Opposing "Outing" Is, In And Of Itself, Homophobic

[ruggerson]

If you start from the premise that there is no moral difference between straight people and gay people, you cannot, in any good conscience, oppose the public discussion of an individual's affectional or sexual orientation.

We do not bat an eye when inquiring if a public figure, or merely someone we know in day to day life for that matter, is married or has children. It's a common discussion that arises in the office, outside the schoolyard, or at the gym. When you ask if someone is married, you are essentially seeking to "out" someone, as the answer will partially inform you as to the familial makeup of the individual you are inquiring about.

"Outing" only those who oppose a progressive political agenda, as revenge for their hypocritical political leanings, is just as homophobic as opposing "outing" in general. Truthtelling about someone's family is only a weapon, when we are using society's hatred as a bludgeon to destroy.

The concept of "outing" is homophobic to the core. There should be no "outing" as there should be no closet.

Movie stars, politicians, authors - if we discuss their family life in the media, and we do every day, then there should never be a double standard of silence for gay people. If we disclose the romantic and family structure of the straight person, we must do the same for the gay one.

The homophobes will NEVER begin to understand how common and, yes, mundane homosexuality is
in the world until we start publicly treating homosexuality exactly the same way we treat the subject of heterosexuality.

You oppose "Outing" on the grounds that you are putting people's lives in danger?

Sorry. It's YOU that are putting people's lives in danger by perpetuating the silence of the closet and the virulently homophobic double standard that seeks to render gay people, and their families, invisible and perpetually second class.

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Well said!

I was just thinking some thing similar a little earlier before I sat down to watch "Heroes." The very idea that most here do not see a problem with homosexuality or bisexuality, why would the revealing of that sexual orientation be a "bad" thing?

Personally, to each his/her own. The only time it becomes a real issue is when the person is working against the group. I should not be punished by some self-loathing asshole because s/he can't accept what s/he is!

[Rex]

2. I think it is the 'outing' part and not the sexual orientation people

have problems with. I didn't want to know about Bill Clinton's sexlife and I really didn't want to know that Tom Foley had sex with teen boys. It is good that Foley's crime was 'outed' and I hope he pays for it. It is a privacy thing, not a homophobic thing, IMO.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

12. Being gay is about more than just your sex life.

It's your life. It's just part of who you are. To say that you don't want somebody outted because you think their sex life is private, then you must also oppose discussing a heterosexual's spouse.

Personally, I think hypocrites should be exposed and closeted gay Republican politicians are hypocrites. They should be called on that. It doesn't really have to do with their sex life, but rather the equal rights they are trying to keep other homosexuals from attaining.

[LostinVA]

33. What you said

[cali]

101. That comment just pisses me off no end.

It is not necessarily homophobic to find outing a rather distasteful endeavor. Personally, I have mixed feelings about it; I can understand the argument that people who actively work against civil rights for gays and lesbians when they themselves are gay, is exposing a particularly rank hypocricy, but it still leaves me queasy, and lists such as Mr. Blogactive, maintains have the stench of McCarthyism.

And let me tell you, I deeply resent the insinuation that unless one buys into Mr. Blogactives little game, one is homophobic. Just fuck that. There are few issues I care about more than extending full rights to my gay and lesbian sisters and brothers, and I've worked side by side with them for many years to achieve that.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

104. Woah, settle down there sparky.

I didn't call opposing outing homophobia. I didn't even insinuate it. What I did was respond to another DUers comment that compared outing to discussing someone's personal sex life, which it's not, anymore than merely mentioning someone's wife is discussing someone's personal sex life.

So I don't know if you meant to respond to my post or not, but your post makes absolutely no sense in relation to what I wrote.

[cali]

117. oops, sorry.

no, I responded to the wrong person..

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

126. It's okay. nt

[mondo joe]

46. Being gay isn't your SEX LIFE. Try to get that, please.

[Rex]

60. Sexual orientation and sex life ain't the same thing.

Sorry if that confused you.

[babylonsister]

3. Baloney. I have a problem because of privacy.

There are people who are hypocrites who should be outed maybe, but
those that are not ready, what does that accomplish?
I'm not gay, but I can empathize. I am just sorry that this
is even an issue when it shouldn't be.
Gay, lesbian, straight, people are people, let us all be good
citizens and enjoy whatever makes you happy.

[ruggerson]

7. The privacy thing is a smokescreen for homophobia

One either lives one's life in the reality that heterosexuality and homosexuality are fully equal or one is perpetuating the double standard.

If you discuss whether Tom at the office has a wife or not, but you would not openly discuss whether he has a partner, then you are participating in a worldview that is homophobic.

If you know, in your soul, that the homophobes are wrong, then discussing Tom's partner is no different than discussing whether or not he is left handed.

[babylonsister]

8. No, I'm talking about Tom. It has nothing to do with me, but

everything to do with him.
And for the record, I am not a homophobe, because as a married woman, I understand my lifestyle but also understand love. And that's what it boils down to, straight or gay. I don't fear gay people, I cry for the bullshit they have to go through at times.

[Bucky]

19. Your example is about acceptance, not about outing closeted gays

This "Tom at the office" if he has a partner or boyfriend is a very different case than Senator Tom, who has a wife and picks up strays at the local leather bar. If you decloset someone who is deliberately hiding an important aspect of his private life, you're violating his privacy in ways that I find objectionable. Politically it may be fair game. In the case of Senator Tom, I defend the practice--particularly if Senator Tom sponsors anti-gay legislation. But having qualms about violating someone's privacy is not homophobic. It's pro-liberty.

Your attempts to insult people you disagree with is juvenile.

[uppityperson]

23. your examples are about sexual actions, not orientation it seems

I am agreeing with you here, just commenting. I don't care what your orientation is, hetero/homo/bi/asexual. It seems that it is how you use it that matters. Senator Tom's actions and Bar Tom's actions are quite different, that is the problem.

[suziedemocrat]

42. Senator Tom would be committing adultery.

And in the past adultery has been more than fair game in politics. Is it only fair if the adultery is heterosexual, or can it be homosexual too? Do we have a double standard on adultery? And if Senator Tom is claiming to be "Family Values" and he is picking up "strays" (men or women) at the local bar, I say OUT the hypocrite! Let's watch him explain away his "sin" and how he has prayed for forgiveness and blah, blah, blah. Pretty soon the American people will realize all this nonsense about family values is BS.

[donheld]

35. Maybe if you were gay you'd understand

it's the hypocrisy that MUST be exposed. "What does it accomplish?" It exposes people who make (or try to) laws which they themselves cannot live by. I would never "out" someone who was just quietly living their life not bothering anybody. When they get in a position of power, however, and start passing laws, ranting on TV/radio, or preaching against gays then OUT of the closet with them.

[Cha]

123. Thank you, it only

makes sense!

[MADem]

4. Unless you apply a prohibition on the discussion of anyone's

sexual identity (so that rules out any discussion of spouses, partners, even children) to every single soul on the planet, then it's unfair to "protect" a group that you personally don't believe should be treated differently. The way to level the playing field is to just level it, not talk about how it should be leveled someday.

It's common and it's everywhere. Who doesn't have a gay relative or friend? And unlike the old days, it can be discussed in public without whispering.

It's no more remarkable than blue eyes, or red hair, or ears that stick out. It's not unmentionable unless everyone subscribes to some sort of perverse code of silence.

Foley doesn't realize how far he may have advanced the 'gay agenda.' Whaddaya wanna bet, if it all turns out well, he'll try to take 'credit' for it??

