Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

00timh wrote: Most homosexuals preach that what goes on in the bedroom is nobody's business. They should live by their words. If their privacy is important to them then they should give the same respect to others.
The typical argument for recommending that we stay completely in the closet and never do anything to indicate that we're something other than heterosexual.

Being 'out' isn't about us wanting to make private matters public. It's about wanting to enjoy the same freedom of expression regarding matters that needn't be kept so completely private; a freedom that heterosexuals enjoy and quite frankly take for granted.. Unless hets are going to stop holding hands and engaging in other harmless acts that express affection in public, and unless they agree to start actively hiding the fact that they have heterosexual interests, marriages, etc. - then I see know reason for us to shut up and hide just so you don't have to confront the reality of our existence.

[F'losrix]

I don't like the idea of invading someone's privacy by outing them. On the other hand, I'm not going to shed any tears for someone who gets outed after crusading against homosexuality. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[00timh]

F'losrix wrote: 00timh wrote: Most homosexuals preach that what goes on in the bedroom is nobody's business. They should live by their words. If their privacy is important to them then they should give the same respect to others.
The typical argument for recommending that we stay completely in the closet and never do anything to indicate that we're something other than heterosexual.

Being 'out' isn't about us wanting to make private matters public. It's about wanting to enjoy the same freedom of expression regarding matters that needn't be kept so completely private; a freedom that heterosexuals enjoy and quite frankly take for granted.. Unless hets are going to stop holding hands and engaging in other harmless acts that express affection in public, and unless they agree to start actively hiding the fact that they have heterosexual interests, marriages, etc. - then I see know reason for us to shut up and hide just so you don't have to confront the reality of our existence. Why don't you stop with your predictable rants and actually read what I posted. I am talking about those who are outing someone against their will while at the same time saying that their own privacy should be respected and that their sexuality is nobody's business.

[F'losrix]

00timh wrote: F'losrix wrote: 00timh wrote: Most homosexuals preach that what goes on in the bedroom is nobody's business. They should live by their words. If their privacy is important to them then they should give the same respect to others.
The typical argument for recommending that we stay completely in the closet and never do anything to indicate that we're something other than heterosexual.

Being 'out' isn't about us wanting to make private matters public. It's about wanting to enjoy the same freedom of expression regarding matters that needn't be kept so completely private; a freedom that heterosexuals enjoy and quite frankly take for granted.. Unless hets are going to stop holding hands and engaging in other harmless acts that express affection in public, and unless they agree to start actively hiding the fact that they have heterosexual interests, marriages, etc. - then I see know reason for us to shut up and hide just so you don't have to confront the reality of our existence. Why don't you stop with your predictable rants and actually read what I posted. I am talking about those who are outing someone against their will while at the same time saying that their own privacy should be respected and that their sexuality is nobody's business.
If it waddles like an anti-gay talking point and quacks like an anti-gay talking point, guess what it is. So let's deconstruct it, shall we?

Quote: Most homosexuals preach that what goes on in the bedroom is nobody's business.
I don't know that 'most' homosexuals go around 'preaching' anything. It's hard to say whether there are more 'out' homosexuals than 'closeted'. Those that are 'out' aren't necessarily 'out' in a political way, engaging in public activism.

Quote: They should live by their words. If their privacy is important to them then they should give the same respect to others.
So now you're blaiming us all for the bad acts of a few who go around outing people? Nice.

Exhibit A: All the 'known homosexuals' and gay allies - including myself - who have said in this very thread in various ways that we dislike the practice.

I stand by my statement.

[00timh]

Quote: So now you're blaiming us all for the bad acts of a few who go around outing people? Nice.

nope, I'm critiscizing those who are as equally as hypocritical on the conservative side for their statements about privacy who do not afford other's their privacy. I've never stated anything different.

[Protostar]

Depends on who it is. If it is one of these evangelical nutjobs, then sure I would have no problem with it. Their hyprocisy needs to be revealed. Why should we feel sorry for someone who makes their entire existence/living off of making another group miserable and then come to find out they are apart of or have had dealings with said group? A classic example of this hypocrisy would be Strom Thurmond. Guy built his entire Senatorial career off of bigotry/racism. And low and behold, what do we find out? His sorry ass had slept with (probably raped) a 16 black maid and had a daughter with her. Bigots of all stripes, whether they be homophobic, racist, sexist, etc, need to be subject to the same treatment that they subject to those they hate. And about their privacy: when you thrust yourself out into the public, whether it be as a politicial or high profile minister or w/e, you should expect to be constantly under the public eye and act accordingly.

[00timh]

Protostar wrote: Depends on who it is. If it is one of these evangelical nutjobs, then sure I would have no problem with it. Their hyprocisy needs to be revealed. Why should we feel sorry for someone who makes their entire existence/living off of making another group miserable and then come to find out they are apart of or have had dealings with said group? A classic example of this hypocrisy would be Strom Thurmond. Guy built his entire Senatorial career off of bigotry/racism. And low and behold, what do we find out? His sorry ass had slept with (probably raped) a 16 black maid and had a daughter with her. Bigots of all stripes, whether they be homophobic, racist, sexist, etc, need to be subject to the same treatment that they subject to those they hate. And about their privacy: when you thrust yourself out into the public, whether it be as a politicial or high profile minister or w/e, you should expect to be constantly under the public eye and act accordingly. At one time Thurmond mirrored much of the general consensus of the majority of the people. Later in life he actually became an advocate to erradicate racism But liberals will never forgive his once segregationist stances, although they seem to have no problem forgiving Robert Byrd who was once a member of the KKK.

I offer no sympathy to those evangelicals and other social conservatives who are the very thing they preach against but for those who claim that personal privacy is important and sexual orientation should not be, those who out closeted gay people are no better than the conservative hypocrits

[John Galt]

Protostar wrote: Depends on who it is. If it is one of these evangelical nutjobs, then sure I would have no problem with it. Their hyprocisy needs to be revealed. Why should we feel sorry for someone who makes their entire existence/living off of making another group miserable and then come to find out they are apart of or have had dealings with said group? A classic example of this hypocrisy would be Strom Thurmond. Guy built his entire Senatorial career off of bigotry/racism. And low and behold, what do we find out? His sorry ass had slept with (probably raped) a 16 black maid and had a daughter with her. Bigots of all stripes, whether they be homophobic, racist, sexist, etc, need to be subject to the same treatment that they subject to those they hate. And about their privacy: when you thrust yourself out into the public, whether it be as a politicial or high profile minister or w/e, you should expect to be constantly under the public eye and act accordingly.

Why? Just to be an ****?

Just because someone does something that they view as wrong does not mean they actually view it as right. They probbaly still beat themselves up over it for being weak and unable to resist the carnal pleasures they seek.

Look, do you want people talking about your sex life or lack thereof to the world? No? OK, then don't talk about others.

Typically the outing of someone devestates several people and ruins many people's lives. Besides the person we're also talking the spouse who learns of these actions and the kids... yes, the person was very wrong to do that to his spouse, and should have ended the marriage long ago, but make him fess up to it on his own time. It is not your place to be a monstrous **** and ruin people's lives by exposing a private aspect of someone's life that the public has no right to know and no need to learn about it.

[F'losrix]

00timh wrote: Quote: So now you're blaiming us all for the bad acts of a few who go around outing people? Nice.

nope, I'm critiscizing those who are as equally as hypocritical on the conservative side for their statements about privacy who do not afford other's their privacy. I've never stated anything different.

Be that as it may, this statement...

Quote: Most homosexuals preach that what goes on in the bedroom is nobody's business. They should live by their words. If their privacy is important to them then they should give the same respect to others.

...is quite broad. It very clearly implies that there are a bunch of homosexuals complaining about the invasion of their privacy, who have turned around and outed some of their own in an invasion of those people's privacy. I maintain that the construction was an attempt to tar us as a group - not a reference to the specific perpetrators. Had you given us an example of someone specific involved in an outing who had been vocal about privacy in relation to homosexuality, and without trying to imply that said person is representative of homosexuals as a group, that would have been quite another matter.

I'm sorry, Tim, but I have no room to be kind about this sort of thing. Maybe you shot from the lip and didn't mean it to come out the way it did. But you said it, and such statements left unchallenged have the potential to impact me and my community in a very negative way. I therefore cannot let it slide.

[Clarino]

Prole wrote: Clarino wrote: People shouldn't hide their sexuality, but people also shouldn't reveal the sexuality of those that do hide it.
When people do not have any reason to hide their sexuality, they will not. However, as long as bigotry exists towards people on the basis of their sexuality (or anything else, for that matter), they will continue to.

Strong bigotry exists towards me, but I have no intention of hiding the cause. Indeed, it would be somewhat imptactical to do so.

Homosexuals should be proud of who they are. There's nothing I hate more than a coward.

[00timh]

F'losrix wrote: 00timh wrote: Quote: So now you're blaiming us all for the bad acts of a few who go around outing people? Nice.

nope, I'm critiscizing those who are as equally as hypocritical on the conservative side for their statements about privacy who do not afford other's their privacy. I've never stated anything different.

Be that as it may, this statement...

Quote: Most homosexuals preach that what goes on in the bedroom is nobody's business. They should live by their words. If their privacy is important to them then they should give the same respect to others.

...is quite broad. It very clearly implies that there are a bunch of homosexuals complaining about the invasion of their privacy, who have turned around and outed some of their own in an invasion of those people's privacy. I maintain that the construction was an attempt to tar us as a group - not a reference to the specific perpetrators. Had you given us an example of someone specific involved in an outing who had been vocal about privacy in relation to homosexuality, and without trying to imply that said person is representative of homosexuals as a group, that would have been quite another matter.

I'm sorry, Tim, but I have no room to be kind about this sort of thing. Maybe you shot from the lip and didn't mean it to come out the way it did. But you said it, and such statements left unchallenged have the potential to impact me and my community in a very negative way. I therefore cannot let it slide. Well, after re-reading it I sort of flubbed it a bit. Let me give it another shot.

The broad argument among the homosexual community is that privacy is very important and a person's sexual orientation should not be. Okay with this so far? Those who have acted out of anger or malice at those who live closeted are not afforded this same right, a right that they feel is to be granted to them but not afforded to those who choose to actually remain private.

I think you should have figured out by now that I am not a homophobe and do not engage in attacking the entire homosexual community based simply on their lifestyle. I call out any hypocricy I see which has included my own conservative base. While there is a strong sentiment among conservatives that gay marriage among many other things is what is tearing at the fabric of this society, I personally believe it is the rampant hypocricy that goes on and seems to be increasingly accepted or ignored. It brings a lack of confidence to those who we appoint as leaders and causes hostility and generalizations to be thrown back and forth with many people caught in the middle.

How's that?

[mODULAR mAN]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: Prole wrote: Clarino wrote: People shouldn't hide their sexuality, but people also shouldn't reveal the sexuality of those that do hide it.
When people do not have any reason to hide their sexuality, they will not. However, as long as bigotry exists towards people on the basis of their sexuality (or anything else, for that matter), they will continue to.

And is it wrong to reveal the abberant sexuality of bigots?

Bigots are people too.
Hypocrital bigots shouldn't be protected anymore than Foley's.

It's a sad comment on our society that being called "gay" is a big deal. If Haggert wasn't wrapped up in that Hate Cult of his, he wouldn't have to grovel and appologize. It's embarassing and shameful for a man to have to grovel and apologize for such a thing: to a Sky Father, his fellow Cultist's, or to the country.

Go f**k your gay hooker, Haggert, I don't care. Just don't try to moralize against it, or suggest bigotted laws that restrict human rights.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Tracker wrote: In light of hateful religionists nonstop perversity for sniffin' crotches like DOGS in order to put CONDITIONS on love, THRUST crotches into the public's faces, and FORCE government officials and educators to perversley sniff crotches like DOGS before DENYING EQUALITY in so-called 'positive-goodness' --

-- merely so they can FOMENT HATE and PROFIT from atop the rubble, misery and grief, while claiming, "YOU are WORSE than US!" -- as usual, --

... I'd have to say that 'outting' somebody is ACCOMPLISHING the goals of the hateful religionists, as they drool for the OPPORTUNITY to perversley SNIFF crotches like DOGS, as usual, merely to HATE and CENSOR and DENY EQUALITY, then turn around and claim YOU are 'indecent,' in their twisted-values of so-called 'positive-goodness.'

Quickest way to get UNEMPLOYED and CAST-OUT and ridiculed, and HARRASSED your property molested/vandalized, and even your person MURDERED is to be 'outted' --

-- which accomplishes the GOALS of the perverted hateful religionist people HELLbent on doggy-style crotch-sniffin' -- concocting HELL, as usual -- because then they can change their ALWAYS_POINTING_FINGERS_OF_Shame/Blame and say, "See! YOU are WORSE than US!" -- in so-called 'positive-goodness.'

f**k, it's GROSS!

HELL s*cks!

Yes, but if the person being outed is a "hateful religionist" isn't that fair?

[Babylon_Horuv]

00timh wrote: Most homosexuals preach that what goes on in the bedroom is nobody's business. They should live by their words. If their privacy is important to them then they should give the same respect to others.

The question really has wider implications. Is it allright to reveal someone as practicing something which they themselves strongly condemn? Is it ok to reveal the fact that a man who orchestrated a huge anti-fastfood movement actually pigs out on Big Macs? Is it alright to reveal that a man who fights for the rights of workers owns stock in companies which deny workers those rights? Is it alright to reveal that a man who fights for freedom of speech has overused libel lawsuits? That the drug warrior uses (or used) marijuana? I see no real difference between any of those things and outing a bigot.

[F'losrix]

00timh wrote: The broad argument among the homosexual community is that privacy is very important and a person's sexual orientation should not be. Okay with this so far?
Should not be.....pretended to be of relevance where it is not. Yes, I'm with you so far.

00timh wrote: Those who have acted out of anger or malice at those who live closeted are not afforded this same right, a right that they feel is to be granted to them but not afforded to those who choose to actually remain private.
Mmm, no. A person's bad acts of privacy invasion aren't necessarily cause to invade their own privacy. That amounts to a revenge tactic, and is no better than outing, quite frankly. They're certainly cause for criticism, though.

00timh wrote: I think you should have figured out by now that I am not a homophobe and do not engage in attacking the entire homosexual community based simply on their lifestyle.
I'd be a lot more convinced if you didn't refer to it as a 'lifestyle', since the community is comprised of individuals with a diversity of lifestyles.

But I don't think the issue here is your attitude. It's more that your choice of words and construction are borrowing too much from the language of those who have declared war on gay people, so they raise red flags.

If I give you a free pass, I have to give it to the next person whom I know nothing about.

[StrangerWitCandy]

If one goes out of their way to make life harder for gays, but is secretly gay themself, I do not feel bad for them when they are outed. Sorry.

I don't care if it causes them pain or distress or whatever. If they were causing this pain for others, then they deserve it coming back to bite them in the ass.

And for the poor family, its for the better that they know. Living a happy lie is not better than learning the sad truth.

But for those who aren't actively working to make the lives of gay people harder, sure they deserve privacy when it comes to their orientation. But if one has a problem with what I do in my bedroom and strives to make my life harder because of it, then why should I have a problem when they are merely exposed as the hypocrites they are? I call that karma.

[Protostar]

John Galt wrote: Protostar wrote: Depends on who it is. If it is one of these evangelical nutjobs, then sure I would have no problem with it. Their hyprocisy needs to be revealed. Why should we feel sorry for someone who makes their entire existence/living off of making another group miserable and then come to find out they are apart of or have had dealings with said group? A classic example of this hypocrisy would be Strom Thurmond. Guy built his entire Senatorial career off of bigotry/racism. And low and behold, what do we find out? His sorry ass had slept with (probably raped) a 16 black maid and had a daughter with her. Bigots of all stripes, whether they be homophobic, racist, sexist, etc, need to be subject to the same treatment that they subject to those they hate. And about their privacy: when you thrust yourself out into the public, whether it be as a politicial or high profile minister or w/e, you should expect to be constantly under the public eye and act accordingly.

Why? Just to be an ***hole?

Just because someone does something that they view as wrong does not mean they actually view it as right. They probbaly still beat themselves up over it for being weak and unable to resist the carnal pleasures they seek.

Look, do you want people talking about your sex life or lack thereof to the world? No? OK, then don't talk about others.

Typically the outing of someone devestates several people and ruins many people's lives. Besides the person we're also talking the spouse who learns of these actions and the kids... yes, the person was very wrong to do that to his spouse, and should have ended the marriage long ago, but make him fess up to it on his own time. It is not your place to be a monstrous ***hole and ruin people's lives by exposing a private aspect of someone's life that the public has no right to know and no need to learn about it.

And as I said before, it depends on who it is. People like Haggart get no sympathy from me as they make their entire existence off of pushing laws that make the gay community miserable. He works to ruin other peoples lives so why should not his life be ruined? Also by ending the lie sooner you help the family not hurt it. Suppose it is kept under wraps and noone says anything and the guy continues to sleep around. What happens if he contracts HIV and infects his wife? I'm sure she would rather live with the knowledge of her husband cheating on her with a man, than having to cope with a killer STD. Also the public at large has a right to know. People like this evagenlical leaders hold tremendous influence over certain parts of the voting population. It should be made known to them that their leaders are frauds so its likely that the candidates they are rooting for are frauds as well. High profile people like this evangelical ministers are under the public eye (by their choice) and should act accordingly. You put up an image of a deeply religious Christian who is against all things "sinful" then you damn well better adhere to it or prepare to get crucified if not.

[00timh]

Gays and other people who out hypocrits are in fact becoming the very thing they hate.

[Babylon_Horuv]

00timh wrote: Gays and other people who out hypocrits are in fact becoming the very thing they hate.

So telling the truth about haggart justifies him telling lies about gays? That doesn't make sense to me.

[F'losrix]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: 00timh wrote: Gays and other people who out hypocrits are in fact becoming the very thing they hate.

So telling the truth about haggart justifies him telling lies about gays? That doesn't make sense to me.
He didn't say Haggert was justified.