When Is It Ok To "out"?

[RonanTheBarbarian]

Peekint said:

"think outing is akin to saying, "Hey, see that girl over there? She's a real slut. She gave five of my friends blow jobs." Or, "See that guy and girl? They act like they're acquaintances but they've been doing each other in secret for three months." Basically, it's telling a sexual rumor, in my opinion. Very seldom could it be looked on as a good thing to do except that people like to tell and receive gossip."

You are not comparing like with like there peekint, unless you are assuming that any suggestion that someone is gay is in itself a scurrilous accusation.

You talk about people that "like to tell and receive gossip" as if this is some deviant group, but in fact in EVERY social situation (in the Western World at least) chatting about ones fellows and their romantic and/or matrimonial situation is the norm, not deviant.

Imagine this situation:

A new guy (call him Jim) starts at work. You know him slightly already because he is dating you neighbour's daughter. A few days after he starts some people are chatting about (behind his back, but benignly). A co-worker asks "Is he dating anyone, does anybody know, or is he single?"

You say "Oh, I know the woman Jim is going out with. He has been going out with my neighbour's daughter for the last six months"

Would that exchange be regarded as scurrilous gossip?

I think most people would say not. This is seen as normal non-controversial information to be passing on about a person. (Now if you said "and I saw them screwing in the neighbour's back garden too! And the positions he took her in..." may be it would be seen as scurrilous! )

Now, change the scenario slightly:

Jim starts at your workplace. You know him slightly already because he is dating you neighbour's SON. A few days after he starts some people are chatting about (behind his back, but benignly). A co-worker asks "Is he dating anyone, does anybody know, or is he single?"

You say "Oh, I know the guy Jim is going out with. He has been going out with my neighbour's son for the last six months"

Would that revelation be regarded any differently?

Obviously in most cases it would. This is not because the information conveyed is any more intimate, but because we (gay and straight) have been brought up to think that homosexuality is a big guilty secret that must be hidden by the social device of the "closet."

And you have committed the grave sin of "outing" someone.

And if you admit to it on a gay web-board you will soon be descended on by a bunch of (particularly more middle-aged) queens clucking about "You have just outed that poor man. How very very dare you!" (subtle Catherine Tate reference there).

But just because we have been brought up to think that way by Western society (and perhaps in Thai society too?) just does not mean we have to unthinkingly accept it. Actually, I am not trying to make a very radical gay lib statement here. In this World where we live in there is much prejudice still, and people like Jim can benefit from the presumption of heterosexuality. Especially if perhaps the boss in his section is a bit of a bigot, maybe keeping mum about Jim would be in his best interests...

I dunno. It is hard to know in that situation where to decide between craven acceptance of society's homophobia and discretion.

[RonanTheBarbarian]

For those of you who did not get the Catherine Tate reference above:

[endure]

Never. Interfering in someone else's life and possibly putting them at risk of consequences that you know nothing about is despicable. Best to stick to trying to improve your own life rather than interfere in other people's.

[jdinasia]

Endure, when those same people hypocritically interfere in others lives I see it as entirely acceptable. I would say outing Roy Cohn would be understandable but wrong, however outing the head of Focus on the Family etc would be 100% acceptable.

Life has consequences and one of the consequences for being a hypocrite in the public arena is having that pointed out publicly.

[peekint]

Peekint said:

"think outing is akin to saying, "Hey, see that girl over there? She's a real slut. She gave five of my friends blow jobs." Or, "See that guy and girl? They act like they're acquaintances but they've been doing each other in secret for three months." Basically, it's telling a sexual rumor, in my opinion. Very seldom could it be looked on as a good thing to do except that people like to tell and receive gossip."

I'm not sure where those quotes came from, but not from any of my posts. Perhaps from the deleted one about prostitution that the moderator refers to?

[peekint]

So far, it appears everyone agrees with me that there are instances in which outing is OK. Not as much a hot button as I thought.

Despite the misplaced attributions, I think RonantheBarbarian has a good point. If you just speak honestly (and, I've stumbled into EXACTLY the situation you describe, and did give the "dating my neighbor's son" answer), you end up "outing" people inadvertently. In this case maybe two!

