Hey folks -

Only a few more days until the web release of the newest Star Trek Phase II episode is released. Here's a writeup on the episode and even a clip as well. Just a warning to those that might be icked out by seeing two male crewmembers sharing a kiss, you might want to skip that bit. It's very tastefully done, but it still might bother some folks. Here it is:

http://www.afterelton.com/TV/2008/12/startrekgay?page=0%2C0

Oh, by the way.....if you're wondering about the costumes used in the clip, those are actual costumes that were designed by Bill Theiss for the proposed Phase II series back in the 70's before the project turned into the TMP film. As for myself, I don't particularly like the look of them, but James Cawley managed to pick up quite a few unused Phase II costumes and props that were actually made, but never used.

Here's a nice teaser with some great effects shots if you're interested (no kissing):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHL36D5c9Dw
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHL36D5c9Dw)

Bryan

If only we could find a way to stop the spread of AIDS!! There must be SOMETHING that can be done!!



Oh yeah...


"condoms"

If only we could find a way to stop the spread of AIDS!! There must be SOMETHING that can be done!!



Oh yeah...


"condoms"

Condoms? What are you, a Godless heathen?. :dude:

Abstinance is the only approved method. Never mind it doesn't work.


"When the couple make plans to marry, Kirk agrees to officiate, but only “after the away mission” — which may or may not bode well for the future of this relationship. "

Yeah, that's a good idea, what could possibly happen on an away mission? 'Specially when we're wearing these snazzy red shirts.

Well..

There's one thing I see wrong with this scene. Peter Kirk's paramour is NOT green!

we really need a vomiting smiley here

Hmmm, I can't say I'm too fond of this one.

Guys -

I'll just clue you in on this one. I've read David Gerrold's novelized version of "Blood and Fire", which he adapted for his Star Wolf series of books. If you guys are creeped out by the gay factor, I can assure you that the scenes related to this equal less than 5 minutes of screen time or plot. The rest of the story is one of the creepiest and intense material ever written for an episode of Trek in a very long time. The New Voyages version of B&F was split into 2 parts and has already been viewed at Trek conventions during the past 6 months. At each of the showings, the episode was very well received by the attendees with only one or two "walkouts" during the screenings.

At worst, you might be exposed to one or two scenes as shown in the clip, but the scene in the clip is as involved as it's going to get during the episode. Contrary to how the AfterElton website calling it "Gay Trek", it's not as such. It just happens to be a Trek episode that happens to have 2 male gay characters in it.

Look at it this way, if you're interested, you can watch the first half of the episode online as of this weekend. If you don't like what you see, then you you haven't invested or lost much as you can watch it at your own convenience. It's not going to be graphic - at least not in a manner where most would find it offensive or distasteful.

Bryan

This was a great episode, can't wait till part 2.

"Don't worry Jim, we stopped putting bullseyes on redshirts long ago." - McCoy

Hidden Frontier has had gay characters for most of their run, handled very tastefully. Maybe it's 'cause it's the least visible of the fan episode productions (despite having run for SEVEN SEASONS!!)

It's only fair for those of us who like watching women smooch to not make a fuss when the other side of the coin is shown.

It's only fair for those of us who like watching women smooch to not make a fuss when the other side of the coin is shown.

Sometimes you really surprise me John, and I mean that as a sincere compliment.

Sometimes you really surprise me John, and I mean that as a sincere compliment.

I'm complicated. ;)

I just finished watching Part 1 of "Blood and Fire".... Man, that was a hell of an episode! It had a bit of a slow start after such a rousing teaser sequence, but by the end of the 4th act, I was nearly out of my chair. I've never seen such a scary episode of Trek before. The VFX in this episode were really outstanding all the way through - if anything, modern CGI effects enhance, rather than upstage the live performances. While we're talking about live performances, I found all the lead actors to be in terrific form. I'm really going to miss Andy Bray as Chekov though - at times, I think that he does a better job than Walter Koenig did.

