NationStates Jolt Archive

I realized I have never made a gay thread, thus I am not a true Generalite. Until now..


Do you agree with forced outings? Either the force someone out of the closet outings or those horrible Sunday afternoon walks you forced to go on with your parents?

Forced outings? Never even heard of such a thing.

Neither. You can keep your nose out other people's business, and I'm staying home, thanks.

If they're being hypocritical bastards like Father Ted and Larry Craig, go for it. Otherwise, no one's business.

Why do you hate freedom?

Why do you hate freedom?

Because freedom means the terrorists win.

for most people outing is just wrong.

some few who are gay and actively working against gay rights......i can sympathize with those who decide to out them.

and would it be so terrible to go for a walk with your mom now and then?

I never had to go on Sunday afternoon walks with my parents - unless we went to the zoo and that wasn't forced.

As for the other, if someone wants to stay in the closet, that's his/her business. It's not my place to make decisions for people unless they're minors in my care or unless their behavior affects me significantly.

Either the force someone out of the closet outings

When it comes to someone who is an active participant in advocating for or implementing homophobic policies? Absolutely.

Otherwise? Not usually--though if he or she is actively deceiving someone who has a right to know (e.g. a "significant other"), that would probably be legitimate.

or those horrible Sunday afternoon walks you forced to go on with your parents?

I pretty much always enjoyed walks with my parents, and still do when I have the opportunity.

I hate 'looking at houses' with the parents as I slowly die in the back seat. God those sucked.


As for the other variation, I object to the 'neccisaty' for being 'in or out,' that ones sexuality is something that one has to hide. But as long as there is an 'in,' as long as there is a notion that it something that they should hide, something they should be ashamed of, there will be an 'out,' people that are there to say they are not ashamed of who they are and no one has any right to make them ashamed.

However, if someone is in the closet it is their decision and no one has the right to force them into a situation that we likely don't understand. Even if that 'we' includes people who are 'out', everyone's situation is unique to them.

Now, in the case of a Pastor Ted Haggard, then the outing is a different story. Obviously there is an issue here and something that he should deal with and it's hard to say he has to do it with everyone watching, but he is using his position to cause distress to a population that he secretly belongs to, so he has brought his 'dealing with it' to the forefront anyway. It'd be better if privately someone or himself could go to him and go, "Look, you like dudes. It's okay. You don't have to be ashamed of it and act out like this." But he wasn't and no one was. This might be the exception to my objection.

I am a homosexual male. I am comfortable saying that here because none of you know who I am. (Mainly because this is like my second or third post on NSG ever.) But if I am in a location wherein I do not feel comfortable revealing that I in fact enjoy mansex, anyone who knows I do should keep their mouth shut. It doesn't matter if it's "obvious" or not, I don't care if you think "everyone knows", dammit if I wanna stay in my closet, it is not anyone's right but my own to open the door.

However, like many have said, if a closeted gay person is being a prick (and not in a good way) and acting as if he hates gay people, he does not deserve to be in the aforementioned closet. We need space for the people who are in there for good reasons. It's not exactly a mansion in that closet, you know. God, we sure were glad when Rosie O'Donnel left. We could breathe again.

Also, the only "outings" of the other type that you mentioned that my mother made me go on was running her errands with her because, being a single parent, there wasn't anyone to watch me. This was before school, as I recall. Waiting for the pharmacy to fill your mother's perscription is not fun when you're four.

If they're being hypocritical bastards like Father Ted and Larry Craig, go for it. Otherwise, no one's business.
It isn't hypocritical. They were living exactly the sort of lifestyle that they wanted to forced other gays into, a closeted life of superficial heterosexuality or celibacy and a secret life of rampant homosexuality.
It is hypocritical when people who claim to be in favor of gay rights force the outing of others in attempt to make political gains.

It is hypocritical when people who claim to be in favor of gay rights force the outing of others in attempt to make political gains.

^ this


Edit: 6,666th post.

Also, the only "outings" of the other type that you mentioned that my mother made me go on was running her errands with her because, being a single parent, there wasn't anyone to watch me. This was before school, as I recall. Waiting for the pharmacy to fill your mother's perscription is not fun when you're four.
when you have kids of your own remember how boring it is and BRING TOYS/COLORING BOOKS so the kids have something to do.

It isn't hypocritical. They were living exactly the sort of lifestyle that they wanted to forced other gays into, a closeted life of superficial heterosexuality or celibacy and a secret life of rampant homosexuality.

Assuming you're being serious, that's disingenuous. They don't want (or at least don't claim to want) "superficial heterosexuality or celibacy": they want genuine heterosexuality or celibacy, without the "rampant heterosexuality" on the side. Their religious objection is to same-sex intercourse, which comes into play just as much in an airport blow job as it does in a bathhouse orgy, and if they proceed to engage in exactly that, they are hypocrites.

