What is your opinion of "outing" closeted gay men or women?
 

On one of the gossip boards I visit, I was led to a blog written by a gay activist (www.blogactive.com) who apparently plans to out (reveal as gay) a closeted, married Republican senator tomorrow. His rationale: to expose what he sees as hypocrisy by someone who votes against the interests of gay people yet engages in gay sex on the down-low (sorry for the inarticulate phrasing; I'm just not sure the way to put it).

I don't know where I stand on this. On one hand, I can only imagine that coming out is such a delicate, wrenching process, I hate to see someone forced out of the closet. On the other hand, though, I can understand the impulse of those in the gay community to expose what they see as hypocrisy on the part of conservative politicians or staffers who consistently vote against gay rights.

What do you think?

Honestly?

Karma is a bad woman I dont want to mess with. He may have it coming but I tell you one thing. I am glad its not me!

I dont think anyone should be forced to do anything but we all have been at one time or another forced to do something we didnt want to. I think with the events of the past week or so we will see more of this kind of thing.....

Time will tell all things.

I can understand where this activist is coming from. He wants to expose this Senator as a hypocrite and in so doing, lobby more support for the gay community. Or at least that's what I think. The question is, will it work?

What is the most that can be gained from outing this Senator dude? I understand coming out to be difficult enough without being 'forced out'. I know I wouldn't do it to someone else.

The idea of intentionally "outing" a gay man or woman who does not wish to be "outed" is terrible.

The only difference I see in this story is more the fact that he's exposing a hypocrite, by showing that he secretly engages in the very behaviors he publicly puts down and votes against. In this respect, I see it as the same thing as exposing a senator who smokes pot all the time but actively participates in anti-drug efforts, or a person who is exposed as an avid gun enthusiast who spends his time in anti-gun efforts in public display.

In my opinion, it's the hypocrisy of the thing that he's exposing, not simply "outing" him to attack him- it just happens that in order to expose the hypocrit, some info would be leaked that he'd rather not be leaked.

Such is the life of a hypocrit, though. Most will eventually be exposed.

I think the activist is shooting himself in the foot. He may "out" the senator, but he will absolutely demonstrate that he is hateful, jealous, and vindictive.

First of all, I'd need to know more about what you mean by voting "against the interests of gay people". Just because you can be classified as belonging to some group doesn't mean you have to support anything and everything that benefits that group.

Anyway; I believe that one's sex life is a personal matter providing he or she isn't violating anyone's rights or endangering others. I certainly don't believe in "outing" someone as a politically-motivated "Gotcha!" tactic.

I think the only time I would disclose information about sex between consenting adults to another person would be if I found out someone I knew was cheating on his or her significant other. I wouldn't do this because I'm some nosey moralist. I would do this because the cheater could be risking the health of his or her significant other by possibly bringing home STD's (and the cheater's sexual orientation wouldn't matter to me). What kind of friend would I be if I looked the other way while my friend's life was being put at risk? But even then I would "out" the cheater's behavior in a private way rather than posting it on the internet or taking out an ad in the local paper.

I agree with both analog and Telluride. "Outing" someone against their wishes to make a point, about *what*, exactly? The behavior of consenting adults is not anyone's business, period. How is it any different for a gay senator to choose privacy in his sexual preferences, and any other senator or public figure? Does anyone have the gall to ask Laura Bush about the privacy of her bedroom? Of course not, and the same privacy should be accorded to all personal issues.

Foley's issues are not about being a closeted homosexual. His attraction to teenagers is the issue.

Outing? Sure why not, after all, others have been outed for getting blow jobs. In that context it is relevant. The guy is cheating on his wife. Doesn;t matter if he's gay or not. If Slick Willie got a hummer from a page boy would it be "outing"?

Forget gall, I don't think anyone has the stomach to touch that subject. (she scares me) lol

I have a gay friend who's partner is one of those obviously gay males that fits about every stereotype in the book.

Last election I get a distraught IM from my friend. It seems they never talked politics and my friend assumed that his partner shared his political viewpoints. Well it turned out his partner was a Republican, and always had been. Now my friend knew I voted republican and that was fine with him, we had some interesting debates and being he was intellectually honest in his viewpoints it was nice having discussions where we could look at issues and not debate facts and twist meanings like is so common as of late, and we had some great debates. He could be my friend even though we had different political view points but he was just shocked about his partner. Now my friend worked for a few democrat senators in D.C., and his partner knew his politics, so there wasn't a shock in that direction. When my friend asked his partner why he never told him, his partner said it was because he didn't want to upset him and it really wasn't something he felt was that important to their relationship in the long run, nothing done on the national/international scale was likely to really effect their relationship together.

I think the message is that you can have overriding reasons for the choices you make, even if it seems to go against your self interest. I am always amused every election when people say 'you need to vote for this party because they will give you more money' (thats not quite what they say, but its what it boils down to) not realizing that once everyone votes only with their wallet and not by what they think is best for the country, we are finished.

So maybe you are a homosexual and sure you wish the republicans were more 'gay friendly' on things like gay marriage, but if to you this seems like a small and unimportant issue beyond national security or whatever, why stand up for what you see as less important if it means sacrificing what you see as more important?

Now for those interested their relationship survived, but I haven't talked with him in about a year and a half, shame because I'm not sure how to get in touch with him now.

Nononono.

What he's doing is - as far as I know - not against any written law. I don't think anyone, not even politicians, should have to follow "their" party politics 100%. That'd be awful. Like Ustwo said, you have to pick the issues that are important to you. Apparently homosexual issues aren't on top of this man's list, so what? What gives the blogger the right to force his priorities onto the politician? Which is what he's going to do with the outing.

Agreed. This "activist" is neither a rational nor particularly nice person. What someone does or does not do in their bedroom is their own business, whatever their political views. Said activist needs, well, a slap upside the head.

I completely agree.

I think this is pretty hysterical. I'm tired of hysteria.

Not to mention, it's just wrong.

Plus, is he assuming the senator votes against gay issues because he is a republican? Because not all of them do, and a significant segment of the gay male population itself votes republican.

When I used the phrase, I was specifically referring to politicians who vote to ban gay marriage or in favor of constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I use this reference because that's how the blog active blogger seems to define it (though I admit I took only a cursory look at the blog).

I have always believed in showing people for what they are, especially those who live in the public eye, lawmakers especially.

It is my belief that a person living a double life can create serious problems. As I posted elsewhere, I see people everyday that turn to addictions because they lived a double life and put that pressure on themselves. Why? Just be who you are and fuck what anyone else thinks. Why be something or someone you are not and put that added stress into your life.

If you're gay, be gay. Don't get married fuck up someone else's life, your kids lives and other people's lives because you are selfish.

Ok, so say this guy from the OP decides not to out the senator but instead blackmail him into voting certain ways.....

I'm sorry, I live my life open and I point my skeletons out, I don't see a reason not to. And if you are going to be in a position of authority, then you need to expect being watched.

Look at how the GOP loves to point out every misstep a Kennedy has ever made, or a Clinton has made or anyone that can challenge them. If the GOP can do this to the Dems. then the Dems have every right to do it to the GOP.

Noone is perfect, we all have skeletons, but there is a huge difference between having a skeleton 20 yrs old and living a double life.

Yoiu make the choice when you go into public life to know that if you live a double life it may come out. So you either don't go into the public eye or you don't live the double life. If you do both, then it is your own damned fault if you are caught ("outed"). Don't cry how unfair life is, that the other person is hateful, etc. You did it, you face the music.

I understand what you're saying, pan, but I see this as an unfortunate and ugly reality of our society and as such, I want no part of it. I think it's pretty despicable regardless of whose name is being dragged through the mud. There is not only this man's life and privacy at stake, but that of his family's, as well. I'm going to stick to my conviction that the boundaries of a person's private life ought to be respected. Even in the face of all known reality about the way our society treats them.

See, right there is why I wouldn't do it. The current administration has shown itself willing to destroy individuals lives to forward their agenda, and if that's ever going to stop, somebody has to stand up against it.

Imagine this gay activist saying publicly, "I have information that a prominent Republican Senator is a closeted homosexual. I do not intend to out this Senator because I refuse to participate in the politics of personal destruction of the kind that the GOP has elevated to such an art form. However, know this: the anti-gay agenda is rife with hypocracy. So-called "morals voters", your representatives are lying to you, and are using you for your vote. They don't share your social agenda. You are being manipulated."

You know what? Every single human being in the world has personal secrets that he or she has no desire to share with the rest of the world - sexual secrets, family secrets, etc. Some of those personal secrets are of the sort that may disgust or turn off others. But every one has them and everyone is entitled to them.

The more I read about "outing" (of anyone whether in the public eye or not) the more disturbed I am by anyone who would advocate such action. For the most part, my impression of such activists are that they are the like little kids in the school yard who, upon hearing confidential information, start running around singing "I'm gonna tell!"

I think it makes a big difference if they are married or not. If he's single then it's no big deal, but he's married and on the down low then it should be outed like any other politician gets "outed", like Gary Hart, Clinton etc...

It would depend on what his voting record is, what his public comments are, and who he gets money from. If he abstains or votes against anti-gay laws, avoids talking about gays, and does not take money from groups that are obviously anti-gay, then he should be left alone. If the opposite applies, screw him. You don't get to lead that life in secret and them publicly denounce everyone who does.

It's no different than ANY sex scandal. Republicans are only bitching because in this case it primarily affects them. They had NO problem going after Clinton.

While I don't agree with people cheating on their spouses (and for all anyone knows, this guy might even have an open marriage) it is not the place of anyone to reveal that to the world.

I bet virtually everyone here knows someone who has had an affair or ten. Have you gone to their spouse to tell them, even if you may not agree with the cheating? Most people won't do that, knowing it is really none of our business and knowing the pain we might inflict on a family.

It's maybe easy to talk about when it is some stranger or a "public target" like this guy. Hell, unless someone has video its all just hearsay anyway.

As long as the representative votes the way his constituents want what does it matter if he "shares their social agenda?" Its the voting record that counts, not his personal feelings.

That's exactly it, that's why it's even more hypocritical for people to point out the Kennedy's, Gary Hart, or Clinton. Clinton even got impeached for it. It's either fair game for all or fair game for none. I actually don't see what his orientation has to do with it. It's either ok to expose his cheating etc or it's not.

Well said.

Well, highthief is saying it's not okay. And I agree that it's not. I could care less if it's happened to someone else. It is irrelevant.

Sure it's relevant. It's about consistency and double standards.

THis isn't about who's cheating and who isn't. Its about outing someone because you disagree with their politics. It has nothing at all to do with being a faithful spouse.

I see. Well, I would think that outing is a private matter. Unless the guy did something like legislate anti-gay measures or what have you there really isn't any reason to out him.

Do people really believe the "but he started it" defense is a logical one?

Of course not, I am not defending it. I am pointing out the inconsistencies.

I apologize, I should not have picked out your post alone, this really was intended the way I edited it.

I always thought Bill Clinton's personal life should have been kept personal. If I were to support the outing of this man then I would be perpetuating the double standard.

No need to apologize it's always good to have clarification. Thanks for your input.

*nodding head* Agreed.

You and I think that. Ask the religious right, though. I promise you they wouldn't find it OK that the legislator they voted for has been hiding a secret gay lifestyle, no matter what his voting record is.

Clinton wasn't nailed for cheating on his spouse, and honestly I think he and Hill have a deal, Bill gets to screw around just keep it under wraps, so its not really cheating. It was that Bill was involved in a sexual harassment suite and he committed perjury in relation to Monica.

It was never about bjs or cigars, those were the unfortunate details that came out while investigating the perjury.

I could never figure out what horrified me more. The fact that the president couldn't get a bj from a willing intern, or the fact that the president wasn't able to hide that he got a bj from a willing intern.

I actually don't agree with you on this. There's not necessarily a contradiction in a gay person supporting the Republican party (or being a member). Just because you think homosexual behavior is OK doesn't mean you want to legalize gay marriage. I've known several middle aged lesbians who were staunch Republicans. It wasn't even that other issues like national security trumped gay rights - they just didn't support gay marriage or gays in the military.

But as long as he votes the way they want the religious right can't complain. Would they rather have a straight representative that supports legislation their against? I doubt it.

I've been thinking about this question since I read it today.

This activist isn't "outing" this senator for the good of his family, for the good of the party, or for the common good in general. He's outing him for evil motives. To affect an election. He thinks it will piss off enough Republicans that they will stay home or vote for someone else. He thinks this will scare off the Christian right. What he is doing is vile and vindictive. Is the senator gay, as in "doesn't like women," or is he bi? Is he just sexually attracted to men? And if so, SO WHAT? The only problem I see is if he is having sex outside the marriage if the marriage is not an open one.

It is nobody's damn business what his sexual preferences are. I see all too many narrow-minded, bigoted, vile, and nauseating replies in this thread as well. Something I shouldn't expect to see at a place like TFP, but I continue to be disappointed.

One must be mentally deficient to assume being Republican is synonymous with being religious, anti-gay, or any other stereotypical Republican trait. I know all too many "rightwingers," even "conservative" Republicans, whose sexual practices would curl the toes of the most deviant people here at TFP. They are quite proud of their polyamory, their love of BDSM, their fetishes, and their pro-life stance.

To rip a family up as this activist seems hell-bent on doing is below gutter level. Maybe his wife already knows. Who knows?

Having met so many people online in various places, I really fail to see why people keep tying sexual preference and political stance together. One does not equal the other. I'm a staunch Republican. Does that mean I only like sex in the missionary position? Does that mean I only like men? The fact is, I would consider myself bisexual. But do I partake in other women? No, because I'm married, just like I don't partake in other men. My husband and I do not have an open marriage. He knows I find women extremely attractive, and he knows I've slept with other women before we were married.

The bottom line is that it does not matter which sex this guy is attracted to. And if he is having sex outside of his marriage, whether it's with women or men, his wife WILL find out.

The politician this guy "outed" is Larry Craig of Idaho. I believe he is single, not that I think that or his sexual preference is something the public has a need to know.

I think outing anyone is wrong and vindictive, unless it is directly related to the commission of a crime...

But I would suggest it is the republican "family values" base that ties sexual preferences and political stances together more than anyone else.

The ignorant comments of conservative talking heads on Foley (link)

The attack of Condi Rice by the American Family Association for her appointment of a gay as global Aids coordinator and her recognition of his "partner" (link)

The holding up of a Bush judicial nominee by a conservative repub senator because she attended a gay "commitment" ceremony.....(I thought the repubs wanted Bush's nominees to get an up or down vote and not be held to a litmus test) (link)

The examples of how "family values" conservatives politicize sexual preference are endless.

If a person's sexual inclination is never an issue , under normal circumstances, then it wouldn't be necissary at all for such information to be "outed."

On a personal level, I think being out and unashamed of who you are, unwilling to hide it from the world is the single most powerful thing a gay person can do to effect change. Staying in the closet sends the message that being gay is shameful, it's something that should be hidden away from decent society so that good people won't have to witness it and children won't be influenced by it.

I'm about as openly gay as a person can get short of wearing a "Kiss Me, I'm a Homo" button on my blouse. In other words, I don't advertise, but I refuse to hide who I am as if there were something wrong with it.

On the other hand, I do understand staying in the closet. I can understand being in a position where being out could hurt one's career, could push family or friends away. It should be irrelevant to anybody other than potential sex partners, but it isn't.

While I understand it, I do think being in the closet is inherently decietful in a lot of little ways. I know this from personal experience, that the process of editing pronouns and avoiding certain topics of conversation, concealing attraction or feigning attraction, all of these are part of the little deceptions that we go through when staying in the closet.

It isn't just a matter of not expressing one's sexuality in public. It can, and usually does require concealing a fundamental part of yourself that most people display casually and freely.

Keep in mind that orientation is almost always a part of a straight politician's image. It's there in family-oriented campaign ads, in appearances with his wife/children, imlpicitly and explicitly in "family values" issues. Politicians make the fact that they are straight an issue all the time without ever actually mentioning it, and it never has anything to do with going into the bedroom.

Most people do the same, displaying evidence of their heterosexuality on a regular basis in ways large and small.

Somehow, though, when it comes to a gay person being out, this is implied as bringing bedroom issues out where they don't need to be. That's nonsense. Being homosexual is status, and being out as a homosexual is likewise not about what you do in the bedroom but about who you are as a person.

However, while I think it is deceptive in some small ways and ultimately more harmful to the cause of equal rights, I also think that it should be a person's right to be in the closet. Outing gay politicians who vote against gay rights issues is preying on the prejudices of those who would vote for him because of those stances. It is using sexuality as a weapon and reinforcing the idea that there is something wrong with being gay.

I found the practice of outing odious when it was done to expose positive role models for reasons outlined above, and I still find it odious to do it with those who oppose equal rights.

It doesn't become ok just because you're doing it to one of them rather than one of us.

Gilda

Yes, I agree that the individuals who make up the party obviously vary in their sexual practices. However, it is quite obvious that the party as a whole has had no problem with shitting on gay rights. They have had no problem with or have actively contributed to all of the following:

Attempts to ban gay marriage
Attempts to allow employment discrimination against gays
Attempts to deny benefits for same sex couples

So yes, the individuals have their own opinions about the subject but the ones controlling the party have no problems with these actions. They also have no problem aligning with and accepting money from extreme anti-gay groups.

I think this is too much of a blanket statement. Yes, for some people their sexual orientation is very much a part of their identity, for others, especially bisexuals, who they sleep with is a purely recreational (and private) issue, and not something that needs advertising unless they desire it.

I did not equate being out with advertising one's status or who one sleeps with. The point of my post was the relative status of homosexual and heterosexual identity. I was very clear about equating it with being out with one's heterosexuality under the same circumstances and how the same behaviors that go unnoticed for heterosexuals can be interpreted as advertising one's sexuality when engaged in by homosexuals.

In other words, a same sex couple walking down a city street holding hands can be described as advertising their status or putting bedroom issues in public, when the same is not said of heterosexuals. It isn't said of heteros because it isn't true.

Being openly gay is not about who you're sleeping with; that can and often still is a private matter. This does, however, point out another double standard: Heterosexuals who are open about loving their partners aren't described as advertising who they're sleeping with--it's usually just called being in love, with no up front implication that the relationship is primarily about sex. Homosexuals who are open about their status are "advertising it" and who are open about their loving relationships are more likely to have those relationships described in terms of sexuality. It's part of the subtle distinction constantly made and reinforced again and again--heterosexuality is about love, homosexuality is about sex.

I didn't address bisexuals at all or adveritsing who you're sleeping with at all, just the language used to describe the same behavior when engaged in by heterosexuals and by homosexuals.

You can be openly gay without ever getting into bedroom issues or who you're sleeping with, just as it's possible to openly straight and keep your sex life private, but the former is usually described in terms that make it seem fundamentally different than the latter, when it isn't.

Gilda

the activist is an asshole.

end of line.

You just wrote "the religious right can't complain." Surely you're not actually that naive. What the religious right does is complain. It's their ONLY strategy!

I very seriously doubt a secretly-gay congressman would be at all acceptable to an Apostolic Lutheran or a Southern Baptist, regardless of that congressman's voting record. It's all about character with the religious right; they only care about voting record as it reflects character.

The best part about this whole thing is that the very people who claim to represent the values of homosexuals have no problem using the stigma of being homosexual as a weapon against their political enemies. And yet, no outrage from the homosexual community.

Not that I agree with it as a tactic, but I think you're missing the point. It's not really the homosexuality that's being outed. It's the hypocracy.

Why is that part so hard for people to understand?

No, Craig is not single.

http://patterico.com/2006/10/17/5275...enator-as-gay/

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/008309.php

If he is the guy he is not single. He's married and has two kids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig

Some of his votes:

Voted yes to ban same-sex marriage (twice)
Voted no to add sexual orientation to hate crime lists (two separate times)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation

It looks like we've got a hypocrite!

If a black politician voted against affirmative action, would he be an Uncle Tom and a hypocrite too? Cannot the person and the politician be seperate beings? Can the politician not vote the way his constituents would want him to vote?

I have no idea if this is the case, I'm merely pointing out that there are alternate possibilties.

But you are aware that the Studds case represents even a greater hypocrisy, right? If the Dems were to be consistent and hypocrisy free, then they would need to give Foley a standing ovation in the House chambers and support him for the rest of his political life.

First of all, there is no proof that the idiot blogger's claims are true.

Secondly, do you actually believe that ALL gay people (openly or not) are in favor of ALL gay activist agendas? Man, do you have your head in the sand.

Come on, there is a HUGE difference between forcing affirmative action (which can be either be called balancing things out or forced discrimination depending on your views) and voting against banning discrimination. I see nothing wrong at all with a black politician voting against affirmative action.

He could possibly get a pass on the hate crime votes, depending on his overall view of hate crime legislation. However, if he's previously supported hate crime legislation for other purposes, then he's again aligning with anti-gay groups.


NCB, either you don't know the details or you are being intentionally obtuse. Although there are similarities, the main difference between Foley and Studds was that one involved repeated unwanted sexual harrassment of several pages and the other was a consensual relationship (the relationship was consensual and therefore legal, despite the page being 17, it was still VERY unprofessional).

There is also a difference in the reponse by the people involved. Foley blamed it on alcohol abuse and the party attempted to cover it all up for over 5 years.

What is to be gained by exposing this man as a "hypocrit"? Which it is impossible for us to quantify since we don't know his views, how he views his duty as the representative of his constituency, or even whether the "scandal" being mongered about him is true.

I don't see how this doubtful episode of political comeuppance serves any constructive purpose. Not for the benefit of GLBT-rights related issues, nor for the furtherance of liberal principles as a whole.

Jesus, you are assuming that someone is on the fringe of the bell curve and say I have my head in the sand? lol

So affirmative action, designed to decrease discrimination and provide opportunities to minorities, can be voted against by a black politician, but a possibly gay or bisexual politician cannot vote against measures to ease discrimination towards homosexuals?

Hmmm ...

I'm actually not assuming anything. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Whatever, make no reasonable attempt to think about what I said and just completely misrepresent my arguement.:rolleyes:

The goal of affirmative action may be to decrease discrimination and provide opportunities to minorities but the typical implementation of affirmative action uses discrimination to fight discrimination.

You are attempting to derail the thread by using affirmative action instead of an actual anti-discrimination law.

And a useless outing!

The thing about shouting "HYPOCRITE!" is that it doesn't really accomplish ANYTHING AT ALL for your argument. Regardless of whether the guy lives by his stated beliefs and political actions, the beliefs and actions are either right or wrong and the hypocrisy has no bearing on that. The hypocrisy's irrelevant

Assuming that the asshole who outed him is telling the truth, the politician could simply tell us that, yes, he's a hypocrite and an imperfect human being and that he'll start supporting gay-friendly legislation. More likely, he'll tell us that, yes, he's a hypocrite and an imperfect human being and he plans to stop his 'sinful' gay ways (and actually sinful adulterous ways).

Even more likely, he'll continue living his double life and the constituents will simply elect another closeted - or, perhaps in a twist, straight - politician who supports "anti-gay" legislation.

And nothing is accomplished, save for petty revenge.

BTW, I would like links to these specific votes you quoted, please. I went through his voting record, and I don't see them. Point them out.

Sorry, I thought I had included that link as well. Here it is:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/...vil_Rights.htm

There are links to the votes of all who did vote on that page as well.

That would be great, until the press and the Limbaughs started pushing and saying the activist doesn't have anything and that he's doing this for attention. And in some fashion, whether he is paid a lot of money, subpoenaed someway, or got fed up with the hypocritical media calling him out and wanting to see his evidence and who he is talking about..... he will "out" the congressperson.

It's all a game right now. The GOP and Dems only allow scandals on those they want out. Foley was probably going to have worse and maybe others would have gone down with him. The way he goes now, it's a little on his own terms and noone else goes down.

All the other names, bandied about..... including Hastert.... nothing's going to happen, it will die.

I liked ratbastid's compromise on this one, even though it really would have little effect. I don't think it was moral to out the man, no matter how much of a hypocrite he was.

I wish there were a better way of showing the christian-right base the hypocrisy of its leaders.

Whatever, dude!

:lol: (I think the :lol: is nicer than the :rolleyes: , don't you?)

Try not to get all bent out of shape, just because someone sees a contradiction in your position.

Yes, he is married. I didn't check on his marital status until later and really didn't think it important enough to post a correction. I don't think marital infidelity is or should be the issue in this topic. But thats just me.

It's recreational for bisexuals - where did you get that idea?

How is it not recreational? Two people of the same gender cannot reproduce.

From the bisexual people that I know and have associated with?

I'm closer to kutulu's position in this one. I'd really have to know a lot more about the guy - not only his voting record, but also the content of his public speeches. If his rhetoric and his voting record are consistently anti-gay, I can see some merit to outing him. I'm not saying that's the case here, but you take a public office and push a political / social agenda, then you put yourself in a position to have such hypocracy exposed.

Its not just the affect of the voting record on gay rights, its also if the content of a politician's speeches further an atmosphere of hostility towards gays. I think that under "normal" circumstances, outing someone for being homosexual is repulsive; but your "normal" person doesn't affect the prevailing attitudes of hundreds or thousands of people if they are brazenly in support of homophobic positions.

Let's say that the United States passed a law stating that all Muslims had to wear identifying arm bands, and that they could only travel on special buses, planes, and roads, couldn't gather in groups larger than 10, and would be deported for failure to follow these rules. The law is highly debated, and a politican who voted for the rule and / or publicly spoke out as anti-Muslim or in support of anti-Muslim legistlation..was found to be a closet Muslim. You don't think that's germane?

You have presented an intriguing argument. Have I mentioned lately that I love your piggy style? :)

No, it's not germane. It does nothing to refute the person's beliefs or even his political actions. It's pure ad hominem.

I'll give you this much: for those people who view ad hominem as a legitimate device in debate, the revelation of hypocrisy may sway them away from a particular viewpoint. But if such swaying wasn't primarily the result of a preexisting bias, and if they really are moved to reject any worldview with hypocritical 'adherents', then they're well on their way to nihilism. And if the real reason is a preexisting bias, as I suspect it most often is, then "Hypocrite!" is just a disingenuous weapon, wielded when your opponents are ugly and holstered when your friends are.

Of course, I suppose you could out the guy in your example on the principle that the law should apply to everyone, but that strikes me as a "foolish consistency". Unless you agree with the law.

As for outing on a personal level, I'm still not seeing a real motivation other than revenge.

And if he's outted as a "closet muslim", but is not in fact a muslim, closet or otherwise? The problem with these "outtings", is there isn't always proof, it's the accusation.

wow, what an interesting discussion. . . i don't think that someone has the right to out someone else.

first you have to come out to yourself. i just finished a book of short stories (The Black and White of It by Ann Shockley) and there was more than one story where one or both of the people (enjoying the lesbian sex or relationship) didn't consider themselves gay. this senator could be one of these people. . . yeah it doesn't make much sense to me but they are out there. . .

and even once you come out to yourself there is a lot of thought and fear involved with telling other people & people choose to (or not to) do so for different reasons, but that chose should be theirs.

if this gay activist person has such a problem with it, he could meet with the senator and talk to him one on one, at least find out where the senator is coming from before he makes a truly life changing decision for him. . . that would also give the activist a chance to find out if the story he has is fact or fiction

Ok, FoolThemall, think about it from this perspective. What if you were gay or Muslim, and this person (again, I don't know anything in particular about Craig or his public positions, so this is more to the general question than this particular scenario) is directly leading to the creation of an environment that makes your day to day life more difficult. Maybe you have a lot of anxieties and daily fear associated with being a member of this community, and then it turns out that not even the people who are persecuting you actually really believe what they are saying. They are also part of your community. I can see how that can be empowering within the community. If people set themselves up to an extent as demogogues, and put themselves in the public eye, then I think there's a certain expectation that these sort of details of their lives can come out. I don't see many political figures holding themselves up as idealogues operating in a vacuum, but seems that most of them want to be seen as typical good old Americans, one of the people, living and working for the American Dream. If the politician were to adopt a "Do as I say, not as I Do" position in developing their public personas, then sure - they're just setting policy as strategic political philosophers, and thus the details of their actual lives are incidental. I don't think that they position themselves this way, and thus I can understand how directly attacking their credibility is germane to their political position. As I see it, its a little different than the regular old guy at the end of the street who is hiding part of his identity.

Now, in the particulars of this case, from what I can gather the activist is using the old "anonymous sources" technique, and I think that's just crap. If you're going to do this sort of thing, I think you have come with it. Otherwise, it looks like useless horseshit political maneuvering.

And Elph, here's some piggy style coming right at you...:icare:

Germane to their political position, perhaps, but do you agree with that position?

The "hypocrisy is a terrible thing that is worth exposing, even if its relevance is wholly within the domain of the hypocrite's personal life" part, I mean?

I don't. I don't see sense in it. And if there isn't sense in the outing, then it's wrong. Even if it makes sense by the nonsensical standards of the closet case.

FoolThemAll,

I'm glad you linked this thread from the one on Haggard, I had completely forgotten about it.

I think your second sentence in the post above is the key for me - I disagree that in these types of instances, the relevance is wholey within the domain of the the hypocrite's personal life. They set themselves up for political office by buidling an image of their private lives. (Once again, I'm not speaking about this particular guy - rather, the question in general and the situations under which I can understand the validity of "outing" someone for closet behavior, whether it be specifically homosexuality or something else) If their private lives, in actuality, are significantly different than the image of the private lives they build up, run on, and are elected for - then I think its entirely valid to point that out. They are inherently lying to their constituents about topics they have inherently conceded are of political importants to their consituents - otherwise they wouldn't run on family imagery in the first place. They would just stand up in their commercials, outline their platform, and then stfu. I'd be fine with that.

It's not how the game is played. In addition, I can understand how someone within the community that the politician is secretly a member of, while publicly enacting legislation and enforcing attitudes counter to the interests of the affected community, could easily have an attitude of "fuck you asshole hypocrite bastard," such that they might feel empowered by the outing. I find that reason less compelling, but I can certainly understand it. As I said, I think the affected politician sets themselves up for it, and if the accusation is a lie, the politician can always sue for slander or libel - like anyone else in the States.

I guess we just disagree on this one.

I think if you're in the public eye you run the risk of having every personal detail about your life exposed. That's just the kind of society we live in. And if you are espousing a particular point of view that is obvious hypocracy than you are a fool to think you won't be exposed.
I'm not saying its right, it just is.

It's a lie, yes, but it's an irrelevant lie that's not hurting the constituents. Even if the constituents would mistakenly think otherwise. Now, it certainly hurts the wife... but the activist was clearly interested in letting many more people than just her know about it. And I'm honestly not sure what I think of a third party revealing adultery to an unknowing spouse - undecided there.

Yeah, I find it less compelling as well. Tearing down someone else to build yourself up?

I agree that the politician set himself up for this to happen. Hell, someone walking down a Detroit alley wearing white power insignia is obviously inviting violence. But that doesn't make the response moral. I can't make the move from "the politician should've expected this" to "the politician deserved this".