It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Gay Public Figures be 'Outed'?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Gay Community Divided over 'Outing' of Public Figures.



Few issues are as divisive within the gay community. Numerous gay organizations, such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Log Cabin Republicans, staunchly oppose outing, yet many other activists support it when the targets are public figures - or their aides - who work against gay rights or condemn homosexuality.

"It's not the gay thing that's the problem - it's the hypocrisy," said Michael Rogers, creator of a Web log that has been at the fore of several recent outing campaigns. "I'm going to be calling out the politicians who vote against us and work against the interests of the very community they come from."


I tend to agree with this guy that where hypocrisy is at play, it should be public knowledge. For example if a public female figure condemns abortion or works to get it outlawed, then we find out that she had an abortion, the hypocrisy should be revealed. Shouldn't it?

I'm not sure how I feel about this. It depends on who the person is. If it's a gay Senator and he works against gay marriage because that's what his constiuents want, then it's not hypocrisy, is it?

What are your thoughts?




posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Well the republicans will fight this tooth and nail, why? Democrats support gays, republicans go to jail on a weekly basis for hate crimes against gays. So if they find out half their leaders are gay, well, that's gonna take a lot of rope to drag them behind their cars.

Think about it, a dem comes out "I'm gay!" Your point? You are a democrat, that's like coming out and saying you are black, doesn't matter. But a republican? Someone who routinly calls for the banning of being gay comes out? Not just political suicide once his fellow republicans get ahold of him.

Quotes from republicans on gays!
"'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years,
one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals."
Paul Cameron, a "scientist" often quoted by religious right groups
"many of those people involved in Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals, the two things seem to go together, it is a pathology it is a sickness." - Pat Robertson on TV (I've seen the actual footage) - www.pfaw.org...
"god hates homosexuality" - Jerry Falwell on TV
www.hatecrime.org...
More Jerry Falwell on how gays are evil and need to be genocide.
Gays will recognize pedophiles as prophets
"...one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order." - "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys," FRC publication, July 1999, www.frc.org...
[In an article entitled "Lords Rebuff Pedophiles," FRC conveniently fails to mention that the age of consent for heterosexuals in England is already 16, but for gays it's 18.]
www.hatecrime.org...
More from the FRC on gays are evil and need to be killed
Paul Volle, head of Christian Coalition of Maine, published a 16-page anti-gay tirade entitled "The Gay Agenda" in the Portland paper in an effort to influence the November 1998 elections)

Gays ingest urine and fecal matter

"Being frustrated by the biological impossibility of natural sexual relations between members of the same sex, they must resort to bringing their mouth into contact with areas of the body designed for the elimination of human waste, or use body apertures not meant for sexual penetration, either of which causes serious hygienic and health risks. Once these homosexuals bridge the natural reluctance to come into contact with human waste, a significant number of homosexuals go further and further. Many times to the point of ingesting the urine and fecal matter of their partners. This leads to serious health risks to not only them, but the population at large, through the food chain, medical services, and other avenues of society." - - Paul Volle, Chairman, Christian Coalition of Maine, "The Gay Agenda," October 1998 (I have the original of this publication)
Cameron's now-discredited "research" still provides the basis for most of the anti-gay facts and figures used by the religious right - his work is cited often by the Family Research Council, among many others)
Exterminate gays
"At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, 'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.' According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983." - Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995.
www.hatecrime.org...
More from same guy the religous right consider a saint
Family Research Council - gays are risk to children

"Psychologist Paul Cameron, who has analyzed the most prominent studies of homosexual households, says that they all have severe shortcomings. Nonetheless, even within these biased studies, greater risks to children raised in homosexual households are evident, Cameron notes." - www.frc.org...

Gays support pedophilia, incest, and bestiality

"Prominent homosexual leaders and publications have voiced support for pedophilia, incest, sadomasochism, and even bestiality." - www.afa.net..., Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths.

