Gays are coming out of the closet whether they like it or not

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 02:34 PM

Ok, so I made a controversial thread about this earlier, and more details are coming through.

It seems as though gay activist Mike Rogers is pledging to out one gay GOPer a day, bringing them out of the closet whether they like it or not:

Homosexual activist Mike Rogers said he will reveal the identities of homosexual Republicans on Capitol Hill each day "for hypocritically opposing gay rights for political reasons when they themselves are gay."

But according to Rogers, who runs a web log called BlogActive.com, he's "reporting on hypocrisy," not "outing them."

"The right wing of this country is so out of control beating up gay people," Rogers told Cybercast News Service on Tuesday.

How thoughtful of him.

He actually has the first victim listed on his site; salary, photos, where he works. It's really unbelievable.

Publius · 10-11-2006, 02:35 PM

This seems like it could almost be an invasion of privacy, imo... If they are gay and choose not to admit it publicly, that is their choice.

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

This seems like it could almost be an invasion of privacy, imo... If they are gay and choose not to admit it publicly, that is their choice.

One would think.

But don't you see? It matters not how it affects their lives. It only matters how it affects the GOP!

motivez · 10-11-2006, 02:37 PM

I have no problems with this.

I don't particularly think it's anyones business what someone does in the privacy of their own bedroom, but I agree with reporting on hypocrisy.. all types of it.

I think especially since the Republican establishment has been so anti-gay and essentially seeks to make them second class citizens in many regards (military service, rights when it comes to marriage), those who are gay should be open about who they are if they're going to vote against equality and essentially their "own interests".

The more comfortable people are with those who are different (gay, straight, black, white, asian, red hair, whatever), the better for society.

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I have no problems with this.

I don't particularly think it's anyones business what someone does in the privacy of their own bedroom, but I agree with reporting on hypocrisy.. all types of it.

I think especially since the Republican establishment has been so anti-gay and essentially seeks to make them second class citizens in many regards (military service, rights when it comes to marriage), those who are gay should be open about who they are if they're going to vote against equality and essentially their "own interests".

The more comfortable people are with those who are different (gay, straight, black, white, asian, red hair, whatever), the better for society.

You have no problem with these people going behind these staffers' backs and outing them against their will? How lovely. As long as it's for political gain, it doesn't matter who you step on, does it?

motivez · 10-11-2006, 02:43 PM

BTW, I think I've heard the same claim before.. is this an old story or has something similar been done in the past?

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

BTW, I think I've heard the same claim before.. is this an old story or has something similar been done in the past?

I made a post about it a couple days ago

motivez · 10-11-2006, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

You have no problem with these people going behind these staffers' backs and outing them against their will? How lovely. As long as it's for political gain, it doesn't matter who you step on, does it?

I have no problem with it, no.

Maybe it'll make them rethink the bigoted and hypocritical positions they're supporting if they're forced to confront the reality that many non-closeted gay bi and lesbian's are forced to live with.. but shouldn't.

This issue transcends partisan politics, it's ethics and equality. The fact that it's the GOP is "incidental" for me.

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I have no problem with it, no.

Maybe it'll make them rethink the bigoted and hypocritical positions they're supporting if they're forced to confront the reality that many non-closeted gay bi and lesbian's are forced to live with.. but shouldn't.

This issue transcends partisan politics, it's ethics and equality.

It apparently transcends these peoples' lives too.

motivez · 10-11-2006, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It apparently transcends these peoples' lives too.

How does it do that?

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

How does it do that?

These people, had they wanted to come out on their own, would have done so, on their own. It is of no business of anybody else to do so for them. Who knows what the reprocussions of this information made national may be. Why bring them into this scandal? Why make them targets for nothing but political gain? I can't even believe you want this to happen...

6SpeedTA95 · 10-11-2006, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I have no problem with it, no.

Maybe it'll make them rethink the bigoted and hypocritical positions they're supporting if they're forced to confront the reality that many non-closeted gay bi and lesbian's are forced to live with.. but shouldn't.

This issue transcends partisan politics, it's ethics and equality. The fact that it's the GOP is "incidental" for me.

