What is the point of outing?

[dsc]

What is the point of outing?

Edited on Sun May-16-04 11:31 PM by dsc
Do you remember Oliver "Bill" Sipple? Probably not. I remembered the person but had to search for the name. He became famous on 22 Sept 1975 when he saved Gerald Ford's life when Sarah Jane Moore attempted to assassinate him. He was not a Secret Service agent. He wasn't FBI. He was simply in the right place at the right time. He was also in the closet.

I remember as a kid reading about his life after he was outed. His dad didn't speak to him again. He wound up lamenting that his sexuality had nothing to do with having saved the President.

What message do you think I got from that little story? In my childish mind (I was 8 or 9) that no matter what I did if I were gay, and I had some idea I might be, it wouldn't be good enough to deserve the love of my family. I mean, saving the President's life (yes it was Ford but still) wasn't good enough to trump being gay.

When we chortle with glee about which famous conservative is gay and what the freepers may do if they find out, just what message do you think we send to that 8 or 9 year old who is reading over his dad's shoulder? Or that teen who is struggling with being gay?

Yes, I took the wrong message from that in my case. But looking at what happened to him afterward, it would have been hard to get a different message.

http://www.fact-index.com/o/ol/oliver_sipple.html

Sipple was a bystander as President Ford went to speak at the St. Francis hotel, located in San Francisco on September 22. According to what he told friends, he just wanted to catch a glimpse of the President that day.

Just as he was listening to President Ford, the would be murderer, Sara Jane Moore, grabbed a gun and pointed it at the President. Sipple grabbed the gun and wrestled her, but not before she could take one shot. Sipple was regarded as a hero by many, including the President himself.

The President took three days to thank Sipple for his act. Because of the delayed reaction by the President, the newspaper San Francisco Chronicle ran a story speculating that Sipple was homosexual. This severely affected Sipple's family life, as his mother died in 1979 with doubts of her son's sexuality. His father never spoke to him again. Sipple declared that My sexual orientation has nothing at all to do with saving the President's life, just as the color of my eyes or my race has nothing to do with what happened in front of the St. Francis Hotel.

Sipple sued the newspaper, but his case was dismissed. He then became an alcoholic, and he fought obesity. He had been turned down by a Veteran's Administration hospital a few weeks before passing away. He was found dead on February 2, 1989, but it was speculated he had been dead for about two weeks before he was found. At the time of his death, Sipple weighted more than 300 pounds. Sipple's funeral was attended by about 90 persons, but President Ford and his wife did not attend, choosing to send a letter of sympathy to his family and friends instead

end of quote

You may not intend to send the message that ended up being sent to me all those years ago, but trust me, kids aren't able to deal with the subilties of life. So as you gleefully think about Freepers dissing the lastest outed conservative, ask yourself what will your kids think? After all, the gay person who you diss, could wind up being your kid you never know until it is too late.

On edit I don't mean to imply in this post that I blame Sipple's alcoholism on the SF Chronicle. I only included that paragraph to both show that Sipple is dead and to show that Ford didn't attend the funeral. I can see why my post was taken the way it was but that isn't what I meant to say.


I reposted this thread to the fact there is yet another Shepard Smith thread and my thread had been archived.

[neoteric lefty]

1. I think a person's sexual orientation

shouldn't be a factor at all but I know many disagree. I have a feeling that this thread will turn ugly but I hope I am wrong.

[Jacobin]

2. Exposing rank hypocrisy?

[BiggJawn]

6. Not the sexuality, it's the hypocrisy!

but I can see how a Conservative Homosexual is really someone to be pitied.

Think of it, your "Club for Growth' friends won't want to play with you anymore, and neither will your other "playmates".

[dsc]

10. and the Clinton thing

was about lying under oath. Sure it was.

[BiggJawn]

235. Yeah, if it was TRULY about the lieing....

Junior should have been dragged down Penn. Avenue in CHAINS by now, but instead, he's a "WAR president"....

[On the Road]

3. I Hope it Would Not Have the Same Effect Today

the culture has changed. But unlike the administration, we do need to think about the effects of participating political rumors and the implications of political attacks.

I had never heard of the Sipple case, but it's tragic. Note that he didn't deny being gay and didn't volunteer the information, but just wanted to be on the sidelines. Even then, it didn't work.

[redqueen]

4. This ain't the 70's

Who's dissing?

[cheezus]

5. Outing is done to harm someone - just like revealing any personal secret

Fortunately we seem to be progressing faster than I had expected towards it no longer being that big of a secret. It seems that the more people come out, the easier it gets.

Not that I don't have an idea how hard it can be on an individual level. I've had a few friends have to deal with families and a culture around here that is still quite backwards.

Anyway, I hope Shepard Smith finds a nice boy to marry someday!

[Baltimoreboy]

9. Outing will always harm the person

Outing is the INVOLUNTARY revealing of something they don't want to reveal. It's information rape. Whether society accepts homosexuality or not, the person outed doesn't want the information public. So outing is purely designed to harm.

[sangh0]

18. So when a homosexual "comes out"

s/he is demonstrating masochism?

[Baltimoreboy]

20. Nope, he/she CHOOSES to come out

and that means he or she is comfortable with doing so. When you are FORCED to come out, that is information rape.

[dsc]

21. No just like someone who has sex

isn't asking to be raped. You can't really be that obtuse, can you?

[sangh0]

98. So you're against "outing"

pedophile priests?

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

110. In that case

I don't see the point in explaining the obvious to the oblivious

[dsc]

136. so you think pedeophilia is being gay

I guess it speaks volumes as to why you hated Dean so badly.

[sangh0]

143. I won't explain the obvious to the oblivious

.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Djinn]

226. could you explain the offensive to the offended maybe

that you'd even bring in "peodophile priests" to this thread is ridiculous. "Outing" is not about informing the public about CRIMINAL behaviour.

It's REALLY really simple

[sangha]

244. Sure, no problem

"Outing" is not about informing the public about CRIMINAL behaviour.

Right, and contrary to what some have claimed above, outing is not about hurting the person outed. Though it may hurt th eperson be outed, that is not the purpose of outing, just as the purpose of outing is not to publicize criminal activity.

[Baltimoreboy]

246. Of course it is designed to hurt

It is envisioned as a way to force all closeted homosexuals to toe the line and never oppose anything other than the party line view.

Apparently some in the gay community feel that the sex lives of others are their property. It's an amazingly right wing viewpoint.

Forcing someone to reveal personal information and deal with the fallout -- damaged family relationships, damaged friendships, possibly damaged love life, potentially damaged career -- is information rape.

[sangh0]

256. You just want gays to stay in the closet

so they can be beaten and killed with impunity

[Baltimoreboy]

258. That post is laughably insane

I think gays should have all the rights everyone does and that includes the right to privacy. So, if a gay man or woman wishes to come out of the closet, more power to him or her. If they do not wish to do so, that is his or her choice as well -- even if that doesn't fit your rabid political agenda.

[Name removed]

259. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CitizenRob]

146. Priests.

Pedophila is not the same thing as homosexuality. The right has been very succesful in pushing those ideas through various media. It is the urban-legend the right loves to tell about homosexuals. The molestations by priests of boys was reported for more than the more prevalent molestation of girls by priests. Why? Undoubtedly it's because it's a bit more shocking. Nobody talks about the female victims of the priets, of which there were far more than male victims.

Their both victims though, and both deserve coverage.

[sangh0]

172. Yes, I know

which is why I took issue with the argument that outing was wrong because it hurts the person outed. It's more complicated than that, as your response indicates

[bearfartinthewoods]

237. yeah....riiiiiight....

:crazy:

[rpannier]

251. Get Real

Child Molestation IS A CRIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Homosexuality is not. When you inform about a criminal that is NOT outing. When you tell people about someones personal life that IS LEGAL -- That is wrong. What you've said is tantamount to equating homosexuality with child molestation.

[mondo joe]

66. Most news about public people is INVOLUNTARY

Did GW Bush want his bike fall publicized?

Or the illegal acts of his daughters?

Did Bill Bennett want his gambling publicized?

Did Ben Affleck want his break up in the news?

Did Britney Spears want her divorce in the news?

Did you consider any of these to be INFORMATION RAPE?

[bearfartinthewoods]

236. a few problems

Did GW Bush want his bike fall publicized?

they broke the story to explain his boo boos

Or the illegal acts of his daughters?

being gay is no longer illegal and that you make the comparison is illustrative.

Did Bill Bennett want his gambling publicized?

gambling is a voluntary act, being gay isn't and i find your comparison illustrative, again.

Did Ben Affleck want his break up in the news?

Did Britney Spears want her divorce in the news?

see above gambling.

