TV, Film, and Entertainment News Daily

TV Legends Revealed | ‘Star Trek: TNG’ Wouldn’t Air Episode With Gay Crewmen?

star trek-tng

TV URBAN LEGEND: An episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation was never filmed because it featured two gay crew members on the Enterprise.

One of the few positive aspects of the news that J.H. Williams III and W. Hayden Blackman were leaving Batwoman over editorial differences with DC Comics was that there doesn’t seem to be any problems at the publisher with Batwoman’s sexuality. To wit, DC squelched plans for Batwoman to get married, but everyone involved agrees that was just part of the company’s stance on characters getting married rather than a problem with the idea of two gay characters getting married.

It’s good to know that in 2013, that’s not the issue it was 30 years ago (or heck, even 10 years ago). Naturally, then, you would imagine that as time went by, views on homosexuality would become more and more accepting. That was certainly the vision of Gene Roddenberry, who created Star Trek in the 1960s and Star Trek: The Next Generation in the 1980s. One of the main concepts of Star Trek is that in the future, all the silly prejudices of the modern era are gone. In the original episode, which aired during the Cold War, Roddenberry had a Russian serving on the Enterprise’s bridge. During the Civil Rights Movement, he had the first interracial kiss on prime time television (albeit a forced kiss, but still, baby steps). By the time the ‘80s rolled around, Roddenberry used the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation as commentary on all sorts of issues of that era. In fact, in the show bible (a document written by Roddenberry that would serve as an overall manual for how the show should be written), he notes:

We now have more freedom and story latitude, because our series by-passes the networks and is made directly for television stations. As before, without neglecting entertainment values, we invite writers to consider premises involving the challenges facing humanity today (the 1980’s and 90’s), particularly those which interest the writer personally. The new Star Trek episodes will continue the tradition of vivid imagination, intelligence and a sense of fun, while still assessing where we humans presently are, where we’re going, and what our existence is really about.

As it turned out, however, the one area where the challenges facing humanity today couldn’t be adapted into a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode is when the topic was homosexuality, even if the writer was a Star Trek legend.

David Gerrold began writing for the original Star Trek while he was still in his early 20s. His most notable achievement on the original series was the classic episode “Trouble With Tribbles.” He continued working on Star Trek with the animated series, and he was an early hire for The Next Generation (indeed, many of Gerrold’s thoughts on what the new series should be like were incorporated into Roddenberry’s show bible, including the idea of having a Klingon be a crew member and that the Captain would rarely go on away missions, something that always irritated Gerrold about the original series).

Gerrold and Roddenberry made an appearance at a science fiction convention right around the time the new series was announced, and while there, Roddenberry made a statement that Gerrold took to heart. Gerrold recalled in an interview with StarTrek.com:

One fan asked, “Well, are you going to have gay crewmembers, because in the 60’s you had Black and Asian and Latino, etc.?” Gene said, “You know, you’re right. It’s time. We should.” I was sitting on the side, taking notes, of course. So there it was: Gene had said it in front of an audience of 3,000 people in November of 1986. I was a little bit surprised and delighted that Gene was willing to go there. We got back to L.A. and Gene said it again in a meeting, and somebody in that meeting – I won’t say who – said, “What, we’re going to have Lt. Tutti-Frutti?” Gene balled him out and said, “No, it’s time. And I promised the fans we’re going to have gay characters.”

So Gerrold wrote an episode titled “Blood and Fire,” which was an allegory for the AIDS crisis, as the Enterprise comes across a ship whose crew had been killed by Regulan bloodworms. These bloodworms are lethal creatures, and all ships infected with the creatures must be destroyed on sight. In the episode, Gerrold introduced two gay crew members. He recalled:

There were two characters who were not very important to the story, but they were the kind of background characters you need. At one point Riker says to one of them, “How long have you two been together?” That was it. The guy replies, “Since the Academy.” That’s it. That’s all you need to know about their relationship. If you were a kid, you’d think they were just good buddies. If you were an adult, you’d get it. But I turned in the script and that’s when the excrement hit the rotating blades of the electric air circulation device.

The major objection was that because Star Trek: The Next Generation was syndicated, the show might air in the afternoon in some markets, and that this was too controversial of an issue. Considering that was just five years after a CBS executive explained a casting change on Cagney and Lacey to TV Guide (which I detailed in a TV Legends Revealed a while back) by explaining “We perceived them as dykes,” you can only imagine the likely perception of depicting gay characters was by Paramount executives.

star trek-blood and fireUltimately, the episode never aired, Gerrold left the series after the first season (“Blood and Fire” never airing played a part, but it seemed there were a host of other issues, including conflicts with Roddenberry and Roddenberry’s attorney Leonard Maizlish, and opportunities on a proposed science fiction miniseries for CBS with producer Daron J. Thomas). While Roddenberry once again promised before the fifth season that there would be gay members on the Enterprise, he passed away before he could implement this decision. No gay crew members ever appeared on Star Trek: The Next Generation (or any of the other Star Trek series). Longtime Star Trek Producer Ronald D. Moore commented on the show’s handling of gay characters a couple of years ago:

We’ve just failed at it. It’s not been something we’ve successfully done. At Star Trek we used to have all these stock answers for why we didn’t do it. The truth is it was not really a priority for any of us on the staff so it wasn’t really something that was strong on anybody’s radar. And then I think there’s a certain inertia that you’re not used to writing those characters into these dramas and then you just don’t. And somebody has to decide that it’s important before you do it and I think we’re still at the place where that’s not yet a common – yeah, we have to include this and this is an important thing to include in the shows. Sci fi for whatever reason is just sort of behind the curve on all this

As a sort of victory, however, Gerrold later directed his “Blood and Fire” script (with some adaptations by him) for the fan-produced Star Trek site Star Trek: Phase II in 2008. You can watch the episode here.

The legend is …

STATUS: True

Feel free (heck, I implore you!) to write in with your suggestions for future installments! My e-mail address is bcronin@legendsrevealed.com.

Be sure to check out my Entertainment Urban Legends Revealed for more urban legends about the worlds of TV, Movies and Music!

News From Our Partners

Comments

  • Ben

    There have been gay characters in movies (Lt. Hawk), and instances of same-sex romance as well (Dax on DS9, for example)

  • Victor

    Wasn’t there an episode where Riker falls in love with an androgynous alien? I thought that was ST:TNG’s attempt at the subject of homosexuality.

  • RHandley

    “No gay crew members ever appeared on Star Trek: The Next Generation”

    Dax was bisexual, as she was clearly attracted to both and women on the series.

  • Christopher Arndt

    Jadzia Dax would hit anything but Bashir.

  • beane2099

    Mirror Universe Kira appeared to be ambisexual. In fact a lot of the mirror universe females had open sexuality.

  • The One and Only

    Because the Mirror Universe characters were evil.

  • AkaiKoru

    I thought the same. The Androgynous aliens looked at the Male Female Roles with the same disdain that the uneducated view homosexual relationships.

  • ultraaman

    Dax was not bisexual. The symbiont was not portrayed in the TV show as ever having influence over the heterosexual nature of the hosts with one exception. The episode of DS9 in question was not about Dax being bisexual but rather about one particular person from a previous lifetime returning who happened to now be the same sex as Dax’s host when they reunited. Jadzia was not attracted to her, Dax was (symbiotes lack gender and conform to the host’s when joined, something Jadzia points out in the episode).The greatness of this love transcending lifetimes and yet the rules of Trill society still would not permit it (the point of the story).

    Also, Lt. Hawk was not gay in the movie. That development happened in a book. In the books, gayness is everywhere – no complaints – but it is non-existent in the TV and movies. Intendant Kira and Mirror Ezri were the closest to that but of course they are from the ‘evil’ universe.

  • http://thethreews.wordpress.com/ Ken Leonard

    Not sure that that really helps, since the “evil, psychotic lesbian” stereotype isn’t exactly a progressive vision.

  • beane2099

    Well yeah. Kira was a clear case of ambisexuality (like I said). But the others weren’t. I don’t know. I guess I was naive. I saw their moral propensities and their sexuality as separate things. Pethaps I erred in that perception. Maybe the writers did have nefarious intentions that I didn’t pick up on.

  • Dave

    To hell with them. How pathetic that they couldn’t bear to toss their gay fans a crumb in the form of a few minutes of screen time featuring 2 minor characters in which one utters a single ambiguous sentence. Real profiles in courage, those guys. No wonder the franchise so quickly became a stale corporate product after TNG. It is pretty easy for that to happen when the creative team is a bunch of indifferent, pliant hacks.

    BTW, I note that Brian Cronin’s column has featured not one but 2 anti-gay slurs. But in each case – the ST writer above and the CBS exec who opined on Cagney & Lacey – the identity of the speaker is concealed. Why? I will grant that these utterances happened a long time ago and the case can certainly be made that it isn’t worth making a federal case out of these long-ago incidents. But since Mr. Cronin has decided that these stories are newsworthy and that both are worth writing about in 2013, then an effort should be made to get *all* the information out. Why not call David Gerrold and ask him who the “Tutti Fruitti” guy is? And if he won’t say, ask him why he won’t say.

  • Jamil_Scalese

    First) Gerrold wrote one of my fav sci-fi books, The Man Who Folded Himself. It takes time-travel to its logical end, and then a step further. Quick read and I highly recommend it.

    Second) Alright, stay with me on this because it might come off a bit bigoted but I’m trying to think futuristic here: Would homosexuality even exist in the future?

    I’m not a HUGE Trekker but I do recall that genetic modifying is commonplace (or at least easy to do) in the series. I remember when those boring characters (Paris and the Klingon chick) on Voyager were having a kid they had the choice to keep the ugly forehead ridges or remove them completely.

    Since being gay is NOT a choice it’s OK to assume that it’s written into our genetic coding from birth, thus it’s something that be identified beforehand a rewritten with the right tech. While there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality I don’t think maybe people, from a science and biology standpoint, would suggest that it’s ideal. Wouldn’t then parents eliminate this trait from their offspring? Just for the selfishly simple fact of making sure your lineage continues.

    (On a similar note: Pedophilia is abhorrent but it could be argued that it similar to homosexuality in biological terms. I can guarantee that this trait would removed at birth.)

    I think for that reason I’d be very skeptical if a gay character wandered onto the bridge, Bisexuality, however, is a very different topic, I think.

  • Wit

    The problem with your reasoning is there has been no proven link to homosexuality as an identifiable genetic trait. The current and most testable hypothesis is that an embryos sexuality is “programmed” – not unlike a biological computer – while in the mothers womb.

    In most cases a child turning out gay is partly random but can be a more common occurrence when certain factors arise in the womb such as the mothers estrogen and testosterone levels. They have been shown to have a considerable influence on offspring. For example – a mother with a large family of kids – particularly with males – has a greater chance of the younger or youngest son(s) being gay than smaller families or those with mixed sex offspring. That’s not 100% conclusive but has been statistically shown that a consistent correlation does exist.

    However even though I myself am the only male child and the oldest in my family I can quite assure you I’ve been 100% homosexual my entire life. I suspect – like most everything in life – there are more than one factor influencing a particular outcome. Nothing is every black or white especially something as complex and ‘sticky’ if you well – as sexuality.

    Simply put the leading hypothesis is that your body may be genetically male or female although both sexes start out from an asexual form but your actual sexuality whether gay or straight is decided based on how your brain is wired during the early stages of development in the womb.

    As much as you may find it personally abhorrent there is indication that the same is true for pedophilia and ephebophilia as well. Humans are sexual beings by nature. It’s a core element of our species and a considerable trait we share with animal kingdom. In fact there are numerous documented cases of multiple animal species that engage in heterosexual, homosexual and pedophilic (sic) sexual behavior.

    By no means am I’m condoning coercive, violent or non consensual sexual behavior. Rape is rape no matter what age, sex or situation. In this instance I am merely referring to attraction and stating from a biological standpoint that it is what it is. Views of acceptance or revulsion, empathy or hatred are based on social and cultural programming more than any other factor.

  • Jamil_Scalese

    Wit, thank you for a calculated and educated response (I now have some new tabs for downtime reading! ), but I don’t think non-existence of a “gay gene” totally debunks my theory. Whether genetics, or outside factors (epi-marks, apparently), it still seems to me that it’s manipulable to some degree, particularly if it’s in the womb (for the most part a manageable, static environment). I don’t even understand today’s med tech so it’s impossible to comment on how future Trek doctors would do this, but considering the other breakthroughs it’s conceivable. It’s all about figuring out the Gay Contra Code.

    Your last two paragraphs are pretty non-sequitur, though. Did you just shame me for shaming pederasts?

    Honestly, we agree completely on your points regarding attraction, and I don’t think pedophilia is inherently wrong, acting on it is (Believe me, I’ve had that debate with shallow-minded people. Messy.). Also, just want to make clear that I’m not trying to figure how to get rid of gays (with science!) or remove them from my favorite TV shows. I just think it’s an interesting thought-nugget that could be the center of a very good episode of THE NEW SERIES THEY REFUSE TO MAKE.

  • James Elanta

    OH CRAP THAT’S FUNNY! I mean, only funny to DS9 fans, but funny!

  • Dalarsco

    I just watched that episode today. Blatant homosexual allegory with gender issues that are cutting edge 20 years later including major shades of transgender stuff. Mid fifth season. Can’t remember the name.

  • shaunn

    Yes, Dax was clearly bisexual. There was an episode with Vanessa Williams where Dax and Worf when to Rija (sp?) and there was a clear sexual tension between the two women. Also, I recall Dax having the first passionate lesbian kiss that I can recall with her character’s former wife.

    There was also a ST-TNG episode where Riker became involved with a woman from a planet where the women were the only ones allowed to have sexual relationships with each other. This was meant to be (a rather clumsy) statement on the treatment of homosexuals in existing society.

  • shaunn

    I think that it is highly unlikely that people would eliminate homosexuality from their children if given the choice IF the society in which they live valued homosexuality or found it to be completely morally neutral. Since I think that we are heading in that direction, by the 23rd century it would likely a complete non-issue. So, while I understand your point, I doubt it would hold.

  • dswynne

    Wait, Mirror Ezri Dax and Mirror Leeta of Bajor were clearly a couple in DS9’s “The Emperor’s New Cloak”, and they weren’t evil…

  • dswynne

    Or, you can let it go as something that is long since past, and move forward? It’s easy for you to feign outrage when you are looking at past events circa 2013.

  • Scott Bennett

    well they might not have had explicitely gay characters, but I always thought that the Binars must have been gay, and there was the episode with the androgenous, sexless society, which was however cast all with women (and of course where Riker the stud “converted” the one to heterosexuality).

  • Darima80

    However, I believe that not only homosexuality will be vastly accepted in the future, but that it could be used as a tool for population control. I think people in the future may be more concerned with that than with removing a trait via a genetic or other type of manipulative means.

  • Ed

    That episode is titled “The Outcast.” :-)

  • Ian Thal

    It was rather ham-fisted (and I say that as someone who saw the episode the first time it aired) allegory since it still seems to posit a universe where gays and lesbians don’t exist– Riker’s relationship is with an alien portrayed as a woman who identifies as female, after all– so the episode actually portrays heterosexuality as the norm, and androgyny as a threat.

  • Ian Thal

    Exactly. In the mirror universe episodes bisexuality was used as a signifier for decadence and evil– so it was rather homo- and bi-phobic

  • Ian Thal

    Because they only need to find the “right one” to convert? Yes, that was the level of insight TNG writers brought to issues of human sexuality.

  • RunnerX13

    The episode never aired or was never filmed? Seems to be later, right?

  • RunnerX13

    Dax wasn’t bisexual per say, but she shared the memories of her former male and female hosts. It’s another work around, but Terry Farrell did have the first same-sex kiss on TV.

  • RunnerX13

    It was reported that Lt. Hawk was intended to be gay, but they chickened out and either cut the reference or never filmed in the first place.

  • Greg Price

    Funny how “a couple of lines” in Blood and Fire turned into pages of in-your-face “we’re gay” by the time Phase II got hold of it. Every time a show has “gone gay” (like Ellen’s show) it has turned into a big huge flamboyant “identity” issue and run off into Pander-land.

  • Sentry616

    Really? I took it that he/she/it turned Riker at least bi/curious for shemales.
    IT’S A TRAP!

  • David Nova

    i don’t buy it, ‘true’ or not. if story had been good but higher-ups were squeamish about that short scene, they would’ve simply found some excuse to cut what they had a problem with. they wouldn’t throw out a whole script they thought worth producing over one tiny piece of nonessential dialog. my suspicion is it wasn’t a very good script, but somebody now sees an opportunity to exploit it.

  • http://thethreews.wordpress.com/ Ken Leonard

    But why get rid of it? I don’t think that the progressive vision of the future is one in which homosexuality would be viewed as a negative or undesirable trait. Even the end you listed, about making sure that the line continues, is out of place. Why does it really matter that MY lineage go on?

    Genetic or not, I don’t see it happening in the enlightened Federation.

  • http://thethreews.wordpress.com/ Ken Leonard

    Possibly because it’s not necessarily fair to hold someone accountable today for a remark made decades ago.

    When “Cagney and Lacey” was on, homophobia was the norm. It wouldn’t have even turned a head for someone to refer derisively to gay people.

    Today, that’s not the case. The people who made these comments might well have very different views now than they did decades ago. Since this story is about a “Star Trek” episode that didn’t air, rather than an in-depth expose on the progress or lack thereof in the views of TV production staffers on LGBTQ issues, I think that not digging into it is perfectly approrpriate.

  • Jamil_Scalese

    In an indiscriminate, non (or limited) space-faring civilization the population control point makes sense, but in Trek, space, or lack thereof, does not seem to be an issue. They colonize planets pretty habitually and space stations aren’t rare.

