Do you want your MTV .....Gay???

[NYCdog]

MTV to launch gay-lesbian digital cable channel next year

LOGO, a digital cable channel aimed at the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, will launch Feb. 17, 2005, in several big markets across the nation.

The announcement was made Tuesday by MTV Networks, a division of Viacom, which owns CBS. MTV Networks includes MTV, MTV2, Comedy Central, Spike TV, CMT, VH1, TV Land and Nickelodeon.

"Despite our nation's progress in civil rights and the growing visibility of LGBT people in business, society and even television programming, what had been missing was a home, a home on television, that this audience can really call their own," said Tom Freston, MTV Networks chairman and CEO. "After a very thorough development and research process, we believe that with this new network we're going to start making that home."

LOGO will be a 24-hour channel offering a mix of original and acquired programming that's "honest, smart and, above all, entertaining," he said.

Forty original series and specials ideas are in development, and 20 more have advanced to the pilot stage, said Judy McGrath, president, MTV Networks Group. Several have been developed jointly with VH1, Comedy Central, TV Land and MTV, she said.

"We are also working closely with the rest of the Viacom family to develop original programming with Showtime and CBS News that would work for LOGO," she said.

These could range from partnerships with MTV's True Life documentary series to a TV Land series about the history of gays on television. Also in the works, with VH1, is a special called Gay 100, which comments on the intersection of gays and pop culture.

"This will not be C-SPAN for LGBT people," she said. "We are a lifestyle and entertainment channel."

Nor will it be a network about sex and sexuality.

"It's a full-service network, about all the different interests of gay and lesbian people, from talk shows to documentaries," said Freston.

The network will premier initially in Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. Talks have been held with Time Warner Cable to provide the service elsewhere.

The channel is projected to be in 10 million to 14 million homes by the end of 2005.

[mavsman55]

hehe, this should be fun to see

[sike]

you mean it aint gay now?

[XERXES]

I will soon be getting rid of all the televisions in my house.

[sike]

i got em...but only for dvd use....xerxes...gets points for priority

[u2sarajevo]

I have a television.... but no cable.

It is used for Mavericks games, DVD's, Super Nintendo, and Alias.

[MavsFanatik33]

WOW...no need to have a gay and lesbian channel. They play Madonna and Elton John all day? I dont realyl get the point to it

[mavsman55]

honestly, isn't oprah enough?

[DubOverdose]

I'd watch the channel if it has Ellen DeGeneres on it or Straight Plan For the Gay Man...but I was a fan of Ellen before she came out and SPGM is for straight guys mostly. I don't care to watch gays on TV 24/7

[EricaLubarsky]

so no more rap videos with booty girls?

[sike]

can you say "booty boys"????

[NYCdog]

so no more rap videos with booty girls?

Umm.......they will have programming for lesbians, too. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[sturm und drang]

Boy, this sure is an enlightening and stimulating discussion.

I feel so much the smarter for having read it.

[sike]

its the lounge....come on.....
i am apologetic that you feel no more enlightend.....

[XERXES]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Boy, this sure is an enlightening and stimulating discussion.

I feel so much the smarter for having read it.

And what would that consist of? Allow me:

"Advocates of the homosexual lifestyle have scored a major media victory with the announcement of a new Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender TV channel. Although most major media outlets have force-fed the general public for years...they will now try to seek advertising revenue in a brand new way. Men who have lost their sense of innate design will wear skirts and everyone will laugh...Women who have chosen to abandon their genetic predisposition for the liberation of lesbianism will kiss and we'll cry. The moral fiber of America will corrode even more while we laugh and cry and Viacom cashes in."

There.

[cheesestar]

what would they do when they arent showing very wrong music videos? straight eye for the queer guy?

[sturm und drang]

XERXES wrote:

"Although most major media outlets have force-fed the general public for years."

Will and Grace?
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?
And...?

Yeah, you're right. Homosexuality is utterly inescapable on the major media outlets. Downright ubiquitous, in fact. It's a miracle we're not all converted homos by this point. (Praise Jesus, Hallelujah!) 'Cause, you know, you can catch it just by seeing it depicted on TV. Swear. (You can also get homo-itis from public toilet seats, so you should probably carry disposable seat covers AT ALL TIMES.)

