Bronstein Beat: Is It Ethically Wrong To "Out" Someone?

SFGate: Bronstein at Large ^ | 6/25/10 | Phil Bronstein

[SmithL]

Gawker may be the last place you'd expect to see writers expressing righteous indignation over ethical breaches, particularly journalistic ones.

But on Wednesday, the site's Hamilton Nolan slammed Lavender Magazinefor outing anti-gay Minneapolis pastor Tom Brock as a gay man. Lavender's sin, according to Nolan, was not about pulling back the curtain on hypocrisy, which has come to be considered justified over the years, but that the reporter went undercover to a 12-step meeting of gay men to get the story.

[SmithL]

[SmithL]

fyi

[Drango]

This thread is gay and so is Bronstein. But his wife is hot and not guilty.

[hinckley buzzard]

If you have to ask the question, you won't understand the answer.

[Spok]

A person’s privacy should be respected. Besides, if there’s nothing wrong with being gay, what does it prove? And why is it always the liberals who are always so darned obsessed with race, religion, and sexual orientation, unless it DOES matter? Should people be judged by those traits? (We know the libs think so, but won’t admit it.)

[Slings and Arrows]

Fed a Komodo Dragon lately, Phil?

[stayathomemom]

Is outing someone a HIPAA violation?

[rogue yam]

According to the collectivists, outing someone is always wrong except when doing so advances collectivism.

[Mamzelle]

I think going to a 12-step meeting to spy on somebody is reprehensible, whether drugs, alcohol, or whatever else.

[TruthFactor]

Ethics and homosexuality are mutually exclusive. So, why even ask the question?

[BenLurkin]

[SmithL]

And I think you’re absolutely right about that.

[Mamzelle]

I don't believe that. I don't understand homosexuality, but I see families who struggle with dealing with a homosexual child and there's no way I'd add to their unhappiness.

It looks to me much like an affliction than a choice. I'd be able to vote for a homosexual (heck, I think I did, more than once, in South Carolina) if there was an understanding that he/she should be about representing the interests of constituents and not be about advancing an agenda about sexuality.

[TruthFactor]

It looks to me much like an affliction than a choice.

I believe it can be both. I have not studied this closely by any means, but an educated guess would be that 1-2% of the population may have a biological component that would give them the "affliction". The rest are primarily young people(or began as) sucked into a perverse behavior by abuse and by a culture that says anything goes, and who are you to judge the "officially state accepted"(PC) behavior of anyone?

Either way, the vast majority of these people have extremely compromised moral principles, or none at all. They see a moral, ordered, healthy society as a threat to their primary personal identification and source of sexual gratification.

[fwdude]

Either way, the vast majority of these people have extremely compromised moral principles, or none at all. They see a moral, ordered, healthy society as a threat to their primary personal identification and source of sexual gratification.

Exactly right. First and foremost, homosexuality is about sexual libertinism, the obliteration of all rules related to sexuality. Without this underlying philosophy, their agenda crumbles.