1. bentdog
    April 20, 2009 at 12:56 am |

    Well that sucks I just want a fun action sci-fi show not this relationship crap it going to be who’s have sex who this week. Every other show on TV has that, what the don’t have is a stargate to go do anything that there imagination can think of. I want my SG-1 and SGA back!!

  2. mehteh
    April 20, 2009 at 12:59 am |

    BSG wannabe and now lesbians. RIP Stargate

  3. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 1:17 am |

    This sucks. I don’t mind if there’s the occasional nod to gays or lesbians (for instance, Ivanova in season 2 of Babylon 5 and -possible- feelings for Talia, Dax in that DS9 episode, Inara), but the thing is, when that happened. It wasn’t Oh, guess what, we’ve got gay characters on our show! In most of the cases I’ve seen gays or lesbians on sci-fi shows it hasn’t been flaunted, even when BSG did it, I thought they were gonna just throw it in our faces but they really didn’t (in the case of Gaeta and Admiral Cain)

    “This goes towards our goal to make the characters on Unvierse as complex and complicated and realistic and identifiable as we can, to as many people as we can.” I’m sorry but you can’t be all things to all people, and I’m sick of this attitude. Some people are gonna not like what you write, live with it. Having woman on woman sex doesn’t make the characters any complicated than if they weren’t lesbians.

    The fact that they pull something out like “oh, by the way, this character is gay even though we never said it” tells me they won’t handle this right at all. They do realize that with this news that Universe is gonna take a huge dip in ratings when it airs, right? Do they realize that there are quite a number of religious people (Christians or otherwise) who watch universe who are going to be offended when they see the constant pushing of the homosexual agenda on Universe? I know a pastor who watches Stargate avidly, I highly doubt he’ll get into Universe now that it features gay characters.

    I was looking forward to Universe until this.

  4. deadegg
    April 20, 2009 at 1:18 am |

    This is a good thing. Well, it’s not a bad thing, by any means. I believe these story lines are important to the depth of the show. Yet, I don’t think there necessarily needs to be a big production about the whole bit. And I also believe the SG family will keep it entertaining and intelligent. So. Woo.

  5. NZNeep
    April 20, 2009 at 1:35 am |

    This is fantastic. I’m hoping it will be a well rounded, positive portrayal rather than a ratings stunt but with no way of knowing, I’m happy to wait.

    We haven’t even seen how it will be handled, so anyone who is already jumping up and down about the “constant pushing of the homosexual agenda” is being deliberately closed minded. If you want to watch the show, give it a go. If not- whining and complaining just makes you look like a bigot.

    What is the “homosexual agenda” anyway, apart from some keywords that mean nothing but are very helpful to sort out whose posts aren’t worth my time?

  6. ashkefangirl
    April 20, 2009 at 1:43 am |

    I am very surprised at the responses to this announcement thus far. The first comment regarding “fun action sci-fi show” and wanting the prior two series back would seem to suggest that these series did not have portrayals of relationships. Most fan feedback that I am aware of, regarding SG1 particularly, is that the relationship between the team members and others was a large draw for viewers. Certainly SGA spent a great deal of time on relationships in the fifth season.

    I also believe that there seems to be an assumption that now the show runners are going to be pushing an “agenda”. The show hasn’t aired yet and I think that we can give these people some credit for knowing how to run a series. The inclusion of gay characters in the series is something I am very happy to see. As a fan of both B5 and DS9, I have to say that I use those same examples as a disappointment in current sci fi programming. One of the most wonderful things about science fiction is the ability to use the medium as a forum for discussing real world issues and societies. The fact that in all five series of Star Trek, I can think of possibly five episodes that include gay characters saddens me.

    Cooper and Wright were right to address the fact that they are not doing this for ratings and I for one would like to believe them. I would like to believe that a series I have enjoyed throughout its incarnations to date will not be intimidated by the thought that some viewers may or may not be frightened off. From what Cooper and Wright said at the convention, all characters will have moments and B or C-plot story lines that involve relationships. This is how we get to see the characters grow and gain depth – whether they’re heterosexual or homosexual doesn’t matter.

  7. TwiceBorn
    April 20, 2009 at 1:48 am |

    I find this desgusting. I don’t hate gays, just their practice and way of life. I was incredibly exited about SGU, but now, I doubt anyone in my family will watch it.

  8. Sylvia
    April 20, 2009 at 1:49 am |

    I have no problems at all with gay characters in Stargate. It’s part of life. But I am worried about how they will handle it, given their track record with relationships.
    Hopefully it won’t be a major focus, but more of a by the way type of item.
    And I certainly wish they’d been a bit braver and had two male gay characters instead of going for what I think might be the “hot lesbian action” route for the fanboy audience.

  9. NZNeep
    April 20, 2009 at 1:55 am |

    “I find this desgusting. I don’t hate gays, just their practice and way of life. I was incredibly exited about SGU, but now, I doubt anyone in my family will watch it.”

    This is what I mean about fans who should keep their mouths shut. You sound like you belong in the 1950s. Your post says more about you than it does about the article.

  10. TwiceBorn
    April 20, 2009 at 2:05 am |

    “This is what I mean about fans who should keep their mouths shut. You sound like you belong in the 1950s. Your post says more about you than it does about the article.”

    My comment was explaining how I feel about this piece of news.
    BTW, I don’t mind looking old-fashioned. I think people were a lot smarter back then.

  11. NZNeep
    April 20, 2009 at 2:09 am |

    “I think people were a lot smarter back then.”

    …apart from the misogyny, accepted racism, bigotry? Yeah, probably a lot smarter. Yay olden timey days!

  12. bentdog
    April 20, 2009 at 2:10 am |

    “I find this desgusting. I don’t hate gays, just their practice and way of life. I was incredibly exited about SGU, but now, I doubt anyone in my family will watch it.”

    “This is what I mean about fans who should keep their mouths shut. You sound like you belong in the 1950s. Your post says more about you than it does about the article.”

    Why should they shut there mouth? They don’t have a right to speak their opinion if its not yours?

    If you want lesbians they have plenty of websites that you can go to but if you want awesome kick ass sci-fi well that is in short supply.

  13. gatetrek
    April 20, 2009 at 2:14 am |

    WOW. It’s sad there are alot of Biggots on this site! Everyone is equal, but gays???

  14. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 2:15 am |

    I love the fact that people are preaching tolerance yet if someone doesn’t like the fact that there’s homosexual characters isn’t allowed, and they’re immediately called “bigots.” Isn’t that like…a contradiction? For one, I don’t think I’ve seen anybody here say they hate gay or lesbian people. I know I most certainly don’t.

    As I have mentioned, I am a fan of Firefly (obviously from my name), Farscape, DS9, and B5, all of which have had some sort of heterosexual or homosexual instance on the show (Farscape did an episode where a female alien kissed Chiana). In those shows, I don’t have a problem with how its been portrayed. DS9 it made perfect sense and in the character of Dax, asked an interesting question – what do you do when you come face to face with a former lover and you are now of the same sex? TNG had a similar episode titled “The Host” with Crusher facing a similar instance with a Trill at the very end (and sadly it really didn’t deal with it that well)

    And of course B5 made perfect sense as well, BSG, at least in the case of Admiral Cain made sense, in the case of Gaeta, not so much (was pretty sudden and had a very “oh look, we’ve got gays!” feel to it the way it was announced)

    My major concern is that either 1) It’s something that’ll be flaunted in front of us in a “oh look we have gay characters” fashion or 2) they’ll just turn it into an excuse to have gay sex.

    The fact that they can’t even bother telling us which supposed main character on Atlantis is homosexual worries me that it’s not going to be handled properly at all.

    Thinking about it, what I think would be very interesting is to have a gay/lesbian character who maybe at some point questions her sexual preference and decides to change her lifestyle at some point, again, not in a way that would be preachy, but maybe it would be something that would slowly develop over time.

    The previous poster made mention to the fact that sci-fi is a good forum for opening discussion on real-world issues and societies. This I agree with. My question is, how does simply having a gay character on a TV show or movie open discussion? It doesn’t. It’s just pretty much saying “look, he or she is gay” and that’s whether its a copout or not. The only case I can think of that this hasn’t been the case is with the DS9 episode, “Rejoined,” where Dax faces her former lover.

    TNG’s “Measure of a Man” is another perfect example. What rights do androids have? And there is ample discussion in that episode. TOS’, “Plato’s Stepchildren” however, is not. The kiss simply happened, it wasn’t an issue at all in the episode. Was it controversial? Of course it was, but I don’t think it provided discussion for the same way that “Rejoined” or “Measure of a Man” could.

    This is the issue. Are there gays simply to have gays, or are there gays to get people to talk? To get people to talk “is this right, or is this wrong?” And heaven forbid that an episode should possibly open up the forum for discussion that it might be wrong (I’d love to see this done in a crafty way without being preachy).

  15. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 2:17 am |

    Oh, and to the poster who posted before me, who said that everyone is equal but gays? Only you did. Well, I did now, but that was just to quote you. Please don’t turn this into a discussion of gay rights.

  16. NZNeep
    April 20, 2009 at 2:17 am |

    Of course they have a right to their opinion, just warning them what they sound like.

    I hardly think one lesbian relationship introduced in the 7th episode is going to take over the show. Since when were kick ass sci-fi and lesbians mutually exclusive anyway?

  17. katikatnik
    April 20, 2009 at 3:24 am |

    I think it’s great that there will be gay characters on the show – it was long overdue and look, she’s Asian AND gay, they can now flaunt to have two minorities in one – but I would still prefer to have an action/adventure flick over space opera with heavily accentuated relationship drama – yes, I loved SG-1/SGA and hated BSG for that very reason.

  18. doorQdotCom
    April 20, 2009 at 3:44 am |

    This gets a hearty “Yea!” out of me. I know it’s been a goal of Wright and Cooper since they let slip their gay musings about Vega / Lorne / Dex at the end of Atlantis.

    The big thing here is to make the two gay characters as fully rounded as any other on the show; that they aren’t just defined by who they kiss but rather what they do when they aren’t kissing. In the end, isn’t that what gets someone to kiss you, anyway?

  19. Tittamiire
    April 20, 2009 at 3:48 am |

    I’m kind of looking forward to seeing this now, but will be disappointed if it is done badly, which I think is a distinct possibility given the shows track records with relationships in general.

    However, I don’t think it will take anything away from the show and you know what, I don’t know if the narrow minded bigot demographic is really worth worrying about for ratings.

    And if anyone thinks that several of the posts above aren’t homophobic then I recommend substituting ‘blacks’ (or racial description of your choice) in place of ‘gays’ and seeing if it sounds racist. If it sounds racist then it’s homophobic with the word ‘gays’. Just a tip.

  20. bentdog
    April 20, 2009 at 3:52 am |

    How many other sci-fi shows can say they have 10 seasons and 3 movies? Oh that’s right NONE and they did that with just plan old good sci-fi, the team was a family, no love interests, just saying.

    Yeah the Sam/Jack thing but that was never in your face, like I THINK SGU is going to do with love/sex relationships gay or straight. But hey I might be wrong we just have to wait for the show to come out.

  21. ChelleDB
    April 20, 2009 at 3:54 am |

    I think this is great news. I like watching diversity on my favourite shows…be it a gay relationship, interracial relationship or different religious or ethnic stories. They only enrich our lives and help us accept everyone for who they are. I think it’s time we moved from the bigotry and hatred of the yesteryear’s learn to be tolerable.
    TwiceBorn…you say you don’t hate gays but you hate their practice and way of life…what you obviously don’t understand with what you wrote was that you actually DO hate gays…because what they practice and their way of life is they are. And what was said was not a reaction to the news. You made a statement referring to the lifestyle of gays. Not that you weren’t happy with the idea of of having a gay storyline. If what you said was not your intention, then perhaps you should correct or amend your statement.
    Browncoat – Gatetrek was simply questioning the idea that everyone is equal but gays…not stating it as fact. Look how the post was written and re read it.
    I agree, this is not about gay rights. What appears to be happening is that people are coming out and airing their dislike for gays or the idea of a gay storyline. My question is…why is this so offensive?

  22. citac
    April 20, 2009 at 4:34 am |

    if i wanted to watch lesbians i would watch porn simple
    Please keep the show about the SGates and Ancients it is what made you the SCI-FI giant you are today

  23. bentdog
    April 20, 2009 at 4:48 am |

    Gay is wrong, ok let us take morels out of it. What it the sole purpose of sex? To have a baby, to insure the survival of a species. A man and a man can’t do that, a woman and a woman can’t do that. Man is designed to be with a woman all the right parts fit, if you know what I mean. For example look at HDMI, the cable has male end and the TV has a female end, it would be wrong if they both had male ends or female ends it simple would not work properly. I am not trying to offend anyone just pointing out a fact. I do tolerate gays but don’t try to tell me that’s its right. I am going to watch SGU because I love Stargate its my favorite franchise of all time I’m not going to let this take away my enjoyment of the show.

  24. MangoG
    April 20, 2009 at 5:43 am |

    Seriously people? You get so offended because there are “gay/lesbian” characters?? It’s Television for crying out loud. Characters are born thru the imaginatives. Rather you like it or not this world doesn’t revolve around you guys. I can’t believe you guys are even Sci-Fi fans! The Sci-Fi people that I know are open minded. If you can’t handle that, you’re no Sci-Fi, you’re just so narrow, conservative, poor little ignorant human being who needs to wake up and show respect to people that are different than you!

  25. gatetrek
    April 20, 2009 at 6:12 am |

    @ MangoG, very well said!

  26. ChelleDB
    April 20, 2009 at 6:41 am |

    Bentdog – I hate to break the news to you buddy but the sole purpose of sex is not to have babies. Yes it certainly helps but it is not the sole purpose. If you need any advice on what sex is really about I could give you some pointers but I’m sure you think you already know everything. What an ignorant thing to say.
    citac – homosexuality has nothing to do with pornography. If you haven’t figured out that by now then I suggest you research a little more before making such silly statements.
    I’m surprised at the ignorance of some people here…I shouldn’t be but I am. How sad.

  27. NZNeep
    April 20, 2009 at 7:12 am |

    My sister and I are laughing our arses off over some of these comments!

    “I don’t hate gays, just their practice and way of life.”
    “If you want lesbians they have plenty of websites that you can go to”
    “if i wanted to watch lesbians i would watch porn simple”
    “What it the sole purpose of sex? To have a baby”

    We are laughing because we feel sorry for you guys. It’s sad that some people just don’t get that gay doesn’t just = sex. Our favourite comment of course is “they’ll just turn it into an excuse to have gay sex.” Haha, those sneaky PTB! Of course!

    One of the great things about gay relationships (done well) in popular media is that it starts to show diversity, which exists in this world like it or not. Try going into this with an open mind- you might just learn something. If it’s just gay doesn’t just = sex, that’s a start.

  28. bentdog
    April 20, 2009 at 7:15 am |

    Sorry I should have said primary, not sole. I know emotions/feelings are part of sex too, I am talking pure science, no morals, not emotions, not feelings.

    If you want to bring emotions/feelings in we can. The reason sex feels so good physically and emotionality is so that we will want it, if sex did not feel so good a lot of us might not be here today.

  29. NZNeep
    April 20, 2009 at 7:21 am |

    Like Joe Mallozzi said on his blog today, this show is on the same network as the last two shows. They will still be following the same guidelines when it comes to profanity, sex, violence… In SG-1 even in bed scenes (Sam and Pete, Jack and Kerry) they were almost chaste… they had clothes on in bed! Did we even have a bedroom scene on Atlantis?

    The show has never been about sex before, why would that suddenly change just because one of the characters happens to be gay? It’s part of the character, it won’t (or shouldn’t) define her.

  30. ChelleDB
    April 20, 2009 at 7:31 am |

    Bentdog – I understand what you’re are saying and I think it is partly true for some people. But now we’re talking about sex and not the issues of a gay relationship on SGU. The fact is as you pnted out is that sex is a feel good thing…that’s bnot exclusive to those who want to procreate. And homosexuality isn’t something you go out and try like a new pair of boots. It’s the way they are. Exactly like the way you are or I am. We are who we are and I accept that it’s not something that everyone likes but I think our comments have to be a little more tolerable and less offensive. And before I get shot down for saying that…that means everyone…not just those who are intimidated by the idea of homosexuality on our screens but those who also support it.
    Neep – you’re right. Gay relationships do show the diversity which exists in the real world. Ignoring it will not make it go away.
    And just to clarify on emotions here…I’m actually quite calm. No agro coming from me. Simple statements made in the hope to curb the hostility and ignorance shown.

  31. mspagasi
    April 20, 2009 at 8:40 am |

    …not just those who are intimidated by the idea of homosexuality…

    Just because a person does not agree with something doesn’t make them intimidated.

    Personally, I wish they would have just left it alone. Why does everything in our society have to be controversial? I like watching a show without having to consider the “real world”. It is an escape from reality for a few minutes. Life issues and problems will be here when the show is over. Let have my few minutes vacation please.

  32. redfox000
    April 20, 2009 at 8:48 am |

    Terrible decision! I am not nearly as excited about it now.

  33. Caladria
    April 20, 2009 at 8:51 am |

    Oh please. I just want action and mystery and technology, no sex. At all. Please? So far I’ve actually been full behind Universe but this caused me to waver, simply because it will very very easily lead itself to 90210.

  34. ChelleDB
    April 20, 2009 at 8:55 am |

    Granted…I should have perhaps used the word “opposed” other than “intimidation”.But please don’t forget I said on our screens not just homosexuality in general. When you snipped that out of my quote, you took it out of context. Perhaps not deliberately but it certainly wasn’t the same as when I quoted it.
    I still have yet to hear why this is so offensive. Why is it that people feel that by ignoring it or banishing it from our screens that it makes it go away and helps us escape from real life?? It is a part of real life as is a heterosexual relationship. And I don’t hear anyone complaining so loudly about that kind of relationship. Why???

