Guest c4evap Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 Thank you' date=' Elderbear, for helping keep that place a trek forum! Mcant seems to have found some other stuff to add to the trash can: He's more brave than me, I didnt want to read all the topic just to chase that kind of stuff... If I may, one thing strikes me: Mainly, the gay/not gay thing is about being accepted and respected. Since this is internet and we dont see each other, no one knew there was gay people here! As we dont really know who is male or female in here. The acceptation and respect was complete since no one knew who was gay and who wasn't, so why the hell starting to make posts about it? Once again, we dont care... A shame since if you had refrained from talking about that on this Star Trek board, no one would have made any kind of discrimination at all! People are that way: we dont all have the same point of view. Some are gay, some like gays, some dont, some just dont care (me, for example) No one can force people to like gays or not: each of us makes his/her own opinion based upon what he/she encounters in his/her life. In here, we (and therefore you, gay people too) are all equals and free of all kind of discriminations: why the hell did you feel the need to make it change? Personaly, I dont want to be a part of it: I dont know who's gay or not (and I dont care, once again)... and I want it to remain that way. Mainly because what brings me here is the fact that I'm some kind of Mulder: I want to believe! In sci-fi, ufos, all that kind of stuff. Not at all any aspect of sexuality. My sexuality is mine and is absolutely none of anyone's business... Very nice...but I'm confused. Aren't you the person that posted that pic of Eric Estrada with the words on it that said You are a fag (or words to that effect)? Did you delete your own post? Just curious... c4 :thinking: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yammichi Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 could it not also be possible that in the future mankind has evolved to the point of absolute acceptance of homosexuality and to the point of realizing that it's no one elses business what someone's sexual orientation is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcazant Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 homosexuality doesn't exist in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piepie Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 What was that facist shown in the movie archives of in Demons. The guy that was responsible for wiping out people with damaged DNA. He seems psychotic enough to eradicate other "ills" of humanity, and, if homosexuality is proven to be genetic, he'd have his rationale to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 homosexuality doesn't exist in the future. ...must resist...must resist feeding...must reread rule 4... 4. Please be kind and curtious in your responses -- If we are to build a community, let us be helpful and kind to those asking for our assistance. c4 :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 could it not also be possible that in the future mankind has evolved to the point of absolute acceptance of homosexuality and to the point of realizing that it's no one elses business what someone's sexual orientation is? that theory gets my vote, I'm puzzled why it isn't that way now? and please dont start a lecture telling me why it isnt so, its a bit like other peoples sexuality, I DONT CARE live and let live, love and let love but dont shout it from the roof tops, its your business, why not keep it that way, the truth is most people really aren't that bothered , yes there will always be a lunatic minority in all sections of society, including the gay community Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 What was that facist shown in the movie archives of in Demons. The guy that was responsible for wiping out people with damaged DNA. He seems psychotic enough to eradicate other "ills" of humanity' date=' and, if homosexuality is proven to be genetic, he'd have his rationale to do it.[/quote'] very perceptive observation and a valid plot line arguement if homosecuality was proved to be genetic, however, and you knew there was an however coming, didn't you? the big bad in the final episode was suffering from a genetic condition which would have been eradicated if the eugenic cleansing had been completed so we can only assume adolf mark 2 got stamped on before he could finsh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piepie Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Yeah, that's true, Unless it was a recently discovered fault/mutation, which is always going to happen whether you "cleanse" a race or not. Having said that, if homosexuality is genetic, the genes for it could, um, re-evolve, whether or not that is likely within 100 years I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitKeeper Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 why does it matter' date=' if someone is gay they are gay, it does not make them less of a person, and anyone who says it does, is less of a person themselves...........[/quote'] i only think less of romulans and vulcans...and deanna's mom...*cough* klingon *cough*.