Opponents of outing - homophobic?

[baby_mouse]

Being a raving homosexual and pointing and laughing at gay politicians who lie about their sexual orientation at the expense of others of that orientation whilst pointing out what they are doing to the general populace is homophobic, apparently.

Why?

How can pointing out that someone is gay be a weapon if there's NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING GAY?

Outing is only a problem if there really IS something dirty and shameful and wrong about being gay. Otherwise it's just pointing out someone else's silliness.

/2 cents

[libnnc]

1. what if these people who are closeted

are responsible for making legislation that directly hurts other lesbians and gays?

Those of us who are lesbian/gay and who don't have a problem with outing politicians and politcal hacks, are pointing the hypocrisy of said policy makers not accusing them of being "gay". We're pointing out that they're dirty, lousy, selfish, greedy, m-fers who are making $$ creating legislation that supresses LGBT people.

It's not personal. It's strictly business.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. Privacy?

I don't think it is dirty and shameful but I don't think anybody needs to know what I do in my bedroom unless I choose to share that.

Now, on the other hand... if I spend a good deal of my life dissing gay folks, and I AM gay, I deserve to be exposed.

[baby_mouse]

8. If we adopt privacy as a basic right, yes, then.

But what else comes under that umbrella?

It's a shame that there isnt really anything as relatively widespread as homosexuality and in roughly the same sort of category we can compare it to. Someone in a similar thread recently said that they would expose a pubically visible anti-abortionist who had an abortion.

Tis a question, perhaps, of degree...

Where someone occupies a public position of power and privately subscribes to one socially sensitive... tendency, I suppose, rather than "opinion", whilst publically reviling it, it is in the public interest to invade their privacy, as their public position becomes an invasion of the privacy of the populace!

Babymouse's Alliterative Logic.

Also, I don't think it's right to demand of a group of people that you are simultaneously on and off their team and you're allowed to diss them publically while privately being one of them when they aren't even particularly interested in being in these "teams".

It seems rude.

[Norquist Nemesis]

70. Except public officials don't have the same level

as the average citizen because they have chosen to be public. I think that goes for celebrities as well. Could be wrong.

[knowbody0]

3. my opinion as well n/t

[nonconformist]

4. I agree. They're not exposing someone for being gay

They're exposing HYPOCRISY.

[comsymp]

5. Not sure I agree

I think the trap is the "nothing wrong with..." angle- clearly, in the case of ppl like Drier, Mehlman, etc., their supporters often hold the perception that there is most definitely something wrong w/being gay. In that case, outing is clearly meant to be used as a weapon.

[baby_mouse]

11. Subtle distinction worth making, but do we PANDER, my precious?

:-)

WE know better. Should we pander to this view by treating those who hold it with kid gloves while they publically denounce us?

What's in it for us?

[comsymp]

213. Well, I don't see it as pandering- and certainly don't advocate kid gloves

While I agree with pointing out they hypocrisy of a closeted gay politician who publicly takes anti-gay positions or supports anti-gay legislation, my concern is with the use of Outing as a way to damage - or simply strike out at - a political opponent. I just can't see that as anything but the same kind of gaybaiting that's so prevalent on Hate Radio. And THAT, m'dear, I find morally reprehensible.

(a quick f'rinstance - recent thread w/a pic of * behind a podium, wearing one of his patented doofy expressions. more than one reply consisted of a cutesy crack about Gannon-Guckert being under the podium. personally, i could discern no other rationale for the comment than "OMG - BUSH IS TEH GHEY!!!!!111eleven")

So, yes, it's a thin line between pointing out an obvious logical disconnect and just going for the easy slam, but it's a line which I believe should not be crossed.

[jonnyblitz]

6. if nothing is wrong with being gay, why are they closeted to

begin with? we are pointing out the hypocricy of being closeted and promoting anti-gay legislation...

we are not saying...LOOK THEY ARE HOMOSEXUAL, AND IT IS BAD. we are saying look, they think homosexuality is so bad they remain in the closet and pass legislation against their own interest.

by allowing them to remain closeted assumes homosexuality is bad, not what you say.

[northzax]

7. sorry, I don't agree with you

people have the right to privacy on their sexual habits, as long as they are legal and consenual. plus, I really don't care, and dislike the distraction from important issues.

[baby_mouse]

12. Shrug.

Okey-doke. I can't really blow holes in a basic right to privacy, tis fair.

I just wish the politicians who would wish to benefit from your largesse would extend similar to US.

[mondo joe]

38. Newsflash: being gay isn't a "sexual habit".

"Sexual habits" would include top or bottom, anal or oral, nurse outfit or cop.

Being gay is about who you love, who you commit to, and a lot more.

When you say someone is gay it doesn't tell you a THING about their sexual habits, or even if they HAVE sex.

[northzax]

65. fine, poor word choice.

it's still none of my business, or, quite honestly, yours. just like it's none of my business who you fall in love with, share a bed with, screw or anything else, as long as it's consensual between adults. If you choose to share that information, fine, but it's not for me to share it about you with a third party without your permission.


oh, and obviously, unless there is someone to observe another person's sexual habits it's tough to know their orientation unless they tell you. You might be able to make an assumption that someone is gay, if they choose to engage in gay sex, but unless they actually TELL you they are gay, you can't know, right? what sort of evidence would you accept as proof someone is gay or straight?

[titoresque]

101. Married people wear wedding rings

the majority anyhow. And since it's widely known that homosexuals are not permitted the right to legal marriage...........

What sexual preference to you automatically without skipping a beat think a person is when you see a wedding band?

See where I'm going with this?

Heterosexuals talk openly about their husband, wife. They put their family photos up in their offices and cubicles for all to see, and they wear wedding bands.
Heterosexuals "come out" every day and none of you get the shocked look...the "uh, yeah I have a neice who has a girlfriend" bit....sort of like when you tell someone you don't drink and they squirm and tell you they only drink on weekends.

So yeah, its alot easier to pick a straight person out of a crowd.

[northzax]

111. I know several gay couples who wear wedding rings

and I know gay people with pictures of their partners in their offices. I guess I live in a different world from you, but no one raises an eyebrow anymore around here. It's been at least five years since I heard someone say "I'm gay" to come out to someone, people just talk about their boyfriends, or girlfriends, and you figure out, if you care to, that they are gay or straight.
i'm sorry for you that you don't live in the same type of world.

[mondo joe]

108. Their orientation need not be stated. "Candidate X is known

to date Peron Y" will do.

Readers may choose to conclude that means they're gay.

[titoresque]

84. LOL!!

Yeah my partner (wife) and I have been together for 9 years...I can attest to the last line in your post! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Carni]

87. The hypocrisy of people like Drier and his idiot party IS IMPORTANT

Why is a gay man running around with a party that denounces gays?

I would think that would call his integrity into question.

[northzax]

98. how do you know he's gay?

has he told you? or are you just assuming it?

honestly, the hypocrisy of any gay person involved in either of the two parties is sickening. Sure, the democrats may be the lesser of two evils, but they're hardly flying the rainbow flag now, are they?

John Kerry opposes gay marriage, if you voted for him, you are as hypocritical as Andrew Sullivan (since I know he's gay, because he says so, Drier has never said anything about it.) but let's not let that get in the way of a good witch-hunt, right?

[Carni]

112. Isn't that what the tone was to this thread? Drier being gay?

Gee, did I miss something?

OK let's switch then to Gannon--clearly gay, right? Running around acting like Falwell's right hand man and parading around with his buds at the freak republic--all the while serving as a male prostitute.

Oh gee, I guess it was wrong to make fun of Gannon because after all I and others were on a *witch hunt*

Please, the GOP is way worse with the anti-gay bible thumping BS...
I am not going to get into this there is no difference between the parties crap.

[northzax]

115. name one piece of legislation

the democratic party supports, or one line in the party platform from 2004 which supports gay rights in any way shape or form.

When there was a democratic house, senate and presidency, what did they do to advance gay rights? oh, don't ask don't tell. And the last Democratic president, with a democratic senate, passed and signed the Defense of Marriage Act, a bill so paranoid about gay people that it directly challenges a provision of the Constitution.