  35. gayman
    April 20, 2009 at 8:56 am |

    While I am happy that people like me are going to be represented in the new Stargate series, I am really disapointed that it is going to be lesbians instead of men. It would be nice to have a character that I can personally identify with on this show.

    To all you homophobes out there… tough luck! We are everywhere, involved in everything and always have been and always will be around, whether you like it or not. You have no idea how many gay people you encounter every day of your life simply because it isn’t always obvious that someone is gay. The only “Agenda” gay people have is to be accepted as part of society. And the idea that it is somehow a choice is completely untrue and makes you look uninformed when you say that it is a choice.

  36. elitenova
    April 20, 2009 at 9:09 am |

    Stargate franchise are fine without the gay characters. When did it came mandatory to have gay characters? It’s stargate not the L word or Queer as Folk. There are better things to do than making the character gay.

  37. halfbloodme
    April 20, 2009 at 9:28 am |

    I’m a little apprehensive as to how this will be done but all in all I’m quite looking forward to it. It’s about time that we saw something other than societal norms on our television shows.

  38. US06154
    April 20, 2009 at 10:02 am |

    OMG, let’s really mix it up, and get people talking about this show. Let’s get some animals (wink, wink) involved too, and let the show go “where no one in their right minds had gone before – Sorry Gene Roddenberry). Let’s sensationalize the heck out of the show. Oh Stargate, my alltime favorite Scifi show, I shed a tear for you.

  39. universacred
    April 20, 2009 at 10:16 am |

    When David Blue will appear in episode as drunk Drag Queen, I’ll totally stop watching SGU and done with the TPTB production – professionally.

  40. Kameryn
    April 20, 2009 at 10:32 am |

    I just have to give kudos to Browncoat1984, the one single person posting here that seems to have a handle on his/her brain.

  41. sueKay
    April 20, 2009 at 10:40 am |

    Why does there have to be a gay character on each and every show these days? I mean c’mon! It’s political correctness gone overboard. I know plenty of homosexuals in real life, but nowadays TV would have you believe 1/3 of the world is gay and that another 1/3 aren’t sure what they are.

    Plus, highlighting a character’s sexuality continues to make it an issue. It shouldn’t be an issue. You don’t have writers/producers/journalists going “and this character will be straight!” as if it’s a big deal, do you?

    This inclusion of a homosexual in every show, with a fanfare accompanying each ‘outing’ is going to prove damaging to gay rights in the future.

  42. Tremolo
    April 20, 2009 at 10:41 am |

    It’s pretty dispiriting to see that so many Stargate fans are horrible bigots. Nice going guys, you’re making us all look so good.

  43. jakebolt
    April 20, 2009 at 10:42 am |

    Yes its offical stargate gone to hades! Hey at least one of um gets killed quick. Now I got 2 reasons to hate this show, can I get 3. I will always see it as wrong no matter what anyone thinks,or that I’m freakin narrow. It only shows that the world has finally gone insane!!!!!

  44. doktorijones
    April 20, 2009 at 10:44 am |

    Well, I was looking forward to it. If a character is gay that’s fine. But like every other time a TV show adds a gay character we’ll get hit on over the head that the fact that their gay. To be honest I don’t give a crap of anyone’s sexuality on a tv show. I just want to be entertained. I loved SG-1. I liked Atlantis. But I don’t think that Universe will be my cup of tea. At least there’s the movies for me.

  45. spaceerased
    April 20, 2009 at 10:47 am |

    Some of you range from immature to just bigotted. Real world: There are gay people. TV: there are gay people. What’s the fuss? This is not an attempt to sensationalise it and those who think it is apparently haven’t noticed the real world where a minority of people aren’t heterosexual. It’s not a big thing, it’s just an observation and nothing more. It’s not “maybe we’ll make them gay for the lolz”, it’s “some people are gay, maybe some of our characters are”. This should be no more controversial than the decision to cast people of different ethnicities in it, except you can’t just cast homosexuality, if you want it, you have to write it in. It’s scary how unphased some are by the homophobia. Imagine if there people commetning “If I wanted to see black people there are websites I could go to…If I wanted to see Muslim people there are websites I can go to”.

    This isn’t a controversy! It’s just a *thing*. It’s just one decision about an aspect of a few characters that happens to highlight how backwards some people are.

    Stargate SG-1 was a show that very early on showed how women could be successful in prominant military roles and made a point of highlighting sexism as very incorrect, and I can only hope they highlight how homophobia is just as incorrect in SGU.

    It’s nice to see that a lot of similar thinking fans support this decision and haven’t written off the show because of their own prejudiced problems.

  46. universacred
    April 20, 2009 at 10:50 am |

    And if it is for ‘social realism’, what a numbers ~LGBT~ demographics for today’s society? 5% or 7%? What a number of straight LGBT-sympathetic people in US? Or it just TV boys trends? Silence…

    There is many ‘special’ shows for G, L and other kinds of deviations. Personally I don’t want to watch old sad LGBT-s and it’s problems. BTW I can enjoy watching David Blue pretending and gay, like clown. :)

  47. retiredat44
    April 20, 2009 at 10:57 am |

    Why the H#ll do people insist on talking about gays, bringing it up and shoving in our faces. This little article does just that. I find it insulting it is taking up space and in my face. Is there some need for it to be pushed on us? I expect the continuation of good Sci-fi, not social aspects of the side I am not part of, in a bright glowing Marquee screaming you must look, see, and hear gays!

    Take it to the tabloids, or some freaky parties, or wherver it needs to be but not as the main news on a fine Sci-fi website like Gateworld.

  48. miki_mouse
    April 20, 2009 at 11:18 am |

    Just doing a bit of research, it seems that gay people make up somewhere between 4-10% of the US population. According to this article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26853832/ 2.6% of characters in prime time this year were gay. That is not representative at all, so Stargate adding a gay character is not ‘shoving it in your face’. And to the people who say it’s going to be all about sex now, or every week ‘who is having sex with who’, how did you possibly get that from the original article? It said there is one gay character and we get to meet her long-term partner in the 7th episode. How is that going to add more sex to the show? She’s in a committed relationship, which is more than I can say about Jack and the random women from other worlds he slept with (which, by the way, was he doing soley for procreation?)

    Having gay people on these shows is important, since they are part of our society and deserve to be represented (just like people of other races or religions). Even if ‘all the shows are getting gay characters’ now, it’s only because they are becoming more enlightened and realize they need to be more inclusive. I hope everyone who is ‘disgusted’ by gay people do stop watching the show. Because I’m disgusted by you.

  49. miki_mouse
    April 20, 2009 at 11:45 am |

    “Let’s get some animals (wink, wink) involved too”
    Did you honestly just compare what two consenting adults do in a bedroom to a person assaulting an animial? Why don’t you just go all the way and accuse the show of promoting pedophilia next? Your ‘slippery slope’ argument is ridiculous even if you only consider that homosexuality is legal in the US, but bestiality and pedophilia are not.

  50. stargatelvr
    April 20, 2009 at 12:30 pm |

    Great. I was really looking forward to SGU 2.

  51. AllTerroristsMustDie
    April 20, 2009 at 12:30 pm |

    Just another attempt to be like the “grown up” sci fi shows (primarily BSG & Farscape). Why does this suddenly have to be a thing? Who cares? Why do all of these Hollywood Liberals have to make shows where they gay “Ooo, give me some adulation because my show has gays on it!” If there is a story to be told then do it. If this is just a stupid publicity stunt, stop it. It’s ridiculous. Stop trying to be like the superior Galactica and stick to what you know.

    Inter arma enim silent leges,

  52. kzap333
    April 20, 2009 at 12:32 pm |

    I HATE this new for two reasons:
    1: The factor that this would be news worthy is totally discriminatory to gays. Would there be an entire article called “There are non-gay characters in SGU” I think not. I don’t care if there are gay characters in the show or not but I think we should be mature enough not to gossip about it likes it’s tabbo, guess what? it’s not! and hasn’t been for some time. WHO CARES!
    2: The fact that we know character are gay would mean that relationships will be featured in the show at some point, that’s not something I want, there where hardly ever relationships in SG1 maybe 3 or 4 over 10 seasons, I was not one of the fans making Sam for Jack video. Why? because I DON’T WANT SAM AND JACK TO GET TOGETHER.
    Is it odd I liked stargate how it was, I don’t want relationships to be featured in the show and don’t like romcoms I like scifi, it is just not something I want to watch in a TV show.
    This seems to be shock news to get free publicity for the show when actually it’s old news and the SG franchise are probably the last to get gay characters.
    Relationships in Stargate should be left to fan fiction, that’s one reason I didn’t like the end of Atlantise, that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have that back rather than this rubbish in an instant.

  53. Viviel
    April 20, 2009 at 1:34 pm |

    SGU seems to be more soap opera decorated with spaceship less sci-fi adventure series. If characters will love or suffer from one-way love, etc. they will not have time to fight with cosmic monsters…
    Sci-fi melodrama sounds dull

  54. ZJW
    April 20, 2009 at 1:55 pm |

    They are trying to hard to make this show ‘edgey’ or w/e – there is no need to force this stuff on us. If they have gay character then so what – it doesn’t need to be a big deal.

  55. The Admiral
    The Admiral
    April 20, 2009 at 2:00 pm |

    I cannot believe some of the comments I’ve be reading here, you people who have a problem with gays make me sick, and while I’m not gay myself, I can understand their point of view. What makes me even more revolted is the fact you use such pathetic excuses as religion for your intollerance, so some imaginary guy in the sky tells you you can’t be gay or you’ll go to yet another imaginary place when you die where you’ll suffer? Sounds like you need to take your happy pills more often.

    Stargate is a great show, and I praise their decision to include a wide variety of characters no matter their sexual orientation.

    And don’t target BSG (another great show) just because they had a couple of gay characters. True, I hated Gaeta, but not because he was gay, but because he went up against Adama and lost.

    So being gay has nothing to do with the quality of the character, they can still care for their partner just as well as any hetero person would, and this doesn’t effect what kind of person they are.

  56. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 2:02 pm |

    This is saddening to me. I am insulted that so many Stargate fans would call me and others a bigot for disagreeing with their views.

  57. fraterphoenix
    April 20, 2009 at 2:07 pm |

    I think it is a great idea. There is one thing showing two people having sex and two people showing love as anyone would in a public place, like kissing, holding hands, etc. If the media shows more unconditional love, than the falsehood type love that Hollywood usually shows, than children of all ages, including adults can start to love more than hate someone that happens to be different than they are. Scifi shows main goals are to present or inspire life’s fulfillment. I hope that SGU can truly show real love in these gay/lesbian relationships.

  58. kzap333
    April 20, 2009 at 2:10 pm |

    It’s not all stargate fans, I disagree with your view but I’m not going to insult you for it and I don’t think I’d be able to change your mind.
    I think it’s a bad American habit of thinking you are better than someone and able to called them bigots because you disagree with them, they are discriminating ageist people for having a personal preference, that said I will happily disagree with you on some of your point.

  59. kzap333
    April 20, 2009 at 2:15 pm |

    @fraterphoenix I hope SGU doesn’t show any love of any kind, SG1 didn’t have any romance (or very little) why should this new show.
    I’m not ageist gays or lesbians and would be happy for any of them to be in stargate but why do we have to have relationships at all.
    Also I agree with whoever said they where going around this like “We got gays, we’re edgy!”
    The fact that we know a character is gay means they will have ships (as in relationships) at some point in the first season.
    There was one relationship episode in the whole of SG1s first season and non in SGAs why is there in this show.
    I think it just shows how BSG or space-soap this new show will be.

  60. ZhaneEndrick
    April 20, 2009 at 2:18 pm |

    @The Admiral
    Thanks for that stellar example of ‘tolerance’.

  61. Chricton
    April 20, 2009 at 2:31 pm |

    I don’t understand what the big friggen deal is. BSG had 3 gay characters, but you’d never know watching the show, and for a show that’s often (unfairly) called for it’s sex/drama, those three characters were the least active in that regard. What’s all this “I want action not relationships” stuff? So gay characters just sleep around and make relationships all day long? Hoishi, Geata and Cain showed you can do gay and keep it from being uncomfortable.

    It’s not like you’re gonna be watching Six Feet Under.

    I think them saying this is more of a heads up to NOT expect any relationships from her.

  62. bauertrekgate
    April 20, 2009 at 2:31 pm |

    As someone who is relative new to Stargate, but not new to sci-fi, I also think we adopt a ‘wait and see’ attitude BEFORE we decide to write off SGU. Ironically this heated discussion that you are are having is just making me more interested in watching SGU. I ordered the complete SG-1 series and some Atlantis with the hopes of getting caught up with the series(next to impossible I know, but I will give it my best shot). I loved BSG because it was a character driven show and though there were messages conveyed to us, they were will disguised and it never felt like it was being pushed. I feel that this will be the case with SGU…if played correctly. Time will tell…hopefully by then i’ll be caught up to make a more informed opinion.

    @Darren Summer
    I could not have said it better. Your post is probably the best one…I agree with you 100% Well said.

  63. n0slet
    April 20, 2009 at 2:33 pm |

    As long as we are forced to watch robert carlyle and lou diamond phillips engaged in hot steamy hairy man sex, I can deal with the whole gay storylines. =D

  64. n0slet
    April 20, 2009 at 2:34 pm |

    aren’t I repeat AREN’T forced, god that was a terrible typo!

  65. Chricton
    April 20, 2009 at 2:38 pm |


  66. AscendedTauri
    April 20, 2009 at 2:42 pm |

    I do NOT want gay characters.

    I’m tired of liberals calling everyone ELSE biggots because they don’t like conservative viewpoints on relationships, but yet they just as biggoted for not accepting the MAJORITY conservative viewpoint on homosexuality!

    I’m a Democrat, personally, not a liberal, and I can guarantee that your average middle aged male that likes the military (the BULK of the Stargate audience), who happen to be mostly conservative socially, do NOT want to see gay characters. Large fan base = gone.

  67. ZJW
    April 20, 2009 at 2:42 pm |

    Well as it were i have no problem with gay characters @ all. I just don’t see why the writers/producers are going out of the way to advertise it. They are in turn making it an ‘issue’ separate from the show itself. If a few of the characters were gay… so what – it would make sense that among a group of so many people that a few would have different sexual preferences. By coming out and announcing it though it distracts from everything else + shifts the focus on this 1 topic which is unfortunate.

    Rather off-topic but similar in a sense – people have mixed feelings about RDA guest starring on this series or his re-occurring roles after his departure as a series regular. Many people seem to believe the writers/producers make to big a deal out of his guest appearances that in turn take away from the scenes themselves.

    Of course – i suppose the old saying is old saying is ‘any advertisement is good advertisement’ – which of course isn’t true but… – I’m sure this ‘news’ will spark interest in the series that would be absent otherwise.

  68. kzap333
    April 20, 2009 at 2:43 pm |

    It’s not because there are gay character that there is going to be less action, but if we know a character is gay that means relationships are going to be part of the show right? Otherwise how would we know they where gay?
    I’d rather the show didn’t deal with relationships that’s all.
    And as for the people how say we don’t know what the show will be like yet I quote:
    “The decision to include gay characters on Universe was born from the desire to focus the show on its characters and their relationships with one another.”

    See “relationships with one another” so it’s not all action!

  69. cypher123
    April 20, 2009 at 2:45 pm |

    too bad I was looking forward to watching a good family scifi. stargate ends with Atlantis now as far as I’m concerned.

  70. kzap333
    April 20, 2009 at 2:45 pm |

    BTW I was brought up on Torchwood so am used to bi relationships in show but I would still rather no relationships at all that avoids any kind of dispute.

  71. ZJW
    April 20, 2009 at 2:46 pm |

    Do you really want a show that is all action all the time though? SG-1 certainly wasn’t – there were a great many character based episodes.

  72. ZJW
    April 20, 2009 at 2:48 pm |

    SGU was never intended to be ‘Family Sci-Fi’… what exactly would you consider ‘Family Sci-Fi’ anyways? Stargate has never been aimed @ a younger ‘family’ audience – save for ‘Infinity’

  73. kzap333
    April 20, 2009 at 2:54 pm |

    Character based episode yes,
    Relationship based episodes no.
    Mythology based episode BIG YES.
    To me the best stargate was SG1 season 1-4 and this seems soo far from that it makes me sad.

  74. ZJW
    April 20, 2009 at 3:00 pm |

    There were several relationship based episodes from time to time although they often involved past lovers as opposed to current one’s. I to don’t want a show that puts ‘romantic relationships’ in the forefront but it would be only natural for relationships to form.

    SG-1 in it’s earlier seasons was primarily a show about exploration – this show seems to be about survival which does seem to differ quite a bit from ‘exploration’.

  75. cypher123
    April 20, 2009 at 3:02 pm |

    one of the directors commented on children of the gods and how it should not have had the nudity in it because in his opinion stargate was always intended to be a family sci fi ( I belive it was Brad Wright, but not sure, Im searching the forums now)

  76. retiredat44
    April 20, 2009 at 3:06 pm |

    If this show become Star Gay-T it will ruin the show for a majority of people who are repulsed by this stuff.. whoever is pushing this is having some type of mental problem and making us all look at it. Bringing it out on front pages on the wrong venue is wrong. Whatever cause these people are pushing is going to backfire. Those that want this info can go seek it, as they probably know where to go look for it. If I am looking for some deviant desire, I do not come here and post it on the front page of website devoted to Sci-Fi shows… and rub it into other peoples faces..

    And then you say if you don’t want to see it, don’t click on the link.. I say don’t put the link here to begin with, there are probably other websites that cater to this stuff, I say go post those articles there… it would make sense to go sing to the choir, this is not the choir..

