Outing a homosexual for ANY REASON, regardless of who they are, is WRONG

[berni_mccoy]

I read this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2407851&mesg_id=2407851

And was surprised to see so many people here looking forward to this.

We should be emailing/calling Ed Schultz to say this is wrong and that he should not air such a program.

Even if they are hypocrites and republicans, that doesn't mean it's ok to do such a thing to them. Do we (DUers and Democrats) approve of torture because our enemies use it? No. We are supposed to be better than that. We are supposed to be the beacon of good for those to follow.

Out homosexuals is extremely traumatic to the individual and can harm, not only the individual, but their families and friends.

Please, let's show a collective rejection of this practice. I don't care that it would be politically damaging to the republicans or show them to be the hypocrites they are. It isn't worth it.

[fishnfla]

1. Why, is there something wrong with homosexuality?

[berni_mccoy]

2. There is nothing wrong with homesexuality or being homosexual

But there is something wrong with using that fact against them.

[RetroLounge]

12. Totally Clueless, R U

What about using the fact that you are closeted and part of the anti-gay party to write anti-gay legistlation?

Hurt one gay hypocrite?

Allow closeted Repug to hurt ALL gays?

Pretty easy decision.

Gay Rights = Human Rights.

RL

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

103. Your point is very logical, Mr. Spock. And I agree with you

Kirk: I would not presume to debate you.
Spock: That is wise. Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Kirk: Or the one.

[spoony]

202. False Dichotemy

That isn't the only way to go about things. No one's even MENTIONING voting them out of office. Has that gone out of style?

[fishnfla]

17. If there's nothing wrong with it, then how can it be used against them?

[EFerrari]

75. Because it's a violation of privacy, just like outing someone

who has had an abortion or who is HIV positive.

[mondo joe]

78. Baloney. Heterosexuality is public. Outing is the equaliizer.

[devilgrrl]

83. Gee, I don't know...

there's a few men I kind of have a crush on and I'm not too sure I want them or anybody else to know. :blush:



:silly:

[EFerrari]

91. Bullshit. n/t

[mondo joe]

95. No argument, huh? Heterosexuality is reported on daily. It is not

a private matter.

[onenote]

180. not everyone is public about their sexual orientation

Do you know the sexual orientation of everyone you meet? Or do you just make assumptions? If someone doesn't manifest a particular sexual orientation (by discussing their significant other), what business is it for you to out them if you learn about it somehow?

[onenote]

186. self delete

[mondo joe]

191. Your opinion is informed by homophobia

And if I know about their orientation it's quite public enough for me to talk about.

[onenote]

194. wow, assume much?

I thought you said above that it wasn't about violating confidences. Now I'm confused. Is this just about public figures or is it about anyone? I have far less problem with publicizing the sexual orientation of a public figure than with outing anyone and everyone who happens to be closeted, just because I know about their sexual orientation.

[mondo joe]

195. That's a conclusion, not an assumption.

Outing refers to public figures.

[onenote]

196. Thanks for the clarification

[kevinbgoode]

89. Huh? What if you revealed someone was "married?"

Is that a violation of their privacy? Or that they date someone of the opposite gender?

If the hypocrites campaign and vote against my rights to be a full American and then "privately" run around having affairs with people of the same sex, it IS my business. Moreover, the Religious Right MADE it everyone's business by sticking their noses into every gay activity and organization in this country. Why is it suddenly invading a Republican's "privacy"..and by the way, neo-cons claim there IS no right to privacy...just because it's something they don't want people to know?
Why would they be ashamed of having loving relationships?

[EFerrari]

112. Marriage is a matter of public record. Who someone dates

is gossip.

And the rest of this post makes no sense to me.

You want to invade someone's privacy, go ahead. I disagree with you.

[mondo joe]

114. Is that the decider? Public record? Do you want journalists to be

limited to what's in public record?

Did you get your panties in a knot whenever someone on DU discussed the CNN anchor dating Rush?

[EFerrari]

123. Do you get off on personally attacking people?

Have at it. Rhino hide, here.

:)

[mondo joe]

124. Whhy do you think being questioned is a personal atttack?

Tch tch.

[LostinVA]

167. Excellent point, and one I wish people on here would get:

"What if you revealed someone was "married?Is that a violation of their privacy? Or that they date someone of the opposite gender?"

[fishnfla]

99. I could go with the privacy thing for most people

but not politicians. They are doing the publics business. I want full disclosure. Nothing in closets

[EFerrari]

113. I understand your viewpoint but I can't share it. n/t

[mondo joe]

115. That's okay. It's an issue actual gay people will decide.

[EFerrari]

122. LOL!

:)

[donheld]

161. I agree totally

they hide in their closets while bashing us with their legislation and anti-gay rhetoric. Out with them.

[Starlight]

131. What's wrong with outing a person who had an abortion & supports anti-

choice legislation? Or someone who is HIV positive and opposes AIDs prevention & education funding? I'm totally in favor of outing them!! Why would anyone think we need to cover up their hypocrisy? :shrug:

[LostinVA]

168. No arguments from me

[EFerrari]

192. Because you don't want to become what your resist. n/t

[Zhade]

67. Not if they're gay and push anti-gay legislation, there isn't.

NT!

[LostinVA]

166. If there is nothing wrong, then the fact isn't being used against them

[spoony]

205. Except that you know it WILL BE

And that the reaction of their "base" is EXACTLY what this is all about. Let's stop pretending this isn't going to seriously screw up people's lives, many of them innocent (if the gay repub has a family).

This is NOT an excercise in kindness.

[mondo joe]

211. We are not screwing up their family - THEY are doing that by being

a closeted gay public figure.

[Karenina]

8. And if there's nothing WRONG with it

"outing" is irrelevant.

[spoony]

206. That is such bull

There's nothing wrong with it to US, not to THEM. THEY will have it held against them by THEIR people. This playing innocent shit is very annoying, as if this whole thing were being done for their own benefit. Like I just asked someone else, what about their families?

Hey who cares if little Billy comes home from school and reads online his dad's gay right? Fuck 'im!

[Cronus Protagonist]

10. You get right to the point with that question

Nice job. I'm going to use that myself.

:evilgrin:

[Guaranteed]

71. There is one other pointed question that ought to be answered, though:

"Is whether this person is a homosexual business of MINE?"

[mondo joe]

81. Homosexuality should be treated like heterosexuality, which is

reported with great abandon.

[LostinVA]

169. They make it our business as soon as they open their mouth against gays,,

write a word against gays, campaign for someone who is anti-gay, or help draft and/or pass a law that's anti-gay.

I personally think all public elected officials and their staff should be outed to stop this demonizing gays garbage.

[democracyindanger]

16. I think

the point is that homosexuality is like torture. Or something.

