The many kinds of couples in AGMGTW

[StarryNight]

Thought here might be the best place to post this topic, as it was getting a bit heated on the S6 thread.

My take on the various relationships inserted in AGMGTW is that they're there to get us caring about the characters quickly, and give us a little entertainment at the same time in humorous dialogue.

Having said that, I believe the soldiers' relationship shows more subtle and dark undertones regarding how discrimination endures even in the far future.  The whole idea of a church-based military is daring, controversial, and disturbing.  Now, add in the fact that being gay while being church soldiers is so unusual that everyone knows them without names... and then one of them is CHOSEN by his superiors to be a headless monk.  Hmmmm... sounds like a good way for those superiors to deal with what they likely see as a problem.

Regarding the 1888 gals, it would have been fine to show two gutsy females who were just friends.  Even if they're brought back later on, as I'm sure they will be, their sexual relationship didn't need to be established yet.  But I enjoyed their interaction and felt I got to know them somewhat because of how they were presented.

If this had been a 2-parter, as I think it should have been, meeting two gay couples may have been less "jarring" to some folks.  But in real life, on some days, you meet two gay couples; other days you meet two heterosexual couples.  It's a random universe.  And showing gay couples existing in the past and future, couples made up of individuals with clearly different backgrounds, helps compensate for the past saturation of male/female couples on TV throughout our lifetimes.

I find it amusing this topic gets so much attention, while River's reference to "two Doctors--that was a whole different birthday" flies right under the radar.   

Agree/disagree?  Just keep it civil, my friends. 

[Nick off of Twitter]

Since you brought it up again (thanks, by the way) I've been wanting to post this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttUvsrcxKmI

in response to some people's problem with the way sexuality is portrayed.

[Rory Pond]

I find it amusing this topic gets so much attention, while River's reference to "two Doctors--that was a whole different birthday" flies right under the radar.   

I'm glad you mentioned that bit of dialogue. While it seemed like yet another Moffat double entendre (especially since Alex Kingston delivered it with such gusto), I prefer the interpretation I've read elsewhere: that it's a veiled reference to Doctor Who anniversaries, and their repeated use of multiple Doctors! Which, if true, could be the Moff hinting at his plans for the 50th anniversary special.

Could be that this line also helps identify the mongs from the not-we's. Which meaning do you believe is intended? 

[Mr Lister]

I find it amusing this topic gets so much attention, while River's reference to "two Doctors--that was a whole different birthday" flies right under the radar.  

I noticed that right away, while the whole Vastra/Jenny went right over my head on first viewing. Oh well. I didn't realise that the two Doctors thing could have been a fourth wall breakage though.
And I must say, while I didn't mind the thin & fat gay married Anglican marines at all, your comment made me think. They were the only persons exclaiming on screen, "Hi! We're gay!" Are we supposed to conclude that all the other soldiers were straight? Or just that the others didn't talk about it openly?

Honestly I don't understand what's wrong about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. If I need to be rescued by a soldier, I don't care if they're straight or gay, as long as they do they work properly. I don't need them to tell me!
Nor, for that matter, do I need to know anybody else's sexual preference, no matter their profession. If my wife visits the bank, she doesn't need the teller to tell 'er "Hi hottie! I'm straight! And single!"

But I'm not sure if this is the topic to discuss here. I think it's more about the sexuality as such. There never was any talk about sex before, or if there was, it was only hinted at. But now we know for a fact that Amy and Rory had sex, in the Tardis, and we also know when: within hours after the end of The Big Bang, and that it was in a bunk bed. I certainly can imagine people considering that a bit too much information.

[StarryNight]

Thanks for the Carlin, Nick, LOL!  So true.

Rory, very interesting take on that statement.  Yet now there's no doubt in my mind: it means BOTH a memorable birthday for River AND a reference to multiple Doctors on anniversaries!   

On a more serious note, the DADT idea Mr Lister expresses is what it was originally meant to be.  However, for the soldiers involved (I know a few) it made them feel like they always had to hide and lie and live in fear of discovery.  Several were forced to give up their careers because they simply could not live like that.  Many soldiers are extremely honest as a point of honor, so DADT doesn't work for them. 

