"Outing" absolutely promotes homophobia, in my humble o.

[WilliamPitt]

To my mind, outing itself promotes homophobia. The act of "outing" presupposes wrongdoing on the part of the person being outed, and puts someone's homosexuality into the category of "something to be exposed." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the kind of thinking that is the basis for homophobia in the first place. As DUer petronia correctly states in another thread, "outing" utilizes and thrives on the homophobia of others, thus promoting it.

This whole Foley thing, by the way, has unfairly placed homosexuality into the center of the conversation. That, to put it mildly, is bullshit. People who pursue children for sexual gratification don't do so because they are gay, but because they are sick...and yet Foley's homosexuality has been morphed into the central issue. That is a massive disservice, akin to those who attach priestly pedophelia to homosexuality.

So, to my mind, running around "outing" people perpetuates the disgraceful attacks on homosexuality that have been inspired by Foley. It makes the whole thing about being gay, and not about being a sick predatory fuck.

That, I would say, also promotes homophobia.

Just my opinion.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I agree. n/t

[Sammy Pepys]

2. Agreed

It plays right into the hands of homophobes, and is McCarthyite to boot.

[Catrina]

144. I disagree. Forcing Gay Repbublicans to hide in the

closet, and supporting them in their hypocrisy, is homophobic, imo. Why shouldn't gays be able to run openly as Republicans?

By aiding and abetting the Republican hypocrisy of allowing gays to run for office so long as they 'don't tell', Democrats are perpetuating the notion that there is something wrong with being gay.

They may also inadvertantly be helping Republicans bribe or threaten closeted gays with outing in order to get the votes they need.

This is about more than political correctness. Imagine if, eg, the Fundies had found out what Bush really thought of them in 2000 or 2004? With that revelation and the Abramoff 'wacko' emails, Evangelical support for the Republicans has dropped enough to maybe lose them elections.

To force the Republican Party now to admit that they have respected members of their party in Congress who they know are gay, yet are hiding from the public, can only advance the rights of gays, imo.

How do we know, eg, that Craig votes on gay issues weren't based on fear of being outed? He should keep his seat if outed, and then let the voters decide in two years whether he has done a good enough job to keep it after that.

It's never beneficial to hide abuse. Keeping gay Republicans closeted IS abuse. They have rights under the Constitution that are being violated by having to hide their sexual orientation.

It took a long time for Republicans to accept Blacks openly as Representatives. This should not happen again. Gays should run openly as Republicans from now on, and those who are closeted should be encouraged to come out on their own and claim their constitutional rights to run for office in any party.

[belladonna]

3. What he said

I could not agree more :thumbsup:

[Finder]

4. Agree. n/t

[villager]

5. I don't know, Will -- we have to take a hammer to their hypocrisy

The life of the country is at stake. And as a Jew, the analogy I keep coming up with would be "secret Jews" helping the Nazis (tho' as far as I know, there really weren't any, Hitler's family tree notwithstanding). I don't know if our gay compatriots feel this way.

Plus, so much of the GOP agenda is based on "projection" anyway -- imputing to someone else what you can't stand in yourself. We need to bring an end to all that, and pronto.

[WilliamPitt]

11. I dunno

Consider the hypocrisy of denouncing homophobia while promoting it through "outing."

[villager]

19. that's the crux -- but per the other posters, if everyone was "out,"

what would become of homophobia?

[Zhade]

45. What's really homophobic: suggesting that announcing people's gayness...

...is bad.

People being known as gay IS NOT BAD!

[Zhade]

44. Outing isn't homophobia.

We're not for outing everyone against their will, just those hypocrites that are trying to destroy the civil rights of people like myself.

It would only be homophobic if the reason for the outing is to point at the orientation as somehow bad. Obviously, gays who out hypocrites don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuality (there isn't).

That you seem to leap to the conclusion that announcing someone is gay is bad - as if the gayness itself is bad - should cause you to reexamine just how comfortable you really are with us queers.

Ironically, your stance is more homophobic than you may realize - not that I think it's intentional. I think you're coming from a good place, but are completely clueless as to how it looks from this side, which makes sense, as you're not gay.

[Montauk6]

138. I agree, it should be aimed at those that harm under the cloak

If the Grand Dragon of the KKK, for example, was passing as white; exposing the fact that he is black should never be construed as agreeing with his or his organization's position on white supremacy or black inferiority or whatever.

Similarly, if Fred Phelps, again for example, is involved in an affair with a man; ABSOLUTELY, the world should know this.

The point is not to uphold the phobia but to simply point out when someone is a phony rat-bastard, end of story.

As long as Clay Aiken is not out campaigning against, say, gay marriage; then whether he's gay or not is no one's business, and the media should drop it.

[Irreverend IX]

120. No hypocrisy at all.

If you out Bill Bennett as a compulsive gambler, does that mean you oppose gambling and think people who do it are inferior? No, it just means you oppose Republican shills who talk about "virtues" while indulging in vices. What about revealing Strom Thurmond's illegitimate half-black daughter? Does that mean you oppose interracial relationships? No, that means that you want to show him for the hypocrite he is and cut his political career off at the knees. A pity it didn't happen back in the Dixiecrat era. Can you tell me exactly what is wrong with revealing hypocrisy, whatever form it comes in?

"Outing" is not a product of homophobia; the "closet" that the gay Republicans hide in is. By pulling them out of that closet, you allow the homophobia they have helped cultivate to destroy them. Perpetuating a culture where homosexuality must be hidden is homophobic in itself; the "invisible gay underground" in the GOP only benefits those people who belong to it, while allowing the general gay public to fall to suicide, hate attacks and AIDS. There are no words to express the disgust I feel toward people who cast aside weapons that could be used to tear the GOP apart in the name of mealy-mouthed ivory tower notions of ethics. Anyone who attempts to thwart attacks on the GOP is aiding and abetting the enemy.

[radfringe]

135. consider

the hypocrisy of denouncing gays and lesbians from the safety of a closet...

consider hiding a particular religious/cultural/ethnic/race affiliation and joining a group like the klan...

sometime in the early 80's there was an article about gays not being allowed in certain government jobs because they were a security risk for blackmail -- i.e. they would be blackmailed for being gay

if the person were "out", if he or she were accepted - where would the blackmail threat be?

during WW1 - my partner's father was stationed for a short time down south, her mother got a room in a boarding house near the base, and she worked at the base as a dental assistant. One evening she returned to her room at the boarding house. She was "greeted" at the door by the owner of the boarding house. On the sidewalk was all her bags. The owner told my partner's mom she couldn't stay there and had to find somewhere else to live because she was jewish.

one of the owner's kids peeped around their "mama" and said "I don't see no horns momma, is she the devil"

now was the phobia about jews there before or after my partner's mom was "outed"?

sorry Will, I usually agree with you on the issues - but with this one - I say OUT THE HYPOCRITES, drag them kicking and screaming from the closet and expose them to the sunlight

--typos corrected on edit

[soothsayer]

6. Another way to see it is that the closet feeds homophobia. We

give homophobia power and legitimacy by making it something worth hiding from. If we were all out, homophobia would seem less scary. Sure, there's still discrimination of minorities you can see (as opposed to alot of us who are invisible), but once we're out in the open, the patterns of discrimination become more clear and make it easier to defeat them. imho anyway

[Sammy Pepys]

21. But how does outing someone on terms not their own...

...solve that problem?

The people I know who have come out have had a particularly tough time doing it. If I had gone up to my friends father and said "Hey, your son is gay...he just hasn't told you yet" I doubt that would help the situation much.

All of my firends who are gay are all out, but none of them were closeted because they felt it was something they had to hide....they had to figure the best and most sensitive way to share their identity with their families and the world. Some eventually did it rather easily, some had to think long and hard about it. But in the, end they all did it on their terms.

FWIW, the two people I've talked to about this whole outing thing think it's at best somewhat pathetic.

[Zhade]

48. We must disarm these gay anti-gay hypocrites.

These are our RIGHTS we're talking about - and since there is NOTHING wrong with being gay, there is nothing wrong with outing their hypocrisy.

[MADem]

129. Uh, were these friends fifty years old, and on their 4th term in Congress?

No one is talking about finking on the nervous teen ager down the street. This is about mature politicians in public life who curry favor, collect cash contributions, and gain votes from homophobic bastards. All while preaching one way to live, and living another way.

