Speculation Should there be gay characters in the ST?

I more or less agree with this, but it's possible any LGBT forumers we might have are wary of identifying themselves as such in a thread where gays can be characterized as a "destructive menace", and implied to be rapists by definition, with no one seeming to raise an eyebrow. Maybe if such statements were being met with any kind of official reaction whatsoever, or even condemnation from other posters, the forum's gay voices might feel more welcome.

 

It really saddens me to see so many posts which seem to think homosexuals are just a trending issue and this topic should be left out for being too political. Sorry, people aren't a political trope that comes around every election. Gay and lesbian people are all around us, even behind the scenes of Star Wars. Have you ever been to a Disney theme park? They are easily one of the most gay-friendly parks in the world, not only in their employment policy but in the way they treat their guests. Now I am not advocating for a sex scene or for romantic dialogue being entered into the script; like most people say, that isn't what Star Wars is about. But as others have said, SW doesn't have the best track record of representing minority viewers either in what is supposed to be a diverse galaxy. Not only do I think if the opportunity arises we should see homo-eroticism, but I would like to see more men and women of color. Why can't we have a Middle Eastern secondary character? Or an Asian? Interracial love even among Humans isn't even seen in the movies. Will the main character be a white male who is hot? Probably. He sure as heck wont be a Hispanic actor, or a Muslim actor, or Thai. But why can't some of us in the minority be represented in the background. Why can't a Hutt have male dancers? Why shouldn't there be a sign in Coruscant's underworld have pictures of scantly clad men flashing in the background of the speeder chase scene? A President of a planet is supposed to appear in the movie? Show his husband standing next to him when they great the heroes to the world. No gay lisp, no limp wrist, no bedroom scenes, nothing that will make the white, hetero-normative majority uncomfortable. Just a tiny, tiny hint for gay viewers, or Latino viewers, or fans in the Middle East know that in a galaxy far, far away, their race or sexuality doesn't mean anything. Minority people want to feel escapism too, and just look at the movies being produced in America and say they can find the same amount of it that a white male in a straight relationship could. I'm not saying that Star Wars has to take up the cause for minority representation in film but stop complaining cause someone brought it up and wants to see someone like them on screen for a change. Believe me, any hint of gayness that you'll ever see in a film will be drowned out by the white straightness that will inundate your senses the majority of you life.

 

I think the "destructive menace" refered to in that post applies to "Political Correctness," not homosexuals...

 

You know, that's possible. In which case, I would simply take issue with the equation of "political correctness" and acknowledgement of homosexuality's existence.

 

Eh... why not have gays? Not that we need them of course but if Karen Traviss can make some Mandalorians a gay couple... why not?

 

I can't help but feel you are conflating diversity in regards to race, gender, orientation, and the such with real social issues, such as divorce, family structure, and illness. While I think your posts come off as disrespectful to a whole lot of people who experience these things such as cancer or growing up in a divided family, we are talking about escapism here, where the idea isn't to pound into our heads all the woes of society but to escape from it. That isn't different when it comes to representing different groups of people. Social issues brought up in Star Wars are adoption, being orphaned, slavery, drug use (AOTC club scene), differences in age, class issues (Jedi-Senator, former slave-Senator, Princess-Smuggler, farmboy-Princess), racism (Naboo-Gungans, Moisture farmers-Tuskens), issues of ethics (clone/droid rights are touched indirectly and more int he novels but still there), cloning and genetic engineering in general, the issue of war in general and defense spending, politics and the idea of the failings of democracy, minors taking on huge responsibilities (14 year old Queen, Jedi younglings wielding lightsabers, militarized clone children), and so many other things. No we haven't seen illness, or divorce, or other things but as I and others agreed, that isn't what Star Wars is. What Star Wars should be is a grand, heroic story presented in a galaxy of rich diversity and complexity.

 

Hah...drug use a social issue brought up in Star Wars... very in-depth "Want to buy some deathsticks?!"
Subtle.

 

Where do you draw the line? We want characters that represent people with aids? diabetes? divorce? cancer? Male/female trapped in the wrong body? If we are just pointing characters with certain characteristics or sexual orientations just to represent that group then you are jeopardizing the story in my opinion. The question of should there be gays in the movies? As if the studio is obligated to put characters of a specific sexual orientation the answer is no. If they do in order to give a character a certain purpose for the storytelling then they have every right to do that. Should they feel obligated to do it? If so then it is not a movie I want to watch.

