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 18 2013, 8:24 pm

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Jul. 18 2013, 1:34 pm

>

>I guess you haven't actually read any of my posts. oh well

>I've read your posts.  Your statement was false and its only purpose was to inflame.  There is a vast divide between something occurring and its moral permissability.  To suggest that because something happened makes it ok is not only a false assertion, but a disservice to those you gloss over in your broad and sweeping generalization. 

>Shame on you.

>


I'm with Catholic.Fan.  I'm dissapointed in you Willowtree.  That was a horrible and hurtful thing to say and absolutely wrong.  I'm surprised you would say such a thing (not that I know you well, but you seemed like a reasonable and good woman). 


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

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