Outrage.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2009 6:50 AM GMT
    So an American journalist feels he has a god givern right, to go around hunting down gay/bisexual conservative politicians and out them.

    Oh please this douche bag has no such right, and if he votes for the left wing, it's nothing less than self serving bastadisation.

    What right does he have to go around destroying lives for his own self advancement?

    A politician has the right to a private life too. He also has a right to decide, on what he/she may feel is best for America too, and does not let his personal life, dictate his work life, as the two are not one of the same.

    Thank good I'm an Aussie living in Oz, coz I truly feel this kind of bastardisation would be short lived down here.

    There is no excuse to out anyone, certainly not for your own self advancement. It's evil, self serving, vindictive, hatful, spitful, and just not cricket.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2009 7:29 AM GMT


    Who might this Journalist be?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 23, 2009 12:17 PM GMT
    I'm assuming this thread is about the movie Outrage
    that outs gay politicians for being contradictory in their lives when compared to their lives as politicians

    I started a thread about this in the Gay News section
    and I usually don't like outing per say
    But if you are going to be a hypocrite about anything .... you need to be called on it

    If you vote to cut Federal spending and fill your congressional district with loads and loads of pork .... you need to be exposed
    If you cry about the immorality and bemoan the state of matrimony in America and have a mistress on the side ..... you need to be exposed

    I feel it's the same for homosexuality
    If you consistently vote against homosexual interests and are Gay Yourself?
    .... Then you need to be exposed

    <object width= ">
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2009 12:22 PM GMT
    Ori_ saidSo an American journalist feels he has a god givern right, to go around hunting down gay/bisexual conservative politicians and out them.

    Oh please this douche bag has no such right, and if he votes for the left wing, it's nothing less than self serving bastadisation.

    What right does he have to go around destroying lives for his own self advancement?

    A politician has the right to a private life too. He also has a right to decide, on what he/she may feel is best for America too, and does not let his personal life, dictate his work life, as the two are not one of the same.

    Thank good I'm an Aussie living in Oz, coz I truly feel this kind of bastardisation would be short lived down here.

    There is no excuse to out anyone, certainly not for your own self advancement. It's evil, self serving, vindictive, hatful, spitful, and just not cricket.


    You almoooooooooooooooost made a good thread.
  • jrs1

    Posts: 4388

    Aug 23, 2009 1:06 PM GMT
    GQjock saidI'm assuming this thread is about the movie Outrage
    that outs gay politicians for being contradictory in their lives when compared to their lives as politicians...

    I feel it's the same for homosexuality
    If you consistently vote against homosexual interests and are Gay Yourself?
    .... Then you need to be exposed


    Great response. I concur.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2009 1:31 PM GMT
    I agree with GQjock... I hate hypocrisy and am glad to see it exposed in hopes that its exposure will change something. HOWEVER, I must admit to being edgy about this whole thing. There is a difference between exposing hypocrisy in hopes of ending it and outing someone for the pleasure/entertainment of others who want to see hypocrites embarrassed... I'm still trying to figure out on which side of that line this falls.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2009 1:38 PM GMT
    Isn't there some level of "self-defense" with this issue?

    If there are politicians who push anti-gay legislation that could be harmful to myself, my friends, or family, I think full disclosure might affect their constituents to perhaps vote them out of office (or impeach, etc.). Even if it's a sure-thing conservative voting block, there would still be a chance that the replacement might not push those anti-gay attacks as heavily.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2009 3:25 PM GMT
    I'm opposed to outing people in general. In fact, I think American politics is way too interested in the personal lives of our politicians. If someone has an affair, is married more than once, smoked pot 20 years ago, etc. has no impact on how they will govern.

    That said, if a politician is actively working against gay rights while getting blown in an airport bathroom, that needs to be exposed.

    As someone else said, it's a matter of self-defense.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 23, 2009 3:54 PM GMT
    thank god you live in oz where your pm before johnny was a raging queen that everyone knew what gay, but didn't have the balls to actually say.
  • jlly_rnchr

    Posts: 1759

    Aug 23, 2009 4:11 PM GMT
    Prior to seeing the movie Outrage, I was adamantly opposed to outing someone, including gay politicians with bad voting records.

    After seeing that movie, I changed my mind. These men not only voted against all LGBT measures they could find (marriage, discrimination, HIV funding, hate crimes, etc.) but they were also horrible human beings. Public, repeated denials that were insulting, moving their boyfriends out of their state and having a shotgun marriage to be governor, cutting off communication with ex-boyfriends while they pass away from AIDS, taking advantage of pledges at their old frat. Digusting behavior.

    So, I came to agree with the filmmaker, Kirby Dick, that this denial and voting record is gutless and self-serving, is certainly worthy of being reported on to the public, and should be punished by being outed as hypocrites.

    Crappy people's crappy actions are exposed to the public all the time. But, because these crappy people's actions have to deal with the sensitive topic of sexuality, they think that they should be excused from the embarrassment. I think we have a right to know what kind of men they really are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2009 4:22 PM GMT
    Evil people deserve evil ends. Gay outing for the sake of outing is wrong; outing the evil ones who are hypocrites and harmful to our GLBT community is not wrong. Let their outing continue.
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Aug 23, 2009 4:23 PM GMT
    So, a private life trumps hypocrisy? If a politician extolls "traditional" marriage but is also a closeted gay, then he should be exposed. Perhaps you should read up on Roy Cohn. He was a closeted gay man and a self-hating Jew who in the 1950s worked with Sen. McCarthy to rabidly hunt down communists in the ugly "Red Scare" days of our country. This destroyed the lives of many Jews and gay men.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2009 4:27 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidI'm opposed to outing people in general. In fact, I think American politics is way too interested in the personal lives of our politicians. If someone has an affair, is married more than once, smoked pot 20 years ago, etc. has no impact on how they will govern.