"Honey, grab the kids! That sinful 'Will and Grace' is on again! Quick! Hurry! Cover their eyes! We don't want them exposed to anything but our beloved status quo! You know what will happen if the kids are exposed to people and ideas that are - gasp! gasp! choke! - DIFFERENT than us! How horrible would that be? Sob. I can't even imagine. Sob sob sob..."

If having a BGLT cable channel represents the destruction of America's moral fiber, as you say, then I'll fiddle while it crumbles. My God.

[XERXES]

Wow. I love it. You came out swinging (read: 'funny play on words...')

I'm not suggesting nor condoning homophobia. You see it one of two ways:

1) A way people are...

2) A way people choose to be. People may be inclined to make that choice...but it remains a choice, nonetheless.

You (apparently) believe point #1. I however, believe point #2. I have close friends and business associates that happen to be gay. They're great people. That does not sway my belief that their sexuality is a choice...not a genetic predisposition.

So, if I believe something is a choice...and that some people (for various reasons) choose deviant behavior...like murder, robbery, adultery, homosexuality - am I wrong for not wanting it on TV? Does it make me (a pretty dang compassionate person) a homophobe?

Puhhhleeeez.

[sturm und drang]

Merriam-Webster defines homophobia as "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men."

Since you just called cited homosexuality as a signal of the destruction of American morality, called it "deviant behavior" and equated it to "murder, robbery and adultery" and professed to have such distaste for being exposed to homosexuality on TV that you wanted to get rid of all your televisions... yeah, you know what? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that yes, you're absolutely, unequivocally a homophobe.

But that's not the discussion here. The discussion here is about a freakin' BGLT cable channel that obviously horrifies and threatens you.

The point? Stop bitching about it like it's the apocalypse. Stop calling it the death knell of American morality. Take your "compassionate" self and simply DON'T WATCH IT.

But take comfort, my compassionate friend: PAX is there for you. I promise if you watch it you won't be challenged in any way.

[XERXES]

Thank God for Pax! I can get my Billy Ray Cyrus fix...

Anyway. So, what you're suggesting is that anyone who thinks homosexuality is social deviancy - is automatically a homophobe?

Wow. Quite an indictment. I miss the days of being morally opposed to something without being a hatemonger. Dang.

Apparently this is an issue that is close to your heart. I appreciate your point of view. I happen to strongly disagree. That doesn't mean I hate you. That doesn't mean I hate homosexuals. You can love somebody and still hate what they do*






*I learned that by watching Pax.

[MavKikiNYC]

2) A way people choose to be. People may be inclined to make that choice...but it remains a choice, nonetheless.

... I however, believe point #2. I have close friends and business associates that happen to be gay. They're great people. That does not sway my belief that their sexuality is a choice...not a genetic predisposition.

So let me get this straight...<ahem>

Are you saying that you have at one time felt a strong sexual/emotional attraction for a member of the same sex, but declined to act on that feeling because you believed it to be morally wrong, and instead settled for a heterosexual lifestyle consistent with your moral creed?

If so, I both salute and pity you.

If not, then ...<edited for civility>

[MavKikiNYC]

I bet they'll have a lot of commercials like this:

Hyundai

Recommended: Clink second link at top left to watch commericial in QuickTime.

Caution: Tonuge-in-cheek (no pun intended) commerical may offend sensibilities of those who think that only heterosexuals should be allowed to fool around.

[sturm und drang]

Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious this is an issue that's important to me. I have a disproportionate number of gay friends. I've watched them experience prejudice in the workplace. I've been to gay "weddings" where, despite the joy of the occasion, a layer of sadness and anger existed because there was no legal or binding way to corroborate the relationship. I've watched a gay couple leap through legal hoops and eventually move to another state trying - fruitlessly to this point - to adopt a child. Homosexuals are right now state-sanctioned, religion-fueled second-class citizens. Frankly, it makes me sick. Homophobia disgusts me as much as homosexuality disgusts you.

And you don't have to be a "hatemonger" to be a homophobe. You just have to show contempt - something you've done in spades. You called it deviant and equated it with murder, robbery and adultery. You'd rather get rid of all your televisions than be exposed to the portrayal of it on TV. And best yet, you've pegged it for the continual destruction of America's moral fabric. I'll say it again: if that ain't homophobia, God help me, what is?

Ask yourself: If you had made the same statements about African-Americans, would it be considered racism?

[mavsman55]

You do know they were joking about getting rid of their TV's, right?

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
I bet they'll have a lot of commercials like this:

Hyundai

Recommended: Clink second link at top left to watch commericial in QuickTime.

Caution: Tonuge-in-cheek (no pun intended) commerical may offend sensibilities of those who think that only heterosexuals should be allowed to fool around.

that's a great commercial. LOL

[sike]

good to see that morals can still make us think......I for one was aiming my disdain at the shallow, yet lauded MTV....this once great music channel has been overrun by second rate shows aimed at nothing but sex and or foolishness in some form or fassion....and while I would in no associate homosexuality with murder on an ethical scale.....I would agree that both have this in common: they are each choices of the mind/heart that are unarguably, undeniably and in every way categorically wrong.... The fact that some have a predisposition for a particular "thing" and that predisposition being initself the justification of it is the absolute worst argument for a thing and simply does not work in logical argument. The logical outflow of such an argument is most foolish: "i feel I want to or that i was meant to (fill in the blank) therefore it must be right. This kind of moral pragmatism is the ringing death toll of the crumbling postmodern age.
if one wishes to support the homosexual lifestyle.....it must be on a different plane of argument than: i was made this way, so it must me right. Because if that were true then men should be freely allowed *no* encouraged to LUST after women, cheat on their wives at every opportunity, beat eachother senseless for promotion etc....after all, it certainly comes naturally....

all in all though

MTV sucks!

[raefformvp]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and it is quite obvious that issues such as homosexuality cause people to be passionate in their views. I for one don't agree with the lifestyle, but my reason for not agreeing is different than most people's. My mom left me, my dad, and my brother when I was in 3rd grade for another woman. Before she left I idolized her and wanted to be just like her. It was an extremely confusing time in my life and I had to see a child psychologist for awhile. I know a lot of lesbians now, and I don't hate them or condemn them, but I definitely don't understand their choice. My mother ruined the lives of three people by making her choice. She is now married to a man, so I guess she decided to go back to the straight and narrow. We have no relationship now, and that is sad.

I'm not bothered necessarily by programs that show homosexuality. I probably should be because my religious views say it is wrong, but so is 98 percent of everything shown on tv. In fact, Ellen is my favorite talk show right now. But, I don't see the need for a channel that is all gay, all the time, especially if it is a channel that comes with a basic cable package. If it is an extra like HBO, I'm not bothered.

[sike]

MVP said : "I probably should be because my religious views say it is wrong, but so is 98 percent of everything shown on tv."
dead on!

[XERXES]

Ask yourself: If you had made the same statements about African-Americans, would it be considered racism?

That is an "apples and oranges
compariosn if I ever heard one.

People don't choose to be black or white.

There is no ethical debate over ethnicity.

Bad arguement.

[sturm und drang]

How is it a bad argument, Xerxes? The fact that YOU believe it to be a choice - something that has NEVER been supported by any kind of medical or biological evidence and is contrary to what every single freakin' gay person I have ever met has told me - does not negate the argument.

What you missed was that we were talking about prejudice here. The fact that you believe homosexuality to be a choice does not undo the fact that you hold homosexuals in a high degree of contempt. Which is, in turn, the textbook definition of homophobia. The issue of choice is completely irrelevant; the issue of you holding homosexualy in such contempt (and, by definition, being a homophobe) IS the issue.

You were trying to argue that your three separate statements expressing disgust for homosexuality did not equal contempt. I simply asked that if the issue at hand were race, would you feel the same way? Or would the statements you made all the sudden appear to be degrading?

Sike, I have one thing to say. The only things I remember from Sunday school were "Yes, Jesus loves me" and "God doesn't make mistakes." My God wouldn't create homosexuals and expect them to turn against themselves, deny what is innate - and live a life of misery, denial and needless pain.

Gays are estimated to represent somewhere around 10% of the population. Do you really think God created 10 out of every 100 people to live their lives that way, trying to be someone they simply aren't - and hurting a spate of innocent people along the way? How many people would you hurt, including yourself, if you were forced to live a life of homosexuality? My God just doesn't work that way. He doesn't make mistakes.

