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'

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Aug. 05 2013, 11:01 am

http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Gay-dads-set-sue-church-sex-marriage-opt/story-19597954-detail/story.html


This is the next logical step in the process.  This quote from the article sums up the whole thing:


"As much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want."


It hasn't even been a month since the law was signed, and the religious protections written into the bill are already being challenged.  xander dax said, "you leave me alone to live my life how i wish, and don't bully me, force your beliefs or life choices on me, or try to trample on my rights and i will return to courtesy."  How does that attitude jive with what's going on in that article?  It doesn't.  


There also seems to be the notion among the anti gay people in this thread that having a gay character would hurt the franchise, and I seriously doubt that would happen. Espeically when you look at the history of gay characters in other tv shows. They were never hurt by having gay characters.


I don't think there are very many established genre shows that have tried this.  There are shows that have gay characters integrated in their inception, and there are shows that have an occasional episode that addresses some of the issues around LGBT.  There are very few shows that have had a major change once the formula has been established.  


Star Trek was originally created to address the current social issues at the time


I can agree with this; however, it hasn't been very much about that ever since.  Roddenberry pretty much checked out of running TOS after the second season.  You can see some tackling of social issues in early TNG, but that kind of thing is pretty spotty over the course of the rest of the series and all the subsequent ones.  


Science-fiction is a big genre, and I think most of the so-called "anti-gay" crowd would prefer to leave Star Trek well enough alone.  If someone wants to try creating a show with gay characters in it, I doubt many would cry foul.  Just don't put it under the Trek banner.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Aug. 05 2013, 11:08 am

off the top of my head I can think of Buffy and Ellen that had a main character become lesbian and not hurt the ratings at all


since I answered your questions can you answer mine? why should there NOT be a gay character in Trek? I know it goes against your personal religious beliefs but is that the only reason? There are things in Trek that go against my belief but I won't go so far as to say tat those things should never have been put in there or that it's terrible that they're in there, because I know that while I disagree with it, there are those who agree with it. I still enjoy the shows despite those things that I disagree with. I just overlook them when they're present. Would it be so hard for you to do the same in regards to a gay character?


 

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Aug. 05 2013, 11:46 am

why should there NOT be a gay character in Trek?


To quote Jean-Luc Picard, "The line must be drawn here." (even though Stewart is a big supporter of gay-rights).


 


Let me illustrate by example.  One of my favorite shows is Doctor Who, a show which, to my knowledge, had never really addressed homosexuality in it first 27 seasons on the air.  The 2005 revival of the series was started by Russel T. Davies.  He decided to include a character a gay character, Capt. Jack Harkness (an "omnisexual").  The references to it were kept to a minimum in the main show, although there was a pretty big nod to homosexuality from the Doctor himself during the end of Tennant's run.


However, that wasn't sufficient for Davies.  He spent the better part of an entire season of Doctor Who setting up his own spin-off show that would focus exclusively on the Capt. Jack character, called Torchwood.  The show was set up to be more adult and gritty, but where the sexual references were relatively minor in Who, sexuality (especially Jack's) was a major component of Torchwood.  


Homosexuality in the Doctor Who universe went from being focused into a minor character to literally having gay sex a major part of the show (Jack and Ianto in season 2/3).  They were in-your-face with it.  Where I am happy to rewatch any season of Doctor Who, my interest in Torchwood is pretty much nil.


Is something similar happening in Star Trek so far-fetched then?  No, I don't think it is, and yes, it would kill my desire to watch a new show that had such a focus.


So, why should there be no gay characters in Star Trek?  Because I don't believe it would remain a "minor" part of the show as time went on, thus ruining the show for good-size chunk of its audience.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Aug. 05 2013, 12:27 pm

I guess I just don't get why you believe that it would ruin the show for a "big chunk of people". Maybe it would ruin it for you but I guess I just don't understand why you assume it would ruin for a "big chunk of people". There are plenty of tv shows that have had gay characters and have been high in ratings. There's nothing for you to base an assumption that a "big chunk of people" would stop watching other than your own dislike of the subject.


If we look at the past 40 years of Trek we've seen married couples, dating couples, flirting couples, and there's neve been anything graphic. The most graphic I think it ever got was 10 seconds of Riker and Troi in a tub. Out of the four married couples we saw in Trek, we barely saw them kiss. If there was a gay couple I'm sure it would be the same thing. There's nothing in the history of Trek that indicates that there would be an increase in sexual content if there was a gay character.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Aug. 05 2013, 12:37 pm

Willowtree, don't even waste any more energy on Catholic.Fan. They are just a single person who claims that they "know" what would happen if there was LGBT representation on Star Trek, one who is delusional enough to think they speak for many.  And a bigot that is obviously terrified of homosexuality, which makes me feel they doth protest too much, me thinks, if you know what I mean.


Homophobia is a disease and rarely can be cured. 

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Aug. 05 2013, 12:39 pm

I'd still like someone to answer this question I've posted a few times already:


There are some who are against a gay main character. What about a recurring character that's only in a few episodes. What if Nog was gay? Or Vorik? would that be more acceptable to you?

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Aug. 05 2013, 5:06 pm

Quote: bunkey @ Aug. 05 2013, 12:37 pm

>

>Willowtree, don't even waste any more energy on Catholic.Fan. They are just a single person who claims that they "know" what would happen if there was LGBT representation on Star Trek, one who is delusional enough to think they speak for many.  And a bigot that is obviously terrified of homosexuality, which makes me feel they doth protest too much, me thinks, if you know what I mean.

>Homophobia is a disease and rarely can be cured. 

>


I don't think Catholic.Fan is delusional or a bigot or someone who is "obviously terrified of homosexuality."  I also think the implication that he's gay is not warranted either. 


On the contrary, he comes across as someone who, while more conservative than I am, is civil, rational, and not a bigot or homophobe at all.  You're stooping to using unwarranted, unfair, and mean-spirited insults, Bunkey, and that's dissapointing and uncalled for.  You're marginalizing Catholic.Fan because you don't like his opinion and/or his religion and characterizing him as something that he is not.


All Catholic.fan said was that he doesn't want to see excessive gay story lines in Star Trek.  Heck, I myself changed channels myself when Six Feet Under got too graphic with the depictions of gay intimacy in that show.  Sorry, but I don't like seeing it, probably because I'm straight, and I wouldn't want my kids to see it either.  Now, if the gay character(s) were depicted like in Modern Family, I'd be ok with it.  They keep it discreet (and the heterosexual stuff too).  I never saw Torchwood, so I don't know what Catholic.Fan is referring to, but I don't see what the problem is if he doesn't like to watch a show based on its content due to his religious views or sexual orientation.  He's not persecuting gays or lesbians or making hate speech against them. 


Heck, Xander Dax here said he doesn't like watching straight people make out!  I could say the same thing about gay people!  I don't hold what he said against him and I'm not going to call him a bigot at all (I hope he feels the same way).  He sounds like a nice guy.


And Catholic.Fan never said that he spoke "for many."  He said if Star Trek became like Torchwood, it would kill his interest and probably lose the franchise "a good-size chunk of its audience."  I don't think that's a delusional assesment at all. 


Please be fair and civil.  Please don't marginalize and denigrate people simply because they have a difference of opinion or different religious beliefs from yourself.


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

xander dax

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6

Report this Aug. 05 2013, 5:06 pm

Ok Catholicfan first calling people homophobes is not name calling it is stating facts, when you hate or attack LGBT it is called homophobia therefore someone who commits those acts are called homophobes pure and simple, you can try and twist your way out of and around that ALL you like but you will NOT change that.


Second why should we be represented in trek?, of ghee mayby because virtually EVERYONE ELSE IS! and we would like to be represented as well, and not thought of as some dirty little secret that needs to be swept under the carpet, also you ask WHY we need to be represented in trek? well i could ask right back WHY do STRAIGHT people need to be represented in trek as well???, and if you argure they do then you WILL need to explain why LGBT shouldn't be AS WELL.


Also you say i should not be calling people closed minded???, well try THIS on for size mate! i personnaly am not a fan of watching STAIGHT PEOPLE making out ect ect on trek but i am OPEN MINDED enough to understand that they are are large part of society and therefore (if it is tastefully done) do need to be REPRESENTED and SHOWN on trek and i can still sit there and enjoy the show DESPITE my personnal opinions, now WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE DO THE SAME FOR US!???, and you people say you are NOT CLOSED MINDED!?.


Quite frankly i am SICK TO DEATH of all the fear and hate mongering thrown around by SOME people in this thread.

xander dax

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6

Report this Aug. 05 2013, 5:18 pm

Catholicfan...HOW DARE you call my (and many other LGBT) philosophy of live and let live ect similar to your (and others) right wing bible bashing hate filled retoric, your philosophy is NOTHING like that, you people wish to "cure" us, stop us "sinning", send us to hell, kill us, exclude us from society ( the list goes on and on) THAT IS NOT LIVE AND LET LIVE.


