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'

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Jun. 16 2013, 8:20 am

I find it surprising that so many people find it surprising that they prefer not to be tainted by Christianity.

The odd thing in all of this is that there is such a commotion just to shove Christianity down everyone's throats that it does take away from the natural feel of the show(s).

I do not think we could say the same about the Christians: many would watch the show just to see what the Christian characters were doing like in a soap opera, not watching the show for its meaning. To be honest, if they did just thow some Christians in, without all this diatribe, I don't see that most of us would care lest they make it a focus of the show.

I don't want to see Christian characters in Star Trek

I am very glad that there were no openly Christian characters in Star Trek. If so, I would not have watched it anymore. I do not deny that Christians are still people. IMO I think it is wrong. I cannot speak about other people though.

The idea of Christians on Star Trek revolts me. I am glad none were ever made.

Christians would of ruined Star Trek

It is a show about technology, science, and exploration of space. Christianity has no place in a show like that.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 16 2013, 8:29 am

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Jun. 16 2013, 8:20 am

>I find it surprising that so many people find it surprising that they prefer not to be tainted by Christianity. 

>
The odd thing in all of this is that there is such a commotion just to shove Christianity down everyone's throats that it does take away from the natural feel of the show(s).

I do not think we could say the same about the Christians: many would watch the show just to see what the Christian characters were doing like in a soap opera, not watching the show for its meaning. To be honest, if they did just thow some Christians in, without all this diatribe, I don't see that most of us would care lest they make it a focus of the show.

I don't want to see Christian characters in Star Trek

I am very glad that there were no openly Christian characters in Star Trek. If so, I would not have watched it anymore. I do not deny that Christians are still people. IMO I think it is wrong. I cannot speak about other people though.

The idea of Christians on Star Trek revolts me. I am glad none were ever made.

Christians would of ruined Star Trek

It is a show about technology, science, and exploration of space. Christianity has no place in a show like that.


 



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

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this Jun. 16 2013, 8:37 am

"My attitude toward homosexuality has changed. I came to the conclusion that I was wrong. I was never someone who hunted down 'fags' as we used to call them on the street. I would, sometimes, say something anti-homosexual off the top of my head because it was thought, in those days, to be funny. I never really deeply believed those comments, but I gave the impression of being thoughtless in these areas. I have, over many years, changed my attitude about gay men and women." - Gene Roddenberry, 1991


 

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 16 2013, 8:42 am

Quote: Pooneil @ Jun. 16 2013, 8:37 am

>"My attitude toward homosexuality has changed. I came to the conclusion that I was wrong. I was never someone who hunted down 'fags' as we used to call them on the street. I would, sometimes, say something anti-homosexual off the top of my head because it was thought, in those days, to be funny. I never really deeply believed those comments, but I gave the impression of being thoughtless in these areas. I have, over many years, changed my attitude about gay men and women." - Gene Roddenberry, 1991


And that is why he was a brilliant man. He could learn from his past, grow, expand his horizons, admit his short comings and be progressive.  That is why he is The Great Bird of the Galaxy.


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

Kirk007Anthony

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this Jun. 16 2013, 8:42 am

Alright "Bunkey". The gloves are off. You and the ilk that agrees with you are not only whats wrong with Star Trek. But society in general. Not only are using Star Trek as a tool to promote you own idealistic opinions while at the same time excluding anyone's opinion. You are using (As most do) the word "Tolerance" as a tool in which to bludgeon. Get a life jerk. My dear and good friend Sora didnt say anything about Hate or how Gays are less than a person. He disagrees with the lifestyle. And doesnt want you or any other agenda shoved in his face. If someone doesnt agree with being gay. But can still respect a person. Whats wrong with that? Where is your "Tolerance". There isnt any. Your a joke. Im tempted to use words that would otherwise get me banned. You are a coward hiding behind your computer casting judgement. Leave my friend alone. Please refrain from casting judgement and using the word tolerance when you apparently know little of the definition you sad strange little man. And yes, You do have my pity as well. (In the immortal words of Buzz Lightyear)

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 16 2013, 8:54 am

I have no tolerance for those who would seek to oppress or judge others as "wrong" simply because they love  someone that is not considered "acceptable".  Those who seek to exclude a portion of humanity because they do not agree with their lifestyle do not deserve tolerance. 


Actually I don't hide behind my computer.  I am using my computer to debate in this medium, of course. That is how the internet works.  It cracks me up when people default to accusing someone of "hiding behind a computer" when the debate is in fact, taking place on an internet forum. What other method would you use?


