I do think it is an effective thing to do, but I thought we were discussing is it the right thing to do. Bullying and blackmail are both highly effective. In the short term, anyway.
I think I would be able to ascribe to this if being gay were a choice, But I don’t think it is, so you wind up puniching someone for his views based on how he was born.
I think Ravenman’s last post gets it exactly right.
Watched it as well. Weird – the way he announced on Larry King it sounded like it was going to be an important segment of his show.
Hype or you think something happened in between? Libel threats and so forth…
I don’t think a gay person who holds that opinion should be treated any different than a straight person who holds that opinion. Of course, you already have some idea about how I treat straight people who hold that opinion.
(Also, quick reminder: marriage hasn’t “stood as it has for all these centuries.” The modern American conception of what a marriage means is only a little over a hundred years old. Marriage has been redefined countless times over the centuries, often in far more radical ways than simply opening it up to same-sex spouses.)
As to the subject of outing people who use homophobia for political gain, I liken it to my stance on guns. I’m very much against the idea of using a gun to fire a bullet at another person. It’s generally a bad idea. However, if someone else is shooting a gun at me, I’ll return fire. My general opposition to shooting people is suspended in the specific circumstance of someone trying to shoot me first. The same applies to closeted gay pols trying to use my sexuality as a weapon against me. If they’re going to do it to attack me, I’m going to do it to attack them. If they don’t want what they do in the bedroom to become a political issue, they shouldn’t have made what I do in the bedroom a political issue. Doing so may or may not change anyone’s mind on the subject of gay rights, but it does do a tidy job of preventing that specifc person from doing me any more harm.
I’d like to address this, as well. I am not punishing someone for his views based on how he was born. I am punishing someone for his actions based on his deception. Self-loathing homosexuals are perfectly welcome to hold homophobic views. They’re even perfectly welcome to voice those views. What they are not perfectly welcome to do is put those views into action when the actions they take harm those who share their orientation and expect to get away with doing so without some sort of retribution. Outing them is not a punishment. The punishment comes from the people whose asses they’ve been kissing and whose water they’ve been carrying once those people find out exactly what they are. It’s Karma, if you will. The outers are merely her hands in the world.
Obviously, my understanding of who is doing the punishing changed from the first part of that post to the last, and I forgot to go back and edit the first part. I’m not contradicting myself above, I’m just a ditz…
Why wouldn’t this same logic hold for outing ANYONE? Outing is not a punishment – the punishment comes from the people who have had their asses kissed by anti-gays. Why is it relevant that a particular person did, or did not, act in a certain way? Either sexuality is private or it’s public business, it seems to me.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I don’t think a gay person who holds that opinion should be treated any different than a straight person who holds that opinion.
[/QUOTE}
Well, you wouldn’t hold the a straight person’s orientation against them. In fact, you couldn’t. So, you’re really not treating them the same, are you?
Please expand on this, particularly the very last part?
But “attack” is a loaded word. Someone who is gay who might coome to the estimation that gay adoption is not a good thing is not attackiing you. He is expressing a vierw of many in society to foster traditional families. The fact that society might have norms in place that go against what you think is right is not an “attack” on you.
Well, effectiveness is the yardstick, there are many effective things you could do to that person that would shut him up. You could blackmail him, threaten to beat him up, actually beat him up, ven kill him. All highly effective. But that’s not the yardstick is it?
As I, Bricker, and others have said, if the bedroom is affiorded privacy, it’s private, isn’t it?
But the point is – as Miller’s example with shooting guns shows – that these people DO NOT keep other’s sexuality private. In point of fact, they PUBLICY ATTACK the very behavior they are engaged in and are liable to cause all kinds of damages to other homosexuals – such as blocking, opposing and/or proposing legislation that’s contrary to gay rights. Thus the “return fire” analogy. Or, if you’d like, as I remember from my days in Jesuit school, “You see the mote within your brothers eye but you do not see the beam within your own.”
Then again, best stick with Miller’s example. I’m not fond of Bible quotes as it appears there’s always another one that says the exact opposite. 
