No one is saying, gay marriage should be legal because Larry Craig is a closeted gay man. No one is saying, the true meaning of the Bible is that gay love has inherent God-given dignity and beauty, because Ted Haggard is a closeted gay man.

The argument is simply that when you move to attain significant political power, and in particular when you use that power to harm other gay folks, you don't have some moral right to keeping your personal life private.

We've had people argue that it was *inappropriate*. Also when pointing out rich Democrats who don't sent their kids to public schools. I am bookmarking this thread, so in the future, I can have a bipartisan defense against those people.

Well, it's not inappropriate. It's just not a good argument.

Also when pointing out rich Democrats who don't sent their kids to public schools.

Time to chime in to point out that I find there to be no difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to public education. They both are actively trying to destroy it. Ergo, those Democrats are not being hypocrites! But they're making my life as a public school teacher a lot harder. Fruckers.

Well, it's not inappropriate. It's just not a good argument.

Pointing out hypocrisy isn't a good tactic? I was just told it was. I'm so confused now.

Well, it's not inappropriate. It's just not a good argument.

Pointing out hypocrisy isn't a good tactic?

I point you to the key to your misunderstanding.

Also, my argument was that it was a valid tactic. It's not necessarily a good one - that depends on context.

The argument is simply that when you move to attain significant political power, and in particular when you use that power to harm other gay folks, you don't have some moral right to keeping your personal life private.

Does this go for all rights? Just gay rights? Just the rights that progressives believe exist?

Does this go for all rights? Just gay rights? Just the rights that progressives believe exist?

Did you lose the ability to read English in the last few months? Or are you trolling again?

"In particular" is a way of highlighting a subset of individual importance, not a subset which has an exclusive claim. Of course this is just one of many aspects of a powerful person's private life which may validly be made public for a variety of reasons.

So, you would *not* be in favor of outing gay politicians for voting against gay marriage?

I've basically been referring to legislative actions that cause harm to gay people -- things like employment discrimination, housing discrimination, etc. To answer both you and Esoteric, gay marriage is a different beast. I don't see how anyone who thinks the issue through could be opposed to (secular) gay marriage, to be honest -- the creation of a structure that permits gay people to form the same sturdy, lasting relationships that heterosexuals take for granted has vastly more upside for a stable society than downside. (I have never heard a credible non-religious argument against gay marriage, and since we're talking about secular marriage, the religious arguments are irrelevant in this context.)

BUT. If one does happen to oppose gay marriage, and one is gay himself, that probably doesn't qualify as hypocrisy or elitism -- there are probably legitimate reasons to be against it (though, again, I'm unaware of any that are not religion-based). I stand by the idea that gay politicians who act to HARM gay people deserve to be outed. But it's not clear to me whether opposing marriage qualifies as harm -- while promoting anti-gay discrimination in employment, housing, adoption, etc. most certainly does. So I'm willing to draw the line on marriage.

The argument is simply that when you move to attain significant political power, and in particular when you use that power to harm other gay folks, you don't have some moral right to keeping your personal life private.

Exactly. And a community that is harmed by a politician's legislative actions has every right to push back against that politician.

I stand by the idea that gay politicians who act to HARM gay people deserve to be outed. But it's not clear to me whether opposing marriage qualifies as harm -- while promoting anti-gay discrimination in employment, housing, adoption, etc. most certainly does. So I'm willing to draw the line on marriage.

[...[

Exactly. And a community that is harmed by a politician's legislative actions has every right to push back against that politician.

You can veil it an language as much as you desire, pile the arbitrary, gently couched constructs to the sky, but you're still saying "I can out gay people if I feel they deserve it." I fundamentally disagree with this stance, which I find to be personally abhorrent, counterproductive, and grossly immoral. You're certainly free to do so -- I'm not arguing that it should be illegal -- but I also believe in freedom of association and the related freedom to not associate, that freedom which I will now exercise.

The argument is simply that when you move to attain significant political power, and in particular when you use that power to harm other gay folks, you don't have some moral right to keeping your personal life private.

