Set phasers to FABULOUS!
The above quote is not mine. It’s just funny.
My question is, and this seems to be a point of several people I found debating this, what would the story gain by having a character whose identity is based in their sexual preference?
First, campy feminine-male gayness will never, ever, fit in Star Trek amongst the main characters. The men on board the USS Enterprise are either cowboys, geeks, or logophiles, and Spock exclaiming “We’ve entered the Rainbow Nebula!” just isn’t Spock. (Again, that quote is not mine). Apparently there have been several lesbians throughout the series’ history. But for some reason our culture has generally been less repulsed by the idea of lesbianism than open gayness. I think it has to do, at least partially, with the difference in external aspects of male-male and female-female relationships. Women can hold hands without being necessary labeled homosexual. Men can’t.
Second, despite the protests otherwise by many people, a significant percentage of people will be upset by such a story arc, and will vote with their feet and their wallets. In the days of waning residual proceeds from films, the studios cannot risk such potential losses and will therefore not allow it.
Third, Star Trek is about so much more than sexuality. The people who make up the core of the homosexual movement are obsessed over sex. Theirs is a hyper-sexual existence in which every one and every thing has sexual connotations, overtones, and they project upon every body and every thing else their view of the world. This is where we get the spurious claims that because it was relatively common for men to share beds 200 years ago many of our founding fathers were homosexual. President Abraham Lincoln was no more homosexual than President Obama is pro-free-market. The sexuality in Star Trek serves to illuminate one aspect of the character, and, to put it crassly, to get the young degenerate males to come and cheer. To set a character such that a primary aspect of their being is their sexuality, regardless of whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, pan-sexual, whatever, is to artificially limit them to a mere foil, a depthless red-shirt best eliminated at the first planet-side encounter.
Oh, and apparently, because Proposition 8 was overturned by a questionable act of judicial fiat, that ruling will, of course, last for 300 years and inform the basis of the legal structure of the federation:
“To boldly go where no man has gone before.” That was the mission the Enterprise set out on all those years ago, yet the show itself never went to one particular place – depicting gay characters on any of their television shows or films. With Proposition 8 having been overturned in California this week, one has to stop and think; if this is where we are in 2010, will Gene Roddenberry‘s near-Utopian future ever follow suit?
There is no chance the laws of the Federation preclude homosexuality? There is no possibility the utopia of the future doesn’t bear more resemblance to 1984 than the San Francisco that Star Fleet Academy is located in?
I don’t know what Star Trek universe some people live in, but didn’t Star Trek Generations prove mankind never really gets beyond it’s current problems?