Out: Shepard Smith and Anderson Cooper Are Powerful Gay Men

[NineOfClubs]

Somehow I can't grant either of them the description "powerful".

Hiding in a closet doesn't exactly scream power...

 

[Kulindahr]

I never cared for the Gawker and now I have an official reason to hate them.

Love this comment left by a heterosexual:



Notice the bolded part. I am especially harsh on people (like politicians) who use their power to hurt gays while living in the closet and am always outspoken on outing them. But someone just living a happy life minding his own damn business and supporting the LGBT community in the meantime?

Leave it alone. He's gay, we all know he's gay, it isn't about time he said anything. He's living his life happily with the guy he's into. Leave him alone.

Just because people aren't prancing around announcing it doesn't mean they're hiding. Let them do it their own way.

 

[sixthson]

I'm sure if these men are indeed gay then their families, friends and co-workers know it. Neither strikes me as a shrinking violet. This makes them OUT in my book.
The question is what obligation do they have to their audiences to reveal this information? None, I would say.
It would be nice if they did, but it doesn't mean they aren't out if their viewers don't know it. If they denied being gay when that is not true, then that would be reprehensible. Since they are not public about their sexuality, they cannot be powerful, influential gay men, however.

 

[Kulindahr]

QUOTE for excellence:

But I don't think he has a responsibility to be a gay leader if he doesn't want to. I don't think he owes it to me. I think he can live his life. And where I disagree with Gawker is the implication that he needs to come out. That's his call, not mine I save that anger for folks who are hiding in shame. He's out in the open. He's just not "out" by standards of people who need him to say "I am gay" when it's clearly in front of them. As clear as color, though you feel my analogy has failed.

The race analogy may not work with you, but the "majority" argument doesn't work for me either, quite simply because assuming someone is "straight" because the majority of people are straight is stupid. It always has been. And needing someone to say they are gay to believe it is stupid as well. I am over the era of "coming out." I'm more about being out. Because I want society to be conditioned to not expect someone to say "I am gay" for them to suspect that someone may be. Any more than they are conditioned for a straight person to announce their heterosexuality. I'm not alone in that.

Any implication that there is any shame in my actions is a misguided one. I don't go around saying "I'm gay," but when folks ask me, I say yes. If I'm with a guy I fancy, I hold his hand. When I hear people talking shit on gays, I say something about it.

My views on labels, semantics over coming out obviously clash a ton with you, but that doesn't make me insecure. I see things differently. This is nothing new.

The basic truth here is that a person owns himself. Cooper owns himself; the public does not. What his job is, is irrelevant. His job is to do news, not to satisfy the curiosity of gossip hounds.

And he serves as an excellent example to the upcoming generation: he does things his way, and doesn't bow to some artificial standard put forth by busybodies. That's the best message that can be sent: you don't have to be like everyone else; be who you are and want to be. Gay kids don't need to hear a message that their lives are owned by the nosy people who want to pry into other peoples lives, that they aren't allowed any privacy just because they're gay; no, they need to hear that they are in charge of their lives, that what others say is sometimes worth listening to but is no weighty matter to be used to guide one's life.

In Cooper's position, if someone asked him bluntly, "Are you gay?", the best possible answer he could give is, "Does it matter?" Making a big deal, demanding that he "come out", is just another form of tyranny, a different sort of oppression. It doesn't matter if the community oppressing me is gay or straight; so long as they're demanding that I conform to their standards, they are tyrants. The only reason for jumping on Cooper is that he won't go along with the tyranny of the gossips and meddlers -- but that makes him a hero (on a small scale), not a bad example.

 

[altlover85]

And I don't understand how you are surprised that I've asked if straight people come out. Yes, a majority of people are straight. A majority of people in America are also White. Should I then assume everyone is?

And don't say that you can see if someone isn't White. Because you can also clearly see that Anderson Cooper isn't straight, if you open your eyes. He's not hiding anything. There is a huge difference between hiding in shame and simply keeping your private life private.

You can see if someone is gay? Wow, I'm surprised to hear that coming from you. I thought you didn't like labels and all that jazz.

I'm seriously not seeing this whole white comparison at all. You see non-white people all the time. If you don't see them in person, you see them on TV. You generally don't have to guess whether or not someone is white or not.

If I see a picture of someone's face I can't automatically tell whether or not they are gay. You generally can with race.

"Coming out" is becoming an outdated practice, and assuming that someone is a heterosexual because they haven't "come out" has always been and always will be a stupid practice.

Ideally society will get to a point where it won't matter if you're gay, straight, bi, or whatever. Society isn't there yet. A lot of people assume someone is straight unless told otherwise. It is for that reason that I think people in the public eye should come out.

Amazing straight guy, ending up in the hall of fame. In an era where so many superstar athletes make headlines day after day for the bullshit that comes out of their mouths or for their personal lives, he nearly never does because he keeps it about what he does on the field. And this is mentioned nearly every time an article is written about him.

