Jump to content

Moral Quandry


Recommended Posts

I can understand someone not revealing they are gay for a lot of reasons and I respect that. On the other hand if they are closeted and speak out against LBGT people then they deserve a good ass whuppin!

I assume you are not speaking about the tabloid press outing people. Those idiots have no moral compass and would say anything or anyone is gay if there was money in it. Just wishing someone was gay because they are terrible people to begin with is absurd and speaks to a level of bigotry I don't want to address here.

FT, I assume the moral quandry you mention would be for the openly gay person who might reveal the gay issue in another. But those who speak out with vile words and nasty innuendo about gay people are often terribly immoral in their behavior, and those are just the straight individuals. To deflect the perception of gay from oneself by speaking ill of the entire segment of the population that is genuinely gay is more than immoral, it is sick.

People like that need intervention of the mental health kind...but only after the ass whuppin. :spank:

Link to comment

It's a moral quandry that I face in writing my most recent story. I didn't want to go into detail because I don't want to spoil it. I am not happy with the decision I and my protagonist made because I can see both sides. Being older, I remember what it was like when privacy was important. I still respect privacy. But... I also hate hypocrisy. To further complicate things, the story takes place in 1970 (maybe someday I'll write something that doesn't need to be posted in the Historical section at Nifty). Today, I would have no problem if I were a crusading journalist outing someone who had just gotten caught in an airport mensroom with a too wide stance in the stall if that person had co-authored the Defense of Marriage Act. But, I do respect privacy, so I might also feel guilty while destroying his life. But, I agree with you, Chris. I remember reading debates on this in the 90's in The Advocate and there was a great crisis of conscience in the gay community. I think it was after Pete Williams was outed, then the Pentagon spokesman during the First Gulf War and now judicial correspondent for NBC News.

Dude was in journalism for years. He might have thoughts on this. Though I'm not just speaking about journalists.

Link to comment

This is my take on the issue.

If it's a guy like Larry Craig or Ted Haggard, have at it. They are what are called public actors. They make their living in front of people and invite closer scrutiny than the private citizen. Public actors can be all sorts of things: politicians, preachers, writers, celebrities and executives of businesses and organizations. Their hypocrisy can effect a great many people so they are really asking for it. :spank:

If it is a private citizen, I leave them alone. Period. Their influence is narrow and they have a right to be as screwed up as they want to be. :wacko:

Link to comment

Hypocrites who deliberately destroy the human rights of others deserve to be revealed. I think it is appropriate to give them the opportunity to come out, but if they refuse, or should that be, when they refuse, then the collateral damage is of their own doing.

Public figures should likewise be encouraged to come out, but unless they are being anti-gay in their public conduct, I wouldn't out them.

Recently, there have been some artists and athletes who have come out as gay and others who have proclaimed themselves as LGBTQ allies even though they themselves are straight. I like the idea of encouraging more of those allies to publicly support us.

In a room full of strangers, I usually find a way to out myself within the first 10 minutes, but it's easy at my age.

Link to comment
I assume you are not speaking about the tabloid press outing people. Those idiots have no moral compass and would say anything or anyone is gay if there was money in it. Just wishing someone was gay because they are terrible people to begin with is absurd and speaks to a level of bigotry I don't want to address here.

Actually, I've heard National Enquirer gossip editor Mike Walker comment on this before, where he's said that his newspaper has a strict policy not to out gay celebrities unless they carry on their affairs in public. If it's a guy cheating on their wives -- with a man or a woman -- that's considered fair game. They have published photographs of married actor John Travolta kissing a man on a boarding ramp next to an airplane (also seen by other people), but it's not like they frequent gay nightclubs and bars and start publishing lists of the names of famous people who were there.

They do delight in publishing stories like outting self-loathing gay politicians who campaign against gay rights, while getting away with gay affairs in their personal lives. To me, I think coming out is a personal choice, but when it comes to something like this, I say all bets are off and screw the guy. The infamous Larry Craig scandal (U.S. Senator from Idaho, who tried to come on to a cop in an airport restroom, who later said his foot knocked the other guy's foot because he "had a wide stance") is a prime example.

The reality is that a lot of what the scandal rags publish actually is true. The sad thing is, they put a very mean, negative spin on the facts, and present them in a way that's sensationalized and obnoxious. But they don't make up stuff from scratch. I used to dismiss the tabloids until the Enquirer revealed that celebrities like Rock Hudson and Tony Perkins were dying of AIDS (which was initially dismissed). And I also remember when they claimed that actor Michael Landon had less than two months to live, and Landon went on the Tonight Show to deny it; he was dead in six weeks.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...