I thought I'd post this because I find it interesting and I'm still trying to make up my mind regarding what I think about it.
http://blogactive.com/
Poke around, and if you feel like it, feel free to post any thoughts here. This blogger (Mike Rogers) is a Washington insider who keeps a list of government officials who support anti-gay agendas but whom Rogers contends are gay. He has outed a significant number of these people based on information he obtains. Mark Foley, for example, was outed by Rogers well before his public national scandal. Rogers does not like the word "outing" because that implies a more violent intent whereas Rogers sees his actions as justified.
Is it right to "out" someone you believe to be gay (or as Rogers would argue, know to be gay) if they are supporting an anti-gay agenda on the political front?
2 comments:
Of course it. They are homophobic bigots and deserve to have the truth know about them!!
It's hard to justify, for me. On the one hand, they are — as Bruce said — homophobic and bigots... and outing them does help "our cause" politically, at least for the short term.
On the other hand, it makes me uncomfortable, this idea of using the fact of someone being gay against them... Homosexuality as a liability is hard to swallow and I feel like outing someone is always negative and it does nothing to further social progress. Cause I can imagine the message to the average straight person or to the young closeted gay kid isn't "hypocrisy destroyed this person" it is "being gay destroyed this person."
Am I making sense. Basically, outing people — even if it's politically advantageous — just seems to make being gay out as something shameful.
Nothing Golden Stays
Post a Comment