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

[LeCharivari]

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.

... 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.

If all you require from your politicians / elected representatives is that they do nothing more than "represent" your "needs and wants", all well and good - that would seem to be a pretty good way of ensuring that any form of progress on any issue is kept to a minimum and that following each election you simply lurch from one tried and tested legislature to another, with no point in debate, discussion, compromise or workable, progressive and forward-thinking policies and solutions that will be accepted and appreciated by the majority of the population.

I like to think that, while our elected representatives should not act counter to our "needs and wants" and their manifestos, they are capable of rather more than just being some sort of mindless parrot and that they are capable of some form of original and constructive thought that will benefit the majority and not act against the minority. That may not always be what I get, even if if I get what I voted for, but that's what I'd like to get!

[LeCharivari]

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?

I don't see how you have jumped from what a politician does to what a politician believes as being hypocrisy if they vote against their beliefs on a particular issue - that happens all the time in party politics when politicians are not given the liberty of making a "conscience vote" on every issue and they are required to vote along party lines or to resign. That's what "Party politics" means, and it doesn't necessarily make someone who votes along party lines even though he disagrees with one particular issue a hypocrite.

The "conscience votes" on Gay Marriage in Australia are a prime example of politicians being allowed to vote in accordance with their beliefs rather than their Party's policies (or their party leader's beliefs).

[tombkk]

Well, I don't think "outing" somebody is right.

Rosa von Praunheim did that in Germany as a gay activist when I was young, and I thought he just violated people's rights.

Joerg Haider of Austria was a right-wing politician and died on his way back from a gay bar, and I didn't even know he was gay, nor did it matter. But then, even though he was right-wing, he never said anything against gay people.

If a politician is gay but officially supports anti-gay policies, that's a contradiction. They are lying to their constituency. It's not about being gay, it's about not doing what they preach, it's about dishonesty. A dishonest politician needs to be exposed. It really does not matter whether it's about being gay, protecting the environment, or protecting wild life (eg a WWF member loving to go on big-game hunt in Africa would be kind of questionable too, wouldn't they?)

[lubbkis]

Last weekend my niece, who is doing work experience (internship) far from home was outed on facebook by her current lover. Whilst my niece has posted a confirmation I'm not entirely happy that her outing wasn't a manipulation. I've lived mostly OUT most of my life and felt like sending her a supportive message but my partner cautions against it saying that her explosive father will accuse me of encouraging her.

I think coming OUT is something you do one step at a time and I don't out myself to every customer I deal with but to nearly everyone else. It's nobody else's choice.

[LeCharivari]

Well, I don't think "outing" somebody is right.

Rosa von Praunheim did that in Germany as a gay activist when I was young, and I thought he just violated people's rights.

Joerg Haider of Austria was a right-wing politician and died on his way back from a gay bar, and I didn't even know he was gay, nor did it matter. But then, even though he was right-wing, he never said anything against gay people.

If a politician is gay but officially supports anti-gay policies, that's a contradiction. They are lying to their constituency. It's not about being gay, it's about not doing what they preach, it's about dishonesty. A dishonest politician needs to be exposed. It really does not matter whether it's about being gay, protecting the environment, or protecting wild life (eg a WWF member loving to go on big-game hunt in Africa would be kind of questionable too, wouldn't they?)

I agree with you 100%, Tom, but the Austrian view of gays (or sexuality) in politics is surprisingly (at least to many others) incredibly forward thinking, in that it is not only an irrelevance but "outing" a politician would be illegal - an Austrian court supported injunctions against a number of Austrian and German newspapers that were about to publish articles claiming he was gay.

An article in Reuters* summed up the Austrian view very well, and I think it reflects that of most people here (gay or straight):

Haider never said he was gay, nor denied it and Austrians’ reaction to this is interesting. They don’t really care. Whether true or not, this speculation was largely politely ignored or deemed not newsworthy.