I would gladly debate this in person, preferably at a Star Trek convention, in public. I would love to sit before a crowd and have someone like you say that you believe homosexuality is "wrong" or a "freak of nature" in front of hundreds of Star Trek fans.  My beliefs are nothing to be ashamed of, I'm proud of them.  My own idealistic opinions are one of equality. I believe everyone has the right to be represented, especially in Star Trek. I would proudly declare these beliefs and values in public. I would dare you to say "gays would ruin  Star Trek" in the same public forum.  Come to a Star Trek convention next year on the East Coast. Let's debate. I welcome it.  


As far as being a sad, strange little man...I'm actually a woman.  I'm a little strange, but not sad at all. I do have a life (that's such a tired old trope...be original in your insults), and I have passionate beliefs and I am not afraid to voice them.


 

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this Jun. 16 2013, 8:57 am

My dear and good friend Sora didnt say anything about Hate or how Gays are less than a person.



Sora did call gay people "freaks of nature". That's pretty insulting.


And where does all this language about "shoving stuff in people's faces" come from? If you or anyone else doesn't want to see gay characters on a show, no one's forcing you to watch it. Many of the writers, producers, and actors of Star Trek have supported the idea of using their show to "support the gay agenda" (whatever that may be) -- does that mean they're shoving it in your face (or down your throat, or wherever)?


Most of this counter-argument comes down to the notion that bigotry is a valid opinion, and that bigots are being discriminated against. Poor babies. If only the rest of the world would learn to tolerate their bigoted opinions, I suppose everything would be fine. I'm sure that bigots get bullied, beat up, and discriminated against on a regular basis too, simply because of the backwards ideas they hold dear.


Try spending a day in someone else's shoes: you're told your "lifestyle" is sinful, revolting, and unnatural; you're going to "burn in hell"; various supernatural deities despise you for existing; your "lifestyle" is illegal in many parts of the world -- and even in parts of the USA, where you can get fired or expelled from school, or arrested (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131673&page=1#.Ub3gK-esidk).

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 16 2013, 9:28 am

“My own belief is that there is hardly anyone whose sexual life, if it were broadcast, would not fill the world at large with surprise and horror.”  ― W. Somerset Maugham


 

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this Jun. 16 2013, 9:36 am

It is a show about technology, science, and exploration of space. Homosexuality has no place in a show like that. Anymore than we ever wanted an entire episode dedicated to a straight couple having sex. It's not that kind of show. - Sora


Yet there was an episode about Spock's sex life ("Amok Time"), an episode where Data had sex ("The Naked Now"), and an episode that climaxed with two straight couples having sex ("Looking for par'Mach in All the Wrong Places"). Ezri and Bashir were seen in bed together, as were Sisko and Kassidy Yates, and Worf and Jadzia. Miles O'brien's heterosexual marriage was a defining character trait. Just about every character has had some sort of romance, and several of them got pregnant. So there's plenty of sex in Star Trek. Are they forcing it down our collective esophagus, or is it just a normal part of life?


If Star Trek was just about "technology, science, and exploration of space", then there shouldn't be any sex or romance at all. But there is, and lots of it, and the audience loves it.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 16 2013, 9:48 am

Quote:

If Star Trek was just about "technology, science, and exploration of space", then there shouldn't be any sex or romance at all. But there is, and lots of it, and the audience loves it.


Hey, a million fan fiction sites can't be wrong!


I think that if they make a new series, they should have a same sex couple, preferably male. I say male because there's always the pitfall of writers exploiting a lesbian relationship for shock value, since girl on girl action is considered more "acceptable" to many straight males.  Have a main character be in Starfleet with a civilian spouse, much like the O'Briens.  Just go for it and if they lose fans because of it, then they didn't need them in the first place. I guaruntee that for every so called Trekkie they would lose they would gain three new fans from the LGBT community, who are always very, very supportive of shows that have good representation.  Look at Buffy and Xena. Two shows that defined same sex relationship not as "lesbian", but as simply "love".  If Star Trek dared to show a same sex male couple in a marital relationship, they would have so many new viewers that they wouldn't know what to do with them all.

starfan97

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 235

Report this Jun. 16 2013, 3:31 pm

[quote]


It is a show about technology, science, and exploration of space. Homosexuality has no place in a show like that. Anymore than we ever wanted an entire episode dedicated to a straight couple having sex. It's not that kind of show. - Sora


I agree with this. It would have been totally irrelevant to the story. Plus, at the time ST was written, it was not openly acceptable to be gay on television, future or not. Is that really what we want to put into the eyes of our children?


