Would you "out" someone ?

damien

Boston wrote:

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.

Does this include condoning the discrimination of a group in society ? The example in my first post was a man who made a group in society less equal. The fact that he was a member of this group and hid it showed his hypocrisy. If an event occurs where a group has to suffer for the greater good, you do not go ahead with it, you go back to the drawing board and come up with an alternative. If things were done just for the greater good at the expense of a few without their consent I'd be deeply troubled.

Using your blood donor example it was the equivalent of him putting in the ban and not disclosing his sexuality. Fair enough if he said "I'm gay and I agree with this ban" but he didn't, he kept silent. Somtimes to remain silent is to lie.

Boston

Is it a case that the legislation was brought before a commission of which he was a part? He may have argued against it but was voted down and had to sign his name to it? Is it a case that he has to make a choice between supporting a bill to give homosexuals X rights, or getting one passed that would benefit more of the people he's elected to represent. That's politics.

Using your blood donor example it was the equivalent of him putting in the ban and not disclosing his sexuality. Fair enough if he said "I'm gay and I agree with this ban" but he didn't, he kept silent. Sometimes to remain silent is to lie.

Maybe he would make the decision based on specialist advice and facts instead of his sexuality. As such would feel no need to disclose his sexuality as it has nothing to do with his job, maybe he's a professional and keeps them separate. I don't support a blood ban, but it's got sweet FA to do with my sexuality, it's to do with the fact that I take issue with most of the "facts" it's based on. Sure I probably wouldn't even know about it if I wasn't banned, but thats not the point.

damien

Boston wrote:

Is it a case that the legislation was brought before a commission of which he was a part? He may have argued against it but was voted down and had to sign his name to it? Is it a case that he has to make a choice between supporting a bill to give homosexuals X rights, or getting one passed that would benefit more of the people he's elected to represent. That's politics.

No, it's discrimination in the name of politics.

To answer the above questions I'll quote from that chap that started this thread:

damien.m wrote:

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.

The laws were not multiple choice laws. They were "Do we take rights from the homosexuals or not ?" , "Lets cut funding for AIDS" "Lets make it illegal for a company to choose whether it wants to give benefits to the partner of an employee no matter whether they're a heterosexual or homosexual couple".

Boston

I'm not argueing the rights and wrongs of what he did. Merely that he may have had other reasons for voting the way he did, and that his sexuality might not have come into it. It's possible he doesn't believe in Aids research, maybe he took softmoney to vote down laws which would cost companies money, maybe he's pandering to the religious right wing nuts to get ellected. It's all hypocricy and corruption but nothing to do with his sexuality.

If you wondering why I'm making an issue out of this, its the insistance that political decision made by a gay man are directly related to his sexuality. If you turn it around it's the same arguement used by people who tried to block gay involvement in the running of the US. That homosexuals would simply push their agenda.

damien

Boston wrote:

If you wondering why I'm making an issue out of this, its the insistance that political decision made by a gay man are directly related to his sexuality.

Where did this occur ?

Ok, another refresher. He was supporting laws that said homosexuality was wrong and homosexuals should not be granted the same rights as anyone else, yet he was (to use the lovely term) a "practising homosexual". He was supporting a regime that says homosexuals were godless predators and who on the US Health Departments website state that the best way to help your child, if he turns out gay is to send him to a psyshologist. Yet he himself lived the "homosexual lifestyle". That's the hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with his fellow homosexuals saying his sexuality should influence his decision, it had to do with him not practising what he preaches.

It would be like a TD here voting for drink driving legislation and then driving home pissed every night of the week after getting tanked in the Dáil bar. It had nothing to do with the fact that he drinks and drives as such but the fact that he is all for legislation stopping it and yet he drinks and drives and is not following what he publicly states. He is a hypocrite and if people outed his drink driving "lifestyle" would it be wrong or should we all respect his private life.

[And for now please don't get into the "aha, but drink driving is illegal and dangerous argument. ]

If you turn it around it's the same arguement used by people who tried to block gay involvement in the running of the US. That homosexuals would simply push their agenda.

This would only be true if there was a homosexual agenda party and that the homosexuals party brought in laws to take freedoms from heterosexuals. Along the line someone finds out one of the main guys in the Homosexual Agenda party actually has a wife and kids. He too is a hypocrite.