As I suspected, most of the gay-themed content is pretty much confined to the footage seen in the trailer segment hosted on the AfterElton website. The characters do continue through the story, but as per usual for secondary characters, they take a back seat (not in a bad way) to the main characters that everyone's familiar with.

Oh, by the way - the opening dedication was changed (I'm sure that will make some folks happy). A very nice dedication to Majel Barrett Roddenberry was at the beginning of the Teaser. A very nice touch.

Pretty damn good Trek considering that it's filmed in a metal building in upstate New York instead of an expensive film studio.

Looking forward to Part 2!

Bryan

Condoms? What are you, a Godless heathen?. :dude:

Abstinance is the only approved method. Never mind it doesn't work.



Back in the 90s there was a segment on the evening news that stated that latex condoms have a pore size one micron in diameter. The Human Immunodeficiency Virus has a diameter of .5 microns. Better than nothing, but you are still rolling the dice every time you depend on a condom for protection.

You can spin it any way you want, but the fact is that abstinence is still the only foolproof method of prevention. It's just that, given how people work, it just isn't very practical as it isn't likely to be followed.

As a diabetic, I can tell you from dealings with other diabetics, that people will often do what is bad for them, and will hurt their health even though they know better.

As has been said, denial isn't just a river in Egypt. :lol:

David.

Folks -

A bit of an update for those that found the original dedication message was changed after the passing of Majel Roddenberry. There is now a nice tribute message at the beginning of "Blood and Fire" instead of the one written by David Gerrold in regards to HIV/AIDS.

Bryan

Everyone makes a big fuss over gays in films, why? Gays are a part of our society, what's the big deal? Hidden Frontier's episodes, were good episodes, and the first ST, big deal to Phase II. For me, the name Phase II is a shock. I haven't checked out ST fan fils for so long, I missed the change. And, I though it was a all new film series.

Everyone makes a big fuss over gays in films, why? Gays are a part of our society, what's the big deal? Hidden Frontier's episodes, were good episodes, and the first ST, big deal to Phase II. For me, the name Phase II is a shock. I haven't checked out ST fan fils for so long, I missed the change. And, I though it was a all new film series.

Nothing personal, but this is a common statement I hear all of the time. Porn is part of our society too but I can choose to not watch it as a segment of our society does.

Star Trek has always been a show that the young people enjoy watching and I believe it just doesn't belong in any entertainment that we know young people will watch. They won't understand it and it could even be disturbing to some.

I really don't believe it was part of Gene Roddenbury's vision and I"m pretty sure that the majority of viewers will wish it wasn't included, especially since it plays such a very, very small and insignificant part of the story. I would be perfectly happy for the story to stick to the story and not get into homosexual and interspecies sex practices.

Sorry if anyone disagrees with me when I say that this will not be well accepted by the majority of the audience.

I just can't get into the new actors. At least the new movie has new sets etc. This is like imposters walking around on the Enterprise. I'm thinking, what have you done with the real crew?? They should have created a different crew or reimagined the priginal crew on a new type of ship. It's very distracting to watch something that creates everything rom the original eries to the letter but then has completely new faces as Kirk and company. Talk about standing out like a sore thumb! Can't grok it, sorry.

Nothing personal, but this is a common statement I hear all of the time. Porn is part of our society too but I can choose to not watch it as a segment of our society does.

Star Trek has always been a show that the young people enjoy watching and I believe it just doesn't belong in any entertainment that we know young people will watch. They won't understand it and it could even be disturbing to some.

I really don't believe it was part of Gene Roddenbury's vision and I"m pretty sure that the majority of viewers will wish it wasn't included, especially since it plays such a very, very small and insignificant part of the story. I would be perfectly happy for the story to stick to the story and not get into homosexual and interspecies sex practices.

Sorry if anyone disagrees with me when I say that this will not be well accepted by the majority of the audience.

I agree, No Brokeback Trek! I love Old fashioned Trek- but I would love the green women and T'pol any day!!!:thumbsup:

Back in the 90s there was a segment on the evening news that stated that latex condoms have a pore size one micron in diameter. The Human Immunodeficiency Virus has a diameter of .5 microns. Better than nothing, but you are still rolling the dice every time you depend on a condom for protection.

You can spin it any way you want, but the fact is that abstinence is still the only foolproof method of prevention. It's just that, given how people work, it just isn't very practical as it isn't likely to be followed.


As has been said, denial isn't just a river in Egypt. :lol:

David.

A parachute is not 100% effective either. But if I'm jumping out of an airplane I'd prefer to have one handy.

I really don't believe it was part of Gene Roddenbury's vision and I"m pretty sure that the majority of viewers will wish it wasn't included, especially since it plays such a very, very small and insignificant part of the story. I would be perfectly happy for the story to stick to the story and not get into homosexual and interspecies sex practices.


Huh? Part of Gene's vision, 'least as far as the TOS and TNG went, was apparently that humans will mate with anything! How many half human-half (insert favorite aliens race here) characters did we see over the years? Not to mention guys that fell in love with computers, robots, holodek characters, and even intelligent plasma clouds.

I'm not so concerned about the gay angle as much as the really bad acting on the part of that so-called actor playing Kirk. The others aren't so bad, but does he really have to play a Shatner parody. I was groaning the entire time, LOL!

I think the story was excellent however... and the homosexual angle was completely unnecessary to the story and rather gratuitous, but whatever.

I'm not so concerned about the gay angle as much as the really bad acting on the part of that so-called actor playing Kirk. The others aren't so bad, but does he really have to play a Shatner parody. I was groaning the entire time, LOL!

ND -

James Cawley has always had to struggle a bit with how to play Kirk, or how not to. There are those that would prefer that he just made the part his own as most of the other cast members have done. There is also a very large contingent of folks that like the incorporation of Bill Shatner's mannerisms into the part as it creates an air of familiarity that identifies the role with the original actor that played Kirk. It's never been intended to be a parody of Shatner's acting style, although he does have a "style" all his own that has been the butt of many a joke over the decades. In terms of this particular episode, David Gerrold actually encouraged James to channel Shatner a bit more in this episode than in previous episodes of New Voyages/Phase II. I think the scene between Spock and Kirk in the corridor after Kirk was informed of Peter's intentions to marry was the one where it was the most evident.

There are times when it works well and times when it's a tough call either way. As for myself, I've grown to like it over the years and enjoy it almost as much, if not more than if Shatner were on camera himself.

To each their own, I guess.

Bryan

I had a hard time at first, to accept James Cawley as Kirk. But, it is a fan film. I rather enjoy the episodes/movies. It is also nice to see the actors, and guest stars from TOS in new stories, also. Since the episodes move TOS further, instead of screwing it up, like the new movie will, I like them more now.

Huh? Part of Gene's vision, 'least as far as the TOS and TNG went, was apparently that humans will mate with anything! How many half human-half (insert favorite aliens race here) characters did we see over the years? Not to mention guys that fell in love with computers, robots, holodek characters, and even intelligent plasma clouds.

Agreed! Gene was a horn dog himself, and he wrote characters who were horn dogs. He may or may not have cared about a gay character in his show, but given that part of his credo was equality across racial, ethnic and species lines, I imagine he'd be fine with it.

And as for sexual moments that children shouldn't watch, let's not forget EvilKirk attempting to rape Janice Rand in The Enemy Within.

Huh? Part of Gene's vision, 'least as far as the TOS and TNG went, was apparently that humans will mate with anything! How many half human-half (insert favorite aliens race here) characters did we see over the years? Not to mention guys that fell in love with computers, robots, holodek characters, and even intelligent plasma clouds.

Yes, and I remember the controversy when this first came out. It was in all the news and most people didn't like it. As I remember, this came out about the same time as black/white marriages were "in the news" and it was a very controveral thing back in the 60s/early 70s.. I'm thinking this gay thing is just another Trek moment by hollywood

I prefer not to watch Male (or female) homosexual scenes. Call me old fashioned - It's MY preference.

Help a non-Trekkie out here. Didn't TOS feature the first inter-racial kiss ever shown on TV? If so, I imagine there were millions of mid-Sixties parents out there who considered that inappropriate for their children to see - not to mention just plain wrong on cultural, moral, and even religious grounds. If I know anything at all about Roddenberry and TOS, part of the point of the series was to challenge that type of "conventional" and reactionary thinking.

Yes, and I remember the controversy when this first came out. It was in all the news and most people didn't like it.

Huh? I was under the impression half-breed Spock was one of Trek's more beloved characters.

I'm thinking this gay thing is just another Trek moment by hollywood

I suppose that's one way to look at it. But my impression is that Roddenberry and Trek were stating tolerance and a open mind toward others were not only positives, but were in fact rather essential for exploring the galaxy. YMMV.

Didn't TOS feature the first inter-racial kiss ever shown on TV?Well, sort of. What's actually shown on the screen is a bit of a cop-out, and it isn't difficult to argue that there's no actual kiss. This is compounded by the fact that, within the context of the story, the participants were being forced to kiss under duress.

Qapla'

SSB

my impression is that Roddenberry and Trek were stating tolerance and a open mind toward others were not only positives, but were in fact rather essential for exploring the galaxy. YMMV.I agree -- but I also think that there's a difference between (hopefully gracious) tolerance and affirmation.

Qapla'

SSB

How is featuring something that happens in real life and in current society an "affirmation"? All this episode does is show two characters in a gay relationship. It's not like all of the other characters broke into a song and dance about the virtues of homosexuality... or why you, the viewer, should go gay.

How is featuring something that happens in real life and in current society an "affirmation"?I don't believe I said that it was. I merely said that tolerance isn't the same thing as affirmation.

Qapla'

SSB

A parachute is not 100% effective either. But if I'm jumping out of an airplane I'd prefer to have one handy.

If parachutes had the failure rate of a condom, 12 percent, instead of the 0.001 percent that they currently have, I doubt very seriously that many people would be using them for recreation. :lol:

Help a non-Trekkie out here. Didn't TOS feature the first inter-racial kiss ever shown on TV?It wasn't the first inter-racial kiss, it was just the first to have a black and a white together.

David.

Hey folks -

I just thought I'd bring some of the discussion from the New Voyages/Phase II BBoard. We've been having an ongoing discussion on this particular episode since it went behind the cameras. The writer (and director), David Gerrold has been visiting the forum to add to the discussion. I found one of his most recent posts to be very informative, so I thought that I would share it with you:

This story is about two relationships. It is about the relationship between Peter Kirk and his uncle. It is about the relationship between Peter Kirk and his husband-to-be. For this story to work, both Part I and Part II, we have to show you both relationships, not just hint at them.

22 years ago, Gene Roddenberry made a promise that we would see gay crewmembers aboard the Enterprise. It was my intention not only to keep that promise but to keep it honestly and authentically. We specifically chose to NOT go for the wink-wink nudge-nudge euphemism because it was important to the story that the viewer understand just how much these two men love each other and that their intimacy was emotional as well as physical.

As a director, my great disappointment with the much-lauded film Brokeback Mountain was that we NEVER saw the real passion between the two leads. We never really experienced that they did love each other. What we saw was a hint of sexuality, but not a relationship profound enough to carry that whole picture. (That's my take on it. Your mileage may vary.) So when James and I and Carlos planned this out, one of our considerations was to make sure the audience, whether gay or straight, understood that there was very real physical and emotional passion in this relationship.

In the planning of this scene, I considered all the very best (as well as all the very worst) love scenes I've ever seen. I also considered my own personal experience of emotional relationships. Some people have said they felt like voyeurs watching this scene. Good. That means it works. Some people have said they felt uncomfortable. Good. That means they're having the opportunity to confront their own fears and prejudices about male-male intimacy. And some people have said the scene is too long (which is a euphemism for their discomfort with the male-male relationship.)

