# Outing: Immoral? Illegal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2000, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474 "2000-06-15T13:26:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Saint\_Zero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@Saint\_Zero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Zero)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2000, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/41 "2000-06-20T16:34:33Z")
My .02 cr… It’s not my business, really. Why should I care about whom you’re doing? I also don’t care what “public” figure is secretly doing either. I don’t _care_ that B. Frank is gay. I’m not interested in long lists of rumored hollywood types that are playing both sides of the street. It doesn’t have any impact on my life. It won’t disturb my view of the world. I won’t start suddenly doubting my sanity. I won’t suddenly change my personal views on the subject. I also don’t believe that you should ruin their lives with what could be unfounded rumor. If you have actual video taped evidence, fine. The world and I don’t need to see it. Have a little consideration and compassion for people before you possibly ruin their lives and careers. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Zero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@Saint\_Zero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Zero)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2000, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/42 "2000-06-20T16:34:50Z")
My .02 cr… It’s not my business, really. Why should I care about whom you’re doing? I also don’t care what “public” figure is secretly doing either. I don’t _care_ that B. Frank is gay. I’m not interested in long lists of rumored hollywood types that are playing both sides of the street. It doesn’t have any impact on my life. It won’t disturb my view of the world. I won’t start suddenly doubting my sanity. I won’t suddenly change my personal views on the subject. I also don’t believe that you should ruin their lives with what could be unfounded rumor. If you have actual video taped evidence, fine. The world and I don’t need to see it. Have a little consideration and compassion for people before you possibly ruin their lives and careers. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Zero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@Saint\_Zero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Zero)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2000, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/43 "2000-06-20T16:35:34Z")
My .02 cr… It’s not my business, really. Why should I care about whom you’re doing? I also don’t care what “public” figure is secretly doing either. I don’t _care_ that B. Frank is gay. I’m not interested in long lists of rumored hollywood types that are playing both sides of the street. It doesn’t have any impact on my life. It won’t disturb my view of the world. I won’t start suddenly doubting my sanity. I won’t suddenly change my personal views on the subject. I also don’t believe that you should ruin their lives with what could be unfounded rumor. If you have actual video taped evidence, fine. The world and I don’t need to see it. Have a little consideration and compassion for people before you possibly ruin their lives and careers. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2000, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/44 "2000-06-20T17:03:34Z")
**jmullaney** wrote: > [@](#): > > Esprix – there are heterosexuals who don’t support the idea of marriage. What are you on about? {SIGH} I’m “on about” _closeted gay people who publicly and actively work against the gay community_. A gay senator who sponsors and/or votes for anti-gay legislation. A gay celebrity who uses his/her influence to speak out against the gay community. A gay cop who beats up fags. In general I do not support outing, but _in these cases_ I can see the argument for outing them to show the hypocrites that they are. And **Saint Zero** , in a perfect world _nobody_ would care, and I’m glad that you don’t. Unfortunately, you’re in the minority. Most people would be interested, especially the voting public (otherwise, who’d care who blew Clinton?). Being a gay person, it matters to me that I’m represented responsibly, particularly with my elected officials, and I’m fairly certain an openly gay elected official is going to support the same things I support, and therefore represent me effectively, so I’d probably vote for him. And, yes, there are plenty of heterosexuals out there who also represent my views - this is why I’m a Democrat. By the same token I’m going to not want people elected that don’t support what I support. This is the foundation of the democratic process. Does that mean I’m going to start a smear campaign against all Republicans? No. But if I know _for a fact_ that an anti-gay congressman is, in fact, gay himself, I would make that fact known to the voting public and then let them make their own decisions. Again, this is the foundation of the democratic process. > [@](#): > > I also don’t believe that you should ruin their lives with what could be unfounded rumor. If you have actual video taped evidence, fine. The world and I don’t need to see it. Most of the world might actually want to. And in the hypothetical situations we’ve been talking about, we _would_ have hard and fast evidence, not just rumor or hearsay - that’s slander, not fact. > [@](#): > > Have a little consideration and compassion for people before you possibly ruin their lives and careers. Considering the many lives people like Roy Cohn destroyed, I’m not losing any sleep. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/45 "2000-06-21T02:20:05Z")
Esprix: > [@](#): > > Am I to understand you don’t see how a person living his life one way and actively working against others living that same life is a hypocrite? Not necessarily. A hypocrite is someone who criticizes something, but does that himself. It is not simply someone who disagrees with others who share one of his charecteristics. > [@](#): > > You’re gay and you publicly gay-bash - hypocrite. > > Anything there you’re not grasping? Voting against gay marriage is _not_ a form of gaybashing. Is there anything I don’t grasp? Yes, I don’t grasp how you can can equate DoMA and lynchings. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/46 "2000-06-21T07:38:56Z")
> [@](#): > > My point is that your response to my post was irrelevant. Thank you, I had divined that. Would you do me the favour of telling me in what way? ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/47 "2000-06-21T14:56:33Z")
**The Ryan** wrote: > [@](#): > > Not necessarily. A hypocrite is someone who criticizes something, but does that himself. It is not simply someone who disagrees with others who share one of his charecteristics. I wholeheartedly disagree, at least in the instance of influential closeted gay men and lesbians. If the mayor is cracking down on gay bars yet secretly going to them, he deserves what he gets. IMHO. > [@](#): > > Voting against gay marriage is _not_ a form of gaybashing. Is there anything I don’t grasp? Yes, I don’t grasp how you can can equate DoMA and lynchings. I’m sorry, but if somebody actively works to deny me equal treatment under the law and demote me to second-class citizenship, I’m going to fight back - call me crazy. :rolleyes: Esprix ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/48 "2000-06-21T21:37:09Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > My point is that your response to my post was irrelevant. > > Thank you, I had divined that. Would you do me the favour of telling me in what way? I was addressing the issue of gays who “act against the best interests” of other gays. You replied with a comment on gays that help to make other gays “second-class citizens”. Since the former does not necessarily mean the latter, any condemnation of the latter is irrelevant to the the former. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/49 "2000-06-21T21:56:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > **The Ryan** wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > Not necessarily. A hypocrite is someone who criticizes something, but does that himself. It is not simply someone who disagrees with others who share one of his charecteristics. > > I wholeheartedly disagree, at least in the instance of influential closeted gay men and lesbians. Do you disagree with one part, or both? Do you believe that someone who critizes something, but does it himself, is _not_ a hypocrite? Do you believe that anyone in a specific category who disagrees with the majority opinion of that category is a hypocrite? Is a white person that supports affirmative action a hypocrite? Is a black person that opposes it a hypocrite? Or are there special rules when it comes to homosexuals? > [@](#): > > If the mayor is cracking down on gay bars yet secretly going to them, he deserves what he gets. That depends on what you mean by “crack down”. If the bars are violating legitimate laws, then I don’t see anything wrong with it. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Voting against gay marriage is _not_ a form of gaybashing. Is there anything I don’t grasp? Yes, I don’t grasp how you can can equate DoMA and lynchings. > > I’m sorry, but if somebody actively works to deny me equal treatment under the law and demote me to second-class citizenship, I’m going to fight back - call me crazy. :rolleyes: There is a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether DoMA denies equal treatement under the law. There is no legitimacy, however, to the claim that it demotes anyone to second-class citizenship. DoMA does not affect anyone’s ctizenship status. And it is certainly not equivalent to lynching. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/50 "2000-06-21T23:33:20Z")
> [@](#): > > If the mayor is cracking down on gay bars yet secretly going to them, he deserves what he gets. > > * * * > > That depends on what you mean by “crack down”. If the bars are violating legitimate laws, then I don’t see anything wrong with it. I do, if he’s using the legitimate violations as a way to target and shut down gay bars exclusively while overlooking violations at nongay bars. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/51 "2000-06-22T06:14:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > My point is that your response to my post was irrelevant. > > > > Thank you, I had divined that. Would you do me the favour of telling me in what way? > > I was addressing the issue of gays who “act against the best interests” of other gays. You replied with a comment on gays that help to make other gays “second-class citizens”. Since the former does not necessarily mean the latter, any condemnation of the latter is irrelevant to the the former. > \*\* Well, unless we’re talking about closeted people voting against giving every gay person in the country a $1000 tax break, I don’t see how “acting against our best interest” doesn’t make us “second-class citizens”. Government is meant to act in our best interest; that’s what it’s for. If someone is acting against gays’ best interests, they are making gays second class citizens beneath whoever it is in whose best interests they are acting. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/52 "2000-06-22T14:28:58Z")
