I’ve run across something that I think makes for an interesting addendum to the Brokeback Mountain controversy, namely some comments from the author David Gerrold about last fall’s revelation that Star Trek‘s George Takei is gay.
Gerrold, in case the name doesn’t ring a bell, is an accomplished science-fiction author and television screenwriter with a number of novels to his name. Despite his lengthy career, however, he’s most likely always going to be known as the man who wrote “The Trouble with Tribbles,” the one episode of the original Star Trek series that non-Trekkies most frequently seem to be familiar with. Given the “Tribbles” connection, it shouldn’t surprise you to learn that he’s been friends with Mr. Takei — and fully aware of George’s sexuality — for years. He also has strong feelings on the question of how visible homosexuals ought to be in our society (which is really what Larry Miller’s decision on Brokeback — as well as a certain political fight heating up in Utah’s legislature — is all about, the visibility of gay people and their relationships). Here’s Gerrold:

…George didn’t [actually] “come out.” He merely “went public.” Coming out is coming to terms with oneself. I suspect George did that quite some time ago. (18 years maybe?) Going public is … well, it’s going public. Is it important to come out? Absolutely. Is it important to go public? Well, it’s important for gay teens, especially minorities, to see positive gay role models.

 

It’s equally important for straight people to see gay people being open and unashamed. It puts the lie to some of the malicious statements of some very hypocritical people who claim to be Christians while spreading hatred. (That’s another conversation too. When did Christianity take on this nightmare countenance of rage instead of love?)

Now, I realize that several of my readers — several of my friends — are social and/or religious conservatives. Please understand that I’m not insensitive to your feelings and beliefs about homosexuality, and I’m not trying to offend you or make you uncomfortable by posting this material. I’m no crusader for gay rights, and, as far as I know, I don’t even know any gay people. But I have been utterly disgusted by this whole Brokeback Mountain thing. I think it’s pathetic and hypocritical that our society loves movies in which tawdry lesbian sex is depicted as the ultimate turn-on for hetero men (American Pie 2) or movies in which gay men are stereotypes to be laughed at (The Birdcage), but greets with fear and loathing a movie which attempts to realistically depict and examine a genuine, loving relationship between two gay men. I have little use for double, or in this case, triple or quadruple standards. People are people, in my book, and we all feel the same emotions regardless of who or what they’re directed at. That is the one lesson that movies, and, indeed, all art forms, make over and over again — that human beings share more things in common than they differ.

As long as I’ve opened this can of worms, I may as well state for the record where I stand on this issue:

I believe homosexuality is determined through biology, not choice. There is ample evidence of “gay” behavior in the animal kingdom, so it makes no sense to me to claim that it isn’t “natural.” Besides, who the hell would willingly choose to be something that is roundly despised by a significant percentage of our society?

I believe that what a person does in the bedroom is nobody’s business except that person’s partner. If you believe homosexuality is a sin, well, that’s your right, but in the long run somebody else’s sin is still none of your business. It’s between God and the sinner.

I believe that we really ought to come down off our high horses and allow same-sex marriages, or civil unions, or whatever you want to call them. One of the charges that’s often used to denounce gays is that they are promiscuous, so isn’t it contradictory — not to mention hypocritical — to deny them institutional monogamy? And, as John Scalzi has frequently pointed out, how is allowing two men or two women to marry going to have any practical effect on a heterosexual marriage? Is one’s marriage influenced in any way by the other hetero couples living on your street? I just can’t see any harm arising from this concept, but I can see a lot of potential good.

Finally, I believe George Takei is a helluva nice guy who has been nothing but gracious and friendly on the two occasions I’ve met him. There was nothing remotely weird, untoward or icky about him. When I first wrote about him going public, I made kind of a lame joke about it. I’m glad that someone else wrote something a little more respectful about his decision.
Which brings me back to David Gerrold’s comments — his complete piece on this subject is quite interesting, and I’d recommend it if you’re at all interested in the history of the Star Trek franchise. It’s over at his blog, which unfortunately is kind of a strange, home-brewed affair that doesn’t seem to allow you to link directly to specific entries. To find the Takei post, go here and scroll down to the heading that reads “Meanwhile, elsewhere on the planet….”

Gerrold goes on from the passage I quoted above to describe how Star Trek: The Next Generation, as well as the other incarnations of the long-running franchise, failed to live up to the original show’s reputation as ground-breaking television by not putting a gay crewmember on the Enterprise-D (or DS9, or Voyager, or the other Enterprise, either). He ends with this observation:

…My take on it is that once the show became a profitable franchise, nobody wanted to take chances with “dangerous visions.” And that’s exactly why some of the better writers in Hollywood chose not to be a part of it. There was no room to do the Star Trek they wanted to see.

 

So here’s the irony in George Takei going public now. From the very first episode, we had a gay person on Star Trek. We just didn’t know it. Not a gay crewmember, but still … I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if George had been willing and able to go public twenty years ago. Perhaps we all could have learned some important lessons a lot sooner. Perhaps that would have been just the little nudge needed then. Perhaps a few folks at Paramount would have realized that their franchise wasn’t threatened by a little honesty about the human capacity to love.

 

That’s the real human adventure.

If I’ve still got anyone reading at this point, I ask that you think about that. As Spock may have said, consider the possibilities.

I’ll be back later with something that pushes fewer buttons…