StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Or maybe Stormtroopers are ambidextrous, what with being custom designed for combat and being equally capable of using a weapon in one hand as they are in the other would be a definite benefit?

The lefty-trooper doesn't mean all that much. When marching in formation, one column is going to hold their weapons left-handed so they don't accidentally shoot the other column. The holsters are much more definitive, I think.

Cowl wrote:Why would there even be gay Jedi though? Don't Jedi allegedly 'forswear all emotional attachments'? And would this even be an equal rights issue for this futuristic universe? Their medical technology must have advanced to the point where you'll be able to switch your sexual orientation with the flick of a switch. Advanced pre-screening at birth to allow for modification of any aberrant qualities of this nature.

Homosexuality doesn't really make sense in a futuristic setting, unless of course it would be part of some cultural institution.

Explanations notwithstanding, I find myself drawn to the above-emphasized statement. Please do inform us what makes homosexuality "aberrant".

Cowl wrote:Why would there even be gay Jedi though? Don't Jedi allegedly 'forswear all emotional attachments'? And would this even be an equal rights issue for this futuristic universe? Their medical technology must have advanced to the point where you'll be able to switch your sexual orientation with the flick of a switch. Advanced pre-screening at birth to allow for modification of any aberrant qualities of this nature.

Homosexuality doesn't really make sense in a futuristic setting, unless of course it would be part of some cultural institution.

Your entire argument assumes that Homosexuality is an illness. Hate to burst your bubble, but it isn't.

Darth Yoshi wrote:The lefty-trooper doesn't mean all that much. When marching in formation, one column is going to hold their weapons left-handed so they don't accidentally shoot the other column. The holsters are much more definitive, I think.

Yeah, but even when standing at attention parade-style (as in RotJ on the DS2), it's totally random- there's left and right-handers all over the place.

Oh, and not meaning to dogpile here, but I'd like to add myself to the list of people who are confused as to how homosexuality is some kind of disability.

I always giggle a bit at the Stormtrooper on the Tantive IV behind Darth Vader's right holding his blaster ridiculously high. It's at around 2:41 of this clip. And the guy next to him has it ridiculously low and not pointed towards the outside.

Anyway, I think what that guy meant was homosexuality was unusual or abnormal, even if the latter term is rather harsh. It technically is because it's not the norm but really, in a society like that, I figure it would be a "who gives a fuck?" kind of issue.

Darth Tedious wrote:Yeah, but even when standing at attention parade-style (as in RotJ on the DS2), it's totally random- there's left and right-handers all over the place.

Oh, and not meaning to dogpile here, but I'd like to add myself to the list of people who are confused as to how homosexuality is some kind of disability.

*shrugs* Well, I dunno what to say. That's just weird.

I am still waiting for your answer, Cowl.

Dalton wrote:

Cowl wrote:Why would there even be gay Jedi though? Don't Jedi allegedly 'forswear all emotional attachments'? And would this even be an equal rights issue for this futuristic universe? Their medical technology must have advanced to the point where you'll be able to switch your sexual orientation with the flick of a switch. Advanced pre-screening at birth to allow for modification of any aberrant qualities of this nature.

Homosexuality doesn't really make sense in a futuristic setting, unless of course it would be part of some cultural institution.

Explanations notwithstanding, I find myself drawn to the above-emphasized statement. Please do inform us what makes homosexuality "aberrant".

Eugenics, selection of desirable traits. Parental prerogative.

Aberration, deviation from the norm. Comparable aberrant qualities: baldness, shortness, etc.

Alyeska wrote:Your entire argument assumes that Homosexuality is an illness. Hate to burst your bubble, but it isn't.

While I understand that the issue of homosexuality is heavily politicized in the United States, and the scientific regard of this matter is of sensitive nature, you must understand that some people come from different cultures, where the issue of homosexuality has long since been normalized to the extent that discussions of this nature do not involve treading through a rhetorical minefield. For example, while your DADT policy has only recently been rescinded, homosexual men and women have been able to openly serve in the military of my country for over three decades now.