  77. kzap333
    April 20, 2009 at 3:10 pm |

    @retiredat44 that is a tad unfair the link is todo with Stargate at least it’s not a link to a gay porn site for goodness-sake. You are entitled to your opinion but still, it’s a tad unfair and discriminatory to expect a site on stargate news to not show a piece of news because it has the word gay in that said I don’t think if 2 minor characters are gay it deserves an article.

  78. cypher123
    April 20, 2009 at 3:11 pm |

    Check out this interview with Brad wright and his comments. https://www.gateworld.net/interviews/breaking_the_ice_part_2.shtml

  79. US06154
    April 20, 2009 at 3:20 pm |

    @Darren Sumner: From the Article blurb: “Camille uses the Destiny’s long-range communications device to return home to Sharon for a brief respite”

    Your Comments: “40-something couple in a long-term, committed relationship, and there are no hints of any bedroom scenes.”

    So in your words, would you explain what a “brief respite” means? And, it was okay with the IOC and SGC, for Camille to come over for a “Brief respite” with her lover (hehehehe) a kind of space conjugal visit of sorts? Oh wow, this story almost writes itself. and the Nastification continues…

  80. ZJW
    April 20, 2009 at 3:22 pm |

    I didn’t bother reading it but as soon as you mentioned it i recall his disapproval of the nudity in ‘Children of the Gods’. I probably don’t have a good idea of what qualifies as a ‘family show’ anyways as i’m a college student. With the emphasis on pushing SGU into ‘darker’ territory for the franchise though i don’t see how this pushes this outside the realm of ‘family’ TV – it seems as if this show was not created with ‘family’ in mind. Then again – i don’t know why having gay characters would make it less family unless you were somewhat opposed to it.

  81. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 3:23 pm |

    Let me just add that to the people making comments that “it’s just one character” and that “it’s just one episode of a series” Did we read the same article? The article comments that “There are at least one and POTENTIALLY MORE characters that are gay” – this is from Cooper. Wright said that there are TWO characters who are gay, not one. So we have two and potentially more characters who are. And Wray’s partner, Sharon, was mentioned to be “a lead guest, and possibly recurring” which means it’ll be more than one episode. Please read the article before makign comments.

  82. doorQdotCom
    April 20, 2009 at 3:27 pm |

    Cthulhu! Comments pretty much doubled since I checked in about 12 hours ago, though most of them were by functional illiterates worried about “Teh Gay” contaminating their show.

    It may be difficult to understand that gay fans watch SF — I should know, I run a website for gay fans of SF, Fantasy and Horror — but for many, it’s probably even more difficult to understand that gay people, who participate actively and openly in every other aspect of modern society, including the military, are equally interesting sources of character for SF tales. They, we, are part of the real — well, real fictional — landscape,too.

    The world has grown up. The old wives tales of predatory gays prowling parking lots or psychologically diseased homosexuals in need of shock treatment have been seen for the idiotic nonsense it actually is. SGU has grown up too, though it being STARGATE, I don’t expect any BSG level darkness and despair. “Dark” in the SG universe is 5PM in the afternoon. Daylight Savings Time.

    As I mentioned before, I’m excited how these characters are portrayed. Is it going to just be the relatively safe depiction of lesbian characters in SF, done to death and is easily palatable to male driven audiences, or will it also include gay male characters, far less seen, mixing and matching it up on the adventures that await?

    I guess we’ll know with the next character announcement.

  83. mudbloodpotter
    April 20, 2009 at 3:41 pm |

    after reading the news release, my first reaction was to condem, but after having some time to think about it,i am going to adopt the (wait and see) attitude.

    However, the bit about her using the long range something-or other, bothers me. We were told that they would not be allowed to get home in “ANY” form. so that should mean a long range communication device, that allows her to go home for a quick respite.

    also, the fact they have her partner on for a recurring character, has me wondering if they are going to pull a “Lost” kind of tv show, and do a lot of flashbacks, so that we get a good look at the characters and what has made them who they are.

    and them outing a character, and then saying that (there were two of them on atlantis) seems to me that they are just pulling a (JK Rowling and outing the Dumbldore of the closet.) it seems to me that they are doing and saying these things for the reaction of the shows followers and the media they are going to get for it.

    we shall see.

  84. Hajhaabotbea
    April 20, 2009 at 3:49 pm |

    Wonderful, I’m glad to see they’ve been including gay characters now. It shows progression, progression we need.

  85. ZhaneEndrick
    April 20, 2009 at 3:58 pm |

    My bigger problem with SGU at this point is that they still don’t want to make it stand on its own. Why are RDA, Shanks, and Tapping guest starring? I LOVED their characters, but I don’t WANT to see them here. I want SGU to be its own show.

  86. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 4:03 pm |

    In response to Hajhaabotbea, please explain how it shows progression and how its progression we need?

  87. Wolf-man
    April 20, 2009 at 4:09 pm |

    This is annoying. I mean I don’t hate gay people. I hate their lifestyle choice. I’m not gonna spit on you because you are homosexual but I’m not gonna sit by and accept it. It’s ridiculous that they are doing this mostly because of the big deal they are making out of it. My beliefs aside, they are just trying to say that they are special because they have a lesbian as a prominent character in their show. It’s a dumb move and will probably hurt the show. I mean they will lose viewers over this. What makes me even more upset is some of the comments. Several of the people who are in support of this decision are angry at those who are against it. Why? What do you care if I don’t agree with you? Someone said that we who are against it are ignorant. So basically when someone disagrees with you it’s ignorance? That sounds like a pretty ignorant statement to me. If the shoe was on the other foot and there was a Christian character in the show the same people who are calling us ignorant would probably be angry and scream about how “stupid” the decision is. I don’t agree with Homosexuality, you do. I don’t hate you for that so why does it seem like you hate me for my beliefs?

  88. kzap333
    April 20, 2009 at 4:17 pm |

    Wolf-man made me think of a point why do shows always show relationships but never religion?
    When was the last time we saw an SG character go to church, other than a wedding or a funeral and yet there are more Christians in the world than gays.
    I’m not saying I want to see religions scenes but I’d rather that than relationship scenes.

  89. redlotus
    April 20, 2009 at 4:25 pm |

    Wow. Okay, I don’t know where to start! I’m really saddened by the ignorance I’m seeing here (this comment is not addressed to EVERY poster who is unhappy about the news, just to be clear… we have the right to disagree, but there have been some really discriminatory/insulting remarks made).

    First of all, everyone seems to be up-in-arms about SGU being all about “relationships.” I certainly agree that I don’t want SGU to be a “who’s sleeping with who” week-by-week affair. That’s not why I watch, and that’s not what I want to see. But I don’t see how having a gay character(s) autmatically equals “all sex, all relationships, all the time.” They mention that this particular character is already involved in a long-term relationship, WITH SOMEONE ON EARTH, who is mentioned as a GUEST CHARACTER. How is this different than the set-up with Elizabeth Wier on SGA? When the series began, she was involved in a relationship with a man on Earth that pre-dated the beginning of the series. That hardly made SGA a “soap opera” of relationships. You barely ever saw the guy, or even heard mention of him. I can’t even remember his name! John Sheppard got laid more than Elizabeth, and he was portrayed as single. Daniel Jackson was MARRIED, for pete’s sake. So this character has a long-term partner. Everette Young has been stated to be married, and part of his character arch would seem to be his desire to return to his wife (it says right in his character bio that he requested a transfer back to Earth to be with her). If long-standing, loving, committed relationships are so bad for the series, why aren’t folks freaking out about that? HOW IS IT DIFFERENT, OTHER THAN THEIR GENDER?

    Also, let’s think about the definition of “relationships.” The article states that the producers wanted to “focus the show on its characters and their relationships with one another.” Does this necessarily mean that they’re talking about romantic/sexual realtionships? No! I have a relationship with my friends, my co-workers, my neighbors, my family – none of which are sexual or romantic. One could easily argue that the other SG franchises had a focus on relationships as well. One of the things that I LOVED about SG1 and SGA were the well-developed, sincere relationships between the team members. I loved the friendships, the banter, and the affection between Jack and Daniel, or John and Rodney. Those were RELATIONSHIPS. Can you imagine SG1/SAG without those connections? How boring and dry! Personally, while I don’t want SGU to be a sci-fi version of One Tree Hill (shudder…), I want the characters to have relationships. I want them to have friendships, rivalries, teamwork. Relationships does not automatically mean sex and romance!

    And no, people aren’t announcing characters as “straight.” Why? Because EVERY character in the history of TV, which exception to recent times, has been heterosexual! It’s not newsworthy because it’s the norm. It was a big deal when African Americans were first cast in major TV/movie roles, and while it’s getting to be more “normal,” it’s still noticable when a major character is gay.

    People are so upset about it being “in their face,” and don’t understand why it matters to have gay characters. It matters to me, for sure, because I’m a lesbain. It matters to me, to see characters that I can relate to on TV. It means that gay and lesbians, as a population, are being AKNOWLEDGED. We’ve been discriminated against for centuries. We are STILL denied equal rights in this country. Seeing ourselves on TV is a small sign that we are being more accepted, that more of the people in this country see us as HUMAN BEINGS, an that we have stories worth telling, as well.

    Also, what everyone seems to be missing here is that if you actuall READ the above article, the comment about the gay characters was made IN RESPONSE TO A FAN’S QUESTION during a panel. Cooper and Wright did not hold a press conference to boast about their gay characters. Someone asked, they told. And Gateworld, in their role of gathering even the tiniest bit of news about SG, wrote it into an article. Had a fan not asked the right question, you probably wouldn’t even know about the gay characters until it came up in the series. Gateworld is responsible for making this into a news item (which, admittedly is their job), NOT Cooper and Wright.

    Do I want SGU to be about everyone sleeping with everyone else? HELL NO. Am I happy to see a gay character? YES. I would have watched SGU regarless – it’s just icing on the cake.

    But jeeze, take it easy folks! Let’s give the series a chance, rather than looking for reasons to hate it before it’s even aired!

    *steps down off soap box*

  90. Hajhaabotbea
    April 20, 2009 at 4:32 pm |

    I think it shows progression that they’re finally having a gay character in the show and revealing it. It will hopefully enter into people’s conscious and subconscious more and expand their mind to see there’s nothing at all wrong with gay people. And this will help the collective conscious/unconscious, every little bit does, to allow gay marriage in more and more states and to treat gay people equally. It’s progression we need, because the goal is equality for all life, and I think only with unity can we achieve everything we dream of, and we can all evolve into a new consciousness as a species, to be one mind, not divided minds. We can love.

  91. Tremolo
    April 20, 2009 at 4:34 pm |

    redlotus, I think I love you a bit. Everyone needs to read your post.

  92. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 4:43 pm |

    @ redlotus – how are you being denied equal rights in this country? Last I checked we all have the same exact rights.

  93. kzap333
    April 20, 2009 at 4:43 pm |

    The reason I don’t think there should be an entire news article on this is that it should NOT be news worthy.
    In an ideal world it shouldn’t matter whether you are gay or not the fact that an entire article is written about it says to me it does matter which I think is wrong I don’t think anyone should care if there are gay character in TV show like no one should care if there are gay people in real life, why because the fact that you are paying them extra attention means you are discriminating whether you know it or not.
    If a character gets more press than another because or there race, color, creed or sexuality then you are discriminating.
    That’s why I didn’t think the article should have been written.

  94. redlotus
    April 20, 2009 at 4:45 pm |

    Ok, I’m sorry, but I have to comment on Wolfman and retiredat44’s comments. Wolf-man, you are upset becuase you feel you are being attacked for disagreeing. You don’t want people calling you “ignorant” for disagreeing. Yes, you have a right to disagree. Yes, you are more than entitled to your opinion. But *you* are using this forum to attack others, and to make blatantly discriminitory statements about homosexuals. It’s one thing to say, “I’m not happy about this, I disagree.” That’s all fine and dandy. But to say “I mean I don’t hate gay people. I hate their lifestyle choice. I’m not gonna spit on you because you are homosexual but I’m not gonna sit by and accept it”…. You’re not going to “sit by and accept it?” What does that even mean?

    It’s not a lifestyle choice. It’s a part of who we are. At what point did you choose to be heterosexual? If sexuality is trully a choice, are you saying that you could “choose” to become gay? I’m assuming that you would give a big ol’ NO to that. I can’t wake up tomorrow and choose to be straight any more than you could suddenly choose to be gay. So when you say that you don’t hate me, just my “choice,” what you really end up saying is that you hate who I am. *THAT* is the part that gets people upset with your comments.

    And retiredat44… Well, on second thought I’m not even going to waste my time trying to respond to that. You clearly have an atiquated and twisted view on what gay means and would prefer to fling around terms like “deviant desires” and “mental probelm” rahter than have a calm and rational discussion.

  95. kzap333
    April 20, 2009 at 4:47 pm |

    Just because a character is part of a minority doesn’t mean they should get extra publicity that IS discrimination.

  96. doorQdotCom
    April 20, 2009 at 4:48 pm |

    Wolf-Man, if as you point out in reference to gays and lesbians, “hate their lifestyle choice,” I suggest you put down the video game controller, the remote control, or the comic book and pay attention in school or even to the larger world to which you are a part.

    Neither homosexuality or heterosexuality is a choice. Some other things that aren’t choices? Eye color, hair color, and handedness.

    Now learning? That is a choice.

  97. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 4:50 pm |

    Okay doorQdotCom how is homosexuality not a choice? Explain.

  98. dreadtech
    April 20, 2009 at 4:51 pm |

    I do not mind a lesbian character at all as long as they treat the character’s relationships like like any other. If they try to ram the characters sexuality in your face every week i might have more of an issue with it.

  99. redlotus
    April 20, 2009 at 4:52 pm |

    Tremolo, thanks. :)

    Browncoat1984, as far as rights go, in all but a few states (including the one I live in) I am not allowed to get married. There are over 1,000 legal rights and privilages that are accessable ONLY to married individuals. Also, in most states it is not illegal to deny someone housing or emplyment based on sexual orientation. It is (rightfully so) illegal to deny someone these things based on gender, race, or religion, but it is apparently “OK” to do so based on who a person loves. In Arkansas, they recently passed a law saying that single parents cannot foster or adopt children. Since they do not allow same-sex marraige, this means that gays are not allowed to adopt children or be foster parents. There are a hundred other subtle laws or loopholes that deny us privilages and rights that heterosexuals enjoy, but you see my point.

    kzap333, I think that the key phrase in you comment is “In an ideal world.” I think we can all agree that this is NOT an ideal world. I can see that we disagree, but I appreciate you phrasing your opinion in a respectful and calm manner.

  100. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 4:56 pm |

    Wait, you’re not allowed to get married? What states don’t allow you to married? Last I checked every state allowed the right to get married.

  101. Morticae
    April 20, 2009 at 4:56 pm |

    The discussion here has become inappropriate.

    In the end this wont matter much. I’m annoyed at the christian agenda some people are pushing. Get over it. Just don’t watch the show. I swear the ratings wont notice you left.

  102. redlotus
    April 20, 2009 at 4:56 pm |

    @kzap333, I’m not talking about “extra media attention.” Trust me, I wish that having a gay character was no big deal. I long for the day that having a gay character is no more news-worthy than having a black character. But the media response to these things is more a response to the fact that discrimination exists, rather than being discrimination in-and-of itself.

  103. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 4:58 pm |

    @ Morticae Why is it alright for the homosexual/hollywood agenda to be pushed but for christians to not have an agenda?

  104. redlotus
    April 20, 2009 at 4:59 pm |

    @browncoat1984, I am not allowed to marry the woman I love, who I have been with for nearly ten years. But clearly you know what I meant.

  105. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 5:01 pm |

    If I was a woman I wouldn’t be allowed to marry another woman either, and I’m not allowed to marry any man. So we have equal rights.

  106. redlotus
    April 20, 2009 at 5:05 pm |

    As a heterosexual, you are allowed to marry the person you fall in love with. I am NOT allowed to marry the person I love. So no, we do not have equal rights. You clearly are going to be petty and immature about this, so I’m done responding to you.

  107. Morticae
    April 20, 2009 at 5:11 pm |

    Browncoat: Because the Christian agenda involves world domination and inevitable homogeneity. You are thriving off of intolerance. I also find it criminal that poor uneducated people are taken advantage of due to their ignorance. Yes, any study worth looking at shows its the uneducated, more so than any other segment, that are religious. Ah, its just a crime.

    But the people are consensual, so should I give them a break? I don’t know– you can’t give gay people a break for their consensual relationships.

  108. Hajhaabotbea
    April 20, 2009 at 5:11 pm |

    Everyone is bi to a certain extent. Women and men aren’t that different, they share a ton of similarities in terms of physicality. Ever looked at a guy with a lot of makeup on or even a guy with no makeup on and thought he was women and looked alright? See.. we’re not that different.

  109. Hajhaabotbea
    April 20, 2009 at 5:15 pm |

    A quote from Bjork I found:

    “I think everyone’s bisexual to some degree or another; it’s just a question of whether or not you choose to recognize it and embrace it. Personally, I think choosing between men and women is like choosing between cake and ice cream. You’d be daft not to try both when there are so many different flavours.”

  110. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 5:19 pm |

    Whoa whoa whoa, the Christian agenda involves world domination and homogeinity and we thrive off of intolerance? Whoa, where did THAT come from that sounds more like the agenda of radical Islamists than Christians, and I mean radicals, not the reformists or the revivalists?

    And uh, the uneducated are more religious than those who are educated? For your information, I happen to be a Christian and I have a BA in history and am currently working on my masters degree, but I’m uneducated right?

  111. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm |

    I’d like to add to my previous comment, please post studies that indicate that the uneducated more than the educated tend to be religious.

