Let's discuss the morality of outing in the closet gay men and women

[cally]

I know DU has had many flamefests over this but I need to be reminded why it's a bad idea to out gay men and women who are Republicans. I'm seeing this Foley scandal turn into a tirade against gay men and women. The latest NYT article implies that somehow evangelicals are saying it's Dems fault for promoting acceptance of gays and lesbians. My first response is to just out all the Repug hypocrites but I know that it will start a backlash against gay men and women. So how do we respond to the gay bashing by the religious right and the repug enablers? How should we decide whether to out anyone?

[Midlodemocrat]

1. I don't think we should out anyone who isn't a public figure and who

hasn't proven themselves to be a hypocrite regarding the issue of gay rights.

[DURHAM D]

3. 100% agree. n/t

[cally]

6. How do you define hypocrite on this issue?

I mostly agree but I find it difficult to define the moral boundaries.

[Midlodemocrat]

8. Well, in an obvious way.

If say, Rick Santorum was a closeted homosexual, I would feel it would be okay to out him based on the crude and ridiculous statements he has made about gay rights and gay marriage.

I have no problem 'outing' anyone here in my own life who is being a hypocrite either. If you are carrying on a torrid affair behind your husband's back and touting your 'Godliness' to all who will listen, you're going down.

[NNN0LHI]

90. But who are we to decide?

What happens if a straight guy gets "outed" by accident and his life is ruined nonetheless?

I have some concerns about this.

But I see your point too.

I am torn on this issue.

Don

[Irreverend IX]

30. What about staffers?

Many top RW publicists, campaign managers and other staffers are gay, and they have enabled the GOP's attacks on gay rights. I don't think outing is just okay for public figures--if you work for the GOP political machine in any capacity, you're fair game. These bastards need to go down.

[cally]

38. Agreed...nt

[Midlodemocrat]

42. I agree. It's the hypocrisy more than the sexuality.

[WillyT]

2. Out ALL Hypocrites In Positions Of Power... EVERYWHERE !!!

Just ta start things off.

:shrug:

[LostinVA]

106. Yup -- if they tout "Christian values" but sleep around -- OUT THEM

[bryant69]

4. This is a contentious subject

You can get flamed for suggesting people might choose to out themselves.

There was an article at Salon on this subject the other day. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/10/07/gay_politicians/

" The decision to come out is personal. So is the decision to run for office. Why should the second choice be privileged over the first? Why should homosexuality be privileged over heterosexuality? Why should a same-sex partner (Foley has apparently had one for many years) be any less a subject of discussion than a wife or husband?

The answer is as dismaying as it is obvious. Some 33 years after the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses, our mainstream media persist in believing that something unnatural, something embarrassing, something other adheres to the condition of being gay. Or else -- and here I'm bending over as far backward as I can go -- they believe that equating a gay relationship with a straight relationship is simply too controversial a statement to make in the pages of a major metropolitan newspaper or over the airwaves of a major commercial network.

They are wrong. Worse, they are patronizing. An America that, by and large, accepts gay musicians, gay actors, gay authors, gay talk-show hostesses, the gay children of politicians and even the occasional gay politician can be trusted, I believe, not to blanch at the prospect of one more. And if, in fact, a candidate's sexuality proves to be a deal-breaker for voters, then let the deal be broken. Better to be shown the door than smuggled through under a cloud of pretense."

I don't have any strong opinion either way on this - I see some wisdom on gay politicians choosing to be openly gay, that seems to be the better choice (absent other considerations), but outing people who don't wnat to be outed rubs me the wrong way.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ContraBass Black]

5. Because a person's sexuality is only the business of that person

And those that person chooses to share it with.

[Midlodemocrat]

7. I struggle with that. On one hand I agree with you, but

on the other, I feel if a person is a public figure and has taken a stand against gay rights, they are fair game.

I feel the same about people who vocally oppose abortion, yet would rush their daughter to the clinic or had one themselves.

It is a difficult subject. One's sexuality shouldn't be anyone else's business.

[cally]

10. Even if the public office holder or staff person advocates

against gays or lesbians when others know they are homosexual. I'm just tired of allowing them to remain in the closet, promoting hate, while living a life that the liberals have provided. Our tolerance enables them with living a dual life. I don't know what the answer is but I'm angry about all of this.