I felt bad about it for a couple of minutes, and then thought about it. Why it is incumbent upon me to lie about it? The fellow hadn't taken me into his confidence ("don't tell anybody, but I'm doing Jimmy next door), Jimmy son wasn't underage, I had never been specifically asked "Oh, don't tell anyone I'm dating Jimmy!".

The days of the "cabal of silence" regarding Gay lifestyle is gone. If you want to be Gay and hide, you pretty much have to haunt bathrooms and dark saunas to have some expectation that what you're doing is considered "secret".

So, here's an auxiliary question. Is it outing if, in the natural course of your life, you decide it's no more shameful to talk about Dick and Rick than about Dick and Jane?

[endure]

So far, it appears everyone agrees with me that there are instances in which outing is OK. Not as much a hot button as I thought.

Er - no they don't (see post 33).

[twschw]

Peekint said:

"think outing is akin to saying, "Hey, see that girl over there? She's a real slut. She gave five of my friends blow jobs." Or, "See that guy and girl? They act like they're acquaintances but they've been doing each other in secret for three months." Basically, it's telling a sexual rumor, in my opinion. Very seldom could it be looked on as a good thing to do except that people like to tell and receive gossip."

I'm not sure where those quotes came from, but not from any of my posts. Perhaps from the deleted one about prostitution that the moderator refers to?

You really don't remember your own posts?

[tmd5855]

To summarize then, the

PROPOSITION: The House believes that "Outing" individuals in certain circumstances is not only acceptable, but desirable

is supported by

(1) the utilitarian concept of Greater Good, which has precedence in both law and society

(2) the legal principle that private actions can become of public interest based on ancillary actions of the individual.

Indeed, in order to disagree with the House, Negative must argue the following appositive:

There are no situations in which it is acceptable or desirable to Out someone.

A daunting task for Negative, indeed.

No, no, no. You are the one who wanted a debate. Not only are you being the devils advocate, your also acting as judge and jury (Were going to say Judge Judy. But, you would think me an American...I am not).

You picked a group of people that the general public would, should or could look up to for guidance. Using that outlook frame a defination that encompasses everyone?

How about a homosexual individual, not in the public eye, nor paid from the public purse. Neither does he/she, propose or push an anti agenda. Must that person be outed??

Going by your debating rules he /she must be. Goes against natural justice. That being the case??

Then arguing "natural justice" (to start off with) is a reasonable not daunting task to start with.

Edited November 27, 2008 by tmd5855

[peekint]

To summarize then, the

PROPOSITION: The House believes that "Outing" individuals in certain circumstances is not only acceptable, but desirable

is supported by

(1) the utilitarian concept of Greater Good, which has precedence in both law and society

(2) the legal principle that private actions can become of public interest based on ancillary actions of the individual.

Indeed, in order to disagree with the House, Negative must argue the following appositive:

There are no situations in which it is acceptable or desirable to Out someone.

A daunting task for Negative, indeed.

No, no, no. You are the one who wanted a debate. Not only are you being the devils advocate, your also acting as judge and jury (Were going to say Judge Judy. But, you would think me an American...I am not).

You picked a group of people that the general public would, should or could look up to for guidance. Using that outlook frame a defination that encompasses everyone?

How about a homosexual individual, not in the public eye, nor paid from the public purse. Neither does he/she, propose or push an anti agenda. Must that person be outed??

Going by your debating rules he /she must be. Goes against natural justice. That being the case??

Then arguing "natural justice" (to start off with) is a reasonable not daunting task to start with.

Oh, this one is too easy.

You haven't read the proposition, though you quoted it.

You neglected the part about "certain circumstances".

I have set up a very well defined, yet quite broad set of circumstances which it appears all the posters agree would be circumstances in which it would be acceptable and desirable to out an individual.

You're trying to refute my position by arguing against an example that doesn't fall into the circumstances I outline (repeated here):

1. Media Personalities

By concealing their Gay identities and taking on false heterosexual ones, Media Personalities perpetuate the isolation and oppression of other Gay people. This isolation is particularly acute for Gay teenagers, who lack role models and "heroes" to help build a positive identity. Indeed, it can be argued that the high rate of teen suicide is a direct result of Gay teens' isolation from positive role models.

2. Politicians and Clerics

By concealing their homosexual activities while concurrently acting to restrict or impair the legal rights of Gay people, Politicians and Clerics do harm to a large number of people. The rights and well being of those harmed outweighs the Outed individuals' right to privacy since that privacy is used as a scrim from which to harm others.

It appears you are agreeing with my position, then, since you are saying is that there is a circumstance that falls OUTSIDE the circumstances I outline which you would not find acceptable. But you haven't at all said the circumstances I've outlined are unacceptable or undesirable.

[peekint]

Peekint said:

"think outing is akin to saying, "Hey, see that girl over there? She's a real slut. She gave five of my friends blow jobs." Or, "See that guy and girl? They act like they're acquaintances but they've been doing each other in secret for three months." Basically, it's telling a sexual rumor, in my opinion. Very seldom could it be looked on as a good thing to do except that people like to tell and receive gossip."

I'm not sure where those quotes came from, but not from any of my posts. Perhaps from the deleted one about prostitution that the moderator refers to?

You really don't remember your own posts?

Indeed, I do remember my own posts, and this wasn't one of them.

The giveaway should be that "Peekint" is capitalized and my screen name is not.

I've looked it up for you, and, indeed, you are quoting post #17 by jimjim.

(You really don't remember which post you replied to? 555)

[Ijustwannateach]

Actually, it was Ronan who misquoted you in his reply, not twschw. But as you've already done us the honour of informing us all at great length that you don't pay attention with whom you are arguing, I suppose it's not all that surprising (but still very funny).

[peekint]

Never. Interfering in someone else's life and possibly putting them at risk of consequences that you know nothing about is despicable. Best to stick to trying to improve your own life rather than interfere in other people's.

May I apply your reasoning in the following situation?

You live next to an apartment in which a woman and a small girl live alone.

Every night, you've been hearing the woman yelling and screaming at her daughter.

Lately, you've been hearing the sound of slapping and beating, and the wails of the little girl.

It's been going on for some nights now.

Your guidance must then be to "stay out of it" because you cannot possibly know the whole of the situation or the consequences of exposing it.

For example, you may indeed be misinterpreting the sounds you are hearing.

The next day you come home, and there is police tape across the neighbor's door. On the nightly news you see that the woman next door was taken into custody after her child passed out and died at school of a cerebral hemorrhage caused by repeated blows to the head.

I would have intervened by reporting what I heard to Child Protective Services. My justification is that the possible risk to the innocent is greater than the risk to the possible perpetrator. I would have "outed" her following the same reasoning I lay out in support of the Proposition.

Your argument is that in reporting what you heard, you might have done more harm to the mother than good for the daughter. Therefore it was correct to have done nothing.

Is that a proper understanding of your reasoning?

[Ijustwannateach]

I'm sure Endure will speak for himself, but from what I can tell your "understanding" is off the mark to the point of being inflammatory and offensive by implying he would behave in such a way in a situation which is entirely off-topic, and shows little sign of any attempt at understanding or adhering to what would be the spirit or the letter of any rules of debate. This kind of acting out doesn't reflect well on the maturity of its poster.

[endure]

Never. Interfering in someone else's life and possibly putting them at risk of consequences that you know nothing about is despicable. Best to stick to trying to improve your own life rather than interfere in other people's.

May I apply your reasoning in the following situation?

You live next to an apartment in which a woman and a small girl live alone.

Every night, you've been hearing the woman yelling and screaming at her daughter.

Lately, you've been hearing the sound of slapping and beating, and the wails of the little girl.

It's been going on for some nights now.

What's the above got to do with a debate about outing gay folks? Are you seriously saying that possible child abuse and the revealing of someone's sexuality have anything in common? My comments were in regard to the subject of this thread which is outing homosexuals. Keep your strawmen to yourself.

[mgjackson69]

It seems to me that it would be no more appropriate to "out" a homosexual than it would be to go around talking about a heterosexual's activities.

[peekint]

Never. Interfering in someone else's life and possibly putting them at risk of consequences that you know nothing about is despicable. Best to stick to trying to improve your own life rather than interfere in other people's.

May I apply your reasoning in the following situation?

You live next to an apartment in which a woman and a small girl live alone.

Every night, you've been hearing the woman yelling and screaming at her daughter.

Lately, you've been hearing the sound of slapping and beating, and the wails of the little girl.

It's been going on for some nights now.

What's the above got to do with a debate about outing gay folks? Are you seriously saying that possible child abuse and the revealing of someone's sexuality have anything in common? My comments were in regard to the subject of this thread which is outing homosexuals. Keep your strawmen to yourself.

