That is your opinion, which is fine. However, TRIBBLE marriage is not even LEGAL in some states. So, yeah there is still a "controversy" until that actually happens.
We're still working on that, yeah. And I'm looking forward to the day that someone challenges the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" on the grounds that its provision permitting states to ignore same-sex marriages performed elsewhere is a clear violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution (which requires each state to recognize "the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of every other state).
I agree this thread has been high jacked and I am just as much to blame as anyone else. I am glad to see most of us in here can have a civilized discussion on social subjects.
I dont think it is a choice, lets face it, there are to many mean spirited people out there and who in there right mind would want to bring that type of persecution on themselves. That being said if it was genetic and because so it should be passed down to offspring, since homosexuals can't have children with out outside help, the gene would have passed died out because it would not have had the chance to move on from generation to generation. Like I said I dont know why, but poeple are who they are and we should not belittle people because they are different, we should treat everyone as equals.
Well this is going to get me some flame but I dont mind being that guy. LGBT dont want marriage, they want the rights bestowed on them as everyone else has that is married. I am a firm believer that marriage is a religious institute that joins a man and a woman. That being said since homosexuals dont want to be married to the opposite sex they dont want marriage. They do deserve the same rights that an married couple has. they deserved to see there loved one on theirdealth bead, they deserve to get tax right off the same as married couple, they deserve to have same beniefits that a married couple has. That being said I see marriage as a religious institute and since so man ypoeple preach the seperaation of church and state, there should be no laws referring or granting rights to marriage.
Well, like I said it's physical but not genetic.
As this article notes there are indeed structural differences in the brain homosexuals compared to their heterosexual brethren:
We're still working on that, yeah. And I'm looking forward to the day that someone challenges the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" on the grounds that its provision permitting states to ignore same-sex marriages performed elsewhere is a clear violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution (which requires each state to recognize "the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of every other state).
I'm not disagreeing with you. My point is/was simply that until this issue is settled(legally speaking), there is still "controversy". I'm not saying there *should* be controversy, simply stating the fact that there is.
Why does a relationship need to have a backstory? So two klingon chicks were an item, would it have made a difference if one was male? I doubt it. Why create a fuss over nothing?
Formerly known as Echo@Rivyn13
Member since early 2011
Well, like I said it's physical but not genetic.
As this article notes there are indeed structural differences in the brain homosexuals compared to their heterosexual brethren:
it also states that most likely the orientation was set in the womb.
As far as the "marriage" part goes...well over here in Germany it has not been a religious matter since (I'm not kidding) Napoleon.;)
Thanks for the article, while I am sure that we both agree the sample size of 90 is to small to be conclusive on anything, I t does open up for further studies. The article also did not go into how many of the 90 people were from what group.
The Napoleon thing is interesting I live in Germany for 2 years, my son was born in Bittburg. My wife was order to say in bed for most of her pregnancy so we do not get to see as much as we would of liked. I do owe my sons life to the German Health Care system. The military base would of let my wife have a miscarriage and the Childrens Hospital in Trier was aggressive enough to stop premature labor at 19 weeks.
I just don't understand why y'all are making a big deal out of this. It was a throwaway moment near the beginning of a mission. The relationship wasn't integral to the story, the fact that there was a relationship wasn't integral, it was just a nice little character moment that could be utterly ignored.
That is, it could be, but some of you have stubbed your toes so badly on the notion that (whisper it) there might be TRIBBLE people in Da Future, you can't help but scream and call attention to the entire concept.
And why do they mention it now when this relationship was already established years ago in STO?
People are bored, people have short-term memories, and want to win internet points.
I get a lot of flak for fabricating controversy where none exists when it comes to particular facets of the game, but this has been such a non-issue that the reactions of some portions of the STO community have been far more damning than anything Cryptic could ever hope to do.
Well this is going to get me some flame but I dont mind being that guy. LGBT dont want marriage, they want the rights bestowed on them as everyone else has that is married. I am a firm believer that marriage is a religious institute that joins a man and a woman. That being said since homosexuals dont want to be married to the opposite sex they dont want marriage. They do deserve the same rights that an married couple has. they deserved to see there loved one on theirdealth bead, they deserve to get tax right off the same as married couple, they deserve to have same beniefits that a married couple has. That being said I see marriage as a religious institute and since so man ypoeple preach the seperaation of church and state, there should be no laws referring or granting rights to marriage.
