It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: New Gay Cable Channel Meets Resistance

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:09 PM
No Xphiles, we wish to deny Christians and any other faith for that matter, the right to tell other people what to believe in the supposed "free west".

You can believe whatever you want imho, just leave everyone else alone and don't call them devil worshippers or doomed to spend eternity in hell, just because they don't believe what you believe or because they have other sexual tendency's then dictated by your belief.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by thematrix]

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:15 PM
when was the last time your were called a devil worshper matrix? Yes, there is instruction in the faith but you have to have that. I think your mistaking statements on what christians believe as them telling you what to believe.

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:40 PM
Sorry but I know this was a question for thematrix, but I just have to chime in here, I have been called a Satan Worshipper and worse for wearing my hear long, being interested in Fanatasy Books and Sci/Fi and playing D&D at my lunch hour, and this in good ole tolerant Canada for # sakes. The thing of it was these people were 700 Club watch, Bible toting jesus freaks who were supposed to teach me not preach to me(it was a public school 2 boot didn't complain as I was intimidated by these people as I was only 13 at the time) The thing of it was there were Jewish and Moslem teachers there who did the exact opposite and encouraged my activities so yeah Hardline Christianity is a plauge and offends me and my beliefs I see them as only 1 or 2 steps removed from wearing a white peeked hat or going Zeig Heil IMHO....

okay Ive said my piece now can we get on and discuss issues that actually matter ......... this is not one of them the Planet is become less and less habitable as we speak and we argue about Homosexuals
We are truely a selfish and foolish race, maybe we do deserve to be wiped from this planet and make way for the next thing in evolution(oh I forgot Hardliners don't believe in that either and are succesfully exporting that foolish believe to the more moderate elements of Christianity which is why I describe it as a Plauge)

[edit on 4-7-2005 by sardion2000]

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:48 PM
This channel is doomed to fail financially, IMO.

It will have to be so watered down from reality as to be ridiculous.

What entertainment can homosexuals possibly get from such a channel?

Or are they not the target audience?

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:55 PM

This channel is doomed to fail financially, IMO.

In my honest opinion you say? Well, your opinion should atleast contain a fraction of veracity if it be taken seriously. This Channel will quite obvioulsy contain material that elicits homosexual material which could have afore never been mentioned or even actualized as existent on mainstream telivision. The economic success of this channel will surely rely on it's capability to lure audiences. There are plenty of Channels that have minimalistic standards yet attract millions for reasons unkown.

It will have to be so watered down from reality as to be ridiculous.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Watered down from reality? You speak as if Homosexuals live a very dangerous and suspect reality; why is that? You sound very negative towards homosexuals.

What entertainment can homosexuals possibly get from such a channel?

When the specifics of this channel are broadcasted, then I'm sure you'll know your answer, untill then, you should not chide something you are not wholly aware of.

Or are they not the target audience?

I'm a hetrosexual and I'm sure I'll be tuning into this channel. Why not yourself? Are you afraid to watch a show which perse will display two homosexual men quite possibly kissing eachother coyfully?


posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:04 PM
Chill out, stop making stupid assumptions and stop being on the defensive.

I said it was IMO.

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:48 PM
The only way I would object to the LOGO channel would be if it got very explicit during the times when kids would be watching, or if it caused some other channel I wanted to watch from being carried with the regular cable programming. I would prefer my cable company to put the golf channel in with the basic cable channels and take out one of the other channels I don't watch, but unless enough other people want the same thing it isn't going to happen. Same with the new LOGO channel, if enough people want something else in it's place then they will get it--doesn't matter if it is gay, straight, moral majority, or what have you.

I don't object to the christian right complaining about it in public or the gay alliance advocating it in public. I wouldn't care if the communists, KKK, American Nazi Party, Black Panthers, or any other group went public with their beliefs/thinking because as an adult I can choose to listen or tune them out. However, immature teens and other children do not yet have the knowledge, experience and training necessary to make objective, logical choices about such groups, or their goals, beliefs, etc. Therefore I think it is incumbent upon adults to make such choices for them until such time as they are ready and able to do it on their own.