I don't know a gay soul who doesn't think it is a good or a great idea. Now granted, my gay associates are limited to a couple of neighbors, a few friends who are former coworkers, and a couple of relatives, so I don't claim to be wired in to the "community" or have the "definitive" word. But I didn't hear anything approaching "pathetic" from any of them. It's more along the lines of "Serves the bastards right."

[EFerrari]

31. But you don't dismantlle the closet by beating up on everyone

who is choosing to be there, imho. If anything, as Will points out indirectly, you're just making the closet deeper and more necessary. :shrug:

[donheld]

123. Neither do you dismantle the closet by

letting hypocrites force us back into those closets. Tear down the closet, then nobody has to hide.

[Cooley Hurd]

7. Fundamentally, perhaps it does...

In the case of Foley, the RW raised the issue of Foley's penchant for children of the same sex as him - this was done BY DESIGN by the anti-gay reNAMBAcan leadership to further exploit the wedge issue of gay marriage.

However, in the case of outing an anti-gay, gay republican, it exposes their HYPOCRISY, not their homosexuality.

[BOSSHOG]

8. If it weren't for homophobia no one would be in a closet

If it weren't for the intense hate of "christians" and conservatives towards homosexuals, why would they have any desire to remain in the closet, since there are millions who don't care of their sexuality or whether they are out or not.

In the closet, they are prisoners of homophobes. I don't advocate outing anyone. Being in the closet is not the problem, those who force their decision is.

So I find the issue a conundrum if you will. "Promoting" homophobia? Fuck the haters. And it is so ironic that there are some haters in that closet.

[Matariki]

9. I think one of the important parts of the issue is the hypocrisy

It's difficult to ignore.

[WilliamPitt]

10. No doubt

But consider the hypocrisy of denouncing homophobia while promoting it through "outing."

[Cooley Hurd]

14. The lesser of two evil hypocrisies...

:shrug:

[Matariki]

24. true.

I don't see it as a simple cut and dry thing though. can't say with certainty that it's right or wrong - either way. I tend to agree with the person who said that the closet itself contributes to homophobia. Forcing the republicans to admit there are gays in their party and that there's nothing wrong with that might be a beneficial thing all around.

[KurtNYC]

34. What?! I don't follow that logic

Does jumping out of a plane promote gravity?

Living in the closet panders to homophobics and promotes homophobia. People living in the closet are vulnerable to blackmail while people who are out are vulnerable to discrimination (but in a position to fight that battle). People didn't get their asses kicked at Stonewall 37 years ago so that Ken Mehlman could live in the closet while promoting a hate-based agenda.

[MADem]

131. TWO thumbs UP!!! What an analogy!!!!! BRAVO!!!! NT

[Neecy]

145. Amen, Kurt

Personally, I'm a little tired of being lectured to by straight people about the evils of homophobia. Jesus Christ, I KNOW what it is, I KNOW firsthand the real physical danger of it, I KNOW how it affects my life and the lives of others. I saw it in the 1980's when gay men were allowed to die like flies while the government did nothing. I saw it in the 1992 Republican National Convention when they declared 'war' against us. I saw it during the debate on DOMA, I saw it in the debate about gay marriage.

Who enables it? Let's start with the closeted hypocrites in politics and in the religious right who have to scapegoat those who don't choose to live their lives in fear and feel exactly zero shame. Outing these people for the damage they attempt to do to our lives is NOTHING. Outing them to relieve ourselves of their self-loathing is NOTHING. It's not something I agonize over, or worry about, it's something I view as utterly essential. And thank you, Will, but there's little chance that homophobia will increase any more in this country than where it is now. We're talking about saving ourselves.

[mondo joe]

39. But I don't think outing DOES promote homophobia.

I don't think it's ever increased the amount of homophobia.

[Zhade]

49. Suggesting that hypocrites should be left alone in the closet...

...where they will continue to try to destroy our rights is, itself, unwittingly homophobic, because it suggests that it's wrong to let people know someone is gay. It also sends the message that keeping someone's orientation secret is more important than fighting for GLBT equal rights.

[Blackthorn]

89. It's only hypocritical if you accept that "outing" is homophobic.

Which I do not.

No one is advocating outing regular guys, only people who make it their career to promote an anti-gay agenda whilst being gay themselves. If you sell yourself out, what does that say about your attitude to others?

[King Coal]

137. If all gays were outed, then, there would be no more homophobia?

[morgan2]

12. I disagree

the fear of outing is more a promoter of homophobia than outing itself. Some one coming out generally convinces people who like them that gay people are normal, and amoung them. While it may be harder for the person who actually came out, the overall number of people who hate gays will go down.

[KurtNYC]

13. Wrong - The Oppressed Oppress

and they should be stopped. If someone is self-hating then they tend to direct similar hatred toward others. Someone who keeps their sexuality very hidden is not inclined to support those who don't hide it.

Joe Lieberman is a republican -- should he not have been "outed" as such? Wasn't that the first step toward dealing with his anti-democratic behavior? This is similar.

[Cha]

20. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[endarkenment]

15. See the Frank Rule

"During a GOP campaign concerning homosexuality, Frank threatened to out a number of "gay-baiting" Republican fellow congressmen. He stated that it is only acceptable to out a closeted gay person, if that person uses their power or notoriety to hurt gay people.<3> Many members of the LGBT community adhere to this rule in their own relationships with prominent individuals."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank

I agree with Barney here.

[wicket]

130. Me too

n/t

[Warpy]

16. I disagree. I see it as outing the hypocrisy

and I see it in exactly the same way as outing Hager for anally raping his wife, as outing Ah-nuld for his activities in Brazil, as outing Bennett for his "private" gambling addiction.

Gay hypocrites who consistently vote for antigay legislation desperately need to be outed as the sanctimonious frauds they are.

There are too many disconnects between what members of that party say and what they do to ignore it.

[blogslut]

17. However

To be accurate, Mike Rogers of BlogActive promised to out a gay official before Foley happened. January, 2006:

http://www.blogactive.com/2006/01/mister-senator.html

[Imagevision]

18. outing for the sake of...outing, is lame!

[MADem]

22. I'm the contrarian, I disagree completely with your assessment

If you bring the everyday behavior of a substantial number of our population to the light of day, then people will eventually "get used" to it. Even the ones who swear they never will. And eventually, it will CEASE to be an issue.

Hiding it, associating shame with it, or ALLOWING the GOP to control the agenda (homosexuality=Predator) is rolling over and giving power to the matter that it doesn't merit.

It's a fact of human life that some people are gay. The appropriate attitude is "So fucking what?"

If we aren't going to discuss the behavior of some politicians because they sleep with members of the same sex, than discussions of spouses or significant others of the opposite sex should be TOTALLY off limits as well! No discussing of fiddly bits at all, and that includes CHILDREN. No more funding for the Office of the First Lady! No more Secret Service protection for the spouses and kids. No more stupid political ads with the family gathered around them!

They all must legislate or play 'the decider' from the neck up!! Rather like a Futurama character!

I say out them all. If they are going to vote and work one way, and play the other, out those bastards first.

It's all about the hypocrisy.

[Matariki]

25. The appropriate attitude is "So fucking what?"

well said.

[MADem]

30. Thank you.

It's how I honestly feel. The GOP is the one hauling around the buckets of shame, and tossing them on gay people who continue to live in fear. I say take that weapon away from them.

It might take a few more years to educate the public, but you can't finish the journey unless you start out on the trip--and as long as gay people stay afraid and hidden, they'll never get going.

[mmonk]

35. Maybe it's how you feel and there's nothing wrong with that.

At the same time, when homophobia is bad enough to where people run on a political platform of promoting a constitutional amendment just to discriminate against same sex couples, it still should be up to the individual people themselves if they themselves want to be "outed". That being said, it shoudn't matter and shouldn't be an issue in the first place and since it shouldn't but evidently does, it pretty much makes my point and the point Will is making.

[MADem]

42. People hate these comparisons, but they apply in terms of social evolution

It used to be that a woman's place was in the home, and men could NEVER get used to seeing them in the workplace, and certainly not in positions of any responsibility or authority. And NEVER, EVER, in CHARGE of men. Why, the sky would fall!!!!

