The ethics of outing and privacy rights in general

[Mercy Medical]

There's a new documentary coming out Today called Outrage (www.outragethemovie.com/). It's made by Kirby Dick, the guy that did This Film is Not Yet Rated. Here is a brief synopsis:

Outrage (2009) is a documentary film, directed by Kirby Dick, about allegedly closeted gay politicians promoting anti-gay legislation. These politicians include Florida governor Charlie Crist, California congressman David Dreier, and former New York City mayor Ed Koch.[1] The film also features interviews with Barney Frank, Jim McGreevey, and Tammy Baldwin.

Now, do you think it's right for these men to be outed like this? Should these politicians be outed like this? Does the fact that they are seemingly closeted men voting "anti-gay" on legislation have any impact in regards to their standing as a politician? Does the public have the right to know?

Personally, even though I find these individuals to be highly hypocritical, I'm mostly against forcing or pulling anyone out of the closet...mostly because I know how upset I would have been if someone had done something like that to me, but these individuals are seemingly hypocritical and living one life while voting against the rights of that life.

Do you think this sort of thing will change with time as our society grows more and more accepting of homosexuality that people won't have to feel like they need to hide in the closet?

[IAmNietzche]

We need a gay rights thread stickied.

[Mercy Medical]

We need a gay rights thread stickied.
There was that poll that I created that was generally used for discussion in regards to homosexuality...but I don't think this falls in line with the typical gay marriage debates.

The thing that I don't like about having on general thread for discussions like that is that specific things often get lost in the mix because if someone comes into the convo after it's been going on for 10 pages, they typically won't go back through the entire thread to find the specific conversations.

[Nevuk]

The whole concept of outing seems to be the culmination of defining your identity based off of sexual orientation. Are these man gay, bisexual, pansexual?

[Adeniz19]

I really don't see anything wrong with "outing" public officials. I mean, you sort of know what your getting yourself into when you enter that line of work. People get "outed" for various things that they don't want the general public to know about, and I really don't think that just because you're homosexual you should get a free pass.

[yves.]

since they're not being honest about their life, yes. it's not that it should be important whether or not you're gay and in politics, it's just the fact that they're being hypocrites and voting anti-gay.

[J.C.]

awhhh Ed Koch

I don't have a problem with the outing of the hypocrites. You reap what you sow when you support state-sponsored discrimination.

[Mercy Medical]

The whole concept of outing seems to be the culmination of defining your identity based off of sexual orientation. Are these man gay, bisexual, pansexual?
I'm really confused what you're trying to say with this post.

[thespearkid]

I think it's wrong to forcibly out someone in just about any circumstance but voting anti-gay legislation while being in the closet is a form of deception to the people you represent and voters have the right to know whether their elected leaders are being honest with them.

[Sventhegreat]

They're in the public view, they aren't safe from anything. I don't think there's a problem with bringing up allegations like this for politicians.

[Lueda Alia]

I heard about this a while ago. Can't wait to watch it.

Oh and yeah, I don't really care if they're outed. People who try so hard to mess up other people's lives deserve what's coming to them.

[Nevuk]

I'm really confused what you're trying to say with this post.
I am too. I was really, really, really high. I was mostly stating that the entire concept of being able to be "outed" bothers me, that in our society being a different sexual orientation can ruin your life if people find out - that's fucked up.

edit : It's a privacy issue though, but apparently Scalia was fine with people doing it to him because he was a significant social figure. It could be argued that by being a public figure you have agreed to have your privacy endlessly violated, but that still feels a bit evil.

[Mercy Medical]

I am too. I was really, really, really high. I was mostly stating that the entire concept of being able to be "outed" bothers me, that in our society being a different sexual orientation can ruin your life if people find out - that's fucked up.

edit : It's a privacy issue though, but apparently Scalia was fine with people doing it to him because he was a significant social figure. It could be argued that by being a public figure you have agreed to have your privacy endlessly violated, but that still feels a bit evil.
Hahahahaha, wow.

I get what you're saying about the being outed thing. It really shouldn't be that way, but unfortunately that is the current world we live in. I don't think those sort of things should effect people so much, but unfortunately they do.

[ammar]

Despicable.

I absolutely agree that "keeping politicians honest" is a noble goal, but not through any means necessary.

Trying to keep politicians honest by 1) using unprovable rumor to 2) out their personal lives is not the way to go. That's fighting slime with slime. Strongly disapprove.

Voting against marriage equality (or hate crimes legislation, etc) is not hypocritical for gays, unless they secretly believe that to do so is the wrong decision (ie is immoral or unconstitutional), yet argue the opposite position. Their being secretly gay is immaterial, unless they are arguing certain rights should apply to them but not to other gay folks.

[Praetor]

Nobody should be outed against their will, hypocrite or not.

In a perfect world it wouldn't matter; however it's not, and a person's life could drastically change its course depending on who knows that person's sexual orientation.

[Adeniz19]

It's wrong to out someone for something like this, because it really shouldn't matter what someone's sexual orientation is and it doesn't affect their job performance, but the fact is, if you run for public office, be prepared to have your whole life scrutinized.

The only positive thing I can see from outing these people, is that it will make it easier for gay people in the future to hold public office once everyone realizes that it really is a non-issue. I feel sorry for the people who do get outed, but at the same time they should have known that something like this could of been a possibility with the line of work they chose. It's not fair, but that's just how it is when you run for office.

[Mercy Medical]

I feel like it's wrong to rip someone out of the closet, but at the same time these people are giving voters a false perception of who they are. Like many people have said, it shouldn't matter, but it does in this current time and I feel like them being a closet homosexual, but voting on anti-gay legislature is hypocritical and I feel like it shows they are true to the party line and not necessarily true to what they believe.

[Praetor]

I don't get why it's morally "better" to out a gay anti-gay rights politician than some Joe Schmo. So what if they're a hypocrite...it's a terrible thing no matter WHO it is.

[QuikTrig]

I feel like it's wrong to rip someone out of the closet, but at the same time these people are giving voters a false perception of who they are. Like many people have said, it shouldn't matter, but it does in this current time and I feel like them being a closet homosexual, but voting on anti-gay legislature is hypocritical and I feel like it shows they are true to the party line and not necessarily true to what they believe.

sounds like the majority of politicians to me.

just because gay legislation is a hot button issue doesn't make it right to "out" people, especially when its obvious that its one of the most important, defining moments in that persons life. i don't think that this type of personal event should be used as "evidence" in swaying public opinion. they clearly don't want to become martyrs for a cause, and its not up to us to make them so.

