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'

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 10:15 am

Why in the world would any intelligent, nonviolent, peaceful species want anything to do with this mess of a planet?

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 10:20 am

Bunkey, I don't think I'm making myself as clear as I'd like to be. I believe in equal civil rights for everybody. Even gays, I just don't approve of the lifestyle. But honestly I am even open to legalizing gay marriage. The reason for that is, even though I think it's wrong, in the United States, you are supposed to have the right and the freedom to live your own life in pursuit of your own happiness. So on those grounds, I do agree with gay marriage, even though I don't agree with the act itself. If somebody wants to be gay, that's their business, just like if someone wants to follow a religion, that's also their business. But many people get upset when a religious person tries to force religion on them. Which I think is one of the many reasons why Star Trek did stay away from any human religions. By that same token, I and others like me, don't want homosexuality forced on us in Star Trek.


I love Star Trek. I haved loved it my whole life, and I feel that God has used aspects of Star Trek in my own life to teach me things over the years. And yes you are right, God gave human beings the free will to choose. Becasue He didn't want to create robots. He wanted us to choose Him, freely. And yes, we have the freedom to choose Him or don't. Jesus never forced anyone to follow Him. He would ask someone to follow them, but the choice was theirs. But we are also responsible for our own choices. The scripture does say in the end on Judgement Day, every person will stand before God and He will search through the Book of Life. Everyone who is saved will have their name in the book of life and their sins blotted out. If your name is in the book of life, than you will be allowed to enter heaven for eternity. However, if you lived the life of the world, and chose to ignore the bible and Christ, and you chose not to obey and not to follow. Your name will not be in the book of life, and you will stand alone before God without Christ, you will answer to God for your sins. You will be condemned by God as a sinner and be cast into the Lake of Fire with Satan for eternity. But God is not going to force anyone to obey or not. And Christians shouldn't try to force anyone either. And just to cover myself, I'm not making threats here, the bible really does talk about a book of life and lake of fire in the book of Revelation.


And I would also like to comment on the scripture that you quoted. A lot of it was Old Testament Law. Back from Moses's time. Old Testament law was extremely harsh, so harsh that it was practically impossible to follow. That's why we got Jesus. Jesus came to fulfill the law for us, because we were weak and unable. He is strong where we are weak. That's why we no longer sacrifice animals as a penance for sin, just like the Old Testament commands. Jesus became the ultimate sin offering when he died on the cross. We generally use the old testament now for History and learning how things used to be, and in some cases for advice. Books such as Psalms and Proverbs, that sort of thing. As well as learning how to react in certain situations by seeing how God's people handled things back then. 1st and 2nd Samuel and 1st and 2nd Kings are both good books for that. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, are all books teaching us of old testament law so that in those books further down, it's been established how everything works. And as far as the New Testament quote goes, about women being silent. There's alot of stuff in the New Testament that was Paul's opinion of how things should be. Paul personally had little use for women. Paul gave alot of examples of what things should idealy be, but he didn't say it was God's commandment that women be silent. However part of what Paul was saying, wasn't necessarily a literal "shut up woman" as it were. It goes hand in hand that in the household and in marriage, that the man has the dominance and is in charge, and the woman is to submit to her husband. The being silent is a metaphor of that submission and obedience.


Bottom line is, yes you're right, there is sex in Star Trek, but it's not anything R-rated or Pornagraphic. Nothing like what's on HBO today, on True Blood and that type of thing. I watched Buffy and Angel, and Six Feet Under, and True Blood, and all those types of shows and enjoyed them. But I also know what's right, and I'm not tempted to go do something wrong because I saw it on tv. But if I had kids I wouldn't be comfortable letting them watch those shows until they were older and knew the difference between the worldly views and biblical views and know not to do those things. But when I was a kid, I was allowed to watch Star Trek because it was family friendly. Despite the sex, it's family friendly. The sex is never graphic. The most graphic sex I think we ever got was in Star Trek Nemesis between Riker and Troi, and even that wasn't a big deal to me because first off, it was done tastefully and part of the storyline, it wasn't done a crude way, and it was married couple being together on their wedding night. There's nothing more beautiful to a Christian than that. That is a Christian's dream to be intimate with their spouse on their wedding night. That is what God intended for us. And there's no problem with having sex for pleasure, it's a problem going around having sex with everybody just because you felt like it. And again, yeah I know Kirk, Riker and Tom Paris pretty much always had their girl of the week, but it was done in such a subtle way, that as a kid most of the time it went over my head. If Star Trek had become sexually graphic all the time, my parents wouldn't have let me watch it, and I would have missed out on something that I love that means the world to me.