  112. miki_mouse
    April 20, 2009 at 5:43 pm |

    Read the second paragraph in of this section of Wikipedia (all properly referenced, so it is a reliable source). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist#Demographics
    If you don’t want to read the whole thing: An inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002, according to an article in Mensa Magazine.

    That’s not the point though. I do know lots of people who believe in God and are intelligent. But it does seem that a lot of not-so-intelligent people are extremely religious.

    And to all the people who are mad that they are being called bigots ‘just’ for disagreeing with something: if you were disagreeing with me on tax reform, then I could not call you a bigot, but if you are disagreeing with me because you hate homosexuals, black people, disabled people, people of other religions (etc.) for no other reason than they belong to one of those groups, you are a prejudiced, intolerant bigot. End of story.

  113. doorQdotCom
    April 20, 2009 at 5:43 pm |

    >Okay doorQdotCom how is homosexuality not a choice? Explain.

    I think the quickest answer to that question is a question: “On what date did you decide to be straight.”

  114. doorQdotCom
    April 20, 2009 at 5:52 pm |

    >uneducated more than the educated tend to be religious….

    Educated people can be quite religious, a this Wikipedia entry summarizes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

    But intelligence and education, while correlated, aren’t exactly the same thing. Indeed, the more intelligent a person is, as defined by comparing IQ scores, the less religious and less likely they are to believe in gods, than those who score lower on IQ tests.

    It’s a pretty interesting and complex question. The fun thing is that the scientific study of religion and religious belief is pretty new.

    In some sense though, we’re digressing from the topic at hand.

  115. doorQdotCom
    April 20, 2009 at 6:03 pm |

    “…If I was a woman I wouldn’t be allowed to marry another woman either, and I’m not allowed to marry any man. So we have equal rights.”

    And the best answer to that is this quote from Nobel Prize wining author Anatole France, who wrote: “…The law, in its infinite wisdom, forbids the rich as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

    Or, to paraphrase, “…The law, in its infinite wisdom, forbids those who love someone of the opposite sex and want to get married, and those who love someone of the same sex and want to get married, from marrying the same sex.”

    While it doesn’t have quite the same ring as France’s remark, the point is clear.

    Bringing this back to SGU, having gay characters appear on the series is about reflecting our modern times and our modern understanding of how people are and how people love.

  116. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 6:07 pm |

    I just love this discussion. I have not insulted one person here yet I’ve been called bigot, unintelligent, and had my religion put down. Yeah, that’s sci-fi tolerance for ya.

  117. gobblygoop
    April 20, 2009 at 6:22 pm |

    There were tons of relationships in SG-1… all of them were straight. Now, we may get two gay characters and all of a sudden relationships will be “in-your-face.” Who cares? Quit whining.

  118. Balesirion
    April 20, 2009 at 6:24 pm |

    Apparently someone’s never heard of don’t-ask, don’t-tell.

  119. jbellanca
    April 20, 2009 at 6:25 pm |

    Thanks guys, it’s about time! Very glad to hear they’re including gay characters. I hope they include a guy who’s masculine and not your stereotypical TV gay guy.

  120. miki_mouse
    April 20, 2009 at 6:26 pm |

    Browncoat1984 – do you hate gay people? Do you think they are just ‘choosing’ to live their lives like that (rather than biologically being attracted to members of the same sex)? Do you think they should be denied equal rights (like the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice?) Then you are bigoted against homosexuals. By definition, a bigot is: a person who is intolerant of or takes offence to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own.

    Even if you do not ‘hate’ homosexuals, but you have a problem with them being represented in tv shows, you are probably still bigoted against gay people. I don’t see why you would have a problem with it otherwise. I’m sure many people had a problem with the first interracial kiss on tv (Star Trek). They might not have hated black people, just their decision to sometimes kiss white people and then ‘flaunt it’ on television. Those people were bigots (racist bigots in that case). I’m sure they would have argued that they shouldn’t be called bigots just because they ‘disagree’ with black people kissing white people.

    For people arguing that it is discrimination to have an article about a gay character on Stargate, you should raise this issue with Gateworld (which isn’t officially affiliated with the tv show). They chose to report on the answer Cooper and Wright made to a fan’s question at the convention. They are a news source, and news places tend to report things that may be controversial, or ‘firsts’. Since this news fits in both categories, that is obviously why they are reporting on it. The actual Stargate franchise doesn’t seem to be ‘flaunting’ their gay character in any other way.

  121. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 6:29 pm |

    Let me respond to doorQdotCom’s question “On what date did you decide to be straight.”

    I did not “decide” to be straight because all men and women are naturally inclined to be straight. Why? Because sex is about reproduction. And yes, I acknolwedge that it can lead to pleasure, etc. etc. but ultimately that is the goal of sex, reproduction, and in order to reproduce you need a male and a female. Which is why we are attracted to the opposite sex. Without sex between men and women, the human race would not reproduce thus it would not survive.

    Why is it so difficult to call it a choice? So at some point in your life, even if it was as a child, a person proclaimed that he/she was gay. Maybe as as child he/she was abused by a parent of the opposite sex, maybe you had a number of relationships/friendships with men and they constantly hurt you in some way (as in the case of Ivanova in B5, who sort of leaned that way but I don’t think really did in the end). Maybe you were manipulated (as I believe was the case with Admiral Cain in BSG).

    Either way, why is it so shameful to say that being gay is a choice and not an internal biological thing?

  122. gobblygoop
    April 20, 2009 at 6:38 pm |

    1. Sex is not all about reproduction, if that’s how you view it, then your obviously not getting enough. For the uninitiated, @browncoat, sex is a pleasurable and social activity, and as humans are biologically social creatures, it is a tool for social cohesion.

    2. Newsflash, gay people are not a bunch of abused and demented mental cases.

  123. Browncoat1984
    April 20, 2009 at 6:45 pm |

    First off, I acknowledged that sex can lead to pleasure. If you read my entire post you would have read that. Maybe I should have rephrased that by saying “the ultimate PURPOSE of sex is reproduction” – and that’s why men and women are naturally attracted to each other.

    I also never called all gay people a bunch of abused and demented casese. I just gave a few examples of why someone might decide to be gay. And you didn’t answer my question, why is it that its so shameful to admit that its a choice?

  124. miki_mouse
    April 20, 2009 at 6:45 pm |

    If all men and women are naturally inclined to be straight, then why are some people from a very young age attracted to people of the same sex? Many gay people were not abused in any way as children, but as they grew up they realized they were gay. You are saying that these adolescents are ‘choosing’ to date and have sex with people of the same sex, even though they are naturally attracted to people of the opposite sex? They chose to be hated by the general population and often times disowned from their families? In past times, they chose to be arrested, sometimes executed, for having relationships with people of the same sex, even though in reality they are attracted to people of the opposite sex, and they are just ‘choosing’ to go against that? Really?

  125. redlotus
    April 20, 2009 at 6:54 pm |

    Grrr.. okay, I said I was done responding to you Browncoat1984, but I just can’t bite my tongue. “ALL” men and women are NOT attracted to the opposite sex! That’s the whole point! It has nothing to do with being abused, manipulated, or just not meeting the “right” man/woman. IT’S AN INVOLUNTARY BIOLOGICAL URGE. The same way you have an involuntary biological urge to “mate” with someone of the opposite sex. There is scientifically documented homosexual activity in more than 1500 species of animals, including primates. So does a dog or a monkey or an insect conciously DECIDE to get it on with a member of their own gender? No. they just happen to be wired that way. People, and organisms in general, are vastly unique. We are incredibley complex beings, and it stands to reason that the development of our amazing brains varies from person to person. CLEARLY it does. I have no probelm saying that I CHOSE to be out, or that I CHOSE to involve myself in the LGBT community. But I did NOT choose to be gay in the first place.

    It has nothing to do with it being “difficult” or “shamefull” to call it a choice, it has to do with it being INACCURATE to call it a choice. You admit that you had no choice in your own sexuality, and no one here is inplying otherwise. How can you make such a judgement about others, when you’ve never been in their shoes?

    And in response to your comment about “sci-fi tolerance?” Discrimination and ignorance is not so fun when it’s actually directed at you, is it?

  126. gobblygoop
    April 20, 2009 at 6:55 pm |

    You asked a stupid question. “Why is it shameful to admit it’s a choice?” IT’s not a choice, so I can’t answer that question. You want to boil down the situation so it fits in with your biased views. Sex has many purposes, perhaps its ultimate purpose is reproduction, so what? Explain to me how that rules out biological homosexuality? Just because you can put the square block in the square hole doesn’t prove anything. My finger fits into my nose, and pulls out boogers, doesn’t mean it wasn’t meant for other things.

  127. Tremolo
    April 20, 2009 at 7:01 pm |


    For an educated man you’re pretty ignorant and misinformed about homosexuality.

  128. excalibur33
    April 20, 2009 at 7:15 pm |

    Firstly Stargate is a Science Fiction show, Science fiction has been used for decades to explore the human condition. What we do right and do wrong, the actions we take as a race and as people. Homosexuality is apart of our society and apart of nature, animals have relationships with another animal of the same sex. Note I use the word relationship not sex, while sex maybe apart of a relationship it is not the main factor. Now just because you dislike the way some people have sex does not make them wrong. I can’t believe we are still debating this part of our society, everything we go through everyday as people isn’t that hard enough without trying to look for acceptance, just accept it and move on.

    If you don’t like gay relationships don’t have a relationship with someone of the same sex.

    Homosexuality = Love

  129. jyh
    April 20, 2009 at 7:23 pm |

    Ha ha. I’m late to this party, but it’s funny that people think that having one or two gay characters us suddenly going to make this NOT a sci-fi show. Yeah, it’s till sci-fi, it just has a gay character. Atlantis had a Czech character (Zalenka) and a Canadian character (McKay). This didn’t mean it was a Czech show or a Canadian show. It also had femals in lead roles, but that doesn’t make it a “womens’ show.” For heaven’s sake, people, if this offends you so much, then by all means, don’t watch. And don’t go to the bank, or the grocery store, or the gym, either, because chances are there are gay people in all those places. If that spooks you, stay home and watch Leave it to Beaver… heaven knows the real world won’t intrude there.

  130. nkilbourn
    April 20, 2009 at 7:40 pm |

    Yes.. seriously. I get offended.This is a stupid idea. They are not trying to make the show more realistic by having lesbo’s on the show. Sorry but in real life, lesbians seldom look that good. They are just trying to get a wider variety (mostly more liberal people) to watch the show to boost the ratings. And YES homosexuality is wrong. I do not want to see it at all. I hope I can still enjoy Stargate after this.

  131. doorQdotCom
    April 20, 2009 at 7:42 pm |

    > why is it so shameful to say that being gay is a choice…

    Because, Browncoat, it’s factually incorrect. SF films and TV are great, I’ve written and directed SF films myself, but don’t quote Babylon 5 as a factual source in support of your statements and then complain when people titter and laugh at your expressed ignorance on the issue.

    The fact is that forty years of research into etiology of sexual orientation has put to bed the notion that people choose to be gay (or straight), that it’s the result of having been abused, emotional trauma or bad parenting. People who still hold fast to that belief are, at best, ill-informed or, at worst, kin and kith to Flat Earthers and Creationists.

  132. doorQdotCom
    April 20, 2009 at 7:47 pm |

    >”….Atlantis had a Czech character (Zalenka) and a Canadian character (McKay). This didn’t mean it was a Czech show or a Canadian show.”

    Brilliant! Love your example! I’m stealing it and using it from here-on-out!

  133. doorQdotCom
    April 20, 2009 at 7:49 pm |

    nkilbourn, if you are referring to Lesbians as “lesbos,” I think it’s pretty safe to say you won’t enjoy SG:U.

  134. redlotus
    April 20, 2009 at 7:53 pm |

    @nkilbourn, really? “In real life, lesbians seldom look that good”? How many lesbians do YOU know? I mean, have you SEEN Portia de Rossi, Tammy Lynn Micheals, Heather Matarazzo, or Carolyn Murphy, just to name a few? All actors/celebrities who make a living based partly on their looks, and all stunning women. Do you have some notion of all lesbians as manish or ugly? There are thousands of beautiful women who identify as gay. My partner was a well-paid model for many years, and could’ve continued in that career if she hadn’t decided to pursue something more intellectually challenging. You are making yourself sound small-minded and ignorant.

  135. excalibur33
    April 20, 2009 at 7:57 pm |

    “lesbians seldom look that good”

    nkilbourn take a look at Portia de Rossi, Cat and Jennifer Cora to name a few and stop going by the stereotype.

  136. Tremolo
    April 20, 2009 at 7:58 pm |

    “And YES homosexuality is wrong.”

    You’d better hold a press conference to announce this stunning revelation to the world!

    Oh wait, it’s just your bigoted opinion! I was worried for a second, there.

  137. miki_mouse
    April 20, 2009 at 8:11 pm |

    Strange, most of my neighbours don’t look like Michael Shanks, Rachel Luttrell, Joe Flanigan etc. Oh wait, that’s because most people on tv are better looking than average people, they are thinner too…with better teeth and hair. That’s one of the reasons they probably get hired to work on tv shows. That is a really weak argument against a lesbian character.

  138. Seythia
    April 20, 2009 at 8:12 pm |

    Wow. I’m a bit overwhelmed by the comments here.
    I’m wondering how some people can actually find it offensive if there are characters on a show who are in a relationship with a person in another galaxy. I mean, I’ve never studied biology, but last time I checked, I couldn’t have sex with my boyfriend who lives a few hundred miles away from me. Do I have sex all the time? Nope. My ex-girlfriend lived quite far away too. No sex when we were seperated. Sorry.
    So how can you possibly say that this is about sex (I’ve propably never used this word so often before in one comment).

    Another thing are the ‘christians’ who claim homosexuality is a ‘choice’. Right. I was never asked if I liked men or women. Actually, being with a woman for the first time was the most natural thing that ever happened to me. I’ve never made a choice, it just happened. Most of my same sex relationships failed because of other peoples reaction towords my partner.Since I’m bisexual, I seem to have become a man’s living sexual fantasy. Which is another reason why I can’t understand most people’s attitude.It annoys me that people either think of ‘us’ as sex objects, or unnatural, disgusting ‘things’.

    I did not want to bring Christianity into the discussion, but it’s inteting how people say ‘why do they never make a show with christians, why does it always have to be the gays?’
    Well. Have you ever heard a gay person say things in public, like ‘I don’t hate you, but I hate your choice of lifestyle’ to a heterosexual person? Or a Christian? Have you ever heard a gay person insult a Christian simply because they are what they are? Christans might get insulted, but, and that’s a really sad thing, because they threw the first stone.
    So it’s no wonder that involving religion, almost the only reason for homophobia, is not shown on TV.
    I could never hate a Christian for his beliefs. I wouldn’t mind if there WAS an openly Christian character on SGU, I’d even welcome it, despite being an absolute atheist, UNLESS it is shoved into our faces. See. That’s the difference. Don’t condamn things you have not seen. If the character is portrayed badly, then just turn off the TV.
    And the less people that posted those horrible comments (no matter which side they were on) watch it, the better the fan base will be.

    If the sole reason for not watching a possibly great show is the fact that there are gay characters, then, at least I don’t want you to be Stargate Fans. Because that means we’d have something in common. And I cannot accept intolerance.

  139. miki_mouse
    April 20, 2009 at 8:15 pm |

    Oh and nkilbourn? It would be great if there was some way I could know whether this lesbian character is going to make you dislike the show. It will really make my night if I know that a bigot like you is made unhappy.

  140. nkilbourn
    April 20, 2009 at 8:17 pm |

    You guys are fun. I just got called a bigot for what? I called no names.

  141. flmatthew
    April 20, 2009 at 8:34 pm |

    Oh my here comes the loving, forgiving feed em to the lions christians. Introducing a gay character is no different than introducing a straight character, a latino, black, red, green, blind, bald, bigot. Gotta love all you red necks who preach your version of the word of God. Relax, go watch Touched by an Angel reruns. Although, you first might want to watch Della Reese in “Harlem Nights” then I suppose you would not like her either. There’s always the ANGEL network.

  142. miki_mouse
    April 20, 2009 at 8:35 pm |

    I am glad management cleared up the part about this not being a news release. I’ll just say again that I think it is great that the characters of Stargate will be more representative of the general population. There wasn’t enough women or African Americans on SG1 and they seemed to fix that on Atlantis. Now they are adding more people from diverse backgrounds etc to SGU and I think it’s a good move. I’m very much looking forward to the show.

  143. Imitation Tofu
    Imitation Tofu
    April 20, 2009 at 8:36 pm |

    But will there be gay men? Lesbians always get trotted out as a ratings stunt especially if they’re hot and make out with other hot women. Groundbreaking? Hardly. Put a couple of guys kissing in stargate and see how many “pro gay” posters flip out.

  144. redlotus
    April 20, 2009 at 8:41 pm |

    I do agree that there should be more gay male characters, and I do hope that SGU is brave enough to go there. It’s true that lesbians in media seem to be more accepted, and I hope that changes, but I still think that SGU having a lesbian character is a valuable thing, and not to be diminished by the lack of (current) male gay characters. And personally, I like to think that the people who have stood up for Cooper/Wright’s decision to include a lesbian character would also approve of a gay male character. Give em some credit!

  145. miki_mouse
    April 20, 2009 at 8:42 pm |

    Imitation Tofu — I agree that I am a bit concerned that they may just take this opportunity to get girls to make out with girls. That is not really making the show any more inclusive because it is just promoting the sterotype that lesbians primarily exist for men’s sexual gratification (example: lots of mainstream porn). I hope they treat the whole situation respectfully. We need more characters on tv that help promote that gay people are real people too: who fall in love, have long term relationships etc. Having gay men on the show would be more groundbreaking. But given the reaction on this thread so far, maybe they are taking baby steps?

