But they haven't fundamentally altered the character, they just made him gay. In every way that has any impact on the story, he's the same Sulu as ever.

I had the same feeling. While I think that it is a great thing to annoy homophobe morons, this just showed a certain insensibility to the original material.
Also they lack recurring new characters beside Scotty's assistant. Why couldn't they come up with a real character with some importance in a future episode. That would have been a much more daring move and would also have helped a franchise which is on the brink of drying out again.

It's not about the amount of screen time it got. It's about the filmmakers fundamentally altering a character who, in 50 years of Star Trek, was never gay. Even George Takei literally pleaded with them to not change his character, and he was disappointed when they did it anyway.

exactly

Star Trek Canon is more of what you'd call guidelines then actual rules!

I think the irritation is more about Hollywood's incessant need to wedge these patronizing little social acceptance things into their films that add nothing to the movie and are most often publicity grabs.

It could have been 1 microsecond. It's the fact that he presented himself as a homosexual that people reacted to, not what he did. Human nature.

When I saw this thread, I thought it must have been people complaining about the ridiculous
beastie boys destroys the aliens while the ship surfs a wave/pipe of fire
scene but that went longer than 10 seconds so I was curious. Turns out everyone was worried about a completely forgettable family reunion. Move along people.
hypocrite
lunatic
fanatic
heretic
It's almost never Lupus

Sulu can blo Scotty on the bridge for all I care, just stop making Spock cry every 20 mins. Now that to me is weird.

yeah, with all the internet fuss made about this i was watching out for it turns out he was just met at the 'airport' by his brother with his neice at least thats the way most people could/would/might interpret it no big deal and nothing to get stressed out about(i asked my wife and she thought he was saying hello to a friend or family member at the 'airport'

Changing the timeline can change your job, your home, your spouse, but it cannot change your sex, or sexual orientation. It doesn't make any sense.
They used the "alternate timeline" excuse to change Ricardo Montalban into Benedict Cumberbatch. You're either on board with the concept or you aren't.

Because that's not who the character is. Gene Roddenbery has said so, George Takei has said so. Takei himself does not like this change.
Changing the timeline can change your job, your home, your spouse, but it cannot change your sex, or sexual orientation. It doesn't make any sense.

Star Trek Canon is more of what you'd call guidelines then actual rules!

As far as I interpreted the scene, Sulu was greeted by his older brother / cousin / colleague or other close companion who brought his daughter. I read no homosexual relationship there and don't see the fuss.
And so what if Sulu is gay? It's alternative timeline and they can change anything they like! And if Elton John can have same-sex marriage and have a child in 2010, why can't it be in 2263?
Classics are names that everyone heard, yet most have never seen!!

exactly

This message has been deleted.

"Your God", being the invention of man, can't exactly have a higher moral authority than a person. In fact a fictional entity does not have any authority whatsoever.

I am religious and homosexuality is a sin. Period. I don't need you telling me otherwise. There are 2.2 billion Christians in the world and 1.6 billion Muslims. It is also a sin in Judaism. While not all the people that practice those religions actually follow them closely, their doctrines tell them it is a sin. You have no higher moral authority than my God.

Sorry Martin, but any time anyone brings up the "nature abhors homosexuality" argument it merely shows they know nothing whatsoever about nature, or animals. In just about every species thus far studied, especially mammalian & avian, there is
always
a relatively low but definite percentage of the population who practice "homosexuality," by mating &/or setting up housekeeping permanently.
Rant, scream, & hyperventilate all you want; if God designed the animals, he built homosexuality into all of 'em. If nature & evolution were the 'designers,' they did the same thing. It is simply a fact of life; homosexuality is. If everyone in a species practiced it, obviously that species wouldn't survive. If a relatively small percentage does, some or all of the time, no problem, things go on. The ontological development of gender is a much more complicated & non-binary process than most people realize, & there's lots of opportunities for placement along the gender/gender preference spectrum. It's only the "icky-poo-yuck" response of certain individuals that makes it any sort of problem.for them, & thus (tragically) for others.
Sorry, but facts trump hysteria, no matter what certain folks would like to believe. And there really are such things as real facts.

When I saw those pirates kissing each other in Black Sails
I haven't seen that, but if they were away at sea for a long time, away from female company, maybe they just craved some human affection?

A lot of mamals handle it like packs of wolves and have one male to reproduce, while the others just stabilize the group or challenge the alpha.
Meerkats teach their young how to eat risky food rather than to squeeze out enough that they would survive by trial and error.
The idea that number is the only factor leading for a species to survive is obviously utter nonsense.

Would you mind naming a few other "natural" strategies?
~ the hardest thing in this world is to live in it ~

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".

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.

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.

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.