It used to be that people in wheelchairs had to be hidden away, because it was too hard to get them up and down stairs of public buildings, and besides, they might upset children. This goes double for anyone who used to be termed "retarded" or "feeble minded" and especially if they walked funny or drooled a bit. "Society" didn't need to see that--and besides, the feeble ones might be dangerous, kinda like Frankenstein, doncha know.

It used to be that black and white people could NEVER mix--the black folk got the balcony, the white folk the orchestra seats--that's about as close at they could get. Share swimming pools? No way. Eating or lodging accomodations? NEVER. Segregation was the law, and any CHANGES to the status quo might "upset" people. To say nothing of those "germs" that might end up on the water glasses...!!

Too fucking bad if people get upset, frankly. And that includes the GOP haters and the fools who advance their agenda from their closets. I say they're here, they're queer, and the rest of us had better goddamned well get used to it. Because one we all do, we can get on to the shit that really matters.

And UNTIL we do, the GOP will keep using (homo)sex as a weapon. We need to take that weapon away from them, and stick it up their asses.

[mmonk]

50. You're misinterpreting my position as advocating

hiding. I'm not. The fact we're even having this conversation is ridiculous in itself. The whole idea of "outing" someone is homophobic because there isn't anything wrong with being gay in the first place. But since millions of people seem to think there is and want to pass dicrimatory laws based on it, it should be up to the individual in public office whether they want their relationship to be on the evening news.

[mondo joe]

51. Why would it be left to individuals in public office?

And how does that square with a free press?

It's the Sacred Cow thing that is really insulting -- what else do you think individuals in public office should have the power to keep from their constituents?

[MADem]

58. But see, you're applying a "separate but equal" standard to being gay

...it should be up to the individual in public office whether they want their relationship to be on the evening news.

It's a public record that John Doe is married to Jane Doe. So we know about them. It's published in the newspaper that Goldie Hawn is living in an unmarried state with Kurt Russell or whatever his name is, and they have all these kids. So their lives as public figures are an open book, too. We used to be regaled with the dating activities of Bob Kerrey years ago, as he cut a wide swathe through a number of famous lady celebrities.

But it's a great big secret, that cannot be MENTIONED, that gay David Drier lives with his boyfriend, Brad Smith, who he also keeps on the payroll at one of the largest salaries on the Hill? We can't "mention" that because "he's gay?" And he gets to CHOOSE if we discuss it? We have to "honor his privacy?" Come on. We should frigging mention it, because if a Congressman hired his wife or girlfriend at only four hundred bucks less a year than the White House Chief of Staff makes, it would be front page news.

It isn't up to the individual to conceal essential aspects of their being that directly intersect with their public statements and actions, if they choose to live a public life. They don't have the choice, or the option, at that point. They are fair game. And even more so when your life involves making political decisions, either as a staffer for a legislator or as a legislator.

You can't vote one way as a representative of "the people," and live another, and not expect to be challenged. That's hypocritical, first, and it's treating gay people like they're special needs cases, which they aren't. So, I must say I can't agree with your assertion that it's up to the individual in public life to reveal his or her relationship.

In PRIVATE LIFE, sure--but not public. With all that fame and fortune and Congressional perks comes a certain amount of responsibility and accountability. When you serve the people, they have a right to know if you live the way you vote.

[Zhade]

63. I submit that you just witnessed unwitting homophobia in that post.

It's a lot more prevalent here than some want to admit.

Thank you for your replies; you're right on the money.

[mmonk]

105. Which post?

[mmonk]

107. Simple solution. They shouldn't be in the closet in the first place.

Then it wouldn't become an issue. But for some reason, some people choose the closet. It's not for me to judge why, I guess. I can't relate because I'm not gay. However, the reason someone would want to out someone who is in the closet in politics I take it is most likely to try to harm them politically. It doesn't matter to me but evidently, the person in the closet thinks it will harm them or they would have been honest and upfront about it in the first place. It's their responsibility, not an "outer's" to let the world know. Of course, you can disagree with that assessment but let's make a deal. If someone answers a different way, chalk it up to someone answering the question based on their opinion.

[wickerwoman]

113. People in this country get killed because they are gay.

People in this country do not get killed because they are straight.
I can't believe that this needs to be pointed out on a democratic messageboard.

If we out gay politicians and they are assassinated a week later by gay-hating crazies how are we not complicit?

I'll leave it up to gay people to decide for themselves the extent to which they want to expose themselves to hate and life-threatening danger. I think it is absolutely morally reprehensible to put other people in danger to score political points no matter how much I disagree with them and what they represent.

[MADem]

128. You need to read the entire thread carefully, because you aren't making

sense. This isn't about PRIVATE CITIZENS. No one is talking about outing the repairman who lives on the corner, or the druggist down the lane.

We're talking about people who chose PUBLIC LIFE. Who make LAWS that affect gay people negatively. Who preach one way, and practice another. Who are paid with taxpayer dollars to make laws that negatively affect people just like them. Who curry favor and votes with homophobes, to increase their power base.

Black people got killed during the civil rights movement, yet they had the courage to move forward. Are you suggesting that all gay people must hide forever in the event that they might be killed by a crazy hateful bastard? That's a bit pathetic. Wow, keep that up, and they'll come for the DEMOCRATS eventually. You don't cry and hide, you SPEAK UP.

How about working towards some seriously onerous hate crime legislation, rather than advising our fellow citizens to scuttle off in fear?

[wickerwoman]

147. I am talking about public figures...

and the very fact that they are public figures puts them in even more danger than private citizens because they have that much more exposure. Do you seriously think that outing gay politicians doesn't carry a significant risk that they will be assaulted or killed?

I'm am not suggesting that gay people hide forever. I'm suggesting that the person who gets to make the decision is the person who is at risk.

[MADem]

152. That's horseshit, frankly. Public figures have more protection

in their workplaces than the average person, and they don't take the bus, either. They're driven by a staffer to and fro, they don't even have to park their own car. Check Congressional parking on the Hill--most of the bums getting out of those cars are STAFFERS, not congos. And try getting on the Hill to "attack" someone--go on, give it a shot. You won't get far.

And there's the aspect of "bringing it on themselves" that you are conveniently ignoring. They wouldn't HAVE a problem if they didn't actively work against their own. No one would be wanting to OUT them, if they weren't trying to screw their fellow travellers.

If they want to make laws that discriminate against people who are just like them, in order to consolidate power and wealth for themselves, then they deserve the full scruitiny of society. They don't deserve to be shielded in their hypocrisy.

They aren't "special"...and why you want to make them special or protected, like they are poor, pathetic, 'others' I can't fathom. They are part and parcel of our society, like people with green eyes, red hair, or freckles. We don't need to SHIELD them, or hide them away, we need to acknowledge that they are here, and they aren't going away.

And we also need to point to the ones who are screwing over their brethren, and tell them to cut that shit out.

[wickerwoman]

157. We're talking in circles,

so let me repeat a few points and leave it at that.

1.) Politicians are assaulted and killed no matter how much protection they have. And ex-politicians (which most outed gay politicians are on their way to becoming given the demographic make-up of their district) don't have the same level of security as serving members.

2.) Nobody brings homophobia on themselves. "They wouldn't HAVE a problem if they didn't actively work against their own." Of course they would. Was Matthew Shephard "working against his own"? And yet he seemed to have a problem. Second, "working against their own" in the majority of cases where DUers are debating outing a politician seems to be defined as "being a Republican". And I don't find that a good enough reason to say someone "deserves" to be put in danger.

3.) I never said anything about making anybody "special" or about "shielding" them. I'm saying don't actively put their lives at risk (which is not the same thing as going out on a limb to protect them) just because you don't like their politics.

As for the whole "would you out someone for being Jewish" thing, in the middle of a Klan rally, no, I wouldn't go around pointing to someone and shouting "he's a Jew, he's a Jew" and then act suprised and innocent when he gets the shit kicked out of him. And in a social climate where something like 60% of Americans hate gay people enough to deny them basic civil rights, I would say outing someone on national news is morally the equivalent of shouting that someone is Jewish in the middle of a Klan rally. If the Jewish person wants to be brave and start shouting it *that's his choice to make* and not mine. How f*in hard is that to understand?

[MADem]

160. Matthew Shepherd wasn't a politician

and he sure as hell wasn't trying to limit civil rights for gay people through legislation. Your example, using him, stinks.

