DISQUS

Natalie Davis · 6 months ago

Indeed! He's a singer; a singer sings. Let the man sing. Adam L:. is in my prayers too.

Randy · 6 months ago

Hi Natalie :-)

Natalie Davis · 6 months ago

Hey, sweetie.

> Is there a difference between entertainment and the pundit circuit/media/blogs?

There should be. The fact that the difference is lessening is a major part of the society's problems, IMO. Adam's a singer; he should sing. Entertainers entertain; let them do that. Serious media should stick to that.

Randy · 6 months ago

Agreed.

Frank Carrasco · 6 months ago

Thumbs Up! The gay community probably did him a disservice though as they made him a "Gay Idol" rather than an "American Idol" most people dont like polarizing figures. and in a culture coming out of the Miss America controversy with a bad taste in their mouths, I cant help but think that making Adam Lambert a gay icon to further a political agenda hurt him more than anything else. hopefully, his talent will get him where he wants. (Though I must admit, I did favor Chris Allen.)

Randy · 6 months ago

Hi Frank. That is a very good point to bring up. But in general, I see a big rise in people orbiting around polarizing figures. Is there a difference between entertainment and the pundit circuit/media/blogs?

Jack Yan · 6 months ago

Well said, Randy. Frankly, I do not care what sexuality Mr Lambert has, and he certainly does not need to have some activist cause. He is a good singer, period—so can’t we appreciate him for his gift?

Randy · 6 months ago

Yep, I do :). Thanks for adding your thoughts.

Pianomankugie · 6 months ago

Yes! Self determination. Good for him if he does not permit himself to be used by any side of any issue, and simply just BE. Sounds very healthy to me, not being dependent on the approval of others, one way or the other. Not going through life as a people pleaser. Not being easily swayed by the crowd one is hanging out with at any particular time. Not speaking one way to one audience and another way to another, but just being REAL all the time.

Randy · 6 months ago

Pianoman, hi! Good to see you. I totally understand everything you said. But one question about the being "REAL." How does self-determined self-disclosure make someone real? I guess I am just curious to dig a little bit further about what you mean by that.

Pianomankugie · 6 months ago

I was thinking that the realness is not made by the self-determined self-disclosure; rather, the self-determined self-disclosure is an effect or a result of real-ness that is already there; no need to wear more masks than usual, no need to pretend one is someone one is not, nor on the other hand no need to be overly-out either; in otherwords, avoiding the extremes of on the one hand hiding in the closet, and on the other hand, being "in-your-face-everyone-should-know-my-private-stuff". A comfortableness with oneself that does not cause one to be either overly revealing or overly hiding.

Randy · 6 months ago

very good. Thank you for following up.

Cindy · 6 months ago

This touches on an issue I've thought about a good deal previously, as the lady who is probably my very favorite poet in the world is a lesbian who has maintained a low profile in regards to her sexuality and using it for any sort of political or social platform. She seems to have chosen instead to focus on living her life simply and fully for its own, quiet sake, and it shows in her poetry, which is deeply and authentically spiritual, a kind of poetry that takes a good deal of focus and inner balance to create. I have a good deal of respect for her because of this. Not because she has hidden or denied who she really is by not widely publicizing and preaching about her lifestyle (which might be a stance gay activists could take on her), and not because she's "at least maintained a low-profile sexually" (as some Christian activists would be likely to claim), but because she's been true to her calling without selling out to be a poster child for a cause that would be likely to cause her focus on her real calling to waver or at least become fuzzy.

(Disclaimer/Clarification: I do not make the statement in that last sentence with the intent of implying that any one cause is more likely than another to use people for its own purposes. My own experiences and observations have led me to conclude that almost all activists are more than willing to use people to achieve their own aims, and I trust precious few of them.

Randy · 6 months ago

That is cool about the poet. There is SO much more to life than sexual orientation and the expression thereof. You also state:

My own experiences and observations have led me to conclude that almost all activists are more than willing to use people to achieve their own aims, and I trust precious few of them.

As one who has seen both sides ... agreed.

Chris · 6 months ago

If Lambert's "self determination" resulted in him marching onto stage with a rainbow flag and demanding marriage rights, the right wing fanatics across America would demand that he go into the closet until he could conform. How hypocritical!

mdturner77 · 6 months ago

And who are the Right-wing fanatics, Chris? Could you clearly describe who that includes? Are fanatics bad? Or are they only bad when they disagree with you.

Chris... what you're saying about being hypocritical is a generalizing and judgmental statement. Doesn't leave a lot of room for tolerance and discussion (despite disagreement), now does it?

Thought: One need not be 'moderate' to have a civil discussion with someone they completely disagree with.

Randy · 6 months ago

I don't know any right wing fanatics who would demand he go in a closet until he conforms (conforms to ... what?)

I don't see self-determination and preaching to the choir while offending social conservatives as being the same thing. If Lambert decided to do that type of thing, which I would be surprised if he did, I think most socially conservative people wouldn't be offended but would quite possibly flip the channel or not buy his cd. They wouldn't seek to impose on him a "conform or disappear" demand. They would be the ones to move on.

If an entertainer wants to bring other things on the stage with them than what the public is paying for them to do... the public has every right to support or not support that entertainer. That doesn't mean that an entertainer's "self-determination" has been attacked. He or she can still be whoever they determine that they are and do whatever they think is right and best. But when it comes to relating to the public ... it's not just about the person on stage. They are paying with their time, attention and money. They can invest elsewhere if the entertainer is no longer found to be entertaining.

mdturner77 · 6 months ago

And who are the Right-wing fanatics, Chris? Could you clearly describe who that includes? Are fanatics bad? Or are they only bad when they disagree with you.

Chris... what you're saying about being hypocritical is a generalizing and judgmental statement. Doesn't leave a lot of room for tolerance and discussion (despite disagreement), now does it?

Thought: One need not be 'moderate' to have a civil discussion with someone they completely disagree with.

Randy · 6 months ago

Hey Mike, if you hit reply underneath the actual comment it should notify who you are responding to that you have responded..

mdturner77 · 6 months ago

Hmm, I thought I did that, but oh well. I just re-did it. Maybe it will turn into a good conversation! :-) I always hope for that, anyway.

Randy · 6 months ago

Oh well, second time is a charm. :) ... in this case. I hope it is a good conversation too. We will see if he was just a drive-by commenter or not.