the politics of "outing" - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-05-2005, 08:37 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 02:19 AM
How far down the chain do you out?
__________________

__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 09:52 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 10:19 PM
i have no problem with exposing hypocracy. (that wasn't meant to be a reply to the post above mine, just a general statement on the whole thread).
__________________

__________________
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 10:00 PM   #33
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 05:19 PM
many people do, it seems.



this could be a thread on it's own. i wonder what the general view on that is.

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 10:15 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 04:19 PM
If people's private lives really don't matter, then what business on earth do any political figures have saying what the government should or should not proscribe? That's the nub of it, right?

No, if someone wants to make a living persecuting gay people, they deserve anything they get.
__________________
Kieran McConville is online now  
Old 10-05-2005, 11:26 PM   #35
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


If they don't believe in gay marriage, then they don't believe in who they are?
The point I was trying to make. Is that the only reason people want homosexual marriage to be illegal is that they believe in some interpretation of religion that tells them it's a sin. That's it's wrong. So for any homosexual to truly believe it should be outlawed is claiming they are wrong, and what they do is wrong.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-05-2005, 11:40 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Kieran McConville
If people's private lives really don't matter, then what business on earth do any political figures have saying what the government should or should not proscribe? That's the nub of it, right?

No, if someone wants to make a living persecuting gay people, they deserve anything they get.
If an individual runs for office and does not support changing laws to allow for gay marriage, they are deemed persecutors and the rights you would normally extend and argue for are thrown out the window?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 11:45 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


The point I was trying to make. Is that the only reason people want homosexual marriage to be illegal is that they believe in some interpretation of religion that tells them it's a sin. That's it's wrong. So for any homosexual to truly believe it should be outlawed is claiming they are wrong, and what they do is wrong.
As we saw in the other thread, there is broad support for maintaining marriage between a man and a woman (red & blue states). The support goes well beyond what can be characterized as the voice of Christians who read Scripture as saying that homosexual behavior is a sin.

And even if you deem the individual wrong on a public statement, does that mean the individual's rights are forfeited?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 12:41 AM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
As we saw in the other thread, there is broad support for maintaining marriage between a man and a woman (red & blue states). The support goes well beyond what can be characterized as the voice of Christians who read Scripture as saying that homosexual behavior is a sin.

And even if you deem the individual wrong on a public statement, does that mean the individual's rights are forfeited?
According to polls, over half of the nation believes in creationism over evolution, so I certainly think you can't brush aside the influence that Christian pseudothought has on society.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 12:54 AM   #39
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


As we saw in the other thread, there is broad support for maintaining marriage between a man and a woman (red & blue states).
And why would that be, other than thinking homosexuality is wrong?
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

The support goes well beyond what can be characterized as the voice of Christians who read Scripture as saying that homosexual behavior is a sin.

I'd like to see evidence of that. I would think any secular vote against would be purely homophobia, and not some sanctity reasoning. For I haven't heard one person claim so.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-06-2005, 01:52 AM   #40
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
he has made it his business to make the personal lives of people matter -- and, at the end of the day, don't personal lives matter, since society rewards aspects of personal life like marriage, which is the public sanction, recognition, and appreciation of one's private life -- then isn't he subject to the same standards?
A very good point. I see your side of the argument, can agree with the thoughts being put forward here, because hypocrisy does tend to bug me.

At the same time, though, I also tend to be of the belief that a person's private life should remain such. If they want to share a part of their life with the public, they should do so when they feel comfortable doing it. And if a person is spouting off homophobic views and yet is secretly gay, that kind of thing DOES tend to catch up with them eventually-lies and hypocrisy generally do have a way of coming back to bite the liar/hypocrite in the butt. So I wouldn't need to expose them-they'll trip up on their own eventually.

So I'm kinda on the fence, I guess.

to anitram and Angela Harlem's posts, by the way.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 10-06-2005, 04:29 AM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 02:19 AM
I think outing is a fair technique against someone who is taking a high profile position against the civil rights of gays, a political or religious or whatever opportunist who deliberately panders to homophobia to further his own reputation or career. The worst offenders. Those who are powerful enough to affect those rights through legislation, or whose positions carry enough moral authority (or moral justification) that they can whip their followers into a homophobic frenzy.