Also, if they want to play that game, why are there no Muslims or Jews? Or perhaps, in the future, there were no gay people. 

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this Jun. 16 2013, 8:13 pm

Pardon my harsh language, starfan97, but that's baloney. We've seen lots of straight couples in sexual relationships, and no one cried out "Spare the children!" Did anyone besides Bunkey read my previous post? Data got it on with Tasha and the Borg Queen. It was a major plot point. It was hardly "irrelevant to the story", it was the story. The same could easily be true of a gay couple. 


 


And there are apparently no Muslims or Jews for the same reason there are no Presbyterians or Seventh-Day Adventists: Roddenberry was an atheist, and it happened to be his show, at least for a while. He said, "Let there be no religion", and so it came to pass. Thus spake Roddenberry. If he had said "Let there be gays", the only thing stopping it was the prevailing bigotry of the era.

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Jun. 16 2013, 9:08 pm

Okay...Bunkey, I wish to clarify my position on this issue. You've made it clear already that I'm not going to sway your opinion in any way, but I want to be clear on this anyway.


You feel that what you believe makes you a good person right?


Or what you believe at least feels right to you?


I will admit that yes I was wrong for calling gays "freaks of nature" I said it out of frustration and I apologize.


Well I too have beliefs, and I've had them for as long as I can remember. I am a Christian, and I'm not ashamed of that. I am proud to be a follower of Christ. My earliest years were spent in church, my parents were music ministers in the church. I spent my childhood reading the bible, learning from it and so forth. Even had Christian based schooling. Well I have a strong faith in the bible. I was saved at a very young age, and it isn't my intention to be "intolorant" or a "biggot" It is my intention to simply follow the bible's teachings, and I would also like to point out that many Christians do NOT properly follow the bible and they don't treat people the way in which they should. Now yes, the bible does teach that God created male and then created female from the male. Female was a creation to be given for males. It's very clear on what marriage is, and also says that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Now before we go on a new rant of how God must also be "intolorant" God is God. He created everything, therefore He calls the shots. If he says two men together or two women together is wrong, than it's wrong, plain and simple.


I also have no problem that religion was excluded from Star Trek with the exception of alien religions. I was simply trying to make a point in my earlier statement about Christians being in Star Trek. But here is why I like that both religion and homosexuality isn't in Star Trek. People who aren't Christians or aren't into a religion will be happy because it's a show dealing with science. But the way in which Star Trek was done, Christians can enjoy the show too. There is nothing as it is right now, inherently in Star Trek that would prevent a Christian from enjoying it too.


Now by the same token, there have been no gays in Star Trek, at least up to this point. Well the lack of gay characters obviously hasn't prevented you or gay supporters from enjoying the show. Christians can also enjoy the show as well. You are right, gays are people, and you know what else, I don't hate gays. I disagree with their lifestyle. Jesus never walked around condemning people, telling them they would "burn in hell" and that type of thing that many Christians very wrongly go around saying. Jesus lived as example of what we should be, and He asked others to follow Him, and while he never condemned anyone, He also still pointed out sin when He saw it, and He never condoned sin. Jesus loves gays, just as much as straight people, but He doesn't condone it.


The point to all this is, Star Trek as it is right now, it works, and it is suitable for everyone. Why try and fix something that isn't broken, and will alienate some people. I would find that to be more intolorant than anything. Star Trek as it is allows everyone to think for themselves and draw their own conclusion, without shoving either viewpoint in your face.


My concluding thoughts are only that, I don't hate gays. I do believe being gay is a sin and that it is a choice. Again I believe in the bible. However I do not approve of not allowing gays to work or not giving them the same rights as everyone else. But I feel like people today have this need to make being gay normal, and IMHO it is not natural. And I feel like we attempt to insert homosexuality into entertainment to make it more and more normal and acceptable, and I personally just don't think that's right.


I hope that I am a little more clear to you now. You have your beliefs and I have my own as well, and we are both entitled to our beliefs.


Live Long and Prosper

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this Jun. 16 2013, 10:23 pm

Quote: bunkey @ Jun. 16 2013, 7:06 am

>

>Actually a religious couple would NOT ruin it for me because I am tolerant of religions. I respect people's right to worship whomever they choose as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. That is the difference between you and I. I tolerate other lifestyles that are not the same as mine.  I respect people as long as they respect others (which is why I do not respect you.)

