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, 8:32 am

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.


I don't have a perfect understanding of it myself, nor would I call it a "perfect solution".  I would say that there are different kinds of love, and that the love born out of friendship bears a lot of similarity to the love of a committed-partner relationship (sans the sexual aspect).  I think at this point, though, I am approaching the limits of my understandings of the Catholic worldview in this particular regard, and going further would be pure conjecture on my point.  I don't think that would be a wise course to take, so I'll likely leave this specific rabbit trail as it stands. 

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 8:55 am

well I think we can both agree that even asside from the sexual aspect the love of a good friend is far different from love of a boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 9:19 am

well I think we can both agree that even asside from the sexual aspect the love of a good friend is far different from love of a boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband


I understand what you're getting at here.  I think what I would agree to, though, is that love is a highly subjective aspect of our lives.  I don't know that we can universally state what love is to everyone, that everyone values the same aspects of that love, or that it even feels one particular way to everyone.  So, subjectively speaking, my wife is my best friend.  That aspect of our love is what I value the most, though it is made more complex by the other aspects of our relationship (companionship, sex, cohabitation, etc.).  It is a thing I could likely get some aspects of through other relationships, though not in an identical manner.  


To paraphrase, no two loves are alike.  Yes?

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 11:44 am

CatholicFan:  I admire your patience, but be aware that when your attacker(s) has to resort to namecalling (instead of logic) to "support" their viewpoint, they know they've lost.  I always have to laugh at someone determining that anyone that disagrees with their agenda (in this case LGBT) as having a "phobia" - they're just trying to get the other person to throw out rationality and buy into the redefinition marketing ploy.  If they really think that someone has an irrational fear of LGBT because of logic/biology/ethics/morality/etc., does that mean they have heterophobia?  Or athiest are all just theophobes?   Obviously not, but that's their level of logic.  They'd rather appeal to emotions rather than being rational.


 


I think you're wasting your time responding to the troll(s) doing the namecalling.  This is why I block the trolls' posts - they provide no value to the discussion.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 11:55 am

Quote: willowtree @ Aug. 06 2013, 8:55 am

>

>well I think we can both agree that even asside from the sexual aspect the love of a good friend is far different from love of a boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband

>
That's why the english language isn't very precise.  In the Greek language, it distinguishes between agape, eros, phileo and storge - all of which translate to "love" in english.  (No, I don't speak Greek, anyone that has done some of the simplest Bible studies has run across this.)

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 12:05 pm

@FleetAdmiral_BamBam


Thanks for the words to the wise, but "it's not my first rodeo"  .


I feel I've had a very worthwhile discussion with willowtree, so I hope you are not including her in the troll(s).  Too, some of the point and counterpoint with darmokattanagra has been fruitful.  Before needing to double check the assertions about homophobia's definition, I was unaware how broadly the term was being applied.  I was taking it too literally as a phobia, not really considering a more vernacular usage.  Given the broadness it's being used as, I actually found it to be a weaker word than I was giving it credit for.  So, a worthwhile excerise!


As for bunkey and some of the previous posters who seem inclined to pure rhetoric or targeted personal attacks, well, you may be right.  Still, I like to "turn the other cheek", as it were.  Truly, expending patience on an internet forum is a small thing.  It costs me nothing but my time, and I have no qualms about giving it freely.  Whether there is agreement or not, if there is a greater understanding of opposing viewpoints, then something has been accomplished.  The only loss is theirs if they do not reach that place.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 12:12 pm

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Aug. 06 2013, 12:05 pm

>I feel I've had a very worthwhile discussion with willowtree, so I hope you are not including her in the troll(s).
Nope, I don't think WillowTree is a troll, and have even defender her against another person accusing her of such.  Also, you can see that I replied to something she said, so she's not in the list.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 12:17 pm

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Aug. 06 2013, 12:05 pm

>Too, some of the point and counterpoint with darmokattanagra has been fruitful.  Before needing to double check the assertions about homophobia's definition, I was unaware how broadly the term was being applied.  I was taking it too literally as a phobia, not really considering a more vernacular usage.  Given the broadness it's being used as, I actually found it to be a weaker word than I was giving it credit for.  So, a worthwhile excerise!

>As for bunkey and some of the previous posters who seem inclined to pure rhetoric or targeted personal attacks, well, you may be right.  Still, I like to "turn the other cheek", as it were.  Truly, expending patience on an internet forum is a small thing.  It costs me nothing but my time, and I have no qualms about giving it freely.  Whether there is agreement or not, if there is a greater understanding of opposing viewpoints, then something has been accomplished.  The only loss is theirs if they do not reach that place.
I used to do the same, but have learned over the 15 years I've been here that some people have absolutely no intent on having a constructive dialogue.  While what you post may be beneficial to some lurkers that read the forums, the trolls will always continue spewing their hate.


