Are You Ashamed Of Any Fellow Liberals Who So Passionately Condone Outing?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

[bluestateguy]

1. What has to be done to win has to be done

This is for the good of the nation here.

[AngryAmish]

96. Every interaction with a Republican should end with:

1. A shovel;

2. A forest preserve; and

3. Some quicklime.

[bluestateguy]

101. I don't know about that

nt

[DURHAM D]

2. I am disappointed in fellow liberals who won't shut up and

leave the cleansing of the gay community to the gay community.

Anyone who claims to be liberal and hides behind that as a strategy for telling gay people how to act and what to do is no better than a slave master who tells their slaves they are better off if he beats them versus their next master.

[MrCoffee]

11. "the cleansing of the gay community"...

you guys got your own little Interahamwe over there?

[DURHAM D]

14. Yes - when necessary. n/t

[Deja Q]

26. The gay community doesn't know what to go do with itself.

Coming from it, I have a few unsavory biases and I am going to say some of them, because they are germain to this discussion and will explain why nobody wants to be "outed":

I don't know precisely when it turned from a civil rights issue into an annual circus sponsored by Target and Saturn with the parades containing floats of guys flashing their parts and hoisting balloons shaped like their parts, but it's nothing any respecting person would want to be associated with. Gay or otherwise; it is not helping our their cause!

And maybe that's why nobody wants to be outed, or admit they had a past in the community and now want to escape it. Even if it isn't their first instinct to do so; was it not Kinsey who said true homosexuality is a myth; most fall somewhere in the middle of the sexuality spectrum?

(and has been said elsewhere, pedophilia is different from homosexuality. The former pertains to children, the latter does not.)

[LostinVA]

91. The "gay community" has nothing to do with any parades

Ugh. "Unsavory"? YOU'RE the one with the issues, not the gay community.

Those parades have as much to do with "the gay community" as St. Patrick Day parades have to do with Irish and Irish-American communities.

Go peddle this strange shame of gays somewhere else.

What a post.

[Deja Q]

103. Really?

Then why do they have parades in the first place?

Not for awareness, then? Then what?

Discount what I say all you like. I'm only saying, there are people who tie in a lot more than your rationalization. For better or worse. And while things are better not, things can change.

What if GLBT folk from 1976 did what those in that parade did? It wouldn't have helped then, and it's not going to help now.

Decorum and prestige is what we should be asking. The loudest events and those shouting the most DO make impressions on people. Not a circus sponsored by companies like coca-cola who don't give a damn about anything except your money.

And if the loudest act like unsavory, you bet the masses will adjust accordingly.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

112. It's a day of have fun and celebrate.

The gay community is serious all year. We deserve a day when we can let loose and just party.

Most major festivals end up with "unsavory" behavior. The Saint Patrick's Day parade is INSANE, even in small towns. You want to talk about bad behavior? Talk to the drunken masses on St. Patty's Day. All sorts of festivals are ill-behaved. The San Janeiro fest, Puerto Rican festival, et cetera. Perhaps you should go tell the Irish, Italians, and Puerto Ricans (and others who attend) that they better get their behavior in line.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

100. whatever!! just because you are an ex gay doesnt mean our community

doesnt know what to do with itself.

we deserve a day to celebrate ourselves and our sexuality and our flamboyance...

drag queens and drag kings do a lot for our community. they are beautiful, they question rigid gender roles and are entertaining.

we have as much right to have fun and to celebrate queer culture as straights celebrate theirs.

also one day a year doesnt make gay culture.

there are gay activists all over fighting homophobia in academia/politics and law.

you see what you choose to see

[Deja Q]

102. Do what you like. Others watch...

And if you hadn't noticed, the media tends to look at the nastiest of things and presents them as normal.

Just like how the Jerry Springer show does.

I try to see outside the box.

And plenty of people have agreed with me on my viewpoint about what some of the floats in the parade are showing is not condusive to fostering a positive attitude.

You too see what you choose to see.

Where was I talking about drag kings and queens? Naked men flashing their fun parts and having big floating parade balloons looking like phalluses is what I was talking about.

I'm also fascinated why you summarily discount me as one. And not ask for the details. Though at this point I have no qualms saying I am one. (or at least "bisexual but ignoring the gay part.")

