Gay marriage on TV

[RightWinger]

That last one is for all of you who think I am a bigot.

This is a serious poll though, I am wondering how people on this forum truly feel about having a gay marriage broadcast to all Canadians.

[Technocrat]

WTF!!??

Why not have it on TV? They are valued and productive members of society. We deal with all the religious programming and don't put up a huge fuss. Man oh man how is this even and issue?

If you don't want to live in the real world go become a reclusive hermit and save us from your unnecessary whining.

/rant

[Cameron]

There is enough gay programming on TV, we don't need more.

So is this marriage going to be the ending of a home make-over show?

[mcqueen625]

Legislation or no legislation it will never be acceptable to most Canadians.

[Technocrat]

BTW wtf is with the They should tar & feather the bastards choice?

You are supposing that all gay people are bastards? Or that they are socially unacceptable? Or is this just another example of how F~<Ked up the conservative people are in this country are. Its good to see discrimination is alive and well :angry:

[RightWinger]

BTW wtf is with the They should tar & feather the bastards choice? 

You are supposing that all gay people are bastards? Or that they are socially unacceptable?  Or is this just another example of how F~<Ked up the conservative people are in this country are.  Its good to see discrimination is alive and well :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey techno, it was meant as a joke. Maybe bastard wasn't a good word for them! I never meant to call homosexuals down. I never expected people to vote for it either.

So go grag your ball gag and have at it with your life partner, I don't consider you to be a bastard, my apologies.

[ScottBrison]

That last one is for all of you who think I am a bigot.

This is a serious poll though, I am wondering how people on this forum truly feel about having a gay marriage broadcast to all Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We don't think you're a bigot, we think you're a Conservative, which is far worse.

As for the broadcasting of a Gay Marriage, I hate watching any kind of marriage unless I'm invited and get to hit on chicks and eat all the food and get drunk on someone else's dime.

And they're showing it on Global TV? That's hilarious! I thought Harper and his facist buddies had Global in their collective pocket.

[Bakunin]

I think its good. Its better than trying to hide reality.

[Redneck Savage]

I think its good. Its better than trying to hide reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it is an embarrassment to Canadian people and should not be allowed on mainstream tv. Every other show on tv now has a gay theme. What happened to regular sitcoms?

[I Miss Trudeau]

I think it is an embarrassment to Canadian people and should not be allowed on mainstream tv. Every other show on tv now has a gay theme. What happened to regular sitcoms?

Them homooohsexuals are taking over! Better git yer gun!

[kimmy]

We don't think you're a bigot, we think you're a Conservative, which is far worse.

Are you retarded, or is that just what passes for humour in Fish-Nuts, Nova Scotia?

Personally, I have no complaint about the prospect of a gay wedding on TV. I have no plans to watch it, either. I can't really see why any wedding should be on TV; unless perhaps it were Prince Harry.

The gay wedding won't even be the most offensive thing on TV on the day it airs.

-k

[Newfie Canadian]

Personally, I have no complaint about the prospect of a gay wedding on TV. I have no plans to watch it, either. I can't really see why any wedding should be on TV; unless perhaps it were Prince Harry.

The gay wedding won't even be the most offensive thing on TV on the day it airs

As usual, kimmy gets to the heart of the matter.

In a free abnd democratic society why should it not be permissible? Just as they should be free to air it, we should be free to not watch.

They are, and we are. I've got plenty of other channels to watch.

[PocketRocket]

Who really cares??? As far as I'm concerned, this is a non-issue.

I believe this whole gay "trend" we've been seeing is just a backlash.

Everyone was so uncomfortable with talking, or even thinking, about gays, for so many years. What we are seeing now is something like society re-addressing their feeling about gays; ie, they're not going to come to my house and try to seduce my family.

Within a few years, the whole gay thing will fade away from the public eye to a large degree as it becomes no longer fashionable, and as the general public ceases to find gays entertaining for no other reason than they act gay.

Just like every other "popular" trend in programming.

The gays will still be here. We'll still be here.

Everyone will survive just fine.

I won't be watching the show, I do not care about the show, and I will not lose any sleep over knowing that some people find the show entertaining.

[takeanumber]

Don't like it, don't watch it.

That's the wonderful thing about Choice.

That's right, liberals are in favour of CHOICE.

Different concept eh?

Maybe the Cons can play lip service to the concept in their next policy platform.

[Guest eureka]

I don't think the issue will ever go away. The majority of perple will always feel uncomfortable with something that is different and particularly when it is in the character that is the essence of animal existence.

