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. 07 2013, 6:46 am

the notion of devine love being above everything seems so odd to me like a contradiction of what a supreme being would want


Can please you elaborate on this a little more?  I'm curious why that seems odd or a contradiction.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Aug. 07 2013, 7:24 am

Quote: Catholic.Fan @ Aug. 07 2013, 6:46 am

>

>the notion of devine love being above everything seems so odd to me like a contradiction of what a supreme being would want

>Can please you elaborate on this a little more?  I'm curious why that seems odd or a contradiction.

>


it just seems to me that a supreme being wouldn't need your love, if you want to give it that's fine but from what I hear about certian religious aspects it's almost a requirement. You have to put love for him/her first. If this is a supreme being that created the universe and watches over it why would such little things be his/her concern? That's why the idea of religion always seemed like a contradiction to me. Why should there be rules tied to believing in a supreme being? There's also many other reasons why I don't believe but I don't know if this is the thread for that discussion

chator56

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 498

Report this Aug. 07 2013, 7:44 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.


Perhaps, but Braga wrote the early season one episode (Shuttlepod One) where Reed's sexual orientation is revealed.

chator56

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 498

Report this Aug. 07 2013, 7:56 am

Quote: chator56 @ Aug. 07 2013, 7:44 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.

Perhaps, but Braga wrote the early season one episode (Shuttlepod One) where Reed's sexual orientation is revealed.


My bad, I double checked, and it was actually Andre Bormanis who wrote "Silent Enemy", which was the first episode to reveal Malcolm's sexual orientation. "Shuttlepod One" came a few episodes later. As far as Keating's portrayal of the Reed character, there was nothing in it that to me spelling out "gay". The character struck me as shy around women and as someone who had social anxiety in general. He seemed "married" to his career who made little time for recreation or social activities.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Aug. 07 2013, 8:16 am

Quote: chator56 @ Aug. 07 2013, 7:56 am

Quote: chator56 @ Aug. 07 2013, 7:44 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.

Perhaps, but Braga wrote the early season one episode (Shuttlepod One) where Reed's sexual orientation is revealed.

My bad, I double checked, and it was actually Andre Bormanis who wrote "Silent Enemy", which was the first episode to reveal Malcolm's sexual orientation. "Shuttlepod One" came a few episodes later. As far as Keating's portrayal of the Reed character, there was nothing in it that to me spelling out "gay". The character struck me as shy around women and as someone who had social anxiety in general. He seemed "married" to his career who made little time for recreation or social activities.


what should he do to "spell out" being gay? should he have been limp wristed, wearing pink shorts, and flamboyant? That's mainly just a stereotype


Most gay people you can't tell they're gay just by looking at them, they don't act "gay".

Serrano

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 30

Report this Aug. 07 2013, 11:31 am

To be honest I was frustrated over the glacial pace that Star Trek has taken in regards to including an ordinary boring homo. Trust me. Many are boring.

How does a charectors sexuality effect a story? In science fiction there's a lot of wide open spaces a writer can roam about in and build on. It's why the genre is such a pleasure and a challange to write.

In ST as with any well writen show it's about relationships. The sexuality will always be secondary.

Imagine if Jordi laForge was Gay and the stories involving his attempts at developing a romantic relationship were the same. It all comes down to the writing.

If they brought in a Gay male charector and the writing was embarasingly bad I'd start a petition to have him put back in the closet and have it nailed shut.

madmartian72

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Aug. 07 2013, 10:58 pm

If there's going to be openly gay characters, then lets see some openly God-fearing Christian characters.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Aug. 08 2013, 3:49 am

Quote: madmartian72 @ Aug. 07 2013, 10:58 pm

>If there's going to be openly gay characters, then lets see some openly God-fearing Christian characters.


 


Why Christians? Why not Jewish charaters, or Buddhist or Muslims or Hindus?  


The reason why there was no human religion on Star Trek is because Gene Roddenberry thought that it wouldn't be logical that a human religion would dominate a space faring culture made of of alien races.  Only human Christian arrogance could possibly conceive that idea.


