It's harder for gay men to be themselves and be accepted by the public. However, it's not totally impossible for a gay artist to have a certain level of success in today's climate. They just can't be flamboyant and force their lifestyles down the throats of the buying public. Part of the reason Adam failed was because he did just that - he tried to force his sexuality down people's throats: everything from the American Music Award performance to the glittery purple album cover. There were people who were upset that he lost American Idol and was rooting for him to be the next big thing, but then he turned around and messed it up. If Bruno Mars was openly gay but still made the same music, I could see him having success. Perhaps not the same level of success he is achieving as a straight male, but I don't think he would be pushed aside completely or paid dust. It's messed up, but that's just how it is.
I'm sorry but that's ********. Adam Lambert represents a section of gay people...the flamboyant, sexualized stereotype which admittedly is true for a part (not the whole) of gay people (and there's nothing wrong with it). But he does not represent gay people. I and many other gay men I know have nothing in common with him other than the fact that he likes penis. Not every gay man dresses and acts like that or wants to.
I don't think so. Adam Lambert sucks and is sooo boring. TBH, I hope Simon Curtis can do something. If any gay stars should be famous, it is him. His tracks are HOT
I didn't know Simon was gay... I just thought he acted a bit camp
Marilyn Manson isn't gay but he did some very gay things in his prime and was very successful. And that was 1998. If we're in 2012 and everyones all 'stop h8!' then yes a gay male artist should easily be able to become successful. They just have to do it the right way and not be generic.