[La Lioness Priyanka]

104. yes but the media also picks on people in drag

as a matter of fact you are very much looking from within the box...i have seen multiple homophobes who say "its a private matter keep it private" or "those freaks at the parade " etc...any parade is over the top...its the whole point...

yes i do see what i choose to see....there are people who enjoy queerness and there are those who dont and want to be more "normal beourgouis gay"...whichever your path..its not for me to condemn

however, i will condemn someone who says that the gay community is lost/confused/doing itself a disservice by displaying sexuality or queerness.

[Tyo]

116. I totally agree

We should model our Pride parades on such family-oriented examples of straight propriety as Mardi Gras in New Orleans, and Carnival in Rio. No fun parts in evidence there, that's for sure.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

111. Oh please...

The gay community doesn't know what to go do with itself.

Just because you don't know what to do with yourself, doesn't mean you speak for the "gay community."

Coming from it, I have a few unsavory biases and I am going to say some of them, because they are germain to this discussion and will explain why nobody wants to be "outed":

They don't want to be outted because of your reasons, but rather because they are doing quite well in their insulated bubble. If they were truly private in their behavior, then they wouldn't be able to be outted however. Outting anti-gay politicians is merely exposing the hypocrisy behind their open-secret on capitol hill.

...but it's nothing any respecting person would want to be associated with. Gay or otherwise; it is not helping our their cause!

So basically you're saying that no "respecting person(s)" go to pride events? Thank you, for your enlightened & unjudgemental opinion. I guess now since you're an ex-gay, it's not your cause at all anymore, as you so clearly felt the need to point it out.

And maybe that's why nobody wants to be outed, or admit they had a past in the community and now want to escape it.

The people that are being outted want to remain comfortable in their hypocrisy. That's why they don't want to be outted.

Even if it isn't their first instinct to do so; was it not Kinsey who said true homosexuality is a myth; most fall somewhere in the middle of the sexuality spectrum?

Actually, he said true homosexuals and homosexuals were rare. Many people are predominately homosexual or heterosexual, and they consider themselves gay or straight, respectively.

(and has been said elsewhere, pedophilia is different from homosexuality. The former pertains to children, the latter does not.)

Finally, something reasonable.

[Zhade]

114. Funny, isn't it? They don't - can't? - get it, yet tell us how to feel.

Outing dangerous homophobic hypocrites is not only not immoral, it's urgently necessary, in order to disarm those trying to destroy our rights.

Saying these hypocrites shouldn't be known for their hypocrisy is akin to saying that keeping their gayness (which there is nothing wrong with) secret is more important than fighting for equal rights.

I reject that act of unethical political cowardice.

[Mend]

3. fighting fire with fire.....time to roast their feet for a change

[Poppyseedman]

4. If rethugs were to do the same

we would be screaming bloody murder.

[magellan]

20. The Dems don't run an anti-gay agenda

The Repugs do. Nuff said.

[LostinVA]

92. Bingo

[Crunchy Frog]

22. What, if they outed a gay Democrat who

was promoting an anti-gay agenda? Wouldn't bother me one little bit. All hypocrites should be outed, whatever their party.

Just how many virulently anti-gay Democrats are there? :shrug:

[LostinVA]

94. Wouldn't bother me, either -- I want ALL ringers exposed

[Tesha]

99. Rethugs *DO* do the same. Only they do it by whispering campaigns. (NT)

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. The only disappointment / shame I feel...

Are in those who refuse to see that closeted Democrats are just as big a threat to democracy as closted Republicans. If you are too ashamed to live openly, then you have no business putting yourself in the public spotlight and certainly have no business putting yourself in a position where blackmail could put the entire nation at severe risk.

[Hav]

6. .

I think that enough was already said about that topic.
We all know what the Repubs like Drudge would do with infos like these.
I would be totally against it if it didn't hit those who did everything to make it harder for gays. That's why I have actually not very much sympathy for them.

[last1standing]

7. I'm ashamed that this pure flamebait is being posted at DU.

One might even think some here are trying to take advantage of the recent moderator change. hmmm......

[libnnc]

8. OM, I appreciate your outrage but...

As a card carrying, rank and file, garden variety lesbian, I say

OUT THE MUTHAS.

It's because of these closet asshats that mine and my partner's lives are economically complicated. We file separate tax returns; we have to pay out of pocket for my health insurance; we have to seek and pay for legal services to ensure our financial securities should (goddess forbid) something happens to one of us...etc.

Hypocrisy is a big, fat, ugly, bitch. Maybe now the GOP won't be so eager to play the "gay card" anymore.