Being straight, I think of it as a family matter. I can't imagine what it's like to be closeted--and at the same time, I can't imagine what it's like to be out and see closeted gays and lesbians stripping me of my civil rights day in and day out.

But generally: Let the truth be the truth.

[stepnw1f]

3. I Think If it's a Congress Person Who Is Signing ANTI-GAY Legislation

then by all means they should be outed for that person's hypocrisy harms everyone. And as for their family and friends, they should be accepting of who they REALLY are. By staying in the closet, they themselves bring on harm.

I have no pity for self-loathing bigots who use their closet to hurt people around them.

[berni_mccoy]

7. Is it ok to torture our enemies because they use torture or are evil?

You can't selectively justify using a technique that is completely wrong.

[stepnw1f]

14. OMG... you are Comparing Torture with Outing Closet Case Bigots

wow

[RetroLounge]

19. Wow. That argument is so lame

I don't know where to begin...

If a congresscritter was anti-torture, but went and tortured folks in private, then you might have an analogy.

What you have instead, I can't even figure out...

RL

[Cronus Protagonist]

22. Are you saying homosexuals are our enemies?

It sure seems like it. If there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, there's nothing wrong with outing people, friend or foe. Besides, show me a closeted homosexual and I'll show you a person living in denial with tons of people around them engaged in a whisper campaign. It's an act of compassion to release them from their bondage and at the same time blunt their power to oppress their own, if they're also bludgeoning other homosexuals in any way. They win, we win. And again, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, right?

[Bluebear]

23. Waterboarding an enemy = outing someone who is working against gay rights

hokay.

[berni_mccoy]

68. I'm not comparing torture to outing a homosexual

I'm comparing using a technique to win at all costs.

Our gov't is telling us it is necessary to torture in order to win at all costs.

I'm hearing many here say outing homosexuals is necessary to win at all costs.

If you would not normally out a homosexual because it is wrong, why would you agree with it in order to win a political campaign?

[LostinVA]

172. Yeah, you did compare the two n/t

[mondo joe]

86. Why is it not okay to tell the truth? Why is an informed electorate

a bad thing?

[LostinVA]

171. Jeebus -- talk about a gigantic strawman

And hey, this lesbian here just LOVES that you compare being gay to torturing our enemies.

Jesus Christ.

[mitchtv]

128. I thought that if I read enough of these contra posts

I would find one that saves me the trouble of posting. Thanks for that stepnw1f. They are disgusting scumbags, and since Clinton, all is fair.I vote: Out'm

[rzemanfl]

4. It's the lie, not their orientation. n/t

[ThomCat]

5. I disagree.

My criteria for outing someone are pretty strict. I would never out someone unless they are doing things that actively harm the GLBT community. In such a case, it is in the best interest of the whole community to out them. They forfeit their privacy when they try to hurt all of us for their own benefit.

A closet-case who uses homophobia like a club needs to be disarmed. We need to take that club away from them.

[bunkerbuster1]

6. Well, I certainly care that it would be politically damaging

We've got these bastards down on the ground and we've got our boot on their damn necks. And now you want to take the pressure off? Let some hypocritical GOPee cretin skate because we're too nice to fight dirty?

Fuck that. Fuck that with a rusty chainsaw.

[Herman Munster]

9. that's the type of reasoning

why they are in power and we are not. Democrats need to stop acting like we are neutered and show some balls.

Sorry, these people picked politics as a career, they are public figures, they choose to adopt anti-gay platforms while being gay. That's hypocrisy. Out every last one of them.

[sendero]

11. Says you..

... but I don't think so.

[Marie26]

13. I agree,

but you're gonna get flamed for this.

[Blackthorn]

15. I tend to agree with you...

...but at the same time, being secretly gay and openly anti-gay rights is something I find intolerable. It's more than a gay issue, its an integrity issue. These people sell out themselves over who they are, how can you expect them to stand up for *anything*?

[LSparkle]

18. Rethugs in power perpetuate the myth that "being gay is bad"

Why are many people trying to hide who they are? Because they feel SHAME that isn't deserved. People need to realize that gays/lesbians/trans are in EVERY SEGMENT OF SOCIETY (including Congress) -- sexual orientation is NOTHING to be ashamed of.

[LostinVA]

173. Good post

[LetsGoMurphys]

20. Reminds me of a recent episode of The Office n/t

[berni_mccoy]

31. Yes, I saw that episode. It was extremely uncomfortable to watch

And if anyone here saw that, they would think twice about this issue if they had half a conscience.

[bullwinkle428]

145. Oscar (the outed character) wasn't doing anything to hurt other gay

people or any other character on the show...the episode was all about Michael's complete lack of social skills (recurring theme) and some of the incredibly immature attitudes of some of the office staff upon hearing the news...

[Deep13]

21. Bullshit. This fight became total war outside decent bounds...

...a long time ago. They made it so. We need to win by any means available.

[Rockstone]

24. It is very impolite

to say the least. I don't think it is a tactic to be embraced.

[Dr Fate]

29. Which election cycle did we win by being polite?

In which election did we impress swingvoters with our manners & politeness? We have lost the last 3, and surely you are not going to tell my Carville/Begalla/Clinton won the day by being "polite" to Bush Sr. or Bob Dole.

Are you talking about winning elections or is this just Ms. Manners stuff for a dinner party or somthing?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. What If A Secret Jewish Person (Marrano) Was A NAZI Party Member?

Should he or she be outed?

[Crunchy Frog]

151. Depends on if they were a rank and file member

or one of the big cheeses (Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, etc). I'm assuming you're referring to Nazi Germany. If you were talking anybody at all in a contemporary neo-Nazi party, then I would be all for it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

164. Anybody...

My take is simple...

If a Democratic or Republican politician advocates one thing in public while doing something different in private he is a hypocrite and deserves to be exposed for the good of everyone...

[Dr Fate]

26. The "Mr Rogers" wing of the Democratic party lost us 3 elections in a row.

And they are determined to keep up that trend, apparently.

If you want to "be neighbors" with liars & crooks, go ahead- but please step aside and let the Clint Eastwoods spit tobacco in their faces. *WE* dont want to be their neighbors and we dont give a damn about hurting these hypocrites.

I reject your plea 10000000%.

If a Republican is a drug user who opposes drugs. OUT HIM.

If he a "culture warrior" who secretly gambles, you OUT HIM.

If he is an anti-gay gay man, you OUT HIM.

"approve of torture because our enemies use it?" Your comparison falls flat-what Repub tactic are we using? Which DEM hypocrites have they outed?

It is not about being "better than them"- because none of us propose making things up or lying about them.

Please, we are trying to win elections, not preserve the dignity of lying, hypocrite bastards who would spit in your mother's face if they thought it would help them beat you down further.