[sike]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
How is it a bad argument, Xerxes? The fact that YOU believe it to be a choice - something that has NEVER been supported by any kind of medical or biological evidence and is contrary to what every single freakin' gay person I have ever met has told me - does not negate the argument.

What you missed was that we were talking about prejudice here. The fact that you believe homosexuality to be a choice does not undo the fact that you hold homosexuals in a high degree of contempt. Which is, in turn, the textbook definition of homophobia. The issue of choice is completely irrelevant; the issue of you holding homosexualy in such contempt (and, by definition, being a homophobe) IS the issue.

You were trying to argue that your three separate statements expressing disgust for homosexuality did not equal contempt. I simply asked that if the issue at hand were race, would you feel the same way? Or would the statements you made all the sudden appear to be degrading?

Sike, I have one thing to say. The only things I remember from Sunday school were "Yes, Jesus loves me" and "God doesn't make mistakes." My God wouldn't create homosexuals and expect them to turn against themselves, deny what is innate - and live a life of misery, denial and needless pain.

Gays are estimated to represent somewhere around 10% of the population. Do you really think God created 10 out of every 100 people to live their lives that way, trying to be someone they simply aren't - and hurting a spate of innocent people along the way? How many people would you hurt, including yourself, if you were forced to live a life of homosexuality? My God just doesn't work that way. He doesn't make mistakes.

interesting that you brought God into the debate....I said nothing of Him in my posts.....I can speak to your post Strum, but will you speak to mine?

while I would certainly agree that God by very nature cannot make mistakes...His simply being the standard of righteousness(or goodness) places this fact in concrete. He decides the basis of "good" and "evil" whatsoever pleases Him is good and the opposite is true of evil....there is not an outside standard that He must comply with, He is the standard.

now to your point: "My God wouldn't create homosexuals and expect them to turn against themselves, deny what is innate"......my dear Strum.....I may burst your bubble and ontology of God by saying this, but I would tell you that God has created everyone and demanded them to deny the "innate" desires....it is our carnality, our natural inclinations, that drives us away from God; that separates us from Him. In Biblical terms...it is our sin...our sin nature. We can turn this into a Biblical debate if you wish, I was not intending on doing so....but from a Biblical standpoint....my opinions are solid....based on clear interpretaion of the Bible.....but my point to you was that simply being born of a certain persuasion does not in any logical way make you right....BECAUSE it as also been shown through science that certain people have genetic tendancies toward violence, alcohol abuse, child molestaion, etc....for your argument to stay consistent(and you must be consistent to have credibility in rational argumentation) you must give a free pass to those of us with these genetic tendancies in other areas as well....if not....then you are just being unfair to ole sexrex!

[kg_veteran]

Homosexuals are right now state-sanctioned, religion-fueled second-class citizens.

Sturm, you and I (and others) had a lengthy debate on this general topic some months ago. The term "religion-fueled" is inaccurate and misleading. You're suggesting that homosexuals can't get married because marriage is a "religious institution" being protected by the state. As I pointed out to you before, that's inaccurate. Long before Jesus ever lived, marriage existed. It existed in every culture, and it was between a man and a woman. It's not merely a "religious institution". It's a societal institution.

My God wouldn't create homosexuals and expect them to turn against themselves, deny what is innate - and live a life of misery, denial and needless pain.

That's right. God wouldn't create someone a certain way, then define something they couldn't change or choose as a sin. So you do believe it's a choice.

[XERXES]

What you missed was that we were talking about prejudice here. The fact that you believe homosexuality to be a choice does not undo the fact that you hold homosexuals in a high degree of contempt. Which is, in turn, the textbook definition of homophobia. The issue of choice is completely irrelevant; the issue of you holding homosexualy in such contempt (and, by definition, being a homophobe) IS the issue.

Again, I submit that it is possible to love somebdy and to hate what they do. If you disagree with that...I can't help you. (But, maybe you can watch more Pax TV.)

Secondly, to suggest that God would make someone gay simply shows a complete void of any theological knowledge. Over fifty percent of the marriages in America end in divorce. WHY WHY WHY would God make something that would go awry?

God doesn't make mistakes

Exactly. He doesn't. People do.