Overall the Austrian press abides by the unwritten rule that private lives should only be written about when made an issue by the politician themselves, or has an effect on public policy.

”If Haider was gay or bi or whatever, so what?” writes Marco Schreuder,, an openly gay member of the Vienna regional assembly. ”In our society, diverse sexual tendencies should be an accepted as a fact by enlightened, 21st century people…Drinkdriving is life-threatening. But visiting a gay bar doesn’t

threaten your own life or anyone else’s”.

Haider’s political parties — far-right Freedom before 2005 and later the splinter group Alliance for Austria’s Future, did not pursue anti-gay policies.

Question marks over Haider’s sexuality were not a political issue and are not new. Should we care nevertheless?

I do find your point that "even though he was right-wing, he never said anything against gay people" quite interesting, though. Many people (OK, at least one here!) assume that gays generally support "left-wing" policies, and that "right-wing" parties will generally be anti-gay. I can see the argument as right-wing parties tend to be more "traditional" and resistant to change, but as being gay becomes more "mainstream" I would have thought that gays will become more visible on all sides of the political spectrum - after all, despite the uninformed stereotyping, being gay doesn't mean that you have to be a wimpy, tree-hugging, pimply vegan any more than it means that you have to be some moustached, leather clad, muscle Mary. Most gays - like most people - are neither.

*: http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2008/10/24/was-rightist-haider-gay-austria-doesnt-care/

[LeCharivari]

..... Rosa von Praunheim did that in Germany as a gay activist when I was young, and I thought he just violated people's rights. ....

I had never heard of Rosa before, but what a singularly unpleasant thing to do - particularly when at least one of those he outed for no reason other than to make the point "I'm not the only one" turned out not to be gay. One activist we could do without.

[cdnvic]

One post removed as it advocated violence.

[tombkk]

LCV, you use many words about Haider. Could have been shortened to just the words before the first comma...

[LeCharivari]

"Could", yes, but that would have been to ignore my last para.

[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?

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!

Of course it’s not a good comparison to you, you stated previously and reconfirmed later that it is okay to out people because they are your enemies. While I do not agree with you, I do understand and respect your position. There is no need to pretend it’s something it’s not.

[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!

Of course it’s not a good comparison to you, you stated previously and reconfirmed later that it is okay to out people because they are your enemies. While I do not agree with you, I do understand and respect your position. There is no need to pretend it’s something it’s not.

I find that a distorted simplification of my position. Yes, again, it is perfectly defensible to "out" politicians who are actively anti-gay but in fact are having gay sex themselves. Edited August 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[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?

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.

Must it? I guess you don't get many responses.

Anyways, I thought we were discussing whether or not using the fact that a public figure was a hypocrite is a legitimate reason to out them.

I also only care about what a politician does, that’s why I think pretending to use hypocrisy as a legitimate excuse to out someone is weak.

[Jingthing]

It's not weak. It is totally logical.

[LeCharivari]

.... I also only care about what a politician does, that’s why I think pretending to use hypocrisy as a legitimate excuse to out someone is weak.

Do you mean "does" as in does in government, if elected?

I think most people would be a bit wary of electing someone who clearly wasn't honest/couldn't be trusted, if only because they couldn't be trusted to stand by their electoral promises. OK, after four years you can always vote them out, but a politician can do an awful lot of damage in four years.

(for once I'm 100% with JT's logic!)

Edited August 3, 2012 by LeCharivari

[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.

Must it? I guess you don't get many responses.

Anyways, I thought we were discussing whether or not using the fact that a public figure was a hypocrite is a legitimate reason to out them.

I also only care about what a politician does, that’s why I think pretending to use hypocrisy as a legitimate excuse to out someone is weak.

So what he "does" in his private life "does" not have any impact on your judgement even if it is in total conflict with what he says and does as a public figure, how odd.

[onthemoon]

.... I also only care about what a politician does, that’s why I think pretending to use hypocrisy as a legitimate excuse to out someone is weak.

Do you mean "does" as in does in government, if elected?

I think most people would be a bit wary of electing someone who clearly wasn't honest/couldn't be trusted, if only because they couldn't be trusted to stand by their electoral promises. OK, after four years you can always vote them out, but a politician can do an awful lot of damage in four years.

(for once I'm 100% with JT's logic!)

You mean dishonest politicians don't get reelected?

[pitrevie]

.... I also only care about what a politician does, that’s why I think pretending to use hypocrisy as a legitimate excuse to out someone is weak.

Do you mean "does" as in does in government, if elected?

I think most people would be a bit wary of electing someone who clearly wasn't honest/couldn't be trusted, if only because they couldn't be trusted to stand by their electoral promises. OK, after four years you can always vote them out, but a politician can do an awful lot of damage in four years.

(for once I'm 100% with JT's logic!)

You mean dishonest politicians don't get reelected?

No of course not but in a lot of instances is does mean their career comes to a full stop. The examples I gave, Ted Haggard, Newt Gingrich. At least it is in the public domain and as as we live in a democracy people can then chose to act on that as they wish.

[LeCharivari]

.... I also only care about what a politician does, that’s why I think pretending to use hypocrisy as a legitimate excuse to out someone is weak.

Do you mean "does" as in does in government, if elected?

I think most people would be a bit wary of electing someone who clearly wasn't honest/couldn't be trusted, if only because they couldn't be trusted to stand by their electoral promises. OK, after four years you can always vote them out, but a politician can do an awful lot of damage in four years.

(for once I'm 100% with JT's logic!)

You mean dishonest politicians don't get reelected?

No, I mean that if it becomes proven that they are dishonest there is less chance of their being re-elected.

[mogandave]

So what he "does" in his private life "does" not have any impact on your judgement even if it is in total conflict with what he says and does as a public figure, how odd.

I’m sorry, I thought when I said “I also only care about what a politician does…” it was clear that I care about what a politician does.

If a guy thinks being gay is a sin against God, but votes to support gay rights because he believes it is what his constituents want him to do, should he be held up to ridicule as a hypocrite?

[Jingthing]

So what he "does" in his private life "does" not have any impact on your judgement even if it is in total conflict with what he says and does as a public figure, how odd.

I’m sorry, I thought when I said “I also only care about what a politician does…” it was clear that I care about what a politician does.

If a guy thinks being gay is a sin against God, but votes to support gay rights because he believes it is what his constituents want him to do, should he be held up to ridicule as a hypocrite?

I think you're just playing games. I don't think what you have described happen in real life politics. What we're talking about here, politicians who support anti-gay policies but have gay sex themselves (avoiding the issue about whether they are gay or not) has historically been not rare.

[mogandave]

So what he "does" in his private life "does" not have any impact on your judgement even if it is in total conflict with what he says and does as a public figure, how odd.

I’m sorry, I thought when I said “I also only care about what a politician does…” it was clear that I care about what a politician does.

If a guy thinks being gay is a sin against God, but votes to support gay rights because he believes it is what his constituents want him to do, should he be held up to ridicule as a hypocrite?

I think you're just playing games. I don't think what you have described happen in real life politics. What we're talking about here, politicians who support anti-gay policies but have gay sex themselves (avoiding the issue about whether they are gay or not) has historically been not rare.

So you don’t believe there are any politicians that believe homosexuality is a sin against God, but vote to support gay rights? I think (at least in the US) that number greater than the number of “…politicians who support anti-gay policies but have gay sex themselves…”

As far as whether or not that number “…has historically been not rare.” I guess that depends on how you define rare, and how you define gay sex for that matter.

Gay-bashing politicians are a lot like Catholic priests in that when they get caught in compromising situations they always make the news.

If you support outing people because they are your enemy, fine.

If you support outing people because they are in a public office and the public has a right to know, fine.

But outing people because they are hypocrites, and not being consistent about it is (IMO) disingenuous.

What if a politician is not gay, but pretends to be gay and supports gay rights, should he or she be held up to ridicule as a hypocrite?

Finally, what do you mean by claiming I’m “…just playing games”? Generally people use a statement like that to discount what someone else says without haing to provide an actual response. That said, I am here for entertainment and enjoy spirited discussion, so in that sense I guess I am playing games.

[LeCharivari]

So what he "does" in his private life "does" not have any impact on your judgement even if it is in total conflict with what he says and does as a public figure, how odd.

I’m sorry, I thought when I said “I also only care about what a politician does…” it was clear that I care about what a politician does.

If a guy thinks being gay is a sin against God, but votes to support gay rights because he believes it is what his constituents want him to do, should he be held up to ridicule as a hypocrite?

No, far from it - but he should have the honesty and the courage, if only because of his religious beliefs, to make his position clear himself. I doubt if anyone who did that would be "held up to ridicule" for that, and I think they would earn the respect of both sides for their honesty both to their electorate and to themselves..

[LeCharivari]

What if a politician is not gay, but pretends to be gay and supports gay rights, should he or she be held up to ridicule as a hypocrite?

Maybe not a hypocrite, but certainly a fraud!

I'm not sure why or even how anyone would "pretend to be gay" but may I suggest that if you want to discuss that you start a separate topic on it, as its not relevant to this one.

[Jingthing]

What if a politician is not gay, but pretends to be gay and supports gay rights, should he or she be held up to ridicule as a hypocrite?

Maybe not a hypocrite, but certainly a fraud!

I'm not sure why or even how anyone would "pretend to be gay" but may I suggest that if you want to discuss that you start a separate topic on it, as its not relevant to this one.

It's just an absurd premise. The guy is just playing games and that is the polite term.

[mogandave]

What if a politician is not gay, but pretends to be gay and supports gay rights, should he or she be held up to ridicule as a hypocrite?

Maybe not a hypocrite, but certainly a fraud!

I'm not sure why or even how anyone would "pretend to be gay" but may I suggest that if you want to discuss that you start a separate topic on it, as its not relevant to this one.

So (apparently) millions of gays pretend to be straight, but it is inconceivable to you that someone would pretend to be gay? Why is that?

[mogandave]

What we're talking about here, politicians who support anti-gay policies but have gay sex themselves (avoiding the issue about whether they are gay or not) has historically been not rare.

Wouldn't somone that's not gay, but is having gay sex be pretending to be gay? Just askin'

[LeCharivari]

It's just an absurd premise. The guy is just playing games and that is the polite term.

Agreed, JT (much though it hurts me to agree with you!). Off-topic and becoming more absurd with every post.

As I've said above, if you want to discuss your topic then by all means start the thread and I'll do you the courtesy of replying, but until then ... bye-bye.

[onthemoon]

What if a politician is not gay, but pretends to be gay and supports gay rights, should he or she be held up to ridicule as a hypocrite?

Maybe not a hypocrite, but certainly a fraud!

I'm not sure why or even how anyone would "pretend to be gay" but may I suggest that if you want to discuss that you start a separate topic on it, as its not relevant to this one.

Have you never heard of the "Pink Dollar"? There is money to be made in the gay market!

Tom Robinson was pretty famous as a gay activist singer in Europe in the 1980s, and I was utterly disappointed when I found out that he is straight.

[Jingthing]

What we're talking about here, politicians who support anti-gay policies but have gay sex themselves (avoiding the issue about whether they are gay or not) has historically been not rare.

Wouldn't somone that's not gay, but is having gay sex be pretending to be gay? Just askin'

No. Having gay sex doesn't necessarily indicate gay identity.

[endure]

Oh no! Not the 44 page tedious explanation of the difference between what goes on in your head and what goes on in your pants! I thought the gay forum was a protected space where we don't have to justify or explain ourselves to every passing breeder. Ignore him Jing - he'll get bored and go away.