I Am Strongly Opposed To The "Outing" Of Allegedly Gay Republicans.

[DistressedAmerican]

Posted a similar message elsewhere. But, thought I would open it as a topic for discussion...


I have heard the arguments that they are only being called out because they are being hypocrites. They support legislation that restricts gay rights. I see that hypocrisy. Yes, they do suck for it.

However, we should remember that we are the people that think people's sex lives should be their business. We are the ones that decry attacks on people based on their sex lives (at least when they do it to us).

Attacking them for obsessing over the sex lives of others (even if they are hypocrites) while screaming about how consensual relations are not a matter of public debate is completely hypocritical.

I for one wish that we would take the high road on these things and stick with the principle that your sex life is your business. What's good for the goose should be just as good for the gander.

Besides, don't we have some real complaints against these folks? Complaints with substance?

(Note: This was not predicated on any specific news or threads, just general throughts that came up in another discussion.)

[malta blue]

1. You are absolutely correct

If we want our right to privacy respected, then we should respect the rights of others.

Check your PM

[foreigncorrespondent]

60. Self Delete!

Wrong post sorry!

Forgive me, I have not been abe to sleep properly in weeks. It is after 5am for me now, and everything is catching up to me.

[uppityperson]

2. Aye, me too.

Attack them for being closed minded, not for their personal sex lives, even if they are hypocritical. Attack them for how they are hurting people, for passing legistlation to promote their own gods of money and power.

[ret5hd]

3. You are absolutely incorrect...

If they want their right to privacy respected, then they should respect the rights of others.

[William769]

4. Amen to that!

[King Coal]

24. Yeah, Piss on 'em.

[LostinVA]

131. Amen -- they have demonized me, lied about me, treated me

like a (double -- I'm female) second class citizens who doesn't deserve the same rights as "normal" people. Iw as fired about 12 years ago for being gay -- a Fortune 500 company. I had NO legal recourse. Fuck them. Out every singe one of the damn hypocrites.

If everyone in this country who's gay came out to family, friends, collegaues... I guarantee all of this gay hate would go away. Yes, some people would still feel that way, but the mainstream agenda against it would disappear.... too many queers out there who are your kids, grandkids, best friends, etc.

[DistressedAmerican]

7. And Do You Deserve Privacy If You Do Not Respect That Of Others?

Or do the rules only apply to them?

[ret5hd]

14. If you find actions of mine that hurt/destroy others...

feel free to dig up the dirt on me.

[DistressedAmerican]

16. I'm Just Saying, It Was You That Set The Standard.

[ret5hd]

23. And i am also willing to live with it. (nt)

[mondo joe]

86. There is no right to privacy in this matter - not from the press and

not from gossip.

[The Doctor.]

138. No.

This goes to the very heart of 'do unto other as you would have them do unto you'.

If I made your life miserable, turned your friends and family against you, called you immoral, tried to pass laws that discriminated against you, yet I was guilty of the same behavior I resented in you... you are Damn right I deserve to receive the same treatment I meted out.

I cannot disagree more with your post.

[Kipepeo]

178. you are pretending that their support of bigoted legislation

is somehow respecting the rights of others, when it is doing the exact opposite.

[skiddlybop]

52. What you said...

Everyone of the following people DENIES RIGHTS to every other gay person, when they use their own connections and high placement in Republican politics to protect themselves.

At the very least, a person who supports gay-bashing politics and then GETS MARRIED like Arthur Finkelstein, should simply be questioned about the inconsistency. That's not outing. That's reporting.

As the Republicans would say, it's not outing if one neighbor knows.

US Representatives
Rep. Ed Schrock (VA)
Rep. David Dreier (CA)
Rep. James McCrery (LA)
Rep. Mark Foley (FL)

Senior GOP Staff
Jay Timmons, NRSC
Dan Gurley, RNC
Jay Banning, RNC

Senior Senate Staffers
Robert Traynham, Santorum
Jonathan Tolman, Inhofe
Kirk Fordham, Martinez
Dirk Smith, Lott
John Reid, Allen
Paul Unger, Allen
Linus Catignani, Frist

Senior House Staffers
Jim Conzelman, Oxley
Lee Cohen, Hart
Robert O'Conner, King
Pete Meachum, Brown-Waite

Bush Staff
Israel Hernandez
Jeff Berkowitz

Local Officials
Vincent Gentile, NYC

The rest...
Ed Koch, NYC Mayo
Jennifer Helms-Knox, Judge
Armstrong Williams, Radio host
Matt Drudge, Headline writer
Steve Kreseski, MD Gov.
Chip DiPaula, MD Gov.
Lee LaHaye, CWA
John Schlafly, Eagle Forum

[foreigncorrespondent]

61. But then...

...the same can be said for us.

We want our right to privacy respected, so shouldn't we be living up to that standard for others?

It is a catch 22 situation. For the Dem's we cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect our right to privacy be respected all the while outing republicans for being gay. The moment we do that, then we are stooping to their level, and going against the very things we stand for.

On top of that, we are using homosexuality as being a dirty, disgusting weapon. And I am sorry, but life is not dirty or disgusting, and should not be toyed with for the pleasure of others.

[ret5hd]

67. YOU might be using homosexuality as a dirty disgusting weapon...

but I am using hypocrisy...which IS dirty and disgusting. Your try at wordplay and attempt at conundrum-making just don't cut it. sorry.

[foreigncorrespondent]

74. Fine!

Doesn't worry me none. But it is YOU who will be the hypocrite in the end.

Yes you stand for gay rights. But on the same token, you also believe in the outing of gay people because they are repukes!

Well done!

[ret5hd]

93. Again, your attempt at wordplay falls short...

i do not believe (nor have i ever stated) in the outing of gay people because they are repukes...i believe in the outing of closeted repukes that vote a homophobic agenda because they are hypocrites. there is a BIG difference.

[The Doctor.]

139. Agreed.

Outing those that are simply gay and Republican is somewhat hypocritical. (They are partly responsible for 'conservative' policies if they vote to keep the prejudiced policy makers in office)

But the closet gays that actively suppress the rights of other gays deserve to be treated in accordance with the environment they helped to cultivate.

Period.

[kevinbgoode]

146. No..we stand for outing of people who

openly and actively demonize others while trying to pretend they aren't gay. . . thus forcing the rest of us to become human sacrifices for their personal insecurities and greedy lives. These are PUBLIC officials who are debating the sanctity of MY life and their own - only they pretend it isn't about them.

Well, it is. . .and they should expect to answer for that hypocrisy.

[Kipepeo]

181. No

not because they are gay or because they are repukes; because they are HYPOCRITES

Get this: they push for anti-gay legislation that oppresses gays and lesbians who are OUT and living honest lives while they themselves are secretly seeking out gay one-nighters while publicly courting the anti-gay fundie right-wing.

They are bloody HYPOCRITES who are oppressing those who choose to live ther lives with integrity. YES, their hypocrisy and lies should be "outed" on a public stage, especially when they make their bigoted beliefs against gays and lesbians public BY SUPPORTING THOSE BIGOTED BELIEFS AS LAW. Their actions affect everyone when they choose to support discriminatory legislation.

[struggle4progress]

169. Bingo. No quarter for hypocrites. eom

[roguevalley]

171. they pray you feel this way, that this is off limits. they can dig into

your life and whisper it all over and they pray you have the ethics they don't have so they can stay in power. Fuck them. they started the game. they can't complain when others use it. either call a truce or expect to be shot by your own ammo.

[The Doctor.]

140. "living up to that standard" makes you an enabler.

Altruism and 'being the better person' may make you morally superior, but it will not help you attain rights.

So if you wish to be that paragon of morality and not use every tool at your disposal to stop hypocrites from stripping you of your dignity, Then don't you DARE complain about not having more rights.

[foreigncorrespondent]

151. People's lives are NOT a tool...

...to be used at YOUR discretion, period!

And don't you dare tell me not to bloody well complain. I have lived this fucking nightmare, mate! This nightmare is my very life. And like so many before me, I have worked damn hard through activism to better the system for my community! And I have done it the most moral way possible.

[The Doctor.]

156. So it's ok for them to oppress you and not have to live the

'fucking nightmare' they subject you to?

You must have a deep masochism/submission complex.

The very crux of this issue is that these assholes OPPRESS you and you are perfectly willing to be oppressed while letting them get away with the same 'perverse lifestyle' they persecute you for.

If you would rather stand on your own moral high ground and accept being a second-class citizen, that's your choice. But do not tell others who would like to change their oppressive environment for the better that they are 'wrong' for exposing these hypocrites.

By suggesting that it is wrong to 'expose' them to the same derision you have dealt with, after they have helped propagate that derision, is, in fact, saying;

"It's OK for people to oppress me and yet live away and above that very oppression they visit upon me."

I respect your moral convictions, but telling other people who do not share your masochism that they are wrong for trying to subject their oppressors to the very derision those oppressors create IS EQUALLY WRONG.

You may not agree with my opinion, but answer this ONE question;

Do you disagree that if politicians knew they might be subject to the laws and environment they help create, then they might strive to create an environment of greater equality?

So what's your answer?

[foreigncorrespondent]

161. No! It's not ok.

At no time since being out as a lesbian have I ever stated it was ok for them to treat people this way.

I do not enjoy having to live 8,000 miles from my partner. I do not enjoy seeing my partner four weeks out of every year (this year I was lucky, I actually got her a further six weeks.) I do not enjoy being victimized for nothing more than loving another person. I am not God. I cannot wish it upon the world that everyone except the gay community. I have to work damn hard to wake just one person up by making them aware of what gay binational couples and the queer community at large have to endure because of the hatred for my community, that does exist in this world. I will not stoop to the level of those on the right in order to get what I want.

In my life, I have never lowered myself to a lesser standard. I do not intend to begin now.

You must have a deep masochism/submission complex.

Insulting someone for the opinions they have really isn't called for.

