I Know! Keith Olbermann is GAY GAY GAY!

[donco6]

And before you fire up that keyboard, I want you to stop and think. Why is it that when someone suggests that some repulsive rightwinger is gay, dozens of people jump on that bandwagon and ride it til daylight? But when a person suggests that someone we all LIKE is gay, people are ready to blast that person with criticism - "how do YOU know?" "what makes you say that?" "he is NOT, and stop saying so!" No one EVER says that when someone suggests the repulsive RWer is gay.

Could it be that we are eager to believe the worst of our enemies, and the "worst" thing you can believe about someone is that he/she's GAY? Whereas we always want to think the best of our heroes, so naturally they CANNOT be gay?

Please, next time you're tempted to accuse some knuckledragging racist asswipe of being gay, consider your own motivation behind it.

[Maven]

1. K/R

;) ;) ;)

[thereismore]

2. You're right. Is that why YOU are now accusing someone of being gay? nt

[donco6]

4. Uh, I'm assuming you can read and understand sarcasm.

If not, just forget it.

[thereismore]

69. it helps if you used the :sarcasm: smiley. nt

[thereismore]

77. sorry donco6, I thought you were hurt by repukes being called gay, so

you thought it a good idea to call KO gay. I reacted to the obvious hypocrisy in that. I know now how you meant it. And btw, I wouldn't mind if KO were gay.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

5. Obviously, the point of this just flew over your head.

*sigh*

[Maven]

8. No, you missed the point on SO many levels

Clearly, since you think that saying someone is gay is an "accusation."

[badgerpup]

70. Yup...can't refute their logic? Don't agree? Don't like their party?

Accuse them of being gay!
:eyes: :dunce:
Don't we see it in the comment sections in so many blogs all the time?
What's almost the FIRST epithet that gets flung in a freeperoid retort?

Does 'faggot/homo/gay' ring any bells?

I don't go to Freeperville...but I do see other blogs and comment sections...and it always wonders me what sexual orientation has to do with anything...
especially for a faceless, anonymous bunch of words on a screen.
:wtf::freak:

[donco6]

73. Exactly.

Thankfully, it doesn't happen here nearly as often as in freeptardland, but it happens with enough regularity to be disturbing.

[terrya]

12. He's not saying that Keith Olbermann is gay...

he's making a point about using one's perceived sexual orientation and using that negatively.

[LostinVA]

76. The sarcasm tag really wasn't necessary, now was it?

[donco6]

81. Well, it didn't really fit anyway.

I didn't see the post as sarcasm, per se, so I purposely didn't include it - though I'm all about giving visual cues in a post that could be misconstrued. Sarcasm to me means that the poster actually disagrees with what he's posting. The post is stretched to absurdity to make a point. I didn't think I was doing that here. And, frankly, I thought the post was clear enough that even the most obtuse blunderer could figure it out.

And look how right I was! :sarcasm:

[tavalon]

86. I think it would be a high honor

if Keith Olbermann were gay. Or maybe it would mean absolutely nothing if he were gay except that he likes guys.

One only "accuses" if something like that is a bad thing. It ain't a bad thing, nor is it a good thing, it's just a thing.

[terrya]

3. AMEN - big recommendation

And thank you.

[gfnrob]

6. But then.......

If for instance, the chairman of a political party that wants to legislate discrimination against GLBT peoples, does this not point to the fact that they may not believe their own rhetoric, but only use it to further their real goal of reaping as much $ for their cronies as quickly as they can? Does this not make it a legit issue?

[donco6]

15. The problem is . . .

anyone can make that accusation with absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever, and EVERYONE will believe it. That is, when is the "chairman of a political party that wants to legislate discrimination against GLBT peoples". We are EAGER to believe it because, deep down, people seem to think that you can't be REAALLY evil unless you're gay yourself.

When it's legitimate hypocrisy - sure - expose away. But don't just chuck all evil types into our camp because it makes you feel better.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

22. What about the GOPers who are called gay without *ANY REAL EVIDENCE*

that they are gay?