  146. SceneOne
    April 20, 2009 at 9:08 pm |

    Totally agree with Citac. I don’t want some sappy gay relationship on Stargate. The TV companies only use the “lesbian kiss” plot when they think their story is so weak the only way to retain viewers is by appealing to pervs looking for a quick thrill. Seriously, if this is the best Robert C. Cooper and Brad Wright can come up with, then hand the script over to the fans and let us write you a decent story. no lesbians, no talking animals, no cute kids or any other lame plot fillers. just pure Stargate

  147. knowles2
    April 20, 2009 at 9:10 pm |

    Well only thing I care about is that they do not make it to over the top and jokey, like they do in Tourchwood, but take it more serious in tone and more emotional. And we get to see plenty of skin.
    I think it is fantastic that SGU is going in this direction. Let hope it still able to keep the fun and adventure and jokes to, why also being darker and more series than previous stargates series.
    SGU it looking excellent. Here hoping we hear of the new writers they supposedly bringing in soon. It even more fun seeing all the religious folks get all hot and bothered about it.

  148. jyh
    April 20, 2009 at 9:48 pm |

    knowles2, I think you’re misguided when you say you hope “we get to see plenty of skin.” That means that instead of “over the top and jokey,” you just want it to be titillating. Then nobody would take the show seriously and even more people will be turned off by the character’s inclusion in the show. that’s playing into a stereotype that should be fought against. It should be treated as any other relationship: with respect and class. (for the record, I don’t watch Stargate shows for relationships [not a fan of ‘shipping’], and wish they would all be downplayed, or carried out off-camera, in teh background. Having said that, I’m glad to see all types of relationships represented. It’s the 21st century, and a sci-fi show should definitely reflect that.)

  149. retiredat44
    April 20, 2009 at 10:33 pm |

    If they were going to give a glimpse of the show, a preview, it should be something we all like. Or are interested in. Not soemthing to please themsleves just to push an agenda that is not normal, pleasant, nor entertaing to most people. It is the opposite of entertainment.

    Why would the makers of the show wish to gamble the audience does not go away if we get flahsed by some behavior we refuse to watch. If there is no audience, then the show goes away. Will they take that gamble? All because some people want to push the agenda?

  150. sanctuary4all
    April 20, 2009 at 10:37 pm |

    hehehehe- Love it- gotta remember that one. Thanks doorQdotcom

  151. redlotus
    April 20, 2009 at 10:50 pm |

    @retiredat44, as far as the producers/writers having a “mental problem” for wanting to include a minority in their show… No, that’s not a mental problem, that’s them having a different viewpoint than you. Something you clearly have a difficult time with.

    You seem to be missing the already mentioned (several times) fact that this was not intended to be a “preview” of the show, or a “glimpse,” but was information that was given IN RESPONSE TO A FAN QUESTION. As I stated previously, had a fan not asked the right question at a panel discussion, you would most likely have no idea that there were going to be gay characters in SGU.

    To imply that they should give a “glimpse” of something that “we all like or are interested in” is asinine and silly. Read the comments on ANY of the SGU news posts on this site, and you will clearly see that you can NEVER please everyone.

    Clearly you have a problem with homosexuality. That’s fine, that’s your personal opinion. That does not mean that “the audience” in general has a problem, or even that those who dislike the idea of a gay character will refuse to watch. If you are so clearly bothered by it, don’t watch. No one is forcing you.

  152. miki_mouse
    April 20, 2009 at 10:51 pm |

    retiredat44 – So you are saying Gateworld can only post articles that everyone is guaranteed to like? So, if there are people out there who don’t like Richard Dean Anderson, and Gateworld posts an article about him making guest appearances in SGU, they are in the wrong because not all people will like it?

    I think it is safe to say the majority of the population is at least tolerant of gay people. So then the majority of Stargate fans will probably not have a problem with a gay character (or at least such a problem that they will stop watching the show). Some people have problems with women being in leadership roles, do you think the makers of Stargate shouldn’t have had Weir as the commander of Atlantis? Or we shouldn’t have people of other races on the show because some people are racist? Or is it just in this case that you are uncomfortable with something so everyone else must be wrong about it?

    It has already been explained that a fan asked the creators of Stargate a question about gay characters, and Gateworld is just reporting on what they said. Is it the gay character you have a problem with, or the fact that it somehow made it to a Gateworld article?

    What is this agenda that you think they are pushing? That gay people are a part of society? Because they are. It may be up to 10% of American society. On the other hand, Jewish people make up only 1.6% of American society, but no one would probably (openly at least) question them including a Jewish person on the show.

  153. AutumnDream
    April 20, 2009 at 11:39 pm |

    Lmao, these comments… this is a goldmine.

  154. vanishingtorch
    April 21, 2009 at 12:06 am |

    Omgosh people!!

    The episodes havent started yet let alone the enitre show and youre already judging it!? Wtf??
    Why not argue when that time comes of whatever you want to argue with lol

    And I dont care about the gay characters btw.

  155. retiredat44
    April 21, 2009 at 12:57 am |

    Some of you people that keep trying to say what I am saying always get what I say wrong! They can go ahead and fill the whole damned show with gay characters, or real gay characters… I don’t like the agenda being pushed on us on this website. If I am watching SGU and it turns into Brokeback Mountain, me and 80% of the fans will probably dump the show.. and then the rating wil drop so low it will not survive. I said I don’t like the agenda put in our face. If I wanted to know more about this I would go seek out the links for gay stuff…

    Yes, judge it after the show starts and I see the show.. but this gay agenda started long before the first episode.. how about trying to push this agenda after the show starts.. not that I want to see it then either..

  156. citac
    April 21, 2009 at 1:01 am |

    FAIL IS IMMINENT “indeed”

  157. TwiceBorn
    April 21, 2009 at 1:06 am |

    I actually agree that GateWorld posting this is trying to enforce the gay agenda. We were also getting preached at in the last PodCast. If they want to do that, that’s fine I guess. It’s their website. I just think it’s lame.

  158. redlotus
    April 21, 2009 at 1:17 am |

    @retiredat44, “gay agenda?” And what, pray tell, is this agenda? As is clear by the vast number of comments made so far on this subject, people have opinions on this matter, and are interested in it. Gateworld is not shoving this in your face, they simply reported information that was relevent to the show. No one is forcing you to read the article! It says right in the title what it’s about – no one grabbed your hand and forced you to click on it. You imply that because it pertains to gay characters and issues, it should not have been reported, and should have been relegated to “links for gay stuff.” It’s relevent to the show, it was reported on, get over it.

    I hardly think that the show is going to turn into Brokeback Mountain in Space. And you may want to reconsider your numbers when you say that you and “80%” of the fans will drop the show due to an increased gay representation. read back through the posts here, and you’ll see that (other than a few outspoken folks such as yourself and Browncoat1984) the majority of fans posting have no issue with the fact that there are going to be some gay characters.

    I really, really want to know what this insidious “AGENDA” you speak of is all about! I see no agenda here, just someone reporting facts! No one’s pushing anything. But clearly it doesn’t fit within your narrow definition of what is okay.

    @vanishingtouch, I agree. People have been dumping all over SGU since they first announced the concept, and it’s a little annoying. Every time Gateworld announces a new bit of info on the show, posters are freaking out and jumping to conclusions about how much it’s going to suck. If I read the comment “Well, I was going to watch it but now, since (insert news here), I say screw SGU” one more time I might cry. Let’s not judge it before we’ve seen it! I think that the wirters and producers have proven themselves to be able story-tellers with their existing work, and personally I think that the chance to create a show with all new characters and adventures is going to prove to be a great chance for them to shine. Of course, that’s just my opinion (some might say, agenda…) :)

  159. Chellyphish
    April 21, 2009 at 1:40 am |

    Well, to be hones, I feel like I’m a timetraveler. Am I back in 1954. What means all this boring discussion about gay or not gay.
    This show will still be Stargate, it’s just, that they want to show a realistic picture of the “real” World. Maybe, they should put some intolerant, ignorant Idiots like some of you guys put on the show?
    I don’t even care, if there is someone gay or not. It’s just an information about the show, just like “the destiny is a space ship”.
    But no need to discuss.
    Do you realize, 50 years ago, there where people asking about, if there is a need to show black people on TV? Not, that they didn’t like them back then… It was just the fact, they where idiots.

  160. felger
    April 21, 2009 at 2:37 am |

    I always thought the average sci-fi was a little more wordly than other tv fans – I guess I was wrong. The negative comments prove exactly why the producers are doing the right thing by representing society in a truthful way. Yes, gays are people too.

    I look forward to the new series and I applaud their decision.

  161. Nephteas
    April 21, 2009 at 3:53 am |

    Funny enough i thought this was a post about stargate not gay/homosexuality. If i said damn theres black people in the show everybody would jump down my throught but then when somebody says the same thing only about gay people then suddenly its stating your opinion. Now that fair

  162. sammy
    April 21, 2009 at 6:21 am |

    Oh, no! I really wasn’t expecting anything like this! SG-1 and Atlantis were doing so well, but this…
    I am really disappointed. If you are going to make this kinda shows in the future, I give up Stargate. And I don’t care about stupid orders from the top, this has gone too far. “Put some gays or no show!” that kind of stuff. I don’t hate gays, everyone has right to choose, but I certainly didn’t wish to see my favourite show ruined by stupid trends.

    Apparently, Rick Berman is the only one who still knows how to make a good Sci-Fi without this. Actually, I was wondering how SG-1 could run 10 seasons without being forced to put some gays into the show. Finally, SG-1 had a good concept – military and sci-fi. And it all fit in so good. I was so proud to tell everyone that there really exists one REMARKABLE show without global trends of gay population.

    I was indeed looking forward to this show, but I guess… goodbye Stargate. :(

  163. Seythia
    April 21, 2009 at 8:44 am |

    While trying not to get unfriendly, I will say this:

    I’m looking forward to the new show, it’s going to air no matter WHAT we say.
    I will give the show a chance, it might fail huge time but it could also be quite nice. So why should I say ‘I’m not going to watch it because [insert reason of choice]’
    Give the show a chance, goddamnit.
    How can you possibly judge something you have no idea about?
    Just watch the first episode and THEN you can say ‘it’s going to be horrible bla ba’.

    I know you people are still upset about the cancellation of SGA and I understand that it’s hard to see a good show end.
    But it’s a TV show. If you’re still upset about a little thing like that, then I recommend you to stop watching TV at all. Every show will end. And most of them won’t even go beyond Season 5.
    If people who hate gays simply stop watching Stargate, the TPTB won’t lose 80% of the audience. it will be… I think probably 10% at most.because even though some of them might not agree to homosexuality, but are intelligent enough to respect them.

    Lots of <3 <3 <3 for redlotus, btw. Because she’s just right.

  164. knowles2
    April 21, 2009 at 9:14 am |

    “knowles2, I think you’re misguided when you say you hope “we get to see plenty of skin.” That means that instead of “over the top and jokey,” you just want it to be titillating. Then nobody would take the show seriously and even more people will be turned off by the character’s inclusion in the show. that’s playing into a stereotype that should be fought against. It should be treated as any other relationship”

    You are right it should be treated like every other relationship on TV and every other relationship on tv should show plenty of skin , including gays and lesbians, bisexual, and straight, I really do not mind.

    An they are not being force, SGA was meant to have gays but they never wrote the it into a story or created all the neccessary backgrounds for the characters, it was just on the character profile sheets and never put to use. Now they are creating and entirely new series, they now have opertunity to build these relationships in the fabric of the story and to tell them over time.

    Certainly I am expecting the potential gay will have plenty of action with the men on the ship first before getting heart an decides to experiment with women.

    All they are doing is creating more real feeling to the show. I am not a shipper fan and never worry about the relationships but I can see why the writers are taking this approach, they want to get of the beating track and create original then they need original characters to work with.

  165. knowles2
    April 21, 2009 at 9:22 am |

    I say this to the nay sayers an to the others say this will lose audiences,

    “Without risk, there can be no innovation. Without innovation, there can be no advancement.” quoted from a friend over MSN, just now.

  166. QuinnMallory
    April 21, 2009 at 9:52 am |

    It doesn’t really matter to me about the characters’ orientation but it is realistic to have someone who is out on the show.

    Not sure how I feel about the people on Earth being a “lead” character, though. How much/frequent contact does Destiny have with SGC.

  167. US06154
    April 21, 2009 at 10:32 am |

    Okay.. I give in. But let’s make it fair to every one. I want an Islamic Character prayin 5 times a on the show as well. I want a Jewish character bitching about how the food aboard Destiny not being Kosher, and a Rabbi having a recurring role at SGC. trying to decide if the food is actually Kosher or not. I want the menacing guy on board, to grow weed and pot in the ship’s hydroponic bay, and trying to push it to the others. C’mon, these are real issues as well, that affects most Americans, as well as the rest of the world. I also want a quadraplegic person in a wheel chair, also stuck in the ship, and a mentally retarded person as the person pushing the chair. okay so that may have put my comments over the top. But dammit, I want to see a SciFi show, not a relationship or human interest show. I hated the idea of McKay and that nutjob. I hated the idea of Jack and Sam. Lest we forget, the name of the show is Stargate, not watergate or loveboat. dammit again, stick to the concept, go through the gate, battle some aliens, be awed by alien technology, run scared becuz the aleien is so badass. The rest watch National Geographic, loveboat or whatever other reality show is on TV. Leave relationships out of it, and the “human interest” angles out of it. These are but stupid ploys used by writers, and worse network execs.

  168. Vyse99
    April 21, 2009 at 11:35 am |


    I registered here just to say this. I was having the SAME exact thoughts about this, relationships/sex in Stargate have always, always been awkward. Sam and Pete in bed, Jack and that woman on Argos, McKay and Keller, Daniel and Vala etc, they all felt out of place and forced. If SciFi/MGM/TPTB/whoever wants a relationship drama set in the Stargate universe(no pun intended) they should have just let Atlantis keep going while assigning all of these new people to do Universe. See for me I love watching Stargate(up until now) because its been about going though the gate and exploring, meeting new cultures/races, finding new technologies, and defending Earth and the rest of the galaxy(ies) against evil. Not some show about a bunch of people who get trapped on a ship and their relationships.

  169. Sylvia
    April 21, 2009 at 12:10 pm |

    I agree in a way with the above couple of comments. If McKeller is the way they write relationships and they don’t significantly improve in SGU, then any relationship, gay or straight, will be unwelcome.
    Honestly, the concept of McKeller was so bad that I couldn’t watch significant portions of Season 5. Sam and Jack were a fine concept, but they strung it out sooooo long that it has almost become a silly joke. :(

  170. Gman25
    April 21, 2009 at 12:13 pm |

    I am tired of hollywood/Canada productions forcing down homosexuality on tv. I live around it and will be disgusted to see it on tv. You can count me out of this show now.

  171. ZJW
    April 21, 2009 at 1:07 pm |

    This does not ‘force homosexuality’ on us @ all.

  172. US06154
    April 21, 2009 at 1:57 pm |

    Lolz.. Has anyone else noticed that for some reason or the other, the google adverts being auto inserted to this forum thread, is becoming more and more Gay centric? The ad (as I am reading this thread)at the end of the ” news blurb” and just above the yellow box that says “contribute” now reads “Meet hot gay men” and the ad under the top banner, (to the right of Ming Na’s Picture) reads “Gay mature Dating” and shows pictures of 2 gentlemen, Eric 38, Robert 41. Subliminal Messages for readers? ROTF LMAO!!

  173. redlotus
    April 21, 2009 at 2:35 pm |

    @sammy, I’m not sure where you got the idea that there were “oreders from the top” to include gay characters, or that the producers where being “forced” to write them in. “Put some gays in or no show?” Do you REALLY think that’s accurate? I seriously doubt that. And what you refer to as a “trend”… it’s not like showing people wearing flare jeans or nose rings, it’s an accurate representation of a valid human population.

    @USO6154 and @Vyse99, Yes, you could try to argue that to include one minority means that they MUST include every minority, but that’s simply unrealistic. Are you trying to say that if they have a Hispanic character, they MUST also have a character who’s blind, bipolar, Samoan, etc etc? Are you saying that there can be absolutely NO representation of a minority or underrepresented group unless you represent ALL of them?

    Cooper/Wright seem pretty nonchalant about this to me. Like I 9and others) have said OVER AND OVER AGAIN, they didn’t hold a press conference to say “Look how PC we are! We’re including gays!”, they simply answered a question. They aren’t making a big deal out of this, WE are. The people who post here (yes, including me) have taken LITERALLY TWO SENTANCES and turned it into seven pages of heated debate.

    Also, as I said previously in a much earlier post, people are automatically assuming that when the writers/producers say that they are focusing the show more on the characters relationships to one another, THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN ROMANCE! Daniel and Jack had a relationship. Teal’c and Sam had a relationship. John and Rodney had a relationship. It was called FRIENDSHIP and TEAMMATES. When you’re talking about a bunch of people stuck on a ship, isolated and fighting for survival, HELL YEAH I want to see relationships – friendships, teamwork, heck, even rivalries are relationships. Everyone is assuming the worst, that it’ll be One Tree Hill in Space, but I think what they mean is that, having to rely on one another to survive, deep bonds will be formed. And Ming-Na’s character is stated to be in an existing relationship with someone on earth. MUCH LIKE ELIZABETH WIER ON SGA. And was that touted as a major storyline? Did it detract from the show? How is this different? I mean, her partner is listed as a GUEST character. Even if she is a lead/reoccuring guest, she can’t be considered a major part of the show.

    Also, @USO6154, there are most likely tracking cookies and spyware on your computer that extrapolate words from sights you are visiting in order to aim ads at your “interests”, and that is why you are seeing ads aimed at gay individuals. Gateworld has no control over what ads pop up when you read this article, it’s the stupid internet ad providers. For example, I knit, and just about every site I visit end up having an ad for yarn or needles on it. Wow! What a coincidence! Actually, it’s because I haven’t taken the time to get rid of cookies in my browser, and the ads are responding to the data saved therein. No insidious agenda, no subliminal messages, just an annoying lack of personal privacy online.