The nature of the political discussion concerning this subject is therefore more rational, and for one would recognize that individuals of certain persuasions experience their orientation as a personal tragedy, beyond that has been presented as an argument by some in this thread. In order to illustrate this matter, we can look towards the subject of gender dysphoria, (in the case that the more facile comparison to baldness would not suffice).

The definition of gender dysphoria: discontent with their biological sex and/or the gender they were assigned at birth. In this case that would translate to discontent with their sexual orientation, arising beyond the scope of bigotry, ostracism, social oppression, societal condemnation, what have you. They simply do not want to be drawn to the same gender.

Anyway, while I enjoy a good inquisition every now and then. I don't think this thread will be suitable for any further discussion of this nature.

Cowl wrote:Aberration, deviation from the norm. Comparable aberrant qualities: baldness, shortness, etc.

...being a Force user...

cowl wrote:Eugenics, selection of desirable traits. Parental prerogative.

About that parental prerogative- what if the parents don't mind either way? Hell, what if they consider a gay child a desirable option? It is their prerogative, as you say.
I don't understand why you assume by default that all parents would be homophobes.

cowl wrote:Aberration, deviation from the norm. Comparable aberrant qualities: baldness, shortness, etc.

Shortness is relative. How short is 'aberrantly short'?
And tallness is also a deviation...
So, is there a specific height range we're talking about here? A particular target height? Just how homogenised are you wanting your hypothetical population to be?

Are Gingers allowed?

Really, this whole eugenics shit is all complete speculation on your part. Outside of specialised cloning programs (which are localised anyway), is there any shred of evidence of any kind of galaxy-wide eugenics?

Or did you just assume it must exist because HIGH TECH = NO GAYS ALLOWED by your 'logic'?
And doesn't it seem odd that there are gays in the GFFA- oh noes, must have escaped Order 69! Wipe them out! All of them!

Your whole theory seems to be full of holes...

Also- I'm not from the US, and have no political or religious squeamishness about the scientific aspects of sexuality.
But I do wonder, what part of the world are you from that is SO enlightened they have been able to classify homosexuality as a disease to be treated?

cowl wrote:The nature of the political discussion concerning this subject is therefore more rational, and for one would recognize that individuals of certain persuasions experience their orientation as a personal tragedy, beyond that has been presented as an argument by some in this thread. In order to illustrate this matter, we can look towards the subject of gender dysphoria, (in the case that the more facile comparison to baldness would not suffice).

The definition of gender dysphoria: discontent with their biological sex and/or the gender they were assigned at birth. In this case that would translate to discontent with their sexual orientation, arising beyond the scope of bigotry, ostracism, social oppression, societal condemnation, what have you. They simply do not want to be drawn to the same gender.

And just how common is this 'sexual orientation dysphoria'? Are there any studies referring to it? (maybe the same ones that call homosexuality a disease?)
Or is this another idea of yours?

cowl wrote:Anyway, while I enjoy a good inquisition every now and then. I don't think this thread will be suitable for any further discussion of this nature.

As the original poster, I don't feel it's an unwelcome hijacking. This is a fascinating discussion. If you feel it's becoming too much of a derailment, I can ask one of our friendly neigbourhood mods to split it into a new thread. But here's just fine, IMO.

@Cowl
I'm from scandinavia and I call bullshit. Just because gays can serve openly in the mil doesnt mean they are OK with this hostile glossary of yours.
Don't try to hide behind "I'm PK so its OK if I insult people" it doesn't work that way.

I've been reading the Darth Bane books to pass time when my internet was down due a faulty modem and noticed that Darth Zannah (Bane's apprentice) is said to be left handed, yet she makes no effort to disguise it, also Bane himself is said to be about 2 metres tall both of these are deviations from the norm yet neither of those don't to seem to effect the Sith's ability to hide at all (Bane can't walk openly due the Orblisk armor but his height is never said to be an issue).

The definition of gender dysphoria: discontent with their biological sex and/or the gender they were assigned at birth. In this case that would translate to discontent with their sexual orientation, arising beyond the scope of bigotry, ostracism, social oppression, societal condemnation, what have you. They simply do not want to be drawn to the same gender.

