The majority of Star Trek fans are everything that the philosophy of IDIC could possibly want. But every so often, the exact sort of intolerance that is antithetical to the world of Trek rears its head. Witness the following letter to author Andy Mangels, and Andy’s scathingly witty reply. Obviously, as the creator of the bi-sexed Burgoyne in “New Frontier,” I’ve found the letter particularly interesting. Although the letter is reprinted with Andy’s permission, I’ve taken the liberty of mercifully omitting the author’s name.
Dear Mr. Mangels,
> Thank you for writing stories that reside in the Star Trek Universe. I have
> enjoyed quite a few of your offerings in the past and am a very loyal fan of
> the series ever since it originally aired.
> While trying to catch up on a huge backlog of Star Trek reading, I finally
> got around to reading your Enterprise novel, ‘The Good That Men Do’. I
> really enjoyed the novel, as it very nicely intertwined various broadcasts of the
> series and added a few twists. However, I am very disappointed in your
> creation of a gay couple, Trip Tucker’s brother Albert, into the story near the
> very end. It soiled an ‘up to that point’ excellent read and was totally
> unnecessary.
> This is the first time that I have ever felt the need to comment on anything
> written in the Star Trek genre. But please keep your activism out of the
> Star Trek Universe.
> Sincerely,
(NAME WITHELD BY PAD)
>
>
(ANDY’S RESPONSE)
Thanks for your support in the past, and glad you’ve enjoyed some of our
writing. I suspect that will now change.
I’ve forwarded your email to my HETEROSEXUAL co-writer, Michael A. Martin,
who created and wrote the scenes with the gay couple in question, without ANY
prompting from me. I’ll let him respond to your bigotry.
Meanwhile, you can thank me – the fággøŧ with the agenda – for writing the
scene with Trip praying early on, and the scene where he discusses church and
faith in God with Phuong. Not the first faith-based scenes I’ve written for
Trek, and won’t be the last. I just don’t believe that God condones hatred.
It’s sad and pathetic that fans of a series based on the principal “Infinite
Diversity in Infinite Combinations” — and who regularly read and enjoy books
wherein characters of DIFFERENT SPECIES engage in romantic relationships — get
their bigotry hats on when faced with gay characters.
I don’t doubt that people who express ideas exactly like yours were similarly
objecting to Uhura and Kirk kissing, but thankfully, such anti-black bigotry
has been beaten back mostly. I look forward to the day when people who hate
others for loving are as unwelcome as a fart in church.
Best,
Andy Mangels
• 
I love Andy’s reply. It’s right on the mark.
Eh. I was expecting something far worse. I’ve certainly read far worse stuff. That yahoo rejected from the remake of Deliverance that wrote into The Incredible Hulk letters page to criticize the issue in which Jim Wilson was revealed to have AIDS, and to argue that Hulk should’ve killed the homosexual characters in that issue because he’s always been a “macho” character, was far more memorable.
I really would’ve liked Mangels to have asked this guy point-blank, why he follows the adventures of a fiction franchise whose stated ideals are 180 degrees out of phase with his own feelings?
Was this a snail mail, or is it on Mangels’ site, or something?
Some people will never learn but I take some comfort in it that the situation of homosexuals in society in general definitely has changed for the better. That is at least the case in Germany and Britain. In the USA, I can imagine, the situation is different in what is called “The Bible belt” and other regions in which religion plays an important part.
The “gay agenda” discussion comes back again and again whenever gay characters appear in Star Trek books. I have seen these reactions before and, unfortunately, I am sure I will see them again.
By now I usually just write a short comment and leave it with that because I find this discussion so tiresome and pointless. Discussing with people with strong and IMO misguided religious beliefs is like banging your head against the wall.
The only thing that every bothered me about that sequence was that I thought the only sibling Trip had was a sister who died in the cowardly alien attack on Earth during the TV series.