I don't see anything wrong with trying to understand a line of thinking by using an analogy. In fact, I would think you would be happy that I am trying to understand the reasoning before arguing against it. Obviously, by my choice of analogy, I think the reasoning needs clarification, so before I argue it, I want to make sure I am understanding correctly. Perhaps at some point you'll take the time to try to understand my reasoning, but until that time, it's what we've got to work with.

Using analogy is taking the reasoning presented here on our issue and applying it to another issue, to see if I understand the way the *reasoning* works. Reasoning is a line of thought, a logical thread, not a values thing, so should be able to be applied in any situation. Your reasoning was very clearly stated:

"Interfering in someone else's life and possibly putting them at risk of consequences that you know nothing about is despicable. Best to stick to trying to improve your own life rather than interfere in other people's."

Aside from the drama of the word "despicable" (makes me think of Daffy Duck), it does set out a clear standard for running one's life. There is nothing in that statement that restricts that world view to the single issue of "outing". It is quite general.

In any case, from the vehement reaction of the poster, I guess your short answer to my question

"Is that a proper understanding of your reasoning?"

would be "no"

My question is, is your reply

"No, you've misunderstood the logic of my reasoning - and here is some clarification", or,

"No, I would not use this line of reasoning in this case - and the reason is ..."

That would be a constructive way to proceed with the discussion, I think.

[peekint]

It seems to me that it would be no more appropriate to "out" a homosexual than it would be to go around talking about a heterosexual's activities.

I agree 100%.

Since, when someone asks me, in the case of a heterosexual, "Who is Adam going out with?", I have no qualms in replying "Eve"

Therefore, when someone asks me, in the case of a homosexual, "Who is Adam going out with", I have no qualms in replying "Steve"

[Ijustwannateach]

^I don't suppose it ever occurred to you to answer, 'not really sure, why don't you ask him/her?' and then let the party involved decide for himself?

[mgjackson69]

It seems to me that it would be no more appropriate to "out" a homosexual than it would be to go around talking about a heterosexual's activities.

I agree 100%.

Since, when someone asks me, in the case of a heterosexual, "Who is Adam going out with?", I have no qualms in replying "Eve"

Therefore, when someone asks me, in the case of a homosexual, "Who is Adam going out with", I have no qualms in replying "Steve"

If we lived in an idyllic world where people were not judgmental about others' biological wiring/lifestyle choices (depending upon which "theory" you subscribe to re: homosexuality), that would be the right answer. However, until our society reaches that point, the two situations that you described are not equivalent. In the first situation, your answer is likely to cause neither party a problem. In the second, depending upon circumstances, you might be creating problems for both.

I someone has chosen to stay "in the closet", who are you or I to disregard that? They have taken the decision to keep their relationship private for a reason and we should respect that.

Let's say that you have a heterosexual friend who has just started dating someone. He, for whatever reason, has asked you to keep that information to yourself. Now, if someone asks you, "Who is Adam going out with?" what is your response?

[peekint]

^I don't suppose it ever occurred to you to answer, 'not really sure, why don't you ask him/her?' and then let the party involved decide for himself?

You mean in the case of a Gay person (Adam and Steve?)

Or in the case of anyone, Gay or straight?

If the former, I ask, why? Is it shameful for Adam to be going out with Steve?

If the latter, it would make for rather stilted and unusual conversations!

"Hi! I heard you had a great time at that party last weekend!"

"Yeah, it was great"

"What band?"

"Gee, you better ask the guy who hosted the party" (he might not want people to know he hired a band)

(puzzled look)

"I heard Adam was there. Who is he going out with now?"

"Gee, you better ask him" (he might not want people to know about his boy/girlfriend)

(another puzzled look)

"Well ... I heard the food was good. Was there a caterer?"

"Oh, I really shouldn't say, you should ask the host" (he might not want people to know he hired a caterer ...)

[peekint]

It seems to me that it would be no more appropriate to "out" a homosexual than it would be to go around talking about a heterosexual's activities.

I agree 100%.

