Is outing a public figure ok now?

Outing one of your ilk in the demi-monde of old was the gravest of transgressions. I consider it a despicable action. Other people's secrets are theirs and theirs alone, to tell.

Just because someone hasn't come out doesn't mean they are closeted, if the certain politician is who I think it is then his orientation isn't particularly a secret.

If you were to look at the Dáil and Seanad, or even your local council, how many members could you place as being married without researching it?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I noticed somewhere that there was a bit of an outing of a public figure.

Do you think outing a public figure is ok now?

No. Never. I personally think there's never any justification for it. I think all people are entitled to have their privacy respected in public discourse, and I wouldn't think there could be anything served by outing someone, no matter how much of a hypocrite I may personally think they are, I'd think a lot less of the person who thought it was ok to out them.

In cases like this I'm always reminded of Harvey Milk. As much admiration as I have for the man and for all he achieved, I always felt his legacy was somewhat tarnished by his willingness to throw someone under the bus so to speak to advance his own cause -

Milk's role as a representative of San Francisco's gay community expanded during this period. On September 22, 1975, President Gerald Ford, while visiting San Francisco, walked from his hotel to his car. In the crowd, Sara Jane Moore raised a gun to shoot him. A former Marine who had been walking by grabbed her arm as the gun discharged toward the pavement.[53][54] The bystander was Oliver "Bill" Sipple, who had left Milk's ex-lover Joe Campbell years before, prompting Campbell's suicide attempt. The national spotlight was on him immediately. On psychiatric disability leave from the military, Sipple refused to call himself a hero and did not want his sexuality disclosed.[55] Milk, however, took advantage of the opportunity to illustrate his cause that public perception of gay people would be improved if they came out of the closet. He told a friend: "It's too good an opportunity. For once we can show that gays do heroic things, not just all that ca-ca about molesting children and hanging out in bathrooms."[56] Milk contacted a newspaper.[57]

Several days later Herb Caen, a columnist at The San Francisco Chronicle, exposed Sipple as gay and a friend of Milk's. The announcement was picked up by national newspapers, and Milk's name was included in many of the stories. Time magazine named Milk as a leader in San Francisco's gay community.[55] Sipple, however, was besieged by reporters, as was his family. His mother, a staunch Baptist in Detroit, now refused to speak to him. Although he had been involved with the gay community for years, even participating in Gay Pride events, Sipple sued the Chronicle for invasion of privacy.[58] President Ford sent Sipple a note of thanks for saving his life.[57] Milk said that Sipple's sexual orientation was the reason he received only a note, rather than an invitation to the White House.[57][note 5]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk

lottpaul wrote: »

Generally I would say that outing someone is wrong and an intrusion on the right to a private life.

That said, if a person was e.g. campaigning/speaking/preaching against certain gay rights in public while leading a very different private life then I think that such hypocrisy needs to be exposed.
I would say the same about someone who e.g.ranted about the public paying all of their taxes while dodging them personally or someone who moralised about marital fidelity while having an extramarital affair themselves.

In all of the above though it's the public hypocrisy that should be exposed and challenged, not their private sexual, financial or other lives.

But in order to expose their public hypocrisy, you would have to expose what you thought you knew about their private lives. In financial matters this would be easily proven with a written record of some sort, but their private morality with regard to their sexuality? There could be every chance you might have it wrong, and that's when "outing" could be dangerous and cause unintended peripheral damage to other people.

I don't know the specifics of the case Joey may be using to pose a hypothetical question, but the thought had crossed my mind in the run up to the marriage equality referendum that some people within the "Yes" campaign could indeed adopt American "personality politics" (we saw it in the Presidential Campaign with David Norris, and we all know how that went), and I would just like to think that rather than have the campaign descend into a mud slinging contest, that we could conduct ourselves with integrity and compassion, even when we have the opportunity to take a cheap shot in an effort to silence the opposition.

I would think most people would be of the opinion that while it's an easy thing to do (how many of us here know people who are married and in the closet? I won't say I know plenty, but of those whom I have talked to, they're still human beings at the end of the day, and nothing is so black and white), it's despicable, is the only word I can think of for anyone that'd do it to another human being.

Their hypocrisy, while despicable in itself, wouldn't justify stooping to their level. I can't say I'd feel any better for it anyway and I don't think it's achieve much, and quite possibly have the opposite effect and backfire spectacularly. If I object to someone imposing their morality on me, am I any different if I impose my morality on them? I'd rather they came to that realisation themselves and were able to be supported should they ever choose to make that private part of themselves public knowledge, of their own accord, when they were ready, not when I thought it would be to my advantage to out them.

Cantremember wrote: »

It depends if the public figure is using their position to undermine or attack lgbt people and the move to equality. If they aren't their privacy is privacy within normal legal limits. I don't know of anyone in such a position. It's curious to see this thread as we approach a referendum.

I agree - as the campaign heats up there may be more discussions like this but in most cases they are diversionary tactics designed to distract from the real issue.
The important thing is to keep focus and not get carried away on tangents. Groups like the RC church are already mobilising - 2 friends phoned last night having just listened to "motherhood and apple pie" sermons about the lovliness of tradition in the family and the need for stability in an everchanging world. Now, I wonder where that could be leading,,,,,,,?

I think it's more of a US phenomenon atm. Where legislators will vote against extending rights to gay people.....and then post neck-down pics of themselves on Grinder.

That's a completely different situation to the Milk example above.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I've already stated this isnt about someone taking an anti gay rights stand.

That said I completely agree with outing politicians who are actively oppressing lgbt rights through politics.

My fault for tearing off on that tangent there. I did a bit of googling just now to get the context for your original question, and I can't see any reason why it would ever be ok to out someone who has chosen not to make their sexuality or their relationships a public talking point.

It just screams "gossip" to me anyway, as though that person's sexuality should be a public talking point. Should it, really? Not if anyone wants to argue at the same time that "there's nothing to see here" with regard to their own sexuality or relationships.

I've always thought of people who liked to gossip about other people as small minded and ignorant, regardless of their sexuality.

Cantremember wrote: »

As far as I can see there's general agreement here that if the person isn't taking a public role to undermine lgbt people then privacy is privacy. The thread expanded to consider the other case and there opinion is divided. It will be a curious byroad of the upcoming referendum if it does happen. As I said if you look at other sites you may see hints of something. I get a sense that there may be something brewing.

Seems a bit "reds under the bed", no?

I mean, if you're talking about members of the clergy, then no, I don't think it's right to go outing them either. Many of them struggle with their own conscience in private, and put on a public face where they must be seen to tow the party line as such.

With regard to your lottpaul's earlier post, yes, the Catholic Bishops Conference did indeed publish literature about a week before Christmas (I suspect the timing was deliberate) about The Meaning of Marriage which was left on a table at the back of the church (there's a link to the PDF in that link), but there was no preaching done during the mass itself.

That letter I linked to would be a good outlay of how most Catholics feel about the Church's stance on the issue, and I don't think there would be any good to be served by outing members of the clergy who in private may also disagree with the Church's stance on the issue.


EDIT: Apologies Cantremember, that was lottpaul's post I was thinking of.