  174. US06154
    April 21, 2009 at 2:56 pm |

    @ RedLotus, wow you would have had some credibility if had just kept your mouth shut about the comment directed at me. Let me introduce myself, Computer nerd, 24yrs of experience in the Field, From Early DOS/Unix days, and Mainframes to current cutting edge OS’s and technologies. Published multiple white papers in the Computer Industry. Safe to say, I have forgotten more things in computers, than you’ll ever know. As a married heterosexual with 2 children, Working as the IT director of a midsized company, Firewall filtering sites related to hate, porn, dating & GLBT and such, Probably not the candidate to be visiting Gay sites to have cookies deposited on my office PC. Sorry to blow away your knitting theory. Ancient Chinese Philosopher Confucius observed, “Even the utmost simpleton looks like a genius, as long as as she keeps he mouth shut, on a subject that she knows nothing of” :P

  175. Vyse99
    April 21, 2009 at 3:23 pm |

    @redlotus I don’t care if the characters are gay or straight or whatever, I don’t want their relationships to be the central point of the show which TPTB said they are, I want a show with the traditional Stargate formula and its becoming more and more clear this isn’t it. Also I realize this isn’t a press release or anything, but clearly Gateworld saw this as a big enough deal to make a news headline for.

  176. kzap333
    April 21, 2009 at 3:50 pm |

    @Vyse99 agree with you there, I liked stargate how it was, where it wouldn’t matter if a character was gay or not because we would never ever find out because the show wasn’t about that (if that makes sense) for all we know General Hammond could have been gay right? the old show would just never have told us.
    Not that I’m anti-gay I’m just anit-relationships in stargate.

  177. redlotus
    April 21, 2009 at 4:12 pm |

    @USO6154, I will concede that I clearly do not have as much experience in computers as you, but I was not implying that you visited gay sites, porn, etc. I was saying that because THIS page references the words gay and lesbain, those sorts of ads were popping up. But thanks for stooping to the level of calling others simpletons – I haven’t been calling people stupid or other insulting names, but clearly that’s not enough to prevent others from doing the same.

    @Vyse99, I understand your point and your concern. I’m really hoping that TPTB aren’t going to be focusing on romantic entanglements, as well. But I also don’t want a carbon-copy of SG1/SGA – what would be the point? It’s a seperate show, and it should be different. Hopefully they’ll find a good balance of the traditional SG aspects that we all enjoy, while still being able to make it unique and fresh.

  178. jyh
    April 21, 2009 at 5:32 pm |

    I think “redlotus” makes good points. “Relationships” doesn’t necessarily mean “romanctic relationships.” Personally I’ve always been intrigued with the Jack/Daniel relationship. They really were like brothers, and in some ways I think if you put them together you’d get a ‘whole’ person. (Not to say that they’re not complete as they are, but Jack offers the more pragmatic, gung-ho persona, and Daniel is the more thoughtful, lets-learn-and-discuss persona.)

    And, I think it’s funny that all the people who are up in arms about this situation are getting pop-up ads for “meeting hot men” just because their posts (or other posts) include the words ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian.’ (I know that’s juvenile of me, but still, I gotta chuckle….) ;-)

  179. redlotus
    April 21, 2009 at 6:25 pm |

    @jyh, thanks. :) I agree with what you said about Jack and Daniel – the thing that made their RELATIONSHIP (nudge nudge) so interesting was how different they were, and yet their personalities really complimented each other. I think it’s the same with the John/Rodney dynamic: the laid-back military man and the high-strung scientist. The scene in “The Shrine” where they share a beer and talk, and aknowledge their friendship, was realyl touching. THAT’S what I’m hoping to see more of in SGU – the on-screen aknowledgement of the complicated ways people bond in intense situations. The way stress can produce strong friendships, or exaggerated rivalries. The way being stuck with the same people in life-threatening situations, and being thrust into responsibilities that the characters might not be prepared for (i.e. the Tamara Johansen character is the most medically qualified person on board, despite being just a paramedic) effects the way they react to one another and develop as people. I think that you can have that sort of in-depth character development without losing the adventure and sci-fi excitement that made the other SG franchises so much fun. Here’s hopin!

  180. Vladius
    April 21, 2009 at 6:32 pm |

    I also have the feeling that in general, SGU’s downfall will be this kind of thing. It will try to be edgy in all the wrong ways. They should try and show some creativity for once instead of GRIMDARK GRIMDARK SEX VIOLENCE GRIMDARK. How about creating more than 3 main alien species? That would be a “first” in the series and it wouldn’t cheese off anybody.

  181. save Scifi
    save Scifi
    April 21, 2009 at 6:52 pm |

    Some Faiths try to avoid being involved with the gay lifestyle, as well as doing drugs, or excessive drinking. It is a very Big Disappointment that a franchise I love and have followed from the beginning now makes me choose between my Faith or my favorite tv franchise. If the announcement about the new SGU was not expected to be read and commented on why was it posted on the site? It is not for me to have an expressed opinion about other peoples’ likes or dislikes because it is none of my business what any other person does, likes or is interested in. I do have a personal choice to make and this press release warns me what to expect in this show, that I was really looking forward to watching. I suspect several thousands of the fans of the Stargate franchise will be faced with the same choice and this article about Stargate Universe is the reason for my comment.. It is my choice to make and it saddens me to think I will likely not be watching the show. My faith is important to me, and so is my favorite tv shows. This loss is unnecessary but the showrunners and writers have decided require it of faithful supporters of the franchise.

  182. doorQdotCom
    April 21, 2009 at 6:53 pm |

    The audience that SyFy already has, the nutty comments here to the contrary, are a fairly open-minded lot. The audience they’re appealing to, the broader, younger, still more profitable demographic, are even more accepting of gay folks. Indeed, the younger a demo you look at, the more accepting they are. Putting gay folk on SGU, or CAPRICA, which they’re also doing, in the long run, isn’t going to make much of a difference. It’s simply non-issue.

    In the end, it’s still going to be about telling good stories. SG:U is going to live or die by the tales it tells, the mood it creates, the adventures it unfurls. Being fresh, new and exciting, capable of captivating from the get-go, building coolness over time, as SG did to its original fans, is what its all about.

    The rest of this is just window-dressing.

  183. jyh
    April 21, 2009 at 7:09 pm |

    Vladius: one reason most sci-fi shows probably have only “3 main alien species” is probably a simple matter – budget. I imagine it’s pretty expensive to make a lot of different types of characters (extensive make-up, prosthetics, etc.). even so, I’m not sure what’s so magical about “three” alien species…..???

  184. save Scifi
    save Scifi
    April 21, 2009 at 7:33 pm |

    I really wish they had just wrote and produced the show and allowed us to determine what we could watch and enjoy and if a character has to be gay to make a story work then just do the story. This announcement tells us to choose to watch this show KNOWING the gay lifestyle will be promoted by the show. If you live today, it is likely someone gay will be around or part of your life. I had a great-nephew that I changed his diapers when he was a baby die of aids a few years ago. His death was a loss to my family. But to have showrunners and writers require you to endorse the lifestyle by watching and supporting a show that promotes the lifestyle makes it difficult if you are of a Faith that does not desire to be part of that lifestyle.

  185. jyh
    April 21, 2009 at 7:38 pm |

    save Scifi: it’s NOT an announcement!!! how many times does that have to be pointed out? The whole possibility of a gay character would have gone totally unnoticed if someone hadn’t happened to ask Cooper & Wright a question. And again, this will be ONE character, and NOT a major storyline. Can’t you please try to be objective and watch the first episode before you write off the whole series??

  186. Vladius
    April 21, 2009 at 9:40 pm |

    They deleted my link. Dang it.

    Jyh: They have a good enough budget. Just make it like they used to in SG-1: less time on spaceships, more time on characters.

  187. Vladius
    April 21, 2009 at 9:44 pm |

    Also, according to all definitions posted, I am a gigantic bigot. I must need to go to sensitivity training to see that I am a closed-minded individual that cannot accept any opinions pertaining to people different than me. (Not the first time this has happened.)
    Speaking of gay people, RODENNY ADN DANELES LUV IS SO CANON!!!!111

  188. SG1Fann
    April 21, 2009 at 10:22 pm |

    I am sick and tired of Hollywood CRAMMING THIS GARBAGE DOWN OUR THROATS!!!. Wake up people – read “Marketing of Evil” and have your eyes opened to the long-term agenda of the left

  189. Cheapshot
    April 21, 2009 at 10:45 pm |

    just lost another viewer

  190. doorQdotCom
    April 21, 2009 at 11:04 pm |

    The one thing I just can’t get over? All of the “forceable throat cramming” imagery put forth by those upset about this, and about larger societal change

    It’s rather ironic, given the argument being made…

  191. redlotus
    April 21, 2009 at 11:13 pm |

    @jyh – YES. People seem to be totally disregarding the facts on this, and blowing it totally out of proportion. It’s really quite sad that people are willing to write off the entire series based on the fact that ONE character has ONE aspect that they disagree with.

    @save Scifi, you are of course entitled to you ropinion, but can you see how lumping gay people in with “drug use” and “excessive drinking” might be offensive to others? And I’m not sure how the show’s producers are “forcing” you to choose between your faith and a TV show. So you disagree with their choice, and you dislike the character. You can’t enjoy the rest of the show? Maybe avoid the episodes that deal with her character as a main story line? No one is “requiring” anything of anyone. I understand that it is YOUR choice, and I’m certainly not trying to force you into anything, I just want to clarify/understand your point of view here.

    @SG1Fann, I fail to see how the mere presence of ONE minor gay character is “cramming it down our throats.” What you may see as the evil “long-term agenda if the left” is simply the development of a more tolerant and accepting society, which is the natural progression of things in this country. At one point, people who advocated for the right for women and people of color to vote would have been considered part of “leftist agenda”, but that VAST majority of people in this day and age see such rights as a given.

    I just don’t get it, people. It’s not like this is a mass-marketing ploy to announce a gay character. It would be one thing if they were running ads that shouted “HEY LOOK! SG:U, NOW WITH HOMOSEXUALITY!!!” or even doing interviews on the subject and going on and on about it. IT’S TWO SENTANCES, IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM A FAN, not a marketing campaign. GET OVER IT.

    The SG franchise’s biggest demographic of viewers is the 18-30 range (not saying that there aren’t loyal fans who are older, just saying this is the majority) and polls show that 87% of people in this age group have a positive or neutral reaction to homosexuality. So I doubt that this “HUGE REVELATION” will be the downfall of the show. And if a few intolerant people decide not to watch, fine. I doubt they will be missed.

  192. Vyse99
    April 21, 2009 at 11:29 pm |

    @jyh It might not have been an official press release but Gateworld “annouced” it by making a news headline about it, Which I think is pretty pointless, I’ve never seen Gateworld announce someone else from a minority group being on Stargate, unless they are gay of course. I mean instead of the headline “Ming-Na cast in SGU” we get “SGU has gay characters”. I realize that gay people want to be accepted as normal and everything, but how is special attention normal? I mean did any site go “SG-1 has black people” When Teal’c was cast?

  193. redlotus
    April 21, 2009 at 11:45 pm |

    @Vse99, Gateworld reports on all sorts on minor events. For heaven’s sake, they reported that Morena Baccarin (Adria on SG1) was cast in a remake of V. I mean, how many episodes was that actress in? And the article really had nothing to do with SG except for the fact that the actress in question had briefly guest-starred. If it has ANYTHING to do with the SG franchise, even tenuously so, they’ll report it. I don’t mean this as a slam to GW – just pointing out the facts. The point being, they make “news headlines” about a lot of small details. And this subject ACTUALLY had to do with the show, directly.

    And while GW did not go ahead and title articles with the fact that Ming-Na’s character is Asian, or that Jamil Walker Smith’s character is African American, you can simply LOOK at them and see that for yourself. And in the news article that announced that Ming-Na had been cast, it DID state that “…she was born on an island near Hong Kong.” So you could make a point that GW announced that she was of Asian heritage. (There was already an article about her being cast – so your argument that the headline should have been “Ming-Na cast in SGU” instead of “SGU has gay characters” is a little irrelevant, since that was not the subject at hand.)

  194. Vyse99
    April 22, 2009 at 12:47 am |

    @Redlotus Again why does it have to be pointed out if someone is gay? If someone is straight do they get a headline “SGU has straight people” or “SG1 has heterosexual romances” or whatever else. Yes I do realize that Gateworld reports on minor things, I’ve been reading this site for years, I just don’t see how a characters sexual orientation is newsworthy.

  195. redlotus
    April 22, 2009 at 1:09 am |

    @Vyse99, because heterosexual characters are the norm. Gay characters are not. Trust me, I wish we lived in a world where it didn’t matter. In any news organization, they are going to report on the stuff that is UNUSUAL. You’ll never turn on the news and hear a report that says “Joe Schmo of Massachusetts did NOT win the lottery today,” because that’s an everyday occurance. It’s not news, it happens all the time. If, on the other hand, Joe Schmo DOES win the lottery, you’ll hear about it because it’s not something that happens every day. Can you really argue that this is NOT newsworthy in some respect, when so many people have posted comments and have such obviously strong feelings about this? As much as I wish it were a non-issue, the fact remains that gay characters are still somewhat of an usual occurance. And even more rare in serious dramatic roles (outside of HBO shows and LGBT interest shows like L Word etc). Like it or not, people are going to report on (and respond to) things that are different than the current standard.

  196. Vyse99
    April 22, 2009 at 1:20 am |

    @Redlotus I have to disagree with you there, having a gay/lesbian character on a show seems to be becoming the norm these days, esp in Sci-Fi. I mean its been done in B5, BSG, heck even Star Trek has touched on it multiple times as people have mentioned. And yeah sure a lot of people have posted strong feelings about it, but you know what? If Gateworld hadn’t made a big deal about SGU having gay characters by make it a freaking headline, there wouldn’t have been a whole big heated discussion.

  197. redlotus
    April 22, 2009 at 1:37 am |

    @Vyse99, Ok, you’ve mentioned *three* shows. Yes, I’m sure you could mention others. But I’m talking about gay characters as MAIN characters, not something that’s mentioned once in a series as part of a single episode or short-lived story arc. You even said so yourself – ST only “touched” on it. And BSG… the only lesbians in that show were both psychotic and ended up dead – an all-too common phenomenon with gay characters. They either end up dead, crazy, or become straight. Hardly a flattering or realistic portrayal.

    Personally, I still don’t see how simply reporting the facts in a non-incindiary manner equals “making a big deal out of it.” GW’s version of a headline is a tiny sentance in a byline on a website, not the freakin’ NY Times. It’s not like you logged onto the site to be greeted by a neon flashing banner screaming GAY.

    You clearly have an issue with this whole thing, and that’s your perogitive. But really, you can’t understand what it’s like to be part of a marginalized and unfairly maligned demographic, and what it means to finally be able to see realistic representations of yourself in popular culture. In that way, yes it’s a big deal to some of us.

    (I’m assuming you have no idea what it’s like to be marginalized based on your comments, but if I am mistaken by all means correct me.)

  198. Vyse99
    April 22, 2009 at 2:13 am |

    @Redlotus Oh I cant? I have a disability, as a side effect of this disability I have a speech impediment. Because of this speech impediment I’ve been treated differently my entire life, like I’m less of a person. I’ve been made fun of, ridiculed, excluded, and basically emotionally tortured. Did I chose to be this way? No its just the way I am. Now, would it be important to me if someone decided to make a huge thing out of a main character on a TV show having a speech impediment? No not really, why? I want to be treated NORMALLY not given special treatment.

    In short, you don’t know me or what I’ve been though, so please don’t make assumptions about me.

  199. Wildfireracer
    April 22, 2009 at 2:21 am |

    WOW! Eight pages of comments on a lesbian character. How many pages would there be it the character was, Trans gendered? Or OGM Gender assigned?

    I really am saddened on some of these posts. As a conservative Christian I taught that I was to love the sinner hate the sin. That was turned into by liberals, just love the sinner. All the while deep inside me I knew I was different. As a little girl I was always attracted to other little girls. Now hold on there I am not finished. Do not jump to conclusions. I was born with PAIS (Partial Androgen Insensitive Syndrome). I was genetically male but the gene that accepts the hormones that allows a fetus to develop in to a male child was disabled. I am still conservative and Christian and still believe it is not a choice whether we are gay, straight, or Trans. The God of my understanding is not confined to what the Bible says He must be. He is bigger than that and yes He likes diversity.

    Now, I loved SG~1. I enjoyed SGA. I am willing to give SGU a chance. Not because there is a gay/lesbian character, but because I want to believe there is more out there than just us. Also remember that Hitler’s ideas of what was right and what was wrong lead to a world war. Ha Ha Ha, just throwing out an absurd point of view.

  200. Visitor1982
    April 22, 2009 at 3:06 am |

    Oh my… Only in America!

    You have a long way to go in accepting people who are ‘different’ than the majority.

    I find some comments about being gay abysmal.


    I think it’s great and long overdue that a gay relationship is aknowledged on a Stargate TV series.

  201. redlotus
    April 22, 2009 at 3:55 am |

    @Vyse99, you may have noticed that I aknowledged that I did NOT know for sure what your situation was, and invited you to correct me if I was wrong (which you clearly have). It was never my intention to insult or upset anyone, so I apologize if I have done so. You’re right, I don’t know you or what you have been through, and I shouldn’t have assumed. I’m sorry.

    Yes, being disabled can obviously cause people to be treated poorly, excluded, called names, etc. It’s wrong, and I’m sorry that you’ve had to deal with that.

