Question for GLBT forum.

[Tesibria]

And -- please don't flame me. I'm asking because I honestly don't know the answer -- and so I'm coming to you to seek your counsel.

CONTEXT: I have a blog, , which has entries exposing the "true" morals of the so called Moral Red States/Politicians. Several people have passed on "tips" re: Republicans who have been outted.

QUESTION: Should I include entries "outting" Republicans?

YES because ... it exposes the hyporcracy of the Republicans who say that their party has the moral edge AND who condemn or otherwise negate homosexuality. Having an illegimate kid or getting divorced is not an immoral "activity," and those sorts of things are noted at times, because Republicans who are divorced, or who refused to acknowledge their illegitimate child and then tout "family values, sanctity of marriage, blah blah blah" are hypocrites, and their "sin" - as defined by their own rhetoric - should be exposed.

NO because ... it gives some credibility, even if through their own rhetoric, to the contention that homosexuality is somehow immoral. Getting divorced is definitely a personal choice -- being gay/lesbian is *not* a "choice" for most, if not all who are gay/lesbian -- it is a way of being. Even tho', especially for the father, having an illegitimate child is not an active choice, the child .. "resulted" from a choice, and so those stories are not the same either. If someone were caught with a prostitute of the same gender, or caught in some actual activity -- then it would be ok to list. It is not ok, however, to list a story just noting that someone is gay as part of the "morals" watch.

Thoughts? Feedback? Thanx in advance for any input. I'll be taking my lead from the feedback here.

~Tesibria
-----------------------
blog: www.democracyiscoming.com - Republican watch blog: www.redmorals.com - Anti-Bush/Progressive shop: www.cafepress.com/tesibria

[Tesibria]

1. just saw the poll .. sorry if this is dupe ... nt

[Not Me]

2. OK, I'll jump in here...

Until just very recently, I felt outing was inappropriate under any circumstance. However, with the civil rights of the glbt community under direct attack in the states and in Congress, I have changed my thought.

I do believe however, *any* public figure, Republican or Democrat, elected or appointed, Clergymember or not... who stridently condems gay people while personally living a closeted life deserves to have the curtains opened and the light of day shine upon them.

[hollywood926]

4. I concur...

it wouldn't be OK if it were a member of Congress who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment (for example) - just the ones who condemn gays while being gay themselves.

[Tesibria]

7. thanx - see note below at end of thread ...............nt

[almostallhere]

3. yes, if...

the immorality here is not being gay, or having a child with someone to whom one is not married, or getting a divorce - the immorality is condemning others for doing these things and hiding one's own behavior that is just like that of the "sinners."

so if anyone is pursuing anti-gay or anti-whatever policies, while doing these very things themselves, they deserve to be outed.

[Tesibria]

8. thanx - see note below at end of thread ...............nt

[sans qualia]

5. I agree with everyone who's responded so far

and I'd like to add that I think it's really cool that you decided to ask about it first.

[Tesibria]

6. thanx

i have mixed feelings -- VERY mixed (mostly #2 -- i hate ANYTHING that implies in ANY way that a human being is immoral for being a human being.

so -- my guideline will be -- if i have reliable info that person is gay, I'll go to the on the issues site and see what his/her position has been on these issues. If nothing there, i'll google. IF s/he has taken inconsistent/hypocritical positions, then I'll include. If I can't find that -- then i won't include. If I do include, I'll try to write to make clear that the immoral action is condemning "it" while practicing "it"

thanx again -- to all of you -- for responding.

[Terran]

9. My two cents

I think you could make some kind of a statement on your blog about your outting 'philosophy'--to wit, that while you know there's nothing wrong with being Gay, to most republicans it's the ultimate taboo. Those who deal with the issue in a hypocritical way deserve to be confronted with that taboo. If it hurts them, that's because of the views held by their fellow travellers, not you.

I applaud you for seeing this aspect of the issue. Not everyone does.

[Tesibria]

10. Thanx -- good idea

... and thanx for the encouragement. I'll work up a disclaimer and post for edits/consideration.

[One_Life_To_Give]

11. It Depends

Any politician claiming those with alternative lifestyles are "Demonspawn" deserves to be outed. (Let them publicly confess their sins and beg their god(s) for forgiveness)

But I wouldn't assume someones position on a piece of legislation, even the FMA, can conclusivly determine if they think of us as "Demonspawn."

[Tesibria]

12. Ok: Case in Point - Dan Gurley

Today's story at blogactive has a hot story re: RNC National Field Director Dan Gurley -- complete with screen shots of Gurley's personal ad (seeking barebacking, multiple partners, etc.) and photos .....

I checked the original link and Mr Gurley has already pulled down his profile -- but the screen shots do not (apparently) lie ....

So -- I'm not sure whether Gurley has taken positions himself -- but he actively worked on the Repub's campaign this year - which placed as a centerpiece, the anti-gay agenda.

Is he fair game?

[Misunderestimator]

13. Fair game... absolutely.

Anyone involved in any way with getting Bush reelected is fair game.

[One_Life_To_Give]

14. Needs more specifics

I don't think there is a clear picture of duplicity. I don't think we can assume his position on any single issue just because of where he works. It's possible that he champions gay rights within the RNC while supporting * policies elsewhere.

If we have evidence of his preaching that GLBT's are destroying the fabric of society. Then he needs to be outed. But from what little information I have, no. That would be outing him because he is a Republican instead of for hypocrisy.

[Tesibria]

15. I think ..

that need to understand what the job a the "Field Director" is -- IF his job was to coordinate with the local directors -- who were coordinating with the churches, etc. to carry out the anti-gay agenda, then he is fair game, in my opinion. EVEN IF he was trying to make changes internally. IF he actively helped carry out the anti-gay agenda, then, in my personal opinion, he would be fair game.

So -- what I want to know is what were his duties as National Field Director.

[almostallhere]

16. yes, no more specifics needed.

helping to run *'s campaign = actively advancing anti-gay policies, IMHO

[khashka]

17. I really can't give you an answer only some guidelines

I would like to say go ahead and do it because that fits my ethics and my politics.
But this is a tricky issue and you are going to have to make up your own mind. What do you feel comfortable with doing?

These are my guidelines (feel free to add or subtract)

1) Is it worth it? Is this person doing something so egregious that the truth of their hypocrisy must be known?

2) Will it make a difference?

3) Exposing someone may seem just. But what about his or her spouse? Surely, they are better off knowing the truth. But that's in the long run. In the short term all they will feel is pain. If they have kids, what about their feelings?

You do have to consider the benefit of outing someone to the cost that their loved ones will pay. You can call me a hypocrite, but I do think sometimes the cost is greater than the benefit. And sometimes the benefit is greater than the cost. It's, sometimes, a tough call. So do what you think best.

I would suggest you don't out people who have little or no power. I wish everyone would come out of the closet, but it ain't gonna happen soon. For some, that's their only way to muddle through their lives. If they are hurting other people then you have a right to expose the truth about them. Just remember that many other people, often very innocent people, will be hurt by that truth.

So it comes down to two questions.

1) Is it necessary?
2) Can you live with it?

Best I can do at 2 am.

Khash

[readmoreoften]

18. How about

If the "immorality" of it is classified under 'hypocrisy'.

[foreigncorrespondent]

19. The only time...

...anyone on the right should be outed is when the gay community does the outing.

[Guy Fawkes]

20. Yes...

but don't do it to the extent that some people have been doing it here. Some of the thread titles seem almost homophobic, especially considering all the posts in GD like "is _____ gay?" It's rather demeaning.

[xchrom]

21. almost homophobic?!?

my feeling is that under the umbrella of ''liberal'' -- too much permission has been given to the straight community to act out real homophobic feelings and to go hunting gay people.

just hunting gay people with the ''right'' credentials.