Your first comment said "Personally, I don't find there to be much point in being single AND anti-Valentine's Day". I read that to mean that I shouldn't get annoyed at something in which I wasn't directly involved. My homophobia example was meant to suggest that an ideological objection to something in the abstract, even if one isn't directly involved, is still perfectly valid. It was rather an over-compressed thought, sorry if it was confusing.

It was also a slightly tangential argument, anyway, because in fact I'm arguing that I am involved, even if it's not an overt involvement; I think w-n's examples support my point rather well. Valentine's Day targets singles by implication, as a logical consequence of its glorification of romance as the only legitimate happiness - if you're not in a relationship, you ought to want to be. I agree that it's not the main focus of the marketing, but I still think it's there, and the anti-valentine site suggests I'm not the only one who feels faintly persecuted by it. It also seems a bit odd to try to exempt VD from the blame for patronising single people: it may be a tendency prevalent in Western culture, but VD, even if it doesn't originate the tendency, certainly leaps the hell on the bandwagon.

Christmas irritates me because, even more than is the case with VD, you can't opt out. If the religion doesn't get you, the consumerism will. There is no escaping the hype.