On the Subject of Outing

[mondo joe]

I'm personally strongly pro-outing of closeted public figures who advance an anti-gay agenda.

I don't think almost any straight people can have the same understanding of outing as gay people, so I was hoping to provoke some gay conversation on the topic here.

One of the things about being out is that people typically come out in stages - to friends, to other gays, to family, to extended family, to work and so on. And my take is that people usually stop somewhere along the way - we don't call anyone we ever knew to say HEY I'M GAY. We don't sign a press release authorizing everyone to announce it.

So I'm thinking, if you see someone at a gay bar - or if you meet someone at a party and he introduces you to his boyfriend - what more authorization do you need before you can mention it to someone else? What authority do you need before you can say it to the press?

Do you know what I'm talking about -- there's that sort of unspoken agreement "I won't tell, you won't tell". But I never signed on to that agreement. I never agreed to confidentiality.

So as far as I'm concerned, if you're a GOP senator and I see you out socializing with your boyfriend, are cruising a gay bar, I have ever right to tell anyone I see fit.

What do you all think?

[Deja Q]

1. If they actively seek same-sex buddies while denouncing gay 'agendas'...

then out them.

It's as simple as that.

Otherwise it's hypocritical; in which case they have no right to argue.

To say the very least.

[LiberalArkie]

2. I personally do not think that whether someone that you meet is gay,

straight, black, white, purple, hemphrodite, space alien is anyone elses business. Now saying I saw George Bush with his new boyfriend I think is alright. But to come right out and say KARL ROVE is GAY, is wrong. But maybe saying I saw Karl with his boyfriend is different.

[dsc]

3. I would expect some discression

For example, I am a teacher if I went to the local gay bar and saw another teacher at my school I would expect that he would not mention that and I wouldn't either. I guess I think of it like AA. I would never mention knowing a person from AA due to not wanting to break tradition.

[mondo joe]

5. Good analogy - it IS like AA, in practice.

And that is exactly what I'm questioning.

[dsc]

6. As long as we can be fired from our jobs

for being gay I don't see it not being this way. I don't think I would be fired but I don't know I wouldn't.

[mondo joe]

7. Here's what I think:

As regards ordinary people, I can't think of any reason I'd "out" someone, and I can think of many reasons why I wouldn't. Just the same, I think once you leave your home you take a chance that the things you do may be seen and shared. In effect, you opt to depend on the discretion of strangers.

As regards public figures, all bets are off.

[dsc]

8. I understand that

I moved districts in no small part because I want to be open with my coworkers. I don't know about students as that is a different thing entirely.

[DURHAM D]

4. What I have always lived by and asked others to live by is:

If I tell a straight friend I ask that friend not to share the info with other straight folk. It is my info - not theirs to share. Also, if they meet my friends don't assume they are gay.

If a straight friend asks me about someone else I always ask them to address it directly to the person in question.

If a gay friend does not want other gay folk to know they are gay I always tell them other gay folk are "not the enemy".

What I would stress to you is that your information is your information to share - other people's information is not yours to share.

One of the problems with general outing is that someone you personally might judge to be safe with info may turn out to be the last person in the world that should have info about a third person.

Just for the record - because everyone assumes I am straight I out myself all of the time. I think its funny to watch their reaction.

Now, about closeted homophobic homosexual politicans - out the mother-fuckers.

[Christian30]

9. I'm against randomly outing regular folk

but very pro outing any fag or dyke that's making a living selling their brothers and sisters down the river.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

10. I agree with outing public figures who advance an anti-gay agenda

In any other respect, outing someone is deeply malicious and is likely harmful to the person particularly depending on the environment in which they live. People have a right to control who knows about their legal private matters; but in the case of GOP sell-outs I say out them.

[Democrats_win]

11. It's a mixed bag. Outing may hurt us cuz it implies something bad about

being gay. It's a subtle trap. Gays enjoy being themselves so outing these politicians may be helping them be themselves which is a good thing.

In this case, however, it's not just that these gays are anti-gay. It's that they support a government of mass murderers and thugs. In that case, it's our duty to make this sacrifice and weaken their party by outing them. Let the outing continue and the maddnes of King George end!