[we can do it]

67. I Have To Agree with You On This - and Include Those Damn TeleEvanaglists

flaming assholes......

[davidinalameda]

52. wrong

if a person is actively hurting the gay community while they're back in the closet with the moth balls, I say kick down the door

[guinivere]

93. I agree. Someone's sexuality is their business alone.

To me, outing people is wrong. When they are ready, they can out themselves.

I don't think that outing people will advance gay rights. People that are against gay marriage and partner health insurance and such will still be against gay rights. Outing people isn't going to change minds. If anything, it may anger a lot of gay people. It has the potential to turn into a witch hunt.

The hypocrisy is a big issue. But those persons that are gay and have voted against their community have to live with themselves. And maybe with a very disgusted SO, friends, relatives etc.

[LostinVA]

107. They make it everyone's business when they attack someone else's orientati

When they demonize them, when they strive to take away our civil rights. They lose any moral high ground then, and they also lose ANY passes people may have given them.

I am so tired of having my rights used as a political punching bag.

OUT THEM.

[JuniperLea]

9. I think outing is ALWAYS a bad thing

It's like pointing the finger and saying, neener neener, you're gay! Like it's a bad thing. And the "bad thing" feeling grows and grows and then people get the idea that it's a good thing to use a person's sexuality against them.

But hey, I'm a straight woman... what the hell do I know... :sarcasm: Sorry, I've had this argument before and was put down and told I didn't know shit about it because I'm a straight woman. Bullshit.

I have a soft spot in my heart for gay people. For about 10 years, until they both died of AIDS, my bosses and my very best friends in the whole world were gay. I feel like I need to carry the torch for them whenever I can. They were brilliant men with giant hearts of gold.

[Midlodemocrat]

12. Part of me thinks if we outed all the hypocrites

Gay rights would be a given.

[JuniperLea]

24. But can you separate the hypocritical aspect from the gay aspect

People have the right to be gay and be quiet about it. Just like people have the right to be a sexual being and be quiet about it.

There were many clients that would have taken their business elsewhere had they known my bosses were gay. There may be "good" gay Republicans... hard to imagine any self-respecting gay person being a Repub, but hey, I don't know them all and I don't know what's in their minds.

I would rather not see a person's sexuality used as a weapon.

[Midlodemocrat]

26. I think the hypocrisy is a bigger issue than their sexuality.

I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep over 'outing'a pro-life/anti-choice republican who took his 14yo daughter to the clinic for an abortion. I know the child would probably be affected as well, but sins of the father and all that.

The hypocritical stuff coming from the RW just astonishes me. During the last election so many people here were going on and on about Bush and how "Godly" he was and how Kerry was sinful because he is pro-choice and these were all people who had had abortions back in college.

Still not quite over it.

[mondo joe]

69. If people want to be quiet about their lives, they are well advised

to not get into politics.

Everyone in politics has things they'd rather keep secret.

This is no different.

[JuniperLea]

102. Oh, it is very different

Being gay is not against the law. Being gay is not wrong and it should not be used in that light. If someone is a thief, out them for that. If they cheat on their taxes, go for the jugular. We have so few privacy rights left in this country and this could fan the flames in many areas. The recent linking of homosexuality to pedophilia, which is a horrific joke, is doing enough harm.

[mondo joe]

104. To the contrary: many secrets are not illegal.

Newt Gingrich's divorce and its circumstances were not illegal.

Neither was Bill Bennett's gambling.

If GW Bush downs a bottle of vodka every day it's not illegal.

I don't know which privacy right you think requires the press to be complicit in keeping secrets.

[JuniperLea]

118. None of those areas have a mass quantity of people

Who are trying to hang onto basic civil rights either!

However you want to slice it, if you make it bad to be gay you are playing with fire and the lives of millions of people.

It's not bad to be gay! There is nothing wrong with being gay! To use it against someone is to say it is wrong to be gay... that sets the whole movement back decades. I have too many friends who have worked far too long to see that happen. It's just plain wrong.

There must be another way.

[LostinVA]

108. I think that, too

[cally]

15. I'm not sure if we'll win rights for gays and lesbians until

we out all the hypocrites. It's why I raised the question. My inclination is just to out everyone who opposes civil rights so :shrug:

[JuniperLea]

25. That gives people the ok to use sexuality as a weapon

I'm against that, period. Let the self-righteous righties do it if they want, but I don't see anything good coming from this practice.

[cally]

27. OK, I mostly agree. So how should Dems counter the argument

that somehow we're to blame for the predator Foley? How do we turn the debate and just give notice to the hypocrits that we will not allow our own to be trashed without retribution? I know I stated my own opinion in that question.

[JuniperLea]

45. That argument is a straw man

They are grasping. There is no logical reason why Dems should be at fault for his actions. It appears many in both Dem and Repub circles sat on the information and should have pushed harder to stop this predator.

[Time for change]

40. Not using sexuality as a weapon

But why is it wrong to point out the hypocrisy of legislators who are involved in passing a legislative agenda that is bad for people?

We elect these people to serve the public. If they fail to do so and if we catch them in a blatantly hypocritical stance why shouldn't we point that out?

[JuniperLea]

43. I see it like the torture issue

If you give someone the ok to out gays, then it's ok for everyone to do it.

I wonder who benefits in these cases. Is it money? Are these gay moles?

[Time for change]

76. Suppose that Pat Robertson was elected president of the U.S.

And let's say that he has a virulently anti-gay agenda and includes anti-gay rhetoric in his speeches regularly.

How do you think that gays in our country would feel about that, especially if his anti-gay agenda rubbed off on much of the population and began to result in loss of civil rights, etc.?

Then let's say that you accidentally became aware that he was gay. Wouldn't it be worth making that information known? It would certainly cut the feet from under his poisonous agenda.

[mondo joe]

80. Strom Thurmond is a good case in point.

While he was busy being a segregationist asshole, he was secretly father to a biracial daughter.

Would it have been right to out him?

I think so.

[JuniperLea]

I don't think that's the same thing

A lot of people put up the face of anti-the-thing-they-really-are. I've always said that many of the anti-gay Fundies are gay and are denying who God made them.

My point is, outing gays feels like more anti-gay rhetoric. There is nothing wrong with being gay, and when you use it as a negative it just feels wrong.

[mondo joe]

103. Whether it's a negative or not is in the eye of the beholder.

It's the job ofthe press to inform.

It's the job of the electorate to decide.

[JuniperLea]

116. If it were all so simple, the term "spin" would not exist eom

[JuniperLea]

97. Outing gays feels like anti-gay rhetoric to me eom

[mondo joe]

99. So do you object to revealing anything about a candidate they

would rather keep secret?

[JuniperLea]

100. No

I just feel that using a person's sexuality in a negative way sets back the rest of the gay population. They have had a rough enough time in society without homosexuality being used as a negative against someone.

[mondo joe]

101. How do you square that with the idea of a free press,

public scrutiny and the right of the electorate to nkow about their representatives?

[JuniperLea]

117. Sexual orientation should not be a concern to anyone

nor should religion, race, color or creed.

Anyone can do a great job in public office regardless of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with a person's ability to do a job.

[SteppingRazor]

11. It is sometimes OK to out a gay politician, IMHO

If that gay person votes for an anti-gay agenda, then outing them doesn't just reveal their homosexuality -- it reveals their unbridled hypocrisy.

[Midlodemocrat]

14. That's how I feel. It's more an issue of hypocrisy.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

65. This total queer agrees with everything you've said on this thread. nt

[Ian David]

13. Gay Republicans are complicit in the genocide of their own people

I can't think of anything that would be out-of-bounds to do to them.

I'd make an exception for openly-gay Republicans who have scores over 70% from The Human Rights Campaign.

[cally]

21. Who is that? If it wouldn't harm them by posting a link then

we should give them a pass.

[liberalmuse]

16. Pedophiles and pederasts, yes, homosexuals, NO!

What two consenting adults do is their business. The only time to out a homosexual is if this person is a hypocrite and is persecuting other homosexuals via policy (Roy Cohn or other morally bombastic Republicans come to mind). I have no problem outing those who prey upon the underage or subordinates in the work place.

[walldude]

17. Why do you feel it's "our" decision on whether to out someone?

It's none of my business who you or anyone else sleeps with. Granted a gay republican is kind of an oxymoron, but a persons sexual preferences should be their own business and it should be up to them whether or not they want to make those preferences public. Stupid people come in all sizes, shapes, colors and sexual preferences. If a gay man or woman wants to belong to a political party that goes against their own best interest, who are we to stop them? Ask yourself this: If a Republican outed a Democrat for political purposes would you think it was wrong?