If they are indeed gay, then it is fine to point out the hypocrisy, but I have seen MANY instances where Republicans are slammed as gay, with ZERO solid evidence to back it up. Whether straights realize it or not, that's homophobia. It's slamming a person by calling them gay with no reason. That insinuates that being "gay" is a bad thing.

[donco6]

31. EXACTLY.

Thanks haruka.

[Warpy]

7. You're missing the point

"Please, next time you're tempted to accuse some knuckledragging racist asswipe of being gay, consider your own motivation behind it."

The motivation behind exposing knuckledragging asswipes who are closeted, who beat their wives, who are pederasts, or who are drug addicts is exposing the HYPOCRISY of such men.

Those men are hurting all of us. THAT IS THE MOTIVATION BEHIND EXPOSING THEM!

[gfnrob]

11. Well said

[donco6]

29. Ah, but what makes you think that?

I mean . . . when someone is a world-class a-hole, such as Karl Rove for example, it's so ridiculously simple to get people to jump on the "Karl must be gay" bandwagon. Even with no proof of wife-beating, pederasty, drug addiction or homosexuality. People WANT to believe these people are "not like us" (i.e, straight). So, as a gay man, I find myself surrounded by the straight world rejects - anyone straight people don't want around. It happens over and over again.

True hypocrites - go for it. But this slapping a label on someone with no evidence just to separate them from the camp - that's wrong.

[Warpy]

85. Um, most of us do require evidence

So far, Karl has managed to keep his proclivities hidden. However, once they are discovered, expect us to pounce on them with great glee.

Until then he is, as you said, a world class asshole.

[JudyM]

110. I'll take any opportunity to pouncy on his doughy self. nt

[leftchick]

40. thank you

that is exactly the point.

[Bethany Rockafella]

9. I know this is sarcasm but you better hope the ladies in the

KOEB group pick up on that. LOL!

[aquart]

17. Hey, he can still donate that sperm.

Who cares what magazine he uses to do it.

[donco6]

18. Don't worry out there ladies! I KNOW KO is NOT GAY!!!

I would absolutely hate to dash their hopes! :)

[wellstone dem]

97. Thank you for that I was thinking "OH NO" but it was totally out of

self interest and my big dreamworld and tiny hope that a certain KO will join me in that world some day. :-).

[leftchick]

10. it is the hypocrisy

not the gayness. I thought that was pretty clear.

[Maven]

21. Not really.

The OP had to do with willingness to believe, not motive.

While one might say that the motive for outing someone is hypocrisy, people here tend to respond indignantly whenever the sexuality of someone we support is questioned, as if, in the words of another poster here, we were "accusing" someone of something.

[donco6]

23. Well, no. It's not.

Because people are just too quick to make the gay accusation. They do it with no inkling of proof. And yet it doesn't even take that much for people to gleefully pile on. Is that really "outing to expose hypocrisy" or is it "shoving the queer outside the straight camp to be fed upon by wolves?"

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. Guess not.

[LeftCoast]

51. I knew someone would trot out this line

:eyes:

[catmandu57]

13. I agree with your message

initially I was going to say so what, really that is my sentiment if someone is gay is not an issue with me we all are something.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. You're missing the point.

When some RW political character or pundit shill is "accused" of being gay, the problem is not with them being gay, but with them being gay while supporting a party and creed that has made homophobia a foundational plank of their platform.

It's not the "gay". It's the hypocrisy.

[ThomCat]

47. I think you're very wrong.

If it was just the hypocricy then the reaction would be, "so what." Instead being gay is accepted as a negative even by a lot of Democrats.

It's not just that dems are saying, "Well, they think it's bad, so let's show them how bad their own people are." It comes across as "See, you're one of those fags too."

[cui bono]

82. That may be how it comes across to you but perhaps it has to do with

your sensitivity to it. I'm not gay afaik, so I don't take it personally and I absolutely see it as just exposing the hypocrisy. If the Repubs weren't anti-gay there would be no issue, so you simply can't take that out of the equation. Yeah it sucks that they are, but that's simply not the reason for the outing. Perhaps you feel that way because you hear it so much in society that you're fine tuned to that. I would encourage you to keep your eye on the bigger picture and know that it's being done in an effort to help by exposing the Repubs for the shallow hypocrites that they are and in an attempt to bring them down. Personally I think if they're in there trying to work from the inside out and actually voting for and writing legislation to help gays then by all means leave them alone. But those are the ones that will be eaten by their own party for pushing pro-gay policy.

