Adam Lambert Plays the Gay Card

claiming that you know the be all and end all definition of something as completely subjective as "taste" makes you come off as tremendously offensive to me.

now, should i whine about how i'm sick and tired of having to deal with you being you? or should i maybe just suck it up and learn that i don't always get my way?

you don't have a "right" to watch the AMAs. don't like it? don't watch it. and deal with it.

I am split on this issue. See I think we passed decency around ten years ago or more on broadcast TV but I have trouble freaking out on Lambert with those that did not blink at Madonna or Spears. Do not get me wrong I know many people have been bothered by all three but I will sit this one out until the next incident comes from a straight performer just because then I do not have to swim in a sea of confused reasons for offense(by my calculation this should take about a week to 3 days). I do think the offense to this incident will be much higher than the norm, which I do have a large issue with. So I will wait until the dust clears and again whine about what we call "family entertainment" now.

I would also argue that Lambert is an idiot males have pushed the envelope in huge ways as well, hello Mr. Stern, but generally homosexual pushing of the envelope is not as broadly amusing and accepted unless done in a comedic over the top way.

I do think he is playing a bit of "the gay card" here but no more than Palin or the miss USA lady play the "Christian card." If we continue to break down all of our differences to "cards" I suppose we will all have our own and all be offended but it really does not bring anyone together in anyway.

Hi Magical -- thanks for your reasoned comment. It took me all morning to write this post, primarily because I, too, needed to think things through. Early drafts included wardrobe "malfunctions" and the Madonna / Britney kiss -- but I finally chucked it all and went right after this particular incident. Yes, the line's been moved and crossed and re-set for a very long time. However, I'd also say that with every new step across the line, people have grown more and more uncomfortable with it. Does that mean, then, that we're powerless because we haven't been able to stop the degradation?

I think I'm doubly frustrated by last night's performance because I take such enormous pleasure in listening to his fabulous voice. I've written many times about Lambert -- always in praise of his gifts. Prior to now, I've been firmly in the "fan" column. I could care less if he's gay -- and I truly wish he hadn't been the one to have taken things so far across the line last night.

I agree with polimom on her every point. I don't say that often so enjoy it while it lasts..lol..

It's not just this show either. It's rampant everywhere in the media: raw sexuality on parade...and they know damn well the kids are going to see it. Makes you wonder about the intent.

A young gal I know was complaining just the other day about how even just five years behind her generation, more and more explicit sex and violence are being incorporated into "people's tastes" on the tube. She remarked that since MTV bought Nickelodeon, they started showing little preteen versions of rave parties with the very young girls [9-12] exposing more and more skin and dancing seductively.

This isn't about freedom of expression or "healthy sexual freedom", this is about soft child porn and inducting the very young into the too-adult world of sexuality. Airing acts like the one described on a show that the producers know damn well children will be watching is an intent at visual child molestation. If that act were performed in a room right where the child was sitting, the adults responsible for this exposure would be going to jail. And yet if it's done one dimension away on a flatscreen, were's supposed to back off because it's "freedom of expression"..

Not.

I completely agree with Polimom's post and also with Magical Sky Father. This is the problem with incrementalism- the envelope keeps getting pushed, and with each incident it's difficult to be the one who objects because you know that some will say 'get over it' or 'just don't watch'. But the goalposts keep moving, and we've now reached the point where overtly vulgar and voyeuristic sexuality is pervasive in pop culture. That's bad enough as it is, but the fact that kids are watching from younger and younger ages, and also sometimes taking part in the 'entertainment', is really troubling and makes it almost impossible to raise kids according to a different set of values without being overprotective.

Pushing that envelope -- and just what does that reveal about the nature and intent of the pushers?

It's not limited to sexuality, either, when it comes to descending ever lower, and involving hypocrisy. (Consider how liberal anti-gun activists in Hollywood present guns and gun violence, both unrealistically as well as sensationalistially, and using violence of al kinds as titillation as well as sensationalism.)

Ouch, it is always more difficult with someone that you like. I have been thinking on this issue for a long while and in my opinion, just opinion here, the reason why it has gotten so extreme is because those most likely to want to regulate it are in the Republican tent which does not like the idea of regulation. If the religious types fell harder on the left of the spectrum I think we would all be watching the 700 club, which i would find equally horrifying but for very different reasons. I am reminded of my biggest issue with Al Gore, the PMRC. It hurt him with me in 2000 but looking back I think it was not all that bad of a thing.