  • Jamil_Scalese

    “Why does it really matter that MY lineage go on?”

    Hey, if that’s your viewpoint then all the more power to ya, but I’m pretty sure planting your seed and continuing your bloodline is one of the main motivating factors for the human race. That’d be a big deal to a lot of people, I’d be.

  • Jamil_Scalese

    I agree, but I don’t think morals would even factor in the much. I think “value” is a much better quantifier.

    What’s the main, most apparent difference between a hetero and homo? One is much more likely to procreate. From a PURELY objective standpoint, and in a vacuum, the hetero has more worth to society.

    I understand why people are slipping into the moral and societal arguments, but I’m coming from a biological, ecological standpoint. Maybe those aren’t separate, I dunno.

    Why hasn’t anyone come at me with the more logical, “in-house” rebuttal? Artificial insemination will be super advanced at this point so Sperm Phasers and Data drones meant to carry test-tube babies will be able to provide any and all willing people as many children they can handle. Fuck guys, was that so hard?

  • bobmcpherson

    God. Gays are boring. Worse than soccer fans…………

  • kinjirurm

    Didn’t the federation have some sort of rules for Starfleet that disallowed them from having romantic relationships with each other?

  • Brady1138

    I love Star Wars.

  • William

    That was what it sounded like to me. Saying it never aired is a bit misleading. It was never filmed because the script didn’t even get off the ground. At least that was my take away.

  • Neil Escada Moore

    If they did have LGBT people in the Star Trek Universe, would there have been Vulcans, Romulans, Andorians, or Klingons; much less Humans? It would have interesting to see how the different species dealt with their respective LGBT populations. Also, sadly they still haven’t included gays in the Star Trek Reboot. It seems like a society that has a “pleasure planet” like Risa would say screw it and anything should go. Think they had inter-species romances, so it would seem easy to include same-sex species relationships.

  • dj1961

    Homo? really?

  • Sebastian X. Hopkins

    in the book ST:TNG Section 31 Rogue ….. the interspecies relationship between two guy is that of Lt. Sean Hawk and Lt Ranul Keru (Unjoined Trill)

  • Doctor Mobius

    There is one important inaccuracy in this article:

    “No gay crew members ever appeared on Star Trek: The Next Generation (or any of the other Star Trek series)”

    While it is true that there was never an episode with homosexual characters in Next Gen, Deeps Space Nine had an episode that dealt very strongly with homosexuality in the episode “Rejoined”. In true Star Trek fashion, the prejudice was against an alien concept, in this case the stigma was against symbionts who had been romantically involved while joined with past hosts repeating their relationship with new hosts. This was juxtaposed against the fact that Dax and Kahn’s current hosts were both female. The idea of a Lesbian couple was treated as nothing unusual, while the relationship between the symbionts was the taboo. It was similar to the approach to skin color taken in “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield”, where an alien prejudice over a similar stigma was used as an allegory for modern day stigmas.

    On a side note, Next Gen did manage to at least address stigmas involving sexuality in the episode “The Outcast”, where a genderless species found the idea of living a gendered lifestyle to be immoral. While no characters were homosexual, it did have a profound effect on how I viewed homosexuality, as I was fourteen when it aired.

    – DM

  • Casca

    So when are we going to see an Enterprise member who is a Christian ? A Native American ? An Eskimo-Inuit ? A Buddhist ? Jewish ? etc………

  • shaunn

    This doesn’t really make any sense. First, many people already marry or enter heterosexual relationships with absolutely no desire to reproduce. By the 23rd century, this tendency would likely be even more pronounced. Second, what we are talking about is whether or not people would genetically alter or even abort children that they know will be homosexual. Again, this is something people would only do if a stigma is attached to homosexuality. In the 23rd century, this would not be the case. Thus, the idea of terminating a pregnancy on the strange idea that the child might eventually have some small difficulty in finding a “life partner” is extremely odd. Most people, if they even considered this at all, would probably conclude that the child’s chances of finding a partner are pretty good and give the child a chance. Finally, in ST, it was established that lots of couples did not enter or seek to enter life-long partnerships. So, in the end, there is still no reasonable argument that homosexuality would be a disadvantage or would be regarded as such in the 23rd century.

  • shaunn

    I think that one of the things established in ST-TNG was that conventional religions were regarded as superstitions. Remember the episode where Picard was very concerned that he had inadvertently become a “god” to the Vulcan-like people of the planet the Enterprise was orbiting? The fact that no one claims any religious affiliation makes sense. By the 23rd century, it looks like organized religion is something that humans have outgrown.

  • shaunn

    I think that this may be a really fine line. Indeed, I would argue that Trills with symbiotes are inherently bisexual simply because they have the memories and experiences of people who have experienced sexual relations with both genders. They would, therefore, be capable of sexual attraction to either sex. That is all that is required to be bisexual.

  • Kicker

    Whether it’s in the 21st century or the 25th, I still have one question: Why does anyone else need to know what two people do in their bedroom? Even in the TNG episode this article is about, the sexuality of any of the involved characters has absolutely nothing to do with the storyline. Why do gays feel like everyone needs to know their “business”? And then get upset when someone else disapproves? The only predjudice I have against gays is that they think I care what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms, and feel they have to openly flaunt their preference, daring me to show any sign of disapproval.

  • riseup124

    “Well, are you going to have gay crewmembers, because in the 60’s you had Black and Asian and Latino, etc.?” That’s interesting. The last time I checked homosexuality is not a race.

  • manface

    Like race, sexuality is something not chosen that many members of society refuse to accept.

  • manface

    You realize you are discussing a show where commander Riker had to dozens of races to bed.

  • manface

    Odd how NXG had an episode where Riker falls for a hermaphrodite but regular homosexuals are off limits.

  • ipvicus

    As I recall that episode was written with gay-rights issues well in mind, and that was basically as much as they could get away with. It is definitely odd.

  • Jose

    Gotta chime in on the “No gay characters ever in TNG or any other series” recurring theme I see here and everywhere else I see this talked about, just to air a point of view I don’t necessarily share but I haven’t seen broached yet. The lack of perception of a character’s sexuality is as much a function of the viewer’s inherent prejuidice as the show’s producers’. Here’s what I mean:

    Any character that ever appeared in any episode of any show who’s sexuality was never addressed in any way whatsoever can be assumed to be either homosexual or heterosexual depending on the viewer’s whim, and the so-far observed tendency of everyone to assume that any character not explicitly demonstrated to be homosexual is therefore heterosexual is the viewers’ own prejuidice manifesting subconciously, and seemingly everyone, including the LGBT advocating viewers, are predisposed to make this assumption.

    Now don’t get me wrong, I realise this is a total side-issue and has nothing to do with the political agenda of promoting awareness, tolerance etc, but in the context of the discussion veering off into “well maybe we don’t see any gay kisses on screen because they’ve eradicated gayness for whatever reason in the future” territory I think it’s relevent, because in that part of the discussion the blanket assumption on the non-existance of gay characters, as opposed to just not showing gay characters doing anything gay and therefore being able to identify them as gay characters, seems to be taken as read, but I think there’s a gap in reasoning that’s been missed, and this is it.

    So, what I mean by all that was, take those two binar dudes (assuming they were dudes and not dudettes). We never saw them kissing each other, doesn’t mean they didn’t go home and start kissing a couple of other binar dudes. They were gay, just not for each other! And we never saw it becasue it wasn’t relevent to the story in that episode. We never saw them playing sports either, doesn’t mean they didn’t know the value of physical exercise or their way around a tennis court, it just meant there’s a time and place for everything,m and they had other shit to be doing just then.

  • riseup124

    That’s fine. My only point is that it’s not a race. But don’t get me wrong, I understand the point that they were trying to make.

  • Dave

    Well, as I said, if the story is sufficiently newsworthy and interesting to be reported in 2013, then why single out one datum – the names of the declarants – and declare it to be “long since past.” If that datum is long since past, then so is this entire post and you should object to it on that basis.

    And as for the idea that this is old news, I’d say this: the anti-gay comments might possibly be old hat (although we actually don’t know what the environment is like among the Trek writers today). But it is very much a fact that in 2013, gay people are not excluded from Trek. They don’t exist in the 23rd or 24th centuries I know there was one preachy, very special episode of TNG 20 years ago which alluded to gays, but it was an epic fail. Straight viewers don’t want to be lectured and gays don’t want to be included as part of a politically correct sermon, only to then vanish from Trek never to be alluded to again. All they want is to appear once in a while as part of the regular Trek universe and as part of a regular plot.

    It shouldn’t be a big deal. But for the “pioneers” over at Paramount it is a big deal, and that is why this is not old news.

  • Casca

    So no Muslims beheading gays and stoning rape victims in the future ?

  • David

    Well, as we all know from Space Seed, TWOK, and lots of other eps, genetic engineering is banned. Maybe you could argue that there is a level of genetic manipulation that falls just short of genetic engineering, which might be legal. But you don’t see in Trek any sign that people use genetic manipulation to enhance or alter their offspring. I vaguely recall that Voyager ep, but I don’t remember if Paris and B’Ellana were given the option of designing the look of their kid absent some medical justification.

    BTW, the comparison with pedophilia is beyond vile and, in the remote chance that you actually have any gay friends, saying something like that in their presence will be an ideal way to end the friendship.

  • Jack

    OMG, you are so right Kicker. After all, we have no idea what Capt. Kirk does in his quarters right? Who knows if he is gay or straight? His business is private. And they have never done entire episodes regarding Spock’s mating preferences. And they have never had 7-year long story arcs revolving around the sexual attraction b/t a First Officer and a ship’s counselor, or between a navigator and the chief engineer. Why are those pushy gays always flaunting? Anyways, glad to hear that you’re not prejudiced!

  • Jack

    It is a shame you weren’t working for NBC in 1966. You could have been there to tell Roddenberry that he didn’t actually need to show a Black woman and an Asian man on the bridge. After all, there are 400 crew on the Enterprise. On any given episode, 390 or so are offscreen. Why the lower decks could be crawling with coloreds! The negro viewers can just “assume” that that is where all the Black crew are. Or they can assume that one of those white-looking security guys in non-speaking roles is 1/16 Black. Problem solved.

    Look, not to snark on you too much, but you are missing the point. The point is not for the writers to go out of their way to show “gay stuff.” Nobody would want that. The point is simply that gay crewmembers are part of the crew, doing exactly what other crewmembers are doing. And you would find out they are gay not because of some ostentatious announcement or some plot contrivance to get it on screen. You would find out in the same way that we learn about crew members on Trek. So it might be 2 crewmen sitting alone together in Ten Forward or it might be a character who is talking about her life and mentioning falling in love at the Academy or whatever.

  • Jamil_Scalese

    Shutty. I live with two gay men and a trans and have had conversations with several LGBT about the nature of attraction and how that relates to homo, hetero, bi, and yes, even the attraction to children. We’re all chemicals, baby, keep your prejudices out of it.

  • shaunn

    I assume in the same way that Christians eventually stopped burning people at the stake, torturing them to death, and slaughtering people in order to save them, the few Muslims who are “beheading gays and stoning rape victims” will be a thing of the past. Like bigoted stereotypes in general, one hopes.

  • whatever

    cool nobody loves a fag

  • http://www.dpsinfo.com LaurieMann

    Many people don’t love bigots, either, yet they still up in TV shows.

  • darkwingdave

    Gee it would be nice if people used words properly.
    Phobia from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning “fear” or “morbid fear” . That’s why we have words like Agoraphobia -fear of open areas. Acrophobia – fear of heights. These conditions require therapy and sometimes medication for treatment. Disagreeing with someone’s sexual preference is NOT “homophobia” because there is no morbid fear, only a personal disagreement with that choice.

  • darkwingdave

    Some people have daily goals of how often they can be personally offended or join in someone else’s being offended.

  • Casca

    Well, maybe by the 24th century they will have cured Homosexuality ….

  • lil bit

    Theres was so much gay already in TNG, i always felt that Q had to be gay, in some eps he appeared kinda like a drag queen. Gay in a bit funny way.

  • Ian Thal

    Yes I do know the meaning of the word and its derivation.

    Considering an erotic preference that does neither inflicts malicious harm nor oppresses others, to be inherently evil or a signifier of evil is phobic because it is an irrational belief.

    It does not follow that a heterosexual must see homosexuality as inherently evil or harmful any more than humans must see spiders as inherently evil and harmful. These are irrational beliefs, hence, we call them phobias.

  • darkwingdave

    Doesn’t oppress others? Really? Like the businesses that are being harassed and punished because they chose to exercise their right to refuse service? Like the military chaplains that are being told they can’t present the teachings of the Bible? And again, you’re avoiding the issue. A person afraid of spiders has an irrational fear that prevents them from acting normally. I have no fear of homosexuals, I disagree with their lifestyle choice. Therefore I do not have a ‘phobia’ of homosexuality and should not be labeled a ‘homophobe’ which is an easy way for someone who can’t argue the facts to shut down debate.

  • Ian Thal

    Who is shutting down debate? Is there a button marked “censor” that somebody has clicked? Your voice certainly hasn’t been silenced.

    The fact that you can’t seem to distinguish between the requirement that businesses respect various federal laws against discrimination as well as the 14th Amendment (the equal protection clause) and the notion that military personnel are required to uphold the military’s policies against discrimination, and harassment is rather ludicrous: Military chaplains are often called to minister to personnel from other faiths; a military chaplain who uses his or her position to prejudice his or her congregants against their gay or lesbian colleagues is just as ill-suited for military service as one who uses the position to prejudice congregants against their Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish colleagues.

    The point is that the episodes in question portray same-sex attraction as a signifier of evil– that is an irrational prejudice based in hatred. It’s entirely possible to have no interest in gay sex and not view homosexuals as evil.

  • charlie

    Dax is likely bisexual. the episode on Riza with Vanessa Williams was suggestive however Star Trek was always really poor at depicting gay characters due to one of the production crew not being very progressive about it.

  • Kyle Maddock

    “The greatness of this love transcending lifetimes and yet the rules of Trill society still would not permit it.”

    Sounds like the perfect description for an episode on homosexuality. I just recently watched this episode and I couldn’t help but think how strongly it played in today’s society. It was not specifically about two women loving each other, but two people loving each other so strongly that the rules of society could not keep them apart. But on the surface it was two women who needed to be together and to hell with what everyone else thought.

  • baldyjohnson

    I had always presumed Geordi and Data were star trek’s 2 gay characters

  • ohplease

    Language evolves, even for those who aren’t smart enough to understand that evolution is real. You’re not going to personally repeal “homophobia” — a word that accurately describes a psychological disability and has been in common use for decades — just because you don’t understand it, so why bother trying?

    Then again, you think sexual orientation is a choice (I’d love to know why and under what circumstances you chose yours) and that you get to “disagree” with whether an entire culture of other human beings get to exist or not. Be glad that none of us have that choice, or you might be unpleasantly surprised to find out how many people would think the Earth a better place without you in it.

    I don’t know who taught you to hate — and to hate others with such embarrassing ignorance — but you do yourself no favors by flaunting the results.

  • ohplease

    My erotic preference is what I like to do. My sexual orientation is who I’m hardwired to do it with. Not remotely the same things.

  • ohplease

    Bigots who own businesses still have to follow the law. There is no “bigot exemption” from discriminating against a protected class — it’s because of the bigots that the laws are there in the first place, so that the public can be protected from irresponsible business people. States that list LGBT people as a protected class (and, sadly for you, there are many) deny bigoted businesspeople the option of discriminating against them. Don’t like it? Don’t start a business in a state with modern civil rights legislation.

    You obviously are restricting your news intake to extremely dubious sources. Your military chaplain story does not exist in the real world. You do not get to “disagree” about whether or not other people get to exist. A life is not a “lifestyle”. Exactly what “lifestyle” is every single gay person on Earth supposed to be living, according to you? After all, everyone will want to know whether they’re doing it wrong.

    Stop being such a homophobe, you look ridiculous.

  • ohplease

    And it’s almost always the case that those who do view gay people as evil are, themselves, extremely ignorant, fundamentalist religious, self-hating gay people. Especially if they’re men. Actual straight men give exactly no thought whatsoever to gay sex, but the Ted Haggards of the world are consumed by such fantasies.

    Don’t want to confirm to everyone that you’re “secretly” gay? Don’t hate on the gays. Because everyone knows that’s exactly what you hating gays means.

  • ohplease

    Pot meet kettle!

  • ohplease

    I don’t know how this myth that gay people are less than 10% of the population started — even among some LGBT people themselves — but it’s ridiculous.

    Simple math shows you that adding up all the numbers of people in attendance at all the places and events that are gay-oriented in the US alone means that if only 5% of the population is gay, then every single gay person is going to every single one of these marches, dances, clubs, community centers, concerts, parties, rodeos, etc., etc., etc. Clearly, that’s not happening. Who’s watching their kids? How do they get all that vacation time and be able to afford the travel? Annual Pride parade numbers alone put the lie to this fake statistic. Half a million there, a quarter million there, and yet how many people actually know gay people who actually go to any — let alone every — Pride?

    The fact is that it’s impossible to know what percentage of the population is gay. It’s higher in some areas and lower than others. But less than 10% overall? No.

    Also: homosexuality is completely morally neutral right now, and always has been.

    Also: gay people have babies. It happens all the time right now, so why wouldn’t it happen in the future?

    Also: gay people who don’t have biological offspring adopt children right now, of which there are constantly more in the system than can ever be placed (for which you can thank heteros).

    Also: 10% of the population severely limits your choices? Exactly how many people that you’re attracted to do you think you remotely have a shot at? Everyone who isn’t a paragon of physical beauty has their choices severely limited and that has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

    Also: you mistakenly assume that bi people don’t exist or that straight people never have gay sex. I assure you both of those things are very true.