[Adeniz19]

I don't get why it's morally "better" to out a gay anti-gay rights politician than some Joe Schmo. So what if they're a hypocrite...it's a terrible thing no matter WHO it is.Who is saying it's better, or that it is morally right at all?

[x togepi x]

I think we should out them because privacy rights disappear when you are a tool for oppression.

[QuikTrig]

I think we should out them because privacy rights disappear when you are a tool for oppression.

there are tons of politicians out there promoting anti-gay legislation. i wouldn't mind if a documentary was made illustrating some of their flaws in character (as long as it doesn't directly involve hurting their friends/family or use irrelevant personal information). yet somehow, the film is pointing out the very very few couple closeted gay politicians - they're hypocrites. whoopdeedoo. its stupid and hypocritcal, but theres way worse people out there. similarly, the tactic almost positions being a closet homosexual as a "bad thing", and i'm sure a lot of the public will see it as such.

it's kind of promoting the whole "oh my gawd, he'z gay!1" type of deal which is a reason all this bullshit exists in the first place.

[Justin_stacy]

It doesn't really bother me, 'outing' public people. All but the most basic forms of privacy are forefeited once someone chooses to enter the public's eye. I'm not sure if a for profit pseudo-documentary is the most tasteful way to go about it, but that's really up to the maker and the viewer to decide. So long as the accused has a way of responding to the attacks, publicly and legally, I don't see a problem.

I'm not really where this goes into play, but if those three are the only one's mentioned in the movie, no one is exactly being 'outed'. All three of those are either known to be gay, or suspected of it for awhile. Koch had anti-gay slogans used against him when he ran for mayor of NYC...."Vote for Como, not a homo".

[saysmydoctor]

When you are a public official in the public eye, this is going to happen. There is going to scrutiny. If there is reason to believe you are pushing legislation that is contradictory to your lifestyle, I think people have the right to know what they have representing them in Congress (in this case a hypocrite). So, no.

[sjb2k1]

i find it wholly satisfying when douchebags like that are outed.

[HashHolly]

i find it wholly satisfying when douchebags like that are outed.

This.

[QuikTrig]

i dont know much about these specific politicians, but honestly...they're voting on issues, probably to appease the majority of people in order to eventually be re-elected. it just sounds like normal politics to me.

[Praetor]

Who is saying it's better, or that it is morally right at all?
This entire documentary is implying it. I'm sure the creators would never dream of outing a Joe Schmo. But because they're hypocrites (and high-profile hypocrites at that) it's okay.

[Love As Arson]

similarly, the tactic almost positions being a closet homosexual as a "bad thing", and i'm sure a lot of the public will see it as such.

it's kind of promoting the whole "oh my gawd, he'z gay!1" type of deal which is a reason all this bullshit exists in the first place.
I agree with this, as well as Togepi's post. The conversation should focus on why society forces these people to adopt these self-hating facades.

[GeeBee]

Why is your closeted sexuality allowed any cloak of secrecy over your "closeted" views on other topics? Would you have a problem if someone was outed as pro-choice in their private life, while they always voted pro-life in Congress?

[x togepi x]

there are tons of politicians out there promoting anti-gay legislation. i wouldn't mind if a documentary was made illustrating some of their flaws in character (as long as it doesn't directly involve hurting their friends/family or use irrelevant personal information). yet somehow, the film is pointing out the very very few couple closeted gay politicians - they're hypocrites. whoopdeedoo. its stupid and hypocritcal, but theres way worse people out there. similarly, the tactic almost positions being a closet homosexual as a "bad thing", and i'm sure a lot of the public will see it as such.

it's kind of promoting the whole "oh my gawd, he'z gay!1" type of deal which is a reason all this bullshit exists in the first place.

Meh. those politicians are furthering homophobia through their policies. I feel like they should have to feel it first hand. You vote for it, you fucking deal with it. I'm not saying every gay politician has to become an equal rights advocate, but since you can abstain from voting on anti-gay legislation, they deserve all the bullshit they get for furthering the homophobic cause.

I don't care if it destroys their lives. I can list tons of people who's lives have been ruined by said policies, so they're just reaping what they sow.

[Lueda Alia]

Meh. those politicians are furthering homophobia through their policies. I feel like they should have to feel it first hand. You vote for it, you fucking deal with it. I'm not saying every gay politician has to become an equal rights advocate, but since you can abstain from voting on anti-gay legislation, they deserve all the bullshit they get for furthering the homophobic cause.

I don't care if it destroys their lives. I can list tons of people who's lives have been ruined by said policies, so they're just reaping what they sow.
This is pretty much how I feel.

I have no sympathy for people like this who destroy other people's lives. None.

[Praetor]

Why is your closeted sexuality allowed any cloak of secrecy over your "closeted" views on other topics? Would you have a problem if someone was outed as pro-choice in their private life, while they always voted pro-life in Congress?
No, but I see that differently.

[Mercy Medical]

there are tons of politicians out there promoting anti-gay legislation. i wouldn't mind if a documentary was made illustrating some of their flaws in character (as long as it doesn't directly involve hurting their friends/family or use irrelevant personal information). yet somehow, the film is pointing out the very very few couple closeted gay politicians - they're hypocrites. whoopdeedoo. its stupid and hypocritcal, but theres way worse people out there. similarly, the tactic almost positions being a closet homosexual as a "bad thing", and i'm sure a lot of the public will see it as such.

it's kind of promoting the whole "oh my gawd, he'z gay!1" type of deal which is a reason all this bullshit exists in the first place.
I don't think many people judge the person necessarily for being closeted as much as they blame society and the people surrounding that person for making them feel like they have to be closeted.

The fact that our society views homosexuality in such a way that makes people sneak around and do things behind closed doors and pretend to be someone they are not is a bad thing.

[Mercy Medical]

i dont know much about these specific politicians, but honestly...they're voting on issues, probably to appease the majority of people in order to eventually be re-elected. it just sounds like normal politics to me.
But if that is "normal politics" as you say, why should we just sit here and accept that? Wouldn't outing these individuals be a way of getting away from standard, hypocritical politics?