Did you consider any of these to be INFORMATION RAPE

[CitizenRob]

137. Outing has many purposes.

Outing has many purposes, and there are many motivations behind "outing" somebody.

While it can be used to intentionally harm somebody's career, and that may in fact be the effect... there are other reasons for "outing."

When early gay civil rights leaders like Harvey Milk began to formulate strategies for advancing their cause one strategy was to increase visibility of homosexuals in daily life. One of the ways this was accomplished was by "coming-out" and letting as many people as possible know that you are gay. Prior to this strategy gays had a tough time establishing that they were in fact a sizable portion of the population that deserved equal treatment. "Outing" was a by-product of the "coming-out" strategy that was meant to increase visibility. Keep in mind that to most gays being "gay, and out" is a good thing. If they think it is a good thing can it really be intended to bring harm on those they out? A lot of those doing the "outings" may have actually seen themselves as helping the people they outed. Ultimately though it comes back to the need to get the word "gay" into conversation, the word itself having been a taboo to even say prior to the new gay visibility. Once the word is part of conversations it means the people and their ideas are also part of the conversation. If somebody famous is "outed" it helps you gain even more visibility.

Judging by the advances of the gay community within the last 40 years since Stonewall I'd have to say their strategy was successful.

[Unperson 309]

152. Welcome to DU!

That said, I have to disagree with your example.

Outing someone just to increase gay visibility is wrong. Simply wrong.
It is using someone's life and reputation, *against his will* to enhance someone else's.

The *only* justifiable use of the 'outing' technique is in self defense. To nullify a direct threat.

I liken it to the idea of a person kicking a cat. That's wrong. The cat poses no danger to a person ten times its size. A bluejay, however, flying above the cat's head and screaming, diving to peck the cat, harassing the feline until it runs back indoors. The cat is a threat to the bird and to small animals such as mice, voles, lizards, etc. The bird is publicizing the cat's presence. "Outing" the cat is the best defense the bird has.

If a closeted homosexual is trying to harm other gays, then yes, he or she SHOULD be warned... warned again, and then outed forcibly.

309

[bearfartinthewoods]

238. and how would things have gone with a less evil approach?

how about supporting individuals and pooling resources and networking instead of the evil act, and yes, i said evil act of involuntary outing?

[CitizenRob]

263. I don't agree that it's evil.

I'm of the opinion that being gay isn't a bad thing... so in my mind "outting" isn't an "evil" act. When I wrote that reply though it was a historical perspective of outting and the reasons why it was use as a tatic to obtain gay civil rights. I was trying not to interject too much opinion as to good or bad into it.

[dsc]

7. over 90 vs 7

I guess people don't like the logical implications of what they are doing.

[bearfartinthewoods]

239. screw the logic. it's their morality that offends me, eom

[Forkboy]

8. Kick for a better thread

:kick:

[indigo32]

11. I have issues with it to be honest

In my opinion, it seems it is meant to hurt. The basis of the hurt is that is that someone IS something, and therefore that something must be bad. That impression overwhelms the hypocracy arguement in my opinion.

[Forkboy]

12. I think you put it perfectly

and you summed up my discomfort with this tactic as well.

[QC]

13. If Fred Phelps were gay,

and there has been some speculation about that (which I hope is not true), would it be wrong to out him? Should we preserve his right to privacy while he fights the very right of other people to exist?

Should someone have outed J. Edgar Hoover? Roy Cohn? Or should the people they were attacking have simply surrendered to them?

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of outing entertainment people and celebs and such, but there are clear cases where outing is warranted as self-defense.

[Baltimoreboy]

14. By outing, you make the case that being gay is bad

So it is always wrong.

[noiretextatique]

22. no...it makes the case that pretending to be against gays publically

while enjoying the "lifestyle" of being gay privately, is "bad."

[redqueen]

25. I don't see how outing makes the case that being gay is bad.

:shrug:

[Baltimoreboy]

27. Outing is always bad to the person it happens to

Hence it is bad. It is involuntarily revealing personal details. How can you claim it is anything BUT bad?

[redqueen]

28. I said I didn't see how it 'made the case' that being GAY is bad

Outing is the other issue being discussed, so I can see why you might have inadvertently gone off track.

[Baltimoreboy]

30. Trying again

OK, if you are forcibly outed, that means they are revealing something sordid or unseemly about you. If it wasn't bad, revealing it wouldn't harm you. Forcibly revealing this only reinforces that stereotype.

[redqueen]

33. What reinforces the stereotype is society

Forcibly revealing it is only perceived as harmful by the person in question, and when the person in question is actively working to inflict harm (by passing laws or otherwise encouraging society to maintain it's collective disdain for gays), IMO they relinquish any right to howl at the unfairness of being outed.

[Baltimoreboy]

36. You must be kidding

Forcibly revealing it is perceived as harmful by everybody who watches the guy/gal's career/family/life crash and burn.

All this is a pathetic rationalization for doing anything to win.

[noiretextatique]

42. please give some examples...other than dsc's

please show me how outing has destroyed someone's career. please make it a recent example, because we know attitudes have relaxed (somewhat) from say the 1950's to today. thanks.

[Baltimoreboy]

50. Laugh worthy

Actually, I am the one advocating NOT to reveal the info. Please give evidence that it DOESN'T harm revealing private sexual information.

Yeah, that Rock Hudson guy's reputation was unharmed by the whole gay discussion. What about family men, married men, fathers, etc.?

Outing is a Nazi tactic and the gay community should oppose it.

[noiretextatique]

57. married men...you mean ones who are LYING to their wives?

yeah...i'm *really* concerned about them. which is why i tell all my straight, female friends to use protection, even with their husbands, since AIDS is no stranger to straight women,
the gay community is neither a monolith, nor does it take direction from YOU. i love you high-minded types who don't have to face a single second of the kind of shit these homphobes as dishing out...you can afford to be that way.
dsc is gay...he opposes outing. i am gay...i support it for the use with public homophobes who advocate and support an anti-gay agenda which hurts other gay people.
as to the effects of outing...i have been outing at my job, and no one gave a damn. but of course, i wasn't cowering in the closet pretending to be straight either.

[Baltimoreboy]

60. Maybe, maybe not

It is not my place to intervene in another person's marriage. Nor is it yours.

Some couples have open marriages. Others might know their spouse is gay.

I am open-minded enough to tolerate anyone being anything. I am not open-minded when it comes to intruding into someone's personal life.

It is my hope that anyone who advocates outing discovers that homosexuality is not the only private thing people don't want revealed.

[noiretextatique]

199. public people who advocate interfereing in other people's personal lives

should know that their personal lives are also open for scrutiny. i could care less about what private citizens do, which is why i would only support outing a public, closted, gay person who is publically advocating an anti-gay agenda. tbose folks are hypocrites and collaborators who deserve exposure.

[Baltimoreboy]

223. Pretty much every action politicians take interferes

Tax legislation intrudes for example. So do votes on any of our freedoms.

Again, you are endorsing carte blanche on all politicians and I wildly oppose it.

All outing does is harm the victim and damage the reputation of the gay community -- painting it unfairly as a vindictive bunch.

[noiretextatique]

229. nice try, but YOU raised the issue of a private SEX life

which is what this discussion is all about. clearly, outing is wrong in your opinion...I GOT THAT.

now...who in the hell, besides a bunch of homophobes and a few liberal straight folks who play high-minded when it comes to other people's lives, give a damn about "the reputation of the gay community?"...which, i will tell you AGAIN is not a monolith.

and of course, it's FALSE (and perhaps something else) to ASSume that only "the gay community" (the monolith :eyes: ) would out someone.

as in dsc's example...it wasn't "the gay community" who outed the man in question.

[Baltimoreboy]

231. No community is a monolith

But the actions of a few can still impact others, especially if it is a part of society that is not embraced.

[noiretextatique]

233. as far as i know, the SF Chronicle isn't "gay"

so its outing of the individual mentioned in this thread cannot be attributed to "a few" in the gay community. i see you are persistent, though...

[Baltimoreboy]

242. LOL

That isn't the only instance mentioned in the thread.

Very, very lame.

[noiretextatique]

261. lame, indeed

this thread is all about a man outed by the SF Chronicle :dunce: the rest of the talk here has been hypothetical, especially your comments about "the gay community," considering "the gay community" didn't out the man :eyes:
i am still waiting for you to prove your assertion about the damage outing has done to someone else, for example. let me guess: you're a member of the "everybody knows" DU debate team...i've run into some of your teammates before.

[Baltimoreboy]

268. This thread is about outing in general

With 260+ posts, it has swerved all over the subject.

As for some of my comments about, "the gay community," they are in response by posters in these outing threads who say they are gay.