  • ohplease

    So childless straight people are species traitors? Gay people don’t have kids? Someone’s adopted kids are, at best, a second-rate consolation prize?

    You may not have meant that, but there are people who do, and their lineage going on is not exactly the best course for humanity.

  • ohplease

    No, he’s right and you’re so, so, so obviously wrong — your “some of my best friends” logic notwithstanding.

    There’s another cliche that comes to mind: “With friends like you…”

    It is beyond offensive to have the degenerate belief that equates a pathological abuse of children based on unequal power and violence with anything loving. I’m sorry to tell you that you seem not to be a peer of towering intellectuals that you seem to think you are. But better you know sooner than later.

  • ohplease

    No, that is not all that is required. Being bisexual means your sexual orientation is towards two genders. Being sexually active with both genders does not make you bisexual any more than a closeted gay father of five married to the biological mother of his children for fifty years makes him straight.

    If I shared my body and mind with a genderless entity and its sexual/romantic past included people outside my own sexual orientation and I cooperated in acting on that attraction, I would not be bi. Unless I was to begin with, which Jadzia is not.

    Also: that episode originally aired on October 30, 1995. The first gay kiss on TV actually happened on February 7, 1991, on LA Law.

  • ohplease

    There is so much clueless offensiveness in your short post, I wouldn’t even know where to begin.

  • ohplease

    Are you feeling well? “In-your-face ‘we’re gay'”? Does anyone really think like that?

    Yeah, and I’m so sick of all this in-your-face “we’re straight” stuff I have to put up with every single second of every single day. Those straights are so flamboyant about their “identities”. When will the world finally stop pandering to straight people?!?

  • Sentry616

    Then I would call that mission accomplished number 1. We may yet make our rendezvous with representative Furter from the Transsexual system. Ensign lay in course for the Transylvania galaxy, maximum warp….. engage.

  • Ian Thal

    I really couldn’t care less whether an orientation is the result of nature, nurture, or choice. My patience with bigots, especially of the moralistic type, only goes so far as the time I’m willing to spend pointing out the poverty of their arguments.

  • Jamil_Scalese

    Read: ATTRACTION. Not: ACTION

    If you believe that homosexuality is not a choice and wired to one’s personal makeup (and you do, clearly, by your parade of comments up and down this page) then you are absolutely hypocritical if you don’t believe that the attraction to children is in the same wavelength. Pedophiles don’t CHOOSE to enjoy sex with children, they CHOOSE to act on it. That’s the criminal part. Acting on it is morally unforgiving, but simply being attracted to kids? HOW CAN A PERSON HELP THAT? It’s entirely possible to be a pedophile virgin, right? Having immoral thoughts is not equal to the immoral action. If it was I would have been booked for murder after reading your comment.

    I’ll quit now because you seem like the type that’s not too down with honest and fruitful discourse.

    And I’ll take your unwarranted insults and personal attacks as a backhanded compliment and assume that you at least think I’m halfway up that tower of intelligence. Thanks for letting me know where I stand though. Ass.

  • Greg Price

    Yes, it was “in your face”, because Gerrald, instead of (as he had originally) simply having it be a passing bit of “business”, made it a point to make it a huge deal to show them extensively interacting as a couple, Including a badly overwrought and mawkish scene in the final act that was just painful to watch.

  • Hortensio deChipotle

    The word “homophobia” was initially coined some decades ago to refer to people who were afraid of homosexuality, or of becoming gay. A journalist decided to abuse the term by conflating it with what should probably be called homoaversion. There are people who will argue that “language changes over time” but what I see is an exploitation of the English language by people with an agenda. They want to conflate an aversion to homosexuality with an actual fear of it, where no fear exists.

    Insisting that it’s really okay because “language changes over time” is manipulative. It’s disingenuous, and there are plenty of queer people who are emotional enough about the topic that they don’t notice the subtle distinction; and even if they do, they don’t necessarily care.

    And then there are queer people like me, who are able to see through the intentional deceit and the unintentional spreading of it, and are comfortable enough with who they are that they don’t need to play games with language in order to defend their belief that being queer is in fact quite alright. When you can be calm enough about a group of people who dislikes you – even hates you – to say, “No, they are not phobic, they simply have an aversion to it,” you’re doing it right. How you feel about that aversion is an entirely different matter. When you call it an aversion, you acknowledge what is really going on. When you call it a phobia (and know better) it’s just the logical conclusion of a psychological defense mechanism designed to protect a belief that has heavy emotional investment, and which would involve admitting incorrectness, to change. No one wants to do that in the face of someone telling them that they’re sinners or immoral or whatever. The moral repugnance of the “homophobe” is what turns off our higher reasoning and makes us want to attack such a person however we can. In doing so, we lie to ourselves that this person has a phobia, when they do not. Dealing with the outside world is not helped by believing in lies.

  • CantBanThis

    Christianity and other delusional mental illnesses need to be “cured” first. By the 24th century, people should be too smart to fall for badly written fairy tales.

  • jason malinoski

    Obviously a clear cut case of projection.

  • Jason Tanner

    “One fan asked, “Well, are you going to have gay crewmembers, because in the 60’s you had Black and Asian and Latino, etc.?”

    You gotta love how the gay community tries to equate sexual preference with something as monumental as race equality and civil rights movement. What a sham.

  • Neil

    As a gay DS9 fan, I have to take issue with you. To begin with, as dswynne pointed out, Leeta and Ezri in the mirror universe were bisexual if not lesbian and neither of them was portrayed as evil or even that decadent. The Intendant was conceived from the outset as an evil and decadent character; the bisexuality was not there as an intent from the beginning. (By the way, all my assertions about what actors/writers etc. have said come from my many, many cover-to-cover readings of the DS9 Companion, which has commentary from actors and writers and producers on ever single episode.)

    Also, everyone in the mirror universe was overly sexual, so you can’t really point to the Intendant and say “they’re saying bisexual=evil, those bastards.” As an example of the near-universal oversexedness of the mirror universe, there’s even a scene where Worf tells Garak “you are not my type,” implying that at least in Worf’s mind, Garak was potentially attracted to him; and who knows whether mirror Worf meant that Garak wasn’t his type because he was male or because he was Caradassian or just because he was a conniving sycophant. For that matter, it’s not even clear whether Worf would have been Garak’s type. Now neither of them was a good guy in the mirror universe, but this is just an example of how everything was hypersexed in the mirror universe. (As an aside, on the subject of Garak, though it’s never explicitly stated on screen, Andrew Robinson has said he viewed, and played, Garak as omnisexual. The Garak-Bashir sexual undertones that people picked up on were intentional, at the very least, on the actor’s part.)

    The all-over-the-place sexuality of the mirror universe started with the Intendant, but that came about, at least according to Nana Visitor, as a misreading of her performance. In the first mirror episode she played the Intendant as being fascinated/”in love with” Kira because she was completely infatuated with herself. In Visitor’s mind, the Intendant was just such a self-involved creature that of course she would fall in love with “herself.” She wasn’t playing the Intendant as lesbian or bi, but as totally infatuated with this other version of herself. But that performance came off as, “the Intendant is bisexual” to the writers and producers, who just ran with it. Visitor has explicitly said she regretted that people interpreted her performance that way because of the potential implication that being gay or bisexual was evil. She expressed those concerns to the producers, who would later go on to show Leeta and Ezri as bi or lesbian characters who were not evil.

    So there was no nefarious plot on the part of the writers to portray homo- or bi- sexuality as evil. The rampant sexuality (in general) was something the writers used to show how different the universes were; to make the mirror universe seem edgier and grittier and a more swashbuckling, dangerous place. They could certainly have been more judicious about it, more conscious about unintended consequences of the way they portrayed things, and have admitted as much. Hence, again: Ezri and Leeta.

    “Rejoined” was specifically intended as an allegory about homosexuality. And part of the point was, by the way, not one character in the episode bats an eyelash at the fact that the relationship is between two women. Avery Brooks, who directed the episode, has said that to him it was important that the fact that it was two women was a complete non-issue to the characters was critical to the whole point. It’s something that would be right in the viewer’s face in 20th century America, but that these 24th century people never even once discuss throughout the entire episode. The taboo is this alien restriction about rejoining with a former mate and that stands in for the modern taboo about homosexuality; but the homosexuality is completely ignored by the characters. It doesn’t matter to them in the slightest, and their silence on the issue speaks volumes.

    Finally, it’s arguable that DS9 also showed a type of “gay sex.” (OK only in a weird, alien sci-fi way, but….) “Linking” between the Founders is portrayed as something very intimate that can produce sensations that mimic, in their intense pleasure, sexual gratification. It’s arguable how much gender Odo or other Changelings have, but they certainly present themselves as male and female. Odo “links” with both “male” and “female” Changelings at various points throughout the series. Not just in the Great Link with all of them (is that an orgy?), or during a fight or to extract information, either. The most notable such intimate incidents with a “male” shapeshifter are with Laas in the episode “Chimera.” I’m not claiming that the writers intended this as “gay sex” but it’s arguably analogous. Certainly, Rene Auberjonois has stated that he viewed, and played, the “link” as an intimate, quasi-sexual experience.

    I’ll be the first to admit that none of this is the same as, let’s say, portraying one of O’Brien’s male engineering staff in a relationship with one of Odo’s male security guards (some of those Bajoran boys were kinda hot…always loved those nose ridges), or having Bashir and Garak hook up like so many people wanted. I’ll also be the first to admit that some of the gayish elements of those crossdressing Ferengi episodes were pretty hamhanded. But all things considered, for a syndicated, family-friendly show from 15 years ago that in a lot of markets aired sometime between 5 and 8 pm, they were pretty damn progressive.

  • Martin

    It would be nice if you would use words properly too. A “choice” implies a conscious decision, and by calling sexual preference a “choice” you are saying that people consciously choose whether they are straight or gay. As someone who grew up in a very conservative Christian family, I never would have “chosen” to be attracted to other males. Even if I hadn’t grown up in such a family, I never would have “chosen” it, based on how society in general treats gay people. My conservative Christian upbringing did nothing, however, to change the fact that whether I liked it or not, and I didn’t–and I most definitely didn’t choose it–my sexual desires, when they started to develop, were exclusively for other males. Believe me, I tried to “pray the gay away” hundreds and hundreds of times, to no avail. It was never a choice that I made and I would have, in fact, done anything not to be that way. And you also reveal either unintentional or willful ignorance about the overwhelming evidence not just from psychology but from actual hard science like neuroscience, genetics, etc. that increasingly make claims that homosexuality is a “choice” ridiculous on their very face. It’s no more a “choice” than the color of your eyes or your latent IQ. Calling it a “choice” is an easy way of someone who ignores facts in evidence to shut down debate.

    Whatever you might believe about homosexuality being immoral or sinful or whatever, know that when you call it a “choice”, your words incite not just anger from the places you’d expect it, but crushing pain and guilt and shame in anyone in your life who might be struggling with trying to figure out what they did wrong, how they could possibly have “chosen” something that causes them constant turmoil and pain and shame because they’re too afraid to tell the people in their lives who, like you, would condemn them for having desires (not actions, desires) they do not want and over which they have absolutely no control. And not just condemning them, but doing it casually, dismissively, by calling it “a personal disagreement with that choice.” I don’t “choose” to find men attractive any more than you “choose” to find women attractive. It’s not a choice for either of us. It’s the way we’re each wired.

    Try for a modicum of empathy and compassion. As someone who is still trying to make sense of things in my own life, I have been hurt terribly by people who love me and they don’t even know it because I’m still terrified of telling them the truth.

  • darkwingdave

    So Martin, you’re claiming God ‘wired’ you in such a way that was in direct contradiction to His Word? That would mean one of you is wrong, and I’m putting my money on you.
    In addition, people ‘choose’ to do things that they know are wrong. That will cause people harm and grief. They’re called addicts, criminals, mentally ill. Am I saying gays are any of these? No, so kindly put your pitchforks and *phobia slings away. You said people wouldn’t make the conscious choice to be homosexual because of the downsides and repercussions but people do for other reasons.
    The rest of you, I hope you see the error of your ways before it’s too late. Because if you’re right and there is no God, just *poof* and existence is over, so be it. If I’m right and there is a God and you’ve been mocking Him with your life, eternity is a looong time to realize you were wrong.

  • Ian Thal

    Not to invalidate your viewpoint, but I’m stating how I interpreted those episodes when they were first broadcast. Mirror-Kira’s sexuality came across as bi-phobic. “Rejoined” simply came across as ham-fisted.

  • theKYrose

    Oh NICE…yet another way to make it “all about those poor little gays.” I will tell you 1 thing. If it had been about Christians….I know for a fact that all of you sheeple would be screaming bloody murder over it…made or not. But…for 1 thing, just because I have no interest in seeing yet another tired gay story on Star Trek, that doesn’t make me and people of my beliefs wrong, ignorant or any other thing you want to dig up. It means that we’ve no desire to see an entire plot revolve around someone’s private intimate matters. Because, see…. everyone would have screamed and squalled about it until that would have been the whole focus of the episode. Push…push…push…in everybody’s face.

  • mrsatyre

    “Gene balled him out”

    What an awesome typo!

  • mrsatyre

    That’s probably one of the stupidest, bigoted things I’ve read yet.

  • nitePhyyre

    It depends on the method of alteration. You are talking as if people would abort poor have to go through some form of special proceeds to correct abnormalities.

    If that it’s the case then I agree with you!

    I was picturing more of a situation where the first time you go for an ultrasound, the doctor hands you a “design-a-baby” form, it lists every possible trait that we can modify, and you fill it in.

    It’s a toss up whether people would pick the blonde, brunette, or redhead box. But not many people would pick the gay box over the straight box.

    On the other hand, if it’s a slider instead of the box, I think you would see a gradual shift towards bisexuality. There isn’t a compelling reason to move the slider to one side or the other if you can be both instead.

  • CarbonaNotGlue

    I am pretty certain that a few of the Tribbles were gay.

  • CarbonaNotGlue

    Doesn’t make “any” sense? Really? I wouldn’t abort my child, but if given a choice I would want to have a child that has the best chance of passing on my genetic code with the help of their life partner. Nothing to do with homophobia, I find the company of gay men over all more interesting than boring football-watching, BudLite-swilling straights (and I always call out people who post the homophobic term “teabagger”. )

  • CarbonaNotGlue

    I regularly attend “gay-oriented” events and I am not gay, so there goes your first fact deduced from erroneous stereotype. As far as reproduction, adopting does not continue your own gene-pool, so it is not an act of reproduction. It is an act of humanity.

  • CarbonaNotGlue

    Are you discounting the majority of the world population .. which is Islamic?

  • RTRR

    It’s not a typo. It means Gene yelled at the guy.

  • RTRR

    How classy. I think you’d feel more comfortable with the other bigots on youtube.

  • poop

    question is… are their fag Borg?

  • random guy

    i remember seeing a crossdresser walk past in TNG

  • Martin

    I never used the word phobia. What I’m saying is that if you’re claiming God didn’t wire me that way then it was my choice. And what I’m saying (via nothing other than simple logic) is that either I am wired that way through no choice of my own, or I somehow chose it. If you’re not willing to take my word for it that I didn’t choose it and emphatically tried to choose anything but that for years, then there is no point in discussing anything with you, as you are convinced either that I am lying or delusional.

    You also inferred way more than I said. I’ve been mocking God with my life? First of all, that is not your place to judge. You are not God. Secondly, all I talked about was my struggle and my pain with what you would call my temptation. I never once said if, or to what degree, I have ever even been with a man. For your information, I haven’t. You think that’s something I could just casually do, growing up the way I did? But you had already decided you knew me and everything that was wrong with me, so you assumed things that I never stated.

    God says in Genesis “it is not good for man to be alone,” and yes I know that was in reference to the creation of Eve. But (whether you want to believe this or not, and again, if you choose not to believe it you are not only calling me either a liar or delusional, you are ignoring insurmountable evidence in modern neuroscience–not psychology, mind you–neuroscience) I am not capable of desiring women. I have never once in my life experienced attraction to a woman, even when trying desperately to do so. Even when praying countless times to be the new creation Christians are supposed to be. So then according to you, I have no option for not being alone if I am to honor God. Think about how callous you and Christians like you seem to people like me. Do you honestly believe your approach could ever win a gay person to Christ? Or do you just not care because they are too personally disgusting to you?

    I have no intention of getting into a Biblical argument here but you should be aware that your views are by no means even held by anyone. You talk about if you’re right versus if I’m right. Well why don’t you consider something. If you’re wrong about the way you have dealt with gay people, or even (heaven forbid) if you’re wrong about being gay being a sin (I refuse to get into a Biblical argument here but if you care enough, which I doubt, you could research with an open mind other Christian perspectives than your own), do you think God is pleased with you about that?

    Now why don’t you see if you can get my point this time. Read the last paragraph of my previous post and see if you think Jesus would have responded to me the way you did.

  • BrashHulk

    Yes, that’s what Gerrold meant… however it’s spelled “bawled”, not “balled”.

  • BrashHulk

    KYrose, you’re in the definite minority in your thinking, and your very existence. Homosexual relationships span all living species on Earth and aren’t limited by race, creed, color, gender, or religious preference. I can understand why you’re so paranoid and frightened of these thoughts that make you feel small and insignificant, because it’s the truth: you are.

  • Keyser Soze

    Dax might not have been bisexual, but she was, literally, trans.

  • Keyser Soze

    The DS9 episode Chimera was also (to me) an episode whose plot was clearly an allegory for homosexual relationships, specifically those where one member of the relationship is closeted and the other one isnt.