>


Compared with your quote from merely one page prior, where you said, "Personally, I think all organized religions, especially the Catholic church, are full of greedy hypocrites. Catholicism is one of the most oppressive, bigoted Western religions there is," I'd put forth that you appear to have just as intolerant an opinion of religious people as they appear have toward homosexuals.   


Truth be told, though, there is a staggering gap in understanding here about a lot of things.  bunkey calls Catholicism greedy, hypocritical, oppressive, and bigoted.  Yet I tell you, some of the most kind, generous, and loving people I've ever met have been Catholics or Christians of various denominations.  These are people who help others out of a genuine love for their fellow human being, regardless of race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation.  You would attribute something they hold dear (their religion) as a something that's wrong with the world, but attacking it only adds more hatred to the world.


Now let me do exactly as darmokattanagra has done:


Yet I tell you, some of the most kind, generous, and loving people I've ever met have been homosexuals.  These are people who help others out of a genuine love for their fellow human being, regardless of race, creed, gender, or religion.  Others would attribute something they hold dear (their sexuality) as a something that's wrong with the world, but attacking it only brings more hatred to the world.


For me, both statements are true.  When focus is placed solely on one aspect of a person's life (religion or sexuality), it turns them into a caricature of who they really are, exaggerated beyond reality.  Let me tell you that, as a religious person, it saddens me a great deal to have to disagree with the homosexual agenda.  You call it bigotry and hatred, but you're so wrong.  I've been very good friends with a number of LGBT, and it pains me greatly that I cannot be accepting of the sexual aspect of their lives, when I want nothing more than to simply be happy for them and with them.  I would wager a great deal that most people who oppose things like gay marriage or adoption have never really had more than a passing acquaintence with a gay person.  They stand on principle alone, and while that might work on some issues, I think it damages both sides on this one.  


Where there is conflict, as we see in courthouses and legislatures across the US right now, there is often wrong-doing on both sides.  I will not deny that there has been hatred cast by religious people, and I will gladly stand up and call that shameful.  I think the approach taken by a number of high profile organizations has been bigotted and, in some cases, evil.  However, it would be a mistake to confuse the core of the conflict for bigotry.  LGBT and their supporters are fighting for a worldview they believe to be right, and the religious are merely doing the same.  Frankly, from a purely objective standpoint, neither is wrong in their view or their choice to try and further it.  The wrong can happen when the two sides interact, and choices are made that do not respect the other side's legitimacy.  Sadly, it happens all the time, and that does nothing but show far humanity has yet to go in its cultural evolution.  


Frankly, I think a lot of religious people and LGBT people could both use some lessons on loving your fellow human beings.  I may not agree with everything in Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future, but he sure was right about one thing: humanity is at its best when united, not divided.  This debate will go on, but we'd all do better to focus on what brings us together than what tears us apart.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 5:14 am

Quote: Sora @ Jun. 16 2013, 9:08 pm

>Okay...Bunkey, I wish to clarify my position on this issue. You've made it clear already that I'm not going to sway your opinion in any way, but I want to be clear on this anyway.

>You feel that what you believe makes you a good person right?

>Or what you believe at least feels right to you?

>I will admit that yes I was wrong for calling gays "freaks of nature" I said it out of frustration and I apologize.

>Well I too have beliefs, and I've had them for as long as I can remember. I am a Christian, and I'm not ashamed of that. I am proud to be a follower of Christ. My earliest years were spent in church, my parents were music ministers in the church. I spent my childhood reading the bible, learning from it and so forth. Even had Christian based schooling. Well I have a strong faith in the bible. I was saved at a very young age, and it isn't my intention to be "intolorant" or a "biggot" It is my intention to simply follow the bible's teachings, and I would also like to point out that many Christians do NOT properly follow the bible and they don't treat people the way in which they should. Now yes, the bible does teach that God created male and then created female from the male. Female was a creation to be given for males. It's very clear on what marriage is, and also says that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Now before we go on a new rant of how God must also be "intolorant" God is God. He created everything, therefore He calls the shots. If he says two men together or two women together is wrong, than it's wrong, plain and simple.