Again, since I am arguing for people (including the original subject) having a right to privacy, I don't have to prove anything. You, on the other hand, have to prove that revealing private information ISN'T harmful. As the subject of the original post shows, it is.

[noiretextatique]

269. i never asserted that it wasn't harmful...you made the assertion

that it was...the burden of proof is on you for making that AFFIRMATIVE statement. and of course...you cannot do it, because if you could do it, you would have done it already.
and unless you can provide an example of "the gay community" or "a few gays" outing ANYONE, your moralizing is misplaced...since the ONLY example of outing in this thread was NOT done by "the gay community."
the harm, then, that was caused in the example provided was done by moral straight folks, like yourself.

[Baltimoreboy]

272. You are advocating for it

So, either you claim it is harmless or you seek to do harm. Which is it?

[CitizenRob]

264. I disagree...

clearly the Chronicle is GAY! I've outted the SF Chronicle!!! :-)

[dsc]

Don't Ask Don't Tell

ring a bell.

[noiretextatique]

200. yeah...it was a copout 'compromise'

that gave gay people in the military ZERO protection.

[Unperson 309]

191. Outing should be a Last Resort Tactic ONLY...

Outing someone is not a "win at any cost" tactic. It ought not to be. It is a tactic of last resort, of self defense against someone who would do the same thing to us if he had the chance.

In the case of the legislator I cited before, I would never out that person. Ever. Why not? Because that legislator has never once tried to harm me or mine. The person has NEVER used their public influence to act against sexual minorities. Now, the person IS a conservative and has authored several bills that are ones I strongly disagree with... but they do NOT concern sexuality! Thus, I will not use the information I have against that person. It's wrong.

It's like a double agent in wartime. The double agent uses secrecy, uses the perception by the populace that he is 'one of them' to avboide their wrath and to gain information to use against them, to harm them. It is only right that, should they find him in their midst, to expose his double life, his deceit.

309

[Unperson 309]

117. Actually...

If I 'out' a person, I'm not revealing that he's a homosexual... I'm revealing that he's HIDING the fact that he's homosexual!

It's exactly the same as Rush Slimebaughll being 'outed' as a drug addict. We're NOT saying that taking pain medications is bad. we're SAYING that if he expects society to crack down on all durg abuse, then the rules apply to him as well!

I think the question one should ask before outing anyone is this:
"If So-and-So knew that my brother (friend, sister, neighbor, etc) were gay, would he harm or out him/her, given a chance?" If the answer is "yes.", then that legislator or public figure is, after a warning or three, fair game!

309

[Baltimoreboy]

141. How Orwellian

If you out someone, you are indeed revealing what they do and the impact of that, devastating as it is, shows that what they do is "bad."

[Unperson 309]

105. When "Bad" Things Happen To Bad People...

It is sort of like a double negative...

F'rinstance, we want GWB to lose the next election. In effect, we want something "bad" to happen to him!

Actually, if I were to catch someone shoplifting, I would "out" that person as a thief. I've *done* it, too! Caught a guy sliding something into his jacket pocket at a Goodwill store. I made damned certain he didn't get out the door with it!

When a person who is homosexual hides that fact, while at the same time working to actively hurt gays (difference between 'gay' and 'homosexual' is a political one) using his influence as a percieved "normal" person, he is STEALING society's approval!
He is expecting to "get out the door" with his purloined public image, while at the same time expecting others to pay for their orientation.

Whenever that happens he DESERVES to be outed and face the SAME consequences he expects OTHERS to face!

309
edit for tspellllinge errors!

[redqueen]

114. Nice analogy with stealing

Quite a creative way to put it. Well done!

:thumbsup:

[CitizenRob]

151. Re: I don't see how outing makes the case that being gay is bad.

redqueen:
"I don't see how outing makes the case that being gay is bad."

I suppose it depends on your perspective. Outting when used as a tool to create visibility for the gay community is a good and benevolent thing from the perspective of the outters. From the perspective of the outted I'm sure it looks mean and malicious. Why anybody famous feels a need to stay in the closet these days is beyond me.

[redqueen]

167. That's why I was wondering...

that's exactly why I asked the question.

It's puzzling to me that gay teens these days are still so plagued with self-hate, so prone to depression, so prone to having suicidal thoughts -- if not actually killing themselves! It's so tragic and needless.

But based on the number of people who still think it's something to be ashamed of and kept hidden and secret... I guess I can see why teens who realize they are gay might feel that way.

Sad, really.

on edit: almost forgot to say Welcome to DU! :hi:

[CitizenRob]

265. Thanks RedQueen

Thank you RedQueen. I'm looking forward to participating on the discussoin boards here. I've been running my own site (LiberalTimes) for a while now, and love politics... but the real fun is interacting in a community like DU's

So, thank you for the welcome! :-)

[Forkboy]

15. I believe it would be wrong,yes

[QC]

48. What about outing Henry Hyde as an adulterer?

Was that wrong, or is it the "shame" of homosexuality that is key here?

[indigo32]

16. But where is the line drawn?

Fred Phelps is a very extreme case... :puke: :mad:
and even with him... you damn well better KNOW don't you think?

[noiretextatique]

23. HELL NO...

i wouldn't have the slightest problem outing ANY public homophobe.

[Mixxster]

41. "i wouldn't have the slightest problem outing ANY public homophobe."

What if s/he wasn't a homophobe? On another thread someone outed Walter Cronkite. Is that OK? Or, is it OK here at DU because we're supposedly so open minded?

[noiretextatique]

43. if he wasn't a public homophobe, then *I* wouldn't support outing him

what part of "i wouldn't have the slightest problem outing any public homophobe" didn't you understand?

[Mixxster]

61. My question was simply if you'd have a problem if the person wasn't...

a homophobe, no reason to get snippy.

I was surprised at the Cronkite thread and didn't know how many others at DU may think that outing is no big deal.

[noiretextatique]

204. only if the person is a public homophobe

advocating an anti-gay agenda. otherwise...i wouldn't support outing anyone. i hadn't heard about cronkite.
and sorry about being snippy...it happens sometimes :hi:

[redqueen]

49. I think 'homophobe' is a prerequisite

If someone isn't actively working against something they indulge in, I don't care about it.

Once the cross the line by actively working to further the sigma against ANY group (mentally ill, gay, bisexual, biracial, whatever!), their participation in the same activities as that group become FAIR GAME. IMO, of course. :)

[noiretextatique]

55. agreed, red queen

which is why i stated my position as clearly as possible :D
a rw gay person who is not publically advocating the re's anti-gay agenda is not someone i'd out.

[Mixxster]

62. Thanks for the civil response, redqueen.

[Unperson 309]

206. Outing Someone

who is NOT threatening or harming the gay community is simply wrong!

Outing someone who has offered no harm, who is not homophobic, is wrong and anyone who does it is wrong to do so. If Walter Conkite were gay (I'd faint from shock)... since he has offered no harm to gay persons, then he's off limits. Period.

The tactic should fit the offense. If a white homosexual is attacking blacks and is a member of the KKK, I wouldn't out him for being gay... but I WOULD make his membership in the KKK public knowledge!
Similarly, if a person of black ancestry who is "passing" for white is attacking gays, I'd never out him as a black!

Outing must ba a last resort tactic only.

309

[outinforce]

45. Its Even Worse --

Not only is outing meant to hurt, it is often used as a tool of coercion as well.

It is often used to get a public person to change his or her stand on not just one, but sometimes several issues.

That's blackmail.

And that, plus the intention to hurt, makes it dispicable.

[Unperson 309]

209. Not to *Change* a Stance

If someone is attacking gays (and is a gay himself) then my message would not be "Support us or else!" but rather "STOP attacking us while enjoying anonymity, yourself!"

I don't ask that a person change his stance, I ask... DEMAND that the person CEASE attempts to HURT ME! he can be just as homophobic and bigotted as he likes... so long as he's not trying to HURT OTHERS.

Simple, no?

309

[outinforce]

255. A Rose Is A Rose Is A Rose

"I don't ask that a person change his stance, I ask... DEMAND that the person CEASE attempts to HURT ME!"

Blackmail by any other name is still blackmail.

[Unperson 309]

170. Outing is not always to hurt...

There are times when outing someone is meant to nullify their damage to the gay community.

Frankly, I far prefer to meet with the malefactor and tell him or her "Look, YOU are trying to get gay persons jailed or fired for being gay... while you personally enjoy the 'privileges' of being seen as heterosexual. This is NOT FAIR and we are not going to allow you to continue hurting us! Either STOP attacking gays, legislating against us and calling for others to harm us, or FACE THE SAME discrimination we do, YOURSELF!!"

It's like the old Buddhist lesson. If a man with a large stick is beating you, do you hit him back? No! You *take away the stick*!

Once a person is outed as being homosexual, they LOSE the stick they are using (the perception that they are straight) and must face the sticks (along with us) of those they formerly sided with.

Fair is fair.

309

[Unperson 309]

17. It Can Be A Powerful Tool

to rein in someone who is using heterosexual privilege in order to *avoid* the harm they support done to others.

As I mentioned before, J. Edgar Hoover was closeted and using his status to harm other gays. Had I been in that situation, I'd have outed him in a flash!

AAMOF, I have direct, first hand, personal knowledge of one legislator who very much enjoys sexual humiliation and diaper-play. This person's name is recognizeable on a semi-national level (very high in state politics, but not national... yet).

Would I out this individual? No! Not just "no" but "HELL no!" because what this person does in their spare time, behind closed doors, with a mistress, is NONE of the nation's business whatsoever!

However...

If this person began using their so-called sexually normal "status" and calling for all "deviant sexuality" to be suppressed, and began authoring bills to suppress gay or alternative sexual "lifestyles", you can bet your bottom DOLLAR, I'd be on that phone in ten SECONDS!

First, I'd call the lawmaker and inform them that I *knew* of their hypocrisy and disliked it! I would tell them exactly what I knew and that, if they did NOT stop trying to hurt others with bigotry and attempts to silence and suppress those people, that I'd sing like a f*cking CANARY! IOW, "Do whatever the Hell you want behind closed doors, but do NOT deny OTHERS the same freedoms!!"

And no, no WAY would I EVER use such knowledge unless it was the ABSOLUTE last resort!

309

[Baltimoreboy]

19. How is that hypocrisy?

Diaper play is the same as gay?

Basically what you are saying is that if anyone dares cross you, you will destroy them with whatever methods available. Some other guys have used those tactics as well. History has buried most of them, thank god.

[redqueen]

24. Not about the kind of sex (homosexual or whatever)

It's the hypocrisy of writing or advocating laws which inhibit the freedom of others to participate legally in actions which the person in question also participates.

[Baltimoreboy]

26. Freedom is never unlimited

We always limit it in some way. So again, by that definition, you are choosing to attack anyone who dares vote against you. That is the politics of destruction.

We limit sex any number of ways:

* polygamy
* bestiality
* adultery (illegal in many places)
* oral sex (still illegal in many places)
* incest
* pedophilia

And a host of other things.

[redqueen]

31. Are you up for this, really?

In your zeal to equate someone so hypocritical as to engage in gay sex while forming or lobbying for laws which limit the freedom or rights of gays with someone just doing their job by limiting 'freedoms' in general, you seem to be taking the distinctly rightwing tack of lumping being gay in with polygamy, beastilaity, etc.

Would you like to rethink your post and try again?

[Baltimoreboy]

35. I lumped it in with everything including oral sex and adultery

All of those are things we legislate against. I picked every sexual thing I could think of. Please feel free to add more.

In theory, using the claim that the diaper-oriented legislator (are diapers even against the law?) is invading people's privacy, all are reasons to reveal his private life, not just voting against gays.

So again, the argument here is simply this: If he votes against anything I don't like, I will out his sex life.

That's disgusting.

[noiretextatique]

40. it's that they are collaborators...it's not just "voting"

have you been listening the the anti-gay rhetoric coming from some on the right? it's not about "voting" or "disageeing"...it's about ADVOCATING anti-gay HATRED. any gay person, closted or not, who does THAT is fair game to be exposing as a hypocrite and a collaborator.

[Baltimoreboy]

44. Lots of people hate

I know gays who hate. I know Christians who hate. I know people who hate in pretty much every group. That is not an excuse to out their private lives.

No one should be fair game for outing their private life. What is gay anyhow? Is that having sex ONLY with the same gender? Or sometimes? Or once? Or thinking about it? Or watching it?

Human sexuality is pretty complex and by outing you seek to force people to fit in a little pigeonhole you create.

[noiretextatique]

54. telling the truth is only twisted as "outing" in a twisted world

any public homophobe who is closted, and who supports the rw's anti-gay agenda should know the truth will eventually come to bite him in the ass. only in this twisted country would that be considered some awful tactic, and that these collaborators deserve some epecial protection from their own lies and hypocrisy.
consider it an example of one's lies and deceptions finally catching up with him...the chickens coming home to roost, so to speak.
i don't see this as any different than exposing bush's continued drinking, or bill bennett's gambling, or rush's pill-popping, and so on.

[Baltimoreboy]

63. Oh so you are only protecting them from themselves?

Wow, with that "logic," you could justify just about anything.

No one has a right to know your sex life. No one. Running for office or being a public figure don't change that.

[noiretextatique]

208. bullshit...the sex moralists that chased clinton

found out that what's good for the goose is good for the goddamn gander. those who insist on making other people's sex lives political issues do not deserve any of the "privacy" they take from others.

[Baltimoreboy]

224. Destroying privacy is wrong

Period.

[noiretextatique]

227. duh...yeah! the point is: will you just take it

when it's done ot you, or will you fight fire with fire? of course, this you doesn't apply to you. but you can post your answer here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1672094&mesg_id=1672510

[Baltimoreboy]

232. No I won't fight "fire" with fire

When you do that, everything burns.

[noiretextatique]

234. i have no more cheeks to turn, but i note your nobility

in insisting that gay people give closted homophobes as pass.
and that you haven't posted in dsc's other thread yet...

[Baltimoreboy]

243. It's not the turning of the other cheek

It's the question of doing something morally reprehensible.

[noiretextatique]

262. right...like attempting to make gay people

second-class citizens? yes...that is morally reprehensible, but since it doesn't affect you (i see you didn't post in thread about how personally YOU would take the current crop of anti-gay initiatives around the country...and the world) you can afford to preach your self-serving morality.

[Baltimoreboy]

266. Sorry, but it DOES effect me

What happens to Americans impacts other Americans.

This is not self-serving morality, it's just morality. I don't support laws against gays and I don't support actions against private individuals either.

[noiretextatique]

267. who said anything about PRIVATE individuals?

i have only said this:
i support outing public, closeted homophobes who are actively working to advance an anti-gay agenda.
do you have a problem with that?
if not...this discussion is over (and has long since been pointless).

[Baltimoreboy]

270. Yes, I do have a problem with breaking into people's private lives

And I have the same problem whether they save the life of the president or advocate laws I don't like.

The "public, closeted homophobes" you complain about are PRIVATE citizens and their sex life is none of your fucking business.

[noiretextatique]

274. you seem to have some problem

distingushing between public and private people, among other things.
get over yourself...your self-importance is exceeded only by your self-righteousness. who are you to claim moral superiority over any gay person, considering WE are the ones being targetted...right now? yeah, blah, blah, blah: it affects you...indirectly. but it affects US directly. how people directly affected by it deal with it is none of your fucking business.
and you keep arguing about a situation that you have yet to prove actually EXISTS. perhaps you should take your self-righteous lecturing to the SF Chronicle, since it outed the only person mentioned in this thread.

[Baltimoreboy]

275. We ALL have private lives

Even those you demonize or who demonize you.

You have no right to enter the bedroom of anyone.

And when you do, all you accomplish is to paint homosexuality in a negative light as the rest of the world watches the damage caused by the outing, just like it did in the original post.

[redqueen]

56. Hating is not the issue

Why do you keep doing this? The post above yours clearly says that it's the fact that they are sowing the seeds of that hatred *publicly*, thereby *reinforcing* the stigma.

I think if someone hates gays privately, but is gay themselves, then they are punished enough already - leave them be.

If they're working to spread the hate, that's altogether different.

[Baltimoreboy]

64. So their hate is bad, but yours is OK

I see lots of hate right here on this thread. Closeted gays are hated if they don't toe the party line. So they are outed and destroyed.

I think what someone does in their PRIVATE life is fucking private. I think people should stay out of each other's bedrooms and I won't agree to it when the right OR the left want to do it.

[mondo joe]

68. Are you SURE you believe in privacy?

Should Bill Bennett's gambling have been in the news?

What about Newt Gingrich dumping his wife for his mistress?

How about Bush falling off his bike?

[Baltimoreboy]

71. Yes, I do

Did Bill Bennett go bankrupt? Nope. So it's not our business.

If Newt got divorced, it's a public record. If he didn't it's not our business.

Injuries to the president ARE public record because they impact the leader of the country and his health IS a national concern.

Most of what passes for news these days is National Enquirer crap.

[redqueen]

74. Odd

I didn't see you in the threads about Rush's drug addiction railing against the unfairness of it all.

[Baltimoreboy]

78. Well, with about 150 posts

and about one sixth of them in this thread, you won't find me many places.

TFB.

And, if I recall correctly, his is a public CRIMINAL proceeding, not a private life issue.