    But I don’t see how including a gay character in a TV show is “special treatment” and I *STILL* don’t see how they are “making a huge thing” out of this. They created this character, who just happens to be gay. And people are freaking out over it. Have you ever heard of someone boycotting a show because it included someone who was in a wheelchair, or suffered from a disease? Has anyone even threatened your life or safety for being disabled, or protested and waved signs claiming that you’re going to hell? Has anyone ever accused you of *choosing* to be disabled, and asked you why you don’t just *choose* to be otherwise? Are you denied legal rights in this country for being disabled? I really hope not, I can tell you from personal experience it’s not fun. There are ways in which we are both discriminated against, and that is trully unfortunate. But it’s not the same experiences, and so something like SG including a gay character is going to mean different things to me than it is to you. Let me make clear, I am not implying that one situation is worse than the other, just different. The thing is, being gay, bisexual, or transgendered in this country (world) means that complete strangers, people who have never met you and have no idea who you are as a person, HATE you and actively work to limit your rights, and that’s a terrible feeling. So if I can turn on my TV and see just one character on a show who is gay, and is represented respectfully and realistically, what that means to me is that one more tiny little corner of our society sees us as PEOPLE, who are part of this world, and have stories worth telling just like anyone else. And maybe some young person who is struggling with their sexuality and feeling all alone will see that and feel a little better about who they are, even if all they have to hang on to is a fictional character. That MATTERS. And it’s not special treatment just to be aknowledged and included! I’m certainly not saying that every show has to, or even should have, an LGBT character. Just that it’s nice to be represented AT ALL.

    Again, I’m sorry for having insulted or upset you that trully was not my intention and I do apologize. You’re right, I don’t know what your experience has been. But please keep in mind that you have commented repeatedly now on a subject (homosexuality) that YOU do not understand on a personal level.

    But it’s late, I’m tired, and I should probably just stop trying to debate this issue right now since it seems to be turning into more of an argument, and that was never my intention.

  202. Wildfireracer
    April 22, 2009 at 4:01 am |

    Kudos to redlotus

  203. Vyse99
    April 22, 2009 at 8:19 am |

    @Redlotus I’m not saying having a gay character in a TV show is special treatment, I’m saying having a news headline about it is.

  204. Vyse99
    April 22, 2009 at 9:04 am |

    Also now that to further illustrate my point, when Adrian Conrad first appeared on SG-1 he was in a wheelchair did we see “SG-1 has disabled people” NO he was treated as just another character. Having a news headline “SGU has gay characters” is special treatment pure and simple.

  205. samcarterrules
    April 22, 2009 at 9:06 am |

    Hey Everyone,

    I just wanted to say I think this is a good thing as gay people are part of society and should be represented on TV, my only concern as a lesbian myself is that its done tastefully and not a who’s sleeping with who this week kinda thing, (b/c the majority of us don’t act that way) then I am OK and happy to see a homosexual character in SGU.

    As for the religious view-point, I’m Catholic and constantly battle how my feelings for these to things conflict with each other but I can’t help who I am and what I feel, at the end of the day God knows who we are and judges no one for being who they are.

    I understand this is a very emotive topic for everyone whatever their views on the subject, but some of the comments have sadden me with the ‘heat’ of their words. Maybe we could all remember that everyone deserves to be respected and have the opportunity to voice their opinions. :)

  206. Vladius
    April 22, 2009 at 9:50 am |

    Hi everybody!

    Gay =/= physically disabled, mentally disabled, black, religious, young, old, etc.

    You cannot put the two things on the same wavelength. Please don’t compare them. Thank you.

  207. Aaronjw
    April 22, 2009 at 9:56 am |

    *bangs head against desk*

  208. Morticae
    April 22, 2009 at 10:24 am |

    For those who do not like the idea of seeing human relationships on Stargate, I have some bad news. Right from the beginning, there was absolutely no mystery about it. Stargate Universe IS focusing on the human element. They never stated otherwise so there should be no confusion. If you are not interested in the characters and their interaction with one another, begone! This show will not change, its already filming.

  209. Vladius
    April 22, 2009 at 11:32 am |

    Truly America is an intolerant nation who will not accept transformation in their favorite Sci-Fi series. *insert crying eagle picture*

    It’s okay if they focus on “the human element,” but I think the people who say it’s not going to be “who’s sleeping with who” are kidding themselves.
    Brief respite means “excuse for sex,” btw.

  210. Vyse99
    April 22, 2009 at 11:58 am |

    @Vladius Sure I can. People with disabilities get treated unfairly all the time, as have black people in the past. To put the fact that SGU has gay characters in the spotlight simply for being gay while not pointing out any other minorities or people that get unfair treatment is special attention. Even with religion, Jews, Christians, atheists, or any other “religion”(or lack there of) is being given unfair treatment(and in a lot of cases denied legal rights) at least some where in the world.

  211. Vyse99
    April 22, 2009 at 12:08 pm |

    @Morticae I will not “begone” if there is something I don’t like a show I have every right to talk about it, freedom of speech after all. Telling someone to leave just because you don’t like what they say is pretty weak.

  212. kzap333
    April 22, 2009 at 1:43 pm |

    @Morticae I agree with @Vyse99 that we if we don’t like something we have a right to talk about it, if we don’t then they will think everyone likes it then they will continue if we wine and bitch about it then they will make more SG1 movies for us and maybe even another season for us.
    I don’t think ‘fans’ of the show should be hung out to dry for a new show that we do not like.
    If they we’re making this new show for the ‘fans’ then they would realize that fans are people who like a show and are fanatical about it and that if you are really fanatical about a show you wouldn’t want a thing about it to be change.
    So sorry Morticae but I want a show like SG1 which is not character based and if I make enough noise then someone might notice realize there is a market for a show like that and make it.
    So I shall use my right of freedom of speech to whine as much as I like thank you very much.

  213. Vladius
    April 22, 2009 at 2:08 pm |

    I can see it now. Newsflash: Controversial new show Stargate Universe will have WASPy heterosexuals in it. Gay black atheists hardest hit.

    You don’t need to announce something if it’s the norm. This isn’t the norm, so I’m glad it was announced.

  214. redlotus
    April 22, 2009 at 3:02 pm |

    @Vyse99, Sure, you can draw parallels, but they really aren’t the same thing. Loook at how you phrased your comment – black people have been treated unfairly “in the past” (yes, they still are by some people), and when you talk about religion and being denied rights, you are talking about “somewhere in the world,” not the US or Canada.

    There are laws to PROTECT people with religious differences, diasbilities, and minority ethnicities from discrimination. On the other hand, people actively lobby to put laws into place that LIMIT the rights of LBGT people. Public schools are legally required to be ADA accessible – but there’s nothing saying that a transgendered student has the right to a non-gender specific restroom. There are no laws saying that two people can’t get married because they are of differing abilities, or different races. In the state I live in, it would be considered a hate crime if someone were to assault a person simply for being Hispanic, or Muslim. If they beat me for being gay, it’s just assault, and has a much lesser penalty under the law. I could go on and on, but I won’t because this isn’t the place.

    Like I said before, sure, there are ignorant jerks who will be unkind about people having a disability, and people will always disagree on religion, but YOUR RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE PROTECTED. Mine are not. The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed *19 YEARS AGO,* protecting your rights. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, and prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, or sex. There are NO federal laws to protect LBGT people from discrimination. In fact, both the ADA and the Federal Rehabilitation Act (while defining trassexualism as a medical condition) explicitly exclude trans people from protection under those laws. There is a huge discrepency between the rights of LGBT people in this country compared to the rights of other minorities, and while there are similar individual experiences of being picked on or rejected for something you can’t help, legally speaking you are protected.

    The “special rights” or “special attention” argument has been a battle cry for those working against LGBT rights for a long time, when in fact all we want is equality like anyone else. Yes, you’re focusing on the fact that one website posted one tiny headline and pointed out one gay character as being “special attention”, not legal rights in general. But when you’ve been hit over the head with that argument in relation to your civil rights over and over again, it begins to take on an insulting and upsetting meaning. And I think that it seems pretty clear that you do have some sort of problem with LGBT people/lifestyles. Your last comment says “if there is something I don’t like [in] a show…” implying that you don’t like that there is a gay character included, and not just the “attention” given to it.

    The news is going to report on whatever people are going to be interested in hearing, regardless of how balanced that news is. It’s a fact of life, and I sugest you try to get used to it, or you’ll spend your life being frustrated and angry.

  215. redlotus
    April 22, 2009 at 3:08 pm |

    @kzap333, you don’t want ANYTHING to change? It’s a totally different show! Of course it’s going to be different. Maybe it’ll lose some fans who are unwilling to even give it a chance (like yourself) but on the otherhand, maybe some people who found SG1 or SGA not quite to their taste will find themselves really enjoying SGU. It’s a trade-off, and I think it’s silly to think that the writers and producers have some sort of obligation to “not rock the boat” and limit their creative vision in order to avoid upsetting people who are unaccepting of change. Shows evolve over time. Franchises evolve over time. It’s a reality.

    @Vladius, thank you for putting so succinctly what I keep trying to get accross. Well put.

  216. Mentat
    April 22, 2009 at 3:26 pm |

    With the casting of Robert Carlisle I was actually starting to come around to this after the 90210 in Space rap. With endless cameos by Stargate actors and now this it’s back on the I don’t care list again.

  217. Morticae
    April 22, 2009 at 3:37 pm |

    @Vyse99,kzap333: Get out the Kleenex! I never stated that you couldn’t argue your opinions, I summarized it quite clearly with this: “If you are not interested in the characters and their interaction with one another, begone!”

    Specifically, that was for those who claimed not to necessarily be homophobes but claimed they didn’t want to see relationships of ANY SORT in the show. I’m just saying, lets get real. For those people, they are screwed. That is what this show is going to focus on. I’m sorry if that isn’t the spinoff of your dreams, sometimes you have to part ways with shows. I’m sure every single mature TV viewer has had to at some point.

    Oh, and you’re screwed too, if you are homophobic. Do you realize they are already filming the series, and in fact are currently filming the specific episode “Life” right now where we meet Sharons long term partner? You can grunt and grumble all you please, just be realistic and don’t expect them to rewrite and refilm everything to please your homophobia.

    That said, you can always enjoy SG-1 and/or SGA movies. Pray that SGU is successful because it has been stated that if this show fails, Stargate will most likely be wrapped up in terms of a tv series anyway. Perhaps if this is successful you will get another spinoff that meets your tastes. They are putting in a lot of time and effort into SGU and I think it will pay off.

  218. Vyse99
    April 22, 2009 at 4:36 pm |

    @Redlotus What do laws have to do with being given special attention on a TV show’s site? I mean do you think gay people deserve special attention on a TV show(and a site about the show) because you think they are misrepresented legally? In any event there are more forms of discrimination around then those covered by the law. Growing up I’ve been picked on and rejected myself a lot for something that I couldn’t control, was I protected? No it was just my word against theirs. If I said anything about it at all to authority figures such as teachers, the picking on just got worse and worse.

    Also I wasn’t implying anything of the sort when I said if I don’t like something I’ll speak out about it, I was referring to the relationship focus of the show just like I clearly stated earlier, not specially gay and lesbian relationships. Again stop assuming things, this is the second time you’ve done it, and frankly it gets tiring when people look for persecution in places that it doesn’t exist.

    And spend my life being angry and frustrated? I have too much going for me to have my life be consumed by “anger and frustration” over a TV show.

  219. Vyse99
    April 22, 2009 at 4:44 pm |

    @Morticae If this style of show truly is the future of Stargate then I don’t care if it fails, from what it seems the Stargate franchise that I love died when Atlantis was canceled(with the exception of the movies that keep getting pushed back). Also you seem to be getting pretty defensive here, with the whole “Get out the Kleenex! ” no one called for any rewrites. I’m just a long time Stargate fan on a Stargate website saying I don’t approve of the franchise’s new direction.

  220. redlotus
    April 22, 2009 at 5:06 pm |

    @vyse99, You brought up legal rights in your previous post, so I was responding to that. You also made a statement that being gay and being disabled or of an ethnic minority were comparable in terms of the way society treats you and the way you are discriminated against, and I was attempting to point out the major differences. Those differences play a part in why GW decided to post a story about a gay character, but did not make a headline out of having a black character etc. You will also notice that I made a point of aknowledging that discrimination occurs in many ways, and that the law does not always protect people. The point being that if you are LGBT in this country, you put up with that sort of discrimination (being picked on, called names, not protected by authority, etc) but LBGT people also have the added burden of not being protected on a larger legal scale.

    But again we are straying off-topic here, and it’s becoming clear that we have very different views on this subject. I don’t want this to dissolve into knit-picking and argument, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

    At any rate, I am glad to see gay people represented in SGU, and Sci Fi in general, and I applaud the producers and writers for deciding to go forward with it despite knowing that it would not be a popular desicion with some. I’m really looking forward to SGU (even before this news “came out.” :) and I’m hoping that once it airs and people give it a chance, they’ll enjoy it. I at least implore people to give it a chance before condeming it completely. At best, I think some people might be pleasantly surprised. At worst, you’ve given up an hour. Not such a bad gamble.

  221. kzap333
    April 22, 2009 at 5:34 pm |

    I hope SGU isn’t successful because although it may mean less investors choose to put money in the SG franchise at least the creators will work on something different that I might like. I’m not going to stop people watching the show but I won’t advertise it to anyone I know and won’t watch it myself and just hope it fails. Because the creators said they don’t want to work on more than one show at a time so the quicker this one is over and done with the quicker we can move on.

    @redlotus Yes I don’t want anything to change, is that so hard to believe if something is perfect why change it.
    It would be like saying I have made the perfect cake which is perfect in every way and could not get any better but I’m going to change it any way just so people don’t get bored.

  222. flmatthew
    April 22, 2009 at 7:12 pm |

    Gosh, I can’t believe I’m commenting twice on this but you people are so unreal. TORCHWOOD handles gay just fine thank you. In REAL life the actor who plays Jack is GAY and the fun way in which he portrays it on the screen makes the whole thing disarming and honest. He doesn’t flaunt nor does he hide. Again, more people in this world have died due to your religions and that my dear people is what should make you sick! How you treat others is how I would define a person, certainly not his/her sexuality. STARGATE is just reflecting the diversity in the Universe. You that mention disgust, look in the mirror.

  223. Vyse99
    April 22, 2009 at 8:36 pm |

    @Redlotus Fine, dropped.

    @flmatthew I’ve only seen Torchwood season 1 and a little bit of season 2, but I do remember Jack kissing multiple men thought the series. Is showing a character that makes out with whoever “handling gay just fine”? Don’t get me wrong though I hate seeing straight males being portrayed that way too *glares at Captain Kirk*

  224. sgc467
    April 22, 2009 at 9:37 pm |

    Well you know what, we don’t need that crap on TV to start with, it’s just so wrong. I was so Looking forward to SGU, but now it is boycotted from my TV. GAY, LESBIAN, don’t belong on tv. It’s bad enough it’s in the WORLD, we don’t need young kids who watch this show see this crap and think it is right, what a real fast way to wrp a creative mind!! As said by some one else, the parts fit with a man and a women, not two of the same sex. When it showed up on BSG, I puked!! To me this is a big ownfall in the SGU show and franchise, why couldn’t they have left it alone, as it should be a wholesome family show where kids and parents could watch together. I hope Brad and Rob and teh SGU team will reconsider will reconsider.

  225. redlotus
    April 23, 2009 at 2:33 am |

    @sgc467, Wow, that’s a really hateful statement to be making.

  226. Coremae
    April 23, 2009 at 3:52 am |

    I’m tired and bored of the need to introduce gay characters to keep it real, that’s just nonsense, they wanted a charge and they got one, so,it is up to us to watch it or not, I think I’m out. I’ll get the movie dvd’s but that’s it.

  227. Chucknician
    April 23, 2009 at 5:33 am |

    Sorry I think this is just a joke TPTB have gotten what they wanted intrested in the show yet more spin.

    If I was gonna watch SGU, I couldnt care less one way or the other re: gay charators. It should be about the show, the writing, the actors, effects etc.. NOT who is straight or gay or who is sleeping with who. Everyone is up in arms on both sides of the argument BUT nobody cares that there is a suicide or loads of deaths going to be shown.Thanks but no thanks I’d rather have light & fluffy vs dark, edgy, realistic and down right depressing anytime!!!! Stargate used to be about Science Fiction and escapesim for the god awlful world we currently live. RIP Stargate

    Yes Torchwood has Cpt Jack (John Barrowman is great)and sometimes the sexulity plot line works and sometimes it doesnt but it usely connected to the PLOT!!!!!

    As a SGA/SG1 I wont be watching SGU because the cancelled SGA for this “crap” and treated SGA fans as worthless oh an Im not the require dempographic being 44.For those who want SGU great you wanted a change well I guess you guys got it!!!!!! For me a 1000s other we stuffed, so stop bitching you at least have your bloody new show!!!!

  228. stargatesg-1
    April 23, 2009 at 8:54 am |

    I was going to watch SGU but now I don’t have to bother. Thank you. I will just watch my SG-1 and Atlantis DVD’s.

  229. tetrion
    April 23, 2009 at 9:50 am |

    sgc467, your bigotted post is the exact reason why we need gay characters on tv.

  230. US06154
    April 23, 2009 at 11:09 am |

    @tetrion, So the bottom line is, we the heterosexual (or breeders as some of my gay friends like to refer to us) the larger demographic, needs the sensitivity training, and SGU is going to be that instructional TV series? Forget SciFi, let’s show the world that this is an acceptable life style as well.

    Alcohol and smoking ads were pulled out of TV and even movie theatres for a reason. Because they do de-sensitize the viewer and makes it “okay” or acceptable to go down that path. SciFi should stay Scifi, and one of the aspects were not having to explain to a younger audience that two women or two guys making out is okay or not okay.

