Mike Rogers, a "gay liberal activist," apparently followed through with his threat to out gay republicans if they didn't do so themselves.
I suppose the philosophy there is that you can't be homosexual and a republican. Even if Rogers is lying, this kind of thing could ruin that politician's life and career.
Democrats and liberals . . . is this really an acceptable strategy?
(Hat tip: Ace)
4 comments:
Actually, the "philosophy" is that it's hypocritical to expect to be accepted by a group privately and publicly work to against that group being accepted in the mainstream. At least among those that are doing it that are gay.
There's a separate movement of "conservatives", or, more correctly, Republicans to out homosexuals within their ranks so that they won't have any gay members of the team. It doesn't get tons of support from the leadership, as many important people that work for the Republican Party are homosexual (apart from the Log Cabin Republicans, who are already out) and need to keep that under wraps to continue to get support from the religious groups.
I, personally, am against anyone outing anyone but themselves. If Representative A feels like telling people he or she is gay, that's fine. But I'm against that decision being made for them.
I, personally, am against anyone outing anyone but themselves.
If some outs someone else, does that mean they were already out? How else would the out-er know?
If some outs someone else, does that mean they were already out? How else would the out-er know?
"Out" does not mean "everyone knows." One can be out to people in clubs and still closeted to the public.
Ah ha. I thought it was all or none.
Post a Comment