    That said, if a politician is actively working against gay rights while getting blown in an airport bathroom, that needs to be exposed.

    As someone else said, it's a matter of self-defense.



    The bold statement is not true. While I don't think the examples you gave might particularly apply, there are some personal issues that do. This particular instance is exactly why they should be exposed. How self-contradicting can you be? Hell, even if you want to practice self-hatred, don't bring everyone else down with you.
    That's about as ridiculous as me denying myself and trying to pass as white, and then enforcing laws that inflict injustice to blacks in this country. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2009 4:34 PM GMT
    I'm not outrage at all,I'm totally in favor of exposing them.

    politicians say they want to make our lives better,those guys make our life worse,while maybe they escape other guy's fate cos they are rich,or because of their position.they feel they have the right to influence our lives,why shouldent we influence theirs,if its too hot for them,they should leave the kitchen

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2009 4:52 PM GMT
    Though I consider myself somewhat of a libertarian, I recognize this issue as not being about "respecting" privacy rights. No. You lose privacy rights when you fail to live up to standards you have set for others.

    This is about hypocrisy, and its harm to society. As Barney Frank put it, those who make the law should be subject to it.
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Aug 23, 2009 4:58 PM GMT
    I understand both sides of this issue. While I think it is wrong to out anyone without his or her permission, I also find the hypocrisy of these politicians truly reprehensible.

    The fact that they are so virulently anti-gay in their public statements and actions, and that they pander to the worst anti-gay segments of our population makes outting them seem somewhat just. I can also understand the rationale used by the reporter and others in defending their motivations to out these politicians.

    At the same time, I worry that the furvor to out anyone might lead to unfortunate injustice with others, such as professional athletes, members of the military, or anyone else whose careers can be irreparably damaged by being outted - whether we agree or not that it is right that their careers should be damaged by such a revelation. USAF Lt Col Fahrenbach, of recent notoriety, was outted to the Air Force by a gay civilian "acquaintance." I suspect this "acquaintance" was trying to get back at the Lt Col for some reason. Outting someone like that is just simply wrong and never justifyable.

    The issue that is being overlooked in this discussion so far is the broader issue that drives anyone into the closet. The fact that the state of our culture is still such that anyone feels they have to "prove" they are straight in order to get elected. The goal of of the gay comminity should be to de-stigmatize being gay. Outting someone without his or her permission does not achieve that, not even outting hypocrites.
  • superboy32

    Posts: 48

    Aug 23, 2009 5:20 PM GMT
    Unfortunately, as a part of the human condition, humans are predisposed to the self entitlement to conquer and take dominion over other men. That's why the Bible was created ... think about it. A bunch of men create this book riddled with fear and judgement that centuries later ... wars, hate and crusades still ensue. Sorry gays, we are the new minority that society still finds acceptable to attack. We're the new black from the of the 50's. Like history we need to not take their crap and fight back.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2009 6:16 PM GMT
    I am totally for outing these political hyprocrites. If you work against gay issues when you yourself I gay - you should be exposed! I also would like to see closted gay Catholic priests outed as well. These closted gay priests support a church which presses an anti-gay aganda. Overall, I am not in favor of outing anyone. I would, however, out a closeted gay Catholic priest is a sec.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2009 6:21 PM GMT
    If you're a hypocrite, you should be outed and exposed. Enough of these two-faced politicians who turn our lives into campaign fodder, who whip the "right" into a hateful frenzy whenever possible, and who attempt to persecute, stigmatize, and marginalize us. And they're gay too???!!! Destroy them!!!
  • bmw0

    Posts: 588

    Aug 23, 2009 6:39 PM GMT
    I am personally against outing people. But a politician is much different than the boy down the street. When you are in the public eye, everything is under scrutiny. If you want to avoid your private life being exposed don't put yourself in public office or don't do anything that might contradict your agenda as a public official. They are the ones who make the decisions to pursue different agendas and they decide weather or not to live in corralation with their policies. If they don't they should be well aware that they may suffer the consequences of their actions. Simply put. Its their choice to do what they do. If you dont want to be exposed, dont choose to put yourself in that position. So kudos to those who are holding these officials accountable for their actions. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2009 7:07 PM GMT
    imlistedhere said
    Christian73 saidI'm opposed to outing people in general. In fact, I think American politics is way too interested in the personal lives of our politicians. If someone has an affair, is married more than once, smoked pot 20 years ago, etc. has no impact on how they will govern.

    That said, if a politician is actively working against gay rights while getting blown in an airport bathroom, that needs to be exposed.

    As someone else said, it's a matter of self-defense.



    The bold statement is not true. While I don't think the examples you gave might particularly apply, there are some personal issues that do. This particular instance is exactly why they should be exposed. How self-contradicting can you be? Hell, even if you want to practice self-hatred, don't bring everyone else down with you.
    That's about as ridiculous as me denying myself and trying to pass as white, and then enforcing laws that inflict injustice to blacks in this country. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I don't believe my post is "self-contradicting." I clearly state that I'm talking in generalizations. In general, a politician's personal life isn't likely to have an impact on his or her ability to govern. That doesn't mean that there aren't instances - like being a closeted gay voting against gay rights, or being a Christian dominionist who carries on extramarital affairs while visiting his C Street "Church" - where there is apparent hypocrisy.

    My reason for saying personal lives shouldn't enter into politics is that we live in a country where you can't win a national election as an atheist, or if you're a former drug addict, or have been diagnosed with a mental illness. As it stands now, left-leaning or even moderate politicians get viciously attacked for having smoked pot in college, while Newt Gingrich can divorce his wife while she's dying of cancer to hook up with a younger woman, and he continues to tell the rest of the country how to live.