The whole "outing" thing is directed at POLITICIANS who LIVE one way and legislate another. NOT private citizens.

You're taking hate crimes, which can happen to anyone, anytime, anywhere, and applying them to this specific exercise of outing hypocritical congresspeople. And that is a false construct on your part, too.

Now, if they didn't want to be outed, they'd either not run for congress or not vote against people just like them.

By your logic, there should be no 'out' gay people. Barney Frank, back behind the winter coats--because someone "might" perpetuate a hate crime against you.

What's hard for me to understand is your abject fear, and your sense that gay people should stay in hiding "just in case" someone might hate or harm them. If that's not unreasonable "shielding" I don't know what is. Really, not everyone can be loved, and there will always be assholes in the world--some jerks hate ethnic groups, some hate people based on their gender or orientation--you can't control who people hate. You can insist that law enforcement come down on people who get violent, though.

Also, your example of a Jew at a Klan rally is just....stupid. Jews are smart, by and large--they don't go to Klan rallies, because, as Jews, they don't tend to support that kind of racist horseshit unless they are mentally ill. And if they did go, say, for purposes of reporting, they'd go with protection. Plenty of it. And further, the Klan nowadays is a bunch of fat sweaty guys who don't beat people up. They put on their outfits and TALK like the assholes that they are. And finally, your hypothetical Jew isn't making laws to punish other Jews for being Jewish, so the example you torturously spin just doesn't compare to the issue of the hypocritical GOP staffers and legislators.

Sorry, your logic doesn't pass muster.

[mondo joe]

133. Then gay people would know best when it's time to out someone.

How did you feel about outing George Allen as a Jew?

[MADem]

127. It's not a question of "harm," it's a question of hypocrisy

Do as I say, not as I do is their axiom. It's the equivalent of decreeing that fried food is bad for you and must be banned, and then sneaking off for a bucket of chicken.

They have their cake and eat it too. They preach one way and live another. It's no different than Swaggart's "I have sinned" moment. Should we have respected HIS privacy? Come on. You're treating gay people like a "protected class" or a helpless "other." They aren't. They are a steady percentage of our society down through the ages. They are your neighbors, your relatives, your friends, your coworkers.

It's not the orientation, it's the HYPOCRISY.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but this issue is not about sex, about orientation, about precisely what anyone does with their fiddly bits--it's about saying one thing, and doing another.

When you serve in elective office and make laws that harm a group of people that includes you, or are being paid with taxpayer money to help a legislator push an agenda you yourself do not follow, people have a right to know if you are doing that.

[donheld]

148. The whole idea of "outing" someone is NOT homophobic

We're outing hypocrites not gays. Those of you who want to let the hypocrites stay in their closets are very much promoting not only homophobia but hypocrisy as well. None of us advocating outing are doing so because we believe there is something wrong with being gay. We are doing so because there is something very wrong with the hypocrisy.

If they go to congress and fight for homophobic laws, and all the time having their homosexual relationships and liaisons behind everyones back, it should not come as any surprise if those individuals find their relationships on the evening news. We're outing hypocrites not gays.

I'm really surprised that so many DUer's fail to get a grip on this. I think some of you spend very little time talking with real gay people. It would help you understand this better. Some of you must have "gay friends" but spend little time discussing things like this with them.

I am for outing hypocrites of any variety. We're outing hypocrites not gays. I can't say that enough.

[Zhade]

55. Not if they're trying to destroy our (and their) civil rights.

At that point, no quarter shall be given to them.

[Zhade]

53. You get it.

Thank you for explaining what SHOULD be obvious to everyone.

[MADem]

65. I do try

It's one of those "we hold these truths to be self-evident" sort of deals, IMO. And I'm not gay, so I've no special knowledge (is there a secret handshake? Why, I've no idea!!!) from the "gay mafia" that the GOP seem so frightened about nowadays!!

We need to live and let live, and stop making individual differences which are part and parcel of our human condition excuses for sowing hatred and malice, or perpetuating fear and shame. It just makes no damn sense to me, and never has.

[ruggerson]

112. Exactly

You are dead on correct.

[Maven]

134. I have never used this trite, cheesy, chest-beating phrase before, but

you speak for me. :P

[MADem]

143. Well, geez, I'm honored, frankly!! NT

[Jack Rabbit]

23. Thank you, Will

At the center of the Foley matter isn't Foley, it's Hastert and the Republican leadership. They knew Foley was a pedophile harassing pages and made a political calculation that Foley's seat was more valuable than the safety of the exceptional young people who are chosen to participate in the congressional page program.

It was an abhorrent decision morally and a stupid one politically. Of the moral implications nothing more need be said; words could not express my outrage in any case. Of the political implications, the decision to protect Foley even assumed that he was the only Republican who could have held that district in Florida. Give me a break.

[Mist]

26. How does outing promote homophobia? People who are homophobic

aren't going to change. People who aren't homophobic aren't going to become so because some RW Rethugs are outed. Outing self-hating, hypocritical RW gays is just throwing them to the homophobes in their "base," which is all they deserve, IMO.

[EFerrari]

32. That's a pretty strong statement considering that we live in a country

where people are killed for being gay.

[MADem]

47. People were killed for being black, too. And Muslim, even if they

weren't actually Muslim, but Sikh--so actually they were killed for turban wearing.

You aren't going to appease haters by hiding from them. Or running in fear from them.

They need to be confronted, dragged to the public square, and placed in stocks and mocked by the townspeople for their hatred and stupidity. Figuratively speaking, mind you....

Light is the best disinfectant.

[EFerrari]

60. It's one thing to confront haters yourself.

It's quite another to force SOMEONE ELSE to do that.

Forcing someone else into that arena isn't an act of bravery. It's a power trip.

[MADem]

76. No one forces them to run for office. They made that choice themselves.

The staffers made the choice to accept the jobs working for the legislators.

And the personal histories of candidates are always part and parcel of the total package.

If they don't want to be outed, they should stick to private life, and not go into politics to pursue an agenda of hatred and bigotry against those who are just like them.

We've been round this rosebush before, though...we're not gonna agree, I'm thinking!

[EFerrari]

79. You're right. We're not.

:)

[noiretextatique]

94. well, isn't that exactly what homophobes do to gay people?

force us to deal with the homophobia they whip up to win elections? yep...that's a real power trip, the 'family values' crap, especially when some of the perpetrators are closted gays themselves.

[EFerrari]

102. If it's wrong when they do, isn't it still wrong when we do it? n/t

[noiretextatique]

139. how can self-defense be "wrong?" nt

[jberryhill]

95. But if they perceive that much danger...

...then don't you think a politician trying to hide his/her sexual orientation is a target for blackmail?

I don't care if it is sexual orientation or what-have-you - someone who perceives personal danger in the exposure of a secret is someone who should not be trusted with governance, because the threat of exposure could be used to manipulate them.

That goes just as well for the straight senator who was caught on film in the back seat of a Buick with a woman not his wife.

[EFerrari]

103. Of course. That's the dirtiest corner of the political kitchen. nt

[donheld]

126. They don't perceive that much danger

They want their cake and eat it too.

[donheld]

125. It's a cowardice power trip to hide in a closet

and enact legislation like Foley was enacting from behind the closet doors.

[BigBearJohn]

115. People are killed for being poor too.

[donheld]

124. Sweety, were not talking about outing the average

Joe/Jill. Were only talking about outing those who hide in the closet and make laws, and make statements that get us killed.

[Zhade]

56. It doesn't. Those opposed to outing hypocrites don't get it.

We're talking about outing hypocrites who are themselves homophobic/anti-gay. How could gays who don't have a problem with their own orientation outing those who are against the orientation be homophobic?

It's not. It's a laughably ridiculous assertion to say it's homophobic. In truth, it seems that many of those who oppose outing dangerous hypocrites aren't as comfortable with homosexual orientation being as public as heterosexuality as they thought they were.

[LostinVA]

98. Yup

[newscott]

27. While I agree with your opinion Will:

Sometimes it's just time to beat the bastards at their own game. It seesms the only way to move the sheep to act.

It's not nice, but unfortunately this crap works.