How do you know those members are biggots?

thats a pretty bold and broad statement to call republicans biggots. If a person doesn't want their private life to be PUBLIC thats their right. Is it legal for someone to betray that trust? Yes probably, is it right? Absolutely not...demeaning people in public over lifestyle choices is ridiculous or so you yourself has said in the past.

Are there some republican biggots in office? Sure, the same can be said for democrats as well so I find your justification weak and borderline offense calling us all biggots.

motivez · 10-11-2006, 02:53 PM

I just don't understand your use of the word transcends.

The thing is, I agree it's no one elses business. I thought the same thing about the Clinton scandal until he lied about it under oath.

That said, I have no problem with reporting on hypocrisy when it will make these people truly confront and have to live under the same conditions they're forcing on other people with the same sexual orientation as them. I hope that it leads them to change their hypocritical way of thinking or learn to justify it without clinging to morals they obviously aren't following if they're gay.

The fact that you call it a "scandal" is telling. I don't think it should be a "scandal". I think it's should simply be another incidental fact about who someone is the same way heterosexuality is.

Oh, he likes girls. Okay. Wait, he likes boys too? Sure, whatever floats his boat. Why do I care again?

If everyone was more tolerant of people for who they are, this would be a non issue. It's targeting the hypocrisy all around and showing that Republicans care more about what someone does in the privacy of their own bedroom than they do with what they're able to accomplish on a professional level.

This isn't going to change how I think of someone. If it changes how you think of them, perhaps you should look at why that is. If it changes how someone else looks at them, or how the party looks at them, perhaps they should take a look at it as well.

motivez · 10-11-2006, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

How do you know those members are biggots? thats a pretty bold and broad statement to call republicans biggots.
<snip> so I find your justification weak and borderline offense calling us all biggots.

I never called you all bigots, try again. Bigoted positions.

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I just don't understand your use of the word transcends.

The situation of 'reporting on hypocrisy' apparently overrides any respect you have for these individuals. You think this transcends partisan politics because it's an issue of ethics? Outing these people is the antithesis of ethical.

The thing is, I agree it's no one elses business. I thought the same thing about the Clinton scandal until he lied about it under oath.

We all agree with that. Does that make this somehow right?

That said, I have no problem with reporting on hypocrisy when it will make these people truly confront and have to live under the same conditions they're forcing on other people with the same sexual orientation as them. I hope that it leads them to change their hypocritical way of thinking or learn to justify it without clinging to morals they obviously aren't following if they're gay.

You're basically saying that you agree with outing these people against their wishes because the Republican party needs to be shown to be hypocritical, and the gays need to switch parties?

The fact that you call it a "scandal" is telling. I don't think it should be a "scandal". I think it's should simply be another incidental fact about who someone is the same way heterosexuality is.

The Foley scandal is the scandal; this list is a result of that scandal.

6SpeedTA95 · 10-11-2006, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I never called you all bigots, try again. Bigoted positions.

Thats true, my fault...

My point still stands though, how can you honestly say you want someone's private life to be thrown out there for hte world to see without regard for that person? You wanna talk about ethics which is ok but you throw out ethics when it involves hurting someone else? I dont think thats your intent but there's better ways to do this and you know as well as I do this is just a vote stealing ploy by the democrats.

motivez · 10-11-2006, 03:03 PM

I'll respond to this later tonight, I am going to take a power nap before english

7960 · 10-11-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I have no problem with it, no.

Maybe it'll make them rethink the bigoted and hypocritical positions they're supporting if they're forced to confront the reality that many non-closeted gay bi and lesbian's are forced to live with.. but shouldn't.

It's bullshit. This is assuming that a gay person has to vote for gay issues just because he's gay. It assumes that gay people have to be anti-GOP just because they're gay. It supposes that every person must adhere 100% to their party line and can not deviate from it at all. Do you subscribe 100% to your party's message or is there even one thing that you disagree with?

Phantom · 10-11-2006, 03:39 PM

If a guy is gay and wants to hide it, he shouldn't hold public office. I don't really feel any sympathy for in the closet Congressmen.

Now if Mr. Rogers [chuckle] is wrong, I have a problem with his "outing."