Homosexuality in Futurama

[Reply #40 on:]

Everything is a debate waiting to happen.

[Reply #41 on:]

Lumping all gay people into a group as being either genetically predestined or choosing to be gay seems a bit restrictive. Some people probably fall into both categories. Maybe genetics steer them one way or the other a bit but then maybe they can make a choice. I had a gay cousin who is married to a woman now and they seem very happy. Human sexuality is far too complicated to fall into one category or another.

[Reply #42 on:]

I understand everything is a debate waiting to happen. I also understand this is an internet forum where many people have waaaaay too much time on their hands and are just looking for some attention.

My bad for thinking a forum on a cartoon series would be any different.

[Reply #43 on:]

I understand everything is a debate waiting to happen. I also understand this is an internet forum where many people have waaaaay too much time on their hands and are just looking for some attention.

My bad for thinking a forum on a cartoon series would be any different.

Uncalled for and unneccesary.

[Reply #44 on:]

Gay Guy and the Ghost. Don't know if someone said that already. It's technically Futurama!! The best kind of correct.

[Reply #45 on:]

Also, in one of the 'movies' Zapp is attracted to one of his soldiers (Leela) who he believes to be a man at the time.

(War is the H-Word)

[Reply #46 on:]

Homosexuality in Futurama - There should be more of it; I agree.

[Reply #47 on:]

I'd be shocked if there weren't a joke like this in Prop Infinity:

Professor: ...Oh yes when homosexual marriage was made legal in 2030

... and mandatory in 2033.

[Reply #48 on:]

I have to admit that I ocassionally examine how my favourite shows treat the topic. Like in Star Trek when Jadzia meets her Ex who now happens to be a woman.

I'm diverting but I do agree that it is weird that Futurama has hardly shown how homosexuality is lived in the future. To me the references to Prop 8 are kind of a cheap way out of it. Would it be so bad to portray homosexuality directly?

Reading through the discussion here, there seems to be some debate about lifestyle choices, genetics and religion. I can't say that I know much of either of those topics. But I have always been curious why people would care about what other people do in their bedrooms as long as it's  'safe, sane, and consensual' so to speak. I mean all this stuff about biology - please humans are much more complex than that. So I guess to me the topic is rather social stratification and how people feel the need to form social groups and discriminate against those who don't fit some artificial majority based on sexual orientation, background, gender etc. - approaching the subject from a sociological viewpoint.
 

[Reply #49 on:]

To me the references to Prop 8 are kind of a cheap way out of it. Would it be so bad to portray homosexuality directly?

Are you serious? The way homosexality is dealt with (as in shown to be some kind of weird futuristic thing that draws a parallel to present social issues) is basically Futurama's thing.

[Reply #50 on:]

To me the references to Prop 8 are kind of a cheap way out of it. Would it be so bad to portray homosexuality directly?

Are you serious? The way homosexality is dealt with (as in shown to be some kind of weird futuristic thing that draws a parallel to present social issues) is basically Futurama's thing.

I agree.

Humour is often the best way to broach such a controversial and divisive topic such as homosexuality in the modern era.

This kind of thing has been done a lot in television history. I recall watching something about how the old TV comedy show "All In The Family" dealt with the issue of racism and prejudice back in the 70s; the crotchety old dude was basically an intolerant bigot and racist, and a negative example for how people used to be, made tolerable through humour. Supposedly that show influenced people's perspective on tolerance and multiculturalism.

I think that most people recognize that the "Proposition Infinity" episode of Futurama was a thinly veiled parody of that proposition regarding homosexual marriage in California. If I recall correctly, that was voted on and defeated in the 2008 election. Wasn't the whole thing a debaucle about how people elected the first Black US President, but they apparently weren't so progressive as to support equal rights for homosexuals; and it was a terrible hypocrisy?

Unless there was another similar proposition, that episode wouldn't have been topical even when it was written last year. Regardless, I suppose it's a relevant issue of our day -- but not really, because most of the developed countries in the world have laws recognizing equal rights for homosexuals, including the right to get married; so America is actually the only holdout. Forshame.