Seriously, what the fuck have democrats done lately? Sure, they don't demonize gays, they want the votes, but what do gay people get for them? the only advances in gay rights over the past 15 years have been in the courts, not in the legislature.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Gay isn't the issue, hypocisy is. Outing people about anything,

just for outing, is mean.

I see it like pot smoking. i don't bekieve it is wrong, but if the local DA is prosecuting pot cases while growing some stash at home they deserve to be outed.

It's a question of personal integrity.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. Hypocrisy always deserves exposure

It is cheating.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Bingo!

It's like Limpballs saying drug users should be executed, while he, himself, is one!

[baby_mouse]

16. Warg!

It's a LITTLE bit like that, dear, in SOME respects...

[Behind the Aegis]

95. Yup...

,,except of course, I am not saying being gay is like being a drug user! It is all about the hypocrisy! As a gay man, myself, I believe someone has the right to stay in the closet, as along as they do not attack the community as a whole. I have known plenty of closet cases, but the minute they cross the line, they will be outed and publically...they get ONE warning first. All it took was me outing two people in college, and people realized I was not kidding. The closet cases in the Student Government soon found themselves "missing" votes on gay issues. :)

[northzax]

14. that's a different scenario

than any recent sexual outings. Any politician who voted for a bill that would outlaw any activity, or a prosecutor who enforces it, and engages in that same activity deserves outing.

but since there aren't any laws being passed these days actually outlawing homosexuality, the level of hypocrisy isn't the same. just because someone is gay doesn't mean that s/he must follow some sort of party line, you can be gay and be opposed to gay marriage on other grounds, just like you can be african american and think affirmative action isn't the right path. There isn't some sort of orthodoxy that needs to be adhered to, is there? I mean is there a handbook?

[baby_mouse]

18. Strokes chin. I suppose not...

Hm.

Oddly enough, I wonder if being an out gay republican who opposes gay marriage might lend the position a peculiar legitimacy...

But really, do we tolerate ANY hypocrisy from a politician? The level is lower but the effect on the populace, um, is as wide.

[libnnc]

24. its not just "gay marriage"

it's partner benefits (health insurance, social security, adoption rights etc) it's also the overall tone of the GOP towards gays/lesbians, their leaders don't condemn the Falwells and Phelps' of society.

Closeted gay/lesbian politicians and hacks, by their silence, are just as complicit as those who are hetero and hate our guts too.

[mondo joe]

35. Nothing wrong with the press revealing who politicians are -

and that includes that they're gay, IMO. Sure they don't have to hold to a party line - but there's no reason to not present the information for the electorate to decide.

[northzax]

56. so, the press should have something like this?

Name: Bob Smith
Affiliation: Republican
State/District: Ohio, 19th
College: Ohio State, Toledo Law School
Single, gay.

? that's absurd. Why do you care who your politician sleeps with? Should we just identify all gay people, publically, so we can know who's "hypocritical" about it? maybe we can make people put their sexual orientation on driver's licenses? and then monitor them to make sure they are doing the right things?

For the last time, I don't care who you, David Drier, Ben Affleck, Condi Rice or Pope Benedict have sex with, fall in love with or what, as long as all activities are consensual and between adults. It's none of my business.

[mondo joe]

92. I don't know - does the press typically give out little profiles

like that?

And we already identify spouses and others associated with politicians.

Let me rephrase: we do it with hetero politicians.

And whether or not a politician is a HYPOCRITE matters a great deal to me.

[northzax]

105. sure, you see little bios all the time

listing the spouse, kids, schools attended, other jobs, etc. Roll Call puts out a book every session with all this info. Media outlets will usually list legal relationships, or gay ones at the request of the member. They don't list live in girlfriends for males, or vice versa.

I'm not sure you are using the word hypocrite correctly. If a gay person goes to amsterdam and gets married and then opposes marriage here, that's hypocrisy. If a gay person gets health benefits for their partner and opposes you getting them , that's hypocrisy.

you can, in fact, be gay and not believe that the government should mandate benefits to people who aren't married. you can believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. you can believe that it is not the role of the government to do a lot of things, and still be gay, right?

hell, you can be gay and think it's a bad thing, since you can't choose whether or not to be gay, you're kinda stuck with it, right? it's pathetic, but that's the choice people can make, right?

[mondo joe]

128. "single" doesn't mean hetero- or homosexual

So I think "single" is just fine.

[John Q. Citizen]

125. No, there is no handbook on integrity. Just a bunch of people.

[northzax]

15. dupe-deleted

dupe-

[kdpeters]

17. Outing is a problem because it's an invasion of privacy.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with being gay, but our view is far from universally shared. Until that day, and ever after, it remains personal information that isn't ours to spread contrary to the wishes of its owner.

It should be a grave decision to breach that barrier not to be done with such blithe indifference as you're suggesting. In the case of hostile legislators who, by their votes, threaten us and our families, it may well be a matter of self defense to expose the hypocrisy.

Let me ask you this. If you had a good friend who confided in you that he is gay but struggling with issues of coming out, would you then go and tell everyone you both know because of your contention that there's nothing wrong with being gay and therefore no harm will come?

[jonnyblitz]

20. we are NOT talking about the average gay person..

we are talking about gay politicians who remain closet and promote anti gay legislation. I AM GAY and i want them OUTED before they do any more damage!!

[mondo joe]

29. There is no guarantee of privacy in politics.

Politicians have family lives that are fair game.

[Carni]

104. If they were a right winger pushing a homophobic agenda

And occupying a public office, I might.

But I wouldn't have a friend like that so it's kind of an abstract question.

I am not going to enable these wing-nuts to be big fat liars and hypocrites.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. sexuallity is private...thats why outing is wrong

[jonnyblitz]

23. so you think closeted gay politicians who promote anti gay

legislation should be given a pass? unbelievable. this makes ZERO sense to me. their privacy rights STOP once they infringe on MY Privacy rights with their anti gay legislation. very SIMPLE concept.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. no i dont think they should be given a pass

i think this is an ambiguous area ...as in both options are crappy.

[jonnyblitz]

34. of course, generally speaking, i am against outing..

only in this particular case I think it is ok to out them, if for no other reason, than to stop them before they do more damage to a whole lot of people. I am really not concerned about protecting such vile hypocrites when they don't give me the same courtesy with what they promote.

I don't think people against outing are homophobes. i dont know where the original poster came up with that one. :shrug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. i agree with you completely

outing is crappy...but letting a homophobe get a free pass is just as bad


awful choices

[jonnyblitz]

54. if I were outed in the navy, my life could have been in danger.

so i dont take this outing thing lightly. these closeted gay republicans contribute to the atmosphere that causes the danger i might have been in. :hi:

[baby_mouse]

60. ???

Does the US Navy excute us benders, then? Or do they just gang up on us to prove their manliness?

[jonnyblitz]

140. you never heard of allen schindler?

http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?record=597


once you are outed and everybody knows you are gay you are fare game for bashings and often times higher ups turn a blind eye, they are often the most homophobic of all. you should read "Conduct Unbecoming" by Randy Schilts. it's all in there..

[baby_mouse]

145. Blick.

I had not heard of this, no...

[baby_mouse]

53. Mainly I feel it panders to the idea that homosexuality is icky and weird

And we should leave the poor, poor faggots alone because it's NOT THEIR FAULT.

:eyes:

I'm not made of glass.

But I am being enlightened somewhat by this relatively civilised discussion. At least, civilised SO far, I'm sure it will eventually degnerate into volcanics. This subject has no easy answer so it almost always does.

[mondo joe]

58. We're not made of sugar - we won't melt!

I agree.

Why is it almost anything else a politician does we'd want exposed but having a same sex partner is SPECIAL?

It used to be the conservatives who said "it's your SEX life" - now it's the liberals. :-(

[baby_mouse]

83. It's because we're VERY VERY WEIRD.

It is almost like they've exchanged sacredness for profanity, actually. It's like they're trying to hold back the last bit that stops us being normal by being super-respectful rather than being super-disgusted. It's almost as insulting, to me.