There are a variety of ways to make that happen; objectionable channels can be blocked, they can be taken off the air/cable, an adult can stay with them while they tune through different channels, etc.. It really doesn't much matter what method/technique parents use to instill their own sense of values in their kids--only that they attempt to guide/shield those kids until they have done so. If they don't attempt to do so then they are failing their responsibilities as parents. They must; however, recognize that other people/groups have different values and those other people/groups have just as much right to teach their values as they do. There are, of course, acceptable social limits on what values can be taught--else there wouldn't be a society. Likewise, there are acceptable methods to voice objections, make changes, etc. So far, I haven't seen anything on this thread that goes outside of the acceptable means of voicing objections and trying to make changes.

Discussions like this one are healthy, they are how we learn to compromise and grope towards a consenses. Doesn't really matter which side of this particular issue you come down on because posting your opinions and getting blasted for them is good for you--it sharpens your thinking and makes you a better person in the end.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 4-7-2005 by Astronomer68]

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:03 PM

Chill out, stop making stupid assumptions and stop being on the defensive.

He/she was responding to your post. If you're not willing to discuss your opinions, then you shouldn't be on this site.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by iceofspades]

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:28 PM

Originally posted by sardion2000 The thing of it was there were Jewish and Moslem teachers there who did the exact opposite and encouraged my activities so yeah Hardline Christianity is a plauge and offends me and my beliefs

when christians make over 80% of your population of course alot more will show the bad side, go to any muslim majority country or jewish(israel) or hindu(india) and i bet all have the same problem, youre just biased from past expierence and cant see its how every human is in anything they believe, just read what you just said, same thing youre doing.

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:55 PM
Their argument is moot because the cable company will gladly remove the channel from the lineup for anyone who doesn't want to expose their children to the programming.

This is ridiculous.

If someone has the money to get on television, you damn well better let on. This reminds me of the yahoos protesting marijuana decriminalization advertisements on NY buses.

THIS IS AMERICA. Last I checked...

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:10 PM
to subject children to this is a form of abuse.all band together and tell the fcc to pull this idea off the in canada they have ruined television channels to the point i want to vomit.forcing people to be subject to someones sexuality is wrong on many levels.public outcry is needed here.anyone who thinks its ok to subject children to sexuality of any kind is mistaken........

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:11 PM
Sorry if this is a repeat, but I haven't seen this view yet anywhere in the topic...

I have no quarrel with homosexuals, and I'm very proud that they have come to have their way be legitimate and recognised as a normality, and not a sickness or a problem.

I do agree with the idea of a "Gay Channel", with information built around and based upon a homosexual lifestyle being broadcast. It allows niche products and media to go 'maintstream', and gives a lot of people jobs and acceptance.

As I said, I'm very happy about that.

However, I am disgusted that this is a basic cable channel. I know, Christians have done it too, but that doesn't mean it was right. The fact that wrongs are done does not mean everyone should do them.

I think that the idea of making a channel that promotes a sexual preference, and making it a basic cable channel for all of the poor folk out there, is horrible. Is Discovery on basic cable? TLC? History? What about a local news station? Animal Planet? Tree House? Family?

There are so many television channels that are wonderful, amazing things to expose children to. That are enrichment sources for us all, that do not promote christianity, do not promote antichrisitianity, do not promote hetero or homosexualty.

Why a channel that is created simply to promote and expose the gay lifestyle is taking the place of the History channel, or BBCWorldNews, is beyond me. That's the injustice here, that people are denied real interesting television.

No one should give a damn what bias it is. It's bias. Bias should be eliminated. No one can objectively look at something with bias and 'add more opposing bias' until the situation is right. That's just confusing. It doesn't matter that the christian bias is there. As opposed to working to get opposing biases in, we should be working to get christian and other biases out.

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:26 PM
Finally, a MTV network channel that will show content that doesnt involve Nick & Jessica!

