Theoretical Moral Question

[displacedyankeedem]

Lets say that a extremist right-wing Republican is involved in a close Congressional race in either a battleground or red state. It's a close election year and it's possible that the race will decide who controls the, lets say Senate. Their Democratic opponent is provided with solid evidence that Republican Candidate X is gay or lesbian. This revelation would undoubtably swing the race to the Democrat's side. The Democrat has to choose the right and moral thing to do.

My question is: Does the greater good in this case justify destroying another human being's reputation?

It's a tough call, and if I were the Democrat, I'd spend many long sleepless hours debating what to do. In the end I probably couldn't bring myself to do it and would take the chance of winning without it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Did You See Primary Colors?

NT

[kiahzero]

2. Is he/she campaiging against gays?

If so, fuck 'em. Let his/her political fortunes be tied with the people he/she's been attacking.

[pinto]

3. My answer. No. And its a question of ethics, not morals.

disclaimer: I'm gay.

[Snoggera]

4. bingo!

and I'm not gay.

[indigobusiness]

13. Yahtzee

...and I'm pretty sure ZombyWoof is gay.

[Hoping4Change]

11. Why does taking the lid off one's sexual identity ruin one's

reputation? What ethics does a person have to live in secret and then support the party that perpetuates his oppression? Being a closet gay and belonging to the Repukes is like being a closet Jew and belonging to the nazi party. Why give any ethical consideration to a person who clearly doesn't have any ethical standards?

[geek tragedy]

16. What's the difference between morals and ethics?

eom

[Luminous Animal]

5. I'd do it.

If the candidate is an extemist, then, if she/he were elected, then that person would be advancing bigotry and hate and the social and political marginalization of gays and lesbian.



-------------------------------------
Welcome Michael Moore BB refugees--- www.upsizethis.org

[displacedyankeedem]

10. But what if they'd been silent on the FMA etc.

Hard to believe that they would, but always possible.

[Luminous Animal]

17. Well....

You said that this candidate was an extremist. I know a few Republicans (not many... haha, I live in San Francisco), a couple of them gay and never could they be categorized as extremist. Perhaps I am reading too much into the word but extremist Republican to me means, pro-business/anti-environment, pro law enforcement/restrictions on civil rights, pro man-woman marraige/anti-gay (in marriage and everything else)... you get the picture.

But even if the guy wasn't an extremist. The Republican Party has signed on to an anti-gay agenda, any gay or lesbian who furthers that agenda deserves to be outed for their hypocracy.

[Hoping4Change]

6. Well rather than framing the dilemma as to whether or not it is

right or wrong to out a closet gay or lesbian. Consider framing the dilemma as to whether it is right or wrong to unmask a hypocrite.

[DrWeird]

7. destroying another human beings reputation?

Why would presenting evidence of being gay destroy a reputation?

[troublemaker]

15. Amen!

[ContinentalOp]

25. Yeah, what reputation?

His reputation as a raging homophobe? You would be destroying his flawless record of bigotry?

[DrWeird]

8. hypothetical ethical question...

If you had evidence that Bill Bennett wasted an obscene amount of money gambling in Las Vegas...

would you provide it?

[pinto]

9. SC_Dem's post didn't posit any conflict with the politician's performance

due to his sexuality. The question was, is his sexuality itself an issue, not as a point of morality or obscenity, but as a point of ethics, as in would you "out him"?.

Ethics are a choice.

[DustMolecule]

12. One thing about the Bill Bennett story

(and how it all got blown out-of-proportion)...is that it was/is HIS money to use as he chooses, including 'wasting it' gambling. I don't believe he fell into debt or failed to fulfill his financial obligations, etc.

On several levels, I don't think this is a good comparison to the question being asked by the original poster. Hypocrisy is more of the issue with the original question. The gambling/Bill Bennett story really doesn't 'compare' well with hypocrisy, see here for more, if you like:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/643kabms.asp

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

14. No, I couldn't do it. I'd have to say

that it's never really worth doing wrong to reach a political right. I cou;dn't bring myself to do it either. I'd rather lose gracefully, and keep my soul.

[Hoping4Change]

18. You are losing your soul by accepting the premise that

admission of sexual preference is ruinous. The reason this oppression exists is the fault of religious fanatics who tend to populate the repukes. People who are repukes and closetted are despicable and deserve to be outed.

[Liberal Veteran]

21. The politician in question is profitting on the back of lie.

If his supporters would not support him if they knew he was gay, in a sense, he is defrauding them as well. I daresay a politician who threw his support behind a party that forces him to hide who he is in order successful deserves no more than to experience first hand the fruits of the system he is helping to perpetuate.

[Hoping4Change]

23. Very well said and I like your comment that he is in a sense

defrauding his supporters.

[merh]

48. Exactly. If this repuke has remained in the closet and has not

admitted his sexual preference, he is perpetuating the stygma that the original poster warns my "harm his reputation". The reason gay life styles are not accepted and gays are oppressed is because of the mindset that outing the individual will ruin his/her reputation. If it is the individual's party that is fostering the hate and oppression then the individual should either change parties, drop out of politics or come clean. Should he/she not chose any of the three, then he deserves to be outed. As a political figure his/her closetted approach to his/her life style just encourages the "shame" that he/she fears and makes him/her a hyprocrite.

