Non-news gay story of the day

Amnesiac_ie

Westlife singer Feehily reveals that he is gay[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Westlife singer Mark Feehily has revealed that he is gay, saying that the time was right for him to let people know the truth.

In an interview with The Sun, Feehily said: "I am gay and I'm very proud of who I am. I'm not asking for any sympathy or to be a role model to anyone else."

"My close friends and family - the people I love - have been incredibly supportive to me and that's what really matters," he said.

The 25-year-old singer also said in the interview that he was not worried about people's reactions to his announcement because he is happy being himself.

Feehily is currently in a long-term relationship with former boyband singer Kevin McDaid.
***

WOW! Who knew?


But seriously, fair play to him.
[/font]

Fabulo

Mm. Although it just seems a little convenient that the right time couldn't have been when Westlife were at the height of their career. Now their popularity have subsided a little... But then, I suppose that's society's fault.

There's always one you suspect is gay... I thought it was the other one. You know, what's-his-face. They all look the same these days anyway...

Well done to him, anyway. If there's one thing we can do with more of, it's gay celebrities

Annasopra

Fabulo wrote:

Mm. Although it just seems a little convenient that the right time couldn't have been when Westlife were at the height of their career. Now their popularity have subsided a little... But then, I suppose that's society's fault.

why does the timing matter?

KTRIC

It's not like everyone didn't suspect he was gay anyway. There has to be at least one gay guy in every boyband, everyone knows that, its in the rules.

LegacyUser

Ah, you can't blame him for not doing it at the peak of his career. Although that would have been fabulous.

It's tough enough for 'regular' guys (like me, for example = big coward) to come out. It must be harder for a celebrity; to know that hundreds of thousands of people are talking about you and judging you. But then as Oscar said, 'The only thing worse than being talked about...' And I suppose that vast wealth has got to help as well.

I admire him for doing it, anyway. But for the record, I always thought he was the prettiest one, so I've been a long-time admirer

Fabulo

Johnnymcg wrote:

why does the timing matter?

I kinda feel that gay celebrities have a responsibility towards society as a whole, that in order for attitudes to change, we need as many gay rolemodels as we can get our hands on. Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad for him personally that he came out, but I feel that the reason he didn't before this is because his career would have suffered...

But that's part of showbiz. It shouldn't be, but it is...

BuffyBot

Who knew?

Except..ermm everyone who knew.

Amnesiac_ie

Fabulo wrote:

I kinda feel that gay celebrities have a responsibility towards society as a whole, that in order for attitudes to change, we need as many gay rolemodels as we can get our hands on.

I disagree. I don't think a "gay" pop star has any more responsibiliy than a "straight" one. He's happy with who he is, he's stated that he doesn't want to be a role model and I think people should accept that.

It's up to all of us to be happy with who we are ourselves... if you want people to have a good impression of you, it's up to you to act in a way that earns their respect. I don't buy the argument that gay people in the public eye are obligated to become poster boys/girls for the LGBT community.

Amnesiac_ie

BuffyBot wrote:

Who knew?

Except..ermm everyone who knew.

You did get the irony? It was the worst kept secret in Irish "showbiz" circles. Even my daft old bird knew! The amount of glass closets in the Irish entertainment industry...

Boston

He never asked to be a role model, let along a gay role model. If some one is gay and on the Irish rugby team, do they have a responsibility to oust themselves and behave in a certain “perfect” manner, because they happen to be gay? Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for saying that people should take responsibility for their actions and life, but I’m very slow to tell someone that because of an “accident of birth” they have some inherent responsibility. I think that is a very dangerous line of thought.

Stark

Amnesiac_ie wrote:

You did get the irony? It was the worst kept secret in Irish "showbiz" circles. Even my daft old bird knew! The amount of glass closets in the Irish entertainment industry...

It's not so much about keeping it a secret, as it is keeping teenage girls in denial.

Amnesiac_ie

Stark wrote:

It's not so much about keeping it a secret, as it is keeping teenage girls in denial.

And the grannies! I'd say Westlife appeal to as many OAPs as teens.

Fabulo

Amnesiac ie wrote:

I disagree. I don't think a "gay" pop star has any more responsibiliy than a "straight" one. He's happy with who he is, he's stated that he doesn't want to be a role model and I think people should accept that.

