Is it ever fair to "out" people?

Great Debates
21

Are we limiting the discussion to revealing the orientation of closeted gays who don’t cooperate with the gay agenda, or are there other circumstances included?

Suppose a politician comes out in favor of “family values”, and is simultaneously carrying on an adulterous affair. Do we “out” him?

Suppose a gay politician publicly endorses safe sex, but is found to have infected someone by having sex without a condom. Do we “out” him?

And do we “out” any of these examples, or do we use the threat of “outing” to try to force him into changing his public vote?

Regards,
Shodan

22

Once again, you are assuming that every gay person must think absolutely identically. While it’s probably rare, I bet there are gay people who actually oppose gay marriage and who are Southern Baptists. These people aren’t “evil,” they just see the world differently than you. Why do you get to decide their political opinions for them? Simply because you have the same sexual orientation?

Are gay people so stereotypical that they must think exactly alike? I don’t think you’d accept that level of generalization from a straight person.

Not really, since his actions seemed to directly contradict what he was so widely proclaiming. That sort of exposure of hypocrisy is OK, in my mind. But only when you are exposing someone for actions they are directly contradicting their public stances. For instance, if a closeted gay politician supported the amendment to ban gay marriages, and yet had secretly flown to SF to have a marriage ceremony performed, I’d say he’s fair game. But if he simply supports the amendment, then I think that’s out-of-bounds.

23

I think the principle has general applicability.

Politicians are fair game for anything. Yes, out them. Skewer them with their own sword.

Yes, I would. Not only is having unsafe sex a public health hazard, hypocrisy amongst public persons should always be revealed.

24

Anyone who is opposed to gay marriage is an evil bigot. Any gay person who opposes gay equality is a traitor and should be treated just like you would treat a Jew who worked for the Nazis. Collaborators are trash.

Think alike? No. But there is nothing good or laudable about a gay person who works against his own people. They should be outcasts, and treated as such. And if we can out them, and destroy both their lives and their credibility, that is a fair punishment for their actions against the larger community.

I disagree. Anyone who sides with the oppressors against their own people is a collaborator and a monster and should be outed as such.

25

That’s a little extreme, don’t you think? What you’re saying is that anyone who disagrees with you is evil. You can’t recognize that reasonable people can disagree on an issue without one of them being either evil or stupid? That’s a pretty shallow worldview you have. While I agree that gay marriage should be allowed, I also see that there is a reasonable argument in the other direction. I just happen not to agree with it. That doesn’t make whoever disagrees with me evil; it just makes them misguided. Policy differences are not questions of good and evil.

Are you seriously comparing the opposition to gay marriage to the murder of six million Jews? I’m sorry, but I wasn’t aware that since gays couldn’t marry that meant that there was a systematic government program to round them up, put them in camps, and gas them. I must not have been reading the newspaper close enough. I guess I need to get over to Dupont Circle here in D.C. and warn every gay man I see that the concentration camp trains are headed their way!

If there ever comes a point in this country when gays are being rounded up and gassed, then I will agree with your statement that any closeted gay who helps them deserves to be treated like Jews who collaborated with the Nazis. Since we are only talking about matters of marriage (and not matters of genocide), I think it’s a bit overwrought to call any gay person who opposes gay marriage (or whatever other policy item you think every single gay person should agree about if he or she isn’t evil) a “collaborator.” All it is is two people, who both happen to be gay, disagreeing on a policy issue because each sees it from a different perspective. If you think that a gay person can’t think differently than you, then I feel sorry for your small view of the world.

Did you ever consider there can be differing opinions on what is good for one’s “own people”? Since when do you get to decide what someone else thinks is good for people like him? Can’t you see that people who share the same sexual orientation, skin color, gender, etc., can have different views on what is good for people like them? Obviously you don’t, since you recommend that their lives be destroyed if they think differently than you. Wait, didn’t someone mention Nazis above?

I’ll just let this stand on its own. I don’t think I need to say anything to illustrate how insane this sounds.

26

Do you think Clinton should have been impeached for getting a blowjob and lying about it?

27

No. Anyone who thinks that my relationship, which is just as loving as any marriage, is undeserving of equal access to government protections simply because I and my boyfriend are gay is evil.

There is NO reasonable argument against gay marriage (or civil unions, I don’t care about the term involved). Not one. All there are are appeals to Magical Sky Pixies and doomsday scenarios too absurd to be taken seriously.

They are when the policy in question is one intended and designed to codify permanent bigotry against good, innocent people.

Nope. More Nazi Germany in 1935. Hitlers hatred of the innocent Jewish people was well publicized. Just as the GOP Taliban’s hatred of gays is. Any Jewish person who supported or failed to oppose Hitler, knowing what he said about the Jewish people, was a collaborator who helped cause the Holocaust. We’ll probably never have an anti-gay slaughter here in America, but if the Republicans get their way, I wouldn’t rule it out.

They hate us and want us gone, and since we won’t go back into the closet, they’ll make us dead, if they have to.

It’s not marriage, it’s EQUALITY. It’s an attempt to Constitutionally render an entire phalanx of citizens into a secondary, pseudo-human class of existence simply because of our sexuality. Just like the early anti-Semitic laws did in Nazi Germany to the innocent Jewish people who didn’t get out in time.

Sure, he/she can think differently than me. But there are certain, fundamental questions of humanity and equality that coming down on the wrong side of makes one an anti-gay bigot and collaborator with the Republicans.

Sure there can. But not on fundamental questions of equality. Not on this issue. This is a determinative issue: good people on one side, evil monsters on the other. It is not possible to oppose gay marriage —ie, to oppose the equality of a group of human beings just as valuable and moral and good and innocent as anyone else — and still be a good person.

I recommend that the truth be made public about who they are. The truth is never a bad thing, and should always be fought for.

28

That’s a tough case. I thought about adding a caveat to my earlier post about folks who might be doing actual physical or mental harm to other people, as opposed to taking positions on issues, but for some reason decided against it…

Clearly, this guy wasn’t just expressing some view, he was lying through his teeth about this program he was selling. I find this to be a pretty unusual exception…

But I certainly would not support the outing of odious punks like Rick Santorum just because they have reactionary views. I think that would simply be mean and vindictive with no real point.

29

Yes. Perjury is, in my opinion, an impeachable offense. Clinton should have been removed from office.

30

What the hell?

I am a Republican who supports gay marriage.

You are way out of line.

You are so worried about evil in others you don’t even see the hate running out of your own mouth.

31

But outing such a sanctimonious swine would rob him of his powerbase from which to do evil, perhaps shame him into leaving the public sector. What could possibly be better?

32

So, if you can’t change the peoples’ minds about who they should vote for, why not go out to destroy the politician?

That strikes me as being closer to being evil than the blather by fundies who go on and on about marriage being invented for the sake of children.

33

spectrum, obviously you feel passionately on this issue. Your attitude that anyone who disagrees with you on this issue must be evil is simply misguided, though. In fact, this sort of militancy risks alienating those like myself who, while straight, support gay marriage.

Just because you disagree with someone does not mean they are unreasonable. You may think they are wrong, but most people form their opinions on reasons that, to them, seem very solid. Even if you think they are “absurd,” that doesn’t mean the person who thinks that way agrees. For example, here is a very well reasoned article opposing gay marriage: http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402050842.asp
I don’t agree with the conclusion Kurtz reaches, but to say that he didn’t make a “reasonable argument” is simply silly. You can disagree with the man, but don’t just dismiss him as if he were a moron. To do so seriously undermines your quest to be taken seriously.

Simply put, this is ridiculous. I’ve been around Republicans my entire life and never once did I ever hear one say anything about killing gays. Republicans don’t want you dead; they just don’t want you to be able to marry. There’s a big difference there. You condemn bigotry, and rightly so, but your blind hatred of Republicans is indistinguishable from their anti-gay bigotry.

You simply cannot compare an amendment that won’t allow gays to marry to the anti-Semetic codes of Nazi Germany. Are gays being forced into ghettoes? Are they forced to wear pink triangles? Are they prevented from owning businesses? For all the biotry that gays must encounter, it doesn’t even compare to what happened to the Jews under Hitler.

You can oppose gay marriage and not be a bigot. Certainly, most bigots oppose it, but just because you oppose it does not make you a bigot. You can have other reasons to oppose gay marriage than a simple hatred for homosexuals.