[Nick off of Twitter]

...and Don't Ask Don't Tell is more about making Republicans happy than actual soldiers and officers.  I understand where Lister's coming from if he's not too aware of the policy's history, but research it deeper and there's a whole different set of stories and agendas.

[lamuella]

Honestly I don't understand what's wrong about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

What's wrong with it is that throwing someone out of the armed forces for mentioning a boyfriend or a girlfriend is disgusting and ridiculous on every level

If I need to be rescued by a soldier, I don't care if they're straight or gay, as long as they do they work properly. I don't need them to tell me!

DADT isn't a policy about not talking about your sexuality.  It's a policy about firing people for mentioning that they are gay.

If it was the policy within the US armed forces that you were never allowed to mention spouses or romantic partners, that would be one thing.  One ridiculous thing, but still an even standard that applied to everyone.

DADT isn't an even standard.  It only applies to gay people within the armed forces.

if DADT does away (as it should) it won't mean that soldiers run around talking about their sexual preference.  If it meant that, then the straight soldiers that make up the majority of the army would already be doing that.  Getting rid of DADT just means that the standards of behaviour are the same for gay and straight people, that's all.

The UK has allowed gay people to serve openly for several years now, and has gone as far as having recruiting officers at pride parades.  This doesn't mean that members of the british armed forces loudly announce their sexuality, it just means they can't be kicked out for being a boy who likes boys or a girl who likes girls.

Sorry if this turned into a rant, but DADT is a horrible horrible policy, born out of bigotry.

[Ian]

If someone chooses not to discuss thier sexuality, that is fine and their choice. But DADT forces people not to discuss it on pain of being fired.

To put it another way, I don't generally go around annoucing to people at work that I'm a Doctor Who fan. I'm not particularly secret about it, but tend not to bring it up unprompted as many people have a negative reaction and I simply can't be bothered dealing with it when it's an irrelevence to my work.

Which is fine and I don't think anyone would dispute my right to do that.

However, if it became formal policy that I must not discuss my fandom on pain of being fired, that would be out of order, which is what DADT is.

[Nick off of Twitter]

And as I said before, it would appear from polls and statements that a good-sized percentage of the US armed forces themselves couldn't give a rat's anal aperture about it and would rather it were abolished. It's not an army thing - it's a Republican party thing.

[StarryNight]

Makes me very happy to see such anti-DADT sentiment on the forum.  I kept my response fairly neutral as I didn't want to offend anyone--suppose that was unnecessary!   

As Nick mentioned, it's become obvious whose agenda DADT serves.  Unfortunately in the US, certain ridiculously powerful corporate interests are busy creating the new Dark Ages, so DADT is only one of many bad policies still hanging around.  Worse policies are being implemented as you read this, and it's all tremendously scary for us average Americans and for the rest of the world too... as I'm sure most of you already know.

Welcome to a dark mirror parallel universe, folks.  Anyone know how to restore the proper shiny happy universe timeline?  (And were we ever truly there in the first place?)

[Rory Pond]

Welcome to a dark mirror parallel universe, folks.  Anyone know how to restore the proper shiny happy universe timeline?  (And were we ever truly there in the first place?)

Well, having one court or another strike down California's Proposition 8 (or Prop Hate, as it's more accurately known) would go some way to restoring some common sense, not to mention constitutionally mandated civil rights to same sex couples who wish to marry. It's a travesty that such a discriminatory law was passed in the first place, but as it appears to be on its way out, maybe some measure of sanity is within grasp.

[judgefloyd]

I've got no problem with 1888 couples of any orientation, but found the presentation of that particular couple inappropriate for Doctor Who and also quite insulting to gay people in the implication that the thing about gay people is just the way they have sex.
  As for the future military church being 'daring', well........I quite liked the future military church guys in this and in previous stories, and I didn't mind the Church Army couple,   but found them about as daring as having rocket ships in doctor who.    Futuristic military churches have been an occasional  feature of sci fi for as long as I can remember, gay couples likewise. 
   As for compensating for the overwhelming hetero hegenomy on tv screens - is that the job of this tv show, to make up the balance?  I'm with the program about equal rights for people of non-hetero orientation, but don't see the job of Who as redressing balances.
  I hope that's civil enough.

cheers

Floyd