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:55 PM
Personally, I block religious & channels with a specifically explicit purpose. As far as I'm concerned, they are both perversions which are 180'd out. One spiritual, and the other social. I object to the 'normalization' of homosexuality, on, not the basis of morality, but of nature. It is a crime against nature (as pertains to the natural order of the world), and that is the true definition of perversion. And, please spare me, those of you who would bring up the oft publicized issue of animal homosexuality. It is caused by a completely different set of motivations and instincts. The animal kingdom doesn't have proponents & supporters hawking the normalcy of bizarre sexual behavior. Not only that, but we are HUMANS, supposedly possessed of a higher intelligence.

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 01:46 AM
Obviously you were never an isolated gay child.

I am not sure if this should or should not be included in the basic package, i bet that has more to do with advertising revenues than anything else.

But if you include the Christian channels that condem homosexuals, you damn sure better balance it with a single gay channel.

Do you know that the highest rate of suicide is of young gay people?
They are so isolated and are afraid to tell even their own parents, siblings and friends.
After they have listened to the caustic tyrades of some of those bizarre Right wing Preachers telling them they will burn in hell forever for simply being who they are, shouldn't they be able to occasionally see that somewhere far away in a different place there are people like they are?

BTW have you ever really watched that white haried guy on the 700 club? He is a complete psycho, waiting excitedly for the world to end, like he is salivating for it. Some of those people are just plain wierd, and i am wierd enough to appreciate a whole lot of wierd. More than that, they are dangerous people.

[edit on 5-7-2005 by slank]

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:08 AM
I think most of you people are getting all worked up over nothing here. I mean have you even taken a look at their line-up of programming yet? Aside from the Documentary about "Gay vs. Straight Rugby"(A must see IMO) and the film "Being John Malcovitch" the rest sounds about as interesting as watching your clothes dry on the line. Not to mention the fact that they only have enough material to last about a week before you've seen everything. Trust me, the LOGO channel isn't exactly going to take over your precious Idiot Boxes any time soon.

Besides, why shouldn't Homosexuals have their own stations anyway. I mean we're talking about adding 1 more channel to the already 500+ that are already there that you never watch anyway, so why should this one not be allowed some air time as well?

After all there is a damn Golf Channel, Food Channel, Shopping Channel, Spanish Channel, Black Channel, Weather Channel, Religious Mind Control Channel, Government Propaganda Programming Station, Children's Creativity Destroyer Channel, etc. that many of us have absolutely no use for but you don't see us trying to take them off the air do you? No, because we have enough sense to change the channel or turn the damn thing off without screwing with the entertainment choices of other people who might love viewing 24hrs. straight of the most boring sport you could ever watch or endless updates about the current temp. in BFE.

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:46 AM
Ok, lets assume for a sec that I have a kid, 7-8 years old.
Am I worried about a gay cable channel?

I'd say I am more worried about news channel showing Iraqi gore in the middle of the day. Day in and day out my kid watches scenes of war.
Then he goes outside. Chances are, one of his friends is being molested by a parent or neighbour. Can I let my kid sleep over at his friend's place? How do I know he is safe?
How about a gang shoot-out in the middle of the day? Violent bullies in the school?
Can I let my kid go to church? Is our priest one of the molestors?
Can I let him go to summer camp?
Can I even let him go out and play with the rate of child abductions sky rocketing the last few years?
How about the dumb talk shows in the middle of the day that talk about such idiotic crap, even my grown up brain can't handle it?

I think that the LEAST of my problems is a gay channel I can choose NOT to watch and NOT expose my kid to it.

Oh btw, kids see gay people every single day on the street. Think about that. If you live in a big city (where LOGO will be available) chances are your kid has already seen gay people kissing, that being the least offensive image available for viewing in the real life. Others are prostitutes on the street corner, drug dealers, thiefs, wrecked marriages, drunks, violent lunatics walking freely down the street, gangs....
If you ignore all this and shelter your children from it, pretending that we live in some moraly idylical la-la rainbow land, your kid will learn about this stuff on the street and who knows from whom.
True, we should not unnecesarily expose children to violent and sexual images on TV, but you HAVE to somehow explain them the real world they are facing, in which they are THE number one victim of all psychos outthere.
You CAN turn off the TV channel you don't want to watch, but you can't trun off the real world.

We have bigger problems in our society then some gay cable channel.

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:55 AM
Wait, they object to one gay channel? What about channel six with the ever popular "The Evils of Harry Potter."

Or channel 60 with "God Loves All" where if you watch, the host SAYS CLEARLY "Kill a gay, then go and pray, and God will grant you whatever you may."

Or Channel 72 with the 24/7 Pope Cam, when he was dead, guess they wanted to see him rise from the grave. Although 72 is Catholic, not all christian groups, so it tends to lean more towards stuff like AIDS is spread through toilet seats and tears, and the reason the blacks are starving to death in Africa is because of the Gays, Jews, and Athiests in America. When of course it is the church that is committing Mass Genocide in Africa by banning everything that would save them. They banned condoms, medicine, anti-biotics, vaccines, and any food that man has played god with, or GE Crops. Yep, you send food, the church burns it. Some group spends 20billion for medicine, the church burns it.

But no, one gay channel and it's "Kill them all, let satan sort them out." Since gays go to hell, according to christians. If the Pope was a closet gay, he would burn in hell according to christians. If Jesus was gay he would burn in hell. Although he wasn't, he was married to Mary Magdeline, but those books weren't allowed in the bible cause it gave a woman power.(Jesus taught her things in private that she was suppose to teach the rest after he died, but the church hates women, so it wasn't allowed in)


posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:27 AM
i can't, for the life of me, figure out what the HELLl the problem is??

if this channel makes it on the air, i'll just do the same thing i do when the show "queer as folk" airs on showcase...i CHANGE THE FRIGGIN CHANNEL!!!...
this also happens to be the exact same tactic i use regarding christian programming, and there happens to be like five god damned (pun INTENEDED!!!) channels dedicated to to that crap...

do i want my children being brain washed by christian propaganda?...HELL NO!!!, but if thats the path they choose, then so be it....if your children turn out to be gay, then, guess what?...THEY WERE GAY TO BEGIN WITH, and there ain't no way in HELL that some channel on tv could possibly have anything to do with it...

nobody, (and i say again for emphasis) NOBODY!!!, is being forced to watch ANYTHING....

when was the last time you had members of some government ageny break into your house, strap you and your family to a chair, stapled your eyelids to your forhead, changed the chanel on your tv to ANY particular chanel, and literally FORCED you to watch ANYTHING.....answer: NEVER!!!

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:38 AM

to subject children to this is a form of abuse.all band together and tell the fcc to pull this idea off the in canada they have ruined television channels to the point i want to vomit.forcing people to be subject to someones sexuality is wrong on many levels.public outcry is needed here.anyone who thinks its ok to subject children to sexuality of any kind is mistaken........

Abuse? WTF
Forcing people to subject to someones sexuality? WTHF
OK to subject children to sexuality of any kind? WTHMFGH!!!!!!!

Pritty much all the gay presented and in any way related TV shows I know of are either fashion shows, cooking programs, decoration programs, fitness programs and comedy series. Your acting asif this channel, or any other gay channel for that matter, will be a 24/7 gay porn outlet or something. Some kissing is probably the hottest you'll ever see on it.

I only know of 1 program that has to do with homosexuality, where this sexuality is expressed and thats Queer as Folk. And well, you still don't have to watch that show if you don't want to.

Noone is forcing anyone to watch any sexuality. You don't have to take that channel on your TV set and you don't have to switch to it.

And well, lastly, "thinking it ok to subject children to sexuality of any kind is mistaken" your mistaken if you think its in any ways good to shield anyone under the age of 18 from sexuality. Thats how you create frustrated preud kids that knock up or get knocked up without even knowing why. Their hormones make them sexualy attracted to other people, not informing them of what is going on with them is imho more dangerous then getting them hooked on porn. Nothing worse then frustrated uninformed kids.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in