MTV Networks to launch gay cable channel, conservative groups foaming at the mouth already.

MTV Networks announced on May 26th that they’re going to launch a new cable channel called LOGO which will be specifically designed to appeal to the gay community. Needless to say, the conservative groups out there are already vowing to out any advertisers who buy air time on the channel.

MTV to Launch Nation’s First Gay TV Network

“We will have to put together a master plan that will pull together tens of millions of pro-family people,” Traditional Values Coalition chairman Rev. Louis Sheldon told the Daily News.

Sheldon’s group opposes gay marriage and has led earlier boycotts of companies like retail chain 7-Eleven for carrying racy magazines on its shelves.

Concerned Women for America—which has boycotted Disney for its pro-gay policies—said it would publicize LOGO advertisers. “They should not promote homosexuality,” said Robert Knight, a leader of the right-leaning group.

I’d only be surprised about this news item if the conservative groups weren’t foaming at the mouth over it. If they’re not going to let gays marry then there’s no way in hell they’ll let them have their own cable TV channel. I suppose a gay cable channel would promote being gay the same way that the Black Entertainment Channel (BET) promotes being African American. I mean, look at all the non-black kids out there that have been trying to become black ever since that channel came into existence. That’s gotta be frosting the conservative’s shorts something fierce so I can understand how they wouldn’t want the same thing to happen with a gay channel, right?

Idiots.

Heard about this through The Minx.

15 thoughts on “MTV Networks to launch gay cable channel, conservative groups foaming at the mouth already.

  1. “I mean, look at all the non-black kids out there that have been trying to become black ever since that channel came into existence. That’s gotta be frosting the conservative’s shorts something fierce” 

    *snicker*

  2. People have often railed against corporate America and how they act without regards for the rights of the people and take advantage of them.

    My belief is that this individual selfish acts can come together and act as an invisible hand to aid society.

    The launch by MTV of the gay channel is no doubt lead more by profits rather than spreading a social message. Capturing the gay market would be quite lucrative. And of course in the process this helps spread understanding.

    Another example is that while the state debate on same-sex marriage and their benefits, a significant amount of companies have started offering same-sex marriage benefits to their employees. While they claim it is not right to deny the benefits, in reality the focus is to attract and keep employees.

    http://www.fortune.com/fortune/careers/articles/0,15114,644730,00.html?cnn=yes

    In the words of Brock, let us “elevate [our] financial, social and political positions through manipulation of laws, commerce, information and faith.” Let us “hunger for power, prestige and financial profit.” The invisible hand needs you.

    Kind of interesting that as I am about to submit this post, the word I am about to type is “company.” It is the sign!!

  3. Hey, shouldn’t this be an opportune time to launch the Atheist/Skeptic Channel?

    I can just see Randi hosting a daily talk show right now … What a kick!

    (Validation keyword I had to type in:  figure.)

  4. The ‘pro-family’ groups in Oz are doing their nuts about a story on tiny-tots show Play School.
    The story made a passing reference to a trip with a girl and her 2 mums.
    Shock, horror, the sky is falling!

    James Randi as a chat show host? I’d love to see that!

    My word: nuclear!

  5. The great thing is, Randi would be every bit as inflammatory as, say, Jerry Springer—only you’d learn a LOT more by watching him.  Entertainment value AND intelligent discussion!  He’s the potential Reese’s peanut butter cup of the media, and nobody’s been picking up on it yet …

  6. Hey, I’m not sure if that should be allowed, Pop Tarts (though I’ll have to ask Les) – using my words in another thread to support a separate argument in this thread. You certainly shouldn’t be allowed to mis-quote me or misapply my statements.

    Who was it here who spoke out against “quote mining”… Oh yes, MildBill! And where is he now when I need him?

    My qualifying word: “except” Eerie that!

    And to get back on topic, I say having a separate gay channel is silly. Let’s just have all channels be gay friendly, as long as we also try to minimize the stereotyping that usually comes with gay-themed programing.

  7. My above post was mostly a light-hearted raz, Pop Tarts, in case it wasn’t obvious. But I’m still a little confused with your post.

    My qualifying word this time:…ah fuck it!

  8. Brock, when you write eloquently, expect to be mined for quotes!  In-context or out. wink

    More on topic (moron topic?  Yes, these conservatives are morons), what always strikes me about these “pro-family” types is that they call themselves “pro-family” – as if there is only one type of family throughout the hundreds or thousands of separate cultures in the human species and among other, almost-as-intelligent species.  It reminds me of that great quote from Stephen Roberts (which I think I originally found on this very site):

    “I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you do not believe in all the other possible Gods, you will then understand why I do not believe in yours.”

    In this case, it’s somewhat inversed – I believe in all the possible versions of “family,” whereas these “pro-family” jerks only believe in one.  So I don’t think they should be allowed to call themselves “pro-family.”

    Hmm.  Must be something to my submission word: “neither.”

  9. Joe, good points and well put.

    I don’t really mind being quoted unless it’s to use my words against me. Even then, my words are fair game.

    And I just realized that I never answered your fear that I might be offended by being referred to as a (guest) bastard – the answer would be: HELL NO! – I consider it a compliment.

    Thanks again, and please keep commenting. We need your critical thinking skills.

  10. Opps, sorry Brock. The problems with how words on a page does not connote any intonation. I should put a little smile smiley to show that I meant those words as a friendly tongue in cheek jeb.

  11. Opp did not realise that typed smileys are converted into graphics. I suppose this is a better one: tongue rolleye or tongue wink or maybe even this wink

  12. Holy Bat Cookie, Pop Tarts, please do not use Little Smiley Face God Icons! Don’t you know how much I hate those? It’s ok, I didn’t think you meant any offense, but, to change the subject, I have wondered, for a while, where you are from. Where are you from?

  13. I’m going to be changing the smilies over to the old ones soon. I just have to finish editing the array listing for them.

  14. Heh heh. How about changing over to the really old ones – the invisible ones. I keed! I keed!
    [ ]< (Pretend there’s one there!)

  15. I just wonder what good ‘Concerned Women for America’ boycotting Disney did? It’s not as if they became bankrupt… idiotic cretins.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.