I've tried to think of an example of how it could work on a different issue, but they don't seem to work the same. A closet environmentalist who passes legislation that ruin the environment? Doesn't really work to out them as an environmentalist. Maybe the other way around? Someone who touts being for the environment but continuously votes against it? Surely you would want to know that, wouldn't you? It's still not the same situation.

I hope my post doesn't sound presumptuous. It's not meant to. I was just thinking that I could see that if you're gay you might be hypersensitive to the issue, that's all. Personally, I love me some gays. ;) :hug:

[ThomCat]

89. My "sensitivity" to it.

x(

If our supposed straight allies weren't anti-gay there wouldn't be an issue.

I agree with outing hypocrits, but the level of glee that straight people take in it clearly shows that it's more than just a blow against hypocrits. It's the joy of attacking someone for being "one of them."

Pretending that there isn't some level of glee at reducing someone to persecuted minority is just sickening. One of my biggest gripes is that our straight allies spend a huge amount of effort trumpeting who's gay, but spend no time at all supporting our civil rights. That, more than anything else, shows where their priorities are.
:grr:

But I suppose you're right. We should shut up and go along in the name of some mythical bigger picture. Eventually our straight allies will wisely grant us respect some day. We just have to wait for the all-wise, all-knowing straight people to tell us what to think and when to act. :eyes:

[Maven]

108. ...

"One of my biggest gripes is that our straight allies spend a huge amount of effort trumpeting who's gay, but spend no time at all supporting our civil rights. That, more than anything else, shows where their priorities are."

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Sapphocrat]

112. And I'll re-quote this line...

...in the hope that it sinks in for some folks:

"One of my biggest gripes is that our straight allies spend a huge amount of effort trumpeting who's gay, but spend no time at all supporting our civil rights. That, more than anything else, shows where their priorities are."

:applause:

[cui bono]

114. Wow. And here I was worrying that *my* post might be presumptuous

Sheesh. So you're saying I feel glee at "reducing someone to persecuted minority"? How do you know what I feel? How do you know if I'm supporting your civil rights. I do by the way, not that I need to prove it to you since you've already made up your mind about your straight allies.

I can say this, I'm taken aback at the anger of some of the gays on here. Now I missed all the threads about how New Jersey's law was going to effect the election so I don't know what was said in those. I would consider myself an ally, I certainly am not an enemy, and I've taken steps to help the gay community, but you are just turning me off with that post. If you're just going to exhibit that sort of angry response when someone is trying to have a dialogue with you then you just alienate people and hurt yourself.

I can't begin to empathise with you as I've not had to go through what you and other gays have, but that doesn't mean I'm not on your side. And I certainly never told you to shut up, though you make me feel like doing so. Not because you're gay, but because you're a rude son-of-a-bitch. And not about your fight for equal rights, but in these posts where you attack people for no reason.

[k_jerome]

16. Spot on analysis. Recommended. nt.

[Hamlette]

19. it's because I have a secret crush on KO

you know, old ladies' dreams being what they are. . . we hate that he'd be gay!

[donco6]

36. I think you're safe - dream on!

:)

[gully]

20. He lives with a young GIRL GIRL GIRL.

But, I do get your point point point.

[donco6]

24. Good good good.

:)

[KamaAina]

64. Beard beard beard.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[donco6]

65. LOL!

Good thing I was done with my coffee.

[wellstone dem]

98. Now that was funny! nt

nt

[Bluebear]

109. ha ha ha!

:rofl:

[WolverineDG]

101. She's over 18 18 18

She's a WOMAN WOMAN WOMAN!

dg

[gully]

106. TRUE TRUE TRUE.

LOL

[Jacobin]

25. I believe its because of the hypocrisy

That is why I think people treat that issue differently. Are you suggesting that KO is a homophobe? I don't think that would be accurate.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

39. Do you ever hear/read something and feel your brain physically twist?

Well, that just happened to me.

