Star Wars: A universe in which neither cats, dogs, cows nor any other animal found in the real world exists. Lasers are used instead of bullets, vehicles walk and hover, but don't have wheels, habitable planets can be found all over the place, and there is a magical force that binds all life together.

Is it really that difficult to imagine that a universe like this would have no gay people in it?

Beyond the main characters, the sex preferences of a character is almost never brought up in such films, so how would you actually do that without just forcing it in really blatantly?

2 things.

1. We have NO IDEA what sexuality 99% of the people in Starwars have. They could all be gay. Why are you assuming they're straight just because they're not over the top gay stereotypes?

2. Star Wars is actually... fictional... I know, this is totally crazy, but hear me out. Star Wars isn't real. It doesn't have to represent anything. There are a plethora of crazy alien species who, for all we know, fucks rocks or whatever. Who cares.


They can do whatever they want, and include or decide not to include anything.

That's my point. Why people don't care about heterosexual relationships in SW (though Padme+Anakin was relationship was shit, but not because it's an heterosexual relationship) and care about possible homosexual relationships?

I gotta say, I would HATE to watch movies directed by the people in these comments.  They seem to think ANY detail not essential to the plot should be taken out entirely.

*spoilers for various things, but nothing really major*

In the original Spider-man, did we really need to know that Mary Jane wanted to be an actress?  Did we need to know that Norman Osborn liked black dresses?  Did we need to know that Aunt May is a religious woman? Did we need to know Mary Jane worked at a diner?  

In Guardians of the Galaxy, did we need to know about Star Lord's love for 80's pop music?  A fun detail yeah, but would the plot be basically the same without it?

In Avatar The Last Air Bender, do we need to know that Iroh has been to the Spirit World?  That Tai Lee has a bunch of siblings? 

In Harry Potter did we need to know that Tonks and Lupin got married?  Would the overall plot have been much different if they hadn't been?

In Lord of the Rings did we need Tom Babidal at all?  Surely we didn't, because the movies still made sense without him.  Do we need to know as much as we are told about Hobbit society?

In Final Fantasy 7, do we need to have Yuffie or Vincent at all?  Nope, you can blow by them.

In Toy Story 3, do we need to know that Sid became a garbage man?  Did we need to see an old scud? Did they need to mention that Bo Peep was given away?

In Inside Out do we need Riley to love hockey?  Or that she makes monkey noises with her dad?

Do we need Bayonetta to like lollipops?

In The Wrestler, do we need to know Randy the Ram's daughter is a lesbian?

In Naruto, do we need to know that Naruto likes Ramen?  That Ino works at a flower shop?  That Asuma smokes?  

In Death Note, is L's candy fixation necessary at all?

Do we need to know how James Bond likes his martinis prepared?

Do we need to know that Seth Rogen's character in the 40 year old virgin is a writer?

In Donnie Darko, do we need to hear Donnie explain why Smurfette isn't a ho?  Or that his girlfriend's mother was stabbed by her father?  That his sister is in a dance group?

Do we really need to know anything about any character in Seinfeld?

Do we need to know that Anakin made C-3PO?

Do we need to know that Captain America got the reference of the Wizard of Oz?  Do we need to know that Tony Stark saw a Shield Employee playing Galaga?

Did we need to know that Hansel and Grettle left a trail of bread crumbs?

Did we need to know that Derek Zoolander was a mer-man in a commercial?

Did we need to know that Romeo had a crush on Rosalind?

Did we need to know that the Avengers went out for shwarma after saving the world?

Did we need to know that Kramer lives for Merlot?

Did we need Ned Ryerson in Groundhog Day? Did we need to know that Rita doesn't white chocolate?

In Blade II do we need to know that Scud likes the Powerpuff Girls?

Do we need Ophelia in Hamlet... at all?

In the Departed do we need to know that Frank is infertile? 

I could go on for literally days and days.  The point is that movies have TONS AND TONS of unessential details that nobody complains about.  Because that's how you fucking develop a character.  If you stipped down a story to only the details that are absolutely essential to the plot, you'd have a boring as shit story with flat characters that would last like ten minutes.   Those little details are what brings characters to life, opens up a story for interpretation, and makes it interesting.  Is Romeo's crush on Rosalind necessary to the plot?  No.  But it does call into question how legit his feelings for Juliet are.

So why is it that we don't mind when we find out other details about characters?   Why can't being gay just be one of those details that helps flesh out a character? Why don't we get upset when characters don't like white chocolate, or when characters play Galaga?  Why is this the only unnessential detail we get bent out of shape about? 

Cause you don't like gay characters. Real talk.

P.S.  Please don't go through the list trying to pick out individual examples. They were off the top of my head, and may not all be perfect.

Is this something like black afro-spacemerican stormtroopers outrage?

If there's a gay character there's a gay character and if not then not.

Thing is, people actually shouldn't care.

Incorrect.

I opposed the relative young age- and sudden addition of females to the First Order, which is supposed to be derived from the pretty much wholly male remnants of the old Empire. Does this mean that I don't like those groups? Does this make me a sexist? No, it simply means that I don't want them to change up an already established universe for the sake of sending political messages. I also opposed Rey's sudden mastery of the force; not because she is female, but because it was already established that wielding force powers require training.

Would adding a gay character ruin the Star Wars universe? Of course not, but we haven't seen an openly gay character in any of the movies up to this point. Suddenly adding them now would make them nothing more but tokens; a product of our time added to meet a quota. We didn't need them before and we don't need them now, because gay people are perfectly capable of identifying with straight characters, just as I am able to identify with gay characters in the Mass Effect universe.

Still, I suppose JJ Abrams' existing alterations make this topic a total non issue. Adding trans, gay and other minority characters actually makes perfect sense in his Star Wars universe.

But we already have a lovely couple of them in the movie.

Why would a homosexual character even be an issue? And how do we know there aren't gay characters already? The Star Wars universe has always been a place of diversity so it should have people of all kinds of gender, sexual orientation, skin color or species.

"I opposed the relative young age- and sudden addition of females to the First Order, which is supposed to be derived from the pretty much wholly male remnants of the old Empire. Does this mean that I don't like those groups? Does this make me a sexist? No, it simply means that I don't want them to change up an already established universe for the sake of sending political messages. I also opposed Rey's sudden mastery of the force; not because she is female, but because it was already established that wielding force powers require training."

That's a different situation.  Is there a canonical reason that there shouldn't be gay people in the Star Wars universe?  Sure we haven't seen gay people before, but we only know the sexuality of a dozen or so characters, so it's not like we've established that there are no gay characters in Star Wars.  And since there doesn't seem to be any special way that humans in the Star Wars universe vary from us (besides their mitochlorians or whatever), it seems more logical that their would be gay characters than not.

And that's just humans.  There are also tons of alien species whos mating habits we know little of.  What we do know is that interspecies attraction does not seem especially uncommon or taboo.  If giant slugs are attracted to humans with gold bikinis, and nobody seems to think this is especially odd, then it doesn't seem like gay love would be a stretch in this universe.

Would adding a gay character ruin the Star Wars universe? Of course not, but we haven't seen an openly gay character in any of the movies up to this point. Suddenly adding them now would make them nothing more but tokens; a product of our time added to meet a quota.

And, this is the silly part.  You're suggesting special rules on making gay characters.  We can't have them now because we didn't have them before.

We had different directors, different actors, and yes different times.  It's not the 70's anymore, and not only has the audience changed, but so have the directors and the writers. JJ Abrams was 10 when A New Hope came out.  His way of thinking is naturally going to be a bit different than George Lucas who is about 20 years older than him.  And since times have changed, for the better, and we could now have gay characters, why should we be beholden to antiquated mentalities?

And they just may want to include gay characters because they want to have a gay character.  Yet, you're saying any attempt to add a gay character is automatically a "token" character.  Can't it just be because the writer wanted to add them?  Because when you make new characters you want to give them character traits to distinguish them from other characters?

We didn't have any greasy fry cook characters til episode II.  Does that mean Dexter Jettster is a token greasy fry cook?  We didn't have any monocle wearing characters until Gorga the Hutt.  Is he a token monocle wearing character?  We didn't have any asthmatic droids episode III.  Is general grievus a token asthmatic droid? The Star Wars universe adds different species and different kind of characters all the time.  No reason why a character, human or otherwise, who likes the same gender would be out of place.

We could add all sorts of new character traits that weren't in the older movies.  Yet... when it's homosexuality, it's suddenly a different story.  Why is there some sort of special rule for gay characters?

We didn't need them before and we don't need them now, because gay people are perfectly capable of identifying with straight characters, just as I am able to identify with gay characters in the Mass Effect universe.

No we don't need gay characters.  Just like we don't need any of the things I mentioned before.  We don't need to have Professor X and Magneto play chess, we don't need Deadpool to love Chimichangas, we don't need to know Bud from Kill Bill works in a strip club, we don't need Ron to have so many siblings in Harry Potter.  We don't need female characters, we don't need BB8, didn't need to have Kylo Ren be related to Han, we didn't need Rey to live on a desert planet, we didn't need a black stormtrooper, we didn't need a female protagonist, we didn't need to have Starkiller base, and we didn't need Chewbacca to shoot Kylo.  None of these things are needed.  They're simply the way that the writers chose to go.  They could have written it another way, but they didn't.

And this is the problem.  Apparently it's wrong for a writer or a director to put in a gay character for whatever reason he chooses..  He can do anything else for any reason he likes, so long as it doesn't contradict the established story, but for gay characters there has to be some sort of extra special reason.  It's ridiculous.