It's a hell of a way to have to foster discussion of the subject, but odds are the GOP wouldn't do it on their own without some sort of catalyst, even if it's a negative one involving a predator who happens to be gay. They've got too many talented gay staffers, who know all sorts of little secrets and details, and they can't throw them ALL under the bus....too many of them will holler all sorts of unpleasantries if they try to go that route...it'll make David Brock's opus look like a flower arranging book.

[hlthe2b]

5. Interesting premise...

on edit: I'm going to use another instance where a group of individuals is discriminated against from biggoted aspects of society: those who are HIV infected and manifesting the advanced symptoms of AIDS:

Interesting premise...but by the same token, having AIDS is simply having an illness and should be treated no differently than any other. However, by revealing someone has AIDS, and despite the legal protections, that person may face discrimination, loss of job, or other harm. So, when society in general, is not where we all might be on progressive web sites, it seems there is an additional important consideration.

Having said that, I'm all for exposing those, who are willfully acting to hurt others who share their sexual identity. :shrug: I wouldn't condone doing so otherwise, however.

[TahitiNut]

6. How about someone "passing"?

Are there circumstances where someone with a black parent/ancestor who's "passing" (as white) is fair game for 'outing'?? Are there circumstances where 'outing' them would be wrong?

:eyes:


:popcorn:

[MADem]

9. Oh, boy, the Bob Barr jokes!!!

He's passing because the black community won't have him!!! :rofl:

[Karenina]

24. Interesting question...

;-)

[chill_wind]

10. Thank you for this interesting thread.

Extreme food for thought...

"Outing" only those who oppose a progressive political agenda, as revenge for their hypocritical political leanings, is just as homophobic as opposing "outing" in general. Truthtelling about someone's family is only a weapon, when we are using society's hatred as a bludgeon to destroy.

The concept of "outing" is homophobic to the core. There should be no "outing" as there should be no closet.

K&R.

[Infinite Hope]

11. I would oppose outing on the premise that...

1)Public officials are open to outing and such scrutiny
2)Others *not involved directly in hypocrisy* should have the right to out their relationship/sexuality when they're confortable. Many don't have the confidence in themselves and/or want to wait until they're in a serious relationship before they out themselves, especially if they're bi and might end up with a girl if their relationship with a guy doesn't work out. That's their right just the same as it's the right of those who have abortions to keep that information private and share it only when and with whom they wish to. It's especially immoral to out someone *not involved directly in hypocrisy* just for spite or revenge of some sort.

[MadMaddie]

13. This is an interesting thread...

I have to point out that yes we talk about politicians, movie stars and authors many of these people are in these fields because they want to be seen....it may not be right but privacy is the price they pay for fame....

Discussing the family structure of a straight person won't lead to them getting fired, turned on by their church and community, ostracized...

Reality

Because of the environment we live in today in *s America we can be fired for simply being gay...we can't talk about our families, we can't hold hands in public, we can't have our spouses pictures on our desks at work...

<snip>
Movie stars, politicians, authors - if we discuss their family life in the media, and we do every day, then there should never be a double standard of silence for gay people. If we disclose the romantic and family structure of the straight person, we must do the same for the gay one.
<snip>

[EFerrari]

14. Horse shit. The interrogation of the most intimate moments

of a person's life may not cause YOU to bat an eye, but there are plenty of us who recognize good personal boundaries and who aren't in the least bothered by being slandered as "homophobes" for standing up for personal privacy.

I didn't create The Closet. I respect the personal choices people make for their own lives -- equally. No matter if they are saints, sinners or just plain folks.

So much for manipulating me via labels. (Gee, what does this remind me of?)

Maybe there's something wrong with your gut, mine is just fine. I don't make personal choices FOR OTHER PEOPLE, whether I approve of them and their behavior or not. Whether they are my best friend or someone I'd just as soon strangle.

The ENDS don't justify the MEANS.

[ruggerson]

15. Since when is mentioning that someone has a partner or a wife

have anything to do with the "interrogation of the most intimate moments of a person's life."?

If I tell you I'm gay, I'm not telling you what I do in bed. I'm telling you that I am hotwired to fall in love with and create a family structure with a member of my own gender.

The religious rightwing likes to pretend it's all about sex (and yes, I know you are far more evolved than that), because if they were forced to tell the truth that it's really about love and family and far less titillating things, they would lose the culture war far more rapidly than they already are.

[EFerrari]

17. You know, this argument doesn't work.

And f#ck the fake "culture wars" because they are the product of the wingnut noise machine.

But let's go here:

"If I tell you I'm gay, I'm not telling you what I do in bed. I'm telling you that I am hotwired to fall in love with and create a family structure with a member of my own gender."

If you tell me, that's your choice. And, it's not even about sex, you're right. But it's still about your private life. About your choices that no government, no public has any business impinging on.

Oh, it's quick and easy to "out" someone. To send them home. But please think through the whole sequence. Think of the consequences.

Please. Think this through carefully. I'd happily go after them in any other way. It's just that this way, outing, is exactly the mirror action of what we object to. Invasion of privacy, then arbitrary judgment subject to legislation -- because that's where this country is going.

Please think this all the way through.

[uppityperson]

22. exactly. I believe in privacy.

If someone wants others to know their sexual orientation, let them reveal it. If they don't, let them not reveal it because it really doesn't matter to most people what your orientation is. Why make it an issue? Your sexual orientation is fine to be private between you and whomever you have sex with. Other than that, I can not see how it affects a lot else enough to be made public.My or your or anyones sex life or orientation should not be public unless they want to make it so personally so for whatever odd reason they might.

I agree with the OP that there should be no closet, and take it to the step that there should be no closet because it is a non-issue. My sexual orientation does not affect my friendships with others, or my ability to do my job. It is a non-issue.

[mondo joe]

52. I am thinking about the consequences, and they are good.

We have thoought this all the way through. And if you were gay, you might have as well.

[noiretextatique]

128. ok...you are a public homophobe

who actively advances an anti-gay agenda...and you're gay and in the closet, obviously. why would i, an openly gay person of the sort that you attack publically every single day...why on earth would i feel the need to protect you from the same homo-hatred you pander to and promote in the daytime?

[LostinVA]

34. Who the heck said anything about sex?

No one. I don't want to know about anyone's sex life but my own.

Sexual orientation isn't about sex.

[onenote]

62. what other evidence is there of a closeted gay's orientation?

You say that sexual orientation is not about sex. I agree.

But when it comes to outing a closeted gay individual, I've yet to see a situation where the evidence supporting that outing wasn't sexual behavior. If the person admits they're gay, then there is no "outing". If they deny it, how do you "prove" that they are gay?

[mondo joe]

63. You may not know this, but in most outing cases it's an "open secret"

in the right circles. Take Mark Foley, for example, who had a longtime partner he appeared with socially. Obviously a number of people knew he was gay.

That's mostly what outing is about - unsecreting the "open secret".

[EFerrari]

64. Whether you're talking about orientation or practice or identity

It's an invasion of privacy. That thing that is rapidly disappearing in this culture.

That thing that we want everyone to respect when it's OURS.

[mondo joe]

66. To the contrary: if they were truly private they couldn't be outed.

But they're not truly private.

[mondo joe]

49. Your post is informed by homophobia.

Being gay is no more "intimate" than being straight.

[noiretextatique]

127. what about people who are making personal choices for you

by limiting your rights to make personal choices? i just can't see the nobility in protecting someone who supports an agenda that diminishes my options and my rights.

[Bucky]

16. Opposing outing is honorable and I wish I was on their side of this

I think people who are against outing closeted gays are making a tough, but honorable choice. Until very recently I oppose it, too, except under limited circumstances. I really think private matters should be private. In the case of homophobic Republicans, I think it's valid to expose hypocricy, but the practice still makes me very uncomfortable. It's necessary, but I don't think we should pretend it's not a necessary evil.

[mondo joe]

51. "private matters should be private"?

So the press shouldn't report on anything any politician considers private?

[Quantess]

18. I don't know....

I'm not gay, so I don't know, but, it seems insensitive to the person's wishes, as to whether or not they want to be "outed". Who could have the heart to do that to a really shy, easily embarrassed person who wants to keep their gayness a secret?

Here's another thought: How would you feel about outing transgendered people? Is that different, and why or why not?

[LostinVA]

36. I would "out" a TG if they mouthed off about gender ID "freaks"

And TGs aren't about sexual orientation but gender identity.

I also think this goes along with the OP: even talking about whether or not it's right is intolerant.

[Infinite Hope]

20. Philosophically speaking...

the original author's opinion is valid in terms of consistency...that those who believe their lifestyle is not immoral should not be ashamed and hiding.

But that ignores the blunt practical reality of our current society. If they are outted before they're ready and confident enough to defend their relationship to their family and friends and the rest of the world that is not have as open-minded as they are about their own relationship, they may face dire consequences.

So while, on its philosophical face, your argument that a non-straight person need not be closeted is about being consistent with their belief that their lifestyle is not wrong, it is philosophically flawed as well. It would demand the fundamental assumption that those around them are as open-minded and accepting of their non-straight persuasion as they are themselves.

[ruggerson]

59. The argument that the world is fraught with homophobia

hence we should not "out" anyone against their will is essentially the same argument that many racists used to argue against integration. They proclaimed that it was against the best interests of little black children, as it would expose them to danger and cruelty.

Sometimes, you have to start living a reality in order to end the cycle of prejudice. The reality is that we have different and variant family structures in this country. Perpetuating the notion that we must keep silent about gay people and gay families is a double standard that serves only to reinforce bigotry and empower it.

[Infinite Hope]

111. Believe me...

I understand your point, but the story of the little black children is still different than the gays in the way you're trying to compare them. The little black children wanted to be integrated whereas gays want to be out on their own time.

If anything, your comparison contradicts your point because by pointing out that we should leave the decision to the individual directly involved (blacks/gays) rather than letting others (racists/homophobes) make the decisions for them.

People should be free to participate in society as they see fit when they are not objectively harming anyone else.

[petronius]

21. 'Outing' is using the homophobia of others to punish someone

you disagree with. You can dress it up with this talk of 'exposing hypocrisy,' but IMO the practice of outing is itself a homophobic act - you may not be homophobic yourself, you may even be gay, but when you out someone you are using hatred of homosexuals as a weapon, which I see as immoral.

It really is irrelevant to point out that the 'closet' shouldn't exist; outing has nothing at all to do with obtaining equal rights or ending the double standard...

[spoony]

27. Precisely. It's not "freeing" anyone

or any of this silly rhetoric, and it's certainly not making the world a place free of prejudice. It's a campaign of vengeance, pure and simple.

[mondo joe]

47. No, it's not. We don't even have the power to punish.

And what's immoral is being complicit in keeping secrets for people out to do damage.

[petronius]

70. I can't agree with you - outing is using bigotry to damage someone,

the fact that it isn't your own bigotry is immaterial. It has nothing to do with exposing hypocrisy or fighting homophobia; it's using a despicable tool (hatred) for political ends.

If a closeted R is advocating misguided, biased or just plain evil positions, then destroy the positions, don't sink to the level of the gay-bashers.

(Actually, your "immoral is being complicit in keeping secrets" argument is exactly the same logic that wingers use to advocate torture, as in 'it's immoral not to torture people who are bent on hurting our country.' It's a perfectly practical logic in both cases, except that it requires us to abandon our principles and become the enemy...)

[ruggerson]

138. I guess you didn't read carefully enough

I wrote: "Outing" only those who oppose a progressive political agenda, as revenge for their hypocritical political leanings, is just as homophobic as opposing "outing" in general. Truthtelling about someone's family is only a weapon, when we are using society's hatred as a bludgeon to destroy.

My point is that if the media is going to discuss the family/private life of politicians, sports stars and celebrities (and the media DOES this, it is an inarguable given), then they must cease the double standard which renders gay people invisible. This double standard is firmly rooted in entrenched homophobia, and the only thing it serves to do is to keep gays and lesbians repressed.

I agree, as I stated in the OP, that outing should not be used as a weapon. It shouldn't even be referred to as "outing." There just should be no double standard when broadcasting or writing about a public figures familial structure of private life.

None.

[petronius]

145. I think I read it just fine...

And I agree with most of what you said. Particularly that there should be no double standard or enforced invisibility for gay and lesbian relationships. However, this issue is really not related to the question of 'outing' as it's being discussed today.

As I see it, 'outing' is by definition the exposure of a relationship that the target would prefer to keep secret, done as revenge or as a weapon. It is "using society's hatred as a bludgeon" (nice word choice), and I can't see it as anything other than immoral and despicable. Opposing outing is not homophobic, and your original subject line was wrong.

The other issue you raised is that there should be no double standard in discussing hetero- and homosexual relationships. I completely agree, but it has no connection to the kind of outing that we've been seeing recently, and the current outings will do nothing to eradicate the double standard. In fact, I think all relationships are entitled to privacy. If any person prefers not to have their romantic relationships made public, I think that should be respected (for example, there are people in the public eye today, apparently heterosexual, whose partners are left unnamed by their choice).

So in general, I think the distinction you're making is irrelevant. 'Outing' is not the "truth-telling" you describe, involuntary outings will do nothing to bring about this truth-telling and are always weapons, and opposing these outings is not homophobic, nor does it serve to sustain the double standard.

[ruggerson]

146. The OP is referring to outing in general

not conflating it with the Foley matter or with "outing as vengeance."

In that context the discussion is indeed about the double standard. And your assertion that there are heterosexuals in the public eye whose partners are left unnamed is patently untrue. The general media and the tabloid media have no reservations about "outing" heterosexual affairs, marriages, partnerships, whether the publicity is desired or not. We have an entire culture built around dissecting public heterosexual's private lives.

But when it's a public homosexual, the volume suddenly goes silent.

I don't think a republican gay congressman should be outed because he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I don't think he should be outed as retribution, using "outing" as a club to punish. I think he should be "outed" because he's been living with his longtime partner for twenty years, and it is a well known fact around town that the press refuses to print, while it enthusiastically and gleefully reports on every straight congressperson's family life.

[petronius]

148. I agree - there is no reason in the world why the congressman in

your last paragraph shouldn't be treated the same as any other congressman in terms of whether or not his family life is discussed in the press. To the extent that the press is reluctant to talk about an open gay relationship to the same extent that they would discuss a straight relationship, that's wrong. However, that's not really outing is it? Wouldn't you agree that 'outing' involves the exposure of a relationship that the participant would keep secret? My feeling is that if people are willing to have their private lives discussed, then it's OK to discuss them. If people are not willing to have those topics discussed, it is wrong to force that publicity on them.

In a nutshell, the media should not hide gay or lesbian relationships. If you want to call discussing these relationships 'outing' then fine, that kind of outing is OK.

If people do not want their relationships discussed, then it is wrong to do so, especially when the exposure is done out of malice (this is what I take the word 'outing' to refer to).

Furthermore, you must be reading a different press than I am if you think we live in "an entire culture built around dissecting public heterosexual's private lives" in which the press "enthusiastically and gleefully reports on every straight congressperson's family life." And my "patently untrue" statement is pure fact, regardless of whether or not you're aware of it...

[ruggerson]

156. Glad you agree

"In a nutshell, the media should not hide gay or lesbian relationships. If you want to call discussing these relationships 'outing' then fine, that kind of outing is OK."

That is exactly what the OP references. All the claptrap about Foley and using outing as punishment for action (something I specifically disavowed) are merely strawmen you and others set up and then indignantly disagreed with.

As for your assertion that the media doesn't discuss the family/private life of heterosexual public figures who do not want to harrassed, tell that to Brittney Spears, Angelina Jolie, Gary Hart, Bill and Hillary Clinton et al.

[petronius]

161. Strawman?

Unless you're reading very different posts than I am, nobody is killing any strawmen here. Do you really think that the 'outing' that the vast majority of DU has been discussing these days is anything other than punishment, vengeance, and political bludgeoning? The only strawman is yours - you seem to be trying to impose a definition of outing (i.e. what you just quoted from me) that differs markedly from what everyone else is talking about. Again, I agree that there the media should not be squeamish about discussing open gay relationships any more than straight ones. However, that is not the issue that everyone is arguing about. The issue is the outing for punishment (as in that list that was so gleefully discussed around here) - apparently we both agree that that outing is wrong. So really, it appears that we agree on everything except what we're talking about...

As for heterosexual public figures, you missed my point. I said I am aware of public figures whose private lives are not discussed by their preference; my point was that a desire for privacy should be respected regardless of the kind of relationship in question. Frankly, I think that it is disgusting when the media intrudes unwanted into straight celebrities' business as well (but of course the consequences are generally not as severe in those cases).

[unblock]

25. is keeping secret the judaism of someone in nazi germany anti-semitic?

if i find out a friend is gay, and he asks me to keep his secret so that, oh, i don't know, his world doesn't crumble down upon him, then i'm being homophobic by respecting his wishes?

or is the gay friend's desire for secrecy more self-loathing than you can stand?

tell me, would keeping secret the jewishness of someone in nazi germany be anti-semitic?


COPING with a bigotted world is NOT the same as endorsing it.
frontal assault is not the only way to fight a war, and it is often the most foolhardy.

[LostinVA]

37. Not the same thing at all -- strawman

[onenote]

39. why is it a strawman?

[mondo joe]

53. Being asked to keep a confidence has nothing to do with this.

Those being outted have "open secrets" well known to many.

Tell me why anyone should be complicit in that?

[unblock]

125. uh, keeping a confidence is what not outing is all about.

unless there's a context not present in the original post?

[mondo joe]

Sure it is.

How do you think outing happens?

These closeted gays are known to be gay in the community. There is an implied confidence. But implied is all.

It's part of the outing thing that I think straights don't understand.

[unblock]

166. this is a distinction without a difference

what difference does that make?

if:
(a) someone tells me they have a secret -- they're jewish, please don't tell the nazis; or
(b) i find out someone is jewish by talking to other people who were told the secret; or
(c) i find out someone is jewish by going to temple and seeing them praying.

in no case is there any basis for broadcasting to the planet that that someone is jewish.
in all cases it is a betrayal of trust.

and in all cases, the outing is done with a complete disregard, not only for the victim of the outing, but also of the state of the world in which we live.

interestingly enough, "outing" a homosexual might be exactly what a bigot might do if they wanted to destroy someone's life for being gay. i find it very peculiar that some people have found a contorted argument to find the exact same action to somehow be politically correct and a favor to the community.

[mondo joe]

175. Big difference.

If you are told a secret on conditin you'll keep it secret, you are honor bound to do so.

If you know because someone does something publically, they assumed the risk that it will be known.

What do you suggest we have for gay people so we know who can be discussed and who can't - a press release?

Do I have to know everyone Hank is out to before I mention to them that Hank and Larry had a lovely committment ceremony last week?

[dsc]

26. There is always a difference between what is and what ought to be

I would love being gay not to matter, but we both know it does. In 34 states one can still be fired for being gay. Until that fundamental fact changes, being gay will matter. Outing is wrong. It is wrong because we are using the fact that being gay still matters to punish people for doing what we don't wish them to do.

[NMMNG]

28. I disagree

It would be wonderful if everybody felt safe and secure enough to be "out" in their everyday life, but not everybody does. Some people decide to be out to only certain people, or not at all. When others take it upon themselves to "out" that person they can be causing that person great emotional, financial and physical harm.

What's next--outing all of the atheists regardless of the consequences so they no longer have to live in their "closet"? Who's on the hit list after that, and who gets to decide?

[B Calm]

29. When people in Florida found out Republican Charlie Crist was gay

and running for governor, there wasn't a big deal made out of it!

[terrya]

30. I cannot add anything else to your brilliant post. Recommended.

And thank you.

[Puglover]

31. I have always thought this.

Thanks for saying it so well. As usual Ruggerson you are spot on!

[LostinVA]

32. I've said this myself -- right on!

[onenote]

38. Disagree, and here's why:

I know single people with whom I work who are very private about their personal lives and relationships. I don't know if they are gay or straight, if they drink or don't, if they are vegetarians or meat eaters, if they have a secret illness or are healthy. I don't know if they are adulterers, drug users, devout believers in god or atheists, etc etc. I assume that these people have friends that know any and all of these things about them.

Similarly, I have friends about whom I know a great deal, including gay friends who are "out" to a circle of close comrades. Some of these friends, both gay and straight, do not publicly hold themselves out as either gay nor straight -- their sexual orientation is simply not a part of their public persona.

In either case, if I was to publicize an aspect of such a person's life that was not generally known to others who are acquainted with them my publicizing it would be nothing more or less than gossip. There is no reason for me to do so.


Ultimately, here's my question: to whom does one "out" a non-public figure? Should there be an "outing" section in the newspaper where people can publish the names of "hidden" homosexuals?

[mondo joe]

50. But the outed figures are NOT - as you say, "very private".

If they were, no one would know they were gay.

In most cases these are simply "open secrets" that a lot of people know already.

[onenote]

61. The OP wasn't particularly clear on this point

Indeed, the OP specifically seemed to advocate the same standard for public figures and for someone who we "merely...know in day to day life".

I think there's a big difference. Non-public figures are entitled to their privacy, whether its about their sexual orientation or any other facet of their lives that they choose to keep private.

[suziedemocrat]

40. Well said - I totally agree.

I almost think Homosexuals should do something like the Latinos did when they didn't show up for work and staged protests to show their numbers. Someone can love their gay Uncle Harry (or Aunt Liz) and hate gays and not have any kind of disconnect if Uncle Harry is in the closet. But, if Uncle Harry comes out of the closet, he will still be loved, it's just that the people who love him might just open their hearts to include all gays. The closet is the enemy of equality.

[pampango]

41. Fundies will be surprised that they are not homophobes when the out gays.

Perhaps we should allow them to declare that they are homophobes when they out gays, while we declare that we are not for doing the same.

[Stockholm]

43. What if my starting point is that my sexuality is my

own business and no one else, that includes the media, the government and anyone else.

I am just not sure involontary outing of gay people is a prudent way to adress homophobia or hypocrisy?

BTW, excellent thread K&R!

[City Lights]

44. Nicely stated!

:toast:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. Arrant nonsense.

The issue isn't whether you're homophobic, it's whether other people are, and they clearly are. Being homosexual *shouldn't* be held against someone, but it definately will be, and as such outing them against their will is wrong.

This makes no more sense than saying that opposing exposing a member of the French Resistance to the Nazis was wrong.

Moreover, there's the privacy issue - if I'm keeping a secret, then even if it's exposure won't reflect badly on me at all in any way then it's still wrong to expose it, because I have a right to privacy.

