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

[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'

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

I agree, that‘s one reason I think the idea that no one could be pretending to be gay is it ridiculous.

Calling it an absurd premise does make for an easy (albeit weak) response.

[mogandave]

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.

Condescension and name calling does not really promote spirited discussion, but if it’s all you got, I guess you have to go with it.

I can’t speak for “every passing breeder”, but if everything I post is rejected out of hand as “absurd”, I will get bored rather quickly.

[endure]

I can’t speak for “every passing breeder”, but if everything I post is rejected out of hand as “absurd”, I will get bored rather quickly.

Excellent.

[thaicbr]

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.

I would say NO.

What people do in their private love lives is exactly that. PRIVATE and it should be entirely up to them if they want to express it or not.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

[khunbaobao]

Back a few pages ago, LeCharivari asked: "Is it ever acceptable to "out" someone as gay publicly without their consent?"

The simple answer would be no, but life's not often without complications. I try not to speak in absolutes, but to the best of my knowledge I've never outed anyone as gay, and don't ever plan on doing it.

Now, there have been many times when I'd have been there to applaud enthusiastically if the news came out from some other source - about lying hypocrites doing harm to others, for example - but to out someone at the level of press, radio, TV, film or the internet is completely chickensh*t, if I may say so. It's up to them what they wish to share, in the same way it's acceptable for people to be anonymous on forums, regardless of the misinformation or vitriolic nonsense they might spread.

[Ijustwannateach]

I think it is perfectly fine to expose politicians as being insincere hypocrites and bad representatives, no matter what their vocal political issues are. A broken promise on one hand is just as bad as hiding the way that you benefit or avoid problems from your own political positions because of your deceit. I think politicans who play politics with Christian religious games but aren't really good Christians should be exposed. I think politicians who are constantly vocal about 'the sanctity of the family' but have 5 marriages and don't pay child support should be exposed. I think politicians who talk about tax fairness but hide the money in the Caymans should be exposed. And I think politicians who talk stone-age religious sexual mores but who cheat, two-time, see prostitutes straight and/or gay, should be exposed as hypocrites. If they weren't THEMSELVES making a big deal over it or joining votes on one side or another, then I think they get a pass- until the next time they campaign or legislate or canvas as being other than what they are...

So yes, if politicians make a big deal over 'gay = bad' or 'no gay marriage' or 'no gay sex' or 'gays are immoral blah blah blah' and they're out there picking up guys or going home with guys or cruising in airport toilets for guys- yes, they should be outed (and probably sent to a psychologist). They reap what they sow, as the Bible says! Mogandave, I don't care if they claim to be gay or if they are MSM or whatever. If their behaviour is at odds with their public political stance, I'm happy to see them burn.

[pxlgirl]

has anyone watched the documentary "Outrage"?

Edited August 28, 2012 by pxlgirl

[tombkk]

has anyone watched the documentary "Outrage"?

No, I had to Google for it. there are many websites about it, including this:

As Barney Frank, perhaps the best-known openly gay member of Congress explains, "There is a right to privacy, but not a right to hypocrisy. It is very important that the people who make the law be subject to the law."

I agree with that feeling.

Wikipedia also has an article about that film.

I wonder what the problem is with those politicians back in the US. Many European politicians are openly gay. This includes the German Minister of Foreign Affairs as well as many city mayors across Europe.

Only if you are trying to hide your homosexuality are you subject to any threats.

[endure]

I wonder what the problem is with those politicians back in the US. Many European politicians are openly gay.

Religion.

[endure]

has anyone watched the documentary "Outrage"?

I've just watched it. The only thing I can say is that I'm hugely grateful that I'm not American...

[tombkk]

has anyone watched the documentary "Outrage"?

I've just watched it. The only thing I can say is that I'm hugely grateful that I'm not American...

Is there something in this movie does not happen in Europe or Asia?

Please let us know!

[endure]

has anyone watched the documentary "Outrage"?

I've just watched it. The only thing I can say is that I'm hugely grateful that I'm not American...

Is there something in this movie does not happen in Europe or Asia?

Please let us know!

Yes - politicians are prevented from winning because of their sexual orientation.

[Jingthing]

This is an interesting case.

A U.S. congressman with a record of anti-gay civil rights votes but only rumors (no hard evidence) of his possible homosexuality.

Do I think he is a closeted gay man? Well, maybe. But from what I can see there is no hard evidence so I would say leave him alone until he makes the inevitable mistake. Then out him!

In other words, I do think it is obnoxious to harass such people when you don't have the goods. Saying this politician is wearing a "gay shirt" or "gay belt" doesn't help the cause of gay civil rights rights. It looks petty. Anti-gay politicians can be opposed on principles alone as they are clearly wrong to be opposing civil rights for any group.

http://www.huffingto...ref=mostpopular

Edited September 4, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

I wonder what the problem is with those politicians back in the US. Many European politicians are openly gay.

The problem's not with the politicians, but with their electorate.

[LeCharivari]

Edward Heath was British Prime Minister forty years ago, from 1970 to 1974, and while he was never "openly gay" he was certainly "known" to be gay by anyone remotely interested in politics (as well as sailing or music). Peter Tatchell ("outer" supreme and founder and publisher of Outrage!) wrote that "It's a long-standing open secret. It is amazing his sexuality wasn't the subject of tabloid revelations during his lifetime" and he never outed Ted Heath himself despite Heath's voting against lowering the homosexual age of consent in 1994 (he subsequently voted for it in 1998).

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/46516-former-pm-ted-heath-is-outed#ixzz25c5miqzj

I wonder what the problem is with those politicians back in the US. Many European politicians are openly gay.

A crucial difference between the UK (and much of Europe/the West) and the US in this regard is that in the US political debate and elections appear to be based as much on identity and personality as on policies, while in the UK individual identity and personality are of far less importance than party policies (except, obviously, for those standing as independents) and the election of party leaders (and consequently the PM) is left up to their respective parties to decide. A prime example would be Winston Churchill's defeat in the 1945 national elections, immediately after his leading Britain through WWII when his personal popularity was at its peak.

I'm not saying that one method is necessarily any better than the other as there are advantages and disadvantages on both sides, simply pointing out that "politicians back in the US" face a different electoral "problem" to "many European politicians" in addition to the obvious difference of how acceptable non-"mainstream" individuals are to their electorate.

Edited September 5, 2012 by LeCharivari

[tombkk]

I wonder what the problem is with those politicians back in the US. Many European politicians are openly gay.

A crucial difference between the UK (and much of Europe/the West) and the US in this regard is that in the US political debate and elections appear to be based as much on identity and personality as on policies, while in the UK individual identity and personality are of far less importance than party policies (except, obviously, for those standing as independents) and the election of party leaders (and consequently the PM) is left up to their respective parties to decide. A prime example would be Winston Churchill's defeat in the 1945 national elections, immediately after his leading Britain through WWII when his personal popularity was at its peak.

I'm not saying that one method is necessarily any better than the other as there are advantages and disadvantages on both sides, simply pointing out that "politicians back in the US" face a different electoral "problem" to "many European politicians" in addition to the obvious difference of how acceptable non-"mainstream" individuals are to their electorate.

Wait a minute here. Whether a vote is based on identity/personality AND politics, or ONLY on politics, is not the question here. The question is whether the homosexual identity is a reason for people NOT to vote for them.

I have no problem with the idea that a leader should be voted for not only because of his party program and that we should also look at whether he (or she) is a good an honest person. I think even rednecks would agree with me up to this point. However, I don't think that being gay makes anybody a bad person, and that is where the rednecks (and probably most voters in the US, but not in Europe) will disagree.

[Jingthing]

It's getting better for out gay politicians in the U.S. but one wouldn't bother running for president quite yet. In the U.S., yes out gay politicians are associated with the democratic party with more liberal politics so they wouldn't have a chance in districts dominated by right wing politics. But that leaves a lot of territory where out gay politicians that are well qualified and talented of course to be competitive.

A great example, and in Texas!

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-13/politics/houston.mayor_1_gay-mayor-annise-parker-houston?_s=PM:POLITICS

Edited September 7, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

I don't think that being gay makes anybody a bad person, and that is where the rednecks (and probably most voters in the US, but not in Europe) will disagree.

I think the suggestion that "probably most voters in the US" think that being gay makes someone a bad person is taking things a bit far, Tom! I doubt if "most" of those who do not approve of gays or gay marriage, gay rights, etc, actually think they are "bad" people rather than people they do not approve of - there is quite a difference.

... and I don't think that, at least in the US, its about potential gay politicians so much as about "non-mainstream" politicians - after all, when the first of now two Muslims in Congress preferred to swear his oath on a Koran (even though Article VI Section 3 of the US Constitution is very clear that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States") there was a considerable public outcry.

The problem in the US, at least as I see it, is that gays are now being made both a political and a religious issue and that polarises both the supporters of gay rights and those opposing them - everywhere else in the West where progress has been made on gay rights it has been cross-party / bi-partisan and there has also been considerable and varied religious support, so I think that polarising the issue is a very dangerous thing to do from every perspective.

[Jingthing]

Well, in my opinion as an American, I think a significant percentage do think gay people are bad people and that homophobia is real and pervasive. My guess is about 30 to 40 percent. Religion plays a big factor in this. Considering this and considering the way demonization of gays has been used by the right wing party for decades now, I think the progress has been pretty good.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Jingthing