[cally]

22. I don't agree for public figures

If you're advocating against gays and lesbians and you are gay or lesbian then I think it's all of our problem. You are working towards enacting laws that you will not follow. We need to know because it hurts all of the progressive community when we enable the hypocrisy.

[walldude]

34. This is a tough call no doubt,

and I can agree that if someone like Santorum turned out to be gay then yeah drag him out in the open. But where do you draw the line? I mean how many gay republicans are there that are vehemently anti-gay in public?

[cally]

58. I absolutely have no clue

I just don't pay much attention to the rumors on this. I think it may be more than most of us expect.

[Garbo 2004]

92. What about Santorum's staff? Like his director of communications?

A shill for "man on dog" Santorum?

[warrens]

18. It's the hypocrisy

And by definition, closeted Repukes are hypocrites, because whatever their personal beliefs, they are promoting hatred of gays as members of a party that detests them. They're really stupid and/or arrogant too (see Foley, Mark, for the deadly an/or combo), but that's a different argument.

[WolverineDG]

19. It's no one's business

If someone doesn't want to "out" themselves, it's their business, not mine.

dg

[cally]

23. What happens when they got elected because the Repugs put

an anti-Gay initiative on the ballot and it brought out the anti-Gay vote? I could try to be moral but I doubt I would argue against outing them. :shrug:

[WolverineDG]

50. I had someone "out" another person

behind his back, thinking I was some sort of uptight, broostick-up-the-ass person who'd turn around & get him fired. Well, someone got fired & it wasn't the person who was outed. Pissed me off to no end when it happened. Yes, I understand the hypocrisy, but I can't sign on to outing someone who is still in the closet.

dg

[cally]

59. Yeah, I think we need to define the boundaries.

It's not outing but outing the hypocrisy. It's different for those in public positions. IMHO.

[mondo joe]

70. Why? What else do you think politicians should have the right to

keep secret from the electorate?

[The Magistrate]

20. In My View, Ma'am

So long as "gay-bashing" remains a leading item of Republican political action, and hatred for homosexuals a key element of Republican voting strength at the polls, any and all homosexual Republican office-holders and officials, staffers, etc., should be exposed. Combat against the general suffering they help to inflict must take precendence over their personal pain, even disgrace, should that issue. Their exposure can go a long way towards neutering the thing as a political force.

[cynatnite]

32. I have a hard time agreeing with this...

there is the potential for harm to their families and friends and to themselves.

More would be better served by encouraging them to come out of the closet than outing them against their will.

This strikes me as a 'two wrongs don't make a right'. It also comes across more like a witch hunt.

I have a bad feeling in my gut about doing something like this.

[The Magistrate]

46. The Harm, Ma'am

Done to a great many by Republican demagogery on the matter, which extends beyond the harm to gays at large to the harm done the country through their gaining office through the exploitation of this, far outweighs concern for these people who sign on to that party, or their families or friends. Exposure, in the numbers actually present, will make it very difficult for those who now view the Republican party as their champions of "decency" against the "deviates" to continue firm in that view. We are already seeing some of this effect in the Foley matter. There is no other way to deprive the enemy of the benefit of this despicable line of agitation.

[cynatnite]

71. It's better to encourage them to come out...

rather than do it against their will.

Besides, this could have an unexpected backlash against the GLBT community anyway. Even if half the repubs were gay all were outed it's not going to change the homophobic and hateful nature of the GOP.

This has the smell of a witch hunt and I honestly can't see any good coming from this. IMO, it's wrong and it doesn't make us any better than the people who spew the hate and homophobic rhetoric.

[The Magistrate]

75. Better To Do Harm To Them, Ma'am

Signing on to the purity crusades ought to have disasterous consequences, pour encourager les autres. Again, the feelings or fares of these people as individuals is of no concern to me whatever: they are enemies, because they are Republicans.

What is beneficial in this line is not that it will change the nature of those now supporting the Republican campaigns on homosexuality, but that it will greatly unsettle those who see the Republican Party as their champion in it. They will have no clear political choice among the major parties.

[cynatnite]

79. And by declaring war on your enemies you are also...

declaring war on those who might get caught in the crossfire. Call it collateral damage if you will. There are people, such as families, who shouldn't have to pay a price because they're related to a gay person. People are vindictive enough to do it.

With the Foley scandal wrapping around the GOP I would propose gays in the republican party are already feeling it.

As I said before, we're better off encouraging them to come out themselves. Let the repuke homophobia and hatefulness continue to spew...make them realize how much their party despises them.

With this issue, I'm clearly in the minority, but it still doesn't make it the right thing to do.

[The Magistrate]

82. That Is True, Ma'am, And It Does Not Trouble Me

It is a necessity of the situation and the times: unpleasant, but still the best available course.

[cynatnite]

84. Necessary when people don't do what we want them to do...

there is no justification for this, IMO.

The best available course is always to encourage them. We're better than this, IMO.

[The Magistrate]

88. That Is What Conflict Is About, Ma'am

Getting people to do what you want them to, regardless of what they want themselves....

"Always take the high road: it's easier to fling mud downhill."

[cynatnite]

91. There are some anti-choicers who feel the same way about abortion...

I'm obviously in the minority and it won't matter what I say...people will justify this no matter how wrong it is.

[onenote]

112. Where do you draw the line? And what evidence do you require?

I am troubled by outing anyone. Maybe you can make the case for outing an elected official, since in a sense, that person has misrepresented himself/herself to the public. But I don't agree with outing staff. Where would you draw the line? Do you only out staffers who actually work on issues relating to gay rights (in other words, if a right wing, anti-gay congressperson has a gay staffer who is responsible for agriculture issues, is that staffer fair game?) What about secretaries, interns? What about brothers and sister or children of staffers. After all isn't hypocritical of someone with a close gay relative to work for an anti-gay congressperson?

And what evidence do we require or is it acceptable to out someone based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion?

Slippery slope.

[mondo joe]

113. Same lines as any other issue. No double standard needed.

[onenote]

115. can you elaborate?

I'm not sure I follow. NOt trying to be snarky.

[mondo joe]

119. There is no single standard for any reporting regarding

political candidates on any other issue - not marriage, religion, gambling, spending habits, blah blah blah. The press reports pretty much as it sees fit, and for the most part no one objects to getting TOO much information - except on this issue.

[onenote]

121. the press generally doesn't report on staffers about anything

other than financial improprieties.

[Raksha]

111. Outing a few world-class hypocrites (gay Republicans who promote

an anti-gay agenda) could end gay-bashing as a political weapon. Maybe not immediately, but after a few years the Repukes could decide that "Defense of Marriage" amendments, etc. are simply too risky and backfire too easily to be a viable political tool--even if such tactics do bring out the fundie vote.

[slaveplanet]

28. Everyone should be outed

that hold positions of power, where they can be potentially blackmailed because of their personal proclivities, be the person gay or be that person straight.

I can't imagine there are not some straight pederasts up on the hill as well. And, As we all know, scandal can come even when it's two consenting adults of the opposite sex. When there's the threat of scandal there is likewise the threat of blackmail, there can be no separation, they walk hand in hand. Being a homosexual and not a pederast is also no shield from blackmail.

They need to all be outed regardless of political party. It is a national security issue, not a sex issue, as they always like to frame it.

[cally]

36. That standard makes sense to me

If you are hiding something than we deserve to know. I don't want any of your private affairs used for national affairs. It leads to outing all who are covering up private personal behavior.

[slaveplanet]

49. A case in point

Hypothetical- If Foley were compromised then legislation such as the Adam Walsh act start to make sense. It is a total police State piece of legislation that can affect innocent family members, and it spills over into draculonian(literally) DNA (blood collecting) That will eventually be morphed to include the whole population.

Read about how the Republicans likely knew about Foley but shelved it to get the AWA passed, and the democrat hate crime amendments to it, taken out.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/7/10057/7708

But in my mind it's worse than that, what if foreign intelligence had the dirt on these people, can you imagine the Chinese or UAE using this to their advantage? Why... you might see our ports and other critical infrastructure being leased to them.

[Zhade]

29. If they use their position to support/endorse/pass an anti-gay agenda...

...they are fair game. Period.

[beyurslf]

31. Rebuplicans run on people's hatred of us. I feel no shame in outing

gay republicans. Stop using us to get elected.

[Kahuna]

37. I'm not gay, but I'm 100% with you on this. If they want to stay closeted

they should not work for and enable those who want a constitutional amendment that would relegate gays to third class citizenship. If they enable the bigots they should be outed. What's the greater evil here? Outing an individual or supporting a consitutional amendment that will hurt ALL gays? They deserve no such consideration.

[beyurslf]

44. I dislike Republicans in general, but I cannot stand gay Republicans.

They are the worst and just make me ill to talk to them. They can't see how stupid they are and their party hates them.

[Red Right and BLUE]

33. If you're going to make life harder for people becuase they're gay,

and you're gay, too, I want to know about it.

People put you into office for a reason; and misleading them should get you thrown out of it. Gay or straight, R or Dem.

[Time for change]

35. I think it is right in some circumstances

IF the Republican in question maintains that homosexuality is immoral, and if that Republican has been active in attacking the rights of gays then I think that it is perfectly ok to out them.

In that case outing them would in no way imply that we thought it was wrong to have same sex relations, but only that it was wrong to attack the rights of others. Of course, gay bashing or marginalizing gays is wrong whether or not one is gay himself, but when a gay person does that it is also hypocritical.

[cynatnite]

41. Who decides when it's right?

This is a slippery slope we're talking about here. If someone who works for a politician who advocates anti-gay leglislation should they be outed? Where does it stop? What if a straight person is outed as being gay? What about their family or friends?

There is too much about this that doesn't settle with me.

[Time for change]

74. Who decides when it's right?

That's easy.

We all decide for ourselves when it is right to act in a certain manner.

If an elected official lies about a public policy issue and I'm aware of that lie why shouldn't I out that official for his lie? Bush lied about Iraq. Thankfully we have a few journalists left in our country who were willing to expose that lie. They didn't say to themselves, "What effect will this have on his friends and family if we out his lie?" They did it because it was the right thing to do.

Where does it stop? If the issue is pertinent to public policy that the person has some effect over and if you are honest in your outing of that person then I don't see anything wrong with that.

If I public official is gay and yet has an anti-gay public agenda while not admitting that he is gay, then that is the equivlence of a lie, and it is a very destructive lie at that.

[cynatnite]

77. So his family should pay for it, too?

What about if it's a gay clerk who works in the office of a politician promoting an anti-gay agenda?

Some people would say yes...it doesn't matter their family or if it's some lowly paper pusher...out them.

Others might disagree which is where it all becomes gray.

The problem is we're setting ourselves up as judge, jury and executioner so to speak. We're saying you don't have a right to privacy because we don't like what you're doing or who you work for.

The Foley scandal came about because of the repukes. They did it to themselves. IMO, it's far better for them to be caught at it than for us to pretend we're on some high road and do it for them.

[mondo joe]

78. Not judge jury or executioner. People make their own choices,

and they sometimes must live with the consequences.

The right to privacy is a right to privacy from government intrusion - not a universal right to make others complicit in your secrets.

[cynatnite]

83. We're setting ourselves up as such by this kind of action...

telling those that don't do what we want as we think they should do we will out them against their will.

It's probably closer to blackmail than anything else.

Sorry, this is just wrong no matter how the majority chooses to justify it.

[mondo joe]

85. "We" who? We as individuals? The press?

I don't have a double standard. You're in politics, you have secrets, know they are fair game.

Just like Bill Bennett's gambling.

Just like Newt's divorces.

Being gay isn't a sacred cow.

[cynatnite]

86. Majority of people do live a life of double standards...

it doesn't make it right that we intentionally harm others in such a way.

Now, a person gets caught at gambling, having an affair or whatever that's different.

This is singling people out because they are gay. In the minds of the repukes' eyes being gay is an abomination and no matter how many are in their midst they are not going to change their attitudes about it. I'm more concerned about the backlash that could possibly result. If you think the rhetoric is bad now...I can almost guarantee it'll get worse.

My own mother thinks gays deserve no rights at all...including voting.

IMO, the sacred cow is a right to privacy and that's a line no one should cross no matter how they try to justify it.

[mondo joe]

87. I'm sorry but you seem to have not answered my question.

"We" who?

Why is getting caught gambling different? Why is getting caught having an affair different?

How can you say the sacred cow is a right to privacy andin the same post cite examples you claim are "different"?