So no, the argument that opposing outing is homophobic is total, utter, irredeemable nonsense.

[mondo joe]

48. "Right to privacy"? Privacy from whom?

What right to privacy from the press do you believe oublic figures have?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. Debateable.

They certainly have the right not to have their families exposed to public scrutiny -entering politics is to some extent consenting to have your life picked over by the press, but marrying or being the child of a politician certainly isn't.

They don't have the right not to have any claim they make a campaign issue checked out. If a politician is campaigning on the platform of being a happy family man then it's arguably acceptable to point out that they are in fact not (although arguably it isn't); if they're attacking homosexuality as a key plank of their platform there's a case to be made that outing them is justifiable.

That still leaves a hell of a lot of grey area, of course.

I think that politics at present focusses too much on personalities and not issues. In general, I think that one should err on the side of not publicising a politician's private life.

[mondo joe]

57. I asked about a right. And I'm asking again.

What RIGHT do political candidates have to not have their hypocrisy exposed?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

65. Ah, sorry. In which case I don't know.

You'd have to ask someone with a better knowledge of American law than me.

There's no such thing as an inalienable right; rights are something people choose to accord one another, and I don't know how much right to privacy politicians are accorded under American (or even, I'm ashamed to say, under my native British) law.

If you mean "what right *should* politicians have to privacy", then my previous answer stands, more or less, although obviously it's not terribly detailed.

[BlueEyedSon]

54. Nah... outing repubs/conservatives/fundies is OK

[Jokerman]

56. I never thought of it that way. Thanks.

I'm still not entirely comfortable with ANY relationship of consensual adults being made public against their will. However, the point about the marital status of heterosexuals being public information is very well taken.

[rman]

58. Gays who do not want to out themselves are homophobic?

Don't you think that it is up to the individual him/her self - not someone else - to decide to come out of the closet?

[Brazenly Liberal]

67. Bullshit.

Coming out should be such a natural thing that nobody ever has to be outed - by themselves or by anyone else.

That's how it should be, but that's not the way it is. Work to change that and you'll get all the support you could want from me.

But you have no way of knowing what risks you are subjecting someone else to when you out them. You don't know their situation and you don't seem to much care. Your last two paragraphs indicate you are perfectly willing to force someone else to risk even their very lives. How very brave and noble and courageous of you to take that risk on someone else's behalf. :sarcasm: So much like the way the rightwing chickenhawks, cozy and safe in their Barcaloungers, are willing to have thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis risk their lives on the other side of the world. Please explain to me how you are any better than they are, because I don't see it.

[mondo joe]

69. They put themselves at risk by taking public office.

If you want to keep secrets don't get into politics - or if you must, at least keep your secrets SECRET.

[Brazenly Liberal]

71. It's not about them. It's about you.

You treat people the way you do because of what you are, not because of what they are.

If you are a person who is considerate and compassionate, you extend that approach to the famous as well as to your neighbors.

If you are a person who is so overflowing with arrogance, self-involvement, even hubris, that you know better how they should live their personal lives than they do - even while having little or no information about those personal lives - you will be an interfering busybody whether they are famous or known only to their families and the UPS guy.

[mondo joe]

72. That's a funny standard. It may have eluded you, but these are

public figures who make politics of their values and personal lives.

Do you not believe in the free press or the concept of an informed electorate?

[Brazenly Liberal]

75. Ridiculous

these are public figures who make politics of their values and personal lives.


No, the OP did NOT confine it to public figures who make politics of their personal lives. S/he specifically said it was okay to out anyone As to values, I find it interesting and very telling - and creepily homophobic - that there is an assumption that identification as a GLBT would automatically say anything about a person's values. In case it's escaped you, the GLBT community is quite diverse and all values, good bad or indifferent, can be found.

"An informed electorate" is an electorate that is informed regarding issues that are of concern to the public, not the juicy details of someone's private life. We have no "right" to know who's zoomin' who unless there are aspects to it that impact his/her performance of the job - or if one or more of the parties is not a consenting adult. Just as Bill Clinton's affair was nobody's business, the private love life of any other politician is nobody's business.

Mark Foley was fair game because he was sleazing on underage kids. If he had written the exact same emails to a 30 year old man, it would be nobody's business.

[mondo joe]

77. Outing generally has so far refered to public figures.

Of course per you it doesn't matter who they are - they should all be treated the same.

And orientation tells you ZERO about the person's sex life. Absolutely nothing.

And a candidate with an anti gay platform who is sexretly gay or using gays as senior staff is an issue of regard for the general public. It has to be - it's part of their campaign.

[Brazenly Liberal]

78. Thank you for making my point.

I said it was only our business if it impacted their job performance. You are citing an example in which it impacts their job performance.

As to orientation telling you nothing about a person's sex life, so what? Total non sequitur. I haven't read all the responses, but I'd be surprised to see anyone advocating taking out an ad that says "So and so is a total nelly bottom"

And yes, that's right. It doesn't matter who they are - they should all be treated the same.

[mondo joe]

80. The point - re: orientation tells you nothing about their sex life

is that that you (and some others) keep claiming that identifying orientation is about the subject's sex life.

But it's not.

There's another aspect to political outing that I've been thinking abnout this morning. My impression is that in many cases these so called closeted figures actually have "open secrets". That is, in some circles they are commonly understood to be gay, but it would be considered somehow impolite to acknowledge it more broadly than that. Mark Foley is a good example - he was certainly known to be gay in his political circle, and appeared socially with his patrner.

My impression is also that these guys are known ih the gay community - they go to parties,they go to bars, etc. It's interesting that they are somehow expected to be complicit in keeping a secret even at risk to their own well being for someone who is exploiting them.

[Brazenly Liberal]

89. I never said any such thing.

that you (and some others) keep claiming that identifying orientation is about the subject's sex life.

I never claimed that. I referred to someone's private life, but not to their sex life.

expected to be complicit in keeping a secret even at risk to their own well being for someone who is exploiting them.

I never said anything remotely like that.

Really, if you have to twist my words or fantasize them entirely in order to make your point, you are either more concerned with scoring dubious points than with discussing the issue or you know your position is too weak to stand on the truth.

[mondo joe]

90. "We have no 'right' to know who's zoomin' who"

Maybe I musunderstood "zoomin'".

But knowing that someone is gay doesn't tell you who they're "zoomin'".

[Brazenly Liberal]

95. Yes, you are misunderstanding.

It may be a regional thing - or even more local than that - but "who's zoomin' who" is a phrase commonly used among people I know to talk about who's straight and who's gay. "Zoomin' down the middle" probably explains itself?

I can see where you'd read it differently. I know originally it referred to who (specifically) is having sex with whom (specifically) and have no idea how widespread or longstanding this current usage is.

[jberryhill]

122. You just made up my mind on this

I'm more in the "privacy" camp. And I do not agree that the marital status of heterosexuals is any more "public" than they want it to be. You cannot, for example, ask that question to a candidate during a job interview. Before I was self-employed, and worked in an office setting, I wouldn't ask anything more about someone's personal life than they put out there. There were people with whom I worked who I had no idea if they were straight, gay, attached, or unattached.

However, a politician attempting to keep a "dirty little secret" is a politician who could be subject to undue influence or blackmail in trying to keep that secret.

Accordingly, politicians should not have secrets which could open them to that sort of manipulation.

I believe that's eventually where the intelligence services came down on this issue as well - as long as you weren't trying to hide it, and thus subject to blackmail, then it wasn't a security risk.

[ruggerson]

132. What an inane comment

to compare telling the truth about someone's family to people sending kids overseas to die. A waste of space.

If anyone prefers dishonesty and the closet to truthtelling and openness, that's their issue. You buy into and perpetuate the worldview that allows homophobia by concealing people's identities, as if there is something wrong and shameful about being hotwired by nature to be gay or lesbian.

There ain't.

[mmonk]

68. Ridiculous.

A person's personal life is that person's business.

[mondo joe]

73. Really? Let's put it to the test.

Were you there to trumpet the cause of privacy on DU when:

Any candidate's spouse is mentioned?
The CNN anchor dating Rush Limbaugh was mentioned?
People speculated that Condi was habving sex with Peter MacKay?

[mmonk]

86. Well

that's wrong on many levels (equating this). Number one, people like Rush and a CNN anchor are celebrities. # 2, heterosexuals are not discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. #3, is any congressperson hiding their spouses from the spot light? If so, if you find out who their spouse is, will it cause an intrusion on their privacy by the media? #4, outing a spouse of a member of congress of the opposite sex isn't considered news, but in a homophobic society, same sex spouses are.

[mondo joe]

87. So at first your argument was that these are private matters.

Now it'sthat they're only private matters for gay people because of homophobia?

I reject your double standard, and consider it insulting.

It's private or it's not, for everyone or for no one.

[mmonk]

88. You'll have to be insulted then.

First, it's up to the gay couple whenever possible (and heterosexuals too for that matter). When heterosexuals face people wanting a constitutional amendment just to break them up and keep them from marriage and the benefits associated with it, let me know.

[mondo joe]

92. I notice you don't even try to align your disjointed

arguments. First you argue that these matters are too personal. You then note that they're not too personal for heterosexuals.

So which is it - is having a spouse private or not?

Furthermore, if someone wants to keep that private, should they go to gay bars or bringtheir same sex spouse to social events and simply expect everyone to know to keep it a secret?

[mmonk]

133. Whatever. Put your meaning and accusations where you want.

But you don't know me so don't pretend to. Outing in itself is something stupid since there isn't anything wrong with being gay.

[onenote]

94. whoops. Now we're back to saying everyone should be outed?

Not just public figures? I thought we had concluded that the focus was on public figures.

Exactly where do you draw the line? Would you have a problem with someone taking a camera and photographing everyone who enters a "gay bar" and then posting the photos on the web? How about some nosy person getting a list of the customers at a gay bookstore and publishing the names in an ad in the newspaper?

Trying to figure out where you would draw the line, or if you would draw one.

[mondo joe]

96. Public vs private is, I think, a reasonable distinction.

Gay vs straight is not.

[onenote]

97. is someone who goes to a gay bar public or private?

In some of your posts the public/private distinction seems to be focused on the person's behavior (i.e. "someone wants to keep that private, should they go to gay bars" and draw no distinction between public figures (those who the public in general has an interest in because of their position as a celebrity, elected official etc) and those who are not ("It's private or it's not, for everyone or for no one.").

So, if that's the case, I'm still wondering if you'd have a problem with someone taking a camera and photographing everyone entering a gay bar and then posting their photos on the web?

[mondo joe]

98. In general as regards outing I am always talking about public

figures.

As regards private citizens, I have little or no opinion about outing. But I do think if you opt to do things in public (such as going to gay bars), you assume some risk.

[onenote]

99. thanks for the clarification

As I've said elsewhere, I'm generally uncomfortable with "outing" people with the limited exception that someone who holds themselves to the voting public as straight when seeking elected office or an appointment that requires confirmation, but in fact is lying -- I have little problem with the truth being revealed (with adequate substantiation), just as I would have little problem with other facets of their lives that they may be misrepresenting.

[skygazer]

74. Interesting discussion

But I think the logic is faulty on some levels -

"We do not bat an eye when inquiring if a public figure, or merely someone we know in day to day life for that matter, is married or has children."

We may not bat an eye but that doesn't mean it's not an invasive question. I'm not married - I live with a man and have no intention of being married. I can't count the number of times people have asked me if I'm married and when I reply that I'm not, they ask if I will be, why I'm not, what I have against marriage, etc.

None of this is any of their business. What does my marriage or lack of it have to do with anything at all? Anything? No, it's not about sex. It's about my private arrangements within my own home and I think it's rude to butt into that whether I'm gay, straight, bi or asexual.

This assumption that everyone's private life is somehow everybody's business is just as reprehensible to me as homophobia. No, I'm not trying to hide it but I fail to see how it has any significance for others.

[VelmaD]

76. I have a firm position on this

When an African-American politician supports policies that hurt African-Americans...it can be seen and that person usually recieves a ration of shit from other African-Americans about it. The same for other minority or women politicians. But gay politicians can hide if they want to. They can be gay and advocate policies that hurt other gays...but they don't have to suffer that social oprobrium from their fellow gays for it. They should have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

[Infinite Hope]

113. Yes...

generally. There's the problem though that they may be in a conservative district and voting for their constituents which is their job in the first place...so it's a gray area. But generally, elected politicians are subject to scrutiny and, if gay, they know they're at risk of being outted.

[rinsd]

79. There is the world we want and the world we live in

In a preferred world, there would be no closet. There would be no hatred.

The closet exists because the hatred exists, not the other way around.

[LostinVA]

106. But they are the ones causing and/or fostering the hatred n/t

[IronLionZion]

81. We can't really "out" someone's ethnicity, religion, or gender

because those things are usually obvious. Except maybe for George Felix Allen, not many public figures try to hide their cultural background. However, many anti-gay gay Republicans are hiding who they are.

What is also blatant discrimination on this very board is when I am told that the opinions of straight DUers somehow don't matter because we are straight. That is discrimination based on sexual orientation. You have to love the irony.

[mondo joe]

93. Straight opinions simply won't decide the issue.

It's gays who most often know who is gay, and will ultimately decide the future of outing.

[IronLionZion]

105. of course

The gays would know who is gay.

But straights are still entitled to our opinion on the practice of outing whether for or against. Gays are going to need straight allies to get equal rights just like ethnic minorities, women, etc. throughout history didn't do it entirely on their own.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"Nobody's going to give it to you. You have to take it!" - The Departed

[Karenina]

102. If you discovered a rabidly racist politician

apparently white, who had close relatives who would be immediately identified as black by his supporters, would you expose him to them?

[IronLionZion]

103. You're damn right I would nt

[WilliamPitt]

82. I disagree completely

To my mind, outing itself promotes homophobia. The act presupposes wrongdoing, and puts someone's homosexuality into the category of "something to be exposed." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the kind of thinking that is the basis for homophobia in the first place. As petronia correctly states below, it uses the homophobia of others, thus promoting it.

This whole Foley thing, by the way, has unfairly placed homosexuality into the center of the conversation. That, to put it mildly, is bullshit. People who pursue children for sexual gratification don't do so because they are gay, but because they are sick...and yet Foley's homosexuality has been morphed into the central issue.

That is a massive disservice, akin to those who attach priestly pedophelia to homosexuality. So running around "outing" people perpetuates the disgraceful attacks on homosexuality that have been inspired by Foley. It makes the whole thing about being gay, and not about being a sick predatory fuck.

That, I would say, also promotes homophobia.

[mmonk]

85. You nailed it.

[AZBlue]

134. Took the words right out of my mouth.

And probably said it better than I would have. Thank you.

[ruggerson]

141. This thread isn't about Foley

it's about the dangerously homophobic double standard that exists in the media when discussing the familial/marital lives of public figures.

It was relevant before Foley and it will be relevant long after him.

Reread the OP.

[mmonk]

143. Or you can read Will's first paragraph

and then see the Foley thing as an example. It's an example that has precipated the discussion and threats of outing.

[cui bono]

83. Who are you to decide how someone should live their private life?

While I agree that politicians that make the laws that people have to live by should be outed if they are gay and promoting/defending laws that discriminate against homosexuals, that is because it is hypocritical and because they are having an impact on gays' basic freedoms and how they experience their lives. I'm all for it, those politicians should be exposed because it is integral to what type of person has been entrusted with our constitution.

On a personal level I cannot disagree with you more. Even in a perfect world where no one would care if someone was gay and it would have seemingly no impact on their life, why is it up to you to decide how they live? As it is now in more than half the states it is legal to fire someone for being gay! Do you still want to out those gays who live in those states? If so, how can you possibly rationalize that? Let's say you do. How about all those areas where you might get beaten, maimed or killed for simply being gay? Still ready to out everyone just because you think it should be a non-issue? Yes, it should be non-issue, but the fact remains that it isn't. And who are you to tell people it's fine to go out everyone even though it might cause those outed people's lives to be ruined or ended? You have no idea what impact it will have on their lives, their public lives or their private lives and you certainly have no right to invade their privacy by outing them if they don't feel it is best for them and are keeping it on the dl.

Additionally, if you really think it is such a non-issue then why do you feel the need to out anyone at all? If it's a non-issue leave it alone.

[Tigress DEM]

84. We here at DU would prefer there be NO closet to be "outed" from..

However, realistically, dear, they are torturing people and getting away with it and this administration that is in power isn't safe for ANY ONE.

In NAZI Germany it was NOT a good idea to tell the Gestahpo if someone was Jewish if you wanted to see them alive again.

I agree with where you are headed with this vision of real freedom and Democracy, but in this political climate each individual should make their own choices when the stakes are so high.

[DRoseDARs]

91. So gays who don't appreciate involuntary "outing" are homophobic?

Sorry, but your premise is bullshit. A person's sexual preference is NO ONE'S business unless that person chooses it to be.

[PVnRT]

100. So, what other private details of a person's life are fair game?

Hmmmmm? Maybe we should drag a mentally handicapped child through the mud? How about a wife? Drinking problem? What kind of books they read? High school yearbook pictures?

If someone chooses to hide their homosexuality, what gives you the right to expose it? "Outing" someone implies that they are doing something that they should be ashamed of, does it not? Should they be ashamed of being gay? Or all gays required to think exactly the same?

Sorry, this is thoughtcrime, pure and simple. It's wrong when they do it and it's wrong when we do it. When you create an atmosphere that resembles a witch hunt, people will tend to hide what you're hunting. You can scream all you want about double standards and fairness all you like, but until people's attitudes change about homosexuality, all you are doing is making it something that "should" remain secret, or the Thought Police will expose you.

And before people start screaming about "homophobic" I am (funny when you consider that two year's ago I went to my gay cousin's wedding), answer me this - why is it right that any public figure lives under the scrutiny that they do when it comes to their private lives? How would you react to people digging through your trash, hacking your computer,and following around with cameras? Why is invasion of privacy OK as long as it suits your own ends?

[LostinVA]

107. Ridiculous post n/t

[PVnRT]

158. I notice you can't refute it, either

Thanks for playing. Next time try arguing with something other than bumper-sticker sloganeering.

[mondo joe]

108. What gives us the right to expose it?

The First Amendment.

And despite your credentials (congratulations on going to your cousin's wedding - you're quite a civil rights warrior!), you seem to have forgotten that we have a free press for a reason.

[cui bono]

109. So your right to free speech *about someone else's life* trumps their

right to live a peaceful and productive life? Do you have any idea what some people would face if it were publicly known that they are gay? That's one of the most selfish things I have ever heard. What exactly do you gain from potentially ruining or ending someone's life? What is the purpose of you exercising your right to free speech in order to out someone who is not a public servant?

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

110. Yes, it certainly does.

And I wasn't talking about people who are not involved in politics.

[cui bono]

112. Glad to hear it. But that is what the OP said, outing *anyone* is good.

[Infinite Hope]

114. Wrong...

Our Constitutional rights are not absolute. We have the right to exercise them to the point where they infringe on the rights of others.

It's a balancing test and all rationality weighs to the side that an individual's preferences must be respected unless some intervening circumstance(s) demand otherwise (perhaps a case of a public official such as Foley).

People may exercise their rights up to the point they infringe on the rights of others. That is what this is about.

[mondo joe]

116. To the contrary, the press has considerable latitude

in what it can report, particularly on public figures.

There is no right of politicians to have the press not report on matters they prefer be kept secret.

[PVnRT]

157. You really think

the point of having a free press is to be dirt-diggers? Or to keep an eye on our government?

[mondo joe]

160. Being gay isn't "dirt".

Thank you!

[happydreams]

115. .....

:eyes:

[GreenEyedLefty]

118. Well...

Unfortunately in this society, there exists a (perceived) moral difference between gay and straight people, to the extent that gay folks are sometimes subjected to bigotry, hatred and even personal endangerment - just because they happen to be gay. This just doesn't happen to straight people. But ya'll already know that. :)

Until this changes, I will respect the wishes of any gay person who wishes to keep their private life private.

[mondo joe]

119. How did you feel about outing George Allen as a Jew?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

120. What A Bunch Of Malarky.

The whole point is that it is none of my business to begin with, and it wasn't my doing or choice to force that person to be in the closet. It is THEIR choice to remain in the closet and it is THEIR choice when to choose to come out. When they do, I will respect, honor and view them as every bit equal as anyone else, cause they are. But it is still their decision, their timing and their choice as to if they are comfortable doing so. It isn't mine and definitely isn't your right to force their outing with a smug self-righteous declaration of "Well you shouldn't have been uncomfortable anyway, you're just a gay homophobe. You should thank me, I just helped you blah blah blazay blah".

[ruggerson]

140. You don't have a clue what you're talking about

The double standard that exists in the media today is the corrupting and corrosive influence that keeps gays and lesbians in danger and hidden. The double standard destroys our lives and our families by perpetuating the dangerous notion that there is something shameful or wrong with being gay. The only self righteous bullshit that I see here is from the people who shriek plaintively about "privacy" while gay families are viciously used as target practice in national debates.

[JackDragna]

121. It's not a matter of what we'd like society to be..

..but a measure of what society is. If I know someone is gay and doesn't broadcast that fact for X or Y reason, I'm going to respect that person's wishes. When that person decides the time is right, they can discuss their sexuality with people they know. Until then, I have to accept the world isn't a fair place and let the person pick the time and place to let others know about who they are. Homophobia has nothing to do with it.

[noiretextatique]

129. and what if that person just happens to be a public homophobe

who starts an initiative to exlude gays from serving the in military...just an example. would you still feels that person deserves to cower in the closet privately, while promoting an anti-gay agenda publically?

[mondo joe]

131. If you treat it with a double standard it will never be equal.

I don't know why you'd opt to safeguard the secret of someone trying to hurt you anyway.

[krkaufman]

124. Nonsense. "Outing" someone is a violation of their privacy.

And it says more about the outer, than the outee.

[mondo joe]

130. Nonsense. Heterosexuality is "outed" with great frequency.

Please be consistent.

[jsamuel]

137. great frequency does not mean that it is not private

At work, it doesn't matter to me what people are. If they want to tell me they are heterosexual fine. If they want to tell me they are homosexual fine. Otherwise I assume that their orientation is of no consequence to me. It is private until they make it public. It is something they do when they are not at work. Salary is also private until they make it public. It is not of my concern.

Outing does remind me of a witch hunt. "Outing" as communists or whatever is a sign of persecution.

Especially when people start making "lists"......

[mondo joe]

151. Public figures do not enjoy the same level of privacy.

You might consider that distinction if you want to make more sense.

[jsamuel]

162. Doing that to our public figures still creates the same fear in people who

are not public figures.

Who's next?

[mondo joe]

163. There's a simple way to handle that fear and eliminate it.

If you don't want anyone to know you're gay, don't let anyone know.

If you let people know, it's not really a secret anymore unless they agree to confidentiality.

Right?

[krkaufman]

165. Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

Privacy is privacy.

[mondo joe]

174. Aer you suggesting heterosexuality shuold not be discussed

publically either?

We can't mention that someone has a husband or wife?

[Skittles]

135. I wish all gays would come out of the closet

but I will always believe it is their decision and not mine

[mmonk]

136. If all did, "outing" wouldn't be an issue and thus,

not a political weapon.

[mmonk]

139. I hate to point this out but

these two statements together seem confusing.

"Opposing "Outing" Is, In And Of Itself, Homophobic"

"The concept of "outing" is homophobic to the core."


It's funny because I've been arguing in my opposition to "outing" that the concept itself is homophobic because its pretense is that being gay is somehow wrong. Before long, I'll be adequately confused enough to go to bed.

[ruggerson]

142. We all agree that "outing" shouldn't have to occur in a perfect world

where we disagree is how to get there.

SOme folks are fine with the media perpetuating a double standard which allows them to have glossy magazine cover stories about a politician's spouse and children and at the same time to remain strangely and secretively mum when the politician or celebrity is gay or lesbian. It is that pervasive, corrosive homophobia that demeans and oppresses every gay person on the planet. It is wrong, it is unhealthy and it is dangerous. And all it does is serve to promote and condone the mindset that there is something wrong and shameful about gay people.

[mmonk]

144. I understand the double standard

and the point you are making. My opposition to outing has been on priciple. I usually have a problem with telling something about someone that person had rather keep secret. I do however agree with you the double standard is corrosive and double atandards are cornerstones to discrimination. I justed wanted to say all opposition to outing isn't homophobic.

[Neshanic]

147. Our little gay paradise.

It's homophobic to out.

It's homophobic not to out.

First if you are heterosexual, that privacy argument hits the wall when Joe Preacher in your state wants to reinstate archaic sex laws that affect you and your wife's trips to the sex toy store, or possibly getting arrested for doing something that you two like in your own bedroom. When Joe Preachers secret is that he likes large vibrating eggs while having "non-traditional" sex, that little tibit of information would be out pretty quick. Especially if he and his wife went to sex clubs. Walrus man at the UN ring any bells? Seems he was pretty kinky, but has no problem being in a party that espouses traditional morals.

Next on our menu after sactimonious straights, telling gays outing is a naughty thing, wagging their finger in our faces, we have the sinkers. How can we sink to "their" level? Well, what level is that? Telling the world that the very people that are writing laws that deny almost my very existence, are in fact themselves gay? Is that the horrible level? How about the gay minion of a politician that after being a part of everything would deny me the most basic rights, happily lives a life of secrecy, and almost expects other gays to shut the fuck up? Are these the levels that we would be stooping to?

It just defies sanity. How could outing people like this be stooping, when it actually is exposing the rotten core of shame and dishonesty.

[mmonk]

154. Interesting dilemma.

The world isn't a neat little package is it? Societal situations aren't either. And neither are people. One can have an opinion though without it being a lecture or sanctimonious.

[LWolf]

149. I oppose outing.

I oppose it as a matter of respect.

Respect means that I allow people to make their own choices about their sex life. Unless they are illegally preying on others, it's none of my business.

I respect their privacy by allowing people to do their own "outing."

[mondo joe]

150. Being gay isn't "their sex life".

[LWolf]

152. Sure it is.

Sexual orientation dictates sexual practice, which is "sex life," is it not?

Frankly, unless, as previously stated, the sexual orientation is that of predator, I don't think it's anyone's business.

[mondo joe]

153. Nope, and I can prove it.

I'm gay.

What can you now tell me about mmy sex life? Give as much information as you can.

[LWolf]

168. Your sexual activity doesn't matter

(as long as it harms none), and is beside the point. My point is that what you do, think, or might do in some circumstances is none of my business as long as you are not harming anyone, and you haven't proved that wrong.

[mondo joe]

169. I see you are evading the question. You said sexual orientation is sex

life.

I've told you my orientation - now tell me what that tells you about my sex life.

Simple answer is YOU CAN'T tell a thing. Because orientation is not sex life.

[LWolf]

171. How does an argument about your sex life

make or break my point, which is that I think "outing" is a violation of privacy?

[mondo joe]

172. Because it's not about my sex life.

You say orientation is private because it's someone's sex life.

I say it's not. To prove my point, I tell you I'm gay and ask what you as a result know about my sex life.

You don't know anything about it - thus priving orientation is not sex life.

Now tell me, what else do you think the press should be prohibited from reporting about public figures?

[mmonk]

155. A person doesn't have to even have a sex life

to be gay or straight.

[LWolf]

167. You mean

a person doesn't have to be sexually active. True. That doesn't change the fact that I think outing is a violation of privacy. It doesn't matter if you are talking about what I did last night or what I might have done in some circumstances, or what I thought about; as long as it wasn't hurting anyone, it's none of your business.

[robcon]

159. This is a cowardly way to discuss the subject...

... calling someone who just disagrees with you "homophobic" is a sign of a person without an idea in his head, except to label others.

It's a disgusting display of group hatred, IMO, to label those whom you don't agree with homophobes. Discuss the topic at will. Name-calling is stupid and counter-productive and untrue.

[ieoeja]

164. This is why there are gay "pride" parades every June.

Given that these are timed to commemorate the riot that led to the legalisation of homosexuality, you would expect them to be Gay Freedom parades. In some ways the choice of "Pride" instead of "Freedom" hurts the gay movement. Politically (as opposed to personally) the most common anti-gay remark I hear is the I-am-not-PROUD-to-be-straight-why-are-they-proud-to-be-gay argument. Without gay "Pride" this argument would not even exist.

But this last year I finally heared about Stonewall (from a Sci Fi book of all places) for the first time. When confronted with the above argument, I now respond by telling them about Stonewall. This always leads to:

1. "I never knew you could be arrested in 1969 just for being gay." (Note: I didn't know that either.)
2. "I can really understand why they would want a parade to celebrate the ending of that."
3. "Now it all makes sense," after pointing out to them that the use of "pride" is aimed for the homosexual audience, not heterosexuals.

The above has no affect on personal hostility towards gays. But I find informing them about the Stonewall riots goes a long way towards lessening the political hostility.

[CGrantt57]

170. Basis premise error...

If you start from the premise that there is no moral difference between straight people and gay people, you cannot, in any good conscience, oppose the public discussion of an individual's affectional or sexual orientation.


I can, and I do oppose the discussion, and in good conscience and for good reason: It's nobody's business what I do, or what you do, in the privacy of your own bedroom.

I don't care who or what you want to suck, diddle, lick, tease, torment, or gratify as long as they are of legal age in your particular jurisdiction.

Your sex life or orientation is your own business, as is mine. I do not choose to advertise the fact that I am heterosexual and I think it is in extremely poor taste to ask anyone what their "orientation" is.

Jesus, people, what the hell ever happened to good manners?

[mondo joe]

173. If it were just "the privacy of your own bedroom" you'd have a point.

But it's not.

In fact, if it were just the "privacy of your own bedroom" it would be so private no one would KNOW to out you.

Being gay isn't what you do in bed, nor is it your sex life.

Try to understand that, please.