Nothing surprised me more than when I found out I wasn't weird at all but was in fact an entirely normal, ordinary gay man with exactly the same hang-ups and complexes as any other gay man. Including all the hang-ups I then generated about not being "special" anymore... :-)

[mondo joe]

32. Being gay is not just sexuality. It's family life and more.

We don't need details on what people do in bed.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. umm i know what being gay is...

i just dont like the idea of outing but i sometimes understand the need to

[Deja Q]

21. There is nothing wrong with being gay. Those who are and say they are not

think there is. THAT is why they must be outed.

And to show what hypocritical trash they are.

Just as I would for a Hitler-supporting Jew or an African who helped the white man during the African slave trades.

Such turncoat cowards have always existed and always will. We're human. Every person having a price is one reason. Having a "silver tongue" and lacking of scruples is another. (that can also be seen in companies where good people get fired or laid off and true vermin rise up in the ranks and get perks in companies.)

[butchcjg]

184. internalized homophobia

Those who are closeted homosexuals who display homophobia are certainly annlying and I understand teh urge to want to "out" them...

But, at the same time, they obviously have severe internalized homophobia.

That's what is making them self-hate and hate others who are like them.

Not sure how "outing" really solves anyone's problems.

[tavalon]

22. I think people get confused about what you're laughing at

If you are laughing at their hypocrisy, then okay, but if you are laughing at their homosexuality then that's weird.

[baby_mouse]

28. I laugh at myself, too! In my defense. Dahlink.

God, it wears thin, all this camp shit.

Let's suppose that there's ANOTHER definition of faggot meaning "cowardly girly-man", which is kind of what it's meant to mean anyway. (leaving aside the inherent sexism just for this thread). Some of us thinks it's fine to laugh at someone who is not only actually gay but also living up to the appalling sterotypes propagated by the right wing by supporting it! Ass-lickers! etc. They become the thing they inwardly despise...

I laugh hard at the absurdly evil. Hoew they oppress themselves! And demand that we join in, to validate their cowardice!

Were it the drug-hypocrisy situation detailed in a post above I would be angry, but this particlarly twisted level of hypocrisy is so ARCH, so IRONIC that's it's just funny! I am laughing at both their hypocrisy and their homosexuality as they have turned both into a laughing stock...

A bit twisty, that logic, I know, but in my head it holds...

[cynatnite]

26. Outing someone who does not want to be outed just isn't right...

no matter what they've done or if someone thinks they somehow 'deserve' it just strikes me as wrong. I've never cared for the idea that because they do something wrong that someone else doing something else equally as wrong to get back at that person for what they've done. It's just plain wrong and I think it lowers a person who does the outing of someone who doesn't want to be outed no matter their justification.

[libnnc]

27. even if they're a powerful politician who

makes harmful legislation that directly affects my life as a lesbian?

If you were in my shoes, would the hypocrisy not make you angry?

[cynatnite]

37. It doesn't make the outing right...

Sure, the hypocrisy pisses me off to no end, but I don't want to be like them and doing it would in my eyes.

[mondo joe]

43. I think the press informing the electorate makes it right.

This is the role of the press.

Being complicit in a secret with a politician is NOT the proper role of the press.

[cynatnite]

48. Justify it how you see fit...I'll never agree with it.

It's being like them and if that's a place you feel comfortable going, I won't argue with you about it.

This is how I feel about it.

[mondo joe]

52. That's okay - if you want a press that keeps secrets for politicians

that's your choice. I don't go for it.

[cynatnite]

57. Personal lives shouldn't be screwed with at all...no justification...

but if you want to be like the corporate media and the repukes who have no qualms about screwing with people's personal lives...go ahead.

[mondo joe]

59. Really? So segregationist Strom Thurmond's black daughter

wouldn't have been news?

How about divorces and marriages?

[cynatnite]

63. That's correct...it's their personal life and not for the public.

I feel that way about any one who is in the public eye. If my private life is none of their business, why should theirs be mine?

[mondo joe]

72. Why? Because they are accountable to the public and you are not.

But that's find.

I trust you'll be turning up to defend privacy any time any heterosexual's spouse or family is ever mentioned.

Thanks.

[cynatnite]

76. I will defend anyone's right to privacy n/t

[mondo joe]

82. Go ahead. But I am waiting to see you actyally do it - you know,

like when Newt Gingrich's divorce is mentioned, or Rush Limbaugh's girlfriend, or any of a number of "personal" matters that come up daily on DU.

Let's see how you fare.

[cynatnite]

86. I'm sure I wouldn't fare to well here at DU since many consider...

the private lives of individuals for fodder. I don't take part in those discussions because I find them tasteless and having no bearing on anything of real merit. That's just how I feel about them.

[tx_dem41]

96. Couldn't agree with you more, Cynatnite...

I've enjoyed your posts on this particular sub-thread.

[baby_mouse]

102. The right to privacy is clear BUT

When an individual places themslves in a position that gives them the power to interfere with the forces that govern an aspect of other people's private lives is it not in the interest of all to ensure that they are given no preferential treatment?

Their legislative power grants them the ability to generalise regarding the private lives of others. They have an executive power to place articles of law where our private lives intersect inevitably with the "public good", funerals, weddings, taxes and the like. This makes *them* articles of the "public good". How then can they have any privacy? They generalise legislatively regarding private acts. How can we trust them if their private lives tend towards acts that run counter to the generalisation?

Is there a special sort of privacy that only applies to gay republicans?

[cynatnite]

110. I'm curious at where does the line get drawn?

If you can justify outing someone who doesn't want to be outed, does that make it okay to do it for someone else's private life on other issues such as abortion? What about their families? Is that off limits or not?

My point here is, once this kind of slope is built, it's awfully damn hard to keep from sliding. Others will push the envelope on this issue. Some won't feel any compunction at all to go after family members, associates and friends.

This is not a good thing no matter how you paint it. It's getting into people's personal lives and the justifcation for it is just as bad. Two wrongs does not make a right. The risk of being the very people we loathe is too high and I absolutely refuse to go there.

[baby_mouse]

148. I understand the "thin end of the wedge" metaphor

But I'm not convinced that America's current political climate affords anyone the kind of privacy you would wish. Would t'were so, sir ma'am. Kerry's war background would have been irrelevant in your America, he would have been judged on his policies.

I kinda think that America's already several miles down your slope, I'm afraid...

People all over this board poke all sorts of nasty fun at Mr Bush's wife and mother, for example. I agree, it's reprehensible, but the same tactics are used by the opposition, and, unfortunately, they seem to work...

If it were possible to frame all debates around the axes of "actual relevance to the issues at hand" and "who is the most courteous" Dems would win easily, but that framing is going to be... tricky in a nation whose attention is so rapidly diverted towards Janet Jackson's boobs.

Needs must and all that? I must say that I admire your position and hope that one day it spreads.

I just think that right now it's a bit like telling your pals in the foxhole that their bootlaces are untied and they're making the place look untidy... :-)

/poking very gentle fun

[cynatnite]

155. Corporate media's made a ton of money off of stomping on private lives...

Kerry's war background was a part of public record and not private. My time in the military is a part of public record. It also went to his leadership and ability to wage war. While the swift boat crap was disgusting to the max, his military career was never private.

I do agree that America has sledded down the slope with great joy, but I'll never agree to the rightness of it. This topic got me to thinking about Paul Michael Glaser and his late wife, Elizabeth.

They kept their tragedy a secret until a tabloid publicized it to the entire world. They had no choice but to come out and talk about it afterwards. The press was relentless. It was obscene and that's why I am a strong advocate for the right to privacy. No one had a right to take away their right to privacy.

I'm of the mind we don't have to take on the tactics of the repukes and looking at some of the news today, it seems we don't have to. They took more than enough rope to hang themselves with. IMO, we'll kick ass in '06 at the rate we're going. I loathe so much of what the repukes stand for, that to even remotely appear like them nauseates me. I won't do it and I constantly send emails to the dem leadership NOT to be like them or take on their tactics. We are better than that.

I like the foxhole analogy very much :) I will think about that.

[baby_mouse]

177. I hope you're right.

Certainly the revolting creatures *are* letting it all hang out...

[libnnc]

116. well, you're a bigger person than I am

but I think you'd change your mind if you weren't allowed access to your spouse's health insurance or social security benefits.

