So much fuss over 10 seconds? Surely it's a joke?
-
DTWD — 9 years ago(October 02, 2016 02:32 AM)
Was it even 10 seconds?
But yeah, some people have got some serious problems if they can get upset by something as innocuous as that. If we hadn't been told going in I don't think a lot of people would have even registered it as a gay relationship. -
lantzn — 9 years ago(November 25, 2016 05:23 PM)
Same here, but I wasn't even aware of this talk of him being gay in the first place. I just found out about it in the thread. That said, I honestly thought the guy was either a father or older brother, it never even dawned on me a partner.
-
Foot_of_Davros — 9 years ago(October 02, 2016 05:40 AM)
The one thing I hated about the gay Sulu scene was the missed opportunity to make his partner look almost exactly like Kirk - so much so, that when Kirk looked over he had to do a double take (like that pigeon in Moonraker).
That would have been truly awesome, been something William Shatner and George Takei would have appreciated, and set up some great tention in subsequent bridge scenes.
The
truth
about Marti Pellow -
-
Arfpint — 9 years ago(October 02, 2016 02:23 PM)
I agree that it was pointless, but at the same time, why is it "progressive"? It's just some guy meeting his partner after a long time away.
It's just a tiny meaningless moment of two people re-uniting, that's it.
Forever 9 Angels -
persen1 — 9 years ago(October 21, 2016 05:48 PM)
I found it annoying that his dude was asian as well. Why not mexican?
Most likely because of their daughters name: Demora Sulu
I doubt the baby you see his partner is carrying would end up with a pure Asian name, if Sulu's partner was a Mexican, Afro American, Caucasian or what ever other ethnic background his partner would have. -
martin3-3 — 9 years ago(October 18, 2016 02:08 PM)
Of course it was pointless. Do you folks really don't get it? In the times of Startrek TOS, there had to be a black actor in it. Uhura. She didn't do much else than looking good and saying Yes Captain. But she was there because she was black. And that was a good thing. That's what made Whoopie Goldberg join the Startrek universe. Today we have the situation that producers seem to be forced to put some gay people in every TV show. It is required, obviously. The big problem is that while it is absolutely right and positive to see people of different colours of skin on screen, with gays it is a different story. Many normal, heterosexual people, are offended by this and with good reason. While being black, or red, or "yellow" is completely normal in nature, being gay is against nature because nature wants its creatures to reproduce. The put gay people in TV-shows or movies without any other reason than that there have to be gays too, will result in the producers loosing a lot of their audiences. When I saw those pirates kissing each other in Black Sails, I stopped watching the show immediatly. I absolutely support that gays have the same rights and should not be discriminated in daily life! We are all human beings, after all. However, it shouldn't be shown so often in movies and shows. That is contraproductive and does not serve the cause of gay people at all. That's my opinion. End of transmission.
-
tb-sch — 9 years ago(October 23, 2016 12:06 PM)
being gay is against nature because nature wants its creatures to reproduce.
Tell that the ants or bees. One queen is reproducing. All the others, according to you, act against nature.
Homosexuality appears in wildlife btw. Even in humans it might have a function to allow the communities to survive. While there are not gay parents, there can be very well gay uncles and aunts.
When I saw those pirates kissing each other in Black Sails, I stopped watching the show immediatly.
Maybe it is good that there are less and less shows for people like you. You don't deserve quality tv. -
martin3-3 — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 04:37 PM)
Ants and bees? That's a good one. Those animals have a different way to reproduce. You don't seem to understand. Nature wants its creatures to reproduce in the way appropriate to each species. In the way nature intends. It's really that easy.
-
tb-sch — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 05:13 PM)
Nature wants its creatures to reproduce in the way appropriate to each species.
And when you look at the units early humans formed, they were optimized for exactly that. At no point was it about everybody reproducing at once. Of course the question is how far you want to go back. When we left the trees? Or the water?
Nature is about survival of the species which adapts the best. Squeezing out offspring is just one strategy, but by no means the only one "natural".