"Outing" - Right, Wrong, Sometimes, Never ?

[LeCharivari]

Is it ever acceptable to "out" someone as gay publicly without their consent?

I'm not talking about exposing a politician who is anti-homosexual in public but a practicing homosexual in private, which I would put in the same category as exposing a politician who advocates protectionism publicly while out-sourcing his own employees' jobs abroad - politicians are after public votes and so, to me, the public have a right not only to know their agendas and views but also to know if they "walk the walk" as well as "talk the talk".

I'm talking about whether anyone has a right to expose what someone else does with a consenting adult (or even adults) in private. As one of the main arguments for the de-criminalisation of homosexuality has always been that what consenting adults do in private is no-one's business but their own*, doesn't "outing" run contrary to that?

Can "outing" ever be justified?

*: "there is a sacred realm of privacy ... into which the law, generally speaking, must not intrude. This is a principle of the utmost importance for the preservation of human freedom, self-respect, and responsibility" - Dr Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, concerning the Wolfenden Report.

[isanbirder]

No.

One prays, if one is in the way of praying, for the day when this will not be an issue.

[mogandave]

I think politicians should do what their constituents want, regardless of what that politician’s personal beliefs and ideals are.

As long as people are not breaking the law, I think their personal lives should be their own business.

I have benefited from programs that I believe to be bad for the US, does that make me a hypocrite? I think not.

[Jingthing]

I think the OP has presented mostly a non-issue for gay people. Obviously, it is wrong to violate the privacy of people by outing them. Coming out is a personal choice. American gay civil rights martyr Harvey Milk encouraged people to come out with their free will so that everyone would realize they personally know and like someone gay; he didn't promote forcing people to come out who didn't wish that. He correctly understood that advancement of gay civil rights did require a critical mass of everyday gay people coming out. As far as anti-gay politicians who are doing homosex themselves, OF COURSE, they should be outed, as they are very dangerous enemies. History has shown some of our most severe oppressors in history have done so to overcompensate for their own homosexuality. In other words, look how I hate them, I can't possibly be one myself. Yes you can.

I say mostly a non-issue because yes I am sure there is a small minority of gay people who believe in forcefully outing everyone and anybody whenever they can for whatever reason. But there is no way that reflects a significant portion of gay people.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Jingthing

[mogandave]

...OF COURSE, they should be outed, as they are very dangerous enemies.

So it's okay to out your enemies, just not your friends?

[Jingthing]

...OF COURSE, they should be outed, as they are very dangerous enemies.

So it's okay to out your enemies, just not your friends?

If the enemies happen to be into homosexual sex, yes, absolutely. What is the problem with that? These people are explicitly targeting gay people for oppression. It seems more than moral to expose their insipid hypocrisy. Edited July 26, 2012 by Jingthing

[scorecard]

...OF COURSE, they should be outed, as they are very dangerous enemies.

So it's okay to out your enemies, just not your friends?

Another slant of this. One of my neighbors as a kid was everybodys friend, a sports champion at school and he went on to become a respected heart surgeon.

The heart surgeon met a gay activist, well educated guy and they hit it off. This is about 30 years ago.

The surgeon invited his new friend to a 'pot luck dinner; along with a list of close friends who regularly went to each others houses for pot luck dinner.

After dinner the gay activist said he had an announcement to make and went right ahead to announce to all that he had fallen in love with the surgeon and he was convinced the feeling was mutual. He went on to add that he would include a mention of this dinner in his regular column in a gay newspaper, and he would mention the names of all in attendance in the column to recognize the occasion.

The heart surgeon was horrified and ended his association with this guy immediately. He explained to his very close friends that he was not ashamed of his sexuality in any way, but he was very angry at the lack of respect for his privacy shown by the activity. In reality most of his close friends already knew.

Bottom line, his close friends all went out of their way to show that it made no difference to their friendship.

[Jingthing]

The gay activist in question sounds like a total jerk. If he supposedly cared so much about his lover, he should have talked to him about his intended action first. That said, it is a common area of incompatibility in gay relationships when one person is very out and the other is closeted. The out one may tend to want to pressure the closeted one to open up more and feel the gay freedom, and if the closeted one resists, it could easily be the cause of a breakup.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Jingthing

[endure]

Nowhere in scorecard's post does it say the surgeon and the activist were lovers.

[Jingthing]

Nowhere in scorecard's post does it say the surgeon and the activist were lovers.

Fair enough. But frankly it's just hearsay anyway. We'd have to hear the out one's side of the story to get a better perspective on what actually happened. The point is if a couple or potential couple has a big incompatibility with the closet issue it can indeed cause a big problem.

[LeCharivari]

Given the inevitable pre-conceptions telling people I'm gay would influence some people to reject or accept me initially based solely on my sexual preference, but the reaction of the vast majority of people I know and have met, gay or straight, would be "well, if your greatest achievement and the most important thing in your life is being born gay then go away and bore someone else".

