LGBTQ Channel.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

I've always wondered, if there are channels for racial groups, language groups, political groups, gender groups...etc. why wouldn't there be a channel aimed exclusively at the LGBTQ audience? There doesn't seem to be any entertainment that just let's LGBTQ characters be such without some kind of hurtful joke or something standing behind it (correct me if I'm wrong).

If someone were to start up a project like this, how do you think it would fare?
Is there something like this that I'm blatantly missing?

[Croconaw]

I think this would benefit a lot of people.

[thatcountrykid]

There would be tons of civil rights shit

[Babs]

I think it would be extremely helpful, both for raising awareness and stuff and also giving LGBTQA+ things to relate to, a safe haven perhaps.

[Blood]

I think it would be extremely helpful, both for raising awareness and stuff and also giving LGBTQA+ things to relate to, a safe haven perhaps.

I agree with this to a certain point. I think it would be nice to have.

However, I believe it may also create another unnecessary barrier between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Instead of having a totally separate LGBT channel, LGBT things need to be included in the regular channels.

[Korashk]

There are multiple. LOGO is one I think. Plus there's some other pseudo-LGBT channels that I can't remember.

[Sir Suomi]

No, simply put they don't need to try and distance themselves even further from our standard society. If they want to be treated like everyone else, then I believe to an extent they should behave like everyone else.

[Harry Smith]

No, simply put they don't need to try and distance themselves even further from our standard society.

Are you implying by 'standard' society that it's somehow unusual to be gay in the 21st century? Do you just mean straight society as Standard?

Its's not distancing ourself from society. As the OP said how come there are christian channels etc surely aren't they 'distancing themselves from society''

If they want to be treated like everyone else, then I believe to an extent they should behave like everyone else.

I'm sorry but we have a legal right to be treated like everyone else, you could of said that extact same thing in the 1960's about Black people-do you think Black people should have the same civil right? It doesn't matter how a person acts, they're still entitled to the exact same rights under the US constitution-you can take away a gay persons rights just because it doesn't fit into your vision of what's normal and what is. Do you think that a gay judge/politician should be able to take away your rights because you act differently to him?

Does that include who we fuck? Do you want gay men to sleep with women so that we're treated the same. Heck maybe we should all marry women so we don't have to bother with that gay marriage crap.

Do you know how condescending that sounds? This is why people don't vote Republican

[Bleid]

Are you implying by 'standard' society that it's somehow unusual to be gay in the 21st century? Do you just mean straight society as Standard?

Well to be fair, it's unusual to be gay in any century, even if humanity makes it to the 29th and everything is equal.

[Harry Smith]

Well to be fair, it's unusual to be gay in any century, even if humanity makes it to the 29th and everything is equal.

Well in that case about 25% of this forum is unusual

[Sir Suomi]

Are you implying by 'standard' society that it's somehow unusual to be gay in the 21st century? Do you just mean straight society as Standard?

Well, obviously if the LGBT community wasn't deemed unusual by the majority of society, we wouldn't even be having this argument, would we?


I'm sorry but we have a legal right to be treated like everyone else, you could of said that extact same thing in the 1960's about Black people-do you think Black people should have the same civil right?

Actually, according to the Constitution, you do not, to some extent. You have the right to have participate in private consensual homosexual activity (According to the supreme court ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas), but that does not mean you have the right to martial status. Not like I'm agreeing with this, but it's the fact.

It doesn't matter how a person acts, they're still entitled to the exact same rights under the US constitution-you can take away a gay persons rights just because it doesn't fit into your vision of what's normal and what is. Do you think that a gay judge/politician should be able to take away your rights because you act differently to him?

My argument here is how the public will perceive the gay community, not civil rights.

Does that include who we fuck? Do you want gay men to sleep with women so that we're treated the same. Heck maybe we should all marry women so we don't have to bother with that gay marriage crap.

Already explained this.

Do you know how condescending that sounds? This is why people don't vote Republican


And this is why most liberals aren't taken serious.

[Harry Smith]

Well, obviously if the LGBT community wasn't deemed unusual by the majority of society, we wouldn't even be having this argument, would we?
.

It's not, look around this forum. We've got about 30% of members who are LGBT, we've got staff members who are LGBT. I wouldn't say that it's unusual in the 21st century, we're even lucky enough to have gay politicians

Do you think the Afro-American community is unusual? The argument that society reflects an absolute is pretty mute

Actually, according to the Constitution, you do not, to some extent. You have the right to have participate in private consensual homosexual activity (According to the supreme court ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas), but that does not mean you have the right to martial status. Not like I'm agreeing with this, but it's the fact.