**The Ryan** wrote: > [@](#): > > Do you disagree with one part, or both? Do you believe that someone who critizes something, but does it himself, is _not_ a hypocrite? Do you believe that anyone in a specific category who disagrees with the majority opinion of that category is a hypocrite? Is a white person that supports affirmative action a hypocrite? Is a black person that opposes it a hypocrite? Or are there special rules when it comes to homosexuals? I’m not talking about _disagreeing with the majority_, I’m talking about someone who secretly derives the benefits of something while at the same time deriding it in public. If a black person decries affirmative action and yet has benefitted from it, he’s a hypocrite. If a gay person denounces homosexuality and gets a little on the side, he’s a hypocrite. Exposing hypocrites, especially when perceived as a method of self-defense, might just have some validity. > [@](#): > > If the bars are violating legitimate laws, then I don’t see anything wrong with it. As **pldennison** said, I meant if the mayor were to crack down, i.e. make a public show of closing them or harassing them to boost his political agenda, and at the same time goes to them to pick up guys, then I say out him. > [@](#): > > There is a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether DoMA denies equal treatement under the law. There is no legitimacy, however, to the claim that it demotes anyone to second-class citizenship. DoMA does not affect anyone’s ctizenship status. And it is certainly not equivalent to lynching. Um, hello? What United States are you living in? The state denies us the chance to marry, discriminates against us in the workplace, defiles our privacy, tramples our rights, decries our relationships, and then tut-tuts when our relationships don’t last. Nice little catch-22, and nice way to relegate us to second-class citizens. Gay men and lesbians are not treated equally in this country. And if I had proof that Jesse Helms hired go-go boys, by God I’d make it known. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/53 "2000-06-23T21:22:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, unless we’re talking about closeted people voting against giving every gay person in the country a $1000 tax break, I don’t see how “acting against our best interest” doesn’t make us “second-class citizens”. Anyone who doesn’t get what they want is a “second-class citizen”? If gun manufacturers fight against a gun control bill, but the bill passes, are gun manufacturers now second-class citizens? If the drug industry introduces a bill that would speed FDA approval of drugs, but the bill fails, are drug manufacturers now second-class citizens? > [@](#): > > Government is meant to act in our best interest; that’s what it’s for. Well, that’s certainly a conceited attitude. I’m beginning to see where people get the idea that gay rights=special rights. The government is supposed to just do whatever homosexuals tell it to do, and not care what anyone else thinks? Doesn’t that make heterosexuals second-class citizens? > [@](#): > > If someone is acting against gays’ best interests, they are making gays second class citizens beneath whoever it is in whose best interests they are acting. Is all it takes to be a second-class citizen to not be as well off as someone else? If I have $100, and you have $50, are you a second-class citizen? Just what is your definition of second-class citizen? ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/54 "2000-06-23T22:05:16Z")
> [@](#): > > To go back to one of The Ryan’s original quotes:\*\* > This seems to bordering on the… well… fascist, doncha think? Basically, you’re saying that if these people’s political beliefs differ from yours, they deserve to be punished. \*\* Who said anything about punishment? How is disclosing information about a politician punishment. When Clinton was running for president and the right-wingers brought out Gennifer Flowers, it wasn’t punishment. When someone votes for Campaign finance reform and accepts large contributions it’s not punishment. It’s simply disclosing all of the relevant facts. If someone is going to vote on a bill that affects gays, I think their sexual orientation is fair game. It’s part of the price of being in politics. Also, calling those who disagree with you “fascist” is terribly old. Not to mention wrong. If you’re going to quibble over other people’s word use, don’t misuse words like fascist. > [@](#): > > \*\* > That depends on what you mean by “crack down”. If the bars are violating legitimate laws, then I don’t see anything wrong with it. \*\* Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems that you’re playing little word games here. I think it was obvious to everyone else exactly what Esprix meant by his comment. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/55 "2000-06-23T22:08:11Z")
Esprix: Are you being intentionally obtuse, or has your personal stake in this issue comprised your ability to properly participate in a debate? In your first response to me, you gave a bunch of examples of people claiming to believe in one thing, but who actually act quite differently. Then you put it an example of someone votes against DoMA, despite engaging in homosexual intercourse, implying that this is follows the pattern of the previous examples (which, as I then explained, it doesn’t). You responded to this with another batch of people claiming one thing but actually believing another, completely missing my point that engaging in homosexual intercourse is not a declaration of support for homosexual marriage. When I emphasized this point by stating that DoMA is not a form of gay-bashing, you responed with a completely irrelevant statement about how you would fight against anyone that tried to demote you to second-class citizenship. Earlier in that same post, in an apparent attempt to dispute my statements about hypocrisy, you gave the example of a mayor “cracking down” on gay bars despite going to them himself. You clarified that in your latest post by saying that by “cracking down”, you meant “make a public show of closing them or harassing them to boost his political agenda,” which certainly sounds to me that your hypothetical mayor is publicly expressing an opposition to gay bars, while privately being in favor of them. Just how does this counter my statement that “A hypocrite is someone who criticizes something, but does that himself”? Also in you latest post, you wrote: > [@](#): > > **The Ryan** wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > Do you disagree with one part, or both? Do you believe that someone who critizes something, but does it himself, is _not_ a hypocrite? Do you believe that anyone in a specific category who disagrees with the majority opinion of that category is a hypocrite? Is a white person that supports affirmative action a hypocrite? Is a black person that opposes it a hypocrite? Or are there special rules when it comes to homosexuals? > > I’m not talking about _disagreeing with the majority_, I’m talking about someone who secretly derives the benefits of something while at the same time deriding it in public. I asked you a direct question, and you refused to answer it, at the same time that you acted as if you had. If really don’t want to answer my question, then say so. And as for what you _did_ say, you \*are \* talking about disagreeing withe majority. How else would “the best interest of homosexuals” be decided upon if not by majority opinion? Or do you just unilaterily decide that yourself? > [@](#): > > If a black person decries affirmative action and yet has benefitted from it, he’s a hypocrite. > [@](#): > > hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s) > n., pl. hy·poc·ri·sies. > > The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. The mere fact of benefitting from affirmative action does not constitute a profession of agreement with affirmative action. By your meaning, would a white person who has benifitted from racism be a hypocrite if he promotes racial equality? > [@](#): > > If a gay person denounces homosexuality and gets a little on the side, he’s a hypocrite. That statement is completely irrelevant to the disagreement that we are having. Why is it so hard for you to understand that? I have never stated that such a person is not a hypocrite. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > There is a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether DoMA denies equal treatement under the law. There is no legitimacy, however, to the claim that it demotes anyone to second-class citizenship. DoMA does not affect anyone’s ctizenship status. And it is certainly not equivalent to lynching. > > > [@](#): > > > > Um, hello? What United States are you living in? The state denies us the chance to marry, discriminates against us in the workplace, defiles our privacy, tramples our rights, decries our relationships, and then tut-tuts when our relationships don’t last. So? Why is that relevant? I have never claimed that homosexuals are never treated as second-class citizens. Does the fact that gays are so treated do anything to advance your apparent claim that DoMA is equivalent to lynching? No, it doesn’t. Is it really too much to ask that you address the points that I make, instead of constructing ridiculous straw men? ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/56 "2000-06-23T22:29:40Z")
> [@](#): > > From The Ryan\*\* > In your first response to me, you gave a bunch of examples of people claiming to believe in one thing, but who actually act quite differently. Then you put it an example of someone votes against DoMA, despite engaging in homosexual intercourse, implying that this is follows the pattern of the previous examples (which, as I then explained, it doesn’t). \*\* See here is the problem. You didn’t explain that DoMA isn’t an example. You stated your opinion. There is a difference between the statement of opinion and fact. In most homosexuals minds opposing DoMA and engaging in queer activity is hypocrisy. It doesn’t matter if you feel that way or not. If they feel that it is a demonstration of hypocrisy, and we have established that it is ok to out hypocrites, then it is alright for them to out DoMA supporters. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The mere fact of benefitting from affirmative action does not constitute a profession of agreement with affirmative action. By your meaning, would a white person who has benifitted from racism be a hypocrite if he promotes racial equality? \*\* You seemed to miss the second part of the definition of hypocrisy. Namely falseness. Someone who has benefited from AA and decries it is being false. Why, it’s like climbing up a rope and cutting it after you get to the top. Your question is something of a trick. Let me give you an example. I use a gun to protect my family, yet I go and lobby for guns to be taken away. I’m a hypocrite. At one point I was attacked by someone who could not get a gun because of existing gun laws, I lobby against those gun laws. Am I a hypocrite? Of course not. Just like someone who fights against racism isn’t a hypocrite unless they are currently a racist. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2000, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/57 "2000-06-24T04:19:18Z")
Speaking of mayors, I wonder about ex-mayor Ed Koch. He is the only public figure I know who has successfully kept his sex life private. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2000, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/58 "2000-06-24T04:51:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Who said anything about punishment? How is disclosing information about a politician punishment. When someone does something with the intent of retriubution, that seeems like punishment to me. > [@](#): > > Also, calling those who disagree with you “fascist” is terribly old. I couldn’t think of quite the right word for what I wanted to say, and “fascist” was the closest I could come. I tried to express this with the hesitation of using the word “fascist”. If you have a better term for those that believe that everyone should agree with them, and all those that don’t should be punished, I’d like to hear it. > [@](#): > > Not to mention wrong. If you’re going to quibble over other people’s word use, don’t misuse words like fascist. I do not recall ever quibbling about anyone’s word use in this thread, and the fact that “fascist” is not a perfect expression of what I was trying to say does not mean that it was incorrect or a misuse. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\* > > That depends on what you mean by “crack down”. If the bars are violating legitimate laws, then I don’t see anything wrong with it. > > \*\* > Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems that you’re playing little word games here. I think it was obvious to everyone else exactly what Esprix meant by his comment. Considering the context, I did not consider it all obvious. In fact, considering the context, I can’t think of any interpretation that makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2000, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/59 "2000-06-24T05:11:15Z")
> [@](#): > > See here is the problem. You didn’t explain that DoMA isn’t an example. You stated your opinion. There is a difference between the statement of opinion and fact. Yes, a difference which you apparently do not comprehend. You see, I stated: > [@](#): > > Those are two different issues, I don’t see why someone can’t accept one but reject the other. Now, if Senator Soandso were to propose to you, you would have a case for hypocrisy. “Those are two different issues” is not an opnion, but a _fact_. > [@](#): > > In most homosexuals minds opposing DoMA and engaging in queer activity is hypocrisy. I’ll take it you mean “supporting DoMA”, not “opposing DoMA”. If that is the case, then the majority of homosexual minds are wrong. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter if you feel that way or not. If they feel that it is a demonstration of hypocrisy, and we have established that it is ok to out hypocrites, then it is alright for them to out DoMA supporters. So if they “feel” something is true, it automatically becomes true? What twisted world do you live in? > [@](#): > > You seemed to miss the second part of the definition of hypocrisy. Namely falseness. No, I didn’t miss it. It is not part of the definition, therefore I could not possibly have missed it. > [@](#): > > Someone who has benefited from AA and decries it is being false. The word “false” applies to statements, not people. Your statement is nonsense. > [@](#): > > Your question is something of a trick. Trying to see whether someone is consistent is a “trick”? > [@](#): > > Just like someone who fights against racism isn’t a hypocrite unless they are currently a racist. Esprix claimed that someone who has benefitted from AA but argues against it is a hypocrite. That is completely different from a racist who decries racism. To be a racist requires that one believe that racism is good. To benefit from AA requires no specific beliefs about AA. Furthermore, he said not just that someone who _is_ benefitting, but also someone who _has_ benefitted, is a hypocrite. ---
**Author:** ![beakerxf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc79bd/32.png) [@beakerxf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beakerxf)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2000, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474/60 "2000-06-24T18:48:29Z")
The Ryan said: > [@](#): > > \*\* > I’m beginning to see where people get the idea that gay rights=special rights. > \*\* ??? So for a heterosexual marriage is a “fundamental right” (see Virginia vs. Living), but if a homosexual wants marriage it becomes a “special right”? That is what you mean, right? After all, you said “gay rights” which sounds all inclusive. So _all_ gay rights are special rights? Or did you intend it to mean that only a few gay rights are special rights? If so, could you specify? Also, what is your definition of “special”? Are they rights that only gays would have? Are they rights that are not inherent at birth? Are they rights that heterosexuals have, but gays shouldn’t? If your going to drop comments like that, you really should elaborate further. After all, you would have jumped all over another poster if he had dropped an irrelevant, half-formed opinion meant only to insult. Kinda hypocritical for you to do the same, dontcha think? For the record…I don’t see it as hypocritical if a gay politician supports DoMA. Some gays just have issues with marriage and want no part of it. However, if that gay official supports DoMA _and_ expresses the opinion homosexuality is wrong, dirty, dangerous, etc. Then yes, I see that as hypocritical. > [@](#): > > **Esprix:** > Government is meant to act in our best interest; that’s what it’s for. > > **The Ryan** > Well, that’s certainly a conceited attitude. I’m beginning to see where people get the idea that gay rights=special rights. The government is supposed to just do whatever homosexuals tell it to do, and not care what anyone else thinks? Doesn’t that make heterosexuals second-class citizens? Did you see that part where **Esprix** said “our”? Why do you assume “our”=“homosexual’s”? Esprix will have to clarify for himself what he mean, but isn’t it possible he meant “our” to be all-inclusive. Also, this government _was_ set up with the idea of serving _all_ citizens. Now explain, how _all_ citizens are being served by DoMA? How would _all_ citizens be hurt if there was no DoMA? It seems to me that as the system is set up now, _some_ of the citizens are being served. If the system was expanded to give homosexuals legal couple status too, wouldn’t that come closer to serving _all_ the citizens? If not, please explain why. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outing-immoral-illegal/22474.md?page=4)