If my friends and family are aware of my sexual preference and my relationships (as they probably would be aware if I were straight), I can't see why I should feel any obligation or inclination to tell anyone unless I were asking for (or being asked for) advice. If I were to tell my friends or family (unless it was indirectly, such as introducing my partner/BF) their response would probably be "do you really think I'm that dumb that I didn't know?"

If others are aware then so be it and I'll be judged for better or for worse, but I think that acceptance of gays (and consequent advancement of gay civil rights) comes far more from people becoming aware of and knowing gays in everyday life and seeing them as otherwise perfectly normal, productive members of society than it does from gay people "coming out" and deliberately identifying themselves as something "different".

If the subject came up in conversation and I were asked I would probably say so, but not necessarily - just as I have occasionally been asked where I went to school, what I did in the Army or what rank I held and, unless it was relevant, I usually replied "does it really matter?". Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, but I would prefer to be taken on my own merits once they are known rather than being condemned or accepted by association.

[LeCharivari]

I think politicians should do what their constituents want, regardless of what that politician’s personal beliefs and ideals are. .....

In an ideal world I'd agree with you, but that only really works as long as politicians genuinely know what their constituents want, and that can only really happen when the constituencies are small and the politicians have the time to regularly canvass their constituents on every issue - otherwise, at best, the politicians end up doing what they think their constituents want, and that could just be based on who shouts at them loudest.

In practical terms, and certainly at government/legislative level, the only real option is for the constituents to choose politicians who best represent their own "beliefs and ideals" (although that doesn't say much for some constituents, given some of those they elect).

[endure]

If my friends and family are aware of my sexual preference and my relationships (as they probably would be aware if I were straight), I can't see why I should feel any obligation or inclination to tell anyone unless I were asking for (or being asked for) advice. If I were to tell my friends or family (unless it was indirectly, such as introducing my partner/BF) their response would probably be "do you really think I'm that dumb that I didn't know?"

When I told my folks my Mum said 'I know. Put the kettle on'. My stepfather was appalled. Two good results

[isanbirder]

...OF COURSE, they should be outed, as they are very dangerous enemies.

So it's okay to out your enemies, just not your friends?

If the enemies happen to be into homosexual sex, yes, absolutely. What is the problem with that? These people are explicitly targeting gay people for oppression. It seems more than moral to expose their insipid hypocrisy.

For these people, you would actually be exposing their hypocrisy rather than their homosexuality. I know that's splitting hairs a bit.... but if someone stands for elected office, or seeks popularity in some other way (televangelists, for example), and tries to give his targeted audience a false impression of what he is like (as they nearly all do), I think it is right to expose them.

[scorecard]

Nowhere in scorecard's post does it say the surgeon and the activist were lovers.

Sorry, should have been more clear on that point, yes they had become gay lovers.

The time gap betwwen first meeting each other and the dinner party where the activist made 'the announcement' was about two weeks.

[TommoPhysicist]

I'm straight, but don't really care about my friends sexuality, up to them.

Can't understand why it would make a difference to anyone, they are friends not lovers.

(and I've never managed to successfully mix the two)

Edited July 27, 2012 by TommoPhysicist

[mogandave]

I think politicians should do what their constituents want, regardless of what that politician’s personal beliefs and ideals are. .....

In an ideal world I'd agree with you, but that only really works as long as politicians genuinely know what their constituents want, and that can only really happen when the constituencies are small and the politicians have the time to regularly canvass their constituents on every issue - otherwise, at best, the politicians end up doing what they think their constituents want, and that could just be based on who shouts at them loudest.

In practical terms, and certainly at government/legislative level, the only real option is for the constituents to choose politicians who best represent their own "beliefs and ideals" (although that doesn't say much for some constituents, given some of those they elect).

Choose them based on the belief and ideals represented by what they think or what they do? I am much more concerned about how a politician votes than how they think.

I also think they generally spend a lot of time determining what the constituents that fund them and vote for them want. Unfortunately, what the public wants is often contrary to what is best for them.

[mogandave]

...OF COURSE, they should be outed, as they are very dangerous enemies.

So it's okay to out your enemies, just not your friends?

If the enemies happen to be into homosexual sex, yes, absolutely. What is the problem with that? These people are explicitly targeting gay people for oppression. It seems more than moral to expose their insipid hypocrisy.

For these people, you would actually be exposing their hypocrisy rather than their homosexuality. I know that's splitting hairs a bit.... but if someone stands for elected office, or seeks popularity in some other way (televangelists, for example), and tries to give his targeted audience a false impression of what he is like (as they nearly all do), I think it is right to expose them.

While on the surface that's a great argument, unfortunately it could be used as an excuse to out anyone.