If you would rather stand on your own moral high ground and accept being a second-class citizen, that's your choice.

Sorry, mate, but you are dead wrong. In my country (Australia) I am already a second class citizen. I became one the moment the Howard government with the full support of the opposition passed legislation banning any recognition of same sex marriage. Did I sit on my ass and let it happen? Absolutely not. I wrote to a hell of a lot of people in government. I signed quite a few petitions the gay community had put out. Guess what? All my hard work failed. The government was set on doing this, and nothing was going to stop them, short of a miracle.

So you see, I had no choice. And I still have no choice.

In how I live my life right now, I was not given the opportunity to discuss with my partner our living in two separate countries. That decision had already been made for us the moment the U.S. refused to recognize our relationship as being legitimate for immigration purposes. What can I do about that? Absolutely nothing. Your government won't listen to a "mere foreigner." As for my partner, you bet your ass she has exhausted every avenue to try and get our relationship recognized. Has it worked? Nope! They think we want to get married, and letting queers have the right to sponsor same sex partners is a back door into legitimizing same sex marriage.

By suggesting that it is wrong to 'expose' them to the same derision you have dealt with

I have not said it is wrong to expose them. What I have stated and quite clearly I might add, that if we begin to do what they have been doing to us then it is us who look like the hypocrites. We are the ones who say, live your life how you were born to do so. If we begin outing them, then how do you think that makes us look to them?

There are a lot of other ways of exposing them for the total bastards they are. But using homosexuality as that "tool" is not the answer. Their religious base don't listen to it. They right it off as being a simple attack. But what they cannot hide is those who have totally fucked over the so called "sanctity of marriage." Those that have gotten divorced and cheated on their spouse, all the while spouting off that there is the "sanctity of marriage" that needs to be protected by queers! They are the ones we should be going after. They are the easily to prove ones. Their religious base cannot ignore court documents.

I respect your moral convictions, but telling other people who do not share your masochism

Again you insult me.

Do you disagree that if politicians knew they might be subject to the laws and environment they help create, then they might strive to create an environment of greater equality?

No I don't. But just how do you intend to PROVE that Jo Blow, and John Doe are closet cases? How do you intend to prove this to the base of the repuke party you need to reach in order to bring these assholes down? You can't!

Mr Queer can stand up tomorrow and say he had sex with Jo Blow, but where is the proof?

As I said, there are a lot of other ways one could be exposing them, but of course, you don't want to hear about that. You just want to take the hard to prove way. And insult those with a differing view of your own. Well done!

[The Doctor.]

170. LOL... guess I got your attention :)

No, I was not insulting you by suggesting that you may be masochistic or submissive.

I know plenty of very respectable submissives and a couple of masochists who are fairly well-balanced people. In fact a few of them might even take umbrage at having their disposition considered an insult.

I was, in actuality, considering that you may be predisposed to being a victim. This is not uncommon at all. Many people who feel persecuted (and rightly so) derive a great deal of their identity from their own victim-hood. They do not consciously 'like' being a victim, but they actively/unconsciously maintain their status because a great deal of their psychological makeup is, as I said, derived from victim status.
Again, that is not an insult. But should you choose to take it that way, I cannot stop you.

The reason I speculate on that is because here we have a tactic whereby we can affect positive change by exposing policy makers to the negative implications of the policies and environment they are perfectly willing to force you to endure. This tactic of revealing the homosexuality of those who would oppress homosexuals is relatively innocuous in that it visits no harm upon them that they are not willing to visit upon you.

And yet you would choose NOT to see them exposed to the pain they are causing for millions of people like yourself either because a) You prefer your victim-hood to improving the lot of the gay community, -or- b) Your moral imperative prevents you from seeking justice.

The bottom line here is that you would rather be a moral victim than feel like an immoral proponent of justice.

Sure, you do not believe it is justified to 'out' someone who oppresses you... but that is, by definition, incorrect. The very essence of 'justice' is visiting retribution upon the transgressor equal to the harm they have wrought. Nothing could be more 'just' than to subject someone to the very law they pass.

So you say that you can agree that if politicians knew they might be subject to the laws they pass, then they might pass more equitable laws.

-yet-

You are against their becoming subject to those laws?

That's not morality, that's willful victim-hood.

Now as for having 'proof' of one's orientation;

Of course I believe that rumors are harmful and 'outing' someone who may not be gay can cause them harm.
But if that person is a hateful anti-gay bigot, then I will go so far as to say, "GOOD!!!". LET them spend some time in your shoes! Maybe there is a chance... a chance... that they will consider the harm they are causing. And if they don't... they STILL deserve it!

If you would stand for insulating these hateful people from the trials you have borne and the pain you have suffered, if you choose NOT to show them the misery they cause on the off-chance they might learn something for the betterment of MILLIONS, then you are not simply taking 'the moral high ground'... you are choosing victimhood...

Because it is a part of you.

A little introspection may help here.

To sum up;

You have already agreed that if politicians knew they might be subject to the laws they pass, then they might pass more equitable laws.

So think long and hard on this;

"I would not choose to subject those who oppress me to the pain they have caused me to suffer EVEN IF it may help alleviate ALL of our pain."

Make no mistake, you are saying exactly that. Look inside yourself... you have chosen to be a victim.

[foreigncorrespondent]

185. As I said above...

...you won't listen to any other ideas. You proved my point!

By the way, if I wanted to be psychoanalyzed I would have found a psychiatrist in my own country!

[The Doctor.]

188. Then perhaps you should?

(Sorry, you left yourself open :+ ... that, and I'm not a psychiatrist)

Please pose your 'other ideas'. I have not seen them in our particular discussion. If I have missed them, I do apologize. If you can clarify them for me, I would certainly appreciate it. (And frankly I'm sure they are great ideas...)

Either way, the bottom line should be this;

-Do not impose your moral values on others who wish to improve their lives (and subsequently yours) by suggesting that they should not subject their oppressors to the bullshit they've endured.

I'm sorry my darling, I am a Straight W.A.S.P. Male and I have no compunction over Keel-hauling those who have caused you pain in the hopes that we all may live in harmonious existence. Please do not take these things personally, but understand that the changes you would like to see are less likely to occur if you are opposed to visiting a taste of your own travails upon those who oppress you.

I applaud your Christian beliefs in not subjecting your oppressors to their machinations, but those very oppressors do not adhere to your venerable morality.

Or do you prefer the 'appearance' of humility- and that is why you want the gay community to stop 'outing' people?

Either way, may you be blessed.

-Dr E

[foreigncorrespondent]

189. How dare you!

You have done nothing but insult and berate me through out this discussion.

I have given you options apart from simply outing people, but you refuse to see it.

I have always had a lot of respect for you Dr E. But this conversation has shown me another side to you. One that says, you simply make fun of people who do not adhere to your ways of thinking.

What is it with some people? My partner and I do not see eye on to eye on this subject either. However, we both respect each others opinion. And certainly do not go around telling each other they are something they aren't. And should be seeking the help of a shrink.

I am shocked, humiliated, and down right hurt by the words you have spoken to me. I hope you have achieved what ever it was you were after. And are now more than happy with yourself!

[The Doctor.]

202. You have no reason to be humiliated.

And I was quite clearly joking about seeing a shrink.

And I was quite sincere when I said I missed those other options and asked if you could please cite them for me.

I am not here to insult you or make you mad.

So look... I'm sorry. And I apologize for the direct assignation of masochism... that was unnecessary. But for the most part, It really did not occur to me that you would find those things insulting. Why? Because I do not find them insulting.

We expect from others what we expect from ourselves.

Let me tell you a little more about me- I can be ridiculously clinical sometimes. When someone suggests calls me a name that is anything but utterly derogatory (asshole, fuck brain, etc...) I tend to simply disagree and then ask them how they came to that conclusion.
Usually, like in any debate, I simply go about making the case that they are wrong.

Recently, I was told I was a bigot for using the word 'sheeple'. I did not at all feel insulted, instead I simply took apart the logic they were trying to use to assign that value to me.

Do I always do that? Probably not... but it is my first impulse. - To deconstruct the reason behind the insult rather than be insulted.

Many times during a discussion I will attempt to toss a label at someone to see how they deal with it. Not necessarily because I feel that they are inferior, but because I want to see them show me why I may be wrong.

I am genuinely interested in knowing why else you would spare these people the suffering other than the reasons I can think of... because I know there are other answers.

It is obviously my opinion that these people deserve to go through the suffering that you do.

And most of my assertions you have not disagreed with.

So please accept my apology for pushing too hard.
I really do want to hear your other suggestions.

Oh... and I also apologize for calling you 'darling'... but I did really mean it the nice way.

[Sapphocrat]

195. Unbelievable.

How low can you sink?

I can't remember the last time I saw such holier-than-thou, condescending arrogance on DU as your last two posts to fc (which, in my long history here, is saying a lot).

Not attacking YOU, mind you -- merely advising a major attitude adjustment.

Like you, I do not agree with the OP on this subject. But I'd rather cut off my right hand than descend to such fuck-you-style rudeness and dismissiveness with those who oppose my views... my darling. :eyes:

[The Doctor.]

201. You are reading sarcasm where there is none.

I have been entirely sincere.

And my point is quite simply that it is inappropriate to tell others it is wrong to defend themselves however they see fit.

I have not at any point thought or said 'fuck you' to anyone.

Nor am I dissmisive of her opinion. I absolutely respect her choice to be moral, just not to complain about her situation if she chooses that position or to suggest others need to behave as she does. I am certainly suggestng that she is a willing victim.

When I said darling, I sincerely meant to impart that I do care about her, but due to the contentious nature of this discussion, I see you have chosen to assume I am patronizing.

Which I am not.

Even my very obvious attempt at humor was terribly misconstrued here... by choice.

I was quite obviously kidding about 'seeking help' and made that abundantly clear in my first line.