Gays cheat, fight, and hate the one they love

"Nicolosi describes gay partnerships as bedeviled by cheating, teasing, fights, jealousy, rage, suspicion, envy, restlessness, and disappointment. Nicolosi writes, ‘Homosexual relationships are so characteristically volatile because the homosexual hates what he loves.’ " - Joseph Nicolosi, head of NARTH and one of the religious right's top two ex-gay psychiatrists in the country, from NARTH's Web site, www.narth.com...


Gays molest children

"homosexuals, while representing perhaps 2% of the population, perpetrate more than one-third of all reported child molestations."- www.qrd.org...


Gays worthy of death

"Not only is homosexuality a sin, but anyone who supports fags is just as guilty as they are. You are both worthy of death (Romans 1:32)," Phelps quoted by State Press (Arizona State University), March 11, 1998.


Gays are like alcoholics, kleptomaniacs

"It is [a sin]....You should try to show them a way to deal with that problem, just like alcohol...or sex addiction...or kleptomaniacs." - Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, Associated Press, June 15, 1998.


Gays are like Hitler and Gestapo

"The Rev. Lou Sheldon, president of the Traditional Values Coalition, said the 'hate crime' designation is increasingly going to be applied against those who believe homosexuality is wrong. 'What Hitler began to build against the Jews is now being built against people of faith who believe the Scriptures are valid for today and their injunctions against certain sexual behaviors is correct,' he said. Several years ago, homosexual activists disrupted a similar conference of his in Sacramento, he said, 'but I didn't have the finances to get a lawyer. For a long time we were the target of their wrath. Now other people are surfacing against them, thank God. If you don't agree with [homosexual activists], they use Gestapo tactics to stop you.' - Washington Times, Tuesday, October 27, 1998, Page A2

Gays shouldn't represent US

"One might have that lifestyle, but if one promotes it as acceptable behavior… I don’t think they should be a representative of this country." - Sen. Nickles, quoted in Jun 15, 98 Americans for Truth About Homosexuality press release.


Gay Republicans are like the KKK

"Robert Black, the [Texas] state [Republican] party spokesman, called them [Log Cabin] a 'hate group' and compared them to the Ku Klux Klan." [This occurred after Log cabin Republicans (a gay republican group) tried to attend the Texas Republican State convention.] - NY Daily News 6/24/98
What I find funny about this is a KKK member calls gay republicans like the KKK...


Gays cause Nazism, communism

" 'Hitler and his supporters were Satanists and homosexuals. That's just a true statement.' He added, 'The notion that is involved in homosexuality, the unbridled sort of satisfaction of human passions' leads to 'totalitarianism,' 'Nazism,' and 'communism.' " - People for the American Way, "Hostile Climate," 1997, p.26.


So imagine someone like Bush coming out of the closet? These people would be there with pitchforks and torches ready to kill them!!!!! For this and more go to

www.hatecrime.org...

Sorry, lost the link and had to find it again.
Then it didn't work, now it should work.
[edit on 5-10-2005 by Full Metal]

[edit on 5-10-2005 by Full Metal]



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I see you spent some time gathering sources, which is great, but the Dems vs Reps thing is so lame and meaningless. I suppose if someone is entrenched in their political party, their response to this is pretty obvious. But...

This is ATS, where the individual thinker reigns. So... do you suppose you could give YOUR opinion on the subject?

What I was really asking is do you think gay public figures should be outed? And why or why not?




posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
First: Of course there is dem vs rep, this is America, and until a good party comes into power there will always be a dem vs rep
Second: My answer? YES! Would make great news, especially on Fox News as they try to cover up/hush hush all the republican gays while having bill boards put up all over country declaring the gay dems. All the stuff I posted just showed that I would love for it to happen since the reps would go nuts! Imagine during the 1950's when anything red was evil and the president came out in a bright red suit with the Russian flag behind him? It would be the same pandemonium but funnier!
Third: also try out the feature on the link where you can replace gay with black or jew, quite funny since alot of them become exact Hitler/Nazi quotes when you replace gay with jew.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I tend to agree with this guy that where hypocrisy is at play, it should be public knowledge. For example if a public female figure condemns abortion or works to get it outlawed, then we find out that she had an abortion, the hypocrisy should be revealed. Shouldn't it?



