Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Let BRAVO Know What You THINK About Their Homosexual Agenda!
07/29/03 | Kieri

Posted on 07/29/2003 6:25:52 AM PDT by Kieri

This morning I decided to let BRAVO have an earful. Here is my email:

"As a DirecTV subscriber, I am notifying you I am permanently blocking BRAVO from my menu on my DSS receiver.

Your push for homosexual-'friendly' programming demonstrates your pandering to an audience that exhibits behavior that is not only detrimental to their own health, but the health and safety of families everywhere. I refuse to risk allowing my children to see promo material on your channel, so I find it necessary to block BRAVO and will encourage others to do so. Your advertisers will no longer reach me or my family members, and I have let DirecTV know of our all too easy decision to block BRAVO.

You may consider a homosexual audience on worthy of pursuit, but families who treasure their own lifestyles think otherwise."

I encourage others to let both BRAVO and their cable/DSS companies know that you're blocking their agenda-pushing programming!

BRAVO's "Contact Us" page is here:

http://www.bravotv.com/Contact_Us/

OR you can smail mail them here:

Bravo Viewer Relations
c/o NBC Entertainment
3000 W. Alameda Ave.
Burbank, CA 90036


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: atheists; biglie; bisexualsmakeachoice; bornheterosexual; boycott; boycottnbc; bravo; cabletelevision; cabletv; catholiclist; causedbyenvironment; cheerleaders; christianhating; christophobes; culture; culturewar; directtv; downourthroats; gay; gaybashers; gaymenschorus; gays; gaytrolldolls; hairbrainedstudies; hedonists; hollywierd; homonazi; homophobes; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexuallobby; homosexuallobbyists; homosexuals; homosexualtrolls; indoctrination; lavendermafia; lesbian; libertarians; libertines; nbc; nogeneticcomponent; peckingparty; perversion; prosodomycrowd; pseudoscience; queer; queereye; religionbashing; repressedinthecloset; rinos; samesexdisorder; sexaddicts; sexualdeviance; sexualdeviants; sierrabravo; sodomites; sodomizers; standfornothing; television; theususalsuspects; trashtv; tv; usefulidiots
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 801-811 next last
To: george wythe
Your argument against female homosexuality seems vacuous at best.

I've never given it much thought. Surely the human costs are the same going either way. Lower life expectancy, a succession of partners, greater exposure to AIDS and other STDs, the unconscious feelings of living an empty, lonely life. And so on. Can you suggest some others?

I made a deliberate effort to avoid religious or moral arguments against homosexuality. Many people will reject those arguments, because they don't have the same moral code. However, I could make those arguments if I so desired.

421 posted on 07/29/2003 2:55:11 PM PDT by Scourge of God
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: Scourge of God
"It's a beauty thing, I guess. Beautiful woman are worth watching, whether on DVD or sitting in a park and enjoying the scenery."

That's from your point of view, though. For many women, men are beautiful creatures, too. But few women enjoy watching two men having sex. Yet many men find it enjoyable to watch two women engaging in sexual activity.

There's something else going on here, I think. In this television show, the subject of this thread, there's no sexual activity at all. Instead style folks, decorators, and the like are working on improving some straight guy so he'll be a better catch for a woman. I fail to see the problem. Everyone knows that a lot of decorators, hairdressers, clothing designers, etc., are gay, so what's the big deal. There's nothing in the show, apparently, that is sexual in nature, and the gay men aren't trying to seduce the straight guy. I haven't seen the show, and doubt that I ever will, since I don't care for reality shows in general.

This is all way overblown.
422 posted on 07/29/2003 2:56:43 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
However the Boy Meets Boy show is another animal and full of sex and sexual innuendo.
423 posted on 07/29/2003 2:59:01 PM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
This is NOT the same thing as Queer Eye and I understand why THIS would make people upset....not oo mention its really trashy and sleazy TV................

Bravo is proud to present television's first gay dating series with "Boy Meets Boy," a new twist on a traditional dating show. You've heard all the controversial buzz–now you can see for yourself what everyone is talking about!

"Boy Meets Boy," hosted by Dani Behr ("Extra"), is Bravo's distinctive reality gay dating series with twists that explore the unexpected, leaving the viewers on the edge of their seats.

In the premiere episode, viewers will meet James (leading man) a handsome, 32-year old administrator in the human resources department of a law firm. James and the fifteen potential mates will live in luxurious but separate accommodations. The suitors vie for his affections by participating in group activities and attending one-on-one dates, while James–with advise from his best friend Andra–eliminate men at the end of each episode.

THE TWIST! What the leading man and Andra don't know is that some of the "mates" are actually STRAIGHT men posing as gay men–an interesting twist allowing for numerous avenues of heated on-air discussions and debates that challenge socially preconceived notions of what is considered gay and straight behavior.