[Reply #51 on:]

artificial majority based on sexual orientation

If the majority of people (90%) are straight, then how is that artificial? Homosexuality is confined to roughly 10% of any given population. I read an article in The Lancet (following on from a TV show by Dr. Robert Winston) which suggests that hardwired (ie; natural) homosexuality is actually the result of intrauterine developmentwhereby testosterone and estrogen flood the developing foetus in incorrect proportion, effectively "wiring up" the developing brain to be attracted to members of the same sex.

Bisexuality, same deal but more of a trickle than a flood. Nurture-based homosexuality, or culturally acceptable homoeroticism is the only artificial component of the "majority" here, and accounts for roughly 5% of the human population.

So we have a majority of 85-90% which is in no way artificial.

I more or less agree with your main point. I'm just arguing semantics here.

[Reply #52 on:]

Did you just say homosexuality is a choice?

No... but I did.

[Reply #53 on:]

I'm diverting but I do agree that it is weird that Futurama has hardly shown how homosexuality is lived in the future. To me the references to Prop 8 are kind of a cheap way out of it. Would it be so bad to portray homosexuality directly?

I'd rather they didn't portray it directly because I'd be amazed if it's still an issue in the year 3000. If they did an episode about how 'controversial' being gay is then it'd ruin a lot of the show's realism for me. I know, I know, it's a sci-fi, comedy cartoon but it's usually reasonably logical. They needed something that could be similarly controversial in their time-period to comment on gay marriage with.
Also, homosexuals clearly exist in Futurama's world. Proposition Infinity alone had to two men sharing the pet poodle.

[Reply #54 on:]

I'm diverting but I do agree that it is weird that Futurama has hardly shown how homosexuality is lived in the future. To me the references to Prop 8 are kind of a cheap way out of it. Would it be so bad to portray homosexuality directly?

I'd rather they didn't portray it directly because I'd be amazed if it's still an issue in the year 3000. If they did an episode about how 'controversial' being gay is then it'd ruin a lot of the show's realism for me. I know, I know, it's a sci-fi, comedy cartoon but it's usually reasonably logical. They needed something that could be similarly controversial in their time-period to comment on gay marriage with.
Also, homosexuals clearly exist in Futurama's world. Proposition Infinity alone had to two men sharing the pet poodle.

I agree; it wouldn't make any sense for Futurama to tackle the issue of homosexuality, because it should long since have become a non-issue in the future. It's hardly an issue anymore in the present day; as I mentioned before, out of all of the most developed countries in the world, the United States is one of only a few holdouts that hasn't granted homosexuals equal rights under the law, including marriage and adoption. Some states have, but they're in the minority. Eventually though, there will be equal rights for everyone.

The "Proposition Infinity" episode was a parody of that Californian gay marriage proposition, and given a Futurama twist. It was established back in "I Dated a Robot" that romantic relationships between humans and robots was taboo, but that episode had the opposite stance because Fry had programmed a robot to be his girlfriend. Whereas in this episode, Bender and Amy were two consenting "adults" who supposedly had fallen in love, which is different; so it made sense that they'd advocate for robosexuality being legalized.

Also, I suspect that the FOX censors wouldn't allow Futurama to use the word "robosexuality" in "I Dated A Robot", because it was such a thinly veiled allusion to homosexuality; so Futurama had to dance around issue without calling it what it was. Now that they're on CC, they're more free to tackle subjects like this.

That said, I hope they don't, or do so infrequently in Futurama, because this isn't what Futurama is about. There were a string of "topical" Futurama episodes: "Attack of the Killer App" (iPhone & twitter), "Proposition Infinity" (gay marriage), and "The Duh-Vinci Code" (The Da Vinci Code). I'm disappointed by this because it suggested that Futurama had run out of ideas and had resorted to these topical issues for stories, as opposed to the abstract craziness we've all enjoyed over the years.