I would not be surprised if most of them have not only skeletons in the closet but also involve in abortions too.

Sometimes the ones that scream the most are guilty also.


Occurs you will find them in the ranks of "Born again Christians" so sin until you drop repent when it fit your schedule or may I say. . .agendas. Right?



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
The more I think about this, the more I think that anyone's sexuality is a private matter and should not be revealed against their will.

It's not illegal to be a hypocrite, so even they are, that's their choice.

Although there are some I'd love to see squirm, I'm going to have to answer No. Gay public figures deserve their right to privacy the same as any other person. After all, there are some things people have a right to keep private... for example, their bedroom practices or a medical condition, such as pregnancy...


And Full Metal, what about those gay 'Dems' who simply wish their sexuality to be private? I would be an intrusion to out them against their will, right?



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
It would but still whats the big deal? Being a gay dem is like being a jewish dem or a black dem, your point being what? Now if you are a republican this spells disaster for you. Look at Powell, he said he was a republican, but people loved him, he joined with Bush Jr and well, Powell ain't loved anymore. A black republican does not work when the KKK/CCC are key republican groups. Wasn't there a big deal about the republicans buying the KKK roster list during the 2004 election? SO a black/gay/jewish republican, doesn't work to well.

Again, use the feature on the site to change gay to jew/black, when switched to jew they become exact Nazi/Hitler quotes.

Although if I was in the closet I could see it as a problem, if they didn't tell the people the truth it would be a blemish on their record.

[edit on 5-10-2005 by Full Metal]



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Doing this is a total invasion of privacy, something the left supposedly cherishes.

Two things -- the abortion analogy is very weak, some of the most vocal opponents of abortion had an abortion at one time in their life and are now heartbroken over it and wish they hadn't had one.

Second, not all gays support the "gay agenda" such as gay marriage. It's not hypocrisy to be gay but still be against legalized gay marriage. Who decides who is working against that agenda and needs to be outed? Those pushing the agenda.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Doing this is a total invasion of privacy.


I agree.



the abortion analogy is very weak, some of the most vocal opponents of abortion had an abortion at one time in their life and are now heartbroken over it and wish they hadn't had one.


Yes. And they had the choice. Many who have had abortions didn't regret it. Just because some did, doesn't make the case for making pregnancy a public matter.

Your example is like those ex-smokers who now are so offended by smoking and try to convince everyone else to quit. Just because they quit, doesn't necessarily mean it's time for everyone to quit. There's nothing more annoying than an activist ex-smoker, unless it's an activist anti-aborionist who's had an abortion!

It's all about privacy and autonomy. Everyone deserves it. Not just gay people.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Personally, I think any public figure that comes across as anti-gay/homophobic - that actually engages in gay acts, SHOULD be outed -

If they hate themselves enough to try and legislate against gays, then that's their problem, but they shouldn't make things worse for us who overcame our own inner-homophobe.

I remember how homophobic I used to act so others wouldn't suspect me of being one myself, but then again, I had NEVER engaged in any activity that would have been "proof" that I was a homo-gay. IF I had been getting my jollies with other guys, AND preaching against it at the same time, then I SHOULD have been outed.

If a politician knows he's gay, but doesn't like being gay and has never engaged in homosexual acts (because the church "guilt-tripped" him into hating himself) then he's got every right to preach/vote against it and pretend to be as straight as he wants with his trophy wife. But as soon as he starts gettin' him some "on the down-low" - he needs to shut his pie hole, let others live as they choose, let those who voted for him know, and let them re-elect him if they beleive he's doing his job right.

It really shouldn't matter what their sexual orientation is, but if acting homophobic is what they had to do to get elected, when they know darn well they engage in homosexual acts, they NEED to be exposed - They are not what the voters thought they were getting, and they are not doing the gay community any favors.

ALL politicians need to be exposed when they are "acting" just to get votes.

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulthefourth
Personally, I think any public figure that comes across as anti-gay/homophobic - that actually engages in gay acts, SHOULD be outed -


Your opinion surprises me. But you're saying that only those who act with hypocrisy should be exposed?

What about if they're actually voting for what the people in their district want? Let's say a district is overwhelmingly against gay marriage and a gay representative has to vote on it in Congress... Should he go with his own personal feelings or vote for what his people want?

If he votes his own personal feelings, he's not doing his job right. If he votes for his people, he's a hypocrite.

I don't think his sexual orientation should have any impact on the way he represents his people.

What about those who vote for gay rights, even if they're not out? Should they be exposed?



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Realistically, if a district was overwhelmingly against gay marriage, then they would have never elected him to go vote on it in congress in the first place.

It shouldn't be that way, but it is. Sexual orientation shouldn't matter, but it does - it breaks my heart every day that it matters so much to so many people - when it shouldn't matter at all.

People shouldn't feel the need to be in the closet to be elected, or be treated normal, or have the same rights as everyone else, but unfortunately, they do -

I guess I'm seeing this from my side - I feel so ashamed of how I used to act towards others that were gay, or even perceived as gay - But I saw how they got treated and did my best to make sure I didn't get treated that way too - It was wrong of me to be like that - I should have stood up for them, but it was so much easier to join in with the majority. It took me a long time to finally accept myslef as I am, and now I'm much more ashamed of how I used to act, than I "should be"
for being gay. I'm so angry at the old me that I can hardly beleive that I used to be like that.

For those that do vote for gay rights, then they probably don't need to be "outed" anyway, they're probably already out. And how sorry I feel for those straight legislators that vote pro-gay - imagine how they must get picked on at the company pic-nics.
And all they were doing was voting for fairness and equality.

If a district was overwhelmingly against black people's rights, do you think they would ever vote for a black person to go represent them? Could you imagine electing someone that was black, and then expecting them to go to congress asking to bring back slavery? I think not. Even if he were to act really racist and paint himself white to 'fit in', should he be representing them? No, not at all.

But that's what living in the world today will do to people - make them turn against their own, just to fit in with the majority - I apologize in advance to anyone I may have offended. Sorry Y'all.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulthefourth
Realistically, if a district was overwhelmingly against gay marriage, then they would have never elected him to go vote on it in congress in the first place.


They don't know he's gay! He's not out. They voted for him because they liked his policies on most things. Now the gay marriage bill comes up and they want him to vote against it.



I'm so angry at the old me that I can hardly beleive that I used to be like that.


It's none of my business but let it go. We all make mistakes.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
If you are going to embark on a life of public service, you should be prepared to have your every moment (waking or otherwise) scrutinized... I want to know if you're screwing around on your wife/husband, beat your kids, have your dog crap on the neighbors grass, cheat on your taxes (or in that back room poker game); hell... I want to know if you're an ATS Member (in good standing of course).

Don’t want that kind of invasive coverage of your life? Try the real world then.

Liberal or Conservative or anything in between, I want your life in real time coverage from a KH-12 24/7!

Now if they would only authorize armed UAV’s for when they step out of line.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I totaly agree Mirth.

If you are going to be a public figure and tell others how to think, act, look and be and make laws to enforce it, then don't whine when others want to look into your personal life to see if you are a hypocryte or not.


Your personal life evaporates when you become a public figure!!
However The president did an amazing job of covering up his youthful past!!

I find it astonishing that to be a janitor in a fedral bldg. you have to take a urine test but not to be a President, senator or congressman. There should be a movement to make all elected officials local, state, fedral to take a piss test to prove they are drug free and able to make decisions



that affect their constituants Probably the only people electable would be under the age of five.

And as far as politicians sexuality; wasn't that long ago that Clintons sexuality was the main topic of conversation everywhere and eventually lead to his downfall. Please don't deprive us of juicy dinner table conversation. What do you want us to talk about ...Sports...