The thing that concerns me is that I am not sure I see a way out since one side will lose votes for regulating it, the left. And the other side may lose votes by their voters values not being challenged every night when they turn on the TV, it does make a group feel attacked and alienated which does motivate them to vote against the godless heathens. I understand how you most have struggled with what to write though since it took me a good twenty minutes to hit the "post" button this morning after writing what I wrote. Am I offended, yup, do I think something should be done, yup, do I think this is a good one to use as a rallying cry , no and thats why it is a rough topic.

As a follow up to my post what I am saying is that I think the only way to fix this is in a bipartisan way so that neither side takes flack for it and both sides can take credit in the eyes of their constituents. Short of that I think it will just continue to slide.

Funny, after living in the socially liberal Europe and extreme socially conservative Middle East, I find these arguments interesting. I know well-adjusted children from both regions. Apparently, how much boobie or grinding you see on TV has very little to do with much of anything.

Who watches the AMA's anyway? ;)

It's hard for me to get too upset about this -- like Shannon, I've lived in both "liberal" sexual environments and pretty conservative ones, and the kids tend to be fine. I'm much more offended by the violence on TV than the sex -- or particularly when a show tries to combine the two (don't even get me started on the Special Victims Unit).

As for the "gay card" aspect, it's hard to say. Such things do come off as more "vulgar" to most people if it's a gay thing, and seeing dancing imitating sex by women is so common (even on primetime) such as not to be even noticed anymore. Maybe he's pulling the gay card, but coming from the knowledge that there are double standards for gay people in the entertainment industry, it's hard to blame him for bringing it up, even with the chance that it's not a major factor at play in this case.

SkyFather, "I do think he is playing a bit of 'the gay card' here but no more than Palin or the miss USA lady play the 'Christian card.' If we continue to break down all of our differences to 'cards'..."

We just need a few more cards and we can have a poker game! :)

I didn't watch the AMA's so I don't know what the fuss is about and until I do, I can't really comment.

I do not have a TV but I caught the clips on HuffingtonPost this morning and...well its kinda like Britney Spears racier stuff done by a gay man. Which is why this is kinda rough. It has been done, it upset many people then but now I would guess many more will be upset when in reality it is just a leveling of the playing field. I just do not think straight/gay makes much difference. We need to stop making sex and violence an increasing part of our media culture unless we wish to continue the escalation in sex and violence we have already witnessed in this country since around 1990 when the envelope pushing began in earnest(think Married WIth Children, think NYPD Blue). Other nations show more sex in primetime but not so much on the violence and it could be the combination of the two instead of one or another that is the root of the problem.

Personally though if we just stopped sexualizing our children by pushing people like Spear's and Jonas Bros(they are speaking directly to our childrens sexuality and sexual identities and we are acting like all is well) I would be relatively happy. I fully expect to turn on a TV at some point in the near future only to see a 5 or 8 year old dressed painted and acting like a slut and everyone nodding in approval.

Having said that I have no issue with how any grown woman wants to act dress or live especially if it means they like naked bouncy time, in fact I will applaud for that, but the roles that are being pimped out to our children are cartoon versions of reality lacking context and our children are and will continue to pay the price.

I agree with roro80 and think violence in our culture is more of a problem than the sex.

Having said that I think there's a time and place for everything. A national TV show watched live by a broad audience, the American Music Awards, is not the place for Lambert's (or the "straight" version) acts. Whether I agree with the parents or not I do feel that parents have the right to raise their children as they wish, and when it comes to TV shows, those parents should have tools available to them so they are able to make informed choices. I don't know if ratings are available on such shows, but Lambert's act definitely would be PG-13. And the content (and choreography for this specific case) is known far enough in advance to be disclosed to viewers. The network does not have to reveal specific acts, but they could give this a PG-13 rating. This doesn't rise to a "R" rating and quite frankly every kid in America knows enough about sex by the age of 13 to make their own crude jokes.

Of course there's no accounting for taste, so that's just a crapshoot. Something can be so distasteful that it's vulgar, but it doesn't have to have anything to do with sex (or violence). There are no ratings for tastefulness. Which is fine... To each his own. If every program that aired on TV were done according to my tastes there would be very few viewers.

