Would you "out" someone ?

damien

We all know that "outing" someone can be potentially damaging and is a breach of trust if you are the friend that outs someone. However, do you think that there are exceptions. Should someone be outed if they themselves are being homophobic or causing harm to the gay community ?

Examples of this would be groups like Outrage in the UK who used to out MPs and Bishops, their justifications being that these people were in organisations that were anti-gay.

A very recent example of a high pofile outing was a Republican Congressman in California who was outed. - http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/44/news-ireland.php

This guy voted on many laws that prevented gay people getting rights and was also someone who tried to stop funding for aids research and help.

So people of the boards. When is it right to out somone and when is it wrong ? Is it black and white, where you never out someone no matter what ?

ferdi

no never

Stark

Outing someone against their wishes is wrong.

I rarely feel guilt at doing wrong to complete bastards like the above mentioned though.

I'd only reserve outing without permission for the top breed, I wouldn't do that to an average bastard. It can be terrible for someone to get outed before they're ready.

MistressPandora

Can you imagine being terrified of being outed so much that you'll do anything to cover up being gay, and then suddenly, without you realising it, everyone knows?
I could never out someone. But that ****er you're talking about deserves so much more than being outed by someone else.

ixoy

99.9% of the time it's just wrong. As a lot of us know on this board, you need to be ready and the idea of being outed prematurely is terrifying because you just won't have the mental reserves to deal with it.

However, this guy takes the .1% of cases because of his disgusting and dangerous hypocrisy. I don't know what warped state his mind is in but I have a lot of contempt for him. If someone was closeted but making active attempts to make life worse for other gay people then I think we'd have a right, in some twisted way a duty, to show just how black this pot really is.

falteringstar

Usually my answer would be a big NO! But when it is someone who is gay and is involved in anti-gay groups doing much harm the gay community it is a big YES! Especially when it is some sort of politician who is supporting anti gay legislation.

swiss

I'm also going to jump on the "usually no but yes in this case" brigade but my reasoning is slightly different. My belief is that some closeted gay people vigorously oppose gay rights and other gay people out of a warped sense of self loathing. Assuming this, their vitriol, bile and condescension to what is ostensibly their own community is hypocrisy in action.

Since most people are most likely unaware of the (closeted) sexuality of the people in cases such as this, they are likely to view their ardent opposition of gay rights/groups as a moral choice. Furthurmore, it is also possible that since it is viewed in this manner some people may also take a moral 'stance' in support of a public speaker, without being aware of the true impetus of the original stance.

Therefore, in order not only to protect itself from harm, but also to expose hypocrisy and truth, I believe it is justifiable in some instances to 'out' someone without their authorisation.

Annasopra

I guess everyone is pretty much in agreement on this then

the_syco

swiss wrote:

I'm also going to jump on the "usually no but yes in this case" brigade but my reasoning is slightly different. My belief is that some closeted gay people vigorously oppose gay rights and other gay people out of a warped sense of self loathing. Assuming this, their vitriol, bile and condescension to what is ostensibly their own community is hypocrisy in action.

Agreed, but it could also be a case of denial "...of course I'm not gay; I'm part of X anti-gay group...". Sometimes people who see something as "wrong", may try to get other believe that they are not this "wrong" type of person.

qwertyphobia

Yeah I will go along with what most people have already said.

Wouldn't out someone normaly but if they are in a position of power and are using that to attack LGBT people then I would out them. Maybe contact them privatly first and give them the option to quitly resign and dissappear.

If some one is sitting at home and being homophobic I don't care but if they are in a position of power or influence I would not hesiate to use it to stop them.

Zulu

I wouldn't out someone against their wishes.
I'm not gay, and I try not to make peoples sexuality an issue, as I don't feel it is an issue. (That being said I don't know many gay people). If you were to "out" somebody - surly you would just be compounding the problem the gay community faces.

of course I could be completly wrong here...

azezil

What is achieved by outing such a person, how is that any different from going around to any of the committee members houses and threatening their lives or their livelihoods...

I don't excuse what he's doing but I don't think outting the person is going to achieve anything other than personal injury.

claire h

damien.m wrote:

Should someone be outed if they themselves are being homophobic or causing harm to the gay community ?

