• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is it now an acceptable political tactic to "out" gays in Washington?

ProfJohn

ProfJohn

Lifer
This is about the most disgusting thing I have ever read.
Has it now become an acceptable tactic in American politics to ?out? someone who may be gay but does not want that fact known publicly?

If you read the Foley thread I have been talking about the fact for days that timing behind the Foley story was a timed political act to smear the Republican Party.

This web site is the same one who WAY back in March who posted a photo shopped picture of Foley in a tiara under the title ?Mark Foley: Another closeted anti-gay GOPer? and said that there was no action to take now but ?When we get closer to the mid-term elections I am sure more will surface.?March promise that "more will surface"

Saturday, October 07, 2006
Starting Monday... Investigate these closeted staffers
I am very concerned what these CLOSETED high level staffers have done. This site first reported on the danger Kirk Fordham was to gays OVER TWO YEARS AGO. Before anyone gets out the violins for poor Kirk, remember he was the money chief for US Senator Mel Martinez's campaign. You know Mel, he's the one who equaled marriage equality with living under "totalitarian rule in Cuba."

It's not that Kirk is gay that got him in trouble. It's that he was hiding in a closet and facilitating Mark Foley's actions.

Well, America, I want other closeted staffers questioned. I want all entities investigating this matter to look at every other closeted staffer who may have contributed to this national disgrace.

So.... Beginning Monday, and every weekday thereafter, I will be identifying the name of a closeted senior staffer in Congress with the hopes that those investigating this matter will make sure to include them in their questioning. And I hope the press looks for them as well. It's time to rid the government of those that would harm us.

I will also highlight a past case from the site's history. I will ask you all to join me in sending emails to the ethics committee and media about these staffers who are putting the very stability of our government.

Some have said this is a purge of gays from the government. No my friends, this is NOT about gays. To suggest that there will be a purge of gays from the government is preposterous. Now, if you want to talk about a purge of anti-gay closet cases facilitating the hard Right's agenda... I say purge away.
Click to expand...
October 7th post

BTW: This plot to ?out? gay Republicans has been known about for a few days at least, was even a topic on an Orlando AM radio station, but until know if I had made a post like this you all would have called me crazy. But here it is. Personally I hope this blows up in this guys face. I get the feeling that Republicans and Democrats will find this vile behavior to be disgusting and anyone associated with him will pay the price. I also think this could backfire by just pissing off the Republican base even more. As much as some of you want to think I don?t think Republicans are nearly as anti-gay as you may think.

BTW 2: I love the way this guy is hiding his campaign to smear people under the guise of protecting America from people who may have contributed to the national disgrace that Foley has become even saying a gay staffer helped to facilitate what Foley did.
 
So long as the particular minority person in question is a conservative or republican, they are fair game for the left. 'Uncle Tom' is the first phrase that comes to mind.
 
"Now, if you want to talk about a purge of anti-gay closet cases facilitating the hard Right's agenda... I say purge away."
Well. If someone's that repressed there might be a case. I happen to believe in absolutely open government, so i think people should know anyways.
I'm trying hard right now, but i can't see what's wrong with it. People shouldn't be afraid of their homosexuality, especielly when in government, repressing things can be dangerous.
I'd maybe talk to the person in question first. ANd ask him to do it or we will.
 
I think it is acceptable for the homosexual activist community to "out" homosexual politicians who are voting for legislation that harms the interests of gay and lesbian people.

If the politician is more or less "gay friendly" in their voting record - as was, for example, Mark Foley - then I think it is bad form to "out" the politician.

I think the guy running the site you linked to is misguided. He might think he is helping to advance gay rights, I think what he is doing will have the opposite effect. I think it is outrageous to try to shift blame to gay Republican staffers (as if the reason Foley was able to get away with hitting on pages was due to gay staffers "covering up" for him). I don't think it is true. Furthermore, it just creates a climate where it becomes easier to e.g., ban gay couples from adopting children, or pass other anti-gay legislation. This sordid episode has shown that many Democrats are just as willing to exploit homophobia for political gain as are so many Republicans.

BTW one of the people who made the most effort to get something done about Foley - House Clerk Jeff Trandahl - is openly gay.

 
Originally posted by: Forsythe
"Now, if you want to talk about a purge of anti-gay closet cases facilitating the hard Right's agenda... I say purge away."
Well. If someone's that repressed there might be a case. I happen to believe in absolutely open government, so i think people should know anyways.
I'm trying hard right now, but i can't see what's wrong with it. People shouldn't be afraid of their homosexuality, especielly when in government, repressing things can be dangerous.
I'd maybe talk to the person in question first. ANd ask him to do it or we will.
Click to expand...

yeah, but in the Republican party, to be open about your homosexuality would probably mean losing your job.

and we are not talking about elected officials. We are talking about staff members. The idea that inidivudal staff members of any organisation should be forced to disclose their sexual orientation is outrageous.

you can argue that gay people who contribute to the success of the Republican party are imooral and unethical, becausing they are contributing to the success of an organisation that is harmful to the interests of gay people. nevertheless, that is not really adequate justification to publicise their sexual orientation, imo.
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
So long as the particular minority person in question is a conservative or republican, they are fair game for the left. 'Uncle Tom' is the first phrase that comes to mind.
Click to expand...

I think that is a disgusting attitude. Foley's "problem" is not that he is homosexual. The problem is he took advantage of his powerful position, and was hitting on male pages. Ethically, the situation would have been just as inappropriate if he was hitting on female pages. Any attempt to make this scandal about homosexuality instead of what it really is (abuse of power, sexual harrassment) is wrong and will have negative effects on the gay community.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If you read the Foley thread I have been talking about the fact for days that timing behind the Foley story was a timed political act to smear the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

You say this as you post yet another thread aimed at smearing the democrats.

 
Yes, apparently so.

There has reportedly been a "list" circulating for some time of supposed Gay politicians that are to be outed.

From what I've heard it isn't party-specific.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yes, apparently so.

There has reportedly been a "list" circulating for some time of supposed Gay politicians that are to be outed.

From what I've heard it isn't party-specific.
Click to expand...

This would make more sense, as a gay 'special interest' group would be interested in a politician's voting record, not their party, and there's plenty of anti-gay politicians in both parties.

Whether it's acceptable or not is a tough call; public figures are public figures, and truth is always a defense of libel in America, but I'd say you had better be damn sure before 'outing' someone. It's still somewhat in bad taste to do so, but politics rarely caters to good manners, and this is hardly the first group to go on a private smear campaign (e.g. SVFT).
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yes, apparently so.

There has reportedly been a "list" circulating for some time of supposed Gay politicians that are to be outed.

From what I've heard it isn't party-specific.
Click to expand...

This would make more sense, as a gay 'special interest' group would be interested in a politician's voting record, not their party, and there's plenty of anti-gay politicians in both parties.

Whether it's acceptable or not is a tough call; public figures are public figures, and truth is always a defense of libel in America, but I'd say you had better be damn sure before 'outing' someone. It's still somewhat in bad taste to do so, but politics rarely caters to good manners, and this is hardly the first group to go on a private smear campaign (e.g. SVFT).
Click to expand...

Outing people (at the present time) just reinforces the incorrect notion that Foley's problem was his homosexuality.
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yes, apparently so.

There has reportedly been a "list" circulating for some time of supposed Gay politicians that are to be outed.

From what I've heard it isn't party-specific.
Click to expand...

This would make more sense, as a gay 'special interest' group would be interested in a politician's voting record, not their party, and there's plenty of anti-gay politicians in both parties.
Click to expand...

??
It isn't a list of how politicians have voted on gay issues (you can get that from the HRC) - it is a list of who is actually homosexual.

I think it smacks of McCarthyism. It is just wrong. Not to mention stupid. And it plays up to all the homophobic stereotypes - gays as dangerous deviants who have secretly infiltrated the highest reaches of power and need to be exposed, etc.






 
I have no problem with politicians being outed if their lifestyle/orientation and their voting history are in not in concert. If someone openly opposes gays and gay rights then is found out to be a self-loathing hypocrite, then they are fair game IMO.
 
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I have no problem with politicians being outed if their lifestyle/orientation and their voting history are in not in concert. If someone openly opposes gays and gay rights then is found out to be a self-loathing hypocrite, then they are fair game IMO.
Click to expand...

And what about their staff members, who aren't elected officials, and just happen to be homosexual in their private lives.

It's silly to assume that just because a Republican is homosexual and votes against the interests of the gay community, she or he is therefore a hypocrite or "self loathing". That assumes that political allegiances based on sexual orientation somehow trump class interests. The fact that there are gay Republicans proves that can't be true. Mary Cheney supports her Dad because they are a very wealthy family who want to become even more wealthy. And they want to support their wealthy mates. Exploiting the homophobia and ignorance of the christian masses is just a way to get there.
 
In my mind this is not a question of being gay---its a question of hypocracy---to pretend to be for one thing but living a lie.

But when this also extends to staffers and anyone else a canadidate has contact with, its going a little far.

Gays are still america's sons and daughters---and some of them go into politics. We need to look at the quality of their overall ideas---not just one and only one thing about them.
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I have no problem with politicians being outed if their lifestyle/orientation and their voting history are in not in concert. If someone openly opposes gays and gay rights then is found out to be a self-loathing hypocrite, then they are fair game IMO.
Click to expand...

And what about their staff members, who aren't elected officials, and just happen to be homosexual in their private lives.

It's silly to assume that just because a Republican is homosexual and votes against the interests of the gay community, she or he is therefore a hypocrite or "self loathing". That assumes that political allegiances based on sexual orientation somehow trump class interests. The fact that there are gay Republicans proves that can't be true. Mary Cheney supports her Dad because they are a very wealthy family who want to become even more wealthy. And they want to support their wealthy mates. Exploiting the homophobia and ignorance of the christian masses is just a way to get there.
Click to expand...

Their staffers are not fair game unless of course if what they are doing is also illegal. And my comments apply to all politicians, not just Republicans. If you do not agree that someone who openly opposes gay rights who is gay is a hypocrite, then that is something we won't ever agree on. The self-loathing part is of course on a case by case basis. If Rick Santorum were found out to be gay, I would call that classic text-book self-loathing. Case by case. ..
 
imo, a major concern about hypocritical closet gays in gov't service is one of being security risks.

in situations where hiding one's sexual orientation is critical toward holding one's job, or protecting another's reputation, especially so if what they preach is not what they practice, then these persons are now perfect targets for blackmail or for extorting sensitive data that might affect our national security or the very lives of gov't agents and their proxies.

one would hope that standard security checks would flesh these potentially harmful situations out, more so for sensitive gov't positions, but for those that manage to defeat these security measures, they present a certain risk that endangers more than just themselves.
 
Originally posted by: tweaker2
imo, a major concern about hypocritical closet gays in gov't service is one of being security risks.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows who is gay in Washington. People in "the closet" just don't announce their orientation to the press. They aren't living secretive lives though.
 
I'm not sure I totally approve of the tactic, but it's not as bad as a lot of the smear tactics the Republicans use on Democrats, and THIS particular tactic has the benefit of being true. But maybe we can come to some sort of compromise, if the Republicans stop telling lies about the Democrats, the Dems will stop telling the truth about the Republicans. 😉
 
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If you read the Foley thread I have been talking about the fact for days that timing behind the Foley story was a timed political act to smear the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

You say this as you post yet another thread aimed at smearing the democrats.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I don't see the word Democrat any where in my post. Oh wait... I said both the Republicans and Democrat will find this tactic disguesting, otherwise I made no comment at all about Democrats.

Stick to the topic at hand 🙂
 
It is always some kind of Gay related issues every election now. I guess no one in any party, knows how to deal with the larger, more important, issues that face our nation, so focusing on this kind of trivial bullsh!t is the one trick the pony can do that never seems to grow tired?
 
What happened to the "private and personal" mantra of the Democrats from the 90's?

I thought we didn't care about a person's sexual preference? I thought we treated everyone fairly and wanted a 'color' blind society? Gays should be able to marry and gays should be able to adopt, but if gays want to keep their sex lives private, sorry can't do that unless your a Democrat?

It is nice to see that you aprove of destorying the lives of these staffers so some guy can make a statement about 'closet' gays.

I guess this means that in the future that if the Democrats ever put up a "closet" gay candidate it is open game for the right to "out" him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top