Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Working for the FCC?? Who knows. In any case, who really cares? To drag this out is just...absurd. Listen up kiddos & parents...there's a reason why there are ratings for things...look at them, research them, live by them, love them. You don't like it...booo hooo hooo hooo.
Lambert's repulsive gay porno act was impromptu. It's rather hard to screen for that.
The program was rated TV14, which means:
Parents Strongly Cautioned -- This program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age. Parents are strongly urged to exercise greater care in monitoring this program and are cautioned against letting children under the age of 14 watch unattended.
Lambert's repulsive gay porno act was impromptu. It's rather hard to screen for that.
LOL, I suggest you actually go back, watch the video from the beginning & then get back to us...PLENTY of time to "screen out those SCARY GAYS!!!!" Get over yourself, once & for all. It's a bit boring.
I totally agree. One of the letters actually said, "Shouldn't there be a ratings system?!" Duh. There is a ratings system. Some people are just too clueless to use it. They want everything on TV to be dumbed down to the point where it's safe for a 5-year-old.
As a conservative would say, maybe they should take some personal responsibility. As parents, they should check the rating for a TV program before allowing their children to watch it.
Come on now, if we all took a little personal responsibility there would be nothing to complain about. There's also a remote with which one can change channels, and that pesky little "off" switch. Many choices.
Parents Strongly Cautioned -- This program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age. Parents are strongly urged to exercise greater care in monitoring this program and are cautioned against letting children under the age of 14 watch unattended.
"The cause" isn't even the point here. It's about freedom of expression, and the reactions from people who aren't comfortable with Lambert's type of artistic expression. I don't see him as a representative of all homosexuals. I can't imagine why anyone would. It wouldn't make sense to do that.
Lambert is one of the best singers to come along since Elvis and he seems like a really nice guy in all the interviews I've seen. I hate to see him embroiled in this kind of conflict with the FCC. Call me old fashioned but if I saw sexual acts simulated on TV between heterosexuals in a music act, the way Adam did with the guy in his band, I'd feel the same way---that it takes away from his talent as an artist and isn't something that belongs on TV. Save that stuff for his paid stage performances if he really feels the need to go for the cheap drama. I'm a fan though.
The majority of adults do not want to see that abnormal filth. It should be restricted to LOGO.
Oh I KNOW, a man kissing a man is just FILTH I tell you, FILTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "IT'S SO DAAAAARK SIIIIIDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" LOL, oh the funniness that is on this forum, never fails to amuse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lORCuR84-_8
Enjoy! It never gets old.
What kind of "artistic expression" took place in his performance?
He sang and performed a song. That qualifies as an artistic expression. The term is subject to a wide interpretation.
Quote:
And, we are still dealing with homophobic, judgmental people out there. A gay performer - or any gay individual in the spotlight - is going to be held up as an example for us all. You should know that. It's the same with any other minority.
If someone judges all gay people by the behavior of Adam Lambert, I think they're being seriously foolish. They have a right to do that, but I don't think it should coerce gays into thinking that they always need to be on their best behavior just in case someone out there in America might be offended. That would be like letting the terrorists win.
And I disagree with your assertion that I "should know that". It's condescending, for one, and I think it's a false premise. Judging an entire group based on the behavior of one individual is foolish.
The majority of adults do not want to see that abnormal filth. It should be restricted to LOGO.
Interesting that you know about the gay cable network...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Get over yourself, once & for all. It's a bit boring.