Then it's not a right.

I don't think closeted gay politicians who vote for anti-gay legislation should expect everyone will respect their right to privacy on the issue. People behave badly, after all.

But that still doesn't make outing that guy right, in my opinion.

I don't really think it's wrong. It's part of how the system works.

One clarifying question - I recognize you're against outing a Larry Craig. What about a George Rekers?

One clarifying question - I recognize you're against outing a Larry Craig. What about a George Rekers?

Believing in the principle means I don't have to click the link.

I did anyway. And yes, even him. You defeat his repugnant ideas by taking on the ideas, not the man. Like I said, that kind of character shouldn't expect to be able to keep his secret to himself, but I still don't support actively outing him.

As for Larry Craig, he got arrested for trying to engage another man in sexual relations in a bathroom stall. He outed himself.

I don't really think it's wrong. It's part of how the system works.

I reject that notion. Lots of things in the system are wrong. That doesn't make it right.

I recognize you're against outing a Larry Craig. What about a George Rekers?

Legal. And wrong.

Tony S. is perfectly free to feel that it's OK to out the private sexual lives of people that he feels deserve it. And I'm perfectly free to disagree with him and given there's no complicating personal or professional factors at free, I've chosen to disassociate myself with him. As he (or anyone else) is free to do with me. I'm not friends with nor do I hang out with any white supremacists, hardcore bible beaters, or angry, militant leftists, either. And just like them, someone who thinks outing closeted homosexuals is a valid tactic, is nothing but another hatemonger to me, and someone who I do not wish to know, unless there are sufficient mitigating factors that necessitate me putting up with them. There are none such here.

(And as SoSH notes, Craig turned his private sexual life into a public one himself, which is a different matter).

A Rekers may deserve to be outed, that doesn't mean it's right to do it.

I'll say this, I sure don't know who outing a gay politician with anti-gay stances is supposed to convince.

"I vote for Larry Craig, because he shares my belief that gay people should be discriminated against."
"Ah-ha! Turns out Larry Craig is himself gay!"
"Okay, now I think gay people should be treated equally."

Seems unlikely. It seems like only your own choir would be impressed. (I also don't think it's right, but even if it were, I don't see what doing it even accomplishes.)

I'll say this, I sure don't know who outing a gay politician with anti-gay stances is supposed to convince.


It's because it's not intended to convince. It's simply doled-out retribution from those without the stomach to admit it.

Now, if someone researches and outs Gary Gaybasher because they think they sucks and they hate his politics, that's not something I find morally superior, but at least it's honest. If you're going to be an amazing #######, at least have the balls to admit that's what you're doing.

Yeah, if homosexuals shouldn't be outed, then they shouldn't be outed. Outing Congressman Gary Gaybasher or Senator Larry Craig is no more moral than outing Tom Cruise or Tyler Clementi.

By the way, the Larry Craig police interview is interesting, for those who haven't heard it before.

It's because it's not intended to convince. It's simply doled-out retribution from those without the stomach to admit it.

It really is all about retribution. It's not like the outed politician is suddenly going to start voting differently in response to the vindictive and public humiliation. And it's not like his constituents are suddenly going to shift their opinion on the matter: he was only representing their views after all anyway.

It is solely about revenge. Which is what's appalling about Tony S and the people who feel like him -- they have come up with a tissue of rationalizations to justify what is, ultimately, nothing more than an atavistic yawp of hatred against someone who sits on the opposite side of a political divide. As I said earlier, it's the fascist impulse imported into American politics: "I disagree with you so strongly that I wish to violate you in the most personal way in order to self-actualize, and pour encourager les autres."

Shudder-inducing.

It really is all about retribution. It's not like the outed politician is suddenly going to start voting differently in response to the vindictive and public humiliation.

Well, he is suddenly going to stop voting as he resigns and his constituents if they were that anti-gay or don't like to be deceived will vote him out of office or recall him if they detest him that much.