[sangh0]

75. Breaking News

What happens in a public place, such as a casino, is NOT a private matter

[Baltimoreboy]

79. Casinos are private property

Not public per se.

And revealing his PRIVATE casino accounts is a violation of privacy.

[mondo joe]

81. Casinos are a public space

News for you: Cainos may be privately owned but they are a public space.

It's fair game to report on what's seen there.

[sangh0]

83. Don't confuse him with facts

It interferes with his sloganeering

[Baltimoreboy]

86. Note you used the word "seen"

Yes, he was seen there.

So was I. So are millions of people. However, reporting on his actual winnings and such is more than that. That's an investigation into his PRIVATE life.

If somebody did that to me, I'd just punch them out.

[sangh0]

90. Note that "his actual winnings" occured in a public place

.

[Baltimoreboy]

94. But to track them you'd have to follow him for weeks on end

Which is stalking.

Instead, they simply pried into his PRIVATE life.

Is it any wonder we get what we get running for office?

[sangh0]

101. More BS to cover up the last pile?

Stalking is more than following someone around.

Instead, they simply pried into his PRIVATE life.

Hint: Repeating that won't make it true

[Baltimoreboy]

106. It's already true, I just repeated it because you can't grasp it

[sangh0]

111. No, you repeated it because you can't explain it

because it makes no sense

[Baltimoreboy]

113. Pot meet kettle

Clearly, we are at an impasse.

On one hand we have the private life Nazis who think anything you do can be reported on if it can be worked to their advantage. On the other, we have the pro private lifers.

[sangh0]

119. I name-calling the best you can do?

Because unlike you, I haven't been repeating myself, which probably explains why you don't say what I've repeated.

On one hand we have the private life Nazis

Calling those who disagree with you "Nazis" is a sure sign you have no argument to make

[Baltimoreboy]

121. Would you prefer fascists?

People who tramp all over the rights of others certainly deserve no less.

[sangh0]

123. Still won't say what I repeated?

Gee, I wonder if you even know?

[Baltimoreboy]

126. LOL, is that the best YOU can do?

I can see how you got to 1,000 so quickly.

[sangh0]

129. Still can't say what I've repeated

So far, I've got you in two "errors"

1) You said the President's medical info was public, and then agreed with me when I said it was private

2) You've accused me of repeating myself, but you can't say what it is I've repeated

[mondo joe]

77. You have no consistent standard for "privacy"

"Did Bill Bennett go bankrupt? Nope. So it's not our business."

No? So you oppose this news?

"If Newt got divorced, it's a public record. If he didn't it's not our business."

That he had an affair, that he dumped his wife in the hospital - what about that is public?

"Injuries to the president ARE public record because they impact the leader of the country and his health IS a national concern."

Oh please - a tumble off a bike is not a national security issue.

You have no consistent standard.

[Baltimoreboy]

80. Yes, I have a clear standard

Public records are public.

Marriage -- public

Divorce -- public

Bankruptcy -- public

Crime -- public

All have public records created of them.

Yes, I do oppose the Bennett "news."

Gingrich is only public if he/she filed divorce papers. Those are public.

Injuries are injuries. All medical records of the president impact national security. He could have smacked his head into concrete.

[sangh0]

85. No, you don't

Anything that happens in a public place is NOT private, including sex.

[Baltimoreboy]

87. They didn't report on what they saw

They did further investigation and dug into his PRIVATE finances.

[sangh0]

92. All public

They did not reveal anything that the law protects. If they had, Bennet would be suing them

[Baltimoreboy]

97. Hard to sue as a public figure

But yes, they did pry into PRIVATE finances.

[sangh0]

102. More BS

It's the same procedure for both the famous and the unknown.

Try again

[Baltimoreboy]

116. No it's not, different standards to meet

Yes, the same courthouse and such, but much higher standards of proof.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Oops. You lose.

[sangh0]

122. Sorry, but you're wrong

It's the same standard of proof. The only difference is the circumstances, which is why you won't (and can't) specify what the difference is, while on the other hand, I just did

[mondo joe]

93. Did they violate any laws in investigating his finances?

Did they violate any laws in investigating his finances?

[mondo joe]

88. You're preposterous - anything but sexual orientation

By your standard that "injuries are injuries" there should be a press release if the president stubs his toe, or has hemmorhoids.

But since national security is an issue, what about this: A closeted gay person is a national security risk because they can be blackmailed.

And your Gingrich position is an absolute contortion of reason - how is his affair public news?

[redqueen]

95. "A closeted gay person is a national security risk"

Ooooooh... you're good!

EXTREMELY GOOD POINT!

[Baltimoreboy]

100. Not at all

I support anything that is public record information. Presidential injuries are included in that.

As are divorce documents. If Gingrich hadn't divorced his wife, I wouldn't call it news. People cheat all the time.

As for national security, anything anybody does can result in blackmail. Again, that's a back door to reporting on anything anyone does who is in government.

* Your son is gay, NATIONAL SECURITY.
* You are in debt, NATIONAL SECURITY.
* You committed a crime at 17...

[sangh0]

104. More BS

Presidential injuries and medical records are considered private.

[Baltimoreboy]

107. Tell that to the White House

Who releases information on the president's health ALL THE TIME.

[sangh0]

112. Breaking News

People are allowed to reveal private info about themselves. Many Hollywood careers are based on that fact

[Baltimoreboy]

120. Reveal, yes, reveal. That's VOLUNTARY

Much like sex.

Outing is the rape version of the same event.

[sangh0]

128. "Presidential injuries and medical records are considered private."

You said they were public info. Now you say that it IS private, but you don't acknowledge making an error.

[Baltimoreboy]

132. No, they are public. I never said otherwise

I merely responded to a post. Nothing more.

[sangh0]

135. "Reveal, yes, reveal. That's VOLUNTARY"

If they were public, the President wouldn't have to REVEAL the facts.

[Baltimoreboy]

144. Yes, in response to a post you made about Hollywood

And I quote: "sangh0 (1000+ posts) Wed May-26-04 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #107

112. Breaking News


People are allowed to reveal private info about themselves. Many Hollywood careers are based on that fact"

[sangh0]

153. Twisting the facts

Anyone can read that post and see that the point was that medical records are private. The reference to Hollywood was an example, and not the point.

[Baltimoreboy]

157. And anybody can read mine

And tell I was responding to the bit about Hollywood.

Point meet counterpoint.

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

118. "anything anybody does can result in blackmail"

What the...? Care to clarify that thought? Maybe provide an example or three?

[Baltimoreboy]

124. Sure

* You have too many debts, blackmail.
* You cheated, blackmail.
* Your wife cheated, blackmail.
* You committed a crime, any crime at all, blackmail.
* Someone in your family or even a close friend did something wrong. You wish to protect them from the prying eyes so eager in this thread. Blackmail.
* You are liberal and your asshole boss hates the left, blackmail.
* You post on DU while at work, blackmail.

Enough?

[sangh0]

131. That's anything?

You have too many debts, blackmail.

And if you have no debts, are you open to blackmail? After all, you said "anything" can used to blackmail someone

[Baltimoreboy]

134. Too many debts makes you a security risk

Always has in fact.

Most jobs these days do a credit check on you to see if they can trust you with money. So, too much debt puts you in a VERY vulnerable spot.

Actually, if you have no debts, you typically have a bad credit report, which can also be used against you.

[sangh0]

139. You said "anything anybody does can result in blackmail"

It appears that by "anything anybody does", you meant "anything that I find convenient to argue about"

[Baltimoreboy]

147. Now you are running out of things to say

Which, I for one, applaud.

[sangh0]

154. So you won't defend your assertion?

You said "anything, anybody does" can be used to blackmail them, but you won't defend it. If you don't support your arguments, no one else will

[Baltimoreboy]

159. Are your posts always this meaningless?

Or is it just this one?

[sangh0]

163. So you won't defend your assertions?

I'm not surprised

[Baltimoreboy]

169. Asked and answered

[sangh0]

174. So you still won't defend your own assertions.

No surprise. It's SOP

[mondo joe]

168. You're incorrect again, Baltimoreboy. here's why:

"I support anything that is public record information. Presidential injuries are included in that."

But they're not.

"As are divorce documents. If Gingrich hadn't divorced his wife, I wouldn't call it news. People cheat all the time."

So if someone is divorced it's okay to investigate and report every detail about their marriage and affair?

"As for national security, anything anybody does can result in blackmail. Again, that's a back door to reporting on anything anyone does who is in government."

But you've already pointed out that many issues are in the public record. So if someone - let's say a Supreme Court justice - were secretly gay, couldn't they be blackmailed with that?

[Baltimoreboy]

173. Not at all incorrect

Talk to the White House before you claim otherwise about health records. They go into great detail about such things.