The federal courts have been striking down gay marriage bans since last year, which shows that they clearly see that the Constitution allows it. It will be a matter of months until SCOTUS approves. The extract below shows that a gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/14/us/virginia-same-sex-marriages.html?_r=0

One of the most eloquent statements against the bans was issued earlier this month by Arkansas federal judge Chris Piazza, who argued that state’s ban violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “Procreation is not a prerequisite in Arkansas for a marriage license,” he said. “Opposite-sex couples may choose not to have children or they may be infertile, and certainly we are beyond trying to protect the gene pool. A marriage license is a civil document and is not, nor can it be, based upon any particular faith. Same-sex couples are a morally disliked minority and the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages is driven by animus rather than a rational basis. This violates the U.S. Constitution

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/gay-marriage-will-destroy-the-gop-107118.html#ixzz3C5QCt4YZ

My argument here is how the public will perceive the gay community, not civil rights.

it's clear that no matter what people will still have an issue with the gay community if they want to. We've been hated by certain religious groups for the last 40 years no matter what we've done.

It's also not an issue for PR-it sounds similar to the Rhetoric by the Southern Democrats in the 1960's or the 70's with the feminist movement

I don't mind if people have a bad perception of the LGBTQ community, I'm concerned when they try and deny said community equal rights.

And this is why most liberals aren't taken serious.

Actually it's the opposite, the Republicans failure to deal with social issues has cost them the last 2 elections because the Republicans are simply too right wing on the issue. People are going to want to vote for a party that is pretty much running on a religious ticket

According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 59 percent of Americans now support gay marriage. Only a third opposes it, nearly the reverse of the same poll 10 years ago. Forty percent of Republicans support it, and nearly 60 percent of Republicans between the ages of 18 and 29.


The irony is that in 2010 all the Republican candiates (portman, Gringich etc) where saying that gay marriage is terrible needs to stop but now they've changed their tune. The Republican party are trying to switch on the issue (in the same way that Hiliary has) and no Hiliary Clinton isn't a liberal

The republican party is killing itself over the three G's-God, Guns and Gays.

[Bleid]

Well in that case about 25% of this forum is unusual

Exactly. But there's also nothing wrong with that.

[Vlerchan]

Actually, according to the Constitution, you do not, to some extent.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#text

It garuntees equality under the law, (which does extend to marriage).

---

The Republicans also are shifting to a pro-gay position (http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/213747-lobbyists-quietly-advise-gop-on-gay-marriage-shift), and Clinton is a liberal.

[Emerald Dream]

Let's stay on-topic, please.

[Gamma Male]

Don't they already have something like that? Would would it even be about other than civil rights documentaries?

[Nomad_X]

OUTtv in Canada

[Karkat]

There are multiple. LOGO is one I think. Plus there's some other pseudo-LGBT channels that I can't remember.

I was about to bring this up as well.

[Lovelife090994]

I've always wondered, if there are channels for racial groups, language groups, political groups, gender groups...etc. why wouldn't there be a channel aimed exclusively at the LGBTQ audience? There doesn't seem to be any entertainment that just let's LGBTQ characters be such without some kind of hurtful joke or something standing behind it (correct me if I'm wrong).

If someone were to start up a project like this, how do you think it would fare?
Is there something like this that I'm blatantly missing?

LOGO is a supposedly LGBT network. Plus most shows have a major character or major supporting character who is gay if not gay and married. Sadly you never hear of bisexuals or asexuals on TV; transsexuals and transgendered people maybe but rarely bisexuals and asexuals even though many A-list women are bisexual (they are just usually feminine and or married to men, i.e. Angelina Jolie).

[xMetalxMachinex]

Why do we want to distance ourselves away from the mainstream?

[fast8]

I just think they should show more and talk more on normal channels with all the kids out there maybe needing some help could see

[kanine]

Dang nabbit someone already mentioned LOGO

[Neverender]

There are LGBT television channels.

OUT tv is the one in Canada, available on Satellite and Digital Cable. I have no idea if it can be requested for basic cable

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/60/OUTtv_logo.svg/301px-OUTtv_logo.svg.png

formerly called
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/Pridevision_old_logo.png

[Miserabilia]

The closest i've seen was something called "gay lifestyle television' or something but I didn't actualy check out what it was.