Perhaps rolemodel was a misleading term. I simply mean that gay celebrities have a responsibility to be out, in order to show that it's no crime to be gay, that it isn't shameful or anything of that kind. I have no expectations on how they should act, all I ask is that they come out. He did come out, and I appreciate that, however, it doesn't seem to me to promote tolerance and understanding that he seems to have felt he couldn't come out some time ago, because of his career.

LiouVille wrote:

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for saying that people should take responsibility for their actions and life, but I’m very slow to tell someone that because of an “accident of birth” they have some inherent responsibility. I think that is a very dangerous line of thought.

Just as people have a responsibility for action, they have a responsibility for inaction. In this case, failing to come out of the closet. Of course, in your average person who isn't famous, this inaction doesn't really have any effect. But amongst celebrities, this inaction only serves to promote a climate of fear, because by coming out they use their fame to battle homophobia. I think there's most definitely an obligation there, considering how important a cause it is...

Amnesiac_ie

Fabulo wrote:

Just as people have a responsibility for action, they have a responsibility for inaction. In this case, failing to come out of the closet. Of course, in your average person who isn't famous, this inaction doesn't really have any effect. But amongst celebrities, this inaction only serves to promote a climate of fear, because by coming out they use their fame to battle homophobia. I think there's most definitely an obligation there, considering how important a cause it is...

I don't think ANYBODy is under any obligations to tell all and sundry about what they get up to in the bedroom. I don't understand your logic... poeple who are famous are obligated to come out? Does this mean people who are not famous are not under the same obligation?

Coming out is something people do for themselves... I don't think anyone can or should attempt to come out for others...

Fabulo

Amnesiac ie wrote:

I don't think ANYBODy is under any obligations to tell all and sundry about what they get up to in the bedroom. I don't understand your logic... poeple who are famous are obligated to come out? Does this mean people who are not famous are not under the same obligation?

Why is that illogical? Famous people legally have different rights, different expectations of privacy to your average person. Equally, they have different responsibilities, and one of these I believe is to come out.

Coming out is something people do for themselves... I don't think anyone can or should attempt to come out for others...

I think Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT UP, said it best. I certainly can't put it any clearer: "I'm HIV-positive and I haven't got time to wait for 25 million people to get their act together to help make the government pay attention to my illness and help save my life. I'm not going to do it to a school-teacher or someone like that, but I get very angry with people who are in a position to do good, like heads of studios, stars, politicians certainly, authors, sports stars - people who could be role models for a community that desperately needs them. We're fighting for our lives now."

Boston

Fabulo wrote:

Why is that illogical? Famous people legally have different rights, different expectations of privacy to your average person. Equally, they have different responsibilities, and one of these I believe is to come out.

Just because someone chooses to give up certain rights to privacy doesn't mean that have a different legal standing. How can you not see the difference between not having certain rights, and deliberately putting your private life in the public eye to increase exposer.

I think Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT UP, said it best. I certainly can't put it any clearer: "I'm HIV-positive and I haven't got time to wait for 25 million people to get their act together to help make the government pay attention to my illness and help save my life. I'm not going to do it to a school-teacher or someone like that, but I get very angry with people who are in a position to do good, like heads of studios, stars, politicians certainly, authors, sports stars - people who could be role models for a community that desperately needs them. We're fighting for our lives now."

Well why not a teacher? Sirely he has an obligation to his students and there parents? Would he not have much more of an effect over the small body of young minds then someone in west life would? What you're suggesting is called the ends justifing the means. It's something that I can't agree with. Who decides who is in a position to make a "real change" and who gave them that right. What consititues a "real change"?

Tell me have you come out to everyone you know? If not how can you put that on someone else, without knowing fully what yo uask of them.

Fabulo

LiouVille wrote:

Just because someone chooses to give up certain rights to privacy doesn't mean that have a different legal standing. How can you not see the difference between not having certain rights, and deliberately putting your private life in the public eye to increase exposer.

I'm sorry, I don't understand... Rights are a legal matter, so anyone who waives certain legal rights inevitably has a different legal standing to a person who does not.

Well why not a teacher? Sirely he has an obligation to his students and there parents? Would he not have much more of an effect over the small body of young minds then someone in west life would?

