This post or page contain affiliate links for which i could receive a commission
About Amazon product on this page:
startrekfancydress.net is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com
I bestow upon thee, one internetz, to use as you see fit.
I want to see the NEXT PART DAMN YOU!!!!!!
This clip needs to be renamed: Kirk meets his in-laws.
Spock is married to a female Vulcan, you insufferable fag.
He killed Kirk because of her.
Fuck the top comments: they are all gay fags.
Fuck you. We are not gay fags. They ARE canon. Why waste you pathetic time calling us Spirk shippers gays fags.
Spock kills Kirk for a Vulcan woman. Kirk gets ressurected. You are ignoring canon.
I’m not ignoring canon. How the fuck am I ignoring canon? Just casue Spock killed Kirk for a Vulcan woman dosn’t mean they are not canon. If the 60’s wasn’t so anti gay Spock would have fucked Kirk’s brian out instead of killing him. Just becasue Kirk and Spock never kissed or had sex on screen dosn’t mean they wasn’t together. Is “Amok Time” the only prove you really have that they aren’t canon?
actually their relationship was, to quote, “less than marriage, more than a betrothal”. She invoked kal-if-fee before the ceremony could take place – so they technically weren’t officially married in the truest sense. They were, for lack of a better word, “paired” at age 7 – obviously not by personal choice. After kal-if-fee, their arrangement was anulled and they were effectively “divorced”.
Get your facts straight genius.
Doesn’t change the fact that Spock never showed any more sexual attraction to Kirk than Mr. Scott.
Who cares about sexual attraction? Even Gene Roddenberry admitted there was love between them.
No, he didn’t.
It is only logical to assume that the sentiment is entirely dependant on the context in which the phrase itself was originally percieved.
Logic dictates that fact is supported by evidence. Therfore, unless you provide a reference, you cannot prove your claim.
Also, locic dictates that potential reproduction should not be hindered by any individual: whether or not that individual’s preferences are not logical. “Homosexuality” is emotional in nature: that alone would prevent Spock from persuing it.
Your reasoning is sound. However, it may be similarly logical to take into consideration the fact that whithin the perameters of this argument, the sexual element of this equation is irrelevant.
Despite the equally emotional nature of love, and therefore the illogical nature of it, it is still within the realm of possibility to feel such an emotion without sexual implications. Simply put, they are seperate elements which are independant of each other.
There are holes in your argument.
“The sexual element of this equation is irrelevant.”
That is not in question: the potential homoseuality of Commander Spock is in question, not the general status of public opinion. The term “Homo-Sexuality” is linguistically very solid.
“it is still possible to feel such an emotion without sexual implications”
You are implying that Spock would be emotional. Unless you refer to an interpretation of events by JJ Abrams: that is an impossible circumstance.
An impossible circumstance. Indeed?
You imply that Vulcans (or half-Vulcans as the case may be) are completely incapable of experiencing emotions.
The experience or illiciting of emotional responses are quite different matters. Just as control and experience of emotions are different matters.
To hold proper control over ones emotions, it is logical to first be capable of recognizing said emotions in order to efficiently control them.
One must first feel what is to be controlled.
Your logic is sound. Now you must prove incontraverably that the Vulcan in question posesses homosexual emotions and/or tendencies.
It has already been revealed that he has a deep respect for his mother, and a strong attraction towards human females, and an affinity for furry animals. (cats, tribbles, etc) All of these tendencies were shown most explicitly, with no room for mis-interprretation of the matter.
Herein lies the problem: an opinion formed without all facts is formed in ignorance.
It simply cannot be truly hypothosized whether or not the Vulcan in question posesses homosexual emotions/tendancies having never been granted the privilage of knowing his official stance on the matter.
However, just because one set of views is logical it does not follow that conflicting views are impossible. Merely improbable.
Therefore I acknowledge that it is IMPROBABLE that he is in any manner homosexual.
Correction: very highly improbable.
And yet, not impossible.
Considering the progression of this argument, that comment was superfluos in nature: I said “very highly improbable”, and you followed with “and yet, not impossible”
There was no logical reason to re-state the obvious. In many ways, your comment seems similar to a human practise: “viewing the glass half full”. However, this is more analgous to “viewing the glass 1% full”, which would be very illogical, and totally unneccissary.
I apologise. The emotional response was ill timed. I am, however, pleased the argument has appeared to have been resolved to both our satisfactions.