  231. DaRNgATe
    April 23, 2009 at 11:10 am |

    come on its a tv-show…if they want to have gay/lesbian people in there so be it, it doesnt change my mind about the show, now i know more info about one of the characters on the show.

    oh and @sgc467: about the whole ‘family show’ thing you said your more worry about kids picking up on gays and lesbians, then you are about violence cause of the gun shooting, clearly, there more violent stuff but i dont want to list them all. and drugs, even though it was shown a few, Tretonin. ok well the drugs bit might not be really worth mentioning but those are what i thought most people would be worry about when their kids watch a ‘family show’.

  232. Vyse99
    April 23, 2009 at 12:04 pm |

    Let me clear something up then I guess, I’m still going to give SGU a try even though my expectations aren’t very high.

  233. save Scifi
    save Scifi
    April 23, 2009 at 12:44 pm |

    My reaction to this headline resulted in me having to face a challenge made to me recently by several of my friends that are of the same faith as I am. Most of my friends no longer watch most tv shows on the broadcast networks because they are so opposed to the lifestyle we live (or try to live). I had a friend move back to town and had lent one of my Directv Tivos for a few days awaiting their own being installed. When I got it back, I noticed the various programs they had subscribed to or watched and found NOTHING from any broadcast network and only older series that were most friendly to our lifestyle. I ask them about why and their challenge made me examine my own viewing habits. Science Fiction has for the most part retained this morally neutral story line and has not been much of a challenge for me to continue to watch, but with this ANNOUNCEMENT I do feel challenged to choose.

    Maybe a person of genuine faith should be added as a character(or exposed from an existing character) to this story to attract millions of viewers that would be able to identify with the FEELINGS this new minority might have to the uncertain life that this new program is very likely to have to deal with, I have read a few articles that indicate survival will be the primary challenge of the characters in the beginning of the series.

  234. Cpt.Handel
    April 23, 2009 at 12:54 pm |

    Really, this is rediculous. Not the show but the reactions to this announcement. Apparantly people are using any excuse to not like this show.
    I do hope that the character’s relationship is treated the same as any other which I am sure is what will happen. That’s one of the things I liked about Torchwood was Jack’s open but not overdone personality. I also understand that the large conservative/ Christian community, who happens to be a large portion of SG-1 and SgA’s following will be upset but really, that’s their problem. Sci-Fi isn’t about paying homage to popular demand but portraying the possibilities of our world. An openly gay, recurring character is a good step forward but we should also remember that she won’t be a main character. And as far as the show’s relational focus goes, the writer’s have been open about this fact from the beginning. Those that don’t like this idea should remember that we’ve been aware of this since the show first came onto fandom radar.

  235. Cpt.Handel
    April 23, 2009 at 1:00 pm |

    I do realize that my comment about Capt. Jack isn’t exactly true. He’s pretty much as over-the-top as one can get but that’s him. A better example might be in Doctor Who. In many episodes there have been subtle hints, nothing overdone, about different side character’s secual preferences which is great since we live in a world where homosexuality has become a part of society. It’s perfectly alright to disagree with the life-style but to close oneself off and become completely intolerant seems backward.

  236. kzap333
    April 23, 2009 at 1:09 pm |

    @Vyse99 good man, I think I will do the same.
    The lower your expectations the better right?
    I had high expectations for SGA and thought it would be better than SGA, I was disappointed.
    I know this is slightly off topic but if you think something is going to be crap you can’t lose.
    If it does turn out to be rubbush – you are happy you were right.

    If it turns out to be ok – you are happy because it was better than you tough.

    If it turns out to be good – you have an amazing show to watch.

    I don’t think the inclusion of gays will make SGU any better or worse and I’m sure it will be a high quality well made show, but the clips soo far make me think it won’t be my cup of tea.

    Well done Darren Sumner for trying to keep this thread on topic and also respecting everyones views and noting taking a side (something I’ve been trying to do).

  237. stargatesg-1
    April 23, 2009 at 1:39 pm |

    Oh, I see if you don’t like gays/lesbians they edit the hell out of your response! I will keep posting replies especially they keep chopping my remarks. Hating the idea of gays/lesbians is a point of view on SGU because it is common point of view in the real world too! Not eveyone thinks being that is cool. Being that way is just someone reaching out for attention… “Hay look at me I’m Gay! well I say who cares! Bah-bug! I suppose this reply will get chopped too. SO I hope SGU gets the same!

  238. Vyse99
    April 23, 2009 at 3:33 pm |

    @Kzap333 Exactly! If it turns out that I enjoy it I’ll be very happy, I’ll for sure at least watch the 2 hour premiere but if that doesn’t click with me then that’s that, I guess I’ll only have the occasional movie to look forward to from the Stargate franchise.

    @Cpt.Handel Any excuse not to like SGU? Why does someone have to inherently like a show in this first place? Many fans are upset and rightfully so that they canceled Atlantis to make a relationship drama set in the Stargate universe(again no pun). The truth is I wanted to be excited about this show, I’m a huge Stargate fan, have been so since the movie came out in theaters, but the more I’ve learned about it the less interested in it I become.

    However I will agree with you that Jack’s homosexuality was shown better in Doctor Who, yes it was very clear he was bisexual, but it was never brought to the point where it was over the top like in Torchwood

  239. cherryblossom189
    April 23, 2009 at 4:41 pm |

    This news saddens me immensely. My father and I are avid SGA fans and when I heard about SGU I was very excited. But now to hear this, I’m upset and disappointed. I know several different people who will be extremely saddened by this news as well and it will cause myself and them not to watch the show. The reason why I loved Stargate (particularly Atlantis) was because it was a exciting and thrilling show but also clean and safe. There was no relationship and love mumbo jumbo like every other show on TV today. But I’m afraid that’s come to an end. I also agree with you, bentdog, I think your post was very well stated. I will always love and support SG1 and SGA but I’m afraid I won’t be able to watch SGU because of this.

  240. D4NM31ST3R
    April 23, 2009 at 4:43 pm |

    I dont understand why shows these days have to include this kind of crap. We got to like sg1 and sga due to them being fun and exciting. Keep it simple; the producers are only alienating fans by doing this. Surely sgu can continue in the footsteps of sg1 and sga without this politically correct bull.

  241. Browncoat1984
    April 23, 2009 at 4:52 pm |

    I just love that its perfectly fine to cover up pictures of Jesus so you homosexuals who aren’t religious aren’t offended, but when those of us who might be offended by seeing gays/lesbians on TV decide not to watch a show that’s apparently not fine.

  242. cherryblossom189
    April 23, 2009 at 4:59 pm |

    Amen, Browncoat1984! What is this world coming to? Honestly?

  243. redlotus
    April 23, 2009 at 5:18 pm |

    I think SG:U is going to be good, and personally I’m really looking forward to it. I loved SG1, I loved SGA – so far the writers and producers have proven that they are capable of making fun, entertaining shows and I think this format has a lot of potential.

    SG:U has some great writers contributing, some really talented actors/actresses involved (including Ming-Na!), and what looks to be great special effects. I’m really dismayed that so many people here are apparently willing to overlook all of that because of one aspect of one minor character, or because they have jumped to conclusions about the format.

    What do you really have to lose by just giving it a chance?

  244. Daedalus304
    April 23, 2009 at 6:23 pm |

    Thank you both MangoG and gatetrek; sci-fi for me is about being open-minded to new ideas and showing acceptance for things we don’t understand. I hope though that SGU at least show gay men in the show; that will definitely be a strong focal point.

  245. Browncoat1984
    April 23, 2009 at 6:52 pm |

    Redlotus, when a tv series/franchise you love and have supported suddenly supports a cause that you are avidly against and that goes against your core values, then you’ll understand why we’re not going to watch the show.

    Its not about not giving SGU a chance, I was perfectly willing to give SGU a chance until this, its about standing up for what you believe and telling Hollywood enough is enough, we’re no longer going to support this.

  246. dash
    April 23, 2009 at 7:16 pm |


    I hope this is only a sick progressive joke.

  247. Imitation Tofu
    Imitation Tofu
    April 23, 2009 at 7:56 pm |

    Is Wray going to be stealing someone else’s body when she goes to see her lover? That’s how the communication device works. Hopefully there won’t be anything too physical in this “brief respite,” talk about taking away consent…

  248. redlotus
    April 23, 2009 at 8:25 pm |

    @Imitation Tofu, I had had the same thought when peole were freaking out about this “brief respite” thing. The way the communication device works would seem to insure that there would not be anything too sexual going on.

  249. jaywolf
    April 23, 2009 at 11:55 pm |

    Well, it’s about freaking time. Seriously, I mean, finally. Although I really doubt the ability of TPTB to pull this off; they can’t handle heterosexual relationships at all (the rodney/ronon/jenn fiasco still gives me nightmares), so what on earth makes them think they can write a homosexual relationship?

  250. Chucknician
    April 24, 2009 at 3:21 am |

    Redlotus, re your comments about giving the show a chance. I can only give you my personal opinion. Firstly the gay issue WELL NOT an issue as far Im concerned an Im straight, as long as its relavent to the plot and that goes the same for both straight and gay relationship. The point is this is supposed to be science fiction, not a lovely relationship, whos sleeping with who show!!! I love Torchwood its done well John Barrowman is great. The only point I dont get is why a lot of the time a gay charactor is shown, its usually played by a straight actor??. John Barrowman is who he is and I respect him for that and he comes across as great guy who is in a long term loving relationship and recently interviewed saying his brodie and wants a baby SO WHAT MAKES HIM ANY DIFFERENT TO ME nothing expect his gay Im not.

    But back to the point of SGU, Im not watching SGU BECAUSE Cooper/Wright and co HAVE TOTALLY “p’d off 1000’s of SGA fans, with their flippant, rude, off hand and bloody awlful remarks, THEY have shown nothing BUT contempt for SGA fans. I have been a SG fan from the begining, and the old style formatt is what I liked. I never liked BSG because it was dark, it was a drama that happen to be set in space. I dont want Dark, Edger depressing, suicides, deaths ect…

    TPTB have already made it clear that anyone of 40 odd NOT wanted. This show IS NOT being aimed towards me a 44 year woman!!! That aside I know longer care whether its a hit or a miss SGA was cancelled for this, THATS WHY I’M NOT GONNA WATCH. I know many people are looking forward to SGU thats great for them, BUT PLEASE spare a thought for the rest off us, we had no say in this, the SGA backlash is huge, Im not saying dont have SGU but why at the expense of a very popular show.

    Lastly, I know they are a lot of anrgy people writing on this comments board an thats on both side of coin, What I dont get is why everyone is shouting an begin rude to each other. As whether or not any of you agree or disagree THERES IS NO EXCUSS for rudeness. Everybody is entitled to there own personal opinions, beliefs, life syles ect.. If your not happy with something then debate the subject DONT use insults because you just loss the argument. Jesus this world is bad enough as it is at the moment, theres little tolerance on either side.

    The Stargate Franchise is First and Foremost a SCIENCE FICTION SHOW for enterainment and escapism. I see very little either of these at the mo.

    Fed up SGA fan

  251. rovex
    April 24, 2009 at 8:15 am |

    Wow, i always assumed that SciFi shows had more enlightened viewers, especially since most challenge the notions of morality and religion quite heavily. It seems i was wrong.

    Im surprised how many very religious viewers SG-1 gets especially given how very unchristian its was in its last few years.

    Personally i think people need to get a grip, so SGU has a gay character, so what, get over it. Im an atheist, but i still enjoyed BSG despite its rather religious content. If you cant handle a few gay people on TV, go live in a cave.

  252. tetrion
    April 24, 2009 at 9:37 am |

    Oh for goodness sake, love is love. Exactly what this show is going to be showing two people who LOVE and CARE for each other. Isn’t most religions based on that…Oops I forgot, it’s acceptable as long as it’s between opposite sex…

  253. Curois
    April 24, 2009 at 10:38 am |

    It’s a shame management is trying to prohibit any discussion on the subject claiming it has nothing to do with SGU. Well it does have everyhing to do with SGU.
    They decided to add gay characters to the series, which I applaud. This is, in today’s society, quite a big ordeal, as is proven by the myriad of strong responses on the subject here.
    @All the anti-gay people: I’m disappointed management decided to remove my previous comment, because I went to great lengths to be as insulting as possible to anti-gay people. Is that how an adult should behave? No. Was it satisfactory? Hell yes!

  254. RgyelXVI
    April 24, 2009 at 11:16 am |

    I think their attempt at being “inclusive” will cost them viewers who see this as another “hollywood” attempt to force US States to accept Gay Marriage.

    The reason I enjoyed Stargate is the same reason I enjoyed A-Team, Fall Guy, Simon and Simon, and many other 80’s Action/Adventure shows. They were good clean fun!

    If this show has sex, and the gay themes constantly in the A story, this show will not live beyond a first season.

    Additionally, Notice how the gay character is an attractive Lesbian rather than a gay Male character. This is obviously done to appeal to the 16-49 demographic of Men who like the thought of seeing two hot women kissing.

    This shows that they know that the general public still does not like to see their shows overrun by gays, which are still a small minority of the viewing audience.

  255. Vladius
    April 24, 2009 at 11:47 am |

    It’s important to remember that we don’t “hate” gay people. Christians are supposed to love everyone platonically, male and female.

    I agree with RgyelXVI.

  256. Chucknician
    April 24, 2009 at 11:50 am |

    I have to say words fail me, at this whole situation, its just so sad to see SO MANY INTOLERANT PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES what ever happen to the saying “agree to disargee”, so my last comment on the matter is this:

    For me, cant make the assumption for anyone else, this is just my POV, the principle of the Stargate shows lay dead and buried. Just to remind you again this is what I think they there were again, please dont shout me down this is just my personal feelings:

    Fun & Witt
    Action lots off, John/Jack or Cam,Sam with there
    earth bound P90’s trying to make a difference expect when they have zaps or wraith stunners LOL.
    Hero’s in whatever form, male,female or alien.
    Mythology/ Ancients and archeology meets the science geeks.
    Good guys beating bad guys with the occasional good guy butt kicking, but good wins out in the end.
    Characters to love and get behind.
    Hints at sex or romance, lovable rouges that you want to get the girl an usually don’t BUT now an again they score, BUT NOT SHOVED DOWN YOUR THROAT, just hints and innuendo’s and flirty banter.This also goes for the girls meeting guys, an if there was a gay charactor the same applies.
    Family orientated.
    Great stories/ great plots.
    Aliens good and bad.

    MOST OF ALL GOING THROUGH THE STARGATE TO EXPLORE an usually mucking it up but making amends in the end. PURE Escapism for an hour a week and finally SCIENCE FICTION. We all live in the real world 24 7, is it asking SO MUCH to have 1 hour a week where there is no political agenda’s. YES the world is NOT perfect, and many shows dont reflect real life issues. BUT I really thought Stargate was an entertainment show, I’m trying to be PC because now it makes you scared to say your POV because of the name calling and being horrible to each other, so appolgises to anyone an everyone for my POV.

    I just think this is so sad!!!!!

  257. Vyse99
    April 24, 2009 at 12:49 pm |

    @Valdius Exactly! I have a whole lot more I’d like to say on the issue but my post will just be removed.

    @RgyelXVI Its kinda funny I fit their new demographic exactly(25 here) and I’m not happy with the direction they are taking with SGU at all.

  258. Curois
    April 24, 2009 at 12:57 pm |

    @RygelXVI: While I applaud the inclusion of gays in SGU, I agree with you with the somewhat “easy way out” TPTB chose by going for the standard beautiful lesbians :)

  259. rovex
    April 24, 2009 at 1:12 pm |

    Really all that was said was that there will be gay characters. SGU isnt going to be queer as folk in space, so even the most hard line homophobes can relax just a bit. My guess is that it will be mentioned a few times and MAYBE there will be a kiss in one episode, thats it. Most people wont care, those saying it will kill the show are just out of touch with reality, and think the whole world is like their own small circle. I can assure you in the UK and Canada it wont affect the viewers at all, even a full gay male main character wouldn’t adversely affect ratings.

  260. US06154
    April 24, 2009 at 1:26 pm |

    @curois; So what you are saying is, us straight peeps, who’d rather not see a GLBT theme on SciFi only belong in the middle ages, while you enlightned gays are so futuristic, that you actualy belong in space and SciFi? I’m not saying that I wont watch SGU because I may catch gayness off my TV, but for the same reason I wont watch UFC, or jackass. It’s sad that a franchise that I held so dear, is trying to get ahead of itself. It was always supposed to be fiction. If I’d want to see reality, I’d look out the window and see the next door two women makeout.

  261. Vyse99
    April 24, 2009 at 1:39 pm |

    @US0154 So true, there’s a lesbain couple here at school that I constantly see holding hands and kissing. I don’t watch sci-fi to see what I see everyday I watch sci-fi to see things I can’t want won’t see in real life. It might be tired and old to some, but I love the classic SG forumula and its so sad seeing SGU depart from it.

  262. Browncoat1984
    April 24, 2009 at 3:09 pm |

    To management, you can’t have this discussion without getting into gay rights or any of that other crap. Why? Because as soon as somebody mentions that they don’t want to see gay people on TV, for whatever reason, whether it be political, religious, or just because they don’t want to see it, the other side gets pissed off and starts into name calling, thinking that that’ll hurt our feelings, then our side starts to get defensive and attack the other side, its a vicious cycle.

    You can’t have this discussion without that happening. The only way to avoid it is to not have it at all. I realize that the site owners have their own justifications for why they felt it was newsworthy, but this should not have been posted as a news topic, except maybe in a transcript of the ENTIRE conversation that Brad Wright and Robert Cooper had on their panel. Of EVERYTHING that they said, why is THIS deemed the most newsworthy? If you don’t want this topic to devolve into gay rights, whatever, then lock it, because there’s no way that it can’t.