[MavKikiNYC]

BECAUSE it as also been shown through science that certain people have genetic tendancies toward violence, alcohol abuse, child molestaion, etc..

One could add 'bigotry' to the list of behaviors to which it could be argued that people have hard-wired tendencies. One could even attempt to justify it as some sort of psycho-cognitive categorization process that, perhaps evolutionarily speaking, allows organisms to accept or reject other organisms based on likeness or 'un-likeness', whether biologicially or behaviorally. But a lot of blood, sweat and tears have been shed (with doubtless more to come) to try to keep people from choosing to exercise their biologically-endowed tendency toward bigotry.

People don't choose to be black or white.

No, not biologically. So the argument goes like this: It's NOT okay to discriminate against people based on a characterisitc that they are born with, but it IS okay to discriminate against them based on a 'behavior' that they 'choose'. But that line of argument doesn't take you very far because one could just as easily say, "I don't dislike Person X because he's black, I just dislike him because he ACTS that way. It's not the individual or a biological characteristic that I'm rejecting, it's his behaviors within that culture." You could apply the same false innate characteristic/behavior justification to an indiviual's religion, political affiliation, physical disability, or age--none of which people are necessarily born with, but all of which society has generally come to recognize as things that shouldn't serve as the basis for discimination (let alone bigoted treatment). (I myself struggle not to regard all Democrats as dunderheads, with occasional lapses over in the political thread.)

Bottom line: IMO, the innate characteristic v. 'chosen' behavior distinction is often misapplied, and largely moot. It certainly should not provide people with a conscience-salving way to justify irrational beliefs and attitudes, and inconsistent behaviors.

I for one don't agree with the lifestyle, but my reason for not agreeing is different than most people's. My mom left me, my dad, and my brother when I was in 3rd grade for another woman.

T'hat's a difficult story, MVP. I have seen from farily up-close a similar situation, and can sympathize with how difficult it must have been. But you wouldn't argue that a child whose parent deserts him/her would be justified in rejecting or disapproving of that parent's sexuality, would you? Because a lot of parents leave families for heterosexual relationships, and I don't think anyone would argue that that would justify those children's rejection of heterosexuality.

I have an acquaintance (the above referenced) who married his high-school sweetheart straight out of college, with whom, over the course of about 10-12 years, he proceeded to have 3 children. About the time he hit 40 he finally decided that he could no longer continue denying his lifelong attraction for men, so he left his wife, and partnered with a younger man and lived a flamboyant, militant, in-your-face lifestyle for a years. Just to flesh out the picture (and to set up a contrast) I have to say that this acquaintance is one of the most disagreeable, unlikeable, bitter, mean-spirited, self-centered, unredeemably selfish, twisted and torqued up individuals I've ever had the misfortune to know. He is, in fact, a criminal (white-collar financial to be precise). He was a miserable father to those three children. He may have loved them at some level, but he certainly didn't like them and the older two were certainly suffering psychologically. He tried to spend time with them, but you could hear in his voice the bitter, negative criticism toward them, and the emotional neglect was palpable. I know for a fact that he used to lie about even having children to keep from scaring away potential dates. Sick, sick man.

And yet, while I don't like him or respect him or have any positive regard for him whatsoever, I can still pity him. Can you imagine the pressure he felt, the fear of letting down not only his wife and children, but his parents, and brothers and sisters, extended family and childhood acquaintances. The marriage to his wife was probably never out of real love, just that man trying to live up to what his family and society expected of him. It's debatable for sure, but it's hard not to think that all of that pressure didn't produce the really twisted individual that I avoid today. It certainly seems to've instilled a sense of entitlement to do exactly what he wants to do. (He's the type who thinks nothing of stiffing everyone from the maid to the delivery person to the dry cleaners to the delicatessen to the landlord to the employer to the credit card company for thousands and thousands of dollars.) This man certainly made choices, but he compounded bad decision on top of bad decision on top of bad decision. Some of that could have been the result of innate character flaws having nothing to do with sexuality. But it seems entirely plausible that those twelve years of an unhappy attempt at a heterosexual lifestyle had a lot to do with his sorry wretched state as an individual.