Also, the idea of being a "God fearing" space explorer is contradictory at best. Science rules Starfleet and Star Trek. Which is why everytime the Enterprise encountered a "god" on TOS it was debunked by science. Roddenberry was a Humanist and an athiest. 


Look at what's going on here on a damn message board. Religious humans cannot accept the fact that people who are LGBT are just normal human beings and that being gay is apart of nature and condemn them as freaks of nature, deviants and sinners. How the hell do you expect religious humans to accept alien races with differences far beyond that?


Sorry, religion divides. Always has and always will. If we got rid of religion all together I bet that we could reach global peace within 100 years.


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

Borg FTW

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this Aug. 08 2013, 4:24 am

Although religion is not good for the planet I seriously doubt we would get world peace if it disapeared. Yes their would probably be less war but world peace is a completely different thing. We would still have murder, rape and all those other 'things'. 


Back on subject star trek is a much better program for not having homosexual characters in it or religious charachters for that matter. I mean come on, who seriously wants gay characters in star trek? Why? What possible purpose will having gay characters in Star Trek accomplish? All it would do is settle a minority of peoples minds who would rather see a program picked apart and reassembled just to satisfy their own ideals. 

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Aug. 08 2013, 4:34 am

Having a gay character on Star Trek would compelete the mission of diversity that Gene Roddenberry started 47 years ago. 


Star Trek is not a much better program for not having homosexual characters.  It's missing a piece of the diversity puzzle. 


Who would seriously want gay characters on Star Trek? People who aren't homophobes, that's who.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Aug. 08 2013, 8:51 am

Quote: bunkey @ 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.

>


Sorry, Bunkey, but I'm not seeing anything phoney or hypocritical, at all, in Catholic Fan's posts.  I've been following the conversation and have read all of it.  If you see something hypocritical in what he's said, please enlighten me. 


And I'm not seeing the flame-baiting either.  I see someone who does like to debate issues in a sober, analytical fashion.  And as far as religious zealotry, I don't see that either.  He's informed everyone on the Catholic church's position on homosexuality and gay marriage.  He's also said that the Church and some Christians have not always been kind to homosexuals.  I don't think a religious zealot would do that. 


I've essentially said the same thing in my posts, but you haven't called me a zealot, a homophobe, etc.  So what's the difference?  The fact that Catholic.Fan doesn't want to show a gay couple on Star Trek while I'd be ok with it (as long as the behaviours were kept roughly in line with something like Modern Family of course)?  So what if Catholic Fan doesn't like seeing gay couples and behaviours on TV.  Like I said, I didn't like seeing the more explicit scenes in Six Feet Under either, and I don't think it had anything to do with being Catholic at all in my case.  It had to do with my personal sensibilities.  I wasn't raised in an environment where I saw anything like that, so, to this day, it's hard for me to wrap my head around it.  Frankly, I doubt I will ever be comfortable seeing two men kissing, but I do believe they should have the right to do that, live together, etc.  They deserve the same freedom to pursue hapiness that I have. 


Also, I certainly don't think Catholic.Fan is "the absolute worst example of a "christian" there is on Star Trek.com and an embrassment to your religion."  I can think of several people who I think are poor Christians from their posts, who express little, to no compassion for homosexuals, whereas Catholic.Fan has.  Catholic.Fan's feelings and views on the subject are in-line with Pope Francis', who you have quoted. 


  You've said you aren't a bigot and don't hate people due to their religion, but you've admitted to me that you're suspicious of Christians (despite many denominations being sympathetic to gays and proponents of at least some gay rights).  If that's so, then you should have no problem at all with Catholic.Fan expressing his views in a civil fashion, which I feel he's done. 


I do think you're right, though, that you do have a problem with him personally.  If you're indeed not a bigot wrt religion, then it must be the Catholic fans rhetoric and manner that has angered you more than what he has actually said on the subject.  And, being angered, you've insulted and bashed him.  I don't think he deserved that at all.


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Aug. 08 2013, 8:53 am

Quote: madmartian72 @ Aug. 07 2013, 10:58 pm

>If there's going to be openly gay characters, then lets see some openly God-fearing Christian characters.
I think that would be "too" diverse for those demanding LGBT in the name of "diversity."  They wouldn't want to include a representative of billions of people (roughly 1/3 of the Earth's population) that they hate.  They have no desire to have someone on the screen displaying the very opposite of what they want to believe.


