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

[YogSothoth]

@j666

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.

There’s much more to it than that. These closet homophobes are often the ones shouting the loudest and working to ban gay marriage and restrict gay rights. While I totally agree that it was completely irrelevant whether or not Clinton was getting some on the side, the same thing doesn’t hold true for politicians and people who want to ban the act they secretly practice.

That’s why, in all fairness, I give Democrats a pass. We don’t try to pass laws restricting gays from marriage, or tell people they can’t have certain types of sex. We have our own values but understand there’s a limit to practicing them and forcing them on others through puritanical laws.

Anyone who pretends to be a family-values public figure, and tries to enforce those values through laws and creates hateful bigoted laws affects me. Their lives then become fodder for me and anyone else to sift through to find contradictions.

[Leaper]

I’m surprised no one else’s commented on this yet:

@Weeping_Wyvern

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 dispute that it shows any such thing. For one thing, as you yourself say in the first sentence above, they are “bigots.” For another, it’s greatly about the reasons they “do not support… the movement.” For another, why does a movement need to have unanimous support from all people it affects to have legitimacy? Is Christianity built on a house of cards because not every single church and denomination think exactly the same thing on social and political issues of the day? For another… Well, I could go on, but I’ll let someone else pick it up if they want.

[ratatoskK]

@Onomatopoeia

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.

+1

[Sampiro]

Here’s a video clip of Merritt discussing the NC minister who advocated concentration camps. He calls that minister and several others unChristian , states they commit hate speech, and voices his complete disdain for them and calls on Christians for greater tolerance.

The two things that stand out above all else are

1- He’s about as far from your typical Bible beating homophobe as you can get to still think gay is a sin

2- How in the hell did anybody not figure out he was gay a long time ago? He’s flaming.

I think Southworth was not only a dick to out him, but that even divorcing the ethics of it and looking at it solely as a move to get some publicity it was ill-timed; he should have waited til Merritt did something more high profile or said something more controversial (and this is an election year- how long would he realistically have to wait)? That said, I’m very interested to see what Merritt’s preaching a year from now.