[cynatnite]

117. I doubt I would since I abhor this idea so much...

I understand what you're saying and it would piss me off to no end, but I can't find any justification to screw with anyone's personal life that would have no bearing on not beling allowed access to my spouse's health insurance or SS benefits.

[mondo joe]

132. If you were one of the people being denied that right by a

hypocrite you might feel differently.

[cynatnite]

138. As I said, I doubt it since I know how strongly I feel about it now n/t

[mondo joe]

30. What about other kids of outting? How about Strom Thurmond

being outted as a segregationist with biracial children?

I think it's WRONG to let hypocrisy in politicians go unnoted.

[cynatnite]

40. You don't have to let the wrong go unnoted...

outing them still won't justify it. Who wants to be like them? That's what I see in this and why I disagree with outing anyone who does not want to be outed.

[mondo joe]

45. Again, it isthe job of the press to inform the electorate, not to keep

secrets.

[cynatnite]

49. Was it the job of the press to report on Clinton's sex life?

Why would it be their's this time around?

[mondo joe]

51. It was their job once it became news.

But that only happened because it was under investigation by a special prosecutor.

And I don't expect to have SEX LIVES reported on but LIVES.

You demean gays when you treat being gay as simply a "sex life".

[cynatnite]

55. That's not what I'm doing...

This is someone's personal life and to fuck with that, no matter what legislation they write or support, is just wrong. No matter how hypocritical they may be, no matter how much we may not like them or hate what they are doing...screwing with their persona life is not right.

To me, it's disgusting and is no better than the sleazy tabloids who like to make a few bucks off the misery and secrets of others. It's their personal life and not for public consumption.

[mondo joe]

62. It's the job of the press to inform the electorate, especially on

politically sensitive matters.

To me it's disgusting that you think the press should be keeping secrets for politicians.

[cynatnite]

67. It's not about keeping secrets...it's about people's private lives n/t

[mondo joe]

69. Of course it's about keeping secrets. If the press knows something

about a candidate, an appointee or nominee, and they know it is politically sensitive and they CHOOSE to not inform the electorate they are KEEPING A SECRET.

[cynatnite]

74. Keeping secrets and someone's personal life is two different things...

Just because I don't want the general public to know I had an abortion, for example, doesn't mean I'm keeping it a secret. It's a personal and private matter. People's private lives are just that...private and it doesn't necessarily equate into some big dark secret that someone is keeping away for the public good.

[mondo joe]

79. Please stop confusing yourself with an elected official, or

someone seeking election.

Thank you!

[cynatnite]

81. Oh, please

:eyes:

I provided an example you can't argue with.

[mondo joe]

88. To the contrary - your example is about yourself, a private citizen,

not someone seeking office.

And your example firthermore falls flat because medical treatment is protected information, even for those seeking or holding office.

Try to think of a better example - one that actually fits.

Thanks!

[cynatnite]

93. It's a private decision and not for public consumption...

private citizen or not. It has no bearing on anything else.

A person's private life has no bearing on the position they hold no matter what it is. Their qualifications and ability should by all rights take precedence. That's how I see it.

[mondo joe]

100. What's a private decision?

And the HYPOCRISY of it does have a great bearing.

I don't recall a voter's litmus test that limits voting to "qualifications and ability". We voters are free to choose our own criteria.

[cynatnite]

106. Of course voters are free to choose based on their own...

I have my own way of coming to a decision and others have theirs. Some poeple are one issue voters and others are not. It all varies with the individual. I may disagree with it or how they came to their conclusion, but who am I the hell to tell them otherwise?

A private decison is just that. I think it's pretty self-explanatory unless you feel you need more. Hypocrisy exists with a lot of people and it's one of those characteristics that drive me batshit crazy, but it's no excuse or justification for outing someone who does not want to be outed. It's their personal life and not your business, mine or anyone elses.

[mondo joe]

119. Well there we disagree - I think hypocrisy is worth considering

and by definition that means looking at how one lives.

[cynatnite]

122. I think hypocrisy is worth considering as well...

I just don't agree that fucking with their personal life makes us more right then them.

I'm okay with us disagreeing on this :) It's a good discussion and well worth having, IMO.

[mondo joe]

129. The press reporting within their power is not "fucking with" lives.

If it were, the press would be limited to ability and qualification.

It's not.

And the only wayto identify hypocrisy BY DEFINITION is to see how one lives one's own life.

[cynatnite]

135. When it comes to the private lives of people...

the press should keep a hands off policy. That's a type of utopian wish that will never happen.

Maybe I'm a purist or something, but the press should be reporting on what the public needs to know. Someone's sexual orientation does not fall into what the public needs to know, IMO.

What good would come out of making someone's private life open for public consumption? I think this is an important question that needs asking. No good comes out of it when it's being done because someone thinks they 'deserve' it.

[baby_mouse]

31. This is the bit I don't get

This is pandering to the homophobia, surely. If you allow them to lie to themselves about the value of what they are, surely this only damages them and damages those around them who buy into the lie.

[mondo joe]

33. I agree. And why is being gay a sacred cow? Why do we want

ANYTHING else reported on as a matter of the role of the press, but not this?

We know plenty about the families and histories of hetero politicians.

[baby_mouse]

41. I agree. I AM NOT A SACRED COW!

Nor any other sort, I might add.

[mondo joe]

50. Me too. My life is not a deep dark secret, and I resent that it

should be considered such for US politicians.

[cynatnite]

61. It should be a personal choice

whether or not someone wants to be out in the open about who they are. The general public should have no say whatsoever about someone's private life no matter who it is or how they choose to live it.

[mondo joe]

66. You make that personal choice when you enter politcs, just as

you know everything else about you is fair game from your health to your income to your biography.

[cynatnite]

68. And I think it's a tragedy...

someone's personal life should come under such scrutiny. That's not why I vote for them.

[mondo joe]

73. That's your choice. Other voters have other values - too bad you seek

to decide for them what they are free to consider.

[cynatnite]

80. People should consider the qualifications and ability...

not use the private lives of individuals to do it with.

[mondo joe]

85. Again, that's your criteria. I think hypocrisy is a major factor in

my consideration.

Please don't seek to limit MY values to suit yours.

Thank you!

[cynatnite]

91. I'm stating my opinion...that's all.

I can't control you or others who wish to stick their noses in the private lives of other people.

[mondo joe]

94. Well, thank goodness for that.

Of course the funny thing is you'd like to stick your nose into the business of how people choose to vote - a pretty private matter, IMO.

[cynatnite]

99. How do I do that? n/t

[cynatnite]

44. They have a choice on whether or not to out themselves...

It should be their choice whether we like them or not, agree with them or not or no matter how hypocritical they may be. They may be self-loathing when it comes to their homosexuality, but I don't see any benefit to outing someone who does not want to be outed other than to hurt and humiliate them. It's not something I could ever feel good about no matter how much I think they might deserve it.

[mondo joe]

47. The benefit: an informed electorate. n/t

[baby_mouse]

123. Where their decision making trumps mine

and allows the forces of society to align itself with or against my interests with no recourse for me other than ticking a box once every 4 years or so, their self-image is not as important to me as my partner's well-being following my death or my right to be recognised as being as capable of loving and committing to another as a married heterosexual male. And where their decision making runs counter to these interests (this is all hypothetical, I add hastily, I reside in the UK) based on an assumption regarding me and themselves which I know to be nonsense it is difficult for me to acknowledge their right to spread implicit disinformation about themselves AND me by omission. PARTICULARLY because of their position of power over the consequences of my orientation on MY private life. It ain't fair, guv. I have precious few arrows to knock these bozos over with and if they play for my team surreptitiously and pointing that out's a way to knock 'em over and get me and my dear man an extra couple of bob when we're 90, so be it. THEY'LL be just fine. Nobody stepped up for ME when I was outed at high school. Also, when I was temping, the offices I worked in would have expected me to tell them what my orientation was and were offended if I didn't, and rightly so. What right have I to slink around with foxy ways letting people think I'm one thing when I'm the other? It's rude. It's an insult to free-thinking people. Who am *I* to assume that folk around me are HOMOPHOBIC? And if they are, well whose job is it to correct them? Mine!

