Re: C'mon, why is no one giving Adam Lambert credit for his performance?
Elvin, we are not going to agree over this matter. I respect your opinion and your points are more than valid.
However, let me point out something: this entire situation reminds me of the cheap publicity stunt that Janet Jackson pulled during the Superbowl. It was crass and vulgar, but it didn't merit such an outraged, ridiculously puritanical response. The same is happening to Adam. It was tacky and exploitative, but it was just an act. He isn't exhorting anyone to molest random strangers for the thrill of scandalizing them. He just wanted to become the centre of attention. That isn't, as far as I'm concerned, a crime by any means.
Second, if female singers like Kathy Perry can sing songs about kissing girls and feeling attracted to the sexual characteristics of their own gender, in spite of the fact that she is far from bisexual, why should a gay man not be allowed to play with sexual ambiguity as some sort of artistic license? He isn't demeaning homosexuality in any way. Just because we men are required to choose a sexual preference and abide by it for the entirety of our lives, as if it were a badge of honour, doesn't mean that people cannot play with ambiguity if they choose to do so. I reiterate, he isn't siding with the ex-gay movement or trying to misrepresent what being gay entails. He isn't saying that being bisexual is better. He is just using ambiguity as a means to broaden his appeal.
As for AI, we both know that if he had come out during the show, he would have been sent home faster than a bigot can say "fucking faggot". He wants to be famous and have an opportunity to be heard, not become a martyr. He came out after achieving second place, and did it quite naturally, without presenting it as something abnormal or strange. Isn't that something commendable?
As for OUT magazine, they blew everything out of proportion in order to boost sales. Adam refused to answer questions related to politics, as MANY other singers do. He didn't say that being gay was shameful and he needn't associate himself to our community if he wanted to maintain his success.
And what could he do for us, other than presenting homosexuality as something ordinary? What do you want him to do? Repeat the Sermon on the Mount, encouraging all gay men to be straight-acting and invisible enough to be accepted by narrow-minded, ignorant heterosexual bigots? Or maybe he should educate everyone about what homosexuality is... Of course not.
He was there to offer a spectacle, and he did it shoddily. OK, fine. He had a bad day. Apparently, many people believe that a poor attempt at being transgressive is a sign of sexual depravity, or else an affront to the achievements of gay activism. Please, let's keep things in perspective.