As for the divorce, you can report based on what is in the document. That's why so many divorces are settled peacefully because one party of the other wants to keep information out of the news.

Again, pick a topic and you can find a way to blackmail someone on it. Does that give us justification to publicize everything under the sun out of fear?

Not likely.

[sangh0]

178. You are wrong again

The Medical Records Privacy Act makes medical records private. It has no exclusions of any kind, not for Presidents nor for any other public figures.

[mondo joe]

180. You're saying reporters can't investigate anything.

"Talk to the White House before you claim otherwise about health records. They go into great detail about such things."

The President's medical record is not public. And it never has been.

"As for the divorce, you can report based on what is in the document. That's why so many divorces are settled peacefully because one party of the other wants to keep information out of the news."

So it's legit to report what's in the document, but not to investigate any further? No interviews? No nothing?

"Again, pick a topic and you can find a way to blackmail someone on it. Does that give us justification to publicize everything under the sun out of fear?"

But you're the one who said the President tumbling off a bike is a national security issue. Why isn't a a male politician having a deep dark secret boyfriend?

[mondo joe]

198. Per Baltimoreboy, Watergate Could Not have Been Investigated

"Public records are public."

Baltimoreboy's stance that only public records are grounds for news, Watergate could never have been investigated by Woodward * Bernstein.

[redqueen]

72. Yes there seems to be a definite limitation on what merits protection.

Is it only limited to one's sexuality, I wonder?

[redqueen]

70. No, we're not qualifying hate here

You seem to be unable or unwilling to recognize that once a person starts advocating the hatred or scapegoating or *whatever* about *whatever quality* (be it homosexuality, mental illness... whatever) - that they put themselves in a special position.

What someone does in their private life is no longer private, once they publicly start advocating hatred and derision. Then it becomes public. Clearer?

[Baltimoreboy]

76. Clear as an eclipse

One person's definition of hate is another's definition of morality. So you again provide no clarity. And since politicians vote on almost everything, that becomes a justification to OUT anything in their lives.

* Wow, you voted for a marriage tax credit, let's report on YOUR marriage!
* Damn, you voted for gay rights, let's talk about your gay teenage son!
* Fuck, you voted against/for drugs, let's talk about your drug use THIRTY years ago!

Why would anyone run for office in that atmosphere?

[redqueen]

99. Not what I said by any stretch of the imagination.

Once again, you read the words, but you add all kinds of other stuff in there. What gives?

I never said anything at all about what people hate. They can hate whatever they want - PRIVATELY. Once they share that hate and start lobbying to codify it as law and encourage others to hate, THEN their hate becomes an issue. ESPECIALLY if what they're hating is something they personally DO or ARE.

[Baltimoreboy]

103. You are trying to carve it finer than real life allows

How you define hate is very subjective. If someone opposes gay marriage, is he a hater? Or does he have different morality?

[redqueen]

127. *sigh*

As several people on this thread have repeatedly pointed out, this is not just about 'hate' and how it's defined.

If someone opposes gay marriage, they are not a 'hater', they are advocating the restriction of rights for a specific group of people.

Not really sure how this ties into the outing argument though.

:shrug:

[Baltimoreboy]

130. I doubt everyone on DU would agree

I've seen some lovely posts about those who oppose gay marriage.

This is a sub-issue about outing. Essentially, if you "think" someone is hating or doing anything wrong, many here seem to believe that is an excuse to go running through their lives with a fine-tooth comb.

That's sick. And dangerous.

[sangh0]

Yes, people on DU disagree

In this very thread, there's a poster who is arguing for privacy, and criticizing the hate that people who disagree with her have, while at the same time expressing *HER* hatred by calling them "Nazis"

As she said in one of her posts "That's sick. And dangerous."

[Baltimoreboy]

138. I don't have any hate for anyone on this thread

Though I'm sure you could muster it given time.

But intruding into people's private lives and claiming a right to reveal their sex lives because you think it's OK, is fascist behavior. If you don't like the term, don't embrace the act.

BTW, I'm sure this might be tough for you to grasp, but I'm a guy.

[sangh0]

140. So calling me a "Nazi" was meant to flatter me?

BTW, I'm sure this might be tough for you to grasp, but I'm a guy.

I assumed you were a female. Most posters on DU are female, as are most people on the planet

[Baltimoreboy]

149. Are you sure most posters on DU are female?

Got any stats on that one?

Even though most people on Earth are women, most Internet users are men.

[sangh0]

155. Yes

.

[Baltimoreboy]

162. I am awed by your factual resopnse

[sangh0]

164. It doesn't take much

does it?

Who knows? Maybe some day, you can post a factual response too!!

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangha]

245. You must really be obsessed with me

Why do you follow me around so much, posting off-topic quips about me, and not the subject of the thread?

[Unperson 309]

213. Not really.

Reread what I said.

"Basically you're saying that if anyone dares cross you, you will destroy them with whatever methods available"

Wrong. I said that IF they were HARMING others, I would WARN them to cease and desist.

The legislator in question has "crossed me" SEVERAL times! I've never even considered outing the person. Ever! The person is conservative, but the person is NOT a bigot and NOT a racist or homophobe or any such thing... they are simply on the other side of the aisle from me WRT environmental and civic issues. Thus, their proclivities are NONE of anyone's business PERIOD. If I fight this person, I fight them with FAIR methods on an even playing field. Outing the person would be a last ditch tactic in a fight that was ABOUT "deviant" sexuality ONLY. And even then ONLY after several VERY explicit warnings.

Rattlesnakes are deadly poisonous, but they rattle NOT to terrorize their foes. They rattle simply to WARN that they NOT be stepped on!

309

[outinforce]

46. Blackmail Always

is a very, very powerful tool.

[RememberTheCoup]

29. What would you do if you found out David Duke had a non-white ancestor?

Would you reveal this information to the world or would you "respect his right to privacy"? I would "out" him in a heartbeat. That doesn't mean I think it's bad to have a non-white ancestor.

However, I do think it was shameful the way the Boston Globe (I believe) went digging into Kerry's history to "out" him as having a Jewish ancestor. That seems more analagous to Sipple's situation. And of course Sipple did not seek out celebrity the way politicians and those in the media do.

[Baltimoreboy]

32. I don't understand

You say outing one person based on their ancestry is OK, but outing another is not.

Please explain.

[RememberTheCoup]

37. because Kerry doesn't go around saying Jews are bad

Having a Jewish ancestor is irrelevant to Kerry. It is very relevant to David Duke. Are you saying that you if you found out David Duke had a non-white ancestor that you would not reveal that information publicly? Or are you saying you see nothing wrong with what the Globe did to Kerry? I see a difference; you seem to see no difference. Am I misunderstanding your position?

[Baltimoreboy]

47. Kerry votes on Jewish issues

So, if he is pro-Jewish, by that standard outing him is appropriate. And, yes, I would not out David Duke either.

I wouldn't out anybody. If you dig deep enough, back a thousand years, you could find almost anything.

How about this? We get each candidate to drink from a cup and then we use the saliva to DNA test them and out everything there is about their DNA.

Sick...

[RememberTheCoup]

58. "Jewish issues"?

There are no political issues I know of that affect only Jewish people. Do you mean Israel? I think it's bigoted to assume that Kerry would be "pro-Jewish" just because he had a Jewish ancestor. Just as it was bigoted to assume (as some people did in the 50s/60s) that Kennedy would be letting the Vatican call all the shots just because he was Catholic.

[Baltimoreboy]

65. And there are no "gay" issues either

Or solely black issues. In a society, everything impacts everybody.

No, I don't mean Israel. You clearly miss my point. Any time he votes on anything that is advocated by the Jewish community, it could be argued he is voting based on his heritage.

Personally, I think it's all a bunch of crap. I wouldn't out his Jewish heritage and I wouldn't out David Duke either. I think outing is bad in EVERY case.

I vote who people are themselves, not what others out them to be.

[RememberTheCoup]

52. To put it another way...

You can be defending yourself on the witness stand. The prosecution is not allowed to bring up certain topics. However, if you bring them up yourself, they are then fair game for the prosecution to dig into. I see outing in the same light.

I don't care whether Clinton smoked a joint at Oxford. But Bush's cocaine use is relevant because he makes a point of how moral and upstanding he is, and because he's denying college money to kids arrested for far less than he himself did. The fact that he may have gotten a girl pregnant and helped her get an abortion is relevant because he is trying to roll back reproductive rights. See what I'm saying?

[Baltimoreboy]

67. That's a complete rationalization

Every politicians comments on almost every topic. I'm sure Clinton made anti-drug comments. Just as I am sure he made pro-family comments. That makes EVERYTHING open season. By your logic, everything he ever does can be rationalized into a reason to reveal private information.