The good thing was that religions were included in Star Trek - both the good and the bad.  A look through Earth's history shows that religion has been used to help people as well as harm.  That is why I draw a distinction between religion and God.


 


Sidenote: I guess I look at "diversity" in a simple way.... at the individual level.  It got me into trouble with my HR group a while back because I refused to hire people based on some idiotic quota - instead, I hired based only on qualifications and attitude.  After a couple of years of them yelling at me, they did a "review" of my hires and found that my people were actually a lot more "diverse" (according to whatever criteria they were using) than their rules, so they just had to shut up.


I'm really tired of being told that if something doesn't have X, they're not "diverse" and are "discriminating."  You don't have enough left-handed people.... or enough people with tatoos.... or enough tall or short.... or enough with a third arm growing from their forehead....  It' just gets ridiculous.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Aug. 08 2013, 9:09 am

Quote: Borg FTW @ Aug. 08 2013, 4:24 am

>

>Although religion is not good for the planet I seriously doubt we would get world peace if it disapeared. Yes their would probably be less war but world peace is a completely different thing. We would still have murder, rape and all those other 'things'. 

>Back on subject star trek is a much better program for not having homosexual characters in it or religious charachters for that matter. I mean come on, who seriously wants gay characters in star trek? Why? What possible purpose will having gay characters in Star Trek accomplish? All it would do is settle a minority of peoples minds who would rather see a program picked apart and reassembled just to satisfy their own ideals. 

>


I don't think there would less war if we got rid of religion.  Most wars throughout history weren't about religion, they were about power, resources, politics, etc. 


And I don't think Star Trek is a better show for not having homosexual or religious characters.  The Enterprise was always supposed to be a microcosm for earth and like it or not, religious people and homosexuals are sizable populations on our planet.  Personally, I never liked how GR's "no religion" rule for human characters in TNG (there were subtle references to the characters having religion in TOS and its films).  I thought it was a very biased view and unrealistic.  I'm not alone in that.  Both Babylon 5's John Michael Strazynski, an atheist, and TNG, DS9, and Battlestar Galactica's Ron Moore, a "recovering Catholic," both thought that that was unrealistic.  Not only that but including religious and homosexual characters would definitely offer new sources of character drama.  One need only look over the posts on this thread to see how much! 


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Aug. 08 2013, 9:36 am

 


Why Christians? Why not Jewish charaters, or Buddhist or Muslims or Hindus?  


How about all of the above?  That's what I'd be up for.


The reason why there was no human religion on Star Trek is because Gene Roddenberry thought that it wouldn't be logical that a human religion would dominate a space faring culture made of of alien races.


No, the reason there is no human religion from TNG on (there was some in TOS) was that GR, being an atheist, thought that humanity would evolve beyond religion. 


  Only human Christian arrogance could possibly conceive that idea.


I wanted religion on ST, so guess you consider me a bigot. 


Also, the idea of being a "God fearing" space explorer is contradictory at best.


You're wrong.  The second man on the moon, Dr Edwin Aldrin, had communion on the moon.  The Apollo 8 crew read from the book of Genesis on Christmas, 1968.  There are many other examples as well. 


 Science rules Starfleet and Star Trek. Which is why everytime the Enterprise encountered a "god" on TOS it was debunked by science. Roddenberry was a Humanist and an athiest. 


Your're generally right.  ST is science-fiction so of course you're not going to have any signs of the super-natural.  That said, I thought it was extremely interesting and courageous in the sense of breaking genre barriers for Ron Moore to include religion and the supernatural in his Battlestar Galactica. 


I'd say, though, that one exception to your claim about TOS might be the presence of Christ in the episode "Bread and Circuses."  That depends though, of course, on if you consider Christ to be one of the Holy Trinity or just a man. 


