Homosexual/bisexual characters?

[MasySyma]

I love him more than I love the Doctor, which is probably blasphemy.

I can forgive you since the Doctor is still pining for Rose. As a fan of the Doctor first , I have to admit that I'd settle for Jack if asked.

As for SGA or the SG-1 films, I don't think the writers of this franchise can handle sexual topics in general so a homosexual or bisexual character would not work well for the show.

Ex. A Man to Man kiss on SGA vs A Man to Man kiss on Doctor Who

On SGA, the kiss between Carson and McKay was poorly done as a way to tease fans, jerk chains, and make the crowd gasp. The staging, the lines, all of it was designed to say "Look-men are kissing-OMG." I found it annoying.

On Doctor Who, the kiss between the Doctor and Captain Jack was quiet, quick, and used to show Jack's feelings for the Doctor. It was amazing and a perfect moment in the episode. The plot moved on, and frankly that kiss, while not a big deal, had more chemistry than almost any kiss (Sam/Jack, Daniel/Vala, etc.) on SG-1 or SGA.

The SG Universe writers have proven that they can't handle sex at all by poorly handling the various ship plots over the years. The teenage antics of Sam and Jack can make even their shippers (and I am one) become annoyed. Daniel/Vala was poorly handled (see SG-1 Unending thread), and notice how most of the major characters can't have lives or sex because the writers don't appear to know what to do with the characters or these scenes. Ex. The Pete/Sam sex scene was poorly done and helped turn 90% of the fanbase on Pete.

Sexuality is part of life, and even family shows reflect kissing, hand holding, and other expressions of love and lust. Love whether Male-Female, Male-Male, or Female-Female is part of life and should be shown and respected on all shows, but I can't see it on SGA or in the SG universe because the writers often approach it in a childish, giggling, and blushing kind of way.

[Willow'sCat]

Can't say I expected it on Doctor Who.

Hmm, have to say given who the producer is I wasn't really surprised.

Of course there is. Lying to your parents is immoral - but hardly comparable to premeditated murder.

Sorry? So in the world of morals there are small morals and large ones? See I disagree, yes there are excuses but not small and large categories of moral behaviour imho.

I understand that that taking of a life has a greater impact then lying but I would call lying unethical not immoral. Again not religious so I do not get my morals from the bible if the bible says they are both moral issues then fine, but I say one is an ethical question while the other is a moral question.

BTW I have had three people 'come out' to me *over the years* at work... happens. Especially when the laws change.

[Skydiver]

The bible also says

Judge not lest you be judged

The bible is also a book written by MEN who CLAIM to be putting down the word of god...but we only have thier word for it. it is also a book that has been translated and retranslated, always with an agenda

At the end of the day, if God has an issue with homosexuality, let him - or her - deal with the 'sinner' on judgement day. Live adn let live, take care of yourself and let others deal with thier own issues and stop forcing your own beliefs upon others.

[Skydiver]

there is one 'strike' against these writers ever doing a gay character...they'd frak it up. they turned sam into a doormat to facilitate the Pete story and play out a 'fanboy' scenario where the cool girl falls for the outsider geek boy. they thought that vala vamping all over the sgc was the height of hilarity and that they were a perfect couple.

they write relationships with all the finesse and grace of a 13 year old writing in her diary...or trying to impress his friends. Every relationship they've had on the show - with the possible exception of sam/jack since rick and amanda quite regularly rewrote the ship scenes - has been messed up from the getgo.

they can't write ship, of any pairing. and, frankly, if there was a gay character on the show, they'd just turn it into some yuk-yuk joke and mock it

[Rudy Pena]

The bible also says

Judge not lest you be judged

The bible is also a book written by MEN who CLAIM to be putting down the word of god...but we only have thier word for it. it is also a book that has been translated and retranslated, always with an agenda

At the end of the day, if God has an issue with homosexuality, let him - or her - deal with the 'sinner' on judgement day. Live adn let live, take care of yourself and let others deal with thier own issues and stop forcing your own beliefs upon others.

Amen to that sister or brother. you get green

[Trek_Girl42]

As for SGA or the SG-1 films, I don't think the writers of this franchise can handle sexual topics in general so a homosexual or bisexual character would not work well for the show.

Ex. A Man to Man kiss on SGA vs A Man to Man kiss on Doctor Who

On SGA, the kiss between Carson and McKay was poorly done as a way to tease fans, jerk chains, and make the crowd gasp. The staging, the lines, all of it was designed to say "Look-men are kissing-OMG." I found it annoying.

On Doctor Who, the kiss between the Doctor and Captain Jack was quiet, quick, and used to show Jack's feelings for the Doctor. It was amazing and a perfect moment in the episode. The plot moved on, and frankly that kiss, while not a big deal, had more chemistry than almost any kiss (Sam/Jack, Daniel/Vala, etc.) on SG-1 or SGA.

The SG Universe writers have proven that they can't handle sex at all by poorly handling the various ship plots over the years. The teenage antics of Sam and Jack can make even their shippers (and I am one) become annoyed. Daniel/Vala was poorly handled (see SG-1 Unending thread), and notice how most of the major characters can't have lives or sex because the writers don't appear to know what to do with the characters or these scenes. Ex. The Pete/Sam sex scene was poorly done and helped turn 90% of the fanbase on Pete.

Sexuality is part of life, and even family shows reflect kissing, hand holding, and other expressions of love and lust. Love whether Male-Female, Male-Male, or Female-Female is part of life and should be shown and respected on all shows, but I can't see it on SGA or in the SG universe because the writers often approach it in a childish, giggling, and blushing kind of way.

Great comparisons! Having gay kissing on SGA would be boring and pointless (though I must admit I was one of the people who was amused/chuckling/rolling my eyes mildly at the Rodney/Cason/Cadman one, I think the rest of that episode was silly enough to justify that kind of kiss). Kissing on shows is overrated whether male/female, male/male, female/female- what does it say about the characters? Not much. I'd just rather a gay character with a great (non-sterotypical) personality on the show than a gay character who has to make out with someone to show that they're gay. As you mentioned above, the only "gay" kiss on DW(and I use quotes because it wasn't really a gay kiss- it was a chaste kiss between friends who cared about each other) came after several episodes of character development- we all knew who Jack was long before it happened. On Buffy, Willow and Tara didn't kiss on screen until a whole season after Willow came out and then it was done in a completely unremarkable way- in a way that it was meant to be forgotten in the particular story that it was in.

Also absolutely agree that the SG writers have proven that they can't handle writing sexual relationships- friendly flirtations I think they've done well, on the rare occasion, but yes, anything beyond that I'm really not interested in seeing on this show, it just doesn't work.

[any_gopher]

Oh man, I had a freakin' essay up here but then my friend's computer shut down as I was going to hit "submit reply."

And now to spill the can of worms I opened.

The gist of it was that in a decidedly secular television show, airing in decidedly secular free nations, you can't expect them to cater to one special interest group over another. This isn't belittling religions. But you can't use an argument like "family friendly" in conjunction with your beliefs, Daniel Jackson, because "family friendly" implies a secular family. That would be "Christian family friendly", and I don't think MGM is in the business of catering to one group over another. Thus the word "secular".

Also, even though the word "sex" is in homosexuality, it doesn't have to have anything to do with sex. Sex is also in "heterosexuality", but you don't see every straight character with a plotline involving bonking someone of another gender.

[ladyjanus]

The bible is also a book written by MEN who CLAIM to be putting down the word of god...but we only have thier word for it. it is also a book that has been translated and retranslated, always with an agenda

At the end of the day, if God has an issue with homosexuality, let him - or her - deal with the 'sinner' on judgement day. Live adn let live, take care of yourself and let others deal with thier own issues and stop forcing your own beliefs upon others.

Hear, Hear...

Could not have said it better if I'd tried...

ladyjanus

[dllmzca]

The bible also says

Judge not lest you be judged

The bible is also a book written by MEN who CLAIM to be putting down the word of god...but we only have thier word for it. it is also a book that has been translated and retranslated, always with an agenda

At the end of the day, if God has an issue with homosexuality, let him - or her - deal with the 'sinner' on judgement day. Live adn let live, take care of yourself and let others deal with thier own issues and stop forcing your own beliefs upon others.

For me, this ties in with an earlier comment referring to the “choice’ one has in being homosexual.

From as long as I can remember, I have always been interested in other males. Growing up, I had crushes and infatuations: even had one of those crushes on a teacher. Went home and cried the whole evening on the last day of Grade 5 because Mr. Price wasn’t going to be my teacher anymore. I also bought teen star magazines and was always looking at the guys. I didn’t even have a concept of “gay” in my head at the time; I just felt how I felt.

In Grade 6, I had a “girlfriend,” due to enormous peer pressure. I liked the girl but I had no real attraction to her or any other female. I remember going to a party at the end of that year. Well, at one point the lights went out for a minute and all the “couples” (we all remember what being boyfriends/girlfriends was like at that age) took their chance to have a kiss. For me, it was a horrible experience... it just felt so entirely wrong.

Skip forward a few years to my mid-teens, when I first kissed another guy. No problems, that time. That time, it felt right and natural and fantastic: scary, but fantastic. I told my parents and family about myself when I was 16 years old, as they had always told me about the importance of being true to one’s self.

For me, I feel that I’ve had about as much choice in the matter of my orientation as I’ve had in the colour of my eyes: none. How many of the straight members of GW feel that they had a choice in being straight? The one choice I felt I did have was whether or not to be honest and true to myself and others or to try and live a lie and hurt myself and others in the process. If there is a god, I have no worries as to whether or not I’ll be damned for that. I would think that said god would take a far dimmer view of me if I had tried to live a life of deception…

As for a gay/bi character on SGA, I’d be for it… provided that the writers could do it without using it just for shock value or comic relief. Don’t know if they’re up to that, though. Given their track record with straight sexuality, I'm leery. It might be too much for them to remember that a person’s sexual orientation is an aspect of who they are as a person, not the totality of their existence when dealing with someone who isn’t heterosexual.

[dllmzca]

So far, the only people who have forced their believes are the ones telling us Christians that gays are here to stay, shut up and accept us!

Are you claiming to speak for all Christians on this matter? I know many who would disagree with you...

EDIT TO ADD: Please note, Daniel Jackson, that I do not take exception to your personal belief. You have every right to that. I do question the way you tend to say "us Christians" as if you have the authority to speak for people other than yourself. I also questioned you statement about choice as I have my own personal experience to refute that aspect...

[Madeleine]

As a Christian who believes that the don't be gay laws in the OT were as much of their time as the don't eat pork laws and the offer your slaves their freedom after seven years laws, I have to wonder why any particular religion's disapproval is relevant to the making of a secular drama in a nominally secular nation.

[Daniel Jackson]

I see my last post has been deleted. I will not be censored, so I am done with this discussion. Goodbye.

[Rudy Pena]

Are you claiming to speak for all Christians on this matter? I know many who would disagree with you...

EDIT TO ADD: Please note, Daniel Jackson, that I do not take exception to your personal belief. You have every right to that. I do question the way you tend to say "us Christians" as if you have the authority to speak for people other than yourself. I also questioned you statement about choice as I have my own personal experience to refute that aspect...

No he is not because I am a Christian too and I do not agree with him/her.

[Madeleine]

I see my last post has been deleted. I will not be censored, so I am done with this discussion. Goodbye.

Your post, and any other which is purely about the morality of homosexuality. That's not the topic.

We do not practice censorship on GW. We practice organisation. You want to discuss something, do it in its topic thread, not in another topic's thread. You want to say stuff that is against GW rules, go ahead and say it on your own website, and we promise not to come over there and stop you; that would be censorship.

But if you have anything to say in particular about Atlantis and the possibility of a gay character on the show, this is the place

[Daniel Jackson]

You have a gay thread, yet you don't allow people to bring up the morallity issues? Sounds like censorship to me!