NEWS: Is Outing Gay Politicians Good Politics?

Well it depends if you think there is anything wrong with being a homosexual... I can't see how anyone can justifiable claim that there is... If we really claim to live in free societies then consenting adults can hog tie each other from the ceiling and stuff chicken drumstick up each other for all we should care.

If someone's sexual preference is someone of the same sex there is no "moral" argument against that at all as far as any reasonable, freedom advocating person should agree.

Honesty is the most important quality of a politician and voters should respect that above all things.

Clinton was in not undermining the political gains of people who get blow jobs. Clinton didn't make political statements and push for policies that could be construed as an attack against those who get blow jobs.

This is a very different scenario. The rights of large groups of people are involved in the situation. Clinton didn't infringe on rights with his cigar.

Outing these people is damaging their credibility as politicians, not because they are gay, but because they gay and anti-gay at the same time (which is some crazy ass cognitive dissonance). If a politician was suffering from a serious out of control mental disorder would it be best for the public to know?

Considering who these people are, I have to be honest, I'm more than okay with it. They're not being killed or tortured or impeached.

However, I'm not okay with the outings of their lovers, their aids and staff and still think Rogers is an asshole.

This is challenging it on its merits. This is not about Joe the Park Ranger, this is about those in power and enjoying its privilege. Its a lot fucking easier to be gay as a US senator that it is a tractor mechanic in Kansas. If you support the hateful divisive rhetoric levied at homosexuals, denying them basic rights, securities and even dignity, while hiding behind the privilege of your office, that is germane in far more ways than character versus hypocrisy. It makes you a fucking collaborator.

I don't recall Clinton ever saying that people who get blowjobs should be able to marry, or adopt, hold civil service jobs, or be in the military. he never said the were mentally ill, deviant, diseased or the equivalent of bestialists. Republican leaderships have said and done these things. They make them national policy. Several of these people endorse and repeat them.

Politicians were never elected to serve the will of the electorate. Politicians were elected to do what they think is best for the electorate. Thats the whole fucking point of representative democracy. Moreover, we're not talking about ideas, or faith or viewpoint here. We're talking about immutable characteristics and actions. It is not a mark of character to say gay people are second class citizens to "serve" your constituency and then go home and suck dick.

I can't say I agree that those situations are significantly different from this one. The stigma may be different (I'm not quite sure about that either, but I'll concede it for now), but that's an issue related to the effects of the action, not the morality of the action itself.

It does bear keeping in mind, I think, that these are all by definition public figures and their private dalliances are are only of note here because of their divergence from public positions.

How? It actually appears to be quite the opposite. They're gay, and not supporting gay rights. The only explanation for this inconsistency is that something other than their sexuality is motivating it.

The only time ad hominems are even remotely appropriate is if you can show someone's bias is irrefutably the sole basis of their opinion. Even then, attack ideas.

Not to be cliche, but "false dichotomy". We're not talking about an overt act of aggression ala stoning or outright persecution.

Also, there's a difference. A coke snorting politician would be breaking laws which I would not condone. This falls into the category I established of "affecting the political arena" although I grant you that was vague, but that's what I was getting at. So yes, I'd agree with you here, but I don't see how being gay would be contradictory to proposed legislation unless you were suggesting that being gay should be outlawed in which case I'd definitely agree that they should be outed.

Right, and one that I feel is inappropriate.

Certainly, but impeachment aside, people still would have condemned Clinton. It's the attitude that people's personal legal proclivities should be available to political criticism to which I was objecting--not the act of his impeachment.

Also, I'm wondering what you think of my assertion that politicians should be able to and in some cases have the responsibility of supporting positions they do not agree with when it is so dictated by their constituents, because I think that's one of the more important aspects of my objection.

Note: this is the first time I've ever thought about this specific situation. That was just my initial reaction. I'm certainly open to debate and the fact that I may be misguided.

+1

+1

I admit the Clinton comparison wasn't the best. I have a bad habit of making half-assed analogies. I understand that Clinton wasn't attacking the rights of people to get blow jobs. What I was referring to was the condemnation involved in the critique of his private behavior that I do not feel is appropriate.

I similarly don't feel the private behavior of a politician is fair game as long as he is not breaking any laws. The comparison was the fact that getting a blow job and being gay are private affairs that have nothing to do with politics. You say Clinton didn't infringe on people's rights with his cigar, but neither does being gay infringe on anyone's rights. So in that sense they are analogous: both private acts didn't infringe on anyone's rights.

It's not being cognitively dissonant, if they are supporting the views of their constituency which is their duty as an elective official. If their constituents' beliefs are unpopular then attack them on the grounds of their credibility not the politicians personal private acts.

If a politician was suffering from a mental disorder, it would be perfectly legitimate to bring them to light because they would be directly affecting their ability to dispense the duties of their office. I allowed for this exception in my original post.