I don't know where you got the idea that the OP is suggesting Keith is a homophobe. He's pointing out the hypocrisy of the habit of some people who declare any Repub they don't like as gay, without any solid evidence. Keith Olbermann is just an example used to point out the idiocy behind such baseless accusations. No one is really calling Keith gay or a homophobe.

[genie_weenie]

27. The similar thing occurs with physical apperance and

RWers. Ann Coulter and Katherine Harris are ugly hags. Limbaugh and Hastert are fat bastards.

[donco6]

37. And THAT's another whole story. . . .

That I won't even get into.

[ThomCat]

49. Exactly! You definitely get it.

They're not just saying, "You're a hypocrit." They're saying, "You're a bad person because you are a hypocrit AND because you are gay/ugly/etc."

[genie_weenie]

107. I would hope more would understand.

I know that DUers understand it is a flawed argument and also bad form to attack someone's appearance, personal life because you don't agree with their positions.

It's what Rush needs to learn, you can disagree with MJ Fox's position but to insult him for his disease is reprehensible.

[robbedvoter]

28. "Are you admitting to being gay?" RWer to Barney Frank "No, I am

acknowledging being gay" Barney responded.

[abluelady]

30. I Don't See It Your Way At All

Imho, the only reason the gay issue is brought to the forefront with republicans is because their platform is anti-gays. The fact that they use "themselves" as a wedge for this country is outrageous. If it was found out that republican congresswomen were having abortions, that should be pointed out and "used" also to show their hypocrisy.

[donco6]

34. It's the "if it were found" part that's the problem.

The "gay" label is used as a slur against anyone we don't like. No one would fling "abortionist!" at someone unless they knew she'd had an abortion. But we do it to other people all the time with the gay label - even without any evidence at all. We just don't like them; hence, they must be GAY.

[robbedvoter]

True. It's only relevant is it contradicts public life, statements.

Whether a decent person is or isn't gay - simply not my concern (unless it's my own partner)

[uppityperson]

32. good. Thank you.

[jonnyblitz]

33. !!

:thumbsup:

[Nickster]

35. I get what you're saying, but I think you need to dig a bit deeper really.

I for one believe a lot of Republicans are actually closeted homosexuals, not all, but a good amount. Now this may not come across well on a post but I'll give it a shot.

I don't think that they are gay or "accuse" them of being gay because I think that's the worst thing to accuse them of. I for one don't hate gays at all.

I accuse them of being closeted homosexuals because in the conservative mind, everything is a test of will and following a black and white path. There is no in between, there is no gray area. In the conservative world, there is a father, a mother, and children etc. The father is at the top of the pyramid and he is straight, period end of story.

Homosexuality blows that perception for them, it crumbles their world. So when one of them realizes they are gay, they have to overcompensate. They beat themselves up mentally because in their conservative mind, it's all on them, they have to chose and if they succumb to being homosexual, they are weak.

Now what happens when you try real hard to not think about something? You think more and more about it until it is the only thing you can think about. I think we see this manifested in conservatives by the amount of detail and frequency in which they talk about homosexuals and homosexual sexual practices. I for one am straight and I don't know the first thing about homosexual practices like I've heard and seen some republicans describe. Why? Because it doesn't effect me in the slightest. I have no reason to look down upon homosexuals and what they do.

Conservatives are trying to repress who they are and what their desires are. They spew vile things about homosexuals because they are afraid of being one themselves and they don't want others to succumb to their own "weakness".

So in a nutshell, I "accuse" republicans of being homosexual because of the actions they take and it seems like an obvious sign post to me that they are repressing their own feelings. I believe republicans accuse others of being homosexual because it is the most vile thing in their mind and one of the worst attributes they can envision.

Another aspect is how they feel about women, they think women are second class as well and being homosexual to them is to be feminine.

Anyways, hope that made some sense.

[donco6]

38. And I see what you're saying, but. . .

. . . that's kind of a no-win situation isn't it? However wrongheaded they may be, if someone has moral objections to homosexuality I just take it on its face. I don't read into it that, if they oppose homosexuality they MUST be gay. As much as I hate what they say, I wouldn't want to chill free speech by floating this specter of "If you speak out against gays, you must be GAY!". That's the same as saying, "If you don't support the war in Iraq, you must be a terrorist!"

It's just too easy, Nickster. To say that people who strongly oppose homsexuality do it because they are gay just cheapens the discussion to the point where they become even MORE defensive and dangerous.

[Nickster]

44. Well there's a huge difference between being strongly opposed and being

a "freak", for lack of a better term, about it.

I'm not going to call someone who says simply that they are against homosexuality a homosexual. But when you get someone like, let's say, Rick Santorum, talking about man on dog sex?? That to me is an indicator that this man doesn't simply object to homosexuals, he's got some other internal issues going on. Those are the folks that I'll point out everytime. His attacks are cheapening the discussion and promoting hatred and violence. That to me is not ok.

I've had plenty of discussions with conservative folks about gay marriage and such and heard fairly reasonable, logical reasons why they object. These people that I've had discussions with object to it, but don't speak with so much hatred about gay people. They don't think they are the devil, etc.

[K8-EEE]

41. KO being gay messes with my wine-soaked delusional fantasy life....

...so stop it! Anybody but KO or George Clooney, I pretty much don't care.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

43. Don't worry, he's not saying KO is gay.

Your wine-soaked delusional fantasy life can resume.

:thumbsup:

[K8-EEE]

60. Consider it resumed, although coffee-soaked until this evening

Thanks!

[Ian David]

42. Maybe that's what some people did in high school. But...

I hope that is not what is being done here.

I've accused Rick Santorum of being gay, for example, not because I think "gay" is a terrible thing to accuse someone of being. And not just because I hate him and he's a knuckledragging asswipe. I've accused Santorum of being gay because:

1) He registers with a high Kinsey Score on my Gaydar (do you have to be gay to have gaydar?)
2) I think the lady doth protest to much
3) The more loudly anti-gay someone is, the more likely they are to solicit undercover cops for gay sex.
4) We rejoice in the irony and triumph of exposing people for actually being that which they claim to despise.

Imagine living in Germany around 1940, and finding out that the local Gestapo commander had a Jewish grandmother, and then watching the same person who persecuted you being subject to the same treatment her perpetrated?

Imagine an anti-gambling activist caught cheating at cards in a casino?

Imagine an anti-abortion activist being forced to admit they had an abortion... after years of anti-abortion protesting?

Imagine an anti-gay activist being outed as being gay?

These things happen every day.

Usually to Republicans... and almost always to "Conservatives."

I rejoice in them.

I bask in the schadenfreude.

Maybe there are some around here who are motivated differently when they label their enemies as gay.

While I admit that my motivations are not exactly pure-- rejoicing in the destruction of another person, even when they're a hypocrite, isn't the most noble aspect of human nature-- it is not because I consider "gay" to be a smear or a generic club with which to hit someone.

But I know that's how it was done in High School.

Anyone and anything that was disliked was generically labeled as "gay." Having to play volleyball was "gay." The English teacher who gave you a "C" on your paper was "gay." Salisbury Steak AGAIN? That's so "gay." Look, that kid fell down the stairs... he's so "gay."

I hope that we here at DU have moved past that.

I think we have.

If you see an instance that makes you think otherwise, then call them on it. If you're right, I'll back you up. If you see me do it, then call me on it, too. I won't take it personally.

[LeftCoast]

56. With all due respect...

Your reasoning is somewhat suspect here. Let's translate your points:

You think Santorum is gay because

1) He looks gay to you
2) He doesn't like gays
3) He is politically active against gays
4) We love calling someone who fits 1-3 gay.

I hope you're not a lawyer cuz that's certainly not a strong case you've built there...

[Ian David]

88. You forgot Number 5

5) It would make me do the Happy Dance if anti-gay Rick Santorum turned out to actually be gay.