CAN YOU GUESS who is straight and who is gay? Watch the premiere episode and cast your vote on the Bio Page of each mate. Then keep watching every Tuesday night at 9/8pm to find out if your guesses are correct.

Check back in the coming weeks for more information about the show, including recaps, episodic photos and more!


424 posted on 07/29/2003 3:00:44 PM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Scourge of God
"I've never given it much thought. Surely the human costs are the same going either way. Lower life expectancy, a succession of partners, greater exposure to AIDS and other STDs, the unconscious feelings of living an empty, lonely life. And so on. Can you suggest some others? "

Actually, you might want to check this out. Lesbian women have a very, very low incidence of STDs of any kind, and AIDS is almost non-existent in that community, lower than in the general heterosexual community. As for feelings of emptiness and loneliness, you'll find that in all walks of life. It's part of our culture these days. Just sit and answer a crisis hotline phone for a few months and you'll hear lots and lots of stories from heterosexuals about loneliness and emptiness.

Fact is, lesbians are not harmed by their sexual preferences, and you won't find any statistics that indicate otherwise.

So, what's your objection to female homosexuality?
425 posted on 07/29/2003 3:01:21 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
"However the Boy Meets Boy show is another animal and full of sex and sexual innuendo."

As are all the pairing reality shows. I tried watching one of them once. It grossed me out, and I haven't been back. In this case it's gay dating or whatever. I won't watch that one either. Those shows are stupidity defined.
426 posted on 07/29/2003 3:02:38 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Guess who's gay and who is straight...


427 posted on 07/29/2003 3:03:05 PM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
That's from your point of view, though. For many women, men are beautiful creatures, too.

And it's a good thing, or else the human race would be doomed.

There's something else going on here, I think. In this television show, the subject of this thread, there's no sexual activity at all. Instead style folks, decorators, and the like are working on improving some straight guy so he'll be a better catch for a woman. I fail to see the problem. Everyone knows that a lot of decorators, hairdressers, clothing designers, etc., are gay, so what's the big deal. There's nothing in the show, apparently, that is sexual in nature, and the gay men aren't trying to seduce the straight guy. I haven't seen the show, and doubt that I ever will, since I don't care for reality shows in general.

This then is a matter of values. The acceptance and spread of the gay lifestyle is, in my opinion, a bad thing. Bad for my family, bad for society. Even harmless dreck like queer eye is just that much more of the camel's nose being poked into the tent. Yuck. I don't want to see it, hear it, or have any part of it.

Now, I should say I feel the same exact way about Justin Timberlake. And rap "music". And any girl singer with cleavage and belly-button showing.

428 posted on 07/29/2003 3:03:25 PM PDT by Scourge of God
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Scourge of God
I've never given it much thought. Surely the human costs are the same going either way. Lower life expectancy, a succession of partners, greater exposure to AIDS and other STDs, the unconscious feelings of living an empty, lonely life. And so on. Can you suggest some others?

The only problem with your argument is not very well developed.

Just stating that lesbians have a lower life expectancy is not an argument; it is just your opinion which might not reflect the facts.

Similarty, claiming that lesbians have greater exposure to AIDS and other STDs for doing the same thing that straight males do every day in this country stretches credulity.

And the lonely life is just another opinion disguised as fact.


My only objection to female homosexuality is of religious nature; since we probably agree on the religious angle, there is no need to post it.

429 posted on 07/29/2003 3:04:38 PM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: my_pointy_head_is_sharp
Yes, a guy tried to recruit me

A gay guy tried to "recruit" you? How exactly did he do that?

It's never happened to you? I'm surprised! It's happened to me at least twice that I can think of right offhand - once with a (closeted) gay scoutmaster who offered to drive me home and asked me questions about "wet dreams" and so on. Later he got canned when too many parents got upset about - among other things - the sauna he built in his home and into which he invited many of his charges to come sit naked with him. And as an adult, there was this (mostly uncloseted) gay co-worker who would come rest his hands on my shoulders while I was on my computer. Years ago, a close relative of mine told of an attempted recruitment by his boss when they shared a hotel room on a business trip. I suspect that most targets of this kind of thing will never tell anyone else due to embarrassment. And again, I'm surprised it's never happened to you or to someone you know who later told you about it.

430 posted on 07/29/2003 3:08:14 PM PDT by CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Fact is, lesbians are not harmed by their sexual preferences, and you won't find any statistics that indicate otherwise.

I'll bet I could if I wanted to look. There's no way that a lesbian lifestyle can be as fulfilling or as happy as a normal marriage.