As far as playing the gay card. I don't watch enough of these shows to know what's standard. Just to be clear... as far as the kiss, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. That happens everywhere all the time.

Returning to my comment about a time and place for everything... I think TV shows with more overt content should be (and are) on TV. But the big differences between those shows with more overt sexuality and these types of awards shows are that the AMA is broadcast live and meant to reach a broad TV audience. Whereas the average run of the mill TV show is filmed in advance, geared towards a specific demographic and has the appropriate ratings.

My biggest lament (applies to both gay or straight entertainers) is that why do performers feel they have to push the boundaries? Whatever happened to good old fashioned taste?

"Lambert's act definitely would be PG-13"

Eh? Seriously? Grinding someone's face directly into the front of one's pants (for... like... a 4-count) is PG? Having your hand flagrantly playing around between someone's legs (also for... like... a 4-count) is PG?

Are we talking about the same performance?

This gay crap is not a natural phenomenon.

These people are sick. They literally cannot distinguish that which is naturally normal from what is bizarre and abhorrent. If they think that same sex coupling is equal to natural coupling and should be accepted as such, they are crazy. Gay hatred of women is obvious in this man’s statement. That alone should alert people to the dangers of this mental illness.

F_T -- clearly your feelings on the subject fall under the "homophobic" category. I gather, then, that you fully approve of R-rated prime time broadcasts.

"Gay hatred of women is obvious in this man’s statement."

Huh?

Watching again, I think the most offensive portion of the performance was the grotesque flat note at the end of the intro.

Polimom, I don't think it rises to an R rating. And plenty of kids starting around 13 and 14 are already kissing and groping. This isn't something that no one at that age isn't already familiar with. A few years ago there was just PG, but then PG-13 was added as an intermediary step to R. The PG-13 was meant for material inappropriate for kids under 13, which this most certainly is. Those 13 and over are already aware of stuff like this. Maybe there should be another rating between PG-13 and R? Let's see.. what comes between P and R? I got it! A "Q" rating! :)

Just to be clear.... I think you and I both agree that this shouldn't have aired like it did and is inappropriate for children. I'm open to solutions, my PG-13 thought was working within the current system as something the network could have done to warn parents that some material might be inappropriate for kids younger than 13.

F_T, "This gay crap is not a natural phenomenon.... that alone should alert people to the dangers of this mental illness."

Pathological hate is a mental illness and is a four letter word. Have you sought mental treatment for your hate? It's really negatively impacting your interaction with others.

roro -- when you say "watching again"... what, exactly, are you watching?

The reason I ask is that I understand the West Coast broadcast was edited, and I've now gone through 5 or 6 YouTubes of the performance, and they've all cut part of what I considered most offensive.

If, at the 1:02 mark, you see a shot of the crowd, then you're not seeing what aired in my den last night.

Hmmm...interesting. Yeah, it was a crowd shot. I'll certainly agree that it was pretty racy.

Okay. NOW I understand why so much of this conversation has felt disconnected -- LOL!

Oddly, btw -- I'm not finding ANY versions that are unedited online. Furthermore, the east coast broadcast happened an hour later than hours (at 10:50 pm), which I don't consider prime time.

Is it only my time zone that had this problem? If so, how bizarre!

"This simply does not have a place in our family rooms"

Well, I know you know that I know that you know that...

You are the one that purchased a tv and brought it into your home, turned it on, and switched it to that channel to purposely watch that show.

Maybe the real problem here is that you don't much care for the non-American Idol version of Adam? Now that he is somewhat free to be himself...he is actually being himself?

shannonlee -- As a parent, I've invested enormous amounts of time trying to monitor what my child is exposed to. That's included any number of channels and programs. The vigilance has been less as she's gotten older, but it absolutely includes overtly vulgar imitation sex.

You're certainly right, though, that if this is to be the norm for the non-AI Adam, then I won't care for him at all. That would, however, be true for any performer who chose to emulate fellatio as part of their stage show -- and that judgment hasn't a thing to do with my child.

You are the one that purchased a tv and brought it into your home, turned it on, and switched it to that channel to purposely watch that show.

Ah. Silly me, having the audacity to turn on an historically benign music awards program from a major network. Why on earth would I want to sit-down with my adolescent and spend some quality time hearing her views on various songs and artists. I mean... after all.... I bought the television. Everything after that point is out of my control. It's a big crap shoot. Right?

And what was I thinking at 9:50 at night? Surely all good boys and girls and mommies and daddies are in bed by then, right?

Sigh...

You may find this hard to believe, but my godchildren do not have a tv in their home. So it is possible to live without one. By having one, you open yourself and your kids up to whatever someone else decides to broadcast to it. Call it the libertarian in me. If Adam wants to get his grind on and someone wants to broadcast it, more power to them.

You control who has access to your family room.

Several posters here have cleverly forgotten about the very compelling argument of incrementalization of this problem.

Remember, I said that a YOUNG woman I know was complaining about stuff that shocked her in kids' programming JUST FIVE YEARS BEHIND HER GENERATION. OK?

What stockboy said is this:

" don't know if ratings are available on such shows, but Lambert's act definitely would be PG-13."

Well I can tell you for a fact that just 20 years ago it would've been rated R and not allowed to air on prime time.

We are subjected also to a barrage of ever more sexual adverstising. My "favorite" is the nonstop pushing of Viagra and related male enhancement products. Nevermind that it will be found that these products will lead to a predictable rise in prostate cancer, they are constantly advertised on channels that children are set in front of as a routine like on Discovery, The Learning Channel and so on. I can only imagine the effect putting such importance on men as only sexual objects, who, when their equipment starts to fail in their elder years, must be drugged to continue to perform like 20 year old rutting deer. I wonder if young boys will get the message: "you are a sex machine and your worth is measured by how often you can get it up and perform"?

If you have trouble wrapping your mind around how offense this type of advertising is, think of it's equal in the world of female sexuality. Let's imagine a nonstop flow of commercials talking about women's clitorus' refusing to stimulate and how if they take these products, their arousal will be enhanced and they'll get laid more often? I mean, really... Now that I've said this, look for several products to be on the market soon..lol.. and shoved in your kids' faces 30 times a day during their favorite programming..

Call me irrelevant names if you must, but I can guarantee you that gay men harbor irrational hate for you simply because you are female. Some even perceive your quality of open mindedness as stupidity. All females are unfair competition within their delusion that without you, they can achieve normal status. It is nothing short of crazy and they ALL embrace this to a particular degree depending on the individual.

I do not fear them, I KNOW them and care enough to face the truth, rather than enable the abnormality. I realize that I am antagonistic. It is my online personality, but it is also a mechanism for bringing attention to a very real perspective that is being suppressed.

I do not perceive women as competition. I see them as the most important biological half of man by which mankind proliferates and evolves. Basically, I see them as deserving of the loving social and preferred legal status they have always held and will always hold. Unfortunately for you, “gay”, is nothing more than an abnormality of that which is beautifully designed by nature. Even if you achieve every political goal you think you deserve, you will never be anything but an abnormality. Face this fact openly and you can find peace. You can rejoin humanity.

F_T -- I'm not sure if this was meant for me or for Polimom; it most certainly wasn't meant for StockBoy. I don't really care, I'm going to answer it anyway.

(1) The idea that you "know" gay men is extremely telling (and highly amusing) if you take the word "know" in the Biblical sense.
(2) The idea that you "know" gay men better than I do (and I would guess better than Polimom as well, since what you seem to know about gay men couldn't fill a thimble) is patently ridiculous.

(3) The idea that you "know" gay men is highly offensive in and of itself in that it assumes that gay men are some sort of monolith, who all have the same view of women, and who are all pretty much the exact same person. They are not.
(4) The idea that you "know" this particular gay man or his feelings about women is also stupid. Maybe you missed from previous comments that I actually have met him on numerous occasions and have friends who know this particular gay man very well. You don't know this man. You don't know how he feels about women, and there's nothing in his statement that implies hate of women -- and this comes from a woman who takes mysogyny much more seriously than you ever have.
(4) If a significant percentage of gay men hate women and express mysogyny, I can pretty much tell you that that percentage is not as much as the mysogyny expressed by straight men.
(5) As a woman, I would ask that you cease and desist from trying to protect the poor, stupid female population from the hatred of gay men. Thanks, but no thanks, and by all means, please go jump off a bridge, 'cause we've got it covered.
(6) Pretty much, this comment is full of male bovine feces. Every word of it.
(7) Yes, overt homophobia is *so* suppressed. I'll cry a river for your oppression.

No more disgusting gay men pretending to be a female human like roro80 above.

hahahaha! That's right, because the only people who could possibly think gay men (and gay women!) are people and are not disgusting and deserve rights are gay men. Obviously, you have absolutely no coherant response to what I said, so you try to insult me by calling me a gay man. You forget, yet again, that I don't consider "gay" or "man" to be insulting; they're just morally neutral terms that happen not to apply to me.

She claims nothing but to speak for herself. I happen to agree with her. Taste is subjective, but this is not simply a matter of taste, but borderline obscenity which no one, not even Lambert, might wish on their kids. There comes a time when the subject matter is no longer subjective, but objective, and not simply because the majority agree on it - though that is an indicator that it *is* objective.

You suggest we turn off the TV because the man cannot keep his perversion to himself? I suggest we hold the fellow accountable for his actions and it would appear GMA already has. I knew the microsecond I heard what had happened that the first words out of that talentless hack's mouth would be 'homophobe', 'censorship' and 'art'.

What kind of 'artist' pays absolutely no attention to the tastes, inclination and sexual mores of his audience? If he were in an LA nightclub, I could see it. Not on national television. Adam Lambert does every gay man a disservice by parading his lack of discretion and yes, tact, out where everyone can see it - and revile it.

You think the kids these days use the word 'gay' as an insult for no reason? Every time I see someone like Lambert performing and then acting, like you, 'offended' at the predictable reaction, I know I will have to endure at least another few years of hearing kids calling everything they don't like 'gay'.

I would agree with you on that but for one thing: If the display of sex and violence has no apparent effect on kids, then why do advertisers pay billions to place their product in and around these titillating displays, and line up for the privilege?

My guess is that well-adjusted is in the eye of the beholder, and none of us can say what other influences might have been present in that kid's upbringing to counter the effect the ads and shows have on him or her. One thing I do know. Advertisers do not put their money where it does no good.

How can you tell he's pathological? Do you know him personally? Do you really think someone you've never met who reacts strongly to something which is admittedly natural but which is nevertheless a perversion should be mentally treated?

I have never, in all my years, ever seen a 'treatment' for hatred. I've never even heard of one, and I have been around the block a few times.

And 'negatively impacting' is boardroom speech. No one outside of a bureaucracy uses that kind of language as it is typically reserved for situations where the speaker is trying to deliberately make their speech passive. Why would you want to do that?

So... let me get this straight. Polimom bought a TV, brought it into her home and switched to that channel to watch an awards show. She is not happy with what she saw, which was by most accounts inappropriate for an awards show, nor what she heard had gone on. And so no one should be accountable for that but her?

What about holding the 'artist' accountable? Or do we not do that anymore for fear of 'offending' some vocal minority? Free to be himself. Ok with me. Freedom to be repellent in both conduct and attitude, apparently. Why, if he and you value this freedom so highly, are you not both willing to pay the inevitable price? You know what his sort of behavior engenders - and when it comes, you shout and point, 'intolerance', 'homophobe', 'double standard'.

Welcome to the world as it really is, both of you. And for the record, I am not going to shut my TV off and no, I am not going to sit idle while someone engages in that sort of behavior and calls it 'art'.

"This gay crap is not a natural phenomenon."

yes it is. if you choose to ignore natural occurrences of homosexuality in nature, that's your own problem. but it doesn't change that fact that you're wrong, and should be dismissed out of hand, for that comment.

i don't think that any of that makes any logical sense. in fact, vast portions of it are completely self contradictory.

'Vast portions'? Dude, there are only three paragraphs. If it doesn't make logical sense, well, we know the answer to that. Let's go with your view of the world...it's not my fault, see? I'm just indulging in the freedom to be myself. I don't have to conform to your subjective ideas of what is logical. If you can't figure it out, don't click on this website.

You need to get your logic circuits recalibrated.

i really don't.