Obviously, I'm not going to tell you not to respond to them as you wish.  I just find, for me, that it's not worth my time.  Matthew 7:6 and many proverbs come to mind (at least for me.)

TravisMalcolm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 118

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 2:53 pm

Quote: chator56 @ Jun. 13 2013, 11:11 am

>

>Funny Braga saying that as he was executive producer and creator of Enterprise. You mean to tell me he couldn't have invented a gay character? Please, save your self-righteousness Braga. On the other hand, I kinda liked the way Enterprise turned out minus a gay character. Could they not have made Reed gay? I don't think he ever had a romance with a female character in the series, unlike Trip, Archer, Mayweather, even Phlox got some action.

>


chator56 In an interveiw I saw on You Tube Keating said that he played the part of Lt. Reed as if Reed was gay. Also, from wikipedia I found the following:


In light of Star Trek's long history of representing characters of all races, genders, and creeds, some fans have petitioned Paramount for years to include a gay or bisexual person as a regular character. In the development stage of Enterprise, it was reported that producers originally intended for one of the main characters to be the first openly gay character on Star Trek. This theory was proved false as early back story clearly stated Reed's orientation (as well as everyone else's) as heterosexual. Actor Dominic Keating, for his part, stated at a science fiction convention that the possibility that his character would be gay was discussed, and rejected, although it is unclear what was the context of this discussion and who made the final decision.


So Paramount perhaps was at fault.


Blalock & Nimoy were the best two actors in the Star Trek universe. Go Vulcans!

xander dax

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6

Report this Aug. 06 2013, 8:11 pm

Catholicfan...I am "disordered", "not functioning in a normal healthy way" and "morally reprehensible" ??? ROFLMAO wow just wow i would have NO idea where to start with that, infact i will not even lower myself to answer that.


As for replacing normal healthy human relationships (by that i mean romantic) with "friendships" and "charity", why the hell should i (and any other LGBT for that matter) live without the romantic love and affection that ALL human beings crave and deserve???, sorry but it has to be said but WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON!???, i CANNOT and WILL NOT live some pathetic lonely loveless life just because a few religious zealots do not like or are offended by the WAY I WAS BORN and therefore live my life not gonna happen.


willowtree could i ask you a question?, having studied phsycology mayby you could tell me what causes people to like this towards LGBT people?.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Aug. 07 2013, 5:17 am

Quote: TravisMalcolm @ Aug. 06 2013, 2:53 pm

Quote: chator56 @ Jun. 13 2013, 11:11 am

>

>

>Funny Braga saying that as he was executive producer and creator of Enterprise. You mean to tell me he couldn't have invented a gay character? Please, save your self-righteousness Braga. On the other hand, I kinda liked the way Enterprise turned out minus a gay character. Could they not have made Reed gay? I don't think he ever had a romance with a female character in the series, unlike Trip, Archer, Mayweather, even Phlox got some action.

>

chator56 In an interveiw I saw on You Tube Keating said that he played the part of Lt. Reed as if Reed was gay. Also, from wikipedia I found the following:

In light of Star Trek's long history of representing characters of all races, genders, and creeds, some fans have petitioned Paramount for years to include a gay or bisexual person as a regular character. In the development stage of Enterprise, it was reported that producers originally intended for one of the main characters to be the first openly gay character on Star Trek. This theory was proved false as early back story clearly stated Reed's orientation (as well as everyone else's) as heterosexual. Actor Dominic Keating, for his part, stated at a science fiction convention that the possibility that his character would be gay was discussed, and rejected, although it is unclear what was the context of this discussion and who made the final decision.

So Paramount perhaps was at fault.


ultimately all decisions regarding the shows were up to paramount. Braga might have wanted to include a gay character but he has to answer to paramount. If they say no then it's no

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Aug. 07 2013, 5:32 am

Quote: xander dax @ Aug. 06 2013, 8:11 pm

>

>Catholicfan...I am "disordered", "not functioning in a normal healthy way" and "morally reprehensible" ??? ROFLMAO wow just wow i would have NO idea where to start with that, infact i will not even lower myself to answer that.

>As for replacing normal healthy human relationships (by that i mean romantic) with "friendships" and "charity", why the hell should i (and any other LGBT for that matter) live without the romantic love and affection that ALL human beings crave and deserve???, sorry but it has to be said but WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON!???, i CANNOT and WILL NOT live some pathetic lonely loveless life just because a few religious zealots do not like or are offended by the WAY I WAS BORN and therefore live my life not gonna happen.

>willowtree could i ask you a question?, having studied phsycology mayby you could tell me what causes people to like this towards LGBT people?.

>


The following isn't directed at anyone specific and only applies to some people


Some people act this way towards LGBT people because they are projecting their own feelings onto others. It may be that they have some homosexual feelings themselves and they feel ashamed/embrassed about it and as a defence mechanism they project those insecurities onto others, in this case on homosexual people.


Some people also are "brainwashed" by religion. They take it to an extreme. Their religious belief overrides any common sense or logic. Groupls like those who have violent protests outside of women's clinics, or members of westboro baptist church


 

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Aug. 07 2013, 5:54 am

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ 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.


 


So you think that if I write something in all caps or use punctuation and grammar to add depth and context to the written word and am not actually jumping up and down and screaming at the keyboard that it makes me facetious? Really? Writing to convey importance and emphasis is a trope? Wow, you have no concept of writing.


When someone has a discussion, they are able to employ their voice to emphasize points as well as hand gestures and facial expressions. The internet only allows us text characters and limited emoticons, so we must use the art of written language to convey emphasis and give life to something that will be read.  You believe that because I'm not actually acting out the emotions I'm trying to convey to emphasize how utterly important this issue is that I'm insincere? Ha. So I assume that whenever you type LOL on the internet that you're actually Laughing Out Loud?  Written debating is an intellectual exercise, not an emotional one. You have to rely on intellectual skills to convey emotion.


But nice try though. You've devolved to trying to personally discredit me by nitpicking at things because I have been a loud opponent of your bigoted views as well as drawing attention away from the topic at hand.


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

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Aug. 07 2013, 6:34 am

As for replacing normal healthy human relationships (by that i mean romantic) with "friendships" and "charity", why the hell should i (and any other LGBT for that matter) live without the romantic love and affection that ALL human beings crave and deserve???, sorry but it has to be said but WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON!???, i CANNOT and WILL NOT live some pathetic lonely loveless life just because a few religious zealots do not like or are offended by the WAY I WAS BORN and therefore live my life not gonna happen.


As I stated, my understanding of this aspect of the Catholic worldview is limited, so I do apologize for my inability to fully communicate the thought earlier.  I have given an incomplete answer, and will likely be unable to give as complete an answer as someone who works in this aspect of the Church.  As I have been thinking about what you wrote, it occurred to me I left out the whole point of the argument!  It is this:


We believe that the greatest love is that which comes from God.  Divine love trumps even romantic love, and it is most keenly felt in service to others.  Hence, acts of charity can be more fullfilling than even what a relationship provides.  You ask why should you or anyone choose to do this?  Well, it absolutely is a choice!  There is no conscripted service or forcing someone into what they do not freely choose to do.  That's a key point to understand.  Secondly, this answer isn't about satisfying the "zealots" of the world; it's about satisfying God.  We believe in and seek God, and desire others to know the joys it brings to our lives.  We experience that joy by following the proscriptions of the Bible and our traditions.  Thus, my answer about works of charity, while applicable to anyone looking for a more fulfilling life, is especially poignant to those seeking to make their own lives pleasing to God.  


You say everyone craves and deserves romantic love, but such is not nearly as fulfilling as most of us would like to believe (you might even call that a romantic notion!).  Take into account the extremely high rates of divorce, which I believe is over 60% in the US, and you can see that people aren't finding whatever it is they're looking for in romantic love.  Those rates don't even take into account the massive numbers of people that choose just to live together and break up, without the extra steps of marriage and divorce.  As I understand it, the break-up rates of committed homosexual partnerships are fairly high, too.  This overall failure to find fulfillment in other people is one of the things that often draws people to seek out God.  You might say, it is one way in which people seek to find answers to the human condition.


So, coming back to your question of why you or anyone would want to do that?  Well, that depends on whether or not you want to seek God.  Catholics think everyone should seek God, but we're also not forcing anyone to make that decision.  You have to want it, and if you don't, the only thing we're going to do is pray for you (and maybe light some candles).  We're going to always be there and be open should you ever change your mind.


That's the best answer I can give with my understanding on the subject.  I can certainly research some more credible sources if anyone is curious beyond that.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Aug. 07 2013, 6:40 am

the notion of devine love being above everything seems so odd to me, like a contradiction of what a supreme being would want IMO. but anyway I don't see the connection between love of a supreme being and charity. I personally donate to my local animal shelter, volunteer at a nursing home, and participate in a charity where we knit hats for premature babies. Yes it feels good to do these things, but devine love...nope

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