BTW, and going back to the OP, that’s why I think Marh did the courageous thing. Call this guy’s bluff. And if it’s a smear let him (Marh) suffer the consequences. But I highly doubt it; Bill’s been quite careful with his statements since he got fired from ABC. Point of fact: harsh as he is on his cable show, he’s been on since 2003 with nary a suit against him…and that includes frequent appearances on Larry King.
Confrontational, opinionated, disrespectful and utterly cynical, yet by the same token, smart as a whip and very well informed/clued-in to the political landscape.
I don’t hold the sexuality of closeted anti-gay pols against them, either. I do hold their hypocrisy against them, which happens to be related to their orientation. But it’s the hypocrisy I object to, not the homosexuality.
I think the concept of marriage for love (as opposed to status, property, family pressue, etc.) is a far more radical reinvention of the institution than letting same sex couples participate.
You’re right, but I’m not talking about that sort of person. I know you’re opposed to gay marriage, and while there are any number of perjoratives that I would use to describe your position, I would not number “attack” among them. When I said attack, I meant attack. “Homosexuals are sinners who are destroying our society,” type of rhetoric. Ted Haggard territory. If we were talking about a closeted homosexual who oppossed gay adoption, but did not do so in terms that denigrated homosexuals, I would not consider to be a viable target for outing. For one thing, that position is not hypocritical, unless he’s closeted, and has adopted a bunch of kids with his secret boyfriend. Which seems an unlikely scenario.
It’s one of them. The other is appropriateness. Which goes back to my gun metaphor. It’s appropriate to meet an attack with equal force. If you insult me, I’ll insult you back, but I won’t punch you. If you punch me, I’ll punch you back, but I won’t shoot you. If you shoot me, I’ll shoot you back, but I won’t… well, whatever. I’m running out of ways to escalate this. But you get the idea.
I think that if someone wishes to keep their bedroom affairs private, that wish should be respected. Anyone who goes around making a big deal about what other people do in their bedrooms has demonstrated that they’re willing to allow similar scrutiny of their own bedrooms. I like to think of it as the Corrolarry to the Golden Rule. How you treat others indicates how you wish to be treated yourself.
Also, please people: the dude’s last name is spelled Maher.
And what if Mehlman isn’t gay? Is it still courageous? I’ve never heard a rumor that he’s gay, so I don’t know where this comes from. And why didn’t he mantion anything last night like he said he was going to.
BTW, it’s Maher, not Marh. Bill Maher. 
Do you really believe that a person should be able to do whatever he wants? If that’s true, surely you would demand that he extend the same privileges to every other person or your principle doesn’t make sense.
It certainly can feel like an attack when you are on the receiving end and you are not allowed entrance into our nation’s military academies, the right to vote, the right to marry, the right to adopt a child, the right to run for office, the right to apply for certain jobs, the right to serve your country in any way for which you are fit, the right to visit your lifetime companion in the hospital, the right to Social Security benefits, the right to insurance benefits, the right to be considered as a equally nurturing parent in a divorce court.
If nothing else, surely some white heterosexual males can identify with the last issue on that list. For women, homosexuals, people of color and combinations of those three, the denial of rights has been so frequent through the years that we don’t care whether they are “attacking” or just “expressing a view of many in society.” The result is the same – no liberty and justice for all.
After a while, we want to “express our views” about the hypocrits who walk on the backs of citizens they are supposed to serve.
Truth will out!
Person 1: straight, speaks out against SSM
Person 2: gay, speaks out against SSM
If Person 2 is outed, his sexuality—a product of birth—has been used as a cudgel against him. Since we’re all free to arrive at our own conclusions abot anything—the role of religion in society, how to rear our children, immigration policy, abortion, etc.—Person 2 is being punished in a way that Person 1 will, and can, never be.
I disagree. I think it safe to say that marriage for almost any reason has primarily been been the codification of those long-term monogamous relationships in which children are born into and raised. Many of those political alliances of the centuries that you allude to have the continuance of the bloodline and heirs at their root. But for those with no concerns for heirs, it as very often been the product of Person A really digging Person B and wantiing to have children him/her.
I see your point. But I think we’re drfiting off course. I think we agree that someone that is arguing for policy effecting gays shold not be outed. That leads us to the closeted gay who makes a personal attack against a gay individual for being gay. In that case, is it fair to out him? I see the temptation to do so, I see the effectiveness of doing so, and I’d have to say that I think the person is even justified in doing so. But I still think that the better position to take is something along the lines of: “I’m gay, so what? What does who I am attracted to have to do with issue A, B, and C? Nothing. My opponent continues to bring me orientation up because he doesn’t want to go head to head with me on the ideas we each have on A, B, and C. I don’t know what my opponents sexual preferences are, and I couldn’t care less. He may be straight, gay, bi, or whatever else you cna think of, but it matters squat. The only thing that matters is who is goiing to handle A, B, and C better. Me or him?”
I pretty much agree. But it seems to me that if someone has kept his orientation behind the bedroom door, that has to be respected. I would think that those in the gay community would want to hold the bedroom sacrosanct even more than me.
What does gay rights have to do with the bedroom? Gay rights is a public issue that has to do with courts, laws, religion, insurance, employers, and so on; fucking is generally a very private affair these days. Why does espousing views on matters of gay rights give others carte blanche to dig into one’s private life? Does this standard apply to other discussions, too, like if some liberal, female politician advocates keeping abortion safe and legal, then has she given permission for her opponents to snoop around her personal life to find out how many abortions she has had?
No matter how you slice it, the kind of outing you’re talking about is intended as a malicious act. I have a hard time morally justifying a malicious act if the only outcome is the personal satisfaction of getting revenge on someone.
I realize you’re quite passionate about this, so do you believe there is any positive outcome of outing people other than the katharsis you personally receive? Do you think outing Republicans brings this country closer to improving gay rights? Do you believe it helps bring societal acceptance to homosexuality? Do you find a political advantage in driving all gay men out of the Republican party? If Mehlman is indeed gay, what positives do you see coming out of all this business?
I’m not sure I understand you here. I’m saying that any person has the right to hold any position and to work to help see that his beliefs are reflected in law; that an attribute of birth, whether sexual orientation or skin color, should not infringe on the person’s right to hold any opinion he or she wants.
I can understand how one might be greatly offended and angry, but I still don’t see it as an attack. It’s more of a wall that’s been erected that keeps you out.
Regarding your list, I think the right to vote doesn’t fit with the other items. It is the one thing that any group needs to attempt to shape society to their liking.
Again. I have to disagree. Something either is an attack or it is not. An obstacle, even one that cannot be gotten around, simply is not an attack.
“…on the backs of…” is victimization language that means nothing and serves no purpose accept to rally victims. The effect it has on those outside that group is to turn on the iPod.
Should I be familiar with this?
Of course it’s private, but preaching against something while you’re currently doing it in secret is hypocritical, and THAT’S what needs to be exposed.
If you had a preacher constantly railling against the evils of alcohol who was also getting shitfaced every Saturday night, on his time off, wouldn’t you call him on it? Even though what he does in his personal life is his business?
If you had a spokesman for PETA who was going hunting every weekend, should people just ignore it, because what a person does on their own time, is their own business?
What if you found out your parish priest was having an affair with a parishioner? Wouldn’t you think he should be called out on it, especially if he was making all of his sermons about the evils of sex outside of marriage?
But nobody is saying that Ken Mehlman was secretly married to another man.
So? Person 2 is a hypocrite, and Person 1 is not. Therefore, Person 2 is being punished in a way that Person 1 can never be. He’s certainly free to arrive at his own conclusions about any particular subject, but if he’s attacking gays for “immorality” while at the same time practicing that self-same immorality behind closed doors, he deserves to be exposed.
Apparently you don’t see my point, because I’ve been arguing exactly the opposite.
Again, no one should be attacked for being gay. They should be attacked for being a hypocrite. That’s the key distinction you’re overlooking here.
Yes. If he’s using other people’s sexuality as a weapon against them, then it is fair to use his sexuality as a weapon against him.
But what if the person’s ability to do A, B, or C is dictated to some degree by that person’s character and honesty? If A, B, and C are trade policies, taxes, and Social Security, then obviously, his sexuality has no bearing. But if we’re talking about someone like Ted Haggard, who has tried to establish himself as a moral authority, and who has used that position of authority to attack other gays, then the fact that he (quite literally) does not practice what he preaches is entirely relevant to evaluating his ability to fulfil the role he claims for himself. If he’s claiming that who a person screws indicates that person’s moral character, then it is entirely relevant and appropriate to point out that he shares the same “moral defect” he’s so anxious to point out in others.
Not if he doesn’t show other people that same respect.
Not really. If you’re part of the gay community, that means that you’re out. And if you’re out, you’re already making a public issue out of what you do in the bedroom. Most openly gay people think that everyone who’s gay should be out. Visibility has long been a key part of the gay rights movement. It’s not like I’m going to get all bent out of shape if someone runs around saying, “Miller is gay! Miller is gay!” Saves me from having to type it myself. If someone wants to stay in the closet… well, I don’t agree with that choice, but I’ll respect it so long as they respect my choice to be out. If they don’t respect that (by actively working to make society more hostile towards gays who are out) then I’m not going to respect their choice to stay in the closet.
How does outing a homophobic politician infringe on his right to hold that opinion?
It’s easy to say that when you’re not the one taking a fist to your gut. Spend some time on our side of the debate, and see if you still think it’s "not an attack.
Depends on the obstacle. A pit filled with sharpened spikes and covered with leaves is both an obstacle and an attack. A castle wall garrisoned by archers and pots of boiling oil, waiting to slaughter anyone who tries to get past, is both an obstacle and an attack.
Which is a useful end in and of itself.
Some of them, sure. But some of them listen, and change their minds. I’ve seen it happen right here on these boards.
Because if one is saying one thing, and acting in an entirely contrary manner, his actions will reflect negatively on his words.
Which would prove what? Would anyone be surprised to learn a pro-choice politician had an abortion at some point in their lives? Would it cast anything she’s said about abortion in a different light?
Who has said it should be done purely as an act of revenge?
Yes, I think it does. It helps remove the idea of the homosexual as the “other,” some amorphous mass of perverts that live out in California somewhere. It makes it personal for these people, it shows them that gays can be people next door, people who share their values, people who they would otherwise respect and look up to. It helps show that homosexuality isn’t a choice: why would someone like Ted Haggard choose to indulge in gay sex, if it’s something he clearly is morally opposed to, and which could destroy him personally and professionally if it became known?
That’s hardly our fault, is it? I’m not a Republican. How can anything I do possibly drive someone out of the Republican party? That’s something that rests squarely on the shoulders of the members of the Republican party and the institutionalized bigotry of that organization.
But yes, in general, the more people the Republicans drive out of their party, the weaker the Republican party becomes in general. I’d call that a political advantage.
I don’t know much about Mehlman; never even heard of him before this thread. But aside from the advantages enumerated above, outing an anti-gay politician usually serves to remove that politician as a effective force against gay rights.
Excellent post, Miller. I just want to emphasize that there are two very effective defenses against outing for those homosexuals who find working against their own kind an imperative: to already be out, and to refrain from any sort of homosexual activity. The first option makes outing a moot point, and if you can, as an openly practicing gay man, rally the Right Wing to keep yourself a second-class citizen, more power to you. I may think you’re evil, or stupid, or blind, but if you have the guts and powers of persuasion to hold an anti-gay marriage press conference at which your equally self-loathing same-sex partner hugs and kisses you for luck, go for it! Similarly, if you’re a known homosexual who is actually celibate with your own gender, go for it. But if you’re hiding something, it’s gonna bite you.
He did nothing on his show after saying he would do a couple. Hastert must be taking a sigh of relief now.I don’t know for sure ,but I am just saying. Great how just saying gives me exoneration.