Except that "orientation dysphoria" doesn't exist.

Discontent with ones own sexual orientation can be removed by putting the person suffering from it in an accepting social environment, and trauma-therapy if such trauma has been inflicted by previous harassment.
Gender dysphoria (which you don't have to tell my anything about, given that i am transsexual myself) can NOT be removed by putting the person suffering from it in an accepting social environment.

This difference is the reason why gender dysphoria is still included in the ICD and similar medical tables, while homosexuality has been removed from them decades ago. Something only classifies as a (psychological) illness if it causes harm by itself. Since homosexuality does not cause any harm by itself, it is not a disease. Otherwise we'd have to classify any difference not accepted by whatever society we are talking about as a disease.


Or in other words - your argument is bullshit. There is no such thing as "orientation dysphoria" other than the suffering caused by bigots like yourself.

Cowl, is it possible for you to give a simple answer, one that isn't couched in two or more paragraphs of verbiage?

Once again, how/why is homosexuality unfeasible in a futuristic society? Why is it a "burden"?

The only reason I can think of is an attitude in that society in which women are told, "Wimmin, squeeze moar babbies out of yo crotch!" Something tells me that a galaxy of a hundred quadrillion beings hardly need help with populating their worlds. Oh, and I don't ever recall hearing that sort of thing in the EU ever, but then again, I don't exactly have much in the way of EU exposure.

Given that nobody bats an eye at interspecies relationships in that galaxy far, far away, and that the plethora of nonhuman species might easily include some with more than two sexes or where sex is essentially a matter of choice (shapeshifters anybody?) I positively fail to see why same sex relationships would be an issue.
Cowl does have a point in that people like Serafina would likely have it easier thanks to the advanced medical technology, but I very much suspect that's not the one he intended to make.

Batman wrote:Given that nobody bats an eye at interspecies relationships in that galaxy far, far away, and that the plethora of nonhuman species might easily include some with more than two sexes or where sex is essentially a matter of choice (shapeshifters anybody?) I positively fail to see why same sex relationships would be an issue.

And, indeed, some species that are both male and female at different points in their life (the Givin).

Eternal_Freedom wrote:

Batman wrote:Given that nobody bats an eye at interspecies relationships in that galaxy far, far away, and that the plethora of nonhuman species might easily include some with more than two sexes or where sex is essentially a matter of choice (shapeshifters anybody?) I positively fail to see why same sex relationships would be an issue.

And, indeed, some species that are both male and female at different points in their life (the Givin).

And huts according to Han Solo trilogy (Paradise Snare one, not the New Republic era one). Although the Clone Wars film thing kinda destroyed some of that concept

From what I gather hutts are considered to have the genetilia for both genders all the time and their outward gender is simply a matter of choice, so some hutts choose to be male, some choose to female, while others are either something between or vary depending on the situation and phase of their life.

though I'd like to see Cowl's responce to the points made since his last post, though I'm not holding my breath.

Cowl wrote:... Don't Jedi allegedly 'forswear all emotional attachments'? ...

Bingo

What about Corellian Jedi? They get exemptions...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that tenet didn't yet exist circa 3,500 BBY.

Executor32 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that tenet didn't yet exist circa 3,500 BBY.

the no emotional attachment one, it does exist in SWTOR era (dunno about KOTOR era), Satele Shan gave up her kid because of it, IIRC how well that rule is enforced (or if it exist at all) depends on the period, so that there's no single "creation point" for that rule as it was removed and recreated several times, but that's just from memory so I'll not fight over that point.

As for Nejaa Halcyon (or how ever you spelt his name again), he hid his family from the order (he's a secondary character in the novel "Jedi Trial")

Perhaps I should have just said 'gay characters' in the thread title, as it isn't just Jedi we're talking about. It seemed more catchy, and I figured people would probably read the article I linked and quoted- it wasn't very long.

Anyways, there was also that other thing about Jedi having sex without attachment (this was apparently common enough circa ~30BBY that Qui-Gon asked Shmi if she'd slept with a Jedi), and other examples of this have been raised previously.