From the very beginning, I knew the scene was a challenge, and I knew it would be one of the most difficult scenes in the show. From the very beginning, I had concerns of all kinds about how it would play for a gay audience as well as a straight audience, etc. etc. From the very beginning, this was the scene that we spent the most time talking about. James Cawley and I did not stumble into this scene accidentally, we considered it at length and made a lot of decisions, knowing in advance that this would generate enormous amounts of conversation.

But ... if Star Trek had been courageous enough to hint at a couple of gay crewmembers in 1987, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion about a couple of gay crewmembers today. We did what we did because we felt it was the right thing to do. For Trek, for our gay audience, and yes even for our straight audience, and especially for those who have never stopped to consider what same-sex relationships are really about.

In another thread on another forum, someone said something about how straight people are afraid gay people will tell them what they do in bed. Well, maybe it's time that straight folks got over it and understood that what's really going on is a human connection. The most profound of all human connections -- love.

Personally, I find it ironic that the same people who object to two human males being in bed together have no problem with a human female giving birth to a Vulcan baby, or the captain of a starship bedding a green-skinned Orion slave girl....

If anyone isn't currently a member of the website, please feel free to drop by and join the forums. There's lots of discussion on all manner of things Trek and SciFi in general. Here's a link in case you want to stop by:

http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/forum/index.php?action=forum

Later,

Bryan

I also think that there's a difference between (hopefully gracious) tolerance and affirmation.


You know, I'm uncomfortable with this word 'tolerance' in this context (gracious or not). To 'tolerate' something is to proceed from the basic assumption that the thing being 'tolerated' is automatically a 'bad' thing. So to 'tolerate' gay people is to state, without ambiguity, that they are 'bad' and therefore to be merely 'tolerated' rather than accepted.

Let's try a small thought experiment. If a person were to say that they 'tolerated' black people, or that they 'tolerated' jews, what would that say about that person?

Exactly.

So what does it say about someone when they say that they 'tolerate' gay people?

And given that 'tolerance' is finite, what happens if your 'tolerance' comes to an end?

I'm thinking this gay thing is just another Trek moment by hollywood

Hollywood? ... the series is made by fans in upstate New York.

You know, I'm uncomfortable with this word 'tolerance' in this context (gracious or not). To 'tolerate' something is to proceed from the basic assumption that the thing being 'tolerated' is automatically a 'bad' thing. So to 'tolerate' gay people is to state, without ambiguity, that they are 'bad' and therefore to be merely 'tolerated' rather than accepted.

Let's try a small thought experiment. If a person were to say that they 'tolerated' black people, or that they 'tolerated' jews, what would that say about that person?

Exactly.

So what does it say about someone when they say that they 'tolerate' gay people?

And given that 'tolerance' is finite, what happens if your 'tolerance' comes to an end?

Good points. Fortunately, in matters of social and civil justice in this country - tolerance eventually gives way to acceptance - even if it takes decades. Let's hope that historical trend continues.

What's all the fuss about? Turns out Star Trek has had a gay crew member since 1966....

Hollywood? ... the series is made by fans in upstate New York.

What I meant to say is that Hollywood has changed over the decades on how movies and tv series are made. They seem to spend a lot more time injecting "controversy of the day" into their shows/movies instead of just sticking to the story. Not just with gays but they also inject their beliefs into the story as well about governments, issues in war, etc. heck, I get enough of that from the news.

Since this "gay segment" that was injected into this movie and it has no bearing on the overall story, it's an example of how producers/writers like to "spice" up their show/movie by adding such useless stuff.

What's all the fuss about? Turns out Star Trek has had a gay crew member since 1966.... That's true, but since it did not offer any support to any of the stories, it was wisely left out. Call me old fashioned but when a story/show/movie is about exploring space, making first contact, fighting off Klingons/Romulans or solving some mystery never before encountered, I really don't care about someone's religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Those are just distractions from the root plot.

What I meant to say is that Hollywood has changed over the decades on how movies and tv series are made. They seem to spend a lot more time injecting "controversy of the day" into their shows/movies instead of just sticking to the story. Not just with gays but they also inject their beliefs into the story as well about governments, issues in war, etc. heck, I get enough of that from the news.

Hmmm.... Every time I read comments like that I'm reminded of the person who asserted HG Wells' The Time Machine was simply a good story:

Balance of Terror was an allegory of our fear of "the other," an unknown enemy, equal in might to our own, hellbent on blowing us up to bits. In fact, the title for the episode was the liberal version of "balance of power."

A Private Little War was a denunciation of the Soviets and Americans arming different factions in the third world to wage proxy war.

Assignment: Earth had a not so subtle message about the "madness" of superpower politics and the arming of space.

Errand of Mercy, Day of the Dove and Doomsday Machine also had not so subtle messages about the lengths superpowers would go to get the upper hand on the enemy.

The Devil in the Dark had the message that people should put aside their initial reactions to another, try to understand each other and learn to cooperate with one another.

I believe the messages in Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, A Taste of Armageddon and The Omega Glory are self-evident.

Every episode listed above tackled issues that were controversial for the 60s. That's the reason Roddenberry created Star Trek: to confront societal issues in a "safe setting." In addition, if you look closely, the messages in those episodes had, for the time, a liberal bent. Now they're not as controversial or as obvious because the majority of society has come to believe or accept them.

In fact, I'll bet you that if the BBs were around in the 60s we'd have a handful of people ranting about the liberal PC Hollyweird types throwing multiculturalism in our faces because of the crew's diversity.

You know, I'm uncomfortable with this word 'tolerance' in this context (gracious or not). To 'tolerate' something is to proceed from the basic assumption that the thing being 'tolerated' is automatically a 'bad' thing. So to 'tolerate' gay people is to state, without ambiguity, that they are 'bad' and therefore to be merely 'tolerated' rather than accepted.No, you're making an unwarranted leap from the things a person does to the person himself. All of us do things other people wouldn't like -- but we're trying to have a civilization here. Therefore, we can tolerate things with which we don't approve -- and we tolerate the fact that others don't agree with what we think is right. It doesn't mean we think other people are somehow less human or less important than others. Or do you believe that anything someone wants to do is right and proper? Is it not okay that I disagree? Can I not like and accept people even if I think some of the things they do are wrong? Or must I say that anything is right and good and proper (as long as enough other people agree), or else be thought to be filled with hatred? Is there no room in between?
given that 'tolerance' is finite, what happens if your 'tolerance' comes to an end?Well, I don't know -- maybe we find some more tolerance, or we work to change hearts and minds in a peaceful fashion, or we otherwise find a way to get along. How do any of us deal with things we don't like? We find a way to get along, or we are removed from society. What consenting adults do in their own private lives is their own business, and I honestly have no problem with that. But when someone tries to tell me that I must say some idea or behavior with which I disagree is right and good and proper, then that's where I draw the line. And I honestly don't care whether the majority of society agrees with me or not -- I'll be fine and I can peacefully co-exist. And I can still like and enjoy knowing people with whom I disagree.

Qapla'

SSB

No, you're making an unwarranted leap from the things a person does to the person himself.
I don't think I am. Being gay is not just a 'thing a person does'. It's absolutely a key part of what a person is. It is the person hims (or her) self. It goes to the heart and core of a person's being. Being gay simply simply means that I am emotionally and sexually attracted to another person of the same gender. Exactly the same as (I assume) you are attracted to someone of the opposite gender. That's it. What a person 'does' is secondary. I could live my whole life without ever 'doing' anything, and still be gay until the day I die.
It doesn't mean we think other people are somehow less human or less important than others.
But whether you intend to or not, that's exactly what you're doing when you 'tolerate' us. Because 'tolerance' carries the connotation of permission. It says that we can exist so long, and only so long, as others 'tolerate' us.
Is it not okay that I disagree?
Of course it is. But I just want to make sure that you appreciate exactly what message it is that you're sending out in the way you couch that disagreement, and the terms you use, and how diminishing and hurtful it can be.

Well, I don't know -- maybe we find some more tolerance, or we work to change hearts and minds in a peaceful fashion, or we otherwise find a way to get along.
In your case perhaps. You seem like a nice person. Maybe in most cases. But all too often when the tolerance runs out it's insults, abuse and intimidation. Or being beaten and left hanging on a fence to die. And eventually it can be pink triangles and camps. That's the problem with 'tolerance'.

And if showing the joy and the tenderness and the sheer ordinariness of a loving relationship being two people who just happen to be of the same gender - in Star Trek or anywhere else - can help to avoid those horrors by moving us away from a grudging 'tolerance' towards simply accepting people for what they are, surely that's a good thing?

Back to my first point above, about sexual orientation being a fundamental and fixed part of what a person is, like skin colour or ethnicity, I wonder if you have an answer to the two questions I posed in my little thought experiment above? :)

-- we're trying to have a civilization here.

Oh, I want that on a t-shirt!

Oh, I want that on a t-shirt!I'm not absolutely certain, but I think I stole that from Seinfeld.

Qapla'

SSB

. . . Being gay is not just a 'thing a person does'. It's absolutely a key part of what a person is. It is the person hims (or her) self. It goes to the heart and core of a person's being.Maybe that's how we see it today, but the notion of being gay as part of a person's identity -- indeed, the very concept of having a "sexual identity" -- is a very recent idea, having begun with the gay liberation movement of the 1970s. Historically, even in cultures where homosexuality was fully accepted, it was no more a part of someone's identity than being right-handed or left-handed, or preferring oysters rather than snails.

My point? It's just that sociology and psychology, with regard to sexual behavior or anything else, are largely matters of fashion.

Historically, even in cultures where homosexuality was fully accepted, it was no more a part of someone's identity than being right-handed or left-handed, or preferring oysters rather than snails.


Interesting wording. What about the cultures where homosexuality wasn't fully accepted? I recently saw the movie "Milk" and the film opens with a montage of American newsreel footage from the 50s and 60s of cops hauling men to jail for the mere crime of congregating together in "gay" bars. Those arrests constitute some of the mildest of persecutions toward homosexuals in recent history. Go back a decade earlier and Hitler was throwing them into concentration camps. I don't quite get what you're saying here.

Check out the discussion over at TrekBBS:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=77452

I was interested to read the one that said (paraphrased from memory) "Even as a gay person I found the love scene to be too long and uncomfortable to watch."

Maybe that's how we see it today, but the notion of being gay as part of a person's identity -- indeed, the very concept of having a "sexual identity" -- is a very recent idea...
The word 'identity' is yours, not mine, in this context. All I was trying to express, however clumsily, was that the fact that I am attracted too, and sometimes fall in love with, people of my own gender is absolutely fundamental to who I am. In the same way that your (again, assumed) heterosexuality is fundamental to you. And yes, it's fundamental in exactly the same way as being right or left-handed is. Or liking or disliking certain foods. It's not part of some constructed 'identity'. It's just me.

And I suspect that this has been the case for every single homosexual person who has ever lived. Whether they have self-defined as 'gay' or not, and whether or not they have 'identified' with others like themselves for mutual support in the face of pretty much uniform hostility from the majority (thankfully now reducing at last).

And I'd hope that the increasingly definitive pyschological and sociological findings about this particular non-majority, but quite normal and not uncommon, variation in the human (and animal) population of this planet is based on research with a little more rigour than that of 'fashion'. :)

^Those lefties, though... It's the hand of the Devil! THEY need to be wiped out! :mad: