Friday, November 27, 2009

Celebrate Your 'Gay Rights' While We
Enjoy Our Right to Change Channels

Adam Lambert's defenders play the homophobia card:
When CBS had Adam Lambert as a guest on its "Early Show" Wednesday morning, it may have believed it would placate viewers who were upset when Mr. Lambert had his invitation withdrawn by ABC's "Good Morning America." Instead, the booking has led to further complaints from those who say Mr. Lambert has been subjected to a double standard. . . .
In a statement, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said that CBS had been unfair in its treatment of gay performers. "I would have hoped CBS would provide the same treatment for images of gay and lesbian people and not create an unfair double standard that treats our community differently," said the alliance's president, Jarrett Barrios. "CBS regularly shows kisses throughout” its daytime programming. "The kiss was not blurred on ABC nor in news coverage on other networks."
Oh, cry me a rainbow river, you pathetic whiners. Excuse me, but I'm old enough to remember the '70s, when being gay was a personal choice, not a political identity. This idea that TV viewers don't have a right to decide for themselves what is or is not offensive -- an undemocratic impulse, wherein the ideological dogma of the elite must triumph over the common sense of the majority -- is actually a cause of homophobia, and not its cure.

In 2009, homosexuality no longer has the culture-shock value that Lambert sought to exploit. His performance was merely tasteless. ABC, CBS and other TV networks are engaged in a commercial enterprise, and must therefore keep in mind the sensibilities of the viewing public, rather than kowtow to the PC dictatorship of GLAAD.

GLAAD is demanding that TV networks broadcast programming that a majority of viewers don't want to watch -- and implying that TV viewers who change the channel are guilty of a "hate crime."

Laura Gallier has some thoughts on Adam Lambert's unshocking performance, and I have further thoughts at the Hot Air Greenroom.

UPDATE: Let's talk real hate:
Speaking of repulsive scenes on TV: Auburn 14, Alabama 0 in the 1st QTR? That's DISGUSTING!
-- rsmccain on Twitter

'Bama spotted Auburn 2 TDs, just to make it interesting. ROLL TIDE ROLL!
-- rsmccain on Twitter

@Auburnwareagles Are More Gay Than Adam Lambert NTTAWWT
-- rsmccain on Twitter
I must clarify that "NTTAWWT" applies only to gays, not to Auburn fans, who are truly disgusting.

UPDATE II: E-mail to a gay conservative:
Thanks for your reply. As I explained at my own blog, I hate the faux-bohemian (faux-hemian?) poseurs who think the bourgeoisie exist only to have their sensibilities shocked. Adam Lambert certainly didn't shock me, except that any singer would be so stupid as to publicly seek the "More Gay Than Clay Aiken" award. In terms of niche marketing, it's not exactly lucrative. The gay audience prefers its men more manly. Unless Lambert is planning on going the camp-drag route, his flamboyant sissy act is a dead end. In a few years, he'll be lucky to get a gig lip-synching old Bette Midler songs in a show bar.
What is repugnant about Lambert is his insulting assumption that he was doing something original, as if we hadn't seen this act before. He is merely rehashing a bogus exhibitionist stance of cultural opposition -- "Oh, look at me! I'm daring! I'm radical! I'm naked!" -- that was transmitted from the '50s beatniks to the '60s hippies and thereafter became a cliche. (When I was a teenager in the '70s, National Lampoon mocked it mercilessly.)
It was not until Madonna came along in the mid-'80s that fake outrage enjoyed any new currency, and then only because Madonna's teeny-bopper fans were too young to remember the '60s. I liked Madonna's first album OK -- "Lucky Star" and "Holiday" were clever -- and was working as a nightclub DJ when it came out. But the ridiculous hype whereby she was presented as an "innovative" artist? Oh, please. By the time she released her coffee-table book, "Sex," in 1992, I'd taken a massive dislike to her -- which was also my reaction to that other '80s "icon," Michael Jackson.
That these third-hand recycled tropes of faux-hemianism are now being fobbed off once more as if they were pioneering artistic expressions is so ridiculous as to deserve laughter. And for GLAAD to pretend that a network's response to audience complaints is "discrimination" or "censorship" is even more absurd. Nobody has a right to perform on national television, and if the producers of the AMA show had told Adam Lambert, "Go away, you talentless twerp," prior to the broadcast he wouldn't have had a legal leg to stand on. But these Official Gay Movement fascisti think that everybody quivers in fear at their bullying tactics, and that nobody will ever call them out for their dishonest thuggery.
Guess what? They're wrong. And I'm sure there are plenty of gay people like you who are sick and tired of being exploited by these Official Gay Movement elitists who are, in fact, just the lavender wing of the Democratic Party. GLAAD doesn't represent ordinary gay people any more than the AFL-CIO represents ordinary blue-collar workers or NOW represents ordinary women.
For that matter, now that I think about it, obnoxious punks like Adam Lambert don't represent most musicians, either. Ted Nugent and Gene Simmons know a thing or two about outrageous showmanship, but I rather doubt they'd endorse the kind of childish stunt Lambert pulled on the AMA. Putting on a show for your audience is one thing; insulting their intelligence is something else. Trying to substitute sexual politics for actual talent is a form of artistic counterfeiting. My advice to Lambert would be to start memorizing Bette Midler lyrics now.
-- RSM
You don't shock us, Adam Lambert. You bore us.


  1. I say take it to cable. ABC belongs to the public, and the public should have the right to set some limits on the trash we view.

  2. You remember when being gay was a personal choice? Funny because it's never simply been a personal choice, but in fact something one is born being.

    Your memory of things is eerily similar to Eagles's fans memories of some day when the Eagles were the best team in the NFL, which always comes as a shock to Cowboys fans like myself.

  3. Neo Atheist said...
    You remember when being gay was a personal choice? Funny because it's never simply been a personal choice, but in fact something one is born being.

    An assertion for which there is no real scientific evidence. Kind of like global warming.

  4. An assertion for which there is no real scientific evidence.

    I could say the same thing about god.

  5. We treat gays better than the MSM treated Clay County, Ky.

  6. Look, if we're going to have same-sex kissing on the morning news shows, can we at least have equal time for the hot female talent doing it? Please?

  7. GLAAD is demanding that TV networks broadcast programming that a majority of viewers don't want to watch

    I don't think they need any help from GLAAD on that. The networks are doing an outstanding job on their own.

  8. RSM,

    There is more than a little science supporting innateness of gay proclivities. There are also counter studies. One of the earliest supporting studies was on how hormones in pig litters affected the expression of sexual proclivities.

    What we can say is that the science is not settled.

    One should also keep in mind that prejudice is not the exclusive property of the left. And I mean that in its original sense of pre-judging.

    Keep in mind that there are holes in the Theory of Relativity. So holes in a theory do not automatically prove a theory wrong.

    I would say the same about AGW. It may be right. It may be wrong (probably). But right now we have no trustworthy data on which to decide the question.

    But I do agree that TV stations should do their best to maximize profits. Within the limits of an honest market.

  9. There's an Onion article with a headline like "Marilyn Manson NOw Going Door-t--Door Trying to Shock People" - almost a note-perfect parody of this entire attitude.

  10. "I could say the same thing about god"

    There's a reason it's called "faith" and not "science".