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

Another article by Merrit. Is Prop 8 the Culture War’s Last Stand.

Again, he opines that anti-gay sentiment amonst evangelicals is dying out with the “old guard” and again, while he doesn’t explicitly take a stance, the article generally seems to approve of the phenomenon.

In general, is it fair to say that if Person X publicly works against people of Type Y, but is secretly also a Type Y person, it’s appropriate to out Person X as being Type Y? Regardless of what Type Y is?

I think so. But if I know the SDMB, someone will come up with example Type that doesn’t apply…

That’s the implication in the OP. That’s why I said “if the facts align with the story”. I have no idea who the guy is or what he’s said.

Except I’m not at all sure Merritt is one of these guys. He’s honest about having gay urges, and having acted on them, and sincerely believes that acting on them was a sin, and doesn’t believe he’s condemned to hell, that Jesus still loves him, etc.

I think he’s wrong that it’s a sin, but I doubt if this guy has driven any gay teen to suicide. He doesn’t say that gays should hate themselves.

It’s completely fair.

Really? Because I think he’s an insidious snake in the grass.

Shitty thing to do. And I definitely don’t buy the “it gives me no pleasure to do this” crocodile tears he cried on his blog.

Major Smith is a British OSS officer, secretly working in Nazi Germany, on Heinrich Himmler’s staff. Should the British Press “out” him?

(Grin! Just because I love a challenge!)

Mixed feelings on this. On one hand if someone (like Merritt) has a secret of being in the closet or having any secret, they better do a good hiding it if don’t want to be found out. If they are found, anyone in the closet or has a secret should be prepre to take the consequences of their actions. On the other hand, Southworth (the revealing party) also needs to face the consequences of the revealing and explaining why they believe to out someone/reveal the secret. Also, I think the public need to respect the decisons on how the out person handles the matter if the out person did it with grace.

It sounds like to me that Southworth is bad that he got rejected by Merritt in their relationship, or he wants to make himself a top dog in the LGBT movement. I think that the person in the closet should reveal themselves about the sexuality on their own and not be forced into unless there are serious legal issues or moral issues involve that might harm someone (such as sexual abuse or someone having a STD).

I’ve zero moral issue with the outing of people who actively and publicly indulge in gay bashing (same thing, obviously with any similar example of public hypocrisy)
On the other hand, I’m vehemently opposed to disclosing informations about the private life of people who aren’t engaged in preaching against what they’re themselves doing. To give an extremely common example, I think that “movie star Smith has a new lover, pictures inside” is distasteful. With whom a politician/actor/whatever is sleeping is none of other people’s business.
So, ban people magazines, and out gay gay-bashers, and I’ll be perfectly happy.

Since the title identified him as “prominent anti-gay blogger”, I took it at face value, not knowing the guy. Anyway, I answered in general terms.

He’s said that he’s against the legalization of same-sex marriage and that homosexuality is sinful. He hits all the same talking points as any other homophobic conservative asshole, he just does it sans the electric fence rhetoric which makes people feel that he’s moderate in his views rather than just as hateful as the rest of them.

By the way, is the picture in the first link depicting Jonathan Merritt? I was picturing some ugly, frowning old man.

If it’s his picture, he should indulge wildly in gayness, while he can benefit from his great look. His current occupation is obviously a waste of good material. Maybe that was the ulterior motive of the outer? :wink:

You make a very good point.

Now as someone who believes all homosexual acts are immoral, I don’t think there’s much of a moral difference between a closeted homosexual and an open homosexual. (Although obviously it’s wrong for anyone to explicitly lie about his life.) And I can definitely sympathize with a homosexual who holds to traditional beliefs on sexual morality, and acts to support those beliefs in his public life, yet occasionally succumbs to committing certain acts to gratify his reproductive hormones. His sin is not his alleged hypocrisy, but his erotic adventures. And meanwhile, from the LGBT perspective, he should be condemned for his evil bigotry, not for his sex life. Likewise I don’t think it would be hypocritical for a divorced politician to vote for banning divorce, if he recognizes that his divorce was wrong and that having the law will prevent other people from making the same mistake he made. I would also approve of open homosexuals who publicly work to support traditional beliefs on sexual morality, of course, but for obvious reasons I rather doubt many of those exist.