Their personal lives are not relevant, because they are not hurting anyone themselves. If they were persecuting a group, or actively trying to diminish a groups rights then I would have a problem with it. As I say below I'm assuming they are operating in good faith. Individuals who are not are certainly subject to exception. I, however, am talking about the basic principle of leaving one's private life out of the political arena not specific instances of individuals vituperation and unncessary vitriol--fuck those people...

I absolutely agree.

-----------------------------------------------------

I suppose I was operating on the assumption that they weren't speaking hatefully.I was operating on the assumption that they might hold a position like they wouldn't support gay marriage, but may support civil unions (a distinction that I don't personally like).

I wouldn't have a problem with a politician being outed if they were speaking hatefully and derisively as you suggest. If I thought that the politician was operating in good faith i.e. that he was supporting the position of his constituency, and not that he was actively trying to persecute a group or its rights, then I do have a problem with it.

To repeat what I said above and in response to joker_c, it seems you have specific very hateful individuals in mind. In these instances, they've crossed a line and are no longer have the right to expect privacy. Kinda like when you commit a crime, you know longer have the right to run around free, you go to jail--the rules change. My initial comment was a basic principal regarding politicians who are operate in good faith.

Politicians aren't elected to serve the will of the electorate? I have to disagree. You run on a platform, people then select the candidate because of their platform (hopefully), and then expect them to execute that when they become elected. If that wasn't the case, why do we sit around and bitch constantly about how politicians never do what we elected them to?

I will not deny that it is the duty of a politician to disagree with the electorate and do what he thinks is best when he believes the opinion of the electorate is gravely mistaken, but this is certainly the exception not the rule. They do have the duty to protect us from grave lunacy, but they don't get free reign to do whatever the hell they like or legislate their personal beliefs their constituents be damned.

Again, you seem to have certain individuals in mind. If a politician is arguing anyone should have second class citizenship regardless of whether it is the gay community or some other group, then they have no business serving the people at all. I'm not going to disagree with you there by any means.

I find myself on the side of people who are against inequality based on race, gender or sexual preference; it is difficult, perhaps impossible for me to tolerate a politician trying to promote homophobic policies simply because their constituents are in favor of them.

i dont really see how this conflicts with being a republican, though.
The modern Republican is all about getting to do what you arent allowed to, whether thats tax breaks, serving your military commitment, or hooker privileges.

Yes, exactly these particular politicians are arguing that homosexuals should have second class citizenship.

The comparison was not intended to say that being gay is infringing on rights, it just came out all wrong The reality is, these particular politicians are in fact infringing on the rights of homosexuals, I see nothing wrong with outing them to damage the credibility of their agendas.

I'm against any inequality based on race, gender, sexual preference, age, national origin, etc... and I'm not arguing to support or promote them. I'm just saying as long as they stay within in certain bounds we must as well. Once they cross those boundaries then please by all means feel free to go UFC on their asses.

Then whatever, fuck them...

I remember Randy Shilts. I thought 'And The Band Played On' was a pretty good piece, and still do. I have that bitter anger at the hypocrisy of people who should have known better, still.

Hypocrites all. Out them.

Anyone who thinks they can parlay that knowledge into political influence...

This pretty well sums it up from a practical standpoint.

The fact that they're hypocritical assholes getting their due is the part that makes me smile.

A politician is supposed to be a representative of the people; if said politician is a hypocrite then they have violated the mechanism of representation, and outing their double standard is a legitimate manner of censure.

I think this is such a central problem with the political arena in general; the purpose of the system is to come to what is most advantages for all involved through discussion, etc, right? Yet politics today seems to me to function in a system of strategic deceit.

So I say that if a rep can't be transparent on their own we have the right and the responsibility to point out their deceit.

I agree, though I lean to the outing side. I believe that a person's personal life should not be grist for the political mill - drugs, sex, divorce, religion, none of it.

But it is just so offensive that they spend their days, and base their careers on attacking gays. The proto-type for this is Roy Cohn; a truly disgusting guy who made my skin crawl. It would be like a woman being anti-abortion but then having repeated abortions.

And if they're willing to sell out their gay community, who's to say they won't sell out the whole country? It's spineless fucks like this who are going to be weak and vulnerable enough to be used by our enemies.

Damn, I sound like Joe McCarthy, don't I? I'm having a hard time reconciling my hatred of hypocrisy with this sentiment:

I mean, I'm prolly honest to a fault in my personal life, but I have to acknowledge that I'm much more privileged than a lot of people, but then again, these fuckers have proven themselves to be weak and willing to compromise a part of their selves and people they (I assume) care about so I wouldn't want to trust them with national secrets and stuff. I mean, think of the possibilities if somebody wanted to blackmail a closeted anti-gay crusader. And it wouldn't necessarily even have to be the Ruskies or the turrists, it could be somebody like "Hot Tub Tom" DeLay manipulating said individual into towing the party line when they don't want to.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm coming down harder on closeted anti-gay crusaders than on the gay-bashing fuckbags who make it unsafe for people to be out and open and honest. They're the suckiest.

I'm all in favor of exploiting the existence of irony.