Since, when someone asks me, in the case of a heterosexual, "Who is Adam going out with?", I have no qualms in replying "Eve"

Therefore, when someone asks me, in the case of a homosexual, "Who is Adam going out with", I have no qualms in replying "Steve"

If we lived in an idyllic world where people were not judgmental about others' biological wiring/lifestyle choices (depending upon which "theory" you subscribe to re: homosexuality), that would be the right answer. However, until our society reaches that point, the two situations that you described are not equivalent. In the first situation, your answer is likely to cause neither party a problem. In the second, depending upon circumstances, you might be creating problems for both.

I someone has chosen to stay "in the closet", who are you or I to disregard that? They have taken the decision to keep their relationship private for a reason and we should respect that.

Let's say that you have a heterosexual friend who has just started dating someone. He, for whatever reason, has asked you to keep that information to yourself. Now, if someone asks you, "Who is Adam going out with?" what is your response?

If someone has specifically asked me to keep a piece of information to myself, whatever it is, my reply will be "He's asked me not to talk about it, he considers it private". I haven't been dishonest, and he hasn't asked me to be (since evidently, Adam is a close friend?).

Now let us make the assumption that I have only seen Adam and Steve together at a party holding hands, or otherwise doing something that would make it seem quite likely that they are "boyfriends". Adam is not a close friend, and neither Adam nor Steve has specifically asked me to "keep it a secret". Then what should I do? What if it were Adam and Eve?

At the risk of offending the poster by asking a question about his post and at the risk of inviting aspersions rained down upon my character by other posters, I would pursue the following:

How can we EVER live in an "idyllic world ..." if we ourselves choose to perpetuate the imperfections of this one?

Your reasoning implies Black folks should have been happy with Emancipation as enough, that mixed race couples should have been happy just to be able to live separately and sneak away at night to be together, and that the disabled should have been satisfied with staying in institutions. It's not an idyllic world, so hide from it, right? To battle against its imperfections is to invite "consequences!" (As if there are no consequences to NOT battling against its imperfections)

Further, I would parallel your argument:

If someone has chosen to stay in the closet, who is HE to expect that *I* have to become an accomplice in that deceit?

If he has standing as a close friend, there can be an honest discussion of that issue (and probably an adjustment of the relationship which would allow both of our values to be accommodated).

Otherwise, I reject the implication that someone with whom I am not intimately connected expects that I need to participate in a web of lies.

And for what? So he can hide away while letting others fight for a better and safer future for him? Bah humbug.

If he wants to "hide away" he better do it well. Get a wife, have kids, and lurk in bathrooms and saunas. Let him not expect to go out and have a social life with honest, out Gay people and drag them back into the closet with him by telling them they have to "keep his secret". Who is HE to command that much power over how other people lead their lives?

To hide is a choice he has made for himself to avoid a certain set of (perceived) consequences. Let him live with the consequences that arise from his decision to hide and not "have it both ways"

ASIDE: I still haven't heard anyone argue that it would not be right to Out someone in the cases I describe in my FA post.

[Ijustwannateach]

^I don't suppose it ever occurred to you to answer, 'not really sure, why don't you ask him/her?' and then let the party involved decide for himself?

You mean in the case of a Gay person (Adam and Steve?)

Or in the case of anyone, Gay or straight?

If the former, I ask, why? Is it shameful for Adam to be going out with Steve?

If the latter, it would make for rather stilted and unusual conversations!

"Hi! I heard you had a great time at that party last weekend!"

"Yeah, it was great"

"What band?"

"Gee, you better ask the guy who hosted the party" (he might not want people to know he hired a band)

(puzzled look)

"I heard Adam was there. Who is he going out with now?"

"Gee, you better ask him" (he might not want people to know about his boy/girlfriend)

(another puzzled look)

"Well ... I heard the food was good. Was there a caterer?"

"Oh, I really shouldn't say, you should ask the host" (he might not want people to know he hired a caterer ...)

You are clearly such a master debater that your level will be a very rarely frequented one on this forum.

[PeaceBlondie]

I go to a birthday party with lots of mixed couples of mixed orientations. These questions I answer:

Whose birthday is this? Is that lady in the brand new leather pillbox hat Queen Elizabeth? Who do you think will be GP champion next year? Isn't this beluga caviar delicious?

These questions I do not answer:

Do you think Queen Elizabeth had a heart attack when she heard what Charles said about Camilla's tampon? Does Mrs. Shinawatra still give BJ's to her husband? Is Adam dating Steve?

[paulfromphuket]

I go to a birthday party with lots of mixed couples of mixed orientations. These questions I answer:

Whose birthday is this? Is that lady in the brand new leather pillbox hat Queen Elizabeth? Who do you think will be GP champion next year? Isn't this beluga caviar delicious?

These questions I do not answer:

Do you think Queen Elizabeth had a heart attack when she heard what Charles said about Camilla's tampon? Does Mrs. Shinawatra still give BJ's to her husband? Is Adam dating Steve?

well said, but is it not BJ's to her ex husband.

[endure]

It seems to me that it would be no more appropriate to "out" a homosexual than it would be to go around talking about a heterosexual's activities.

I agree 100%.

Since, when someone asks me, in the case of a heterosexual, "Who is Adam going out with?", I have no qualms in replying "Eve"

Therefore, when someone asks me, in the case of a homosexual, "Who is Adam going out with", I have no qualms in replying "Steve"

If we lived in an idyllic world where people were not judgmental about others' biological wiring/lifestyle choices (depending upon which "theory" you subscribe to re: homosexuality), that would be the right answer. However, until our society reaches that point, the two situations that you described are not equivalent. In the first situation, your answer is likely to cause neither party a problem. In the second, depending upon circumstances, you might be creating problems for both.

I someone has chosen to stay "in the closet", who are you or I to disregard that? They have taken the decision to keep their relationship private for a reason and we should respect that.

Let's say that you have a heterosexual friend who has just started dating someone. He, for whatever reason, has asked you to keep that information to yourself. Now, if someone asks you, "Who is Adam going out with?" what is your response?

If someone has specifically asked me to keep a piece of information to myself, whatever it is, my reply will be "He's asked me not to talk about it, he considers it private". I haven't been dishonest, and he hasn't asked me to be (since evidently, Adam is a close friend?).

Now let us make the assumption that I have only seen Adam and Steve together at a party holding hands, or otherwise doing something that would make it seem quite likely that they are "boyfriends". Adam is not a close friend, and neither Adam nor Steve has specifically asked me to "keep it a secret". Then what should I do? What if it were Adam and Eve?

At the risk of offending the poster by asking a question about his post and at the risk of inviting aspersions rained down upon my character by other posters, I would pursue the following:

How can we EVER live in an "idyllic world ..." if we ourselves choose to perpetuate the imperfections of this one?

Your reasoning implies Black folks should have been happy with Emancipation as enough, that mixed race couples should have been happy just to be able to live separately and sneak away at night to be together, and that the disabled should have been satisfied with staying in institutions. It's not an idyllic world, so hide from it, right? To battle against its imperfections is to invite "consequences!" (As if there are no consequences to NOT battling against its imperfections)

Further, I would parallel your argument:

If someone has chosen to stay in the closet, who is HE to expect that *I* have to become an accomplice in that deceit?

If he has standing as a close friend, there can be an honest discussion of that issue (and probably an adjustment of the relationship which would allow both of our values to be accommodated).

Otherwise, I reject the implication that someone with whom I am not intimately connected expects that I need to participate in a web of lies.

And for what? So he can hide away while letting others fight for a better and safer future for him? Bah humbug.

If he wants to "hide away" he better do it well. Get a wife, have kids, and lurk in bathrooms and saunas. Let him not expect to go out and have a social life with honest, out Gay people and drag them back into the closet with him by telling them they have to "keep his secret". Who is HE to command that much power over how other people lead their lives?

To hide is a choice he has made for himself to avoid a certain set of (perceived) consequences. Let him live with the consequences that arise from his decision to hide and not "have it both ways"

ASIDE: I still haven't heard anyone argue that it would not be right to Out someone in the cases I describe in my FA post.

Like all activists you're simply another side of the bigotry coin. Who are you to tell others how to live their lives?

[peekint]

I go to a birthday party with lots of mixed couples of mixed orientations. These questions I answer:

Whose birthday is this? Is that lady in the brand new leather pillbox hat Queen Elizabeth? Who do you think will be GP champion next year? Isn't this beluga caviar delicious?

These questions I do not answer:

Do you think Queen Elizabeth had a heart attack when she heard what Charles said about Camilla's tampon? Does Mrs. Shinawatra still give BJ's to her husband? Is Adam dating Steve?

well said, but is it not BJ's to her ex husband.

So, you boil down gay relationships only to their sexual component?

That is the implication by comparing Adam dating Steve to Ms. MP BJs and Ms. Not-Quite-Princess sanitary napkins, I think.

And what about the Adam dating Eve question? I don't see that in either one, and that is the compare/contrast here.

[jdinasia]

Like all activists you're simply another side of the bigotry coin. Who are you to tell others how to live their lives?

Hmmmm that is pretty severe ... I thought bigotry was present when people lumped everyone into a single group similar to "like all activists" ?

[onni4me]

Like all activists you're simply another side of the bigotry coin. Who are you to tell others how to live their lives?

Yep. My feeling exactly.

I believe that most people don't really care who goes out with who. 90% of people I've told shrugged it off in couple of days. 10% became non-friends/acquaintances and that pleasure I am willing to allow them.

As I may have said before, many 'activists' want to place people in boxes (= "out them?") and they don't allow definitions that are sliding to other areas than decided 100% correctly. I would like to point out to them that more philosophical approach could be one accepting paradoxes. That is, to acknowledge, that one thing can be something and at the same point be something quite opposite at the same time.

I myself, would not dare to define gays or any other persons and place them in boxes according to my ideas. That might leave something quite human outside.

[peekint]

Further, I would parallel your argument:

If someone has chosen to stay in the closet, who is HE to expect that *I* have to become an accomplice in that deceit?

ASIDE: I still haven't heard anyone argue that it would not be right to Out someone in the cases I describe in my FA post.

Like all activists you're simply another side of the bigotry coin. Who are you to tell others how to live their lives?

Your compliment aside (see below), it seems you missed my point, quoted above and repeated here: Who is the fellow in the closet to tell ME how I have to conduct myself about his secrets? I say the imposition works in both directions.

It seems to me that his imposition is the more presumptuous.

I won't seek him out, unless he's actively trying to interfere in my well-being by promoting laws and actions that would be harmful to me. On the other hand, this stranger fully EXPECTS that I MUST "keep his secret" if I stumble upon it, or "hide myself" if it would expose him?

I understand that there was some unwritten code in the old days when everyone was at risk because homosexual acts were illegal. There was a very real and formally institutionalized penalty to being discovered. It was sort of a "thieves code" in practice when homosexuals were considered worse than thieves. Indeed, flamboyant or "out" homosexuals were routinely avoided and persecuted by the (at that time) 'average' homosexual in order to help preserve their own anonymity.

(ASIDE: Is that something we should be proud to argue to resurrect, or should we be bowing in thanks to those outcast drag queens at Stonewall?)

In the places I choose to pass my life there are no such legal penalties. Therefore, why should I subscribe to this unwritten pact with strangers?

When we make choices, whether to be "out" or to be "in", we also take on a set of risks and consequences. I have chosen my risks and consequences and accept them. The closet guy has chosen a path that has associated risks and consequences, but he expects me to mitigate them for him so it can be "easier" on him? That seems amply unfair. I didn't EXPECT him to 'come out' to make MY choice easier. I only would encourage him to do so. If he doesn't, that's up to him. All he's lost is my respect, and that won't get him a cup of coffee!

But we digress, and I'll leave this particular line aside after this because I feel I'm arguing more against personal dislike that any sort of reasoning. I've laid out my reasoning for my view on "Adam and Steve", and the line of reasoning itself hasn't been attacked (only my character, which has withstood much worse attacks over my 29 years ... or so).

OK, one more thing I can't resist. I have to thank you for the label of "activist", though I don't know that it currently applies to me since I'm haven't been politically active for some time. However, I'm proud to be lumped with the people who have made it possible for you (through their beatings, jailings, ridicule, job loss, and even death) to be able to write openly on LGBT issues in a public forum without fear of persecution or prosecution. So, again, Thank You for the compliment.

Back to the point of the thread, I'm still feeling rather satisfied that I haven't heard anyone argue that it would not be right to Out someone in the cases I describe in my FA post.

My goal is not to win over converts here, but rather to expose myself to alternative thinking and values as an education and expansion of my own มุมมอง.

So far, I've learned quite a bit from some of the minor posters which has evolved my thinking some, but I have failed to get anything of substance from the major posters aside from a list of my character flaws embedded in emotive diatribes.