I find your offense, offensive to me.
problem is, if everyone just sucks it up, or changes the channel... before too long, this is type of thing which will be all over, every channel, at any given time of the day.
Seems to me, that those who like this kind stuff, feel that those of us who don't, don't have the right to say we don't like it... and claim we want all the control while they themselves want it too.?
It's a vicious, never ending circle of drama.
Aside from any other claims, this entire thing was all completely intentional on Lambert's part. He has a point to make, and an agenda, and he does not care what he feels he has to do, or who he does or does not offend to make it.
He has absolutely no respect for anyone. As far as I'm concerned, his timing and choice of platform to pull all this stuff, should actually fall under the "lewd conduct" sections of the law and, he should be charged and heavily fined.

In all these situations over the past few years... I am sooo sick of seeing the words
hater
hatred
homophobe
racist
discrimination

it's always the same, lame defense from the people who love to defend the immoral. I say it's time to drop "political correctness" and get back on with "Social correctness" in our country.
On another forum about this lambert issue... some of these defenders of the immoral were calling myself and others like me "racists"??!!
What thaaaaaaaa? What the heck does racism even have to do with the Lambert event? The problem is... is these are all the "pre-programmed" words these people use and they often get so heated, that they don't even realize their using the wrong ones haha......
And the ones who call others "hater" are the ones that amuse me the most of all because, they always end up showing their hatred for "haters" muahahahahaha
It has all become so pathetic and predictable... I knew well before i even heard Lambert's defense from his own mouth, that he would throw the word "discrimination" in there...
that word has been the "secret weapon" for the immoral for sooo long, it is no longer a secret, in fact it is completely predictable.

I am just aching for someone to come along and call me a homophobe, or a hater, or whatever else is in the lame-o arsenal....
Fact is, I don't fear nor hate anyone for being gay, lesbian, bi, or heterosexual.
What I DO hate, is when they feel it is their job to push THEIR sexuality in the face of everyone else.. and even more so, when they choose the wrong time and place to do it.
Adam was and is still, very wrong for what he did... and the fact he will not apologize is an absolute to the entire general public. It shows clearly a complete lack of disrespect for everyone, everywhere.
And, he is not the only one... He is the only one as far as choosing a network like ABC to do it (but he knew that anyway before he did it)
I just wish one of his defenders, would actually take the time, to give a rational argument as to how they see this as not socially unacceptable, without the use of any of the words I posted above.
Would it have been ok, had he chosen the Early show on CBS to make his point? Why not?
Then why do you think it was acceptable on ABC at 11pm?
Put the whole (children) thing aside... You know what?? Maybe "I" don't want his sexuality shoved in my face when I'm trying to watch a musical award show. Maybe he should save those kinds of antics for his concerts, and warn people ahead of time this is what they may see so they can have the time to decide if they want to or not.
There are also 100's of cable channels where he can get his point across.. and leave nationally syndicated channels with somewhat of a breathe of air for those of us who don't wish to be bombarded with anyone else's sexuality?
Point is, no matter what... he chose the wrong setting to throw this one out there.... and there really is not anything anyone can say contrary.
So why can he not just say... I made a mistake, I apologize to everyone.... and then go ahead and make the point in more appropriate arenas?
I would probably regain some respect for the man if he were able to just admit to a mistake. He's human, we all make mistakes everyday.

I made some errors in my typing... I hope people will know where so I don't have to explain... sorry

Centurion, "How can you tell he's pathological?" I haven't seen you around here before... but you obviously haven't been reading Father_Time's comments over the past many months.

And... "I have never, in all my years, ever seen a 'treatment' for hatred. I've never even heard of one, and I have been around the block a few times. "

Of course there's no treatment for hatred, just like there's no treatment for being gay (as some commenters believe).

paulleblanc333, "I made some errors in my typing... I hope people will know where so I don't have to explain... sorry"

I think it's always sloppy (and when I make errors too), but since you took the time to notice and apologize, that's all we can do here and your consideration is noted, at least by me. Thanks!

"I am just aching for someone to come along and call me a homophobe, or a hater, or whatever else is in the lame-o arsenal"

Wow, it's like you don't even realize that "lame" is ableist language.

"In all these situations over the past few years... I am sooo sick of seeing the words
hater
hatred
homophobe
racist
discrimination
"

Hmmm...if you see those words over and over again in regards to things you say or write, you might want to think about why. If you make an effort to stop embodying these words, you might hear them less.

