Gay TV

[Double Trouble]

<<Your monetary contribution to this network via the satellite provider would probably not amount to more than a drop in the bucket anyway>>

Irrelevant. The amount does not matter. Companies make money from customers. I will not contribute (even 1 penny) to a company that does things I don't agree with. If a lot of consumers do the same, those pennies add up, and companies are forced to change their policies -- that's how a free open market works.

<<And that advertising income will be generated by people who actually WATCH the channel>>

Satellite and cable providers make money from subscribers as well as advertising. Fewer subscribers means less subscription income, as well as lower ratings which means fewer advertising dollars -- double whammy.

<< I would hope that you'd see the difference between an agenda based on hate and one based on love

The agenda is irrelevant. You can't decide for me (or anyone else) what is 'objectionable' and what is not. That's for each person to decide. You don't mind the channel, I would... and we choose to spend our dollars accordingly. That's a free society.

<<Just curious... why don't you &quot;agree with&quot; people being gay? Why do you find what they do &quot;revolting&quot; and &quot;objectionable&quot;?>>

I'm not gonna get into some grand debate about the gay lifestyle. Everyone has the right to live their life the way they want, and I have the right to agree or disagree with whatever I like. Why does anyone find anything revolting?? There's no justification for taste -- it simply is to me. Two men together = revolting in my mind. Of course, I would do everything I could to defend their right to do so, but I want to see no part of it. To someone else it may be just the thing they want to sit down and view... c'est la vie.

 

[matmax]

harpomx,



<< &quot;We're going to play stuff that the average person wants to actually sit down and watch, channel&quot; >>



this channel will never happen because it makes to much sense.

 

[luv2chill]

tagej,

your points are valid, but you seem to contradict yourself. You say that you support gay people in their desire to live their lives as they want to (<<&quot;Of course, I would do everything I could to defend their right to do so&quot;>>), yet that defense ends when it comes to their wanting a network to air programming of interest to them. Because it seems that your desire to switch satellite providers over such a channel implies more than just a simple distaste for the lifestyle--it sounds like a matter of principle to me.

I asked the question about the basis of your views on homosexuality because if they were religious/moral, I wanted to point out that your pennies/dollars DO support channels that air pornography 24/7. If your views are not based on morals then my mistake for such an assumption.

I'm not trying to sway you from your viewpoint. I'm just trying to understand.

Here's my take on it (like it or not). People who are gay are obviously born that way. They aren't attracted to the opposite sex. They're attracted to their own sex. But the fact that there are so many gay people in this world (and by the reality that this world isn't very tolerant towards them) it seems totally illogical to me that people would choose this lifestyle. After all, it is human nature to desire to be &quot;normal&quot;. So, given the view that being gay is something that certain people truly are, then why shouldn't they have the right to see TV programming that deals with issues applicable to them? If I were gay, I'd get pretty tired of having to watch &quot;Will &amp; Grace&quot; just to get to see shows that have gay characters. Women have a channel (Lifetime), which airs programming that caters to interests of most women. There are even channels catering to different ethnic groups (BET, Telemundo). TV is a forum, with different channels pertaining to different interests (quite like USENET or these forums). If there were to be a channel for gay people, I wouldn't watch it (simply because I couldn't relate to the subject matter), but that doesn't mean I don't support gay people's right to have their own channel. I don't want to stand in the way of people living their lives as they see fit. As long as someone's not hurting or hating someone else, they're OK in my book.

A little tolerance goes a long way.

l2c

 

[Double Trouble]

<<yet that defense ends when it comes to their wanting a network to air programming of interest to them>>

Nope, I absolutely defend their right to have the channel. I also have the right to choose a provider that does NOT carry that channel. Free society.

<<People who are gay are obviously born that way.>>

There's been tons of research on that one, and all of it is still inconclusive. I'd say it's safe to say some are born gay and some are gay by choice.

<<it seems totally illogical to me that people would choose this lifestyle>>

True, but it would also seem totally illogical to me that someone would start using heroin when they are well aware of the consequences. Similarly, pedophiles are reviled in every society and hated by all... and yet some people molest children. And no, I'm not making any connection between being gay and being a pedophile, there's ample evidence to show that gay people are no more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else. The point is that people don't always make the decisions that might seem logical.

<<A little tolerance goes a long way. >>

I'm not intolerant at all, I completely support their right to do whatever they want - and that's the definition of tolerance, to accept the right of other people to act and feel the way they want to, even if it's not in accordance with one's own ideas. That doesn't mean I have to contribute (in whatever small way) to the profit of an endeavor that I disagree with.

All these splinterings of channels that cater to specific tastes basically help to segregate society. People no longer see themselves as a member of society, but rather as a member of some specific group (ethnic, sexuality, gender, whatever). That's detrimental to the good of society as a whole.

 

[luv2chill]

tagej,

No problem. Opinion vs. opinion... I'm not trying to dispute your free will to do what you want with your own money and to find revolting what you find revolting. I just question the real-world benefits from having a view like that. But like I said earlier, I don't want this to be a war, so we can agree to disagree.

l2c