Like many others, when analyzing The Birdcage from a Queer perspective, I find the film problematic for several reasons. While one could argue that "all exposure" is good exposure, in The Birdcage, the audience is forced to encounter the relationship between Armand and Albert, a relationship that is ultimately constrained by the societal binary of male and female gender roles, and more specifically, the gender roles expressed within "the home."
One of the most clear depictions of this occurs when Armand and Albert's home must me temporarily renovated to appease their guests. With the intention of "de-gaying" the house, all of Albert's taste and decor are removed from the house, in exchange for more secular decoration. In this sense, the only way to expel Albert (who symbolizes the feminine nature of homosexual relationships) is to remove his material presence from the house. Albert's homosexuality, even in the eyes of his own partner was unsuitable for common society. In the film, the "remedy" to this problem was for Albert to assume a role on the complete opposite side of the spectrum, essentially masking any notion of homosexuality, solidifying the idea that a gender binary is the only way to succeed in the home.
Unfortunately, the problem that arises with this film is that stereotypes of LGBT relationships are not critically examined, but rather, reenforced by their presence in the film. By the very nature of their relationship (and notably during the Dinner Table scene) Albert and Armand present a homonormative expression of relationships between two men, where both men cannot express their own masculinity.
Thus, despite the notion of exposure at any cost, this film does little to improve stereotypes, and I believe that this is why it is not successful as an LGBT film. Where it is very entertaining and comical, and although it's intentions are most likely not negative, there is no progress as a result of this film.
While writing my blog entry and reading others' blog entries, I've been grappling with myself because yes, the movie portrays homonormative views. Yes, the movie is a unrealistic view of a homosexual relationship. But It's a COMEDY so it's purpose is to entertain us, and one of the main vehicles to do this is through Albert's femininity in contrast to Armand's masculinity. However, you summed it up perfectly when you said that "although it's intentions are most likely not negative, there is no progress as a result of this film". The movie isn't necessarily "bad" because of its stereotyping, but certainly it doesn't offer a progressive view of realistic homosexual relationships.
I too have great uneasiness because of the film. Despite loving Robin Williams, and it being funny, I found it funny because it was an embarrassing representation done by heterosexual males. I thought that by having the parallel to heterosexual relationships also was a bit overwhelming. The entire process of eliminating a member of the family to temporarily appease a hegemonic heterosexual male made me very uneasy. For comedy or not, it does reinforce that heterosexuality MUST "tolerate" and give the "OK" to gays, for it to be legitimate. That I think is the central issue. If a white male went up to someone of another race and said, "I guess it's ok to be who you are..." that simply would instantly ignite fires... I have a similar problem with this.