Really? That’s interesting that somehow you were given the ability to know what is in one’s heart just by their political beliefs. You simply dismiss the possiblity that some people may be misled or that they may not know better? You simply ignore that there are reasonable arguments against gay marriage and say that one must be evil to disagree with you?

34

It does when the issue is my very humanity, my right to equality, the very legitimacy of my life, my love and my existence.

It’s a bullshit argument. I’ve read his filth many times, including this putrid column. The man is a gay-hating bigot of the first order, as is anyone who would stand beside him.

His column is a giant lie, too. Marriage in Scandinavia has been “dying” as he puts it for decades, and there has been no increase in the trend since gay marriage was legalized. The man is a lying, bigoted sack of mucus. Not surprising for a writer at the leading hate rag of the Republican Right.

All Republican actions in this arena are designed to force gays back into the closet, a fate worse than death. They want us to hide in shame again. Because they hate us. And they don’t care when their religious pals beat us to death. One less fag voting for the Democrats, after all.

Frankly, I see little difference in wanting me dead and wanting me to be an unequal, second class, not-quite-human pseudo-citizen.

The difference being that Republicans have harmed me, while I have never done a damn thing to them. Oh, except exist. Which is reason enough for them to want to kick in teh doors to my home and arrest me for sleeping with my boyfriend. Which is enough for them to want to push me back into the closet. They hate me. All of them.

This is the first step in a virulent agenda to destroy gays in America. Once they’ve constitutionally codified the fact that we’re less than human pseudo-citizens, the rest becomes easier.

Not yet, but I’m sure that monster Bush and his filth would be happy if those situations were true. That’ll probably be their next amendment. There is no depth to which these evil people will not sink.

No, you cannot. To oppose gay marriage (or civil unions, whatever) is to consider gays less than human, less than equal, less than moral, and that is bigotry, pure and simple.

There are no reasonable arguments against gay marriage. I’ve read all the columns I’ve come across, waded neck deep in this Republican filth, and there’s nothing there but poor strawmen erected to cover virulent hatred and a desire to eradicate American homosexuals.

35

If they’re out to destroy me, why shouldn’t I fire back?

36

That Cohn was gay was well known before he died, although he continued to deny it even when looking like hell from AIDS. During the Senate’s Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954, when Cohn served as chief counsel to Joseph McCarthy’s Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, someone even made a crack about Cohn’s homosexuality to his face, on national television.

37

I’m a gay man and while I agree with many of the things that you say Spectrum, I cannot agree with the idea that every person who is against SSM is evil.

I can agree that they are ignorant of the facts. But I don’t see the terms “ignorant” and “evil” being interchanged. People believe what they are taught, especially when it is from someone they trust. They can be made to see the error of their ways though and make efforts to change. “Evil” seems to imply that there is no ability to change.

I’ve seen too many homophobes change their opinions over time, usually as result of confronting their beliefs after getting to know someone who is gay. They end up realizing that their fears are unfounded and their stereotypes incorrect. I talked to a gay the other day who has had a history of making anti-gay remarks in the past (for the record, he doesn’t know my sexual orientation because he is a business associate and I don’t discuss my sexuality with clients). I almost spit out my drink however when he gave his opinion to me of SSM’s. He told me " Why on earth would anyone care if gay people get married. I see no reason that they shouldn’t enjoy the same rights that I do. If two people love each other, who cares what sex they are. This proposed amendment is the stupidest thing I have ever heard"

Something changed this persons views over the years. I suppose I could paint him with the evil brush for what he said in the past but that doesn’t seem fair. Rather, I think that he was simply ignorant to a lot of things but eventually confronted his stance and realized that it was the wrong one. “Evil” isn’t a word that comes to mind.

Of course, I don’t like the word “evil” to begin with. I cringed at the “Axis of Evil” remarks in the presidents SOTU address. When I think “Evil”, it always seems a little too connected to Christianity for my tastes.

38

Uh, that should be “interchangeable”

That should read: “I talked to a guy the other day.”

Thats what I get for writing so late at night.

39

You can find more than 500 references to “evil” (or its Hebrew cognate) in the Old Testament, too.

40

Being gay does not make you a member of “the gay community”. And you can be part of the “gay community” without being gay.

There’s no secret handshake, guys. Being gay isn’t like being a member of the Freemasons.