[Solace]

Dangerous on an intellectual level = not smart. Again, it is not wrong (read: against the law, against moral codes, against laws of physics, against cultural tolerances) to make snap judgments or cast opinions based on a low number of facts. That said, it is likely not "smart" to do so. The reader is not doing anything illegal or immoral - they're just, arguably, being stupid or short-sighted.

Maybe we're all being too pedantic on the word "wrong", but what I'm saying is they have every right to cast such short-sighted views. They certainly aren't imposing anything on anyone, other than - according to some - a lack of intelligence or acceptance.

Caymen indeed you are right there, they have done nothing wrong and it is a legitimate complaint. I would agree that it is due to them being short sighted more-so than stupid. But it doesn't negate the fact that they are putting the book down because it mentioned a point of contention (in this case Homosexuality).

[Caymen Greener]

Caymen indeed you are right there, they have done nothing wrong and it is a legitimate complaint. I would agree that it is due to them being short sighted more-so than stupid. But it doesn't negate the fact that they are putting the book down because it mentioned a point of contention (in this case Homosexuality).

Agreed. Even if I were to agree with their opinion on homosexuality, I wouldn't just toss the book aside. Or if I did, I'd be 1) smart enough to know that Trek invites many levels of tolerance and acceptance and 2) that I might miss something great insodoing. I could write a complaint letter, but I might look silly doing so - as we've seen.

Ok, I look silly in everything I do...

[Solace]

Agreed. Even if I were to agree with their opinion on homosexuality, I wouldn't just toss the book aside. Or if I did, I'd be 1) smart enough to know that Trek invites many levels of tolerance and acceptance and 2) that I might miss something great insodoing. I could write a complaint letter, but I might look silly doing so - as we've seen.

Ok, I look silly in everything I do...

Agreed also, it's incredible how short sighted we humans can be in certain circumstances or when we are witnessing shortsightedness from others.

[Silynn]

We humans are passionate and emotional. Thus it isn't surprising that we as a species are capable of extremes (both good and bad). Not to derail the topic too much, but I wonder if Mr. Roddenberry thought up "Vulcans" as a perfect complementary foil to "Humans". In TOS, the Spock and Kirk differences truly stand out, if not overshadow the other crew relationships.

Back on topic... it is hard to overcome ignorance or close-mindedness. Our own historical track record as a species proves that. Only time or brute force tend to win that battle.

[Solace]

Indeed Silynn, to fight the battle to stop issues like Homosexuality, Bigotry and a few others it will be a long and grueling battle. It will be fought for many years until Humans can learn to live in peace with each other and we see things like the emergence of a united world government.

Until that day comes when we can cast aside all doubt and social inequalities we will always have issues like this topic covers, even so it will never truly be eliminated.

[Abbydog]

Certainly not the first homosexual relationship in Trek fiction. While not main characters or even a sub plot, the Enterprise relaunch novels mention on several occasions that Cmdr Tucker's brother has a husband. The fact it's mentioned but not integral to the story brings a sense of normalcy that one would expect to find the the future as Trek envisions it. Trek has always been on the cutting edge of social change. It would be disingenuous to suggest that homosexuality has not become the civil rights issue of our time.