It is hypocritical when people who claim to be in favor of gay rights force the outing of others in attempt to make political gains.

I fail to see the hypocrisy. What inconsistency do you see between the stated positions of such people and their behavior?

I realized I have never made a gay thread, thus I am not a true Generalite. Until now..


Do you agree with forced outings? Either the force someone out of the closet outings or those horrible Sunday afternoon walks you forced to go on with your parents?
In both cases, absofuckinglutely not.
The freedom of self-determination is pretty key, in my not so humble opinion.

Assuming you're being serious, that's disingenuous. They don't want (or at least don't claim to want) "superficial heterosexuality or celibacy": they want genuine heterosexuality or celibacy, without the "rampant heterosexuality" on the side. Their religious objection is to same-sex intercourse, which comes into play just as much in an airport blow job as it does in a bathhouse orgy, and if they proceed to engage in exactly that, they are hypocrites.
Ah ... I finally get to meet you, oh GREAT SOHERAN! Reader of minds and explorer of the Universal subconscious. Tell me, what is it that I genuinely want now?
If they were genuinely against all homosexuality ever, then they wouldn't be engaging in sex with people of the same sex. They are trying to force homosexuality underground, which is where their own homosexuality already is (or was).
I fail to see the hypocrisy. What inconsistency do you see between the stated positions of such people and their behavior?
Whatever justification you might have for gay rights (self-determination, none-of-your-damn-business-ism, whatever), it doesn't allow room for the forced outing of political opponents in order to damage them.

If they forcibly outed every gay person in the US, there'd be two types of non-independent senators: gay senators and democrats. :p

I don't know any but I would never even if I did know. Nope just not right.

Tell me, what is it that I genuinely want now?

If you had bothered to actually read my sentence, you would have noted that I added "or at least don't claim to want" after "don't want": to believe something other than your public proclamations is a kind of hypocrisy, too, and one that even more than the other calls for outing--because then the person in question is using his or her authority to lend credibility to a cause he or she does not actually support.

If they were genuinely against all homosexuality ever, then they wouldn't be engaging in sex with people of the same sex.

That's stupid. People do things they are "genuinely against" all the time. We are pretty fallible creatures, humans; what we think is right and what we actually do are only occasionally in concert.

They are trying to force homosexuality underground, which is where their own homosexuality already is (or was).

No, like other people in denial about who they are and/or struggling with temptations they do not like acknowledging, they are (most probably) against homosexuality period and too ashamed to publicly display their surrenders to temptation--especially when they represent a homophobic political or religious constituency where the social consequences of doing so would be severe.

Virtually nobody wants homosexuality to exist, but underground. Those who want to drive it underground want to do so, at best, as a realistic compromise toward eliminating it entirely.

Whatever justification you might have for gay rights (self-determination, none-of-your-damn-business-ism, whatever), it doesn't allow room for the forced outing of political opponents in order to damage them.

As you recognize, the justifications you list are not exhaustive: what about, say, the welfare and happiness of those harmed by anti-gay policies? Outing at least arguably serves that purpose; you would have to counter with respect to its efficacy, not its moral character, and disagreement about efficacy has nothing to do with hypocrisy.

Nor are the two you mention decisive, if only because you treat them as absolutes lacking any nuance. Are self-determination and privacy worthy of respect, in general? Yes. Are they worthy of absolute respect for people who deny others that same self-determination and privacy? Not obviously so. Certainly not as a matter of consistent application of the first principle: we routinely exclude from moral protection people who disregard the moral protection of others, when it comes to protecting their victims from their depredations.

The matter becomes even more clear-cut when the fact of the closet-case status of such conservatives is itself a relevant point in the debate. If homosexuality is, as they are so keen to argue, both chosen and curable, why do they have such struggles with it?

I don't believe anyone should get into anyone else's business and your orientation is your business.
Even if it's obvious you're flaming, they need to leave it alone.
You'll decide when it's time to come out.

Because freedom means the terrorists win.

Damn, I really like that.

Your post count is 6,666.


*Backs away slowly...*

If they're being hypocritical bastards like Father Ted and Larry Craig, go for it. Otherwise, no one's business.

You mean Pastor Ted. You're insulting an institution with that Father Ted remark.

http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/F/father_ted/pf/images/pictures/1.jpg

FECK OFF!!

I think it is OK to politely ask someone if they are gay if you do it politely and in private and you are close enough friends to be open about such things.

If they forcibly outed every gay person in the US, there'd be two types of non-independent senators: gay senators and democrats. :p

Why do you hate the gays?