I'm not so much "building a case" for Rick Santorum being gay, as constructing a framework to justify my own wishful thinking.

But that's ancillary to my main point.

I was using to illustrate labeling someone as gay not because we think being gay is bad, but because they say being gay is bad.

[LeftCoast]

93. So if I understand your argument correctly

you would advocate attacking a member of the KKK as African American?

[Ian David]

104. You never know WHAT color they are under the hoods...

How many times have I told you to wash your hands after a weekly cross burning?

[cally]

45. I'm very uncomfortable with discussing whether any public person

is gay/straight/bi. For the most part, it doesn't matter to me except it sort of dashes any fantasies I might have if I find out someone is gay. However, I find it repulsive that someone like Mehlman uses homophopia for political gains and hides that he is Gay. I do think that he is fair game but I don't really know the moral or political line. I agree that it becomes very homophobic when we react with glee when our opponents are outed then react with outrage when are friends are.

[NVMojo]

46. who gives a shit? I love the man! He's a patriot!

[stop the bleeding]

48. BFD???

he still does a great job

[Avalux]

50. Not about that at all. It's the hypocrisy.

When a Republican who has stood up and demonized gays is found to be one himself; we should all be outraged by the hypocrisy. I was married to a gay man (unknowingly) - and he was an asshole too. The fact that he was an asshole made the divorce messy and screwed up our daughter; not his sexual orientation.

[LaPera]

52. Correctamundo! Obvious some people don't know the difference and prefer to pontificate about

shit they know NOTHING about!!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

54. He's not pontificating.

He's referring to people being eager to smear anyone deemed "evil" as gay with NO REAL EVIDENCE to back it up. That is homophobia, not pointing out hypocrisy.

:eyes:

[donco6]

63. Oh I know the difference.

Hypocrisy is literally "behind a mask". The implication is that the mask hides your true nature, which is in direct conflict with the one that you show. That's evil, no doubt about it. And when it's exposed, there's no question in my mind that the hypocrite deserves everything he/she gets.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the willingness to join in with someone making a baseless accusation (ala, KO is GAY GAY GAY). When it's someone we don't like, the facts can be damned - of COURSE he's gay! That' explains everything! But when it's someone we LIKE, it's a different story. Why do you suppose that is? It couldn't be cause we (hypocritically) believe that being gay is disgusting, so we have no problem seeing it association with our enemies. And when it's associated with our friends, we react negatively - "No, where's your proof?" we say. We don't need proof when it comes to enemies (Look at the post on Santorum for example).

So perhaps you're right, it IS all about hypocrisy. Just not in the way you're suggesting.

[RaleighNCDUer]

100. And I think you are wrong.

It's not a matter of "smearing anyone we think is evil". Have you seen anything saying we think Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond or John Ashcroft or Negroponte are gay? No. Because even though they are or were all strongly anti-gay, there's nothing about them that suggests they are closeted gays. And them not being gay doesn't make them any less homophobic/racist/hypocritical/what-have-you in their own way. But there are surely a good number of Roy Cohens out there, being publicly rablidly anti-gay while being gay themselves. And I strongly suspect that most the 'gay' rumors are started by people who actually know.

I personally don't believe in outing people unwillingly, but concede that exceptions may be made if those people have made homophobia a foundational plank in their political platform.

[donco6]

102. Again, this is not about "outing."

It's about implying someone is gay when you have no basis, simply for the thrill of applying a derogatory label on someone you don't like. Outing is another topic altogether.

[ThomCat]

79. Right, because GLBT people know nothing about

persumed Gayness being used as a weapon. :eyes:

And I suppose you're the expert?

[LeftCoast]

57. Those aren't the republicans we're talking about

The problem is that at DU, Bush is gay. Rush is gay. Rove is gay, ad infinitum. No evidence, just the smear. Then as cover, people say "Oh, but it's the hypocrisy". Well, there's only hypocrisy if they are ACTUALLY gay. If they're not gay, they're just bigots.

[Duncan Grant]

78. Same old, same old.

I saw a post today that called Rove and Rush 'cocksuckers'.

Whoa.

[donco6]

80. Oh yeah.

(touching nose with finger).

[LeftCoast]

84. I'm sure they were only pointing out "the hypocrisy"

Seriously though, I hope you alerted on that.

:hi:

[donco6]

58. "is found to be one himself" - no problem.

That's hypocrisy, as you say.

But there are MANY MANY times that people post here, flinging out "{repugnant person} is GAY!" with *no evidence whatsoever.* And people jump on it gleefully because, well, the guy is repugnant. And so slapping gay on him doesn't really do any damage, right? My point is, when people do THAT, it's equating gayness with repugnancy. And that's homophobic.

[Avalux]

62. I get it (thanks for the clarification).

Baselessly accusing ANYONE of being gay and intending it as a smear is wrong. Period.

[ThomCat]

83. It's not just the hypocrisy.

Gayness is presumed whenever someone opposes GLBT people, whether there is evidence or not. It's as if Straight people are denying all responsibility for the homophobia, blaming it on Gay people. "He hates gay people, he must be one of yours."

That's like White people insisting that all racists must be black, or all sexists must be women. Just because someone is homophobic doesn't make them gay. And it's offensive when we keep hearing over and over that every homophobe is probably gay.

On the occassions that someone really is gay and is homophobic, it gets whipped up into a celebration. "See? See? It really is gay people who are responsible for homophobia!"

I'm sick of straight people pushing responsibility off on us for what straight people are unwilling to face.
:grr:

[cboy4]

53. Those who don't understand this point....you're dumb enough to

join the military, as Kerry would say.

JUST A JOKE :sarcasm:

[Fovea]

55. badge and mantra

Gay gay gay gay gay gay...
Lenny Bruce did a comedy routine in the sixties
where he said the word 'nigger' over and over again.

And when he got to the end of the routine, he said
that he was doing it to take the power out of the word
so that when some racist said it to a little boy
it couldn't make him cry.

Outing someone is an accusation. And as such
idle minds can do it all day long.
Accusations supported by evidence carry weight
shotgun attacks carry far less.

That is to say, they generally resonate with those already
inclined to hate or distrust.

I am not disagreeing with you as much as I am trying to say
that I read well crafted, cogent arguments on both sides
of the issue. I think my ambivalence comes from being falsely
accused of a crime once and from my feeling that there is little room
in public life for self-hating hypocrites of any persuasion.

[LeftCoast]

59. Bravo donco6! Standing O from me!

Excellent OP and follow up posts!

K & R!!

[Carni]

61. I could care less if he's gay or not

That's his gig.

[elehhhhna]

66. If that's sarcasm, it's a very lame attempt. If not,

it's just a plain old lie.

So what is it?

[donco6]

68. I guess it's a lame attempt then.

Sorry to have bothered you. You can move along.

[elehhhhna]

72. cheer up, donco6...

Done it myself a few times. :dunce:

[ThomCat]

91. You clearly missed his sarcasm is that last post.

His OP wasn't lame at all. I think you're the one who missed the point.

[elehhhhna]

92. could be.

[KamaAina]

67. I only indulge in the "(insert RWer) is gay" thing

if s/he promotes hateful anti-gay bigotry while being closeted. That kind of hypocrisy needs to be, um, exposed.

[donco6]

71. And (again), if you have proof of hypocrisy, fine.

But to slap a gay label on someone just because you find them repugnant, that's not fine.

Sometimes people are just plain evil. And they don't have to be gay to have that label slapped on them.

[ThomCat]

95. The hypocrisy is an excuse

to revel in how low someone is for supposedly being gay.

When people talk about Santorum must be gay, they're implying that straight people can't be homophobic. They're implying that homophobia is yet another flaw that gay people possess. They're blaming all the problems of homophobia on us. It's a type of Blaming the Victim.

There is always an excuse that supposedly makes it okay to blame the victims.

[cui bono]

74. The motivation behind most outing of Repub congresspersons is hypocrisy

not to insult them. These are the people masquerading as straight while they work to pass legislation that curtails gay rights. They should be outed imho. Or they should get out of public service. They have no business benefitting in their career by passing as anti-gay and perpetuating a negative view of gays and hurting gay rights. This has been discussed at length in the few threads I've read in the short time I've been regularly reading this board and this is simply not the same thing as just hurling an insult. It's much more than that.

I agree though, that calling someone gay shouldn't be an insult and it bothers me every time I hear it done for that purpose. Just as it bothers me when a man is said to do something like a girl or woman and that is meant to be an insult.

[donco6]

75. Yes and Yes.

I agree - and your last paragraph is exactly what I'm referring to - even more so. "Girly" man, "fat" "retard" - we use all these as derogatory terms and they are all hurtful. The "gay" thing is more down home for me, so that's why I posted to try to raise people's awareness.

[ThomCat]

96. I strongly disagree!

Because they're called Gay even when there's no evidence that they are. i.e., even when there's no evidence of hypocrisy.

There is no real reason to suspect that Santorum is gay, so he wouldn't be a hypocrit, just a bigot.

But by calling him gay and claiming it's because he's a hypocrit people are giving themselves an excuse to insult gay people. They are blaming him on us so that straight people can't be responsible for homophobia. They're projecting their opinions of gay people.

[cui bono]

116. If you're calling someone gay that's not gay it isn't outing them is it?

Not sure what you're disagreeing with since I basically said the same thing you did as far as not calling someone gay just to use it as an insult. Calling a straight person gay to insult them is wrong since being gay isn't anything to be insulted.

[grizmaster]

87. I always figured he was bi

KO obviously has enough love to go around for all of us.

[lapauvre]

90. Surprise. You are wrong in your assumption.

I think, as well as feel, that anyone's gayness, right or left wing, dem or rep, male or female, is their own damned business. I do not consider it an issue in any political area.

I do feel that (because the Republicans are making a big issue about homosexual rights, homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption of children, AND the religious right wingers are accusing them of being sinners, immoral, evil, hated, an abomination unto the LORD) when a loud-mouthed right winger is found to be gay, I feel a great deal of revulsion for his/her hypocrisy.

Being gay is a subject best to be discussed by those who are gay, and not interfered with by those who are totally ignorant of their concerns.

lap

[ThomCat]

99. "Being gay is a subject best to be discussed by those who are gay"

And your point here is? Do you even know the author?

What makes you say he's wrong in his assumption? many of us agree with him. Perhaps you're the one who's wrong in yours?

Yes, the hypocrisy is an issue in the cases where a gay person is outed. But that does not address all the accusations of someone being gay simply because people want it to be true. That is homophobia.

[LostinVA]

105. The OP is gay n/t

[Arkana]

94. Wait, what?

I'm confused.

[libhill]

103. Frankly,

I don't give a rats ass whether a person is gay, bi-sexual, straight, whatever. I do give a rats ass when a political party uses gay bashing as a political tool, even when many members of their Congress (and it IS their Congress) are gay themselves. It's the hypocrisy that gets to me. If they frankly admit that they are gay, or at least don't make an issue of it, (if they don't feel comfortable with the prospect of "coming out"), then I have no problem with that. AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT PEDOPHILES. Pedophilia is quite a different issue. Otherwise, an individuals sexual orientation is no body's damned business.

[JudyM]

111. My first reaction was that KO's being gay would explain his passion for exposing

the truth behind the news, including bringing out news that isn't otherwise reported. I thought it was a strong positive, in other words.

BTW, this is one of the more interesting discussion threads I've read on DU - kudos for inspiring this!

[Sapphocrat]

113. K&R!

:thumbsup: :applause: :thumbsup:

[and-justice-for-all]

115. I would rather be called GAY then Republican.!

[DIKB]

117. AMEN!

[NMMNG]

118. Kick

:kick:

Because I'm sick of the "Do you think so and so is gay?" posts.

[casus belli]

119. Who cares? I didn't know "awesome guy" was a sexual orientation. n/t

[donheld]

120. Some of us say "how do YOU know?"

Thinking if you really know we can hit on them. :evilgrin: