The morals and ethics of outing

[Kalhoun]

@Kalhoun

Hmmm…I don’t think this affects the respect I have for a person. Yes, there’s a public perception that needs to be straightened out for gays in general, but why does everyone who is gay and famous have to lead the charge? Sexuality is a private matter first and foremost. If a person chooses to keep it that way, I don’t see how that should have any bearing on the level of respect I hold for that person.

I should say "the option to keep sexuality private.

[wonky]

I don’t mean to deny that there is a way I can be prosecuted for infringing on someone’s free speech. I would like to be shown a specific example of a private citizen prosecuted for infringing on someone’s free speech.

It’s not particularly relevant to the OP, but I wonder what specific actions I would have to take to do it. Have there been times when a person was prosecuted on free speech grounds for disrupting a rally? What law is it?

[Miller]

@magellan01

Sorry. They should have been in two separate paragraphs. The chess comment was a commentary on the obviousness of where your questioning was heading, yet it seemed as if you were trying to tee me up with that one post, so you could come back with what you did in your following post.

Well, I’d expected you to see where I was going with it right away, and address it in your response. When you didn’t, I had to get even more obvious.

The bucket mention simply referred to categories. You used the general concept of “it’s wrong to…except in certain circumstances” to create an equivalence in kind between hitting and outing, thus putting them in the same bucket.

Yes, that’s precisely the point. You were accusing people of hypocrisy because they weren’t adhereing to an absolute black/white, either/or morality. Very few moral principles are that simple. Violence against another human is one of the most blatantly immoral acts imaginable, but even then, there are times when it’s acceptable. It’s possible to have a much more nuanced stance on the issue than you seemed willing to allow.

I don’t think that quite the case. When someone is arguiing social policy he is not seeking to hurt you specifically.

This is not always true. Social policy that is rooted in bigotry and aims to have that bigotry enshrined as law is all about seeking to hurt others. Excuse me for going Godwin, but do you think Nazi “social policy” was about anything other than hurting Jews?

Any social policy will hurt some and help others, or at least help some more than others.

Who is “helped” by blocking equal rights and protections for gays?

That is why social policy cannot look to the individual case. If someone is doing what they believe is right for society, they shouldn’t be blackmailed or threatened. They should be confronted and debated. And if your ideas cant emerge victorious on the merits, well, welcome to society.

I agree, they should not be blackmailed or threatened. You have yet to show how outing a homophobe does either.

I would add, that if someone advocates a social position that seems to run counter to their own personal interest, they are likell taking the moral high ground: advocating for society at the cost of themselves. These are hardly people who merit such reprehensible behavior from their fellow citizens.

I disagree. If someone wants to engage in self destructive behavior, fine. Buy a crate of poppers and go bare backing. When their neurosis starts harming me, personally, my compassion for them evaporates pretty quickly.

I was going with your analogy of hitting someone. There are two scenarios, one you sucker punch him (ambush), the other is that you call him outside and go at it.

How is it an ambush if the other guy throws the first punch? I’m not starting the fight, I’m defending myself here. If the other guy didn’t know I had a roll of quarters in my pocket when he went after me… well, too bad for him.

As far as blackmail, the concession could be that unless the person change their position on the particular issue, that you will out him.

Yes, if I do that, it would be blackmail. That’s not a necessary component of outing someone against their will, though.

You’re example concerning calling up your boyfriend Jerry Falwell seems to be more of an ambush. You are not giviing him any option, and you certainly are not puttiing yourself at any risk. It seems cowardly and cheap.

Of course I’m not putting myself at risk. This isn’t a boxing match, it’s a fight for my life. I’m not going to put myself into any more risk than I absolutely have to. And I’m going to use any tool at my disposal to defend myself. I’d be a fool to do otherwise.

Now IF you were to take cxredit for it, and IF there was a law against it that you would suffer under, I’d respect that a lot more. But my basic objection remains. If you believe that sexual matters are private matters, then you respect someone else’s privacy. Now, I will grant you that there is a line which someone can cross—like your unfortunatley-brain-seering picture of Falwell dancing in public in assless chaps (please make that the only time I ever type those two words)—that can be taken as someone essentially outing themselves.

Well, honestly, sexual privacy isn’t really a big issue for me. Sexual freedom is what I’m concerned with. I only keep my sex life private to the extent that most people probably don’t want to hear the details. If I’m happy to talk about my sex life, is it hypocritical of me to talk about other people’s sex lives?

If you out Jerry Falwell, why would you want the credit for it? Seriously. I think the point is worthy of contemplation. It seems that you’d be satisfying some deep-seeded hate. I hardly think that’s anything to stick your chest out about.

Oh, hell yeah, I hate Jerry Falwell. How could I not? The guy is a miserble fucking pustule on the ballsack of humanity. I would derive immense personal satisfaction from causing him personal harm.

As I just mentioned, the public display can make the outing okay, as he essentially did it himself. But if it was at a small diner party that you and he had been invited to as the only outsider, I think you should respect the degree of privacy that the atendees expect. If it’s a larger party where strangers have been invited, all guarantees are off.

I think it’s different with you having sex with him. Assuming a minimal degree of intimacy, I think what happens between you and your partner is no one’s business. For that reason, my activities with my girlfiends over the years have not been shared with others by me.

Well, where’s the line between him outing himself, and being outed by others? If I see him incognito, trying to cruise for male prostitutes, is that public enough that I can share? At a private sex club? If he gets really drunk at a (regular, non-gay-orgy) party and makes a pass at me? What if I’ve never met him, but I know his talkative ex-boyfriend, and I spread his second-hand stories? I don’t think this is an issue that can be resolved by trying to parse out how public is public: everyone is going to draw that line in a different place, and someone drawing that line in a different place than you doesn’t make that person a hypocrite.

[jali]

I’m discussing, not the perverted gay bashers who are actually gay, just gay celebs that haven’t as yet come out.

I don’t understand how a stranger can determine that someone is ready to share their sexuality with the world. I think outing is cruel.

I don’t see the need to force someone to be an unwilling spokesmodel for any sexual slant. Perhaps a singer or actor enjoys the spotlight on his performance - it shouldn’t have to extend to his personal life.

It took quite a few years for my cousin to come out. I can’t imagine her pain if someone outed her to the family before she was ready. What makes an actor any different?