It isn't about revenge at all but about continuing the fight for equality. Disenfranchising the other team's base is like election 101.

Post 158 is so many kinds of ewwwww.

If a then-23 year old taking an opportunity to sneak a peak into a locker room full of naked ladies (which seemed to be the aim of every 80s movies) makes your 'ewwww' scale, I can only encourage you to take the stick out of your ass, as it has clearly gotten stuck so far up there it's interfering with your speech.

Are you insane?

Hey Jack, remember that thing where I apologized? That was, assuredly, a mistake, and I retract said apology.

176. Jack Carter, International Man of Minstrelry Posted: January 15, 2013 at 07:30 PM (#4347847)

I'm sure there is. Like I said, I wasn't deploring that generation (never remotely suggested it, afaict). Outside my family the 17-25 cohort doesn't seem any more or less bright than they ever were. I remember at that age being appalled at what a lot of my cohort was into. The only difference, now versus then, seems to be in attention spans.

Also, I tend to date women 20 to 30 years younger than I am, and there's no shortage of bright, quirky, interesting women out there.


"Tend" is not "once or twice". My use of "frequently" was as dead on as I could get without actually quoting you, lying scumbag that I am.

Do you think at all about what you post? I said I've mentioned dating younger women 'once or twice'--on topic, no less--in response to your bizarre, whining, delusional confection that I "frequently" talk about dating younger women; and here you manage to come up with (pretty creepy of you, actually, to find it so important) a single example? Why are you monitoring my dating habits? Ewwww, indeed.

You pull this garbage about once a month, where I write something you don't like, and you respond with these bizarre, personal attacks, that you never support. I very rarely address anything you write, because you're always banal. You never put any real effort into it--I assumed it was because you're lazy, but it's become abundantly clear you have nothing to say. And because you have nothing to say, you come after me because you're a typical internet coward with the courage of his keyboard.

When I brought up the issue of child support and personal responsibility, it was clear you didn't like it, but you didn't have the brain power to argue cogently***; instead you started shrieking like a cut little bitch about men's rights advocates. You're no better than the idiots who shout 'feminazi' in response to arguments favoring 'equal pay for equal work'.

***What's your longest post, little buddy? Eighty words? Clearly the extent of your ability to think.

Jack Carter, please cease and desist, por favor.

Lassus, instead of continuing to be a whiny little bitch about an opinion I have that you don't like, show some balls and take it apart, logically. Even one focused disagreement will do. One specific. One quote, with a rebuttal.

Eso--why? When you're personally attacked, how do you respond?

I didn't start this, in any sense. Why this advice from left field?

Jack, you're doing yourself a disservice.

There had been a swim meet, and there was a new, small, easy to overlook, handwritten sign on the men's locker room door that said, 'women's changing room for meet'. I instinctively turned away, but then, being young and ardent, realized how easy it would be to walk in and pretend not to have seen the sign.


Wow, talk about a transgression.

You cannot be serious. A young man takes the opportunity to sneak a peek at some naked ladies. The horror!

Or, to take you seriously, 'how so?' I realize it's more fun to be dismissive, but seriously, how so? How does it differ from looking through the knothole at summer camp at the ladies swimming at the lake, enjoying the possibility of a glimpse of a little skin?

Jack, you're doing yourself a disservice.

Okay... how so? I've had what I consider pretty ordinary opinions, and indulged in pretty ordinary (even common) behavior. I was then personally attacked. I'm genuinely curious--how is an admittedly angry reply, spurred by an unfortunate history with someone who makes a point, for whatever reason, of hassling me from time to time with vague generalities and accusations, doing myself a disservice?

These are honest questions, DK. My experience of you on this site is that you're a reasonable soul. What am I missing?

Eso--why? When you're personally attacked, how do you respond?

I didn't start this, in any sense. Why this advice from left field?