So what you're arguing is that we should out everyone equally...?

What you're suggesting is called the ends justifing the means. It's something that I can't agree with. Who decides who is in a position to make a "real change" and who gave them that right. What consititues a "real change"?

If the means are morally correct, it's not the ends justifying the means, it's the means justifying themselves... And I don't believe it is immoral. How can someone with a lower expectation of privacy expect their sexuality, something I see as integral to a person, to be concealed?

Tell me have you come out to everyone you know? If not how can you put that on someone else, without knowing fully what yo uask of them.

I am indeed out to everyone I know, heh. But the experience is different for everyone, I can't really draw any large comparisons. But if I can do it at the age of fifteen, it shows that no matter how difficult it is, it is never an impossibility.

Boston

Fabulo wrote:

I'm sorry, I don't understand... Rights are a legal matter, so anyone who waives certain legal rights inevitably has a different legal standing to a person who does not.

you argued that famous people have different legal rights then thsoe that arn't. I pointed out that in order to have different legal rights, one would have had to have given up some rights. Being famous does not automatically loose you the right to privacy. Besides the term to to arbitary.

So what you're arguing is that we should out everyone equally...?

I'm saying that if you believe you have the right to out one person, why not another. I'm not arguing that everyone should be outed, that some twisting of what i said.

If the means are morally correct, it's not the ends justifying the means, it's the means justifying themselves... And I don't believe it is immoral. How can someone with a lower expectation of privacy expect their sexuality, something I see as integral to a person, to be concealed?

Now we're talkign about morality. Morality is great, if you have the right morality you can be a ****. Also who says they have a lower expectation to privacy then you. The media would like you to believe that, but unless they make a decision on that, they don't.

I am indeed out to everyone I know, heh. But the experience is different for everyone, I can't really draw any large comparisons. But if I can do it at the age of fifteen, it shows that no matter how difficult it is, it is never an impossibility.

I really don't like the "I can do it why can't you arguements". Is it true that everybody you every meet from now on will probably know? No it isn't

Fabulo

LiouVille wrote:

you argued that famous people have different legal rights then thsoe that arn't. I pointed out that in order to have different legal rights, one would have had to have given up some rights. Being famous does not automatically loose you the right to privacy. Besides the term to to arbitary.

Being famous does automatically lose you at least some of your privacy. By definition, being famous necessitates being well-known. And the moment you are well-known, you have lost your anonymity, and lost a part of your privacy. This privacy is lost even further through fuelling the media machine, something which singers in particular do to boost their music sales.

This is why we have the concept of expectation of privacy. Someone who uses their image in the media has a lower expectation of privacy to someone who shys away from media attention. It is a matter for the judiciary to decide if, given their expectation of privacy, they can expect to have legal shielding from probing into their personal life.

I'm not sure if this is the way it works in Ireland, but I know that certainly this is one of the important concepts in law in many other countries... Basically it means that by simply being famous, you inherently waive some rights to privacy...

I'm saying that if you believe you have the right to out one person, why not another. I'm not arguing that everyone should be outed, that some twisting of what i said.

Yes. If you have the right to out one person, you do indeed have the right to out another, as long as it can be justified...

Now we're talkign about morality. Morality is great, if you have the right morality you can be a ****. Also who says they have a lower expectation to privacy then you. The media would like you to believe that, but unless they make a decision on that, they don't.

They do make a decision on it, when they choose to be famous. If they haven't chosen to be famous, then they have a higher expectation of privacy, and consequently should have higher legal protection. See above.

I really don't like the "I can do it why can't you arguements".

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to propose a "I can do it, why can't you?" argument, it just seemed that you were proposing a "If you can't do it, why should they?", which, I hope you'll agree, is equally invalid.

Is it true that everybody you every meet from now on will probably know? No it isn't

I think it's quite obvious I'm gay, heh... Although I don't see what relevance it has.

Boston

Fabulo wrote:

Being famous does automatically lose you at least some of your privacy. By definition, being famous necessitates being well-known. And the moment you are well-known, you have lost your anonymity, and lost a part of your privacy. This privacy is lost even further through fuelling the media machine, something which singers in particular do to boost their music sales.

Coming out is one of the most intimate things someone can share with someone else. To suggest that just because someone looses anonyminity, means they loose this right hold. you're using the tine edge to justify the extreme.

Yes. If you have the right to out one person, you do indeed have the right to out another, as long as it can be justified...

Nice prerequisite there. What makes it justified, and who decides? You? Me? Where would the justification have been to out this west life guy? I've listened to people on here arguing that if someone is damaging "The community" they should be ousted. but this guy hasn't damaged it. Or maybe you're suggesting that by not coming out, he hasn't helped it as much as he could have, and therefore "the community" is less as a whole.

They do make a decision on it, when they choose to be famous. If they haven't chosen to be famous, then they have a higher expectation of privacy, and consequently should have higher legal protection. See above.

You have this concept of people that are famous are over there. Am I famous? A great many people know me. What about a TD, they are famous, but that's is more a bi product of there job, they aren't actually people who seek to be famous are they? So maybe it's only people that seek to be famous like rock stars, that loose the rights to privacy.

I'm not talking about the loss of privacy when someone goes from Mr Joe bloggs to Mr TD or Mr Mental rock star. Someone can recognise you and not know anything about you, other then what you do for a living. Most people don't consider their job, part of their private life. Since they already share it with so many people.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to propose a "I can do it, why can't you?" argument, it just seemed that you were proposing a "If you can't do it, why should they?", which, I hope you'll agree, is equally invalid.

I'm saying don't criticise unless you've done what you're asking them to do.

BuffyBot

You did get the irony? It was the worst kept secret in Irish "showbiz" circles

:rolleyes:

Annasopra

Noboady - ABSOLUTELY NOBODY has a responsibilty to come out and I am franklly shocked that there are people that think that way - if someone is in the public eye they are entitled to a private life as much as anyone else

Fabulo

Nice prerequisite there. What makes it justified, and who decides? You? Me?

Anyone. You or me, it doesn't matter. If the person believes that their right to privacy is being violated, then they can get an injunction from a judge. Then both parties go to court, and in a fair and impartial environment, the merits are argued, the person's expectation of privacy is weighed, and some form of more permanent injunction may be granted. This is the way our legal system works.

Where would the justification have been to out this west life guy?

Sufficient justification might have been found in the fact that outing him may have enabled other people to do the same. I'm not sure, I have been arguing more in the general than anything else thus far.

I've listened to people on here arguing that if someone is damaging "The community" they should be ousted.

And do you agree?

but this guy hasn't damaged it. Or maybe you're suggesting that by not coming out, he hasn't helped it as much as he could have, and therefore "the community" is less as a whole.

Yep. That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Couldn't have put it any clearer. It may be difficult to gauge detrimental effects, but I have no doubt they are there.

You have this concept of people that are famous are over there. Am I famous? A great many people know me.

I don't know you, so I don't know exactly how famous you are...

What about a TD, they are famous, but that's is more a bi product of there job, they aren't actually people who seek to be famous are they?

In most cases they are, as media exposure is what drives a lot of political careers. In cases where they avoid media exposure, there again they have a higher expectation of privacy. The factors must be weighed.

So maybe it's only people that seek to be famous like rock stars, that loose the rights to privacy.

I would not agree that it is only them, but I am glad you agree that they, at least, lose at least some of their rights to privacy.

I'm not talking about the loss of privacy when someone goes from Mr Joe bloggs to Mr TD or Mr Mental rock star. Someone can recognise you and not know anything about you, other then what you do for a living. Most people don't consider their job, part of their private life. Since they already share it with so many people.

Sorry, I don't see your point here. Could you please clarify?

I'm saying don't criticise unless you've done what you're asking them to do.

Are you saying that if I took out an ad in a newspaper with my photograph declaring I was gay, this would somehow make my criticisms more valid? I don't know that this point is correct. I mean, to be abstract for a moment, I can critique a poem without necessarily having written one myself...

if someone is in the public eye they are entitled to a private life as much as anyone else

They are indeed, I have never believed they are not. However, if they are actively seeking public attention, how can they expect the same level of privacy as everyone else? How could they possibly receive the same amount of privacy as everyone else?