I have not 'descended' at all. How someone chooses to feel about my post really is up to them.

I suggest we stick to the substance of the argument.

[foreigncorrespondent]

204. Back off buddy!

Sapph has obviously come to my defence because she sees something wrong with your words.

Let me explain something to you. If you open a post with an insult, you won't get much out of the person you are posting to. You won't get questions answered. In fact you are very lucky you have gotten as much out of me as what you have.

It was not by choice that your pittiful attempt at humor was misconstrued. It was because your attempt at humor lacks humor. I am not laughing here. I do not see being told by a total stranger that I must really have a deep masochism/submission complex as being humor. I do not see being told by a complete stranger that I should go see a shrink (with the obvious "sorry you left yourself open, bullshit." Don't you realize that is as bad as "is so and so gay? Not that there is anything wrong with that.") as being humor.

I have had enough of being insulted by you. Anything you say now, will simply go unanswered.

[The Doctor.]

206. You're right, better you don't deal with my response to you.

You have a great deal of hostility you need to deal with.

I suppose it is better you take it out on me than on those who make policies that do you harm.

Your are the better person as you have made abundantly clear.

I will trouble you no more.

-It does make me sad that you have opted out of the discussion because of my 'troublesome lack of sensitivity', however.

Goodbye.

[The Doctor.]

203. Seriously... I can find nothing condescending in this post;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5264580&mesg_id=5278937

I've read it over and over, and I still don't see anything that is plainly condescending.

I meant every word of it, I was being absolutely sincere.

I genuinely want to know if she thinks that if the gay community adopted a more passive strategy that it would help...

That's why I asked the question.

Please don't look so hard for insults and hubris, for you will certainly find them... and there really aren't any in that post.

[foreigncorrespondent]

205. Thank you! (n/t)

[The Doctor.]

209. Hmph... I see...

So attacking me for, in your opinion, being 'condescending' and then turning around and saying "Not attacking YOU, mind you --" is quite the height of hypocrisy.

You really have learned a thing or two from this administration, haven't you?

I suggest shedding some of that unwarranted agression and re-reading my posts. You will se they are not nearly so incendiary as you have chosen to perceive them.

If, on the other hand, you can get an ADMIN to agree that I'm such a 'condescending asshole' (telling me I've descended to a 'fuck-you-style rudeness' equates to my telling you you are calling me an 'asshole' BTW)

Then I will ask them to ban me and I will not visit here again.

You are hysterical... I'm not attacking YOU, mind you -- merely making an observation.

I am done with you.

[foreigncorrespondent]

211. You really have no bloody idea when you quit do you?

Your rudeness is getting worse by the minute.

Now you attack MY partner for defending me? For your own insulting of the person she loves?

Get a grip on reality!

If you weren't so damn rude to begin with, you would not have gotten what you have received.

Telling someone on a public forum they have disorders when you don't even the know the person is crossing the line.

People are entitled to their opinions. I have NOT attacked you for your beliefs. I have NOT insulted you for your beliefs. YOU however attacked and insulted me.

Now telling someone who is a true Democrat that they have learned a thing from this administration is truly uncalled for, and again out of line. And can be considered a personal attack. She was defending ME from someone who has NO RIGHT to judge me in the way you have.

NOW BACK OFF!

[MADem]

164. Yeah, but this whole outing thing is NOT A DEM THING

It is a gay community thing. I have not seen a single "DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVE" doing any outing who was not also an openly gay person doing a little agenda triangulating. It's the BlogActive's and community magazines that are doing it, not the DLC, DNC, MoveOns, or People for the American Way. Blaming the DEMOCRATS for it is just WRONG--just because their interests coincide, does not mean that the Democrats endorse the behavior, and saying so is a canard.

So what is this "us" stuff??? I think the debate, if there is going to be one, belongs in the community that is affected.

Quite frankly, as a bystander, I think it is a good thing--it exposes hypocrisy, the "do as I say, not as I do" bullshit, and then, there is also the issue of putting your sweetheart on the payroll, making only $400 a year less than Andy Card (Drier's darling, Brad Smith).

But my opinion is just that, an opinion. I do think if everyone gets past this "oooooooooh, GAY!!!!" business we will all be better off. And if a few sacrificial lambs have to be tossed on the altar to move the nation past orientation even being an issue at all, GOP lambs, who have screwed their fellow travellers with their lousy, selfish policies, work for me!!!!

Throw another log on the fire!

[Rich Hunt]

186. that's true

I don't know of any Dem or activist organizations that do this.

Let's face it - 'outing' goes on all the time and not just by gays and not just against Republicans as far as I can tell...

[MADem]

191. But for some reason, there is a cadre that always tries to frame it as

though there is somehow INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY on the part of the Democrats for these outing events.

I have always said, in homage to Tip O'Neill, that all politics is local. Within the gay community, I imagine that there are factions who believe that hypocrisy, support of laws that are harmful to the community, and a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude makes people a worthy target of outing. And surely there are factions who do not believe that, as well.

It is assumed that more gay people are Democrats, Log Cabin Republicans notwithstanding, thus the Democrats are handed this issue as though it is theirs to CONTROL...and it ain't.

It is a gay community issue, not a Democratic issue. And I suspect that the gay community might get a little shirty if the Democratic Party started telling them what "the policy" was on an issue that is of principal concern to them, and is accomplished primarily BY them.

[Midlodemocrat]

5. DA - I completely agree with you.

Sex lives are private and should remain so.

[Dhalgren]

49. Sexual behavior in private, between consenting adults should

be private. Who you are is not private. If you hide who you are because of fear of persecution in a "free", "democratic" country, who is to blame? It isn't the "outing" that is harmful, it is the reason for the hiding that is harmful.

[mondo joe]

114. Being gay is not "sex lives".

I'm gay - what does that tell you about my sex life?

[Behind the Aegis]

141. BINGO!

I think a few people here are a tad confused. I am gay. Can anyone here tell if I EVER had sex by my self-declaration? I am a gay male. I am attracted to other males. That is being gay. This bullshit about it being "private sex lives" is just creating MORE stigma. I have str8 friends that make me look positively "vanilla!"

I see it this way...if you are out making lays against gays and you are gay...YOU GET TO BE OUTED! I will NOT allow your self-loathing and self-hatred destroy MY life! Your rights end where my nose begins! Making laws against gays is interfering with my "nose" (or the funny version "hose")!

I feel pornography is a privacy issue, but if Mr. Ree comes out against pornography, but has a basement of videos and mags that would put Larry Flynt to shame, then OUT he comes!

It is about the HYPOCRISY!

[The Doctor.]

145. LOL! "It's the hypocrisy stupid!"

I like it.

[Midlodemocrat]

153. My point was that

the right seems fixated on the sexual behavior of homosexuals. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is no one's business.

Being gay doesn't automatically mean a person is sexually active, any more than not being gay does. But, the right doesn't seem to care whether or not a gay couple is actually in love. They don't factor in the emotion love at all. They focus solely on sexually activity.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. How far would your admonition go?

For example, suppose that the gay office holder votes in favor of re-criminalization of homosexual relations between consenting adults: even then this hypocrite should not be exposed?

Would you have extended a similar protection to german nazi politicians who happened to be jewish in the 30's?

At what point would you agree that protected hypocritical members of a persecuted minority who are acting to violate the rights of that same minority should lose their protection from the revelation of their hypocrisy?

[DistressedAmerican]

11. Perhaps There Are Some Extreme Hypotheticals Where It Is The Lesser Evil.

However, I have seen a lot of these threads and none have ever approached that threshold for me.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Well that's a non answer.

Just what do you think the right is up to with their 'playing the gay card' in the last election?

Should we wait until folks are being rounded up? A little bit late, don't you think?

So here is what I think. I think that any politician who votes to restrict the rights of a minority is fair game. I think that action 'crosses the line'. Your argument of 'well if it is bad for them isn't it bad for us' is as irrelevant as denying the right to self defense on the grounds that it is wrong to hit somebody. It is wrong to hit somebody, as an action isolated to itself. However within the context of defending oneself from physical assault, hitting the assaulter is entirely defensible.

[RazzleDazzle]

165. Well, your threshhold for

how much anti-gay bigotry is too much is quite high, isn't it?

Perhaps your interest in protecting one's privacy stems from a wish that everything about homosexuality be kept private? The "whatever two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is their right -- just as long as they don't wave it in my face," kind of interest in privacy for gays?

[kestrel91316]

8. I hate them for their hypocrisy, not for being gay.

That said, how would one show they are hypocrites WITHOUT pointing out that they are, in fact, gay themselves??

It's the entire point of the matter.

[foreigncorrespondent]

66. Go after other hypocrisies!

Lord knows they are a dime a dozen.

Try the marriage debate. Point out how many of them are all for protecting the "sanctity of marriage," all the while getting divorces or cheating on their spouse.

But using homosexuality as a weapon only makes US look like the hypocrites!

[T Wolf]

9. In a perfect (or at least a better) world,

you are correct.

But we have to live in the real world. And in this world, any weapon has to be used if we want to avoid continued losses that have been happening for so long.

Hypocrisy is a valid point of attack.

If exposing the hypocrisy of these pukes leads some of their extremist base to end their support, then it has a doubly-positve outcome.

You cannot play nice when the other side has no qualms about using any tactics. At least we haven't Wellstoned any of them.

[foreigncorrespondent]

68. And thank you so damn much!

And in this world, any weapon has to be used if we want to avoid continued losses

You have just reduced the lives of every single queer person out there (Democrat and repuke) as nothing more than a weapon to be toyed with. I hope you are bloody well happy with yourself!

[RazzleDazzle]

168. and revealed quite a bit about

his own anti-gay bigotry in the process, wouldn't you say?

[foreigncorrespondent]

182. Absolutely! (n/t)

[LoZoccolo]

10. If we out enough gay Republicans....

...then they'll start saying that their sex lives should be their own business. The point is to get more people to think that their sex lives should be their own business, yes. Right now, a lot of Democrats think so, and a lot of Republicans don't.