[Reply #55 on:]

I got the opposite impression based on what DXC said in an interview.  He stated that they felt they needed to tackle some of the things that have happened since Futurama was on the air, which meant the episodes would become topical.

I assume they couldn't wait; otherwise it would simply be too late to actually make a point.  I hope, though, that there is a reason it was a string of them; because they had to do 'em and move on to their own ideas.

Think about it, according to Groening, "The Late Philip J. Fry" was an idea he had wanted to do for a long time (before the show came back and such).  But why was episode 7?  I think the writers have an idea of saving the better stuff for later; just sayin'.

[Reply #56 on:]

Some good points, let me just clarify two things. Obviously humour is a great way to approach serious issues I guess I just didn't like the episode. Plus if homosexuality would be presented in Futurama then I would expect it to be portrayed as a non-issue, hence the Star Trek reference. Still find it curious, with plenty of recurring characters, that no one is shown with their same-sex partner.

Secondly my comment on artificial majorities. What is random/artificial to me is the fact that people focus for example on sexual orientation. It would also be possible to form a group of all people taller than 5 ft 2 and disriminate against all others.   

[Reply #57 on:]

No gay gay characters eh?

Smitty and Url

"I guess this is why the chief said 'no hugging'."

Randy and some other guy

"These animals are all same-sex couples."

By the way I'm with totalnerduk on homosexuality is a birth defect caused by the wrong amount of exposure to estrogen or testosterone. However I think it's partially psychological because of a spectrum thing going on with sexual orientation. Not everyone get's exposed to the "correct" amount of each hormone for their gender. Therefore almost everyone has at least some degree of bisexuality otherwise there wouldn't be people who are prison gay or just bi-curious.

You know what would be really scary to gay people is the fact that this condition might be treatable someday with prenatal hormone therapy. If that day comes I bet a lot of gays will ironically use a religious excuse for parents not being aloud to choose their child's sexual orientation even though it increases their chances of passing on their DNA and not having to deal with psychological problems associated with being unusual due to their sexuality. (heterophobia? That's madness I tell you! jk)

[Reply #58 on:]

By the way I'm with totalnerduk on homosexuality is a birth defect caused by the wrong amount of exposure to estrogen or testosterone.

Birth defect? That's just so wrong for anyone to say.

[Reply #59 on:]

Sounds to me like someone's trying to get offended...

[Reply #60 on:]

By the way I'm with totalnerduk on homosexuality is a birth defect caused by the wrong amount of exposure to estrogen or testosterone.

Birth defect? That's just so wrong for anyone to say.

It's not medically speaking incorrect to refer to an interuterine developmental flaw as a birth defect, but I agree, it doesn't sound right to refer to homosexuals in such a manner.

If prenatal hormone therapy were used to "normalise" develoing foetuses in this manner, I can't see people getting outraged about it. Especially considering that many gay people feel uncomfortable, ostracised, outcast, and abnormal for their sexuality. They don't just remain closeted because of other people's reactions, they try to be "normal", ie: straight, because they somehow feel that they "should".

That was the case with one guy I know personally, and he wasn't alone in his experience. When he finally came out in his forties, he found that most people around him didn't judge him nearly as harshly as he had judged himself.

His wife was kindof upset with him though.

Also, please, nobody ever use the term "prison gay" ever again. Unpleasant images there.

[Reply #61 on:]

Sorry I didn't mean to offend people with the birth defect comment.

I think I've been spending too much time listening to morons on both sides of the gay marriage debate (I'm somewhere near the middle on this issue.) Plus I've had a bad experience with a gay/bisexual person I almost made friends with. Things were going smoothly until she found out that I don't believe in legalizing same sex marriage because of the tax break part of it. (I don't think it would be fair because homosexuals don't have to spend some of their income on birth control or deal with unplanned children.) Then she accused me of being a homophobe even though I think firing someone just for being gay and denying visitation rights is wrong.