[johnnie]

28. I think it might do the opposite

The person doing the "outing" might be promoting homophobia, but it is also exposing that truth that "gays" are not just some "freaky liberals" running around kissing each other while redecorating living rooms on TV. There will probably always be homophobia just as their is bigotry and racism, but by kicking the closet door open, it might just have an opposite effect on the younger people who are being raised by homophobic parents.

Now, I hope everyone doesn't jump on me for this, because I am only thinking out loud here and trying to see if there is any positive thing that has been happening here. Of course, first and foremost, if someone is a pedophile, *that* should be the main concern. But if someone is a closeted homosexual and has either been being a hypocrite, or living their life in fear of being "outed" because of their peers, then it might just be the right thing to expose the hypocrisy over the homophobia.

Here is another thought on it. The majority of people I know and talk to on a regular bases are not promoters of homophobia. 99% of the people here are not, and most of the democrats and liberals out there. My family isn't and my close friends aren't. The people that are, are mainly the religious fundies, and conservative right-wing nut cases. These are the people that are being "outed" and the only ones that I think it will really effect negatively are the ones that are already homophobic.

In my opinion, it's not the act of "outing" that presupposes wrongdoing on the part of the person being outed, it is showing the wrongdoings of the people who are keeping them "in the closet". *That* is what should be exposed.

That's just my humble opinion.

[EFerrari]

29. Thank you. n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

33. I agree. I don't think 'outing' anyone serves a good purpose.

[flyarm]

36. what if blackmailing has been going on?? how are we represented

then??

i have felt for a long time that certain votes are gotten by blackmail..what if that is the case?

we know how rotten the thugs in the White House are..

we know that Gannon was sitting in our press briefing room for 2 years spewing propaganda..

we know about limos and all sorts of crap with Abramoff..in DC..and card games..but what else went on??

Are our representatives being blackmailed and therefore not representing us or our republic or our democracy that they took an oath to protect because they are closeted??

so who is being protected??

our democracy is bigger than any one person..

and we are supposed to be a representative government..so ...are we being represented?

and go steps further ..we know there were spies as close as Cheney's office..what if spies know our representatives are closeted and they are blackmailing our representatives??

what if our representatives sold out our secrets..because they have something to hide that their party has sold to the public as a value they themselves do not value..that puts us all in a dangerous position ..

everyone has the right to run for office..but when they do ..they serve the public of this country..they then lose the right to secrecy..it is not privacy when they can put our nation and our democracy in harms way..because they secretly hide who they really are..that is lying to the very people they represent..
we vote to let them represent us..yes...let them represent us..we are not voting to let them be blackmailed..we are not voting for them to lie to us and pass themselves off as one person, when they are another..or to pass votes that represent us all..when they are lying and possibly voting against who they are and we are..

we are considered adults when we vote..its about time those that represent us act like adults and tell the damn truth..if they win with who they are, wonderful..if they don't, then the people have made their choices ..and must live with them.

But to ask the American people to vote for a lie..is not representative of who we are..or what we should be. And to hide and deceive ..and then cover up and play all these silly damn games..should be stopped.

WE have children missing all over this country..we have mothers and fathers who have had to live with that ..horribly.
We have had children run through the White House, and pedopilia rings surrounding our White House and government..and this must stop..not that it is a gay thing ...it is not..but anyone who thinks this country and her leaders do not have a sexual predisposition are fooling themselves..we need to grow up as a nation and we need to hold those accountable who have lied to us..

Let the chips fall where they may..but children are being hurt, by all the damn lies.
And families are being destroyed by the damn lies!

I am beginning to think we are more a nation of liars than any other value..

I sure as hell haven't seen any "family values" in a long damn time..hypocrites ..you bet..liars ..you bet!!

Do i want these liars and so called "family value liars " deciding my national security..no damn way!

So if outing a gay congress critter hurts one congressman or several...think of how many lives they have effected ..300 million!

and they are not representing me if they are liars!

fly

[Karenina]

52. You GOOOO, Flyarm!

It's the William Bennett Syndrome that's gotta go. It's about LYING and hypocrisy. GREAT POST! :toast:

[Zhade]

61. I think it's It's very telling that those who oppose...

...outing dangerous hypocrites automatically assume we're talking about outing the orientation and not the hypocrisy - as if it's wrong to be known as gay.

VERY telling.

[mondo joe]

66. A lot of well intentioned heterosexuals just don't get it

I was thinking about this, and thinking there's an experience every out gay person has experienced that no straight person has. It's the moment of revealing that you are not in fact heterosexual - as everyone is assumed to be - in any numberof personalexchanges.

Every out gay person knows what I'm talking about. It's the moment, often very innocuous, when you have to correct someone, or use a key word to indicate you're gay.

I think we just have a different understanding of what it all means than even many very thoughtful heteros.

[flyarm]

106. i get it..i get it real well..dear friends of mine married 27 years the

the husband was caught by police in a park with a man in a compromising situation.....my son dated his daughter..

and i still remain dear friends with both husband and wife..and i will tell you the entire town knew the guy was gay..except his family..he was blatant all over town picking up men...

he and his family went through hell..his wife came and stayed with me for weeks after he came "out"

and his kids were crushed ..still several years later they remain crushed..

not because he was gay..but because he lied ..because he lied and lied and lied and lied..

because they were the good church going family..

they were the cornerstone of the church..and our town..the mom worked for the superintendent of schools..it was devastating for her

when the family found out how open he was all over town humiliating them..they were destroyed as a family..

and again..i will say ..not because he was gay..they have all accepted that..but they will never trust him..and the love is lost because he so horribly lied to them all..

as for the man..well he just had a ball..he was free and he was hitting all the gay bars and partying hearty...

while his family was just destroyed..the wife actually tried to commit suicide months later..because she felt so duped..she felt stupid and humiliated( although she is a very intelligent woman)that she was the last to know..and he had quite the reputation all around town ..

I love them both..and have remained friends with them both..but i truely believe his family paid a much higher price for his lies..and deceit!..and his hypocracy was out in the open in his church and for all to see..

he was self employed and his business went bust..mostly because no one trusted him anymore...

not because he was gay..because he was exposed as the liar he was, and he destroyed many people's lives with his lies.



fly

[Karenina]

81. I pose the question again...

If you became aware that a rabidly racist politician had close relatives who would be immediately identified as black, would you expose that person to his supporters? ;-)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

136. YES!

Exactly! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! :crazy:

There isn't a damn thing wrong with being gay. There is something wrong with being a mutherfucking hypocrite who sucks dick in private and rails/legislates against it in public! And clearly many of the GOPers (especially the staffers) who are being "outed" don't think there's anything wrong with it either, because (from what I've read) they are not truly in the closet, but live their lives openly but do not publicize it.

They know there's nothing wrong with being gay, their bosses know there is nothing wrong with being gay, there's only something "wrong" with it when it's time to whip the base into a frenzy.

HYPOCRITES!!!! everyone of them. Bah!

[donheld]

150. YES! It's the hypocrisy, stupid!

It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! :banghead:
It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! :banghead:
It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! :banghead:
It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! :banghead:
It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! :banghead:
It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! It's the hypocrisy, stupid! :banghead:
Why can't they get that, :shrug:do they not want to?

[MADem]

92. Fascinating construct, but even more fascinating is what would follow from

your scenario:

The closeted people being blackmailed (if that's what is happening) will at the end of the day be grateful for the outing--not having to live the lie anymore, and so on. And who knows, if they end up being voted out, or even if not, some of them might actually bare all and reveal the truth of the blackmail, if it in fact exists.

And if someone admits they are being blackmailed, then they will of course point the finger at the blackmailer, and then it could get very interesting indeed.

[madinmaryland]

37. It's the hypocracy that bothers me.

In the case of Foley, it was his support and creation of child endangerment laws that made his actions of accosting the pages both hypocrital and reprehensible. Those who make the Foley case into anything else, are being disingenuous.

On another note, if someone supports anti-gay legislation, and turns out to be gay, it is both hypocritical and sad.

[mondo joe]

38. This gay man could not disagree more.

Knowing people are gay does not promote homophobia. Treating it like a sacred cow does.

If people really want to keep these things private they should keep them private. But in the case of outing, at least my impression is these are "open secrets". The gay community knows about them. Their political parties do. But everyone politely participates in a charade that these people aren't gay.

And to ask gays to be complicit in their own exploitation is not reasonable.

[Zhade]

64. Funny how some straight people think they can tell us how we should feel.

You are so fucking RIGHT ON.

[Zhade]

40. This queer says you're completely wrong.

As in, 180 degrees wrong.

Hiding orientation fosters the idea that the orientation should be hidden, is somehow shameful or wrong.

It's not. Homosexuality is exactly as morally acceptable and normal as heterosexuality. This society feels no need to hide heterosexuality; suggesting that outing hypocritical anti-gay homosexuals is somehow homophobic - especially when it's us queers approving of and carrying it out - is laughably wrong.

[Marnieworld]

67. ok here is a hypothetical

I'm all for outing closeted gays who actively work to promote (speeches, associations with groups, write legislation) anti-gay views and laws and an intolerable society- regardless of party affiliation. Yet what if someone is a closeted gay person and is a Republican but is not anti-gay? What if when the hateful legislation they actually stand up to their party producing it, say something along the lines of " I stand with my party, but I object to this." SHould they still be out-ed? What if a GOPer closeted person just goes with the flow but does not actively engage in hypocrisy? Should they be outed? Or is it, if you are a gay politician be prepared to have everyone know regardless of the extent of your hypocrisy?

Of course all of this is assuming a reality that I don't think exists
- A Republican standing up to the party on any issue let alone this one
- A closeted Democrat who promotes anti-gay legislation

So do you just want to out all gays or just the hypocrites? Me I think I'm all for outing the blatant hypocrites and the appeasers who belong to the party of hateful legislation and rhetoric without standing up. How can you root for that team?

But I am against outing private citizens or even other public people like celebrities unless they also contribute to the hate by word or deed.

I see how on the one hand, coming out could be so difficult and painful especially if you have spent an adult entire life in the closet. It should be a personal choice. Yet we must stand up to the people would oppress- and by revealing their hypocrisy it helps the bigger cause.

I only write you based on your comments in the other thread too.

[Zhade]

70. How many times do I have to type "outing hypocrites" before it's read?

NT!

[Marnieworld]

90. I just needed a little clarity is all.

Outing just the hypocrites? Well good. Like I thought, we agree. :patriot:

[Dr Fate]

41. I dont listen to anyone who wrings their hands about fighting Republicans.

Even if they are usually right.

That goes for anyone who said we should not filibuster Alito, bury discussion of the DSM, or call Bush a "liar" or any number of instances where we refused to fight or refused to tell the truth about Republicans.

You really think homophobes can be made "more homophobic" by a Democrat or an operative telling the truth about GOP liars & hypocrites? Not me. They will be just as homophobic as always- no more, no less.

All this hand wringing about us being agressive against liars & hypocrites is what lost us the last 3 election cycles.

If we could come up with as many WAYS to fight the GOP as we come up with EXCUSES for holding back, we might get somewhere.

[buff2]

69. AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

:yourock:

[Dr Fate]

75. So you are tired of this type of "Keep your powder dry" baloney too?

Join the club!!! :)

[homaffectional]

43. Assuming that's true, so does the closet...

among other, even worse things.

Believe me, I know.

[mondo joe]

46. In the end it is us gays who will decide this matter anyway -

not the democrats or the republicans or DU.

[mondo joe]

54. I think as long as you have a double standard you will not promote

equality.

If you want gay partners recognized as equal to straight partners, you have to treat them that way. I don't think you get to play it both ways, saying we should be recognized but not RECOGNIZED.

I don't think anyone being outed has ever increased homophobia one teeny bit. To the contrary, the more people are out the more accepted gays are.

If I had the power to visibly mark every single gay person in the world, I'd do it, just to endthe closet forever.

[IdesOfOctober]

57. Pedophile priests and their attorneys; teachers' duties compared

"This whole Foley thing, by the way, has unfairly placed homosexuality into the center of the conversation. That, to put it mildly, is bullshit."

Wholeheartedly agreed.

"People who pursue children for sexual gratification don't do so because they are gay, but because they are sick...and yet Foley's homosexuality has been morphed into the central issue."

Again, wholeheartedly agreed.

"That is a massive disservice, akin to those who attach priestly pedophelia to homosexuality."

Personally, I've always thought that the attorneys who protect the pedophile priests and the powerful Archdiocesean officials are every bit as guilty as their clients.

Lawyers will have the knee-jerk reaction: the attorney-client privilege is sacrosanct and inviolable. Only, that's not true. Society places limits on this privilege, which - though necessarily broad - is not absolute.

For instance, an attorney who knows that a client is going to kill someone has an "out" - and a corresponding duty to act, to prevent his/her client from accomplishing that purpose.

In our school systems, teachers are routinely required to report suspected child abuse. For example, in Massachusetts - where the Boston Archdiocese continues to deal with the fallout of decades of cover-up by the Church - teachers are bound by many reporting laws, such as these: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/119-51a.htm AND http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/71-37l.htm

Doctors and patients are supposed to enjoy a privilege, yet doctors are included on the list of professionals who must make a report of suspected abuse. So are teachers.

So why have lawyers - who help to write many of the laws in any state, including Massachusetts - left themselves off that list?

As a society, we can say that preventing child abuse, as a public policy, outweighs the public policy considerations embodied in the (broad, yet limited) attorney-client privilege.

This would prevent law firms from becoming complicit co-conspirators, and radically alter the dynamic that allows this sort of thing to go on for decades on end: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2363704&mesg_id=2363704

"So, to my mind, running around 'outing' people perpetuates the disgraceful attacks on homosexuality that have been inspired by Foley."

Well, I wouldn't exactly say that the attacks were "inspired" by the Foley fiasco. I'd say that the Foley imbroglio has helped to expose some of the more hypocritical scapegoating that has gone on for centuries.

At least as early as October 13, 1307, the Catholic Church was using allegations of homosexual acts to justify the round-up of the Knights Templar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Knights_Templar#Charges_of_heresy

And - to deflect attention from the Boston Archdiocese and its lawyers - the Church has launched a renewed, modern-day witch hunt for gay seminarians (ignoring the fact that many of the pedophile priests' victims were young girls): http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gay+seminarians

"That, I would say, also promotes homophobia."

Not as much as speaking ex cathedra does.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=ex+cathedra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_cathedra

Aided and abetted by the highest-priced law firms the parishoners' money can buy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2363704&mesg_id=2363704

Ides

[buff2]

59. You are dead wrong.

Outing republicans who are gay but pretend they are not is the best thing that could happen to those filthy hypocrites.For too long they have gotten by with that "holier than thou" crap and it's time they were exposed for who they really are. There is nothing wrong with being gay,but it's wrong when gay repukes hide in their closets and vote against every right there is concerning gay issues while lying their asses off to their constituents.

I am thrilled the truth is finally coming out on these republicans and their phony "family values" crap. They have looked down their noses at gays while being gay themselves. The majority of the American people have had enough of their self righteous sanctimonious hypocrite lifestyle while pandering for "christian" votes.

[Malikshah]

62. Interesting opinion. Great leaps w/ the Foley event

Outing perpetuates attacks like on Foley?

Sorry-- doesn't stand up to the smell test.

Outing is a difficult topic-- and extremely personal topic, a topic that cannot be judged in so superficial a manner has been done on many of the latest threads-- including the OP of this thread.

As it is just someone's opinion, though, I guess I'll just have to disagree with the added suggestion that one revisit the issue and integrate hypocrisy into the equation.

Alas-- there will be those who will blindly follow and with such facility analyze their ways into protecting hypocrites. (Not necessarily the OP, but those who succinctly and/or blindly follow)

[Zhade]

68. There's nothing hypocritical about outing hypocrites.

The OP is dead wrong on this, and skating close to insult by suggesting that those brave GLBTers who are disarming these dangerous homophobic anti-gay hypocrites are somehow themselves homophobic.

[Malikshah]

72. Uh...I was trying to be diplomatic in pointing out the OP was

dead wrong.

It's an opinion held by the OPer-- wrong-headed, off the mark, a swish and a miss (to this gay man), that doesn't really bring out the subtext issue of the intent of outing (I believe that the idea attempting to be conveyed in the OP is that by "outing" the intent is to bring someone down = promoting homophobia) This, to my mind, is the only sense I can make out of the logic of the OP. It's wrong, but I didn't wish to sit their and get my knickers in a twist.

But-- as I was addressed in all caps...