>I also have no problem that religion was excluded from Star Trek with the exception of alien religions. I was simply trying to make a point in my earlier statement about Christians being in Star Trek. But here is why I like that both religion and homosexuality isn't in Star Trek. People who aren't Christians or aren't into a religion will be happy because it's a show dealing with science. But the way in which Star Trek was done, Christians can enjoy the show too. There is nothing as it is right now, inherently in Star Trek that would prevent a Christian from enjoying it too.

>Now by the same token, there have been no gays in Star Trek, at least up to this point. Well the lack of gay characters obviously hasn't prevented you or gay supporters from enjoying the show. Christians can also enjoy the show as well. You are right, gays are people, and you know what else, I don't hate gays. I disagree with their lifestyle. Jesus never walked around condemning people, telling them they would "burn in hell" and that type of thing that many Christians very wrongly go around saying. Jesus lived as example of what we should be, and He asked others to follow Him, and while he never condemned anyone, He also still pointed out sin when He saw it, and He never condoned sin. Jesus loves gays, just as much as straight people, but He doesn't condone it.

>The point to all this is, Star Trek as it is right now, it works, and it is suitable for everyone. Why try and fix something that isn't broken, and will alienate some people. I would find that to be more intolorant than anything. Star Trek as it is allows everyone to think for themselves and draw their own conclusion, without shoving either viewpoint in your face.

>My concluding thoughts are only that, I don't hate gays. I do believe being gay is a sin and that it is a choice. Again I believe in the bible. However I do not approve of not allowing gays to work or not giving them the same rights as everyone else. But I feel like people today have this need to make being gay normal, and IMHO it is not natural. And I feel like we attempt to insert homosexuality into entertainment to make it more and more normal and acceptable, and I personally just don't think that's right.

>I hope that I am a little more clear to you now. You have your beliefs and I have my own as well, and we are both entitled to our beliefs.


 


We are both entitled to our beliefs, this is true. But your beliefs seek to deny others their rights. I (and others like me) don't seek to exclude people from things because of their beliefs, even you.  As long as you don't seek to oppress or deny others, then you have the right to believe what you want.  It's when you start dictating what is right and wrong and how others should live their lives that the problem begins.


I do not believe that loving someone is a sin.  If your God is love, then love should be rewarded, not condemned.  As far as God saying men should not be with men or women with women, the vaildity of that is a debate that scholars have been having for decades. The Bible is a guide, it should be studied on a philosophical level, but it should not be taken as vebatim. if you're going to follow the bible to the letter, there's plenty of other things that are "sins".  


"Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." -- Leviticus 19:19


Sorry kids, no blended fabrics. 


"When a woman has a discharge of blood, which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening." -- Leviticus 15:19-20


No one can touch a woman who has her period?


Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. Corinthians 14:34-35


Ladies, in church, STFU!


But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 


Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you Deuteronomy 22:20-2


STONE NON VIRGINS!


You see, there's a LOT in the bible that is questionable.  If you follow it to the letter, then you better start gathering stones.  Organised religion discourages independent thought. It requires that you follow an unseen entity without questioning the teachings or beliefs.  It teaches absolute wrongs and rights, when no such thing exists in the real world.  It asks that you follow a so called "word of God" that has been handed down over thousand of years to be interperted and re-interperted over and over again by mortal man. It's an ancient doctrine that is essentially a huge game of "Telephone".   If there is a god, then he gave us the power of free will, logic, reason and the ability to decide what is right and wrong. If there is a god, then I will believe in the gifts I was given within myself and not ancient texts.


My problem is not what you believe, but that you seek to exclude others because of that belief. My belief is that as long as you are not harming anyone else, then there is nothing wrong or sinful about LGBT lifestyle.  Being homosexual harms no one.  It's natural. If god is all powerful and being gay is a sin, why does he keep making gay people? Homosexuality has been found in the animal kingdom. So I assume that animals now have free will to choose to be gay too? Sex is a natural part of human beings make up. It's fun.  Enjoying another consenting adult isn't a crime or a sin.  


Star Trek is about ALL people being represented.  The time has come for the LGBT community to see themselves on Star Trek.  If that alienates a portion of people, then so be it.  Without LGBT representation, Star Trek is incomplete.  


I have no hope of swaying an individuals beliefs. People are going to believe what they want, especially  religious people. It's very hard to open a closed mind. But, society is moving forward. Eventually, the LGBT community will have equal representation in every medium, including entertainment, and that includes Star Trek.  The wheels of progress move forward.  There is nothing you can do to stop it.  They're here, they're queer, get used to it.


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

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