OK to OUT - Part II

[The_Reaper]

As a person who was outed, I have to say it's not alright.


Sure, if the person is hypocritical about it it might seem like sweet justice to reveal it....

But one of Canada's greatest Prime Ministers, Pierre Trudeau, said:

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."


I'd like to think that since that applies, this should to:

"The nation has no business in the bedrooms of the state."


Unless the activity is illegal, there's no reason to chase after someone for it.
Let them do it on their own time and in their own way.

 

[sparky95]

I'm sorry but I'm about to lose it here. You guys are comparing a politician who lies about being gay to hemeroids. Is that how you regard homosexuality? The equivalent to varicose veins on the arse? Perhaps this says a lot more about your self image than you think! If I thought that I was so disgusting I would be happy to keep my closet and everyone elses closed too!

 

[Kulindahr]

Not at all, sparky. I'm using a certain post-er's own criteria for why a person should come out, namely, that a candidate who conceals anything that might hurt him in the eyes of voters HAS to be revealed, or he is lying. Yes, I know people who would vote for someone else if they knew a candidate had hemorrhoids, along with all the other things I listed. So what the post-er is saying is that candidates should publish a list of everything about them that might possibly offend some voters.
So I suppose, after all, that someone is doing what you suggest, but it's the one who insists that we should out politicians -- by his reason for doing so, he's making being gay a trivial, indeed political shopping-list, thing.

 

[turtle]

If it was trivial, it wouldn't even be a question, would it?

Honesty in public officials is far from trivial.

I'll say it and say it and say it again -

If you want my vote, don't lie to me.

 

[iman]

The obvious analogies are an African American who passes for white and someone of Jewish heritage that passes for gentile. While these things may be nobody's business and not relevant, it nevertheless suggests a degree of shame or an intent to avoid prejudice.

Personal integrity and honesty should require that prejudice be confronted and not avoided.

 

[Kulindahr]

The obvious analogies are an African American who passes for white and someone of Jewish heritage that passes for gentile. While these things may be nobody's business and not relevant, it nevertheless suggests a degree of shame or an intent to avoid prejudice.

Personal integrity and honesty should require that prejudice be confronted and not avoided.

Perhaps.
But THAT is not what Turtle has been arguing.

And still, it is THEIR decision. Outing someone is the same thing as assault, except with words instead of weapons. The ONLY legitimate reason for outing someone else is if he is publicly, openly, verbally denying it -- then you call him on it, because THAT is lying.
Otherwise, as I have said, you should pry into every last detail of a candidate's life, to find out if they are impotent ('out' him!) or have a family history of cancer ('out' him!), etc.


I could conceive of an approach in which outing a candidate MIGHT be acceptable: go to a public meeting where he's answering questions, and bluntly inquite, "Is there anything about you we should know that might impact my friends and I as gays?" If you KNOW he's gay (better be VERY, VERY, VERY sure!), and he answered "No", continue, "Would you say that it is important for a gay candidate to let the gay community know that about him?"
But at that point, if he says "No", you don't out him -- you respectfully disagree, and that's it. Everyone has things they don't want known, and have a right to that.

 

[Kulindahr]

If it was trivial, it wouldn't even be a question, would it?

Honesty in public officials is far from trivial.

I'll say it and say it and say it again -

If you want my vote, don't lie to me.

Then you'd better never vote for anyone, because by your argument, as I pointed out before, anyone who is impotent and doesn't publicly announce it is lying, anyone who is celibate and doesn't announce it is lying, anyone who is vegetarian and doesn't announce it is lying, anyone who only buys American and doesn't announce it is lying, anyone who ever skinnydipped and doesn't announce it is lying, anyone who ever...
Well, as you said, anyone who has anything in his life that might make people not vote for him -- if he doesn't shout it from the rooftops, he's lying to you. Not even Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan, who were both incredibly open, would qualify by your standard.

 

[iman]

^No, those are all things one chooses and are relatively inconsequential. Although if vegetarians are being persecuted it is a responsibility for other vegetarians to speak up.

Being gay is not a real choice, gays are being persecuted for who they are with no rationale. To remain in the closet under such circumstances is morally wrong and a tacit collaboration with the persecution. All gays should be outed, they have no right to live a lie while others suffer in their place. We should catch them and shave their heads, not that anyone would notice. Maybe a tattoo?
.

 

[iman]

^Yes, you're beginning to get it. No traitors, no collaborators, just honest folk standing up for their rights. You do believe in fighting for your rights, don't you? You wouldn't allow your fellow gays to be hauled off to the concentration camp while you hid in the bathroom at Wendys, would you? Of course not!

 

[turtle]

Then you'd better never vote for anyone, because by your argument, as I pointed out before, anyone who is impotent and doesn't publicly announce it is lying, anyone who is celibate and doesn't announce it is lying, anyone who is vegetarian and doesn't announce it is lying, anyone who only buys American and doesn't announce it is lying, anyone who ever skinnydipped and doesn't announce it is lying, anyone who ever...
Well, as you said, anyone who has anything in his life that might make people not vote for him -- if he doesn't shout it from the rooftops, he's lying to you. Not even Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan, who were both incredibly open, would qualify by your standard.

Baloney.

Lying is an action.

 

[turtle]

It's amazing how you were so quick to jump on my "inferring" things you've not said only to turn around and start saying them.

You can vote for whoever you want by whatever fucked-up credentials you utilize. Kulindahr has a point; people lie (by commission or omission) all the time about all kinds of things, so you'll just never have to bother voting again.

No, sir.

A lie is anything said or done with the intent to deceive.

An ommission can be a lie, if it is calculated to convey an incorrect impression.

I have ommitted (until now) telling anyone here that I wear boxers.

How is that a lie?

It would only be a lie if I wanted to decieve you.

Instead, it just never came up for discussion.

If it had come up for discussion, I would certainly not have lied about it, but I might well have told you to mind your own business, which, again, is no lie.

-D

 

[turtle]

When forcing someone to do something against their will, like coming out of the closet, you become no better than those right wing self-righteous zealots we all love to criticize. I didn't start coming out of the closet until the first part of this year and thank god I didn't have to deal with the likes of you. Besides, if I had come out any earlier, I would have most likely been dead because of the circumstances that surrounded me at the time. I came out on my own terms and that's the way it should be!!!

But were you asking us to invest you with public trust at the time?

Asking me for my vote, and promising me you are honest?

We are not talking about outing anyone other than politicians, who are a very special case.

If I thought you really did need such secrecy, I might even consent to lie for you.

But neither you nor I are running for public office.

-D

 

[turtle]

So, with regards to any-and-all politicians, as long as they are asked if they are gay, deny it but actually are, then it is ok to out them and oust them from office? Otherwise, you don't care if they say "mind your business" or something similar and not actually answer the question since it is definitely not relevant to politics; the problem is only if they lie and then get caught buggering someone?

Yes, that is pretty well what I am saying, though the truth may come to light in some other way than being caught buggering someone.

It is the dishonesty which bothers me.

 

[Kulindahr]

^No, those are all things one chooses and are relatively inconsequential. Although if vegetarians are being persecuted it is a responsibility for other vegetarians to speak up.

Being gay is not a real choice, gays are being persecuted for who they are with no rationale. To remain in the closet under such circumstances is morally wrong and a tacit collaboration with the persecution. All gays should be outed, they have no right to live a lie while others suffer in their place. We should catch them and shave their heads, not that anyone would notice. Maybe a tattoo?
.

Nice to see you coming into the open -- a Nazi-type totalitarian.
YOu don't understand freedom, human rights, or human dignity, do you? All you understand is the desire to dictate to other people how to live their lives -- exactly what is to be expected of an enthusiastic adherent of one of the major parties.

 

[iman]

How did I get to be a Nazi and a tyrant? I'm trying to free you folks from your self imposed shackles. You all need to throw away all those religious restraints, those bogus ideas like "I own myself" (hope you didn't pay too much), and fear of being out.

If you want to be gay, be gay. If you want to eat at Wendys, go in and sit down. If you want to be free, be free and dump all that baggage you have loaded yourself down with.

 

[Kulindahr]

How did I get to be a Nazi and a tyrant? I'm trying to free you folks from your self imposed shackles. You all need to throw away all those religious restraints, those bogus ideas like "I own myself" (hope you didn't pay too much), and fear of being out.

If you want to be gay, be gay. If you want to eat at Wendys, go in and sit down. If you want to be free, be free and dump all that baggage you have loaded yourself down with.

Nazi -- because you announce that you'd use their mthods.
Tyrant: because you want to impose your will on others -- and because you can't admit personal sovereignty; you believe in slavery, essentially (that's what denial of self-ownership means).

 

[iman]

Do I get a uniform and riding crop?

 

[Kulindahr]

Probably. And a whip.

 

[Kulindahr]

Shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition. And you shouldn't be a hypocrite, once arguing against freedom and now telling one to be free but only a certain way within your conditionals.

Winston Churchill once said, with regard to the ending of sentences with prepositions, "That is the sort of errant pedantry up with which I shall not put."

It's not entirely hypocritical, it's blindness -- he can't see that his statements about being free (but abide by my conditions!) are double-speak cover for authoritarianism.

 

[bigbott]

I am absolutely opposed to outing anybody. Someone’s sexuality is their own business. In an ideal world our sexuality should not be an issue. Unfortunately it seems most of the world have a long way to go in that respect.

Although I am totally out – I understand that it is each individual’s right to chose if and when they come out. Outing someone can not only hurt the person, but their family and friends too. Experience tells me that in the long run if you are honest about yourself; you are much happier.

I do however find it harder to condemn the outing of hypocritical politicians. In Britain during the eighties and early nineties we had a Conservative government that spouted family values and opposed the equalisation of the age on consent for gay men. They also introduced Section 28. However, at the same time some of the governments MP’s were having extra marital affairs or were closeted gays.

Fortunately things have changed over the last ten years. The Labour Government has generally been gay friendly and less moralising than the Conservatives were. Therefore, I do not think it is justified to pry into Labour MP’s personal lives or out them.

That said Conservative MP’s do deserve the same consideration too. Hypocritical though one or two may be, so great is the case for equal rights for gays and lesbians, we should not need to resort to outing. If anything outing damages peoples perceptions a gay activism.