Actually, I think the presence of parallel earths in TOS is an argument for a diving creator in itself.  I don't think there's anyway science could offer an explanation to that.  This is kind of ironic since the parallel development earth analogs were part of GR's original pitch to ST as a way to lower its production costs.  Since these were parallel earths, they could just use standing city sets, old costumes, and the like.  So apparently, GR, an atheist, was responsible for episodes in ST that largely implied intelligent design.


Look at what's going on here on a damn message board. Religious humans cannot accept the fact that people who are LGBT are just normal human beings and that being gay is apart of nature and condemn them as freaks of nature, deviants and sinners. How the hell do you expect religious humans to accept alien races with differences far beyond that?


I'm a religious human and I don't think being gay is unnatural.  I don't condemn LGBT people as freaks of nature or deviants. 


As far as it being a sin, like I said, that's between them and God.  If their sinners, well, I won't ostracize them for that, because I'm a sinner too.  I think we all are, to various degrees.  So, in the words of Pope Francis, "who am I to judge?"  "Who will throw the first stone?" 


I believe in personal freedom and I believe LGBT people deserve the same rights to pursue hapiness and to have their own religious beliefs or lack thereof, just the same as I would expect them to respect my rights as a straight and religious person. 


Sorry, religion divides. Always has and always will. If we got rid of religion all together I bet that we could reach global peace within 100 years.


Everything divides, not just religion.  It's the nature of humanity.  I don't think we'd have global peace in a hundred years at all without religion.  That's generally not what fuels wars.  Heck, even the Crusades were largely about getting rich than actually liberating the Holy Land from Muslims. 


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Aug. 08 2013, 11:31 am

The reason why there was no human religion on Star Trek is because Gene Roddenberry thought that it wouldn't be logical that a human religion would dominate a space faring culture made of of alien races.


No, the reason there is no human religion from TNG on (there was some in TOS) was that GR, being an atheist, thought that humanity would evolve beyond religion.


No, Roddenberry actually did say that it would make no sense for one religion to be dominant on a space vessel in an interview.  I think someone actually referred to the interview here. It stemmed from his refusal to allow a chaplain on the Enterprise. You're correct in your statement but so am I.  It was BOTH reasons. I cited mine as an example of why there was not a single dominant religion.


 


 


Also, the idea of being a "God fearing" space explorer is contradictory at best.


You're wrong.  The second man on the moon, Dr Edwin Aldrin, had communion on the moon.  The Apollo 8 crew read from the book of Genesis on Christmas, 1968.  There are many other examples as well. 


That is not an example of the space exploration in Star Trek. Space travel and exploration of other galaxies are not the same thing.   No one has encountered an alien race yet, which is why I cited the oxymoron of religious space explorer.  Also, the two examples you cited were in an era where pressure to be Christian was very high.  Reading the bible in space sounds like a bunch of "Good Ol' 'Merican Value" propaganda that was probably done for the masses of sheeplem who would look down their noses at the neighbors if they didn't attend church on Sunday. So I'm not wrong. You can't say I'm wrong because we haven't gotten to Star Trek levels of space exploration yet. 


Historically, when "God Fearing religious explorers" encounter new races and cultures, they try to assimilate and convert them. If that fails, they subjugate them. Or just straight out kill them.  Just ask Native Americans and Africans.


 


Sorry, religion divides. Always has and always will. If we got rid of religion all together I bet that we could reach global peace within 100 years.


Everything divides, not just religion.  It's the nature of humanity.  I don't think we'd have global peace in a hundred years at all without religion.  That's generally not what fuels wars.  Heck, even the Crusades were largely about getting rich than actually liberating the Holy Land from Muslims. 


Religion is the biggest fundamental divider among humans.  You cannot convince me that if you remove religion from the equation that we would not be a much improved, more peaceful race. Religion is a deeply rooted belief that people cling to like a talisman in the dark or use to target others.  Look at Muslims.  They are the target of wide spread hatred simply for practicing their religion.  It's easy to tell a scientist their hypothesis was wrong. It's easy to say a math problem is wrong. No one gets mad at those facts. But tell someone their BELIEF is wrong and you have a holy war.


 


"I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant."  


Religion asks people to adhere to a strict set of unbendable rules. There is no give in religion. That is where hatred and war begins. 

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