Anyhow, I’m a bit puzzled why people seem to gleefully point to cases of “closeted gay bigots” as propaganda victories. It seems to me that they should actually be embarrassments for the LGBT community, for they show that even some homosexuals do not support the social and political goals of the movement.

I hate hypocrites, homophobes, and religious nuts. So yes, if a gay-hating religious ass is gay, I would be fine with, and fully support outing him.

Talks of privacy or respect is cheap. When someone is actively trying to hide behind a wall of hate while still trying to secretly enjoy the object of that hatred, and making it difficult for others to enjoy it, then that’s an attack and deserves to be countered.

Nobody would say that if a person is lying about something, like taxes, that it would be wrong to out him as a tax cheat. All of the misplaced sympathy is for gay people as a whole, who have it more difficult than straights, and so people who are gay and like gays have this misguided notion of camaraderie with the gay homophobe. Some of them think that by killing them with kindness, they can get them to change their mind. However, being gay doesn’t automatically make you a good person. These hypocrites are as odious as they would be if they were straight. So out them, hit them where it hurts, turn their hatred as a weapon on them. Either they will be hurt by it or change their mind, but either way the result is positive

Almost daily I get pictures on my facebook feed of gay events, the patrons of gay bars and clubs. In the past someone pulling out a camera at a club would be a huge offense as it had the potential to out anyone there. Now it’s a casual event.

Personally limiting ones actions to avoid outing someone else is a dying concept. I’m not even sure if this is a change in the gay community or just a change in our society in general. Keeping other peoples secrets secret doesn’t seem to carry much importance anymore.

I’m not sure how people seem to think it’s fair to tell one man he shouldn’t talk about a previous fling.

I’m very upfront about my refusal to go out with or even hook up with closeted men. I have no interest in dealing with their emotional shame nor do I have any interest in being forced to lie on their behalf.

If managed to hook up with a prominent-anti gay blogger. His hope of remaining in the closet is over.

Absolutely not.

Everyone is entitled to privacy, and everyone should be able to trust a … canoodlee … to be discreet. If we did not have that, we would have to give up sex.

I didn’t care who Clinton had sex with; I didn’t care who Bush pere had sex with; I did not care who Gary Hart had sex with, just that he was an idiot.

I do not care who [what is his name?] Mr. Merritt did, did not, or did not quite have sex with.

It is none of my business, just like it is none of my business with whom anyone has sex … unless I am married to one of the parties; then I think it is my business.

It is a tragedy this poor man is so conflicted about his sexuality, but it is still none of my business.

Is he actually anti-gay? The Chick-fil-A piece is written from a non-gay but certainly not anti-gay perspective.

I think Merritt thought he could work from within to open the gates and make the evangelical church friendlier. I would love to have been in his father’s megachurch this weekend when he spoke to the congregation just to know what he said.

It will be interesting to see whether he emerges from this “here, queer, and Christian, it’s raining man-na!” or Ted Haggard “But I’m much better now!” Either way, I think he’s about to learn that the evangelicals have no desire to reach out to him or any other gay, at least not until they show sufficient self hatred.

I don’t have any gushing of sympathy for Merritt, for he did preach (and probably believes) the “homo is sinful” school that leads to so much suffering, but as he was not actively on the bashing end I do have some. I think his outer- Azariah Southworth- is a tool who did this more for publicity for himself and his blog (if you know his own story, I think he really misses the limelight) than for real exalted notions of justice.

As a no-value-added non sequitur, Azariah Southworth reminds me a bit in looks of Wil Wheaton. Anybody else see it?