ABC became a jerk.
So Adam kissed a boy! BOO! What a big deal!
I do that all the time!! So far nobody got hurt!

The suits at ABC can't have it both ways. They want the AMAs to be young and hip and cool so when they book talent who are young and hip and cool, the suits freak out over 1,500 complaint phone calls from the same three churches in Texas.

ABC is broke and in no way are they going to risk another fiasco like the one last month, just saying...I don't tongue my wife in public and maybe Adam should as he said he has...take a hint from that. This ain't Disney World.

TS -- The republic is secure. Relax. Whether it's a .0776 glimpse of Janet Jackson's little titty or Glambert pretending to get head. The nuclear secrets are still safely under wraps.

he is being singled out because he is gay and male...Pink did the exact same move at the 2004 Billboard awards and no one cared. ABC is a homophobic joke.

I'm not worried about the Republic...I say why expose youth to any of the above? Just because you are gay doesn't mean you are without morals...if it does then no wonder NY just voted down the gay marriage bill.

I say expose the youth. Too damn tired of keeping things under wraps that are and have been going on for a thousand years. Secrets perpetuate hate.

T.S., Your last comment was grossly disgusting. It wasn't a fiasco, it generated a lot of news and that isn't bad for ABC. To not stick with its booking on late night tv with Kimmel, that is clearly ridiculous censorship. Have you seen what they do on that show?

Odd comment. Disgusting?

Completely rediculous double standard. After the Madonna/Britney kiss a few years ago, why is this even being discussed, other than, as Christopher said, complaints by churches?

TS -- Your homophobic diatribes have to place on my posts. You will be deleted if you appear here again.

I agree to an extent...so what, he kissed a boy. However, I disagree that this is the only issue with his performance on the AMA's. What I seen was an act that start out with a "man" treating another "man as a piece of "meat" by dragging him acrossed a stage by his leg. Two additional "men" with leashes, a "simulated act" of oral sex (complete with a wiping of the mouth), numerous croth grabbing (also complete with caresses), what I assume to be a lap dance in a chair (in which Adam look up and places his fingers in the crotch of another dancer), oh, and yeah his kissed a guy.
So before I go on a complete rant...I just pose a question. Should I just go ahead and have sex with my wife in front of my children? Should I grab her breasts in public? I mean, why hide it, right? I often hear the arguement that it's not my business what people do in their bedroom, and I would agree. I care not what people do in their bedrooms and I concede that I can't control it. Frankly, I don't care to. It's not so much a question about morality for me so much as it is about having a little class.

"Having a little class" has been a cover for a lot of suppression of normally expressed human sexuality. I am not saying that Lambert didn't go too far, but much of what he did, perhaps all of what he did, has been done without censorship on television by heterosexuals, and that is just wrong.

I’m beyond the age range of the AMA’s intended audience, but did watch the AMAs this year, including Adam Lambert’s performance. I’m not familiar with what does and does not “fly” in terms of intimate on-stage behavior these days (though kissing seems pretty much the norm for male and female artists on television) but the simulation of oral sex and digital penetration took me aback. Do female artists do this live on television, too, without any repercussions? I really don’t know. Still, regardless of gender or sexuality, it is difficult for me to rationalize any entertainer’s expression of this behavior as being integral to her or his performance.

In addition—given Lambert’s admission that he introduced changes into the live program—is it really surprising that Disney would question whether he might behave similarly for their broadcasts? The most convenient defense seems to be screaming “homophobia,” which has and will continue to evidence itself throughout his career, of course—but simultaneously ignoring the inappropriateness and recklessness of his behavior while crying “no fair, haters!” shouldn’t fool anyone, though it obviously has and will continue to do so: we have become a nation of knee-jerk responders, more notable for our partisanship and absence of critical thinking skills than our ability to reflect and consider ideas and experiences beyond being “for” or “against” them.

In truth, the most egregious element of his performance for me was the poor quality of his singing performance. How disappointing! He is quite talented, but relying on one or two already overused vocal tricks as opposed to further developing the talent he has could stall his career as quickly as many seem to feel his sexuality will. Still, I believe this young man’s career will move forward: he’s more Madonna than Sinead O’Connor in the public’s eye, though his continued success might be contingent on whether he can overcome the effects of overdosing on poor management and self-indulgence.

If I may. . .I did not watch the show. I haven't seen any clips. I can't comment on whether or not it is a valid form of expression. Totle's comment does seem relevant and valid.
I do agree that the visibility and expression of differences (whether they are due to sexual orientation or expression, physical limitations, mental acuity or illness, personal beliefs, religious or philosophical beliefs and so forth) have long been used as reason to eliminate diversity within our public realm. It is clearly wrong.
I find it odd that a Disney channel is being harangued in regard to such an event--considering how christian fundamentalists are quite critical of Disney for what they claim as being too open to diversity (think the claim that the film Pocahontas was too openly sexual). Possibly they are trying to stem any further criticism. It seems reasonable for them to limit liability. But I do also agree that it is wrong for a few (members of a couple of religious sects) to force their views onto the rest of us.
One last, I hate the word "titty" and dislike even having to type in this reference. It has negative connotations associated with past (and present) oppression of women (it is degrading in that it breaks down an elemental part of female anatomy into one that makes the possessor possibly feel as only an object and not a real person, something that has historically been acceptable). Not all females feel as such, I understand, but it should be taken into consideration by others that they might--especially if person using the word is objecting about other forms of oppression.