Posted on 11/30/2006 3:00:10 PM PST by DeweyCA
There is much debate in the gay community on the subject of “outing”; that is, disclosing someone’s homosexuality without his consent. As with most debates, there are two extreme positions and a middle position. On one extreme are those who think anyone is fair game, and no one has any business keeping his true sexuality under wraps. The other extreme believes it’s a very personal matter, and “outing” is absolutely wrong. Besides which, many of these absolutists find the practice counter-productive in their quest for gay rights. There is, however, a growing in-between position which says “outing” is justified if the person being exposed is a hypocrite. For example, if a crusading moralist or an anti-gay marriage Congressman is leading a secret gay life, it’s okay to make that public.
I would be in favor of that middle position if we could apply it across the board. In other words, if we’re going to “out” hypocrites, let’s go all the way. If a Congressman opposes school choice for his poorer constituents while sending his own kids to private schools, let’s “out” him. If a politician or celebrity complains our taxes aren’t high enough while he hires the most aggressive accountants to minimize his own taxes, or takes questionable deductions to do the same, by all means, let’s “out” him. Minimum wage? Illegal immigration? Does their public stand match their private actions when it comes to their own domestic help? If not, “out” ‘em.
What about those who want to legislate diversity in our schools and clubs and organizations and work places? Great, but let’s check out their offices and club memberships and circles of acquaintance and make sure they don’t need to be “outed” as well. Let’s take a close look at our rich members of Congress (and there are a lot of them) who speak out about a middle class crisis, and let’s be sure they (and their family business entities) treat all their employees with the same generosity they would demand of others (salary, benefits, health care, etc.). Otherwise, “out” they go!
Let’s make sure Second Amendment opponents (or their bodyguards) don’t own guns. Let’s be certain those who complain about executives’ wages apply the same standards to themselves. Let’s change the rules to make every law Congress passes apply to its members as well. If not, “out”, “out”, “out”.
Let’s “out” the Hollywood star who lectures us on the environment while living in multiple homes, flying in private jets and riding around in limousines, or the athlete who rails against government neglect of the poor while lending his name to $100-plus basketball shoes marketed at that same audience.
Most people keep more than their sexuality in the closet. So, if we’re going to open that door to root out hypocrisy, let’s open them all.
any hypocrite using any sort of public bully-pulpit deserves to be exposed.
Pat for President!
Wow. I am totally impressed by him. I knew he was conservative but this post is great! He's pro-life isn't he? I've been so sick over the last 20 some years seeing s.o.b.'s like Michael Moore, Al Franken, etc. get in front of some interviewer (like Dan Rather) and claim they want to pay 70% tax. B.S.! The interviewer nods his stupid head and they both shed a tear that the evil Republicans have made them keep more of their money than they want to. It just infuriates me.
I tell my liberal friend that it was Michael Moore that first inspired me towards conservatism because of the absolute blatant hypocrisy that he shows.
Pat for President!
and Vanna for Vice.
An unbeatable pair.
Bump
The "middle" position on outing is to do it if it gains a political advantage or damages a political foe. It is purely vicious and, of course, fits the stereotype of the character of the public homosexual.
This guy just make a whole lot of sense.
Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints
I wonder how many federal government employees have a private investment retirement account available to them? Oh, all of them.
Read the rest of the article.
The reason one does not "out" hypocrites such as the ones Sajak details is that it doesn't accomplish anything because they don't care.
Okay. Thanks.
Better wake up to the reality that privacy is an illusion.
The logical fallacy these activists make is thinking that by spotlighting someone who doesn't live up to the ideals he espouses they somehow besmirch the ideals themselves.
The part about school choice is obviously a slam against Clinton crusdading for the public schools and then sending Chelsea to the ultra expensive Sidwell friends, and telling the few media who dared to question to shut it.
As much as I dislike Jimmy Carter, he did send poor Amy to an inner city DC school--he put his money where his mouth is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.