I take issue with the above statement. Marriage is a purely secular institution. Go to your friendly neighborhood place of worship and have a marriage ceremony without getting a marriage licence. Now, go try and get on your spouse's insurance. I guarantee that you'll get nothing but a flat denial. Why is that? Because marriage, has always been and will forever be, a state sanctioned institution.
Like everything else religion has stuck its hands in, it co-opted the institution. And by the way, the definition of marriage is a constantly changing thing. So today the norm is a heterosexual relationship between two consenting adults. Not too long ago polygamy was a norm. For the poor, pawning off your twelve year old daughter for a couple goats was a fantastic event. And before that, humanity's idea of romance was forced sex.
Name a given time and place, religion simply reinforces the prevailing cultural norm of a given society. We see that time and again, which makes sense for a man-made institution sensitive to which way the wind is blowing. Nothing right or wrong about it, but moral relativism is something religions and the religious constantly engage in. Trust me, in 40 or so years, that precious "one man, one woman" concept of marriage will be just as easily laughed off as disgust over interracial couples is today.
No one is debating here. He called me out on something, and perhaps I should rephrase my comments accordingly: there *shouldn't* be any controversy in same-sex relationships. In a perfect world, of course.
I really don't see how stating: "get over it; same-sex relationships happen and we should all be ashamed of ourselves for creating mountains out of molehills over this" is trolling, but if you want to go ahead and equate that perfectly valid sentiment with "trolling" be my guest. I just wish certain lunatic religious fringes stay out of other peoples' lives and worry about their own.
Aww, I always knew you would take the time out of your day to write a decent post just for me.
Klingon lesbians? I dont see how that lasts long.
Lezzy1: Sorry great warrior, I only mate with my female lover
Warrior1: WHAT! You refuse me! PREPARE TO DIE WHERE YOU STAND!
Yeah, Klingon lezzys wouldnt last 5 minutes beyond the moment they turned down the advances of a prideful klingon male.
STO: @AGNT009 Since Dec 2010
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
Klingon lesbians? I dont see how that lasts long.
Lezzy1: Sorry great warrior, I only mate with my female lover
Warrior1: WHAT! You refuse me! PREPARE TO DIE WHERE YOU STAND!
Yeah, Klingon lezzys wouldnt last 5 minutes beyond the moment they turned down the advances of a prideful klingon male.
If that were how Klingon society worked, it wouldn't have lasted long at all. There's a reason why we gregarious humans are at the top of the planetary food chain, rather than lions.
And the term "lezzy" seems unnecessarily abrasive. Would you also refer to Tuvok as a "darkie Vulcan"?
So much controversy over a detail that was so mundane. Frankly, the captain's pet targ was the most interesting thing on that ship.
I take issue with the above statement. Marriage is a purely secular institution. Go to your friendly neighborhood place of worship and have a marriage ceremony. Now, go try and get on your spouse's insurance. I guarantee that you'll get nothing but a flat denial. Why is that? Because marriage, has always been and will forever be, a state sanctioned institution.
Like everything else religion has stuck it's hands in, it co-opted the institution. And by the way, the definition of marriage is a constantly changing thing. So today the norm is a heterosexual relationship between two consenting adults. Not too long ago polygamy was a norm. For the poor, pawning off your twelve year old daughter for a couple goats was a fantastic event. And before that, humanity's idea of romance was forced sex.
Name a given time and place, religion simply reinforces the prevailing cultural norm of a given society. We see that time and again, which makes sense for a man-made institution sensitive to which way the wind is blowing. Nothing right or wrong about it, but moral relativism is something religions and the religious constantly engage in. Trust me, in 40 or so years, that precious "one man, one woman" concept of marriage will be just as easily laughed off as interracial couples are today.
we are going to have to disagree, but that is fine with me long as we do it in a civil manner, which I would say we have. The religious affiliation/concept of marriage has been around a lot longer than any country on the face of the earth and if you look at any of the old religions you see it has a common concept of one man and one women. Now because of this religious affiliation I say remove it from all laws. Then you make it equal for all people to havethe same rights. If someone want a person to be there will beneficiary or have some one on there health care let them.
Definition change because someone wants to make the word mean something that it does not.
You know what?! When I read the topic, I had initially no idea what y'all were talking about even. I had to think real hard, to recall the scene where a (third) Klingon said: "Be careful; she's very protective of her mate." Though -- even in-game -- I realized her mate was female, of course, it didn't even register as "OMG! They're TRIBBLE!" Walking towards them, I was more thinking along the lines of "If Cryptic made a multiple choice answer here, then I better not say the wrong thing and p*ss her off."
Yes, I'm actually quite naive that way. I think I prefer it that way, though.
2 female characters? Check.
Talk to each other? Check. A rarity for this game, I might add.
About something other than a man? Check.
So, where's the failure?
By the way, the Star Trek series and movies are mostly really bad at the Bechdel test. Voyager passes regularly, but it cheats a bit by having the most important person on the show, the one that everyone has to talk to, be a woman. If Janeway were male, I can't recall a single episode that would have passed.
I have 2 daughters, 1 now 18 and the other 15. at age 9 the eldest asked me 'what does it mean when someone is bent?' i was a little taken back by the question, but explained it was a mean word used to describe a boy who likes another boy. 'oh TRIBBLE?' she said, 'i know all about gays and lesbians, i have a friend at school with 2 dads.' she kissed my cheek, said thanks and went off to play, that was pretty much it.
this leads to my youngest daughter, since she was about 11 maybe 12 she has been very protective towards children who get bullied. She was bullied herself by a group of girls from when she was 9 so cant stand to see it happen to anyone else. She is particularly protective of TRIBBLE and disabled people (in her words.. people) as she feels they are the most prone to ridicule and abuse that can lead to depression, self harm and suicide.
She herself suffers from an Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Tourette's syndrome. She has had no extra help, no special dispensations, or tutoring etc and is by definition of her RE and social studies teacher 'very fiesty.. but in a good way' i fully expect to see her on the evening news 1 day, megaphone in 1 hand burning bra in the other, fighting for social equality and justice lol.
11 years of age.. think on that.. 11 years of age! she has been my teacher.
And remember guys, just because a child asks a question does not mean it has to be answered then and there, i heard someone suggest little white lies, thats 1 possible way to go, but i'm against that personally, i have always felt it is hard to convey the importance of honesty to children, if you employ lies, even little white ones, besides they arnt stupid, by the time most of them are asking the question, they already have a rough idea anyways, and if they are very tiny.. dont lie.. distract lol
i have always had a no taboo household, if they where mature enough to ask a sensible question, i would always take the time to answer it appropriately, as best i could. if ever an occasion arose where i felt the topic was not appropriate, then guess what? that is exactly what i said.. that is not really appropriate for now, we can talk about that when you are a little older.
at then end of the day, our children are bombarded with so many things while they are outside our sphere of control.. it matters not how carefully you control the information your child receives while in your home, you don't control the information any other parent gives their child access too. there are certain things we need to inform our children about.. such as safety awareness, proper respect and manners, paying attention to their teachers etc, outside of that it is very much a case of 'deal with it as it turns up'
children are far more understanding than most give them credit for, they are naturally inquisitive and accepting, and far more tolerant than many parents. intolerance, hatred and fear are not born to them, it is taught to them. learning about a tree does not make you a tree, watching a nature documentary that depicts lions mating does not make you sexually desire lion, learning about homosexuality does not make a heterosexual person become TRIBBLE, all it does is educate you on another part of life in this world we live in.
i have been quite taken aback by many of the attitudes i have seen from posters in the threads relating to this Feature Episode. trying to find something positive in any negative situation is very much my credo.. and i can say that amongst the shameful comments, i have seem some beautiful people shine through, this topic has delivered some very honest comments that are, far more telling about the real people behind the keyboard than any other discussion i've seen.
Man who needs comedy central? All I need is popcorn.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
we are going to have to disagree, but that is fine with me long as we do it in a civil manner, which I would say we have. The religious affiliation/concept of marriage has been around a lot longer than any country on the face of the earth and if you look at any of the old religions you see it has a common concept of one man and one women. Now because of this religious affiliation I say remove it from all laws. Then you make it equal for all people to havethe same rights. If someone want a person to be there will beneficiary or have some one on there health care let them.
Well, it is your prerogative to choose to ignore historical fact. I won't bother convincing you otherwise, since you and I seem to support equality at least in the eyes of the law.
"Vito Russel Test"
1 The film (story) contains a character that is identifiably TRIBBLE, TRIBBLE, bisexual, and/or transgender.
2 The character must not be solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity.
3. The character must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect.
To readers who can reply to this one; by that test, how did House Pegh do with the two mentioned NPCs?
Well, it is your prerogative to choose to ignore historical fact. I won't bother convincing you otherwise, since you and I seem to support equality at least in the eyes of the law.
Actually he's right, the word itself has been around for over 800 years. No country has existed that long.
Well, it is your prerogative to choose to ignore historical fact. I won't bother convincing you otherwise, since you and I seem to support equality at least in the eyes of the law.
Well ultimately that is all that is important is that everyone is treated like a human being and no ones rights are being trampled on.
"Vito Russel Test"
1 The film (story) contains a character that is identifiably TRIBBLE, TRIBBLE, bisexual, and/or transgender.
2 The character must not be solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity.
3. The character must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect.
To readers who can reply to this one; by that test, how did House Pegh do with the two mentioned NPCs?
I take issue with the above statement. Marriage is a purely secular institution. Go to your friendly neighborhood place of worship and have a marriage ceremony without getting a marriage licence. Now, go try and get on your spouse's insurance. I guarantee that you'll get nothing but a flat denial. Why is that? Because marriage, has always been and will forever be, a state sanctioned institution.
The problem with making absolute statements is that there are almost always exceptions. And I have no doubt that at some places, at some points in history, a certificate that may have been given to a couple from their local Church and not the state itself may have been enough to do legal business with. That is obviously not the case now(at least where I live), but you specifically said "has always been", so that is why making absolute statements like that is a flawed way to make your point.
Comments
Well, like I said it's physical but not genetic.
As this article notes there are indeed structural differences in the brain homosexuals compared to their heterosexual brethren:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm
it also states that most likely the orientation was set in the womb.
As far as the "marriage" part goes...well over here in Germany it has not been a religious matter since (I'm not kidding) Napoleon.;)
I'm not disagreeing with you. My point is/was simply that until this issue is settled(legally speaking), there is still "controversy". I'm not saying there *should* be controversy, simply stating the fact that there is.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Member since early 2011
I agree. But once something is actually legal nation-wide, it's a completely different story.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Nabreeki is a troll lol, you expect anything different? If you try to actually debate with him seriously, you waste your time.
Thanks for the article, while I am sure that we both agree the sample size of 90 is to small to be conclusive on anything, I t does open up for further studies. The article also did not go into how many of the 90 people were from what group.
The Napoleon thing is interesting I live in Germany for 2 years, my son was born in Bittburg. My wife was order to say in bed for most of her pregnancy so we do not get to see as much as we would of liked. I do owe my sons life to the German Health Care system. The military base would of let my wife have a miscarriage and the Childrens Hospital in Trier was aggressive enough to stop premature labor at 19 weeks.
That is, it could be, but some of you have stubbed your toes so badly on the notion that (whisper it) there might be TRIBBLE people in Da Future, you can't help but scream and call attention to the entire concept.
What's up with that?
And why do they mention it now when this relationship was already established years ago in STO?
People are bored, people have short-term memories, and want to win internet points.
I get a lot of flak for fabricating controversy where none exists when it comes to particular facets of the game, but this has been such a non-issue that the reactions of some portions of the STO community have been far more damning than anything Cryptic could ever hope to do.
I take issue with the above statement. Marriage is a purely secular institution. Go to your friendly neighborhood place of worship and have a marriage ceremony without getting a marriage licence. Now, go try and get on your spouse's insurance. I guarantee that you'll get nothing but a flat denial. Why is that? Because marriage, has always been and will forever be, a state sanctioned institution.
Like everything else religion has stuck its hands in, it co-opted the institution. And by the way, the definition of marriage is a constantly changing thing. So today the norm is a heterosexual relationship between two consenting adults. Not too long ago polygamy was a norm. For the poor, pawning off your twelve year old daughter for a couple goats was a fantastic event. And before that, humanity's idea of romance was forced sex.
Name a given time and place, religion simply reinforces the prevailing cultural norm of a given society. We see that time and again, which makes sense for a man-made institution sensitive to which way the wind is blowing. Nothing right or wrong about it, but moral relativism is something religions and the religious constantly engage in. Trust me, in 40 or so years, that precious "one man, one woman" concept of marriage will be just as easily laughed off as disgust over interracial couples is today.
Reason for edit: Clarifying some things.
Aww, I always knew you would take the time out of your day to write a decent post just for me.
Lezzy1: Sorry great warrior, I only mate with my female lover
Warrior1: WHAT! You refuse me! PREPARE TO DIE WHERE YOU STAND!
Yeah, Klingon lezzys wouldnt last 5 minutes beyond the moment they turned down the advances of a prideful klingon male.