Sing it sister! :)

[Karenina]

71. Does "outing" someone

who is "passing for white" promote racism?

[ProfessorGAC]

73. Not Your Best Work, Will

The logic is quite flat. The "outing" is being outed for the lies, the hypocrisy, and duplicity. If not for those background elements, the "outing" would be apropos of nothing.
The Professor

[KoKo]

87. Yes...it's the HYPOCRACY of those who vote against themselves and

their culture and interests. Were they BLACKMAILED for VOTES? That's the issue. As cruel as it might seem to be doing "Outing" it still comes down to "Does one stand for TRUTH or for Lies that Protect?

The Blackmail issue is a hugely important one. And what if "favors" were given to those in the Repug Party (access to "choice pages" or acess to "children" from countries known to be in the Sex/Slave Trade}...all for their vote.

I'd feel the same if we had any group of Exploiters who could be Blackmailed in our Congress whether they are Dems or Repugs. Foleygate is about exploiting those who are the "best and brightest" of our kids who BELIEVE in GOVERNMENT...because their Teachers Taught Them That!

I understand how many DU'ers think this could lead to "witch hunts" against their sexuality. But, EXPOSING TRUTH is always going to hurt someone. It's hurt females, too..throughout the Centuries...it's hurt EVERYONE.

LIES/HYPOCRACY/COVER-UP...for all the WRONG REASONS! It just can't go on when our whole was of life is at stake. WE, Americans, were supposed to be BETTER THAN THIS! OUR IDEALS! If they were just LIES then our culture Collapses. Lies..and Hypocracy...it's always what does every Culture in from the dawn of time. :-(

[stepnw1f]

74. Heh....? No It Doesn't.... These Creeps Promote Homophobia

by demonizing the gay community with legistlation that ostricizes them from society. Further the legislation that discriminates against gays supports the bigots point of view that gays are not welcome in America. That creates more fear and bigotry. It's the other way around...

...outing these creeps exposes the hypocrisy and places homophobic politicians on notice.

[yodermon]

77. I *would* agree with you... IF

we were not talking about Legislators.

Think about that please.

Legislators are different, because their policies affect Everyone.

I am *all for* exposing hypocrisy in that group.

I am *not for* "outing" your next door freeper's gay teenage son to his father.

I hope you can understand the difference, and that there is a difference.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

78. I haven't got a problem with exposing...

hypocritical bigoted republicans.

I don't see why there's need to make an exception for hypocritical bigoted republicans who happen to be homosexuals.

Isn't this a bit like saying it was anti-semitic to expose George Allen as a racist?

[cwydro]

80. well

I think being in the closet promotes homohobia; those that feel they have something to "hide" perpetuate that with pretend bfs or gfs, when in all likelihood everyone close to them already knows the truth.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

82. There is wrong doing if they tow the party line of hatred towards GLBTs

[VelmaD]

83. Here's my problem

I've stated this on other threads but I'll repeat it here. If an African-American politician promotes legislation and policies that hurt other African-Americans...it can be seen, and they recieve a ration of shit from their fellow African-Americans. The same is true for other ethnic minorities. Of for women. If I had my brain reversed by aliens tomorrow and became an anti-choice, barefoot and pregnant, women shouldn't even have the vote kind of right-wing nutjob politician and advocated those positions...everyone would see I was a woman advocating against women...and I would be fair game.

However, apparently some gay politicians can hide. They can espouse the most virulently anti-gay agenda and get away with it in a way that some other minority republican hypocrites cannot. I don't think that's right.

I don't like outing generally speaking. And I don't believe in casually outing people to their friends and parents and co-workers and the world at large...I know what kind of trouble it can cause and I don't need that karma. But, this is mostly about hypocrisy for me. It's like outing a politician who is anti-choice who coerced a girlfriend to have an abortion. Or finding out one of those law-and-order, lock 'em up and throw away the key types is a crackhead. Or outing the affairs of all those republican politicians who were trying to crucify Clinton over Monica. When you are a public official and your private life is in direct contradiction to the "morals" or "values" you try to shove down everyone else's throat through legislation...they you are fair game.

I think we need MORE outing of hypocritical republicans...though not strictly in terms of their sexuality. But dredging up every hypocritical thing they've ever done...the affairs, the cronyism, the bribery, the fiscal irresponbility, the drug use, the drunk driving, the hookers and blow...oh hell yeah.

on edit: That said, I do agree with your point that the Foley situation has taken an ugly turn to be about him being gay and not about him abusing his position and engage in very inappropriate relationships with minors. And that's wrong. So I think the timing of this particular round of outing is somewhat suspect. It only feeds the moster. And that is unfortunate.

[Coloradan4Truth]

84. I think outing someone who lives in Iran

is wrong. But in America where we embrace diversity (slight sarcasm), I think it is just fine to out those who are mature adults, and manage to use their position(s) of power to discriminate against the GLBT community. If someone who is outed then feels discriminated against because they are gay they can then use their power, or the freedoms we have in America, to make positive change.

[MADem]

132. What if the gay guy is an Ayatullah on the Supreme Council, who passes

death sentences on gay teenaged boys?

The issue here is outing people in public life who make laws that are harmful to the gay population, not outing someone just to be a busybody or an asshole.

[Stand and Fight]

85. I agree 100%. n/t

[elehhhhna]

86. Being in the closet leaves them VERY open to blackmail, William.

Yes or no?

[tuvor]

88. What other hypocrisies should we ignore?

These folks are making deals with devils against other members of their own minority group, and reaping the benefits. Sitting idly by isn't acceptable. What do you suggest to counteract it?

If exposing these particular hypocrites for what they are "promotes homophobia," it's only with people whose minds are already made up.

[confludemocrat]

91. That Foley is gay was evident from hischasing male pages, he was not outed

per se. So dumb to use him as the center of your argument. And the only reason "his own" didn't out him was to maintain political advantage. As for Craig, he is a politician, a public person who makes a living partly by the business of keeping gays down. These sick fucks are hypocrites, plain and simple. Go ahead let your heart bleed for people like Craig if you must.

So outing a hypocrite is going to add new recruits to the legions of homophobes out there. Come on, you can't be serious. "Oh, so Larry Craig is gay? I was sitting on the fence, but now I hate gays!"

[mitchum]

93. Well, you are absolutely wrong

[noiretextatique]

96. i strongly disagree

the rw didn't decide to attack gay people and their rights in the last election because the community outed someone.
they did that because they knew two things:
1) they knew they could exploit exisiting homo-hatred
2) they knew that democrats would be too mealy-mouthed to fight back with an effective opposing strategy....because of exisiting homo-hatred and the need to at least appear to pander to it. "marriage is between a man and a woman" is an example.
they were right on both counts.

foley is exploiting homophobia in a pathetic attempt to excuse his abuse of power, decency and common sense. most adults (gay or otherwise) do not use their positions of authority to seduce teenagers, so his "coming out" is actually an insult to gay people...as if he "revelation" somehow explains his disgusting behavior. i am not even sure he is gay (though there have been rumors for years) but he does seem to have a penchant for young boys...that could be a totally different animal. the bastard deserves no sympathy or "special rights." what other class of politician should be protected from their own (and their party's) hateful rhetoric and amoral behavior? being gay has ZERO to do with it.

[LostinVA]

97. Totally disagree

Since I've posted on this a zillion times today, I won't elaborate here.

[populistdriven]

99. why not use their own sick immune system against them?

Its like the Republicans are suffering from the political analogue to rheumatoid arthritis

Their homophobia is the disease.

[6000eliot]

100. I have to disagree, Will. Homophobia thrives on "the closet."

The more out in the open we are, the less it can harm us.

[helderheid]

101. I agree - these threads have made me queasy.

[ConsAreLiars]

104. Homophobia is a mental disorder, not something that is caused by learning

that hypocrite A and B have been lying about their sexual orientation while calling for persecution of those who are openly gay. Exposing liars and con artists is always a good thing.

[Crewleader]

108. My opinion too William

:hi:

[alittlelark]

109. OK, lets say you are a 'Green' congressman (not green party)

You espouse love of the land, protection of the forests and the animals who reside within them. You are a paradigm of virtue that is held up by the Sierra Club, PETA, and the ASPCA.