It seems to me that a lot of these people who are the loudest about legalizing same-sex marriage are just as mentally disturbed as the ones hiding in the closet if not more so. They always seem to insist that only bisexuals can choose to be in a gay or strait relationship and that there are only 3 categories for sexual orientation. To me what they are trying to say is that it needs to be legalized because gay people can't possibly fall in love with a member of the opposite sex and maintain a healthy relationship.

However there is a problem with the spectrum thing. Which would suggest that most people can choose if they want to pursue a hetero or homosexual relationship, some people would just have to work harder at it than others.

I myself am a woman with a higher than normal testosterone level. (No seriously I really am a woman and not a man claiming to be one.) So there is a good chance I was exposed to a bit more testosterone as a fetus. I know sexual orientation is all about sexual attraction and I have been turned on by both men and women. Based on this logic I should be bisexual. The problem with that assessment is that women rarely turn me on or as much as men can. I could be turned on by checking out a hot woman and on the same day get even more turned on by man that is only half as attractive. Other days even the most beautiful woman in the world couldn't make me horny no matter what she did. I really don't quite fit in either the bisexual or heterosexual category. But I choose to only peruse a heterosexual relationship because I wouldn't have to work as hard to get it to work because my partner could get me in the mood more easily so the sexual aspect is less likely to be a hurtle. Then there is the convince of having the right parts included with a free sperm bank.

If I can be bi-curious about homosexuality then why can't "gay" people also be bi-curious about heterosexuality? That's why I think some gay people would be mad at the idea of parents choosing their kids' sexual orientation. Because many are partially attracted to members of the opposite sex and don't want to admit that they are taking the easy way out and wouldn't want to feel so wired about it because the hormone treatments would make it even more rare.

[Reply #62 on:]

I think I've been spending too much time listening to morons on both sides of the gay marriage debate (I'm somewhere near the middle on this issue.) Plus I've had a bad experience with a gay/bisexual person I almost made friends with. Things were going smoothly until she found out that I don't believe in legalizing same sex marriage because of the tax break part of it. (I don't think it would be fair because homosexuals don't have to spend some of their income on birth control or deal with unplanned children.) Then she accused me of being a homophobe even though I think firing someone just for being gay and denying visitation rights is wrong.

Life is what we choose.  The amount of 'unplanned' children certainly is a serious issue.  Or wait, no, it is for few, but in the general scheme of everything, it really isn't.  Why tax someone based on their sexual orientation (it may not be the original thought, but that is the consequence)?  That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

There are other issues homosexuals have to go through that heterosexuals do not have, don't these issues compensate for the issues heterosexuals have?  Or did you not consider that?

It seems to me that a lot of these people who are the loudest about legalizing same-sex marriage are just as mentally disturbed as the ones hiding in the closet if not more so. They always seem to insist that only bisexuals can choose to be in a gay or strait relationship and that there are only 3 categories for sexual orientation. To me what they are trying to say is that it needs to be legalized because gay people can't possibly fall in love with a member of the opposite sex and maintain a healthy relationship.

Generalising or simplifying one side or the other isn't going to gather yourself any friends.  Yes, there are always idiots.  It's one of those pretexts of life, don't get let the loud minority get the best of you.

I have on few occasions heard the issue of 'choice' in this thing come up as a real thing.  But it's really about love.  Who are the government to say who you can and cannot love?  Legalising same-sex marriages is wrong way of putting it, I'd rather put it as 'government having no interest in your sexual orientation regarding marriage'.  Which is sort of what people are asking for.  Or do you feel government should regulate this too, because apparently people are too stupid to make up their own minds?

I can't believe, as a person who believe in big government, I am actually advocating for less government on an issue.  But I am.

However there is a problem with the spectrum thing. Which would suggest that most people can choose if they want to pursue a hetero or homosexual relationship, some people would just have to work harder at it than others.

I myself am a woman with a higher than normal testosterone level. (No seriously I really am a woman and not a man claiming to be one.) So there is a good chance I was exposed to a bit more testosterone as a fetus. I know sexual orientation is all about sexual attraction and I have been turned on by both men and women. Based on this logic I should be bisexual. The problem with that assessment is that women rarely turn me on or as much as men can. I could be turned on by checking out a hot woman and on the same day get even more turned on by man that is only half as attractive. Other days even the most beautiful woman in the world couldn't make me horny no matter what she did. I really don't quite fit in either the bisexual or heterosexual category. But I choose to only peruse a heterosexual relationship because I wouldn't have to work as hard to get it to work because my partner could get me in the mood more easily so the sexual aspect is less likely to be a hurtle. Then there is the convince of having the right parts included with a free sperm bank.

If I can be bi-curious about homosexuality then why can't "gay" people also be bi-curious about heterosexuality? That's why I think some gay people would be mad at the idea of parents choosing their kids' sexual orientation. Because many are partially attracted to members of the opposite sex and don't want to admit that they are taking the easy way out and wouldn't want to feel so wired about it because the hormone treatments would make it even more rare.

There are several levels of bisexuality.  5 or 7, if I recall correctly; ranging from complete heterosexual (1) to complete homosexual (7).  The extreme ends of the spectrum are rare.  You are about a 3, I should say.

Also, I haven't heard the notion that people are mad at parents choosing their children's sexual orientation, especially because I still consider that a bit of an experimental part of science.

[Reply #63 on:]

I myself am a woman with a higher than normal testosterone level.

High enough to grow a beard?

[Reply #64 on:]

I myself am a woman with a higher than normal testosterone level.

High enough to grow a beard?

Planning a circus venture?

[Reply #65 on:]

If I can be bi-curious about homosexuality then why can't "gay" people also be bi-curious about heterosexuality? That's why I think some gay people would be mad at the idea of parents choosing their kids' sexual orientation. Because many are partially attracted to members of the opposite sex and don't want to admit that they are taking the easy way out and wouldn't want to feel so wired about it because the hormone treatments would make it even more rare.

For the first part I'm totally with you. I haven't quite figured out how anyone can claim to be 100 per cent either way. At the end of the day no one can ever guarantee who they will fall for, and with an open mind and the lights off - who can tell the difference as long as one is enjoying oneself. But I guess there are people who feel more strongly about this and think of themselves as strictly hetero- or homosexual.

I'm just not sure it is hormones or whatever. For any scientific paper or research that will tell you it is one thing you will find 5 others telling you the opposite. We know far less than we think we do IMO.

And marriage of course all for. Not the states business who we are seeing.

[Reply #66 on:]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/sarahmorgan/gay-scientists-isolate-christian-gene-d8

Nice.

Incidentally (and I'm aware this is going off-topic), most Christians are Christians only because their parents are.

[Reply #67 on:]

Just like Jews are Jews because their Mother was it.  Oh my goodness.  It's almost as if people follow in their parents' footstep?!  Or become carpenters like them.  Or kings.  I think there is a thesis to be written on this matter!  The world must know!

[Reply #68 on:]

Incidentally (and I'm aware this is going off-topic), most Christians are Christians only because their parents are.

I know a hell of a lot of Christians who'd disagree with you on that one.

[Reply #69 on:]

If I can be bi-curious about homosexuality then why can't "gay" people also be bi-curious about heterosexuality? That's why I think some gay people would be mad at the idea of parents choosing their kids' sexual orientation. Because many are partially attracted to members of the opposite sex and don't want to admit that they are taking the easy way out and wouldn't want to feel so wired about it because the hormone treatments would make it even more rare.

That's an odd choice of phrase...to be "bicurious about homosexuality." That's kind of contradictory, yeah?

     Oh, and as a confirmed gay, I've attempted bisexuality. Fun story that you're not getting out of me before a few drinks.
Didn't do a thing for me. I find boys boring. Not disgusting, or offputting. Just completely unexciting.
     So yeah, not a choice. If I had the choice, I'd pick whichever gave me the most dating options.