Boston

damien.m wrote:

Where did this occur ?

Ok, another refresher. He was supporting laws that said homosexuality was wrong and homosexuals should not be granted the same rights as anyone else, yet he was (to use the lovely term) a "practising homosexual". He was supporting a regime that says homosexuals were godless predators and who on the US Health Departments website state that the best way to help your child, if he turns out gay is to send him to a psyshologist. Yet he himself lived the "homosexual lifestyle".

[/QUOTE]

And I'm saying that while it's true those laws do say that, he may support them without beliving in the sentiment. He might belive that gay marriage would cost jobs, or that money for AID research should be spent on cancer research, who knows? Not something I would agree with, but thats not the issue.

That's the hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with his fellow homosexuals saying his sexuality should influence his decision, it had to do with him not practising what he preaches.

But it does, Your saying if he wants to sleep with men, he shouldn't think or act a certain way. Your sexuality doesn't place demands on how you do your job, mine doesn't palce demands on how I handle college. But you saying his should? The guy might be being totally objective about it, and leaving his sexuality aside when making these decisions.

It would be like a TD here voting for drink driving legislation and then driving home pissed every night of the week after getting tanked in the Dáil bar. It had nothing to do with the fact that he drinks and drives as such but the fact that he is all for legislation stopping it and yet he drinks and drives and is not following what he publicly states. He is a hypocrite and if people outed his drink driving "lifestyle" would it be wrong or should we all respect his private life.

say one of the parties has an anti-abortion stance, and one of the TD's wife/girlfriend/daughter or themelves had an abortion, would It be right to explose that hypocricy?

This would only be true if there was a homosexual agenda party and that the homosexuals party brought in laws to take freedoms from heterosexuals. Along the line someone finds out one of the main guys in the Homosexual Agenda party actually has a wife and kids. He too is a hypocrite.

We can argue the fines points of whether or not his sexuality came into the decision making process all night, but at the end of the day I guess the above really sums up why I don't like this. I don't like the idea of someones sexuality being used as a weapon against them In the same way I wouldn't like someones family used against them.

damien

Boston wrote:

He might belive that gay marriage would cost jobs, or that money for AID research should be spent on cancer research, who knows?

Have you read the article I linked to yet, have you actually read what laws he has voted on ? You're arguing for new scenarios you have created to enforce your point.

But it does, Your saying if he wants to sleep with men, he shouldn't think or act a certain way.

He is voting for laws that says men who sleep with men are unnatural and the state should do it's best to take away any rights they have. He sleeps with men and he's a man. Hypocrisy. I am ann never have dictated how he acts or thinks. I'm saying he is a hypocrite for how he acts. I would never dictate how people should live, but he does. Calling someone a hypocrite is not the same as telling someone how to live their life.

Your sexuality doesn't place demands on how you do your job, mine doesn't palce demands on how I handle college. But you saying his should?

Where am I saying that ?

say one of the parties has an anti-abortion stance, and one of the TD's wife/girlfriend/daughter or themelves had an abortion, would It be right to explose that hypocricy?

We're moving from talking about a person to bringing in their family now ? Why ? The drunk driving example and a family member having an abortion are not comparable at all.

I don't like the idea of someones sexuality being used as a weapon against them In the same way I wouldn't like someones family used against them.

It's their hypocrisy on sexuality issues, it's nothing to do with their sexuality.

Boston

damien.m wrote:

Have you read the article I linked to yet, have you actually read what laws he has voted on ? You're arguing for new scenarios you have created to enforce your point.

I have Read the article, though I will admit many of the names, positions and places mean nothing to me. I'm arguing that there may be other reasons why he votes the way he does, that he may agree with them these laws. And just because the majority of the LGB community doesn't, doesn't mean he's a hypocrite. It's possible he doesn't identify as LGB in the conventional sense,

He is voting for laws that says men who sleep with men are unnatural and the state should do it's best to take away any rights they have. He sleeps with men and he's a man. Hypocrisy. I am ann never have dictated how he acts or thinks. I'm saying he is a hypocrite for how he acts. I would never dictate how people should live, but he does. Calling someone a hypocrite is not the same as telling someone how to live their life.

This is about, the proposition that if someone is a hypocrite, you can expose something deeply private to them in order to demonstrate the hypocrisy. By exposing them your not only telling them how to live their life your also forcing them to live it a certain way.

Where am I saying that ?

The whole premise here of your argument is that he shouldn't say these things or vote this way, because he's gay. Because doing so is hypocrisy, and if your a hypocrite you have no right to privacy. And that some journalist or website owner should be the judge jury and executioner.

We're moving from talking about a person to bringing in their family now ? Why ? The drunk driving example and a family member having an abortion are not comparable at all.

It was a counter example to your counter example. The drunk driving and abortion thing are not comparable, but it is exactly the same type of hypocrisy your talking about with this guy, so why would privacy be respected in this case?

It's their hypocrisy on sexuality issues, it's nothing to do with their sexuality.

If they weren't gay, they wouldn't be open to attack like this.

damien

Boston wrote:

that he may agree with them these laws. And just because the majority of the LGB community doesn't, doesn't mean he's a hypocrite. It's possible he doesn't identify as LGB in the conventional sense,

So now he mightn't be a hypocrite because he doesn't identify as LGB even though he fits into the definition his own party has of what is LGB ? If he agrees with the Laws that are brought about in support of homophobic policies that say that homosexuals are deviants and homosexuality should be stopped, yet he actively lives the "homosexual lifestyle" then it is hypocrisy. Is the issue here the definition of hypocrisy ? If as you say he believs in the laws which support these policies then he is a hypocrite. Ignorance is not a defense for hypocrisy.

By exposing them your not only telling them how to live their life your also forcing them to live it a certain way.

By exposing them you're saying "You've been caught out, you're a hypocrite". Is exposing someone as being untruthful now classed as making them live a certain way ?

The whole premise here of your argument is that he shouldn't say these things or vote this way, because he's gay.

Nope. I have yet to say that, don't think I will either. Nothing to do with him being gay, everything to do with him being a hypocrite voting in support of policies that say homosexuality is wrong and the state has the right to interfere in someone's private life.

Because doing so is hypocrisy, and if your a hypocrite you have no right to privacy. And that some journalist or website owner should be the judge jury and executioner.

If you (i) are a public figure and (ii) a public figure that votes for laws that infringe on others privacies and make laws that make people adhere to your party's beliefs then the public that is suffering as a result of what you're doing has a right to know that you are a hypocrite. If you support laws and policies that give the state the right to wade into someone's private life then you have the right to have your private life examined.

The drunk driving and abortion thing are not comparable, but it is exactly the same type of hypocrisy your talking about with this guy, so why would privacy be respected in this case?

If they, as you say, are not comparable then they are not the same examples of hypocrisy, so they can't be compared. You are moving examples of hypocrisy from one person to a family and talking about abortion in that family. But if you want to bring an abortion example into this perhaps use the story of Bishop Casey offering his girlfriend money to get an abortion. That is a far more comparable example. If a Bishop payed his girlfriend to get an abortion and the girlfriend exposed this then I see nothing wrong with the public knowing that the guy who lectures them from the pulpit on a Sunday on how to live doesn't live by his own guidelines.

If they weren't gay, they wouldn't be open to attack like this.

So because he's gay it's handle him with kid gloves ? No matter of his total hypocrisy, an exception must be made because of his sexuality ? Gay people get special treatment ?

Boston

homophobic policies that say that homosexuals are deviants and homosexuality should be stopped, yet he actively lives the "homosexual lifestyle" then it is hypocrisy.

Well it's only hypocricy if he doesn't believe those things, and still he might have other reasons to support these laws besides their sentiment. Also Ignorance I would argue is different to being a hypocrite.

By exposing them you're saying "You've been caught out, you're a hypocrite". Is exposing someone as being untruthful now classed as making them live a certain way ?

Your forcing that person to lived there life as an outed gay man. So yes it is making them live a certain way.

I have yet to say that, don't think I will either. Nothing to do with him being gay, everything to do with him being a hypocrite voting in support of policies that say homosexuality is wrong

As I've said before he would have to believe homosexuality is right, in order for this arguement to hold. Just because he is one doesn't mean he thinks it's right.

If you support laws and policies that give the state the right to wade into someone's private life then you have the right to have your private life examined.

Argeed, and I had noticed that aspect of the article.

If they, as you say, are not comparable then they are not the same examples of hypocrisy, so they can't be compared. You are moving examples of hypocrisy from one person to a family and talking about abortion in that family. But if you want to bring an abortion example into this perhaps use the story of Bishop Casey offering his girlfriend money to get an abortion. That is a far more comparable example. If a Bishop payed his girlfriend to get an abortion and the girlfriend exposed this then I see nothing wrong with the public knowing that the guy who lectures them from the pulpit on a Sunday on how to live doesn't live by his own guidelines.

I'll be clearer this time, the drink driving example and abortion example are not comparable, but the example of a homosexual passing anti gay laws, and a person who has had and abortion(or one in there family) but is a member of an pro life party/organisation is comparable, and is the same level of hypocricy. The arguement comes down to, when does a public figure sacrifice the right to privacy and who is the judge. The Bishops girlfriend had every right to come out with what happened, but would someone else have the same right? And before you say there was two parties involved, there was two parties involved with the congressman as well, his partner Smith. Should he have been outed merely because of his befello, or was it enough that he was part of the republican party.

With reguards kid gloves, I'm not saying that. The guy is voting the way he would if he was a straight, biggoted, ignorant asshole. The point is that he isn't making an exception.

damien

Boston wrote:

Well it's only hypocricy if he doesn't believe those things, and still he might have other reasons to support these laws besides their sentiment.

Well if he is actively living the lifetyle that his party says is wrong and immoral and he is fully aware of the party's policies then he is being a hypocrite. If he doesn't adhere to these policies yet he has been actively supporting them then that too makes him a hypocrite.

If he had abstained from voting on anti-gay laws then maybe he could be excused but he didn't. The only way he could not be a hypocrite is if he is living in a delusionary state or has multiple personalities. I don't think it is beneficial to go down the "guilty but insane" route or next we'll have the Wookie defense.

Your forcing that person to lived there life as an outed gay man. So yes it is making them live a certain way.

Do remember that you are holding them to the same standard that they are holding everyone else too. Society doesn't need double standards.

Just because he is one doesn't mean he thinks it's right.

There's a difference between being homosexual and being a homosexual man that engages in "homosexual activities". His party has stated that it is fine to be a homosexual if one does not give into the "unnatural urges" or in extreme cases some in his party think one needs to be brainwashed by the exgay movement. The fact that he gave into these "urges" by sleeping with men means he is going against party policy. That's hypocritical.

The arguement comes down to, when does a public figure sacrifice the right to privacy and who is the judge.

I think this is answered when a public figure starts interfering with the lives of the public.

The Bishops girlfriend had every right to come out with what happened, but would someone else have the same right?

If they were affected yes, and if the only figure outed was the Bishop. The girlfriend is entitled to privacy, the Bishop preaching from the altar telling people abortion is wrong is not.

I'm not saying that. The guy is voting the way he would if he was a straight, biggoted, ignorant asshole. The point is that he isn't making an exception.

No, he is making an exception. The point is he is making his lifestyle the exception. If he followed his party's policies he wouldn't have been sleeping with men. Excusing himself and making exceptions shows his hypocrisy.

Boston

damien.m wrote:

I think this is answered when a public figure starts interfering with the lives of the public.

"interfer" what is ment by that. Most public figures have some influence on the public. Who decides what level of interference in the public is required before your privacy is gone, is it the tabloid editor? The lobby group? Some people get into the public domain because they actually want to help and make a difference, it doesn't mean they should loose their privacy. Problem is you can't pick and choose, if we truely don't want double standards either no politician oo public figure can have privacy or all of them can. What you decide is a good reason to invade privacy might be different to what someone else consideres a good reason.

It a teacher is going to teach children about accepting homosexuals then their parents have a right to know if he's gay or straight. If he's saying that homosexuals aren't sexed crazy bed hopers but just liek everyone else, but crussing everynight parents should be told of this hipocricy by your standards. no?

memphis

Outting someone regardless of the reasons is just wrong.

i had a mate of mine tell a gay friend of hers that I was gay. I ended up snogging the guy, which only lead to much confussion and complications on both sides. i just wanted a bit of fun, the other guy wanted a relationship, as i'm not entirely "Out" i wasn't ready to commite to such a thing. the guy has being avoiding me since, but I'm sure he has been spreading rumours that i'm gay/bi to other as I have been asked did i kiss him. call me paronoid if ya like, but I'm just not able to deal with all this, its a horrible thing to do to anyone!