Otherwise, being a heterosexual male myself, if those who practice that life style do not bother me in the twenty-first century, why should they in the future?
and yet it doesn’t sound very warm, tolerant and understanding when one confronts a very honest difference in belief regarding sex, or a discomfort regarding a sexual topic, with an accusation of “bigotry”. Generally I find such labellings as acts of bigotry in and of themselves.
Then again, my views on homosexuality I suspect are unusual for a Christian.
Remember that NextGen episode where Riker fell for the alien from a unisexual (?) species, played by the gal from “The A-Team”? The episode that might as well have had big flashing neon signs stating “SYMBOLISM!” in various scenes? I wonder if the author of the note above caught any of the not-so-subtle undertones in that storyline.
I also wonder if he understood why everyone else in the theater was chuckling over the “Have you tried NOT being a mutant?” line in X2.
TPE
(straight, but not narrow-minded)
As a (nominal) Christian I find my views on homosexuality out of step with much of the modern church, but then they seem completely out of step with what Christ had to say on the subject.
Not a thing.
You know, I’ve been thinking of trying out the Enterprise relaunch, but wasn’t certain if I should. After reading those letters I’m definately adding the books to my reading list.
“…they seem completely out of step with what Christ had to say on the subject.
Not a thing.”
Not going to touch that one.
Did this guy have the same problem when Deep Space Nine featured Trek’s first lesbian kiss?
Remember that NextGen episode where Riker fell for the alien from a unisexual (?) species, played by the gal from “The A-Team”?
Jonathan Frakes made it clear in at least one Q&A at a convention I was at that he had asked the directors to cast a male in the role. He wanted it to be a lot less symbolic. Alas, they didn’t.
Actually, when Nick Eden says that the Catholic Church is out of step with what Christ said about homosexuality, he’s being accurate. Most of the material on homosexuality in the Bible comes from Leviticus, and Christ was silent (at least as far as in the Gospels) as to his views on the canonicity of the Old Testament. The Church, as an establishment, made a decision to include the Old Testament as canonical text, in part to add historical legitimacy to a newly established religion.
Paul also came down against homosexuality (among other things), but then again, Paul had a hard time establishing his legitimacy within the Church establishment, because he had never met Christ physically, only seen him in visions. The decision to include his letters as part of the New Testament was a sign that he had managed to establish himself as a major decider in Catholic doctrine.
(All the above, BTW, comes from a fascinating book called, ‘The Closing of the Western Mind’, which goes into great detail on how the Catholic Church established itself, how the early Church settled important matters such as “what went into the Bible”, and how ultimately, the Church-as-authority was born, as opposed to the Church-as-spiritual-guide. It’s very interesting stuff.)
and yet it doesn’t sound very warm, tolerant and understanding when one confronts a very honest difference in belief regarding sex, or a discomfort regarding a sexual topic, with an accusation of “bigotry”.
If the guy was objecting to a totally our of left field sex scene I could see your point but it seems to me that he was objecting to the very idea of gays existing in the Star Trek universe.
I like the reply from Mangels.
I sit here shaking my head. Now, since I’ve been around the “alternative” types for a really long time, I don’t really even take note. Since I first saw either the Next Gen or DS9 episodes alluded to before, and the sadly inevitable outcry, I said, “It’s the same thing as the Kirk/Uhura kiss. Couple of years, won’t even be an issue.” Guess I’ll have to wait a couple more years.
Just wait until Mr. Witheld(is that of the Atlanta or Boston Withelds, I wonder?) sees Blood and Fire.
Possibly the Wichita Withhelds, as well.
No, on second thought, strike that. I don’t see them as ever having allowed anything to do with Trek into their households. And sadly, there are Withhelds in Ottawa to this day as well.
While I generally agree with Mangels reply I do have two points of contention with it.
My first point, and here it would help if I had read the story, which I haven’t, is that the original poster seemed (to me at least) to be saying that he objected to the addition of the gay relation as being unnecessary. My reading was that he wasn’t saying that having a gay brother in it self was wrong, but that it was added in a way that was not part of advancing the story, but rather just to get an obligatory gay couple reference in to appeal to anyone who is looking for that support. I could easily be wrong here, but that was my reading of the initial comment.
Secondly, perhaps Mangels filtered the letter with an apparent (perhaps slight) hyper-sensitivity to gay culture. The initial response was relatively benign (while the “keep your activism out of my Star Trek” is certainly presumptuous I don’t know that you can necessarily assume that it is bigotry). Mangels’ response appears to me to be a bit of an over-reaction.
Mangels escalates the discussion with an ad hominem attack of labeling the original poster of bigotry. That is weak argumentatively as it appeals to emotion rather than logic…Spock would disapprove 😉
P.S. John – not sure how you can say that Christ was silent on the canonicity of the OT. That he frequently quoted it and explicitly said that he was not here to remove the law but rather to fulfill it seems to me to clearly indicate that he did support the OT. Not particularly germane to the initial post, but that first statement seems a little far fetched to me. The rest of your comments I can agree with.
he initial response was relatively benign (while the “keep your activism out of my Star Trek” is certainly presumptuous I don’t know that you can necessarily assume that it is bigotry)
That’s funny. I certainly would.
Andy, while it may not be a popular stand on this site, I tend to agree about Mangels’ response. Despite the way Peter prefaced it, I found it scathing but not all that witty. That being said, if I had been sent that same letter, I probably would have been totally scathing and not at all witty, so it would be unfair to putself in somebody else’s shoes when I haven’t walked in them.
The problem of course is that when you respond to ignorance with wit, your point can often go right over the head of the person you’re responding to, so maybe a bit of bite is necessary.
Regarding how the bible deals with homosexuality, I’m enough of a pragmatist to understand that new and old testaments were written by men who each had their own subjective point of view, each of whom was re-written and re-translated by countless other men over the past several hundred years, each with their own respective points of view. I’m reminded of the time many years ago when a group of Jehovah’s witness arrived at my family’s house and started quoting scripture. When my dad pointed out that they were in fact wrongly quoting the passage in question, the speaker tried to bluff his way through by saying it was just a difference in one edition of the bible over another. What he hadn’t realized was that my dad was a deacon in the Catholic church, who then invited them in and confronted them with just about every edition you can imagine. After that, I think we were put on the Jehovah’s Witness ‘do not call’ list, as I don’t think we were ever visited again.
And Sean, you beat me to the punch with your comment about ‘Blood and Fire.’ If the Star Trek fan in question ever manages to download the New Frontier episode, directed by a gay director and featuring a gay couple (one of whom is Kirk’s nephew no less) I think his head might explode.
I meant Star Trek: New Voyages of course. Boy, am I going to get hammered for getting that wrong!
Joe wrote: After that, I think we were put on the Jehovah’s Witness ‘do not call’ list, as I don’t think we were ever visited again.
Sounds like a friend of mine. She used to invite them in for a friendly debate any time they knocked.
Bill wrote:Did this guy have the same problem when Deep Space Nine featured Trek’s first lesbian kiss?
That’s an interesting question. I’ve talked with folks who are totally skeeved by male partners, but had absolutely no problem with lesbians. Odd, but true…
From the original letter:But please keep your activism out of the Star Trek Universe.
Interesting that he assumes that it is activism that prompted the inclusion of the relationship.
I haven’t had an opportunity to read the book yet, so maybe one of you can tell me. Was the relationship a natural fit into the story or did it seem to be a throw in?
I haven’t read the book/story, just the reprinted letter. But I find myself agreeing more with Andy’s comments, than Mr. Mangels’ reply.
I could easily believe that the original letter writer was 1. gay him/herself, but not particularly militant about it, 2. felt that the couples’ inclusion WAS unnecessary and a detriment to the enjoyment of the story. Maybe the letter writer is an English professor, and lectures on story structure.
Whatever the motivation, the reply sure seemed over the top.
