I understand that. But the person doing the outing is doing it so the other person gets punished. Punished because of what the outer considers to be behavior that is strictly personal and shouldn’t be wielded like a club. It seems to be hypocrisy in and of itself. and then the excuse is because it reveals hypocrisy. That it surely does—of the politician, sure. But also of the person doing the outing. I believe that a person’s sexual orientation and what they do behind closed doors with another consenting adult is there own business. Because I believe that deeply, I would never use any information of that strain I might come across on someone against them.
So the person is apparently a hypocrite. So what. I would expect those who are most accepting of homosexuality to understand the pressures our society can put on one and be the most understanding as to someone’s desire to keep it private. I’ll also add, that just because someone might work against making homosexuality more mainstream or accepted politically doesn’t mean that he cant still enjoy that type of experience in private. And he shouldn’t be punished for it. Either homosexuality or what two people do behind closed doors is okay and no one’s business or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways. I think it’s merely an excuse for on faction to silence a voice of opposition. Of course, the lesson is learned by the victim and other closeted homosexuals, who are now blackmailed into quashing any voice of opposition they may have wanted to raise. I find the tactic quite disgusting, not to mention hypocritical in its own right.