[Guaranteed]

9. We've been doing a lot of this vendetta shit, lately.

Not many long-term, clear-minded ideas.

It's all "LET'S SEE SOME BLOOD!! BWAHAHAHAHA!"

Throwing the Christians to the lions and whatnot.

[Dr Fate]

13. Really? I'd actually like to see that just once. Examples?

Or by "we" do you just mean DUers and obscure bloggers- surely you dont mean elected DEMs on TV where anyone actually sees it- or do you?

[Malikshah]

10. Wow-- Do you want Merlot with that Cheese you just crapped in the forum?

What an amazing divisive and pathetic action.

What's next...going after billygoats gruff?

[Dr Fate]

12. I am only ashamed of people who are too frightened to fight the GOP.

You remember the GOP, right- the guys who are destroying the lives of gays & straights alike?

[beyurslf]

15. I am so happy that "They deserve it" is winning.

No more being nice. The gloves are off and it is going to get bloody.

[Guaranteed]

19. It's funny how "we have to act with principle"- i.e., not spinelessly,-

has turned into "we have to just kick the crap out of them, no matter how we do it."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. Agreed. I Personally Find It To Be Pathetic.

I've found much of the rhetoric surrounding this issue to be every bit as disgusting and of childish mentatlity as other non-DU comments that as a community we all regularly rail against.

It appears some are completely blurring the line of moral distinction that is supposed to seperate us from some of the other side.

[mondo joe]

30. But I don't think there is ANYTHING immoral about

acknowledging someone is gay.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. Why The Hell Would There Be? But That Has Nothing To Do With This Point.

[mondo joe]

37. But it is the point. Simply acknowledging that someone is gay is not

immoral.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. Hellooooooo McFlyyyyyyyyy.

No one is talking about acknowledgment of someone being gay. We're talking about intentionally exposing the secret that someone is gay. If you can't see the difference, than shit, I don't know what to tell ya. :crazy:

[mondo joe]

68. If you don't want it known you are gay, don't go to gay bars - don't

show up at events with your boyfriend.

I think there's something about outing you don't get. People who are outed are to some degree already out in the community.

[Guaranteed]

60. A person's sexuality is very private to them.

You don't think it is, on general principle, wrong to publicize a person's sexuality against their will?

[mondo joe]

69. If you'd apply that universally I'd buy it.

But it's not - it's applied only to gays.

[LostinVA]

95. Nobody's talking about "sexuality"

We are talking about hypocrites and their sexual orientation. Not the same thing at all -- it's strange you think it is. Or telling.

[Guaranteed]

107. Uh, yeah, we are talking about sexuality- the sexual lives of OTHER people

And, unless those people invited you into their private, sexual lives, you shouldn't being playing around in it.

You shouldn't be playing around in their lives anymore than it's the right of the Repuke congresspeople to be playing around the sexual lives of gay people.

Hypocrisy? Doctor, heal thyself- of hypocrisy.

It's no one else's business. So, honestly, I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. I think the line of moral distinction is less important than...

... the line of functional distinction.

On one side of the line is THEM. They win, so they get to run things. On the other side of the line is us, who could run things prudently if given the chance. Some of us have belatedly realized that we won't get the chance until and unless we use winning tactics.

We can steer for the high road once we wrestle the friggin steering wheel away from those psycho bastards.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. I Consider It To Be Extremely Foolish Thinking To Believe That The

only strategy we can use to win is the concept of being vindictive childish slimebags.

As a proud member of the Democratic Party, I consider us to have an immense number of intellectual, logical, tactical, defensive and offensive weapons to use other than having to resort to the latter concept.

I think it is the epitome of foolish thought to think the only way we can win is to engage in such petty stupidity.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Care to give me a useful example?

There are ample examples of Republicans running the slimiest goddamn campaigns imaginable - and winning.

There are few examples of Democratic boy scouts winning in the face of those tactics.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same actions expecting a different result.

[AZBlue]

62. We've lowered ourselves to their level. It's so sad and disappointing.

eom

[mondo joe]

77. There is nothing low about acknowledging people are gay.

No more than acknowledging they are straight.