As a straight guy who works in theatre please allow me to dispell a myth… There is no gay agenda, if you do not believe me get any two gay men together and try and plan anything… (swear to god it will take less time to eat dinner than it will take you to figure out where to eat)
John
Keep activism out of Star Trek? I get the impression this guy’s never actually seen an episode.
Andy: Mangels escalates the discussion with an ad hominem attack of labeling the original poster of bigotry.
Luigi Novi: That was not an ad hominem attack. It would only have been an ad hominem attack if Mangels relied on that assertion as somehow being the counterpoint that refuted the Mr. X’s statements. He didn’t. That Mr. X is a bigot is Mangels reaction to Mr. X’s attitudes. It was not, in and of itself, a refutation of his statements. It is not an ad hominem argument to call a spade a spade, particularly if the label is accurate.
Todd P. Emerson: Remember that NextGen episode where Riker fell for the alien from a unisexual (?) species, played by the gal from “The A-Team”? The episode that might as well have had big flashing neon signs stating “SYMBOLISM!” in various scenes? I wonder if the author of the note above caught any of the not-so-subtle undertones in that storyline.
Luigi Novi: What makes me roll my eyes regarding reaction to that episode is the religious fundamentalists who thought the episode “should have been balanced with the other side.”
I could easily believe that the original letter writer was 1. gay him/herself, but not particularly militant about it, 2. felt that the couples’ inclusion WAS unnecessary and a detriment to the enjoyment of the story. Maybe the letter writer is an English professor, and lectures on story structure.
Well, then that begs a question. If Trip’s brother was shown married to a woman, would the exact same criticism apply? If so, you have a point. If not, then it is pretty apparent that the reaction of the letter writer boils down to “Ew, look, queers in Trek! Gross!”
That yahoo rejected from the remake of Deliverance that wrote into The Incredible Hulk letters page to criticize the issue in which Jim Wilson was revealed to have AIDS, and to argue that Hulk should’ve killed the homosexual characters in that issue because he’s always been a “macho” character, was far more memorable.
Yeah, every time someone bemoans the lack of letter columns in modern comics, I think of that letter. They weren’t all filled by the likes of T.M. Maple…
What’s the difference between Andy Mangels’s response and political correctness? Bill and others here have portrayed political correctness as something heinous, but for some reason the political correctness of Mangels calling an expressed displeasure at gay activism homophobic-bigotry is ok. How is the political correctness scare not meant to dismiss responses like the one made by Mangels?
I’d find the gay reference in Mangel and Martin’s story just fine – except that every single Star trek Book I’ve read by them contains a gay character or couple. To me, it is very much activism.
I could easily believe that the original letter writer was 1. gay him/herself, but not particularly militant about it, 2. felt that the couples’ inclusion WAS unnecessary and a detriment to the enjoyment of the story. Maybe the letter writer is an English professor, and lectures on story structure.
An English professor using “creation of a gay couple… into the story” ? I hope not… I really don’t want to imagine that someone could get a Ph.D. in English and then write such a ridiculous sentence…
—
If Trip’s brother was shown married to a woman, would the exact same criticism apply?
A very good question. However, the writer’s choice of words indicates that it probably would not. The complaint is not about the unnecessary addition of a lover for Trip’s brother, but about the “creation of a gay couple.”
—
By the way… where does it say the letter-writer was male?
I’d find the gay reference in Mangel and Martin’s story just fine – except that every single Star trek Book I’ve read by them contains a gay character or couple. To me, it is very much activism.
Sounds more like realism than activism to me. I’ve always thought “one in ten” was a terribly conservative estimate.
I’m a little surprised at the irony here.
The unnamed author never said WHY he took issue with the homosexual storyline, other than that he felt he was being subjected to unwanted activism. Yet Mr. Mangels’ reply seems to assume that someone who was against a gay character in his story would automatically be in favor of the faith-based parts of the story.
That’s it’s own little bit o’ prejudice, isn’t it?
One advantage of science fiction is that it can tackle controversial and/or taboo subjects in a tangential way by setting them on other worlds or with other species. (“It’s sorta like our problems here, but it’s someplace else in the future; so I guess it’s okay.”)
