Fair for ex-lover to out this prominent anti-gay evangelical blogger?

Is closet privacy sacrosanct or not, or is it only for those with opinions we approve of?

Prominent Antigay Evangelical Blogger Outed as Gay


Anti-Gay Columnist Jonathan Merritt Admits To “Inappropriate” Relationship With Gay Blogger

His support of Chik-Fil-A article

I have no problem with Christians who are Gay. I have no problem with Christian evangelists who are Gay. I have no problem with Christian evangelists who are Gay and feel the need to hide their homosexuality. I do have a problem with hypocrisy.

Why is it that outed Christians seem to always want to have their cake and eat it too? If you lend support to a person, entity, or organization that espouses bigotry against those who engage in practices you’ve also engaged in, then yes, you should be outed. You don’t get to harm others through your words or deeds just because you’re a Christian. The rules apply to you too, buddy. Sorry, I have no sympathy at all for yet another Christian hypocrite.

I think it’s fair. When religious bloggers/pundits thrust themselves into the public eye by attempting to publicly paint homosexuality as a sin or a choice, and begin actively advocating against gay marriage, they open themselves up to scrutiny by the public. This chucklefuck *chose *to bring his bigotry to the public’s attention. Anything that discredits him is a Very Good Thing. I’m not saying he deserves death or jail or anything stupid like that, but his hypocrisy most certainly should be brought to light. The cognitive dissonance between his words and his actions is ridiculous and hypocritical.

If him being gay hurts his cause, tough shit. I say the same thing to rabid fiscal conservatives who are against living in a “welfare state,” while being dependent on disability and food stamps and medicaid. It’s a perfect example of that “I got mine, fuck you!” mentality that’s so prevalent among conservatives in this country. Kinda reminds me of this female talking head on Fox who, on several occasions, opined that maternity leave was (I’m paraphrasing here) a crock of crap. Then the bitch took maternity leave to have her own baby! Screw that hypocrite, and screw this one too.

Lest the argument come up, there’s nothing wrong with being gay and sexting with his boyfriend. It’s the fact that he was gay and covering it up in order to persecute gays. Advocating for gay people to have fewer rights than straight people is inexcusably fucking heinous in the first place, but the hypocrisy makes it that much worse.

Perhaps the point is moot, but how anti-gay is he? Queerty calls him anti-gay, but the Chick Fil-A column is really about how people just boycott too much, and buying things shouldn’t mean you have to agree with a company’s politics.

I’m not familiar with what else he’s done.

He doesn’t strike me as a hypocrite, but as a struggling gay man who still believes he can pray away the gay, or that gay activity is a sin and his feelings are his cross to bear. Whatever.

I think the litmus test here is kind of like in a legal case for surprise witnesses - to directly contradict something the person has said.

If Merritt had said, “I’m not gay and I’ve never done anything gay,” then outing him would be expected. If he wants to keep his gay feelings private, I think it’s kind of dickish to call him on it.

I think this comment from the link posted in the OP merits reposting:

"Before you people feel so sorry for this guy. You might want to think of all the lives he has hurt, all the young kids he has made feel ashamed of themselves because of who they are. How many suicides his words helped with.

"How much damage he has done. Then you look at me and say you feel sorry for him, he got what he deserved and maybe he will change his life now but at least his words won’t make an impact anymore.

“So I feel sorry for the young gay people that he has tormented and I hope they are doing well today.”

It sounds like he’s going to “pray the gay away” so he can continue his anti-gay crusade.

It’s the hypocrisy and malice on his part that justifies it, not that he disagrees with me. Live and let live is a two way street; if someone goes about busybodying with other people’s private lives, then someone else returning the favor is appropriate retaliation. And the fact that his actions are designed to cause harm means that he deserves retaliation for the harm he has caused.

Hypocrites deserve to be exposed regardless of the situation. Period.

I think the gay community needs to stand up and stop dating closeted men and stop servicing married men. I don’t know how prevalent these things are in my community—I don’t think it’s common, but what do I know? Being in the closet might have been the best option even until quite recently, but at least in the Western world, it is time to move on.

A lot of gay people have a lot of disposable income. I’d like to see us focus more on helping people (with counselling, housing, whatever it takes) to help people who married because of the expectations, including the poor spouses. Especially the poor spouses. (ETA: I realize I’m crawling off on a tangent. Bear with me.)

So, no, I don’t think it was fair to out the bastard. You knew you were dating a closeted man, and if you couldn’t say, “I’m sorry, I won’t date a hypocrite, I won’t date a man who hates himself on any level, and I won’t date a coward,” you should have respected his closet door.

As for Merritt’s hypocrisy: I don’t think that matters here. It’s clear the hypocrisy comes from psychological trauma, not pure evil, but in either case, I think oath-breaking is worse than hypocrisy.

I don’t think you know what the word “hypocrite” means.

Someone can say, “I don’t agree that the government should require employers to offer maternity leave,” and take maternity leave herself, without being a hypocrite.

I’ve used this illustration before: In Monopoly, the official rules state clearly that “Free Parking” is simply a resting place – there is no penalty, and no reward, for landing on it. But many people have “house rules” in which fines paid to the bank and even house payments go instead into the Free Parking pot, and landing on that square becomes a lottery win.

I hate those rules. I always argued strongly against playing with them.

But if the issue was decided against me, of course I took the money if I landed on Free Parking. To do otherwise would have been a tremendous disadvantage in the game.

There is, in other words, a distinction between arguing for what the public policy should be, and using the existing public policy to your personal advantage. You may take contrary positions on those two poles without being hypocritical.

See, my thought is, if you’re going to stick your cock out of the closet, don’t be surprised if someone grabs it and yanks.

Being closeted does not mean never having gay sex. Being closeted means pretending you are a heterosexual in the heterosexual community, and only being gay (or only having gay sex, it depends on the person) within the protected space created by gay venues. In 1950, there wasn’t much else people could do. In 2012, I think it’s counterproductive, but I can understand people who grew up with 1950 attitudes, values, and fears. I understand them, but I won’t indulge them.

I think if you date a closet case, or even have a one-off fling, you’re helping them perpetuate a system that was once functional but is ultimately harmful. It sounds like, in this case, Mr. Southworth knew Mr. Merritt’s situation. More fool him for even engaging in discussion.

I suspect this guy’s immediate community is 1950s or worse. Maybe 1650s.

Yes it does. If you’re having gay sex, you’re out of the closet to at least one person. If that’s too much of a risk to bear, stay home with Ricky Palm.

That being said, I have no interest in having a relationship with men in the closet and don’t have much time for those that do.

I think you’re wrong about the meaning of “closeted” within the gay community, but I totally agree with you otherwise.

I don’t think its moot. Given that most people’s opinion seems to be that the morality of de-closeting someone depends on that person having taken a vocal anti-gay stance, I think people who think outing Merrit was OK should have to show that he’s actually taken such a stance.

Here’s an article by Merrit that comes pretty close to saying homosexuality isn’t a sin and that evangelical churches should soften their stance against it.

I don’t think Merrit is particularly anti-gay in his writings, and in the above article he at least flirts with being pro-gay. So outing him was unethical and Southworth is an ass.

This. These are the worst kind of hypocrites. They not only diminish their own lives, but influence the lives of others, especially young people. Gay kids already have so much to fight against, these guys are often doing irreparable harm, and should be exposed.

I’m not sure why fairness should apply to someone who espouses a philosophy of unfairness. It’s not government action, so if the facts align with story, it doesn’t bother me. It’s not exactly right in a lot of senses, but it’s just not wrong enough to concern me in any way.

Where has Merrit “espoused a philosophy of unfairness”?