As you may or may not know, I'm no stranger to the occasional Primer feud. But after a certain point it's counterproductive. We get it. Y'all don't care for one another. You've said your piece, and now it's just one lengthy block of text after another, repeating the same general point, and threatening to derail the thread. And you descend into very personal insults and attacks far too quickly. I mean, so does Sam Hutcheson, but 1.) he's actually just working a schtick (which, amusingly enough, I've come around a bit on in recent weeks); 2.) is that really who you want to be emulating anyway?

Additionally, Lassus may get my goat every now and again, but attacking him on the basis of the length of his posts (!) is weirdly self-defeating. On the one hand, what an odd thing to fixate upon. On the other hand, irony abounds given that I'd wager most people would say yours in this thread have been too...erm, voluminous.

Look, I like all of you guys. (Well, except for Andy: that guy, whatta prick!) There's an interesting subject being debated here, and you've both already gotten your licks in, so why not let it go and focus on the actual thing being discussed?

EDIT: Lassus could stand to take a breather on this as well, by the way. It's not all you by any means. But it's not all ABOUT you, either.

You cannot be serious. A young man takes the opportunity to sneak a peek at some naked ladies. The horror!

That's what strip joints are for. What you did was the equivalent of what a peeping tom would do. There are peeping tom laws, you know.

@229--Sure. I agree with some of what you wrote. I offered to lay down the gloves earlier in the thread and thought it was done, and little creepy person just couldn't let it go. I'm not Gandhi. Why am I obliged to not respond to an attack? You don't, afaict. Why weren't you there when he started up again? It just seems... odd, to weigh in when you did.

As for the length of Lassus' posts, please. They're perfectly germane and impossible not to notice after awhile, just as it's impossible not to notice that Andy posts in three part harmony, or that you often go into significant detail. Lassus's posts are all but content free in part because of their brevity, and it goes to the point of, instead of his having something specific to say when he doesn't like something I write, which would then engender dialogue, he goes to the personal, and does so very quickly.

You cannot be serious. A young man takes the opportunity to sneak a peek at some naked ladies. The horror!

That's what strip joints are for. What you did was the equivalent of what a peeping tom would do. There are peeping tom laws, you know.

Please.

Ever get behind the wheel not too terribly long after a glass of wine? There are drunk driving laws, you know.

What Esoteric said.
To be clear, I've got no beef with you, Jack, Lassus or virtually anybody else on this site - but continuing to fuss about this stuff can possibly make you seem less credible/hinged when you try to articulate your beliefs. Do what you like, obviously, but... the two cents were offered because I care.

I've had what I consider pretty ordinary opinions, and indulged in pretty ordinary (even common) behavior.

I don't believe that a man walking into a women's locker room or an old man dating women generations younger than him is ordinary or common.

Thanks, DK. I won't prolong the point with you. I just don't get why, after offering to let it go, thinking that had happened, then returning to the site to find a strange post aimed squarely at me, I'm the one who is admonished. I really don't get that part. I could easily see something on the order of 'hey, you two, knock it off'. That would have made sense to me. This doesn't.

More, longer posts?
Anyway, I meant it more as gentle advice than admonishment; we're good.

Ever get behind the wheel not too terribly long after a glass of wine? There are drunk driving laws, you know.

The weird part, if we continue this analogy (not a very good one, mind you) is that you seem to think that driving drunk is just sort of a harmless lark. Very strange, Jack.

I don't believe that a man walking into a women's locker room or an old man dating women generations younger than him is ordinary or common.

"Old"? You're lucky I have a thick skin. "Generations", plural?

It's interesting, though, since someone else brought it up. Btw, it's not all that uncommon for a 45 year old to go out with, say, a 22 year old. I know it's more fun to be dismissive and go 'icky', but I love the difference and, apparently, so do they. It's a little like what I imagine meeting an alien culture would be like. We have things in common, but so many things that are different, too. It's how I get introduced to music I otherwise wouldn't listen to, and new authors. I feel more alive, too, which I doubtless should be ashamed of. And, my god, are they beautiful.

Ever get behind the wheel not too terribly long after a glass of wine? There are drunk driving laws, you know.

The weird part, if we continue this analogy (not a very good one, mind you) is that you seem to think that driving drunk is just sort of a harmless lark. Very strange, Jack.

Ad hominem much, PP? Lassus, I expect that from, as he has nothing else to offer. You, though? I would have thought you'd disdain the low road.

My point, obviously enough, is that you took a harmless lark and brought it into the most denigrating set of transgressions imaginable. Hence, my stretching a single glass of wine into a drunk driving offense, which was equally absurd.

We can stop any time, so you know.

I don't think anyone cares who you date as it seems consensual. What you did in the locker room wasn't consensual. You violated a boundary there.

Unless you weigh 50 lbs, having a single glass of wine is not going to impair your driving ability and your blood alcohol level would be well below the threshold so that's why its a bad analogy. Driving after one glass of wine is perfectly acceptable, and legal. Walking into a women's locker knowing full well you weren't suppose to is not an equivalent act.

Hey guys, anyone have on opinion on whether it's acceptable to 'out' gay politicians if they're pursuing policy goals that are perceived as anti-gay? Seems like it could be an interesting question!

I don't think anyone cares who you date as it seems consensual.

Lassus does. I didn't bring it up.

What you did in the locker room wasn't consensual. You violated a boundary there.

I'm human. You're not. I think we've established that your moral rectitude is unimpeachable. Congratulations.

Unless you weigh 50 lbs, having a single glass of wine is not going to impair your driving ability...

Tell it to the officer who pulls you over.

...and your blood alcohol level would be well below the threshold so that's why its a bad analogy.

Nice to see how you're beginning to grasp that that is exactly what I thought of your analogy.

Driving after one galls of wine is perfectly acceptable, and legal.

This is certainly not true for everyone.

Walking into a women's locker knowing full well you weren't suppose to is not an equivalent act.

For which, thanks to your willingness to impart your unimpeachable moral philosophy, I stand deeply ashamed. It was a shocking transgression. What could I possibly have been thinking?

We can stop any time. As I keep saying.

Also when pointing out rich Democrats who don't sent their kids to public schools.

This seems more than reasonable. It's a perfectly acceptable, "You're not putting your money where your mouth is" argument. More than fair, imo.

The argument is simply that when you move to attain significant political power, and in particular when you use that power to harm other gay folks, you don't have some moral right to keeping your personal life private.

Exactly. And a community that is harmed by a politician's legislative actions has every right to push back against that politician.

Tony, I tend to agree with this, but do you have a bright line in mind? What about a Senator against gay rights, who had an affair prior to becoming Senator. Is it permissable to damage his credibility by bringing that affair to light?

I use gay rights here because I see being against them as actively harming and diminishing the lives of a great many people, which in turn would seem to justify more extreme measures than if someone was against, say, a seat belt law, or putting a maximum size on sugary beverages.

putting a maximum size on sugary beverages

Video of Bloomberg sneaking over to Jersey for a Big Gulp would command a premium, for sure.

This seems more than reasonable. It's a perfectly acceptable, "You're not putting your money where your mouth is" argument. More than fair, imo.

Really? It's impossible to support a base minimum public educational system while at the same time opting to use your own personal resources to opt your child out for a better, luxury educational experience?

We can stop any time. As I keep saying.

Then why don't you? You're making an ass out of yourself.

If someone thinks more money needs to be put into the schools to make them better, then that person thinks they're not good enough. What's hypocritical about not sending your kid to a school that you think isn't good enough?

This seems more than reasonable. It's a perfectly acceptable, "You're not putting your money where your mouth is" argument. More than fair, imo.

Really? It's impossible to support a base minimum public educational system while at the same time opting to use your own personal resources to opt your child out for a better, luxury educational experience?

It's perfectly possible to so support, but it's the kind of thing that helps put a lid on any claims for public education as (if it even is) anything more than exactly as you describe, "a base minimum public educational system".

It's good to know that a specific pol does indeed believe there is better, that

"Public education is good enough for your kids, but not good enough for mine."

Which would make for a hella good political ad, come to think of it.