So, what's your objection to female homosexuality?

It's destructive. It's limited and unproductive. It's like abortion, everyone tells the woman not to feel guilty, but it catches up with her.

431 posted on 07/29/2003 3:09:25 PM PDT by Scourge of God
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Why are you so consumed with male homosexuality while ignoring female homosexuality?

Although I dissagree with lesbianism myself, the lesbians have more of a saftey net.
If you look at natural, or nature, you'll notice one buck to a herd of doe. One ram to a herd of sheep. One pack leader to a pack of bitches. In nature, one male, many wives. Never do you see more than one male. Two males will fight to the death. Males do not couple with males. If they do, the herd, flock, pack, etc., dies off.
Lesbians don't transfer sperm and fecal matter into their partners mouth, either, and create intestional or stomach infections that require a doctors care. Their sex is "cleaner" and less infectionous. Most lesbians keep their relationship for many years, similar to heterosexual couples.
The lesbians aren't "in your face" as much as the males, and there's been no reports of lesbian pedophilia like there is with male homosexuals.
The lesbians, in my opinion, are far less dangerous to a society because they're not the pedophiles, the rapists, the plague and infection carriers, they don't harass moral folks in the parks, they don't urinate in public, they don't leave rubbers on the ground when they're done. The males are filthy,nasty things, contrary to what TV trys to show.
I believe lesbians are just as immoral, but at least they don't do as much harm.

432 posted on 07/29/2003 3:10:07 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Anti-American liberals are inbread Notsosmarto's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC
How come when men try to pick up women its called hitting on them, but when men hit on men homophbes call it 'recruiting' like it's an organization or something?
433 posted on 07/29/2003 3:13:32 PM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
I believe lesbians are just as immoral, but at least they don't do as much harm.

Except for the moral angle, are you OK with lesbianism then?

434 posted on 07/29/2003 3:15:06 PM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
DirecTV runs promos for Bravo on all channels. Gonna block them all?

Not a bad idea. I pay $40 a month for the ability to watch about 3 channels--Fox News, Fox (for Seinfeld), and the History Channel. In fact, if Fox News went back to webcasting, I would cancel DirecTV altogether.

435 posted on 07/29/2003 3:15:16 PM PDT by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
The only problem with your argument is not very well developed. Just stating that lesbians have a lower life expectancy is not an argument; it is just your opinion which might not reflect the facts.

Just stating that "just stating that lesbians have a lower life expectancy is not an argument; it is just your opinion which might not reflect the facts" does not make your argument. (Forgive me, I can be an ass sometimes. :->)

Similarty, claiming that lesbians have greater exposure to AIDS and other STDs for doing the same thing that straight males do every day in this country stretches credulity.

These are my opinions, they are not facts. However, they are based on common sense. You can't go against nature and just get away with it.

My only objection to female homosexuality is of religious nature; since we probably agree on the religious angle, there is no need to post it.

That's odd to take both sides of an issue. It's great to understand both sides.

436 posted on 07/29/2003 3:15:27 PM PDT by Scourge of God
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

Comment #437 Removed by Moderator

To: dogbyte12
Let's ban alcohol.

(Straw dog time again). No, let's not ban alcohol. Let's support recovery programs for alcoholics. And let's do what we can to protect children and adolescents from messages glorifying alcohol. And let's support people who say that alcoholism is a problem and are trying to do something about the problem, instead of ridiculing them.

438 posted on 07/29/2003 3:18:44 PM PDT by CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: Scourge of God
It's a shame he chose to become gay and took up the Berlin homo lifestyle. There hasn't been his match for vocal power in the 90's or beyond.

Mercury had a great talent, a rare voice, a certain artistic courage. I recall an interview I saw where people were describing how utterly wild his parties were. One fellow, a beatnik fellow-traveller said that recalled thinking he would go to hell for going to such a party. And he was no Sunday school teacher.

Mercury was a great talent. But deliberately wicked and wishing to lead others into his depravity.
439 posted on 07/29/2003 3:19:32 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
like it's an organization or something?

Uh....it is. They just run in small packs, but they work as a team.
Besides, the more they try to "recrute" the straight guy, the better chance they'll get beat up. It helps them get their elitist hate crimes legislation, so they can become legally untouchable. Everyone would face a potential law suit for denying them their pleasure when they ask. You will obey them then. You'll have no choice, or they'll scream "victim" and haul you before their liberal judges.
They want that hate crimes legislation sooooo badly. Why do you think they "had to" start their own "protection" school in NY? Others get picked on, too. Do they not bleed, or is there a bigger motive here?

440 posted on 07/29/2003 3:21:15 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Anti-American liberals are inbread Notsosmarto's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 801-811 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson