I apologize

[berni_mccoy]

To the good people here I have offended or insulted with this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2408162&mesg_id=2408162

I apologize.

I did not realize that I was being insulting or offensive when I posted this. As is often the case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And I assure you, my intentions were good. I must say I have learned a great deal about this problem from the responses to my post.

There were many good arguments why it is ok to out someone who is secretly homosexual, but I am still unconvinced that is an ethical action. And it is not because I see homosexuals differently. It is because I see closet homosexuals differently. I see these people as victims of a discriminating society. They believe it is necessary for their own personal reasons that their homosexuality not be public knowledge. I could never bring myself to out anyone as something in my heart tells me this is wrong. Even if a person was not a friend, someone who even may have harmed me in some way, and I were to discover they were secretly gay, I could not bring myself to use that information in a way that they felt was against them. Even if I believed it was for a person's own good, I would not expose them. They have their own individual reasons for keeping their secret and they should be allowed to explore the time and manner for their coming out.

I now realize declaring outing as wrongful tactic can contribute the discrimination and 'homophobia'. Believe me friends, if I were homophobic, I would likely not post here on DU or lobby for causes for equality for homosexuals, especially with regard for gay marriage. But using the tactic of outing someone can be perceived as mean spirited and socially incorrect (even if society is in and of itself, incorrect). Politically, there could be backlash if we engage in this sort of campaign.

I believe that to end the discrimination our society exhibits against gays the answer is not in engaging in hurtful campaigns, but instead, working positively to change our society to respect individuals for who they are. I fear that we won't win anyone's respect by outing individuals for political gain.

[Journeyman]

1. I use the events of Oliver Sipple's life to form my opinion in this. . .

in protest of what he and his family endured, I left a well-paying career because I refused to be party to destroying lives.

For what it's worth. . .

www.lambda.net/~maximum/sipple.html

[Hav]

2. .

Just saw the thread and I believe that you had no bad intentions and I kind of agree with your former thread if it weren't for Repubs and their anti-gay agenda.

We sometimes hit a nerve without knowing it. Just when a DUer had no bad intention some weeks ago when he used the phrase "personal preference" when talking about homosexuality. Although I never believed that one "chooses" which gender one loves because we similarly don't choose who we fall in love with, it was a phrase I would have used as well without knowing that it could be offensive.

[cali]

3. I can see both sides

of this argument, and frankly, lists make me uncomfortable. Too resonant of McCarthyism.

[William769]

4. Sorry I don't see an apology, all I see is a continuation

Of the other thread.

[DURHAM D]

15. Agree ! n/t

[Rosemary2205]

5. I don't think you have anything to apologize for.

Personally, I think the very idea of calling you homophobic because you think most people have a right to their private lives is just silly.

[hopein08]

6. Thank you

I suppose that it is the nature of the debate and the purpose of DU for all of us to come and share our thoughts and learn the thoughts of others and essentially become more well-rounded, better people.

[berni_mccoy]

7. My mistake was declaring something I did not fully understand as wrong

I should have framed it as I don't believe it's right and asked people to convince me otherwise.

While it's ok for me to say I don't feel something is right, it's not my place to call something I don't fully understand as wrong.

[hopein08]

8. I see and I think I was guilty of the same thing.

[ThomCat]

9. Not offended.

I agreed with your post. :shrug:

There will always be some people offended whenever we discuss any serious issue.

[Zenlitened]

10. I wasn't part of the other thread, but while I favor outing hypocrites....

... I worry that there's a different message being sent sometimes.

The message ought to be, in my view, "He/she works to deny GLBT civil rights, but is GLBT him/herself. That's wrong. That's hypocrisy, and it can't be allowed to go unchallenged."

What makes me uneasy is that the message too often seems to be: "Har har! There's sure a lot o' them GAYS in the GOP! Har har!"

Even the idea that "the party of christian values secretly harbors gay employees" seems a bit difficult to finesse. Gets so muddled in transmission.

Is the gay person the "dirty little secret," or the fact that bible-bigmouths don't actually believe their own anti-gay nonsense?

The latter, obviously. But I worry if that's the part that's getting through.

Message management -- always difficult, as we're seeing here.

:(

Better World Wish of the Day: Everyone -- gay, straight or somewhere on the spectrum in-between -- living their lives with dignity, security and opportunity.

Turn-Wishes-to-Reality Action Plan Step 1: Let's take back Congress on November 7!

:dem: :dem: :dem:

[Finder]

11. I think privacy is privacy---period.

I do think hypocrites should be exposed whenever possible...but a person's sexuality has nothing to do with political philosophy.

Foley's hypocrisy was chairing a committee to protect children from internet predators and being a predator himself. It has nothing to do with the sex of the prey.

Not only will we have a religious test for political office but this may lead to a sexuality one as well. If all homosexuals are purged then gay rights will be a pipe dream.

[Mist]

12. "A person's sexuality has nothing to do with political philosophy"---well,

it SHOULD be that way, but it's the Rethugs who have equated being gay with, well, anything they don't like. Thereby forcing gay Rethugs into the closet. I favor outing HYPOCRITICAL RETHUG gays.

[Dr Fate]

13. Why apologize? It was an honest opinion. n/t

n/t

[WilliamPitt]

14. Eh?

"I now realize declaring outing as wrongful tactic can contribute the discrimination and 'homophobia'."

Really? How? I don't get it.

You posted an opinion, one that I completely agree with. I'd love to see the arguments that say being against outing somehow promotes homophobia.

To my mind, outing itself does that. 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.

You were right.

[berni_mccoy]

16. Thanks Will

My apology was intended for those I offended, and it is obvious that I did offend some people. I believe the offensive part was that it appeared I held a double standard for homosexuals (it's ok to be public about heterosexuals but not about homosexuals). As one poster in that thread pointed out, that adds to the discrimination, not detracts from it. That, I believe, was a miscommunication of what I was trying to say, which I believe I have tried to correct with this thread.

I agree with your point and that is why I feel outing is wrong. That doesn't make my previous post less offensive though. And so, I felt the need to apologize.