 

Wait a moment...i'm no gay but...are you comparing gay/lesbian people with having an illness?? The comparison between gays and cancer or diabetes is nonsense. Homosexuality is not an illness.

Star Wars is a fantasy world, but also tries to have a lot of real world social aspects, because this way is more credible. So, i'm totally OK with it if there is at some point a gay couple. As you say, a gay couple it's not needed to the plot, so the scene about it, if there's any, should be brief and elegant.

 

Wow, five pages in one day. Feeling like Rip Van Winkle. So... I probably don't want to actually read it, right?

 

*klaxxon alarm blares* Hey, mods! The 'lock now' alarm or going off...somebody wanna get that?

 

Sigh. Not to sound like a homophobic, but...Nah!

 

Why would there be a need for pointing out individuals sexualities on screen? If there is one fine. If there isn't one fine. Why waste time explaining it?

I never got the whole "he/she happens to be [whatever]". Its always so forced, specially if it is in a fantasy universe like this.

 

I wouldn't mind it, but I don't think it's necessary. There are countless minorities/ethnic groups/orientations not portrayed in Star Wars, so there's really no point in making exceptions.

 

Your lesbian friend is really into strawmanning her orientation out of pop culture. How sad for her.

 

I believe what A Chorus of Disapproval is doing is saying that there are many people who, for one reason or another, feel that there is an element to their existence that keeps them from feeling in synch with what has historically been classified by a given community as "baseline." If there is a comparison between LGBT persons and those with any of the circumstances he mentioned, it is strictly that: that they have historically been made to feel different from the community baseline; great strides are being made in effecting a broadening of what the community will consider "baseline," particularly because of brave efforts by the LGBT community itself, but even if that weren't so, I'm sure most gays will agree that they have long been made to feel out of synch with said baseline. But it's not that element alone that can generate such sentiments: a child in a one-parent family has historically been made to feel out of synch with a community that generally accounts for two-parent family constructs; a person with an illness will feel out of synch with a community that by and large does not have that illness (doesn't have to be anything more than a cold; if you have it at any given moment, and most people don't at that moment, you're out of synch). Anything at all that makes a person feel like he's different from what he perceives, or the community around him has historically perceived, to be "normal."

But those who disagree with the phenomenon of "political correctness," as it has come to be called, do so largely because they ask: if we accept the premise that the means to provide a sense of inclusion for any one of these given interests is to include a character who represents them, then at what point is the line drawn? How many such interests can be represented in any given thing, be it a film or any other form of creative expression, before it becomes so great a consideration as to eclipse the primary purpose of the art - in this case, to be an entertaining space fantasy adventure with philosophical overtones? And whenever the decision is made to favor creative intent over representation, which interests will find itself themselves included and which left out? Some of them will have to be excluded at some point; they'll have to learn to live with it and take the films on their own terms. And if some of these interests can do that, why not save a step and say that all of them should, if it means the creative intent of the work will still be of primary importance, as it must be?

I'm no different from any of these people myself, for I have my own element that keeps me a little out of synch with the community baseline standard: I have autism, and no one's ever bothered to ask if there are going to be characters with autism spectrum disorder in the ST; nor have I had any serious expectations that there should be one. My enjoyment of the films really has nothing to do with whether that kind of element is added; I don't feel that the films will be any more inclusive if there's an autistic character, nor would I feel any sense of satisfaction that people with my condition were represented. I just want a good story, with interesting characters, and I want to go "wow" when it's finished, and for my part, I'll kiss off the autism/asperger's interest group in a second if it gives me any better chance of having that.

 

I'm a LGBT American with a severe case of scoliosis. I understand wanting to see disabled or diseased persons represented in pop culture. That's why I'm a fan of a character like Oracle in DC comics, who was a superheroine that ends up kicking more butt while stuck in a wheelchair.

But comparing the two groups is a strawman argument that diminishes the cultural contributions of the LGBT community by juxtaposing them with a community defined by achieving despite a disease or ailment, or achieves by overcoming a disease or disability. Being gay isn't an encumbrance to be overcome. The only encumbrance is social acceptance.

 

While we're at it, let's not have straight people in the ST either. I think it's unreasonable for all of these straight people to demand constant representation in films where I'm trying to escape from reality. I have to deal with their constant beating of the heterosexual drum on a near day to day basis, and when I go to Star Wars, I just want to relax and watch a movie, not have all of their male and female interaction thrown in my face. Christ.