- Doing nothing will probably leave these numbers unchanged.
- Outing gay Republicans will possibly increase the numbers of privacy advocates on their side.

[napi21]

12. I disagree with you on this one.

The argument you use can also be used to say we shouldn't criticize Pubs for claiming to be good Christians but not acting like good Christians should, or claiming to support minorities and the poor but vote against everything that would help them.

If I was cheating on my husband 5 nights a week but preaching the Godliness of monogamy every Sunday, I'd sure expect you and everyone else to call me on my hypocracy!

[Birthmark]

13. I agree.

I am against outing anyone who hasn't committed an actual crime. Hypocrisy, while distasteful, is not criminal.

[The Doctor.]

142. So passing laws that discriminate is OK?

This is not merely about hypocrisy, this is about fairness.

If a gay politician passes legislation that opresses gays, that politician should be subject to that same legislation he/she has forced upon others.

Or do you believe that politicians who marginalize people should be immune to the laws they pass?

[William769]

15. I don't want to out you if your not comforatable with it.

But are you a Homosexual?

[DistressedAmerican]

17. Nope. Married Since 1995 With A New Kid.

Have always had a lot of gay friends and am sympathetic to the type of harassment and persecution that they experience regularly. But, me? No.

[William769]

20. The only reason I asked was

To see if you had dealt with this hypocrisy first hand.

[DistressedAmerican]

26. Would My Being Gay Affect How You Reacted To The Argument In General?

Would you be more sympathetic to it if I were?

I clearly oppose the types of anti-gay actions taken by the right. My orientation does not factor that stringly on that. I have close friends who I love and care about that are directly affected.

I just think there is a certain element of not becoming what we hate in order to defeat it.

[William769]

36. Would not have been more sympathetic

Just more perplexed. I came out in 1993 In this day & age I cannot for the life of me figure why someone would want to hide their sexuality. I lost my job over it & it has made me a better person for it.

Any Faggot (yes I am using that term) that wants to try & hide from me while trying to restrict my rights, had better well be well hidden. I will find him & out him for the snake that he is.

[bigscott]

56. thanks William

:pals:

[William769]

158. Anytime.

:hug:

[Puglover]

157. Here here William!

I'm a big ole homo too! Anyone who would let another person legislate against them simply on the basis of their sexuality and is closeted for self gain is fair game. Anyone who would "protect their privacy" is a naive tool.

[William769]

159. Thats very true.

:hi:

[skiddlybop]

55. Then you have no idea what kind of hatred is out there

I don't blame you for not being able to understand what it's like to be tied to a fence, beaten and left for dead, and then die two days later.

I DO blame you for minimizing the entire idea that that threat exists for someone else. If you are willing to stand aside while gay people are murdered, STAND ASIDE when gay people protect themselves.

[DistressedAmerican]

59. That Is A Completely Unwarranted Attack.

I have minimized no threat. None whatsoever. Please do not get all hateful and accusatory here. This has been a very reasonable conversation up until now.

When you start throwing accusations like I am willing to stand around and do nothing as gay people are murdered, you cross the line completely. I do no such thing and this suggests no such thing.

Homophobia is a disgusting element in our society. I strongly oppose it. It should be wiped out. We merely differ on tactics.

If you think that outing a gay politician would have saved Mathew Sheppard, you are wrong. The issue is far larger than this or that closeted politician. It is wrong of you to hit me in the face with the bloody shirt like I am somehow sympathetic to such a disgusting act of hate driven violence.

Please do not cheapen this discussion with your baseless accusations.

[skiddlybop]

82. Once again, you seem to want to parade your totally insensate response

to a threat you don't live with.

Of course, one less voice demonizing gay people will help. David Dreier every waking hour helps gay-bashers rationalize their hatred.

Why should the wholesale DEMONIZATION of gay people be enabled by tut-tutters like you? They all CREATE the atmosphere of hatred, and need to be called out. Simple as that.

As I say, you want to stand aside while they encourage murders -- then you deny that the demonization they engineer has any effect. In your world it doesn't. Fine.

You stand aside while I protect myself against people who make their living saying I'm fit to be murdered. Just stand aside and keep your misgivings to yourself. You have your opinion, just STFU, google each and every one of the names listed above and criticize them for being hateful and spreading hate speech as each and every one of them has, and while you do it, DON'T make any mention of their sexuality. That's fine with me.

Then stand aside while I do my thing. God, you act like gay people are a bigger enemy than the people who murder them and cheerlead their murder.

[DistressedAmerican]

84. You Continue To be Completely Out Of Line.

You hostile accusations have no merit whatsoever. I tried to speak to you like a rational person yet, you keep hurling insults. As you insist on continuing to attack me, I am done with you. I have no interest in entering into some sort of flameout.

Have a nice day.

[skiddlybop]

92. OOOooops, sorry to address the real-world merits

and realities of the fact that you find self-protection more repugnant than the demonization of gay people.

I get your drift...it's more important to let hatred spread than to tell anyone that it's being spread by hypocrites.

[foreigncorrespondent]

70. Hmmmm!

I don't blame you for not being able to understand what it's like to be tied to a fence, beaten and left for dead, and then die two days later.

Neither do you!

On edit, typo!

[mestup]

18. Homophobic and hateful closeted Legislators? OUT THEM!

Sorry, but there's no force more dangerous to the protections of sexual privacy than a homophobic lawmaker.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/223201_west06.html

<snips - emphasis mine>

Spokane Mayor Jim West, who championed an anti-gay agenda during his tenure as one of the most powerful Republicans in the Legislature, yesterday admitted to using the trappings of his current office to entice what he thought was a young adult man but denied allegations that he molested two young boys more than 20 years ago.

In more than 20 years in the Legislature, West had initiated legislation to outlaw sexual contact between consenting teenagers; supported a bill that would have barred gays and lesbians from working for schools, day care centers and some state agencies; voted to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman; and, as Senate majority leader, allowed a bill that would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians to die in committee without a hearing.

As Spokane mayor, West threatened to veto a measure extending benefits to domestic partners of city employees.

[arewenotdemo]

135. Incredible. Outing that bastard should be a given!

nt

[QC]

21. Generally speaking, when we discuss this topic at DU,

it's the straights who oppose outing and the gays who have little or no problem with it. (Obviously there are some exceptions, but that's the general trend.)

Any theories as to why that is so?

[Warren Stupidity]

22. straight and all for it

not that I disagree with your generalization. And who knows, perhaps someday I'll find men attractive :-)

[ret5hd]

27. straight and all for it also...

and you know what they say about bisexuality...it doubles your chances of a date.

[bigscott]

31. maybe it is

because we gays are the ones who are being assaulted, maybe it is because we gays are the ones who had to deal with all the bullshit when we had the balls to come out of the closet. Was it fun? NO!! and it was primarily the BS from the right wing bastards telling us we are "less than animals" and those that would rather have us in concentration camps than happily married to someone we love. Sorry - I did the marriage (to a woman) thing and have a child I adore more than life itself - I have no sympathy for those hypocrites who are called on the carpet for their hypocracy. being "straight" does not make you a better person. Being honest does :rant:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

45. Straight and ALL for it!

Out every single one of the hypocritical and dangerous fuckers.

Every time one of these jackasses stands up for antigay legislation they are endangering my friends and family.

They cannot suck dick in private and then try to criminalize the same behavior for my friends. :mad:

[The Doctor.]

144. Could not agree more.

Force them to live in the environment they helped create.

[Touchdown]

64. It's a little easier to stand on principle if your not gay.

...when your freedoms are not being questioned, legislated away, or you are tied to a fence and left to die, as one poster said above, it's much easier and less a matter of life, liberty and death when nobody is demonizing you.

To use a crude paraphrase... very few "nigger-lovers" got lynched.

It takes on a whole new dimension when you are the actual target of their hypocricy.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. I don't even see the principle here.

As far as I am concerned this is self defense. Outing is not happening in a vacuum - it is a consequence of harmful behavior by politicians directed at a specific minority. They try to use political gay bashing to garner votes, and in doing so are causing direct harm to gay men and women. Gay men and women in return attempt to defend themselves by discouraging such political behavior by revealing the gay status of these same politicians.

<hyperbole>
What is the principle that is being violated? Do nothing while they line up the trucks and set up the camps? That principle? Worked well in the '30s.
</hyperbole>

[Touchdown]

77. It's the urgency that motivates us.

And you're right, when one's livelihood, and most importantly, life is hanging in that balance, then it's impossible to stand on some lofty principle like "respect for privacy" which straight people have the luxury of having, which is what I was getting at.

Sorry if I wasn't that clear, I thought my vulgar use of the N word would be enough to drive my point home..:hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

80. I was agreeing with you.

Also - straight people have no need for such privacy, in fact they flaunt their sexuality at every opportunity. The double standard here, the extent to which homophobia is ingrained in our society, is amazing.

I'm outing George Bush: he's a goddamn heterosexual and I have proof!

See what I mean?

[Touchdown]

91. And in a way, the OP suffers from a mild form of it as well.

When someone says it's beyond the pale to out a gay public figure, then what they're doing is re-inforcing, even if they don't know it, the idea that homosexuality is somehow a negative, or something to be ashamed of. By couching it in the issue of privacy, then it truly reduces the big world of being gay right down to the use of body parts in the bedroom.

I'm not bashing here, and I certainly understand where he/she is coming from, but it's just my observation. They say..."You can't out a closeted gay person", I say..."Why? What's so wrong with being known as gay?"

[DistressedAmerican]

105. I Just Happen To Feel That It Is Not Someone Else's Call To Make.

Do I think that the social conditions that make people want to stay in the closet should be tolerated? No. Do I think that people should be ashamed of being gay? No. Do I think that there is anything wrong with being known as gay? No.