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
And the term "lezzy" seems unnecessarily abrasive. Would you also refer to Tuvok as a "darkie Vulcan"?
we are going to have to disagree, but that is fine with me long as we do it in a civil manner, which I would say we have. The religious affiliation/concept of marriage has been around a lot longer than any country on the face of the earth and if you look at any of the old religions you see it has a common concept of one man and one women. Now because of this religious affiliation I say remove it from all laws. Then you make it equal for all people to havethe same rights. If someone want a person to be there will beneficiary or have some one on there health care let them.
Definition change because someone wants to make the word mean something that it does not.
You know what?! When I read the topic, I had initially no idea what y'all were talking about even. I had to think real hard, to recall the scene where a (third) Klingon said: "Be careful; she's very protective of her mate." Though -- even in-game -- I realized her mate was female, of course, it didn't even register as "OMG! They're TRIBBLE!" Walking towards them, I was more thinking along the lines of "If Cryptic made a multiple choice answer here, then I better not say the wrong thing and p*ss her off."
Yes, I'm actually quite naive that way. I think I prefer it that way, though.
Maybe he was talking about this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test#Russo_test
this leads to my youngest daughter, since she was about 11 maybe 12 she has been very protective towards children who get bullied. She was bullied herself by a group of girls from when she was 9 so cant stand to see it happen to anyone else. She is particularly protective of TRIBBLE and disabled people (in her words.. people) as she feels they are the most prone to ridicule and abuse that can lead to depression, self harm and suicide.
She herself suffers from an Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Tourette's syndrome. She has had no extra help, no special dispensations, or tutoring etc and is by definition of her RE and social studies teacher 'very fiesty.. but in a good way' i fully expect to see her on the evening news 1 day, megaphone in 1 hand burning bra in the other, fighting for social equality and justice lol.
11 years of age.. think on that.. 11 years of age! she has been my teacher.
And remember guys, just because a child asks a question does not mean it has to be answered then and there, i heard someone suggest little white lies, thats 1 possible way to go, but i'm against that personally, i have always felt it is hard to convey the importance of honesty to children, if you employ lies, even little white ones, besides they arnt stupid, by the time most of them are asking the question, they already have a rough idea anyways, and if they are very tiny.. dont lie.. distract lol
i have always had a no taboo household, if they where mature enough to ask a sensible question, i would always take the time to answer it appropriately, as best i could. if ever an occasion arose where i felt the topic was not appropriate, then guess what? that is exactly what i said.. that is not really appropriate for now, we can talk about that when you are a little older.
at then end of the day, our children are bombarded with so many things while they are outside our sphere of control.. it matters not how carefully you control the information your child receives while in your home, you don't control the information any other parent gives their child access too. there are certain things we need to inform our children about.. such as safety awareness, proper respect and manners, paying attention to their teachers etc, outside of that it is very much a case of 'deal with it as it turns up'
children are far more understanding than most give them credit for, they are naturally inquisitive and accepting, and far more tolerant than many parents. intolerance, hatred and fear are not born to them, it is taught to them. learning about a tree does not make you a tree, watching a nature documentary that depicts lions mating does not make you sexually desire lion, learning about homosexuality does not make a heterosexual person become TRIBBLE, all it does is educate you on another part of life in this world we live in.
i have been quite taken aback by many of the attitudes i have seen from posters in the threads relating to this Feature Episode. trying to find something positive in any negative situation is very much my credo.. and i can say that amongst the shameful comments, i have seem some beautiful people shine through, this topic has delivered some very honest comments that are, far more telling about the real people behind the keyboard than any other discussion i've seen.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Well, it is your prerogative to choose to ignore historical fact. I won't bother convincing you otherwise, since you and I seem to support equality at least in the eyes of the law.
The entertainment value of the STO forums is sometimes more enticing than the game itself.
1 The film (story) contains a character that is identifiably TRIBBLE, TRIBBLE, bisexual, and/or transgender.
2 The character must not be solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity.
3. The character must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect.
To readers who can reply to this one; by that test, how did House Pegh do with the two mentioned NPCs?
Actually he's right, the word itself has been around for over 800 years. No country has existed that long.
Well ultimately that is all that is important is that everyone is treated like a human being and no ones rights are being trampled on.
TRIBBLE poor. :mad:
The problem with making absolute statements is that there are almost always exceptions. And I have no doubt that at some places, at some points in history, a certificate that may have been given to a couple from their local Church and not the state itself may have been enough to do legal business with. That is obviously not the case now(at least where I live), but you specifically said "has always been", so that is why making absolute statements like that is a flawed way to make your point.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
the British Isles have been around since 382bc, and we took the word from the french.