  • http://www.freewebs.com/skeloric-torg/ Skeloric

    Frankly, I really can forgive Star Trek for not having the total courage to tackle GLBT inclusion especially since they did actually tackle the issue albeit a bit more obliquely.
    There was an episode where a race of alien hermaphrodites were dealing with a pair that had sought refuge on the Enterprise.
    One self identified as female and was getting quite cozy with Riker (Would Riker have had a “Crying Game” moment eventually? One does wonder…)
    Eventually they were forced to return to their world and answer for their “crimes” of refusing to conform to their world’s norm.
    Seek it out and see it again, ” for the first time”.
    Powerful episode, which presented the issues of GLBT folk without ever mentioning us.

  • http://www.freewebs.com/skeloric-torg/ Skeloric

    And yet I LOLed at his post anyway.
    Mainly as Riker was eventually going to have that “Crying Game” moment.
    Insensitivity aside, it is the blunt truth.
    Identifying as femal notwithstanding, I think “she” would be seeking some oral reciprocity as would be only natural…

  • cantbe

    Wasn’t stated very succinctly, but I believe he meant that the “race issue” was a far more immediate concern in the 60’s than homosexuality, at least in the general public’s eyes.

  • cantbe

    or stupidity…you’d be in a museum in the 24th century Casca

  • Hypo-Calvinist

    “So when are we going to see an Enterprise member who is a Christian…?” Just a thought, but maybe we’ll see this when Christians are prevented by law from being married, or when church groups exist to convert “Eskimo-Inuit”s into the race that “God” means them to be, or sodomy laws are enforced only against Buddhists, etc… Can you really not see the difference?

  • furfanatic

    It’s also “amusing” they should tap Ronald D. Moore to comment since there were no explicitly LGBT characters on “Galactica”. (Until ONE, tiny late-series webisode where the homo relationship is doomed and never referenced once the series proper started up again… of course.) I am so sick of of crumbs and half-assed explanations such as “SciFi for whatever reason is just sort of behind the curve on this.” As if (kinda) acknowledging that the homophobia/heterosexism exists is somehow the END of the conversation! Obnoxious!

  • Playhouse

    Of course, Frakes is on record for having asked the showrunners to have made the love interest of that episode more manly to really push the issue and that they balked at the idea.

  • NoGuff

    Why “must” Star Trek have a gay character? And a separate question, why is it so important given they are only less than 4% of the population?

  • Scott Mortensen

    I respectfully disagree, as homophobia, in the true sense of the word, is often a coping mechanism for people that fear their own latent sexuality. It isn’t even that their afraid they might be gay, it manifests as a disgust for thinking about homosexual acts, and having to deal with homosexuals as people can challenge this.

  • Scott Mortensen

    Yeah yeah. It grosses you out. There isn’t a charitable way to describe someone with your problem. It may not come from an inherent fear or from hatred, but it is pretty childish.
    I mean, in this day and age, with the myriad of things people are into sexually, being attracted to, and falling in love with people of your own gender isn’t really that weird.
    If you have stringent rules about who other people can love. it’s your issue, not theirs.

  • FusterCluck

    He’s not in the minority, it just seems that way because anybody who speaks out against the poof crowd is beaten down and called bigots. Capitulation should not be interpreted as acceptance.

  • FusterCluck

    The writer calls it “silly prejudices”. Perhaps to the writer, but for some of us who have not been cowed by the BLT crowd and still view it as sexual deviancy, albeit [mostly] a victimless sexual deviancy, we don’t consider it silly. We certainly don’t like having it shoved in our faces day in and day out. I’m glad they passed on a gay episode of TNG.

  • BrashHulk

    Careful Fuster, your post-orbital constriction is showing.

  • Nicki Savage

    Whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa.

    Mentally ill people do not CHOOSE to be mentally ill. You are a troll of the worst design.

    God places people on this planet for the purpose of teaching others about love and charity. The sins of man can fall upon their children like an onus (fetal alcohol, crack-baby, etc..) but God does not “let” or “make” things happen. He weighs all existences and probabilities and then chooses the one with the most to give.

    Mentally ill people and true Kinsey-sexuals (cisgendered, transgendered, bi/straight/gay/genderqueer in any form) are NOT making a conscious decision to be oppressed by moral fascists such as yourself.

    And if you’re wondering, I’m CATHOLIC. We are wired to BE formal and terribly straight-edged, but I’ll be damned if I let someone trash talk a human being just for what fixation his soul has.

    Go home and read your Bible. Your heartlessness makes me sick, and I pray you get smart and SOON.

  • Nicki Savage

    Jesus would have broken bread with you, blessed you, counseled you through your sadness and trials, and wished you health and love. He never once said anything about homosexuals, bad or good. As a matter of fact, the self-righteous types like darkwingdave were not the kinds of people Christ associated with.

    And if that troll has ever eaten shrimp or worn mixed fabrics, to say nothing of cutting an inch of his hair, he’s got the same guilt in his soul that he thinks you do.

    I’m sorry for the people who claim to be Christian but spew nothing but hate. But I know for sure that Christ would smile and embrace you.

    Besides, who the hell is that jerk to judge you? Not God. He’s just a mortal man who’s probably judging you because the conscious sins on his own chest are weighing him down to the point he can’t breathe without insulting someone.

    God loves you. And I sure wouldn’t cross the street to get away from you, either. *Hugs tight.*

  • darkwingdave

    No, they don’t choose. But Gay people choose to be gay. No? Ask Anne Heche. Ask Don Ennis.
    No, according to the Bible, people are placed here to worship God. “Weighs..and chooses..” So much for free will then.
    Ah the fascist label. Thanks, I didn’t think I’d had enough of those yet. “Catholic..be damned..” Yep, that about covers that one too. Keep praying to Mary, I’m sure I’ll play for the other team before she answers you, or does anything for you. Because she’s dead. Human, just like us. The only one that can interact for you, save you or listen to you is God. Have a Spirit-filled (hopefully) day.

  • FusterCluck

    Lol, well played.

    Comment deleted because I used the word “poof”. Wow…

  • B S

    paramount has a nasty history of nixing -anything- that might unsettle what they perceive as the “normal”, overwhelmingly heteronormative, -male-, between 18 and 40 sci-fi watcher demographic, which is why we get wood-faced actresses in cat-suits instead of openly homosexual characters. but yes, lt. hawke was GOING to be gay, just like the armory officer was SUPPOSED to be gay in ENT, but both those went up in flames thanks to paramount and hawke’s orientation was only expanded within the ST:EU material. which are considered ambiguous canonicity.

  • Shane Nokes

    You know I had a whole lot I had written and was going to say here…but I’ll boil it down.

    Prejudice is stupid, and anyone who advocates it is a moron.

  • Shane Nokes

    I think the more important question is why can’t they have a gay character? What’s wrong with having a gay character?

  • Shane Nokes

    It was a couple lines in an episode in this case, and not detailing an entire relationship. They were one episode guests with a ‘scene’ that took all of a few seconds to just say something to Riker about dating since the Academy.

    It doesn’t detail their relationship or push anything.

    Also what other ‘tired gay stories’ has Star Trek ever shown?

  • Shane Nokes

    I hope you never watch British television then. The amount of cross-dressing used in comedy there would make you scream…which I find hilarious.

  • Shane Nokes

    So essentially you were just looking for a reaction?

  • NoGuff

    No one said they can’t. And what’s wrong with not having a gay character?

  • Shane Nokes

    What’s wrong with not having anyone other than white heterosexual males?

    The point is that life itself is diverse…which was part of the point of Star Trek. The very concept of the show is about embracing that which is unique and different. To take those who are not viewed well in society and show that they can also roam the stars without petty fears or hatreds.

  • riseup124

    No. Wasn’t looking for a reaction. This is the comment section. I left a comment.

  • man_wolf

    Probably since so many of these militant gay activists today like to claim being gay isn’t a choice but is rather a matter of genetics, medical advances in the distant future Star Trek’s set in have more than likely progressed to the extent where they’ve developed a means of treatment akin to that discussed today in determining an individuals predisposition towards acquiring various forms of cancer, where Parents in Star Trek’s future are able to detect & correct any biological aberration found in advanced genetic scans with their child while still In Utero & subsequently corrected, hence no gays in Star Trek. Yeah…What a loss.

  • Ed

    No, actually Tanner is right. They are not the same, but some folks would sure like you to think they are. That helps them further the “cause”, ya know….

  • Shane Nokes

    I didn’t say it was offensive. I was just trying to understand the point of the comment. I don’t mean that in a way that’s meant to be sarcastic or rude. I was just trying to figure out the motivation for it since I can’t figure it out…which is a rare position for me to be in.

  • riseup124

    haha. ok. Let me explain. I understand that gay people have had to deal with prejudice. But even if it is not their decision to have feelings for members of the same sex, it is their decision to be intimate with members of the same sex. You can’t change your race. You can’t decide not to be brown (or whatever color you want to label other races). You can’t leave your color at home. You can’t pretend (not that anyone should) to be a different color (oddly enough u can pretend to be a different race), which is why I said in my previous comment… Homosexuality is not a race. That was the only point I was trying to make in my original comment. You have gays in almost every race, but it, in and of itself, is not a race.

  • FusterCluck

    Agreed, when it comes to race, religion, gender, etc.. Agree 100%. However, some still view homesexuality as another form of sexual deviancy, no matter how hard the BLT crowd try to shame them into believing it’s acceptable.

  • Kadratis

    Dax was not on TNG…

  • NoGuff

    Who’s to say they weren’t roaming the universe? Must they be featured for some reason in the show’s stories? Plenty of aliens in the franchise weren’t featured in the stories. Why aren’t you barking about those inequities? BTW, the “diversity” in Star Trek was about race & opinion & freedom, not about unnatural sexual fetishes getting equal time.

  • Shane Nokes

    You know, it was once considered an unnatural sexual fetish for a white man to kiss a black woman…yet Star Trek tackled that.

    Also where am I barking?

    Perhaps you should spend less time trying to troll folks for reactions and more time being a decent human being…nah that’s asking for too much. ;)

  • Talitha Garlic

    It was short-sighted on Paramount’s part not to realize what a huge number of Trekkies are gay; after all, this was a future where anyone could fly the ship, even a woman. We thought it was a future where we would fit in too.

  • NoGuff

    To accuse someone with a different opinion from yours of being a troll you lose the argument because you can’t respond with a viable enough answer to challenge. You might as well just call me a “racist.” I’m sure you’ve done that plenty of times to others.

  • Shane Nokes

    Actually I provided a fully thought out answer with plenty to address.

    The fact that you’re choosing to ignore that is enough of an admission on your end that you have no argument against what I’ve said.

    On top of that there is a world of difference between pointing out a persons troll-like behavior and calling them a racist. Also I’m very careful in how I label people, especially because of my past work.

    No worries though. I doubt you’ll come back with a reply to my earlier points since you’re not actually interested in discussing this.

  • Shane Nokes

    Indeed, and those are the same type of people that in times past thought that black people were an inferior type of animal that had human like qualities, but not actually human.

    The stupidity just changes based upon what is considered the de rigueur thing to be upset about at the moment.

  • FusterCluck

    Comparing the homosexual movement to the civil rights movement is what is stupid. What’s next, force us to accept that gay pedophilia is OK? Yes, I made the analogy, bring it on.

  • ladeeeda

    So according to your Logic, sexuality is a choice.Then we were born neutral, so we have the choice to be either straight or gay. Now if you say “we were born straight!” then you are saying that there could be a possibility that some can be born gay or Bi.

  • Shane Nokes

    Ok now you’re just being a moron. There’s a HUGE difference between sex between consenting adults and rape (of any kind, especially of kids), and you know it.

    Also bring what on? The fact that you’re a middling intellect at best who really shouldn’t try to draw analogies without someone there to supervise?

  • FusterCluck

    You question my intellect yet it is you who resorts to name calling…
    Once we’re forced to accept the first group of deviants as a protected class, I used a bit of hyperbole to ask what’s next on the agenda. And while I know there is a huge difference between the physical act of consentual sex and rape, I argue that it is a miniscule difference, a small click in the DNA, between the two deviant groups.

  • James C

    First of all, even today, gay persons can have children thanks to artificial insemination and surrogates — and by the 24th century, the options will undoubtedly be even greater. Hence, procreation is a moot point. However, even if that were true, it should also be noted that in the 24th century, there would likely be rampant over-population and having gay children who were less likely to procreate might be preferable — although, again, gays might be procreating equally to straights by that era.

  • Shane Nokes

    No, no you don’t understand. I don’t question your intellect. I know that you’re a moron. I’m not even questioning it.

    It’s more than a bit of hyperbole to compare an adult human who loves another adult human and a pedo.

    There is a huge world of difference there.

    I mean at that point you might as well say that there’s just as a small of a difference between a man who loves a woman and a man who would sexually abuse his daughter.

    After all they are both human females…right?

    No…you’ve completely proven that you’re an idiot.

  • shaunn

    I agree with this, though I don’t agree that population would be a problem in the 24th century. The reverse is true. The human population is expected to peak by the middle of this century, then start to decline. Also, there is a clear relationship between economic development and the number of children people have. The more developed a place, the fewer children. If we imagine that the 24th century Earth has eliminated poverty, then there is every reason to think that it would have a very low and manageable human population.

  • Bargab

    Personally, I don’t want to see two men kissing on my television or anywhere near me. It is just plain gross. Heck I don’t want to see two women kissing as well. It is just not natural. If you want to call me homophobic so be it, but don’t be a bigot and put me down for my views and the views of many people not wanting to rock the boat from the bullying of the mainstream media on this issue, which is confusing the heck out of our teenagers today.

    There is such a thing as health fear and being homophobic is one of them. No amount of peer pressure to the contrary is a sufficient argument for being gay. In fact, critical thinking is about the only thing missing from this debate, which is not over, as the writer of this article seems to suggest.

    Being gay is a sexual identify problem whether or not they recognize it or not. There are plenty of people who’d say they aren’t depressed or dependent on drugs, when in fact they are. These problems might not affect others, but it is still a problem for the person who has it. I, for one, will not succumb to the peer pressure of the writer of this article. In fact, his views on normalizing homosexuality is “silly.”

    People who know the truth on this issue need to get a backbone and stand up for our society because, like I wrote, this is confusing the heck out of our teenagers. I blame the mainstream media, which likes to promote all kinds of social experiments. Now, we’re dealing with frequent shootings and it’s going to get worse as society continues to devalue their humanity. Divorces are at an all time high, massive amounts of babies are born out of wedlock. By the way, children need the strength of both genders in the form of a father and mother, not a father and a father or a mother and a mother.

  • Bargab

    Prove to me that homosexuality is a genetic preference. What research can you point to that says that it is a genetic predisposition? Don’t cite that homosexuality is genetic or natural just because gay people are attracted to their same gender because there are many pedophiles that are attracted to children. Does that mean they are genetically or naturally attracted to children. No! Rather, they developed that preference from some kind of dysfunction during their formative years, probably because they were abused as children themselves.

    Please don’t resort to an attempt at bullying to try and prove your point as well because in critical thinking that is not a real argument. So, what real evidence do you have that being gay is natural or genetic? By the way there is a big difference between having biological predispositions and genetic predispositions.

  • Bargab

    Your statement here is a waste of time and effort. Who cares if your tired of bigots, when you yourself are a bigot since you refuse to consider those views opposed to them. Just look up the definition of bigot and see what I’m referring. Bring some real evidence-based information to the debate here.

  • Bargab

    Again, please bring some actual evidence-based information to the debate here rather than resorting to bullying or belittling as your only argument. Where is your evidence? It is astounding how those on the far left claim to be scientist, but they never really talk about the evidence, which is what Star Trek was all about.

  • Bargab

    How about unconsciously compelled rather than choice or genetically compelled.

  • Bargab

    From what I’m reading it sounds like Martin genuinely feels helpless about his same-gender attractions. So, I don’t think he’s intentionally mocking God. However, just because someone feels helpless about it doesn’t mean it is natural or genetic. Pedophiles truly feel helpless about their attractions to children, but we certainly would say that is natural. There are other explanations and solutions.

  • Ian Thal

    If my ethical imperative is to treat people fairly and compassionately even if some aspect of their behavior or emotional life is different from mine, then how it was that that difference emerged (nature, nurture, or choice) is is not an issue for me.

  • Bargab

    And that’s your argument?

  • Bargab

    Have you considered that you are comparing apples and oranges? Being black is obvious genetic, but having same-gender attractions are not, unless you can cite genetic evidence to the contrary. Still, having these same gender attractions shouldn’t mean that we discriminate against them unless they are trying to get a job within a Catholic or Christian organization. There really are two issues here.

  • Shane Nokes

    Actually I made several posts since then. That was my initial post, because the previous post was lost, and I didn’t have the patience to retype the entire thing.

    It was several paragraphs long, and I hadn’t taken the time to copy/paste it into Notepad before submitting, which was my mistake.

  • Bargab

    Who is bigoted here? You’re the one who is being mean and unable to consider the alternative view. Know your words. The point here is that citing how a person feels in terms of who you’re attracted to is not enough evidence to say that is is natural or genetic because if it were so than Pedophilia would be genetic and natural given their attractions to children. There are other ways that these attractions could have developed. Are you opened to those possibilities? If not, than you are bigoted.

  • Bargab

    Shane, did someone real important to you reject you and call you an idiot during your formative years? You seem to have a lot of venom. It is quite glaring to see it reflected in your posts here.

  • Shane Nokes

    I am not comparing apples and oranges at all. Everything starts with genetics in the case of humans. This can define appearance, behavior, etc.

    Nature is filled with tons of examples of heter, homo, and bi-sexual behaviors of various animals. It’s not like the animals learned it from humans. The lower down the evolutionary ladder you go, the more you remove the possibility of it being a function of ‘higher level’ brain patterns and more to it being a ‘lower level’ brain pattern.

    So when you find animals that rely more on their more instinctual behavior and less on their higher level brain functions behaving in similar ways, then you start to see a case pointing at genetics being a big part of the link.