Contrast his situation with that of another acquaintance--someone I consider a close friend, because he is one of the most honest, sincere, forthright individuals you'dever meet.. This guy went through his 20s denying his homosexuality, dating women, but practicing abstinence. He had more than one opportunity to get married, and even fell in love with one woman, but says that he knew he could never marry her, because he had always felt an attraction toward men and didn't feel like he could live up to the struggle of being faithful to that woman, and denying his attraction toward men. When he was about 30, he started dating men and over the course of the next 5-6 years slowly, slowly came out to his family. Today he and his partner of 5 years want to adopt children, and I think this guy would make an excellent parent. He certainly won't find himself putting a wife and children through the trauma of a family breakup coupled with a mid-life coming out. This guy made choices too. He consciously deliberately chose not to be dishonest to a woman, even to a woman he loved. He consciously, deliberately, carefully avoided creating any children in this world until he was a point in his life to provide them with a family and a home.

In both cases, choices were made--choices about behavior, responsbility and honesty. IMO, however, in neither case was a 'choice' made about sexuality.

Interesting all the discussion the mere announced launching of a BLGT-oriented television channel engenders. My reaction was pretty much "Ho-hum." Just one more thing to surf by. Do people who want to watch stupid sports all the time really need ESPN or ESPN2? Do people who don't speak English REALLY need Univision or Telemundo? Do people who like rap vidoes and small, historically-Black institution sports contests REALLY need BET? Do people who want to get ripped off buying cubic zirconia from Joan Rivers REALLY need Home Shopping Channel? Do any of us REALLY need television?

And at first, I thought this thread was trivial and pretty much skipped it. But after seeing so many negative comments accumulate wrapped in the same old (un)usual-suspect prejudices, of course I couldn't resist jumping right on in. And given that in 2004 we still see the same essentially bigoted arguments in seemingly enlightened (or literate, at least) people such as dallas-mavs.commers, I may be starting to hold that opinion that 1 BGLT-oriented station isn't enough. This country may need 10 or 50 outlets so that people can't escape the fact that their gay brothers (or fathers) and lesbian sisters ( or mothers) are much more similar to mainstream society in most respects than it's comfortable to accept. To be sure, there can be some miserable individuals in both camps, but I would expect that the more one sees of the "homosexual lifetsyle" (whatever that is), one would realize that in most cases the differences are laregly trivial. In fact, I can think of several good reasons why a BGLT channel is a good thing for society, but I've already written far too much. Perhaps another time.

Good weekend to all.

[sturm und drang]

There's nothing I could ever say that could add to that post.

Perfection.

[u2sarajevo]

Kiki.... that was one of the most concise and completly thorough posts I have read.

If you don't want to watch it, skip it.

This world is full of stuff that you will either will agree with or disagree with, whether it be a moral or religous disagreement/agreement. You can debate that one way or the other until you are blue in the face, it's not going to make it go away.

Why not have a BGLT channel? I don't think any argument against it could be justified. If you disagree with it, either turn to a different channel or better yet turn the TV off and spend valuable time with your family.

If you don't have family, read a book.

[MavsFanatik33]

Originally posted by: cheesestar
what would they do when they arent showing very wrong music videos? straight eye for the queer guy?

You should sell that idea, that would be a fun watch....I wonder who the straight eye would be

[Usually Lurkin]

tv tells us that homosexual men are all aflame, that they're good with fabrics, that they all sleep with each other, and that they tell a lot of jokes about putting things up their butts.

Wow. 24 hours a day of that and yeah, we'll all be enlightened.
We need more of that like we need more shows like Friends telling us that if you haven't slept with your girlfriend by the third month of dating, somethings wrong, and if you can actually count all of the people you've had sex with, then you're just not like everyone else.
We need that like we need more music videos telling us that a butt should only be half covered, that guns are offensive weapons, and that if you don't have enough money to buy a woman, you should just take one.

I strongly advise the pro-homosexuals and the homophobia-phobics not to rely on mass-market TV to lead your cause. MTV will do nothing but play to peoples stereotyps and appetites, and that won't be good for any of us.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: MavsFanatik33

You should sell that idea, that would be a fun watch....I wonder who the straight eye would be

That show already exists on comedy central (I don't know if you guys get that channel down in Texas). It's called straight plan for the gay man, and it's one of the funniest shows I've ever watched.

[MavsFanatik33]

My fault, I forgot about that show
(and yes, we get that channel in TX)