 


There is nothing wrong with your belief or my own. If somebody wants to be gay, let them be gay. I just don't want it in Star Trek. Star Trek has been just fine without gays. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it just as you are to your own. The bottom line is, neither of us has anything to do with how Star Trek is produced, and neither of us has any say in the matter. They will either start putting gays into Star Trek or they won't. Let's worry about it if and when it actually happens.


 


 

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 10:27 am

Gay people belong in Star Trek for the same reason straight people belong in Star Trek; it's the way people are born and it's natural. The scientific evidence of Homosexual behavior in animals and studies of humans has overwhelmingly proven that it's a naturally occurring trait.

Being a follower of a monotheistic religion is a choice though. I don't approve of Star Trek endorsing the often bigoted, angry and unnatural monotheistic lifestyle.

Ethics are arbitrary.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 10:57 am

Star Trek is "family friendly" to straight families.  What about kids that have two moms or two dads? Where is their represantation? You are implying that a same sex couple is not family friendly. That there is something wrong with that family unit.  You are again seeking to limit who's represented because of your beliefs. You seek to deny equal representation in entertainment, specifically Star Trek.


Star Trek stayed away from religion because it was limiting and a narrow world view. Gene Roddenberry refused to have a chaplain on the Enterprise because he thought is was ridiculous to have one single religion represented on a starship that housed hundreds of alien races. 


I have to laugh hysterically at your implication that Riker and Troi consummated their marriage in a "Christian" way.  Troi was half alien! And Troi and Riker had sex with each other prior to being married. They also had sex with many other people.  The fact that they had sex on their wedding night was not some huge ceremony or beautiful tribute to some "god". It was them simply having sex. Again. Besides, who's to say they were actually married? From a Betazoid standpoint, they may have not been married yet, since they didn't have a Betazoid ceremony yet. So who is right? What marriage ceremony is more important?  That's typical Christian behavior. Trying to shoe horn everything into Christian tradition. Even on aliens! Do you realize what a narrow viewpoint that is?


Also, Kira and Dax had plenty of dalliances.  You might have even called Jadzia promiscuous. So should an alien character be judged by human Christian values?  Should everyone on the planet (and in the universe) cowtow to Christianity?


I'm also ignoring all that silly book of life nonsense.  So if you don't follow Jesus, what about Jewish people? Are THEY all going to hell?  


Homosexuality is not being "forced" on you. No one is saying you have to be gay or even like gay people. But they do exist and they should be represented. They WILL be represented, hopefully some day soon, in Star Trek. If the mere presence of someone offends you, you are indeed a bigot.  You can try to explain your way out of it , but to seek to exclude a portion of society from representation makes you an oppressor.


There are more religions that Christianity on this planet. Yours is not the deciding factor in what is right or wrong.  Morality is a moving target.


Eventually, if Star Trek continues, there will be a gay character.  It's inevitable.  I just hope it's sooner rather than later.  And if it offends your Christian beliefs, then you will have to go find another fandom.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 11:19 am

May I also let Louis CK express my feelings about homosexuality being "forced" on people.


Warning, NSFW (but very funny)


 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtJ_sDRRVVI


 


Seriously, people make it seem like a gay couple on Star Trek will be men in pink glitter cut off uniforms swinging their penises around and humping on the bridge.  


There are a lot of things in this world I don't want to see. I don't like to see men in sandals or fat people in spandex, but you can't have everything.  You just deal with it and get on with you life.