Politicians are not the same as a private individual, their personal lives reflect on their decisions because their decisions affect millions. This is ordinarily of no real consequence but it is significant in matters of sexual orientation precisely because they are *kept* so private. By avoiding disclosure of their orientation publically they give homosexuality an air of taboo which it does not merit. It is false and we should have no truck with it.

/4 cents :-)

Your turn...

[cynatnite]

142. This is about right to privacy...

People have the right, public and private citizens, to keep their lives private.

That's my two cents :)

[baby_mouse]

152. Sigh...

:)

I guess neither of us are going to budge, huh?

Living in *your* America would be *really* nice...

[Arkana]

39. I know--it happened with the Gannon story as well.

We were poking fun at the hypocrisy of the Pubelickers, not at the fact that Gannon was gay.

[Fleshdancer]

46. playing devil's advocate for just one moment:

If you are a public official, what is it about sexual orientation that allows you to misrepresent who you are? Would we grant the privacy to a public figure who, say, was secretly a woman but dressed and represented herself as a man? How about an Atheist who lied and said s/he was Baptist? We can consider all of these issues a matter of privacy, but are we willing to be lied to? Where do we draw the line on what an elected official can and can not lie to us about?

If we want society to learn that there is nothing wrong with being Gay, then why allow a public official to lie about his or her sexual orientation and why allow that person to pass legislation that hurts the equality of other homosexuals?

[Carni]

64. OK-Are we talking about Drier?

His own party thinks there is something *wrong with being gay*

I see nothing wrong with announcing that he's gay?

They are the one's with the problem with his orientation--I just think gay or straight that the man is an ass (and a hypocrite to boot)

I am not sure I understand your post.

[Mutley]

71. The only problem I see with outing is this:

The person being outed may not be ready to be outed.

A friend of mine is gay. Every one knew he was gay for years, except for him. Anytime someone implied or alluded to the fact that he was gay he would freak and nearly have a nervous breakdown. Then we lost touch. A year or so ago I ran into him again and guess what, he had come out as gay. He'd finally reached the point where he could face it, but when we were younger he couldn't handle it; wouldn't even admit it to himself.

[mondo joe]

75. Then that person shuold not have entered politics.

Once you enter into politics you accept risks about loss of privacy.

[jonnyblitz]

77. we aren't talking about outing in general. we are talking about

outing gay republican politicians who promote an anti gay agenda...

[Behind the Aegis]

109. Exactly!

If they are doing other crummy things, fine...we can jump all over it. BUT, if they are gay and standing up and preaching how gays are evil, then why should we suffer homophobia from one of our own? Roy Cohn is a prime example of what a self-loating queer can do to his community!

[slackmaster]

78. Those closeted politicians are mentally ill IMO

I have a strong personal ethic against exploiting or humilating sick people.

How can pointing out that someone is gay be a weapon if there's NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING GAY?

Someone who publicly opposes homosexuality but practices it in private is not gay. Gayness IMO is about a lot more than a subset of human sexual behaviors.

[CBGLuthier]

89. What if Kerry were gay?

Didn't John Kerry state he does not support gay marriage.

Would you have outed him right before the election?

Or Hillary Clinton. Does she support gay mariage. The rumors are out there, I don't lend them one shred of credence but what if they were true?

Or would you only out republicans?

Be honest.

If you would have outed them all, then your motives are pure, but if not then you are only wanting to out someone who you do not care for at in the first place.

And that would be wrong.

And not because of your weak argument that anti outing = homophobia but because it is nobody's business.

[mondo joe]

103. Nobody's business? How is who you are involved with nobody's

business?

I've seen plenty of threads about Newt's divorce, about Laura *'s vehicular homicide, about Rush's girlfriend....

You've got a lot of work to do teling people these things are nobody's business.

[cynatnite]

113. I personally see it as being no one's business...

but people enjoy juicy talk on the private lives of public people. I don't get it. :shrug:

Just because the other side does it, doesn't make us any more right for doing it.

[mondo joe]

131. "The other side"? Since when has interest in the family life

- you know, spouse and so on - of a candidate been a CONSERVATIVE trait?

[CBGLuthier]

114. Ok, let me put it this way

Who someone that you are not screwing screws is none of YOUR business.

Is that better.

And how the fuck did you drag Pickles into this discussion.

[mondo joe]

130. Knowing whom someone is involved with tells me nothing about

their sex life.

And how does Pickles fit into this? What does it matter to *'s qualifications what his wife did or didn't do? I thought you felt who he sleeps with is PRIVATE.

[northzax]

90. since sexual orientation is a feeling

ok, I can't come up with the right word, but there is no 'test' for orientation, no one can observe another human being and say "he's straight" "she's a lesbian" the only way to know, since we've defined it as more than simply sexual activities, is for that person to tell you, right? The only person who can actually know someone's sexual orientation or who they are attracted to is the person themself, right? so what sort of evidence do we require when announcing to the world someone else's sexual orientation?

[baby_mouse]

136. Photos, I'm afraid...

I know. It makes the whole thing *"look"* bad...

:eyes:

[northzax]

143. photos prove that someone engaged in an act

not in a feeling. There are plenty of gay people who are married to someone of the opposite sex, or have been, right? and plenty of straight people who have had a homosexual encounter, all it proves is an act.

There are pictures of me hugging and even kissing men, I have male friends I kiss hello and goodbye, just as I have female friends I kiss like that. you could take a photo of me kissing a man and out me for being gay?

sexuality is part of who you are, there are gay men who have never had sexual relations with another man, does that mean they aren't gay?

[baby_mouse]

150. omG

Definitions of homosexuality could take up entire textbooks, can we agree that gay people are people who are *primarily* sexually attracted to others of the same sex? That's the one that applies to me, anyhoo...

[northzax]

153. of course

my definition is, if you think you are gay, you are. if you think you are straight, you are. But there isn't much of a way for me to make such a comment about you, right? unless you tell me? that's my point, that outing someone is not acceptable because you can't know, unless someone tells you, what their sexual orientation is.

[baby_mouse]

168. ...or they've enjoyed the company of another who spills the beans...

... so to speak...

[julialnyc]

97. It is a complex issue for many reasons

Is this politician a self loather....... those can be very dangerous types. Did you see the movie with the kid who joined the neo-Nazi's but was hiding the fact that he was jewish? Or countless situations with gay people being beat up by people who go mental and thinking they are being hit on (has happened to my best friend) when really they are dealing with their own issues.

Or is the politician just an opportunist....one who has enough money to compensate for the rights he doesn't have because with the right amount of success he can buy any damn right he wants while having no empathy for the blatant bigotry going on to people who could be him...... but there's more power to accrue with the party who doesn't respect who he is, so he'll throw his loyalty there (and know he can't count on it coming back)


I don't know why someone would be an team player with a party who brainstorms ways to make his life worse.......money and power? running away from who you are? I don't know, but what I do know is that hypocrisy can be yelled out.....especially when other peoples lives suffer from it.

[mtnester]

107. I asked this question of my son

who, IMO, as a gay man, would be someone who has absolute right to have an opinion on this, more so than myself for sure, how he felt about this.

He said "It is BS that he hides behind his silence. It protects him, but it hurts me and my friends. His issues with self hate are one of the BIGGEST reasons that I am considered a freak, abnormal, and ungodly in my own country. His problem is not that he is gay, his problem is that he is afraid of it...but I cannot allow someone else's fear to become my own. If someone has to make him face his fears in order to save/protect others, then so be it. If he was not in the position he is in, I would say allow him the privacy. But, every decision he makes, as a gay man, which harms or tends to harm other gay individuals, precludes him from that privacy protection. He is not a private servant, he is a PUBLIC servant, and in choosing that path, he also has to chose to be true to who he is. If he cannot stand up for me as a human being, which is who we all are, then he deserves whatever comes down the pike."

I wrote this down verbatim, then cried, then wrote it down here.

I also have my own opinion on this, but I will let Francis Bacon say it better:

"The zeal which begins with hypocrisy must conclude in treachery; at first it deceives, at last it betrays" ~ Francis Bacon, Sr.

And then my sigline says it simplest.

[libnnc]

118. Okay TRY THIS ONE...

I just had a :think: moment...

I'd have no problem with Drier keeping the lid on his sexuality IF HE CONSISTENTLY VOTED FOR AND CHAMPIONED LGBT RIGHTS.

