Is outing a public figure ok now?

floggg · 05-01-2015 11:00am

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

if they are pontificating from the pulpit but at the same time having their little bit on the side then I would have no problem calling them a hypocrite. They cause huge harm to alot of people from their 'choice' of career.

It's not even a case of hypocrisy. It's simply a matter of full disclosure.

When you publicly advocate on an issue, then you should make full disclosure of all of your relevant personal circumstances, relationships or positions. How else can people appraise your arguments in an informed manner.

For example, if you argue same sex relationships are a danger to society as a whole, and yet are in one yourself, people have a right to know about that relationship so they can come to an informed judgment on the merits of your argument, the genuiness of your position and your motivations for making the argument.

floggg · 05-01-2015 11:06am

marienbad wrote: »

Why do you or any individual get to make that decision ?

We don't. He or she makes that decision once they start advocating on the issue.

If you don't want your personal life scrutinised, you shouldn't try to insert yourself into other people's personal lives in the first place.

marienbad wrote: »

Eh no actually, life is not that simple . What if that person has a family , kids in school ,parents should they be made to suffer on a someone else's point of principle ?

The family suffers because of the outed persons own actions.

floggg · 05-01-2015 11:16am

AdFundum wrote: »

I think if we gays begin appointing ourselves as the hypocrisy police, all our glass houses will collapse. Is it not enough to just understand that someone is being hypocritical without having to burn them for it. Someone preaching from the pulpit and having sordid gay sex on the side is obviously conflicted and in a bit of turmoil. In fact, the very act of outing him/her as fellating ex camera after mass not only puts him on trial but also puts the sex on trial too. You have to be careful about these things.

But that information is relevant to the persons listening to him preach, and necessary if they are to properly evaluate his message.

They deserve to know that info so that they can determine whether he really believes his own message, whether a life of abstinence is really achievable for gay people, whether it's a choice or what not, and whether a deceitful person like him is somebody whom they should take moral instruction from.

Fitofvapours · 08-01-2015 12:07am

Any gay person arguing in public that gays are not entitled to equality needs to realise that they are exposing their own psychological dysfunction. They feel that they deserve to be treated as second class citizens and they want all other gays to be treated the same, to feel as bad as they themselves do about themselves. That person has internalised the bigotry of others and of religion and is to be pitied. By demanding that others who do not share the same dysfunctional self hatred should be treated by the state as second class citizens they have identified themselves with oppression. It would be a mercy to them to make them face their self loathing and recognise its roots in bigotry. It would be a step toward true freedom for them and everyone else.

marienbad · 08-01-2015 12:44am

Fitofvapours wrote: »

Any gay person arguing in public that gays are not entitled to equality needs to realise that they are exposing their own psychological dysfunction. They feel that they deserve to be treated as second class citizens and they want all other gays to be treated the same, to feel as bad as they themselves do about themselves. That person has internalised the bigotry of others and of religion and is to be pitied. By demanding that others who do not share the same dysfunctional self hatred should be treated by the state as second class citizens they have identified themselves with oppression. It would be a mercy to them to make them face their self loathing and recognise its roots in bigotry. It would be a step toward true freedom for them and everyone else.

this is just generalised pop psychology

One eyed Jack · 08-01-2015 12:53am

floggg wrote: »

It's not even a case of hypocrisy. It's simply a matter of full disclosure.

When you publicly advocate on an issue, then you should make full disclosure of all of your relevant personal circumstances, relationships or positions. How else can people appraise your arguments in an informed manner.

For example, if you argue same sex relationships are a danger to society as a whole, and yet are in one yourself, people have a right to know about that relationship so they can come to an informed judgment on the merits of your argument, the genuiness of your position and your motivations for making the argument.

To me tbh the above just sounds like you're trying to justify a witch-hunt. You should be able to argue the case for or against an issue that affects all of society without needing 'full disclosure'.

You should have faith in the strength of your own arguments that they are able to withstand scrutiny on their own merits. If you can't do that, then you need to go back and re-examine your arguments and find the flaws in your own arguments where they may be weak or may not stand up to scrutiny.

If you personalise the discussion by demanding 'fulll disclosure' beforehand, then you're automatically putting yourself under the microscope at the same time, and who decides what comes under the heading of 'full disclosure' and what's relevant to full disclosure? Is there anything then that's off-limits?

If you're going to resort to ad hominems and 'personality politics', you'll lose your audience, because nobody wants to see anyone airing their dirty laundry in public when there are bigger issues at stake, and for more people, than just the two people hogging the stage.

Fitofvapours wrote: »

Any gay person arguing in public that gays are not entitled to equality needs to realise that they are exposing their own psychological dysfunction. They feel that they deserve to be treated as second class citizens and they want all other gays to be treated the same, to feel as bad as they themselves do about themselves. That person has internalised the bigotry of others and of religion and is to be pitied. By demanding that others who do not share the same dysfunctional self hatred should be treated by the state as second class citizens they have identified themselves with oppression. It would be a mercy to them to make them face their self loathing and recognise its roots in bigotry. It would be a step toward true freedom for them and everyone else.

I'd be careful playing amateur psychoanalyst and bandying about terms like "psychological dysfunction" with reference to any person who is LGBT. You could well find your own argument turned against you, and you wouldn't be able to claim bigotry either because you opened the door.

Would it have been a mercy to out Kellie Maloney or Chelsea Manning?

Where does anyone suggest we draw the line with regard to what's relevant for full disclosure and what isn't?

AdFundum · 08-01-2015 12:57am

Fitofvapours wrote: »

Any gay person arguing in public that gays are not entitled to equality needs to realise that they are exposing their own psychological dysfunction. They feel that they deserve to be treated as second class citizens and they want all other gays to be treated the same, to feel as bad as they themselves do about themselves. That person has internalised the bigotry of others and of religion and is to be pitied. By demanding that others who do not share the same dysfunctional self hatred should be treated by the state as second class citizens they have identified themselves with oppression. It would be a mercy to them to make them face their self loathing and recognise its roots in bigotry. It would be a step toward true freedom for them and everyone else.

The self appointed social worker for closeted bigots - nuff said.

Annasopra · 08-01-2015 12:59am

FYI fitofvapours account is closed.

eviltwin · 08-01-2015 1:04am

All I can say to those who think it's okay to out someone against their wishes is its not always about you. Put yourself in their shoes for a second. Many of you are gay. Think about your own coming out and how it would have felt to have that control taken away from you. Even in a situation where someone is vocally anti gay it's not right. It achieves no purpose and just looks nasty and cruel.

Clermont1098 · 09-01-2015 7:42pm

A Dublin priest came out to the mass congregation. I can't quote links but it's in the Belfast Telegraph. A Fr. Martin Dolan in Francis St. He said also that he supported marriage for gays. So a priest admits to being gay and supports gay marriage. I can't see him being left in place by the bishop.

L1011 · 09-01-2015 8:58pm

Clermont1098 wrote: »

A Dublin priest came out to the mass congregation. I can't quote links but it's in the Belfast Telegraph. A Fr. Martin Daly in Francis St. He said also that he supported marriage for gays. So a priest admits to being gay and supports gay marriage. I can't see him being left in place by the bishop.

Its possible that the very vague thawing by the church will mean they turn a blind eye to it - but not hugely likely.

Anglican Church has vicars in civil partnerships in England who they treat with a legal fiction that they're celibate, for instance. That's a far more liberal organisation though.

lottpaul · 09-01-2015 11:11pm

Clermont1098 wrote: »

A Dublin priest came out to the mass congregation. I can't quote links but it's in the Belfast Telegraph. A Fr. Martin Daly in Francis St. He said also that he supported marriage for gays. So a priest admits to being gay and supports gay marriage. I can't see him being left in place by the bishop.

His name is Martin Dolan - a priest in St Nicholas of Myra parish in central Dublin. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/dublin-priest-receives-standing-ovation-after-saying-he-is-gay-during-mass-30894931.html

All the comments from parishioners seem very positive etc. In theory - if I understand RC doctrine - and I'm not an expert - a gay priest would not be an issue as long as he is celibate? So perhaps Archbishop Martin may not have to make any decisions. Voicing support for marriage equality may be a step too far though.
Either way, a brave move by this man but not really what this thread is about.

(I see there's a thread in AH about this already)

Clermont1098 · 10-01-2015 8:44pm

At least he's for gay marriage. He'll be fired though.

floggg · 19-01-2015 6:02pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To me tbh the above just sounds like you're trying to justify a witch-hunt. You should be able to argue the case for or against an issue that affects all of society without needing 'full disclosure'.

You should have faith in the strength of your own arguments that they are able to withstand scrutiny on their own merits. If you can't do that, then you need to go back and re-examine your arguments and find the flaws in your own arguments where they may be weak or may not stand up to scrutiny.

If you personalise the discussion by demanding 'fulll disclosure' beforehand, then you're automatically putting yourself under the microscope at the same time, and who decides what comes under the heading of 'full disclosure' and what's relevant to full disclosure? Is there anything then that's off-limits?

If you're going to resort to ad hominems and 'personality politics', you'll lose your audience, because nobody wants to see anyone airing their dirty laundry in public when there are bigger issues at stake, and for more people, than just the two people hogging the stage.

I'd be careful playing amateur psychoanalyst and bandying about terms like "psychological dysfunction" with reference to any person who is LGBT. You could well find your own argument turned against you, and you wouldn't be able to claim bigotry either because you opened the door.

Would it have been a mercy to out Kellie Maloney or Chelsea Manning?

Where does anyone suggest we draw the line with regard to what's relevant for full disclosure and what isn't?

I'm going to assume Leo was the original inspiration for this thread, as I've seen various references to the Village magazine commenting on his sexuality in recent weeks.

I think Leo himself provides the perfect rebuttal to the above post. He said in the interview that he was motivated to come out due to the fact he would have to make various decisions on matters affecting LGBT people, and because he wanted to campaign honestly and openly in the referendum on marriage equality.

He wanted to acknowledge his biases up front before engaging on the issues, which is as it should be.

The fact that he supports marriage equality doesn't changed my view that it was the right thing to do - and I believe if he had campaigned for it while a "closeted" gay man or allowing people to think he was straight it would have been fully legitimate for the press to note his sexual orientation in reporting his involvement.

In the same way people on the no side who chose to debate people's relationships and personal lives should be forth right with their own.

It's not anything to do with spite, or as hominems. It's simply a matter of honesty, transparency and integrity.

Is outing a public figure ok now?

Comments