The closeted RW: Okay to out them?

[blondeatlast]

I'm straight, so I don't feel I'm in the best position to go with this.

Considering the hypocrisy of many "star" Republicans, including WAY at the top of the party, if they can be connected to others who are outed (Gannon, pretty much), should we?

It's an ethical quandary for me; I absolutely support my GLBT brothers and sisters, but the hypocrisy of some of these people makes my skin crawl.

Thanks--I am sincere in this.

Edit: BTW, I have NO IDEA what constitutes sufficient proof, and am anxious to hear what others would consider to be so.

[Maddy McCall]

1. If they've made bigoted statements against gays, HELL YES.

The deserve to be outed for the frauds that they are. Then they can go get therapy for whatever disorder makes them loathe what they really are.

Yes, if they have made public statements against gay rights, then let them have it.

[pbartch]

13. I feel as you do. Hypocrites deserve to be outed

[jcappy]

14. that's my vote n/t

[Guaranteed]

34. That's what I think- only if they rail against them.

I'd like to know what gay people think about this, though.

[Kikosexy2]

2. Damn...

straight! (no pun intended..hhhehehehe!)

[LynneSin]

3. Personally, I'd like to live in a world where we don't "out" folks

because no matter what your sexual preference is, the rest of the world is ok with that!

However, I have no problem outting these RW simply for the hypocrisy of what they are doing. They are derogatory towards Gays & Lesbians and promote a party that will not allow same-sex couples to share a lifetime bond together. Their hate has made me toss all considerations towards something as private as outting oneselve out the closet door so to speak.

[blondeatlast]

6. I think most of us would want that.

Unfortunately, it's gonna have to take a step or two back before we go three forward, I'm afraid.

This is one of them.

As I say, it makes me uncomfortable, very uncomfortable.

[bluestateguy]

4. Not only is it ok, it should be encouraged

And they should also be fair game for anti-gay slurs. They need to get a taste of the medicine that their party prescribes to gays all over America.

[ultraist]

19. These things end up going too far and end up being lynchings

bluestateguy wrote: "Not only is it ok, it should be encouraged And they should also be fair game for anti-gay slurs. They need to get a taste of the medicine that their party prescribes to gays all over America. "

So, those that have been outted should be discriminated against as other gays have been? They should be "fair game for anti gay slurs"?

NOT! Even a Repuke gay should not be called a "fag" viciously and hunted down due to his sexual orientation.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

27. Agreed. Weaponizing 'gayness' just amplifies the hate factor.

We all seethe at the hypocrisy and projection. But using homosexuality as an insult does no one any good.

Same with soldier worship. Kerry's 'reporting for duty' campaign added even more 'Glory' to the horror of war. Wrong direction again.

[Wapsie B]

5. Out them all.

Especially if they happen to be a member of Congress or Senate or part of the chimp's inner sanctum.

[LeftCoast]

7. There's no answer on your poll that I can go with

Quoting myself on another post :

The only time I think it is fair to criticize a closeted gay republican (CGR) for being a CGR is when they are vocally anti-gay or work against equal rights for GLBTers. I realize this is a fine line and can be difficult for people to understand, but I think it's an important one.

[blondeatlast]

16. But, (because he's the one I'm most aware of as being rumored), would

include Mehlman?

And what would be an acceptable standard of proof?

It's a quandary too, because gay isn't "obvious" like race. There has to be a certain burden of proof.

Again, I want to be helpful here.

[LeftCoast]

21. Personally, I wouldn't criticize Mehlman for being gay

I don't even know if it's confirmed that he is. To my knowledge, KM has never advocated an anti-gay/lesbian agenda. His only 'crime' per se, is to have supported a party in which many members DO support an anti-gay/lesbian agenda.

The bottom line in my book, is that the criticism must never be about being gay, but rather the hypocrisy (for example) of being a CGR (closeted gay repub) while concurrently supporting an anti-gay agenda. The deal is, unless a CGR is celibate other gays and lesbians are keeping their secret for them. If they actively work against our community then our community no longer has an obligation to keep that secret.

Complex stuff, and I appreciate the discussion your thread has started!

[blondeatlast]

22. That's kind of my thoughts as well, actually. I and most people who've

responded are reacting to the hypocrisy of pushing an anti-gay agenda, even if (in Mehlman's case) it is done passively.

And no matter if the issue starts out being about hypocrisy, it'll filter down in the MSM and the water coolers as to who in the Republican Party is gay, and the hypocrisy angle flies out the window. I'm not sure at that point if anything has been accomplished.

[LeftCoast]

23. We can't really help what Republicans make of the story

but here at DU, it's nice if we can stay on the moral high-ground.

The posts at DU that I object to usually come in the form of "OMG, Republican Mr. So'n'so's GAY!" as if that criticism alone is valid.

Heading out for a while, but I'll respond later if there's a follow up. :hi:

[blondeatlast]

30. Sadly, I realize I'm guilty, too.

So sorry, but I have learned my lesson in this thread.

[ultraist]

8. Only if they have promoted anti gay measures directly

This is to show the hypocrisy.

Are gays more responsible to promote gay rights than straights? That's like saying blacks need to clean up the mess that whites made and if they don't they are less worthy than the whites who don't.

Should Spike Lee be required to make ONLY films that promote black rights? Or is the white film maker just as responsible to?

I really don't think the victimized are more responsible to clean up the mess than those of us who have benefitted from it.

[blondeatlast]

11. So, say, Mehlman, if it's true, is off-limits?

I'm not aware of anything he's said personally or publicly, even, but he's certainly helped ush a gay-bashing agenda.

[Quakerfriend]

9. I say OK to outing. But, the outing should be with regard to

the broad mantel of "moral and family values" that they've claimed for their own. Please, do not limit it to sexual pref.

It should include those who hypocritically speak out against those who cheat on their spouses when they themselves have been doing just that for years (ie, Gingrich), rail against drug addicts like D. Strawberry (Rush Limbaugh), and against gambling (Bennett) etc, etc.

[blondeatlast]

12. Absolutely agreed. nt

[dave123williams]

10. Yes; especially because it's a matter of policy for them to enshrine...

...bigotry in the Constitution.

[Just Me]

15. But for the right-wing character assasination machine,...

,...I would NEVER have voted the way I did vote.

Bottom line: when you have predators in charge, EVERYONE gets hurt, including those who are associated merely by party.

It's a damned shame, but it's reality and I certainly would NEVER anticipate that ANY Republican would come running to my aid under similar circumstances.

It's just too damned bad that we can't take a united stand for eachother, because we are not only American but also because we are all human.

But, hey, I didn't do this "BRING IT ON" battle. The neo-fascists did. Doing whatever it takes to defend myself against that kind predatory politics is my right.

[noamnety]

17. I believe it should be a private matter

But the republicans apparently feel that people's sexual habits are a matter of public policy, and is just cause for economic and social discrimination.

This is one of those rare instances where I feel it necessary to defer to their superior wisdom. :evilgrin:

[LizW]

18. I hate outing

It disrespects the individual. However, in the circumstances where a right winger is out to his circle of friends and uses his power and connections for public "cover" AND exhibits hypocracy by promoting discrimination against other gay people, then, yes, outing is okay with me.

[jdots]

20. This isn't about sexuality.

This is about power,greed and deception.J.Edgar and Roy Cohn were disgusting turd maggots thier sexuality had little to do with thier agendas.Sex and religion are mixed with power mongering but are not allways at the core,if quilty these people should be tryed only for the crimes at hand.A hetrosexual discretion should be equall to a homosexual discretion.In other words we can't play thier bad guy game and believe in justice.And this coming from a guy who would like to beat the shit out of every neocon out there.

[katinmn]

24. I believe in exposing hypocrisy.

[rox63]

25. If they promote anti-gay causes

Hell, yes! Expose the hypocrites. Plus, it's fun to watch the wingnuts eat their own.

[IronLionZion]

26. I like Ken Mehlman, aside from his whorish support of Bush

He's a smart guy and doesn't come across as your typical knuckle-dragging RW lunatic. Flame me if you must, but it would be nice to have his brain on our side. He's a worthy adversary but I'm sure Chairman Dean will kick his ass anyway.

Once he spouts some anti-gay nonsense, then all bets are off. Out him then let his own party eat him alive. While we sit back and laugh at them.

[begin_within]

28. How exactly do you "prove" a person's sexual orientation?

[kcass1954]

29. I'm normally opposed to outing....

I think that is a highly personal decision that should be left entirely up to the individual involved.

However, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

And these days, allegations seem to be enough.

If the repukes want to play hard ball, let's play!

[No Exit]

31. Out them for promiscuity--not for homosexuality.

That way, you can get the promiscuous hetero ones, as well as the promiscuous homo ones. Fair is fair--and PROMISCUITY GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST THE "FAMILY VALUES" THAT ALL THEIR CONSTITUENTS CLAIM ARE SO VERY IMPORTANT!

Never forget: Larry Flynt only had to roll into the House, and Bob Livingston resigned as speaker before he'd even begun! I still laugh when I think about it.

[Spiffarino]

32. ECHO: It's the hypocrisy

I voted yes, even if it can't be "proven."

Let them have a taste of the hate that they have wrought on our GLBT brethren. By promoting Bush and his agenda, gay Republicans are endorsing the hate and intolerance that comes with it.

Take the gloves off, progressives. We are fighting for our very survival now.

[burn the bush]

33. yes, if they are openly anti-gay

if they are preaching the anti gay crap, then they are hurting the gay community. Then, I don't feel at all sorry if they are outed.

[Ian David]

35. I think we should actively try to entrap them in gay or straight adultery

If you are exceptionally attractive, find out where they go to eat or drink or play golf. Find an opportunity to seduce them. Make sure you get unequivocal evidence of their infidelity.

Within the limits of applicable laws, of course.

I don't mean you actually have to sleep with them.

For example, a videotape of Santorum on your living room couch, watching gay porn with you, and talking about his experience as a young man in truck stop restrooms with his hand on your thigh. That would be good.

Again, staying within the limits of applicable laws.

Maybe we can convince Larry Flynt to help-out again.