Star Trek, especially in its early days, was a beacon of progressive thought in race and ethnic relations. The diversity of the crew of Kirk?s Enterprise was a breath of fresh air, and the only real problem there - apart from Mr. Roddenberry?s occasionally problematic ideas on gender - was that the core cast consisted of two white Americans and an alien.
It continued to do amazing things as far as race goes into its later series. Possibly the most poignant statement on race relations, and the continued fight for equality, that I have ever seen in a scripted series was Far Beyond the Stars, one of the finest episodes of television ever made. Avery Brooks?s influence on Deep Space Nine was a wonderful thing.
Unfortunately, the last two decades have made very clear that Star Trek has little interest in addressing sexual orientation in a way that was anywhere near as enlightened as its approach to race. Only a few times are questions regarding orientation and gender identity brought up - the episode with Riker mentioned by the blog, the first Trill story involving Crusher, and the episode with Dax and Kahn in DS9. This, during the rise of the gay rights movement to national prominence - during a time for the fight for LGBT equality that mirrored where the civil rights movement was during the run of the original series!
Even more troubling is the fact that, to this day, there is not a major Star Trek character, in the screen canon of the Prime timeline, of the Abrams timeline, or of Star Trek Online, who is explicitly anything but a straight, cisgender individual.
I love Star Trek, but, as far as sexual orientation goes, it has been anything but a shining beacon of progress and inclusion. It has been aggressively and deliberately exclusionary, through its entire history. It has been, at best, cowardly on the issue of sexual orientation, retreating from every opportunity to join the dialogue.
For a franchise that was so daring on racial issues, it has been disappointingly craven on LGBT rights, and Star Trek Online has been no exception.
I absolutely applaud Stonewall?s work, and intend to participate in their Pride celebration, but it was necessary to point out the rose-tinted glasses through which this blog post views the franchise.
I find this extremely inapropriate and highly iresponsible on the forum mods part. Im not against or hate gay people but imagine if someone had a "guest blog" that was about a islamic jihad in game event or a hedrosexual event? where does it end? Star trek was never about bieng gay or hedrosexual it was about exploration and ill admit acceptance. To make a entire event based on ones sexuality is highly inapropriate in a video game setting.
This is just my opinion im not saying to shut this thread down or to not have this "event" but this is a "video game" not reality just my view and opinion doesnt mean im right or wrong.
Um, EVERYTHING that happens in-game, aside from this one-weekend-a-year event IS a Heterosexual event. (not, "hedrosexual, btw). Also, it is my experience that anybody who takes the time to post something like this is either against or does hate Gay people, lol.
People can try and dismiss any mention of LGBT rights as merely an attempt to "insert politics" into the equation all they want. But, for those of us in the historically oppressed LGBT minority, it is not about politics or wanting to force people to believe anything.
We'd just really like to stop being tied to fence posts and left for dead in Wyoming, hung in Iran, or shot to death while walking down a New York City street. We'd also like to enjoy the same (not additional) rights that are afforded to every other citizen of nations across the globe.
As a proud member of both the LGBT Community and the Stonewall Fleet, I salute my Admiral, and I hope the event is a huge success!
Certain legal sexual behaviors are not natural. (Speaking scientifically)
But there is nothing wrong with something being not natural.
Is clothing natural? No.
Is living in a house natural? No.
Is eating cooked food natural? No.
What about a proshetic hip? Is that natural? No.
Computers? Not natural either.
Medicine? Not natural either.
So there is nothing wrong with unnatural.
I am for one, happy to live our unnatural life. full of clothes, houses and charred bacon.
Humanity should not be confined by nature, whenever its about lifestyle, equipment, or sexuality.
1) I used quotes around the word cause because you make it your cause. I personally don't believe there is a cause.
2) The right to do whatever you want, is not true. Murder and theft exist in all societies and are not tolerated. And if you get what you want, I may, some day, be enprisoned for not accepting easily your behavior.
3) Sexuality in its natural form exists for reproduction. The fact that humans decided to use it for fun does not make it natural. What will happen when 100% of the human population turns homosexual?
Primates do it for fun too. Go watch some chimps in the zoo.