Speculation Should there be gay characters in the ST?

Ok while we are quoting blible verses.. if my neighbor steals 2 of my oxen, do I kill 3 of his asses or 2? If I cook my goat in its mothers milk, do I sacrifice 7 sheep or cover myself with brushes?

 

General Nadeen

 

I'm all for it.

I suppose one way to do this without stepping on any bigots' toes (if that is a desired goal for whatever reason) is via the word of god; that is, have the writer and/or director proclaim a character as LGBT post facto. Just like Rowling did with Dumbledore.

 

I think that would have been ideal. Like for Lucas to say "Obi-wan was always gay, folks."

 

It would seem like they included a gay character just for the sake of including a gay character...but whatever. It's Star Wars.

 

What's wrong with that? Nobody says there HAS to be male, female, black, white, hispanic, gay or straight characters. It all begins with "what if we included a ________ character?" Leia could have just as easily have been a male in ANH. But Lucas wanted an empowered female role. That was the same case with Ellen Ripley of the Alien franchise. She was originally written as a male character and Ridley decided "hey, how about we have a female lead instead."

 

The amount of ignorance in this thread is astounding. Look at all the posts starting with things like:

"I don't see how it's relevant..."
"Star Wars isn't the place for..."
"Sexual orientation doesn't belong..."

The sad thing is these people probably think they aren't being exclusive. They don't see it as excluding homosexuals. They just think that it's an obvious truth that homosexuality has no place in their fiction. They honestly see homosexuality as a political issue. They don't see homosexuality as just another character trait, they see it as a statement. They honestly believe that it isn't hurtful to treat homosexuality as some taboo that we don't need to address. They really think that you can't have a gay character in the film without it being an endorsement of some political agenda, and they think that doesn't make them exclusive.

Homosexuality is not a taboo. It is not a political thing. It's not about being PC. Homosexuality is a real thing that is a real part of who real people are.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't even have to ask this question. It wouldn't be a question of should or should not. It wouldn't even be something we think about, it would just be that sometimes there are gay characters and sometimes there aren't, and either way is OK. But this isn't an ideal world. We unfortunately live in a world where the default position is "Homosexuality has no place in an entertainment flick." and thinking that inclusiveness is good is somehow "progressive" rather than just common sense.

People thinking they aren't being exclusive by saying "Sexuality has no place in Star Wars" are delusional. You may not think so, but what you are really saying is "[Sexualities I find to be abnormal] have no place in Star Wars."

See, people like that are blind to the fact that sexuality is expressed in the normal course of a story, always. You just don't notice it when it's hetero because that's normal to you, you make no note of it. These people hear "gay character" and somehow think that in order to portray the fact that he's gay, he'd have to wear a rainbow cape, a pin that says "I'm Gay!", talk flamboyantly, and explicitly kiss another man on screen.

Do you have any doubts about Han Solo or Luke Skywalker's sexual orientation in A New Hope? There is no explicit stating of it, but it's obvious both are enamored with Princess Leia. Skywalker's awkward manner upon meeting Leia makes it clear he's taken with her. Solo's flirtatious manner does the same for him.

Are you confused about what sexual orientation Owen Lars is? No. Does he ever say anything to indicate such? No. So how do you know? Just by virtue of his having a wife.

So why is it that it's only OK to have gay characters if "we don't need to see it on screen"? Why do gay characters have to keep their sexual orientation strictly non-specific?

We could see a new Jedi Academy, with two padawan girls walking hand in hand in the gardens, with that obvious awkwardness of young love. We could have a jedi rescue a male senator and tell him "Don't worry Senator, I'll have you back home with your husband in no time." We could have a woman sitting back in a cantina obviously enjoying the female dancer. We could have two male characters embracing affectionately.

Also, if you're perfectly fine with Han and Leia or Anakin and Padme having a romantic relationship, there should be no reason you aren't OK with a homosexual relationship along the same vein involving main characters.

If you honestly think homosexuality has no place in a film where heterosexuality is plenty prevalent just by virtue of it being a normal aspect of people's lives, you are bigoted. If you don't think of yourself as an exclusive person, and you like to imagine you are open minded, and these ideas bother you, you need to re-evaluate why you feel the way you do.

Seriously, if you are one of the people saying an openly gay character has no place in Star Wars, and you are offended by my evaluation of your behavior; If it irks you to be thought of as exclusive and closed minded, you really ought to make a proactive effort to think logically about the idea, and why you are opposed.

 

What's wrong with including it for the sake of including one? Including it for the sake of including one.

 

I don't think the topic is inappropriate for this community. I think this community is ill equipped for this topic.

But frankly I also think this is much more relevant than whether some comic book character is still canon.

 

Ellen Ripley must really suck as a character. Just a female for the sake of having a female.

 

I'm just saying, there would be no doubt in my mind that they stuck one in the film to prove a point, just for the sake of, "Hey, look! We have a gay character!". Like I said, I don't CARE. It won't change how I see the movie.

 

That would make a nice change of pace from all of those times that they included a straight character just for the sake of including a straight character.

 

Both sides are at fault in this devolved argument. Is there bigotry in this thread? Yeah. But there's also a lot of attitude to the extent of if you do not immediately agree that there should be a homosexual relationship, then you are a biggot and can take a hike. That kind of thinking can be applied to any kind of character - not just homosexuals, and is inherently unfair.

"I think one of the main characters should be Asian, don't you agree? No> well then you sir are a biggot!"

"I'm sick of the trend in these kinds of films to depict villains as being ghastly white. How about an albino hero? I'm sick of the paper white complexion being associated with villains and evil. Oh, you disagree? Biggot."

"I want the hero to have Aspergers."

"I want an asexual hero, I'm sick of the cliche of the hero that gets the girl. Can't she decide not to like him, or does she have to put out for her rescuer? If you disagree, you're a sexist"

"I want more than one heroine? Agree? No. Well you're a chauvinistic pig."

We're talking about probably a handful of main characters. And each trilogy comprised of only a handful of relationships with only two taking front and center. What kind of diversity and relationships we see among that limited main cast can occur in many combinations, but if you don't want what I want, then you're a biggot, etc.

Can there be more than one heroine? Can there be an asian? Can the main character be a heroine? Can there be a homosexual relationship? Can there be interracial relationships? Yes to all of the above IMO. But it shouldn't devolve to I want to see X and if you don't want X, then you're a biggot.

 

It's an absurd framing of the discussion. It shouldn't be "should there be gay characters, yes or no?" The original question was "is there room in the GFFA for gay characters?" And the answer is obviously yes. But why not discuss it from the POV of how it could be done in artistically interesting ways, instead of doing a head count of who actually wants to have a gay character? Or debating it as a slippery slope to an Aspergers quota?

 

That's not including a straight character for the sake of it...Come on...Are you people serious? Including a gay character would have backlash from a lot of people, and the writers KNOW that. Including a gay character is not the same as including a straight character. I'm not talking about whether or not it's the same thing in general. I'm not even talking about the "moral" issue of it. I'm just stating that it is not the exact same thing, and I don't see how people can see it as no different, as if everything would go on hunky dory.

No bigotry here; just talking about our society at this point in time.

 

Well said. For a topic that demands tolerance there has been very little of it from both sides. I think misunderstandings have played a big factor too.

 

I don't see any backlash unless someone overreacts to it or you just want to hate it because it doesn't seem right/click to you. A gay character could work just as well as a straight character if done correctly, which pretty much is the same as any other character in a story. Devoid of the obvious facts that he or she is gay might help to remove any "backlash."

 

You got ideas? Make a Movie....

 

Maybe some people do feel that way, but not I. When I call people bigoted, it's for explicitly saying "No." in answer to the question of should a gay person be in the movie. The only two appropriate answers to that question are "Yes/Sure" or "I don't care." If you say no, that's bigoted by definition.

And the same applies to all those example questions you asked. You asked them to try to point out how absurd it is for someone to not be allowed to disagree without being bigoted but that doesn't pan. Actively voicing the opinion that those things are NOT okay with you is entirely different than just not being invested in those things.

This isn't a two answer question. It's not a yes or no, although it can come across that way. You can say yes if such inclusiveness appeals to you, you can say you don't care if it's not an issue that concerns you, but if you say no, this shouldn't happen, you are being exclusive, simple as that.

Also, some of your examples are a little different. Asking about the "hero" specifically is different than asking if a character should exist somewhere to represent someone. If your answer to a question of "Should the hero be..." is "No," at least the possibility exists that it isn't a bigoted desire to exclude, but that you would personally prefer a hero of a different stripe. But this question is about such a character being represented in the broad scope of the entire movie, and saying "No," is exclusive. At this point, saying no is saying that EVERY character that exhibits a sexuality need conform to your personal preference, and that's not okay.

 

I don't know if anybody has mentioned this in 13 pages of opinions, but Juhani from KOTOR was a lesbian. Look it up.

 

I was being facetious, mostly (obviously, I thought), and certainly wasn't accusing you of bigotry. But as you're no doubt aware, there are an awful lot of people who care about being represented in popular culture, which doesn't strike me as an invalid desire.

 

I apologize. The desire is certainly valid...Like I said, I'm talking about society's reaction (There would be a large one from a film as large as Star Wars). It won't be pretty, but if this were to happen, I'd be interested in being proven wrong...

 

Walking on eggshells in order to not raise the ire of bigots is not appropriate. It's not acceptable to exclude a group of people guilty of no wrong doing in order to appease to those that dislike them.

It's perfectly acceptable to say you have no personal stake in such inclusiveness, and so you don't care. I think it's a bit callous, but at least you aren't hurting people by being exclusive. If you say these people should not be included, it's being exclusive and isn't morally acceptable, in my opinion.

It's not okay to actively endorse exclusivity in the name of not stepping on toes. Just like it's not okay to say that the movie should embrace misogynist tones in order to appease male egos, it's not okay to suggest homosexuality be excluded to appease bigots.

The ends do not justify the means.

 

I could see Pam Grier, sure. In all seriousness, if we were going to rewrite history and put a gay person into the OT I'd pick someone other than Lando, because then you're just lumping all the "minority" character traits into one person and leaving a bunch of straight white people intact. Really a great deal of OT characters could have been gay all along, but I brought Lando up as a thought experiment because a lot of people have seemed doubtful as to how a character could establish themselves as gay without it being a plot element or political statement, and Lando's flirtation is the only "sexual" act we see outside of the established heterosexual pairings. As far as that goes, I think you've demonstrated that it's really not that hard to do so--as you say, even with "Londa" there would be numerous options, and that's chaining ourselves to an existing character. Creating one from whole cloth in the ST would involve far more options than even that, and that's what's really more interesting to me.


The only other thing I would add is that even your description of archetypes is, while not more or less reductive necessarily, still treating homosexuality as the defining characteristic of said archetypes. Your description of Han is "off-the-shelf drug-runner" - in other words, his archetype of defined by his job and the stereotypes pertaining thereto. We know he's straight, but nothing about his character type says that he's one "kind" of straight person or another, because whether he's a playboy or a hopeless romantic or a sex fiend isn't relevant. Deciding that Lando, or anyone, is going to be a gay character doesn't mean (s)he can't also be an off-the-shelf drug runner or noble aristocrat or humble farmer or imperious warlord or whatever. Sure, those are archetypes, but not one of them has anything to do with orientation.

 

You are right. I wouldn't say "no", if it were up to me. But if it were up to me, I would have no reason to write one in the story in the first place...That's not being exclusive. If that were the case, every movie that doesn't include a gay character would be exclusive.