Definetly unethical, and I’ve defended outing pols who have used homophobia to get themselves re-elected. Blackmail itself is extremely scummy, but on top of that, confirming Alito is not, in and of itself, a gay rights issue, even though it will have some impact on gay rights.
There is no doubt that it is unethical. I dunno about illegal, though it sounds like blackmail to me.
I have some qualms about outing people who prefer to stay in the closet, but simply outing the Senator would be far less reprehensible than what he is threatening.
Ayup.
Threatening to reveal personal information about a legislator as a means of influencing his or her vote is, in my opinion, unethical and unsupportable.
Outing a legislator who claims social conservatism in public, who works to enshrine sexual bigotry in law, and who pursues a repressive antihomosexual legislative agenda, while at the same time hypocritically enjoying gannonesque teabagging in private, is, in my opinion, entirely ethical and, indeed, desirable.
Therefore, the action described in the OP must be condemned, as it falls under the rubric of the first paragraph.
But if the outing were to occur in line with the second, it would be legitimate.
In my opinion.
Why is it hypocrisy? I don’t see why gays should be required to be out and open about their sexuality. Surely we all have lots of secrets we’d rather not, for one reason or the other, share with the world. Setting higher standards for gays is in fact merely some form of discrimination. You are gay. It’s nobody’s business but your own, unless you yourself chose to make it so.
I would more agree with outting anyone they so desire to out. As long as it is not in the form of “Do this or I will out you”
It may be seen as invasion of someones privacy or something but it wouldn’t look nearly as vindictive.
I would also like to see more evidence then most of the outtings currently on the site have. Having something written in GLBT themed paper as proof, is along the lines of me using The Weekly World News, as my cite to support my belief in aliens.
Not saying every one of his outtings are incorrect, or correct. Just saying it takes more for me to believe anything about anyone then a supposed former boyfriend/girlfriend saying it was so.
So, if it turns out that some Senator who has been for years pushing legislation to outlaw gambling in all forms (including bingo, March Madness pools, poker games among friends, etc), increase the penalties for those caught gambling, and generally screamed condemnation of gamblers is running a Friday-night poker game with his old college buddies, that’s not hypocritical and shouldn’t be pointed out?
I gossip about my straight friends sex lives all the times, even things they would probably like to keep secret. I don’t see this as particularily immoral.
In anycase, politicians personal lives are pretty much fair game at this point, especially if those personal lives can be seen to contradict their public actions. I don’t really think this is a bad thing, and in anycase it’s pretty innevidable (just ask Bill Clinton).
Blackmail is a different issue, though.
Why would we need to know? Shouldn’t the argument against gambling/homosexuality be refuted on its own merits, and not those of the speaker? After all, not everyone speaking against homosexuality or whatever is a hypocrit.
The only time I would support outing is in the case of a “ex-gay”, since revealing that they remain actively homosexual is a direct refutation of their argument.
Not partisan, no. I am expecting a divide amongst those that supported outing as a means to expose gay pols with anti-gay platforms.
I never said that they all were. But someone who does what I described is absolutely a hypocrite. It is up to you whether or not you find hypocrisy distasteful. However, I do think the exposure of hypocrisy in elected officials is fair play.
FWIW, I also think that the situation in the OP is not hypocrisy and thus is not fair play.
Doesn’t hypocrisy require a choice? But homosexuality is no more a choice than ethnicity (or so I am told). Gambling is not comparable to homosexuality since it’s a choice he makes freely, to gamble. Unless he’s addicted to gambling, in which case it would be more akin to the alcholic that try to outlaw booze - but can’t himself kick the habit, which I don’t see as hypocrisy.
The choice wouldn’t be the homosexuality, the choice would be in supporting legislation to outlaw sodomy or make your political office a pulpit to denounce homosexuals while you yourself practice it.
This really isn’t a difficult concept, except for the willfully obtuse.
And what do you expect the divide to be? That some of that number would be OK with blackmail as long as it’s outing?
Huh? See Neurotik’s post. It’s not the behavior itself. It’s the public condemnation of it and its practitioners whilst being one oneself that is hypocritical.
And the concept of refraining from making personal insults in GD is also not a difficult one.
True 'dat. My bad.
Of course, the problem is that we don’t know who the senator in question is, so he may well have an anti-gay agenda. And I have to admit, my prurient interest in knowing his name is now aroused – which, maybe, is the point after all. Or perhaps the blogger is hoping that the person will now out himself, if he feels he’s been discovered.
By the way, what’s the legal definition of blackmail?
Excuse me, all, but so this person’s homosexual? So what? One’s sexuality doesn’t matter any more. It’s a storm in a teacup.
Riiiiiight. You saying an open homosexual has a chance in heck of being elected in, say, rural Alabama?