[noiretextatique]

16. how did the last election affect your gay and lesbian friends?

with any number of bigots all over the news talking about the evils of the the gay agenda?
with the anti-gay legislation that was passed in several states?
ask them if they think "outing" is in any way shape or form even remotely comparable AS A PROBLEM than the anti-gay agenda that some closted folks support.
finally...ask anything that happened in the last election made it easier for them to live their lives openly and without fear, while the foleys of the world cower in the closet, shielding themselves from the very agenda they support...with the protection and consent of "liberals."
:wtf:

[Behind the Aegis]

67. BRAVA!

:applause:

[MrSlayer]

17. Nope. To beat a monster sometimes you have to be a monster.

Win first and then we can be the good guy again.

[Dr Fate]

18. Not really. No one is suggesting we lie about them like they do us.

All we want to see is the truth- not lies & smears, just facts will do fine.

[MrSlayer]

21. I'm saying do whatever it takes.

It just so happens that aggressively telling the truth on these bastards should be enough. They are so fucked up you really don't have to make anything up but if that is what it takes we have to do that too. Whatever they would do we have to do. No more high road.

[Llewlladdwr]

84. Except, of course...

that once you've become a monster it's really hard to become the good guy again.

[mondo joe]

23. Frankly, not one heterosexual is in a position to judge.

Thanks.

[DURHAM D]

25. Ditto Mondo.

I have been saying the same basic thing (as nicely as I possibly could)to straight people since the Foley thing started.

I have been noticing your posts and appreciate your patience in responding to well-meaning straights and closeted gays on DU opposed to outing. Some folks just don't get - its our decision, not theirs.

Outing is not about holding gay people up to ridicule by the dominant (straight) population - it is how the gay and lesbian community purges the homophobic homosexuals that are elevating themselves by walking on our backs.

Many straight people do not respect our decisions. Fuck em.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. I Find This To Be A Ridiculous Assertion.

Are you saying that gay people have the right to out other gay people? That's gotta be one of the most illogical and nonsensical things I've ever heard.

You have no more right to 'out' somebody than I do or anyone else does. The only person who has the right to 'out' somebody is that person themselves. You have no greater moral authority to do such just because you are a gay person as well.

As far as this statement goes:
"Many straight people do not respect our decisions. Fuck em."

My response is simply that many people, straight or gay, are under the false self-righteous impression that they have the right to intrude into the private lives of others. Fuck em.

[mondo joe]

28. To the contrary, OMC.

1. When people say gays shouldn't be outed because of thhe society we live in, NO ONE is better positioned to determine that than gay people.

2. People who are outed are already known to be gay in some circles, particularly gay circles. The assumption is that other gays won't tell anyone else. This is a stupid assumption - if people really want to keep it a SECRET then keep it in your bedroom - not gay bars.

3. We do have the right to reveal this information, thank you First Amendment.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. No, Not To The Contrary.

"1. When people say gays shouldn't be outed because of thhe society we live in, NO ONE is better positioned to determine that than gay people."

Didn't say that. I said they shouldn't be outed because it isn't your or anyone else's fucking place to do so, other than that person themselves.

"2. People who are outed are already known to be gay in some circles, particularly gay circles. The assumption is that other gays won't tell anyone else. This is a stupid assumption - if people really want to keep it a SECRET then keep it in your bedroom - not gay bars."

I truly fail to see how this has an iota or relevance whatsoever. In fact, it's a ridiculous argument. It does nothing whatsoever to refute or overcome the concept that it is still none of your fucking business what somebody's choices are, nor is it your place to make choices for them.

"3. We do have the right to reveal this information, thank you First Amendment."

You have the legal right. I was talking about the moral right, which you do not have. Let me use a different phrase for it since you obviously parsed the first one incorrectly. It is not ethical whatsoever for you, me, gay, straight, alien, republican, democrat, pod-person or otherwise to 'out' anybody for any reason unless they are the person themselves.

You can keep arguing your points all you want, but I find them to be twisted and completely illogical. Your position is no greater of an ethical one than anyone else claims to have some moral authority to out somebody. I find your arguments above to be completely silly and irrelevant.

[mondo joe]

34. I fail to see why anyone has the exclusive authority

to speak of their orientation. Do you get your panties in a knot when heterosexuality of public figures is acknowledged?

If I see someone picking up someone else in a public place - like a gay bar - why am I morallly obliged to be complicit in keeping it a secret?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. If Those Public Figures Had Strong Personal Desire To Keep That Secret,

then yes, I would find it to be pathetic to vindictively out them as well.