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarneyCletus Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 The problem for me isn't so much introducing a gay character to Star Trek...its how he would be introduced. I'm not sure how many of you read the books but there have already been gay characters in them, with thank to Michael A. Martin and Andy Mangels, in books like the new "Titan" series and a section 31 TNG book (can't remember the name but it was about Lt. Hawk from First Contact). The only problem I have with their books is how they use them as an opportunity to promote gay rights. They write excellent stories and I always pick their books out, but you have to expect a fair few numbers of pages pointing out that certain characters are gay (presumably with a big arrow over their head held by the writers). You read this for the first time and think its a clever way to promote gay rights, an interesting plot and character device and pleased by how low key it all is. And then you read the next book. Then the next book. And all of a sudden you're thinking "Okay! Okay! I get it, already!" This could happen to the TV series if a gay character was introduced. You don't think if they finally get round to bringing this character in they won't milk it for all its worth? Roddenberry had a gift of making a TV show with people of all races, creed and colour... and pretty much leaving it as that. That was the statement. Issues were hidden behind episode plots and minorities were only brought to the fore when it was really, really necessary to the plot (like Geordi being blind but still defeating the odds). The problem with sexuality is that, unlike everything else, is very hard to see on a show that is, 99% of the time, not-sexual. In short, I don't trust anyone to do the job properly. If someone can then I'm all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcazant Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 You think less of Romulans and Vulcans? I think the Vulcan species is highly respectable in Star Trek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 In here, we (and therefore you, gay people too) are all equals and free of all kind of discriminations: why the hell did you feel the need to make it change? If it had never been brought up (and this is at least the 3rd or 4th thread on the topic since 1 December 2004) most of us would figure that everybody was "straight" and never have questioned our assumptions or even had to state them. I don't want to use the word "discriminate" here, but those in the minority are disregarded. Perhaps this isn't very clear, so let me try an example. I have enjoyed reading scifi by Steven Barnes, especially as a collaborator with Niven and/or Pournelle (he adds heart to their writing). Only recently did I discover that Barnes is a black man. My mental image was that all science fiction writers are white men. Pretty silly when I had to confront the thought - but my unexamined assumption - a prejudice, if you will. I think that the same applies to sexual orientation - people in the majority walk around prejudiced. And those in the minority live with being closeted by everybody else's assumptions. Another thought experiment: can you imagine having a "Straight Pride Parade?" It's laughable. The social assumption is that straight is normal, that everybody is straight until otherwise indicted. Straight is visible. Just like white male science fiction writers are "visible." A Gay Pride Parade opens the closet door, not just for the GLBT folks, but also in the minds of the "straight"/breeders. The chant: "We're here! We're queer! Get used to it!" is right. Whether anybody wants to know about it, whether it receives state sanction or prosecution, whether religion condemns it, whether it makes the body crooked or not doesn't matter. They are here. And the choice between hiding from it (puts our straight minds into the closet) or acknowledging them (opens the opportunity for dialogue, for empathy, and for a stronger society) is important. But it's way past my bedtime and I think this riff has run out of steam. I think I'll go watch Gay Niggers from Outer Space now B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 no.......as far as I know.......I'm not..........although' date=' your avatar scares me a little, I'm gunna have nightmares for a week now[/quote'] If I recall correctly, the hippo is the most dangerous animal in Africa - it kills the most people. Very territorial and can move much faster than one might expect. So yeah, I'm worried about that guy & his kid getting eaten by the raging hippo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 What was that facist shown in the movie archives of in Demons. The guy that was responsible for wiping out people with damaged DNA. He seems psychotic enough to eradicate other "ills" of humanity' date=' and, if homosexuality is proven to be genetic, he'd have his rationale to do it.