Yes. Absolutely, whether the harm is on a large scale (person in power supporting anti-gay legislation) or a small scale (someone treating the gay people they know with contempt). People's sexuality is their own business, but people like that have waived their right to privacy when they've made other people's sexuality their business, if that makes any sense.

Zulu

claire h wrote:

Yes. Absolutely, whether the harm is on a large scale (person in power supporting anti-gay legislation) or a small scale (someone treating the gay people they know with contempt). People's sexuality is their own business, but people like that have waived their right to privacy when they've made other people's sexuality their business, if that makes any sense.

Byut by that logic, surly you are no better than them?

claire h

Zulu wrote:

Byut by that logic, surly you are no better than them?

How, exactly? One's a defensive measure, one's offensive. If they attack the gay community, they don't deserve the benefit of the "outing someone is bad!" policy, they've already shown just how much respect they have for gay people and no, they don't deserve to be allowed smile smugly and say or insinuate that gay people are second-class citizens when they themselves are off having the gay sex every weekend or what-have-you. It's hypocritical, it's insulting, it is an attack, and letting it continue when you know perfectly well that that person is one of the people he/she insists on hating? I'd rather not, thanks.

Zulu

claire h wrote:

How, exactly?

Well for one you would be making sexaulity an issue, when it shouldn't be.

claire h wrote:

One's a defensive measure, one's offensive.

Yes but if you fight dirty - then you can't claim the higher moral ground. You are using a persons sexaulity as a weapon against them, yet you would also argue that this is morally wrong.

claire h wrote:

If they attack the gay community, they don't deserve the benefit of the "outing someone is bad!" policy, they've already shown just how much respect they have for gay people.

Ghandai didn't beat the british using their own methods against them. He took the high moral ground; he lead by example.

claire h wrote:

and no, they don't deserve to be allowed smile smugly and say or insinuate that gay people are second-class citizens when they themselves are off having the gay sex every weekend or what-have-you. It's hypocritical, it's insulting, it is an attack, and letting it continue when you know perfectly well that that person is one of the people he/she insists on hating? I'd rather not, thanks.

...let each to their own. I wouldn't agree with the smugness, or the underhandedness, but I wouldn't drop my standards to pervent it.

Look - this isn't really an issue for me, I'm just making a suggestion. Personally I wouldn't.

fozzle

Normally I'd have no problem saying no, I wouldn't dream of "outing" someone, but I must admit in this instance I'd be torn.

The idea of ripping open someones private life like that and displaying what I know to be such a sensitive issue is something I would hate to be a part of. However, if this guy is actively upsetting the gay community and making their lives more difficult then I can understand why people would want to do this.

However, I think there must be another way to do this, and that the politician in question should be warned in advance and given a chance to change his policies. I would worry that in a situation like this, it is very hard to get facts straight, as people can appear "camp" without being gay while others appear "straight" while being gay. Remember too, that if someone has been denying their sexuality for a long time, they may have convinced themselves that they are straight, so getting them to admit otherwise would be very difficult.

Tbh, I think I'm still against it, I think that, as swiss suggested, for a gay person to act like this must be indicitive (sp?) of a severe case of self-loathing and fear. What right have I to do to someone else what it would have destroyed me to have done to me in the past?

claire h

Zulu wrote:

Well for one you would be making sexaulity an issue, when it shouldn't be.

Yes but if you fight dirty - then you can't claim the higher moral ground. You are using a persons sexaulity as a weapon against them, yet you would also argue that this is morally wrong.

My point is, since you clearly seemed to have missed it, is that they've done it first. Look, I'm not in favour of "eye for an eye" tactics, and this isn't what this is - it is taking someone who goes out of their way to make sexuality an issue, and pointing out that they shouldn't be doing that. I'm not the one making sexuality an issue. They are. It's their private life, but if someone who's gay is attacking gay people, then, yes, that part of their private life becomes relevant to their public life. It's like someone talking about the evils of adultery when they're having an affair themselves. Their own experience does become relevant, and it is a valid argument to use against them.

Zulu

claire h wrote:

My point is, since you clearly seemed to have missed it, is that they've done it first.

No need to get stroppy. I got you point loud and clear, I just don't agree.

claire h wrote:

Look, I'm not in favour of "eye for an eye" tactics, and this isn't what this is - it is taking someone who goes out of their way to make sexuality an issue, and pointing out that they shouldn't be doing that.

...by making their sexuality an issue. Effectively, that is what you are doing isn't it?

claire h wrote:

I'm not the one making sexuality an issue. They are.

That's not true though. They (in this case he) was deliberately leaving his sexuality out of it. Had he mad his sexuality an issue, he would never have gotten the conservative backing he got.

claire h wrote:

It's like someone talking about the evils of adultery when they're having an affair themselves. Their own experience does become relevant, and it is a valid argument to use against them.

Ok, this is a good point, and I'd almost agree, but I would rather tackle (a politian say) on their policies, as opposed to using a scandal to bring them down. I would rather see politicians (like the one we're talking about) being beaten in a debate, and losing vote. I would rather force the anti-gay lobby to open their eyes and see other people for what they are : other people. That incident wouldn't have changed the opinions of any of his voters. While they mightn't vote for him again - they certainly won't vote pro-gay.

pixie_student

No way would i out someone.. its a really really mean thing to do!

The first and only girl i was with decided to out me to a really close friend of mine who i really didnt want to know yet! Easy for my ex to do cos she was a bit older then me and has been out for quite some time...

Well now me and my mate dont talk cos shes really pissed i never told her and now i'm a nervous wreck to get out there and meet other girls because of it.

Wouldn't ever dream of doing it to anyone because i know how it feels. Each person is different and it is up to them when they want other people to know.

Yoda

A gay politician who engages in actions intended to harm other gay people by depriving them of their human rights via legislation for which he is responsible should be outed. Outing them shows them to be the hypocrites that they are, and ought to either prevent them from doing further harm, or shame them into learning to fight for what is right.

qwertyphobia

"Well for one you would be making sexaulity an issue, when it shouldn't be. "

But it is the issue the person was voting for anti gay leagisation

The politican stepping down was a result he is no longer voting for attacks against gay people. I think everyone here who posted saying they would out this guy has been realy clear that they would out someone unless it was a denfensive measure

Boston

Just like to turn this around if I may. While all of you say you would never out someone. How many of you have gossiped about others sexuality? You may not have known that he/she was gay, but never the less, expressed the opinion that someone else was. I'll admit that I've done this, never really thought twice about it, but this thread has made think about the rights and wrongs of this type of thing.

luckat

When you out someone, it doesn't just affect that person, it affects their parents, children, spouse or partner if any. Think about the kid walking into school next day; think about the mother whose relationship with her son or daughter is *suddenly* and radically changed by the news that the person has been living a life she didn't know about.

It's not fair to do it; if someone "outs" himself, he can do it gradually, and quietly. It doesn't become a big news item that affects other people. It's done with respect and decency. But being outed by someone else, that's a different matter.

Annasopra

Zulu, I don't think that we were talking about any particular person

Luckat we are all all aware of the consequences of outing someone we are saying that in certain circumstances where a person is using their public power/influence to oppress the rights of LGB persons and is secretly homosexual then we would out them but only in those circumstances

Zulu

Johnnymcg wrote:

Zulu, I don't think that we were talking about any particular person

Sorry, I assumed that this was based on the gay politician that was riecently outed in the states.

Eitherway, my sentiments are the same!

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Yoda

OK, after 27 answers to his question, let's have Damien.M give his own view. G'wan, g'wan, g'wan, g'wan....

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

damien

*bump*

Boston

Yoda wrote:

A gay politician who engages in actions intended to harm other gay people by depriving them of their human rights via legislation for which he is responsible should be outed. Outing them shows them to be the hypocrites that they are, and ought to either prevent them from doing further harm, or shame them into learning to fight for what is right.

I find this attitude unsettling. Just because someone's gay doesn't mean they follow the party line. Many would argue that legislating in support of a blood ban on homosexuals is depriving homosexuals of their human rights via legislation, but if the person agree with it, how is that hypocrisy? Also a gay politician has to representative of his entire constituency, not just the gay people. By pushing a gay agenda he/she may alienate support and make it more difficult to achieve things for their continuances in general. In situations like this can it really be called hypocrisy.People are taking a very simplistic view of the world of politics. Some times you have to swallow what you don't like and do as your told, because you know you can achieve more in government then out of it.

damien

Boston wrote:

Some times you have to swallow what you don't like and do as your told, because you know you can achieve more in government then out of it.

Does this include condoning the discrimination of a group in society ? The example in my first post was a man who made a group in society less equal. The fact that he was a member of this group and hid it showed his hypocrisy. If an event occurs where a group has to suffer for the greater good, you do not go ahead with it, you go back to the drawing board and come up with an alternative. If things were done just for the greater good at the expense of a few without their consent I'd be deeply troubled.

Using your blood donor example it was the equivalent of him putting in the ban and not disclosing his sexuality. Fair enough if he said "I'm gay and I agree with this ban" but he didn't, he kept silent. Somtimes to remain silent is to lie.

Boston

Is it a case that the legislation was brought before a commission of which he was a part? He may have argued against it but was voted down and had to sign his name to it? Is it a case that he has to make a choice between supporting a bill to give homosexuals X rights, or getting one passed that would benefit more of the people he's elected to represent. That's politics.

Using your blood donor example it was the equivalent of him putting in the ban and not disclosing his sexuality. Fair enough if he said "I'm gay and I agree with this ban" but he didn't, he kept silent. Sometimes to remain silent is to lie.

Maybe he would make the decision based on specialist advice and facts instead of his sexuality. As such would feel no need to disclose his sexuality as it has nothing to do with his job, maybe he's a professional and keeps them separate. I don't support a blood ban, but it's got sweet FA to do with my sexuality, it's to do with the fact that I take issue with most of the "facts" it's based on. Sure I probably wouldn't even know about it if I wasn't banned, but thats not the point.

damien

Boston wrote:

Is it a case that the legislation was brought before a commission of which he was a part? He may have argued against it but was voted down and had to sign his name to it? Is it a case that he has to make a choice between supporting a bill to give homosexuals X rights, or getting one passed that would benefit more of the people he's elected to represent. That's politics.

No, it's discrimination in the name of politics.

To answer the above questions I'll quote from that chap that started this thread:

damien.m wrote:

A very recent example of a high pofile outing was a Republican Congressman in California who was outed. - http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/44/news-ireland.php

This guy voted on many laws that prevented gay people getting rights and was also someone who tried to stop funding for aids research and help.

The laws were not multiple choice laws. They were "Do we take rights from the homosexuals or not ?" , "Lets cut funding for AIDS" "Lets make it illegal for a company to choose whether it wants to give benefits to the partner of an employee no matter whether they're a heterosexual or homosexual couple".

Boston

I'm not argueing the rights and wrongs of what he did. Merely that he may have had other reasons for voting the way he did, and that his sexuality might not have come into it. It's possible he doesn't believe in Aids research, maybe he took softmoney to vote down laws which would cost companies money, maybe he's pandering to the religious right wing nuts to get ellected. It's all hypocricy and corruption but nothing to do with his sexuality.

If you wondering why I'm making an issue out of this, its the insistance that political decision made by a gay man are directly related to his sexuality. If you turn it around it's the same arguement used by people who tried to block gay involvement in the running of the US. That homosexuals would simply push their agenda.

damien

Boston wrote:

If you wondering why I'm making an issue out of this, its the insistance that political decision made by a gay man are directly related to his sexuality.

Where did this occur ?

Ok, another refresher. He was supporting laws that said homosexuality was wrong and homosexuals should not be granted the same rights as anyone else, yet he was (to use the lovely term) a "practising homosexual". He was supporting a regime that says homosexuals were godless predators and who on the US Health Departments website state that the best way to help your child, if he turns out gay is to send him to a psyshologist. Yet he himself lived the "homosexual lifestyle". That's the hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with his fellow homosexuals saying his sexuality should influence his decision, it had to do with him not practising what he preaches.

It would be like a TD here voting for drink driving legislation and then driving home pissed every night of the week after getting tanked in the Dáil bar. It had nothing to do with the fact that he drinks and drives as such but the fact that he is all for legislation stopping it and yet he drinks and drives and is not following what he publicly states. He is a hypocrite and if people outed his drink driving "lifestyle" would it be wrong or should we all respect his private life.

[And for now please don't get into the "aha, but drink driving is illegal and dangerous argument. ]

If you turn it around it's the same arguement used by people who tried to block gay involvement in the running of the US. That homosexuals would simply push their agenda.

This would only be true if there was a homosexual agenda party and that the homosexuals party brought in laws to take freedoms from heterosexuals. Along the line someone finds out one of the main guys in the Homosexual Agenda party actually has a wife and kids. He too is a hypocrite.