I have not followed this wedding plan, but it sounds to me like a provocation - a thumbing of the nose - just like that which still incenses a great many people; the Gay Pride parades where most watchers go to see the "Freaks.".

Like it or not; right or wrong, the majority of people still do not accept homosexuality and it is not just the bigots. Talk to anyone who will confide honestly. Most will say that, in spite of their public pronouncements, they are still uncomfortable with it.

[August1991]

I don't think the issue will ever go away. The majority of perple will always feel uncomfortable with something that is different and particularly when it is in the character that is the essence of animal existence.

I have not followed this wedding plan, but it sounds to me like a provocation - a thumbing of the nose - just like that which still incenses a great many people; the Gay Pride parades where most watchers go to see the "Freaks.".

Like it or not; right or wrong, the majority of people still do not accept homosexuality and it is not just the bigots. Talk to anyone who will confide honestly. Most will say that, in spite of their public pronouncements, they are still uncomfortable with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I tend to agree with you, eureka. We cannot legislate morality and because something is legal, that does not make it moral. The State cannot order people to like or even respect other people. Simply put, gays want to be able to use the word marriage because they want to be respected. I don't think changing the meaning of a word can do that.

As to this television programme, the last time I watched daytime TV, it seemed to me there were weirder subjects than two guys getting married. ("My boyfriend had an affair with my daughter's husband but I forgive him.")

[Black Dog]

Don't like it, don't watch it.

'zactly. Personally, I hate weddings, televised weddings moreso. Rob and Amber? Trista and Ryan? Blech.

But here's what's awesome: I don't subject myself to it, nor would I begrudge those who find these things entertaining their moment of pleasure.

Finally, I find it fascinating that the average TV viewer gets to witness countless acts of murder, violence, degredation and gore each and every night (hello? CSI?), yet the Values Brigade only gets their y-fronts in a knot over PG same same sex nuptuials. Prioritize much, fellas?

[Argus]

Personally, I have no complaint about the prospect of a gay wedding on TV. I have no plans to watch it, either.  I can't really see why any wedding should be on TV; unless perhaps it were Prince Harry.

It's part and parcel of the "celebration" of homosexuality we've been seeing from the media over the last few years. Anything gay is good. Any doubt, hesitation or lack of support, respect and admiration for homosexuality is evil, or worse, marks you as a "neo con" bigot.

The media has been pumping out that message, non-stop for the last several years.

[Black Dog]

It's part and parcel of the "celebration" of homosexuality we've been seeing from the media over the last few years. Anything gay is good. Any doubt, hesitation or lack of support, respect and admiration for homosexuality is evil, or worse, marks you as a "neo con" bigot. 

The media has been pumping out that message, non-stop for the last several years.

I know, first they celebrated black people with "the Jeffersons" and "Sanford and Son". What next? Muslims?

By the way Argus, you're not a neocon if you don't like gays. Bigot, yes, neocon, no.

In case anyone is wondering what the discussion is about here's the deal:

On Global TV’s new six-episode reality series, My Fabulous Gay Wedding, sometimes there are two brides. Or two grooms.

I think this quote from host Scott Thompson is bang on:

"Deep down these people that are so against this notion don’t really believe that gay people can love with the same intensity and they don’t believe that gay relationships have the same depth. And that’s just absolutely, completely wrong and it’s ugly. That’s like believing that different races are incapable of different things.”

[RightWinger]

It's part and parcel of the "celebration" of homosexuality we've been seeing from the media over the last few years. Anything gay is good. Any doubt, hesitation or lack of support, respect and admiration for homosexuality is evil, or worse, marks you as a "neo con" bigot. 

The media has been pumping out that message, non-stop for the last several years.

I know, first they celebrated black people with "the Jeffersons" and "Sanford and Son". What next? Muslims?

By the way Argus, you're not a neocon if you don't like gays. Bigot, yes, neocon, no.

In case anyone is wondering what the discussion is about here's the deal:

On Global TV’s new six-episode reality series, My Fabulous Gay Wedding, sometimes there are two brides. Or two grooms.

I think this quote from host Scott Thompson is bang on:

"Deep down these people that are so against this notion don’t really believe that gay people can love with the same intensity and they don’t believe that gay relationships have the same depth. And that’s just absolutely, completely wrong and it’s ugly. That’s like believing that different races are incapable of different things.”

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have the next big blockbuster reality show. My big fat sheep wedding. Where a man & his sheep can finally be wed. Why not, so much crazy shit going on these days. Lets play shock them all. Of course, there could always be.... My big fat sibling wedding! Throw your morals out the window, we have hit a new low on tv viewing! That is why I quit watching tv altogether, time to take it back to Amish beliefs!

[August1991]

"Deep down these people that are so against this notion don’t really believe that gay people can love with the same intensity and they don’t believe that gay relationships have the same depth. And that’s just absolutely, completely wrong and it’s ugly. That’s like believing that different races are incapable of different things.”

Gimme a break.

Accusing people who oppose same-sex marriage of somehow thinking that gays are not human is silly, misguided and counter-productive - if the purpose is to gain acceptance of gays.

"Deep down these people that are so obsessed by a woman's physical appearance don't really believe that women can think with the same intensity as men and they don't really believe that women that have the same depth of intellect as men. And that's just absolutely, completely wrong and it’s ugly. That’s like believing that different races are incapable of different things."

So, are men who go to beauty pageants "bigots"?

[Black Dog]

Accusing people who oppose same-sex marriage of somehow thinking that gays are not human is silly, misguided and counter-productive - if the purpose is to gain acceptance of gays.

No where did he say that oppnnents of SSM think gays are not human (though there are no doubt many that think that way): he was saying that many SSM foes think gay relationships are less legitimate than hetero ones. If you look at their rhetoric, you'd see Thompson is onto something. Why else would so many SSM foes speak of how gay unions would somehow "devalue" straight people's marriages?

So, are men who go to beauty pageants "bigots"?

If they believe that women can think with the same intensity as men and they don't really believe that women that have the same depth of intellect as men, then yes they are. Bigotry is unreasonable intolerance.

[Melanie_]

Finally, I find it fascinating that the average TV viewer gets to witness countless acts of murder, violence, degredation and gore each and every night (hello? CSI?), yet the Values Brigade only gets their y-fronts in a knot over PG same same sex nuptuials. Prioritize much, fellas?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This statement is worth repeating, over and over again. Thanks, Black Dog.

[Argus]

It's part and parcel of the "celebration" of homosexuality we've been seeing from the media over the last few years. Anything gay is good. Any doubt, hesitation or lack of support, respect and admiration for homosexuality is evil, or worse, marks you as a "neo con" bigot. 

The media has been pumping out that message, non-stop for the last several years.

I know, first they celebrated black people with "the Jeffersons" and "Sanford and Son". What next? Muslims?

Well, that would certainly be an explosive show. No doubt it would end with a bang.

It's raving nonsense to pretend the media haven't been pushing the gay agenda for years. Virtually the entirity of the major media is an enthusiastic supporter of homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

By the way Argus, you're not a neocon if you don't like gays. Bigot, yes, neocon, no.

Big shrug. The word no longer has any meaning anyway. Lefties have been shrieking it out at the top of their lungs at anyone and everyone who disagrees with them for decades now. If you don't agree with the lefties you hate the poor, want to destroy Canada, hate homosexuals, hate immigrants, etc. etc. It's a tired, mindless old refrain on the part of the mindless dross that makes up the reactionary left.

It's ironic that this is very much the same mentality as George Bush espouses. You're either with them 100%, or you're their enemy. There is, for example, no room in their minds for people who might be uncomfortable with the homosexual lifestyle of promiscuity, or people who cherish the notion of the man/woman family, or people with religious beliefs, or anyone who dislikes court-driven legal changes or media driven sociatal change or simply is reacting to their smug, sanctimonious preaching. These are all too complex thoughts for people whose tongues get tired out trying to read the ingredients on their breakfast cerial box. Either you love homosexuality so much that you wouldn't even mind bending over and taking one up the backside, or you're an evil homophobe who might as well be wearing a sheet.

I think this quote from host Scott Thompson is bang on:

"Deep down these people that are so against this notion don’t really believe that gay people can love with the same intensity and they don’t believe that gay relationships have the same depth.

Gee, I wonder why that would be.

"Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:

· The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.

· Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.

· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.

· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.

Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

And that’s just absolutely, completely wrong and it’s ugly. That’s like believing that different races are incapable of different things.”

Like uh, reproduction?

[Melanie_]

· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This reminds me of a famous basketball player who, several years ago, boasted about the number of women he had slept with over the years. I can't remember his name, but he was very well known among basketball fans. My point is that promiscuity is not found only among gay men, and the stats quoted here don't preclude gay men from being monogomous.