    That’s even beside the case though. My biggest point is that saying that it’s ok to discriminate against those who are gay (whether in Star Trek, which is supposed to be above petty discrimination or reality) is just a bad thing.

    Discernment is one thing…discrimination is another. I can support the former, but will not support the latter.

  • Shane Nokes

    Sorry, but you’re case holds no water…because you’re still trying to compare homosexuality to pedophilia.

    You’ll get no further responses from me either due to your entirely rude nature and complete lack of intelligence.

  • Bargab

    My theory is that because this condition of having these same gender attractions are born out of having been rejected by a parent or some caregiver during their formative years and now they are seeking the status of acceptance from society in general to compensate for their personal, and likely unconscious, feelings of rejection. There is a whole psychology behind this theory, which is very intriguing.

  • Shane Nokes

    You shouldn’t use a word like glaring if you’re not going to use it correctly. It reeks of someone who wants to prove that they can play with the intelligent kids, but can’t actually grasp what they are doing.

    One thing I never had to deal with (during any years, since all years in life are formative in some way) was being called an idiot or really have to worry about rejection during childhood, or for most of adulthood really.

    I do have venom for people who think that bigotry and discrimination are ok. There are few things in this world I hate more than bigots and idiots. I do not act polite in the presence of either. They do not deserve my consideration.

  • Bargab

    Because it is gross and unnatural and very confusing to the younger audiences that are are going through the natural process of finding themselves as teenagers. That’s why.

  • Shane Nokes

    Reading your next reply though (to NoGuff) it seems with what you said there, and said up above that you think that I’m gay or bi.

    I’m not, but have many friends and family who are. I’ve seen what they go through in life because of their sexual orientation. No one would pick to be bullied and nearly killed if given the choice…well almost no one.

  • Bargab

    Again, have you stated anything with any significance on the issue? Bullying or belittling is not an argument.

  • Shane Nokes

    Oh I get it…you’re a homophobe. Why not just tell me that you’re a bigoted piece of trash before instead of trying to act like you wanted to have a decent conversation? This explains everything.

  • Shane Nokes

    Actually you’ve shown that you can’t be taken seriously on this due to your show of being bigoted.

  • Shane Nokes

    There’s 0 psychology there, other than your imaginative rantings.

  • Bargab

    Again, what evidence do you have that being gay is natural?

  • Bargab

    I agree, that most people who have these same-sex attractions didn’t ask for it, but that donsn’t mean it’s natural or born out of nature. Are you open to the possibility that it could have been developed? BTW, no one, straight or gay, should have to be belittled or bullied. I don’t believe in discrimination in any form, but expressing an alternative opinion is not discrimination.

  • Shane Nokes

    The nice thing about life? I can tell you to go away and stop answering…which is what I’ll do here. The reason being that you don’t actually care about the answer, because you’ll find a way to reject it so you can continue to be an ignorant person full of hate. :)

  • Bargab

    Again, the what are you saying here? You’re not contributing anything here other than devaluing my opinion. Look op the work bigoted and it would seem you are the one being bigoted here. BTW, discrimination toward anyone is harmful and wrong. That’s why you don’t see me here calling you names or anyone here.

  • Shane Nokes

    I watched a cousin of mine go through being absolutely beaten to within an inch of her life when she was a bartender. Some of her male patrons found out she was gay and tried to kill her in the parking lot after work.

    I’ve known her my entire life, and while we’re not the best of friends there’s one thing I know for certain. She grew up in a non-abusive household and has no history of sexual or mental abuse. Her entire life she has been attracted to women. This wasn’t something that developed in later life. She was always attracted to the girls and women at school.

    She’s never questioned it or really had a crisis of wondering if that’s who she really is. She did try to hide it from others for a while…by going to school dances with guys and such. However she never questioned if she was gay or not. She just knew that she was.

    The problem is that it won’t matter to you…since you’ve demonstrated how it’s gross and unnatural.

    I think I’ve answered every post you’ve made so far since I don’t see anything new popping up…so I’m leaving now…and won’t be coming back to answer your posts since there’s really not a need to, since you don’t want to actually be intellectually honest here.

  • Bargab

    That is horrible! That should not have happened. I am very sorry about your cousin.

  • Bargab

    There is a type of same sex attraction that can develop around ages three to five, which is during the phallic stage of one’s psycho-sexual development and it is possible that it would seem like she’s had those attractions from birth, but how could she really know at early of an age? Again, I am totally against any kind of discrimination, let alone physical abuse as your cousin experienced. I hope she was able to press charges.

  • Bargab

    Oh yes there is. How would you know if there is or not? Did you study psychology? Are most of your comments here as irrational as this one? Your not being a very good apologist of the gay moment here, but you are being a good protector. You seem to be looking for a fight rather than discussing this rationally.

  • Bargab

    I already said that I’m an homophobic. It is a rational fear of that which is not natural and gross. It is unbecoming. It is not natural for a man to act like a woman and to take it like a woman. Gay people rely on their tools to have the sex; without those tools they really can’t have sex. The primary function of the sexual organs is procreation, which gay people can’t do on their own. There are so many arguments that highlight the irrationality of same-sex attractions. I’ve highlighted quite a few here on this blog, but all I get from people with your views is name calling and bullying. Do you even have a moral center given your verbal venom?

  • Shane Nokes

    I do have a moral center. It is what makes me angry when someone discriminates against someone who is having consensual sex with another adult. It’s the same anger I feel when I see mixed-race couples being treated poorly as well.

    You haven’t managed to argue any irrationality other than your own fears. That’s the irrational bit. A phobia is a non-rational fear by definition. Just because you want to call it rational doesn’t make it so. People with OCD sometimes see their quirks (like locking doors 5 times) to be rational when it is clearly not.

    The primary purpose of a car is transportation. That doesn’t mean that I can’t also listen to music while I drive to make the ride more pleasant or be thought of as crazy or a deviant or sick or mentally aberrant.

    The primary purpose of something is not its only purpose.

    I would say someone who is grossed out by the mere act of two mature people in love wanting to be together is the person who likely has a skewed sense or morals and values.

    Their love does nothing to affect whatever love you have anymore than me loving my fiancee affects your ability to love someone.

  • FusterCluck

    OK, well in that case we’ve proven who the asshole is here (hint: It’s not me). I don’t think that Gays should be given special treatment (never did I say they should be discriminated against), and I certainly don’t think it’s OK for the lifestyle to be constantly thrown in our faces. I am suffering from gay fatigue. They constitute a very small percentage of the population yet they seem to demand 97% of the attention. I’m just tired of it. Love, lick or bone whomever you want to, just don’t expect me to accept it just because you say it’s ok, because it’s not. Peace.

  • Shane Nokes

    I’d rather be an asshole to those who support hatred, and nice to those who respect their fellow man.

    I agree that they shouldn’t be given special treatment or worse treatment. So they should be allowed to marry, grant things to their significant others via their wills, and various other legal protections that straight citizens have as well.

    The LGBT community are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for equal treatment.

    So call me an asshole if you want. I’ll sit back knowing that I’ve upset a bigot, and that’s just fine with me. ;)

  • Shane Nokes

    Why would I be an apologist? They have nothing that needs to be apologized for. So why would I apologize for a group of people who are doing nothing wrong?

    I have studied psychology, and you attempted to use the same bit of ‘psychology’ to explain my behavior that you used to explain why gay people are gay.

    You literally in the same thread tried to use the same bit of ‘logic’ to explain two very disparate sets of people. In other words, you’re an idiot who only pretends to be smart.

  • FusterCluck

    Boy have you got me pegged wrong. I don’t hate, and I don’t discriminate. I have nothing but a few minutes invested in this, and it would take a lot more than words from the likes of you to upset me. Glad to see you admit to being an asshole though…

  • Shane Nokes

    I don’t have you pegged wrong at all. You’ve already proven that you’re a bigot more than once.

    It’s good that it takes more than simple words to upset you since otherwise you’d have some serious issues.

    What I did admit to is being an asshole to those who support hatred. That’s actually doing the right thing.

    Then again as I’ve mentioned before to you and Bargab, I don’t expect anything logical out of either of you.

  • Joel Kirk

    The author, Brian Cronin, didn’t do his research. He says, “During the Civil Rights Movement, he had the first interracial kiss on prime time television (albeit a forced kiss, but still, baby steps).”

    Star Trek had scripted several interracial kisses – before Kirk and Asian and part-Asian actresses – before the so-called forced ‘first interracial kiss’ between Kirk and Uhura. Also, the television show “I, Spy” beat Star Trek by having an ‘interracial kiss’ between Robert Culp (white guy) and France Nuyen (Eurasian actress) in an episode called ‘The Tiger’ which, I believe, aired a year before that aforementioned forced, so-called ‘first’ interracial kiss.

    Last I checked, interracial couples are more than just black and white individuals.

  • FusterCluck

    Well actually, yes you do. Big time. But there’s going to be no convincing you because you are obtuse. When confronted with an opinion that does not fall in line with your own, you refuse to consider the opposing argument and resort to childish name calling. I also find it hilarious that you threaten to leave the conversation because you feel your opponent is beneath you, yet here you are. So not only are you a self-admitted asshole, you also have an ego that requires you get in the last word. Speaking of which, this is mine. Peace.

  • Shane Nokes

    No, no I don’t.

    Your own words, “don’t expect me to accept it just because you say it’s ok, because it’s not” “the first group of deviants”

    You pass judgment on something that has no affect on you other than the affect you let it have on you.

    In other words you choose to let it bother you, and you choose to judge.

    Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is hate. Hatred on those lines is bigotry, which makes you a bigot.

    I also only admitted to being an asshole to those who deserve it. That’s not the same thing as being an asshole in general.

    Although you do seem to have this odd fascination with assholes…which is funny for someone who seems to fear what others do with their own assholes. :P

  • NoGuff

    Take your own medicine. You couldn’t or wouldn’t answer my questions, hypocrite.

  • NoGuff

    It is indeed a mental disorder.

  • Shane Nokes

    You wait 20 days to come back with something that is worth less than a pile of cow dung eh? Awesome.

    I already knew you weren’t interested in a discussion, but you must have been super bored today.

  • Odori

    There actually was a timid attempt to take on the gay issue on TNG. There was an episode where Riker had a romance with a member of an androgynous species that whose culture considered identifying with a specific gender (having a gender identity) to be a terrible perversion. Because Riker’s lover chose to assume the female gender and have a romance with a gendered species, he/she was subjected to heavy discrimination and prejudice. The story was an allegory about bigotry against gays.

  • Dean_Chance

    I do wish you could see how this stubborn fixation you have regarding homosexuality makes you appear. Your judgmental and ignorant attitude isn’t making the point you think it is.

    That is a painfully obvious fact to everyone who reads this. Everyone that is but you.

  • NoGuff

    Soooo…. that’s your response? Fail.

  • Shane Nokes

    As I said before. I had already answered your questions. Just because you don’t like the answers doesn’t change reality.

    That’s one of the awesome things about reality. It exists independent of your opinions.

    Now if you want to actually discuss something fine. If not you won’t get another reply from me.

  • Tomas Landberg

    Can’t agree with you there. The way I interpret it, the controversy is between conforming to societal norms and having absolute liberty – The androgynous alien feels like a woman and wants to be a woman (liberty), and is brainwiped because of that to conform to the societal norm of absolute androgyny again.

    This could be allegorical to the present tendencies against both homosexuals and transgender people – They feel a certain way, a way which for no reason is frowned upon by society. They take it a step further with the brain wipe actually working, but I don’t think we should read too much into that. I don’t think that is some kind of affirmation of anti-gay therapy and it’s transgender analogue. I’d like to think that it simply was a convenient way of reseting after the episode, as is necessary for an episodic show.

  • Tomas Landberg

    I don’t know about bisexual, to be honest. There was no active relationship in the history of the Dax symbiont of the host shacking up with someone of the same sex. There were however a number of heterosexual relationships.

    Now, Dax was attracted to a woman that it’s previous host, which was a man, had been married to. This happened while it was in Jadzias body, but it’s kind of hard to firmly state, yet again, whether she’s bisexual or if it just was the symbiont falling back into old habits, with no thought given to the preferences of the host. What do you call it when you’re attracted to personality but have no care whatsoever if the other part is a man, a woman or something completely different from both those things? Due to the symbiont being genderless or at least of non-defined gender, the one romantic same-sex encounter Jadzia had has to be called into question.

  • Tomas Landberg

    Yet again, please differ the scientific (in this specific case, psychological) usage and the common usage of the same word. It’s like the word “Theory”: In science, with phenomenon X, it’s the explanation with the highest accuracy and predictability that gets to be called “The theory of X. Like the Theory of Special Relativity, or the Theory of Evolution. In common usage, however, it means a wild hunch or speculation with no emphasis on accuracy or predictive power.

    Equally, Phobia in psychology means an uncontrollable, irrational fear of something. But in common usage, it can also signify aversion or revulsion, which is very pertinent when talking about things like homophobia.

  • Dave Olson

    This is why you’ll never go back to “Star Dreck” once you discover “Babylon 5″. OK, the production design was somewhat lacking (but not bad considering they only had half the per-episode budget of TNG) and there were far too many “shootout in Cargo Bay 5″ resolutions (very noticeable when you binge-watch). But the producers weren’t so wrapped up in their own shit. During one story line, two male characters are sent on an undercover mission. Their cover is that they are a young married couple. Their reservations specify that they get the honeymoon suite. Another character is a straight-up, out-of-the-closet bisexual. Hell, one time Garibaldi said “Come on, he’s not the Pope! He doesn’t look anything like her!” B5 was far more courageous and ground-breaking than Trek ever was.

  • John

    Am I the only one that remembers the episode with an entire planet full of gay people? And if any of them showed signs of heterosexual tendencies, they were “fixed”.

  • Dave Stack

    The thing with Lt Hawk was since he was killed in First Contact, you didn’t know much about him. They only got into the fact he was gay, and had a Trill partner (who’s now Riker’s tactical officer on Titan) in the books.

  • TBanacek

    I will not watch anything related to Star Trek that has homosexual content of any kind. Period.

  • Rob Dotzler

    “Bullying or belittling is not an argument.”

    Then why do you keep using them?

  • Rob Dotzler

    I’ve been reading the posts, your question has been answered innumerable times. Read the posts next time.

  • Wit

    He’s your rock and chisel. Have fun trying to invent the wheel while avoiding homosexuals and homosexuality because we are, and have been, involved in intricate detail with nearly every aspect of technology that you use today. From Alan Turning (father of the computer and a homosexual) to the countless gay men and women and their allies who built the machines, wrote the code and imagined together our future and all the advancements in it that you take for granted every minute of every day of your homophobic life. You want to get away from the icky, icky gays? No one is stopping you. Have fun in the Stone Age, bigot.

  • Wit

    Not ‘gay people’ but a race of genderless aliens. You were “fixed” if you tried to express an identity of one gender or the other. It was a very poorly done allegory episode to homosexuality.

  • Wit

    You’re homophobic. Your entire 4 paragraph post can be summed up by the people who say things like “I’m not racist BUT..” Whatever they say after that is almost always gonna be racist.

  • Wit

    What evidence do you have that it is unnatural? Other than your own opinion that it is.

    This is the long and the short of the entire argument – most people are heterosexual, some are homosexual and a few are other sexualities somewhere in between. So what. What does it matter to you. Why care about what some people are or do with their lives when it has absolutely nothing to do with you. You don’t like gays? Fine, who’s asking you to. You don’t care to ‘accept homosexuals’ (whatever that means exactly.) Fine, you don’t have to. But who are you to stand in the way of what other people that you don’t even know do with their lives that do not affect yours. At all.

    Trust us, we don’t care about what you heterosexuals do. It’s your life, live it the way you want to live and don’t worry about someone else – or do you really want to waste your life worrying about/fighting against someone else just because they are different from you.

  • Wit

    Sorry but every single “theory” you’ve offered that homosexuality is a mental illness or defect was debunked and discredited by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 and by the American Psychological Association in 1975. Are you implying that you know more about psychology than actual, real professional psychologists?

    In a side note your “theories” also fail because homosexuals are the only group that literally cross every single line demographic you can name. That means that for every gay person with a history that fits your hypothesis there is one, and often more than one, that does not. That means your theory is by no means conclusive. It is only what you want it to be – an opinion of confirmed bias.

  • Wit

    Nope. Re read my above comment.

  • T. Banacek

    I’m under no obligation to approve of you or any other homosexual. Go to hell.

  • Wit

    You know, Bargab, there are probably many people that would say the same thing about your sexuality if they saw it – it’s gross and unnatural! And probably confusing too. Beware of casting stones when you live in glass houses.

  • Wit

    So how are they different and what is the “cause” that you speak of?

  • Wit

    Just as I am under no obligation to approve of you or any other heterosexual just for being heterosexual. Who cares, so why should you?

  • Wit

    If you approve of your own heterosexuality yet you view someone who is homosexual as ‘sexual deviancy’ that is ‘not acceptable’ then yes, Virginia, you do discriminate. If not specifically in your actions then in your thinking of someone else as not as good or as acceptable as you simply because they are different. Sorry.

  • Straussberg

    Umm… someone forget the DS9 episode Rejoined?

  • corvus1970

    Oh look, its Pascal’s Wager!

    Yeah, your argument? NOT new. Read up:

    http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/afraidofhell.htm

  • MartyV

    I thought ALL star trek characters were gay.

  • LawTrekker

    Darkwingdave, the God in whom I believe would never reject a human for behaving in a way that Leviticus may (or may not) reject. Those of us who believe that the Bible was divinely inspired can nonetheless believe that humans wrote it according to their own understanding, which was certainly limited, especially at that time. As soon as someone says that it is a violation of God’s law to be gay, I wonder if they say the same thing about mixing linen and wool, which also appears in Leviticus. And, because the literal words of the Bible mention only men, wouldn’t that mean that lesbianism should be ok? If you believe that God’s word means that people should be straight, go ahead and be straight; no one is stopping you. However, you have no right to speak for God, especially to members of other religions. Finally, while you’re grinning knowingly and saying “Aha, there goes another one of those gay folks,” you’re wrong — I’m straight and have been married for 22 years to a member of the opposite sex.

  • Cappiee C Cappiee

    “wouldn’t air with gay crewmen”??? Hello! Wussley Crusher was all-but-sashaying!!
    And his queer ass made the franchise, Star Trek: “The Wussley Crusher Show”
    “Gee Captain, I nearly destroyed the crew, the ship, and the Universe for the umpteenth time in a row.”
    “Oh, that’s okay. You’re the resident boy-genius and we can overlook what the regulations say about terminal fk-ups like you. Besides, I have been banging your ugly Mother that was put on this politically correct show because no cast-woman was allowed to be overly-pretty or the ugly chicks of N.O.W. would bitch so we put women with great complexions and ugly faces on the cast to suit their politically correct stupidity. Now go make another unsupervised experiment so you can hog the franchise again by almost destroying a galaxy.”

  • Sharon

    I do remember an episode where they visited a planet that was all homosexual or something it seems and they viewed the heterosexuality the same way most heterosexuals view homosexuals?? Or is that perhaps the episode being discussed with the androgynous aliens?
    I would say they very well could have had LOADS of homosexual characters though… the characters’ sexuality was just not pertinent to the plot. I know so many homosexual people who aren’t in the closet, but aren’t out dancing in the gay pride parade either because it’s just part of who they are, some people know and some don’t depending on how well they know them, if people make assumptions about their sexuality then so be it, but if they really knew them they would know.

  • GQ4U

    Star Trek is great without pandering to the 1% who find homosexuality of interest. Its forced into so many movies and TV programs its like assaulting the 99%. The vast majority of viewers don’t like it, they just sit through it without complaint because its politically incorrect to do so. Leave a great franchise alone — please.

  • obloodyhell

    The really funny thing about this is that I’ve never really cared one way or another about it. It FIT with the scenario, and it did, regardless of handwaves to the contrary, deal with the notion of homosexuality, regardless of its BASIS — a person in a female body was attracted to a person in a female body. The fact that they’d not been the same sex when the relationship was formed is irrelevant.

    I’m not even remotely pro-gay. I’ve found the extremism of the pro-gay movement to be offensive, and that has taken me from being neutral on the matter to be somewhat, though not adamantly, against “gay rights” (because they are inevitably abused to bludgeon anyone who doesn’t believe homosexuality should be actively encouraged, which is decidedly not the same thing as them being accepted). I cite to gays, that THIS attitude, of black-or-white, “hate or love”, is the primary thing threatening gay rights as a whole. There IS a middle ground. And when you force someone to choose, most will side against you simply for forcing that choice.

    But I had no issues with the scene for sure, nor would it have disturbed me at any point to have heard the comments suggested for Riker in “Blood and Fire”. Both sides — the ones who think it’s important to block it, and the ones who think it’s adamant it should be mentioned, are loons.

  • obloodyhell

    }}} with the same disdain that the uneducated view homosexual relationships.

    The same ignorance that gays view their opposition with, you mean? LOLOLOLOL.

    First off, it’s not a question of “education”. Not everyone opposes homosexuality because they “haven’t learned something important”. I grasp you’re too clueless to understand those who oppose you, and too unwilling to consider their point of view (pot, kettle, “some shade of color”)

    Second, the ARROGANCE that has risen around gays of openly sneering at anyone who doesn’t fully and utterly support them and their agenda in every way is enough to piss off a LOT of people who might otherwise be at least somewhat sympathetic.

    Third, not all opposition is derived from HATE. One can disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle and still not give much of a rodent’s patootie regarding someone being gay. (“I would not recommend it for anyone. I would suggest it is to be avoided if possible. But it’s your life, so I am not the one making that choice. Live as you will” — not exactly a great deal of HATE in those words, is there?)

    The same can rarely be said for gays, suggesting the human behavior feature most centrally applying is projection. Gays as a group almost uniformly will rabidly and thoughtlessly attack any opposition with a mania that does certainly border on hatred.

    Yes… Cue the Deluge.

  • obloodyhell

    HEY HEY HEY, there’s an AXE to grind!! Didn’t you GET the memo? Star Trek has NEVER EVER dealt with this issue!!

    Stop trying to argue otherwise.

    THEY Know Better. <—- sarcasm. A metric ephton of it.

    .

  • obloodyhell

    }}} They feel a certain way, a way which for no reason is frowned upon by society.

    And therein lies the real problem at the heart of this.

    This arrogant notion that society MUST be wrong, and THEY are correct.

    The actuality is, as usual, much more complex. Society has REASONS for disapproval, both on individual rights levels AND overall social reasons.

    To what degree those reasons trump individual reasons & rights for being that way is what needs to be debated.

    But as long as the gay/trans/other sexuality meme is argued as NOT any issue — in effect saying society is utterly wrong in every possible way — gays/etc will never grasp the nature of those objections or issues, nor can it adapt or otherwise do anything but frontal assault. And frontal assault on deep seated convictions is a really really bad way to obtain a goal, if not a faulty, defective way on the whole.

  • obloodyhell

    They were probably responding to this, actually:

    No gay crew members ever appeared on Star Trek: The Next Generation (or any of the other Star Trekseries).

  • obloodyhell

    Her behavior was either homosexual or bisexual. It certainly was not heterosexual.

    You can take it as either

    “Someone in a woman’s body is attracted to someone else in a woman’s body” (homosexual)
    or
    “Someone formerly in a man’s body, but now in a woman’s body is attracted to someone else in a woman’s body.” (Bisexual — unless there’s some other word applied to a transexual who wishes to have “heterosexual” sex).

    The male became a female (no, not Dax, but the physicality is the same) and did so presumably to enjoy the experience of being a woman with a man… but now is attracted to a woman.

    In the Dax case, the gender itself is neutral, but no effort is made to retain gender continuity so there’s no logic to argue against the goal of “learning what it means to be physically female, either”.

    And yeah, this is what good SF is about — how much of identity — of which gender is a significant part — is bound up in our bodies, and how much is in our heads.

    This theme has been touched upon numerous times in good, as well as bad, SF/SciFi. Good examples include Heinlein’s Fear No Evil, wherein the central character, a rich old guy, gets a brain transplant from a voluptuous young secretary… Gerrold’s own War Against The Chtorr series bounces off it a number of times. Dollhouse never dug deeply into it, but the 3rd ep of the second season, “Bel Chose” does have an instance where a male ‘doll’ (Victor) is inadvertently imprinted with a female (excellently done by actor Enver Gjokaj) to good comic effect.

  • obloodyhell

    But it’s not entirely inaccurate, either. Gender identity is a clear component of “sound mind”. Confusion over that can, and often is, a source for psychosis. And yes, your physical equipment saying one thing, and your mind saying another is a source of confusion.

    That does NOT suggest the two are the same in any way. But there is often a connection between an improperly functioning mind and sexual confusion and perversity. Which one generates the other is up to you to figure out.

    Note that MOST of humanity has various sexual perversions — so that’s in no sense singling out homosexuals by any means. The further one drifts from “the norm” the more likely it is that your mores and morals will drift, too, and, if some of those drift into the low-limitation range that we call “psychosis”, that should not be a surprise.

  • obloodyhell

    darkwing, don’t try and confuse the non-heteros, they are attempting to justify to themselves their differences.

    Imagining people hate them is a part of their self-justification. When they see the occasional religious idiot who conflates “God does not approve” to “God will get you”, that only adds to their determination that any opposition comes only from hate.

    The idea that 90% of people couldn’t care a rat’s ass about what they choose to do in a bedroom is even scarier than the idea of being hated.

    Nothing is worse than apathy to a narcissist.

  • obloodyhell

    }}} Considering an erotic preference that does neither inflicts malicious harm nor oppresses others, to be inherently evil or a signifier of evil is phobic because it is an irrational belief.

    Considering that’s entirely untrue, what’s an irrational belief is that you believe that while ignoring all the universe of evidence to the contrary.

    That it does very limited harm to modern society does not dispute its issues in genomic terms pre-modern society, and the fact that it is up against that same innate resistance via social inertia, yet shows every willingness to ram itself to full acceptance rather than working towards a rational balance between acceptance and rejection shows what’s “irrational” about it.

    Society does not have to change to suit YOU.

    It was here FIRST.

    That it is willing to do so shows the inherent magnanimity of both the society AND the individuals in it.

    But you insist that ALL resistance to change can only be based in hatred, and not in simple sense that change should be gradual over time, because few things that complex are ever “simple”.

    And by doing that, you create the very backlash you’re so fearful of.

    Note the effect of your attempt to shame and “scare” Chik-Fil-A.

    The only thing you succeeded in was getting enough people ticked off at your arrogance that they came out in force to give you the finger.

    That’s not hatred-based. That’s people who don’t CARE that much being forced to take a stand, and telling you to fuck off for forcing them to take a stand.

    Push too hard, society pushes back.

    Duh.

  • obloodyhell

    }}} Military chaplains are often called to minister to personnel from other faiths.

    Yes, your point? The chaplain still believes a certain way, and, when acting as a chaplain, should have freedom of conscience to express their Faith.

    This is just another example of how “gay rights” TRUMP the rights of others.

    The notion that “being gay” doesn’t affect others is absolute utter CRAP.

    Yes, as long as you do it in the bedroom, that’s between you and your partner. MORE POWER TO YA.

    It’s when you start bringing it OUT of the bedroom and start demanding SOCIAL affects that it comes into conflict with the RELIGIOUS rights of others.

    MOST of the time, I’ll even grant you, your individual right to be gay trumps someone else’s right to their religious opposition to the practice.

    MOST of the time.

    But that’s not how it works right now — if you’re gay, you not only have the inappropriate POWER to FORCE others to accept your personal behavior, for the most part, all too many gays believe rather BOORISHLY in their power to do so SHOULD be rubbed in the nose of anyone who believes in opposition to them.

    The best example of this is the Hawaiian B&B owner — this is a woman who opened up her home to guests, which she catered to. When a woman from Cali called and attempted to book a room, the woman VERY politely — and that is the testimony of the lesbian, mind you — politely declined, indicating that it was against her religious beliefs. So the lesbian could have just taken her business elsewhere.

    Oh, HELL no, we can’t have THAT. We’ve got to RAM our gayness down this woman’s throat. We’ve got the POWER to trample on this woman’s religious beliefs, no matter HOW polite she is in making it clear that her belief in God does not encourage gay couples in her house (the woman also indicated, and again the lesbian concurred as to this, that she would have turned down an unmarried couple, as well.)

    It is this ARROGANCE that is beyond offensive: “If you don’t utterly agree with us, we will stomp on you until you surrender!!”

    Simply put: Ƒũĉĸ you. There’s a hell of a lot more of us than of you, and if you keep it up, the effect is going to be that you steadily LOSE ground.

    I have transitioned from someone who once promoted such rights and respect for those choices to someone who is generally against them. And I’m far from alone.

    It ain’t homophobia. I didn’t CARE that much about such things, but would generally support them before. Now I’ll actively work against such things, and work towards the repeal of what exists.

    Good work, if you wanted to empower the homophobes.

    You’re freaking morons, though.

  • obloodyhell

    LOL, it is a truism that the first ones to call “bigot” are usually themselves the most bigoted of the bunch.

    That anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle is a “homophobe” is about as absolutely bigoted a statement as you can make.

    That anyone who disagrees is a “bigot” is itself an attempt to NAME something so that you don’t have to argue with it and REASON with it.

    That’s the difference between racism, as practiced in the 30s, 40s, and 50s — which was true bigotry, and true racism — a belief with no basis in fact or argument — and what-all gets painted with the term nowadays.

    Back then, you showed a bigot they were wrong by reason and argument. They probably did not admit it, but they — and everyone around them — usually grasped that you’d done so, and that was what shamed them into CHANGING their views.

    Nowadays, though, the term “bigot” is thrown around so much it’s precisely the opposite — it’s an effort to AVOID actually demonstrating the truth of your view — because it rarely is true at all.

    It’s a cheap handwave to write off anything someone can say to dispute your own bigoted point of view. Scary.

    =====================================
    Your rights don’t automatically trump my rights. PERIOD. Claiming they do is the mark of a BIGOT.
    =====================================

  • obloodyhell

    }}} You’re not going to personally repeal “homophobia” — a word that accurately describes a psychological disability and has been in common use for decades

    LOL, you’re not going to accurately APPLY “homophobia” — a word that does describe a psychological disability — without first spending a hell of a lot more time learning psychology than 99% of the people who throw it around casually (this would include YOU) are ever going to HAVE.

    OOP. Sorry, did I just make a mistake pointing out that you ARE NOT a psychologist, and have NEITHER the training NOR the personal interaction with, anyone to actually IDENTIFY a single case of it in your entire life?

    I guess I’ll have to chalk that one up to being a “homophobe”… in YOUR “meaning” of the word.

    But:

    “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    That term certainly applies to YOU, not him.

  • obloodyhell

    }}} Hortensio deChipotle

    Exactly. You sound like one of the (apparently) few rational gays these days.

    I believe in God and the Bible. It clearly states that what you do is wrong. That’s still YOUR choice, and it’s between you and GOD, not something, for the most part, for me to take issue with.

    The issue, of course, is that, when one “brings it out of the bedroom”, and makes it a social matter — gay marriage being the hot-button example of it at the moment.

    Marriage is not just between two people — not even as a contract, it does invoke far more, in societal obligations.

    These societal obligations can suddenly ram the civil rights of two people against one another — especially the right of a gay couple to cohabitate against the religious right of an individual to take issue with that.

    95% or more of the time, the gay rights should win, because no harm is done to the individual, really.

    But the other 5% of the time, there is a conflict in which the gays should give the religion of the individual the RESPECT people are simply DUE one another AS HUMANS IN SOCIETY.

    If you want to get married, fine. But demanding the right to do it in a church, or on church-owned land…? Or in the B&B (not a hotel or motel, specifically created for public lodging, but someone’s OWN HOUSE used sometimes for rental accomodation) then there’s a legitimate issue there. If the B&B is the only place available (you’re late in applying for convention bookings) that’s one thing. But for the most part, if you’re gay, and the person is polite about it, LEAVE THEM THE #$%$#%# ALONE.

    That’s just RUDE. Far more rude and obnoxious than there’s any excuse for.

    And, at this point, that attitude is the source of much of the resistance to further acceptance of gays.

    Gays need to grasp that further pushing of their agenda is not going to result in a “win” for them, it’s going to ignite social pressures in opposition to it.

    The opposition to gays is not the same as racial opposition. You can’t “shame” someone out of their religious beliefs. The only thing you can attain is a live-and-let-live attitude.

  • obloodyhell

    }}} Whatever you might believe about homosexuality being immoral or sinful or whatever, know that when you call it a “choice”, your words incite not just anger from the places you’d expect it, but crushing pain and guilt and shame in anyone in ….(snip)… they do not want and over which they have absolutely no control.

    And yet, whenever anyone suggests looking into the root causes of homosexuality — what part of the brain is wired differently, what biochemical changes might be occurring, what developmental changes occur in young males and females that “invert” the “normal” biological attractions, the whole of the GLAD types goes literally apeshit bonkers over it.

    Go figure.

    That there might be an actual way to treat someone who is gay, to remove those impulses, is an utterly unacceptable idea as well.

    To force such a treatment — if it existed — on anyone is clearly wrong. But to research it so as to understand it?

    Yeah, that’s yet another arena where the whole Gay Agenda thing is wrong.

    Martin, It is unfortunate if those Christians around you reject what you are. I’m personally of the Matthew 5,6,7,8,9 cast myself — while what you do is probably wrong, that’s pretty much between you and God for the most part. And it’s wrong for them to reject you, because that is, if anything, pushing you further from God. And they, by pushing you further from God, are not doing God’s work by any meaning of the term.

    Nor is making you feel bad about it overmuch. Some ack that they disapprove is acceptable, but disdain, rejection, and outright obnoxious behavior? Not good.

    You need to find some Christian groups that, while they don’t necessarily approve of homosexuality, don’t treat them like crap, either. They DO exist, they aren’t even particularly uncommon.

    Good luck.

  • obloodyhell

    }}} What I’m saying is that if you’re claiming God didn’t wire me that way then it was my choice. And what I’m saying (via nothing other than simple logic) is that either I am wired that way through no choice of my own, or I somehow chose it.

    Martin, God works in strange ways. Perhaps you needed to learn a lesson, and fighting against — or even working against but failing, while retaining your Faith in God, is what it’s there for. I can’t say.

    If you really think about what God is, then you have to be able to grasp that, whatever He does, we’re not even vaguely capable of understanding the why of it. We are, to God, even less than your dog is to you. Does he understand why you throw the stick, and take it when you bring it back to him? Does he understand why you pee where you do, while taking him “walkies”?

    Do you think that, if a dog could express himself as humans do, that he’d never look at what his master does and go “WTF? That makes no sense!?!?”

    So why should things God does always make sense to us? Why you’re gay, when He does not approve? No idea. But there is a sense to it, somehow.

  • obloodyhell

    }}}} That is a painfully obvious fact to everyone who reads this.

    The only thing painfully obvious is that you’re as certain of your point of view as the only right way to look at things as anyone in violent opposition to homosexuality.

    You are as guilty of arrogance and presumption as you claim anyone else who disagrees with you is. Your absolute certainty is the most obvious sign of that.

  • obloodyhell

    }}} Oh look, its Pascal’s Wager!

    Pascal’s Wager itself is certainly flawed, but primarily because it provides an either/or presumption in it when there are multiple third options available.

    This does not invalidate it completely, just notes it is insufficient by itself.

    Nor does it apply to every possible either/or situation out there, whether God is involved or not.

    Congratulations on having applied a label to it and gone no where further than 99% of all intellectuals exposed to it have managed to do.

  • Dorothy Young

    There was a DS Nine episode where Dax fell in love w/ her previous hosts’ former wife, and they kissed. The TNG movie “First Contact” had a gay character, but it was written out at the last minute.

  • William-Tell-Done-Told overtur

    Damn, I AM a gay man (although I personally prefer just being referred to as a `faggot’, though not in a necessarily hateful way) and all that’s going through my brain after actually taking the time to read all of this nonsense is “WOULD ALL OF YOU PEOPLE PLEASE JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT!” It’s REALLY NOT all that big of an issue at present, especially where the unfinished promises of Mr. Roddenberry and ST:TNG is concerned… Bury the age-old hatchet, ma niggas!! Peace!

  • Hortensio deChipotle

    An individual can have an objection to gay cohabitation on religious grounds, but I don’t see why that objection needs to go outside that person’s skull. It doesn’t concern anyone what other consenting adults do behind closed doors, regardless of religious belief. It’s in the realm of, “I want to be free to choose what to believe, so I must also afford others the right to believe something different.” In other words, belief in the Bible does not warrant interfering in someone else’s private affairs, because if you’d grown up differently it might be YOU who wished to cohabit with someone of the same sex.

    I agree that a church (or any private property) shouldn’t be forced to commence a wedding agaisnt the wishes of the property owners. That’s just crazy. Whoever is behind all that needs to grow up and learn to let other people have their own opinions.

    Being anti-gay and racist are the same kind of thing. Sexual orientation is not something you choose. There is evidence that brain structures are different in queer people; this is not something that happens because someone has a whim. As for a live-and-let-live attitude, I think something even better still can be achieved: complete indifference. Someone’s sexual orientation is no more relevant to my opinion of them than the color of their eyes.

  • Blombiddyshob

    Next Gen had a gay episode. It was called “The Outcast”, and while they replaced homosexuality with androgyny, you’d have to be a drooling fool not to see what they were getting at. I was 12 when it originally aired and I was able to nail the allegory spot on.

    Anyway, the brief moment with the gay crew members in this unaired episode would have come off as tacked-on and obvious. Perhaps an episode that uses Regulan Bloodworms as an allegory for AIDS would have been better handled without a pointless reference to homosexuals on the Enterprise. Maybe have the same scene with the gay crew members in an episode that’s not about the gay scourge of the 1980s.

  • Blombiddyshob

    Wesley Crusher got all up in Ashley Judd’s hooch yo.

  • Blombiddyshob

    Poorly done maybe, but extremely obvious.

  • SmarterThanYou

    It’s a shame the gay agenda is being pushed more often in all aspects of media -_-

  • Brian Cowell

    I saw the episode that first introduced the trill race as being an allegory for homosexuality and the network ( and society’s) willingness to accept a homosexual relationship. Dr Crusher falls in love with a male host/symbiote trill when he is injured and the host body dies, they then transfer the symbiote into Riker for a short time and the romance is strained, but not yet broken. It isn’t until a replacement host arrives that is female that it is essentially broken. Dr.Crusher explained that humans don’t have the flexibility to accept such relationships, but perhaps someday…. I always took this as “we would do this great love story that isn’t restrained by gender bias, but we feel the network and the audience is not ready and if things change and we become more accepting, perhaps we will address it then.

  • Geofredo

    Obviously you DO care since you have made such an aggressive stance on the subject. People who do not care do not write multiple, lengthy posts about it. It took me a long time to get to the point where I could honestly say “I do not care” and I can tell you quite concretely that you are not there yet.

  • Geofredo

    If you stick with the idea of “baby steps” as was the case in the original series between Nichelle (Uhuru) Nichols and William (Kirk) Shatner, I think you could make the argument that the Trill that appeared on TNG opposite Gates (Dr. Crusher) McFadden, the scenes mentioned in other posts with the androgynous lover for Riker plus the Dax symbiote and alternate universe Kira on DS9 all belong in the baby steps category and were pretty far ahead of the times in each case. I don’t think you need a fully developed gay character to create a revolutionary moment.
    I mean think about it, as revolutionary as it was in 1965 to have a white character kiss a black one, the various TV series never really opened up for characters that had serious interracial relationships (unless you count Dax and Warf, Jake and the Bajoran, Mardah or Jordi and his halo suite lover). It isn’t really until the new movies when that bridge is fully crossed (almost, since Spock is only half human).

  • Josh Truax

    Also there was “Dr. Bashir, I Presume”, in which Bashir’s Starfleet career is threatened when he is outed as a latter-day Augment, even though that had raised no problems to that point in his career – an obvious allegory to the ban on gays in the US military.

  • ultraaman

    Well yes, there is subtext to the entire scenario as you point out. But that is not the story being told on the screen. It’s what we project onto it.

  • Rick Rogers

    Really I thought the did Address it with the episode “11001001” Wasn’t the name of the Aliens Bi-nars

  • Penny Marie Sautereau

    Um… Jadzia Dax was openly bi, it fucking counts dammit!

  • John Grieco

    Seriously sick and tired of the homosexual whining and squeaky wheel mentality. Go be gay and stop worrying if your gayness is being depicted in various media. Do you really need that kind of exposure to legitimize your sexuality or perhaps you just feel the need to shove it in everyone’s face or living room? I will say this again & again….there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual- what is wrong is to expect everyone to accept it and to keep the subject in everyone’s mind by talking about it incessantly, despite that fact. The double edged sword cuts both ways and I find a vast majority of people, including some homosexuals are tired of the rhetoric.

  • Shake

    Ya there may not have been direct same sex relations but the show did touch on “non-standard” male/female relations, for a serious lack of better wording. If I’m not mistaken didn’t riker end up in a relationship with an a-sexual humanoid? Wesley fell in love with a beautiful princes who was actually some bear-wolf thing. Dax had her bi relationship mentioned by others below. Kira and Odo count in my books. I mean, he assumed the form and role of a male, which to me is no different than a relationship with a trans-gender who assumes the role of a sex they weren’t born as. I mean hell, ‘he’ wasn’t even a humanoid.

  • Kanni Bassativa

    ST: isn’t about sex…wait Kirk was always banging the alien slut-of-the-week? Riker was Deanna Troi’s “umzadi”(first) Well there goes that theory. Lets say the Replicator couldn’t make Astroglide….

  • 12345

    What an ass. Grow up you fool. Chuck your ancient bible into the sea. People are people- let them do as they please. Just because it doesn’t have to be hidden doesn’t mean it is “shoved down your throat”. That is Conservative propaganda.

  • obloodyhell

    }}} An individual can have an objection to gay cohabitation on religious grounds, but I don’t see why that objection needs to go outside that person’s skull.

    LOL, why does a person being “gay” need to go outside that person’s skull? It just does, and gays need to accept that with at least as much understanding as they expect people to have regarding their own attitudes and beliefs.

    }}} In other words, belief in the Bible does not warrant interfering in someone else’s private affairs

    Agreed. As long as it stays in the privacy of your own room, do whatever you want, as long as it’s consensual. The problem lies in the fact that marriage is not about what goes on in the bedroom, it’s about social obligations that tie to that relationship outside the bedroom — many are to each other, but more than an ample number of them apply to society, and expect a degree of acceptance and recognition of that relationship even though — and this is where the problem lies — a third of the world’s population belongs to religions which expressly denounce the behavior.

    While in most cases the “right to be gay” trumps one’s “right to reject”, it’s not valid nor fair to make it an absolute rule.

    }}} I agree that a church (or any private property) shouldn’t be forced to commence a wedding against the wishes of the property owners. That’s just crazy. Whoever is behind all that needs to grow up and learn to let other people have their own opinions.

    I concur. And it’s the unfortunate fact that an all-too-large percentage of gays feel that they have a right to ram their behavior down the throat of someone who opposes it, even politely. And current legal rules grant them the power to do so. And that’s not good, because the end result is going to be a backlash.

    }}} Being anti-gay and racist are the same kind of thing.

    I do differ with you here, in that being gay is, in the end, still a behavior. A deeply rooted behavior but you can, when gay, still choose not to engage in it — at the very least, one can choose to be celibate. Someone with “black skin and features” really can’t do much about it, as Michael Jackson so clearly showed.

    And this comes back to a middle ground — accept and tolerate that others DO have religious opposition to the behaviors and actions, and, while demanding tolerance for your differences, respect and make an effort to treat others as you wish for them to treat you.

    }}} As for a live-and-let-live attitude, I think something even better still can be achieved: complete indifference.

    Again, the problem with this is that it demands others ignore their own deeply held religious beliefs. If someone wishes to avoid you for your beliefs, then it is reasonable to attempt to allow them as much of that as can be done within the confines of a social experience. You don’t need to avoid a motel because an employee doesn’t like gays, but a B&B whose owner is highly religious, it seems, is readily avoided. There are plenty of far less private accommodations available to one almost always (I’ll grant a different matter if there’s nothing else available due to, say, a convention or something)

    Again, the key element here, I believe, is mutual respect of the others’ right to believe differently from you, and acceptance that you will EACH agree to disagree, and try as little as possible to step on each others’ toes where interaction is forced by events.

  • Hortensio deChipotle

    “LOL, why does a person being “gay” need to go outside that person’s skull?”

    I should have phrased that better. It’s impossible to have a homosexual encounter without the homosexuality “going outside” your skull. On the other hand, anti-gay (which I was referring to with that comment) is a matter of personal opinion. You can have it and acknowledge it internally without broadcasting it.

    “Marriage”

    People who are sterile (by age or biology) or simply don’t want to have kids are _never_ denied marriage licenses. The gender of the couple doesn’t pertain to the state’s interest in any way, as a federal judge in Texas ruled a few weeks ago.

    “I do differ with you here, in that being gay is, in the end, still a behavior.”

    Being straight is as much a behavior as being gay, so why should a gay person feel more constrained than a straight person?

    Being anti-gay and being racist both rely on underdeveloped ideological thought patterns. They both use the same functions, just with different data. One of your amygdalas sees the word “gay” on a website well in advance of your conscious mind getting the same perception, and because it has an association between “gay” and some emotion (let’s say moral superiority), it decides that the appropriate emotion to feel is moral superiority. The amygdalas have no access to your higher reasoning functions. There is no logic behind their decisions – just immediate stimulus and response. Indeed, they can generate impulses that _contradict_ your most deeply-held beliefs, and they’ll never know they did it.

    The amygdala in question forwards the impulse to your prefrontal neocortices (where much of consciousness takes place) while at the same time siezing control of the hypothalamus. It uses this control to squirt just a tiny bit of adrenaline, to get you ready. (Not as much as it would if you were staring down a lion.) At this point, your neocortex has just _barely_ become aware that the word “gay” is on the screen. If not for the amygdala’s input, it wouldn’t particularly care; it would just be another concept out of millions. But because the amygdala told it what to think before it had a chance to decide for itself, and because its sensors in the peripheral nervous system confirmed the effects of the adrenaline, the neocortex accepts this snap judgment without question. At that point, the part that does logical reasoning is inhibited. In its stead, the parts that process emotion and confabulate explanations out of thin air are turned on. Those parts are not very good at self-reflection. They operate from the assumption that what the amygdalas say is simply _right_, no matter what. The stronger the emotional response, the more compromised you will become. If there is enough adrenaline/cortisol/etc., you will completely lose the ability to assimilate new facts and evidence from the other side; your amygdala will consider losing face nearly as offensive as losing an arm. A rational statement from the other side which doesn’t support the amygdalar beliefs will usually be ignored or glossed over. If that isn’t easily done, the prefrontal cortices will attempt to distort their model of the _entire universe_ around the amygdalar impulse until the statement _can_ be ignored or glossed over. This may be done in a way that the purely logical portions of the mind would find insulting to their own intelligence, but because they’ve been inhibited, they aren’t awake enough to speak out. The three-year-old tyrant is in the driver’s seat now, and it won’t let go of the steering wheel.

    As soon as the adrenaline fades and the amygdalas find some new shiny object to react to, the purely rational part of the neocortex is allowed to wake up and take control back. Because no one ever teaches this in school, most people have no clue that it’s happening.

    “Again, the problem with this is that it demands others ignore their own deeply held religious beliefs.”

    There’s the right to decline service, and if it isn’t an essential service, I have no issue. On the other hand, some people want to use their personal beliefs as justification for demanding gay inequality. Laws have to be dispassionate and rational, but anti-gay beliefs are generated and processed by circuitry that by its very construction can’t be either of those things.

  • RUCBAR

    Thank you!

  • Grieco is Offended

    When you are denied housing because you are straight or denied a job (or fired from a job) because you are straight or denied hospital visits to see the person you’ve been spending your life with for the past 30 years because you are straight or physically assaulted for being straight THEN you can complain. Don’t be a fool, this kind of stuff happens every single day to folks like me. You sound like someone who is sounding off at the mouth with no real understanding of what LGBT people go through everyday. You also sound like someone who would complain about African-American people trying to attain equal and civil rights (and btw, African-American people STILL don’t have equal footing in this country but I suppose you are sick and tired of that plight as well or most likely, you simply don’t care). Don’t exert yourself too much by educating yourself further on what minorities go through everyday simply because your senses are offended.

  • John Grieco

    Your reply is exactly the type of hypocritical BS that permeates our excuse for a society in this country. Unlike you, I do not need to resort to character assassination or name calling to make my point. Thanks for helping to illustrate how obtuse people like you can be in regard to any opinion that differs from your own. Your own intolerance disgusts me, but more so- you just don’t get it and never will- because it’s all about YOU. Nice job.

  • John Grieco

    Name calling? Really? How mature of you.

    “People are people- let them do as they please.”

    Maybe you should practice what you try to preach.

    If you can’t respect somne else’s opinion and be done with it you make his point for him and me as well. Good job.

  • John Grieco

    Indeed. If you are a part of any majority in this country you are fair game for demonization and character assassination. The loudest voices seem to hold the narrative regardless of merit or noteworthiness and unfortunately, if we do not speak out about this, we all run the risk of being held hostage by the lowest common denominator. What the LGBT community doesn’t tell you (and they know this full well) is that there are millions of people who will never approve or accept their lifestyle, despite any attempts at “educating” people to the contrary. Sexuality is a very personal subject and yet they expect everyone to blindly march in their parade, even though there will always be folks who are repulsed and disgusted by their antics, so this leaves many with no choice but to be militant in their quest for “universal acceptance.” I think of it this way….Using the restroom and doing number 2 is a normal, natural activity that everyone does on a daily basis (we don’t have to accept this- it just is…) however when someone decides to take their used toilet paper and shove it everyone’s face and expect them to look and touch and smell it , that is not only abnormal but also sick and twisted. Sound familiar?

  • GQ4U

    Your example stinks — but I love it — its sooo true.

  • mdylanbell

    How? Why? They are people and deserve to be represented. If there was more representation back when you were forming opinions about the world, you would not have developed the bigoted ones you have now, and you wouldn’t have even noticed. People like you and posts like this are exactly why we need more, not less.

  • mdylanbell

    Are you mad that they show people of different races, just like in the real world? People of different ages? Get over your bigotry. Showing in the background, or even, god forbid, featuring gay characters every once in a while, is just a natural representation of the world. This bigoted post and people like you only demonstrate that the world needs more gay representation, so you won’t find it so icky and weird. You don’t have to be a bigoted bully on the Internet, you just choose to be.

  • mdylanbell

    Bigoted people like you NEED education. Nobody wants you to march in a parade for people different from you, just to stop marching in parades (and posting) against them. If you were in the minority, you would want people to accept you, too. It’s unfortunate that you’re so small minded you cannot comprehend this.

  • mdylanbell

    Get some medication.

  • mdylanbell

    “Yeah! Those people like things I don’t like! Kill them all!” -Jesus & Socrates

  • mdylanbell

    You don’t get to be a bigot and try to turn it around.

  • mdylanbell

    Nope, it’s definitely you.

  • John Grieco

    Since when does being disgusted by homosexual activity or it’s portrayal in various entertainment media make someone instantly homophobic? You assume too much and are just as bad, if not worse than those you condemn. Such viciousness only hurts your position. I am truly sorry that you do not see the hypocrisy in your own words, but that is the sad truth that plague people such as yourself in regard to your scorched earth tactics. The “Our way or the highway” narrative only goes so far and just because any given individual does not feel comfortable with watching homosexuality portrayed in a Star Trek episode does not make them a bigot, either. Icky is a subjective term, some people don’t watch horror movies, because they are icky and gory.

    If I were you, I would reassess my disposition, try and relax and not overreact so much, as you risk polarizing even more people who might be convinced otherwise with honey instead of vinegar.

  • TBanacek

    The medication I have you can stick up your ass along with your boyfriend’s dick.

  • Lolah Skatah

    Actually there was a Dax on TNG.

  • TBanacek

    You first.

  • TBanacek

    you first.

  • Wit

    Are you serious or just seriously thick? Being disgusted by homosexuals and portrayals of ‘homosexual activity’ simply for being, well, homosexual is the very definition of homophobia. Or in your line of reasoning is being disgusted by blacks simply for being black not racist either?

    You, sir, assume too much of me in your implied ‘viciousness’ of my comments. Mine is not a ‘our way or the highway’ narrative. I have no beef with heterosexuals or watching heterosexuality portrayed in the media and could not care less about someone else’s sexuality anyway that has nothing to do with me. The same however cannot be said of TBanacek so where is your reproach of him and his views? I could try to ‘relax my overreactions’ or perhaps you could simply butt out. Have a good day.

  • Wit

    So I should be afraid of people with bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwiches?

  • Wit

    It’s one thing to be, by choice, unable to consider alternative views such as yours and quite another actually to consider those views, weight their validity and in conclusion disregard those views where they just aren’t valid.

  • Wit

    Now THAT’S very telling.

  • Wit

    Wow, opinionated much?

  • Solly

    obloodyhell: No deluge here. Good analysis.

  • Shaggy72

    That episode where they focused on low ranking crewmen instead of the regulars, LOWER DECKS, would have been an EXCELLENT opportunity to at least introduce the concept into Trek. The lower ranking officers could’ve said the line to a fellow lower ranking officer in passing in Ten Forward or in a Turbolift or whatevs.
    THEN observe the fallout (if any), a d THEN proceed w/ n episode that featured gay characters.
    VERY disappointed in Star Trek for not tackling this “issue” that really shouldn’t be an issue.
    (And no, i’m not gay, I just believe in human rights & minding my own business instead of forcing others to live down to ridiculous & hypocritical beliefs)

  • WARRIOR

    I have been a fan of star trek since the first series. I am glad they chose not to air this episode. This would have ruined the star trek experience for me. I would hope that if there are any future series, they would maintain the same integrity as the previous series and not push the liberal agenda.
    When Dax was kissing the other woman I stopped watching DS9. Star Trek was meant to project a positive future, not an immoral one.

  • John Taylor

    Why didn’t it air? Simply because network execs were boneheaded idiots.

  • Lisa LeBlanc

    In the realm of Star Trek, ‘gayness’ shouldn’t even have been an issue: Roddenberry’s vision of the future was and is a level playing field for all.
    In the early version, Uhura’s color was brought up only once – in the episode where a reincarnated Abraham Lincoln was impressed to find a woman of color on the bridge. Otherwise, and to quote James T. Kirk in ‘Mudd’s Women’ – “There’s only one kind of woman – or man for that matter. Either you believe in yourself or you don’t.” No caveats regarding sexual preference.
    In the Star Trek universe, we’ve seen many forms of cross-species offspring; we’ve witnessed an Earthly society where want and hunger are completely unheard of, leaving humanity and our allies free to concentrate on furthering discovery, culture and intellectual pursuits (and, occasionally, massive land grabs, but hey – Nobody’s perfect…).
    I see Roddenberry’s vision as a universe where we see each other as living entities first and foremost. Gender and color are extraneous and unimportant. Strength of character is valued above everything.

  • Kia99

    There was a Trill (not the Dax symbiont) who fell for Dr. Crusher, then after he was injured the symbiont was transplanted into Riker, and finally into a female host who still possessed the strong feelings for Crusher but they went their separate ways. There was a same sex kiss, but at the same time it wasn’t portrayed as a female with same sex tendencies. It was more portrayed that the symbiont had the feelings and the host was mostly overtaken by them. It wasn’t until DS9 that they really explored the Trills and made them more into two distinct personalities that merge and adapt to one another rather than one seemingly taking over the other almost completely.

  • Kia99

    I have a hard time with your statement that you don’t care or have no issues, because you seem to be saying a lot for someone who claims this isn’t an issue. Also as I’ve read several statements you’ve made you appear to be jumping from one side of the issue to the other. On the one hand you believe that it’s perfectly ok for businesses and religious leaders to discriminate against someone based on their personal/religious beliefs, and then in the next comment you’re saying it’s not legally or morally ok and they’re ignorant bigots. I don’t know if I’ve maybe misunderstood, but it seems to me like you haven’t even figured out where you stand in all this.

    And the concept of making homosexuality a non-issue, granting equal rights as far as marriage, employment, military environments, is not the same thing as “actively encouraging” homosexuality. Did granting the right to vote, equal rights of freedom, employment, etc to women mean that people were encouraging all men to become women??? Does it mean that anyone supporting racial equality and fighting against racism and oppression is trying to change the colour of anyone’s skin?? Of course not. Having the same rights in every way as heterosexual people is something that we should all be fighting for. Humans are humans, and as long as we’re talking about fully capable legal adults participating in consensual sexual activity that does not harm anyone (talking physically here, if someone chooses to be offended by the way consenting adults express love, or with whom they are expressing it, tough) then it’s nobody’s business but those involved in the relationship.

    If you’re insecure enough to see a fight to get equality for homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders, transsexuals, and so on as an attempt to “bludgeon” people with homosexuality then maybe you should take another look at yourself and see if you’re not caring about the issue a little more than you realize. Being accepting in every way of people who are different from you whether it’s their race, religion, or sexual orientation is not the same as actively encouraging some mass exodus of differently oriented people to suddenly “join in”.

  • Kia99

    You seem to be arguing that because it’s not ok to say society is wrong that we should continue to say (or at the very least imply) that people who don’t follow whatever society dictates are wrong. What’s wrong with challenging the accepted “norm” and saying that something society says is wrong may not be after all? Do you not realize that over thousands of years humans have evolved the way society views things and have managed to survive and thrive by not blindly accepting the “norm” and by challenging things in an attempt to make the world better? I would shudder to be in a time or place where I don’t have the ability to view things that are unfair, discriminatory, or cruel and speak up against them. I know that many such places/cultures are still in existence today, and that kind of mindset can be cruel and inhuman against people based on the most ridiculous reasons.

    There are places where I would be punished and even killed for daring to believe that I, a woman, have the right to have an opinion, let alone express it. Where women are tortured and murdered because they dare to educate themselves. Where people of one religion slaughter those who believe differently than they do. Where skin colour is a cause for hatred and violence. Where even one group of black-skinned Africans will slaughter the people of another group for not being the right kind of black. As thoughtful, intelligent, reasonable people it is our duty to question the injustices of society and to speak up when what society accepts as the norm is WRONG. There is absolutely nothing wrong with challenging injustice and cruelty, whatever form it takes.

    You try to say you have no issue with gay people being gay, but either you’re a liar or you’re deluding yourself. The very idea that you see it as wrong for people to want to be accepted just as they are leads me to believe you may be a bit (or a lot) more prejudiced than you think you are. If something is wrong in society then it will only change if we can step forward and acknowledge that it’s wrong, and work to educate ourselves and others that just because we’re not like that it doesn’t mean people that are must be somehow bad or wicked. And promoting acceptance and equality for LGTB etc does not mean we’re encouraging everyone to join that lifestyle, we’re just making it a non-issue for those who do participate.

  • Brynanos

    My god man! 300 years later and they still don’t allow gays in the military! That’s barbaric!

  • Demiurge2

    Who says there will be any “gays” in the 23rd Century?

  • ShinRa Actual

    This article is somewhat disingenuous, such as the title claiming they wouldn’t air the episode, and a link to this article from one of those “our partners” bars claiming it’s a lost episode…it never made it past Gerrold’s script, it was not shot, it was not produced, so there was never anything to air. There’s dozens, if not hundreds of scripts proposed for TNG (and other shows) that never get shot and produced, and they are not all lost or unaired episodes.

  • Glenn Barkan

    If you think there is such a thing as a “homosexual lifestyle” then you DO need some edumacatin´.
    My “lifestyle” is that of a married, middle aged, family man. My orientation is not relevant to my “lifestyle”.

    As far as “sneering”? I only sneer at those who actively oppose equal rights, or those who espouse hateful ideas.

    But you are right. There are more reasons than “hate” to oppose gay people. There is also ignorance, which is usually calcified by religious indoctrination.

  • Frank Grayson

    Good. I am glad Star Trek didn’t do the episode. It was bad enough with the nod to homosexuality with that crapper of an episode, “The Outcast”.
    Leave your sexual proclivities to the bedroom and to episodes of any reality show today, replete with a bunch of “social experiment” junk. And leave good sci-fi programming alone.
    Having sex with a member of your own gender does nothing to further the vision of a successful future. It’s just NOT that important.

  • vangpo

    Neither Jolene nor Jeri were “wood faced”. They can actually act and portrayed two of the most popular characters in Trek history. You have chosen an altogether appropriate screen name.

  • Sub com. Vedec

    Not jadzia, Ezri Dax from the mirror universe. And Kira also from mirror was a bisexual.

  • Taree Johnson

    Actually Star Trek : TNG did sort of deal with the “issue” of homosexuality in season 4! The Introduction of the trill through the Ambassador JoBril( “Host”)..He fell in love with Crusher, was mortally wounded, had to be transplanted into Riker, which was rejected. A Female host was joined with the Symbiont and wanted to proceed with the relationship with Doc Crusher. In the end of the episode ,they had Beverly give some lame speech about time being accepting to all things( I paraphrase)…

  • Jesus H. Goldberg

    Still better than being gay…

  • Jesus H. Goldberg

    I can complain whenever the fuck I want to. Fuck you, you suck. See?

  • Jan Do

    Why does anyone think there “needs” to be gay characters on this or any other show? Its just a t.v. show. Who cares if there’s no gay characters? I certainly don’t miss it.

  • vangpo

    Which always confused me because in another Trek paperback (I forget which series – Strange New Worlds I think) Hawk was portrayed as hetero.

  • vangpo

    Roddenberry often said one thing and then did another. He hated capitalism, but loved acquiring profit. He was totally against all religion but had a Shinto marriage ceremony. He wanted a future without materialism, but he often screwed other people working on Trek out of their fair share of profits, including a time he had lyrics written for the TOS theme music, just so he could claim a writing credit and take half the profits from Alexander Courage. And of course, he claimed to want gay crew, but he never ever fought very hard to make that happen. I hope none of you really believe he couldn’t manage a gay character in the late 80s, because he could have if he tried hard enough.

  • Cappiee C Cappiee

    Why! What makes you as-sk?? :0)>

  • Cappiee C Cappiee

    Oh there’s ol’ Worf.
    The ” I’m a big, bad Klingon” who got his ass owned –even on the holodeck–and didn’t win a fight until the opening episode of the Third Year (and consquently the opening season of “The Wussley Crusher Show”). Even then, Worf hit two guards with a back-hand.
    What a pussy.

  • clark

    The “uneducated”? Obviously that’s what you are. Some of us just disagree with what is right and wrong. Its not about outlawing or violence or even disdain, its about morality.

  • John Holloway

    Well, all I can say about the “androgynous” episode was that I felt very badly for Riker since it seems he had lost the one person he felt a love for (it was a quick love story, after all, the program is only an hour!), and so had she!
    I felt that way once when a woman and I were almost soulmates, but she joined a particular religion, and then she was lost to me forever. I then became–according to that religion, since I was not a believer–a non-intity to her and those of the religion. I still have nothing against that particular religion, but it taught me that a persons thinking can be changed 180 degrees by dogma (I am tempted to call it brainwashing, but she believed it, and that’s what matters I guess—and as we parted, I wished her well!) Our paths never crossed again.

  • LawTrekker

    When I watched the episode, it was VERY clear that STNG was trying to open minds regarding equality for gay folks, very much as the original series did regarding racial equality.

  • Paladin13

    The TNG promoted modern prejudices. The pilot mocked American anti-communism, mentions the Inquisition but not 20th Century communism (the most murderous religion ever). One episode mocked stay-at-home moms and another any type of religious belief in God or the supernatural. Roddenberry’s leftism was much more prominent in the subsequent series compared to the original. Imagine some alien speaking of humanity’s murderous past and not mentioning Soviet and Maoist communism but instead mentions the Inquisition (which killed thousands, not millions).

  • Bulwark

    Brian Cronin obviously forgot that hot episode of Deepsapce 9, when Judzieh (female Trill Host) Dax (male symbiote) kissed his first (female symbiote) love’s current female Trill Host, for Old Time’s Sake….Not a true Lesbian kiss in the strict sense of the word, but…?

  • dmg

    “Morality” based on religion and blind adherence to tradition has no place in determining what rights citizens of a free society possess. Politicians in the U.S. often base their actions on religious doctrine, and they shouldn’t. Religion has no place in government. The only code of morality I recognize is one based on reason. Unless one can present a LOGICALLY-constructed argument as to why homosexuality is wrong and immoral – no appeals to religion allowed – then their stance is obviously an emotional, not a rational one. The fact that you may find the prospect of gay sex to be “icky” is not justification for institutionalized discrimination against millions of American citizens.

  • dmg

    As I said in another post, unless “society’s” “reasons” for disapproval can be logically demonstrated as correct, and only logically (with no appeals to religion, which has no place in determining what rights we possess in a free, non-theocractic society), then those “reasons” are not valid. If a large portion of society is seeking to deny equal rights to millions of people based on emotional reasons (religious beliefs, tradition, ideas instilled in them by their raising which they never bothered to question), then yes, that portion of society IS wrong. It wouldn’t exactly be the first time in human history that a goodly portion of society was wrong about something, now would it?

    When it comes down to it, the majority of people who disapprove of homosexuality turn to religion when asked to explain WHY they disapprove. Pick any random anti-gay person and ask them to give some good reasons why homosexuality is wrong without being allowed to resort to quoting religious doctrine, and chances are they won’t be able to think of anything coherent to say at all. The degree to which religion still influences public policy in a country where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state is appalling.

  • Niea

    So replace gay people with black people. Do you think it is ok to discriminate and not do business with black people because ‘their black lifestyle is against their religion’? There is no difference when it comes to discrimination against sexuality or race or gender. It has been shown time and time again that the minority need special protections against the majority or discrimination will follow. Discrimination is discrimination, whether you use your religion as justification or not. Your freedom of religion ends at my freedom to not be discriminated against.

  • Niea

    I have no problem being a bigot to bigots. To me, it’s the moral thing to do to stand up to those who discriminate against minorities when there are only illogical reasons to discriminate.

  • Niea

    That is literally the definition of a homophobe. Someone who discriminates against gay people. Look it up. The etymology is wrong, but the definition is still there.

    Again, being a homophobe is bigotry. There is as much logic for discriminating against black people as there is for discriminating against gay people. Back in the 50’s, people used to throw around the freedom of religion card all the time for why business owners should be able to discriminate against black people.

    So far, you have demonstrated no logical reason for such discrimination. It is you who is trying to shut down conversation by proving no justification.

    Civil rights and the rights of minorities trump any religious rights. PERIOD. Religion has no basis in reality and is just a justification for your own bigotry. If a military chaplain doesn’t want to do their job and cater to all personal, gay or straight, religious or atheist, they can always quit. No one is forcing them to be a chaplain.

  • Niea

    Society does have to change if society’s views are wrong and discriminate. Slavery was socially acceptable 150 years ago. According to you,no one should have spoken up because, hey, society deems it ok so it must be ok.

    If a company or it’s owners does something I don’t like, I have every right to boycott. It is you who is trying to shut down opposition by saying that it’s not ok to spend my money wherever I want. Just like how the religious right wanted to boycott the girlscouts because they let in a transgender girl, right? Instead of saying how wrong it was, we of the lgbt decided to just go overboard that year and buy as many girlscout cookies as we could.

    You do realize that over 65% of the country is for gay rights, right? It seems like according to you, it’s the bigots that have to change.

  • Aria

    No one who uses the term homophobia really believes anyone has a fear of gay people. It is the literal definition now. Yes, it is true, language changes over time. Lots of words in the english language makes no sense if you break it down to its etymology.

  • Niea

    Why shouldn’t gay people bring it outside of the bedroom? The ones against gay rights are the ones who drag it from the bedroom and discriminate against it.

    Not to mention, straight people bring it outside of the bedroom on a daily basis. Why should we hide our sexuality, straight people certainly don’t. Just because you are grossed out by it? Because your silly religion dictates it? Last time I checked, this country’s laws isn’t dictated by the bible. In fact, there is a separation of church and state.

    So far pushing our ‘agenda’, IE our civil rights, seems to be working. More people are for gay rights in america than at any point in history. And it is only getting better. States are making gay marriage legal one by one. Pretty soon we will repeal DOMA just like we did DADT. One incremental change after another. And there is no sign of it slowing down. Gay marriage will become just as socially acceptable and talked about as interracial marriage.

    I don’t care about your religious beliefs. Your beliefs end when they start affecting me. To me, religious beliefs against gay rights are just as illogical as saying you are against them because they are icky.

  • Yaaaaaah

    Uh, , , the 5th-season episode “The Outcast” dealt with gay rights in all but name. It’s actually pretty well-known for that. The climactic speech of the episode actually broke the fourth wall and directly addressed anti-gay bigots in the TV audience.

    All this talk about how Star Trek “wasn’t very good” at this issue is just that–talk. Trust me, The Next Generation dealt with gay characters quite well, and most of its LGBT fans know that.

  • Jason

    Deal with it. Homosexuality is nowhere near on the same level as civil rights. Why? Because God created us all, Male, Female, Black, White, Brown, Red, Yellow Etc.. and the civil rights movement was about us healing as a nation and coming together, removing hatred for someone because of how God had made them. I mean it was/is so illogical to hate against another race illogical I’m surprised hate groups didn’t go after people with birth defects, down’s syndrome, missing limbs as well.

    Why is Homosexuality different? Because it’s a choice and it’s one that clearly offends people who hold beliefs contrary to it, beliefs that the majority of the population hold to as the truth and beliefs upon which this great nation was founded upon.

    I’m not advocating any sort of hatred or animosity toward homosexuals but I don’t see their union within the definition of marriage and oppose its forced media agenda that seeks to normalize it’s occurrence in a society that is largely against it’s devaluation of marriage, the family structure, (as God has shown it in His word) and pushes to completely emasculate men.

    What God has called sin is sin and there’s nothing man can do or say to change that. But I’m a bigot because I love God and hold to his commandments instead of just going with whatever society says? Well then so be it.

  • Andy

    It never aired?

    It probably never saw pre-production, either. This is an over-exaggerated article, at best.