If he's so private, how come you know he's straight? Isn't that a violation of privacy?

Yes, we spot him around town with different women and the papers can run a photo or two. He's living his life, but in the public eye, he keeps it about his job. He's revered for doing such and I appreciate Anderson Cooper for doing the same. Gawker can suck a dick.

Oh, right. He was spotted with women. How come no one asked him to come out as straight?

1. That first line is disturbing. Period. I don't think I've ever wanted or deserved a free pass to know everything about anyone's personal life just because they are on TV. I don't get that at all.

How is saying "I like dudes" knowing everything about someone's personal life?

2. I actually went on about Derek Jeter before I even read this. Rarely do straight people not want to talk about their personal lives? Did I really read that? People of all orientations in the public eye have wanted their private lives private in the history of celebrity. Hell, in the history of human life, people have had the need for privacy. Hence, the existence of the word "privacy."

I meant straight people in the public eye. And again, somehow we found out about them being straight and yet these people still want to be private. How did we find out that they were straight?

Why didn't they simply not talk about their sexuality since it's so private?

It would be nice if they did, but it doesn't mean they aren't out if their viewers don't know it. If they denied being gay when that is not true, then that would be reprehensible.

I don't hear straight people saying "I don't want to talk about my personal life." when someone asks someone that's straight if they are straight. I know that happens rarely, but it has happened.

 

[blackbeltninja]

I disagree, especially in a national position like CNN.

I disagree with you - it's CNN, not Big Brother.

As long as the guy can read the news and ask interviewees questions, he can work for CNN. Having his private life on display is not part of the equation.

-d-

 

[altlover85]

I disagree with you - it's CNN, not Big Brother.

As long as the guy can read the news and ask interviewees questions, he can work for CNN. Having his private life on display is not part of the equation.

-d-

I simply don't feel like saying "I like guys" is a huge invasion of privacy given that he's been seen in public with men.

We can agree to disagree.

 

[Sausy]

Gotta agree with Huntneo....they don't have to be in your face about it,but it does connotate a certain shame to just dust over the issue and say you don't want to talk about it.What if Anderson says something about his partner that clearly relates to being same sex some middle aged ladies will stop watching CNN in a huff?How can one be a powerful representative of the gay community if he walks on eggshells to sanitize the fact he has a same sex partner?How is that partner supposed to feel...hey,love you but can only talk about you,IF I do,in the most generic and inoffensive of references?

 

[blackbeltninja]

Why should he have to disclose his sexuality to read the news? Just because a hatful of gays and a papparazzi rag demand he should?

That's bang out of order.

Why don't you guys demand his dick size, salary and religious and political affiliations as well? Oh - and his SAT scores too.

-d-

 

[altlover85]

Why should he have to disclose his sexuality to read the news?

Because to not do so implies that there's something wrong with being gay.

He's been seen in public with men, so why all the denial. Do you really think that someone who was spotted with a woman would answer a question about him being straight with "I don't talk about my private life"?

 

[Red Storm]

No, he isn't out, neither is Jodie Foster (#46). I guess they take their name kind of loosely at Out lol.

Jodie thanked her former partner in oen of her acceptance speeches, to me that is being out. Has Anderson mentioned his partner at all?

 

[Kulindahr]

Why should he have to disclose his sexuality to read the news? Just because a hatful of gays and a papparazzi rag demand he should?

That's bang out of order.

Why don't you guys demand his dick size, salary and religious and political affiliations as well? Oh - and his SAT scores too.

-d-

Because to not do so implies that there's something wrong with being gay.

He's been seen in public with men, so why all the denial. Do you really think that someone who was spotted with a woman would answer a question about him being straight with "I don't talk about my private life"?

Do you see how you're contradicting yourself?

He's been seen in public with men -- so obviously he isn't implying that there's something wrong with being gay.

All he's implying is that it doesn't make any difference to his job, that he considers his 'condition' quite normal and not something to go trumpeting about.

That's the best example young gays could have: that being gay is normal, that whether or not they want to talk about it is up to them, and no one else, that they're ion charge of their own lives and don't have to let people who can't mind their own business dictate their behavior.

 

[altlover85]

All he's implying is that it doesn't make any difference to his job, that he considers his 'condition' quite normal and not something to go trumpeting about.

His condition? Are we in the 1950's or 1960's?

Do you really consider your sexuality as some sort of condition?

That's the best example young gays could have: that being gay is normal, that whether or not they want to talk about it is up to them, and no one else, that they're ion charge of their own lives and don't have to let people who can't mind their own business dictate their behavior.

I don't agree with you. If being gay is normal then why wouldn't you want to simply admit you were gay when asked?

Why is admitting you are gay fall into some realm of privacy that's equivalent (according to some) of laying bare the entirety of your private life?

 

[Kulindahr]

His condition? Are we in the 1950's or 1960's?

Do you really consider your sexuality as some sort of condition?

Pay attention to punctuation.

 

[altlover85]

Pay attention to punctuation.

I read the punctuation, but sometimes when we joke with words there's a level of truth to them.

I'll chalk it up to different ways of communicating and leave it at that.

 

[blackbeltninja]

Because to not do so implies that there's something wrong with being gay.

Wow, tough crowd.

This is a slippery slope you're on. By inference, you also think that his high school marks, SAT scores, college marks, complete medical history, all political and religious affiliations, favourite colour, favourite song, favourite film, address, phone number and anything else YOU want to know should also be part of the record, because not to make it available to EVERYONE who wants to know implies there's something wrong with some or all of it?

Fuck off and leave him alone!

He's been seen in public with men, so why all the denial. Do you really think that someone who was spotted with a woman would answer a question about him being straight with "I don't talk about my private life"?

Right, because NO straight celebrity has ever politely declined to discuss their private life on Oprah or Ellen or anywhere and stated that their private life is not going to be talked about in this interview... on a scale of 1 to 10, exactly how naive are you? If every celeb broadcast everything, there'd be no speculation from any tabloid about who was dating whom, would there? Some celebs have even said it's nobody's business when asked straight up "are you seeing X?" and if you don't think that qualifies as not talking about one's personal life then we're not both speaking English.

-d-

 

[altlover85]

Wow, tough crowd.

This is a slippery slope you're on. By inference, you also think that his high school marks, SAT scores, college marks, complete medical history, all political and religious affiliations, favourite colour, favourite song, favourite film, address, phone number and anything else YOU want to know should also be part of the record, because not to make it available to EVERYONE who wants to know implies there's something wrong with some or all of it?

Fuck off and leave him alone!

His SAT scores and all most of the other things you mentioned (perhaps outside of political and religious affiliations) aren't even things anyone would care about.

Clearly my message isn't getting through and you don't understand the difference between why someone might be reticent to reveal their sexuality as opposed to their favorite color.

As far as a slippery slope, here is what I think a good example of a slippery slope would be "who are you seeing?", "how's your relationship?", "what do you do you in bed?"

Right, because NO straight celebrity has ever politely declined to discuss their private life on Oprah or Ellen or anywhere and stated that their private life is not going to be talked about in this interview... on a scale of 1 to 10, exactly how naive are you? If every celeb broadcast everything, there'd be no speculation from any tabloid about who was dating whom, would there? Some celebs have even said it's nobody's business when asked straight up "are you seeing X?" and if you don't think that qualifies as not talking about one's personal life then we're not both speaking English.

-d-

And again, you miss my point.

"Are you seeing X?" is not the same type of question (similar perhaps, but different enough) as "are you gay?" because "X" usually has a gender and thus the person's sexuality is known.

Asking someone about their sexuality is a loaded question. It can change the way people view someone, even though it shouldn't. The more people that act like it's not a big deal and don't dodge the question when asked, the less of an issue it will be.

If Anderson so closely guards his private life why did he write a memoir? And yes, I understand that there are differences between your day to day life and major life events, but I'd much rather talk to you about my boyfriend than how I dealt with the death of a loved one. Maybe that's just me.

If Anderson simply said "Yes. I'm gay, but I don't see what that has to do with anything." I could respect his answer. As is, I don't respect the way he's handled the situation.

 

[altlover85]

I'm gonna have to file this under the "different strokes" category and move on because no one here is gonna see anything different anytime soon. That's for sure.

Yeah. It's probably for the best.

I can understand how you don't want to hear about people's relationships, but I'm talking about why it's important that he come out because it would help other people understand that being gay is nothing to hide and might help someone else become more comfortable with his or her sexuality.

There are a fair amount of people in the world that don't pick up on things like jokes and need to be explicitly told that someone is gay in order to understand it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Asking someone about their sexuality is a loaded question. It can change the way people view someone, even though it shouldn't. The more people that act like it's not a big deal and don't dodge the question when asked, the less of an issue it will be.

The more people act like it's a big deal and demand that others follow their standards and answer the question when asked, the more of an issue it will be.

Your approach will keep it a big deal. Cooper's contributes to making it not a big deal. He's totally out, doesn't hide it, but he demonstrates that gays don't have to submit to the prying gossip-mongers.

 

[Kulindahr]

And this is where we differ. The guy is on Regis and Kelly plainly making jokes about how he's not attracted to women. He's around town with one of the hottest gay guys in town. He's living his life, happily it appears.

I guess in this case, actions do speak louder than words to me. I don't need him to say "I'm gay" for him to be out to me. I don't see a need to "come out" to be out.

It seems that in his case, he was never 'in'. He's plainly out, without a doubt. But he's quite emphatically illustrating that whether or not one is gay is not relevant to one's employment. If an employer can't ask that on a job application, then it's not an issue.

Next time he's asked, he should respond, "Will the news I report be any less or more true if I answer this question?"