[/quote'] We know that Hitler had a final solution to homosexuality - and it didn't involve praying or Bible reading, either ... homosexuality doesn't exist in the future. Comrade! Your "future" scares me ... And consider this - in a world that has exceeded its carrying capacity (overpopulation, climate change, depletion of resources, etc), heterosexuality may not be allowed to exist! I can hear the demagogues now: Breeders have brought us to this place of collapse and ruin! The selfish breeders have destroyed our lifestyles. Death to the breeders! B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 Most likely, when populations get out of hand in the future, they'll probably have enforced sterility by lottery, or some other fair means to ensure population control... and that would add a whole slew of new social issues to contend with... and frankly, sexual preference would have no impact on this, as people could always sell their semen / eggs... See? Still not a gender preference issue, but an economic one. Also, since people won't willingly give up sex, sterilization may be the only option other than starvation or disease -_-'... Anyways, in a society like that of Star Trek, where beings of different species are having children, would homosexuality really be any issue at all? Also, it's only after monotheistic religions like Christianity popped up that homosexuality was truly castigated in our own history... In some ancient Greek city-states, not only was homosexuality common, but between 'beared older men' and 'younger beardless youths'! Zeus had a pretty young candlebearer, didn't he...? Besides, even without population pressure, homosexuality is a wonderful form of birth control. It should be encouraged, since such a harmless lifestyle choice as homosexuality is far better than having our descendants killed off by starvation and disease from overcrowding, or having to live with forced sterilization -_-'... Now, to just to convince people to not marry or have kids until they're 30... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 I can hear the demagogues now: Breeders have brought us to this place of collapse and ruin! The selfish breeders have destroyed our lifestyles. Death to the breeders! B) Zardoz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 Accoriding to New Scientits. Gays may have been a genetic mistake. Breeders have brought us to this place of collapse and ruin! The selfish breeders have destroyed our lifestyles. Death to the breeders! That can never happen beacuse Straight people will always outnumber benders. Plus gay people are not naturally produtive so them killing straight people would be so stupid not even homer simpson would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarneyCletus Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 Well hasn't this conversation been fun. I think I've heard quite a few words that I haven't heard since school. If homosexuality is genetic there is a good chance that it would already be bred out of humanity by the science of common sense. How are they going to have kids? Besides, even without population pressure, homosexuality is a wonderful form of birth control. I think this as well. It's natures way of keeping the numbers down. That's why homosexuality is evil in the eyes of many religions (and why any form of birth control is inherently evil). Why keep balance with nature when lots of young soldiers had to be born? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 Accoriding to New Scientits. Gays may have been a genetic mistake. Scientits... that's a good one ^^. Mayhap you could quote us some of these New Scientist peer-reviewed papers to back up your claim? ^^ Actually, far from being a 'genetic mistake', it seems that studies involving rat populations show that rates of homosexual couplings rises as overpopulation increases... meaning it may simply be a natural mechanism to help curb overpopulation. 'New Scientits', instead of ruling it a mistake, see it as a population control mechanism that occurs in nature. That can never happen beacuse Straight people will always outnumber benders. Plus gay people are not naturally produtive so them killing straight people would be so stupid not even homer simpson would do it. People will kill people regardless of sexual preference... and killing people is stupid, period... regardless of prefenences in partner, favorite card game, or ice cream flavor. As far as the productivity issue goes... does that really matter? Our population is growing so fast as it is, we shouldn't really be bothered by things that limit that growth so simply and without killing, maiming, or neutering. Edit: An interesting quote from an ancient Greek writer: "All irrational animals merely copulate, but we rational ones are superior in this regard to all other animals. We discovered homosexual intercourse. Men under the sway of women are no better than dumb animals" Edit 2: Found the reference for the rat study... Kirsch & Rodman, 1982. Also, there are other studies that have observed same-gender mounting in primates (considered common, actually), cows, sheep, dolphins, birds, and even fish (only as far as courting in the case of fish... given the way they fertilize their eggs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 this might be a radical idea. but... in a few centuries, maybe sexual orientation is unimportant, Its personal choice in an effort to emulate this future state of mind, why dont we adopt that opinion on this site now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts