Well, there are people who will do whatever it takes to out a gay-bashing individual if they think that individual is gay. A sufficiently blatant self-outing would obviously require no effort on the part of others to accomplish. That’s what makes it blatant. What’s so fuzzy about these terms?
Oh, come on. Public outings are most certinaly not, in their intent, merely “collaterally punitive” in the damage they do. If I really thought the motives were as pure as you claim, I might feel differently, but who are we kidding here. I’ve seen enough of these discussions to know it’s about settling scores as much as anything.
Is FOX News’ Shepard Smith Gay?
Shepard Smith gay? No way! He was just being nice … and maybe a bit musical.
I think it’s more about removing an opposition force as effectively as possible. Jerry Falwell galvanizes a lot of anti-gay hatred, especially in the political arena. He’s actively making life worse for a lot of people. If it could be proven that he’s also shacking up with rent boys on the side, making this information public would effectively neutralize a lot of his power and influence, limiting his ability to harm others. IMO, that’s sufficiently strong motive to justify outing him, irrespective of other factors. That’s the meat of the matter. That it might cause him significant personal pain and discomfort, well… that’s just gravy.
To be clear, this pretty much only applies to sexual moralizers, particularly vocal homophobes, because that’s the only circumstance where their sex lives has any relevancy to their actions. I think people who actively support the War on Drugs are just as damaging to society, but pointing out that an anti-pot crusader is gay doesn’t reflect at all on the validity of their anti-pot arguments. Pointing out that an anti-gay crusader is a closeted-but-practicing homosexual totally destroys the validity of their arguments. Since mks57 brought up physical assault, I’ll point out that stabbing Jerry Falwell wouldn’t damage the validity of his arguments against homosexuality, either, and would likely make him more sympathetic (and therefore, more dangerous), so even setting morality aside completely, trying to kill or assault prominent homophobes would not be a good political tactic. Tempting though it sometimes may be.
You asked me if there were positives, and I stated what I think some positives could be. I’m not convinced that outing anti-gay bigots is moral (if I didn’t make it clear, that’s the only group of people I had in mind). I’m torn on the issue, and so I argued with a statement you made that I didn’t find totally convincing.
OK. Just out of curiosity, what about it do you find morally questionable?
I do share your concerns about privacy and about vindictiveness. (It’s more the vindictiveness that actually putting anyone at risk that bothers me.) What I’m not sure of is how the positives and negatives shake out, and whether it’s justifiable in any situations.
Is this only for gays, or for heterosexuals as well?
Suppose Falwell is keeping a woman on the side. Does that count?
Why only homophobes, and why only one kind of sexual behavior? If you could dig up some other kind of dirt on Falwell, would that be OK to publicize, even if it wasn’t related to whatever he was being hypocritical about?
Suppose, for instance, that Falwell was cheating on his wife. Would it be OK to “out” him for that, and use it to reduce his influence?
How about if he were on the record as supporting women’s rights. Would it be OK to “out” him as, say, a sexual harasser? And is this a general principle, or does it only apply to some politicians or public figures?
Regards,
Shodan
Well said.
Yup.
I remember this case. It was 4 or 5 years ago. He (the politican) wrote a biography/tell-all, in reply. I have just spend the last 15 minutes searching for this guy, but I cannot find it right now. 
Maybe if I take a list of oponents of gay rights, tape it to the wall, and throw a dart at it, blindfolded, I can find a pol. who matches the description. 
I didn’t say it was an obligation. I said I respect the ones who don’t hide more as a result of their decision not to cower in the closet. Tom Hanks doesn’t hide the fact that he’s married. Any number of starlets don’t hide the fact that they’re dating this guy or another. Why should those dating a same-sex partner feel the need to hide that? They do it because they fear it will hurt their career. Don’t believe that? Ask Tab Hunter why he waited so long. What I’m saying is if enough of the closeted celebrities came out they would reach a critical mass that would help shatter the illusion that they can’t be successful and openly gay. Would Jodie quit getting roles if she came out? It doesn’t seem to have hurt Sir Ian McKellen. His courage earns respect.
Like I said before, I don’t support outing those who only seek to be private about their lives. But those closet cases who openly work against me, demonize homosexuals and seek to limit my rights deserve to have their hypocrisy exposed. When they make sexuality an issue, then they need to fall on the sword they attack with. I support the Barney Frank Rule: “You don’t have a right to be a hypocrite; you don’t have a right to exempt yourself from the negative things you do to other people.”
Former Rep. Steve Gunderson came out more than a decade ago because of threats of being outed. Rep. Jim Kolbe came out when he thought he was going to be outed by The Advocate. Even Frank came out because of a situation that would have outed him. In all three cases, they’ve become more supportive of equal rights. Gunderson now says everyone should be out because it continues to break stereotypes.
Patrick Guerriero, Log Cabin Republican President wrote recently:
That’s why I say I have more respect for those who are willing to risk their personal comfort to help make society better for everyone.
I think you’re attacking a straw-man, or at least a very minor bugaboo. Not since the early 90s has there been any massive outing of closeted celebrities. The current focus of outing targets the Roy Cohns of the world.
I find this thread surprising and educational. I’ve learned that the privacy of the bedroom is not as principled a stance as I thought it was. It seems to apply only to some but not to others. Also—and this I find particularly curious—that while being homosexual may not be a choice but something determined genetically, those who are thus born are mandated to adhere to a certain philosophy and are unable to choose what they think. So a gay person should not consider social policy as it effects gays, just automatically adhere to the broader gay agenda.
How is it that something determined by birth strips someone of the right to form his or her own opinion unless they sign on to a particular social policy? Because someone is gay, isn’t it possible for him to hold an opinion that, say, gay marriage is bad social policy. Or is he not allowed to form his own thoughts? Why? I have a friend that is openly gay and he is of the opinion that gay people shouldn’t adopt children. While he may be wise or not, doesn’t he have the right to form his own opinions? Similarly, must all African-Americans be advocates of affirmative action? And all Whites be against it? Should all straights be anti gay marriage? What is it about being gay that whittles away someone’s right to think what they want without fear of reprisal?
I think that those who seek protections through the concept of sexual privacy and then knowingly and intentionally deprive others of that same right and protection are worse hypocrites (as defined byt them) than the people they seek to “out”.
The bedroom is either off limits to people you do not invite in there or it is not. The more that principle is adhered to and kept inviolate, the better for gay people and society at large. Outing someone against their wishes is reprehensible.
A gay person can be anti-gay, just as a woman can be an anti-feminist, a Mexican can discriminate against other Mexicans, etc.
If he’s openly gay, I don’t see how he is relevant to a discussion about outing those who are secretly gay.
I included it to demonstrate that one can be gay, even openly gay, and not subscribe to all elements of the gay movement. I though it obvious that he could hold that position and be secretly gay as well. I’m curious, why do you focus on that one sentence only?
You didn’t demonstrate that, mostly because I rarely believe in the “I have a friend who…” school of debate.
I see nothing in this thread that would indicate that people believe that all gay persons are in lockstep. Indeed, that’s the whole point of the thread. If your “friend” were working against the rights of gay persons, he would be my enemy and the enemy of all of those who cherish the rights of gay persons.
If he didn’t keep his sexuality secret, he couldn’t fear outing. That’s why I don’t see how your claim to have a friend who… is relevant.
Ahhh, now I see. Why didn’t you just say that in the first place. Now, I don’t give shit if you believe me or not, but we have no problem: simply disregard that small portion of my post that was merely offered as an illustration. Make believe it’s not there. In fact, don’t strain yourself, here:
Better? Care to respond to the argument without the little distraction?
Are we in the same post? The whole concept of outing forces someone to live his or her life the way the gay bloc thinks he or she should live it. And to call someone who doesnt agree with you an enemy illustrates sheer intolerance—the same intolerance you lambaste (rightly) others for. Thanks for another blaring example of the hypocricy you profess to hate.
Oh, that’s so kind of you to offer someone the right of sexual privacy as long as he conforms to the choice you would make! Tell me, are there any other ways you think someone should conform to your beliefs? And if they don’t so conform, can I expect that you will reveal other things about him that he chooses to keep private? I’d really like to know, because I really wouldn’t want the details of those private moments with my freaky ex-girlfriend to get out. Or the degree to which I don’t respect my boss. Or the way that—wait, NO, THAT’S PRIVATE!
I have an inherent distrust (and dislike) for anyone who thinks they know better than I how I should live my life and what I should share about myself.
Unless I’m sexually attracted to you, my sexuality is absolutely, positively no concern of yours . As has been said, “I live my life as an open book - I simply choose not to read it aloud.”
“Outting” someone that chooses to remain private about their sexuality is patronizing in the extreme.
The whole concept of outing forces someone to suffer the consequences of their own actions. (As long as we’re talking the type of outing I said I’m comfortable with.)
You claimed to have a friend who was both out and opposed to certain gay rights. Because he is out, he is exactly the same as any other person opposed to certain gay rights.
If he’s not out and is opposed to certain gay rights, he is using other people’s sexuality against them. That makes his sexuality fair game as well.
If he is not out and is opposed to fireworks, I don’t see how is sexuality is fair game. The only things that are fair game are the weapons brought to the table in the first place. If sexuality is a weapon you bring to the table, sexuality can rightly be used as a weapon against you. If “morality” is a weapon you bring to the table, “morality” can rightly be used as a weapon against you. If religion is a weapon you bring to the table, religion can rightly be used as a weapon against you.
To make it simple, an analogy: If the head cheese of a neo-nazi organization is secretly a Jew, I’m not going to cry if that person is revealed and kicked out of power by the bigoted thugs around him. If he wants bad things to happen to Jews, he wants bad things to happen to himself. Congrats, he gets his wish.
If a gay person wants bad things to happen to gay persons for being gay, he gets his wish if he’s outed and bad things happen to him for being gay.
Someone who is already out cannot be outed again. Their attitudes cannot get them re-outed. Ever. It’s a one-time deal. If someone is out and still wants bad things to happen to gay persons for being gay, that makes them stupid and contemptible, but not hypocrites.
Unlike you. Not that you might also share the other qualities. After all, I don’t know you, but I’m getting a fuller picture.
How am I a hypocrite again? Please be specific. Cites would be handy dandy.
It’s sweet that you’re thinking about me enough to form a full picture. Be sure to put in there that I hate NASCAR and my favorite food is cauliflower. That makes me seem deep, y’know?