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. 06 2013, 5:37 am

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.


Well, I will assume we're going with http://www.merriam-webster.com then for the following discussion.


What defines obstinate?  Are we're going with:


obstinate: perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion


Then who defines what is perverse?  You?  Me?  We've gotten into subjective territory here, which is not useful for the debate.  Many of the arguments on here have been very well reasoned by both sides.  Maybe it simply is:


obstinate: not easily subdued, remedied, or removed


If we apply this definition to obstinate to religious beliefs, it's not exactly a negative.  Let's look at some words that have strikingly similar definitions:


loyal: faithful to a cause, ideal, custom, institution, or product


faithful: firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty


Are these things suddenly vices?  Most people in the US hold loyalty and faithfulness to be good ideals.  I suggest then, that what really defines a bigot from someone who is merely obstinate in their religious beliefs is how the definition of bigot you posted clarifies itself: obstinance + intolerance + hatred


See, you cannot get to bigot without the hatred part.  As I have said on many occasions, there is no hatred here.  The definition you posted clearly separates those three factors as unique qualifiers.  Thus, I may be obstinate, and I may even be intolerant, but because I bear no hatred for homosexuals, I am not a bigot.


I will have to concede your definition of homophobia, however, because it makes no distinction between feelings toward homosexuals and feelings toward acts of homosexuality.  It also does not appear to carry over the adjective, irrational, to its use of the word aversion.  If you follow through on your word searches, you'll see that a phobia is characterized by "illogic", "exaggerated", "inexpliable", and "irrational".  None of those words apply here, so it's unfortunate that there is not a term more indicative of those of us who do have an aversion to homosexuality but not homosexuals themselves.  The definition is a bit wanting.


@bunkey



Actually, you called me a bigot repeatedly, which I have just shown to be not applicable in this case, and you have called me delusional, which is a derogatory judgment call.  Hence, "jabs".


Your statements about "doth protest too much" give a jesting tone to something that is a very serious thing.  The jab is not in the suggestion, but the tone.  People that truly are in-the-closet often suffer horrible feelings of depression, guilt, and self-loathing.  Yet, you would use such a thing in a very flippant manner.  Therefore, it would appear that you are unsupportive of homosexuals who have yet to out themselves because you are so willing to use them in a joking fashion, and thus my comment "do not fully support".  


Please note, I am not insulted nor do I feel victimized.  Insults merely weaken your own position.  Also, I am not sure how opposing others views or assertions in a debate is being victimized.  If I do not feel like I am a victim, how exactly is it that I am one in my arguments?  I've seen people make some statements that they should be called out on, but that doesn't imply a personal stake in the matter You make many assertions without really pointing to any proof.  I'm genuinely curious where you get such ideas from.


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.



See, this is one of the many things that pervade debates like these.  People on both sides often have a hard time staying objective during the discussion.  It would seem you are falling into bigotry yourself, as there appears to be the seeds of hatred in this statement.  Given that you cannot keep an objective tone in the conversation anymore, it's probably a good thing that you're only stopping in now and then with your jabs.  Getting apparently so worked up over some conversation "in the land of the intarwebs" probably isn't altogether healthy.

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 5:52 am

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.


Truth be told, I honestly don't know how they would play out a scenario as I described it.  I think it would depend on how the character deals with their attractions, and I'm not sure the example you provide would gel well with what I'm getting at.  I think ambiguity is probably the best course of action.  


So, to run with your example, a woman sits down at the bar and starts flirting with Nog.  He replies with, "Thank you, but I'm not interested in women like that."  If it were left there, and the audience could draw their own conclusions, okay.  Even if it went so far as to say, "I'm only interested in men", but didn't actually draw that out any further, the audience cannot make any actual conclusions about whether he ever acts on those interests.  I would have to conclude that a representation on the show such as this gives me nothing adverse to say.


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.


You might be right.  I guess when I think of romance on Trek, the early seasons of TNG pop to mind where Riker was hopping into bed with numerous ladies of other cultures and races.  That might be some of Roddenberry's philandering past influencing the show, as there as a marked decline in that type of thing on TNG once his influence waned.  The later shows have almost none of it, as you point out.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 6:05 am

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Aug. 06 2013, 5:52 am

>

style="margin: 0px 0px 3px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: #6a6a6a; clear: both; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;">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.

>Truth be told, I honestly don't know how they would play out a scenario as I described it.  I think it would depend on how the character deals with their attractions, and I'm not sure the example you provide would gel well with what I'm getting at.  I think ambiguity is probably the best course of action.  

>So, to run with your example, a woman sits down at the bar and starts flirting with Nog.  He replies with, "Thank you, but I'm not interested in women like that."  If it were left there, and the audience could draw their own conclusions, okay.  Even if it went so far as to say, "I'm only interested in men", but didn't actually draw that out any further, the audience cannot make any actual conclusions about whether he ever acts on those interests.  I would have to conclude that a representation on the show such as this gives me nothing adverse to say.

>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.

>You might be right.  I guess when I think of romance on Trek, the early seasons of TNG pop to mind where Riker was hopping into bed with numerous ladies of other cultures and races.  That might be some of Roddenberry's philandering past influencing the show, as there as a marked decline in that type of thing on TNG once his influence waned.  The later shows have almost none of it, as you point out.

>


That's what I've been saying. I think those opposed to a gay couple imagine that in every episode there would be scenes of men making out. When really between the later TNG, DS9 and Voyager we've seen married couples, dating couples, engaged couples and there's incredibly little affection shown between them. Riker and Troi, Obrien and Keiko, Tom and B'Elanna, Worf and Dax, Sisko and Cassidy, Rom and Lita, Odo and Kira, how many times have we actually seen any of those couples even so much as share a peck on the lips. Not that much at all. I honestly believe that if there was a gay character there wouldn't be anything more than one man pining after another man wthout any actual interaction between them. That might actually be a decent way to introduce the concept of a gay character into the Trek world.


Suppose we get a new tv series. If there was one and only one scene where some nameless ensign is sitting talking to his friend about how he has a crush on another man, and that's the only mention for the rest of the show, that might be an acceptable way to introduce a gay character but have both sides be ok with it. for someone like me who would love to see a gay character that would be a good step in the right direction in my opinion, and based on what you said it desn't seem like something people who share your view would be horribly opposed to

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 6:32 am

Catholic Fan, you are one of the most condescending, phoney baloney people I have seen on this board. You love to twist words and put on a superior air. And you're the absolute worst example of a "christian" there is on Star Trek.com and an embrassment to your religion.  I also think you're applying for some degree in advanced passive aggressive flame baiting.  You're supposed "rational" statements are steeped in the toxic marinade of religious zealotry and hypocrisy. But you're very transparent.


I'm not showing bigotry, I'm showing a dislike for you in particular.  Bigtory is a hatred of of someone because of their religion, ethnicity, etc. I don't dislike you because of you're catholic.  I dislike you because you're a very poor quality human being.  


And before you start playing victim again and accusing me of intolerance, let me save you the trouble. I'm indeed very intolerant of you.

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 6:35 am

Suppose we get a new tv series. If there was one and only one scene where some nameless ensign is sitting talking to his friend about how he has a crush on another man, and that's the only mention for the rest of the show, that might be an acceptable way to introduce a gay character but have both sides be ok with it. for someone like me who would love to see a gay character that would be a good step in the right direction in my opinion, and based on what you said it desn't seem like something people who share your view would be horribly opposed to


I am glad to see that we have some common thinking here on the subject.  I do think there would still be some opposition to it based on the way you've phrased it out, though.  I would leave it more ambiguous than a crush because that goes a step (or several) beyond attraction, but I say again, someone who had an attraction to the same-sex on a new show wouldn't in and of itself raise concerns with people who have my viewpoint.  


I think we would have to analyze how it is done very carefully.  There is nothing inherently wrong with being inclusive of  people with SSA on the show, but does their representation go beyond acknowledgement?  As I said in my other post, I would still be concerned that such a situation would fail to stay within the bounds of the scenario as we have described it.  It is very easy to go from acknowledgement to promotion.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 7:06 am

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Aug. 06 2013, 6:35 am

>

>Suppose we get a new tv series. If there was one and only one scene where some nameless ensign is sitting talking to his friend about how he has a crush on another man, and that's the only mention for the rest of the show, that might be an acceptable way to introduce a gay character but have both sides be ok with it. for someone like me who would love to see a gay character that would be a good step in the right direction in my opinion, and based on what you said it desn't seem like something people who share your view would be horribly opposed to

>I am glad to see that we have some common thinking here on the subject.  I do think there would still be some opposition to it based on the way you've phrased it out, though.  I would leave it more ambiguous than a crush because that goes a step (or several) beyond attraction, but I say again, someone who had an attraction to the same-sex on a new show wouldn't in and of itself raise concerns with people who have my viewpoint.  

>I think we would have to analyze how it is done very carefully.  There is nothing inherently wrong with being inclusive of  people with SSA on the show, but does their representation go beyond acknowledgement?  As I said in my other post, I would still be concerned that such a situation would fail to stay within the bounds of the scenario as we have described it.  It is very easy to go from acknowledgement to promotion.

>


That's going to be where we disagree, on the term "promotion". I don't believe showing a same sex relationship where they do show them kissing is "promotion"

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 7:09 am

Catholic Fan, you are one of the most condescending, phoney baloney people I have seen on this board. You love to twist words and put on a superior air. And you're the absolute worst example of a "christian" there is on Star Trek.com and an embrassment to your religion.  I also think you're applying for some degree in advanced passive aggressive flame baiting.  You're supposed "rational" statements are steeped in the toxic marinade of religious zealotry and hypocrisy. But you're very transparent.


 


I'm not showing bigotry, I'm showing a dislike for you in particular.  Bigtory is a hatred of of someone because of their religion, ethnicity, etc. I don't dislike you because of you're catholic.  I dislike you because you're a very poor quality human being.  


 


And before you start playing victim again and accusing me of intolerance, let me save you the trouble. I'm indeed very intolerant of you.


 



Such vitriol.  I admit, I do struggle to take your specific posts seriously, but I think there is less condescension so much as incredulity.  It is only when I take them seriously that I have to bring up questions like I do regarding your treatment of people on this board and the real-life emotions that seem to be fueling your words.  I find it a bit unreal that you have apparently made so thorough a judgment of me based on my posts in this thread alone as to classify me as a "very poor quality human being".  


 


Though I risk further accusations of condescension, I have to say your statements border on laughable because of how little you can draw about me as a person based solely on my posts here.  You also claim to know so much about Christianity that you conclude me to be an embarrassment to my religion?  Really?  That's saying a lot!


 


I guess I just don't even know where to go with what you've said at this point.  It's such a fiction, yet I am the one classed as "delusional"?  That's intriguing.

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 7:24 am

Quote: willowtree @ Aug. 06 2013, 7:06 am

>

>That's going to be where we disagree, on the term "promotion". I don't believe showing a same sex relationship where they do show them kissing is "promotion"

>


Yes, I can agree with that being the line where we disagree, as well.  I think a lot of that boils down to some irreconcilable differences in our worldviews.  If I might use a further term common in Catholic discussion, we view homosexual acts as "disordered", in the sense of "not functioning in a normal orderly healthy way" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disordered; note the obsolete version of "morally reprehensible" is probably applicable as well, where reprehensible means disapproving of).  Showing homosexual acts (this would include kissing a member of the same sex) in a normal way is then antithetical to our worldview.  Thus, seeing something as normal that we view as not normal would be a kind of promotion.  


I will understand if you do not necessarily agree that such is a promotion, but hopefully that clarifies my position a little better.  Note, I am truncating the explanation a bit for expediency, so if something needs further explanation, please feel free to ask.  I would prefer to continue clarifications as necessary rather than leave things to assumption.


Edit to add:  I also don't feel a representation on Trek necessarily need be shown as disordered, either, hence my preference for ambiguity if a gay character is to be included.  Ambiguity would then leave the viewer to fill in the blanks according to their own worldview.  It's a bit of a storytelling cop-out, but it would statisfy both sides to some degree.  I don't think I would trust most of Hollywood to handle the delicacies of trying to illustrate the Catholic worldview with the care and integrity it requires to avoid scandal.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 7:41 am

it does make me sad that there are those who believe that the act of homosexuality is deviant/disordered/unhealthy, especially when it's something they have no choice about. That's one of the issues I have with the idea of a supreme being. Why would he/she make someone gay and then condemn them for it. It makes no sense to me.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 7:51 am

Yeah I do classify you as a human being by what you've written here. You seek to oppress members of the LGBT community. That's all I need to know about you. Anything else you may do that you categorize as "good" gets canceled out by that.


There's actually no emotion "fueling" my posts really. I just call it as I see it and take the time to reply in between Dexter and Tumblr. So many people make the mistake of confusing grammar, punction and bold emphasis as real world reactions. If I type "I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!!!!!!" doesn't mean I'm actually yelling or reacting that way. If someone reading a post by me perceives a parallel real life reaction (ie: someone typing at the keyboard yelling at the screen) it only means I've done an excellent job at writing. So I take that as a compliment towards my writing skills.

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 7:57 am

it does make me sad that there are those who believe that the act of homosexuality is deviant/disordered/unhealthy, especially when it's something they have no choice about. That's one of the issues I have with the idea of a supreme being. Why would he/she make someone gay and then condemn them for it. It makes no sense to me.


You know, I can honestly say it makes me sad, as well.  Objectively, we see it as a result of the "fallen" state of our world, but that means little to someone who isn't given a choice.  "Why me?" is so easy a question that follows, and there are few comforting answers to provide.  


It is very important to note, though, that there is no condemnation preached or implied for simply being gay (as in, having SSA).  It is only when those attractions are acted upon that the aforementioned disapproval enters the picture.  That certainly doesn't answer the question of why a supreme being would create people with desires they are then told to ignore, but it does change the dynamic by which we approach people.  Does the distinction make sense as I've put it?

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 8:03 am

Quote: bunkey @ Aug. 06 2013, 7:51 am

>

>Yeah I do classify you as a human being by what you've written here. You seek to oppress members of the LGBT community. That's all I need to know about you. Anything else you may do that you categorize as "good" gets canceled out by that.

>There's actually no emotion "fueling" my posts really. I just call it as I see it and take the time to reply in between Dexter and Tumblr. So many people make the mistake of confusing grammar, punction and bold emphasis as real world reactions. If I type "I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!!!!!!" doesn't mean I'm actually yelling or reacting that way. If someone reading a post by me perceives a parallel real life reaction (ie: someone typing at the keyboard yelling at the screen) it only means I've done an excellent job at writing. So I take that as a compliment towards my writing skills.

>


Well, it certainly adds a facetiousness to your replies if using such typing tropes does not accurately reflect your true reactions.  I would question why you choose to employ them when they do not represent your demeanor?  You actually lend credence to my claim that you are merely here in an attempt to enflame others with your posts, since they are, by your own admission, written without sincere thought to the mores of forum conversation.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 8:05 am

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Aug. 06 2013, 7:57 am

>

>it does make me sad that there are those who believe that the act of homosexuality is deviant/disordered/unhealthy, especially when it's something they have no choice about. That's one of the issues I have with the idea of a supreme being. Why would he/she make someone gay and then condemn them for it. It makes no sense to me.

>You know, I can honestly say it makes me sad, as well.  Objectively, we see it as a result of the "fallen" state of our world, but that means little to someone who isn't given a choice.  "Why me?" is so easy a question that follows, and there are few comforting answers to provide.  

>It is very important to note, though, that there is no condemnation preached or implied for simply being gay (as in, having SSA).  It is only when those attractions are acted upon that the aforementioned disapproval enters the picture.  That certainly doesn't answer the question of why a supreme being would create people with desires they are then told to ignore, but it does change the dynamic by which we approach people.  Does the distinction make sense as I've put it?

>


That makes me even more sad, that there are people who have feelings and attractions and are told they can't act on them or try to persue them. They are essentially being told to live a lie

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 8:16 am

That makes me even more sad, that there are people who have feelings and attractions and are told they can't act on them or try to persue them. They are essentially being told to live a lie


No, they aren't told to live a lie.  Please don't mistake me, there is supposed to be no discouragement to admit such feelings.  As I said previously, in-the-closet people are often subject to some serious mental stresses and disorders for trying to live a lie.  As I understand it, we don't wish that on anyone.  We're going down a bit of a rabbit trail here, but as I understand it, they are encouraged to channel their need for love into acts of charity, where there can be a great deal of satisfaction and reciprocal love gained helping others.  Admittedly, this is an idea that doesn't always come into play properly, nor can I say how often it is received as intended.  Hence, my statements that there has been much wrong done by the religious (including Catholics) over the centuries.  I think there is still a lot of work to be done on the practical application of some of this within our religion, and there is likely to still be a lot of old-fashioned bigotry in the membership of the Church that needs to be changed.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 8:22 am

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Aug. 06 2013, 8:16 am

>

>That makes me even more sad, that there are people who have feelings and attractions and are told they can't act on them or try to persue them. They are essentially being told to live a lie

>No, they aren't told to live a lie.  Please don't mistake me, there is supposed to be no discouragement to admit such feelings.  As I said previously, in-the-closet people are often subject to some serious mental stresses and disorders for trying to live a lie.  As I understand it, we don't wish that on anyone.  We're going down a bit of a rabbit trail here, but as I understand it, they are encouraged to channel their need for love into acts of charity, where there can be a great deal of satisfaction and reciprocal love gained helping others.  Admittedly, this is an idea that doesn't always come into play properly, nor can I say how often it is received as intended.  Hence, my statements that there has been much wrong done by the religious (including Catholics) over the centuries.  I think there is still a lot of work to be done on the practical application of some of this within our religion, and there is likely to still be a lot of old-fashioned bigotry in the membership of the Church that needs to be changed.

>


still seems to me that it's encouraging people to live a lie. Admit you have feelings of attraction for same sex but don't act on it, don't try to persue a romantic reltaionship or anthing. that sounds awful. Channeling a need for love into charity sounds horrible too. Not that charity is bad but to take the place of love? To take the place of the love and affection of another human being? Loving someone else and having that love returned is one of the most amazing things in the world. how can anyone tell a group of people not to persue that just because they don't like who their target of loving feelings is.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: JOYOFVGR

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