Get a grip, get a clue, and get some fight in your belly.

[berni_mccoy]

70. I have plenty of fight thank you, and Mr. Rogers was a great human being

[Dr Fate]

87. No one won a modern election while acting like Mr. Rogers.

No one said he was not a good man- you just wont win any elections by acting like him.

And you have no fight in you if you dont want us calling liars "liars" and hypocrites "hypocrites"- that is not fighting, that is giving the enemy a free pass.

[democrank]

85. Quite a mouthful there, Dr Fate.

I`m still laughing about your ridiculous reference to the "Mr. Rogers wing" of the Democratic Party.
Right. I want to be neighborly with Republicans, maybe even knit them all a cardigan.

I`m with bernie__mccoy. A person`s sexual orientation is their business, not mine. If he/she chooses to "come out" it`s fine and dandy with me, but I have no right to make that decision for them.

Two of my dearest friends are gay. One eagerly "came out" 30 years ago but the other suffered in silence for years before he did. I can not imagine intruding on this very personal decision.

[Dr Fate]

92. I hope being nice to hypocrites & liars wins you lots of elections.

I know that it does no such thing.

I am assuming your gay friends are not the same as these hypocritical, anti-gay gay Republicans we are opposing- I dont know why anyone would compare their friends to those kinds of people.

[mondo joe]

96. Did your friends hold public office? Were they senior advisors to someone

who did?

What other things do you think are such special secrets that the press should be complicit in keeping them from the electorate?

[hopein08]

27. Thank you berni_mccoy...perfectly said!

Do we (DUers and Democrats) approve of torture because our enemies use it? No. We are supposed to be better than that. We are supposed to be the beacon of good for those to follow.

What you said here completely sums up my feelings. I couldn't have said it better myself!!

Thank you for saying so.

[Dr Fate]

34. Which torture tactic of the GOP are we using by telling the truth?

What GOP method are we comparing this too?

When did the GOP gain political ground by making truthful accusations about Democrats being hypocrites?

Exactly what GOP tactic would we be imitating if we out anti-gay gay people?

I am having trouble with this comparison- no one is saying we use GOP tactics- we are saying to tell the truth about hypocrites- no one said we are to lie about people or smear them with falsehoods like they do us.

[hopein08]

65. My question is (and what I think berni_mccoy is saying)...

and berni_mccoy can correct me if I'm wrong...but it is what I think...

Why stoop to levels that the GOP would use?

Aren't we better than that?

Perhaps not "torture" as in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, but just the low-life mud-slinging, personal life attacks that we hate and denounce when used on our people.

Telling the truth about hypocrites is just fine with me, if you can leave out the personal life aspects. Attack the GOP for their policy positions (anti-gay being a very good one) but don't drag their personal lives into it.

I don't know about you, but I would be very upset if the GOP dug into the personal lives of Democratic Senators...think back to the 2004 Presidential race, I know that I thought it was absolutely awful that John Kerry was not permitted by the GOP to be pro-choice and Catholic at the same time without being a "hypocrite". Did you think that was fair? I didn't.

Anyway, if the Democratic party is at the point where it considers it good politicking to "out" closeted GOP Senators...I might have to be done with the party to a large extent.

[Dr Fate]

82. What hypocrisy or lies does the GOP out us for?

You asked "Why stoop to levels that the GOP would use" but you have not provied an example of this.

We are suggesting to tell the truth about hypocrites- all the GOP ever does is lie about us.

If a DEM is stupid enough to be against something in public that he is "for" in his personal life, then that is fair game too.

I disagree with you- all public figures should practice what they preach.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

110. Perfect answer, Dr.."all public figures should practice what they preach."

[hopein08]

121. Then all private figures should as well...do you? n/t

[mondo joe]

126. We have freedom of the press for the purpose of an informed

electorate.

[hopein08]

129. Informed about Senator So and So's bedroom activities?

No thank you.

[mondo joe]

130. Orientation is not "bedroom activities". Your mindet is tainted

with homophobia.

[hopein08]

133. Gee, thanks... Now to quote myself from response #119...

But let me ask you something, what if in the closet GOPers actually don't want to marry people of the same sex? What if they honestly believe in the anti-gay legislation that they vote and fully intend to live by it? Is that being considered when we take it upon ourselves and open up the private sex lives of our government? Does that matter?

[mondo joe]

134. Now to answer you: It doesn't matter to me because they are

my enemies, and it's a political weakness to be exploited. (This is, I remind you, politics.)

Furthermore, someone's orientation isn't their sex life. That's just insulting.

[Zhade]

144. Our duty to safegaurd our rights trump their desire to curtail them.

You don't get it - not being queer, I'm not surprised - we're not talking about gossiping about who is gay and who isn't.

We're trying to DISARM anti-gay secretly-gay hypocrites, who are actively working to destroy GLBT rights!

We cannot afford to give such hypocrites any quarter, and as there is NOTHING wrong with being gay, outing a hypocrite does nothing but force them to acknowledge that they are working against the rights of his own group.

It is NECESSARY to reveal the hypocrites for who they are and take away their political ammunition. We're talking about OUR RIGHTS here, and stances like the OP's enable the accelerated destruction of those rights. It WEAKENS us.

I make no apologies for outing gays who wish to destroy my rights - how DARE anyone here even suggest that to us queers, who are under attack every day in this country!

No accommodation, no quarter - EVER.

[LostinVA]

177. GREAT post!

[hopein08]

215. I certainly don't want it to sound like I am in any way for destroying...

GLBT rights. Because that is completely NOT what I am trying to say. If it has appeared that way, I am sincerely sorry from the bottom of my heart. I hope you can forgive me.

I simply wonder if we have considered why secretly gay hypocrites vote to destroy GLBT rights. I wonder if, in some specific instances, it is how they actually feel and perhaps not completely politically and party oriented. What if they don't want to be considered part of that group and don't want to stand for the broad positions of that group. That's all.

Suffice it to say, I think this line is a dangerous one to cross.

I think perhaps my strong feelings on this issue lie in the fact that the blogger who made up the list phrased it in such a personal way, something to the effect of "sleeps with men and votes anti-gay." Also, many of the people on the list have wives, children & grandchildren and I simply don't think it is the right thing to do.

In retrospect, I kind of wish I hadn't posted in this thread at all. But I am learning a lot from everyone. And I assure you that I see and respect your views. I even generally agree. I just want us to be careful.

Again, I am truly sorry if I came off as close-minded or offensive in any way.

[Marnieworld]

221. This straight chick gets it!

I agree with everything you said. How is outing a hypocrite make one a hypocrite? If someone actively promoted segregation and Jim Crow laws (back in the day when they could get away with it) and had a secret black wife we'd out that too. It's about using power to advance causes against people, when secretly you are fighting against yourself. Calling attention to that is relevant and fair. Calling attention to it fights for the greater cause of civil/human rights for all.

It's more than winning elections. These are battles in the greater war of what kind of country that we want to live in. I'd like to live in a country where people are all equal under the law. The GLBT community are currently second-class citizens. Any gay politician who advances restriction of their rights needs to be outed. If it takes away one soldier on the side of injustice, the good guys become stronger. Not only that but the more people see how prevalent gays are everywhere, the more people who may have supported them get their eyes opened the better.

Any gay politician who is closeted and working against gay rights has created the situation for themselves. They chose this life. They choose the closet and the choose a party that actively hates them. They choose the risk to act on their feelings opening them to be outed. These are all adults given options and making choices. If they open themselves up to outing by their choices so be it. They are not victims and whatever personal collateral damage in their life is their responsibility.

[Zhade]

143. That's a telling question you ask.

Usually only homophobes think our orientation only has to do with fucking.

[LostinVA]

178. More than a few posts on these threads thinking that

It IS very telling, isn't it?

Like THEIR sexual orientation only involves fucking and "bedroom activities." Ugh. It's almost 2007 and this is DU.

[LostinVA]

175. Sexual orientation is not about "bedroom activities"

Good grief.

[hopein08]

219. I APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY FOR THIS STATMENT & WOULD EDIT IT OUT IF I COULD

I truly hope that I have not offended anyone too much. It was far from my goal. I am 100% not homophobic. And I sincerely did not mean anyone any disrespect. I think I may have responded to a heated debate that I don't know enough about and gotten carried away. In retrospect, I was basically and idiot. I hope and pray that you can forgive me.

[Zhade]

223. This queer accepts your apology, and offers one for his anger.

We all make thoughtless comments from time to time.

[Dr Fate]

218. Why are we comparing public lawmakers to private citizens who harm no one?

Do you really have to make these stretches to defend gay republicans who want to scapegoat & deny rights other gay people?

[hopein08]

119. I did provide an example (at least I thought I did)...

John Kerry and the pro-choice/Catholic thing was my example, though it may not being 100% compatible.

I agree that we should tell the truth about the hypocrites, but I humbly, honestly, and perhaps naively believe that outing anyone for political purposes is entirely uncalled for in any situation. It would be entirely acceptable, in my humble opinion, to criticize their anti-gay stances...but I do think that outing them allows entirely too much into the private lives of people. It is a slippery slope.

I also agree that the GOP lies about us.

But let me ask you something, what if in the closet GOPers actually don't want to marry people of the same sex? What if they honestly believe in the anti-gay legislation that they vote and fully intend to live by it? Is that being considered when we take it upon ourselves and open up the private sex lives of our government? Does that matter?

Mostly importantly, would you mind giving the public every detail of your private life...just so we can see if you practice what you preach? Personally, I would mind. Even if I were a Senator.

Obviously, things like the Foley thing and other possibly criminal items should be investigated as such but not just because he happened to be a closeted homosexual who voted against gay rights legislation.

(Dr Fate, this is a very good conversation. I completely respect your opinions and I am thinking about things slightly differently then I had when I first replied. Thank you.)

[Zhade]

142. So telling people someone is gay is mud-slinging?

So you think being gay is a bad thing, eh?

WE don't lie about them, THEY lie about us. See the difference?

Fuck your political cowardice. Anti-gay hypocrites NEED to be outed - they harm all GLBTers with their acts. I reject the craven whimpering of those of you who whine about making nice with THIEVES AND KILLERS!

[LostinVA]

179. "WE don't lie about them, THEY lie about us. See the difference?"

I love you, Zhade...

[Zhade]

224. Shucks, thanks!

Btw, you have my sympathies - I used to live in VA. My son lives there with his mom, and I just read about the majority supporting anti-equal rights.

:hug:

[LostinVA]

174. I know -- talk about the strawman of all strawmen

[w13rd0]

28. Would you reveal...

...to a conservative Christian congregation that one of their leading members, a deacon or a pastor, were practicing illegal and decisively unChristian practices (like starting a war based on lies, or advocating murder or the clubbing death of the homeless)? I know I would.

Would you let it be known that an anti-Semitic racist asswipe like Felix Allen was of maternal Jewish decent? I sure as hell would.

A homophobic anti-gay homosexual is no more my "brother" or "sister" than a woman hating member of the Concerned Women of America, or an African-american white supremist, or someone living in poverty that preys upon others also in poverty. All these examples, however implausible, have something in common. They all act as a cancer upon a community from within that community. The light of day will either make them crawl back in their hole, or wise up.

[brentspeak]

32. Funny you mention the Concerned Women of America

Because the Michael Rogers site which Ed Schultz will be discussing claims that one of the bigwigs of Concerned Women is a gay man -- who also happens to be the son of Tim "Left Behind" LaHaye!

[berni_mccoy]

43. Being a homosexual is not a crime, last I checked

Racism and anti-semitism hurt others... being homosexual does not

[Dr Fate]

45. It does hurt every one when you are an anti-gay gay man.

Because it involves someone who is gay joining with other hateful people in persecuting gay people- when they could have spoken up against the hate, or at the least, stayed out of attacking other gay people.

No one is saying being gay or even being a hypocrite is a crime- what we are saying is that liars & hypocrites should be called liars & hypocrites.

You seem to want these anti-gay gay men to continue their attacks on gay people with no consequences.

[mondo joe]

84. Being a closeted homosexuall in oursuit of anti gay legislation sure

hurts.

[w13rd0]

149. Did I say it did?

I'll go ya one further. Racist and anti-semitic speech don't hurt others nearly as much as the policies of Republican hypocrites.

[mac56]

30. It's not outing their sexual orientation, it's outing their hypocrisy.

There's a big difference.

[FormerDittoHead]

36. Excellent. Said in 1 sentence what was taking me 10. n/t

[pnwmom]

42. Right. It's comparable to outing Gingritch as an adulterer when

he was attacking Clinton.

[Lexingtonian]

33. Even if the reason involved rape?

Yeah, good thinking.

[Bluebear]

35. for ANY REASON!!!

:crazy:

[berni_mccoy]

37. Rape has nothing to do with what is to be revealed.

Certainly, Foley needed to be exposed for what he was doing, not what orientation he was. Two seperate issues.

A homosexual politician should not be outed for his political beliefs. The public disclosure of a person's sexual orientation is something they should decide when and how it is to come out, not be forced on the eve of an election.

[democracyindanger]

39. Foley outed himself.

FYI

[Dr Fate]

41. Wrong. Public figures are expected to practice what they preach.

If they are preaching anti-gay rhetoric, but are gay- then that is an ISSUE that strikes at the core of their honesty and integrity.

You are suggesting that we dont call liars "liars"- I reject that losing tactic.

[tyedyeto]

44. Bravo!

You said it much better than I could.

[FormerDem06]

135. So what you are saying is that if 500,000 voters elect a gay man

And THEIR wishes are for him to vote for an anti-homosexual bill, then he should just ignore his whole constituency based on the fact that he's gay.

The last time I checked those guys were in a real tough spot since politicians aren't supposed to have a personal agenda, but they are supposed to represent the folks that elected them. They were elected by the Republican base to do the Republican base's bidding. Basically what you are doing is taking away a man (or woman's) ability to be gainfully employed in their chosen profession. They can't come back and run as a Democrat because they're a hypocrite, and they can't come out and run as a Republican because they've been outed as gay and the base won't vote for that.

But as long as we're outing hypocrisy.

[mondo joe]

139. Nope. They should know their "anti gay" candidate is gay. Or that

their "anti gay" candidate is secretly hiring gay staff.

Fracture the relationship between the GOP elite and the fundy base.

It's a polittical weakness to be exploited.

[Zhade]

147. It doesn't matter what the voters want in that case...

...legislating discrimination is against the Constitution.

I don't care how many homophobes oppose gay marriage, or how many racists oppose interracial marriage - they are welcome to their views but not their attempts to force those discriminatory views into law.

[Lexingtonian]

46. very funny.

At my former university, a man was captured and charged with drugging and raping two 17-year old boys. He came after every guy who was around age 20 in his vicinity. We all knew he was gay, of course. It was the salient fact about him.

Yeah, his sexual orientation was such a secret and it should have been kept quiet. Weehoo. What a joke.

I'm sorry, being gay simply has no special privileges. Getting outed is a fact of life- you get some control, as a consideration, but not absolute control. And get used to being gay being just another political football. Do straight people who frequent prostitutes get such a privilege? S&M practioners? Pedophiles? Adulterers? You're simply asserting some absurd version of male privilege.

The right to privacy is essentially a religious right. It's not a right to deviance per se.

[Bluebear]

51. Who exactly are you calling "deviant" in this message?

'It's not a right to deviance '

[Dr Fate]

60. "Deviant" is a term describing things the majority views as fringe.

Tatoos were once considered "deviant"- smoking tobacco, once socially accepted, is now becming a "deviant" behavior.

Saying something is "Deviant" in the social context is not the same as saying it is "wrong" or evil.

Like it or not, the majority-even if it is a slight one-claims to view most non man-on-woman, non-missionary style sex as "deviant."

Persoanlly, I view lying about your sexuality so that you can be in a position to persecute people of the same sexual orientation as being pretty deviant.

[berni_mccoy]

77. The right to privacy is a religious right? I don't think so.

Freedom of religion is completely seperate founding principal from the right to privacy. Gun rights and Abortion rights are both resting on the right to privacy. By saying people don't have a right to privacy about their sexual orientation is saying you don't agree with the fundamental right to privacy.

[DURHAM D]

52. Are you speaking for yourself Bernie ? n/t

[berni_mccoy]

79. I'm speaking for what I believe is right and wrong.

[pnwmom]

38. Gays who shoot at other gays from inside the protection of their closets

shouldn't be surprised when other people decide to fling open the doors so the world can see just who's doing the shooting.

[Bluebear]

40. The best explanation here. nt

[mondo joe]

88. That's fine. No shame in being gay.

Plenty of shame in being a hypocrite.

[Rockholm]

47. Wrong.

A closeted person who uses their position in power to vote against gay rights SHOULD be outed.

[BlueManDude]

48. Bullshit - the GOP needs to be taken out. They wouldn't hesitate n/t

[Ioo]

49. I think you are wrong here... If you are a hipocrite, you get what you get

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. Yup. I've Been Thoroughly Disgusted By This Concept For Weeks.

I fear that the more we are getting tastes of possible victory, the more like them in our tactics we're becoming.

[Raksha]

55. GOOD! Their tactics can work for us too. n/t

[DURHAM D]

58. Outing hypocritical politicians has not been around "for weeks".

It has been around for years/decades - mostly among the GLTB community. Its part of the main stream conversation now because of Foley.

However, anyone, gay or straight, who is against outing by definition believes that there is something wrong with being gay.

[Dr Fate]

63. Which DEMS are being outed as hypocrites or liars?

I am trying to find out which "GOP tactic" we are supposedly using.

I've never seen the GOP use the truth about our supposed hypocrisy as a tactic- all I've ever seen them do is make shit up.

[dsc]

53. I agree with you

There are three arguments offered to justify outing.

1) There is nothing wrong with being gay so it should be treated just like being straight. In theory, great. In practice, give me a break. In about 3/4th of the states having over half of the population, gays and lesbians can be fired without any recourse. Being gay matters, a heck of a lot.

2) Gays who work for consrvative Congressmen are hypocrites who harm other gays. That may well be true. But some people believe that gays who work with children harm children and are thus real risks. Who is going to arbitrate which claims are fair and which are unfair? If you give a power to group A, be sure that group B will use it too.

3) The other side is dirty so we should be too. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[sandnsea]

59. And a fourth

There's no way to expose the Republican Party's cynical manipulation of voters on "moral values" issues except to show they don't really mean what they say. As it pertains to homosexuals, which is a pretty big part of their 'moral value' platform, the only way to get it through the voters head that they're being manipulated is to out Republican gays.

[dsc]

62. that is only when you can prove that the GOP knew they were gay

[sandnsea]

94. Like they didn't know about Mark Foley?

Nonsense, enough of this already. They know they're manipulating these fundies, it's only right the fundies know it too. Aren't you tired of being a political football for these people? End it, once and for all. They can't paint you to be the destruction of America if they're the same as you.

[dsc]

97. What principled difference is there between outing

gay Republicans to excise their hypocracy and outing gay teachers to protect teachers. If you give the power of outing to group A you give it to group B. I fail to see anyway out of that. We already see them saying the gays are actually closet dems or trojan horses.

[mondo joe]

100. Outing people in politics is substantially different.

We've got a freedom of the press in order to provide for an informed electorate.

That is quite different from outing private citizens.

But frankly I don't care that much about outing gay teachers either.

[dsc]

101. the teachers might

I certainly would have been fired from my last job had I been outed. I would probably survive in my current district but I don't know that. Teachers are considered public figures in many circumstances. Certainly if a school newspaper outed a teacher the teacher would be a public figure. It is one thing to out gay congressman but this is now about outing gay staffers. I fail to see how a gay staffer is any different from any other gay public employee.

[mondo joe]

102. They certainly might. They took a calculated risk, and sometimes

it doesn't pay off.

But back to the point, I think gay staffers who are involved at a policy level or as senior advisors are nearly as relevant as the congressperson.

[sandnsea]

105. Because it will put an end to the double-standard

If you pull out the gay DC republican foundation, the whole house falls. The vast majority of people truly do not care whether someone is gay. When the rest start to see some of their own 'true believers' are actually gay, the scales will fall from their eyes - as the saying goes. I wouldn't say to do this as a routine matter, only at this paticular point in time. I am honestly offended at what they've done, I think a lot of people would be. It's hard to put it into words. It's more than hypocrisy. They've made an entire movement on destroying your life and the lives of so many others. And there isn't even a shred of conviction in why they did it, they just did it because they could. It's just so vicious and low. It makes me so angry. That is what I want exposed and the only way I know to get there is by outing highly regarded gays until it sinks into the rest of the country.

[Zhade]

150. What gay teachers are using their position to destroy gay rights?

You really can't grasp the need to disarm anti-gay gays who are attempting to destroy our rights?

Fine, but those of us who do see the very real need will keep on doing this, and feel no qualms about destroying dangerous hypocrites. You can even reap the rewards when our actions help change the direction of gay rights from the trap your stance leads us into.

[dsc]

163. I can

but my point is that we will use this for that purpose while others will use it for a different purpose. They will equate their purpose to ours.

[Raksha]

54. I totally disagree. It's a way of using the right's homophobia

against them, AND taking power from the Repuke Culture of Corruption. I just can't see any downside to it. I'm happy to say I posted a note about tomorrow's Ed Schultz show on another message board--and got an immediate "concern troll" reply from one of the resident Freepers. It was very gratifying.

I have to ask you: Would THEY hesitate for one hot second to do the same thing to the Dems if the positions were reversed?

[berni_mccoy]

69. I can assure you, I am not a freeper

I just don't like using tactics that are fundamentally wrong.

It is wrong to out a gay person when they aren't ready to do it themselves. Why would it be ok to do it to win a political campaign?

[mondo joe]

80. I'm sorry you don't believe in a free press or an informed electorate.

What other secrets do you wish to keep for the GOP?

[berni_mccoy]

I don't wish to harbor secrets for the GOP... but this is a privacy issue

In our society that happens to discriminate against homosexuals, I believe a person has a right to privacy about their orientation.

Outing individuals for political gain is wrong.

[mondo joe]

108. Orientation is not private. Orientation is reported on daily.

If you want to be private, stay out of politics.

[LostinVA]

181. You may not be a Freeper, but you totally don't get it

You're not queer... you have NO IDEA what it's like hearing yourself demonized all over the damned media,, hearing them baying for a Constitutional Amendment against you, being fired for being gay, being killed for being gay, having your wish to be married to the person you love called "deviant" and "sinful" -- and having it legislated against -- all of these things happen because of elected officials. Replace gay with women, blacks, disabled -- anyone. It's sick and disgusting and immoral and un-American. Outing the hypocritical bastards isn't. I believe in evil. I believe these people are evil.

I am tired of being a victim. I am fighting back. If YOU believed in OUR civil rights, you would, too. So, I guess you don't. I am tired of Liberals allowing women and gays to take their political bullets for them.

[Richard Steele]

56. It's not about outing GAYS, it's about outing HYPOCRITES.

Different.

[sandnsea]

57. It's outing their politics of destruction

And the fact that creating the gay heathen monsters has been done for cynical political purposes by a group of people who wink and nod at the 'gay heathen monsters' in their midst. You do not get to throw a group of people to the wolves and feign innocence because you silently hid behind the group doing the throwing.

[elehhhhna]

61. They are also very easy to blackmail, people. Out is FINE.

Closet but sexually active? Nuh-uh.

[kiahzero]

64. It's not a matter of "It's OK because they're doing it"

It's more of a matter of, "The best way to stop them from marginalizing gays is to out them, so they no longer need to hurt others as a 'beard.'"

[Zhade]

66. I'm queer, and I disagree with you.

Anti-gay hypocrites? I'm all for them being outed.

[Mr_Spock]

72. Republicans don't count

They want to be evil hateful fake-Christian RW religious bigot facist homophobic ass wipes without humanity, then they can LIVE WITH THE FUCKING CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR

GOD DAMNED HYPOCRISY!!!

[leftofthedial]

73. what about outing hypocrites?

[Blue-Jay]

74. I'm torn on this subject.

First & foremost, I'm against outing anyone who doesn't want to be "out". Not my business, don't really care.

However, (and this is a big "however") If a legislator is outspoken about denying a GLBT person their basic human rights, yet is found to be less-than-heterosexual.....well, if someone exposes them, I'm not gonna cry about it. You see, it's not about exposing orientation, it's about exposing hypocrisy.

[mondo joe]

76. Bull. Shit.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality and it's not a sacred cow.

[mac56]

90. If someone is a gay Republican, they're benefitting from

membership in a group that is opposed to gays.

Obviously, then, they've come to terms with that disconnect, that fundamental contradiction. In other words, they're okay with it.

And since they're okay with it, why not out them?

[mondo joe]

93. Berni, in what other secrets of the gop would you be complicit? How

about a congressman who was secretly a member of the KKK? Would you out him?

What if Bush were drinking and you could prove it - would you out him?

[berni_mccoy]

104. Good question

KKK, I would be ok with outing them since it is a racists organization who has been known to commit crimes.

Outing an alcoholic President... absolutely, it's a matter of national security.

But I see nothing wrong with a politician being a homosexual and wanting that to be private information.

[mondo joe]

106. Wait a minute - you made quite a huge leap there.

Being a member of the KKK doesn't mean the individual commited a crime.

And the president drinking is not a matter of national security.

But if you want to play that card, having a closeted gay man in office or near it IS a security risk because of the possibility of blackmail.

How do you feel about outing heterosexuality?

[NOLADEM]

98. There is nothing wrong with being gay, so if someone is being a

hypocrite and it is harming others, you can point out the hypocrisy. There is nothing wrong with being gay.

[David Zephyr]

107. Outing hypocrites in power who abuse gays and lesbians is moral.

The world would have been a much better place had Roy Cohn, J. Hoover, Tony Dolan and many, many more been outed.

They used their closets to destroy the lives of gay and lesbian Americans including those who served valiantly in the U.S. Armed Forces.

You have your priorities and compassion truly misplaced.

Sadly, this "view" is always championed by many liberal democrats who are homosexual, but still in the closet who somehow equate their pedestrian citizenry with those who wield great political powers. No one believes outing average citizens is anything but evil. However, not outing homosexuals who deceive the public to rise to power and then abuse gays and lesbians is also evil.

[donheld]

109. This gay man says BULLSHIT!

If the fool is using the closet as an office of hypocrisy I say out with him/her.

[mondo joe]

116. Some well meaning heteros don't realize how out of touch they are,

and even how offensive they can be.

But we'll decide it anyway.

[MrSlayer]

111. Sometimes good people have to do tough things.

I have no sympathy. To beat a pig you have to get in the mud with the bastard. The important thing is to win at this point and screw being the nice guy. Nice guys finish last. Once we get into power we can honestly be the nice guy toward the American people, be civil to the international community and actually do something about killing our real enemies. Once we get into power we can thwart all the negative ads and swiftboating by being good at what we do.

Of course a Democratic congress doesn't necessarily mean the corporatism will end but it pretty much guarantees a much more sane social view.

[ruggerson]

117. Your mindframe is mired in homophobia

Society doesn't change until people start actually practicing equality. And equality means that if we publicly discuss a heterosexual's wife or husband, we should apply the same standard and publicly discuss a homosexual's family as well.

What you are advocating perpetuates homophobia and fear.

Being gay is morally equivalent to being straight.

When you live your life adhering to the idea that being gay is equal to being straight, then the world changes. When you live your life clinging to a homophobic mindset, you perpetuate it.

[berni_mccoy]

137. Theoretically I agree, but our society is not there yet.

The reality is our society discriminates against homosexuals. And until there is no discrimination, people will seek to hide their orientation because they can.

[ruggerson]

153. It's only a reality

because people like yourself let it be one and demand fealty to a double standard world of fearfulness that protects and perpetuates the closet.

I live in the reality that gays and straights are fully equal.

If you did too, that reality would manifest itself a lot quicker.

[fujiyama]

118. Sorry

I don't agree at all.

It's time for these fuckers to come out. They need to be busted for their hypocrisy. Their RW base has to fess up that some of the great guys they elected are "sodomites" and "sinners".

[morgan2]

120. completely acceptable

it'd be like outing bill bennett for being a gambler. When someone goes on and on about how something is bad, and then does it. Its cometeply acceptable to call them out on it, especially a public figure who is influencing others. It's like all you nader haters who call him out on owning stocks in corporations. Hypocrasy in a politician deserves to be pointed out.

[Swamp Rat]

125. There is NOTHING wrong with homosexuality!

The OP implies that homosexuality is wrong, and that it must be hidden in certain cases because some people are offended by it.

There is NOTHING wrong with homosexuality!

Outting hypocrites is the best medicine for the current state of affairs in this country.

Btw, there is NOTHING wrong with homosexuality!

[nemo137]

141. No, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

But, one could argue, there is something wrong with using it as a weapon, which is what outing is. It's using the perceived wrongness of homosexuality to do damage to someone.

Myself, I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, hypocrisy is a poisonous, poisonous thing. On the other, attacking someone based on an inborn, intensely personal trait is incredibly vicious. I'd say to err on the side of basic decency and not out, if given the choice.

[Zhade]

152. Basic decency DEMANDS we out the hypocrites attacking our rights.

Outing hypocrisy is morally decent and the right thing to do.

It's not the orientation; it's the hypocrisy.

[Pachamama]

156. Totally agree....

Nothing wrong with homosexuality, but something very, very wrong with someone who is hiding their homosexuality and doing things to hurt homosexuals.

I think there is a huge difference between "outing" someone who is not hurting anyone in keeping their sexual preferences secret and quiet and then someone who has the power to hurt many with that secret and the hypocrisy of their actions.

As someone who was raised by two gay women, I have absolutely no problem with the outing of these GOP hypocrites....

:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

159. Way'at Pachamama!

:hi: How's it going?

[Pachamama]

160. Oi Swamp Rodent!

:hug:

Things are good...work on the house re-building is progressing...slowly...the house is finally down on the new foundation and they started the framing. The house now sits about 2 feet above the Base Flood Elevation. They think we might be able to be back in the house by February.

Lots going on...its been such a crazy year...I keep thinking about Symbolman and Opi in Hawaii with the Quake, me with the flood and you and our friends in the NOLA and Gulf Coast with Katrina...

What a year...and we know that there is so much more to come... :hi:

[Swamp Rat]

162. Glad it's coming along

It's been months since we paid to have our interior redone but the contractor still hasn't shown up. x(

So much is happening that I do not have time to keep track of it all... like the quake in Hawaii. I didn't even know much about it - I glanced at a single headline, but must have misread it because I didn't know it was so big. Are Symbolman and Opi ok?

Check your PM :hug:

[LostinVA]

182. Yeah, I think the OP says that, too n/t

[BlooInBloo]

127. There's no fact of the matter about it either way... it's just a personal

... choice about which of two orthogonal facets of a person one deems most important:

Insofar as a person republican, one is inclined to spill their secrets - who are we to hold their secrets for them?

Insofar as a person is gay, one is inclined to keep their secret - who are we to divulge their personal info?

It becomes a personal choice about which is more important to *us* the secret divulger/keeper when those two *logical* people are the same *physical* body.

For myself, I'm happy to divulge. But I wouldn't argue with anyone who made the opposite choice.

[berni_mccoy]

132. Ok, the backlash has had an impact on me

The main point that is sticking with me is that gays are being hurt by legislation being drafted by closet homosexual republican congressmen. In this sense, I see some form of justification in violating their privacy to expose them, even if that is wrong. I still don't agree with the practice, but I find some manner of understanding for the desire to expose them.

As for the argument that they use the tactic so we should to, I still reject the argument completely. We should not use tactics that are fundamentally wrong simply because the other side does. In doing so, we weaken the principals that we promote our party stands for.

[mondo joe]

136. Berni, heterosexuality is disclosed about public figures daily.

If that's not too private then homosexuality shouldn't be either.

You have a double standard that is insulting to gays.

[ruggerson]

155. That of course, is the larger point

the discussion about whether it's done as an act of vengeance or not is moronic, imho, and can be viewed as homophobic in and of itself.

[Zhade]

154. You're now only half-wrong.

There is NOTHING wrong with being known as a homosexual. Outing someone as gay is no more immoral than outing something who is straight. The two orientations are morally equal and neither has any reason to be hidden.

Your continued assertion that outing hypocrites is WRONG, because they're gay hypocrites and their gayness should be 'private', suggests that you do not see the two orientations as equal. It's starting to get a little bit insulting to some of us queers.

[LostinVA]

184. I wish you were a woman

I would have a major crush on you.....

[Marnieworld]

222. It's the internet

We can all just pretend! :hi:

[tuvor]

138. Are there other hypocrisies that we should also not call out?

I don't think certain hypocrites should be allowed to carry on tearing things down, only because they're gay.

[Vidar]

140. Sorry, I see nothing wrong with outing anti-gay gay politicians.

[truthisfreedom]

146. the ONLY reason this is happening this year, at this time, is the election

it would NEVER have happened otherwise. keep that in mind. when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

[Ayesha]

148. OUT THEM!

If they are gay and working against our rights, they deserve to be outed. It's one thing if a person is pro-gay or noncommittal and closeted, but quite another when they abuse those of us who just want to live freely and be ourselves!

[TheGriz]

157. Just some thoughts...

IMO, outing gay Republicans is counterproductive.

First of all, if they are in fact gay, they are unlikely to vote in a manner detrimental to themselves. Democrats and Republicans aren't black and white on anything; remember that some Dems oppose gay marriage and some Repubs that support it.

Second, consider who they may be replaced with. This will lose some Republicans their seats, but we won't see Democrats in their stead... these "scandals" won't change the fundie voting block. We stand to see people who are much, much worse.

And yeah, it is dirty politics.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

158. Are you KIDDING?

"if they are in fact gay, they are unlikely to vote in a manner detrimental to themselves."

The hypocritical closet cases are often the MOST DESTRUCTIVE in terms of policies pursued. Now they may not consider their policies and votes as detrimental to "themselves" specifically, since they are in special, protected positions, but destructive to gay Americans as a whole? You bet!

[LostinVA]

185. What the heck???

[Hell Hath No Fury]

217. Now THAT is some fine comedy styling!

"...they are unlikely to vote in a manner detrimental to themselves."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Griz (sniff sniff) you sure are funny!

[LostinVA]

165. Sorry, I have to disagree with you here

I am so tired of being used as a punching bag, and having my life demonized by people who are rank hypocrites. I personally think every public figure should be "outed<" if they are in a position to either make laws against me and/or denounce me publicly.

Gads, if every damn person said they were gay, 80% of all homophobia would disappear in a week.

[Ganja Ninja]

176. Exactly right.

I don't see it as outing a homosexual. I see it as outing a hypocrite. Hypocrites deserve to be outed.

[Midlodemocrat]

170. It's the hypocrisy that is the issue, not their sexuality.

I would feel the same way about 'outing' a pro-life female who had had an abortion but was keeping it quiet.

Equal rights for everyone begin with ending the hypocrisy.

[Justice]

183. it is no different than exposing an adulterer who claims family values, or

an environmentalist who drives a hummer.

What is being "outed" is the hypocrisy not the fact the person is gay.

[onenote]

187. is a closeted Democrat who supports gay rights a hypocrite?

Was someone like the governor of New Jersey, who not only kept his true sexual orientation hidden, but held himself out to the public as straight, but who was not "anti-gay" in his politics: was he a hyporcrite who should've been outed?

Asking because I'm not sure of the answer to this one.

[donheld]

188. NO, he/she is not preaching one thing

and doing the opposite :banghead:

www.m-w-com

Hypocrisy

1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

[onenote]

193. but they were misleading the public

into believing that they were straight. If a candidate for office holds themselves out to the public as a straight person when in fact they are gay, isn't that information appropriately disclosed to the public? What if they put on their website that they were Catholic, but secretly they attended Wiccan services?

[bananas]

189. Traumatic? Take a look at some photos from Iraq

Out homosexuals is extremely traumatic to the individual and can harm, not only the individual, but their families and friends.
Not outing them is a hell of a lot more traumatic for the rest of us.

[sampsonblk]

190. I am all for it

Foolish mistakes sometimes result in trauma. That's how we learn not to make them.

I take no jy in seeing someone else's pain. But if someone is in Congress promoting themselves as a gay hater, I have no problem whatsoever seeing them outed. Trauma? Fine by me.

[michreject]

197. This is going to backfire......eom

[mondo joe]

199. Please be specific. How will it backfire and what will the results be?

[michreject]

200. The other side starts a conflict with us

The Republicans start smearing all the dirt they know about our side in an act of reprisal.

[mondo joe]

203. So are you suggesting we should be complicit in a mutual dirt keeping

pact?

No fucking thank you.

Besides - what makes you think the GOP wouldn't already be sharing (or fabricating) any dirt ALREADY?

You may not have noticed but we are ALREADY IN A CONFLICT.

[michreject]

209. Please refresh my memory on the personal attacks

Not the political ones.

[mondo joe]

210. Which personal attacks are you talking about???

[michreject]

212. The leaking of Mr. X being Gay

In giving this further thought, leaking this info would be acceptable if it's done by a third party, but it can't be used by the Democrat party to throw mud. It will come back and hurt us. I really believe this.

[mondo joe]

213. Well it ISN'T being done by the party.

[michreject]

214. That's why I changed my stance.........eom

[annarbor]

198. I'm openly gay....

and these closeted Congressmen and Senators are interfering with my right to live in peace. I have an adopted child. If left up to these folks, they would ban my ability to adopt as well (as in Florida). My pursuit of life, liberty and happiness are being threatened by these hypocrits.

I'm a cop too. It wasn't all that fun coming out, but I have long been at peace with who I am, and my co-workers, department and city could care less who I have chosen as my life partner.
I can imagine that these same people make fun of Barney Frank too.

To hell with these hypocrites. Send me the list. I'll read it on the radio myself...

Ann Arbor

[ecstatic]

201. What about outing a bisexual?

A man who lives life as a straight, possibly married male, while having unprotected sex with men on the side. Is it wrong to out a man like that too?

[annarbor]

208. Is that man...

a member of congress that votes against gay right's legislation?

They are not being outed because they are gay. They are being outed because they are gay, AND vote against gay rights!

Why is that so hard to understand?????????

Do you remember when the Republicans lashed out against Bill Clinton? Do you remember when many of those same jerks were outed for having extra-maritial affairs too?

It was great to watch. This will be too...

[screembloodymurder]

204. Bullshit!

Pedophilia is a crime.

[lumberjack_jeff]

207. By any means necessary

Would gay DU'ers like the opportunity to marry?
Would DU'ers like to be free from the fear of being detained and tortured?
Would DU'ers like to bring home our servicemembers?
Would DU'ers like to preserve the right to choose?
Would DU'ers like to retrieve democracy?
Would DU'ers like to take back power from the corporations?

Then this is your chance. Choosing the high road is an illusion if someone else has the steering wheel.

The trauma to the closeted Republicans is a small, justified and appropriate price to pay. Everyone who supported this vandalism of my country, gay or straight, male or female, regardless of ethnicity deserves it.

Count me out. I WILL kick 'em when they're down.

We can bring back civility when we run things.

[VelmaD]

216. Here's my issue

African-Americans and other minorities who advocate policies that hurt minorities...they get a ration of shit for it from other people of color. Same with women who advocate policies that hurt women. But closeted gays who advocate policies that hurt gay people...they can hide. They don't have to suffer the social oprobrium from others in their own group. And they should have to suck it up and deal.

[berni_mccoy]

220. SEE HERE FOR MY APOLOGY =====>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2413720