Boston

damien.m wrote:

Where did this occur ?

Ok, another refresher. He was supporting laws that said homosexuality was wrong and homosexuals should not be granted the same rights as anyone else, yet he was (to use the lovely term) a "practising homosexual". He was supporting a regime that says homosexuals were godless predators and who on the US Health Departments website state that the best way to help your child, if he turns out gay is to send him to a psyshologist. Yet he himself lived the "homosexual lifestyle".

[/QUOTE]

And I'm saying that while it's true those laws do say that, he may support them without beliving in the sentiment. He might belive that gay marriage would cost jobs, or that money for AID research should be spent on cancer research, who knows? Not something I would agree with, but thats not the issue.

That's the hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with his fellow homosexuals saying his sexuality should influence his decision, it had to do with him not practising what he preaches.

But it does, Your saying if he wants to sleep with men, he shouldn't think or act a certain way. Your sexuality doesn't place demands on how you do your job, mine doesn't palce demands on how I handle college. But you saying his should? The guy might be being totally objective about it, and leaving his sexuality aside when making these decisions.

It would be like a TD here voting for drink driving legislation and then driving home pissed every night of the week after getting tanked in the Dáil bar. It had nothing to do with the fact that he drinks and drives as such but the fact that he is all for legislation stopping it and yet he drinks and drives and is not following what he publicly states. He is a hypocrite and if people outed his drink driving "lifestyle" would it be wrong or should we all respect his private life.

say one of the parties has an anti-abortion stance, and one of the TD's wife/girlfriend/daughter or themelves had an abortion, would It be right to explose that hypocricy?

This would only be true if there was a homosexual agenda party and that the homosexuals party brought in laws to take freedoms from heterosexuals. Along the line someone finds out one of the main guys in the Homosexual Agenda party actually has a wife and kids. He too is a hypocrite.

We can argue the fines points of whether or not his sexuality came into the decision making process all night, but at the end of the day I guess the above really sums up why I don't like this. I don't like the idea of someones sexuality being used as a weapon against them In the same way I wouldn't like someones family used against them.

damien

Boston wrote:

He might belive that gay marriage would cost jobs, or that money for AID research should be spent on cancer research, who knows?

Have you read the article I linked to yet, have you actually read what laws he has voted on ? You're arguing for new scenarios you have created to enforce your point.

But it does, Your saying if he wants to sleep with men, he shouldn't think or act a certain way.

He is voting for laws that says men who sleep with men are unnatural and the state should do it's best to take away any rights they have. He sleeps with men and he's a man. Hypocrisy. I am ann never have dictated how he acts or thinks. I'm saying he is a hypocrite for how he acts. I would never dictate how people should live, but he does. Calling someone a hypocrite is not the same as telling someone how to live their life.

Your sexuality doesn't place demands on how you do your job, mine doesn't palce demands on how I handle college. But you saying his should?

Where am I saying that ?

say one of the parties has an anti-abortion stance, and one of the TD's wife/girlfriend/daughter or themelves had an abortion, would It be right to explose that hypocricy?

We're moving from talking about a person to bringing in their family now ? Why ? The drunk driving example and a family member having an abortion are not comparable at all.

I don't like the idea of someones sexuality being used as a weapon against them In the same way I wouldn't like someones family used against them.

It's their hypocrisy on sexuality issues, it's nothing to do with their sexuality.

Boston

damien.m wrote:

Have you read the article I linked to yet, have you actually read what laws he has voted on ? You're arguing for new scenarios you have created to enforce your point.

I have Read the article, though I will admit many of the names, positions and places mean nothing to me. I'm arguing that there may be other reasons why he votes the way he does, that he may agree with them these laws. And just because the majority of the LGB community doesn't, doesn't mean he's a hypocrite. It's possible he doesn't identify as LGB in the conventional sense,

He is voting for laws that says men who sleep with men are unnatural and the state should do it's best to take away any rights they have. He sleeps with men and he's a man. Hypocrisy. I am ann never have dictated how he acts or thinks. I'm saying he is a hypocrite for how he acts. I would never dictate how people should live, but he does. Calling someone a hypocrite is not the same as telling someone how to live their life.

This is about, the proposition that if someone is a hypocrite, you can expose something deeply private to them in order to demonstrate the hypocrisy. By exposing them your not only telling them how to live their life your also forcing them to live it a certain way.

Where am I saying that ?

The whole premise here of your argument is that he shouldn't say these things or vote this way, because he's gay. Because doing so is hypocrisy, and if your a hypocrite you have no right to privacy. And that some journalist or website owner should be the judge jury and executioner.

We're moving from talking about a person to bringing in their family now ? Why ? The drunk driving example and a family member having an abortion are not comparable at all.

It was a counter example to your counter example. The drunk driving and abortion thing are not comparable, but it is exactly the same type of hypocrisy your talking about with this guy, so why would privacy be respected in this case?

It's their hypocrisy on sexuality issues, it's nothing to do with their sexuality.

If they weren't gay, they wouldn't be open to attack like this.

damien

Boston wrote:

that he may agree with them these laws. And just because the majority of the LGB community doesn't, doesn't mean he's a hypocrite. It's possible he doesn't identify as LGB in the conventional sense,

So now he mightn't be a hypocrite because he doesn't identify as LGB even though he fits into the definition his own party has of what is LGB ? If he agrees with the Laws that are brought about in support of homophobic policies that say that homosexuals are deviants and homosexuality should be stopped, yet he actively lives the "homosexual lifestyle" then it is hypocrisy. Is the issue here the definition of hypocrisy ? If as you say he believs in the laws which support these policies then he is a hypocrite. Ignorance is not a defense for hypocrisy.

By exposing them your not only telling them how to live their life your also forcing them to live it a certain way.

By exposing them you're saying "You've been caught out, you're a hypocrite". Is exposing someone as being untruthful now classed as making them live a certain way ?

The whole premise here of your argument is that he shouldn't say these things or vote this way, because he's gay.

Nope. I have yet to say that, don't think I will either. Nothing to do with him being gay, everything to do with him being a hypocrite voting in support of policies that say homosexuality is wrong and the state has the right to interfere in someone's private life.

Because doing so is hypocrisy, and if your a hypocrite you have no right to privacy. And that some journalist or website owner should be the judge jury and executioner.

If you (i) are a public figure and (ii) a public figure that votes for laws that infringe on others privacies and make laws that make people adhere to your party's beliefs then the public that is suffering as a result of what you're doing has a right to know that you are a hypocrite. If you support laws and policies that give the state the right to wade into someone's private life then you have the right to have your private life examined.

The drunk driving and abortion thing are not comparable, but it is exactly the same type of hypocrisy your talking about with this guy, so why would privacy be respected in this case?

If they, as you say, are not comparable then they are not the same examples of hypocrisy, so they can't be compared. You are moving examples of hypocrisy from one person to a family and talking about abortion in that family. But if you want to bring an abortion example into this perhaps use the story of Bishop Casey offering his girlfriend money to get an abortion. That is a far more comparable example. If a Bishop payed his girlfriend to get an abortion and the girlfriend exposed this then I see nothing wrong with the public knowing that the guy who lectures them from the pulpit on a Sunday on how to live doesn't live by his own guidelines.

If they weren't gay, they wouldn't be open to attack like this.

So because he's gay it's handle him with kid gloves ? No matter of his total hypocrisy, an exception must be made because of his sexuality ? Gay people get special treatment ?

Boston

homophobic policies that say that homosexuals are deviants and homosexuality should be stopped, yet he actively lives the "homosexual lifestyle" then it is hypocrisy.

Well it's only hypocricy if he doesn't believe those things, and still he might have other reasons to support these laws besides their sentiment. Also Ignorance I would argue is different to being a hypocrite.

By exposing them you're saying "You've been caught out, you're a hypocrite". Is exposing someone as being untruthful now classed as making them live a certain way ?

Your forcing that person to lived there life as an outed gay man. So yes it is making them live a certain way.

I have yet to say that, don't think I will either. Nothing to do with him being gay, everything to do with him being a hypocrite voting in support of policies that say homosexuality is wrong

As I've said before he would have to believe homosexuality is right, in order for this arguement to hold. Just because he is one doesn't mean he thinks it's right.

If you support laws and policies that give the state the right to wade into someone's private life then you have the right to have your private life examined.

Argeed, and I had noticed that aspect of the article.

If they, as you say, are not comparable then they are not the same examples of hypocrisy, so they can't be compared. You are moving examples of hypocrisy from one person to a family and talking about abortion in that family. But if you want to bring an abortion example into this perhaps use the story of Bishop Casey offering his girlfriend money to get an abortion. That is a far more comparable example. If a Bishop payed his girlfriend to get an abortion and the girlfriend exposed this then I see nothing wrong with the public knowing that the guy who lectures them from the pulpit on a Sunday on how to live doesn't live by his own guidelines.

I'll be clearer this time, the drink driving example and abortion example are not comparable, but the example of a homosexual passing anti gay laws, and a person who has had and abortion(or one in there family) but is a member of an pro life party/organisation is comparable, and is the same level of hypocricy. The arguement comes down to, when does a public figure sacrifice the right to privacy and who is the judge. The Bishops girlfriend had every right to come out with what happened, but would someone else have the same right? And before you say there was two parties involved, there was two parties involved with the congressman as well, his partner Smith. Should he have been outed merely because of his befello, or was it enough that he was part of the republican party.

With reguards kid gloves, I'm not saying that. The guy is voting the way he would if he was a straight, biggoted, ignorant asshole. The point is that he isn't making an exception.

damien

Boston wrote:

Well it's only hypocricy if he doesn't believe those things, and still he might have other reasons to support these laws besides their sentiment.

Well if he is actively living the lifetyle that his party says is wrong and immoral and he is fully aware of the party's policies then he is being a hypocrite. If he doesn't adhere to these policies yet he has been actively supporting them then that too makes him a hypocrite.

If he had abstained from voting on anti-gay laws then maybe he could be excused but he didn't. The only way he could not be a hypocrite is if he is living in a delusionary state or has multiple personalities. I don't think it is beneficial to go down the "guilty but insane" route or next we'll have the Wookie defense.

Your forcing that person to lived there life as an outed gay man. So yes it is making them live a certain way.

Do remember that you are holding them to the same standard that they are holding everyone else too. Society doesn't need double standards.

Just because he is one doesn't mean he thinks it's right.

There's a difference between being homosexual and being a homosexual man that engages in "homosexual activities". His party has stated that it is fine to be a homosexual if one does not give into the "unnatural urges" or in extreme cases some in his party think one needs to be brainwashed by the exgay movement. The fact that he gave into these "urges" by sleeping with men means he is going against party policy. That's hypocritical.

The arguement comes down to, when does a public figure sacrifice the right to privacy and who is the judge.

I think this is answered when a public figure starts interfering with the lives of the public.

The Bishops girlfriend had every right to come out with what happened, but would someone else have the same right?

If they were affected yes, and if the only figure outed was the Bishop. The girlfriend is entitled to privacy, the Bishop preaching from the altar telling people abortion is wrong is not.

I'm not saying that. The guy is voting the way he would if he was a straight, biggoted, ignorant asshole. The point is that he isn't making an exception.

No, he is making an exception. The point is he is making his lifestyle the exception. If he followed his party's policies he wouldn't have been sleeping with men. Excusing himself and making exceptions shows his hypocrisy.

Boston

damien.m wrote:

I think this is answered when a public figure starts interfering with the lives of the public.

"interfer" what is ment by that. Most public figures have some influence on the public. Who decides what level of interference in the public is required before your privacy is gone, is it the tabloid editor? The lobby group? Some people get into the public domain because they actually want to help and make a difference, it doesn't mean they should loose their privacy. Problem is you can't pick and choose, if we truely don't want double standards either no politician oo public figure can have privacy or all of them can. What you decide is a good reason to invade privacy might be different to what someone else consideres a good reason.

It a teacher is going to teach children about accepting homosexuals then their parents have a right to know if he's gay or straight. If he's saying that homosexuals aren't sexed crazy bed hopers but just liek everyone else, but crussing everynight parents should be told of this hipocricy by your standards. no?

memphis

Outting someone regardless of the reasons is just wrong.

i had a mate of mine tell a gay friend of hers that I was gay. I ended up snogging the guy, which only lead to much confussion and complications on both sides. i just wanted a bit of fun, the other guy wanted a relationship, as i'm not entirely "Out" i wasn't ready to commite to such a thing. the guy has being avoiding me since, but I'm sure he has been spreading rumours that i'm gay/bi to other as I have been asked did i kiss him. call me paronoid if ya like, but I'm just not able to deal with all this, its a horrible thing to do to anyone!