It turns out you have millions of $$$ in industrial agriculture, coal plant businesses, and you spend your vacations hunting endangered animals in Kenya.



Should your constituents know that?

[Laurab]

110. I don't think it promotes homophobia - I just think it's wrong

I was thinking it's wrong to "out" anyone who doesn't want to be outed. On the other hand, after giving it some thought, I'm not so sure it's wrong to out hypocritical LEGISLATOR'S, as someone pointed out, who make laws that hurt the gay community. It's kind of a slippery slope though....where would the line be drawn?

I actually take great joy in seeing the hypocrisy exposed of the repukes who espouse their "family values" advance their anti-gay legislation, lash out against the very communities they belong to....it's hard to say they shouldn't be outed. But then...

One of my brothers is gay. He outed himself - when he was ready, and when he was comfortable with it. I don't think it would have been right for anyone else to do it for him. On the other hand, he wasn't a gay-bashing repuke, or a hypocrite.

My question is - who's going to make the rules or decide who's to be outed and who isn't? Who's going to decide when it's "right" to out someone, and when it isn't? That's where that slippery slope is.

Foley SHOULD have been outed - not for being gay, but for being a pedophile. If he takes a few people with him, I'm fine with that, too.

I dunno - I think people should be able to live their lives, and keep some things private if they feel it's necessary. If a person is a raving hypocrite, I think maybe they lose that right. My problem is wondering who the "decider" is going to be.

[deacon]

111. Outing was brought out via hypocrisy- to expose hypocrisy

whether it is good or bad is another story- but the vicious attacks on gays that was brought on by the GOP and the bush administration is the cause.

It didn't have to be this way- but exposing hypocrisy isn't wrong. It exposes promotion of discrimination and pandering to the self righteous. Who can put I lid on it? The jerk bags that initiated the deep divisions in the country.

To me it's outing the hypocrites.

[lies and propaganda]

114. being a closet case and passing anti gay legislation

is also doing wonders for homophobia.

There are a lot of us here who realize that outing someone is pretty ugly thing to do, but its hard to completely hate a shitty act being done to someone who fucks you over everyday and is part of your community.

[OneBlueSky]

116. outing is acceptable ONLY when it exposes hypocrisy . . .

and is identified as such . . . the only reason to out someone is if they continually bash and/or vote against the interests of gays and lesbians while covertly being sexually active . . . in those cases, I think it's right to expose them, but only for the hypocrisy, not because they are gay, per se . . . and that's how the outing must be explained . . .

[BR_Parkway]

117. You're wrong - I am not ashamed to be gay and don't advocate

outing someone when they are in the same position. But when someone uses my homosexuality while hiding their own to stir up other people's homophobia, then it's time that people knew exactly who they were being manipulated by. It's exposing their hypocracy, not their sexuality. Plain and simple. They chose a public career, they chose to hide who they were, they chose to play on other's homophobia for power and prestige and votes. They chose to gamble that by using (b) that no one would ever find out about (a). Had they been out, and shown people that being gay was nothing to be ashamed of like I have done then it would be a whole different situation.

But their current actions hurt me and my family. They make things worse for me and mine for their own gain. It's not different than them committing a financial fraud on me that wiped out my bank account. All I'm doing is informing the prosecutor that a crime has been committed

[Vidar]

118. Humble??????

[terrya]

119. Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

It's wrong, but you're entitled to it.

I get sort of amused when heterosexuals weigh in on outing. Because, frankly, sometimes they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Here's what you need to know when it comes to outing gay Republicans. Ready? The Republican Party is pushing a viruently anti-gay agenda. No on same sex marriage, no on civil unions, no on gay adoption, no on ending "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in the military, no on every single right that we gay people deserve. It's a big fucking NO for us gay people when it comes to the basic rights that you heterosexuals enjoy.

So, when a gay person who may be closeted is a member of the Republican Party, knowing perfectly damn well what their party is all about, re: gay people...then it's outing time. At that point, they lose their privacy. Period. End of discussion.

[Zhade]

146. Completely, utterly wrong, at that!

NT!

[donheld]

121. Will, for once, I have to disagree with you. Outing does no such thing.

It, indeed, does presuppose wrongdoing on the part of the person being outed. That wrongdoing is called HYPOCRISY. It is this HYPOCRISY that is the "something to be exposed" And it's journalists such as yourself who have to do the exposing.

Yes KKKarl Rove, James Dobson and the rest have deflected the crime of pedophelia, and made it into a "crime" of homosexuality. We must have people like yourself cry out from the house top it is not the "crime of homosexuality" which doesn't exist, to the crime of pedophelia which does exist. It is the job of someone in the media/journalism field who must make this well known or we're screwed.

We are trying to make homosexuals know they do not need to hide in a closet. We are also trying to make it well known that Hypocrites will be exposed and not tolerated. We also have to make it knows that fools like Rove, Dobson or anyone else know this is ONLY ONLY ONLY a crime of pedophelia or preying on others.

Will, Looking down through the thread there are at least 7 openly DUers who disagree. Only 1 who agrees. I say you need to talk to more of us before you settle this in your mind. It doesn't have to be me, I'm going to bed, but talk to us. We know homophobia all too well.

[sendero]

122. Outing hyporcisy...

... not sexual orientation.


No different than "outing" someone who is always pushing anti-gun legislation who owns 50 firearms.

[smoogatz]

140. I've thought about this a good bit, and I think you're wrong.

Let's say I'm a gay politician who pretends to be straight, and let's say in order to "prove" I'm straight I publicly bash gay people and actively promote anti-gay legislation. But at night, when the news media are off doing other things, I'm out cruising gay bars around DuPont Circle and counting on the gay community to protect me and keep my "secret." If I promote and profit from homophobia all day long, do I deserve the protection of the gay community? Or would they be right in exposing my hypocrisy to the public eye? IMO, and in the opinion of a growing number of my gay friends, self-hating gay politicians have done real damage to the general rights and safety of gay Americans. They should tell their constituents the truth about who they are and let the electoral chips fall where they may--or know that they face the very real risk of having the truth told for them.

[Midlodemocrat]

141. I disagree, Will. Outing forces the hypocrites to face the issue of

their hypocrisy. To me, their sexual orientation is secondary.

To my mind, it's the same as outing a 'pro-family value' repub who is banging his stepdaughter a la Susan Smith.

[BigBearJohn]

142. So what? Let Craig stay in the closet and continue to suppress gay rights?

[donheld]

149. Let Foley stay in the closet and pester underage boys

:wtf: do we have to do :shrug:to get through to these people? :banghead::banghead::banghead:

[lynne]

151. Those who "out" gays are the bigger hypocrites, IMO -

- We profess to be the enlightened party who is friend to the GLBT community. Attacking and outing gays of any stripe for political gain - or for any reason - goes against everything I thought we were to stand for.

[DURHAM D]

153. Who is "we" that you are speaking for.

Should be obvious if you read through all the above posts that us gay folks don't really care what straight people think on this issue - including other Dems.

Foley was not outed by the Democratic Party. He outed himself through his actions toward a young man and the parents found out - they were Republicans.

Senator Craigslist was not outed by the Democratic Party. He was outed by a gay activist. In case you still don't get it - we are gay first and Dems second.

[mondo joe]

156. Speak for yourself. I'm gay and have no problem attacking ANY

asshole who is fucking with me.

If you can stop these lousy shits hurt the GLBT community but you remain silent, then YOU are no friend to the GLBT community.

[Leo 9]

154. Outing members of the party and movement that make so much...

hay out of being anti-gay is a good thing.

And I would like to take this opportunity to point out that GOP Chairman, Ken Mehlman, is very gay.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Ken+Mehlman%22+gay&btnG=Search

[DisgustedTX]

155. Outing phony Rove indictments incites ROVEOPHOBIA

So a 26-post member somehow digs this out of the cellar and brings it back up?

Interesting and disgusting.

[Bluebear]

158. I disagree completely, it is NOT about being a predator.

This thing is so beyond Foley now. It is about gay Republicans who shoot at us from their closets, doing immeasurable damage to us out in the real world. If they promote DOMA, for instance, and pretend to be straight and wreck the lives of gay Americans, the hell with them.

[sweetheart]

159. Rape and the threat of rape

If coercion and power were not involved, it would just be sex, but rather, the republicans have
screwed all of america, not just some kids in congress, and we all feel it.