None the less, many people do not want to reveal that information. The reasons vary. But, I do not think it is my place to make that call for someone else.

You seem more of the mind that because being gay is more than just sex, it is identity, that noone should be allowed to hide it. Maybe I am misreading. But, if that is what you are saying, I disagree.

I have agreed below that anyone openly attacking others for being gay is making "gayness" an issue. In that case, I can see how bringing it up is justified.

However, in general, I do believe that personal information BELONGS to the individual. They should have the control over its dissemination. Not unlike your medical records.

[mondo joe]

110. Reporting the facts is not an "attack".

And it is the responsibility of the press to inform the electorate.

[DistressedAmerican]

115. Facts? In Most Such Reports, What Is Being Repeated Are Rumors.

That is a major problem with this tactic.

What would you say to the politician who is "outed" but really is not gay? Do you have any sympathy for that possibility?

Just wanted to see what you thought about the other possible side of the outing coin.

Everyone seems to be assuming here that those being "outed" are with out a doubt gay. What kind of evidence should the media be able to produce to back up these claims as "facts"?

I know, I really am going now. I have stuff to do. I'll check back later.

[mondo joe]

117. I'd apply the same standard of evidence as exists for any

other news story.

No double standard on my patrt.

[DistressedAmerican]

119. What Are Those?

And what do you say to the falsely outed?

[mondo joe]

120. That varies from news source to news source - but in general

something like report only on the evidence you have.

But there's no reason for a double standard on this matter as distinct from any other.

[DistressedAmerican]

121. And The Falsely Outed?

[noiretextatique]

122. who was falsely outed?

and is that a bigger problem than closted gays who are anti-gay publicly?

[mondo joe]

123. Like any inaccurate story - retraction, more reporting, etc.

Same standard, remember?

Any other option would be to create a standard in which nothing could ever be reported because there might be an error sometime somewhere.

[Touchdown]

127. So what?

"What would you say to the politician who is "outed" but really is not gay? Do you have any sympathy for that possibility?"

I'd say "Get over it!" If they have a problem with being thought of as gay, then it's their internalized homophobia that makes them shameful, not being, or not being gay. Being gay is not a NEGATIVE! If a false assumption is made, then what is the harm?

Someone assumed I was a Leo, when I'm really a Virgo. Should I feel insulted? One day homosexuality and the issues suyrrounding it will be a inoccuous as this. What is the harm in giving it a little push in that direction?

Quit trying to protect those egg shells I'm trying to bust!

[bigscott]

112. nobody gives a shit if

you reveal it or not - but when you attempt to legislate against ME for being what YOU secretly are - I will shout it from the rooftops that YOU ARE A FAGGOT - JUST LIKE ME

[Touchdown]

124. There's where I differ with you.

"...I do believe that personal information BELONGS to the individual."

Being gay is not a matter of personal information. It is an aspect of the wide variety that is human nature. If Barak Obama never said he was black, then it's ridiculous to assume his being AA is a "personal matter". It's just a fact of life that he is. On the same token, he never has to announce that he's straight, because in our society, the assumption of straightness in reinforced through people who, though well meaning, still treat human sexuality with kid gloves.

I have a problem with this being labelled a "sensitive issue". We are neither fragile or corruptable when we are honest. Gay people are the only minority with the ability to lie about our minority status, and get away with it. It's been a curse for centuries, because it hides our true numbers, and does everyone around us a disservice who make too many assumptions about the "respect for privacy".

And yes. Gay is a biological identity, it is not a belief though. It's a facet of human nature. It is who we are, and to hide it is homophobia, whether the hider is gay him/herself, or those well meaning folks who are trying to protect us.

[Warren Stupidity]

133. "many people do not want to reveal that information"

Yes but we aren't talking about the general case, are we? We are talking about the specific case of a politician who is furthering his career by pandering to anti-gay bigotry. That person, that specific case, is quite different than the general case. We are not discussing a private citizen, we are discussing a public figure, a person who has chosen to be a politician and who undoubtedly campaigns on his impressive credentials and brags every campaign about her notable accomplishments. This person has put their identity and history into the public domain for the evaluation of the voters. We are also discussing this within the context of a ruling party that has a virtual monopoly on what we call the main stream media, making our ability to oppose their hideous policies through reasoned debate on the issues a freaking joke. Instead of reasoned debate and the free market of competing ideas we get our candidates swiftboated. We get the few friends we have in the MSM rathered right off the stage while the chorus of sycophants tells lie after lie after lie.

I say we are in a desperate situation and we should use every non-violent tool and tactic at our disposal to destroy The Cabal and its grip on our republic.

[dsc]

149. because we deal with the world as it is not as we wish it to be

While we don't think being gay should matter, it does in many cases. I would likely lose my job immediately if my bosses found out. I am going to test that notion in a few years. I am trying to get my initial licence first. Like it or not, being outed matters.

[Touchdown]

166. Then you have to evaluate whether ot not...

...that job is worth having. Living in the real world means compromise, to be sure, but you have this job, not because of who you are, but because of who they think you are. If they will fire you immediately, then your skills play no factor in this equation. So you're already working there for reasons other than what professional services or labor you can offer them. If the pay is worth betraying yourself over it, then the decision must be worth it. I have no answers for you other than it will eventually come out, and when you least expect it. If they are that adamant about this issue, their respect for your privacy is compromised at best. You are already being watched now.

Outing is for famous people, and public figures. If you are one of those, this isn't going to stop. You will always be at risk. If you are not in the public eye, what for God's sake are you worried about?

[dsc]

174. I am merely pointing out that being gay is actually different

LGBT people are not covered by anti discrimination laws and thus are vulnerable to being fired. Sadly for many of us qualifications are trumped by this in at least some cases. Incidently not all people would limit outing to public figures and famous people.

[mondo joe]

179. If I had the power to place an identifying mark on every gay man

and lesbian on earth, I would.

But I don't. So I wouldn't "out" private individuals, especially if it would put them at risk.

Public figures are something altogether different. Like any other candidate, elected or appointed official, they are subject to public scrutiny.

[dsc]

180. I am unsure what standard would allow the outing of staff members

of people like Santorum but not allow the outing of other public employees such as teachers. I can see outing the likes of Dryer but not his employees.

[mondo joe]

183. As far as the press is concerned, all is "allowed".

Of course there's the dealing with the public response to be taken into consideration.

In some particularly nasty locales outing a teacher would be praised.

In others it would be regarded as an ugly violation of privacy.

[mondo joe]

83. Which principle would that be?

[Touchdown]

87. Respect for privacy. n/t

[mondo joe]

89. Privacy from the press? From private individuals talking?

I'm unfamiliar with a principle against an informed electorate.

[Touchdown]

94. I don't know. Ask the OP. He/she said that was the reason

...for his/her position on the subject.

[mondo joe]

98. I thought you were the one who said something about standing on

principle, so I thought you'd have something more to say about it.

[Touchdown]

103. I was arguing against their said principle.

Many flaws with it, and one I find insulting....the reinforcement that who I am is still shameful, and it should be a "private matter". My sexuality is not relegated to just my bedroom activities.

[mondo joe]

104. Sorry Touchdown - I misunderstood. My apologies. :-)

[noiretextatique]

107. i think it's because many straights like the closet

even some of my straight, liberal friends complain about gays making themselves too much an issue and taking the focus off more important issues.
when i point out that it was the rw that made gay marriage an issue, they still complain :shrug:

[Behind the Aegis]

143. Not their "noses" in peril.

There is a saying, "Your rights end where my nose begins." Most gays know that our noses are in jeopardy when we see anti-gay legislation. It is even worse, when the attacker is a homo too! I say OUT him/her! If the person was passing an anti-dildo measure, but had a barrel full of dildos at home, I BET MONEY that fact would be "OUTED!"

The real issue (of course, as you stated, it is a generalization) is the conflict of sympathy versus empathy. The 'sympathetic' ones really don't get it because they just "understand" (from the head) and the 'empathic' ones "feel" (from the heart).

[MADem]

192. See my posts above on the subject

And I am not gay. I just wish people would stop hanging the issue around the DEMOCRATIC neck--it belongs within the community, which no doubt includes people of many political persuasions.

The day a Democrat stands up at the national convention and says, "OK all you gay folk, this is "The Directive"--we are/are not gonna out hypocrites, those are the marching orders, hop to it!" and no one complains, then it becomes a Democratic platform item. Until then, it is a gay community debate, separate from the party platform.

But my opinion remains that if they hurt others while doing what others do, they deserve to get a full measure of publicity.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Was it wrong to out Lush Rimbaugh?

For being a hypocritical hillbilly heroin junkie and Lock 'em up drug warrior?

Was it wrong for outing Hyde and Ginrich for being hyypoicritical adulterers?

[DistressedAmerican]

28. Criminal Investigation Outted Rush. Not Us.

His behavior was also criminal. Being gay is not.

Bad analogy.

[Salviati]

35. "His behavior was also criminal. Being gay is not."

If these people have their way, it may no longer remain such a bad analogy...

I seriously believe that people should try to live by the golden rule, but I also believe that doing so is going yo get you eaten alive in politics. In that sphere, I'm perfectly satisfied with people who hold to the "silver" rule: Give others the same measure of courtesy that they grant other people.

If a politician wants to make peoples sexuality a public issue by making it a matter of public policy, then by all means, their sexuality should be open for discussion.

[DistressedAmerican]

38. How About A Republican That Has Never Made It An Issue?

Should they be outted because their party is so homphobic or does the individual have to have a voting record to qualify in your book?

Don't mean that to sound snarky at all. Just wondering if this goes for all regups or just the worst offenders.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. I think I was rather clear.

A politician who votes to restrict the rights of a minority is fair game. That person has crossed the line and I view the action against them as simple self defense.