I know "why"... because they are the popular words to use. They have come to be some of the most commonly heard words due to all the political correctness crud which has plagued our country for too long now, while social correctness, morals and values have taken a back seat to it all.
Here is a better way for me to explain my view on the matter.
While I feel Adam Lambert should not have to apologize for "what" he did. I feel he should apologize for "where" and "when" he chose as a good time to do it.
I hope that makes more sense. It can often be very difficult to explain one's thoughts in this medium. Readers cannot hear the tone of voice, etc. Often one's words can be taken the wrong way.

The thing most people are upset about, is NOT the fact that he is a homosexual... it is the fact he felt the AMA on ABC was the appropriate time and place to spring it all.
Had he done this on a show hosted my Mtv I can promise it would not have caused as much of a stir as it has.

If he could only bring himself to realize this very fact... and apologize for the timing and place (but not for the acts themselves) I believe it would boost his image, and his career far more than the path he is choosing at the moment.

Are there people out there who truly hate and detest anyone who is not a heterosexual? Of course there are but, that's their problem. There are "alter-sexuals" who hate and detest heterosexuals too. While I do not think it is right for anyone to spit upon others for their sexual preference, or their religion, etc. I also feel it is not right to push one's sexuality, religion, or anything else upon everyone else.
Now, before anyone can weigh in and say that statement is hypocritical because it would seem I am pushing my views, etc... All I, and many others are "asking" of Lambert, is that he take the time to think about others and, (again) while not needing to apologize for the "what", apologize for the "where & when", that's all. It wouldn't be backing down, it would only be re-evaluating his plan of action.

I have also stated a few times that, he is not the "only one" either. There have been many before him, of various lifestyles but, he is just the latest, and he is (as far as I know) the "only one" to pull it on a network such as ABC. I think he would serve his cause, and the entire homosexual community better if he would only take the suggestion.
Bottom line under all of this, and other similar antics prior to it is... the media needs to clean up it's act. Enough of this "who can be the most cutting edge and shocking network" game.

I am still willing to bet, when CBS scooped him up for the Early Show, after ABC canceled his morning appearance, that they definitely gave him a pre-warning" not to pull it with them though.
I'll beat a dead horse (cuz it's fun to do)... He needs to clean up this mess, and his image to the general public, and the only way to do it, is to at least admit he made a mistake in his choice of timing, etc. But, I really don't think he will, because he knew all of these things before it all happened and this is all exactly what he hoped would happen. I am not fooled for one second... the entire event is just another publicity stunt. And too bad too, because he really is a talented and energetic performer, and he never needed all this to boost his career. He could have done it on just what he had all along.

Over all... I hope this whole thing brings about a stricter policy within the networks, to prevent these types of things happening again, because it really is something which needs to change these days before things really go too far.

Oops, I completely forgot to address your comment on my use of the word "lame"

I am fairly sure you and others are fully aware my use of the word is not used to discriminate against anyone., who is in any way physically disabled. It is a common replacement word for "pathetic" where I come from. But, if it was thought to be used as an insult, I apologize. I am sure there are areas where this replacement term is not commonly used.
But, now that I know it also holds this alternate meaning (possibly) in other areas of the globe... I will think twice before using it in the context I chose.

And, this matter, in itself shows... just how easy it can be to sit back, rethink a situation based on other people's views, apologize for the event, and everyone is happy, and everything moves on. No controversy, no hostilities... no bad feelings.
This, is social correctness in action. And it makes the world a far better place to live in, than one where everyone quickly resorts to name-calling and profiling, and personally attacking others for their views, crying "discrimination" at the drop of a hat.....
In America, we have strayed so far from being a society of decent values, morals, common courtesy, and commonsense it is really disturbing.
Everyone is on edge and angry all the time and walking on eggshells every moment due to so many years of focusing on what's politically correct and labeling anyone who speaks their mind about one person or a group which brings about an event or a trend which is actually socially negative. I only hope it can all be turned around in time.
People used to focus on what is right and what is wrong. The differences are not hard to see and feel. We focused on bringing our children up with these values, but now it is becoming pretty close to impossible because everyday, what used to be the "wrong" is the new "right"
Where does it stop? Does it come to a day in the not so distant future, where we are not able to decipher whether it is wrong or right to beat someone to take something they have?
It's not all that far out there of an analogy to be truthful... there are, afterall, people out there in this world who turly feel it is (or should be) ok to do these things. And if we continue on with this "Who's to say if it's right or wrong... one's wrong is another's right" Eventually, we would have to give up the belief all together and just cross our fingers every time we walk out our doors.

roro80 (to paulleblanc333): "If you make an effort to stop embodying these words, you might hear them less."