That is also a justification for the whole Monica bullshit. Bill clearly ran as a husband and father. That would make him a hypocrite by your definition.

[redqueen]

34. Well put!

:)

[Sapphocrat]

125. RememberTheCoup, here's an even better example along the same lines...

Strom Thurmond's daughter by a black woman.

Did Thurmond champion racism? Yes.

Does racism hurt people? Yes.

Did Thurmond keep his mixed-race daughter a secret, as if she were something to be ashamed of? Yes.

Is fathering a mixed-race daughter something to be ashamed of? No more than being gay is something to be ashamed of.

Was Thurmond a hypocrite? Yes.

Would outing Thurmond as a hypocrite while he was still alive have affected the impact of his public racism? Undoubtedly. It may not have curbed his behavior, but it certainly would have slashed his support, and probably rendered his influence impotent.

Upshot: I would have outed Thurmond in a heartbeat.

[redqueen]

Well, apparently

since his having a mixed-race daughter is a matter of 'public record', that's okay.

:crazy:

[xchrom]

38. it's the roy cohn syndrome

having been around for the outing of roy cohn -- people have mistakenly assumed that outing people who are political foes is always a good thing.

there are obviously a lot of problems with that kind of thinking -- i.e. the stone in the water thing -- lots of ripples.
not everyone who opposes gay people and is in the closet poses that same level of threat that roy cohn did.
and because gayness is still subject to the same fears and retributions that it was 50 years ago -- outing should be cause for some serious introspection.

many who would out for what appears to be willy nilly reasons i'm afraid are hurt and angry -- and reaching for a tire iron.
gay people can be their own worst enemies sometimes.
and liberal gay folk are not above using the tactics that are used against them.

[JVS]

39. Telling a person's secrets is a good way to cause them greif

If they keep things secret then they obviously don't want everyone to know. People who want to do that to Smith do it because they really dislike him and want to cause him grief.
That having been said, I have no idea why anyone would have wanted to out Sipple.

[mitchum]

51. Using the tragic story of Sipple is disingenuous, but I suspect that...

you are aware of that. There is nothing wrong with outing an individual who is a homophobe or advocates a party/agenda that draws support from homophobia. Nothing wrong with it at all.

[mondo joe]

53. Why I am Pro-Outing:

I do not regard someone's sexual orientation as being any more or less private than any of the many things that are reported about celebrities.

No one blinks an eye at the news that a politician is getting a divorce, or an actor is living with an actress. There's no reason to treat this differently.

If anything, the idea that being gay is SPECIAL privacy issue just confirms a stigma.

Did anyone feel the news about Newt Gingrich dumping his wife for his mistress was so private it shouldn't be in the news?

Or that Bill Bennett is a big gambler?

[redqueen]

59. "the idea that being gay is SPECIAL privacy issue just confirms a stigma"

Good point. I've been thinking about that aspect of it.

[Baltimoreboy]

69. It is special

Marriage, divorce, separation, arrests, etc. all generate LEGAL documents. Those are public record and create a public paper trail of the event. Sex does not do that.

[mondo joe]

73. You're very wrong.

"Marriage, divorce, separation, arrests, etc. all generate LEGAL documents. Those are public record and create a public paper trail of the event. Sex does not do that."

Buillshit.

Bill Bennett's gambling was news - what legal document did that create?

The WAY Newt dumped his wife, or that he had an affair, did not generate legal documents.

If you choose to live in the public eye you take the risk that your life can become news - even the parts you'd rather didn't.

[Baltimoreboy]

82. They were reported on, they weren't "news"

Except in the Enquirer.

Your final comment basically rationalizes reporting ANYTHING about public figures. What about Monica and Bill? What about the kids of politicians?

[mondo joe]

89. They sure as hell were news.

You're wrong again - everything I cited was in the print and broadcast news.

"Your final comment basically rationalizes reporting ANYTHING about public figures. What about Monica and Bill? What about the kids of politicians?"

Kids of politicians are already reported on.

And Monica and Bill, if they'd been discovered by journalists, would have been news as well.

[Baltimoreboy]

109. That's no standard at all

With all the media we have today, almost anything gets reported on. That doesn't make it legitimate news.

Actually, kids of politicians tend to get a free pass until they hit 18 or graduate college.

So, the whole Monica scandal was legit then?

If the answer is yes, I give up. You are hopeless.

[sangh0]

115. "almost anything gets reported on"??? Really?

So you can point to all those articles which say that Bush* has flip-flopped on many issues?

[Baltimoreboy]

150. You haven't seen ANY?

You aren't looking dearie.

We can both agree that there should be more at least.

[sangh0]

156. Why won't you defend your assertions?

You said everything gets reported on.

[Baltimoreboy]

165. I've seen the stories

And if you haven't, you ain't lookin'.

[sangh0]

166. So you won't defend your own assertions

by posting links?

[Baltimoreboy]

179. Sure

I found these pretty easily. And I actually searched for the words "flip-flop." Imagine how many I could find by actually doing more research.


Bush's Abortion Flip-Flop?
by David Corn

Which current candidate for President reversed the abortion stand he espoused as a Congressional candidate in the seventies and adopted a position more acceptable to the mainstream of his party? If you said Al Gore, you may be only half right. George W. Bush appears to have done the same.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/061600-104.htm


Published on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 in the Contra Costa Times
More Examples of How Not to Govern
by Molly Ivins

NOT, ALL IN ALL, a good week for government or business. As the stock market continued to tank, we got three primo examples out of Washington of how not to govern.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0320-02.htm


Published on Tuesday, April 6, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Five Ads for John Kerry
by Guy Reel

For each ad, imagine a voice-over narration. You may supply the visuals:

Ad #1

President Bush loves to point fingers at those he claims will "flip-flop" on issues. Yet George Bush has flip-flopped on an issue crucial to America's future - the war against terrorism.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0406-12.htm

[sangh0]

183. 3 flip-flops?

You think that's "everything"?

[Baltimoreboy]

225. No, that took me about 60 seconds

It was done to prove a point.

I am, however, NOT your web researcher. So if you want more, there's this cool thing called Google.

[mondo joe]

176. Monica.

"So, the whole Monica scandal was legit then?"

There are two different aspects to this question: Should it have beebn investigated by the special prosecutor?

In my opinion, no.

Once it was revealed, should the news have covered it?

Yes.

[republicansareevil]

84. Now there is a thread titled "Shepard Smith is Straight"

..."until he says otherwise". Why? Why must we assume that a person is straight unless they say otherwise? Is that like giving them the benefit of doubt? Why must we assume that people want to hide their orientation? If Shepard Smith goes into a gay bar and starts hitting on men, hasn't he effectively outed himself? No one has presented any evidence that he is even trying to pass as straight, so why does everyone assume he is?

[Baltimoreboy]

91. Oh my god

How long have you been beating your wife?

You can't defend against that accusation and that's all it is, an ACCUSATION. Nothing more.

And yes, since most people are straight, we assume they are unless we have proof otherwise. And do you claim to know that if a guy sleeps with another guy that he's automatically gay? Maybe he decided to experiment. Maybe he's bi. Maybe it was a gag and he lost a bet. Who the hell knows?

Who cares?

[sangh0]

96. So girlfriend, should I assume that you're either Indian or Chinese?

.

[noiretextatique]

240. asserting that someone you don't know is straight

doesn't make any more sense than asserting someone you don't know is gay.

[Baltimoreboy]

241. Except that is the conventional reality

So, lacking more information, it IS the default.

[noiretextatique]

260. no it isn't: it's just speculation

there is no default, actually. you never know who is what.

[Baltimoreboy]

273. The vast majority of humans are straight

So it is indeed the default.

[dsc]

133. I'll tell you what

show me the person who got crucified on a fence for his affair, or his gambling habit then I'll agree it is no different.

[sangh0]

142. "show me the person who got crucified on a fence for his affair"

Gee, you never heard of Bill Clinton?

[dsc]

148. I think Matthew Shepard would trade places with Clinton in

a New York minute. But since you think Shepard was a pedeophile I am sure you don't give a shit.

[sangh0]

158. Bait and switch

You asked about someone who had suffered by having their sexual affair made public. You didn't specify that the suffering had to be worse than Matthew Shepard's.

I guess you just don't give a shit about poor children, because I'm sure Shepard would be willing to trade places with them too.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

175. Here is what you missed

Now I know you have a problem with reading since you can't tell the difference between pedeophile and homosexual but I think the words crucified on a fence were pretty clear.

The words "crucified on a fence" are not being literally translated because being "crucified on a fence" is not what happens to every homosexual who is outed.

BTW, was Shepard even outed? I thought he had come out on his own.