[mondo joe]

70. Like I said, if they want to keep it a secret DON'T LET ANYONE KNOW.

Certainly don't go to gay bars in plain site or take your boyfriend to social events.

[DURHAM D]

29. I wasn't talking to you. Bye-bye.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. Get Over It. I Acknowledged Your Statements Anyway.

If you wanted your comments to not be privy to other-poster response, then you should've done it in a PM. Absent of that, your post is fair game. Sorry bub.

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. I find it ridiculous for the opposite reason

Gay Democrats do not have a moral right to veto the use of the tools that would rid our country of the plague of locusts, frogs, charlatans and lobbyists that have nearly destroyed it.

The president today signed a bill saying he could dissappear and torture anyone he wants, even if only for amusement. They're not playing by queensbury rules, and we can no longer afford the luxury of pretending that they do. There are rules in this combat and they've been established and amply demonstrated by our opponents.

You can't change the rules unless you're in a position to do so.

In my opinion, I not only have the right to intrude into the private lives of elected officials who are abusing my country, I have an obligation. Elected officials who wish to immunize themselves from this kind of scrutiny should try honesty.

When we're in charge, life will be better for all of us.

We'll get there by whatever means necessary. Will it ever be possible to repair the damage to our social fabric? Our niceness? Maybe not, but there are more broken items than that which must be fixed, none of which will occur absent a Democratic win.

[mmonk]

36. You speak for all gay people?

Were you appointed or self annointed? And as far as judging goes, that cuts both ways.

[ComerPerro]

47. Great point

A lot of these people who are part of a large anti-gay agenda by the Republicans, and use "family values" anti-gay messages to win elections, are now some of the first ones to suddenly (when caught) try to say "its ok to be gay", as though there were never a problem.

If that is truly how they felt and have always felt, they have a lot of explaining to do about their voting record.

They had no problem selling homosexuals down the river to win a few votes. I say expose them as the hypocrites they are

[mmonk]

51. I agree

unless the particular republican votes against the party on these issues.

[ComerPerro]

53. you will be hard pressed to find one who does

[mmonk]

57. I can't understand why anyone would want to be republican

anyway.

[ComerPerro]

59. People choose to be. Its an immoral choice

Some say they are born Republican, or that they just know they are Republican.

I say bullshit, its an immoral choice, and we should not reward them for bad behavior by giving them special privileges, right?

[mmonk]

81. It was a joke.

Though, with what that party is currently doing to this country, it could be considered an immoral choice.

[NoSheep]

61. But do you appreciate my support and willingness to understand

your sensibilities?

No sarcasm here.

[mondo joe]

71. Yup, I do.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

93. That's why I voted "I can understand the logic." -nt

[mmonk]

31. It's not for anyone to be ashamed as they have a point.

I say this even though they call me a homophobe for leaving it up to the individual person instead of someone "outing" them.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

38. I was disappointed with Kerry when he made that Lesbian statement

in front of mary cheney and family during the campaign. NOT because of her or her family. They are liars and cons and the worst sort of dregs of the earth. But for him. He didn't need to lower himself to that kind of stuff, and I think it cost him plenty. I cringed when he did that because I thought he was a better person. IMO he had plenty of reasons to go after the repubs with a large and mighty sword which he didn't draw nearly enough. But on this issue he should have looked to the better angels of his nature.

:hide:

[johnaries]

42. Actually, Edwards brought it up first during his debate with Cheney.

He complimented Cheney on supporting his daughter, but at the same time it pointed out Cheney's hypocrisy. Cheney couldn't say anything but "thank you". Kerry tried to build on that, but the Rove machine had developed a strategy after the VP debate.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

74. That's just my point.

Edwards brought it up. Point made. It showed that the cheneys and the whole damn lot of them are hypocrites. Kerry's follow-up was unnecessary and garnered some sympathy for the family. He should have lambasted cheney for the criminal that he is and the way he was/is using our government for his personal agenda.

As I said, this is my opinion, and I remember that he didn't look particularly comfortable when he said it. I think he followed some bad advice.

[ComerPerro]

52. Oh please. Mary "Fuck you, Edwards" Cheney? Don't worry about her

she is a tool, and she knows she is, and she doesn't even respect herself enough to care.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

76. Of course she's a tool, along with her dime novel mother

and her boorish father. Kerry might have been better off saying just that, but his attempt at being warm and fuzzy, complimenting the family on loving their Lesbian daughter, was dishonest and political. And it went over like a lead balloon.IMO.

