Re: Gay channel
 

The statistics tell us that homosexuals are in the (numerical) minority - until new evidence tell us otherwise, they remain a 'minority'.

.

You're missing the point - such channels needs to be econimically viable - if the interest is not percieved to be there, NTL simply won't buy in to a channel they feel they won't make money from.

Re: Gay channel
 

fair enough. i see what you mean, bearing in mind there has to be a gay lifestlye channel first! i believe the new one, testing on sky, is to be a softcore porn channel, at £4.99 per night! (according to digitalspy member)
but couldn't be wrong.
who said i don't like gay people...who said i wasn't gay infact.

Re: Gay channel
 

Homosexuals are only in the numerical minority as there are still idiots around who believe it to be wrong, plus where on your census form does it say - whats your sexuality? so until being gay is socially acceptable everywhere and that question can be asked, there will never be true figures

Re: Gay channel
 

No not you, but the reply from the NTL employee (i think) who said NTL werent homophobic, but there wasnt a demand.

Re: Gay channel
 

i see, cheers :)

Re: Gay channel
 

Its statistical nonsense Russ. Who does the statistics? Does someone go round with a clipboard and go round and knock on every door and ask the occupants if they are gay or straight? Yeah course they do. :) :rolleyes:

Re: Gay channel
 

No I'm not missing the point, I'm sure there are plenty of channels that are non profit making that NTL could or are showing. NTL are just using the economic argument as a cop out.

Re: Gay channel
 

Excuse me where do you get off saying all that? I am catholic myself and yes I am gay, if you're catholic you will know God loves anyone no matter what and God doesn't judge so it certainly doesn't mean you have the right to judge.

Re: Gay channel
 

let's not get religion involved with this topic!
my god, if we do then pages will increase from 8 to 80!!

:D

Re: Gay channel
 

Why should NTL show a Gay channel if there is no demand? NTL are a business. They carry channels to make money. If there is no demand, they will not make money.

And, yes, "I'm not homophobic" (I actually do have gay friends). Prove to NTL there is a demand for these channels, and they might add them.

But, as orangebird asked a while back, what is different on a gay channel? Surely gay people should be better represented on mainstream channels rather than being shoved off to their own channel?

Re: Gay channel
 

Oh how i love fascists like ths. 'Gays are the scouge of society' et all. :)

You make me laff.

Back to the dark ages with ya.

Re: Gay channel
 

I agree bigitup, just wanted to get my point across and reply to that bigots comments!! its comments like that which make it hard for anyone who is dealing with coming out to actually come out!

Re: Gay channel
 

Excuse me, if you read my post properly you would've seen that it ruined my family, which created a divorce, what in that is allowed in the catholic church? nothing, now, it is also said that any relationship that is not procreative is wrong, although i dont fully agree with that statement, many people have problems in that area etc, it is 100% clear that homosexuality is not liked in th catholic church, and also God does judge us when we die, he doesn't judge us while we live, thats for people to do.

Re: Gay channel
 

Err. the only one channel I can think of that is non profit making is the Local channel (which, I believe NTL are required to carry by law).

Re: Gay channel
 

I read your post and I still stand by what i said, and its not for people to judge actually. Get over it lots of famillies end up in divorce, mine has but I am not bitter about it - get over it move on for ****sake!

Re: Gay channel
 

Well that's a whole nother thread, but just cuz NTL is a business doesnt mean they can shirt their social responsibilities too. Banks and shops are businesses too but with the disability discrimination act they have to make shops wheel chair accessable.

NTL, TELEWEST and sky are monopoly (sp?) suppliers of the media, are should not be using the economic argument to support the non showing of minority broadcasts.

Re: Gay channel
 

So every devoted catholic is a fascist? I think not, and where did i say 'Gays are the scouge of society'? exactly i didn't.

Re: Gay channel
 

Yes and I wonder if they'd still be showing it, if it wasnt for the law??

My point being that minority programming by its nature, is not profit making because its a minority viewing it.

Re: Gay channel
 

Ok, so what you are saying is just take it that my mum is a lesbian, take it that my dad is currently suicidal, take it that it only happened 3 months ago, take it that i have no one to turn to, yes i can just get over that in that short space of time, IM HUMAN FFS, i have feelings here, i currently believe that, i probably wont have such strong feeling like that in about a year.

My friends know how i feel about homosexuality, they haven't said anything about it because they understand what i have been through, and before you ask some of them are gay.

All i have to say is sorry for the offence i have caused but you have to realise that there are people who have been through things which would cause them to feel like they do.

Re: Gay channel
 

Yes devoted (fundamentalist) catholics are fascists in my vocab.
I was paraphrasing your 'gays detroyed my life' sentance.
There are plenty of hetero marrages destroyed by other women/men but then you are against sex outside marrage too??

Re: Gay channel
 

Whether we believe being gay is right or wrong has nothing to do with the topic at hand, the main question asked was that a gay channel was coming to sky and was it possibly coming to NTL.

Re: Gay channel
 

I find it hard to describe the provision of a gay channel a social responsibility, and comparing it to provision of important facilities to allow disabled people to conduct their lives in as normal a manner as possible is a little rich.
Are you trying to say that being gay is an impairment which has to be catered for?

Re: Gay channel
 

Fine I understand your problem, but you come on this board and spout what you said and expect me not to take offence when you are stating that I am wrong for being what I am? I am not someone who will sit back and take things quietly, I don't see why I should. I understand about divorce and everyting else, my dad went through the samethings, I had no one to turn to but I got through it, even though I was told by my mum I am the biggest mistake she ever made and she wished I had died at birth - but I got through it - and I certainly did not come on a board and point out I hate people who commit adultery!

Anyways this thread is not about whats right and wrong its about the non carrieage of a channel

Re: Gay channel
 

Ah touche. Well i know i'm not a fundamentalist catholic, but there are some thigns that a agree with, atm this just happens to be one of those that i agree with.

I just keep digging a hole here dont i :sleep:

Re: Gay channel
 

Yes, i think i would definantly shut up now, ill understand if i get banned for it (i deserve it) but anyway i wont let my feelings like that get shown on a thread thats about channel carriage!

Re: Gay channel
 

Hey mate im Catholic too. But thank god i have my own opinions and can think for myself.

That's the most hilarious post ive read in ages. At least you have come out and said it, instead of dressing it up ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :Yikes:

Re: Gay channel
 

Hum nice try at twisting my words.
The deaf channel argument is seperate from the gay channel argument.
Of course being gay isnt an impairment but it is a social minority that is big enough to deserve some sort of channel IMHO.

Re: Gay channel
 

Whether we believe being gay is right or wrong has nothing to do with the topic at hand, the main question asked was that a gay channel was coming to sky and was it possibly coming to NTL.

Just incase people missed it!!!

Re: Gay channel
 

The disability discrimination act was (AFAIK) drafted because disabled people were having trouble going back to work, and were also unable to go to many places (including Banks and Shops which could be considered a necessary part of life). Sorry, but I do not think not having a TV channel is in the same league as this.

Sky already are providing Gay channels. Maybe part of the reason NTL don't carry Gay channels is because those channels don't want to be carried on NTL (Sam B has already said that). Maybe I am missing the point, but couldn't having your own channel be classed as discrimination? Isn't that a bad thing?

Edit: Just to make it clear, I am not against Gay channels. Just trying to found out why they are needed.

Re: Gay channel
 

Yes your right assuming NTL arn't against it for homophobic reasons.

Re: Gay channel
 

Same here just trying to figure out why they WOULDNT need one.

I'm more in support of minority programming than a gay channel in particular.
And I still say that minority channels should be shown as a social responsibility rather than as an economic viability.

Re: Gay channel
 

Ok, so we've heard a few ridiculous suggestions about satanists and other minority groups not being catered for, and I think we all agree that homosexuals constitute a large sized group in the UK, but using your reasoning are we also to assume that ntl are prejudiced against other groups of equal or greater size?
We don't have a disabled persons channel, does that mean that ntl are also discriminating against this group? As mentioned so many times already; there is absolutely no evidence that ntl are not carrying a gay channel on the basis of discrimination.
So would ntl then have the responsibilty to foot the bill for all programming on this minority channel as well as it's free carriage, or is that someone else's 'social responsibility'? If so, who's?

Re: Gay channel
 

Unfortunatly (for me) we live in a society where the media is owned by whoever has the money to own it. If the person or persons who own it, are predudiced against a certain section of society they can refuse to show related media or more importantly put up barriers to their inclusion (like econiomic ones to hide their predudice).

As a way of protecting against this, people who own the media should have some responsibitly in law for showing minority related media. The cost of which should be taken up by the media owner.

Re: Gay channel
 

Um... has anybody actually checked if any gay channels actually *want* carriage on cable?

Re: Gay channel
 

Oh that would be too rational, we're just debating for the fun of it.
Facts just get in the way.

LOL

Re: Gay channel
 

Being a pedant (why dont we have our own channel too) but why is it DANGEROUS to have so many specialist channels? Will people stop procreating, will it be the end of society? There more the better I say.

Re: Gay channel
 

I think he was being sarcastic....

(or ironic, depending on how kind you want to be ;) )

Re: Gay channel
 

Oh and there was me being sarcastic too :)

Re: Gay channel
 

Can we get back to the subject in hand please? (Why these always turn into whether gay is right or wrong always does disappoint me).

Sam came on here to say that ntl did speak to two gay channels a while back but both did not want ntl carriage. There are only three gay channels (of which GTV will be the third) and it is disappointing that these channels do not want to be on ntl.

the also said there was no 'evidence' as to why no gay channel has ever appeared on ntl. Whilst I clearly accept the point that ntl cab't FORCE a channel to launch on its system, these gay channels must be about the only onese not to want to launch on cable. I guess I draw my conclusions from the channel line-ups as they stand.

I would be curious as to why The Dating Channel's gay version is not there in partic. I did email them once about this but never got a reply. I might remail them again and also ask Gaydar Radio and GTV about the sitiuation with regard to ntl and, if I get a reply, I'll post the jist of the reply in here.

Re: Gay channel
 

No ones arguing about whether gay is right or wrong, we're arguing whether its a minority channel or not, and whether minority channels should be taken up by broadcasters as a right or not?

Re: Gay channel
 

Clearly a channel aimed at a minority would be considered a minority channel.

It is up to broadcasters to choose (or not) to serve that minority and they willonly do so if they think they can make money out of it.

Thus far, only three broadcasters have chosen to do this - The Dating Channel (through Gaydate TV), Q Soft (the company behind Gaydar Radio) and the people who have set up GTV and if one really makes a success of it then I am sure others will try to emulate this (as has happened with Asian channels - ZEE clearly makes loads of money in the UK therefore other broadcasters have set up Asian channels).

Time will tell whether GTV can work anmd it will prove if there is a demand for TV aimed at the gay community.

Re: Gay channel
 

I think that's what is called a Tautology(sp?) it doesnt answer the question on wether Gays are a minority in the tv channels sense. Scifi has its own channel, dance music and heavy metal have their own channels, etc how do low viewer numbers have to be, before a channel is considered a minority.
If people who wanted a gay channel paid a premium similar to asian channels, would they make the same amount of money?

Re: Gay channel
 

But being gay isn't a discrimination. Gay people, those that want equality, shouldn't expect people to act differently around them or to treat them specially. All they want to do is to be treated NORMALLY, like anyone else would.

After asking a few of my gay relatives and friends about this I found out that they'd feel quite discriminated AGAINST if they were considered a social responsibilty. I think you'll find that the majority of gay people would like to see a gay channel, but realise that if the demand is not there then it wont be launched. Just as I realise that the demand isn't there for a 24/7 techie channel.

But, alas, the eternal question still hasn't be answered. What exactly is on these so called "gay lifestyle" channels? Because from what I've heard the majority of gay people have found it quite patronising and gimmicky.

*shrugs*

Re: Gay channel
 

As for the Asian channels debate. In my home town of Leicester there is a very large proportion of asian people who quite like the Asian channels, in fact I believe they brought out a special package at some point with reduced phone calls etc. This had a great takeup and is thus quite profitable for ntl to carry them.

If there was a lot of French people in the UK then you'd find ntl carrying a lot more french channels.

Re: Gay channel
 

Ahh thats patronising crap too. Gays are in a minority and wether they like it or not they are descriminated against in terms of representation in the media.
I'm not relating being gay with being disabled, I'm relating it with being in a minority and thus under repesented.
I'm also saying that minority programing should not be dependant on the need to make a profit, as I have said before. Minority means a smaller population than a majority, so by its nature a minority channel will have fewwer viewers than any other channel.
Also being in a minority is not the same as saying that gays are abnormal in the derogative of the word. Of course they are abnormal in the sense that they are a minority. So what I'm trying to say is that a Gay specific channel is not giving the special needs, its just redressing the balance of representation. After all mainstream channels have felt the need to create gay zones in their programing, like C4's Pink Triangle season.

Re: Gay channel
 

So the only reason Asians get to have their own channel is because they are rich?? or have enough money to buy a specific channel?

My point again is that channels for minorities shouldnt be dependant on economic viabilities.

Re: Gay channel
 

No, that was the point. NTL put together a package featuring Asian channels, and reduced call costs to the subcontinent, for less money than it would have cost to get them separately, to try to appeal to asian customers (which makes sense when you look at the demographics for NTL-connected cities).

As to funding for minority channels, I couldn't disagree more. Regulation to prevent discrimination, yes. Enforced funding, no. If a gay channel, satanist channel or whatever else want to launch, then fine, but I don't see why they should be given special treatment.

But then I'm just anti 'positive' discrimination in all regards. In my opinion, it's contradictory to the notion of equalty...

Re: Gay channel
 

Ahh the cry of the 'ist be they racist or homophobist. Make them fight their way up the economic ladder so they can eventually pay for their own channel, even tho the economic ladder is biased against them making their way up the greasy pole. (no pun intended)

It's not special treatment to redress the balance against discrimination.
The same way blacks were and probably still were under represented in the media and had to fight their way to get seen on tv. You don't see 'The fresh Prince of Bel end' on tv do you? But you do see the 'Fresh Prince of Bel Air'. And it wasn't just cuz blacks could pay for their tv, it was cause anti descrimination laws helped them get on tv more.

P.s. No I'm not saying your a homophob, I'm saying you've been brainwashed by the homophobic capitalists, in to believing that minorities should use economic routes to representation, rather than social.

Re: Gay channel
 

Discrimination (even "positive" discrimination) is still bad.

Now, to get this thread back on track, Sam B said

Now, isn't it a bit academic to be discussing whether NTL is homophobic or not, when these channels do not want to launch on Cable?

(post 47 if anyone is interested).

Re: Gay channel
 

Please don't missquote me. Representation of a minority is not the same as positive discrimination. Plenty of racists used that argument to keep the ethnic minority down in the early days of racism. And it is keeping on thread, the title say Gay channel, not gay channel blah blah blah.

And I've already said that just because ONE employee of NTL says they are not homophobic, that doesnt mean that the people at the top aren't.

The economic argument is the same as the positive descriminatiion one, it keeps the minorities down even longer.

Re: Gay channel
 

Which takes me back to a post I made earlier. Why not just ensure gays are better represented in mainstream media?
One employee who is better placed to know what is going on @ ntl than either of us..

Re: Gay channel
 

Oh and while i'm on my high horse (for I know I am) why does a really crap channel like Men & Motors get channel space? It's not a premium channel and I doubt it has that high an audience?
Men & motors is an insult to inteligent men and panders to the base interests of the hetero male.

Re: Gay channel
 

I am sure ntl (corporately or on an individual level) are not homophobic or discriminatory.

Any special interest audience are free to petition any provider for specific content.

Given that cable/satellite broadcasters are not public licence fee beneficiaries and therefore commercial entities, then the petitioned level of subscription would need to be commercially viable.

I deliberately avoid the term 'minority' and substitute 'special interest'

I am sure if enough followers of (for example) 'advanced techniques in macrame and crochet patterns in blue silk' pooled their rescources, then a 2 minute slot in a generic lifestyle programme once a quarter could become a dedicated channel.

Re: Gay channel
 

Oh come off it...
If there are channels for children (CBBC etc), men (men and motors), women (LivingTV originally), even channel for scifi fans etc, why not one for gays?

Just one, thats not too much to ask for, is it?
And not just cuz its economical to do it.

Re: Gay channel
 

Ahh but there you are so wrong, being gay isnt a special interest, its a way of life and equating it with croching just shows the amount of misunderstanding due to lack of media coverage.
Gays are a minority, thats not being PC or using positive discrimination, its a fact.
And minorities need fair coverage in the media.
My argument being that minorities can never be economically viable compared to majorities.

Re: Gay channel
 

I cannot argue with that.

I am not unsympathetic.

I was not making an equation.

But if thats the argument, does it not render the whole thread rather pointless?

Re: Gay channel
 

No that's my argument not the thread starters one.

'My argument is that if gays are in a minority. Then how are they expected to get a fair representation if the only way they can get their own channel is by becoming rich enough to pay for one. Being a minority would mean they would have to raise more money per person than a hetero person would have to.'

The other reason I think that gays need a channel for their own, is because of the discrimination that has been going on for too many years and can only be redressed by a little saturation from the other side.

Re: Gay channel
 

Fight fire with fire, you mean?

Re: Gay channel
 

I think that answers the thread starter's question. I am not taking issue, or picking a row - I really do sympathise - the world is not a fair place.

Maybe someone high up in channel selection will take all this on board - but I do not have a solution - and its bed time.

Re: Gay channel
 

Well I wouldnt call a gay related channel 'fire' in the same way I'd call kidnapping and hanging someone on a fence after beating them near to death, fire.

Re: Gay channel
 

Neither would I. But there is no such thing as positive discrimination. It's like saying because women have been opressed by men for so many years, it justifies women treating men like dirt.

Unless of course I've totally misread your intentions, after all, it's 2:36am and I'm knackard :spin:

Re: Gay channel
 

The link below is why we need a gay channel.

http://www.uua.org/news/hatecrime/globe.html

Re: Gay channel
 

So if there was a dedicated gay channel, all that wouldn't have happened?? Wishful thinking perhaps?

Re: Gay channel
 

Well i've already said its not positive discrimination.
Also how do you equate a channel about gay lifestyle with women treating men like dirt?
Gay programing doesnt mean taking the mick out of heteros.

Re: Gay channel
 

No not NEVER happen, but happen LESS.

Re: Gay channel
 

Wouldn't better integration on mainstream television be more effective?
And I don't mean the "token" gay character in a soap, but have them portrayed properly as a person rather than as their sexual preferance, you know, rather than having the big shock gay kiss, just have characters who happen to be gay but a big deal isn't made out of it.

Re: Gay channel
 

Another good reason for having a gay channel rather than just mainstream programming

Re: Gay channel
 

Somebody should write to the bbc about it... after all they are supposed to spend the licensing fee on what is demanded by consumers... so give it a try!

hmm.... i wonder what they would call it though.... :confused:

Re: Gay channel
 

How interesting that a subject about one TV channel aimed at less than 10% of the population can spark 12 pages of discussion!

The line is drawn based on what the demand will be. If all 6 million of the UK's gay/lesbian/bi population would tune into a Gay TV type channel, then there might be sufficient demand. NTL does not have enough coverage of that 6 million people to make the channel viable for distribution due to the fees that ntl would charge the channel. And that is just assuming that every one of the 6 million would tune in! More likely would be less than 10% of that 6 million.

I think something important needs to be said here...this has nothing to do whether the channel is aimed at the gay population or not, it's to do with basic economics. Will we make enough money to pay to pay the ntl fees. Chances are that they won't, which is why the channel isn't on ntl.

I don't think any of us are in any position to decide whether we need any TV programme. We do not need Eastenders, we don't need Channel 4, in fact we don't NEED television at all. But some of us like watching some programmes on Channel 4 - so it's nothing to do with whether we need it or not.

We all have choices, with regards to what we watch. I choose not to watch God TV, but I respect Russ' right to do so. I choose not to watch the football, but I respect people's rights to do so.

None of us, gay or straight, have the right to say that there should not be any channel on any platform.

Re: Gay channel
 

The point that is taking up most of the pages is not that the channel is being discriminated against because of its remit ie gay. It's that because gays are in a minority perhaps 6million (10%) they can never be economically viable compared to other larger minorities, not sure how big the deaf population is in comparison.

So assuming that gays need some sort of media representation to balance out the many years of discrimination, how are they gonna get it if not through some sort of social intervention. ie broadcasters made to carry certain minority channels by regulation.

The other point then is how do you define a minority?

As an anti capitalist, my main argument for a gay channel is not the issue itself (of which I'm sympathetic) but that minority representation shouldnt be dependant on econimic viability but a social responsibility.

Re: Gay channel
 

I think separate is rarely equal. If programs incorporated some more gay themes/programs using realistic characters and proper proportionality there wouldn't be a need for the separate channel.

Re: Gay channel
 

Actually, having seen that, I have wondered it as well. I can only assume Granada are willing to pay NTL to carry it, and Granada aren't worried about lack of viewers.

Re: Gay channel
 

Ahhh go on, let them have their own channel, it's not gonna hurt anyone. If you don't wanna watch it, you could flick quickly past it, or use the channel lock system.

I'd gladly give up Men and Motors for them to have the channel space, even instead of FX, which I really want. They could use the BUY NTL channel, that's definitly a waste of space.

Re: Gay channel
 

I know it has been said before, but if such a channel shouldn't be dependant on economic vialbility, but social responsibility, shouldn't it be financed by the Licence Fee? After all the point of the licence fee is to provide quality television without having to worry about the viewing figures (although the BBC is obsessed with viewing figures).

All of the markets you mentioned above are possibly bigger than the "gay" market.

And sorry, I can't offer any other excuse apart from it being about whether the channel is economical or not, because I believe the reasons behind NTL not carrying this channel ARE economical (whether it is NTL deciding not to carry the channel because they wouldn't get enough subscriptions, or whether the channel itself decided not to go to NTL because of the carriage fees demanded).

Bear in mind that Sky is quite possibly cheaper, as all they do is rent the channel an EPG slot (and possibly encryption). The Channel has to arrange it's own uplink. As Sky is cheaper, it's possible that Gay TV only had enough money for Sky and couldn't afford the carriage fees for cable.

And just to make it clear, I am not against any gay channel (or any specialist channel) appearing on NTL

Re: Gay channel
 

I'm not against it in principle, I'm just saying we already have programs on general entertainment channels which are aimed at minorities, I don't see why the it is so necessary that it be separate. But it seems that channels are becoming more specialised these days so maybe I'm being old fashioned.

Re: Gay channel
 

I'd give up Men and Motors for a Gay channel. Almost any channel infact. Even a blank screen , or, shock horror, an extra shopping channel. Not that NTL needs any more shopping channels..

Re: Gay channel
 

I'd love for their to be a gay channel, but until they pay to be carried on cable they aren't going to be on cable, simple as.

Unless of course they want to be a charity? :rolleyes:

Re: Gay channel
 

I am actually seeing the need now for this type of channel (and as someone said you could just lock the channel). Although this is a bad example, its kinda like gamers wanting a channel dedicated to games on ntl, i want it, other people want it, but some people will see it as a waste of space.

But isn't what digital tv is about, more channel space so the 'minorities' can be catered for?

(PS doing my own research last night its around 1 in 6 are homosexual, thats a lot of people for a minority!)

Re: Gay channel
 

oh, right, so - it's not ok to have a channel that 'panders to the base interests of the hetero male', but you still want a channel that panders to homosexuals.. :rolleyes:

Get over it - gay channels don't want to get carried by ntl, and I don't think right now it would be economical for ntl to carry them anyway (and NO, they are not a charity - they're in it for the money).....

There's loads of gay issues on television anyway - in all the soaps, in plenty of films - I love that Justin interior designer fellow. Brilliant. :)

What exactly is it you'd get on a gay channel that you wouldn't from any other channel - do gays hold there cutlery differently or something? Do you have another language, or currency etc?? No. You don't. At the end of the day the only difference between being gay or straight is the gender of partner you choose. I'm bloody sure there'd be uproar if I started campaigning for 'straight' channnel...... :rolleyes: :shrug:

Re: Gay channel
 

Particularly when the original question was answered after around 1 page. I guess that's what happens when certain people feel the need to kidnap the thread for their own needs and to vent their own concerns. :confused:

Re: Gay channel
 

How many are homosexual? Here is the result of one survey.

http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm+perc...ng_en&ie=UTF-8

Done in 2000, concluding that there are about 6% of the population are gay.

Only representative, true but that how most of the opinion polls are done.

So yes, homosexuals are in the minority. And a good job too. If they ever became the majority then the human race would be threatened! Gone in a puff of smoke.... :Yikes:

What would the channel be called? UK Pink? ;)

Personally, I think NTL shouldn't be ornithophoebic. There should be a channel for pigeon fanciers. They are NOT in the minority.

Re: Gay channel
 

roflmao :D :rofl:

Re: Gay channel
 

Any pun intended? ;)

And you could have a channel devoted to threesomes called UK Pink +1

Re: Gay channel
 

It's called having a discussion, just cuz your satisfied with the answer doesnt mean others are.
Personally I think everyone harping on about economics are just using it to cover up their apathy at best and their homophobia at worst.

Re: Gay channel
 

Homophobic rubbish, yeah even if only said as a joke.
A majority percentage of homosexuals (even assuming they didnt have babies by artificial means) would still leave a significant percentage of heteros to keep the population at sustainable levels, but then you knew that.


Another reason why gays need their own channel.

Re: Gay channel
 

Then start a thread of your own regarding the issues that you have rather than using this one for your soap box. Personally I don't share your conspiracy theory about the lack of gay channels on ntl or any other supplier and am unsure what you are looking to achieve by continuing down this route. :confused:

Re: Gay channel
 

Having a channel that objectifies women and the acquisition of environment destroying machinery (cars) is not the same as having a channel that allows a discriminated population a forum for expression.

Re: Gay channel
 

I did start a thread but it got taken down cuz the fascist site owner was anti satanic. Even tho I was just using that as an example of a minority channel.
As for conspiracy theories, i'd appreciate it if you didnt hijack my point for your own reasons. My agenda is out their for anyone to read, not to paraphase wrongly. But your use of the word agenda shows your bias and your willingness to dismiss my points out of hand.

Re: Gay channel
 

:rolleyes:

Go hug a tree or something....

Or failing that, how about you answer the second part of my post? :confused:

Re: Gay channel
 

Wouldn't the other channel be objectifying men, even if it was for other men?

I really need to see this channel to understand it. Does anyone have any links to info?

Re: Gay channel
 

Altho some programs may objectify men, in the sense that other non porn hetero programs objectify women on main stream channels, it wouldnt objectify them in the same way porn or what passes as porn on Men and Motors does. If you get my meaning?

Like I said before being gay ISN'T just about sex, it's about life style issues, some of which are not dealt with by mainstream programing at least not in depth.

Re: Gay channel
 

Nope, just being logical. It's a fact of life that NTL is a commercial entity, and like most commercial entities will do anything it can (legally) to increase it's income, while keeping it's outgoings to a minimum.

The channel being talked about in this thread is also a commerical entity, and, as such, is seeking to increase it's income while keeping outgoings down.

It is not in NTL's interest to be homophobic (if you believe the statistics, they would alienate 1/6th of their consumers, thus possibly losing a lot of money).

Re: Gay channel
 

Yes thanks for that abusive comment. hugging trees is done by another section of society, on with which I am not apart of.

As for your 2nd part, Ive already said before that being Gay is not just about who you have sex with, notice the 'just' which means 'inclusive of but not exclusive to' in this disscusion.

Re: Gay channel
 

Abusive...:rolleyes:

If it's not just about sex - what is it about then????

Re: Gay channel
 

Excuse my ignorance, can I have some examples? :dunce:

Re: Gay channel
 

Just cuz its logical doesnt mean its right. Like i said before there are plenty of examples of discrimination where logical arguments have been used.

'Gays shouldnt be in the army, cuz it lowers moral'

Logical if you accept each premise, but not nesscary true to life.

Re: Gay channel
 

I don't know I'm not gay, but go to your local library and look for the gay and lesbian section, for there is one.

Re: Gay channel
 

I was under the impression that it was ok to hijack things within this thread as you appear to have done so for your own means. If you are going to quote then please quote me correctly....I never said that you had an agenda, no requirement to as you have done so yourself. I have no bias and do not dismiss your points, I just believe that this thread was not started to go in the direction it has now followed.

Re: Gay channel
 

Actually, I have never believed that Gays should not be in the army, they can fight just as well as anyone else.

But, as far as I can see, my explanation is true to life. Most companies will do anything they can to increase income.

If you can produce proof that NTL is or has been homophobic, then, for whatever it's worth, I'll believe you, but until then, I'll stick with what I consider the logical explanation.

Re: Gay channel
 

exactly , if ppl are that desperate to get this channel then why not get skydigi :confused: