Goboy: Didn’t you just “out” all of those folks with your posting above?
You see, this is just the minefield I am talking about. If I say “there is no evidence that Rudolph Valentino was gay,” people jump all over me and accuse me of being homophobic! I am about as pro-gay as you can get . . . There is NO WAY I am writing a Valentino book, that tears it.
Goboy, take anything written by Boze Hadleigh with a large grain of salt. Even his “fans” on Amazon.com admit that those “interviews” he does are highly dubious. Shame, because I have had dealings with him, and he’s actually a very nice guy.
By the way, I won’t come out and definitively call someone straight, either, unless there is evidence to strongly indicate it . . .
So Eve, what books have you written? Got any links?
WHAT BOOKS HAVE I WRITTEN?
And here I thought everyone was banging their heads going, “aw, kee-rist, that damn woman does nothing but plug her books, when will she EVER shut up!?”
I have three books out, all available on amazon.com—
“Platinum Girl: The Life & Legends of Jean Harlow” (1991)
“Vamp: The Rise & Fall of Theda Bara” (1996)
“Anna Held and the Birth of Ziegfeld’s Broadway” (2000)
AND I just got a contract for my next book, a bio of British comedienne Kay Kendall, to be published in 2002 . . .
Ooh! Ooh! Mista Kotta!
If Eve gets to plug her books, can I plug my works too?
My recent works include two very narrowly-targeted pieces that debunk two different kinds of “Patriot” tax protestor theories. They are Debunking “The Story of the Buck Act” and Why You Shouldn’t “Trust” Trust Educational Services (formerly National Trust Services).
And I should be writing a piece debunking Orgone Energy (and some of the other hypotheses of Wilhelm Reich) sometime soon, which ought to meet my rather exacting standards for detail.
quoteth goboy:
This is actually an interesting point. You never hear gay folk calling each other "Breeder" in the heat of argument. No wait, actually I think sometimes you do. But anyway, being called gay is an insult...more often, being THOUGHT of as gay can be pretty mortifying. I will be the first to acknowledge that I am fine with other people's homosexuality, but if someone were to think I were gay (I am not) I would be mortified.
But then again, I am not sure that is because I am homophobic or whatnot. But being straight is part of who I am (as being gay would be part of who a gay person is), and I guess I would want people to perceive me accurately. Something like being perceived gay could have an effect on personal relationships in particular (a bit more difficult to pick up the ladies...except for those who wanted a challenge I guess).
The point of this, is it seems to me the big problem with "outing" someone is that they might not, indeed, actually be gay. Being gay may not be an insult, but it does have an impact on how others may perceive you...even if only on a dating/sexual realm. Still the impact could be felt.Can’t answer that one, as I don’t know.
No. A person’s sexual orientation is his/her decision alone, as is the decision to “come out.” People who feel obligated to out someone for the subject has a personal, malicious agenda, IMHO. It’s really nobody’s business, no matter how justified you may think you are in outing someone. In the case of a high-profile gay-basher, for example, one may feel perfectly justified in publicizing that person’s sexual habits. But one must be 1) absolutely certain, based on hard evidence, that the person is indeed gay and 2) absolutely certain that outing that person is for the greater good of humanity. I can’t imagine that a gay person would out another (allegedly) gay person for reasons other than personal propaganda.
Although, I think the average person does this on a regular basis, though in private, rather than publicly. For example, you meet a man who is dressed sharply and has a slight lisp or is slightly effeminate in other ways. What’s the typical reaction? After you leave the man’s presence, you may announce to your companion, “That guy was obviously gay.” Your companion says, “No kidding! Did you see the ring he was wearing?” Or something. Anyway, my point is that we often feel the need to announce someone’s homosexuality to the world, whether we know for sure if he is or not. I don’t think it’s a whole lot different from outing someone, although the agendas might be different.
Again, I don’t know. Has this ever been tested in court? Until it has, it’s probably legal. Whether it’s ethical or not is something else. I think everyone has a right to privacy about their sexual orientation (after all, do you want the whole country to know the kinky stuff you do in your bedroom–alone?). Technically, I suppose someone has a right to tell others that someone else is gay, but to do so is, IMHO, totally immature.
Nathan Lane is gay? Well. I’ll be dipped in shit! And such icons of rough-hewn masculinity as Richard Chamberlain and Tab Hunter? Utterly astonishing! And somebody gives a rat’s ass? Barney Frank? I would almost move to his state in order to vote for him cause that sonofabitch has got serious cojones.
As to outing: the initial premise, as I recall, was to claim the “outed” as a member of the gay community, as the previous “strength in numbers” line. But that’s bogus. A persons sexual orientation is, or damn sure oughta be, irrelevant. Barney Frank is gay, Nixon wasn’t and niether am I. I am proud of Barney, ashamed to be in the same species as Tricky Dickhead! If one is not to discriminate against, one is no more correct to discriminate in favor. If your premise is non-discrimination, you must walk the walk as well as talk the talk.
When the Freckled People take over, all this will pass. Take heart! (Doris Day was freckled, Robin Williams is freckled but passing due to extreme hairiness. Despite the rumors, George W. Bush is NOT freckled!!)
That is not quite true. When someone stands up and propounds legislation that makes gay people second-class citizens, what that person is doing, in effect, is saying that their private life is better or more moral than ours. They are making themselves into a lifestyle model, and that makes their lifestyle a matter of public interest, as to which facts may then legitimately be exposed.
If, however, someone chooses to run as a politician, rather than as a lifestyle model (such people are in a sad minority these days), they get to have a private life because they’re not holding up their private life as a matter of public policy.
matt_mcl
“making gays second-class citizens” and “against the best interests of gays” are very different things.
mattk:
Voting against something that would help a group is usually motivated by animus towards that group, but it isn’t necessarily. For instance, someone might vote against hate-crime laws because they don’t like the idea of punishing motivations rather than acts. If someone declares “I am voting this particular way because I am opposed to people engaging in homosexual intercourse”, but that person engages in homosexual intercourse themselves, then that person is lying, and the public has the right to know it. However, voting in a way that “makes life harder for gays”, as goboy put it, is not enough to establish hypocrisy. If a millionare votes for a higher tax on the rich, is he a hypocrite?
No, he was an actor, who starred in many films, including “Giant” and “Rebel Without a Cause”. One of my friends, a gay male, claims to have had an “encounter” with Mineo. I do not doubt my friend’s account. (He seemed quite satisfied with the encounter, that much he made clear! 
)
As for the OP, I think it is tacky and immoral in most cases. A person is entitled to a private life.
I know this. What’s your point?
goboy wrote:
Although I agree with you, let’s look at reality - if someone perceives what you say as being an insult, it’s an insult. You could call me a faggot and I could be insulted (not likely, but you know what I mean ;)). Ultimately it would be up to a court to decide if the insult bordered on slander. Mostly, IIRC, it has more to do if it’s true or not - if you call someone gay and they’re insulted, but they actually are gay, you haven’t committed slander (although you might have broken some privacy laws by outing them). Any law-types want to clarify this?
The Ryan wrote:
It’s the wonder of the court of public relations and politics (and society) in general. Newt Gingrich touts “family values,” yet is “outed” as having divorced his wife on her deathbed. Jim Bakker says he’s the model Christian, yet all his acts come back to haunt him. Hell, it’s worked against us - Barney Frank gets involved with the wrong guy, it’s all over Capital Hill. But if I’d slept with Senator Soandso and I found out he’d voted for DoMA, I’d call Ted Koppell, sure. (Unless the sex was really good… ;)) You make your choices, you live with the consequences.
waterj2 wrote:
Well, yeah, you’re right, but first of all, it’s fairly obvious and the speculation has run rampant (pratically an open secret at this point), secondly he is in the public eye and should expect close scrutiny (fair or not), and thirdly he has purposely dodged the direct question, which just seems silly to me (saw him on Barbara Walters). So if he wants to stay in the closet, it certainly is his choice, but it really makes him look like a coward, and I really doubt his success (waning as it is) will be affected. Hell, one of the boys from the Brit pop band BoyZone came out and their record sales increased.
avalongod wrote:
Not true. On this very board, Satan referred to me performing oral sex on a woman. Now that was low.
Yup. This is why it’s such a thorny issue, and this is why legal recourse has been enacted. If you’re gonna out somebody, you better have damn good reasons and be pretty damned sure about it.
Esprix
matt_mcl
My point is that your response to my post was irrelevant.
Esprix
If someone says that they stand for family values, but has been divorced, I can see the hypocrisy there. If someone says that they stand for Christian values, but regularly violates Christian principles, I can see the hypocrisy there. But if someone says that they are against homosexual marriage, but engages in homosexual intercourse, I don’t see any hypocrisy. 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.
Jodie Foster and Gladiator star Russell Crowe have been recently seen in each other’s company publicly, and have been reported as being very amorous. Of course, he is also followed by gay rumors, so maybe they’re both beards.
Eve, I’ll be interested in that Kay Kendall book. Heck, I may be the only 30-year-old American male who knows who Kay Kendall was.
“Eve, I’ll be interested in that Kay Kendall book. Heck, I may be the only 30-year-old American male who knows who Kay Kendall was.”
Well, PL, in the spirit of this thread, I will “in” Kay—not only wasn’t she gay, but it seems she slept with just about every single man (and a few not-single ones) in London in the 1940s and '50s! She only lived to be 32, but goddam, she had a good time while she was here . . .
The Ryan wrote:
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?
You’re black and you secretly support the KKK - hypocrite.
You’re Christian and you go to Atheist rallies - hypocrite.
You’re gay and you publicly gay-bash - hypocrite.
Anything there you’re not grasping?
I do understand your point - there’s the danger of abuse of knowledge, invasion of privacy, mob mentality, etc. But I still say that you make your bed, you lie in it, and if you’re a public figure and you’re lying to that same public, you deserve what you get.
Esprix
Esprix – there are heterosexuals who don’t support the idea of marriage. What are you on about?
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.
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.