[NoSheep]

63. I hear where you are coming from, but if we lived in a society that

respected truth above bullshit, his statement would have played exactly the way he meant it. I hope we don't all have to dumb down in order for the lowest common denominator to get what we are saying. I think Kerry is quite intelligent, and frankly, just as guilty as I would be of not understanding just how incredibly fucking stupid most people are. I would have said what he said for exactly the same reasons. Those assholes were running on a platform that preyed on homophobia, among other bullshit issues. An opponent has every right to point out hypocrisy in a person who not only doesn't deserve to serve as a Vice president, but who clearly deserves nothing short of burning in hell, if such a place exists.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

80. I agree.

Why couldn't he have said, "Your party, sir, is running on a platform that preys on homophobia. You say you are not in agreement with that but in truth you want have it both ways." I would have respected that more as a legitimate form of criticism.

[mondo joe]

72. What on earth was wrong with it? SHE'S OUT ALREADY.

What the fuck does that have to do with his better angels?

[tinfoilinfor2005]

82. Because it came off sounding as,

"Neh, neh neh, neh neh, your daughter is ga-ay, and we gotcha on this one."

She WAS out already, as you said. Edwards stressed the point that gayness is not something to be ashamed of in any family of any political party. The cheneys were grousing and grumbling about Edward's comment, but since it didn't come out as mean and calculated, it made the point.

Kerry's follow-up wasn't necessary. It sounded petty and politically motivated. And I was a rabid Kerry supporter at the time, attending his rallies, carrying posters and making the phone calls. So I can imagine how it came off to people who were not in his camp to begin with.

[pinto]

41. No. I disagree with it, but ashamed? Nah. n/t

[helderheid]

43. other: yes and no.

I think it's terrible to do it but I totally understand why people think it should. Torn much?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. Yeah, That's Kinda How I Feel Too.

The aspect I don't like is the one shown by some who appear to be reveling in the glory of it. It's that lust for seeing others suffer that gets to me. Those who agree with it and condone it while keeping some level of sanity and maturity don't really bother me.

[ComerPerro]

45. I am ashamed of liberals who stand up for GOP hypocrites

[mmonk]

48. The post wasn't framed in that manner though your point is

well taken.

[NoSheep]

64. As am I.

[enigmatic]

109. Me too n/t

[johnaries]

46. I'm torn on the issue.

On the one hand, I'm opposed to outing ANYONE if they're not ready.

On the other hand, this is more about exposing their hypocrisy as opposed to exposing their orientation.

So I can see both sides of the argument.

[G Hawes]

65. I agree.

I am torn as well, for the same reasons as you set out, and I can see both sides of the issue as a result.

Having thought about it quite a bit, I am leaning more towards the not outing people against their will side, though. Partially because it is such an intensely personal thing, and partially because there is lots of hypocrisy among the republicans to expose without resorting to outing gays.

[ruggerson]

56. I don't think straight people have the moral authority to judge this one

because they don't live it every hour of every day for their entire life.

[Neshanic]

DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

[Neshanic]

66. DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

[mmonk]

83. Then don't ask straight people for an opinion.

Also, don't answer questions when asked about something regarding something you don't live everyday.

[mondo joe]

85. I didn't ask, though that has not stopped anyone.

And I think you're entitled to your opinion - obviously. But I don't think anyone who isn't gsy is in a position to judge, because they simply don't have enough knowledge.

[mmonk]

106. No problem. I never indicated contrary

that a gay person has better insight on the issue.

[ruggerson]

89. Did I ask for an opinion?

I missed that somehow.

I'm certainly more than willing to discuss it, obviously, but I don't think many straight people have a full understanding of how gays and lesbians function every day in society, hence their views on a subject such as this one are not fully informed.

I listen very carefully to my african american and women friends when the subject of affirmative action arises, for example. They come from a place that I, no matter how I empathize, cannot fully comprehend and their take on the issue has more moral authority than mine.

[mmonk]

105. No but you gave yours.

As long as you abscribe to the same standards you place on others, I have no problem. I normally do have a problem with blanket statements about groups of people though. So thus, I have a natural reaction to them.

