Comments on: Withers: Is outing even worth the effort?

By: MGP

MGP — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:06:01 +0000

—————
Aside from ruining the life of someone who spent a lot of effort in destroying the lives of others, what is the political upswing with outing? What do we get from it? Could be my naive blinders on, but I’m not sure gays and lesbians get anything when an anti-gay person is shown to be who he/she is. Yes we lose a foe but outside of that not much else changes.
—————

A lot changes. Other closeted gays and lesbians in places of power know that if they vote against our community, they will be exposed for the hypocrites they are and potentially lose their power.

They may stay in the closet, that is their wish. But they will know that “do no harm” is something that we take seriously.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:59:10 +0000

Anyone over the age of 18 who is gay or lesbian needs to be outed. I’m not even going to delve into the issues of trans as that has potential medical privacy implications and the issues of identity are much more complicated there (besides a larger community of g/l people ultimately helps the trans community).

The closet is itself a representation of shame. It was built by a straight community as a place to hide homosexuality, rather like they keep their brooms and mops in closets to keep them from marring the fiction of their household decor.

Those who do not have the courage to come out of the closet need to be outed primarily for their own good. It’s rather like kicking a chic from the nest so it will learn how to fly.

They also need to be outed for the good of the gay community everywhere. It has been demonstrated by numerous polls that support for gay rights increases when respondents know someone who is gay. Since we are currently left with no choice but to rely on the straights to get the recognition of rights we are entitled to, then we must force more gays out of the closet.

Finally, outing is an attack on the closet, not the closeted. It should not be reserved for political enemies or hypocrites. Outing everyone will keep such “closet cases” from ever getting the opportunity to develop into hypocrites and enemies of the community.

If someone knows it’s simply a matter of time before he or she is forced out of the closet, the imperative to define that moment for themselves is much greater. It provides them all the incentive they need to be visibly and shamelessly open.

By: David in Dallas

David in Dallas — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:16:19 +0000

Our society is not yet loving and accepting of gay people – in fact, much of society is intollerant of many human differences. If my friend or neighbor finds it impossible to see themselves confronting those challenges as an openly gay person, I can support that. But the day that they complain about “those gay people”, vote for candidates who support gay descrimination, or actively work for churches who spew their hatred of gay people, then all bets are off. They are no longer friends, and they will be outed when the time is right.

By: Mr. Sticky

Mr. Sticky — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:40:13 +0000

We are talking about the oppression of our people. I think we need to use every weapon in our arsenol to fight it. Unfortunately, some kids today will grow up to be self-loathing homosexuals. If they see these politilicians being called out on their hypocracy, it may dissuade them enterinmg the political arena themselves. We have the power to define boundries for the next generation of politicans. I say we send them a message. If anybody publicly espouses the oppression of gay people then they can expect to have their lives examined and disected. Maybe people will think twice before opening their big hateful mouths.

By: Victor J Kinzer

Victor J Kinzer — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:30:14 +0000

Are you kidding? This isn’t about retribution. Retribution is when the emphasis of what you are doing is about ruining the person’s life. This is about pointing out hypocrisy in elected officials. That simple act, on all levels and about all issues is a necessary part of our electoral process. The fact is if someone runs on an anti-gay stance and they are outed with reliable corroboration it becomes an issue they have a very difficult time dealing with and gets them out of office. If they are double playing on that issue, who knows what they will flip on. While I do not think entertainers should have to sacrifice their private lives just because they want to perform, becoming part of the representative governmental structure is a different thing altogether. If we had a legal structure that stayed out of people’s bedrooms then I would have no desire to get into the bedrooms of my politicians. The instant a politician tells me what and how I can have sex, construct a family, get visitation rights to my dying loved ones I have a right to know who falls into those categories for them, and so does everyone else.

By: Pete

Pete — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:02:28 +0000

As Randy and other’s have said, it’s not “outing”, it’s hypocracy.

By: montrealbren

montrealbren — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:56:02 +0000

Mr. Withers: I understand your concern with this political tactic. However it seems to me that anyone in politics who engages in such hypocrisy needs to be exposed – Whether it’s Al Gore’s eco-disaster home, a fiscal conservative’s bridge to nowhere, or an anti-gay crusader with pipi in his mouth. If someone is really that craven, they ought to be thick skinned enough to deal with the consequences of their actions. These are, after all, people whose salary you and I pay.
I think that it’s best to let people make up their own minds as to when/if they come out. But there is a political struggle underway and in that context I do think it’s fair to expose the hypocrisy of a public servant. Most anti-gay politicos are not gay. But those who enjoy gay sex while trying to thwart gay causes really do need the reality check caused by exposure. Remember: these are people whose lavish life you pay for…

By: Yhitzak

Yhitzak — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:24:37 +0000

Thank you, Mr. Withers. I had read about this a couple of days ago and found myself appalled at the callousness, cattiness, and outright poor behavior of gay people. This idea, “outing,” which is exposition by force, is noble in that it was put forth to level the playing field, but is actually a negative concept because it only brings everyone down to the same, subterranean level. Why is it (or does it seem) inappropriate to take into consideration other people’s lives and feelings even when they are not inclined to reciprocate or behave that way in the first place? There is a measure of cruelty, here, on part of the gay community, in the desire to bring politicians into the dirt. This isn’t about equality, it’s about vengeance.

I’m with a couple of the other commentators who believe that by “outing” ourselves or needing to be “out” we are making special standards for ourselves and our community. Sometimes being in the closet is a matter of physical safety, not just emotional security. Until we (as a whole society) discuss the meaning of being “in the closet” and ALL that it entails, outing anyone for any reason will continue to be a double-edged sword.

I liked your last thought, also, Withers. Here’s mine: Though I hate to say it, as long as there are human beings, there will always be hatred and prejudice. De-segregation didn’t eliminate anti-black sentiment in this or any country, and granting equal rights to homosexuals will not eliminate homophobia or gay hatred.

By: The Menstruator

The Menstruator — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:00:04 +0000

When someone is a political figure making decisions that are anti-gay yet getting bathroom bjs, it deserves to be spoken about. It’s news.
What I don’t understand… If you are “outted” and you really aren’t gay. What do you care? As long as you and your loved ones are aware of what is real and what is not, what’s the big deal?
Gay people walk around all the time whilst everyone assumes they are straight.
I’ve never had the thrill of asking anyone if their parents know they are straight. It’s a system we’ve been held down with for years.
That outrage guy has gall. It’s nice to see some real investigative journalism and not puffy entertainment pieces by the gay community. Someone who’s putting it on the line is clear to lead in the revolution.

By: Mario

Mario — Wed, 13 May 2009 07:36:53 +0000

I’m not sure if people here are using it that way, but if you mean “right” as in a legal right to privacy… There is no legal right to privacy with regards to private citizens. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about outing Charlie Crist, no legal right of his is being violated.

Now, you might think that it is a violation of his privacy and that you shouldn’t do it, but I think it can be potentially confusing to couch it in terms that could be confused for being legal terms.

That said, I support it in the case of homophobic politicians. It removes an opponent, an opponent who deserves to have their hypocrisy exposed. I have no problem exposing hypocrites who criminalize prostitution yet visit whores themselves (Spitzer), or hypocrites who, say, dishonestly claim that illegal immigrants don’t contribute taxes but engage in tax evasion themselves (a charge which is probably true of quite a number of politicians). Why should I have a problem with exposing hypocrites when the issue is gay rights?

Removing opponents (opponents who can be even more anti-gay rights than their straight counterparts, ironically) is a good enough reason, in my book.

The real question is whether this has a negative effect on public opinion of homosexuality (if it’s neutral, then I’d still support it, and obviously if it’s positive then I’d support it even more). That is a question that I don’t think can be answered without some research.