(I have no valid stance on this issue one way or another, more or less just asking probing questions)

[QuikTrig]

But if that is "normal politics" as you say, why should we just sit here and accept that? Wouldn't outing these individuals be a way of getting away from standard, hypocritical politics?

(I have no valid stance on this issue one way or another, more or less just asking probing questions)
i think its great if we want to try to move away from hypocritical politics. i just personally think that the outing of a homosexual politican is a distasteful and inappropriate method in achieving that.

and i haven't seen the movie, but based purely on what i'm assuming it it to be, it sounds a lot more like an attack on those specific people for voting anti-gay, and this is a way to "get back" at them. its controversial and serves the purpose of making a documentary that people will want to watch. i do not think that its actual purpose is to necessarily improve the system and move away from hypocritical politics, if that makes sense.

[GeeBee]

No, but I see that differently.

Elaborate?

[GeeBee]

i think its great if we want to try to move away from hypocritical politics. i just personally think that the outing of a homosexual politican is a distasteful and inappropriate method in achieving that.

and i haven't seen the movie, but based purely on what i'm assuming it it to be, it sounds a lot more like an attack on those specific people for voting anti-gay, and this is a way to "get back" at them. its controversial and serves the purpose of making a documentary that people will want to watch. i do not think that its actual purpose is to necessarily improve the system and move away from hypocritical politics, if that makes sense.

Outing hypocrites, especially in politics, seems not only fair, but responsible.

[Praetor]

Elaborate?
Fair enough.

As a whole, our culture shames homosexuality (as has been pointed out a ton of times in this thread). However, it is perfectly fine in our culture to be pro-life OR pro-choice thanks to Christian conservatives. So in your comparison, the politician who got an abortion would be considered a hypocrite, but likely wouldn't be shamed to the extent a homosexual would.

Also, homosexuality is not a choice, but marrying a homosexual/having an abortion is. In your analogy, the pro-life candidate who had an abortion is exceptionally hypocritical because said person exercised the right that he or she wants to deny others. In the homosexuality example, the right to be gay isn't the debate - it's the right to marry gays. The homosexual politician isn't trying to marry a homosexual, he just is a homosexual.

I kind of half-assed that because I'm also writing a paper and listening to the new Riceboy Sleeps album so if you need me to explain anything more, tell me.

[QuikTrig]

Outing hypocrites, especially in politics, seems not only fair, but responsible.
like i said, the positioning and connotation that accompany the documentary (imo) isn't one of responsibility and and revision, but one of controversy and retribution.

[Praetor]

like i said, the positioning and connotation that accompany the documentary (imo) isn't one of responsibility and and revision, but one of controversy and retribution.
I can get behind this.

[Adeniz19]

What about if a politician is active against teenage drinking and driving, and then their son goes and gets a DUI, or they themselves had some sort of DUI in the past? I mean it's part of their personal lives, especially if you are trying to use their kids against them, so should something like that be out of play too?

note: i'm not trying to say being gay is equivalent to being a drunk driver. i'm just trying to show that people use politicians personal lives all the time to try and discredit them on certain issues.

[GeeBee]

like i said, the positioning and connotation that accompany the documentary (imo) isn't one of responsibility and and revision, but one of controversy and retribution.

I'd say the rich, fat, white, closeted homosexuals in positions of power who have hypocritically kept the gay rights movement from progressing...yeah, they have it coming to them.
I really don't get why you think they need defending.

[Adeniz19]

So in your comparison, the politician who got an abortion would be considered a hypocrite, but likely wouldn't be shamed to the extent a homosexual would.You don't know that

[Praetor]

You don't know that
So in your comparison, the politician who got an abortion would be considered a hypocrite, but likely wouldn't be shamed to the extent a homosexual would.
Never claimed to.

Let's get real though; homosexuals are shamed far more than pro-lifers OR pro-choicers.

[Adeniz19]

i know what likely means. they are just as likely to be equally or more shamed, also. their entire career could just as easily be ruined by something like that once the pro-life lobbiest get ahold of that info.

[zion the lion]

When I was in 9th grade I started really questioning my sexuality and my friend went out and told everyone at school that I was bi (eventhough I'm not). I was really hurt and honestly pissed off that someone felt that they had the right to tell my personal business to people I barely even knew.

I was watching something about this on the news and it immediately brought me back to one day where I went to school and had 17 people (I counted) come up to me and say "so youre bi?" Even if there are politicians who are anti-homosexuality, nobody should have the right to "out" them...ever. It's their business, and their story to tell.

[Praetor]

i know what likely means. they are just as likely to be equally or more shamed, also. their entire career could just as easily be ruined by something like that once the pro-life lobbiest get ahold of that info.
Now we're just dealing in unprovable hypotheticals so I suppose we'll agree to disagree.

[Justin_stacy]

Outing hypocrites, especially in politics, seems not only fair, but responsible.

might I inject...and corruption, after hypocrites. And that's a perfect conclusion to this thread.

[Adeniz19]

Now we're just dealing in unprovable hypotheticals so I suppose we'll agree to disagree.haha i was just going down the path you laid out for me

[QuikTrig]

What about if a politician is active against teenage drinking and driving, and then their son goes and gets a DUI, or they themselves had some sort of DUI in the past? I mean it's part of their personal lives, especially if you are trying to use their kids against them, so should something like that be out of play too?

note: i'm not trying to say being gay is equivalent to being a drunk driver. i'm just trying to show that people use politicians personal lives all the time to try and discredit them on certain issues.

i would say its not out of play because an actual crime is being committed. he's a hypocrite in the sense that he's not following his own legislation, but even if he wasn't active with drinking and driving, this would be an indicator of his characte. additionally, drunk driving a one time mistake that can be corrected. i think the way people react to their mistakes often tells a lot more about them then the mistake itself.

the anti-gay legislation is different in the sense that although you made sure to disclaim that the two examples were not actually equivalent, i would say that the majority of the public would (perhaps subconsciously) find them to be comparable. the last thing we need are people thinking that being a closet gay is something to be ashamed about. drunk driving is something that you should be ashamed about.

[Praetor]

haha i was just going down the path you laid out for me
haha yeah, I do realize I did kind of start that but there's no way either one of us will get anywhere with a discussion like that, you know?

