I also think this tactic will eventually backfire.

Comment by just me — October 18, 2006

I live in a Southern “BIble” state and I disagree they are that stupid and they continue to fall for that nonsense. Lack of health care ,jobs,etc thats not an issue but anyone who preaches “Gods values” they vote for.

If all else fails, you should be outed for your cruelty. Hell, they should throw you out of gaydom.

Larry LA

Finally, outing someone for purely partisan political purposes is a downright shitty thing to do.

This is but one instance so far, we know of a lot more but will hold off right now, that is, until he stops posting on the web.

Yes.

Even though I detest Ahdimejad as a bigot, a racist, a lunatic, and an anti-Semite, outing is wrong. I can demonstrate that he is incorrect without having to root through his garbage cans.

In addition, by outing a gay person in Iran, I would be condemning him to death. I dislike the man, but my dislike is not sufficient grounds to have him killed.

Furthermore, Ian, if one attempts to justify outing using the moral relativism of “hypocrisy”, the problem with doing so becomes immediately apparent…..”hypocrisy” means different things to different people.

For instance, I can show you an example in which the person involved was clearly hypocritical — they were engaged in an activity which confirmed that they were gay, but did so in secret, hiding their homosexuality and maintaining a public image as a scion of an influential institution that flatly condemned and opposed homosexuality.

But I have yet to see gay activists support his outing.

And whenever I am tempted to resort to something similar, I remember his case…….and that my actions against someone else would justify the wrong that was done to him.

No. But I also know that most of the liberal abominations you mention are ones that I would oppose on general ethical principles, the principles on which most of my political beliefs are based. I wouldn’t need to try them out and examine the results to know that they were wrong.

Gay marriage, however, is a bit tricker. Why? Because I really think that the government shouldn’t be fooling with personal relationships at all, other than enforcing contracts between people. So, I really don’t think marriage should be a legal category.

However, that is a far-off idea that probably won’t happen anytime soon, so the question I have to deal with is: as long as there’s a government concept of marriage, should same-sex couples be able to participate? Part of me says that it would only mean further entrenchment of an aspect of law I don’t support anyhow. But the other, greater part of me knows that there’s nothing inherently different about gay partnerships as opposed to straight ones; they are entered into for the same reasons, and are identical in all the essentials. And thus I think that, as long as the law recognizes marriages at all, it should recognize both gay and straight ones in the same manner.

I suppose I could be wrong that gay life partnerships aren’t essentially the same as straight ones, but I have a lot of evidence supporting my belief that they are. So it would take significant evidence to the contrary for me to change my mind.

Thanks for the reminder, C.

It’s this big, self-sustaining, evil presence on the landscape and it intends to succeed in its goals even if it means harming the gay community’s long term interests.

I think it’s why people like Ian and Kevin and sean and jimmy hate Bush so much… they wrongly see in him a similar kind of relentless, tenacious drive toward political purity and it fries them to no end.

Why do they hate so much in others that which is so prominent in themselves?

Then you’re inconsistent since in #58 you allege that Strickland has committed lewd public behavior and indecent exposure:

“…lewd public behavior engaged in by a supposedly staunch “pro-values” liberal, Ohio gubernatorial candidate and current Congressman Ted Strickland. The last time I checked, engaging in indecent exposure is illegal in all jurisdictions I’m aware…”

I am all for exposing hypocrisy and illegal activity among politicians and I’m not going to make an exception for such hypocrites just because they’re closet cases. That said, a principled case can be made that “outing” a homosexual is always wrong and should never be done. But those who would do so should consider carefully such an absolutist position and its implications. Just as an example, if you had clear evidence, say video, that the President of Iran engages in homosexual activity, would you hold to your principle and refuse to expose him as a hypocrite?

My beef isn’t with you –although you’re trying hard to spin it that way. Try to develop the skill of discernment, eh? You may not need to use it anywhere else in the blogland you habit –DialyKos, MyDD, BlogActive etc– but it’s a critical skill here.

On the left, and especially in the gay left, there is zero tolerance for diversity of opinion beyond you can disagree that Bush is Hitler, but only if you say it’s because Bush is worse than Hitler. Try going to any left-wing blog and expressing support for the Iraq War, or tax cuts, or criticism of state-run health care. Or, ask Joe Lieberman how tolerant the Democrat party is of people thinking independently.

I changed my mind about outing after several back and forth exchanges with some of the posters here and other blogs (including NDT). As distasteful as some of these “victims” are, I’ve come to the conclusion that outing doesn’t help the cause for gay rights, and in fact, hurts it. Because even in the extreme cases I talked about, what happens is that Americans now find out that another gay person is a distasteful hypocrite (or whatever term you want to use). Also, even if the outing has legs, and causes the politician to resign, he/she will mostly get replaced by someone who is just as anti-gay. The other problem is the question of where one draws the line. And then outing easily becomes a form of blackmail against someone who may disagree with you on some positions. For example, there are many gay people on the left and the right that do oppose gay marriage. And I otherwise abhor some of the tactics that the outers use.

The reality, unfortunately, is that outing will apparently continue and perhaps escalate. It simply has been added to the list of exposing hypocricy or perceived hypocricy. And yes, it is all political. Many people think that this is just a fair a game as when John Kerry, who campaigned partly on the environment, owned 3 or more SUVs, and was exposed. So now at least the closeted politicians know what they are up against, and now have to decide like any other hypocrite if continuing in politics is worth the risk of having their closet door opened.

Even if there wasn’t any outing, I would still like to see more politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, to start coming out on their own. At least the circumstances would be more favorable, and give the gay community a more positive light in the eyes of American voters. And as mentioned on this blog, the only voices we seem to hear are the extreme left, which clearly isn’t helping our cause. But at least they aren’t afraid to speak out. When will the others, the (not as extreme left), moderates, and the right speak out as well, and show the rest of America that the gay community is not a monolith?

And when I kept posting, that didn’t give you a clue? There were plenty of other clues but I suspect you simply wanted it to be true else you would have simply emailed Bruce, the blog owner, privately and asked him. Frankly, you and others jumped on the sockpuppet bandwagon so quickly and completely that you were going to have egg on your faces no matter what Dan or Bruce said or when they said it.

Like Slick Willie’s recent mixed metaphor… Ian is “just trying to run that dog down the same old path and it ain’t working… it’s just an old dog” that don’t hunt. Spin away Ian.

Like I wrote above, my beef is with Dan’s “Road2Damacus” conversion on the sockpuppet artistry here by several GayLeftBorg commenters and spinsters. If he knew you were who you said you were and weren’t a deceitful incarnation of raj, Dan should have said so earlier… maybe he did, maybe I and all the other readers just missed it? But out of respect to his readers, he should have said something. I don’t think he did. Or maybe he just met you the night before last and he took the earliest opportunity to correct the record? Or maybe there’s some other rationalization out there to explain Dan’s silence?

But you go ahead and spin away Ian. Smear away as well as you’ve most recently done with Senator Craig… and lots of others. But try to get the facts right for once: Bruce did block raj and others here. Appropriately. And long overdue. I didn’t mention Bruce in my comments; he acted appropriately.

But I doubt the truth is something you actively pursue or protect –because for you, it isn’t of value.

Dude, do you think in say, 1967, two or so years after the Great Society, that the damage had already been noticed? No, it took a generation for the damage wrought by easy divorce, welfare dependency, socialist-run schools, high-taxes, soft crime policies, and all the other abominations of Sixties liberalism to manifest themselves. It will take at least that long to see if same-sex marriage was a good idea. Stanley Kurtz would make a case that in countries that have had same-sex marriage for longer, the social fabric is showing signs of fraying. Others dispute his findings, but there is, at a minimum, evidence for both sides.

In the 2.5 or so years since gay marriage has been a reality in Massachusetts, which children do you think have been damaged, and how? Since you admit it’s kind of a statistical question (not all gay couples would weaken the concept of marriage, just most of them), which specific couples in that state do you think are damaging the institution of marriage?

Given that gay marriage is no longer theoretical in one state, I think it’s fair to challenge those who believe specific harms will happen as a result of gay marriage to show how it has happened there. (Indeed two of the original plaintiffs from the marriage case there are divorced, which is certainly sad and, frankly, annoying, but hardly unique.)

Incidentally, I’m someone who cares so much about the institution of marriage that I want to see the government get out of it altogether. It’s too important to be

kdogg36 – My starting place is religious so the “just a man and a woman” standard would fit. However, not being a theocrat (what a funny idea for America – I cannot imagine Baptists and Mormons for instance sitting down to hash out a party platform) I do not think my religious belief ought to be enough of a reason for anyone else.

A serious question for me is why does the “gay community” want same-sex marriage? From what I have seen, it is about two things, benefits and status. Neither of which are enough to change such an important institution. My best friend does not have insurance. Should I “marry” her so she’ll have benefits? I could go on for quite awhile about her suffering, pull a lot of heart strings. But is her suffering enough a reason to change the definition of marriage? And the status reason is as weak. If a gay couple can marry will that convince all those who who are bigoted against gay people “whoops I was wrong”?

I was told on an earlier thread that my idea that marriage should be monogamas was “totalitarian”. My sense is there are a few gay people who want marriage for the same reason the majority of heteros want to be married – long term establishment of families. The authors of this blog are the first to lead me to believe that that is the case, BTW. I find this possibility heartening.

But the majority treat marriage as a prize. “Check it off the list, we’ve met our goal.” No regard for the institution of marriage in this attitude. Marriage is about families, which usually means children. The institution has been damaged over the last decades and children have suffered for it. Yet here are many saying “oh well if you feel that strongly about it, why not”. No one seems to think about the long-term consequences of such a change. It is all about what we want now, not what is good for society over time.

Once upon a time people regarded marriage as a fundamental building block of society. It carried with it a whole host of assumptions along with the codified (inheritance, immigration, etc.) affects. Assumptions perhaps often honored in the breach, but to this day if you hear a couple has married what do you assume? That it is intended to be long term, monogamas, a financial and emotional partnership, and probably you expect kids to come too.

Would that change if gay marriage were allowed? Since the majority of gay people do not seem to share these same assumptions, then yes, I believe a sudden influx of thousands of gay couples into the marrieds pool would affect how people look at marriage. I would expect actually that once the goal is achieved the next step would be to hammer into all our heads that it is “intolerant” “totalitarian” etc to expect that marriage means anything other than what a married person feels like it means at the moment. There are few enough already who take the vows seriously. Marriage as an institution may survive such an assault. But it will be damaged. And so a pillar of society will be damaged. A pillar that has a lot to do with raising healthy children. There are other ways to leave your property to your loved one and other tasks marriage has built-in.

And of course gay marriage opens the door wide open for polygamy. Which is another way I do not want marriage to change for both the fear that women’s status will take a hit and again that children will suffer overall.