ITS NOT WHO HE IS ITS HOW HE VOTES

BECAUSE HOW HE VOTES HAS AN IMPACT ON MY LIFE

got it?

[cynatnite]

121. Sure, I get it...

and you see it being equal. I understand that, but I'll never agree with it. It's his private life and even if what he does has an impact on yours, it doesn't justify screwing with it in my eyes.

Who wants to be like them? That's how I see it.

[libnnc]

124. I had no idea...

that saints had access to the internet.

no really, that's great and all but you'd have a different opinion if you were gay--trust me.

[cynatnite]

127. You could be right...

I'm not gay, but I'm looking at this as a right to privacy that everyone's entitled to.

[northzax]

133. for the last time,

can someone please tell me how we all know that Drier is gay? he's never said it publically, that I know of, so how do you know?

unless you have some evidence of the fact, you are contributing to an anti-gay witch hunt.

if you have evidence, post it here. now. otherwise, how bout we stop outing people without real evidence? just because people 'know' he's gay, doesn't mean he is, right?

[baby_mouse]

134. Game, Set and Match, libnnc!

clapclapclap

:D

[jonnyblitz]

141. he isnt concerned about OUR privacy rights why should we

be concerned with HIS? not exactly rocket science. :thumbsup:

[cynatnite]

144. So we should be like them????

That's what the argument winds up boiling down to for some here. Because they did it first, we have the right to do it to them. It's childish and serves no real public good, IMO.

[libnnc]

146. I'm sorry. You don't have a damn thing at stake here in this argument.

It's not your life being used every 4 years as a political football. You've never been the victim of a hate crime. You've never been denied housing, medical care, or employment because of your sexual orientation. And you've never had the POTUS stand in front of TV cameras telling the nation that it will be his number one priority as commander and chief to make sure the Constitution gets changed, cementing your status as a second class citizen.

You don't have a horse in this race.

[cynatnite]

149. We all have a stake in this...this is about the right to privacy...

That's how I see this issue. I agree they do make gays second class citizens and that's obscenely wrong. But what does that make you or anyone else who retaliates by fucking with someone's private life?

There are far better ways and more potent ways than to sink down to their level.

[libnnc]

157. so do you plan on running for public office soon?

Because that's the only way you'll ever lose your privacy. Nobody cares what heteros do because you all enjoy cultural hegemony.

[cynatnite]

164. I would if it were truly possible, but it's not...

plus nobody'll in red E. TN will vote for the fat liberal chick with a big mouth. :)

My privacy is at risk as it is. So are my daughters'. If Roe V Wade is shot down, the rights for women to make private medical decisions about their reproduction is gone.

To me, it doesn't matter if it's gay or straight. If they think they can interfere in a gay relationship, what makes anyone think they won't stop at a straight one?

[libnnc]

170. "what makes anyone think they won't stop at a straight one?"

You're kidding, right?

When has it EVER NOT BEEN okay to be in a hetero relationship (inter-racial examples notwithstanding)?

When has the state EVER interferred with hetero relationships (excluding inter-racial examples).

Ergo the cultural hegemony I mentioned in my previous post.

[cynatnite]

174. I don't believe they would ever stop...

They could start limiting how many times people get married or divorced. They could make it harder for people to divorce. Women in abusive relationships would have a harder time getting out.

I don't doubt this one single bit. I had a judge tell me to my face, over 20 years ago, he wouldn't grant me a restraining order from my abusive husband, at the time, who I was trying to leave. He didn't believe in divorce.

My oldest daughter has two small children and the bum took off for parts unknown. Two workers from welfare told her it was her fault.

Some fundies do believe that any more than one marriage and the woman is committing adultery.

These are the times we live in. Don't tell me it's only gays. My personal experience tells me otherwise.

[jonnyblitz]

147. no..we should expose him so he can STOP doing damage to us

why should we be considerate of his privacy rights if he is DESTROYING ours by passing anti gay legislation? exposing this is NOT being like HIM unless we are passing laws causing harm to many. how can we BE like him unless we are closeted gay republican politicans also?

[cynatnite]

151. And what makes you think they will stop?

You don't think this would give others like them more ammunition with which to fight with?

You become like them by adopting the same tactics. Because they did it first, it some how gives you the right to do it back to them. Sorry, it's childish and serves no public good at all.

[jonnyblitz]

156. i guess we wont ever come to an agreement...

I am not as noble as you. I can't be polite if some hypocrite is fucking my whole communities life up just so i can claim superior moral high ground by not sinking to their level which i dont think it is.

[cynatnite]

158. I do understand the reasonings and respect them...

That's just how I see it. I don't think it's a matter of being noble or anything like that. We both see this as a fight to be who we are and to be accepted as equals with the same rights as everyone else.

I have no idea what it's like to be gay any more than I know what it's like being a man. I don't think my position would change if I was, but I'm not going to pretend that I really know the struggles. It does hurt me personally, because of friends I have, who aren't treated as equals as they should be.

I don't blame you or anyone else for your strong feelings on this given how much damage has been done for generations.

[jonnyblitz]

163. well that is cool...i don't know what your orientation is but

this has always been a huge argument in the gay community. i just get heated on this and a few other topics. :hi:

[cynatnite]

167. I'm a straight chick

:hi:

Equality among everyone should be something we all feel passionate about. I know I do. My RW mom and I got in a huge argument a while back about gay marriage. All she could say was 'it's wrong'. No elaboration other than gawd and the bible. I was going batshit :banghead:

[jonnyblitz]

172. though we might disagree on this one" particular" about outing..

I DO appreciate and notice your support on the privacy issue in general! that makes me feel glad and good and I don't take it lightly. :hug:

[cynatnite]

175. I think the right to privacy is a good dem issue...

I do take it very seriously and I'm glad you understand.

:hug: right back at ya' :)

[libnnc]

159. you said it better than I could

I'm too pissed off to make any sense.

[jonnyblitz]

161. oh i am fuming..

i dont think i am doing a good job at all. i cant believe i have to explain this. nothing against the people I am debating but i just want them to see what i feel is obvious..

[northzax]

171. this is why rage is not a good motivation

for action, even if, as in this case, the rage is completely justified and understandable. when people hurt you, or people you love, the immediate response is to want to hurt them back, with whatever ammunition you may have. it's understandable to want to use other people's tactics, but it doesn't make it right to do so.

[libnnc]

176. but don't you see that in this case (Drier)

this man is not in the private sphere?

Chances are, (I'd bet a great big hot-fudge Sundae on this) his family already knows, his friends already know, many of his constituents already know...the only people who don't know are the right wing lobbyists who give him $$$ for his campaigns. He makes money pandering to the radical right and in the meantime (as an added bonus), makes life hell for average lesbians and gays with his policies and punditry.

It's not personal. It's just business.

[northzax]

180. but doesn't every piece of anti-gay legislation

also apply to him? he can't get married, or get spousal benefits any more than my neighbor (also a federal employee) can. if he wants to act against his own best interests, isn't that his right?

and believe me, there are no secrets on capitol hill, the lobbyists, where the money comes from, know exactly who is gay, that's their job, they simply don't care.

he's not committing a crime, he's not doing anything unethical or immoral, so it stays private, in my book. exposing someone's personal life isn't business, by definition it is personal.

[libnnc]

187. He's rich. His boyfriend's SS benefits

aren't going to make or break him in 20 years. He's never had to worry about where he'll get his health insurance from. His boyfriend doesn't have to worry about it either since he's on Drier's (and the federal government's) payroll. This is as much a class thing as a gay rights thing. Drier is shielded from the real world so he can vote with "them that brung him" to Capitol Hill.

And the regular gay/lesbian Joes and Janes like me get screwed.

but we can't highlight the hypocrisy.

'cause that wouldn't be nice.:banghead:

[northzax]

190. so it's not a gay issue

it's a class issue (and yes, I support class warfare, take that Limpballs)

it's still not hypocrisy, since he is not engaged in any activity he is forbidding you from engaging in.

[libnnc]

192. but he votes against my interests

he votes against my interests

he votes against my interests

I have a feeling no matter how many times I type it

it still won't sink in.

it's both and economic issue and a right's issue

economic in that Drier takes gobs of $$ from RWers
and in order to stay in power he votes with them
AND because he has gobs of jack, he doesn't have to worry about his personal rights issues as they dovetail with economics

He's got $$ so he can "buy" his rights. He's not going to be dependent on his boyfriends SS.

I don't know how else I can explain this.

I give up.

[northzax]

196. he votes against MY interest as well

and the best interests of the United States, hell the entire fucking world. Still, doesn't make his personal life, between consenting adults, fair game, in my book. If you can't make your case against him based on his record, then he wins.

If being gay or straight was a choice, then you could reasonably make an issue of it. But it's not, is it? it's in his nature and legal, ethical, moral and consensual, therefore not fair game. if he was promiscuous, while condemming promiscuity, that's hypocrisy and fair game. I can't seem to find one single place where he has ever stated anything about homosexuality as being wrong in any way. If you can provide a link where he says something like "gay people are evil" then you have hypocrisy. But I don't think he ever has.

now, if Jerry Falwell, someone who's made a living out of gaybashing had a gay affair, that's fair game, it's central to his public persona. Or even George Bush, who's opinions on the matter are public. I don't think Drier has ever addressed the issue. His voting record, while distasteful to you and me, is not inconsistent with his lifestyle, as far as I know.

[dsc]

211. So if he publicly criticised Lawerence when it came down

then is he fair game? Lawerence is the decision which struck down sodomy laws.

[northzax]

214. he should be criticised for being an idiot

certainly . you can, however, hold the belief that this is an issue that should be resolved at the State level, and therefore having the federal government overrule a state on this type of law is incorrect. I don't share that view, he might.

if he criticised Lawrence v. Texas saying "all them dirty fags need to stop whining about this, it's drity, immoral and wrong to be gay, and deep down, they all know it" (something I imagine Tom Delay might say) then the fact that he's gay is fair game.

[baby_mouse]

199. garg, fetches cognitive tweezers...and kinda RANTS...

also apply to him? he can't get married, or get spousal benefits any more than my neighbor (also a federal employee) can.

Why does that make outing him bad? Just because he oppresses himself I have to respect his self-loathing and all the consequences of it on myself? (hypothetical - I am UK based)

if he wants to act against his own best interests, isn't that his right?

Well, yes, but by that logic we have a right to act against OUR best interests by sinking to the RWs level of tactics... GAAAARRRG are you sure that piece of thinking is relevant?

and believe me, there are no secrets on capitol hill, the lobbyists, where the money comes from, know exactly who is gay, that's their job, they simply don't care.

Well they don't have to, gay people do. It's relevant to gay people because his political decisions will affect their rights!

he's not committing a crime, he's not doing anything unethical or immoral, so it stays private, in my book. exposing someone's personal life isn't business, by definition it is personal.

He IS doing something unethical, he's pretending to be something he isn't (hypothetical) for the sake of the image that projects, an image that bolsters a position he takes against homosexuals! He's lying about himself through omission to cause significant levels of inequality to an undeserving portion of the population for political capital. That's unethical.

The Straight Man is a political construct as well as the Gay Man. These constructs are bought into consciously and publically when you enter public life. They have meanings to the public and adopting one or the other is a positive position, particularly if one is a republican.

I guess my position is that politicians don't deserve privacy because they have the power to affect OUR private lives. So if they're projecting a public image connected to a publically perceived system of values that is

1. A false image
2. Contrived to bring detriments to MY welfare
3. Perpetuating a false understanding of the OPPOSITE of the false image

How can I be expected to protect them at my own expense??? Because they're GAY? SO WHAT?

WHAT's the damn big deal?

THEY are the ones making the big deal out of what WE do with our naughty bits, not us! They are the ones that legislate against the things that they do themselves without admitting to it!

They have set up this big non-issue, and they've been doing it for centuries, I should point out, and then when we call them on playing for both teams, WE'RE sinking to THEIR level?

The whole reason homosexuality is this big taboo weird thing in the first place is because of THEM.

They get to tell everybody that we're weirdos that can't love properly and when it turns out not only that it isn't that weird and the part about loving is a lie but also *they* are the weirdos *too* we're not allowed to say so because.... it's PRIVATE?

WHY is it private?

One might WANT privacy if one were gay and unsure about how to handle it, but the only reason one would NEED privacy regarding such if one were a gay republican would be if one wished to cover up ones hypocrisy about passing anti-gay legislation!

Respecting their privacy affects the right to privacy of ordinary gay people, do you see? Republicans pass legislation that takes effect in hospital rooms where lifelong partners are cast from the bedsides of their loved ones to make room for other people who may not even have MET the patient for YEARS because gay people haven't the automatic right to next of kin status!

This sort of thing is possible because the hypocrisy of gay republicans is not brought to light, the better to invalidate the false image of "normality" that they project... that there is only one kind of family.

If the basic right to privacy is simply unassailable morally, they have no right whatsoever to pass any legislation regarding homosexuality at all. If THAT's the root of your position, I agree.

But I don't think we're going to get that extension of the basic right to privacy for US by extending it to THEM, all it does is enable them to project an image that legitimises their bogus non-issue, an unwillingness to extend the same right to privacy regarding issues of love to people not encapsulated in their "normalcy" image.

CONCEPT: If sexual orientation is private, then it's private WHETHER YOU'RE OUT OR NOT. That means if they are allowed to pretend to be straight then we should be allowed to "pretend" to love each other.

If what he does in his bed is no business of mine, then what *I* do in MINE is NO BUSINESS OF HIS. I don't CARE if we're brothers on the Great Carousel of the Friends of Dorothy.

To be clear: To them, our lives are NOT personal. Where they intersect with Statute they are public and subject to the Rule of Law. Courts are public institutions.

Respecting their privacy perpetuates THEIR invasion of OUR privacy...

:rant:

pant pant pant....

Okay, I think I burned out there, and may have gone overboard... Feel free to ignore some of the caps I'm thinking as a type here and a lot of this might be bollocks...

[northzax]

200. love the rant icon

and the anger is perfectly understandable. my basic point is that WE are right, not them. If we can't make that case in the public square, then outing someone does no good whatsoever, save from a vindictive standpoint. The wingnuts resort to personal issues because, on the merits, they can't win. we can.

[libnnc]

201. Wow. You're brilliant. Thank you for that...

Beautifully executed and spot-on rant.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

wish I could have said that

[jonnyblitz]

181. i am beginning to understand your side more as i think about it.

i admit i do get filled with rage..you are right about that.

[cynatnite]

183. Rage works to get me active more...

When I'm enraged, I do far more and feel more passion which gets my butt in gear. I'm on the phone, writing letters, and more or less making sure as many people know why I'm enraged. :)

[jonnyblitz]

185. i dont channel mine as productively...i need to work on that

rather than yell at people who are really my allies. I admit, i don't mind sinking to their level to get at them if that is what it is I am doing. i have gotten to that point.

[northzax]

189. the rage is reasonable

it'd be a little strange for you not to be filled with rage at these assholes. ok, a lot strange. :) but if all we all do is rail furiously at the sky, we'd be freepers, and I like to think we are slightly more intelligently designed than those little buggers. and I'm pretty sure you're better than a simple bomb thrower. We just need to find the right way to channel all this rage into getting rid of these rat-fuckers in a constructive and grown-up manner.

then, if that doesn't work, we play dirty! :)

[baby_mouse]

186. We're not really using their tactics

They smear, we OUT.

It isn't really the same thing...

This was my original point/question...

[jonnyblitz]

188. it's an interesting discussion...

:thumbsup:

[baby_mouse]

202. That it is.

In my head I have it nailed, but I think we're reaching bedrock belief here on all sides. I have just run out of juice further down the thread.... pant pant pant...

One of the most difficult discussions to have is right versus right...

[Nye Bevan]

120. The use of the word "outing"...

accepts the premise that someone's homosexuality is a dirty little secret. My opinion of anybody (and the likelihood of me voting for them, if they are a political candidate) is no more affected by their sexual orientation than by their favorite food or their hair color, and I suspect that most members of this community would share this view.