[cynatnite]

89. The examples I cited are different because for one...

they got caught and those examples are also considered unethical.

My guess is some gays feel that's who they are and isn't some indiscretion or questionable act. You'd have to ask them.

We all have a right to privacy and I don't believe it's anyone's place to determine when their right to privacy ends. It's judgmental and hypocritical, IMO.

[mondo joe]

94. Unethical by whose standards?

Some people consider those things unethical. They may also consider homosexual acts unethical.

And again, you say "We all have a right to privacy and I don't believe it's anyone's place to determine when their right to privacy ends" but you already decided it ends at having an affair or gambling.

So which is it?

And when you say we have a right to privacy how do you square that with a free press?

[Time for change]

96. Not judge, not jury, not executioner

Just messenger.

And the family can make up their own mind as to how they react to it.

But frankly in the case of the clerk that you mention, I would have no inclination to out the clerk unless the clerk was instrumental in the agenda.

[ismnotwasm]

39. My problem with "outing" at this point

Is that it's seems to be identified as a "bad thing" in the public eye. It comes across as though homosexuality is wrong.

I do struggle with the hypocrisy though. I hate like hell to let them get away with it. Heterosexual hypocrites as well. There are very interesting requests of prostitutes in DC from what I understand. If a straight man goes to a prostitute to be tied up and spanked should that be "outed" that as well, if he holds himself up as a "family values" type? (And that's a very mild example of what goes on)

I want what is best for Gay rights in this very difficult atmosphere, and I don't have answers, but I don't think outing is the right thing to do. I would like hear from Gay brothers and sisters on what they think is right, or wrong.

[EC]

47. IT WOULDN'T EVEN MATTER

if these asshole Republican's didn't continually make it bad to be gay...no one should have to "be in the closet"



I guess I should include the Dem's who insist on the "don't ask, don't tell" bullshit too....if gay's could be gay in the open, there would be no negative connotations to being gay, therefore no reason to hide it, nothing to be blackmailed on or be ashamed of....

[B Calm]

48. In the Florida Governor race, Free Republic has already outed

Charlie Crist...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1705491/posts

[B Calm]

53. but notice the small amount of replies.. They don't want to hear

their soon to be republican Governor of Florida is gay...

[Catherine Vincent]

73. If this guy is gay, I hope he wins.

I have relatives in Florida that voted against Kerry because of the whole homosexual marriage thing. I would laugh at them hysterically if this guy won.

[B Calm]

81. Even members of Freeperville thinks he's gay, he probably is...

[Old and In the Way]

51. If you're in the closet, you have something to hide ->blackmail-able.

Sorry, I think anyone who has anything to hide makes them susceptible to political blackmail. If you have skeletons in your closet you don't want found, don't run for public office.

[mitchtv]

54. Anyone know David Drier's record on gay rights?

His partner is the second highest paid staff on the hill. Not news?

[union_maid]

55. Out 'em all

Not all closeted homosexuals. Not ones who are not bothering anyone else. But if you're part of the Republican party and sat through the last election, when homosexuals were used as the bogeyman to bring fundie knuckledraggers to the polls and are still a Republican, then you've given up the right to human consideration. The only downside is that the truth might set a few of them free and they don't deserve it.

I don't think that outing people makes it seem as if it's bad to be homosexual. The people who think so already think so. Was it bad to "out" Maccawitz as being half Jewish? I don't think so. I'm half Jewish myself, so I should be able to speak to that. I didn't think it made being Jewish look bad. I thought it made Allen look like the fake he is. Nothing sadder than a redneck wannabe.

[TX-RAT]

56. If some body wants to come out that's their business.

But to out some one for political gain or revenge is despicable.

[mitchtv]

66. unless they used their position to injure fellow gays

and since the gillotine is illegal I say go get'm

[drbtg1]

57. Hypocrisy is part of one's character

Hypocrisy is also comparable to lying. All of this is a basis we all use to consider a candidate for our vote as well as with whom we spend our time and money on. Votes, time, money: important comodities, as they allow the recipient to accumulate power.

If someone preaches an absolute version of morality but poses naked, if someone give lip service to family values but is a complusive gambler, if someone has zero tolerance on drug abuse but is a drug addict, if someone says they want to fight child abuse but is a pedophile, they should not have power. Unfortunately this describes the Republican party as it exists today.