I took Paul's statements to be a general observation of the quality of conversation between many people on many websites. Not everyone and not everywhere. But on some websites people indiscriminately throw out such words out of anger or ignorance, rather than use them in a considered way. By writing this my intent isn't to defend Paul, but to point out that some websites are filled with loonies and political (and other) discourse in this country, especially online is not constructive. We've all seen how some people label Obama a commie and other things.... I'm glad TMV has mostly reasoned comments even though we all rant (especially me on certain topics, though I hope I've gotten better) from time to time.

I went back and reread all of Paul's rants on this thread and I didn't see anything in them that would justify someone labeling him a homophobe, racist or hater. That said... there are a couple comments he made that I will point out to him in my next comment.

Paul said, "You know what?? Maybe "I" don't want his sexuality shoved in my face when I'm trying to watch a musical award show. Maybe he should save those kinds of antics for his concerts, and warn people ahead of time this is what they may see so they can have the time to decide if they want to or not."

Then in another comment, "While I do not think it is right for anyone to spit upon others for their sexual preference, or their religion, etc. I also feel it is not right to push one's sexuality, religion, or anything else upon everyone else."

My question is this, do you consider two men kissing each other on TV during a musical awards show to be pushing their sexuality in others' faces? Is this what you would prefer not to see? Or is it the "groiny" stuff that was part of Lambert's performance which you consider pushing the limits?

I didn't watch the American Music Awards nor catch Lambert's antics on the internet, so I can't really comment on whether what he did was inappropriate or not. From what I've heard, I don't think I'd be all that offended by it, but at the same time, I don't think I'd want my children (if I had any) watching it.

This incident brings up an important topic, and this is how people in a free society deal with incidents like this. They could express their outrage via word of mouth. Or they could express their outrage on internet blogs as many of you have here. On the other hand, if you truly wanted to have an impact on the type of programming your television stations provide, you all would write letters to your local television station expressing your outrage. And if your really wanted to put your money where your mouth is, you would write to your local television station telling them that your were no longer paying for their programming and then you would promptly cancel your cable subscription.

That last thing, we ought to do, however, is to insist that the government further censor television more than it already does. That's not what people do in a free society. You all have the right to watch television, but unless you own a particular television station or created a particular television show, you have no right to dictate to them (through the government), what they can and cannot show on television. Showing nudity, profanity, and/or violence on television is not an infringement on your rights. Whatever harm you feel such television programming is doing to you and your family can easily be resolved by turning the television off (and sending complaints to the television stations responsible).

I think one of the big problems in America is that virtually everyone has a vast sense of entitlement. People often think they are entitled to dictate what can and cannot be seen on television. Celebrities often think they are entitled to act like boors without suffering any consequences. Right-wing and left-wing moralists often think they are entitled to dictate what lifestyles should and should not be criminalized. And minority groups often think they are entitled to be loved and accepted by everyone they come across and that bigotry can somehow be magically cured by affirmative action and hate-crimes laws.

My advice to everyone is to project your values by serving as an example for others to aspire to. Let's not be so quick to turn to the government to solve such petty problems as what a certain television station chooses to air. If you present yourself and your arguments rationally and tactfully, then others will at least listen to what you have to say.

And those few of you who wish to continue hating gay people or whatever minority group that has earned your ire--that is your right--a right that you can always count on me to defend. But don't expect me to have any respect for such a position.

Hey Paul -- I disagree with most of what you said about gay people, but I definitely appreciate your apology for the word "lame". It is common where I live, and is used for a stand-in for "pathetic", but that's what makes it offensive. Like, for example, using the word "gay" to stand in for "bad".

Hey StockBoy -- I don't know that I agree with your interpretation, but I could be wrong. I must admit, that after this statement (which I'm sure we've both heard four thousand times followed by a homophobic rant):

I am just aching for someone to come along and call me a homophobe, or a hater, or whatever else is in the lame-o arsenal....
Fact is, I don't fear nor hate anyone for being gay, lesbian, bi, or heterosexual.

I didn't pay all that much attention. Generally when someone dares others to call him a name, it's indicative that he is embodying that name, and I therefore try to take him up on it.