# The morals and ethics of outing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 25, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839 "2005-10-25T17:19:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/21 "2005-10-25T21:23:58Z")
> [@mks57](#): > > Would it be moral to beat up or stab anyone who “works against me and mine”? It’s not moral to commit battery against someone who is not physically threatening you. I wouldn’t even defend assault againt a non-physical threat. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/22 "2005-10-25T21:32:25Z")
> [@mks57](#): > > Would it be moral to beat up or stab anyone who “works against me and mine”? Outing someone is of debatable harm; stabbing isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/23 "2005-10-25T21:32:43Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If I think someone is working “against me and mine”, is it OK for me to use some secret from their sex life to destroy them? Well, it depends. _Are_ they ? People often see hostility where none exists; so you should be sure of your targets. Also, it depends on _what_ they are doing against you. Cutting into you’re business’ profits is not enough to justify dirty tricks; oppression, violence, and threats ( or promotion of same ) _is_ enough IMHO. Crafting/supporting baseless laws targeted against you certainly qualifies. > [@mks57](#): > > Would it be moral to beat up or stab anyone who “works against me and mine”? That depends. If the law refuses to stop violent or other illegal acts against you ( like the pre civil rights South ), then the social contract is broken and it’s Law of the Jungle time. If you want to use violence when the law _will_ do it’s job, then that’s wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/24 "2005-10-25T21:49:12Z")
> [@mks57](#): > > If he was arrested, then it’s a matter of public record. > > Let’s say that I knew that he frequented prostitutes, and had proof of that fact, but it wasn’t public knowledge. Releasing that information to the public would be immoral unless it was the only way to prevent harm to someone else. But, at least in the US, visiting prostitutes is still a crime. I don’t think it _should_ be a crime, but that’s the law as it stands in most of this nation. If an elected official is routinely violating the law he has sworn to uphold, then I think you could argue that it is your duty to inform the proper authorities, which by extension, means informing the public. Back to the main issue of the OP, the way I see it is, everyone has their own comfort level about how much of their personal lives they want to see publically discussed. If a politician makes a habit of talking in public about the sex lives of homosexuals, the clear implication to me is that he has no objection to people talking about any homosexual behavior he gets up to in private. If this isn’t the case, then he really should have thought twice before he decided to seek public office on the backs of gays and lesbians. But at that point, it’s no longer my problem; it’s his. ---
**Author:** ![davenportavenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f8ce5/32.png) [@davenportavenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davenportavenger)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/25 "2005-10-25T21:57:25Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > I’m talking about people who out others as a means of holding them up as role models for the GLBT community. The end may be admirable, but does the end justify the potential hurt it can cause? I believe outing is wrong even when it serves a noble cause (I’m not getting into the outing of anti-gay people because my feelings are more complex; I still think it’s kinda wrong, however that is more of a gray area). People’s privacy should be respected at all costs, and I think it’s sort of selfish to mess around in their personal life just because you want a poster child for your cause. I have been “outed” (not sexuality wise) for an ostensibly noble reason before and it wound up hurting me. Sure, it’s easy to say “people shouldn’t be ashamed of being gay, you shouldn’t hide it!” but the truth is, we still live in a backwards society and sometimes people have good reasons for keeping things hid, even if you (and probably they) wish those reasons didn’t exist. What if an actress is waiting for her grandmother to die before she comes out, or something like that? Celebrities are people too, with their own priorities, some of which come out higher than serving a cause. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/26 "2005-10-25T22:45:12Z")
I don’t know. People’s social masks are often pretty necessary just to live and get by. Based on posts over the years I would wager that a large proportion of the gay (male) people on this board are pretty non-feminine and go through their everyday public lives being perceived as “not gay” unless they’ve gotten a fresh new haircut, or snagged a fabulous pair of designer boots they want to show off. The outing of people who are involved in activities that demonize and marginalize other gay people seems to me to be rough justice, otherwise people should just keep quiet. The problem with this sloppy moral metric is in who gets to decide what “demonizing and marginalizing” is. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/27 "2005-10-25T22:58:32Z")
The only reason “outing” is a problem is because of bigotry. Outing a bigot is an attempt to settle a score by exposing the bigot to bigotry him or herself. For that reason, I can’t support it. The rationale seems to be “just desserts” but if you’re going to use the bigotry of a society to take down an individual bigot, who’s the hypocrite? I certainly wouldn’t shed a tear if some gay-bashing preacher outs himself through some blatant indiscretion, but those people who go to considerable lengths to substantiate rumors or somesuch with the express purpose of outing an individual are behaving unethically, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/28 "2005-10-25T23:04:33Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > On the other hand, if such people would come out then they’d be helping to erase the perceived stigma. I have more respect for Rupert Everett than Anderson Cooper or Shepard Smith because he has the courage to be who he is and not hide it. How is it some celebrity’s obligation to “[help] to rerase the perceived stigma,” any more than it is their obligation/right/privilege/whatever to speak out on any random political issue? And I’m unclear how choosing not to make an issue of one’s sexuality is “hiding it” or uncourageous; after all, isn’t the premise of socially liberal attitudes toward sexuality that what consenting adults do _in the privacy of their own homes_ their own private business which they may or may not choose share with the rest of the world depending on how much of a media hog they are, how badly their foundering career needs publicity, and how much they’d rather focus attention upon their talent for acting/singing/journalism/whatnot. I don’t need to know who Jodie Foster sleeps with in order to appreciate her (consumate) skill as an actress. That said, anyone who attacks others for the same supposed moral indigence that he himself conceals deserves turnabout. Haranguers casting vicious stones shouldn’t live in glass cathedrals, both figuratively and literally, as the likes of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker discovered. The day Sam Brownback gets picked arrested for trying to pick up transvestite hookers (and brother, it’s gonna happen–that guy is more twisted than a spool of wire rope) will be one for much amusement and rejoicing. Other than that, I just don’t see that it’s anybody’s bloody business, and GBLT pundits who think they’re doing themselves a favor by “outing” celebrities are self-serving, attention-whoring, type-large hypocrites. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/29 "2005-10-25T23:22:27Z")
IT is between them and their ‘lover’, either one can ‘spill the beans’. Now if they are blantant about it (kissing or having sex their ‘lover’ in public, then all bets are off. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/30 "2005-10-26T00:32:57Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Outing a bigot is an attempt to settle a score by exposing the bigot to bigotry him or herself. If you say so. I think it demonstrates how absurd the bigotry is. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/31 "2005-10-26T00:36:43Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If you say so. I think it demonstrates how absurd the bigotry is. What difference does absurdity make? If it has negative consequences, it has negative consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/32 "2005-10-26T00:38:27Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > What difference does absurdity make? If it has negative consequences, it has negative consequences. It could also have positive consequences, could it not? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/33 "2005-10-26T00:40:01Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It could also have positive consequences, could it not? Like what, and for who? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/34 "2005-10-26T00:41:12Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Like what, and for who? As I said, I think it demonstrates that the bigotry itself is absurd if the people spreading it are objects of their own alleged hatred. And perhaps it would also discourage people from spreading that kind of hate. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/35 "2005-10-26T00:43:58Z")
> [@mks57](#): > > If he was arrested, then it’s a matter of public record. > > Let’s say that I knew that he frequented prostitutes, and had proof of that fact, but it wasn’t public knowledge. Releasing that information to the public would be immoral unless it was the only way to prevent harm to someone else. It feels like you ducked my question here. Would you indulge me and give it another try? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/36 "2005-10-26T00:46:39Z")
Well, again, then it’s punative, and seeks to use the weaponry of the bigot against him or her, by exposing him or her to the same oppression they promoted. Punish the gay basher by watching him or her get gay-bashed. I simply can’t see how that’s a defensible tactic. And the most likely behavior it will elicit is more discrete closeting. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/37 "2005-10-26T00:58:31Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > The only reason “outing” is a problem is because of bigotry. > > Outing a bigot is an attempt to settle a score by exposing the bigot to bigotry him or herself. > > For that reason, I can’t support it. The rationale seems to be “just desserts” but if you’re going to use the bigotry of a society to take down an individual bigot, who’s the hypocrite? I certainly wouldn’t shed a tear if some gay-bashing preacher outs himself through some blatant indiscretion, but those people who go to considerable lengths to substantiate rumors or somesuch with the express purpose of outing an individual are behaving unethically, IMO. There are so many qualifiers in your hypothetical–“blatant,” “considerable,” “express”–that I can’t really get a grip on your position. Who was the Washington pol, a lobbyist maybe, or something, several years back, who worked very hard, every day, on an anti-gay-rights agenda. Actively working to legislate prejudice and bigotry. I can’t remember the guy; anyone else? Anyway, his dirty little secret was that he was a frequent patron of the DC gay bars, and led a pretty active sex life. In other words, he was taking advantage of the freedoms that he would just as soon forbid to others. Like a temperance activist who’s a secret drinker. Anyway, this was a guy who, to some people’s view, was a “soldier,” in a “war”; a war whose stakes were the personal freedoms of millions of individuals, and the happiness and wholeness of millions of families. A soldier who was fighting dirty. His weapons weren’t guns, but information and dishonesty. Now, isn’t it morally valid to take those weapons away from him, if the opportunity arises? This isn’t coming out right; I’m trying to make it abstract, mathematical. I’m trying to break it down. But doesn’t it feel morally justified to you to expose this guy’s hypocrisy? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/38 "2005-10-26T01:02:03Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Well, again, then it’s punative, and seeks to use the weaponry of the bigot against him or her, by exposing him or her to the same oppression they promoted. I don’t think it’s a disincentive because they are exposed to bigotry. I think it’s a disincentive because the hypocrisy is made public, and people who are committing similarly hypocritical acts are discouraged from being hypocrites. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/39 "2005-10-26T01:04:27Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Well, again, then it’s punative . . . [list=a] [li]So what?[/li][li]You pays your money you takes your chances.[/li][li]Even if it is, it may ALSO be other things; it’s not purely punitive. It’s effective strategy, and it’s playing by the rules agreed to by all parties.[/li][/list] An anti-gay activist is saying one thing above all others: that a person’s private sexual behavior is RELEVANT to his/her public status, as a citizen; that a person’s private life is open to legislation and interference. So what if it’s collaterally punitive to the asshole? He helped support the system that MAKES it punitive. ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839/40 "2005-10-26T01:07:30Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > It feels like you ducked my question here. Would you indulge me and give it another try? What exactly do you mean by “shield”, and who am I supposed to be, private citizen, reporter, etc.? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-morals-and-ethics-of-outing/327839.md?page=3)