The feds can delve into any citizens most private life and you can't do a damn thing about it. The citizens should have the same right to inspect our leaders. Should they have preferential treatment? Nah...

[edit on 5-10-2005 by whaaa]

[edit on 5-10-2005 by whaaa]

[edit on 5-10-2005 by whaaa]



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The more I think about this, the more I think that anyone's sexuality is a private matter and should not be revealed against their will.


Bingo. What difference does it make who you sleep with? It certainly shouldn't effect your professional life.
I all for less government intrusion in the private lives of citizens.

And, along those lines of less intrusion, abortion should be a state issue.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   
My gut answer is that no one should be "outed" as far as putting it on a magazine cover or waving it around on a banner to create some sort of hype or agenda. People who do that for their own twisted reasons are...not very nice.

Ultimately though, if I ever really cared one way or the other in the past, I haven't for some time now.

It seems really 1989 to 1993. Gov. Arnie could be "outed" tommorrow on the cover of Muscles Magazine. (yawn).

But yeah, I do want to know where politicians stand on "gay rights" and other double-speak on both sides of the fence. "Gay marriage" GOOD or BAD gets tossed around so easily, but I've yet to hear any meaningful discussion in the mainstream about what effects that would have in innumerable areas of legislation. I mean, it's interesting to think about it.

In a gay marriage world, would an individual change his and her mind about putting a baby up for adoption knowing that the baby could very well wind up in a same-sexed home? I have a couple close friends who came out of the closet and I talk pretty frankly with them about the lifestyle. Ozzie and Harriet it ain't brother: "Jimmy Has Two Dads...And They Each Have Several Special Buddies".

NOt that there's anything wrong with that.

[edit on 5-10-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The more I think about this, the more I think that anyone's sexuality is a private matter and should not be revealed against their will.


Bingo. What difference does it make who you sleep with? It certainly shouldn't effect your professional life.


I don't doubt Bill Clinton, for example, disagrees with either of you. But apparently many do.

So as long as where you tip your cigar ash remains a social concern for regulators seeking to legislate who can marry, adopt or reproduce, whenever any outspoken regulation fan sells their ass on the Internet, it will continue to be of purient interest to me.



But that's just politics.


When it comes to the tabloid "outing" of an actor like Kevin Spacey. That's just sad. But it's sad mostly because he had to hide it in the first place. That's what really needs to change. Not the "outings."



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Given the "culture war," which actually amounts to little more than culturally approved gay bashing, there's a reason why Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) continues to be acknowledged as THE funniest man in DC.

Reporters were asking the openly gay congressman Barney Frank if David Dreier was denied Delay’s leadership position because he was too moderate – or because he was gay. Frank said it was because Dreier was too moderate, and then quipped, “And I’m going to a moderate bar after work tonight.”



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I do have my name and face attached to a couple of businesses, including my own. The overall package is critical to a person’s effectiveness in any high profile role; in fact, it is what defines & differentiates that person's success.
The big thing to work on is the stigma of "outing", not the act of it. It needs to be hammered home that, throughout human civilization, incredibly productive individuals have been gay and it did not hinder their genius one iota – though it often crippled their accolades.
We have folks of some esteem on these boards refer to homosexuals as abominations and talk about a gay agenda .....where do you go from there? Are those people salvageable? Are they capable of being brought up to a societal level? No, and I say stop trying.....social Darwinism will take care of it.
The only analogy I see as worthy to the civil rights movement & homosexuals is this: Legislate it – put it in their faces – shame them into getting with the times – prosecute them for breaking the laws put in to safeguard. Everyone, yes EVERYONE, has gay people within 4 degrees of separation within their lives, almost all have them in their family. If you can not celebrate and endorse your blood, I wouldn’t want you in my tribe.
The outing of public officials who regularly demonize homosexuals is a very good thing. Hypocrisy is an extravagant luxury – it is not a right. We do not hesitate to acknowledge it when that official campaigns on a government for the people platform, yet is voting in line with the interests, exclusively, of his large corp. sponsors.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join