Annasopra

Whether someone is in the public eye or not does not mean they have less entitlements to privacy - this thread makes me mad that someone is even suggesting that people are obliged to come out - they're not obliged to come out as straight are they?

bopper

If yer man from V really is his boyfriend then he's one lucky bastard cos he is a ****ing RIDE!

Fabulo

Johnnymcg wrote:

Whether someone is in the public eye or not does not mean they have less entitlements to privacy - this thread makes me mad that someone is even suggesting that people are obliged to come out - they're not obliged to come out as straight are they?

Society's assumption is that a person is heterosexual... I don't like it, but that's why coming out is unique to gay people. People don't need to come out as straight, because it's a case of "straight unless proven otherwise", heh.

Have you ever read in a newspaper or magazine about a celebrity's personal life? I know I have... It just goes to show that their privacy is in some respects diminished. And if we can read about such-and-such sleeping with such-and-such, why does it matter if both of them are male or both are female? I don't think anyone deserves extra protection simply because they're gay.

Unless you're proposing we change the law, which is a whole 'nuther barrel of monkeys...

(I also noticed I hijacked this very happy and congratulatory thread to spark a debate on a controversial issue... Sorry everyone! hehe.)

Annasopra

I still do not believe that anyone who is famous should have less rights in terms of privacy

Hmm_Messiah

Has both sides of the argument not been given, and repeated sufficient times yet?

There are people who feel that those who have celebrity status should help balance the imbalance. The argument works best when you consider how peoplein the limelight, in music, acting etc can be seen as role models for younger people. It's not too hard to accept that a young guy dealing with his sexuality might feel a wee bit less alone, less different, less ...everything...if there is So-and-So on the telly and he is gay. rich and successful too !
Of course that has to be balanced with each persons individual right to privacy etc.. I only find it frustrating when gay celebrities deny it (though its understandable) or when the take some homophobic stance.

That guy from scissor sisters was on the radio lastnight saying he was brought to tears by emails from young gay fans, and while just "himself" was happy if he has a good influence on people dealing with sexuality.

The emphasis should be less on rights & responsibilities, but more on recognising how individuals can empower others.

If the guy came out as gay early on there wold of been those complaining he was just adding to the stereotype, boyband, sh1te music etc

I never really understood this coming out notion anyways. Its such a loaded word .

There will be a day when column inches are full of the goings on of celebrities and their partners, with no need to point out they are gay straight. will simply be "Mark and his partner Keving were seen enjoying the music @ ....."

A back and forth regurgatation of arguments for famous people's rights to privacy or responsibility to "other gay poeple" iserves no purpose after each opinion is given

MicraBoy

He did say in the article that he didn't want to be a rolemodel for anyone. I'm not sure he has that choice tbh.

That guy from scissor sisters was on the radio lastnight saying he was brought to tears by emails from young gay fans, and while just "himself" was happy if he has a good influence on people dealing with sexuality.

I wonder about this though. The assumption is that the gay rolemodel will always have a positive empowering influence. But what about the impact on a young gay man sitting in a class room listening to his peers calling someone famous a fag and generally dissing them based on there sexuality rather than their art?

I think any influence will be potentially good and bad.

Fabulo

Hmm Messiah wrote:

Has both sides of the argument not been given, and repeated sufficient times yet?

Yup. But I'm stubborn and have to have the last word :P

So as not to rant on (because I guess it's for everyone to decide for themselves), I'll just end my debating with saying, I don't think I'm taking a horribly hardline approach, but I'm just suggesting that people with the power to do good, should do good.

Hmm Messiah wrote:

There will be a day when column inches are full of the goings on of celebrities and their partners, with no need to point out they are gay straight.

Let's bloody well hope so

Boston

Fabulo wrote:

Yup. But I'm stubborn and have to have the last word :P

So as not to rant on (because I guess it's for everyone to decide for themselves), I'll just end my debating with saying, I don't think I'm taking a horribly hardline approach, but I'm just suggesting that people with the power to do good, should do good.

Right, onto a different issue and one I think MicraBoy was hinting around.

Suppose this guy is into cottaging, one night stands, unsafe sex, all manner of perversion and drugs. Should he still stand there and say "I am gay, this is what it means to be gay, be like me". We all ahve the power to do good, but not all of us would make good role models.

Btw MicraBoy, you the youngest looking guy at the queerbeers on saturday?