BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
How far down the chain do you out?
nbcrusader said:
If they don't believe in gay marriage, then they don't believe in who they are?
Kieran McConville said: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.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
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.
nbcrusader said: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?
And why would that be, other than thinking homosexuality is wrong?nbcrusader said:
As we saw in the other thread, there is broad support for maintaining marriage between a man and a woman (red & blue states).
nbcrusader said:
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.
Irvine511 said: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?
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
BonosSaint said: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 said:I think that crossing the boundary of exposing someone's private life should be reserved for those undeniably and specifically doing the damage.
Moonlit_Angel said:
I think you've just sealed the argument for me. I can go with this line of thinking.
Angela
BonosSaint said: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.
nbcrusader said:
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 said: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.
United States Representatives
US Rep. Ed Schrock (VA)
US Rep. David Drier (CA)
US Rep. James McCrery (LA)
US Rep. Mark Foley (FL)
Senior Republican Staff
Jay Timmons - National Republican Senatorial Committee
Dan Gurley, National Field Director, Republican National Committee
Ken Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee
Jay Banning, Chief Financial Officer & Director of Administration, RNC
Senior Senate Staffers
Robert Traynham, Rick Santorum (PA)
Jonathan Tolman, James Inhofe (OK)
Kirk Fordham, Mel Martinez (FL)
Dirk Smith, Trent Lott (MS)
John Reid, George Allen (VA)
Paul Unger, George Allen (VA)
Linus Catignani, Bill Frist (TN)
Senior House Staffers
Jim Conzelman, Rep. Mike Oxley (OH)
Lee Cohen, Rep. Melissa Hart (OH)
Robert O'Conner, Rep. Peter King (NY)
Pete Meachum, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (FL)
Bush Administration Staffers
Israel Hernandez, office of Karl Rove and Assistant Secretary of Commerce
Jeff Berkowitz, Bush Liaison to Jewish Community
Local Elected Officials
Vincent Gentile, NY City Council
The rest of the gang...
Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City
Jennifer Helms-Knox, Judge in NC campaign staffer for Jesse Helms Campaigns
Armstrong Williams, Talk show host.
Matt Drudge, Headline writer
Steve Kreseski, Governor Bob Erlich of MD
Chip DiPaula, Governor Bob Erlich of MD
Lee LaHaye, the chief financial officer of the Concerned Women for America
John Schlafley, Eagle Forum legal staff
http://www.blogactive.com/
nbcrusader said:So long, right of privavy......
Under the headline "Arnold Quits the 'Fag Business," Radar mag's "Fresh Intelligence" columnSchwarzenegger3inside reports: "'Arnold has had a long association with rich gay men,' according to Wendy Leigh, author of Schwarzenegger: An Unauthorized Biography. 'When he moved to England [around the time of his first Mr. Universe title in 1967], John Dixey, a British businessman and well-known aficionado of muscle boys, was very, very kind to Arnold. You have to understand, before Arnold came on the scene, it was common currency that bodybuilders were less than macho—it was absolutely given and accepted that they supported themselves by catering to the tastes of wealthy gay men.'
"Another of Schwarzenegger’s early benefactors, Leigh says, was Paco Arce Gomez, a Spanish millionaire and renowned gay playboy. In a 1992 Spy magazine profile of the Conan the Barbarian star, Arce was credited as the lensman behind a series of photos [like the one above right] from the Austrian’s early days, showing him 'eating breakfast off of very fancy china wearing a tank top and tight underwear.' (Schwarzenegger also posed nude for homoerotic photog Robert Mapplethorpe at least three times in the seventies and famously appeared naked in a 22-photo spread in now-defunct gay rag After Dark.)
"Paul Barresi, an L.A.-based private investigator who claims P.I. Anthony Pellicano hired him before the 2002 election to 'look into' any compromising relationships the then-prospective candidate still had in the demimonde, said he was 'shocked that Arnold would turn his back on the very people who were obviously so helpful to him. In fact, Arnold even met his wife, Maria [Shriver], though his friendship with a gay member of Maria’s family.'
"The Governator has been careful to frame his veto as promoting the will of the people as evidenced by an outdated 2000 vote against same-sex nuptials (today public opinion is split down the middle), and has been mostly mum about his personal feelings on the issue. At least since his notorious 1977 interview with Oui magazine, in which he claimed to 'have absolutely no hang-ups about the fag business.' Apparently, it doesn’t pay like it used to," smirks Radar.