You know the old saying, he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones (or run around naked).

[Liberal Veteran]

19. Theoretical question in response.

Lets say that a extremist right-wing Nazi is involved in a close race in a battleground province. It's a close election year and it's possible that the race will decide who controls, lets say Germany. Their Democratic opponent is provided with solid evidence that Nazi Candidate X is jewish. This revelation would undoubtably swing the race to the Democrat's side. The Democrat has to choose the right and moral thing to do.

My question is: Does the greater good in this case justify destroying another human being's reputation in the eyes of his so-called supporters?

[DustMolecule]

22. Isn't the basic question 'flawed'?

'Does the greater good'

You're assuming that you're omniscient and know what 'the greater good' is.

------------
Isn't that what we're fighting against now? That a certain 'group' claims they know what's in everyone's greater good? Oh wait, the original question centered around hypocrisy.

(I was hoping someone else would bring this up, as I might soon be hitting the '700 Club' on the 'ignore listings')

Peace

[Liberal Veteran]

24. Sometimes, people of good conscience must get their hands dirty.

Does their come a point that standing rigidly by your ethics actually do more harm than good?

I think at times that does happen.

[DustMolecule]

27. You edited your ENTIRE post

which makes MY RESPONSE not make near as much sense .... and you don't even 'mention' what you did 'on edit'....which was CHANGE EVERYTHING!

VERY DIRTY!

[Liberal Veteran]

29. I didn't change the substance of what I said...plus look at the time.

I edited it 11 minutes before you even replied to it.

On edit: The changes I made were less than 2 minutes after the original post. The original post was made at 33 minutes after the hour and the edit was made at 35 minutes after the hour.

I didn't change the substance of what I said other than add "in the eyes of his so-called supporters" at the end of the sentence, the only other change was removing a "the" that didn't belong.

You responded at 46 minutes after the hour which by my reckoning is 11 minutes AFTER my edit was made.

Given that I didn't change the substance of what I originally wrote (which was basically changing state to province and senate to germany and gay or lebsian to jewish and republican to Nazi from the original posters question), I don't understand what you think is dirty.

[DustMolecule]

34. Sorry, I'm suffering from 'outrage exhaustion' (per the Onion)

...there's some truth to that (outrage exhaustion idea), imho.

Peace

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. Boy, that's a tough one

If the guy had been anti-gay in his policies, I think I'd go after him to expose his hypocrisy and say to the people, "Can you trust someone who says one thing, but does another?"

But at the same time, doing it in a way that says that you, personally, as the outer, have no problem whatsoever with him/her being gay, and that being gay is perfectly acceptable. Just that you can't deal with the hypocrisy of the policies of said person.

But if they had been supportive of gay rights, I think I'd let it stand.

Also, I, as the contender, wouldn't do any outing on my own. I'd offer the info to someone else, to leak into the press, and let it go around and become public another way. Sneaky of me; partly dishonest, perhaps; but it saves much embarassment from every direction over just outing the person at a press conference.

[displacedyankeedem]

26. Would It Help If I Used Names as examples

A)Example #1: Your opponent is someone like Susan Collins of Maine
B)Example #2: Your opponent is someone like Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (though I'm pretty sure God broke the defective mold that he made Rickie in after he saw what had happened).
C)Example #3: Your opponent is someone like Tom DeLay (as awful a Republican as I can think of, DeLay should be a swear word)

[leftofthedial]

28. the neocons turned politics into total war

to play by "nicer" rules guarantees you lose.

[BlueCollar]

30. I'm inclined to agree

It's all or nothing now. The lines have been drawn...the endgame is here.

[Liberal Veteran]

32. Yep. Remember the cons promising to "share power" in congress?

Only to resort to every dirty tactic under the sun to ram through legislation and radical appointees?

Playing nice only works if both sides behave honorably. Since they won't, we are gonna have to fight a little dirty ourselves.

[DustMolecule]

36. Wouldn't that make us as bad as they are?

Then we are all standing on wobbly moral ground.

[displacedyankeedem]

37. Agreed, I think it's a slippery slope to be on

that's nother good reason why I wouldn't do it. I might make an exception for Right-wing Rickie and Tom DeLay though.

[Liberal Veteran]

38. There comes a point where you have to fight fire with fire....

Think of morals and ethics in this respect:

The willow survives the storm because it can bend whereas the rigid oak snaps.

Clinging to idealism while your enemy will stop at nothing might make you feel morally pure, but it doesn't protect you as you are being herded into the oven.

[DustMolecule]

42. You're really tough....

....I'll give you credit for that.

However, two (or more) wrongs NEVER make for right. I'll never believe that.

Yes, I know what you're saying about the willow, but somehow somewhere 'the good' has to be there....to teach, to encourage, I dunno I haven't figured it all out yet. I want to 'survive', but I won't 'compromise' (too much) to survive...perhaps that's why I'm here on the 'underground' (haha....very 'public' underground board).

Peace

[Liberal Veteran]

44. Under NORMAL circumstances, I would agree with you...

I don't like it that I have to lower my standards a bit. I don't like the idea in the slightest, any more than I like the necessity of war from time to time.

Our nation won independence from England by refusing to roll over and fighting fire with fire.
The same with the labor movement, which was often violent.

It is not a pleasant prospect nor a position I would choose to put myself if there was an alternative, but I will not sit back and allow an enemy that wants nothing more than to turn me into a permanent second-class citizen without a fight.

And to my mind, that makes it an acceptable stance not to allow a closetted gay republican (from my viewpoint, a collaborator) to hide while he destroys my life.

[DustMolecule]

46. g'nite, I'm off to bed (you're still wrong in your thinking)

:P

[JHBowden]

31. What would Baucus do?

:shrug:

[AlCzervik]

33. We live in one sorry ass world

if the fact that being a homosexual could cause someone to lose an election and no i wouldn't out them. Outing people is for rightwing wackos like Laura Ingraham and i beleive one day she will get some might cosmic payback for doing that.

[displacedyankeedem]

35. Didn't Bob Dornan

do this back when the fine people of Orange County, CA sent him to disgrace the halls of Congress?

[Fight_n_back]

39. Klein's book after Primary Colors

is about a Bob Kerrey type candidate running for re election against a person you describe. He comes up with info about his wife's abortion and almost uses it in a debate but doesn't.

He loses but gets the girl.

You have to win the race in the issues or what are you really winning? Beat him by engaging Gay Rights.

In the real world the story would end up "over the transom" and the candidate wouldn't have to touch the story.

[WillyBrandt]

40. Yes. Easy call. Fuck the hypocrite.

[Fight_n_back]

41. The new Republican tactic

is to say a truthful story that was discovered independantly by journalists was planted by the Democrats as part of dirty campaigning. They completely took the wind out of the Ahnold groping stories by making the story about the Democratic Parties tactics. The LA Times found the story by themselves.

They did the same thing about the Bush DUI. Deflecting the story by accussing Gore of leaking it.

One of the things that shows Kerry is not a regular woose Dem is that he did the same thing to Wesley Clark when stories of an affair surfaced. The story became Clark's desperation in planting a story rather than the affair.

Of course, when the planting of a story IS news then it is rarely covered. The press has still not really been very public about how they were duped regarding Paula Jones and Whitewater.

[walldude]

43. If they were speaking

out against gays then yes I'd have to out them. Otherwise no. Granted in some cases the Left-Wing has been too soft. But the attacks should be made on political issues not on personal ones. We have to stop this "stoop to their level" mentality, thats what got us into Abu Grahib, the Patriot Act and some other charming predicaments we are in right now. We must maintain the high road, while ramming their lying and thieving ways down their throats.

[Liberal_Dog]

45. This Reminds Me Of An Episode Of "WKRP IN Cincinatti"

Carlson is running for City Council. Bailey finds out that Tillman, the incumbent Councilman, has a drinking problem. Carlson agrees not to use that information in the campaign.

During a debate, Tillman insults WKRP. Carlson loses it and mention Tillman's drinking problem on live TV. Feeling guilty, Carlson sabotages his own campaign and loses the election.

Personally, it would depend on the type of campaign my opponent was running. If he/she was running a nasty campaign against me, then I would be more inclined to use the information.

[mitchtv]

47. wouldn't think twice

he's a puke no? would vote for Frist , no?

[Warren DeMontague]

49. Right. Only in right wing, GOP-land

would it even matter.

Do I care if someone is gay? Of course not. But do I think hypocrisy is a relevant issue in a campaign? Hell, yes. The Republican party is the party of the culture war, as well as the party of digging up people's skeletons to try to sink them politically. If you are living a life as a closeted gay while shilling for a party that has a decidedly vocal anti-gay agenda, then what kind of doofus are you if you think someone's not going to discover that you, yourself, are gay? It's not 1958 anymore, there, J. Edgar.

Anyway, living in Northern California, I guess it boggles my mind that people would even care.

[displacedyankeedem]

50. Trust me, in parts of the country

and especially the South being GLBT is a social death sentence.

[LiberalManiacfromOC]

51. I couldn't do it!

You can't ruin someone's reputation by saying they're gay. I just don't think it's right!

[lostnfound]

52. Perhaps it depends on the guy's rhetoric on gay issues?

I'm thinking that exposing someone as gay is not ethical, but exposing them as a hypocrite is perfectly okay..?

I'm not sure, just a thought.

[ronabop]

53. WTF?

Is being honest about someone else's sexual orientation immoral or unethical?... this just makes no sense to me.

I come from AZ, where we have the *outed* Kolbe, who won anyways. Nobody really cared about it. Kolbe never really hid it, or overtly denied it, he just didn't talk about it.

To me, the real scandal is someone who lies. Ryan wasn't booted because he went to sex clubs, he was booted for lying. Hell, Big Dog got blowjobs, and once he came clean, was forgiven by the public.

All that being said, if you live in a district where being gay makes someone unelectable, getting some random democrat elected may be the least of your priorities. Getting a gay person, either party, would come first in my book.

-Bop