[AutumnMist]

58. Personally

My youngest brother is gay and I did not out him. It wasn't due to the fact that he was trying to be a hypocrite. He was a young man and didn't know what the backlash was going to be within the only security circle he had ever known. It was scary to him and I did not and still do not judge him for that. The chances that someone has to take to out themselves is much greater then the people who can sit on the other side of the fence. Its a welcomed hetero society for the most part and these men/women or boys/girls are laying themselves on the line for all to dissect. Many heterosexual people do the same introspective with their own lives and very few people say a word about it. Its just "growing pains" or being "lost". The brutal spotlight we often put on people that go against the grain of what many deem acceptable behavior has to stop. We need to encourage growth because the person doing it believes in themselves and why they are doing it. Thats what I told my brother when he came to me. Be YOURSELF. Everything about you is valid. Bring the man that you are to the table and not just your sexuality. Do not come to the table and apologize for being you. Show the people around you who you are and why you are that person. And that is exactly what he did. I am very proud of him. He did it on his terms and within his time frame. It was for himself and not for anyone else. Way to go little bro. You are amazing.

[OzarkDem]

73. I don't have a dog in this fight

This is an issue that is up to the gay community. Its something they have to decide for themselves, I don't think any of us from the hetero community know enough about how this kind of thing affects them.

[LostinVA]

97. Can I say something to you?

THANK YOU!


:hug: :loveya: :hug:

[terrya]

75. Yes

I'm extremely disappointed with liberals who would blanketedly condemn outing. Outing is useful.

[truebrit71]

78. Outing a hypocritical rethuglican that supports the gay-bashing platform..

...is absolutely fine.

Their hypocrisy is disgusting....

[foreigncorrespondent]

79. Sadly...

...yes.

[Liberal Veteran]

86. No, not really. I understand what motivates them.

Quite honestly, I don't have the slightest problems with exposing someone to the fruits of their own labor.

I don't condone outing someone without reason. Being a closeted gay republican, IMHO, is enough of a reason to force them to live in the environment they are helping to foster by outing them. You don't get to make my life miserable and then hide in the closet protected from the results of what you helped bring about.

Millions upon millions of openly gay and lesbian Americans are forced to live with the anti-gay sentiment the republican party has used to help them seize power. They scapegoated us and by aligning themselves with a party that would do that, I feel absolutely no obligation to hide what they see as a "dirty little secret".

It sucks that it has to come to that on occasion, but I feel no more guilt about it than I would if I saw some bible-thumping preacher hiring a prostitute while railing against prostitution from the pulpit on Sunday.

[ProfessorGAC]

87. No. Not Ashamed At All

It may be a difference in strategy, but i see nothing in there actions for which i would be ashamed. To channel Carville: It's the hypocrisy, stupid!

The Professor

[Jed Dilligan]

88. See post 75

Poll is crap, people are misreading question. EOM

[jonnyblitz]

90. yes you straight folk can afford to be all self righteous ....

this doesn't affect you personally.

[LostinVA]

98. You s aid it, Johnnie

And, this goes beyond just people saying nastiness -- they are legislating us as criminal and sinful and illegal. It sickens me.

[ProfessorGAC]

108. Yes It Does

We are all personally affected anytime a gang of thieves and liars are allowed to be entrenched in the halls of gov't. Their lies, duplicity, and hypocrisy has to exposed somehow.

Now, i personally wouldn't out anyone, no matter how loathesome i think they are, but i don't think it's a matter of self-righteousness.

Besides, your response makes me want to ask: Are you ashamed of being gay? Why? It couldn't be because of me, because i couldn't care less what someone's attraction preference is. So, if there's nothing to be ashamed of, inherently, then why would outing a liar be self-righteous?

The outing of that person would appear to be an exposure of being a hypocrite, not of being gay. It's just that they're now being shot with their own bullets.

The Professor

[Roon]

110. I am all for outing

I hate closet cases with a passion. It's the closet cases that use glory holes and public bathrooms and book stores that give us all the bad press. Out the bastards...chickenshits.

[Zhade]

113. Glad to see that more than half of DU supports outing hypocrisy.

Kudos to those intelligent DUers among us!

[enigmatic]

115. No

I think any straight person who knows a closeted GOP elected official who votes for anti-gay legislation and uses anti-gay language and deprives Gays and Lesbians equal rights under the law and either thinks it's shameful for other Gays and Lesbians to out them, or themselves say nothing and continue to let that closeted official to deny the rights to those same Gay and Lesbians, aren't worth much in my opinion.

Period.

[Beelzebud]

117. When wedge issues rule the day, this is the government we get.