[dsc]

182. He was killed for being gay

I think the trial made that clear (a clue would have been the repeated use of the word faggot on the part of the defendents). My point, clearly expressed, was that being gay is different in consequence than being an adulterer. The fact is neither of us knows if Shapard Smith will be killed or not.

[sangh0]

185. I'm sorry but people have been killed for being adulterer's

and the defense is "the heat of passion" AKA "temporary insanity"

[dsc]

187. Show me one, just one, case

of a total stranger who wasn't hit man, killing a person for adultery.

[sangh0]

188. So the murderer has to be a total stranger?

Why? Or do you just make up new qualifications when the old ones are inconvenient?

And the example is Atomic Dog Kopp.

[dsc]

193. That is what a hate crime is

and yes I did specifically mention hate crimes. Killing ones wife for having an affair isn't a hate crime.

[sangh0]

196. No, it's not

A hate crime does not require that the perpetrator be a total stranger.

[dsc]

210. require no

In general yes. And you well know it.

[sangh0]

217. No it doesn't

Hate crimes only require that the crime be motivated by hate. The relationship between the the victim and the perp is irrelevant to it's being a hate crime.

[dsc]

222. I think that is what I said

But if you look at the vast majority of hate crime cases there is hardly any relationship between the victim and the perp.

[sangha]

247. I'd like to see a cite for that

And I'm not very impressed by the way you switch between the common (ie most hate crimes are committed against strangers) and the uncommon (ie most hate crime do not involve crucifying someone to a fence) as expedience dictates.

[dsc]

253. when you give me the citation that I asked for

around 20 hours ago, I will give you a citation for mine.

On edit You are correct that crucification isn't all that common. Usually we are just beaten half to death like I was about 15 years ago.

[sangh0]

257. Asked and answered

Cites are used to verify info. Since you already know about the Slepian murder, and Atomic Dog's part in it, why do you still want a cite?

You are correct that crucification isn't all that common. Usually we are just beaten half to death like I was about 15 years ago.

And don't forget, Shephard wasn't outed.

[dsc]

271. because his motive

which has been reported everywhere as being to end abortion is what was in question. I did your homework for you and it turns out you were out and out telling stories. Nowhere did adultery come up. You most have heard that through fillings in your teeth.

[dsc]

276. Here is a citation

http://www.center4civilrights.org/hcstatistics.htm

Offenders were also more diverse in 2000 than in 1999, with growth posted among those reported female (+19%), as well as within certain racial/ethnic categories. Significant numeric and percentage increases also occurred in some categories of offenders who were known to their victims, especially acquaintances/friends (+34%), employers/coworkers (+13%), ex-lovers (+44%), landlords, tenants and neighbors (+18%) and relatives/family members (+25%), as well as among security guards/bouncers (+161%), service providers (+32%) and those classified as "other" (+57%). Strangers still accounted for a large plurality of offenders in both years, albeit a somewhat smaller percentage (42%) in 2000 than in 1999 (44.5%).

end of quote

I will admit that most being total strangers would be misleading. I think though I used the wording not knowing the perp well the first time this came up. I stand behind that given that the percentage increase in the people who were known are the likes of security guards, service providers, etc. Those would hardly be the close relationship that a wife has with a husband.

[mondo joe]

161. Are you saying outing Shepard Smith will get him crucified?

If sexual orientation is treated as a stigma, it will remain one.

this has nothing to do with Matthew Shepherd, any more than revealing that someone is Jewish or pro-integration makes them a target for the KKK.

[dsc]

177. One would hope not

but the sad fact is gays get killed all the time. I don't recall reading about adultery based hate crimes. Is it likely Smith will be killed upon being outed? No. But we have no earthly idea what some nut may wind up doing.

[sangh0]

181. " I don't recall reading about adultery based hate crimes"

EVer heard of "Atomic Dog" Kopp?

[dsc]

186. ever hear of providing a link?

[sangh0]

190. Is that a "yes" or a "no"?

I'm guessing "No"

[dsc]

195. Yes when one asks for a link

that usually means one has no idea what you are talking about. In case you need a defintion of link, that is a thing I would highlight which would lead me to a source on this person.

[sangh0]

197. No it doesn't

that usually means one has no idea what you are talking about

It could also mean you want to yank my chain.

Atomic Dog Kopp was they guy who shot Dr Slepian.

[dsc]

203. Dr. Slepian was killed for adultery?

I thought he was an abortion provider. Incidently we usually note murder cases by victims not doers.

[sangh0]

For helping people who committed adultery

according Mr Kopp.

[dsc]

212. I want a link for that

I find it way beyond hard to believe that his main problem, let alone his sole problem, with abortion was the fact it facilitated adultery.

[sangh0]

218. Who said it was the "main problem" or "sole problem"

You just keep adding qualifications whenever you think it's expedient.

[dsc]

220. You claimed this as an adultery related hate crime

thus the principal motive should be adultery not abortion. That means the principal reason this man was upset should be the facilitation of adultery not the facilitation of abortion. Otherwise, it is as I have always seen it charcterized, an abortion related hate crime.

[sangha]

248. You insert words expediently

I didn't say it was a "principal" motive. Let me know when you eant to discuss the points that are actually being made in real life. Your fantasies bore me.

[dsc]

252. These are the words you typed

For helping people who committed adultery


according Mr Kopp


They are in response to my question "was he killed for adultery I thought he had been an abortion provider." In point of fact, I actually helped you out since your statement actually stated that he was killed for that reason (presumedly only that reason). By remaking it a principal one I actually made what you said less definative. BTW I am still waiting for some citation that this played any part at all.

[Name removed]

254. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

205. For helping people who committed adultery

according Mr Kopp.

[mondo joe]

184. You're Talking About Repression of News

"but the sad fact is gays get killed all the time. I don't recall reading about adultery based hate crimes. Is it likely Smith will be killed upon being outed? No. But we have no earthly idea what some nut may wind up doing. "

And yet you've heard of Jews being harassed and killed. Should the news of a candidate being Jewish be repressed?

And that's what you're talking about: repression of news. A reporter knowing something, but deciding to keep it a secret.

And I think THAT is a problem.

[dsc]

189. I would have no problem

with a reporter keeping a candidate's Jewish heritage secret if the candidate so desired. But it should be noted that Smith ins't a candidate he is a private citizen.

[sangh0]

192. Smith is a public figure

who has chosen to make his life an issue for the public to discuss.

[dsc]

201. No he isn't

He is a mickey mouse reporter. His private life has no effect whatsoever on me or anyone else other than his immediate family. His salary isn't paid by me, he makes no laws that I have to follow, and has at most minimal impact on public opinion. He is no more a public figure than a school teacher or a road maintainence worker.

[sangh0]

207. Yes he is

regradless of your opinion of him, his being on the boob tube makes him a public figure.

His private life has no effect whatsoever on me or anyone else other than his immediate family. His private life has no effect whatsoever on me or anyone else other than his immediate family

The same is true of Madonna. She's a public figure too.

[dsc]

211. and I wouldn't out here either

The only people whose personal lives are our business are those who make, or can make, our personal lives their business. I know legally we have a different standard but I don't think her personal life should be reported on any more than his.

[sangh0]

219. Good for you

but this thread is about what dsc would do.

The only people whose personal lives are our business are those who make, or can make, our personal lives their business

That's your opinion. I prefer the law over your personal opinions.

[dsc]

228. ah well too bad

but this is about what is moral, not what is legal. It is legal to serve in Bush's White House, it isn't moral.

[sangha]

249. It is immoral to lmit free speech

and there are plenty of moral reasons for serving in a Bush* admin. The world is not so simple or black and white.

[mondo joe]

194. Reporters Aren't Supposed to be Complicit in Secrets

Smith is, however, a celebrity.

And I think if you're okay with reporters being complicit in keping secrets, you might reconsider.

If a repotrer knew Bush was boozing it up again, but Bush wanted it a secret would that be okay?

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

215. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skinner]

216. I apologize for all the confusion.

We had a little mix up, and this thread got locked an unlocked a few times. I am sorry about that.

For now, this thread is going to remain open. However, due to the extremely contentious nature of the discussion -- and the fact that the discussion is already teetering on the edge -- this thread is unlikely to remain open forever.

If/when we decide to lock this thread, we will likely also lock all the other threads about this issue.

Thank you for your understanding.

Skinner
DU Admin

[dsc]

221. thank you

I honestly appreciate it.

[LeahMira]

250. You are absolutely right...

When we chortle with glee about which famous conservative is gay and what the freepers may do if they find
out, just what message do you think we send to that 8 or 9 year old who is reading over his dad's shoulder? Or
that teen who is struggling with being gay?


... and you've given me something to think about and a reminder to be very careful about what I say.