I said i would be polite and nice when i got into this but all this CRAP being said and thrown at us LGBT is wrong and i have lived with this all my life and i am OVER it!.


willowtree, bunkey i apolagise.

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Aug. 05 2013, 7:03 pm

first calling people homophobes is not name calling it is stating facts, when you hate or attack LGBT it is called homophobia therefore someone who commits those acts are called homophobes pure and simple, you can try and twist your way out of and around that ALL you like but you will NOT change that.



Actually, homophobia would be a fear of homosexuals.  Hating or attacking them would be bigotry or a assualt.  Let's not confuse the terms here.


I, and many like myself that oppose having a gay character on Star Trek, am not afraid of homosexuals.  Opposition does not equal fear; concern does not equal fear.  Fear is an emotional (and often irrational) response that can arise with such things, but these things are not mutually dependent.  Therefore, given the general nature in which the word was used in your post, labeling us as homophobes would be name-calling.


True, some people here would deserve that monicker (and possibly bigot, as well), but if you are not going to take the time to differentiate whom you are referring to, I will assume it to be a broad assertion.


Second why should we be represented in trek?, of ghee mayby because virtually EVERYONE ELSE IS! and we would like to be represented as well, and not thought of as some dirty little secret that needs to be swept under the carpet, also you ask WHY we need to be represented in trek? well i could ask right back WHY do STRAIGHT people need to be represented in trek as well???, and if you argure they do then you WILL need to explain why LGBT shouldn't be AS WELL.


We could exclude straight people, as well, but that wouldn't leave much of a show.


Also you say i should not be calling people closed minded???, well try THIS on for size mate! i personnaly am not a fan of watching STAIGHT PEOPLE making out ect ect on trek but i am OPEN MINDED enough to understand that they are are large part of society and therefore (if it is tastefully done) do need to be REPRESENTED and SHOWN on trek and i can still sit there and enjoy the show DESPITE my personnal opinions, now WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE DO THE SAME FOR US!???, and you people say you are NOT CLOSED MINDED!?.


We can't do the same for you because our religious beliefs tell us otherwise.  If you have religious beliefs that tell you not to watch straight people make-out, then by all means say so.  Personally, while I don't mind straight people making out, I'm not a fan of sexual content on my television shows, either.  I'd rather the focus stayed with the general themes of exploring space, science, other races, and leave the bedroom explorations off the television.


HOW DARE you call my (and many other LGBT) philosophy of live and let live ect similar to your (and others) right wing bible bashing hate filled retoric, your philosophy is NOTHING like that, you people wish to "cure" us, stop us "sinning", send us to hell, kill us, exclude us from society ( the list goes on and on) THAT IS NOT LIVE AND LET LIVE.


This is an interesting response.  I have not stated anything about my socio-political views (I am not right wing) nor have I quoted from the Bible.  I also think you were going for "bible thumping" as opposed to "bible bashing".  I have also said nothing which would indicate I hate you or anyone else.  Not wanting to see something in a television show is not a position of hate; it is a position of opposition.  


xander dax, I have no doubt you have had a very hard life.  Whether you want it or not, you have my pity.  As I have said in this thread previously, there has been much done in the name of religion against the LGBT community that is both shameful and wrong.  It is unfortunate that you seem unable to have this discussion without the taint of those experiences bringing this to such an emotional level for you.  Realize that many of us here, whether we want a gay character on Trek or not, stand with you in opposing the abusive treatment of any human being.


 


 


willowtree:  There are some who are against a gay main character. What about a recurring character that's only in a few episodes. What if Nog was gay? Or Vorik? would that be more acceptable to you?


If I may be permitted, for just a moment, to use some of the terminology that I hear in Catholic circles, I would not be opposed to a person on Star Trek who has same-sex attraction (SSA).  Speaking from a general sense, Catholics are often misunderstood in their position on people with SSA.  We do not hate them, and we have no desire to "cure" them.  That might be more of an extreme fundamentalist viewpoint (think Westboro Baptist kind of people).  What Catholics do not condone is acting upon SSA, and that is most certainly not fueled by any kind of hatred.  It is simply part of our worldview.  


Therefore, could there be a character on Star Trek with SSA, and I would have no opposition to it?  Yes.  It is the portrayal of homosexual acts that I have no interest in seeing.  I admit I am generalizing when I say I don't want a gay character on Star Trek because, based on how Hollywood uses gay characters, the scenario I describe is a nigh impossibility.  Therefore, there's a little bit of throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, but I don't see that as unjustified in this kind of scenario.


I know some of that will likely stoke a few passionate responses, but that's the long and short of it.

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Aug. 05 2013, 8:29 pm

Willowtree, don't even waste any more energy on Catholic.Fan. They are just a single person who claims that they "know" what would happen if there was LGBT representation on Star Trek, one who is delusional enough to think they speak for many.  And a bigot that is obviously terrified of homosexuality, which makes me feel they doth protest too much, me thinks, if you know what I mean.


Homophobia is a disease and rarely can be cured.


It is a shame that your contributions to this thread have devolved from passionately involved in the conversation to merely popping in now and then to lay a few jabs at those who do not share your views.  The ad hominem attacks are not going to disuade anyone from participation in this discussion.  I have actually appreciated willowtree's willingness to continue to engage in the debate, despite some of the derailments that have taken place during its course by both sides.


Lastly, I am not a homosexual, and I honestly do not care if you think I am one or not.  That said, if I were, your treatment of a supposed in-the-closet homosexual would be shameful to the extreme.  If you actually thought I was a homosexual yet have continued to treat me as you have, then you are even worse than the supposed-bigots you rally against because of the hypocrisy of your own actions.  It would appear you do not fully support either side in such a debate, and are merely here for unsporting comments and enflaming the emotions of others.


@rocketscientist


Thank you for the kind representation of my opinions.  I have greatly appreciated your contributions to the thread, as well.  

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Aug. 05 2013, 10:49 pm

Catholic.Fan - Actually, homophobia would be a fear of homosexuals.  Hating or attacking them would be bigotry or a assualt.  Let's not confuse the terms here.

Yeah, let's not.

bigot

- a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

homophobia

- irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

If you are obstinately devoted to your religious beliefs then you are a bigot. If you have an aversion to a gay character on Star Trek then you are a homophobe. If your aversion is the direct result of your religious beliefs then those beliefs are inherently homophobic.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 4:23 am

 


It is a shame that your contributions to this thread have devolved from passionately involved in the conversation to merely popping in now and then to lay a few jabs at those who do not share your views.


 


a-I have said pretty much everything that I can say on the subject.  Nothing I say is going to change bigots' minds.


b-who said I'm making a "jab" at you? Is suggesting you're a closet case a jab? I didn't know suggesting someone may be a closeted and self loathing homosexual an insult. What's insulting to you? Being a possible closet case or being gay? I know on the occasions people have thought I was gay, I wasn't offended by it.  I was usually flattered.


As far as me being unsupportive of either side, yeah, no. I love how you, a bigot, likes to try to turn every conversation around to make yourself the victim. No one's buying what you're selling.  Oh yeah, boo-f'in hoo, if you were a closet case my actions would be "shameful". Yeah, I'm the bad guy here.  You continually refuse to take responsibility for your bigoted and oppressive comments and opinions and cry foul when people call you out and you make yourself the victim.    I have some choice phrases I'd like to share with you but I'd get banned.  Suffice to say that I've had it with you, don't like you or  your POV and am glad that you're far away in the land of the intarwebs.

xander dax

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 5:04 am

damokattanagra, bunkey...i think maybe it is time we stopped wasting our precious time arguing with people like catholicfan as they are so closed minded, set in their ways and convinced they are right (and in some cases the victim) that they will NEVER be brought around to the side of commonsense and logic.


Having dealt with quite a few such as this in my life (not to mention quite a bit of the "hands on" kind of homophobia i think i can safely say we can talk and debate till we are blue in the face and still get nowhere and would be better off finding a brick wall somewhere to bang our heads against, not to mention i think rationality and logic went out the window quite a while ago in this thread if what i have been reading is any indication (a certain line by the user SORA calling LGBT people "FREAKS OF NATURE" springs to mind.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 5:36 am

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Aug. 05 2013, 7:03 pm

>

>first calling people homophobes is not name calling it is stating facts, when you hate or attack LGBT it is called homophobia therefore someone who commits those acts are called homophobes pure and simple, you can try and twist your way out of and around that ALL you like but you will NOT change that.

>
Actually, homophobia would be a fear of homosexuals.  Hating or attacking them would be bigotry or a assualt.  Let's not confuse the terms here.

>I, and many like myself that oppose having a gay character on Star Trek, am not afraid of homosexuals.  Opposition does not equal fear; concern does not equal fear.  Fear is an emotional (and often irrational) response that can arise with such things, but these things are not mutually dependent.  Therefore, given the general nature in which the word was used in your post, labeling us as homophobes would be name-calling.

>True, some people here would deserve that monicker (and possibly bigot, as well), but if you are not going to take the time to differentiate whom you are referring to, I will assume it to be a broad assertion.

>Second why should we be represented in trek?, of ghee mayby because virtually EVERYONE ELSE IS! and we would like to be represented as well, and not thought of as some dirty little secret that needs to be swept under the carpet, also you ask WHY we need to be represented in trek? well i could ask right back WHY do STRAIGHT people need to be represented in trek as well???, and if you argure they do then you WILL need to explain why LGBT shouldn't be AS WELL.

>We could exclude straight people, as well, but that wouldn't leave much of a show.

>Also you say i should not be calling people closed minded???, well try THIS on for size mate! i personnaly am not a fan of watching STAIGHT PEOPLE making out ect ect on trek but i am OPEN MINDED enough to understand that they are are large part of society and therefore (if it is tastefully done) do need to be REPRESENTED and SHOWN on trek and i can still sit there and enjoy the show DESPITE my personnal opinions, now WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE DO THE SAME FOR US!???, and you people say you are NOT CLOSED MINDED!?.

>We can't do the same for you because our religious beliefs tell us otherwise.  If you have religious beliefs that tell you not to watch straight people make-out, then by all means say so.  Personally, while I don't mind straight people making out, I'm not a fan of sexual content on my television shows, either.  I'd rather the focus stayed with the general themes of exploring space, science, other races, and leave the bedroom explorations off the television.

>HOW DARE you call my (and many other LGBT) philosophy of live and let live ect similar to your (and others) right wing bible bashing hate filled retoric, your philosophy is NOTHING like that, you people wish to "cure" us, stop us "sinning", send us to hell, kill us, exclude us from society ( the list goes on and on) THAT IS NOT LIVE AND LET LIVE.

>This is an interesting response.  I have not stated anything about my socio-political views (I am not right wing) nor have I quoted from the Bible.  I also think you were going for "bible thumping" as opposed to "bible bashing".  I have also said nothing which would indicate I hate you or anyone else.  Not wanting to see something in a television show is not a position of hate; it is a position of opposition.  

>xander dax, I have no doubt you have had a very hard life.  Whether you want it or not, you have my pity.  As I have said in this thread previously, there has been much done in the name of religion against the LGBT community that is both shameful and wrong.  It is unfortunate that you seem unable to have this discussion without the taint of those experiences bringing this to such an emotional level for you.  Realize that many of us here, whether we want a gay character on Trek or not, stand with you in opposing the abusive treatment of any human being.

>willowtree:  There are some who are against a gay main character. What about a recurring character that's only in a few episodes. What if Nog was gay? Or Vorik? would that be more acceptable to you?

>If I may be permitted, for just a moment, to use some of the terminology that I hear in Catholic circles, I would not be opposed to a person on Star Trek who has same-sex attraction (SSA).  Speaking from a general sense, Catholics are often misunderstood in their position on people with SSA.  We do not hate them, and we have no desire to "cure" them.  That might be more of an extreme fundamentalist viewpoint (think Westboro Baptist kind of people).  What Catholics do not condone is acting upon SSA, and that is most certainly not fueled by any kind of hatred.  It is simply part of our worldview.  

>Therefore, could there be a character on Star Trek with SSA, and I would have no opposition to it?  Yes.  It is the portrayal of homosexual acts that I have no interest in seeing.  I admit I am generalizing when I say I don't want a gay character on Star Trek because, based on how Hollywood uses gay characters, the scenario I describe is a nigh impossibility.  Therefore, there's a little bit of throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, but I don't see that as unjustified in this kind of scenario.

>I know some of that will likely stoke a few passionate responses, but that's the long and short of it.

>


so just to clarify, it would be more ok with you if let's say Nog is sitting at the bar and he says "hey Bashir looks hot today I'd love to go out with him" but that's as far as they go.


honestly with the way Trek sparingly addresses romance in general I think if there were a gay character that's probably all we would get. A man sitting around making comments about how he finds another man attractive but doesn't have the courage to go up to him to talk to him face to face. Kind of like how Bashir and Ezri were at the end.

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