[QuikTrig]

I'd say the rich, fat, white, closeted homosexuals in positions of power who have hypocritically kept the gay rights movement from progressing...yeah, they have it coming to them.
I really don't get why you think they need defending.

because this forum would be boring as hell if you guys didnt have someone to debate the counter perspective.

[GeeBee]

because this forum would be boring as hell if you guys didnt have someone to debate the counter perspective.

Counter perspective on the part of closeted gays who push a homophobic agenda? I think we've got enough of those. Haggard and Foley for starters.

[QuikTrig]

Counter perspective on the part of closeted gays who push a homophobic agenda? I think we've got enough of those. Haggard and Foley for starters.

you act like i'm defending them because i like the guys. i'm defending them only because i think the method and approach is lame.

[Adeniz19]

i would say its not out of play because an actual crime is being committed. he's a hypocrite in the sense that he's not following his own legislation, but even if he wasn't active with drinking and driving, this would be an indicator of his characte. additionally, drunk driving a one time mistake that can be corrected. i think the way people react to their mistakes often tells a lot more about them then the mistake itself.

the anti-gay legislation is different in the sense that although you made sure to disclaim that the two examples were not actually equivalent, i would say that the majority of the public would (perhaps subconsciously) find them to be comparable. the last thing we need are people thinking that being a closet gay is something to be ashamed about. drunk driving is something that you should be ashamed about.but if it's his son, and families members are something private, and are usually deemed to be something offlimits, that have no effect on his legislation or his point of views. it's not him being the hypocrite, because you can't always control what other people do, just like someone has no control over their sexuality.


and i just want to point out that i REALLY hate trying to compare being gay to illegal acts, but sadly thats still how a lot of people see it. all i'm trying to show is that once you are a politician, be prepared to have your whole life scrutinized no matter how fair it is, or not.

[Adeniz19]

haha yeah, I do realize I did kind of start that but there's no way either one of us will get anywhere with a discussion like that, you know?but it's fun to hypothesize! haha

[x togepi x]

i think the point you're missing is that the problem homophobia hinges on the innocence of the victim. When someone is a victim of it, regardless of orientation, they've really done nothing wrong. They're just being targeted for some unfair reason. When a politician who's in the closet supports anti-gay legislation, they're stripped of this innocence. No longer can we say they've done nothing wrong on this issue. To object to outing them on the grounds that people shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of their sexuality is missing the point, because it's the very policies those politicians are supporting that's a big part of why people feel ashamed of their sexuality.

this is why i think it's way different than outing a celebrity or average joe.

[QuikTrig]

but if it's his son, and families members are something private, and are usually deemed to be something offlimits, that have no effect on his legislation or his point of views. it's not him being the hypocrite, because you can't always control what other people do, just like someone has no control over their sexuality.


and i just want to point out that i REALLY hate trying to compare being gay to illegal acts, but sadly thats still how a lot of people see it. all i'm trying to show is that once you are a politician, be prepared to have your whole life scrutinized no matter how fair it is, or not.

well thats why i chose to avoid the whole son thing. i personally think its dumb to use family members to discredit politicians. i don't think that they have a direct influence on some decisions being made, and they can't be held responsible for everyone's individual actions. i don't really think its "ok" that the media uses it, but its going to happen so i don't really care enough to actually do something about it.

also to note, i think the politicians are dumb if they try to play a victim card. i agree with all of you that they should have expected it to come out eventually - the media is ruthless. its fact that its nature of the media i guess this whole time i should have been stating that i'm speaking from an idealistic standpoint.

[QuikTrig]

i think the point you're missing is that the problem homophobia hinges on the innocence of the victim. When someone is a victim of it, regardless of orientation, they've really done nothing wrong. They're just being targeted for some unfair reason. When a politician who's in the closet supports anti-gay legislation, they're stripped of this innocence. No longer can we say they've done nothing wrong on this issue. To object to outing them on the grounds that people shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of their sexuality is missing the point, because it's the very policies those politicians are supporting that's a big part of why people feel ashamed of their sexuality.

this is why i think it's way different than outing a celebrity or average joe.

i don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said...however, in the context of this documentary, outing closet politicians will create a much bigger divide in the "straight vs gays" type of situation.

i don't really disagree with anyones points, conceptually. i think the differences comes with the nature of the documentary. you guys find it alright to out them because you have no sympathy for them, basically. i think that the way this documentary is framed is looking to cause controversy and conflict...which ultimately, is NOT good for a movement towards gay acceptance. period.

[GeeBee]

you act like i'm defending them because i like the guys. i'm defending them only because i think the method and approach is lame.

And their method and approach aren't lame? Hypocrisy in a position of power is pretty lame.

[x togepi x]

i don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said...however, in the context of this documentary, outing closet politicians will create a much bigger divide in the "straight vs gays" type of situation.

i don't really disagree with anyones points, conceptually. i think the differences comes with the nature of the documentary. you guys find it alright to out them because you have no sympathy for them, basically. i think that the way this documentary is framed is looking to cause controversy and conflict...which ultimately, is NOT good for a movement towards gay acceptance. period.

How does outing closet politicians cause a much bigger divide in that situation than the politicians themselves voting for anti-gay rights legislation? That makes no sense to me.

I don't think letting them stay in the closet is fair to anyone. It's not fair to people who have actually good reasons to stay in the closet. it's not fair to people who come out of the closet who have to deal with the policies they enacted. it's also not fair to their constituents, who have a right to know whether someone would vote against the interests of a community they belong to solely for other political reasons.

[QuikTrig]

And their method and approach aren't lame? Hypocrisy in a position of power is pretty lame.

two wrongs don't make a right.

[QuikTrig]

How does outing closet politicians cause a much bigger divide in that situation than the politicians themselves voting for anti-gay rights legislation? That makes no sense to me.

I don't think letting them stay in the closet is fair to anyone. It's not fair to people who have actually good reasons to stay in the closet. it's not fair to people who come out of the closet who have to deal with the policies they enacted. it's also not fair to their constituents, who have a right to know whether someone would vote against the interests of a community they belong to solely for other political reasons.

i meant to cause a bigger divide in general, not relative to legislation. obviously legislation creates separation more that a closet politician. i'm saying that by outing these politicians, i highly doubt the pluses will outweigh the negatives in reducing this divide.

and let's be honest...we have no idea why they're in the closet. we're attributing it to party lines ( i did claim that in the beginning of this thread too, so i'm to blame as well) but realistically, they're reasons may be just as "good" as those others you mentioned. they have kids, wives, etc...the documentary is focusing on the very very very few closeted politicians because they have a vice of being hyprocritical. why not focus on the other politicians that have vices of just being pure douchebags?

[Adeniz19]

why not focus on the other politicians that have vices of just being pure douchebags?oh, there are plenty of documentaries, articles, etc. about that haha

[ammar]

Their anti gay legisture is not allowing gay people to adopt kids or have marriages... and these politicians aren't doing any of these. Just because they are having sex PRIVATELY with other men doesn't mean they want to marry that man or adopt a child with that man.

It's there PRIVATE life. How does no one get that?

[Adeniz19]

Because there is no such thing as a PRIVATE life when you are a PUBLIC figure. Have you not been reading the thread and seeing the examples people have been giving?

[GeeBee]

Their anti gay legisture is not allowing gay people to adopt kids or have marriages... and these politicians aren't doing any of these. Just because they are having sex PRIVATELY with other men doesn't mean they want to marry that man or adopt a child with that man.

It's there PRIVATE life. How does no one get that?

They hold PUBLIC office...they know what goes along with that. Not saying it's right, but you wave goodbye to a private life when you take public office.

[x togepi x]

i meant to cause a bigger divide in general, not relative to legislation. obviously legislation creates separation more that a closet politician. i'm saying that by outing these politicians, i highly doubt the pluses will outweigh the negatives in reducing this divide.

I think homophobia is so entrenched in our society that the amount of problems that are actually caused by outing them are vastly outweighed by the implications of the policies they push.

and let's be honest...we have no idea why they're in the closet. we're attributing it to party lines ( i did claim that in the beginning of this thread too, so i'm to blame as well) but realistically, they're reasons may be just as "good" as those others you mentioned. they have kids, wives, etc...the documentary is focusing on the very very very few closeted politicians because they have a vice of being hyprocritical.

I'm saying that their reasoning stops being valid once they oppress other individuals. If you want to stay in the closet, cool, don't oppress people while doing so. If you do, you deserve everything you get.

why not focus on the other politicians that have vices of just being pure douchebags?

the people who vote for this legislation fall under this category.

[Takk...Ros]

The problem I see with this is that we don't know for certain that these politicians even are gay. This seems to be unsubstantiated rumor that has the potential to ruin many lives and careers. They try to push through legislation filled with hate and discrimination, so my sympathy is limited, but that's why I don't believe they should be outed.

[GeeBee]

The problem I see with this is that we don't know for certain that these politicians even are gay. This seems to be unsubstantiated rumor that has the potential to ruin many lives and careers. They try to push through legislation filled with hate and discrimination, so my sympathy is limited, but that's why I don't believe they should be outed.

And how many lives and careers does their legislation ruin. I don't see why any sympathy at all is warranted. What comes around goes around.

[Takk...Ros]

And how many lives and careers does their legislation ruin. I don't see why any sympathy at all is warranted. What comes around goes around.
Hmm... good point. But I'm still hesitant to run around outing people when there doesn't seem to be proof. That was my main point. Attack their policies all you like, but destroying their families (who may not feel the same about gay rights as said politicians) based on rumor seems wrong to me.

[open mind]

if you talk shit about people who have your own lifestyle for any sort of points (political, social, what have you) just because you think it will benefit you you're a sell-out prick with a boatload of self image problems....and it's probably best not to listen to you.

[Mercy Medical]

As a member of the LGBT community it almost feels like a slap in the face to me to have these individuals in politics who have the power to change things hide in the closet and support anti-gay legislation. They should understand the struggle and issues with the LGBT community more then anyone else and they have the power to actually do something about it and continue to eliminate the solid line between the LGBT and hetero communities. It feels like a slap because they could change things, but instead decide to go totally against LGBT rights. It would be one thing for them to really not have any hand in the anti-gay agenda, but for them to actively participate in it is what is most frustrating. I think that is the point where they lose their right to privacy in these sorts of situations.

[Villanova1L]

There's a new documentary coming out Today called Outrage. It's made by Kirby Dick, the guy that did This Film is Not Yet Rated. Here is a brief synopsis:



Now, do you think it's right for these men to be outed like this? Should these politicians be outed like this? Does the fact that they are seemingly closeted men voting "anti-gay" on legislation have any impact in regards to their standing as a politician? Does the public have the right to know?

Personally, even though I find these individuals to be highly hypocritical, I'm mostly against forcing or pulling anyone out of the closet...mostly because I know how upset I would have been if someone had done something like that to me, but these individuals are seemingly hypocritical and living one life while voting against the rights of that life.

Do you think this sort of thing will change with time as our society grows more and more accepting of homosexuality that people won't have to feel like they need to hide in the closet?

These people shouldn't be outed by a documentary because it should be someone's choice when/if they ever reveal what their sexual preference is. The arguments I saw that favored them being outed were:

1. You should know what you’re getting into. This argument is only valid if you take it to its most valid end, which would be everyone in the public eye (athletes, actors, singers, etc) being outed. I doubt many people would agree with that, if you do then it’s a more valid argument.

2. They aren’t being honest, so they can be outed. I don’t think that people should have to be killed on every lie they tell. People have every right to do what they want in private and can withhold what they want from the public.

3. They are lying to their constituents. Their responsibility is to REPRESENT not be the same as, so if they’re voting in a way that their constituents agree that’s all that matters.

4. Karma. These filmmakers are ruining lives, so it’ll come back to them, definitely becomes a vicious circle, so the argument doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

5. These people are “doucebags.” Ridiculous, if I think you’re a douchebag do I have the right to say whatever I want? Doubtful.

Also, it’s funny to say that politicians shouldn’t ruin lives, but it’s ok for film makers to ruin their lives. Isn’t this going “down to their level” which was absolutely bashed in the torture thread? I’m looking at those of you were saying this was so terrible in that case, but somehow becomes ok here.

[Adeniz19]

1. You should know what you’re getting into. This argument is only valid if you take it to its most valid end, which would be everyone in the public eye (athletes, actors, singers, etc) being outed. I doubt many people would agree with that, if you do then it’s a more valid argument.completely different. if these athletes, actors, singers, etc are coming out against gay rights then that is the only way outing them would be valid and be equivalent to what is happening to these politicians.

