Here's What Bugs Me About "Outing" Discussions

[ruggerson]

They're incredibly demeaning to gays and lesbians who have moved beyond the mindframe much of the world unfortunately still has regarding sexuality.

Being gay is not about your "private sex life" or your "lifestyle." It's an innately hot wired sexual/affectional orientation which dictates who you fall in love with and create a family with. It thus dictates the entire familial structure of your adult existence on this planet.

No one would blink an eye if Politician A mentioned Politician B's wife and kids. And yet, he has just implicitly "outed" him as heterosexual.

Yet, many here seem to think it's some kind of great crime if Politician A "outs" Politician B who happens to be a homosexual.

If, deep down, you have understood, on a primordial level, just what being straight and being gay is all about, then there is no way morally you can justify being against "outing" someone.

Anymore than you can be against mentioning if Politician B has blue eyes or brown hair.

And please don't give me that rap about how being gay is still a stigma and thus people should have the right to keep it private if they so wish.

It's only still a stigma because many of us (straight and gay both) are still stuck in the mindset that there is something inherently wrong with being gay, even if we don't admit it to ourselves.

It's only still a stigma because many of us perpetuate the double standard: we freely talk about and gossip about and write about people's families if they are straight, but we keep it quiet and hushed and "private" if they are gay.

In reality, there is no such thing as "outing." It is merely truthtelling about a basic fact of life.

It is not violating someone's privacy; to the contrary it is liberating all of us, both gay and straight, from the double standard which continues to sadly oppress gay and lesbian families worldwide.

[QC]

1. Thank you. The "sex life" thing chaps my ass. n/t

[eallen]

2. "Two can keep a secret..."

"..if one of them is dead."

If you believe the old saying, necrophilia is the only sexual orientation that isn't inherently public.

:hippie:

[Jamastiene]

3. What irritates me the most are these things:

The words,

"lifestyle" - I live in the same crappy town and shop at the same crappy grocery stores as anyone else. There is no lifestyle.

"sexual preference" -No, I don't prefer women. I love women. The word "preference" indicates that I am attracted to men, but like women better. That is not the case as I am only attracted to women. Hence, it is a sexual "orientation" not a "preference."

AND

The thought that being outed is fine and dandy. We can't assume that it is now safe to be "out." With hate crimes (in states that even recognize them as hate crimes) still being commited against gay people, it's a saftety issue, not a privacy issue.

As far as my privacy goes, if I could be safe in this little redneck town where I live to be out all the time, I would. Otherwise, I'll keep my yap shut. I HAVE been the victim of violence here. That is why.

Other than the safety issue, I can see your point. In other areas of the country, people may be less violent.

[mondo joe]

4. Thank you! Double standard is insulting. The idea that who I am is my

"sex life" - or that you can even know a damn thing about someone's sex life just by knowing they are gay.

[kweerwolf]

5. Kind of like the "heterosexual privelege" idea

If you are heterosexual, your right to talk about spouses, kids, who you're dating, what you did with your S.O. over the weekend, etc., etc., is presumed ... and not considered "flaunting your lifestyle" at all.

But if you are gay, anything you say about your S.O., etc., etc., will be interpreted as being "all about sex" and "flaunting your lifestyle."

[foreigncorrespondent]

6. ruggerson...

...there hasn't been too many times in the past, when I have not agreed with what you said. Unfortunately you lost me here:

If, deep down, you have understood, on a primordial level, just what being straight and being gay is all about, then there is no way morally you can justify being against "outing" someone.

I'm sorry, but I do have a complete understanding as to what it means to be gay. And I am also against outing people.

If we out them, then we are infact the hypocrites. We say it is fine to live your life how you were born to do so. Yet we do not live up to that standard when we out someone.

We are using homosexuality as a weapon to destroy the opposition. Isn't that what they do to us?

I get pissed at the closet cases also. I do realize if all the closet cases would just come out, then it would help our cause. And yes, I agree, they are hypocrites for working against the very thing they are. To them money is more important than well being, but there still is absolutely no justification in using it as a weapon to destroy people we hate.

Homosexuality is NOT a weapon, period!

[ruggerson]

7. How can it be considered a "weapon"

except by those who think there is something wrong with it?

If, for example, I mentioned that a public figure is left handed, am I using his left handedness as a "weapon?"