[Touchdown]

85. I would.

That politician, by his party affiliation and pandering to christo-fascist voters (which only the "R" behind his name gives him a pass, without campaigning for or against anything), has stood up to be counted with the enemy and single largest threat to gay people's freedoms. Whatever other issue his motivation for belonging to a party who's power is because of the lock-step religious right, he is an electoral beneficiary of anti-gay politics.

If he is an out Republican, like Gunderson-MN or Kolbe-AZ, then this question would be moot.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. Until June 26, 2003

When a narrow 5-4 decision of the US SC overturned the Texas law (Lawrence v Texas) and all other such laws. 14 states continue to have sodomy laws on the books, four of those states apply the law only to same sex activities, although all of these laws are considered uneforceable because of Lawrence v Texas.

So you can be smug in your assertion that the analogy is unfair, but your smugness is precarious given the current court and where that court is about to go.

[DistressedAmerican]

47. I Am Not trying To Be Smug. Relax.

I was just pointing out theat we did not out Rush. He was the subject of a criminal investigation.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Although I believe the Miami Herald

'outed' his criminal behavior which until they started writing it up was pretty much under wraps.

But you ignored the adulterers Hyde and Ginrich, both of whom had no end of bad things to say about their fellow adulterer Clinton and both of whom were publicly outed for their putrid hypocrisy.

Wrong?

[Lex]

29. Some actions can cause people to FORFEIT their right to sexual privacy.

Being a gay person who HURTS the rights of other gay people is one of those things.

Period.

[Dhalgren]

30. The only problem with your stance on this

(and this isn't anything against you)is that sexual orientation is not "private" business. It is what and who a person "is". Now, it isn't anyone's business what my partner and I do in the privacy of our intimate relationship, but who we are is who we are and why would anyone try to hide who they are? By saying that a homosexual person should be respected for being forced to deny who they are, strikes me as not right...somehow. If "outing" a person harms that person, it isn't the "outing" that does the harm; it is the reason that person felt compelled to lie about who he or she is that does the harm. I may not have expressed this well, but it is how I see it.

[mattclearing]

32. Recommended.

Dead-on, DA. Thanks for this.

[ernstbass]

33. I'm not

[Lexingtonian]

34. I'm not

Virulent selfhatred is, in practice, far from a victimless crime. The projection- the lashing out in hatred- has been full of horrid abuses. The guilt has been source of more suicide than anyone wants to know, let alone admit.

Nobody cares about the consensual sex involved. In the least.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

37. Sorry, but I strongly disagree.

Your analogy is flawed. A closeted gay who supports anti-gay proposals is seeking to punish somebody else for the very thing that he or she engages in. It's an attempt to prevent them from exercising a right.

But outing a closeted gay homophobe is neither punishing that person (there is nothing wrong with being gay) nor an attempt to prevent the exercise of a right. Instead, it serves the purpose of highlighting the hypocrisy.

[Lex]

41. Yes. Hurting other gay people (while you yourself are gay) FORFEITS

your right to sexual privacy.

Why should gay folks allow themselves to be gay-bashed by someone who is gay themselves, if pointing out they are gay takes away their ability to continue to bash?

[DistressedAmerican]

Is That Republicans Across The Board? Or Do They Have To Take

specific action against gays to "forfeit"?

[Lex]

48. If they are working against the rights of gays and lesbians

by speaking out against them, or helping along legislation, or writing hostile things, then they forfeit their right to stay in the closet.

If a gay person wants to stay comfortably in the closet, that's fine, but the minute they start working against the rights of gay people, they give up their spot in the closet.

[Village Idiot]

39. I personally believe that ANYTHING that helps...

remove Repugnicans from power is inherently good, so "outing" them works for me if it alienates them from their "base."

I suppose if you are opposed to "outing" them, tar and feathering them would not be OK, either? (Gay OR Straight)

[DistressedAmerican]

40. Tar And Feathers I Openly Endorse. The Rail Too. Ride 'Em Out!

[tx_dem41]

42. OMG...A pig just flew by my window. DA and I are in total agreement..

on something.

:)

[DistressedAmerican]

44. Holy Crap! That May Be A First!

Things sure are getting strange...

[tx_dem41]

50. Yeah...verrry strange.

I'm visibly shaken right now. I think I'm leaving work early.

:)

[Skinner]

53. I disagree.

Politics ain't a tea party. It's hardball.

I am a former opposition researcher. You heard me right, I was one of those guys who digs up dirt on our opponents. I know that sounds slimy, but believe it or not there are actually some rules of engagement on this stuff.

The basic rule is this: If your opponent makes something an issue, then it becomes fair game.

For example: Attacking a candidate's spouse or children is off limits. They are innocent bystanders.

However, imagine if a candidate says "vote for me and you get my wife, too!" (as Bill Clinton did in 1992) then that candidate's wife becomes fair game. Because the candidate said that his wife would participate in governing, then the opposition is permitted to give their opinion of what that would mean.

So, in the case of outing closeted gay politicians, I believe the same rules of engagement apply.

For example, if a candidate bashes gays as part of his campaign, then the fact that he is gay is fair game. He is the person who made sexual orientation an issue, he is the one who made attacks based on the idea that homosexuality is bad or shameful, and therefore his own sexual orientation becomes fair game. His own hypocrisy is very relevant to his fitness to hold office.

The question, then, is where the line is drawn. If a candidate is in the closet, does not bait gays on the campaign, and quietly votes in favor of gay rights, then outing that person is wrong.

The place where it gets tricky is in the middle. If a candidate is in the closet, does not bait gays on the campaign, but quietly votes in favor of anti-gay legislation, then is his orientation fair game? I think reasonable people can disagree. My feeling is that it is fair to out that person, provided that the focus is on the hypocrisy. If it is done as a cynical attempt to court the votes of homophobes, then it is wrong.

[DistressedAmerican]

54. That All Seems Quite Reasonable To Me.

As long as is is not a blanket policy for anyone in a party with people that make it an issue. The middle ground is definitely tricky.

Hypocrisy is a legitimate issue to highlight.

Sometimes I do think it is done for the wrong reasons. You hit the nail on the head when you said, "If it is done as a cynical attempt to court the votes of homophobes, then it is wrong."

I am willing to accept those as general guidelines. Although, I sure as hell wish it was not an issue at all. Too damn bad that they insist on making it one.

[William769]

69. And who might these people be?

"Too damn bad that they insist on making it one."

[DistressedAmerican]

72. The Republicans! I Know You Are Riled Up. But, Relax A Bit.

No, I was not referring to gays. Give me some credit.

[Misunderestimator]

71. I agree.

Well put too. :thumbsup:

[Warren Stupidity]

76. Pretty good summary.

In my mind the act of voting in favor of anti-gay legislation is enough to 'cross the line' and the hypocrisy becomes fair game.

I also agree with your underlying theme, which I think is that we continue to think that for some reason we must always 'take the high road' when in fact politics is dirty fighting, although not entirely wihtout rules. How many times have we watched our leadership screw themselves and us with their blind-sighted determination to play fair while the Republicans are busy poking them in the eyes and kicking them in the balls?

[kentuck]

96. Unfortunately...

these same gay Republicans will pass laws and carry water for those that are vehemently anti-gay with their agenda. "Gay" is not the issue.

[enigmatic]

106. thank you

You got it!

[LynneSin]

109. Damn, I want that job - I'd be good at it

who do I call?

[Rich Hunt]

187. eesh

I think people should be criticized for what they say and how they vote. The phrase 'fair game' doesn't sit well with me, as some people don't appear to have clear parameters for that. They use that logic as an excuse to get nasty, and thereby lower the quality of political discourse.

Opposition research for me means learning about opposition groups - what their literature says, what other groups they are linked with, what their stances have been historically. In other words, the public record. It doesn't mean digging into people's trash or romantic lives. The attacks on Hillary Clinton were personal and hateful, and had nothing to do with her civic role. Let's not forget all of the people who insisted that Hillary was a 'lesbian' by virtue of her feminist politics.

The nineties were a nasty ugly chapter for us.

[iconoclastNYC]

57. It's not just about sex. It's about identity.

You are perpetuating the notion that it's shameful to be gay. Being gay is much more then what you do with your genitals. The only thing shameful about it is people who chose to live a lie and aid and abett institutions that work to undermine equal treatment of people who do live thier lives openly.

[mondo joe]

81. Thank you. I hate the "sacred cow" of gayness - it's insulting and

patronizing.

[barb162]

58. I am opposed to it too, for anyone, unless that person speaks

hypocritically about sex matters. If they are hypocritical, to me, open season on 'em.

[EFerrari]

62. Me, too. I prefer them grilled with a nice merlot.

(I must be hungry. :) )

[noiretextatique]

63. the high road is highly overrated

i am strongly in favor of outing those who cower in the closet while promoting an anti-gay agenda, regardless of party afflication.
however, i would not support outing a person just becuase s/he is a republican.

[Ksec]

65. Politics is a dirty business

I would suggest for the people like David Drier to say out of the spotlight or cease complaining when the light hits them

[noiretextatique]

100. exactly

when you are doing FOUL politically...it's open season.

[cynatnite]

73. Totally agree! n/t

[ibegurpard]

78. I'm not

If you are working for an agenda of people who are trying to dehumanize me then you deserve to have everyone know that you are just like me.

[mondo joe]

79. Being gay isn't your "sex life". As a gay man I find it demeaning to

say that it is.

I furthermore believe in the principle that the press is there to inform voters, and I definitely think that includes issues of hypocrisy.

[LynneSin]

111. When a closeted gay man passes laws that discriminate against gays

I have absolutely no problem with outing each and every one of them. They deserve it and maybe just maybe they should have thought with their Brains & Heart before they sold their soul and voted with their conscious.

The only way we'll ever be able to get equal rights for gay & lesbians is to root out the hypocrisy.

[mondo joe]

113. I agree. Hypocrisy in elected and appointed officials is worth

noting and in the purview of the press, IMO.

[LynneSin]

116. What if I supported strong drug laws but yet I was doing drugs

wouldn't that be an issue that needed to be reported to the news?

[mondo joe]

118. Yes, it would be.

I'm not sure if you're clear that I agree with you on this matter.

[noiretextatique]

125. "being gay isn't your sex life"

why on earth would anyone suggest keeping someone's sexual orientation a secret, if that same person is using sexual orientation as a political issue? i don't understand why anyone would suggest that a person has some right to keep his sexual orientation private to continue getting support from his homo-hating constiuents. it's certainly not the fault of the outers that closted, anti-gay politicians choose to pander to homo-haters while shielding themselves from very hatred they promote by cowering in the closet.
as a black woman, i have an especial dislike reserved for black republicans, and as a lesbian, i have an especial dislike reserved for closted gays who promote the anti-gay agenda.
and sex has nothing to do with it.

[progressivebydesign]

88. Yep. Sex lives should be THEIR BUSINESS, as with EVERYONE ELSE.

Don't you see that your argument actually hurts your logic? If THEIR sex lives are THEIR business, and you use that as a way to fight against outing, then it would figure that the same standard would apply to those gay legislators that are making OTHER PEOPLE'S sex life THEIR biz.

[mondo joe]

90. And if GW * were having an affair you'd be against the press reporting

it?

[DistressedAmerican]

97. I See You Posting And Posting Joe. Feeling Neglected?

I see you object to just about everything I have said here. I got ya. We'll have to disagree I guess.

Here's a reply for you before I go do other things....

Yes, I would be opposed. I was opposed to it with Clinton and I still am.

I am in favor of them reporting on the MANY MANY horrible, illegal and immoral things he has done as president. But, do I give a shit if he cheats on pickles? No.

In other words stick to substance.



I'll see ya later. Didn't mean to take over your afternoon. Go get some sun.:hi:

[mondo joe]

99. Neglected? No. Responding to an issue that matters to me? Yes.

We do disagree, on several factors.

But I do believe in the right of the press to inform the electorate.

[Rich Hunt]

198. good for you

The president's personal life is irrelevant to his fitness to govern. It's also a neat way of consuming time and resources, drawing attention away from real problems.

I thought this was just common sense.

[mondo joe]

200. It's up to the electorate to decide what is relevant.

And it's the job of the press to inform the electorate - not to be complicit in keeping secrets.

[skiddlybop]

101. My point exactly!!!

Why were 5-marriage Newt Gingrich and cheaters Bob livingston and Henry Hyde, and abortionist Bob Barr criticized for attacking other people on morals when they were cheating and abusing women?

Because it was hypocrisy.

What is so horrific and outlandish and hateful about this entire thread is that after being DEMONIZED by the Republican Party, including the closeted and so-called "moderates," gay people are ***** JUDGED ***** by tut-tutting fair-weather friends like the original posters when they will NEVER have to wake up and wonder if they will be tied to a fence and left to die slowly. Over two days. I bet Matthew Sheppard's mother wishes she could have told David Dreier he was a hypocrite every time he publicly demonized gay people.

Guess you are happy every time Bush insults the memory of Rosa Parks by sending racists to take a photo op with her body. I mean, gee, at least he's saying something nice about her.

[mondo joe]

102. Funny how Newt's divorce, CNN anchors dating Rush and anything

else republican hetero's do in private is grist for the mill.

As a gay man I am insulted by the double standard.

[noiretextatique]

128. i appreciate your passion

and i share it :hi:
honesty is a principle i hold dearly...it's one of the reasons why i came out of the closet over 20 years ago. there is absolutely no reason to "protect" a liar, especially a liar who is actively working to harm other gay people while cowering in the closet himself.
i see no "principle" worth honoring in the strange belief that a public homophobe deserves the cover of the closet in his private life.

[Skittles]

95. I will point out hypocrisy when I see it

PERIOD

[mondo joe]

108. Good. I hate the idea that we - or the press - should be complicit in

keeping politically sensitive secrets.

[Skittles]

136. the idea someone could be gay and voting against gays as humans?

they don't belong in political office, that is for damn sure.

[Terran]

126. Outing does not equal "attacking"

Since there's nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian, there's no basis on which to consider outing a hypocritical republican an attack on that person. What it is, really, is exposing a conflict of interest, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I'm sorry, but I find your argument quite weak.

[maximovich]

129. Out Haters and Expose their Hypocrisy

There is nothing wrong with that.

[noiretextatique]

130. your post really bothers me...

first of all, hypocrisy is a real complaint, and a substantive one. it is the big problem with much of what the GOP and the RW stand for.

it might be fine for you to take the high road when it comes to a public figure who espouses anti-gay sentiments and cowers in the closet because you are straight, but as a gay person, i see nothing "honorable" about the closet. and especially not in the case of a closeted gay politician who actively promotes the anti-gay agenda.
and lastly...you seem to be confusing the issue of hypocrisy with privacy. it was hypocritical of a number of politicians to attack clinton because they were doing the same thing. however, he made himself vulnerable to that attack by making his private life public (having a blowjob while at work, with an intern). clinton's choices created problems for him: he asked for it. likewise with closted gays who harm other gay people: they are asking for it.
i consider them enemies, and i would do everything in my power to destroy them. and in this culture, which is still quite homophobic, that would include outing them.
and that has nothing to do with sex or what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
it has everything to do with telling the truth. and the truth is: if you make my private life an issue to win the votes of homophobes, i'd better not see your ass in a gay bar.

[mondo joe]

155. The straights are behind the gay curve.

And such is ever the way with social change.

Well intentioned but unaffected people learn the protocols of a given time -- but as times change so do the called-for responses. Those most affected will get this first - but some will take a while to catch up.

[noiretextatique]

162. indeed

which is why we have to educate. i am still trying to explain this to some of my friends: polticians and religionists, of all stripes, made gay marriage an issue in the last elections, not gay people. some are still angry that the gay marriage issue was such an issue, but it wasn't the fault of gay people, or gay pressure or "the gay agenda." that some gay people took advantage of newsome's publicity stunt or courageous action, however one sees it, is understandable. if i had someone to marry, i would have been standing in those lines too.
much the same with abortion....if people feel attacked, they will fight back. that some of our comrades would prefer we sit back quietly and allow the david driers and pat robertsons of the world to attack us so we don't draw attention to the issues of abortion rights and gay rights. well FUCK that. if some are so afraid of their party being defined by those issues, then that speaks volumes about who they are.

[mitchum]

132. Well, I'm NOT...no quarter for those goddamn pigs

[Warren Stupidity]

134. How about that 'Burn In Hell Faggot': 'Rev' Fred Phelps?

Would you find his exposure as a homosexual out of line?

[Sapphocrat]

137. For the record, this lesbian...

...disagrees with you, 100%.

Your reasoning is well-intentioned, but you're still operating under a double-standard assumption that still stigmatizes homosexuality -- even though it's perfectly clear you don't mean to. And you're still equating orientation with one's "sex life."

Michelangelo was as gay as a daisy in May, but he was probably celibate all his life -- which doesn't make him any less gay. And knowing you're straight doesn't tell me a thing about your "sex life."

You're also confusing the right of a private individual to keep his/her private life private, and public figures whose actions (and to me, "actions" includes being a member of the Republican party) actively harm the very people (I believe) you are trying to shield: us gay folks.

I'm not being condescending, but as I see it, you can't recognize you're doing it. It's like a white man trying to justify the hypocrisy of an African-American who "passes" in order to exploit the (undeserved but very real) benefits of being white in this society; the "chickens working for Colonel Sanders" not only do no good for the AA community, but do it measurable harm -- by living out the twisted, delusional (and undoubtedly self-loathing) thinking that being black isn't as good as being white.

In other words: Would it be a big deal to out a person as a heterosexual? Not in this society -- heterosexuality is a non-issue. The day homosexuality becomes a non-issue is the day outing will become an archaic, moot, even quaint notion.

But if you keep trying to "protect" the nonexistent right to privacy of public figures, gay or straight, you're just delaying the process and postponing that day.

In other words, thanks for doing what you think is right -- but you're not helping.

Next: Let me be clear when I say I do not believe in outing people just for the hell of it. But as bigscott wrote, "nobody gives a shit if you reveal it or not - but when you attempt to legislate against ME for being what YOU secretly are - I will shout it from the rooftops that YOU ARE A FAGGOT - JUST LIKE ME."

Or, in my case, that YOU ARE A DYKE - JUST LIKE ME.

Finally, outing should never use sexual orientation itself as the weapon -- it really is about the hypocrisy. (And if it's not about the hypocrisy, the outer had better re-examine his/her motives for outing.)

Anyway, I don't want to get much more involved in this topic, as my days of radical-liberal-homo rants are long past. And freely available in the archives, back to 2001/2002. :)

Too, the rest of my feelings on the subject have already been summed up best by mondo joe, noiretblu, William769, Touchdown, Warren Stupidity, bigscott, and Terran.

If none of that is good enough, then consider this: Anyone who don't want his/her "private life" -- all of it -- open to public scrutiny should stay the hell out of politics, period.

[Nothing Without Hope]

147. I agree with the position you outline. I always have.

People's sex lives are their own business as long as they involve consensual relations between adults and don't do harm to others. Period.

Hypocrisy sucks, but so does invasion into the most personal aspects of a person's life to make a political point.

The ends do not justify the means.

[GeorgeGist]

148. Hypocrisy is real...

get a clue.

[Vinca]

150. Here's another question for you.

If a Republican found out that a leading Democrat was secretly funding the "Right to Life" movement while voting for choice, would they let the cat out of the bag? Of course! If they found out a leading male Democrat wore bras and panties under his suit and tie, would they tell? Of course! Republicans fight hardball and they win. Democrats are considerate, polite and caring people who avoid stepping on toes at any cost. Democrats lose.

[Swamp Rat]

152. Not me. I'll take the low road... take one for the team, so to speak.

:D

[Dangerously Amused]

154. Honesty is the best policy.

I'm straight. If it matters. Probably annihilates my street cred on this thread, eh? :)

Anyway, in addition to the hypocrisy matter, another concern I have with not outing "quiet" gay Republican lawmakers (by which I mean those who may speak out on the issue but perhaps take no overt actions to diminish, restrict or deny GLBT rights) is that by remaining silent in an effort to protect their privacy, I think you are tacitly validating the bullshit they spread. Even if they don't even speak out against GLBT issues, I consider that unless they make a point of publicly stating otherwise, they are presumed to adopt the main positions of the party upon whose platform they run. Therefore, to the extent that the party is against GLBT interests, then again, not outing the candidate has the tacit affect of validating the party's (and consequently the candidate's) position.

I think when a person considers running for office, s/he understands that his or her life is going to be subject to more scrutiny than the average person, and that necessarily includes personal information that may be the subject of political maneuvering. I think we the people have a certain, albeit limited, right to what would otherwise be private information about a candidate or elected officeholder, in order to fairly evaluate a candidate and form conclusions about that person's credibility and potential bias. For example, I think to say that it isn't appropriate to ask a judicial nominee to discuss whether or not s/he would overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance, is bullshit. I think it is especially important to know if a candidate has a vested interest in any subject area over which s/he may wield political power.

One poster made the point that homosexuality is really the only relevant "status" which is not readily apparent to a constituency. The only comparison I can think of is if candidates who are citizens of foreign countries were allowed to run for office. In that case I think we the people should be allowed to know whether a foreign citizen was running for office. If so, we might (and I think, justifiably) form an opinion about that candidate's potential involvement in certain issues, say, immigration and trade with his/her homeland. By the same token, I think we should have the right to know whether a candidate is GLBT so we can form an opinion about that candidate's likely involvement in GLBT issues.

Yes, that would make it harder for some candidates to get elected. But by staying in the closet, that candidate tacitly approves and validates the "anti-GLBT" message.

There are some politicians who run as openly gay and win, not because of their status, but because of their good work - or so one would presume given the minority status of GLBT persons and supporters. And every openly gay candidate who runs and wins brings us that much closer to a day when the status of being GLBT becomes a non-issue. Outing GLBT candidates may take an original toll in having fewer positions filled by those with GLBT status. BUT, it will result in those candidates who do take office being empowered to act and speak freely about those issues, and to marginalize their own GLBT status and become known for their good work, thus perpetuating their re-election, and consequently validating that aspect of their own and other's lives. In other words, it will create an originally smaller pool of stronger GLBT candidates. In turn, that will encourage other openly GLBT candidates to run, and that will result a far greater percentage of strong, open candidates. Incidentally, there will be no net loss to the cause since the closeted candidates are the functional equivalent of heteros.

That is why I am in favor of outing GLBT candidates: It will force honesty (and who doesn't want an honest candidate) while ultimately advancing the cause.

Just my two cents.

[dogfacedboy]

160. All gays should come out. Period.

Then America would see that being gay isn't so "abnormal" as many would want you to believe. I believe this would marginalize the gay bashers. They would be reduced to a fringe element.

[noamnety]

163. If I were fighting against stem cell research

and it came out that I'd used medicine derived from that research to save my own child, that would be a newsworthy story. Even if my child should have a reasonable expectation of medical privacy, it would still be newsworthy.

[KitchenWitch]

167. Very good arguments!

I agree with you by the way!

[ruggerson]

172. This is demeaning to gay people

Gays and lesbians are not defined solely by their "sex lives" anymore than straights.

The underlying assumption in your thesis is that there is something wrong with being gay, hence it is hurtful to mention someone else's orientation.

There is nothing wrong with being gay. We wouldn't think twice about mentioning whether a Republican is left handed or has green eyes.

So why the double standard for gay people?

It's exactly this type of thinking that you're propogating that furthers and feeds homophobia.

[Kipepeo]

177. exactly

Thank you!

This is the same kind of homophobia that was behind the republicans wailing over Kerry mentioning Cheney's daughther as a lesbian. Um, she IS a lesbian. There is nothing offensive about that. And if you think that there is, then YOU are the problem.

[skiddlybop]

194. You are in a dream world.

Since when is it more demeaning for Santorum to call same-sex relationships bestial than for gay people to fight against being slandered? Just because you're not tied to the fence bleeding to death for two days, doesn't mean it's not a threat that needs to be addressed. Just stand aside, and don't JUDGE gay people after the far-right has raped them enough.

[kdpeters]

173. If a politician makes our sex lives a matter of public policy ...

then that seems to me a fair question to ask.

"Senator Santorum, you've spent a great deal of time recently speaking out against the evils of anal sex. Would you like to share with our viewers a personal story of how anal sex has touched your own life? Was it with a dog?"

[mondo joe]

175. Not to mention politicians who make THEIR sex lives part of their campaign

They are big on "family values"?

They are strong in their "religion"?

They appear with their "wives"?

Hell yes - expose them.

[Kipepeo]

176. I absolutely disagree with you

If politicians are out there advocating the oppression of gays and lesbians and gaining favor with homophobic voters based on their oppressive politics - I see absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that they are effig hypocrites behind closed doors if that is the case.

Take VA Congressman Ed Shrock, for example: this is a professional homophobe who was a Co-Sponsor of the bigoted and discriminatory federal marriage amendment - and who was secretly soliciting sex with men behind his fundie wife's back.

As a Co-Sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, legislation which would DISCRIMINATE against gay Americans based on their sexuality, I owe this man ZERO RESPECT - he is the enemy and I am GLAD that his outing resulted in his resignation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47194-2004Aug30.html

http://www.blogactive.com/2004/08/action-write-congressman-ed-schrock.html

[Obamarama]

184. So what. Big hairy deal. I say we should out the duplicitous cretins.

If they are going to support the people who wish to limit our civil rights, they need to get a spine and step out of the freakin' closet and explain themselves. Or, be pulled out kicking and screaming and exposed for the vile hypocrites they are.

They deserve as much respect and consideration as the Kapos in a concentration camp.

[lies and propaganda]

190. i cant disagree more.

When these said people go to the complete limit to attack you based on sex; and then they are doing the same thing. its repulsive, shitty, and really quite creepy.

[skiddlybop]

193. Oh, and by the way, it's not OUTING.

As soon as the following people had same-sex relationships with many people, it became public. It's only private if they are celibate, like priests. That's an entirely private matter, and I would vigorously fight against the outing of celibate gay people.

But these people had LOTS of gay sex while bashing gay people in their public lives and leading to the murders of gay innocents like Matthew Sheppard.

US Representatives
Rep. Ed Schrock (VA)
Rep. David Dreier (CA)
Rep. James McCrery (LA)
Rep. Mark Foley (FL)

Senior GOP Staff
Jay Timmons, NRSC
Dan Gurley, RNC
Jay Banning, RNC

Senior Senate Staffers
Robert Traynham, Santorum
Jonathan Tolman, Inhofe
Kirk Fordham, Martinez
Dirk Smith, Lott
John Reid, Allen
Paul Unger, Allen
Linus Catignani, Frist

Senior House Staffers
Jim Conzelman, Oxley
Lee Cohen, Hart
Robert O'Conner, King
Pete Meachum, Brown-Waite

Bush Staff
Israel Hernandez
Jeff Berkowitz

Local Officials
Vincent Gentile, NYC

The rest...
Ed Koch, NYC Mayo
Jennifer Helms-Knox, Judge
Armstrong Williams, Radio host
Matt Drudge, Headline writer
Steve Kreseski, MD Gov.
Chip DiPaula, MD Gov.
Lee LaHaye, CWA
John Schlafly, Eagle Forum

[ErisFiveFingers]

196. No to outing for their lives.

Yes to outing for hypocracy.

We should do the same for GOP pot smokers.

[terrya]

197. Spoken like a condescending heterosexual.

Ah, once again you heterosexuals feel a need to lecture gay people about being outraged when someone in public life who very well might be gay is pushing an homophobic, anti-gay agenda. Gee, thanks SO much.

And also...stop with this "what you do with your sex lives in private" horseshit, ok? This was addressed in another GD topic. We gay people are NOT solely defined by what we do in bed. It's insulting and condescending. Here's a bulletin from the news center: we love, we share the same feelings of commitment, honesty, trust, loyalty and friendship towards our partners, our spouses as you heterosexuals do. Just an FYI.

I am absolutely, positively 100% in favor of outing gay Republicans (or Democrats. Not all homophobes are Republicans) who advance an anti-gay agenda. Once again, we gay people are faced with another vote of the hateful Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate. It's sickening that someone like David Drier, gay Republican congressman from California, will, once again, vote in favor of this attempt to permanently relegate us to second-class citizenship. It's the worst kind of hypocrisy. And it needs to be brought to the light of day. And if outing is the tool to do that, out away. No one is forcing any gay Republicans to vote against their own interests and that of the gay community. So, if they choose to do that, fuck em' and their privacy.

[William769]

199. Spoken very well.

Thanks! :hi:

[Chovexani]

207. LOL, preach it

I agree with you 100%.

Ye gods, if these are supposed to be our "friends"...

[sundog]

208. ...

:yourock:

[pitohui]

210. yes by all means let's continue to cripple ourselves

let's not just tie both hands behind our backs in the battle, let's shoot ourselves in the feet too, then it can really be a fair fight while the elephant is trampling over us

sorry, dude, it's abt hypocrisy, if you are not offended by * going down on victor ashe & giving him an ambassadorship & all the rest w. gannon et al. then fine you are a wonderful person w. a great soul who is so much better than the rest of us

i'm not interested in being a wonderful person w. a great soul who is better than the rest of us

i'm interested in fixing this mess

hypocrisy MUST be outed

if you are not courageous enough to do it, stand out of my damn way