Wirehead Studios

http://www.bcentral.com/articles/isyn/defa...nd=msn&LID=3800 (http://www.bcentral.com/articles/isyn/default.asp?newsid=200452611&cobrand=msn&LID=3800)

whatchya think?

Well I barely read more than the title, but I just have to say this...

If MTV is backing this station, it's going to fail miserably or completely isolate itself from its intended target audience.

Big deal its just gonna be queer eye for the straight guy only 24 hours a day. which is practicly what MTV is anyway.

What purpose does this serve?  Tell me, what differentiates a gay person from a straight person, other than the fact that they're gay?  To my knowledge, absolutely nothing.  Bear in mind I'm not talking about the banner-waving "fringe" crowd here, I'm talking the average gay person.  They say there's going to be no "sex or sexuality" on the network, so how can you claim it to be a "network for gay people" unless that's just a marketing ploy?  Unless of course they've decided "This is the stereotype we're going to assign to you" in choosing their programming lineup.  If gay people think this is serving their interests they are in for a rather sore disappointment.  This is no public service they're doing, this is for-profit and is based on demographic information from marketing analysts (if that  doesn't scare you I don't know what could).  All of the radical right-wing groups that already have their panties in a wad will look at this channel and use it as a blueprint for further stereotyping.

This is what I do not understand.  If a minority group of people who are different in some way, ANY way, are looking for general acceptence and peaceful coexistence with their fellow man then why go out of your way to segregate yourself again?  Equal treatment means equal treatment across the board.  You're either in, or you're out of mainstream society.  It can't be both ways.

pho: They''ve already done it before, just look at BET (Black Entertainment Television)

Especially since MTV is hosting this new channel, I now believe more that homosexuality is for some unfathomable reason fashionable these days. I hope it does flop.

You are actually right, every children's show in Denmark appears to have the need for their very own "pet gay"
I don't care if it's going to be "IN"

Rather be dead than cool
fashion shits fashion style

"Ugly" was always "IN" that doesn't make me wear it, well at least not the kind of ugly that's "IN"

Edit:
 
Concerned Women for America? It sounds like all the ugly females of the USA has gathered here. I mean why would they be concerned about how other people live their lives? Except for the fact that this particualr lifestyle is going to make them loose out on some "sausage".

For the rightwing group, don't these people have lives? I mean seriously why do they care, nobody will be forcing them to watch this channel. If you want proof that it is posible not to care; just look at me, I don't care at all.
no, wait I do care, I think it's a good idea. Some homosexuals on tv just make me laugh, so maybe this channel will deliver some entertainment?

I have nothing against people being religious just as long as they don't think it gives them the right to tell other people how to live their lives.

whatever they do , nothing will beat cartoon network .  :ownage:

.......honestly, what the hell? no problem with gays, just why is it all of a sudden fashionable to be so(gotta be cause youre a 'rebel' these days if yer gay or something) ....


odd how govt never stops finding some group to repress, lol

we had slaves in the 1800s, they fought it and were freed
women couldnt vote, they fought it and could vote & finally have semi-equal rights(despite there are still feminazis that wont get a life and realise people CANT be any more equal because of biological differences)
black people couldnt vote, they fought it and got their right to vote
disabled people didnt have any real rights, they fought it and got the disability act passed

so now homosexuals are fighting to have their rights, my question is, with the previous precedents being set that eventually the minority group DOES get their rights, WHY THE F>UCKING HELL IS THE GOVT STILL TRYING TO KEEP A MINORITY GROUP DOWN WHEN 800 OTHER MINORITY GROUPS FOUGHT IT AND WON EVERY SINGLE F>UCKING TIME.


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

ok.. ill calm down now.

In the area of rights, I believe this discussion is concerning the recent dispute in regards to the legality of marriage among gays.  Some people value the institution of marriage in its current form as something sacred.  Changing the rules around infringes, in their mind, upon the sanctity of something they consider very holy.  Is it then unwise to expect them to defend keeping the status quo?  Christianity is a religion that is currently at war with modern culture because modern culture has been waging an undeclared war on Christianity for some time now.  Christians are labeled as intolerant, backwards, oppressive, narrow-minded... the list goes on.  Everything Christians do anymore is somehow wrong, yet those who would clammor for "tolerance" show none in kind.  For many this is the last straw, and they will not tolerate any more of secularism edging out their way of life.  If someone came along and told you that you had to change everything you hold dear just on their will, after seeing your own freedom to worship your own God as you see fit diminished and eroded for the last few decades, would you not oppose it too?  They're only doing what they see as right to protect their way of life.  I do not blame them for their reactions nor defensiveness on this matter.

Marriage also is not just a Christian tradition nor a Judeo-Christian "invention" as some have been led to believe and have even claimed here in the past.  Every culture in the world has laws governing marriage, from the most primitive tribes to the most advanced empires.  Most cultures define marriage the same way.  There are reasons for this, and many are purely biological.  It is a fact of biology that homosexuality cannot in and of itself perpetuate the human species.  Technology is crossing this threshold, yes, but nature has its own set of rules regarding how the brain and body are programmed for this function.  Asking to change the definition of marriage goes beyond just religious concerns, but raises fundamental questions that involve the very core of how a society defines itself as a whole.  Remember that marriage is less about love as it is about tradition.  We animals love, but need now vows nor ceremony to bind out commitment to each other.

I do understand the desire to be treated equally.  I do not think this desire is wrong.  Where religion is concerned, I believe love matters more to God than rules, as God gave his Son in love because man could not abide by those rules, but God loved man more than he loved laws.  I am no religious leader though, and it is they who decide what is dogmatic among their denominations.  I do not think this issue will ever be laid to rest unless the Almighty appears and declares Himself what He considers right and proper in this area.  As far as government is concerned, government must rule according to the consent of the governed.  Let the people decide if they wish to change how marriage is defined in regards to rights of civil unions.  If equal rights under the law are all that is desired, I would support this wholly.  If it is the blessing of God that is desired, I leave that for God to decide.  However, if the desire is to destroy and corrupt what others value as sacred just because you despise them, then you will find me standing against you along with the rest of the fanatics.

:offtopic:  Pho, no offense or anything, but do you always have to bring religion into non-religious topics in CC? :offtopic:

Blacks have a real culture. Gays... have "their things" - which are "our things", only SNAZZIER! :P

So unless it somehow actually does a service to the gay community, this is most likely going to pass.

Yes, I agree, they do. But it's NOT being represented on BET :P

Phoenix: "What purpose does this serve? Tell me, what differentiates a gay person from a straight person, other than the fact that they're gay? To my knowledge, absolutely nothing. Bear in mind I'm not talking about the banner-waving "fringe" crowd here, I'm talking the average gay person. They say there's going to be no "sex or sexuality" on the network, so how can you claim it to be a "network for gay people" unless that's just a marketing ploy?"

Nuff said right there to describe my feelings about it.

Footman:  Religion, for a majority of people the world over, plays an important part in their life.  This issue of marriage, which as I mentioned ties directly into the issue of rights, has very serious religious implications.  It is religious groups who are opposed to it for the most part, or at least they are being most vocal about it and there are claims that the President is opposing gay marriage based on his personal religious views which opens a whole other can of worms dealing with separation of church and state, etc.  As such *I* did not bring religion into the issue.  It was always there in the first place.

True.... religion and marriage are practically synonymous.

People are against "gay" people not because of their religious views but because they are an anomaly, different from the rest. therefore, its rejected by the community.

marriage is more treated as an institution here in the US, i would be against gays marrying if it were based wholly on religion, but for the entirety of the life of the US, we have always had seperation of church and state, so as LONG as the GOVERNMENT is issuing marriage 'licenses', anyone who wishes to get married, same sex or opposite sex, should be allowed to.

Mind if I throw some additional species in there as well?  Dogs?  Sheep?  Horses?



(scroll down a little)



Now if anyone reading this supports gay marriage but my above suggestion made your stomach turn or at LEAST caused you to wince then you can understand the feelings of some who are opposed to this.  That's how they feel.   Your intentions are also not as "pure" as you would seem to think since one form of love that was once a serious taboo is now acceptable, but another is not.  What is ok or even wonderful for one person may be disgusting, vile, or ungodly to another.  How far are you willing to go with this?

I'm in agreement with Hedhunta here in the fact that a civil union is a state-granted basket of "rights", though the government "granting" rights to people flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence...  If the states and the people decide to make this legal then so be it.  If churches do not wish to conduct such ceremonies due to religious reservations or opposition that should also be respected since it is then still available legally through the courts.

It's your society in the end.  Do as you will.  For me it's simple.  I don't care what people love as long as it's an honest love.

You said it (Applauses!!!) (cheers!!!) :D

we will be marrying people to dogs next you watch.

we're talking about a thing from today's society, not a thing of irracionality! :shifty:

Divorce laws need to be established first before gays get married.. the issue of the children would be a BIG issue if gay people got married.. other than that if getting married makes them happy then go for it

Welcome to the land of freedom, (only if you have the cash or the pull) where the minority is still pissed on and kicked around by the majority.

Nothings changed really, just a new majority/minority, thats all.