So the controversy about "outing" people arises because there are a significant number of homophobes in this country. Disclosing a politician's homosexuality might cause him to lose the votes of most of these bigots. The question is: should this information be kept secret, so that the bigots will still vote for this person? I don't think so. What if a white politician is married to a black woman-- should everyone keep this a secret so he doesn't lose the votes of racists? How about a politician who wants to keep his Judaism under wraps so anti-Semites will still vote for him? I believe that most of the media wouldn't think twice about disclosure in either of these cases-- so why the agonizing about disclosing that someone is gay? Perhaps there are more homophobic bigots than racist or anti-semitic bigots, but I don't think we should pander to them by treating homosexuality as a shameful secret.

[cynatnite]

126. I agree to an extent...

You are right that this does treat homosexuality as a shameful secret. It should be openly accepted in society and the tragedy is, it's not. This is one of those things that will take time and right now it feels like it is moving at a snail's pace if even that fast.

Either way, these people who refuse to acknowledge their homosexuality whether it's for votes or other reasons should not be forced into it by those who see their hypocrisy. It's still their private life, IMO, and they should have the choice. It doesn't make us more right than they are and I don't want to be like them in any way.

[Nye Bevan]

137. To get society to fully accept homosexuality

we should treat it as something unremarkable and not particularly interesting.

I am not going to act like I figured out the JFK assassination if I find out that someone is gay. But neither am I going to go to great lengths to keep secrets about someone so that bigots will still like them.

[cynatnite]

139. It would depend on the reasons why they stay in the closet, though

We don't know why some of them do. We can only speculate.

[northzax]

154. what if they ask you to?

would you honor their request?

[cynatnite]

160. Ask me to what? Could you clarify? n/t

[northzax]

162. ask you to keep it a secret

for whatever reason.

[cynatnite]

169. Sure. I had a friend in high school who swore me to secrecy...

He was seeing a college guy in the next town over and I saw them together. I never told a soul. He was a good friend.

[northzax]

173. I thought so

don't you think then, that anyone who hasn't made a public announcement about their sexual orientation, or expressly given you permission to discuss it, is, in essence, implicitly asking for it to be private?

an announcement isn't a press conference, obviously, a co-worker with a picture of their partner on their desk, or someone who openly discusses it, whether straight or gay, is making it public knowledge. but without some sort of public knowledge, isn't the default for privacy?

[cynatnite]

179. Yeah, if they haven't given permission, I agree...

It's really hard to say and it depends on the people involved. I do think if there is respect for the person who doesn't openly discuss their partner or their sexual orientation then it wouldn't become public knowledge.

To me, it's private unless told otherwise.

When I worked in the medical field in the military and civilian life, one of the rules that was ingrained in us was not to discuss patients with ANYONE outside of the workplace. Even in the workplace, the discussion was limited to those who were directly involved.

In the military, we handled a lot of very high ranking officers' medical care and that knowledge could NOT in any way be discussed at all, not just for privacy reasons, but also because of national security. They took it very seriously and I guess I just carried it with me since then.

I don't care to discuss people's private lives with others unless it directly involves them. It's just not something I do.

[Nye Bevan]

191. Sure

I would be amazed to ever encounter such a request in my social circle, but if someone asked me to keep secret their gayness, their ancestry, their religion, or the fact that they drive a blue car, I would. It doesn't make a difference to me.

[northzax]

198. I figured, I only ask

because above you said you wouldn't go to great lengths simply so that bigots would like them. I wanted to clarify that. where I come from, if someone doesn't discuss something publically, then it's not kosher for others to do so.

[Sparkman]

195. ALL is not fair in love & war, if you're moral/ethical? Do unto others...

as you would have them do unto you.
We shouldn't murder/execute a murderer, but punish or issolate them from society to protect society.
When you let the "enemy" (say Repubs) define you by "forcing" your hand into "retaliation", they have power over you that you give them.
Taking the morally and conscienctious avenue ALWAYS allows us to preserve our sanctity, and continue to decry the enemies actions as wrong.
What is to be gained by calling a secret gay person "gay", it won't stop them from denying or ignoring the claim and so nothing is gained?
A cop shouldn't kill a killer except to defend others as the LAST RESORT, because killing is wrong. imo

[baby_mouse]

210. and back to the start of the thread...

A cop shouldn't kill a killer except to defend others as the LAST RESORT, because killing is wrong. imo

Killing is wrong. Homosexuality ISN'T. And if homosexuality isn't how can outing someone be?

round and round and round...

[BigMcLargehuge]

165. I am not sure... take Bill Bennet's breast reduction surgery

there's nothing wrong with it on the surface, but he's such a hypocrite that pointing out to watch him squirm is worth it I think.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

166. I heard it was a double.

[Sparkman]

178. Hav'g a prosthetic should be secret if one choses. Sexual choice should 2.

"OUTING" is not silly in a culture that will deny jobs to political activists and deny rights and bash people for sexuality choices.

[butchcjg]

182. it IS a weapon

Outing certainly IS a weapon...

Because though there's nothing inherently wrong with being gay, THIS society thinks that there is... and thus, you "pay" for it.

In many states you can lose your job for being gay
Your kids for being gay
(Your kid can be kicked outta school!)
You can be beaten for being gay
and on and on.

[bertha katzenengel]

193. Some people have very good reasons for staying in.

Those reasons are obviously subjective, but that does not give me the right to out someone.

I have no problem pointing out hypocrisy. Except in this case. The problems surrounding closeted gays are the reasons they're closeted. Outing can lead to murder and suicide, and you have to realize that this isn't hyperbole.

There's MY two cents.

[Nye Bevan]

194. So I just realized... all this is about some repuke being supposedly gay?

Who cares?

Aren't there enough issues we can be attacking the repugs over without investigating their sexual orientations?

[Sparkman]

197. or SINKING to name calling and gay Bashing (even if for a good reason)?

[baby_mouse]

204. I am gay.

Did I just bash myself? Did I just call myself a rude name?

[Sparkman]

205. You may be public and Drier is not. Publicity may mean more to him so...

if he's affected a lot more by declaring then there's a much bigger ramification and more harm done by the bashing, no matter WHO inflicts it. AND, wait a minute please, it the result of publicizing causes harm to Drier, then it's bashing.
You can't bash yourself if you choose to declare, but you can bash another if they suffer from the action? please respond?

[ruggerson]

206. Drier chose to run for public office

and to have power over public policy decisions which affect gays and straights. He chose to be in the spotlight.

I'm different minded than a lot of folks here: I think clinging to antiquated notions about "outing" just perpetuates homophobia. There is nothing wrong with being gay, hence the concept of "outing" caters to the people who think there is.

If one lives in a world where gay people and straight are fully equivalent, then talking about another individual's family life (whether one is married to an opposite sex partner or a same sex one) should not be anything with negative connotations.

We routinely talk about the wives and husbands of heterosexual people in the news. Why are gay people exempted from being treated equally in that regard?

[Sparkman]

208. Bigotry is harmful, its prevalent. We judge him&say our bigotrys justified

Since the U.S. is still hostile for gay expression in many instances, unlike some scandanavian and some european countries, declaring must remain personal choice to avoid exposure to job/family descrimination, stress and bashing. imo

[baby_mouse]

207. Ah, it is bed-time...

But it is this:

You speak of him as one whose harm we must avoid. He aligns himself with those who would curtail the rights of homosexuals, this harms them. Why then should they avoid harming him?

In protecting him they allow harm to come to themselves for nought. I care nothing for Drier. If what he does in bed is his own business then what I do in mine is mine.

Leave him his privacy if he will leave us ours by forgetting the anti-gay legislation of his party and walking away from it. Otherwise his hypocrisy is permitted to legitimise the spiritual degradation of gay men and women.

We should not be made to suffer the degradations he heaps upon himself...

[baby_mouse]

203. Well, yes.

I was just curious... :-) Ho hum. Plenty of OTHER threads to play in, a'course...

[meow2u3]

209. Outing has little to do with homophobia

and much to do with invasion of privacy, public disclosure of private facts, and the element of shock on the part of loved ones, especially an innocent spouse (if married).

In some states, one can be sued for outing someone on the grounds of public disclosure of private facts if the allegation is true, and slander/libel if the outing is false.

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.