I am completely uncomfortable with Melon's position on staff. Legislators' staffs worked on hundreds of issues, 99% of which do not deal with gay rights or lack thereof. While some may disagree with the principles of a staffer for working for such a legislator (or consider him a traitor), I am not sure that his "actions" warrant outing. It becomes then not a political tool, but a vindicative gesture. I think that crossing the boundary of exposing someone's private life should be reserved for those undeniably and specifically doing the damage.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 10:44 AM   #42
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 01:19 AM
while i'm still not sure, since most people tend to be against outing, i'll post some pro-outing thoughts:



Quote:
The simple standard should be that it is proper to discuss, report on and ask about the sexual orientation of public figures—and only public figures—when relevant to a larger story (and only when relevant). In that respect, Cynthia Nixon would actually not pass muster as much some antigay members of Congress do. Congressman David Dreier, for example, is someone reporters should now be scrutinizing heavily, asking the question every time he shows up in public, and reporting on the hypocrisy of his life. Dreier, as I wrote in this column two weeks ago, is the California Republican and major George W. Bush booster (throughout the convention the Bush campaign put him on tv as much as it could) who has voted against gay rights for years—from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to the Marriage Protection Act just two months ago. There have been rumors about the unmarried 50-something congressman for years, and yet when I asked him about his sexual orientation at the Republican National Convention, he gave me the Cynthia Nixon response, refusing to deny that he was gay but refusing to confirm it.

That response, however, didn’t land him on the front pages of the papers in his district the way Nixon was splashed across the front page of the New York Post. In fact, last week, Mark Cromer, features editor at Hustler magazine, which reportedly plans a sexual expose of Dreier for November, charged that the press in Dreier’s San Gabriel Valley district is protecting the congressman. Cromer, a former reporter for a string of conservative newspapers in the Valley, told Doug Ireland in the LA Weekly that the papers have covered up the details of a relationship that Dreier has had with his chief of staff, Brad Smith. The CEO of the company that owns the papers, Dean Singleton, is a major contributor to the Republican Party.

Now, don’t you think if we can hear about the lesbian love life of Miranda from Sex and the City, we should also know all about the true identities of the hypocrites on Capitol Hill?

-- MichaelAngelo Signorille
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-06-2005, 11:48 AM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
I think outing is a fair technique against someone who is taking a high profile position against the civil rights of gays, a political or religious or whatever opportunist who deliberately panders to homophobia to further his own reputation or career. The worst offenders. Those who are powerful enough to affect those rights through legislation, or whose positions carry enough moral authority (or moral justification) that they can whip their followers into a homophobic frenzy.

I am completely uncomfortable with Melon's position on staff. Legislators' staffs worked on hundreds of issues, 99% of which do not deal with gay rights or lack thereof. While some may disagree with the principles of a staffer for working for such a legislator (or consider him a traitor), I am not sure that his "actions" warrant outing. It becomes then not a political tool, but a vindicative gesture. I think that crossing the boundary of exposing someone's private life should be reserved for those undeniably and specifically doing the damage.
I think this most closely articulates the way I feel about it, the more I think about it. Staffers are generally more vulnerable than those to whom they report and are often young and caught up in the system, just trying to do their jobs. I was very conflicted in a job I had once and when my boss was called to testify before the Ethics Committee I certainly would not have wanted to be judged in my lowly position for his actions. I just needed the job. I did eventually resign, though.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 02:10 PM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
I think that crossing the boundary of exposing someone's private life should be reserved for those undeniably and specifically doing the damage.
I think you've just sealed the argument for me. I can go with this line of thinking.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 10-06-2005, 02:15 PM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


I think you've just sealed the argument for me. I can go with this line of thinking.

Angela
But that is now a subjective judgment as to who is doing what damage. If I can make a reasonable case for "damage" - the door is now wide open to political use of one's private life.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com