[a speedo model]

Even if said politicians are homosexual, that doesn't mean they have to support legislation, such as gay-marriage and so on.

[Mercy Medical]

These people shouldn't be outed by a documentary because it should be someone's choice when/if they ever reveal what their sexual preference is. The arguments I saw that favored them being outed were:

1. You should know what you’re getting into. This argument is only valid if you take it to its most valid end, which would be everyone in the public eye (athletes, actors, singers, etc) being outed. I doubt many people would agree with that, if you do then it’s a more valid argument.

2. They aren’t being honest, so they can be outed. I don’t think that people should have to be killed on every lie they tell. People have every right to do what they want in private and can withhold what they want from the public.

3. They are lying to their constituents. Their responsibility is to REPRESENT not be the same as, so if they’re voting in a way that their constituents agree that’s all that matters.

4. Karma. These filmmakers are ruining lives, so it’ll come back to them, definitely becomes a vicious circle, so the argument doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

5. These people are “doucebags.” Ridiculous, if I think you’re a douchebag do I have the right to say whatever I want? Doubtful.

Also, it’s funny to say that politicians shouldn’t ruin lives, but it’s ok for film makers to ruin their lives. Isn’t this going “down to their level” which was absolutely bashed in the torture thread? I’m looking at those of you were saying this was so terrible in that case, but somehow becomes ok here.
Yes, but I feel that when you are representing something that you are not and are actively fighting against the rights of that group of individuals that you represent then you sort of lose your privilege of privacy.

And aside from that, I feel as though politicians should have less of a right to privacy then celebrities do. I don't care what celebrities do in their free time or how much coke they snort or guys they fuck because in the long run, their existence in this world really means nothing. Politicians actually have a position in society which allows them a certain level of power over other individuals. They are voted into office to represent us and represent what we would want out of our government. I do not appreciate being lied to in that sort of way by someone I may vote for and expect to represent me. Now, if they are homosexual and out and actively fighting against gay rights, that's a completely different situation because there is no lying involved and I feel as though they would be truthful in their stances on gay rights...however, if they are in the closet and doing the same it's a totally different situation.

I don't care if you do or don't support gay rights (well, obviously I care to a extent, but you get what I'm saying), but don't do so under the vail of pretending to be someone you aren't. I realize that most politicians are lying scum, but still...

This is a different scenario then say, an athlete/actor/whatever being outed, especially if they have no face in the pro/con gay rights game. It's a different situation when you're minding your own business and just trying to live your life then when you're making a face for yourself in these movements.

[Adeniz19]

Even if said politicians are homosexual, that doesn't mean they have to support legislation, such as gay-marriage and so on.not at all, but they don't have to voice their opinion against it, either.

[Villanova1L]

completely different. if these athletes, actors, singers, etc are coming out against gay rights then that is the only way outing them would be valid and be equivalent to what is happening to these politicians.

That was your argument, but there were plenty of people saying that simply running for office opens you up for this.

You only singled in on one of the arguments, I assume that means you agree the other arguments are stupid?

Also, I don't think coming out against something gives you the right to point it out. Hypocrisy (of something you'll never prove especially) is hardly a reason to have people outed.

[Mercy Medical]

These people shouldn't be outed by a documentary because it should be someone's choice when/if they ever reveal what their sexual preference is. The arguments I saw that favored them being outed were:

1. You should know what you’re getting into. This argument is only valid if you take it to its most valid end, which would be everyone in the public eye (athletes, actors, singers, etc) being outed. I doubt many people would agree with that, if you do then it’s a more valid argument.

2. They aren’t being honest, so they can be outed. I don’t think that people should have to be killed on every lie they tell. People have every right to do what they want in private and can withhold what they want from the public.

3. They are lying to their constituents. Their responsibility is to REPRESENT not be the same as, so if they’re voting in a way that their constituents agree that’s all that matters.

4. Karma. These filmmakers are ruining lives, so it’ll come back to them, definitely becomes a vicious circle, so the argument doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

5. These people are “doucebags.” Ridiculous, if I think you’re a douchebag do I have the right to say whatever I want? Doubtful.

Also, it’s funny to say that politicians shouldn’t ruin lives, but it’s ok for film makers to ruin their lives. Isn’t this going “down to their level” which was absolutely bashed in the torture thread? I’m looking at those of you were saying this was so terrible in that case, but somehow becomes ok here.Also, in regards to the whole "ruining lives" aspect...these politicians are ruining their own lives by hiding in a closet and sneaking out to have sex with men behind their wive's backs. If they have any inclination that they may be gay, they shouldn't have gotten into those relationships and made that commitment in the first place and if they did make a commitment, they shouldn't be sneaking behind their backs to fulfill their "urges." They have ruined their own life by hiding into a closet and dragging their families in there with them.

[Villanova1L]

Also, in regards to the whole "ruining lives" aspect...these politicians are ruining their own lives by hiding in a closet and sneaking out to have sex with men behind their wive's backs. If they have any inclination that they may be gay, they shouldn't have gotten into those relationships and made that commitment in the first place and if they did make a commitment, they shouldn't be sneaking behind their backs to fulfill their "urges." They have ruined their own life by hiding into a closet and dragging their families in there with them.

There's a difference between me ruining my own life and you doing it for me.

[Adeniz19]

That was your argument, but there were plenty of people saying that simply running for office opens you up for this.

You only singled in on one of the arguments, I assume that means you agree the other arguments are stupid?

Also, I don't think coming out against something gives you the right to point it out. Hypocrisy (of something you'll never prove especially) is hardly a reason to have people outed.Running for office does open you up for this. I'm not saying it's right, or am I going to try to defend it. it's a basic truth you should know before getting into this line of work.

I only singled that one out, because that one was the only one worth arguing. I'm not going to change your opinion on the other ones so I didn't waste my breath.

And what is a reason to have people outed? It seems to me there are none to you when it comes to someone being gay. Why is outing someone as a homosexual so much more frowned upon than people getting caught up in lies that could be just as damaging or embarrasing to their reputation? Why should they get a free pass on such a hot button issue?

[Justin_stacy]

What was the arguement against Koch in the film?

[GeeBee]

There's a difference between me ruining my own life and you doing it for me.

Not if you're basically begging for it with your behavior. What comes around goes around.

[Mercy Medical]

There's a difference between me ruining my own life and you doing it for me.
There's no difference in this situation. The individual is ruining their own life by staying in the closet and bringing those people down with them. They are the life ruiners. All these filmmakers are doing is bringing that to light. If you're going to live that way, you've sort of brought the consequences onto yourself.

And if you want to get to the heart of it, what is actually ruining lives is the anti-gay legislation these individuals try and pass that continue to condone homophobic views and bigotry that make these people stay in the closet in the first place. They are essentially digging their own grave.

[Villanova1L]

Not if you're basically begging for it with your behavior. What comes around goes around.

Karma as an argument is pretty weak.

Getting back to the torture analogy; if you plot to kill a large group of people then you should know what is coming. This is such a weak argument its unbelievable and completely contradictory.

[Villanova1L]

There's no difference in this situation. The individual is ruining their own life by staying in the closet and bringing those people down with them. They are the life ruiners. All these filmmakers are doing is bringing that to light. If you're going to live that way, you've sort of brought the consequences onto yourself.

And if you want to get to the heart of it, what is actually ruining lives is the anti-gay legislation these individuals try and pass that continue to condone homophobic views and bigotry that make these people stay in the closet in the first place. They are essentially digging their own grave.

Staying in the closet is ruining their own lives? Funny I thought it was their choice to pick how they want to live. If they're successful in living in the closet who is possibly harmed?

So by being a closeted gay, racist, sexist, etc. you have run the risk of having people bring you to justice so to speak? That seems utterly ridiculous.

[Villanova1L]

Running for office does open you up for this. I'm not saying it's right, or am I going to try to defend it. it's a basic truth you should know before getting into this line of work.

I only singled that one out, because that one was the only one worth arguing. I'm not going to change your opinion on the other ones so I didn't waste my breath.

And what is a reason to have people outed? It seems to me there are none to you when it comes to someone being gay. Why is outing someone as a homosexual so much more frowned upon than people getting caught up in lies that could be just as damaging or embarrasing to their reputation? Why should they get a free pass on such a hot button issue?

If running for office does then so does appearing in movies, or writing a book, or singing professionally.

[Mercy Medical]

Staying in the closet is ruining their own lives? Funny I thought it was their choice to pick how they want to live. If they're successful in living in the closet who is possibly harmed?

So by being a closeted gay, racist, sexist, etc. you have run the risk of having people bring you to justice so to speak? That seems utterly ridiculous.
It's ruining their lives because they can never stay in there for all that long. Most people who do live in the closet and are married or have kids end up going out and cheating on their wife. They are lying to their families.

[Mercy Medical]

If running for office does then so does appearing in movies, or writing a book, or singing professionally.
IMO, politicians have less of a right to privacy then celebrities do. Celebrities are just people on a screen, they have no real relevance in this world other then entertainment. Politicians are in control and they have a certain level of power. They are there to represent us and I do no appreciate voting for someone who leads me to believe they are somebody they are not.

[QuikTrig]

IMO, politicians have less of a right to privacy then celebrities do. Celebrities are just people on a screen, they have no real relevance in this world other then entertainment. Politicians are in control and they have a certain level of power. They are there to represent us and I do no appreciate voting for someone who leads me to believe they are somebody they are not.

did those politicians run under the pretense that they were voting for pro-gay legislation? just curious.

[Adeniz19]

If running for office does then so does appearing in movies, or writing a book, or singing professionally.
and like i said, if any of those people did in fact write a book, appear in a movie, or sing a song with anti-gay meanings, and they in fact turn out to be gay, i would have no problem with them being outed.

those few people are affecting the whole out look of how people treat gay people and are doing more harm than good.

[Mercy Medical]

did those politicians run under the pretense that they were voting for pro-gay legislation? just curious.
I don't care if they ran under the pretense of being pro gay or not. The fact is, they are helping maintain a homophobic attitude (homophobic is a much stronger word then I actually mean) in America by attempting to pass anti-gay legislature or block the passage of pro-gay legislature. They are furthering the anti-gay agenda while being gay themselves. It's absolutely hypocritical and once again feels like a slap in my face (being a lesbian) because it feels as though they are reaping the benefits (this isn't the best comparison, but I hope you get what I'm saying) of the LGBT community while preventing this country from gaining ground in LGBT rights.

If they were out and against LGBT rights that would be one thing (although I still wouldn't have much respect for them still, but at least they'd be honest), but they are pretending to be somebody they are not to fall in line with their party and most of the time when they do get ripped out of the closet they further this notion that they can somehow not be gay. They paint this horrible picture of what it really means to be gay and that it's a bad thing and it's sin and they can stop their "evil ways."

Just come out already and be gay and be proud to be gay. By staying in the closet you are furthering the notion that it is something that should be hidden because it is somehow taboo or wrong. You're a public figure, you have the power in this situation to actually change something and make it different.

[GeeBee]

Karma as an argument is pretty weak.

Getting back to the torture analogy; if you plot to kill a large group of people then you should know what is coming. This is such a weak argument its unbelievable and completely contradictory.

It may be a weak argument, but as far as politics goes, it's pretty much the rule, whether you like it or not. It's like going into a football game without pads, then whining when you get hurt. It's the name of the game.

[x togepi x]

If running for office does then so does appearing in movies, or writing a book, or singing professionally.

yes, because I, as a musician, have the ability to pass laws i want.

fucking idiot.

[Praetor]

I think this thread has changed my mind on the issue.

[Mercy Medical]

I think this thread has changed my mind on the issue.
How so?

[Praetor]

How so?
Just made me realize that running for political office exposes all the skeletons in your closet...and when you put on a front of being heterosexual, even raise a family in a heterosexual relationship when you're not straight...that's a pretty fucking big skeleton.

[Mercy Medical]

Just made me realize that running for political office exposes all the skeletons in your closet...and when you put on a front of being heterosexual, even raise a family in a heterosexual relationship when you're not straight...that's a pretty fucking big skeleton.
I personally don't agree with outing individuals. I think it's unfair for people to out others without their permission in the normal, every day realm...but I think when you're running for office or are in office you sort of lose that privilege.

[Praetor]

Exactly how I feel now. You can't expect the same amount of privacy in a political job as opposed to living a "regular" life.

[x togepi x]

don't you guys get it? as the oppressor, your right to privacy is inalienable, but the oppressed's rights to anything don't matter.

[saysmydoctor]

don't you guys get it? as the oppressor, your right to privacy is inalienable, but the oppressed's rights to anything don't matter.
:appl:

[QuikTrig]

don't you guys get it? as the oppressor, your right to privacy is inalienable, but the oppressed's rights to anything don't matter.

...or, as the "oppressed", your right to privacy should be protected as well?

that was such a hyperbolic statement.

[x togepi x]

...or, as the "oppressed", your right to privacy should be protected as well?

that was such a hyperbolic statement.

If you're actively engaging in oppressing others, you aren't a member of the oppressed anymore, at least in the sense that you're no longer an innocent victim.

[QuikTrig]

If you're actively engaging in oppressing others, you aren't a member of the oppressed anymore, at least in the sense that you're no longer an innocent victim.
although i don't like using "oppressed" just because the connotation is so strong, i'll just say that privacy (especially when it comes to outing people) should be protected for both, imo. once again, my problem is that the film is framing being gay as a character flaw.

[x togepi x]

although i don't like using "oppressed" just because the connotation is so strong, i'll just say that privacy (especially when it comes to outing people) should be protected for both, imo. once again, my problem is that the film is framing being gay as a character flaw.

i'm not entirely sure what's wrong with the connotation of oppressed here considering gay people are still getting shit on by the system.

The right to privacy shouldn't be protected because it's not absolute. Victims should have it, those who are oppressing should not, because in having it they get to promote oppressive agendas.

it's like this. we think stealing is wrong. If someone stole all your possessions and cash, we'd feel really bad for you, but, if you were a career thief and one of your partners dicked you over and stole all of your shit, we wouldn't really feel bad because you engaged in the activity that hurt you.

[QuikTrig]

i'm not entirely sure what's wrong with the connotation of oppressed here considering gay people are still getting shit on by the system.

The right to privacy shouldn't be protected because it's not absolute. Victims should have it, those who are oppressing should not, because in having it they get to promote oppressive agendas.

it's like this. we think stealing is wrong. If someone stole all your possessions and cash, we'd feel really bad for you, but, if you were a career thief and one of your partners dicked you over and stole all of your shit, we wouldn't really feel bad because you engaged in the activity that hurt you.

i think its hard to articulate what i'm trying to say, and i have to go so i won't try to write a long post about it. i agree with what you said basically. as i've mentioned before in the thread, i expect them to get all the shit coming their way. whether its right is a different story. all i'm saying is that in your thief example, stealing is something to be ashamed of. they should be outed. being gay is not something one should be ashamed of, and its stupid that our society has made it as such. when you compare the two, its as if being gay and being a thief are comparable? no. theyre both hypocrites, sure. but why would we frame it to the public (the majority of whom we all know are bigoted, shallow people) as if the politician being gay is a negative. i understand what everyone's arguing...i just think that being outed as homosexual is much, much, much, much different than personal vices.

[x togepi x]

i think its hard to articulate what i'm trying to say, and i have to go so i won't try to write a long post about it. i agree with what you said basically. as i've mentioned before in the thread, i expect them to get all the shit coming their way. whether its right is a different story. all i'm saying is that in your thief example, stealing is something to be ashamed of. they should be outed. being gay is not something one should be ashamed of, and its stupid that our society has made it as such. when you compare the two, its as if being gay and being a thief are comparable? no. theyre both hypocrites, sure. but why would we frame it to the public (the majority of whom we all know are bigoted, shallow people) as if the politician being gay is a negative. i understand what everyone's arguing...i just think that being outed as homosexual is much, much, much, much different than personal vices.

i don't think we frame it to the public as "gay is bad", i think it's framed as "look at this hypocrite."

[QuikTrig]

i don't think we frame it to the public as "gay is bad", i think it's framed as "look at this hypocrite."

debatable i suppose, but i still think that the public will associate "gay" with "bad", whether those were our intentions or not.

[Villanova1L]

yes, because I, as a musician, have the ability to pass laws i want.

fucking idiot.

The argument wasn't their power as decision makers, but rather that they become public figures and that their prominence (not reason for prominence) gives them less private lives.

So if you vote for a referendum favoring the ban of gay marriage in your state it would be ok to be outed as a homosexual, even though you're a private citizen?

After all you're passing a law.

[x togepi x]

The argument wasn't their power as decision makers, but rather that they become public figures and that their prominence (not reason for prominence) gives them less private lives.

So if you vote for a referendum favoring the ban of gay marriage in your state it would be ok to be outed as a homosexual, even though you're a private citizen?

After all you're passing a law.

Yes.

I think it's quite easy to draw a distinction between politicians and other public figures, since, you know, there are huge differences.

[Mercy Medical]

although i don't like using "oppressed" just because the connotation is so strong, i'll just say that privacy (especially when it comes to outing people) should be protected for both, imo. once again, my problem is that the film is framing being gay as a character flaw.
I don't think they're framing being gay as being a character flaw so much so as they are framing being gay, being in the closet and actively trying to stop gay rights is in fact a character flaw...

The real flaw in all of this is that people care enough about homosexuality that they feel the need to hide it or that them being gay would be a bad thing for their political party. I'm pretty sure that's not what this film is trying to say, however. The fact is, society should not be this way, but it is and by being a public figure and remaining in the closet isn't doing anything to help society's views on homosexuality. You are furthering the idea that one cannot be a politician and be gay (especially if they are a Republican). You are helping cause the problem. That's not to say that all gay politicians should be super out and proud, but it just shouldn't be that big of a deal. Take Barney Frank for example, he's out and gay and no one really cares.

[Villanova1L]

Yes.

I think it's quite easy to draw a distinction between politicians and other public figures, since, you know, there are huge differences.

And, by the logic you used answering the first question, private citizens who vote also have no right to privacy. Whole lot of win there.

[x togepi x]

And, by the logic you used answering the first question, private citizens who vote also have no right to privacy. Whole lot of win there.

yeah, if we're going to use the logic of the slippery slope fallacy, then you would have a point. but we're not. clearly there is a huge difference between a government official who has the ability to help promote an agenda and those who voted for them. even the fucking law draws a distinction between public officials and private citizens, that's why i can go to dinner with a lobbyist without having to report anything about it, but a politician in office can't.

but if you're right and there's not, well then i'm going to use my amazing powers as a voter to pass my socialist utopia.