Would you "out" someone ?

damien

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

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

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

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

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

ferdi

no never

Stark

Outing someone against their wishes is wrong.

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

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

MistressPandora

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

ixoy

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

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

falteringstar

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

swiss

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

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

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

Annasopra

I guess everyone is pretty much in agreement on this then

the_syco

swiss wrote:

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

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

qwertyphobia

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

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

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

Zulu

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

of course I could be completly wrong here...

azezil

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

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

claire h

damien.m wrote:

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

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

Zulu

claire h wrote:

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

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

claire h

Zulu wrote:

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

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

Zulu

claire h wrote:

How, exactly?

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

claire h wrote:

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

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

claire h wrote:

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

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

claire h wrote:

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

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

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

fozzle

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

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

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

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

claire h

Zulu wrote:

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

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

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

Zulu

claire h wrote:

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

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

claire h wrote:

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

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

claire h wrote:

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

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

claire h wrote:

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

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

pixie_student

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

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

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

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

Yoda

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

qwertyphobia

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

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

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

Boston

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

luckat

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

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

Annasopra

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

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

Zulu

Johnnymcg wrote:

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

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

Eitherway, my sentiments are the same!

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Yoda

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

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

damien

*bump*

Boston

Yoda wrote:

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

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