Interspecies Relationships?

[Tallguy88]

Actually we don't know whether Sulu was or was not gay in TOS. The character was never developed enough to provide that information. The only time Sulu was ever depicted showing any interest in a woman was in a mirror universe.

He had a child in Undiscovered Country.

 

[Archivist]

He had a child in Undiscovered Country.

He had a child in the most recent movie. Same-sex couples can and do have children.

 

[Cute Tink]

I have a problem with the Spock/Uhura relationship as portrayed. There is no reason for it to exist. No impetus to cause a divergence on that in Spock's character. Now, if they had waited until after the destruction of Vulcan, then it would have made a lot more sense as spock trying to cope with the loss. But to just have it from the beginning makes no sense.

The universe was altered in many ways. Butterfly effect and all that.

But retconning a straight character into a gay one doesn't make any sense, unless you believe sexuality is chosen.

That doesn't follow. According to what I've been able to find on the internet about Sulu, he was born in 2237 and the universe became altered in 2233. That's 4 years of changes before Sulu was born. It could easily have had an effect on him.

Ah, well Takei said he was straight, but who knows TOS was before it's time and ended suchly, so we won't know for sure.

It would have been more palatable and believable if they just made one of the guys bisexual, one of the women lesbian, or chose to use the sexuality to develop a little-known character. It would have been less cliche.

It's just a problem because it's Sulu?

He had a child in Undiscovered Country.

Lots of gay people have children.

 

[tatteredsoul]

.

 

[Cute Tink]

Almost. It is a problem because it was absolutely lazy. It was said that it was supposed to honor TakeI - which is ludicrous because Takei is real, and in his real life he is gay. Sulu is a fictional character. It was easy to make the character people identify with in REAL LIFE as gay with the revamp. It isn't that serious, but it is just kind of lame. The studio was banking on the relatively new coming out of Takei to resonate well enough with viewers to make the content transition of Sulu''s sexuality a smooth transition. And, as I said it was sloppily done. I didnt even get Sulu''s man''s name. There has been nothing to indicate he likes men, or has a child in the last two movies. This was almost a political move to me.

I think they would have pretty much gotten the same response if they made any of the major characters from the original gay. It seems to me (based on nobody caring that much about the rest of the changes they've made) that the biggest problem is that a character is now gay, not necessarily that it is Sulu, though Takei clearly has an issue with that in itself. I'd like to hear his thoughts on the new Spock personally.

For that matter, they could have made the Spock character gay to match the actor and that might have turned more heads.

I'll grant you they took the obvious shot because of Takei, but I really don't think it's generated the buzz it has because it was Sulu over someone else.

The movie was OK. I tend to overlook interspecies or same sex/multisex relationships in the Star Trek universe because... it's 300 years in the future and an almost idealized social story.

I enjoy them as movies, but I thought their take on the end of Into Darkness was lazier. They really beat you over the head with the foreshadowing there.

 

[ewq1938]

So angels and humans are compatible kinds?

Yes.

 

[tatteredsoul]

.

 

[ewq1938]

Then, why was their union bastardized by God?

Because he didn't approve.

Why were the angels the mated with humans thrown in chains?

You are confusing compatible with immoral. Compatible merely means offspring are possible.

angel-human hybrids were supposed to be sterile also.

That's irrelevant in the issue of reproductive compatibility between two "different" creatures.

 

[tatteredsoul]

.

 

[ewq1938]

Being able to reproduce alone does not determine compatibility. Compatibility is more than the ability to mate.

I disagree. A dog and cat are incompatible...offspring is impossible. A horse and mule are compatible.

You have to be able to produce progeny for generations (plural.)

That is not required.

But, they would be an abomination and sterile as a rule.

m_13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

I think this implies they were not sterile.

If two come together to produce sexually sterile offspring as a rule, the species aren't compatible for life.

You are contradicting yourself. You can't admit a living offspring is born and then say there was no compatibility for life. You should stop now before you say worse things.

Remember, "be fruitful, and multiply... and replenish the earth. God disapproved of angel-human hybrids because they were not compatible at all.

Obviously they were compatible because they produced many children.

They produced one or two generations of offspring, and then that is it - sterility as a rule.

You are just making things up to fit your belief. There is no evidence of this. Besides, a second generation further proves you wrong.

 

[tatteredsoul]

.

 

[Sabertooth]

Spock (as presented in TOS) represents a physiological plot hole. A human (mother) and a Vulcan (father) produced fertile young* (in Spock), but all throughout that series, Dr. McCoy complains about his inhuman physiology...!

*That is the definition of same species, at least in Linnaean classification. That Neanderthals and H. sapiens produced fertile young makes these two different races/breeds, not different species.

 

[Dave-W]

Republicans don't march in lockstep.

And what species are Republicans? Can they interbreed with Democrats?

Oh the horrors!!!

 

[Dave-W]

angel-human hybrids were supposed to be sterile also.

Source? Not according to Enoch. Yes, we consider it apocryphal; but it was considered accurate in the first century.