Similiarly, if someone wants to promote an anti-gay stance (as well as the victimization that is the intended sequelae) in order to accumulate more power when only their power prevents them from becoming a victim of said stance, that power needs to be eliminated.

[BlooInBloo]

60. Assuming we're only talking about *republican* gay folks...

... the stickey wicket would seem to be:

(a) insofar as they're republicans, we're not interested in keeping their secrets for them, and would be inclined to spill the beans on them.

(b) insofar as they're gay, we're not interested in poking our noses into their business, and would not be inclined to spill the beans on them.


So it seems to me the only relevant question is: what's more important: that they're gay, or that they're republican?

I think that's simply a personal question that doesn't really admit of much argument. May as well argue about whether olives are good or not.

[SoCalDem]

61. First we have to erase the stigma that CAUSES them to be closeted

The hypocrisy that forces them into the closet is the real villain here. The right wingers who vote for them "know" they are gay..but they put their fingers in ther ears and chant "la-la-la-la-la" whenever someone mentions the "rumors". These closeted gays who willingly denounce who they are, in order to be on a fast track in ther "party" are only fooling themselves.

They are just a cog in the slime machine.. they give "cover", like the republican blacks who sign on..

In another party, they would be a small fish in a big pond, but in the repressive republican party, they are a big fish...a well-dressed, well-behaves fish... until they are of no further use to them.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

62. There's ALREADY a backlash. How can it get worse?

IMO - if it does get worse - the public will most likely finally see the right-wingers for the crazies that they are.

Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. Things often don't change until people step over the line and the average people finally get that what's going on is WRONG.

[AtomicKitten]

63. I agree with the gist of your OP.

I just have a hard time applying it across the board in light of gay politicians that promote hate and discrimination of the LGBT community. I keep hoping they will literally choke on their hypocrisy.

[izzybeans]

64. I think the notion of a closet is tragic.

Closted gay republicans seem to me to be the muse of a modern Shakespeare. Tragic but perhaps a good source of comedy upon outing. The hypocracy is perhaps the only thing that makes it worth it. Then again the whole notion of the closet results from power and oppression in the first place; it seems there is no easy way out. Stay in and suppress aspects of yourself; come out and risk losing other aspects of yourself (job, friends, family, etc).... to mention the least consequential.

I do say that the Magistrate's opinion above is pretty good strategically for the g/l/b/t movement in general. Log Cabiners are to the g/l/b/t community what SCABS are to the labor movement.

[mondo joe]

68. I don't regard gay outing as different from any other political outing.

If it's political it's fair game.

I further believe the press has the right and the obligation to inform the electorate.

[madmusic]

72. Projection pervades poltics.

http://www.answers.com/topic/psychological-projection

[Tyo]

95. There is no shame in being gay, there is nothing wrong with being gay

There is a lot wrong with hypocrites who choose to live secret gay lives while using their political power to oppress their gay brothers and sisters who live openly and proudly.

[LostinVA]

109. BINGO

[onenote]

114. I agree that there is nothing wrong with being gay

But that just presents the question of whether any closeted gay politician should be outed, even if they support gay rights. Why allow them to misrepresent themselves to the electorate?

[Tyo]

120. I tend to agree with you

But it's a matter of degree. I'm more interested in exposing the closeted bad guys than I am in exposing the closeted good guys.

[warrior1]

98. I think that

public figures and staff are open to scrutiny. When they are in the closet I think they do much harm to those that are out. They need to be out just so they can see what it's like to live in the world that they help create.

Warrior1

I've been out since a young person. It hasn't hurt me or loss me friends.

[LostinVA]

105. If they belong to a party that makes laws against gays -- OUT THEM

They sicken me. They really do.

For those who don't know, I'm gay.

[FreeState]

110. I was outed

I was outed to my Mormon parents while I was a college student in a leadership position. While I was not being a hypocrite, I was not out to my parents (who lived in a different state than the school I was at). I knew it was a possibility when I took the position that I would be outed. I weighed my options and took the position knowing it might happen.

In my opinion if you are going to be serving the public, be it student body, or otherwise, your personal life is fair game. Is it fair? No. Its called life in american politics, how can we know someone's character without looking into their personal life? It should not matter who you sleep with, however it is the closeted GLBT persons that make it matter to the conservatives.