I’ve see TREK engage this — on the shows, anyway; I haveb’t read the books — a number of times: the “lesbian kiss” in DS9 (though technically not, since Trill are asexual symbiants whose hosts are often of differing genders; boy, do I feel like a geek), T’Pal’s AIDS-like illness the Vulcans didn’t want to treat because they conmdemned how it was transmitted, a reference to a murder victim having both wives and husbands in DS9, the abovementioned NEXT GEN episode where Riker fell in love with an androgynous alien for whom engaging with a male was forbidden, etc.
Personally, I’d like to see a regular gay character on the shows. One of the biggest assets for a movement to gain respectability is to give them role models, people can look at both inside and outside the group and say “they’re not evil or stereotypical — just look at that!” And while having the occasional themed episode is nice (if sometimes heavy handed) or a gay character in passing, a series regular would be a big step. If memory serves, there were lots of African-American one-episode characters on the original STAR TREK, but Uhura is considered the groundbreaking one because she was a series regular, someone we got to know more about and see every week.
The challenge is how television writers could have a regular gay character without making their sexuality the focus of the character. But on a show with inter-species and human-robot love, I think a gay person would seem downright normal 🙂
I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I have been waging an inner uphill battle for decades about homosexuality, because I was sexually abused by a homosexual doctor from the time that I was a 4-year-old until my early teens. It was only when puberty kicked in, and my awareness about my own raging heterosexuality came into play, that I was able to break away from that situation (by no longer going to that doctor). For many years since, red flags went up any time I encountered someone who said (or seemd as if)they were homosexual, because in my life experience, just from that one doctor, “homosexual” meant “abuser” – of trust, sexual identity, whatever. I would like to believe that if it wasn’t for one sexual predator, my thinking would be different, but I can’t swear to it. My only clue is that only MALE homosexuals scare me, not female. Like I said, it’s an uphill battle, so please don’t think that all people who are ambivalent towards homosexuality or even bisexuality (or even “try-sexuality) are all bigots… maybe some of us are still just scared little kids deep down.
The challenge is how television writers could have a regular gay character without making their sexuality the focus of the character.
*cough cough* See Bishoujo Senshi Sailor Moon as an example. Of course, for the American dub they completely ruined an interesting but largely unobtrusive relationship by calling them “cousins.”
—
I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I have been waging an inner uphill battle for decades about homosexuality, because I was sexually abused by a homosexual doctor from the time that I was a 4-year-old until my early teens.
That’s terrible, and I’m very sorry you went through it. But you’re not talking about a homosexual – you’re talking about a pedophile and an abuser. I believe the relevant research indicates that the people who sexually abuse boys are not usually attracted to men at all.
The way you feel is similar to a woman who has been raped and is thereafter afraid of all men… talk therapy is probably the best way to deal with it.
Given that anti-homosexual sentiment is frequently connected with religious motivations (and almost always so on the political level), no, I don’t think so.
From Laura: That’s terrible, and I’m very sorry you went through it. But you’re not talking about a homosexual – you’re talking about a pedophile and an abuser. I believe the relevant research indicates that the people who sexually abuse boys are not usually attracted to men at all.
Reply from Bryan:
Thank you. You have given me something to think about. I do want to point out, though, that I really meant to bring across that my point of view had been warped by this doctor, not that it was reality. He had a homosexual partner, and it now seems that many people in that small town “knew about him”, but chose to look the other way. There may be many other “boys” who went through the same experience. I’m not trying to excuse prejudice, but when my point of view has been tainted by personal experience, it may seem to uninformed people that I am just a bigot (which I hope I’m not). I hope I am making sense, and not just making things worse. I have homosexual relatives who are warm, humorous people, and I wouldn’t hurt them for the world, but I cannot discuss this with them for fear of being misunderstood.
Janice: The unnamed author never said WHY he took issue with the homosexual storyline, other than that he felt he was being subjected to unwanted activism.
Luigi Novi: And what criteria was he/she applying when applying that label? How does he know that Mangels’ intent was one of “activism”, and not simply a sincere attempt to write stories and characters that would appeal both to him and his readers? Was Peter being an “activist” when he created Burgoyne? For that matter, what does this letter writer see as wrong with activism in the first place? If it was not presented in a naturalistic or subtle way, or in a venue not typified by such things, I’d understand, but again, this is Star Trek. It has always been “activist” in its use of allegorical morality tales. How is this any different, aside from the fact that homosexuals are the particular group that this one letter writer happens to have reservations about?
Again, if this person doesn’t want diversity or allegory in the stories he/she reads, why is he/she reading Star Trek???
It’s like watching the Ultimate Fighting Championship, and saying, “except for all that awful violence!”
Bryan Grantham: so please don’t think that all people who are ambivalent towards homosexuality or even bisexuality (or even “try-sexuality) are all bigots… maybe some of us are still just scared little kids deep down.
Luigi Novi: And isn’t that what all bigotry is derived from? Fear, ignorance, misconception, poor prior experiences, etc.? I would tend not to label you a bigot, because you have the decency and presence of mind to analyze the derivation of these feelings, and to make a conscious effort to move beyond them. That you admit the things you have demonstrates courage. The people that I think are accurately labeled “bigots” are those who do none of these things, but just form some opinion about a person or group based on a preconception, and become perfectly comfortable with that state of mind, making no effort to examine it, and having no compunction about using it as a reference point from which to criticize or attack that person or group, or its defenders.
Posted by: John Conner
As a straight guy who works in theatre please allow me to dispell a myth… There is no gay agenda, if you do not believe me get any two gay men together and try and plan anything…
Couple of years ago, Atlanta-based-nationally=syndicated-right-wing-libertarian talk radio host Neal Boortz was reacting to the “Defense of Marriage” act by saying that he saw no problem with gay marriage, since it didn’t change straight marriage in any way.
His right-hand man, Royal Marshall (sort of a black Ed McMahon, but funnier), said that he could explain, in three words, why he thought gay m,arriage shouldn’t be allowed:
“Gay divorce court.”
“As a straight guy who works in theatre please allow me to dispell a myth… There is no gay agenda, if you do not believe me get any two gay men together and try and plan anything… (swear to god it will take less time to eat dinner than it will take you to figure out where to eat)”
That’s a very clever joke and it goes entirely against the reality that I have witnessed as a student on a University campus.
I have been amused so much just watching one set of rightwing bigots square off a whole bunch of leftwing bigots. I’m not at all certain which side was the most hateful and derisive at heart (I refuse to assume matters of the heart when it comes to love and hate) but I could tell which side was the most threatening, rude and nasty.
Naturally the leftists assume I was with the right-wing bigots; which is logical given my politics, but utterly dumbassed considering I showed up to force the fulfillment of the promise of food… NOT so I can be seen at the event.
I don’t always know political activism when I see it but I have seen an awful lot of it, and an awful lot of blatant political activism…. angry, hateful homosexuals. Angry, hateful “Allies” as the leftwing heterosexuals are called.
Since sometime in the nineties I swear the people using the term “bigot” the most are the ones flinging it ad hominem, and are usually the most bigoted ones.
Did I spell “ad hominem” correctly? I cannot look it up and the spell checker doesn’t know.
It’s funny for a lefty to condemn someone as a bigot for holding to their religious dogma… when that condemnation comes from holding to lefty dogma religiously.
(Funny how TypeKey sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t.)
I’d really question the premise mentioned about racial prejudice being batted back, or driven back, or whatever. You probably won’t hear it here, because there are remarkably few black people in science fiction fandom. (Look around the convention; does it look like there’s eight percent of blacks in the crowds? That’d be one out of twelve, for easier counting.)
I would contend that prejudice doesn’t diminsh as much as it shifts. You could ask Islamic/Middle Eastern-looking folk about that. And at least one Alabama Senator refers to “illegal immigrants” in the same tone as white racists talked about blacks.