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

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 11:38 am

Quote: crellmoset @ Jun. 17 2013, 10:02 am

>Not necessarily. There's speculation that a species capable of developing a ship that could actually get here would have to be very intelligent, social, cooperative, and not violent since war might sap away the resources and time necessary to become capable of ftl travel. It might not be the most likely scenario but there's still a good chance that any alien species to actually get here would be relatively peaceful and philosophical.


why would a species like that want anything to do with us?

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 11:41 am

simply having a gay person or couple isn't "forcing" it. If it were then we can also say that the "straight" agenda is being "forced" on us. Look at all the heterosexual couples shown on Star Trek. I don't want that forced on me

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 11:42 am

Quote: willowtree @ Jun. 17 2013, 11:38 am

Quote: crellmoset @ Jun. 17 2013, 10:02 am

>

>Not necessarily. There's speculation that a species capable of developing a ship that could actually get here would have to be very intelligent, social, cooperative, and not violent since war might sap away the resources and time necessary to become capable of ftl travel. It might not be the most likely scenario but there's still a good chance that any alien species to actually get here would be relatively peaceful and philosophical.

why would a species like that want anything to do with us?


 


Just because Star Trek has often tried to insinuate that humans are special because they need to explore and see and experience doesn't mean that that's true. All intelligent life should have those traits. 


Ethics are arbitrary.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 12:05 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jun. 17 2013, 11:41 am

>simply having a gay person or couple isn't "forcing" it. If it were then we can also say that the "straight" agenda is being "forced" on us. Look at all the heterosexual couples shown on Star Trek. I don't want that forced on me


The same could be said for DS9s religious overtones. That was "forced" on us, wasn't it?  From the pilot to the finale, a major plot point was the Prophets, Kira's faith and Sisko being the Emissary.  How DARE they!


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

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 1:25 pm

Quote: bunkey @ Jun. 17 2013, 12:05 pm

Quote: willowtree @ Jun. 17 2013, 11:41 am

>

>simply having a gay person or couple isn't "forcing" it. If it were then we can also say that the "straight" agenda is being "forced" on us. Look at all the heterosexual couples shown on Star Trek. I don't want that forced on me

The same could be said for DS9s religious overtones. That was "forced" on us, wasn't it?  From the pilot to the finale, a major plot point was the Prophets, Kira's faith and Sisko being the Emissary.  How DARE they!


That's actually a legit criticism I always had about DS9, far too much religion

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 1:39 pm

I always thought the Prophets were a bit hokey too, but I also understood that this was a series about the Federation dealing with a non-Federation species. I found Bajor's mix of religion and science interesting, in that they were deeply spiritual, but for the most part they were advanced and progressive. Until the Occupation, they were pretty advanced.  It was also an interesting point of view that Bajor views the wormhole inhabitants as Prophets while the Federation viewed them as simple alien species.  It was heavy handed but it also addressed religion in an interesting way. It also showed how zealotry and over dedication to dogma can be harmful, as in the case of Kai Winn. Her pursuit of ultimate power can be likened to the Pope or other ruling religious figures.  

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 2:14 pm

Yeah but the DS9 religions were all fictional. So it doesn't really offend anyone whether they are religious or not religious. And I'm sorry, but I have never seen a "homosexual animal" before in my life. Animals mate male and female because it's instinct. And I do have one question, let's say that being gay IS in fact normal and natural for a moment. If that's the case, why is that male's cannot pro-create with other males? And females with other females? Since you are so convinced that science proves gay as being nature, I know you also must think science also proves the accidental evolution of all life on this planet and in the universe, despite the fact that Evolution is a theory and cannot be proven. Same as religion is also a theory and can't be physically proven. Yes I know there's scientific evidence to support evolutionary and DNA changes in life on earth involving changes in atmosphere and environment. But it can't be proven that the first life on earth evolved from single celled organisms forming together and creating life. Unless we learn how to time travel, no one can go back and witness the actual creation of the earth, thus everything concerning creation and evolution is a BELIEF not FACT. My last question is, if being gay is normal, why is it that in most cases of gay couples, why is it that in both male gay couples and female gay couples, there's almost always one of them who still is the guy or the girl in the relationship, but then the other, the male couple for instance, tries to act like a woman? And in the opposite case of the female gay couple, one female acts like a man, while the other female, still acts like a female? If it's so normal, than why do they continue to attempt to approximate a straight couple situation? Just saying. 