If it's okay it's okay for everyone. If it's not okay, it's not okay for anyone.

A better argument would be that as a public figure, their private life is not entitled to privacy.

[catmac]

If others are aware then so be it and I'll be judged for better or for worse, but I think that acceptance of gays (and consequent advancement of gay civil rights) comes far more from people becoming aware of and knowing gays in everyday life and seeing them as otherwise perfectly normal, productive members of society than it does from gay people "coming out" and deliberately identifying themselves as something "different".

My feelings exactly, LeCharivari. Only when the public perception of gay people is "seeing them as otherwise perfectly normal, productive members of society" will we have achieved equality. A goal not helped by the screaming, in-your-face gay activists, or the parodies strutting about in some Gay Pride events.

With regard to the OP, of course nobody has the right to "out" anyone just because they are gay. As Isanbirder rightly said, when outing anti-gay politicians and televangelists what is being "outed" is their hypocracy, not their sexuality.

[LeCharivari]

...... A better argument would be that as a public figure, their private life is not entitled to privacy.

Surely it very much depends on why they are a public figure?

If they are a politician, for example, and they condemn homosexuality in public while practicing it themselves in private that is hypocrisy - which should/may make them less likely to be elected, as they may also be hypocritical (lie) about other issues and cannot be trusted - and trust is what they are selling.

If they are a public figure for other reasons, for example an athlete, and they prefer to keep their private life private then why should they not continue to be entitled to privacy? Greg Louganis, the American diver, is a prime example: he won two golds in the Olympics in 1984 and again in 1988 as well as a string of other championships and awards; he did not come out as gay (and HIV positive) until 1994, since when he has been an active and deservedly highly respected campaigner for gay rights and for those with HIV. Although many of his corporate sponsors dropped him when he did so, at least Speedo had the courage to continue to sponsor him until comparatively recently, and he is still a coach/mentor to the US diving team.

Why should he have felt any compulsion to have spoken publicly about private matters whether it was his being gay, having been abused, or anything else when it had no relevance to why he was a public figure, unless he wanted to?

There was nothing hypocritical in his not previously disclosing that he was gay as he never denied it or tried to benefit from not being gay, so that cannot be used as a justification or excuse for "outing" him by anyone who wanted to do so - whether it was his competitors, who could have used it to discredit him and break his concentration, or other gays who wanted to use him to gain some twisted "approval by association" with someone who had achieved or done something they could never hope to do themselves.

As isanbirder and catmac said in essence, "gay but anti-gay" politicians and televangelists deserve to be exposed as they what they are selling is public trust and the public deserve to know if they are being cheated. That doesn't necessarily apply to others who are public figures, particularly now that being a "public figure" can apply to anyone who just happens to be at the top of their sport, study or profession.

[Jingthing]

A good example is Anderson Cooper. He's a good guy and believe me American gays have known he was gay for decades now. But nobody aggressively pushed him to explicitly publicly come out because that would have just been rude. If he had moved to Fox News and started spouting a lot of anti-gay garbage, then that would have been different.

[asanee]

I think politicians should do what their constituents want, regardless of what that politician’s personal beliefs and ideals are.

utter nonsense for me-that would simply make them all a kind of lobbyist for whoever pays them most-or is that usual US-practice anyway?

It should in ideal be someone who can THINK forward and put ideas about future and how to guide a society into better future living, which often is not in line with the common thoughts of most people-they want everything to stay the same and lesser taxes.

[cdnvic]

...OF COURSE, they should be outed, as they are very dangerous enemies.

So it's okay to out your enemies, just not your friends?

In those cases you are outting them as a hypocrite. The fact that they're gay is just part of the evidence.

[mogandave]

...... A better argument would be that as a public figure, their private life is not entitled to privacy.

Surely it very much depends on why they are a public figure?

If they are a politician, for example, and they condemn homosexuality in public while practicing it themselves in private that is hypocrisy - which should/may make them less likely to be elected, as they may also be hypocritical (lie) about other issues and cannot be trusted - and trust is what they are selling.

If they are a public figure for other reasons, for example an athlete, and they prefer to keep their private life private then why should they not continue to be entitled to privacy? Greg Louganis, the American diver, is a prime example: he won two golds in the Olympics in 1984 and again in 1988 as well as a string of other championships and awards; he did not come out as gay (and HIV positive) until 1994, since when he has been an active and deservedly highly respected campaigner for gay rights and for those with HIV. Although many of his corporate sponsors dropped him when he did so, at least Speedo had the courage to continue to sponsor him until comparatively recently, and he is still a coach/mentor to the US diving team.

Why should he have felt any compulsion to have spoken publicly about private matters whether it was his being gay, having been abused, or anything else when it had no relevance to why he was a public figure, unless he wanted to?

There was nothing hypocritical in his not previously disclosing that he was gay as he never denied it or tried to benefit from not being gay, so that cannot be used as a justification or excuse for "outing" him by anyone who wanted to do so - whether it was his competitors, who could have used it to discredit him and break his concentration, or other gays who wanted to use him to gain some twisted "approval by association" with someone who had achieved or done something they could never hope to do themselves.

As isanbirder and catmac said in essence, "gay but anti-gay" politicians and televangelists deserve to be exposed as they what they are selling is public trust and the public deserve to know if they are being cheated. That doesn't necessarily apply to others who are public figures, particularly now that being a "public figure" can apply to anyone who just happens to be at the top of their sport, study or profession.

Sorry, I should have said public officials, not just public figures. And I still think the fact that as a public official their private life is not their own is a better argument than just because their political views are different than someone else’s.

[mogandave]

...OF COURSE, they should be outed, as they are very dangerous enemies.

So it's okay to out your enemies, just not your friends?

In those cases you are outting them as a hypocrite. The fact that they're gay is just part of the evidence.

Is that your understanding of what was meant by: “…OF COURSE, they should be outed, as they are very dangerous enemies.”? To me, this statement smacks of a willingness to do ANYTHING possible to hurt or discredit ones opponents.

What if a closet gay politician was married with children and supported both gay rights and gun control. Would it be okay for the NRA to use the fact that he happens to be a homosexual as …just part of the evidence… to discredit him as a hypocrite?

[pitrevie]

I think where someone takes a public position which is the total opposite of what he himself is acting out in private then yes I say that sort of hypocrisy should be exposed. The ones that come to mind are people like Ted Haggard forever condemning gays or Newt Gingrich who struck such a high moral tone with regard to Clinton as did many of his republican colleagues but were then exposed for the hypocrites they were.

[mogandave]

I think politicians should do what their constituents want, regardless of what that politician’s personal beliefs and ideals are.

utter nonsense for me-that would simply make them all a kind of lobbyist for whoever pays them most-or is that usual US-practice anyway? It should in ideal be someone who can THINK forward and put ideas about future and how to guide a society into better future living, which often is not in line with the common thoughts of most people-they want everything to stay the same and lesser taxes.

I’m not sure how you get from doing what their constituents want to being a “…lobbyist for whoever pays them the most…”, but is it your position that politicians should do whatever they think is best without regard for what the people that elect them want?

It is my understanding that (in the US anyway) constituencies generally elect representatives to represent their needs and wants, not to think up unrealistic or unenforceable or unwanted unfunded government policies.

[mogandave]

I think where someone takes a public position which is the total opposite of what he himself is acting out in private then yes I say that sort of hypocrisy should be exposed. The ones that come to mind are people like Ted Haggard forever condemning gays or Newt Gingrich who struck such a high moral tone with regard to Clinton as did many of his republican colleagues but were then exposed for the hypocrites they were.

So if a politician supports gay rights and abortion, but in his heart he believes that homosexuality is a sin and that abortion is murder, he should be run out of office and held up to ridicule as a hypocrite, correct?

[Jingthing]

I think where someone takes a public position which is the total opposite of what he himself is acting out in private then yes I say that sort of hypocrisy should be exposed. The ones that come to mind are people like Ted Haggard forever condemning gays or Newt Gingrich who struck such a high moral tone with regard to Clinton as did many of his republican colleagues but were then exposed for the hypocrites they were.

So if a politician supports gay rights and abortion, but in his heart he believes that homosexuality is a sin and that abortion is murder, he should be run out of office and held up to ridicule as a hypocrite, correct?

Not a good comparison.

A good comparison would be a politician to takes pro gay civil rights positions but on the side is bashing homos in the park on weekends and/or giving private money to cure the gays groups (as Romney has but he is consistently anti-gay). Yes such hypocrites should exposed! We are talking here, dude, about politicians who are taking anti-gay positions but partaking of homsex in secret. Yes, this should be exposed!

[pitrevie]

I think where someone takes a public position which is the total opposite of what he himself is acting out in private then yes I say that sort of hypocrisy should be exposed. The ones that come to mind are people like Ted Haggard forever condemning gays or Newt Gingrich who struck such a high moral tone with regard to Clinton as did many of his republican colleagues but were then exposed for the hypocrites they were.

So if a politician supports gay rights and abortion, but in his heart he believes that homosexuality is a sin and that abortion is murder, he should be run out of office and held up to ridicule as a hypocrite, correct?

That must be the most convoluted reply I have ever received. I don't think we run people out of office for what they may believe in their heart or even what they may think in private. However when you have a public figure making statements such as Ted Haggard or Newt Gingrich and then doing entirely the opposite thing themselves I see no problem with exposing that hypocrisy. Note it wasn't what they were thinking it was what they were doing.