(See this link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×2374382 )
I don’t think the human race, as a whole, will ever get rid of prejudice. It is the cockroach of the human soul.
Posted by: Rob at November 29, 2007 10:39 PM
I’d find the gay reference in Mangel and Martin’s story just fine – except that every single Star trek Book I’ve read by them contains a gay character or couple. To me, it is very much activism.
Well, it probably wouldn’t look so “activist” if OTHER Trek writers took it upon themselves in creating other LGBT characters to populate the series.
Posted by: Janice at November 29, 2007 11:05 PM
I’m a little surprised at the irony here.
The unnamed author never said WHY he took issue with the homosexual storyline, other than that he felt he was being subjected to unwanted activism. Yet Mr. Mangels’ reply seems to assume that someone who was against a gay character in his story would automatically be in favor of the faith-based parts of the story.
That’s it’s own little bit o’ prejudice, isn’t it?
Well, go back and read the letter again. The unnamed author didn’t like “the gay” AT ALL. (To quote: “It soiled an ‘up to that point’ excellent read and was totally unnecessary.” Exactly WHAT about that comment needs an “explanation”?) Further, WHY did the unnamed author choose to write to (the openly gay author) Andy Mangels about his displeasure over the inclusion of “the gay”? The unnamed author chose to vent his displeasure over “the gay” by writing to “the gay” (who, in his mind, obviously was responsible) since, clearly, no good heterosexual author could possibly choose to create and then include a gay character within a story. (If you noted sarcasm there, good eye.)
And, I’d point out that Andy was quite likely pointing out that the “fággøŧ with the agenda” was responsible for showing a side of Trip that wasn’t exactly explored on the TV show (I certainly don’t recall Trip being depicted as a person who would find much, if any, comfort in religion–when he learned of his sister’s death, he was far more concerned with getting revenge than expressing any concern over his sister’s soul).
Bryan Grantham– Thanks for having the guts to discuss this. The fact that you understand where yore feelings come from and don’t try to use your terrible experience to tar all members of a group with the actions of one means you are no bigot.
Tell me though, was anything ever done to stop this guy?
His right-hand man, Royal Marshall (sort of a black Ed McMahon, but funnier), said that he could explain, in three words, why he thought gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed:
“Gay divorce court.”
Oh come on! from a train wreck perspective that’s a GREAT reason to allow it! It won’t be pretty but reality usually isn’t. (I don’t know about Mr. Marshall but one of my best friends, who is also gay, said pretty much the exact same thing).
Arbitrarily referring to a prejudiced model as true does not disqualify it from being prejudice. There is no dissemination of a prejudiced model under the pretense of innaccuracy, there is only the dissemination of a prejudiced model under the pretense of accuracy.
While you haven’t demonstrated why Name Withheld saying he doesn’t like “the gay” means his bigotry is faith-based, you’ve twice quoted him chastising “the gay” without that string even appearing in his cited message.
Have to say, not having been a fan of Enterprise in general, I haven’t read any of the books. After reading this thread, that will change – there’s been a copy of “The Good That Men Do” sitting on the shelf at my local Borders for some time now, silently entreating me to buy it. I think I’ll finally do so.
Odd how the reader is a big fan of Star Trek books, but has not commented on the homosexual relationships in Corps of Engineers, and wasn’t there something in TNG books in that series that led up to the events in Nemesis?
Mangels response seems emotion based, but he’s entitled to that right.
All this talk of toleration, yet I don’t see a one of you tolerating the letters author’s bigotry….
IDIC indeed, for shame…for shame
All this talk of toleration, yet I don’t see a one of you tolerating the letters author’s bigotry….
IDIC indeed, for shame…for shame
Peter: Odd how the reader is a big fan of Star Trek books, but has not commented on the homosexual relationships in Corps of Engineers, and wasn’t there something in TNG books in that series that led up to the events in Nemesis?
Luigi Novi: How is this “odd”? He/she presumably didn’t read those books. I sure didn’t.