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 2:38 pm

Quote:

My last question is, if being gay is normal, why is it that in most cases of gay couples, why is it that in both male gay couples and female gay couples, there's almost always one of them who still is the guy or the girl in the relationship, but then the other, the male couple for instance, tries to act like a woman? And in the opposite case of the female gay couple, one female acts like a man, while the other female, still acts like a female?


Oh Christ on toast, are you even serious right now?  You really believe that in most cases they're a butch/femm gender roleplay? You have been watching WAY too many movies that depict stereo types.  I can't even begin to tell you what a ridculous statement that is.  


And what makes a woman "act like a man" anyway? Because she has short hair or doesn't wear dresses or make up?  Or is it because a woman may learn how to fix the plumbing in her own home or change the oil in her car? What makes a man "act like a woman"? Because he may take care of himself and pay attention to his appearance and not burp and fart like a neanderthal?  Or is it because one partner chooses to stay home with the kids? Your gender stereotypes are outdated and ridiculous. Seriously. Oh. My. Frakkin. God. I can't even with that nonsense. 


You want gay animals? Here ya go:


http://listverse.com/2013/04/20/10-animals-that-practice-homosexuality/


There's been plenty of scientific studies of animals that mate with the opposite sex but have "relationships" of sorts with the same sex.


Just because you've "never seen a homosexual animal" doesn't mean they don't exist. By the way, how much time have you spent studying the mating habits of every animal on the planet? 


I've never seen the Grand Canyon. Must not exist then.  If that's the case, then how do you know God exists? LOL! You've never met him.  You've just disproved your own faith.


 

GuardianAngel1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 21

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 3:02 pm

Here's the dilemma with this train of thought. There aren't just two genders out in the ST universe, there are MANY, and within those many genders there have been numerous interspecies "encounters", which leads to the thought that the term "gay" would be obsolete in the ST universe, unless it were between a male human character and another male human character. For instance, Andorians have four sexes, two types of female and two types of male. All four are required to reproduce, so obviously that means there is male/male and female/female interaction. In addition, Starfleet is an exploration faction, but they operate like a military, and crews on ships are family. Having a relationship of that type between crew members would be just...wrong.


 


I have been a Trekkie my entire life, and the reason for that is that it is a safe haven from the other ridiculous garbage on tv. I am VERY glad that there has not been openly gay and lesbian characters among the crews, as that would simply be the writers of a very good show submitting to the culturistic ideals of a small group of confused individuals.


"Excuse me....excuse me. I'd just like to ask a question...what does God need with a starship?" -James T. Kirk

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jun. 17 2013, 3:10 pm

Quote: GuardianAngel1 @ Jun. 17 2013, 3:02 pm

>Here's the dilemma with this train of thought. There aren't just two genders out in the ST universe, there are MANY, and within those many genders there have been numerous interspecies "encounters", which leads to the thought that the term "gay" would be obsolete in the ST universe, unless it were between a male human character and another male human character. For instance, Andorians have four sexes, two types of female and two types of male. All four are required to reproduce, so obviously that means there is male/male and female/female interaction. In addition, Starfleet is an exploration faction, but they operate like a military, and crews on ships are family. Having a relationship of that type between crew members would be just...wrong.

>I have been a Trekkie my entire life, and the reason for that is that it is a safe haven from the other ridiculous garbage on tv. I am VERY glad that there has not been openly gay and lesbian characters among the crews, as that would simply be the writers of a very good show submitting to the culturistic ideals of a small group of confused individuals.


So you will readily accept a fictional race of people that has four genders but you would classify a real homosexual human relationship as "wrong"?  Allllrighty then.


Starfleet does not operate as a military faction in that sense. They allow personal relationships between crew members. That is not prohibited.  Even on TOS they had two crew members that were about to get married.  As long as it doesn't interfere with their duties, there is no problem. And how would Starfleet know what you do behind closed doors? Is there a sex police?


This thread has really revealed how small minded and bigoted some so called fans are.  


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